Slashdot Mirror

I saw your comment, but I couldn't find your data. The only information I could find regarding expected life was 25000 hours. Some examples:

"Lasts at least 22.8 years", "22.8 years means rated average life based on engineering testing and probability analysis where the lamp is used on average 3 hours/day, 7 days a week"
22.8 years * 365.25 days/year * 3 hours/day = 24983.1 hours
- http://www.usa.philips.com/c/energy-saving-light-bulbs/ambientled-12.5w-a19-soft-white-dimmable-046677409906/prd/en/;jsessionid=2F0BBF3F454415D0EF4B126D0DAC020C.app102-drp4

"The unit that I am reviewing is warm-white (2700K) and has a CRI of 80. Warranty is 6 years, and Philips rates it at 25,000 hours of operation (it should last for decades if you take good care of it)."
On picture of the box: "Life 25,000 hours"
- http://www.treehugger.com/interior-design/philips-ambientled-125-watts-led-lightbulb-product-review.html

"The LED bulb will last 25,000 hours compared with the 1,000 hours that consumers normally get out of the average 60-watt incandescent bulb."
- http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20004766-54.html

"The next question you need to ask yourself is would you pay $40 (around £25) for a light bulb? Answer is probably not but if that light bulb was to last as it is advertised for 25,000 hours then of course."
- http://www.solarkinguk.com/blog/new-philips-led-light-bulb-lasts-for-25000-hours

"Other features include: instant-on, dimming capability to 10% of maximum brightness, a 25,000 hour life and a 6 year warranty."
- http://www.polar-ray.com/Philips-AmbientLED-A19-LED-Bulb-12E26A60_p_235.html

Long-term lumen maintenance testing
Continuing to run; now > 12,000 hours
Lumen mainteance at 25,000 hours -> 99.3% (95% confidence, 200 units)
- http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/lprize-webinar_01-18-12.pdf

You may also recall they forced B&N to take the money at gun point

I'm quite the proponent of researching molten salt nuclear. It's got some nice properties in terms of failure modes, is inherently anti-proliferation (so I hear), and has some nice options in the way of the thorium fuel cycle (the Chinese seem to have a real interest in this one, unsurprisingly).

Interestingly, molten salt SOLAR is actually quite nice for addressing the chief problem with solar (notably, the whole "sun goes down thing"). See here:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-57333789-54/molten-salt-keeps-solar-power-flowing/

1) Publication of a trivial solution has zero value to the public. Why? Because the effort required to find the published solution is greater than the effort to solve it yourself. The relevant patent might use different language, making it hard to find. You may have to read several patents (very tedious) to find the one that is actually applicable. How much time are you willing to spend searching for a solution that is obvious enough that you can do it yourself? When I need to know the integral of some function, it's going to have to be a really hard integral for me to go hunting through a book for it instead of just doing it myself. People don't do searches on the USPTO site to find ways to solve their problems, they do searches to see if they're going to be sued for the solutions they've already come up with.

You're assuming that the sole place someone would publish is the USPTO. That's not true - there are white papers, functional specs, theses, and all sorts of other publications that are possible because of the patent right. Without that right, if the inventor were trying to maintain a trade secret, they couldn't publish any of those documents.

Additionally, in my example above, the company that gets the patent offers a license to the others in the industry. They don't need to search for it, they have a letter in their mailbox. No fuss, no muss.

Need an example? How about BT's patent on hyperlinks? Did anybody learn about hyperlinks from BT? I doubt it. Everyone solved a problem themselves in the obvious way... Look at the claims in the BT hyperlink patent referenced earlier -- there is really nothing for the public to learn from there, just a tool for suing people.

