My first thought upon reading this was "They should make Rambus repay the companies that gave them licensing fees based on these." My second was "with treble damages to discourage this shit." My third was "On the other hand, they were just (underhandedly) playing the system as it exists so maybe that's a little unfair". Then I realized the solution. Make the USPTO repay the license fees. That would improve the quality of their patent review really really fast.
In my dreams. It would more likely mean no patent ever got overturned.
While I agree public transport is great (I use it extensively when I am in Tokyo), some cities don't have their shit together. Like L.A. where I live.
I'll see your anecdote with mine:
Travel 30 miles to work by car - leave house at 6:15 - arrive at work at 6:45 a.m. Leave work at 4:40 - arrive home at 5:30 or so. So 30 minute morning commute, 40-50 afternoon. Add 10 minutes to both when I carpool with a coworker.
By Train - Leave house at 6:10, drive 5 miles to train station, park and wait for train (15 minutes). 23 minute train ride (5 stops including both ends). Get off and board city shuttle. Wait 5 minutes while shuttle waits for an additional train to show up. 5 more minutes for shuttle to drop my in front of my place of work. Total morning commute - 48 minutes, 18 more than driving and requiring leaving earlier, but not too bad.
Afternoon - shuttle to train station - 5 minutes. Then a 20 minute wait (shuttle is timed for an earlier train to another destination). Train ride 23 minutes. Then 15 minutes to GET MY CAR OUT of the parking lot onto the street, as the light is timed for 3 cars to release onto the very busy street during rush hour. Then an additional 30 minute drive from the train station to my house due to congestion and piss poor traffic signal programming. Note that it has taken me longer to drive the 5 miles from the train station to my house than the entire drive from work takes. Total time to get home, 93 minutes.
I hear Samsung is also planning a new headquarters that looks just like it.
That's a bunch of crap. There are only so many variations of a large technology corporate headquarters building that will properly fulfill their function. And besides, Apple just stole it from this stadium designer:
You distributing it would be copyright infringement plan and simple, just like any case where the copyright owner did still have a copy.
You reaming his ass in a sale of the copy and profit sharing contract for $$ up front and 90% of the profits from selling additional copies would, however, be perfectly legal.
Oh right. Like you aren't going to continue to get paid for the work you're doing now through your elderly years. Why shouldn't artists be entitled to the same thing ditch diggers and chimney sweeps get?
Good. I was worried about having to take Ringo or Paul in when thy ended up penniless on the street. Being a fan, I couldn't let that happen to them, but we don't really have a lot os space for permanent house guests.
A valid point. But the balance is tipped here towards the consumer, as they don't "want" the device, they want to continue to live their life in the fashion they have up to that point, rather than as a deaf person. To capitalize on that need by insisting on a huge profit margin is a lot more easily seen as greedy than the same situation for a luxury good.
Oh really. Well try shorting them then. I think Apple has just gotten started and recently bought even more stock.
APPL is peaking on a huge bubble right now. Every financial minded person I talk to is saying not to buy APPL stock ATM as the stock value is way out of sync with the companies actual production values (forget market cap, that is simply a corporate e-peen, we're talking actual numbers here).
So you will be shorting them then? Look forward to your rolling-in-cash gloating session.
I remember it being pretty widely discussed that Apple wanted to pay the normal FRAND rates, and NOT cross-license their UI patents. They don't want other companies copying what they perceive to be their unique interface innovations, even under license.
...ultimately, it is the consumer who loses. HTC, Apple, Samsung, no matter what you buy (perhaps through signing up for a three-year contract), all of the legal cost will be recouped through end-user pricing.
Maybe. If there are any significant market competitors who were not involved in the suits, they are then able to compete better on price since they do not have these legal expenses. Which would mean the litigants will have to go with reduced profits rather than passing on all the costs to compete. So "all the legal cost" being passed on is probably overly pessimistic.
And on the possible bright side, if the plaintiffs in these stupid suits mostly lose, perhaps it will dampen some of the enthusiasm for such suits.
I like apple stuff. But I wish this would end up hurting them, as it is a lousy way to do business. That said, it won't. Most people are obliviously unaware of all this legal wrangling.
So while I think the model could work, we're going to have to see the amount of money that actors, directors, and others make decrease by a significant margin if we ever want to be able to only pay $10 a month for all you can handle streaming TV.
If you move the thing into a geosynchronous orbit, it does not fall to earth. You know, just like the satellites your GPS uses to determine your location.
But if he was speeding like that to get back to the station for shift change, then he's liable for all the crap you or i would be liable for should be do the same.
What does the component and manufacturing of a tablet cost, in relation to a laptop? I would expect tablets to be similar, if not less expensive, to produce.
But they aren't. Low end laptops are substantially cheaper, primarily due to (at least in the ipad competitive realm) to a decent quality touch screen compared to the pretty cheap displays low end laptops use, solid state memory and some expensive high density battery technology.
Slashdot Mirror
You can break almost anything with a bulldozer. Records are especially easy.
My first thought upon reading this was "They should make Rambus repay the companies that gave them licensing fees based on these." My second was "with treble damages to discourage this shit." My third was "On the other hand, they were just (underhandedly) playing the system as it exists so maybe that's a little unfair". Then I realized the solution. Make the USPTO repay the license fees. That would improve the quality of their patent review really really fast.
In my dreams. It would more likely mean no patent ever got overturned.
While I agree public transport is great (I use it extensively when I am in Tokyo), some cities don't have their shit together. Like L.A. where I live.
