If you think of the phrase, "There's an app for that," phonetically, and you have a trademark on that phrase within the telecommunications industry, specifically cell phones, and someone else (Verizon) uses the phrase, "There's a map for that," phonetically, you could pretty much claim that Verizon is infringing because they ARE using that phrase with a mere "m" sound added on one word. The entire phonetic content of the phrase in question can be easily found (and heard) in the commercial. It's pretty obvious (to me) that they were making a play on words. They just happen to be making a play on words that may or may not be trademarked (IANAL).
Not saying that I disagree with you, but your analogy is seriously broken. It might work if instead of counting "gross total or per-capita population or per-capita car-owner/gun-owner" you counted it as gross total per-capita car ride/gun shot. As you have it, it's like saying that simply having a gun could make you dangerous, or the other way, simply having a car could make you a bad driver. Nether is true. If I shoot my gun, there is the potential for someone to be hit accidentally, and if I go for a ride in my car, there is the potential that I could get in an accident. Comparing them that way, I think it would be a lot harder to say that the gun is safer. Of course, the analogy is flawed in another way as well. A car is not created with the sole purpose of killing something.
You're right, but being a tad naive I think. It's a whole lot easier to enforce a "law" than an "opinion". If people would simply admit that they were in the wrong, or doing something stupid, and pay the fine, then all would be well. But we don't. Generally speaking, most people will try to fight a ticket if they think there is even the slightest chance that they could get out of it, even on a technicality. Those moronic details aren't there because of some obsessive compulsive lawmaker, those moronic details are there because we're assholes.
Sorry, but have you seen the selection of instantly watchable content on Netflix? This is basically what Hulu is considering. It's crap. Utter, and pointless crap. About 1% of the selections are current big budget movies, the rest is stuff from the 70's or movies that were so bad that they never even made it to the theater. There are of course the few classic gems, but do you ever think you're going to see Star Wars up there? Not a chance. The big studios will NEVER loosen the grips on their money makers to the likes of Instaview. They are going wring every last cent out of it... forever. Why? Because they're idiots.
Personally, I wouldn't mind paying for most TV shows and movies per-viewing, so long as it was cheap and I had the option to buy. Further, what I'd really like to do is buy free access to downloads in perpetuity, regardless of new/improved formats. What I mean is, I might actually be convinced to spend $20 on a movie on iTunes if I knew that I could re-download it whenever I wanted (if the original file was lost or deleted), and that if they release it in 1080p in a couple of years I could download that copy, too. And then if they released it in whatever replaced 1080p, I could get that free too. That would be my preference as a consumer, that they quit trying to force me to re-buy the same movie over and over again.
... Further, all the good lawyers would be on salary or retainer for large companies; few would be willing to work for a chance to get paid a reasonable hourly rate.
Actually, this sounds like a great idea to me. They get "rewarded" if the client wins the case, usually in the form of a percentage of the take, er... award. But what's the penalty for failure? All we're doing is encouraging the lousy lawyers to take as many cases as possible at someone else's expense, and then allow them to flake if they decide they can't win, or the award won't be high enough. I say, if you don't win the case, they don't get diddly. In fact, they get to pay the other side's legal fees. Either work for hire at an hourly rate, or choose the battles you really really think you can win and go for the higher payoff.
At first I thought that you were just being snarky... But then, when I thought about it, the ONLY reason I would ever see a movie in the theater anymore is the sound system. I can certainly get an equivalent (or better) visual experience with a large screen TV, but I would make enemies of my neighbors real quick if I decided to watch Revenge of the Sith at theater level sound. As good as my headphones are, there's nothing to compare to that body-thumping bass that a theater can give... at least while I live in an apartment.
Not sure about you, but with the cost of a cinema "experience" what it is today, I don't go to the theater casually anymore. If I'm going to spend $25 to get in and sit down with a drink and a dinky bag of stale popcorn (more than twice that if I have a date - yeah, I know... this is/.) then I'm certainly not going to just randomly decide on my way home that I want to see a movie. I'll plan it out, get a bit dressed up and leave my damn laptop at home. It's not like I need any more badges declaring my geekdom.
And let's not forget that even though I might pirate a certain bit of software from company X (for any of the reasons you mentioned), that I am NOT using a similar competing software from company Y. Even piracy increases market share.
Of course, the BSA isn't going to mention that in their statistics.
If Honda started seeing an increase in ($$) service calls (and subsequent poor vehicle reviews) in relation to alternators, and then discovered that that increase was as a result of third-party "cheaper/has better features/whatever", would you fault them for tightening the spec to try and fix the problem?
Apple has always been about having something that works. It works because they control the hardware and the software for their products. They don't write their software for third-party products, whether or not they offer API's, nor should they. It's not anti-competitive to want their product to work as claimed. Palm has every right and even documentation on how to use those API's to write their own software to do whatever they want with the data... EXCEPT claim to be an Apple supported product.
Just how happy do you think Honda would be if Joe's Alternators claimed to be a Honda product?
It gets worse. Remember that in most cases, "free" news really isn't free for us in the sense that we are "paying" for it by being subjected to a literal overload of banner and text ads that are increasingly designed to look like a part of the actual news site (and as such are harder to ignore). Would we be given a "better", "cleaner" experience if we paid a monthly fee for our news? Maybe, but I haven't seen it in the past. Newspapers are still grossly plastered with ads, and we pay for that. Even a site like Salon.com, which offers a "premium" subscription, still has ads whether you pay or not.
I might pay for a site if it was TRULY just news. But as it is, I certainly can't trust someone like Murdoch to do that.
Wow, how ironic that I post that the parent comment is flamebait and I get modded "troll". I guess when speaking about anything Apple I should be WAY more clear... My whole point was that regardless of what the phone is physically capable of, or whether you think Google's App should have been allowed or not, the iPhone is selling big for reasons that have little to do with what most of us on/. want in a phone. Being "cool" has value. Maybe not as much to us here, but certainly to the average iPhone user. He says, "Stop buying into this in droves or the future is nothing but a string of crippled devices."... And what does he think we are already buying? I haven't been able to purchase a phone in years that wasn't bluetooth crippled, or lacked the wifi that was already included by the manufacturer but somehow disappeared in the Verizon store. If anything, Apple is giving people a solid, well designed product that satisfies most of the cellular market, and has added value in that it has a very large App base (even if you're just looking for FREE apps). For tech-heads to bitch about how "closed off" it and Apple is... That's just moronic, and certainly nothing new to the phone industry. That Apple has has chosen NOT to break this cycle is hardly surprising, after all, if ANYONE is concerned about keeping control over their product base, it's them. And for good reason.
How is this Score 5, Insightful? At best this is flamebait. Nothing you have said couldn't be applied to any phone marketed in the last decade. About the only difference between the iPhone and the past, is that A, the iphone costs more, and B, it's Apple, which despite your obvious hatred, DOES have a product that people seem to want. Fanboy or no, it's selling. Whether or not it's worth the money can NOT be answered by looking at it's engineering. You could ask the same question of a Corvette. If it's hot, it's hot. Most drivers (or iPhone owners) don't care about the engineering or infrastructure, they only want to know that their girlfriend looks hot laying on the hood (or holding it to their head).
I'm sorry, but that's absolute bullshit. Just because YOU might have radar that thinks for you, how likely is it that the person behind you with the 25 year-old pickup truck has it as well? He might react faster than your computer controlled brakes, but I doubt it. Unless the radar and computer can assess the road situation at least a quarter mile away and apply the brakes slowly over time when you fail to, it's going to be useless if you're moving more than 50 mph, and certainly won't "eliminate rear end collisions". Unless you're completely distracted by the bosomy redhead in the halter top by the side of the road, nearly all rear end collisions are caused because the car in front of you brakes too quickly for you to react. A quick-acting radar system MIGHT stop you in time, but simple physics says that you doomed yourself when you decided to tailgate the guy in front you. The only safety feature I want in new cars is some way to teach people how to actually drive. Your post reads like an ad from Ford.
I think the point was that it's a feature that SHOULD be included in cell phones, but isn't. Sure, legality aside, it can be done... if I want to carry around yet another piece of equipment with batteries to maintain, a cable to my phone (which in many phones would automatically disable the speaker on the phone itself, making wearing a headset mandatory to use the thing), and a placard that permanently identifies me as a geek without a love life. No thanks.
If recording a conversation is illegal, then what happens if you have a perfect memory? And how long until someone (most likely a patent troll) makes it a crime to "retain" that data in your "personal memory" for more than 24 hours?
Well that would explain why cell phone providers don't include the obvious feature to record both sides of a conversation, even temporarily. How man times have you hung up from a call and then said to yourself, "did he say the meeting was Friday at six?"... or are the cell-phone software makers just lazy-ass programmers that simply want to get some piece of crap out to market before their competitor?
Isn't that exactly my point... If you are going to make a scientific statement that includes that word "all", or "always", then you are declaring a natural law, not a theory.
Just because you found a car that was powered by cow manure, doesn't preclude the possibility that at one time it WAS powered by gasoline, but was frankensteined by farmer John and his brother Billy-Bob.
Wait... just from a cost standpoint, what's going to be more expensive - using the existing tried mechanical meters and paying a few city workers to drive around and collect coins and issue tickets, or pay to have a ton of new signs and networked machines installed and a fancy high-tech truck that scans license plates and wirelessly compares those plates in real time with the database?
Slashdot Mirror
If you think of the phrase, "There's an app for that," phonetically, and you have a trademark on that phrase within the telecommunications industry, specifically cell phones, and someone else (Verizon) uses the phrase, "There's a map for that," phonetically, you could pretty much claim that Verizon is infringing because they ARE using that phrase with a mere "m" sound added on one word. The entire phonetic content of the phrase in question can be easily found (and heard) in the commercial. It's pretty obvious (to me) that they were making a play on words. They just happen to be making a play on words that may or may not be trademarked (IANAL).
Presumably, there is some kind of downside that balances that selective advantage. Are there other behaviors for which the rat is impaired?
Yeah, now they need glasses and can't seem to get a date.
Not saying that I disagree with you, but your analogy is seriously broken. It might work if instead of counting "gross total or per-capita population or per-capita car-owner/gun-owner" you counted it as gross total per-capita car ride/gun shot. As you have it, it's like saying that simply having a gun could make you dangerous, or the other way, simply having a car could make you a bad driver. Nether is true. If I shoot my gun, there is the potential for someone to be hit accidentally, and if I go for a ride in my car, there is the potential that I could get in an accident. Comparing them that way, I think it would be a lot harder to say that the gun is safer. Of course, the analogy is flawed in another way as well. A car is not created with the sole purpose of killing something.
An ambulance blazing through a stoplight isn't safe. Do you think they should stop and wait for the light to change?
You're right, but being a tad naive I think. It's a whole lot easier to enforce a "law" than an "opinion". If people would simply admit that they were in the wrong, or doing something stupid, and pay the fine, then all would be well. But we don't. Generally speaking, most people will try to fight a ticket if they think there is even the slightest chance that they could get out of it, even on a technicality. Those moronic details aren't there because of some obsessive compulsive lawmaker, those moronic details are there because we're assholes.
Sorry, but have you seen the selection of instantly watchable content on Netflix? This is basically what Hulu is considering. It's crap. Utter, and pointless crap. About 1% of the selections are current big budget movies, the rest is stuff from the 70's or movies that were so bad that they never even made it to the theater. There are of course the few classic gems, but do you ever think you're going to see Star Wars up there? Not a chance. The big studios will NEVER loosen the grips on their money makers to the likes of Instaview. They are going wring every last cent out of it... forever. Why? Because they're idiots.
Personally, I wouldn't mind paying for most TV shows and movies per-viewing, so long as it was cheap and I had the option to buy. Further, what I'd really like to do is buy free access to downloads in perpetuity, regardless of new/improved formats. What I mean is, I might actually be convinced to spend $20 on a movie on iTunes if I knew that I could re-download it whenever I wanted (if the original file was lost or deleted), and that if they release it in 1080p in a couple of years I could download that copy, too. And then if they released it in whatever replaced 1080p, I could get that free too. That would be my preference as a consumer, that they quit trying to force me to re-buy the same movie over and over again.
Well you can... It's called Netflix.
... Further, all the good lawyers would be on salary or retainer for large companies; few would be willing to work for a chance to get paid a reasonable hourly rate.
Actually, this sounds like a great idea to me. They get "rewarded" if the client wins the case, usually in the form of a percentage of the take, er... award. But what's the penalty for failure? All we're doing is encouraging the lousy lawyers to take as many cases as possible at someone else's expense, and then allow them to flake if they decide they can't win, or the award won't be high enough. I say, if you don't win the case, they don't get diddly. In fact, they get to pay the other side's legal fees. Either work for hire at an hourly rate, or choose the battles you really really think you can win and go for the higher payoff.
At first I thought that you were just being snarky... But then, when I thought about it, the ONLY reason I would ever see a movie in the theater anymore is the sound system. I can certainly get an equivalent (or better) visual experience with a large screen TV, but I would make enemies of my neighbors real quick if I decided to watch Revenge of the Sith at theater level sound. As good as my headphones are, there's nothing to compare to that body-thumping bass that a theater can give... at least while I live in an apartment.
Not sure about you, but with the cost of a cinema "experience" what it is today, I don't go to the theater casually anymore. If I'm going to spend $25 to get in and sit down with a drink and a dinky bag of stale popcorn (more than twice that if I have a date - yeah, I know... this is /.) then I'm certainly not going to just randomly decide on my way home that I want to see a movie. I'll plan it out, get a bit dressed up and leave my damn laptop at home. It's not like I need any more badges declaring my geekdom.
And let's not forget that even though I might pirate a certain bit of software from company X (for any of the reasons you mentioned), that I am NOT using a similar competing software from company Y. Even piracy increases market share.
Of course, the BSA isn't going to mention that in their statistics.
Didn't your mother ever tell you not to use triple negatives? Hope this Bozo doesn't code like he speaks.
If Honda started seeing an increase in ($$) service calls (and subsequent poor vehicle reviews) in relation to alternators, and then discovered that that increase was as a result of third-party "cheaper/has better features/whatever", would you fault them for tightening the spec to try and fix the problem?
Apple has always been about having something that works. It works because they control the hardware and the software for their products. They don't write their software for third-party products, whether or not they offer API's, nor should they. It's not anti-competitive to want their product to work as claimed. Palm has every right and even documentation on how to use those API's to write their own software to do whatever they want with the data... EXCEPT claim to be an Apple supported product.
Just how happy do you think Honda would be if Joe's Alternators claimed to be a Honda product?
It gets worse. Remember that in most cases, "free" news really isn't free for us in the sense that we are "paying" for it by being subjected to a literal overload of banner and text ads that are increasingly designed to look like a part of the actual news site (and as such are harder to ignore). Would we be given a "better", "cleaner" experience if we paid a monthly fee for our news? Maybe, but I haven't seen it in the past. Newspapers are still grossly plastered with ads, and we pay for that. Even a site like Salon.com, which offers a "premium" subscription, still has ads whether you pay or not.
I might pay for a site if it was TRULY just news. But as it is, I certainly can't trust someone like Murdoch to do that.
Wow, how ironic that I post that the parent comment is flamebait and I get modded "troll". I guess when speaking about anything Apple I should be WAY more clear... My whole point was that regardless of what the phone is physically capable of, or whether you think Google's App should have been allowed or not, the iPhone is selling big for reasons that have little to do with what most of us on /. want in a phone. Being "cool" has value. Maybe not as much to us here, but certainly to the average iPhone user. He says, "Stop buying into this in droves or the future is nothing but a string of crippled devices."... And what does he think we are already buying? I haven't been able to purchase a phone in years that wasn't bluetooth crippled, or lacked the wifi that was already included by the manufacturer but somehow disappeared in the Verizon store. If anything, Apple is giving people a solid, well designed product that satisfies most of the cellular market, and has added value in that it has a very large App base (even if you're just looking for FREE apps). For tech-heads to bitch about how "closed off" it and Apple is... That's just moronic, and certainly nothing new to the phone industry. That Apple has has chosen NOT to break this cycle is hardly surprising, after all, if ANYONE is concerned about keeping control over their product base, it's them. And for good reason.
Right, because the iTunes store is SO dominated by music alternatives now...
How is this Score 5, Insightful? At best this is flamebait. Nothing you have said couldn't be applied to any phone marketed in the last decade. About the only difference between the iPhone and the past, is that A, the iphone costs more, and B, it's Apple, which despite your obvious hatred, DOES have a product that people seem to want. Fanboy or no, it's selling. Whether or not it's worth the money can NOT be answered by looking at it's engineering. You could ask the same question of a Corvette. If it's hot, it's hot. Most drivers (or iPhone owners) don't care about the engineering or infrastructure, they only want to know that their girlfriend looks hot laying on the hood (or holding it to their head).
Now you can have all the security and stability of .Net and Microsoft right on your Apple iPhone! Oh wait...
I'm sorry, but that's absolute bullshit. Just because YOU might have radar that thinks for you, how likely is it that the person behind you with the 25 year-old pickup truck has it as well? He might react faster than your computer controlled brakes, but I doubt it. Unless the radar and computer can assess the road situation at least a quarter mile away and apply the brakes slowly over time when you fail to, it's going to be useless if you're moving more than 50 mph, and certainly won't "eliminate rear end collisions". Unless you're completely distracted by the bosomy redhead in the halter top by the side of the road, nearly all rear end collisions are caused because the car in front of you brakes too quickly for you to react. A quick-acting radar system MIGHT stop you in time, but simple physics says that you doomed yourself when you decided to tailgate the guy in front you. The only safety feature I want in new cars is some way to teach people how to actually drive. Your post reads like an ad from Ford.
I think the point was that it's a feature that SHOULD be included in cell phones, but isn't. Sure, legality aside, it can be done... if I want to carry around yet another piece of equipment with batteries to maintain, a cable to my phone (which in many phones would automatically disable the speaker on the phone itself, making wearing a headset mandatory to use the thing), and a placard that permanently identifies me as a geek without a love life. No thanks. If recording a conversation is illegal, then what happens if you have a perfect memory? And how long until someone (most likely a patent troll) makes it a crime to "retain" that data in your "personal memory" for more than 24 hours?
Well that would explain why cell phone providers don't include the obvious feature to record both sides of a conversation, even temporarily. How man times have you hung up from a call and then said to yourself, "did he say the meeting was Friday at six?" ... or are the cell-phone software makers just lazy-ass programmers that simply want to get some piece of crap out to market before their competitor?
And it should also function underwater to 50 meters! And in a vacuum! And double as an ice-scraper for my windshield!
You want to use it in the rain, stand INSIDE the house, or, buy an expanding moisture shield... otherwise known as an UMBRELLA.
Unless of course you were being sarcastic, in which case how the hell did you get modded "Insightful"?
Isn't that exactly my point... If you are going to make a scientific statement that includes that word "all", or "always", then you are declaring a natural law, not a theory.
Just because you found a car that was powered by cow manure, doesn't preclude the possibility that at one time it WAS powered by gasoline, but was frankensteined by farmer John and his brother Billy-Bob.
So.. 400 years of orbital mechanics thrown out from a sample of... one?
Wait... just from a cost standpoint, what's going to be more expensive - using the existing tried mechanical meters and paying a few city workers to drive around and collect coins and issue tickets, or pay to have a ton of new signs and networked machines installed and a fancy high-tech truck that scans license plates and wirelessly compares those plates in real time with the database?
Oh, and the park plus machines need power...