Keep trying, you'll find something accurate to say eventually.
It's about the octane. Running high-octane fuel in an old low-compression engine is a waste of the fuel. This is because the high octane allows for higher compression ratios, which allows for engines with much higher thermal efficiency. Pure ethanol is extremely high octane, and can run high-efficiency engines that would blow up if used with gasoline. I'm talking about thermal efficiencies of 50%, where even the most highly efficient gas engines on the market run in the late 30s. See the waste of using ethanol in a regular, or even flex-fuel engine?
They have never even tried to produce fuel on a commercial basis, only test batches.
Oh no, company runs test batches to perfect the technology and entice ethanol plants to sign on to the process by showing it works. The horrors!
If they were producing fuel on a commercial basis, you would have a point.
Gevo is only producing in limited quantities too, just barely went beyond its test plant. Butamax's business model is different, selling the tech to other companies that already run ethanol plants. They already have far more capacity lined up than Gevo can hope to get any time soon.
And neither BP nor DuPont did the obvious work they hold the patent on, which was actually done at a public university
Irrelevant. They own the patent. If it is valid, then that means Gevo, the company you hold up as the opposite of evil, was cheating to get to market first.
Who told you that? The god of the invisible hand?
So, they have the technology, will probably end up producing hundreds of millions of gallons a year with their partners, far more than anyone else, and you think they should not be major players just because you don't like them?
What you have is simply two competing companies in the same marketplace, both trying to profit by bringing product to market. It is idiotic and paranoid to think Butamax is suing Gevo only to prevent widespread butanol usage.
Well, you're wrong again; to properly use ethanol, we need a new source that isn't based on oil and topsoil.
Even if it's made from unicorn shit, usage of ethanol is bad in even high-performance gasoine engines because it is a waste of ethanol. Might as well bring back the old inefficient pushrod V8 engines and run them on premium gas.
That's funny, Gevo was actually producing it, and Butamax isn't.
Butamax has produced too. It's a standard corporate catfight for dominance of a nascent industry. It is not the mythical 100 mpg carburetor the oil companies bought and shelved like you're trying to portray. If Butamax gets its way, the market will be flooded with butanol, just THEIR butanol so they make the profit and get the subsidies.
Uh no, BP and DuPont have both proven that they are evil time and again
A lot of companies, governments and even environmental organizations have shown their evil. So? If we eliminate all, nothing gets done.
BP is already making a profit from oil.
Yes, and with government and public pressure, and the vast subsidies available, they'd like to be making money in biofuels too. The writing is on the wall for oil, and at some point the market won't bear what they need to charge to maintain profit. Artificial price supports that harm the taxpayer will no longer be needed to keep biofuels affordable relative to gasoline, and the laws of economics that keep gasoline popular now will turn people to biofuels. They are looking at the long-range profitability of the corporation, not some evil plot.
and also prevent legitimate competition in the market through patent system abuse
If Butamax invented it, and Gevo copied it, then that's an unethical use of another's idea to unfairly get Gevo ahead in the marketplace.
But I for one do not want BP and DuPont in charge of biofuels
Too bad. If they invent the technology and invest in the infrastructure, then they deserve to be major players in the industry. Your opinion seems to be based on hatred of these companies rather than an actual desire to see the progress of biofuels.
Why did the oil companies allow shallow coastal drilling to be shut down?
They didn't. The environmentalists got their pet congresscritters to do it. Why do people think only for-profit corporations have powerful lobbies and owned congresscritters?
I said you could make the engines run on it. You said you couldn't.
No, I said "To properly use ethanol, we need new engines across the board" which is true. PROPERLY. Using current engines is grossly inefficient and a waste of natural resources. Aren't we supposed to be saving those? We also don't have the resources to replace all existing engines. I can't be moving the goalposts and still be where I started.
which is why BP and DuPont's shell company Butamax has sued Gevo to prevent them from going into commercial production
Butamax is suing because Gevo is a competing company supposedly using their technology. BOTH are trying to bring butanol to market in large quantities. Butamax already has several ethanol plants signed on to convert to butanol. But to you they're evil because they're backed by an oil company. Reality check -- oil companies don't exit to make oil, they exist to make a profit, even if it is from alternative energy sources (especially with those sweet subsidies).
In the effort to achieve equal results instead of providing equal opportunity, their racism knows no bounds.
The worst part is there are a few blacks on the Virginia BofE, race traitors. Now black kids can go out into the world having known only lower standards. They won't be fit to compete in the larger marketplace. But then I guess it won't matter if the liberal dream of universal race quotas comes true.
Butanol is a 1:1 replacement for gasoline that is made from any organic material by bacteria.
Interesting, but I can't see us fermenting the amounts we'd need.
First, that is a lot of horseshit. There's lots of engines out there right now that could run on E100 with an additive.
There's being able to run ethanol, and being able to use it efficiently. Ethanol engines can run at a much higher compression ratio than any gasoline engine, making them much more efficient. We're talking 19:1 to get diesel-like thermal efficiency. But in a regular engine, even one considered high-compression such as 12:1, all you're doing is inefficiently using something that has a lower energy content. The flex-fuel engines on the market don't come close to taking advantage of the ethanol, basically giving you the worst of both worlds. The only reason your fueld costs aren't sky high, with the relative milege you get, is the heavy federal subsidies for ethanol.
So, to have a nation-wide fleet of cars that efficiently used ethanol, we'd need brand-new engines across the board.
You should educate yourself regarding engine technology a bit more before making too many declarative statements about it. You clearly haven't done the research.
Nuclear is eeeeevil, so it can't be a part of the solution, even if it is safe and effective. So those environmentalists are part of their own problem.
We have the technology to replace gasoline with ethanol, but the technology to produce the ethanol itself needs much improvement. As of now the net isn't that great because of how much energy is spent turning plants into ethanol. And we don't have the resources. To properly use ethanol, we need new engines across the board, every single car on the road. We don't have the resources for that retrofit.
Now, replacing diesel with biodiesel or even straight veggie oil, at least in temperate climates, looks much better. The base fuel is easy to make, engine conversion is relatively cheap, and the fuel can even come recycled from restaurants and food factories. Unfortunately, the "environmentalists" who run California are extremely hostile to diesels.
Yet as the widespread 2012 voter suppression efforts revealed, racism is still alive and kicking.
Yeah, we saw that in 2008, with menacing Black Panthers wielding night sticks at a polling place. Even worse, the government had basically won its case against them under voter rights laws, but the Obama administration decided to drop it. Do you think Holder would have dropped the case if they had been KKK? I guess the administration didn't see the irony in using racist favoritism in the enforcement of voting laws designed to combat racism.
Then again tens of millions of Americans run successful businesses, and the Democrats demonize them. Those couple million in the top 1% are absolutely evil and must be punished.
Let's see them innovate a mid level graphics workstation like a quad core i7 with a pair of PCIe slots for discreet GPU's.
You mean something any kid can put together in his bedroom? It is sad though that Apple seems to be neglecting the pro market. The Mac Pro is downright embarrassing in that otherwise top-end product lineup.
But Apples superior screen resolution is a revolutionary feat by Apple, and not simply sourcing a high resolution display form whatever non-Apple company makes them?
Except Apple actually has patents for their displays, and has a history of helping manufacturers get up to speed in producing their products. In some cases Apple blindly sources like everyone else, but in many Apple was involved in the building of the production facilities, the tooling, and the design of the production system itself.
Today, it's tough to find a phone that doesn't have a higher PPI than Apple
Really? I just looked at Wikipedia's page on List of Displays by Pixel Density for current phones. iPhone at 326...
The just released in China Huawei Ascend D has barely more at 330 (although stated 326 elsewhere), but it's a pentile display, so it doesn't quite compare, having fewer actual elements on the screen than the iPhone.
I see a few of LG's latest phones equal or barely exceed the iPhone, and a Nokia does.
Looking down I see a few other modern phones that have surpassed the iPhone.
However, this group of phones at or higher than the iPhone are the small minority of phones on the market. Thus, "it's tough to find a phone that doesn't have a higher PPI than Apple" is absolutely false.
Now that it appears Android phones have caught up in resolution, they will be in the running when I'm looking to upgrade from my 4S, if their screen isn't too big, and they aren't pentile. With this race for ever-bigger screens, I'm not holding out hope on the screen size.
Hidden in the Bible? Get real. Six paragraphs, and the first and fifth constitute the required message. The second introduces short excerpts from the judgment in the third and fourth. The sixth refers to rulings in other jurisdictions. In addition, only the two required paragraphs have links, which immediately makes them stand out to the reader.
That's not hidden. That just contains stuff that Apple haters and the judge would rather people not know.
BSD userland is correct. The kernel is a hybrid of FreeBSD, Mach and a custom driver API, together known as XNU. It all combines to form Darwin, a certified Unix operating system. This is the basis for iOS.
I should have probably qualified that a bit more, low-cost embedded network applications. As you note, it's very portable, and it's very capable. From a business perspective, also doesn't have GPL as you note. Those are all good reasons for a business to use it in a product. Apple also has quite a bit of BSD experience on multiple platforms, so that would pretty much seal the deal as the logical choice for NetBSD in an Apple router instead of Linux.
Linux is easy for most companies to do on home routers because they can pretty much take it off the shelf with little oiginal programming needed.
No, iOS is not OS X derived as Android is Linux derived.
That's not quite right. iOS and OS X are both built on top of the same base OS, Darwin. iOS then took relevant core libraries from OS X. Then each each has libraries dedicated to its purpose (OS X doesn't need touch or phone, iOS doesn't need windowing or Time Machine support). As far as mobile is concerned, iOS is more than OS X.
Apple TV is tiny, irrelevant, close to nothing compared to TVs and various set top boxes running Linux (TiVo and more).
Apple TV is a single-core A5 chip, vs basically a weaker version of a Raspberry Pi in a Roku HD. Roku is running the base Linux kernel plus a small collection of libraries and software. Apple TV is running iOS with one included app, the Apple TV software. Not quite nothing in comparison.
Then you've got pretty much every single popular wireless router except Apple's running Linux
Apple uses NetBSD, probably the best OS for embedded network applications.
Even the judge admitted Apple is free to disagree.
Did Apple post the result of the judgement? Yes. Did Apple state there is no injunction in the EU? Yes.
The problem isn't that Apple included inaccurate information, the problem is that Apple included too much factually accurate information, information that the judge didn't care to be seen.
Nobody has been able to show me what in that statement is not factually accurate. The judge forced Apple to post a factually inaccurate statement in the revised text, the inaccuracy being that the previous text was inaccurate.
You seem to have forgotten that I devices were running around with 320x480 resolution despite ALL other equivalent devices having at least 800x600? For a good year?
You have to go a few generations back to find a lower resolution screen I see. Have other phones even reached the pixel density that the iPhone introduced three generations ago?
Next they introduce the secondary noise cancelling microphone... that the Nexus One had?
Technology licensed from Audience in both cases. Although IIRC Apple has dumped Audience for their own noise cancellation technology.
All Foxconn does is assemble premade part.
Electronics are premade, but Foxconn machines the cases with extremely tight tolerances. Even the inlays have to be perfect to the fraction of a milimeter so it can't be felt (they actually take 29MP macro photos, then the system picks the best fitting one out of hundreds). The problem is making what is arguably the most powerful smartphone on the market fit in probably the smallest space of any current generation smartphone -- and then doing that to far tighter quality requirements than anyone else. Apple's manufacturing technology is one of the most innovative things about the company. It's probably why other phones often feel cheap.
Foxconn, as far as I know is not a processor foundry.
No, I didn't say they were. Samsung and others are. And now even they are not part of the design picture anymore. Now it's an Apple design, and they're just acting as foundries.
even Windows Phone 8 devices have NFC
And none of them invented NFC. It's just a feature based on decades-old technology Apple didn't feel necessary. Apple probably also wasn't too interested in exposing yet more attack vectors (RFID isn't known to be the most secure thing out there). How about something really useful? I think the only one to beat Apple to market with in-cell touch was Sony, and that's using an inferior pentile display. Now those screens are made by LG, but Apple has their own in-cell patents, so who knows what ways the tech's going.
True, some of Apple's genius is just recognizing good things and using them. Corning had shelved Gorilla Glass for decades until Jobs asked them to resurrect the technology for the first iPhone. If not for that, even Android users would probably still be on easily-scratched plastic screens.
And don't forget Apple's long-time method of operation. They're often not the first one to do it, but they are usually the first one to do it right.
Exactly what in the below statement is inaccurate?
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limitedls Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do notinfringe Apple's registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the Highcourt is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.
In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products:
"The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design."
"The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool."
That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.
However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.
As far as I know, all of the Apple-written text is factually accurate. The only thing that could even be called opinion is saying the "judge made several important points". It would be Apple's opinion that the points are important. But that is an extremely minor nitpick.
Non-compliant, sure. Inaccurate, no. The two aren't necessarily the same thing.
Apple wants this known, especially people will hear about the previous statement, and how the judge didn't like it because it mentioned that Apple was victorious in other jurisdictions, and because it mentioned how the judge ruled for Samsung because their products weren't as "cool."
Slashdot Mirror
It's about the octane. Running high-octane fuel in an old low-compression engine is a waste of the fuel. This is because the high octane allows for higher compression ratios, which allows for engines with much higher thermal efficiency. Pure ethanol is extremely high octane, and can run high-efficiency engines that would blow up if used with gasoline. I'm talking about thermal efficiencies of 50%, where even the most highly efficient gas engines on the market run in the late 30s. See the waste of using ethanol in a regular, or even flex-fuel engine?
Oh no, company runs test batches to perfect the technology and entice ethanol plants to sign on to the process by showing it works. The horrors!
Gevo is only producing in limited quantities too, just barely went beyond its test plant. Butamax's business model is different, selling the tech to other companies that already run ethanol plants. They already have far more capacity lined up than Gevo can hope to get any time soon.
Irrelevant. They own the patent. If it is valid, then that means Gevo, the company you hold up as the opposite of evil, was cheating to get to market first.
So, they have the technology, will probably end up producing hundreds of millions of gallons a year with their partners, far more than anyone else, and you think they should not be major players just because you don't like them?
What you have is simply two competing companies in the same marketplace, both trying to profit by bringing product to market. It is idiotic and paranoid to think Butamax is suing Gevo only to prevent widespread butanol usage.
Even if it's made from unicorn shit, usage of ethanol is bad in even high-performance gasoine engines because it is a waste of ethanol. Might as well bring back the old inefficient pushrod V8 engines and run them on premium gas.
Butamax has produced too. It's a standard corporate catfight for dominance of a nascent industry. It is not the mythical 100 mpg carburetor the oil companies bought and shelved like you're trying to portray. If Butamax gets its way, the market will be flooded with butanol, just THEIR butanol so they make the profit and get the subsidies.
A lot of companies, governments and even environmental organizations have shown their evil. So? If we eliminate all, nothing gets done.
Yes, and with government and public pressure, and the vast subsidies available, they'd like to be making money in biofuels too. The writing is on the wall for oil, and at some point the market won't bear what they need to charge to maintain profit. Artificial price supports that harm the taxpayer will no longer be needed to keep biofuels affordable relative to gasoline, and the laws of economics that keep gasoline popular now will turn people to biofuels. They are looking at the long-range profitability of the corporation, not some evil plot.
If Butamax invented it, and Gevo copied it, then that's an unethical use of another's idea to unfairly get Gevo ahead in the marketplace.
Too bad. If they invent the technology and invest in the infrastructure, then they deserve to be major players in the industry. Your opinion seems to be based on hatred of these companies rather than an actual desire to see the progress of biofuels.
They didn't. The environmentalists got their pet congresscritters to do it. Why do people think only for-profit corporations have powerful lobbies and owned congresscritters?
No, I said "To properly use ethanol, we need new engines across the board" which is true. PROPERLY. Using current engines is grossly inefficient and a waste of natural resources. Aren't we supposed to be saving those? We also don't have the resources to replace all existing engines. I can't be moving the goalposts and still be where I started.
Butamax is suing because Gevo is a competing company supposedly using their technology. BOTH are trying to bring butanol to market in large quantities. Butamax already has several ethanol plants signed on to convert to butanol. But to you they're evil because they're backed by an oil company. Reality check -- oil companies don't exit to make oil, they exist to make a profit, even if it is from alternative energy sources (especially with those sweet subsidies).
In the effort to achieve equal results instead of providing equal opportunity, their racism knows no bounds.
The worst part is there are a few blacks on the Virginia BofE, race traitors. Now black kids can go out into the world having known only lower standards. They won't be fit to compete in the larger marketplace. But then I guess it won't matter if the liberal dream of universal race quotas comes true.
Interesting, but I can't see us fermenting the amounts we'd need.
There's being able to run ethanol, and being able to use it efficiently. Ethanol engines can run at a much higher compression ratio than any gasoline engine, making them much more efficient. We're talking 19:1 to get diesel-like thermal efficiency. But in a regular engine, even one considered high-compression such as 12:1, all you're doing is inefficiently using something that has a lower energy content. The flex-fuel engines on the market don't come close to taking advantage of the ethanol, basically giving you the worst of both worlds. The only reason your fueld costs aren't sky high, with the relative milege you get, is the heavy federal subsidies for ethanol.
So, to have a nation-wide fleet of cars that efficiently used ethanol, we'd need brand-new engines across the board.
You should educate yourself regarding engine technology a bit more before making too many declarative statements about it. You clearly haven't done the research.
Why did it leak out so much oil? Because it took so long to plug it.
Why did it take so long to plug it? Because it was so deep.
Why was it so deep? Because environmentalists got shallow coastal drilling banned back in the early 80s.
Nuclear is eeeeevil, so it can't be a part of the solution, even if it is safe and effective. So those environmentalists are part of their own problem.
We have the technology to replace gasoline with ethanol, but the technology to produce the ethanol itself needs much improvement. As of now the net isn't that great because of how much energy is spent turning plants into ethanol. And we don't have the resources. To properly use ethanol, we need new engines across the board, every single car on the road. We don't have the resources for that retrofit.
Now, replacing diesel with biodiesel or even straight veggie oil, at least in temperate climates, looks much better. The base fuel is easy to make, engine conversion is relatively cheap, and the fuel can even come recycled from restaurants and food factories. Unfortunately, the "environmentalists" who run California are extremely hostile to diesels.
At least Samuel L. Jackson admitted it. He's a racist prick, but you have to admire the honesty.
Yeah, we saw that in 2008, with menacing Black Panthers wielding night sticks at a polling place. Even worse, the government had basically won its case against them under voter rights laws, but the Obama administration decided to drop it. Do you think Holder would have dropped the case if they had been KKK? I guess the administration didn't see the irony in using racist favoritism in the enforcement of voting laws designed to combat racism.
To stick with BSD because you're already a BSD shop is a technical reason. They probably even got to re-use some OS X code.
Then again tens of millions of Americans run successful businesses, and the Democrats demonize them. Those couple million in the top 1% are absolutely evil and must be punished.
You mean something any kid can put together in his bedroom? It is sad though that Apple seems to be neglecting the pro market. The Mac Pro is downright embarrassing in that otherwise top-end product lineup.
Except Apple actually has patents for their displays, and has a history of helping manufacturers get up to speed in producing their products. In some cases Apple blindly sources like everyone else, but in many Apple was involved in the building of the production facilities, the tooling, and the design of the production system itself.
Really? I just looked at Wikipedia's page on List of Displays by Pixel Density for current phones. iPhone at 326 ...
The just released in China Huawei Ascend D has barely more at 330 (although stated 326 elsewhere), but it's a pentile display, so it doesn't quite compare, having fewer actual elements on the screen than the iPhone.
I see a few of LG's latest phones equal or barely exceed the iPhone, and a Nokia does.
Looking down I see a few other modern phones that have surpassed the iPhone.
However, this group of phones at or higher than the iPhone are the small minority of phones on the market. Thus, "it's tough to find a phone that doesn't have a higher PPI than Apple" is absolutely false.
Now that it appears Android phones have caught up in resolution, they will be in the running when I'm looking to upgrade from my 4S, if their screen isn't too big, and they aren't pentile. With this race for ever-bigger screens, I'm not holding out hope on the screen size.
Hidden in the Bible? Get real. Six paragraphs, and the first and fifth constitute the required message. The second introduces short excerpts from the judgment in the third and fourth. The sixth refers to rulings in other jurisdictions. In addition, only the two required paragraphs have links, which immediately makes them stand out to the reader.
That's not hidden. That just contains stuff that Apple haters and the judge would rather people not know.
BSD userland is correct. The kernel is a hybrid of FreeBSD, Mach and a custom driver API, together known as XNU. It all combines to form Darwin, a certified Unix operating system. This is the basis for iOS.
I should have probably qualified that a bit more, low-cost embedded network applications. As you note, it's very portable, and it's very capable. From a business perspective, also doesn't have GPL as you note. Those are all good reasons for a business to use it in a product. Apple also has quite a bit of BSD experience on multiple platforms, so that would pretty much seal the deal as the logical choice for NetBSD in an Apple router instead of Linux.
Linux is easy for most companies to do on home routers because they can pretty much take it off the shelf with little oiginal programming needed.
That's not quite right. iOS and OS X are both built on top of the same base OS, Darwin. iOS then took relevant core libraries from OS X. Then each each has libraries dedicated to its purpose (OS X doesn't need touch or phone, iOS doesn't need windowing or Time Machine support). As far as mobile is concerned, iOS is more than OS X.
Apple TV is a single-core A5 chip, vs basically a weaker version of a Raspberry Pi in a Roku HD. Roku is running the base Linux kernel plus a small collection of libraries and software. Apple TV is running iOS with one included app, the Apple TV software. Not quite nothing in comparison.
Apple uses NetBSD, probably the best OS for embedded network applications.
Even the judge admitted Apple is free to disagree.
Did Apple post the result of the judgement? Yes. Did Apple state there is no injunction in the EU? Yes.
The problem isn't that Apple included inaccurate information, the problem is that Apple included too much factually accurate information, information that the judge didn't care to be seen.
Nobody has been able to show me what in that statement is not factually accurate. The judge forced Apple to post a factually inaccurate statement in the revised text, the inaccuracy being that the previous text was inaccurate.
You have to go a few generations back to find a lower resolution screen I see. Have other phones even reached the pixel density that the iPhone introduced three generations ago?
Technology licensed from Audience in both cases. Although IIRC Apple has dumped Audience for their own noise cancellation technology.
Electronics are premade, but Foxconn machines the cases with extremely tight tolerances. Even the inlays have to be perfect to the fraction of a milimeter so it can't be felt (they actually take 29MP macro photos, then the system picks the best fitting one out of hundreds). The problem is making what is arguably the most powerful smartphone on the market fit in probably the smallest space of any current generation smartphone -- and then doing that to far tighter quality requirements than anyone else. Apple's manufacturing technology is one of the most innovative things about the company. It's probably why other phones often feel cheap.
No, I didn't say they were. Samsung and others are. And now even they are not part of the design picture anymore. Now it's an Apple design, and they're just acting as foundries.
And none of them invented NFC. It's just a feature based on decades-old technology Apple didn't feel necessary. Apple probably also wasn't too interested in exposing yet more attack vectors (RFID isn't known to be the most secure thing out there). How about something really useful? I think the only one to beat Apple to market with in-cell touch was Sony, and that's using an inferior pentile display. Now those screens are made by LG, but Apple has their own in-cell patents, so who knows what ways the tech's going.
True, some of Apple's genius is just recognizing good things and using them. Corning had shelved Gorilla Glass for decades until Jobs asked them to resurrect the technology for the first iPhone. If not for that, even Android users would probably still be on easily-scratched plastic screens.
And don't forget Apple's long-time method of operation. They're often not the first one to do it, but they are usually the first one to do it right.
Exactly what in the below statement is inaccurate?
As far as I know, all of the Apple-written text is factually accurate. The only thing that could even be called opinion is saying the "judge made several important points". It would be Apple's opinion that the points are important. But that is an extremely minor nitpick.
Non-compliant, sure. Inaccurate, no. The two aren't necessarily the same thing.
Apple wants this known, especially people will hear about the previous statement, and how the judge didn't like it because it mentioned that Apple was victorious in other jurisdictions, and because it mentioned how the judge ruled for Samsung because their products weren't as "cool."
The only thing that saves us is the fact that most criminals are stupid.