Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Clone? (Score 0) 246

by gnupun (#48178353) Attached to: Apple's Next Hit Could Be a Microsoft Surface Pro Clone

Apple didn't have the first tablet. Microsoft has been trying for decades

Those pre-ipad tablets with their styluses are about as ancient as an apple newton. That's not a fair comparison.

Apple was the first company to get tablets noticed by general consumers,

That's because it had a great design, unlike its predecessors.

The Surface Pro was an incremental step from the many different types of convertable laptops.

Wrong. The surface pro is MS playing its usual game of cloning a market leader (embrace), in this case the iPad, and adding features to it (extend), i.e. a keyboard.

Comment: Re:They're hiring you... (Score 2) 224

by gnupun (#48154889) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Handling Patented IP In a Job Interview?

If they want the use of your patented IP, they can license the technology or buy the rights to the IP from you.

Companies pay millions to license patents from other companies. But they only pay $2,000-$6,000 for a single patent belonging to their employee. Guess which payment model the company will choose?

Comment: Re:Why..... (Score 1) 259

by gnupun (#48148143) Attached to: "Double Irish" Tax Loophole Used By US Companies To Be Closed

Why wouldn't people just use the system of "where your customers pay you" for any multinational company to determine "where to tax is owed"? Much simpler and fairer between different nations.

Not fair. You should also take into account where the employees work, the raw materials (if any) come from, factories (if any) exist, managers work, middle managers and upper management exist to make a clear assessment.

Comment: Re:really? (Score 1) 972

If I invented the single most money-making device in over a century, exceeding even personal computers, I wouldn't open source the specs even if I had an established patent.

This invention would make electric cars extremely useful. Eventually people are going to take a peek at it (maintenance and technicians). And if it isn't patented, someone could reverse engineer, manufacture and sell it without paying him anything.

Comment: Re:Steve Jobs' products changed the world? (Score 1) 181

by gnupun (#48124637) Attached to: The Cult of Elon Musk Shines With Steve Jobs' Aura

There was nothing about the device itself that was really new, nothing that it could do which you couldn't do as well or better on another phone,

Have you actually tried using a cellphone prior to the iphone? 5 to 7 tiny buttons are all you get to control the device. These multi-button controls are a lot slower than the iphone and require memorization and they are vastly limited in their capabilities and features.

The iphone changed all that... vast number of functions available at a tap of your finger. Most of all, its screen was 3 times larger than a dumbphone. It was a game changer. Google cancelled their Android phone (which at that time looked like a blackberry phone) after seeing the iphone launch, and then copied the iphone.

Comment: Re:Nothing (Score 2) 181

by gnupun (#48124499) Attached to: The Cult of Elon Musk Shines With Steve Jobs' Aura

They're both innovators, with the blood testing inventor doing more work. Whereas Musk recognized a good idea and spent millions backing and managing the production of such cars.

You do realize manufacturing cars requires a ton of capital. All inventions are kinda obvious once you seen them in action and know about their internals.

The IQ of the group is the lowest IQ of a member of the group divided by the number of people in the group.