or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Fake_William_Shatner

This is what I expected out of the gate from the Apple watch and why I thought it would be a bigger deal. Now that it's added; it's going to revolutionize medical monitoring. They'll have 24/7 access to sophisticated tests on not only the afflicted, but the healthy.   Now if they can solve the "privacy issue" by anonymizing the data collection -- then people might share the data with researchers freely.
Well Samsung stayed in the game by copying Apple -- while other companies that didn't fell by the wayside. HTC and a few others are still in the game, but MOST, only make a few pennies on a smart phone. They brought in something like $20 B in revenue. So paying $.5 B is a pure example to all companies that it pays to steal. Most people who hate whatever is popular, or just anyone, applaud Samsung. A large nearly state sponsored winner, using sweat shops and copying the...
covering the original iPhone on multiple counts of prior art, at least two of which involved Apple's own patents.   It's really a strange patent system when your OWN patents invalidate a subsequent patent. They say this as if it isn't totally absurd.
It's a "Design" patent -- obviousness is not the only issue. If it were a technical patent -- sure. Not sure the specifics of the Design patent, but here it looks like the basic "look and feel" of the product to make it distinctive. Samsung, according to a third party company, changed their original design that was more like a Blackberry, and went screen by screen on the iPhone to document where their device differed. NOT to make improvements based on good ideas, but in...
 That would be a dangerous precedent. They want to hurt the OWNERS, not the workers -- if there are any workers, that is. You don't buy the company until the last minute, after it has tried to compete with the behemoth for a few years. That's the way Microsoft used to steal IP. After the stock would inevitably tank to junk, THEN they'd buy it and fire everyone.
It's clear for anyone since 2004 that Apple would want to put "i" in front of a device. iWatch and iTablet were foreseeable -- and likely we have an iPad because someone jumped on Tablet. What does it cost a squatter company to invest $700 into a laundry list of "i" and wait to rake in millions?   The current strategy seems to me, to see if they can get an angel investor that might actually want to market a product under the iWatch moniker -- which is the only way this...
Why does Apple have to replace the name iPhoto? It seems like a new branding scheme -- but, why?   They could have a brand new app and just convert the databases if it's incompatible -- seems like a lot less confusion.    I could only imagine some legal/licensing issue that would cause this kind of lame change of names for no reason.
Couldn't you just track the phone if you know they are ISIS agents? The spy agencies already know how to identify a phone and access some of the underlying protocols. This is useful for an application to discover location data -- so it might presumably be able to get at least the home zip code of the user, and extrapolate destinations from that. I suppose this is just a research project for "possible spying" by software companies. But it doesn't sound useful to any 3...
Thanks for the perspective. I'm guessing these are super high pressure kilns. People learn that we have a "sapphire screen" and don't seem to remember that only about ten years ago an these artificial gems being massed produced seemed like a pipe dream. I figure however, that there is going to one day be a laser/gas (with interferometry) process that allows creation of a high pressure crystal on a surface, one molecular layer at a time.
 If you have a CEO trash talking -- you give him all the rope you can feed him.
New Posts  All Forums: