It's also not the developers fault that they target the dominant version of the OS. Google dropped the ball. They should have made an upgrade path easily available to their users (and by users I mean end users, not handset manufacturers).
Apple got this one right. It takes no skill to click an 'update' button. Hell it even prompts you that an update is available. Plug it in and your phone is updated in 15 minutes with a single click.
The current method of relying on handset vendors to provide updates to Android handsets where there is no profit margin for them to do so is broken. Why provide updates when you can get this shiny new phone with a newer (yet obsolete) version of Android? The technical folk can upgrade but the masses are stuck with obsolete and potentially vulnerable versions due to neglect.
Do you think if a farmer grows a crop that is designed to spoil within 24 hours, his business will thrive once he produces it? Of course not. No one would buy such a crop. No demand.
Are you seriously suggesting that any business can just create something and hope that once they create it, that will create demand? You would be laughed out of business school.
You are taught to find a market. A market is created by demand. Supply on the other hand, when combined with demand, establishes price/value. Lack of supply can SEEM to increase demand but it only makes the lack of supply available to meet existing demand more obvious.
Any business producing an unwanted good wold quickly fold. Why? No demand for its goods.
You should really go back and take some remedial business courses. Your understanding of how an economy works is completely askew.
Talk about monovision. Demand is not born in a vacuum. Your arguments are so business centric (one sided) that is difficult to decide where to begin.
Union money: you dislike it (abomination?) because they donate to a party you dislike. I hate to break it to you but you are not on this rock alone. That doesn't make everyone else wrong. Anyone has the right to give money to politics. Even businesses and I don't hear you peeping about those.
Unions killing business: poor management kills business, not unions. Treat your employees well and you'll be fine. 100+ years of unions in the U.S. World power. Nuff said.
Profits and hiring employees: This one is so far off base it's just funny. Tell me, where do you think your customers will earn money to buy your goods and services? You can't have business without demand. It is never a one sided equation. The math doesn't work.
Please enlighten us as to how work conditions have worsened. Your idea that somehow employers will somehow make things better for workers on their own has already been proven wrong by history. That's why we have regulation today. Do you think a factory would install pollution controls at great expense because it was a good thing to keep the air breathable? No. They do so because they are required to by law.
Welfare: look it up. When one works for a paycheck, it's NOT welfare. I don't think that word means what you think it means...
One need only look to places like China and Malaysia too see what the lack of unions provides. We aren't exactly short on examples. Business profits are made on the backs of the labor used to provide or create those services whether hat is you as an individual or via the employees you hire. Profits are made from demand. Demand comes from the consumer. No money for the consumer means no business. It's a pretty basic concept of an economy. Businesses cannot exist in a universe unto themselves. Hate to burst your bubble.
For starters, Unions don't implode of their own volition, so they don't exactly kill themselves. That leaves politicians, or bad management and the management of unions is done via voting on policy by the body. In other words, it's a democratic process, controlled by it's members.
Since unions represent the workers, it affects a businesses bottom line, so naturally business hates unions and unions hate business attempts to reap profits at the expense of employees. That said they both understand that they must mutually coexist, and as a result, they each get something from the other in a relatively balanced situation.
You probably had Monday off as a result of Unions. You also get to call in sick without losing your job, and if you are a non-name tag worker, chances are you have paid leave, sick time, and vacation. You can thank unions for that. Days off. Yep; Unions.
The GOP loves to vilify unions because the GOP represents big business. They always have. It is transparent for anyone who steps outside of a certain news channel to see. That in and of itself is fine, but they shouldn't pretend that unions are something they are not. They have existed in the us for a hundred years, and we ended up with the strongest economy on the planet. Reagan started killing them, and now look at where we are.
Do I believe the killing of unions is solely responsible for this? No, but the fact that we built our economy on unions and came to the top spot (again with unions), kind of discredits your idea that they are evil. They have existed in the U.S. for over a hundred years. Also, kindly post any real link where a democrat was demanding free bread, and circuses? If you can't find one, please leave the rhetoric at the door. Its about time people started acting like adults when it comes to politics.
Last but not least regarding government unions. I hate to break it to you, but those employees are also Americans. They have the same rights as you. They pay the same bills. They vote, have children, inherit, and eventually die. Claiming they are somehow a 'subclass' of worker is disingenuous at best and outright contrary to democratic principals at it's worst.
You realize a common sense post like yours will quickly be downmodded as flamebait, trolling, even off topic? Slashdot is no longer interested in intelligent dialogue. They are all in a frenzy over 'rounded corners'. It's a little sickening.
I suspect a good number on here haven't even looked at the patents found to be in violation, let alone what trade dress is. At this point I've given up on any attempt to discuss it. It's like a liberal guest on Fox News. Pointless.
..which are at the mercy of Apple. ALL software running on macs is at the mercy of Apple
That's about as insightful as blaming Apple that the Linux developers didn't build their tools with better backwards compatibility with old API's.
You do understand that any Mac can install any software, just as any Linux box can install any software, just as any Windows box can install any software?
You really should get out of your basement more often...
Ironically, all the 1982 paper did was quite casually note that "95% of the [male] infants [with UTI] were uncircumcised." without mentioning that virtually no babies born at that hospital (Parkland in Dallas, Texas) were circumcised. The paper went on: "All infants responded promptly to antimicrobial therapy."
20 out of of 100,157 (0.02%) circumcised boys got UTIs, compared with 88 out of 35,929 (0.244%) intact boys. If circumcising the 35,929 boys would have reduced the incidence from 0.244% to 0.02% (7 boys), the Number Needed to Treat is 35,929/(88-7) = 444 circumcisions to prevent one UTI.
Do you know what also causes UTI's? Bubble Bath.
UTI's are just common for 1st year babies. UTI's are also extremely easy to treat. I don't think it's worth mutilating a baby to reduce the possibility of an easily treatable condition that many babies will end up with regardless (girls and boys as well as circumcised boys also end up with UTI's).
Even delaying the procedure until a boy is likely to become sexually active (something like 13% at age 15), so probably a year or two before) would be preferable to making the choice for him.
Vaccines have been proven to prevent illness where no other easily available remedy or prevention exists.
With an intact foreskin, a condom, abstinence, or simple cleanliness will prevent illness depending on the type of contagion, all of which are easily available.
Can't agree more. Never understood why parents feel the need to disfigure their children with no input from the child is beyond me. This should be something that an adult decides for his own reasons, not something to be decided for him.
I was speaking generically and thinking about a criminal trial, not specifically about this case. I agree on all other points. "Prosecution" and "Defense" wouldn't play a part in a civil trial (although juries are used in both criminal and civil trials in the United States).
My hands are wet with blue paint. The person next to me has his hands painted red. You are color blind. The evidence has red paint on it. You have no idea if the paint on the paper is red or blue. You are presented with evidence stating the paper has red paint which is accepted into evidence. You can only judge by the evidence provided. That is a key concept of law.
"The law is reason, free from passion" - Aristotle
Well for starters, the patent systems wasn't on Trial. Samsung and Apple were on trial. The Jury didn't have to fully understand the entire patent system. They had to answer 700 questions. In every jury case, the jurors are presented with the necessary information to come to a consensus. It is the responsibility of the prosecution and defense to make sure they can come to an informed opinion given the necessary information as presented by both sides.
Any adult, given enough facts as presented by both sides, should be able to come to a conclusion as to guilty or innocent. It doesn't require an in-depth knowledge of law, but rather a simple way to judge to arguments and giving merit to one over the other. If it required an in-depth knowledge of the law, we would only have lawyers for jurors, and I think we can all agree that's not a great idea;)
Last but no least, a very basic yet easily understandable reason. Jurors represent the common man. Just imagine if every person in the jury was technically 'in the know'. Look at similar discussions here on/. and you'll find hundreds of answers to the same question all with different viewpoints. Even the most basic questions can result in flame wars due to the depth of knowledge represented here. The more in-depth knowledge one has on a topic, the less likely you are to get a consensus and the less likely you are to be able to look at a case objectively.
I assume you're trolling, but the point of the post is that it showed that Apple properly purchased the chips from Intel, which in turn had a contract with Samsung that provided the right to sell said chipsets along with a license to use them, from Intel. This is why Samsung's claims were found to be invalid and their patent claims exhausted. Intel had the right to sell the chips from Samsung, and that included protections for any purchasers granting them the necessary rights to use those chipsets.
Why is your post down modded? Android itself does this with the glow effect. Patents have a short term and force variety. We don't need another iOS clone. What would be the point?
One of Apple's clean sweeps in the verdict was that all Samsung's smartphones were found to infringe on Apple's patent covering bounce-back. In short, this is what lets a user scroll beyond the edge of an image, Web page, or list, and have it bounce back onto the screen.
"We were thinking Apple filed a patent for bounce-back, (and) that's where we got stuck...because (of) prior art," Ilagan said. He added that the group eventually found some of Samsung's prior art "significantly different" from the technology outlined in Apple's bounce-back patent.
Not only that, I suspect when he said they skipped it (the previous sentences indicate they had a very heavy, although civil, debate about it going on), they most likely circled back to it later once tempers had cooled. This is perfectly acceptable. I've been a jury foreman before and we had similar instructions from the judge. If you needed to skip something while gathering more information, or just to review other evidence while deciding on a previous question, then do so. You may not be able to come to a decision on every question in the order they are given to the jury. If you can't resolve an answer, then skip it and come back to it later.
Samsung spent hours trying to present prior art evidence. They actually spent a relatively large portion of their case on it. Implying that the jury somehow 'skipped' it because the outcome isn't what you may have been hoping for it reaching a bit. Every jury gets very explicit instructions, and any time there is a deadlock, you can stop at any time and refer questions to the judge on how to proceed.
Vaguely promising to protect your personal data, while including language that puts the police state in your bedroom isn't exactly what I would call a fair trade.
Actually, Nokia sued Apple, Apple countersued Nokia. That spilled over into a suit from Apple against HTC and countersuits from both of those against Apple.
Motorola fire the first shot between themselves and Apple.
Interesting timeline between Nokia, Apple, Motorola, HTC, Microsoft, Google, and Oracle.
I'll assume you're being facetious, but the general idea is that a company can patent an idea and profit from it on an exclusive basis for a short time. Unfortunately the 'short time' part has been twisted beyond recognition.
I actually agree with the original intent as it does give incentive to invent in the form of compensation, but now its just grown to ridiculous lengths for the length of time the patent can generate income and it stifles competition.
Apparently the 'minimalist' design of Apple stores was based on Steve Job's buddhist teachings. He was a practicing Buddhist and brought that aesthetic into his iDevice designs whenever possible, and also into the layout of the stores.
You don't define the difference. We already have mechanisms under law to handle such as this.A good example would be cases where someone's computer was damaged by a virus scanner that quarantined a key system file and caused a failed boot condition. Those consumers could sue the company for losses associated with getting their computers fixed. It could also escalate into a class action lawsuit. I would think the same recourse is available to an enterprise.
It's not only the density issue, but the lack of competition. The government is fully to blame here. They gave monopolies to a single provider for various counties, and now those same companies have little reason to improve service. I've lived in a major metropolitan area for 20+ years. Initially I had a simple modem connection, did a small stint with an ISDN line, and then went to cable right around 2000. At that time, it was a 7Mb/s line. 12 years later, it is still the basic offering with incremental improvement on uplink speed and down speed (10 mb/s down and 128 up), or a hefty price increase to get the 'new' 20 Mb/s speed.
The US has fallen so far behind other developed countries due to the lack of competition it's just not funny anymore. Even the density problem would be resolved with more competition. By it's very nature, more competition brings advances far faster, cheaper production of the necessary materials, and a general lowering trend in price. We see this in almost every electronics industry, but in telecom, the price remains static, or has exploded instead with little actual improvement offered.
Look to any overseas country to see what true competition produces.
Slashdot Mirror
It's also not the developers fault that they target the dominant version of the OS. Google dropped the ball. They should have made an upgrade path easily available to their users (and by users I mean end users, not handset manufacturers).
Apple got this one right. It takes no skill to click an 'update' button. Hell it even prompts you that an update is available. Plug it in and your phone is updated in 15 minutes with a single click.
The current method of relying on handset vendors to provide updates to Android handsets where there is no profit margin for them to do so is broken. Why provide updates when you can get this shiny new phone with a newer (yet obsolete) version of Android? The technical folk can upgrade but the masses are stuck with obsolete and potentially vulnerable versions due to neglect.
Do you think if a farmer grows a crop that is designed to spoil within 24 hours, his business will thrive once he produces it? Of course not. No one would buy such a crop. No demand.
Are you seriously suggesting that any business can just create something and hope that once they create it, that will create demand? You would be laughed out of business school.
You are taught to find a market. A market is created by demand. Supply on the other hand, when combined with demand, establishes price/value. Lack of supply can SEEM to increase demand but it only makes the lack of supply available to meet existing demand more obvious.
Any business producing an unwanted good wold quickly fold. Why? No demand for its goods.
You should really go back and take some remedial business courses. Your understanding of how an economy works is completely askew.
Talk about monovision. Demand is not born in a vacuum. Your arguments are so business centric (one sided) that is difficult to decide where to begin.
Union money: you dislike it (abomination?) because they donate to a party you dislike. I hate to break it to you but you are not on this rock alone. That doesn't make everyone else wrong. Anyone has the right to give money to politics. Even businesses and I don't hear you peeping about those.
Unions killing business: poor management kills business, not unions. Treat your employees well and you'll be fine. 100+ years of unions in the U.S. World power. Nuff said.
Profits and hiring employees: This one is so far off base it's just funny. Tell me, where do you think your customers will earn money to buy your goods and services? You can't have business without demand. It is never a one sided equation. The math doesn't work.
Please enlighten us as to how work conditions have worsened. Your idea that somehow employers will somehow make things better for workers on their own has already been proven wrong by history. That's why we have regulation today. Do you think a factory would install pollution controls at great expense because it was a good thing to keep the air breathable? No. They do so because they are required to by law.
Welfare: look it up. When one works for a paycheck, it's NOT welfare. I don't think that word means what you think it means...
One need only look to places like China and Malaysia too see what the lack of unions provides. We aren't exactly short on examples. Business profits are made on the backs of the labor used to provide or create those services whether hat is you as an individual or via the employees you hire. Profits are made from demand. Demand comes from the consumer. No money for the consumer means no business. It's a pretty basic concept of an economy. Businesses cannot exist in a universe unto themselves. Hate to burst your bubble.
For starters, Unions don't implode of their own volition, so they don't exactly kill themselves. That leaves politicians, or bad management and the management of unions is done via voting on policy by the body. In other words, it's a democratic process, controlled by it's members.
Since unions represent the workers, it affects a businesses bottom line, so naturally business hates unions and unions hate business attempts to reap profits at the expense of employees. That said they both understand that they must mutually coexist, and as a result, they each get something from the other in a relatively balanced situation.
You probably had Monday off as a result of Unions. You also get to call in sick without losing your job, and if you are a non-name tag worker, chances are you have paid leave, sick time, and vacation. You can thank unions for that. Days off. Yep; Unions.
The GOP loves to vilify unions because the GOP represents big business. They always have. It is transparent for anyone who steps outside of a certain news channel to see. That in and of itself is fine, but they shouldn't pretend that unions are something they are not. They have existed in the us for a hundred years, and we ended up with the strongest economy on the planet. Reagan started killing them, and now look at where we are.
Do I believe the killing of unions is solely responsible for this? No, but the fact that we built our economy on unions and came to the top spot (again with unions), kind of discredits your idea that they are evil. They have existed in the U.S. for over a hundred years. Also, kindly post any real link where a democrat was demanding free bread, and circuses? If you can't find one, please leave the rhetoric at the door. Its about time people started acting like adults when it comes to politics.
Last but not least regarding government unions. I hate to break it to you, but those employees are also Americans. They have the same rights as you. They pay the same bills. They vote, have children, inherit, and eventually die. Claiming they are somehow a 'subclass' of worker is disingenuous at best and outright contrary to democratic principals at it's worst.
This actually sounds like something Apple would do with it's 'Retina' displays and it would fit the 27" iMac with Retina.
You realize a common sense post like yours will quickly be downmodded as flamebait, trolling, even off topic? Slashdot is no longer interested in intelligent dialogue. They are all in a frenzy over 'rounded corners'. It's a little sickening.
I suspect a good number on here haven't even looked at the patents found to be in violation, let alone what trade dress is. At this point I've given up on any attempt to discuss it. It's like a liberal guest on Fox News. Pointless.
That's about as insightful as blaming Apple that the Linux developers didn't build their tools with better backwards compatibility with old API's.
You do understand that any Mac can install any software, just as any Linux box can install any software, just as any Windows box can install any software?
You really should get out of your basement more often...
Unhuh...
http://www.circumstitions.com/Utis.html
Do you know what also causes UTI's? Bubble Bath.
UTI's are just common for 1st year babies. UTI's are also extremely easy to treat. I don't think it's worth mutilating a baby to reduce the possibility of an easily treatable condition that many babies will end up with regardless (girls and boys as well as circumcised boys also end up with UTI's).
Even delaying the procedure until a boy is likely to become sexually active (something like 13% at age 15), so probably a year or two before) would be preferable to making the choice for him.
Vaccines have been proven to prevent illness where no other easily available remedy or prevention exists.
With an intact foreskin, a condom, abstinence, or simple cleanliness will prevent illness depending on the type of contagion, all of which are easily available.
Can't agree more. Never understood why parents feel the need to disfigure their children with no input from the child is beyond me. This should be something that an adult decides for his own reasons, not something to be decided for him.
I was speaking generically and thinking about a criminal trial, not specifically about this case. I agree on all other points. "Prosecution" and "Defense" wouldn't play a part in a civil trial (although juries are used in both criminal and civil trials in the United States).
Not ignorance. Reason.
My hands are wet with blue paint. The person next to me has his hands painted red. You are color blind. The evidence has red paint on it. You have no idea if the paint on the paper is red or blue. You are presented with evidence stating the paper has red paint which is accepted into evidence. You can only judge by the evidence provided. That is a key concept of law.
"The law is reason, free from passion" - Aristotle
Well for starters, the patent systems wasn't on Trial. Samsung and Apple were on trial. The Jury didn't have to fully understand the entire patent system. They had to answer 700 questions. In every jury case, the jurors are presented with the necessary information to come to a consensus. It is the responsibility of the prosecution and defense to make sure they can come to an informed opinion given the necessary information as presented by both sides.
Any adult, given enough facts as presented by both sides, should be able to come to a conclusion as to guilty or innocent. It doesn't require an in-depth knowledge of law, but rather a simple way to judge to arguments and giving merit to one over the other. If it required an in-depth knowledge of the law, we would only have lawyers for jurors, and I think we can all agree that's not a great idea ;)
Last but no least, a very basic yet easily understandable reason. Jurors represent the common man. Just imagine if every person in the jury was technically 'in the know'. Look at similar discussions here on /. and you'll find hundreds of answers to the same question all with different viewpoints. Even the most basic questions can result in flame wars due to the depth of knowledge represented here. The more in-depth knowledge one has on a topic, the less likely you are to get a consensus and the less likely you are to be able to look at a case objectively.
I assume you're trolling, but the point of the post is that it showed that Apple properly purchased the chips from Intel, which in turn had a contract with Samsung that provided the right to sell said chipsets along with a license to use them, from Intel. This is why Samsung's claims were found to be invalid and their patent claims exhausted. Intel had the right to sell the chips from Samsung, and that included protections for any purchasers granting them the necessary rights to use those chipsets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine
Why is your post down modded? Android itself does this with the glow effect. Patents have a short term and force variety. We don't need another iOS clone. What would be the point?
