Over the weekend, round one of Apple's lawsuit against Samsung came to an end, with the verdict finding Samsung guilty of patent infringement and responsible for damages to Apple exceeding $1 billion. What, you may ask, were the patents in question which Samsung so shamelessly stole? Well, as is enumerated in Forbes magazine by Hayden Shaughnessy, they were related to design. None of these "features" were really innovative. It is patently ludicrous (see what I did there) to assign a patent to a shape (rounded corners on a rectangular phone). I have no idea what goes on in assigning a patent or copyright, but there clearly should be better standards than what currently exist. The "pinch to zoom" feature that was also included in the lawsuit is a means of input, not a mind-blowing concept that defines the pinnacle of innovation and whose use by other companies clearly hurts the business of Apple. If that were the case, then the first computer company to use a keyboard as an input device should have been able to patent that. According to the Church of Jobs, that is likely their fault for not doing so.
This strikes at the heart of the matter, which is Apple's hubris. Since the inception of the company, it has defined itself as the cutting edge of innovation. In reality, the company has been very good at two things, which are user-friendly designs and bilking the gullible. If you don't believe me on the latter, just wait to see the lines that form up for the new iPhone 5, which will not be any real improvement over the iPhone 4. I can envision a Retina Plus display coming out at some point, which will boast a resolution greater than the eye can detect and which will be the toast of the iCommunity. I only hope that the process of our courts will get this ridiculous verdict overturned. Otherwise, I may need to delete this blog post before Apple comes after me for using their names in vain.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Friday, August 10, 2012
On replacements
On my way in to work this morning, I was listening to Steve Czaban, a local sportstalk personality who has a national show in the mornings. Anyone who knows about him knows that he often has some, er, interesting opinions about the NFL and Roger Goodell. Today the focus of his rant was the replacement referees, who have begun to officiate preseason games this week. I have yet to see them in action, but from what I have heard and/or read, the discrepancy between their abilities and those of the regular NFL referees (who are currently locked out by the league) is considerable. While the majority of fans, myself included, are often unsatisfied with the jobs that the refs do, I think that most would agree that it is not an easy job. The regulars have many years experience with the NFL game, one which is played at a significantly faster pace than NCAA football, arena football, lingerie football, or the local pickup game. As such, even though most of the refs have regular occupations besides their work for the NFL, they deserve appropriate compensation. From where I sit, the NFL is being cheap. For the amount of money that the league makes annually, I don't see how they could possibly be at that much of an impasse over the amount they are willing to raise the refs' salaries.
There are seven officials per game, with up to 16 games played per week. That requires up to 112 referees for any given week of football, assuming that crews don't officiate more than one game per week (i.e. Thursday, Saturday, Sunday, etc). I am not sure what the deal is with officials in the booth. The salary range for an NFL ref is $25K-70K per year, with an average of about $27K (at least according to my internet research, which could certainly be wrong). Multiplying that average by the number needed per week gives you $3,159,000 for the yearly salary. I have no idea what the referees are requesting in the CBA negotiations, but even assuming they want a 25% increase in salary (which is a pretty significant raise by most people's standards), that is $789,750 out of a revenue of billions. Adam "Pacman" Jones probably threw more money in the air when he "made it rain" at that strip club years ago. Hell, even a 50% increase would be a drop in the ocean of ever-increasing NFL revenue. Given the current league position on emphasizing player safety and continuing to improve the quality of the game, shouldn't league be happy to spend such a relatively small amount to be assured of getting the best refereeing possible? Their willingness to lockout the officials over such a small amount of money is like a buyer canceling the purchase of a house because he wants the seller to foot the bill for cutting the lawn one last time.
In a word...cheap.
There are seven officials per game, with up to 16 games played per week. That requires up to 112 referees for any given week of football, assuming that crews don't officiate more than one game per week (i.e. Thursday, Saturday, Sunday, etc). I am not sure what the deal is with officials in the booth. The salary range for an NFL ref is $25K-70K per year, with an average of about $27K (at least according to my internet research, which could certainly be wrong). Multiplying that average by the number needed per week gives you $3,159,000 for the yearly salary. I have no idea what the referees are requesting in the CBA negotiations, but even assuming they want a 25% increase in salary (which is a pretty significant raise by most people's standards), that is $789,750 out of a revenue of billions. Adam "Pacman" Jones probably threw more money in the air when he "made it rain" at that strip club years ago. Hell, even a 50% increase would be a drop in the ocean of ever-increasing NFL revenue. Given the current league position on emphasizing player safety and continuing to improve the quality of the game, shouldn't league be happy to spend such a relatively small amount to be assured of getting the best refereeing possible? Their willingness to lockout the officials over such a small amount of money is like a buyer canceling the purchase of a house because he wants the seller to foot the bill for cutting the lawn one last time.
In a word...cheap.
Monday, August 6, 2012
Kudos to Colbert King
Colbert King is a regular contributor to the Washington Post's op/ed page, with a weekly opinion piece that generally deals with local DC issues or with civil rights issues. This past Saturday, he tackled the recent comments from the leaders of Iran.
Article can be found here.
It is worthwhile read for everyone. He deserves a great deal of credit for his intolerance of all forms of injustice, not just those which apply to him. While I appreciate Mr. King's comments about a topic which is personally important to me, I appreciate more, whether intended or not, the introspection which they have initiated. I know that I am guilty, as many of us are, of focusing mostly on issues that impact my own life. When faced with issues of racial, religious, or social injustice, I will remember the example set by Mr. King and try to be more empathetic to and supportive of those affronted. Prejudicial intolerance is ugly, no matter what form it may take. Only by fighting it in all of its permutations can we have any hope of eradicating it.
Article can be found here.
It is worthwhile read for everyone. He deserves a great deal of credit for his intolerance of all forms of injustice, not just those which apply to him. While I appreciate Mr. King's comments about a topic which is personally important to me, I appreciate more, whether intended or not, the introspection which they have initiated. I know that I am guilty, as many of us are, of focusing mostly on issues that impact my own life. When faced with issues of racial, religious, or social injustice, I will remember the example set by Mr. King and try to be more empathetic to and supportive of those affronted. Prejudicial intolerance is ugly, no matter what form it may take. Only by fighting it in all of its permutations can we have any hope of eradicating it.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
A few reasons why I am ambivalent about the Olympics
The Olympics has been in the press quite a bit lately, for many obvious reasons. However, I have come to the realization that I really don't care about it anymore and the reasons below should explain why:
1) IOC: The International Olympic Committee is responsible for running the Olympic Games in the spirit of the original Olympiad. In Ancient Greece, the Olympics were a gathering of the different city-states of the Mediterranean for a religious festival, which involved numerous competitions. These games were sacred, so much so that Sparta was loathe to send warriors to defend against Xerxes at Thermopylae because the invasion coincided with the Olympiad. They only dispatched a token force under Leonidas until the end of the festival, although to their credit that did seem to be enough. Outside conflict was not welcome at the Olympiad. Its purpose was peaceful competition with a spirit of unification rather than division. This meant a great deal at a time when nations were pretty much perpetually at war.
The current IOC's actions are nothing like that spirit. As with any entity which gets so large, the corrupting influence of greed has firmly infested the leadership of the modern Olympics. From the decisions of which cities get to host, to the ways in which tickets are distributed, it is clear that lining the pockets of the committee is first and foremost. They even manage to wield what power they have over their own partners, as evidenced by NBC's apparent refusal to allow Bob Costas to have an on-air minute of silence to mark the 40th anniversary of the tragic murder of the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich games. If you think the IOC did not lean on NBC, I hope for your sake that you do not read any e-mails from Nigeria.
2) Hypocrisy: The reason given by the IOC for not having a minute of silence is that the Opening Ceremonies are not the place for such remembrances. According to Jacques Rogge (the head of the IOC), such a remembrance would not be appropriate and has no precedent. This is taurine excrement of the highest degree. The IOC was perfectly content to hold a memorial moment of silence in the Opening Ceremonies for the people slain in the 2005 bombing of the London underground. It is clear that the IOC has their own political agenda, one which is strongly in line with that of the Arab nations. The protests by various countries to having a moment of silence for the Israelis, such as the Palestinian contention that it would be "racist" (you keep using that word..I do not think it means what you think it means), were ludicrous. The massacre in 1972 was an act so contrary to what the Games should be about, that by not memorializing it, the IOC members clearly show that they are unfit for their jobs. The only part of this whole thing which surprises me is that somehow Israel is still allowed to compete in the Games.
3) Tape delay: Along the lines of money, the broadcast of the Games holds very little interest by the time it airs at prime time, because the results have already been reported. There are few enough events that I am interested in watching to begin with and a lot of those don't get aired, since they are not as interesting to the target audience. I did watch some of the women's gymnastics last night, even though I knew that the US had won, but that was mostly because a) there was nothing else on and b) my daughter is a gymnast and REALLY wanted to watch it. I will not lie and say I did not enjoy it; to say that the level of skill and dedication among the athletes is amazing would be a gross understatement. Of course, to get maximum ratings NBC intersperses coverage of different events so that I had to endure a few swimming races and synchronized diving events in between. The "color coverage" stories in between the events is still as nauseating as ever.
I could probably go on about the things that are wrong with the Olympics, but I am sure that you, dear reader, are as tired of my complaints as I am of complaining.
1) IOC: The International Olympic Committee is responsible for running the Olympic Games in the spirit of the original Olympiad. In Ancient Greece, the Olympics were a gathering of the different city-states of the Mediterranean for a religious festival, which involved numerous competitions. These games were sacred, so much so that Sparta was loathe to send warriors to defend against Xerxes at Thermopylae because the invasion coincided with the Olympiad. They only dispatched a token force under Leonidas until the end of the festival, although to their credit that did seem to be enough. Outside conflict was not welcome at the Olympiad. Its purpose was peaceful competition with a spirit of unification rather than division. This meant a great deal at a time when nations were pretty much perpetually at war.
The current IOC's actions are nothing like that spirit. As with any entity which gets so large, the corrupting influence of greed has firmly infested the leadership of the modern Olympics. From the decisions of which cities get to host, to the ways in which tickets are distributed, it is clear that lining the pockets of the committee is first and foremost. They even manage to wield what power they have over their own partners, as evidenced by NBC's apparent refusal to allow Bob Costas to have an on-air minute of silence to mark the 40th anniversary of the tragic murder of the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich games. If you think the IOC did not lean on NBC, I hope for your sake that you do not read any e-mails from Nigeria.
2) Hypocrisy: The reason given by the IOC for not having a minute of silence is that the Opening Ceremonies are not the place for such remembrances. According to Jacques Rogge (the head of the IOC), such a remembrance would not be appropriate and has no precedent. This is taurine excrement of the highest degree. The IOC was perfectly content to hold a memorial moment of silence in the Opening Ceremonies for the people slain in the 2005 bombing of the London underground. It is clear that the IOC has their own political agenda, one which is strongly in line with that of the Arab nations. The protests by various countries to having a moment of silence for the Israelis, such as the Palestinian contention that it would be "racist" (you keep using that word..I do not think it means what you think it means), were ludicrous. The massacre in 1972 was an act so contrary to what the Games should be about, that by not memorializing it, the IOC members clearly show that they are unfit for their jobs. The only part of this whole thing which surprises me is that somehow Israel is still allowed to compete in the Games.
3) Tape delay: Along the lines of money, the broadcast of the Games holds very little interest by the time it airs at prime time, because the results have already been reported. There are few enough events that I am interested in watching to begin with and a lot of those don't get aired, since they are not as interesting to the target audience. I did watch some of the women's gymnastics last night, even though I knew that the US had won, but that was mostly because a) there was nothing else on and b) my daughter is a gymnast and REALLY wanted to watch it. I will not lie and say I did not enjoy it; to say that the level of skill and dedication among the athletes is amazing would be a gross understatement. Of course, to get maximum ratings NBC intersperses coverage of different events so that I had to endure a few swimming races and synchronized diving events in between. The "color coverage" stories in between the events is still as nauseating as ever.
I could probably go on about the things that are wrong with the Olympics, but I am sure that you, dear reader, are as tired of my complaints as I am of complaining.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)