The Tata Nano gets 55.5 mpg, and costs around $3000. Of course, the US would have to eliminate all safety standards before it could be imported, although it appears to be safer than one might guess at that price.
Core means it's necessary to the functionality. Pinch and zoom isn't. There are alternatives. "Core usability feature?" Now I know you don't understand the concept.
You apparently don't understand what "core functionality" is. "Pinch to zoom" is not a necessary part of any of those applications, where the "tap and hit +/-" control can serve the same purpose.
Mind you, if a patent like GSM radio communication sells for 1 cent per device, I can easily see why 'pinch to zoom' should sell for at least $10 per device:)
(reading that as a satirical comment) How do you figure that? Patents necessary to work with a standard protocol, such as GSM, normally fall under FRAND, so they must be licensed, and at reasonable cost.
If one assumes Apple's patent on pinch and zoom is valid, they don't have to license it at all - at any cost. They can simply prevent others from using it. It's not needed for the functioning of a smartphone, let alone necessary to implement a standard. And, if Apple can show that they lost sales because that was a highly desirable feature, they have every right to ask for the equivalent of the profits they would have made as damages.
But, I don't think the utility patents were valid. It seemed to me that there was prior art sufficient to make any minor refinements fall under the "obvious" dis-qualifier.
So, the basic equivalent to making multiple strokes on a touchpad to move a mouse pointer greater distances than can be accommodated with a single stroke, possibly with the pointer acting as if it has "mass?" (so it would be acting similarly to a trackball) Multitouch required? Then same thing when resizing a window (hold left click, stroke touchpad). (
That's an obvious, "skilled in the art" sort of thing.
"PJ has been extremely anti-Apple and pro-Samsung in this case."
I don't believe that is true in any way. Groklaw has simply followed the law and the merits without regard to the parties. That her analysis ends up supporting Samsung's case doesn't mean she's "pro-Samsung."
One need only look at how she's covered Oracle cases to see that - Oracle vs. Lodsys, Oracle's the good guy; Oracle vs. Google, Oracle's the bad guy.
At least the OP is schooled in math. Are you claiming that Samsung has only been selling smartphones and tablets for 3 months? Fact is, they've been selling Android smartphones since 2010, and only 2 years (8 quarters) of sales would constitute 160 million devices, using the low end of his claimed numbers. That's well below $10 per device.
Now, I don't know where he got those number, maybe they're worldwide and should be adjusted for just US sales, or adjusted just to the specific devices at issue, or adjusted for ramping sales, etc. But you said nothing to refute the numbers he gave.
$10 per device might be a reasonable for licensing an OS, or a large block of necessary patents. But that's not the case here. The two utility patents were for "pinch to zoom" and "bounce back" windows, neither of which is essential to core functionality. Additionally, it appears that the jury simply skipped over considering prior art, and that perhaps the patents should have been invalidated.
For example, the '915 patent covered "pinch to zoom," for which prior art was clearly demonstrated.
That would require an updater in the BIOS and either storing the extended config now flashed into the same chip with the BIOS to either go elsewhere or the flash chip to be smart enough to have a protected area and an unprotected area and only the protected area be unrevokable without a full reboot.
Let me change that from something completely unparsable, to something simple.
All that's needed is a jumper on the motherboard which must be closed in order to modify the BIOS.
How do you define "doped" ?
(And even more importantly, how does *he* define "doped"?)
"Doping" has a well defined meaning in sports. There a reason the World Anti-Doping Agency, and the United States Anti-Doping Agency are named as they are.
You simply prove that Armstrong was correct in just dropping out of any defense. You can't prove a negative, so why bother trying? There's always someone who will ignore plain, easily discovered facts, and try to twist your statements in random directions, as you've demonstrated.
Well, then. This unequivocal statement wasn't particularly hard to find. Satisfied?
I have never doped, and, unlike many of my accusers, I have competed as an endurance athlete for 25 years with no spike in performance, passed more than 500 drug tests and never failed one.
Because he has admitted to taking banned substances, both steroids and EPO, as part of his cancer treatment (to mitigate the effects of chemotherapy). That use was within the rules.
He can hardly say he's never taken banned substances when he's already admitted that he has.
You seem to be the type who assumes guilt because someone pleads the 5th Amendment. It's up to the accuser to prove guilt, not up to the accused to prove innocence.
And what if I don't want to live in society? Will society let me independently exist, or will they force my participation, through such means as property taxes? And if I'm not given a choice, who's the parasite?
Please give an example. I suspect you're thinking of the movie "It's A Wonderful Life," which was thought to be in the public domain for a while, because the copyright wasn't properly renewed. Fact is, the copyright on the original story (the movie was deriviative) and music in that movie _was_ renewed, so it was never really in the public domain.
Not that I agree with a 1946 movie still being under copyright, but them's the facts, and it's not a case of "retroactive removal of works from public domain."
The Copyright Act of 1790 provided for a 14 year term, which could be renewed for another 14 years if the author were still alive. So, by those terms, anything pre-1984 would now be in the public domain. And, I'd argue that's enough "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." The Beatles weren't thinking "we won't do this, if we can't get royalties 50 years from now" when they recorded "Love me do."
In 1831, the term went to 28 years + a 14 year extension. In 1909, 28 + 28. 1976, life of the author + 50 years. (75 years from publication, 100 years from creation for "works for hire." 1992, "renewal" became automatic. 1998, life of the author + 70 years. (95 years from publication, 120 years from creation, for "works for hire")
Slashdot Mirror
The Tata Nano gets 55.5 mpg, and costs around $3000. Of course, the US would have to eliminate all safety standards before it could be imported, although it appears to be safer than one might guess at that price.
Everything's renewable. All the energy we're pulling out of the ground traces back to the sun. It's only a matter of how long it takes to renew.
OMG! Ponies!
Just give me your address. I'll come over and siphon enough gas so you meet the requirement. It will help me meet it, too. WIN WIN!
Gosh, it's a good thing there are very few places where you can legally drive 80 MPH then, isn't it?
Core means it's necessary to the functionality. Pinch and zoom isn't. There are alternatives. "Core usability feature?" Now I know you don't understand the concept.
You apparently don't understand what "core functionality" is. "Pinch to zoom" is not a necessary part of any of those applications, where the "tap and hit +/-" control can serve the same purpose.
That was before they sold off much of the good stuff, and spun the last of it off as Agilent. Today's HP is HP only in name.
As I said, exactly like spinning a trackball while holding a button down.
(reading that as a satirical comment) How do you figure that? Patents necessary to work with a standard protocol, such as GSM, normally fall under FRAND, so they must be licensed, and at reasonable cost.
If one assumes Apple's patent on pinch and zoom is valid, they don't have to license it at all - at any cost. They can simply prevent others from using it. It's not needed for the functioning of a smartphone, let alone necessary to implement a standard. And, if Apple can show that they lost sales because that was a highly desirable feature, they have every right to ask for the equivalent of the profits they would have made as damages.
But, I don't think the utility patents were valid. It seemed to me that there was prior art sufficient to make any minor refinements fall under the "obvious" dis-qualifier.
So, the basic equivalent to making multiple strokes on a touchpad to move a mouse pointer greater distances than can be accommodated with a single stroke, possibly with the pointer acting as if it has "mass?" (so it would be acting similarly to a trackball) Multitouch required? Then same thing when resizing a window (hold left click, stroke touchpad). (
That's an obvious, "skilled in the art" sort of thing.
No. He invented TiVo (with some very obvious additions), three years after it started shipping.
"PJ has been extremely anti-Apple and pro-Samsung in this case."
I don't believe that is true in any way. Groklaw has simply followed the law and the merits without regard to the parties. That her analysis ends up supporting Samsung's case doesn't mean she's "pro-Samsung."
One need only look at how she's covered Oracle cases to see that - Oracle vs. Lodsys, Oracle's the good guy; Oracle vs. Google, Oracle's the bad guy.
At least the OP is schooled in math. Are you claiming that Samsung has only been selling smartphones and tablets for 3 months? Fact is, they've been selling Android smartphones since 2010, and only 2 years (8 quarters) of sales would constitute 160 million devices, using the low end of his claimed numbers. That's well below $10 per device.
Now, I don't know where he got those number, maybe they're worldwide and should be adjusted for just US sales, or adjusted just to the specific devices at issue, or adjusted for ramping sales, etc. But you said nothing to refute the numbers he gave.
$10 per device might be a reasonable for licensing an OS, or a large block of necessary patents. But that's not the case here. The two utility patents were for "pinch to zoom" and "bounce back" windows, neither of which is essential to core functionality. Additionally, it appears that the jury simply skipped over considering prior art, and that perhaps the patents should have been invalidated.
For example, the '915 patent covered "pinch to zoom," for which prior art was clearly demonstrated.
If you change your hardware, you close a jumper (or a switch during boot). If you can't handle that, you deserve what you get.
BTW, if the lights are out, you're not gonna be managing anything.
Never mind. It's now obvious you're simply an idiot.
Has your inability to recognize the difference between reality and conjecture been recognized by your attendants, or will your committal be extended?
Let me change that from something completely unparsable, to something simple.
All that's needed is a jumper on the motherboard which must be closed in order to modify the BIOS.
"Doping" has a well defined meaning in sports. There a reason the World Anti-Doping Agency, and the United States Anti-Doping Agency are named as they are.
You simply prove that Armstrong was correct in just dropping out of any defense. You can't prove a negative, so why bother trying? There's always someone who will ignore plain, easily discovered facts, and try to twist your statements in random directions, as you've demonstrated.
- Lance Armstrong, June 13, 2012
Because he has admitted to taking banned substances, both steroids and EPO, as part of his cancer treatment (to mitigate the effects of chemotherapy). That use was within the rules.
He can hardly say he's never taken banned substances when he's already admitted that he has.
You seem to be the type who assumes guilt because someone pleads the 5th Amendment. It's up to the accuser to prove guilt, not up to the accused to prove innocence.
Your circular logic is less than convincing. If I simply assert squatter's claim to some property, will society leave me alone?
And what if I don't want to live in society? Will society let me independently exist, or will they force my participation, through such means as property taxes? And if I'm not given a choice, who's the parasite?
Please give an example. I suspect you're thinking of the movie "It's A Wonderful Life," which was thought to be in the public domain for a while, because the copyright wasn't properly renewed. Fact is, the copyright on the original story (the movie was deriviative) and music in that movie _was_ renewed, so it was never really in the public domain.
Not that I agree with a 1946 movie still being under copyright, but them's the facts, and it's not a case of "retroactive removal of works from public domain."
Whoosh.
The Copyright Act of 1790 provided for a 14 year term, which could be renewed for another 14 years if the author were still alive. So, by those terms, anything pre-1984 would now be in the public domain. And, I'd argue that's enough "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." The Beatles weren't thinking "we won't do this, if we can't get royalties 50 years from now" when they recorded "Love me do."
In 1831, the term went to 28 years + a 14 year extension.
In 1909, 28 + 28.
1976, life of the author + 50 years. (75 years from publication, 100 years from creation for "works for hire."
1992, "renewal" became automatic.
1998, life of the author + 70 years. (95 years from publication, 120 years from creation, for "works for hire")