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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|