There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Everyday3671 ,

This is the second times Apple got caught red-handed for stealing, and there is no doubt there were many more cases where they got away with it.

mannycalavera ,
@mannycalavera@feddit.uk avatar

It’s fine if Apple steals though. However if a Chinese company does this, then woah woah woah hol’ up!

Everyday3671 ,

Yeah, true… But, this case is not the best example of that, since Apple is getting punished quite serversly here. And, the fact they there was any punishment / lawsuit at all make the US looks like the fairer place to be. The Chinese big brothers would just swept it under rugs in favour of the bigger company from the get go.

pulaskiwasright ,

It is worse if a foreign company steals. It siphons money off of our economy worse than when an American company does it. It’s bad either way though and I’m glad something is being done about it in this case.

gravitas_deficiency ,

I’m sure I’ll get shit for this, but there’s a HUGE difference between patent infringement and outright reverse engineering of existing products. Apple appears to have done the former. Tons of companies in China do the latter as more or less an official policy.

runswithjedi ,

deleted_by_author

    •
    Everyday3671 ,

    Quacomm 5G modem

    autotldr Bot ,

    This is the best summary I could come up with:

    Apple has filed an appeal to the International Trade Commission’s decision to ban U.S. sales of Watch Series 9 and Watch Ultra 2 models, court records show.

    Apple did not immediately respond to The Verge’s request for comment.

    The models, which Apple says are their most popular, were banned after the ITC found that Apple infringed on blood oxygen saturation technology patented by health tech firm Masimo.

    In today’s filing, Apple’s attorneys claimed the $3 trillion company “will suffer irreparable harm” if the models remain off the shelves during legal proceedings.

    According to the filing, the Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch of U.S. Customs and Border Protection is scheduled to make a decision on redesigned versions of the Watch models on January 13, 2023.

    “At a minimum, the Court should grant a stay long enough for Customs to make this decision,” the company said.

    The original article contains 214 words, the summary contains 141 words. Saved 34%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    SuckMyWang ,

    Interesting how the company can say what the courts should be doing. I’m going to try it the next time I’m in court for driving with no pants on

    meyotch ,

    You should point out the judge is wearing a big dress, thereby establishing precedent that pants are optional.

    RainfallSonata ,

    Interesting how the company can say what the courts should be doing.

    I mean, that is how court works. Then the court decides if it agrees.

    SendMePhotos ,

    Is that illegal to drive with no pants on? Asking for a friend.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •