I wasn't disingenuous at all. Kodak started the suits (Jan. 2010). Then, as I said, "Apple and HTC sued each other (Apple first)". I'm not defending Apple, I was just correcting the post above implying that Apple started all the suits - they didn't. Besides, Motorola (the company this story is about) went after Apple before Apple went after Motorola.

I meant to include in my previous reply that this particular patent win for Motorola was related to the October 2010 suit against Apple, precisely the one that started this particular battle (i.e., it was not Apple who started the war).

Motorola sued Apple first. They sued before Apple started suing Android manufacturers. I'm not defending Apple or Microsoft or attacking Motorola, it's just that Apple did not start the smartphone patent wars.

Kodak sued Apple in January 2010. Then Apple and HTC sued each other (Apple first) around April 2010. Things started escalating. Motorola sued Apple Oct. 8, 2010 and then Apple countersued a few weeks later. Check out this link for an infographic of the suits (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2399098,00.asp).
Also, this article for the Motorola v. Apple suit: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-10-06/tech/29972735_1_motorola-patents-motorola-mobility-patent-infringement.

If anyone started the wars, it was Kodak. Apple has played their part in escalating the war but as far as Apple and Motorola are concerned, Motorola started that particular battle.

"Yeah but in the minds of conservative"

Way to wrongly stereotype all conservatives. This is an example of an extreme minority of conservatives in one part of the country. PETA is the liberal equivalent of these conservatives; I'm sure most liberals wouldn't want to be lumped in with PETA or some of the extreme greens or animal rights activists.

The LDS Church sued, as you said, over copyright. It had nothing to do with trying to "silence critics with lawsuits". It was about protecting copyrighted materials that were used incorrectly by a couple who spent all their time attacking the LDS Church (Gerald and Sandra Tanner); seriously, that is all that couple did (does? I can't remember if they are still alive or not). The LDS Church simply ignores critics (some individual church members will respond though). It is a doctrine of the church to let people worship how, what, or where they may (that includes worshiping nothing or attacking the LDS Church). The Church will on occasion respond to critics but will not try to silence them.

I've seen this same switch in my neuroscience/neuroimaging field (but over the past 4 years). For a long time neuroimaging post-processing was all Windows. Then it went to Linux (mostly). Now it is almost all Linux and OS X (with some Windows). At conferences or training meetings, most people seem to be running Macs. They have all the benefits of Linux/Unix plus, as you wrote, all the benefits of OS X (plus it's trivial to also run Windows on Macs {yes, that's true for most boxes running Linux}). I keep thinking I should be using Linux more than I do but I have no reason to when I have all the tools I need from Linux in OS X and I don't have fiddle around just to get Linux working flawlessly on my computer (some distros do "just work" now, mostly).

Maybe they still mutate. Maybe they are mutant aliens. Maybe they mutated into turtle-looking creatures. Alien and mutant are not mutually exclusive.

"as much as I think Michael Bay is possibly the most inept and visually retarded filmmaker of all time"

That's giving so many other directors way too much credit (obvious example, Ewe Boll).

I really enjoyed the Star Trek reboot. In my opinion, it was the the best of the Star Trek movies (but I was never a Trekkie) - yes, I know some people would hang me over that statement. I liked some of the original TV show and movies (as well as Enterprise) but as I said, my life didn't revolve around Star Trek. I just think the new movie was the best of the Star Trek films.

Some of his movies are pretty good. I'll admit that I thought The Island was pretty good and almost thought-provoking. There are many worse movies out there and worse directors.

The shift in CD prices started earlier than 1999. I only rarely paid $15-$20 for a CD at that point, most of them were in the $10-$12 range (purchased on "sales" and online). What Apple did was solidify that price point without having to scour around too much for a deal on an album.

Further, singles were almost always $3-$5 (usually closer to $5). I purchased one single in my life back in the 90s (it was a song not available on an album) but generally would purchase an entire album because I could get the album for $10 (this was when there were starting to be reasonable CD prices). Now singles are inexpensive but back in 90s or earlier, if a song was available as a single, it was still pricey.

I've never had the OS of any of my iOS devices crash (I've had apps crash on occasion but it's really quick to get them open and going again). My Android phone (a $300 Motorola model, new last July) has many app crashes, many more than I see on iOS. Further, I've had the OS crash 5 times in the 7 months I've owned the phone. It's more stable with a custom ROM than it was with stock but it's still far more unstable than anything I see in iOS.

Yes, most of the time they are app crashes and not OS crashes but the OS crashes occur too.

Motorola sued Apple about this issue (maybe not in Germany but certainly here in the U.S.) before Apple really started going after other companies. I'm not defending Apple, I'm just pointing out that this didn't happen to Apple because of them "flinging around lawsuits", Motorola went after Apple before that happened.

True, but why didn't he do this when he had almost a supermajority of Democrats in Congress (during the first 2 years of his time in office)? Getting things passed at that point should have been easy for him (like the massive environmental bill, the massive health insurance reform, and the various stimulus bills were easy). The problem is that Pres. Obama says he cares but he does not do anything about it, except for when he can self-handicap himself (like he can do now with Republicans in control of the House) and reduce his apparent culpability for inaction (i.e., it's the Republicans' fault). Pres. Obama had a wonderful chance to make so real changes to the tax code and other fiscal policy measures but he did not do anything. Conrgess didn't do anything. For better or worse, at least Pres. Bush and the Republicans made changes to the tax code (the changes were positive, the massive increase in spending including for 2 wars were not positive).