Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
02:29 PM on 01/14/2012
Apple just wants to rule the wireless world in all
its facets. Jobs outsourced most of Apple's
hardware production to China with companies
that are environmental disasters and employee
abusers of the first order. Jobs didn't care how
many young people committed suicide to get
his products to market just as long as Apple
sold the most.
GonzoFactor
Rationality and rationalization are not the same
02:43 PM on 01/14/2012
Clients of China's Foxconn besides apple:

Acer Inc. (Taiwan), Amazon.com (United States), ASRock (Taiwan), Asus (Taiwan), Barnes & Noble (United States), Cisco (United States), Dell (United States), EVGA Corporatio­n (United States), Hewlett-Pa­ckard (United States), Intel (United States), IBM (United States), Lenovo (China), Logitech (Switzerla­nd), Microsoft (United States), MSI (Taiwan), Motorola (United States), Netgear (United States), Nintendo (Japan), Nokia (Finland), Panasonic (Japan), Philips (Netherlan­ds), Samsung (South Korea), Sharp (Japan), Sony Ericsson (Japan/Swe­den), Toshiba (Japan), Vizio (United States)
03:48 PM on 01/14/2012
Spot on, Gonzo. How many big corps are from
the US? Sickening.
photo
helioszephyr
What do you mean by "micro"?!
04:21 PM on 01/14/2012
and Foxconn has better rating than some of the others regarding violations.
The same people complaining about Apple, who at least takes a large portion of its profits/pays taxes in the US, and employs US citizens, will purchase a foreign owned brand (i.e. Sam, Sony, etc.) who's majority of profits stay overseas and employ very few US workers. At least Apple invested in a Samsung fab facility in Texas for their A5 processor.

Check out the comparison chart toward the bottom of this document.
http://www.chinalaborwatch.org/pro/proshow-149.html
02:16 PM on 01/14/2012
A.ssholes
P.ushing
P.atent
L.egislation
E.verywhere
03:23 PM on 01/14/2012
Like this!
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
01:48 PM on 01/14/2012
As an inventor of a patent, now held by Moto or maybe sold to Google, I say: screw patents, screw Apple, Linux and Open Source rule. Linux is everywhere, you can't stop it. It's in DirectTV DVRs, they run my code. The ads where they pause the video in one room, resume in another? That's my invention. Linux is by far the best OS I ever used. __ I started in computers in '72. They didn't have software patents in the early days, and as a result we innovated more, and faster. At Wang in the '80s the suits started sending us patents, telling us to make sure we weren't violating them - which was practically impossible, they were so obvious. Most patents and inventions still are, including mine. Just because I did it first doesn't make it a true invention.
photo
tumbler snapper
Lawyer, engineer, author, adventurer
02:19 PM on 01/14/2012
"...At Wang in the '80s the suits started sending us patents, telling us to make sure we weren't violating them - which was practicall­y impossible­, they were so obvious..." I think you mean "broad".
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
03:16 PM on 01/14/2012
No, "obvious". Meaning, given the problem, the patented solution was both obvious and the only way it can be done. Like patenting addition, "a method for arriving at sums".

There is a patent that if you XOR a pixel that is 0 or 1, it will reverse it, turn black to white. Then if you XOR again, it reverts back. That's how "rubber-banding" is done, like on the early Macs, and it's completely obvious. Everybody knows that property of XOR, I used in my early graphics, nobody told me about it. Turns out it's patented, by a company long gone out of business but owned by a zombie IP corp that collects patents and sues people. Everybody paid it, including Wang, and Apple. That is what software patents are.
Gmasters
Never underestimate the Power of Human Stupidity!
05:25 PM on 01/14/2012
Obvious in this case is actually part of patent Law.

From Wikipedia:
The inventive step and non-obviousness reflect a same general patentability requirement present in most patent laws, according to which an invention should be sufficiently inventive — i.e., non-obvious — in order to be patented.

At one time, you could also not patent fundamental Mathmatic principles or bits of Mother Nature.
Corporations today have bought legal "opinions" allowing them to do both.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rotorhead1871
who are you jivin' with that cosmic debris?...
02:31 PM on 01/14/2012
welcome to the future...hope you can fit in....
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
03:09 PM on 01/14/2012
We created this so-called future. It's not future to me, I was using bulletin boards, notes and news groups 20 years ago - they were blogs. Boomers gave you all these tech toys, not Facebook boy. That and this site are simple to create, thanks to us. For Linux and Open Source, you can thank fellow-Boomer and Socialist Richard Stallman, more than anybody. You're welcome :-)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AlonzoQuijana
01:32 PM on 01/14/2012
I remember working for a company that tried to patent everything it did. The look of its credit card statements. The way it opened mail and processed checks. The scripts on its automated response system. The general counsel was an absolute fanatic about intellectual property. She was always exhorting us to think of mundane things we could patent.
photo
tumbler snapper
Lawyer, engineer, author, adventurer
01:40 PM on 01/14/2012
Her yearly bonus was probably tied to the number of new patent filings that year. Just a guess.
photo
gwinegarden
She's an Arctic Wolf
02:30 PM on 01/14/2012
Well, I figure that, if you can patent a gene, the sky's the limit. How does one "patent" something that they did not create?
photo
LightShadow62
The answers are not found in the extremes
03:55 PM on 01/14/2012
Patents are not about invention they are about the first to file paperwork.
04:43 PM on 01/14/2012
Just change something.... anything. A molecule will work.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MacManLB
Public Enemy #2
01:32 PM on 01/14/2012
Every smartphone on the market is merely a knock-off of the iPhone.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:49 PM on 01/14/2012
No the iPhone is a knock off (with a great user interface) of the smarthphones that came before them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MacManLB
Public Enemy #2
02:41 PM on 01/14/2012
Of course, there were smartphones before the iPhone. I tried several iterations of blackberry phones before throwing up my hands in disgust and buying an iPhone. I meant the style, user interface, apps, etc. They say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. We know that everything after the iPhone is based on the iPhone design. That is why Apple is continuously in court about patent lawsuits.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dax Grantham
Doing my part to piss off the religious right
01:55 PM on 01/14/2012
Not really; my first smart phone was a Palm Trio. i bought it in 2003, 4 years before the first iPhone. So, i guess you could say that all smartphones are a knockoff of the Palm.

Apple just developed a new interface and is trying to patent design elements, such as using a slide motion on a touch screen to unlock the phone.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
menschmaschine5
03:09 PM on 01/14/2012
A slide motion which they didn't even invent (NeoNode somethingrather used it first).
photo
LightShadow62
The answers are not found in the extremes
04:00 PM on 01/14/2012
Apple didn't develop they just repackaged.
01:20 PM on 01/14/2012
Software patents are utterly illegitimate. They don't foster innovation, they prevent it. Software should be covered by copyright, to prevent wholesale theft of your code. Patents are completely inappropriate to the medium, and the tidal wave of frivolous lawsuits they are engendering is proof of that.
photo
tumbler snapper
Lawyer, engineer, author, adventurer
01:23 PM on 01/14/2012
Software is covered by copyright, but the protection it affords is too thin.
photo
Almondo
Agnostic Realist Tradevknaught
02:09 PM on 01/14/2012
"Software patents are utterly illegitima­te."

You hit the core of the issue with this. They are ridiculously broad. They fail to recognize obvious prior art. They are just a litigation stick with no productive purpose.

M$ has a software patent on a generic white label website. A perfect example of the preposterousness, as prior art existed before M$ even stumbled onto the Internet.
photo
tumbler snapper
Lawyer, engineer, author, adventurer
02:25 PM on 01/14/2012
"...They fail to recognize obvious prior art. They are just a litigation stick with no productive purpose..." If the prior art was so "obvious", that, in itself, would be the antidote to the "litigation stick". Claim invalidity.
07:00 PM on 01/14/2012
SOME patents are absurd. OTHERS are not. That is as true of software patents as it is of any hardware patent. Your argument is pointless in the sense that ONLY what is NEW AND DIFFERENT is considered to be validly patentable. How the patent is written is entirely beside the point in a patent law case EXCEPT for the fact that what is new and different must be carefully described in order to be defensible.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GameGuru59
BA in Poli-Sci., more qualified than Glenn Beck
01:19 PM on 01/14/2012
Added to my list of why I refuse to buy Apple products...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Daryl Pienta
We need a balance of Socialsim and Capitalism
01:06 PM on 01/14/2012
as it should be. Open Source Android for the win
12:49 PM on 01/14/2012
I think that the solution for patents in areas of quickly paced nature as software should be focused on limiting the broadness and time of the patents. Basically the broad patents should have less protection time which itself should depend on the nature of the area. For software I would say no more than 3 years. For broad patents which is hard to circumvent it should be 1-2 years max. This is enough to establish market leadership and recoup all investments and much more.
photo
tumbler snapper
Lawyer, engineer, author, adventurer
01:05 PM on 01/14/2012
The claims in any patent are only as broad as the prior art permits. The term is presently time-limited at twenty years from the filing date. If the technological field is fast moving, the twenty year term does no harm, since the disclosed technology will probably be obsolescent before the twenty year term expires.
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
01:53 PM on 01/14/2012
The purpose of patents is not to encourage inventions - it's to encourage "disclosure", let the world benefit from it, as opposed to keeping it a trade secret. But software patents are all obvious. If you could figure out how to do without reverse engineering the code, or reading the patent - it should not have gotten a patent, it's too obvious. Virtually all software patents are that, and I'm the inventor of one. I'd point out: software obsoletes so quickly, limiting the time makes no difference. Anything invented five years ago is already obsolete, who cares if it's patent free? That's why we don't need patents, getting first to market and establishing mind-share is what makes profits.
photo
tumbler snapper
Lawyer, engineer, author, adventurer
02:02 PM on 01/14/2012
"...If you could figure out how to do without reverse engineerin­g the code, or reading the patent - it should not have gotten a patent, it's too obvious..." That's not the standard. Obviousness is predicated upon an asserted combination of prior art documents.
12:22 PM on 01/14/2012
smart phones, stupid people.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sam Curcuro
Tell It Like It Is
01:45 PM on 01/14/2012
Stupid phones & Even dumber people. I'd be OK with it if they'd just take the word "Phone" away and call it something else i,e, "Thig-A-Ma-Jig that does hundreds of things that are not really all that important" or "Device that Kills propriety".

Not much to do with patents, but I just wanted to say something no-one will give a hoot about!
12:13 PM on 01/14/2012
Patents should me re-done and more regulated. The things getting patents these dar are simply ridiculous.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DanielSC
12:28 PM on 01/14/2012
hear-hear!
01:15 PM on 01/14/2012
Must have been typing on an iPhone.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
C Kevin Provance again
My micro-bio did not meet your guidelines.
12:11 PM on 01/14/2012
This is so stupid. I develop software, and to me, this is like a competitor telling me I am infringing his patent for reading a file off the storage device using a similar method, when there are actually only a handful of ways to do so. Apple need to get over it and move on.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Daryl Pienta
We need a balance of Socialsim and Capitalism
01:07 PM on 01/14/2012
Apple wants a monopoly and that is why I do not and will not support Apple
photo
helioszephyr
What do you mean by "micro"?!
04:35 PM on 01/14/2012
conversely, it stimulates innovation.

If developers/researchers always relied on "similar methods", innovation of "methods" would not expand and move forward with relative stagnation, consequently affect the innovation of the subject. Quite often in research, it's not only the "subject" we're attempting to move forward in innovation, equally important is the methodology.
12:05 PM on 01/14/2012
What they should be working on is a phone that doesn't require a network. Networks require thousands of people to make them work. In case of a major emergency, the networks will cease to work and no one will be able to communicate.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
rusane
My micro-bio is empty, cold and jaded.
12:01 PM on 01/14/2012
I don't know that "design elements" should be protected by patent law, but there is also no question the design of android etc. are rip offs of Apple, especially the UI. I'm not sure it warrants a legal challenge though. Maybe the better position for Apple to take would be to see 'imitation is the sincerest form of flattery' and move on to the next design.
12:12 PM on 01/14/2012
Android used to be a major, and I mean major, rip-off, however it's become so different from iOS now it's not even funny. Simply the way you would use the phone is completely different.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
flashfyre
Honore de Balzac
12:21 PM on 01/14/2012
1968's "2001 : A space odyssey" clearly shows the two astronauts using tablet devices. Several cell phones had UI elements before Apple released anything.
photo
cjohnathan
I speak only in hyperbolic statements...
11:54 AM on 01/14/2012
I think Apple is eventually going to have to accept a smaller profit margin if they are going to want to stay afloat in this market. They just can't manipulate the whole world to suit their greedy demands. And they certainly can't take it off the manufacturing end- Apple products are already produced by Chinese slave labor....