Plaintiff defines "e-mail” to include features such as an inbox, outbox, folders, a “to:” line, a “from:” line, a
“subject:” line, the body of the message and the ability to include attachments, and the ability to
copy (“cc”) or blind copy (“bcc”) other recipients. (See Compl. 13). However, that is not the
only definition. For example, the online Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “e-mail” in far
more general terms as “a means or system for transmitting messages electronically (as between
two computers on a network.” E-mail, MERRIAM-WEBSTER, https://www.merriamwebster.com... (last visited Aug. 31, 2017). Similarly, in the context of a patent
dispute, the Federal Circuit has held that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that an electronic mail message must include a destination address and must have the
capacity to include an address of an originating processor, message content (such as text or an
attachment), and a subject.” In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, whether plaintiff’s claim to have invented e-mail is “fake” depends upon the
operative definition of “e-mail.” Because that definition does not have a single, objectively
correct answer, the claim is incapable of being proved true or false.
Given that most messaging systems prior to any formalized RFCs would fall under some sort of "email" designation, it would be hard to prove that they are in fact the original "email" that was invented. What is clear would be that the plaintiff would not be the first.
Apple enjoys a 1 quarter spike in sales on the month of a new phone. Their sales are very much flat for the rest of the year with the month before a new product announcement being only marginally lower than the preceding month.
Except that's not historically true. The month before has always been marginally higher. Also since Apple does not break down sales by month, how can you quantify that there is a spike in the "month of a new phone"?
There's a reason why Apple typically announces new phones in the fall: holiday sales. Q1 for Apple will always be tend to be higher than any other quarter as it ends the holiday season.
By the time of Nokia, everyone should have been wary of partnering with Microsoft especially when it came to mobile devices. The failure of the Zune and Kin and the stagnation of Windows Mobile should have been a red flag.
Android does get updated and supported. The problem has always been how long varies by manufacturer, model, carrier, etc. Some models are supported for years. Some of them are lucky to get updates six months after release.
The estimated cost to build an iPhone 7 was broken out when it was still new and a bleeding edge phone cost Apple about $225 to build including parts and labor.
FTFY. We don't know a lot about what it costs a company to manufacture a smartphone especially for a company like Apple that has components that no one else has.
Being based out of China makes it even cheaper. If you think all these manufacturers aren't making a profit, you're crazy.
That isn't the claim. The claim is that only Samsung and Apple has figured a way to makes lots of profit while selling lots of phones. That claim isn't new or original to the OP.
Phones are only loss-leaders for the carriers.
Many manufacturers would probably disagree with you on that point. Like all manufacturers, they have to build certain number of product on the premise that they are sold later (months, years later). If a model (or models) don't sell well, who do you think eats the loss? The phone carrier? Sometimes but many of them have contracts where they don't eat the loss but return the phones back to the manufacturer.
I call it lazy reporting and/or lack of technical savvy. Reading articles on science in the mainstream media sometimes it can be appalling as to what is being written.
So what? The standard for patentability is supposed to be manifold, and based both upon obviousness, and on public knowledge. Someone who creates a formalized, standards-based messaging program hasn't invented messaging, nor come up with the idea, if there were literally dozens of preexisting systems.
And how does your statement addresses the OP's point that "email" is easy to define? The judge in the case ruled that it wasn't easy to define as there were no standards as to what it was. Thus the ruling states it is legally impossible to prove the plaintiff "invented" email when no one can agree on what was defined as email back then. Judge Saylor does not need to rule on whether the claim that he invented it is true. As part of the libel lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove that the statements made by the defendant were false and that the defendant knew they were false. Since the plaintiff cannot prove that his claim was true (and the defendant cannot prove the claim was false), the defendant cannot be held for libel.
It's easy to define what email is now. But back in the early days different systems had different features. Do you consider it email if you can only send it within the local network and not over the multiple, different networks? Do you consider it email if can only handle basic ASCII (128 characters) as this means it was English only? Do you consider it email if you can't attach something? Do you consider it email if you can't forward the message? etc. Depending on the system back when email was first being developed and used, there was no universal agreed upon standards for what was email.
In the context of the ruling the judge is saying that email factually has existed since the 1960s in different forms and standards. It wasn't until later decades that formalized definitions and protocols were adopted so that different systems could communicate with each other. So who invented it decades ago is hard to pin down because different communication methods could be considered "email" back then because there were no standards to agree what it was. See the history of email
"These original messaging systems had widely different features and ran on systems that were incompatible with each other."
RFC 561 called for standardizing mail headers 5 years before Ayyadurai claimed he invented it. While email has never formally defined when it was first used in the 1960s, the different standards slowly evolved. This is why it's hard to pin down when or who invented email as it slowly became what it is with many refinements and contributors. Back then different computer systems used different protocols, etc.
His claims were always far-fetched. Correctly he claims a copyright over a program called "EMAIL", however that does not mean he invented email itself which predates him by over a decade. In fact RFC 561 outlines standards for email headers 5 years before his program. As an analogy it would be like Microsoft claiming they invented spreadsheets because they came out with Excel. Lotus Corp and many others would dispute that claim.
From what I can tell the SoC with 4 Cortex-A73 cores at 2.40 GHz and 4 Cortex-A53 cores at 1.80 GHz paired with ARM Mali-G72MP12 GPU. So other than a "neural net" that is claimed in the SoC, it seems like just the newest iteration of ARM cores. From what I can tell, there's nothing customized about the cores. Now some of their claims are possibly true but meaningless. For example, could it beat some existing Samsung and Qualcomm SoCs? Sure if you are comparing last year models and older, less powerful cores. I'd like to see a comparison with the Snapdragon 835 which uses 4 modified 4 Cortex-A73s.
I seriously doubt that this will push Apple on their Ax processors for three reasons. This design won't push Apple any more than what is already out there. For starters, Apple's ambitions for their processors is more about control of their own fate than anything else. When they had to rely on Samsung for designs, they were getting generic mobile device designs with a few customizations. As a chipmaker, the Samsungs and Qualcomms of the world design chips that fit a wide variety of profiles because that would lead to more sales as opposed to customized designs for one customer. Getting something customized just for them would cost Apple a lot of money and few rewards. Designing their own would require getting the chip design expertise they didn't have. That took years and several acquisitions.
Second, while the article hints that Huawei's newest processor would rival the A11, how would they know? Apple is pretty secretive when it comes to many things. Performance of their newest chip is one of them until it is released. This new chips could beat easily it, be on par with it, or eclipsed by it. No one can really know until the A11 is released. Since Apple doesn't sell their processors to 3rd parties, the only way to get one is to get a new Apple device which isn't out yet. So there isn't any competition when Apple refuses to sell to anyone else
Lastly, my understanding of Apple's customers is that few of them care at all which chip powers their devices. Few of them could name the chip much less tell you anything about it. For all they know, the device works for them or it doesn't. Very few Apple customers are going to switch to Huawei because Huawei has a new chip.
Slashdot Mirror
Plaintiff defines "e-mail” to include features such as an inbox, outbox, folders, a “to:” line, a “from:” line, a “subject:” line, the body of the message and the ability to include attachments, and the ability to copy (“cc”) or blind copy (“bcc”) other recipients. (See Compl. 13). However, that is not the only definition. For example, the online Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “e-mail” in far more general terms as “a means or system for transmitting messages electronically (as between two computers on a network.” E-mail, MERRIAM-WEBSTER, https://www.merriamwebster.com... (last visited Aug. 31, 2017). Similarly, in the context of a patent dispute, the Federal Circuit has held that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that an electronic mail message must include a destination address and must have the capacity to include an address of an originating processor, message content (such as text or an attachment), and a subject.” In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, whether plaintiff’s claim to have invented e-mail is “fake” depends upon the operative definition of “e-mail.” Because that definition does not have a single, objectively correct answer, the claim is incapable of being proved true or false.
Given that most messaging systems prior to any formalized RFCs would fall under some sort of "email" designation, it would be hard to prove that they are in fact the original "email" that was invented. What is clear would be that the plaintiff would not be the first.
Apple enjoys a 1 quarter spike in sales on the month of a new phone. Their sales are very much flat for the rest of the year with the month before a new product announcement being only marginally lower than the preceding month.
Except that's not historically true. The month before has always been marginally higher. Also since Apple does not break down sales by month, how can you quantify that there is a spike in the "month of a new phone"?
There's a reason why Apple typically announces new phones in the fall: holiday sales. Q1 for Apple will always be tend to be higher than any other quarter as it ends the holiday season.
By the time of Nokia, everyone should have been wary of partnering with Microsoft especially when it came to mobile devices. The failure of the Zune and Kin and the stagnation of Windows Mobile should have been a red flag.
Android does get updated and supported. The problem has always been how long varies by manufacturer, model, carrier, etc. Some models are supported for years. Some of them are lucky to get updates six months after release.
The estimated cost to build an iPhone 7 was broken out when it was still new and a bleeding edge phone cost Apple about $225 to build including parts and labor.
FTFY. We don't know a lot about what it costs a company to manufacture a smartphone especially for a company like Apple that has components that no one else has.
Being based out of China makes it even cheaper. If you think all these manufacturers aren't making a profit, you're crazy.
That isn't the claim. The claim is that only Samsung and Apple has figured a way to makes lots of profit while selling lots of phones. That claim isn't new or original to the OP.
Phones are only loss-leaders for the carriers.
Many manufacturers would probably disagree with you on that point. Like all manufacturers, they have to build certain number of product on the premise that they are sold later (months, years later). If a model (or models) don't sell well, who do you think eats the loss? The phone carrier? Sometimes but many of them have contracts where they don't eat the loss but return the phones back to the manufacturer.
I call it lazy reporting and/or lack of technical savvy. Reading articles on science in the mainstream media sometimes it can be appalling as to what is being written.
You do know what "RFC" stands for right?
So what? The standard for patentability is supposed to be manifold, and based both upon obviousness, and on public knowledge. Someone who creates a formalized, standards-based messaging program hasn't invented messaging, nor come up with the idea, if there were literally dozens of preexisting systems.
And how does your statement addresses the OP's point that "email" is easy to define? The judge in the case ruled that it wasn't easy to define as there were no standards as to what it was. Thus the ruling states it is legally impossible to prove the plaintiff "invented" email when no one can agree on what was defined as email back then. Judge Saylor does not need to rule on whether the claim that he invented it is true. As part of the libel lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove that the statements made by the defendant were false and that the defendant knew they were false. Since the plaintiff cannot prove that his claim was true (and the defendant cannot prove the claim was false), the defendant cannot be held for libel.
It's easy to define what email is now. But back in the early days different systems had different features. Do you consider it email if you can only send it within the local network and not over the multiple, different networks? Do you consider it email if can only handle basic ASCII (128 characters) as this means it was English only? Do you consider it email if you can't attach something? Do you consider it email if you can't forward the message? etc. Depending on the system back when email was first being developed and used, there was no universal agreed upon standards for what was email.
"These original messaging systems had widely different features and ran on systems that were incompatible with each other."
RFC 561 called for standardizing mail headers 5 years before Ayyadurai claimed he invented it. While email has never formally defined when it was first used in the 1960s, the different standards slowly evolved. This is why it's hard to pin down when or who invented email as it slowly became what it is with many refinements and contributors. Back then different computer systems used different protocols, etc.
His claims were always far-fetched. Correctly he claims a copyright over a program called "EMAIL", however that does not mean he invented email itself which predates him by over a decade. In fact RFC 561 outlines standards for email headers 5 years before his program. As an analogy it would be like Microsoft claiming they invented spreadsheets because they came out with Excel. Lotus Corp and many others would dispute that claim.
Which country is this supposed to represent again? The article claims both Australia and the US using census data.
Another person called you a liar. Maybe it's you.
It seems I'm not the only one that called you a liar by the response of the other person.
Liar says what again?
Liar says what?
Yes, this Congress seems capable of doing nothing even though the GoP has control of both houses.
From what I can tell the SoC with 4 Cortex-A73 cores at 2.40 GHz and 4 Cortex-A53 cores at 1.80 GHz paired with ARM Mali-G72MP12 GPU. So other than a "neural net" that is claimed in the SoC, it seems like just the newest iteration of ARM cores. From what I can tell, there's nothing customized about the cores. Now some of their claims are possibly true but meaningless. For example, could it beat some existing Samsung and Qualcomm SoCs? Sure if you are comparing last year models and older, less powerful cores. I'd like to see a comparison with the Snapdragon 835 which uses 4 modified 4 Cortex-A73s.
I seriously doubt that this will push Apple on their Ax processors for three reasons. This design won't push Apple any more than what is already out there. For starters, Apple's ambitions for their processors is more about control of their own fate than anything else. When they had to rely on Samsung for designs, they were getting generic mobile device designs with a few customizations. As a chipmaker, the Samsungs and Qualcomms of the world design chips that fit a wide variety of profiles because that would lead to more sales as opposed to customized designs for one customer. Getting something customized just for them would cost Apple a lot of money and few rewards. Designing their own would require getting the chip design expertise they didn't have. That took years and several acquisitions.
Second, while the article hints that Huawei's newest processor would rival the A11, how would they know? Apple is pretty secretive when it comes to many things. Performance of their newest chip is one of them until it is released. This new chips could beat easily it, be on par with it, or eclipsed by it. No one can really know until the A11 is released. Since Apple doesn't sell their processors to 3rd parties, the only way to get one is to get a new Apple device which isn't out yet. So there isn't any competition when Apple refuses to sell to anyone else
Lastly, my understanding of Apple's customers is that few of them care at all which chip powers their devices. Few of them could name the chip much less tell you anything about it. For all they know, the device works for them or it doesn't. Very few Apple customers are going to switch to Huawei because Huawei has a new chip.
Again, I'm not the only one that has recently called you a liar. Maybe it's you, Liar.
Except that you deny facts. You don't point the truth.Certainly I'm not the only one that has called you a liar recently.
Nothing you say matters, liar.
Again. Nothing you say matters, Liar.
He does that a lot--lie