Because this "nixing" Apple is doing has nothing at all to do with anyone who is buying anything through regular retail channels.
It applies only to those who are buying through special channels, i.e. those who want a better deal to promote their service off the back of the iThing.
This is all about the doctrine of first sale. It is absolutely important here. And the entire point is -- the first person who buys the product (who is NOT anyone who buys any devices in any Apple Store) agrees to certain terms, in return for some additional consideration.
This has NOTHING, at ALL, to do with anyone who goes and buys an iThing. You can go buy an iThing and give it away as a promotion in your shop.
BUT.
If you don't want to buy all the iThings at retail, and instead want to convince Apple to subsidize the cost for advertising reasons or some other, then they may choose to do so -- if you agree to certain terms.
Apple is not imposing any rules on what you do with their products after you buy them.
But, they are offering an entirely separate channel where you can buy things-- if you opt to do so-- if you agree to some more terms. In return for certain concessions (Be it price, IP, or whatever).
That's the thing. This entire story is just stupid.
People who buy things in Apple stores or through any regular channel can do anything they damn well want.
There's no question of that. But everyone is reacting in some absurdly idiotic way as if Apple were declaring that they can't give away or sell what they buy.
That isn't even vaguely what's going on here.
Apple has a program to provide devices to people for promotional purposes; this isn't "people" who are "buying" things. This is organizations entering into special, specific agreements with Apple to get things to give away, sell, discount, or otherwise promote some service in conjunction with the device. There's a lot of possible mutual benefit there.
Hotels might want to offer iPads to every room, for example, as a service option. It benefits both Apple and the hotel itself to do so. The hotel could go out and just buy the devices at retail, and do whatever the hell they want with them.
Or they could talk to Apple and enter a sort of partnership; Apple benefits by getting the iPad as a real thing out more as advertising and coolness, the hotel benefits by hipster love. But this isn't even VAGUELY the same sort of relationship of "I go in and buy an iPad, now Apple is saying who I can give it to?" which is being implied by this story.
Apple is offering devices to partners for special terms -- for promotional purposes. The "buyers" aren't mere consumers buying a thing and maybe reselling it. They are getting value above and beyond the simple device itself (be it a discount, or rights to use trademarks in promotion, or something else) in return for an agreement to abide by certain terms. Thus, both parties benefit.
There's this whole frankly absurd narrative around this issue that Apple is somehow declaring that once you buy a device they are controlling what you can do with it. That isn't even vaguely accurate.
Apple sells things through regular channels. They are asserting no control nor influence over those channels or how you use what you buy through those. They have other channels, though: they may offer their products in other ways -- and those other channels may have rules that you agree to. Obviously, those other channels are cheaper then the regular one, or you wouldn't bother with agreeing to new rules. If you choose to adobt a program and agree to it, great. If you don't, buy it like anyone else, use it as anyone else, sell it as anyone else.
Yes. Single companies can be charged with illegal things they do and fined.
But, what Apple is doing here is IN NO WAY breaking any law.
The poster I was responding to pointed out some similarity to the illegal actions-- actions that were illegal BECAUSE they were done by multiple companies on the same side who should be competiting, not colluding. "Yeah so?" you say, and somehow it gets marked Informative. The point is, the utterly wrong, factually false assertion that anything that "Apple" is doing here has any similarity to what the CD companies did is.... nonsense. Total, complete, and utter nonsense. Can the DOJ take action against a single company? Sure -- but I never said they couldn't. But they'd take completely DIFFERENT actions for entirely DIFFERENT reasons. What the "CD Companies" were doing (and still are, with no real action from the DOJ) is nothing even VAGUELY comparable by any intelligent person to anything Apple is.
Apple may be involved in things you think aren't right, or aren't legal. But they are DIFFERENT things then what industry cartels are involved in. If you can't get that the comparison is utterly nonsense -- I'm sorry.
But, Despite the sensationalist claims by the summary, and even TFA, Apple is not doing anything illegal, nor anti-competitive, nor against any law that I can find any definition of.
They are not saying you can't give away what you buy via normal channels.
They are offering as a service, a means to buy devices for promotional purposes in a special program; those who want to participate in said program can do so only according to certain terms. They are not trying to impose any rules on what you do if you buy the devices through standard retail channels. There is ZERO evidence for any such frankly silly claim.
They are not trying to control how you the buyer of a thing use the thing.
They are offering, as an option, which someone can choose to use, a program to buy devices meant for promotional purposes. They are, presumably, cheaper then a full priced device -- alternatively, they include rights to use Apple trademarks in the resulting promotion. I don't know which (reports from sources are conflicting) Either way, they are offering a value. You can choose to accept that value, and agree to certain terms for that value.
You can do whatever the frack you want with what you buy through regular channels.
If, however, you are granted a price reduction -- or rights to use trademarks-- in addition to getting the actual device, through a special program (and NOT anything ANYONE in ANY store is subject to), then in addition to whatever cost they charge, you have to agree to certain terms. If you don't like the terms, don't buy the product under that program. Walk into a regular store and buy it as everyone else, and these rules are meaningless (Assuming your advertisement for the promotion does not violate trademark law).
There is nothing illegal in this. There isn't even anything unethical in this. If you don't want to abide by their rules -- buy through standard channels, and don't use their trademarks inappropriately in your advertisements.
You're comparing apples to morons. I mean oranges.
Guess which half you're falling under?
The CD Companies tried to do this, you say; so were sued for "restraint-of-trade, price fixing, and forming an illegal cartel". What made it illegal for them to do what they did (which isn't even kind of what Apple is doing here) is that they are COMPANIES. Plural. Instead of competiting against each-other, they were colluding against the public interest. A single company can not price-fix by themselves (that's called, like, you know-- selling something for a price) and a cartel of one whole company agreeing to not compete against, er, itself, isn't very.. impressive.
Anyone who wants to go buy an iPad at retail and give it away in their store is entirely free to do so. If you want to use Apple's trademarks in your promotional material, though -- they get to set the terms, or you just don't use their marks. They also offer a service where you can contact them and get a special sort of deal for promotions -- but if you want that deal, you agree to extra terms (and those are the ones that are changing, IIUC).
That's a contract. You get a special service, you pay for it (in part) by agreeing to special terms. That's not "restraint-of-trade" -- and everything else you're comparing what they did requires the illegal collusion of multiple companies.
Also, considering the number of total jackasses in Congress, and how easy it is for them to hold "hearings" to make themselves and their agendas seem important and functional, being "investigated" by the body isn't really very scary. Especially considering the chance of a Republican controlled House passing anything even vaguely seen as getting in the way of companies doing-- well, anything sleazy at all (even though the above actual practice isn't actually sleazy)-- is like practically zero.
That user doesn't have admin privileges; that user is in effect, in the sudoers file. They can authorize admin privileged actions. The default user can't modify or tweak anything in/System. But they can be prompted to allow elevated access to allow things to write into important parts of the system.
And frankly, that SHOULD be the default. It doesn't make any sense at all to be more restrictive then that. Yes, you should not run as root, or administrator on windows, in your day to day stuff. But in your regular, day to day stuff, on your machine-- you will in the normal course of events need to authorize programs to install globally or tweak system prefs or whatever else on occasion.
No one will EVER learn the "lesson" you want them to be taught. In a secure environment, you may have your regular user, who can't even possibly access (even via sudo) admin power, and an entirely separate account you use to do the system configuration and application install tasks that need higher authority. That will NEVER happen on user-focused machines. Its a frankly absurd notion.
Yes, that means machines will always be susceptible to stupid people running crap that they don't mean to download or are tricked to downloading, and that means there is no/solution/ to the problem of malware. In truth, even with such a system, you wouldn't solve the stupid. You can't solve the stupid.
The default user that people operate on, and which programs they naturally, passively run under -- should not have admin access. Of course not. Even Microsoft gets that, though their implementation of the escalation process is less then ideal. But if you expect someone to sit down on their desktop machine and ever have more then a single account, you're -- out of touch. That account should not have direct system-level access, no: but no one but a tiny minority of power users will ever accept having to set up some entirely separate account that can escalate privileges.
Its not that people are stupid, or careless. Its that you're expectations are absurd. Security and ease-of-use are opposing concerns. Everyone with any sense knows this: in some situations the demands of security are such that we force the pain on usage, in others we try to find a balance which isn't as difficult.
There will never be a world where people will have two separate accounts on their home machine and that they need to decide to go from one account to another to make changes or operate said machine. People will simply use the tool given them, as they understand it is to be used.
Even on linux, more is rarely expected outside of highly secure environs. Sudo is the norm. Yeah, your account can't do much, but you can explicitly invoke its elevation with your own same password -- and that's fine. Home machines will never, ever, be bastions of secure practice.
Its just not worth the pain in the ass to regular people doing regular things. Is it as good as it can be, as secure as it can be? Not yet, but they are working on it. Windows has its UAV method of privilege escalation that is overly in your face so its too easy to hit 'yes' without thinking; linux has its explicit 'sudo' which is fine (and with GUI helpers in certain environments), and Mac has its own escalation prompt. Is this paradigm of the default user being a sudoer ideal? Maybe not. But its usable, and better then the situations where everything runs as root/administrator.
Usability frankly trumps security. You can not honestly expect users to give up much on their home systems, usability wise; or you're just out of touch with reality.
There's no complete cure, no; but there's stuff that you can do to make it better. Apple updating the security mechanism to get its malware definitions on a daily basis, instead of as part of the normal Software Update cycle, is a very good move. It won't completely fix things, though, of course. You're absolutely right, you can't stop stupid.
But you can certainly make stupid _worse_: and Safari's "open safe files" feature (especially defaulting to yes), which includes dmgs (think, isos kinda for non-Mac folk) and archives is an especially stupid thing to do and makes the impact of stupid users, worse.
I was kinda hoping they'd at least flip that default when they addressed this issue. But I'll take the daily updates.
Its basically the same, yeah. Unless you happen to get stupid the day after the last update on Windows, you may not notice you've been infected for ~29 days, as opposed to like, ~1.
Resume? Where? If you're going to point at Hibernate, that's not resume as far as I'm aware. Resume is a per-application thing (though surely you can restart all) -- its less about dumping RAM to disk then letting each app suspend/restore its state automatically: its more like the iOS suspend/resume / fast application restart/switching then anything else.
Cuz, if I load up my Kubuntu and start messing around, and I can't find a single application that sports any kind of state resuming besides the calculator. Granted, this is an old-ish version of Kubuntu. I should upgrade to 11.04.
But, now looking at Kate, it has options that lets you save your session on exit, and automatically load your last session on start. That's sorta like resume, except I can't find similar options in a few other apps I randomly selected to look around. Not counting random third-party things, but stuff bundled into KDE.
Autosave and versioning? Where? Let's see, looking over at kate -- I can set it up to save backups. If you're calling that backups "versioning", you're... not getting it. And setting up say, RCS or SVN or whatever doesn't count either.
I see certain programs in KDE have implemented similar features. That's kinda nothing like it being implemented in the core KDE libs and available to all applications with minimal effort (though surely, some).
Now, sure. Maybe I'm totally off base, and 11.04 has done all of this in core KDE. Or maybe a more recent version then is shipping in kubuntu. But your claims don't seem to pan out for even casual testing of basic, core apps...
You may have seen applications that implemented the features in question -- but that's a very different thing then an OS (including desktop environments, like Gnome or KDE) providing it as a part of their API/frameworks for everything to make use of, in a consistent way across all of their apps.
Relatively empty one? I doubt it -- because for the first time that I can remember, they also made a point to reach out to reporters of the non-tech-blog sort and suggest they would be interested in attending.
But, they've also been saying pretty firmly there won't be any new hardware released at WWDC, which is unusual. (Not unprecedented, but unusual). I think the extremely unusual (and I think unprecedented, but I don't feel like fact-checking) announcement of some of the stuff that will be there -- and that Jobs will be doing the keynote -- is meant to shape expectations.
There's not going to be a super-secret new hardware thing to blow everyone's socks off. Its all software and services: but I think it will be a major move on both fronts. I'm not entirely sure what, but we'll see. We have no idea what iCloud is, except there's music streaming deals apparently involved -- but if that's it, and with what's already been announced about Lion, then that means IOS 5 has to be one seriously _seriously_ kick-ass update, or I'll probably be bored.
But I don't really think that's all iCloud will be. My guess? iDisk/Mobile Me evolve into a Dropbox framework for any app, which gets deeply integrated into Lion and iOS5, and includes Smarts for various content types. (Like, you don't have to actually sync any of your music that already exists on Apple's servers). That, to me, would be seriously cool. Moving "files" around apps and getting them on/off devices is a pain. Dropbox is practically the defacto iOS filesystem as a result, and really it could be done a lot better.
But, here's hoping.
But all? No, there'll almost certainly be some stuff we haven't heard of yet. That's just the broad strokes.
It is just a minor, incremental update, the 2 in 2.6 has been incremented to 3; you know, instead of the 39 being incremented to 40.
Its not like it jumped to 4 or anything, now -- that wouldn't be an incremental update, indeed!
The 2.6.~inf thing was getting a bit silly, frankly. There's nothing wrong with incremental updates, but at a certain point you if your whole release strategy is about a steady plodding progress forward, you should stop using feature-ish-inspiring version numbers. He didn't, but hey.
Of course, he didn't go with a time-based number, so 3.x makes no more or less sense then the ever approaching 2.6.inf, but if the numbers don't actually make any sort of sense, what's it matter? Its all arbitrary, and he felt like being 3.x.
"Real" business, where its okay to bribe someone into breaking a NDA. "Real" business where its okay to go tap someones phone. "Real" business where you can break someones knees if they're getting in on your turf.
Your idea of "real business" has to be run by sociopaths -- worse then the current ones already are.
There's nothing wrong with duplicating a competitors product: that's good business. That's NOT theft of trade secrets: theft of trade secrets is inducing someone into breaking their agreement to keep the secret (which does make you liable), or using other illegal means to gain the information.
That some people can't quite see the difference... Yeah, there's parasites in society around all right, but I think there needs to be some mirror looking going on.
Its not about using "ideas". Its about stealing specific, actual information that another company kept secret that is of material value to their business.
Trade secrets are not some new or novel thing; let's say I come up with a recipe for this great and awesome sauce that makes everything taste wonderful. Obviously, I want to keep that secret. So I make my employees sign a NDA on the recipe, and I go out of my way to not reveal exactly what is in it and the process of mixing that I go through.
If you analyze it and come up with the exact recipe on your own, you're entirely fine. I didn't patent the recipe (patenting would mean I only get its exclusivity for 10 years, after which its public) -- I just made an effort to keep it secret.
But if you pay one of my employees to write the recipe down and pass it on, THAT I can sue you for. That's entirely fair, even. If you engage in corporate espionage and illegally gain access to secrets I use to do business, then the fact that you did so illegally gives me the grounds to sue you for damages, because/you/ having my secrets causes financial harm to me.
Is that really all that unreasonable of a thing to allow?
... uhh, Paypal isn't suing them for patent infringement. "Prior art" has nothing to do with it.
They're suing them for stealing trade secrets -- trade secrets can be anything confidential that a business uses in, well, doing business. We have no idea what actual trade secrets they are alleging Google stole: that's almost certainly going to be sealed... A trade secret is just information that's important to a business that they attempt to keep secret. It could be a list of businesses who were ready to partner with Paypal but hadn't announced it for various reasons. Or countless other things.
There's legal and illegal ways of discovering someone's trade secrets.
Negotiating with a company to go into some sort of partnership is a way to get access to their trade secrets...as is reverse engineering what the secret sauce is... but, hiring away the very people you're negotiating with to do your own version of the project, er, smells more then a little bit funny.
But it also wasn't about users being forced to USE Internet Explorer: it was about Microsoft forcing the OEM vendors-- their real direct customers-- into not including navigator, which they wanted to do or were previously doing. So that when users went to buy a machine, they had no choice but to get a machine with only IE on it.
They could do that because the OEM's absolutely had to have Windows, or no one would buy their machines. And they couldn't afford to buy Windows at regular price, or their margins would be unacceptable. So the only way they could compete with the other vendors and get Windows at an OEM price was to agree to onerous terms which were meant to directly attack Netscape's market share.
Thus, the illegal (but not criminal) thing they did was to leverage a monopoly in market A to force themselves into a market B.
The browser pick list thing is... kinda retarded, yes, but they are trying to come to some way to/fix/ the situation after Microsoft had already basically won. They'd already profited immensely by their illegal actions. Its an attempt to restore the situation to a more fair playing field, after its already been dramatically warped by Microsoft's actions.
Its not really a good attempt, but. Hey. They tried.
What's even kind of similar between MSFT bundling IE into Windows and Apple bundling the App Store?
Firstly, uh, bundling is fine UNLESS you are a MONOPOLY who are using it as a tactic to push into OTHER MARKETS. Apple isn't a monopoly. (Sorry, "macs" are not a distinct market)
Secondly, Windows is Microsoft's product, and they were using its monopoly to force vendors selling hardware to not include the then-leading Netscape Navigator, even if customers may have wanted that by the vendor's estimation. That's unfair competition.
The situation with OSX is nothing like that. Its only on Apple's own machines, for one: for two, they don't even _really_ sell OSX to either users or OEMs, they only sell upgrades. Though they don't enforce it through DRM, you aren't licensed to use that upgrade you buy in the store unless you use it on original Apple hardware.
They aren't trying to get more people to buy OSX. They aren't trying to use the monopoly that is OSX to force other Software Stores out of business. They aren't requiring that people who want OSX software to get said software through their store (though some claim they will go here: paranoid babbling. There's a difference between a full computer and an app appliance, and the Macs are Apple's very profitable computer business. IOS is their app appliance business.)
I mean there's so many sorta absurd little comments in there I can pick out (mixed with a few decent points, I admit), but come on.
Exactly how is an online store Web 3.0 -- or even vaguely SaaS for that matter? (Not to mention the question, since when was SaaS a "Web 3.0" thing, whatever the hell Web 3.0 is?)
There's nothing revolutionary or even new here. Amazon always sold mac software. Now they include a mini-portal among the many other mini-portals they have to bring together the mac software they sell into one place.
Also, this is not a really good time to tout Amazon's sales & distribution genius, with the whole Lady Gaga sale thing laying waste to their whole system.
Well, there's what you'd consider duress -- and what duress actually is.
Duress isn't pressure, its not just an inconvenience. Its *force*, its *coercion* by force or threat of force (be that force physical harm, financial harm, or reputation) -- and not just some mild amount, it has to rise to a serious sort of "injury". And its one of those "reasonable people" standards, not just what a person claims to feel or think.
I seriously doubt the money lost from taking time off work and the inconvenience of finding a new dentist, and even the serious tooth-ache you have to put up with until you get to the new one, would really rise to the level of what's considered duress.
But, IANAL.
That said: the contract is utterly stupid, and I'm not at all sure that you can actually sign over the copyright of future reviews of a service. The guy should go out of business over it. I just don't think it probably counts as _duress_, even if its invalid for other reasons.
Well, it doesn't have to be life threatening to be duress, but there is a degree of danger/fear that has to be there before it counts as duress legally. There's a standard you have to meet before something goes from "pressure" (which is legal) to "duress" (which invalidates a contract):... "they must be such as would naturally operate on a person of ordinary firmness, and inspire a just fear of great injury to person, reputation or fortune" via http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d082.htm
But even setting that aside: can *inaction* or the refusal to do something you are under no obligation to do, be duress?
Okay, if your insurance carrier mandates these Doctors and they all require this, I can maybe see your point... except, I know I had to agree to a contract to get my insurance, and my choices were basically, "no health care" or sign up.
You have a right to life, but you don't necessarily have a right to have your health needs served on your terms or by whom you want: doctors are private citizens and not civil servants. They can require you sign a contract to get their service and its not duress: Kaiser for example, requires you to sign a contract that waives the right to sue them, insisting instead on an arbitration system. This has been upheld repeatedly in the Courts.
You're free to refuse it -- even if that "freedom" is sorta just "technically" and not entirely ground in reality. I, for instance, can't really afford any other health insurance option but Kaiser (which is offered by my work: and which I'm actually quite happy with), so in all practical reality, I'm forced to agree to their contract terms to get my regular check ups and the medicine I need to not-die. But honestly, I don't think that "forced" actually technically rises to any level of legal duress.
IANAL, but I THINK that it would only be in the case of emergency services. ER's can't send you away if you're in need of emergency care. A private doctor/dentist is free to do business with whomever he/she wants, subject to anti-discrimination laws.
Reality is calling and wants to talk to you, but you keep screening the calls, man.
First, "Government" is not some monolithic "thing" that all operates on the same level, with the same rules. In case you weren't entirely aware, the United States is a federal republic -- there's this difference between States and the Federal Government. The First Amendment doesn't even limit all of the Federal Government: it doesn't limit the Executive or Judicial branches, for example. "Congress..."
The First Amendment prevents the "Government" from passing laws that would take away your freedom of speech.
Civil law, the stuff that you're talking about with "Government" "enforcing" contracts, is largely the stuff of States. Now, both the Supreme Court and the 14th amendment have since expanded the First Amendment so that it applies to states, too: so these days it really says, "Congress (and state legislatures) shall make no law..." and such.
But, still: that is applying a rule to the legislative branch of Government, and there are differences in how its applied from state to state. Now, the Judiciary generally is very pro-freedom of speech, for the most part. But it isn't restricted from infringing upon your right to it -- the Courts can issue gag orders, for example.
Moreover, the Courts acting as (theoretically) fair and impartial mediators between parties in civil suits is not the "Government" taking away your right to speak. If you sign a contract, and that contract is valid (which requires you to do so voluntarily, understanding what's going on, and get something out of it) that says in exchange for X, you won't talk about Y, but you do talk about Y anyways? You can be sued
That is not the Government taking away your rights. You are entirely free to say whatever you want. You simply agreed that if you said a certain something, then the other party is entitled to compensation.
The Constitution doesn't include a provision absolving you of any actual personal responsibility. Sorry.
From TFA ("amendment"):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Judiciary enforcing your voluntary agreement, given without duress, in return for some mutual consideration, to do or not to do something, is not "Congress.. [making a]... law... abridging the freedom of speech".
You need a license to make something that incorporates patented technology. You don't have to have a license to use that thing made. Read TFA: the first sale doctrine applies. The guy who made something with the technology, has a license. The people who just use it, don't. You invent something that makes metal extra hard, and I make a hammer out of it. I need a license. I give that hammer to my friend, he doesn't.
Now, stuff gets stupid when you start mixing patents with software: what is "making" and what is "using"? Lodsys' position is basically that every app maker is 'making' something new that uses their technology. Apple says no: they made the framework, that app developers are simply using.
People can start arguing about linking and what constitutes a new thing, and all of that, and I could see how you could sort of make Lodsys' argument. Sort of. But I'm betting on Apple's lawyers on this.
The way I read the letter, its pretty clearly stated IMHO that if Lodsys does not drop this, Apple will directly file suit to enforce the terms of its license deal.
They may not defend you directly, but they can still shut the whole thing down. They have an existing deal with Lodsys which, they say, covers you completely: and they'll take Lodsys to court to prove that if they need to.
It seems pretty clear-cut as that; the letter isn't a mere opinion or press release. Its a detailed rebuttel by Apple's legal department, including a cease and desist instruction and a clear statement that they a) are licensed, b) this license covers the use of their API's by developers, and c) they will defend this in court.
Slashdot Mirror
No.
Because this "nixing" Apple is doing has nothing at all to do with anyone who is buying anything through regular retail channels.
It applies only to those who are buying through special channels, i.e. those who want a better deal to promote their service off the back of the iThing.
This is all about the doctrine of first sale. It is absolutely important here. And the entire point is -- the first person who buys the product (who is NOT anyone who buys any devices in any Apple Store) agrees to certain terms, in return for some additional consideration.
This has NOTHING, at ALL, to do with anyone who goes and buys an iThing. You can go buy an iThing and give it away as a promotion in your shop.
BUT.
If you don't want to buy all the iThings at retail, and instead want to convince Apple to subsidize the cost for advertising reasons or some other, then they may choose to do so -- if you agree to certain terms.
Apple is not imposing any rules on what you do with their products after you buy them.
But, they are offering an entirely separate channel where you can buy things-- if you opt to do so-- if you agree to some more terms. In return for certain concessions (Be it price, IP, or whatever).
That's the thing. This entire story is just stupid.
People who buy things in Apple stores or through any regular channel can do anything they damn well want.
There's no question of that. But everyone is reacting in some absurdly idiotic way as if Apple were declaring that they can't give away or sell what they buy.
That isn't even vaguely what's going on here.
Apple has a program to provide devices to people for promotional purposes; this isn't "people" who are "buying" things. This is organizations entering into special, specific agreements with Apple to get things to give away, sell, discount, or otherwise promote some service in conjunction with the device. There's a lot of possible mutual benefit there.
Hotels might want to offer iPads to every room, for example, as a service option. It benefits both Apple and the hotel itself to do so. The hotel could go out and just buy the devices at retail, and do whatever the hell they want with them.
Or they could talk to Apple and enter a sort of partnership; Apple benefits by getting the iPad as a real thing out more as advertising and coolness, the hotel benefits by hipster love. But this isn't even VAGUELY the same sort of relationship of "I go in and buy an iPad, now Apple is saying who I can give it to?" which is being implied by this story.
Apple is offering devices to partners for special terms -- for promotional purposes. The "buyers" aren't mere consumers buying a thing and maybe reselling it. They are getting value above and beyond the simple device itself (be it a discount, or rights to use trademarks in promotion, or something else) in return for an agreement to abide by certain terms. Thus, both parties benefit.
There's this whole frankly absurd narrative around this issue that Apple is somehow declaring that once you buy a device they are controlling what you can do with it. That isn't even vaguely accurate.
Apple sells things through regular channels. They are asserting no control nor influence over those channels or how you use what you buy through those. They have other channels, though: they may offer their products in other ways -- and those other channels may have rules that you agree to. Obviously, those other channels are cheaper then the regular one, or you wouldn't bother with agreeing to new rules. If you choose to adobt a program and agree to it, great. If you don't, buy it like anyone else, use it as anyone else, sell it as anyone else.
You're an orange.
Yes. Single companies can be charged with illegal things they do and fined.
But, what Apple is doing here is IN NO WAY breaking any law.
The poster I was responding to pointed out some similarity to the illegal actions-- actions that were illegal BECAUSE they were done by multiple companies on the same side who should be competiting, not colluding. "Yeah so?" you say, and somehow it gets marked Informative. The point is, the utterly wrong, factually false assertion that anything that "Apple" is doing here has any similarity to what the CD companies did is.... nonsense. Total, complete, and utter nonsense. Can the DOJ take action against a single company? Sure -- but I never said they couldn't. But they'd take completely DIFFERENT actions for entirely DIFFERENT reasons. What the "CD Companies" were doing (and still are, with no real action from the DOJ) is nothing even VAGUELY comparable by any intelligent person to anything Apple is.
Apple may be involved in things you think aren't right, or aren't legal. But they are DIFFERENT things then what industry cartels are involved in. If you can't get that the comparison is utterly nonsense -- I'm sorry.
But, Despite the sensationalist claims by the summary, and even TFA, Apple is not doing anything illegal, nor anti-competitive, nor against any law that I can find any definition of.
They are not saying you can't give away what you buy via normal channels.
They are offering as a service, a means to buy devices for promotional purposes in a special program; those who want to participate in said program can do so only according to certain terms. They are not trying to impose any rules on what you do if you buy the devices through standard retail channels. There is ZERO evidence for any such frankly silly claim.
They are not trying to control how you the buyer of a thing use the thing.
They are offering, as an option, which someone can choose to use, a program to buy devices meant for promotional purposes. They are, presumably, cheaper then a full priced device -- alternatively, they include rights to use Apple trademarks in the resulting promotion. I don't know which (reports from sources are conflicting) Either way, they are offering a value. You can choose to accept that value, and agree to certain terms for that value.
You can do whatever the frack you want with what you buy through regular channels.
If, however, you are granted a price reduction -- or rights to use trademarks-- in addition to getting the actual device, through a special program (and NOT anything ANYONE in ANY store is subject to), then in addition to whatever cost they charge, you have to agree to certain terms. If you don't like the terms, don't buy the product under that program. Walk into a regular store and buy it as everyone else, and these rules are meaningless (Assuming your advertisement for the promotion does not violate trademark law).
There is nothing illegal in this. There isn't even anything unethical in this. If you don't want to abide by their rules -- buy through standard channels, and don't use their trademarks inappropriately in your advertisements.
This entire story is idiotic.
You're comparing apples to morons. I mean oranges.
Guess which half you're falling under?
The CD Companies tried to do this, you say; so were sued for "restraint-of-trade, price fixing, and forming an illegal cartel". What made it illegal for them to do what they did (which isn't even kind of what Apple is doing here) is that they are COMPANIES. Plural. Instead of competiting against each-other, they were colluding against the public interest. A single company can not price-fix by themselves (that's called, like, you know-- selling something for a price) and a cartel of one whole company agreeing to not compete against, er, itself, isn't very .. impressive.
Anyone who wants to go buy an iPad at retail and give it away in their store is entirely free to do so. If you want to use Apple's trademarks in your promotional material, though -- they get to set the terms, or you just don't use their marks. They also offer a service where you can contact them and get a special sort of deal for promotions -- but if you want that deal, you agree to extra terms (and those are the ones that are changing, IIUC).
That's a contract. You get a special service, you pay for it (in part) by agreeing to special terms. That's not "restraint-of-trade" -- and everything else you're comparing what they did requires the illegal collusion of multiple companies.
Also, considering the number of total jackasses in Congress, and how easy it is for them to hold "hearings" to make themselves and their agendas seem important and functional, being "investigated" by the body isn't really very scary. Especially considering the chance of a Republican controlled House passing anything even vaguely seen as getting in the way of companies doing-- well, anything sleazy at all (even though the above actual practice isn't actually sleazy)-- is like practically zero.
Not exactly.
That user doesn't have admin privileges; that user is in effect, in the sudoers file. They can authorize admin privileged actions. The default user can't modify or tweak anything in /System. But they can be prompted to allow elevated access to allow things to write into important parts of the system.
And frankly, that SHOULD be the default. It doesn't make any sense at all to be more restrictive then that. Yes, you should not run as root, or administrator on windows, in your day to day stuff. But in your regular, day to day stuff, on your machine-- you will in the normal course of events need to authorize programs to install globally or tweak system prefs or whatever else on occasion.
No one will EVER learn the "lesson" you want them to be taught. In a secure environment, you may have your regular user, who can't even possibly access (even via sudo) admin power, and an entirely separate account you use to do the system configuration and application install tasks that need higher authority. That will NEVER happen on user-focused machines. Its a frankly absurd notion.
Yes, that means machines will always be susceptible to stupid people running crap that they don't mean to download or are tricked to downloading, and that means there is no /solution/ to the problem of malware. In truth, even with such a system, you wouldn't solve the stupid. You can't solve the stupid.
The default user that people operate on, and which programs they naturally, passively run under -- should not have admin access. Of course not. Even Microsoft gets that, though their implementation of the escalation process is less then ideal. But if you expect someone to sit down on their desktop machine and ever have more then a single account, you're -- out of touch. That account should not have direct system-level access, no: but no one but a tiny minority of power users will ever accept having to set up some entirely separate account that can escalate privileges.
Its not that people are stupid, or careless. Its that you're expectations are absurd. Security and ease-of-use are opposing concerns. Everyone with any sense knows this: in some situations the demands of security are such that we force the pain on usage, in others we try to find a balance which isn't as difficult.
There will never be a world where people will have two separate accounts on their home machine and that they need to decide to go from one account to another to make changes or operate said machine. People will simply use the tool given them, as they understand it is to be used.
Even on linux, more is rarely expected outside of highly secure environs. Sudo is the norm. Yeah, your account can't do much, but you can explicitly invoke its elevation with your own same password -- and that's fine. Home machines will never, ever, be bastions of secure practice.
Its just not worth the pain in the ass to regular people doing regular things. Is it as good as it can be, as secure as it can be? Not yet, but they are working on it. Windows has its UAV method of privilege escalation that is overly in your face so its too easy to hit 'yes' without thinking; linux has its explicit 'sudo' which is fine (and with GUI helpers in certain environments), and Mac has its own escalation prompt. Is this paradigm of the default user being a sudoer ideal? Maybe not. But its usable, and better then the situations where everything runs as root/administrator.
Usability frankly trumps security. You can not honestly expect users to give up much on their home systems, usability wise; or you're just out of touch with reality.
There's no complete cure, no; but there's stuff that you can do to make it better. Apple updating the security mechanism to get its malware definitions on a daily basis, instead of as part of the normal Software Update cycle, is a very good move. It won't completely fix things, though, of course. You're absolutely right, you can't stop stupid.
But you can certainly make stupid _worse_: and Safari's "open safe files" feature (especially defaulting to yes), which includes dmgs (think, isos kinda for non-Mac folk) and archives is an especially stupid thing to do and makes the impact of stupid users, worse.
I was kinda hoping they'd at least flip that default when they addressed this issue. But I'll take the daily updates.
Its basically the same, yeah. Unless you happen to get stupid the day after the last update on Windows, you may not notice you've been infected for ~29 days, as opposed to like, ~1.
~1 is a lot better then ~29, isn't it?
Let's see.
Resume? Where? If you're going to point at Hibernate, that's not resume as far as I'm aware. Resume is a per-application thing (though surely you can restart all) -- its less about dumping RAM to disk then letting each app suspend/restore its state automatically: its more like the iOS suspend/resume / fast application restart/switching then anything else.
Cuz, if I load up my Kubuntu and start messing around, and I can't find a single application that sports any kind of state resuming besides the calculator. Granted, this is an old-ish version of Kubuntu. I should upgrade to 11.04.
But, now looking at Kate, it has options that lets you save your session on exit, and automatically load your last session on start. That's sorta like resume, except I can't find similar options in a few other apps I randomly selected to look around. Not counting random third-party things, but stuff bundled into KDE.
Autosave and versioning? Where? Let's see, looking over at kate -- I can set it up to save backups. If you're calling that backups "versioning", you're... not getting it. And setting up say, RCS or SVN or whatever doesn't count either.
I see certain programs in KDE have implemented similar features. That's kinda nothing like it being implemented in the core KDE libs and available to all applications with minimal effort (though surely, some).
Now, sure. Maybe I'm totally off base, and 11.04 has done all of this in core KDE. Or maybe a more recent version then is shipping in kubuntu. But your claims don't seem to pan out for even casual testing of basic, core apps...
You have? Name one.
You may have seen applications that implemented the features in question -- but that's a very different thing then an OS (including desktop environments, like Gnome or KDE) providing it as a part of their API/frameworks for everything to make use of, in a consistent way across all of their apps.
Relatively empty one? I doubt it -- because for the first time that I can remember, they also made a point to reach out to reporters of the non-tech-blog sort and suggest they would be interested in attending.
But, they've also been saying pretty firmly there won't be any new hardware released at WWDC, which is unusual. (Not unprecedented, but unusual). I think the extremely unusual (and I think unprecedented, but I don't feel like fact-checking) announcement of some of the stuff that will be there -- and that Jobs will be doing the keynote -- is meant to shape expectations.
There's not going to be a super-secret new hardware thing to blow everyone's socks off. Its all software and services: but I think it will be a major move on both fronts. I'm not entirely sure what, but we'll see. We have no idea what iCloud is, except there's music streaming deals apparently involved -- but if that's it, and with what's already been announced about Lion, then that means IOS 5 has to be one seriously _seriously_ kick-ass update, or I'll probably be bored.
But I don't really think that's all iCloud will be. My guess? iDisk/Mobile Me evolve into a Dropbox framework for any app, which gets deeply integrated into Lion and iOS5, and includes Smarts for various content types. (Like, you don't have to actually sync any of your music that already exists on Apple's servers). That, to me, would be seriously cool. Moving "files" around apps and getting them on/off devices is a pain. Dropbox is practically the defacto iOS filesystem as a result, and really it could be done a lot better.
But, here's hoping.
But all? No, there'll almost certainly be some stuff we haven't heard of yet. That's just the broad strokes.
It is just a minor, incremental update, the 2 in 2.6 has been incremented to 3; you know, instead of the 39 being incremented to 40.
Its not like it jumped to 4 or anything, now -- that wouldn't be an incremental update, indeed!
The 2.6.~inf thing was getting a bit silly, frankly. There's nothing wrong with incremental updates, but at a certain point you if your whole release strategy is about a steady plodding progress forward, you should stop using feature-ish-inspiring version numbers. He didn't, but hey.
Of course, he didn't go with a time-based number, so 3.x makes no more or less sense then the ever approaching 2.6.inf, but if the numbers don't actually make any sort of sense, what's it matter? Its all arbitrary, and he felt like being 3.x.
"Real" business, where its okay to bribe someone into breaking a NDA. "Real" business where its okay to go tap someones phone. "Real" business where you can break someones knees if they're getting in on your turf.
Your idea of "real business" has to be run by sociopaths -- worse then the current ones already are.
There's nothing wrong with duplicating a competitors product: that's good business. That's NOT theft of trade secrets: theft of trade secrets is inducing someone into breaking their agreement to keep the secret (which does make you liable), or using other illegal means to gain the information.
That some people can't quite see the difference... Yeah, there's parasites in society around all right, but I think there needs to be some mirror looking going on.
Its not about using "ideas". Its about stealing specific, actual information that another company kept secret that is of material value to their business.
Trade secrets are not some new or novel thing; let's say I come up with a recipe for this great and awesome sauce that makes everything taste wonderful. Obviously, I want to keep that secret. So I make my employees sign a NDA on the recipe, and I go out of my way to not reveal exactly what is in it and the process of mixing that I go through.
If you analyze it and come up with the exact recipe on your own, you're entirely fine. I didn't patent the recipe (patenting would mean I only get its exclusivity for 10 years, after which its public) -- I just made an effort to keep it secret.
But if you pay one of my employees to write the recipe down and pass it on, THAT I can sue you for. That's entirely fair, even. If you engage in corporate espionage and illegally gain access to secrets I use to do business, then the fact that you did so illegally gives me the grounds to sue you for damages, because /you/ having my secrets causes financial harm to me.
Is that really all that unreasonable of a thing to allow?
... uhh, Paypal isn't suing them for patent infringement. "Prior art" has nothing to do with it.
They're suing them for stealing trade secrets -- trade secrets can be anything confidential that a business uses in, well, doing business. We have no idea what actual trade secrets they are alleging Google stole: that's almost certainly going to be sealed... A trade secret is just information that's important to a business that they attempt to keep secret. It could be a list of businesses who were ready to partner with Paypal but hadn't announced it for various reasons. Or countless other things.
There's legal and illegal ways of discovering someone's trade secrets.
Negotiating with a company to go into some sort of partnership is a way to get access to their trade secrets...as is reverse engineering what the secret sauce is... but, hiring away the very people you're negotiating with to do your own version of the project, er, smells more then a little bit funny.
IANAL, though.
What Microsoft did was not a crime.
But it also wasn't about users being forced to USE Internet Explorer: it was about Microsoft forcing the OEM vendors-- their real direct customers-- into not including navigator, which they wanted to do or were previously doing. So that when users went to buy a machine, they had no choice but to get a machine with only IE on it.
They could do that because the OEM's absolutely had to have Windows, or no one would buy their machines. And they couldn't afford to buy Windows at regular price, or their margins would be unacceptable. So the only way they could compete with the other vendors and get Windows at an OEM price was to agree to onerous terms which were meant to directly attack Netscape's market share.
Thus, the illegal (but not criminal) thing they did was to leverage a monopoly in market A to force themselves into a market B.
The browser pick list thing is... kinda retarded, yes, but they are trying to come to some way to /fix/ the situation after Microsoft had already basically won. They'd already profited immensely by their illegal actions. Its an attempt to restore the situation to a more fair playing field, after its already been dramatically warped by Microsoft's actions.
Its not really a good attempt, but. Hey. They tried.
What's even kind of similar between MSFT bundling IE into Windows and Apple bundling the App Store?
Firstly, uh, bundling is fine UNLESS you are a MONOPOLY who are using it as a tactic to push into OTHER MARKETS. Apple isn't a monopoly. (Sorry, "macs" are not a distinct market)
Secondly, Windows is Microsoft's product, and they were using its monopoly to force vendors selling hardware to not include the then-leading Netscape Navigator, even if customers may have wanted that by the vendor's estimation. That's unfair competition.
The situation with OSX is nothing like that. Its only on Apple's own machines, for one: for two, they don't even _really_ sell OSX to either users or OEMs, they only sell upgrades. Though they don't enforce it through DRM, you aren't licensed to use that upgrade you buy in the store unless you use it on original Apple hardware.
They aren't trying to get more people to buy OSX. They aren't trying to use the monopoly that is OSX to force other Software Stores out of business. They aren't requiring that people who want OSX software to get said software through their store (though some claim they will go here: paranoid babbling. There's a difference between a full computer and an app appliance, and the Macs are Apple's very profitable computer business. IOS is their app appliance business.)
Web 3.0, seriously?
I mean there's so many sorta absurd little comments in there I can pick out (mixed with a few decent points, I admit), but come on.
Exactly how is an online store Web 3.0 -- or even vaguely SaaS for that matter? (Not to mention the question, since when was SaaS a "Web 3.0" thing, whatever the hell Web 3.0 is?)
There's nothing revolutionary or even new here. Amazon always sold mac software. Now they include a mini-portal among the many other mini-portals they have to bring together the mac software they sell into one place.
Also, this is not a really good time to tout Amazon's sales & distribution genius, with the whole Lady Gaga sale thing laying waste to their whole system.
Well, there's what you'd consider duress -- and what duress actually is.
Duress isn't pressure, its not just an inconvenience. Its *force*, its *coercion* by force or threat of force (be that force physical harm, financial harm, or reputation) -- and not just some mild amount, it has to rise to a serious sort of "injury". And its one of those "reasonable people" standards, not just what a person claims to feel or think.
I seriously doubt the money lost from taking time off work and the inconvenience of finding a new dentist, and even the serious tooth-ache you have to put up with until you get to the new one, would really rise to the level of what's considered duress.
But, IANAL.
That said: the contract is utterly stupid, and I'm not at all sure that you can actually sign over the copyright of future reviews of a service. The guy should go out of business over it. I just don't think it probably counts as _duress_, even if its invalid for other reasons.
Well, it doesn't have to be life threatening to be duress, but there is a degree of danger/fear that has to be there before it counts as duress legally. There's a standard you have to meet before something goes from "pressure" (which is legal) to "duress" (which invalidates a contract): ... "they must be such as would naturally operate on a person of ordinary firmness, and inspire a just fear of great injury to person, reputation or fortune" via http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d082.htm
But even setting that aside: can *inaction* or the refusal to do something you are under no obligation to do, be duress?
Okay, if your insurance carrier mandates these Doctors and they all require this, I can maybe see your point... except, I know I had to agree to a contract to get my insurance, and my choices were basically, "no health care" or sign up.
You have a right to life, but you don't necessarily have a right to have your health needs served on your terms or by whom you want: doctors are private citizens and not civil servants. They can require you sign a contract to get their service and its not duress: Kaiser for example, requires you to sign a contract that waives the right to sue them, insisting instead on an arbitration system. This has been upheld repeatedly in the Courts.
You're free to refuse it -- even if that "freedom" is sorta just "technically" and not entirely ground in reality. I, for instance, can't really afford any other health insurance option but Kaiser (which is offered by my work: and which I'm actually quite happy with), so in all practical reality, I'm forced to agree to their contract terms to get my regular check ups and the medicine I need to not-die. But honestly, I don't think that "forced" actually technically rises to any level of legal duress.
IANAL, but I THINK that it would only be in the case of emergency services. ER's can't send you away if you're in need of emergency care. A private doctor/dentist is free to do business with whomever he/she wants, subject to anti-discrimination laws.
Reality is calling and wants to talk to you, but you keep screening the calls, man.
First, "Government" is not some monolithic "thing" that all operates on the same level, with the same rules. In case you weren't entirely aware, the United States is a federal republic -- there's this difference between States and the Federal Government. The First Amendment doesn't even limit all of the Federal Government: it doesn't limit the Executive or Judicial branches, for example. "Congress..."
The First Amendment prevents the "Government" from passing laws that would take away your freedom of speech.
Civil law, the stuff that you're talking about with "Government" "enforcing" contracts, is largely the stuff of States. Now, both the Supreme Court and the 14th amendment have since expanded the First Amendment so that it applies to states, too: so these days it really says, "Congress (and state legislatures) shall make no law..." and such.
But, still: that is applying a rule to the legislative branch of Government, and there are differences in how its applied from state to state. Now, the Judiciary generally is very pro-freedom of speech, for the most part. But it isn't restricted from infringing upon your right to it -- the Courts can issue gag orders, for example.
Moreover, the Courts acting as (theoretically) fair and impartial mediators between parties in civil suits is not the "Government" taking away your right to speak. If you sign a contract, and that contract is valid (which requires you to do so voluntarily, understanding what's going on, and get something out of it) that says in exchange for X, you won't talk about Y, but you do talk about Y anyways? You can be sued
That is not the Government taking away your rights. You are entirely free to say whatever you want. You simply agreed that if you said a certain something, then the other party is entitled to compensation.
The Constitution doesn't include a provision absolving you of any actual personal responsibility. Sorry.
From TFA ("amendment"):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Judiciary enforcing your voluntary agreement, given without duress, in return for some mutual consideration, to do or not to do something, is not "Congress .. [making a] ... law ... abridging the freedom of speech".
Its pretty specific.
Uh, nonsense.
You need a license to make something that incorporates patented technology. You don't have to have a license to use that thing made. Read TFA: the first sale doctrine applies. The guy who made something with the technology, has a license. The people who just use it, don't. You invent something that makes metal extra hard, and I make a hammer out of it. I need a license. I give that hammer to my friend, he doesn't.
Now, stuff gets stupid when you start mixing patents with software: what is "making" and what is "using"? Lodsys' position is basically that every app maker is 'making' something new that uses their technology. Apple says no: they made the framework, that app developers are simply using.
People can start arguing about linking and what constitutes a new thing, and all of that, and I could see how you could sort of make Lodsys' argument. Sort of. But I'm betting on Apple's lawyers on this.
The way I read the letter, its pretty clearly stated IMHO that if Lodsys does not drop this, Apple will directly file suit to enforce the terms of its license deal.
They may not defend you directly, but they can still shut the whole thing down. They have an existing deal with Lodsys which, they say, covers you completely: and they'll take Lodsys to court to prove that if they need to.
It seems pretty clear-cut as that; the letter isn't a mere opinion or press release. Its a detailed rebuttel by Apple's legal department, including a cease and desist instruction and a clear statement that they a) are licensed, b) this license covers the use of their API's by developers, and c) they will defend this in court.