Over the past two decades, technology has advanced at an unprecedented pace, leading to a significant increase in the number of patents filed each year. As the number of patents has grown, so has the number of patent disputes and lawsuits. In this article, we will discuss the top 10 patent infringements since 2000.
If you need a patent licensing expert who not only understands the technology, industry, and your specific needs, but also stay with you on each step during monetization process and make sure you get the results crucial for your win, then you are at the right place. Our experts, at Boolean IP, have a total experience of conducting 100+ successful patent infringement identification searches. Clubbing the experience and expertise of our techno-legal experts, and AI-powered tools, Boolean IP provides high quality IP solutions that help you win. Get in touch with your queries.
https://www.booleanip.com/patent-licensee-infringer-identification
#patentinfringements #patentlicenses #patentroyalty #infringements #patentrolls #infringers #patentmonetization #booleanipconsulting
Over the past two decades, technology has advanced at an unprecedented pace, leading to a significant increase in the number of patents filed each year. As the number of patents has grown, so has the number of patent disputes and lawsuits. In this article, we will discuss the top 10 patent infringements since 2000.
If you need a patent licensing expert who not only understands the technology, industry, and your specific needs, but also stay with you on each step during monetization process and make sure you get the results crucial for your win, then you are at the right place. Our experts, at Boolean IP, have a total experience of conducting 100+ successful patent infringement identification searches. Clubbing the experience and expertise of our techno-legal experts, and AI-powered tools, Boolean IP provides high quality IP solutions that help you win. Get in touch with your queries.
https://www.booleanip.com/patent-licensee-infringer-identification
#patentinfringements #patentlicenses #patentroyalty #infringements #patentrolls #infringers #patentmonetization #booleanipconsulting
1- In the dispute between the FBI and Apple- which side do you support.docxEdwardk3aWallacey
1. In the dispute between the FBI and Apple, which side do you support and why?
2. How would you counter the arguments offered by those on the other side of this debate?
3. Are there any circumstances in which you think the government's right to information
should take precedence over an individual's right to privacy?
4. Should any technology firm be allowed to create a privacy protection system that is so
impenetrable that it could never be overridden, regardless of the government's need for this information?
order. In a strongly wurded lenter to Apple customers posted to the company's website, Cook called the onder "an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our custemers" with "implications far beyond the legal case at hand." In a court filing. Apple claimed. "This isn't a case about one isolated iPhone. No court has ever authorized what the goverament now secks, no law supports such unlimited and swecping use of the judicial proccs. and the Constitution forbids it." The day before the FBI director and Apple's top lawyers were to tevify before Cangress, a federal judge in New York sided with Apple in a related case. Magistrate Jadge James Orenstein rejected the Justice Departmenf's argument that the I8th century All Writs Act gave prosecutors the authority to compel Apple to help investigators bypass the passeodeprotection system on an Apple iPhone seized in a drug investigation. He said the critical issues of 2 Ist century privacy and technology should be decided by soday's lassmakers, rather than by reinterpreting an old law. Around this time, the media reported that an outside party had demonstrated to the FBI a possible method for unlocking Farook's iPhone that, if successful, would climinate the need for assistance from Apple. "This uugeess that the very thing that Apple feared already exists in some form and it exists outside the walls of Cupertino [Apple's home]." said attorney Edward McAndrew: A month later, the FBI announced that it had cracked Farook's iPhone and was dropping its legal cave against Apple. A Justice Depurtment spokesperson said. -While this particular phone is no longer an issue, the broader fight over encryption-protected technology is Fikely to continue. It remains a priority for the government to ensure that law enforcement can obtain cnucial digital information to protect national security and public safety." And the controversy may intensify in the futore. FBt director Comey announced in April 2016 that the secret technique used to unlock Farook's iPhone 5 C , for which the FBI reportedly paid more than $1 million, would not work on newer iPhone models. Two yean laler, Apple announced that it was planning an iFhone update that would effectively disable the phone's charging and data port-the opening where users plug in headphooss. power cables, and adapters - an hour after the phone is locked. This change was seca a direct response to govemment efforts to unlock phones without the owner's permiss.
Chapter Title Patent War Today Apple vs. Samsung Book T.docxspoonerneddy
Chapter Title: Patent War Today: Apple vs. Samsung
Book Title: Examining the Role of Patent Quality in Large-Scale "Patent War" Litigation
Book Subtitle: A Historical Comparison and Proposal for a Restorative U.S. Patent
System
Book Author(s): Wael Zohni
Published by: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctv941rps.9
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
This content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Examining the Role of Patent Quality in Large-Scale "Patent War" Litigation
This content downloaded from
�������������99.51.230.69 on Wed, 27 May 2020 23:33:14 UTC��������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctv941rps.9
Patent War Today: Apple vs. Samsung
Apple’s iPhone 3 disrupted the cell phone market in 2007. It brought a
new touchscreen-driven user interface that made integration of features
and navigating utilities on a mobile communication and computing device
much easier than ever before. The series of Apple vs. Samsung cases be‐
ginning in 2010 represent the start of the “Smartphone Wars.” Although
many companies later became involved in associated litigation, this case
was the central conflict, taking on a scale that stretched over several coun‐
tries and jurisdictions. The narrative on these two companies and their le‐
gal confrontation has been the topic of films and popular periodicals.56
Background
iPhone vs. Galaxy
Top secret efforts on the iPhone began at Apple in 2004. Internal product
teams had proposed the concept of a mobile phone with integrated com‐
puting in prior years, but Apple CEO Steve Jobs had been reluctant to
move ahead due to apprehensions with existing market competition and
dependence on third party cellular service companies. He also had techni‐
cal concerns with achieving adequate internet connectivity on a mobile
handset. A major shift in attitude occurred after Apple design director
Jony Ive produced impressive smartphone mock-up units that showcased
the “multi-touch glass” concept.57 The company then moved ahead with
smarthphone development.
By January 2007 Jobs announced the new iPhone product at the annual
MacWorld show in San Francisco, CA. The cell phone establishment did
not think the iP.
Chapter Title Patent War Today Apple vs. Samsung Book T.docxtiffanyd4
Chapter Title: Patent War Today: Apple vs. Samsung
Book Title: Examining the Role of Patent Quality in Large-Scale "Patent War" Litigation
Book Subtitle: A Historical Comparison and Proposal for a Restorative U.S. Patent
System
Book Author(s): Wael Zohni
Published by: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctv941rps.9
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
This content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Examining the Role of Patent Quality in Large-Scale "Patent War" Litigation
This content downloaded from
�������������99.51.230.69 on Wed, 27 May 2020 23:33:14 UTC��������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctv941rps.9
Patent War Today: Apple vs. Samsung
Apple’s iPhone 3 disrupted the cell phone market in 2007. It brought a
new touchscreen-driven user interface that made integration of features
and navigating utilities on a mobile communication and computing device
much easier than ever before. The series of Apple vs. Samsung cases be‐
ginning in 2010 represent the start of the “Smartphone Wars.” Although
many companies later became involved in associated litigation, this case
was the central conflict, taking on a scale that stretched over several coun‐
tries and jurisdictions. The narrative on these two companies and their le‐
gal confrontation has been the topic of films and popular periodicals.56
Background
iPhone vs. Galaxy
Top secret efforts on the iPhone began at Apple in 2004. Internal product
teams had proposed the concept of a mobile phone with integrated com‐
puting in prior years, but Apple CEO Steve Jobs had been reluctant to
move ahead due to apprehensions with existing market competition and
dependence on third party cellular service companies. He also had techni‐
cal concerns with achieving adequate internet connectivity on a mobile
handset. A major shift in attitude occurred after Apple design director
Jony Ive produced impressive smartphone mock-up units that showcased
the “multi-touch glass” concept.57 The company then moved ahead with
smarthphone development.
By January 2007 Jobs announced the new iPhone product at the annual
MacWorld show in San Francisco, CA. The cell phone establishment did
not think the iP.
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this Issue:
Smartphone War Update: Some of Apple’s Patents Survive Invalidity Challenge
• Sale by Foreign Supplier Invalidated Patent
• District Court Abused Discretion in Refusing to Keep Confidential Documents Secret
9 Block Buster Initial Patent Damages Awards In The USGreyB
The number of patent cases filed in the US, on average 4500 to 5500 in the last two year, is way more than any other country in the world. Hence, there is no dearth of patent lawsuits in the US where huge damages were awarded to plaintiffs.
Having that in mind, we thought to compile nine initial damages awarded since 1991. Among these nine, eight touched the $1bn mark. Some among these were settled while pending appeal – CMU vs Marvell, some are still under appeal, and some got remanded or reduced – Alcatel Lucent vs Microsoft, for example.
So let’s have a look why judges awarded big initial damages first and how later a defendant decreased the amount.
As iPhone 11 looms, Apple looks beyond thesmartphone Mc.docxbob8allen25075
As iPhone 11 looms, Apple looks beyond the
smartphone
McGee, Patrick . FT.com ; London (Sep 6, 2019).
ProQuest document link
ABSTRACT (ENGLISH)
“Apple doesn’t appear to have the lock on product innovation or enthusiasm that it used to have,” said Mark
Mahaney, tech analyst at RBC Capital Markets. [...]in smartphones, where Apple earns more than half of its annual
revenues, theiPhoneincreasingly struggles to meet, let alone outmatch, the latest line-up of devices from rivals
Samsung, Huawei and Google, in terms of battery life, recharge time and cameras. [...]while sales data suggest
Apple is losing the battle for smartphone supremacy — last quarter iPhone sales fell 14 per cent to 39m units, even
as Samsung sales rose 4 per cent to 75m units and Huawei sales jumped 16 per cent to 58m, according to Gartner
— other indicators suggest Apple is winning the war. [...]according to Mr Ramanujam, the received wisdom is
wrong. “Because once you have people talking about $17,000, a $400 Apple Watch doesn’t look expensive.”
FULL TEXT
When Apple priced a smartphone above the $1,000 barrier for the first time two years ago, consumers balked.
Analysts worried the iPhone X would flop. USA Today joked that buyers might need to take out a mortgage to
purchase it.
But then the unexpected happened: people bought the device in such numbers thatiPhonerevenues reached a
record $62bn in the holiday quarter, up 13 per cent from the previous year, even as unit sales declined.
The revenue boost proved shortlived, but ahead of Apple’s annual hardware event on September 10, pricing experts
at the consultancy Simon-Kucher &Partners believe consumers are ready for the next milestone: a $2,000 iPhone.
In a new survey of 10,250 people across the US, Simon-Kucher found that 10 per cent of consumers in the market
for a new iPhone were willing to pay $2,000 for a top-range model. A quarter were willing to pay more than $1,800.
“There’s an iPhone for every purse,” said Madhavan Ramanujam, a partner at Simon-Kucher.
The survey, of course, was taken before Apple has actually revealed its new line-up of iPhones. The percentage of
customers willing to splash out the extra cash could be considerably lower if Apple fails to unveil any big
technology improvements that might command such a premium.
Days before the event, analysts say the smartphone looks set to underwhelm. While rivals such as Samsung push
ahead with foldable phones and ultrafast 5G connectivity, it is widely expected Apple will unveil three new iPhones
featuring the same screen sizes as current models but with upgraded processors and Apple’s first triple-lens
camera —exciting, perhaps, but something Huawei has had for nearly two years.
“Apple doesn’t appear to have the lock on product innovation or enthusiasm that it used to have,” said Mark
Mahaney, tech analyst at RBC Capital Markets.
The next breakthrough
In the past, anticipation ahead of Apple’s annual hardwa.
As iPhone 11 looms, Apple looks beyond thesmartphone Mc.docxfestockton
As iPhone 11 looms, Apple looks beyond the
smartphone
McGee, Patrick . FT.com ; London (Sep 6, 2019).
ProQuest document link
ABSTRACT (ENGLISH)
“Apple doesn’t appear to have the lock on product innovation or enthusiasm that it used to have,” said Mark
Mahaney, tech analyst at RBC Capital Markets. [...]in smartphones, where Apple earns more than half of its annual
revenues, theiPhoneincreasingly struggles to meet, let alone outmatch, the latest line-up of devices from rivals
Samsung, Huawei and Google, in terms of battery life, recharge time and cameras. [...]while sales data suggest
Apple is losing the battle for smartphone supremacy — last quarter iPhone sales fell 14 per cent to 39m units, even
as Samsung sales rose 4 per cent to 75m units and Huawei sales jumped 16 per cent to 58m, according to Gartner
— other indicators suggest Apple is winning the war. [...]according to Mr Ramanujam, the received wisdom is
wrong. “Because once you have people talking about $17,000, a $400 Apple Watch doesn’t look expensive.”
FULL TEXT
When Apple priced a smartphone above the $1,000 barrier for the first time two years ago, consumers balked.
Analysts worried the iPhone X would flop. USA Today joked that buyers might need to take out a mortgage to
purchase it.
But then the unexpected happened: people bought the device in such numbers thatiPhonerevenues reached a
record $62bn in the holiday quarter, up 13 per cent from the previous year, even as unit sales declined.
The revenue boost proved shortlived, but ahead of Apple’s annual hardware event on September 10, pricing experts
at the consultancy Simon-Kucher &Partners believe consumers are ready for the next milestone: a $2,000 iPhone.
In a new survey of 10,250 people across the US, Simon-Kucher found that 10 per cent of consumers in the market
for a new iPhone were willing to pay $2,000 for a top-range model. A quarter were willing to pay more than $1,800.
“There’s an iPhone for every purse,” said Madhavan Ramanujam, a partner at Simon-Kucher.
The survey, of course, was taken before Apple has actually revealed its new line-up of iPhones. The percentage of
customers willing to splash out the extra cash could be considerably lower if Apple fails to unveil any big
technology improvements that might command such a premium.
Days before the event, analysts say the smartphone looks set to underwhelm. While rivals such as Samsung push
ahead with foldable phones and ultrafast 5G connectivity, it is widely expected Apple will unveil three new iPhones
featuring the same screen sizes as current models but with upgraded processors and Apple’s first triple-lens
camera —exciting, perhaps, but something Huawei has had for nearly two years.
“Apple doesn’t appear to have the lock on product innovation or enthusiasm that it used to have,” said Mark
Mahaney, tech analyst at RBC Capital Markets.
The next breakthrough
In the past, anticipation ahead of Apple’s annual hardwa ...
1- In the dispute between the FBI and Apple- which side do you support.docxEdwardk3aWallacey
1. In the dispute between the FBI and Apple, which side do you support and why?
2. How would you counter the arguments offered by those on the other side of this debate?
3. Are there any circumstances in which you think the government's right to information
should take precedence over an individual's right to privacy?
4. Should any technology firm be allowed to create a privacy protection system that is so
impenetrable that it could never be overridden, regardless of the government's need for this information?
order. In a strongly wurded lenter to Apple customers posted to the company's website, Cook called the onder "an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our custemers" with "implications far beyond the legal case at hand." In a court filing. Apple claimed. "This isn't a case about one isolated iPhone. No court has ever authorized what the goverament now secks, no law supports such unlimited and swecping use of the judicial proccs. and the Constitution forbids it." The day before the FBI director and Apple's top lawyers were to tevify before Cangress, a federal judge in New York sided with Apple in a related case. Magistrate Jadge James Orenstein rejected the Justice Departmenf's argument that the I8th century All Writs Act gave prosecutors the authority to compel Apple to help investigators bypass the passeodeprotection system on an Apple iPhone seized in a drug investigation. He said the critical issues of 2 Ist century privacy and technology should be decided by soday's lassmakers, rather than by reinterpreting an old law. Around this time, the media reported that an outside party had demonstrated to the FBI a possible method for unlocking Farook's iPhone that, if successful, would climinate the need for assistance from Apple. "This uugeess that the very thing that Apple feared already exists in some form and it exists outside the walls of Cupertino [Apple's home]." said attorney Edward McAndrew: A month later, the FBI announced that it had cracked Farook's iPhone and was dropping its legal cave against Apple. A Justice Depurtment spokesperson said. -While this particular phone is no longer an issue, the broader fight over encryption-protected technology is Fikely to continue. It remains a priority for the government to ensure that law enforcement can obtain cnucial digital information to protect national security and public safety." And the controversy may intensify in the futore. FBt director Comey announced in April 2016 that the secret technique used to unlock Farook's iPhone 5 C , for which the FBI reportedly paid more than $1 million, would not work on newer iPhone models. Two yean laler, Apple announced that it was planning an iFhone update that would effectively disable the phone's charging and data port-the opening where users plug in headphooss. power cables, and adapters - an hour after the phone is locked. This change was seca a direct response to govemment efforts to unlock phones without the owner's permiss.
Chapter Title Patent War Today Apple vs. Samsung Book T.docxspoonerneddy
Chapter Title: Patent War Today: Apple vs. Samsung
Book Title: Examining the Role of Patent Quality in Large-Scale "Patent War" Litigation
Book Subtitle: A Historical Comparison and Proposal for a Restorative U.S. Patent
System
Book Author(s): Wael Zohni
Published by: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctv941rps.9
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
This content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Examining the Role of Patent Quality in Large-Scale "Patent War" Litigation
This content downloaded from
�������������99.51.230.69 on Wed, 27 May 2020 23:33:14 UTC��������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctv941rps.9
Patent War Today: Apple vs. Samsung
Apple’s iPhone 3 disrupted the cell phone market in 2007. It brought a
new touchscreen-driven user interface that made integration of features
and navigating utilities on a mobile communication and computing device
much easier than ever before. The series of Apple vs. Samsung cases be‐
ginning in 2010 represent the start of the “Smartphone Wars.” Although
many companies later became involved in associated litigation, this case
was the central conflict, taking on a scale that stretched over several coun‐
tries and jurisdictions. The narrative on these two companies and their le‐
gal confrontation has been the topic of films and popular periodicals.56
Background
iPhone vs. Galaxy
Top secret efforts on the iPhone began at Apple in 2004. Internal product
teams had proposed the concept of a mobile phone with integrated com‐
puting in prior years, but Apple CEO Steve Jobs had been reluctant to
move ahead due to apprehensions with existing market competition and
dependence on third party cellular service companies. He also had techni‐
cal concerns with achieving adequate internet connectivity on a mobile
handset. A major shift in attitude occurred after Apple design director
Jony Ive produced impressive smartphone mock-up units that showcased
the “multi-touch glass” concept.57 The company then moved ahead with
smarthphone development.
By January 2007 Jobs announced the new iPhone product at the annual
MacWorld show in San Francisco, CA. The cell phone establishment did
not think the iP.
Chapter Title Patent War Today Apple vs. Samsung Book T.docxtiffanyd4
Chapter Title: Patent War Today: Apple vs. Samsung
Book Title: Examining the Role of Patent Quality in Large-Scale "Patent War" Litigation
Book Subtitle: A Historical Comparison and Proposal for a Restorative U.S. Patent
System
Book Author(s): Wael Zohni
Published by: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctv941rps.9
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
This content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Examining the Role of Patent Quality in Large-Scale "Patent War" Litigation
This content downloaded from
�������������99.51.230.69 on Wed, 27 May 2020 23:33:14 UTC��������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctv941rps.9
Patent War Today: Apple vs. Samsung
Apple’s iPhone 3 disrupted the cell phone market in 2007. It brought a
new touchscreen-driven user interface that made integration of features
and navigating utilities on a mobile communication and computing device
much easier than ever before. The series of Apple vs. Samsung cases be‐
ginning in 2010 represent the start of the “Smartphone Wars.” Although
many companies later became involved in associated litigation, this case
was the central conflict, taking on a scale that stretched over several coun‐
tries and jurisdictions. The narrative on these two companies and their le‐
gal confrontation has been the topic of films and popular periodicals.56
Background
iPhone vs. Galaxy
Top secret efforts on the iPhone began at Apple in 2004. Internal product
teams had proposed the concept of a mobile phone with integrated com‐
puting in prior years, but Apple CEO Steve Jobs had been reluctant to
move ahead due to apprehensions with existing market competition and
dependence on third party cellular service companies. He also had techni‐
cal concerns with achieving adequate internet connectivity on a mobile
handset. A major shift in attitude occurred after Apple design director
Jony Ive produced impressive smartphone mock-up units that showcased
the “multi-touch glass” concept.57 The company then moved ahead with
smarthphone development.
By January 2007 Jobs announced the new iPhone product at the annual
MacWorld show in San Francisco, CA. The cell phone establishment did
not think the iP.
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this Issue:
Smartphone War Update: Some of Apple’s Patents Survive Invalidity Challenge
• Sale by Foreign Supplier Invalidated Patent
• District Court Abused Discretion in Refusing to Keep Confidential Documents Secret
9 Block Buster Initial Patent Damages Awards In The USGreyB
The number of patent cases filed in the US, on average 4500 to 5500 in the last two year, is way more than any other country in the world. Hence, there is no dearth of patent lawsuits in the US where huge damages were awarded to plaintiffs.
Having that in mind, we thought to compile nine initial damages awarded since 1991. Among these nine, eight touched the $1bn mark. Some among these were settled while pending appeal – CMU vs Marvell, some are still under appeal, and some got remanded or reduced – Alcatel Lucent vs Microsoft, for example.
So let’s have a look why judges awarded big initial damages first and how later a defendant decreased the amount.
As iPhone 11 looms, Apple looks beyond thesmartphone Mc.docxbob8allen25075
As iPhone 11 looms, Apple looks beyond the
smartphone
McGee, Patrick . FT.com ; London (Sep 6, 2019).
ProQuest document link
ABSTRACT (ENGLISH)
“Apple doesn’t appear to have the lock on product innovation or enthusiasm that it used to have,” said Mark
Mahaney, tech analyst at RBC Capital Markets. [...]in smartphones, where Apple earns more than half of its annual
revenues, theiPhoneincreasingly struggles to meet, let alone outmatch, the latest line-up of devices from rivals
Samsung, Huawei and Google, in terms of battery life, recharge time and cameras. [...]while sales data suggest
Apple is losing the battle for smartphone supremacy — last quarter iPhone sales fell 14 per cent to 39m units, even
as Samsung sales rose 4 per cent to 75m units and Huawei sales jumped 16 per cent to 58m, according to Gartner
— other indicators suggest Apple is winning the war. [...]according to Mr Ramanujam, the received wisdom is
wrong. “Because once you have people talking about $17,000, a $400 Apple Watch doesn’t look expensive.”
FULL TEXT
When Apple priced a smartphone above the $1,000 barrier for the first time two years ago, consumers balked.
Analysts worried the iPhone X would flop. USA Today joked that buyers might need to take out a mortgage to
purchase it.
But then the unexpected happened: people bought the device in such numbers thatiPhonerevenues reached a
record $62bn in the holiday quarter, up 13 per cent from the previous year, even as unit sales declined.
The revenue boost proved shortlived, but ahead of Apple’s annual hardware event on September 10, pricing experts
at the consultancy Simon-Kucher &Partners believe consumers are ready for the next milestone: a $2,000 iPhone.
In a new survey of 10,250 people across the US, Simon-Kucher found that 10 per cent of consumers in the market
for a new iPhone were willing to pay $2,000 for a top-range model. A quarter were willing to pay more than $1,800.
“There’s an iPhone for every purse,” said Madhavan Ramanujam, a partner at Simon-Kucher.
The survey, of course, was taken before Apple has actually revealed its new line-up of iPhones. The percentage of
customers willing to splash out the extra cash could be considerably lower if Apple fails to unveil any big
technology improvements that might command such a premium.
Days before the event, analysts say the smartphone looks set to underwhelm. While rivals such as Samsung push
ahead with foldable phones and ultrafast 5G connectivity, it is widely expected Apple will unveil three new iPhones
featuring the same screen sizes as current models but with upgraded processors and Apple’s first triple-lens
camera —exciting, perhaps, but something Huawei has had for nearly two years.
“Apple doesn’t appear to have the lock on product innovation or enthusiasm that it used to have,” said Mark
Mahaney, tech analyst at RBC Capital Markets.
The next breakthrough
In the past, anticipation ahead of Apple’s annual hardwa.
As iPhone 11 looms, Apple looks beyond thesmartphone Mc.docxfestockton
As iPhone 11 looms, Apple looks beyond the
smartphone
McGee, Patrick . FT.com ; London (Sep 6, 2019).
ProQuest document link
ABSTRACT (ENGLISH)
“Apple doesn’t appear to have the lock on product innovation or enthusiasm that it used to have,” said Mark
Mahaney, tech analyst at RBC Capital Markets. [...]in smartphones, where Apple earns more than half of its annual
revenues, theiPhoneincreasingly struggles to meet, let alone outmatch, the latest line-up of devices from rivals
Samsung, Huawei and Google, in terms of battery life, recharge time and cameras. [...]while sales data suggest
Apple is losing the battle for smartphone supremacy — last quarter iPhone sales fell 14 per cent to 39m units, even
as Samsung sales rose 4 per cent to 75m units and Huawei sales jumped 16 per cent to 58m, according to Gartner
— other indicators suggest Apple is winning the war. [...]according to Mr Ramanujam, the received wisdom is
wrong. “Because once you have people talking about $17,000, a $400 Apple Watch doesn’t look expensive.”
FULL TEXT
When Apple priced a smartphone above the $1,000 barrier for the first time two years ago, consumers balked.
Analysts worried the iPhone X would flop. USA Today joked that buyers might need to take out a mortgage to
purchase it.
But then the unexpected happened: people bought the device in such numbers thatiPhonerevenues reached a
record $62bn in the holiday quarter, up 13 per cent from the previous year, even as unit sales declined.
The revenue boost proved shortlived, but ahead of Apple’s annual hardware event on September 10, pricing experts
at the consultancy Simon-Kucher &Partners believe consumers are ready for the next milestone: a $2,000 iPhone.
In a new survey of 10,250 people across the US, Simon-Kucher found that 10 per cent of consumers in the market
for a new iPhone were willing to pay $2,000 for a top-range model. A quarter were willing to pay more than $1,800.
“There’s an iPhone for every purse,” said Madhavan Ramanujam, a partner at Simon-Kucher.
The survey, of course, was taken before Apple has actually revealed its new line-up of iPhones. The percentage of
customers willing to splash out the extra cash could be considerably lower if Apple fails to unveil any big
technology improvements that might command such a premium.
Days before the event, analysts say the smartphone looks set to underwhelm. While rivals such as Samsung push
ahead with foldable phones and ultrafast 5G connectivity, it is widely expected Apple will unveil three new iPhones
featuring the same screen sizes as current models but with upgraded processors and Apple’s first triple-lens
camera —exciting, perhaps, but something Huawei has had for nearly two years.
“Apple doesn’t appear to have the lock on product innovation or enthusiasm that it used to have,” said Mark
Mahaney, tech analyst at RBC Capital Markets.
The next breakthrough
In the past, anticipation ahead of Apple’s annual hardwa ...
Dawn Ellmore examines Disney’s legal action against costume companyDawn Ellmore
It’s common to see actors dressed as well-known characters from films and cartoons hired for childrens’ parties. One company’s character offerings are not going down well with Disney and its subsidiaries, however.
Changes to eu trade mark law coming soonDawn Ellmore
Trade mark legislation from the EU has changed over the last few years in many ways, and is set to change again from 1 October. Designed to complement those made in March 2016, the new amendments will involve various additions and removals regarding trade mark ownership.
Dawn Ellmore: The difficulty of 3 d trade marksDawn Ellmore
An excellent example of the inherent difficulty in trade marking a shape can be seen with Nestle’s ongoing battle against Cadbury for its four-finger bar.
Their bid has been going since 2010 and in May 2017 was thrown out by the court of appeal, a blow to the company that has been fighting for its product shape for so long. LEGO is another well-known brand that has so far been unable to trade mark its iconic brick shape. So, why is it so difficult?
Generating a custom Ruby SDK for your web service or Rails API using Smithyg2nightmarescribd
Have you ever wanted a Ruby client API to communicate with your web service? Smithy is a protocol-agnostic language for defining services and SDKs. Smithy Ruby is an implementation of Smithy that generates a Ruby SDK using a Smithy model. In this talk, we will explore Smithy and Smithy Ruby to learn how to generate custom feature-rich SDKs that can communicate with any web service, such as a Rails JSON API.
The Art of the Pitch: WordPress Relationships and SalesLaura Byrne
Clients don’t know what they don’t know. What web solutions are right for them? How does WordPress come into the picture? How do you make sure you understand scope and timeline? What do you do if sometime changes?
All these questions and more will be explored as we talk about matching clients’ needs with what your agency offers without pulling teeth or pulling your hair out. Practical tips, and strategies for successful relationship building that leads to closing the deal.
GraphRAG is All You need? LLM & Knowledge GraphGuy Korland
Guy Korland, CEO and Co-founder of FalkorDB, will review two articles on the integration of language models with knowledge graphs.
1. Unifying Large Language Models and Knowledge Graphs: A Roadmap.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.08302
2. Microsoft Research's GraphRAG paper and a review paper on various uses of knowledge graphs:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/blog/graphrag-unlocking-llm-discovery-on-narrative-private-data/
Kubernetes & AI - Beauty and the Beast !?! @KCD Istanbul 2024Tobias Schneck
As AI technology is pushing into IT I was wondering myself, as an “infrastructure container kubernetes guy”, how get this fancy AI technology get managed from an infrastructure operational view? Is it possible to apply our lovely cloud native principals as well? What benefit’s both technologies could bring to each other?
Let me take this questions and provide you a short journey through existing deployment models and use cases for AI software. On practical examples, we discuss what cloud/on-premise strategy we may need for applying it to our own infrastructure to get it to work from an enterprise perspective. I want to give an overview about infrastructure requirements and technologies, what could be beneficial or limiting your AI use cases in an enterprise environment. An interactive Demo will give you some insides, what approaches I got already working for real.
Elevating Tactical DDD Patterns Through Object CalisthenicsDorra BARTAGUIZ
After immersing yourself in the blue book and its red counterpart, attending DDD-focused conferences, and applying tactical patterns, you're left with a crucial question: How do I ensure my design is effective? Tactical patterns within Domain-Driven Design (DDD) serve as guiding principles for creating clear and manageable domain models. However, achieving success with these patterns requires additional guidance. Interestingly, we've observed that a set of constraints initially designed for training purposes remarkably aligns with effective pattern implementation, offering a more ‘mechanical’ approach. Let's explore together how Object Calisthenics can elevate the design of your tactical DDD patterns, offering concrete help for those venturing into DDD for the first time!
Smart TV Buyer Insights Survey 2024 by 91mobiles.pdf91mobiles
91mobiles recently conducted a Smart TV Buyer Insights Survey in which we asked over 3,000 respondents about the TV they own, aspects they look at on a new TV, and their TV buying preferences.
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 3DianaGray10
Welcome to UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series part 3. In this session, we will cover desktop automation along with UI automation.
Topics covered:
UI automation Introduction,
UI automation Sample
Desktop automation flow
Pradeep Chinnala, Senior Consultant Automation Developer @WonderBotz and UiPath MVP
Deepak Rai, Automation Practice Lead, Boundaryless Group and UiPath MVP
Securing your Kubernetes cluster_ a step-by-step guide to success !KatiaHIMEUR1
Today, after several years of existence, an extremely active community and an ultra-dynamic ecosystem, Kubernetes has established itself as the de facto standard in container orchestration. Thanks to a wide range of managed services, it has never been so easy to set up a ready-to-use Kubernetes cluster.
However, this ease of use means that the subject of security in Kubernetes is often left for later, or even neglected. This exposes companies to significant risks.
In this talk, I'll show you step-by-step how to secure your Kubernetes cluster for greater peace of mind and reliability.
State of ICS and IoT Cyber Threat Landscape Report 2024 previewPrayukth K V
The IoT and OT threat landscape report has been prepared by the Threat Research Team at Sectrio using data from Sectrio, cyber threat intelligence farming facilities spread across over 85 cities around the world. In addition, Sectrio also runs AI-based advanced threat and payload engagement facilities that serve as sinks to attract and engage sophisticated threat actors, and newer malware including new variants and latent threats that are at an earlier stage of development.
The latest edition of the OT/ICS and IoT security Threat Landscape Report 2024 also covers:
State of global ICS asset and network exposure
Sectoral targets and attacks as well as the cost of ransom
Global APT activity, AI usage, actor and tactic profiles, and implications
Rise in volumes of AI-powered cyberattacks
Major cyber events in 2024
Malware and malicious payload trends
Cyberattack types and targets
Vulnerability exploit attempts on CVEs
Attacks on counties – USA
Expansion of bot farms – how, where, and why
In-depth analysis of the cyber threat landscape across North America, South America, Europe, APAC, and the Middle East
Why are attacks on smart factories rising?
Cyber risk predictions
Axis of attacks – Europe
Systemic attacks in the Middle East
Download the full report from here:
https://sectrio.com/resources/ot-threat-landscape-reports/sectrio-releases-ot-ics-and-iot-security-threat-landscape-report-2024/
DevOps and Testing slides at DASA ConnectKari Kakkonen
My and Rik Marselis slides at 30.5.2024 DASA Connect conference. We discuss about what is testing, then what is agile testing and finally what is Testing in DevOps. Finally we had lovely workshop with the participants trying to find out different ways to think about quality and testing in different parts of the DevOps infinity loop.
Dawn Ellmore Employment looks at the truce between Apple and Qualcomm | Dawn Ellmore Employment
1. The battle between Apple and Qualcomm
Editorial credit: Songquan Deng / Shutterstock.com
To a chorus of general surprise from the industry, Apple and Qualcomm have
ceased all litigation against each other. Since 2017, the two tech giants have been
taking each other to court all around the world.
Cases in Germany and China have already ruled in the chip-maker’s favour, but in
others, Apple came out top. So, why have the two companies abruptly ended the
fight?
A tale of two tech companies
The federal court date of the latest legal battle was set for 15 April 2019. Just before
it began, Apple and Qualcomm announced their surprise reconciliation. All legal
action stopped on the same day, including that of Apple’s manufacturing partners.
And while there is no clear-cut reason given for the ceasefire, it likely has something
to do with both companies not wanting to have their inner workings discussed in
federal court.
Despite Apple repeatedly hinting that no such deal would happen, saying that the
two companies hadn’t spoken in months, the declaration of peace has taken the
industry by surprise.
Basis for federal court case
This patent dispute was about Apple coming down on Qualcomm for charging too
much for their patent royalties. Apple alleged that Qualcomm was charging them
twice, once when they licensed the patent portfolio, and again when they bought
cellular chipsets.
2. Qualcomm disputed this, and in a move that could have cost them billions, stood by
its licensing strategy. If the case had run its course and the judge found Qualcomm
guilty of Apple’s assertions, the chipmaker could have been on the line for up to £27
billion in damages, according to CNN.
For its part, Qualcomm demanded more than $7 billion from Apple in what it claimed
was unpaid royalties. The case was set for a San Diego federal court and was
scheduled to last up to six weeks.
On the same day as the court case was due to start, another of Apple’s chip
providers dropped its own bombshell. Intel had been developing 5G ready chips for
the next generation of smartphones but announced that they are dropping the
development. This means Apple really needs Qualcomm as a partner.
History of Apple V Qualcomm
In January 2017, Apple accused Qualcomm of charging excessive royalties, and
sued them for around $1 billion. A year later, Qualcomm was ordered to pay a fine to
Apple by the European Commission, which said the chip manufacturer had flouted
EU regulations in paying Apple to stop the company from using other chip
manufacturers.
Subsequently, both parties sued each other for various patent issues, and profit
problems. Qualcomm even demanded that a judge in America should ban the sale of
iPhones.
By summer 2018, Qualcomm vetoed Apple using its chips in the next generation of
phones. And in March 2019, a US trade judge called for some iPhones being
imported into the US to be banned as Apple had violated a patent owned by
Qualcomm.
What does the cessation of hostilities mean?
The deal between Apple and Qualcomm is backdated to 1 April. There is a new long-
term agreement for Qualcomm to supply Apple with chips, and Apple has agreed to
pay an unspecified amount, and the deal also includes an extension option.
It is more of a win for Qualcomm than Apple, given that the former company’s very
business model has been under attack from various parties around the world. Taking
the risk was worth it, as Qualcomm’s share price jumped by 23% when the
announcement was made.
Whether it will affect consumers in terms of smartphone prices is less clear, although
Qualcomm promises to shed light on this when financial results are released on 1
May. Either way, it’s all taken the industry by surprise, given Apple’s track record for
taking IP battles to court.
About Dawn Ellmore Employment
Dawn Ellmore Employment was incorporated in 1995 and is a market leader in
intellectual property and legal recruitment.