- Last Active
mld53a said:For all those people saying this is obvious, the question is was this obvious back in June of 1999? What is obvious today may not have been obvious back then.I am aware of at least one other patent similar to this that also has an early priority/filing date. And several companies that infringe this patent as well. It’s obvious now but not so much back then.
Making and maintaining a list of applications that an institution had licenses for was a common practice even in the early 1990s, and each item on the list would include information about the requirements for the application (it's called a database). When the web started becoming popular, many educational institutions would put these databases online for their intranet, with download links to the relevant executable.
Your description is a simplification of the patent that has been granted; if it wasn't then I'm pretty sure Apple would have been able to convince the PTAB to toss the patent on review. Since that hasn't happened (as mentioned in the article) there must be some non-obvious component.
But I'm not bored enough to read the patent or the complaint for more details.
Jordanf1 said:All I can say is 2500 Aud for the 11 pro max is outrageous cost
It's not cheap. But it's not as expensive as you seem to think.
SpamSandwich said:Google’s Gmail email app for iOS already allows you to schedule emails to send at a later date or time. This feature should be a cakewalk for Apple.
2. Email is different to DMs
anantksundaram said:GeorgeBMac said:Yeh, that's what Carnegie and and the mine owners told their U.S. workers 100 years ago -- before we had unions and labor laws.
Maintaining a centuries-long fight against a group of people who are motivated by the profits to be gained is a very difficult collective goal. For a period of about fifty years, there was some understanding gained by the "titans of industry" that aiming for the optimum balance of hours worked vs output achieved was beneficial for their own companies not just in terms of efficiency - enriching their workers meant that those workers had more money to spend on more goods and services, improving the size of the addressable market and increasing economic activity.
None of us want to change unless we have to. The unionisation period gave enough power to the labour force that the stewards of capital were forced to question their behaviours of the time; but power often corrupts and the union movement failed to recognise its own steps down the path of coercion and dogma-driven decision-making. The world also changed as international transport became cheaper and more reliable, so the addressable market for many companies grew independently from the amount of money they shared with the local community.
The question boils down to "what are we trying to optimise?" - if it's a single company, then one set of behaviours becomes acceptable. If it's the local community, another set of behaviours applies. What do we have to do to improve the entire world for all of humanity? Each of us will choose.
ITGUYINSD said:What would someone connect that needs 40Gbps? Seems the standards are increasing faster than the devices one connects to it.