It's sad that misinformation has to be the key tactic to make apple look good.
Ok, we'll play your game. Lets compare the iPhone to just about every other Android handset out there. Lets try the Samsung Vibrant. No update. Ok, how about the Moto Cliq. No update. Ok, how about the G1. The one that came out at about the same time as the iPhone 3G. The iPhone 3G was updated to the newer iOS. How about the G1? No update.
3) Resistive touchscreens are superior to capacitive touchscreens in many ways.
Except when it comes to actual user experience. People don't like resistive touch screens, because you have to actually push down on them, and many of the android tablets that are using resistive touch screens are using the uber cheap ones that don't work worth shit without a stylus. Most people don't want to use styluses, except for graphic designers. And they'd probably be using a Wacom tablet on a real computer.
And the patent would not be granted, or if granted, be thrown out. There is still such a thing as Prior Art, and if you weren't the one to invent it, you won't get credit for it.
1. Some open source developer creates some cool piece of software, algorithm, or whatever. 2. Big Company (tm) see's this and decides it's cool, and files patent. 3. Big Company (tm) has their patent application denied because they didn't invent it, and there is prior art
No, but that gives me an idea. (Patent Pending). A preliminary patent system. If you don't have the funds, you can apply for a patent, and pay off the fees within 5 years. If your idea works out, then you pay them off and you enjoy the rest of the 23 years or so of patent protection. If not, then the patent is made public domain. During this period, the patent is non transferable as well.
You don't even have to patent it. You should be able to just publicize the invention. Then, if someone else tries to patent it, you point to your invention and invalidate it with Prior Art. Just because the system is First to File doesn't mean that you don't have to independently invent the thing to start with.
Would this actually happen, though? Presumably someone would see through that charade, and alert the patent office, if it wasn't the patent office themselves that saw it.
Wouldn't the patent office take the fact that someone else has already patented the idea in another country as some kind of prior art with which to invalidate the company's patent application?
Except that's a shitty, shitty idea. What good is having free speech if no one is allowed to use it to criticize their employers, for fear of winding up on the street.
It is. Because in that civilization, an employee does not have to live in fear that they will wind up on the street simply because they have a differing or unpopular opinion. The only acceptable reason to fire someone should be that they are not performing their job to satisfaction. That is it.
Ignoring the iOS app store, and concentrating on the Mac App Store for a minute; would it still be a GPL violation to distribute a GPL program through there, even though the source is readily available and you can easily go to a website and download the binary as well?
That's like saying that YouTube's lack of process to prevent copyrighted material is YouTube's problem. Everyone on here was up in arms when Viacom sued them for facilitating copyright infringement, though.
Slashdot Mirror
It's sad that misinformation has to be the key tactic to make apple look good.
Ok, we'll play your game. Lets compare the iPhone to just about every other Android handset out there. Lets try the Samsung Vibrant. No update. Ok, how about the Moto Cliq. No update. Ok, how about the G1. The one that came out at about the same time as the iPhone 3G. The iPhone 3G was updated to the newer iOS. How about the G1? No update.
People have also made extended batteries for the iPhone. Your point?
Hell, the G1 was introduced a year after the iPhone, and it was dropped from support a lot sooner than the iPhone.
Hell Yeah!
Typing from my Samsung Vibrant, which still has yet to be updated to 2.2
3) Resistive touchscreens are superior to capacitive touchscreens in many ways.
Except when it comes to actual user experience. People don't like resistive touch screens, because you have to actually push down on them, and many of the android tablets that are using resistive touch screens are using the uber cheap ones that don't work worth shit without a stylus. Most people don't want to use styluses, except for graphic designers. And they'd probably be using a Wacom tablet on a real computer.
And the patent would not be granted, or if granted, be thrown out. There is still such a thing as Prior Art, and if you weren't the one to invent it, you won't get credit for it.
Only for a few people/entities. And given that they've already put in the effort and research, they should be able to use it.
1. Some open source developer creates some cool piece of software, algorithm, or whatever.
2. Big Company (tm) see's this and decides it's cool, and files patent.
3. Big Company (tm) has their patent application denied because they didn't invent it, and there is prior art
FTFY.
No, but that gives me an idea. (Patent Pending). A preliminary patent system. If you don't have the funds, you can apply for a patent, and pay off the fees within 5 years. If your idea works out, then you pay them off and you enjoy the rest of the 23 years or so of patent protection. If not, then the patent is made public domain. During this period, the patent is non transferable as well.
You don't even have to patent it. You should be able to just publicize the invention. Then, if someone else tries to patent it, you point to your invention and invalidate it with Prior Art. Just because the system is First to File doesn't mean that you don't have to independently invent the thing to start with.
If they came first, and publicized their invention, it could still be considered Prior Art, which would thus invalidate the patent.
However there's a clause that earlier inventors receive an automatic license to use the patent
I did not know that. Something like that could be quite good to have.
Would this actually happen, though? Presumably someone would see through that charade, and alert the patent office, if it wasn't the patent office themselves that saw it.
Yes, but what happens when you, as the original UK widget manufacturer, attempt to broaden your market, and start doing business in the US?
Wouldn't the patent office take the fact that someone else has already patented the idea in another country as some kind of prior art with which to invalidate the company's patent application?
The quoted part, is that an actual quote from someone?
Except that's a shitty, shitty idea. What good is having free speech if no one is allowed to use it to criticize their employers, for fear of winding up on the street.
It is. Because in that civilization, an employee does not have to live in fear that they will wind up on the street simply because they have a differing or unpopular opinion. The only acceptable reason to fire someone should be that they are not performing their job to satisfaction. That is it.
No matter how you slice it, though, it isn't settled. Part of it may be, but other parts are not.
But presumably some city official is going to have to spend part of their work day looking over those statuses that have been posted.
I really don't see how its at all reasonable that an employer can have fuck all to say about what you do outside of work.
Quit being an idiot. They released the code under GPL. They did not do the same for the assets.
Ignoring the iOS app store, and concentrating on the Mac App Store for a minute; would it still be a GPL violation to distribute a GPL program through there, even though the source is readily available and you can easily go to a website and download the binary as well?
Ummm, in this case, lawyers are good, as they would be helping the Wolfire Games guys out in stopping this blatant abuse of their game.
That's like saying that YouTube's lack of process to prevent copyrighted material is YouTube's problem. Everyone on here was up in arms when Viacom sued them for facilitating copyright infringement, though.