So if WAFL is so much better technically then why does NetApp need to throw around bogus patent infringement claims (and yes the claims about ZFS infringing their patents has been ruled to be wrong) rather than just competing on the merit of their product?
The case doesn't have merit because the courts have already ruled that ZFS doesn't infringe NetApp's patent No. 6,892,211 which is at the heart of their infringement claims. This is just a shakedown.
Sun already does indemnify it's customers. Schwartz pointed this out when NetApp's rumblings against Sun first happened.
First, the basics. Sun indemnifies all its customers against IP claims like this. That is, we've always protected our markets from trolls, so customers can continue to use ZFS without concern for spurious patent and copyright issues. We stand behind our innovation, and our customers.
You seem to be equating the reviewer's poor grasp of the subject matter to trying to equate that Java and.NET developers as a whole think they invented or discovered the notion of a "minilanguage" (or DSL in this case). This is simply not true. Secondly, the term "domain-specific language" was being used almost a decade before C# even came out and long before any such things were being built on top of the JVM.
1) You can't play without constant internet connection. 2) Can't trasnfer saved data to an offline version of the game. 3) You are renting the game and thus you own no physical copy of the game which you can resell or lend to others to use.
You are implying that the x264 developer's claim is a fact.
In what way is it not fact? They both use an almost identical transform of any claims of bias against VP8 when it comes to MPEG artifacts is bunk. Basically all you are doing is being contrarian with no actual facts to back it up.
I'm not convinced anything was misleading in the original comment.
You mean other than their implication of a bias against VP8 that doesn't exist? Yes, other than that claim which was the heart of their comment there is nothing misleading.
Exactly. Basically On2 and the current VP8 developers have done nothing but completely overstate the capabilities of the codec and throw out bogus claims like the one in that addendum in order to muddy the waters when their codec routinely fails to measure up.
But...but...that can't be true! That would mean that all the VP8 marketing claims of 50% efficiency gains over H.264 were untrue! And yes, they did make that claim on the page that is no longer available from their site.
The problem is that their statement is mostly bogus as VP8 and MPEG codecs use a transform that is basically identical. They just threw that statement out there to muddy the waters because VP8 didn't stack up.
Slashdot Mirror
So you would support people breaking the copyrights off old, unsupported versions of the Linux kernel, GCC, glibc, etc?
Last december it was ruled they didn't infringe.
So if WAFL is so much better technically then why does NetApp need to throw around bogus patent infringement claims (and yes the claims about ZFS infringing their patents has been ruled to be wrong) rather than just competing on the merit of their product?
The $600M NTP got from RIM is a penitence compared to what these people can afford on legal.
$600 million is a state of sorrow for sins or faults? What the hell does that mean? I believe you mean "pittance".
The case doesn't have merit because the courts have already ruled that ZFS doesn't infringe NetApp's patent No. 6,892,211 which is at the heart of their infringement claims. This is just a shakedown.
Sorry buddy but the courts have ruled that ZFS doesn't infringe NetApp's patents. Read here and here. Cry more.
Your post reminds me of a family guy flashback that has absolutely nothing to do with what's happening at the time.
Did you even read what they said? Most malware has code to prevent it from running or from running the same way in a virtual environment.
No, it's not. In fact Sun is pretty much winning at ever corner against NetApp in the patent fight.
Sun already does indemnify it's customers. Schwartz pointed this out when NetApp's rumblings against Sun first happened.
First, the basics. Sun indemnifies all its customers against IP claims like this. That is, we've always protected our markets from trolls, so customers can continue to use ZFS without concern for spurious patent and copyright issues. We stand behind our innovation, and our customers.
Except that the courts and the patent office are saying otherwise in NetApp's case against Sun.
Because it would be a barrier to entry for the assholes.
No. The Linux kernel still requires GCC to compile.
You seem to be equating the reviewer's poor grasp of the subject matter to trying to equate that Java and .NET developers as a whole think they invented or discovered the notion of a "minilanguage" (or DSL in this case). This is simply not true. Secondly, the term "domain-specific language" was being used almost a decade before C# even came out and long before any such things were being built on top of the JVM.
They say it is a supposed leak from inside Nokia.
OnLive seems to be a DRM pusher's wet dream:
1) You can't play without constant internet connection.
2) Can't trasnfer saved data to an offline version of the game.
3) You are renting the game and thus you own no physical copy of the game which you can resell or lend to others to use.
When their best quality is only slightly better or equal to H.264's baseline quality, then yes that is "much lower".
Which means you can do similar with VP8...
At a much lower quality as this comparison shows. H.264 baseline was pretty equal with VP8's maximum quality.
You are implying that the x264 developer's claim is a fact.
In what way is it not fact? They both use an almost identical transform of any claims of bias against VP8 when it comes to MPEG artifacts is bunk. Basically all you are doing is being contrarian with no actual facts to back it up.
I'm not convinced anything was misleading in the original comment.
You mean other than their implication of a bias against VP8 that doesn't exist? Yes, other than that claim which was the heart of their comment there is nothing misleading.
Exactly. Basically On2 and the current VP8 developers have done nothing but completely overstate the capabilities of the codec and throw out bogus claims like the one in that addendum in order to muddy the waters when their codec routinely fails to measure up.
You can do realtime, baseline H.264 encoding on Cortex A8 and A9 chips with x264.
But...but...that can't be true! That would mean that all the VP8 marketing claims of 50% efficiency gains over H.264 were untrue! And yes, they did make that claim on the page that is no longer available from their site.
First, that claim was made by an x264 developer.
And was backed up by the professor doing the test when he responded saying: "Yes, you are absolutelly right".
x264 developers need to take it easy and let their implementation speak on its merits rather than attempt to discredit VP8 at every opportunity.
Then maybe the VP8 developers need to stop making misleading statements about the capabilities of their codec?
The problem is that their statement is mostly bogus as VP8 and MPEG codecs use a transform that is basically identical. They just threw that statement out there to muddy the waters because VP8 didn't stack up.