... Of course I am biased against him. You know, like anyone rational is biased against Glenn Beck. ...
Sigh.
See, again you go over the top.
Glenn Beck is a fascist hate monger with a slim grasp on reality and the morals of a snake.
So again, why should I take anything you say seriously when you start a post by comparing the author to someone like that?
I don't like to argue for the most part, I'm here for debate. There is a big difference between the two and it mostly centres around emotionally coloured language, abuse and hyperbole.
Then why aren't they "defending" themselves against Bada? against WebOS? against the playbook?
Show me the WebOS device or playbook that actually copies the UI from the interactive method (pinch to zoom, etc) all the way down to the shape and color of specific icons. These other tablet or smartphone OS's prove that there is still plenty of latitude left in design choices, but somehow Android has managed to emerge as much more of an iOS clone. Hmmm. Wonder why that is? Probably because Apple got a lot of it right, and Android is a wild-west "we don't care about IP" kind of thing. And it shows.
According to FOSSPatents' Florian Mueller, Motorola already knew Apple was preparing to sue them. Their suit was preemptive in the hope it would improve their chances of defending themselves.
Motorola didn't "know". They had a "reasonable apprehension". Not the same thing as knowing at all. Maybe Apple was holding back, maybe Apple would never had sued them for whatever reason.
If Apple had sued first and then said they had a reasonable apprehension, would you be asserting that Motorola actually sued first.
I think you're talking about something I'm not talking about
Well that may very well be, but I feel like talking about it. You were suggesting that a grid layout of icons is obvious and not worthy of suing over, and I somewhat agree. But when you add in the fact that the icons themselves bear a striking resemblance, the method of getting to the next "page" or grid of icons is the same, and even the indicator for more pages is the same (except moved to the TOP) then you have to admit that there is a lot of design element COPYING going on there. Maybe that's why you don't WANT to talk about what I'm talking about. You know that it strongly supports the case against Samsung.
Glenn Beck is a fascist hate monger with a slim grasp on reality and the morals of a snake.
So again, why should I take anything you say seriously when you start a post by comparing the author to someone like that?
I don't like to argue for the most part, I'm here for debate. There is a big difference between the two and it mostly centres around emotionally coloured language, abuse and hyperbole.
You're not here for debate. If you wanted debate you would post on a site that presented the news without such a heavily filtered lens. Understandably, this site will have a very pro-apple focus, which is fine. The problem is that they (specifically a single author) go out of their way to post everything negative about the competition they can. that's not the point of this site. The point of this site, as per their own heading is "Apple news and analysis" If you wanted to debate, you'd post more on TIMN, or an Android site. though Android sites rarely, if ever, post Apple news unless it directly relates to Android in some way.
The comparison to Glenn Beck is entirely accurate. I don't think DED is a Facist, but he's irrational in his hatred of other operating systems and I'm far from the first (or the most well known) to say so. His personal blog is nothing but a "this is why android sucks" screed and has been for quite some time. If he was an Apple blogger, wouldn't he write, you know, about Apple? What rational person spends so much time writing against a specific platform? if he was just a commenter he'd be labeled a troll faster than you could hit the spam button. the fact that he is the author of the article doesn't change his attitude.
I also discovered long ago that it's impossible to have a rational discussion on this site. If you post anything questioning Apple's motives, you're told to stop reading the site. If you refuse, they start calling you an astroturfer. So why bother trying to remain "civil" in the discussion? No one here is interested on getting to the truth, we're all here to shout about how much we're right and the other person is wrong. I tried fighting that mentality, I failed. If you can't beat em, join em, right?
Show me the WebOS device or playbook that actually copies the UI from the interactive method (pinch to zoom, etc) all the way down to the shape and color of specific icons. These other tablet or smartphone OS's prove that there is still plenty of latitude left in design choices, but somehow Android has managed to emerge as much more of an iOS clone. Hmmm. Wonder why that is? Probably because Apple got a lot of it right, and Android is a wild-west "we don't care about IP" kind of thing. And it shows.
Thompson
Again, you're not talkinga bout the same thing.
Here I'll make it big and red for you.
APPLE HAS A VALID COMPLAINT FOR TOUCHWIZ
My problem is not the touchwiz suit. My problem is that they are suing ALL android devices, and NOT all touchwiz devices.
And you don't know what Android is like. Don't try.
Motorola didn't "know". They had a "reasonable apprehension". Not the same thing as knowing at all. Maybe Apple was holding back, maybe Apple would never had sued them for whatever reason.
If Apple had sued first and then said they had a reasonable apprehension, would you be asserting that Motorola actually sued first.
I'm just following a guy that is supposed to know more about these patent suits than the rest of us. It's not my opinion. It's stated as proof that Apple was the aggressor by a guy that's generally accepted as reliable by other posters here at AI.
I'm just following a guy that is supposed to know more about these patent suits than the rest of us. It's not my opinion. It's stated as proof that Apple was the aggressor by a guy that's generally accepted as reliable by other posters here at AI.
And generally questioned on other law sites and within the FOSS community. But even a broken clock..
But even Florian's argument is pretty clear that motorola didn't know for sure. Motorola knew discussions broke down and knew Apple was going against Android developers, so they sued for Apple's patents to be invalidated (they sued themselves) in a court of their choosing so that Apple couldn't choose the venue.
My timeline is a bit fuzy, but I'm pretty sure Apple sued HTC first, and then Motorola sued. So the pattern was there already.
I'm just following a guy that is supposed to know more about these patent suits than the rest of us. It's not my opinion. It's stated as proof that Apple was the aggressor by a guy that's generally accepted as reliable by other posters here at AI.
Proof bullshit. Apple was the agressor against HTC. Motorola got the jitters so they went after Apple.
Proof bullshit. Apple was the agressor against HTC. Motorola got the jitters so they went after Apple. . .
I certainly don't have any independent inside evidence to show otherwise, so it's possible you're correct. The supposedly well-connected FOSSPatents blogger would disagree with you.
I certainly don't have any independent inside evidence to show otherwise, so it's possible you're correct. The supposedly well-connected FOSSPatents blogger would disagree with you.
Maybe he has an agenda... and well connected guys have been wrong before.
By the way... if you read the article without putting a slant on it you'll notice that Florian never ever gives any "real" proof... and he never puts the argument, that Apple was the aggressor, to rest.
Try using that argument in a criminal court and see where it gets you. "Oh your honor, I smacked the crap outta that guy because I had a reasonable apprehension that he was coming to get me... and then, guess what, after I slapped him around he came after me 2 weeks later".
The comparison to Glenn Beck is entirely accurate. I don't think DED is a Facist, but he's irrational in his hatred of other operating systems and I'm far from the first (or the most well known) to say so.
Wow, this is such a ridiculous thing to say. DED has been writing about tech for many years, and has an extremely high batting average in terms of offering an accurate outlook. He's not some fanboy who just dreams up fanciful notions of how things are. He supports what he says with facts and reasoning. His AI stuff is pretty fair, if not neutral, but AI is an Apple blog. His Roughlydrafted stuff is a personal website where he says exactly what he's thinking, and again, he is far more often right than wrong.
Not that he's never been wrong, saying that CDMA phones made no sense for Apple. It appears that they'll enable Apple to see a year's worth of phones on Verizon before 4G kicks in. And I think he expected Apple TV to have more of an impact that it did.
But his comments on Android have been accurate and fact-based, unlike the wild euphoria that everyone else has spewn, saying things like Android 3.0 would hammer the iPad into second place, and that Android phones would erase any demand for the iPhone (just like people once crowed about webOS!). That's the kind of unsupported, emotional rhetoric that you try to pin on DED.
If anything, DED is more of a Jon Stewart, having fun taking apart people who say silly things and being pretty much right all the time because he's moderate and thoughtful and well reasoned.
There are about a dozen people I've seen who sit on AI message boards hating on DED, but based on their track records, they're almost ALWAYS wrong. That should tell you something about your decision to harp on how much you hate DED.
Find an example of DED crying for pity, selling worthless gold trinkets to his audience (or hawking some other waste of money he personally benefits from), using numerology and spelling tricks to paint out conspiracy theories, fanning rabid hatred for other people, or anything else in the list of deplorable conduct of Glenn Beck before you try to pin that label on him.
Really, you should have some respect for somebody who doesn't hide behind a phony name and troll phony attacks on real people who do, particularly somebody who is a clever and obviously intelligent as DED.
Wow, this is such a ridiculous thing to say. DED has been writing about tech for many years, and has an extremely high batting average in terms of offering an accurate outlook. He's not some fanboy who just dreams up fanciful notions of how things are. He supports what he says with facts and reasoning. His AI stuff is pretty fair, if not neutral, but AI is an Apple blog. His Roughlydrafted stuff is a personal website where he says exactly what he's thinking, and again, he is far more often right than wrong.
Not that he's never been wrong, saying that CDMA phones made no sense for Apple. It appears that they'll enable Apple to see a year's worth of phones on Verizon before 4G kicks in. And I think he expected Apple TV to have more of an impact that it did.
But his comments on Android have been accurate and fact-based, unlike the wild euphoria that everyone else has spewn, saying things like Android 3.0 would hammer the iPad into second place, and that Android phones would erase any demand for the iPhone (just like people once crowed about webOS!). That's the kind of unsupported, emotional rhetoric that you try to pin on DED.
If anything, DED is more of a Jon Stewart, having fun taking apart people who say silly things and being pretty much right all the time because he's moderate and thoughtful and well reasoned.
There are about a dozen people I've seen who sit on AI message boards hating on DED, but based on their track records, they're almost ALWAYS wrong. That should tell you something about your decision to harp on how much you hate DED.
Find an example of DED crying for pity, selling worthless gold trinkets to his audience (or hawking some other waste of money he personally benefits from), using numerology and spelling tricks to paint out conspiracy theories, fanning rabid hatred for other people, or anything else in the list of deplorable conduct of Glenn Beck before you try to pin that label on him.
Really, you should have some respect for somebody who doesn't hide behind a phony name and troll phony attacks on real people who do, particularly somebody who is a clever and obviously intelligent as DED.
John Stewert is funny, even to people who disagree with him. DED is only funny to people who already agree with him, and only people who agree with him would ever label his writings as "fair" and again, please give me an article where DED has said ANYTHING positive about android, or windows, or any system that wasn't apple. if he's "fair and level headed" it should be pretty easy.
And DED uses quite a few false names, at least two actively for articles here. As for why I use a false name, that would be obviously to anyone who's participated in a forum. I used to use my real name, and then I had someone dredge up stuff my friends posted and started mocking them in an attempt to discredit me.
I certainly don't have any independent inside evidence to show otherwise, so it's possible you're correct. The supposedly well-connected FOSSPatents blogger would disagree with you.
I tell you what... just for the sake of argument I'll give my twist on the document that Florian uses as "proof".
Motorola knew damn well that Android might have patent issues down the road but they used it anyway thinking that they could use their own patent portfolio to slap down any lawsuit against them. Motorola was ready and had already mentioned to Google not to be worried if Apple went after any of the other manufacturers... they (Motorola) had the countersuit drafted.
I think Google and Motorola have had a sweet thing going on for a long time... and, in a way, Florian also agrees with that.
... and I also agree with Florian that there is more than meets the eye about the Google/Motorola deal.
Oh puhleeese! Galaxy tab is a blatant copy, Samsung pulled the previous one out once they saw the iPad 2. Their whole argument will be based on the same premise as all the other copycats'! That the iPad design is too generic to have a legitimate patent.
Apple has every right to protect its IP. They had an idea that others ridiculed For a long time, they made a successful product based on that idea and then others rip it off?
I find it funny that everyone in your video is using Apple computers. I would bet they all have iPads now and love them and are proud they predicted this form factor would be a reality in mass at this point in time.
Comments
... Of course I am biased against him. You know, like anyone rational is biased against Glenn Beck. ...
Sigh.
See, again you go over the top.
Glenn Beck is a fascist hate monger with a slim grasp on reality and the morals of a snake.
So again, why should I take anything you say seriously when you start a post by comparing the author to someone like that?
I don't like to argue for the most part, I'm here for debate. There is a big difference between the two and it mostly centres around emotionally coloured language, abuse and hyperbole.
Then why aren't they "defending" themselves against Bada? against WebOS? against the playbook?
Show me the WebOS device or playbook that actually copies the UI from the interactive method (pinch to zoom, etc) all the way down to the shape and color of specific icons. These other tablet or smartphone OS's prove that there is still plenty of latitude left in design choices, but somehow Android has managed to emerge as much more of an iOS clone. Hmmm. Wonder why that is? Probably because Apple got a lot of it right, and Android is a wild-west "we don't care about IP" kind of thing. And it shows.
Thompson
According to FOSSPatents' Florian Mueller, Motorola already knew Apple was preparing to sue them. Their suit was preemptive in the hope it would improve their chances of defending themselves.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...not-other.html
Motorola didn't "know". They had a "reasonable apprehension". Not the same thing as knowing at all. Maybe Apple was holding back, maybe Apple would never had sued them for whatever reason.
If Apple had sued first and then said they had a reasonable apprehension, would you be asserting that Motorola actually sued first.
I think you're talking about something I'm not talking about
Well that may very well be, but I feel like talking about it. You were suggesting that a grid layout of icons is obvious and not worthy of suing over, and I somewhat agree. But when you add in the fact that the icons themselves bear a striking resemblance, the method of getting to the next "page" or grid of icons is the same, and even the indicator for more pages is the same (except moved to the TOP) then you have to admit that there is a lot of design element COPYING going on there. Maybe that's why you don't WANT to talk about what I'm talking about. You know that it strongly supports the case against Samsung.
Thompson
Sigh.
See, again you go over the top.
Glenn Beck is a fascist hate monger with a slim grasp on reality and the morals of a snake.
So again, why should I take anything you say seriously when you start a post by comparing the author to someone like that?
I don't like to argue for the most part, I'm here for debate. There is a big difference between the two and it mostly centres around emotionally coloured language, abuse and hyperbole.
You're not here for debate. If you wanted debate you would post on a site that presented the news without such a heavily filtered lens. Understandably, this site will have a very pro-apple focus, which is fine. The problem is that they (specifically a single author) go out of their way to post everything negative about the competition they can. that's not the point of this site. The point of this site, as per their own heading is "Apple news and analysis" If you wanted to debate, you'd post more on TIMN, or an Android site. though Android sites rarely, if ever, post Apple news unless it directly relates to Android in some way.
The comparison to Glenn Beck is entirely accurate. I don't think DED is a Facist, but he's irrational in his hatred of other operating systems and I'm far from the first (or the most well known) to say so. His personal blog is nothing but a "this is why android sucks" screed and has been for quite some time. If he was an Apple blogger, wouldn't he write, you know, about Apple? What rational person spends so much time writing against a specific platform? if he was just a commenter he'd be labeled a troll faster than you could hit the spam button. the fact that he is the author of the article doesn't change his attitude.
I also discovered long ago that it's impossible to have a rational discussion on this site. If you post anything questioning Apple's motives, you're told to stop reading the site. If you refuse, they start calling you an astroturfer. So why bother trying to remain "civil" in the discussion? No one here is interested on getting to the truth, we're all here to shout about how much we're right and the other person is wrong. I tried fighting that mentality, I failed. If you can't beat em, join em, right?
Show me the WebOS device or playbook that actually copies the UI from the interactive method (pinch to zoom, etc) all the way down to the shape and color of specific icons. These other tablet or smartphone OS's prove that there is still plenty of latitude left in design choices, but somehow Android has managed to emerge as much more of an iOS clone. Hmmm. Wonder why that is? Probably because Apple got a lot of it right, and Android is a wild-west "we don't care about IP" kind of thing. And it shows.
Thompson
Again, you're not talkinga bout the same thing.
Here I'll make it big and red for you.
APPLE HAS A VALID COMPLAINT FOR TOUCHWIZ
My problem is not the touchwiz suit. My problem is that they are suing ALL android devices, and NOT all touchwiz devices.
And you don't know what Android is like. Don't try.
Motorola didn't "know". They had a "reasonable apprehension". Not the same thing as knowing at all. Maybe Apple was holding back, maybe Apple would never had sued them for whatever reason.
If Apple had sued first and then said they had a reasonable apprehension, would you be asserting that Motorola actually sued first.
I'm just following a guy that is supposed to know more about these patent suits than the rest of us. It's not my opinion. It's stated as proof that Apple was the aggressor by a guy that's generally accepted as reliable by other posters here at AI.
I'm just following a guy that is supposed to know more about these patent suits than the rest of us. It's not my opinion. It's stated as proof that Apple was the aggressor by a guy that's generally accepted as reliable by other posters here at AI.
And generally questioned on other law sites and within the FOSS community. But even a broken clock..
But even Florian's argument is pretty clear that motorola didn't know for sure. Motorola knew discussions broke down and knew Apple was going against Android developers, so they sued for Apple's patents to be invalidated (they sued themselves) in a court of their choosing so that Apple couldn't choose the venue.
My timeline is a bit fuzy, but I'm pretty sure Apple sued HTC first, and then Motorola sued. So the pattern was there already.
I'm just following a guy that is supposed to know more about these patent suits than the rest of us. It's not my opinion. It's stated as proof that Apple was the aggressor by a guy that's generally accepted as reliable by other posters here at AI.
Proof bullshit. Apple was the agressor against HTC. Motorola got the jitters so they went after Apple.
Motorola looks pretty aggressive to me.
That's all the proof I need.
Proof bullshit. Apple was the agressor against HTC. Motorola got the jitters so they went after Apple.
Motorola looks pretty aggressive to me.
That's all the proof I need.
If Motorola was aggressive, they would sue Apple, not sue themselves
Proof bullshit. Apple was the agressor against HTC. Motorola got the jitters so they went after Apple. . .
I certainly don't have any independent inside evidence to show otherwise, so it's possible you're correct. The supposedly well-connected FOSSPatents blogger would disagree with you.
I certainly don't have any independent inside evidence to show otherwise, so it's possible you're correct. The supposedly well-connected FOSSPatents blogger would disagree with you.
Maybe he has an agenda... and well connected guys have been wrong before.
By the way... if you read the article without putting a slant on it you'll notice that Florian never ever gives any "real" proof... and he never puts the argument, that Apple was the aggressor, to rest.
Try using that argument in a criminal court and see where it gets you. "Oh your honor, I smacked the crap outta that guy because I had a reasonable apprehension that he was coming to get me... and then, guess what, after I slapped him around he came after me 2 weeks later".
The comparison to Glenn Beck is entirely accurate. I don't think DED is a Facist, but he's irrational in his hatred of other operating systems and I'm far from the first (or the most well known) to say so.
Wow, this is such a ridiculous thing to say. DED has been writing about tech for many years, and has an extremely high batting average in terms of offering an accurate outlook. He's not some fanboy who just dreams up fanciful notions of how things are. He supports what he says with facts and reasoning. His AI stuff is pretty fair, if not neutral, but AI is an Apple blog. His Roughlydrafted stuff is a personal website where he says exactly what he's thinking, and again, he is far more often right than wrong.
Not that he's never been wrong, saying that CDMA phones made no sense for Apple. It appears that they'll enable Apple to see a year's worth of phones on Verizon before 4G kicks in. And I think he expected Apple TV to have more of an impact that it did.
But his comments on Android have been accurate and fact-based, unlike the wild euphoria that everyone else has spewn, saying things like Android 3.0 would hammer the iPad into second place, and that Android phones would erase any demand for the iPhone (just like people once crowed about webOS!). That's the kind of unsupported, emotional rhetoric that you try to pin on DED.
If anything, DED is more of a Jon Stewart, having fun taking apart people who say silly things and being pretty much right all the time because he's moderate and thoughtful and well reasoned.
There are about a dozen people I've seen who sit on AI message boards hating on DED, but based on their track records, they're almost ALWAYS wrong. That should tell you something about your decision to harp on how much you hate DED.
Find an example of DED crying for pity, selling worthless gold trinkets to his audience (or hawking some other waste of money he personally benefits from), using numerology and spelling tricks to paint out conspiracy theories, fanning rabid hatred for other people, or anything else in the list of deplorable conduct of Glenn Beck before you try to pin that label on him.
Really, you should have some respect for somebody who doesn't hide behind a phony name and troll phony attacks on real people who do, particularly somebody who is a clever and obviously intelligent as DED.
Wow, this is such a ridiculous thing to say. DED has been writing about tech for many years, and has an extremely high batting average in terms of offering an accurate outlook. He's not some fanboy who just dreams up fanciful notions of how things are. He supports what he says with facts and reasoning. His AI stuff is pretty fair, if not neutral, but AI is an Apple blog. His Roughlydrafted stuff is a personal website where he says exactly what he's thinking, and again, he is far more often right than wrong.
Not that he's never been wrong, saying that CDMA phones made no sense for Apple. It appears that they'll enable Apple to see a year's worth of phones on Verizon before 4G kicks in. And I think he expected Apple TV to have more of an impact that it did.
But his comments on Android have been accurate and fact-based, unlike the wild euphoria that everyone else has spewn, saying things like Android 3.0 would hammer the iPad into second place, and that Android phones would erase any demand for the iPhone (just like people once crowed about webOS!). That's the kind of unsupported, emotional rhetoric that you try to pin on DED.
If anything, DED is more of a Jon Stewart, having fun taking apart people who say silly things and being pretty much right all the time because he's moderate and thoughtful and well reasoned.
There are about a dozen people I've seen who sit on AI message boards hating on DED, but based on their track records, they're almost ALWAYS wrong. That should tell you something about your decision to harp on how much you hate DED.
Find an example of DED crying for pity, selling worthless gold trinkets to his audience (or hawking some other waste of money he personally benefits from), using numerology and spelling tricks to paint out conspiracy theories, fanning rabid hatred for other people, or anything else in the list of deplorable conduct of Glenn Beck before you try to pin that label on him.
Really, you should have some respect for somebody who doesn't hide behind a phony name and troll phony attacks on real people who do, particularly somebody who is a clever and obviously intelligent as DED.
John Stewert is funny, even to people who disagree with him. DED is only funny to people who already agree with him, and only people who agree with him would ever label his writings as "fair" and again, please give me an article where DED has said ANYTHING positive about android, or windows, or any system that wasn't apple. if he's "fair and level headed" it should be pretty easy.
And DED uses quite a few false names, at least two actively for articles here. As for why I use a false name, that would be obviously to anyone who's participated in a forum. I used to use my real name, and then I had someone dredge up stuff my friends posted and started mocking them in an attempt to discredit me.
Samsung's claim that they were ignorant of the German hearing where they lodged a letter a week before it happened is perjury.
I don't think US judges take too kindly to blatantly lying to the court.
Perjury is charged only after a sworn oath in court.
I certainly don't have any independent inside evidence to show otherwise, so it's possible you're correct. The supposedly well-connected FOSSPatents blogger would disagree with you.
I tell you what... just for the sake of argument I'll give my twist on the document that Florian uses as "proof".
Motorola knew damn well that Android might have patent issues down the road but they used it anyway thinking that they could use their own patent portfolio to slap down any lawsuit against them. Motorola was ready and had already mentioned to Google not to be worried if Apple went after any of the other manufacturers... they (Motorola) had the countersuit drafted.
I think Google and Motorola have had a sweet thing going on for a long time... and, in a way, Florian also agrees with that.
... and I also agree with Florian that there is more than meets the eye about the Google/Motorola deal.
Apple barks about the design aspect of things, where as Samsung barks about the technology aspect of things.
Apple is run by idealist designers, Samsung is run by precise engineers.
Apple has every right to protect its IP. They had an idea that others ridiculed For a long time, they made a successful product based on that idea and then others rip it off?
And this video from 1994:
http://youtu.be/JBEtPQDQNcI
.
I find it funny that everyone in your video is using Apple computers. I would bet they all have iPads now and love them and are proud they predicted this form factor would be a reality in mass at this point in time.