You seem to agree (a) isn't the problem. In the case of (b) the issue is more broad, and applies equally all patent trolls. I think just about everyone agrees the USA desperately needs patent reform.
Intel 80386 was a high end chip in 1985 used in very few machines at first. That's why OS/2 and windows both targeted the 80286. The 80386SX the mainstream variant was introduced in 1988. The 386 was a bit better than the 68020 (1984) and a bit worse than the 68030 (1987). Macintosh IIx in 1988 was using the 68030.
No that wasn't the case. It wasn't really about price. IBM was more expensive than the Apple 2 and the Mac generally. As time went on the Macs that were more expensive often had better components across the board the SCSI drives vs. IDE. They also had much larger margins. That combined with the fact that Windows was "good enough" (Windows 3.0 was May 1990) was what was really devastating for Apple.
Apple is over 70% of all phones sold over $500 and over 60% of all phones over $400. Back in the day Apple did not control the high end of the market this completely. This is just standard price point stratification which happens in lots of products.
How long do you think a major chemicals weapons plant could operate secretly? If you mean some small project to produce small quantities: those things are really dangerous to the people who make them and try and store them. Syria having had a large industrial program knows that.
The US did destroy about 90% of their stockpile. The remainder which we haven't destroyed are out of commission and at the Pueblo Chemical Depot in Colorado and Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky. Both of which are disposal facilities. We are doing it and have been for decades.
Syria is going to ship their stable stuff to Russia for destruction and if they have unstable / weird stuff everyone is going to have to figure out what to do.
I don't live in the EU. But I suspect that in the EU is it illegal to go into a store and with full knowledge and understanding that a problem is an easily resolvable software configuration issues claim there is a hardware defect. That's more or less the definition of fraud.
Yes it is. But that's a different question. The claim was that Microsoft doesn't innovate.
If one wanted to make a much weaker claim like, "Microsoft is incredibly innovative. However they are very conservative about moving those innovations into their core revenue producing products" that's defendable. I still think it is wrong. For example the inclusion of Visual F# in Visual Studio 2013 is a great example of a product originating in Research, being developed there and then migrating to their mainstream product. LINQ for all their languages and SQLSever is another great example of the same process.
Look more carefully. That's the research arm of Microsoft. Those people doing the research are mostly Microsoft employees or academics with research grants from Microsoft.
1) The patents aren't about phone-OSes they are about search more broadly 2) The combined marketshare of Apple + Microsoft+RIM falls well short of a complete market JavaVM is still larger then all 3 plus Android. 3) Even if you were to restrict to particular price points and thus exclude JavaVM, Google is the one who approaches a monopoly. It is legal to act in concert to prevent the formation of a monopoly.
So you would really have to argue that RIM+Microsoft+Apple are in collusion to drive Google out so as to form a trust... But how does winning this directly create a phone-OS trust? Even if Google were to stop being involved in search there is no reason they couldn't continue to produce Android and use other search engines. I don't think this is a makeable case.
The issue with the posts was not Apple's screw up. It was the unwillingness to do just do what people normally do when software installs fail. Reinstall and fix the problem. Instead Lessig wanted to treat this like it was a hardware problem and demand a warranty swap.
Generally when an installer fails the customer process is to resume installation and reinstall. That is a well established norm that users have found acceptable for many products. And there is no evidence what-so-ever that they did not find it acceptable in this instance.
What Lessig wanted to do was misrepresent the problem as a broken system that required a hardware swap, as a way to punish Apple. That's bordering on if not outright fraud.
It is perfectly legal for companies to work together to cooperate providing that the group of companies working together don't represent effectively all of the market. In the case of search the only possible monopoly is Google.
What business are Apple, Microsoft, RIM in for which they can form a trust? Especially one related to search. Apple bundles other people's search they lose money on it and are a customer of both Google and Microsoft for search. RIM doesn't do search at all.
Why do you find it necessary to misrepresent what happened? Apple forums openly talk about problems in their products and fixes. What Apple deleted was an attempt to organize a protest which would be expensive for Apple rather than work with Apple to resolve a problem in line with the terms of warranty. That is Apple deleted posts where people were engaging in a activities which arguably consisted of a conspiracy to defraud Apple.
You can't have any semi-private relationship with A or B or you break the whole point of not encrypting the envelope. Google, Yahoo... can't necessarily be trusted.
X sends message M to A (say google). A records a message ID and forwards to B (say Yahoo) Yahoo records google's message ID and forwards to Y
Google and Yahoo pass the message plus ID to NSA. Or to make it easier both Yahoo and Google share their private key for these transmissions and the NSA just reads the envelope.
You can have a different set of servers handling the keys and the mail. For example a bank could run a server doing doing key verification and management and then Google handle the mail.
Slashdot Mirror
There are two issues:
a) Consortiums to compete
b) Patent trolling.
You seem to agree (a) isn't the problem. In the case of (b) the issue is more broad, and applies equally all patent trolls. I think just about everyone agrees the USA desperately needs patent reform.
Intel 80386 was a high end chip in 1985 used in very few machines at first. That's why OS/2 and windows both targeted the 80286.
The 80386SX the mainstream variant was introduced in 1988. The 386 was a bit better than the 68020 (1984) and a bit worse than the 68030 (1987). Macintosh IIx in 1988 was using the 68030.
So no, Apple was not behind in CPUs.
No that wasn't the case. It wasn't really about price. IBM was more expensive than the Apple 2 and the Mac generally. As time went on the Macs that were more expensive often had better components across the board the SCSI drives vs. IDE. They also had much larger margins. That combined with the fact that Windows was "good enough" (Windows 3.0 was May 1990) was what was really devastating for Apple.
Apple is over 70% of all phones sold over $500 and over 60% of all phones over $400. Back in the day Apple did not control the high end of the market this completely. This is just standard price point stratification which happens in lots of products.
How long do you think a major chemicals weapons plant could operate secretly? If you mean some small project to produce small quantities: those things are really dangerous to the people who make them and try and store them. Syria having had a large industrial program knows that.
The US did destroy about 90% of their stockpile. The remainder which we haven't destroyed are out of commission and at the Pueblo Chemical Depot in Colorado and Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky. Both of which are disposal facilities. We are doing it and have been for decades.
Syria is going to ship their stable stuff to Russia for destruction and if they have unstable / weird stuff everyone is going to have to figure out what to do.
The brutal dictator is in a state of declared war with Israel. People bomb each other during wars.
They were bombing anti-aircraft missiles in transit. They were in transit to Hezbollah. As far as I know those facts aren't in dispute.
I don't live in the EU. But I suspect that in the EU is it illegal to go into a store and with full knowledge and understanding that a problem is an easily resolvable software configuration issues claim there is a hardware defect. That's more or less the definition of fraud.
What are you talking about? Apple agreed there was a problem and took steps directly to fix it. The fix was already known when the deletions occurred.
Yes I've been astroturfing here for Apple for 15 years as a paid poster. Farsighted company that Apple.
Yes it is. But that's a different question. The claim was that Microsoft doesn't innovate.
If one wanted to make a much weaker claim like, "Microsoft is incredibly innovative. However they are very conservative about moving those innovations into their core revenue producing products" that's defendable. I still think it is wrong. For example the inclusion of Visual F# in Visual Studio 2013 is a great example of a product originating in Research, being developed there and then migrating to their mainstream product. LINQ for all their languages and SQLSever is another great example of the same process.
Look more carefully. That's the research arm of Microsoft. Those people doing the research are mostly Microsoft employees or academics with research grants from Microsoft.
1) The patents aren't about phone-OSes they are about search more broadly
2) The combined marketshare of Apple + Microsoft+RIM falls well short of a complete market JavaVM is still larger then all 3 plus Android.
3) Even if you were to restrict to particular price points and thus exclude JavaVM, Google is the one who approaches a monopoly. It is legal to act in concert to prevent the formation of a monopoly.
So you would really have to argue that RIM+Microsoft+Apple are in collusion to drive Google out so as to form a trust... But how does winning this directly create a phone-OS trust? Even if Google were to stop being involved in search there is no reason they couldn't continue to produce Android and use other search engines. I don't think this is a makeable case.
To prove prior art you are going to need to prove Lycos and WebCrawler had these technologies since the patents predate Google.
As for negating I agree. Google is in a wonderful position to negate since they don't depend on patents.
The issue with the posts was not Apple's screw up. It was the unwillingness to do just do what people normally do when software installs fail. Reinstall and fix the problem. Instead Lessig wanted to treat this like it was a hardware problem and demand a warranty swap.
Generally when an installer fails the customer process is to resume installation and reinstall. That is a well established norm that users have found acceptable for many products. And there is no evidence what-so-ever that they did not find it acceptable in this instance.
What Lessig wanted to do was misrepresent the problem as a broken system that required a hardware swap, as a way to punish Apple. That's bordering on if not outright fraud.
Google was founded September 4, 1998
Some of these patents were filed as early as November 21, 1996.
I doubt Nortel invented anything of note and so these patents are likely BS but you can't argue who got there first.
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/
It is perfectly legal for companies to work together to cooperate providing that the group of companies working together don't represent effectively all of the market. In the case of search the only possible monopoly is Google.
What business are Apple, Microsoft, RIM in for which they can form a trust? Especially one related to search. Apple bundles other people's search they lose money on it and are a customer of both Google and Microsoft for search. RIM doesn't do search at all.
Why do you find it necessary to misrepresent what happened? Apple forums openly talk about problems in their products and fixes. What Apple deleted was an attempt to organize a protest which would be expensive for Apple rather than work with Apple to resolve a problem in line with the terms of warranty. That is Apple deleted posts where people were engaging in a activities which arguably consisted of a conspiracy to defraud Apple.
To save people the trouble of finding these:
http://patents.justia.com/inventor/richard-prescott-skillen
You can't have any semi-private relationship with A or B or you break the whole point of not encrypting the envelope. Google, Yahoo... can't necessarily be trusted.
X sends message M to A (say google).
A records a message ID and forwards to B (say Yahoo)
Yahoo records google's message ID and forwards to Y
Google and Yahoo pass the message plus ID to NSA. Or to make it easier both Yahoo and Google share their private key for these transmissions and the NSA just reads the envelope.
You can have a different set of servers handling the keys and the mail. For example a bank could run a server doing doing key verification and management and then Google handle the mail.