or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Jessi

I've been around for many years and watched many of these Time hype-fests.   Only one thing is certain- whomever they pick will be inane and picked for inane reasons.   Hell, Edward Snowden, the undisputed person of the year last year, didn't get it.
Apple is paying the tax it owes.   Funny how keeping money you've earned is called "greedy", but your desire to steal from people to benefit yourself isn't considered greedy.  Orwell was right!
Apple's cases look fine. They look appropriate. It's amazing how gaudy even the "high fashion" iPhone cases are. Maybe that's why Micheal Kors is no longer on project runway.
Sigh.   Basically everything this article says is wrong.  It's clearly written by someone who does not understand security or cryptography.   It's such a mess that there isn't much point in attempting to rebut it specifically.    Kinda like explaining evolution to a creationist, or physics to a global warmist.
A half billion dollar, illegal, shakedown.   Amazon had the influence with the president, so Amazon got it's monopoly protected by his thugs.   Apple is barred from COMPETING with Amazon.  COMPETITION is not "unsavory".   Total travesty of justice here, Cote belongs behind bars for the rest of her life.   And Al Gore needs the boot from the board... if he can't deliver pull to stop stuff like this, why are they paying him?  Advice?  From the guy who gave us global...
 Aka a Libertarian.  He believed in individual freedom, both social (Eg: gay marriage) and economic (e.g.: not using taxes to punish success.) After he died in an interview with Woz, it came out that Atlas Shrugged was one of the books Jobs liked back in the day. Most people, if they weren't twisted up into knots by the two party partisans would recognize that they are libertarians.
 Absolutely, and they can start by cutting Al "global warming dead weight" Gore lose.   I mean, what exactly does he contribute to the board? Certainly not the political pull that normally would justify such an appointment.    When Amazon gets Apple run up on anti-trust, for breaking Amazon's monopoly, you know Apple's political capital is zero.  So, why give him all that stock?
"given the record evidence that Google designed Android so that it would not be compatible with the Java platform, or the JVM specifically, we find Google's interoperability argument confusing."   To translate this from lawyer-speak, replace the last word with "bullshit".  Of course, judges can't literally say BS in their rulings, so they are more polite.  But this is how they convey the opinion that the argument is beyond reason.
Universally, people who trivialize patents are people who have never actually invented anything. People who think the system needs reform are universally people who don't understand what patents are And people who think Apple's being abusive, are people who are pro-android. The ENTIRE anti-patent movement started in January of 2007 when Google decided it would have to infringe in order to compete.
 You really shouldn't try to debate patents when you don't understand the basics about them.  Utility patents require that they describe inventions that are novel and reduced to practice.   "Unique features" would be required for a utility patent. You're debating a design patent.  A design patent is quite different.  It's closer to a trademark than a utility patent. Whether out of ignorance or dishonesty, it is profoundly troubling that you would pretend like apple...
New Posts  All Forums: