What about... no one? Where in the article did the author mention any other platform?

Oh, please.

It was written to criticize Android, but yes, that's basically the same thing, considering how hyperdefensive Fandroids are.

Gee, someone accusing Gizmodo of bias in one of the least inflammatory articles ever! Unfortunately, I am not surprised.

Are you still arguing that Microsoft has patented using a computer to guide yourself around an unsafe neighborhood? They haven't.

You don't need a specific algorithm to have a methodology in a computer program. The patent is quite specific, just short of writing actual code.

Nope, it doesn't, but I'm pretty sure that was supposed to be more of an insult to Apple than an actual opinion on the patent system.

I don't get your point. You're saying it's ridiculous to patent computer-driven inventions that accomplish the same thing as non-computer-driven inventions? Isn't that patenting a different methodology for the same goal, which you are defending?

Sorry, I meant "time travel machine"—i.e. a methodology for time travel. I understand how this works perfectly. "Methodology," however, does not necessarily mean any specific algorithm. The patent explains in detail how this software would go about functioning, which sounds like a methodology to me.

Wow. You do realize that's only the abstract of the patent, right? An abstract is a summary, so of course it will use "horrifyingly simple statements" to convey a VERY general description of the invention. How could you possibly think that a single paragraph constitutes an entire patent? Click through to the USPTO…

I can't tell if you're being serious or not. People have been talking about time travel for years, too, but I think that would be a perfectly patentable invention. Your interpretation of "non-obviousness" is incorrect here.

I suppose you think the calculator shouldn't have been patentable, since anyone who does mental math would be in violation of the patent, by your logic.

It looks like an invention to me. Care to explain why you think this shouldn't be able to be patented?

You do realize that you cannot patent ideas, right? Microsoft cannot patent "the abstract concept of a GPS device telling its user to avoid a certain area," so your worries are unfounded, and your claim that "the patent system is completely screwed up" is based on your misunderstanding of the system itself. It's a…

Because they review on different scales. Engadget pretty much only looks at value and specs. Giz looks at overall experience and what you would actually want to use for years, regardless of the GHz or few hundred extra dollars.

You're either ignorant or playing dumb if you innocently insist that your claim about Apple solely succeeding on its marketing would be interpreted as a non-insulting observation in the tech world. You are aware of how contentious Android fans are on the issue of Apple, right? You are aware that what you wrote has…

Samsung and LG are Korean, not Japanese. Also, the fact Nokia is Finnish is irrelevant. The OP was suggesting that Nokia is creating a larger phone in order to compete in the US market.

When did I deny that Apple has great marketing? When did I deny that products need good marketing to succeed? It's funny you would say that I "keep trying to turn this into something it isn't" when you've completely digressed from the original point.

I remember back in July or something I searched "Tiny Wings" in the Android Market. There was a result. I checked the real Tiny Wings developer's site and it said there was only an iOS version. Turns out the app in the Market was a fake app that scammed quite a few people, looking at the ratings.

Right, you're not bashing Apple. You're just passive-aggressively insulting Apple and its users. You said that its success is solely based on its marketing, implying that its actual products are subpar and its users are blind followers.