The Judiciary has previously supported the contention that Congress is uniquely empowered to make patent and copyright law since it is explicit in the Constitution.
Did you actually look at the figure in the Apple patent D627,790? A row of indicators (signal strength, battery,etc) at the top and icons that are rectangular with rounded corners arranged in four columns with three rows a gap and a fourth row. Samsung has four columns and five rows. The arrangement of icons in columns and rows is obvious, and has been done for many years. Surely you are not suggesting that four columns is a significant and patentable design element.
Icons are the superficial aspect of a GUI interface. A representation of a calculator is the most reasonable and obvious icon to represent a calculator application, likewise many other applications have a very limited number of appropriate representations. I am not aware of any case law that suggests that Apple, or any entity would be allowed to monopolize such representations through design patents based on the limited claim. Trademarks may protect the specific images for applications for which trademarks have been secured.
A player is expected to have a finite life as an active user, probably less than two years. The price of the game is set based on assumptions about the attrition rate.
Giving the game to another user extends the length of time the server load exists for that copy of the software.
Apple has demonstrated that a border other than black is difficult to implement. The white border required significant investment from Apple to bring to market. As a result, Samsung is on solid ground with their color choice.
As for the icons, if, as Apple claims, it is an intuitive interface then it is not patentable since intuitive means perceived independently of reasoning which makes it obvious or trivial.
... What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
If you wish to sell through the Amazon App Store, you must agree. When they give it away, they pay you 20% of list. You set list, they set selling price. If they discount 72% (sell at 28% of list) you still get 20% and they get 8% which means they can afford to do that forever (28% margin for them), and you have no recourse.
Not if this is the trend. Where are the links to the original sources - DOI RFQ, Google's complaint, the DOJ brief, and the amicus briefs? This was the worst bit of reporting I have seen from Groklaw, and I believe Google's suit is valid.
If you read the RFQ you can see that the DOI did not issue a competitive request as they should have, but that FISMA certification was to be achieved after the contract was issued so it is a non-issue.
Google's complaint is whiny and overlong and full of irrrelevant facts that only weaken their position.
The DOJ brief said the Government is presumed to act fairly so Google's suit should be dismissed. The DOJ has our best and brightest?
But instead of dealing with the real issues it is about distractions. What is this, Reality TV?
I think Flash leaves a lot to be desired, I agree with Steve Jobs' assessment of it for mobile, but if you read the article it is clear that the author doesn't know squat. It is pretty clear Flash was working as designed for the most part. A monkey at a keyboard is limited to a hundred characters or so, but a journalist at touchscreen on a webpage with Flash enabled provides virtually unlimited ways to demonstrate incompetence.
I've never used Android, but I know that swipe doesn't work on a Flash or a scroll window. Clue one that he hasn't got a clue, and he takes Flash to task for this, it works that way on my MacBook, even when running Windows. He did not know how to turn off the Flash by default setting. He strikes me as a real power user.
"Playback quality was mostly good but a little choppy at times, and audio occasionally seemed slightly out of sync." Did he check to see if that was the case with another browser? Did he confirm that his bandwidth was adequate? If not, it could be that he was getting the full user experience. But a journalist won't let fact checking get in the way of a good story.
"Videos that looked sharp in full-screen mode seemed to degrade in picture quality when shrunk to smaller sizes." That happens on any platform, but who shrinks Flash content? I am more, "Make it full screen and wish it were bigger." "This becomes especially clear when scaling bitmapped text, which becomes blocky and hard to read at small sizes." Has this guy been watching too many CSI type shows - "Zoom in and enhance"? if you make text small the pixels of your display will eventually make it blocky. Does he offer us screenshots? No, he didn't, probably because he isn't capable and/or because he knows it isn't any truer of this version of Flash than any other.
Why skip those "carefully vetted showpieces"? Especially when he said, "I had a hard time finding demo cases." Sure they are of limited value, but if Flash is as broken as he seems to believe, wouldn't one expect that maybe it would show up there too? "Canned demos," like the kind that show you how the interface works? Either way why not just do it? He clearly demonstrated his prejudice at that point in the article. He just refused to learn how to use the touchscreen and blamed his ineptitude on Flash. I've seen the same sort of unwarranted criticisms from PC users, Mac users and *nix users on platforms other than their favorite.
"As it stands, Flash support offers no reason for buying a Xoom instead of an iPad." And yet he had to search for sites where he could demonstrate how badly Flash works, remember earlier he said, "I had a hard time finding demo cases. The Xoom ships with a video player that automatically launches when you view content from YouTube or Dailymotion, so you don't need Flash for those sites." So I don't see how relevant Flash is, yes it will work, perhaps poorly, the few times you actually need it, but doing without on an iPad is clearly preferable?
If you had read the PDF, you would know that it was swallows that were the type of birds that were burnt. While I recognize that the Audubon study is necessarily flawed, not considering the possible beneficial impact on the birds' environment due to the plant, I do believe that their observations are more reliable than your purely anecdotal recollection.
Flash is cash. Seriously, if Microsoft wants to beat Android and iOS this is the one place they have a content advantage. They can both capitalize on the existing websites that use Flash and slow the transition to alternatives. If Windows makes applications run in a proper sandbox, exploits should not be a huge problem.
You implied that lack of FISMA certification meant the product was not qualified to be bought. The FISMA certification was, according to the DOI documents, to be achieved after the contract was made. It is not really a relevant issue in the suit. The DOI sole-sourced Microsoft's product rather than issuing a competitive bid request. Both sides are spinning the side issues, but if you pay more attention to the side issues than the main issue you have been suckered.
Trademark law prevents Google from using "Microsoft" in their products. The lawsuit is about the DOI specifying a Microsoft product instead of allowing a competitive bid based on the functional requirements.
They didn't lose, they weren't allowed in the competition - that is the real story. Microsoft is trying to get people believe that there is some other issue/story, they even managed to distract you from the real story. DOI issued a RFQ that specified Microsoft product only rather than stating the requirements and accepting one on its merits, Google believed DOI was not acting properly.
The suit is about being "considered", not about being "chosen". Google was not considered, only Microsoft offerings were considered. The DOI should have issued the RFQ with whatever restrictions they wanted short of a specified product and chosen from the bids. They did it wrong.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/40513712/Google-v-US-Complaint
Microsoft's offering, Business Productivity Online Standard, was not FISMA certified either. The suit seems legitimate, regardless of their claim about their own certification.
It's more like, you signed a deal that specifically excludes anything said during the negotiations from being admissible in court. So live with that part of the deal. Since the Winklevosses have no evidence, they can't prevail. The relative value of the shares then and now are irrelevant.
No, Boyle's law applies, if you recall, it is pressure ratio, not pressure difference, so it is equivalent to being fully saturated at about 40 feet and surfacing. If you are a scuba diver, you may recall that adjustments are supposed to be made to the dive tables when diving at altitude. The adjustments suggest that the tissue balance would be worse rather than better at altitude. so getting the bends is likely, but embolism (pulmonary barotrauma) would be the greater threat.
Slashdot Mirror
The Judiciary has previously supported the contention that Congress is uniquely empowered to make patent and copyright law since it is explicit in the Constitution.
Did you actually look at the figure in the Apple patent D627,790? A row of indicators (signal strength, battery,etc) at the top and icons that are rectangular with rounded corners arranged in four columns with three rows a gap and a fourth row. Samsung has four columns and five rows. The arrangement of icons in columns and rows is obvious, and has been done for many years. Surely you are not suggesting that four columns is a significant and patentable design element.
Icons are the superficial aspect of a GUI interface. A representation of a calculator is the most reasonable and obvious icon to represent a calculator application, likewise many other applications have a very limited number of appropriate representations. I am not aware of any case law that suggests that Apple, or any entity would be allowed to monopolize such representations through design patents based on the limited claim. Trademarks may protect the specific images for applications for which trademarks have been secured.
Mi©®o$oft can't lose this case regardless of the court's ruling. If they prevail, Congress will step in and hand them the strong patent protection that they really want. If they lose, the courts hand it to them. They prefer the former since that allows them to get the specific language they want in the new law, and they get the win on this case.
A player is expected to have a finite life as an active user, probably less than two years. The price of the game is set based on assumptions about the attrition rate. Giving the game to another user extends the length of time the server load exists for that copy of the software.
Apple long ago established that one button is superior. ;)
Apple has demonstrated that a border other than black is difficult to implement. The white border required significant investment from Apple to bring to market. As a result, Samsung is on solid ground with their color choice.
As for the icons, if, as Apple claims, it is an intuitive interface then it is not patentable since intuitive means perceived independently of reasoning which makes it obvious or trivial.
Sometimes, though, copying someone else's work makes things cheaper, quicker, and with fewer dead astronauts.
Astronauts yes, people no.
Venerforming is what results from greenhouse emissions.
... What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Yeah, I'd say that just about sums it up.
If you wish to sell through the Amazon App Store, you must agree. When they give it away, they pay you 20% of list. You set list, they set selling price. If they discount 72% (sell at 28% of list) you still get 20% and they get 8% which means they can afford to do that forever (28% margin for them), and you have no recourse.
Lady Macbeth washed her hands frequently. I am sure one can draw parallels.
Not if this is the trend. Where are the links to the original sources - DOI RFQ, Google's complaint, the DOJ brief, and the amicus briefs? This was the worst bit of reporting I have seen from Groklaw, and I believe Google's suit is valid.
If you read the RFQ you can see that the DOI did not issue a competitive request as they should have, but that FISMA certification was to be achieved after the contract was issued so it is a non-issue.
Google's complaint is whiny and overlong and full of irrrelevant facts that only weaken their position.
The DOJ brief said the Government is presumed to act fairly so Google's suit should be dismissed. The DOJ has our best and brightest?
But instead of dealing with the real issues it is about distractions. What is this, Reality TV?
I think Flash leaves a lot to be desired, I agree with Steve Jobs' assessment of it for mobile, but if you read the article it is clear that the author doesn't know squat. It is pretty clear Flash was working as designed for the most part. A monkey at a keyboard is limited to a hundred characters or so, but a journalist at touchscreen on a webpage with Flash enabled provides virtually unlimited ways to demonstrate incompetence.
I've never used Android, but I know that swipe doesn't work on a Flash or a scroll window. Clue one that he hasn't got a clue, and he takes Flash to task for this, it works that way on my MacBook, even when running Windows. He did not know how to turn off the Flash by default setting. He strikes me as a real power user.
"Playback quality was mostly good but a little choppy at times, and audio occasionally seemed slightly out of sync." Did he check to see if that was the case with another browser? Did he confirm that his bandwidth was adequate? If not, it could be that he was getting the full user experience. But a journalist won't let fact checking get in the way of a good story.
"Videos that looked sharp in full-screen mode seemed to degrade in picture quality when shrunk to smaller sizes." That happens on any platform, but who shrinks Flash content? I am more, "Make it full screen and wish it were bigger." "This becomes especially clear when scaling bitmapped text, which becomes blocky and hard to read at small sizes." Has this guy been watching too many CSI type shows - "Zoom in and enhance"? if you make text small the pixels of your display will eventually make it blocky. Does he offer us screenshots? No, he didn't, probably because he isn't capable and/or because he knows it isn't any truer of this version of Flash than any other.
Why skip those "carefully vetted showpieces"? Especially when he said, "I had a hard time finding demo cases." Sure they are of limited value, but if Flash is as broken as he seems to believe, wouldn't one expect that maybe it would show up there too? "Canned demos," like the kind that show you how the interface works? Either way why not just do it? He clearly demonstrated his prejudice at that point in the article. He just refused to learn how to use the touchscreen and blamed his ineptitude on Flash. I've seen the same sort of unwarranted criticisms from PC users, Mac users and *nix users on platforms other than their favorite.
"As it stands, Flash support offers no reason for buying a Xoom instead of an iPad." And yet he had to search for sites where he could demonstrate how badly Flash works, remember earlier he said, "I had a hard time finding demo cases. The Xoom ships with a video player that automatically launches when you view content from YouTube or Dailymotion, so you don't need Flash for those sites." So I don't see how relevant Flash is, yes it will work, perhaps poorly, the few times you actually need it, but doing without on an iPad is clearly preferable?
No, that device was given a name which obscures its intent, and DARPA didn't make any announcements about it.
If you had read the PDF, you would know that it was swallows that were the type of birds that were burnt. While I recognize that the Audubon study is necessarily flawed, not considering the possible beneficial impact on the birds' environment due to the plant, I do believe that their observations are more reliable than your purely anecdotal recollection.
Flash is cash. Seriously, if Microsoft wants to beat Android and iOS this is the one place they have a content advantage. They can both capitalize on the existing websites that use Flash and slow the transition to alternatives. If Windows makes applications run in a proper sandbox, exploits should not be a huge problem.
You implied that lack of FISMA certification meant the product was not qualified to be bought. The FISMA certification was, according to the DOI documents, to be achieved after the contract was made. It is not really a relevant issue in the suit. The DOI sole-sourced Microsoft's product rather than issuing a competitive bid request. Both sides are spinning the side issues, but if you pay more attention to the side issues than the main issue you have been suckered.
Trademark law prevents Google from using "Microsoft" in their products. The lawsuit is about the DOI specifying a Microsoft product instead of allowing a competitive bid based on the functional requirements.
They didn't lose, they weren't allowed in the competition - that is the real story. Microsoft is trying to get people believe that there is some other issue/story, they even managed to distract you from the real story. DOI issued a RFQ that specified Microsoft product only rather than stating the requirements and accepting one on its merits, Google believed DOI was not acting properly.
The suit is about being "considered", not about being "chosen". Google was not considered, only Microsoft offerings were considered. The DOI should have issued the RFQ with whatever restrictions they wanted short of a specified product and chosen from the bids. They did it wrong. http://www.scribd.com/doc/40513712/Google-v-US-Complaint
Microsoft's offering, Business Productivity Online Standard, was not FISMA certified either. The suit seems legitimate, regardless of their claim about their own certification.
It's more like, you signed a deal that specifically excludes anything said during the negotiations from being admissible in court. So live with that part of the deal. Since the Winklevosses have no evidence, they can't prevail. The relative value of the shares then and now are irrelevant.
But they pixelated the wrong part of the animal.
NASDS Certified 1978. Boyle's Law applies. 5 meters doesn't. So he is at best half right.
No, Boyle's law applies, if you recall, it is pressure ratio, not pressure difference, so it is equivalent to being fully saturated at about 40 feet and surfacing. If you are a scuba diver, you may recall that adjustments are supposed to be made to the dive tables when diving at altitude. The adjustments suggest that the tissue balance would be worse rather than better at altitude. so getting the bends is likely, but embolism (pulmonary barotrauma) would be the greater threat.