AT&T is still a GSM carrier. It's a lot easier for them to deal with two sets of GSM 3G frequencies than it would be for Sprint to deal with WiMax 4G, CDMA 3G, and GSM 3G.
That comment ignores everything there is about reality. Ignoring the fact of lock-in, the fact of limited consumer choice, and the fact of market inertia.
With true capitalism monopolies can only exist if they serve the consumer better than any other competitor.
Or if they buy out their competitors and force the others out of business. In case you haven't noticed, Microsoft was able to get monopoly status without any special intervention, just good ol' fashioned anti-competitive behavior.
Law 1: not true. In a competitive market, the corporation that can give customers the most value will keep the most value for itself. What you say is only true in monopolistic and (sometimes) oligopolistic environments.
Which is why he posted Law 2. And in an unregulated market, AT&T would have already bought T-Mobile, and Verizon probably would have already bought Sprint.
You forgot the sarcasm mark on there. Because there's absolutely no evidence that such a thing would happen, and that the big players wouldn't simply buy out most of their competitors, and force the rest out of business.
As opposed to the idea that we should give shitty companies more power and ability to do what they're doing? At least with the government, I have a say in how things are run. I don't have any such power with a company.
Why USAians don't demand better regulation is a mystery to me.
Because regulation is the first step on the path to SOCIALISM! We can't have that! We need business to be as free as possible, so we can follow in the footsteps of other great Libertarian countries like Somalia.
Also, am I the only one who sees "USAians" as "US Asians"?
"Prior Art" doesn't mean that someone thought of it before. Prior Art means that someone had implemented or made something very similar to the patent subject prior to the person applying beginning their work.
Did you see the sales numbers in your own link? The ones that show the iPhone having higher sales than any singular phone out there? To look at that, and then to somehow say that the iPhone isn't popular shows that you're an idiot.
You lost all credibility with that statement, and everything after it was ignored as being equally stupid. Just because you don't like the iPhone does not mean that it's not popular. It's the single best selling smartphone out there. The iPhone sells better than any model of Android phone. To try and discredit that as being "faddish" shows that you are nothing but an anti-Apple fanboy.
It's still "real crime" which you mentioned above. But because it happened to people you don't like, then all of a sudden the cops should have "more important" things to do.
Excuse me? The phone was left in a bar. Then somebody had it, and then Gizmodo had it. How does that happen without someone "taking" the phone?
CA law does state he should have turned it into the bartender. He did not, and thus was in violation of that law. And if you recall, the guy called AppleCare. How the fuck would AppleCare know about a prototype phone?
If the guy wasn't looking to take the phone, he should have messaged the guy who lost it. They had his Facebook account. There is absolutely no excuse for what happened.
Yeah, you can't show that there was no harm. However, it can be very readily proven that Gizmodo took part in the buying and selling of stolen property.
Slashdot Mirror
Awesome. Hopefully the LTE phone chipsets will be devised in a way that they can be easily reconfigured for other frequencies by the user.
AT&T is still a GSM carrier. It's a lot easier for them to deal with two sets of GSM 3G frequencies than it would be for Sprint to deal with WiMax 4G, CDMA 3G, and GSM 3G.
That comment ignores everything there is about reality. Ignoring the fact of lock-in, the fact of limited consumer choice, and the fact of market inertia.
With true capitalism monopolies can only exist if they serve the consumer better than any other competitor.
Or if they buy out their competitors and force the others out of business. In case you haven't noticed, Microsoft was able to get monopoly status without any special intervention, just good ol' fashioned anti-competitive behavior.
The US is close enough to Capitalism that the distinction is not important.
And would you be arguing that in a "real Capitalist" setup, the companies would not lobby the government?
Law 1: not true. In a competitive market, the corporation that can give customers the most value will keep the most value for itself. What you say is only true in monopolistic and (sometimes) oligopolistic environments.
Which is why he posted Law 2. And in an unregulated market, AT&T would have already bought T-Mobile, and Verizon probably would have already bought Sprint.
6/10. Decent trolling effort, but just kinda lacked something at the end.
You forgot the sarcasm mark on there. Because there's absolutely no evidence that such a thing would happen, and that the big players wouldn't simply buy out most of their competitors, and force the rest out of business.
Removing regulation has a far less chance of working.
As opposed to the idea that we should give shitty companies more power and ability to do what they're doing? At least with the government, I have a say in how things are run. I don't have any such power with a company.
Why USAians don't demand better regulation is a mystery to me.
Because regulation is the first step on the path to SOCIALISM! We can't have that! We need business to be as free as possible, so we can follow in the footsteps of other great Libertarian countries like Somalia.
Also, am I the only one who sees "USAians" as "US Asians"?
AT&T, the only National fragment it doesn't have IS Verizon.
I would say that's a fairly significant chunk it doesn't have.
"Prior Art" doesn't mean that someone thought of it before. Prior Art means that someone had implemented or made something very similar to the patent subject prior to the person applying beginning their work.
Doubtful. And if you're gonna hate on other companies for filing retarded patents, you should hate on Google for this one too.
You still have to make the dough, which takes a lot longer than 10 minutes.
You mean at the top of the fucking page? Where the toolbar would be?
And using google.com requires you to have a Google+ account now?
Did you see the sales numbers in your own link? The ones that show the iPhone having higher sales than any singular phone out there? To look at that, and then to somehow say that the iPhone isn't popular shows that you're an idiot.
The iPhone isn't that popular.
You lost all credibility with that statement, and everything after it was ignored as being equally stupid. Just because you don't like the iPhone does not mean that it's not popular. It's the single best selling smartphone out there. The iPhone sells better than any model of Android phone. To try and discredit that as being "faddish" shows that you are nothing but an anti-Apple fanboy.
It's still "real crime" which you mentioned above. But because it happened to people you don't like, then all of a sudden the cops should have "more important" things to do.
Except no one took a prototype
Excuse me? The phone was left in a bar. Then somebody had it, and then Gizmodo had it. How does that happen without someone "taking" the phone?
CA law does state he should have turned it into the bartender. He did not, and thus was in violation of that law. And if you recall, the guy called AppleCare. How the fuck would AppleCare know about a prototype phone?
If the guy wasn't looking to take the phone, he should have messaged the guy who lost it. They had his Facebook account. There is absolutely no excuse for what happened.
I like how prosecuting theft and the selling of stolen property is "abusive" these days.
No charge my ass. You know damn well there was a charge, it just happened to not be in money.
And what about the part where they broke it?
Taking a phone from a bar is called Theft. Selling that phone is Selling Stolen Property.
Yeah, you can't show that there was no harm. However, it can be very readily proven that Gizmodo took part in the buying and selling of stolen property.