Slashdot Mirror

One of the lessons the US military learned from Vietnam was that a volunteer army works better than a bunch of draftees.
Another lesson they learned is that they need to control the message, which is why reporters were "imbedded" with units during the invasion of Iraq.
There is no way the military were going to let independent reporters report on what was actually going on. (At least while it was happening).
They have also allied themselves with the most effective propaganda machine the world has ever known, and going by most of the comments here, they have been very successful.
Have you ever watched the NFL "Salute to Service" round? Have you ever wondered how much the military pay the NFL to stage those Nuremberg rallies? It's quite a lot.
Neither the NFL, nor the military want to talk about paid patriotism, because it goes against the idea they're trying to sell you.
As a non-American, I enjoy your type of football, but that particular kind of ra-ra militarism looks a bit threatening.
For a country that sees itself as the good guy, you start an awful lot of wars. I wonder who benefits?

The reality is he went 10 rounds with one of the greatest living boxers. No legitimate voice in the professional boxing community is calling him a joke. In fact, it's just the opposite. Every real boxing fan is surprised by how well McGregor was able to do against a real boxer like Mayweather.

The industry has you (and many others) brainwashed into substituting the word "Piracy" for "Copyright Infringement". Even the U.S. federal government uses the P word.

If you want to have a rational conversation about Copyright Infringement, stop referring to it as Piracy or Intellectual Property.

Easy, superheroes are part of a subset of "guy culture" even if it is animated. Of course it helps that it was fairly good for an animated superhero show with the whole art deco & noir thing. Basically a modern "Batman in the style of Fleischer"

And after all, comic book superheroes became rather "dudebro-ish" during the "Dark Age" (DAMN YOU LIEFELD!)

http://assets.sbnation.com/ass...

Tell me that wasn't an blatant "manly manlyness of BLUD" sort of thing. The whole Dork Age of comics was all about macho posturing with characters with X's, K's and Z's in their names and everyone having DETH, BLUD, SLYCE, or KYLL in their names and everyone having cyborg limbs, swords AND guns. DAMN YOU LIEFELD!

It all depends how fast you can kill the signal

For example, take the Samsung Epic 4G, which the jury counted as $130.1M in damages. It infringed all but one of the patents, but wasn't found to infringe either the unregistered or registered trade dress. So this judgement won't reduce that award by a penny. Same thing for any of the Samsung Galaxy S II models other than the Showcase, which collectively are $250M.

Or they could go to jail. That's right. For speeding.

It is probably an emotional response to seeing some rich **** flaunt the law with zero consequence to themselves,

I know some people think that, but it's just not the case. Just ask pro baseball player Jayson Werth. I realize that doing jail time for speeding isn't going to hurt the guy in the long run, but "zero consequences"? Not so.

And when the rich get too many tickets, they lose their license, just like you or I would. I get that the fine is pretty meaningless to them (my last ticket was for $150, and it was a bummer, but it didn't cause me to miss my rent payment or anything), but losing your license just sucks, I don't care who you are.

I saw this day coming after I worked there for a period. Treating their employees poorly was part of their business plan. I am surprised that it took so long though. Kornfield isn't around to see this, but he must have seen it on the horizon as well.

Great article on their imminent demise. http://www.sbnation.com/2014/1...

This article sums it up pretty well.

Everybody likes to blame the decline of bricks-and-mortar retail on the internet, and that may have some truth to it, but I think that a pretty substantial part of the problem is the influence of douchebag MBAs who have turned companies like Radio Shack, Sears, Office Depot, Best Buy, etc. etc. into dystopian hellholes of despair and horror. Try shopping at Sears in the last few years? The fear and desperation are palpable. I can understand in the current economy why the employees might not quit en masse, but why on earth would any customer voluntarily subject themselves to that?

The 80s called ... they want their store back

The obvious other example is in sports---is there any sport which has a professional league where a substantial number of amateurs are seriously competitive? I'm unaware of any. In fact, professional sports teams are enormously better than even the best amateur clubs.

I think you will want to look at the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). Specifically, take a look at football, basketball, maybe even baseball. I'm usually hesitant to call the college football and basketball amateur, but they are generally considered still amateurs. In the article below, 40+ athletes were drafted to the pros. Most of these draftees contribute to the team by the very next year, some star. Ohio State has had the most players drafted from a single team at 17. http://www.sbnation.com/nfl-mock-draft/2013/4/27/4275658/2013-nfl-draft-results-breakdown-college

Well, perhaps it would be a good idea to read the actual opinion then?

First off, the stuff they quoted in the summary was mostly from the intro paragraph. Not going in the details of the matter of law in an intro is no huge deal.

I did notice a bit further in as the decision went more into the pre-911 intelligence a bit of a historical error. The official 911 report actually showed that there was intelligence flagging the terrorists. As one example, one of the local FBI field offices flagged the fact that a lot of Middle-east nationals were taking flight training classes, and were showing no interest in learning how to land. The main problem the official report flagged was lack of communication between agencies, not lack of data (which is why its main recommendation was to combine all the intel agencies, NOT to gather more intel). So anyone who says the government didn't have enough data is arguing directly against the government's own 911 findings.

Historical misinterpretations aside, what is the legal argument? Reading through the body, it appears to be the following:

• Constitutionally the government has much more latitude to collect information for national defense than it does for criminal investigation. (Keith decision from 1972)
• The gathering that was going on was within the letter of the laws authorized by Congress since then.

In other words, the logic is that the (unanimous) Keith decision in 1972 established that the government could write much more aggressive laws for national defense intelligence gathering than it can for criminal cases, and subsequent laws have done so. So at the moment its is both constitutional and legal. I'll let folks who know constitutional law comment on how kosher this interpretation of things is.

Here is the aforementioned big, long document, suitable for any would-be armchair readers: http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3047069/hyperloop-alpha.pdf

It's running Windows XP

It could be taking off either way, or sinking, or whatever Clippie chooses

He never said that rounded corners were distinctive. He said that they were a part of a distinctive design, which gets at a fundamental principle of design patents that you seem to not understand.

I think he understands perfectly: Here's the 5 page filing for the patent. The only thing that separates it in terms of appearance is that it has rounded corners. But I mean, seriously, if what you've done is glued a computer to a touchscreen panel, how many design options are there? Round corners. Square corners. It's still a fucking rectangle, because that's how every touchscreen in mass-production today is shaped. There's only a select few form-factors that make sense when the primary (indeed, only) human interface is a touch-screen display.

So no, he's not knee-jerking: It was widely panned by popular media as being a patent for rounded edges. That was the substantive issue in the German lawsuit with Samsung v. Apple, where their Galaxy looked "too similar" to the Apple device. What you're defending, sir, is not an innovation in techology, but a company with the largest market capitalization on the planet attempting to remove all the other players from the market by patenting the only practical form-factor for this type of device. There is no innovation. It's totally business. As to the reason you're defending it, I suspect religious beliefs, caused in large part by marketing and having no actual basis in reality.

To put it a bit differently, Coca-Cola has a design patent covering their iconic bottle shape, yet no one is suggesting that Coca-Cola has a patent on all curved bottles just because their design patent includes curves as one of its claims.

Umm, you're kidding, right? You've just cited the quintessential example of design patents. I mean, of all the ones you could have chosen, you've chosen the single most cited-example found in graphics design. You couldn't have derped your argument in a more epic fashion if you'd done it while screaming naked in the street.

To infringe, you'd have to include not just curves in your bottle design, but curves that matched the other claims and diagrams presented in their design patent before you'd be infringing on their patent.

See above. The curves in the bottle design was the sole thing patented.

Similarly, Apple's infamous iPhone patent that included rounded corners as one of its claims also included a number of other claims as well ...

Except it didn't, see above.

For infringement to take place, ALL of those claims would be considered together, rather than just the uniform rounded corners claim.

ALL [emphasis yours] actually equals ONE [emphasis mine] in this case. No really. It is totally just that. I'm sorry if you weren't paying attention, but I mean, who can when you're so busy fanboying that you fail at your argument so spectacularly we should build a monument to your derp.

I own Simcity Classic, 2000, 3000, 3000 for Linux by Loki Software, 4 Deluxe Edition, and the Rush Hour expansion. I won't be owning this game until it can be played offline. All I wanted was Simcity 4 with multicore and GPU simulation acceleration. Imagine how much math can be done in parallel using OpenCL or CUDA.

Maybe this kickstarter will be a hit and EA will wake up. They should start by reading the Valve employee handbook and firing the entire management team unless they take a development role.

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1074301/Valve_Handbook_LowRes.pdf I think you should read the handbook before deciding you know more about their hyperbole than they do.

Valve addresses this very question in the Handbook for New Employees:

Q: If all this stuff has worked well for us, why doesn’t every company
work this way?

A: Well, it’s really hard. Mainly because, from day one, it requires a
commitment to hiring in a way that’s very different from the way most
companies hire. It also requires the discipline to make the design of
the company more important than any one short-term business goal.
And it requires a great deal of freedom from outside pressure—being
self-funded was key. And having a founder who was confident enough
to build this kind of place is rare, indeed.

Another reason that it’s hard to run a company this way is that it
requires vigilance. It’s a one-way trip if the core values change, and
maintaining them requires the full commitment of everyone—
especially those who’ve been here the longest. For “senior” people
at most companies, accumulating more power and/or money over
time happens by adopting a more hierarchical culture.

Frank Gore is an amazing athlete and yet didn't start his rookie year. Running backs are more likely to start as rookies than many other positions where raw speed and fresh legs are preferable. Part of the reason he didn't play more early is that he took longer to learn the offense than some of his counterparts. And his low Wonderlic score is part of the reason why he was drafted in the third round as opposed to the first round, even though by pure athleticism, he was perhaps the best college running back. It cost him millions of dollars.

People who haven't played football often underestimate the amount of strategy in the game.

Here is a real basic breakdown of the offense the 49ers and Frank Gore operate in today. It requires quick decision making skills.

http://www.sbnation.com/longform/2012/12/27/3792740/pistol-offense-nfl-redskins-rg3

Why don't you look at the pictures? Due to the increased contrast and much higher res, even with the 'layer' (which looks to be invisible btw) the screen is about 10x nicer than the kindle before it. Very white, nice even lighting, and the light IS coming from above the e-ink, bouncing off it, and hitting your eyes, just as if you'd used a book light or sat in the sun.

I'm sure you may be able to tell the difference but even the close up pics of it off, it looks better.

Here is a side by side comparison with all lighting off in not great lighting.

http://cdn1.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/5336415/kindle-paperwhite-vs-79-kindle-XSC_1991-rm-verge-1020_gallery_post.jpg

Much sharper, blacker blacks, whiter whites (a bit) and no blurryness from the layer above it.

I would certainly not hesitate to call it 'e-ink'.

The questions were pretty straight forward with a simple table of yes/no answers for each device. Jurors had every device in the room with the ability to try each device to see if, in their opinion, it violated the patent in question.

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1307288/1890_finalverdictform.pdf

Well, the case was not really that complex once it got to the jury. Simplifying the jury's task is the point of a lot of the legal maneuvering that goes in before and during the trial. It's true that the jury verdict form was really long, but mostly that is because each question had to be asked once for each Samsung product at issue. Here's the form: http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1307288/1890_finalverdictform.pdf

But, yeah. You disagree with the verdict (based, I'd wager, on very little information), so the jury must have been stacked.

“Apple, which ended its third quarter with $1.2 billion in cash, will use the additional $150 million to invest in its core markets of education and creative content, Anderson said.”

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/592FE887-5CA1-4F30-BD62-407362B533B9.html

http://lightbox.time.com/2011/10/06/in-a-private-light-diana-walkers-photos-of-steve-jobs/#10

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/05/apples-stock-rise-could-have-meant-5-billion-for-microsoft/

“Less than 12 hours before his big announcement, nobody here knows yet about the bombshell to come. In fact, Jobs is still negotiating it here at the Castle--on a cell phone. "Hi, Bill," you hear him say in the echo chamber of the old hall. Then his voice drops, and for nearly an hour he paces the stage, running through last-minute details with Gates. All the while, he leans over his computer, paces, lies down on the stage, paces, lurks in dark corners, paces and talks, paces and talks.

This is the fateful call for the boy titans of the personal-computer revolution, meant to settle the war. At one point, talking about Apple, Jobs says, "There are a lot of good things, happily--and a lot of screwed-up things." Then, to his crew, he yells, "Have we got satellite contact with the other side?" Assured this has been taken care of, he answers a question from Gates about what to wear on the morrow ("I'm just going to wear a white shirt," he assures him), and he finally ends the conversation with a heartfelt "Thank you for your support of this company. I think the world's a better place for it." And so that's how Apple and Microsoft, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, finally seal it--on a cell-phone call.

The deal is vintage Jobs. Amelio began the process of repairing relations between the two longtime rivals. But once he was out the door at Apple, Jobs contacted Gates to try to get talks started again. Gates dispatched his CFO, Gregory Maffei, who met Jobs at his home. Jobs suggested they go for a walk. Grabbing a couple of bottles of mineral water from the fridge, the two took off for a stroll around Palo Alto. Jobs was barefoot. "It was an interesting scene," Maffei recalls. "It was a pretty radical change for the relations between the two companies." The two walked for nearly an hour, through Palo Alto's green university area, as they pounded out the details of a potential deal. Jobs, Maffei says, was "expansive and charming. He said, 'These are things that we care about and that matter.' And that let us cut down the list. We had spent a lot of time with Amelio, and they had a lot of ideas that were nonstarters. Jobs had a lot more ability. He didn't ask for 23,000 terms. He looked at the whole picture, figured about what he needed. And we figured he had the credibility to bring the Apple people around and sell the deal."”

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/13/3239977/apple-and-microsoft-cross-license-agreement-includes-anti-cloning

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1292505/584.pdf

In the case this story is about, Apple is suing Samsung primarily over design patents and trade dress. There are a few utility patents in there too, but the case is primarily about whether Samsung copied Apple's design.

http://cdn0.sbnation.com/podcasts/apple-samsung-lawsuit.pdf

The utility patents, while they do exist, almost never seem to be mentioned. The ones that are mentioned are pretty specific. They are not "No a blue print but a concept. Not even the concept of an internal combustion engine but the concept of an engine. And the patents they submit provide nothing that a skilled craftsman can use to build a device."

maybe I'm naive to think that once it ended up in court it was to be decided by the jury based on the evidence, not by what bloggers and journalist may or maybe not have been paid to write

Yes, you are naive actually. Read the order to avoid any further confusion or just keep reading this post for the relevant bits.

The Court is concerned that the parties and/or counsel herein may have retained or paid print or internet authors, journalists, commentators or bloggers who have and/or may publish comments on the issues in this case. Although proceedings in this matter are almost over, they are not fully over yet and, in any event, the disclosure required by this order would be of use on appeal or on any remand to make clear whether any treatise, article, commentary or analysis on the issues posed by this case are possibly influenced by financial relationships to the parties or counsel. Therefore, each side and its counsel shall file a statement herein clear identifying all authors, journalists, commentators or bloggers who have reported or commented on any issues in this case and who have received money (other than normal subscription fees) from the party or its counsel during the pendency of this action. This disclosure shall be filed by NOON ON FRIDAY, AUGUST 17, 2012.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The fun thing is those who oppose vehemently to "rounded rectangle" can't give coherent answer what it is about, then, and proceed with "it's about copying the combination of design features" handwave maneuver without ever saying any concrete detail about what else this suit is about.

Last time I asked one of those to be more specific, I was given a link which really drives the point home. iPad claims, for example:

The mark consists of the configuration of a rectangular handheld mobile digital electronic device with rounded corners.[2]The color(s) gray, silver and black is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of the configuration of a handheld mobile digital electronic device. The color gray appears as a rectangle at the front, center of the device. [the screen]The color black appears on the front of the deviceabove and below the gray rectangle and on the curved corners of the device. The color silver appears as the outer border and sides of the device. [3]

IOW, it's not only about rounded rectangle with flat front and screen, it's also about "color(s) gray, silver and black" and "16 icons arranged in 4 by 4 grid".

Hell, here's from actual complaint (it's page 13):

a rectangular product shape with all four corners uniformly rounded;
the front surface of the product dominated by a screen surface with black borders;
                    as to the iPhone and iPod touch products, substantial black borders above and
below the screen having roughly equal width and narrower black borders on either side of the
screen having roughly equal width;
                    as to the iPad product, substantial black borders on all sides being roughly equal in
width;
                    a metallic surround framing the perimeter of the top surface;
                    a display of a grid of colorful square icons with uniformly rounded corners; and
                    a bottom row of square icons (the “Springboard”) set off from the other icons and
that do not change as the other pages of the user interface are viewed.

Scroll on to page 24 to have a good laugh at "Samsung copied numerous trademarked icons" showing pixel perfect copies next to each other, like messages icon or photo album icon.

So yeah, those who take "rounded rectangles" as literal are dumb, but those who don't see the figurative sense of "rounded corners" (it's also about "a display of a grid of colorful square icons with uniformly rounded corners", y'all) are dumb as well.

"For the iPhone design, alternative smartphone designs include: front surfaces that are not black or clear; front surfaces that are not rectangular, not flat, and without rounded corners; display screens that are more square than rectangular or not rectangular at all; display screens that are not centered on the front surface of the phone and that have substantial lateral borders; speaker openings that are not horizontal slots with rounded ends and that are not centered above the display screen; front surfaces that contain substantial adornment; and phones without bezels at all or very different looking bezels that are not thin, uniform, and with an inwardly sloping profile. "[A]lternate tablet computer designs include: overall shapes that are not rectangular with four flat sides or that do not have four rounded corners; front surfaces that are not completely flat or clear and that have substantial adornment; thick frames rather than a thin rim around the front surface; and profiles that are not thin relative to the D’889 or that have a cluttered appearance."

Or worse.

http://cdn0.sbnation.com/legacy_images/minorleagueball/images/admin/otto.jpg

They are not hipster glasses: http://cdn0.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/3599594/google-glasses_large_verge_medium_landscape.jpg

http://cdn2.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/3599388/google4_gallery_post.jpg
http://images.wikia.com/startrek/images/d/dd/Seven_of_Nine.jpg

Indeed.

Apple's expert disagrees.

Because obviously "... alternative smartphone designs include: [snip] front surfaces that are not rectangular (Exs.7-10), not flat (Exs. 11-13), and without rounded corners (Exs. 9, 14, 15) ..."

Just make triangular tablets with convex/concave screens and sharp corners to comfortably hold them.

Do they? Is that the complete court filings compressed into one sentence?

No, it's just one of the things they claim to own. No one said it was the entire claim, but that's a nice straw man.

rectangular product shape with all four corners uniformly rounded;

That's a pretty silly, since almost 100% of all smart phones fit that criteria. The rest of the list is equally mundane. Sorry, I can't read German, so that's from the US case.

If you actually read the lawsuit filing, you would gave understood the Apple is filing for patents (specifically design patents), trade dress, and trademarks. ALso trademarks are related to but are not trade dress. And the trademark elements Apple alleges is specifically for icons.

I just want to say this