Err, no, not "does that" at all.

Opera Mini is basically server-side browser, rendering pages at their side and sending them preprocessed to the phone - to save teeny-tiny CPUs some cycles and teeny-tiny dataplans some kilobytes. AFAIK, you can't even install any of Opera proxies for use in other applications.

Wajam, OTOH, does "When you search, Wajam shows you what your friends have shared." - and they need all your webtraffic from all your apps for them to plug their added items (and their ads) in web pages.

You don't see any difference in the meanings? One involves, well, direct attempts to influence jury, other one:

Really? Just hearing description of evidence is enough to influence jury? You're quite dismissive of legal system here, assuming jury's not only gonna break obligation not to read media coverage of process, but also going to be influenced solely by description of evidence explicitly dismissed by the judge and not even meant for consideration by jurors. Seriously, read the fucking article, I see you still didn't do that. Even Apple's lawyers refer only to publication as attempts to influence jury, not about jury hearing his description.

Explicit (adj.) Very specific, clear, or detailed.

So, "reconsider her earlier decision that Samsung not be allowed to present evidence showing that Apple's iPhone was inspired by "Sony style."" is very specific, clear and detailed influence?

Also, you're again doing your thing with renaming "inspired by "Sony style"" to "Apple copied SONY". Hyperboles much?

And now you go from "tried to influence the jury with inadmissible evidence" to "tried to force inadmissible evidence".

Did he present the said evidence to the jury against orders? Are reporters on the jury now?

Your definition of "Samsung explicitly tried to influence the jury in the courtroom using excluded evidence" is rather stretched.

Well, they should. You never know where you'll hear about "frivolously abusing patents on basic shapes" or "slavishly copying in attempt to confuse the consumer" which could give you preconceptions about trial.

How do they even choose a fair jury with all this trollfest in media going for a year already?

Why do you always link to things that contradict you?

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?

That's not how it actually began, and you really should RTFA. Quinn's declaration is a nice read.

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.

Oh, and about "guessing design from components". AFAIK, components provided for iPhone by Samsung were RAM, flash memory and CPU. Correctly guessing even what kind of gadget is coming up based on this - not speaking about the finished look of it - would be quite a feat.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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:

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.

Nevermind, found some fresh news from UK.

Seems like initial investigation was on Data Protection Act grounds, not just "listening in", though that part might be investigated now under other act.