I keep seeing arguments about not 'needing' to upgrade the OS.
These devices are full-fledged computers. It's not at all acceptable to buy a notebook computer and not be able to update its OS. It's not at all acceptable to buy a server and be stuck with the same OS it came with. Why is it acceptable for a hand-sized computer to have gross security problems, but "not need" OS updates?
Saying a computer - ANY computer - from supercomputer to smart phones - "doesn't need" software updates is like saying an engine doesn't need oil. It's a lie and a conceit used to cover up a massive problem. It's the proverbial car with the hood welded shut, and is unacceptable bullshit.
Second of all, the original iPhone 2G, which I have, is definitely not supported by iOS5, or even iOS4 for that matter. What are they smoking?
I can't help but think this is intentionally skewed for Apple...
I initially thought that as well, but I then realized I was reading the chart wrong. (Though I agree that if the first impression is "WTF; the iPhone 1 doesn't run iOS 4, 3GS doesn't run iOS 5", there's a problem with the graph.)
The chart shows a 3-year period from the time the phone was released - not "all time".
The iPhone and iPhone 3G were upgradeable to whatever the 'current' version of iOS happened to be for three years after the release of the phone.
The original iPhone was upgradeable until iOS 4 came out - in fall of 2010, which means it was possible to upgrade its version of iOS for just over three years past its release. The iPhone 3G was upgradable to the 'latest' iOS until iOS5 - which was released just over three years past the iPhone 3G release.
Given the times the iPhone and iPhone 3G were for sale, the phones were upgradeable to the 'latest' release of iOS for the entire time they would be under a 2-year contract.
Does not going past 3 years make Apple look artificially better? Maybe, maybe not. Android phones did come over a year after the iPhone.
Given the amount of time since Android's release, it remains to be seen if an Android maker will keep their devices upgradeable for three years. From the data available, it seems that on the whole, Android phone makers aren't as committed to supporting their products as Apple.
It seems that an Android manufacturer supporting its product for over two years is an exception, rather than the rule. Frankly, that doesn't speak well for the makers or the platform.
Out of curiosity, you mention the Samsung Galaxy - If wikipedia is correct, the Galaxy line consists of many phone models; so this raises a couple questions: - How old is your particular model? The whole point of the article is Android devices are 'abandoned' by their makers after 1-2 years. - Has Samsung had their phones upgradeable to the 'latest' Android release on day 1, or is there a waiting period - and how long is the wait. Can you expect to take a 2+ year old Galaxy and install Ice Cream Sandwich? (ie. a 2+ year old iPhone 3GS is still upgradeable to iOS 5) - Has any Android maker continued to support the 'latest' Android release for a device that's three years old?
I want Android to succeed, but so far, it's been a comedy of errors. I never thought I'd see Windows Phone 7 become competitive to Android, but fumble after fumble of bad device support, makers paying 'protection money' to Microsoft, platform fragmentation, etc. has led me to believe Android is doomed to being a 3rd tier platform.
+1 for CrashPlan. There are competitors, of course, so get what works for you.
CrashPlan lets you have local backup (on your own drives), remote backup (on a friend/family's machine), and backup at a professionally managed datacenter. Crashplan makes it painless. It even does periodic verification to ensure you're not losing data.
In my case, it took quite a while (~6 months) of carefully watching the bandwidth meter to make sure I don't go over my bandwidth cap with Comcast. In all honesty, I just figured out a bitrate that would use 100 GB/month, and told Crashplan to use that.
I'm a big believer in having more than one backup, and having a professionally-managed backup location is extra insurance.
From what I read in TFA, they only reverted the part where they continue to track you after you've canceled I saw nothing about them changing their minds about selling your data.
We live in a post-RISC world. Nearly every modern processor's "core" use the major innovations of a RISC chip. The size of the instruction set is of little importance; many so-called "RISC" architectures (such as Power) have a larger instruction set than the "CISC" x86_64.
The main issue that spawned the development of RISC (that instruction sets were getting so large and unwieldy that instruction decode would take the lion's share of a die's transistors) turned out to be less of a problem than anticipated. At the time, many CISC chips (VAX in particular) were implementing high-level programming features in the architecture's assembly language.
Nearly all of us have decided that efficient compilers have made a high-level, expressive assembly language unnecessary.
Another factor is that modern processors are superscalar, with multiple execution pipelines per core - one instruction decoder then feeds several pipelines, which further reduces the relative size of the instruction decode.
However, modern chips do implement (at least internally), other "core" ideals of the RISC processor: - Numerous registers - Load/Store memory access - Multi-stage Pipelines - One instruction per clock tick (ie. keep the complexity of an instruction down to what can execute in one tick - if something takes more than one tick, break it down into smaller pieces).
The one thing that the so-called "RISC" chips have historically been known for is dependability: The machines that use them don't crash. This requires more than just a good CPU: It requires good hardware in general, and a good operating system. The "RISC" vendors - such as Sun (now Oracle), IBM, HP and SGI, control the quality of the entire system - from the electrical components, to the chassis, to the airflow in the chassis. Even the datacenter's abilities (power, cooling capacity, airflow) are specified.
There are a lot of things that go into making a system that's mission-critical, and the CPU is a small part of the equation (and usually is the least troublesome). Putting an CPU on a motherboard doesn't give me guarantees about airflow, power reliability, I/O stability and speed, vibration tolerance, nonblocking I/O, and reliability - to say nothing about core OS stability.
Intel isn't interested in doing anything other than selling chips. Unless Intel is willing to take upon themselves a whole-system approach - covering everything from the chassis, cooling and airflow, power supply, motherboard, and core operating system - they'll never play in the league.
Making a mission-critical system is left to others who use Intel's chips, such as HP's high-end Itanium line, and SGI's Altix and Altix UV systems (using Itanium and x86_64).
I see it as follows: RMS views anything that's not GPLv3 as being "bad" to some extent, including the Apache License used by much of Android, or the BSD license used in much of iOS. Even the Linux Kernel's use of the GPLv2 license has seen criticism by RMS.
The fact the Apache and BSD license permits closed software (such as Honeycomb and iOS) based on "open" software makes it at least somewhat evil - the return of code to the community isn't required.
RMS's attitude about fully-proprietary software, such as Windows Phone 7, is very clear: It's evil and must be destroyed. I really don't see how anyone could claim RMS would see a WP7 device as "less bad" than an Android device.
Microsoft is not the evil company that this site thinks it still is. Time to find a new whipping boy, Slashdot.
They already have: Apple, Google, and Oracle. Forget about the substantial contributions to open source that the companies continue to provide, the fact Apple single-handedly proved that DRM does more harm to the music labels than good, Oracle's work with BTRFS, etc. In the opinion of many slashdotters, unless you're releasing everything under the GPLv3, and make device hackable, and all hardware designs and specifications open, you're evil. That pretty much adds every company on Earth to the list.
It's not that other companies have become "more evil" - it's that the "GPLv3 free-or-die" software movement has become more radical; even those who use the GPLv2 are scorned - to say nothing of BSD, MIT, or Apache licenses. It's GPLv3 or nothing, apparently...
I think dumping flash is a good thing - Adobe apparently couldn't be bothered to take security seriously. Take the security issues with Flash, add on Adobe's lack of concern about optimization for anything that's not Windows, and it's easy to see why Apple waged an anti-flash war with Adobe.
Now, it seems, that Microsoft is taking a similar view (though possibly with an entirely different motive, given Microsoft makes Silverlight).
I have to wonder what you're on the east coast of. East coast of Madagascar? I work in HPC; a thousand nodes just isn't that much. We sold larger clusters than that four years ago.
Some people learn; others choose to ignore anything that doesn't support their point of view. Hatred of Apple is part of their self-identity, and therefore ignore anything that doesn't support their "Apple is evil" mindset.
Positive efforts funded and contributed to by Apple - such as WebKit, LLVM, Clang, Grand Central Dispatch, CUPS, and more. Apple publishes the code to open source software it uses. It even publishes software it isn't obligated to publish (ie. BSD, MIT, Apache...).
None of that matters, of course, because in spite of Apple playing a significant role in free and open source software, they're evil - apparently because they're successful. Apple hasn't changed much since 2003 - when many of the Slashdot community pointed at Apple as the 'perfect blend' of proprietary and free software. The only thing that has changed is the popularity of their products.
I see the following issues: * The chances of finding any of the individuals who were allegedly impersonating the police (ie. the criminals) is about zero. * Given that the people involved in the "Police" raid on a private home are comfortable impersonating police, they are almost certainly comfortable impersonating an Apple Employee (ie. the "Apple Security" that called up the bar asking about the iPhone). * There are organizations with motive, means, and opportunity to impersonate Apple as part of a grudge or smear campaign.
However, it must be understood that many of Apple's competitors spend massive amounts of money to smear Apple (and each other).
As far as what we *know*:
- Some media outlets are claiming there was a stolen iPhone prototype. The details are frankly shaky enough as it is - the only "lead" is the bar owner claims that he was contacted by someone claiming to be Apple security.
- A couple of people are claiming that a group impersonating the police searched a guy's home, looking for an iPhone.
Here's the thing: I've learned to be more than a little leery about press reports about any company, because "the competition" is always ready & willing to smear each other. The details are so sparse as to make it sound more than a little fishy.
All anyone has to do is:
- Pick a bar
- Follow a mark. Preferably somebody the public would be "sympathetic" towards.
- Contact the bar, claim to be from Apple, and claim there was a lost phone.
- Send a crew out to the mark's home, and impersonate the police department.
It's cheap, low risk of ever being caught, and pays off big. Classic mudslinging.
Who would stand to gain? Any of Apple's competitors, anybody who wants to short Apple stock, a news outlet with a grudge against Apple... there are more than a few options.
The more I think of it, more it sounds like a smear campaign. Apple has far too much to lose, and they aren't idiots. Apple is quite conscious of how closely their every move is watched.
It's wishful thinking, but I like the idea that some company will someday go apeshit patent-suit crazy and raise the specter of a patent apocalypse - and force reforms to be made, because sale of nearly all goods has been halted due to patent infringements.
Apple enforced its FairPlay DRM to the hilt; in the process they proved that DRM can be more harmful to the copyright holder than a consumer, and essentially forced the major labels to drop DRM forever.
I don't have to dream that Apple is crazy enough to demonstrate to the world how crazy the patent system is - they're doing it now, whether it's their intention or not. Apple has a reputation for being uncompromising - I can't think of any other company where a cross-license deal and payment of money won't be enough; but I can see Apple risking Mutually Assured Destruction.
So the question remains: Is a patent apocalypse coming? Will Apple be one of its horsemen? Is it a good thing?
1. There aren't any roads, rail or otherwise, between Nome and Anchorage, a distance of ~1000 miles. Google Maps won't even give walking directions, and "Your search for transit directions from Anchorage, AK to Nome, AK appears to be outside our current coverage area. Please consult our list of participating public transit agencies."
I thought the dog sled race was to commemorate the Great Race of Mercy and of mushers in general.
Though I have to admit I'm really just for the bush pilot's racing league. (Assuming it exists. And if not, why not!)
3. The proposed train route ends in Victorville, CA. Who the hell wants to have to get off the train in Victorville?
After being stuck on a train all the way across Siberia and Alaska, who wouldn't want to get off? I'm willing to bet every man, woman, and child on the train would sell their soul to never see a train again.
As the article points out - why did Samsung choose a sunflower of all things for photos icon?
The resemblance between the 'media player' icon and the old iTunes icon is also a very close match.
The address book having a silhouette of a bust is suspect (but far from obviously wrong - let the court decide), as is choosing the icon they did for a notepad.
The "gear" for settings is, I think, not defensible; KDE's been using it for ages.
After further investigation, though, I haven't been able to find the design patents I spoke of. I've found numerous references that computer icons are valid material for a design patent (as well as a trademark and copyright.) Talk about a trifecta from hell... you can have something covered with copyrights, trade dress, and patents.
