They makes Macs... which are PCs. I think only Apple marketing makes a distinction. Steve Jobs has in the past repeatedly referred to desktop computers including Macs as simply "PCs".
I think you have it backwards. Apple is getting paid for every sale to carry the apps in addition to the cost of all those shiny Macs developers have to buy to use the SDK. This is Apple screwing their own customers.
The Tweet is from May 29th. The blog post is dated June 1 (today) and the blog mentions they were contacted by Apple yesterday that the app was to be pulled. Apparently they haven't gotten around to actually removing it quite yet.
Actually, I'd bet that eventually it will happen if not at WWDC just to ward off any anti-trust issues with iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch development being tied to owning at least one Mac computer.
"However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work."
They don't have to hand over unmodified third party compilers and firmware tools as far as I can tell. They do have to hand over scripts and make files but the submitter of the original story doesn't specify what's really missing. A build environment might just mean the actual compilers and tools rather than scripts.
"However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work."
If there's makefiles and scripts but not compilers or firmware tools to go with them I think you're pretty much out of luck.
I believe one of the ISO meetings discussed restoring the Transitional spec to compatibility with ECMA in the first amendment with the rationale that the entire point of Transitional is ECMA compatibility. Office 2007 may be conformant with ISO when they make the fix.
GIven where a lot of the more lucrative knock-offs are coming from, it's a potentially wrong assumption that they're even paying for the materials. The real company might be paying for them while the factory operator spits out units on a second shift while telling them the materials were defective or the units produced with them were defective. The fake units then go out the back door and are sold for 50% off to people who think they're buying the real thing all without ever paying for R&D or marketing. The real company is doing that for them.
Steve's e-mail stated all video codecs are covered by patents. I'd assume the MPEG LA's members are getting ready to stomp out anything that isn't licensed. I can't think of anyone that would defend the open source codecs since most of the large companies you might expect to defend it are already licensing H.264 patents.
They'll have to fight the police about whether receiving stolen goods is covered by the specified laws which I doubt. The phone could be considered stolen under common law so they were looking for the source of stolen goods and not the source of a "story". The police don't give a damn about the story. They're after the guy that sold them stolen goods.
The phone shouldn't have been removed from the bar in the first place since under common law it would be considered mislaid. The property owner of the establishment where it was mislaid would have superior claim to the property if the true original owner didn't come looking for it. That is to say if you find mislaid property on someone else's property, simply removing it from the property might be considered theft.
Common law actually makes a distinction between lost, mislaid and abandoned property. The iPhone in question would have been considered mislaid and the iPhone in your hypothetical situation would've been considered lost but not abandoned. Neither allow you to take the phone and sell it. In fact, he should never have left the bar with it because it should've been giving to the bar to hold in case the owner comes back. By simply removing the phone from the bar, he might have broken the law.
Google simply has to buy a perpetual design and manufacturing license from ARM and they should be untouchable by Apple if Apple bought ARM.
The other angle is we have to hope that device makers aren't vulnerable due to any oversight in the ARM licensing contracts or the likes of HTC could be in trouble.
Regulators would probably block the deal from the start due to Apple's near monopoly market share in portable music players which use ARM processors as well as the obvious conflict of interest with smartphone, PDA and tablet computer processors.
The iPod has suffcient market share in the portable music player market to be considered a monopoly. The US broke up Standard Oil at under 65% market share and shrinking.
By the standard set when the US government broke up Standard Oil (60-65% market share and shrinking at trial), Apple has sufficient market share in the portable music player market to be considered a monopoly (70%+).
They are using their success in that market to fuel movement into other markets (smartphones, tablet computers) and are now starting to engage in behavior consistent with a monopolist. Buying the owner of the basic chip design used by practically all of your competitors in the smartphone and portable music player markets isn’t something Apple should be allowed to do if only for the sake of the portable music player market where they have a monopoly.
Then there’s the fact that all of the successful smartphone designs are running on ARM CPUs who have to license the design and patents from the company Apple is trying to buy. Apple already believes it’s powerful enough to refuse to license patents from the other smartphone manufacturers; what does anyone think they’ll do to those competitors if they essentially own the core of their hardware?
They’re in court with HTC trying to kill Android through the legal system. What will happen if they just owned the core of HTC’s phones? My guess would be if HTC doesn’t have an ARM license (their chip maker does), they’ll claim HTC was an unlicensed user of their patented technology and sue them into oblivion. If that doesn’t work they could just threaten to stop licensing their supplier(s) when their licenses expire or when they need one for a new chip design if they continue to sell to a company that is violating Apple’s smartphone patents.
They're describing a single device in the patent. Pretty much all the claims require that whatever device they claim infringes infringe Claim 1 or 9 which requires that the device itself be an isometric exercise system including a frame to support the user and a sensor affixed to an elongated rod. Claim 1 uses the language "elongated rod" and Claim 9 also repeats this requirement. They patented a very specific invention (the one in their figures).
At least as far as the first patent, I don't think they can get away with suing over 2 separate non-infringing inventions because they can be combined to serve a similar purpose for specific pieces of software.
The second patent's early claims sound like electronic scales until the more specific claims. If I'm not mistaken, Nintendo was initially going to work with bathroom scale makers on the technology in the balance board so that's probably where they got their ideas from. Chances are these guys are going to have to prove electronic scales aren't prior art or that Nintendo is infringing based on the more specific claims (they're pretty specific about such things as use of metals, resins etc). I suspect they won't get it to fly on just the initial claims due to prior art then get shot down as soon as the claims involving materials pops up and Nintendo is using a different material in their invention. In fact, after looking over all the claims of the second patent... did they really just patent their own implementation of a damn scale?
Unless Adobe can convince a court that the market for iPhone OS development tools is a distinct market; a market open to third parties shuttered at the last minute to kill Adobe's tools in order to protect Xcode and to push another Apple product (Macs to run Xcode).
So Steve Jobs is going to wave the middle finger at Adobe until they properly support platforms they're currently releasing software for before risking letting them screw up another platform. Sounds like sensible business.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure Bill Gates is still the chairman but no I don't think they has a LOT to do with Microsoft anymore.
They makes Macs... which are PCs. I think only Apple marketing makes a distinction. Steve Jobs has in the past repeatedly referred to desktop computers including Macs as simply "PCs".
Make a landline that can be cut the only way to call for help in a SCHOOOL. What could possibly go wrong there?
I think you have it backwards. Apple is getting paid for every sale to carry the apps in addition to the cost of all those shiny Macs developers have to buy to use the SDK. This is Apple screwing their own customers.
The Tweet is from May 29th. The blog post is dated June 1 (today) and the blog mentions they were contacted by Apple yesterday that the app was to be pulled. Apparently they haven't gotten around to actually removing it quite yet.
Actually, I'd bet that eventually it will happen if not at WWDC just to ward off any anti-trust issues with iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch development being tied to owning at least one Mac computer.
"However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work."
They don't have to hand over unmodified third party compilers and firmware tools as far as I can tell. They do have to hand over scripts and make files but the submitter of the original story doesn't specify what's really missing. A build environment might just mean the actual compilers and tools rather than scripts.
"However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work."
If there's makefiles and scripts but not compilers or firmware tools to go with them I think you're pretty much out of luck.
autoSpaceLikeWord95, footnoteLayoutLikeWW8, lineWrapLikeWord6, mwSmallCaps, shapeLayoutLikeWW8, suppressTopSpacingWP, truncateFontHeightsLikeWP6, uiCompat97To2003, useWord2002TableStyleRules, useWord97LineBreakRules, wpJustification and wpSpaceWidth
So "Auto Space like Word 95" is actually in the standard.
I believe one of the ISO meetings discussed restoring the Transitional spec to compatibility with ECMA in the first amendment with the rationale that the entire point of Transitional is ECMA compatibility. Office 2007 may be conformant with ISO when they make the fix.
GIven where a lot of the more lucrative knock-offs are coming from, it's a potentially wrong assumption that they're even paying for the materials. The real company might be paying for them while the factory operator spits out units on a second shift while telling them the materials were defective or the units produced with them were defective. The fake units then go out the back door and are sold for 50% off to people who think they're buying the real thing all without ever paying for R&D or marketing. The real company is doing that for them.
The list of patents covering H.264 is 47 pages long...
Steve's e-mail stated all video codecs are covered by patents. I'd assume the MPEG LA's members are getting ready to stomp out anything that isn't licensed. I can't think of anyone that would defend the open source codecs since most of the large companies you might expect to defend it are already licensing H.264 patents.
They'll have to fight the police about whether receiving stolen goods is covered by the specified laws which I doubt. The phone could be considered stolen under common law so they were looking for the source of stolen goods and not the source of a "story". The police don't give a damn about the story. They're after the guy that sold them stolen goods.
The phone shouldn't have been removed from the bar in the first place since under common law it would be considered mislaid. The property owner of the establishment where it was mislaid would have superior claim to the property if the true original owner didn't come looking for it. That is to say if you find mislaid property on someone else's property, simply removing it from the property might be considered theft.
Common law actually makes a distinction between lost, mislaid and abandoned property. The iPhone in question would have been considered mislaid and the iPhone in your hypothetical situation would've been considered lost but not abandoned. Neither allow you to take the phone and sell it. In fact, he should never have left the bar with it because it should've been giving to the bar to hold in case the owner comes back. By simply removing the phone from the bar, he might have broken the law.
It was more like Russia told them they'd launch nukes if they saw one of these launch because they would not be able to tell it wasn't a nuke.
Google simply has to buy a perpetual design and manufacturing license from ARM and they should be untouchable by Apple if Apple bought ARM.
The other angle is we have to hope that device makers aren't vulnerable due to any oversight in the ARM licensing contracts or the likes of HTC could be in trouble.
Regulators would probably block the deal from the start due to Apple's near monopoly market share in portable music players which use ARM processors as well as the obvious conflict of interest with smartphone, PDA and tablet computer processors.
The iPod has suffcient market share in the portable music player market to be considered a monopoly. The US broke up Standard Oil at under 65% market share and shrinking.
By the standard set when the US government broke up Standard Oil (60-65% market share and shrinking at trial), Apple has sufficient market share in the portable music player market to be considered a monopoly (70%+).
They are using their success in that market to fuel movement into other markets (smartphones, tablet computers) and are now starting to engage in behavior consistent with a monopolist. Buying the owner of the basic chip design used by practically all of your competitors in the smartphone and portable music player markets isn’t something Apple should be allowed to do if only for the sake of the portable music player market where they have a monopoly.
Then there’s the fact that all of the successful smartphone designs are running on ARM CPUs who have to license the design and patents from the company Apple is trying to buy. Apple already believes it’s powerful enough to refuse to license patents from the other smartphone manufacturers; what does anyone think they’ll do to those competitors if they essentially own the core of their hardware?
They’re in court with HTC trying to kill Android through the legal system. What will happen if they just owned the core of HTC’s phones? My guess would be if HTC doesn’t have an ARM license (their chip maker does), they’ll claim HTC was an unlicensed user of their patented technology and sue them into oblivion. If that doesn’t work they could just threaten to stop licensing their supplier(s) when their licenses expire or when they need one for a new chip design if they continue to sell to a company that is violating Apple’s smartphone patents.
They're describing a single device in the patent. Pretty much all the claims require that whatever device they claim infringes infringe Claim 1 or 9 which requires that the device itself be an isometric exercise system including a frame to support the user and a sensor affixed to an elongated rod. Claim 1 uses the language "elongated rod" and Claim 9 also repeats this requirement. They patented a very specific invention (the one in their figures).
At least as far as the first patent, I don't think they can get away with suing over 2 separate non-infringing inventions because they can be combined to serve a similar purpose for specific pieces of software.
The second patent's early claims sound like electronic scales until the more specific claims. If I'm not mistaken, Nintendo was initially going to work with bathroom scale makers on the technology in the balance board so that's probably where they got their ideas from. Chances are these guys are going to have to prove electronic scales aren't prior art or that Nintendo is infringing based on the more specific claims (they're pretty specific about such things as use of metals, resins etc). I suspect they won't get it to fly on just the initial claims due to prior art then get shot down as soon as the claims involving materials pops up and Nintendo is using a different material in their invention. In fact, after looking over all the claims of the second patent... did they really just patent their own implementation of a damn scale?
I have no idea how the Wii Wheel and Zapper could be infringing on their technology patents when they're nothing but plastic shells.
Unless Adobe can convince a court that the market for iPhone OS development tools is a distinct market; a market open to third parties shuttered at the last minute to kill Adobe's tools in order to protect Xcode and to push another Apple product (Macs to run Xcode).
So Steve Jobs is going to wave the middle finger at Adobe until they properly support platforms they're currently releasing software for before risking letting them screw up another platform. Sounds like sensible business.