Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 3rd May 2014 00:28 UTC

An eight-person jury on Friday handed back a mixed verdict in the Apple v. Samsung patent-infringement case.

The jury found Samsung's gadgets infringed Apple's '647 patent, but not the '959 patent or '414 patent. Results were mixed for the '721 patent, with some Samsung devices, such as the Galaxy Nexus, found to infringe, and others not.

The jury awarded Apple only $119.6 million for the infringement.

Apple wanted more than $2 billion. The verdict is still being read, and the jury has also ruled that Apple infringed on one of Samsung's patents, awarding Samsung $158000 for it.

So, pocket change both ways. A total waste of money, public resources, the jury members' time, and the court system. Well done you, patent system.

Thread beginning with comment 588155
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[10]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Mon 5th May 2014 11:14 UTC in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by Nelson"
Member since:

None of the above examples would be classified as 'Open Platforms' for the very reason that they are restricted by API. If you use an open API, there is nothing that prevents you from forking that API, or even converting your program to use a different platform API, since the source is all there and Open.

Ok, since apparently you and kwam_e have comprehension issues I'll restate my point:

Proprietary vs "open" in this sense doesn't really mean much, because you can lock people into a platform built on open source technologies.

Emphasis mine. You just reiterated my original point, yet for some strange reason (perhaps we fancy repeating each other here) you replied to my comment and framed it as a disagreement.

The same can't be said of Android, or AWS, where you are given as much of the API as they want. Granted Android has a fairly open SDK, and if you wanted a bare minimum android setup you could they even have F-Droid an open source 'app store'. The problem with Android is that in many many ways, it's useless without Google's proprietary crap melted into it.

And don't you think that's a form of lock in? In fact, these non in your face lock in schemes are far more insidious than the companies who are blatant.

It also wasn't very open in the past because you were stuck working through Dalvik, but now I believe you can use most any language to develop on it, so that's something to make it at least a little more 'open.'

You're still locked into Android only APIs, Android only application lifetime and behavior, etc. It's just being done via a different vector. This illustrates my point brilliantly.

My point was never that open (as in truly open from top to bottom) stacks don't avoid lock in, but that open source technologies (as opposed to proprietary ones) don't really help much in avoiding lock in.

Reply Parent Score: 4