or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by KDarling

  1) NFC isn't inherently insecure.  We've been over this before.     For payments, it's far safer than a credit card, for example.  A CC's important info can be copied by hand, and there's little or nothing to stop large purchases before you notice it's stolen.  OTOH, a clerk can't steal NFC info by eye, and most stores require a PIN entry for NFC if the purchase is over $15 or $20.   For photo/url/contact/map/etc transfers, it's quite handy if you're right next to the...
  You have to know how to read a patent.  You're looking at the abstract and description.  The only place that counts, is the claims.  And the very first claim starts out with:   1. A method comprising:  • providing a first user prompt on a first electronic device when a near field communication interface of the first electronic device is tapped to a near field communication interface of a second electronic device   In fact, the first ten claims all rely on NFC.     I'm...
The NFC Forum was created in 2004.  They're the ones who came up with the idea of NFC initiating a different type of communication for file transfers.   So this patent can't be for just that.  (Edit: and yet it seems to include the idea as one claim, extending it to send all the files open on a "plurality of apps".  Wonder what the NFC creators will think of this.)   --   All NFC devices should support the "NFC peer-to-peer" communications mode. This is intended...
  Thanks for the link.  I could use that at work :)   Of course, it's not at all hard to believe.  Such ROI is easy to come up with.   They used time-motion analysis, so they were basically looking at how long it takes to do things like entering or looking up data.   Saving a few minutes per hour per tablet over 24 hours a day, could easily come to $400+ in "savings" over a week or two.   Of course, so would walking faster.  But it's not as cool sounding :)
  *grin*  Good eye.  Yes, that is funny that they said "more compact and practical".   Gotta love marketing.   Just like Apple claiming that no one would buy larger phones, or smaller tablets.  And that the 3.5" screen was ideal.     On the contrary, the whole point is that posters often claim that the only reason some people get the larger screen, is because there's no equivalent device in a smaller format.  Heck, they could be right.     The first Galaxy Mini was...
  You're right if the topic was utility patents.  He seems instead to be talking about the look.   Patenting the mechanics of a time machine, is quite different from trying to patent the look of a time machine that has already been visualized in science fiction.  If Apple created a time machine that looked like the Delorean in Back To The Future, then yes, the movie car would be prior art if trying to enforce a design patent.   Likewise for this thread, Apple's lawsuit...
  If that was true, Samsung would've made an equivalent of the S4 with a smaller screen.   But they didn't.  Samsung is simply doing what they've done every year since early 2011... sell a phone with lower specs and price that they call the "Mini". That's why this article isn't news at all.  The author either didn't know about this history, or ignored it.
  What was your search criteria?   Was it for all smartphones ever made?   I got, for all smartphones... currently available... ~300 over 4.2", versus ~750 for smaller.  That means 40% were the larger screen.   For all Android smartphones... currently available, it was 280 to 580.  That's 50% larger screen.   If you chose 4" instead, it jumps to 75% being that size or larger.
  According to Apple, that is.   Apple did refuse a judge's offer to set FRAND terms between it and Motorola. Instead, Apple wanted to decide what the maximum FRAND price could be, something it has no right to do.   Apple also wants to be treated special, and not pay licenses calculated by device price, like every other ETSI licensee has done for two decades.  (Higher priced/ profit devices subsidize lower priced / very low profit devices, in order to make the technology...
  First off, everyone is using the wrong terms.  Just plain "sold" and "shipped" are almost always the same thing in articles... because both refer mostly to retailers.     What some of you really mean to talk about, are "sell-through" (sold to end users) versus "sell-in" (sold to retailers).   At the least, please specify "end user sales" to be clear, if that's what you're referring to.     See above.  Sold or shipped to the retailer = usually same thing.   However, they...
New Posts  All Forums: