or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by GadgetDon

The employer has no control over your commute. They don't know where you live, and if you want it shorter, you could in theory move. They've got lots of control over how long it takes to do the security check when people leave. They could schedule it so everyone checks out at once, there's only one person who does the checks and he's to do the checks after he does other tasks (so there's a long wait) or have multiple people do the security check and have people check out...
Based on the precedent, there was no way that it wouldn't be dismissed - but that doesn't mean that the law shouldn't be such that they shouldn't be paid. The problem isn't so much how long it takes to be checked out, but there are delays in doing the security check so the employee is stuck inside the store, unable to leave. And as the law exists now, there's no incentive on the part of the employer to reduce the waiting time (by putting a higher priority on managers to do...
Carl Icahn's history is why I bash him. His history isn't "support companies as they grow and become stronger", it's "pull every possible dollar out of the company and sell off the husk to whoever will pay for it". Yes, it's starting with something reasonable, turn some of that excess cash back over to the shareholders. It always starts with something reasonable.   And his statement that he isn't selling his stock in the buyback means his percentage of the company grows...
With Samsung being on record "we won't negotiate a license", what relevance would a license agreement with another company be?
And one more thing - if the decision had gone the other way, the judge had found infringement on the part of Samsung and had said "oh, and Samsung must publish ads and post on their website 'we copied Apple'" I'd be almost as opposed. (Since I do believe Samsung copied, at least that post would be truthful, but still inappropriate to require it.)
If Apple had either made advertisements of "don't buy Samsung, it's a ripoff of our products" or featured the argument on their website, advertising to cure might be justified to correct what Apple did in that media. But they never did. Instead, they just sued, and it was covered by the media. So the "cure" to this media coverage is ads and posts on their website? Stupid. Particularly when the judge refused to ban Apple executives from stating that Samsung ripped them off...
If Apple had either made advertisements of "don't buy Samsung, it's a ripoff of our products" or featured the argument on their website, advertising to cure might be justified to correct what Apple did in that media. But they never did. Instead, they just sued, and it was covered by the media. So the "cure" to this media coverage is ads and posts on their website? Stupid. Particularly when the judge refused to ban Apple executives from stating that Samsung ripped them off...
The current iPad is 9 different models in two different colors (so 18 different choices). Three storage size choices, and three connectivity choices (Wi-Fi only, ATT, Verizon). If they add an 8GB size, that's 12 models.
  Which of my proposed changes would be "rash"?   Better evaluation up front to ensure that patents are only granted to inventions that are non-obvious to engineers in the field and not already in the public knowledge through prior art?   Requiring reasonably prompt action on patents once a potentially infringing product is released?   Limiting the scope of patents to what they say the patents are for, or requiring a high burden of proof that the patent is being violated...
  Actually, I find it amusing that Motorola (a division of Google) is trying to block sales of XBoxes for being unwilling to pay the jacked up prices Motorola is demanding for their H.264 patents, when Google argued against H.264 because *horrors* there were patents involved. Not sure if that's irony or "a lousy way to win an argument".
New Posts  All Forums: