|
Authored by: ChrisP on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 07:24 PM EDT |
There, I've done my three canonical thread starters for this year, but I didn't
get the first post! :-((
---
Gravity sucks, supernovae blow![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Too bad - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 10:33 PM EDT
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 12:46 AM EDT |
Link
MARSHALL,
TEXAS—The slide that defense lawyers showed to the jury read: "This isn’t new."
In a patent case, it could have been a smoking gun—after all, it was written by
the inventors themselves. They were describing their business, Nexchange, to a
San Francisco conference back in 2000; it was three years before they received
their first patent and turned their focus to litigation.
But hours later,
inventor Daniel "Del" Ross Jr. was on the stand, and he seemed none too
concerned that the crux of his idea was old—if not ancient. He had a patent,
twice reviewed by the US Patent Office, and a simple story to tell: "The big
difference is, we invented this for the Internet," he told the
jury.
I note this one because it is now old, and I found
it
curious that no one else here pointed it out.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 03:44 AM EDT |
In a press release the company said: "Mondaine
holds a long term
exclusive licensee according to a contract
with SBB to produce, distribute and
market watches and
clocks
based on the SBB design since 1986 and got surprised
to hear
about a license agreement between SBB and Apple."
Karen Haslam, Macworld UK
---
Mondaine Watch Group
http://www.mondaine.com/
The Only
Place to Meet
[.PDF]
http://www.mondaine.com/assets/Uploads/PDF_group/Medienmitte
ilungBiberistengl.
pdf [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 05:11 AM EDT |
On this page of comments of Tommi Ahonen's blog, there are comments
by a person "Mats" which seem to be very accurate and interesting.
- specifics of why and when Nokia cancelled the "Meltimi"
system
- specifics of what Nokia's agreement with Microsoft says about "bill
of materials"* price point targets for Windows
- a reported quote from
Microsoft that Meltimi was a "potentially dangerous" platform
This
gives a clear explanation for a number of bits of Steven Elop's behavior which
haven't previously been understood. The cancellation of all Nokia's own
platforms apart from S40 was clearly a contractual thing agreed at the start of
work with Microsoft. In that contract was a requirement for Microsoft to get
the minimum BOM for a Windows phone below $100 and presumably when they
achieved that it triggered killing Meltimi.
The crucial thing about this
is that a contractual term such as this which limits the whole company could not
be agreed on without explicit agreement from the Nokia board. Whilst Elop
clearly made a major mistake and pushed for the Windows contract, the board
should normally be responsible to ensure that there is a plan B if he fails. If
this can be verified it definitely supports suggestions elsewhere on the
internet (e.g. comments on here and on Tommi's blog) that the Nokia board is
working for Microsoft.s interests.
Also interesting would be the level to
which engineers working on Meltimi and Meego were decieved into continuing work
which was already doomed.
Anyone have any other sources related to this?
*"bill of materials" is the cost to the manufacturer of all of the
components which go together to make an electronic device. It sets the
unavoidable minimum for the cost of making a device where other costs, such as
construction, are more clearly under the control of the manufacturer. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 09:19 AM EDT |
When I received my Code Project Insider Daily Developer
News email alert
this morning I was delighted to see that they have picked up
PoIR's treatise on "Software Is
Mathematics". His article
along with all our discussion is about to get a much
wider
audience then we could have imagined! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Excellent! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 02:03 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 10:22 AM EDT |
A Canada-China investment treaty, known as FIPPA, will hamstring BC
from negotiating a greater share of profits and creating regulations related to
the proposed Enbridge
Northern Gateway pipeline for the next 31 years once it
comes into effect at the end of October, an international investment law expert
warns. "This treaty, in effect, will pre-empt important elements of
the debate of the Northern Gateway pipeline and may frustrate in a very
significant way the ability of the current BC government or any future
government—if the NDP were to win in spring—from stopping that pipeline or
bargaining a better deal for BC," said Gus Van
Harten, an Osgoode Law professor who specializes in international investment
law.
Beth
Hong, The Vancouver Observer [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|