I have read that bulldozer is having compiler issues in the desktop space. Apparently, the current gcc, Microsoft, Intel, etc. compilers are having problems with acceleration, core allocation, etc. Fixes are on the way and some compilers, such as Open64 5.0, will apparently drastically improve bulldozer performance. Could the same problem be occurring here?
I don't understand their argument. If Apple wants to avoid companies with deep pockets and armies of lawyers, why go after Samsung? In terms of revenue, Samsung is larger than Apple and Google (and Microsoft) combined ($220 billion for Samsung, $100 billion for Apple, $30 billion for Google, and $70 billion for Microsoft).
There is nothing in the iphone or ipad that is original technology. In the Apple vs. Samsung case in the Netherlands, the judge threw out all of Apples design claims due to prior art (including the Apple UI). In other words, Apple didn't invent any aspect of their phones or tablets so they were not allowed to protect them. The only original thing about the iphone or ipad appears to be that when you move a picture across the screen it has a bounce effect. Their actions are indeed parasitic because they are taking others ideas and using the courts to attempt to get these companies that really did innovate from using the ideas. Don't get me wrong, Apple is a great marketing a sales company and has used that ability to create markets, but I can't think of a single piece of tech they originated.
I think this is the greatest problem with software patents. How do you define what an implementation is in the confines of software? The USPTO has decided that as long as the patent is "on a computer" then it is an implementation. This is overly-broad. After all, I can patent a specific design of a fusion reactor, but not the concept of fusion "in a powerplant."
There are two issues in this case. The first is Apple believes it has already paid relevant licensing fees because it sources its chips from Intel and they have a license. The second is the terms of the FRAND license. Most companies require patent cross-licensing in order to receive FRAND rates. The problem with Nokia, Samsung, Motorola etc. is how do you value Apple's patents for the terms of cross-licensing (software patents vs. hardware patents). In the Nokia case, Apple finally agreed to pay above FRAND rates, but not cross-license any patents. It is important to remember that the more valuable aspect of FRAND to patent holding companies is usually the cross-licensing and not the nominal fee. The judge believes that Apple and Samsung can come to an agreement on the rate, hence their ruling.
Such a device would have limitations. For one, the device would have to include all the possible obstacles encountered by the learner. What techniques are best for using my tools and how do I achieve them (problem solving)? Am I using the right tools and why? Do the step-by-step instructions properly demonstrate the concepts and not just the actions (so I can build other kinds of tables)? etc.
Also, the device would have to take into account that different students learn in different ways and be prepared to adapt its instructions accordingly. Does it use audio? 3d projections? feedback during construction for tactile learners?
For some reason this reminds me of a few Christmas mornings, using step-by-step instructions to assemble my daughters' toys. Lessons in patience and how to swear quietly.
Relax, this ruling is inconsequential to the ongoing fight between Samsung and Apple. It won't stop Samsung's products from being distributed in Germany. It doesn't apply to any other country in Europe, and Samsung's distribution center for Europe is in neighboring the Netherlands, so importation and European-wide supply will not be affected. The only case in Europe that mattered was in the Netherlands (which is why Apple sued there first) and the Dutch court already sided with Samsung on all the design issues.
Also, I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from this ruling, as the Dusseldorf court is widely considered the most preferential court in Europe when it comes to patents (and apparently designs as well now). Apple chose this court for a reason.
Slashdot Mirror
I have read that bulldozer is having compiler issues in the desktop space. Apparently, the current gcc, Microsoft, Intel, etc. compilers are having problems with acceleration, core allocation, etc. Fixes are on the way and some compilers, such as Open64 5.0, will apparently drastically improve bulldozer performance. Could the same problem be occurring here?
I don't understand their argument. If Apple wants to avoid companies with deep pockets and armies of lawyers, why go after Samsung? In terms of revenue, Samsung is larger than Apple and Google (and Microsoft) combined ($220 billion for Samsung, $100 billion for Apple, $30 billion for Google, and $70 billion for Microsoft).
There is nothing in the iphone or ipad that is original technology. In the Apple vs. Samsung case in the Netherlands, the judge threw out all of Apples design claims due to prior art (including the Apple UI). In other words, Apple didn't invent any aspect of their phones or tablets so they were not allowed to protect them. The only original thing about the iphone or ipad appears to be that when you move a picture across the screen it has a bounce effect. Their actions are indeed parasitic because they are taking others ideas and using the courts to attempt to get these companies that really did innovate from using the ideas. Don't get me wrong, Apple is a great marketing a sales company and has used that ability to create markets, but I can't think of a single piece of tech they originated.
I think this is the greatest problem with software patents. How do you define what an implementation is in the confines of software? The USPTO has decided that as long as the patent is "on a computer" then it is an implementation. This is overly-broad. After all, I can patent a specific design of a fusion reactor, but not the concept of fusion "in a powerplant."
There are two issues in this case. The first is Apple believes it has already paid relevant licensing fees because it sources its chips from Intel and they have a license. The second is the terms of the FRAND license. Most companies require patent cross-licensing in order to receive FRAND rates. The problem with Nokia, Samsung, Motorola etc. is how do you value Apple's patents for the terms of cross-licensing (software patents vs. hardware patents). In the Nokia case, Apple finally agreed to pay above FRAND rates, but not cross-license any patents. It is important to remember that the more valuable aspect of FRAND to patent holding companies is usually the cross-licensing and not the nominal fee. The judge believes that Apple and Samsung can come to an agreement on the rate, hence their ruling.
Such a device would have limitations. For one, the device would have to include all the possible obstacles encountered by the learner. What techniques are best for using my tools and how do I achieve them (problem solving)? Am I using the right tools and why? Do the step-by-step instructions properly demonstrate the concepts and not just the actions (so I can build other kinds of tables)? etc. Also, the device would have to take into account that different students learn in different ways and be prepared to adapt its instructions accordingly. Does it use audio? 3d projections? feedback during construction for tactile learners? For some reason this reminds me of a few Christmas mornings, using step-by-step instructions to assemble my daughters' toys. Lessons in patience and how to swear quietly.
If I don't understand carpentry, giving me a shiny new hammer is not going to help.
According to OSNews, the judge issued the ruling based solely on the 2004 community design and not an actual iPad. Can anyone else confirm this? The 2004 drawings are quite different from the current iPad (although, they are both rectangles). http://www.osnews.com/story/25150/German_Court_Upholds_Injunction_Against_Galaxy_Tab_10_1
Relax, this ruling is inconsequential to the ongoing fight between Samsung and Apple. It won't stop Samsung's products from being distributed in Germany. It doesn't apply to any other country in Europe, and Samsung's distribution center for Europe is in neighboring the Netherlands, so importation and European-wide supply will not be affected. The only case in Europe that mattered was in the Netherlands (which is why Apple sued there first) and the Dutch court already sided with Samsung on all the design issues. Also, I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from this ruling, as the Dusseldorf court is widely considered the most preferential court in Europe when it comes to patents (and apparently designs as well now). Apple chose this court for a reason.