Apple - najbogatija firma na svetu

[Meho Krljic]

Pa kad nemamo topik o Eplu. Morao sam.

Apple is now the most valuable company of all time

iPhone and iPad maker Apple has become the most valuable company the world has ever seen.
It's worth an incomprehensible $623 billion (£397bn).


The record was previously held by arch rival Microsoft (worth $620bn in 1999).
Apple is now richer in share value than any other firm since money was invented. And that was a long time ago.
It ridicules other companies with its wealth. With that amount of cash, Apple could buy Manchester United - the richest football club in the world - more than 279 times.
It even puts small countries to shame. Apple's worth is now more than oil-rich country Saudi Arabia's entire GDP last year.
We could go on.
The numbers, even for a booming technology giant such as Apple, are stratospheric. The company has seen huge growth since the beginning of the year, when the total value of its shares was still hovering around the $400bn mark.
Continual rumours of a new iPhone and a new iPad have got investors frothing at the mouth. They think we're all going to buy one. They may be right.

[lilit]

jbg, da su uložili 10% u bejzik istraživanje kancera, možda bi stvari danas drugačije izgledale. ali nisu!

[Father Jape]

Bejsik. Bejsik! BEJSIK!

ˈbeɪsɪk

[Barbarin]

A sad još ima da zarede kad izađe iPhone 5 

[lilit]

Bejsik. Bejsik! BEJSIK!

ˈbeɪsɪk

plači do sutra, kod mene je to bejZik! i nikako drugačije!!!

[Meho Krljic]

Plakanje tek počinje:

Apple triumphs over Samsung, awarded over $1 billion damages

Reuters) - Apple Inc. scored a sweeping legal victory over Samsung on Friday as a U.S. jury found the Korean company had copied critical features of the hugely popular iPhone and iPad and awarded the U.S. company $1.051 billion in damages.
The verdict -- which came much sooner than expected -- could lead to an outright ban on sales of key Samsung products and will likely solidify Apple's dominance of the exploding mobile computing market.A number of companies that sell smartphones based on Google's Android operating system may now face further legal challenges from Apple, a company that is already among the largest and most profitable in business history.Shares in Apple, which just this week became the biggest company by market value in history, climbed almost 2 percent to a record high of $675 in after-hours trade.Brian Love, a Santa Clara law school professor, described it as a crushing victory for Apple: "This is the best-case scenario Apple could have hoped for."The jury deliberated for less than three days before delivering the verdict on seven Apple patent claims and five Samsung patent claims -- suggesting that the nine-person panel had little difficulty in concluding that Samsung had copied the iPhone and the iPad.Billions of dollars in future sales hang in the balance.Apple's charges that Samsung copied its designs and features are widely viewed as an attack on Google Inc and its Android software, which drives Samsung's devices and has become the most-used mobile software.Apple and Samsung, two companies that sell more than half the world's smartphones and tablets, have locked legal horns in several countries this year.Earlier on Friday, a South Korean court found that both companies shared blame, ordering Samsung to stop selling 10 products including its Galaxy S II phone and banning Apple from selling four different products, including its iPhone 4.But the trial on Apple's home turf -- the world's largest and most influential technology market -- is considered the most important.The fight began last year when Apple sued Samsung in multiple countries, accusing the South Korean company of slavishly copying the iPhone and iPad. Samsung countersued. Apple had sought more than $2.5 billion in damages from Samsung, which has disputed that figure.The companies are rivals, but also have a $5 billion-plus supply relationship. Apple is Samsung's biggest customer for microprocessors and other parts central to Apple's devices.A NEAR CLEAN SWEEP?The U.S. jury spent most of August in a packed federal courtroom in San Jose -- just miles from Apple's headquarters in Cupertino -- listening to testimony, examining evidence and watching lawyers from both sides joust about seven Apple patents, five Samsung patents, and damage claims.Jurors received 100 pages of legal instructions from U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh on August 21 prior to hearing the closing arguments from attorneys.Lawyers from both tech giants used their 25 hours each of trial time to present internal emails, draw testimony from designers and experts, and put on product demonstrations and mockups to convince the jury.At times, their questions drew testimony that offered glimpses behind the corporate facade, such as the margins on the iPhone and Samsung's sales figures in the United States.From the beginning, Apple's tactic was to present what it thought was chronological evidence of Samsung copying its phone.Juxtaposing pictures of phones from both companies and internal Samsung emails that specifically analyzed the features of the iPhone, Apple's attorneys accused Samsung of taking shortcuts after realizing it could not keep up.Samsung's attorneys, on the other hand, maintained Apple had no sole right to geometric designs such as rectangles with rounded corners. They called Apple's damage claim "ridiculous" and urged the jury to consider that a verdict in favor of Apple could stifle competition and reduce choices for consumers.The California trial has produced its share of drama and heated moments. Lawyers routinely bickered over legal matters in the jury's absence, filed rafts of paperwork to thwart each other's courtroom strategy, and sometimes even resorted to public relations tactics to make their views known.

A slično suđenje u Koreji rezultira zabranom za obe kompanije. 
Apple and Samsung get South Korea bans

A South Korean court has ruled that Apple and Samsung both infringed each other's patents on mobile devices.

The court imposed a limited ban on national sales of products by both companies covered by the ruling.

It ruled that US-based Apple had infringed two patents held by Samsung, while the Korean firm had violated one of Apple's patents.

The decision comes as a jury in California is deliberating on a patent trial between the two firms in the US.

The sales ban will apply to Apple's iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4 and its tablets the iPad and iPad 2.

Samsung products affected by the ban include its smartphone models Galaxy SI and SII and its Galaxy Tab and the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet PCs.

The court ordered Apple to pay 40m won ($35,000; £22,000) in damages to its South Korean rival, while Samsung was told to pay Apple 25m won.

The awards are dwarfed by the damages being sought by Apple in its case in California. It is seeking more than $2.5bn (£1.6bn) from Samsung, for allegedly violating its patented designs and features in the iPad and iPhone.
'Differentiated its products'
A Samsung spokesperson told the BBC that the court had found the South Korean firm guilty of violating Apple's patent relating to the "bounce back" function.

The function lets users know that they have reached the end of a screen that they may be scrolling through on their devices.

Meanwhile, Apple has been found guilty of violating patents relating to telecom standards held by Samsung, including technology that makes the transfer and transmission of data between devices more efficient.

However, the court ruled against Apple's claims that Samsung had copied the designs of its products.

"There are lots of external design similarities between the iPhone and Galaxy S, such as rounded corners and large screens... but these similarities had been documented in previous products," a judge at the Seoul Central District Court was quoted as saying by the Reuters news agency.

"Given that it's very limited to make big design changes in touchscreen based mobile products in general... and the defendant [Samsung] differentiated its products with three buttons in the front and adopted different designs in camera and [on the] side, the two products have a different look," the judge said.

[Father Jape]

Setio sam se jedne zabavne činjenice na koju nabasah pre par godina u teksti o bankama i krizi u London Review oF Booksu:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n10/john-lanchester/its-finished
(autor je divni John Lanchester)

Fast-forward 300 years, and RBS is today, by the size of its assets, not just a big bank, and not just one of the biggest companies in Europe. The Royal Bank of Scotland, by asset size, is the biggest company in the world. If I had to pick a single fact which summed up the cultural gap between the City of London and the rest of the country, it would be that one. I have yet to meet a single person not employed in financial services who was aware of it; I wasn't aware of it myself. I think if I had been, there are two questions I would have wanted answered: how did that happen? And is it a good thing?

E sad, ja nisam siguran kako se meri asset size, tj. kakva je razlika između toga i sirove vrednosti, ali eto.

[scallop]

Nekako ni ja ne vidim razliku, ali pouzdano znam da akcije nisu vrednost, nego potencijal. Nestane potencijal, nestane i vrednost. Te sirove assets (da spojim ono gde ne vidiš razliku), mogu da promene očekivanu vrednost, ali su i dalje prisutne. Na primer, ovo naše guravo tržište nekretnina je imalo deceniju nenormalno visoke cene, a sad su daleko niže. Ipak, sve te nekretnine su i dalje tu, a Agrobanka može da se slika sa svojim potencijalom jer su potrošili nepostojeće. Možda Kraljevska škotska banka poseduje pola Škotske.

[Meho Krljic]

Ja se tek ne razumem u to, ali asset je valjda nekretnina, a deonice po prirodi stvari nisu nekretnina - pa je to valjda razlika?

[Father Jape]

Tako sam i ja pretpostavljao - RBS ima gomilu ovakvog ili onakvog propertyja širom sveta verovatno, a Apple ima visoku vrednost u smislu broj akcija puta vrednost akcija, koja opet ima veze sa assetima firme, ali to nije odlučujući toliko faktor, već ono... predviđeni rast i uspeh u bliskoj budućnosti.

[Lord Kufer]

Asset je imovina.

[scallop]

Akcije nisu imovina, nego potencijal da to postane, ako se proda pre nego što potencijal nestane. Najveći deo svetskog finansijskog potencijala može da nestane u svakom trenutku. Kao akcije nekih velikih banki, investicioni i penzijski fondovi i slično.

[PTY]

Nekako ni ja ne vidim razliku, ali pouzdano znam da akcije nisu vrednost, nego potencijal. Nestane potencijal, nestane i vrednost.

Tačno.
U assets spadaju ne samo nekretnine nego i pokretnine i generalno efemeralna goodwill imovina. Vrednost asseta je potencijalna, odnosno, vrednost svakog pojednog aseta se revalorizuje u svakom point-in-time. Otud se assets obezvređuju po unapred naznačenim taksenim skalama: MV assets (motor vehicle) se obezvređuje na petogodišnjoj skali (20% godišnje), Computer Equipment se obezvređuje na trogodišnjoj skali (33% godišnje), generalni Office Equipment se obezvređuje na petogodišnjoj skali & so on % on. (Naravno, različite zemlje imaju različite taksene sisteme, pa to varira, ali ne mnogo.) Deonice su asset koji vredi samo onoliko koliko same deonice u trenutnom momentu: drugim rečima, jednom kad (ako) riknu, možete sa tim silnim asetom slobodno dupe obrisati.    Za razliku od drugih navedenih asseta (MV, Office, Land, Comp, Manufacturing Equipment) koji, čak i kad su potpuno obezvređeni u Profit & Loss kalkulaciji, ipak mogu da steknu relativnu vrednost, u visini svote koju će vam neko platiti za njih, ako poželi da ih od vas kupi. Propale deonice, pak, neće niko. 

[Lord Kufer]

U principu, novac je dug. Što imaš više novaca to si više dužan - za sve ono što koristiš ili trošiš.
Banke imaju ogromnu količinu duga kao svoju imovinu.
Dug je osnovno sredstvo porobljavanja.
Čitav sistem se održava na silu, grubom silom, i gomilom laži koje zbunjuju ljude (to je ta takozvana civilizacijska i kulturna nadgradnja na koju su ljudi toliko ponosni).

U Severnoj Koreji, robovi prave iPad po proizvodnoj ceni od $0, a ovamo se prodaje na malo po ceni od $300+.
To je moguće zbog čitavog niza kobajagi vojno-političkih i monopolističkih kvaziekonomskih mera koje su projektovane kao geopolitička situacija i trt-mrt papazjanija koju običan narod mora da guta i da se pravi srećan što je tako.

Automobili i drugi potrošački predmeti se prave s ugrađenim rokom trajanja (Blade Runner fora). Mogli bi oni lako da naprave sijalicu koja traje 50 godina, postoje takve sijalice. Ali onda bi propao čitav koncept porobljavanja, jer, pobogu, ljudi moraju da RADE kako bi ZASLUŽILI da mogu da jedu. Koliko se tu resursa nepotrebno troši kako bi opstala ova ideja, to nikakav kompjuter, što bi reko pokojni Sloba, ne može da izračuna...

Kraj trolovanja 

[Lord Kufer]

Kaže se da Kina poseduje 850 milijardi dolara američkih obveznica i da drži Ameriku za đoku.
Ali, nigde se ne kaže koliko asseta ima Amerika u Kini...
Kina i Indija su danas navjeće "powerhouses" na svetu. Njima treba mnogo nafte i druge energije da bi te radionice radile.
Kako će to da obezbede vlasnici ova dva najveća asseta na svetu?
U Indiji, Enron je odradio svoje. Napravio je ogromnu elektranu, onda je izbio skandal jer Indija nije "htela" da plati. Pojeo vuk magarca, Amerikanci platili od svog incoma.

Aha, nafta!
Eto, Bog dao da je Iran teroristička država.
Udariše sankcije Iranu. Al, ne lezi vraže. Kina i Indija ne jebavaju sankcije nego kupuju iransku naftu, baš ih briga.
Kupuju je po povoljnoj ceni.
Ostatak sveta više nema toliku potrebu za naftom, jer su Indija i Kina powerhouses....

Cena nafte na svetskom tržištu je pala.
Aj sad kupujemo zlato... Zbog toga što se zlato, koje je postalo asset, kupuje - cena zlatu je skočila. Kad dovoljno poraste, mangupi će da prodaju odjednom sve što imaju i cena će opet da padne...

A mi mislimo saće rat između Izraela i Irana. Malo morgen. Ahmedindžaba se istrčava s pretnjama, ali ne piše u novinama da tamo ima finansijski skandal u obliku 3 milijarde dolara proneverenih od strane ministra za finansije (nije valjda on sam sve to skockao?).

Profit nastao ovakvim globalnim manipulacijama troši se na razvoj novih oružja i vojne sile koja sve to obezbeđuje. To je prava ekonomija, a ne tamo neki Kenjsovi ili deda Avrami.

[Meho Krljic]

Inače, naleteh jutros na ovaj osamnaest godina star tekst Umberta Eka gde na neviđeno šarmantan način objašnjava da je Apple Mac katolička platforma a MS-DOS protestantska. Genije je Eko, vazda bio:

http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_mac_vs_pc.html

The Holy War: Mac vs. DOS

By Umberto Eco The following excerpts are from an English translation of Umberto Eco's back-page column, La bustina di Minerva, in the Italian news weekly Espresso, September 30, 1994. A French translation may be seen here. Friends, Italians, countrymen, I ask that a Committee for Public Health be set up, whose task would be to censor (by violent means, if necessary) discussion of the following topics in the Italian press. Each censored topic is followed by an alternative in brackets which is just as futile, but rich with the potential for polemic. Whether Joyce is boring (whether reading Thomas Mann gives one erections). Whether Heidegger is responsible for the crisis of the Left (whether Ariosto provoked the revocation of the Edict of Nantes). Whether semiotics has blurred the difference between Walt Disney and Dante (whether De Agostini does the right thing in putting Vimercate and the Sahara in the same atlas). Whether Italy boycotted quantum physics (whether France plots against the subjunctive). Whether new technologies kill books and cinemas (whether zeppelins made bicycles redundant). Whether computers kill inspiration (whether fountain pens are Protestant). One can continue with: whether Moses was anti-semitic; whether Leon Bloy liked Calasso; whether Rousseau was responsible for the atomic bomb; whether Homer approved of investments in Treasury stocks; whether the Sacred Heart is monarchist or republican. I asked above whether fountain pens were Protestant. Insufficient consideration has been given to the new underground religious war which is modifying the modern world. It's an old idea of mine, but I find that whenever I tell people about it they immediately agree with me. The fact is that the world is divided between users of the Macintosh computer and users of MS-DOS compatible computers. I am firmly of the opinion that the Macintosh is Catholic and that DOS is Protestant. Indeed, the Macintosh is counter-reformist and has been influenced by the ratio studiorum of the Jesuits. It is cheerful, friendly, conciliatory; it tells the faithful how they must proceed step by step to reach -- if not the kingdom of Heaven -- the moment in which their document is printed. It is catechistic: The essence of revelation is dealt with via simple formulae and sumptuous icons. Everyone has a right to salvation. DOS is Protestant, or even Calvinistic. It allows free interpretation of scripture, demands difficult personal decisions, imposes a subtle hermeneutics upon the user, and takes for granted the idea that not all can achieve salvation. To make the system work you need to interpret the program yourself: Far away from the baroque community of revelers, the user is closed within the loneliness of his own inner torment. You may object that, with the passage to Windows, the DOS universe has come to resemble more closely the counter-reformist tolerance of the Macintosh. It's true: Windows represents an Anglican-style schism, big ceremonies in the cathedral, but there is always the possibility of a return to DOS to change things in accordance with bizarre decisions: When it comes down to it, you can decide to ordain women and gays if you want to. Naturally, the Catholicism and Protestantism of the two systems have nothing to do with the cultural and religious positions of their users. One may wonder whether, as time goes by, the use of one system rather than another leads to profound inner changes. Can you use DOS and be a Vande supporter? And more: Would Celine have written using Word, WordPerfect, or Wordstar? Would Descartes have programmed in Pascal? And machine code, which lies beneath and decides the destiny of both systems (or environments, if you prefer)? Ah, that belongs to the Old Testament, and is talmudic and cabalistic. The Jewish lobby, as always....

[Melkor]

kratko i jasno

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/08/what-apples-legal-win-over-samsung-means-for-you-technology-design-and-the-world/261620/

[Melkor]

[Meho Krljic]

E, sad, porotnici u Apple/ Samsung suđenju su odmah rekli da su prilično mrljavo odradili posao. Detaljnije:

Apple/Samsung Jurors Admit They Finished Quickly By Ignoring Prior Art & Other Key Factors 

Late Friday afternoon, the jury in the Apple/Samsung patent dispute surprised just about everyone by telling the court it had reached a verdict. Given the number of complex issues it needed to go through, most experts expected it to take well into this week. According to observers in the courtroom, one of Apple's lawyers was so surprised and unprepared that he had to rush back to court without a suit, and showed up in a polo shirt. The quickness of the decision certainly resulted in some questions about just how thoroughly the jury reviewed the instructions and then considered each of the approximately 700 questions it needed to answer (initial jury form is embedded below). As we noted in an update to our post on Friday, about half an hour after the ruling was read out -- and long after most of the press stopped paying attention -- the judge announced at least two problems with the ruling, where the jury had awarded damages, despite not finding infringement.

As we said on Friday, that certainly raised significant questions about how carefully the jury actually reviewed the issues in question. While some said it could have just been a clerical error in answering all the questions, that appears not to be the case. Because after the judge instructed the jury to fix the mistakes, they didn't reassign those damages elsewhere, they just wiped them off the slate. Besides, even if you were to argue it was merely a mistake, that's no excuse. This "mistake" could have ended up costing millions of dollars. That's quite a "mistake."

Over at Groklaw, they're discussing this and other evidence of jury misconduct. The awarding of damages for things they found didn't infringe was already pretty bad, but some of the other details highlight how the jury clearly did not read the jury instructions (or bother to comprehend them).

A Reuters interview with the jury foreman demonstrates conclusively that the jury ignored the rules. Foreman Velvin Hogan told Reuters that they wanted to punish Samsung: >"We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," Hogan said. "We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."

That sounds nice, except... patent awards are only supposed to be about making the patent holder whole, not about punishing the infringer. And, in fact, the jury instructions clearly stated this:
>The amount of those damages must be adequate to compensate the patent holder for the infringement. A damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the financial position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no event may the damages award be less than a reasonable royalty. You should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer. And yet here's the jury foreman flat out admitting that they decided to use the award amounts to punish Samsung. Elsewhere, it becomes pretty clear that Hogan was hardly an impartial juror. He has his own patent, 7,352,953 on "recording and storing video information." That, by itself, does not automatically make one biased in favor of the system (I know plenty of people with patents who hate the patent system), but he admitted elsewhere that he ended up making decisions based on how he would feel if it was his patent at stake, rather than on what the law actually says -- and then said he needed to rule as if he were speaking out "for all" patent holders. In an an interview with Bloomberg, he made that bias clear:
>"When I got in this case and I started looking at these patents I considered: 'If this was my patent and I was accused, could I defend it?'" Hogan explained. On the night of Aug. 22, after closing arguments, "a light bulb went on in my head," he said. "I thought, I need to do this for all of them." He then told Bloomberg that "he explained his thinking to his fellow jurors" and that seemed to drive the discussion. An interview with another juror, over at News.com, confirmed that Hogan's views focused the jury, with one juror admitting that they just started ignoring prior art, because that question was too time consuming. Seriously.
>"It didn't dawn on us [that we agreed that Samsung had infringed] on the first day," Ilagan said. "We were debating heavily, especially about the patents on bounce-back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art [about similar technology that Samsung said existed before the iPhone debuted]. [Velvin] Hogan was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself...so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art."

"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down." Yeah. Read that sucker again. The jury instructions are again clear that the jury needs to consider the prior art, but according to this juror, Manuel Ilagan, after foreman Hogan talked about his own experience with patents, they decided that prior art was "bogging us down" and they might as well "skip" it.

In the long run, the jury verdict probably won't matter much, because this case would have been appealed no matter what. But these kinds of stories certainly give Samsung plenty of fodder to ask the judge to toss out the jury verdict already. It also raises questions, yet again, about why we allow juries on patent trials. This has been a big problem for a long time and the results here only serve to emphasize that fact.

Tako da se sada razmišlja ima li smisla da na ovakvim suđenjima koja se bave patentnim zakonom uopšte sedi porota sastavljena od nestručnih lica. Zvuči logično kada čovek razmisli da su ovo veoma kompleksna pitanja ali sa druge strane, ako je zakon toliko kompleksan da obična osoba ne može da se razabere u njemu, nismo li zapravo onda pod tiranijom pravnika?

http://gigaom.com/2012/08/27/3-reasons-juries-have-no-place-in-the-patent-system/

nless you spent the weekend under a rock, you've heard that a jury ordered Samsung to hand Apple $1.05 billion for violating its patents. The verdict and month long trial has captivated tech types but also provides more ammunition for critics who say juries shouldn't be deciding these questions in first place.
Background
The jury in Apple-Samsung confronted hundreds of questions, some of them on topics obscure enough to make an intellectual property lawyer blanche — design patents, patent exhaustion and so on. Yet, they were done in less than three days. As Abovethelaw editor, Elie Mystal, mused "It would take me more than three days to understand all the terms in the verdict! Much less come to a legally binding decision on all of these separate issues. Did you guys just flip a coin?"
A more damning criticism came from the popular Groklaw site which pointed out a series of basic errors by the jury: a decision to award $2 million for a patent that Samsung hadn't infringed in the first place; a decision to assign damages based on punishment, not compensation.
This type of slapdash decision-making lends support to Judge Richard Posner and others who argue that it's time to end jury trials in patent cases. Here are three more reasons Apple v Samsung should not have gone before a jury:
Reason 1: Jurors can be influenced by brand loyalty
Let's remember that the jurors who decided the case were not Blind Justice but consumers who are influenced by brands.
That influence can be considerable. According to Robert Kozinets, a marketing professor at York University, "brand communities" that emerge around products like Apple's are supplanting religions or neighborhoods as a source of personal identity. He says that Apple today has greater ideological power than many countries.
"That identification with Apple will lead to community and a sense of loyalty. It also leads to a sense of empowerment that can lead people to step up and protect it because they know there are so many others like them."
There's nothing wrong, of course, with defending Apple (or Google or Microsoft). The problem is that brand loyalty can interfere with patent policy. When asked to decide a patent case, juries are likely to go with emotion over evidence — deciding a case based on brand loyalty rather than the law at hand.
In the case of Apple-Samsung, the trial was about a beloved American brand versus a foreign competitor. Not only that, but the trial took place in Silicon Valley, right in the heart of Apple land. This was like asking Boston Red Sox fans to judge the conduct of the New York Yankees.
In this climate, it's no wonder that the jury appears to have made their decision based on a desire to "send a message" to Samsung rather than parsing harder technical questions about whether Apple's rectangle and "bounce-back" patents should have existed in the first place.
Reason 2: Juries are too easily swayed by "he's a copycat"
During the trial, Apple offered an easy-to-follow narrative that is familiar to anyone who has been in grade school: "That's my idea. He took it and pretended it was his." Samsung on the other hand had to explain why, even though Apple had patents, it was not infringing and that the patents were not actually valid patents and so on. One story is crisp and clean, the other is furtive and guilty-sounding. Guess which story has more punch in the hands of a trial lawyer?
In the words of Posner: "patent plaintiffs tend to request trial by jury because they believe that jurors tend to favor patentees, believing that they must be worthy inventors defending the fruits of their invention against copycats."
Unfortunately, these simple narratives distort what patents are all about. Patents are not primarily about stopping copycats (that's why we have trademarks) but are instead a form of industrial policy based on 20-year monopolies. If the policy is effective, it produces more innovation. If the patent policy is not effective, it creates monopolies that harm competitors and consumers. In Apple-Samsung, there's a good chance we're doing the latter; we may regard Apple as an innovator and Samsung as a copycat — but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to award Apple sweeping monopolies that may raise prices and stunt the smartphone market.
Patents are as complex as other industrial policies like subsidies or regulatory regimes. When disputes arise, they should be put before an expert tribunal rather than a jury that is easily swayed by schoolyard "copycat" narratives.
Reason 3: Jury trials over patents are a waste of money
Apple and Samsung will spend  from $20 million to $500 million in legal fees, according to sources surveyed by the Wall Street Journal. While the companies would have blown a bundle no matter what, the jury presence added millions to the tab. This figure doesn't even take account of the costs to the federal justice system or to the jurors and their employers. And for what? To respond to questions likely beyond their capacity and that will, in any case, be picked apart on appeal.
There's a faster, cheaper and more efficient way to handle this. As Judge Posner proposes, it makes sense to stuff future patent disputes into a corner of the US Patent and Trademark Office.
Juries are not responsible for all that ails the patent system. But getting rid of them would be a useful step.
(Image by Junial Enterprises via Shutterstock)

