I understand you are confused, and I understand why a simpleton's understanding of the law would lead you to ask such a question, but even though you asked the question rhetorically, I assure you that there are reasons that companies founded in one country would comply with the laws of another country. Law is complicated, and having a corporate charter in one country doesn't mean you can automatically ignore with impunity the legal landscape in the rest of the world.
I'll just give one very brief example. In the case of an ISPs and other publishing business, there has been some case law on the question of "where" does "publishing" happen? This was a question for newspapers when "community standards" laws first came about. If the New York times publishes a newspaper, has it printed in New York state, then ships that newspaper to Virginia, where a story in the paper violates a local community standard, was the paper "published" in New York or Virginia?
Think of Microsoft's anti-trust woes in Europe, and think of BetOnSports CEO Dan Carruthers being arrested when he had a flight connection in the USA. Yes, laws can extend over political boundaries; and that is why a Canadian company may consider complying with a US law.
(In this case, it's a very very bad law, and you and I probably agree that everyone should ignore this particular law.)
Well... international law is a little more complicated than that. It's not usually so simple as saying, hey, my corporate charter isn't from the same country as a certain law, so I can ignore that law. I know that will be obvious to you once you hear it, but consider Microsoft getting wrapped up in Europe's anti-trust laws. If you do business on other countries, then foreign laws can affect you, in complicated ways not always clear to us non-lawyers.
Re:Perl has died in industry (mod away, kids)
on
Perl 5.11.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Wait, wait. I'm not clear on your concept. Are you saying that compilation makes programs more stable and maintainable? What's the connection between stability, maintainability, and compilation?
Are you saying that if I ran C or C++ code inside an interpreter (and there are some), then that code would somehow become less stable and maintainable?
I'm sure you are just being a wag, because obviously anyone concerned about the stability of a production system like that wouldn't make foolish mistakes such as changing the version of their runtimes or libraries or platforms.
You don't mean to seriously suggest that you would rewrite 50,000 lines of code rather than just, you know, *do nothing*, and not update anything?
Maybe a better way to phrase it is sexual control. Okay, so the Torah insists on certain sexual practices but at the same time decries others. Forcing me to have sex in a certain way is pretty close to as offensive as forbidding me from having sex in a certain way.
And I'll just go ahead and skip the joke about modern Jews and sex.
It blows my mind the legal gyrations they must go through to rationalize why this is not acceptable for books but a-ok for software.
Hey, like you I support first sale rights for books and for software, but I think the answer to your question might be that books and software are different things, and we have different rules for different things.
Well we're not looking for absolute proof, just a preponderance of evidence:
* the user is engaging in an English-language forum * the user has a username in English * the username is a reference to an English-speaking character popular in English-speaking countries * the user has an English tagline * the user uses complex English tenses ("having seen") * the user doesn't make any other grammatical errors common in non-native speakers (such as dropping articles or mixing up plurals) * I looked at the user's other comments, which were all in well-composed English.
The response from AC was still a troll, but there is no reason to doubt the user is a native English speaker. And with that, I mostly agree with the AC: native speakers shouldn't be making mistakes like "lose/loose", "their/they're", "who/whom", or "its/it's". We were all supposed to learn those rules in, what, second grade or something, and then go on to use them every year through 12th grade, and in life. A little social pressure in the form of mockery is a reasonable way to keep us all using the same language.
All that said, this particular user seems to have a history of reasonably good English composition in other comments, so I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and say maybe this was just a mistake.
Fair enough, but Apple has ignored every complaint I've ever sent them in 15 years, so it wouldn't be much effort for them to ignore even more complaints.
However by the corporation doing the same thing, they are hurting apple as they are making a product that is directly competing with their product
Wait wait, explain how a Palm Pre competes with the iTunes Music Store? Because those are the two products in question here. You seem to refer to iPods, which are a different product.
Eeeeh, yeah maybe. First, not all contracts are binding, though this one probably is. Contracts cannot, for instance, be unconscionable, or remove inalienable rights. This contract probably doesn't meet those standards, but it's not far off.
However, this contract does stifle interoperability, which is a market behavior protected in some ways by law. Furthermore, there is certainly a "reasonable argument" to require a company to allow others to interoperate with its de facto standard hardware, the way we forced AT&T to let other telcos use their phone lines, or the way we are in the process of forcing car makers to share their computer codes.
I wouldn't predict that Palm will win a legal battle here, but it is certainly not an open/shut case like you present it.
All Apple is refusing to do for Palm is let them integrate Pre into the main iTunes application. That would require Apple to publish and maintain a plug-in API for iTunes which would cost Apple money. Why should they?
To be fair, really the opposite is true. Palm will spend all the needed money to develop a product which works with Apple's *unpublished* API, and all Apple has to do is... nothing. I think the entire beef is that Apple is spending money specifically to exclude Palm, not that Palm is somehow asking Apple to spend money.
So I am going to side with Palm on this one, not legally but ethically. Apple should do nothing. It should go on with its business of selling iPods and iPhones and apps and music and computers, and not go out of its way to lock out competitors. The competitors would be charged with the difficult task of keeping up with Apple's unpublished interfaces and changes. I say that as a consumer, because I think that Apple's inaction would benefit the marketplace, and me.
I'm not perfectly clear on the details, but I read the article, and I think Palm merely stated that they *plan* to use Apple's vendor ID, not that they already have.
There are a number of posts in this discussion saying what you said, but I can't say I agree. I remember the old Slashdot, and the new Slashdot is a big improvement. I've never had a problem loading the site or having it work incorrectly, although years ago I had longstanding problems with Slashdot. Also, I like the new eBay layout better than the old one. It's nice. Moreover, I generally like the new wave of advanced website interfaces, which I find much more compelling than plain HTML pages.
That's just my two cents. I have no criticism of your opinion.
Nah, dude, privacy is a sliding scale. Some places I have a lot, some places I have less, and some places I have very little. When I am walking down the street, I'm somewhere in between. I disagree with people who think that once you step out the door, anybody for any reason can always do whatever they want to record you or track you with no limitations forever.
Hmmm. I disagree about electronic surveillance and automatic law enforcement. Requiring a human enforcer to do the enforcement is a check on the reach of the law. It is a check that I like. Since I live in a democracy, this is a political issue, and if a majority agrees with me, then we shouldn't have speed cameras.
Interesting. I've always thought of multi-party states as looking out for privacy more than single-party states. It's a difficult balance between not wanting to be recorded, and wanting to record other people. I'm ambivalent, and I don't know what the right balance would be, but I don't think I'd want either extreme of that type of law.
If prior art would vacate this patent, don't you think Facebook lawyers would have mentioned it? Are you suggesting that the team of Facebook lawyers is so incompetent as to not understand the technology or law related to this suit?
I think it's a lot more likely that none of the wags commenting here at Slashdot really understand the case. I tried to look up the patent, but frankly I don't understand patents. The articles weren't very informative.
Absolutely true. I know many Apple employees personally, and if there is one thing I can say that is true about every last one of them, it's that they are absolute dicks. They will pull software shenanigans left and right with wanton disregard -- nay, hostility -- toward their users. I'm sure, like you said, it was pure unreasoned malice on the part of Apple employees.
Guys, guys, calm down. Obviously this poster is making a joke. We all know that quantum particles come in pairs or groups; we all know that quantum particles are often monopoles, most famously electrons and positrons.
More than anything, we all know that quantum particles aren't like coins -- they are more like cars...
Slashdot Mirror
I understand you are confused, and I understand why a simpleton's understanding of the law would lead you to ask such a question, but even though you asked the question rhetorically, I assure you that there are reasons that companies founded in one country would comply with the laws of another country. Law is complicated, and having a corporate charter in one country doesn't mean you can automatically ignore with impunity the legal landscape in the rest of the world.
I'll just give one very brief example. In the case of an ISPs and other publishing business, there has been some case law on the question of "where" does "publishing" happen? This was a question for newspapers when "community standards" laws first came about. If the New York times publishes a newspaper, has it printed in New York state, then ships that newspaper to Virginia, where a story in the paper violates a local community standard, was the paper "published" in New York or Virginia?
Think of Microsoft's anti-trust woes in Europe, and think of BetOnSports CEO Dan Carruthers being arrested when he had a flight connection in the USA. Yes, laws can extend over political boundaries; and that is why a Canadian company may consider complying with a US law.
(In this case, it's a very very bad law, and you and I probably agree that everyone should ignore this particular law.)
Well... international law is a little more complicated than that. It's not usually so simple as saying, hey, my corporate charter isn't from the same country as a certain law, so I can ignore that law. I know that will be obvious to you once you hear it, but consider Microsoft getting wrapped up in Europe's anti-trust laws. If you do business on other countries, then foreign laws can affect you, in complicated ways not always clear to us non-lawyers.
Wait, wait. I'm not clear on your concept. Are you saying that compilation makes programs more stable and maintainable? What's the connection between stability, maintainability, and compilation?
Are you saying that if I ran C or C++ code inside an interpreter (and there are some), then that code would somehow become less stable and maintainable?
I don't think major implementations for professional clients is the right time to be "adventurous".
I'm sure you are just being a wag, because obviously anyone concerned about the stability of a production system like that wouldn't make foolish mistakes such as changing the version of their runtimes or libraries or platforms.
You don't mean to seriously suggest that you would rewrite 50,000 lines of code rather than just, you know, *do nothing*, and not update anything?
Maybe a better way to phrase it is sexual control. Okay, so the Torah insists on certain sexual practices but at the same time decries others. Forcing me to have sex in a certain way is pretty close to as offensive as forbidding me from having sex in a certain way.
And I'll just go ahead and skip the joke about modern Jews and sex.
Oh no! That video is the new rickroll.
It blows my mind the legal gyrations they must go through to rationalize why this is not acceptable for books but a-ok for software.
Hey, like you I support first sale rights for books and for software, but I think the answer to your question might be that books and software are different things, and we have different rules for different things.
Well we're not looking for absolute proof, just a preponderance of evidence:
* the user is engaging in an English-language forum
* the user has a username in English
* the username is a reference to an English-speaking character popular in English-speaking countries
* the user has an English tagline
* the user uses complex English tenses ("having seen")
* the user doesn't make any other grammatical errors common in non-native speakers (such as dropping articles or mixing up plurals)
* I looked at the user's other comments, which were all in well-composed English.
The response from AC was still a troll, but there is no reason to doubt the user is a native English speaker. And with that, I mostly agree with the AC: native speakers shouldn't be making mistakes like "lose/loose", "their/they're", "who/whom", or "its/it's". We were all supposed to learn those rules in, what, second grade or something, and then go on to use them every year through 12th grade, and in life. A little social pressure in the form of mockery is a reasonable way to keep us all using the same language.
All that said, this particular user seems to have a history of reasonably good English composition in other comments, so I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and say maybe this was just a mistake.
Fair enough, but Apple has ignored every complaint I've ever sent them in 15 years, so it wouldn't be much effort for them to ignore even more complaints.
However by the corporation doing the same thing, they are hurting apple as they are making a product that is directly competing with their product
Wait wait, explain how a Palm Pre competes with the iTunes Music Store? Because those are the two products in question here. You seem to refer to iPods, which are a different product.
Eeeeh, yeah maybe. First, not all contracts are binding, though this one probably is. Contracts cannot, for instance, be unconscionable, or remove inalienable rights. This contract probably doesn't meet those standards, but it's not far off.
