How about Apple is a company who provides a USB charger which doesn't follow the USB charging spec? They aren't alone in this either.
In what way doesn't it follow the USB spec? Apple's USB charger implements the USB power spec exactly - it will deliver 500 mA at 5V DC to any USB device plugged into it, exactly as the spec requires.
It can also break the spec and deliver more current (1 amp) to an iPhone or iPad, or any other device that behaves the same way by measuring the resistance across the data pins. Many other types of USB chargers also do this since 500 mA is pretty low and when the spec was implemented it was never imagined that it would be used to charge high power batteries.
Now you're changing your argument again - you said you couldn't find any examples - in fact, you said (quote) "In fact, there's nary one citation on the internet for such a thing." and now you're saying that the three examples I found within a few seconds of googling (quote) "does not normalcy make".
So which is it? There are no examples or that the examples I found really quickly (there are thousands of others) are invalid because you've changed your argument again.
We're going round in circles here; you lost the argument because you misunderstood a very common English phrase and you're now trying to double down with a semantic argument that the omission of and implied adjective somehow totally changes the original poster's position. It is obviously what the poster means, but the qualifier "of iOS9" in a topic about the software update makes the adjective "new" redundant. It is grammatically correct in either form (i.e., included or omitted) and does not change the meaning of the sentence.
It is especially silly when you try to shore up your argument by trying to equate it with a piece of incorrect English. The two situations are not alike because one is perfectly solid English grammar and the other is a common but incorrect contraction of two words into a non word.
Let's not even get back to your totally ridiculous assertion that the original poster is a paid-for shill because you deliberately (or otherwise) misrepresented his comment.
I assume you just don't get called on being wrong very often and it has annoyed you. If you want to borrow a shovel to keep digging then I have one right here for you.
What secret? I'm perfectly happy to stand behind my comments.
You're trying to deflect the argument with a non-sequitur. Your original, highly antagonistic and accusatory post, that the original commenter was literally a paid shill for Apple, was based on you being unable to comprehend a basic piece of English language.
Like I said, it was a pretty basic construction that is used frequently in common English, especially when paired with a qualifier as it was in the original poster's comment.
You either deliberately took the comment out of context to try and claim he was a shill or you just didn't understand the phrase. Either way you were wrong and have been trying to twist in the wind to try and bluster your way out of the argument. There's no way out though - your original comment was plain wrong.
I can assure you that I purchased more Apple devices in just this one year than you've purchased in your entire life. (I gifted and outfitted the the local elementary school with iPads - they only have 56 students and I purchased 12 extras for when they have problems.)
How is that relevant to your inability to comprehend a pretty common piece of English language?
Uh huh... If you meant that then you'd have said that. It's nice that you tried the same excuse that the AC used. You couldn't even come up with your own excuse. Pathetic. *snickers*
I never post as AC. Now you're ignoring basic and easily verifiable facts like the fact that people who disagree with you are logged in. It's no wonder you have trouble comprehending common English phrases.
You're doubling down on your argument, but it doesn't make it any more right.
It's a very common English turn of phrase that the original commenter used that you have chosen to deliberately (possibly, but maybe not, in which case I'm sorry for the heavy burden you carry day to day) misunderstand to make a ludicrous accusation that he is a paid-for shill.
Like I said, the red mist of apple hate is blinding you to the obvious.
Do iPhones not have a way to easily turn off mobile data? On Android it is right at the top.
They do. It's in the settings near the top and is pretty granular (you can turn 4G on and off, and also control specific apps).
The problem with the new feature was that it was on by default and the setting to control it was at the bottom of the app list in the cellular settings.
That's the *best* feature? Really? Really? Not the ability to make a fucking phone call but WiFi Assist is the *best* feature "for me."
What's this? I don't even... Do you get paid to post that shit? I don't think I've ever accused anyone of being a shill (except for gangadude who invites it with his signature and then only in jest as a 'shill for the marijuana industry') but I am wondering if this might actually be a paid post. No, not the ability to make a phone call, that's not the best feature. The best feature is a wireless assist technology that, it appears, causes people to spend money they didn't know they were going to be obligated to pay.
