or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by DJinTX

And don't forget the big transition to Unibody construction. The aluminum MacBooks released on Oct 14, 2008.
Agreed.
Excellent post, Sir! Kudos for noticing this parallel. And this leads into another issue I have with patents in that they write them in a confusing manner, much like the tax code, so that they are hard to even decipher sometimes. I am a fairly intelligent person, but I didn't make the same connections as you in relation to CD/music players. They want to keep it confusing apparently.
So basically you believe that had this company not patented this process and then brought it to market that other companies would not have thought of it? Or do you think that other companies would have thought of it but this company get credit for being first? To me, a patent should be for something that no one would have done without the first company doing it. But the patent system seems to be more about which company called dibbs faster on the front seat. If the...
See my previous post for specifics. (Post #23)
Where did this Monsanto crap come from lately? I have never heard of Monsanto until this week, and I still don't know what they are. But for some reason this is now the third or fourth time I have heard them referenced in an Apple-related discussion in the last few days. What the hell?
Saying "much of Apple's portfolio" suggests a good portion, which I would disagree with. Obviously they come up with a ton of innovative ideas. However, I'm sure they have been awarded some that they shouldn't have, like all other tech companies these days. I think patents should be granted for hardware design (look, feel, sound), software/code, and innovative concepts (and probably some other things I am not thinking of at the moment). But in this case, patenting the...
Some things should not be patent-able. The state of patent law in this country (and maybe others) is pretty ridiculous.
So if Ford were taken to court for faulty fuel injectors across all of their models...could they be taken to court individually for each vehicle model? This just seems wrong and frivolous.
So they were fortunate enough for a court to agree with them about infringement, then decided to throw up another suit for a slightly different product? Seems like this should hinge on and be attached to the concept, not a specific product. Shouldn't they have to cover this all in the same suit? If not, then why not spread it out...this week sue for the 16 GB iPod touch, next week the iPhone 4, then the iPad 32Gb verizon+wifi model. I mean with all of Apple's...
New Posts  All Forums: