Of corse it reflects at some wavelengths - but it also strongly absorbs at others (namely the in the band of reflected IR that comes back from the earth's surface).
A large portion of the sun's energy is reflected back into space by the gasses and vapour in the atmosphere (the albedo effect of clouds can sometimes be as high as 0.7 to 0.8), but while the simultaneously reflect a lot of solar radiation away before it reaches the ground, they also absorb a great deal of the IR is is radiated away from the surface. So you claim that it "reflects radiation (not absorbs it)" is flat out wrong - it always absorbs and always reflects at the appropriate wavelengths. Just because you increase its concentration does not mean that suddenly that those oxygen-hydrogen bonds stop vibrating at that particular frequency (unless you condense it into a liquid and so that hydrogen bonding has an effect, but it still absorbs it just changes the wavelength slightly.
There are plenty of ways to "test" for this - observing the Earth's albedo is one way and tracking it over time and with cloud cover. You can also use a spectrometer to analyse the wavelengths of light that are reflected (and to what degree) in representative samples of atmosphere.
You make it sound like it's some sort of "untestable magic".
No, Apple cannot break that agreement - they are not a signatory to it. The RAND terms that cover the 3G patents apply to corporations that have patents in the standard - Apple does not. Its relationship to the 3G patents is as a licensee, ie, a vendor who makes a device that cannot function without using the RAND-covered patents.
Apple cannot do anything to "break" that agreement other than "not pay", and they have paid.
No, it's not - he specifically said he wanted Apple to lose in a way that only affected them, and that prevented Samsung from going after companies that he deems have been playing "fair" (notwithstanding this particular act being unfair, and thus hypocritical, but we'll ignore that).
In other words "it's fine to bend the law to hurt Apple, but after that we'll stick to the book".
That's not the issue here - the issue is that Samsung seemingly wants to use a FRAND-covered patent selectively.
Apple has already paid to use the 3G patents (they're covered via Intel), so for Samsung to claim that they are in violation of this particular patent (which they themselves claim is essential to 3G) then everyone else is also in violation, and they must also be sued (due to the RAND terms).
Either everyone is in violation, or no one is, or the patent is not an essential part of the 3G spec. One of those three things must be true. It is not possible for Apple *alone* to be in violation - RAND terms (if the patent is essential to 3G) mean that Samsung cannot selectively enforce the patent.
Hate Apple as much as you like, but Samsung is trying to play outside the rules.
Apple has a licence to the 3G patent pool via Intel. Of course they have paid - that's the whole point of the RAND terms that cover the standard. If you want to use 3G in your product, you pay the RAND licence cost, either by cross licencing your own patents or by paying in cash (if you don;t have any of your own patents to license, or you just prefer not to).
That's the point of a RAND licence system when creating standards - if you want to have a patent in that standard, you have to licence it to everyone who wants to use it for the same value (because they have no choice *but* to use it, since it is part of the standard). You cannot selectively licence it, or charge more for it to different people.
Even Samsung is not arguing that Apple haven't paid to use the 3G patents (they have admitted it openly) - they're arguing one of their patents is essential to the 3G standard and that *only* Apple is infringing - they cannot do this, it's one or the other: either everyone is infringing, or it's not an essential 3G patent.
No it's not that at all - Apple have paid the 3G licence cost, it;s just that Samsung is claiming there is an additional patent that is essential to the 3G standard that is not covered. If this is the case, then Apple are not the only ones violating the patent (and cannot be sued alone - if Samsung want to sue *only* Apple for an essential 3G patent that is not covered already then they have to sue everyone).
You don't have to cross licence IP to pay to use RAND-covered standards - you can pay cash, or part pay in cash and part in cross licensed patents etc. RAND terms mean "x value, in some form, cash also acceptable, where x is the value everyone pays"
It is very definitely *not* Samsung's choice how they choose to licence their technology *if it is a necessary part of the 3G standard* as Samsung themselves are claiming. If it is, then they *must* follow the RAND terms that govern that standard. It's the price for having a patent in the standard - it's a sure fire revenue stream from everyone who wants to use the standard, but it means you cannot play favourites.
It's only an issue if the patent in question is an essential part of the 3G standard. If it is, then Samsung are not playing by the rules if they want to selectively sue Apple for it (no matter how much anyone loves or hates Apple/Samsung etc - regardless of where anyone stands).
From the way it seems, Samsung want to have their cake and eat it too - they are saying "the patent is essential to 3G, thus it is obvious that Apple are violating it since their phone uses 3G chipsets in it" and "therefore we will sue you, oh and it's not covered by the RAND 3G patent licence fee that Apple has already paid". The two things simply cannot be, unless everyone else who makes 3G devices is also in violation (and due to RAND terms will also have to be sued, or will have to pay whatever the fee is that Apple ends up paying if they lose the suit)
It's within the powers of those who feel they have been infringed to do so.
The physical shape of the LG Prada looks very much like an iPhone 3G, but the UI looks nothing like it - this is an example of the whole "just because it has rounded corners and a black, shiny face" issue. It's not enough to just make it look the same physically (although it is certainly possible - just try making a car that looks identical to a Mustang, for example).
Of course it's paying - Apple has a licence to the 3G patents under the RAND terms via Intel.
Why would they need to contribute to a finished standard? The purpose of fixing it as a standard is so that manufacturers can make devices that all interoperate with each other. Just because a particular manufacturer didn't put a patent "into the hat" when the standard was created doesn't mean they can be kept out of the market - that's the entire point of the RAND terms!
Apple has a 3G licence. It covers all the patents that are essential to the 3G standard.
Samsung are claiming that this one patent they are suing over is a) essential to the 3G standard and b) that Apple are infringing.
This is not possible. Either it is not in the 3G standard, or Apple are not infringing (because they have paid the RAND licence costs already).
Samsung cannot have it both ways, unless they also sue everyone else who makes a 3G device for patent violation (and they must - if they sue one, they must sue them all, or negotiate with all of them to pay the same amount).
Again with this. It's not just "rounded corners" it's making a phone that looks exactly like an iPhone. It's all the design elements when considered as a whole.
Making a phone with rounded corners is totally fine (there are lots of them that Apple have not sued over). Similarly there are lots of UIs with icons in a grid.
What makes the lawsuit stand up is combining several elements together that on their own are not something you could sue over, into a compound entity that does infringe on the iPhone. When the first thing a number of independent reviewers say is "looks great, but it's awfully similar to the iPhone" you know they went too far with the copying of the design.
Again, for clarity, Apple do not have "exclusivity to make devices with rounded corners", but they do have exclusivity to make devices that look identical to the iPhone.
Of course it does - the reason it exists is to facilitate useful standards. What's the point of a standard if one company can dictate its use? This is why things like GSM and 3G that are required for a standard communication system have RAND terms applied to them - so that if a company wants to put forward a patented tech for the standard, they can't do so for anti-competitve reasons; everyone who wants to build a cellphone that works on the GSM system pays the same amount to use the patents that went into the GSM spec.
In this case, anyone who wants to build a device with 3G capability has to pay the same amount of money (or equivalent if cross licensing) as anyone else. If Samsung are claiming that *only* Apple are not covered by the 3G RAND licensing that they have already paid, then they are not playing by the RAND rules. In other words, if they are arguing that the patent in question that they are accusing Apple of violating is a necessary part of the 3G standard and that the current RAND agreement for 3G patents doesn't cover it then everyone else who makes a 3G compatible device is also not covered so Samsung would be obligated to either sue (or negotiate) with all of them to pay the same price or agree that it was already covered under the licenses already paid for.
When it applies to a standard like this, the terms apply to all of the players involved. If Bob Smith decides to make a cellphone, he pays the same as Apple, HTC, Microsoft, Sony etc for the right to use the GSM/3G standard.
Samsung can't selectively enforce a patent with a single party and simultaneously claim that patent is a part of a standard covered under RAND terms - it's either not an essential part of the spec, or they have to sue everyone for violating (or settle with everyone for the same amount).
No, you don't necessarily need to remove the chlorine, although that is beneficial (the fluorine is just too electronegative to really want to leave the parent carbon, so it doesn't act in the catalytic ozone depletion cycle like chlorine and bromine do). The idea behind HCFCs is that the addition of at least one hydrogen makes the compound much easier to break down, so the majority of it is destroyed in the lower layers of the atmosphere long before it gets up into the stratosphere where the destruction cycle occurs.
They're still not ideal - they're very potent greenhouse gasses (on the order of hundreds or thousands of times more than CO2), and they still can release the damaging radicals, but due to their ease of breakdown relative to plain CFCs their effect on the ozone layer is negligible (but not zero).
The only difference between HFCs and HCFCs is that the latter contain chlorine while the former only contain fluorine. Both contain hydrogen in at least one position to make them more susceptible to breakdown before they reach the stratosphere (although with only fluorine, HFCs have no effect on the ozone layer, they too are potent greenhouse gasses).
They happen at specific times of year due to the way the climate works. Over the winter time there is a buildup of various precursor compounds related to the depletion cycle that get trapped in the Arctic and Antarctic (eg, CFCs and NOx compounds that don;t destroy ozone directly but break down to form things that do). When the spring arrives the amount of UV energy falling on that region increases and starts a very rapid breakdown of compounds - many of which release the chlorine radical and other species that have a chlorine or bromine radical. This sudden increase in concentration of these catalytic ozone depleters causes a sudden drop in ozone concentration over a short period of time.
The species are also long lived, so the ozone layer doesn't fully recover by the next spring cycle and it starts again with fresh breakdown products.
Yes, I can see how a trademark application that was applied for in 2007 when the original iPhone launched finally being decided on in 2011 as a clear indication that Apple is "floundering" now that Steve Jobs has moved from CEO to chairman of the board.
Perhaps because it's not a patent, but a trademark?
Did you read the summary?
Either way, trademarks are designed to differentiate company products from competitors (so Burger King can't sell you a Big Mac, for example), but in the case of multi touch being descriptive the decision was correct - it is a generic term, so the trademark was rejected. It has taken them since 2007 to come to the decision though.
There's chlorine in the *current* products - Permatente Mist contains CFC-12 and CFC-114 - dichlorodifluoromethane and 1,2-dichlorotetrafluoroethane.
Both of those compounds contain chlorine - that's what makes them effective ozone destroying compounds.
They're also many hundreds of times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, but that is offset by the very low concentrations - the same is true of HCFCs.
You also say "there's chlorine in the alternatives" and go on to call them HFCs - there is no chlorine in an HFC molecule (there are several different ones).
Yes, that "proprietary shape" ability means you can squeeze every last little bit of extra space in the device into useful battery capacity, unlike a battery shape that had to be designed to be removable (along with the space that has to be given up for the battery bay itself and the door mechanism etc).
It sounds like you're suggesting the only reason manufacturers moved to LiPoly over Li-ion is because it meant they could make batteries that were incompatible with other devices.
Oddly enough, the Li-poly battery in the "king of lockdown" Apple iPhone that I just replaced is a nice, proprietary.... rectangle. It doesn't even have "patented" rounded corners! The shock is palpable.
Apple also deserves a mention for pioneering the idea of packing the battery into the hard to open case of the phone/laptop itself, forcing 99% of the people who own these products to buy a new one as soon as the battery dies.
It took me 10 minutes to change a dead battery in an iPhone 3GS, and that included making a cup of tea.
The battery swap in a Macbook Pro is similarly very simple (it's as easy to get to as adding/changing RAM - the battery is right next to the RAM slots).
If you think it's hard to open, you've been listening to the conspiracy theorists a little too much or you've never actually tried it yourself.
Far from the built in battery being a sinister ploy to "enforce obsolescence", might I suggest Occam's Razor? Built in batteries can be bigger, and with less design compromise since you don't need a battery bay and associated pieces, or the requirement to have the battery accessible from the outside, meaning you can also have odd shapes and so on. The reason built in batteries work well is that their downsides are considerably less than their benefits - namely higher battery capacity and smaller, sleeker devices.
Any electronics manufacturer will be jumping on improved battery tech like a tramp on hot chips since the benefits far outweigh any conspiracy theories about "the upgrade treadmill".
Slashdot Mirror
Of corse it reflects at some wavelengths - but it also strongly absorbs at others (namely the in the band of reflected IR that comes back from the earth's surface).
A large portion of the sun's energy is reflected back into space by the gasses and vapour in the atmosphere (the albedo effect of clouds can sometimes be as high as 0.7 to 0.8), but while the simultaneously reflect a lot of solar radiation away before it reaches the ground, they also absorb a great deal of the IR is is radiated away from the surface. So you claim that it "reflects radiation (not absorbs it)" is flat out wrong - it always absorbs and always reflects at the appropriate wavelengths. Just because you increase its concentration does not mean that suddenly that those oxygen-hydrogen bonds stop vibrating at that particular frequency (unless you condense it into a liquid and so that hydrogen bonding has an effect, but it still absorbs it just changes the wavelength slightly.
There are plenty of ways to "test" for this - observing the Earth's albedo is one way and tracking it over time and with cloud cover. You can also use a spectrometer to analyse the wavelengths of light that are reflected (and to what degree) in representative samples of atmosphere.
You make it sound like it's some sort of "untestable magic".
The GSM patents are separate - the 3G licences are in addition to the GSM ones, since not all cellular devices are 3G.
No, Apple cannot break that agreement - they are not a signatory to it. The RAND terms that cover the 3G patents apply to corporations that have patents in the standard - Apple does not. Its relationship to the 3G patents is as a licensee, ie, a vendor who makes a device that cannot function without using the RAND-covered patents.
Apple cannot do anything to "break" that agreement other than "not pay", and they have paid.
No, it's not - he specifically said he wanted Apple to lose in a way that only affected them, and that prevented Samsung from going after companies that he deems have been playing "fair" (notwithstanding this particular act being unfair, and thus hypocritical, but we'll ignore that).
In other words "it's fine to bend the law to hurt Apple, but after that we'll stick to the book".
That's not the issue here - the issue is that Samsung seemingly wants to use a FRAND-covered patent selectively.
Apple has already paid to use the 3G patents (they're covered via Intel), so for Samsung to claim that they are in violation of this particular patent (which they themselves claim is essential to 3G) then everyone else is also in violation, and they must also be sued (due to the RAND terms).
Either everyone is in violation, or no one is, or the patent is not an essential part of the 3G spec. One of those three things must be true. It is not possible for Apple *alone* to be in violation - RAND terms (if the patent is essential to 3G) mean that Samsung cannot selectively enforce the patent.
Hate Apple as much as you like, but Samsung is trying to play outside the rules.
Of course they have!
Apple has a licence to the 3G patent pool via Intel. Of course they have paid - that's the whole point of the RAND terms that cover the standard. If you want to use 3G in your product, you pay the RAND licence cost, either by cross licencing your own patents or by paying in cash (if you don;t have any of your own patents to license, or you just prefer not to).
That's the point of a RAND licence system when creating standards - if you want to have a patent in that standard, you have to licence it to everyone who wants to use it for the same value (because they have no choice *but* to use it, since it is part of the standard). You cannot selectively licence it, or charge more for it to different people.
Even Samsung is not arguing that Apple haven't paid to use the 3G patents (they have admitted it openly) - they're arguing one of their patents is essential to the 3G standard and that *only* Apple is infringing - they cannot do this, it's one or the other: either everyone is infringing, or it's not an essential 3G patent.
No it's not that at all - Apple have paid the 3G licence cost, it;s just that Samsung is claiming there is an additional patent that is essential to the 3G standard that is not covered. If this is the case, then Apple are not the only ones violating the patent (and cannot be sued alone - if Samsung want to sue *only* Apple for an essential 3G patent that is not covered already then they have to sue everyone).
You don't have to cross licence IP to pay to use RAND-covered standards - you can pay cash, or part pay in cash and part in cross licensed patents etc. RAND terms mean "x value, in some form, cash also acceptable, where x is the value everyone pays"
It is very definitely *not* Samsung's choice how they choose to licence their technology *if it is a necessary part of the 3G standard* as Samsung themselves are claiming. If it is, then they *must* follow the RAND terms that govern that standard. It's the price for having a patent in the standard - it's a sure fire revenue stream from everyone who wants to use the standard, but it means you cannot play favourites.
It's only an issue if the patent in question is an essential part of the 3G standard. If it is, then Samsung are not playing by the rules if they want to selectively sue Apple for it (no matter how much anyone loves or hates Apple/Samsung etc - regardless of where anyone stands).
From the way it seems, Samsung want to have their cake and eat it too - they are saying "the patent is essential to 3G, thus it is obvious that Apple are violating it since their phone uses 3G chipsets in it" and "therefore we will sue you, oh and it's not covered by the RAND 3G patent licence fee that Apple has already paid". The two things simply cannot be, unless everyone else who makes 3G devices is also in violation (and due to RAND terms will also have to be sued, or will have to pay whatever the fee is that Apple ends up paying if they lose the suit)
Not just rounded corners, it's about the...
Oh why do I bother?
Short form:
rounded corners: fine
similar UI: fine
rounded corners + similar UI together: not fine
Witness: many other phones that are black rectangles with large touchscreens and rounded corners.
Actually, they both made about the same profit ($14 billion) in 2010, although Samsung did so with a massively higher gross turnover.
So, sue Apple...
It's within the powers of those who feel they have been infringed to do so.
The physical shape of the LG Prada looks very much like an iPhone 3G, but the UI looks nothing like it - this is an example of the whole "just because it has rounded corners and a black, shiny face" issue. It's not enough to just make it look the same physically (although it is certainly possible - just try making a car that looks identical to a Mustang, for example).
Of course it's paying - Apple has a licence to the 3G patents under the RAND terms via Intel.
Why would they need to contribute to a finished standard? The purpose of fixing it as a standard is so that manufacturers can make devices that all interoperate with each other. Just because a particular manufacturer didn't put a patent "into the hat" when the standard was created doesn't mean they can be kept out of the market - that's the entire point of the RAND terms!
Apple has a 3G licence. It covers all the patents that are essential to the 3G standard.
Samsung are claiming that this one patent they are suing over is a) essential to the 3G standard and b) that Apple are infringing.
This is not possible. Either it is not in the 3G standard, or Apple are not infringing (because they have paid the RAND licence costs already).
Samsung cannot have it both ways, unless they also sue everyone else who makes a 3G device for patent violation (and they must - if they sue one, they must sue them all, or negotiate with all of them to pay the same amount).
Ah, selective adherence to the legal system based on whether you like the defendant.
What a great precedent!
Land of the free! Home of the brave! Oh yeah! Something to be proud of!
Again with this. It's not just "rounded corners" it's making a phone that looks exactly like an iPhone. It's all the design elements when considered as a whole.
Making a phone with rounded corners is totally fine (there are lots of them that Apple have not sued over). Similarly there are lots of UIs with icons in a grid.
What makes the lawsuit stand up is combining several elements together that on their own are not something you could sue over, into a compound entity that does infringe on the iPhone. When the first thing a number of independent reviewers say is "looks great, but it's awfully similar to the iPhone" you know they went too far with the copying of the design.
Again, for clarity, Apple do not have "exclusivity to make devices with rounded corners", but they do have exclusivity to make devices that look identical to the iPhone.
Of course it does - the reason it exists is to facilitate useful standards. What's the point of a standard if one company can dictate its use? This is why things like GSM and 3G that are required for a standard communication system have RAND terms applied to them - so that if a company wants to put forward a patented tech for the standard, they can't do so for anti-competitve reasons; everyone who wants to build a cellphone that works on the GSM system pays the same amount to use the patents that went into the GSM spec.
In this case, anyone who wants to build a device with 3G capability has to pay the same amount of money (or equivalent if cross licensing) as anyone else. If Samsung are claiming that *only* Apple are not covered by the 3G RAND licensing that they have already paid, then they are not playing by the RAND rules. In other words, if they are arguing that the patent in question that they are accusing Apple of violating is a necessary part of the 3G standard and that the current RAND agreement for 3G patents doesn't cover it then everyone else who makes a 3G compatible device is also not covered so Samsung would be obligated to either sue (or negotiate) with all of them to pay the same price or agree that it was already covered under the licenses already paid for.
When it applies to a standard like this, the terms apply to all of the players involved. If Bob Smith decides to make a cellphone, he pays the same as Apple, HTC, Microsoft, Sony etc for the right to use the GSM/3G standard.
Samsung can't selectively enforce a patent with a single party and simultaneously claim that patent is a part of a standard covered under RAND terms - it's either not an essential part of the spec, or they have to sue everyone for violating (or settle with everyone for the same amount).
No, you don't necessarily need to remove the chlorine, although that is beneficial (the fluorine is just too electronegative to really want to leave the parent carbon, so it doesn't act in the catalytic ozone depletion cycle like chlorine and bromine do). The idea behind HCFCs is that the addition of at least one hydrogen makes the compound much easier to break down, so the majority of it is destroyed in the lower layers of the atmosphere long before it gets up into the stratosphere where the destruction cycle occurs.
They're still not ideal - they're very potent greenhouse gasses (on the order of hundreds or thousands of times more than CO2), and they still can release the damaging radicals, but due to their ease of breakdown relative to plain CFCs their effect on the ozone layer is negligible (but not zero).
The only difference between HFCs and HCFCs is that the latter contain chlorine while the former only contain fluorine. Both contain hydrogen in at least one position to make them more susceptible to breakdown before they reach the stratosphere (although with only fluorine, HFCs have no effect on the ozone layer, they too are potent greenhouse gasses).
They happen at specific times of year due to the way the climate works. Over the winter time there is a buildup of various precursor compounds related to the depletion cycle that get trapped in the Arctic and Antarctic (eg, CFCs and NOx compounds that don;t destroy ozone directly but break down to form things that do). When the spring arrives the amount of UV energy falling on that region increases and starts a very rapid breakdown of compounds - many of which release the chlorine radical and other species that have a chlorine or bromine radical. This sudden increase in concentration of these catalytic ozone depleters causes a sudden drop in ozone concentration over a short period of time.
The species are also long lived, so the ozone layer doesn't fully recover by the next spring cycle and it starts again with fresh breakdown products.
Yes, I can see how a trademark application that was applied for in 2007 when the original iPhone launched finally being decided on in 2011 as a clear indication that Apple is "floundering" now that Steve Jobs has moved from CEO to chairman of the board.
I mean, really?
Not a patent, but thanks for playing ;)
Perhaps because it's not a patent, but a trademark?
Did you read the summary?
Either way, trademarks are designed to differentiate company products from competitors (so Burger King can't sell you a Big Mac, for example), but in the case of multi touch being descriptive the decision was correct - it is a generic term, so the trademark was rejected. It has taken them since 2007 to come to the decision though.
There's chlorine in the *current* products - Permatente Mist contains CFC-12 and CFC-114 - dichlorodifluoromethane and 1,2-dichlorotetrafluoroethane.
Both of those compounds contain chlorine - that's what makes them effective ozone destroying compounds.
They're also many hundreds of times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, but that is offset by the very low concentrations - the same is true of HCFCs.
You also say "there's chlorine in the alternatives" and go on to call them HFCs - there is no chlorine in an HFC molecule (there are several different ones).
In your opinion that's what you think it refers to.
In my opinion Linux is Unix. See how easy that is?
Yes, that "proprietary shape" ability means you can squeeze every last little bit of extra space in the device into useful battery capacity, unlike a battery shape that had to be designed to be removable (along with the space that has to be given up for the battery bay itself and the door mechanism etc).
It sounds like you're suggesting the only reason manufacturers moved to LiPoly over Li-ion is because it meant they could make batteries that were incompatible with other devices.
Oddly enough, the Li-poly battery in the "king of lockdown" Apple iPhone that I just replaced is a nice, proprietary.... rectangle. It doesn't even have "patented" rounded corners! The shock is palpable.
Apple also deserves a mention for pioneering the idea of packing the battery into the hard to open case of the phone/laptop itself, forcing 99% of the people who own these products to buy a new one as soon as the battery dies.
It took me 10 minutes to change a dead battery in an iPhone 3GS, and that included making a cup of tea.
The battery swap in a Macbook Pro is similarly very simple (it's as easy to get to as adding/changing RAM - the battery is right next to the RAM slots).
If you think it's hard to open, you've been listening to the conspiracy theorists a little too much or you've never actually tried it yourself.
Far from the built in battery being a sinister ploy to "enforce obsolescence", might I suggest Occam's Razor? Built in batteries can be bigger, and with less design compromise since you don't need a battery bay and associated pieces, or the requirement to have the battery accessible from the outside, meaning you can also have odd shapes and so on. The reason built in batteries work well is that their downsides are considerably less than their benefits - namely higher battery capacity and smaller, sleeker devices.
Any electronics manufacturer will be jumping on improved battery tech like a tramp on hot chips since the benefits far outweigh any conspiracy theories about "the upgrade treadmill".