Probably the same tactic as all patent infringement cases: wait until the product gets huge, then sue for the damages (i.e., the profits made by the infringing party).
There's no value enforcing patent protection *before* the product gets big, since the realized damages are so small. Only after a few years (sometimes many, many years), once those realized damages grow, does it make sense to throw money at lawyers to get back what you, as a patent holder, think you're entitled to.
Firstly, laws change, so when they do, do you really want to be handcuffed by shitty download speeds?
Secondly, not all laws are moral, and so long as I feel no compulsion to abide by immoral laws, then having the means by which to break those immoral laws is necessary.
> supporter of the Taliban who basically said, "I never taught my son to kill homosexuals", but then goes on to explain how God will punish them...
This is no different than a Christian saying "judge not lest ye be judged."
You can disagree with people all you want, and be vocal for it, but "god" holds the monopoly on judgement, not you or I.
A closeted gay man who can't come to terms with who he is versus who his religion tells him to be, then lashes out by doing the unthinkable, doesn't fit the general narratives of hate and paranoia the government and media have spent, literally, years developing in the population.
If *someone* doesn't tie it to either anti-gay violence or radical Islam, then how can the powers that be exploit it for political gain?
Slashdot Mirror
Probably the same tactic as all patent infringement cases: wait until the product gets huge, then sue for the damages (i.e., the profits made by the infringing party). There's no value enforcing patent protection *before* the product gets big, since the realized damages are so small. Only after a few years (sometimes many, many years), once those realized damages grow, does it make sense to throw money at lawyers to get back what you, as a patent holder, think you're entitled to.
Firstly, laws change, so when they do, do you really want to be handcuffed by shitty download speeds?
Secondly, not all laws are moral, and so long as I feel no compulsion to abide by immoral laws, then having the means by which to break those immoral laws is necessary.
> supporter of the Taliban who basically said, "I never taught my son to kill homosexuals", but then goes on to explain how God will punish them... This is no different than a Christian saying "judge not lest ye be judged." You can disagree with people all you want, and be vocal for it, but "god" holds the monopoly on judgement, not you or I.
A closeted gay man who can't come to terms with who he is versus who his religion tells him to be, then lashes out by doing the unthinkable, doesn't fit the general narratives of hate and paranoia the government and media have spent, literally, years developing in the population. If *someone* doesn't tie it to either anti-gay violence or radical Islam, then how can the powers that be exploit it for political gain?