Right but it seems as though they have no way to access the actual content of the call, unless I misunderstand how Skype works.

Since Skype is not only P2P but also encrypted via 256-bit AES, I have a hard time seeing how you could be wrong...

That fact that major companies are guilty of single browser compatibility doesn't make it any less lazy or incompetent.

I have discovered the root of your issue. Have you tried not being a rock?

If only there was a "...what?" mod option.

How can you write an article about a cancer-killing crab robot and not include a picture of said robo-crab?

That's true. I definitely misused "trademark" there and should have left it out.

I think Apple tends to play the long game, with a tendency to err on the side of extremism. Will this $100 million be recovered in prevented IP theft (i.e. profit made by companies that have "stolen" Apple's design)? Probably not directly. And probably not in a measurable way. But I think Apple considers the thought leadership loss prevention worth it. They want to remain unique, and litigation appears to be one of the tools they like to use to maintain that position.

Any compensation awarded to Apple in these cases is purely icing, and a molecule in the bucket compared to Apple's capital. This is about protecting their brand, trademarks and image. And as we all know, Apple will go to any lengths to do so.

While this is still incredibly interesting, that's a really valid point. It's like you get your foot in the door (in previous trials) by lying about what the sugar pill does, then you can be completely truthful simply by referring to the positive results of the original lie. It all boils down to what you believe. I would say that this new study confirms the assumption about belief rather than rattling it.

I would bet that you give off more readable facial expressions than you realize...

Pretty sure we're past the winning stage. Did Gandhi leave any notes about what happens then, or does the process just reverse itself?

...then they fight you again.
Then they ridicule you again.
Then they ignore you again.

After rereading your post, I realized what you meant by moving rendering/layout to the client. I misinterpreted, so I apologize.

I try so hard not to be "that guy", but when did people start using the word AJAX when they mean DHTML? Or when did that become acceptable? AJAX is about asynchronous communication between web client and server; it has nothing to do with manipulating the DOM, which is what DHTML is for. I can understand the desire to lump the two together because they tend to go hand in hand, but when you say something like "AJAX moves rendering/layout of dynamic content to the client," you couldn't be any more wrong. Rendering and layout is handled via DHTML.