Lightbulb: The first incandescent light bulb was mearly an eletric battery connected to a platinum strip (Humphry Davy in 1802); Davy didn't invent the eletric battery and he certainly didn't invent platinum and he didn't invent wires. There is also some prior art on creating light using electricity (ever seen lightning?). The light bulb is probably the worst example of an *true* invention because its entire story is one of incremental refinement throughout the course of hundreds of years by dozens of different individuals.
Steam power locomotives: Steam engines existed well before anyone took the fairly obvious step of putting one on a set of wheels (and, btw, the wheel existed well before that)--I don't see how combining those two elements could possibly rise to the level of being called an "invention".
The number 0: Is there a patent on that?
Fire: Really, who invented fire? Lightning hits a tree and the person who witnessed it invented something? really!?!?
=======
Why is this sooo difficult? Apple is consistently chastised for not "inventing" anything, but merely combining or refining existing technologies. By implication, there are thousands of truley unique inventions from all across history, real inventions which are not merely a composition or refinement of existing technologies. So my challenge is simple: Name one.
Dynamite is nitroglycerin mixed with silicon dioxide, it is a minor composition of two well known and understood compounds both of which have been around forever. The critical property of dynamite is that it explodes, but it gets that property entirely from nitroglycerin so I don't see anything innovative about that. Adding in the silica (I assume you aren't claiming that Nobel invented silicon dioxide?) makes it a little more stable and user-friendly--and (of course) allowed Alfred Nobel to market it as something completely new and different. Marketing, that's all Dynamite is.
Come on, this should be easy. Apple has never invented anything as opposed to Google (and other tech companies) who apparently make real inventions every single day. Just name one of them. Just one, one single invention which isn't simply a composition of known technologies.
Name a single real invention by any company ever. You can't do it because you know that there is no invention which could withstand the reductive scrutiny you heap on Apple's inventions.
I just went to Chevy's web site and configured a 2013 Volt with every single extra option one can find. Total price including tax credit is $36,000. Do the same thing on a VW Jetta Sportwagen TDI and you get $30,475. There is no evidence to support your assertion of $20,000 extra cost for a Volt. An apples to apples comparison yields around $6,000.
It is totally fine if you like your TDI better--but there's no need to make up numbers so you can pretend that everyone who buys a Volt is some tree-hugging latte-sipping idiot.
Oh, I see, anything which is said in favor of iPhone security is "reverse psychology", anything critical of iPhone security is "speaking truth to power".
Call again later when someone more senior is available. Contact the patient's advocate at the hospital to lodge your complaint for the bureaucratic hoops you were forced to jump through. Move on with your life.
These are white people problems--get over it. The guys isn't Rosa Parks.
You chose not to exercise that right. If it was me, I would have given you the records but along with them a little speech about how civilized people act in a civilized society. The speech wouldn't be for you--it would be for the benefit of your poor embarrassed son in the hope that he wouldn't grow up to be a huge dick like you.
Things are paid for with money. If someone wants to agree to cross-licensing instead of money, that's fine, but what matters is the value (in dollars) of that cross-licensing agreement. That's what sets the standard for fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory. If Hitachi got access to those licenses by trading intellectual property worth $50M, then Apple needs to pay $50M. On no planet does FRAND now require Apple to hand over a $100B business, that's just retarded.
You claim Apple's patents aren't worth that much money. It seems to me if they weren't then Samsung wouldn't be trying so hard to get access to them. But whatever, that's what the courts are going to decide.
Indisputably, then, prior to April 2011; Apple had a legal right to use the patents in question because they were covered by the Qualcomm/Samsung agreement.
Lets assume for a moment that Samsung has the right to arbitrarily terminate this agreement without grandfathering in current participants. By their own admission, as soon as they terminated their agreement with Qualcomm then Apple approached Samsung to license the patents in question under FRAND terms.
Samsung believes they gave FRAND terms to Apple--Apple disagrees, they believe the terms were too onerous. Apple is asking the courts to set the price. BTW: the "price" that Samsung is setting is "let us make clones of your tablets and phones", which is a >$100B business--so yeah, I'd be surprised if $100B is considered fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory.
50 miles of electric-only range, 250 miles+ of gas-powered range with a small, efficient, range-extender engine. The GM Volt-style plug-in hybrid is exactly the right solution to this problem.
It just needs a few more generations of refinement to reduce the cost and make the gas-engine smaller, lighter, and more efficient.
1. Must be able to feed them with grass and hay 2. They must be able to drink their water from a stream or pond 3. Must be able to travel over rough terrain without need of special roads 4. Must be able to procreate 5. Will need to be priced starting at $10
Until these new-fangled horseless-carriages can meet this criteria then there is *no way* they will ever be adopted by the masses.
Slashdot Mirror
who manufactures all Android phones out of hemp using union labor right here in the USA.
you would rather stipulate that noone has ever invented anything. Well played.
In particular, name one that isn't just a composition or refinement of existing technologies.
Lightbulb: The first incandescent light bulb was mearly an eletric battery connected to a platinum strip (Humphry Davy in 1802); Davy didn't invent the eletric battery and he certainly didn't invent platinum and he didn't invent wires. There is also some prior art on creating light using electricity (ever seen lightning?). The light bulb is probably the worst example of an *true* invention because its entire story is one of incremental refinement throughout the course of hundreds of years by dozens of different individuals.
Steam power locomotives: Steam engines existed well before anyone took the fairly obvious step of putting one on a set of wheels (and, btw, the wheel existed well before that)--I don't see how combining those two elements could possibly rise to the level of being called an "invention".
The number 0: Is there a patent on that?
Fire: Really, who invented fire? Lightning hits a tree and the person who witnessed it invented something? really!?!?
=======
Why is this sooo difficult? Apple is consistently chastised for not "inventing" anything, but merely combining or refining existing technologies. By implication, there are thousands of truley unique inventions from all across history, real inventions which are not merely a composition or refinement of existing technologies. So my challenge is simple: Name one.
Dynamite is nitroglycerin mixed with silicon dioxide, it is a minor composition of two well known and understood compounds both of which have been around forever. The critical property of dynamite is that it explodes, but it gets that property entirely from nitroglycerin so I don't see anything innovative about that. Adding in the silica (I assume you aren't claiming that Nobel invented silicon dioxide?) makes it a little more stable and user-friendly--and (of course) allowed Alfred Nobel to market it as something completely new and different. Marketing, that's all Dynamite is.
Come on, this should be easy. Apple has never invented anything as opposed to Google (and other tech companies) who apparently make real inventions every single day. Just name one of them. Just one, one single invention which isn't simply a composition of known technologies.
Name a single real invention by any company ever. You can't do it because you know that there is no invention which could withstand the reductive scrutiny you heap on Apple's inventions.
They just made it better. Name a single invention.
Using that type of analysis, then no company has ever invented anything. Everything is just some tweak or combination of existing technologies.
Seriously, name a single invention.
Seriously.
I just went to Chevy's web site and configured a 2013 Volt with every single extra option one can find. Total price including tax credit is $36,000. Do the same thing on a VW Jetta Sportwagen TDI and you get $30,475. There is no evidence to support your assertion of $20,000 extra cost for a Volt. An apples to apples comparison yields around $6,000.
It is totally fine if you like your TDI better--but there's no need to make up numbers so you can pretend that everyone who buys a Volt is some tree-hugging latte-sipping idiot.
VW Jetta Sportwagen TDI price = $25,540
Chevy Volt price = $39,145 (without tax credit), $31,465 (with tax credit)
So, basically, you are a liar--I can see why your friend got pissed.
Now try again.
would that still be a misdirection?
Oh, I see, anything which is said in favor of iPhone security is "reverse psychology", anything critical of iPhone security is "speaking truth to power".
You guys crack me up.
Apple II.
Mac.
iPod.
iPhone.
iPad.
Each one basically created a market out of thin air. Argument over.
Call again later when someone more senior is available. Contact the patient's advocate at the hospital to lodge your complaint for the bureaucratic hoops you were forced to jump through. Move on with your life.
These are white people problems--get over it. The guys isn't Rosa Parks.
You chose not to exercise that right. If it was me, I would have given you the records but along with them a little speech about how civilized people act in a civilized society. The speech wouldn't be for you--it would be for the benefit of your poor embarrassed son in the hope that he wouldn't grow up to be a huge dick like you.
anything--it is an impossible and absurd standard.
Seriously, name a single new concept.
And wanting that to be so doesn't make it true.
Also, Apple has a huge portfolio of LTE patents which are licensed (to all comers) under FRAND terms--so the premise of your argument is also wrong.
Things are paid for with money. If someone wants to agree to cross-licensing instead of money, that's fine, but what matters is the value (in dollars) of that cross-licensing agreement. That's what sets the standard for fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory. If Hitachi got access to those licenses by trading intellectual property worth $50M, then Apple needs to pay $50M. On no planet does FRAND now require Apple to hand over a $100B business, that's just retarded.
You claim Apple's patents aren't worth that much money. It seems to me if they weren't then Samsung wouldn't be trying so hard to get access to them. But whatever, that's what the courts are going to decide.
Indisputably, then, prior to April 2011; Apple had a legal right to use the patents in question because they were covered by the Qualcomm/Samsung agreement.
Lets assume for a moment that Samsung has the right to arbitrarily terminate this agreement without grandfathering in current participants. By their own admission, as soon as they terminated their agreement with Qualcomm then Apple approached Samsung to license the patents in question under FRAND terms.
Samsung believes they gave FRAND terms to Apple--Apple disagrees, they believe the terms were too onerous. Apple is asking the courts to set the price. BTW: the "price" that Samsung is setting is "let us make clones of your tablets and phones", which is a >$100B business--so yeah, I'd be surprised if $100B is considered fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory.
50 miles of electric-only range, 250 miles+ of gas-powered range with a small, efficient, range-extender engine. The GM Volt-style plug-in hybrid is exactly the right solution to this problem.
It just needs a few more generations of refinement to reduce the cost and make the gas-engine smaller, lighter, and more efficient.
1. Must be able to feed them with grass and hay
2. They must be able to drink their water from a stream or pond
3. Must be able to travel over rough terrain without need of special roads
4. Must be able to procreate
5. Will need to be priced starting at $10
Until these new-fangled horseless-carriages can meet this criteria then there is *no way* they will ever be adopted by the masses.
Do you have a link?
in the marketplace. Apple is doomed.
www.apple.com
Your welcome.