Perhaps I simply lack the imagination. Perhaps someone here could offer up a reasonable rationale as to how a carrier locked phone is protecting ANYONE's copyright? You understand this is being done, apparently, under the DMCA.
The carriers have no copyright over which carrier I use.
Now if they are talking about rooting a phone and loading custom firmware? That's a different matter. Because as we know, "media" such as flash drives, recordable CD/DVDs and such have been the target of pre-emtive fines/taxes which presume people will use them for violating someone's copyright and these measures are meant to compensate the largest of the copyright NPEs. (I love that -- NPEs: Non-Practicing Entities. They don't create music or art... they just buy it, limit it it and control it. We should all start calling the copyright houses copyright NPEs to better identify how they contribute to the arts.)
But that's the thing about phones. The software/firmware is a part of the functional device. The software/firmware is copyrightable... but also patentable... it is erasable... replaceable. The software which carriers peddle contains things which the consumer has no interest to say the least and often arguably serves to harm the consumer. It is not about copyright as much as it is controlling the device and the consumer by extension. This exceeds the intent and purpose of copyright AND the DMCA.
Her behavior, actions and reaction spoke volumes. Yeah sure, it's all speculation even if she were to personally respond to my commentary personally admitting or denying everything I said. But based on what people do, it's not often hard to peice together what motivates a person to have done them.
At some point, when a thing is so broken that you can't possibly piece it back together with any coherence, you just have to toss it out and get a new one.
Partly true there... but the other part is that she was not prepared for what she had. She saw Apple as most people generally do from the beginning. "Winner" was her presumption. Following the ["what's the point of having a trial at all!?"] trial showed how things were stacked against Samsung, "the evil asian company who couldn't possibly do anything but shamelessly copy honest American companies" AMIRITE? As the trial went on, she began to see things a bit differently. But the Jury foreman made his mind up long before the trial had begin -- his dream of revenge had come true and he couldn't hold back.
This truth is most certainly stranger than fiction. Good fiction has basis in fact. This trial had less of that.
Another commenter accurately observes that the appeals would likely trash her whole case in a most humiliating way if she didn't do something herself. And for a while there, it looked like she wasn't going to do anything at all!! This makes me wonder what thing occurred to spur her into action on this issue. Still, she maintains her stance on the matter of Jury Misconduct -- she won't call it that at all... won't even come close to it. But I'm really curious about what revelation caused Koh to take action.
She needs to order a new trial. Not just one for the damages. The jury's rulings themselves are in as much question as the damages. And to say "these damages make sense but these others don't?" I'm sorry. But I can't see logic or reason behind this sort of selective editing. The jury was screwed up and all over the place. A whole new trial is warranted here.
It's still a very current event and one that is quite relevant to "the new PC." In case you haven't been paying attention, the notion of the smart phone is still developing quite rapidly. Also, the thing about patents... software patents, F/RAND patents, standards critical patents and all that. This one trial encompasses many hot issues. Also it involves Apple whose new empire no longer cares about the computers it was once known for and now the devices and the media it sells... err... I mean "licenses."
You might be bored already and that's understandable. You have been conditioned like all the rest of the sheeple to only being able to care about something for a short time. How's that conditioning working out for you? Works great for slaves to have no long term memory, no long term vision of the future and only cares about today and what you can buy with that little you have + whatever credit you qualify for.
(sorry, that's a bit rough, but it's rather true of the larger demographic in the US today... they can't care about anything for any amount of time and can't begin to understand why anyone else cares about anything else.)
... gaming addicts (you should know if you are one or not) are the least mentally and/or emotionally disciplined people. So talk all you like about "vote with your dollars... quarters... dimes... nickels... pennies..." and they may even agree with you (providing they paid attention long enough and actually understood any of what you said) but the moment something they want appears, it won't matter.
But this is essentially true of ALL humans. Any time people want something enough, they will mentally and emotionally justify it in the most ridiculous ways denying and defying all reason, morality or logic to their deaths. We all have that flaw to varying degrees. (Except for me... I'm perfect... j/k)
Marketers know how to exploit this human weakness. And without proper law restricting what marketers can do, we will not see an end to it. And it's not like suck measures are without precedent. Look to tobacco, drugs and alcohol advertisements. For that matter, when was the last time you saw an ad on TV for firearms? Wonder why that is?
On the other hand, ever watch some of those late-night, off-branded TV networks? The ridiculous ads and pitches there? Most of them are disgustingly targetted at the stupid, the old or both. "Hey! I've got sonic hearing!!" I'm not saying there is a hell, but if there was one, the people who peddle that stuff certainly need to relocate there. But back to my point.
Gamers -- especially gamer addicts -- will not stand up for what they believe in over getting that next achievement unlocked.
I think it might be easier so that we can properly make all of these class distinctions clear.
So Assault weapons, for example, should only be available to government and government contractors who may or may not be working for the government at any given moment. Aerial drones? Same story.
We have to make these class distinctions clear or else many people will unwittingly make the mistake of thinking we have a government of the people, by the people and/or for the people. This is simply not the case and we should all be 100% clear on that point.
These NPEs are a serious threat to large patent holders. Normally, patent holders come to some sort of agreement. In the case of NPEs, there is almost no negotiating. These large patent holders invariably have a lobby or two which they contribute to. NPEs? Not so much.
I am an old school geek. I wear my phone in a pouch on my hip. Keys, and change go in my pocket... wallet in hit pocket.
Can't put those giant larger phones on my hip... it's getting ridiculous enough with the Nexus 4. I do appreciate the higher screen resolutions, but the Nexus 4 delivers that well enough for now. But I also like my Nexus 7 for those other functions like GPS and such... though admittedly, the last time I was doing GPS, it was my Nexus 4.
The only thing that can hope to topple MS Office is an open document format. Microsoft has a format in ISO but it's not quite accurate enough to do an independant implementation and has many vague descriiptions of behaviors and/or descriptions of behaviors that references things not part of the office suite. (I'm sure most of us followed the whole ISO certification thing... they "fast tracked" a standard which wasn't complete or accurate and has yet to be fully implemented.)
So OOXML is still quite proprietary and no one can faithfully implement it based on the ISO speciification alone. And so since MS Office documents are still the defacto standard in business and government, nothing else but Microsoft Office can be used to access the data faithfully.
And yet, if there was a version of the audio CD which boasted 48 bits @ 192kHz, you know as well as I do that there would be people who would opt for that over the current standard and proclaim that they can tell the difference.
So you're trying to get into "acceptable loss" vs "unacceptable loss" which largely comes down to opinion.
It is technically possible to go straight from analog to [lossy] compressed encoded signals. My point is that is really boils down mostly to perception over practical reality.
All digitally encoded analog data is "lossy." Even CDs are "lossy." Any time analog is translated to a storage medium, there is "loss." Even high quality MP3s are considered lossy, but if I copy them from one device to another, the file does not change and nothing is lost. While it is true that the form of compression used to further encode MP3s is "lossy" or "lossier" the encoder (the person doing the encoding) most often determines the quality of the file. Most of the time, there is no effective loss at all. I just love that some people say "I can tell the difference." Most of the time, I call bullshit on that.
So for anyone who seeks to avoid "lossy" formats, please rethink your rationale. It's kind of ridiculous... to a point.
I do not claim free market idealism. I hope to show how ridiculous the notion is and now they [business and 1%] want their cake, our cake and to eat it too.
As for immigration? It has to do with more than a labor supply and market forces. A lot more. There has always been good cause for keeping controls in place for immigration regardless of purpose.
And there is no escaping the reality that H1-B is all about getting cheaper labor. If companies paid enough, there would be no shortage of any given type of labor. We have no shortage of people. We have no shortage of skills or training. We also have no shortage of greed.
And seriously, when business measures itself in growth, every time they reach a limit, they panic.
If people are FORCED into change, they are likely to seek out alternatives to the offerings of the party which is forcing the change. In this case, Windows 8 is such a significant change, coupled with the general dissatisfaction of Windows users, they are not prepared to continue on with the [new] status quo when other alternatives appear to be viable.
Prior to Android, there were no serious contenders and so Microsoft got away with adding, changing and deleting things which annoyed and upset users without fear of losing sales. But things are different now. Abuse should be removed as part of the business model.
It's not legal. The requirement is to advertise for a local potential for a certain amount of time before they proceed into H1-B territory.
There is no mystery as to what they are trying to pull.
There should be no H1-B program. We are a "supply and demand" idealism nation. If a company needs something, they should depend on the market's invisible hand instead of relying on the government to interfere with their business.
We all know the truth though. They all want government to give them things and to make it easier or cheaper for them, but they don't want the government to protect the interests of the people or the nation as a whole. So for every argument business makes about wanting the government out of their business, ask them if they are willing to give up all that the government gives them such as "copyright" "patents" and all sorts of other things like.
The truth is, without government to "balance" things, someone will get too powerful and cause things to destabilize. It happens again and again and again. Trouble is, things are ALREADY destabilized and things seem to be getting worse every time I look. Everything favors business interests at the expense of the people... the pedestrians... the slaves. "The Human Resources."
One of the best things about growing up is being able to forget (or deny) what an idiot you were when you were younger. Surely, our mistakes make us what we are today, yet people persist in judging others by the mistakes which were made and not what someone may have become after having committed them. We too often presume a person *is* the mistakes of their past and that a person can never be more than he is today. What a pathetic way of seeing things... but then again, most people see things through their own eyes... the eyes of a person who lacks the ability to change, improve or to learn.
People want to keep using their computers, at the very least, in the way they have grown accustomed. Microsoft has a winner in the present day Windows 7. (Hilarious that I would even say that, but I did.) The last thing Microsoft should do right now is attempt to take that away from its customers and yet that's clearly Microsoft's aim.
People don't want change. They don't want it forced on them and yet if they want a new computer, guess what is most likely to come on it? And most of those people don't have the skill to put Windows 7 on it so they are pretty much stuck with whatever comes with it. So increasingly, they are resisting the need to even buy new computers. This doesn't sit well with computer sellers.
ASUS has shown the buying public is interested in tablets but they don't "need" Windows. The Google Nexus 7 has proven itself well. HP, a starving PC maker just wants a piece of that action. How long before Dell does the same? I know Dell has played in that field already... they inexplicably [my opinion] pulled out. Every attempt at supporting Linux was half-hearted enough to make me believe they did it to "prove" that Linux is not a viable alternative to Windows. Just a theory...
But Microsoft stopped caring long ago about what people want and what they don't want. They have demonstrated their contempt for the public numerous times. People have somewhere else to go now... and we are seeing them go.
That sounds like a great idea until you realize that it makes devices both limited and increasingly disposable.
But true. I love wirelessly sync'ing and browsing files on my phone and stuff. And exposure through USB is also kinda cool. But I also like being able ot add value to my devices by adding and removing storage. It also increases privacy by adding the ability to remove private data physically.
That's the thing: Microsoft has been making these claims for a VERY long time. No one has produced a list. Many such claims would be worked around if they were identified while others would likely become invalidated for various other causes under re-examination. Software patents, as it turns out, are usually quite weak.
According to some things I have read, it seems the patent(s) in question involve the FAT file system which is used on so many consumer devices.
Linus Torlvalds described long filenames long before Microsoft did it. That is prior art. But worse, FAT is a software patent and one which is decidedly used to prevent compatibility... or in this case, "tax" compatibility. I'd like to see Microsoft attempt to extract injunctive relief so that this matter can get the attention it needs.
I would agree with you on principle, but there are two problems with that notion:
1. Different versions of MS Windows, though "completely different" are still marked by the same [often disappointing] user experiences and complaints. 2. People, based on their experiences with MS Windows, are not willing to own a Windows phone or tablet (based on #1) so they will never see that one windows mobile experience is completely different from another which, ironically enough, makes their Windows mobile in-experience identical.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I simply lack the imagination. Perhaps someone here could offer up a reasonable rationale as to how a carrier locked phone is protecting ANYONE's copyright? You understand this is being done, apparently, under the DMCA.
The carriers have no copyright over which carrier I use.
Now if they are talking about rooting a phone and loading custom firmware? That's a different matter. Because as we know, "media" such as flash drives, recordable CD/DVDs and such have been the target of pre-emtive fines/taxes which presume people will use them for violating someone's copyright and these measures are meant to compensate the largest of the copyright NPEs. (I love that -- NPEs: Non-Practicing Entities. They don't create music or art... they just buy it, limit it it and control it. We should all start calling the copyright houses copyright NPEs to better identify how they contribute to the arts.)
But that's the thing about phones. The software/firmware is a part of the functional device. The software/firmware is copyrightable... but also patentable... it is erasable... replaceable. The software which carriers peddle contains things which the consumer has no interest to say the least and often arguably serves to harm the consumer. It is not about copyright as much as it is controlling the device and the consumer by extension. This exceeds the intent and purpose of copyright AND the DMCA.
Her behavior, actions and reaction spoke volumes. Yeah sure, it's all speculation even if she were to personally respond to my commentary personally admitting or denying everything I said. But based on what people do, it's not often hard to peice together what motivates a person to have done them.
At some point, when a thing is so broken that you can't possibly piece it back together with any coherence, you just have to toss it out and get a new one.
Partly true there... but the other part is that she was not prepared for what she had. She saw Apple as most people generally do from the beginning. "Winner" was her presumption. Following the ["what's the point of having a trial at all!?"] trial showed how things were stacked against Samsung, "the evil asian company who couldn't possibly do anything but shamelessly copy honest American companies" AMIRITE? As the trial went on, she began to see things a bit differently. But the Jury foreman made his mind up long before the trial had begin -- his dream of revenge had come true and he couldn't hold back.
This truth is most certainly stranger than fiction. Good fiction has basis in fact. This trial had less of that.
Another commenter accurately observes that the appeals would likely trash her whole case in a most humiliating way if she didn't do something herself. And for a while there, it looked like she wasn't going to do anything at all!! This makes me wonder what thing occurred to spur her into action on this issue. Still, she maintains her stance on the matter of Jury Misconduct -- she won't call it that at all... won't even come close to it. But I'm really curious about what revelation caused Koh to take action.
She needs to order a new trial. Not just one for the damages. The jury's rulings themselves are in as much question as the damages. And to say "these damages make sense but these others don't?" I'm sorry. But I can't see logic or reason behind this sort of selective editing. The jury was screwed up and all over the place. A whole new trial is warranted here.
It's still a very current event and one that is quite relevant to "the new PC." In case you haven't been paying attention, the notion of the smart phone is still developing quite rapidly. Also, the thing about patents... software patents, F/RAND patents, standards critical patents and all that. This one trial encompasses many hot issues. Also it involves Apple whose new empire no longer cares about the computers it was once known for and now the devices and the media it sells... err... I mean "licenses."
You might be bored already and that's understandable. You have been conditioned like all the rest of the sheeple to only being able to care about something for a short time. How's that conditioning working out for you? Works great for slaves to have no long term memory, no long term vision of the future and only cares about today and what you can buy with that little you have + whatever credit you qualify for.
(sorry, that's a bit rough, but it's rather true of the larger demographic in the US today... they can't care about anything for any amount of time and can't begin to understand why anyone else cares about anything else.)
... gaming addicts (you should know if you are one or not) are the least mentally and/or emotionally disciplined people. So talk all you like about "vote with your dollars... quarters... dimes... nickels... pennies..." and they may even agree with you (providing they paid attention long enough and actually understood any of what you said) but the moment something they want appears, it won't matter.
But this is essentially true of ALL humans. Any time people want something enough, they will mentally and emotionally justify it in the most ridiculous ways denying and defying all reason, morality or logic to their deaths. We all have that flaw to varying degrees. (Except for me... I'm perfect... j/k)
Marketers know how to exploit this human weakness. And without proper law restricting what marketers can do, we will not see an end to it. And it's not like suck measures are without precedent. Look to tobacco, drugs and alcohol advertisements. For that matter, when was the last time you saw an ad on TV for firearms? Wonder why that is?
On the other hand, ever watch some of those late-night, off-branded TV networks? The ridiculous ads and pitches there? Most of them are disgustingly targetted at the stupid, the old or both. "Hey! I've got sonic hearing!!" I'm not saying there is a hell, but if there was one, the people who peddle that stuff certainly need to relocate there. But back to my point.
Gamers -- especially gamer addicts -- will not stand up for what they believe in over getting that next achievement unlocked.
Government exemptions are implied.
I think it might be easier so that we can properly make all of these class distinctions clear.
So Assault weapons, for example, should only be available to government and government contractors who may or may not be working for the government at any given moment. Aerial drones? Same story.
We have to make these class distinctions clear or else many people will unwittingly make the mistake of thinking we have a government of the people, by the people and/or for the people. This is simply not the case and we should all be 100% clear on that point.
These NPEs are a serious threat to large patent holders. Normally, patent holders come to some sort of agreement. In the case of NPEs, there is almost no negotiating. These large patent holders invariably have a lobby or two which they contribute to. NPEs? Not so much.
I am an old school geek. I wear my phone in a pouch on my hip. Keys, and change go in my pocket... wallet in hit pocket.
Can't put those giant larger phones on my hip... it's getting ridiculous enough with the Nexus 4. I do appreciate the higher screen resolutions, but the Nexus 4 delivers that well enough for now. But I also like my Nexus 7 for those other functions like GPS and such... though admittedly, the last time I was doing GPS, it was my Nexus 4.
Obligatory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSaQx1jgM-I
The only thing that can hope to topple MS Office is an open document format. Microsoft has a format in ISO but it's not quite accurate enough to do an independant implementation and has many vague descriiptions of behaviors and/or descriptions of behaviors that references things not part of the office suite. (I'm sure most of us followed the whole ISO certification thing... they "fast tracked" a standard which wasn't complete or accurate and has yet to be fully implemented.)
So OOXML is still quite proprietary and no one can faithfully implement it based on the ISO speciification alone. And so since MS Office documents are still the defacto standard in business and government, nothing else but Microsoft Office can be used to access the data faithfully.
And yet, if there was a version of the audio CD which boasted 48 bits @ 192kHz, you know as well as I do that there would be people who would opt for that over the current standard and proclaim that they can tell the difference.
So you're trying to get into "acceptable loss" vs "unacceptable loss" which largely comes down to opinion.
It is technically possible to go straight from analog to [lossy] compressed encoded signals. My point is that is really boils down mostly to perception over practical reality.
All digitally encoded analog data is "lossy." Even CDs are "lossy." Any time analog is translated to a storage medium, there is "loss." Even high quality MP3s are considered lossy, but if I copy them from one device to another, the file does not change and nothing is lost. While it is true that the form of compression used to further encode MP3s is "lossy" or "lossier" the encoder (the person doing the encoding) most often determines the quality of the file. Most of the time, there is no effective loss at all. I just love that some people say "I can tell the difference." Most of the time, I call bullshit on that.
So for anyone who seeks to avoid "lossy" formats, please rethink your rationale. It's kind of ridiculous ... to a point.
I do not claim free market idealism. I hope to show how ridiculous the notion is and now they [business and 1%] want their cake, our cake and to eat it too.
As for immigration? It has to do with more than a labor supply and market forces. A lot more. There has always been good cause for keeping controls in place for immigration regardless of purpose.
And there is no escaping the reality that H1-B is all about getting cheaper labor. If companies paid enough, there would be no shortage of any given type of labor. We have no shortage of people. We have no shortage of skills or training. We also have no shortage of greed.
And seriously, when business measures itself in growth, every time they reach a limit, they panic.
My point stands.
If people are FORCED into change, they are likely to seek out alternatives to the offerings of the party which is forcing the change. In this case, Windows 8 is such a significant change, coupled with the general dissatisfaction of Windows users, they are not prepared to continue on with the [new] status quo when other alternatives appear to be viable.
Prior to Android, there were no serious contenders and so Microsoft got away with adding, changing and deleting things which annoyed and upset users without fear of losing sales. But things are different now. Abuse should be removed as part of the business model.
It's not legal. The requirement is to advertise for a local potential for a certain amount of time before they proceed into H1-B territory.
There is no mystery as to what they are trying to pull.
There should be no H1-B program. We are a "supply and demand" idealism nation. If a company needs something, they should depend on the market's invisible hand instead of relying on the government to interfere with their business.
We all know the truth though. They all want government to give them things and to make it easier or cheaper for them, but they don't want the government to protect the interests of the people or the nation as a whole. So for every argument business makes about wanting the government out of their business, ask them if they are willing to give up all that the government gives them such as "copyright" "patents" and all sorts of other things like.
The truth is, without government to "balance" things, someone will get too powerful and cause things to destabilize. It happens again and again and again. Trouble is, things are ALREADY destabilized and things seem to be getting worse every time I look. Everything favors business interests at the expense of the people... the pedestrians... the slaves. "The Human Resources."
Exactly what I was thinking. /discussion
One of the best things about growing up is being able to forget (or deny) what an idiot you were when you were younger. Surely, our mistakes make us what we are today, yet people persist in judging others by the mistakes which were made and not what someone may have become after having committed them. We too often presume a person *is* the mistakes of their past and that a person can never be more than he is today. What a pathetic way of seeing things... but then again, most people see things through their own eyes... the eyes of a person who lacks the ability to change, improve or to learn.
People want to keep using their computers, at the very least, in the way they have grown accustomed. Microsoft has a winner in the present day Windows 7. (Hilarious that I would even say that, but I did.) The last thing Microsoft should do right now is attempt to take that away from its customers and yet that's clearly Microsoft's aim.
People don't want change. They don't want it forced on them and yet if they want a new computer, guess what is most likely to come on it? And most of those people don't have the skill to put Windows 7 on it so they are pretty much stuck with whatever comes with it. So increasingly, they are resisting the need to even buy new computers. This doesn't sit well with computer sellers.
ASUS has shown the buying public is interested in tablets but they don't "need" Windows. The Google Nexus 7 has proven itself well. HP, a starving PC maker just wants a piece of that action. How long before Dell does the same? I know Dell has played in that field already... they inexplicably [my opinion] pulled out. Every attempt at supporting Linux was half-hearted enough to make me believe they did it to "prove" that Linux is not a viable alternative to Windows. Just a theory...
But Microsoft stopped caring long ago about what people want and what they don't want. They have demonstrated their contempt for the public numerous times. People have somewhere else to go now... and we are seeing them go.
That sounds like a great idea until you realize that it makes devices both limited and increasingly disposable.
But true. I love wirelessly sync'ing and browsing files on my phone and stuff. And exposure through USB is also kinda cool. But I also like being able ot add value to my devices by adding and removing storage. It also increases privacy by adding the ability to remove private data physically.
No, I am saying a legal and patent re-examination attack.
That's the thing: Microsoft has been making these claims for a VERY long time. No one has produced a list. Many such claims would be worked around if they were identified while others would likely become invalidated for various other causes under re-examination. Software patents, as it turns out, are usually quite weak.
According to some things I have read, it seems the patent(s) in question involve the FAT file system which is used on so many consumer devices.
Linus Torlvalds described long filenames long before Microsoft did it. That is prior art. But worse, FAT is a software patent and one which is decidedly used to prevent compatibility... or in this case, "tax" compatibility. I'd like to see Microsoft attempt to extract injunctive relief so that this matter can get the attention it needs.
I would agree with you on principle, but there are two problems with that notion:
1. Different versions of MS Windows, though "completely different" are still marked by the same [often disappointing] user experiences and complaints.
2. People, based on their experiences with MS Windows, are not willing to own a Windows phone or tablet (based on #1) so they will never see that one windows mobile experience is completely different from another which, ironically enough, makes their Windows mobile in-experience identical.