Not indirectly. They licensed it from the chip maker. They presented the receipts in court which is why Samsung's patents were considered exhausted.
Samsung was trying to double dip.
This enforces the above. That they couldn't decide this one 'going down the list' and circled back later.
http://www.cnet.com/2300-1_1-10013512-4.html
Not only that, I suspect when he said they skipped it (the previous sentences indicate they had a very heavy, although civil, debate about it going on), they most likely circled back to it later once tempers had cooled. This is perfectly acceptable. I've been a jury foreman before and we had similar instructions from the judge. If you needed to skip something while gathering more information, or just to review other evidence while deciding on a previous question, then do so. You may not be able to come to a decision on every question in the order they are given to the jury. If you can't resolve an answer, then skip it and come back to it later.
Samsung spent hours trying to present prior art evidence. They actually spent a relatively large portion of their case on it. Implying that the jury somehow 'skipped' it because the outcome isn't what you may have been hoping for it reaching a bit. Every jury gets very explicit instructions, and any time there is a deadlock, you can stop at any time and refer questions to the judge on how to proceed.
My thoughts exactly. I would be more intersted in a plank that promised net neutrality rather than protecting users data.
The remainder of the Repbulican plank reads like something from the 1800's.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/opinion/what-the-gop-platform-represents.html
Vaguely promising to protect your personal data, while including language that puts the police state in your bedroom isn't exactly what I would call a fair trade.
Actually, Nokia sued Apple, Apple countersued Nokia. That spilled over into a suit from Apple against HTC and countersuits from both of those against Apple.
Motorola fire the first shot between themselves and Apple.
Interesting timeline between Nokia, Apple, Motorola, HTC, Microsoft, Google, and Oracle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_wars
Yep. Open mouth. Insert foot. I was thinking Copyright, not Patent. ;)
This is why you should never post before having at least one cup of coffee...
I'll assume you're being facetious, but the general idea is that a company can patent an idea and profit from it on an exclusive basis for a short time. Unfortunately the 'short time' part has been twisted beyond recognition.
I actually agree with the original intent as it does give incentive to invent in the form of compensation, but now its just grown to ridiculous lengths for the length of time the patent can generate income and it stifles competition.
Apparently the 'minimalist' design of Apple stores was based on Steve Job's buddhist teachings. He was a practicing Buddhist and brought that aesthetic into his iDevice designs whenever possible, and also into the layout of the stores.
Some interesting info on his Buddhist past up to the current: http://blogs.plos.org/neurotribes/2011/10/28/what-kind-of-buddhist-was-steve-jobs-really/
You don't define the difference. We already have mechanisms under law to handle such as this.A good example would be cases where someone's computer was damaged by a virus scanner that quarantined a key system file and caused a failed boot condition. Those consumers could sue the company for losses associated with getting their computers fixed. It could also escalate into a class action lawsuit. I would think the same recourse is available to an enterprise.
It's not only the density issue, but the lack of competition. The government is fully to blame here. They gave monopolies to a single provider for various counties, and now those same companies have little reason to improve service. I've lived in a major metropolitan area for 20+ years. Initially I had a simple modem connection, did a small stint with an ISDN line, and then went to cable right around 2000. At that time, it was a 7Mb/s line. 12 years later, it is still the basic offering with incremental improvement on uplink speed and down speed (10 mb/s down and 128 up), or a hefty price increase to get the 'new' 20 Mb/s speed.
The US has fallen so far behind other developed countries due to the lack of competition it's just not funny anymore. Even the density problem would be resolved with more competition. By it's very nature, more competition brings advances far faster, cheaper production of the necessary materials, and a general lowering trend in price. We see this in almost every electronics industry, but in telecom, the price remains static, or has exploded instead with little actual improvement offered.
Look to any overseas country to see what true competition produces.