Which has absolutely nothing to do with a lawsuit in California. Your argument is dishonest.
How so? What you think just because they were brought in different jurisdictions that means they have nothing to do with eachother?
Because it means they have nothing to do with each other. EU law is not US law and vice versa. It's not the same court, it's not the same jurisdiction. Whether or not MS has to have a "browser ballot" in the EU has absolutely nothing to do with whether Apple is engaged in anti-trust violations in the US.
It's about why, and that comes down to how much control a company is allowed to assert over their platform, hence my comment in the first place. Just because it is that company's product they cannot assert absolute control over it. If you don't understand the connection between this case and the EU case then have a look at the US v MS settlement, MS was not allowed to assert absolute control over *their* platform.
No it isn't. Liberty is about being able to govern yourself and act according to your own free will, the fact that the GPL imposes any kind of restrictions whatsoever is a direct contradiction to the idea of liberty.
The GPL(3) is functioning just as it was designed, to limit commercial use of code.
No, it's limiting the lock down of otherwise Free Software. That it exposes corporations for being control freaks unwilling to respect end-user freedom is simply a benefit.
I don't disagree with you, that is absolutely the purpose of it. But if enough of the end-users actually cared about it then wouldn't a company that purposely doesn't do such things flourish?
Bullshit. Freedom that gives the right to lock out the next person is not automatically more about freedom than freedom that protects also the next persons freedom.
But you aren't 'locking out' the 'next person', the code is free and is free to be used however anyone wants, no-one can come along and lock anyone out of using that code. You have the freedom to take it and use it however you want, that does not impact anyone elses freedom to use that code.
That's why I used the quotation marks. 'A "monopoly"' is different from 'a monopoly'. Since you clearly need this spelled out: you are supposed to be able to be the sole supplier of your own products, but this isn't a monopoly as defined by antitrust law.
Like i said, you're missing the point the OP was making, it isn't about being the sole supplier of the platform, it is - see the first comment you replied to - about controlling what apps go on that platform.
I never said anything about whether it's bad or not. Nor did I ever say simply having a monopoly is illegal. I'm not sure where you are getting these straw men from, but they are not from my words.
Hence the 'i think you're missing the point', otherwise i would have refuted something you actually said rather than just pointing you in the direction the OP was going with his/her comment.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with a lawsuit in California. Your argument is dishonest.
How so? What you think just because they were brought in different jurisdictions that means they have nothing to do with eachother?
When a problem isn't a problem until a particular entity is involved, then the problem you describe isnt actually the problem you percieve.
Firstly, i didn't say it wasn't a problem until a particular entity is involved, you made that up. And in fact i didn't even make the original comment.
In other words: You are not being objective and it's hard to take your principled posturing seriously. It's like listening to Microsoft talk about the dangers of Open Source.
No, because i never said that at all at any point in the discussion, you just put that in there.
I simply said that just because he makes that argument against apple and not against other parties that the argument applies to doesn't make the argument any less valid, it may make him ignorant, it may make him an anti-apple guy.
You seem to think it affects the validity of the argument, and that is rubbish, you just want it to apply to those other parties before apple. But in fact it applies equally to all those parties so why do you care so much that everyone else cops it before apple? Why does it matter so much to you?
you don't have to go after every other company that could possibly have the same issue for the original argument to be justified...
Yup.
So why are you suggesting that the argument doesn't 'hold water' until it has been applied to other companies? That's obviously a load of shit.
nor does that have any impact on your objectivity...
Uh huh. 10+ years of this very public and obvious behaviour going on, but it's not worth criticizing until a company that's fashionable to hate suddenly does it. Super objective.
Or until that behavior actually affects you in a negative way. It's pretty obvious that you are the one lacking objectivity here, you're suggesting the argument is invalid because it hasn't been applied to companies other than apple, when in fact that has nothing to do with the validity of the argument whatsoever.
You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products.
He was referencing the fact that not only does it bundle its own software but if you develop software that functionally duplicates on of their apps you likely can't even distribute that (according to the dev agreement).
No shit, Captain Obvious. iOS is Apple's product. This is them controlling their product. Controlling how your product works is not inherently monopolistic.
Are you actually reading what you wrote dumbass? You just said You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products, now you're saying it's them controlling there product and that's not inherently monopolistic. Well which is it?
I think you're missing the point that having a monopoly isn't necessarily a bad thing it's when you leverage that monopoly in another market, which is what MS did (but Apple isn't), that it becomes a problem.
MS can't even bundle its own software on its product even though it gives you absolute freedom to install whatever other software you want.
So where apple can quite happily bundle safari with iOS and tell you what you can and cannot install MS can't bundle IE with Windows even though they impose no restrictions on what you can and can't install.
Um... IE comes bundled with Windows.
You haven't seen the 'ballot' or heard of the massive antitrust case the was brought on them? (of course it's EU)
Or how about Apple's monopoly on the iPhone/iPad apps?
Uh, yeah, this argument doesn't really carry any water until you set your sights on Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft.
Well it actually does, it's just that it applies equally to them as well. There's no rule that says you have to have a go at Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft before you're allowed to have a go at Apple.
No, it just reeks of bias and damages your appearance of objectivity.
Rubbish, if you have a problem with one company you don't have to go after every other company that could possibly have the same issue for the original argument to be justified, nor does that have any impact on your objectivity. Sure the same argument applies to many other companies, but the fact that he didn't seek out every other company that it could potentially apply to (and neither did you) doesn't damage his original argument or objectivity in the slightest.
Or how about Apple's monopoly on the iPhone/iPad apps?
Uh, yeah, this argument doesn't really carry any water until you set your sights on Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft.
Well it actually does, it's just that it applies equally to them as well. There's no rule that says you have to have a go at Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft before you're allowed to have a go at Apple.
You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products.
He was referencing the fact that not only does it bundle its own software but if you develop software that functionally duplicates on of their apps you likely can't even distribute that (according to the dev agreement). MS can't even bundle its own software on its product even though it gives you absolute freedom to install whatever other software you want.
So where apple can quite happily bundle safari with iOS and tell you what you can and cannot install MS can't bundle IE with Windows even though they impose no restrictions on what you can and can't install.
To add more fun statistical context, the CIA World Factbook tells me that Planet Earth's entire money supply coincidentally equals (at the broadest estimate) $75.86 trillion.
So, the music industry is basically asking Limewire for all of Earth's money. I hope their lawsuit is backed up by a frickin' "laser" on the moon.
The worst thing about these laws is that they aren't logical.
And, given the absurdity of this case, it could actually be the recording industry themselves that drives that point home to the degree that these laws get changed.
His opinion on this matter is the opinion of one man. And his opinion's in no way privileged.
He's definitely not the sole copyright owner of Linux rights, so Linus is unable to make a statement
about the disposition of Google's activities that would be binding on all the copyright owners.
Like he said, he specifically chose those license terms for this purpose when he picked the license to begin with.
Not to discount Linus, but I think RMS or FSF lawyers would be more qualified than Linus to speak on this particular area.
RMS already did speak on this issue - after consulting an FSF lawyer - and said essentially the same thing as Linus has.
The nexus one can do pinch-to-zoom so of course it supports multitouch.
The hardware on the Nexus One was not designed with multitouch in mind.
The clearpad 2000 in the nexus one was designed to be able to do multitouch, but only 2 fingers, and yes you're right it doesn't do them particularly well.
Exactly. The sensor used in the screen is a single touch capacitive sensor. Android supports multi-touch, but the Nexus One / xperia x10 / HTC desire harware doesn't.
The nexus one can do pinch-to-zoom so of course it supports multitouch.
The ONLY situations where a user will run flash instead of an alternative is when the user is either a) A computer beginner and can't tell the difference between slowdowns and a virus, b) There is no alternative non-flash app, and c) It doesn't say anywhere it is flash, before purchase.
Your options suggest you think Flash is never faster than any alternative...which of course is not true.
To refute the claim, the search term should be, to use your words, "the one you should have used", 'App Store' with the space; as Apple has trademarked it; the term that they are suing to defend - That search did not return any valid results, so it remains a distinct possibility that Apple coined 'App Store', in spite of a very similar 'AppStore' having been used by one company.
Why? Apple clearly didn't coin the term 'AppStore' yet they are the ones claiming - based on their lawsuit - that their use of 'App Store' is the same.
Your citation isn't as authoritative as you might think, since that web page in not on the Internet Archive prior to September 15, 2008;
That would be true if the 'internet archive' were a 100% perfect snapshot, which it isn't.
Prior use of the term does not prevent or invalidate registration, and I do not know if this evidence of one prior use would be sufficient to convince a judge that the term is generic.
I wasn't suggesting that, I was refuting this claim: It is entirely possible that they actually did coin the term - so yes, seriously.
The certainly didn't coin the term.
The Apple App Store opened in March 2008. If you do an Internet search for the term "App Store" prior to that you have a very hard time finding any legitimate results. (Google really needs to fix their date search, and Bing and Yahoo! were worse) I didn't find any, but going through lots of results manually is problematic. It is entirely possible that they actually did coin the term - so yes, seriously.
Windows is a generic term too. My Mac has windows. My Linux system has windows. Even my house has windows. That doesn't mean I can call my operating system Windows.
You really aren't able to tell the difference between an operating system and the windows in your house? or an operating system and a window manager concept of a window? Next you'll be trying to a Mac from your green grocer.
Slashdot Mirror
Which has absolutely nothing to do with a lawsuit in California. Your argument is dishonest.
How so? What you think just because they were brought in different jurisdictions that means they have nothing to do with eachother?
Because it means they have nothing to do with each other. EU law is not US law and vice versa. It's not the same court, it's not the same jurisdiction. Whether or not MS has to have a "browser ballot" in the EU has absolutely nothing to do with whether Apple is engaged in anti-trust violations in the US.
It's about why, and that comes down to how much control a company is allowed to assert over their platform, hence my comment in the first place. Just because it is that company's product they cannot assert absolute control over it. If you don't understand the connection between this case and the EU case then have a look at the US v MS settlement, MS was not allowed to assert absolute control over *their* platform.
The GPL license is free as in liberty.
No it isn't. Liberty is about being able to govern yourself and act according to your own free will, the fact that the GPL imposes any kind of restrictions whatsoever is a direct contradiction to the idea of liberty.
No, it's limiting the lock down of otherwise Free Software. That it exposes corporations for being control freaks unwilling to respect end-user freedom is simply a benefit.
I don't disagree with you, that is absolutely the purpose of it. But if enough of the end-users actually cared about it then wouldn't a company that purposely doesn't do such things flourish?
Bullshit. Freedom that gives the right to lock out the next person is not automatically more about freedom than freedom that protects also the next persons freedom.
But you aren't 'locking out' the 'next person', the code is free and is free to be used however anyone wants, no-one can come along and lock anyone out of using that code. You have the freedom to take it and use it however you want, that does not impact anyone elses freedom to use that code.
That's why I used the quotation marks. 'A "monopoly"' is different from 'a monopoly'. Since you clearly need this spelled out: you are supposed to be able to be the sole supplier of your own products, but this isn't a monopoly as defined by antitrust law.
Like i said, you're missing the point the OP was making, it isn't about being the sole supplier of the platform, it is - see the first comment you replied to - about controlling what apps go on that platform.
I never said anything about whether it's bad or not. Nor did I ever say simply having a monopoly is illegal. I'm not sure where you are getting these straw men from, but they are not from my words.
Hence the 'i think you're missing the point', otherwise i would have refuted something you actually said rather than just pointing you in the direction the OP was going with his/her comment.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with a lawsuit in California. Your argument is dishonest.
How so? What you think just because they were brought in different jurisdictions that means they have nothing to do with eachother?
When a problem isn't a problem until a particular entity is involved, then the problem you describe isnt actually the problem you percieve.
Firstly, i didn't say it wasn't a problem until a particular entity is involved, you made that up. And in fact i didn't even make the original comment.
In other words: You are not being objective and it's hard to take your principled posturing seriously. It's like listening to Microsoft talk about the dangers of Open Source.
No, because i never said that at all at any point in the discussion, you just put that in there.
I simply said that just because he makes that argument against apple and not against other parties that the argument applies to doesn't make the argument any less valid, it may make him ignorant, it may make him an anti-apple guy.
You seem to think it affects the validity of the argument, and that is rubbish, you just want it to apply to those other parties before apple. But in fact it applies equally to all those parties so why do you care so much that everyone else cops it before apple? Why does it matter so much to you?
you don't have to go after every other company that could possibly have the same issue for the original argument to be justified...
Yup.
So why are you suggesting that the argument doesn't 'hold water' until it has been applied to other companies? That's obviously a load of shit.
nor does that have any impact on your objectivity...
Uh huh. 10+ years of this very public and obvious behaviour going on, but it's not worth criticizing until a company that's fashionable to hate suddenly does it. Super objective.
Or until that behavior actually affects you in a negative way. It's pretty obvious that you are the one lacking objectivity here, you're suggesting the argument is invalid because it hasn't been applied to companies other than apple, when in fact that has nothing to do with the validity of the argument whatsoever.
You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products.
He was referencing the fact that not only does it bundle its own software but if you develop software that functionally duplicates on of their apps you likely can't even distribute that (according to the dev agreement).
No shit, Captain Obvious. iOS is Apple's product. This is them controlling their product. Controlling how your product works is not inherently monopolistic.
Are you actually reading what you wrote dumbass? You just said You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products, now you're saying it's them controlling there product and that's not inherently monopolistic. Well which is it?
I think you're missing the point that having a monopoly isn't necessarily a bad thing it's when you leverage that monopoly in another market, which is what MS did (but Apple isn't), that it becomes a problem.
MS can't even bundle its own software on its product even though it gives you absolute freedom to install whatever other software you want.
So where apple can quite happily bundle safari with iOS and tell you what you can and cannot install MS can't bundle IE with Windows even though they impose no restrictions on what you can and can't install.
Um... IE comes bundled with Windows.
You haven't seen the 'ballot' or heard of the massive antitrust case the was brought on them? (of course it's EU)
Or how about Apple's monopoly on the iPhone/iPad apps?
Uh, yeah, this argument doesn't really carry any water until you set your sights on Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft.
Well it actually does, it's just that it applies equally to them as well. There's no rule that says you have to have a go at Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft before you're allowed to have a go at Apple.
No, it just reeks of bias and damages your appearance of objectivity.
Rubbish, if you have a problem with one company you don't have to go after every other company that could possibly have the same issue for the original argument to be justified, nor does that have any impact on your objectivity. Sure the same argument applies to many other companies, but the fact that he didn't seek out every other company that it could potentially apply to (and neither did you) doesn't damage his original argument or objectivity in the slightest.
Or how about Apple's monopoly on the iPhone/iPad apps?
Uh, yeah, this argument doesn't really carry any water until you set your sights on Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft.
Well it actually does, it's just that it applies equally to them as well. There's no rule that says you have to have a go at Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft before you're allowed to have a go at Apple.
You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products.
He was referencing the fact that not only does it bundle its own software but if you develop software that functionally duplicates on of their apps you likely can't even distribute that (according to the dev agreement). MS can't even bundle its own software on its product even though it gives you absolute freedom to install whatever other software you want.
So where apple can quite happily bundle safari with iOS and tell you what you can and cannot install MS can't bundle IE with Windows even though they impose no restrictions on what you can and can't install.
To add more fun statistical context, the CIA World Factbook tells me that Planet Earth's entire money supply coincidentally equals (at the broadest estimate) $75.86 trillion.
So, the music industry is basically asking Limewire for all of Earth's money. I hope their lawsuit is backed up by a frickin' "laser" on the moon.
I want a gajillion bajillion dollars!
The worst thing about these laws is that they aren't logical.
And, given the absurdity of this case, it could actually be the recording industry themselves that drives that point home to the degree that these laws get changed.
His opinion on this matter is the opinion of one man. And his opinion's in no way privileged. He's definitely not the sole copyright owner of Linux rights, so Linus is unable to make a statement about the disposition of Google's activities that would be binding on all the copyright owners.
Like he said, he specifically chose those license terms for this purpose when he picked the license to begin with.
Not to discount Linus, but I think RMS or FSF lawyers would be more qualified than Linus to speak on this particular area.
RMS already did speak on this issue - after consulting an FSF lawyer - and said essentially the same thing as Linus has.
The nexus one can do pinch-to-zoom so of course it supports multitouch.
The hardware on the Nexus One was not designed with multitouch in mind.
The clearpad 2000 in the nexus one was designed to be able to do multitouch, but only 2 fingers, and yes you're right it doesn't do them particularly well.
Exactly. The sensor used in the screen is a single touch capacitive sensor. Android supports multi-touch, but the Nexus One / xperia x10 / HTC desire harware doesn't.
The nexus one can do pinch-to-zoom so of course it supports multitouch.
The ONLY situations where a user will run flash instead of an alternative is when the user is either a) A computer beginner and can't tell the difference between slowdowns and a virus, b) There is no alternative non-flash app, and c) It doesn't say anywhere it is flash, before purchase.
Your options suggest you think Flash is never faster than any alternative...which of course is not true.
To refute the claim, the search term should be, to use your words, "the one you should have used", 'App Store' with the space; as Apple has trademarked it; the term that they are suing to defend - That search did not return any valid results, so it remains a distinct possibility that Apple coined 'App Store', in spite of a very similar 'AppStore' having been used by one company.
Why? Apple clearly didn't coin the term 'AppStore' yet they are the ones claiming - based on their lawsuit - that their use of 'App Store' is the same.
The App Store is not an app store, it's a computer program and database.
yeah and best buy is not a store, it's just bricks, mortar, steel and glass.
AppStore is not the search term I used
But the one you should have used.
I used "App Store" as used by Apple.
Except that's not what they're suing over.
Search engines return exact matches
No they don't.
Your citation isn't as authoritative as you might think, since that web page in not on the Internet Archive prior to September 15, 2008;
That would be true if the 'internet archive' were a 100% perfect snapshot, which it isn't.
Prior use of the term does not prevent or invalidate registration, and I do not know if this evidence of one prior use would be sufficient to convince a judge that the term is generic.
I wasn't suggesting that, I was refuting this claim:
It is entirely possible that they actually did coin the term - so yes, seriously.
The certainly didn't coin the term.
The Apple App Store opened in March 2008. If you do an Internet search for the term "App Store" prior to that you have a very hard time finding any legitimate results. (Google really needs to fix their date search, and Bing and Yahoo! were worse) I didn't find any, but going through lots of results manually is problematic. It is entirely possible that they actually did coin the term - so yes, seriously.
Bullshit.
With that in mind, how do you feel about Windows(tm)? :)
Well given that the App Store is an app store and Windows is an Operating System (not a windows), i don't see an issue.
Oh no! Now you're going to have Apple's tech support line flooded with calls wondering why their Mac isn't starting up ;)
You can call the underlying x window system a 'window', and multiples of it 'windows'.
You can, but you'd be wrong. The X Window system is not a window, it is a window manager.
Windows is a generic term too. My Mac has windows. My Linux system has windows. Even my house has windows. That doesn't mean I can call my operating system Windows.
You really aren't able to tell the difference between an operating system and the windows in your house? or an operating system and a window manager concept of a window? Next you'll be trying to a Mac from your green grocer.