And on it's wholesale model titles, it's arguably a MORE monopolistic practice. Cross subsidizing from their near book monopoly to make losses in ebooks in order to create another monopoly.
They certainly have a cost per unit for Amazon. The money they have to pay the publisher. So what the fuck are your talking about? You seem to have not fully understood a term you read in some pro-piracy rant.
And the fact that the court already ruled pretty clearly that Apple is guilty
Which is the case with 100% of appeals, so doesn't add or subtract anything to the probability.
The rest of your post is just reiterating the existing case. Which we already know. And it's in light of the existing case I'm predicting a successful appeal.
Your shouts of bullshit might have more resonance if not for the fact that Nokia lost money hand over fist and just got bought up by Microsoft.
The fact that Nokia failed does nothing to suggest they would have fared better with any particular alternate strategy, including yours.
As for Android, it's a very simple thing to understand - people want Android.
If that's what you think, then you don't understand the market at all. The majority of people haven't a clue what OS is on their phone. They bought the one that the man at the phone store suggested, that was at the price they liked. That's the majority of Android sales. A no cost OS makes for cheap phones. And cheap phones sell on price.
There is a smaller higher end that do know about OSs. Which go about 50/50 for Samsung and Apple phones. Samsung for the kinds of people that like big numbers in tech specs, Apple for the kind of people that value ease of use, quality and reliability.
Nokia would have failed just as much if they'd gone for the cheap Android market. Trying to steal Samsung's market would have been a more reasonable play. But plenty of other Android companies have been trying to do that without success, so odds would have been against it.
AFAIK, Amazon made a profit on their ebooks market overall.
I doubt that's the case, but it's irrelevant. I'm not limiting it to ebooks. I'm talking about their whole business strategy. That their strategy so far is to make no profit is not in question. It's a fact. http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2013/8/8/amazons-profits
It's pretty obvious that Amazon is putting off the profit making plan till they have a monopoly.
How much of a moron do you have to be not to see that someone presenting a 16.6 years extract of data is cherry picking.
Presenting a multi-year period as a number of months so that it can look like a round number. You have to be an imbecile to fall for that. And you have.
If I want to sell milk or gas at a loss to get you into my store, where I'll make a tidy profit off of other things, I can. Amazon is doing something akin to the last thing here. They had a small number of books acting as loss leaders.
No, that's not it. Amazon isn't doing loss leaders to make profits with other products now. They are making little profit on anything. Their business model is to undercut other businesses to put them out of business, such that they can raise prices in the future, when they have little competition.
It's a global version of what Walmart does town by town. Walmart opens in a town, and offers loss making prices till it bankrupts other businesses. Then when it has the town pretty much to itself, the prices rise.
Amazon is killing the book retail business. It's the biggest monopoliser since Microsoft.
Suggesting someone else doesn't understand some non-defined statement of "different contexts" is poor form. You firstly define what you mean by "different contexts" and then I'll tell you if I understand it or not.
Why didn't you understand what I said the first time? "The guest and you have different contexts. e.g. You and the guest might both have access to the word processor. But when the guest uses that computer, the word processor won't open with the last document YOU had open."
It's pretty clear. Different user spaces don't simply apply a different set of permissions, they alter the entire working state of the machine. It the "bill" user is looking at this page in Slashdot, logging in to the "ted" username will do many things including starting a different web browser context, with no page or a different page displayed. It does that because the assumption behind the user system is that a different user is a different person. It was designed for multi-user computer systems.
Apple's patent does not necessarily do that. It's still carrying the assumption that this is a phone, and thus belongs to one person. Yet that person has various different levels of security he want's to apply to different applications. Thus increasing the access mode doesn't change the user context. The same apps will have the same context, even when the access mode is increased. Increasing access mode just adds to what's available - it doesn't take anything away, as changing user does on traditional OSs.
It's a very obvious difference. And I'm sorry that you don't understand it. Whether you like me pointing that out or not is irrelevant to me.
Sure that's prior art (though I doubt Blackberry was first with it.) But it's prior art that's listable within the patent, not prior art that excludes the patent. This patent adds more to that idea. It adds configurable, multiple levels of access. And the idea that different unlock gestures will not only give access to a particular app, but actually start the app, possibly in a certain mode.
I disagree that they're fundamentally different. They're both "information I need to know to access a capability" (that is, I'd consider my unlock pattern to have the same purpose as any of my account passwords that are used to access functionality built into my phone).
So is a lock and key. And yet each different form of lock and key will have been separately patentable at the time of invention. (for those that didn't predate patent laws.) Yet they are less different than an alphanumeric password and a gesture are.
And you're not understanding the fact that different users mean different contexts in traditional OS users schemes.
Changing "password" to "gesture" does not make it novel.
Nobody said it was. But you not understanding the difference between this patent and traditional OS user permissions doesn't mean the difference isn't there.
You describe having open access to some apps, and password protect for all other apps. And then you describe account passwords, a different thing again.
This patent allows different passwords (actually gestures) for different apps. And more than 2 categories.
It's a neat idea, but it feels more like a "refocusing" of ACLs, multi-user login, or the lock screen app access I already have than it does a completely new thing.
Inventions are never "completely new things". It's always building on the shoulders of giants. And "prior art", far from being a disqualifier for a patent, is actually included as a list in nearly all patents. Patents have to include some novel addition to what already exists, not be "completely new".
The guest and you have different contexts. e.g. You and the guest might both have access to the word processor. But when the guest uses that computer, the word processor won't open with the last document YOU had open.
No. Different accounts would mean that the apps would have different context depending on which account you used. For example if I had a document open in a word processor when logged in as Bill, then logging in as Ted would not have that document open. Even if the two accounts happened to have edit permissions to that same document.
Passwords on accounts don't stop you accessing the software. Nor does it prevent access to apps that don't have a natural concept of accounts. Nor does it have the concept of groups or hierarchies of apps which are accessed with different unlock procedures.
Slashdot Mirror
what you determine to be a monopoly is not. You are free to start up your own site and sell books.
You misunderstand what a monopoly is.
People might not buy from you but that's not because amazon has a side deal with the publishers (something Apple required with the MFN).
Wrong. Amazon does both Wholesale and Agency model. On both, they will adjust prices to match the lowest of the other retailers. For their agency model titles, that is the exact same MFN agreement as Apple had.
http://feldmanfile.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/most-favored-nation-landmine.html
And on it's wholesale model titles, it's arguably a MORE monopolistic practice. Cross subsidizing from their near book monopoly to make losses in ebooks in order to create another monopoly.
It wouldn't be an appeal otherwise. Duh.
They certainly have a cost per unit for Amazon. The money they have to pay the publisher. So what the fuck are your talking about? You seem to have not fully understood a term you read in some pro-piracy rant.
And the fact that the court already ruled pretty clearly that Apple is guilty
Which is the case with 100% of appeals, so doesn't add or subtract anything to the probability.
The rest of your post is just reiterating the existing case. Which we already know. And it's in light of the existing case I'm predicting a successful appeal.
Then you don't understand the case.
I am not a lawyer. But then neither are you. Your prediction is worth no more than mine.
Your shouts of bullshit might have more resonance if not for the fact that Nokia lost money hand over fist and just got bought up by Microsoft.
The fact that Nokia failed does nothing to suggest they would have fared better with any particular alternate strategy, including yours.
As for Android, it's a very simple thing to understand - people want Android.
If that's what you think, then you don't understand the market at all. The majority of people haven't a clue what OS is on their phone. They bought the one that the man at the phone store suggested, that was at the price they liked. That's the majority of Android sales. A no cost OS makes for cheap phones. And cheap phones sell on price.
There is a smaller higher end that do know about OSs. Which go about 50/50 for Samsung and Apple phones. Samsung for the kinds of people that like big numbers in tech specs, Apple for the kind of people that value ease of use, quality and reliability.
Nokia would have failed just as much if they'd gone for the cheap Android market. Trying to steal Samsung's market would have been a more reasonable play. But plenty of other Android companies have been trying to do that without success, so odds would have been against it.
AFAIK, Amazon made a profit on their ebooks market overall.
I doubt that's the case, but it's irrelevant. I'm not limiting it to ebooks. I'm talking about their whole business strategy. That their strategy so far is to make no profit is not in question. It's a fact.
http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2013/8/8/amazons-profits
It's pretty obvious that Amazon is putting off the profit making plan till they have a monopoly.
How much of a moron do you have to be not to see that someone presenting a 16.6 years extract of data is cherry picking.
Presenting a multi-year period as a number of months so that it can look like a round number. You have to be an imbecile to fall for that. And you have.
So when I piss in your pool, that's not a bad thing. It might pollute your pool with urine, but it has emptied my bladder.
Is that the kind of even handed analysis you mean?