I'm pretty sure both Samsung and Apple will be found to infringe something in the other's IP chest.; it's foolish to think that either is innocent. Samsung has a history of copying designs from other makers, and of playing the lawsuit game.
From what I've read in the actual patents involved, the idea of a portable touchscreen isn't what's being contested. Not that the average slash otter is interested in that fact - it appears most posters are oblivious to the fact that Apple isn't suing over the idea of a touchscreen tablet.
Is it apparently lost on Samsung and the frothing-at-the-mouth haters that the patents in question are not about making a touchscreen tablet, but is about using the following graphic design elements: * A sunflower for the 'photos' app * A white cartoon bubble with a green background for SMS * A calendar icon with a red bar on top, and black text showing the current day * An envelope icon against a cloudy sky * A notebook with a brown binding on top
Any of those can easily be represented just as clearly with a different icon, but Samsung flatly refuses to change the icon.
I don't see how pointing out that tablets are a staple of scifi will change the design patents. This isn't about 'invention', it's about graphic design - and an entirely different part of the law.
Slashdot Mirror
I keep seeing arguments about not 'needing' to upgrade the OS.
These devices are full-fledged computers. It's not at all acceptable to buy a notebook computer and not be able to update its OS. It's not at all acceptable to buy a server and be stuck with the same OS it came with. Why is it acceptable for a hand-sized computer to have gross security problems, but "not need" OS updates?
Saying a computer - ANY computer - from supercomputer to smart phones - "doesn't need" software updates is like saying an engine doesn't need oil. It's a lie and a conceit used to cover up a massive problem. It's the proverbial car with the hood welded shut, and is unacceptable bullshit.
Second of all, the original iPhone 2G, which I have, is definitely not supported by iOS5, or even iOS4 for that matter. What are they smoking?
I can't help but think this is intentionally skewed for Apple...
I initially thought that as well, but I then realized I was reading the chart wrong. (Though I agree that if the first impression is "WTF; the iPhone 1 doesn't run iOS 4, 3GS doesn't run iOS 5", there's a problem with the graph.)
The chart shows a 3-year period from the time the phone was released - not "all time".
The iPhone and iPhone 3G were upgradeable to whatever the 'current' version of iOS happened to be for three years after the release of the phone.
The original iPhone was upgradeable until iOS 4 came out - in fall of 2010, which means it was possible to upgrade its version of iOS for just over three years past its release. The iPhone 3G was upgradable to the 'latest' iOS until iOS5 - which was released just over three years past the iPhone 3G release.
Given the times the iPhone and iPhone 3G were for sale, the phones were upgradeable to the 'latest' release of iOS for the entire time they would be under a 2-year contract.
Does not going past 3 years make Apple look artificially better? Maybe, maybe not. Android phones did come over a year after the iPhone.
Given the amount of time since Android's release, it remains to be seen if an Android maker will keep their devices upgradeable for three years. From the data available, it seems that on the whole, Android phone makers aren't as committed to supporting their products as Apple.
It seems that an Android manufacturer supporting its product for over two years is an exception, rather than the rule. Frankly, that doesn't speak well for the makers or the platform.
Out of curiosity, you mention the Samsung Galaxy - If wikipedia is correct, the Galaxy line consists of many phone models; so this raises a couple questions:
- How old is your particular model? The whole point of the article is Android devices are 'abandoned' by their makers after 1-2 years.
- Has Samsung had their phones upgradeable to the 'latest' Android release on day 1, or is there a waiting period - and how long is the wait. Can you expect to take a 2+ year old Galaxy and install Ice Cream Sandwich? (ie. a 2+ year old iPhone 3GS is still upgradeable to iOS 5)
- Has any Android maker continued to support the 'latest' Android release for a device that's three years old?
I want Android to succeed, but so far, it's been a comedy of errors. I never thought I'd see Windows Phone 7 become competitive to Android, but fumble after fumble of bad device support, makers paying 'protection money' to Microsoft, platform fragmentation, etc. has led me to believe Android is doomed to being a 3rd tier platform.
