logandzwon
Mar 30, 01:07 PM
What about the Container Store, which is trademarked? Seems like the difference is whether or not the term is in common use before the trademark is filed.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but can you, (or anyone,) provide a link to something showing "Container Store" is TMed?
Update;
I can find "The Container Store" but not "Container Store"
I'm not disagreeing with you, but can you, (or anyone,) provide a link to something showing "Container Store" is TMed?
Update;
I can find "The Container Store" but not "Container Store"
LagunaSol
Apr 19, 09:33 AM
http://www.palminfocenter.com/images/Treo-680-review-1a.jpg
Looks like Apple copied palm just changed the background to white and the icons to a square!
:rolleyes:
Sorry to have to post this image again, but do you really find the iPhone similar to the Treo in the same way the Samsung is similar to the iPhone? Really???
http://hopelesslyflawed.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/iphone-galaxy-s.jpg
Looks like Apple copied palm just changed the background to white and the icons to a square!
:rolleyes:
Sorry to have to post this image again, but do you really find the iPhone similar to the Treo in the same way the Samsung is similar to the iPhone? Really???
http://hopelesslyflawed.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/iphone-galaxy-s.jpg
sishaw
Apr 19, 08:24 AM
that's because samsung supplies all these companies with parts for their phones. Sue Samsung, risk getting the shaft on internals! We'll see what happens.
Yeah, I'm wondering if this is a smart move on Apple's part for that reason. Unless they've lined up another supplier that we don't know about.
Yeah, I'm wondering if this is a smart move on Apple's part for that reason. Unless they've lined up another supplier that we don't know about.
nwcs
Apr 4, 12:16 PM
This is a silly debate here. Having known trained officers and military people and being related to some I can tell you one thing: they are taught to neutralize the threat. They certainly don't want to but if you hesitate you die. Chest shots are preferable because it's easier to target but head shots sometimes happen. People should be thinking about the guard who will undoubtedly need time to work through this ordeal.
eenu
Oct 12, 12:43 PM
there is no way apple would make a product release on a pre recorded program with an audiance. Thanks to the internet the release would no longer be a surprise!
c-Row
Aug 24, 01:25 AM
MS [...] come up with [...] radically new way [...] that actually works
Whenever did something like this happen?! :confused: ;)
Whenever did something like this happen?! :confused: ;)
cvaldes
Apr 22, 11:21 AM
It appears that Mr. Kuo has some reliable tipsters in the supply chain and that he might actually have a clue.
One cannot the same thing about Gene Munster, Shaw Wu, or Katy Huberty. Their track record is atrocious and I'm inclined to disbelieve any of their blatherings.
I'm planning on picking up one of these new MacBook Airs.
One cannot the same thing about Gene Munster, Shaw Wu, or Katy Huberty. Their track record is atrocious and I'm inclined to disbelieve any of their blatherings.
I'm planning on picking up one of these new MacBook Airs.
imationx
Apr 30, 08:46 PM
According to certain sources it says Apple retail store are staying through the night to change out advertisements and such.
I don't understand why they would make a big deal about this unless they were releasing a major update such as a product re-design or big change. When has a spec update caused retail stores to have people work through the night?
Is this routine with any spec update @ retail stores?
I don't understand why they would make a big deal about this unless they were releasing a major update such as a product re-design or big change. When has a spec update caused retail stores to have people work through the night?
Is this routine with any spec update @ retail stores?
Popeye206
Mar 23, 05:22 PM
Don't pull it!!!!!
I'm NOT in favor of drinking and driving, but I am in favor of freedom. I don't like the idea of ANY government control over things like this. Too many darn laws to begin with.
I downloaded this app. It's pretty cool! The DUI thing is like the least useful. There is all sorts of good traffic info on this app. Love it!
I'm NOT in favor of drinking and driving, but I am in favor of freedom. I don't like the idea of ANY government control over things like this. Too many darn laws to begin with.
I downloaded this app. It's pretty cool! The DUI thing is like the least useful. There is all sorts of good traffic info on this app. Love it!
JobsRules
Oct 27, 10:04 AM
If you actually look at Greenpeace's spoof Apple site, it's actually quite friendly to the corporation like, 'You're a great stylish brand but you could do better'.
Among 'activist types' Mac usage is far, far higher than amoung the general population. Greenpeace members are probably avid Mac users.
Among 'activist types' Mac usage is far, far higher than amoung the general population. Greenpeace members are probably avid Mac users.
imikem
Sep 9, 07:42 PM
I think we all knew that Merom would only bring modest performance gains.
Core 2 is a significantly different beast architecturally from Yonah to Merom. Merom has Intel's clone of AMD's cloned/extended x86 instruction set*, 64-bit instructions as well as long overdue changes to handling of old instructions, allowing this generation of CPUs to better utilize registers.
There are other enhancements in Core 2 as well, so I doubt that the current compilers are getting the full performance potential. It may be several months before updated compilers can properly optimize code for Core 2. Stay tuned.
* Sorry about that - x86 architecture is not pretty to look at. I sure liked the elegance of the PPC instruction set, but guess what $$Billions$$ can do?
Core 2 is a significantly different beast architecturally from Yonah to Merom. Merom has Intel's clone of AMD's cloned/extended x86 instruction set*, 64-bit instructions as well as long overdue changes to handling of old instructions, allowing this generation of CPUs to better utilize registers.
There are other enhancements in Core 2 as well, so I doubt that the current compilers are getting the full performance potential. It may be several months before updated compilers can properly optimize code for Core 2. Stay tuned.
* Sorry about that - x86 architecture is not pretty to look at. I sure liked the elegance of the PPC instruction set, but guess what $$Billions$$ can do?
MattyMac
Aug 23, 05:13 PM
Who's Creative? :rolleyes:
kurtsayin
Oct 12, 11:14 PM
It makes me so happy to know that there are still plenty of stupid people in the world.
Thank you
LOL me too! What is so stupid about solving the problem with total success following my logic? Just because people are not going to follow my advice, does not mean that is somehow sophomoric.
Thank you
LOL me too! What is so stupid about solving the problem with total success following my logic? Just because people are not going to follow my advice, does not mean that is somehow sophomoric.
aristotle
Nov 13, 11:26 PM
Not quite. There are at least two other options. Fair use, and exhaustion/implied license/first sale doctrine.
The use is almost certainly fair use, and Apple's rights may very well be exhausted under the first sale doctrine. It's a thorny question of law since there is nothing in the Mac OS license that makes it clear what you can do with those icons. Apple would have been better off putting something in the development agreement about not being able to use representations of Macs, etc. But they didn't.
So your argument is that since a court of law would find this to be copyright infringement, it's covered by the development agreement.
My opinion, as an I.P. lawyer, is that it's not at all clear that it's copyright infringement, that most people would think it probably isn't, and that therefore the development agreement does not at all clearly forbid this sort of thing.
P.S.: You're saying developers just need to read the agreement. I'm saying they need to read the agreement, go to law school, and guess how Apple will interpret the facts.
Which law firm please. We'd all like to know for future reference, who to not trust our cases with. While most law has to do with the letter of the law, jury trials often are won or lost based on what the jury believes to be the intent or spirit of the law.
The british common law legal system was never intended to be like this. The lawyers have destroyed and twisted it beyond all recognition. It was originally supposed to be based on judeo-christian morals and ethics. There is not supposed to be a grey area. You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not. The original intent was to have a court case as the last resort where parties would first try to solve the problem by talking to each other, then go to arbitration and then court as a last resort.
*Edit*
Screenshots on other sites show airflow displaying a Firefox icon. That icon is definitely not covered any implied license through use of the API on the mac. Care to explain that to us Mr. Lawyer?
The use is almost certainly fair use, and Apple's rights may very well be exhausted under the first sale doctrine. It's a thorny question of law since there is nothing in the Mac OS license that makes it clear what you can do with those icons. Apple would have been better off putting something in the development agreement about not being able to use representations of Macs, etc. But they didn't.
So your argument is that since a court of law would find this to be copyright infringement, it's covered by the development agreement.
My opinion, as an I.P. lawyer, is that it's not at all clear that it's copyright infringement, that most people would think it probably isn't, and that therefore the development agreement does not at all clearly forbid this sort of thing.
P.S.: You're saying developers just need to read the agreement. I'm saying they need to read the agreement, go to law school, and guess how Apple will interpret the facts.
Which law firm please. We'd all like to know for future reference, who to not trust our cases with. While most law has to do with the letter of the law, jury trials often are won or lost based on what the jury believes to be the intent or spirit of the law.
The british common law legal system was never intended to be like this. The lawyers have destroyed and twisted it beyond all recognition. It was originally supposed to be based on judeo-christian morals and ethics. There is not supposed to be a grey area. You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not. The original intent was to have a court case as the last resort where parties would first try to solve the problem by talking to each other, then go to arbitration and then court as a last resort.
*Edit*
Screenshots on other sites show airflow displaying a Firefox icon. That icon is definitely not covered any implied license through use of the API on the mac. Care to explain that to us Mr. Lawyer?
primalman
Aug 23, 09:02 PM
So, in summary...
Apple pays Creative a one time fee of $100M to licence their patents.
Creative joins the 'Made for iPod' program making accessories for their competitor, Apple, who gets money for 'Made for iPod'.
Creative still HAS to defend it's patent against other competitors - that's the nature of patents - or licence it to them. If they do, Apple takes some of that money too. In a round-a-bout way, Apple is getting money back from it's competitors. Nice.
Creative have a much better case because Apple settled.
Creative still owns a valid patent. If Apple had won, there would be no patent so anyone could copy the Creative/Apple style interface.
Apple continues on as if nothing has happened. No long court case delaying sales. No injunctions to halt imports.
Explain to me why people think Apple lost here?
Creative knew it was about to get reamed by Microsoft's Zune which it's players aren't compatible with. They knew to get out of the market. Instead of legitimising Microsoft's offering, they've tied up with Apple. It might bug us that Apple have legitimised a bogus patent but it's otherwise very, very smart.
Yes, this is the reality. It was a wise business move, thinking long-term. Someone said it earlier, but Apple plays good chess, this is why they have over $8 billion in the bank.
The quote above should have been the last post.
Apple pays Creative a one time fee of $100M to licence their patents.
Creative joins the 'Made for iPod' program making accessories for their competitor, Apple, who gets money for 'Made for iPod'.
Creative still HAS to defend it's patent against other competitors - that's the nature of patents - or licence it to them. If they do, Apple takes some of that money too. In a round-a-bout way, Apple is getting money back from it's competitors. Nice.
Creative have a much better case because Apple settled.
Creative still owns a valid patent. If Apple had won, there would be no patent so anyone could copy the Creative/Apple style interface.
Apple continues on as if nothing has happened. No long court case delaying sales. No injunctions to halt imports.
Explain to me why people think Apple lost here?
Creative knew it was about to get reamed by Microsoft's Zune which it's players aren't compatible with. They knew to get out of the market. Instead of legitimising Microsoft's offering, they've tied up with Apple. It might bug us that Apple have legitimised a bogus patent but it's otherwise very, very smart.
Yes, this is the reality. It was a wise business move, thinking long-term. Someone said it earlier, but Apple plays good chess, this is why they have over $8 billion in the bank.
The quote above should have been the last post.
LagunaSol
Apr 19, 09:14 AM
Samsung also feels the need to depict its products just like Apple's, on a reflective white surface.
http://hopelesslyflawed.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/iphone-galaxy-s.jpg
I wonder how it feels to be a designer for Samsung where you are forced to emulate the competitor's work rather than implement your own vision.
http://hopelesslyflawed.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/iphone-galaxy-s.jpg
I wonder how it feels to be a designer for Samsung where you are forced to emulate the competitor's work rather than implement your own vision.
mrdice87
Sep 8, 12:50 PM
Ok, my prediction:
New nano will have to have a new name, or more than 4gb in the low end, otherwise it will be available as part of the get a free ipod campaign... i don't think apple will do that. Reminds me of a certain SNL skit.
or... mb and mbp will be upgraded to C2D... the rebate clearly lists only core duo systems as eligible. then you won't be able to get any free ipods except with a mac pro
there you have it
New nano will have to have a new name, or more than 4gb in the low end, otherwise it will be available as part of the get a free ipod campaign... i don't think apple will do that. Reminds me of a certain SNL skit.
or... mb and mbp will be upgraded to C2D... the rebate clearly lists only core duo systems as eligible. then you won't be able to get any free ipods except with a mac pro
there you have it
peharri
Sep 18, 07:33 AM
OK. hang on. back the f&6king truck up.
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
No, that's not true, though the way it's presented often makes you think it is.
Sprint and a company called MetroPCS are one of the few companies in the entire world where incoming calls are in practice are "at no extra charge" (unless those calls are long distance.)
That is, someone can call someone with a Sprint phone on a "free unlimited incoming" plan, and NEITHER PARTY will be charged (subject to restrictions, namely that mobile party isn't roaming, and the caller has unlimited outgoing calls to at the very least the mobile party's area/exchange code. This is the default with US landlines.)
(I'm being picky with words here, because it's even worse than how I'm describing. I'm not aware of a single phone company in the entire world that offers free calls of any description save for 911/112/999 type calls. Every phone company in the world at the very least requires you pay a subscription fee before receiving any kind of unmetered service. Ok, I note the complaints I'm being picky and everyone "knows" what "free" means, but I think the word "free" is overused.)
Most other operators in the US offer unlimited airtime at nights, weekends, and often when calls are placed between mobiles on the same network, so the other networks also provide incoming calls "at no extra charge" for a specific subset of incoming calls.
Now, you're probably not in the US, which explains your confusion as to why someone would be wording this as it was, but don't think that because where you are the callee doesn't pay for incoming calls, that this means the calls are free. They're not. They're paid for by the caller, often at absurdly high rates. Do you never make calls to mobiles?
You are just as likely to be receiving a call as making one to a mobile phone (ie regardless of who pays, YOU are likely to pay it. You receive calls on your cellphone, and you call people who have cellphones), so when considering the total cost of ownership, the price of incoming calls, whether paid for by the caller or callee, makes a difference in terms of the use of mobile phones.
Because this is likely to descend to a debate on the subject of "Caller pays" or "Mobile user pays", the US system makes it harder to have a workable low-budget pay-as-you-go system, but once service-spends exceed around $40 a month, the provided tariffs are generally much, much, better value than that provided outside of the US. So there's a higher barrier to entry, but once you can afford it, even the most avid talkers can use it as their default phone. A typical tariff in the US is $50 a month for unlimited nights, weekends, and calls between same-network mobiles, plus 500 minutes for other call types. A typical tariff in the UK appears to be something approximating to 20-70c a minute for outgoing calls (the lower end for same network or landline calls, higher for calls to mobiles), with calls charged by the second and no, practical, monthly minimum call spends and everyone paying just for the calls they make. Someone who doesn't use a mobile phone very often would appreciate the latter, someone who wants to use it instead of a landline would appreciate the former.
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
No, that's not true, though the way it's presented often makes you think it is.
Sprint and a company called MetroPCS are one of the few companies in the entire world where incoming calls are in practice are "at no extra charge" (unless those calls are long distance.)
That is, someone can call someone with a Sprint phone on a "free unlimited incoming" plan, and NEITHER PARTY will be charged (subject to restrictions, namely that mobile party isn't roaming, and the caller has unlimited outgoing calls to at the very least the mobile party's area/exchange code. This is the default with US landlines.)
(I'm being picky with words here, because it's even worse than how I'm describing. I'm not aware of a single phone company in the entire world that offers free calls of any description save for 911/112/999 type calls. Every phone company in the world at the very least requires you pay a subscription fee before receiving any kind of unmetered service. Ok, I note the complaints I'm being picky and everyone "knows" what "free" means, but I think the word "free" is overused.)
Most other operators in the US offer unlimited airtime at nights, weekends, and often when calls are placed between mobiles on the same network, so the other networks also provide incoming calls "at no extra charge" for a specific subset of incoming calls.
Now, you're probably not in the US, which explains your confusion as to why someone would be wording this as it was, but don't think that because where you are the callee doesn't pay for incoming calls, that this means the calls are free. They're not. They're paid for by the caller, often at absurdly high rates. Do you never make calls to mobiles?
You are just as likely to be receiving a call as making one to a mobile phone (ie regardless of who pays, YOU are likely to pay it. You receive calls on your cellphone, and you call people who have cellphones), so when considering the total cost of ownership, the price of incoming calls, whether paid for by the caller or callee, makes a difference in terms of the use of mobile phones.
Because this is likely to descend to a debate on the subject of "Caller pays" or "Mobile user pays", the US system makes it harder to have a workable low-budget pay-as-you-go system, but once service-spends exceed around $40 a month, the provided tariffs are generally much, much, better value than that provided outside of the US. So there's a higher barrier to entry, but once you can afford it, even the most avid talkers can use it as their default phone. A typical tariff in the US is $50 a month for unlimited nights, weekends, and calls between same-network mobiles, plus 500 minutes for other call types. A typical tariff in the UK appears to be something approximating to 20-70c a minute for outgoing calls (the lower end for same network or landline calls, higher for calls to mobiles), with calls charged by the second and no, practical, monthly minimum call spends and everyone paying just for the calls they make. Someone who doesn't use a mobile phone very often would appreciate the latter, someone who wants to use it instead of a landline would appreciate the former.
iMeowbot
Sep 5, 06:04 PM
If this is a product called showtime, that could be a Bad Thing (tm). A media application that has the same name as the movie channel? Sounds like grounds for a trademark lawsuit to me. Mighty Mouse is a little harder to cause consumer confusion: one's an computer mouse, the other is a cartoon character. But a movie software application and a movie channel? hmmmmm....
I don't think there will be anything with that name.
Apple did just very recently file for a new iMovie trade mark in Europe, through Italy. They already had the name registered in 2000/2001. This new application is from 22 August, and no real details are currently published.
I don't think there will be anything with that name.
Apple did just very recently file for a new iMovie trade mark in Europe, through Italy. They already had the name registered in 2000/2001. This new application is from 22 August, and no real details are currently published.
Fraghax
Apr 4, 12:16 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
That security guard shoots better than the LA police. Lol
That security guard shoots better than the LA police. Lol
BrettJDeriso
Apr 22, 07:18 AM
I have no idea how this would be useful. Buffer times, connection loss, no WiFi around, these are all problems that will prevent this from working.
What's wrong with storing music on hard drives locally?
Not to mention blowing through your entire battery running the radios to stream what you could just as easily sync.
If you really want to stream your own collection over the WAN, there are already NAS appliances and streaming applications on the market that can deliver the goods. And if Apple prices this like their completely underwhelming Mobile Me offering, those alternatives could end up being a lot cheaper.
What's wrong with storing music on hard drives locally?
Not to mention blowing through your entire battery running the radios to stream what you could just as easily sync.
If you really want to stream your own collection over the WAN, there are already NAS appliances and streaming applications on the market that can deliver the goods. And if Apple prices this like their completely underwhelming Mobile Me offering, those alternatives could end up being a lot cheaper.
AidenShaw
Sep 9, 10:39 AM
As to logic-board being 32bits... Uh, no. There might be various reasons why it doesn't support 4GB of RAM, and it isn't due to "bitness" of the logic-board. And pray-tell: what exactly is a "32bit logic-board"?
The Napa chipset used with Yonah only supported 32 address lines.
A new Napa64 chipset is here that supports the additional address lines to allow > 4 GiB of physical memory.
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Forum/tm.asp?m=126194&mpage=1&key=𞳲
The Napa chipset used with Yonah only supported 32 address lines.
A new Napa64 chipset is here that supports the additional address lines to allow > 4 GiB of physical memory.
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Forum/tm.asp?m=126194&mpage=1&key=𞳲
starflyer
Mar 29, 11:12 AM
It would be more interesting to see their PROFIT SHARE predictions.
Hattig
Mar 29, 12:40 PM
using the keyboard, how quaint
Far faster than using the mouse. Mac OS X is very good at providing keyboard shortcuts, far better than Windows, although that may have changed with Windows 7.
I don't even get the point of your snarky comment. You know damn well that the functions are also available via the menus and right mouse button too.
Far faster than using the mouse. Mac OS X is very good at providing keyboard shortcuts, far better than Windows, although that may have changed with Windows 7.
I don't even get the point of your snarky comment. You know damn well that the functions are also available via the menus and right mouse button too.