As a matter of interest, at what stage did you accept that smoking was carcinogenic, as an indisputable fact, proven beyond all reasonable doubt?
If I want to sell milk or gas at a loss to get you into my store, where I'll make a tidy profit off of other things, I can. Amazon is doing something akin to the last thing here. They had a small number of books acting as loss leaders.
No, that's not it. Amazon isn't doing loss leaders to make profits with other products now. They are making little profit on anything. Their business model is to undercut other businesses to put them out of business, such that they can raise prices in the future, when they have little competition.
It's a global version of what Walmart does town by town. Walmart opens in a town, and offers loss making prices till it bankrupts other businesses. Then when it has the town pretty much to itself, the prices rise.
Amazon is killing the book retail business. It's the biggest monopoliser since Microsoft.
Amazon used to have around 90% of the US e-book market. Now it's more like 60%
To a large extent due to Apple. Strange that the monopoly breaker is being ruled against instead of the monopoly. I predict a successful appeal.
Suggesting someone else doesn't understand some non-defined statement of "different contexts" is poor form. You firstly define what you mean by "different contexts" and then I'll tell you if I understand it or not.
Why didn't you understand what I said the first time?
"The guest and you have different contexts. e.g. You and the guest might both have access to the word processor. But when the guest uses that computer, the word processor won't open with the last document YOU had open."
It's pretty clear. Different user spaces don't simply apply a different set of permissions, they alter the entire working state of the machine. It the "bill" user is looking at this page in Slashdot, logging in to the "ted" username will do many things including starting a different web browser context, with no page or a different page displayed. It does that because the assumption behind the user system is that a different user is a different person. It was designed for multi-user computer systems.
Apple's patent does not necessarily do that. It's still carrying the assumption that this is a phone, and thus belongs to one person. Yet that person has various different levels of security he want's to apply to different applications. Thus increasing the access mode doesn't change the user context. The same apps will have the same context, even when the access mode is increased. Increasing access mode just adds to what's available - it doesn't take anything away, as changing user does on traditional OSs.
It's a very obvious difference. And I'm sorry that you don't understand it. Whether you like me pointing that out or not is irrelevant to me.
My point is, it ain't the same. That you can think of similar things does not invalidate a patent.
Sure that's prior art (though I doubt Blackberry was first with it.) But it's prior art that's listable within the patent, not prior art that excludes the patent. This patent adds more to that idea. It adds configurable, multiple levels of access. And the idea that different unlock gestures will not only give access to a particular app, but actually start the app, possibly in a certain mode.
I disagree that they're fundamentally different. They're both "information I need to know to access a capability" (that is, I'd consider my unlock pattern to have the same purpose as any of my account passwords that are used to access functionality built into my phone).
So is a lock and key. And yet each different form of lock and key will have been separately patentable at the time of invention. (for those that didn't predate patent laws.) Yet they are less different than an alphanumeric password and a gesture are.
The "preexisting things" he's referring to.
2 decades.
And you're not understanding the fact that different users mean different contexts in traditional OS users schemes.
Changing "password" to "gesture" does not make it novel.
Nobody said it was. But you not understanding the difference between this patent and traditional OS user permissions doesn't mean the difference isn't there.
You describe having open access to some apps, and password protect for all other apps. And then you describe account passwords, a different thing again.
This patent allows different passwords (actually gestures) for different apps. And more than 2 categories.
It's a neat idea, but it feels more like a "refocusing" of ACLs, multi-user login, or the lock screen app access I already have than it does a completely new thing.
Inventions are never "completely new things". It's always building on the shoulders of giants. And "prior art", far from being a disqualifier for a patent, is actually included as a list in nearly all patents. Patents have to include some novel addition to what already exists, not be "completely new".
The guest and you have different contexts. e.g. You and the guest might both have access to the word processor. But when the guest uses that computer, the word processor won't open with the last document YOU had open.
Parental controls already have passwords. This is not that.
No. Different accounts would mean that the apps would have different context depending on which account you used. For example if I had a document open in a word processor when logged in as Bill, then logging in as Ted would not have that document open. Even if the two accounts happened to have edit permissions to that same document.
That is not what's happening here.
Examples?
Passwords on accounts don't stop you accessing the software. Nor does it prevent access to apps that don't have a natural concept of accounts. Nor does it have the concept of groups or hierarchies of apps which are accessed with different unlock procedures.
Every time ANY patent is reported on by Slashdot, someone always claims there's prior art.
These days that can't even be bothered to list what they think that prior art is.