I don't think that's the point. OP's point is that the Justice Department is taking away his options.
Basically the Justice Department is suing Apple to force Apple to set their own prices, instead of letting the authors of the book set their own price. Does that make any sense? No, no it does not. The Justice Department is suing Apple to give Apple more power over authors.
You know what should happen? Let Amazon run with their model, let Apple run with theirs. Just like you suggest, authors should be free to choose which stores to be part of. If no one wants to put their books on Amazon, maybe Amazon should figure out why instead of calling in the government to prop up their business model.
Sure it is. In my experience - as in, among the people I know - the ones who talk about how awesome their phone/tablet/etc is... are Apple users. I know some people who really like their Android phones, but none who get so pushy about how great their phones are as the iPhone users I know. Just by my experience.
One only has to wander over to the Engadget comments section for any article related to Android or iOS.
The only Apple users who are idiots are the ones who spend money that they don't have on stuff that they don't need in order to "keep up with the Joneses."
Again...
Heck, Android users calling Apple part of a "Apple Cult of Personality" and "idiots" is a little snobby, don't you think?
I commonly see Android users who are genuinely offended that Google is releasing their apps for iOS as well. Yet a double standard is applied to iPhone users that they're the snobby ones.
Heck, Android users calling Apple part of a "Apple Cult of Personality" and "idiots" is a little snobby, don't you think?
In my experience, GPU programming works exactly like you'd expect it to work. Your nightmare doesn't sound like it's with GPU programming, it sounds like it's with NVidia's marketing.
GPU processors are really small, so everything you've listed here is expected. The code size, variable limits, etc etc. The advantage is you have thousands of them at your disposal. That makes GPUs extremely good when you need to run a kernel with x where x is from 0 to a trillion. Upload the problem set to VRAM, and send the cores to work.
Stuff like C++ and high level languages is also not good for this sort of work. I'm not even sure why people are bothering with C++ on GPGPU to be perfectly frank. Again, you're writing kernels here, not entire programs. C++ is honestly bulky for GPGPU work and I can't imagine what I'd use it for. Both CUDA and OpenCL are already pretty high level, any further past that and you're risking sacrificing performance.
Interpreted code is also good. It's usually JIT compiled for the architecture you're working on. In the case of OpenCL and CUDA, it could be recompiled to run on an ATI card, NVidia card, or local CPU, all of which have different machine languages that you won't know about until runtime.
It sounds like you're angry because GPU programming isn't very much like programming for CPUs, and you'd be right. That's the nature of the hardware, it's built very different and is optimized for different tasks. Whether that's because you were sold a false bill of goods by NVidia, I don't know. But it doesn't mean GPU programming is broken, it just may not be for you. It mostly sounds like you're just trying to cram too much into your individual kernels though.
Let's compromise and get rid of half the programs you like and half the programs conservatives like.
Which is how the current system is designed.
The problem is liberals are in favor of replacing components of government with more effective forms, not just tossing it into a fire. That's where the breakdown happens. I would love for the government to end our series of wars, end oil subsidies, and patch up and simplify our tax code and end all these ridiculous loopholes that let major companies not pay a dime in taxes.
In return, I'd like a tiny fraction of that money to be redirect towards funding college education and implementing universal healthcare. Both programs improve the quality of our workforce, and keep us competitive with the world. This increases our revenue stream, which increases our tax base. But of course a large majority of what we used to collect simply goes back to the tax payer, and the tax payer is better off since we have created a better environment for business (who no longer even have to deal with supplying their employees healthcare and have a large supply of well educated workers) who will in turn create more jobs.
But that doesn't fit with the conservative idea of simply just cutting things instead of making things smarter. If you come into reforming government with the idea that government is bad and should be mutilated and handicapped at every turn, you end up with a government that's both dumber, more incompetent, and less effective. Government needs to be put on a treadmill and taken back to school, not taken out back and slashed with a hatchet and turned into a drooling brain dead zombie.
I guess what I'm saying is that none of that fits into the simple mold of coming up with an arbitrary programs, slashing them, and calling it a day.
"Yeah, that's why small government is better than big government. There's less injustice."
YOUR version of small government.
The problem with small government is it's in the eye of the beholder. There are certainly people out there's who's definition of small government is keeping all the programs you hate and gutting all the programs you like.
I agree with small government. The problem the small government I want is never the same small government conservatives want.
I'm not sure it does. All they're basically doing is delivering their same cable content over IP instead. It's just as locked down as their existing content.
This isn't a public facing service that Comcast is giving an advantage to on their own network. It's a port of their cable box software for accessing pay per view content.
Rivals are completely free to do the exact same thing with NBC content on their networks. So it doesn't violate the agreement at all.
Not these days, sadly. I bought the flagship Samsung TV last year, and regretted it. The picture quality takes quite a hit because Samsung's flagship is edge lit, while Sony's is back lit. Before that tv, I totally would have agreed with you.
(My understanding is that Samsung can't do backlit LEDs because of patent issues, but that doesn't change that quality issues that I see as a consumer, sadly.)
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Absolutely, yes, artists should be able to distribute their work as they please - as long as they are not beholden to another. However, many (most?) artists are given support (i.e., paid) by labels and production companies to producer their work. In these cases, those entities have a stake in the product and should have a say in its distribution if, for no other reason, to recoup their investment. Artists signed to a label are using the Patronage model, it's just that their Patron is a corporation.
I don't disagree. In fact, I think that makes my point. There is nothing currently stopping the patronage model. What seems to be in dispute is that the patron should also not be able to set conditions on distribution. An artist should be free to accept and enforce whatever terms they like, including terms as a result of patronage.
If a patron wants to pay for work and provide it for free to the general public, that's great. If they want to control distribution, that is also fair. They have shared ownership of the work.
As soon as artists create their content entirely on their own, without outside support and funding, they can be the sole arbitrator of how that content is distributed / sold. Your position seems to be that an artist should get paid to produce something and, yet, also have absolute control over that product. I'm not sure that happens anywhere.
Of course it does. But the reality is some artists prefer this route, and some artists prefer an agency system. Again, nothing at all broken in the current system.
The biggest complaint about the way things currently are seems to be consumers don't get enough things for free, and that other people should pay for their content. And if you're creating your own content, great, go follow your ideals. But consumers have no right to dictate how I distribute my own content to others, besides objecting to my methods by not purchasing. This idea that we need to somehow re-arrange things around patronage implies that there is something preventing that system from working today. Only, as you've mentioned, we already have a lot of patronage like systems. It just ends up that people who put money into a product like getting money back out, as is their right.
Sure, in those cases where the artists go it alone they have every right to decide how to distribute their material. Things might be a little different when they receive funding and support from someone else to produce that material. Artists are not forced into agreements with publishers and producers, etc...
I'm not getting at all how this is different from things today. Nothing is stopping artists today from using the Patronage model. As pointed out, plenty of artists are doing it. But again, it's their decision.
It seems like people advocating for change are simply trying reduce the rights of artists to control their material, when again, artists should be free to restrict/enable distribution of their material however they please. If I only want to make it available every other monday for a million dollars under an agency system, that's my choice. As soon as people who aren't creating content start dictating how content should be distributed, we have a problem. It's akin to people dictating how much free ice cream they should be given.
How about the "it's my work so I'll distribute it however the hell I want" model?
Seriously. What ever happened to the person who actually did the work deciding how they want to distribute it? If you don't like the way I'm distributing it, don't buy it. It seems everyone in the debate (publishers/agencies/consumers) has only themselves in mind. Just let artists decide. They have brains too, you know, and don't need armchair model legislation thrust upon them.
Our current encoding levels (256 kbps AAC) are actually extremely good. The problem is the number of channels. Real life concerts usually have sound coming from all different directions from a bunch of discrete sources. You muddle that up into two channels, you're going to end up with something that doesn't sound bad, but doesn't sound live either. I have a few albums encoded in 5.1 (which is rare), and they sound like being at the actual show.
But of course the problem is five discreet channels requires five discreet speakers, and when you're dealing with headphones you only have two ears to stick speakers into. And honestly, yeah, I can understand why people would give up the sound quality for the convenience of listening to music anywhere they wanted rather than being shackled to their living rooms.
I was about to accuse Austin of lifting that from Portland, but then Wikipedia informed me that we here in Portland actually stole that slogan from Austin. Gasp! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_Portland_Weird
If copyright holders aren't allowed to restrict distribution of their content, we have a lot of other issues. Stuff like the GPL would be thrown out entirely.
I agree that media piracy is not traditional theft, but it's still a lesser form of theft. Sure, it's not a lost sale for you, but if copying of media was allowed, you'd have to be an idiot to buy anything, and the entire concept of being paid for your work would collapse. Despite the number of idiots in this country. If I could get anything I wanted for free, I could use the "not a lost sale" argument for anything. "Well of course I didn't buy Halo 4 for 99 cents, I wouldn't have bought it anyway because I can get it free on the internet!"
People should be paid something for their work, if only to encourage further work, and if people decide their work isn't worth paying for, discourage further work. Doesn't matter whether it's music, software, movies, or source code. There needs to be some sort of mutual agreement that creators should be paid for what they do.
Unless they are violating their obligations under the WTO charter that they agreed to, which they are. That's what most posters seem to be missing. China previously agreed to a set of conditions upon joining the WTO (their choice) and is now violating them.
If China doesn't want to be in the WTO, that's fine. But it means that countries like the US aren't under any obligation to follow the WTO rules with regards to China either.
Explaining the problem all over again doesn't really fix it.
Not to mention, your post again highlights how this is an Android only issue. Windows Phone standardized their graphics hardware, so they don't have this issue. iPhone doesn't have this issue. OpenGL/DirectX doesn't necessarily have similar severity of issues. Neither do the gaming consoles (because by definition they're standardized.)
The argument seems to be "well of course the hardware has differences! That's the way Android was intended to be used!" In that case, Android wasn't really intended as a game platform, and Android fans shouldn't be surprised when game developers dump it. If Android wants games, they need to get their OpenGL drivers and hardware under control. Otherwise, their competitors are going to steamroll them when it comes to games, and Google will have no one to blame but themselves.
If Google doesn't care about game developers, that's their choice. But I'm just saying, don't blame the developers for the platform. If Google wants to make an open hardware/driver stand on principal, they should be willing to accept the consequences.
I know OpenGL isn't made of magic, but isn't the idea of OpenGL that it's supposed to work over multiple platforms?
The point (and it was a good one) is that for iPhone he only has to do his shaders once. Bam, done. For Android, not only is he doing them again, but multiple times for different devices. His development cost to bring his app to iPhone is one set of shaders for a great return. What do you think his return is after he spends the time to fix his shaders for an obscure device that a few dozen people will likely purchase his game on? He either fixes it and takes a loss. Or he doesn't fix it, let the people deal with a buggy implementation, and then have people like you come along accusing his app of being buggy. It's a lose/lose, which is exactly why he said he's leaving Android.
Not only that, but a mature platform doesn't have issues like shader disparities. If you're a game developer, that's a huge problem you should not have to deal with across the same platform. Desktop games got over that years ago with standardized shaders for each platform. I'd forgive Android if Android had it's own shader platform, but shader differences per device? Not cool.
Sure, but encoding at lossless (which is what I do for albums that are important to me, rest are 192 kbps iTunes purchases) is entirely different than just wasting space. Lossless has a tangible benefit, whereas as the article points out, outside production, stuff like 24 bit audio does not.
It's the equivalent of encoding beyond lossless, just adding extra bits on top of a lossless encode that you'll never hear ever.
"It is a great irony that alcohol should be legislated into becoming man's most commonly used recreational drug, as it's the only drug that causes more harm to others than to the user."
What's the controversy here? This is a US regulatory agency who regulates US reactors, and the hubbub is that they weren't aware of each detail of events that were going on in Japan? Besides it not being in their job description to keep track of Japanese reactors, I don't think the first reaction of the Japanese was "Call the American nuclear regulators! Otherwise they might have to follow events on CNN!"
If this were the Japanese nuclear regulators, then I'd be worried.
No they don't. The patent is a FRAND patent. A condition for Motorola entering their patents into the 3G standard is that they have to become FRAND, which means they can't charge whatever they want. If they wanted to charge whatever they wanted, they shouldn't have put the patents into the 3G pool.
That's what all the arguing and suing is about. Microsoft (and Apple) are arguing that Motorola is ignoring their FRAND/3G pool obligations and attempting to charge more than they previously promised when they made these patents part of 3G.
Antitrust comes into the picture when Apple and Microsoft argue that Motorola is abusing FRAND patents that they had previously agreed on a price for to try to force everyone out of the 3G market illegally. And given Motorola's current decline, it's not all that unreasonable to think they might make their last stand as a SCO-esk patent troll.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless terror is your goal. Then your terror/bomb ratio becomes much higher.
I don't think that's the point. OP's point is that the Justice Department is taking away his options.
Basically the Justice Department is suing Apple to force Apple to set their own prices, instead of letting the authors of the book set their own price. Does that make any sense? No, no it does not. The Justice Department is suing Apple to give Apple more power over authors.
You know what should happen? Let Amazon run with their model, let Apple run with theirs. Just like you suggest, authors should be free to choose which stores to be part of. If no one wants to put their books on Amazon, maybe Amazon should figure out why instead of calling in the government to prop up their business model.
Sure it is. In my experience - as in, among the people I know - the ones who talk about how awesome their phone/tablet/etc is... are Apple users. I know some people who really like their Android phones, but none who get so pushy about how great their phones are as the iPhone users I know. Just by my experience.
One only has to wander over to the Engadget comments section for any article related to Android or iOS.
The only Apple users who are idiots are the ones who spend money that they don't have on stuff that they don't need in order to "keep up with the Joneses."
Again...
Heck, Android users calling Apple part of a "Apple Cult of Personality" and "idiots" is a little snobby, don't you think?
I commonly see Android users who are genuinely offended that Google is releasing their apps for iOS as well. Yet a double standard is applied to iPhone users that they're the snobby ones.
Heck, Android users calling Apple part of a "Apple Cult of Personality" and "idiots" is a little snobby, don't you think?
Spoiler alert: All the platforms have their idiots.
Just like every civilization before us since the dawn of man, yes. And we've survived despite it.
In my experience, GPU programming works exactly like you'd expect it to work. Your nightmare doesn't sound like it's with GPU programming, it sounds like it's with NVidia's marketing.
GPU processors are really small, so everything you've listed here is expected. The code size, variable limits, etc etc. The advantage is you have thousands of them at your disposal. That makes GPUs extremely good when you need to run a kernel with x where x is from 0 to a trillion. Upload the problem set to VRAM, and send the cores to work.
Stuff like C++ and high level languages is also not good for this sort of work. I'm not even sure why people are bothering with C++ on GPGPU to be perfectly frank. Again, you're writing kernels here, not entire programs. C++ is honestly bulky for GPGPU work and I can't imagine what I'd use it for. Both CUDA and OpenCL are already pretty high level, any further past that and you're risking sacrificing performance.
Interpreted code is also good. It's usually JIT compiled for the architecture you're working on. In the case of OpenCL and CUDA, it could be recompiled to run on an ATI card, NVidia card, or local CPU, all of which have different machine languages that you won't know about until runtime.
It sounds like you're angry because GPU programming isn't very much like programming for CPUs, and you'd be right. That's the nature of the hardware, it's built very different and is optimized for different tasks. Whether that's because you were sold a false bill of goods by NVidia, I don't know. But it doesn't mean GPU programming is broken, it just may not be for you. It mostly sounds like you're just trying to cram too much into your individual kernels though.
Let's compromise and get rid of half the programs you like and half the programs conservatives like.
Which is how the current system is designed.
The problem is liberals are in favor of replacing components of government with more effective forms, not just tossing it into a fire. That's where the breakdown happens. I would love for the government to end our series of wars, end oil subsidies, and patch up and simplify our tax code and end all these ridiculous loopholes that let major companies not pay a dime in taxes.
In return, I'd like a tiny fraction of that money to be redirect towards funding college education and implementing universal healthcare. Both programs improve the quality of our workforce, and keep us competitive with the world. This increases our revenue stream, which increases our tax base. But of course a large majority of what we used to collect simply goes back to the tax payer, and the tax payer is better off since we have created a better environment for business (who no longer even have to deal with supplying their employees healthcare and have a large supply of well educated workers) who will in turn create more jobs.
But that doesn't fit with the conservative idea of simply just cutting things instead of making things smarter. If you come into reforming government with the idea that government is bad and should be mutilated and handicapped at every turn, you end up with a government that's both dumber, more incompetent, and less effective. Government needs to be put on a treadmill and taken back to school, not taken out back and slashed with a hatchet and turned into a drooling brain dead zombie.
I guess what I'm saying is that none of that fits into the simple mold of coming up with an arbitrary programs, slashing them, and calling it a day.
"Yeah, that's why small government is better than big government. There's less injustice."
YOUR version of small government.
The problem with small government is it's in the eye of the beholder. There are certainly people out there's who's definition of small government is keeping all the programs you hate and gutting all the programs you like.
I agree with small government. The problem the small government I want is never the same small government conservatives want.
I'm not sure it does. All they're basically doing is delivering their same cable content over IP instead. It's just as locked down as their existing content.
This isn't a public facing service that Comcast is giving an advantage to on their own network. It's a port of their cable box software for accessing pay per view content.
Rivals are completely free to do the exact same thing with NBC content on their networks. So it doesn't violate the agreement at all.
Not these days, sadly. I bought the flagship Samsung TV last year, and regretted it. The picture quality takes quite a hit because Samsung's flagship is edge lit, while Sony's is back lit. Before that tv, I totally would have agreed with you.
(My understanding is that Samsung can't do backlit LEDs because of patent issues, but that doesn't change that quality issues that I see as a consumer, sadly.)
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Absolutely, yes, artists should be able to distribute their work as they please - as long as they are not beholden to another. However, many (most?) artists are given support (i.e., paid) by labels and production companies to producer their work. In these cases, those entities have a stake in the product and should have a say in its distribution if, for no other reason, to recoup their investment. Artists signed to a label are using the Patronage model, it's just that their Patron is a corporation.
I don't disagree. In fact, I think that makes my point. There is nothing currently stopping the patronage model. What seems to be in dispute is that the patron should also not be able to set conditions on distribution. An artist should be free to accept and enforce whatever terms they like, including terms as a result of patronage.
If a patron wants to pay for work and provide it for free to the general public, that's great. If they want to control distribution, that is also fair. They have shared ownership of the work.
As soon as artists create their content entirely on their own, without outside support and funding, they can be the sole arbitrator of how that content is distributed / sold. Your position seems to be that an artist should get paid to produce something and, yet, also have absolute control over that product. I'm not sure that happens anywhere.
Of course it does. But the reality is some artists prefer this route, and some artists prefer an agency system. Again, nothing at all broken in the current system.
The biggest complaint about the way things currently are seems to be consumers don't get enough things for free, and that other people should pay for their content. And if you're creating your own content, great, go follow your ideals. But consumers have no right to dictate how I distribute my own content to others, besides objecting to my methods by not purchasing. This idea that we need to somehow re-arrange things around patronage implies that there is something preventing that system from working today. Only, as you've mentioned, we already have a lot of patronage like systems. It just ends up that people who put money into a product like getting money back out, as is their right.
Sure, in those cases where the artists go it alone they have every right to decide how to distribute their material. Things might be a little different when they receive funding and support from someone else to produce that material. Artists are not forced into agreements with publishers and producers, etc...
I'm not getting at all how this is different from things today. Nothing is stopping artists today from using the Patronage model. As pointed out, plenty of artists are doing it. But again, it's their decision.
It seems like people advocating for change are simply trying reduce the rights of artists to control their material, when again, artists should be free to restrict/enable distribution of their material however they please. If I only want to make it available every other monday for a million dollars under an agency system, that's my choice. As soon as people who aren't creating content start dictating how content should be distributed, we have a problem. It's akin to people dictating how much free ice cream they should be given.
How about the "it's my work so I'll distribute it however the hell I want" model?
Seriously. What ever happened to the person who actually did the work deciding how they want to distribute it? If you don't like the way I'm distributing it, don't buy it. It seems everyone in the debate (publishers/agencies/consumers) has only themselves in mind. Just let artists decide. They have brains too, you know, and don't need armchair model legislation thrust upon them.
Eh. I think you're misunderstanding the problem.
Our current encoding levels (256 kbps AAC) are actually extremely good. The problem is the number of channels. Real life concerts usually have sound coming from all different directions from a bunch of discrete sources. You muddle that up into two channels, you're going to end up with something that doesn't sound bad, but doesn't sound live either. I have a few albums encoded in 5.1 (which is rare), and they sound like being at the actual show.
But of course the problem is five discreet channels requires five discreet speakers, and when you're dealing with headphones you only have two ears to stick speakers into. And honestly, yeah, I can understand why people would give up the sound quality for the convenience of listening to music anywhere they wanted rather than being shackled to their living rooms.
I was about to accuse Austin of lifting that from Portland, but then Wikipedia informed me that we here in Portland actually stole that slogan from Austin. Gasp!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_Portland_Weird
If copyright holders aren't allowed to restrict distribution of their content, we have a lot of other issues. Stuff like the GPL would be thrown out entirely.
