It's always hilarious to read about which way they think the BBC is biased. Just in this article alone the BBC has been accused of being both "biased towards the left" and "biased towards the Tories".

I think that might suggest more about the viewer than the organisation - in other words, that it is actually pretty balanced overall.

They are legally obliged to care about it due to the way they are funded.

What's your point? Does that make it less valid than a lawsuit over a method patent?

I suppose if you attribute lesser value to the design of a product or the company's service and trade marks than you do on the method behind creating them, but that's a very naive view. I am assuming that's not your angle.

How was it used offensively? The very nature of a design patent is that if someone infringes on it you can sue them. There's no "offense" there from the holder, merely reactive defence. So the answer is no one uses a design patent offensively, everyone who has one can defend it if another party infringes on it.

And no, "mostly" the sneering is that they have a design patent at all, not the way in which they defend it. Are you reading the same slashdot? Maybe beta mode changes the meanings of everything as well as the layout.

From the claims in the patent (branch prediction) I assume Apple thought they were covered, since it's hardly a new kid on the block in processor terms. As it turns out, they sued Intel for this same issue 5 years ago - not sure how that went.

Why would they be?

It's not a requirement that the fruits of your research be automatically public domain if you have a source of public funds. Tax money is not the only source of income for these sorts of research groups and spin out companies.

They frequently offer very favourable terms for non-commercial use, and make the meat of the licensing revenue on commercial interest. The purpose of doing it this way is to flow money back into the university. If it was all public domain then companies (like Apple) could just use the product of the research for no input. This way the university makes that tax money go further.

They have a design patent on the shape of the packaging and the look of the device because that is how business works. Ford have a design patent on the way the Mustang looks. Coke have a design patent on the way a coke bottle looks. A design patent is an incredibly common thing and it is subtly different from a method patent (such as the processor one that Apple has infringed).

It seems on slashdot, however, that Apple is apparently held to a different standard about how it conducts business - somehow a design patent on the iPhone is bad, yet the design patent Google holds on the Google Glass, or the Nexus, or the Chomecast, or Ford's design patent on the Mustang, or the Fiesta, or the Focus and Samsung's design patent on their TVs, and Galaxy line of smartphones or Coke's design patent on the Coca Cola bottle are all ok.

But no, Apple isn't allowed to have design patents - that somehow makes them evil.

Lost the charger for your trimmer?

That itchy neckbeard is clearly affecting your mood.

Your order of straw has arrived for the construction of your argument.

Who said I didn't believe the government was heavily involved in domestic spying? That has been obvious since the 50's. It has nothing to do with the level of paranoia expressed from believing that your fingerprint can be reverse engineered from a hash stored in your phone.

Can you recover my 35 character password after it's been salted and hashed?

Of course it's grasping at straws - it's making fun of your entire straw man argument.

Also, you have it wrong on the iPad Pro - Apple aren't competing with Samsung there, they're competing with Microsoft. The Surface Pro is the reason Apple made the iPad Pro. Samsung had nothing to do with it. You should at least try to have a small understanding of Apple's competitors before trying to look smart. Of course, you did it because you're trying to use it to bolster your "Apple stole the stylus idea from Samsung" argument so I can see why you'd want to distort the truth, it just makes you look transparently silly.

And as for "working on the watch long before mac rumours suggested it" you're right - they probably were, but how does what one rumour site say relate to what Apple is doing? I'm struggling to see how what a non-affliated website says in any way is proof that Samsung was working on a smartwatch before Apple was. You'll have to help me there, the logic escapes me. More Hate Mist of Fact Obscurity I suspect.

Samsung's trump card here is the tech that allows it to work with credit card readers that don't have NFC tech (although it also works with those obviously) by using a device that works via the mag stripe reader.

They're hoping that there's going to be enough of those terminals still around to gain some traction, although they chose an odd time to release it since those types of terminals are being phased out due to the big shift in fraud liability in the US. They will be around for some time to come, however.

Other than that, it's effectively the same as Google Wallet.

They were both developing a watch at the same time. Samsung released early because they thought Apple was close to being ready, and as a result came out what that hilariously laughable Gear that was virtually unusable it also wasn't "several years" before Apple's watch hit market. Surprise surprise, by the time Apple is ready to launch Samsung has improved the Gear into a market ready product. Who knew that you actually need development time?!

Apple's first tablet was not the first tablet ever by a long shot - and they never claimed it was. You can thank Microsoft for that one, but it was the first tablet that people wanted to buy.

Oh, and what device with a stylus did Samsung release that predates the Newton? I must have forgotten that one.

Man, and people say Apple users are subject to a reality distortion field! I guess the corresponding one from the "other side" is the Hate Mist of Fact Obscurity.

Large phone screens I think - that was arguably Samsung's big play and it paid off (people seem to love them).

Apple realised that the demand was there after those giant Galaxies started selling really well.

Your tinfoil hat is askew. Careful! The mind control microwaves might get through!

Zinc oxide is a natural compound. Plenty of it in the environment.