You could intentionally add a.exe file as a resource to your Foo project, it would get included in the resulting Foo.ipa archive, but to actually run it would have to be extracted from it, which would largely be pointless to do - except if a recipient is a mischievous "asset borrower" who wants to use your game's fancy sprites in his game.
What's the probability an iOS app ships with Windows executables inside at all? There is no point in checking for any theoretical content except that which can affect its intended environment: iOS. What next, look through included PDFs to see if they exploit bugs in Adobe Reader?
But Android is open so anyone can make a build that strips out the Google-moneymaking from it... like Verizon did (IIRC) with their Bing-using build. So #3 is not guaranteed.
The consumer choice is always to choose something else, and noone has a problem with that. Pirates instead do choose the product but then "choose" not to pay for it. Don't make a false excuse like claiming something is "crap", when it apparently is interesting enough for someone to pirate it.
That writing software is not a real profession, and should stick to being a hobby?:)
Perhaps people should have "real" jobs where they do jobs that don't involve infinitely copyable non-objects, but have a real scarcity element, and then they write software when they get home... or you write software on commission from some entity (e.g. a company) with a need, much like classical art was made for rich sponsors back in the day...
News flash, the quality Android devices cost around the same as iDevices. But I guess the cheapskates that even pirate a $0.99 app need to save the bucks they can...
So you write for ONE customer (at their request)? Which is a scenario that does not apply to the case where you try and make something and then sell it to many people.
Soon, independent developers will probably switch en masse over to the Kickstarter/Indiegogo route, where they get the money and can gauge the interest up front, so that there is no big problem with piracy since it would not be in the interest of the backers to let non-backers leech off their investment...
What are the PCs running? "Open" advocates should be shunning Windows since they don't have access to the source for it, and run Linux instead. But then they would not have access to all that nice commercial software that beats the "open" alternatives to a pulp, even though they are too cheap to pay for the privilege so they pirate and hack away at the DRM the manufacturers add since Windows lacks it.
Photoshop as used by professionals is paid for. These payments in effect subsidize for the pirate-leeches who benefit from the "tax money" paid by those that would otherwise be strung up by the BSA. But the benefit to Adobe is that once these leeches grow up, move out of their parents' home and try to make a living, then they will have Photoshop skills that makes it more likely that their law-abiding company will buy that expensive product.
"Owning" applies to hardware, not software. You can do whatever you want with an iPhone as well, just don't expect Apple to help you do it via software or services.
It's apparently not "garbage" enough that they avoid it completely (which is an option as well). That they pirate it shows that they have an interest in it, but prefer to leech.
But are those two things - "a rectangle with rounded corners" - the only elements of the design patent? It seems that there are other elements as well, that you blatantly ignore, but that the court has taken into consideration.
Apple does not demand that stores selling Macs should pay for Mac OS X licenses for all the computers they sell no matter what OS they are installed with. Microsoft did for their OS, until the court told them not to, but by then it was too late.
Funny, you would think that if the photo frame - that gets trotted out incessantly - actually was significant to the case then Samsung would have presented it in the court case? And if it was such a good example of prior design that you apparently is convinced of, then the court would have sided with Samsung? Is it possible for you to consider that you might be... wrong?
Were they patented? Patents are specific, perhaps design patents slightly less so. The traditional PC tablets did not look much like the thin and light iPad.
No, the prime factors were: - Smaller size and weight - A simpler operating system written for the device and not a WIMP system wrestled into a non-MP device - A lower price - Applications that regular people found useful
Marketing comes after all of those. It's like people have forgotten how clunky and expensive Windows tablets were in their attempt at historical revisionism.
Apple hasn't come up with anything new since the early 1980's
Well, you have an interesting way of totally letting your hatred blind you to actual understanding. Or are you going to come up with devices that had click-wheels before the iPad, machines that looked like the early iMacs and eBooks, etc.? Practically all products build on existing products - or are you using NCSA Mosaic to browse Slashdot?
Sure: Ben & Jerry's - that's about it. Samsung is not a hero in any definition of the word: They practically ran South Korea when it was a dictatorship, it practically runs it now that it pretends to be a democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
Vista did not destroy the industry because businesses stayed the hell away from it and stuck with XP.
Soooo... learn the difference between a technology patent and a design patent, mmmkay?
You could intentionally add a .exe file as a resource to your Foo project, it would get included in the resulting Foo.ipa archive, but to actually run it would have to be extracted from it, which would largely be pointless to do - except if a recipient is a mischievous "asset borrower" who wants to use your game's fancy sprites in his game.
What's the probability an iOS app ships with Windows executables inside at all? There is no point in checking for any theoretical content except that which can affect its intended environment: iOS. What next, look through included PDFs to see if they exploit bugs in Adobe Reader?
Question: Does it count as an activation whenever someone installs a new OS release on their phone? In that case, the number is misleading.
But Android is open so anyone can make a build that strips out the Google-moneymaking from it... like Verizon did (IIRC) with their Bing-using build. So #3 is not guaranteed.
None of those prevent piracy. It seems the only piracy prevention is "make it free"...
The consumer choice is always to choose something else, and noone has a problem with that. Pirates instead do choose the product but then "choose" not to pay for it. Don't make a false excuse like claiming something is "crap", when it apparently is interesting enough for someone to pirate it.
That writing software is not a real profession, and should stick to being a hobby? :)
Perhaps people should have "real" jobs where they do jobs that don't involve infinitely copyable non-objects, but have a real scarcity element, and then they write software when they get home... or you write software on commission from some entity (e.g. a company) with a need, much like classical art was made for rich sponsors back in the day...
I thought Android had surpassed iOS now and thus that was the new bandwagon, fandroid?
News flash, the quality Android devices cost around the same as iDevices. But I guess the cheapskates that even pirate a $0.99 app need to save the bucks they can...
So you write for ONE customer (at their request)? Which is a scenario that does not apply to the case where you try and make something and then sell it to many people.
Soon, independent developers will probably switch en masse over to the Kickstarter/Indiegogo route, where they get the money and can gauge the interest up front, so that there is no big problem with piracy since it would not be in the interest of the backers to let non-backers leech off their investment...
What are the PCs running? "Open" advocates should be shunning Windows since they don't have access to the source for it, and run Linux instead. But then they would not have access to all that nice commercial software that beats the "open" alternatives to a pulp, even though they are too cheap to pay for the privilege so they pirate and hack away at the DRM the manufacturers add since Windows lacks it.
Pottymouth does not an argument make, by the way.
Photoshop as used by professionals is paid for. These payments in effect subsidize for the pirate-leeches who benefit from the "tax money" paid by those that would otherwise be strung up by the BSA. But the benefit to Adobe is that once these leeches grow up, move out of their parents' home and try to make a living, then they will have Photoshop skills that makes it more likely that their law-abiding company will buy that expensive product.
"Owning" applies to hardware, not software. You can do whatever you want with an iPhone as well, just don't expect Apple to help you do it via software or services.
Hm, as a programmer perhaps I should start doing pediatrics for fun... :P
It's apparently not "garbage" enough that they avoid it completely (which is an option as well). That they pirate it shows that they have an interest in it, but prefer to leech.
Much like the Mafia, Microsoft did not do their pressuring in the courts, but outside them...
But are those two things - "a rectangle with rounded corners" - the only elements of the design patent? It seems that there are other elements as well, that you blatantly ignore, but that the court has taken into consideration.
Apple does not demand that stores selling Macs should pay for Mac OS X licenses for all the computers they sell no matter what OS they are installed with. Microsoft did for their OS, until the court told them not to, but by then it was too late.
Funny, you would think that if the photo frame - that gets trotted out incessantly - actually was significant to the case then Samsung would have presented it in the court case? And if it was such a good example of prior design that you apparently is convinced of, then the court would have sided with Samsung? Is it possible for you to consider that you might be... wrong?
Were they patented? Patents are specific, perhaps design patents slightly less so. The traditional PC tablets did not look much like the thin and light iPad.
No, the prime factors were:
- Smaller size and weight
- A simpler operating system written for the device and not a WIMP system wrestled into a non-MP device
- A lower price
- Applications that regular people found useful
Marketing comes after all of those. It's like people have forgotten how clunky and expensive Windows tablets were in their attempt at historical revisionism.
Apple hasn't come up with anything new since the early 1980's
Well, you have an interesting way of totally letting your hatred blind you to actual understanding. Or are you going to come up with devices that had click-wheels before the iPad, machines that looked like the early iMacs and eBooks, etc.? Practically all products build on existing products - or are you using NCSA Mosaic to browse Slashdot?
Sure: Ben & Jerry's - that's about it. Samsung is not a hero in any definition of the word: They practically ran South Korea when it was a dictatorship, it practically runs it now that it pretends to be a democracy.