attempting to step into the Kronenborg castle, you'll find it is conspicuously missing in Strasburg, Saskatchewan. but hey Grandma Lees 22nd Street bakery and "eating place" is pretty darn good too ya know.
You mean there is a "Kronenborg castle" in Strasburg, Saskatchewan on Google Maps?
December 6, 2011: Google Chairman Eric Schmidt is on stage at LeWeb in Paris and is asked by an audience member why most application developers still choose to develop for iOS first rather than Android? Schmidt’s response:
“Six months from now you’ll say the opposite. Because ultimately applications vendors are driven by volume. And the volume is favored by the open approach that Google is taking.”
I don't think they cracked SSL, rather they plant a trojan on target machines.
The item on the list reads "Software to decode recorded telecommunications: Google Mail, MSN Hotmail, Yahoo Mail" (2 identical items with different price actually)
Considering that phone shops everywhere sell... wait for it... armband-style phone holders specifically for outdoor/sports activities, I'd guess that you should stop looking in the mirror while you post, as it seems to confuse you quite a lot.
Yeah, people would want to jog around with the ever increasingly sized smartphones strapped to their wrists.
The reason is that until a few years ago all companies gave information like this, and nowadays they only tell you about it when they want to refuse you warranty repairs, while Apple will still tell you up front.
To bad for your argument that the patent number he cited for that patent is actually a Samsung patent.
Well you're right, and now I'm thoroughly confused. The jury ruled Apple didn't infringe against the '460, and he's talking about Apple's software versus the "prior art", unless he's calling Samsung's software prior art? But then how is that "defending" the Samsung patent? I think he just used the wrong patent number and instead was talking about an Apple patent.
Sure, because accidentally saying a different but correct patent number is so much more likely than accidentally confusing the two plaintiffs once.
ARM has nothing to do with Apple, other than Apple being just one of the many places the licence their CPU designs. Plenty of other companies were doing that before Apple where, and ARM was already very successful before Apple chose to use their designs in things like the iPhone. Still, I guess some people believe that Apple invented everything and that nothing could possible exist without them.
The company was founded as Advanced RISC Machines, ARM, a joint venture between Acorn Computers, Apple Computer (now Apple Inc.) and VLSI Technology. The new company intended to further the development of the Acorn RISC Machine's RISC chip, which was originally used in the Acorn Archimedes and had been selected by Apple for their Newton project.
Advanced RISC Machines (ARM) spins out of Acorn and Apple Computer's collaboration efforts with a charter to create a new microprocessor standard. VLSI Technology becomes an investor and the first licensee
I still don't get the argument that because somebody has a patent it makes him biased towards Apple?
Some guy has a shitty patent that he thinks is actually patent-worthy. Apple sues Samsung over some shitty patent. Some guy becomes foreman on the jury and says, "I suddenly decided that I could defend this if it was my patent," and gives his own shitty perspective on patent worthiness, with gems like, "the software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa."
I mean, what the fuck, any software developer knows porting something to a new CPU doesn't make it novel, and software as a general rule does not run on different processors unchanged unless the processors are designed for compatibility.
To bad for your argument that the patent number he cited for that patent is actually a Samsung patent. So the shitty patent he defended was Samsung's.
So, because a lawyer specializes in design patents, he should spend his time familiarizing himself with various devices out there, rather than, perhaps, the law on such issues?
Well, he should at least tell apart two devices, when his whole argument is that they are easy to tell apart because one is not a slavish copy of the other.
"Groklaw suggests, rather shockingly, that Apple's lawyers might have been a little selective in how they presented some of this evidence to the court, by picking little parts of it that offered a different shade of nuance."
Lawyers presenting evidence in a way that is beneficial to their clients? Outrageous!
Wait...Isn't that their job? And isn't the job of the other party's lawyer to do the same and, if possible, poke holes in their opponents line of argument?
Wait - isn't PJ a lawyer? So the question is: who is paying her?
LOL - you think the jury looked at *any* of the documents? They already had their biased leader who knew all about patents and such to interpret - why read? The jury didn't understand squat in this case - they just decided they liked Apple better and went with it.
I still don't get the argument that because somebody has a patent it makes him biased towards Apple? Is it because Apple also has patents? Or because Samsung has more patents? Or is it because Samsung lost, and there must be a "better" reason than "they shouldn't have copied Apple".
Let's rephrase then - it's funny how little effort they spent *inventing* the ideas they then patented. They stole *everything* from others, put it together in a highly breakable piece of garbage wrapper, stuck a huge price-tag on it, then hyped it until it was the hippie thing to do.
At the time of that they did that, I could not have told you which one was the Iphone and which one was the Samsung. Heck, at the time if you had held up a Blackberry and an Iphone, I could not have told you which was which. I didn't know what either one looked like.
Ladies and Gentleman: a Samsung patent lawyer, specialized in design patent cases.
Apple does the last 5% or 1% of tweaking. They do it very well. While it's amazing how much a few lines of code can add to the usefulness of a large project, hat doesn't mean that the one percent-er should be able to come along and claim ownership on everything and lock every one else out.
That's Apple in a nutshell. Tweak that last %1 and claim that they invented and own the whole ball of wax.
You think that Samsung is doing a better managing public perception after the trial? You mean those lame ads that are trying to make me feel bad that I can't 'bump' my cellphone
After those drop tests, I wouldn't recommend "bumping" a Samsung phone.
Despite the reputation lawyers have, it's not their job to lie through their teeth and actively misrepresent the truth either.
So when the Samsung lawyers didn't point out "the truth" that the Samsung document actually said the opposite of what the Apple lawyers said, what was that?
Slashdot Mirror
Can't you get it through the browser on iOS?
Not if you're a stupid Fandroid who hasn't even got an iPhone.
attempting to step into the Kronenborg castle, you'll find it is conspicuously missing in Strasburg, Saskatchewan. but hey Grandma Lees 22nd Street bakery and "eating place" is pretty darn good too ya know.
You mean there is a "Kronenborg castle" in Strasburg, Saskatchewan on Google Maps?
December 6, 2011: Google Chairman Eric Schmidt is on stage at LeWeb in Paris and is asked by an audience member why most application developers still choose to develop for iOS first rather than Android? Schmidt’s response:
“Six months from now you’ll say the opposite. Because ultimately applications vendors are driven by volume. And the volume is favored by the open approach that Google is taking.”
http://goo.gl/maps/XfYm3
Look at step 16
Looks like you can also walk, but not bike or "transit" that route.
I don't think they cracked SSL, rather they plant a trojan on target machines.
The item on the list reads "Software to decode recorded telecommunications: Google Mail, MSN Hotmail, Yahoo Mail" (2 identical items with different price actually)
BEcause an SD card in the slot IS "on the device"
No, it's "external".
holy shit you're a clueless shut in
Considering that phone shops everywhere sell... wait for it... armband-style phone holders specifically for outdoor/sports activities, I'd guess that you should stop looking in the mirror while you post, as it seems to confuse you quite a lot.
Yeah, people would want to jog around with the ever increasingly sized smartphones strapped to their wrists.
Strange that Apple wouldn't release the iTunes overhaul in conjunction with these iPods. That overhaul is well overdue, more than any iPod refresh...
http://www.apple.com/itunes/new-itunes/ - Coming in October
Close enough?
From the specs on Apples page:
Maximum operating altitude: 10,000 feet (3000 m)
Really? What would cause this.
The reason is that until a few years ago all companies gave information like this, and nowadays they only tell you about it when they want to refuse you warranty repairs, while Apple will still tell you up front.
To bad for your argument that the patent number he cited for that patent is actually a Samsung patent.
Well you're right, and now I'm thoroughly confused. The jury ruled Apple didn't infringe against the '460, and he's talking about Apple's software versus the "prior art", unless he's calling Samsung's software prior art? But then how is that "defending" the Samsung patent? I think he just used the wrong patent number and instead was talking about an Apple patent.
Sure, because accidentally saying a different but correct patent number is so much more likely than accidentally confusing the two plaintiffs once.
ARM has nothing to do with Apple, other than Apple being just one of the many places the licence their CPU designs. Plenty of other companies were doing that before Apple where, and ARM was already very successful before Apple chose to use their designs in things like the iPhone. Still, I guess some people believe that Apple invented everything and that nothing could possible exist without them.
You have no clue, have you (both the AC and the moderator). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Holdings
The company was founded as Advanced RISC Machines, ARM, a joint venture between Acorn Computers, Apple Computer (now Apple Inc.) and VLSI Technology. The new company intended to further the development of the Acorn RISC Machine's RISC chip, which was originally used in the Acorn Archimedes and had been selected by Apple for their Newton project.
http://www.arm.com/about/company-profile/milestones.php
Advanced RISC Machines (ARM) spins out of Acorn and Apple Computer's collaboration efforts with a charter to create a new microprocessor standard. VLSI Technology becomes an investor and the first licensee
I still don't get the argument that because somebody has a patent it makes him biased towards Apple?
Some guy has a shitty patent that he thinks is actually patent-worthy. Apple sues Samsung over some shitty patent. Some guy becomes foreman on the jury and says, "I suddenly decided that I could defend this if it was my patent," and gives his own shitty perspective on patent worthiness, with gems like, "the software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa."
I mean, what the fuck, any software developer knows porting something to a new CPU doesn't make it novel, and software as a general rule does not run on different processors unchanged unless the processors are designed for compatibility.
To bad for your argument that the patent number he cited for that patent is actually a Samsung patent. So the shitty patent he defended was Samsung's.
Are you talking about when the Apple lawyer held up the two devices and asked the team of Samsung's lawyers to identify them?
No. But keep on making up stuff about that trial. It's not like we expect the Fandroids to stick to the facts.
So, because a lawyer specializes in design patents, he should spend his time familiarizing himself with various devices out there, rather than, perhaps, the law on such issues?
Well, he should at least tell apart two devices, when his whole argument is that they are easy to tell apart because one is not a slavish copy of the other.
I hear the next Samsung phones will come with free large pizzas because the phones are shipped in similar sized boxes.
Or they will be iPhone sized: http://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-galaxy-s3-mini-listing-120947/ - coming soon "Galaxy S III Mini"
"Groklaw suggests, rather shockingly, that Apple's lawyers might have been a little selective in how they presented some of this evidence to the court, by picking little parts of it that offered a different shade of nuance."
Lawyers presenting evidence in a way that is beneficial to their clients? Outrageous!
Wait...Isn't that their job? And isn't the job of the other party's lawyer to do the same and, if possible, poke holes in their opponents line of argument?
Wait - isn't PJ a lawyer? So the question is: who is paying her?
LOL - you think the jury looked at *any* of the documents? They already had their biased leader who knew all about patents and such to interpret - why read? The jury didn't understand squat in this case - they just decided they liked Apple better and went with it.
I still don't get the argument that because somebody has a patent it makes him biased towards Apple? Is it because Apple also has patents? Or because Samsung has more patents? Or is it because Samsung lost, and there must be a "better" reason than "they shouldn't have copied Apple".
Let's rephrase then - it's funny how little effort they spent *inventing* the ideas they then patented. They stole *everything* from others, put it together in a highly breakable piece of garbage wrapper, stuck a huge price-tag on it, then hyped it until it was the hippie thing to do.
You are talking about Samsung, aren't you? The "highly breakable piece of garbage wrapper" gave it away http://www.informationweek.com/byte/personal-tech/smart-phones/iphone-5-crushes-samsung-galaxy-s3-in-cr/240008197
At the time of that they did that, I could not have told you which one was the Iphone and which one was the Samsung. Heck, at the time if you had held up a Blackberry and an Iphone, I could not have told you which was which. I didn't know what either one looked like.
Ladies and Gentleman: a Samsung patent lawyer, specialized in design patent cases.
Apple does the last 5% or 1% of tweaking. They do it very well. While it's amazing how much a few lines of code can add to the usefulness of a large project, hat doesn't mean that the one percent-er should be able to come along and claim ownership on everything and lock every one else out.
That's Apple in a nutshell. Tweak that last %1 and claim that they invented and own the whole ball of wax.
Errm, mind telling us who wrote the other 99%?
You think that Samsung is doing a better managing public perception after the trial? You mean those lame ads that are trying to make me feel bad that I can't 'bump' my cellphone
After those drop tests, I wouldn't recommend "bumping" a Samsung phone.
Or photoshopping an image of their competitor's tablet to make it look more like an iPad. Oh wait...
Or holding up two devices and asking the Samsung lawyer which one supposedly didn't look like the other.
Despite the reputation lawyers have, it's not their job to lie through their teeth and actively misrepresent the truth either.
So when the Samsung lawyers didn't point out "the truth" that the Samsung document actually said the opposite of what the Apple lawyers said, what was that?
Guilty until proven wealthy, I thought.
But I thought Samsung made so much money? Wasn't that the Fandroid talking point for the last week?
that was obviously pushed on the Firehose by the haters so they could complain about it. Don't you have anything better to do?