Obama's lawyers said that it is independently authorized under both the commerce clause and the taxing authority, and then made the case [with precedent] that in cases where a law would be constitutional under one clause of federal authority but unconstitutional when read under another clause of federal authority then the Supreme Court is obligated to interpret under the clause which renders the law constitutional, regardless of the language within the law or political verbage utilized when debating the law outside the courtroom.
The majority opinion said that it was unconstitutional under the commerce clause, but clearly constitutional under the taxing authority, regardless of the labels used.
That argument makes a lot of sense to me as an engineer who is far more concerned with mechanics than with labels.
doing those things, then why shouldn't you have to pay it?
Or do you think the rest of us should have to subsidize your desire to save a few bucks by destroying the earth and not pay a cent for your health care? Because I guarantee that when you have some devasting health problem you will show up at an ER and demand quality care.
It's a design patent--which is akin to trademark infringement. It's the reason someone can't make a curvy bottle that looks exactly like a Coke bottle with a wavey script red label that says "Cola Cola". Maybe Samsung should try to make tablets that can be distinguished from an iPad from ten feet away by a layman--because Samsung's lawyers couldn't make that distinction (in court) and that's why they lost (in the Euro case, at least).
They are probably worried that releasing low-level specifications for external driver writers would create the following burdens:
1. Answering inevitable questions related to those specs
2. Pressure to not change driver-visible behavior across generations
3. Dealing with the fallout from people using buggy drivers written by third parties--most of the anger will be directed at NVidia eventhough the real problem is that not everybody is qualified to write a tricky low-level driver.
Which you do everytime you install it. So, to install it you have to accept the license--and once you've accepted the license then you run afoul of the law when you break that license (which says, among other things, not to install it on non-Apple hardware).
The slashdot crowd doesn't understand that and thus they don't understand why Apple is so successful. The "marketing" crap is your best attempt to rationalize Apple's success without having to expand your tiny little world.
Meanwhile, Apple is on their way to being the first $1 trillion company because nearly everyone else in the world understands something that you don't: "The ONLY point of technology is to make life easier for humans"--by that definition, Apple cranks out the best technology using the best engineering. Deal with it.
> Google did not use their search engine patents as competitive weapons. Instead, they chose to make their money the old-fashioned way: By selling things that their customers find useful.
Google makes money by selling your eyes (via advertising) to corporations. Apple makes money by selling things that people want. Check the scoreboard, how much money has Google made from hardware or software sales--they aren't in the same league as Apple.
by the standard which is routinely applied to Apple on slashdot. All anyone has ever done is combine concepts that already existed.
Google? OMG no, they just made a more polished Alta-Vista, which itself was based on turbogopher, which was based on the index in the back of most books, which were based on cave drawings, blah blah blah.
slashdot is so predictably delusional it's really starting to get boring.
BTW: The governments involved know a thing or two about science. They've sponsored >90% of the science done in the world. You know where all those vaccines come from? government labs. There are thousands of people who work their asses off everyday in an endless war against disease. Those people *will* have access to any and all information necessary to do their jobs, because if they don't then people die. But those people also understand that you need to keep the cabinet with the Spanish flu vials in it fairly well locked up--because there are bad people out there.
Security through obscurity isn't perfect, but it works a *lot* better than no security. This isn't a fucking game, jackass, real lives are at stake.
It doesn't matter if that isn't how all standards work, it is definitely how *the standard we are talking about* works.
I don't see why it is so hard to set a price. Just look at what other companies paid. Not every licensee traded IP for their license and even when they did, look at the value of that IP. Now look at what they are asking Apple to pay, I think you'll notice that there are a few zeroes attached to the end of the Apple price.
BTW: Apple owns a huge LTE patent portfolio acquired from Nortel. How come we haven't heard any stories about them using their LTE patents to extort competitors? they should be free to do that, right? because Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory is sooooo nebulous.
But what they won't do is accept the same amount of money from Apple that they would from Qualcomm. Do you honestly think that if this was a matter of a couple of bucks per phone (like what they charge everyone else) that Apple wouldn't happily pay? Apple is a $500B corporation.
No, the stumbling blocks were (a) Apple felt like Qualcomm's license should extend to them, that's for the courts to decide, and (b) Moto wanted Apple's non-FRAND patent portfolio in exchange so they could make Motorola iPhones.
Or rounded corners. No more than Coca Cola corp tried to patent curved glass, or a round top, or the color red. Design patents and trade dress cover the convergence of many aesthetic properties--each one independently wouldn't be unique but when combined in a particular way then they can constitute a design patent infringement. The problem is, in the legal filings, you can't just say "Hey, they made a bottle that looks just like a Coke bottle", you have to say "they combined several elements including a red label, curved bottle, beveled shape, round top, etc." Just like Apple had to list "rounded corners, black surface, etc. etc.". Of course, the smug tiny little brains on slashdot see that and say "Apple tried to patent rounded corners!!!!!"
By the way, in my example I didn't say the bottle would be called Coca Cola (that would be a trademark violation regardless of a design patent), I said "Cola Cola", but your brain pattern matched and turned that into "Coca Cola". Isn't it funny how that works?
Slashdot Mirror
Obama's lawyers said that it is independently authorized under both the commerce clause and the taxing authority, and then made the case [with precedent] that in cases where a law would be constitutional under one clause of federal authority but unconstitutional when read under another clause of federal authority then the Supreme Court is obligated to interpret under the clause which renders the law constitutional, regardless of the language within the law or political verbage utilized when debating the law outside the courtroom.
The majority opinion said that it was unconstitutional under the commerce clause, but clearly constitutional under the taxing authority, regardless of the labels used.