I have no idea why people refer to that as a patent on hyperlinks. Probably just repeating what they've heard from others, without actually reading it. Here's claim one:

1. A digital information storage, retrieval and display system comprising:
a central computer means in which plural blocks of information are stored at respectively corresponding locations, each of which locations is designated by a predetermined address therein by means of which a block can be selected, each of said blocks comprising a first portion containing information for display and a second portion containing information not for display but including the complete address for each of plural other blocks of information;
plural remote terminal means, each including
(a) modem means for effecting input/output digital data communication with said central computer means via the telephone lines of a telephone network,
(b) local memory for locally storing digital data representing at least the first portion of the selected block of information received via said modem means from the central computer,
(c) display means for visually displaying such a locally stored first portion of a block of information and
(d) key pad means connected to communicate data to at least said modem means for manual entry of keyed digital data; and
further memory means being provided as a part of said central computer means for receiving and storing said second portion of the block of information selected by a particular terminal means in response to the selection of the block and
when its respective first portion is transmitted to that terminal means for display, said central computer means utilizing keyed digital data from that particular terminal means of less extent than any one of said complete addresses for another block of information but nevertheless uniquely indicative of one of the complete addresses contained in said portion of the block of information which contains the first portion then being displayed by that particular terminal means for selectively accessing the part of said further memory means associated with that particular terminal means and for supplying th

Consider a small idea that takes 20 man-hours to invent. It's not a giant groundbreaking idea, so it doesn't deserve a patent? Okay, so the inventor keeps it secret and never publishes his 20-hour idea. Now, what if there are a hundred companies in that industry with a hundred engineers who all have to spend 20 man-hours re-inventing the same idea. That's 1980 hours wasted that could have been spent innovating the next problem, all because the first guy kept it secret and never published. That's horribly inefficient, and is exactly what the patent system is supposed to avoid.

Now, sure, a 20-hour idea isn't worth much in license fees or royalties, but it's still worthy of patent protection. Let those other companies pay a pittance - $100 each, say - to the first company for a license. That company gets their expenses back and then some, everyone else pays less than they'd pay their own engineers to invent it, and everyone's happy.

There are several problems with that argument:

1) Publication of a trivial solution has zero value to the public. Why? Because the effort required to find the published solution is greater than the effort to solve it yourself. The relevant patent might use different language, making it hard to find. You may have to read several patents (very tedious) to find the one that is actually applicable. How much time are you willing to spend searching for a solution that is obvious enough that you can do it yourself? When I need to know the integral of some function, it's going to have to be a really hard integral for me to go hunting through a book for it instead of just doing it myself. People don't do searches on the USPTO site to find ways to solve their problems, they do searches to see if they're going to be sued for the solutions they've already come up with. Need an example? How about BT's patent on hyperlinks? Did anybody learn about hyperlinks from BT? I doubt it. Everyone solved a problem themselves in the obvious way.

2) You are assuming that the licensing fee for a trivial patent will be small (less than it would cost to invent it yourself), and there is no reason for that to be the case. If there is not other practical solution to the problem (i.e. no competition), the patent owner can charge whatever the market will bear, regardless of how easy it would be for the licensee to invent the solution himself/herself because the patent takes "doing it yourself" off the table as an option. That's the nature of competition (drives price down to cost of production) vs. monopoly (price to maximize profit). While I'm not familiar with the details of the Eolas patent, it's hard to imagine that the hundreds of millions of dollars that they got from Microsoft for it bore any relationship to the amount of effort put into the invention. Also, if 100 companies are going to license a patent at $100 each, that's $10,000 for the patent holder, which doesn't cover the cost of obtaining the patent (which is far greater than the filing fee due to the time you spend on it and the lawyer's fees), let alone the cost of putting together a licensing agreement. And, the cost to licensees of having their lawyer review the license agreement will be far more than $100. A patent licensed to 100 licensees at a cost substantially below the 20 hours to develop it themselves is untenable.

3) The patents that people are most annoyed about wouldn't save you anywhere close to 20 hours of work because they simply outline a general idea with 19+ hours worth of implementation detail omitted. Look at the claims in the BT hyperlink patent referenced earlier -- there is really nothing for the public to learn from there, just a tool for suing people.

Incidentally, I think you may be misunderstanding the definition of the term "prior art,"

If you had asked me to explain the difference between "anticipatory prior art" and "prior art" I couldn't have

I mean, if we can ask NASA to land a robotic truck on mars with like $14 and a pack of chewing gum, I think the DoD should be able to get its projects done the same way, with no actual deadlines and 1,000x's the budget.

Considering that the Mars Curiosity Rover cost American taxpayers about 2 and a half billion dollars, I would say that must be one very expensive pack of chewing gum.

