I can't believe someone actually used "loose" correctly on an internet forum.
Hmm, I see "lose" misspelled as "loose" all the time, but I almost never see "loose" itself misspelled.
Note that "lose" is a real bitch because it violates more general rules of English spelling/pronunciation. The difference between the pronunciation of "lose" and "loose" is in the final consonant, but the difference in spelling is in the vowel, which is already somewhat counter-intuitive. Beyond that, the pronunciation of "lose" is at odds with the general use of "-ose" in English: compare and contrast "rose", "pose", "nose", "close", "compose", "suppose", "dextrose", "morose", "dose", "grandiose", etc. In fact, grepping for [^o]ose$ in/usr/share/dict/words shows only one other word with a similar pronunciation to lose, and that is "whose", which is commonly misspelled as "who's".
Saying that Digital Restrictions Management is bad is not FUD, it's a simple fact.
You'll get no argument from me there, but that's not what OP said! He said that TC is not about DRM, not that DRM was not about "bad things". Linux has had TC support for years, with full blessings from Linus. The result is more like advanced tripwire than any sort of DRM. In fact, TC-based DRM, while theoretically possible, isn't likely to be too useful, because TC was never designed to protect against local attackers, and "can be vulnerable to power-analysis, RF-analysis and timing-analysis". (Source (PDF).
Wow, your grasp of the concept of a simile is amazing. If I said a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle, would you also complain that fish aren't even a subset of women?
So you've never heard the old joke: Q. How many programmers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A. None--that's a hardware problem!
Hey, I don't write these, but they exist for a reason. Anyway, I may know (or think I know) how to use a screwdriver and soldering iron, but that doesn't mean the hardware folks are going to trust me with one or feel comfortable when they see me wielding one. And I'm old-school (been programming for three decades). I remember when it was impossible to set up your computer without at least knowing how to set jumpers. Nowadays, all that stuff is plug-and-play, and your claim about "real programmers"* is less true than its ever been.
* Real programmers don't document--it was hard to write, it should be hard to understand.
I'm not sure we disagree as much as you think. I'm not arguing in favor of transitive properties of the relevant laws--just the opposite! I'm pointing out that your initial analogy of CNet and computer makers was flawed because CNet distributed Limewire, while computer makers merely create devices which can, in theory, be used to run Limewire. To me, it was your original analogy that seemed to rely on the non-existent transitive properties of these laws.
As for whether CNet was stupid, I'm reserving judgement, but I don't think the situation is quite as simple as you suggest, even though I mostly agree with your second and third posts (as far as they go). If CNet wasn't stupid and didn't promote illegal activity (which I admit is at least plausible, though I reserve judgment at this time), there might still be a question of whether they should have known that Limewire was a tool promoted for illegal purposes. This is a bit of a stretch for the plaintiffs, I think, but I do believe that there is precedent for liability based on what you should have known. Anyway, I'm not saying I think CNet going to lose; I'm simply saying that your original analogy was flawed, and, moreover, it strongly resembled a class of stupid arguments I regularly see here on slashdot. Since it is now apparent to me that you don't subscribe to the stupid argument version, I apologize for assuming you did, but the analogy is still flawed.
(As for the programmer-with-a-screwdriver thing, it's an old joke. I'm sorry you didn't get it, but I have 'N' word privileges here, so get over yourself!):p;)
Speak for yourself--I didn't, but then I assume that anyone who takes their legal advice from slashdot deserves what they get!:)
I'm not saying that CNet is going to win or lose (I haven't got the faintest idea at this point). I was simply saying that your claim, "If CNet is liable, then so are computer makers" was fallacious. As for whether CNet promoted illegal activity, you write:
It's unlikely that they did. They would be stupid to do so.
Companies do stupid things all the time. Look at Sony! Look at Microsoft submitting doctored evidence in open court. Look at all the companies that have partnered with Microsoft (if you can find any outside of history books).
As for programmers with screwdrivers, the most dangerous thing about them is that they often feel they know how to use them; a fact that causes sheer terror in most hardware folks I know, and I know this because I am programmer (and yes, I sometimes wield a screwdriver).
Depends. If you can show that the manufacturer promoted their screwdriver as "a tool for prying open doors so you can steal things inside other people's houses", then probably you could sue them. Otherwise, probably not. This is why Bittorrent is still legal.
And in your legal system, distributing P2P software, so that people can share for example free software, is illegal too?
Nope, Bittorrent is still legal because its makers have never promoted it as a tool for violating the law. So P2P software as a class is not illegal.
The difference between Bittorrent and Limewire is like the difference between murder and manslaughter, except that in this case, the issue of intent doesn't just determine what type of crime you committed; it determines whether you committed a crime at all.
If CNet is liable, then so are computer makers as they're a huge source of computers, which then download that pirated stuff.
Ah yes, geeks trying to "logic" the law--almost as dangerous as the proverbial programmer-with-a-screwdriver. The summary (for once) even mentioned "induce or encourage", yet we still have people trying to judge the actions as if there were no actors, and assuming that any vague analogy between two different actions makes them identical.
Hey, if someone trips on your staircase and breaks their neck, they're just as dead as if you'd put a gun to their temple and pulled the trigger, right? So it should be the same crime in the eyes of the law, right? Except its not. The former is probably, at worst, negligent manslaughter, while the latter is almost certainly first-degree murder. Those are very different crimes. Yet the only measurable difference is intent.
In the case of peer-to-peer software (and similar), the question of intent becomes even more critical, as it doesn't just distinguish between two types of crime (as with manslaughter vs. murder), but actually decides whether you've crossed the line into illegal activity. Grokster and Limewire (unlike, say, Bittorrent) crossed that line.
The interesting details of this case are going to be whether or not CNet ever promoted Limewire as a tool for infringement, and if not, then perhaps whether they could or should have known it was being promoted as an infringement tool. If the former, then I suspect they'll lose. If it's the latter, then things get tricky (and ugly), and I don't think there's any precedent to guide us, so it might go either way. Those computer makers you mentioned, on the other hand, never provided Limewire, so there's no issue, and your analogy fails utterly. Limewire and Bittorrent are not equivalent under the law; why would Limewire and computer hardware be equivalent?
Or technology developed during the neolithic It's frequently been suggested that the invention of written language has had a negative impact on our ability to memorize words, and I bet the number of people who are capable of killing a wooly mammoth with nothing but some sticks and rocks is pretty close to nil. And that store you mentioned? No matter how you get there, I bet it's had a negative impact on your ability to recognize edible plants and animals that grow within walking distance of your home.
Hardly "popular". Apple IIe sold what? 500,000 units?
Don't know about the IIe specifically, but the II series (of which the IIe was the most popular and longest-lived) overall sold between 5 and 6 million. The 8-bit Atari machines (which were considered fairly successful) only sold about 2 million. Moreover, the Apple II was the only machine to be successful in both the home and small business markets until the IBM PC came along. In fact, until the PC, the Apple II was the most popular microcomputer for businesses, outselling the whole CP/M family combined. (This was primarily due to the popularity of Visicalc, the original "killer app".) The C64 outsold the Apple II series overall (by about the same factor that the Apple II outsold Atari), but it had no penetration in the business market.
So yeah, I think describing the Apple II series as "popular" is pretty reasonable, especially if you're going to mention it in the same breath as Atari.
I think you're missing the point. If he wanted performance, he could have used a machine built in this century. Here, the goal is clearly to show what can be done with underpowered machines, so using a more powerful machine would somewhat defeat the point. Plus, using a popular machine for its day makes the experiment resonate more with more people than choosing something as obscure as the IIgs would have done. Not to mention the fact that it's got to be a whole lot easier to find old Apple IIs, since so many more of them were made and sold. I think my brother may still have one in his basement somewhere.
It was actually the 65c816, which was a 16-bit version of the 6502, completely unrelated to the m68k, and binary-compatible with the 6502 so the IIgs could still run old Apple II software.
I know I'd be pretty pissed off if someone told me I couldn't trademark a logo of my initials.
Really? Even if your name was Ian Bradley Moore or Allan Thomas Thatcher? Charles Ivan Anderson? Nathaniel Beauregard Correlli? Belinda Bryce Cavendish? Daniel David Tennant? Diana Nancy Alcott? Heck, if your name happened to be P. S. Pahn, I bet Sony might have something to say about you trademarking your initials.
Yeah, and those damn deniers at the patent office keep refusing to look at my perpetual motion machine! And that hot scientist at the local university refuses to come see the breeding pair of Scottish Plesiosaurs I have locked up in my basement. Damned deniers!
What I hated about PSN from the start is that they demand we enter a credit card number just to be able to use the service.
When on earth was that!? I bought my PS3 many years ago (and yes, OtherOS was very much a factor in my decision to purchase one), and signed up to PSN almost immediately, and I've never seen a request for CC info. If they did actually require CC for PSN, it must have been for a very brief period right after the PS3 came out.
Were you maybe thinking of XboxLive? Or have I just been successfully trolled?
Indeed, given that Suse was reportedly one of Novell's main profit centers, it seems unlikely that it or OpenSuse is in any danger of disappearing. In fact, it looks like Suse may be becoming a separate subsidiary of Attachmate, independent of the former Novell
It sure beats living by nukes, coal plants, tire burning plants, etc., eh?
If I were on my roof, I could see a nuclear power plant. Doesn't bother me at all.
In most of the world, I'd agree with you. I'd be perfectly happy to live next door to nukes if I lived in the eastern 3/4ths of the country, or most of Europe or...a lot of other places. As we just saw in Japan, though, the Pacific Rim/ring of fire may not be the best place for your nuclear plants. And Berkeley is very much on an active fault line. If I lived in Berkeley, I think I'd have strong reservations about living next door to nukes.
Right after the Japan quake/tsunami, the news folks tried to tell us that California's two existing nuclear plants should be no cause for concern, because they're rated for a 7.0 and a 7.5, respectively. Um, guys? We just saw a 9.0 in Japan--two orders of magnitude greater than our margin of safety here. How am I supposed to be reassured? (Not that I live close enough to either plant to worry, but still...)
The quality of writing in science fiction is worse than in any other genre.
Citation needed, but I'm guessing you haven't read much romance, mystery, fantasy, horror, western, or even "literary" fiction if you think that. Nor heard of Sturgeon's Law.
Michael Chabon is a pretty notable exception to this "rule" of yours (though he covers more genres than just SF, he is probably the only author with both a Pulitzer and a Hugo on his shelf); Vonnegut and Bradbury likewise, if less so. Norman Mailer openly wrote fantasy; Margaret Atwood used to deny it, but a large chunk of her output is SF, pure and simple.
Less obvious examples of "it ain't necessarily so" include Joanna Russ, William Gibson (if you need a link, you need to get out more), and, posthumously, Philip K. Dick (same comment as Gibson), all three of whom have strong followings in literary circles, as well as Samuel R. "Chip" Delany, who had the advantages of being A) black, B) gay, C) a English professor and literary critic, and D) at one point wrote one of the most opaque, difficult literary SF novels ever penned, as well as a few others that gave it a run for its money.
Of course, the reverse is true as well. SF is a snobbish crowd every bit as much as mainstream, and attempts by more mainstream authors to "dabble" in SF are generally scorned in SF circles.
I already pointed out the doctrine of estoppel once in response to your earlier post. Since you apparently can't or won't read I'll simply say that not only are you wrong in claiming that this would work (BigCompanyLaw would still be estopped from asserting the patents), but if you did try to sue, and evidence turned up during discovery that you had done this deliberately to try to hurt AnotherCompany, you could find yourself facing charges of fraud, extortion and racketeering.
how do we know that they're not simply joining up to see what others have there[?]
Patents, by their very nature, aren't secret, and OIN makes no secret of which patents are in their pool (it would rather defeat the purpose if they did), so I can't imagine what it is that you think they're going to learn by joining.
Promises are worth exactly as much as the paper they aren't written on.
Well, first of all, these promises are written on paper, and second of all, if a promise is made publicly enough, it doesn't matter whether it's written on paper, and as for your final fear about companies dissolving and assets being sold, the doctrines of promissory estoppel and laches would prevent any direct harm from such an event. A new asset owner couldn't just suddenly repudiate the promises made by the previous owner; they would have to give proper notice and allow those affected by the previous promise time to deal with the changing circumstances, at the very least.
It mentions the horizontal resolution of the phone! It doesn't say anything about whether the described resolution of the TV is horizontal, vertical, diagonal or even radial. And the second part is definitely true--in fact, 1024 scanlines is only 2/3 of what I had on my CRT in the early '00s, and that display cost less than 1/5th of what a typical HDTV goes for (unless you get a really dinky, crappy one).
And caring about the quality of crap (most of the movies and tv shows available) doesn't make it stop being crap, so that's not necessarily the most sensible thing to care about.
Nethack would probably get NC17 (or whatever their equivalent is) because it has:
1) Drugs (Magic mushrooms and potions that make you hallucinate), 2) Incubi and Succubi that have (implied) sex with you, 3) Violence against police* (the "keystone cops" that show up if you directly steal from a shop), 4) Cannibalism, 5) Sex changes, and 6) Devil worship and human sacrifice--by the player!**
Yet the whole thing is done with ascii character "graphics", and is purely tongue-in-cheek, and is about as dangerous for the kiddies as a Warner Brothers cartoon.
* This could have actually gotten it banned entirely under a short-lived California law. ** Don't try this unless you're playing a chaotic character--but still...
Slashdot Mirror
you can't both be nerd and jock
Really? I knew a lot of nerdy jocks/jock-y nerds in high school, and even more in college.
I can't believe someone actually used "loose" correctly on an internet forum.
Hmm, I see "lose" misspelled as "loose" all the time, but I almost never see "loose" itself misspelled.
Note that "lose" is a real bitch because it violates more general rules of English spelling/pronunciation. The difference between the pronunciation of "lose" and "loose" is in the final consonant, but the difference in spelling is in the vowel, which is already somewhat counter-intuitive. Beyond that, the pronunciation of "lose" is at odds with the general use of "-ose" in English: compare and contrast "rose", "pose", "nose", "close", "compose", "suppose", "dextrose", "morose", "dose", "grandiose", etc. In fact, grepping for [^o]ose$ in /usr/share/dict/words shows only one other word with a similar pronunciation to lose, and that is "whose", which is commonly misspelled as "who's".
Saying that Digital Restrictions Management is bad is not FUD, it's a simple fact.
You'll get no argument from me there, but that's not what OP said! He said that TC is not about DRM, not that DRM was not about "bad things". Linux has had TC support for years, with full blessings from Linus. The result is more like advanced tripwire than any sort of DRM. In fact, TC-based DRM, while theoretically possible, isn't likely to be too useful, because TC was never designed to protect against local attackers, and "can be vulnerable to power-analysis, RF-analysis and timing-analysis". (Source (PDF).
programmers are a small subset of geeks
Wow, your grasp of the concept of a simile is amazing. If I said a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle, would you also complain that fish aren't even a subset of women?
So you've never heard the old joke: Q. How many programmers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A. None--that's a hardware problem!
Hey, I don't write these, but they exist for a reason. Anyway, I may know (or think I know) how to use a screwdriver and soldering iron, but that doesn't mean the hardware folks are going to trust me with one or feel comfortable when they see me wielding one. And I'm old-school (been programming for three decades). I remember when it was impossible to set up your computer without at least knowing how to set jumpers. Nowadays, all that stuff is plug-and-play, and your claim about "real programmers"* is less true than its ever been.
* Real programmers don't document--it was hard to write, it should be hard to understand.
I'm not sure we disagree as much as you think. I'm not arguing in favor of transitive properties of the relevant laws--just the opposite! I'm pointing out that your initial analogy of CNet and computer makers was flawed because CNet distributed Limewire, while computer makers merely create devices which can, in theory, be used to run Limewire. To me, it was your original analogy that seemed to rely on the non-existent transitive properties of these laws.
As for whether CNet was stupid, I'm reserving judgement, but I don't think the situation is quite as simple as you suggest, even though I mostly agree with your second and third posts (as far as they go). If CNet wasn't stupid and didn't promote illegal activity (which I admit is at least plausible, though I reserve judgment at this time), there might still be a question of whether they should have known that Limewire was a tool promoted for illegal purposes. This is a bit of a stretch for the plaintiffs, I think, but I do believe that there is precedent for liability based on what you should have known. Anyway, I'm not saying I think CNet going to lose; I'm simply saying that your original analogy was flawed, and, moreover, it strongly resembled a class of stupid arguments I regularly see here on slashdot. Since it is now apparent to me that you don't subscribe to the stupid argument version, I apologize for assuming you did, but the analogy is still flawed.
(As for the programmer-with-a-screwdriver thing, it's an old joke. I'm sorry you didn't get it, but I have 'N' word privileges here, so get over yourself!) :p ;)
And we geeks caveat ourselves: IANAL.
Speak for yourself--I didn't, but then I assume that anyone who takes their legal advice from slashdot deserves what they get! :)
I'm not saying that CNet is going to win or lose (I haven't got the faintest idea at this point). I was simply saying that your claim, "If CNet is liable, then so are computer makers" was fallacious. As for whether CNet promoted illegal activity, you write:
It's unlikely that they did. They would be stupid to do so.
Companies do stupid things all the time. Look at Sony! Look at Microsoft submitting doctored evidence in open court. Look at all the companies that have partnered with Microsoft (if you can find any outside of history books).
As for programmers with screwdrivers, the most dangerous thing about them is that they often feel they know how to use them; a fact that causes sheer terror in most hardware folks I know, and I know this because I am programmer (and yes, I sometimes wield a screwdriver).
Depends. If you can show that the manufacturer promoted their screwdriver as "a tool for prying open doors so you can steal things inside other people's houses", then probably you could sue them. Otherwise, probably not. This is why Bittorrent is still legal.
And in your legal system, distributing P2P software, so that people can share for example free software, is illegal too?
Nope, Bittorrent is still legal because its makers have never promoted it as a tool for violating the law. So P2P software as a class is not illegal.
The difference between Bittorrent and Limewire is like the difference between murder and manslaughter, except that in this case, the issue of intent doesn't just determine what type of crime you committed; it determines whether you committed a crime at all.
If CNet is liable, then so are computer makers as they're a huge source of computers, which then download that pirated stuff.
Ah yes, geeks trying to "logic" the law--almost as dangerous as the proverbial programmer-with-a-screwdriver. The summary (for once) even mentioned "induce or encourage", yet we still have people trying to judge the actions as if there were no actors, and assuming that any vague analogy between two different actions makes them identical.
Hey, if someone trips on your staircase and breaks their neck, they're just as dead as if you'd put a gun to their temple and pulled the trigger, right? So it should be the same crime in the eyes of the law, right? Except its not. The former is probably, at worst, negligent manslaughter, while the latter is almost certainly first-degree murder. Those are very different crimes. Yet the only measurable difference is intent.
In the case of peer-to-peer software (and similar), the question of intent becomes even more critical, as it doesn't just distinguish between two types of crime (as with manslaughter vs. murder), but actually decides whether you've crossed the line into illegal activity. Grokster and Limewire (unlike, say, Bittorrent) crossed that line.
The interesting details of this case are going to be whether or not CNet ever promoted Limewire as a tool for infringement, and if not, then perhaps whether they could or should have known it was being promoted as an infringement tool. If the former, then I suspect they'll lose. If it's the latter, then things get tricky (and ugly), and I don't think there's any precedent to guide us, so it might go either way. Those computer makers you mentioned, on the other hand, never provided Limewire, so there's no issue, and your analogy fails utterly. Limewire and Bittorrent are not equivalent under the law; why would Limewire and computer hardware be equivalent?
Or technology developed during the neolithic It's frequently been suggested that the invention of written language has had a negative impact on our ability to memorize words, and I bet the number of people who are capable of killing a wooly mammoth with nothing but some sticks and rocks is pretty close to nil. And that store you mentioned? No matter how you get there, I bet it's had a negative impact on your ability to recognize edible plants and animals that grow within walking distance of your home.
Hardly "popular". Apple IIe sold what? 500,000 units?
Don't know about the IIe specifically, but the II series (of which the IIe was the most popular and longest-lived) overall sold between 5 and 6 million. The 8-bit Atari machines (which were considered fairly successful) only sold about 2 million. Moreover, the Apple II was the only machine to be successful in both the home and small business markets until the IBM PC came along. In fact, until the PC, the Apple II was the most popular microcomputer for businesses, outselling the whole CP/M family combined. (This was primarily due to the popularity of Visicalc, the original "killer app".) The C64 outsold the Apple II series overall (by about the same factor that the Apple II outsold Atari), but it had no penetration in the business market.
So yeah, I think describing the Apple II series as "popular" is pretty reasonable, especially if you're going to mention it in the same breath as Atari.
I think you're missing the point. If he wanted performance, he could have used a machine built in this century. Here, the goal is clearly to show what can be done with underpowered machines, so using a more powerful machine would somewhat defeat the point. Plus, using a popular machine for its day makes the experiment resonate more with more people than choosing something as obscure as the IIgs would have done. Not to mention the fact that it's got to be a whole lot easier to find old Apple IIs, since so many more of them were made and sold. I think my brother may still have one in his basement somewhere.
It was actually the 65c816, which was a 16-bit version of the 6502, completely unrelated to the m68k, and binary-compatible with the 6502 so the IIgs could still run old Apple II software.
I know I'd be pretty pissed off if someone told me I couldn't trademark a logo of my initials.
Really? Even if your name was Ian Bradley Moore or Allan Thomas Thatcher? Charles Ivan Anderson? Nathaniel Beauregard Correlli? Belinda Bryce Cavendish? Daniel David Tennant? Diana Nancy Alcott? Heck, if your name happened to be P. S. Pahn, I bet Sony might have something to say about you trademarking your initials.
Yeah, and those damn deniers at the patent office keep refusing to look at my perpetual motion machine! And that hot scientist at the local university refuses to come see the breeding pair of Scottish Plesiosaurs I have locked up in my basement. Damned deniers!
What I hated about PSN from the start is that they demand we enter a credit card number just to be able to use the service.
When on earth was that!? I bought my PS3 many years ago (and yes, OtherOS was very much a factor in my decision to purchase one), and signed up to PSN almost immediately, and I've never seen a request for CC info. If they did actually require CC for PSN, it must have been for a very brief period right after the PS3 came out.
Were you maybe thinking of XboxLive? Or have I just been successfully trolled?
Indeed, given that Suse was reportedly one of Novell's main profit centers, it seems unlikely that it or OpenSuse is in any danger of disappearing. In fact, it looks like Suse may be becoming a separate subsidiary of Attachmate, independent of the former Novell
If I were on my roof, I could see a nuclear power plant. Doesn't bother me at all.
In most of the world, I'd agree with you. I'd be perfectly happy to live next door to nukes if I lived in the eastern 3/4ths of the country, or most of Europe or...a lot of other places. As we just saw in Japan, though, the Pacific Rim/ring of fire may not be the best place for your nuclear plants. And Berkeley is very much on an active fault line. If I lived in Berkeley, I think I'd have strong reservations about living next door to nukes.
Right after the Japan quake/tsunami, the news folks tried to tell us that California's two existing nuclear plants should be no cause for concern, because they're rated for a 7.0 and a 7.5, respectively. Um, guys? We just saw a 9.0 in Japan--two orders of magnitude greater than our margin of safety here. How am I supposed to be reassured? (Not that I live close enough to either plant to worry, but still...)
The quality of writing in science fiction is worse than in any other genre.
Citation needed, but I'm guessing you haven't read much romance, mystery, fantasy, horror, western, or even "literary" fiction if you think that. Nor heard of Sturgeon's Law.
Michael Chabon is a pretty notable exception to this "rule" of yours (though he covers more genres than just SF, he is probably the only author with both a Pulitzer and a Hugo on his shelf); Vonnegut and Bradbury likewise, if less so. Norman Mailer openly wrote fantasy; Margaret Atwood used to deny it, but a large chunk of her output is SF, pure and simple.
Less obvious examples of "it ain't necessarily so" include Joanna Russ, William Gibson (if you need a link, you need to get out more), and, posthumously, Philip K. Dick (same comment as Gibson), all three of whom have strong followings in literary circles, as well as Samuel R. "Chip" Delany, who had the advantages of being A) black, B) gay, C) a English professor and literary critic, and D) at one point wrote one of the most opaque, difficult literary SF novels ever penned, as well as a few others that gave it a run for its money.
Of course, the reverse is true as well. SF is a snobbish crowd every bit as much as mainstream, and attempts by more mainstream authors to "dabble" in SF are generally scorned in SF circles.
I already pointed out the doctrine of estoppel once in response to your earlier post. Since you apparently can't or won't read I'll simply say that not only are you wrong in claiming that this would work (BigCompanyLaw would still be estopped from asserting the patents), but if you did try to sue, and evidence turned up during discovery that you had done this deliberately to try to hurt AnotherCompany, you could find yourself facing charges of fraud, extortion and racketeering.
how do we know that they're not simply joining up to see what others have there[?]
Patents, by their very nature, aren't secret, and OIN makes no secret of which patents are in their pool (it would rather defeat the purpose if they did), so I can't imagine what it is that you think they're going to learn by joining.
Promises are worth exactly as much as the paper they aren't written on.
Well, first of all, these promises are written on paper, and second of all, if a promise is made publicly enough, it doesn't matter whether it's written on paper, and as for your final fear about companies dissolving and assets being sold, the doctrines of promissory estoppel and laches would prevent any direct harm from such an event. A new asset owner couldn't just suddenly repudiate the promises made by the previous owner; they would have to give proper notice and allow those affected by the previous promise time to deal with the changing circumstances, at the very least.
It mentions the horizontal resolution of the phone! It doesn't say anything about whether the described resolution of the TV is horizontal, vertical, diagonal or even radial. And the second part is definitely true--in fact, 1024 scanlines is only 2/3 of what I had on my CRT in the early '00s, and that display cost less than 1/5th of what a typical HDTV goes for (unless you get a really dinky, crappy one).
And caring about the quality of crap (most of the movies and tv shows available) doesn't make it stop being crap, so that's not necessarily the most sensible thing to care about.
Nethack would probably get NC17 (or whatever their equivalent is) because it has:
1) Drugs (Magic mushrooms and potions that make you hallucinate),
2) Incubi and Succubi that have (implied) sex with you,
3) Violence against police* (the "keystone cops" that show up if you directly steal from a shop),
4) Cannibalism,
5) Sex changes, and
6) Devil worship and human sacrifice--by the player!**
Yet the whole thing is done with ascii character "graphics", and is purely tongue-in-cheek, and is about as dangerous for the kiddies as a Warner Brothers cartoon.
* This could have actually gotten it banned entirely under a short-lived California law.
** Don't try this unless you're playing a chaotic character--but still...