|
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 06:18 PM EDT |
:-)
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 06:19 PM EDT |
:-|
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Why passwords have never been weaker—and crackers have never been stronger - Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 06:22 PM EDT
- Pure Gold - Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 06:34 PM EDT
- Why passwords have never been weaker—and crackers have never been stronger - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 08:35 PM EDT
- Something to think about ... - Authored by: nsomos on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 09:04 PM EDT
- Reminder: A Simple Approach to Complex Passwordseaker—and crackers have never been stronger - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 09:43 PM EDT
- Scary stuff, but - Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 01:23 AM EDT
- Scary stuff, but - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 04:28 AM EDT
- SQL injection is stupid. - Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 07:35 AM EDT
- Criminals? I'd think not. - Authored by: stegu on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 08:12 AM EDT
- NO - Authored by: scav on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 08:57 AM EDT
- NO - Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 10:55 AM EDT
- NO - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 11:02 AM EDT
- NO - Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 12:49 PM EDT
- Bit of a Worry Then? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 04:39 PM EDT
- NO - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 11:29 AM EDT
- Tesla Museum F U N D E D ! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 04:50 AM EDT
- Cubic / TrapWire / Tartan / Stratfor / OWS / Ntrepid / Abraxas / Dauntless - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 11:17 AM EDT
- NYPD: Muslim spying led to no leads, terror cases - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 12:27 PM EDT
- Apple and Samsung go for blood in closing arguments - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 01:11 PM EDT
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 06:20 PM EDT |
:-D
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 06:21 PM EDT |
#_#
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 06:30 PM EDT |
Please Mr. Mofo, spare me from your "compelling
summation". I'm not buying
it. Samsung's document
trail only shows normal industrial activity, when you
consider Apple's patents are bogus. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 06:50 PM EDT |
The 100+ pages of questions is just ridiculous.
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 06:58 PM EDT |
It makes me sad that making up a "compelling" fiction is likely to win
the votes of the jury. When did our society become so shallow and ignorant?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 07:22 PM EDT |
I'd say you don't have to defend yourself if you think you
did nothing wrong. Samsung can easily show there was nothing
wrong with their actions and so no need to defend them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 07:30 PM EDT |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the iPad that was started first and they
decided to use the design for a phone at the last minute?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 11:32 PM EDT |
The LG Prada was announced in December of 2006.
Here's the press
release:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070108070435/http://www.lge.com/about/press_archive
/detail/AB_NARCH|MENU_1_20302.jhtml
And on a number of other issues.
I hope the jury pays attention to and see that deception. Of course they won't
see the deception part where Judge Koh didn't allow Samsung to present the
evidence which Apple says they didn't produce. Seem to be very agressively wrong
to do that. Knowing the evidence exists and then leading the jury to believe
there is none. That should be an appealable issue.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 01:14 AM EDT |
To me it looks like Apple's last words were beneficial to Samsung.
Apple hasn't paid one cent for Samsung's standard essential patents. Sounds
to me like it is Apple that is waltzing in here and saying that other's IP is
meaningless, give us all their money.
It took Apple 5 years to develop its first product in a category, but Samsung
took 3 intensive months to tweak their models. I guess we've got to wait
another 3 years for the iPhone 3.
Also trade dress is "overall impressions" not icons, so it doesn't
matter if
Samsung has some icons that are similar.
Apple doesn't spend advertising dollars? Sounds like Samsung's success is
due to it's advertising not being a copy.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 02:38 AM EDT |
>>>
Do they even have any bad lawyers at MOFO? If so, we haven't seen them.
And according to the bio I've linked to for you, Samsung has lost to him in an
earlier patent case, Pioneer v. Samsung. That was in the Eastern District of
Texas, though, where plaintiffs tend to do well, so let's see how it goes in
California. Still, I doubt Samsung was happy to see him.
>>>
You are flooring me, pj, I doubt I will ever recover. What hogwash. So it is
never about legal substance, it is all and always about marketing (and gossip
in the guild). With occasional support from people who should know better.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 05:16 AM EDT |
I've just noted what is described as "Plaintiff's Exhibit 44" at
http://allthingsd.com/files/2012/08/44_iPhone_GalaxyS1_review.pdf
PDF, 132pp, 36MB
I read it as an admission by Samsung that the iPhone was better
than their products in about a hundred ways on usability and
appearance of the user interface. Noticeable are the number
of times an iPhone feature is described as "fun" and the
Samsung feature is "boring" or "not interesting".
Now the question is, did Samsung copy Apple's features, or did
they just make their own ones better?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: N_au on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 07:12 AM EDT |
I guess you could say this is on topic. Just viewed a news clip in Australia
where Samsung have setup their own technology store called Samsung experience
store. It is just down the street from a big apple store. They are releasing 2
new devices and they run rings around anything apple do. Like work with a split
screen on a tablet and with the phone you can project an image onto the wall to
show what you are looking at on the phone. Plus all the other hardware that they
have. I just wish I didn't live 800km away so I could go check it out. It would
make an apple store look puny with a couple of phones with different memory
sizes and a few pads with wifi or 3g and different memory sizes and a few
different computers.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Apple v Samsung - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 08:32 AM EDT
- Apple stores - Authored by: stegu on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 04:16 PM EDT
|
Authored by: artp on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 09:38 AM EDT |
"The difference between the 5 patents that
Samsung have
belittled today and our patents. The products
with the Apple patents have been
commercially successful,
they've been widely praised. The Samsung patents
haven't
been used by anyone, they haven't been praised, they haven't
had
unusual results."
This isn't the first time I've seen this
statement.It has
produced the same result in my emotional state every time.
The patent laws say nothing about commercial success or lack
thereof. It
sticks in my craw that Apple thinks that
everything boils down to how much they
can sell. Has the
bias of Steve Jobs even permeated the legal team? Is it
truly about the money and not the customer or even the
technology?
I would
think that if the jury is technical, then this
should stick in their craw, too,
and we might get a result
that will let the market decide what people will buy
instead
of some jury.
On the one hand, that's why we have patent trolls,
because
there is no requirement to bring the technology to market in
a
product. On the other hand, requiring commercial success
would penalize
small
inventors, and make it possible for large corporations
to stonewall new
technology by blocking its path to market,
making it available to them at a
later date.
--- Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 10:29 AM EDT |
So can a good lawyer trump a good case? And is that the way the legal system is
supposed to work?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 10:43 AM EDT |
Maybe it's just me. I wasn't there to hear the tone these were
delivered in.
But phrases about OUR constitution and OUR jury system and THE
AMERICAN patent sysyem and THE PEOPLE IN SILICON VALLEY
and "YOU can't come in and walk over OUR anti-trust laws" just
struck me as disturbing and jingoistic sounding, setting up an US,
American good Apple company versus a THEM, those nasty
foreigners impression.
I can't help but feel this is deliberate by the Apple lawyers. Anyone
else left with that impression? Especially folks who were there?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 12:11 PM EDT |
I'm not sure I grasp the context of that comment.
Just to clarify, is
that the number derived from the calculation:
$Amount Apple Is Asking /
Number of Jury Members = $300M
???
After all, the actual end
result could be very different depending on how the Jury finds as well as what
damages they actually award.
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 12:54 PM EDT |
Samsung research shows 75% of Android purchasers didn't even
consider the iPhone.
I considered it... for about half a second in
order to consciously discount it as a potential purchase because it was an Apple
product.
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I'm in the 75% - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 01:22 PM EDT
- I'm in the 25% - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 01:23 PM EDT
- I'm in the 25% - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 05:21 PM EDT
|
|
|
|