Nothing against apple but does anybody else feel an attempted monopoly? On top of the somewhat one they had before. Improve your own product instead of narrowing the market. I like apple's product but I absolutely hate their company.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
http://forum.iwtso.com/index.php http://iwtso.com/
Join our forum and site to Watch Simpsons free, and discuss a whole lot of other things on our forum.
We are about to have a competition on our forum, join for a chance to win $75
In a bit of a funny note, there are rounds in the Korean online community saying that Apple copied its design form from canned sesame leaves produced in Korea. Afaik, the design has been around since the 60-70s.
I find it amusing that numerous Korean friends and acquaintances that I know say that this is racist or racially-/nationally-motivated ('cause Apple is American and Samsung is Korean).
Dropping in to say that this is an incredible (or incredibly bad) case. The procedure is bad. The legal officers are bad. The ruling is bad. The damages are bad. Moreover, the case establishes a precedent and portends the eventual end of competition in the name of intellectual property and the establishment of a substantial long-term advantage over competitors, should there be any competition at all. These patent wars are getting out of control.
EDIT:
Quote from Myself »
Won't the software either not work, because it's not written for it, or it will run slowly?
How does this make sense? Won't the software either not work, because it's not written for it, or it will run slowly?
Generally, slowly, to the point of being unusable. Imagine trying to run Windows Vista on a Pentium 4 with 1 GB of RAM. It might run, but it will sputter and spin frequently on all the memory-intensive stuff that OS does. Now, Windows 7 came along and they fixed much of the abomination that was Vista in this department and so 7 might run okay on that Pentium, but again slowly (as in, lots of wait time when you open programs, etc). Not unusable, per se, but a poor user experience. If your company is based on delivering a certain kind of user experience, you would not recommend, for example, putting Windows 7 on that computer.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The explosion that... destroyed our city, razed our home, and turned our fields into wasteland was nothing compared to what was now happening to those who survived.
Won't the software either not work, because it's not written for it, or it will run slowly?
Depends on how different the new hardware is from the old one. Sometimes, the differences are small and only are noticeable when certain instructions are tried.
For example, my last computer is optimized for windows XP. I ran it win98SE. It ran well enough, most of the time. Sometimes the computer just hanged, wouldn't boot, refused to go through certain websites, etc.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Generally, slowly, to the point of being unusable. Imagine trying to run Windows Vista on a Pentium 4 with 1 GB of RAM. It might run, but it will sputter and spin frequently on all the memory-intensive stuff that OS does. Now, Windows 7 came along and they fixed much of the abomination that was Vista in this department and so 7 might run okay on that Pentium, but again slowly (as in, lots of wait time when you open programs, etc). Not unusable, per se, but a poor user experience. If your company is based on delivering a certain kind of user experience, you would not recommend, for example, putting Windows 7 on that computer.
This is often untrue. For mobile devices, particularly Android ones, a common hardware limitation to upgrading the OS is that devices do not have enough ROM.
This has occurred multiple times to high end HTC and Samsung devices. So, often, devices will never be able to run the newest OS at all because the file size of the OS doesn't fit into the ROM.
Now, you can delay this a bit with custom ROMs like Cyanogen mods; but, Android gets bigger and bigger each release so it's only a matter of time a device becomes obsolete.
Nothing against apple but does anybody else feel an attempted monopoly? On top of the somewhat one they had before. Improve your own product instead of narrowing the market. I like apple's product but I absolutely hate their company.
No. Apple has licensing agreements with Microsoft for Windows Phone OS. Windows Phone OS looks completely different from iOS and Apple doesn't appear to have any legal issues with its existence. If Android OS goes under, Windows Phone will likely takes it place (esp. because its from Microsoft) and Apple could easily foresee that.
I think this really is an issue of Apple feeling that it has a right to the grid app menu, etc. etc. design. If somebody can think of a smartphone with a GUI that's a radical departure from the iPhone, Apple would likely not sue.
I find it amusing that numerous Korean friends and acquaintances that I know say that this is racist or racially-/nationally-motivated ('cause Apple is American and Samsung is Korean).
