sdw2001

About

Username
sdw2001
Joined
Visits
303
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
5,019
Badges
2
Posts
18,070

Reactions

3.3KLike108Dislike166Informative

  • Mobile ECG specialist AliveCor seeks US Apple Watch ban

    sdw2001sdw2001
    StrangeDays said:
    Ffffff offffff. Patents protect implementations, no ideas. I will bet dollars to donuts there is no stolen implementation (code) and instead boils down to a claim that they thought of the idea first. 

    This is why software patents were a horrible mistake. Code is already protected by copyright, and I seriously doubt anybody is stealing code. Shops are writing their own code, thus their implementations of the ideas in question are unique. Just like if somebody manufactured a device to solve an existing problem, but did so with unique plans & parts. That's non-infringing, and that's what nearly anybody's software is -- unique. 
    The code doesn’t have to be stolen for it to be infringement (I’m not saying it is infringement).  If they can show that Apple is using patented material, even inadvertently, they can win.  And it’s not just the actual implementation that’s at issue.  The more correct term is “method.”   If the infringement is proven to be willful, damages can be tripled.  

    This case may not have any merit but it doesn’t bother me like the patent troll cases do. That is where we need to actual reform.  At least this company has actual products.  
    JWSCentropyskillroyjony0williamlondon

  • Apple wants 'cavalier' $800 million coronavirus app suit dismissed

    sdw2001sdw2001
    DAalseth said:
    22july2013 said:
    I'm puzzled why developers don't sue Apple over Apple's restrictions on "watch apps" for the Apple Watch. After all, Apple has a "monopoly" on watch apps for that device. There is "no good reason" Apple should restrict timekeeping apps for the Apple Watch. The Apple requirements don't even let developers put timekeeping functions in a non-watch app because "if your app comes too close to resembling a watch face, we will reject it." (see link below)

    But in this case, the requirement that they stated that Apple requires apps with "deeply rooted medical credentials" isn't actually a requirement in the App Store Review Guidelines. Where did they come up with that requirement? On the contrary, one of the actual requirements for health apps is "Medical apps that could provide inaccurate data or information, or that could be used for diagnosing or treating patients may be reviewed with greater scrutiny. ... If your medical app has received regulatory clearance, please submit a link to that documentation with your app" (see link below.) Did the developers of this app provide evidence of regulatory clearance? Or do they want all health apps for iOS to be free and clear of the requirement for "scrutiny" and "regulatory clearance?"

    https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ <--
    The latter. They wanted Apple to allow any POS they regurgitated as a "health App" to be allowed. 

    Oh, and I'd guess now that you planted the seed it'll only be days before Apple is sued for their "monopoly" on AppleWatch faces.

    Yeah, I think Apple is on pretty solid ground here.  They have a demonstrated track record of rejecting apps on similar grounds.  It doesn't matter whether we agree or disagree with their reasoning, only that it is relatively consistent.  The plaintiff would also have to prove that Apple did this to protect a monopoly in violation of the law.  That certainly seems to be a tall order.  
    FileMakerFellerwatto_cobrabaconstang

  • Supreme Court rules in favor of Google in Oracle Java fight

    sdw2001sdw2001
    This sounds like a well-reasoned decision.  What Google did is roughly analogous to a composer copying two bars of a 200 bar piece to join two sections together (in a new work), or transition between them.   A copyright claim would be laughed out of court in that (grossly simplified) example.  
    9secondkox2watto_cobra

  • In defense of Apple's iPhone Leather Wallet with MagSafe

    sdw2001sdw2001
    robaba said:
    Call me an uninformed Luddite, but don’t credit cards still have a magnetic strip on the back?  Wont storing it next to a huge frickin magnet foul them up?  Seriously not trying to troll, what am I missing?
    It’s not supposed to be a problem.  
    GeorgeBMacwatto_cobra

  • iMac Pro is 'currently unavailable' from Apple in the US, Canada [u]

    sdw2001sdw2001
    I’m showing a delivery date of 3/31 to 4/7.  That seems odd.  


    patchythepiratewatto_cobra