illa romza

Another iOS feature implemented in a desktop OS.

Fan-frickin-tastic :(

Its the Pippin 2!! this time its intel instead of Bandai!

You mean like when they standardised on CD's?


From what I recall, Philips began working on the compact disk project and Sony later on joined them in that venture.

Also, CDs were not easily accepted as a standard. It did take some time before everyone else adapted.

I must also point out that if you want to take the compact disk standard as an example of standardization, that CDs were the only format in its class. That is, there was no other competition for a standard format. Which brings us to today. Like the Betamax and VHS, we are seeing two formats of next generation's storage medium competing to become a standard.

Just keep in mind Sony's hit/miss ratio for standardization.;)

Tits Up very zoon!

They should of marketed it as a Video player that plays music. That way it distinguishes itself from the iPod which is a music player that plays video. Sounds crazy but in marketing terms they are two completely different things and MS could of capitalised on this a little.

It looks very cool and I'm impressed by the 1080p video. I didn't think there was enough video memory to do that.

The iPad + HDMI adapter looks a little awkward though. I think a cooler solution would be to have bluetooth controller support, like PS3 controllers or maybe even use the iPhone for the controller via bluetooth.

Either way, it's impressive. Not quite Xbox 360/PS3 but definitely better than the Wii.

Perhaps this would allow me to play a large map on Civ4 without the terrible huge long pauses...

It depends whether Civ IV was coded to take advantage of multiple cores or not. If it is indeed a multi-threaded app, then fine, it could probably share the load across all 8 cores, however this may not be the case as the app may not be able to to take advanatge of all 8 cores. Not sure, guess you'd need to test it out...

You make it sound as though this is such an obvious distinction that Apple could never get a trademark for "app store". But apparently this argument is not so strong in trademark law as Apple actually has the trademark already. If that were not the case how could they sue another entity for trademark infringement?

I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.

You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.

Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.




It was.


Can you please show me the trademark that was granted to Apple for App Store by the USPTO? You won't be able to find it because their trademark has not been approved. An opposition to their application was filed, if you didn't catch that from the text.

Trademark is having property rights in a trade name. Apple, or any other company, can file to protect a trademark they have been using and the USPTO decides if it is too generic to be an actual trademark. I suggest you learn about the process of how trademarks.


"How does a mark qualify for federal registration?

To register a trademark with the PTO, the mark's owner first must put it into use " in commerce that Congress may regulate." This means the mark must be used on a product or service that crosses state, national or territorial lines or that affects commerce crossing such lines--for example, a catalog business or a restaurant or motel that caters to interstate or international customers. Even if the owner files an intent-to-use (ITU) trademark application (ITU applications are discussed in the previous set of questions), the mark will not actually be registered until it is used in commerce."

Source: http://www.inc.com/articles/1999/10/14646.html


Also, take a look at the Lanham Act, which is pretty important when it comes to trademark law ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act <-- particularly Subchapters I and II.

Just because you use a mark does not mean you have been granted the trademark rights in it.


So, as you can see Apple does not have the trademark to App Store. Therefore, your argument fails on that premise alone.

snip

What speakers and how's the bass on them?