That argument makes a lot of sense to me as an engineer who is far more concerned with mechanics than with labels.
when there was absolutely no penalty for doing so. ... ...
doing those things, then why shouldn't you have to pay it?
Or do you think the rest of us should have to subsidize your desire to save a few bucks by destroying the earth and not pay a cent for your health care? Because I guarantee that when you have some devasting health problem you will show up at an ER and demand quality care.
It's a design patent--which is akin to trademark infringement. It's the reason someone can't make a curvy bottle that looks exactly like a Coke bottle with a wavey script red label that says "Cola Cola". Maybe Samsung should try to make tablets that can be distinguished from an iPad from ten feet away by a layman--because Samsung's lawyers couldn't make that distinction (in court) and that's why they lost (in the Euro case, at least).
They are probably worried that releasing low-level specifications for external driver writers would create the following burdens:
1. Answering inevitable questions related to those specs
2. Pressure to not change driver-visible behavior across generations
3. Dealing with the fallout from people using buggy drivers written by third parties--most of the anger will be directed at NVidia eventhough the real problem is that not everybody is qualified to write a tricky low-level driver.
except NVidia considers pretty much the whole driver as 'firmware'--and it is OS-specific.
of the IPad 1 & 2, and there's no other comparable competitor for that product either. Kinda makes your prediction sound silly.
argument over.
you hate Apple because someone with a nicer haircut than you likes their iPhone. That doesn't make you a rebel, it makes you a douchebag.
Which you do everytime you install it. So, to install it you have to accept the license--and once you've accepted the license then you run afoul of the law when you break that license (which says, among other things, not to install it on non-Apple hardware).
Maybe everyone was there by mistake, thinking it was a Hollister or something.
The slashdot crowd doesn't understand that and thus they don't understand why Apple is so successful. The "marketing" crap is your best attempt to rationalize Apple's success without having to expand your tiny little world.
Meanwhile, Apple is on their way to being the first $1 trillion company because nearly everyone else in the world understands something that you don't: "The ONLY point of technology is to make life easier for humans"--by that definition, Apple cranks out the best technology using the best engineering. Deal with it.
JK
Google makes all their smartphones out of hemp in the US using union labor and then donates all the profits to orphans...orphans with diseases.
You hate Apple because someone with a better haircut than you likes Apple--stop pretending it is any more noble than that.
I didn't notice any ads on my OSX desktop today.
> Google did not use their search engine patents as competitive weapons. Instead, they chose to make their money the old-fashioned way: By selling things that their customers find useful.
Google makes money by selling your eyes (via advertising) to corporations. Apple makes money by selling things that people want. Check the scoreboard, how much money has Google made from hardware or software sales--they aren't in the same league as Apple.
by the standard which is routinely applied to Apple on slashdot. All anyone has ever done is combine concepts that already existed.
Google? OMG no, they just made a more polished Alta-Vista, which itself was based on turbogopher, which was based on the index in the back of most books, which were based on cave drawings, blah blah blah.
slashdot is so predictably delusional it's really starting to get boring.
ever by your standard.
I guarantee that I can show how all they did was "combine an existing, often poorly implemented, invention into a very well polished product."
Seriously. Any invention ever. Any company ever. Go ahead, I'll be waiting.
upgrade to ICS--I suppose that is coercion?
and not self-righteous slashdot posters.
BTW: The governments involved know a thing or two about science. They've sponsored >90% of the science done in the world. You know where all those vaccines come from? government labs. There are thousands of people who work their asses off everyday in an endless war against disease. Those people *will* have access to any and all information necessary to do their jobs, because if they don't then people die. But those people also understand that you need to keep the cabinet with the Spanish flu vials in it fairly well locked up--because there are bad people out there.
Security through obscurity isn't perfect, but it works a *lot* better than no security. This isn't a fucking game, jackass, real lives are at stake.
Would you still be so "intellectually honest"?
It doesn't matter if that isn't how all standards work, it is definitely how *the standard we are talking about* works.
I don't see why it is so hard to set a price. Just look at what other companies paid. Not every licensee traded IP for their license and even when they did, look at the value of that IP. Now look at what they are asking Apple to pay, I think you'll notice that there are a few zeroes attached to the end of the Apple price.
BTW: Apple owns a huge LTE patent portfolio acquired from Nortel. How come we haven't heard any stories about them using their LTE patents to extort competitors? they should be free to do that, right? because Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory is sooooo nebulous.
But what they won't do is accept the same amount of money from Apple that they would from Qualcomm. Do you honestly think that if this was a matter of a couple of bucks per phone (like what they charge everyone else) that Apple wouldn't happily pay? Apple is a $500B corporation.
No, the stumbling blocks were (a) Apple felt like Qualcomm's license should extend to them, that's for the courts to decide, and (b) Moto wanted Apple's non-FRAND patent portfolio in exchange so they could make Motorola iPhones.
Or rounded corners. No more than Coca Cola corp tried to patent curved glass, or a round top, or the color red. Design patents and trade dress cover the convergence of many aesthetic properties--each one independently wouldn't be unique but when combined in a particular way then they can constitute a design patent infringement. The problem is, in the legal filings, you can't just say "Hey, they made a bottle that looks just like a Coke bottle", you have to say "they combined several elements including a red label, curved bottle, beveled shape, round top, etc." Just like Apple had to list "rounded corners, black surface, etc. etc.". Of course, the smug tiny little brains on slashdot see that and say "Apple tried to patent rounded corners!!!!!"
By the way, in my example I didn't say the bottle would be called Coca Cola (that would be a trademark violation regardless of a design patent), I said "Cola Cola", but your brain pattern matched and turned that into "Coca Cola". Isn't it funny how that works?