Last Active
  • The best new features in macOS Monterey that you'll actually use

    maltz said:
    Erase All Content and Settings

    Yeah, I'm going to need a LOT more information about how this works under the hood before I trust it to really erase my data on a machine with unencrypted, removable storage - which a decent number of Macs still use.
    This. I am looking forward to this the most. All the others are fluff, as somebody else said. The less said about safari, the better.
  • German government wants Tim Cook to reconsider CSAM plans

    Well, I guess it does not matter whether Apple is right or wrong. Based on the letter, it seems German Parliament (and hence the government) is against this. Looks like this will be discussed in the EU also and the situation may not be different there. I doubt whether China, Russia, Iran, and other countries would agree to an American company installing official spyware on their phones giving literally America a tool to spy on their citizens. The German Parliament has issued a veiled threat (based on what is in the article) that Apple is bound to lose access to large markets if they continue with this harebrained idea. I think Apple will backtrack on this issue and will be left with egg on their face. However, its usual PR machine will cover it up in a few months.
  • Apple attorneys threaten UK market exit if court orders 'unacceptable' patent fees

    n2itivguy said:
    Marvin said:
    crowley said:
    Marvin said:

    If the courts allowed every patent owner to do the same, the costs would eventually amount to far more than the cost of the entire product, which makes no sense.
    Why not?  IP certainly has value, I don't see why it makes no sense for it to have more value than the assembly cost of the physical product.  For a technology product that's a composite of so many hardware and software elements and operating in an integrated network of assorted standards, the iPhone is very exposed to patents.  They'll just have to raise the price to accommodate the licensing.
    Going forward they can raise the prices but not in retrospect. To allow a single company with a couple of patents to wipe out nearly all of a company's net profit in a region for a decade is crazy. There should be a time limit applied at least in retrospect such as no royalties 5 years or more back, 20% royalties 4 years back, 40% 3, 60% 2, 80% 1 and 100% going forward and they can decide if they agree to the terms.

    Making a company pay full royalty rates they didn't agree to and didn't apply to their products at the time of sale is not a fair policy. An established business could operate for decades and some random patent troll emerges and bankrupts the company overnight over some trivial patents. One of their patents is for switching between 3G/4G and the slow 2G network and covers some basic algorithm to determine when to switch. That's not worth $7b and no company would agree to pay those rates, which is why Intel and Qualcomm didn't. Apple shouldn't then have to cover this when they only used chips made by those other companies.

    Patent infringement should be applied to the companies who make the infringing components, that's Intel and Qualcomm in this case and patent owners shouldn't be allowed to apply their own made-up royalty rates retroactively that weren't agreed to by the infringing companies. What's to stop them saying $20 per device and then it's over $35b, that's a completely unworkable way to do business.
    They infringed on patents that too not trivial design patents but necessary technological patents, they are paying the price. It is not only Apple that does research, every other company does it too and it costs them money. Using those technologies without paying licensing fees is thievary, whichever way you look at it. It wanted $40 dollars for five frivolous patents. The five patents in question concern certain features around how unified search operates, slide-to-unlock, how phone numbers can be dialed by pressing them, auto-complete, and data sync. They got it coming. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and they want to run away. Lol!
    Again: NOT proven, and _Apple didn’t make the technology that’s being stated as being infringing on the said patents_. Just… smh. 

    Hey, you — kid using that graphing calculator! Yeah, you owe me xx$₽¥€ because the one diode in there you had absolutely nothing to do with making, manufacturing and such (accusatory and not yet proven) infringes on something I didn’t have anything to do with either, but somehow was able to buy a (possibly generically written) patent we can now claim is ours. And for extra bullying, what you owe is all only calculated in an assumed/made up today’s amounts vs yester-year’s amounts applicable to any fees that may’ve been owed back then and appropriately adjusted through to present. Plus, all your life years are belong to us! Nyah! /s
    Read the article again. "In June, a High Court judge ruled that Apple had infringed two of the patents, and therefore Apple should pay fees."