[Meho Krljic]

Groklaw još pojašnjava kako je porota ispustila loptu:

The Foreman's Aha Moment in Apple v. Samsung Was Based on Misunderstanding Prior Art

The foreman in the Apple v. Samsung trial has now done an interview with Bloomberg News, giving him an opportunity to answer some of the criticisms of the verdict. It's a video on YouTube, titled "Apple Jury Foreman: Here's How We Reached a Verdict", and while he answers the criticisms, he describes how the jury, under his instructions, decided that the Samsung prior art didn't invalidate an Apple patent. In doing so, I think he has revealed the biggest mistake of all made by the jury, one so large I don't believe it can be ignored. At a minimum, Apple shouldn't want to win like this. His aha moment, as he calls it, and assuming what he says on the video is accurate, was based on a misunderstanding of what constitutes prior art. In discussing the first patent on the list, he says they got into a discussion about the prior art that was presented at trial. Here's why they discounted it: >The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there.That isn't disqualifying for prior art. It doesn't have to run on the same processor. It doesn't have to run at all. It can be words on a piece of paper. (If you don't believe little old me, here's a lawyer noticing the video too now.) Here is the jury instruction given on what is prior art, on page 44 of the instructions PDF, which you can find here: FINAL JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 31 UTILITY PATENTS—ANTICIPATION A utility patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention is not new. For the claim to be invalid because it is not new, all of its requirements must have existed in a single device or method that predates the claimed invention, or must have been described in a single previous publication or patent that predates the claimed invention. In patent law, these previous devices, methods, publications or patents are called "prior art references." If a patent claim is not new we say it is "anticipated" by a prior art reference. The description in the written reference does not have to be in the same words as the claim, but all of the requirements of the claim must be there, either stated or necessarily implied, so that someone of ordinary skill in the field looking at that one reference would be able to make and use the claimed invention. Here is a list of the ways that either party can show that a patent claim was not new: – If the claimed invention was already publicly known or publicly used by others in the United States before the date of conception of the claimed invention; – If the claimed invention was already patented or described in a printed publication anywhere in the world before the date of conception of the claimed invention. A reference is a "printed publication" if it is accessible to those interested in the field, even if it is difficult to find; – If the claimed invention was already made by someone else in the United States before the date of conception of the claimed invention, if that other person had not abandoned the invention or kept it secret; If the patent holder and the alleged infringer dispute who is a first inventor, the person who first conceived of the claimed invention and first reduced it to practice is the first inventor. If one person conceived of the claimed invention first, but reduced to practice second, that person is the first inventor only if that person (a) began to reduce the claimed invention to practice before the other party conceived of it, and (b) continued to work diligently to reduce it to practice. A claimed invention is "reduced to practice" when it has been tested sufficiently to show that it will work for its intended purpose or when it is fully described in a patent application filed with the PTO. – If the claimed invention was already described in another issued U.S. patent or published U.S. patent application that was based on a patent application filed before the patent holder's application filing date or the date of conception of the claimed invention. Since certain of them are in dispute, you must determine dates of conception for the claimed inventions and prior inventions. Conception is the mental part of an inventive act and is proven when the invention is shown in its complete form by drawings, disclosure to another, or other forms of evidence presented at trial. Did you notice that prior art can be a piece of paper describing the invention? It doesn't have to run on *any* processor. It's the claims that have to match, not what it runs on. For example, when Red Hat was accused of patent infringement by IP Innovation, they rolled in a 1985 Amiga computer that a Groklaw reader still have running to demonstrate prior art, and they won. Otherwise, by his logic, Samsung couldn't infringe any of Apple's patents, in that Android and Linux don't run directly on iOS. The foreman, in answering criticisms, says that the jury paid close attention to the jury instructions. But looking at this one, did they? I'm sure they meant to, and I'm also sure they did their best according to what they understood. But this was an error, and it's one I don't think the judge can ignore, if anyone brings it to her attention. Incidentally, just in case he said prior art and he meant obviousness, the jury instruction on that is No. 33. Let's look at some details. The foreman says that the jury started out in a stalemate, because some on the jury were not clear how prior art can invalidate a patent. At that point, he thought it was going Samsung's way. So he went home and had his aha moment. He felt he could defend it if it was his patent. So he explained it all to the jury. And that turned the tide. But if he told them that interchangeability was a requirement for prior art, he goofed big time. A volunteer did a partial transcript of the relevant section, so you can see his quote about the patent in context: Emily Chang: Were you ever confused? Were other people ever confused? Vel Hogan: I wasn't confused but there was a, a few of the jurors that were confused so what we did in the jury room before we did anything after we did the election of who was going to lead the jury I told them let's just lay out on the table any concerns or open questions you may have that's left over and let's just get that out of the way first. Emily Chang: Now when you first got into the jury room initially, this was Wednesday right? Vel Hogan: Yes. Emily Chang: Was? There are reports that you were initially divided but did you, did you have a feeling this was going to sway overwhelmingly in Apple's favour? Vel Hogan: No. No. In fact if you'd have asked me at that moment in time, I thought it was gonna ultimately maybe lean the other way. Emily Chang: Why? Vel Hogan: Why? We were at a stalemate but some of the jurors weren't sure of the patent prosecution process. Some weren't sure of how, ah, prior art could either render a patent accept... ah, acceptable or whether it could invalidate it and so what we did is we started talking about one and the day was over. When I was at home thinking about that patent, ah, claim by claim, limit by limit I had what we would call an aha moment. Emily Chang: Um hmmm. Vel Hogan: And I suddenly decided that I could defend this if it was my patent. Emily Chang: Really? Vel Hogan: Really. And with that, I took that story back to the jury, laid it out for 'em, they understood the points that I was talking about and then we meticulous, meticulously went patent by patent claim by claim against the test that the judge had given us because each area, each patent had a different ah legal premise to judge on. We got that all sorted out and decided which ones were valid, which ones weren't valid. Emily Chang: So the initial stalemate that you found yourself in, what was that about? Vel Hogan: It was about a particular, ah, patent, ah, the '460 patent, and whether or not the prior art really did invalidate that pattern, that patent and so with that moment I had, I realized that the software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. Emily Chang: Um hmm. Vel Hogan: And that means that they're not interchangeable and that just cha..., that changed everything right there. Emily Chang: You know it's all obviously extremely technical. there has been a lot of talk since this verdict has come down. How did you guys make this verdict so quickly. There were more than a hundred pages of jury instructions. There are even reports that you didn't read all of those instructions. Vel Hogan: Oh. We read. First off, before closing arguments was given, the judge read to us the final instructions, instruction by instruction. Then she allowed the closing arguments, then she dismissed us. And so we had those closing argue..., those ah, instructions and we had them open there and then we took patent by patent and got hung upon the first one but the day was almost over by then and so I said to the jury, "We're not going to allow ourselves to get hung up. We're going to, if we find a debate like this, we'll move on. We'll do the simplest things first." So then when I came back the next day... This was regarding what the foreman in the video calls the '460 patent, but there was no such Apple patent in the case listed on the verdict form that I could find. That's why I can't be sure what he said on the video was accurately portraying the event. But the other jurors surely could speak to clarify. I would certainly like to hear from the youngest juror, who apparently held out against the tide until the foreman's "explanation" seemed to settle the matter. Here's the Amended Jury Verdict [PDF] form, so you can see for yourself. You'll find the list on page 9. That mistake in speaking makes it impossible to understand what he is referring to, so as to check it with certainty. He also says it was the first one on the list, though, and that would be the '381 patent [PDF], "List Scrolling and Document Translation, Scaling and Rotation on a Touch-Screen Display", or the bounce-back patent. (You can confirm that this is the patent they were arguing about by what another juror said earlier about the dispute. CNET's Greg Sandoval interviewed juror Manuel Ilagan, and he said the argument was over Apple's bounceback and pinch to zoom.) The prior art Samsung listed in its trial brief for bounceback included: the Tablecloth program installed on the DiamondTouch system developed by Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratory ("MERL"), the LaunchTile and XNav programs developed by Dr. Benjamin Bederson, and International Publication Number WO 03/081458. I don't know about the rest, but the Tablecloth system was demonstrated at trial by Adam Bogue. Another witness, Benjamin Bederson, presented as prior art his Launch Tile invention, a system of icon tiles in an interfact allowing users to zoom in and out. It had a snapback feature too. Please read the patent now, if you are free to do so, and you'll see that there is no limitation in the claims to just Apple software or Apple devices. It's claiming funcionality on "portable multifunction devices". Anybody's. That's the only reason it *could* be infringed by Samsung, despite any differences as to what each runs on. Of course, in a way it doesn't matter which patent they were discussing, because prior art is prior art. What has to match are the claims, not what it runs on. If, for example, Microsoft had invented the bounceback feature for its tablets and phones, it would be prior art for Apple, even though you can't run Apple software directly on Microsoft's operating system. This statement by the foreman is, to me, the biggest goof of them all. And since his story is that this is what he used to persuade the rest, who were otherwise favoring Samsung, it means the entire verdict is now seriously in doubt. My favorite comment on Hacker News about this video, from ktizo: >I think he may have a valid point. Perhaps apple have invented some new numbers, like eleventy-four, that don't fit into the old computers properly due to magic and stuff.He's kidding around, of course, with a