taligent

83 ms·

901.
by taligent 14y ago
The Groklaw coverage was late, pretty average in format and biaised. Why would I upvote that submission in favour of better ones ?
902.
by taligent 14y ago
True but it isn't central to the case. The Samsung counterclaims really centered around the patent exhaustion issue. If the jury found that it did not apply in this case Apple would clearly have infringed.
903.
by taligent 14y ago
But since you're not accusing Koh and have no evidence then basically what you wrote is irrelevant to this case.
904.
by taligent 14y ago
Firstly, it isn't an ad hominem attack. I said the comment was dumb and ignorant. I didn't say he was. Secondly, the comment is taken of context because shawnee keeps editing and deleting comments. Thirdly, what is worse than having inflamm
905.
by taligent 14y ago
Patent exhaustion. Qualcomm had a license to Samsung patents which is the component supplier that Apple was using.
906.
by taligent 14y ago
No. Apple's intention was to put as much of a gap between what the iPhone looks and feels like and what Android looks and feels like. Whether that stifles competition is a separate issue.
907.
by taligent 14y ago
On what legal basis ? And surely that wouldn't be the impartial thing to do, right ?
908.
by taligent 14y ago
How did Koh not interpret the law impartially ? The fact is that the Samsung lawyers failed to convince an independent jury of the general public. Koh had very little to do with it.
909.
by taligent 14y ago
I take it you couldn't be bothered to understand the case. Samsung lost its counterclaims due to patent exhaustion which common sense suggests they deserved to lose. You can thank Intel for siding with Apple on this one.
910.
by taligent 14y ago
Looking forward to plenty of truly dumb, ignorant comments like this in the future. You do know that a jury made this decision, right ?
911.
by taligent 14y ago
Absolutely. This is wonderful news for those that care about standards.
912.
by taligent 14y ago
They don't need to. This sent a big warning to all the Android OEMs not to copy the iPhone. And that is what Apple wanted. Not money.
913.
by taligent 14y ago
Except that it's NOT a highly technical issue. It's mainly a trade dress and UI look & feel issue. So the general public are absolutely the right people.
914.
by taligent 14y ago
No. Apple won. Pretty clearly.
915.
by taligent 14y ago
What's shocking is your complete ignorance of how the legal system works.
916.
by taligent 14y ago
What on earth are you talking about ? Juries around the world are compromised of ordinary people.
917.
by taligent 14y ago
Google "Linode Security". This year they had a major security incident which resulted in a number of their customers being compromised. We still don't know exactly what happened, what they did to fix it or whether it will happen again. And
918.
by taligent 14y ago
Depends how much money you have. Unless you have fluctuating scaling needs I would stick with a VPS or dedicated. You will get a lot more 'bang for your buck'. Just avoid companies like GoDaddy, Linode etc. Have a look around: http://webho
919.
by taligent 14y ago
Facebook had revenue last quarter of $1.18 billion. Pretty sure they know how to make money.
920.
by taligent 14y ago
Because: (a) Developers don't make policy decisions ; (b) In enterprise environments it takes a lot of effort to get an open source project approved ; (c) We should be actively encouraging more openness and transparency in government. So I
921.
by taligent 14y ago
It does appear that the patents that Apple is guilty of infringing are actually standards essential (FRAND) which does not bode well for anyone.
922.
by taligent 14y ago
Why ? It is distinctive, unique and definitely non-intuitive. We have had scrollable lists on the desktop for decades and not once has anyone designed the entire scrollview bounce back when you reached the top/bottom. It's also not the only
923.
by taligent 14y ago
They didn't ignore it. They answered your question. You just didn't like the answer. At least be intellectually honest.
924.
by taligent 14y ago
Wow. Just wow. How about the fact he is contributing and trying to make the government better and more open instead of whinging like an immature, sanctimonious dick. I have 100x more respect for people that at least try.
925.
by taligent 14y ago
I'm well aware that in app purchases exist. And absolutely nothing is stopping you from offering payments from a website in a UIWebView. So not really sure what your point is ?
926.
by taligent 14y ago
Just because you disagree with his opinion doesn't mean he is wrong.
927.
by taligent 14y ago
You know it takes talent to write a statement that is so completely wrong. Others have addressed the JS point but Apple originally wanted developers to only build web apps and it took a lot of convincing to get them to change their mind. Al
928.
by taligent 14y ago
They also need to set a precedent Samsung has a LONG history of knocking off the competition's products in particular from Sony, Panasonic etc. And I guess Apple is just trying to make sure they don't end up being the next company to fall f
929.
by taligent 14y ago
5th search result for Closure in Google: http://freegeek.in/blog/2011/06/10-clojure-one-liners/ Tell me that is not Perl all over again.
930.
by taligent 14y ago
You are 100% correct. When you give developers a new set of tools they are inevitably going to use them. Some will understand and use them well. The overwhelming majority won't. And in an enterprise environment where you have a higher turno

More ›