Apple didn't make "rounded corners" part of a standard
Apple didn't make rounded corners - period; many others did that way before them. The stupid patent office shouldn't have issued patents on such silly things to Apple. And Apple should've been decent enough not to sue others over such trivial pathetic matters.
Good thing they didn't. Too bad you still can't tell the difference due to willful ignorance.
i'll get modded down but the way FRAND works is the rates are usually a few cents per device and you cross license any FRAND patents that you have as well.
FRAND patents are typically a % of either manufacture or retail costs of the device, in any industry.
Apple's original argument was the 2.5% was too "expensive" for a iPhone they want to retail for $600 verses the same 2.5% that HTC pays for their $50 disposable phones.
No Apple's argument is that nobody pays a percentage of the device, only on the chip implementing the function.
apple doesn't have much FRAND patents but they have a lot of non-FRAND patents that others want.
That is not clearly true at all. It is more accurate to say, Apple says it has a lot of patents that others want. Case in point: the bouncing scroll patent. Invalidated.
In case you haven't read the article - or rather one not written by a clueless hateboy: the patent has been invalidated because of prior art - a patent by Apple. IOW their older bounce-scroll-patent is still valid. Extra double standard points for quoting an article based on FOSS Patents without complaining that Mueller is a shill.
rounded corners are design patents. everyone has them. check out the patent office, samsung has patents on the shape of their refrigerators
Samsung is actually the company with the most US design patents, several times as many as Apple. Many have rounded corners, many are for phones and tablets.
You obviously aren't thinking about the secondary effects. A story on Slashdot advertises it to mainstream media.
Oh come on - most Slashdot stories come even later than mainstream reports. And in this case (like many before) the CNet article quotes the original sources Slashdot's sources refer to.
Judges don't like "good design". They don't like clever marketing tricks (like the first "apology"). They like absolute, immediate compliance (and not "technical" compliance) with the spirit of their demands.
Well, then the judges should have said so, because the message is exactly where the old one was. Since they didn't bring it up as not compliant before, they can't bring it up now.
Way back in the early days of the Mac, Apple should have been able to rule the world. Unfortunately Apple was run by and anal-retentive asshole who actually tried to rule the world.
And that man was called John Sculley. I'm not sure what your point is.
He asks about supposed "disappointing iPad Mini sales", and you answer with Apple's last quarter, where Apple outsold all other tablets, but "disappointed" Wall Street because the iPad Mini wasn't for sale yet? I bet nobody has ever claimed you to be an astute reader.
Which is because they have profit margin of a fashion company, rather then a tech one.
I'm sure Cisco has higher margins on their stuff than Apple. And certainly is not the only tech company who does. What you wanted to say was "commodity tech company".
And no, they didn't lose the rights to iPhone. Just they just can't sell it as iPhone in Mexico (possibly - they could license after all if the other company wasn't making mobile phones and wanted some extra income).
And it's likely it'll be licensed - iFone is apparently some call center management software. Or perhaps Mexico would just get ApplePhones instead (like GoogleMail).
Actually, nothing has changed for Apple, they can still sell the iPhone as iPhone in Mexico. The article is of course wrong - when Indians use Google translate to "understand" Mexican legalese, what could possibly go wrong?
Apple already owns two iPhone trademarks in Mexico in Class 9 and Class 28, which covers electronic game devices. But in 2009, Apple's lawyers decided iFone's Mexican Class 38 mark wasn't being actively used, and they filed a lawsuit to try and get it canceled so they could register their own pending Class 38 mark on "iPhone." iFone obviously disagreed and convinced the Mexican courts that they were still using the mark in commerce, which is where today's ruling comes from — Apple lost another round of appeals trying to cancel the iFone mark in Class 38. iFone attorney Eduardo Gallastegui was obviously happy about it, telling wire service Efe that "iFone is fully entitled to the use of its brand name."
The confusion appears to come from what Gallastegui told El Universal, which details iFone's trademark infringement countersuit and demands against Apple. Garbled through Google Translate, it sounds like the court ordered Apple to pay substantial fines and perhaps even pull the iPhone from market — a big deal since the iPhone 5 just launched with Mexican carrier partners. But those are just the demands, and iFone's case doesn’t appear to have gone anywhere yet. We'll obviously update if we learn otherwise, but I would guess Apple and iFone will eventually settle this one and we'll never hear about it again.
IIRC, 2.25% has been the ongoing rate. The only reason why other companies haven't paid as much is because they've cross-licensed their patents to Moto instead, and that is not exactly a free service. Apple is unwilling to cross-license (or rather they claim that their patents are worth a ridiculous amount that Moto disagrees with), and so Moto wants to charge them the baseline 2.25% fee. Seems perfectly fair to me.
2.25% of what exactly has been the rate for what? RAND patents don't require cross-licensing of anything not related to the standard covered. There are dozens of companies making phones who don't have any patents to cross-license, let alone standard relevant ones. Everyone sane knows that. Demanding it means your a crook - like Googlerola.
Let's see a reliable source. Everyone knows Florian Mueller is a laughable shill.
While you are an unfunny shill. Because only a shill can still pretend that Googlerola isn't being investigated for systematic abuse of FRAND patents in both the US and the EU.
Slashdot Mirror
The deal is the same that Google gets for their Android users. So I don't see what your beef with Google is.
The fact the Android users sell their soul to Google doesn't mean Apple should do that for their customers.
Secondly, I'd sooner trust Google who are open about what is being collected
Gee, considering Google buys most of the data, you sure trust them a lot buy buying their "we collected the data" bit.
Apple didn't make "rounded corners" part of a standard
Apple didn't make rounded corners - period; many others did that way before them. The stupid patent office shouldn't have issued patents on such silly things to Apple. And Apple should've been decent enough not to sue others over such trivial pathetic matters.
Good thing they didn't. Too bad you still can't tell the difference due to willful ignorance.
...and the iPhone is build in China with zero American parts.
Fixed that for you.
Yeah, all the reports that the CPU is build by Samsung in Texas are wrong - the space aliens told you.
i'll get modded down but the way FRAND works is the rates are usually a few cents per device and you cross license any FRAND patents that you have as well.
FRAND patents are typically a % of either manufacture or retail costs of the device, in any industry.
Apple's original argument was the 2.5% was too "expensive" for a iPhone they want to retail for $600 verses the same 2.5% that HTC pays for their $50 disposable phones.
No Apple's argument is that nobody pays a percentage of the device, only on the chip implementing the function.
apple doesn't have much FRAND patents but they have a lot of non-FRAND patents that others want.
That is not clearly true at all. It is more accurate to say, Apple says it has a lot of patents that others want. Case in point: the bouncing scroll patent. Invalidated.
In case you haven't read the article - or rather one not written by a clueless hateboy: the patent has been invalidated because of prior art - a patent by Apple. IOW their older bounce-scroll-patent is still valid. Extra double standard points for quoting an article based on FOSS Patents without complaining that Mueller is a shill.
rounded corners are design patents. everyone has them. check out the patent office, samsung has patents on the shape of their refrigerators
Samsung is actually the company with the most US design patents, several times as many as Apple. Many have rounded corners, many are for phones and tablets.
Apple also said it would ignore the court's order if it chose more than $1/device.
"Ignore" - "Appeal" - what's the fucking difference when you're a moronic Apple hater.
So what happens next quarter when Apple has had yet another 27-40% growth spurt, fueled by a large number of new products recently released?
What happens if Apple has a shrink spurt instead?
Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and short AAPL?
Are you going to complain about device drivers having nothing to do with cars next?
You obviously aren't thinking about the secondary effects. A story on Slashdot advertises it to mainstream media.
Oh come on - most Slashdot stories come even later than mainstream reports. And in this case (like many before) the CNet article quotes the original sources Slashdot's sources refer to.
it's just good design.
Judges don't like "good design". They don't like clever marketing tricks (like the first "apology"). They like absolute, immediate compliance (and not "technical" compliance) with the spirit of their demands.
Well, then the judges should have said so, because the message is exactly where the old one was. Since they didn't bring it up as not compliant before, they can't bring it up now.
Way back in the early days of the Mac, Apple should have been able to rule the world. Unfortunately Apple was run by and anal-retentive asshole who actually tried to rule the world.
And that man was called John Sculley. I'm not sure what your point is.
I bought AAPL a couple months ago. Now they're worth $100 each
Where can you get AAPL @ $100? Oh, you mean $100 less - well why didn't you buy GOG? That only dropped $80!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20091054
He asks about supposed "disappointing iPad Mini sales", and you answer with Apple's last quarter, where Apple outsold all other tablets, but "disappointed" Wall Street because the iPad Mini wasn't for sale yet? I bet nobody has ever claimed you to be an astute reader.
Cisco has large scale B2B profits. This is yet another different market.
Unlike popular culture would have you believe, there's far more to the economy then private consumption.
So you admit you were wrong, and I was right, and still pretend it was the other way around.
Which is because they have profit margin of a fashion company, rather then a tech one.
I'm sure Cisco has higher margins on their stuff than Apple. And certainly is not the only tech company who does. What you wanted to say was "commodity tech company".
They can't keep up for the simple reason that they are riding a bubble, and sooner or later the bubble will pop, as it happens to all bubbles.
You are right, Android is doomed.
And no, they didn't lose the rights to iPhone. Just they just can't sell it as iPhone in Mexico (possibly - they could license after all if the other company wasn't making mobile phones and wanted some extra income).
And it's likely it'll be licensed - iFone is apparently some call center management software. Or perhaps Mexico would just get ApplePhones instead (like GoogleMail).
Actually, nothing has changed for Apple, they can still sell the iPhone as iPhone in Mexico. The article is of course wrong - when Indians use Google translate to "understand" Mexican legalese, what could possibly go wrong?
So here's what really happened.
Apple already owns two iPhone trademarks in Mexico in Class 9 and Class 28, which covers electronic game devices. But in 2009, Apple's lawyers decided iFone's Mexican Class 38 mark wasn't being actively used, and they filed a lawsuit to try and get it canceled so they could register their own pending Class 38 mark on "iPhone." iFone obviously disagreed and convinced the Mexican courts that they were still using the mark in commerce, which is where today's ruling comes from — Apple lost another round of appeals trying to cancel the iFone mark in Class 38. iFone attorney Eduardo Gallastegui was obviously happy about it, telling wire service Efe that "iFone is fully entitled to the use of its brand name."
The confusion appears to come from what Gallastegui told El Universal, which details iFone's trademark infringement countersuit and demands against Apple. Garbled through Google Translate, it sounds like the court ordered Apple to pay substantial fines and perhaps even pull the iPhone from market — a big deal since the iPhone 5 just launched with Mexican carrier partners. But those are just the demands, and iFone's case doesn’t appear to have gone anywhere yet. We'll obviously update if we learn otherwise, but I would guess Apple and iFone will eventually settle this one and we'll never hear about it again.
Meanwhile, the only lines the Nexus 7 has had, are the ones flashing on the display.
IIRC, 2.25% has been the ongoing rate. The only reason why other companies haven't paid as much is because they've cross-licensed their patents to Moto instead, and that is not exactly a free service. Apple is unwilling to cross-license (or rather they claim that their patents are worth a ridiculous amount that Moto disagrees with), and so Moto wants to charge them the baseline 2.25% fee. Seems perfectly fair to me.
2.25% of what exactly has been the rate for what? RAND patents don't require cross-licensing of anything not related to the standard covered. There are dozens of companies making phones who don't have any patents to cross-license, let alone standard relevant ones. Everyone sane knows that. Demanding it means your a crook - like Googlerola.
Ah yes, grafting proxy data and instrumental data together, without regard for their frequency response behaviors.
Gee and you guys wonder why nobody takes you warmists serious any more.
Hint: try reading the abstract
Try understanding it, nut case: the paper confirms Mann's work. - see that Moberg and Mann's curves match up quite well.
Let's see a reliable source. Everyone knows Florian Mueller is a laughable shill.
While you are an unfunny shill. Because only a shill can still pretend that Googlerola isn't being investigated for systematic abuse of FRAND patents in both the US and the EU.
Apple do seem to believe lately that their Reality Distortion Field affects judges as well as fanboys.
As shown by you two, the only ones affected by the RDF are the hateboys.