It may well be that AppleInsider demonstrated poor judgment in quoting Cringely. Wouldn't be the first time AI demonstrated poor judgment.
How is it every time you make a mistake, no matter how gratuitous or sloppy it's AI's fault? The reason they are quoting Cringely is he is the only guy talking about the breakdown of consortium participation.
It's amazing and amusing how many infantile minds in various forums (fora actually) including this one view the patent wrangling and auctions as some kind of football game and come out rooting for one side or the other.
[pedantic]The English plural forums is preferred to the Latin plural fora in normal English usage.[/pedantic]
When what you call my error consists of words written by Appleinsider that I merely quoted, your problem is with the source, not the messenger.
No, you made a fundamental error, you mis-attributed a statement to AI and it was relevant. You frequently make comments about AI's reporting and in this instance you were implying that AI believed that Apple were doing this just to bash google - which the report didn't justify.
Next time you make a clanger like this you might find it better to just acknowledge it and move on rather than trying to immediately shift the blame or misdirect.
You're STILL trying to blame somebody else here, and still refusing to acknowledge you made a classic blunder.
Quote:
In this case you've expressed a dislike for Mr. Cringely. I didn't coerce AppleInsider into quoting him; they chose that entirely on their own.
I didn't express dislike - I commented on a recent huge mistake he made, only you would conflate the two. Again you chose to not quote their quotation but to mis-attribute it to them, which is my problem here.
I don't think it's quite that strong, but I do agree that it raises the bar for anybody trying to invalidate the patent or to claim non infringement in a similar case.
It's like this - if an accused settles with the prosecutor and agrees to a jail term, he/she can argue innocence all they want, it goes on their criminal record. At the same time, I am not sure though that MSFT can use this as supporting evidence in any case against another company, however similar or dissimilar the cases may be. It is, however, a strong suggestion to others that it may be easier to settle and get on with business, than to fight.
Contrary to ongoing arguments, HTC makes enough of a gross margin to afford the license fee, whatever it is (not $5).
No, you made a fundamental error, you mis-attributed a statement to AI and it was relevant. You frequently make comments about AI's reporting and in this instance you were implying that AI believed that Apple were doing this just to bash google - which the report didn't justify.
Next time you make a clanger like this you might find it better to just acknowledge it and move on rather than trying to immediately shift the blame or misdirect.
You're STILL trying to blame somebody else here, and still refusing to acknowledge you made a classic blunder.
I didn't express dislike - I commented on a recent huge mistake he made, only you would conflate the two. Again you chose to not quote their quotation but to mis-attribute it to them, which is my problem here.
Note that I included the quotation marks around the phrase in question, and included AI's citation ("the report noted").
Try this exercise yourself: click the "Reply" button at the bottom the first entry in any article forum here, which will be the article itself. The result you get starts with the quoted article atributed to the author of the post, and since the first post is from AppleInsider it will show "AppleInsider wrote" as the attribution.
Aware that such a convention might mislead the reader if I had quoted Cringely's words without the quotation marks or AI's citation, I made sure to include both.
And had I altered this forum's default attribution to use "Cringely's report wrote" it would just confuse the reader, since "Cringley's report" is not a user here and quoting from the article itself always leads with "Apple Insider wrote" so folks know where it came from.
I'm not sure what's driving this. Your posts are usually among the very best here, often with excelling links where relevant and almost always with concise insight. Absent as they are of the sort of name-calling, ad hominem, racism, and silly "all non-Apple companies are either stupid or evil and must die!" drivel we see in so many others, I like your posts generally, which is why this one confuses me.
Please review my quoting the portion of the main article as I've done, and kindly explain how I might more clearly note that AI is quoting a report beyond using quotation marks and including the phrase "the report noted".
Wow, is this about who's right or who's more righteous? How about moving right along?
It's like this - if an accused settles with the prosecutor and agrees to a jail term, he/she can argue innocence all they want, it goes on their criminal record. At the same time, I am not sure though that MSFT can use this as supporting evidence in any case against another company, however similar or dissimilar the cases may be. It is, however, a strong suggestion to others that it may be easier to settle and get on with business, than to fight.
Contrary to ongoing arguments, HTC makes enough of a gross margin to afford the license fee, whatever it is (not $5).
It's a bit more complicated with Patents because the settlement is invariably private and because it involves 3rd parties, ie. if I settle with the prosecutor for fraud and you were working with me - you're not automatically guilty, but your defence just got a LOT harder
While this is fairly irrelevant news in terms of what Apple is/has been doing, this is a major blow to Google.
It's not clear exactly why Google wanted the patents, did it want them to defend Android handset makers? It hasn't made a big effort to defend Android handset makers thus far so that seems odd. Did it want them to stop MS getting them? If so mission was accomplished. Did it want them to try to make handset makers adopt Android? Seems unlikely since it already has plenty of handset makers, but it's not impossible - there are occasional rumblings of discontent from the big Android OEMs.
Whatever it wanted them for we know one thing pretty much for sure, it didn't want them more than it wanted 5 billion dollars in cash or it could have kept bidding. I suspect this isn't as big a blow as is generally suggested.
My take on Google in mobile is unconventional, I think it's perfectly happy with the status quo where Android takes up all of the low end of the handset market, Apple taking up all of the high end. So long as MS can be kept out of mobile search things are OK by google and it can redirect resources to fighting on other fronts such as against facebook or IE.
I think those whimsical mathematical constant bids were just about it tweaking Apple's nose a bit, and it never really intended to go all out for the patent package.
A big chunk of 4G for starters. I think the global handset market is something like 1billion units per year - it doesn't look that insane.
My back of the envelope calculation is that for 20 years of patent with a market of 1billion devices per annum these licenses would only need to generate 30cents per device to cover the cost. I'm actually surprised it didn't go higher.
Actually assuming that Cringely was correct and Apple ended up owning the Patents for 2billion it's more like .15cents a device. Even more extreme, we could use Apple's actual return on it's investment portfolio of 1% as the cost of capital and then we'd be down to around 12cents per handset.
Playing online poker is NOT illegal. Playing online poker is NOT illegal even in the Unites States.
What is illegal in the Unites States is the transfer of money between US financial institutions and online gambling businesses.
Therefore, you can play online poker all you want in the United States. You simply can't get your money in and out of there via a US financial institution.
PS: I play a lot of online poker. Even today. And from the US.
Playing poker with no money involved is not real poker.
The biggest online poker sites were forced to lock out all US players, this includes Full Tilt and Pokerstars. It doesn't matter if you already had money on there or not, you can not play for money there anymore.
Comments
It may well be that AppleInsider demonstrated poor judgment in quoting Cringely. Wouldn't be the first time AI demonstrated poor judgment.
How is it every time you make a mistake, no matter how gratuitous or sloppy it's AI's fault? The reason they are quoting Cringely is he is the only guy talking about the breakdown of consortium participation.
Own your errors dude.
It's amazing and amusing how many infantile minds in various forums (fora actually) including this one view the patent wrangling and auctions as some kind of football game and come out rooting for one side or the other.
[pedantic]The English plural forums is preferred to the Latin plural fora in normal English usage.[/pedantic]
Carry on.
[pedantic]The English plural forums is preferred to the Latin plural fora in normal English usage.[/pedantic]
Carry on.
Yes but what if he was using the locative plural
When what you call my error consists of words written by Appleinsider that I merely quoted, your problem is with the source, not the messenger.
No, you made a fundamental error, you mis-attributed a statement to AI and it was relevant. You frequently make comments about AI's reporting and in this instance you were implying that AI believed that Apple were doing this just to bash google - which the report didn't justify.
Next time you make a clanger like this you might find it better to just acknowledge it and move on rather than trying to immediately shift the blame or misdirect.
You're STILL trying to blame somebody else here, and still refusing to acknowledge you made a classic blunder.
In this case you've expressed a dislike for Mr. Cringely. I didn't coerce AppleInsider into quoting him; they chose that entirely on their own.
I didn't express dislike - I commented on a recent huge mistake he made, only you would conflate the two. Again you chose to not quote their quotation but to mis-attribute it to them, which is my problem here.
If you hate AI then why do you 1) read the site and 2) post on the site?
I don't think it's quite that strong, but I do agree that it raises the bar for anybody trying to invalidate the patent or to claim non infringement in a similar case.
It's like this - if an accused settles with the prosecutor and agrees to a jail term, he/she can argue innocence all they want, it goes on their criminal record. At the same time, I am not sure though that MSFT can use this as supporting evidence in any case against another company, however similar or dissimilar the cases may be. It is, however, a strong suggestion to others that it may be easier to settle and get on with business, than to fight.
Contrary to ongoing arguments, HTC makes enough of a gross margin to afford the license fee, whatever it is (not $5).
No, you made a fundamental error, you mis-attributed a statement to AI and it was relevant. You frequently make comments about AI's reporting and in this instance you were implying that AI believed that Apple were doing this just to bash google - which the report didn't justify.
Next time you make a clanger like this you might find it better to just acknowledge it and move on rather than trying to immediately shift the blame or misdirect.
You're STILL trying to blame somebody else here, and still refusing to acknowledge you made a classic blunder.
I didn't express dislike - I commented on a recent huge mistake he made, only you would conflate the two. Again you chose to not quote their quotation but to mis-attribute it to them, which is my problem here.
Let's take a fresh look at what I actually wrote:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...8&postcount=66
Note that I included the quotation marks around the phrase in question, and included AI's citation ("the report noted").
Try this exercise yourself: click the "Reply" button at the bottom the first entry in any article forum here, which will be the article itself. The result you get starts with the quoted article atributed to the author of the post, and since the first post is from AppleInsider it will show "AppleInsider wrote" as the attribution.
Aware that such a convention might mislead the reader if I had quoted Cringely's words without the quotation marks or AI's citation, I made sure to include both.
And had I altered this forum's default attribution to use "Cringely's report wrote" it would just confuse the reader, since "Cringley's report" is not a user here and quoting from the article itself always leads with "Apple Insider wrote" so folks know where it came from.
I'm not sure what's driving this. Your posts are usually among the very best here, often with excelling links where relevant and almost always with concise insight. Absent as they are of the sort of name-calling, ad hominem, racism, and silly "all non-Apple companies are either stupid or evil and must die!" drivel we see in so many others, I like your posts generally, which is why this one confuses me.
Please review my quoting the portion of the main article as I've done, and kindly explain how I might more clearly note that AI is quoting a report beyond using quotation marks and including the phrase "the report noted".
Wow, is this about who's right or who's more righteous? How about moving right along?
It's like this - if an accused settles with the prosecutor and agrees to a jail term, he/she can argue innocence all they want, it goes on their criminal record. At the same time, I am not sure though that MSFT can use this as supporting evidence in any case against another company, however similar or dissimilar the cases may be. It is, however, a strong suggestion to others that it may be easier to settle and get on with business, than to fight.
Contrary to ongoing arguments, HTC makes enough of a gross margin to afford the license fee, whatever it is (not $5).
It's a bit more complicated with Patents because the settlement is invariably private and because it involves 3rd parties, ie. if I settle with the prosecutor for fraud and you were working with me - you're not automatically guilty, but your defence just got a LOT harder
"I hate AI".
See how confusing it is when you mis-attribute a quotation?
Wow, is this about who's right or who's more righteous? How about moving right along?
it seems to be about two pedants who won't admit that they don't actually know everything.
This has nothing to do with the actual technology rather the position the patents put the owner in.
Google wanted the patents to protect itself, not control LTE.
Apple wanted the patents to only keep them away from Google.
If Google got control of the patents that would give them leverage over companies that have patent claims against Android.
While this is fairly irrelevant news in terms of what Apple is/has been doing, this is a major blow to Google.
While this is fairly irrelevant news in terms of what Apple is/has been doing, this is a major blow to Google.
It's not clear exactly why Google wanted the patents, did it want them to defend Android handset makers? It hasn't made a big effort to defend Android handset makers thus far so that seems odd. Did it want them to stop MS getting them? If so mission was accomplished. Did it want them to try to make handset makers adopt Android? Seems unlikely since it already has plenty of handset makers, but it's not impossible - there are occasional rumblings of discontent from the big Android OEMs.
Whatever it wanted them for we know one thing pretty much for sure, it didn't want them more than it wanted 5 billion dollars in cash or it could have kept bidding. I suspect this isn't as big a blow as is generally suggested.
My take on Google in mobile is unconventional, I think it's perfectly happy with the status quo where Android takes up all of the low end of the handset market, Apple taking up all of the high end. So long as MS can be kept out of mobile search things are OK by google and it can redirect resources to fighting on other fronts such as against facebook or IE.
I think those whimsical mathematical constant bids were just about it tweaking Apple's nose a bit, and it never really intended to go all out for the patent package.
A big chunk of 4G for starters. I think the global handset market is something like 1billion units per year - it doesn't look that insane.
My back of the envelope calculation is that for 20 years of patent with a market of 1billion devices per annum these licenses would only need to generate 30cents per device to cover the cost. I'm actually surprised it didn't go higher.
Interesting.
Interesting.
Actually assuming that Cringely was correct and Apple ended up owning the Patents for 2billion it's more like .15cents a device. Even more extreme, we could use Apple's actual return on it's investment portfolio of 1% as the cost of capital and then we'd be down to around 12cents per handset.
Let's set some facts straight....
Playing online poker is NOT illegal. Playing online poker is NOT illegal even in the Unites States.
What is illegal in the Unites States is the transfer of money between US financial institutions and online gambling businesses.
Therefore, you can play online poker all you want in the United States. You simply can't get your money in and out of there via a US financial institution.
PS: I play a lot of online poker. Even today. And from the US.
Playing poker with no money involved is not real poker.
The biggest online poker sites were forced to lock out all US players, this includes Full Tilt and Pokerstars. It doesn't matter if you already had money on there or not, you can not play for money there anymore.