They acknowledge that bootloader must be unlocked for this to work though. That's really going to limit the utility of their procedure. Non-Nexus bootloaders are generally locked and encrypted, and the ADB whitelist feature of 4.2.2 should make stock Nexus devices a tough target.
Without providing specific examples of malware that's led to security breaches, the article could be describing any mobile platform. In my opinion, the greatest threat isn't which operating system is running on a device, it's all of the morons carrying their devices on them and leaving them lying around without using any lockscreen security. Slide-to-unlock is the biggest problem.
Desktop Linux is a garden without a wall. The easiest and safest way to install a program is the official repo, but i can add third party repos easily, or compile packages for source myself. You see, it's the wall that makes the walled garden a problem.
Google represents a small chunk of data collection though. Facebook, ISP's, cell and landline companies, EZ pass tolls, credit agencies, Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo...it's a long list. At least Google is transparent about what information is being collected, what it's used for, and how it's accessed. That's kind of unique in this post-9/11 age, and I think that supports their "Don't be evil" mantra.
It was high school chemistry, particularly organic, that really got me to where I am today. Had I not been required to take at least one introductory class, I don't think I would have had the pragmatism at that age to sign up on my own. I also had to study Shakespeare, which I can't really say has contributed to my career, but it's made me a more well-rounded person. Being educated doesn't only mean being scholarly, it also means being open-minded.
FinFisher spyware made by U.K.-based Gamma Group can take control of a range of mobile devices, including Apple Inc. (AAPL)’s iPhone and Research in Motion Ltd. (RIM)’s BlackBerry, an analysis of presumed samples of the software shows...“When FinSpy Mobile is installed on a mobile phone it can be remotely controlled and monitored no matter where in the world the Target is located,” a FinSpy brochure published by WikiLeaks says.
Systems that can be targeted include Microsoft Corp. (MSFT)’s Windows Mobile, the Apple iPhone’s iOS and BlackBerry and Google Inc. (GOOG)’s Android, according to the company’s literature. Today’s report says the malware can also infect phones running Symbian, an operating system made by Nokia Oyj (NOK1V), and that it appears the program targeting iOS will run on iPad tablets.
Intel was caught looking at their shoes the last time AMD was pushed to the brink and spun off their fabs to Global Foundries. I really don't think Intel saw that coming. If AMD starts selling assets again, it's probably going to be the Chinese government stepping in. They wouldn't need Longsoon anymore. That could really hurt Intel, both in terms of the Asian market and the unlimited financial resources that a reorganized AMD would have.
Right now rightsholders and the anti-piracy outfits they employ have absolutely no incentive to improve the accuracy of their automated takedown systems, so perhaps it’s time for them to be punished?
That is the problem--they have nothing to lose. If automated detection can't differentiate between illegal, fair use, and completely unrelated content (as in this case), then someone needs to be held liable for that junk.
Patent exhaustion seems to be a fairly gray area of law, and Samsung seems to have a case from a certain point of view. Apple isn't an end user or a retailer, on which historical precedents are mostly based. They are another manufacturer that incorporates the IP into a product. Of course, we don't know the details of the Qualcomm-Samsung agreement. The terms could be very specific to Qualcomm as a chip producer and Samsung as a customer of Qualcomm. The license fee that Qualcomm may be favorable because of those circumstances. It's also possible that Samsung licenses some tech from Qualcomm as part of the agreement. To assume that the fee Qualcomm pays is the same price that Apple would pay--and does pay in the cost of a chip--really isn't accurate because the two don't share the same license relationship with Samsung.
Also, according to this, the not-to-sue promise was a private contract, not a license; I think this was mentioned on Groklaw awhile back. And if this case was a slam dunk for Apple, I don't think they would have been after Samsung to get a license for the 3G patents in the first place.
Brazil’s electoral law has several restrictions on what opponents or critics can air on television and radio about candidates for office — even comedic needling of politicians is banned during electoral season. The Internet’s role in these cases, until now, was not legally explored, as the government does not license the internet and was considered by most exempt from the law.
...In the northeastern state of Paraiba, a judge also ordered the imprisonment of another Google executive in Brazil earlier this month, also for not removing videos from YouTube attacking a mayoral candidate. That order was overruled by a higher court.
A lot of comments are kind of off track from what the article is linked to. There are two inconsistencies that are kind of connected. On page 7 of exhibit 1, he declares that he settled a lawsuit out of court in which he was sued by a programmer that worked for him over ownership of code. He also appears to have been involved in a second lawsuit, which he doesn't mention, in which he was sued by Seagate. He should have declared that as well. Secondly and more importantly, from the same exhibit, he promises to decide the case based on the evidence presented, and not drawing on any personal experience:
NOW, SAME FOR MR. TEPMAN, AS WELL AS TO
MR. HOGAN. YOU ALL HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE, BUT
WILL YOU BE ABLE TO DECIDE THIS CASE BASED SOLELY
ON THE EVIDENCE THAT'S ADMITTED DURING THE TRIAL?
Already moderated in this forum... but posting anyway.
That is NOT what the jury said if you read the full statement. Your as bad as fox news with taking a snippet and carrying on with it, totally out of context. The jury said they took the easy questions first, that could be agreed upon with only a small amount of discussion. And saved the ones where people were really far apart and divided and saved those for later discussion. This is the same way you take standardized tests. You knock out the easy questions first. When this person said they skipped prior art... they didn't disregard it or refuse to consider it. They tabled it for the lengthier discussion due to its complexity (skipped it from the initial discussion) and did indeed discuss it in quite a bit of detail. Please quit putting your faux-news tidbit spin on this. That's been discredited several times. Go read up on it.
Actually OP is pretty close. Watch the Bloomberg interview again, it's on Youtube. You can skip to the 2:00 mark. Hogan states that they were discussing one (Samsung's '460 patent...he's suggesting this is the first one they began discussing) patent on the first day. Later at home, he starts thinking that patent "claim by claim, limit by limit "and how he would defend it in court. His "ah-ha" moment was that the two implementations were not interchangeable because "Apple's software could not be placed into the processor of the prior art and vice versa", so Apple did not infringe. He shared this revelation with the other jurors the next day and they agreed to use his theory to assess the patents one by one, rather than prior art, which Samsung's law team spent a lot of time addressing. This is contrary to the jury instructions that they were supposed to be following.
Bin Laden is dead, as are many of the top Al Queda leaders, the network has been dismantled, and spuriously we're safer from attack. But considering the freedoms and rights to privacy that we've sacrificed in the process, I'd choose to live my life in pre-9/11 vulnerability, than a reality where everything I say and do is being recorded and monitored. I feel like "terrorism" has still won.
Isn't this what the driver handles though, discerning different types of touch and location, while the job of the OS is determining what that touch corresponds to ("clicking" on a button, for example)?
I don't see why an access point couldn't be a base station either, by the obfuscated description in claim 1. The base station is triggering the event, not controlling the client device. I've used a Tasker profile that detects the SSID and puts my phone in silent mode for meetings at work, and the it's the WAP that's detecting the phone, allowing it to connect, and causing the change in profiles on the phone.
What's even more absurd is that Apple filed for another patent, which I think was recently awarded, that removed the dependency of the "along a predetermined path" language. The claims are incredibly vague and probably cover any current and future implementation of unlocking a touchscreen, aside from using a physical button.
That doesn't make sense though. The Galaxy Nexus never used the "rubberband effect", it originally shipped on ICS which uses the glow effect to indicate the end of a scroll. I think all ICS devices use that, including the S2 currently, but perhaps because the original firmware was Gingerbread, it's included? I'm not that familiar with Touchwiz so I'm not positive.
I don't personally think the rubberband effect when scrolling is particularly novel or ingenious, or should be considered as an "invention". That's just my opinion. But I don't see how one can argue that a patent on a visual trick is held in the same significance as one (or two, in this case) that covers wireless technology. Developing the latter was likely to be vastly more costly and resource intensive. I think this type of ruling discourages real invention in favor of cheap software patents, and I don't want to see technology stagnate because of that.
Always Innovating announced the Touch Book almost a year before the iPad was revealed. I think it even started shipping months before that as well. I didn't own one, but I remember the buzz at the time, and the difficulty they had fulfilling orders. Apple's claims of the uniqueness of the iPad and that similar devices can't be developed independent of each other are preposterous.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgSQRuU8qI4
Because he's not a lawyer or a paralegal. But he apparently believes that he's still qualified to be an "expert" on patent-related litigation, and much of what he writes on his blog is inaccurate, untruthful, and sometimes downright foolish. Furthermore, while he was once vehemently opposed to software patents, he's now bedfellows with Oracle and Microsoft--two of the most ardent supporters (and in recent time, abusers) of software patents.
The guy has a major credibility problem.
I'm not sure it's a smoking gun either by any stretch, but I suppose this revelation proves that Apple's design process isn't closed, but rather based largely on perceptions of their products respective of their competition. Clearly, adopting things like OTA updates, the notification bar, unlock directly to camera, and so forth already prove that they've closely monitored their competitors, integrated their features, and adapted to where the market is going. Contrary to Apple's claims, they haven't always been the pace car leading the pack, they've done quite a bit of following too, as has everyone else producing these devices. It's not clear what connection Samsung is trying to make, but it's probably something along these lines.
I think the Always Innovating Touch Book beat Asus to the tablet+keyboard market. Regardless, I'm sure Apple will receive the patent anyway, despite the amount of prior art and shear obviousness in what they "invented".
Slashdot Mirror
They acknowledge that bootloader must be unlocked for this to work though. That's really going to limit the utility of their procedure. Non-Nexus bootloaders are generally locked and encrypted, and the ADB whitelist feature of 4.2.2 should make stock Nexus devices a tough target.
Without providing specific examples of malware that's led to security breaches, the article could be describing any mobile platform. In my opinion, the greatest threat isn't which operating system is running on a device, it's all of the morons carrying their devices on them and leaving them lying around without using any lockscreen security. Slide-to-unlock is the biggest problem.
Desktop Linux is a garden without a wall. The easiest and safest way to install a program is the official repo, but i can add third party repos easily, or compile packages for source myself. You see, it's the wall that makes the walled garden a problem.
Google represents a small chunk of data collection though. Facebook, ISP's, cell and landline companies, EZ pass tolls, credit agencies, Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo...it's a long list. At least Google is transparent about what information is being collected, what it's used for, and how it's accessed. That's kind of unique in this post-9/11 age, and I think that supports their "Don't be evil" mantra.
It was high school chemistry, particularly organic, that really got me to where I am today. Had I not been required to take at least one introductory class, I don't think I would have had the pragmatism at that age to sign up on my own. I also had to study Shakespeare, which I can't really say has contributed to my career, but it's made me a more well-rounded person. Being educated doesn't only mean being scholarly, it also means being open-minded.
FinFisher spyware made by U.K.-based Gamma Group can take control of a range of mobile devices, including Apple Inc. (AAPL)’s iPhone and Research in Motion Ltd. (RIM)’s BlackBerry, an analysis of presumed samples of the software shows...“When FinSpy Mobile is installed on a mobile phone it can be remotely controlled and monitored no matter where in the world the Target is located,” a FinSpy brochure published by WikiLeaks says. Systems that can be targeted include Microsoft Corp. (MSFT)’s Windows Mobile, the Apple iPhone’s iOS and BlackBerry and Google Inc. (GOOG)’s Android, according to the company’s literature. Today’s report says the malware can also infect phones running Symbian, an operating system made by Nokia Oyj (NOK1V), and that it appears the program targeting iOS will run on iPad tablets.
source
Intel was caught looking at their shoes the last time AMD was pushed to the brink and spun off their fabs to Global Foundries. I really don't think Intel saw that coming. If AMD starts selling assets again, it's probably going to be the Chinese government stepping in. They wouldn't need Longsoon anymore. That could really hurt Intel, both in terms of the Asian market and the unlimited financial resources that a reorganized AMD would have.
Right now rightsholders and the anti-piracy outfits they employ have absolutely no incentive to improve the accuracy of their automated takedown systems, so perhaps it’s time for them to be punished?
That is the problem--they have nothing to lose. If automated detection can't differentiate between illegal, fair use, and completely unrelated content (as in this case), then someone needs to be held liable for that junk.
Also, according to this, the not-to-sue promise was a private contract, not a license; I think this was mentioned on Groklaw awhile back. And if this case was a slam dunk for Apple, I don't think they would have been after Samsung to get a license for the 3G patents in the first place.
Brazil’s electoral law has several restrictions on what opponents or critics can air on television and radio about candidates for office — even comedic needling of politicians is banned during electoral season. The Internet’s role in these cases, until now, was not legally explored, as the government does not license the internet and was considered by most exempt from the law.
It's called an "Emergency Department"
NOW, SAME FOR MR. TEPMAN, AS WELL AS TO MR. HOGAN. YOU ALL HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE, BUT WILL YOU BE ABLE TO DECIDE THIS CASE BASED SOLELY ON THE EVIDENCE THAT'S ADMITTED DURING THE TRIAL?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: OKAY. MR. HOGAN SAYS YES.
Already moderated in this forum... but posting anyway.
That is NOT what the jury said if you read the full statement. Your as bad as fox news with taking a snippet and carrying on with it, totally out of context. The jury said they took the easy questions first, that could be agreed upon with only a small amount of discussion. And saved the ones where people were really far apart and divided and saved those for later discussion. This is the same way you take standardized tests. You knock out the easy questions first. When this person said they skipped prior art... they didn't disregard it or refuse to consider it. They tabled it for the lengthier discussion due to its complexity (skipped it from the initial discussion) and did indeed discuss it in quite a bit of detail. Please quit putting your faux-news tidbit spin on this. That's been discredited several times. Go read up on it.
Actually OP is pretty close. Watch the Bloomberg interview again, it's on Youtube. You can skip to the 2:00 mark. Hogan states that they were discussing one (Samsung's '460 patent...he's suggesting this is the first one they began discussing) patent on the first day. Later at home, he starts thinking that patent "claim by claim, limit by limit "and how he would defend it in court. His "ah-ha" moment was that the two implementations were not interchangeable because "Apple's software could not be placed into the processor of the prior art and vice versa", so Apple did not infringe. He shared this revelation with the other jurors the next day and they agreed to use his theory to assess the patents one by one, rather than prior art, which Samsung's law team spent a lot of time addressing. This is contrary to the jury instructions that they were supposed to be following.
This was already done last year in 4.0, and the "glow" effect actually looks pretty elegant, in my opinion.
Bin Laden is dead, as are many of the top Al Queda leaders, the network has been dismantled, and spuriously we're safer from attack. But considering the freedoms and rights to privacy that we've sacrificed in the process, I'd choose to live my life in pre-9/11 vulnerability, than a reality where everything I say and do is being recorded and monitored. I feel like "terrorism" has still won.
Isn't this what the driver handles though, discerning different types of touch and location, while the job of the OS is determining what that touch corresponds to ("clicking" on a button, for example)?
30 Helens agree with this.
I don't see why an access point couldn't be a base station either, by the obfuscated description in claim 1. The base station is triggering the event, not controlling the client device. I've used a Tasker profile that detects the SSID and puts my phone in silent mode for meetings at work, and the it's the WAP that's detecting the phone, allowing it to connect, and causing the change in profiles on the phone.
What's even more absurd is that Apple filed for another patent, which I think was recently awarded, that removed the dependency of the "along a predetermined path" language. The claims are incredibly vague and probably cover any current and future implementation of unlocking a touchscreen, aside from using a physical button.
That doesn't make sense though. The Galaxy Nexus never used the "rubberband effect", it originally shipped on ICS which uses the glow effect to indicate the end of a scroll. I think all ICS devices use that, including the S2 currently, but perhaps because the original firmware was Gingerbread, it's included? I'm not that familiar with Touchwiz so I'm not positive.
I don't personally think the rubberband effect when scrolling is particularly novel or ingenious, or should be considered as an "invention". That's just my opinion. But I don't see how one can argue that a patent on a visual trick is held in the same significance as one (or two, in this case) that covers wireless technology. Developing the latter was likely to be vastly more costly and resource intensive. I think this type of ruling discourages real invention in favor of cheap software patents, and I don't want to see technology stagnate because of that.
Always Innovating announced the Touch Book almost a year before the iPad was revealed. I think it even started shipping months before that as well. I didn't own one, but I remember the buzz at the time, and the difficulty they had fulfilling orders. Apple's claims of the uniqueness of the iPad and that similar devices can't be developed independent of each other are preposterous. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgSQRuU8qI4
Because he's not a lawyer or a paralegal. But he apparently believes that he's still qualified to be an "expert" on patent-related litigation, and much of what he writes on his blog is inaccurate, untruthful, and sometimes downright foolish. Furthermore, while he was once vehemently opposed to software patents, he's now bedfellows with Oracle and Microsoft--two of the most ardent supporters (and in recent time, abusers) of software patents. The guy has a major credibility problem.
I'm not sure it's a smoking gun either by any stretch, but I suppose this revelation proves that Apple's design process isn't closed, but rather based largely on perceptions of their products respective of their competition. Clearly, adopting things like OTA updates, the notification bar, unlock directly to camera, and so forth already prove that they've closely monitored their competitors, integrated their features, and adapted to where the market is going. Contrary to Apple's claims, they haven't always been the pace car leading the pack, they've done quite a bit of following too, as has everyone else producing these devices. It's not clear what connection Samsung is trying to make, but it's probably something along these lines.
I think the Always Innovating Touch Book beat Asus to the tablet+keyboard market. Regardless, I'm sure Apple will receive the patent anyway, despite the amount of prior art and shear obviousness in what they "invented".