In many ways jury nullification is a positive thing...
Don't get confused about this. This has nothing to do with "jury nullification". Jury nullification is a very specific and very limited situation. It is your right not to give a criminal conviction to a person who you believe is actually guilty according to the law or who you are told is guilty by the judge. In other words, it is that you can't be forced to give a guilty verdict which you would consider to be deeply morally wrong.
This doesn't give the jury the right to decide anything they want. For example, in a criminal trial you can give a not guilty verdict even if you think the person probably did break the law. You cannot, however, give a guilty verdict if you think the person didn't do the crime but probably did something else bad.
In a civil trial, the jury should only decide what they think is most likely to be true. There's no opportunity for jury nullification since there's no guilty verdict available at all.
it seems kind of crappy to me that they're allowed to patent those implementations..
The point here is quite specific; At the time that the standard was designed, Motorola already had a patent. They came along to the part of the standard design where this was relevant and Motorola declared the patent (they have to; as part of their involvement in the standardisation). The Motorola patent technology was then included into the standard in return for Motorola agreeing to RAND licensing of that patent. Otherwise the standard wouldn't have been possible as it stands.
This gives obligations on both sides when someone wants to implement the standard. If someone comes along and negotiates then Motorola has to offer a "Reasonable And Non Discriminatory" license to them. On the other hand, the other side has the obligation to negotiate. The obligation to license as "Reasonable" isn't clearly defined, but it's normally taken to mean "not much more than they would get if the patent wasn't in the standard" and "not enough to stop people from making products". It could still be up to 80% of the product sale price if the patent was the main feature of the product, however.
There are plenty of things wrong with this. It makes it very difficult do do open source implementations of such standards. It's very opaque and so on. However, it's much much better than the standard situation with other patents where there is no obligation to license at all and it's often impossible to know which patents cover a particular technology.
Make no mistake; Microsoft is trying to use this attack to weaken companies like Motorola which have been reasonable and supported open standards. They have no intention of openly licensing their own patents such as the ones on FAT that they are using to attack Android manufacturers.
That's a stupid justification. If you're going to claim something is wrong if the side you dislike does it, then it is equally wrong if the side you like does it. Otherwise you're nothing but a hypocritical fanboi.
Or perhaps, like many here, you believe in the right of self-defense. If you come out to attack me, you cannot complain when I hit you back. If you come at me with a sword, and I have a gun, you also can't complain when I use the gun.
Microsoft and Apple sent a very clear message that they intend to destroy everyone else in the IT industry. Everybody else has the right and, in fact the imperative to fight back. Bullies who are left alone just get stronger.
And no, Facebook never promised that companies could spam everybody who "liked" them with messages they were guaranteed to see.
I don't think you have understood the issue at all. This is not about "likes" this is about friends. This applies, as others have mentioned, even when sending out updates to people who have asked to see all your updates. Please have a read around.
Compared to most other forms of Mass Marketing this is a rather fair deal.
Right; but it shouldn't be compared to "other forms of Mass Marketing" for several reasons.
because this was a free service, which was marketed as a free service and then changed
because in this case we are talking about people who voluntarily chose to connect to a company to get all it's messages
because this direct connectivity as in Google+, Facebook and so on is something completely new and different from tradional messaging
The first; that this is a bait and switch operation, is for me the most important. However even though I feel some sympathy for these people, they fundamentally brought it on themselves and this is a situation where it's the people's responsibility to do something different next time. Never lock yourself in to a computing product controlled by one vendor without a written guarantee of indefinite access to good terms written by a lawyer you can trust. This is something most people knew in the pre-Windows era.
Compare the diference between what happened when the Gnome Foundation went rogue with the same situation from Microsoft. Gnome replaced Gnome 2 with a completely different Gnome 3 interface which doesn't fit old users needs. Microsoft is replacing Windows with Metro + a backwards compatibility interface which also doesn't fit user's needs. Because the Gnome users have the source code and multiple suppliers, XFCE, Cinnamon and Unity have sprung up as interfaces designed to cater to the needs of users that Gnome 3 doesn't fit for. By the time people are forced to switch they will have a choice which is right for them. Microsoft is going to force people who are locked into Windows to accept whatever Microsoft wants them to accept. Only those people that can switch to OS/X or Linux will be able to escape.
To achieve the same in social networking, even people who use Facebook need to concentrate on using other solutions wherever they can provide equivalent functionality. Otherwise we all end up locked in.
Samsung/Google are now in the same position as Microsoft in the mid to late 90's. RIM / UNIX is marginalized into business customers. OS2 / Windows on the Mobile is clearly dying and no longer represents a competitor. They are now going to get to an almost total dominance of the mobile market.
At this point they need a credible competitor for anti-trust reasons. They haven't broken the law like Microsoft did, so their monopoly wouldn't be illegal, but on the other hand they don't have the home field advantage which allowed Microsoft to twist the justice system and escape punishment.
The people who are going to be the biggest losers from this are operators like AT&T. They have made a strategic mistake by not supporting Apple and/or a second Android vendor and pushing irrelevant products nobody wants. If they don't get back into the field soon and support one of Apple, Samsung or ASUS or, as a long shot RIM, they have little chance to influence their own future.
You have to abide laws everywhere in the world. This includes abiding Chinese laws..
Right; so how about: The Chinese government starts following Chinese law, in particular article 35 or the Chinese constitution which says:
Article 35. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration
or this:
Article 41. Citizens of the People's Republic of China have the right to criticize and make suggestions to any state organ or functionary. Citizens have the right to make to relevant state organs complaints and charges against, or exposures of, violation of the law or dereliction of duty by any state organ or functionary; but fabrication or distortion of facts with the intention of libel or frame-up is prohibited. In case of complaints, charges or exposures made by citizens, the state organ concerned must deal with them in a responsible manner after ascertaining the facts. No one may suppress such complaints, charges and exposures, or retaliate against the citizens making them. Citizens who have suffered losses through infringement of their civil rights by any state organ or functionary have the right to compensation in accordance with the law.
And how about, companies like Microsoft, Cisco and so on, start obeying Chinese law by treating those that break that article of the constitution as criminals and stop doing business with them?
Its a patent for a symmetric key algorithm done in hardware.
No it isn't. You have to read the entire first claim to understand the patent (the second claim is mostly irrelevant since it is "dependent" so is only triggered if you are already caught by the first claim; it's mostly there as a defence against future prior art which defeats the first claim).
1. A method for transmitting data comprising a sequence of blocks in encrypted form over a communication link from a transmitter to a receiver comprising, in combination, the steps of:
providing a seed value to both said transmitter and receiver,
generating a first sequence of pseudo-random key values based on said seed value at said transmitter, each new key value in said sequence being produced at a time dependent upon a predetermined characteristic of the data being transmitted over said link,
encrypting the data sent over said link at said transmitter in accordance with said first sequence,
generating a second sequence of pseudo-random key values based on said seed value at said receiver, each new key value in said sequence being produced at a time dependent upon said predetermined characteristic of said data transmitted over said link such that said first and second sequences are identical to one another a new one of said key values in said first and second sequences being produced each time a predetermined number of said blocks are transmitted over said link, and
decrypting the data sent over said link at said receiver in accordance with said second sequence.
N.B. My formatting doesn't exactly match the original claim.
Basically it's using a shared secret to create a sequence of different pseudo-random encryption keys that can then be used by any form of encryption system.
The guy was a kid at the time of the police investigation. You don't think it would be reasonable to show him a picture of Mc Alpine again and just check "is this really the guy?" before making the accusation?
This is basically the same accusation as the Saville stuff. Failing to follow through with proper journalistic professionalism because the BBC staff has been cut and messed about with by the past several UK regimes. Cameron, Brown and Blair should all resign with Entwistle.
The only right answer is not to fuck it up in the first place.
How do you plan to ensure that nobody, in a planet with about 7Billion people, that nobody fucks it up?
The only way is for false accusations not to matter. That means no vigilantes; it means the law deals seriously with people who are dangerous paedophiles (so people have confidence that they don't need to intervene themselves) and it means people who cause harm to the falsely accused, for example by firing them from work, should be forced to fully and completely compensate them for that harm.
Could it be that HTC have started performing badly as a company, so Apple don't consider them worth the lawyer fees any more?
That's certainly what tech crunch implies about HTC. Now that HTC has switched to Windows they can be considered as dead:
This settlement with HTC is essentially a sign that Apple considers it a competitor neutralized, and that’s far from the case with Samsung.
I think that, in the spring once Microsoft's marketing money has disappeared, HTC may start coming out with competitive Android models again and has a decent chance of a revival.
Every manufacturer does silent replacements for broken products. You a can only reasonably say that Microsoft has "good customer service" over this if they issue a total product recall before this becomes a major media issue.
(as a side note; it's pretty obvious the shills mod each other up within seconds at the start of an article being posted - doesn't this seem like pretty clear moderator abuse which Slashdot should stamp on)
Yep. You can bet Apple is just waiting for the "right moment" to start suing.
Don't expect much. Microsoft and Apple have long had a reciprocal patent licensing agreement. Basically they are acting in a patent cartel together to try to get rid of other competition from the market. When Microsoft brings out it's new phones I guess you can expect that there will also be a "right way" and a "wrong way" to hold it too. (As erroneus would have it "the grip of death")
It doesn't matter. As long as you are small nobody cares about you. What matters is that, when you start to be big enough to have a commercial and / or social impact, the ability to shut you down exists.
Everything you wrote becomes a complete waste of time from the point where you failed to read the article here:
Did the court give a deadline?
Yes; the court gave a deadlne. The court said "as early as possible," That basically means "tomorrow; but if you can show you really made a good effort and failed, maybe the day after".
Lets say the newspapers would have charged Apple a premium rate if they did it sooner... is the judge requiring Apple do this at any expense?
Yes; that would be obvious from the fact that he said "as early as possible" rather than "as early as reasonable". This is a judge. Every word he puts in a judgement is written to be parsed very carefully and exactly. Please go and read the fucking article.
Whatever you're smoking, please, stop, it's bad for your brain.
Okay, it's a bit of a bad joke, but the point I was making was important. People who "ignore" the patent system can get into big trouble. You end up spending far more to fix the problem after using a patent than you could have spent avoiding it. If you know of a patent then the right thing to do is to find a way to work around it. If you can't find a way to work around it then you should take some legal action around that patent. E.g. try to get it invalidated by showing prior art.
Knowing that it is there but still ignoring it is a thing which the patent legislation specifically expects. The guys with the patent then get three times the money they would normally get from you.
And, we from the "Evil Fuck You Patent Association of America" (EFYPAA), like your post because when we come to sue you for our radio hardware patents (which are also valid almost everywhere else in the world) we will be able to use it to prove "Wilful" infringement and get you for triple damages. Mr Paul Hanson (don't ask how we know your name) you just watch out.
so instead of deliberately hiding the apology, it's now automatically hidden. See? Better!/facepalm
Before the home page lined up perfectly so that it looked like there was no reason to scroll. Now, for most screen sizes, it lines up so that some image is part on / part off screen. This gives a visual clue that there is more of the page to scroll to. That is better.
Presumably there is some specific screen size where this doesn't show. I wonder if that's carefully chosen to match the screen size used by Apple's most fanatical followers?
There are many routes in. You get working for a big ISP then work your way towards a top technical job. You take a degree then get in more directly. Alternately, you stat doing small scale semi-amateur stuff for some years connecting up e.g. local charities and stuff.
What you don't do is start without a good idea of the business and and technical side unless you can safely sustain yourself with no return for at least five years. Firstly there are huge barriers to entry. All the good sites for transmission likely are already taken, for example. Secondly the customers are pretty demanding; fail to fixa customer's internet in two hours and you've lost then. Even in the middle of the night. Thirdly the competition is brutal. A Place can sit without broadband for teen years then get the best internet in the country within weeks of a small ISP having completed their new installation.
What you are hinting at is a real privacy problem. Apple, Microsoft, Nokia, Verizon, AT&T and Google all get user's location data and then use that for commercial reasons
But Apple and Nokia just use the data internally. Google uses it to figure out which third party ads to provide you with.
As you should know, Nokia doesn't have any choice in this matter any more, having handed control over to Microsoft; on the other hand
Microsoft provides targetted advertising
which 100% guarantees to leak information .
Microsoft targets based on things
including age, gender, location, time of day operating system [... ] recent online activity [... and... ] consumers engaged with particular categories of online content
Which barely starts on the fact that they are one of Facebook's major partners.
With Google, at least we can have the belief that they know how to do data filtering and anonymization.
We do? I sure don't. All I know is they have a TON of data on me from other sources (like Google ads, or using Google to search, or your gmail account) and they can tie that also in with your driving too. I greatly prefer to segment as much of my data between companies as possible, which is also why I'm moving out of GMail.
Now, in this case I'm not going to contradict you at all. Any mail you have stored with any form of online provider can be accessed by US authorities at will and without a warrant since they claim not to consider it your property. In principle and on principle you do not want to use any of Gmail, Facebook, Hotmail or anything similar for any of your mail. The problem though is that running your own mail server with proper spam filtering is a complete pain. Unless you find a very clever solution your practical actual security with anything other than Gmail is likely to be much lower. Remember, for example, that Gmail has caught a large number of attempts by Chinese sponsored hackers to break into accounts. It is known that the same attempts are made against hotmail (read logs of various proxies which were "counter-hacked") but at the same time Microsoft has never made announcements equivalent to Gmail's.
This means that, at best, Hotmail is sacrificing user security for market perception by not warning users what actions they should take to secure themselves. At worst Hotmail is completely unaware of the ways that they have been penetrated and is basically acting as one huge trap.
That's not enough though; there should definitely be laws, as there are in Europe for mobile operators, which protect the subscriber's privacy.
None of those protect you from Google connecting the dots with all the data you give them directly.
Good luck keeping all your anonymous eggs in that single giant, juicy basket.
Actually, the European laws do quite specifically prohibit that. More importantly, if Google did connect dots and prove that I'm a naturalised space alien, for example, they would be liable for any damage that caused me. Especially if they sold that data.
Beyond that; I agree. It's a good idea to support any service providers beyond Google/Microsoft/Facebook/Apple/Nokia/AT&T etc. The market would be much better if people went to different individual providers much more. The problem here is convenience. Just realise that avoiding Microsoft and Facebook should be your first priority. After that avoiding Google, Nokia, Verizon and so on. Only later on is it worth starting to worry about other smaller data providers such as twitter.
The fundamental thing is that people use what their friends use. If you go for such a "gap filling" exercise and then your market begins to take off, you are extremely vulnerable for a more popular iPhone app coming in and simply taking over. Every Windows Phone users knows something between 10 and 100 iPhone users for every other Windows phone user they know. Those tens of iPhone users mean that, any time in the next ten years or so, a popular iPhone app can just announce a Windows version and completely push whatever is pre-existing in the area out.
This means that the gaps are illusionary. Thus:
Always concentrate on the Android App first, typically with an advertising based version as well as a paid version
Creating an iOS app for high price sales
Don't worry about niche markets unless you can exploit them profitably; you will always be able to move in later.
Concentrate on staying ahead of competitors in quality and features. This is more important than breadth of platforms.
Do not invest effort on apps in secondary market places where you cannot compete in the primary one; you are just building a market need for your competitor to fill later
Never create apps which may be badly reviewed;
Use trademark laws rather than app reservations to ensure you can get your App space in minor market places such as Bada and RIM
ignore completely disappearing markets such as Symbian and Windows unless you already have an app there.
in any case; try to make your Symbian and Windows apps visibly older / different from your commercial apps so the inevitable undetected bugs that come from a low customer base do not influence the image of your main commercial apps
Typically LTE percentage royalties comes from the cost of the LTE modem in the device. Apple would likely be happy to pay 2.25% of the Modem cost.
The article says
It said today it is setting a 1% royalty rate on handsets drawing on its LTE patents in an effort to jump start LTE device development.
Of course, that 1% rate is subject to terms. “If an LTE chipset gets embedded in a $50,000 Mercedes Benz we won’t charge 1% of $50,000,” said Scott Wickware, Nortel vice president of marketing and strategy for carrier networks.
(my emphasis). So in other words, they would still think about the percentage of the cost of the Mercedes, let alone the handset.
While I don't agree with patents like Apple is using in general, I'm still kind of with Apple on the Samsung thing as it was CLEARLY intended to look like an iDevice in its original form.
That's not clear at all. It was designed to look like a modern fashion phone. It could equally have been designed to look like an LG Prada, and in fact, given the extra buttons and Samsung logo, the Samsung phones are much closer to that than an iPhone. The iPhone was clearly also designed to look a bit like a Prada. The fact that the two are similar does not have to mean that there is any direct design link whatsoever.
The key thing to understand is that some level of copying is legitimate here. Car gear shifts all look identical so that you can use them easily. Phones dialpads look similar so you can dial in the same way. Modern monitors mostly have the buttons hidden in the bottom right so they look cool but you can still find them. All of next years clothes will have the set of colours which are currently being shown by the top designers. Part of this is functional and part of this is trying to define expectation through a common look.
Everyone copies and that's okay. It wouldn't be okay if the products were indistinguishable, but they weren't. Apple had a registered design. They could expect protection of that, and Samsung didn't use it. Apple could expect copyrights to mean Samsung would not to do a literal copy of their design and they did not. Anything more is just sour grapes.
Slashdot Mirror
In many ways jury nullification is a positive thing...
Don't get confused about this. This has nothing to do with "jury nullification". Jury nullification is a very specific and very limited situation. It is your right not to give a criminal conviction to a person who you believe is actually guilty according to the law or who you are told is guilty by the judge. In other words, it is that you can't be forced to give a guilty verdict which you would consider to be deeply morally wrong.
This doesn't give the jury the right to decide anything they want. For example, in a criminal trial you can give a not guilty verdict even if you think the person probably did break the law. You cannot, however, give a guilty verdict if you think the person didn't do the crime but probably did something else bad.
In a civil trial, the jury should only decide what they think is most likely to be true. There's no opportunity for jury nullification since there's no guilty verdict available at all.
it seems kind of crappy to me that they're allowed to patent those implementations..
The point here is quite specific; At the time that the standard was designed, Motorola already had a patent. They came along to the part of the standard design where this was relevant and Motorola declared the patent (they have to; as part of their involvement in the standardisation). The Motorola patent technology was then included into the standard in return for Motorola agreeing to RAND licensing of that patent. Otherwise the standard wouldn't have been possible as it stands.
This gives obligations on both sides when someone wants to implement the standard. If someone comes along and negotiates then Motorola has to offer a "Reasonable And Non Discriminatory" license to them. On the other hand, the other side has the obligation to negotiate. The obligation to license as "Reasonable" isn't clearly defined, but it's normally taken to mean "not much more than they would get if the patent wasn't in the standard" and "not enough to stop people from making products". It could still be up to 80% of the product sale price if the patent was the main feature of the product, however.
There are plenty of things wrong with this. It makes it very difficult do do open source implementations of such standards. It's very opaque and so on. However, it's much much better than the standard situation with other patents where there is no obligation to license at all and it's often impossible to know which patents cover a particular technology.
Make no mistake; Microsoft is trying to use this attack to weaken companies like Motorola which have been reasonable and supported open standards. They have no intention of openly licensing their own patents such as the ones on FAT that they are using to attack Android manufacturers.
That's a stupid justification. If you're going to claim something is wrong if the side you dislike does it, then it is equally wrong if the side you like does it. Otherwise you're nothing but a hypocritical fanboi.
Or perhaps, like many here, you believe in the right of self-defense. If you come out to attack me, you cannot complain when I hit you back. If you come at me with a sword, and I have a gun, you also can't complain when I use the gun.
Microsoft and Apple sent a very clear message that they intend to destroy everyone else in the IT industry. Everybody else has the right and, in fact the imperative to fight back. Bullies who are left alone just get stronger.
And no, Facebook never promised that companies could spam everybody who "liked" them with messages they were guaranteed to see.
I don't think you have understood the issue at all. This is not about "likes" this is about friends. This applies, as others have mentioned, even when sending out updates to people who have asked to see all your updates. Please have a read around.
Absolutely right. Should have made it clearer. However for the Gnome loving people it only just became important.
Compared to most other forms of Mass Marketing this is a rather fair deal.
Right; but it shouldn't be compared to "other forms of Mass Marketing" for several reasons.
The first; that this is a bait and switch operation, is for me the most important. However even though I feel some sympathy for these people, they fundamentally brought it on themselves and this is a situation where it's the people's responsibility to do something different next time. Never lock yourself in to a computing product controlled by one vendor without a written guarantee of indefinite access to good terms written by a lawyer you can trust. This is something most people knew in the pre-Windows era.
Compare the diference between what happened when the Gnome Foundation went rogue with the same situation from Microsoft. Gnome replaced Gnome 2 with a completely different Gnome 3 interface which doesn't fit old users needs. Microsoft is replacing Windows with Metro + a backwards compatibility interface which also doesn't fit user's needs. Because the Gnome users have the source code and multiple suppliers, XFCE, Cinnamon and Unity have sprung up as interfaces designed to cater to the needs of users that Gnome 3 doesn't fit for. By the time people are forced to switch they will have a choice which is right for them. Microsoft is going to force people who are locked into Windows to accept whatever Microsoft wants them to accept. Only those people that can switch to OS/X or Linux will be able to escape.
To achieve the same in social networking, even people who use Facebook need to concentrate on using other solutions wherever they can provide equivalent functionality. Otherwise we all end up locked in.
Samsung/Google are now in the same position as Microsoft in the mid to late 90's. RIM / UNIX is marginalized into business customers. OS2 / Windows on the Mobile is clearly dying and no longer represents a competitor. They are now going to get to an almost total dominance of the mobile market.
At this point they need a credible competitor for anti-trust reasons. They haven't broken the law like Microsoft did, so their monopoly wouldn't be illegal, but on the other hand they don't have the home field advantage which allowed Microsoft to twist the justice system and escape punishment.
The people who are going to be the biggest losers from this are operators like AT&T. They have made a strategic mistake by not supporting Apple and/or a second Android vendor and pushing irrelevant products nobody wants. If they don't get back into the field soon and support one of Apple, Samsung or ASUS or, as a long shot RIM, they have little chance to influence their own future.
You have to abide laws everywhere in the world. This includes abiding Chinese laws..
Right; so how about: The Chinese government starts following Chinese law, in particular article 35 or the Chinese constitution which says:
or this:
And how about, companies like Microsoft, Cisco and so on, start obeying Chinese law by treating those that break that article of the constitution as criminals and stop doing business with them?
Its a patent for a symmetric key algorithm done in hardware.
No it isn't. You have to read the entire first claim to understand the patent (the second claim is mostly irrelevant since it is "dependent" so is only triggered if you are already caught by the first claim; it's mostly there as a defence against future prior art which defeats the first claim).
N.B. My formatting doesn't exactly match the original claim.
Basically it's using a shared secret to create a sequence of different pseudo-random encryption keys that can then be used by any form of encryption system.
The guy was a kid at the time of the police investigation. You don't think it would be reasonable to show him a picture of Mc Alpine again and just check "is this really the guy?" before making the accusation?
This is basically the same accusation as the Saville stuff. Failing to follow through with proper journalistic professionalism because the BBC staff has been cut and messed about with by the past several UK regimes. Cameron, Brown and Blair should all resign with Entwistle.
The only right answer is not to fuck it up in the first place.
How do you plan to ensure that nobody, in a planet with about 7Billion people, that nobody fucks it up?
The only way is for false accusations not to matter. That means no vigilantes; it means the law deals seriously with people who are dangerous paedophiles (so people have confidence that they don't need to intervene themselves) and it means people who cause harm to the falsely accused, for example by firing them from work, should be forced to fully and completely compensate them for that harm.