I agree that media piracy is not traditional theft, but it's still a lesser form of theft. Sure, it's not a lost sale for you, but if copying of media was allowed, you'd have to be an idiot to buy anything, and the entire concept of being paid for your work would collapse. Despite the number of idiots in this country. If I could get anything I wanted for free, I could use the "not a lost sale" argument for anything. "Well of course I didn't buy Halo 4 for 99 cents, I wouldn't have bought it anyway because I can get it free on the internet!"
People should be paid something for their work, if only to encourage further work, and if people decide their work isn't worth paying for, discourage further work. Doesn't matter whether it's music, software, movies, or source code. There needs to be some sort of mutual agreement that creators should be paid for what they do.
Unless they are violating their obligations under the WTO charter that they agreed to, which they are. That's what most posters seem to be missing. China previously agreed to a set of conditions upon joining the WTO (their choice) and is now violating them.
If China doesn't want to be in the WTO, that's fine. But it means that countries like the US aren't under any obligation to follow the WTO rules with regards to China either.
Explaining the problem all over again doesn't really fix it.
Not to mention, your post again highlights how this is an Android only issue. Windows Phone standardized their graphics hardware, so they don't have this issue. iPhone doesn't have this issue. OpenGL/DirectX doesn't necessarily have similar severity of issues. Neither do the gaming consoles (because by definition they're standardized.)
The argument seems to be "well of course the hardware has differences! That's the way Android was intended to be used!" In that case, Android wasn't really intended as a game platform, and Android fans shouldn't be surprised when game developers dump it. If Android wants games, they need to get their OpenGL drivers and hardware under control. Otherwise, their competitors are going to steamroll them when it comes to games, and Google will have no one to blame but themselves.
If Google doesn't care about game developers, that's their choice. But I'm just saying, don't blame the developers for the platform. If Google wants to make an open hardware/driver stand on principal, they should be willing to accept the consequences.
I know OpenGL isn't made of magic, but isn't the idea of OpenGL that it's supposed to work over multiple platforms?
The point (and it was a good one) is that for iPhone he only has to do his shaders once. Bam, done. For Android, not only is he doing them again, but multiple times for different devices. His development cost to bring his app to iPhone is one set of shaders for a great return. What do you think his return is after he spends the time to fix his shaders for an obscure device that a few dozen people will likely purchase his game on? He either fixes it and takes a loss. Or he doesn't fix it, let the people deal with a buggy implementation, and then have people like you come along accusing his app of being buggy. It's a lose/lose, which is exactly why he said he's leaving Android.
Not only that, but a mature platform doesn't have issues like shader disparities. If you're a game developer, that's a huge problem you should not have to deal with across the same platform. Desktop games got over that years ago with standardized shaders for each platform. I'd forgive Android if Android had it's own shader platform, but shader differences per device? Not cool.
Sure, but encoding at lossless (which is what I do for albums that are important to me, rest are 192 kbps iTunes purchases) is entirely different than just wasting space. Lossless has a tangible benefit, whereas as the article points out, outside production, stuff like 24 bit audio does not.
It's the equivalent of encoding beyond lossless, just adding extra bits on top of a lossless encode that you'll never hear ever.
"It is a great irony that alcohol should be legislated into becoming man's most commonly used recreational drug, as it's the only drug that causes more harm to others than to the user."
I'm going to file this under opinion...
What's the controversy here? This is a US regulatory agency who regulates US reactors, and the hubbub is that they weren't aware of each detail of events that were going on in Japan? Besides it not being in their job description to keep track of Japanese reactors, I don't think the first reaction of the Japanese was "Call the American nuclear regulators! Otherwise they might have to follow events on CNN!"
If this were the Japanese nuclear regulators, then I'd be worried.
YouTube has an HTML5 version you can enable. You don't need to use Flash. I've seen H.264 TED around too.
Stuff like Netflix is encrypted, hence the closed app.
No they don't. The patent is a FRAND patent. A condition for Motorola entering their patents into the 3G standard is that they have to become FRAND, which means they can't charge whatever they want. If they wanted to charge whatever they wanted, they shouldn't have put the patents into the 3G pool.
That's what all the arguing and suing is about. Microsoft (and Apple) are arguing that Motorola is ignoring their FRAND/3G pool obligations and attempting to charge more than they previously promised when they made these patents part of 3G.
Antitrust comes into the picture when Apple and Microsoft argue that Motorola is abusing FRAND patents that they had previously agreed on a price for to try to force everyone out of the 3G market illegally. And given Motorola's current decline, it's not all that unreasonable to think they might make their last stand as a SCO-esk patent troll.