Your numbers are bogus. They are not smartphone sales. The iPhone never reached 78% in Western Europe or 50% world wide. As I said, the iPhone peaked arround 23% world wide and this is for a single quarter.
When was that? The iPhone had less market share than both Symbian and Blackberry when it had more market share than Android. Android surpassed the iPhone in Q2 2010, at the moment when smartphones became relevant.
I don't think the iPhone ever passed 23% market share world wide for a quarter. And this is because iPhone sales peak in the quarter after the release. The yearly average is lower.
Some people prefer to buy fast cars (like my corvette.) Until we can expect the same performance and range, there will always be a market for internet combustion engines.
No problem, as long as you pay for the very high pollution cost associated with your choice. Currently, you do not. The market for internal combustion engines will be much smaller when the pollution cost is not externalized to the rest of the world.
And by that I mean I should be able to hit "reply" on any email I receive and expect someone will read it. I find it especially full of hypocrisy when I get an email from noreply@corporation.com ending with "don't hesitate to contact us". Yeah sure, if you wanted me to contact you, you wouldn't be using a noreply email address in the first place.
It's designed this way on purpose. It would be too expensive to built a heat pump powerful enough for the few days it gets under say, -25 C. So the resistive heater is not just a backup for cases when the heatpump fails. It's being used to supplement the heat pump when it's too cold. As energy prices continue to rise, people will built heat pump which are more powerful and won't require/use their resistive heater as much.
Reaching the top, becoming a billionaire, is hard. You must work a lot (and make sacrifices) and/or be extremely lucky. Most often both at the same time.
Otherwise everybody would be a billionaire like Zuckerberg and Musk.
Even if charging took 8 hours it would be a viable vehicle. Not many people need two cars with more than 215 miles autonomy. The Model 3 can easily be one of those two cars, and the one which end up being used the most.
What you are suggesting (that complying with the judgment would be illegal in other countries) was one of Google top argument. The court clearly said that Google failed to provide any example of that, and that therefore it is only theoretical.
By the way, Google was fined for providing an advantage to themselves, not for delisting illegal content.
From you point of view, maybe. But not from the court's. Why should the court care if there is a side-effect consequence that you don't like? The court only care if it made the right judgment or not.
Also, there is no precedent. Precedents don't apply across countries. Just because court X in country Y says Z doesn't mean court A in country B also has to say Z. So no, it doesn't give any argument to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia was/is free to ask Google to block criticisms of Islam before and after this judgment. Google was/is free to leave Saudi Arabia or Canada if they don't like laws of those countries.
Read the article. It specifically yhandles the question whether Canadian law has extra-judicial power over other sovereign countries, and it decided that it has.
That may be what the article says. But not the judgment. The judgment says nothing about if Canadian law should have power over other countries or not.
No, they wouldn't. This exact sort of issue has been going through courts around the world, with different outcomes in different jurisdictions
Courts around the world would all (except corrupt ones) would all acknowledge the obvious trademark violation. I agree, however, that not all of them would say Google is also illegal by listing/indexing/caching the trademark violator.
Whether they intended it or not doesn't matter.
It does. Before you say "fuck Canada, who do you think you are?", you should consider the intent of the court.
What matters is that they specifically demanded a global extent to their ruling, meaning that the ruling goes well beyond their authority as a national court.
And Google could say they deleted the listings. As long as there is no way to access those listings from Canada, they would be compliant. The problem is, there is no way to achieve that. The court has the right not to accept IP geolocalization as a "good enough" effort. If a single user located in Canada can use a VPN to access Google's Peruvian (or whatever) listing, then the court can say Google didn't comply. Hence why delisting worldwide is a side-effect, but maybe the best option for Google if they want to continue to operate in Canada.
You really don't get it. Google is doing business in Canada. They must obey Canadian law, otherwise they can be fined, their assets sized, or their web site can be blocked from Canada.
Google is serving illegal (under Canadian law) web pages to Canadians in Canada. You can't compare that to Americans traveling to Canada to buy beer. Canadian bars aren't subject to US law and aren't doing any business in the USA.
It's not an attempt to impose laws to other countries. It's a side-effect.
Read TFA. It's a trademark / intellectual property issue. Courts in other countries would end up all saying the same if the company had the money and time to sue in every country.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm also glad Apple doesn't have more than 10-20% market share in the computer and smartphone markets.
it never took off.
A monopoly on both desktop and mobile would not be a good thing for consumers.
It does. Since it emits CO2. But it also does for regular gas cars.
But the pollution from running the car for 15-20 years is more important.
Because they pollute the planet. They should be (are) taxed at a higher rate instead.
Your numbers are bogus. They are not smartphone sales. The iPhone never reached 78% in Western Europe or 50% world wide.
As I said, the iPhone peaked arround 23% world wide and this is for a single quarter.
When was that? The iPhone had less market share than both Symbian and Blackberry when it had more market share than Android. Android surpassed the iPhone in Q2 2010, at the moment when smartphones became relevant.
I don't think the iPhone ever passed 23% market share world wide for a quarter. And this is because iPhone sales peak in the quarter after the release. The yearly average is lower.
and not even allowing real browsers but safari. No, themes doesn't count as browsers.
Some people prefer to buy fast cars (like my corvette.) Until we can expect the same performance and range, there will always be a market for internet combustion engines.
No problem, as long as you pay for the very high pollution cost associated with your choice.
Currently, you do not. The market for internal combustion engines will be much smaller when the pollution cost is not externalized to the rest of the world.
And by that I mean I should be able to hit "reply" on any email I receive and expect someone will read it.
I find it especially full of hypocrisy when I get an email from noreply@corporation.com ending with "don't hesitate to contact us".
Yeah sure, if you wanted me to contact you, you wouldn't be using a noreply email address in the first place.
It's designed this way on purpose.
It would be too expensive to built a heat pump powerful enough for the few days it gets under say, -25 C.
So the resistive heater is not just a backup for cases when the heatpump fails. It's being used to supplement the heat pump when it's too cold. As energy prices continue to rise, people will built heat pump which are more powerful and won't require/use their resistive heater as much.
Reaching the top, becoming a billionaire, is hard. You must work a lot (and make sacrifices) and/or be extremely lucky. Most often both at the same time.
Otherwise everybody would be a billionaire like Zuckerberg and Musk.
Even if charging took 8 hours it would be a viable vehicle. Not many people need two cars with more than 215 miles autonomy. The Model 3 can easily be one of those two cars, and the one which end up being used the most.
Why should anyone trust closed source security software in the first place?
I'd have no problem with Google leaving Saudi Arabia.
I think corporations must obey laws of sovereign countries, not the other way around.
What you are suggesting (that complying with the judgment would be illegal in other countries) was one of Google top argument.
The court clearly said that Google failed to provide any example of that, and that therefore it is only theoretical.
By the way, Google was fined for providing an advantage to themselves, not for delisting illegal content.
From you point of view, maybe. But not from the court's.
Why should the court care if there is a side-effect consequence that you don't like? The court only care if it made the right judgment or not.
Also, there is no precedent. Precedents don't apply across countries. Just because court X in country Y says Z doesn't mean court A in country B also has to say Z.
So no, it doesn't give any argument to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia was/is free to ask Google to block criticisms of Islam before and after this judgment.
Google was/is free to leave Saudi Arabia or Canada if they don't like laws of those countries.
It may be a consequence of the judgment, but it's not the intent.
The real question is why should the court accept delisting only from google.ca? It was arrogant from Google to think it would be enough.
Read the article. It specifically yhandles the question whether Canadian law has extra-judicial power over other sovereign countries, and it decided that it has.
That may be what the article says. But not the judgment. The judgment says nothing about if Canadian law should have power over other countries or not.
They would still not be compliant with the judgment if google.com can still be accessed from Canada.
No, they wouldn't. This exact sort of issue has been going through courts around the world, with different outcomes in different jurisdictions
Courts around the world would all (except corrupt ones) would all acknowledge the obvious trademark violation.
I agree, however, that not all of them would say Google is also illegal by listing/indexing/caching the trademark violator.
Whether they intended it or not doesn't matter.
It does. Before you say "fuck Canada, who do you think you are?", you should consider the intent of the court.
What matters is that they specifically demanded a global extent to their ruling, meaning that the ruling goes well beyond their authority as a national court.
And Google could say they deleted the listings. As long as there is no way to access those listings from Canada, they would be compliant. The problem is, there is no way to achieve that. The court has the right not to accept IP geolocalization as a "good enough" effort. If a single user located in Canada can use a VPN to access Google's Peruvian (or whatever) listing, then the court can say Google didn't comply.
Hence why delisting worldwide is a side-effect, but maybe the best option for Google if they want to continue to operate in Canada.
The free speech right isn't absolute in the USA either. Pornography is a good example.
You really don't get it. Google is doing business in Canada. They must obey Canadian law, otherwise they can be fined, their assets sized, or their web site can be blocked from Canada.
Google is serving illegal (under Canadian law) web pages to Canadians in Canada. You can't compare that to Americans traveling to Canada to buy beer. Canadian bars aren't subject to US law and aren't doing any business in the USA.
It's not an attempt to impose laws to other countries. It's a side-effect.
Read TFA. It's a trademark / intellectual property issue. Courts in other countries would end up all saying the same if the company had the money and time to sue in every country.
Nice comment, but it's not the court duty to care about "what if" scenarios from other courts across the globe.
It's not. They can also comply.
Anyways it's not as if trade marks were not protected in most other countries.