Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 03:16 PM EST |
According to Bloomberg; Apple is suing Samsung for infringing
on a Stylus.
Remember S.Jobs? He said if you see a Stylus they blew it...
in other words... Jobs was trashing the Stylus and now they
see Samsung with a Stylus they want to sue Samsung for it's
Stylus. Stupid!
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-06/apple-says-samsung-s-
galaxy-note-jelly-bean-infringe-patents.html[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 03:23 PM EST |
I can't exactly be happy about this... but I can't be all that
upset
either.
Apple owes $368M [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Virnetx - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 04:12 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 06:46 PM EST |
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/07/microsoft_drm_spy_patent/
Surely David Smirnoff has prior art?
"In America, you watch TV. In Russia, TV watches you!"[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: N_au on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 12:21 AM EST |
If I were Samsung I would be stopping the plant they were going to build in
america. If you don't like competition from me why should I give you jobs?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JimDiGriz on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 06:31 AM EST |
http://www.itproportal.com/2012/11/08/what-is-apple-spending-to-drop-samsung-as-
a-supplier/
Apple's feud with Samsung might just be
costing both companies a lot more money and missed opportunities than the fines
and legal costs accrued in their patent battles in various jurisdictions around
the world
would indicate.
We learned this week that Samsung may be
delaying the construction of a planned logic fabrication facility as it
digests the possibility of losing out on future chip orders from Apple. The
company is reportedly "likely to put off the construction" of its Line-17 fab in
Hwaseong, South Korea.
Now a rumour is circulating, that says Apple may
have recently given billions of dollars to a financially struggling supplier of
iPhone components, as part of an effort to avoid having to rely on Samsung for
those parts.
Mobile analyst Horace Dediu of Asymco theorised on Wednesday that Apple may have
shovelled over a cool $2 billion (£1.3 billion) to struggling Sharp last
quarter to ensure that the supplier, which Apple has tapped to provide the
touchscreen displays for its new iPhone 5 in lieu of former supplier Samsung,
survived in order to actually deliver those parts.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 08:13 AM EST |
Perhaps they have served Microsoft very well, but how can
he speak for the
whole country? He certainly doesn't speak
for me, and probably not for you
either.
His attitude was very frightening to me as a programmer,
as it
represents mainstream thinking by the powerful and
elite. There is a whole
false economy built on IP that is
not of benefit in any way to society as a
whole.
Clearly a strategy has been developed by these companies
like
Apple and Microsoft to patent everything they possibly
can. When Apple recently
announced they had increased R&D
spending, already at a level of 5 billion
dollars, by
another billion, I immediately speculated on how much of
that
money goes to lawyers instead of engineers. This
interview with Microsoft's
chief patent council blatantly
confirmed that patent lawyers are a big part of
R&D
spending.
As a programmer, I have this nightmare vision where
software development grinds to a halt because every other
thing one might
attempt to do is covered by patents.
In a lot of ways,
Microsoft uses that
currency of innovation through IP licensing arrangements.
Since 2003, we've entered into more than 1100 IP agreements
with various
companies, small, large, across the world, and
really that's about open
innovation and collaboration and
sharing
technologies.
Notice how he tries to equate that with
"open" and
"sharing" and "collaboration" when it's the very opposite!
You ask
how many of these Android OEMs Microsoft bullied
into licensing their precious
IP how joyous they are to have
participated in Microsoft's collaboration and
sharing of
technologies. It's double-speak.
On and on he goes talking
about "innovation". If patents
were about protecting and promoting innovation,
they
wouldn't be quite so intolerable as they are today. In fact,
they may
even serve the purpose they were created to for -
promoting progress of the
arts. However, how can anybody at
Apple or Microsoft say with a straight face
they are
patenting innovation, when what they are actually patenting
is the
common, mundane, every day work product of engineers.
That cannot be
"innovation" by definition, as innovation
refers to the notion of doing
something different (Lat.
innovare: "to change") rather than doing the same
thing
better. Whatever innovation is, it has to be something that
stands
out. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Suggested translation? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 08:40 AM EST
- Def: Innovation - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 11:00 AM EST
- Def: Innovation - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 01:54 PM EST
|
Authored by: squib on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 08:34 AM EST |
Yesterday, day a British bases legal blog asked:
What constitutes evidence
for copyright policy (law)?
An evidence based policy (EBP) would mean
that policy initiatives are to be supported by research evidence and that
policies introduced on a trial basis are to be evaluated in as rigorous a
way as possible."
One might also ask what evidence is there to support
current software patent laws.
As they go on to say:
For example,
medicinal treatments (akin to policy) are extensively tested and their
impact on patient health reviewed. However, evidence and policy in the
social sciences lack the relative clarity associated with outcomes and
treatments in other sciences. Furthermore, as policy is inherently
political, it is subject to politics. Therefore, the risk that evidence is
only selectively used, or used in cases where it supports a political
stance, can limit the effectiveness of policy evaluation.
Would a
Whitehouse petition get this debate going in the US do you think?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 10:32 AM EST |
That resize code? Gone like a thief in the night.
<a
href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57546830-37/apple-quietly-pulls-apo
logy-hiding-code-from-u.k-site/">CNET article</a>[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 02:34 PM EST |
For those curious, a connection to the Engadget editorial in question.
What I find most
amusing is the Author apparently doesn't think his readership is intelligent
enough to see the similarity between:
Google subsidizing1 the
cost of the smartphone so people are paying $300 for an unlocked
phone
vs
AT&T subsidizing the cost of the smartphone so people get
it for free
Seriously dude? You don't think your readership is aware of
the $0 phone they can get from AT&T?
But... we shouldn't blame
AT&T and such for the expectations of subsidized hardware.... nope.... we
should blame Google which came into that particular business practice
(subsidizing hardware costs) long after....
All I can say with such an
abvious ... err... "oversight" in facts, Mr. Fingus doesn't think too highly of
the intellectual level of his readers. But... I suppose that's true of most of
the main media as well.
1) Assuming that's 100% correct,
it still shows significant issues in the logic presented.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 02:35 PM EST |
Apparently the Swiss Federal Railways have a copyright
on the "iconic" clocks in
their railway stations,
and were unhappy about the design of the clock in IOS
6.
Link: Did Apple
Tick Off the Swiss Railways
They've come to a licensing agreement, with
terms not
disclosed.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|