Could it be that HTC have started performing badly as a company, so Apple don't consider them worth the lawyer fees any more?
That's certainly what tech crunch implies about HTC. Now that HTC has switched to Windows they can be considered as dead:
I think that, in the spring once Microsoft's marketing money has disappeared, HTC may start coming out with competitive Android models again and has a decent chance of a revival.
Every manufacturer does silent replacements for broken products. You a can only reasonably say that Microsoft has "good customer service" over this if they issue a total product recall before this becomes a major media issue.
(as a side note; it's pretty obvious the shills mod each other up within seconds at the start of an article being posted - doesn't this seem like pretty clear moderator abuse which Slashdot should stamp on)
Yep. You can bet Apple is just waiting for the "right moment" to start suing.
Don't expect much. Microsoft and Apple have long had a reciprocal patent licensing agreement. Basically they are acting in a patent cartel together to try to get rid of other competition from the market. When Microsoft brings out it's new phones I guess you can expect that there will also be a "right way" and a "wrong way" to hold it too. (As erroneus would have it "the grip of death")
It doesn't matter. As long as you are small nobody cares about you. What matters is that, when you start to be big enough to have a commercial and / or social impact, the ability to shut you down exists.
Did the court give a deadline?
Yes; the court gave a deadlne. The court said "as early as possible," That basically means "tomorrow; but if you can show you really made a good effort and failed, maybe the day after".
Lets say the newspapers would have charged Apple a premium rate if they did it sooner... is the judge requiring Apple do this at any expense?
Yes; that would be obvious from the fact that he said "as early as possible" rather than "as early as reasonable". This is a judge. Every word he puts in a judgement is written to be parsed very carefully and exactly. Please go and read the fucking article.
Whatever you're smoking, please, stop, it's bad for your brain.
Okay, it's a bit of a bad joke, but the point I was making was important. People who "ignore" the patent system can get into big trouble. You end up spending far more to fix the problem after using a patent than you could have spent avoiding it. If you know of a patent then the right thing to do is to find a way to work around it. If you can't find a way to work around it then you should take some legal action around that patent. E.g. try to get it invalidated by showing prior art.
Knowing that it is there but still ignoring it is a thing which the patent legislation specifically expects. The guys with the patent then get three times the money they would normally get from you.
And, we from the "Evil Fuck You Patent Association of America" (EFYPAA), like your post because when we come to sue you for our radio hardware patents (which are also valid almost everywhere else in the world) we will be able to use it to prove "Wilful" infringement and get you for triple damages. Mr Paul Hanson (don't ask how we know your name) you just watch out.
so instead of deliberately hiding the apology, it's now automatically hidden. See? Better! /facepalm
Before the home page lined up perfectly so that it looked like there was no reason to scroll. Now, for most screen sizes, it lines up so that some image is part on / part off screen. This gives a visual clue that there is more of the page to scroll to. That is better.
Presumably there is some specific screen size where this doesn't show. I wonder if that's carefully chosen to match the screen size used by Apple's most fanatical followers?
come and sue me for that against my fair dealing defence, original content boy.
There are many routes in. You get working for a big ISP then work your way towards a top technical job. You take a degree then get in more directly. Alternately, you stat doing small scale semi-amateur stuff for some years connecting up e.g. local charities and stuff. What you don't do is start without a good idea of the business and and technical side unless you can safely sustain yourself with no return for at least five years. Firstly there are huge barriers to entry. All the good sites for transmission likely are already taken, for example. Secondly the customers are pretty demanding; fail to fixa customer's internet in two hours and you've lost then. Even in the middle of the night. Thirdly the competition is brutal. A Place can sit without broadband for teen years then get the best internet in the country within weeks of a small ISP having completed their new installation.
What you are hinting at is a real privacy problem. Apple, Microsoft, Nokia, Verizon, AT&T and Google all get user's location data and then use that for commercial reasons
But Apple and Nokia just use the data internally. Google uses it to figure out which third party ads to provide you with.
