Actually, patent infringement applies to someone selling or distributing the protected work. If you implement it yourself, there's no infringement whatsoever.
Not overly helpful. But...there's a vicious piece of prior art that very probably invalidates their claims and makes it safe for anyone because it's outside the limits for patents: Apple patented the base concept in 1992
Already done, really. Several FOSS projects exist for iOS, Android, or Java right now that're in progress or bankrolled by Nations that wouldn't give a shit about their patents (which have prior art: Apple patented the base concept in 1992).
Already started. Doesn't need patents to invalidate. All you need is public knowledge of something roughly analogous that anticipates it to invalidate.
AssistiveWare's KeyStrokes was first published and sold to the world in 1996.
They're suing over a dynamic interface keyboard that's on-screen or otherwise.
That's what they're suing them over.
They have prior art that they've not contemplated here. This program existed in it's earliest form in 1996. Which was a dynamic interface keyboard for assistive purposes.
I tire of this bullshit. What was done to "reform" patents did nothing of the sort.
That's an artificial limitation, just so you know. It's not "hard" to get something that can support a wide range of distributions and versions thereof. I managed it with two indie titles and I'm working at even better.
Not to mention that much of the unemployment situation's not due to the article author's supposition (nor would doing what he claims FIX the problem...) but more due to many illegals taking positions and companies offshoring work.
Doesn't really help, what with the whole false accusations from disgruntled employees angle. Replying "no thanks, I use Linux" to them isn't going to do you much good. Replying at all isn't going to do you much good. It shows them that you're listening.
What you say all depends on how much money they think they can extort out of you. If you don't have anything that is provided by the companies they represent, they owe you the expense of all your efforts- or be sued for far worse. If they think they can wring $50-150k and it'll only cost $20k in litigation, they WILL proceed if you don't respond. It's happened a lot before in the past.
As for not having disgruntled employees, yeah...but there's always going to be one out there you just can't please period.
Nice thoughts, your suggestions...sadly, they're more theory than reality.
Considering that I can train a dog to sit on cue, in a situation other than smelling something they're trained to detect, it should be noted that your reasoning is off.
KISS principle. If I had time I'd have designed it with only one part. I managed with two that's consistent. The less moving parts you can get away with, the better- whether it's a physical device or software.
The part where the judge agreed that no tethering was an arbitrary limit on the service they sold as unlimited, and was therefore null and void?
Heh... It utterly amazes me how many people buy into things begin legit, just because a company put it in the contract- and how few understand any aspects of contract law, but will say, "it's in the contract or terms of service," and therefore claim the company's in the rights. Especially here.
"Unlimited Data"... I honestly and dearly wish people would QUIT running that tired old argument up the flagpole- it's flatly false. Let's run some numbers...
Presume, if you will the theoretical max AT&T is providing in their non-HSPA+/LTE areas. This is 1.7Mbit up/ 0.7Mbit down. You get billed for any data transferred. If you're mostly streaming, the upstream will be negligible. So...
In 1 second, you will pull down roughly 217 kibytes of data. In 1 minute, you will pull down roughly 12 Mibytes of data. In 1 hour, you will pull down roughly 783 Mibytes of data. In 1 day, you will pull down roughly 18 Gibytes of data. In 1 week, you will pull down roughly 126 Gibytes of data.
This presumes no throttling whatsoever. Now, presume they throttle to EDGE speeds at 5Gibytes transferred.
In 1 second, you will pull down roughly 217 kibytes of data. In 1 minute, you will pull down roughly 12 Mibytes of data. In 1 hour, you will pull down roughly 783 Mibytes of data.
In less than 1 day, you will hit your cap- in fact, it'll be somewhere around 6 and a half hours in.
With this, you'll pull down the following:
In 1 day, you will pull down roughly 6.82 Gibytes of data. In 1 week, you will pull down roughly 21.9 Gibytes of data.
126 != 21.9 Quite simply it's not "unlimited data" in the slightest as they're limiting just how much data you CAN get through the link by limiting your speed. It's why AT&T LOST the case in the first place.
Yes and no. The 200% gain market is NOT sustainable- and you have to share with pretty much everyone else. It's a damned crapshoot and another bubble/gold-rush. Unless you're one of the disruptive plays there first, you're probably not going to gain a slot in the market to see the 200%- you'll see the 10% that you saw elsewhere; and you'll be working harder to get it.
It's also a free game on Google Play. They make money these days off of the ad-cashflow and the licensing opportunities on Angry Birds plushies, pencil toppers, etc. If it's popular, massive downloads does mean what the author says it does- he just uses chop-logic to get to the conclusion.
And, if you had the speculative bunch, coupled with the "analysts" we have these days, Edison wouldn't have gotten to the record player or the light bulb- because they'd have been bitching at him "wasting" all of that money on those 10k attempts and trying to tell him to quit doing it.
We need to quit calling them "shareholders" as the bunch you refer to are simply there to game the system and they're "sharesellers". A shareholder holds onto the purchase of shares for the purposes of dividends and long-term returns on their investments in question. Most "shareholders" hold on to the shares they buy for days or weeks and then sell it once they "turn a profit".
Considering that he's going to be in a Bradley that's RF shielded... It's not going to matter much unless they're making man-portable versions- and I suspect they'll have "armor" for the person wielding it, regardless of how bulky the stuff is.
Note to self... Never post before having your IV injection of caffene.
Now, one wonders... How is it that Stratfor, a private intelligence gathering interest (They called it a "think-tank", it's not QUITE that sort of interest...), be having this sort of information within themselves. It should be noted that a lot of damning info came out of the breach recently that pretty much devastates the Democratic Party's existence and places the current Administration's existence at risk (Being caught out explicitly screwing with the Presidential and other election processes will do that for you...)- are we sure that this "credit card" loss isn't just a smoke screen?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, patent infringement applies to someone selling or distributing the protected work. If you implement it yourself, there's no infringement whatsoever.
Not overly helpful. But...there's a vicious piece of prior art that very probably invalidates their claims and makes it safe for anyone because it's outside the limits for patents: Apple patented the base concept in 1992
Already done, really. Several FOSS projects exist for iOS, Android, or Java right now that're in progress or bankrolled by Nations that wouldn't give a shit about their patents (which have prior art: Apple patented the base concept in 1992).
Ah, but not full, dead-on prior art. Apple patented the base concept in 1992.
They're not claiming a patent for that- they're claiming a patent for a dynamic changing keyboard, for which Apple patented the base concept in 1992
Actually...it'd be more than PR they'd save. Apple patented the base concept in 1992
Already started. Doesn't need patents to invalidate. All you need is public knowledge of something roughly analogous that anticipates it to invalidate.
AssistiveWare's KeyStrokes was first published and sold to the world in 1996.
But...heh... Here's a patent (and an owner) that would be "entertaining" for this bunch: Apple patented the base concept in 1992.
They're suing over a dynamic interface keyboard that's on-screen or otherwise.
That's what they're suing them over.
They have prior art that they've not contemplated here. This program existed in it's earliest form in 1996. Which was a dynamic interface keyboard for assistive purposes.
I tire of this bullshit. What was done to "reform" patents did nothing of the sort.
Do you consider gold fungible?
Silver?
If so, your argument makes both of them non-fungible; which happens to be one of the silliest statements I've seen in a while.
Not all gold is placer nuggets and flakes- you have to refine a lot of it. Silver, you have to process it to get to it.
Gold is often extracted...
Silver is extracted and while it occurs in metal form has to typically be refined out of other things
It's a raw good. Raw goods are less fungible than the refined, but they're still fungible.
That's an artificial limitation, just so you know. It's not "hard" to get something that can support a wide range of distributions and versions thereof. I managed it with two indie titles and I'm working at even better.
Well, I guess doing that very thing for two indie titles and now commercial interests make me guilty of doing rocket-science.
This is another old rusty saw people trot out- mainly because they don't know how to manage what I did; and it's rather quite simple really.
Not to mention that much of the unemployment situation's not due to the article author's supposition (nor would doing what he claims FIX the problem...) but more due to many illegals taking positions and companies offshoring work.
What you say all depends on how much money they think they can extort out of you. If you don't have anything that is provided by the companies they represent, they owe you the expense of all your efforts- or be sued for far worse. If they think they can wring $50-150k and it'll only cost $20k in litigation, they WILL proceed if you don't respond. It's happened a lot before in the past.
