farmboy

Rayz2016 said:

SpamSandwich said:

Seems an odd choice of song to mark this dire event.

Mmm. I thought it was the perfect choice. 

Agree. Hits most of the right chords (so to speak). 

SpamSandwich said:

BittySon said:

It would be a great Pro machine if it has at least some user-accessible/replaceable components, and not just RAM.  Any word on this?

Rest assured, the Mac Pro will be highly customizable. That's not the domain of the iMac Pro and the iMac. Those are meant to be plug and play, with all the customization happening up front during the ordering process, not so much after.

Agreed. I'm never sure why this is such a consistent problem for some people. Out of the box they do almost anything you could want. If they're not what you want you know what the configuration is beforehand. We use a few 2012 27"ers and they're just flawless at everything we throw at them. 

radarthekat said:

Perhaps the answer is to limit the royalties that can be demanded from patents that are not being applied (non-practicing) versus those that are applied in some product or service.  This would give greater protection and rewards to those who own patents and are using the patented technology in their products, because damage from infringement is higher versus damage to a non-practicing patent holder.  If you've gone through the expense of utilizing a patented process or mechanism, then you should be compensated greater when someone infringes that patent.  But if you haven't, and therefore also haven't brought a new product or service to market that allows society to benefit from the invention, then perhaps you shouldn't receive the same compensation for infringement. 

There's perhaps a bit of precedent here in the  FRAND royalty calculations for patents that are considered standards essential.  The whole notion of SEP is that there's a greater good to society to allow multiple parties to utilize an invention as part of a standard and therefore it should be affordable for all to utilize the patented invention. Same here.  Patented inventions that are sat upon don't benefit society, so there should be incentive to get those inventions into use.  

To give time for a new patent holder to develop products and services around a patented invention, perhaps the first few years after the patent is granted, it can be exempt from the rules I'm suggesting here.  The current status quo would remain in effect.  But after, say, three years, if you haven't shown that the patent is being developed into a product or service, then licensing limitations go into effect so that the amount you may charge for your invention will be limited, ala FRAND-type pricing guidelines.  So, if you don't intend to utilize a patented invention, either accept the lower royalty rates so that others can utilize it, or sell the patent to a company that will utilize it and therefore retain full royalty and infringement power over it.

To those who understand the complexity of the situation, thanks for at least considering options, but really, stay the hell out of patent negotiations. If I develop something and patent it, and I want to license it to someone else, how much I get is really no one else's business, and never should be. And as far as a timeline to bring it to market, it's also none of your business, and three years is nothing in product development. Just take a look at Apple patents that take eight or nine years to be realized. Patent trolls (however you personally define one) have every right to exist and capitalize their property. Alleged infringers have the right to challenge either the terms or the patent claims. Unlike what blog headlines imply, these cases are usually settled out of court for charges that do not significantly change market prices of the products containing the IP. But nobody wants to think past the headline and the eight word "solutions".

And by the way, the licensee is often given the right to prosecute patent rights as part of the license, has the absolute right to go after what they perceive as infringers of property they own or license.  

And before the flames get higher, we develop our own products based on our patents, and only license distribution rights. Trollish we are not.

wizard69 said:

This isn't really the point, sure they are packed tight but at the same time you are dealing with subassemblies that can easily be replaced.  That being said people are too focused on iPhone here, these bills target the right to repair for all sorts of things.   In the case of Apple this would include laptops and desktop machines.   A reasonable question here is why shouldn't you be able to buy a replacement SSD from Apple or an independent vendor.    That is an Apple branded part with the same performance specs.    

So should the individual makers of (food products, vacuums, power tools, any electronics, almost anything you buy) be required to make every single component of every single product available for individual sale? Where is the line drawn? How about medical devices and drugs? Just on the mundane level, who bears all the R&D, design costs. inventory costs, carrying costs, quality control, management, shipping, every aspect of running what amounts to a completely separate business, all to make 1% of the public and a couple hundred repair shops happy? It should not be mandated, but if the makers see a profitable way to do it, fine.

SpamSandwich said:

farmboy said:

baconstang said:

Be careful on the IT plans.  Don't want to upset Andrew Jackson!

Oh yeah, Andrew Jackson. I hear he's doing wonderful things out there. He and Fred Douglass.

Trump opponents are making some bizarre statements. The widely reported insinuation that Trump said Andrew Jackson was alive during the Civil War is a complete fabrication. He said IF Jackson had lived longer he would've worked to help prevent the Civil War.

The exact quote:

"TRUMP: I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little later, you wouldn't have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart, and he was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War. He said, "There's no reason for this." People don't realize, you know, the Civil War, you think about it, why?"

So in the space of three sentences, Trump said if Jackson had been a little later.... (OK, appropriate). Then he follows that by saying Jackson was really angry that [sic] he saw what was happening  with regard to the Civil War (inappropriate), and even includes an apocryphal quote (inappropriate). That is what is bizarre, not someone noticing it.

And that's some amusing aside, "he had a big heart"--I'm sure his 160 slaves and the entire Cherokee nation thought so too.

Look, the man cannot compose a series of coherent thoughts, he knows absolutely nothing about any of the executive orders he signs, loves those petty strongman dictators, thought he was bombing Iraq instead of Syria, makes up paranoid delusions that are universally debunked, flips on important policy matters in the space of hours and days, and he couldn't negotiate his way out of a parking ticket, even with his own party. Other than that, thanks for the despot.

And he should probably have an Alzheimer's evaluation. Sooner would be better than later.