13485

svanstrom said:
Yes, of course, a published doctor doing research into the facts about situation A, B, C absolutely completely failed to realise that their research was unnecessary as they should have just told people to put down their phones, get a good nights sleep, always wear a warm jacket when it's cold, and don't forget to eat your veggies.

Silly doctors doing actual research into how the brain/body works instead of asking in webforums how one should live a happy life.

Yes, but...

Any study done with mice is essentially meaningless when extrapolated to humans.

Mice / rodent studies are done because they are cheap compared to other models. Regulations require researchers to use the minimum justifiable number of animals in a study protocol, so sample sizes are always suspect. Gene transcription factor binding sites are vastly different even over identical genes between rodents and humans. Also rodents are significantly inbred, and their immune systems are significantly different, and quite sedentary (OK that last part checks out as comparable...).

Large grains of salt, folks, no matter what the study says. 

For the last time:

If an inventor invents something and patents it, he/she has a limited monopoly on its commercialization. If I buy it from the inventor, I take on the same limited monopoly rights. If I can commercialize it right away, that's my right. If it takes me 19.9 years, or if I fail to commercialize it. it's still my property until the patent expires. It's still never YOURS to use until it's in the public domain.

A patent is a piece of property like a house or car. I can't take it just because you've had it for a while or I just want it a lot. 

You can challenge the legitimacy of the patent or some or all of its claims. This is how patents works around the world, it's an agreed upon system. 

As for lawyers, Apple's and WILANs lawyers get paid whether they win or lose. There is no secret cabal of IP attorneys.

You say you want a revolution

Well you know

It takes more than two weeks

to change the world...

mr lizard said:

Samsung’s culture is such that it desires to be seen to be first, and has no qualms with failing publicly. They’re not pretending to be perfect, and so the media and their customers don’t treat them as trying to be perfect. 

Sorry, what a load.

"Not pretending to be perfect". I'm pretty sure it doesn't say that on the packaging, in the ads, or on your receipt when you fork over the $2,000. "Um, not really a real thing, just kinda a proof of concept we're playing around with in the lab. No one said it was supposed to work."

"Not pretending to be perfect": Now that I understand what I'm supposed to expect from Samsung products, it dovetails perfectly with the pricey Samsung side-by-side refrigerator we bought. Stopped working after five months. There were no--as in zero--refrigerator repair shops that would even work on a Samsung. Even the big box "L" store where we bought it would not take it back and could not themselves even find a repair shop. With no further prompting they decided to let us keep the stainless box of junk and sent us a full refund. 

PS: I fixed it myself, and kept the money.

rob53 said:

TheCrazyOnes said:

Can someone explain how a patent suit even begins? I’m assuming apple has some patent for their chip, and the opposing company also has their own which conflicts. 

Is there a problem in how our system is issuing patents? Are they not validated ahead of time to avoid infringement? 

The USPTO is a joke. That's the main reason. Patents are being granted on very general ideas. A patent holder can make all kinds of statements saying their patent is similar to another patent and juries filled with non technical people make the judgment. It's a total joke. As for the other company in this lawsuit, they do not make any products, I doubt they ever have. The current incarnation of this company simply buys patents and uses them against companies who actually build things. This is just one of the problems with the USPTO. It was created to help inventors protect their investment in unique products. This has been abused for decades. 

https://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm

Here's what the first patent says:
A multiprocessing system comprising: multiple processors mounted on a single die; and multiple operating systems residing in a memory connected to said multiple processors, wherein each of said multiple processors executes an operating system of said multiple operating systems, and two or more of said multiple processors are capable of simultaneously executing two or more operating systems of said multiple operating systems. 

Every single computer does this and has done this practically since computers were developed. This patent was developed in the Silicon Valley of CA. HP was and is a computer company but I have to wonder why they sold this particular patent when it could be a part of every other patent HP ever created. Patents almost always refer to other patents so I have to wonder if HP felt this patent was out of date and no longer viable in any product, being superseded by other patents. 

edit: One more thing. Apple has been making computerized devices since the 1980s and if HP had thought Apple was infringing on this patent HP would have sued Apple. If they did, Apple would have changed how they designed computers to not infringe this patent and Sonrai would have no reason to sue Apple. 

Your first post. Would you mind telling us what your old name was? If this is actually the first time you've visited AI, welcome.

I thought 22July laid it out very clearly. The USPTO follows the same principles and processes as every other patent office in the world. Patents are not "granted on general ideas". If one never reads past the patent abstract, one won't know that the key components of a patent are the claims.  

The invention has to be patentable, useful, novel (unique), and non-obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art. To most who deal with patents (inventors, assignees and attorneys, and internet denizens, for instance) inventions are all obvious once you see exactly how it's done right there in black and white. Not so much beforehand. Hence the mistaken notion that patents are granted on "general ideas". 

Further, you will find nothing in any patent regulations that requires an inventor to follow a granted patent with self-funded and directed manufacturing. If I spend years and all my money on an invention, if I can't actually manufacture it, is the invention then supposed to be free for everyone else to profit from? Sorry, no; you'll get your chance in 20 years, or you can license it. If I invent an anti-gravity platform and get it patented (assuming you can prove it works) but it takes billions of dollars to make it commercially, why should I be prevented from selling it to Elon Musk, who obviously throws billions at any idea that strikes his hyperactive whimsy nerve? I invented it, own it and can build it, sell it and defend it, Musk can own it, build it, sell it. and defend it, just like me, once the check clears, obviously. 

Every single time "patent troll" is bandied about in this arena, it should be accompanied by a statement that a patent is just a form of property, and for a limited time you can sit on it, build it, sell it, or even buy other inventions and do the same thing with them. Most buyers then want to license the property they now own, and sometimes they have to bring suit to motivate someone.  If as a defendant you feel the requested license is for an invalid patent, like Apple always does, you litigate. Otherwise you license it and move on. Benefits and drawbacks to each method.

Let's step outside the Applesphere for a minute.  We're a small biotech group and have patented a bunch of things but for the most part we don't manufacture them. Instead we license / assign them to multi-national corporations, which then manufacture them. No litigation, no big guys using the invention without a license, no Troll appellations. Just business. This is how it usually works. It seems as if many posters here think every patent goes to court, and feel it's all so unfair. Most patents ARE NOT litigated, so there are few "non-technical juries" making judgements, Eastern District of Texas excluded. Bunch of Gohmerts in 10 gallon hats from the bench on down.

byronl said:

the cia has been evil af for a century now 

CIA founded in 1947. OSS, the precursor, founded in 1941.

Xed said:

iOS_Guy80 said:

All the presenters were professional, informative, knowledgeable and had a good on camera presence. What more could you ask for. End of subject.

I like the increased presence, and agree with William's statement that  "we are embarrassingly still in the situation where women contributors are unusual enough that it gets noticed", but I don't think they most of the presenters had a good presence. There were a lot of weird pregnant pauses, odd arm gestures, and unusual cadency that I felt took away from the amazing product presentation. Now, this Is (somewhat) resolvable with training, but these presenters seem more like one-offs, not using the same presenters every time like in the past.

I agree with you re: the odd arm gestures and cadence, and (maybe it was just me) the wide stance they all used--I'm not sure what that is supposed to convey--someone's idea of "strength", "confidence"? They seemed overly coached, but perhaps because they don't usually give presentations. At any rate, it was very similar to the male presenters in other recent events, which is good for the women. But I find them all very odd and robotic. What happened to "normal"? Maybe it's just the lack of an audience, where applause, laughs or cheers provide a break in a presenter's speech

robin huber said:

Then there's the service aspect, which you may not know is where car dealerships make the most money per vehicle.

I’m curious as to how much less income EVs bring in for service than ICEs. Had a Chevy Bolt for a year now with no regular service necessary. Only time it’s been to the dealer was to update charging software at the dealer’s expense. With no ICE with its attendant mechanical devices (cooling system, transmission, exhaust, differential, etc.) there are far fewer things to go wrong. Electric motors are devilishly simple devices with basically one moving part! About the only things that need changing are brake fluid, tires, and cabin air filter, and those are very infrequent. With regenerative braking (one pedal driving) I rarely touch my brakes. Unless there’s something I’m missing dealers are going to take a big hit. 

There are more components in that motor than you think, even in the latest regen systems. Regardless, an ailing charging element, for instance, will just be replaced, not repaired. But the dealers will certainly charge you for the diagnostic time, the new component, and a proportionate share of the labor, lights, utilities, property taxes, etc. No big hit, but you might be peeved at the cost for a component that was replaced in an hour and a half.

darkvader said:

Apple isn't going to build a car. 

First, Apple doesn't actually build ANYTHING.  Every bit of hardware with an Apple logo on it is actually made by somebody else.

Second, the manufacturing companies that actually build Apple stuff aren't car manufacturers, they're computer part manufacturers.  If they were going to build cars, they'd first have to build car factories.  And that would get noticed.

Apple is playing with self-driving technology.  Apple isn't doing it much, and isn't doing it very well.  They're WAY behind Google and the actual car companies.

The most you're going to see out of Apple for at least a decade is CarPlay.  And for Apple to have a car as a shipping product even in a decade they'd either have to buy or partner with an actual car company.

Yeah, we're all aware; it's called "contract manufacturing". Virtually every manufacturer utilizes these subcontractors for everything from design to polishing the logo before delivery. Your canned peaches and fresh avocados aren't grown by your local grocery store either.

As far as self-driving, nobody ever said that was Apple's intent. Besides, how do you know how well they're doing, it's not like they publish a newsletter or disclose it to shareholders?

Apple probably will buy, or partner with, a car company. They have the money. And it wouldn't take ten years to build a car. Because they still have the money to make it happen. You don't hire top engineers from Porsche, BMW, Mercedes, and even Ford to enhance CarPlay. They're building a car.

macxpress said:

wood1208 said:

Don't you live in America ? I am against violence and gun but as American, you could buy gun and defend yourself against these bad people and take back what is yours. If these kind of people are not stopped than everyday they will take away someone's property. It will be anarchy in country. Law can not do it right most of the time. Only innocent people get shafted.

This is exactly what's wrong with America. Everyone is fuckin' trigger happy. Just shoot someone and it makes everything all better doesn't it? This is exactly the issue with people and guns in general. People like you don't need to be anywhere near a gun with that thought process. 

Yes. It's just property. Having a gun doesn't permit you to administer the (potential) death penalty for a stupid motorbike, for instance. And you probably have insurance, so it's an inconvenience, not a tragedy. Call the cops.

melgross said:

Well, something is screwy. We keep reading that Mac sales are up, and now, that they are down.

IDC has no magical source for Apple computer sales data, never have. And they don't count iPads as computers. The very best that can be said is it's speculative. 

maciekskontakt said:

danox said:

Apple makes? 75% of the profit share that is all that counts……and 1000% of a in house OS something else that counts even more.

And you pay for it. Isn't it funny? I switched to ASUS (monitor 3 years go and now built PC PN50 mini barebone based which is smaller than Mac Mini and more powerful serving up to four 4K displays at the same time) for $950. Try to get  this with 64GB fastest RAM  on the market (at the time - 2021) and decent 1TB SSD and see how much it costs with Apple.

We're happy for you. And if you built your own house it should be cheaper than buying a new one already built.