Cough! Bose. Cough!
Did you even read the on this, Mr. Ignorance?
Apple lied. I shall quote the ruling here:
21. I turn to the last paragraph. I do not think the order as made precluded any addition to the required notice if that addition had been true and did not undermine the effect of the required notice. But I do consider that adding false and misleading material was illegitimate. For by adding such material the context of the required notice is altered so that it will be understood differently.
22. Here what Apple added was false and misleading. I turn to analyse it. The first sentence reads:
However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design.
That is false in the following ways:
(a) "Regarding the same patent." No patent of any kind has been involved in Germany or here, still less "the same patent."
(b) As regards the Community Registered Design, the German Courts held that neither the Galaxy 10.1 nor the 8.9 infringed it. As to the 7.7 there was for a short while a German provisional order holding that it infringed. Whether there was a jurisdiction to make that order is very doubtful for the reasons given in my earlier judgment but in any event the order had been (or should have been) discharged by the time the Contested Notice was published.
(c) There is a finding and injunction, limited to Germany alone, that the 10.1 and 8.9 infringe German unfair competition law. But the statement is likely to be read as of more general application.
23. The second sentence reads:
A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc.
That is misleading by omission. For the US jury specifically rejected Apple's claim that the US design patent corresponding to the Community Design in issue here was infringed. The average reader would think that the UK decision was at odds with that in the US. Far from that being so, it was in accordance with it.
24. The third sentence reads:
So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung wilfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.
This is calculated to produce huge confusion. The false innuendo is that the UK court came to a different conclusion about copying, which is not true for the UK court did not form any view about copying. There is a further false innuendo that the UK court's decision is at odds with decisions in other countries whereas that is simply not true.
25. The reality is that wherever Apple has sued on this registered design or its counterpart, it has ultimately failed. It may or may not have other intellectual property rights which are infringed. Indeed the same may be true the other way round for in some countries Samsung are suing Apple. But none of that has got anything to do with the registered design asserted by Apple in Europe. Apple's additions to the ordered notice clearly muddied the water and the message obviously intended to be conveyed by it.
The role it fills is:
Find something else (that came out after the 80s) that makes it as easy to get started in programming.
For the perfect example of what the Pi is intended for, see the games that this 7 year old has made:
That's a big rant against attempts at innovation for something so minor, Mr. Anti-Opera.
"'Doing pages on a screen I think will be very important, especially for tablets,' he said."
"Opera said users will be able to switch back to scroll bars if they prefer."
Switch, of course.
Disclaimer: my company.
You haven't even seen it.
I have and I thought that it was excellent. It was exciting, well acted, well handled, and just generally very good.
I give it 8/10.
> The PS1 and 2 were my favorite consoles. 10 years of great gameplaying (1995-2005) so I'm hardly anti-sony.
How many games did you buy?
From the article: "Sony dabbled twice with console-based webcams over the last two generations, and it only got any success after it introduced the Move."
From Wikipedia: "As of November 6, 2008, the EyeToy has sold 10.5 million units worldwide.".
10.5 million sales is most definitely a success by any definition.
The whole article strikes me as a Kinect advert: "Despite the occasional misinterpreted gesture, Microsoft's Kinect offers impressively immersive game controls and voice commands, all without needing to lay your finger on a single button."
I mean, how much would it cost to just put out Burnout Paradise 2? Just do some new textures, design a new town, some new races and a few new skins for cars and people like me would be happy to have it.
The naivety contained within the above two sentences is staggering. At a guess off the top of my head, I would say that it would cost probably in the region of $5 million.
You obviously weren't happy enough with Big Surf Island.
"Design a new town", involves a ludicrous amount of work for artists, designers and testers, with multiple passes and iterations. I can't even begin to tell you how much is involved in it. Definitely more than a year's work, possibly approaching two. Just the testing alone would cost hundreds of thousands even if there was no online play.
Breadth-first search is the bulldozer of science. -- Randy Goebel