iamshack

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 10:43 AM) Maybe you should learn that Patent law is totally f***ing broken in this country and just admit it's broken versus defending the absurd s*** you're defending. I'm not going to disagree that it is antiquated.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 10:39 AM) You can't disagree...it's not an opinion that clicking links that lead you elsewhere, or launch services are basic use. Web browsers have been doing that SAME thing for years. And so have phones. Maybe you should learn how the law works.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 10:29 AM) Bolded part: Because they weren't. Touchscreens with such features have existed for years, Apple was simply the first to go to mass market with them, and some of them Apple did indeed think of/create, but not all. Slide to unlock is one thing...touching a phone number on a touch screen to dial it is something else entirely. To make a better example for you, that's like patenting the idea of a LINK in a web browser. Since Netscape did it first, no other web browsers should ever be able to do it again without paying them! One is an idea/specific method used to unlock a touch screen, the other is a basic fundamental use of the internet. There is a pretty huge difference between the two. * Citation of Apple not being the first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Surface Microsoft first conceptualized surface touch in 2001, years before Apple even began hatching the idea of the iPhone/touch/multitouch which didn't go to market until 2007. Just because they were the first to go mass market/consumer electronics does not mean they were the first to use, employ or even think of some of these ideas. Conceptualizing something gets you no protection under the law. This is not copyright law. This is patent law.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 10:29 AM) Bolded part: Because they weren't. Touchscreens with such features have existed for years, Apple was simply the first to go to mass market with them. Slide to unlock is one thing...touching a phone number on a touch screen to dial it is something else entirely. To make a better example for you, that's like patenting the idea of a LINK in a web browser. Since Netscape did it first, no other web browsers should ever be able to do it again without paying them! One is an idea/specific method to unlock, the other is a basic fundamental usage. There is a pretty huge difference. I disagree. You have no clue how frustrated I used to become when I was finding a number on one screen and trying to go back to my dialing screen and type in the number from memory, realizing I forgot some numbers and going back to the number, then going back to the dialing screen, etc. In patent law, there is a concept where if there is really only one good way to do something, than that is not really something that is patentable. For instance, you can't patent the idea for a chair. You can patent an idea for a chair that massages your back, or a chair that rocks, or a chair that has a cooler for your beer in it, but you cannot patent a simple chair. In this instance, Apple is improving about the idea of web browsing. They are allowing you to access information from the screen you are browsing directly with the functionality of the phone. I think that is a design improvement that deserves recognition under the law.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 10:13 AM) It's akin to having a patent on a round steering wheel. It's literally a patent on being able to touch a phone number in an e-mail on a touch screen device and you're phone calling that number. It's absurd. I disagree. In reading Jobs' biography, it was little innovations that were turning points in the design of a phone. And while some of these innovations may seem unimportant now, at the time, they were critical. For instance, when the iPhone was being developed, they couldn't get by the issue of the touchscreen being activated in someone's pocket. It took them a while to come up with the "slide to unlock" feature. While that seems obvious now, why is it then that almost ALL of these innovations were created by Apple? If they are so obvious and unimportant, why is it that these innovations aren't spread across the spectrum of all the developers? Instead, we've got basically all the best touchscreen technology and features coming out of one company, and I don't blame them one bit for patenting that technology.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 08:10 AM) An example of everything wrong with software patents: U.S. Backs Apple in Patent Ruling That Hits Google I am not sure what is wrong with this? Can you elaborate further?

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 09:00 PM) We're supposed to find out who gets the first crack at him tonight... This mustache must not be denied. Didn't he insist like 3-4 years ago (around the time Matsuzaka came over) that he would never come to the US to play MLB?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 03:02 PM) whitesox Chicago White Sox Beckham, Crain, Peavy, Pierzynski and Sale have been added to the list of current players scheduled to attend #SoxFest! Gives you a good idea of who they think will still be here next year...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 12:24 PM) Will you give that same LOL to everyone who wanted to sign Forte to a big contract because he never got hurt? That 4-2 or 3-3 was predicated on not losing the RB who was having an MVP level season himself. Why is everyone ignoring the fact that as soon as Chris Williams went down, Forte's production dropped off a cliff? Forte wasn't going to do much (and didn't prior to when he got hurt) without Cutler and the threat of a passing game.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 11:58 AM) That's why I figured you left him out, but if he was one of Ozzie's guys, you would think he'd have brought him to Miami with him. Perhaps he's making Cox sweat? That sounds very dirty.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 18, 2011 -> 09:11 PM) I was working so I didn't get to watch but I was told that Aaron was just fine but the receivers completely let him down... That is true. Rogers played fine. The Referees decided to call PI on Jordy Nelson twice, Donald Driver dropped a key pass, and Jermichael Finley dropped a big pass. The Chiefs did a nice job of pressuring Rodgers with their front four as well. Tamba was all over the field today.

QUOTE (MurcieOne @ Dec 18, 2011 -> 03:24 PM) Have to be able to hit him in the flat to be useful. Past few weeks he has shown he can't consistently make that throw. He's awful. Don't think any personnel would have made him passable. He's only a notch better than Todd Collins/Jonathan Quinn Not only that but Forte isn't going to do s*** without a passing game and he wasn't a running threat once Chris Williams went down.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 18, 2011 -> 03:02 PM) Hope we never see hanie again I agree with this....he is the dumbest piece of s*** I have ever seen.

Packers -13.5 Texans -6 Bengals -7 Saints -7.5 Redskins +6.5 Broncos +7.5 Cardinals -6.5

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 18, 2011 -> 02:38 AM) They were up 28-0, what the f*** did you expect?? What the heck happened to the Buccs, they were legit playoff contenders last year and have just fallen apart. Josh Freeman looked like a franchise QB and now you have to question him. P.S. I am not looking forward to attending the football game at Soldier Field in ten hours. Last year they benefitted from an extremely easy schedule and won a lot of close games. This year they didn't have that benefit, and RM lost the team, including Freeman, after the tough loss to Green Bay.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 17, 2011 -> 12:52 AM) You'd have to throw in Thornton, too. Something like Rios, Danks and Thornton (because Boone Logan was their first lefty out the pen for most of the season) for Gardner or minor leaguers. Personally, I feel it would be better to hold onto Rios for at least another half season and see if he can turn it around again. Thornton is making $6 million or whatever, so you're saying the Yankees take on $25 million AND give us Gardner back? I think the only way you could do it is to attach Chris Sale to him.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 17, 2011 -> 08:05 PM) Danks is going to be a 7-8 million pitcher next year, and is a year away from FA. No chance the Padres even asked about Danks. I think he means what were we asking from the Reds.

QUOTE (Brian @ Dec 17, 2011 -> 01:12 PM) How much will the iPad 2 price go down when 3 comes out in Feb? Predictions? I wonder as more and more versions come out how long they will keep the older versions out. For instance, you cannot buy an original iPad from Apple anymore, can you? However, you can still buy an iPhone 3GS. So one would think they would start keeping older versions of the iPad around a bit, and decreasing the cost. My guess would be $199, $249 and $299 pricepoints, perhaps?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 17, 2011 -> 02:45 PM) I guess what I am getting at is prospects are not unlike back up QBs. They seem to be a lot more popular until people actually see them playing when it matters. I'm not exactly thrilled if I'm a Padre fan right now. I would be, simply because if I am a Padre fan, I believe the only way we can be successful is to get lucky with a core of young, cost-controlled studs all coming together in a relatively short time. They weren't going to win anything before Latos becomes expensive and they are trying to trade him for one of those prospects instead of all of those prospects.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 17, 2011 -> 02:31 PM) If the Sox received the same package SD just received in exchange for Danks, how long until they are in contention? Seems to me the only sure thing is Latos. The others MAY be good, they MAY really suck, the MAY be average. Obviously you have to look at how long the players are controlled and you would roll the dice with this package considering Danks only has one year left, but I really don't think SD fleeced the Reds. There is a decent chance its the other way around. Well, the situations are different. Part of the downside of rebuilding is having to take that risk on the unknown versus the known. And then you have what SD and Oakland are doing, which is really frightening, to be honest, in that they are trading away the young cost-controlled studs, which are the very essence of why you acquire prospects in the first place, for more prospects, in the hope that you can either hit on more than one of those prospects (what SD is doing), or you can time a wave of talent to hit the MLB level all at one time (what the A's are doing). What bugs me about the SD trade is that the Reds gave them Volquez as well, who you know they are going to move at the deadline after he builds value in Petco, and quite possibly get ANOTHER prospect that could turn into what they just traded away in Latos.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Dec 17, 2011 -> 02:14 PM) Of course. Do you still suckle from your mothers nips as you do Williams'? Oooh, that's a real zinger there.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Dec 17, 2011 -> 02:12 PM) Perhaps if we had invested in the draft or international market this would have been irrelevant. Due to our reluctance to acknowledge that part of the game, and our current position in mediocrity, there's no other choice but to build through trades. It doesn't even matter what we're capable of, it's what has to be done. What you wish would happen and what is reality are two completely different things. It does no one any good to continue to whine and cry about what has or has not been done in the past. All that can be done now is to improve on our previous mistakes. However, as much as we'd all like to trade for the next cost-controlled superstar, being completely unrealistic about what our assets are worth only makes our situation worse.

QUOTE (Wanne @ Dec 17, 2011 -> 02:03 PM) Me too...but I have a feeling he's not gonna really do squat. I would have been thrilled with a deal of this nature...but Kenny doesn't want to appear capricious in nature tho I guess. That's a pretty sweet haul for the Padres IMO. Don't you think EVERY team would be thrilled to get these kind of prospects back? The problem is, most teams do not have an asset such as Latos to trade, or if they do, they are unwilling to trade him. There is no player in the White Sox organization capable of bringing back this package.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Dec 17, 2011 -> 01:56 PM) Even so, I'm still not letting Williams off the hook. I don't care if all teams are offering are AAA players, those players better come here and -- if not immediately -- eventually produce. I want a trade this offseason where rival executives and opposing teams fans express shock at the amount given up for one of our players. None of this "fair for both teams" bulls***. And for those goofs who will say, "he can ask, but it doesn't mean he'll get it," I really don't care. We're not going to rebuild anytime time soon with one-for-one trades of closers for potential #3 starters. Do you throw this temper-tantrum with your mother too?

QUOTE (SOXOBAMA @ Dec 17, 2011 -> 02:03 PM) I wonder why the Padres would want Q, since Byrnes traded him to the Sox I'm just wondering why the hell the Reds kept listening after there were more names following Alonso and Grandal...