Strangely, design patents are not standard-essential
If someone had a design patent on brake on the left and accelerator on the right, would that be standard-essential? Or what about a design patent on red light means stop, green light means go?
Only if there were a standard that required brake on the left and accelerator on the right. But I'm sure you can actually come up with any design patent that is or was standards essential. Just go on looking until you find one. Or shut the fuck up pretending you had a valid point.
Samsung offered fair and reasonable terms. The ITC agreed that they did. Apple just kept saying "no", hoping to get a lower price.>
And because the ITC accepted what Samsung said, their verdict was overturned. Because Samsung's claim was obviously bullshit. Singling out Apple (violating the non-discriminatory part) to pay nearly 100 times as much as anybody else (not reasonable), and further demanding full access to unrelated patents (unfair) means Samsung made a huge mistake - mark my words.
They were smart enough to drop those SEP cases in the EU after Motorola got in trouble for similar stunts - too bad for them they thought they could get away with it in the US.
Show me the powerpc roadmap and we can talk about advantages. x86, hell even sparc has a decent roadmap these days, there is no roadmap for power because the architecture has no future. They open up the product now because they are aware of it too.
Roadmaps are just security blankets for PHBs - all vaporware once showed up on a roadmap.
The world's 100 richest people earned a stunning total of $240 billion in 2012 – enough money to end extreme poverty worldwide four times over, Oxfam has revealed, adding that the global economic crisis is further enriching the super-rich.
I wouldn't be surprised if South Korea takes the US to the WTO and demands that they either enforce the law or accept sanctions. They might push for heavy import duty on Apple products imported to South Korea, but that wouldn't really be anything like as much as Apple's sales of these products in the US. Pushing to ignore US patents might be a better option.
And I wouldn't be surprised if the WTO also objected to abusing standards essential patents the way Samsung did.
You mean like "round corners" on a box is a perfectly reasonable copyright?
Sorry, but I *don't* believe that Apple is usually right.
Considering you don't even understand the difference between "copyright" and a "design patent" (not to mention what that design patent actually encompasses) - who the fuck cares what you believe?
So either whitelist known characters, or simply fucking ban bidirectional override characters. Or is the codebase stuck at the same time the cookies at the bottom of the page are?
If your publishing can't handle smart quotes, then stop publishing. All they are is a different character. Deal with it properly or GTFO.
Why bother? Smart quotes add no value to the document. They are just fluff. I would think that any self-respecting slashdot reader would immediately see through such silliness.
Oh, wait...
Hell yeah - if it can't be displayed on a teletype, it's not worth reading.
Unless you work for either company, you don't know what negotiations have or have not taken place. You only have what is printed in the media. You believe everything you read?
We know that Apple refused to negotiate a license for those patents because the ITC stated, in their ruling, that they ruled against Apple in part because of their failure to negotiate a license for the patents in question.
Ignoring that Apple already had paid for those patents by buying parts from a manufacturer who had licensed the patents.
And Apple has refused to license those patents. They have refused to negotiate to license them. They have even stated that they will not accept a court-ordered license fee unless they happen to think it's low enough.
Tell me, oh wise one, what other recourse did Samsung have?
Not copy Apple's work, just like they don't want anybody else to copy theirs - Samsung is the company with the most US design patents by far.
As for Apple and their patents: because they aren't standards essential, they have every right to not license them.
Red herring - the IRS audited all kinds of groups who asked for tax redemption, but the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (Republican if you couldn't guess it) on a witch hunt asked to only list the right wing groups.
> the CPU is very much "designed by Apple in California", though manufactured by samsung and/or TSCM.
If you mean by "designed by Apple" in so far as that Apple demands all its suppliers to print the Apple logo (and only that) on the chip, then yes. Other than that, though, you're sorely mistaken, as a 2 minute search would've easily told you:
CPU 1st gen and 3G: Samsung 32-bit RISC ARM 1176JZ(F)-S v1.0[3] 3GS: 600 MHz ARM Cortex-A8[4] 4: 800 MHz ARM Cortex-A8[5] 4S: 800 MHz dual-core ARM Cortex-A9[6] 5: 1.3 GHz dual core Apple A6
So only the iPhone 5 has a "design" by Apple.