I'll see your anecdote with mine:
Travel 30 miles to work by car - leave house at 6:15 - arrive at work at 6:45 a.m. Leave work at 4:40 - arrive home at 5:30 or so. So 30 minute morning commute, 40-50 afternoon. Add 10 minutes to both when I carpool with a coworker.
By Train - Leave house at 6:10, drive 5 miles to train station, park and wait for train (15 minutes). 23 minute train ride (5 stops including both ends). Get off and board city shuttle. Wait 5 minutes while shuttle waits for an additional train to show up. 5 more minutes for shuttle to drop my in front of my place of work. Total morning commute - 48 minutes, 18 more than driving and requiring leaving earlier, but not too bad.
Afternoon - shuttle to train station - 5 minutes. Then a 20 minute wait (shuttle is timed for an earlier train to another destination). Train ride 23 minutes. Then 15 minutes to GET MY CAR OUT of the parking lot onto the street, as the light is timed for 3 cars to release onto the very busy street during rush hour. Then an additional 30 minute drive from the train station to my house due to congestion and piss poor traffic signal programming. Note that it has taken me longer to drive the 5 miles from the train station to my house than the entire drive from work takes. Total time to get home, 93 minutes.
Guess what I don't do.
I hear Samsung is also planning a new headquarters that looks just like it.
That's a bunch of crap. There are only so many variations of a large technology corporate headquarters building that will properly fulfill their function. And besides, Apple just stole it from this stadium designer:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/20/taiwan-solar-stadium
Apple never comes up with anything original.
You distributing it would be copyright infringement plan and simple, just like any case where the copyright owner did still have a copy.
You reaming his ass in a sale of the copy and profit sharing contract for $$ up front and 90% of the profits from selling additional copies would, however, be perfectly legal.
+1
Saw a headline somewhere last week that described it as such - "stolen from the public domain"
Oh right. Like you aren't going to continue to get paid for the work you're doing now through your elderly years. Why shouldn't artists be entitled to the same thing ditch diggers and chimney sweeps get?
Good. I was worried about having to take Ringo or Paul in when thy ended up penniless on the street. Being a fan, I couldn't let that happen to them, but we don't really have a lot os space for permanent house guests.
True. But it does invalidate the GGGP's claim that Apple didn't consider the shape until they had seen Samsung's picture frame in 2006.
A valid point. But the balance is tipped here towards the consumer, as they don't "want" the device, they want to continue to live their life in the fashion they have up to that point, rather than as a deaf person. To capitalize on that need by insisting on a huge profit margin is a lot more easily seen as greedy than the same situation for a luxury good.
And when hammering or using compressed air.
But a lot more graboid related ones. I hate those things.
So Google sold them to HTC
The answer to your question lies in the terms of that sale. Wouldn't you expect it to have many conditions beyond just a cash for patents trade?
APPL is peaking on a huge bubble right now. Every financial minded person I talk to is saying not to buy APPL stock ATM as the stock value is way out of sync with the companies actual production values (forget market cap, that is simply a corporate e-peen, we're talking actual numbers here).
So you will be shorting them then? Look forward to your rolling-in-cash gloating session.
I remember it being pretty widely discussed that Apple wanted to pay the normal FRAND rates, and NOT cross-license their UI patents. They don't want other companies copying what they perceive to be their unique interface innovations, even under license.
They will lose and lose badly.
...ultimately, it is the consumer who loses. HTC, Apple, Samsung, no matter what you buy (perhaps through signing up for a three-year contract), all of the legal cost will be recouped through end-user pricing.
Maybe. If there are any significant market competitors who were not involved in the suits, they are then able to compete better on price since they do not have these legal expenses. Which would mean the litigants will have to go with reduced profits rather than passing on all the costs to compete. So "all the legal cost" being passed on is probably overly pessimistic.
And on the possible bright side, if the plaintiffs in these stupid suits mostly lose, perhaps it will dampen some of the enthusiasm for such suits.
I like apple stuff. But I wish this would end up hurting them, as it is a lousy way to do business.
That said, it won't. Most people are obliviously unaware of all this legal wrangling.
Agreed. Not sure why Apple would be embarrassed to use one of the leading back end products in their back end.
Not like they have a competing product they would be admitting is not up to it.
Who wants an e-reader without an e-ink display?
Amazon wants you to use their video service on it. So they do.
So while I think the model could work, we're going to have to see the amount of money that actors, directors, and others make decrease by a significant margin if we ever want to be able to only pay $10 a month for all you can handle streaming TV.
OK
I'm no a physicist,
followed by a proof of that statement.
If you move the thing into a geosynchronous orbit, it does not fall to earth. You know, just like the satellites your GPS uses to determine your location.
But if he was speeding like that to get back to the station for shift change, then he's liable for all the crap you or i would be liable for should be do the same.
We can only wish that is what would happen.
And my guess is, Apple will buy what is left of Palm from HP ... or perhaps HP itself in the next couple years.
Why would they bother?
Social interaction is not a problem, but a requirement for the officer is to not have had a facebook login, ever.
It doesn't matter if he has. If any friends or family members have and have tagged photos of him, he is still in trouble.
What does the component and manufacturing of a tablet cost, in relation to a laptop? I would expect tablets to be similar, if not less expensive, to produce.
But they aren't. Low end laptops are substantially cheaper, primarily due to (at least in the ipad competitive realm) to a decent quality touch screen compared to the pretty cheap displays low end laptops use, solid state memory and some expensive high density battery technology.