copyright infringement detection on the internet *has* to do it. Think about it for a minute: if i can communicate "privately" with someone over the internet, then i can send him/her every piece of data i want: my latest pictures, the latest star wars movie, everything. If there is privacy, there can be infringement and no detection of said infringement. This is why the lobbies are pushing SOPA so hard. And yes, SOPA is about removing the ability to hide something while communicating on the internet.
We've always been able to do that without the internet, and even now you could still just as easily do that. If it's not piracy on the internet it will just be piracy through another avenue, and since there is always going to be a requirement for secure and encrypted business & government communications there will always be privacy.
so... You don't know the difference between the real world and the internet. Copyright enforcement is at a turning point. Because before the internet copyright infringement was ALWAYS linked to something physical that a) cost money to produce and b) could be seized by the law enforcement if stumbled upon.
Wrong, you never used disks? Or transferred data over networks? Have you never seen the enormous LAN parties where everyone is connected and people share data? The internet wasn't the invention of the ability to share data.
they could *not* have locked Apple out because they had to license their patents under the FRAND terms. You think Apple would have entered a business where any competitor could have shut them down in a quick trial? Come on...
And why do you think they had to license them under FRAND terms? If there is a widely adopted DRM standard then they will also have to be licensed under FRAND terms.
My bank information is some data I only trust my bank with. And i have an agreement with my bank that this data will stay private. This is why it does not flow freely. Trust me, if i publicly disclosed my credit card number on the web, it would flow freely from that point on.
Yet you will do everything in your power to make sure that this doesn't happen and that the only people that get access to your credit card number are the people you authorize to do so. You won't let that information flow freely.
what kind of compromise on the people side could be thought at that point that did not jeopardize our right to communicate with privacy? I'm really open on that one. I cannot think of any. Your turn to enlighten me.
I think you're confusing the issue of DRM with the issue of copyright enforcement through elimination of privacy.
Current DrM is a failure because it cannot be any other way. Someone wanting to pirate will succeed. And it will share it with the rest of the world in two clicks. And there is nothing anyone can do about it. Not from a legal standpoint, not from a technological standpoint. All the laws trying to fight this will end up reducing the people's rights while at the same time have no effect on piracy whatsoever.
So should the same be said for all of your private information that you only want to share with authorized people? If your private information leaks out that's ok because information wants to be free?
Of course slashdot extremists will pander to this and mark such posts insightful.
I don't get who these 'slashdot extremists' are, or what their point of view is, could you explain it? In just about every story it's some idiot referring to the 'slashdot crew' or 'slashdot extremists' or just 'slashdot' as the people who don't share their point of view, as though they have such a unique - but correct - perspective that the entire community cannot or refuses to see, the result is that said groups are defined as both both bashing and defending Microsoft and Google and Apple and GPL and FOSS and every other entity mentioned in a story yet no-one seems to know who these people are.
This really is the best way to describe such things, though it should be obvious for 2 reasons: 1. The extensive discussion and contrary points of view in such stories. 2. The fact that your post was modded 'informative'.
Well, take the inability to downgrade the firmware on some cell phones and consoles, for instance. What is the purpose of that?
Prevention of fragmentation. Particularly on consoles it's about consistency for players on the network.
Normally, nobody would give a crap what I run on my hardware. However, DRM hinges on not letting the user do certain things. That means that when the DRM system has a fault in it that does allow getting around the limits, it must be plugged. Otherwise it would be just the matter of taking an old device, downloading a movie or whatever on it, and exploiting the flaw to get a copy.
So if someone finds an exploit that allows them to cheat in a game on XBL that shouldn't be plugged and they should be allowed to run a flawed version then?
So, somebody else is dictating what I run on my hardware. That is loss of control.
No, you don't have to run it, you have that control, you have that choice! The only time you need to run it is if you want to connect to their services, in which case you do it on their terms!
Ok, feeding the trolls again... Here I go. Education has no boundaries.
You're obviously an idiot - replying to someone you believe to be trolling - or you don't believe i'm trolling and you're just attempting to label me as such simply because you don't agree. Try and act like an adult having a rational discussion rather than name-calling because you don't agree.
The right to have privacy when talking to someone over the internet.
No one is taking that away from you.
Because copyright (in this case) applies to data (movies, music, etc) the ability to enforce said copyright *is* the ability to snoop on *all* data exchanges on the internet. Period. Including your credit card number when you buy something on the web. See the problem here?
So I suppose they were monitoring what you do in your house with their content before the internet came along? You know, doing what you suggest here but in the real world? Oh that's right, they haven't, so obviously your argument fails. Copyright isn't new and copyright enforcement isn't new.
DRM cannot be transparent be the very definition of DRM. DRM's goal is to prevent you from listening to music or viewing a movie, without an "approved" device.
And it should be based on the user, not the device. So a user account can be authorized and that user account can span any device you like. That's not the way it is but that's the way it should be. It can be transparent much like your internet banking security is transparent, it's not as though your bank will refuse you access because you're using linux.
They would just have to "refuse" to license their DRM tech to Samsung (for example) and Samsung would be instantly out of the TV business, because unable to build a TV set that is lawfully able to decode a DRMed stream. Don't you think they have enough lobbying power as it is?
Oh come on, don't be obtuse, that's no different to saying existing phone manufacturers could have pushed apple immediately out of the phone business by refusing to license their 3G patents, oh of course they didn't do that just because they're so nice and they didn't want to, not because there are laws preventing such things.
I'm not sure you understand DRM either. DRM is a way to prevent data from flowing freely. But data flows on the internet and freely at that.
Rubbish, i'm sure you actually believe your bank details and credit card information flow freely on the internet too, you're confusing encryption with DRM. If information wants to be free then let's see your email credentials or your bank information, ah but only the information that you want to be free 'wants to be free', not the stuff you want to keep secret.
Hence, they will keep on forcing SOPA/PIPA like crap on the congress, and they will get some through. And it still won't stop piracy.
We all know this, this isn't news to anyone. The idea should be to work towards a mutually acceptable solution, that is going to require compromise on both sides, if you're unwilling to compromise then crap like SOPA/PIPA will end up being passed. Everything is not going to be free and open, that's an unworkable fantasy.
And you'll get in jail is you try to put a password on a ZIP file you're sending to your son by email and refuse to disclose it to the police.
Reductio ad absurdum, but extrapolation is fun isn't it?
Current DRM is a failure, but until you understand that it requires compromise on both sides it will just be a battle that won't end, though naturally hollywood needs to realise they need to compromise as well.
No current DRM system provides a client that will work on this machine.
So? If there is demand for one then one will be developed, clearly the demand isn't there. You really expect someone to take every single possible platform in existence and build support for them everytime a new standard comes along? I can't play bluray on my amiga but that's hardly the fault of bluray itself.
I can transcode the video and, as long as I delete it before I send the disk back, I can stream it to another machine or copy it to a mobile device to watch.
DRM == giving control of my computer to somebody else.
What control are you giving them? Not any more than running any kind of proprietary program! It's the sort rubbish like you're posting about content providers having control over your computer that gives DRM-opposers a bad wrap, your moronic suggestions make us all look like disingenuous paranoid idiots that are just spreading FUD.
It's an attempt to intrude on and limit what I can do with my hardware, which is unacceptable.
So is telling me i can't shoot someone with my own gun, i suppose you don't find that unacceptable though. The thing that needs reform is content licenses, with multiple devices and home network storage they need to be adapted to meet the needs of the customer. Banging on about DRM is pointless when DRM is just a tool to - attempt to - enforce an archaic and irrelevant licensing scheme.
Which is why they will never see a penny from me. Unfortunately, nobody else has the backbone needed to stand up to them
That's the most self-important wanker statement I've read on here, how many people do you expect to sway to your way of thinking when you pontificate like that? Some insight for you, sorry to ruin your fantasy.
"No, you are not going to take control of my computer in exchange for entertaining me for a few hours."
Pretty disingenuous statement there, it's no more 'taking control of your computer' than running any other program.
I'm no fan of DRM but this sort of rubbish is not helpful.
Of course there are more people enjoying crappy movies than those standing for their rights.
What rights? And do those conflict with copyrights?
I could live my life without watching anything HOLLYWOOD produces.
Pretty pointless statement when you follow it up with 'I don't'.
I don't, but I will NEVER use any platform that endorses DRM *ever*
Yet you openly admit to funding companies that do, sounds like a lot of talk but not a lot of action.
Because I want to be the master of what I watch, not someone else.
Why? If DRM were transparent and the system just worked i'd be happy with it, i want it to be a license for me to play movies, not a license for a particular device of mine to play movies.
And last, DRM are just forcing people to use piracy, nothing else.
Well yes, and that's the problem with it, those who pirate movies get a better experience than the studios' actual customers. Somehow studios just haven't realized that.
since it's ultimate goal is to prevent people from watching the very thing they're trying to watch through DRM!!!
I'm not sure you understand DRM, it is to prevent you from using that content outside the terms of the license, and i think it's the terms of the license that need to change, until them DRM will remain a moronic solution to and even more moronic problem.
Good point on the license cost. For MS to claim that Motorola is being unreasonable, there has to be a direct comparison to other licensees. If Motorola is charging MS much more than other licensees without justification, then MS is right.
No, that's the 'ND' in FRAND, non-discriminatory. The topic of whether they are being unreasonable falls under the Fair (EU mostly) and Reasonable, which you can read about here.
Presentation of basic facts is clearly not trolling, moreover if you really believed i was a troll the obvious thing that would be done by anyone with any intelligence would be to not reply, however you continue to reply so you're characterization of me as a troll is obviously you just lying, even you don't believe it.
Your mom is going to root her android phone, or buy one not even sold in this country to avoid the Microsoft Tax?
I didn't suggest that, fool. Read the post, i said there is nothing to stop companies using ext3 instead of exFAT, you having trouble understanding that?
How do you get your camera to read/write ext3?
That depends on whether your camera supports it, buy a camera that does, it's a free and open spec yet most choose not to implement it, nothing stopping them though.
Just stop please, you've already made an idiot of yourself. Anything further would be pointless.
lol...too butthurt that your little anti-microsoft rant is so easily debunked by the fact that ext3 is perfectly possible yet most devices (non-microsoft) simply choose not to support it. The fact is that SDXC cards are not locked to an MS filesystem and some devices that will work with them don't even support MS' filesystem, they in fact require an alternative like ext3, examples of such devices are Pandora and N900.
And then what? Put that in your Cellphone/mp3 player and you get nothing!
Not if you have a cellphone/mp3 player that supports ext3, no reason you can't mount it on a rooted Android phone, or an N900. If your cellphone/mp3 player doesn't support ext3 that's their problem.
Simply hand waiving it away doesn't make it so.
Simply ignoring the fact that there is no reason devices cannot just support filesystems like ext3 in which case you don't have to have anything to do with Microsoft doesn't mean they are tied to MS patents.
If moto owns the patent they can charge whatever they like for it (so long as they charge everyone the same). They don't have to justify the price to anyone.
You're not aware of what the 'R' in FRAND stands for?
but nobody knows how to value a software patent compared to a fundamental hardware patent.
It all boils down to logic, you could implement the software process in hardware if you really wanted to, it's generally not practical, but you could. Just like the way in which apple has built hardware for audience's logic into their iphone4s processor.
Any SD card / MicroSD card over 32gig requires SDXC, which is exFat. So an entire line of hardware is tied to a Microsoft Patent. An ENTIRE LINE OF STORAGE DEVICES!!!
No reason you can't reformat it to a different filesystem, in fact if you want to use it in something like a Pandora you must reformat it to use ext3 (or something else Pandora supports). So no, they aren't tied to a Microsoft patent.
Motorola didn't contribute its patents to the pool. Do you believe they should be required to provide them to the pool regardless of their consent simply because its a standard?
Companies that hold patents essential to industry standards are obligated to license those patents on FRAND terms, so yes.
What prevents others from making new standards with the sole intent of getting free use of their patents?
They don't have to be offered for free, just under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.
Personally I'd like to see all software patents die a firey death but that's not the reality we live in today.
These aren't necessarily even software patents, they could just as easily be hardware patents for things such as LTE.
In that context, cloud storage makes eminent sense because for the cloud service provider, providing reliable storage, or apps, or whatever, is their core competency.
It is not your company's core competency. They will do it better than you. Period.
Yeah because we all know McDonalds' IT systems are managed by the guy flipping the burgers, they don't actually have qualified IT guys there. Seriously you haven't realized that it's just outsourcing the IT department? You think these 'cloud' providers are some other sort of entity that aren't just IT guys running an IT contracting business as opposed to internal division?
If I have to use a clamshell laptop, it's competing against the pool of all possible clamshell laptops, which include laptops with more flexible storage and networking options.
Which are things you clearly don't need, since you're using an ipad.
IMHO the Air fits a narrow niche for people who want a full computer experience, including the clamshell form factor, but for whom their computing experience won't extend past the hardware limits of the device.
I would say most people's computing experience doesn't extend beyond those limits these days. If it comes down to ipad vs air the advantage is clearly with the air in almost all circumstances except for when you're stuck in cramped conditions for extended periods of time.
Office 15 is a sledge hammer on a tablet. Takes up a lot of space that media might fill. I can only shrug and point to the dozens of failures of tablets now seen on secondary and even liquidation sites where there was lots of "underkill" where Office on an iPad or under Metro is "overkill". I see the comfort zones, I see feeding the addictions, and I still see lack of success.
But maybe that's the point, do we really need another iPad-clone or more Android tablets? Let's see something a bit different, MS has failed in the tablet space before and now this is their new take on it, if it fails it's just another MS fail but if it succeeds then they succeed in doing something different rather than just adding another clone to an already saturated market.
What happened was: the herd moved, and now everyone's trying to feed the herd with different food to see what the herd will swallow. My perspective is: the herd will move, and Office 15 will give them indigestion and a belly ache.
Well if they didn't do that then we wouldn't have tablets and smartphones at all. It doesn't harm the existing market to have a new product entrant and if it fails nothing is really lost, the only entity that loses is Microsoft, and im not sure many people are overly concerned about that possibility.
EXACTLY this. I'll probably get stoned for this, but the one Software I *rally* like license-wise is the Oracle Database.
Pro-Oracle and Pro-proprietary software on/., you certainly are brave! But i agree, it means if they want to make a profit by using your stuff then some of that should flow on to you for the work you have done to help them achieve that as well as you providing a nice little incentive to use your product by making it free to learn and use for non-commercial projects.
Let's agree that for document production, which fits the criteria for Office 15, the tablet is not a very useful choice.
That's what i was saying from the start, tweaking and editing are absolutely tasks for which a tablet would be fine (not optimal, but well enough), producing anything lengthy, not so much.
The thing about a new shiny screwdriver is that everything starts looking like a nail.
Generally nails are best served by a hammer, but i know what you mean.
Maybe it's the engineer in me: you use the right tool for the right job, and tablets are far from optimal. Here and there, why not? Office 15 will apparently be very inexpensive on the Metro UI-- maybe even free. Free Office? There'll be a shareholder revolt, as Office is one of Microsoft's oilwells-in-the-basement.
And do you know why they can offer it for free? Because, it is offered for free on a sub-optimal platform, anyone doing any serious work isn't going to do it on a tablet anyway so they will buy the full version. They don't have to cripple it, the form-factor does that for them.
Slashdot Mirror
copyright infringement detection on the internet *has* to do it. Think about it for a minute: if i can communicate "privately" with someone over the internet, then i can send him/her every piece of data i want: my latest pictures, the latest star wars movie, everything. If there is privacy, there can be infringement and no detection of said infringement. This is why the lobbies are pushing SOPA so hard. And yes, SOPA is about removing the ability to hide something while communicating on the internet.
We've always been able to do that without the internet, and even now you could still just as easily do that. If it's not piracy on the internet it will just be piracy through another avenue, and since there is always going to be a requirement for secure and encrypted business & government communications there will always be privacy.
so... You don't know the difference between the real world and the internet. Copyright enforcement is at a turning point. Because before the internet copyright infringement was ALWAYS linked to something physical that a) cost money to produce and b) could be seized by the law enforcement if stumbled upon.
Wrong, you never used disks? Or transferred data over networks? Have you never seen the enormous LAN parties where everyone is connected and people share data? The internet wasn't the invention of the ability to share data.
they could *not* have locked Apple out because they had to license their patents under the FRAND terms. You think Apple would have entered a business where any competitor could have shut them down in a quick trial? Come on...
And why do you think they had to license them under FRAND terms? If there is a widely adopted DRM standard then they will also have to be licensed under FRAND terms.
My bank information is some data I only trust my bank with. And i have an agreement with my bank that this data will stay private. This is why it does not flow freely. Trust me, if i publicly disclosed my credit card number on the web, it would flow freely from that point on.
Yet you will do everything in your power to make sure that this doesn't happen and that the only people that get access to your credit card number are the people you authorize to do so. You won't let that information flow freely.
what kind of compromise on the people side could be thought at that point that did not jeopardize our right to communicate with privacy? I'm really open on that one. I cannot think of any. Your turn to enlighten me.
I think you're confusing the issue of DRM with the issue of copyright enforcement through elimination of privacy.
Current DrM is a failure because it cannot be any other way. Someone wanting to pirate will succeed. And it will share it with the rest of the world in two clicks. And there is nothing anyone can do about it. Not from a legal standpoint, not from a technological standpoint. All the laws trying to fight this will end up reducing the people's rights while at the same time have no effect on piracy whatsoever.
So should the same be said for all of your private information that you only want to share with authorized people? If your private information leaks out that's ok because information wants to be free?
Of course slashdot extremists will pander to this and mark such posts insightful.
I don't get who these 'slashdot extremists' are, or what their point of view is, could you explain it? In just about every story it's some idiot referring to the 'slashdot crew' or 'slashdot extremists' or just 'slashdot' as the people who don't share their point of view, as though they have such a unique - but correct - perspective that the entire community cannot or refuses to see, the result is that said groups are defined as both both bashing and defending Microsoft and Google and Apple and GPL and FOSS and every other entity mentioned in a story yet no-one seems to know who these people are.
This really is the best way to describe such things, though it should be obvious for 2 reasons:
1. The extensive discussion and contrary points of view in such stories.
2. The fact that your post was modded 'informative'.
Then what's 'Turkish delight'?
>small compared to FB's 400+mil daily users. which is nothing compared with China's 1.3 billion people
G+ has about 13% of the number of users of FB, FB has about 30% of the number of Chinese citizens.
Well, take the inability to downgrade the firmware on some cell phones and consoles, for instance. What is the purpose of that?
Prevention of fragmentation. Particularly on consoles it's about consistency for players on the network.
Normally, nobody would give a crap what I run on my hardware. However, DRM hinges on not letting the user do certain things. That means that when the DRM system has a fault in it that does allow getting around the limits, it must be plugged. Otherwise it would be just the matter of taking an old device, downloading a movie or whatever on it, and exploiting the flaw to get a copy.
So if someone finds an exploit that allows them to cheat in a game on XBL that shouldn't be plugged and they should be allowed to run a flawed version then?
So, somebody else is dictating what I run on my hardware. That is loss of control.
No, you don't have to run it, you have that control, you have that choice! The only time you need to run it is if you want to connect to their services, in which case you do it on their terms!
Ok, feeding the trolls again... Here I go. Education has no boundaries.
You're obviously an idiot - replying to someone you believe to be trolling - or you don't believe i'm trolling and you're just attempting to label me as such simply because you don't agree. Try and act like an adult having a rational discussion rather than name-calling because you don't agree.
The right to have privacy when talking to someone over the internet.
No one is taking that away from you.
Because copyright (in this case) applies to data (movies, music, etc) the ability to enforce said copyright *is* the ability to snoop on *all* data exchanges on the internet. Period. Including your credit card number when you buy something on the web. See the problem here?
So I suppose they were monitoring what you do in your house with their content before the internet came along? You know, doing what you suggest here but in the real world? Oh that's right, they haven't, so obviously your argument fails. Copyright isn't new and copyright enforcement isn't new.
DRM cannot be transparent be the very definition of DRM. DRM's goal is to prevent you from listening to music or viewing a movie, without an "approved" device.
And it should be based on the user, not the device. So a user account can be authorized and that user account can span any device you like. That's not the way it is but that's the way it should be. It can be transparent much like your internet banking security is transparent, it's not as though your bank will refuse you access because you're using linux.
They would just have to "refuse" to license their DRM tech to Samsung (for example) and Samsung would be instantly out of the TV business, because unable to build a TV set that is lawfully able to decode a DRMed stream. Don't you think they have enough lobbying power as it is?
Oh come on, don't be obtuse, that's no different to saying existing phone manufacturers could have pushed apple immediately out of the phone business by refusing to license their 3G patents, oh of course they didn't do that just because they're so nice and they didn't want to, not because there are laws preventing such things.
I'm not sure you understand DRM either. DRM is a way to prevent data from flowing freely. But data flows on the internet and freely at that.
Rubbish, i'm sure you actually believe your bank details and credit card information flow freely on the internet too, you're confusing encryption with DRM. If information wants to be free then let's see your email credentials or your bank information, ah but only the information that you want to be free 'wants to be free', not the stuff you want to keep secret.
Hence, they will keep on forcing SOPA/PIPA like crap on the congress, and they will get some through. And it still won't stop piracy.
We all know this, this isn't news to anyone. The idea should be to work towards a mutually acceptable solution, that is going to require compromise on both sides, if you're unwilling to compromise then crap like SOPA/PIPA will end up being passed. Everything is not going to be free and open, that's an unworkable fantasy.
And you'll get in jail is you try to put a password on a ZIP file you're sending to your son by email and refuse to disclose it to the police.
Reductio ad absurdum, but extrapolation is fun isn't it?
Current DRM is a failure, but until you understand that it requires compromise on both sides it will just be a battle that won't end, though naturally hollywood needs to realise they need to compromise as well.
No current DRM system provides a client that will work on this machine.
So? If there is demand for one then one will be developed, clearly the demand isn't there. You really expect someone to take every single possible platform in existence and build support for them everytime a new standard comes along? I can't play bluray on my amiga but that's hardly the fault of bluray itself.
I can transcode the video and, as long as I delete it before I send the disk back, I can stream it to another machine or copy it to a mobile device to watch.
Does the license support that?
DRM == giving control of my computer to somebody else.
What control are you giving them? Not any more than running any kind of proprietary program! It's the sort rubbish like you're posting about content providers having control over your computer that gives DRM-opposers a bad wrap, your moronic suggestions make us all look like disingenuous paranoid idiots that are just spreading FUD.
It's an attempt to intrude on and limit what I can do with my hardware, which is unacceptable.
So is telling me i can't shoot someone with my own gun, i suppose you don't find that unacceptable though. The thing that needs reform is content licenses, with multiple devices and home network storage they need to be adapted to meet the needs of the customer. Banging on about DRM is pointless when DRM is just a tool to - attempt to - enforce an archaic and irrelevant licensing scheme.
Which is why they will never see a penny from me. Unfortunately, nobody else has the backbone needed to stand up to them
That's the most self-important wanker statement I've read on here, how many people do you expect to sway to your way of thinking when you pontificate like that? Some insight for you, sorry to ruin your fantasy.
"No, you are not going to take control of my computer in exchange for entertaining me for a few hours."
Pretty disingenuous statement there, it's no more 'taking control of your computer' than running any other program.
I'm no fan of DRM but this sort of rubbish is not helpful.
Of course there are more people enjoying crappy movies than those standing for their rights.
What rights? And do those conflict with copyrights?
I could live my life without watching anything HOLLYWOOD produces.
Pretty pointless statement when you follow it up with 'I don't'.
I don't, but I will NEVER use any platform that endorses DRM *ever*
Yet you openly admit to funding companies that do, sounds like a lot of talk but not a lot of action.
Because I want to be the master of what I watch, not someone else.
Why? If DRM were transparent and the system just worked i'd be happy with it, i want it to be a license for me to play movies, not a license for a particular device of mine to play movies.
And last, DRM are just forcing people to use piracy, nothing else.
Well yes, and that's the problem with it, those who pirate movies get a better experience than the studios' actual customers. Somehow studios just haven't realized that.
since it's ultimate goal is to prevent people from watching the very thing they're trying to watch through DRM!!!
I'm not sure you understand DRM, it is to prevent you from using that content outside the terms of the license, and i think it's the terms of the license that need to change, until them DRM will remain a moronic solution to and even more moronic problem.
and honestly, have you tried google it's meaning? https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=FRAND
I have and I still do Not know what the R stand for.
Do you? Care to share?
The first result is the wikipedia entry that clearly states the 'R' stands for 'Reasonable'.
And of course on the way you had to stop and fill up with LPG gas.
Good point on the license cost. For MS to claim that Motorola is being unreasonable, there has to be a direct comparison to other licensees. If Motorola is charging MS much more than other licensees without justification, then MS is right.
No, that's the 'ND' in FRAND, non-discriminatory. The topic of whether they are being unreasonable falls under the Fair (EU mostly) and Reasonable, which you can read about here.
Oh please stop being such a troll.
Presentation of basic facts is clearly not trolling, moreover if you really believed i was a troll the obvious thing that would be done by anyone with any intelligence would be to not reply, however you continue to reply so you're characterization of me as a troll is obviously you just lying, even you don't believe it.
Your mom is going to root her android phone, or buy one not even sold in this country to avoid the Microsoft Tax?
I didn't suggest that, fool. Read the post, i said there is nothing to stop companies using ext3 instead of exFAT, you having trouble understanding that?
How do you get your camera to read/write ext3?
That depends on whether your camera supports it, buy a camera that does, it's a free and open spec yet most choose not to implement it, nothing stopping them though.
Just stop please, you've already made an idiot of yourself. Anything further would be pointless.
lol...too butthurt that your little anti-microsoft rant is so easily debunked by the fact that ext3 is perfectly possible yet most devices (non-microsoft) simply choose not to support it. The fact is that SDXC cards are not locked to an MS filesystem and some devices that will work with them don't even support MS' filesystem, they in fact require an alternative like ext3, examples of such devices are Pandora and N900.
And then what? Put that in your Cellphone/mp3 player and you get nothing!
Not if you have a cellphone/mp3 player that supports ext3, no reason you can't mount it on a rooted Android phone, or an N900. If your cellphone/mp3 player doesn't support ext3 that's their problem.
Simply hand waiving it away doesn't make it so.
Simply ignoring the fact that there is no reason devices cannot just support filesystems like ext3 in which case you don't have to have anything to do with Microsoft doesn't mean they are tied to MS patents.
If moto owns the patent they can charge whatever they like for it (so long as they charge everyone the same). They don't have to justify the price to anyone.
You're not aware of what the 'R' in FRAND stands for?
but nobody knows how to value a software patent compared to a fundamental hardware patent.
It all boils down to logic, you could implement the software process in hardware if you really wanted to, it's generally not practical, but you could. Just like the way in which apple has built hardware for audience's logic into their iphone4s processor.
Any SD card / MicroSD card over 32gig requires SDXC, which is exFat. So an entire line of hardware is tied to a Microsoft Patent. An ENTIRE LINE OF STORAGE DEVICES!!!
No reason you can't reformat it to a different filesystem, in fact if you want to use it in something like a Pandora you must reformat it to use ext3 (or something else Pandora supports). So no, they aren't tied to a Microsoft patent.
Motorola didn't contribute its patents to the pool. Do you believe they should be required to provide them to the pool regardless of their consent simply because its a standard?
Companies that hold patents essential to industry standards are obligated to license those patents on FRAND terms, so yes.
What prevents others from making new standards with the sole intent of getting free use of their patents?
They don't have to be offered for free, just under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.
Personally I'd like to see all software patents die a firey death but that's not the reality we live in today.
These aren't necessarily even software patents, they could just as easily be hardware patents for things such as LTE.
In that context, cloud storage makes eminent sense because for the cloud service provider, providing reliable storage, or apps, or whatever, is their core competency.
And yet we still see failures from the biggest players like the EC2 crash, the Danger fiasco, iCloud failing or gmail outages. Go 'The Cloud'.
It is not your company's core competency. They will do it better than you. Period.
Yeah because we all know McDonalds' IT systems are managed by the guy flipping the burgers, they don't actually have qualified IT guys there. Seriously you haven't realized that it's just outsourcing the IT department? You think these 'cloud' providers are some other sort of entity that aren't just IT guys running an IT contracting business as opposed to internal division?
If I have to use a clamshell laptop, it's competing against the pool of all possible clamshell laptops, which include laptops with more flexible storage and networking options.
Which are things you clearly don't need, since you're using an ipad.
IMHO the Air fits a narrow niche for people who want a full computer experience, including the clamshell form factor, but for whom their computing experience won't extend past the hardware limits of the device.
I would say most people's computing experience doesn't extend beyond those limits these days. If it comes down to ipad vs air the advantage is clearly with the air in almost all circumstances except for when you're stuck in cramped conditions for extended periods of time.
Office 15 is a sledge hammer on a tablet. Takes up a lot of space that media might fill. I can only shrug and point to the dozens of failures of tablets now seen on secondary and even liquidation sites where there was lots of "underkill" where Office on an iPad or under Metro is "overkill". I see the comfort zones, I see feeding the addictions, and I still see lack of success.
But maybe that's the point, do we really need another iPad-clone or more Android tablets? Let's see something a bit different, MS has failed in the tablet space before and now this is their new take on it, if it fails it's just another MS fail but if it succeeds then they succeed in doing something different rather than just adding another clone to an already saturated market.
What happened was: the herd moved, and now everyone's trying to feed the herd with different food to see what the herd will swallow. My perspective is: the herd will move, and Office 15 will give them indigestion and a belly ache.
Well if they didn't do that then we wouldn't have tablets and smartphones at all. It doesn't harm the existing market to have a new product entrant and if it fails nothing is really lost, the only entity that loses is Microsoft, and im not sure many people are overly concerned about that possibility.
EXACTLY this. I'll probably get stoned for this, but the one Software I *rally* like license-wise is the Oracle Database.
Pro-Oracle and Pro-proprietary software on /., you certainly are brave! But i agree, it means if they want to make a profit by using your stuff then some of that should flow on to you for the work you have done to help them achieve that as well as you providing a nice little incentive to use your product by making it free to learn and use for non-commercial projects.
Let's agree that for document production, which fits the criteria for Office 15, the tablet is not a very useful choice.
That's what i was saying from the start, tweaking and editing are absolutely tasks for which a tablet would be fine (not optimal, but well enough), producing anything lengthy, not so much.
The thing about a new shiny screwdriver is that everything starts looking like a nail.
Generally nails are best served by a hammer, but i know what you mean.
Maybe it's the engineer in me: you use the right tool for the right job, and tablets are far from optimal. Here and there, why not? Office 15 will apparently be very inexpensive on the Metro UI-- maybe even free. Free Office? There'll be a shareholder revolt, as Office is one of Microsoft's oilwells-in-the-basement.
And do you know why they can offer it for free? Because, it is offered for free on a sub-optimal platform, anyone doing any serious work isn't going to do it on a tablet anyway so they will buy the full version. They don't have to cripple it, the form-factor does that for them.