IOW all based on ARM Holding chip designs - a company co-founded by Apple. Boo-fucking-hoo.
Apple doesn't actually donate much to politicians at all...
And yet judges and presidents seem to display a consistent bias. Funny that.
"Reality has a known liberal bias". Maybe Samsung is simply guilty as hell? Hey, they even partly lost against Apple in South Korea - what more bias do you need?
Animoca, a Hong Kong mobile app developer that has seen more than 70 million downloads, says it does quality assurance testing with about 400 Android devices. Again, that’s testing with four hundred different phones and tablets for every app they ship!
In the 2011 Pwn2Own contest, Charlie Miller and Dion Blazakis "PWND" the Iphone 4 using a mobile Safari vulnerability.
Apple is almost always a loser at the Pwn2Own events.
Pwn2Own only allows 0-day hacks. If somebody else goes wild with the exploit you found on the day before the contest, you can't win. That's why everybody focused on the platform where there wasn't a new exploit in the wild every other day. Until they couldn't find exploits there anymore - no hacked Apple products in Pwn2Own since 2012.
Slashdot Mirror
Strangely, design patents are not standard-essential
If someone had a design patent on brake on the left and accelerator on the right, would that be standard-essential? Or what about a design patent on red light means stop, green light means go?
Only if there were a standard that required brake on the left and accelerator on the right. But I'm sure you can actually come up with any design patent that is or was standards essential. Just go on looking until you find one. Or shut the fuck up pretending you had a valid point.
2.4% is the standard rate offered to everyone.
Even if that were so, most certainly not from the device price, but for the part implementing the function.
Samsung offered fair and reasonable terms. The ITC agreed that they did. Apple just kept saying "no", hoping to get a lower price.>
And because the ITC accepted what Samsung said, their verdict was overturned. Because Samsung's claim was obviously bullshit. Singling out Apple (violating the non-discriminatory part) to pay nearly 100 times as much as anybody else (not reasonable), and further demanding full access to unrelated patents (unfair) means Samsung made a huge mistake - mark my words.
They were smart enough to drop those SEP cases in the EU after Motorola got in trouble for similar stunts - too bad for them they thought they could get away with it in the US.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/apple-finds-dc-is-tough-without-friends-94948.html
Show me the powerpc roadmap and we can talk about advantages. x86, hell even sparc has a decent roadmap these days, there is no roadmap for power because the architecture has no future. They open up the product now because they are aware of it too.
Roadmaps are just security blankets for PHBs - all vaporware once showed up on a roadmap.
If the US has nothing to hide, why are they so worried what Snowden could tell others?
How much lower are traffic fatalities simply because people carry cell phones? Which coincidentally ties in with the OP.
Without Apple, ARM wouldn't exist now - period. It would have gone under with its parent Acorn Computers.
My fault. You are right, that was a patent. But it shouldn't have been.
Yeah, yeah, only Samsung deserves their 5000+ design patents full of rounded corners. You've made that clear as hell.
The world's 100 richest people earned a stunning total of $240 billion in 2012 – enough money to end extreme poverty worldwide four times over, Oxfam has revealed, adding that the global economic crisis is further enriching the super-rich.
Less than four years to buy that space station.
I wouldn't be surprised if South Korea takes the US to the WTO and demands that they either enforce the law or accept sanctions. They might push for heavy import duty on Apple products imported to South Korea, but that wouldn't really be anything like as much as Apple's sales of these products in the US. Pushing to ignore US patents might be a better option.
And I wouldn't be surprised if the WTO also objected to abusing standards essential patents the way Samsung did.
You mean like "round corners" on a box is a perfectly reasonable copyright?
Sorry, but I *don't* believe that Apple is usually right.
Considering you don't even understand the difference between "copyright" and a "design patent" (not to mention what that design patent actually encompasses) - who the fuck cares what you believe?
I've explained this several times. Slashdot introduced a code point whitelist after past abuses of bidirectional override characters.
So either whitelist known characters, or simply fucking ban bidirectional override characters. Or is the codebase stuck at the same time the cookies at the bottom of the page are?
Sorry, but you have that exactly backwards.
Online publishing is a blight on smart quotes.
If your publishing can't handle smart quotes, then stop publishing. All they are is a different character. Deal with it properly or GTFO.
Why bother? Smart quotes add no value to the document. They are just fluff. I would think that any self-respecting slashdot reader would immediately see through such silliness.
Oh, wait...
Hell yeah - if it can't be displayed on a teletype, it's not worth reading.
Unless you work for either company, you don't know what negotiations have or have not taken place. You only have what is printed in the media. You believe everything you read?
We know that Apple refused to negotiate a license for those patents because the ITC stated, in their ruling, that they ruled against Apple in part because of their failure to negotiate a license for the patents in question.
Ignoring that Apple already had paid for those patents by buying parts from a manufacturer who had licensed the patents.
And Apple has refused to license those patents. They have refused to negotiate to license them. They have even stated that they will not accept a court-ordered license fee unless they happen to think it's low enough.
Tell me, oh wise one, what other recourse did Samsung have?
Not copy Apple's work, just like they don't want anybody else to copy theirs - Samsung is the company with the most US design patents by far.
As for Apple and their patents: because they aren't standards essential, they have every right to not license them.
IRS audit laws
Red herring - the IRS audited all kinds of groups who asked for tax redemption, but the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (Republican if you couldn't guess it) on a witch hunt asked to only list the right wing groups.
Just one of many examples.
virtually all the patents APple used have been invalidated
And then validated again.
"Any $ earned by Apple is kept in the US " mmmmm, since when is Ireland a state of the US?
Since when is any $ earned by Apple in the US moved to Ireland?
> the CPU is very much "designed by Apple in California", though manufactured by samsung and/or TSCM.
If you mean by "designed by Apple" in so far as that Apple demands all its suppliers to print the Apple logo (and only that) on the chip, then yes. Other than that, though, you're sorely mistaken, as a 2 minute search would've easily told you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone
CPU
1st gen and 3G: Samsung 32-bit RISC ARM 1176JZ(F)-S v1.0[3]
3GS: 600 MHz ARM Cortex-A8[4]
4: 800 MHz ARM Cortex-A8[5]
4S: 800 MHz dual-core ARM Cortex-A9[6]
5: 1.3 GHz dual core Apple A6
So only the iPhone 5 has a "design" by Apple.
IOW all based on ARM Holding chip designs - a company co-founded by Apple. Boo-fucking-hoo.
The question is: whose money. It wasn't Apple publicly calling for the POTUS veto, it was AT&T and Verizon.
Apple doesn't actually donate much to politicians at all...
And yet judges and presidents seem to display a consistent bias. Funny that.
"Reality has a known liberal bias". Maybe Samsung is simply guilty as hell? Hey, they even partly lost against Apple in South Korea - what more bias do you need?
Actually, designing / testing for android is typically done on 3-4 device types
http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/11/this-is-what-developing-for-android-looks-like/
Animoca, a Hong Kong mobile app developer that has seen more than 70 million downloads, says it does quality assurance testing with about 400 Android devices. Again, that’s testing with four hundred different phones and tablets for every app they ship!
Watch it - everybody is sweating all the time, everybody is aggressive. A movie about Global Warming.
In the 2011 Pwn2Own contest, Charlie Miller and Dion Blazakis "PWND" the Iphone 4 using a mobile Safari vulnerability.
Apple is almost always a loser at the Pwn2Own events.
Pwn2Own only allows 0-day hacks. If somebody else goes wild with the exploit you found on the day before the contest, you can't win. That's why everybody focused on the platform where there wasn't a new exploit in the wild every other day. Until they couldn't find exploits there anymore - no hacked Apple products in Pwn2Own since 2012.