Apple Adds New Samsung Galaxy S4 Phone to Lawsuit

The phone on the left is not a Galaxy S4, and
no way is it that small, no matter what
PC Magazine might imply.

Wow, I didn't know you could do this. Apple and Samsung have been locked in suits and counter suits over alleged patent infringements. From what I've read of the cases, a lot of Apple's claims are fairly broad, to the point of ridiculousness, and yet they initially won a huge settlement. But the cases go on, and now, Apple--already claiming 22 different Samsung models violate their patents--is scrubbing one, and replacing it with a new one. My new Galaxy S4!

Now, I know I'm no patent expert, so I won't sound off too much. But I can tell you that my phone in no way resembles an Apple product. It doesn't function like an Apple product. There isn't a soul who would be confused, or fooled into thinking the S4 was an iPhone. And--unlike the picture used in this and other articles--the phones aren't even remotely the same size. The S4 dwarfs the iPhone in every way except build materials. Yes, both phones have a glass touchscreen, a button and are roughly the same shape. Both have icons you press to get to programs, a logical extension of any computer operating system. But the Android operating system (layered with Samsung's TouchWiz and each individual carrier's add-ons) has evolved in quite a different direction from iOS. They're now very different ecosystems.

The thing that annoyed me about my (admittedly) cursory examination of the cases, is that the claims on patents seemed to focus on what the hardware and software do, rather than how they do it. If I press a button and a program opens, you shouldn't be able to patent that. If you get the program to open via a patented code, and someone steals the code? Fine, you win. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. It seems like Apple wants to lay claim to concepts. Should they really be able to do that? I mean, dozens of manufacturers manufacture similar TVs, microwave ovens, printer all-in-ones, keyboards, lamps, speakers. . . Once a product exists, you don't get the only company allowed to make something like it. Should Apple really be the only company allowed to make a rectangular touch-screen phone, with applications and a camera?

[Excerpt]

Apple Targets Samsung Galaxy S 4 in Patent Case

Apple wants to add the Galaxy S 4 to a list of 22 Samsung devices its believes infringes on its patents. Cupertino said it is willing to drop one of those 22 gadgets and swap in Samsung's newest flagship smartphone. . .

Read more at: PC Magazine

Apple Kills Star Trek

This expresses my feelings about Apple's odd victory in court. . .

Bi-partisan Lawsuit of Florida Gov. Rick Scott Over Bullet Train

Image from DailyKos

This is only early March, four months since the Republicans' "sea change" election, and they're not faring too well, at least in the court of public opinion. They show every sign of overreaching, and seem to be trying to outdo each other. Rick Scott, hands down the creepiest looking of the 2010 class of GOPers, turned down billions of Federal dollars for high speed rail. Turns out his homies in Florida don't think that's such a good idea. And it isn't just Democrats. . .

[Excerpt]

Bipartisan duo sues Florida Gov. Scott over rejection of federal high-speed rail money

Florida Gov. Rick Scott made two big mistakes when he rejected $2.4 billion federal stimulus money for building the Tampa-to-Orlando leg of the high-speed rail system that would eventually link Tampa to Miami with bullet trains. . .

Read more at: DailyKos

Rachel Maddow Corrects Mistake, and Draws the Line

Oh, how I love me some Rachel Maddow. Of course, if you've ever read my blog, you already know this. But last night's show contained a segment that actually made me shout, "Woo hoo!" at the end. In it, Maddow corrects an error made on a previous show, at the behest of a political activism group's threat. The original piece had the timing off, but wasn't a particularly egregious mistake, considering the group's other activities.

But correcting the record is par for the course for Maddow, who will often clear up any comments that may have been made in error. The reason the segment gave me a happy was her response to the thread of a lawsuit by the group. Here, she shows a lot of backbone. She's unflappable. Utterly without flap. Love it.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Randi Rhodes States (and Wins) Her Case

Photo from The Moderate Voice

Randi Rhodes was the first host I ever heard on Air America Radio when it started up in 2004. I was looking for The O'Franken Factor, Al Franken's radio show, as that was the only show I'd heard of. Instead I found this brassy woman with a New Yawk honk, and--often to the dismay of my co-workers, I've been hooked ever since. Now on Nova M Radio, Randi is smart, opinionated, and tenacious. And occasionally she gets herself in trouble.

Over the last couple of years, she has related--in small bits--some of her situation with a lawsuit by a military contractor. She said some negative stuff about them, as political radio hosts are wont to do, and they sued her. Whatever you've heard about her, Randi is not like the right-wing blowholes you've heard from the right. She's meticulously prepared for her show, with sources, notes, the lot. She often assigns her listeners "homework," and insists that they not believe a word she--or any other AM radio host--says. Look it up. Do your homework. That's her mantra. And her saving grace.

[Excerpt]

Federal appeals court rules for Air America host who criticized Abu Ghraib contractor

A federal appeals court says a radio talk show host's criticism of a U.S. government contractor at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was protected by the First Amendment.

A three-judge panel of the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today unanimously rejected CACI International's defamation lawsuit against the talk radio network Air America and one of its hosts, Randi Rhodes. . .

Read more at: In Rich

John Ritter's Unfortunate Death and the Consequences

Photo from source, AP News

My high school and college years happened in the 1980s, but I'll always consider myself a child of the 70s. I started getting interested in pop culture around 1976 or so. It was at this time that I got my first stereo, and started a record collection. I even had a nifty disco-light machine that flashed lights to the beat of the music.

But 70s television is where it was at for me. I knew every TV theme song, could name every star, and was more reliable than the TV Guide for time slots. Of course, even though we had a very rudimentary version of cable, we basically had three channels to choose from. And it was at this time, from 1976 to 1980 or so that ABC--a perennial ratings loser--had a ratings resurgence (or just a surgence?).

Happy Days, Laverne & Shirley, Mork & Mindy, Soap, Love Boat, Fantasy Island, Starsky & Hutch, Hart to Hart, Charlie's Angels--they were all on ABC. And right in the mix, in fact near the top of it, was Three's Company. The show doesn't hold up well in reruns, but it was a classic in its day. When they wanted to do a special episode, they even brought in Lucille Ball for a tribute to the show.

But the key to the show's success was not the jiggly Suzanne Somers. It wasn't the smart, funny tomboy (and later ridiculous sexpot), Joyce DeWitt. It wasn't even the Ropers or Don Knotts' brilliant Ralph Furley. It was John Ritter. It was always, and to the end, John Ritter. He was good actor, a funny comedian, and an amazing physical comic. It didn't hurt that he was also boyishly handsome.

His untimely death at a relatively young age was very sad for this child of the 70s. And while I'm often suspicious of medical malpractice suits, this one was odd. How could a man in his 50s, with such a severe medical problem have been misdiagnosed for so long? So, I wish his wife good luck with the effort, and hope that it prevents similar fates for other unfortunate early deaths.

[Excerpt]

John Ritter's Medical Treatment Disputed

More than four years after his death, John Ritter's relatives are taking their $67 million lawsuit to trial Tuesday, claiming the actor would have survived if two doctors had recognized his heart abnormality and not treated it as a heart attack. . .

Read more at: AP News

And here's ABC's 20/20 video, from right after he died: