Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 03:06 PM EST |
IPhone Owner in Brazil Open to Selling
Rights to Name
This is really nothing new. When Apple launched sales of
their mobile phone in Canada, the name "iPhone" was already owned by an
established Canadian VOIP service provider. Apple eventually had to buy the name
from the VOIP company. The VOIP provider was willing to sell, as they didn't
want their product to be confused with Apple's overpriced Chinese imports.
However, they weren't willing to have to pay the cost of a brand switch out of
their own pocket. Apple eventually coughed up the cash, but only after a fight.
The next time you Apple complaining about knock off products, just
remember that they have no hesitation about "pirating" someone else's brand name
either!
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 03:14 PM EST |
Surface
Pro Teardown Reveals Its Virtually Unrepairable
I wouldn't worry
about repairing it, as it's not likely to break while sitting in the back of
someone's closet! What a brilliant idea. Let's sell something that nobody wants
for a price that nobody is willing to pay. We'll make a mint!
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 07:02 PM EST |
Article link.
It doesn't
surprise me that a reporter would deliberately try to cause a vehicle (electric
or otherwise) to fail just so they can juice up the story.
What is a
surprise is any reporters trying with Tesla given the fact that - if they had
been paying attention - detailed computer logs of the trips were being
recorded.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 11:05 PM EST |
I checked the full article. What they did is to verify whether clamping down on
functional claiming using section 112(f) would help curbing patent trolls
lawsuits.
They found that is would help up to a point. A lot of the patents used for
trolling wouldn't pass 112(f). So this is a way to invalidate a number of the
most stupid patents. But this is not a complete solution. There are also a lot
of the patents where there is disclosure to match the functional claims. Trolls
would just displace their activities to other patents that pass 112(f).
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 11:57 PM EST |
"I just don't know if we really need two cases
on this," Koh said.
Bring it on I say. Maybe a Judge meltdown might
come
to the attention of someone who can stop the nonsense.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|