Comment Re:Actual title should be (Score 0) 397
But consider this: even if all of what you say were true, It would still be right.
Fixed that typo for you.
But consider this: even if all of what you say were true, It would still be right.
Fixed that typo for you.
i'm shitting on the decisions of the guy who told me that the only reason I don't replace perfectly good hardware is just because i'm too poor.
how he got access to my financial records is beyond me.
Well, he merely asked you what your point was, after you yammered how Apple wouldn't let you test OS X. He never asked you to "replace perfectly good hardware". That's all in your head.
No, wait, that's not quite right: In your rant you steadfastly refused any option but to buy a Mac as not good enough, and buying a Mac as too expensive.
Now I notice it everywhere in show biz with stereotypes, but also online with people insulting strangers just based off their accents.
Must be quite a strong accent if it gets noticed online
The "I'm a Mac" ads drove the high value customers to Apple. By the time Apple was at 8% by volume they represented almost 90 of the profits. I think the purpose of Apple ads is to reaffirm people's choices and their brand identity. Apple has had mostly the same ad for 30 years they hit one of these themes:
-- Apples are better -- Apples are easier -- The only reason people would choose a PC is because they are brainwashed lemmings
While the other manufacturers focused on their products being worse than others, hard to use, and all others are for the hip people. Don't make me laugh.
They are the first in a long time that don't lie. All the iPhone and iPad ads were sped up, the real devices not being as fast as they show them to be.
Yeah, and all those adds that show your phone enabling you to fill an empty railway station with people in 20 seconds, or switch from day to night are 100% truthful. While the Apple ads were lies because they were 30 seconds instead of 1 minute with 30 seconds of waiting time for an app to load over the net.
Those appearance patents are only meant to prevent another companies product being sold in the same guise as the patent holder's product. The point of protection being if people were buying the Samsung product in the mistaken belief it was an iPhone. That should be the only thing viewed by the judge
Samsung was told by Best Buy that Samsung tablets were being returned because customers thought they were getting iPads. Case closed, Samsung is guilty, we can all go home now. All but Samsung, they go to jail.
A simple google image search for "digital picture frame rounded corners" yeilded this product on page one.
Yeah, and only 1 year after the iPad - amazing. Yeah, obviously prior art. Case closed.
I would argue that apple's design patent is invalid.
Here is why, and it has nothing to do with opinion of apple:
A design patent can only be legally issued for "unique, new, and novel" shapes and design motifs.
Epic fail - you showed picture frames with the frame notably extruding from the picture level - the iPad is flat. Which is exactly one of the defining elements of the design patent.
Wait, you mean a judge previously issued a legal ruling?
Yep, the very same judge Lucy Koh, ruling against Samsung, on the a case which is very very close to this one
Errm, no it was this very case (11-CV-01846-LHK). Way to misunderstand how the legal system works you criticize.
Your sarcasm detector must be broken, clearly grandparent is insinuating that there aren't many ways to design a touch screen phone. Which there aren't. So it follows that all touch screen phones look more or less alike.
With the difference that the LG Prada is no touchscreen smartphone, its a feature phone with rudimetary touchscreen and a slide out keyboard.
I wish slashdot had a button for sharing comments, I'd tweet yours
Errm, click on "Share" below the comment?
Tablets and phones outnumber Apple's computer sales by something like 10:1.
If Apple is making "billions of dollars of profit" every quarter, then it is not because of the PC business. If Apple were still just a PC company they would be either dead or terribly obscure by this point.
You basically said the same thing about the iPod in 1996, and how Apple would abandon the Mac in favor of the iPod because that made them so much more money. Today Apple makes much more money on Macs than they did overall in 1996.
Let's face it, your reasoning can't be trusted. Which is a nice way of saying: you're a moron.
If you don't copy the market leader, you are dismissed out of hand.
Did Apple copy the market leader when they released the first iPod? Did they copy the market leader when they released the iPhone? Or the iPad? Or the MacBook Air?
http://forums.macnn.com/t/490589/court-docs-show-apple-took-design-inspiration-from-sony
Yes...they did.
Let's ignore that that article pretty much says the opposite - here's a nice quote: "Another set of documents show Best Buy alerting Samsung that a number of customers had returned their tablets because they incorrectly thought they had bought iPads."
A penny saved is a penny to squander. -- Ambrose Bierce
