The Unsinkable brian cork™

Brian Patrick Cork is living the Authentic Life

the Law says eat Apples and spit out Androids

December21

the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”), a federal agency, just so we are clear, said Monday they are siding with Apple against HTC and will impose a ban that will enforce an import ban on HTC Corp. (“HTC”) phones that infringe on a patent belonging to the iPhone maker. In other words, Apple’s iPhone does not violate (as HTC and their partner Google and likely prayed) four patents owned by HTC. this is a significant blow to HTC, and probably Google.

so… perhaps the headline should read, instead, “Apple Wins Partial Victory on Patent Claim Over Android Features”.

the ITC said in a final ruling that HTC may import some refurbished phones to offer customers as replacements under warranties and insurance plans. HTC, which is based in Taiwan, is a major maker of phones that use Google Inc.’s Android operating software.

the ban takes effect April 19, 2012 so that wireless carriers will have time to adjust their plans. but, it also means customers have an open-door to bail on HTC devices, and that has grim ramifications for Google, that is again caught in the midst of “evil” /1. this involves a set of important features commonly found in smartphones that are obviously protected by an Apple patent, a decision that could force changes in the way Google’s Android phones function.

Apple spokeswoman Kristen Huguet reiterated an earlier statement, saying competitors (i.e. GOOGLE and HTC) should, “create their own technology”. I’ll add, not steal it from Apple.

NOTE: the ITC ruling can be appealed. But it is one of the most significant so far in a growing array of closely watched patent battles being waged around the globe by nearly all of the major players in the mobile industry. in fact, the case is part of a broader dispute involving Apple, HTC and many other phone makers. in federal courts and before the ITC, companies have been accusing one another of stealing ideas for popular phone features. while the courts can award damages, the commission has the broader and debilitating power to block imports of products and parts made with contested technology.

in fairness to how people might organize their own thinking around stock acquisition, or not, the ruling was only a partial victory for Apple because the commission did overrule an earlier decision in Apple’s favor in the case, involving a patent related to how software is organized internally on mobile devices. in simpler terms, it would have been harder for the defendant, again HTC, one of the world’s largest makers of smartphones that run the Android system, to adapt its devices to avoid infringing that patent. that’s what legal experts say, in any event.

but, this is clearly decisive for Apple; potentially deadly for HTC (whom by the way blew it in negotiations with Apple when they had an opportunity to be part of the build process for the iPhone); and certainly problematic for Google whose advocates have had to constantly twist numbers to make it appear that it can compete with the iPhone in terms of  the masses Android “can have”, and opposed to the iPhone “must have”.

people of discerning taste can eat Apples with better results. and, obviously Androids can’t.

peace be to my Brothers and Sisters.

brian patrick cork

1/ Google was supposedly founded under a mandate of “do no evil”. but, that hasn’t worked-out very well, for anyone associated with them.

losers pay

December20

We’ve certainly taken things from the British. This obviously includes a lot of real estate.

However, a process we need to take as an example from our English brothers is their collective approach to the process of litigation within the court system. In Great Britain, if a person or organization sues another and loses they are responsible for paying all related fees and expenses. Obviously this makes the aggressor think twice before they take action. Following this example would help simplify our own court system by reducing the number of frivolous cases that currently make the judicial system a blunt-edged weapon. Who knows, fairness and reason might even prevail minus avarice and greed – driven by temptation.

A good example for the need to evaluate such a change is the story of the woman (I can’t bring myself to write “lady) in Sacramento, California, that is apparently suing Mcdonalds because her kids make her take them there for kids meals – because of the toys. She wants McDonalds to stop including toys in the kids meals. And, she expects McDonalds to pay her a lot of money because:

a. She is an idiot.

b. She is a moron.

c. She is greedy.

d. She is unemployed.

e. Probably over weight and generally undisciplined.

f. Thinks Boston Market is upscale dining.

g. All of the above and soooo many more things the reflect what is completely stupid in this country.

Whether this might be an Urban Myth or not, is immaterial. Other examples exist. In any event, this does not have to make sense. It can’t. The defiance of logic (and, for nuance, the absence of reason) is only matched by the clear drive of greed and lack of class.

It’s bad enough she is a moron and abuses the judicial process. But, she’s aided and abetted in doing so by a lawyer.

Other topics I’ll touch on might include: the flat tax, consumption tax, and my emerging theories around college scholarships based on a play-off system.

My thinking is simply along the lines of fairness and equity. So, feel free to try and debate me. Do it!

Peace be to my Brothers and Sisters.

Brian Patrick Cork

at what cost a bargain?

November18

So…

I’ll not trouble you with the gritty details. If you care enough, you’ll do some homework. After that, you might ponder a call to your newly appointed, Tea Party-oriented, Republican Congressman.

But, there is an ugly game afoot in-and-amongst our United States Supreme Court.

It’s no secret that COSTCO offers some pretty good deals to consumers. Manufacturers, not one of them likely, don’t like the margins. So, they’ve (collectively), some what reminiscent of that insidious “they”, apparently hired a small army of lawyers to go after COSTCO in an effort to force the distributor to offer consumers less economically advantaged deals on merchandise.

How the hell did this get to the Supreme Court? And maybe of greater concern, why is there no one, other than COSTCO, representing the consumer?

We need Ayn Rand standing on Thomas Jefferson’s shoulders to block the field goal on this one.

Because if we don’t pay attention to things like this, and the bratty selfish behavior of other leaders like Barack Obama, the cost to our nation is going to be more horrendous than you can imagine in the next fifty years.

I’m not really clear why I used an America football analogy just then. I just like the imagery, I suppose. And, I enjoyed watching Michael Vick continue to redeem himself (in a number of ways) last night against the Washington Redskins with inspired play (six touch downs, mind you) and demonstrate that no one can or should be counted-out.

On a side note, but maybe not… I wonder what law firm Michelle Obama will work for when her husband gets drop-kicked out of the Oval Office?

Peace be to my Brothers and Sisters.

Brian Patrick Cork

on opening mosques, minds and hearts

August18

I’m following the multiple lines of thought around building a Muslim Mosque near Ground Zero in New York City.

My initial reaction was to bristle. I feel this is natural. But, soon I had to at least try and think the matter through like a Jeffersonian. Mind you, Thomas Jefferson studied the Qur’ran in earnest. In fact, loyal readers of this blog know that I’ve chronicled that Jefferson bequeathed his own copy of the Qur’an to the Library of Congress upon his death. That was a great bargain. And, he understood the importance of making a public spectacle of executing wrong-doing Extremist Muslims with pigs blood-drenched ordinance. However, this raises some thoughts, and possible misconceptions driving misinterpretations of all manner of scripture around Lex Talionis, or the principles pertaining to: “an-eye-for-an-eye” /1.

Meanwhile, President Obama is being both public and clear that his position is: every American has the right to practice their religion freely anywhere on American soil. In many ways we all observe one another’s traditions. We are smack in the middle of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. Yesterday he told an intently listening crowd gathered at the White House:

“As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country”. He added: “That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.”

And, I’ll stand in agreement with that.

I don’t know, yet, if it’s a good idea.

There are sure to be some logistical concerns. And, the Muslims intent on establishing the Mosque might be a bit insensitive, I think. There is a lot of opposition that appears to think this is a deliberately provocative act that will precipitate more bloodshed in the name of Allah. Or, maybe these are plucky Muslims hoping to set an example of some sort that might inspire positive feelings going forward.

I’m thinking we need to be open-minded, here. Once the Mosque is built and operational, tolerating activities in-and-amongst it will be a terrific example of “turning the other cheek”. Just to be clear, according to Luke 6:29 (English Standard Version from 2001):

“To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.”

Time and again, the American people have demonstrated a rich history of rallying back, working through issues, and staying true to our core values and emerge stronger for it.

And, this is where we turn the tide on the Extremist Muslim terrorists.

When we bogged down our own airports with hyper-security measures and fear we gave the terrorists a form of victory with our inconvenience. And, we are creating enormous debt waging a global war against them on multiple theaters of battle. But, Rep. Ellison’s afore-referenced platform was one of tolerance and the requisite open-mind.

“Terrorist”, “Muslim terrorist”, “fanatical Muslim”, “fundamentalist”, and “devout Muslim” are not synonymous (we hope, any way). This is an opportunity to walk amongst and with Muslims and understand them better – and, they us. Also, if your friend is also your enemy, and is in your front yard, we have an opportunity to embrace him (and, pat him down). If he breaks faith, rank or rules, we can then offer him a round-house kick al-la Chuck Norris, or thump him soundly with an olive branch until he understands what Teddy Roosevelt meant when he advised everyone to: “speak softly and carry a big stick”.

Meanwhile, in the sprit of all this and that, both good and uncertain, I’m listening to Jaron and the Long Road to Love’s Pray for You.

Check out more of their work on iTunes. Tell’m Cork said: “hey”.

Peace be to my Brothers and Sisters.

Brian Patrick Cork

_________________________________

/1 – In Islam the Qur’an permits exact and equivalent retribution. The Qur’an, however, softens the law of an eye-for-an-eye by urging mankind to accept less compensation than that inflicted upon him or her by a Muslim, or to forgive altogether. In other words, Islam does not deny Muslims the ability to seek retaliation in the equal measure. But it does, however, promote forgiveness and the acceptance of blood money not as a mandatory requisite, but rather as a good deed that will be eventually rewarded (Qur’an 5:45).

On occasions, however, the “eye-for-an-eye” rule is applied quite literally.

The phrase, “an-eye-for-an-eye” is, in truth, a quotation from several passages of the Hebrew Bible (Leviticus 24:19–21Exodus 21:22–25, and Deuteronomy 19:21), and not the Qur’an, in which a person who has injured the eye of another is instructed to give the value of his or her own eye in compensation. At the root of this principle is that one of the purposes of the law is to provide equitable retribution for an offended party. It defined and restricted the extent of retribution in the laws of the Torah.

In modern times, the phrase still loosely applies. Should a person commit a tort that results in personal injury of the plaintiff, they must pay for the repairing of the injury (e.g. an eye transplant). This is called compensatory damages.

The English word talion means a punishment identical to the offense, from the Latin talio. The principle of “an-eye-for-an-eye” is often referred to using the Latin phrase lex talionis, the law of talion.

« Older Entries

What’s All This About?

"What am I looking at?", you might wonder.

Lots of stuff.

Meanwhile, here, I discuss events, people and things in our world - and, my (hardly simplistic, albeit inarticulate) views around them.

You'll also learn things about, well, things, like people you need to know about, and information about companies you can't find anywhere else.

So, while I harangue the public in my not so gentle way, you will discover that I am fascinated by all things arcane, curious about those whom appear religious, love music, dabble in politics, loathe the media, value education, still think I am an athlete, and might offer a recipe.

All the while, striving mightily, and daily, to remain a prudent and optimistic gentleman - and, authentic.

brian cork by John Campbell





photos by John Campbell

 

Share this Blog with friends or enemies (via Twitter). Do it!:

Twitter Updates

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

Archives

Email Subscription

Linkedin

View Brian Cork's profile on LinkedIn

Categories



%d bloggers like this: