Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The pattern of suing and countersuing really began in 2009 as growth in the demand for smartphones accelerated dramatically with the advent of the modern smartphone, which combined a responsive touch screen with a modern multi-tasking operating system, a browser that provided full web access and an application store, in the form of the Apple iPhone 3G and the first Android phones.
8+: iPhone 6/6 Plus and later (iPhone 5 and later if used with Apple Watch), limited to Apple Pay: Samsung Pay: No: No: Huawei Pay Tethering Mobile Wi-Fi Hotspot, USB, Bluetooth: 4.3+: Personal Hotspot (Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, USB; carrier dependent) microUSB, Bluetooth 3.0, Mobile Wi-Fi Hotspot: Mobile Wi-Fi Hotspot, USB, Bluetooth: Mobile Wi-Fi Hotspot
This smartphone showdown pits customization against performance.
Here are some duds that you’re probably glad you didn’t buy, considering numerous the complaints about them. ... Learn More: 10 Valuable Stocks That Could Be the Next Apple or Amazon. iPhone 6.
Apple Inc. has been the subject of criticism and legal action. This includes its handling labor violations at its outsourced manufacturing hubs in China, its environmental impact of its supply chains, tax and monopoly practices, a lack of diversity and women in leadership in corporate and retail, various labor conditions (mishandling sexual misconduct complaints), and its response to worker ...
SAO PAULO (Reuters) -E-commerce giant MercadoLibre Inc said on Monday it has filed complaints against Apple Inc with antitrust regulators in Brazil and Mexico for anti-competitive practices ...
Apple Inc. v. Pepper, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case related to antitrust laws related to third-party resellers. [1] The case centers on Apple Inc.'s App Store, and whether consumers of apps offered through the store have Article III standing under federal antitrust laws to bring a class-action antitrust lawsuit against Apple for practices it uses to regulate the ...
Apple's claims that Samsung copied the designs of the iPhone and iPad were deemed invalid. [70] The court also ruled that there was "no possibility" that consumers would confuse the smartphones of the two brands. [71] Also in 2011, Apple filed a claim in Australia that Samsung's infringing product should not be sold in that country. [72]