I think it's pretty clear at this point that Samsung thinks as much of software patents as Google does — that is to say, not much at all. Citing this movie as prior art for the tablet form factor seems to me to be as silly, if not more so, than Google's recent patent bid of US$pi billion. I'm not saying that Samsung shouldn't be so silly; I'm saying this should tip off any reasonable person that something is seriously wrong with the patent system when electronics companies are pushed to these lengths to defend their products against trolls (and here I am including Apple).
Well, that's why I said there are already community colleges for those purposes, and those seem to work just fine I think (though I wonder why more people aren't enrolling now).
I was going to post something about how the auto industry has been losing manufacturing jobs thanks to robotics and those won't be replaced, but then I saw the post above talking about how almost every single one of those jobs has been replaced by a higher-skilled jobs dealing with the creation and maintenance of those automated machines. I agree, but then what does happen to the lower-skilled workers who get displaced? I'm just wondering if there shouldn't be a sort of "GI Bill" for such displaced workers. Oh wait, there are already community and state colleges for that reason. Right?
Anyway, from the comments, I take it that $TechDirtAuthor is basically saying that the government can only create jobs when it's not actually trying too hard to create jobs for the sake of creating jobs/stimulating the economy. Is this correct? Because if it is, I think the original post needs to be edited to make this clearer, because I disagreed with the post when I originally read it, but the comments from $TechDirtAuthor helped me turn around to agreement.
I'm reminded of two PhDComics: one about how grad school enrollment tracks unemployment, and the other about how professors appear near you when you least need them.
Good on them for putting pressure on patent trolls. It's great that momentum is finally building in the public (as far as we can see) to do something meaningful about patent trolling.
"MS doesn't really do the patent trolling thing"
Hahahahahahaha. Take a look at Microsoft extracting money from Samsung and other companies over Android for unspecified patents. How ridiculous is that?
Re: Re: Data Retention/Right to be Forgotten Online
I understand the first part of your statement, but I feel the second part contradicts that. Yes, you shouldn't be able to wipe something off the Internet on a whim, just like you can't wipe out what you've already said in print or by your own voice (unless your name is Joseph Stalin), but doesn't that mean that anyone can and should have the right to use what you have said against you, even [dun dun dun] the government? I mean, I agree that the government shouldn't be able to force companies to keep unnecessary data beyond the length of time necessary for taxation purposes. (Then again, is there anything particularly wrong with it imposing upper limits on how long Google can keep its data?) But suppose it never ends up forcing data retention laws. Is there anything that is so sacrilegious about the government using against you information that has been retained independently of government legislation, versus any other non-government entity doing the same?
$TechDirtAuthors, I'm a little confused here. (I'm not saying that to troll, I'm genuinely confused.) If you're concerned about data retention laws, why/how are you simultaneously equally concerned about laws that give rights for people to be "forgotten" online? Aren't they sort of like two hands of the same body?
OK, I *SWEAR* the first time I saw it I saw "Marcus Carab" as the author. I really should stop posting so late... (Then again, unfortunately, I don't have much of a choice.)
Wyden for president! I consider myself to be slightly left-of-center (the center, of course, is moving farther to the right every day), but I think Wyden's the only guy who gets *anything*.
Markets determine what happens, but it also seems like the credit-rating agencies have enough power to hugely influence what the markets eventually determine. No, it wasn't the downgrade that caused this, but I do think it was general panic caused by the downgrade that caused this.
Sorry, that's my mistake. I posted the comment kinda late, and then I saw it was written by Mr. Carab, not Mr. Masnick, AFTER I posted. It's just that I see posts by Mr. Masnick so often that sometimes I get complacent and assume he writes everything on this site (although Messers. Cushing and Geigner's posts are easily recognizable without me needing to see the author names), so I apologize for that mix-up. Anyway, the rest of my comment still stands, considering that while the articles written by different authors have slightly different styles and takes on things, they mostly represent a uniform viewpoint, as far as I've seen. Maybe from now on if I want to address the author, I should use the generic "$TechDirtAuthor".
Mr. Masnick, usually I agree with you close to 100%, but this time, I have to say not really. I mean, sure, often the model of bumping kids up for individual subjects (which does happen frequently, despite your assertions to the contrary) does work, but sometimes it doesn't. I'll give you an example: in 6th grade, I was in a math class that taught essentially 8th grade math. Our class was made of 13 6th graders (including me), and 12 5th graders and 1 4th grader who came from various feeder elementary schools. After about 2 months, the 4th grader dropped out of that class and went back to take a lower level (by a year) math class offered at the elementary school. Why? The kid (1) wasn't emotionally/psychologically prepared for learning math on his own at such an advanced level and (2) this issue was compounded by the fact that he was visibly the youngest in the class and had no one the same age/grade level as him in the class. While I do agree that in many instances the push to have kids of all the same age together is overrated, I don't think you should brush off the teachers' concerns lightly.
Sorry, I replied to your reply a bit late, and I forgot to apologize for not reading and comprehending (yes, I need reading comprehension lessons too :P) that this article was about Australia. So now, I apologize for that mistake.
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/ext_link.php?rid=154200 There's the source. Granted, that article unfortunately doesn't cite any visible sources to back up its claims (aside from referring to some magical "study", but that may be because there aren't any links to that study as of yet), but I see that you've totally misread my statement. I didn't say that Android doesn't have the majority of the market; what I did say was that over half of current Android users plan to buy an iPhone for their next smartphone, and for that reason, Apple has no fears. Note: I say this as a fan of Android, Linux, and open source stuff. So please, get some glasses and some lessons in reading comprehension.
And you know what? I read a report yesterday saying that over 50% of both Android and Blackberry users plan to buy an iPhone as their next smartphone. So really, Android phones are almost like aspirational intermediates to iPhones, which is only helping Apple's business. So Apple has nothing to fear from Samsung, it seems; if Apple is that scared, that only further legitimizes Samsung's position in the marketplace.
1. I think the judge should throw out this case because anyway, the term "ice age" was in common currency long before the movie Ice Age came out, so 20th Century Fox has no more rights to that term than this game company does (and moreover, this game company is being creative with the rhyming, whereas 20th Century Fox just used the original term, unaltered). I mean, what's next, trademarking the name "Madagascar" and suing the inhabitants of that nation?
2. There is still hope, because once, LexisNexis tried to get an injunction against Toyota over the use of the name "Lexus" when Lexus was first introduced; an appeals court ruled against LexisNexis (which should be obvious considering Lexus still exists today).
But what about Android (with reference to Microsoft)?
That's cool that Google is doing this, but the fact that Microsoft is extorting Samsung over alleged patents covering Android technologies still sickens me; so when is Google actually going to stand up to Microsoft, Apple, et al regarding this patent extortion over Android?
How? If you read the written version (I wasn't able to hear the MP3), you'll see the IV guys, in response to a question on why they have no plans to bring any of their "products" to the market at any time, admit that inventors invent for the sake of inventing cool new stuff without worrying about patents at all. Granted, those people are funded by a lot of money coming from patent extortion, but unless the costs to start are truly insurmountable, people will continue authoring new works and inventing and innovating new things, intellectual property be damned.
On the post: Samsung Cites 2001: A Space Odyssey As Prior Art For Tablet Design
On the post: Chorus Of Mainstream Press Saying The Patent System Is Broken Gets Louder
Re:
On the post: Politicians, Innovation & The Paradox Of Job Creation
Re: Re:
On the post: Politicians, Innovation & The Paradox Of Job Creation
Anyway, from the comments, I take it that $TechDirtAuthor is basically saying that the government can only create jobs when it's not actually trying too hard to create jobs for the sake of creating jobs/stimulating the economy. Is this correct? Because if it is, I think the original post needs to be edited to make this clearer, because I disagreed with the post when I originally read it, but the comments from $TechDirtAuthor helped me turn around to agreement.
I'm reminded of two PhDComics: one about how grad school enrollment tracks unemployment, and the other about how professors appear near you when you least need them.
On the post: Fark Gets Patent Troll To Settle For Nothing... Did Reddit Pay Up?
On the post: Apple Wins Europe-Wide Blockade Of Samsung Tablets; Guess Which Tablet Apple Is Scared Of Most?
Re: Can of worms
Hahahahahahaha. Take a look at Microsoft extracting money from Samsung and other companies over Android for unspecified patents. How ridiculous is that?
On the post: When Everything You've Ever Said Can & Will Be Used Against You By Anyone... Forever
Re: Re: Data Retention/Right to be Forgotten Online
On the post: When Everything You've Ever Said Can & Will Be Used Against You By Anyone... Forever
Data Retention/Right to be Forgotten Online
On the post: When Innovation Meets the Old Guard
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why President Obama Has The 'Jobs' Equation Backwards; Supporting Patent Reform That Limits Jobs
On the post: Dear Everyone: Stock Market Problems Are Not Directly Due To S&P Downgrade
On the post: When Innovation Meets the Old Guard
Re: Re:
On the post: When Innovation Meets the Old Guard
On the post: Apple Continues To Scream To The World How Competitive Samsung's Tablet Is By Getting It Banned In Australia
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Apple Continues To Scream To The World How Competitive Samsung's Tablet Is By Getting It Banned In Australia
Re: Re:
On the post: Apple Continues To Scream To The World How Competitive Samsung's Tablet Is By Getting It Banned In Australia
On the post: 20th Century Fox Claims 'Dice Age' Game Sounds Too Much Like Ice Age Movie
2. There is still hope, because once, LexisNexis tried to get an injunction against Toyota over the use of the name "Lexus" when Lexus was first introduced; an appeals court ruled against LexisNexis (which should be obvious considering Lexus still exists today).
On the post: Canadian Officials Censoring Scientists Whose Results They Don't Like
That's It
On the post: Google Finally Speaking Up About Problems With Patent System
But what about Android (with reference to Microsoft)?
On the post: When Patents Attack: How Patents Are Destroying Innovation In Silicon Valley
IV actually admits patents are useless
Next >>