Prof_Peabody

gatorguy said:

IMHO even the most die-hard Apple fan should hope SCOTUS accepts this one. Based on the law as it's been interpreted a "patent troll" armed with the right design patent could legally lay claim to every penny of profit Apple has seen from the Apple Watch for instance (or God-forbid one of the iPhone models). A court finding Apple to be infringing would have no choice but to award 100% of the profits to the patent holder. Not just some portion but 100%. In essence design patents would wield more power and thus much more valuable to non-practicing entities than any utility/technical patent if the Supreme Court declines to hear the appeal.

Personally I think Apple is taking a chance of cutting off its nose to spite its face. I simply don't understand why they're taking the position they are regarding design patent claims against Samsung. A few hundred million now may come back to bite them in the butt. 

EDIT: this is the appeal itself
http://www.scribd.com/doc/293255771/Samsung-vs-Apple-Samsung-s-Appeal-to-the-Supreme-Court

Pages marked 23 and 26 (or 37 and 41 in the PDF) begin what I would see as particularly meritorious arguments. 

charlesn said:

You knew it was bound to happen sooner or later: Apple would release a product that would have Steve turning over in his grave. And here it is: The Hunchback of Notre Dame Battery Case. Can you imagine the expletives that Steve would have screamed from his office if someone had dared suggest putting Apple's name on such an ugly piece of shite? I'm honestly astonished, and a little concerned, that Jony Ive signed off on this--it is so antithetical to the Apple aesthetic that has defined every aspect of the brand. 

The "good" performance at a premium price seems par for the course for Apple accessories--but they generally win you over with beautiful design and functional touches that 3rd party accessories lack. Not so much here. Can't figure out how this even merited three stars. 

igorsky said:

I love Banksy's work but feel like he's becoming a caricature of himself.  Where maybe once his goal was to say something meaningful, it feels more and more like his goal is to stay relevant.  But I still feel like his work is smart and provocative, though.

I think people who are analyzing this piece in a religious light are missing the point.  This is typical Banksy....thrusting commercialism and excess into the relevant topic of the day.

SpamSandwich said:

Soli said:

sdw2001 said:

Soli said:

SpamSandwich said:

Jobs wasn't a Muslim. Banksy is off the reservation.

In what way? A large percentage of vocal, bigoted Americans don't want to let any Syrian refugees in the country for fear that one could be a terrorist.

Furthmore, Jobs not being Muslim makes his point and of those that aren't acting like pussies when it comes to helping those in need, because the offspring of immigrants are very likely to adapt to the American culture.

Right, because it's the bigoted American public again.   It has nothing to do with the fact that ISIS has publicly talked about infiltrating the program.  Or that we can't even vet people who live here under the deferred action immigration plan.  Or that allowing 10,000 refugees in with a 99.9% success rate means we've let in 10 jihadists.  

So because someone talked about something you're willing to let yourself be frightened by words not backed up by actions? If I say I'm going to infiltrate your mom, you probably wouldn't like it, but you also wouldn't take it as a serious threat. Let's remember that France opened up their borders and yet the only terrorist that appeared to be a Syrian refugee had a faked passport.

I thought America was the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave. You and so many others certainly aren't acting like it. If you cower in fear because of an empty threat, you're letting them win. If you run away from people in need, you're letting them win. ISIL are Muslims about as much as Caucasian, male terrorists that shoot up Black churches and planned parenthood are Christians… meaning not at all.

I'd much rather "open carry" was commonplace in America and Americans took their self-protection seriously, rather than cede their freedoms to police, the military or politicians. If there are more so-called "soft target" attacks, I believe open carry will be demanded by more people and it will probably cement a Trump victory. At least more people owning weapons and learning how to protect themselves and their families would be a net plus.