Saxon Innovations filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission alleging that HTC and five other companies are violating some of its patents. It seeks to ban the importation of products made by these companies into the US.
Personally, I think that all software patents should be annulled. It's ironic that the company is called Saxon Innovations but it is accusing HTC of violating several patents from the 90's that it bought from other companies.
i don't see how this challenge will get anywhere. I mean, they are not only challenging HTC, but also Palm, RIM, Nokia, Apple, dell, and H-P. They are fighting the world.
One of the problems I have especially with this is that it makes people think that all of these types of cases are just patent trolls, case in point 802.11n patents.
I'm surprised by Chinese's reaction to the market. Shortly after iPhone 4's debut, so many counterfeits have been launched. The clone iphone 4 have multi-functions with a dirt cheap price comparing to the original Apple iphone.
I founded about 6 different models of clone iphone 4 just on tinydeal.com
I think it is not a bad idea if you could not afford a real iphone 4, what do you think?
I think it's very obviously a bad idea.
I'm not so sure why you're so surprise by the reaction. Chinese companies produce knockoffs of every popular phone out there. The prior iPhones all had multiple knockoffs too of varying similarities.
They all do have one thing in common, though. Not a single one of them are anywhere near as good as the iPhone.
I'm not a believer in the saying 'You get what you pay for' (I've bought too many great products at a low price to believe that adage), but, in this case, there's a reason why they're a fraction the cost of a real iPhone. They're not anywhere near as good in specs (aside from missing many important things, plenty of the listed specs could be extremely misleading or outright lies).
Of course, all of this is ignoring the elephant in the room: The fact that not one of those knockoffs will have Apple's iOS.
To get to the point, if you're willing to spend the money for a Chinese knockoff phone, that's completely fine. They come with nice specs at a low price. However, the idea that they would be a good substitute for what they're knocking off? No, never. Absolutely not.
Pokerface1987 said:
I'm surprised by Chinese's reaction to the market. Shortly after iPhone 4's debut, so many counterfeits have been launched. The clone iphone 4 have multi-functions with a dirt cheap price comparing to the original Apple iphone.
I founded about 6 different models of clone iphone 4 just on tinydeal.com
I think it is not a bad idea if you could not afford a real iphone 4, what do you think?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Chinese have always made knock off's of just about EVERY highly bought phone/ smartphones in the market.
Yes the clone phone 4 does "somewhat" and I use that carefully, but it does not come anywhere close to the iPhone4.
Now to your question, if you CAN'T afford a true iPhone there are many other opitions out there, including buying an Android based phone. Also even if you are on the AT&T service you can just as easy get a smartphone unlocked and use it on another carrier.
Clonephone4 ---> SAD
I'm really surprised by Chinese's reaction to the market. Shortly after iPhone 4's debut, so many counterfeits have been launched. The clone iphone 4 have multi-functions with a dirt cheap price comparing to the original Apple iphone.
I founded about 6 different models of clone iphone 4 just on one website, tinydeal.com
It is a bad idea to take a clone iphone 4 if you could not afford a real one, The Chinese industry is really amazing. I am wondering, will China be the second Japan?
Until the Americans can find somewhere else that is cheap for manufacturing their stuff, I'd say, there isn't really much unless a global initiative to put sanctions on China if their government still don't tend to cloning. I've seen a couple of "fake" Iphone 4s, my goodness, I think its fake only because the logo isn't there or correct. It functions the same way!
Pokerface1987 said:
I'm really surprised by Chinese's reaction to the market. Shortly after iPhone 4's debut, so many counterfeits have been launched. The clone iphone 4 have multi-functions with a dirt cheap price comparing to the original Apple iphone.
I founded about 6 different models of clone iphone 4 just on one website, tinydeal.com
It is a bad idea to take a clone iphone 4 if you could not afford a real one, The Chinese industry is really amazing. I am wondering, will China be the second Japan?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was just reading some tech news when I stumbled upon this. It's funny, but I have a tablet that was $150 cheaper sitting on the coffee table....I had to post the article because I can't post links yet. From the New York Times:
So Far Rivals Can’t Beat iPad’s Price
By JENNA WORTHAM
The iPad 2, unveiled on Wednesday, offers several sleek improvements over its predecessor. But its most attractive feature is perhaps the same one its predecessor had: the price tag.
And what makes that feature even more compelling is that so far, Apple’s competitors in tablets cannot beat or even match it.
The iPad 2, like the original, starts at $499. Apple says that since it introduced the original last April, it has sold 15 million of the devices, generating $9.5 billion in revenue. Analysts say this is only the start of a lucrative market for tablet computers, which could soar as high as $35 billion by 2012.
The Motorola Xoom and the Samsung Galaxy Tab were introduced recently, both to generally good reviews but at higher prices. Dozens of hardware manufacturers are scrambling to bring their own variations to market this year: Hewlett-Packard with the TouchPad, HTC with the Flyer, LG with the G-Slate and BlackBerry with the PlayBook.
But prices, or even release dates, have not been announced, and industry experts say it is not yet clear whether the devices can be competitive with Apple on price.
“There have been nearly a hundred competitive tablets that have been introduced since the iPad,” said Toni Sacconaghi, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein. “But it seems that no one has eclipsed or even matched Apple on pricing.”
Analysts and industry experts point to a number of reasons. Primarily, they say, Apple’s deep pockets — a staggering $60 billion in cash reserves — have allowed it to form strategic partnerships with other companies to buy large supplies of components, for example, expensive flash memory. By doing this, the company probably secures a lower price from suppliers, ensuring a lower manufacturing cost.
At the same time, they say, Apple has sidestepped high licensing fees for other items it needs, like the A4 and A5 processors within the iPads. Those parts, designed in-house at Apple by a company that Apple bought, are among the costlier components needed to make a tablet computer.
Mr. Sacconaghi said Apple also could subsidize some of the cost of building iPads with the money it makes through its App Store, which generates more than a billion dollars each year. This means that Apple can take a lower profit margin on the iPad, 25 percent, than it does on, for example, the iPhone, which can yield as much as 50 percent profit.
Yet another advantage is Apple’s wide net of its own global retail shops and online stores; for customers, this means they can avoid a markup from a third party like Best Buy.
Although other companies have some of these factors in their favor, no one but Apple has all of them.
Steven P. Jobs, chief executive of Apple, who took the stage during the Apple press event Wednesday in San Francisco to announce the iPad 2, made a not-so-discreet swipe at rivals.
Is 2011, he asked, “going to be the year of the copycats?”
“Most of these tablets are not even catching up to our first iPad,” he said.
For example, like Apple, Samsung cuts costs for making its Galaxy Tab, a seven-inch tablet, because it builds many of the components itself. And like many other tablet makers, Samsung relies on the Android mobile operating system, which Google makes available free. Even so, the Galaxy can cost as much as $549 without a contract for cellular service.
“Just because a company sources internally doesn’t ensure that they get the best pricing on components,” said Rhoda Alexander, an analyst at IHS iSuppli, a research firm. “It doesn’t necessarily guarantee efficiency from a cost perspective.”
Justin Denison, vice president for strategy at Samsung, said that in the United States, the company relegates device pricing to its carrier partners, but that he was not worried that the cost of the Galaxy, which has received generally glowing reviews, might turn prospective buyers away.
He said the company was “quite happy” with early sales of the device, which it pegs at two million, adding that “consumers will decide for themselves whether the price is worth it.”
But adding to the challenge for Samsung and most other tablet makers is that they rely on third parties like Best Buy to sell the devices. Apple’s retail and online stores help eliminate this problem.
“You don’t see a markup in the same way a retailer would mark up an item, so it reduces that particular margin,” said Shane Greenstein, a professor at Northwestern University’s graduate business school.
Shelling out billions of dollars to build glossy retail stores or to make investments in chip processors is not an option for a smaller company like Motorola, which recently spun its mobile devices business into its own independent sector. Motorola’s Xoom, a tablet with a 10-inch screen, a dual processor and front- and rear-facing cameras, costs $800 in the United States without a two-year contract with a wireless carrier. That’s roughly $70 more than the equivalent 32-gigabyte iPad 2 outfitted with both Wi-Fi and 3G functions.
Alain Mutricy, a senior vice president for mobile devices at Motorola, defended the pricing of the Xoom, pointing to the tablet’s extensive memory, high-resolution display and compatibility with Verizon’s 4G LTE network, to which Xoom owners will be able to upgrade free, as justification for the price tag.
“The Xoom is priced exactly where it has to be,” he said.
Mr. Mutricy said he did not think the company would do anything differently to trim costs.
“It’s not that we are trying to lower the price and cannot,” he said. “We are pricing the Xoom based on what we are offering consumers.”
But he said that Motorola was planning to expand its line of tablets in the future that would most likely include smaller, lightweight options with a lower retail cost.
Huawei, a Chinese hardware manufacturer, has said it hopes to press into the United States market later this year with the S7 Slim, a svelte, rectangular machine running Android on a 7-inch display and a 1-gigahertz processor, for $300.
Ross Gan, the worldwide head of corporate communications at Huawei, said the company cut costs by using a modest marketing campaign.
“We didn’t set our margins based on massive advertising campaigns,” he said in a recent interview.
Sarah Rotman Epps, an analyst with Forrester Research, predicted that pricing would become increasingly important in the tablet market because as more options appeared — particularly cheaper, no-name Android-powered tablets — shoppers would want to pay less.
“Consumers expect that over time, electronics get cheaper,” she said. “They’re seeing all these other devices in the market and not necessarily distinguishing between processor speeds. There’s a huge variation in price and power but from a distance, they all look like 7-inch touch screens.”
Over time, analysts say, efficiency in production will help bring down costs for competitors.
But the market will be hypercompetitive until then, said Ms. Alexander of IHS iSuppli.
“The iPad may continue to own the market if competitors don’t get more realistic on their pricing,” she said. “Right now, it’s too high relative to what the iPad has for the product.”
Well, Apple has been full of **** alot lately. Always expect this nonsense to spew out their mouths now.
Wow! Was this Guy working for apple or just hoping to get a kickback for sucking apples dong. I thought the newyork times would have better research than that. What about the vpad7 for 300$ or the zpad / Gtab for under 400$? I could write a more comprehensive and less biased article than this joker even if I was writing it while I was drunk and angry.
I am not sure of the reason, but the gtab has really never recieved any press love. Agreed out of the box the device leaves much to be desired, and that is what tech journalist really review, but for a device that specs wise (minus the screen) can match the Xoom, you would expect atleast a little buzz.
Odd, but I'm not complaining as it has kept the price low.
Not surprising really, they were the first to open the tablet market this time round, and it has really opened this time, so it stands to reason they will be struggling with the large amount of competition that has followed them, I'm not a Apple fan, never was, but i do realize they opened the market, and business competition can get a bit underhanded
same article was on cnn...be its being used as a written ad. I just can't pay $500 and not have flash or sd/usb storage...they are dribbling out the improvements and the idiots line up... They are predicting huge lines when 2 comes out! for what? faster and thinner ...big deal.
Hopefully one day the ipad will be fast enough to run flash
P00r said:
Hopefully one day the ipad will be fast enough to run flash
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HA
Dictator Jobs would never allow it
Years ago I got in on the ground floor buying the Amiga 1000 computer. Everyone who had one or saw it were impressed. A great community of people supported each other, giving heads up on new hardware and software releases. Promoting the hell out of it.
It finally died, and was regarded as a good game machine and maybe some graphics. Most just didn't take notice.
Did I do it again buying the Gtab?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57560112-37/key-apple-patent-used-against-samsung-under-fire/?r=1
A key patent that Apple successfully used against Samsung in its multibillion-dollar courtroom brawl earlier this year is at risk following a re-examination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
All 21 claims of U.S. patent No. 7,844,915 -- also known as the "pinch to zoom" patent -- were rejected by the Patent Office today, following a re-examination.
Samsung pointed this out in a filing to U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh this afternoon, noting that it was "relevant" given the company's effort for a retrial, as well as Apple's attempt at an injunction against a number of Samsung devices for infringing on this very patent. Both of those efforts were shot down in court orders earlier this week.
Apple has an opportunity to combat the decision as part of the proceedings
The '915 patent covers technology that can distinguish whether a user is scrolling with one finger versus using several touch points at once for a pinch-to-zoom action. A California jury said that 21 of the 24 accused devices sold by Samsung Electronics infringed on the main claim of that patent.
That patent played a role in assigning the damages at the end of the case, which totaled just over a billion dollars. That figure is still subject to change pending some follow-up orders by Koh, which are expected soon.
n the Patent Office's re-examination decision, the organization said all 21 claims of the patent were invalid based on claims from other patents, including one from the U.S. and one from Japan.
Samsung and Apple both declined to comment further beyond the filing.
The decision comes weeks after the Patent Office tentatively invalidated another Apple software patent covering the rubber-banding effect found on iOS. Like the pinch-to-zoom patent, it too was used successfully against Samsung as part of the same lawsuit. Unrelated, but more recent, was another Apple patent covering touch-screen technology, which was deemed invalid by the Patent Office.