But the patent awards have nothing to do with the OS from what is written in this rag.
So the whole MS upside is BS.
If I'm wrong spell out the patent infringments that have something to do with the OS.
Perhaps, but every company makes decisions on where they do parts of their work. There is no doubt in the fact that Apple products, regardless where they are made, has cost many US jobs. All you have to do is look at their profit margins and you can see that they had choices, they chose greed.
Just my opinion.
"...and bringing attention to their destruction of US centric jobs."
Erebus, I have pondered this plenty and I've come to the conclusion that China being what it is, it was innevitable that low-end manufacturing jobs would go over there. And that the ~42000 jobs that Apple (and/or others who use the same business model) has created over here to be a sign of success in these changing times.
I know this may be a bit off topic, but what is the meaning of the famous Apple logo - the apple with the bite out of it?
The two famous myths that have an apple with a byte from it are Eve and the serpent and Snow White and the witch.
No doubt Apple products are tempting. Who is the snake or witch supposed to be?
Apple is presenting the image of "The Ugly American" to the world. It is not insignificant that the trial was in the backyard of Apple headquarters and the jurors were all from Silicon Valley where foreign competition means job threat. Apple did not clean up in any of the other similar court cases in the world where there was far less conflict of interest. To many in the rest of the world, the trial has all the appearance of an American lynch mob.
Let's face it, Apple did not invent the smartphone. Apple stole a lot more from Xerox Park and RIM's Blackberry than Android stole from Apple. There's few that can challenge the legal might of the world's wealthiest American corporation.
i am one of those disappointed at the verdict. i do believe one company should not have monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners and a bezel (which i believe is prior art in itself). All the utility patents are basically 'user interface' patents and it's the implementation of those that should have been granted patents, not the feature itself.
i do believe this verdict will cost the consumer, and that too for patents that are not valid in my opinion.
I would agree that there were many different styles, however it seemed like every major company offered a phone of each type. I could hardly tell my LG flip phone apart from my wife's Samsung, both silver, both had almost identical keypads, etc.
The Apple iPhone5 is going to be the first Apple smartphone with a 16:9 display, and yet Samsung has been selling that aspect ratio for some time now. So are we going to see a big rukus about that in the near future? I would think everyone would have migrated to 16:9 by now, simply because that has become the new normal, ever since the first digital TVs. And yet, how does that not constitute "trade dress"?