|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 01:21 PM EST |
Criticism about FM spreading FUD about Samsung.
http://blog.patentology.com.au/2012/11/south-korea-is-not-
frand-rogue-state.html#more[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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...
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 03:19 PM EST |
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/139611-are-apples-obfuscated-ipad-mini-and-
ipad-4-sales-figures-a-bad-omen
"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.
---
______
IMANAL
.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 06:24 PM EST |
BGR link
Stevos
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
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.
Stevos[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Macrumours - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 07:33 PM EST
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|