As for not having disgruntled employees, yeah...but there's always going to be one out there you just can't please period.
Nice thoughts, your suggestions...sadly, they're more theory than reality.
Considering that I can train a dog to sit on cue, in a situation other than smelling something they're trained to detect, it should be noted that your reasoning is off.
KISS principle. If I had time I'd have designed it with only one part. I managed with two that's consistent. The less moving parts you can get away with, the better- whether it's a physical device or software.
No, but perhaps the two piece machine I did just now might be.
Heh... It utterly amazes me how many people buy into things begin legit, just because a company put it in the contract- and how few understand any aspects of contract law, but will say, "it's in the contract or terms of service," and therefore claim the company's in the rights. Especially here.
"Unlimited Data"... I honestly and dearly wish people would QUIT running that tired old argument up the flagpole- it's flatly false. Let's run some numbers...
Presume, if you will the theoretical max AT&T is providing in their non-HSPA+/LTE areas. This is 1.7Mbit up/ 0.7Mbit down. You get billed for any data transferred. If you're mostly streaming, the upstream will be negligible. So...
In 1 second, you will pull down roughly 217 kibytes of data.
In 1 minute, you will pull down roughly 12 Mibytes of data.
In 1 hour, you will pull down roughly 783 Mibytes of data.
In 1 day, you will pull down roughly 18 Gibytes of data.
In 1 week, you will pull down roughly 126 Gibytes of data.
This presumes no throttling whatsoever. Now, presume they throttle to EDGE speeds at 5Gibytes transferred.
In 1 second, you will pull down roughly 217 kibytes of data.
In 1 minute, you will pull down roughly 12 Mibytes of data.
In 1 hour, you will pull down roughly 783 Mibytes of data.
In less than 1 day, you will hit your cap- in fact, it'll be somewhere around 6 and a half hours in.
With this, you'll pull down the following:
In 1 day, you will pull down roughly 6.82 Gibytes of data.
In 1 week, you will pull down roughly 21.9 Gibytes of data.
126 != 21.9 Quite simply it's not "unlimited data" in the slightest as they're limiting just how much data you CAN get through the link by limiting your speed. It's why AT&T LOST the case in the first place.
Nah... It's just a rubber Ningi burning up in the sun...
You picked AppleTV to compare against. Let's try this with a slightly different tack...
XBox Classic: ~80 watts to watch a DVD, 100 watts peak while gaming.
PandaBoard: ~2-3 watts to watch a DVD (yes...) and 1-2 watts peak while gaming.
Yes and no. The 200% gain market is NOT sustainable- and you have to share with pretty much everyone else. It's a damned crapshoot and another bubble/gold-rush. Unless you're one of the disruptive plays there first, you're probably not going to gain a slot in the market to see the 200%- you'll see the 10% that you saw elsewhere; and you'll be working harder to get it.
It's also a free game on Google Play. They make money these days off of the ad-cashflow and the licensing opportunities on Angry Birds plushies, pencil toppers, etc. If it's popular, massive downloads does mean what the author says it does- he just uses chop-logic to get to the conclusion.
And, if you had the speculative bunch, coupled with the "analysts" we have these days, Edison wouldn't have gotten to the record player or the light bulb- because they'd have been bitching at him "wasting" all of that money on those 10k attempts and trying to tell him to quit doing it.
We need to quit calling them "shareholders" as the bunch you refer to are simply there to game the system and they're "sharesellers". A shareholder holds onto the purchase of shares for the purposes of dividends and long-term returns on their investments in question. Most "shareholders" hold on to the shares they buy for days or weeks and then sell it once they "turn a profit".
Considering that he's going to be in a Bradley that's RF shielded... It's not going to matter much unless they're making man-portable versions- and I suspect they'll have "armor" for the person wielding it, regardless of how bulky the stuff is.
Note to self... Never post before having your IV injection of caffene.
Now, one wonders... How is it that Stratfor, a private intelligence gathering interest (They called it a "think-tank", it's not QUITE that sort of interest...), be having this sort of information within themselves. It should be noted that a lot of damning info came out of the breach recently that pretty much devastates the Democratic Party's existence and places the current Administration's existence at risk (Being caught out explicitly screwing with the Presidential and other election processes will do that for you...)- are we sure that this "credit card" loss isn't just a smoke screen?