However, this contract does stifle interoperability, which is a market behavior protected in some ways by law. Furthermore, there is certainly a "reasonable argument" to require a company to allow others to interoperate with its de facto standard hardware, the way we forced AT&T to let other telcos use their phone lines, or the way we are in the process of forcing car makers to share their computer codes.
I wouldn't predict that Palm will win a legal battle here, but it is certainly not an open/shut case like you present it.
All Apple is refusing to do for Palm is let them integrate Pre into the main iTunes application. That would require Apple to publish and maintain a plug-in API for iTunes which would cost Apple money. Why should they?
To be fair, really the opposite is true. Palm will spend all the needed money to develop a product which works with Apple's *unpublished* API, and all Apple has to do is ... nothing. I think the entire beef is that Apple is spending money specifically to exclude Palm, not that Palm is somehow asking Apple to spend money.
So I am going to side with Palm on this one, not legally but ethically. Apple should do nothing. It should go on with its business of selling iPods and iPhones and apps and music and computers, and not go out of its way to lock out competitors. The competitors would be charged with the difficult task of keeping up with Apple's unpublished interfaces and changes. I say that as a consumer, because I think that Apple's inaction would benefit the marketplace, and me.
I'm not perfectly clear on the details, but I read the article, and I think Palm merely stated that they *plan* to use Apple's vendor ID, not that they already have.
Yeah, that's the thing that I plugged into my cable modem and wireless router two or three years ago. Golly, I haven't touched one since then.
Oh, oh! I've got one for you! Do you know what a TRS-80 is?
There are a number of posts in this discussion saying what you said, but I can't say I agree. I remember the old Slashdot, and the new Slashdot is a big improvement. I've never had a problem loading the site or having it work incorrectly, although years ago I had longstanding problems with Slashdot. Also, I like the new eBay layout better than the old one. It's nice. Moreover, I generally like the new wave of advanced website interfaces, which I find much more compelling than plain HTML pages.
That's just my two cents. I have no criticism of your opinion.
Sure. To protect unimportant people, too.
Ha ha ha ha! Awesome. You criticized somebody's math, but couldn't even do the division yourself. That's hilarious.
MATH FAIL.
Nah, dude, privacy is a sliding scale. Some places I have a lot, some places I have less, and some places I have very little. When I am walking down the street, I'm somewhere in between. I disagree with people who think that once you step out the door, anybody for any reason can always do whatever they want to record you or track you with no limitations forever.
Hmmm. I disagree about electronic surveillance and automatic law enforcement. Requiring a human enforcer to do the enforcement is a check on the reach of the law. It is a check that I like. Since I live in a democracy, this is a political issue, and if a majority agrees with me, then we shouldn't have speed cameras.
Interesting. I've always thought of multi-party states as looking out for privacy more than single-party states. It's a difficult balance between not wanting to be recorded, and wanting to record other people. I'm ambivalent, and I don't know what the right balance would be, but I don't think I'd want either extreme of that type of law.
If prior art would vacate this patent, don't you think Facebook lawyers would have mentioned it? Are you suggesting that the team of Facebook lawyers is so incompetent as to not understand the technology or law related to this suit?
I think it's a lot more likely that none of the wags commenting here at Slashdot really understand the case. I tried to look up the patent, but frankly I don't understand patents. The articles weren't very informative.
Absolutely true. I know many Apple employees personally, and if there is one thing I can say that is true about every last one of them, it's that they are absolute dicks. They will pull software shenanigans left and right with wanton disregard -- nay, hostility -- toward their users. I'm sure, like you said, it was pure unreasoned malice on the part of Apple employees.
Guys, guys, calm down. Obviously this poster is making a joke. We all know that quantum particles come in pairs or groups; we all know that quantum particles are often monopoles, most famously electrons and positrons.
More than anything, we all know that quantum particles aren't like coins -- they are more like cars...
Larger, maybe, but it can hardly be incomparably larger, considering you just compared them.
Also, the most pressing environmental catastrophe is the poisoning of the oceans.