tooltalk

72 ms·

691.
by tooltalk 9y ago
this must be a sign that we are in another tech bubble.
692.
by tooltalk 9y ago
and why would North Korea attack Australia?
693.
by tooltalk 9y ago
in what way is this patent-trolling? Qualcomm is not a NPE. It singlehandedly created a wireless network standard and continues to be a significant contributor to mobile/wireless technologies used by pretty much everyone even today.
694.
by tooltalk 9y ago
My co-workers (SWE) used to work at Amazon and their wages were fairly competitive (ie, market rate). I'm not too sure about non-technical, warehouse jobs, but I would expect those jobs to be much lower. How much do you think they sho
695.
by tooltalk 9y ago
the full title of the article is "Google's A.I. has nearly twice the IQ of Siri, study says — but a six-year-old child is smarter than both."
696.
by tooltalk 9y ago
Well, I noticed that CentOS/RHEL distro's have quite old versions of everything, but Debian stable doesn't seem all that cutting edge either. I find myself reaching out to backports and even sid to get what I need at times.
697.
by tooltalk 9y ago
wonder if Backblaze is buying directly from HDD manufacturers or wholesalers and how much volume discount?
698.
by tooltalk 9y ago
I think that's generally true for all things in life. Like Chris Rock once said, if you have to go around tell everyone that you have a big d*ck, chances are you don't.
699.
by tooltalk 9y ago
Sure, 1) can you cite your source? Apple is known for their sleazy wordsmithing and, having followed their lawsuits last several years, throwing completely unsubstantiated accusation at their opponent (see my comment about a 2012 USITC cas
700.
by tooltalk 9y ago
@rgbrenner: First, Qualcomm chipset also comes with IPs owned by Samsung and a slew of other wireless patent holders who crossed-licensed theirs with Qualcomm. Samsung and LG, along with Qualcomm, are the largest contributors of LTE SEP&#x
701.
by tooltalk 9y ago
Your source and your point being? First, Apple doesn't directly pay Qualcomm. Apple has refused to take Qualcomm license, though I'm pretty sure Qualcomm would love to have Apple as their customer and start collecting license fee
702.
by tooltalk 9y ago
Hey, don't get mad at me, bro because Bloomberg thinks Apple a crook. That's Bloomberg's wording, not mine. The same article also mentions that JY Lee of Samsung is convicted of corruption in South Korea, having colluded wit
703.
by tooltalk 9y ago
I'm not sure where you are getting it from, but according to ETSI IPR Guide, Section 1.11 ( http://www.etsi.org/images/files/IPR/etsi-guide-on-ipr.pdf ): The purpose of the ETSI IPR Policy is to facili
704.
by tooltalk 9y ago
No. Qualcomm's patented features do drive market demand (or add value) for mobile devices, including that of Apple's. That's why Qualcomm can ask a percentage of the entire device. This is not so with MacBook Pro -- unless Q
705.
by tooltalk 9y ago
no, a patent holder CAN NOT charge whatever they want. Apple tried it during their quest to destroy Android (Samsung) a few years back, but most of their utility claims were "apportioned" accordingly. Apple was able to gorge the
706.
by tooltalk 9y ago
@sgift: no, there is some definition of what FRAND is. It's just that Apple doesn't like it. In once instance, Apple's own FRAND expert came out testifying against Apple (in a 2012 ITC case involving Samsung and Apple). And
707.
by tooltalk 9y ago
Yes, Apple has made the same assertion against every FRAND patent holders for many, many years-- without zero evidence. This time around, it's slightly different in that Apple successfully engineered a scheme in which KFTC convicted Q
708.
by tooltalk 9y ago
Intel Infineon has been around quite a while. Apple's lawsuit comes only after Apple as the article correctly notes conspired with Samsung to force the Korean regulators to go after Qualcomm. There are other backdrops, such as the SC
709.
by tooltalk 9y ago
In this particular industry, it is. It depends on whether qualcomm's patented features "drive the market demand" for the finished goods. So in mobile devices, Qualcomm's wireless patents do deservingly get per device r
710.
by tooltalk 9y ago
and Apple agreed to pay Qualcomm's FRAND rates, didn't it? Like Apple's 30% cut known to the public, Qualcomm's FRAND licensing rates are published time to time and Apple agreed to abide by it. Apple pays according to
711.
by tooltalk 9y ago
in what ways did Qualcomm violate FRAND terms? Nokia, Ericsson and pretty much everyone else uses the entire device as a royalty basis. This is a fairly standard industry practice -- and has been so for decades. While Qualcomm is the larg
712.
Shake Shack to open cashless, kiosk-only location in New York City(cnbc.com)
1 points by tooltalk 9y ago|1 comments
713.
by tooltalk 9y ago
well, most of the federal spending goes to maintaining our welfare and warfare state. Contrary to common myth, infrastructure cost is a tiny fraction of the federal budget.
714.
by tooltalk 9y ago
I second oh_sigh's view on this matter. As FP notes, http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/04/26/kim-jong-un-is-a-survivo... , they are doing what they doing to survive. annex what? I don't think China&#x2
715.
by tooltalk 9y ago
uggh.. "This site can’t be reached"
716.
by tooltalk 9y ago
My understanding is that NYPD stopped going after frivolous violations after the Eric Garner incident a few years ago. I myself was ticketed ($40) once for wearing headphones on both ears, but I haven't seen cops enforcing such rules
717.
by tooltalk 9y ago
Sure, HTC had a couple of seminal 4G patents that forced Apple to cross-license back in 2012, but I'm not sure if such legal protection is of any use for Google today. Most of Apple's utility and design patents asserted against H
718.
by tooltalk 9y ago
just wait til the Apple 3 comes out.
719.
by tooltalk 9y ago
Not sure if that's the case. Samsung was always developing Android and Windows based mobile devices -- though Android was selling in much larger quantity. Both Moto and HTC were/are way past their prime and I personally think Goo
720.
by tooltalk 9y ago
another asinine commentary from ARS writers.

More ›