Last Active
  • Reported 2016 MacBook Pro graphics issues likely caused by third-party software [u]

    mobius said:
    Other reports claim it may be related to File Vault 2. Couple that with your own mention of the Photos app, I'm not sure there's a strong enough case to be made (yet) to say it's "likely third party software" at fault.

    It does seem troubling that such an issue could strike these new models so soon after release, and especially after similar graphics problems had impacted some MBP 2011-13 models.

    One wonders just how much emphasis goes on Q and A these days. Perhaps they need to spend a bit more time and money on that. Otherwise it's going to cause damage to Apple's reputation at a time when patience is already wearing thin with many pro users.

    "In a serious case chronicled by a MacRumorsforum member Jan Becker, a new 15-inch MacBook Pro configured with an optional AMD Radeon Pro 460 GPU encountered trouble and ultimately crashed while transcoding video in Adobe Premiere Pro. Becker consequently took the machine into an Apple store for replacement."

    "The incident did not go unnoticed by Apple. Becker said he received a call from the company's headquarters in Cupertino, Calif., where a team of engineers asked him to help replicate the glitch over the phone and requested access to the affected laptop for further investigation."


    All part of that "Q and A" you thought smart to bring up. 

    Apple's is from cradle to grave. Good on them. 

    Yes, except if the patient is dead for 4 years it's probably a little late to consider revival. Many MBP's produced in 2011 had graphics problems related to hardware failure. It took Apple 4 years to offer a solution. Do you think the people who owned these defective units simply suspended their use of a laptop during this time? Or do you think they paid out of pocket for a repair? Or, and this is the one that really hurts, do you think they purchased another laptop?

    If they chose solution one, they simply lost time. Which is money if you're a professional using the MBP to accomplish work. You, at best, waited a week or so for your MBP to be repaired and returned.

    If you were on a project where you were time constrained and needed, as many do, to be up and running ASAP you probably backed up your material and went to the Apple store and purchased another MBP. Money that won't be returned now or ever.

    Four years later Apple offers to fix your broken MBP. Are you smiling and thinking 'cradle to grave'.  Or are thinking,  "Who cares I couldn't wait four weeks much less 4 years so I replaced/repaired on my own.  The lack of timeliness in your solution makes it barely qualify as a solution?" Hmm?

    All part of the 'cradle to grave' you thought smart to bring up. 

    If they would fix it if the customer paid, why did it take them 4 years to offer to fix it at their expense?

  • Apple ordered to pay $302.4M in damages to VirnetX in patent retrial

    fallenjt said:
    Apple will appeal to a higher court. This is BS to let companies file non-practice patents to make money on deep pocket corporations like Apple....Patent Trolls need to get tossed and banned from suing.
    Well who would've thought that the very first post would be like this.

    After appleinsider calls VirnetX a non-practicing entity, we should've expected a chorus full of "hell yeahs" to follow.

    How about this for a non-practicing entity. How about we all march over to the app store and look at "The Gabriel Collaboration Suite". Oh yeah, take a CLOSE look at the dev. 
    VirnetX?? It can't be. They're  'non-practicing entity'. Either that or appleinsider has non-practicing authors and/or editors, right?
  • Apple ordered to pay $302.4M in damages to VirnetX in patent retrial

    loquitur said:
    The problem with this case is multi-fold, aside from the venue.  Apple did indeed find prior art.  Their VPN implementation is all laid out in a paper by Kuichi:

    Together with workmen-like ideas expressed at the level of extant Internet RFCs, the ideas of
    security and anonymity were both "anticipated" by Kuichi and are garden-variety
    independent implementations of ideas obvious to cryptographers.
    This is not a truly novel idea like 2-key public crypto.

    Further, the government "expert agency" PTAB has already issued "final" invalidity decisions,
    although these are still subject to appeal, apparently.  So this is a case where parallel proceedings
    happen, one by district courts employing adversarial rhetoric to convince random non-technical juries, and the other allowing for the USPTO to overturn an overly-broad patent which they themselves issued based upon technical grounds.

    Also, the whopper monetary sums are based upon 2% of retail sales of the entire iPhone.
    So even though an iPhone contains implementation of literally hundreds if not thousands of ideas, one mistakenly issued patent can elicit an enormous effect.  Apple has been known to pay up to 1/2% of sales for entire portfolios of patents to the likes of Ericsson (for very basic cellphone technology), but are damned if they must pay even close to this amount for an a single already-deemed-invalid patent.

    The patent system is very broken.  It's a good racket to get the USPTO to temporarily approve some mere "improvement" idea (first-to-file) without citing relevant prior art.  How convenient. Then bamboozle a non-technical jury while the oversight obtains.

    Nice try but the appeals court already addressed this when Apple tried to say the same thing;

    Apple argues that the asserted claims are anticipated by the Kiuchi reference. However, we conclude that the jury heard substantial evidence that at least one element of each asserted claim was missing from that reference. With respect to the ′135, ′504, and ′211 patents, the jury heard evidence that Kiuchi's proxy servers at least do not teach “direct communication” between a client and target computer, which is sufficient to defeat a claim of anticipation. J.A. 2343–44. Specifically, the jury heard expert testimony that Kiuchi's client-side and server-side proxies terminate the connection, process information, and create a new connection—actions that are not “direct” within the meaning of the asserted claims. J.A. 2334–35. VirnetX distinguished such proxy activities from the operation of NAT routers which—unlike proxy servers in the prior art-do not terminate the connection.

    Additionally, with respect to the ′151 patent, there was substantial evidence to support VirnetX's argument that Kiuchi fails to disclose the requirement that the DNS request be “sent by a client.” ′151 patent col. 46 l. 57. Apple argued that the “client-side proxy” of Kiuchi meets the “client” limitation, but there was evidence that the “client” of Kiuchi is actually a web browser, a component that is distinguishable from the client-side proxy. See J.A. 2341. Thus, the district court did not err in denying Apple's JMOL motion with respect to invalidity."

    Furthermore, you're either being disingenuous about the idea of patent infringement as it applies in THIS case or you need to read more. You imply there is prior art. There isn't. Not as defined by the law. The appeals court looked closely at this already. . So instead of "How convenient", perhaps you should consider changing it to "How inconvenient", especially for Apple.

    Finally you claim, and imply that this is what happened in this case, that you would then only have to "bamboozle a non-technical jury while the oversight obtains". Not sure what
    non-technical jury is versus a technical one.  Would a TV tech qualify as a technical juror? How about a game developer? How technically oriented do you think the judges are? If this case goes to the Supreme Court, which of them do you think is technically capable? Sarcasm aside, a juror doesn't have to possess technical qualities in order to be qualified. The lawyers on each side are the ones that must be able to explain technical ideas to the jurors. Or to the appeals court. Or to the Supreme Court. It is quite ridiculous for you to imply the jurors were technically incapable of providing a decision. You're basically saying that VirnetX had lawyers that bamboozled a jury while Apple lawyers stood there watching.. Is that what you're saying? That Apple lawyers stood by while the other side "bamboozled" the jury? If it is, perhaps you should try to lay the blame at the footstep of Apple's legal department. But we can be fairly certain that didn't happen, can't we?