damonf
About
- Username
- damonf
- Joined
- Visits
- 53
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 115
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 233
Reactions
-
Rumor: Apple's 4-inch iPhone event pushed back a week, to March 22
Perhaps the new products are being announced on March 15 still, and only becoming available on March 22? And perhaps this relates to launch only in South Korea?
-
In new court filing, Apple cites 9 other cases in which FBI asserted the All Writs Act
Soooooo what was the FBI saying about "Just this once" regarding the San Bernardino iPhone? Looks like "more than once" to me.
-
Avid iPhone user Donald Trump calls for Apple boycott over encryption fight
Big difference: neither Obama nor the DOJ though are publicly calling for a boycott of an American company, which would have a material impact on its stockholders, who are Democrats, independents, AND Republicans. As the article pointed out, he switched to an Android phone to prove he's serious about it. Do you think his rich buddies (if he has any "rich buddies" left, he's probably pissed all of them off in some way) or supporters will send him a "Thank you" basket for impacting their Apple stock holdings if people really buy into his boycott? He doesn't think before he speaks, and he shoots other people in the foot in the process (Apple stockholders, in this case).apple ][ said:
Obama's DOJ said this earlier today, accusing Apple of only caring about profits and their image.jax44 said:Bozo
What a piece of c**p this guy is.
"Apple's current refusal to comply with the court's order, despite the technical feasibility of doing so, instead appears to be based on its concern for its business model and public brand marketing strategy,"
Obama is a bozo and a piece of c**p. Trump is not suing Apple and filing motions against them, Obama is filing motions against Apple.
-
Otterbox debuts $130 Defender case for iPad Pro, new Air 2 and Mini 4 cases
anantksundaram said:
This is an article in a general Apple-interest blog, addressed to group general, Apple-interested readers.rhinotuff said:Some of us work in industrial/construction trades, where dustproof/dust-resistant covers are a must. Should I just buy a $30 RCA tablet instead, and replace it every 3 months once it gets destroyed?
Exactly what proportion of those do you think work in the industrial/construction trades?Why are you picking on him? He was refuting a comment that essentially stated that no one has use for such a case for "the latest thin, lightweight, mobile device" and demonstrated through his occupation that not everything is about "thin, lightweight". Some people need to use iOS devices (apps) in harsh environments. So to protect our investment, we have to resort to cases that are not always ideal to keeping the device thin. I don't work in an industrial/construction trade, nevertheless I've requested a dustproof case for my old iPad Mini 2 for Christmas. I have need to use it outside in both dusty and wet environments, and even though it's no longer my main iPad, I still want to keep it clean and damage-free. jfc1138's post about needing a case while on a trail backpacking is another example. So, just because rhinotuff replied to a post containing an overly broad "anyone is a fool for buying a case for their thin Apple device" statement doesn't mean that others also don't have uses for a case beyond the industrial/construction trade.
Your comment would have been better served directed to the original poster: "This is an article in a general Apple-interest blog, addressed to group general, Apple-interested readers. Some people probably have need for such a case and find a 'damage-free' Apple device more important than a damaged 'unprotected-because-I-need-it-thin' Apple device". And you should respect rhinotuff for his interest in keeping his Apple device investment protected and in good working order.
-
Samsung appeals $548M Apple patent verdict to the U.S. Supreme Court
Nothing precludes SCOTUS from declining to hear this case, but then accepting the next appealed one, particularly if it involved a NPE.gatorguy said:Can't say that I necessarily disagree that Samsung got what they deserved. In fact I would not be opposed to Apple getting more than they did in all fairness. BUT....
If SCOTUS doesn't accept the appeal it results in the Federal Court decision being precedent-setting. Future design patent infringers will be required to pay 100% of the profits derived on a handset, tablet or whatever for something as simple as using a protected icon whether by intent or accident. It won't matter. Even worse a company could surrender their entire product profit and still be sued by yet other company for some other design patent and pay out that same amount again. For even a huge company like Apple or Google it could potentially destroy them if only found to infringe just 2 or 3 design patents. A handset might use hundreds of design elements between the interface and shell, any one of which might be claimed in some design patent somewhere.
Wait for an NPE to acquire one to use against Apple and others (and one will if SCOTUS doesn't weigh in on the side of limits) and comment again on how fair the interpretation of the law is in your opinion. With the billions in profits the techs are pocketing they'll be in every patent trolls crosshairs. Just one win could turn one of them into the planet's richest company. 100% disgorgement for using one infringing icon out of hundreds will hardly be seen as fair IMHO.
EDIT: This Amicus Brief filed with the Federal Court in support of Samsung's position in this specific case explains it better than I could. Thanks to @anantksundaram and his mention of FossPatents I see that three law professors who previously sided with Apple in other matters support Samsung in this one. They could hardly be considered anti-Apple.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8xYsG-VkgXNXzdDSF9RNS04cFE/edit?pli=1