+1 for CrashPlan. There are competitors, of course, so get what works for you.
CrashPlan lets you have local backup (on your own drives), remote backup (on a friend/family's machine), and backup at a professionally managed datacenter. Crashplan makes it painless. It even does periodic verification to ensure you're not losing data.
In my case, it took quite a while (~6 months) of carefully watching the bandwidth meter to make sure I don't go over my bandwidth cap with Comcast. In all honesty, I just figured out a bitrate that would use 100 GB/month, and told Crashplan to use that.
I'm a big believer in having more than one backup, and having a professionally-managed backup location is extra insurance.
From what I read in TFA, they only reverted the part where they continue to track you after you've canceled I saw nothing about them changing their minds about selling your data.
* Kerberos (Widely used, part of Active Directory)
* X11
* AFS (Andrew File System)
* MACH (Used by GNU HURD and OS X)
And that's just a starting sample.
I wish parent hadn't posted as AC; parent needs to be modded up, and now nobody gets karma...
We live in a post-RISC world. Nearly every modern processor's "core" use the major innovations of a RISC chip. The size of the instruction set is of little importance; many so-called "RISC" architectures (such as Power) have a larger instruction set than the "CISC" x86_64.
The main issue that spawned the development of RISC (that instruction sets were getting so large and unwieldy that instruction decode would take the lion's share of a die's transistors) turned out to be less of a problem than anticipated. At the time, many CISC chips (VAX in particular) were implementing high-level programming features in the architecture's assembly language.
Nearly all of us have decided that efficient compilers have made a high-level, expressive assembly language unnecessary.
Another factor is that modern processors are superscalar, with multiple execution pipelines per core - one instruction decoder then feeds several pipelines, which further reduces the relative size of the instruction decode.
However, modern chips do implement (at least internally), other "core" ideals of the RISC processor:
- Numerous registers
- Load/Store memory access
- Multi-stage Pipelines
- One instruction per clock tick (ie. keep the complexity of an instruction down to what can execute in one tick - if something takes more than one tick, break it down into smaller pieces).
The one thing that the so-called "RISC" chips have historically been known for is dependability: The machines that use them don't crash. This requires more than just a good CPU: It requires good hardware in general, and a good operating system. The "RISC" vendors - such as Sun (now Oracle), IBM, HP and SGI, control the quality of the entire system - from the electrical components, to the chassis, to the airflow in the chassis. Even the datacenter's abilities (power, cooling capacity, airflow) are specified.
There are a lot of things that go into making a system that's mission-critical, and the CPU is a small part of the equation (and usually is the least troublesome). Putting an CPU on a motherboard doesn't give me guarantees about airflow, power reliability, I/O stability and speed, vibration tolerance, nonblocking I/O, and reliability - to say nothing about core OS stability.
Intel isn't interested in doing anything other than selling chips. Unless Intel is willing to take upon themselves a whole-system approach - covering everything from the chassis, cooling and airflow, power supply, motherboard, and core operating system - they'll never play in the league.
Making a mission-critical system is left to others who use Intel's chips, such as HP's high-end Itanium line, and SGI's Altix and Altix UV systems (using Itanium and x86_64).
I see it as follows: RMS views anything that's not GPLv3 as being "bad" to some extent, including the Apache License used by much of Android, or the BSD license used in much of iOS. Even the Linux Kernel's use of the GPLv2 license has seen criticism by RMS.
The fact the Apache and BSD license permits closed software (such as Honeycomb and iOS) based on "open" software makes it at least somewhat evil - the return of code to the community isn't required.
RMS's attitude about fully-proprietary software, such as Windows Phone 7, is very clear: It's evil and must be destroyed. I really don't see how anyone could claim RMS would see a WP7 device as "less bad" than an Android device.
Microsoft is not the evil company that this site thinks it still is. Time to find a new whipping boy, Slashdot.
They already have: Apple, Google, and Oracle. Forget about the substantial contributions to open source that the companies continue to provide, the fact Apple single-handedly proved that DRM does more harm to the music labels than good, Oracle's work with BTRFS, etc. In the opinion of many slashdotters, unless you're releasing everything under the GPLv3, and make device hackable, and all hardware designs and specifications open, you're evil. That pretty much adds every company on Earth to the list.
