Slashdot Mirror

Actually, I think you'll find that your assumption (that they wouldn't sue) is quite wrong. There are plenty of examples of 'big business' suing smaller brands over trademark violations. What courts will enforce is irrelevant when small businesses and individuals can't afford the legal costs to defend themselves, which is the point of these big corporations going after all and sundry.

There are plenty of examples of trademark lawsuits, sometimes the defendant fights back (and wins) but many can't afford to, least of all when the US asserts legal authority outside their own borders. Here's a couple which spring to mind:

Katy Perry files against Katie Perry: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/pop-singer-sues-our-katie-perry-20090704-d8fc.html McDonalds loses to McCurry: http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/04/29/us-courts-mcdonalds-idUSTRE53S6G120090429 The Hobbit Pub: http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/12/03/14/016231/the-hobbit-pub-threatened-with-lawsuit Ugg boots: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/blogs/threadny/THREAD-Ugg-Suing-Emu-Over-Trademark-111665149.html

There are PLENTY more.

Now, that's from companies that actually have a registered trademark. Companies like facebook 'priming' their T&Cs is the start of something bad. I'm not saying there should be a T&Cs regulator (by the way, thanks for putting words in my mouth) - I'm simply thinking that dictionary words shouldn't be OWNED. Common sense should prevail. Context matters.

Interesting read. Claims that 30% of the decommisioning cost is getting rid of the low level waste.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/13/idUS178883596820110613

Doing the right thing always seems logical, but when you look at the bigger picture it's not always effective.

Take your commute, for instance. If the people around you did the right thing, they would leave three seconds between their bumper and the car in front of them. Everyone would hit their brakes less frequently, traffic would flow more smoothly, there would be fewer accidents, less wear and tear on the road, and everyone would get where they were going faster and with less stress. Makes sense, right? But then some asshole will exploit the spaces that each of them have left, weaving in and out, forcing people to hit their brakes, causing waves of slowdowns and possibly accidents.

This is nothing new. Alexander Hamilton observed that people act mostly out of self-interest. The solution is to create a system that makes it in one's self-interest to do the right thing.

In theory, the solution here is to create a system where it is in the interest of a company to hold a large stable of software patents and not use them. In other words, if you can demonstrate that you hold a significant patent and have allowed small competitors to do things that don't blatantly violate your patent but might be in a grey area, for every year you do not use it like a hammer to crush competition, you get a tax break or some other incentive. But if you have a challenge from some significant threat, you still have the option to exercise your right to litigate... you just forfeit your tax break. The system should also make it more difficult to successfully litigate with a software patent. Therefore the company is forced to make a choice and decide which is in their best interest: litigation or the incentive to not litigate. In the process, the greater good is served because the patent is effectively held in trust by a company that is not likely to use it unless it's absolutely necessary, and this protects everyone from patent trolls.

Companies really shouldn't focus on patents as much as they do, because the idea that a patent really protects your intellectual property is flawed. At the end of the day, anything you patent here is just going to be copied and sold in China or India, anyway. India recently allowed a local drug company to copy a cancer drug patented by Bayer so it can sell it for 97% less, so long as it pays a portion of the proceeds to Bayer, effectively ignoring Bayer's R&D costs. And China... well... anything goes in China with regard to patents and copyright as long as it's not deemed a threat to the Party. I couldn't find an e-book copy of K&R anywhere for sale... but you can download it in PDF format for free from Chinese universities.

Check out Theodore Sturgeon's "The Skills of Xanadu" for a sci-fi exploration of the idea of making the gathering of materials "fun":

tl;dr

Also, how much "labor" does a tree do to grow? It is possible then in theory to use just water, CO2, and a little bit of soil to make amazing things that are mostly carbon.

How useful is just one tree? If you want enough trees to be able to do something useful with, all growing consistently strong and to a consistent quality, it takes quite a good deal of labor.

In general, one could make the same argument about software or content.

Neither of which you can eat.

When robotics are really cheap, what is the difference between writing free software to run material gathering robots and gathering materials for "free"?

Robotics are far more expensive than Chinese labor.

I might have agreed if you had not used the word "only". :-) How far we have fallen in our aspirations:
http://www.fact-index.com/n/ne/next.html
"By 1987 NeXT finished construction of a completely automated factory for their first product, the NeXTcube."

My "only" still stands. You forget where the raw materials used by the factory came from, as well as how the factory was built to begin with.

It's true that essentially slave human labor is still cheaper than robots in some applications (though fewer and fewer applications as even essentially dirt-cheap slaves kept in dormitories can't keep up with the quality robots can produce and they also take more management.)

And yet there is still plenty of work available for cheap Mexican immigrants. Agriculture in Georgia practically collapsed when they tried to improve immigration enforcement.

But in any case, things are changing:
"Foxconn to rely more on robots; could use 1 million in 3 years"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/01/us-foxconn-robots-idUSTRE77016B20110801

That has more to do with the rise of a Chinese middle class than any global phenomena. There's still Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam...

