It really was a bizarre comment. It is honest but stupid. He may have been able to say something that did not compromise his integrity and not be really, really stupid.
RIM would still be on the decline, even without this Story. This will have no material impact on anyones earnings call. You do sound like a RIM stockholder looking for a Bump so you can get out from under it. If you bought in 1999, you are still sitting pretty, at least for now...
Really good at? Do you work for Adobe. I suppose if you are a big fan of non-standard, hard to navigate, inaccessible web sites than it is good. For the rest of us, there are better, standards based options.
The only thing that flash was ever good at was keeping browser developers from having to license video codecs...
All inventions are ideas. All patents are patents on ideas. In other nes, this story is not about any patents. MIT is about a design Apple registered in the 1990s.
But all they have to do is try one in the store to realize it is not true. We all see more tab ads on tv then iPad ads. We all have more opportunity to use one in the store. Their sales are still pitiful.
Financial times left the app store because theynwant your personal informatio. They pay affiliates a 35% commission on subscriptions... Those affiliates don't even process the credit card transaction. Do you believe Apple should allow them to market their app for free and not get anything in return?
So you freely admit that Samsung stole the design of their tablet. got it. I love these posts fm the android talking points. They scream, sure they are breaking the law, but Steve Jobs said it was a good idea. Of course most of the time younclaim Jobs is an evil moron. That does not stop you from trying to use his words as a justification for Samsungs complete lack of innovation.
What does your personal attack have to do with the fact that courts have been ruling in Apples favor? Does your personal attack change the fact that Apple registered a design that looks like exactly like the iPad in the 1990s...
The registered the design in the 90s. I kowthis when you post some picture of the Knight-rider newspaper reader prototype you think looks like an iPad. Go ahead if you want to make an ass of yourself, who am I to stop you.
Because Apple registered the design in Europe in the mid-90s.... Nice try though. Why don't you try and look up things relevant to this case instead of irrelevant distractions.
So you found one Norweigen Android site gave the Tab a favorable review, and that is your evidence thatnit must be a superior product? The Apple web site says the iPad is better. Of course thus entire thread is irrelevant. Nothing changes the face that the Tab is merely a clone device.
So Android is better if you are willing to rebuild it yourself and spend time vetting all the applications you install. Excellent. Mjust what everyone wantsnin a phone:)
What have you invented? Please post it here. You are the second inventor on this thread who does not believe in patents. There was also on innovator. Share away, were listening.
IANAL and I am not sure I understand the metaphor either. It was a very specific threat. First kill all the lawyers is one thing. Describing your means of doing so is going to another, more disturbing, level.
Do you spend 100s of millions of dollars on research to formulate new ideas and then bring them to market? Would you be able to afford to do that in a world where everyone freely copied your ideas and took them to market preventing you from ever recovering investment.
Your message sounds nice, how about some concrete examples. Show off some of the inovations you are talking about. Your post is interesting philosophy. It doesn't actually say anything.
Give us 3 examples of the significant contribution to life , technology or even pure research that has come from your innovation. Show us how the 36 people you borrowed from all benefited as well. Note, for your model to work, you may not have any business relationship to an of he people you are working.
Because it works with existing 3.5mm headphones, it doesn't matter. It does allow them to make thinner devices that still support 3.5mm headphones then their competitors ( who did not up with this isdea)
Everything is obvious after it is explained to you. Youmcan make argument for everything ever patented by anyone. The point of the patent system is actually to allow inventors to recoup their investments with a period of exclusivity.
If you wanted to cut headphone plugs in half and make the receptacles magnetic, you should have done it before.
Slashdot Mirror
It really was a bizarre comment. It is honest but stupid. He may have been able to say something that did not compromise his integrity and not be really, really stupid.
God likes originals. God is very brand-oriented.
Then they putty you ;)
RIM would still be on the decline, even without this Story. This will have no material impact on anyones earnings call. You do sound like a RIM stockholder looking for a Bump so you can get out from under it. If you bought in 1999, you are still sitting pretty, at least for now...
Really good at? Do you work for Adobe. I suppose if you are a big fan of non-standard, hard to navigate, inaccessible web sites than it is good. For the rest of us, there are better, standards based options.
The only thing that flash was ever good at was keeping browser developers from having to license video codecs...
Good luck with that. Unfortunately it is based on extrapolations of data even Apple haters know is a load of crap.l
All inventions are ideas. All patents are patents on ideas. In other nes, this story is not about any patents. MIT is about a design Apple registered in the 1990s.
But all they have to do is try one in the store to realize it is not true. We all see more tab ads on tv then iPad ads. We all have more opportunity to use one in the store. Their sales are still pitiful.
Don't forget to add a "get off my lawn", because you will sound like a ranting, bitter old man.
Financial times left the app store because theynwant your personal informatio. They pay affiliates a 35% commission on subscriptions... Those affiliates don't even process the credit card transaction. Do you believe Apple should allow them to market their app for free and not get anything in return?
So you freely admit that Samsung stole the design of their tablet. got it. I love these posts fm the android talking points. They scream, sure they are breaking the law, but Steve Jobs said it was a good idea. Of course most of the time younclaim Jobs is an evil moron. That does not stop you from trying to use his words as a justification for Samsungs complete lack of innovation.
What does your personal attack have to do with the fact that courts have been ruling in Apples favor? Does your personal attack change the fact that Apple registered a design that looks like exactly like the iPad in the 1990s...
The registered the design in the 90s. I kowthis when you post some picture of the Knight-rider newspaper reader prototype you think looks like an iPad. Go ahead if you want to make an ass of yourself, who am I to stop you.
Because Apple registered the design in Europe in the mid-90s.... Nice try though. Why don't you try and look up things relevant to this case instead of irrelevant distractions.
So you found one Norweigen Android site gave the Tab a favorable review, and that is your evidence thatnit must be a superior product? The Apple web site says the iPad is better. Of course thus entire thread is irrelevant. Nothing changes the face that the Tab is merely a clone device.
Your definitionof fine is different then the rest of the world..
So Android is better if you are willing to rebuild it yourself and spend time vetting all the applications you install. Excellent. Mjust what everyone wantsnin a phone :)
Having used all these products. You just made a very strong case for Software Patents.
What have you invented? Please post it here. You are the second inventor on this thread who does not believe in patents. There was also on innovator. Share away, were listening.
IANAL and I am not sure I understand the metaphor either. It was a very specific threat. First kill all the lawyers is one thing. Describing your means of doing so is going to another, more disturbing, level.
Do you spend 100s of millions of dollars on research to formulate new ideas and then bring them to market? Would you be able to afford to do that in a world where everyone freely copied your ideas and took them to market preventing you from ever recovering investment.
Your message sounds nice, how about some concrete examples. Show off some of the inovations you are talking about. Your post is interesting philosophy. It doesn't actually say anything.
Give us 3 examples of the significant contribution to life , technology or even pure research that has come from your innovation. Show us how the 36 people you borrowed from all benefited as well. Note, for your model to work, you may not have any business relationship to an of he people you are working.
Because it works with existing 3.5mm headphones, it doesn't matter. It does allow them to make thinner devices that still support 3.5mm headphones then their competitors ( who did not up with this isdea)
RTFA??
Your arguments started off as straw men...
Everything is obvious after it is explained to you. Youmcan make argument for everything ever patented by anyone. The point of the patent system is actually to allow inventors to recoup their investments with a period of exclusivity.
If you wanted to cut headphone plugs in half and make the receptacles magnetic, you should have done it before.
And yet, none of the millions of geeks in the world ever did it.