Dropping in to say that this is an incredible (or incredibly bad) case. The procedure is bad. The legal officers are bad. The ruling is bad. The damages are bad. Moreover, the case establishes a precedent and portends the eventual end of competition in the name of intellectual property and the establishment of a substantial long-term advantage over competitors, should there be any competition at all. These patent wars are getting out of control.
I hate how everyone suddenly becomes a legal expert in the Apple-Samsung courtroom battle scandal. I 'Apple's patents are invalid!' 'Judge Koh acted improperly!' 'The jury is biased!' 'Apple is trying to patent a square with round corners!' Seriously? There are gross oversimplifications of both the patents and evidence in this thread. For example, did you know that the Apple design patent for supposedly a 'square with round corners' is over 40 pages long?
The criticism against the jury is particularly low. Samsung had as much a place in selecting them as Apple. Furthermore, none of us really have any idea what the jury saw or the arguments made and the jury is only there to help the legal system, often from their own free time. The jury members didn't say to themselves, "Let's volunteer to sit in a three month trial so we could reach a biased verdict and have people scrutinize our occupations and point out how stupid we are!"
Except icons on a grid was on Windows before it was on iPhone. And the way it works on Android is more similar to Windows than it is to the iPhone really...
Apple thinks they have a right to a lot of stuff that is stupid for anyone to think they have a right to.
This is often untrue. For mobile devices, particularly Android ones, a common hardware limitation to upgrading the OS is that devices do not have enough ROM.
This has occurred multiple times to high end HTC and Samsung devices. So, often, devices will never be able to run the newest OS at all because the file size of the OS doesn't fit into the ROM.
Now, you can delay this a bit with custom ROMs like Cyanogen mods; but, Android gets bigger and bigger each release so it's only a matter of time a device becomes obsolete.
What I said is true for Apple products though (and the discussion it was connected to was a discussion about Apple products). As far as I'm aware they don't distinguish like my Droid did, which had both built-in and SD card.
EDIT: all that is to say, I agree with you for Android, but I don't think that's the case for why Apple does what it does. There was a big stink about the quality of the user experience for betas for one of the recent iOS upgrades that caused them to, IIRC, turn off some RAM/etc. intensive-features in order to get it to work smoothly on that phone. This may have been the 3G, but my memory is failing me on the specifics.
The explosion that... destroyed our city, razed our home, and turned our fields into wasteland was nothing compared to what was now happening to those who survived.
What I said is true for Apple products though (and the discussion it was connected to was a discussion about Apple products). As far as I'm aware they don't distinguish like my Droid did, which had both built-in and SD card.
EDIT: all that is to say, I agree with you for Android, but I don't think that's the case for why Apple does what it does. There was a big stink about the quality of the user experience for betas for one of the recent iOS upgrades that caused them to, IIRC, turn off some RAM/etc. intensive-features in order to get it to work smoothly on that phone. This may have been the 3G, but my memory is failing me on the specifics.
Depends on the phone, ein, some Androids distinguish between "on phone" and "on SD" with how their storage works. I believe that's what they're referencing. Not that any phones since the first generation Androids when I first started getting familiar with them have come remotely close to being space constrained. [wife's is going on 4 years old now, 4.1.4 has her at 26% of her "on phone" storage used - and note, 3.whatever it was before was 22%]
Quote from resonance »
For example, did you know that the Apple design patent for supposedly a 'square with round corners' is over 40 pages long?
Did you know that the reference in the case to that ENTIRE PATENT was three items in the entire 40 pages? Of which one of the three claimed infractions was the 'square with round corners'. [Which takes up almost an entire paragraph in the patent text I've seen for just that description - but most of the extra details beyond that are ACTUALLY COMPLETELY DIFFERENT - i.e. that paragraph talks about the qualities and resolution of the glass, and then a later paragraph that also references back to it mentions the qualities of the unit's case]
Just because a patent is long, doesn't mean that someone is infracting on every item, Christ.
Did you know that the reference in the case to that ENTIRE PATENT was three items in the entire 40 pages?
I don't understand why length was mentioned or why it matters.
Just because a patent is long, doesn't mean that someone is infracting on every item, Christ.
I think you meant some variation of "infringe"; but, yes, you're right. Also, a patent isn't a foil for other firms from doing something similar - at least not without these messy suits.
Generally, slowly, to the point of being unusable. Imagine trying to run Windows Vista on a Pentium 4 with 1 GB of RAM. It might run, but it will sputter and spin frequently on all the memory-intensive stuff that OS does. Now, Windows 7 came along and they fixed much of the abomination that was Vista in this department and so 7 might run okay on that Pentium, but again slowly (as in, lots of wait time when you open programs, etc). Not unusable, per se, but a poor user experience. If your company is based on delivering a certain kind of user experience, you would not recommend, for example, putting Windows 7 on that computer.
Oh? I guess the more you know then.
I don't see how some of it's relevant or not an evasion; whatever, really.
I'm tired[, though].
I actually have come to consider Apple as luxury brand product like Mercedes is for cars or Prada for leather handbags.
Most arguments I have personally entertained have boiled down to "but a cheap Windows box does the same thing" in what amounts to "why buy a Mercedes when a Toyota is a car." You are paying extra for the brand and the quality implied in the name of the firm. Some people don't care, a computer is a computer and a car is a car, right?
There is value in the stability that Apple provides, since their in-house product development is based on mating components together and making them work well. I haven't had any major non resolvable problems in the ten plus years as an Apple usage. This means, the computer is stable and useable, but mostly non customizable as an end product. (Exception for the Mac Pro - which is probably where you would be for heavy duty graphics or sound tasks.)
Before the iPhone, I changed phones an average of once a year. I don't personally care about Samsung and their phones.
Last year, I was considered for a position as a sound tech for a venue with an expansive PA system. The first question I was asked in the interview was how familiar and how much experience I had using Apple programs and equipment (Logic Studio, Mainstage Pro etc).
I hate how everyone suddenly becomes a legal expert in the Apple-Samsung courtroom battle scandal... There are gross oversimplifications of both the patents and evidence in this thread. For example, did you know that the Apple design patent for supposedly a 'square with round corners' is over 40 pages long?
Just because a patent is long, doesn't mean that someone is infracting on every item, Christ.
My argument was that because of the length and complexity of the patent (as well as the fact that most of us are not legal experts); individuals on this thread should reserve judgment regarding the details of the trial.
If the patent is so long and complex, then how did a jury achieve a verdict against Samsung so quickly? Shouldn't they have been in deliberation much longer, to properly read and try to understand the patent?
Just read about the appeal issues... The jury foreman who is an owner of a ****ty tech patent, talked them into skipping all the "boring" evidence review and following the judge's instructions.
He just posed himself as an expert in the jury room and they followed his lead.
I'm not even sure how you can expect normal people to understand patent law and make a proper verdict, especially when it basically comes down to the two biggest companies of two different countries fighting for the right to gain dominance over an entire market.
My argument was that because of the length and complexity of the patent (as well as the fact that most of us are not legal experts); individuals on this thread should reserve judgment regarding the details of the trial.
Doesn't take any expertise to see that its going to have to be retried between a foreman that had no reason being on an impartial jury and went out of his way to play activist with them.
Outside of the problems with the foreman, I'd agree however - I only discuss those items because of their absurdity as they're currently understood in the public consciousness.
And on infract vs infringe - I've heard both used for it in context - but infringe is certainly more widely used. It's possible I was just following someone else's error using a different word for sake of variety though
Well, iPhones are already slow as dog**** and don't even have 4G and people still buy the crap, don't think skipping LTE will really impact them because the drones don't care that they're paying a ridiculous premium price and getting **** speed.
Yeah, my iPhone is indeed starting to feel very slow using the new Apps in the market. I'm due to upgrade next year, and we'll see if I'm staying Apple.
I might go for a Windows phone. I really like the UI a lot.
We'll have to see if Win8 wins me over once the Surface comes around - the UI does seem awesome on a touch interface, but not too keen on a PC from the little I've tinkered.
Truly I think the amount of money Apple received was crazy.Also, it seems as tho that Samsung MAY have infringed upon one or two things but, if we could sue people over design aspects such as the thickness and shape of a phone Motorola would be on top.And that my friends would be weird.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Alterer for the poor ,pm me for any requests,deck, or card ideas.
In my opinion most of all smart phones look the same. Is it black and/or white, have a touch screen, capable of downloading apps and have a bunch of preinstalled frivolous bull**** on it? Well, Apple better sue every single smart phone manufacturer on the planet because gee, I think I might be buying an Apple. I just can't tell the difference anymore.
Good thing motorolla didn't do this with flip phones. Apple on the other hand seems to have no qualms about frivolously suing to decrease innovation and push their inferior product.
Details, please? Which gene patents do you have a problem with?
Harkius[/font]
If you want to patent a process for splicing genes, I've got no problem with that - same with patenting tagging them, or finding them, etc.
But patenting a gene itself, a naturally occurring protein, and thereby preventing others from researching that without paying licensing fees (and denying licensing), falls into the same category as patenting coal, or iron, or any other naturally occurring substance.
Yes, it's more sophisticated and requires more work to find, but chopping up a field of research and development over patent rights on things that aren't even products is an abuse of patent law. If you're not developing something for the purpose of selling it, it's patent trolling at best.
Similarly, software patents should be on the bits of software that are actually developments - the OS and its features are the bits of the iPhone that are most important and hardest to replicate. Functions like pinch to zoom and rounded corners are spurious patents at best - they can be replicated logically and easily on other platforms in other programming languages without infringing on proprietary tech like the synchronization features between various Apple products. They've been used for years before the iPhone existed (clam shells were using round corners before RIM).
It's a matter of trademarks and similarity, not patents - "IT LOOKS LIKE AN APPLE PRODUCT!". They aren't lifting the OS from Apple, they aren't "borrowing" large chunks of code. The hardware is all Samsung and the OS is Android. Patenting a little thing in software is like patenting a phillips head screw - lots of people will use it and develop it independently because it's an obvious and easy to do function. You patent what it bolts into, the OS, and whatever hardware you developed for the product.
Jimbo - Not an expert on gene patents overall - but an old friend (out of touch these days though) last I spoke to him was patenting a gene sequence that his work had generated, which was just replicating a naturally occurring one with much greater frequency.
Not sure how often the "Hey, we saw this happen naturally, let's just make it happen more often" thing is allowed to be patented (or if his was approved, as stated that was the last time we were in touch, not seen/spoken since) - but clearly at least some people try to patent on such grounds.
If he's engineering a new protein based off an existing protein chain, that's something different.
I'm referring to DNA research where patents are placed on genes as they've been sequenced, not post any kind of direct research or development. If you tinker with something, like Monsanto with GM crop variants that use spliced DNA (golden rice), that's patent worthy work. If you just sequence a bunch of DNA or RNA and patent it so you can come back and work on it later, that's where the line should be drawn.
Not sure if they had any specific application in mind for it - it was something with algae IIRC. Man, I should try getting back in touch with him though, was some fascinating talking - plus I think he and the bro-in-law would get along famously. (And if he's not moved he was near some other in-laws)
Apple has just added the galaxy S3 to the list of phones that it wasn't pulled from america.
There is no way that a judge should pull 21 phones from the american market simply because apple can't compete.
I hope they win the appeal. it is going to stink of US users can't get a choice of smart phones.
if that happens i guess i will go with HTC but then again i am sure they are next on the suit list. of course apple still is going after android for some non-sense stuff.
if apple wants to compete then i don't know how about making a product that competes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
http://forum.iwtso.com/index.php
http://iwtso.com/
Join our forum and site to Watch Simpsons free, and discuss a whole lot of other things on our forum.
We are about to have a competition on our forum, join for a chance to win $75
wwab is the best mafia player ever
Want to trade with me?
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=294434
The same; id., if you're so inclined.
I find it amusing that numerous Korean friends and acquaintances that I know say that this is racist or racially-/nationally-motivated ('cause Apple is American and Samsung is Korean).
Dropping in to say that this is an incredible (or incredibly bad) case. The procedure is bad. The legal officers are bad. The ruling is bad. The damages are bad. Moreover, the case establishes a precedent and portends the eventual end of competition in the name of intellectual property and the establishment of a substantial long-term advantage over competitors, should there be any competition at all. These patent wars are getting out of control.
EDIT:
By which I mean not even load on it or whatever.
Generally, slowly, to the point of being unusable. Imagine trying to run Windows Vista on a Pentium 4 with 1 GB of RAM. It might run, but it will sputter and spin frequently on all the memory-intensive stuff that OS does. Now, Windows 7 came along and they fixed much of the abomination that was Vista in this department and so 7 might run okay on that Pentium, but again slowly (as in, lots of wait time when you open programs, etc). Not unusable, per se, but a poor user experience. If your company is based on delivering a certain kind of user experience, you would not recommend, for example, putting Windows 7 on that computer.
The explosion that... destroyed our city, razed our home, and turned our fields into wasteland was nothing compared to what was now happening to those who survived.
Depends on how different the new hardware is from the old one. Sometimes, the differences are small and only are noticeable when certain instructions are tried.
For example, my last computer is optimized for windows XP. I ran it win98SE. It ran well enough, most of the time. Sometimes the computer just hanged, wouldn't boot, refused to go through certain websites, etc.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
This is often untrue. For mobile devices, particularly Android ones, a common hardware limitation to upgrading the OS is that devices do not have enough ROM.
This has occurred multiple times to high end HTC and Samsung devices. So, often, devices will never be able to run the newest OS at all because the file size of the OS doesn't fit into the ROM.
Now, you can delay this a bit with custom ROMs like Cyanogen mods; but, Android gets bigger and bigger each release so it's only a matter of time a device becomes obsolete.
No. Apple has licensing agreements with Microsoft for Windows Phone OS. Windows Phone OS looks completely different from iOS and Apple doesn't appear to have any legal issues with its existence. If Android OS goes under, Windows Phone will likely takes it place (esp. because its from Microsoft) and Apple could easily foresee that.
I think this really is an issue of Apple feeling that it has a right to the grid app menu, etc. etc. design. If somebody can think of a smartphone with a GUI that's a radical departure from the iPhone, Apple would likely not sue.
I hate how everyone suddenly becomes a legal expert in the Apple-Samsung courtroom battle scandal. I 'Apple's patents are invalid!' 'Judge Koh acted improperly!' 'The jury is biased!' 'Apple is trying to patent a square with round corners!' Seriously? There are gross oversimplifications of both the patents and evidence in this thread. For example, did you know that the Apple design patent for supposedly a 'square with round corners' is over 40 pages long?
The criticism against the jury is particularly low. Samsung had as much a place in selecting them as Apple. Furthermore, none of us really have any idea what the jury saw or the arguments made and the jury is only there to help the legal system, often from their own free time. The jury members didn't say to themselves, "Let's volunteer to sit in a three month trial so we could reach a biased verdict and have people scrutinize our occupations and point out how stupid we are!"
Apple thinks they have a right to a lot of stuff that is stupid for anyone to think they have a right to.
What I said is true for Apple products though (and the discussion it was connected to was a discussion about Apple products). As far as I'm aware they don't distinguish like my Droid did, which had both built-in and SD card.
EDIT: all that is to say, I agree with you for Android, but I don't think that's the case for why Apple does what it does. There was a big stink about the quality of the user experience for betas for one of the recent iOS upgrades that caused them to, IIRC, turn off some RAM/etc. intensive-features in order to get it to work smoothly on that phone. This may have been the 3G, but my memory is failing me on the specifics.
The explosion that... destroyed our city, razed our home, and turned our fields into wasteland was nothing compared to what was now happening to those who survived.
Depends on the phone, ein, some Androids distinguish between "on phone" and "on SD" with how their storage works. I believe that's what they're referencing. Not that any phones since the first generation Androids when I first started getting familiar with them have come remotely close to being space constrained. [wife's is going on 4 years old now, 4.1.4 has her at 26% of her "on phone" storage used - and note, 3.whatever it was before was 22%]
Did you know that the reference in the case to that ENTIRE PATENT was three items in the entire 40 pages? Of which one of the three claimed infractions was the 'square with round corners'. [Which takes up almost an entire paragraph in the patent text I've seen for just that description - but most of the extra details beyond that are ACTUALLY COMPLETELY DIFFERENT - i.e. that paragraph talks about the qualities and resolution of the glass, and then a later paragraph that also references back to it mentions the qualities of the unit's case]
Just because a patent is long, doesn't mean that someone is infracting on every item, Christ.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I think you meant some variation of "infringe"; but, yes, you're right. Also, a patent isn't a foil for other firms from doing something similar - at least not without these messy suits.
Oh? I guess the more you know then.
I don't see how some of it's relevant or not an evasion; whatever, really.
I'm tired[, though].
Most arguments I have personally entertained have boiled down to "but a cheap Windows box does the same thing" in what amounts to "why buy a Mercedes when a Toyota is a car." You are paying extra for the brand and the quality implied in the name of the firm. Some people don't care, a computer is a computer and a car is a car, right?
There is value in the stability that Apple provides, since their in-house product development is based on mating components together and making them work well. I haven't had any major non resolvable problems in the ten plus years as an Apple usage. This means, the computer is stable and useable, but mostly non customizable as an end product. (Exception for the Mac Pro - which is probably where you would be for heavy duty graphics or sound tasks.)
Before the iPhone, I changed phones an average of once a year. I don't personally care about Samsung and their phones.
Last year, I was considered for a position as a sound tech for a venue with an expansive PA system. The first question I was asked in the interview was how familiar and how much experience I had using Apple programs and equipment (Logic Studio, Mainstage Pro etc).
Big Thanks to Xeno for sig art <3.
My argument was that because of the length and complexity of the patent (as well as the fact that most of us are not legal experts); individuals on this thread should reserve judgment regarding the details of the trial.
He just posed himself as an expert in the jury room and they followed his lead.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390
Doesn't take any expertise to see that its going to have to be retried between a foreman that had no reason being on an impartial jury and went out of his way to play activist with them.
Outside of the problems with the foreman, I'd agree however - I only discuss those items because of their absurdity as they're currently understood in the public consciousness.
And on infract vs infringe - I've heard both used for it in context - but infringe is certainly more widely used. It's possible I was just following someone else's error using a different word for sake of variety though
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I might go for a Windows phone. I really like the UI a lot.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Tumblr : http://www.tumblr.com/blog/mrtj120
If you want to patent a process for splicing genes, I've got no problem with that - same with patenting tagging them, or finding them, etc.
But patenting a gene itself, a naturally occurring protein, and thereby preventing others from researching that without paying licensing fees (and denying licensing), falls into the same category as patenting coal, or iron, or any other naturally occurring substance.
Yes, it's more sophisticated and requires more work to find, but chopping up a field of research and development over patent rights on things that aren't even products is an abuse of patent law. If you're not developing something for the purpose of selling it, it's patent trolling at best.
Similarly, software patents should be on the bits of software that are actually developments - the OS and its features are the bits of the iPhone that are most important and hardest to replicate. Functions like pinch to zoom and rounded corners are spurious patents at best - they can be replicated logically and easily on other platforms in other programming languages without infringing on proprietary tech like the synchronization features between various Apple products. They've been used for years before the iPhone existed (clam shells were using round corners before RIM).
It's a matter of trademarks and similarity, not patents - "IT LOOKS LIKE AN APPLE PRODUCT!". They aren't lifting the OS from Apple, they aren't "borrowing" large chunks of code. The hardware is all Samsung and the OS is Android. Patenting a little thing in software is like patenting a phillips head screw - lots of people will use it and develop it independently because it's an obvious and easy to do function. You patent what it bolts into, the OS, and whatever hardware you developed for the product.
Not sure how often the "Hey, we saw this happen naturally, let's just make it happen more often" thing is allowed to be patented (or if his was approved, as stated that was the last time we were in touch, not seen/spoken since) - but clearly at least some people try to patent on such grounds.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I'm referring to DNA research where patents are placed on genes as they've been sequenced, not post any kind of direct research or development. If you tinker with something, like Monsanto with GM crop variants that use spliced DNA (golden rice), that's patent worthy work. If you just sequence a bunch of DNA or RNA and patent it so you can come back and work on it later, that's where the line should be drawn.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
There is no way that a judge should pull 21 phones from the american market simply because apple can't compete.
I hope they win the appeal. it is going to stink of US users can't get a choice of smart phones.
if that happens i guess i will go with HTC but then again i am sure they are next on the suit list. of course apple still is going after android for some non-sense stuff.
if apple wants to compete then i don't know how about making a product that competes.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum