Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #241546 > unrolled thread

Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case.

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-03 09:40 -0400
    Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> - 2014-05-03 15:01 +0100
      Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-03 10:07 -0400
        Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> - 2014-05-03 15:53 +0100
          Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-03 11:47 -0400
            Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> - 2014-05-04 00:25 +0100
              Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 01:34 +0200
              Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-03 16:40 -0700
                Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-03 21:06 -0700
              Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-03 19:47 -0400
                Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-03 16:56 -0700
                Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> - 2014-05-07 14:19 +0100
                  Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-07 09:35 -0400
                    Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-07 08:18 -0700
              Judge orders troll to "get a clue" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-03 20:44 -0400
                I Think I Pissed Off Chris Ahlstrom. 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-03 20:47 -0400
          Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-03 12:45 -0400
            Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-03 12:43 -0700
            Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-06 07:35 -0500
          Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2014-05-05 12:55 -0500
            Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-05 11:49 -0700
              Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-05 16:42 -0700
      Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-03 13:09 -0700
        Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-03 13:55 -0700
        Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-03 15:28 -0600
      Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> - 2014-05-04 17:17 +0200
        Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-04 08:27 -0700
          Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 09:09 -0700
          Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> - 2014-05-04 19:21 +0200
            Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-04 10:47 -0700
              Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> - 2014-05-04 20:10 +0200
                Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-04 11:37 -0700
                  Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzin@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 11:52 -0700
                Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-04 15:14 -0400
                  Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-04 15:19 -0400
                    Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-05-04 21:43 +0200
                      Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-04 15:45 -0400
                        Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2014-05-04 20:13 +0000
                          Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-04 16:15 -0400
                            Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 14:05 -0700
                            Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-04 15:37 -0600
                              Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-04 17:42 -0400
                                Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-04 19:04 -0600
                                Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2014-05-05 01:12 +0000
                      Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-04 16:05 -0400
                        Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-04 16:07 -0400
                          Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-04 13:15 -0700
                        Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-04 15:36 -0600
                          Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-04 14:54 -0700
                          Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> - 2014-05-04 23:26 +0100
                            Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-04 15:42 -0700
                              Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 17:23 -0700
                            Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-04 20:17 -0400
                              Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 17:22 -0700
                              Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-04 19:02 -0600
                            Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-04 19:01 -0600
                              Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-04 18:53 -0700
                                Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 21:20 -0700
                  Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-04 12:59 -0700
                  Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> - 2014-05-04 23:05 +0100
                    Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-04 15:24 -0700
                      Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> - 2014-05-05 16:13 +0200
                        Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-05 08:46 -0700
                          Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> - 2014-05-06 10:39 +0200
                            Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-06 07:19 -0400
                              Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-06 09:04 -0700
                                Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-06 09:56 -0700
                              Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> - 2014-05-07 01:48 +0200
                                Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-06 17:16 -0700
                                  Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> - 2014-05-07 10:12 +0200
                                    Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 11:12 +0200
                                    Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-07 08:21 -0700
                                    Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2014-05-07 14:17 -0500
                                      Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-07 12:40 -0700
                                      Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 13:05 -0700
                                Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-06 20:41 -0400
                                  Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-06 18:32 -0700
                                  Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2014-05-07 11:22 +0000
                                    Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-05-07 09:08 -0400
                                      Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-07 09:16 -0400
                                        Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-07 08:16 -0700
                                        Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-05-07 12:29 -0400
                                          Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 10:17 -0700
                                      Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-07 08:31 -0700
                                    Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-07 08:31 -0700
                                Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 12:56 -0700
                            Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-06 08:52 -0700
        Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-04 13:14 -0400
          Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-04 10:51 -0700
            Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 13:29 -0700
    Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-03 09:03 -0700
    Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-03 13:00 -0700

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#241862

On 5/4/14, 3:05 PM, in article lk6djk$bov$1@dont-email.me, "Lusotec"
<nomail@nomail.not> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> I get more "data detectors" than I can stand with Google and Android.
> 
> KDE has had actions (same as data detectors)

1) This is different than the claim that it was in X Windows
2) I would love to see evidence of this.

> for many years and it works on any applications that allows text to be
> selected. It can be easily enabled/disabled with a shortcut key and like most
> things in KDE, actions are fully customizable and very flexible. Gnome also
> has actions but I don't have experience with them.
> 
> These are a few of the actions I have setup:
> - - Search the bug tracker when a bug reference is selected.
> - - Search the reviews manager when a review request reference is selected.
> - - Search the contacts book when a phone number is selected.
> - - Search the contacts book when a email is selected.
> - - Search the contacts book when a name is selected.
> and many more.

I would love to see these - why not record some and post it?

>> The damn thing tells me the current temperature and how long it will
>> supposedly take for me to drive places.  And it's single-company thing as
>> well.  Shove it.
> 
> LOL

He completely missed the point.


-- 
* Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu:    <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint / LibreOffice:               <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
* Win 8 / Word 2013:                <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241994

On 05/05/14 00:24, Snit wrote:
> On 5/4/14, 3:05 PM, in article lk6djk$bov$1@dont-email.me, "Lusotec"
> <nomail@nomail.not> wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> I get more "data detectors" than I can stand with Google and Android.
>>
>> KDE has had actions (same as data detectors)
>
> 1) This is different than the claim that it was in X Windows
> 2) I would love to see evidence of this.

What Apple have claimed is not data detectors. Apple have claimed a 
system with a message parser that displays based on the message 
contents. If keywords are detected these are highlighted and the display 
is modified, based on the message contents. The system carries out the 
associated actions when the actions associated with the highlighted test 
is initiated. X-Windows does all that as well.

The USPO has let through a patent application, which is MUCH too wide. 
For that reason the patent should be invalidated.

>
>> for many years and it works on any applications that allows text to be
>> selected. It can be easily enabled/disabled with a shortcut key and like most
>> things in KDE, actions are fully customizable and very flexible. Gnome also
>> has actions but I don't have experience with them.
>>
>> These are a few of the actions I have setup:
>> - - Search the bug tracker when a bug reference is selected.
>> - - Search the reviews manager when a review request reference is selected.
>> - - Search the contacts book when a phone number is selected.
>> - - Search the contacts book when a email is selected.
>> - - Search the contacts book when a name is selected.
>> and many more.
>
> I would love to see these - why not record some and post it?
>
>>> The damn thing tells me the current temperature and how long it will
>>> supposedly take for me to drive places.  And it's single-company thing as
>>> well.  Shove it.
>>
>> LOL
>
> He completely missed the point.
>
>

Ian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242006

On 5/5/14, 7:13 AM, in article bspkjuFbr64U1@mid.individual.net, "Ian
Hilliard" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:

> On 05/05/14 00:24, Snit wrote:
>> On 5/4/14, 3:05 PM, in article lk6djk$bov$1@dont-email.me, "Lusotec"
>> <nomail@nomail.not> wrote:
>> 
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA256
>>> 
>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>> I get more "data detectors" than I can stand with Google and Android.
>>> 
>>> KDE has had actions (same as data detectors)
>> 
>> 1) This is different than the claim that it was in X Windows
>> 2) I would love to see evidence of this.
> 
> What Apple have claimed is not data detectors.

Seems like it to me: <http://goo.gl/SVITE9>. Also, do a search for: Data
Detector Patent and that is what you find: <http://goo.gl/Vct1iR>.

> Apple have claimed a system with a message parser that displays based on the
> message contents. If keywords are detected these are highlighted and the
> display is modified, based on the message contents.

They go into much more detail in the patent.

> The system carries out the associated actions when the actions associated with
> the highlighted test is initiated. X-Windows does all that as well.

I would love to see it!

> The USPO has let through a patent application, which is MUCH too wide.
> For that reason the patent should be invalidated.

In your opinion. OK. But the courts have disagreed. I admit I do not know
enough about how patents to have a view one way or the other.