As you should know, Nokia doesn't have any choice in this matter any more, having handed control over to Microsoft; on the other hand Microsoft provides targetted advertising which 100% guarantees to leak information . Microsoft targets based on things
Which barely starts on the fact that they are one of Facebook's major partners.
With Google, at least we can have the belief that they know how to do data filtering and anonymization.
We do? I sure don't. All I know is they have a TON of data on me from other sources (like Google ads, or using Google to search, or your gmail account) and they can tie that also in with your driving too. I greatly prefer to segment as much of my data between companies as possible, which is also why I'm moving out of GMail.
Now, in this case I'm not going to contradict you at all. Any mail you have stored with any form of online provider can be accessed by US authorities at will and without a warrant since they claim not to consider it your property. In principle and on principle you do not want to use any of Gmail, Facebook, Hotmail or anything similar for any of your mail. The problem though is that running your own mail server with proper spam filtering is a complete pain. Unless you find a very clever solution your practical actual security with anything other than Gmail is likely to be much lower. Remember, for example, that Gmail has caught a large number of attempts by Chinese sponsored hackers to break into accounts. It is known that the same attempts are made against hotmail (read logs of various proxies which were "counter-hacked") but at the same time Microsoft has never made announcements equivalent to Gmail's.
This means that, at best, Hotmail is sacrificing user security for market perception by not warning users what actions they should take to secure themselves. At worst Hotmail is completely unaware of the ways that they have been penetrated and is basically acting as one huge trap.
That's not enough though; there should definitely be laws, as there are in Europe for mobile operators, which protect the subscriber's privacy.
None of those protect you from Google connecting the dots with all the data you give them directly.
Good luck keeping all your anonymous eggs in that single giant, juicy basket.
Actually, the European laws do quite specifically prohibit that. More importantly, if Google did connect dots and prove that I'm a naturalised space alien, for example, they would be liable for any damage that caused me. Especially if they sold that data.
Beyond that; I agree. It's a good idea to support any service providers beyond Google/Microsoft/Facebook/Apple/Nokia/AT&T etc. The market would be much better if people went to different individual providers much more. The problem here is convenience. Just realise that avoiding Microsoft and Facebook should be your first priority. After that avoiding Google, Nokia, Verizon and so on. Only later on is it worth starting to worry about other smaller data providers such as twitter.
The fundamental thing is that people use what their friends use. If you go for such a "gap filling" exercise and then your market begins to take off, you are extremely vulnerable for a more popular iPhone app coming in and simply taking over. Every Windows Phone users knows something between 10 and 100 iPhone users for every other Windows phone user they know. Those tens of iPhone users mean that, any time in the next ten years or so, a popular iPhone app can just announce a Windows version and completely push whatever is pre-existing in the area out.
This means that the gaps are illusionary. Thus:
Typically LTE percentage royalties comes from the cost of the LTE modem in the device. Apple would likely be happy to pay 2.25% of the Modem cost.
The article says
(my emphasis). So in other words, they would still think about the percentage of the cost of the Mercedes, let alone the handset.
While I don't agree with patents like Apple is using in general, I'm still kind of with Apple on the Samsung thing as it was CLEARLY intended to look like an iDevice in its original form.
That's not clear at all. It was designed to look like a modern fashion phone. It could equally have been designed to look like an LG Prada, and in fact, given the extra buttons and Samsung logo, the Samsung phones are much closer to that than an iPhone. The iPhone was clearly also designed to look a bit like a Prada. The fact that the two are similar does not have to mean that there is any direct design link whatsoever.
The key thing to understand is that some level of copying is legitimate here. Car gear shifts all look identical so that you can use them easily. Phones dialpads look similar so you can dial in the same way. Modern monitors mostly have the buttons hidden in the bottom right so they look cool but you can still find them. All of next years clothes will have the set of colours which are currently being shown by the top designers. Part of this is functional and part of this is trying to define expectation through a common look.
Everyone copies and that's okay. It wouldn't be okay if the products were indistinguishable, but they weren't. Apple had a registered design. They could expect protection of that, and Samsung didn't use it. Apple could expect copyrights to mean Samsung would not to do a literal copy of their design and they did not. Anything more is just sour grapes.