Actually it is the court's job to decide what is and isn't patentable. See the NPR story that was posted earlier today. It was the result of two court rulings in the 90s that allowed the patenting of software.
Both the iPhone and Android are marketed towards consumers who don't care about Exchange support. This isn't like the adoption of the PC where businesses bought the machines before consumers did. In fact, it's exactly the opposite and it's also why RIM isn't doing so well.
There were some TV ads last year when WP7 was first announced. I think they went something like, "People use their smartphones too much, we're the phone that is so intuitive that you don't have to use it". There's your brilliant MS phone marketing for you.
Having a strong competitor will do the most amazing things:)
I'm so glad that Google didn't let Apple achieve the >75% marketshare that they did with the iPods. Can you imagine the iPhone being the only credible smartphone in the market?
We're not in a debate club and I couldn't care less what Wikipedia says.
In the real world, the situation is this: Friedman makes a series of logical arguments based on a set of premises that require considerable time to verify. If the situation is as dire as he makes it out to be, then why is his behavoir inconsistent with his conclusions? The only conclusion is that he doesn't really believe what he says so why should I waste my time trying to verify his premises.
from the cardiovascular-farming dept.
RockDoctor writes "'A Massachusetts man who was rushed to hospital with a collapsed lung came home with an unusual diagnosis: a pea plant was growing in his lung.' Just that summary should tell you enough to work out most of the rest of the details, but it does raise a number of questions unaddressed by the article: How did the pea roots deal with the patient's immune system? What would have happened if the situation had continued un-treated? I bet the guy has a career awaiting him in PR for a pea-growing company."