Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (Score 4, Insightful) 404

Why do you always link to things that contradict you?

"Contrary to the representations Apple's counsel made to this Court, Samsung did not issue a general press release and more importantly, did not violate any Court Order or any legal or ethical standards," Quinn wrote. "These false representations by Apple's counsel publicly and unfairly called my personal reputation into question and have resulted in media reports likewise falsely impugning me personally."

"Moreover, before jury selection, virtually all of the information and images in the excluded slides had already appeared in dozens of media reports, including by the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Huffington Post, and CNET," Quinn's declaration said.

So yeah, pointing which of long published images were not admitted into trial in a press release not meant to be read by jurors is "trying to influence jury", as Apple made sure everyone knows. I'm sorry, I think you've messed up your post somehow, whose bullshit propaganda was that again?

Comment Re:Let's look at the dates (Score 4, Insightful) 404

You, and The Verge, miss the point so very hard.

All of this would be relevant if someone was trying to argue iPhone is a copy of F700 or vice versa.

But nobody says that. Well, besides Apple, who presented it as evidence Samsung copied their yet unpopular phone in measly one month (or four months, depending of if you take presentation dates or release dates). Them korean bastards!

Didn't you read that? F700 was presented by Apple on one of the slides, and Samsung tried to enter prototypes of 2006 to show that was not a copy of Apple's design.

Samsung presents F700 as supporting the idea that Samsung didn't have to copy Apple to come to this design.

Show F700 and Galaxy S to someone who doesn't know about iPhone (however unlikely that is to find such a person) and ask them if they are a part of same lineage or line breaks between them at some point for some reason.

Comment Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (Score 1) 354

Good on Apple, that. But what you called "not-evidence" was not Apple's prototypes, but Samsung's own prototypes of 2006.

It would, indeed, be non-evidence if Samsung knew about Apple's prototype designs at the time. If Samsung didn't know about them and came up with same shape independently, it could make an argument towards obviousness of Apple's design patent, what with LG and Samsung coming so close to it in the same time frame with iPhone.

Too bad for Samsung they didn't submit it in time if they actually planned to use it as a part of defense strategy. My guess is if this round won't go well for Samsung, they'll try to end it quickly and take a shot at including it in the appeals.

Comment Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (Score 1) 354

Errr, no, the link you provided demonstrates that it is a public knowledge Samsung knows about the iPhone designs of 2006 now, it doesn't say anything about what Samsung knew in 2006. That's kinda the difference GGGP points out.

Why the hell would Apple's then-employee tell a competitor about upcoming product line? It's the kind of thing that gets you fired so hard you won't find a job in the same sector for the rest of your life. It's also a lot more serious accusation then "design patent infringement" and a new lawsuit would be all over the headlines by now - if it was the way you understood it to be.

Comment Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (Score 1) 354

Jonathan Ive disclosed that himself in 2006, this is public knowledge [], and before you accuse Apple of fabricating evidence, what's quoted there is Samsung's version of the story!

Excuse me, but article you link to doesn't say anything like that, only mention of Ive there is "The files contains a snippet of a deposition by former Apple industrial designer Shin Nishibori who said that Apple’s design chief Jonathan Ive told him to create a phone inspired by Sony’s designs", no mention of Ive publicly disclosing it in 2006 or Nishibori telling this to Samsung in 2006.

Either you've posted a wrong link, or you've read it wrong. Care to fix that?

Comment Re:Really? (Score 4, Insightful) 622

That's not a good example. You want a good example of PHP core team competence, check this saga about fixing an integer overflow bug, for example.

Or just contemplate about how 20 year old language didn't have the ability to chain method calls and field lookups on objects returned by functions until release 5.4 - it was a _syntax_ error before.

Or how strings are compared as numbers in unexpected places. I'm not talking about "42" == 42, I'm talking about "42" == "42.0", or "10" == "0xa". Well, using == in PHP is discouraged for reasons like this one anyways (which in itself is quite telling), but check this one out - if we have $x = array('42'), in_array('42.000000000000001', $x) will be true. Can't check this at the moment, but IIRC it's still there in PHP 5.4

It's bad design through and through. It was OK when it was an hobby project for templating a small homepage, but then it started growing and instead of designing features it got ad-hocs piled on ad-hocs.

Comment Re:Is This Progress vs Tradition? (Score 2) 594

You must also like losing characters, items and hosted environments and getting locked out of the game thanks to bugs and connection troubles and game balance changing patches you can't reject.

That's what I was sorely missing from my single player games, yep.

P.S.: With a bit of symlinking, I just make most of my games save on Dropbox. It's free, it retains older versions if corruption happens and it leaves me offline copy, which gives ability to easily move to another cloud storage service. No need for Blizzard lock-in.

Comment Re:Citation (Score 1) 186

You're quoting wrong parts, as every Wi-Fi device uses same "frequencies in question" and "licensed user" is any certified Wi-Fi card.

But further down the page there's applicable excerpt from RIPA:

".. intentionally and without lawful authority to intercept, at any place in the United Kingdom, any communication in the course of its transmission by means of:
a public postal service;
a public telecommunication system."

Which seems to mean that because it was seen as accidental before, it was not included, and now that it seems to be intentional, there might be a new investigation - see my previous message.

Comment Re:If you have something that you don't want (Score 1) 186

Care to provide citations? Especially considering the legal status of Wi-Fi.

Because a) it might fall under general transmission and not require any special permission to receive (just as it doesn't require any special permission to transmit), and b) your interpretation makes even just scanning for networks around you criminal - as in that screen which shows available networks in your phone settings and such. You see, I didn't give your phone a permission to receive my SSID and protection state - even though they are transmitted in the clear. I transmit them only for my laptop and phone.

Comment Re:False choice (Score 2) 439

Yeah, did you notice how Nokia's the only maker under "windows phone"?.. Oh, right, they're still in there with same HTC, LG and Samsung. But while HTC, LG and Samsung Android phones all look different - at least to some degree, HTC, LG, Samsung and Nokia WinPhones all look the same. So, from whom exactly are they differentiating there?

Slashdot Top Deals

If you can count your money, you don't have a billion dollars. -- J. Paul Getty