Yup. That's the absolutely bestest fucking feature on the phone. I hope, for your sake, you're drunk or have the phone shoved up your ass so that you're able to get a little prostate massage from it. Want me to call so it vibrates?
Best feature... *sighs*
He said the "best feature of iOS9", as in "the best feature that was added with the update".
The phone already made calls. It wasn't a new feature added in the update to iOS9.
It seems like you've lost the ability to read and parse the English language as the red mist of apple hate has descended on you.
I don't see anything describing a low/no water safety shutoff. So hackers can turn it to 100C right when you leave the house in the morning and have your house burnt down by lunchtime?
Also, it seems that a wifi control app would be ideal for a sous vide cooker. That shouldn't be much more complicated than a crockpot, why are they so damn expensive?
It's a kettle. It has low/no water safety shutoff as a given.
That's like criticising a computer for not advertising that the CPU has a thermal protection system built into it.
OK, this is the sort of question that could be answered by RTFA, however when it's a 40-minute long video, I don't feel as bad.
When configuring Siri for voice activation, you go through some steps that give the impression that it's tuning the activation for your specific pattern of speech. Which presumably is to prevent false activation when somebody next to you is using the feature on their phone.
Assuming this is actually happening, would that prevent this sort of attack?
I doubt it. The voice training just makes Siri respond more effectively to you when there are other noises around during activation. It can still be activated by someone else saying "Hey Siri" even after this training step (although commands are more limited if the iPhone is locked).
Ah, I see my mistake. I was confusing "itvplayer" with "iplayer".
Ah, yes, that would do it. Yes, the other commercial providers in the UK (ITV, Channel 4 etc) have adverts on their players.
Strangely the adverts are always in super high definition and load instantly while the content itself is potato quality and often fails to load. Was never a fan of Channel 4's player in particular unless it has been vastly improved.
Inter titles are the things they show between shows, like the channel branding or upcoming pieces for shows on the network.
On the iPlayer site (I live in the UK) these commercials are not present, nor are there any markers visible in the timeline that indicate where one would be. This was my confusion. I assume they appear in the same way that the ads do in youtube timelines?
If these are present in your version of iPlayer, I assume they are inserted by the vpn host or something? They are definitely not present in iPlayer as served up by the BBC in the UK.
So their concern comes down to people accessing content that they aren't paying for? Then charge for access. They estimate 60 million people outside the UK are accessing. That's a large potential market.
I'm currently paying for VPN service to watch shows with iPlayer. I would be happy to just pay them directly.
The BBC doesn't estimate that number - that number has been suggested by third parties and the BBC has suggested that the number is nowhere near accurate.
The other point is that they *do* charge for access outside the UK, but via their for-profit arm BBC Worldwide, which handles distribution of their content to non-UK markets. Due to various legal reasons in the way the BBC is funded, they have to do it this way, and the profits they can receive back from BBC Worldwide from these overseas sales are limited by legal limitations.
They understand how big the market is but they are legally hamstrung in being able to access it.
So some bright parliamentarian should propose changing the law. People want to pay for our content? Then take their money.
It doesn't even have to be a "for-profit" scenario, if that contravenes the BBC's mandate. Just charge what it takes to cover the cost of distribution. With iPlayer it's not even possible to skip over the ads. Even their advertisers should be happy with more eyeballs viewing their content.
Right now parliament is not where the BBC wants to go for support - the current conservative government wants nothing more than to cripple the BBC. They certainly want the licence fee to go away, or better yet, attach even more restrictive conditions to it that prevent the BBC from being able to compete with the wealthy donor to the tories - Rupert Murdoch.
Also, there aren't any adverts on iPlayer, unless you mean the intertitles?
So their concern comes down to people accessing content that they aren't paying for? Then charge for access. They estimate 60 million people outside the UK are accessing. That's a large potential market.
I'm currently paying for VPN service to watch shows with iPlayer. I would be happy to just pay them directly.
The BBC doesn't estimate that number - that number has been suggested by third parties and the BBC has suggested that the number is nowhere near accurate.
The other point is that they *do* charge for access outside the UK, but via their for-profit arm BBC Worldwide, which handles distribution of their content to non-UK markets. Due to various legal reasons in the way the BBC is funded, they have to do it this way, and the profits they can receive back from BBC Worldwide from these overseas sales are limited by legal limitations.
They understand how big the market is but they are legally hamstrung in being able to access it.
The BBC are indeed biased towards the Tory party. But it would be worse if the UK didn't have a public sector broadcaster. Look at Fox News!
It's always hilarious to read about which way they think the BBC is biased. Just in this article alone the BBC has been accused of being both "biased towards the left" and "biased towards the Tories".
I think that might suggest more about the viewer than the organisation - in other words, that it is actually pretty balanced overall.
As a UK resident and license fee payer, I have no problem whatsoever with non-UK residents watching the BBC.. I don't really understand why the BBC has a problem with it, it doesn't affect the amount of money they receive so who cares who watches it?
They are legally obliged to care about it due to the way they are funded.
A design patent suit is comparable to a trademark suit.
What's your point? Does that make it less valid than a lawsuit over a method patent?
I suppose if you attribute lesser value to the design of a product or the company's service and trade marks than you do on the method behind creating them, but that's a very naive view. I am assuming that's not your angle.
Using a design patent in litigation against their supplier Samsung is mostly what the sneering is about. Who uses a design patent offensively?
How was it used offensively? The very nature of a design patent is that if someone infringes on it you can sue them. There's no "offense" there from the holder, merely reactive defence. So the answer is no one uses a design patent offensively, everyone who has one can defend it if another party infringes on it.
And no, "mostly" the sneering is that they have a design patent at all, not the way in which they defend it. Are you reading the same slashdot? Maybe beta mode changes the meanings of everything as well as the layout.
I'm curious, have others licensed this tech, or is Apple simply the first to get sued? The article mentioned Intel, but what about other mobile manufacturers?
From the claims in the patent (branch prediction) I assume Apple thought they were covered, since it's hardly a new kid on the block in processor terms. As it turns out, they sued Intel for this same issue 5 years ago - not sure how that went.
These university patents are paid for by the tax-paying public, why does this no longer make them public domain?
Why would they be?
It's not a requirement that the fruits of your research be automatically public domain if you have a source of public funds. Tax money is not the only source of income for these sorts of research groups and spin out companies.
They frequently offer very favourable terms for non-commercial use, and make the meat of the licensing revenue on commercial interest. The purpose of doing it this way is to flow money back into the university. If it was all public domain then companies (like Apple) could just use the product of the research for no input. This way the university makes that tax money go further.
but anyone who tries to patent rounded courners and then sues deserves to lose patent lawsuits.
Apple did a lame job in protecting their IP: patenting smart corners, instead of something more vital about their type of product, such as the concept of an integrated app store, and the kind of applications they brought to the platform, but the iPhone, their implementation of the smartphone truly was an innovation that got stolen by now competitors (e.g. Android).....
I'm not sure why they bothered with superficial patents on things like the shape of the device's packaging, which was probably the least-important aspect of the product beyond initial marketing and making the device look 'cool' to prospective buyers.
They have a design patent on the shape of the packaging and the look of the device because that is how business works. Ford have a design patent on the way the Mustang looks. Coke have a design patent on the way a coke bottle looks. A design patent is an incredibly common thing and it is subtly different from a method patent (such as the processor one that Apple has infringed).
It seems on slashdot, however, that Apple is apparently held to a different standard about how it conducts business - somehow a design patent on the iPhone is bad, yet the design patent Google holds on the Google Glass, or the Nexus, or the Chomecast, or Ford's design patent on the Mustang, or the Fiesta, or the Focus and Samsung's design patent on their TVs, and Galaxy line of smartphones or Coke's design patent on the Coca Cola bottle are all ok.
But no, Apple isn't allowed to have design patents - that somehow makes them evil.
What an enlightened response. You were probably posting the same thing when people like me were warning that the government was domestic spying. But yeah, we were just paranoid, the government would never do that....
Your order of straw has arrived for the construction of your argument.
Who said I didn't believe the government was heavily involved in domestic spying? That has been obvious since the 50's. It has nothing to do with the level of paranoia expressed from believing that your fingerprint can be reverse engineered from a hash stored in your phone.
Can you recover my 35 character password after it's been salted and hashed?
Lol. Samsung were working on a watch before Mac rumours even suggested the idea. As for unusable, it doesn't seem any different to the iWatch, I've used both and both are equally useless though at least Samsung's has longer battery life.
Who said anything about first tablet? Please read my post before rebuffing. I was talking about the iPad mini. The one that Apple said it would never do until they saw the success of the Galaxy Note series and then had to be in the market.
As for stylus, please. Comparing the tablet market of today to the Newton is grasping for straws. Especially since it was Apple who said you shouldn't have a stylus on a tablet... oh until they decided they needed a iPad Pro to compete with Samsung.
mmmm Apple juice.
Of course it's grasping at straws - it's making fun of your entire straw man argument.
Also, you have it wrong on the iPad Pro - Apple aren't competing with Samsung there, they're competing with Microsoft. The Surface Pro is the reason Apple made the iPad Pro. Samsung had nothing to do with it. You should at least try to have a small understanding of Apple's competitors before trying to look smart. Of course, you did it because you're trying to use it to bolster your "Apple stole the stylus idea from Samsung" argument so I can see why you'd want to distort the truth, it just makes you look transparently silly.
And as for "working on the watch long before mac rumours suggested it" you're right - they probably were, but how does what one rumour site say relate to what Apple is doing? I'm struggling to see how what a non-affliated website says in any way is proof that Samsung was working on a smartwatch before Apple was. You'll have to help me there, the logic escapes me. More Hate Mist of Fact Obscurity I suspect.
Slashdot Mirror
Who said competition with other companies?
How about Apple is a company who provides a USB charger which doesn't follow the USB charging spec?
They aren't alone in this either.
In what way doesn't it follow the USB spec? Apple's USB charger implements the USB power spec exactly - it will deliver 500 mA at 5V DC to any USB device plugged into it, exactly as the spec requires.
It can also break the spec and deliver more current (1 amp) to an iPhone or iPad, or any other device that behaves the same way by measuring the resistance across the data pins. Many other types of USB chargers also do this since 500 mA is pretty low and when the spec was implemented it was never imagined that it would be used to charge high power batteries.
Now you're changing your argument again - you said you couldn't find any examples - in fact, you said (quote) "In fact, there's nary one citation on the internet for such a thing." and now you're saying that the three examples I found within a few seconds of googling (quote) "does not normalcy make".
So which is it? There are no examples or that the examples I found really quickly (there are thousands of others) are invalid because you've changed your argument again.
We're going round in circles here; you lost the argument because you misunderstood a very common English phrase and you're now trying to double down with a semantic argument that the omission of and implied adjective somehow totally changes the original poster's position. It is obviously what the poster means, but the qualifier "of iOS9" in a topic about the software update makes the adjective "new" redundant. It is grammatically correct in either form (i.e., included or omitted) and does not change the meaning of the sentence.
It is especially silly when you try to shore up your argument by trying to equate it with a piece of incorrect English. The two situations are not alike because one is perfectly solid English grammar and the other is a common but incorrect contraction of two words into a non word.
Let's not even get back to your totally ridiculous assertion that the original poster is a paid-for shill because you deliberately (or otherwise) misrepresented his comment.
I assume you just don't get called on being wrong very often and it has annoyed you. If you want to borrow a shovel to keep digging then I have one right here for you.
What secret? I'm perfectly happy to stand behind my comments.
You're trying to deflect the argument with a non-sequitur. Your original, highly antagonistic and accusatory post, that the original commenter was literally a paid shill for Apple, was based on you being unable to comprehend a basic piece of English language.
For example, here is a piece from the verge using the same turn of phrase: http://www.theverge.com/2015/9...
Here's Cnet talking about Windows 10 using the same phrase structure in a video: http://www.cnet.com/videos/bes...
Here's Extreme Tech using the same turn of phrase to discuss the iPhone 6: http://www.extremetech.com/mob...
Like I said, it was a pretty basic construction that is used frequently in common English, especially when paired with a qualifier as it was in the original poster's comment.
You either deliberately took the comment out of context to try and claim he was a shill or you just didn't understand the phrase. Either way you were wrong and have been trying to twist in the wind to try and bluster your way out of the argument. There's no way out though - your original comment was plain wrong.
I can assure you that I purchased more Apple devices in just this one year than you've purchased in your entire life. (I gifted and outfitted the the local elementary school with iPads - they only have 56 students and I purchased 12 extras for when they have problems.)
How is that relevant to your inability to comprehend a pretty common piece of English language?
Uh huh... If you meant that then you'd have said that. It's nice that you tried the same excuse that the AC used. You couldn't even come up with your own excuse. Pathetic. *snickers*
I never post as AC. Now you're ignoring basic and easily verifiable facts like the fact that people who disagree with you are logged in. It's no wonder you have trouble comprehending common English phrases.
You're doubling down on your argument, but it doesn't make it any more right.
It's a very common English turn of phrase that the original commenter used that you have chosen to deliberately (possibly, but maybe not, in which case I'm sorry for the heavy burden you carry day to day) misunderstand to make a ludicrous accusation that he is a paid-for shill.
Like I said, the red mist of apple hate is blinding you to the obvious.
Do iPhones not have a way to easily turn off mobile data? On Android it is right at the top.
They do. It's in the settings near the top and is pretty granular (you can turn 4G on and off, and also control specific apps).
The problem with the new feature was that it was on by default and the setting to control it was at the bottom of the app list in the cellular settings.
That's the *best* feature? Really? Really? Not the ability to make a fucking phone call but WiFi Assist is the *best* feature "for me."
What's this? I don't even... Do you get paid to post that shit? I don't think I've ever accused anyone of being a shill (except for gangadude who invites it with his signature and then only in jest as a 'shill for the marijuana industry') but I am wondering if this might actually be a paid post. No, not the ability to make a phone call, that's not the best feature. The best feature is a wireless assist technology that, it appears, causes people to spend money they didn't know they were going to be obligated to pay.
Yup. That's the absolutely bestest fucking feature on the phone. I hope, for your sake, you're drunk or have the phone shoved up your ass so that you're able to get a little prostate massage from it. Want me to call so it vibrates?
Best feature... *sighs*
He said the "best feature of iOS9", as in "the best feature that was added with the update".
The phone already made calls. It wasn't a new feature added in the update to iOS9.
It seems like you've lost the ability to read and parse the English language as the red mist of apple hate has descended on you.
I don't see anything describing a low/no water safety shutoff. So hackers can turn it to 100C right when you leave the house in the morning and have your house burnt down by lunchtime?
Also, it seems that a wifi control app would be ideal for a sous vide cooker. That shouldn't be much more complicated than a crockpot, why are they so damn expensive?
It's a kettle. It has low/no water safety shutoff as a given.
That's like criticising a computer for not advertising that the CPU has a thermal protection system built into it.
A coffee maker doesn't heat the water to sufficient temperature to make tea.
OK, this is the sort of question that could be answered by RTFA, however when it's a 40-minute long video, I don't feel as bad.
When configuring Siri for voice activation, you go through some steps that give the impression that it's tuning the activation for your specific pattern of speech. Which presumably is to prevent false activation when somebody next to you is using the feature on their phone.
Assuming this is actually happening, would that prevent this sort of attack?
I doubt it. The voice training just makes Siri respond more effectively to you when there are other noises around during activation. It can still be activated by someone else saying "Hey Siri" even after this training step (although commands are more limited if the iPhone is locked).
Ah, I see my mistake. I was confusing "itvplayer" with "iplayer".
Ah, yes, that would do it. Yes, the other commercial providers in the UK (ITV, Channel 4 etc) have adverts on their players.
Strangely the adverts are always in super high definition and load instantly while the content itself is potato quality and often fails to load. Was never a fan of Channel 4's player in particular unless it has been vastly improved.
