decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Sharp admits material doubt on survival | 627 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Forbes: "Apple is so 2010"
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 09:39 AM EDT
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joanlappin/2012/10/31/apple-is-so-2010/

"Press reports indicate that Apple has become the same sort of warring
tribes workplace that once king of the hill Motorola had become years
ago"

"No need to have Apple as a core holding any longer. What was great about
Apple for anyone running institutional money was that the price was so high
(like Google, too) that if you bought a few shares you spent a lot of money
without having to purchase millions and millions of shares. Those folks have put
something of a floor under the stock until now. that will slip away now as many
of them rush for the door."

The bad guys aren't the way they used to be.




---
______
IMANAL


.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

"Best of" TM is example of "more is better" thinking...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 09:59 AM EDT
Some silly politician decided, on the basis of patent statistics, that the US
was falling behind technologically.

Confusing cause and effect, the politicians decided to deal with the problem
by lowering the already low barriers to patentability, thus increasing the
numbers of patents and trademarks. Here we are!

Time for me to see if i can patent my perpetual motion teaching device! (It's
a way to cheat instruments, not actual perpetual motion)

(Christenson)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Letís Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Canít Eliminate Them
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 01:26 PM EDT
http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/richard-stallman-software-patents/

Wow!

RMS suggesting something that isn't a completely long-term solution: He's
suggesting a short-term compromise.

That in itself is pretty impressive. Maybe he doesn't think we have a chance at
winning this one cleanly? Or maybe he's just looking out for the little area
he's got most experience in?

I still don't see any benefit to the patent system (seriously, point me at an
example of the paatent system working as they claim is intended). So I've
become more of an idealist than RMS? Woo?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Letís Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Canít Eliminate Them
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 01:27 PM EDT

I disagree with the author of the article.

Yup, I disagree with Richard Stallman. For all his work on the GPL, I don't believe his solution to software patents would be a solution.

First, I'm not giving up trying to educate Law makers into why software should never be patentable. So I refuse to accept "since we can't eliminate them".

Second, it still allows software patents. The example given was "software as applied to special purpose hardware".

A special purpose calculator is special purpose hardware. The device, the calculator, may be deserving of a patent. But the process of "enter 2+2= and read the result in the display" should never, ever be patentable. That special purpose calculator doesn't suddenly magically change the nature of figuring out the result a mathematical formula.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Sharp Doubts link
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 01:31 PM EDT
the Sharp Doubts link is behind a paywall and will not display for me... :) It
wants me to register...

Links like this are just NOT on...

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Sharp admits material doubt on survival
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 01:40 PM EDT

What is interesting about this story: Sharp admits material doubt on survival is that Sharp is one of Apple's display providers, replacing Samsung. Sharp is part of Apple's strategy for diversifying away from Samsung as a component supplier.

Foxcon (actually their parent company) already looked at bailing out Sharp because of their role as a key component supplier for Foxcon's customer Apple. Foxcon took a close look at the books, and then walked away. Other companies have also supposedly had a look but declined to purchase. Some of Sharp's competitors may pick over the corpse and take certain bits of it, but whether that includes the display manufacturing remains to be seen.

I imagine that Apple's response to a key component supplier going out of business will be to blame Samsung and sue them over it.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Newspicks thread
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 02:14 PM EDT
The part I especially liked was how the notice was in 10.5pt Arial instead of at
least 11pt Arial as they were ordered.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

In App Store vs. Appstore court clash
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 03:22 PM EDT
Sally Shoester sells sea shells at the Shoe Store by the sea shore.

Maybe not.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

More Apple(s)
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 05:34 PM EDT
<a href="http://www.nrk.no/kultur-og-underholdning/1.8381467>
Apples at various places</a>
This article is in Norwegian, and is about a Danish author being a victim of
Apple e-book censorship. I do not translate it, as the pictures more or less
explain what yhe article is about

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Public surveillance illuminated
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 07:01 PM EDT
Here is an excellent geekwire.com article about someone who makes a valid point about public surveillance. Why do we accept public surveillance the way we do? Is crime fighting the best argument there is? Is it enough?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple home page
Authored by: johnE on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 11:02 PM EDT
And as of now (0300 UTC 2012 Nov 02), the original link and contents of that
link have not changed.

Getting on...

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Apple home page - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 05:42 AM EDT
    • Apple home page - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 06:03 AM EDT
Apple Loses To iFone :-)
Authored by: lnuss on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 11:11 AM EDT
Many of you (includes me, of course) will be saying, "It's about
time." Love to see that muscle attempt fail.

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

France: Apple's super agressive litigation tactics (almost) get the best of them
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 11:12 AM EDT
These are not great days for Apple's super aggressive litigation tactics. A
Paris court of appeals ruled that they filed a "fraudulent response"
when they acquired a trademark for the sole purpose of defeating an infringement
action.

See: <a
href="http://www.marques.org/Class46/Article.asp?D_A=20120930">marq
ues.org</a>

Curiously enough, they did end up prevailing in the end "for economic
reasons."

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )