Apple Inc. settled with Apple Records, so there's no reason why the Beatles shouldn't be on the iTunes Music Store. In fact, that's been expected for quite some time.
They want to have their revenue cake and eat it too, and they don't even want to cut the original authors in. They are an unnecessary drain on the digital marketplace, a dinosaur of the 20th Century. Eventually these cartels will be replaced, since the goods they offer have little compelling reason to be sold in physical formats. It's a just a question of time before key producers decide it makes sufficient financial sense to bypass them completely.
Has there in the past been an example of AMD adding new instructions and then Intel following along and adopting them? I know it works in the converse, but somehow I doubt Intel wants AMD taking the lead in extending its own ISA.
Isn't Linspire's only claim to fame the fact that it was briefly bundled on ultra cheap PCs as a Windows substitute because of a look-a-like GUI? Did it have any technical merits over other Linux distributions that would make it worth mourning over?
The fact is, the legal system and especially the federal judiciary loves to throw out cases based on technicalities such as this one. There are a whole host of judicial doctrines that govern whether or not a case will be heard, such as standing, ripeness, moot issue and political question. Courts always look for sufficient standing to bring a lawsuit; they look to see if the issue is "ripe" (ready to be ruled on); they look to see if the case's outcome would be moot; they refuse to hear cases involving political questions that would unnecessarily pit them against one of the other branches of government. The courts are there to rule on violations of the law (including the Constitution), not presumptive violations as identified by laymen regarding government acts that were based on ostensibly legal grounds. And for a case to succeed, it must pass those crucial judicial tests. Except in certain bright line cases, the courts operate based on the assumption that the actions of the other two branches are lawful. That's why if people are angry about actions of the executive, the primary remedy is usually legislative; the judicial remedy is secondary. (IANAL, but I hold a Political Science degree and took a lot of pre-law as an undergrad.)
That's basically what a unanimous court under Marshall found in MuColloch v. Maryland. In determining that the Bank of the United States was constitutional because of the Necessary and Proper clause, Marshall essentially stated that whatever legislation Congress deems "Necessary and Proper" is constitutional, thus creating the category of implied powers of Congress.
There is a reason why history records Benjamin Franklin as replying the following when asked what kind of form of government the Convention created, "A Republic, if you can keep it." My use is not a matter of "narrow two-party line of thinking" at all. (What, do you think I reject the term Democracy/Democratic because I'm a Republican?) I just respect the proper use of terms, whether it's in the realm of politics or technology. My precise use of these terms is due in large part to my Political Science degree - through the course of my formal education it was important to recognize such distinctions.
America is a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy in the strictest sense of the word. The fact that it has democratic traits is expressed in the term Republic, which means popular consent to governance by elected representatives and an elected head of state, in accordance with the rule of law. America is a Constitutional Republic because one of its hallmark traits is its written Constitution, which is designed not only to set forth the protocols of the governments under it but to do so with the express purpose of restraining the majority in certain ways and protecting minority rights.
A Quote taken from Wikipedia sums it up nicely: "The United States relies on representative democracy, but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. [It is] not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law.(Scheb, John M. An Introduction to the American Legal System. Thomson Delmar Learning 2001. p. 6)"
Now it is likely the case that when people say Democracy, they are referring to the lose concept of "Liberal Democracy" which is in many ways conceptually similar to Republican government but not identical in nature. However, when I see the term Democracy used - especially when it is applied to these United States of America - I react negatively to it because of the classical definition of Democracy. Those familiar with classical thought know that Democracy is one of the defective forms government can take (according to Plato) and it is referred to "rule by the mob" by the Framers of the Constitution. I hope now you have a greater appreciation for my strict usage of political terms.
It shouldn't have come as a surprise that the conversation between Jobs and Gates would be civil. It's not like this was the first time they spoke to each other. With Apple's Second Golden Age, Jobs is secure in his position, and besides, he's not in direct competition with Gates anymore since Gates isn't in the cheerleader CEO seat at M$ now. When Jobs wants to whip the Mac faithful into a frenzy, he bashes Windows, but there's little reason for him to carry that over to personal conversations with the overrated nerdlinger Gates.
It probably means that most of the new information the public will get about the iPhone before its release will come from Jobs himself, since he's the top guy and he carries it around with him.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple Inc. settled with Apple Records, so there's no reason why the Beatles shouldn't be on the iTunes Music Store. In fact, that's been expected for quite some time.
. . . run down the back of my spine.
"Behold days are coming, says the Lord, and I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with seed of man and seed of beasts."
Gates didn't change the face of the geek. He reaffirmed it. The only thing Gates did was make people more conscious and envious of geek achievement.
They want to have their revenue cake and eat it too, and they don't even want to cut the original authors in. They are an unnecessary drain on the digital marketplace, a dinosaur of the 20th Century. Eventually these cartels will be replaced, since the goods they offer have little compelling reason to be sold in physical formats. It's a just a question of time before key producers decide it makes sufficient financial sense to bypass them completely.
nytimes article
allbusiness.com article
I suppose the DOJ has jurisdiction if it's criminal, but price fixing allegations that don't rise to that level are the FTC's to look at?
I'm confused, I thought price fixing was the FTC's domain.
Admiral Ackbar sez it's a trap
Thank you very much for the clarification. ;-)
Unfortunately, with Quantum Leap RAM, the contents are impaired with random bits erased, in a swiss cheese fashion.
Oops, kind of forgot about that case. Sorry for the stupid question.
Has there in the past been an example of AMD adding new instructions and then Intel following along and adopting them? I know it works in the converse, but somehow I doubt Intel wants AMD taking the lead in extending its own ISA.
Is this a real threat? If so, how severe is it and how much effort must be expended to fix it?
Show Me The Money!
Isn't Linspire's only claim to fame the fact that it was briefly bundled on ultra cheap PCs as a Windows substitute because of a look-a-like GUI? Did it have any technical merits over other Linux distributions that would make it worth mourning over?
We would have heard of this earlier but it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially.
The fact is, the legal system and especially the federal judiciary loves to throw out cases based on technicalities such as this one. There are a whole host of judicial doctrines that govern whether or not a case will be heard, such as standing, ripeness, moot issue and political question. Courts always look for sufficient standing to bring a lawsuit; they look to see if the issue is "ripe" (ready to be ruled on); they look to see if the case's outcome would be moot; they refuse to hear cases involving political questions that would unnecessarily pit them against one of the other branches of government. The courts are there to rule on violations of the law (including the Constitution), not presumptive violations as identified by laymen regarding government acts that were based on ostensibly legal grounds. And for a case to succeed, it must pass those crucial judicial tests. Except in certain bright line cases, the courts operate based on the assumption that the actions of the other two branches are lawful. That's why if people are angry about actions of the executive, the primary remedy is usually legislative; the judicial remedy is secondary. (IANAL, but I hold a Political Science degree and took a lot of pre-law as an undergrad.)
other than the fact that it was occupied by Germany in WWII and that a tasty waffle type is named after it. :-)
That's basically what a unanimous court under Marshall found in MuColloch v. Maryland. In determining that the Bank of the United States was constitutional because of the Necessary and Proper clause, Marshall essentially stated that whatever legislation Congress deems "Necessary and Proper" is constitutional, thus creating the category of implied powers of Congress.
Stop giving dictatorial US law and policy makers new ideas!
There is a reason why history records Benjamin Franklin as replying the following when asked what kind of form of government the Convention created, "A Republic, if you can keep it." My use is not a matter of "narrow two-party line of thinking" at all. (What, do you think I reject the term Democracy/Democratic because I'm a Republican?) I just respect the proper use of terms, whether it's in the realm of politics or technology. My precise use of these terms is due in large part to my Political Science degree - through the course of my formal education it was important to recognize such distinctions. America is a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy in the strictest sense of the word. The fact that it has democratic traits is expressed in the term Republic, which means popular consent to governance by elected representatives and an elected head of state, in accordance with the rule of law. America is a Constitutional Republic because one of its hallmark traits is its written Constitution, which is designed not only to set forth the protocols of the governments under it but to do so with the express purpose of restraining the majority in certain ways and protecting minority rights. A Quote taken from Wikipedia sums it up nicely: "The United States relies on representative democracy, but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. [It is] not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law.(Scheb, John M. An Introduction to the American Legal System. Thomson Delmar Learning 2001. p. 6)" Now it is likely the case that when people say Democracy, they are referring to the lose concept of "Liberal Democracy" which is in many ways conceptually similar to Republican government but not identical in nature. However, when I see the term Democracy used - especially when it is applied to these United States of America - I react negatively to it because of the classical definition of Democracy. Those familiar with classical thought know that Democracy is one of the defective forms government can take (according to Plato) and it is referred to "rule by the mob" by the Framers of the Constitution. I hope now you have a greater appreciation for my strict usage of political terms.
Then I guess I'll call you crazy. America is a Constitutional Republic.
Seconded. Let's hope there are good lawyers committed to taking the entertainment cartel to the cleaners.
It shouldn't have come as a surprise that the conversation between Jobs and Gates would be civil. It's not like this was the first time they spoke to each other. With Apple's Second Golden Age, Jobs is secure in his position, and besides, he's not in direct competition with Gates anymore since Gates isn't in the cheerleader CEO seat at M$ now. When Jobs wants to whip the Mac faithful into a frenzy, he bashes Windows, but there's little reason for him to carry that over to personal conversations with the overrated nerdlinger Gates.
It probably means that most of the new information the public will get about the iPhone before its release will come from Jobs himself, since he's the top guy and he carries it around with him.