What Curiosity is going to do with $14 on the surface of Mars is something else I'd like to figure out as well. Real estate development? Testing new currency for the Bureau of Printing and Engraving?

According to c|net, as of yesterday Verizon Galaxy Nexus users could download Jelly Bean. Within 24 hours, Apple had 15% penetration across all their devices. I wonder what the percentage is of Galaxy Nexus users?

Are there any very popular Android phones that have received an update in the last year or so that had the update adopted that fast?

I don't know what the Android process is like, but I can say that the iOS process is really slick. At this point, Apple has it down to a science. The update was trivial to install, didn't take too long, and was easily configured on first boot. The 5.1 update process (which was the first delta update, so it was only ~50 MB instead of 700+) was especially fast.

As someone with a dual core Android phone, I can say I've not upgraded the OS over the last year and a half. I haven't needed to. Everything I've needed has just worked. I've never needed to upgrade galaxy 10.1 tablet, either.

Why would I upgrade?

In a few months, I'll be due for a free phone upgrade, and I'll grab one of the new line of android quad-cores. I can't believe Apple decided on dual cores for the iphone5. What cheapskates, considering their profit margin on those slave labor phones.

The clock's visual appearance is almost, if not entirely, uncopyrightable in the US.

The US DOJ takes down knock-off and counterfeit sites all the time, because design is, indeed, protected.

http://torrentfreak.com/feds-seize-130-domain-names-in-mass-crackdown-111125/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20023918-93.html

Now if justice really was blind, and there was true equality in front of the law, we should see one of these on the apple web site too, not just companies that sell handbags and jerseys.

According to c|net, as of yesterday Verizon Galaxy Nexus users could download Jelly Bean. Within 24 hours, Apple had 15% penetration across all their devices. I wonder what the percentage is of Galaxy Nexus users?

Are there any very popular Android phones that have received an update in the last year or so that had the update adopted that fast?

I don't know what the Android process is like, but I can say that the iOS process is really slick. At this point, Apple has it down to a science. The update was trivial to install, didn't take too long, and was easily configured on first boot. The 5.1 update process (which was the first delta update, so it was only ~50 MB instead of 700+) was especially fast.

That's not new. No smiles in Ohio, either-- I renewed my license over a year ago, and was quite firmly instructed that smiles were not allowed in drivers license photos because it screws up the facial recognition software.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10249834-71.html
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/05/27/states-adopting-no-smiles-policy-for-drivers-licenses/
http://www.webanswers.com/legal/why-can-t-you-smile-in-your-drivers-license-picture-84ffba

At the same event, they also hacked iOS6. Just to give an unbiased view...

...and CNET has more details... http://m.cnet.com/news/iphone-4s-samsung-galaxy-s3-hacked-in-contest/57516966

I just think it's bullshit to complain about Apple's abuse of patents because they seek to ban SOME devices from ONE manufacturer, while Google seeks to prevent the sale of EVERY Apple computer and iOS device.

I was expecting more knowledge and intelligence from a prolific Apple fan follower and poster. Maybe I was wrong.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/apple-sues-htc-for-infringing-20-iphone-patents/

http://www.ibtimes.com/apple-sues-htc-again-iphone-maker-scared-android-smartphone-makers-210931

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20090552-17/apple-sues-motorola-over-xoom-design-report-says/

http://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/06/24/013245/apple-sues-htc-again-over-patents

Have you been sleeping under a rock or does facts not favorable to Apple just don't penetrate the thick RDF?

Galaxy S3 did not have 9 million preorders. Samsung confirmed it took just under 2 months to sell 10 million. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57477475-94/samsung-galaxy-s3-hits-10-million-sales-mark-early/

And AT&T alone activated over 1 million iPhone 4S in less than a week, 9.4 million iPhones (all types) for the whole quarter the 4S was released 2.5 months). Apple sold 37 million iPhones that quarter.

A port that 0.2% of the active smartphone population actually uses and that's your issue with the phone? Ok.
 
I've seen the USB adaptors as low as a $1.35 on Amazon. HDMI adapters even come in at around half the price you've stated and will surely fall.
 
My battery lasts 2 days but that's an iPhone 4. I can't speak for the 5.
 
I like the size of my screen. If I wanted a tablet I would have bought one. I have to admit that SD card would be nice but I don't miss it because of iCloud and iMatch. And from what I've seen Siri works fine. Turns out I'm not the only one to think that.
 
Your arguments fall short. The reason you don't understand why people want iPhone is because you have blinders on.

Even though undermining your jab at Samsung fanboys goes against my Apple fanboy-ness (though I won't be in line on launch day, nor have I pre-ordered), it's worth pointing out the differences between the way the 9 million and 2 million numbers were measured, simply in the interest of facts prevailing. Apple's 2 million number is for the first 24 hours of pre-order availability and only includes consumer pre-orders. I've seen some people here also claiming that the pre-orders for Apple are U.S.-specific, but I've found no evidence for that, and I'm more inclined to believe that they include all countries in which it will be available on launch day, since Apple's announcement of the pre-order date contained no limitations based on country that I could see. In contrast, Samsung's 9 million number included orders from carriers as well as customers and counted the entire pre-order period (which lasted for a few weeks) rather than just the first 24 hours. There's nothing wrong with measuring it either way. The two companies simply measure "pre-orders" differently, so those differences need to be taken into account.

In terms of sales, we don't know what the iPhone 5's will be yet, but it took Samsung a hair under 2 months to sell 10 million GS3 units. Regardless, both that and Apple's 2 million pre-orders are great numbers for their respective companies and are worth being proud of. Let's be aware of what we're comparing as we're comparing them, however.

We're talking about the first 24 hours here, US only and directly from consumers. Galaxy S3's 9 million pre-orders was over a longer period, worldwide and pre-orders by carriers. You're comparing apples and lemons.

Galaxy S3 did not have 9 million preorders. Samsung confirmed it took just under 2 months to sell 10 million.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57477475-94/samsung-galaxy-s3-hits-10-million-sales-mark-early/

I'll get hate for saying this but fuck it, get Quickbooks. They now have a free version and its butt simple to use. If you were formerly using MS Money you should have no problem with QB, its even easier to set up and use and there are a bazillion tutorials on the web if you need to do anything fancy. Its quickly becoming my "go to" for customers that ask about money management and they couldn't be happier, not had a single complaint.

Well if this doesn't help XP finally be put to rest maybe the announcement that the next photoshop won't run on XP will finally do it.

What surprises me is the fact that Adobe is making a "next plastic disc version" of Photoshop as opposed to forcing "Creative Cloud" on everyone. I wouldn't have bet a counterfeit wooden nickel against Adobe making CS6 the last version of the suite that didn't use their rolling updates/monthly activation DRM scheme. I now make that statement for the CS7 editions - I don't think there will be a plastic disc successor to CS7.

Well if this doesn't help XP finally be put to rest maybe the announcement that the next photoshop won't run on XP will finally do it.

The ones I feel sorry for are the Vista users, they get no love at all even though their OS is supported until 2017. All the ones I've seen that have killed XP support seem to go from XP straight to 7, no Vista support at all. Poor Vista users, first you get a crappy OS then everyone ignores you.

Luddite with no data plan here... any kind of data plan that I would consider worth having runs $70+/month - $840/year, I don't really care if the phone is free, I don't want to sign up for a multi-thousand dollar future debt.

Well, you didn't actually spell out what your requirements are, so I'm not interested in a comparison with moving goal-posts.

However, Verizon's 2GB plan is $90 (well over your $70 limit) while Virgin Mobile's 2.5GB plan is $30.
It's also prepaid so no contract, you can quit any time.

All Wii accessories will be compatible. http://reviews.cnet.com/nintendo-wii-u/

However, it will not upscale original Wii games. http://www.ign.com/wikis/wii-u/Frequently_Asked_Questions

This is unfortunate. The Dolphin emulator has been able to render GameCube and Wii games at 1080p for a couple of years now.

First of all, let me say that I buy tech products on price point, and overall Apple can not compete in this category. However, on the sut carrier-subsidized devices, the game changes a little bit. Apple's contracts with carriers allow them to receive larger subsidies per phone. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57419822-37/analyst-carriers-are-locked-into-those-steep-iphone-subsidies/ Hypothetical situation: Apple and Samsung spend $600 on hardware Verizon applies a $350 subsidy to the Apple phone, $300 subsidy to the Samsung phone. Consumer's choice: pay $250 for the newest Apple phone, or $300 for the new Sammy - both with very similar hardware specs. I really want to see some market research on people's phone buying behavior. For example, % buying subsidized phones, average life span per phone, user's changing carriers. It's way too easy to say something like "Android leads the smartphone market share with 68%" when you have such a dynamic industry.

I think Anonymous deserves an apology?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57510432-83/go-daddy-sorry-about-the-outage-and-no-it-wasnt-a-hack/

HP (and others) used to, or maybe still do, use watermarking in printers to hide data revealing time, printer type, etc.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-5811739-7.html
https://www.eff.org/issues/printers
~ Meta data is watching

there are cheaper/easier alternatives,

Like what? This thing is at least $50 less than the leading 7-inch tablets.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57509518-93/toys-r-us-unwraps-$150-tabeo-tablet-for-kids/

News today; Toys R US releasing tablet.

As long as MS have their deal with manufacturers to enforce a pre-installed windows nothing will change

Dell have done it on and off for years, they just didnt sell well. Asus has done it as well, as has HP and Acer. There's also Apple and a myriad of other manufacturers who sell systems with no Operating System or with Linux installed. The big players focus on Windows because that's what people buy, for the smaller market who don't want Windows there is certainly a lot of variety and there is also the Windows license refund.

The real irony is that an "advertisement company" has enough sense to limit their ads to websites that I have the freedom to avoid if I choose

Except when they are advertising their own products, like Chrome or the Nexus 7 you are planning to buy.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-3126_7-57508986/amazon-backtracks-will-offer-$15-opt-out-for-ads-on-kindle-fire-tablets/

"I just received this email from an Amazon spokesperson:
'I wanted to let you know that with Kindle Fire HD there will be a special offers opt-out option for $15. We know from our Kindle reader line that customers love our special offers and very few people choose to opt out. We're happy to offer customers the choice.'"

"It's been five years since Radiohead brought the pay what you want model to the public with their successful sale of their 'In Rainbows' album.

Yes, you mean that stunt that the Radiohead manager said they won't repeat again?
"Radiohead abandons ‘pay what you want’ for upcoming album release" - http://www.digitaltrends.com/music/radiohead-abandons-pay-what-you-want-for-upcoming-album-release/
"But Radiohead's manager has also said that the band likely wouldn't try a similar promotion again." - http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9894376-7.html

Sorry, I just had to mention that because I'm tired of people using Radiohead as an example of "pay what you want" which was wildly successful, when it really sounds like it wasn't.

"Now, here's a fresh example of how a game developer is making The Pirate Bay work for him by offering his game, McPixel, for free and letting people pay what they want."

Yeah, I saw the McPixel developer trying to get fans on Reddit too. I saw a YouTube video of the game and it isn't very good. It wasn't worth a free download. But, he seems to be doing a good job of getting out there and marketing, as well as trying to build some fame by telling pirates exactly what they want to hear.

No thanks, McPixel developer. What you're doing by validating the PirateBay is undermining the game development industry while trying to make a few extra bucks. It's fundamentally self-centered. If this ever became "the norm", then the McPixel developer wouldn't get squat as far as free-advertising from sites like Slashdot. (It actually reminds me a little bit of the stunt that S.E.Cupp (an atheist) pulled a few months ago when she went on a news show and told people she'd never vote for an atheist politician because atheists can't be trusted. She's throwing other people (other atheists) under the bus by making those kinds of arguments, but I'm sure it did a good job of getting her extra fame and sales because she's saying the opposite of what you'd expect someone to say - and playing into the hands of conservatives. I can already hear them crowing, "See, even atheists admit they can't be trusted. We need only God-fearing politicians.")

How does this get modded insightful. The only phone you could possibly own that wasn't made in china is (possibly) a Nokia. See this article:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57389858-1/are-any-smartphones-not-made-in-china/

Either way, they're coming from china. Even if the phone wasn't assembled in china, I'd almost drop a fifty on the fact that most of the components went through there, or at least the battery was made there.

If this story bothers you, stop carrying any mobile device (and probably stop using computers altogether).

Anyone want to venture at where the servers that run /. were made?

I'm not saying it's right, just pointing out the terribly obvious.

Yep - those number seems about right

A range of $12-$30 has been suggested for labour costs at $1.78/hr. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57382995-1/iphone-manufacturing-costs-revealed/

Other have suggested as little as $6-$7 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-11/iphone-assembly-suggests-yuan-gain-wouldn-t-narrow-trade-gaps.html

Your example of $42k per year is around $21/hr (assuming 40-hr weeks with and 50 weeks per year), so about $12x higher than $1.78/hr and would add $140-$360 per phone.

$42k per year seems high for basic assembly line work so probably more like $100-$250 per phone. And if the lower labour range is more accurate then something like $50-$150 per phone - certainly not the stupid numbers some other people have been throwing around.

Or, it could simply mean that the FBI didn't get the information from Apple, but from some 3rd party.

Given AT&T's previous complicity with government privacy intrusions, it might not be too far to go to suspect that the FBI got the information from them.

Just to clarify, this is complete speculation with no evidence to back it up.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029-6140191.html

Kaplan's opinion said that the eavesdropping technique "functioned whether the phone was powered on or off." Some handsets can't be fully powered down without removing the battery; for instance, some Nokia models will wake up when turned off if an alarm is set.

A simple sleep function in an "off" phone to wake up and ping the tower to see if there's some command waiting is pretty low-power, especially if it only does it once an hour or even less frequently.

Supposedly this dude tested it, but only for half an hour. Would be fun to re-do this experiment on modern "smart" phones over a week-long period:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2770534/replies?c=37

This is old news, but there are better images out there. The designer tends to model it herself - if you've got it, flaunt it, I suppose.

Her own design page, including some photos of the construction process: http://mvl.mit.edu/EVA/biosuit/

What looks to be a hapless grad student modeling it (but that's just a guess on my part): http://alumweb.mit.edu/groups/amita.old/images/people/Newman.jpg

Cnet slideshow: http://news.cnet.com/2300-11397_3-6197224.html

With reports of Google's self-driving car crashing left and right how could anyone want to be in one of these vehicles? They just aren't safe. When something happens when you're driving then it's at least your fault and you could do something about it, but not in self-driving cars.

In both of the cases you cited, a human was driving. The only accident the google cars have been in are ones where a human driven car smashed into the google car while it was performing legally and properly.

Of course, both stories tried to cast question on whether the car was human piloted or auto piloted, because who would want to read a story about a car driven by an idiot crashing into a driverless car?

With reports of Google's self-driving car crashing left and right how could anyone want to be in one of these vehicles? They just aren't safe. When something happens when you're driving then it's at least your fault and you could do something about it, but not in self-driving cars.

Was this meant to be sarcastic? Both of those posts referred to the same accident. These cars have logged hundreds of thousands of miles, with ONE accident(which may well have been human error). That's far, far safer than the average human driver. If you're in the drivers seat of the self driving car, you CAN take control of it should you feel the need, too.

However, realistically that's not going to be useful. The car will be better at accident avoidance than you are - it's not that big a programming challenge to achieve that. People don't like to admit it - it bruises their delicate little egos - but the car knows *exactly* how fast every car around them is moving, their acceleration, and can put itself exactly where it wants to be every time. No delayed reactions due to inattention, no slight overreaction due to panic.

Yes, self driving cars will be involved in accidents, and will be at fault, from time to time. This does not make them less safe - it's inevitable, particularly when human drivers are involved as well. Human drivers, on the other hand, are extremely unsafe. Everyone wants to think that they are special, and unlike everyone else they're awesome drivers, but the reality remains that human drivers are in accidents extremely regularly.

Don't get me wrong. I'd hate to be in a robotically driven car. Logically, I know I'd be much safer than with a human driver, but I'd be enormously squirrelly about the whole process. And, of course, I love driving - I'd never be comfortable giving that up to a machine. I consider myself a good driver, too (like everyone else), and I've never been in an accident for which I'm at fault, but I can acknowledge that there have definitely been times I've driven with far less than ideal circumstances. Distraction, emotional distress, tiredness, ill health, the list goes on an on. In all those cases, I'm less than 100%.

With reports of Google's self-driving car crashing left and right how could anyone want to be in one of these vehicles? They just aren't safe. When something happens when you're driving then it's at least your fault and you could do something about it, but not in self-driving cars.

Ah, there it is. This is a different case first filed in February this year.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-apple-samsung-juror-speaks-out/
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120830/02063020214/samsungapple-jury-foremans-explanation-verdict-shows-he-doesnt-understand-prior-art.shtml
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57500504-71/legal-analysts-suggest-apple-samsung-verdict-may-not-be-safe/

Other news besides /.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-apple-samsung-juror-speaks-out/
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120830/02063020214/samsungapple-jury-foremans-explanation-verdict-shows-he-doesnt-understand-prior-art.shtml
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57500504-71/legal-analysts-suggest-apple-samsung-verdict-may-not-be-safe/

Other news besides /.

So you are saying that Samsung deliberately planned on losing $1bn?

No, just that Samsung recklessly chose to go beyond the bounds of copying that other manufacturers, including their operating system developer Google thought reasonable. So it's hardly surprising that a jury had the same reaction that Google did.

Because Samsung's designs already were original. They shared a few design cues with Apple phones, but nothing that should constitute a violation. If these kinds of standards were imposed universally, all the tech we use would be completely incompatible and randomly different.

In the trial, evidence was produced that Samsung actively studied Apple's designs and tried to imitate them, so it's hardly surprising that a jury agreed with Apple that Samsung's designs are not original. And certainly other manufactures have managed to come up with perfectly functional phones that do not infringe upon Apple's design patents (indeed, the jury found that some of of Samsung's devices avoid infringing on some of Apple's design patents). Compatibility among different devices is assured by standards to which Apple and other manufacturers have contributed. But compatibility does not require, for example, that icons be the same shape, use a similar color screen, and be similarly arranged to those on the iPhone. So it is perfectly possible to construct a fully functional smartphone that does not infringe upon Apple's patents.

Personally I do also believe we are at a defining moment in the modern computing industry

There have been many "defining" moments in modern computer history.
What's so defining about this particular moment with its clone army of touchscreen phones?

so even if this lawsuit may end up being of little to no importance the close attention is warranted.

This lawsuit is important becase two 800 lb gorillas went nuclear with injunctions instead of settling with the usual cross licensing agreement.
Which is to say, why they are fighting is less important than the fact that they are fighting.
Apple injunction hearing against Samsung phones set for Dec. 6

Hopefully we don't have any more articles about the case until then.

As to countries going offline when a submarine cable is being cut, it's their problem: they were supposed to provide some levels of redundancy by connecting to multiple international backbones in the first place.

Ha, Slashdot is so pro-Apple it's painful. "We skipped that one" turns into "we skipped that one and came back to it" and that gets modded up despite there being no such context in the original source! Oh Slashdot, you so funny when you act like a kid and mod up the other kids!

You are a fool. First off, even without any references to check, the implied meaning in that statement is almost crystal clear. But I suppose in case you are too stupid, we can reference the interview the juror gave (which is actually the REAL original source).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9cnQcTC2JY

In it, at about the 4:00 mark he talks about trying to not get hung up on one question, so they do the simple things FIRST, so that when they come back it would be easier. At the 5:15 mark he says "we're gonna move on and come back to this". At the 6:10 mark he talks about how eventually they would come back to those question, and having moved on and answering the other questions taught them enough that it made those skipped questions easier to answer.

And pay careful attention to the quote in the summary: the juror says they debated the prior art, then he says they "skipped that one". Hmm. He does not say they failed to consider prior art. He says the first one was bogging them down with the debate on prior art because they found it hard to believe there was not any. Then he says "they skipped that one", which, in context, probably means they put all questions regarding that patent aside to move on and see if the others were easier. But they did rule on it, which means they came back to it--and given their reports that debate was heated, it seems unlikely that they put it aside for a while, then came back and arbitrarily found for Apple without finishing their consideration of the evidence. It is really not reasonable to read that quote as saying the jury skipped consideration of prior art.

Ha, Slashdot is so pro-Apple it's painful. "We skipped that one" turns into "we skipped that one and came back to it" and that gets modded up despite there being no such context in the original source! Oh Slashdot, you so funny when you act like a kid and mod up the other kids!

Here, let me try:

'The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there.'

Naw, like, you just didn't read far enough, man. Hmmm, doesn't that sound fishy to you? I'm just asking questions, don't attack me ... but you know the original context said they took the instructions and studied them for eight weeks and then began enumerating every English sentence ever and considering it as prior art before they moved on. And even then they came back to it. I'm just asking questions, don't get mad at me that this is totally the way patent trials should work and Apple was right and they should get more than a billion dollars and USA #1 USA #1 USA #1.

The jury did not seem to think objectively [1] and also appear swayed by the foreman who seems to have gotten away with throwing out the biggest piece of evidence in Samsung's defense[2]. I was surprised that the trial went as it did, handled by a judge with very little experience[3], considering the future of the mobile industry was riding on it. "Rounded corners and Rectangular design"? Righ, Apple, you might as well be suing everyone in the industry becuase I can't find a device that _doesn't_ infringe on that. Apple went after Samsung because it's their biggest competitor.

[1] http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390
[2] http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963
[3] http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57497096-37/apple-v-samsung-why-is-judge-koh-so-angry/

I would respectfully disagree and say that no, the jury didn't "see it." They blindly rubber-stamped the samsung line in efforts to expedite the amount of time they'd have to dedicate to the trial.

Have you seen a Samsung Epic 4g? Look at it..the only thing that you might be able to say is similar is the grid of icons, and there is significant amount of prior art of a grid of icons, to start with, palm. There is no way anyone could truthfully claim that phone flagrantly copies the iphone, even some 90 year old grandma.

http://reviews.cnet.com/smartphones/samsung-epic-4g-review/

After the verdict, I think everyone was thinking "wow..what did the jury see that I don't?" But after the jurors and foreman started talking, its apparent they did not do their duty. I'm not talking about the final verdict. I'm talking about how they decided they could just rubber-stamp every device.

  It's like a student blindly answering multiple choice questions..it's apparent they weren't even reading the question when the same question is answered differently on separate occasions. In this case, they award damages for a device that they previously answer "does not infringe", and find some obviously non-infringing device to be infringing.

Actually, one of the jurors reported that they discussed that question for quite a while, but could not initially reach consensus, so they deferred a decision on that point and considered whether Samsung had actually infringed (which makes sense; it wouldn't matter if Apple's patents were valid if Samsung had not infringed upon them). Of course, once they found Samsung had infringed, they had to return to the question of whether Apple's patents were valid, because it was question #11 on the jury form. You can see there answers here.

What is this, the Chewbacca defense?

Under the terms of Google's licensing, Android is supplied without legal indemnification. That means Google has transferred all legal liability to the device makers. That basically means Google is saying "We wrote this code, we don't know if it violates any patents, but if it does, it's your problem, not ours."

Just because you say Google is liable, that doesn't make it so. Google's lawyers would disagree with that, and Google has already moved to protect themselves.

If you could stop switching topics for three seconds, it might help. We were talking about Motorola, not android. Google is liable for Motorola, period.

They're not my words, they're Google's. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57438986-94/google-officially-closes-$12.5-billion-motorola-mobility-deal/ "Google has made it clear that Motorola will operate independently from its own operation"

I believe those words are being pulled out of someone's ass (no way Google isn't telling Moto what to do), but it's not my ass they're being pulled out of.

Putting in a separate management structure has exactly "0" to do with legal liability. You are pulling this out of your ass.

Preaching to the choir, but LEGALLY (note the LEGALLY) Motorola is still a separate organization and Google is not necessary liable for their actions. Much like if you owned a business, people could only sue the business, not you directly. It's a common business strategy to protect one's self from legal liability. Remember, legally corporations are people, and Motorola, as long as it exists as a separate company, is still a separate "person".

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil

Except that's not what google did. Other than that, great use of wikipedia. If you took three seconds to look at a balance sheet, you'd see that google includes Motorola's assest and liabilities under it's own umbrella, because it isn't operating it as a separate corporate entity. It isn't on the stock market because it no longer operates as a separate entity:
http://www.google.com/finance?q=MMI
It is running as a business unit of google inc with an independent management structure. But don't let those pesky little facts get in the way of the story you've fabricated based on a quote in a cnet article.
http://investor.google.com/earnings/2012/Q2_google_earnings.html