I have to say that anyone who disallows proselytizing doesn't believe in free speech. Free speech at its core is the right to present arguments in the public forum and convince people of their truthfulness. Which is precisely what proselytizing is.
There is no chance blaspheme laws are coming to the USA. Now with that off the table.
Assembly + Speech doesn't quite get you freedom of religion. Freedom of religion implies a prohibitions or restrictions on the state being able require acts which implicitly or explicitly require the believer to renounce their beliefs. The classic example is requiring people to make public sacrifice to the city's gods, which was seen a civil duty that Christians refused to perform. Modern day examples are things like the right to ask for kosher food, so for example the US Army buys kosher MREs and makes a reasonable attempt to give them to soldiers who wish to keep kosher.
Nero would have had no problem with the Christians if all they wanted was the right to assemble and say stuff.
The reason he is calling for blaspheme laws is because free expression is coming to Pakistan and is freaking subgroups out. This is quite the opposite of censorship, this is what its collapse looks like.
Trust me, they store the maps internally as vectors. It's the only sane way to do it.
I understand that. But that's the difference between bit map fonts and scalable fonts. Rendering on the device makes all sorts of things possible that aren't with rendering on a server not in real time.
Just because it's the first time you've noticed it does not mean then the entity has shown you is the innovative one.
Google earth was not a driving system.
I really don't get why people like you insist that every feature which is new to Apple is innovative no matter how long those features have existed in the wild before Apple notived them.
See my initial response. In these discussion it seems to be fashionable to define innovation in ways that more or less exclude every invention in human history. Everything is a chain of small steps. That doesn't mean that hasn't been innovation in the last 10000 years.
a) The MBP retina display is made by LG So what? Apple isn't the parts business they are in the systems business. All their hardware innovations are going to involve partnering with parts vendors.
b) The A6 is simply a modified Arm instruction set processor. Not a entirely new CPU design
Agreed. That doesn't change the modification by Intensity
c) Are you talking about their new maps? Surely you are not suggesting that something so craptastic is innovation.
Yes. Vector maps rather than bit maps. Excellent scrolling. Terrific 3D and height effects. Other than bad / missing data I think is a fantastic release. And doing data clean up for a mapping app, while boatload of work is something everyone knows how to do.
e) Guided access you mean crippling the device is better?
Yes. Frequently good design is what you leave out. For toddlers and the autistic you need to leave out a lot. You aren't the target customer for Guided Access.
g) Do not disturb / call me later - had that on a 1.6 android phone nothing new.
You mean on the phone itself. Like 2 call break through or via. Google Voice?
That's already happening. Apple is not seen as daring and innovative with todays iGen kids. Apple is moving up the age demographic on iOS quickly. Android is the phone of the young and has been since it started gaining share.
They don't even have to do that. Jolla is creating a version of MeeGo which runs Android applications. Apple said in court that MeeGo was non infringing. Similarly BBOS10 Apple agrees is non infringing and again runs Android applications. Also Apple has indicated a willingness to license their patents. Apple pays about $8 per phone to Nokia for their patents; there is no reason the market couldn't exist with a $30 payment to Apple for design related patents and then Samsung could copy to its heart's content.
The implementation is new. If you look at BlackBerry's setup scheme it is quite a bit different and doesn't do things like multiple calls from same number.
This has been dealt with. Samsung started preserving evidence before Apple did.
Yes it was dealt with in the trial. I was actually more referring to the F700 evidence.
When you include all the phones, not just Apple's selection Samsung's 'before' and 'after' ranges are all rather similar.
I understand that's what Samsung claimed at trial. And no they weren't. If you look at the F700 it is rather clear that Samsung was chasing after Palm's theory of design, a PDA/phone mixture with calendaring being the central application. They weren't working on a web centric OS that made heavy use of animations.
If you mean the physical phone I'd agree the industry was headed in that direction. Samsung's hardware claims would have been a lot more plausible if they hasn't been making software claims.
Well, the icon stylings are standard things that all existed before Apple 'stole' them from previous designs.
Then Samsung should have been able to prove that at trial. That's how Microsoft beat Apple in their look and feel lawsuit. Where is the 2006 palette that looks like the iPhones in terms of:
a) drawn icon and size b) color scheme c) icon shape and behavior
It doesn't exist. This was really important and key evidence of copying.
If you mean innovation in the normal sense and not the/. its only innovation if nothing like it was ever considered before.
a) An entirely new design for screen manufacture no one else (but the Apple rMBP) uses. b) An entirely new CPU design (and yes this is the Intrinsity division of Apple). c) An entirely new mapping subsystem d) Passbook e) Guided access f) VIP mail g) Do not disturb / call me later
etc... You may not like Apple but the claim they aren't innovative is nonsense.
I think it is a great idea to have technical trials before random experts. I agree with you.
But that's the way regulatory boards are setup. Far fewer court trials and more administrative trials would be a huge benefit. But that requires going back to "bigger government" since the burden on the administrators increases and the burden on the courts decreases.
1) Samsung engaged in misconduct during discovery. 2) Samsung was unable to provide a sound basis for the drastic shifts in their design approach after the iPhone was released 3) Some of the elements of copying, like icon styling are rather clear and none have been conceded to, which is likely what led the jury to draw the conclusion of intent. This happens all the time, X lies about his minor part in the crime so the jury decides to believe he's lying because he was a primary.
That being said I agree with Samsung the punishments effectively allowed Apple to misrepresent the evidence in their presentation. I'd like to see those things tossed.
There is not going to be a new trial. I think Samsung was treated unfairly. On the other hand Samsung also engaged in serious misconduct during discovery.
There are lots of problems with this filing as well. For example Courts have repeatedly denied a monopoly in the copyright context over the GUI design concepts that Apple seeks to protect here. See Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. In Apple v. Microsoft the court never ruled that GUI design concepts weren't protected. The ruled the exact opposite that the expression of functional elements were protected. However, they found that Apple lacked standing not having been the originator of those ideas. Samsung's lawyers constantly intermix BS with truth and the problem is the court is seeing this as dishonest not good lawyering.
Bull. Infringement actions like this are typical there is nothing unusual here at all legally. Global scale and high degree of usage by consumers makes the numbers large. But really the only thing unusual about these particular infringement actions is you care about the products being disputed and are following the case.
Samsung in 2011 did $42b in sales and $4.7b in profits. They aren't going to be strapped for cash. On the other hand an award that large would destroy the profitability of their Android strategy. It would turn infringement from a money maker to a money loser.
that's what I meant by inadvertent, the designer didn't realize. And yes I agree that assuming the fee is small Apple can just pay. But if Swiss Railway wants a lot then they just pay a small amount and switch the design.
I agree with you. In a few weeks they release another clock face, admit this was inadvertent and try and settle for a small sum. If anything by paying for a look and feel violation strengthens their hand on the lawsuits they do care about.
The DMCA is designed to force content distributors like YouTube to take action to get on the record statements. They did that. At this point they now have your statement made under "good faith clause" and the church's statement made under penalty of perjury.
Assuming your version of events is correct you have a situation where the religious organization is engaging in perjury. The problem is civil perjury is rarely prosecuted. Generally the system responds to perjury via. large awards. So in your case if you sued you would be likely to get a large reward that you wouldn't be able to collect on.
However, YouTube is potentially involved in contributory infringement if you notify them. Provide them a complete set of documentation proving your claims and then they are on the hook. What happens from there is up to them. Suing YouTube is not going to be cheap but then again they are unlikely to care enough for you to have to fight them.
Slashdot Mirror
forbidding proselytizing
I have to say that anyone who disallows proselytizing doesn't believe in free speech. Free speech at its core is the right to present arguments in the public forum and convince people of their truthfulness. Which is precisely what proselytizing is.
There is no chance blaspheme laws are coming to the USA. Now with that off the table.
Assembly + Speech doesn't quite get you freedom of religion. Freedom of religion implies a prohibitions or restrictions on the state being able require acts which implicitly or explicitly require the believer to renounce their beliefs. The classic example is requiring people to make public sacrifice to the city's gods, which was seen a civil duty that Christians refused to perform. Modern day examples are things like the right to ask for kosher food, so for example the US Army buys kosher MREs and makes a reasonable attempt to give them to soldiers who wish to keep kosher.
Nero would have had no problem with the Christians if all they wanted was the right to assemble and say stuff.
The reason he is calling for blaspheme laws is because free expression is coming to Pakistan and is freaking subgroups out. This is quite the opposite of censorship, this is what its collapse looks like.
Maybe in Europe but in the USA no we don't have frequent sports riots.
At least in Libya they have: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/09/does-not-represent-us-moving-photos-pro-american-rallies-libya/56803/
Trust me, they store the maps internally as vectors. It's the only sane way to do it.
I understand that. But that's the difference between bit map fonts and scalable fonts. Rendering on the device makes all sorts of things possible that aren't with rendering on a server not in real time.
Just because it's the first time you've noticed it does not mean then the entity has shown you is the innovative one.
Google earth was not a driving system.
I really don't get why people like you insist that every feature which is new to Apple is innovative no matter how long those features have existed in the wild before Apple notived them.
See my initial response. In these discussion it seems to be fashionable to define innovation in ways that more or less exclude every invention in human history. Everything is a chain of small steps. That doesn't mean that hasn't been innovation in the last 10000 years.
a) The MBP retina display is made by LG
So what? Apple isn't the parts business they are in the systems business. All their hardware innovations are going to involve partnering with parts vendors.
b) The A6 is simply a modified Arm instruction set processor. Not a entirely new CPU design
Agreed. That doesn't change the modification by Intensity
c) Are you talking about their new maps? Surely you are not suggesting that something so craptastic is innovation.
Yes. Vector maps rather than bit maps. Excellent scrolling. Terrific 3D and height effects. Other than bad / missing data I think is a fantastic release. And doing data clean up for a mapping app, while boatload of work is something everyone knows how to do.
e) Guided access you mean crippling the device is better?
Yes. Frequently good design is what you leave out. For toddlers and the autistic you need to leave out a lot. You aren't the target customer for Guided Access.
g) Do not disturb / call me later - had that on a 1.6 android phone nothing new.
You mean on the phone itself. Like 2 call break through or via. Google Voice?
Yep. And there are even phone versions. The implementation details were different.
No but for example it is vector based and that is quite innovative. The sky shots are innovative.
Bad data isn't innovative that's what mapping systems look like when they are young.
That's already happening. Apple is not seen as daring and innovative with todays iGen kids. Apple is moving up the age demographic on iOS quickly. Android is the phone of the young and has been since it started gaining share.
They don't even have to do that. Jolla is creating a version of MeeGo which runs Android applications. Apple said in court that MeeGo was non infringing. Similarly BBOS10 Apple agrees is non infringing and again runs Android applications. Also Apple has indicated a willingness to license their patents. Apple pays about $8 per phone to Nokia for their patents; there is no reason the market couldn't exist with a $30 payment to Apple for design related patents and then Samsung could copy to its heart's content.
The only place the trial has gone the distance is in the USA.
That's not what he said. He's saying Apple is unique in their behavior.
The implementation is new. If you look at BlackBerry's setup scheme it is quite a bit different and doesn't do things like multiple calls from same number.
This has been dealt with. Samsung started preserving evidence before Apple did.
Yes it was dealt with in the trial. I was actually more referring to the F700 evidence.
When you include all the phones, not just Apple's selection Samsung's 'before' and 'after' ranges are all rather similar.
I understand that's what Samsung claimed at trial. And no they weren't. If you look at the F700 it is rather clear that Samsung was chasing after Palm's theory of design, a PDA/phone mixture with calendaring being the central application. They weren't working on a web centric OS that made heavy use of animations.
If you mean the physical phone I'd agree the industry was headed in that direction. Samsung's hardware claims would have been a lot more plausible if they hasn't been making software claims.
Well, the icon stylings are standard things that all existed before Apple 'stole' them from previous designs.
Then Samsung should have been able to prove that at trial. That's how Microsoft beat Apple in their look and feel lawsuit. Where is the 2006 palette that looks like the iPhones in terms of:
a) drawn icon and size
b) color scheme
c) icon shape and behavior
It doesn't exist. This was really important and key evidence of copying.
Not preserving evidence that was likely to be needed at trial. Trying to game the system with the late drop of the F700. Those are the two I know of.
If you mean innovation in the normal sense and not the /. its only innovation if nothing like it was ever considered before.
a) An entirely new design for screen manufacture no one else (but the Apple rMBP) uses.
b) An entirely new CPU design (and yes this is the Intrinsity division of Apple).
c) An entirely new mapping subsystem
d) Passbook
e) Guided access
f) VIP mail
g) Do not disturb / call me later
etc... You may not like Apple but the claim they aren't innovative is nonsense.
I think it is a great idea to have technical trials before random experts. I agree with you.
But that's the way regulatory boards are setup. Far fewer court trials and more administrative trials would be a huge benefit. But that requires going back to "bigger government" since the burden on the administrators increases and the burden on the courts decreases.
I don't think so.
1) Samsung engaged in misconduct during discovery.
2) Samsung was unable to provide a sound basis for the drastic shifts in their design approach after the iPhone was released
3) Some of the elements of copying, like icon styling are rather clear and none have been conceded to, which is likely what led the jury to draw the conclusion of intent. This happens all the time, X lies about his minor part in the crime so the jury decides to believe he's lying because he was a primary.
That being said I agree with Samsung the punishments effectively allowed Apple to misrepresent the evidence in their presentation. I'd like to see those things tossed.
There is not going to be a new trial. I think Samsung was treated unfairly. On the other hand Samsung also engaged in serious misconduct during discovery.
There are lots of problems with this filing as well. For example Courts have repeatedly denied a monopoly in the copyright context over the GUI design concepts that Apple seeks to protect here. See Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. In Apple v. Microsoft the court never ruled that GUI design concepts weren't protected. The ruled the exact opposite that the expression of functional elements were protected. However, they found that Apple lacked standing not having been the originator of those ideas. Samsung's lawyers constantly intermix BS with truth and the problem is the court is seeing this as dishonest not good lawyering.
Bull. Infringement actions like this are typical there is nothing unusual here at all legally. Global scale and high degree of usage by consumers makes the numbers large. But really the only thing unusual about these particular infringement actions is you care about the products being disputed and are following the case.
Samsung in 2011 did $42b in sales and $4.7b in profits. They aren't going to be strapped for cash. On the other hand an award that large would destroy the profitability of their Android strategy. It would turn infringement from a money maker to a money loser.
that's what I meant by inadvertent, the designer didn't realize. And yes I agree that assuming the fee is small Apple can just pay. But if Swiss Railway wants a lot then they just pay a small amount and switch the design.
I agree with you. In a few weeks they release another clock face, admit this was inadvertent and try and settle for a small sum. If anything by paying for a look and feel violation strengthens their hand on the lawsuits they do care about.
The DMCA is designed to force content distributors like YouTube to take action to get on the record statements. They did that. At this point they now have your statement made under "good faith clause" and the church's statement made under penalty of perjury.
Assuming your version of events is correct you have a situation where the religious organization is engaging in perjury. The problem is civil perjury is rarely prosecuted. Generally the system responds to perjury via. large awards. So in your case if you sued you would be likely to get a large reward that you wouldn't be able to collect on.
However, YouTube is potentially involved in contributory infringement if you notify them. Provide them a complete set of documentation proving your claims and then they are on the hook. What happens from there is up to them. Suing YouTube is not going to be cheap but then again they are unlikely to care enough for you to have to fight them.