The US patent system is badly broken, at least as far as software patents go. We all know that around here. Usually, the cases that make the tech news involve these Patent Trolls suing large companies (Apple, Google, MS), heck, even SCO v Red Hat. However, here we have an example of "the little guy" getting hurt by a software patent infringement case for an obvious patent.

This case may be a good example to put in front of Congress to show them how completely broken the current system. First, the inventor wasn't harmed by these "in app purchases", it's a patent holding company trolling. Second, the patent is obvious, overly broad and should never have been approved. Third, the patent in question shows the abuses of the current continuation system here in the US. And forth, it's Joe Sixpack getting sued! Nothing works up Congress and the media like an attack on the little guy / corporation.

A lot of comments here seem to focus on what could have been done differently. Obviously, hindsight is 20/20. That being said, I have a question that I haven't seen asked or answered yet. Why are the spent fuel rods stored in the same buildings as the reactors?

In the event of losing power, not only do the active rods need to be dealt with, but the spent rods have to be monitored and maintained in the same facility. Wouldn't transporting the spent rods to a less densely populated area that was specifically designed to handle their storage make more sense? It seems that the problems right now getting the reactors under control is being hampered by the severe risks of those containment pools for the spent rods draining.

Uh, ok, can't the same be said of Republicans just the other way around? They're pro-big, old school military (almost 50% of the budget), illegal wiretapping, and they'll take away any of your freedoms, handing them over the the federal gov in the name of "national security" (patriot act for example). But government run health care is socialism?

It works both ways and it's bs from both parties, but the overwhelming majority of the double-talk seems to come from the right in this country.

See this crash test of a Smart for Two and a Mercedes C Class.. The C Class rated good, the Smart rated poor.

iTunes has always suffered from a not-quite-native feel on Mac OS and that's disappointing. Version 10 is definitely a step in the wrong direction. Besides Finder, it's probably the single most used application on a Mac considering all the purposes it serves.

In Mac OS 10.7 I'd love to see a user interface redesign that obeys Apple's own human interface guidelines and removes some of the serious bloat. For instance, why does the music application handle synchronizing with the iOS devices? I understand this single application paradigm keeps things simpler in some respects for cross platform support, but really, why bother porting the interface? I agree with a previous poster that the back end(s) for the music player, synching, etc. should be maintained as cross-platform libraries and native front ends should be created for Mac OS and Windows. This would probably reduce bloat in the long run and make it easier for Apple to integrate synch behavior into the OS on the Mac but keep it in iTunes for the Windows application.

It could be a lot worse for Nokia if Apple is able to prove that the licensing fees Nokia requested from Apple for essential GSM patents turns out to be unreasonable. Nokia does hold GSM patents, which as part of a standard are required to be licensed under "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" terms. If Apple can prove that Nokia requested unreasonable terms from Apple for the GSM patents, Nokia may be in trouble with the ETSI.

If anything good comes out of this for future patent encumbered standards, it could be that the courts may be left to define what fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory actually means. As Engadget states in their coverage:

In reality FRAND is nebulous and undefined, with almost no specific rules for determining what a "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" license actually is. source

It would be nice if these cases were looked at as clear reason why we really need patent reform, but I doubt that's going to happen any time soon.

I think it was obvious from the start that the Palm acquisition was all about WebOS and tablets, not smart phones. Anyone else see this purchase and cancelation of Slate as a huge setback for Microsoft? It's basically a public admission by HP that Windows can't cut as a tablet OS.

HP just broke their direct dependence on Microsoft for an emerging market for a good reason: Microsoft's failure to produce an innovative user interface for tablets.

Sorry, but I can't believe the incredible amount of stupid comments posted here on this article. Jobs basically announces he's not dying and Apple's shares jump 4%. Apple isn't a one man operation and Wall Street knows that. It's probably safe to assume that every single innovation that's come out of Apple in the past 11 years hasn't been dumped straight from Steve's brain either.

Steve's marketing genius and patient leadership are the real value he provides to Apple, and losing his leadership is what makes investors nervous. As some suggest, Apple pulling the Stevenote from MacWorld is an attempt to address the former, but without a plan to address the latter, Wall Street will still freak out at the possibility of Apple losing Jobs.

In a world where IT companies are constantly diversifying their offerings, rushing products to market, and generally playing a bizarre game of throw 50 products at the market and see which ones stick, Apple is playing its cards close to its chest - and has been successfully since Job's return. It's not chasing emerging markets (Netbooks), it's not trying to get into online advertising (Microsoft) and hell it's not even doing things that outsiders think it should be doing to expand its business. Apple's stock value is based on the perception that is has a master plan. This is what makes Apple unique. And this is the value of Steve Jobs.

Solaris 10 and Open Solaris have the concept of zones and containers. The computer runs a single Solaris instance but can run isolated process trees in zones which share common libraries but can be updated for dependencies independently. The containers concept (in conjunction with zones) allows a fair share scheduler to guarantee a service level for each allocated zone (CPU/memory sharing, etc). IMHO, must better than Virtuozzo, VMware and Xen.