In order to use the addresses on the transfer network, you'd have to connect all of your devices up to your modem using a switch. But that's incompatible with v4, because your ISP will only give you one v4 address, so all of those extra devices would be v6-only.
I'm not following. OK I have a ISP whose given me a/64 and one v4 address. The edge router gets the v4 and passes it through (either virtually or physically) to the firewall which is performing NAT essentially converting to my internal v6 network. From here it gets passed to my home switch which can easily handle all my devices. If I want another subnet I just stack, because the master switch can know everything in the home.
I agree that isn't routable if I want to use autoconfiguration. But if I don't I don't see the problem the routers can be configured manually for any size subnet.
I'm not following you. Your home LAN (assuming it can handle v6) gets the/64. Devices auto-assign by Mac address to all have unique v6 addresses. Why wouldn't the devices behind the home router be able to see the v6 space?
As for providing more than a/64 for home, I'm not sure why. And why would you not use your universal link for P2P?
I agree with you the Mactopia group is underfunded. For example I don't understand why they are waiting over a year for the retina update for OSX office. I was sorry when they dropped Windows Media player... But I would disagree with you about Office sucking on OSX. Word, Excel and PowerPoint are rather nice on OSX, very stable and effective. Its more limited on OSX and I missed access (though NeoOffice Base is finally good enough to take the place of Access). Back in the days of Office X alot of people argued Office on Mac was better than Office on PC and I could see their point it had a lot of really cool features and since it still supported VBA almost no disadvantages.
Well it shows they were heading towards some of these elements, like the importance of touch. But the F700 also shows they had other ideas regarding GUI and the importance of keyboards. Its not at all clear they were "headed that way". Somehow they took a drastic diversion towards iOS interface elements and paradigms.
Did Nokia irrevocably harm the phone market by constantly driving down the price of a phone until it hit a low of $19?
Yes. That prevented dumb phones from having rich features and started to create a 3 tier marketplace.
Did Asus irrevocably harm the laptop market by releasing the first cheap netbook?
I don't think the original Asus netbooks were laptops in the classic sense they went after a different groups. But did later netbooks hard laptops. Definitely, they put more margin pressure on.
Did Dell harm the PC market by pursuing lower and lower prices?
Absolutely and unquestionably! If Dell were still the Dell of 1993, making top of the line business systems and offering excellent support with great features the x86 space would be far better. I'm shocked when I look at what crap Dell makes. I'd love to see Dell's which are comparable or even better than Apple.
Others have estimated that the iPad costs around $375 to make, and sells for $729. That's a wee bit more than 20%.
The iPads range from $399 on the low end (iPad 2) to $829 on the high end (2 memory upgrades and the cellular upgrade). $729 is probably more expensive than 97% of all iPads sold.
Let's not beat around the bush here. iOS offers a very watered-down featureset so non-tech saavy people don't have trouble with it
That's actually not true. iOS offers a watered-down featureset because Steve jobs wanted iOS devices to be secondary not primary devices. As he said from the day he got back to Apple, "Good design is not about saying 'yes' to everything, it's about saying 'no' to most things and only doing the best".
With the iPod the goal was to make a fantastic MP3 player, that's it. No radio, no disk storage.... Other features were added slowly and carefully once the music player aspects were in place.
With the iPhone the goal was to get the core aspects of the interface: -- high speed web rendering engine -- capacitive touchscreen -- animation based visual cues perfect. Apps were only added later and reluctantly.
With Android the goal was to create a version of Linux with a good mobile interface. The goals have always been totally different. They look far more similar than they should because Apple's design was so inspiring. But its not about Apple people being stupid. Its about Apple viewing iOS devices more like the WebOS interface on my printer than a full featured mini-computer.
Microsoft is beating on the OEMs to get them to build more expensive systems. Dell, Toshiba.. are not anxious to included the hundreds of dollars of extra and expensive parts required to create versatile tablets in every system sold. So I don't think that's going to create opportunity for Linux.
Where I do think there is opportunity is the low end. Microsoft, assuming they are going to execute their Windows 8 strategy is going to be putting tremendous pressure on the bottom 1/2-2/3rds of the Windows consumer market by driving up prices. That's going to create the spread Linux has always needed for the low end. If even 10% of that 1/2-2/3rds go to cheap no name boxes running Linux... for $300 when Windows 8 systems are at say $800+...
OneNote on iPad is nothing like OneNote on Windows. I have no idea why Windows released a version this bad. It wasn't for fast money since they give it away on iPad. But anyway, no this is not the same thing at all.
I'm a Mac guy since 10.1. And I agree with you. One Note and the Fuji tablets are one of the few setups I always seriously consider as an alternative. One Note is a fantastic fantastic app and I hope Microsoft pushes it harder as the lead product for Office to Metro conversion since they don't have to worry as much about legacy backlash.
Well as long as we are doing an IPv6 story. Anyone have any good gossip and / or confirmed information about when Verizon is moving Fios or any plans or...?
If you mac address was being used, then likely you are auto-configuring and you have a whole/64. What you can do with it is start having functioning end to end services between the various internet enabled devices in your house and the outside world.
I thought of a way to argue this a bit better. These are two very large international companies. The trial is successful if the broad public (especially the publics in South Korea and America) comes to believe that either:
a) Samsung clearly copies from Apple b) Apple cannot prove what happened with any clarity
What is a disaster is something like c1) Apple was able to prove Samsung copied but there was substantial credible evidence excluded. c2) Apple wins but the case is broadly seen as reflecting bias
And the reason it is a disaster is that the people of South Korea will not enforce a judgement they see as unjust. And moreover the US government won't enforce a judgement where they can't honestly state that Samsung unquestionably received a fair trial. The fine here could and should be in the tens of billions. This needs to be better than a death penalty case.
I read Apple's motion thanks for the links. They seem to be arguing (page 3) that the F700 was copied from the iPhone. I think this really does come down to Quinn's claim "what's the point of having a trial". If Quinn is correct that the exclusion amounted to terminating sanction then it was too high a sanction. I disagree can create a sanction so great as to deliberately cause a jury to wrongly decide fact. The rules of evidence exist to assist in the determination of fact, they don't get to override it.
If somebody during a murder trial lies about their alibi, but in fact has an alternate valid alibi the judge can't order that excluded. They should get convicted of perjury not murder. Samsung has engaged in misconduct during the trial, but it is not clear they engaged in patent theft. If the F700 proves they are innocent, that's a very big deal. I would agree that if Quinn is telling the truth it makes Sansung's withholding during discovery far worse. And the court should sanction them strongly. But I don't think they can sanction them by excluding what Quinn consider their key defense.
A fair way to resolve this might be something like offering Quinn full access to the F700 material but in exchange if it turns out the the dates turn out like Apple alleges then the judge makes a summary judgement and Samsung doesn't get to offer any alternate defense on the patent issue since by Quinn's own admission the case hinges on these dates.
Apple might very well like Samsung having to fight a "one strike and your out". And Quinn puts up or shuts up about it being key.
IANAL just a concerned citizen but I don't like the idea of people not being able to defend themselves at trial. Quinn is right that a trial in which you are not offered the chance to defend yourself is a mockery of the very notion of trial. The way Stalin ran "show trials" was the defendant was informed that if they presented evidence in their defense they would be taken out behind the court and shot, so that while the jury might decide in their favor it wouldn't mean much. We just don't do that in America. And we shouldn't do that. I'm glad we have never consider those Stalin era trials to be real trials and used the term "show trials" to describe them.
If Koh thinks that Samsung deserved terminal sanction she should have done it and gone on record with a terminal sanction and defended that on appeal if that would be even legal. We should not be having a show trial. Quinn is absolutely 100% right that a trial designed to cause the jury to decide a case wrongly is a mockery of justice.
But they don't have to ignore the existence of the F700 completely
I agree. But the problem is (at least according to Samsung) they are making false claims about dates when things occurred. Assuming that's true, I don't think that's permissible behavior on Apple's part. And I don't think Koh has the right to permit it, regardless of how upset she is with Samsung.
The exclusion was based on Samsung misbehavior. If Apple's case is going to make positive claims about what happened inside Samsung which are false she has to let in the evidence. At that point if she fails to let in the evidence then its going beyond an exclusion.
Samsung did wrong and the penalty may be too harsh. But so far she hasn't done anything totally out of bounds. It could go there but it hasn't. You are intermixing speculation, you belief that her belief that Samsung's case is weak with a willingness to force Samsung to lose, with her actual actions.
Thanks for the correction. What Samsung is trying to claim is that they independently designed the F700 without copying Apple's design... but they can't use their documentary evidence, because they withheld it from discovery.
Its not what Apple is trying to claim. Apple is trying to claim that Samsun dependently designed the F700 they are alleging copying. Now they know that to be false because of the dates. As far as I understand it the dates make Apple's claim impossible and Samsung's evidence shows this. Once Apple claims something they know to be false based on the excluded evidence that opens the door. Apple cannot freely perjure because Samsung got sanctioned. I think at this point, Apple has opened the door. Because of Samsung's late filling Apple had the right to ignore the F700 entirely. They don't have the right to lie about the dates various events occurred.
Now if you are right and the F700 were in fact late enough that it could have been after the images of the iPhone then this whole gets tricky but I suspect the result is the same. Because Apple is still alleging events that occurred inside of Samsung i.e. they are making positive claims that Samsung employees committed torts which evidence shows they did not commit. I think they have to make a positive case for copying and that's going to be impossible not to trip over Samsung's internal documents. So again I don't see how to have the kind of one sided sanction you are pushing for without holding Apple to a very high standard.
There is two ways to look at this. F700 is either fundamental or not. If Quinn is telling the truth and the entire defense is going to based on that both Apple and Samsung were copying Sony, I'm sorry Koh cannot exclude the core of entire defense that's simply too harsh a sanction. We do not sanction defendants for minor errors without automatically losing cases. Similarly if the F700 is key to Apple's case that Samsung was copying then everything related to it is important. If it is a side issue than Apple should have the right to decide whether to just avoid it, or lose the sanction.
So I disagree pretty strongly. Once Apple makes claims about anything that happened inside Samsung the evidence of what really happened comes in. Regardless of what Samsung did during discovery. Samsung's misbehavior at discovery never gives Apple license to perjure or mislead the court.
Come on. She made a perfectly reasonable ruling against a company trying to game the system. She's getting ticked at Samsung and maybe overstepped a bit. She hasn't even actually sanctioned Quinn. She's not hopelessly compromised until she at least actually does something.
I disagree with you. I think the public's right to judicial oversight is more important than smooth judicial functioning. Getting evidence excluded from the court should not in the slightest have any bearing on getting it excluded from the public sphere. The standards for excluding from the public should be essentially substantial danger to the military / security interests of the United States and that's about it.
I understand judges may not like that. No one likes public scrutiny of their actions. But in so far as the United States still has a functioning democracy, if judges don't like it, too bad.
I agree with you the situation is terrible. But this was not Apple's fault. When in the mid 1990s tech / computer salaries started to rise quickly congress acted quickly, effectively and forcibly to suppress wages in the tech sector. We live in a capitalist country where wages correlate very strongly with public esteem. The suppression of wages coincided strongly with the suppression of influence.
The right solution would be a strong cross functional guild with protections, like the AMA or the state Bar associations. But tech people are too anarchist to go for that.
There is a doctrine called subornation of perjury. Lawyers cannot present a case they know to be false. Once they have indicated that F700 came after the iPad if that is false that's a perjury. They cannot make filings that the F700 came after, if thats false. There is no such thing as a one sided exclusion. There are a series of true statements about the F700 that can be entered into evidence or not entered. Apple has control there. Samsung having missed a deadline does not entitle Apple to enter false statements about the F700 into evidence.
And that is what Koh is permitting in Samsung's view.
Slashdot Mirror
Answered above: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3019785&cid=40854589
That makes sense in terms of auto configuration and all subnets being /64. Thanks for the answer. I asked some follow ups here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3022763&cid=40865661
Thanks for the answer.
In order to use the addresses on the transfer network, you'd have to connect all of your devices up to your modem using a switch. But that's incompatible with v4, because your ISP will only give you one v4 address, so all of those extra devices would be v6-only.
I'm not following. OK I have a ISP whose given me a /64 and one v4 address. The edge router gets the v4 and passes it through (either virtually or physically) to the firewall which is performing NAT essentially converting to my internal v6 network. From here it gets passed to my home switch which can easily handle all my devices. If I want another subnet I just stack, because the master switch can know everything in the home.
I agree that isn't routable if I want to use autoconfiguration. But if I don't I don't see the problem the routers can be configured manually for any size subnet.
I'm not following you. Your home LAN (assuming it can handle v6) gets the /64. Devices auto-assign by Mac address to all have unique v6 addresses. Why wouldn't the devices behind the home router be able to see the v6 space?
As for providing more than a /64 for home, I'm not sure why. And why would you not use your universal link for P2P?
I agree with you the Mactopia group is underfunded. For example I don't understand why they are waiting over a year for the retina update for OSX office. I was sorry when they dropped Windows Media player ... But I would disagree with you about Office sucking on OSX. Word, Excel and PowerPoint are rather nice on OSX, very stable and effective. Its more limited on OSX and I missed access (though NeoOffice Base is finally good enough to take the place of Access). Back in the days of Office X alot of people argued Office on Mac was better than Office on PC and I could see their point it had a lot of really cool features and since it still supported VBA almost no disadvantages.
Samsung spoiled evidence and filled key evidence for their case later than they should have. Those are things that are wrong. They deserved sanction.
I'm not sure if Samsung is getting a fair trial here or not. But no question the judge has every reason to be pissed at them.
Well it shows they were heading towards some of these elements, like the importance of touch. But the F700 also shows they had other ideas regarding GUI and the importance of keyboards. Its not at all clear they were "headed that way". Somehow they took a drastic diversion towards iOS interface elements and paradigms.
Mind if I point you to someone else using "surface" for both products: http://www.microsoft.com/global/surface/en/us/renderingassets/surfacespecsheet.pdf
Did Nokia irrevocably harm the phone market by constantly driving down the price of a phone until it hit a low of $19?
Yes. That prevented dumb phones from having rich features and started to create a 3 tier marketplace.
Did Asus irrevocably harm the laptop market by releasing the first cheap netbook?
I don't think the original Asus netbooks were laptops in the classic sense they went after a different groups. But did later netbooks hard laptops. Definitely, they put more margin pressure on.
Did Dell harm the PC market by pursuing lower and lower prices?
Absolutely and unquestionably! If Dell were still the Dell of 1993, making top of the line business systems and offering excellent support with great features the x86 space would be far better. I'm shocked when I look at what crap Dell makes. I'd love to see Dell's which are comparable or even better than Apple.
Others have estimated that the iPad costs around $375 to make, and sells for $729. That's a wee bit more than 20%.
The iPads range from $399 on the low end (iPad 2) to $829 on the high end (2 memory upgrades and the cellular upgrade). $729 is probably more expensive than 97% of all iPads sold.
Let's not beat around the bush here. iOS offers a very watered-down featureset so non-tech saavy people don't have trouble with it
That's actually not true. iOS offers a watered-down featureset because Steve jobs wanted iOS devices to be secondary not primary devices. As he said from the day he got back to Apple, "Good design is not about saying 'yes' to everything, it's about saying 'no' to most things and only doing the best".
With the iPod the goal was to make a fantastic MP3 player, that's it. No radio, no disk storage.... Other features were added slowly and carefully once the music player aspects were in place.
With the iPhone the goal was to get the core aspects of the interface:
-- high speed web rendering engine
-- capacitive touchscreen
-- animation based visual cues
perfect. Apps were only added later and reluctantly.
With Android the goal was to create a version of Linux with a good mobile interface. The goals have always been totally different. They look far more similar than they should because Apple's design was so inspiring. But its not about Apple people being stupid. Its about Apple viewing iOS devices more like the WebOS interface on my printer than a full featured mini-computer.
OneNote on iOS isn't remotely the same app as the one for Windows tablets. Its just called the same thing.
Microsoft is beating on the OEMs to get them to build more expensive systems. Dell, Toshiba.. are not anxious to included the hundreds of dollars of extra and expensive parts required to create versatile tablets in every system sold. So I don't think that's going to create opportunity for Linux.
Where I do think there is opportunity is the low end. Microsoft, assuming they are going to execute their Windows 8 strategy is going to be putting tremendous pressure on the bottom 1/2-2/3rds of the Windows consumer market by driving up prices. That's going to create the spread Linux has always needed for the low end. If even 10% of that 1/2-2/3rds go to cheap no name boxes running Linux... for $300 when Windows 8 systems are at say $800+ ...
OneNote on iPad is nothing like OneNote on Windows. I have no idea why Windows released a version this bad. It wasn't for fast money since they give it away on iPad. But anyway, no this is not the same thing at all.
I'm a Mac guy since 10.1. And I agree with you. One Note and the Fuji tablets are one of the few setups I always seriously consider as an alternative. One Note is a fantastic fantastic app and I hope Microsoft pushes it harder as the lead product for Office to Metro conversion since they don't have to worry as much about legacy backlash.
Well as long as we are doing an IPv6 story. Anyone have any good gossip and / or confirmed information about when Verizon is moving Fios or any plans or...?
If you mac address was being used, then likely you are auto-configuring and you have a whole /64. What you can do with it is start having functioning end to end services between the various internet enabled devices in your house and the outside world.
I thought of a way to argue this a bit better. These are two very large international companies. The trial is successful if the broad public (especially the publics in South Korea and America) comes to believe that either:
a) Samsung clearly copies from Apple
b) Apple cannot prove what happened with any clarity
What is a disaster is something like
c1) Apple was able to prove Samsung copied but there was substantial credible evidence excluded.
c2) Apple wins but the case is broadly seen as reflecting bias
And the reason it is a disaster is that the people of South Korea will not enforce a judgement they see as unjust. And moreover the US government won't enforce a judgement where they can't honestly state that Samsung unquestionably received a fair trial. The fine here could and should be in the tens of billions. This needs to be better than a death penalty case.
I read Apple's motion thanks for the links. They seem to be arguing (page 3) that the F700 was copied from the iPhone. I think this really does come down to Quinn's claim "what's the point of having a trial". If Quinn is correct that the exclusion amounted to terminating sanction then it was too high a sanction. I disagree can create a sanction so great as to deliberately cause a jury to wrongly decide fact. The rules of evidence exist to assist in the determination of fact, they don't get to override it.
If somebody during a murder trial lies about their alibi, but in fact has an alternate valid alibi the judge can't order that excluded. They should get convicted of perjury not murder. Samsung has engaged in misconduct during the trial, but it is not clear they engaged in patent theft. If the F700 proves they are innocent, that's a very big deal. I would agree that if Quinn is telling the truth it makes Sansung's withholding during discovery far worse. And the court should sanction them strongly. But I don't think they can sanction them by excluding what Quinn consider their key defense.
A fair way to resolve this might be something like offering Quinn full access to the F700 material but in exchange if it turns out the the dates turn out like Apple alleges then the judge makes a summary judgement and Samsung doesn't get to offer any alternate defense on the patent issue since by Quinn's own admission the case hinges on these dates.
Apple might very well like Samsung having to fight a "one strike and your out". And Quinn puts up or shuts up about it being key.
IANAL just a concerned citizen but I don't like the idea of people not being able to defend themselves at trial. Quinn is right that a trial in which you are not offered the chance to defend yourself is a mockery of the very notion of trial. The way Stalin ran "show trials" was the defendant was informed that if they presented evidence in their defense they would be taken out behind the court and shot, so that while the jury might decide in their favor it wouldn't mean much. We just don't do that in America. And we shouldn't do that. I'm glad we have never consider those Stalin era trials to be real trials and used the term "show trials" to describe them.
If Koh thinks that Samsung deserved terminal sanction she should have done it and gone on record with a terminal sanction and defended that on appeal if that would be even legal. We should not be having a show trial. Quinn is absolutely 100% right that a trial designed to cause the jury to decide a case wrongly is a mockery of justice.
But they don't have to ignore the existence of the F700 completely
I agree. But the problem is (at least according to Samsung) they are making false claims about dates when things occurred. Assuming that's true, I don't think that's permissible behavior on Apple's part. And I don't think Koh has the right to permit it, regardless of how upset she is with Samsung.
The exclusion was based on Samsung misbehavior. If Apple's case is going to make positive claims about what happened inside Samsung which are false she has to let in the evidence. At that point if she fails to let in the evidence then its going beyond an exclusion.
Samsung did wrong and the penalty may be too harsh. But so far she hasn't done anything totally out of bounds. It could go there but it hasn't. You are intermixing speculation, you belief that her belief that Samsung's case is weak with a willingness to force Samsung to lose, with her actual actions.
iPhone, btw, not iPad)
Thanks for the correction.
What Samsung is trying to claim is that they independently designed the F700 without copying Apple's design... but they can't use their documentary evidence, because they withheld it from discovery.
Its not what Apple is trying to claim. Apple is trying to claim that Samsun dependently designed the F700 they are alleging copying. Now they know that to be false because of the dates. As far as I understand it the dates make Apple's claim impossible and Samsung's evidence shows this. Once Apple claims something they know to be false based on the excluded evidence that opens the door. Apple cannot freely perjure because Samsung got sanctioned. I think at this point, Apple has opened the door. Because of Samsung's late filling Apple had the right to ignore the F700 entirely. They don't have the right to lie about the dates various events occurred.
Now if you are right and the F700 were in fact late enough that it could have been after the images of the iPhone then this whole gets tricky but I suspect the result is the same. Because Apple is still alleging events that occurred inside of Samsung i.e. they are making positive claims that Samsung employees committed torts which evidence shows they did not commit. I think they have to make a positive case for copying and that's going to be impossible not to trip over Samsung's internal documents. So again I don't see how to have the kind of one sided sanction you are pushing for without holding Apple to a very high standard.
There is two ways to look at this. F700 is either fundamental or not. If Quinn is telling the truth and the entire defense is going to based on that both Apple and Samsung were copying Sony, I'm sorry Koh cannot exclude the core of entire defense that's simply too harsh a sanction. We do not sanction defendants for minor errors without automatically losing cases. Similarly if the F700 is key to Apple's case that Samsung was copying then everything related to it is important. If it is a side issue than Apple should have the right to decide whether to just avoid it, or lose the sanction.
So I disagree pretty strongly. Once Apple makes claims about anything that happened inside Samsung the evidence of what really happened comes in. Regardless of what Samsung did during discovery. Samsung's misbehavior at discovery never gives Apple license to perjure or mislead the court.
Come on. She made a perfectly reasonable ruling against a company trying to game the system. She's getting ticked at Samsung and maybe overstepped a bit. She hasn't even actually sanctioned Quinn. She's not hopelessly compromised until she at least actually does something.
I disagree with you. I think the public's right to judicial oversight is more important than smooth judicial functioning. Getting evidence excluded from the court should not in the slightest have any bearing on getting it excluded from the public sphere. The standards for excluding from the public should be essentially substantial danger to the military / security interests of the United States and that's about it.
I understand judges may not like that. No one likes public scrutiny of their actions. But in so far as the United States still has a functioning democracy, if judges don't like it, too bad.
I agree with you the situation is terrible. But this was not Apple's fault. When in the mid 1990s tech / computer salaries started to rise quickly congress acted quickly, effectively and forcibly to suppress wages in the tech sector. We live in a capitalist country where wages correlate very strongly with public esteem. The suppression of wages coincided strongly with the suppression of influence.
The right solution would be a strong cross functional guild with protections, like the AMA or the state Bar associations. But tech people are too anarchist to go for that.
There is a doctrine called subornation of perjury. Lawyers cannot present a case they know to be false. Once they have indicated that F700 came after the iPad if that is false that's a perjury. They cannot make filings that the F700 came after, if thats false. There is no such thing as a one sided exclusion. There are a series of true statements about the F700 that can be entered into evidence or not entered. Apple has control there. Samsung having missed a deadline does not entitle Apple to enter false statements about the F700 into evidence.
And that is what Koh is permitting in Samsung's view.