touch of despair. Software is algorithms, and algorithms are mathematics. That's why they should never be allowed to be patented in the first place, which would have avoided all this Apple v. Samsung trial about bounceback anyway. And by the way, how does the foreman know what processor is being used and what can and can't run? Was that *evidence* at trial, or his personal "expertise" in play? If the latter, are jurors supposed to decide matters based on their own personal evidence offered to the jury without cross examination? And would he qualify as an expert at trial? Is he supposed to play that role in the jury deliberations? See the problem? By the way, for any who might not know, hacker from the beginning usage of the word means something good to programmers. Crackers are the bad guys. The non-technical world gets that mixed up all the time, but programmers know the difference. And it is irresistable to point out that Andrew Orlowski may wish now to edit his paen of praise in The Register to the foreman's "clarity of thinking" and common sense approach and how great patents are for us all and how the verdict is "GOOD for YOU, your KIDS and TECH". He writes that "When ordinary citizens gather to assess an intellectual property decision, they don't let us down." Except sometimes they do. They just did. That's one reason why the new patent rules soon to go into effect give you a choice, a jury trial or a decision by a panel of experts, as Patents Post Grant explains: After September 16th, defendants will have a choice to continue on to roll the dice at the district court with a jury trial of laypeople, or avail themselves of the new USPTO patentability trials of the AIA. The new trial proceedings of the AIA will be completed within 12-18 months of initiation and will be conducted before the USPTO's Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB). Unlike jurors, the decision makers of the PTAB are not laypeople. Rather, PTAB judges are experienced in the application of U.S. patent law and must additionally have an engineering and/or science background. In addition to the established expertise in technology and patent law, unlike the courts, PTAB judges do not accord patents a presumption of validity, nor do they require clear and convincing evidence to invalidate a patent. Indeed, patent claims are accorded a broadest reasonable interpretation at the USPTO, which makes them that much easier to invalidate. Update: Mr. Hogan continues to respond to criticism. And he never makes it better. The BBC has a full transcript of an interview they have done with him. He tries to clarify, but in doing so, it does not fix the legal problems we have identified, although he seems to think it does. He states, for example, that when he said the jury wanted to send a message by their damages figure, he didn't mean a message to Samsung alone. They meant to send a message to the entire industry not to infringe. Again, damages are only to be based on making the victim whole for any actual losses, not to send a message to anyone. This is proof, once again, that this jury didn't follow instructions. If there is a message to be sent, that's up to the judge. The judge can order triple damages if there is a message to be sent. It's outside the jury's authority to do that. And it means that their damages figures is inevitably and demonstrably not the correct figure. The jury took it upon itself to play the judge's role, and that isn't following the jury instructions. It's amazing that after all these days, he apparently has not reread the jury instructions. Or if he has, he still doesn't understand them. As for his aha moment, he adds that he looked at source code and showed it to the rest, to show them that the Samsung prior art was unable to run Apple code. That is NOT the way you decide whether prior art invalidates a patent. He claims that the instructions given were that the prior art and the patent must be "interchangeable". There is no such word in the jury instructions. I don't know why he keeps talking, but I'm sure Samsung hopes he keeps it up. Here, then, are two snippets from a much longer interview, on those two points: BBC: A lot has been made about the original interview you gave to Reuters in which you said you wanted to make the award sufficiently high to be painful to Samsung, but not unreasonable. There has been concern raised by some people that that may have been prejudicial and the awards should have been based on the facts alone. I wonder if you would like to clarify that. Hogan: Yes I would. Bloomberg asked me that question and others that have interviewed me asked that question and I have tried to make it clear that it wasn't an attempt from a punitive standpoint. And it wasn't necessarily focused at Samsung - that is where it had been taken out of context. What was actually meant by that statement when I made it was that what I wanted... the jurors wanted to send a message to the industry at large that no matter who you are - whether you are Apple, whether you are Samsung, or anybody - if you wilfully take the risk to cross the line and start infringing and you get caught, and again I emphasise wilfully, you need to be prepared to pay the cost for that.... BBC: There were two issues, looking at Apple's case: Whether Samsung had infringed their patents and whether the patents were valid. Why weren't you convinced by Samsung's arguments that some of the patents that Apple had put forward shouldn't be allowed to stand? There has been a lot made in the media and elsewhere that Apple wasn't the first with some of the ideas that they had patented. Hogan: To try to make it as easy as possible - I have addressed this in other interviews that I have had - what it amounts to is there has been a big fuss since the deliberation that prior art was not considered. Prior art was considered. When we had to determine the validity of Apple's patent against the charges of Samsung's with the prior art examples, what we had to do - to make it clear - is that not only did we have to validate, if you will, the Apple patent, but in looking at the prior art we had stipulations in the law that tested both sides and if the test wasn't passed then it was clear either the patent was valid or it wasn't. Prior art didn't mean that the prior art wasn't valid. It was valid. But the stipulation under the law is for the prior art to be sufficient to negate or invalidate the Apple patents in this case, it had to be sufficiently similar or, more importantly, it had to be interchangeable. And in example after example, when we put it to the test, the older prior art was just that. Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error. And vice versa of that was also true. So the point being, at the 40,000 foot-level, even though the outcome of the two seemed similar, the internal methodology of how you got there was entirely different. One could not be exchanged for the other. And that is the thing that most people at large do not understand about the legal system. And as a result of that you have heard a lot of hype in the media about did we turn our back on prior art? No. Did it mean prior art could not have been used to compete against anything any other company had done? No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying both could have existed independently of each other and been used. The thing you have to remember is that the prior art that belonged to Samsung, or belonged to somebody else that they had the ability of using, they had not used for quite some time. And the methodology that they had implemented was just right up against the line of infringement and went beyond it in most cases. And not all cases. Not everything that Apple accused of Samsung was correct and we made those stipulations as we filled out the form, and well, you know how it played out. My point is that there were substantially difference between the prior art and the new method, but the key was you could not replace one for the other. BBC: There had been a lot of speculation that although Apple might get damages, Samsung might get damages as well. Why did Samsung's case fail? Hogan: Whenever we considered the prior art and we looked at those patents, and specifically the claims that were involved, and the claim limitations that were involved, we had the instruction from the judge who had given us the stipulation of the precedent in the law that for the prior art in this case to negate or invalidate the patent on Apple's side - that was being involved in the allegation from Samsung that the patent was invalid because of the prior art - we had to establish that number one, the two methods were substantially similar; that the outcome was the same, in other words the functionality was the same, that would be at the 40,000-foot level. But what was key to us, and it was a very important piece, is that the stipulation in the law, they had to be interchangeable. And so consequently, when we looked at the source code - I was able to read source code - I showed the jurors that the two methods in software were not the same, nor could they be interchangeable because the hardware that was involved between the old processor and the new processor - you couldn't load the new software methodology in the old system and expect that it was going to work, and the converse of that was true. And we're talking about Samsung's patent claim about combining a mobile phone with email [and a camera]? Hogan: Exactly, in fact that is the one issue that we left on Wednesday night, the first day of deliberation, that had hung us up. And I, being the foreman, said because we had ran over and the US marshals had already told us that we could not work past six o'clock, and we were approaching six o'clock. And we had hung up on this for over an hour and 45 minutes. I told them let's leave it, let's come back fresh in the morning and then let's deal with this. And it was that evening that when I was sitting at home relaxing - and I have the type of mind when I'm relaxing doing one thing, my mind is running 90 miles an hour typically thinking about my distraction. In this case, I was thinking about that specific patent and I was thinking of each and every claim and each and every claim limitation. And I know there are people out there that question what I have said and why it was important. But the task that I put it to, for myself, while I was going through this thought process is: let's pretend that this patent is mine. And what I mean by the term "can I defend this patent", there's a process you go through in this country that you go through before a patent issued. When the patent office determines that they are going to reject your patent based on a claim you are making against prior art - and in my case I had several of those - you have to be able to lay the groundwork and defend your claim that in light of the prior art it would not have been obvious to the individual who drafted that prior art that the new methodology could have been accomplished. So that's the comparison and that's what I meant by defending the patent. And I'm going through this thought process of the patent that was involved and the prior art example that was involved, and making that comparison. And when I got through with that comparison and that test, I asked myself the question: could I defend this patent, not in the court, could I defend this patent through that process just like I had to do my own if this were mine? And that's the "aha" moment that you hear talked about out there. The answer to that question for me was yes. And so it just hit me that evening that that process I needed to explain to my fellow jurors because I was the only one that had ever gone through that process among them. And there's a lot of misconception - even in the engineering community today among individuals who have never had to go through that process - of what that process consists of. BBC: Do you think if you hadn't been on the jury then we might have ended up with a very different verdict? Hogan: I think so. But let's not say me specifically. ... And that, ladies and gentlemen, truly says it all.

[M.M]

[Barbarin]

"Samsung" NIJE isplatio "Eplu" milijardu dolara u novčićima od pet centi

[Meho Krljic]

Ali, s druge strane:

Did Apple Just Help Samsung Sell A Ton Of Smartphones?

On Friday, a California jury ruled in favor of Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) and ordered Samsung to pay just over $1 billion for infringing on the iPhone maker's patents. Many critics have been quick to analyze the verdict, but there appears to be an interesting side effect that no one saw coming: increased sales of the Galaxy S III.
According to Trip Chowdhry, the managing director of equity research at Global Equities Research, customers "rushed" to buy Samsung's flagship phone after the verdict was announced.
Chowdhry investigated multiple retail outlets — including Costco (NASDAQ: COST), AT&T (NYSE: T), Sprint (NYSE: S), and Verizon (NYSE: VZ) — to get an update on how the Galaxy S III performed this weekend.
Two out of three Costco stores were completely sold out of the T-Mobile and AT&T versions of the phone. The third location had the T-Mobile version in stock, but was sold out of the AT&T version.
All five of the AT&T stores that Chowdhry investigated experienced "significant sales" of the device, which has been outselling the iPhone 4S this month. The Galaxy S III has also outsold Apple's smartphone at all five of the Sprint stores and all three of the Verizon stores that Chowdhry examined. However, only two of those Sprint locations had completely sold out of the Samsung-built device.
This is an intriguing outcome for Samsung, which had already produced smartphones that collectively outsold the iPhone by more than 20 million units. While it is unlikely that consumers decided to buy a Galaxy S III on the verdict alone, (which affects older Samsung devices), it is interesting to see where consumer desire is headed as we approach the release of the iPhone 5.
The demand for the iPhone 4S' successor is through the roof. Competitors are so concerned about the iPhone 5′s arrival that they are doing everything in their power to stifle its unveiling. Once the iPhone 5 is released, the world will be watching to see if the Galaxy S III can continue to compete successfully.
Regardless of current or future sales, Chowdhry stands by his belief that the jury verdict will lead to a cross-licensing deal between Apple and Samsung.

I onda malo anegdotalnog dokazivanja:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/114476892281222708332/posts/246srfbqg6G#114476892281222708332/posts/246srfbqg6G

Enrique GutierrezAug 25, 2012 (edited)  -  PublicI can't make this stuff up

I'm sitting in a Starbucks doing random whatever over an iced americano. While I waiting for my drink, I watched a guy with his friend, pick up a newspaper; and start to remark on the Samsung Apple verdict.

Guy: "Wait, so what they're saying is, Samsung is the same as Apple?"
Friend: "I know, right? Makes me think twice about how much I paid for my Mac Book"
Guy: "Seriously"

Not 10 minutes later, a husband and wife, same newspaper:

Husband: "... Samsung's iPad is the same as Apple's iPad, and I paid how much for the Apple one? Honey, I told you they were a ripoff", after looking up the Samsung tablet on his iPhone.
Wife: "Oh wow," looking at the screen, "... that's a lot cheaper. Think we can return it?"

I put my Samsung QX410 on my table, and started to plug in, when he leans over to me, "Sorry, you don't mind if I ask, how much did you pay for your Samsung laptop?"

"Oh, no worries, it was $700." I replied.

I watched shock overcome his face, like actual shock. He looked at me, blankly, for an awkward amount of time, "Mind if I have a look?" he asked.

So, I obliged, and showed him a few things. He commented on Windows 7, so I opened up my virtual machine of OS/X... By the time the conversation was over, he was ready to kick Cupertino in the nuts, I think.

... Now, the punchline:

I'm writing this post after the FOURTH group of Starbucks patrons have made the connection that Samsung is now the same as Apple. They don't know the details, they don't really care, what they know is Apple is saying that Samsung is the same as Apple ... and with one simple Google Search, you get prices that are basically half for what seems to be the same products -- for nearly everything.

Two of these groups (including the husband/wife) asked me about my Samsung laptop, the second group noticed my Galaxy phone (also by Samsung)... Best billion dollar ad-campaign Samsung ever had.

[Meho Krljic]

Tokyo court gives win to Samsung after US loss

A court in Tokyo has ruled that Samsung Electronics did not infringe on patents held by Apple, a victory for the South Korean company.

The patent was related to transferring media content between devices.

It comes after Samsung lost a key patent case in the US last week and was ordered to pay more than $1bn (£664m) in damages.

This is one of many cases brought to courts around the world by the two smartphone market leaders.

"We welcome the court's decision, which confirmed our long-held position that our products do not infringe Apple's intellectual property," said Samsung in a statement to the BBC.

Tokyo District Judge Tamotsu Shoji dismissed the case filed by Apple in August, finding that Samsung was not in violation of Apple patents related to synchronising music and video data between devices and servers.
Sales ban
On 24 August, a US court ruled Samsung had infringed Apple patents for mobile devices, including the iPhone and iPad.

The company has vowed to continue to fight against Apple saying it will appeal against the US ruling.

Apple is now seeking a ban on sales of eight Samsung phones in the US market.

On 6 December, US District Judge Lucy Koh, who presided over the initial trial, will hear Apple's plea for an injunction against the Samsung phones, although it does not include the most recent Samsung phone to hit the market, the Galaxy S3.