...



-- 
* Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu:    <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint / LibreOffice:               <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
* Win 8 / Word 2013:                <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242057

On 05/05/14 17:46, Snit wrote:
> On 5/5/14, 7:13 AM, in article bspkjuFbr64U1@mid.individual.net, "Ian
> Hilliard" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:
>
>> On 05/05/14 00:24, Snit wrote:
>>> On 5/4/14, 3:05 PM, in article lk6djk$bov$1@dont-email.me, "Lusotec"
>>> <nomail@nomail.not> wrote:
>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA256
>>>>
>>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>> I get more "data detectors" than I can stand with Google and Android.
>>>>
>>>> KDE has had actions (same as data detectors)
>>>
>>> 1) This is different than the claim that it was in X Windows
>>> 2) I would love to see evidence of this.
>>
>> What Apple have claimed is not data detectors.
>
> Seems like it to me: <http://goo.gl/SVITE9>. Also, do a search for: Data
> Detector Patent and that is what you find: <http://goo.gl/Vct1iR>.
>
>> Apple have claimed a system with a message parser that displays based on the
>> message contents. If keywords are detected these are highlighted and the
>> display is modified, based on the message contents.
>
> They go into much more detail in the patent.
>
>> The system carries out the associated actions when the actions associated with
>> the highlighted test is initiated. X-Windows does all that as well.
>
> I would love to see it!
>
>> The USPO has let through a patent application, which is MUCH too wide.
>> For that reason the patent should be invalidated.
>
> In your opinion. OK. But the courts have disagreed. I admit I do not know
> enough about how patents to have a view one way or the other.
>


When it goes to court, the body of the patent is given no consideration. 
Courts only consider the claims.

Ian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242060

On Tue, 06 May 2014 10:39:18 +0200, Ian Hilliard wrote:


> When it goes to court, the body of the patent is given no consideration. 
> Courts only consider the claims.
> 
> Ian

The patent system is a mess, we all agree.
There needs to be a method of protecting investment in developing a
product but at the same time discourages those who would be
considered patent trolls.



-- 
flatfish+++

163 Reasons not to deal with Michael "Snit" Glasser, the Prescott 
Computer Guy
http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242104

On 5/6/14, 4:19 AM, in article 2zx3lda5drfu$.1bmussccgtmbg.dlg@40tude.net,
"flatfish+++" <phlatphish@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 06 May 2014 10:39:18 +0200, Ian Hilliard wrote:
> 
> 
>> When it goes to court, the body of the patent is given no consideration.
>> Courts only consider the claims.
>> 
>> Ian
> 
> The patent system is a mess, we all agree.
> There needs to be a method of protecting investment in developing a
> product but at the same time discourages those who would be
> considered patent trolls.

Absolutely agreed.


-- 
* Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu:    <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint / LibreOffice:               <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
* Win 8 / Word 2013:                <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242116

On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 4:04:48 PM UTC, Snit wrote:
> On 5/6/14, 4:19 AM, in article 2zx3lda5drfu$.1bmussccgtmbg.dlg@40tude.net,
> 
> "flatfish+++" <phlatphish@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > On Tue, 06 May 2014 10:39:18 +0200, Ian Hilliard wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> >> When it goes to court, the body of the patent is given no consideration.
> 
> >> Courts only consider the claims.
> 
> >> 
> 
> >> Ian
> 
> > 
> 
> > The patent system is a mess, we all agree.
> 
> > There needs to be a method of protecting investment in developing a
> 
> > product but at the same time discourages those who would be
> 
> > considered patent trolls.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> * Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu:    <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
> 
> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
> 
> * Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
> 
> * Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
> 
> * Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
> 
> * Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
> 
> * Mint / LibreOffice:               <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
> 
> * Win 8 / Word 2013:                <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
> 
> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>

What happened to you hating me-too posts or are those me_too posts? ;)


Another forum ruined by 
Michael Glasser Prescott Computer Guy of Prescott, Arizona 86301
http://prescottcomputerguy.com
The best web design in Prescott, AZ is shown here 
http://prescottcomputerguy.com/web-design.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242199

On 06/05/14 13:19,  flatfish+++ wrote:
> On Tue, 06 May 2014 10:39:18 +0200, Ian Hilliard wrote:
>
>
>> When it goes to court, the body of the patent is given no consideration.
>> Courts only consider the claims.
>>
>> Ian
>
> The patent system is a mess, we all agree.
> There needs to be a method of protecting investment in developing a
> product but at the same time discourages those who would be
> considered patent trolls.
>
>
>

It is the job of the patent office to reject such broad patent 
applications. The problem is that the system doesn't work as intended 
and so overly wide patents get through. All this does is weaken the 
technology companies and make the lawyers richer. Hence, it is a 
lose-lose scenario.

Ian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242204

On 5/6/14, 4:48 PM, in article bstamjF5fkvU1@mid.individual.net, "Ian
Hilliard" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:

> On 06/05/14 13:19,  flatfish+++ wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 May 2014 10:39:18 +0200, Ian Hilliard wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> When it goes to court, the body of the patent is given no consideration.
>>> Courts only consider the claims.
>>> 
>>> Ian
>> 
>> The patent system is a mess, we all agree.
>> There needs to be a method of protecting investment in developing a
>> product but at the same time discourages those who would be
>> considered patent trolls.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> It is the job of the patent office to reject such broad patent
> applications. The problem is that the system doesn't work as intended
> and so overly wide patents get through. All this does is weaken the
> technology companies and make the lawyers richer. Hence, it is a
> lose-lose scenario.

How would you fix it so companies such as Apple can protect their
investments / innovations?



-- 
* Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu:    <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint / LibreOffice:               <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
* Win 8 / Word 2013:                <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242276

On 07/05/14 02:16, Snit wrote:
> On 5/6/14, 4:48 PM, in article bstamjF5fkvU1@mid.individual.net, "Ian
> Hilliard" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:
>
>> On 06/05/14 13:19,  flatfish+++ wrote:
>>> On Tue, 06 May 2014 10:39:18 +0200, Ian Hilliard wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> When it goes to court, the body of the patent is given no consideration.
>>>> Courts only consider the claims.
>>>>
>>>> Ian
>>>
>>> The patent system is a mess, we all agree.
>>> There needs to be a method of protecting investment in developing a
>>> product but at the same time discourages those who would be
>>> considered patent trolls.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It is the job of the patent office to reject such broad patent
>> applications. The problem is that the system doesn't work as intended
>> and so overly wide patents get through. All this does is weaken the
>> technology companies and make the lawyers richer. Hence, it is a
>> lose-lose scenario.
>
> How would you fix it so companies such as Apple can protect their
> investments / innovations?
>
>
>

The patent system was designed to protect truly new developments. It was 
meant to be a contract between an inventor and society whereby the 
inventor provides full details of their invention, such that anyone can 
reproduce the invention. In return, society gives the inventor a 
monopoly on that invention. Most patent applications do not provide full 
details and most are not for truly innovative ideas.

Much of what Apple has done is not new. Apple didn't invent the MP3 
player, the smartphone or the tablet computer. It was only the 
implementation that was better. The patent system was not designed to 
protect better implementations of existing ideas, yet somehow that is 
exactly what companies are trying to do.

There is an excellent article by Mark Lemley in the Michigan Law Review 
[Vol. 110:709, p709 titled, "The Myth of the Sole Inventor". What Lemley 
points out is that the great inventors seldom worked in a vacuum. The 
inventions were the product of incremental improvements to available 
technology.

By issuing patents, society actually forces different solutions to be 
used. Future developments will then be based on the different solutions. 
If these different solutions are suboptimal, then all future development 
will be based on the suboptimal solution. In effect, patents impede 
progress and do not enhance it. I don't know what the answer is, but I 
think that it should be much harder to get a patent.

Ian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242278

Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> writes:

> On 07/05/14 02:16, Snit wrote:
>> On 5/6/14, 4:48 PM, in article bstamjF5fkvU1@mid.individual.net, "Ian
>> Hilliard" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/05/14 13:19,  flatfish+++ wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 06 May 2014 10:39:18 +0200, Ian Hilliard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> When it goes to court, the body of the patent is given no consideration.
>>>>> Courts only consider the claims.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>> The patent system is a mess, we all agree.
>>>> There needs to be a method of protecting investment in developing a
>>>> product but at the same time discourages those who would be
>>>> considered patent trolls.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is the job of the patent office to reject such broad patent
>>> applications. The problem is that the system doesn't work as intended
>>> and so overly wide patents get through. All this does is weaken the
>>> technology companies and make the lawyers richer. Hence, it is a
>>> lose-lose scenario.
>>
>> How would you fix it so companies such as Apple can protect their
>> investments / innovations?
>>
>>
>>
>
> The patent system was designed to protect truly new developments. It was meant
> to be a contract between an inventor and society whereby the inventor provides
> full details of their invention, such that anyone can reproduce the
> invention. In return, society gives the inventor a monopoly on that

Monopoly? LOL. You're such an arse.

It gives him the rights to HIS INVENTION without people stealing it.

He has no monopoly on the market. The market mus adapt or develop in parallel.

> invention. Most patent applications do not provide full details and most are not
> for truly innovative ideas.
>
> Much of what Apple has done is not new. Apple didn't invent the MP3 player, the
> smartphone or the tablet computer. It was only the implementation that was
> better. The patent system was not designed to protect better implementations of
> existing ideas, yet somehow that is exactly what companies are trying
> to do.

Everything is the development of a previous idea. Else you might has
well say nothing is "new and patentable" since you learnt everything at
school.


>
> There is an excellent article by Mark Lemley in the Michigan Law Review
> [Vol. 110:709, p709 titled, "The Myth of the Sole Inventor". What Lemley points
> out is that the great inventors seldom worked in a vacuum. The inventions were
> the product of incremental improvements to available technology.

What rocket science. Only a super brain like you would somehow think that
this is something new. Everyone is aware of that Ian. We dont need your
super sized brain to understand it. On the shoulders of giants and all
that.


>
> By issuing patents, society actually forces different solutions to be
> used.

Which is, in many cases, a good thing.

> Future developments will then be based on the different solutions. If
> these different solutions are suboptimal, then all future development will be
> based on the suboptimal solution. In effect, patents impede progress and do not
> enhance it. I don't know what the answer is, but I think that it should be much
> harder to get a patent.

I think we all agree with that. But it depends on what.

Like Google patenting the "idea" of having a different image on their
search page every day. THAT was a patent? You couldnt make it up.

>
> Ian
>

-- 
"I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact." 
The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree.
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242326

On 5/7/14, 1:12 AM, in article bsu870FauikU1@mid.individual.net, "Ian
Hilliard" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:

> On 07/05/14 02:16, Snit wrote:
>> On 5/6/14, 4:48 PM, in article bstamjF5fkvU1@mid.individual.net, "Ian
>> Hilliard" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 06/05/14 13:19,  flatfish+++ wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 06 May 2014 10:39:18 +0200, Ian Hilliard wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> When it goes to court, the body of the patent is given no consideration.
>>>>> Courts only consider the claims.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ian
>>>> 
>>>> The patent system is a mess, we all agree.
>>>> There needs to be a method of protecting investment in developing a
>>>> product but at the same time discourages those who would be
>>>> considered patent trolls.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> It is the job of the patent office to reject such broad patent
>>> applications. The problem is that the system doesn't work as intended
>>> and so overly wide patents get through. All this does is weaken the
>>> technology companies and make the lawyers richer. Hence, it is a
>>> lose-lose scenario.
>> 
>> How would you fix it so companies such as Apple can protect their
>> investments / innovations?
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> The patent system was designed to protect truly new developments. It was
> meant to be a contract between an inventor and society whereby the
> inventor provides full details of their invention, such that anyone can
> reproduce the invention. In return, society gives the inventor a
> monopoly on that invention. Most patent applications do not provide full
> details and most are not for truly innovative ideas.
> 
> Much of what Apple has done is not new. Apple didn't invent the MP3
> player, the smartphone or the tablet computer. It was only the
> implementation that was better. The patent system was not designed to
> protect better implementations of existing ideas, yet somehow that is
> exactly what companies are trying to do.
> 
> There is an excellent article by Mark Lemley in the Michigan Law Review
> [Vol. 110:709, p709 titled, "The Myth of the Sole Inventor". What Lemley
> points out is that the great inventors seldom worked in a vacuum. The
> inventions were the product of incremental improvements to available
> technology.
> 
> By issuing patents, society actually forces different solutions to be
> used. Future developments will then be based on the different solutions.
> If these different solutions are suboptimal, then all future development
> will be based on the suboptimal solution. In effect, patents impede
> progress and do not enhance it. I don't know what the answer is, but I
> think that it should be much harder to get a patent.
> 
> Ian

Really comes down to you not having an answer as to how companies such as
Apple can protect their investments / innovations. That is fair enough - I
admit I do not have a good solution, either. What we do know is Apple is
heavily innovative and copied grossly. This has happened time and time again
with desktop computers, music players and ecosystems, cell phones, tablets,
etc. Not that Apple has invented any of these categories - they learned from
others and others learned from them. But Apple is left with no real method
of stopping such moral abuses as seen recently from Google and Samsung. They
use the tools they have - the patent system largely - but it is not a good
tool for protecting these systems.


-- 
* Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu:    <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint / LibreOffice:               <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
* Win 8 / Word 2013:                <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242410

On 2014-05-07, Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:
> On 07/05/14 02:16, Snit wrote:
>> On 5/6/14, 4:48 PM, in article bstamjF5fkvU1@mid.individual.net, "Ian
>> Hilliard" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/05/14 13:19,  flatfish+++ wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 06 May 2014 10:39:18 +0200, Ian Hilliard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> When it goes to court, the body of the patent is given no consideration.
>>>>> Courts only consider the claims.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>> The patent system is a mess, we all agree.
>>>> There needs to be a method of protecting investment in developing a
>>>> product but at the same time discourages those who would be
>>>> considered patent trolls.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is the job of the patent office to reject such broad patent
>>> applications. The problem is that the system doesn't work as intended
>>> and so overly wide patents get through. All this does is weaken the
>>> technology companies and make the lawyers richer. Hence, it is a
>>> lose-lose scenario.
>>
>> How would you fix it so companies such as Apple can protect their
>> investments / innovations?

   I wouldn't. That's not the point.

   Patents are a trade. Your trade secrets for a limited monopoly.

   Such things should be employed as sparingly as possible as any monopoly
is inherently harmful and destructive and undermines both the free market 
and democracy.

   That trade should be done with the understanding that these are things
of actual value where the harm of granting a monopoly is greater than the
harm of forcing everyone to re-invent a particular wheel.

   If re-inventing a particular wheel is cheap, then that particular "secret"
really has no value and does not warrant the granting of a monopoly.

   The term "patent" really does gloss over the relevant bits of the situation here.

-- 
	vi isn't easy to use.				 |||
							/ | \
	vi is easy to REPLACE.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242413

On 5/7/14, 12:17 PM, in article slrnlml1mi.msk.jedi@nomad.mishnet,
"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

...
>>>> It is the job of the patent office to reject such broad patent
>>>> applications. The problem is that the system doesn't work as intended
>>>> and so overly wide patents get through. All this does is weaken the
>>>> technology companies and make the lawyers richer. Hence, it is a
>>>> lose-lose scenario.
>>> 
>>> How would you fix it so companies such as Apple can protect their
>>> investments / innovations?
> 
> I wouldn't. That's not the point.

But the reason Apple uses patents is because those are the best tool to
protect their work, even if the tool is not a very good one. Without a
replacement tool for them to use, it makes no sense to get rid of the poor
one.

> Patents are a trade. Your trade secrets for a limited monopoly.

Others cannot copy what is secret. They protect what is made public, too.

> Such things should be employed as sparingly as possible as any monopoly is
> inherently harmful and destructive and undermines both the free market and
> democracy.

So what should be used to protect the investment in time, money, and energy
that Apple and others use to create innovative products? You say not patents
- fine... but what? I am not defending patents.

> That trade should be done with the understanding that these are things of
> actual value where the harm of granting a monopoly is greater than the harm of
> forcing everyone to re-invent a particular wheel.

Which is what Apple is asking for when they put a lot of resources into
greatly altering the many markets they have - only to have companies such as
Microsoft, Google, and Samsung use their ideas to make copycat products.

If these companies can just walk away with these ideas as soon as they are
released to the public, that removes incentive for Apple and others to push
the state of the art forward.

> If re-inventing a particular wheel is cheap, then that particular "secret"
> really has no value and does not warrant the granting of a monopoly.

What if re-inventing the wheel is expensive and time consuming and
challenging - but once it is re-invented, copying that idea is not that
hard?

How does one protect such work?

> The term "patent" really does gloss over the relevant bits of the situation
> here.

You keep saying patents are not a good tool to protect the types of
investment being discussed. OK, I can accept that. So what would a good tool
look like? 

-- 
* Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu:    <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint / LibreOffice:               <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
* Win 8 / Word 2013:                <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242419

On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 7:17:38 PM UTC, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2014-05-07, Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 07/05/14 02:16, Snit wrote:
> 
> >> On 5/6/14, 4:48 PM, in article bstamjF5fkvU1@mid.individual.net, "Ian
> 
> >> Hilliard" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> On 06/05/14 13:19,  flatfish+++ wrote:
> 
> >>>> On Tue, 06 May 2014 10:39:18 +0200, Ian Hilliard wrote:
> 
> >>>>
> 
> >>>>
> 
> >>>>> When it goes to court, the body of the patent is given no consideration.
> 
> >>>>> Courts only consider the claims.
> 
> >>>>>
> 
> >>>>> Ian
> 
> >>>>
> 
> >>>> The patent system is a mess, we all agree.
> 
> >>>> There needs to be a method of protecting investment in developing a
> 
> >>>> product but at the same time discourages those who would be
> 
> >>>> considered patent trolls.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> >>>>
> 
> >>>>
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>> It is the job of the patent office to reject such broad patent
> 
> >>> applications. The problem is that the system doesn't work as intended
> 
> >>> and so overly wide patents get through. All this does is weaken the
> 
> >>> technology companies and make the lawyers richer. Hence, it is a
> 
> >>> lose-lose scenario.
> 
> >>
> 
> >> How would you fix it so companies such as Apple can protect their
> 
> >> investments / innovations?
> 
> 
> 
>    I wouldn't. That's not the point.
> 
> 
> 
>    Patents are a trade. Your trade secrets for a limited monopoly.
> 
> 
> 
>    Such things should be employed as sparingly as possible as any monopoly
> 
> is inherently harmful and destructive and undermines both the free market 
> 
> and democracy.
> 
> 
> 
>    That trade should be done with the understanding that these are things
> 
> of actual value where the harm of granting a monopoly is greater than the
> 
> harm of forcing everyone to re-invent a particular wheel.
> 
> 
> 
>    If re-inventing a particular wheel is cheap, then that particular "secret"
> 
> really has no value and does not warrant the granting of a monopoly.
> 
> 
> 
>    The term "patent" really does gloss over the relevant bits of the situation here.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 	vi isn't easy to use.				 |||
> 
> 							/ | \
> 
> 	vi is easy to REPLACE.

Snit wants everything Apple does no matter how trivial to be protected by big government and made their own. If Apple comes up with a TV then Snit will say no other company should be able to sell a TV that has any feature Apple has with theirs, even the rectangular shape.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242209

On Wed, 07 May 2014 01:48:34 +0200, Ian Hilliard wrote:

> On 06/05/14 13:19,  flatfish+++ wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 May 2014 10:39:18 +0200, Ian Hilliard wrote:
>>
>>
>>> When it goes to court, the body of the patent is given no consideration.
>>> Courts only consider the claims.
>>>
>>> Ian
>>
>> The patent system is a mess, we all agree.
>> There needs to be a method of protecting investment in developing a
>> product but at the same time discourages those who would be
>> considered patent trolls.
>>
>>
>>
> 
> It is the job of the patent office to reject such broad patent 
> applications. The problem is that the system doesn't work as intended 
> and so overly wide patents get through. All this does is weaken the 
> technology companies and make the lawyers richer. Hence, it is a 
> lose-lose scenario.
> 
> Ian

Agreed.

We need a better system.
A complete overhaul IMHO.

Alas, I do not know what the solution is.
I really don't.

-- 
flatfish+++

163 Reasons not to deal with Michael "Snit" Glasser, the Prescott 
Computer Guy
http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242226

On 5/6/14, 5:41 PM, in article 459nlo3o7mbs.wwsvnhmeur05$.dlg@40tude.net,
"flatfish+++" <phlatphish@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> The patent system is a mess, we all agree.
>>> There needs to be a method of protecting investment in developing a
>>> product but at the same time discourages those who would be
>>> considered patent trolls.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> It is the job of the patent office to reject such broad patent
>> applications. The problem is that the system doesn't work as intended
>> and so overly wide patents get through. All this does is weaken the
>> technology companies and make the lawyers richer. Hence, it is a
>> lose-lose scenario.
>> 
>> Ian
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> We need a better system.
> A complete overhaul IMHO.
> 
> Alas, I do not know what the solution is.
> I really don't.

I think we need to have a system for protecting not just details but the
overall idea. What we have not all too often is like a copyright system that
protects sentences but not books.


-- 
* Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu:    <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint / LibreOffice:               <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
* Win 8 / Word 2013:                <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242289

flatfish+++ wrote:

> Alas, I do not know what the solution is.
> I really don't.

Ask Snot. After all, he knows everything about everything, and he's always 
right. Not to mention honest and trustworthy.

-- 
Press any key to continue or any other key to quit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242306

On 14-05-07 07:22 AM, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
> flatfish+++ wrote:
>
>> Alas, I do not know what the solution is.
>> I really don't.
>
> Ask Snot. After all, he knows everything about everything, and he's always
> right. Not to mention honest and trustworthy.

Snatch is too busy giving the American government advice on foreign policy.

-- 
Silver Slimer
Wikipedia & OpenMedia Supporter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242307

On Wed, 07 May 2014 09:08:48 -0400, Silver Slimer wrote:

> On 14-05-07 07:22 AM, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>> flatfish+++ wrote:
>>
>>> Alas, I do not know what the solution is.
>>> I really don't.
>>
>> Ask Snot. After all, he knows everything about everything, and he's always
>> right. Not to mention honest and trustworthy.
> 
> Snatch is too busy giving the American government advice on foreign policy.

And every other topic on the planet.

-- 
flatfish+++

163 Reasons not to deal with Michael "Snit" Glasser, the Prescott 
Computer Guy
http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web