13485

You say you want a revolution

Well you know

It takes more than two weeks

to change the world...

macxpress said:

wood1208 said:

Don't you live in America ? I am against violence and gun but as American, you could buy gun and defend yourself against these bad people and take back what is yours. If these kind of people are not stopped than everyday they will take away someone's property. It will be anarchy in country. Law can not do it right most of the time. Only innocent people get shafted.

This is exactly what's wrong with America. Everyone is fuckin' trigger happy. Just shoot someone and it makes everything all better doesn't it? This is exactly the issue with people and guns in general. People like you don't need to be anywhere near a gun with that thought process. 

Yes. It's just property. Having a gun doesn't permit you to administer the (potential) death penalty for a stupid motorbike, for instance. And you probably have insurance, so it's an inconvenience, not a tragedy. Call the cops.

rob53 said:

TheCrazyOnes said:

Can someone explain how a patent suit even begins? I’m assuming apple has some patent for their chip, and the opposing company also has their own which conflicts. 

Is there a problem in how our system is issuing patents? Are they not validated ahead of time to avoid infringement? 

The USPTO is a joke. That's the main reason. Patents are being granted on very general ideas. A patent holder can make all kinds of statements saying their patent is similar to another patent and juries filled with non technical people make the judgment. It's a total joke. As for the other company in this lawsuit, they do not make any products, I doubt they ever have. The current incarnation of this company simply buys patents and uses them against companies who actually build things. This is just one of the problems with the USPTO. It was created to help inventors protect their investment in unique products. This has been abused for decades. 

https://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm

Here's what the first patent says:
A multiprocessing system comprising: multiple processors mounted on a single die; and multiple operating systems residing in a memory connected to said multiple processors, wherein each of said multiple processors executes an operating system of said multiple operating systems, and two or more of said multiple processors are capable of simultaneously executing two or more operating systems of said multiple operating systems. 

Every single computer does this and has done this practically since computers were developed. This patent was developed in the Silicon Valley of CA. HP was and is a computer company but I have to wonder why they sold this particular patent when it could be a part of every other patent HP ever created. Patents almost always refer to other patents so I have to wonder if HP felt this patent was out of date and no longer viable in any product, being superseded by other patents. 

edit: One more thing. Apple has been making computerized devices since the 1980s and if HP had thought Apple was infringing on this patent HP would have sued Apple. If they did, Apple would have changed how they designed computers to not infringe this patent and Sonrai would have no reason to sue Apple. 

Your first post. Would you mind telling us what your old name was? If this is actually the first time you've visited AI, welcome.

I thought 22July laid it out very clearly. The USPTO follows the same principles and processes as every other patent office in the world. Patents are not "granted on general ideas". If one never reads past the patent abstract, one won't know that the key components of a patent are the claims.  

The invention has to be patentable, useful, novel (unique), and non-obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art. To most who deal with patents (inventors, assignees and attorneys, and internet denizens, for instance) inventions are all obvious once you see exactly how it's done right there in black and white. Not so much beforehand. Hence the mistaken notion that patents are granted on "general ideas". 

Further, you will find nothing in any patent regulations that requires an inventor to follow a granted patent with self-funded and directed manufacturing. If I spend years and all my money on an invention, if I can't actually manufacture it, is the invention then supposed to be free for everyone else to profit from? Sorry, no; you'll get your chance in 20 years, or you can license it. If I invent an anti-gravity platform and get it patented (assuming you can prove it works) but it takes billions of dollars to make it commercially, why should I be prevented from selling it to Elon Musk, who obviously throws billions at any idea that strikes his hyperactive whimsy nerve? I invented it, own it and can build it, sell it and defend it, Musk can own it, build it, sell it. and defend it, just like me, once the check clears, obviously. 

Every single time "patent troll" is bandied about in this arena, it should be accompanied by a statement that a patent is just a form of property, and for a limited time you can sit on it, build it, sell it, or even buy other inventions and do the same thing with them. Most buyers then want to license the property they now own, and sometimes they have to bring suit to motivate someone.  If as a defendant you feel the requested license is for an invalid patent, like Apple always does, you litigate. Otherwise you license it and move on. Benefits and drawbacks to each method.

Let's step outside the Applesphere for a minute.  We're a small biotech group and have patented a bunch of things but for the most part we don't manufacture them. Instead we license / assign them to multi-national corporations, which then manufacture them. No litigation, no big guys using the invention without a license, no Troll appellations. Just business. This is how it usually works. It seems as if many posters here think every patent goes to court, and feel it's all so unfair. Most patents ARE NOT litigated, so there are few "non-technical juries" making judgements, Eastern District of Texas excluded. Bunch of Gohmerts in 10 gallon hats from the bench on down.

melgross said:

Well, something is screwy. We keep reading that Mac sales are up, and now, that they are down.

IDC has no magical source for Apple computer sales data, never have. And they don't count iPads as computers. The very best that can be said is it's speculative. 

maciekskontakt said:

danox said:

Apple makes? 75% of the profit share that is all that counts……and 1000% of a in house OS something else that counts even more.

And you pay for it. Isn't it funny? I switched to ASUS (monitor 3 years go and now built PC PN50 mini barebone based which is smaller than Mac Mini and more powerful serving up to four 4K displays at the same time) for $950. Try to get  this with 64GB fastest RAM  on the market (at the time - 2021) and decent 1TB SSD and see how much it costs with Apple.

We're happy for you. And if you built your own house it should be cheaper than buying a new one already built. 

Well, "just another Tesla clone" is what a large number of automotive companies are selling (or planning to sell), so unless the entire world is committed solely to Teslas or ICE vehicles, a battery-electric vehicle still has purchase in the market, and will for decades. So it's not a bad idea, it just needs top down commitment, which apparently is lacking. If Cook is genuinely indifferent to the project, that's a problem. Commit or cancel.

I'm no management genius, but either pull the plug or go in and solve the problems. You don't let it eat capital while it's on a death bed.

If you're looking for "iphone magic" that's not likely to happen given the statutory requirements imposed on the auto industry, from bumper height to square inches of tail light reflectors. Most of the innovations are going to be "under the hood" or in the body. That doesn't mean the project is not worth doing, as there is a lot of money to be made when done right.

As a separate concept, self driving is on another plane of competence right now, nobody has it worked out. If they are saying they do, they're lying. Just as I told the kids I taught to drive over the years, the people in your car and in every other car on the road are depending on *you* not to kill them. It's a life-changing responsibility, and the same applies to software self driving controls.