Let's see what the hit count looks like when answers no longer are found from his pubs, in popular search engine results.
Indeed. Google could settle this thing now by removing all News Corp sites from their listings proactively. The screaming from Fox and the Right would be almost deafening though.
And what if the big corporations go on patenting sprees and start patenting anything imaginable?
Well, first they have to invent it, which means it has to be new and nonobvious - so no patenting "filing a patent" or "earning money". And if they do invent something, they have to disclose it to the world and teach us all how to do it. And if they've really done something new and nonobvious and it's actually valuable and innovative, why shouldn't they have a limited period to exploit that invention? Particularly when, by it's very definition, it's limited, and 20 years later, everyone gets to do this new, nonobvious, and valuable method?
I think most of the people who complain about the patent system, whether they realize it or not, are primarily concerned about the "new and nonobvious" part, rather than subject matter eligibility. We don't like it when someone gets a patent on a method of swinging on a swing, or investing in a hedge fund, or tickling a cat. But that's because those have either been done before, or are so freaking obvious that it's removing something from the public domain if you grant a patent on them... and that's a question of novelty and obviousness, not subject matter.
Quit your trolling. You can patent general easy-to-think-of ideas which would then cover any real innovations. This is constantly being done today.
Apple has not pulled a bait-and-switch.
True.
Everyone is free to know exactly what they are buying before they do so.
True, but only due to your verbosity. Modify that to 'Everyone knows' and it suddenly becomes false. It isn't as if it is necessarily easy to know. There isn't some kind of disclaimer that Apple provides letting everyone know the door won't open from the inside. They simply say 'we have an app for that' and invite everyone inside. The factually correct statement would probably be 'we might have an app for that'.
There's absolutely nothing morally wrong about what Apple has done.
This is probably false, particularly because you used the word 'absolutely'. Do you know, for certain, that Apple is not restricting user freedom purely out of a desire to increase their own profits? Because if there is any conceivable way for Apple to both profit AND allow freedom, then we're in a territory that is at LEAST morally gray.
As many have pointed out there is no comparison between the flexibility offered by a hand held GPS and the limitations of using a GPS enabled cell phone. The significant threat for the big GPS players is the development of OEM in-car GPS by the auto industry. In 10-20 years this will be commonplace in all but the cheapest vehicles. If Garmin and Tom Tom don't work to have their expertise incorporated into those products they will be relegated to the handheld niche.
What is telling here is how the stupidity and short sightedness of the average day trader can cause gross changes in stock valuation for a company that hasn't done anything wrong and doesn't face a real threat from competition for the foreseeable future. This is the mentality that took our economy down. It's sad that no one in the press coming out about this has the clarity of thought to bring this issue to the forefront.
Synergy. User-friendly integration of components allows for delivery in a single package.
Hmm. Tolkien and the concept of the Ring come to mind, too.
Regards,
Ruemere
The next person to mention spaghetti stacks to me is going to have his head knocked off. -- Bill Conrad
