Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. has dropped one of its patent infringement lawsuits against tech giants Apple, Bloomberg reported this weekend.
The company says it has done so in an effort to “streamline” legal proceedings and not because it’s giving up on its long-running fight against Apple.
Apple and Samsung have now been waging war against each other over the makeup of their products for more than three months, with each claiming the other has stolen their original ideas.
There are law suits underway in a least five countries, including South Korea, Japan, Germany and the UK. The withdrawal of the California suit will not affect the remaining US cases or litigation in other countries, according to Bloomberg.
In response to accusations from Apple that it had copied the designs of its iPhone and iPad, Samsung claimed Apple had abused its intellectual property rights first.
The background
In April, Apple sued Samsung, claiming that the South Korea-based had built products too similar in design to the Apple iPhone and iPad. At the time, Steve Jobs’ firm said Samsung had used the “trade dress” of its smartphone and tablet in its Galaxy line.
Samsung countersued that same month, saying Apple infringed on 10 of its patents.
In a separate court case last month, a US judge rejected Samsung’s request to see Apple’s fifth generation iPhone and third version of the iPad.
In statements to the Wall Street Journal last night, spokespeople for both companies touted the need to protect their intellectual property.
The battle is an interesting one as Jobs had previously dismissed the Galaxy line of products, giving the impression that he did not believe them to be a threat to the popular iPhone or iPad.
However, it’s a tricky situation because in some ways both companies need each other as Apple is one of Samsung’s biggest clients. It relies on it for component supplies such as chips and LCD displays.
Yesterday, Samsung said that it had sold 3 million of its Galaxy SII devices, confirming its number 2 position in the smartphone market.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
A nervous prospective father was sent to the pub next door by the midwife and told to ring for updates. He rang after a few pints but there was no news. Even more nervous, he started on whiskey. Now half scattered, he rang, but in his haste put in the wrong number and got the local cricket club. He asked if there was any news? The person on the end replied, ‘all ten out and the last one was a duck’.
Spot on. Current parental leave is very bias towards the mother. There should be a mechanism by which the mother can assign her maternity leave to the father if that’s what parents decide is best. We can’t be feminists if we don’t believe in equality for men too.
@Alison O’ Connor: 100% agree with this. Should be the ability to split this equally. When I asked on mat leave if it was possible for my husband to take the last few weeks (as I needed to go back to work) I was told there was only one circumstance where mat leave can transfer… the mother needs to be dead.
@Jane Bresnan: omg that is the height of ridiculousness. And what about cases of two dads that adopt? Are neither entitled to maternity benefit? Very arcane and unfair
@Alison O’ Connor: they’re entitled to the same adoptive leave as a male/female couple, or a female/female couple. There’s no actual unfairness there. Doesn’t mean that other things aren’t still unfair though.
@Alison O’ Connor: parental leave is the same for all. You are confusing maternity n paternity leave with parental leave. As for maternity leave being better than paternity leave last time I checked only women can give birth, breastfeed etc and their bodies also need to recover. It’s not biased it’s based on facts of nature but I don agree that if a woman decides to go back to work she should be able to allow her partner to take the rest of her leave.
@Kate Ní Bhriain MhicAodha: are you crazy? All facts & laws of nature have been suspended forthwith in the name of equality.
Mothers and fathers have what eight months notice of a baby coming… Loads of time to set a few bob aside and take as much leave as you can. That’s how I funded my unpaid leave in advance.
@Sinead Mooney: not everyone can afford to save any money let alone save enough to pay the bills for a few weeks while on leave.
@Sinead Mooney: the main issue is the cut to €245 pw. If the mother is only getting that for 6 months it can represent a significant reduction in monthly wages for a family. Having the other income in the family reduced to €245 pw can just be too much to take. Unpaid leave is just not an option for most. The cost of living us v high here and whereas it may be possible to save to get by on the reduced income for 6 months it is v v tough to save for anything outside of that.
@Anto Curran: but then you’re getting into the question of having kids you can’t afford. I’d love more but not an option financially.
@Michael Connick: if you can’t afford to save for a baby, then how do you expect to pay for the baby? If you can’t afford one, don’t have one. Don’t expect the state to pick up the tab for any of ye.
@Michael Connick: if you can’t afford to save, how can you afford a baby?
@Sirius: ridiculous statement. The issue isn’t that he can’t afford a baby, it’s that he can’t sustain a house and family with a newborn child on €245 a week. Hence the reason that he returns to work – to provide for his family. I pay a grand a month in tax. If I do that for 5 years, shouldn’t I be entitled to more than €245 a week to allow me to be able to afford to spend more precious time with my newborn child? I think my contributions down the years should entitle me to that
@Alan Roddy: Well said
€245 would not go far in the pub each week
@brian reid: these new rules only suit people who are paid by the government. They will receive their full wages while the rest of us have no choice but to keep working.
@Humphrey Harold Haddington: it’s a civil service vote catcher nothing else !
@brian reid: When my son was born I knew I would be taking a couple of weeks off using paternity leave so I prepared by putting a few quid to one side. It’s not that difficult to plan ahead, especially for only 2 weeks.
@brian reid: it did if you were on fosters hahaha
Regina Doherty is 100% right. This is a BS excuse. Take a man earning a grand a week. After the paternity payment there is a €750 shortfall. €1,500 for two weeks.
Stop the €30 a week on takeaways (according to cso it’s what the average couple spends) and you have you’re €1,500.
Or drop the sky subscription.,
Watch what people spend their money on and you’ll understand their real priorities
@Paul Lanigan: actually I found I saved a fortune after my first child with lifestyle changes – no weekly cinema, no meals out, no weekends away. And babies are very low cost until childcare kicks in – which ironically if you’re not working is free but if you’re working is a second mortgage.
@Paul Lanigan: also I think the point is that dad’s want to take more than two weeks and regardless of saving it can be a step too far for parents already struggling with high rents or mortgage payments. We had our kids before any paternity leave was allowed and my hubby saved his holidays. When it comes to a choice between extra unpaid maternity and or paternity leave, we would have chose maternity.
@Paul Lanigan: LOL your maths work for a man earning a grand a week AFTER tax which would mean they are on 75k+ which is serious minority of people so your argument is pointless, not to mention your ignoring all the other massive costs of living that average families are haveing to meet, like the average mortgage of 1000 per month or if its their 2nd child the insane price of childcare again close to 1000 per month, but yeah your totally right its the weekly takeaway thats the problem……
@Ian McNally: it’s ok though if you don’t spend €30 (€15 as a couple is two) a week on a takeaway then you’ll make up a €750 a week shortfall ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@Paul Lanigan: So with your advice Paul I would save about €40 per week. That really helps with the €750 per week drop you mentioned. Not to mention the mother has also just taken the same drop in wages. With your logic we went from 2000 a week to less 500 but who knew all we needed to do was stop the weekly takeout and don’t even think about having sky TV for entertainment. Thanks I’ll be able to take all the paternity I want with all that extra cash lying around.
@Paul Lanigan:
Whatever about the takeaways giving up on the sky is not on … No cartoon Network for babysitting.
@Paul Lanigan: 1500 is most people’s rent.
@Paul Lanigan: you lost me at “you’re”. And you barely had me in the first place
@Motherofthree: Why do people not working need childcare?
@Teresa Ryan: cause they’re not working
@Motherofthree: then you die.
When my children started arriving I felt I had to work harder to provide for them ,the last thing I was thinking of was myself .I would be a bad father by to days standard
Gay men are currently the most oppressed when it comes to having children. Paid surrogacy is still illegal in Ireland. A generous female friend may volunteer to carry their child without official payment but current laws mean that the female would still be considered the child’s most “legal” parent. One of the two men would obviously be the biological father of that child (through sperm donation) but if he dies then the “non-biological” father would have little to no rights over the child and the female carrier would most likely be considered guardian of the child. In terms of the parenteral leave, both men would only be entitled to 3 weeks with their newborn baby, which is ridiculous to think that after 3 weeks a child would need child care. Ireland needs to stop living by outdated laws
@John Fitzpatrick: omg this is actually horrifying. For sure this is discrimination on the grounds of gender AND sexuality which is totally illegal under European human rights law. The problem being, of course, that someone has to front the money to take the government to court and force a change in law. Sure who among us ordinary joes can afford to pay for that.
@Alison O’ Connor: Completely true, these are laws that just don’t fit with the “perceived” views of modern society. Still a long way from equality and, unfortunately, a large portion of society still have a “not my circus, not my monkeys” attitude towards issues that don’t affect them personally
@Damo.f: Nobody said you could. But your right to be able to create a loving family shouldn’t be hindered just because you were born attracted to the same sex and can’t do anything about it. You are the prime example of homophobia and “not my circus, not my monkeys” attitude
@John Fitzpatrick: why should the non biological parent have any rights? That’s just ridiculous when that child has none of your blood running through their veins. Adopt the child if you want to be its legal guardian. Poor child.
@Clarissa: because the non-biological parent has been the child’s parent for however many years. Being a parent is much more than biological relationship. As long as their parents are people who love them, then the child doesn’t care, studies have shown. It’s people like you who have a problem with it and want to project that on to children
@John Fitzpatrick: You may not like it John but the woman who carries a child to birth is the mother. that baby is already creating a bond with that woman for 9 months and at all possible should not be taken away from its mother. In no system should that woman not have legal rights to be the guardian of that child. Thankfully we do not have children being sold like commodities in this country. It is biology that discriminated against how the 2 sexes were to reproduce not some anti gay agenda you want to stir up. I agree there is far more to parenting than biology and if two gay men adopt and care for a child I have no doubt they can do just as good a job as any other adoptive parents. The child should however always retain legals rights of access to the biological parent.
@LD: I never said the woman shouldn’t have legal rights. But by current law, if a woman carries a baby for two men in order to allow those two men to have a loving family of their own, and with no desire to raise the child herself, then she shouldn’t be OBLIGED whether she likes it or not to be the next in line guardian. Biology has nothing to do with parenthood. Millions of children are adopted, or grow up without a mother and father, and they’re just as happy, loved and healthy as a child raised by a biological mother and father. By your ideology, any child who is raised without a biological mother is somehow at a disadvantage, which, as we’ve seen from adopted children and children raised by single fathers.
@LD: that just isn’t the case at all
@John Fitzpatrick: I do believe that the bond between a mother and her baby is absolutely unique. To minimise this to an irrelevance is both ignorant and misogyny. However it does not mean that children cannot prosper and have a decent life in the absense of this relationship but it is not replicable with anybody else no matter how caring they are.
@LD: this has nothing to do with misogyny. I’m not minimising the fact that mothers have a strong bond with their children. I’m saying that alternative families shouldn’t be hindered by this view. If two people can love and care for a child with all of their heart then they should be just as entitled to start their own family. My point is that at present, laws make this much more difficult for gay couples
@John Fitzpatrick: conception and birth is a process of nature between a male and a female not some social construct that can be debated. Therefore, it is nature that will determine one’s right to a child not a law. We sadly though live in a culture where we are told we can have anything we want, but I do not believe in legal mandates that turn children into paid for accessories which in my opinion is what paid surrogacy does. There are already children in this world that through no fault of their own are in need of adoption. If you can’t naturally conceive then this is to my mind the most moral avenue that a couple can take. This includes couples from any sexual orientations. You will probably see my views as archaic but maybe somethings are just not meant to be altered.
@LD: agree to disagree
@John Fitzpatrick: agreed John
@John Fitzpatrick: never knew gay men had kids!
So the governments answer to “supporting” families is to provide a few extra weeks paternity leave to Dad’s ?? Unpaid.
We are going backwards.
Government policy is to have both parents working full time paying tax.
Cost of childcare, buying a house or renting a basic 3 bedroom semi is so prohibitive to having a family.
Couples now have to wait until they are well into their thirties before being financially “stable” enough to start a family but sure a few extra weeks paternity leave “unpaid” will help !
Dont like this writer when he says men usually earn more. Men cant cope with women that earn more. It batters their ego. I’ve certainly earnt more than any other man I’ve been out with.
@Allison Smith: He said ‘Usually’, not: ‘In Alison Smith’s case’. He’s stating a fact not an opinion. A fact that is mostly down to the women having to take such a career hit for having children. Extending men’s paternity leave is one step towards eliminating this.
@Allison Smith: Jesus what bloke pissed in you’re Cocopops this morning.
@Allison Smith: If you’ve earned more than ‘any other man’ you’ve been out with that would seem to imply that you also are a man.
@Allison Smith: it’s a fact, men do usually earn more than their partners. I don’t see why you are arguing that fact.
@Allison Smith: my partner earns more than I do. My ego is just fine thanks very much, but I appreciate the sweeping generalisation
@Clarissa:
It shouldnt be a fact. I deserve a good wage. I earn twice as much as any man.
@Allison Smith: my ego would have no issue with you as main breadwinner. Wanna go out?
@Allison Smith: their now real men their half woman.
@Allison Smith: ah but it is a fact. I’m sure you make more money than most men but if you take maternity leave you shouldn’t be offended if you don’t get that promotion over your male counterpart who has worked when you chose to take time off.
@Allison Smith: “i earn twice as much as any man” even bill gates?
None of our government parties are capable of any radical change once in power, all just vote grabbing for the next election. Power mongers are not forward thinkers. If I had taken this parental leave and not my holidays I would have lost 40% of my wages. I’m not going to lose my wages so I can make Regina’s Doherty’s stats look good.
Also, to The Journal. This is my first comment on your app, why are you telling me my comment will be seen as toxic???? This is surely some under handed attempt at censorship. Do my comments against our government cause harm to the public?
Well said Derek. I found Minister Doherty’s comments ignorant, sexist and belligerent. Where does she imagine rent or mortgage payments come from? 245 a week wouldn’t cover rent on a bin these days.
“. stop using excuses and start stepping up to the plate” it’s a disgrace that an elected offical can get away with such out of touch comments, stop treating men like dogs.
@Dave time: its a disgrace that the phrase “stepping up to the plate” is used by people. Its a baseball analogy & anyone caught using it in Ireland should be deported immediately.
Men have very little to do with childbirth other than to stand there like a spare tool offering encouragement while being told by your partner that you’re a complete b@stard for putting me through this
It amazes me that many people want to have kids but can’t afford to actually pay for them themselves and by extension, they then expect others to pay for them. Its simple, don’t have children if you cant support them yourselves.
Lets be honest here the irish way is many fathers not sticking around to care for their children so why would they take a few weeks off, many single parents i know who asked new fathers for support either financial or otherwise were told to go to the social welfare. That is the reality.
@Lynn Mac: it is not the Irish way!!! yes there are more single parents these days but a hell of a lot more partnered parents. That is the reality.
@Butterfly: i sure hope so,
Just felt that has to account for some of the statistics
@Lynn Mac: absolutely and I do agree if the father is not in the picture, he would not be entitled to any ‘would be’ ‘paternity leave’
@Lynn Mac: You could say the same for many mothers. Having more and more children to fund an self entitled lifestyle and purposely keeping the father(s) at arms length. Women hold all the cards when it comes to parental rights, far more pressing issue than what this fool of a writer is talking about. Get on with it, make it work however you can and count yourself lucky that you can see your children. IMO this guy is the definition of a snowflake
@Lynn Mac: what about the father tbat wants to be there for their child and is not left see the child because all the laws here are fu@ked up no rights for father’s is a joke. I’d give my left arm to see my girl but some women are just very bad people.
@Lynn Mac: maybe women should be more careful who they have children with & maybe there should be more repercussions for deadbeats who don’t want to contribute to their children’s upbringing.
I love this quote as it says it all really…. money is the reason!
“Originally, the European Commission was more ambitious with regard to parental leave, proposing not only that the entire four months not be transferable but also that this leave would be remunerated at the same level as sick leave. These proposals were rejected by the member states, who wanted to retain control over the matter of remuneration”
@William O’ Connor: this map shows that we are even worse than uk
You’d think that the author would have researched the difference between paternal leave and parental leave.
Each couple get an allowance of parental leave which can be taken by either or divided between them. This is unpaid and can be taken anytime up until the child is 11 years old.
Paternal leave is time off for the baby being born. Like maternal leave it’s at the discretion of the employer. Employers are by law obliged to give a mother time off to birth a baby and heal after said birth, but they’re not obliged to pay the mother, most mothers get money from the social welfare. Most give fathers a few days off, mostly unpaid or from annual leave allocation.
Misleading headline of unresearched article as usual!
Journal, if you don’t like people commenting on stupid, ignorant statements by one of your contributors, then don’t have a comment section. If you don’t have the balls to leave them up at least do the decent thing and delete the whole story.
Joke of a system where you are punished for trying to be a supportive father. What happens if mammy has a tough delivery or section and needs the full time support of her partner for more than a couple of weeks but in order to keep a roof over the family and food on table daddy has to back and earn a full wage. All this does is add more stress to one of the most stressful times in a family.
have your say