[Meho Krljic]

Uzeti sa zrnom soli:

Alleged Apple UDID Hack Raises Potential Privacy Questions for FBI 

Hackers have allegedly stolen millions of Apple UDIDs from an FBI laptop, raising some potentially uncomfortable questions about privacy. 
It could turn out to be a very bad week for Apple and the FBI.
On Sept. 4, news began to circulate around the Web that hackers associated with AntiSec had stolen more than 12 million Apple Unique Device Identifiers (UDIDs) for iOS devices from an FBI agent's laptop. In a Sept. 4 posting via Pastebin, those attackers offered download links to what they claimed were 1 million of those IDs, which are linked to individual devices.
"The original file contained around 12,000,000 devices. We decided a million would be enough to release," read that posting. "We trimmed out other personal data as, full names, cell numbers, addresses, [zip codes], etc." The writer went on to claim the information came from the Dell Vostro laptop of an FBI agent with the FBI Regional Cyber Action Team and the New York FBI Office Evidence Response Team, "breached using the AtomicReferenceArray vulnerability on Java."
The rest of the posting features callouts to Syrian rebels, a certain Russian punk-rock group, and various hackers either arrested or killed over the past couple decades.
Are these UDIDs authentic? That's the question of the hour for pretty much everybody involved. Forbes writer Andy Greenberg, who covers data security and hacker culture, downloaded the file and poked around a bit:

"While there's no easy way to confirm the authenticity or the source of the released data, I downloaded the encrypted file and decrypted it, and it does seem to be an enormous list of 40-character strings made up of numbers and the letters A through F, just like Apple UDIDs. Each string is accompanied by a longer collection of characters that Anonymous says is an Apple Push Notification token and what appears to be a username and an indication as to whether the UDID is attached to an iPad, iPhone or iPod touch."

Meanwhile, TheNextWeb is offering a way to check whether one's UDID ended up released by AntiSec. "Just input your UDID/UUID into the form and we'll run it against the database," the publication posted Sept. 4. "Of course, TNW won't store your identifier." Which is more than could be said for the FBI, if the information about the hack turns out to be true.
If the FBI is truly storing UDIDs, that raises some interesting privacy questions. First, how did the agency obtain said information, and to what purpose? Why did all that personal data reside on the laptop of one special agent?
So far, the FBI has not issued an official response to the alleged leak. Apple had already started phasing out apps that relied on UDIDs to track users, reportedly because of privacy concerns; this hack could drive them to take additional steps to safeguard that data, especially if millions of Apple users' personal data ends up spilled all over the Web.

[Meho Krljic]

Kinezi, dakle, da bi ispunili sve narudžbine za iphone 5 lepo dovuku decu iz škola u Fokskon, kažu im da je to praksa i onda ih ostave da dva meseca prave ajFoun 5. Svi srećni.

Allegations Chinese Students Forced to Work on iPhone 5s

In what may be the most compulsory internship experience you've ever heard of, the Shanghai Daily is reporting that thousands of Chinese students from schools neighboring a Foxconn factory in the city of Huai'an were forced to help fulfill iPhone 5 orders.
According to the paper, students were taken by bus to the plant, and started working on the production line last Thursday after the Taiwanese-owned company was badly in need of extra hands to keep up with assembly of the hotly anticipated new version of Apple's iPhone line.
Teachers from nearby schools confirmed via a radio report that classes had been interrupted, as these internships would fulfill their pupils' need to "experience working conditions." The student workers received the equivalent of $243.97 per month as compensation for working six days a week, and clocking in 12 hours per day.
More:
A Huai'an University student posting under the name of Dalingzhuimengnan said Foxconn was badly in need of 10,000 workers but students were looking forward to returning to classrooms to continue their academic studies which had been seriously disrupted. MengniuIQ84 wrote that the authorities had ordered the schools to send students to assist Foxconn but said that the factory neither informed parents nor signed agreements with students.... Yu Fangqiang, executive director of Nanjing-based Tianxiagong, a non-government organization focusing on policy advocacy regarding social issues, said he wanted to help students take legal action against their schools.But some refused for fear of schools taking revenge by not allowing them to graduate, he said.via Shanghai Daily: http://goo.gl/jpK7s

[Perin]

The student workers received the equivalent of $243.97 per month as compensation for working six days a week, and clocking in 12 hours per day.

Toliko sam i ja dobijao, samo za 6 i po dana u nedelji po 14 sati po danu. I nisam proizvodio ajfon! 

[Alex]

Predlažem da se mi sa Sagite udružimo i otkupimo taj Epl, ako je toliko dobra kompanija. Da bude vajde i od ovog topika.

[Barbarin]

Kolka je prosečna kineska plata?

[lilit]

zna li se kad izlazi novi iphone?

[Barbarin]

Zna se: sutra 

[Barbarin]

Izašao iPhone 5 

[lilit]

posle 22 godine, došlo vreme da današnji  datum pamtim po dobru!!!!!

[Джон Рейнольдс]

Живео Самсунг!    Доле шабански Епл!

[Meho Krljic]

18% tanji, duplo brži CPU, duplo brža grafika, kamera od 28 megapiksela (??? da li je ovo uopšte moguće?), veći ekran za oko 25% (to cenim po tome što su dodali peti red ikona), podrška za 1080p video... Jaka mašina.

[lilit]

moćno deluje zaista,  nadam se da će ga provajderi davati na ugovor.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/12/apple-iphone-5-liveblog/

[Barbarin]

Nije kamera od 28 megapixsela. Ostala je od 8mpxile samo su je malo doterali, oštrinu i stabilnost, a to što se naveo je kao fora kad se napravi panoramska fotka od 8 slika pa onda ona ima 28 megapixela, nije mi samo jasno kako, vrv neka matematika x puta y.

samsung je big shit, sa naglaskom na velikm tj prevelik, da bi bio telefon.

[Meho Krljic]

Nije kamera od 28 megapixsela. Ostala je od 8mpxile samo su je malo doterali, oštrinu i stabilnost, a to što se naveo je kao fora kad se napravi panoramska fotka od 8 slika pa onda ona ima 28 megapixela, nije mi samo jasno kako, vrv neka matematika x puta y.

samsung je big shit, sa naglaskom na velikm tj prevelik, da bi bio telefon.

Aha, to sam ja na brzinu čitao Yahoov live blog pa sam video cifru i zabezekno se. Hvala!

U drugim vestima:

Američkim pilotima je sada dopušteno da iPad koriste u svim fazama leta 

Ali sa druge strane, škola koja je sve svoje laptopove zamenila iPadima, sada kuka i veli da se moraju vratiti na laptop. Mislim... retardi. Tablet računar ipak nije isto što i laptop...


Takođe:

Samsung expected to sue Apple over iPhone 5 tomorrow  

The courtroom battle between Apple and Samsung seems to be far from over, and come tomorrow Apple is in for a major headache as soon as it makes the iPhone 5 official. That's because Samsung is poised to sue the company over patents it owns relating to the LTE connectivity the new smartphone is expected to use.
All Samsung needs to confirm is that the iPhone 5 is shipping with 4G LTE and it can then apparently set its lawyers into action. As is typical with these patent lawsuits, Samsung will most likely seek an import ban meaning the iPhone 5 may not be able to leave its manufacturing plants and make it to the US to fulfill pre-orders. If such a thing ruling was made, Apple would most likely do a deal that meant it no longer pursued Samsung product bans, and might even forget about that billion dollar payout.
Facing Samsung in court again may not phase Apple even though the shoe will firmly be on the other foot this time. However, there's two other companies set to try and block sales of the new iPhone. The first is the company behind the GooPhone i5, which successfully managed to patent the design of its phone in China that just happens to look like the leaked shots we have seen of the iPhone 5. If the two phones do indeed look the same, expect a lawsuit.
Apple may easily get that case thrown out on a prior art claim, but then there's HTC to deal with. Apple is attempting to get two HTC patents relating to data transmission invalidated, but the comments of a US trade judge recently make that seem unlikely. If Apple doesn't succeed, then it either has to settle with HTC or face both an iPad and iPhone 5 ban.
The iPhone 5 launch event is happening tomorrow, that is for certain. Whether Apple will have any iPhone 5 stock available to fulfill preorders in a few weeks is becoming increasingly uncertain.
Read more at The Korea Times, via ZDNet

[Джон Рейнольдс]

samsung je big shit, sa naglaskom na velikm tj prevelik, da bi bio telefon.

Превелик да би био телефон? Мислиш, по габариту? Пре свега, "галаксији" већ јесу телефон, између осталог, па се може расправљати само о његовој употревљивости. "Галакси" кеца купио сам прошле године на пролеће и то је била једна од бољих инвестиција последњих година, пошто он мени није само телефон, већ мултифункцијски уређај у сваком смислу. После телефонирања, највише га користим као навигацију, па као подсетник и фотоапарат, помало се на њему играм и читам, сурфујем по нету... Да је макар мало мањи, део тих функција биле би бесмислене, пре свега то што ради као ГПС навигација. Што се мене тиче, величина му је таман.

Наравно, сад неко може да каже да ови Еплови статусни симболи раде исто то, можда и боље. Али "андроид" је "андроид", нуди се гомила корисних апликација од којих су неке направљене код нас, за нашу употребу: плаћање паркинга, преглед саобраћајних камера, провера броја паркинг места по јавним гаражама, е-банкинг... Имам све то, ферцера, а нисам платио ни динара. Самсунг, кад се погледа оно најважније, однос перформансе-понуда-цена, просто није у истој класи с Еплом. Ове "ај-курацпалац" играчке су статусни симболи, па ко хоће да издвоји неколико стотина евра за сличицу начете јабучице, само напред. Одох ја сад бесплатно да апдејтујем моје корисне апликације. 

[Lord Kufer]

Samsung istovremeno prodaje softver govnermentima da mogu da špijuniraju korisnike tih aparata.

[lilit]

@john

ma nema to veze sa statusom, ne znam sto to neces da prihvatis. mislim, apple je jednako status samo za ...hm, kogagod. 

prosto se radi o tome da apple jeste bolji od samsunga, brzi, funkcionalniji (bar za ono za sta meni treba) pa i lepsi od samsunga. koristim i jedno i drugo i popizdim kad mi galaksi II zastopa, s eplom se to nikad ne desava. tablete ne mogu ni da poredim, druga planeta.

i da, jeste da sam i ja ranije pljuvala epl zbog milion polisis koje imaju, al znaju ljudi sta rade. em imas funkcionalnost, em je to sve skopcano s dizajnom koji je nekako organik i pravljen za prosecnog coveka. sve nekako ide instinktivno. e sad, sto u srbiji kostaju i ne moze na 0% kredit, to je vec druga prica.

[Father Jape]

Epl je statusni simbol samo u Srbiji i u sličnim siromašnim backwaterima.

A inače, ubodu oni tu i tamo superioran proizvod, ali jasno je da su Epl fanbojzi najveća pošast zapadnog sveta i služe pre svega da ovi ostali imaju kome da se podsmevaju. 

[Джон Рейнольдс]

Епл је статусни симбол у смислу по коме је то "мерцедес" (био?), јер при томе не негирам његов квалитет. Али се сам гура у хај-енд тржиште, вероватно им је самима јасно на коју клијентелу рачунају. Отуда моја реченица "ко хоће да плаћа сличицу начете јабучице".

Што се функционалности тиче, па то му дође као нека лична оцена. Додуше, само сам једном прошле године поредио братовљев "ај-нешто" и мој "галакси", али могао сам да поредим само апликације које су тренутно биле инстралиране. На S1 немам никакву примедбу, за моје је потребе потпуно функционалан, у претходном посту сам навео доста примера. Сад, наравно, можда неко те апарате користи за неке друге ствари, али пошто не могу ни да замислим шта би то могло бити, онда кад неко каже да је Епл "фунционалнији", не могу да верујем да реч.

Додуше, и не занима ме, јер као што рекох, гледам пре свега однос перформансе-понуда-цена. И да је на кредит од 0% не могу да замислим ниједан разлог због кога бих прешао на Епл.

А што се кочења тиче, то је урбана легенда. Бар за мој уређај. Успорио се само једном кад је било активно више апликација, међу којима једна захтевна игра. Зазвонио је и после сам заборавио да све то погасим. Ако је то та Еплова предност, нека буде. Мој фирмвер је сасвим стабилан и овај ће уређај остати овакав док не цркне. А носим га у џепу на бутини, дакле шутирам га непрестано, лети се сатима пржи залепљен за фошерфајбну, зими се са мном ваља по снегу, гњече га по концертима... И ево га, здрав је и читав.

[Barbarin]

Mislio sam na samsung s3, pošto zadnjih meseci se oni kolju.

Ima i za iphone parkiranje u srbiji, ovo ostalo nisam tražio. Dal ste čuli za jailbreak, kojim gomila aplikacija postaje dostupna/besplatna, a i hakeri su odradili neke stvari koje nemaju u org, a izgledaju bolje, mada ima stvari koje i oni prodaju.

Samsung mi deluje krhko, ne znam dal bih se usudio da ga nosim u džepu na poslu kojim se bavim, isto tako ne znam kakav je u multitaskingu, al kad sam na 3gs-u istovremeno slušao muziku, švrljao po netu, skajpovao sa dve osobe, i pisao još nešto, prosto sam se oduševio. Mogu samo da zamislim kako je to sad na novijim sve još brže i bolje.

Sa Jabubom su najveći problem autorska prava, jer svaka pesma, svaka aplikacija košta, 0.99 pa nadalje, aplikacije su ponekad i besplatene par dana, i kasnije updejt te ne košta ništa.

[lilit]

@john
razumem i cool sam s tim sto pises, sve zavisi od toga za sta ti treba.

ja sad moram da menjam laptop posto mi je stari na izdisaju i definitivno uzimam PC a ne retina mac lepotana, posto koristim dosta softvera koji je pravljen samo za PC, a mrzi me da se akam sa wmware-om.

[Father Jape]

Епл је статусни симбол у смислу по коме је то "мерцедес" (био?), јер при томе не негирам његов квалитет. Али се сам гура у хај-енд тржиште,

Kako za šta, tj. kako za koji proizvod. Ajpod je u nekom trenutku mislim dostigao u Americi tri četvrtine tržišnog udela na polju mp3 plejera. Nema ništa haj end oko toga. To je plain vanilla, to je jugo, to ima svaka kuća. Ajpod je kao klineks ili bendejd - sinonim za proizvod.

[lilit]

Епл је статусни симбол у смислу по коме је то "мерцедес" (био?), јер при томе не негирам његов квалитет. Али се сам гура у хај-енд тржиште,

Kako za šta, tj. kako za koji proizvod. Ajpod je u nekom trenutku mislim dostigao u Americi tri četvrtine tržišnog udela na polju mp3 plejera. Nema ništa haj end oko toga. To je plain vanilla, to je jugo, to ima svaka kuća. Ajpod je kao klineks ili bendejd - sinonim za proizvod.

da, i nije tako samo u americi. u austriji ga ima svako.

[Barbarin]

Ne znam za samsung, al me iphone oduševio recimo ovim, slušaš muziku dok šetaš gradom, zove te neko, muzika se sama pauzira i nakom završenog razgovora sama nastavlja tamo gde je stala. Tokom razgovora ekran se gasi, tj kad pričaš i primakneš telefon licu, ekran se ugasi, kad odaljiš on se upali. Sviđa mi se i što ima malo dugmića, home button, za zaključavanje, za kontrolu glasnoće i za gašenje tonova.

Moja jednina zamerka na 3 gs je što nije glasan kad zvoni i što vibracija nije jaka, to su moje jedine zamerke.

[lilit]

Ne znam za samsung, al me iphone oduševio recimo ovim, slušaš muziku dok šetaš gradom, zove te neko, muzika se sama pauzira i nakom završenog razgovora sama nastavlja tamo gde je stala. Tokom razgovora ekran se gasi, tj kad pričaš i primakneš telefon licu, ekran se ugasi, kad odaljiš on se upali. Sviđa mi se i što ima malo dugmića, home button, za zaključavanje, za kontrolu glasnoće i za gašenje tonova.

Moja jednina zamerka na 3 gs je što nije glasan kad zvoni i što vibracija nije jaka, to su moje jedine zamerke.

ovo sve imas i na galaksi II i III.

[дејан]

то што си рекао џејп није истина, епл јесте статусни симбол у америци, много више него што је код нас, а у европи, рецимо у немачкој, где ми живи пријатељица и бави се графичким дизајном у фирми коју изнајмљују, између осталих највеће софтверске куће и холивудски студији, која, наравно ради на меку/еплу због свих погодности које та платформа пружа њеном послу, пуна је разноразних увреда на рачун корисника еплових уређаја са којима има контакт, пошто им служе, искључиво, да их отворе у 'фенси' кафићу, показујући тиме осталим смртницима да 'нису вредни'.


епл овде видим најчешће као аномалију, и, на жалост, већина корисника које познајем су празилуковићи


едит.
наравно да не причамо овде о ајподу, који је и код нас постао неприметан захваљујући свом броју, а и изашао joш 2001 године и био суштински револуционарни производ (наравно као дизајнерски и као технолошки напредак)
едит2. избрисао једно 'овде' и једно 'чак'