Inter titles are the things they show between shows, like the channel branding or upcoming pieces for shows on the network.
On the iPlayer site (I live in the UK) these commercials are not present, nor are there any markers visible in the timeline that indicate where one would be. This was my confusion. I assume they appear in the same way that the ads do in youtube timelines?
If these are present in your version of iPlayer, I assume they are inserted by the vpn host or something? They are definitely not present in iPlayer as served up by the BBC in the UK.
So their concern comes down to people accessing content that they aren't paying for? Then charge for access. They estimate 60 million people outside the UK are accessing. That's a large potential market.
I'm currently paying for VPN service to watch shows with iPlayer. I would be happy to just pay them directly.
The BBC doesn't estimate that number - that number has been suggested by third parties and the BBC has suggested that the number is nowhere near accurate.
The other point is that they *do* charge for access outside the UK, but via their for-profit arm BBC Worldwide, which handles distribution of their content to non-UK markets. Due to various legal reasons in the way the BBC is funded, they have to do it this way, and the profits they can receive back from BBC Worldwide from these overseas sales are limited by legal limitations.
They understand how big the market is but they are legally hamstrung in being able to access it.
So some bright parliamentarian should propose changing the law. People want to pay for our content? Then take their money.
It doesn't even have to be a "for-profit" scenario, if that contravenes the BBC's mandate. Just charge what it takes to cover the cost of distribution. With iPlayer it's not even possible to skip over the ads. Even their advertisers should be happy with more eyeballs viewing their content.
Right now parliament is not where the BBC wants to go for support - the current conservative government wants nothing more than to cripple the BBC. They certainly want the licence fee to go away, or better yet, attach even more restrictive conditions to it that prevent the BBC from being able to compete with the wealthy donor to the tories - Rupert Murdoch.
Also, there aren't any adverts on iPlayer, unless you mean the intertitles?
So their concern comes down to people accessing content that they aren't paying for? Then charge for access. They estimate 60 million people outside the UK are accessing. That's a large potential market.
I'm currently paying for VPN service to watch shows with iPlayer. I would be happy to just pay them directly.
The BBC doesn't estimate that number - that number has been suggested by third parties and the BBC has suggested that the number is nowhere near accurate.
The other point is that they *do* charge for access outside the UK, but via their for-profit arm BBC Worldwide, which handles distribution of their content to non-UK markets. Due to various legal reasons in the way the BBC is funded, they have to do it this way, and the profits they can receive back from BBC Worldwide from these overseas sales are limited by legal limitations.
They understand how big the market is but they are legally hamstrung in being able to access it.
The BBC are indeed biased towards the Tory party. But it would be worse if the UK didn't have a public sector broadcaster. Look at Fox News!
It's always hilarious to read about which way they think the BBC is biased. Just in this article alone the BBC has been accused of being both "biased towards the left" and "biased towards the Tories".
I think that might suggest more about the viewer than the organisation - in other words, that it is actually pretty balanced overall.
As a UK resident and license fee payer, I have no problem whatsoever with non-UK residents watching the BBC.. I don't really understand why the BBC has a problem with it, it doesn't affect the amount of money they receive so who cares who watches it?
They are legally obliged to care about it due to the way they are funded.
A design patent suit is comparable to a trademark suit.
What's your point? Does that make it less valid than a lawsuit over a method patent?
I suppose if you attribute lesser value to the design of a product or the company's service and trade marks than you do on the method behind creating them, but that's a very naive view. I am assuming that's not your angle.
Using a design patent in litigation against their supplier Samsung is mostly what the sneering is about. Who uses a design patent offensively?
How was it used offensively? The very nature of a design patent is that if someone infringes on it you can sue them. There's no "offense" there from the holder, merely reactive defence. So the answer is no one uses a design patent offensively, everyone who has one can defend it if another party infringes on it.
And no, "mostly" the sneering is that they have a design patent at all, not the way in which they defend it. Are you reading the same slashdot? Maybe beta mode changes the meanings of everything as well as the layout.
I'm curious, have others licensed this tech, or is Apple simply the first to get sued? The article mentioned Intel, but what about other mobile manufacturers?
From the claims in the patent (branch prediction) I assume Apple thought they were covered, since it's hardly a new kid on the block in processor terms. As it turns out, they sued Intel for this same issue 5 years ago - not sure how that went.
These university patents are paid for by the tax-paying public, why does this no longer make them public domain?
Why would they be?
It's not a requirement that the fruits of your research be automatically public domain if you have a source of public funds. Tax money is not the only source of income for these sorts of research groups and spin out companies.
They frequently offer very favourable terms for non-commercial use, and make the meat of the licensing revenue on commercial interest. The purpose of doing it this way is to flow money back into the university. If it was all public domain then companies (like Apple) could just use the product of the research for no input. This way the university makes that tax money go further.
but anyone who tries to patent rounded courners and then sues deserves to lose patent lawsuits.
Apple did a lame job in protecting their IP: patenting smart corners, instead of something more vital about their type of product, such as the concept of an integrated app store, and the kind of applications they brought to the platform, but the iPhone, their implementation of the smartphone truly was an innovation that got stolen by now competitors (e.g. Android).....
I'm not sure why they bothered with superficial patents on things like the shape of the device's packaging, which was probably the least-important aspect of the product beyond initial marketing and making the device look 'cool' to prospective buyers.
They have a design patent on the shape of the packaging and the look of the device because that is how business works. Ford have a design patent on the way the Mustang looks. Coke have a design patent on the way a coke bottle looks. A design patent is an incredibly common thing and it is subtly different from a method patent (such as the processor one that Apple has infringed).
It seems on slashdot, however, that Apple is apparently held to a different standard about how it conducts business - somehow a design patent on the iPhone is bad, yet the design patent Google holds on the Google Glass, or the Nexus, or the Chomecast, or Ford's design patent on the Mustang, or the Fiesta, or the Focus and Samsung's design patent on their TVs, and Galaxy line of smartphones or Coke's design patent on the Coca Cola bottle are all ok.
But no, Apple isn't allowed to have design patents - that somehow makes them evil.
Lost the charger for your trimmer?
That itchy neckbeard is clearly affecting your mood.
What an enlightened response. You were probably posting the same thing when people like me were warning that the government was domestic spying. But yeah, we were just paranoid, the government would never do that....
Your order of straw has arrived for the construction of your argument.
Who said I didn't believe the government was heavily involved in domestic spying? That has been obvious since the 50's. It has nothing to do with the level of paranoia expressed from believing that your fingerprint can be reverse engineered from a hash stored in your phone.
Can you recover my 35 character password after it's been salted and hashed?
Lol. Samsung were working on a watch before Mac rumours even suggested the idea. As for unusable, it doesn't seem any different to the iWatch, I've used both and both are equally useless though at least Samsung's has longer battery life.
Who said anything about first tablet? Please read my post before rebuffing. I was talking about the iPad mini. The one that Apple said it would never do until they saw the success of the Galaxy Note series and then had to be in the market.
As for stylus, please. Comparing the tablet market of today to the Newton is grasping for straws. Especially since it was Apple who said you shouldn't have a stylus on a tablet... oh until they decided they needed a iPad Pro to compete with Samsung.
mmmm Apple juice.
Of course it's grasping at straws - it's making fun of your entire straw man argument.
Also, you have it wrong on the iPad Pro - Apple aren't competing with Samsung there, they're competing with Microsoft. The Surface Pro is the reason Apple made the iPad Pro. Samsung had nothing to do with it. You should at least try to have a small understanding of Apple's competitors before trying to look smart. Of course, you did it because you're trying to use it to bolster your "Apple stole the stylus idea from Samsung" argument so I can see why you'd want to distort the truth, it just makes you look transparently silly.
And as for "working on the watch long before mac rumours suggested it" you're right - they probably were, but how does what one rumour site say relate to what Apple is doing? I'm struggling to see how what a non-affliated website says in any way is proof that Samsung was working on a smartwatch before Apple was. You'll have to help me there, the logic escapes me. More Hate Mist of Fact Obscurity I suspect.