You're really unfair. This isn't bad for everyone. It's very good for Apple. It's also very good for IP troll companies to remember how much power they can yield if one of their victims denies a lawsuit. And their children. Who are you to deny a Porche 911 for their 18th birthday of IP troll company owners children. Will no one think of the children??
Now go tell those rioters you are talking about, they can have all those factory jobs if they accept working for a globally competitive salary (as in divide by 10 for Norwegians at least).
No, I think the solution for rich countries will rather be heavily automated with robots doing as much as "humanly" possible. Will we keep those 1000 factory workers instead of just the one ipod designer? No, but instead of losing them all we might get to keep 50. If we don't do it, some other company in some other country surely will.
Sorry about slow response, but you leave me more confused.
Perhaps my examples were not the best. Most of the patents seem to attack the web browser. Does this mean you consider any linux distro maker, which is including webkit but not offering protection, an evil coward? (I said webkit, but I'm afraid any browser is infringing on the patents I've seen listed so far.)
For this to work they'd need to charge a license per copy, red hat style. But a free one like Android? Well free without Android Market at least.
Oh and screwdrivers seem to very patentable. Ditto for compilers.
How is not defending Android from litigation foisted on its OEM evil? You might argue it was stupid of Google not to stock up on protective patents before the patent war fully started, but evil?
Does linux offer patent protection? Does Apache? Does GCC? Any open source project whatsoever? Does that make them evil?
You're right about not one size fits all. However I do believe a smartphone that I can dock to a screen, keyboard and mouse and morph into a desktop could sell quite well.
... People use anonymity on the internet to be complete pricks...
I believe many if not most people actually are pricks. The anonymity simply makes them dear speak their mind. I don't like pricks, but I do prefer honesty.
A newspaper I often read are currently experimenting with some articles with anonymous disqus comments, and another with facebook comments. Now the anonymous comments are loaded with strong political statements supporting and argumenting for everything between communism to milk prices. However the facebook articles have almost nothing but extremely political correct posts with no message. What I read sometimes in the anonymous comments sometime scares me, but I'd definitely choose that over the facebook comments any day.
Wake me up when NAND has a life-time 10% of an average human and we'll talk.
I don't think too many can 'store' a memory for 7 years without the memory being constantly 'copied'. I mean it has to constantly be refreshed. First preferably the next day, then a week later, a month, then every year after that to truly keep it. NAND should be able to compete with that.
Personally I don't mind the kill switch capability, as long I can install applications or even competing app stores that won't be affected.
And enough with the "the consumer is googles product, unlike every other company" already. It's true that as a user of Google you're their product, but you're also at least an indirect customer. I'd say direct as well when you make an OEM buy android market for your android device.
And users of Apple (and MS for that matter) are also partially the product. They don't directly take money from in-app advertisements (doing the same analytics that google is criticized for), and the apps in the app store itself.
That patent is probably valid in the USA only. But will it matter? From what I understood from the MS vs HTC/Samsung cases, they will be paying protection money for EVERY phone sold in the entire world.
What I never see discussed anywhere is why is this protection money applied worldwide?
Software patents are from what I understand almost only accepted in USA. An important market for sure, but still only covers 7% of the worlds subscribers. Samsung (not even an american company) might be forced to pay 15$ in protection money to MS for EVERY PHONE sold. Am I missing something or is the entire world faced to pay up for (imho) a mistake made by 7% of the potential market?
Slashdot Mirror
My favorite missing is standardized name mangling. I still dream of the day I can use ctypes in python to import and manipulate c++ classes *sigh*
Actually it might be a new beast entirely through combining the Osborne Effect and Ratner effect, to become the ultimate monster: The Elop effect!
You're really unfair. This isn't bad for everyone. It's very good for Apple. It's also very good for IP troll companies to remember how much power they can yield if one of their victims denies a lawsuit. And their children. Who are you to deny a Porche 911 for their 18th birthday of IP troll company owners children. Will no one think of the children??
Well said.
Now go tell those rioters you are talking about, they can have all those factory jobs if they accept working for a globally competitive salary (as in divide by 10 for Norwegians at least).
No, I think the solution for rich countries will rather be heavily automated with robots doing as much as "humanly" possible. Will we keep those 1000 factory workers instead of just the one ipod designer? No, but instead of losing them all we might get to keep 50. If we don't do it, some other company in some other country surely will.
Sorry about slow response, but you leave me more confused.
Perhaps my examples were not the best. Most of the patents seem to attack the web browser. Does this mean you consider any linux distro maker, which is including webkit but not offering protection, an evil coward? (I said webkit, but I'm afraid any browser is infringing on the patents I've seen listed so far.)
For this to work they'd need to charge a license per copy, red hat style. But a free one like Android? Well free without Android Market at least.
Oh and screwdrivers seem to very patentable. Ditto for compilers.
How is not defending Android from litigation foisted on its OEM evil? You might argue it was stupid of Google not to stock up on protective patents before the patent war fully started, but evil?
Does linux offer patent protection? Does Apache? Does GCC? Any open source project whatsoever? Does that make them evil?
You're right about not one size fits all. However I do believe a smartphone that I can dock to a screen, keyboard and mouse and morph into a desktop could sell quite well.
... People use anonymity on the internet to be complete pricks...
I believe many if not most people actually are pricks. The anonymity simply makes them dear speak their mind. I don't like pricks, but I do prefer honesty.
A newspaper I often read are currently experimenting with some articles with anonymous disqus comments, and another with facebook comments. Now the anonymous comments are loaded with strong political statements supporting and argumenting for everything between communism to milk prices. However the facebook articles have almost nothing but extremely political correct posts with no message. What I read sometimes in the anonymous comments sometime scares me, but I'd definitely choose that over the facebook comments any day.
How is only allowing streaming with about 4% of the world population, killing anything at all?
It's just Sony taking SEO very seriously ;)
so do humans.
Wake me up when NAND has a life-time 10% of an average human and we'll talk.
I don't think too many can 'store' a memory for 7 years without the memory being constantly 'copied'. I mean it has to constantly be refreshed. First preferably the next day, then a week later, a month, then every year after that to truly keep it. NAND should be able to compete with that.
Personally I don't mind the kill switch capability, as long I can install applications or even competing app stores that won't be affected. And enough with the "the consumer is googles product, unlike every other company" already. It's true that as a user of Google you're their product, but you're also at least an indirect customer. I'd say direct as well when you make an OEM buy android market for your android device. And users of Apple (and MS for that matter) are also partially the product. They don't directly take money from in-app advertisements (doing the same analytics that google is criticized for), and the apps in the app store itself.
That patent is probably valid in the USA only. But will it matter? From what I understood from the MS vs HTC/Samsung cases, they will be paying protection money for EVERY phone sold in the entire world.
What I never see discussed anywhere is why is this protection money applied worldwide? Software patents are from what I understand almost only accepted in USA. An important market for sure, but still only covers 7% of the worlds subscribers. Samsung (not even an american company) might be forced to pay 15$ in protection money to MS for EVERY PHONE sold. Am I missing something or is the entire world faced to pay up for (imho) a mistake made by 7% of the potential market?