decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
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



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

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Ancient History (Fortran II, Version 3) | 283 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
South Korea is Not a ‘FRAND Rogue State’!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 01:21 PM EST
Criticism about FM spreading FUD about Samsung.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Voting machines?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 01:26 PM EST
Open Standards, same software used on all (Open Source)
would be what either side should be supporting.

This yelling at this point in time, seems to be timed.

It is easy to yell guilty by association, with no real evidence of guilt of
misdeeds (where a date is in front of you and you have, or do not have an
affect)... and, say opps sorry after when the story is proved at the least
silly... but, the harm is still done.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Ancient History (Fortran II, Version 3)
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 03:01 PM EST

The first language I worked with was Fortran back in high school, on a
punch card fed IBM mainframe. Ah, the good old days...


[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apples obfuscates iPad Mini sales
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 03:19 PM EST

"Crank up your reality distortion fields up to 11, folks: Over the last
weekend, which saw the release of the iPad 4 and iPad Mini, Apple says it sold
“three million iPads.” Yes, iPads, in general. How many iPad Minis did Apple
sell over the weekend? No idea. How many fourth-generation iPads did Apple sell?
No idea. More worryingly, did Apple also include the sales of iPad 2 and 3, and
refurbished iPads in that figure? No idea. [...] Obfuscated numbers, falling
stock, and floppy phrasing from CEO Tim Cook. Is Apple losing its mojo?"

Reality distortion? That has never been the weak side of Apple.



[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Android shipments surpass windows PCs; growing 6X faster than IOS
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 06:24 PM EST
BGR link


[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple directly accusing Android 4.1?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 07:01 PM EST

Frankly I can't understand this article, and I expect the author couldn't either, but here you go:

badly written Bloomberg article
clearer, but probably inaccurate BGR article
possible gibberish at 9to5 Mac

Apple seems to be trying to add 17 new devices to the Samsung case, and possibly Android itself (whatever that means), whilst Samsung wants to add the iPhone 5. I'm not even sure how much of that makes sense, let alone how much is correct.


[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Macrumors commenters are getting fed up with Apple too!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 07:04 PM EST
I suspect there's been a sea change in the public perception of Apple - there is a new article on Mac Rumors about Apple's latest accusations to the Galaxy Tab and the comments are so far mostly disappointed and even negative towards Apple. First time I've seen that.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Open Standard in Spanish law - no royalties
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 08:43 AM EST

(Clicky to the twit by J. M. Gonzalez-Barahona, from the newspick)

(Clicky to the law referenced, free of redirection trackers)

Being Spanish I think I can give more details on this. The text says in an appendix:

A efectos de la presente ley, se entiende por:

It roughly means: "For the purposes of this law, the following definitions apply" - that doesn't mean it contains official definitions, only "local" definitions to be used in the text of that law.

The above notwithstanding, yes, the law sets the principles that Public Administrations, among others, must adhere to:

La utilización de las tecnologías de la información [...] [deberá ajustarse] a los siguientes principios:
i) Principio de neutralidad tecnológica y de adaptabilidad al progreso de las técnicas y sistemas de comunicaciones electrónicas garantizando la independencia en la elección de las alternativas tecnológicas por los ciudadanos y por las Administraciones Públicas, así como la libertad de desarrollar e implantar los avances tecnológicos en un ámbito de libre mercado. A estos efectos las Administraciones Públicas utilizarán estándares abiertos así como, en su caso y de forma complementaria, estándares que sean de uso generalizado por los ciudadanos.

My translation (IANAL):

Usage of information technologies will [...] [adhere to] the following principles:
i) Principle of technological neutrality and adaptability to the progress of electronic communication technologies and systems guaranteeing independence in the choice of alternate technologies by citizens and by Public Administrations, as well as the freedom to develop and implement the technological advances in a free market context. To this effect the Public Administrations will use public standards as well as, where applicable and in a complementary way, standards that are of general use by citizens.

The definition in question:

k) Estándar abierto: Aquel que reúna las siguientes condiciones:

- sea público y su utilización sea disponible de manera gratuita o a un coste que no suponga una dificultad de acceso,

- su uso y aplicación no esté condicionado al pago de un derecho de propiedad intelectual o industrial.

Here's my rough translation:

k) Open standard: One that fulfills the following requirements:

- To be public and available to be used for free or at a cost that doesn't make it difficult to access;

- its usage and application is not conditional on having to pay for intellectual or industrial property rights.

(It is worth telling at this point that in Spain, intellectual property refers to copyright and authorship law only, not to patent law; patent law and trademark law are collectively called industrial property law, and that's what the last paragraph refers to. I love it that way: it's not the same for a company to say "my holy intellectual property" than "my holy industrial property").

[ 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 )