Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
but Im guessing the goal here that C0R1D4N was getting at was getting the data and not letting you believe that no one had tampered with your phone
if the goal was steal it and get access to the contents of the phone by accessing the underlying hardware directly.. then this seems (at least on the surface) like a suitable approach. As stated in the short description 'Any attempt to disassemble the device would trigger functions that would delete the data and software contained within the device and make the device inoperable,". So if the goal is data retrieval.. don't use the screws.. simply dremmel out everywhere you can while not damaging the SOC then remove that from the pcb and then break it out to some predetermined jig and read the contents of all memory on the device.
Eventually the police will see every action against him as a waste of their time and resources.
At that point in time he becomes the largest operating hub for mail drop drug delivery.
the self organising drone swarm acts as the on foot postman and ferries the packages/letters from the central depo to your house.
24/7, returning to base to charge and only taking breaks when there weather contitions prevent the drones from flying..
Deploy the flying monkeys!
Continue the research.
I responded to the doc folder being empty, which in no way answers your point about the "Specification" being completely MIA.
you sir, make a valid point
I've been in a similar company in the past and seen this happen first hand. The short term gain is what they get rewarded for, they move up the company while riding on their high before the effects of their poor decision making is felt and then transfer to another company on an even higher position and proceed to make the same poor calls.
The second paragraph is where the truth of the matter lies. The money men drive the company even though the R&D is the engine room, with this kind of Mr Magoo shortsightedness expect a fatal car crash for your company within 3 years.
Enterprise Google Services are a paid service which has awesome support (the free ad driven versions do not) and as such come with a level of availability.. if they are going do discontinue a service that is truly an enterprise service they offer an export of your data so that you can migrate to another service.
Far reaching projects with one eye on the future which are truly pioneering and revolutionary are best developed with the full expectation that they might fail. Failure is the risk of any ambitious project.. managing that risk by diversifying your future direction based on expanding into areas where your current strengths lie is just sensible! to put all your eggs in one basket with the knowledge that your one idea could fail is a sure fire way to become extinct and also to go out of business.
These two things are completely unrelated. Their current offerings of enterprise services is a separate part of their business to their horizon projects.
If you are able to recall your timestamped version with your name in the code from the interview room on any web connected device, you're golden...
But still, it doesnt change the fact that the person maintaining your work is fraudulently claiming cedit for creation rather than adding their name into a list of maintainers and what their changes were like a normal change log. Not sure what you can do about that to be honest...
"let's not even get into the fact that you often don't licence the patents individually and instead pay for them collectively when you purchase an off the shelf part for your device"
that is 100% accurate as usually it is the component manufacturer that will pay for the fact that their component operates according to the accepted standard of which the FRAND patent applies. So (forgive my ignorance on this one as I'm guessing) wouldn't apple have bought the components off (lets say) Samsung? and hence have already paid for the use of that patent?
I mean obviously this isn't the case otherwise this patent wouldn't be in the suit.. So perhaps its that apple have built their own component which has not paid for the use of the essential patent? in which case it becomes fair game.
In any case I agree with you 100% that the value of a patent should be a fixed cost per use and not as a % of a device. That's just ludicrous. I wasn't aware that was what Samsung were claiming.
There is however one point I disagree with..
"Apple absolutely wants to pay a fair rate, as they do for every other frand patent they licence."
Im not sold on this point, as lets face it, there seem to be a hell of a lot of FRAND patents being thrown at Apple in these patent suits. If they really were committed to paying whats fair, then this wouldn't come up so often. And the amount of effort it takes to develop a standards essential patent is a LOT greater than the design and trade dress of a product. Hence that effort should be rewarded through the appropriate payment of licencing. Who are apple to say how much is fair rate for a technology they didn't develop? if thats the cost, and its shown to be that for every vendor, then so be it.. suck it up, or develop your own standard and try and get everyone else to adopt it.
"They're asking too much money for this" on one side and "They don't want to pay, we believe x is a fair price" on the other."
unfortunately the only things that really count here is that the licencing is Fair.. Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory.. hence unless Apple can prove that Samsungs rates to them are discriminatory, then they need to just shut up and pay the licensing fee
I was just saying that banning the old products does nothing, and the court should be forcing apple to pay the cost of licencing per product (as you state either as agreed by the court, which in my opinion is ridiculous as the court doesn't know the value of technology, or they pay the rates which samsung requested, which is the same fee that everyone else using that essential patent pays.) plus a slight penalty as they quite blatantly decided not to pay the licencing for the FRAND patent.
Quite frankly without some kind of extra penalty why not employ this as a standard mode of operation. Use all frand patents without licence and then only pay the licence after being forced to by a court with no extra penalty.. thats not in the spirit of patent law.