|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 09:18 PM EDT |
The use of honeycomb cores in composites has been around a long time. And is
very common in aquatic or marine boat construction.
Apparently, if you
make such a composite using concrete skins and a concrete honeycomb core, you
have to pay
Global Marine Development Inc of Newport Beach,
California
. This 2005 article suggests they have world-wide patents on
this.
Just more dumb. Doing "it" on the Internet is no reason for a
patent. Doing "it" with concrete isn't either.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 09:29 PM EDT |
| see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20077735 [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 09:43 PM EDT |
NewsPick
[PJ: How
stupid is this going to get?
...
Anybody noticing that patent law makes
no sense?]
Tsk, tsk, PJ. You tell us to observe here how the law
works in the real world, and that no matter how silly some cases seem to be
going thru the courts, truth and justice will prevail. When Teacher throws her
arms up in despair, is it time for us to conclude
the law really is an ass? No,
not yet. PJ says "[t]he exact same patents." Has anyone checked if the patents
are word for word
identical? The more significant difference will be the
cultural bias that the judges in each country bring to their interpretation of
their patents and their law. In that light I would like to offer a small
amendment:
Anybody noticing that US patent law is out of step with
all other civilized countries?
As an aside, I had a miscalculation
with Time Zones intending to watch Bloomberg's comment referred in the M.CAM Newspick.
Instead I found Charlie Rose discussing
Foreign Policy with experts including former U.S. National Security Advisor
Zbigniew Brzezinski.
ZB opined that the world no longer wants or needs the USA
as a leader. It wants the US as a coalition partner and to provide stability,
and
both presidential candidates are grappling with this concept. I suggest
that Apple v. Samsung as presently playing thru US courts
countervails that
sentiment.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 25 2012 @ 05:00 AM EDT |
http://www.futilitycloset.com/2012/10/17/upstanding-2/
Some fun:
If the law was perfect, politicians woudn't need the power to change it.
If the law is perfect, but has to change to adapt to changing circumstances,
then politicians shouldn't be old men.
If the law isn't perfect, then why should we care *exactly* what it says about
anything? The rough shape should be all, as that's taking it's (large) error
bounds into account.
There's a quote about change being caused by the unreasonable, but I can't
remember it offhand.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: squib on Thursday, October 25 2012 @ 05:01 AM EDT |
On the matter of hoping an organization will be
able to see that some things
legally right are not
morally right:
Over the years I've read many
attempts by
psychologists
to
diagnose an unhealthy
organisation.
Poran Poregbal
says:
I believe there is a possibility to
diagnose a
government or an organization with
personality disorders such as borderline
or
antisocial, and why not obsessive-compulsive
disorder. We just play
this game to see where we
get...
I also find of interest
the symptoms listed in the
Wikipedia article: Narcissist
ic personality disorder
Signs of these symptoms, must of course, be
entirely
coincidental in this case (cough). [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 25 2012 @ 05:41 AM EDT |
Hey PJ how about this one:
Scumbag patent attys: why are you not more like the good Mr. Lincon?
You KNOW they revere him... but apparently, like so many other things, only when
it is convenient![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Oh I forgot... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 25 2012 @ 05:48 AM EDT
- Oh I forgot... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 25 2012 @ 09:19 AM EDT
- In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was worth ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 25 2012 @ 03:01 PM EDT
- In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was worth ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 25 2012 @ 03:36 PM EDT
- So... was Lincoln rich or poor? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 25 2012 @ 03:43 PM EDT
- Wow. Get some new material. - Authored by: stegu on Thursday, October 25 2012 @ 05:07 PM EDT
- Imaginary Property - Authored by: FreeChief on Thursday, October 25 2012 @ 07:27 PM EDT
- In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was worth ... - Authored by: Tyro on Thursday, October 25 2012 @ 08:01 PM EDT
- In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was worth ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 04:39 AM EDT
- In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was worth ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 07:42 AM EDT
- Another hint of the fog. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 10:53 AM EDT
- Upstanding - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 25 2012 @ 02:33 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: albert on Thursday, October 25 2012 @ 11:29 AM EDT |
| Link
<
/br>
The problem with most military technology is that it can be used
_against_ the developers. For our sake, I hope we are developing defences
against these weapons. Our armed forces are extremely reliant on high tech
systems. CHAMP-like weapons could devastate our military capabilities.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 25 2012 @ 02:51 PM EDT |
http://gizmodo.com/5953601/incredible-csi-enhance-technology-fixes-
unfocused-photos
Why is it that so often I seem to come upon extremely useful apps
like this, in the fields of sound and image processing, where many
practitioners use other brand OS, the great new app is for
Windows only. I'll take a substantial wager that like many others
I've seen, it's also not clean portable code and will take a major
rewrite to get running on Mac or Linux.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Thursday, October 25 2012 @ 03:40 PM EDT |
Technically Torvalds may be right. Killing off Microsoft is a side-effect:
"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
unintentional side effect" http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds
Now:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-android-research-idUSBRE89N11J20121
024
"At the end of 2016, there will be 2.3 billion computers, tablets and
smartphones using Android software, compared with 2.28 billion Windows devices,
Gartner data showed. That compares to an expected 1.5 billion Windows devices by
the end of this year, against 608 million using Android."
Where is Apple in this eqation?
Fiddling with iPad Mini 2 perhaps?
---
______
IMANAL
.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, October 25 2012 @ 06:25 PM EDT |
That was an
excellent guide.
We recently suffered a serious attack by a troll
(or
trolls) in the comments to the article
Apple's Licensing Offer
To Samsung Raises Questions About FRAND Rates and
What's
Behind the Attacks on Google ~pj. The guide described
his behaviour
to a T. It was uncanny reading that guide and
recalling my experience in that
thread.
One item in the guide says...
3)
"Professional" trolls ("pro-trolls")
usually prowl public ... postings
explicitly looking to
spread disinformation and propaganda -- or even "simply"
to
disrupt threads -- in furtherance of specific goals... Some
of these trolls
work in organized packs, sometimes with
serious funding behind them as
systematic social networking
disruption agents. Despite the tone of their
postings,
professional trolls are usually not actually nuts or idiots,
and are
very goal-oriented.
This is exactly what they do on
Slashdot, where I was a
regular for many years until they started give the
trolls
free range (shortly after they began displaying large ads
for
Microsoft). Then going there became such an upsetting
experience for me I left
and never looked back. The trolls
won - succeeded in their goal of disrupting
what used to be
a good, anti-Microsoft site. I have no doubt these trolls
are
employed by Microsoft, and came along as part of a
lucrative advertising
contract to "clean up the site".
The troll that attacked the Groklaw
article mentioned
above appeared to have two goals - disrupt the conversation,
and plant memes. Because of the latter, and the fact they
weren't being
blocked or deleted, I and many others took it
upon ourselves to reply with
accurate information to
neutralize the memes planted. The concern was, later on
somebody reading the comments might internalize one of these
memes. While they
say "Do not feed the trolls" these
comments needed to be deleted or
neutralized. I wasn't
comfortable just leaving them there. However, it was an
unpleasant experience dealing with this - the sheer
vehemence and persistence
of that troll... he clearly had a
mission and a goal. What gave him that drive?
I have no
doubt he was a professional, and therefore, receiving
remuneration
for his efforts. PJ had written an excellent
article I thought was just too
important to abandon to the
trolls. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 02:51 AM EDT |
| The Verge
This seems confused, how can they argue that
phones are
allowed to be jailbroken, but tablets aren't? How and why
are
phones and tablets different in copyright terms?
How on earth is
space-shifting a DVD onto another device a
violation of fair use? Does that
mean that wireless display
tech to view things on other screens than the one
directly
connected to the source device with a cable is illegal?
What
are we buying when we buy media, as it sure isn't a
license to view the media
as far as they're concerned. Maybe
it's just the physical lactic disc, with no
implication of
it being usable for any purpose.
I think in Europe
space-shifting is legal, but maybe I have
misunderstood.
Is it the
copyright office making new law, or just
clarifying existing law?
- Stevos
(baffled)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 06:08 AM EDT |
| Apple
website post on UK
judgement
I'm not sure if that covers their requirements or not. It
doesn't look like an apology, but I don't recall the exact
wording of the
order. Also I can't see anywhere on their
site
linking to it yet
-
Stevos
The bit at the end where they refer to other judgements
seems
designed to basically throw the UK judgement and
courts under a bus. I'm not
sure what the reaction to this
will be.
Samsung /
Apple UK judgment
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of
Justice of England and
Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited’s
Galaxy
Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab
7.7 do not
infringe Apple’s registered design No.
0000181607-0001. A copy of the full
judgment of the High
court is available on the following link
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.
In the
ruling, the judge made several important points
comparing the designs of the
Apple and Samsung products:
"The extreme simplicity of the Apple
design is striking.
Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of
glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a
blank back. There
is a crisp edge around the rim and a
combination of curves, both at the corners
and the sides.
The design looks like an object the informed user would want
to
pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple
product. It is a cool
design."
"The informed user's overall impression of each of the
Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they
belong to the
family which includes the Apple design; but
the Samsung products are very thin,
almost insubstantial
members of that family with unusual details on the back.
They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity
which is
possessed by the Apple design. They are not as
cool."
That
Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and
was upheld by the Court
of Appeal on 18 October 2012. A copy
of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is
available on the
following link
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no
injunction in
respect of the registered design in force
anywhere in Europe.
However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same
patent, the court
found that Samsung engaged in unfair
competition by copying the iPad design. A
U.S. jury also
found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and
utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in
damages to Apple
Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find
Samsung guilty of infringement, other
courts have recognized
that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet,
Samsung
willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: john-from-ct on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 08:12 AM EDT |
| Seems Apple has been introduced to the Streisand Effect, as
reported by
Bloomberg
---
Just another
greybeard geek! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: albert on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:39 PM EDT |
| Link
The Walled Garden is
closing. Most electronic devices have warnings about using unapproved
third-party peripherals. If you blow up the machine, tough luck (and no
warranty). Few use it as an excuse for locking out peripheral makers. If Apple
gets the patent, they _could_ license it to other manufacturers, who would pay
dearly for the privilege. Or not. Then Apple gets to charge whatever they
want, and the 3rd party makers walk.
The losers are Apple customers. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