"All require raw materials, none of which are "inherently fun" to obtain, especially not when it comes to obtaining useful quantities."

Check out Theodore Sturgeon's "The Skills of Xanadu" for a sci-fi exploration of the idea of making the gathering of materials "fun":
http://books.google.com/books?id=wpuJQrxHZXAC&pg=PA51#v=onepage&q&f=false

Also, how much "labor" does a tree do to grow? It is possible then in theory to use just water, CO2, and a little bit of soil to make amazing things that are mostly carbon.

In general, one could make the same argument about software or content. People are never going to spend lots of time making free software or content to give away, and yet they do through GNU/Linux and Wikipedia.

"Money is used in exchange for labor. Labor takes up a person's time. A person's time is finite. One has only to look through the local obituary to realize that the scarcity is quite genuine."

When robotics are really cheap, what is the difference between writing free software to run material gathering robots and gathering materials for "free"?

"The 21st-century computer you composed this on is only possible because of people supplying raw materials and manufacturing in 19th-century conditions."

I might have agreed if you had not used the word "only". :-) How far we have fallen in our aspirations:
http://www.fact-index.com/n/ne/next.html
"By 1987 NeXT finished construction of a completely automated factory for their first product, the NeXTcube."

It's true that essentially slave human labor is still cheaper than robots in some applications (though fewer and fewer applications as even essentially dirt-cheap slaves kept in dormitories can't keep up with the quality robots can produce and they also take more management.)

But in any case, things are changing:
"Foxconn to rely more on robots; could use 1 million in 3 years"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/01/us-foxconn-robots-idUSTRE77016B20110801

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57402589-92/jobs-act-clears-senate-one-step-from-becoming-law/

The JOBS Act has passed the Senate. In a 73 to 26 vote today, an amended version of H.R. 3606, which opens startup investing to individuals ("crowdfunding") and gives young companies more flexibility in filing to enter the public stock markets, cleared what is probably its last major hurdle before becoming law.

I'm really surprised that it passed the Senate as the JOBS act is chock full of poorly thought out deregulation.
It's so bad that the head of the SEC has come out against it and State securities regulators are against the bill

If this bill becomes law, it'll directly lead to the next wave of investor fraud.

Editors, this article is a complete troll. This has nothing to do with "News for Nerds", and it's not even newsworthy.

For the record, it was recently published that President Obama is in talks with Russia to give some classified tactical information about United States nuclear missiles in return for Russia's approval of the missile defense systems.

true: Apple, directly or indirectly, uses child and slave labor to make consumer electronics.

true: So does everyone else.

true: You don't care.

If you want to cause change: Either mass-protest ALL of these companies and their products (good luck!), or do a startup if you have a better idea.

Otherwise: Stop pretending and continue loving your "precious" at all costs while screwing underage Chinese girls, you disgusting pedophiles.

I don't think we disagree much.

Probably not, I don't have any complaint against him telling stories from across the industrial base of China to highlight awful working conditions there. As consumers, I'd hope we all care to SOME degree whether or not our cheap toys and comforts are created by people laboring in sweatshop conditions. However (always a 'but,' right?), if he wants people to respond emotionally, using the (real) name of a (real) company that people are familiar with is a dicey proposition.

He runs the risk of people hearing his message, and concluding, "this is journalism, and Apple is the only company (or at least by far the worst) engaged in these kinds of practices." It runs the risk of leaving people with the sense that *only Apple* needs to be punished for being this rapacious machine which is ruining lives, not that "this is standard practice in the electronic manufacture business, and Apple is just one example of the companies taking advantage of these conditions." And in fact, conditions might even be *better* at Foxconn than it is at many other factory complexes. I have no evidence other than the head of Fair Labor making a comment to that effect, so obviously, take with huge grain of salt: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/15/us-china-apple-idUSTRE81E1FQ20120215. But it certainly can skew perception of the scope, and nature of the problem if you take too many creative liberties with the story you're telling as part of your activism.

The problem with this "creative activism" is that activism by definition says, "There is a problem here, and we need to fix it. We need to apply pressure and bring resources to bear to right this wrong." Creativity in service of that - documentaries, fiction, photography, art, music, theater - can all help drive home to people that there *is* a real problem, and we *should* fix it. But when creativity starts crossing the line from "using creative means to advocate for fixing a real situation" and becomes "creating a fictionalized account of the problem we're advocating for," well - if you're fictionalizing some elements of the problem, well... where does drama end and truth begin? How bad *is* the problem, really? Is there even a problem? If you raise all these questions, and simply respond to those questions with a blanket assertion that "of course there's a problem, I'm just telling you a dramatized version of the problem to make you understand it," you're really not helping to define or connect people to the problem - you're asking them to just agree with you that there's a problem, while never clearly stating what the problem is.

The stories themselves are - generally - compelling enough in their own right. I think if you put a camera (or audio recorder) on people whose lives, health, and futures have been destroyed and ask them to tell their stories, you can pack an incredible emotional wallop. Flirting with dramatization and fiction in telling your story runs the risk of, as we see here, discrediting the very cause you're advocating for. See also the recent flak Invisible Children has caught for their Kony 2012 campaign, where all kinds of criticism has been levelled against Invisible Children for not telling "the whole truth."

Really? I must have missed the repeal of the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Not a repeal, but a sound gutting:

• ARS
• Reuters
• NYT

But you know what I bet would ABSOLUTELY lead them to negotiate and drop their nuke program?

Using nuclear weapons on their program. Anything less may well work, but it isn't "ABSOLUTE".

As I see it, appeasement, which is what this policy is, doesn't work. There's no actual incentive here for Iran to stop building nuclear weapons. It might delay them a little as they wring various profitable concessions out of the appeasers, but in the end, there's no reason for Iran to stop what it is currently doing.

If Israel effectively destroys their nuclear program with a bombing run (or a nuclear attack for that matter), then there's all of a sudden incentive to drop the program. Namely, that someone breaks it when it gets far along.

It's worth noting here that you don't give a reason for the US or particularly Israel to play along with your "negotiation". Iran gets plenty of give from your plan (they can still develop nuclear weapons), but nobody else does.

At least the European strategy has a chance of working and it applies pressure to the problems.

Due mainly to Israeli and U.S. propaganda, a lot of people seem to think that Iran is building nukes to attack Israel.

And you've missed an important problem here. It's likely that much of Israel and the US leadership believe that propaganda. Certainly, Saudi Arabia seems to believe that Iran is extremely dangerous right now and they're probably not alone.

That is mainly because Castro likes the embargo and has actively worked against being removed. The half baked embargo allowed Fidel Castro to blame the Americans for everything that went wrong in Cuba even if it had nothing to do with the embargo.
Check this out

Clinton noted that in 1996, when her husband former President Bill Clinton was seeking to improve ties, Cuba shot down two small U.S. planes that were distributing leaflets. The incident effectively ended that overture.

Since then he has made sure to lob insults at both Bush and Obama near the beginning of their terms just to make sure the embargo sticks.

sh!t like this

Slashdot is an adult-friendly site. You can spell it out; if you fucking swear you won't be automatically modded down. In fact, we have one user who swears every time he posts (if from nothing other than his name, but generally it does include the content as well), Profane Motherfucker (564659).

The US is bad (and getting worse)

On this we strongly agree; would that it were not so. I think we've caused more humans living on this planet to suffer in real terms through our actions. And I don't mean merely military actions; I'm also talking the unpayable loans (as Greece is finding out now) from central banks, like the IMF, World Bank, or ECB. Any time you get a central bank involved that is larger than a sovereign entity, it will determine a method to extract wealth from that sovereign entity.

I heard news reports several weeks ago that the Greek police union had issued warrants for the arrest of international bankers, if they came into the country: "the Federation of Greek Police accused the officials of '...blackmail, covertly abolishing or eroding democracy and national sovereignty'". I haven't heard anything since; a search found nothing more than the above, but I did come across a well-written piece about Greece's plight from someone in the Occupy movement. It quotes John Perkins (author of "Confessions of an Economic Hitman") as saying "Greece is a classic example... These events are classic cases of what I detail in my books..." Some good info in there; enjoy.

As it stands China without a major development still lacks major resources for most things.

China now has a trade deficit with the rest of the world. Part of that is due to copper prices, also increases in soybean imports.

How do you know what treatments will become available tomorrow?

You cannot put back a soul into place once the brain matrix has rotten.

You may be surprised just how little of your brain has to be traumatized to "erase" all appearances of "you" from your actions and reactions to the world. You may also be surprised how quickly, or slowly, that apparently damaged portion of the brain can recover.

And, on the flip side, you can lose > 50% of your brain and still function reasonably well.

What I'd like to know is how Samsung's lawyers could be unable to tell the difference between an Apple and a Samsung product from ten feet away, yet you assume that the casual viewer will totally know the difference.

I'm pretty sure that's bullshit, because:

At one point during the hearing, she held one black glass tablet in each hand above her head, and asked Sullivan if she could identify which company produced which.

They were most likely off, meaning you couldn't see the user interface. And depending on how they were being held, you could probably block off the home button and other identifying characteristics so the only thing to go on would be the aspect ratio, which while entirely different, is something you'd need to know ahead of time.

So, here's a challenge for you: Go into a big box store, and find the TV section. From far enough away that you can't see the logos, I want you to identify by brand each TV. Can you do it? Because some people certainly can, but most people would just see a bunch of black rectangles on the wall, all showing the same video.

Yet, TV manufacturers don't sue each other over the "trade dress" despite the fact that all the large black slabs look basically identical. You know why? Because form follows function. It's a TV: it's basically all display with a little bit of structure around it and a few controls beneath the screen. They all look the same.

The exact same thing applies to tablets. Visually, they're just a touchscreen, with a few buttons around the display. They all look identical to the casual observer. But if you hand one to someone and ask them who made it, unless they can't read, no one will mistake a Samsung for an ASUS. Let alone an iPad.

What I'd like to know is how Samsung's lawyers could be unable to tell the difference between an Apple and a Samsung product from ten feet away, yet you assume that the casual viewer will totally know the difference.

If the only way you can tell between an "authentic" Louis Vuitton purse and a $10 streetcorner bargain made by "Louise Vitton" is through close inspection of the packaging, labels, and finish, then you have produced what is commonly known as a "knockoff." And that's precisely what Apple has alleged - that Samsung's new tablet "slavishly" copies their design so that only a close inspection will allow you to tell the two apart.

Again, you can certainly argue whether or not design patents should be allowed, and you can certainly argue that Samsung's device is not "too similar" to Apple's, but let's at least get the substance of the allegations right. Apple is not saying that they "own roundrect tablets with a black front." They are alleging that the specific design of the specific tablets from Samsung violates Apple's design patents by copying a substantial portion of Apple's trade dress.

By creating the clock you have given more validity to the pro war meme currently being circulated in the republican debates and MSM, the fact that Israel just asked us for a "bunker buster" bomb is telling, and the fact they were forced to promise not to use it this year (due to elections?) is more telling.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/08/us-iran-nuclear-israel-usa-idUSBRE82717220120308

Israel uses the US as a proxy army, utilizing the power of AIPAC to further it's own goals through lobbying and manipulation of American politics, one need only watch a republican debate and see how the candidates stumble over each other is their pledge to support Israel, this has really gone far enough don't you think?

Israel has nukes and refuses to sign non-proliferation treaties, Iran has no nukes (yet) and no one in their right mind would think Iran would attack Israel if they did have a nuke, it would bring the World down on them and Israels retaliation would be swift.
Iran with nukes presents a different sort of problem, not one of using the nukes but one of political implications and Israeli paranoia is dragging the US into another "war" we can't afford.

Currently all 3 countries involved in this fiasco are gearing up for elections so what does that tell you about all the rhetoric?

Enough is enough.

Um, no he's not a "father" of hydrogen bomb . . . Andrei Sakharov (of Soviet Union) is:

Maybe you haven't heard, but the US and USSR didn't share a lot of nuclear weapons secrets at the time, although the Soviets managed to steal US nuclear secrets with spies.

Putin praises Cold War moles for stealing U.S. nuclear secrets

Vladimir Putin praised Cold War-era scientists on Thursday for stealing U.S. nuclear secrets so that United States would not be the world's sole atomic power, in comments reflecting his vision of Russia as a counterweight to U.S. power.

Spies with suitcases full of data helped the Soviet Union build its atomic bomb, he told military commanders.

"You know, when the States already had nuclear weapons and the Soviet Union was only building them, we got a significant amount of information through Soviet foreign intelligence channels," Putin said, according to state-run Itar-Tass.

"The were carrying the information away not on microfilm but literally in suitcases. Suitcases!"

China has managed to achieve the same feat: Report Stolen data gives China advanced nuclear knowhow

I don't contest that the system is screwed. I do contest that Google is innocent. Even this company that strives to do no evil falls into the same pattern as everyone else, as that is the only course of action that allows survival in todays market. There is indeed no chance in hell for us.

WAIT! It's a story from Fox News.

BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17270822
Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/06/cyber-arrests-idUSL2E8E62WV20120306

Doubt there's anything really stopping us, I've seen a science piece of a patient with a new jaw from his own stem cells.

link to reuters story

Several provisions of the 1933 Banking Act sought to restrict 'speculative' uses of bank credit. Section 3(a) required each Federal Reserve Bank to monitor local member bank lending and investment to ensure there was not âoeundue useâ of bank credit for âoespeculative trading or carryingâ of securities, commodities or real estate.

Most would agree that when the fox is put in charge of the hen house, foul play will ensue. Just a couple examples:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/665c90e8-ecf4-11e0-be97-00144feab49a.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/29/us-lme-warehousing-idUSTRE76R3YZ20110729
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10290085/1/goldman-citigroup-to-make-markets-on-cbot.html
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0413/096-sachs-semgroup-goldman-goose-oil.html
http://seekingalpha.com/symbol/cvi/description

Forget about the economies their bookcooking destroyed, more important are the stooges being PLACED(not elected) into Euro leadership positions:
http://www.infowars.com/banker-coup-goldman-sachs-takes-over-europe/

And you know what? The public have spoken: People buy less from Sony, and Sony is losing money.

The Keystone XL pipeline is being built. They are starting in the south while the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is being done regarding the alternative routes through Nebraska. The Republican governor of NE didn't want the pipeline going over the sandhills and Ogallala aquifier (smart choice). The president can't force NE to allow the pipeline (10th amendment - no commandeering resources of the states).

Governor Heineman likes to say Obama has refused to allow Trans-Canada to start at all, but it's not true. It just can't go through NE because of the governor's objection. T-C said on Monday they are doing exactly what the governor wants, starting to build the southern leg, while they wait on the EIA which is required by law before building.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/27/us-keystone-idUSTRE81Q1II20120227

That did not work out so well with Solyndra

First Solar, which also received tax payer "investment" from the DOE, is also in trouble. They missed earnings estimates by a substantial margin and there are now questions about the efficacy of their products. First Solar could end up being another black eye for the Obama administration and its green energy policies.

Another bogus study recently was on the correlation of Diet Soda to Heart desease.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/20/us-soda-diet-idUSTRE81J03920120220

The problem is the factors that bring people to diet soda are overweight or diabetes which are both factors that would tend to increase risk of heart desease. Here too the people that are prescribed sleeping pills are a self selected group on some problem associated with sleep. They can say they have factored in all the external variables but that may not be that case or there may be other factors related to sleep problems that are more to blame and this study would not be complete or accurate unless it followed an equally large group of people that would have been given sleeping pills but were not and/or given a placebo, You don't know if giving a pill is the problem say vs not giving a pill as one factor. If you give a placebo you don't test that variable.

The study said it matched "matched controls with no hypnotic prescriptions" but they did not match with those who would have been prescribed meds but weren't. You may only be seeing the effect of the problems they had. I could be that the meds actually lengthened life vs the group not given them. This is the problem with vacines that have side effects, but the cure in general is much better for society than the side effects.

But that kind of study is hard to come by so you may just have to go on the data you have but as in religion and politics attribution can be a grand evil.

Not acurate at all from my understanding of the case:
Proview Electronics, a subsidiary of Proview International Holdings, agreed to sell the global iPad trademark in 2006. The rights were sold to a company called IP Application Development (‘IPAD’), for $55,104. The contracts were drawn up by Apple's legal team, listing all trademarks including the one for China, the list was supplied by Proview Electronics (taiwan).
In 2010, Proview Shenzhen (also a subsidiary of Proview International Holdings) began the process of suing Apple for trademark infringement over the ‘iPad’ brand. Proview Taiwan did not own the China trademark, Proview Shenzhen did and not sign over the rights to Proview Taiwan (which had no right to sell it) and did not enter into a contract with Apple to sell it.
Apple claim a mistake was made when the contract was drawn up listing the Trademark as owned by Taiwan but the chairman of both companies was the same person and was fully aware that the China trademark was included and gave permission to sell it, they also claim that they dealt with Shenzhen (it was the Proview Shenzhen people that told Apple Taiwan owned the trademarks).
Apple has had a couple of minor victories in Hong Kong and Taiwan that allows them to keep using the name till the ownership is dicided.
Apple’s own case against Proview that the company was infringing on its trademark with their own product was rejected at the end of last year by a court in Shenzen. Apple is appealing this decision.

The lawyer involved in the assignment of rights from Proview to Apple Inc didn't check the details deed of Assignment correctly and the trademark rights in China were not assigned.
I believe the owner's eyes lit up when he saw that Apple was the real purchaser of the name and is taking full advantage of "buyer beware".
Another twist is apparently Apple's shell company lawyers emailed Proview stipulating that the trademark will not be used in competition with Proview, it was needed only because it was the company name. Apple are not denying this, merely saying it doesn't matter what the lawyers said - this is part of the Proview lawsuit recently filed in the U.S.

Apple has a long-standing tactic of creating shells to do their brand and part buying, to make it difficult for the rumor mills and competitors to figure out what Apple is up to.

Not only that, but China also has a legal culture where companies use shell companies to make purchases. According to Reuters:

Industry executives have said employing special-purpose entities to acquire trademarks is a frequent tactic in China.

Not that this will prevent Proview from wanting to get more from the deal after-the-fact. In my opinion, the real kicker's gotta be that the name of the shell company Apple used.

Proview accuses Apple of creating a special purpose entity -- IP Application Development Ltd, or IPAD -- to buy the iPad name from it, concealing Apple's role in the matter.

Hospitals have strict budgets and have to penny pinch. The software vendors charge a ludicrous amount for their software - so much that the hospital admins cringe and have a very hard time finding the money. And with these hard times, hospital revenues are in a huge slump

REALLY? Have you seen the average hospital bill lately?

Let's look at HCA for example.Their profits are a bit up and down from quarter to quarter. But, there are always profits and they are always substantial.

Hospitals crying the poor mouth and pointing at software companies is a tough pill for me to swallow.

That's all well and good, except for the fact that they paid for the trade mark.

They say they paid for the trademark. The court decides whether they legally bought or licensed the trademark.

I think Apple will win this one because they'll be able to show that they really did pay for the trademark in China.

Apple bought iPad from Proview: "Apple says it bought Proview's worldwide rights to the trademark in 10 different countries several years ago, including rights to the iPad name from a Taiwan subsidiary of Proview International. Back then, the Proview Taiwan unit had sold the rights to IP Application Development Ltd, a London-based company that was set up by Apple, for 35,000 pounds, Proview's executives and lawyers said."

If your wife sells the family car, and you realize later the car's been sold, i think that's between you and your wife, not the buyer's fault.

But since Proview China is suing and blocking sales, can't Apple sue Proview Taiwan for selling something it didn't own? Like if I sued the buyer to get the family car back, the buyer would just sue my wife for selling something she didn't own, so really I'm suing myself.....

this is confusing :-/

But this is funny: Yang said the company had been developing a tablet product called the iPad back in 2000. "We spent a lot of resources on it. It's the same concept as the iPad today, except that back then, there were practically no LCD screens," Yang said.

LOL an iPad with no LCD? How the hell would that work?

That's all well and good, except for the fact that they paid for the trade mark.

They say they paid for the trademark. The court decides whether they legally bought or licensed the trademark.

I think Apple will win this one because they'll be able to show that they really did pay for the trademark in China.

Apple bought iPad from Proview: "Apple says it bought Proview's worldwide rights to the trademark in 10 different countries several years ago, including rights to the iPad name from a Taiwan subsidiary of Proview International. Back then, the Proview Taiwan unit had sold the rights to IP Application Development Ltd, a London-based company that was set up by Apple, for 35,000 pounds, Proview's executives and lawyers said."

If your wife sells the family car, and you realize later the car's been sold, i think that's between you and your wife, not the buyer's fault.

But since Proview China is suing and blocking sales, can't Apple sue Proview Taiwan for selling something it didn't own? Like if I sued the buyer to get the family car back, the buyer would just sue my wife for selling something she didn't own, so really I'm suing myself.....

this is confusing :-/

But this is funny: Yang said the company had been developing a tablet product called the iPad back in 2000. "We spent a lot of resources on it. It's the same concept as the iPad today, except that back then, there were practically no LCD screens," Yang said.

LOL an iPad with no LCD? How the hell would that work?

Typically when you buy worldwide rights, it applies to the entire world, no?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/15/us-apple-proview-idUSTRE81E0BE20120215

I would think if Proview has an issue, then they need to speak to whoever was claiming to own the worldwide rights to the trademark, rather than Apple. Claiming they were developing a 'similar' technology in 2000 with absolutely nothing to show for the last 12 years is a stretch in the best of cases, where their current financial situation would more likely imply that they are simply trolling trying to stay afloat given they are already going under.

By all means though, post without telling the whole story...

But why then is Foxconn converting to robots? REUTERS "Foxconn to rely more on robots; could use 1 million in 3 years" http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/01/us-foxconn-robots-idUSTRE77016B20110801

Re: BRICS as an organisation not a casual grouping.

I stand corrected. I didn't realise they had formalised their relationships to that degree.

Nonetheless, it's hard to see India, for example, siding with China in a dispute with the US. Or Brazil.

Lower the risk of exposure to a volatile borrower (US start playing nasty with China would be seen as volatile)?

Let see

* India buying IMF gold - among the reasons - diversifying India's reserves (under the milder term of "foreign exchange reserve management") and a larger voting share in the IMF;

* Brazil - even if at a record high reserve level, probably quite f**ked in this respect - the exposure to US securities seems quite high. Anyway, here's something interesting: Brazil prepared to lend reserves from the nation's central bank (CB) to help finance the rescue package for the European Union - looks like a (risky?) attempt to diversify to me.

You know about this? http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/13/us-filesharing-extradition-idUSTRE80C15C20120113

A UK subject is being extradited for actions that his lawyers say are not illegal in the UK (I'm inclined to agree, immoral as they are).

Basically US media companies are currently somehow managing to own worldwide formerly-democratic states to the extent of enforcing US law in, for example, Australia and the UK.

It looks the same? Then surely it will be as big a "disappointment" as the iPhone 4S was according to analysts--which went on to sell 37 million last quarter. In all seriousness, while the so-called Retina Display is the thing I'm most looking forward to (especially for reading text), the most interesting rumor is that the iPad 2 will continue to be sold at $200 to compete with the Kindle Fire. While the iPad is still the most dominant tablet, the Kindle Fire had a decent run over the holidays. By selling the iPad 2 at a cheaper price alongside the iPad 3, Apple will have both the high end and low end covered. This is the same strategy they're using with the iPhone 3GS (in fact, it's often free with contract), which helped Apple close the gap with Android's marketshare in December.

The next few years are going to be really fun to watch as companies fight over this new market. I think it's inevitable that phones and tablets will become the primary computing devices for most users in a matter of years, because they let people do the things that they use PCs for--Facebook, YouTube, email--without the hassle of PC maintenance. Tablets are already outselling the desktop PC market. Some people don't like "appliance computing", but having grown up with handheld consoles, I see appliance computing as a natural evolution and something to look forward to. PCs will still be around for those who need them.

And there are no Muslims on Mars. (Or are there? I'm not really an expert).

There used to be, but no longer because capitalism ended life on mars.

Fine, take a look at this article from Reuters with lots of direct attributions.

Perfect! A well-known, proven, and respected news agency. A properly-written journalistic article. They obviously did some research and contacted related parties for quotes and information. That's not some rumor-flinging blog post, that's journalism.

Of course there isn't any mention of the man being beaten. I wonder if that was just a rumor after all? Now maybe it's all part of a conspiracy or something and the guy really was beaten. However, I can't make a judgement because I don't have any facts one way or the other and I don't make judgements without at least the ghost of a factual basis.

Otherwise I might as well just believe everything I read in print, right? The government is infinitely wise and kind because some blog said so? I should give my money to a preacher because there's a nice web site with kind words? I should attack my neighbor because this leaflet says he's not one of us?

Didn't Obama repeatedly say in the past that he was going to increase NASA's budgets over the next five years? What became of that? Is it all going to be funneled into earthbound stuff? Or into that heavy-lift launcher that congress demanded?

We'll get any meaningful answers if all we have are rumors and unsubstantiated aspersions!

Fine, take a look at this article from Reuters with lots of direct attributions.

Here, here!

There's a great blog and book called You're not so smart, and it goes into deep discussion of how people think and behave. and for the most part we aren't open to new ideas, we just cherry pick facts to justify our philosophical positions. It actually takes a tremendous amount of intellectual rigor to look at the MANY sides of an idea to come away with some concise idea of where the reality of the situation lands. This by the way is complicated in this modern age by the fact your search engines are designed to help you find what you're looking for. So if you're looking for justification, not only will you find it, but you will soon be virtually unable to find anything else... the engine will be leaned in the direction you push it. Just as an aside, this is one more reason to look for all sides of a conversation, because you want to prevent your primary source of information from becoming so biased that it becomes just another feedback on your point of view.

In the area of global climate change. We have a lot of very interesting information. Greenland is experiencing TREMENDOUS melting events and there is a huge influx of fresh water into the arctic ocean. The problems with polar bear and brown bears is well understood, including a recent event in which unusually warm coastal water prevents salmon runs in southern Alaska and resulted in serious die off of young brown bears. Glaciers through the Americas, Europe and Africa are disappearing. The loss of glaciers in North America is so pronounced that within 20 years the International Park name "Glacier" may have no glaciers to speak of. Ocean chemistry is changing, and measurable rises in CO2 have resulted in acidification threatening a wide variety of species that require carbonaceous shells (everything from coral to shell fish to crustaceans and their larva.) On the other side, chemical changes have caused a massive increase in ocean jellies (a well known survival response to perceived threat designed to ensure species survival in the face of potential calamity.) We're seeing dramatic shifts in the flowering and fruiting seasons of plant around the world. Shifts in animal migration. Statistical changes in weather patterns consistent with predicted models (increased numbers of floods and droughts and increases in precipitation and storm intensity.) Serious rise in droughts and wildfires in the Western US, Africa and Australia. These are all facts. Part of a larger picture and as some have already said, so complex that we don't understand it. However, we can begin to see patterns emerging. It would be profoundly foolish to ignore these signs, or wait until catastrophic environmental failure became clear and incontrovertible.

Wise money suggests there are a hundred good reasons for looking at ways to conserve energy, become more efficient, find renewable resources and create an energy economy that begins to move people and long term solutions off planet. Wise money suggests that rather than argue and justify a negligent past, it would serve us all best to invent a workable future and to that end, arguing against the impacts of fossil fuels and there growing scarcity would seem (at least to me) like a fools errand.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/09/us-usa-nuclear-license-idUSTRE8181T420120209

According to Reuters, Apple surpassed Android in marketshare by the end of 2011, confirming earlier reports by both Nielsen and NPD. 150 Android smartphones couldn't beat the iPhone 4S. With 15 million iPads sold last quarter, the tablet market is now larger than the entire desktop PC market. Apple’s profits ($13 billion) exceeded Google’s entire revenue ($10.6 billion).

Who cares? Well, in January 2011, Slashdot triumphantly reported that Android surpassed iOS in marketshare. All year, Android fans cited Android's marketshare as proof that it was taking over the smartphone industry, that the lack of centralized control was superior to the "walled garden", and that Android was "winning".

So what happened when the opposite occurred and Apple reversed Android's marketshare lead by the end of the year? Despite multiple submissions from several users, and news coverage ranging from Arstechnica to CNN, Slashdot refused to publish the story. All the sudden, it wasn't considered newsworthy despite the publication of the other story a year earlier.

This is a Linux advocacy site whose initial userbase was driven by hatred of Windows marketshare. Marketshare is still highly fetishized around here. Anything negative about the marketshare of Linux, or platforms based on Linux, gets killed. Slashdot is intentionally not providing you full tech news coverage because it caters to a specific demographic of emotionally-invested users who are more likely to generate repeat page views.

In particular, any computer needs to be built in the west, with chips from the west, to be trusted.

The A5 that powers the iPad2 is made in Texas.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/16/us-apple-samsung-idUSTRE7BF0D420111216

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/16/tech/mobile/apple-a5-chip-texas/index.html

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57344151-17/iphone-ipad-processor-made-by-samsung-in-texas-report-says/

According to Reuters, Apple surpassed Android in marketshare by the end of 2011, confirming earlier reports by both Nielsen and NPD. 150 Android smartphones couldn't beat the iPhone 4S. With 15 million iPads sold last quarter, the tablet market is now larger than the entire desktop PC market. Apple’s profits ($13 billion) exceeded Google’s entire revenue ($10.6 billion).

Who cares? Well, in January 2011, Slashdot triumphantly reported that Android surpassed iOS in marketshare. All year, Android fans cited Android's marketshare as proof that it was taking over the smartphone industry, that the lack of centralized control was superior to the "walled garden", and that Android was "winning".

So what happened when the opposite occurred and Apple reversed Android's marketshare lead by the end of the year? Despite multiple submissions from several users, and news coverage ranging from Arstechnica to CNN, Slashdot refused to publish the story. All the sudden, it wasn't considered newsworthy despite the publication of the other story a year earlier.

This is a Linux advocacy site whose initial userbase was driven by hatred of Windows marketshare. Marketshare is still highly fetishized around here. Anything negative about the marketshare of Linux, or platforms based on Linux, gets killed. Slashdot is intentionally not providing you full tech news coverage because it caters to a specific demographic of emotionally-invested users who are more likely to generate repeat page views.

The iPhone 4S was such a huge hit that it passed Android's marketshare at the end of 2011 (it wouldn't surprise me if people didn't know, since Slashdot refused to report it). But, see, we're not supposed to focus on the facts. We're supposed to rant about these "money sucking leeches" like the submitter wanted.

I don't think that's really China's view.

The Wikileaks cables have included suggestions that Bejing is willing to accept a unified Korea under the South's government

China is also seriously concerned about an influx of refugees should North Korea 'collapse'.

And that's really everybody's concern. North Korea can't be allowed to simply 'collapse'. (It really already has collapsed economiclly but somehow manages to soldier on politically and socially.) There is too much military hardware there. There are too many people there. It would be a mess for everyone in the region (China, Russia, South Korea, Japan).

But there are several realities in the way of unification:

1) The Northern elites don't want it. This is really the biggest problem because until you can get the North to agree to unification there will be no unification. It's essentially impossible to forcedly unify the country. The people of the North have been so indoctrinated to fear everyone from outside the country. And the North's army remains powerful enough to cause so much destruction - not just to the North but to the South as well - that invasion is simply a no-go. You must somehow convince the rulers of the North to give up control to the South.

2) Unification would ruin the South. Unification is expensive. And it takes a long time. You don't just declare a country unified and all is good. You have to build up the poorer partner and work on social unification as well.

The unification of Germany cost upwards of $1.9 TRILLION. And West Germany was a lot richer than South Korea is. And East Germany wasn't nearly as poor as North Korea is. And socially there is still a gap between former East and West Germans. It will take another few generations to create real social unification.

A similar lesson can be learned by looking at Yemen, which was separated between North and South between the end of WWI until 1990. Yet after declaring unification the social separation between the peoples of the two former nations remained and resulted in civil war and unrest which really still continues today. (Equally note that both North and South Yemen were extremely poor nations, which made unification difficult economiclly as well.)

Really, the best scenario would be for the Northern elites to liberalize - open their economy bit by bit and reveal the truth about the rest of the world to their people bit-by-bit. Spend less on the military and more on developing the country - education, infrastructure, and a Chinese-style economic modernization. Then, as the North slowly climbs out of poverty and absolute self-imposed social isolation then maybe in a few decades unification will look more and more realistic.

And really that's what everyone wants. Everyone outside of the Northern elites that is.

There had been some hope that after Kim Jong-il died that his successor would be more open to the rest of the world, but that seems not to be the case.

Roseanne Barr for President!!

No, seriously. :D

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/03/idUS62365029920120203

According to Reuters, Apple surpassed Android in marketshare by the end of 2011, confirming earlier reports by both Nielsen and NPD. 150 Android smartphones couldn't beat the iPhone 4S. With 15 million iPads sold last quarter, the tablet market is now larger than the entire desktop PC market. Apple’s profits ($13 billion) exceeded Google’s entire revenue ($10.6 billion).

Who cares? Well, in January 2011, Slashdot triumphantly reported that Android surpassed iOS in marketshare. All year, Android fans cited Android's marketshare as proof that it was taking over the smartphone industry, that the lack of centralized control was superior to the "walled garden", and that Android was "winning".

So what happened when the opposite occurred and Apple reversed Android's marketshare lead by the end of the year? Despite multiple submissions from several users, and news coverage ranging from Arstechnica to CNN, Slashdot refused to publish the story. All the sudden, it wasn't considered newsworthy despite the publication of the other story a year earlier.

This is a Linux advocacy site whose initial userbase was driven by hatred of Windows marketshare. Marketshare is still highly fetishized around here. Anything negative about the marketshare of Linux, or platforms based on Linux, gets killed. Slashdot is intentionally not providing you full tech news coverage because it caters to a specific demographic of emotionally-invested users who are more likely to generate repeat page views.