Non-technical users are likely to be better off with a Mac.
That's the point. Why should one be technical to *use* a PC? Thanks for the self goal.
And don't delude yourself that AV just has to come alive at night and do its silent deadly thing. What about the real time monitoring of all traffic coming in, scanning all file attachments in your email, etc? Is that not a performance penalty?
And most important point when you discuss Apple and pricing - Apple is a luxury product compared to the rest of the market. And in a lot of cases, without a luxury premium. Especially iPhone and iPad have no premium worth discussing. The premium on Macs exists only if you ascribe a zero value to superior design, to much better battery life, to enhanced productivity, enhanced peace of mind, and last but not least, significantly higher resale value. If you consider these aspects, iPhone and iPad are dirt cheap compared to their competitors.
Care to see what you can get for your Galaxy Tab or Xoom in a years time?
Extremely fast Windows machines are available for less then Macs of lesser speed, even when running AV.
It's funny how Windows users never consider selling their computer when they're done with its useful life because it really has no value at that point. Reselling my Mac (or any Apple product) levels the playing field as far as price goes and allows me to upgrade more often.
Quite true. The idea that anti-virus "costs" anything money-wise is a thing of the past (assuming people don't click on any of the innumerable anti-virus scams and do a smidgen of research).
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
Extremely fast Windows machines are available for less then Macs of lesser speed, even when running AV.
Technically true, but only if you are talking about the number on the side of the processor.
A new Windows PC with a faster processor than a comparable new Mac, will generally run faster than the Mac only about half the time or less. They tend to have slightly newer, faster generations of chips for six months or so until the Macs catch up, but the performance just isn't there on most of them.
So you get bragging rights but most of the time you don't actually get a better, faster computer. Also, if you wait a few months then the Mac has the same processor anyway, but still has all the other advantages.
Oracle's latest damages report says they deserve several million for both the copyright and patent claims (of which another has been tossed from the case). No, not billions that Oracle supposedly wanted from Google that was used for splash articles.
Oracle's damages expert, Dr. Cockburn "comes up with a proposed number that is nothing near the multiple billions that made headlines when this case was first announced, the expert now valuing the patents at $57.1 million as the highest proposed figure. He values the copyrights at the highest end at between $52.4 million and $169 million, which is ridiculous anyway, but remember the headlines when Oracle first announced this litigation? That Google could lose up to $6.1 billion if it lost this case? That was never realistic."
Oracle's case appears to have been heavily overstated from the beginning.
Then they cost more because the TCO on a PC is significantly higher than a Mac.
I built this rig at the end of 2010. At the time the cost was around 1200, So Far other then the bad ram I had when I purchased with it(Swapped out for free). I have not had any cost with this thing other then the 600+ that I sunk to the steam store. If you build with quality you will never have any issues. I may however at the end of the year either swap out video cards or Swap the motherboard, cpu and gpu but that is the cost of ownership that comes with a gaming rig.
I think everyone at Google originally believed in "Don't be Evil." Because they started out as "The Anti-Microsoft Company (tm)." Everything they did was intended to undercut all of Microsoft's businesses. Because Microsoft was The Evil Empire and something had to be done about it.
Now Google has evolved into the new Microsoft. Just as underhanded and treacherous. Just as willing to stab partners in the back (Apple and iPhone) the way Microsoft did in the past (IBM and OS/2.) Spreading FUD everywhere they can. Releasing products prematurely to stamp out possible competition, then dragging their feet as they fix bugs and design misconceptions.
Same thing, different business model. Microsoft made their fortune by selling software. Google is trying to make their fortune by selling ads. Which of those business models is less evil?
All fine, but this will not be known for good till the dust is settled.
If there is a proven infringement, there is a strong likelihood of an injunction. At that point it really does not matter if the damages figure is in millions or billions.
This is my thinking too, and why I think Oracle is the one Google and Android OEM's should be worried about, not Apple. If Oracle gets an injunction they can pretty much ask whatever they want from Google, and Google would probably pay a few billion.
That's the point. Why should one be technical to *use* a PC? Thanks for the self goal.
You seem to misunderstand. I don't advocate for that position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena
And don't delude yourself that AV just has to come alive at night and do its silent deadly thing. What about the real time monitoring of all traffic coming in, scanning all file attachments in your email, etc? Is that not a performance penalty?
That was dealt with up above. I had no such delusion.
It's funny how Windows users never consider selling their computer when they're done with its useful life because it really has no value at that point. Reselling my Mac (or any Apple product) levels the playing field as far as price goes and allows me to upgrade more often.
That's a very relevant point. From what I have seen, PCs get used most often by the original owner until EOL.
That's a very relevant point. From what I have seen, PCs get used most often by the original owner until EOL.
THere is no such thing as a 'PC Owner' in the sense that they can be pidgin holed. Most Windows users I know either use it as the default option because of their workplace, or because they have never experienced any alternatives (until the iPad came along) or because they want to spend less money setting up than otherwise would be the case with a Mac.
It's true that Mac owners tend to manage with less hand-holding than equivalent PC owners, and there are geeks that own both platforms.
I spent approximately £1000 building a custom PC back in 2005/06, and now it's worth less than £150 second hand. An equivalent iMac of the same period still gets £300-£400.
My 5 year old iMac still would attract bids of up to £600 on ebay, and 4-5 year old Macs are attracting higher trade in values than equivalent PCs.
However, very few people buy a computer considering its resale value in 4-5 years. It's the upfront cost they see.
I'm currently looking to replace my ageing iMac with something more modern, but while the design and build quality of Apples products is immeasurably superior, I'm leaning towards a self build PC using reasonably priced quality components. For approximately the same price as a dual core Mac Mini i7 with AMD graphics and 4 gigs of RAM, 750gb HDD and a cheap Samsung 27" screen I can buy a quad core, i5 2500k 3.4ghz with 60gb SSD, 1tb HDD, Radeon 6870, a decent quiet PC case (though not SFF it is a quiet tower0, and a dent PSU along with all the trimmings.
A Superior system for less money.
However, if I spec that system with a iMac 27" like spec including an ups display of similar quality, things go slightly wobbly and the Mac actually works out cheaper!
I just wish the Core i7 apple included in the Mini was quad core on other models than the Server, or offered more configurable options a la Dell etc.
This is my thinking too, and why I think Oracle is the one Google and Android OEM's should be worried about, not Apple. If Oracle gets an injunction they can pretty much ask whatever they want from Google, and Google would probably pay a few billion.
That's what I've been saying too. Just wait until the Oracle lawsuit gets underway! Hopefully it will be a crushing blow for Google/Android.
THe issue at hand is that Google (allegedly) stuffed Android with other peoples IP, knowingly and willfully.
With the ever increasing number of lawsuits and licence agreements between Google, Apple, Oracle Microsoft and the other 3rd party OEMs, how long until Android becomes cost prohibitive due to all the development work necessary to get it 'legal' and original.
Google can only do so much, and with HTC, Motorola and to a lesser extend LG, unable to make much of any money out of Smartphones, it seems that Androids savior is Samsung.
How long until Samsung realize that developing their own OS or licensing Windows Phone is cheaper than promoting Android when it attracts so many expensive pieces of baggage?
The sole attraction of Android to the OEMS is that it is free, and thus they have a higher margin than similar Winodws or self-developed phone OSs.
Perhaps if this happens we'll see some genuine competition and innivation in the industry?!
The sole attraction of Android to the OEMS is that it is free, and thus they have a higher margin than similar Winodws or self-developed phone OSs.
Perhaps if this happens we'll see some genuine competition and innivation in the industry?!
That's not really the sole attraction. The Android Market is more than a little advantageous and adds to the Android value for OEM's.
As for Microsoft it's a distinct possibility that MS bluffed a few of the Android licensees into agreeing on a patent license from them too. They're big, aggressive and willing to go to the mat when suing others. Many and perhaps all the patents currently being asserted (in attempted secrecy) by Microsoft may not even be valid and/or apply to Android to begin with.
The overwhelming majority of Oracle's original patent claims against Android have also been dismissed or dropped altogether. Another was just dumped this week. If you read only AppleInsider you'd get the impression Google's already convicted and the claims proven with only the billions in damages yet to be taken from them.
Oracle's latest damages report says they deserve several million for both the copyright and patent claims (of which another has been tossed from the case). No, not billions that Oracle supposedly wanted from Google that was used for splash articles.
Oracle's damages expert, Dr. Cockburn "comes up with a proposed number that is nothing near the multiple billions that made headlines when this case was first announced, the expert now valuing the patents at $57.1 million as the highest proposed figure. He values the copyrights at the highest end at between $52.4 million and $169 million, which is ridiculous anyway, but remember the headlines when Oracle first announced this litigation? That Google could lose up to $6.1 billion if it lost this case? That was never realistic."
Oracle's case appears to have been heavily overstated from the beginning.
First of all, the page you cite is written by open source, anti-patent people who very much want Oracle to lose. Secondly, they quote only a summary of a Google legal brief, and accept it all as true, without doing any other research or looking at Oracle's arguments. Grain of salt applies here.
It also may be possible for possible for Oracle to win triple damages because the infringement was willful, though I don't know if that would apply here.
I built this rig at the end of 2010. At the time the cost was around 1200, So Far other then the bad ram I had when I purchased with it(Swapped out for free). I have not had any cost with this thing other then the 600+ that I sunk to the steam store. If you build with quality you will never have any issues. I may however at the end of the year either swap out video cards or Swap the motherboard, cpu and gpu but that is the cost of ownership that comes with a gaming rig.
You're not the average user though! Imagine my mother building a machine and you'd be closer to the mark.
Heck, I even know a guy who when given a new pc laptop for work couldn't work out that there was latch keeping it closed. He literally prized the thing apart! (Obviously totally breaking the latch and the machine then needed 3 hours of work whilst someone fished out the broken pieces from inside the screen and body).
First of all, the page you cite is written by open source, anti-patent people who very much want Oracle to lose. Secondly, they quote only a summary of a Google legal brief, and accept it all as true, without doing any other research or looking at Oracle's arguments. Grain of salt applies here.
It also may be possible for possible for Oracle to win triple damages because the infringement was willful, though I don't know if that would apply here.
Oracle's written defenses and letters to the court are referenced too and the links to them are there to read for yourself if you're so inclined. Yes, they obviously don't agree with Oracle's assertions in this case, but the remarks they make use Oracle's sources as well as Google's.
EDIT:If you want to have a idea at just how the Judge is viewing the claims, here's an excerpt from the actual, real , honest-to-goodness court transcripts. If I hadn't told you this is from the official court record I imagine some here would think it was a spoof, meant as a joke:
THE COURT: Could a reasonable jury looking at everything and seeing this identity here and the other 8 files, could they say that even comparative works as a whole that there's been an infringement?
MR. BABER (for Google): I don't believe so, Your Honor. And as a matter of law they could not because these eight files are eight out of a thousand files in Android. These are several hundred lines of code out of 11 million lines of code in Android.
THE COURT: But if there are others, why didn't you just change these two?
MR. BABER: We did. That's the point, Your Honor. As soon as Oracle said: "Hey, wait. There's these eight files in there. Did you know about that?" we looked at them, Your Honor. Frankly, it's not in record. We don't need them for summary judgment. It was a mistake. Somebody thought these were Apache Harmony files from the indepenent implementation of the API's, and they made their way in there. But as soon as they identified them, we took them out. We haven't replaced them. There's no sense in which they could be important to Android.
THE COURT: These don't even exist any more?
MR. BABER: They are gone. They are out. Not only are they out now, but the evidence will show and does show that these would never have even been shipped on any devices. They were test files. In other for a very, very small amount of copying to be actionable, and the courts have recotnized for hundreds of years that not all identical things give rise to a copyright infringement claim. It has to be quantitatively and qualitatively important....
THE COURT: What damages are being sought for this infringement that doesn't exist any more? ... By the way, that would have been a nice thing for Mr. Jacobs to point out, that this was long gone. I didn't realize that it was long gone. What do they say in terms of how they have been damaged?
MR. BABER: Your Honor, they say they have been damaged. They say that this -- they highlight this literal copying. We have these eight files. We have some comments in two other files which we also took out right away. And then there's the nine lines of code that Mr. Swoopes just showed you with the so-called "range check function". That's still in there. It's nine lines out of 11 million. And it is a very simple code that simply does some sanity check on sorting things. That's what they are copying. And they use that, of course, in an inflammatory way to say, "This shows copying," when, in fact, Your Honor, it is so de minimis -- it's less than one-tenth of one percent.
THE COURT: Why wouldn't you be thrilled to have them waste their time at trial on this so that the patent issues fall to one side?
MR. BABER: Your Honor, we would be more than delighted.
That exchange is only a small portion of the official court transcript linked here:
I built this rig at the end of 2010. At the time the cost was around 1200, So Far other then the bad ram I had when I purchased with it(Swapped out for free). I have not had any cost with this thing other then the 600+ that I sunk to the steam store. If you build with quality you will never have any issues. I may however at the end of the year either swap out video cards or Swap the motherboard, cpu and gpu but that is the cost of ownership that comes with a gaming rig.
Comments
Non-technical users are likely to be better off with a Mac.
That's the point. Why should one be technical to *use* a PC? Thanks for the self goal.
And don't delude yourself that AV just has to come alive at night and do its silent deadly thing. What about the real time monitoring of all traffic coming in, scanning all file attachments in your email, etc? Is that not a performance penalty?
And most important point when you discuss Apple and pricing - Apple is a luxury product compared to the rest of the market. And in a lot of cases, without a luxury premium. Especially iPhone and iPad have no premium worth discussing. The premium on Macs exists only if you ascribe a zero value to superior design, to much better battery life, to enhanced productivity, enhanced peace of mind, and last but not least, significantly higher resale value. If you consider these aspects, iPhone and iPad are dirt cheap compared to their competitors.
Care to see what you can get for your Galaxy Tab or Xoom in a years time?
Excellent AV is available for free.
Extremely fast Windows machines are available for less then Macs of lesser speed, even when running AV.
It's funny how Windows users never consider selling their computer when they're done with its useful life because it really has no value at that point. Reselling my Mac (or any Apple product) levels the playing field as far as price goes and allows me to upgrade more often.
Excellent AV is available for free.
Quite true. The idea that anti-virus "costs" anything money-wise is a thing of the past (assuming people don't click on any of the innumerable anti-virus scams and do a smidgen of research).
Extremely fast Windows machines are available for less then Macs of lesser speed, even when running AV.
Technically true, but only if you are talking about the number on the side of the processor.
A new Windows PC with a faster processor than a comparable new Mac, will generally run faster than the Mac only about half the time or less. They tend to have slightly newer, faster generations of chips for six months or so until the Macs catch up, but the performance just isn't there on most of them.
So you get bragging rights but most of the time you don't actually get a better, faster computer. Also, if you wait a few months then the Mac has the same processor anyway, but still has all the other advantages.
Oracle's latest damages report says they deserve several million for both the copyright and patent claims (of which another has been tossed from the case). No, not billions that Oracle supposedly wanted from Google that was used for splash articles.
Oracle's damages expert, Dr. Cockburn "comes up with a proposed number that is nothing near the multiple billions that made headlines when this case was first announced, the expert now valuing the patents at $57.1 million as the highest proposed figure. He values the copyrights at the highest end at between $52.4 million and $169 million, which is ridiculous anyway, but remember the headlines when Oracle first announced this litigation? That Google could lose up to $6.1 billion if it lost this case? That was never realistic."
Oracle's case appears to have been heavily overstated from the beginning.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20218041255197
So, his argument is that it won't cost Google as much as everyone thought, so it's OK?
I guess that's one way to look at breaking the law.
Extremely fast Windows machines are available for less then Macs of lesser speed
Less, then?
What happens after "less"?
Less, then?
What happens after "less"?
Then they cost more because the TCO on a PC is significantly higher than a Mac.
Then they cost more because the TCO on a PC is significantly higher than a Mac.
I built this rig at the end of 2010. At the time the cost was around 1200, So Far other then the bad ram I had when I purchased with it(Swapped out for free). I have not had any cost with this thing other then the 600+ that I sunk to the steam store. If you build with quality you will never have any issues. I may however at the end of the year either swap out video cards or Swap the motherboard, cpu and gpu but that is the cost of ownership that comes with a gaming rig.
Maybe it was just all posturing from the start.
I think everyone at Google originally believed in "Don't be Evil." Because they started out as "The Anti-Microsoft Company (tm)." Everything they did was intended to undercut all of Microsoft's businesses. Because Microsoft was The Evil Empire and something had to be done about it.
Now Google has evolved into the new Microsoft. Just as underhanded and treacherous. Just as willing to stab partners in the back (Apple and iPhone) the way Microsoft did in the past (IBM and OS/2.) Spreading FUD everywhere they can. Releasing products prematurely to stamp out possible competition, then dragging their feet as they fix bugs and design misconceptions.
Same thing, different business model. Microsoft made their fortune by selling software. Google is trying to make their fortune by selling ads. Which of those business models is less evil?
All fine, but this will not be known for good till the dust is settled.
If there is a proven infringement, there is a strong likelihood of an injunction. At that point it really does not matter if the damages figure is in millions or billions.
This is my thinking too, and why I think Oracle is the one Google and Android OEM's should be worried about, not Apple. If Oracle gets an injunction they can pretty much ask whatever they want from Google, and Google would probably pay a few billion.
That's the point. Why should one be technical to *use* a PC? Thanks for the self goal.
You seem to misunderstand. I don't advocate for that position.
And don't delude yourself that AV just has to come alive at night and do its silent deadly thing. What about the real time monitoring of all traffic coming in, scanning all file attachments in your email, etc? Is that not a performance penalty?
That was dealt with up above. I had no such delusion.
This is damn weak stuff.
It's funny how Windows users never consider selling their computer when they're done with its useful life because it really has no value at that point. Reselling my Mac (or any Apple product) levels the playing field as far as price goes and allows me to upgrade more often.
That's a very relevant point. From what I have seen, PCs get used most often by the original owner until EOL.
That's a very relevant point. From what I have seen, PCs get used most often by the original owner until EOL.
THere is no such thing as a 'PC Owner' in the sense that they can be pidgin holed. Most Windows users I know either use it as the default option because of their workplace, or because they have never experienced any alternatives (until the iPad came along) or because they want to spend less money setting up than otherwise would be the case with a Mac.
It's true that Mac owners tend to manage with less hand-holding than equivalent PC owners, and there are geeks that own both platforms.
I spent approximately £1000 building a custom PC back in 2005/06, and now it's worth less than £150 second hand. An equivalent iMac of the same period still gets £300-£400.
My 5 year old iMac still would attract bids of up to £600 on ebay, and 4-5 year old Macs are attracting higher trade in values than equivalent PCs.
However, very few people buy a computer considering its resale value in 4-5 years. It's the upfront cost they see.
I'm currently looking to replace my ageing iMac with something more modern, but while the design and build quality of Apples products is immeasurably superior, I'm leaning towards a self build PC using reasonably priced quality components. For approximately the same price as a dual core Mac Mini i7 with AMD graphics and 4 gigs of RAM, 750gb HDD and a cheap Samsung 27" screen I can buy a quad core, i5 2500k 3.4ghz with 60gb SSD, 1tb HDD, Radeon 6870, a decent quiet PC case (though not SFF it is a quiet tower0, and a dent PSU along with all the trimmings.
A Superior system for less money.
However, if I spec that system with a iMac 27" like spec including an ups display of similar quality, things go slightly wobbly and the Mac actually works out cheaper!
I just wish the Core i7 apple included in the Mini was quad core on other models than the Server, or offered more configurable options a la Dell etc.
This is my thinking too, and why I think Oracle is the one Google and Android OEM's should be worried about, not Apple. If Oracle gets an injunction they can pretty much ask whatever they want from Google, and Google would probably pay a few billion.
That's what I've been saying too. Just wait until the Oracle lawsuit gets underway! Hopefully it will be a crushing blow for Google/Android.
I am rooting for Oracle all the way!
I am rooting for Oracle all the way!
You're far from alone.
You're far from alone.
THe issue at hand is that Google (allegedly) stuffed Android with other peoples IP, knowingly and willfully.
With the ever increasing number of lawsuits and licence agreements between Google, Apple, Oracle Microsoft and the other 3rd party OEMs, how long until Android becomes cost prohibitive due to all the development work necessary to get it 'legal' and original.
Google can only do so much, and with HTC, Motorola and to a lesser extend LG, unable to make much of any money out of Smartphones, it seems that Androids savior is Samsung.
How long until Samsung realize that developing their own OS or licensing Windows Phone is cheaper than promoting Android when it attracts so many expensive pieces of baggage?
The sole attraction of Android to the OEMS is that it is free, and thus they have a higher margin than similar Winodws or self-developed phone OSs.
Perhaps if this happens we'll see some genuine competition and innivation in the industry?!
The sole attraction of Android to the OEMS is that it is free, and thus they have a higher margin than similar Winodws or self-developed phone OSs.
Perhaps if this happens we'll see some genuine competition and innivation in the industry?!
That's not really the sole attraction. The Android Market is more than a little advantageous and adds to the Android value for OEM's.
As for Microsoft it's a distinct possibility that MS bluffed a few of the Android licensees into agreeing on a patent license from them too. They're big, aggressive and willing to go to the mat when suing others. Many and perhaps all the patents currently being asserted (in attempted secrecy) by Microsoft may not even be valid and/or apply to Android to begin with.
The overwhelming majority of Oracle's original patent claims against Android have also been dismissed or dropped altogether. Another was just dumped this week. If you read only AppleInsider you'd get the impression Google's already convicted and the claims proven with only the billions in damages yet to be taken from them.
Oracle's latest damages report says they deserve several million for both the copyright and patent claims (of which another has been tossed from the case). No, not billions that Oracle supposedly wanted from Google that was used for splash articles.
Oracle's damages expert, Dr. Cockburn "comes up with a proposed number that is nothing near the multiple billions that made headlines when this case was first announced, the expert now valuing the patents at $57.1 million as the highest proposed figure. He values the copyrights at the highest end at between $52.4 million and $169 million, which is ridiculous anyway, but remember the headlines when Oracle first announced this litigation? That Google could lose up to $6.1 billion if it lost this case? That was never realistic."
Oracle's case appears to have been heavily overstated from the beginning.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20218041255197
First of all, the page you cite is written by open source, anti-patent people who very much want Oracle to lose. Secondly, they quote only a summary of a Google legal brief, and accept it all as true, without doing any other research or looking at Oracle's arguments. Grain of salt applies here.
It also may be possible for possible for Oracle to win triple damages because the infringement was willful, though I don't know if that would apply here.
I built this rig at the end of 2010. At the time the cost was around 1200, So Far other then the bad ram I had when I purchased with it(Swapped out for free). I have not had any cost with this thing other then the 600+ that I sunk to the steam store. If you build with quality you will never have any issues. I may however at the end of the year either swap out video cards or Swap the motherboard, cpu and gpu but that is the cost of ownership that comes with a gaming rig.
You're not the average user though! Imagine my mother building a machine and you'd be closer to the mark.
Heck, I even know a guy who when given a new pc laptop for work couldn't work out that there was latch keeping it closed. He literally prized the thing apart! (Obviously totally breaking the latch and the machine then needed 3 hours of work whilst someone fished out the broken pieces from inside the screen and body).
The average computer user is an idiot.
First of all, the page you cite is written by open source, anti-patent people who very much want Oracle to lose. Secondly, they quote only a summary of a Google legal brief, and accept it all as true, without doing any other research or looking at Oracle's arguments. Grain of salt applies here.
It also may be possible for possible for Oracle to win triple damages because the infringement was willful, though I don't know if that would apply here.
Oracle's written defenses and letters to the court are referenced too and the links to them are there to read for yourself if you're so inclined. Yes, they obviously don't agree with Oracle's assertions in this case, but the remarks they make use Oracle's sources as well as Google's.
EDIT:If you want to have a idea at just how the Judge is viewing the claims, here's an excerpt from the actual, real , honest-to-goodness court transcripts. If I hadn't told you this is from the official court record I imagine some here would think it was a spoof, meant as a joke:
THE COURT: Could a reasonable jury looking at everything and seeing this identity here and the other 8 files, could they say that even comparative works as a whole that there's been an infringement?
MR. BABER (for Google): I don't believe so, Your Honor. And as a matter of law they could not because these eight files are eight out of a thousand files in Android. These are several hundred lines of code out of 11 million lines of code in Android.
THE COURT: But if there are others, why didn't you just change these two?
MR. BABER: We did. That's the point, Your Honor. As soon as Oracle said: "Hey, wait. There's these eight files in there. Did you know about that?" we looked at them, Your Honor. Frankly, it's not in record. We don't need them for summary judgment. It was a mistake. Somebody thought these were Apache Harmony files from the indepenent implementation of the API's, and they made their way in there. But as soon as they identified them, we took them out. We haven't replaced them. There's no sense in which they could be important to Android.
THE COURT: These don't even exist any more?
MR. BABER: They are gone. They are out. Not only are they out now, but the evidence will show and does show that these would never have even been shipped on any devices. They were test files. In other for a very, very small amount of copying to be actionable, and the courts have recotnized for hundreds of years that not all identical things give rise to a copyright infringement claim. It has to be quantitatively and qualitatively important....
THE COURT: What damages are being sought for this infringement that doesn't exist any more? ... By the way, that would have been a nice thing for Mr. Jacobs to point out, that this was long gone. I didn't realize that it was long gone. What do they say in terms of how they have been damaged?
MR. BABER: Your Honor, they say they have been damaged. They say that this -- they highlight this literal copying. We have these eight files. We have some comments in two other files which we also took out right away. And then there's the nine lines of code that Mr. Swoopes just showed you with the so-called "range check function". That's still in there. It's nine lines out of 11 million. And it is a very simple code that simply does some sanity check on sorting things. That's what they are copying. And they use that, of course, in an inflammatory way to say, "This shows copying," when, in fact, Your Honor, it is so de minimis -- it's less than one-tenth of one percent.
THE COURT: Why wouldn't you be thrilled to have them waste their time at trial on this so that the patent issues fall to one side?
MR. BABER: Your Honor, we would be more than delighted.
That exchange is only a small portion of the official court transcript linked here:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...0309143182#445
I built this rig at the end of 2010. At the time the cost was around 1200, So Far other then the bad ram I had when I purchased with it(Swapped out for free). I have not had any cost with this thing other then the 600+ that I sunk to the steam store. If you build with quality you will never have any issues. I may however at the end of the year either swap out video cards or Swap the motherboard, cpu and gpu but that is the cost of ownership that comes with a gaming rig.
How much did Windows cost?