flydog

rob53 said:

Sounds like judge is prejudiced against Apple. It’s like using witnesses in a murder trial who end up being caught telling lies about the murder and not telling the jury they did. 

How many of VirnetX’s patents in question are currently valid? One, two, none?

Based on what?  Do you have access to all the trial evidence, and you personally reviewed all of it?  Did you read the judge's opinion and the parties' motions?   Do you know anything at all about patent law or civil procedure?  The answer to all of these quesitons is, of course, no.

The fact that the USPTO deemed the subject of the patents "unpatentable" is irrelevant because the US Court of Appeals reversed the USPTO's decision.  The patents were valid, enforceable, and Apple infringed on them.  This case has been around for 10 years, and every single court and jury has ruled againt Apple.  
 
End of story.

glennh said:

lightvox88 said:

There should be a law preventing giant behemoth monopolies from combining resources and working together against antitrust lawsuits. Just seems like logic and common sense considering that some of these companies and bigger and more powerful than many entire countries.

There is a law on the books! It’s call the Sherman Act and was signed into law by Theodore Roosevelt aka “Teddy Bear”. If what this article says is true and there are actual written documents communication between the companies  to use in a court of law as evidence, both Facebook and Google can kiss their duopoly online ads days goodbye! Hell with the above stated evidence even a first day law student could use this evidence to prove a violation of Sherman’s Anti-Trust Prohibitions!

The Sherman Act does not prohibit companies from working to defend lawsuits or criminal constitution. Such a law would be plainly unconstitutional (at least it was when I was a first year law student).  Moreover, it's not as uncommon as the article implies. 

If the Sherman Act did prohibit such an arrangement (it doesn't) the government would have alleged so in the complaint (it didn't).

The likely reason the arrangement was mentioned in the complaint was to establish that FaceBook was aware that the conduct constituted an illegal use of monopoly power, and to rebut the argument that the government can't go back on its approval of the merger with Instagram and WhatsApp.

This article is misleading.  Developers are not required to disclose this information until the next time they submit a new app or app update after December 14.  Therefore, there is nothing to "comply with" until the developer submits a new app or app update. Gmail has not been updated in 2 weeks, and therefore Google cannot be categorized as "ignoring" or having to "comply with" the requirement.  

Also, the article makes is sound like WhatsApp is hiding something by stating only that it collects "Other Data Types," however, the labels and descriptions are not chosen by the developer.  There is no option to enter custom information.

jcc said:

I don’t understand why Apple is pushing wireless charging? Wireless charging is one of the worst charging methods as a lot of energy is wasted. They shouldn’t allow the capability until that improves.

The amount of excess electricity used by wirelessly charging your phone for a year wouldn’t be enough to power your refrigerator for 5 minutes. 

How irresponsible of AI to publish this poorly researched garbage. This article is based on the logical fallacy that because some third-party factories have more than 10% temporary employees that Apple must be "ignor[ing] the issue." That's like saying that because there are murders committed that police ignore murders.  

The article also cites facts that directly contradict that Apple is ignoring the issue. For example, Apple recognized that suppliers were exceeding limits, and then took steps to have its suppliers comply.  And indeed "[s]uppliers made effort to comply."  The fact that some didn't does meant that Apple chose to "ignore" the problem.  

Some of the facts do not support the conclusion because they lack context.  If 84% of new hires at Pegatron were temporary workers, that doesn't mean the 10% limit was exceeded.  The factory may have had 100,000 workers, 95,000 of whom are temporary, and Pegatron may have hired 10 new workers, 9 of whom were temporary. The 10% limit is still met.  

It's also unclear what the link is between temporary employment and strikes/suicides.  The purpose of the law is so employees "get better benefits, and ... legal protections," not prevent suicides or strikes.  Someone may indeed commit suicide because of poor working conditions, but there's nothing here to support that temporary workers commit suicide at greater rates than full time workers. 

As this article discusses, suppliers are getting around the 10% limit by classifying employees as subcontractors, rather than as employees. This article fails to mention that, nor does it discuss how this would impact Apple's efforts to enforce the temporary worker limits.