Even more insane is that a company that makes purely luxury products has the largest market cap in what everyone has been touting as a "great recession".
I charge my phone at work with the cable that I use to connect my computer to my scanner. When apple shows that flexibility with hardware I will welcome them with open arms.
Remember: approximately the last 10 years have NOT been increasing significantly in temperature. Now we have one that looks like it is, but it happens simultaneously with the peak of a well-known 11-year solar cycle, and physicists are saying that they had underestimated the solar activity at this peak by as much as 20 TIMES.
I think that the number is based on the profit Samsung made from these devices, Apple's alleged "losses" due to these products, and some punitive amount added in for good measure.
Just goes to show how much is at stake.
That might work if the iPad wasn't outselling the Galaxy tab by about 100 to one. Apple still owns the tablet space even tho they have lost the smartphone market.
Well, if you would have actually understood the summary, the damages Apple seeks are also about smartphone patents - and unrelated to the European ruling.
I'm sure MicroUSB and other industry-standard connectors weren't considered
Yes, exactly. By no one. Nobody use whatever-sized-USB as a dock. No matter how many obscure standards you bring up that could be used to e.g. bring analog sound over USB, hardly anyone does even one of them. Let alone more than one of the many things the iPod Dock Connector does. Stop pretending.
Um.. you do realize this is Apple we are talking about right??
Tiny number of OEMs, check. One in fact.
Controls patents and technology like an ironfisted asshole, check.
Bought up smaller companies and patents, check.
Sold only through branded stores, check.
Retail markups ridiculously high, check.
Sounds like Apple will fit right in, but I don't see how they will improve things for hearing aid customers one bit.
Oddly enough, whenever Apple entered a market, prices dropped.
Fine, I admit it's false. But you had to stretch back 20 years to prove me wrong? This is the best you can do? 20 years is an eternity in tech time. I'll happily agree to reconsider my avoidance of Apple products in 20 years.
Only because I said you could ignore the sales ban of XBox and Windows 7 in Germany - which was just a few weeks ago.
Perhaps because prior to Ethernet, most communications were either serial, or proprietary. They were the first standard and widely adopted interconnect protocol.
But they weren't used for communications over large distances. So when you and the WSJ talk about the Internet, you actually mean LANs, not anything connecting them.
Huge masses of people were connecting to the Internet before they had Ethernet in their computers, accessing servers thousands of miles away - and only a few yards of that distance used Ethernet.
Not really. What they are saying is "Yes, Apple was granted a patent on something we were already doing, but they shouldn't have been because it is a standard element which many many people have been using, and Apple just decided they were cool enough to patent everyone's work for themselves."
Now all you have to do is back that up with a quote from the document. Because, you know, you said they said it. Else, yes really.
I believe that it is the government which sets up the laws which protect private intellectual property. Without these government patent laws, there would be no way to protect intellectual property. Anarchy would allow the free flow of ideas without these artificial barriers to embrace and extend.
It would also allow you to defend your intellectual property the same way as your other property - by use of physical force.
It's extremely shady on Apple's part to allow developers to label apps that require in-app purchases as "free". The way I see it, this is karma.
I see it as extremely shady by you not to mention that for every free app with IAP they are mentioned with the price. If you don't want to pay for them, don't download apps that have them. It's that easy. Unless you hate Apple.
Ive read some comments on the pages in the links and they seem to say this is not Apples fault but the dev's fault for not using the "3 lines of code" to verify in app purchases. What I want to ask is why this is not the default behavior in iOS.
Because if it was, you'd be complaining that the default option required the developer to always have a server online.
The castle is in Austria. And the period is the 15th century, not the 16th. Although the clothes have been carbon dated I can't find a reference to the exact date, but for most of the 15th century the language would have been Middle English.
My Nexus 7 arrived on Tuesday, and I opened it just fine. The tape used to keep the box closed was a little interesting, looked almost like it had been melted on, but nothing anyone with a pair of scissors or box cutters should have trouble with.
Google would like to make it at least mildly challenging to buy a product, swap the product with modelling clay, and return the box for full retail value.
So Google is expecting so many returns that they can't check for fake returns.
Motorola never managed to obtain a pre-trial sales ban like Apple did.
Patently false. Even if we ignore the sales ban of XBox and Windows 7 in Germany, as well as dozens of attempts to get injunctions (failing because they didn't have a good enough case), that still leaves us with (at least) the preliminary injunction in the case of MOTOROLA, INC. v. ALEXANDER MFG. CO. - about a design patent.
Yes, Motorola is one of very few companies ever getting a "pre-trial sales ban" over a design patent (for a case for a cell phone battery). 20 years ago. So don't give me that holier-than-thou shit.
Slashdot Mirror
Even more insane is that a company that makes purely luxury products has the largest market cap in what everyone has been touting as a "great recession".
Vertu has the largest market cap?
There is no sales ban. The injunction in Germany has not yet taken effect and cannot take effect until the US trial concludes
If you think that an American trial has any influence on the decisions of a German court, you are even more delusional than I thought.
I charge my phone at work with the cable that I use to connect my computer to my scanner. When apple shows that flexibility with hardware I will welcome them with open arms.
Sorry, Apple will not reintroduce SCSI.
I like the iPhone but am waiting on the 5 before I upgrade, especially since it's just a couple of months away.
Closely followed by the 5S just after Christmas.
Yeah, because Apple updates its phones as often as Samsung does, and not once a year.
Remember: approximately the last 10 years have NOT been increasing significantly in temperature. Now we have one that looks like it is, but it happens simultaneously with the peak of a well-known 11-year solar cycle, and physicists are saying that they had underestimated the solar activity at this peak by as much as 20 TIMES.
Once more it's time for The Escalator.
I think that the number is based on the profit Samsung made from these devices, Apple's alleged "losses" due to these products, and some punitive amount added in for good measure.
Just goes to show how much is at stake.
That might work if the iPad wasn't outselling the Galaxy tab by about 100 to one. Apple still owns the tablet space even tho they have lost the smartphone market.
Well, if you would have actually understood the summary, the damages Apple seeks are also about smartphone patents - and unrelated to the European ruling.
No you get your house raided by the cops lol :')
Okay, who got his house raided by the cops (LOL or not) after he found a bug in any of Apple's products?
I'm sure MicroUSB and other industry-standard connectors weren't considered
Yes, exactly. By no one. Nobody use whatever-sized-USB as a dock. No matter how many obscure standards you bring up that could be used to e.g. bring analog sound over USB, hardly anyone does even one of them. Let alone more than one of the many things the iPod Dock Connector does. Stop pretending.
Um.. you do realize this is Apple we are talking about right??
Tiny number of OEMs, check. One in fact. Controls patents and technology like an ironfisted asshole, check. Bought up smaller companies and patents, check. Sold only through branded stores, check. Retail markups ridiculously high, check.
Sounds like Apple will fit right in, but I don't see how they will improve things for hearing aid customers one bit.
Oddly enough, whenever Apple entered a market, prices dropped.
Fine, I admit it's false. But you had to stretch back 20 years to prove me wrong? This is the best you can do? 20 years is an eternity in tech time. I'll happily agree to reconsider my avoidance of Apple products in 20 years.
Only because I said you could ignore the sales ban of XBox and Windows 7 in Germany - which was just a few weeks ago.
Perhaps because prior to Ethernet, most communications were either serial, or proprietary. They were the first standard and widely adopted interconnect protocol.
But they weren't used for communications over large distances. So when you and the WSJ talk about the Internet, you actually mean LANs, not anything connecting them.
Huge masses of people were connecting to the Internet before they had Ethernet in their computers, accessing servers thousands of miles away - and only a few yards of that distance used Ethernet.
Not really. What they are saying is "Yes, Apple was granted a patent on something we were already doing, but they shouldn't have been because it is a standard element which many many people have been using, and Apple just decided they were cool enough to patent everyone's work for themselves."
Now all you have to do is back that up with a quote from the document. Because, you know, you said they said it. Else, yes really.
Please show us a source where Apple claims to have patented the concept of a 'rectangular portable touch screen'.
[Citation Needed]
US Patent D504,889
So this patent supposedly patents "the concept of a 'rectangular portable touch screen'"? What about the patents it cites? They would do the same thing, esp. this IBM patent: http://www.google.com/patents?id=b34mAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false.
A point could be made that anybody trying to create a minimalist design, would invariably end up with a very similar design.
A point could be made that nobody tried a minimalist design before then. Only after Apple did.
I believe that it is the government which sets up the laws which protect private intellectual property. Without these government patent laws, there would be no way to protect intellectual property. Anarchy would allow the free flow of ideas without these artificial barriers to embrace and extend.
It would also allow you to defend your intellectual property the same way as your other property - by use of physical force.
You can't patent an idea.
Now you have to explain how software patents without full source code included are different from an idea.
In the same way no patent contains full blueprints for a physical device, yet still are different from an idea.
The real news is of course it took him so long to defeat the exact same system in a more open OS.
It's extremely shady on Apple's part to allow developers to label apps that require in-app purchases as "free". The way I see it, this is karma.
I see it as extremely shady by you not to mention that for every free app with IAP they are mentioned with the price. If you don't want to pay for them, don't download apps that have them. It's that easy. Unless you hate Apple.
Ive read some comments on the pages in the links and they seem to say this is not Apples fault but the dev's fault for not using the "3 lines of code" to verify in app purchases. What I want to ask is why this is not the default behavior in iOS.
Because if it was, you'd be complaining that the default option required the developer to always have a server online.
The castle is in Austria. And the period is the 15th century, not the 16th. Although the clothes have been carbon dated I can't find a reference to the exact date, but for most of the 15th century the language would have been Middle English.
In Austria? Bloody likely.
The only possible explanation for the hate of easy-to-open packaging can be a sexual obsession. And the video was already posted.
My Nexus 7 arrived on Tuesday, and I opened it just fine. The tape used to keep the box closed was a little interesting, looked almost like it had been melted on, but nothing anyone with a pair of scissors or box cutters should have trouble with.
Google would like to make it at least mildly challenging to buy a product, swap the product with modelling clay, and return the box for full retail value.
So Google is expecting so many returns that they can't check for fake returns.
Motorola never managed to obtain a pre-trial sales ban like Apple did.
Patently false. Even if we ignore the sales ban of XBox and Windows 7 in Germany, as well as dozens of attempts to get injunctions (failing because they didn't have a good enough case), that still leaves us with (at least) the preliminary injunction in the case of MOTOROLA, INC. v. ALEXANDER MFG. CO. - about a design patent.
Yes, Motorola is one of very few companies ever getting a "pre-trial sales ban" over a design patent (for a case for a cell phone battery). 20 years ago. So don't give me that holier-than-thou shit.
Kids these days - a "boob" is a fool. Might as well they were making fun of Linux coders - and hit a home run.
And the the fandroids complain that Apple products are hard to repair?