So then it's okay to make a derivative work from a GPL work and distribute it without the source code, as long as you do it for free and are "sharing"? Think for just a minute about why that's not the case.
The "repressive" laws that say that sharing copyrighted content that you didn't get pemission to make distributable copies of are the exact same "repressive" copyright that makes enforcing the GPL possible.
Does that mean that if it's okay for other people to ignore proprietary copyright, then people can also freely ignore the GPL and make and distribute derivative works of GPL products without source code?
I have no contract with the manufacturer unless the manufacturer is offering me a return policy.
Return policies are a wise PR move, they encourage more confidence in the products offered, but they are not required by any laws in all jurisdictions. Where they are, there would be no implied contract, since the return policy is a consequence of the law and not an arrangement made between purchaser and seller.
If there's no opportunity for returning unsold product back to the distributor, then I'd fully agree that the distributor and the retailer are not acting "in concert" with eachother. Even if the retailer offers a return policy themselves, note that A having a contract with B and B having a similar contract with C does not imply that A has a contract with C. So third parties are safe, as are any independent sales.
First of all, I do not argue that any third party sales are "in concert" with the manufacturer. only that *I*, not my sales, could be said to be "in concert" with the manufacturer if I have any sort of arrangement with the manufacturer to return any unsold items to them for a refund.
As long as we have an arrangement where you can return any unsold widgets back to me for a refund, I'm not sure how you would *NOT* be acting in concert with me. If I did not stipulate such a return policy with you, however, then yeah... we wouldn't be acting in concert.
Retailers can, typically, return unsold product back to the distributor.
"Selling inventory you've already paid for is not working in concert with the manufacturer."
Are you sure about that? Most significantly, as long as the retailer is permitted to return their inventory for a refund, I'm not sure how it can be argued that they *AREN'T* acting in concert with them.
A return policy, after all, is a type of contract between the buyer and seller... in absence of any such return policy, however, yeah... I'd agree that they aren't acting in concert with Samsung.
I have no appreciation at all for what Apple is doing here, but based on the how the injunction is worded, I'm pretty sure that they are legally right here, and retailers probably should have returned their inventory to Samsung, since they would be prohibited from selling them. When Samsung wins this case (and I'm confident that they will, actually), they'll claim the $96 million that Apple posted to get the injunction, which is the amount the court deemed sufficient.
The prohibition is against *sales*, not against purchasing. If you do purchase one within the USA, then you have not violated the injunction, but I believe the one who sold it to you would have.
Did the injunction specifically refer to that? From what I remember, the injunction used language to the effect of "barring all U.S. Galaxy Tab sales", and was not directed at any particular entity.... just general prohibition against sale of the device anywhere within the the US. I would hope that if somebody knows otherwise, they can refer me to the specific text of the ruling that indicates it.
I think that they are actually right about the scope of the injunction. If I remember correctly, the prohibition was against *ANY* sales of the device within the USA, and retailers should have probably returned any devices that they had.
If somebody else has specific information to indicate otherwise, please feel free to correct me.
If one has absolutely no intention on using the USB stick anywhere but on a Linux system sure... generally, however, I find that individual USB sticks get used on many different devices, and it's often ideal for it to be usable from any OS.
After executing 'dd', you still need to run mkfs on the device that holds the filesystem, or else all you have is a blanked drive. Don't forget to use "-t vfat" as an option to mkfs, or else you won't be able to use it anywhere but in Linux.
To be fair, you can't significantly alter the earth's magnet field with anything particularly portable... while the field strength of the earth's field is quite low compared to what we can generate artificially, the size of the field is so many orders of magnitude larger than anything man-made, that owing to how fast strength drops off with distance, I simply don't think there's too much to worry about with regards to man-made objects changing what the perceived field is unless you are within mere inches of an alternate magnetic field source..
Theoretically, at least, I think the general concept behind this is valid.
I can't pinpoint it exactly, but the way the phone is being held doesn't seem quite right. Like it was faked or done on a computer. Is this really just a concept video?
Perhaps handwriting input will be improved enough to actually work well, at which point the keyboard also loses more of its shine
I'm not sure how... as the average typing speed for somebody who does it daily is generally going to be more than double the throughput of somebody using handwriting, unless shorthand is being used, where the speeds become comparable.
The only thing that can ever even hope to replace a keyboard in terms of speed of data entry is using a mind-machine interface. And while I'll acknowledge that progress is definitely being made in that field even now, we are certainly no less than a couple of decades away from seeing anything like that being a practical primary input device for office desktop, and even further away from seeing it have low enough power consumption demands to be viable on portable devices like a tablet.
In TFA Cringely states: "Radio was invented with the original idea that it would replace telephones and give us wireless communication..."
He is also apparently unaware that at the time that the concept of radio transmission was proven and invented, the telephone had not yet enjoyed a wide-scale enough popularity that radio would have been thought *remotely* practical for it. Applications of the telegraph, not the telephone, were envisioned when the radio was invented.
Mp>... is withhold his degree, or retract it, if it has already been given.
There is no need for lawyers at all... if they have any legitimate entitlement to payment, they can simply hold his degree hostage until he pays the monies owed.
That said, however, I find it absurd what they are doing... and it could have been entirely avoided if the institution had simply arranged their pricing structure more around the number of course credits being taken, rather than just per semester.
Slashdot Mirror
So then it's okay to make a derivative work from a GPL work and distribute it without the source code, as long as you do it for free and are "sharing"? Think for just a minute about why that's not the case.
The "repressive" laws that say that sharing copyrighted content that you didn't get pemission to make distributable copies of are the exact same "repressive" copyright that makes enforcing the GPL possible.
What sort of parallel world did I enter?
Does that mean that if it's okay for other people to ignore proprietary copyright, then people can also freely ignore the GPL and make and distribute derivative works of GPL products without source code?
I have no contract with the manufacturer unless the manufacturer is offering me a return policy.
Return policies are a wise PR move, they encourage more confidence in the products offered, but they are not required by any laws in all jurisdictions. Where they are, there would be no implied contract, since the return policy is a consequence of the law and not an arrangement made between purchaser and seller.
If there's no opportunity for returning unsold product back to the distributor, then I'd fully agree that the distributor and the retailer are not acting "in concert" with eachother. Even if the retailer offers a return policy themselves, note that A having a contract with B and B having a similar contract with C does not imply that A has a contract with C. So third parties are safe, as are any independent sales.
First of all, I do not argue that any third party sales are "in concert" with the manufacturer. only that *I*, not my sales, could be said to be "in concert" with the manufacturer if I have any sort of arrangement with the manufacturer to return any unsold items to them for a refund.
Thanks. I'll be here until Thursday.
As long as we have an arrangement where you can return any unsold widgets back to me for a refund, I'm not sure how you would *NOT* be acting in concert with me. If I did not stipulate such a return policy with you, however, then yeah... we wouldn't be acting in concert.
Retailers can, typically, return unsold product back to the distributor.
Are you sure about that? Most significantly, as long as the retailer is permitted to return their inventory for a refund, I'm not sure how it can be argued that they *AREN'T* acting in concert with them.
A return policy, after all, is a type of contract between the buyer and seller... in absence of any such return policy, however, yeah... I'd agree that they aren't acting in concert with Samsung.
I have no appreciation at all for what Apple is doing here, but based on the how the injunction is worded, I'm pretty sure that they are legally right here, and retailers probably should have returned their inventory to Samsung, since they would be prohibited from selling them. When Samsung wins this case (and I'm confident that they will, actually), they'll claim the $96 million that Apple posted to get the injunction, which is the amount the court deemed sufficient.
But aren't retailers that sell the device "acting in concert" with them?
The prohibition is against *sales*, not against purchasing. If you do purchase one within the USA, then you have not violated the injunction, but I believe the one who sold it to you would have.
Did the injunction specifically refer to that? From what I remember, the injunction used language to the effect of "barring all U.S. Galaxy Tab sales", and was not directed at any particular entity.... just general prohibition against sale of the device anywhere within the the US. I would hope that if somebody knows otherwise, they can refer me to the specific text of the ruling that indicates it.
I think that they are actually right about the scope of the injunction. If I remember correctly, the prohibition was against *ANY* sales of the device within the USA, and retailers should have probably returned any devices that they had.
If somebody else has specific information to indicate otherwise, please feel free to correct me.
Uh.... you can't be arrested for DUI if you were *SIMPLY* sleeping in your car... you still have to be legally drunk.
Actually, I went searching for some info on those patents, and just found this". Seems it has been a non-issue for the past 3 years.
If mkdosfs infringes on patents, that's the problem of the makers of mkdosfs, not the users of the utility.
Tell that to the makers of mkdosfs
If one has absolutely no intention on using the USB stick anywhere but on a Linux system sure... generally, however, I find that individual USB sticks get used on many different devices, and it's often ideal for it to be usable from any OS.
After executing 'dd', you still need to run mkfs on the device that holds the filesystem, or else all you have is a blanked drive. Don't forget to use "-t vfat" as an option to mkfs, or else you won't be able to use it anywhere but in Linux.
To be fair, you can't significantly alter the earth's magnet field with anything particularly portable... while the field strength of the earth's field is quite low compared to what we can generate artificially, the size of the field is so many orders of magnitude larger than anything man-made, that owing to how fast strength drops off with distance, I simply don't think there's too much to worry about with regards to man-made objects changing what the perceived field is unless you are within mere inches of an alternate magnetic field source.. Theoretically, at least, I think the general concept behind this is valid.
I can't pinpoint it exactly, but the way the phone is being held doesn't seem quite right. Like it was faked or done on a computer. Is this really just a concept video?
I'm not sure how... as the average typing speed for somebody who does it daily is generally going to be more than double the throughput of somebody using handwriting, unless shorthand is being used, where the speeds become comparable.
The only thing that can ever even hope to replace a keyboard in terms of speed of data entry is using a mind-machine interface. And while I'll acknowledge that progress is definitely being made in that field even now, we are certainly no less than a couple of decades away from seeing anything like that being a practical primary input device for office desktop, and even further away from seeing it have low enough power consumption demands to be viable on portable devices like a tablet.
Every tech company I've ever worked at uses mail clients on users workstations, rather than using webmail.
There is no need for lawyers at all... if they have any legitimate entitlement to payment, they can simply hold his degree hostage until he pays the monies owed.
That said, however, I find it absurd what they are doing... and it could have been entirely avoided if the institution had simply arranged their pricing structure more around the number of course credits being taken, rather than just per semester.
Wasn't that shtick from Beneath the Planet of the Apes?