The chances of being infected during a five-minute trip to the supermarket are negligible if you're following the basic precautions. So no, it's not deeply worrying.

If the morons in South-East London continue to refuse to wear masks and sanitise their hands and isolate when they have clear symptoms (as I have observed many times over the last few weeks) then yes, the vulnerable may be screwed.

I believe it's because Samsung didn't include the physical device in its list of evidence, only the video testimony of Fidler. Apple's argument is that it did not have access to the physical device and has had no time to prepare a rebuttal. Apple didn't bother disputing the Fidler evidence because it obviously didn't believe the video testimony to be particularly compelling, but now I suspect it wishes it had spent more time on this.

Nothing like half a story, eh? Or maybe you're genuinely not aware, but the accusation of 'borrowing' now seems well wide of the mark. Google "iPhone Purple prototype" if you haven't seen the designs that pre-date the Sony-inspired images.

Did you watch the video? The guy was asked a question at an Apple II nostalgia fest and he gave his opinion on the statements of the Ouya CEO. I understand why you don't like his opinion, but a well thought-out rebuttal would have been more useful than your repeated bashing of the man himself.

Argumentum ad hominem? I watched the linked video and it didn't make me angry. But he has got stupid hair, so...

The culprit is the thrown-together submission/summary of multiple stories. Two different cases have been joined to stimulate a healthy landscape for the usual troll and counter-troll comments. The injunction on the tablets is in the EU and the damages refer to the ongoing US case, which I believe relates to a wider range of Samsung products.

Nonsense, that kind of thing has been popular since the ancient Greeks. Already happening all the over the world and we need to accept it as part of the rich diversity of human culture.

Siri.

While the subject is interesting, the article holds very little information for discussion and does little more than link a previous article from The Verge.
Anyhow, here's the patent in question: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8086604.PN.&OS=PN/8086604&RS=PN/8086604
I'm not qualified to judge its validity, but it seems to encompass more than "the ability to do a single search that covers both the local device and the internet" as stated by the article.

Read the article that YOU submitted. It's an insubstantial piece from the Inquirer, but it certainly doesn't claim that Nokia has filed suit. It has nothing to with Apple either.
I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your comment here makes me believe that the poor quality article was submitted to troll.

There's not a lot to go in the Inquirer article (there never is in my experience), but isn't it possible that Nokia's stance is entirely reasonable? Maybe it does hold standards essential patents relevant to the Nexus tablet and is entitled to FRAND payments. It's not threatening to seek injunctions. On the face of it, Nokia is seeking payment for licenses that it believes it is entitled to.

Not sure how we get from here to alleging Microsoft-led conspiracies... At least wait for the Google/Asus responses before taking sides.

Is this some sort of meta-humour that I don't understand? Or are you actually comfortable with using the phrase "nigger faggot trolls" to make your point? You've been modded up, so I hope I'm missing something.

I'll drink to that! I made this very argument quite recently, but the idiot Judge still took my license...

iTunes was released before the iPod. I think you're a little confused between iTunes (the application) and iTunes Store (the online music store).

Citation needed.