It's not that other companies have become "more evil" - it's that the "GPLv3 free-or-die" software movement has become more radical; even those who use the GPLv2 are scorned - to say nothing of BSD, MIT, or Apache licenses. It's GPLv3 or nothing, apparently...
I think dumping flash is a good thing - Adobe apparently couldn't be bothered to take security seriously. Take the security issues with Flash, add on Adobe's lack of concern about optimization for anything that's not Windows, and it's easy to see why Apple waged an anti-flash war with Adobe.
Now, it seems, that Microsoft is taking a similar view (though possibly with an entirely different motive, given Microsoft makes Silverlight).
We were selling x86_64 clusters at least six years ago.
Just look at the top 500 list - you'll note plenty of x86_64 clusters of well over a thousand nodes.
I have to wonder what you're on the east coast of. East coast of Madagascar? I work in HPC; a thousand nodes just isn't that much. We sold larger clusters than that four years ago.
Nothing to see here.
I have to disagree. If there's something flaming, flying, tumbling out of control, and blowing up, there is most definately something worth seeing.
Some people learn; others choose to ignore anything that doesn't support their point of view. Hatred of Apple is part of their self-identity, and therefore ignore anything that doesn't support their "Apple is evil" mindset.
Positive efforts funded and contributed to by Apple - such as WebKit, LLVM, Clang, Grand Central Dispatch, CUPS, and more. Apple publishes the code to open source software it uses. It even publishes software it isn't obligated to publish (ie. BSD, MIT, Apache...).
None of that matters, of course, because in spite of Apple playing a significant role in free and open source software, they're evil - apparently because they're successful. Apple hasn't changed much since 2003 - when many of the Slashdot community pointed at Apple as the 'perfect blend' of proprietary and free software. The only thing that has changed is the popularity of their products.
http://xkcd.com/918/
I really can't say more... other than I'm not a fan of Facebook.
I agree - there's not a shred of evidence an iPhone was ever stolen.
Something stinks. The only question is who the ultimate source is.
I personally think it's slightly less crazy to believe the source is one of Apple's (many) enemies, than it is to believe the source is from Apple.
I see the following issues:
* The chances of finding any of the individuals who were allegedly impersonating the police (ie. the criminals) is about zero.
* Given that the people involved in the "Police" raid on a private home are comfortable impersonating police, they are almost certainly comfortable impersonating an Apple Employee (ie. the "Apple Security" that called up the bar asking about the iPhone).
* There are organizations with motive, means, and opportunity to impersonate Apple as part of a grudge or smear campaign.
Or a smear campaign. It's not like Samsung or Gizmodo have no grudge with Apple, or the funding to do it.
If true, I absolutely agree.
However, it must be understood that many of Apple's competitors spend massive amounts of money to smear Apple (and each other).
As far as what we *know*:
- Some media outlets are claiming there was a stolen iPhone prototype. The details are frankly shaky enough as it is - the only "lead" is the bar owner claims that he was contacted by someone claiming to be Apple security.
- A couple of people are claiming that a group impersonating the police searched a guy's home, looking for an iPhone.
Here's the thing: I've learned to be more than a little leery about press reports about any company, because "the competition" is always ready & willing to smear each other. The details are so sparse as to make it sound more than a little fishy.
All anyone has to do is:
- Pick a bar
- Follow a mark. Preferably somebody the public would be "sympathetic" towards.
- Contact the bar, claim to be from Apple, and claim there was a lost phone.
- Send a crew out to the mark's home, and impersonate the police department.
It's cheap, low risk of ever being caught, and pays off big. Classic mudslinging.
Who would stand to gain? Any of Apple's competitors, anybody who wants to short Apple stock, a news outlet with a grudge against Apple... there are more than a few options.
The more I think of it, more it sounds like a smear campaign. Apple has far too much to lose, and they aren't idiots. Apple is quite conscious of how closely their every move is watched.
It's wishful thinking, but I like the idea that some company will someday go apeshit patent-suit crazy and raise the specter of a patent apocalypse - and force reforms to be made, because sale of nearly all goods has been halted due to patent infringements.
Apple enforced its FairPlay DRM to the hilt; in the process they proved that DRM can be more harmful to the copyright holder than a consumer, and essentially forced the major labels to drop DRM forever.
I don't have to dream that Apple is crazy enough to demonstrate to the world how crazy the patent system is - they're doing it now, whether it's their intention or not. Apple has a reputation for being uncompromising - I can't think of any other company where a cross-license deal and payment of money won't be enough; but I can see Apple risking Mutually Assured Destruction.
So the question remains: Is a patent apocalypse coming? Will Apple be one of its horsemen? Is it a good thing?
Reasons why this railroad won't run:
1. There aren't any roads, rail or otherwise, between Nome and Anchorage, a distance of ~1000 miles. Google Maps won't even give walking directions, and "Your search for transit directions from Anchorage, AK to Nome, AK appears to be outside our current coverage area. Please consult our list of participating public transit agencies."
I thought the dog sled race was to commemorate the Great Race of Mercy and of mushers in general.
Though I have to admit I'm really just for the bush pilot's racing league. (Assuming it exists. And if not, why not!)
3. The proposed train route ends in Victorville, CA. Who the hell wants to have to get off the train in Victorville?
After being stuck on a train all the way across Siberia and Alaska, who wouldn't want to get off? I'm willing to bet every man, woman, and child on the train would sell their soul to never see a train again.
It's one of the design patents Apple is claiming.
Apple is also claiming other design patents:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=odPbAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents?id=bRvVAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents?id=bRvVAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
Icons are eligible for design patents (OS X's wire trash icon is an example), however the iOS icons are registered as trade dress; I've been unable to find design patents for them and it's unlikely that Apple wouldn't have made claims against them.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=_SopAQAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85018959
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019831
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85020006
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019396
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019809
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78382867 (OS X, not iOS, but it'll be hard to argue the media player icon for Samsung's devices isn't a copy).
Enlarged Icons
As the article points out - why did Samsung choose a sunflower of all things for photos icon?
The resemblance between the 'media player' icon and the old iTunes icon is also a very close match.
The address book having a silhouette of a bust is suspect (but far from obviously wrong - let the court decide), as is choosing the icon they did for a notepad.
The "gear" for settings is, I think, not defensible; KDE's been using it for ages.
After further investigation, though, I haven't been able to find the design patents I spoke of. I've found numerous references that computer icons are valid material for a design patent (as well as a trademark and copyright.) Talk about a trifecta from hell... you can have something covered with copyrights, trade dress, and patents.
An look at the claims, with numbers:
I'm pretty sure both Samsung and Apple will be found to infringe something in the other's IP chest.; it's foolish to think that either is innocent. Samsung has a history of copying designs from other makers, and of playing the lawsuit game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_Patent
Read up on what a design patent is before making claims about the applicability.
I don't like the idea of Design Patents all that much, but they do exist, and they are enforcable.
Apple does have a design patent on the wire trash can (used in OS X).
Ever notice anybody selling something that uses it other than Apple? I certainly haven't.
From what I've read in the actual patents involved, the idea of a portable touchscreen isn't what's being contested. Not that the average slash otter is interested in that fact - it appears most posters are oblivious to the fact that Apple isn't suing over the idea of a touchscreen tablet.
Is it apparently lost on Samsung and the frothing-at-the-mouth haters that the patents in question are not about making a touchscreen tablet, but is about using the following graphic design elements:
* A sunflower for the 'photos' app
* A white cartoon bubble with a green background for SMS
* A calendar icon with a red bar on top, and black text showing the current day
* An envelope icon against a cloudy sky
* A notebook with a brown binding on top
Any of those can easily be represented just as clearly with a different icon, but Samsung flatly refuses to change the icon.
I don't see how pointing out that tablets are a staple of scifi will change the design patents. This isn't about 'invention', it's about graphic design - and an entirely different part of the law.