or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by AnalogJack

Pure class. 
 It's a self-portrait of an idiot.
  Well the back of your hand is still your hand, and your wrist and your hand are not clearly defined. I don't think there's an issue on this one.
  Surely though they can trademark the word "Pay" in the specific context of using it as branding for a pay by phone service when the word Pay, is followed by the brand name as a single unit? Saying Apple Pay, is not the same thing as using the word 'pay'. So it should be trademarked so that Samsung could say, 'you can pay with your samsung phone' but not be able to say, 'we have a new service called Samesung Pay.
Claiming a watch is not a 'hand held' device, will not work in court because it is clear that 'hand held' is not meant to be taken literally, if it were then you could simply operate your phone while it was on the seat or taped to your dashboard. The watch will qualify as 'hand held'.   The law becomes literal in cases like where it may say that the alcohol proscribed limit is '0.08 ml of alcohol in 1 litre of blood', which it was at one time in NSW till a lawyer...
I can't believe that when Apple comes up with a name like Apple Pay, that they don't automatically register the inevitable Android Pay and Samsung Pay, at the same time. They'll always be able to do this because no one knows what Apple are going to name something, and it's only then that they use the same name with Apple replaced with their name. Then they'll have to work out their own service name. Instead of leeching of Apple's expertise in naming, and also leaching the...
I wonder if the obviously designed arm positions are meant to convey some psychological clues. Dye, arms cross tightly over chest, and unusual medieval sword and shield position from Ive, and a self explanatory, protect the family jewels form Howarth.
 Just as I suspected, you are the one who was happy to challenge my Spotify comment by saying that that is what competition is, but when I politely ask you to explain the reasoning, you back slide and weasel your way out.
 Hey, I'm a reasonable guy, I'll happily change my mind with some well argued reasoning, so please explain to me how using one's financial might to pay for the ad revenue lost if they refuse to allow ad supported streaming on Spotify, is classed as 'competition', to me it's the very model of a modern major general principal of anti-competitive behaviour.
 Not dissimilar to the way Apple is targeting Spotify and other streaming supplier's free tiers. Is that how they use their tax minimisation dollars? To stop other companies from supplying a product that others want, so they themselves can charge for it and make more minimised tax dollars. Making out Apple to be a victim is risible.
New Posts  All Forums: