If a discovery or an invention has not been patented, and has been made public for more than a year, then it becomes public property.
There are more caveats to the above statement.
You may be the first to have thought of the idea and made a discovery. If you did not record it properly, without witnesses, and was never submitted to the patent office and not made public, another individual or company can submit a patent for an "identical" discovery or invention, even If they started their discovery or invention much later.
There are also primary and derivative "discoveries and inventions". For example, in the drug industry, the discovery of a synthesis of a compound (more generic) does not prevent others from other (derivative) discoveries or inventions on furhter uses of that compound. The pharceutical industry has found this loophole to extent the lifespan of their drug patents.
If a discovery or an invention has not been patented, and has been made public for more than a year, then it becomes public property.
If someone or some company decided to patent an identical discovery or invention, subseqquent grant of a patent to the second company, does not negate the proviso stated in the previous paragraph -- simply because the patent officer who approved the application did not exercise due diligence to discover all prior patented and "public" discoveries and inventions.
What I find silly (if not stupid) in the arguments -- on both sides -- in this board is the tendency to confuse our bias or opinion to be the basis of deciding the legality or falsehood, of what really are very complex matters to resolve.
That is what the courts are meant to untangle.
It is a lack of proper education and understanding of the law to suggest that there is a need for patent reform therefore Apple or whatever company who plan to protect their patents is wrong or is afraid of the competition.
What is right and wrong are not equivalent to legal or illegal. Nor are these terms synonymous with true or false.
All the court can decide really is what is legal or not.
It is very costly process on all parties involved -- that is why being a lawyer could be a very lucrative position, especially if frivolous suits have no penalty. Like any other company, usually they tend to settle the matter. For example, the use of Apple with the terms "Apple", "iPhone", etc. Perhaps even "iPad"; the same reason, Microsoft was forced to make a deal with Apple, when it got caught using some of the inventions of Apple in its system and products.
What is true also is that if you do not protect your registered trademark or discoveries and inventions, you also lose your legal right to such properties. It becomes generic. A very good example is the "term" -- Aspirin. That trademark was owned by the company "Bayer". But, the company never sued others early, so that when they finally realized their error, it was too late. Note that this must not be confused with the invention for the manufacture of the compound aspirin itself. That patent has a time limit. After that, the manufacture of the compound "aspirin" can be done by any generic pharmaceutical company as it is done now, like many drugs, after a patent expiration, On the other hand, a trademark can be protected for a much longer time.
CGC
Good post. Beat me to it. But I think the first sentence of the last paragraph is only true about trademarks, and not patents. As the rest of your paragraph points out, only the trademark aspirin was lost; the patent on the aspirin product itself was not. Patents, I believe, last 17 years. Trademarks, I believe, are forever (or as long as you defend it).
If you are trained/degreed as an engineer and you want to make lots of money but aren't really that interested in building insanely, great products and don't mind doing tedious research and arguing about minute details, the best thing to do is go to law school and become a patent engineer.
First Nokia and now Apple. No respect for Apple on this move. Compete on the market instead of the courtroom!
The counter-suit is going to get interesting too, when it comes, given that HTC has been making phones for a lot longer and probably has tons of its own patents that it can sue for. Why can't they just stick to making phones? Or is Jobs out of ideas for iPhone 4.0?
By that reasoning no one should ever seek legal redress for having their innovations copied. They should just "compete in the market" against, well, effectively themselves, since anyone should be free to do wholesale cloning of whatever seems to be popular.
Well, it's pretty much no different than the other devices quadra said were emulating the iphone. It's got a touch screen and a button that brings you to the home screen. Big whoop. That's exactly my point though. People will point to devices like this and say they only exist because of the iphone, which is bs obviously since it was released before the first iphone was.
This is where the the totality is not always the same as the sum of the parts. This is were derivative inventions and creations come in. For example, this is much used in designer cloths, like Blue Jeans. First "created" made famous by Levis jeans -- even if "pants" as a clothing have been with us for centuries.
Did you know for example that many designer jeans manufacturer can file trademark for even the most simple design -- shape of the back and front packets, for example, or how many stiches were used, etc. They seem almost frivolous or ridiculous but trademark laws do protect such derivative creations.
Similar stuff exist in patents that lead to derivative inventions or discoveries.
Depends on what you mean by "game changer". Most people think it means that it significantly changes the game that was being played by the competitors prior to its arrival.
I fully expect the iPad to be a game changer in the market segments for tablets, e-readers and netbooks. But we'll see in a couple of months how it's going.
I kinda doubt it will "totally replace notebooks" but I don't know if that's exactly what Quadra said.
Netbooks and ereaders I would agree. Its going to really give the Kindle a run. The issue with the Kindle is you don't even need a Kindle anymore because the sofware is available for any Windows system and soon to be released for OSX. It appears all Amazon cares about now is that you buy the content from them.
As far as netbooks I guess it depends on if you want a full OS of if you can make due with what the iPad as to offer. There are many here that believe its an advantage not to have a full OS running on your Tablet I would tend to disagree, but that is based on personal need.
I was also jumped on even though I believe the point is very valid that when you look at the high end iPad for 829.00 and you start to add accessories you get really close to the price of a Macbook. That could be an issue if 16GB and no 3G is not the way you want to go.
I was hoping for more out of the iPad, I was looking forward to getting one but right now it just doesn't have enough to suit my needs. I would expect that to change within a generation or two.
I thought it was dumb when people said Nokia sued because they were scared, and it's just as dumb now when it's the other way around.
If you plan to win a lawsuit, you research the hell out of it before you even sue. There's no prize for suing quickly. You research the potentially infringing products; you tear them apart, run them through all sorts of tests to see what was actually implemented. When there's lots of potential infringement, you research legal precedents and case history to find the best courses of action, so you can pick the very best items to contest. This takes time.
In the case of Nokia, there was the additional step of negotiating with Apple over licenses, so from start to suit, it took 2.5 years since Nokia could get their hands on an iPhone. Why does anyone think that the 1.5 years since the Dream/G1 came out is that long?
Exactly. Pretty much every post on this forum that references some kind of recent (usually emotional), reason for Apple suing HTC can be completely ignored. It's a juvenile assessment that requires we believe that Apple or possibly Steve Jobs, "got mad" and woke up one morning ready to sue.
Good post. Beat me to it. But I think the first sentence of the last paragraph is only true about trademarks, and not patents. As the rest of your paragraph points out, only the trademark aspirin was lost; the patent on the aspirin product itself was not. Patents, I believe, last 17 years. Trademarks, I believe, are forever (or as long as you defend it).
If you are trained/degreed as an engineer and you want to make lots of money but aren't really that interested in building insanely, great products and don't mind doing tedious research and arguing about minute details, the best thing to do is go to law school and become a patent engineer.
I had the same notion actually, until I had the privilege to be a member of a University committee that monitors drug testing done in universities. Indeed any patent has a shelf-life. However, what I found was that if a drug was first tested usually among healthy adults; the company may try later on to test it specifically for children or older people. Then, they may try to use the same product for other diseases (or circumvent the law by letting physicians to "try" using the product for other diseases). Companies do these new trials for other specific groups or diseases, especially if the "manufacture" or prior use is near expiration. Other stuff right now that are explored are modes of deliveries -- slow release capsules, packaging (e.g., coating of the medicine) that affect absorption, etc.
If there is promising new use, and there is a lucrative market, then they conduct a more large scale trial to get "new use" for the same drug. The prior use might have expired (becomes generic), but then the "new uses" or technologies of deliveries can be patented, again. The derivative clinical trials can be costly but almost usually not as costly as the "original use" discovery and original clinical trials costs.
Pharmaceutical companies make so many claims of high cost. Sometimes it is true, but many major drugs were discoveries arose from federally funded research. All the initial HIV/AIDS drugs for example were based on work by many cancer researchers and institutions. Even many of the early trials were funded by NIH. However, the government does not patent its inventions or discoveries. So, the drug companies who first manufactured the 'tablets" for the HIV/AIDS drugs made enormously filthy profits.
Then universities wised up, after some changes in the laws. Now they tend to patent everything and collaborate with pharmaceutical companies to try them. On the whole it seems good, but there are bad ramifications also -- too complex to discuss here.
I was not sure exactly about "trademark" because not too many companies stay on top forever, and soon they become extinct. For example, I am not sure if Coke had a trademark at some point for "Cola", apart from "Coca cola". The term "cola" is used by a number of beverages.
Not seeing a single geek argument on the whole of the internet IS incredible. If he's incapable of seeing it - he's fucking magical. I'm still waiting for my unicorn.
Someone earlier cited NeXTstep and object oriented programing - in which I say - good point. It also so happens NeXT computers - like most - have things called batteries. They provide power to things called onboard clocks. These batteries can eventually die and the clocks reset their dates - like mine did. Computers are magical devices that can display words like "unicorn".
If you have a patent or a trademark, and you do not defend that from continued infringement, you could lose your legal right to such patent or trademark,
Just a side note:
Do not lose the debate by using loose arguments. It is a great loss and a lost crusade if we rely too much on loose arguments to be the foundation of the discourse here.
Do not lose the debate by using loose arguments. It is a great loss and a lost crusade if we rely too much on loose arguments to be the foundation of the discourse here.
CGC
I love the side note. I think most people in America (or at least those on the Internet) have forgotten the difference between lose and loose. It's just so embarrassing.
Are you trying to say the mouse was invented by Apple? Are you serious? The mouse was invented in 1963 by Douglas Engelbart.
Apple also did not invent the Apps Store. While they made iTunes, music libraries has already been around for some time.
For something to be a "game changer" the best you are going to get is the iPod that was a true game changer. The iPhone is a great product but even that isn't a game changer.
Every company sees dark times and some never make it out of those dark times. Apple has had its share of dark times and right now they are doing very well. Its not like they can never see dark times again. Also the iPad isn't even on sale for all we know it could be the next Apple TV, Mac Mini, Apple II or G4 Cube.
Also you mentioned OSX how about we talk about Apple operating systems before OSX they didn't exactly burn up the tech industry in fact most of them outright sucked.
You can't help but live up to the "Extreme" in your name. Your definition of game changer moves around all over the place. You suggest it means "invent" when it suits (mouse) and "popularizes" when it suits (iPod). The widely accepted definition of game changer is typically something that significantly moves the market in itself - ie popularizes something, brings it to a mass market, causes others to copy it etc. It doesn't have to drive market dominance but often does for at least some time (Most examples below have driven years of market share leadership - Apple II, Mac, IBM PC, Laser Printer, PalmPilot etc.)
Under these terms, gamechangers are arguably: (note - not invented)
Home computer - Apple II
GUI OS/Mouse - Mac
POrtable music - Sony (walkman/discman)
Desktop publishing - Apple/Aldus/Adobe (in a package - Mac/PageMaker/Postscript)
Stylus-based Touch - came from Apple, but Palm is the gamechanger
IBM standard PC - IBM
IBM clone - Compaq
Laser Printer - HP
Inkjet Printer - ?? - HP or Epson?
MP3 player - Apple
Multitouch phone/touch OS - Apple
Unix desktop OS - Apple (Linux has never been mass market - only netbooks have driven non-geek adoption)
Tablet computing - Apple?? TBC
Apple has a pretty good hit rate, unprecedented in many ways.
- One could even look at some of the "failures" and note that they moved the game along a bit - Cube - fashion computer styling/small form factors (see Mini/Nettops etc.), Apple TV - too early to tell until the content channels work themselves out.
Apple has changed more games than anyone in the personal computing/gadget space - just a fact. Doesn't mean they achieved or kept Market Leadership but even in the old days, Apple II and Mac had huge market shares for a few years before the market caught up/overtook.
Apple couldn't implement it worth a damn, and they are suffering. So they sue.
Palm implemented multitasking in a way that's actually friendlier and visually nicer than Android. Though it may be less battery efficient, I don't know, as nobody cares enough to actually do a quality comparison.
Again: "Google's don't be evil mantra? It's bullshit! They're trying to kill us!" - Steve Jobs on the Google phone platform.
Again, this is a paraphrase attributed to a single anonymous source. Moreover, even that source doesn't link those two phrases together into one thought like that, and as far as I know the latter bit is more commonly rendered as something like "the Android team wants to kill the iPhone", which is the kind of thing you say when you want to fire up the troops.
Still not seeing where any of this implies "fear."
Do not lose the debate by using loose arguments. It is a great loss and a lost crusade if we rely too much on loose arguments to be the foundation of the discourse here.
CGC[/QUOTE]
While we're at it..
There must be an easier way to convince them that their use of lose and loose is incorrect but they're not getting it.
Comments
There are more caveats to the above statement.
You may be the first to have thought of the idea and made a discovery. If you did not record it properly, without witnesses, and was never submitted to the patent office and not made public, another individual or company can submit a patent for an "identical" discovery or invention, even If they started their discovery or invention much later.
There are also primary and derivative "discoveries and inventions". For example, in the drug industry, the discovery of a synthesis of a compound (more generic) does not prevent others from other (derivative) discoveries or inventions on furhter uses of that compound. The pharceutical industry has found this loophole to extent the lifespan of their drug patents.
You are correct only to an extent.
If a discovery or an invention has not been patented, and has been made public for more than a year, then it becomes public property.
If someone or some company decided to patent an identical discovery or invention, subseqquent grant of a patent to the second company, does not negate the proviso stated in the previous paragraph -- simply because the patent officer who approved the application did not exercise due diligence to discover all prior patented and "public" discoveries and inventions.
What I find silly (if not stupid) in the arguments -- on both sides -- in this board is the tendency to confuse our bias or opinion to be the basis of deciding the legality or falsehood, of what really are very complex matters to resolve.
That is what the courts are meant to untangle.
It is a lack of proper education and understanding of the law to suggest that there is a need for patent reform therefore Apple or whatever company who plan to protect their patents is wrong or is afraid of the competition.
What is right and wrong are not equivalent to legal or illegal. Nor are these terms synonymous with true or false.
All the court can decide really is what is legal or not.
It is very costly process on all parties involved -- that is why being a lawyer could be a very lucrative position, especially if frivolous suits have no penalty. Like any other company, usually they tend to settle the matter. For example, the use of Apple with the terms "Apple", "iPhone", etc. Perhaps even "iPad"; the same reason, Microsoft was forced to make a deal with Apple, when it got caught using some of the inventions of Apple in its system and products.
What is true also is that if you do not protect your registered trademark or discoveries and inventions, you also lose your legal right to such properties. It becomes generic. A very good example is the "term" -- Aspirin. That trademark was owned by the company "Bayer". But, the company never sued others early, so that when they finally realized their error, it was too late. Note that this must not be confused with the invention for the manufacture of the compound aspirin itself. That patent has a time limit. After that, the manufacture of the compound "aspirin" can be done by any generic pharmaceutical company as it is done now, like many drugs, after a patent expiration, On the other hand, a trademark can be protected for a much longer time.
CGC
Good post. Beat me to it. But I think the first sentence of the last paragraph is only true about trademarks, and not patents. As the rest of your paragraph points out, only the trademark aspirin was lost; the patent on the aspirin product itself was not. Patents, I believe, last 17 years. Trademarks, I believe, are forever (or as long as you defend it).
If you are trained/degreed as an engineer and you want to make lots of money but aren't really that interested in building insanely, great products and don't mind doing tedious research and arguing about minute details, the best thing to do is go to law school and become a patent engineer.
When you can't compete you sue!
First Nokia and now Apple. No respect for Apple on this move. Compete on the market instead of the courtroom!
The counter-suit is going to get interesting too, when it comes, given that HTC has been making phones for a lot longer and probably has tons of its own patents that it can sue for. Why can't they just stick to making phones? Or is Jobs out of ideas for iPhone 4.0?
By that reasoning no one should ever seek legal redress for having their innovations copied. They should just "compete in the market" against, well, effectively themselves, since anyone should be free to do wholesale cloning of whatever seems to be popular.
Well, it's pretty much no different than the other devices quadra said were emulating the iphone. It's got a touch screen and a button that brings you to the home screen. Big whoop. That's exactly my point though. People will point to devices like this and say they only exist because of the iphone, which is bs obviously since it was released before the first iphone was.
This is where the the totality is not always the same as the sum of the parts. This is were derivative inventions and creations come in. For example, this is much used in designer cloths, like Blue Jeans. First "created" made famous by Levis jeans -- even if "pants" as a clothing have been with us for centuries.
Did you know for example that many designer jeans manufacturer can file trademark for even the most simple design -- shape of the back and front packets, for example, or how many stiches were used, etc. They seem almost frivolous or ridiculous but trademark laws do protect such derivative creations.
Similar stuff exist in patents that lead to derivative inventions or discoveries.
CGC
Depends on what you mean by "game changer". Most people think it means that it significantly changes the game that was being played by the competitors prior to its arrival.
I fully expect the iPad to be a game changer in the market segments for tablets, e-readers and netbooks. But we'll see in a couple of months how it's going.
I kinda doubt it will "totally replace notebooks" but I don't know if that's exactly what Quadra said.
Netbooks and ereaders I would agree. Its going to really give the Kindle a run. The issue with the Kindle is you don't even need a Kindle anymore because the sofware is available for any Windows system and soon to be released for OSX. It appears all Amazon cares about now is that you buy the content from them.
As far as netbooks I guess it depends on if you want a full OS of if you can make due with what the iPad as to offer. There are many here that believe its an advantage not to have a full OS running on your Tablet I would tend to disagree, but that is based on personal need.
I was also jumped on even though I believe the point is very valid that when you look at the high end iPad for 829.00 and you start to add accessories you get really close to the price of a Macbook. That could be an issue if 16GB and no 3G is not the way you want to go.
I was hoping for more out of the iPad, I was looking forward to getting one but right now it just doesn't have enough to suit my needs. I would expect that to change within a generation or two.
I thought it was dumb when people said Nokia sued because they were scared, and it's just as dumb now when it's the other way around.
If you plan to win a lawsuit, you research the hell out of it before you even sue. There's no prize for suing quickly. You research the potentially infringing products; you tear them apart, run them through all sorts of tests to see what was actually implemented. When there's lots of potential infringement, you research legal precedents and case history to find the best courses of action, so you can pick the very best items to contest. This takes time.
In the case of Nokia, there was the additional step of negotiating with Apple over licenses, so from start to suit, it took 2.5 years since Nokia could get their hands on an iPhone. Why does anyone think that the 1.5 years since the Dream/G1 came out is that long?
Exactly. Pretty much every post on this forum that references some kind of recent (usually emotional), reason for Apple suing HTC can be completely ignored. It's a juvenile assessment that requires we believe that Apple or possibly Steve Jobs, "got mad" and woke up one morning ready to sue.
Good post. Beat me to it. But I think the first sentence of the last paragraph is only true about trademarks, and not patents. As the rest of your paragraph points out, only the trademark aspirin was lost; the patent on the aspirin product itself was not. Patents, I believe, last 17 years. Trademarks, I believe, are forever (or as long as you defend it).
If you are trained/degreed as an engineer and you want to make lots of money but aren't really that interested in building insanely, great products and don't mind doing tedious research and arguing about minute details, the best thing to do is go to law school and become a patent engineer.
I had the same notion actually, until I had the privilege to be a member of a University committee that monitors drug testing done in universities. Indeed any patent has a shelf-life. However, what I found was that if a drug was first tested usually among healthy adults; the company may try later on to test it specifically for children or older people. Then, they may try to use the same product for other diseases (or circumvent the law by letting physicians to "try" using the product for other diseases). Companies do these new trials for other specific groups or diseases, especially if the "manufacture" or prior use is near expiration. Other stuff right now that are explored are modes of deliveries -- slow release capsules, packaging (e.g., coating of the medicine) that affect absorption, etc.
If there is promising new use, and there is a lucrative market, then they conduct a more large scale trial to get "new use" for the same drug. The prior use might have expired (becomes generic), but then the "new uses" or technologies of deliveries can be patented, again. The derivative clinical trials can be costly but almost usually not as costly as the "original use" discovery and original clinical trials costs.
Pharmaceutical companies make so many claims of high cost. Sometimes it is true, but many major drugs were discoveries arose from federally funded research. All the initial HIV/AIDS drugs for example were based on work by many cancer researchers and institutions. Even many of the early trials were funded by NIH. However, the government does not patent its inventions or discoveries. So, the drug companies who first manufactured the 'tablets" for the HIV/AIDS drugs made enormously filthy profits.
Then universities wised up, after some changes in the laws. Now they tend to patent everything and collaborate with pharmaceutical companies to try them. On the whole it seems good, but there are bad ramifications also -- too complex to discuss here.
I was not sure exactly about "trademark" because not too many companies stay on top forever, and soon they become extinct. For example, I am not sure if Coke had a trademark at some point for "Cola", apart from "Coca cola". The term "cola" is used by a number of beverages.
CGC
Not seeing a single geek argument on the whole of the internet IS incredible. If he's incapable of seeing it - he's fucking magical. I'm still waiting for my unicorn.
Someone earlier cited NeXTstep and object oriented programing - in which I say - good point. It also so happens NeXT computers - like most - have things called batteries. They provide power to things called onboard clocks. These batteries can eventually die and the clocks reset their dates - like mine did. Computers are magical devices that can display words like "unicorn".
And now - David Blaine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYxu_MQSTTY
And By-the-fuck-way, didn't everyone get the memo from Apple.com's homepage? Magical is now a documented feature.
That made even less sense.... How old are you?
Just a side note:
Do not lose the debate by using loose arguments. It is a great loss and a lost crusade if we rely too much on loose arguments to be the foundation of the discourse here.
CGC
Just a side note:
Do not lose the debate by using loose arguments. It is a great loss and a lost crusade if we rely too much on loose arguments to be the foundation of the discourse here.
CGC
I love the side note. I think most people in America (or at least those on the Internet) have forgotten the difference between lose and loose. It's just so embarrassing.
Are you trying to say the mouse was invented by Apple? Are you serious? The mouse was invented in 1963 by Douglas Engelbart.
Apple also did not invent the Apps Store. While they made iTunes, music libraries has already been around for some time.
For something to be a "game changer" the best you are going to get is the iPod that was a true game changer. The iPhone is a great product but even that isn't a game changer.
Every company sees dark times and some never make it out of those dark times. Apple has had its share of dark times and right now they are doing very well. Its not like they can never see dark times again. Also the iPad isn't even on sale for all we know it could be the next Apple TV, Mac Mini, Apple II or G4 Cube.
Also you mentioned OSX how about we talk about Apple operating systems before OSX they didn't exactly burn up the tech industry in fact most of them outright sucked.
You can't help but live up to the "Extreme" in your name. Your definition of game changer moves around all over the place. You suggest it means "invent" when it suits (mouse) and "popularizes" when it suits (iPod). The widely accepted definition of game changer is typically something that significantly moves the market in itself - ie popularizes something, brings it to a mass market, causes others to copy it etc. It doesn't have to drive market dominance but often does for at least some time (Most examples below have driven years of market share leadership - Apple II, Mac, IBM PC, Laser Printer, PalmPilot etc.)
Under these terms, gamechangers are arguably: (note - not invented)
Home computer - Apple II
GUI OS/Mouse - Mac
POrtable music - Sony (walkman/discman)
Desktop publishing - Apple/Aldus/Adobe (in a package - Mac/PageMaker/Postscript)
Stylus-based Touch - came from Apple, but Palm is the gamechanger
IBM standard PC - IBM
IBM clone - Compaq
Laser Printer - HP
Inkjet Printer - ?? - HP or Epson?
MP3 player - Apple
Multitouch phone/touch OS - Apple
Unix desktop OS - Apple (Linux has never been mass market - only netbooks have driven non-geek adoption)
Tablet computing - Apple?? TBC
Apple has a pretty good hit rate, unprecedented in many ways.
- One could even look at some of the "failures" and note that they moved the game along a bit - Cube - fashion computer styling/small form factors (see Mini/Nettops etc.), Apple TV - too early to tell until the content channels work themselves out.
Apple has changed more games than anyone in the personal computing/gadget space - just a fact. Doesn't mean they achieved or kept Market Leadership but even in the old days, Apple II and Mac had huge market shares for a few years before the market caught up/overtook.
If you can't compete, then sue. God I love Apple.
So Apple sued Psystar because it couldn't compete. Yeah, right.
And Apple just sued Media Solution Holdings because it couldn't compete. Yeah, right.
And Apple sued Burst.com because it couldn't compete. Yeah, right.
And Apple sued Apple Corps because it couldn't compete. Yeah, right.
And Apple put together all the material in this lawsuit since Jobs saw data in January that showed Apple was having trouble competing. Yeah, right.
. . .
One word: multitasking.
Apple couldn't implement it worth a damn, and they are suffering. So they sue.
One word: multitasking.
Apple couldn't implement it worth a damn, and they are suffering. So they sue.
One word: copy-and-paste
Apple couldn't implement it worth a damn, and they were suffering. So they sued, right?
One word: multitasking.
Apple couldn't implement it worth a damn, and they are suffering. So they sue.
Yeah, sure it is.
Let me guess, you were one of those people busting Apple's nut about the copy and paste "tragedy".
Apple couldn't implement it worth a damn, and they are suffering. So they sue.
75 Million iPhone OS X devices as of the end of 2009 says differently.
One word: multitasking.
Apple couldn't implement it worth a damn, and they are suffering. So they sue.
Palm implemented multitasking in a way that's actually friendlier and visually nicer than Android. Though it may be less battery efficient, I don't know, as nobody cares enough to actually do a quality comparison.
As of today, Apple hasn't sued.
Again: "Google's don't be evil mantra? It's bullshit! They're trying to kill us!" - Steve Jobs on the Google phone platform.
Again, this is a paraphrase attributed to a single anonymous source. Moreover, even that source doesn't link those two phrases together into one thought like that, and as far as I know the latter bit is more commonly rendered as something like "the Android team wants to kill the iPhone", which is the kind of thing you say when you want to fire up the troops.
Still not seeing where any of this implies "fear."
Do not lose the debate by using loose arguments. It is a great loss and a lost crusade if we rely too much on loose arguments to be the foundation of the discourse here.
CGC[/QUOTE]
While we're at it..
There must be an easier way to convince them that their use of lose and loose is incorrect but they're not getting it.