But if you do listen to the article, make sure you do the research the article author didn't - like completely missing that the patent in question was NOT an iPhone patent, but one made in 1996. And in 1996, it WAS a non-obvious, innovative feature. I don't see this specific case as being a patent troll; they had a…

"Was it non-obvious for a mobile phone to do what a search engine was doing? I don't know. I certainly think it's debatable, yet this is the issue that Apple just beat HTC on."

If you look at the patent itself, it was filed in 1996, and approved in 1999.

Opera and Firefox were around in 1996 when Apple patented this?

There were no mobile devices smart enough to do this when Apple patented the idea in 1996. I'd say it was good forward thinking on Apple's part.

Which came out long after 1996...

In 1996 it was pretty innovative.

You're off by 10 years. Apple applied for the patent in 1996, long before Skype. And BTW, the patent system was recently revamped so that the first company applying for the patent wins it, not the first company to create the invention. This keeps BS lawsuits from happening where a company claims to have made…

Apple was granted this patent in 1999. The very first Windows Mobile came out in 2000 (it was called "Pocket PC 2000").

No, a hyperlink is a link with embedded information that tells the computing device what to do with it. Apple's patent involves figuring out on its own what the raw data is, and turning that data into a hyperlink.

If we find it then it proves a number of scientific theories as fact, and validates the current model of physics that scientists use. If we don't find it then it shows that the universe is a LOT more complicated than scientists thought.

They probably know about wiping an iPhone, which disables "Find my iPhone".

I wouldn't say the "software" revealed anything. They just listened to the master tracks one by one separating the chords that each person played that made up the final sound. They would have gotten the same effect listening to the tapes themselves rather than the digitized tracks.

Doesn't seem too intelligent to me, they put some horrible music over the video so we wouldn't get that part.

That's why I joined that MoviePass thing where you pay $40 a month to see all the movies. Watch 4 non-matinee movies per month and it pays for itself (of course, if a month goes by with all crappy movies, you're boned...)

Because you can still use the left shoulder button that's already in the device, giving you two left shoulders total.

I read the original story, and check this out - the jackpot itself is breaking the law, it's higher than the law allows. So sounds like the casino is definitely doing some shady things.

Except you are *buying* this, not just watching it once and never having access to it again.

I think too many people would choose to pay nothing.

Most Blu-Rays use h.264, the earlier ones and some of the cheaper ones use MPeg-2.