Help
Post your comments for Remains of the Day: Three-picture deal here
Page 1 of 1
Remains of the Day: Three-picture deal
#2
MutantPie 
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 175
- Joined: 07-January 09
Posted 27 April 2012 - 09:19 PM
"Apple kills Chomp for Android (GigaOm)
Apple’s acquisition of app-discovery engine Chomp has claimed its first casualty: Chomp for Android. Too bad, as that version used a pretty sophisticated algorithm that involved rolling a hundred-sided die, after which you still end up with a crappy app"
This seems like a(nother) violation of both the intent and the letter of the anti-trust laws. Hey DOJ gonna take another bite out of Apple?
Apple’s acquisition of app-discovery engine Chomp has claimed its first casualty: Chomp for Android. Too bad, as that version used a pretty sophisticated algorithm that involved rolling a hundred-sided die, after which you still end up with a crappy app"
This seems like a(nother) violation of both the intent and the letter of the anti-trust laws. Hey DOJ gonna take another bite out of Apple?
#3
nomster
- Newbie
-
- Group: New Members
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 30-August 11
Posted 28 April 2012 - 12:40 AM
MutantPie, on 27 April 2012 - 09:19 PM, said:
"Apple kills Chomp for Android (GigaOm)
Apple’s acquisition of app-discovery engine Chomp has claimed its first casualty: Chomp for Android. Too bad, as that version used a pretty sophisticated algorithm that involved rolling a hundred-sided die, after which you still end up with a crappy app"
This seems like a(nother) violation of both the intent and the letter of the anti-trust laws. Hey DOJ gonna take another bite out of Apple?
Apple’s acquisition of app-discovery engine Chomp has claimed its first casualty: Chomp for Android. Too bad, as that version used a pretty sophisticated algorithm that involved rolling a hundred-sided die, after which you still end up with a crappy app"
This seems like a(nother) violation of both the intent and the letter of the anti-trust laws. Hey DOJ gonna take another bite out of Apple?
Eh? Do all apps have to run on Android?
Weird.
#4
TeaEarleGreyHot
- Veteran
-
- Group: Macworld Insiders
- Posts: 1,280
- Joined: 29-September 05
Posted 29 April 2012 - 09:15 AM
"Apple sued over iPad cover"
I just looked at Bovino's patent, as cited by the article.
I wonder just exactly how the proposed impacts can EFFECT the operation of the computer? Stupid patent, and the author not even careful enough to hire a competent proofreader.
I just looked at Bovino's patent, as cited by the article.
Quote
4. The computer of claim 1 wherein said plurality of resilient ribs are positioned on the case in locations to absorb impacts that can effect the operation or functioning of the computer.
I wonder just exactly how the proposed impacts can EFFECT the operation of the computer? Stupid patent, and the author not even careful enough to hire a competent proofreader.
This post has been edited by TeaEarleGreyHot: 29 April 2012 - 09:16 AM
#5
mwkingsandiego
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 26-February 10
Posted 30 April 2012 - 11:49 AM
TeaEarleGreyHot, on 29 April 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:
"Apple sued over iPad cover"
I just looked at Bovino's patent, as cited by the article.
I wonder just exactly how the proposed impacts can EFFECT the operation of the computer? Stupid patent, and the author not even careful enough to hire a competent proofreader.
I just looked at Bovino's patent, as cited by the article.
Quote
4. The computer of claim 1 wherein said plurality of resilient ribs are positioned on the case in locations to absorb impacts that can effect the operation or functioning of the computer.
I wonder just exactly how the proposed impacts can EFFECT the operation of the computer? Stupid patent, and the author not even careful enough to hire a competent proofreader.
Yet the PTO still (apparently) granted the patent, so realistically why should the developer hire that "competent proofreader"? That's NOT intended as support for the claim against Apple - it's intended as yet another example of how the PTO happily rubber stamps almost any application, meaningful or not. What happened to the tests for "original" and "not obvious"? Rubber bumpers and an ID pocket (also part of the claims) are original and not obvious ways to protect a portable computer?
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1