or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Capt. Obvious

Which Verizon are YOU on? The only Verizon I can get charges me for MMS separately from the data plan (which went from optional to mandatory with the signing of the contract) It's not that they keep things off their network - it's that they keep things off the phones on their network. The simple-to-grasp reason is that way, they can (theoretically) drive sales through their captive-crap network.Since you're the arbiter of "wrong" AND a conflation instructor, you can...
I cannot believe you're using the completely craptastic V-Cast mess as a contradiction of the point; I think you're closer to making his point than supporting your own.
Not exactlyThat last bit there is completely untrue. Ingenuity ebbs and flows: the US Patent Office nearly shut down in 1844, when it was widely believed that human invention had exhausted itself...and that no more real progress could be expected. Since then, human invention and ingenuity have exploded - and more than once, and in more than one area. Patents were in place the whole time. Show me where that has hurt us. As for SOFTWARE patents - they have a sketchier...
Read the article again: Apple has worked very hard to make sure that their automatic update procedure secure, both in the sense that it is private, and in the sense that it works dependably. I can see them offering patent-license to the W3C for a lot of things - but I can't see them giving away trusted access to the heart of their system. Secure software distribution is arguably more important to Apple than widget updates are to the W3C and I can understand them not...
I'm not assuming there won't be, just acknowledging the necessity of one to skunk the works. To gain an injunction, a preliminary claim of harm must be filed & ruled on: this will certainly involve an exchange of views between IBM & Apple before the bench. There is, as you say, always the chance, but Apple's legal team is good, and IBM would have to make a sound case that Apple couldn't impugn. Therefore, there might, in fact, be no injunction.
I think this is the really important bit: the weaker their case for Apple as a competitor, the less likely that the court will offer IBM any relief - in which case, Papermaster could well work for Apple until a judgment is rendered in court...years from now.
Not if there's no injunction.
Solid post - strong points, well made: good thinking.
BO-O-O-O-GUS! Not saying it's not *some* kind of prototype: but that is NOT the '2 halves of a 15-in. MBP'. I know you guys love it when I do this....
You're one of those guys who sue hard-disk manufacturers for cheating you out of your imaginary due, aren't you?
New Posts  All Forums: