Google Maps now available for Apple

iFans rejoice! For now you don't have to rely on some life threatening maps apps!!

Google has finally launched Google Maps for iPhone (click here), saving you the need to rely on the increasingly embarrassing Apple Maps.

With a proven track record, it is hoped that nobody dies in Australia due to reliance on Apple Maps.

Apple, don't you think its time for your maps to move over?

Australian Police: Apple Maps is life-threatening

Apple Maps is so bad that Australian Police thinks that it is life-threatening, reports BBC.

Why?

Because, Apple Maps may lead you to a place with searing heat with no water supply nearby.

According to Australian force, if you look for Mildura, Apple Maps will bring you to the middle of Murray Sunset National Park some 70 km away where the heat can rise up to 46 degree Celcius with no water supply in the park.

In that circumstance, stranded there might be potentially life-threatening.

The biggest question now is this - when will Apple swallows its pride and bite the bullet to drop Apple Maps? 

iPhone 5 coming to Malaysia on 14th December 2012

The wait is finally over. iFans all over Malaysia can finally stop salivating and start throwing their money for the latest toy from Apple!

It has been announced by Apple that iPhone 5 will land on Malaysia on 14th December 2012.

And telcos in Malaysia wasted no time in allowing iFans to register their interest to be the very first to lay their dainty hands on iPhone 5. At press time, you may register your interest with Celcom or Maxis.

With Celcom, you may choose the color of your choice, as long as they are Black or White. Over at Maxis, you may even choose between 16GB, 32GB or 64Gb.

There is no registration of interest available from DiGi or U Mobile yet. DiGi merely has a "iPhone 5 coming soon" notice on their webpage.

However, this blogger is pretty sure that they will announce their own registration of interest or even offer their plans pretty soon.

If you are not a fan of getting tied down by any telco, you would just have to wait for iPhone 5 to land at Apple Store near you.

UPDATE 7.12.2012: You can now pre-order your iPhone 5 from DiGi here.  

HTC, Apple enters into settlement

We might be looking at the beginning of an end to Apple's courtroom intellectual properties war against some major Android makers.

It was recently announced that Apple and HTC have reached "a global settlement that includes the dismissal of all current lawsuits and a ten-year licensing agreement".

The terms of the licensing agreement have not been made known (yet).

This bodes well for HTC who should be focusing on getting its feet back on the ground and not on courtroom battle.

But what all techies and consumers would want to see is an end to courtroom battles and back to showroom battle where everyone benefits from endless innovation and combining the best of all worlds.

Could this be the end of an era and the beginning of another?

Apple ordered by UK court to pay Samsung's legal fees

In making its disapproval of Apple's conduct clear, the UK court ordered Apple to pay all Samsung's legal fees. The UK court held that:

"As to the costs (lawyers' fees) to be awarded against Apple, we concluded that they should be on an indemnity basis. Such a basis (which is higher than the normal, "standard" basis) can be awarded as a mark of the court's disapproval of a party's conduct, particularly in relation to its respect for an order of the court. Apple's conduct warranted such an order."

 The UK court based its decision on two main points.

1) Non-compliance with the court's order in relation to publicity in magazines and newspapers

The UK court ordered Apple to post a "Samsung did not copy" notice on some specified newspapers, magazine and its own website. The order required the notice to be published on newspaper and magazines "at the earliest available issue".

This order was made on 18.10.2012 but the notice was only published on newspaper on 16.11.2012.

This, the court held, "was self-evident non-compliance with the newspaper/magazine aspect of the publicity order".

2) Website

This part is so well publicized that it is easy to guess why the judges in UK were not impressed. Mr justice Sir Robin Jacob make it so clear and simple that I can do no better than to quote his judgement:

   "22.  Here what Apple added was false and misleading. I turn to analyse it. The first sentence reads:

However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design.

That is false in the following ways:

(a) "Regarding the same patent." No patent of any kind has been involved in Germany or here, still less "the same patent."

(b) As regards the Community Registered Design, the German Courts held that neither the Galaxy 10.1 nor the 8.9 infringed it. As to the 7.7 there was for a short while a German provisional order holding that it infringed. Whether there was a jurisdiction to make that order is very doubtful for the reasons given in my earlier judgment but in any event the order had been (or should have been) discharged by the time the Contested Notice was published.

(c) There is a finding and injunction, limited to Germany alone, that the 10.1 and 8.9 infringe German unfair competition law. But the statement is likely to be read as of more general application.


1. The second sentence reads:



A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc.

That is misleading by omission. For the US jury specifically rejected Apple's claim that the US design patent corresponding to the Community Design in issue here was infringed. The average reader would think that the UK decision was at odds with that in the US. Far from that being so, it was in accordance with it.


2. The third sentence reads:



So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung wilfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.

This is calculated to produce huge confusion. The false innuendo is that the UK court came to a different conclusion about copying, which is not true for the UK court did not form any view about copying. There is a further false innuendo that the UK court's decision is at odds with decisions in other countries whereas that is simply not true.


3. The reality is that wherever Apple has sued on this registered design or its counterpart, it has ultimately failed. It may or may not have other intellectual property rights which are infringed. Indeed the same may be true the other way round for in some countries Samsung are suing Apple. But none of that has got anything to do with the registered design asserted by Apple in Europe. Apple's additions to the ordered notice clearly muddied the water and the message obviously intended to be conveyed by it."

The full judgement can be found here.

What do you think? 

Apple posted another "Samsung did not Copy" statement

After being ordered by the UK court to replace its initial statement, Apple has posted another statement to acknowledge that the UK found that Sammy's Galaxy Tab did not copy its iPad.

No hanky panky, just two paragraphs stating that the Galaxy Tab did not copy iPad and that the ruling has effect throughout the European Union.

And to Apple's credit, it did acknowledge that the previous statement is inaccurate. The link to the statement is also more prominently displayed compared to its first statement on Apple UK's website:

So prominent the link you no longer need a little red circle to find it. 

   

Apple ordered to replace "Samsung did not Copy" notice

UPDATE:  Apple has posted another notice to comply with the court's order.

You would recall the "innovative" notice that Apple came out with when ordered by the UK court to post a notice stating that Samsung's Galaxy Tab did not copy its iPad.

Samsung was not amused. Neither did the judges in the UK court. And they made that clear by ordering Apple to remove the "inaccurate" notice and replace it with a new one, reported BBC.

Apple has 48 hours to come out with an accurate notice.

As at the time of this post being written, the "inaccurate" notice has been taken down. No new notice posted yet.

Let's see what Apple will come out with next.

Samsung did not copy me - Apple style

UPDATE: The UK court directed Apple to replace the notice with another one. Apple has since done so.

Apple is bringing innovation to the next level.

As required by a UK judge, Apple posted a notice on its website stating that Samsung's tablets did not copy their iPad.

No one would want to do that, but when you are forced to, you must make the most out of it by being ultra innovative.

First of all, this is a screenshot of Apple's UK website where you can find their notice:

Maybe a close-up:

As you can see, the link read "Samsung/Apple UK judgement". It was not "Sammy did not copy Apple".

The innovation did not stop here. 

In the actual notice itself, Apple acknowledged that a UK court has found that Samsung's tablet did not infringe Apple's design. As expected, it went on to highlight that the UK has found that Apple's design was cool but Samsung's was not as cool.

Apple then decided to deliver its sucker punch. The last paragraph of the notice read:

"However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad."

Yes, while UK court found that Samsung's tablet did not copy Apple's iPad, other courts had found that Samsung, to borrow the word used by Apple, willfully copied Apple's iPad. And the iPad was more popular.

Apple deserves a meme for their innovative notice, and I duly obliged.