Other than handling and packaging requirements any idea what exactly makes sodium bicarbonate "pharmaceutical" vs "commercial" besides millions of dollars and years of approval processes?
Purity as well as the certification process. Same difference between Certified Unix(TM) and Unix. If it doesn't matter to you that the certification was met, you can use commercial grade (like as a cleaner). If it matters to you that all necessary protocols were followed including ones on contamination, then you need to get the pharmaceutical grade.
(a) Civil actions, suits, or proceedings arising under any Act of Congress relating to copyrights or exclusive rights in mask works or designs may be instituted in the district in which the defendant or his agent resides or may be found.
Other than the misunderstanding about double jeopardy, the poster is correct. If someone wants to overturn a court case from decades ago because of the venue, they'd have to prove that the venue was a factor/problem in the case. Merely wanting a different set of judges is not normally grounds to overturn a ruling unless that set of judges is the issue.
Northern District Court of California which is near Apple. I think Samsung USA is headquartered in New Jersey but I don't know where it is incorporated.
Sorry, that's just too far out of character for the Supreme Court - to actually do something, rather than dodging the question.
Most of the cases the general public does not follow but there is always news when the court makes a decision. Some cases in recent memory that are Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District where the court rules unanimous that a school district must offer "individualized education program" to people with disabilities. The court has heard arguments in Microsoft v Baker about class certification in the case of the Xbox disc failures.
Because Apple's patent extends the bezel with a touch sensors around the screen and bezel. Samsung can say their device modifies the screen. They can fight it out in court as to the specifics. I don't think Apple's patent covers Samsung's design but I'm not a lawyer.
How will they create more patent infringement friendly jurisdictions? It's fairly clear which Federal District Court has what jurisdictions. Sure there might be consolidations and expansions but it's not like it can happen overnight without changing the Dept of Justice.
How can the Supreme Court "crack down" on something that is a legal, precedented activity? Are they going to actually hand down a ruling that overturns prior decisions of the lower court? (And, yes, East Texas is about as low as it gets in this field.)
Er? The summary says that the lower court has been following the wrong standard for 30 years. And if you clicked on the link, SCOTUS specifically overturned 2 lower courts. I know it's to much to RTFA and the 13 page decision, but did you even look at the summary?
What does the decision mean? In the case of East Texas, lawsuits must be filed in the state and jurisdiction of the defendant, not where the plaintiff wants to sue. So it will make it harder for patent trolls to file now in East Texas where is it lawsuit friendly if their targets are not in that court's jurisdiction.
Held: As applied to domestic corporations, “reside[nce]” in 1400(b) refers only to the State of incorporation. The amendments to 1391 did
not modify the meaning of 1400(b) as interpreted by Fourco.
If you installed Windows XP SP1 and later and just click next a few times to make the popups go away the updates would be automatic. Same with every subsequent version. No people actually put effort into not updating.
Did you forgot the hours it took to update to service packs and patches?
Plenty. What reasons do you know? Lazyness? That's even worse.
Again did you forget that a SP could take hours? SP3 took me at least 8 hours with one computer and 1 hour with another. But the thing is you never really knew how long it might take.
Consumers have been taking their chances for many years before MS's patching practices became even remotely questionable.
Consumers didn't run updates as often as MS would like but it was mostly due to laziness than anything else. Now they legitimately have reasons not to do so.
Back when security was just a thing those IT nerds talked about disabling windows update was common.
IT Admins did not roll out updates automatically for good reasons. For corporate networks, software compatibility and testing were priorities than merely installing whatever patch MS rolled out. As an IT admin if you roll out an update without testing it and systems go down, it affects the company. But MS respected the system back then. These days MS seems to thumb their nose at it.
Didn't want it slowing my internet connection down. Didn't want it doing something on my computer. This goes back into the early days to the point that in Service Packs MS introduced warnings to users who disabled windows update.
I don't know who you know but none of those reasons were ever brought up by people I knew not to update. Breaking Windows or 3rd party software was the main reason. Also another reason was that Service Packs took a long time to install so people didn't want to stop running their computer for hours or a day to install a SP.
It was an endless power struggle between the stupid common who disable things without understanding the consequences that lead to MS's currently nasty practices, not the other way around.
No, updates were inconvenient for most people. These days updates are almost malicious.
Well considering that the issue is whether Trump has said or done anything and he seems to contradict himself and his people daily, I don't know if we have to wait a year for an investigation.
You very confused. Foxconn does not pay Apple a royalty because they don't own the iPhones, Apple does.
No I was showing how flawed your Foxconn analogy is. There is a huge difference between direct contract manufacturer and 3rd party manufacturing. Who owns the designs for Qualcomm chips? Qualcomm. That's the major difference. Apple can license an Qualcomm LTE modem and then contract with TSMC to manufacture the chip. Or TSMC can also license the LTE modem from Qualcomm to manufacture for anyone. For smaller phone makers like OnePlus, this means they don't have to enter in separate licenses with Qualcomm especially if they require fewer units.
AFAIK Qualcomm does not license chip IP (ie chip designs like ARM does). The article you quote is for a patent license, not a chip manufacturing license. AKAIK Qualcomm only contracts with Samsung and TMSC to make their chips and then take possession of those chips after they are made. Qualcomm then sells those chips. Qualcomm does not have any second source supplier agreements.
That makes absolutely no sense. If Qualcomm contracted with Samsung and TSMC to make their chips, then how in the hell do those companies not pay them? Think about that: Samsung made the chip. Apple uses it but doesn't pay Qualcomm. Qualcomm has to sue to get their money for past and future chips? If Qualcomm actually owned them then they could instruct Samsung or TSMC to stop letting Apple have them in the future. However it appears the foundries keep making new chips for Apple. What makes more sense is Apple contracted the foundries with a license from Qualcomm and it is a dispute between Qualcomm and Apple.
There are two other places to get cell modem IP - Intel and Mediatek. That cell modem design IP is not coming from Qualcomm. The fight here is over Qualcomm demanding a rumored $10 a chip royalty for patent licenses from OEM who use the Intel and Mediatek IP.
They are not the same modems. They are not the same chips.
You contradict yourself. First you say "Quallcomm does not manufacture, but only licenses LTE modems". Then you say "Yes they do (license) for IP other than Snapdragon".
Er, what? I said Qualcomm does not not manufacture LTE modems but licenses them. Then you said Qualcomm does not license IP designs which I linked to an article that says they clearly says that have recently licensed 3G/4G IP to Smartron. I fail to see any contradiction.
Do you understand that Snapdragon is not 3G/4G/LTE but a variant of ARM technology?
The basic idea (bezel-less phone) is pretty obvious. The mechanism (curved screen to slightly wrap around) is the easier of the obvious two ways to make it work.
That however isn't what Apple describes in the patent if I read it correctly. Apple's patent involves making the bezel another touch interface to extend the touch screen. It seems to me that Apple's patent is a different solution to the same problem.
Licensing IP and contract manufacturing are not the same thing at all. If you license the IP, then a manufacturer can use that IP to make his OWN products, with his name on them.
That depends on the license and the nature of the IP. I don't think Samsung can call an ARM Cortex-a53 whatever they want. Samsung can call the SoC that uses a Cortex-a53 something like Exynos 7 Octa 7870. Samsung also has an architectural license which allows to use ARM IP for chip design as well.
You are confused about fabbing and who owns the products that the fab makes.
No I am not. I clearly said "manufacture". Qualcomm does not manufacture, but only licenses LTE modems.
That is like saying Foxconn makes the iPhone. Foxconn assembles it, but Apple definitely owns the output from that manufacturing line, not Foxconn.
I think the term you are not understanding is that Foxconn manufactures for Apple; however, Foxconn does not have to pay Apple a royalty for licenses. Anyone who makes Qualcomm chips has to pay Qualcomm a royalty for the design even if Qualcomm never had any input in any part of the manufacture of the chip. That's the difference.
ARM is different. ARM licenses chip IP to a company like Qualcomm. Qualcomm then integrates that IP with their own and turns it into masks for chip production. Qualcomm then pays Samsung or TMSC to use those masks to make chips.
I think your confusion is that you are focusing ONLY on what Qualcomm does with ARM type processors. While Qualcomm might have that process for Snapdragons, in the context of the story, Qualcomm isn't going after Apple's vendors for Snapdragon chips. They are going after them for Qualcomm chips like 3G/4G/LTE modems. That process is entirely different in that Qualcomm sells the design and others make the mask, incorporate it into their SoCs, etc. Qualcomm has less involvement with those chips.
As far as I know Qualcomm does not license chip IP.
The vulnerability was already patched. If it was patched a year ago China would probably had the same problems as many Windows installs there are pirated versions which receive no updates.
While it might have been the NSA that created the basis of the ransomware, there's really larger problems. Any hacker could have discovered the vulnerability and launched the same attack.
The first problem is that the malware affected Russia and China in greater numbers for the simple reason that many Windows installations there are pirated so they are not likely to receive patches. MS for their part did patch the vulnerability in the March cumulative update if I remember correctly.
The second problem is that MS didn't patch unsupported, older versions of Windows until WannaCry became widespread (Windows XP, Vista, etc). So there are still many older versions of Windows out there being used. This second problem does affect companies and machines that have stayed on older Windows for a number of reasons (hospitals, factories, etc.)
The third problem is that trust in MS has slowly been eroded over the years with their behavior:
Auto-updating their users without permission
Rebooting machines without warning
Sneaking in non-critical features (like telemetry) as critical updates
Rolling up patches so that customers cannot refuse certain patches for practical reasons
Patch quality dropping with a few of them making machines unusable
For many, they simply don't trust MS anymore. In years past, a bad patch every now and then could be forgiven. With no trust in MS, consumers are simply taking their chances.
Qualcomm certainly makes the Snapdragon line of SOCs which are used by the millions in many phones. But in this case Apple is not using the Snapdragon instead they have their own in-house SOC.
No Qualcomm does not. Qualcomm has no chip fabs. They, like ARM, contracts foundries to actually manufacture the chips. Qualcomm sells the design. Now for certain models, Qualcomm can designate a company to be the exclusive foundry. For example, Samsung is the exclusive manufacturer of the Snapdragon 820. So if you are LG and you want to use the 820, you have to license the 820 from Qualcomm and then contract with Samsung and not TSMC.
Most patents are not huge leaps. Also some patents are defensive and probably cover-your-ass types where the applicant is merely trying not to get sued by someone else.
You are aware that the vulnerability was patched in the March Cummulative update for Windows, right? Now MS didn't release patches for out-of-support versions of Windows (XP, Vista, etc) until recently but it had been patched already.
Because Qualcomm, like ARM, does not actually manufacture chips to sell to the likes of Apple or Samsung. Their business is to sell the design that companies like TSMC manufactures for Apple. They make a small number of them for demo/prototype purposes but not for general sale.
Slashdot Mirror
Other than handling and packaging requirements any idea what exactly makes sodium bicarbonate "pharmaceutical" vs "commercial" besides millions of dollars and years of approval processes?
Purity as well as the certification process. Same difference between Certified Unix(TM) and Unix. If it doesn't matter to you that the certification was met, you can use commercial grade (like as a cleaner). If it matters to you that all necessary protocols were followed including ones on contamination, then you need to get the pharmaceutical grade.
(a) Civil actions, suits, or proceedings arising under any Act of Congress relating to copyrights or exclusive rights in mask works or designs may be instituted in the district in which the defendant or his agent resides or may be found.
Other than the misunderstanding about double jeopardy, the poster is correct. If someone wants to overturn a court case from decades ago because of the venue, they'd have to prove that the venue was a factor/problem in the case. Merely wanting a different set of judges is not normally grounds to overturn a ruling unless that set of judges is the issue.
Northern District Court of California which is near Apple. I think Samsung USA is headquartered in New Jersey but I don't know where it is incorporated.
At the state level, yes but at a federal level, federal rules apply. So in the future Nevada, Delaware, or Wyoming will have many more cases.
Sorry, that's just too far out of character for the Supreme Court - to actually do something, rather than dodging the question.
Most of the cases the general public does not follow but there is always news when the court makes a decision. Some cases in recent memory that are Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District where the court rules unanimous that a school district must offer "individualized education program" to people with disabilities. The court has heard arguments in Microsoft v Baker about class certification in the case of the Xbox disc failures.
Because Apple's patent extends the bezel with a touch sensors around the screen and bezel. Samsung can say their device modifies the screen. They can fight it out in court as to the specifics. I don't think Apple's patent covers Samsung's design but I'm not a lawyer.
Why would it be Delaware?
How will they create more patent infringement friendly jurisdictions? It's fairly clear which Federal District Court has what jurisdictions. Sure there might be consolidations and expansions but it's not like it can happen overnight without changing the Dept of Justice.
How can the Supreme Court "crack down" on something that is a legal, precedented activity? Are they going to actually hand down a ruling that overturns prior decisions of the lower court? (And, yes, East Texas is about as low as it gets in this field.)
Er? The summary says that the lower court has been following the wrong standard for 30 years. And if you clicked on the link, SCOTUS specifically overturned 2 lower courts. I know it's to much to RTFA and the 13 page decision, but did you even look at the summary?
What does the decision mean? In the case of East Texas, lawsuits must be filed in the state and jurisdiction of the defendant, not where the plaintiff wants to sue. So it will make it harder for patent trolls to file now in East Texas where is it lawsuit friendly if their targets are not in that court's jurisdiction.
Held: As applied to domestic corporations, “reside[nce]” in 1400(b) refers only to the State of incorporation. The amendments to 1391 did not modify the meaning of 1400(b) as interpreted by Fourco.
If you installed Windows XP SP1 and later and just click next a few times to make the popups go away the updates would be automatic. Same with every subsequent version. No people actually put effort into not updating.
Did you forgot the hours it took to update to service packs and patches?
Plenty. What reasons do you know? Lazyness? That's even worse.
Again did you forget that a SP could take hours? SP3 took me at least 8 hours with one computer and 1 hour with another. But the thing is you never really knew how long it might take.
Consumers have been taking their chances for many years before MS's patching practices became even remotely questionable.
Consumers didn't run updates as often as MS would like but it was mostly due to laziness than anything else. Now they legitimately have reasons not to do so.
Back when security was just a thing those IT nerds talked about disabling windows update was common.
IT Admins did not roll out updates automatically for good reasons. For corporate networks, software compatibility and testing were priorities than merely installing whatever patch MS rolled out. As an IT admin if you roll out an update without testing it and systems go down, it affects the company. But MS respected the system back then. These days MS seems to thumb their nose at it.
Didn't want it slowing my internet connection down. Didn't want it doing something on my computer. This goes back into the early days to the point that in Service Packs MS introduced warnings to users who disabled windows update.
I don't know who you know but none of those reasons were ever brought up by people I knew not to update. Breaking Windows or 3rd party software was the main reason. Also another reason was that Service Packs took a long time to install so people didn't want to stop running their computer for hours or a day to install a SP.
It was an endless power struggle between the stupid common who disable things without understanding the consequences that lead to MS's currently nasty practices, not the other way around.
No, updates were inconvenient for most people. These days updates are almost malicious.
Well considering that the issue is whether Trump has said or done anything and he seems to contradict himself and his people daily, I don't know if we have to wait a year for an investigation.
You do understand that Qualcomm makes a lot of different chips right?
You very confused. Foxconn does not pay Apple a royalty because they don't own the iPhones, Apple does.
No I was showing how flawed your Foxconn analogy is. There is a huge difference between direct contract manufacturer and 3rd party manufacturing. Who owns the designs for Qualcomm chips? Qualcomm. That's the major difference. Apple can license an Qualcomm LTE modem and then contract with TSMC to manufacture the chip. Or TSMC can also license the LTE modem from Qualcomm to manufacture for anyone. For smaller phone makers like OnePlus, this means they don't have to enter in separate licenses with Qualcomm especially if they require fewer units.
AFAIK Qualcomm does not license chip IP (ie chip designs like ARM does). The article you quote is for a patent license, not a chip manufacturing license. AKAIK Qualcomm only contracts with Samsung and TMSC to make their chips and then take possession of those chips after they are made. Qualcomm then sells those chips. Qualcomm does not have any second source supplier agreements.
That makes absolutely no sense. If Qualcomm contracted with Samsung and TSMC to make their chips, then how in the hell do those companies not pay them? Think about that: Samsung made the chip. Apple uses it but doesn't pay Qualcomm. Qualcomm has to sue to get their money for past and future chips? If Qualcomm actually owned them then they could instruct Samsung or TSMC to stop letting Apple have them in the future. However it appears the foundries keep making new chips for Apple. What makes more sense is Apple contracted the foundries with a license from Qualcomm and it is a dispute between Qualcomm and Apple.
There are two other places to get cell modem IP - Intel and Mediatek. That cell modem design IP is not coming from Qualcomm. The fight here is over Qualcomm demanding a rumored $10 a chip royalty for patent licenses from OEM who use the Intel and Mediatek IP.
They are not the same modems. They are not the same chips.
You contradict yourself. First you say "Quallcomm does not manufacture, but only licenses LTE modems". Then you say "Yes they do (license) for IP other than Snapdragon".
Er, what? I said Qualcomm does not not manufacture LTE modems but licenses them. Then you said Qualcomm does not license IP designs which I linked to an article that says they clearly says that have recently licensed 3G/4G IP to Smartron. I fail to see any contradiction.
Do you understand that Snapdragon is not 3G/4G/LTE but a variant of ARM technology?
The basic idea (bezel-less phone) is pretty obvious. The mechanism (curved screen to slightly wrap around) is the easier of the obvious two ways to make it work.
That however isn't what Apple describes in the patent if I read it correctly. Apple's patent involves making the bezel another touch interface to extend the touch screen. It seems to me that Apple's patent is a different solution to the same problem.
Licensing IP and contract manufacturing are not the same thing at all. If you license the IP, then a manufacturer can use that IP to make his OWN products, with his name on them.
That depends on the license and the nature of the IP. I don't think Samsung can call an ARM Cortex-a53 whatever they want. Samsung can call the SoC that uses a Cortex-a53 something like Exynos 7 Octa 7870. Samsung also has an architectural license which allows to use ARM IP for chip design as well.
You are confused about fabbing and who owns the products that the fab makes.
No I am not. I clearly said "manufacture". Qualcomm does not manufacture, but only licenses LTE modems.
That is like saying Foxconn makes the iPhone. Foxconn assembles it, but Apple definitely owns the output from that manufacturing line, not Foxconn.
I think the term you are not understanding is that Foxconn manufactures for Apple; however, Foxconn does not have to pay Apple a royalty for licenses. Anyone who makes Qualcomm chips has to pay Qualcomm a royalty for the design even if Qualcomm never had any input in any part of the manufacture of the chip. That's the difference.
ARM is different. ARM licenses chip IP to a company like Qualcomm. Qualcomm then integrates that IP with their own and turns it into masks for chip production. Qualcomm then pays Samsung or TMSC to use those masks to make chips.
I think your confusion is that you are focusing ONLY on what Qualcomm does with ARM type processors. While Qualcomm might have that process for Snapdragons, in the context of the story, Qualcomm isn't going after Apple's vendors for Snapdragon chips. They are going after them for Qualcomm chips like 3G/4G/LTE modems. That process is entirely different in that Qualcomm sells the design and others make the mask, incorporate it into their SoCs, etc. Qualcomm has less involvement with those chips.
As far as I know Qualcomm does not license chip IP.
Yes they do for IP other than Snapdragon.
The vulnerability was already patched. If it was patched a year ago China would probably had the same problems as many Windows installs there are pirated versions which receive no updates.
While it might have been the NSA that created the basis of the ransomware, there's really larger problems. Any hacker could have discovered the vulnerability and launched the same attack.
The first problem is that the malware affected Russia and China in greater numbers for the simple reason that many Windows installations there are pirated so they are not likely to receive patches. MS for their part did patch the vulnerability in the March cumulative update if I remember correctly.
The second problem is that MS didn't patch unsupported, older versions of Windows until WannaCry became widespread (Windows XP, Vista, etc). So there are still many older versions of Windows out there being used. This second problem does affect companies and machines that have stayed on older Windows for a number of reasons (hospitals, factories, etc.)
The third problem is that trust in MS has slowly been eroded over the years with their behavior:
For many, they simply don't trust MS anymore. In years past, a bad patch every now and then could be forgiven. With no trust in MS, consumers are simply taking their chances.
Qualcomm certainly makes the Snapdragon line of SOCs which are used by the millions in many phones. But in this case Apple is not using the Snapdragon instead they have their own in-house SOC.
No Qualcomm does not. Qualcomm has no chip fabs. They, like ARM, contracts foundries to actually manufacture the chips. Qualcomm sells the design. Now for certain models, Qualcomm can designate a company to be the exclusive foundry. For example, Samsung is the exclusive manufacturer of the Snapdragon 820. So if you are LG and you want to use the 820, you have to license the 820 from Qualcomm and then contract with Samsung and not TSMC.
Most patents are not huge leaps. Also some patents are defensive and probably cover-your-ass types where the applicant is merely trying not to get sued by someone else.
You are aware that the vulnerability was patched in the March Cummulative update for Windows, right? Now MS didn't release patches for out-of-support versions of Windows (XP, Vista, etc) until recently but it had been patched already.
Because Qualcomm, like ARM, does not actually manufacture chips to sell to the likes of Apple or Samsung. Their business is to sell the design that companies like TSMC manufactures for Apple. They make a small number of them for demo/prototype purposes but not for general sale.