Slashdot Mirror

Ya, it doesn't work that way. If Apple sues, google is liable.

What is this, the Chewbacca defense?

Under the terms of Google's licensing, Android is supplied without legal indemnification. That means Google has transferred all legal liability to the device makers. That basically means Google is saying "We wrote this code, we don't know if it violates any patents, but if it does, it's your problem, not ours."

Just because you say Google is liable, that doesn't make it so. Google's lawyers would disagree with that, and Google has already moved to protect themselves.

And they aren't "independently operated" in any sense of the word, I don't know why you keep saying that, I'm guessing it's because you just pulled it out of your ass to try to make a point when you had none.

They're not my words, they're Google's.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57438986-94/google-officially-closes-$12.5-billion-motorola-mobility-deal/
"Google has made it clear that Motorola will operate independently from its own operation"

I believe those words are being pulled out of someone's ass (no way Google isn't telling Moto what to do), but it's not my ass they're being pulled out of.

As soon as the acquisition was completed, Dennis Woodside, a google employee, took over as CEO. In the last month alone they've fired half the management staff and replaced them with googlers. The company is run entirely by google and it isn't something they're attempting to hide.

Preaching to the choir, but LEGALLY (note the LEGALLY) Motorola is still a separate organization and Google is not necessary liable for their actions. Much like if you owned a business, people could only sue the business, not you directly. It's a common business strategy to protect one's self from legal liability. Remember, legally corporations are people, and Motorola, as long as it exists as a separate company, is still a separate "person".

More here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil

Hmm. Must have said something politically controversial recently to be picking up all these 'troll' flags. Oh wait, found it: I said something bad about Apple. That tends to get people's panties all up in a knot. Well... here's a little something then to help them burn through those extra -1, disagree points; links backing up my previous post....

The war on piracy uses pretty much the same tactics as the war on drugs.

You can't have downloaded content. Any downloaded content you do have must be in clear digital containers with the administering agency. Even if you have prescr--er, license, for the downloaded content you have in your possession, you can still be charged with a crime if it does not come in a pre-approved container. Taking other people's downloaded content, even if they have the same content as well, is also forbidden. You cannot move your downloaded content from one container to another container, this is also illegal. Admission that you have downloaded content, or a suspicion that you may be in possession of downloaded content, legally or not, is grounds to search your person for it. Possession of a sufficient quantity would normally get you intent to distribute as well, but we have declared a quantity of zero to be intent to distribute: Every downloader is also an uploader, as a matter of law.

If charged, you are guilty until proven innocent. The best lawyers in the geographical area you are being prosecuted in will be used against you, while you will be given a crappy public defender, or none at all, since we've found that we can throw you in jail for civil violations as well, and only criminal court has to provide one. Possession in and of itself, regardless of whether or not you have a valid license to possess it, is sufficient for a conviction. There is no appeals process, or any appeals process present is designed only to look at things that are a "matter of law". You'll note the law has been so narrowly written as to make everyone guilty, merely by possession.

Fines and punishments will be far worse for this than any other crime. In fact, if you murder the artist who's song you downloaded, you'll face less time in jail and less fines. Actually, you could murder the whole band, and their agent, and still get off comparatively light.

Oh, lastly, trying to hide your content trafficing using encryption, vpns, or any other obfusciation technology will result in additional punishments, as it is obstruction of justice now to do so. Thank you for you cooperation, corporate citizen.

This enforces the above. That they couldn't decide this one 'going down the list' and circled back later.

http://www.cnet.com/2300-1_1-10013512-4.html

One of Apple's clean sweeps in the verdict was that all Samsung's smartphones were found to infringe on Apple's patent covering bounce-back. In short, this is what lets a user scroll beyond the edge of an image, Web page, or list, and have it bounce back onto the screen.

"We were thinking Apple filed a patent for bounce-back, (and) that's where we got stuck...because (of) prior art," Ilagan said. He added that the group eventually found some of Samsung's prior art "significantly different" from the technology outlined in Apple's bounce-back patent.

Well... for a report that is a little more balanced see this CNN article:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-apple-samsung-juror-speaks-out/

What is this world coming to when we want to "invalidate" the findings of a jury? What is the purpose of law and trials and jury if we're just going to "overturn" any ruling that is unpopular?

Why did it need to take _days_ for the jury to find in this case? This isn't a murder trial without a murder weapon. Nor is it some complicated manslaughter case involving cell-phone use while driving... or any other type of "grey area" type case with dire consequences of getting it wrong.

The jurors sat there for _weeks_ listening to this stuff. Do you not think that in that time they were able to form an opinion and when it came time to make a decision there was a bit of heated debate until everyone agreed and then they ruled? What exactly were they supposed to talk about for so long? The considered all the evidence (and had been considering it for weeks... this is ALL they were doing for _weeks_) and came to a conclusion.

Quit letting your own personal biases against patents and closed source / closed ecosystems get in the way of believing that a jury of, by all accounts very capable, people could rule in favor of Apple. The law is the law... this group of people think the law is in favor of Apple. That is all. Nothing more...

You're absolutely right that, of the long list of trivial design patents, each was only infringed by some Samsung device. What that means, however, is that you cannot make a device that embodies any of these features, because infringing any one of them is sufficient to violate Apple's patents.

It seems likely that the damages would have been minimal in the unlikely event that Apple had bothered to bring suit if a few of Samsung's devices had happened to inadvertently violate one of Apple's design patents, and that there would be little chance of an injunction. In such a case, I could easily imagine an outcome in which the jury found Samsung guilty--and awarded Apple damages of one dollar. But that was not the case. The jury saw evidence of violations of multiple design patents by many of Samsung's devices. They saw evidence of violation of Apple's trade dress. And they saw internal Samsung documents that demonstrated that the copying was intentional (which, according to public comments by jury members, was highly influential), convincing the jury that there was an extensive pattern of willful copying of Apple's products.

And is it really such a tragedy if manufacturers have exert a little creativity and avoid duplicating these cosmetic features of Apple's products for the relatively brief (14-year) term of a design patent? From the fact that many of Samsung's products were not found in violation, it is clear that it is possible to do so. Indeed, Microsoft's new Windows phones are quite attractive, and quite clearly do not violate Apple's design patents.

This is the same pool you'd be drawing from:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57495650-83/sexism-and-the-single-hacker-defcons-feminist-moment/

In general its a bad idea to open your house for a stranger, but especially with this subgroup.

There were many patents on motorcars, some of them quite broad, and Fords were far from the first. There were plenty of court cases, and despite being a bit of a latecomer to the business, Henry Ford and his lawyers did just fine. And in just a few years, all those patents expired, because the term of a patent is not actually all that long. And their overall impact on the development and sale of cars by multiple manufacturers was so small that you obviously are quite unaware of the history.

Ah yes, back to the notion that Apple's victory simply turned on a touch screen, a thin bezel, and rounded corners, which seems to be very popular among people whose reactions to the case are dominated by their own prejudices rather than the actual evidence or decision. In fact, Apple asserted numerous other patents. The "thin bezel, rounded corners" design patent (referred to as D'087) was found to be infringed by only 3 out of a long list of Samsung devices. So clearly the jury did not find it to be a broad patent unavoidably infringed by just about any touch phone, and it played a very minor role in Apple's win. Could it be maybe, that after sitting in court for all those hours and going over the evidence in detail, they figured out something you didn't?

One had an iPhone, two had Android phones.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57499944-37/how-qualified-is-the-apple-samsung-jury-we-found-out/

I don't know if Samsung copied someone else but my Samsung SPH I300 back in 2001 did pretty much everything an iPhone did but a half dozen years before Apple was even entertaining the idea of entering the phone market.

Full screen touch dialing, picture based contacts, web browsing (with flash!), grid app icon tray, many non proprietary app stores and as far as form factor goes the only difference was the number of buttons below the full size touch screen and the antenna on top. Remove those things and you basically have an iPhone with year 2001 technology.

Removing the antenna and some of the buttons is only subjectively good (in other words, some people might want more buttons or better reception.) But I could make a pretty strong argument that Apple copied the SPH I300 or any number of other phones that were all following this same form factor.

I believe that the number of phones that looked like they were on the way to becoming an iPhone long before an iPhone came out is the reason everyone is so upset at Apple for claiming innovation when all they did is join the smart phone wars long after the war started and implemented features that were long ago (5+ years) implemented by many other manufactures.

They got a jump on implementing the first 3d accelerated display only because they had a proprietary OS and hardware and only 1 hardware platform. But that, like everything else was just the natural progression of smart phones.

One iPhone, no Samsung smartphones (but two Samsung feature phones), and three LG phones, apparently. Overall, two had Android smartphones, and one didn't have a phone at all.

CNET Reviews CTIA 2012 T-Mobile: iPhone network compatibility coming this year

One of the new T-Mobile plan's flaws, though, is that it cannot be used for tethering

Thought the FCC case recently required carriers to allow tethering, or is that just for Verizon?

Even at that, the Fed and Military would have a real cow under that architecture since they chop up drives are part of their data security process.

So, at least for the Retina MBP, they'd buy some of these fancy screwdrivers (USD 13, assuming it doesn't turn into something like the USD 436 hammer), open up the Retina MBP, yank out the removable SSD, and crush it into little tiny pieces (dunno whether it's easier to chop an SSD into tiny pieces than to chop a disk drive into tiny pieces - I'd guess so, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that my "common sense" is wrong there).

"Slashdot: Where tyrrany, repression and genocide are cool as long as the perpertrators suck up to Assange in public."

Indeed.

And no geek here seems to want to address actual real news, such as

Maximum Leader Obama's Economy: Tech layoffs hit 3-year high of 51,529 in first

No, the real news today is naked Republicans and "legitimate rape".

Priorities anyone?

Did you read the whole article you linked or just see the headline and take an opportunity to make a political jab?

The article goes on to mention that the biggest contributors to the layoffs are HP, Followed by Sony and Nokia. HP Has been having trouble for years, stemming from problems at the top. Right now, Meg Whitman is at the helm trying to recover from the same disaster CEO that put SAP in the drink. So far, she's not doing too great with more of the wishy-washy press releases (ahem, webos). No surprise they are shedding jobs, the company has been mismanaged for years.

Not the US government's fault.
Sony has been working hard to develop a reputation for screwing over customers at every turn (rootkit, ps3 feature removal, extreme DRM etc), in addition to getting hit by a major tsunami in case you missed the news.

Not the US government's fault.

Nokia can't seem to make products that aren't complete crap. Mobile analysts have been predicting Nokia's downfall for several years now. Bad products, bad investments, and obviously short sighted exclusive partnerships were the nail in Nokia's coffin.
Oh yeah, also two of the three biggest contributors to the situation you reference are NOT AMERICAN COMPANIES. I suppose you'd be happier if the POTUS gave a few hundred million to these foreign companies and the chronically mismanaged HP?

"Slashdot: Where tyrrany, repression and genocide are cool as long as the perpertrators suck up to Assange in public."

Indeed.

And no geek here seems to want to address actual real news, such as

Maximum Leader Obama's Economy: Tech layoffs hit 3-year high of 51,529 in first

No, the real news today is naked Republicans and "legitimate rape".

Priorities anyone?

Sun also purchased license for megabucks. Before Microsoft... http://news.cnet.com/2100-1016-1024633.html

“Apple, which ended its third quarter with $1.2 billion in cash, will use the additional $150 million to invest in its core markets of education and creative content, Anderson said.”

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/592FE887-5CA1-4F30-BD62-407362B533B9.html

http://lightbox.time.com/2011/10/06/in-a-private-light-diana-walkers-photos-of-steve-jobs/#10

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/05/apples-stock-rise-could-have-meant-5-billion-for-microsoft/

“Less than 12 hours before his big announcement, nobody here knows yet about the bombshell to come. In fact, Jobs is still negotiating it here at the Castle--on a cell phone. "Hi, Bill," you hear him say in the echo chamber of the old hall. Then his voice drops, and for nearly an hour he paces the stage, running through last-minute details with Gates. All the while, he leans over his computer, paces, lies down on the stage, paces, lurks in dark corners, paces and talks, paces and talks.

This is the fateful call for the boy titans of the personal-computer revolution, meant to settle the war. At one point, talking about Apple, Jobs says, "There are a lot of good things, happily--and a lot of screwed-up things." Then, to his crew, he yells, "Have we got satellite contact with the other side?" Assured this has been taken care of, he answers a question from Gates about what to wear on the morrow ("I'm just going to wear a white shirt," he assures him), and he finally ends the conversation with a heartfelt "Thank you for your support of this company. I think the world's a better place for it." And so that's how Apple and Microsoft, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, finally seal it--on a cell-phone call.

The deal is vintage Jobs. Amelio began the process of repairing relations between the two longtime rivals. But once he was out the door at Apple, Jobs contacted Gates to try to get talks started again. Gates dispatched his CFO, Gregory Maffei, who met Jobs at his home. Jobs suggested they go for a walk. Grabbing a couple of bottles of mineral water from the fridge, the two took off for a stroll around Palo Alto. Jobs was barefoot. "It was an interesting scene," Maffei recalls. "It was a pretty radical change for the relations between the two companies." The two walked for nearly an hour, through Palo Alto's green university area, as they pounded out the details of a potential deal. Jobs, Maffei says, was "expansive and charming. He said, 'These are things that we care about and that matter.' And that let us cut down the list. We had spent a lot of time with Amelio, and they had a lot of ideas that were nonstarters. Jobs had a lot more ability. He didn't ask for 23,000 terms. He looked at the whole picture, figured about what he needed. And we figured he had the credibility to bring the Apple people around and sell the deal."”

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/13/3239977/apple-and-microsoft-cross-license-agreement-includes-anti-cloning

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1292505/584.pdf

http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2009/08/dayintech_0806/
http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-comeback-story-2010-10?op=1
http://macdailynews.com/2009/04/14/steve_jobs_engineered_apples_resurrection/
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/the-return-19972011-10062011.html
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-202143.html

I could go on forever on this one. It's very well documented that in 1997 Apple was extremely close to bankruptcy (some speculate days away) when Steve Jobs, then brought back to Apple as an "interim CEO", negotiated with Bill Gates to have Microsoft invest in Apple to the tune of $150M.

Thank you, that's exactly the only-reading-the-headlines garbage I was expecting you to come up with.

So let's look at the facts, shall we? I already linked you to Apple's quarterly filings.

The CNet article you cited in which Microsoft promised $150,000,000 was published August 6, 1997.
Apple's quarterly report Filed 08/11/97 for the Period Ending 06/27/97 showed that Apple had $1,018,000,000 on hand.

Look at those numbers again:
150,000,000 - Amount Apple got from MS
1,018,000,000 -- Amount Apple had sitting in the bank

The number on top is less than 15% of the number on the bottom. That's not rescuing a company from bankruptcy. That's a bad tip at a restaurant.

You may want to review this important lesson on honestly representing the difference between millions and billions.

Of course, Steve Jobs' ego knew no bounds, and he loved to say that he single-handedly rescued Apple with Bill Gates' money. But that's just not true. The benefit Apple got from BillG's pocket change was that it satisfied Microsoft that Apple was no longer a threat, so that Apple could build itself up to where it was a threat.

http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2009/08/dayintech_0806/
http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-comeback-story-2010-10?op=1
http://macdailynews.com/2009/04/14/steve_jobs_engineered_apples_resurrection/
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/the-return-19972011-10062011.html
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-202143.html

I could go on forever on this one. It's very well documented that in 1997 Apple was extremely close to bankruptcy (some speculate days away) when Steve Jobs, then brought back to Apple as an "interim CEO", negotiated with Bill Gates to have Microsoft invest in Apple to the tune of $150M.

Personally I don't have any "physical" problems of reading books on a tablet, although I seems people always tell that is "worst" for the eyes or that it is a much worst experience. That having a light source is bad for the eyes, that the refresh rate makes you eyes tired, etc. I don't experience those problems. The only thing where tablets do suck is reading outside and where e-ink sucks is comics and PDF's.

What I even find more remarkable is that every study or articles that I have read about the subject even refute the claims. I sometimes have the feeling that is something more then a psychological effect then a fact and maybe "facts" spread by e-ink manufacturers.

A backlit or nonbacklit display doesn't make a difference, Hornfeld says. And if you're reading a bright screen in the dark, your eyes will adjust. Your pupil gets large in the dark, so when you turn on a brightly lit display, it may bother your eyes at first, but they'll compensate. It's like when you wake up in the morning, open the shades, and are blinded by the light at first. But then you get used to it. LCD vs. e-ink: The eyestrain debate

From another article

Still, as regular readers of Bits comments know, there is a lively debate among fans of e-readers and paper books about which type of reading experience is most friendly to the eyes.

It turns out the answer isn’t as black-and-white as we might assume.

Doctors and researchers note that in most instances, paper can offer more visual sophistication than a screen. But certain types of paper, including inexpensive newsprint and the paper in softcover books, can actually provide an inferior reading experience for our eyes than the electronic alternatives.

Professor Alan Hedge, director of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Laboratory at Cornell University, said that reducing eye fatigue is less a matter of choosing a specific display than of taking short breaks from looking at the screen. When we read, Dr. Hedge explained, a series of ocular muscles jump around and can cause strain, regardless of whether we are looking at pixels or paper. “While you’re reading, your eyes make about 10,000 movements an hour. It’s important to take a step back every 20 minutes and let your eyes rest,” he said.

Today’s screens are definitely less tiring to look at than older displays, which refreshed the image much less frequently, causing a flicker.

Do E-Readers Cause Eye Strain

So please don't let the tablet horror stories discourage you, I would ask friends if you can't lend a tablet or E-ink device for a couple of hours and try it out for yourself.

Somebody needs to tell these guys then. So much for credibility CNET.

Yep, just download and run the 3rd-party app developed by "Mike" to get the secret URL to your files so you can put it in Microsoft's non-working WebDAV implementation.

No you don't need to do that.

So since you seem to be implying that the US and/or the West was behind a DDoS — because that's how the US rolls in the cyber realm: DDoSing targets [insert rolling eyes emoticon here] — I think you should turn your attention to this:

http://wikileaks.org/syria-files/

---

Social Media Becoming Online Battlefield in Syria - Mashable

Social media is often credited with helping spread the Arab Spring, as activists shared messages of discontent and organized protests using Facebook and Twitter. More than a year after the Arab Spring began in Tunisia, it has become a megaphone for propaganda from both sides of the struggle in conflict-ridden Syria.

http://mashable.com/2012/08/09/social-media-syria/

---

Disinformation flies in Syria's growing cyber war - Reuters

On Sunday, it was a hijacked Reuters Twitter feed trying to create the impression of a rebel collapse in Aleppo. On Monday, it was another account purporting to be a Russian diplomat announcing the death in Damascus of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/07/us-syria-crisis-hacking-idUSBRE8760GI20120807

---

Reuters Twitter account hijacked, fake tweets sent - CNET

The hack of news agency's tech feed comes two days after its Web site was breached and defaced with a phony pro-Syrian government story.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57486971-93/reuters-twitter-account-hijacked-fake-tweets-sent/

---

Reuters hacked, phony Syria stories posted - CNET

Bogus posts reported on setbacks suffered by rebel Free Syrian Army fighting Assad regime.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57486463-83/reuters-hacked-phony-syria-stories-posted/

---

Nah, it's easier to live in the topsy-turvy bizarro land where the US is what's wrong with the world.

So since you seem to be implying that the US and/or the West was behind a DDoS — because that's how the US rolls in the cyber realm: DDoSing targets [insert rolling eyes emoticon here] — I think you should turn your attention to this:

http://wikileaks.org/syria-files/

---

Social Media Becoming Online Battlefield in Syria - Mashable

Social media is often credited with helping spread the Arab Spring, as activists shared messages of discontent and organized protests using Facebook and Twitter. More than a year after the Arab Spring began in Tunisia, it has become a megaphone for propaganda from both sides of the struggle in conflict-ridden Syria.

http://mashable.com/2012/08/09/social-media-syria/

---

Disinformation flies in Syria's growing cyber war - Reuters

On Sunday, it was a hijacked Reuters Twitter feed trying to create the impression of a rebel collapse in Aleppo. On Monday, it was another account purporting to be a Russian diplomat announcing the death in Damascus of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/07/us-syria-crisis-hacking-idUSBRE8760GI20120807

---

Reuters Twitter account hijacked, fake tweets sent - CNET

The hack of news agency's tech feed comes two days after its Web site was breached and defaced with a phony pro-Syrian government story.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57486971-93/reuters-twitter-account-hijacked-fake-tweets-sent/

---

Reuters hacked, phony Syria stories posted - CNET

Bogus posts reported on setbacks suffered by rebel Free Syrian Army fighting Assad regime.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57486463-83/reuters-hacked-phony-syria-stories-posted/

---

Nah, it's easier to live in the topsy-turvy bizarro land where the US is what's wrong with the world.

CNET says the MB system is a disappointment.
http://reviews.cnet.com/convertible/2013-mercedes-benz-sl550/4505-10870_7-35406297-2.html

Besides, governments rise and fall, but bitcoins are forever.

Exactly, who wants fly-by-night currencies backed by national governments of stable countries? That's why I invested my life savings in Bitcoins, Flooz and Beenz.

Retirement FTW!!!!!

Besides, governments rise and fall, but bitcoins are forever.

Exactly, who wants fly-by-night currencies backed by national governments of stable countries? That's why I invested my life savings in Bitcoins, Flooz and Beenz.

Retirement FTW!!!!!

Acer is begging Microsoft not to price the Microsoft Surface tablet at $199. Acer would like to see it priced around $499-$599. Otherwise it will "seriously impact the existing PC ecosystem".

Meanwhile, ARM tablets on Amazon start around $60, and ones with decent reviews start around $80. Most run the open source version of Android. Google's Nexus 7 costs $199, and that's the price point Microsoft will probably have to match, if not beat.

From a marketing perspective, once the price of something drops below $100, sales go way up.

So the fact that Apple was on the ropes and facing the threat of bankruptcy and nonexistence back in the 90s and early 2000s thanks to that aggregate statistic that "isn't really all that important" means nothing in your little world?

People wanted "a PC". They didn't want "a Mac". "A Mac" didn't run the programs "a PC" did, and was more expensive. People didn't care that what they bought was a Dell, or an HP, or a Vaio, or whatever. And it turned out the market didn't care, either. The aggregate sales of PCs beat the pants off of Macs in sales. Period. Apple knows this. They are terrified of what this means, because Steve won't come back to save their asses this time around.

What does the entire "Apple sells the most of a single specific model of phone, and depends on that one single model of phone to promote their phone infrastructure, without which they're left with nothing" statistic MEAN, anyway? Um... good for Apple? Meanwhile, 68% of the smartphone market are using Android phones?

You just keep saying the same thing over and over as if it makes it true. Profit matters, and how big a slice you take out of a given market.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57427811-37/apple-samsung-put-hammerlock-on-smartphone-profits/

If the roles were reversed and Apple had 68% of the smartphone market by volume, how much more profit would they then have? By that chart, only a teensy bit more, for a linear increase in expense of moving and supporting two or three times as many units.

The whole "Macs don't run the same software" crap smells as bad now as it did then. People are buying tablets for the first time, a new form factor with all new software and use cases. Game consoles change every couple years, new platforms come and go. Popular platforms get tons of software and games, then morons attribute the success to... lots of software and/or games.

Fun fact: the iPad and XBox launched with DICK for software. It's all about timing, not a magic software market going back in time to pick its leader.

You are wrong. Apple wants $30 per phone and $40 per tablet for a bunch of software patents. They also want Samsung to pay royalties on any Windows phones they sell. Oh and all the hardware patents (you know the ones actually useful for implementing the cellphone bit) Samsung has on a plate. Apple is pathetic.

FWIW, Metro's more the UI. But anyway: would "Mass Transit System" or "City Bus Company" have been any better as names? And don't say "But what about Subway" as people in the US associate that with sandwiches made on stale hoagie rolls.

"Metro" was definitely the right choice...

Read HERE to find out why M$ had to legally CHANGE the name to "Windows 8 UI" because they wouldn't/couldn't settle with some German company.

Clearly businesses are not moving to Macs, and deeply distrust Apple equipment. Oh wait... http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57355159-37/look-out-microsoft-apple-is-grabbing-more-it-dollars/

Nobody's using Linux either. http://www.aaxnet.com/design/linux2.html

You probably gave him an used iPhone which has an additional cost of $0. Not to mention that in the US they have these funky phone purchase schemes where you "pay" $99 to get an iPhone and you don't pay less per month if you bring your own phone to the deal. It used to be that the barrier to entry for programming was nil. In fact personal computers of the 80s like the C64 actually booted directly to a BASIC interpreter console. Now you have to get development tools. With the iPhone its even worse since you need the development tools (paid) and to pay for deploying the application similar to the game consoles market.

The development tools for Mac OS X/iOS are free. You don't need to pay $99/year if you just want to learn/tinker. You can run iOS apps on the Simulator on your Mac. You can't run on a hardware iOS device without paying $99/yr. If my daughter was seriously that interested in programming I would pay the $99 in a heartbeat! Do you know how much enrichment classes generally cost? Sorry, there may be arguments about why Apple is a crappy developer ecosystem but the price of the dev tools is not one of them.

You probably gave him an used iPhone which has an additional cost of $0. Not to mention that in the US they have these funky phone purchase schemes where you "pay" $99 to get an iPhone and you don't pay less per month if you bring your own phone to the deal. It used to be that the barrier to entry for programming was nil. In fact personal computers of the 80s like the C64 actually booted directly to a BASIC interpreter console. Now you have to get development tools. With the iPhone its even worse since you need the development tools (paid) and to pay for deploying the application similar to the game consoles market.

Reminds me of one of my first network hub installations (yes, hubs). The only place to mount a stack of hubs was in the furnace room - an ancient oil-fired furnace that belched soot on every startup. To say the least the innards of those hubs were _disgusting_ in a very short while.

Seriously?

After calling out Tim Cook personally, getting Gawker Media involved, Gizmodo also carrying the story written by a different editor, Cnet carrying the story, and Mat posting under his own name, you are still going with the denial angle?

You'll notice it's only Samsung if you're wearing reality-distortion glasses, because surely Apple didn't sue HTC, or Motorola. They went as far as not to sue Motorola _twice_, as you see.

You'll notice it's only Samsung if you're wearing reality-distortion glasses, because surely Apple didn't sue HTC, or Motorola. They went as far as not to sue Motorola _twice_, as you see.

Is it just me, or is the researcher in the article holding a "touch my monkey" pose?

You are confusing what was disallowed by the judge and the images that Samsung actually leaked. The information released by Samsung that pissed off the judge was showing a prototype that Apple created.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57483967-37/judge-chides-samsung-for-handing-nixed-evidence-to-media/

The F700 is being discussed because Apple was allowed to argue that the F700 was a copy of the iPhone design. Samsung said they intended to release information which would 'prove they did not copy the iPhone design' but the judge had disallowed it. Instead, Samsung went to the media with the image you see in the link above. The image shown is actually an Apple design.

So basically, yes, they were in that shape, no, they did not have billions in the bank.

As of June 27, 1997, the last quarter before Microsoft "saved" Apple with its $150 million, Apple reported having $1 billion in cash and equivalents, and another $200 million in short-term investments.

So if Apple was "90 days from going bankrupt" with its $1 billion of cash on hand at that time, then Microsoft's $150 million gift would have given Apple an additional two weeks of operating capital.

You realize you are disputing Steve Jobs version of the situation (see the interviews)? Good to know your insight into the situation trumps his.

Android Handhelds and related:
http://obscurehandhelds.wordpress.com/
http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/8/3072142/power-a-moga-controller-hands-on
http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/11/odroid-the-android-gaming-handheld-now-shipping-to-android-gam/
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/04/android-gaming-tablet-looks-remarkably-similar-to-sony-psp/
http://arpandeb.com/02/2012/gadget-preview/3-handheld-android-gaming-tablet-consoles-review.html

Android dominance:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10797_3-57448990-235/gaming-handhelds-relegated-to-niche-status-by-ios-android/
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Nintendo-claims-the-iPhone-killed-the-handheld-game-console_id29533/

So basically, yes, they were in that shape, no, they did not have billions in the bank.

As of June 27, 1997, the last quarter before Microsoft "saved" Apple with its $150 million, Apple reported having $1 billion in cash and equivalents, and another $200 million in short-term investments.

So if Apple was "90 days from going bankrupt" with its $1 billion of cash on hand at that time, then Microsoft's $150 million gift would have given Apple an additional two weeks of operating capital.

Not everybody is always aware of the potential future consequences of their actions. I'm sure Ernie Ball didn't realise what they were getting into when they chose to use Microsoft software. They thought they just bought some software, but didn't realise that they were losing quite a bit of freedom. When confronted with that reality, they promptly got rid of the software and regained their freedom.

Yet they do admit they're still using some proprietary software, and that the decision in the beginning to go with Microsoft, the decision to move to Linux, the decision to continue using some proprietary stuff was their own decision. No one else decided that for them, they made the decision themselves, and that's the whole point of what I have been saying all along: you are not granting freedom, you are taking freedom away if you don't allow people to make their own decisions.

I'm one of those who doesn't understand. Would you please explain?

RMS drives freedom of source-code: in his opinion all code should be GPLed so that you cannot decide _not_ to release your own modifications to it if you share the end-result with other people, ie. you're obligated to continue keeping the source-code free whether or not you want to. If the freedom was end-user - oriented then you'd be free to decide all for yourself what to do with the source-code, like e.g. with BSD-license. Two entirely different approaches to freedom, and you cannot have both.

I really don't see that the fact that the program is free does anything except guarantee my freedom as a user.

Perhaps you are saying that refusing to use proprietary software reduces the amount of choice I have?

No, that is not what I am saying at all.

And that is exactly what I do not agree with. If freedom must be pushed on people even against their will then it was never freedom even in the first place.

Not everybody is always aware of the potential future consequences of their actions. I'm sure Ernie Ball didn't realise what they were getting into when they chose to use Microsoft software. They thought they just bought some software, but didn't realise that they were losing quite a bit of freedom. When confronted with that reality, they promptly got rid of the software and regained their freedom.

Also, worth noting is the fact that RMS drives for freedom of code, not freedom of users; the two are mutually exclusive, and this is exactly what so many advocates either choose to deliberately ignore or just simply do not understand.

I'm one of those who doesn't understand. Would you please explain? It seems to me that if I'm a user of a program of which I don't have the freedom to use it in whatever way I like, the freedom to share it, and of which I don't have the source and the freedom to change it as I like, that I'm then less free a user than if I do have all those freedoms. I really don't see that the fact that the program is free does anything except guarantee my freedom as a user.

Perhaps you are saying that refusing to use proprietary software reduces the amount of choice I have? That's true, but it's just a matter of values. Stallman and other free software advocates simply say that it's in your best long-term interests to value freedom over convenience. You apparently disagree. It's difficult to argue these things.

.. it is trying to create a new niche.

Microsoft is happy with niche markets now? Back in 2009, Balmer said I'm glad we're doing a great job with the other 96 and a half percent." We was perfectly fine with Apple having their little three and a half percent.

Of course, this isn't the first niche MS has tried to carve out. The Zune wasn't competing with iPods, it was a whole new niche of social media players. Just like that amazing niche market of social phones served by the KIN line.

None of that answers the question "what do you think Red Hat can do about it"? Red Hat not supporting SecureBoot is not going to make SecureBoot go away, it is going to make Red Hat go away. How is that good for anyone?

I'm not blaming Red Hat. They're a for-profit company and can't be expected to act any other way. I'm just trying to make people aware of the problems with SecureBoot.

Now, certainly many hardware manufacturers will choose to do that (market forces and all), but not ALL of them will (or have to). In addition, you have a few other companies saying 'hmm, our customers would probably like to run our software on hardware that has our competitors logo - I guess we better enable that'. Do they have to do that? Of course not, but they are pretty stupid if they don't.

Historically, Microsoft has been able to convince their partners to exclude competitor's products.

For example, back in the days of OS/2, Microsoft used a licensing scheme where OEM manufacturers paid them per computer they shipped, not per copy of Windows. That meant OEM manufacturers had no reason to offer OS/2 on their computers, since they already had a Windows license for each one of them (and customers who specifically wanted OS/2 had to pay for both OSes).

Back in the days of Netscape, Microsoft changed the license terms of Windows NT Workstation to limit the number of simultaneous network connections, while at the same time bunding IIS Server with Windows NT Server. That meant anyone who wanted to run a web server on Windows, had to buy Windows NT Server, and then there was no reason to buy another web server software. It also meant a customer had to pay extra if they specifically wanted Netscape's web server software. (This was one of the things they were found guilty of in the US DoJ's anti-trust case.)

Microsoft has also been found guilty of explicitly asking their partners to stop bundling competitor's products, and using late deliveries as a way to pressure them.

Of course, I can't know that Microsoft will continue to use these kinds of methods to limit the number of OSes included in SecureBoot, since I can't see into the future. But I'd be very surprised if they didn't try.

Those who really want to run an alternative OS, will still be able to do it. But Secureboot could be used to make it too much hassle, too expensive, or too scary for the majority of users. You only need to make the competitor's option a little less attractive to nudge the market in the right direction.

There are US senators who have tried to outlaw P2P filesharing software, or make the software authors responsible for preventing piracy, since at least 2004 (CNet, Afterdawn). They're currently not close to succeeding, but the boundaries are constantly being pushed back. So far, we've seen web sites become responsible for what their users upload, then for what they're linking too, then search providers like Google became responsible for listing infringing material in their search results, and so on.

There have also been major attempts to mandate encryption with government backdoors in the United States (Clipper).

I assume that was intended as an analogy but I can't come up with any link between that and what we are talking about...

There was plenty of other stuff in my post for you to dwell on. The point was, it isn't your crap, it is owned by someone else, You do not get to decide when or how what is done unless the employer/owner gives you permission first.

That sounds like a very poorly structured work place data infrastructure. There shouldn't be any important data on desktops and workstations in the first place.

Or a very poor employee and perhaps a dishonest employee who is making deals to take with him or even taking the client lists or trade secrets. No one has cleared this employee and designated them uber honorable or anything. Wanting to destroy any traces of his computer usage definitely has a different sound to it then "I don't want them knowing my log on to to site X that they could have found out at any time if they wanted over the last 10 years".

Employee issued systems can't be trusted with any data of significance and as such it shouldn't be significant if one is lost.

If the employee is competent and trust worthy.

Systems get corrupted and wiped routinely in normal operations so it shouldn't matter if an employee wipes a system.

Your right, it shouldn't if it is done at the direction of the owner of the computer. However, an ex employee is not the owner of the computer or the data on it.

Your security policy should work from the assumption that employee systems are untrusted and implement infrastructure level controls that don't depend on software on that system or preventing local administrative access to the employee.

In an ideal world, but the world is far from ideal. What should be done is often replaced with how much is it going to cost and you simply cannot get around that in a lot of situations. It doesn't matter because in the real world, data does sit in a lot of places and it as well as the computer belongs to the employer not the employee.

But hey, don't just take my word for it, here are some links where people who believe like you ended up believing like me after a costly and painful experience.

http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-Ex-employee-sued-for-deleting-files/2100-7348_3-6171274.html

http://computerfraud.us/recent-updates/california-court-holds-that-an-employee-can-be-sued-under-the-cfaa-for-deleting-company-files

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/top-10-lawsuits-2006,1884-3.html

http://www.sgrlaw.com/resources/trust_the_leaders/leaders_issues/ttl17/827/

I think it's ironic that a company whose CEO has repeatedly made it clear from the start that user's data should not be kept private is claiming to improve security while they themselves have intentionally and willfully made users' private data public again and again by changing default settings and making it hard to change them back. Or has everyone already forgotten? I for one assume everything I post on Facebook is going to become completely public, including private messges. Have you ever read the permissions you grant on any application you use (I don't use FB apps because of this)?