|
|
|
| Authored by: nsomos on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 07:47 PM EDT |
Please post corrections here.
A summary in the posts title may be helpful.
Thanks [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 08:32 PM EDT |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Behind the Great Firewall of China - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 09:29 PM EDT
- Where oh where is Windows Phone 8? The hardware appears to be ready. What's going on with the sw - Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 09:34 PM EDT
- The Worm Turns - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 10:44 PM EDT
- OT here - Authored by: Tufty on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 12:53 AM EDT
- Honest Design: "1960s Braun Products Hold the Secrets to Apple’s Future" from January 2008 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 03:23 AM EDT
- Dynamic pricing of electronic content patented .. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 05:07 AM EDT
- Internet Brands sues people for forking under CC by-sa - Authored by: David Gerard on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 08:54 AM EDT
- Are Mac users like cattle? - Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 10:27 AM EDT
- The first treatable form of autism - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 06:14 PM EDT
- An open letter to Wikipedia .. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 06:22 PM EDT
- Great example - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 08:16 PM EDT
- Another - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 09:32 PM EDT
- Sniffing open WiFi networks is not wiretapping, federal judge says - patent troll rejoices - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 07:01 PM EDT
- Help Wanted - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 12:12 AM EDT
- MacGyver is Alive and Well and Working in Space - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 01:42 AM EDT
- AT&T 'invented' 'grid of icons' - Authored by: knarf on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 07:03 AM EDT
- Judge Posner Calls for Legalizing Marijuana - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 10:41 AM EDT
- Microsoft: 'Update your security certs this month – or else' - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 11:19 AM EDT
- Good Guy Moses (pic) - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 11:20 AM EDT
- Are all these judges slapping hands normal? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 09 2012 @ 08:49 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 08:35 PM EDT |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 08:36 PM EDT |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 09:22 PM EDT |
(1) whether the June 26, 2012 Preliminary Injunction order (“PI Order”)
automatically dissolves...
(2) whether the fact that the PI Order is on appeal impacts or stays ...
(3) whether this Court has jurisdiction to rule on Samsung’s ... motion...
Why are those not points of law on which the Judge can rule without
briefing from the parties? [you can tell I'm so not a lawyer]
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 09:28 PM EDT |
Since the major wrong committed was the jury foreman taking
it upon himself to defend Apples patents, can it be appealed
that he was not impartial?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 02:08 AM EDT |
I'm starting to think that this court is not a result of a horrible patent
system, it is a result of a bad jury system. The patent system itself played
only minimal role, the jury basically ignored it.
It seems to me that biggest unfair point is the difficulty to appeal against
jury because "jury deliberations are supposed to be held in the highest
regard". Why is jury supposed to be infallible while judges are not?
Juries decide more on emotions and less on facts and rationality. They decide on
sympathies, fears and likes. Juries on average assign ridiculously high awards
which are routinely cut down - because they are ridiculous. Just about the only
they do better is that they have less chance of being corrupt.
It would be all OK, if the system did not assumed that jury can not make
mistakes. If there would be routine review facts vs juries decisions. But the
system treats jury as someone divine who almost never makes mistakes. That is
not a case.
Judges are fallible and so are juries. We should accept that as a fact. Appeals
against jury decisions should be easier then appeals against judges decisions.
They do not understand what they are doing.
Rant over.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 06:31 AM EDT |
Apple also has been trying to block Samsung from including certain
materials excluded from trial from Samsung's appeal, but Samsung points out
[PDF] that the question on appeal is whether the exclusions were proper in the
first place, so it would be weird to leave them out. I don't know what Apple was
thinking on that one.
If I remember correctly, the reason to
exclude them was timeliness. The decision whether to retry because of exclusion
would then be independent from the actual content of the materials, so bringing
the content to attention of the appeals court is a distraction.
The appeals
court just has to decide whether Samsung had a proper chance of getting justice,
not whether they actual got justice. If Samsung blew their chance by their own
fault, that's no skin off the court's nose.
If, on the other hand, the
materials were excluded not because of the timing but because of their purported
lack of relevance, of course they need to be revisited on appeal. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 01:01 PM EDT |
| Here's a URL actually showing these speakers.
Braun LE
1 speakers, shown
together with a chair
Looks like these speakers are just a tiny tiny
little bigger than any Apple
monitor. I'd say a good three feet high and four
to five feet wide. That's one
thing. Next, all similarity with the Apple
monitor disappears completely if you
rotate the monitor by just 20 degrees.
While the Braun LE1 speaker are held
by some massive steel frame (which in the
photo looks like some thin wire
frame), the foot of the Apple monitor only
looks similar when you take a
photo exactly from the side.
So please,
if you want to come up with evidence that Apple is copying, or is
even
inspired, by Braun, come up with something real. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 01:18 PM EDT |
| Here is a photo of the Braun T1000 portable radio, which has an amazing
similarity with a Mac Pro:
Braun T1000
radio
Yes, looks exactly the same. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 01:25 PM EDT |
| Here's a photo of the first iPod, designed by Braun in 1958:
Braun T3 pocket
radio
Again, an amazing similarity.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nsomos on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 01:57 PM EDT |
Samsung will bring up a number of different items.
If even just one of them is accepted by the appellate
court, and it has any effect on the evidence that the
jury based their decision on, then since the jury was
not given the evidence they should have had, this will
be grounds for a new jury trial.
I would call this the "GIGO" defense.
Samsung will bring up multiple decisions that did NOT
go their way. They will bring up excluded evidence,
such as the F700 which couldn't possibly be a copy since
it was done either before or so close after the Apple
product. Samsung will bring up their at least having
tried to save emails, while Apple who is bringing suit
didn't even save emails from everyone, or from the time
that Apple sued.
And Samsung will also point out the private axe that
the jury foreman has been sharpening strictly on behalf
of Apple. The one that only cuts Apples way, and none
other.
All the appellate court needs is one reason for a do-over.
Then we will get the chance to hear the fan-boys wailing
and gnashing of teeth. Might even get to see some
rending of clothes. Given just half a chance at a
fair trial, I have little doubt that Samsung can win.
I hope to get the chance to see Hogan get to eat his
words due to a different outcome which is fair to
Samsung and applied fairly to both parties.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 03:14 PM EDT |
I suspect this is what will happen on Sep 20:
1. Injunction on Galaxy 10.1 will be lifted
2. Apple will have to pay up the $2.6 million it posted as a bond for this
And hopefully some of the jury's judgement is struck down in the Dec hearing. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 08:09 AM EDT |
I find installing software on linux can be a
pain - I always seem
to run into rpm dependencies, perhaps
because the software I'm trying to
install isn't from major
vendors.
I don't know what Linux
you are using, I have been using
Ubuntu since 2008 and I have no issues with
installs.
Synaptic is excellent and you find Ubuntu packages all over
for just
about anything. If you need to run a windows
program you don't even need a VM
because you can just run it
under Wine or Playonlinux and you can also use the
proprietary crossover software. Ubuntu is extremely
reliable, it never
crashes, and there are very frequent
security updates (3-4 times per
month).
For Apple fanboys the new Unity Gui will even make Ubuntu
look like a
Mac ... for those who need it.
Compared to Windows
machines, I like the mac
because of hardware reliability & capability, OS
reliability, program consistency, and yes, everything
generally seems to "just
work", and work well.
... who do you think you are fooling
with that
kind of statement? This silly claim is typical for Apple
users,
apparently they need to somehow try to justify
paying 3x the normal price for
a likely inferior product to
themselves.
Apple uses the same
components inside, the same ones
that
everybody else is using. How else do
you think you could run
Windows under a VM on an Apple box, if they were not
using
the
exact same parts inside?
Apple had massiv failures of
Graphics-Chips, just like
everybody else did who was building those chips into
their
boxes (like Dell). Apple had to use 3rd party Graphics-Chips
because they
can't develop and manufacture them themselves.
On their newer Models
(2011-2012) Apple are using Intel
integrated Graphics, which is sort of ok, but
of course you
do not get the kind of performance out of them as you would
with
a dedicated graphics processor (discrete), so they are
much much slower
compared to the Windows based high-
performance Gamers-Notebooks. How "capable"
do you think
that is? (for at least double the price by the way)
The
new Macbooks you cannot repair because of the way they
are built, you even have
to send them in just to get the
battery pack changed, how "capable" and user
friendly is
that?
U.S. government has taken Apple off their supplier
list,
because they no longer meet EPA (EPEAT) standards. Real
high-tech
environmental friendly products those Apples eh?
From personal
experience with a Macbook, I can say DVD-drive
defective and defective power
supply. Disproportionately
high reliability is that?
~SD[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
