cropr

cali said:

“Not statistically significant.”

Why are we reporting this?

 If 1 out of million has an infant failure, and if we have 5 reports that there is an issue with the battery, it should mean that Apple has already shipped more than 5M iPhone 8 devices to customers,  which is not so far away from the actual number.  I don't know how many battery suppliers and how many production lines are involved, but it could become significant for one single supplier or one single production line

radarthekat said:

"...creating a virtual assistant that can engage with a user in an "integrated, conversational manner using natural language dialog."

The patent is from 1998.

The movie 2001: A Space Odyssey was released in 1968.  What part of 'obvious' or 'prior art' does Budzinski not understand?  

2001: A Space Odyssey is definitely art and it is prior to 1998, but it is not prior art in the legal sense.  Not everything shown in a movie is actually real technology, a lot is faked or simulated.

Soli said:

Is it too much to ask that every modernized country use the same three 3-digit code for calling emergency services?

The 112 number is part of the GSM standard, meaning that every phone that is used on a GSM networks must support it and every GSM operator must support it.  Which also mean that if I am abroad, I can still use it, which is of course a big advantage because I don't have to know/memorize the foreign emergency number, quite important in a stress situation. 

Of course every country had before the arrival of GSM a emergency code (911 in the US, 100 in a lot of other countries).  There is nothing wrong with it, but these are national numbers.  With the arrival of mobile phones with roaming functionality, a national solution was not suffcient, and hence the 112 number

coolfactor said:

cropr said:

Personally I am convinced that there is not single for profit company that put the end user interest always first.  The fact that Apple has slowed down investing in the new HTML5 standards for Safari like service workers, asm.js, ...  because it could potentially hamper app store revenues, is clearly such a case.  Closing down the VPN apps in the China app store is another example.

They removed VPN apps on demand of the Chinese government, not because it competes with their own built-in VPN functionality.

And how have they "slowed down" on investing in HTML5 standards? Can you prove that? Or is it based on the fact that other browser engines are further ahead on certain items? That stuff is not trivial to implement. See: webkit.org/status

Please make sure you have your facts accurate before posting.

Apple is following Chinese government but not the Indian government.  I fail to see that this is in the interest of the end-user.

For the facts just look at caniuse.com and you will see that Safari is not performing well in supporting new technologies, considerably worse than Chrome, Firefox or Opera and only marginally better than Intenet Edge.   If you would have looked to caniuse.com 6 years ago Safari was leading the pack.
Service worker is the key technology to make progressive web apps possible, see https://clockwise.software/blog/web-development-trends-in-2018/    ; Progressive web apps offer a user experience very close to native mobile apps (notifications, offline use, icon on home screen, ...), but are still web apps, meaning they don need to be approved by Apple and Apple is not getting a 30% cut of the revenue.  So Apple has been very reluctant to develop it.   It moved only recently from "in consideration" to "in development"  due to high demand from web developers. It won't be available in iOS11, so we have to wait at least another year, while it was available in Chrome, Firefox and Opera since 2016, and it can be enabled in Internet Edge.

radarthekat said:

randominternetperson said:

wizard69 said:

daven said:

I guess Foxcon won't be building a factory in Wisconsin after all.

No I think this is an example of Apple getting a little STUPID in their old age.   To sight a similar patent in you patent filing just seems to be inviting a lawsuit.   Apple basically said hey this is where the idea came from.

Right, because Apple is one monolithic mind.  Every word in every patent filing is reviewed by every executive and represents the unanimous opinion of the Apple hive mind.  Alternatively, this could have been a mistake by the patent attorneys working for Apple at that particular time.  Nah, it must be that Apple hive mind thing.  It's getting old and senile.  Dare I say, Apple is doomed, as a logical consequence? 

It suggests neither.  Related patents are always called out as prior art in patent filings.  The fact Apple was aware of WARF's work strengthens Apple's case of non-infringement, because it implies Apple had reviewed the prior art and would have made efforts in development of its own methods to avoid infringement.  Could it have inadvertently infringed regardless?  Sure.  But it wouldn't have infringed knowingly if aware of the prior art.  Also, a court's/jury's decisions on complex IP infringement can be a very subjective thing, depending upon the particular expertise, or lack thereof, on the part of those making the deliberation.  A judge might know patent law, but might not know all that's needed to make a valid determination regarding the specific art under review.  Apple is appealing, in the end they might have to pay, these things happen in the course of developing technology products.  Life will go on.

If I look at what has been written about this case, I totally disagree with you. For me Apple was just arrogant: "We know we are infringing, but hey we are Apple, who do you you are that you can sue us.  We can pay better lawyers, so stop whining."