or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by auxio

 And the companies who license Android from Google and have infringement cases related to that: Samsung, HTC, Motorola, etc
 Not at all.  I'm just trying to eliminate the cases where companies simply sit on patents and wait for others to infringe, or companies which buy up patents at firesale prices when other companies go out of business and do the same.  I think most people can agree that these cases aren't beneficial to the industry.
 Let's do an apples-to-apples comparison.  List the lawsuits filed against Apple by technology companies which have actually released products to market using the infringed technology.  Then do the same for the ones filed against Google or against companies using Google's technology which are directly related to that technology (i.e. Samsung).  To me, those are the ones which really matter because there's material losses involved.
 When I first read the comments, the only negative ones I could find with any sort of substance behind them were Gatorguy's (a nice debate which is still going).  The rest were just insults, scripted mantras I read everywhere about DED, and the usual nit-picking about run-on sentences.
 I agree that DED can be somewhat verbose.  However, being someone who has studied and debated at a college level, I appreciate when someone takes the time to research and utilize a number of relevant historical examples to back up their central argument.  That, to me, is the highest form of argumentation.  Even if the attention span of the average person on the internet isn't long enough to allow for it.
 Exactly.  DED takes the time to learn the history of technology and lays out his arguments rationally (in perhaps an overly dramatic way, but logically consistent nonetheless) and I'm supposed to be dissuaded by a horde of people crying fowl without anything to back it up?  How exactly is that any different than kids yelling things on a playground? Please, take a course in logic, do some homework, and come back when you have some intelligent debate.  Note that I'm partial...
Seems like big investment houses prefer investing in companies they can bully.   Kinda reminds me of a story I read from one of the lead software developers at Atari who talked about how everyone involved in a project would want to put their mark on it.  So what he would do is get people to do things like pick a colour for something in the game (or other trivial details) and make it seem like it was the most important thing.   Maybe Apple should do the same thing:...
 Shiny happy people everywhere right?  If I were looking to hire a talented developer, I could care less about whether they were smiling in their profile pic.  I'd rather find someone with knowledge, talent, and ambition who didn't smile, than one who did and was trying to cover up the fact that they didn't know anything.  Be real.
 Some of the most interesting and talented people I know would be dismissed as hobos by the superficial members of society.  Some people live life on the surface, others are more interested in what lies beneath.  I'm one of the latter.  Sounds like Apple lost a talented developer.
 And it's kinda against the point of running a business if it doesn't turn a profit too.  Google's core revenue model is based on advertising and selling market research to advertisers.  Perhaps they can fund loss-leader products on the back of other revenue sources for a while, but at some point the investors will want those loss-leaders to turn a profit.
New Posts  All Forums: