You probably won't see it in Apple friendly press because they don't want you to know that part. However if you read other press such as computerworld then you will see it. But since your probably don't I will post a link and quote it there.
"Monday's letter was sent just days after Proview's founder Yang held a press conference and said the trademark rights were never transferred because Apple had bought them from a Taiwan subsidiary company, and not from Proview itself."
They paid from the trademark from the Taiwan affiliate. The mainland China Corporate office has denied that apple can use that trademark in mainland China and has denied permission for the Taiwan affiliate to sell that trademark for use in Mainland China. Keep spouting Apple's talking points there without telling the whole story though carry on.
Nothing. This has nothing to do with Foxconn. Apple would still not be able to SELL ipads in Mainland China that's point here. Has nothing to do with manufacturing.
And Proview OWNS the trademark and has DENIED that its Taiwan affiliate had the rights to sell the trademark for use in mainland China. So no not SCO Mark 2. However Apple's suing Open-Source over trivial silly software-patents is SCO Mark 2.
I would seem that the Heartland institute is a truly corrupt entity. The Heartland institute cannot expect to stifle discussion of their seemingly corrupt behaviour. The Heartland institute must not have heard of the Streisand Effect. Maybe the Heartland institute should get a a clue and stop trying to squelch discussion. Its funny that the Heartland institute is trying to squelch speech yet the Heartland institute claims to be for free speech. The Heartland institutewere at the front of the line waving internal documents of climate scientists. Yet The Heartland institute is now threatening to sue anyone who discusses their internal Documents. Such pathetic doublestandards highlight the hypocrisy of the Heartland institute A poster child for corruption.
Tainted? Contaminated? Nice use of weasel words. So, why would Monsanto want to waste time suing people who don't buy their product? What would be then end goal? That would be like a Tyson Chicken suing vegetarians. There'd be no point. Seriously, do you even think about this? When they DO sue is when someone gets cross pollinated, INTENTIONALLY selects for the gene, then grows it. It's a big difference, one that anti-GMO groupstry to avoid mentioning mentioning....cause, you know, being misleading is the best way to make a point.
They sue to remove the organic thorn in their side from the marketplace.
When they DO sue is when someone gets cross pollinated, INTENTIONALLY selects for the gene, then grows it.
yeah but you have to sign a license and the license forbids you from saving re-using seed, It also mandates that you pay a license fee for each hectare of land that you are growing monsanto crops additional to the price of the seed. The license also says that you must allow Monsanto police on your property and in grain sheds etc for 3 year after ceasing from using Monsanto seed. So seed guy shows up: "Hey I got some new seed just sign here" Farmer joe blow doesn't read the license (his fault there) and just signs on the dotted line. Then he is hooked and screwed.
When it comes to patented Monsanto seed Judges have ruled exactly that. If Monsanto's patented seed contaminates your property whether its through direct seed drift, cross pollination, bees, etc you are still liable and not only that, they have rights to all your crop and seed stores including the ones that are not contaminated.
So yes as the law that was purchased by Monsanto stands right now if Cheney's patented dog shits in your yard they Cheney owns all the shit in your yard from not only his dog but from yours also. This is the law as purchased by Monsanto.
the conflation of natural breeding with GMO is something the industry has brainwashed many people with. Here is a clue. The Monsanto seed has genes from a bacterium. How do you make such a "genetic modification" through natural breeding? Can you mate bacteria with plants? pray tell.
What you are leaving out is the fact that with Monsanto seed they are taking genes from a bacterium that are resistant to Roundup and inserting them into crops. So tell me how do breeders get bacteria and plants to mate? You have any insights? We'd love to hear.
I am sure you may have a few rogue farmers doing that but do you think that is the norm? do you have any clue of what organic certified is? Do you understand the penalties for selling things labelled organic if its not organic? You may start here http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=ORGANIC_CERTIFICATIO
Next go to google and type organic certification. try to learn something before you mindlessly spew garbage please.
Organic foods are foods that are produced using methods that do not involve modern synthetic inputs such as synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers, do not contain genetically modified organisms, and are not processed using irradiation, industrial solvents, or chemical food additives
So your claims of second-hand seed, at least for these strains, are complete bullshit.
Not all of them only the terminator seed is. The patent license forbids seed re-use. The poster is a troll and his argument is indeed bullshit. Organic farmers do not want to use Monsanto seed because well... their crops won't be organic anymore. What really happens is that the Monsanto crops contaminate organic crops and then Monsanto sues them out of existence. Contamination usually by natural means eg cross pollination.
The first post is a troll. No organic farmer is going to buy Monsanto tainted seed. The tainted seed ruins organic crops. You cannot sell your crop as organic if its contaminated with Monsanto gene. The farms get contaminated by Monsanto crops due to direct seed drift, cross pollination, bees etc. Monsanto knows this so they simply trespass on farmlands and steal samples. Then they sue the farmer out of business.
You are correct. Actually they patent it. And judges have already ruled that even if your crop is contaminated with Monsanto's strain through direct see drift even if its a fraction of your crop then you Monsanto own your crop. All of it.
Google David VS Monsanto for details.
Oh how nice of you to post at the exact time the article was posted with such verbosity You must be a speed typist. Anyway troll as you can see your attempt to sway the conversation here to the cheap evil farmers has failed. The point that you are intentionally missing is that organic farmers DO NOT WANT Monsanto roundup-ready crops contaminating their crops. When your product must be certified organic then it must be organic. Your shilling for Monsanto completely misses the point. When you use Monsanto seed you cannot save your seed for the next crop you must purchase new seed. The don't want Monsanto seed. This is like saying that Stallman wants his code to be infected with Microsoft's code. They don't want it. period. Monsanto's seed CONTAMINATES the organic farms through direct-seed-drift, bees and the like then sues these farms out of business with patent infringement. Monsanto has also sued seed cleaners out of business. Your drivel is just that... drivel. See here for more information.
Are you talking about actual prices here? or just the prices that are accompanied by a contract with a carrier that is presented to the customer. You do know that a free phone is really not a free phone right? you know that the 4S is a $700+ phone right? When you get a phone with a contract you pay the full price of the phone over the life of the contract. Here is another question. Why is the 4S actual roughly equal to that of an iPad? The iPad has a much bigger screen and more raw materials so what gives? I would say phone patents and related licenses has quite a bit to do with that.
amen AMEN, I went from all Sony products to no Sony products over the last decade. I did the whole Sony Style thing. Everything was Sony. Now I don't own any more Sony products because of exactly what you mentioned along with their arrogant attitude and litigious behaviour. Sony's entry into the content business was the start of their downfall. Becoming a leading member of the RIAA and MPAA made it worse. I no longer purchase Sony products and actively recommend against their products. They should drop the content business and become a hardware company again this time without trying to populate the marketplace with non-standard hardware and only then will I consider recommending them to anyone.
Android OEMs are an easy target due to Google's lack of indemnification and apparently lax attitude towards patent issues, but I suspect Microsoft would already be in the clear with licensing even if there were valid patent issues there.
Lax attitude towards patents? SOFTWARE SHOULD NOT BE PATENTED. Google just happens to be on the right side of that issue. Software is authored works and hence should be protected by copyright which it already is. Just like books and movies and music. So do you have a lax attitude towards the patenting of book story concepts? Or are you in favor or patenting the concept of a love story or wars in space or whatever. Lets just say the concept of wars in space was patented so no one could write a book about wars in space regardless of the content. Would you be lax about those patents? or would you support and cheer for them? Do you write software? would you like your code to become subject to trivial patents that claim wholesale ownership of your code?
This is purely anticompetitive on Apple's part. What is so despicable is that Apple relies on the IP of others. They built their current business on the backs of BSD developers/open source software. Those same developers are now at risk from getting SUED by apple over software patents. The hypocrisy of this company is astounding. They are trying to remove open source from the marketplace. They want to own all code. Its pathetic really. You write some code on your computer that is completely different from anything Apple has written. Your code becomes successful then here comes Apple trying to sue you out of the marketplace. Its incredible despicable and wholly egregious. Will I ever recommend another Apple product after seeing these practices? NO. I fully expect them to sue ANY linux distribution if it ever gets any decent marketshare. Both Microsoft and Apple HATE open source and this is their way to kill it. Will it work? who knows.
Slashdot Mirror
You probably won't see it in Apple friendly press because they don't want you to know that part. However if you read other press such as computerworld then you will see it. But since your probably don't I will post a link and quote it there.
Here is the link you requested. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9224409/Apple_threatens_to_sue_Chinese_firm_in_iPad_trademark_dispute
and here is the relevant quote
"Monday's letter was sent just days after Proview's founder Yang held a press conference and said the trademark rights were never transferred because Apple had bought them from a Taiwan subsidiary company, and not from Proview itself."
They paid from the trademark from the Taiwan affiliate. The mainland China Corporate office has denied that apple can use that trademark in mainland China and has denied permission for the Taiwan affiliate to sell that trademark for use in Mainland China. Keep spouting Apple's talking points there without telling the whole story though carry on.
Nothing. This has nothing to do with Foxconn. Apple would still not be able to SELL ipads in Mainland China that's point here. Has nothing to do with manufacturing.
And Proview OWNS the trademark and has DENIED that its Taiwan affiliate had the rights to sell the trademark for use in mainland China. So no not SCO Mark 2. However Apple's suing Open-Source over trivial silly software-patents is SCO Mark 2.
I would seem that the Heartland institute is a truly corrupt entity. The Heartland institute cannot expect to stifle discussion of their seemingly corrupt behaviour. The Heartland institute must not have heard of the Streisand Effect. Maybe the Heartland institute should get a a clue and stop trying to squelch discussion. Its funny that the Heartland institute is trying to squelch speech yet the Heartland institute claims to be for free speech. The Heartland institutewere at the front of the line waving internal documents of climate scientists. Yet The Heartland institute is now threatening to sue anyone who discusses their internal Documents. Such pathetic doublestandards highlight the hypocrisy of the Heartland institute A poster child for corruption.
Tainted? Contaminated? Nice use of weasel words. So, why would Monsanto want to waste time suing people who don't buy their product? What would be then end goal? That would be like a Tyson Chicken suing vegetarians. There'd be no point. Seriously, do you even think about this? When they DO sue is when someone gets cross pollinated, INTENTIONALLY selects for the gene, then grows it. It's a big difference, one that anti-GMO groupstry to avoid mentioning mentioning....cause, you know, being misleading is the best way to make a point.
They sue to remove the organic thorn in their side from the marketplace.
When they DO sue is when someone gets cross pollinated, INTENTIONALLY selects for the gene, then grows it.
citation please.
yeah but you have to sign a license and the license forbids you from saving re-using seed, It also mandates that you pay a license fee for each hectare of land that you are growing monsanto crops additional to the price of the seed. The license also says that you must allow Monsanto police on your property and in grain sheds etc for 3 year after ceasing from using Monsanto seed. So seed guy shows up: "Hey I got some new seed just sign here" Farmer joe blow doesn't read the license (his fault there) and just signs on the dotted line. Then he is hooked and screwed.
So yes as the law that was purchased by Monsanto stands right now if Cheney's patented dog shits in your yard they Cheney owns all the shit in your yard from not only his dog but from yours also. This is the law as purchased by Monsanto.
This basically explains your post about Monsanto's tactics in detail check it out. It's chilling. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Goyb0jp5qCw
the conflation of natural breeding with GMO is something the industry has brainwashed many people with. Here is a clue. The Monsanto seed has genes from a bacterium. How do you make such a "genetic modification" through natural breeding? Can you mate bacteria with plants? pray tell.
What you are leaving out is the fact that with Monsanto seed they are taking genes from a bacterium that are resistant to Roundup and inserting them into crops. So tell me how do breeders get bacteria and plants to mate? You have any insights? We'd love to hear.
I am sure you may have a few rogue farmers doing that but do you think that is the norm? do you have any clue of what organic certified is? Do you understand the penalties for selling things labelled organic if its not organic? You may start here http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=ORGANIC_CERTIFICATIO Next go to google and type organic certification. try to learn something before you mindlessly spew garbage please.
Organic foods are foods that are produced using methods that do not involve modern synthetic inputs such as synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers, do not contain genetically modified organisms, and are not processed using irradiation, industrial solvents, or chemical food additives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food
But the Monsanto patented crops are sterile...
So your claims of second-hand seed, at least for these strains, are complete bullshit.
Not all of them only the terminator seed is. The patent license forbids seed re-use. The poster is a troll and his argument is indeed bullshit. Organic farmers do not want to use Monsanto seed because well... their crops won't be organic anymore. What really happens is that the Monsanto crops contaminate organic crops and then Monsanto sues them out of existence. Contamination usually by natural means eg cross pollination.
Monsanto license forbids farmers from reusing seed. And even if Monsanto crops naturally contaminate your crops then you are liable.
The first post is a troll. No organic farmer is going to buy Monsanto tainted seed. The tainted seed ruins organic crops. You cannot sell your crop as organic if its contaminated with Monsanto gene. The farms get contaminated by Monsanto crops due to direct seed drift, cross pollination, bees etc. Monsanto knows this so they simply trespass on farmlands and steal samples. Then they sue the farmer out of business.
You are correct. Actually they patent it. And judges have already ruled that even if your crop is contaminated with Monsanto's strain through direct see drift even if its a fraction of your crop then you Monsanto own your crop. All of it. Google David VS Monsanto for details.
Oh how nice of you to post at the exact time the article was posted with such verbosity You must be a speed typist. Anyway troll as you can see your attempt to sway the conversation here to the cheap evil farmers has failed. The point that you are intentionally missing is that organic farmers DO NOT WANT Monsanto roundup-ready crops contaminating their crops. When your product must be certified organic then it must be organic. Your shilling for Monsanto completely misses the point. When you use Monsanto seed you cannot save your seed for the next crop you must purchase new seed. The don't want Monsanto seed. This is like saying that Stallman wants his code to be infected with Microsoft's code. They don't want it. period. Monsanto's seed CONTAMINATES the organic farms through direct-seed-drift, bees and the like then sues these farms out of business with patent infringement. Monsanto has also sued seed cleaners out of business. Your drivel is just that... drivel. See here for more information.
I hope you apply the same standards to those who Apple has sued with trivial and obvious software-patents.
Are you talking about actual prices here? or just the prices that are accompanied by a contract with a carrier that is presented to the customer. You do know that a free phone is really not a free phone right? you know that the 4S is a $700+ phone right? When you get a phone with a contract you pay the full price of the phone over the life of the contract. Here is another question. Why is the 4S actual roughly equal to that of an iPad? The iPad has a much bigger screen and more raw materials so what gives? I would say phone patents and related licenses has quite a bit to do with that.
amen AMEN, I went from all Sony products to no Sony products over the last decade. I did the whole Sony Style thing. Everything was Sony. Now I don't own any more Sony products because of exactly what you mentioned along with their arrogant attitude and litigious behaviour. Sony's entry into the content business was the start of their downfall. Becoming a leading member of the RIAA and MPAA made it worse. I no longer purchase Sony products and actively recommend against their products. They should drop the content business and become a hardware company again this time without trying to populate the marketplace with non-standard hardware and only then will I consider recommending them to anyone.
Yeah I was surprised at that myself. Maybe he's busy working some other forum and blogs.
Well as sofware-patents are rubbish Google is right now to file for patents on crap like this so they can't sue Apple.
Android OEMs are an easy target due to Google's lack of indemnification and apparently lax attitude towards patent issues, but I suspect Microsoft would already be in the clear with licensing even if there were valid patent issues there.
Lax attitude towards patents? SOFTWARE SHOULD NOT BE PATENTED. Google just happens to be on the right side of that issue. Software is authored works and hence should be protected by copyright which it already is. Just like books and movies and music. So do you have a lax attitude towards the patenting of book story concepts? Or are you in favor or patenting the concept of a love story or wars in space or whatever. Lets just say the concept of wars in space was patented so no one could write a book about wars in space regardless of the content. Would you be lax about those patents? or would you support and cheer for them? Do you write software? would you like your code to become subject to trivial patents that claim wholesale ownership of your code?
This is purely anticompetitive on Apple's part. What is so despicable is that Apple relies on the IP of others. They built their current business on the backs of BSD developers/open source software. Those same developers are now at risk from getting SUED by apple over software patents. The hypocrisy of this company is astounding. They are trying to remove open source from the marketplace. They want to own all code. Its pathetic really. You write some code on your computer that is completely different from anything Apple has written. Your code becomes successful then here comes Apple trying to sue you out of the marketplace. Its incredible despicable and wholly egregious. Will I ever recommend another Apple product after seeing these practices? NO. I fully expect them to sue ANY linux distribution if it ever gets any decent marketshare. Both Microsoft and Apple HATE open source and this is their way to kill it. Will it work? who knows.