Favorite Files

No favorite files added yet

Recent Posts

1. Comment - Taiwanese MP3 maker charges Apple again with illegal monopoly

   (Oct 20, 2008 - 10:57 PM)

   Furthermore, the term "shuffle" has appeared on personal media devices at least since the mid 1980's when it was featured on the very first personal c.d. players. Apple had some big cojones to claim such a generic term as their own and whatever court upheld that erred tragically. "Shuffle" describes a basic and generic playback functionality and in no way represented a breakthrough or established trademark of Apple Computer at the time they forced the name-change.

2. Comment - Taiwanese MP3 maker charges Apple again with illegal monopoly

   (Oct 20, 2008 - 10:52 PM)

   I think "Blatant Copying" is something the patent office decides, is it not? The way to defeat knockoffs is to outperform them. The iPod's spotty history of customer dis-satisfaction and service/warranty horror stories goes to show where they preferred to channel their energies. If an injunction is brought and patents are found to have not been violated, then the party bringing the injunction should bear some responsibility for its consequences. If this is not the case, then the process of injunction becomes an effective form of harassment and business interruption. I believe this to be the basis of the current suit and I am wholly in agreement with its foundations as such. The "big guys" are always using the courts to stifle the little guys and keep competition from growing in a free and fair market. Cases such as this are important to the freedoms of everyone.