Apologies. You are correct. The board is a custom part, and I doubt that you will find replacements from anyone but Apple, so they still have vendor lock-in, and Apple can easily EOL parts, so there is still a degree of planned obsolescence.
The MacBook Air is a pretty poor example to choose as a shift to SSDs. In the MacBook Air, the SSD chips are soldered to the logic board. It is not like there is a choice on what kind of drive can be installed. When 64GB isn't enough, there is no way to upgrade. When the SSD gets a fault, there is no drive to swap out - it would be time for a new logic board. With NAND Flash having a finite lifetime, soldering the SSDs to the logic board is a prime example of planned obsolescence. When the SSD dies (when, not if), there is only Apple to turn to, so Apple effectively has vendor lock-in as well, but we have come to expect that from Apple.
Marketing isn't going to shift far away from traditional hard drives any time soon. Yes, prices for NAND flash is dropping but there are disadvantages to using flash: low capacities (compared with HDDs), relatively low write performance and a finite lifetime of write cycles (yes wear levelling does help, but doesn't eliminate the core of the problem).
So, this stolen identity was used to create a website in the same business area as the company you work for?
You have an unusual name, and someone has managed to find out and use detailed information about you to buy the domain?
This sounds like an inside job. Is there someone at your workplace that really doesn't like you and is making grabs for your job?
I'd call the police (if they haven't been called before now), and get myself a lawyer. This sounds a little more calculating than some spammer ripping off your ID. At the very least this sounds like some serious fraud.
Unfortunately, I cannot find a link to the actual study, so it is impossible to tell if their methods really are accurate. However, I do believe that only 1000 of the most highly seeded files is not an accurate representation of all BitTorrent traffic. In fact that very requirement that they be the highest seeded sets up a bias within this study. A study of 100,000 randomly selected files from as many trackers as they can find would yeild far more acurate results.
Who knows? Maybe this is what they did originally and their results were not as cut and dried as their corporate backers wanted. I note that the Internet Commerce Security Lab at the University of Ballarat doesn't detail their "collaborative partnerships within industry" on the website.
But don't dare criticize them for acting unprofessional, trying to milk the story, or otherwise disagree with them. They will ban or unstar you at a moment's notice.
Unfortunately Engadget can be just as bad, especially in the way they treated their readers and commenters in the time leading up to the iPad release.
I disagree with a blog treats their readership like children (effectively saying we needed time-out), while at the same time sticking their fingers in their ears and ignoring the comments of the vast majority of their readership. Shutting down the commenting system of your blog to remove offensive and threatening comments is one thing. Carrying on with the behaviour that triggered those comments and censoring any vaguely critical views is another. I do not like being treated like a child, especially when I'm not at fault.
It is their blog: they can do what they want, and I will just move somewhere else.
I'm not seeing the evil. All I see is discussions about covering their asses and a few individuals admitting to copyright infringement (with no actual evidence and no indication that this was done by YouTube itself). I see an acknowledgement that much of the material could be potentially infinging, but I also see discussions on how to proceed with takedown processes (whether to have a direct reporting link or wait for a takedown notice). As this kind of thing hadn't been done before, it could be argued that waiting for a takedown notice was a perfectly legal option, instead of having to be proactive.
There seems to be very little factual evidence in all of these IM and email quotes, not to mention that they are all taken out of context or given new context by Viacom's lawyers (prime example is the personal opinion that rightsholders were assholes being touted as a general disregard for copyright). It seems that much of this could easily be classed as hearsay (mainly the IM conversations) not factual evidence, and is only really useful in establishing character of the Google and YouTube management.
It seems that if Viacom are dredging up these emails and IM conversations as key evidence, they may not have much of a case, and that putting them out there is more about trying to publically shame YouTube into a settlement. If this is all they have to file for summary judgement, the rest of the case may be pretty flimsy.
Contrast this with YouTube/Google's filing for sumary judgement that argues that Viacom were placing videos on YouTube through covert and very deliberate means. This shows Viacome were being complete hypocrites, and it can be easily argued that Viacom could have been using this to entrap YouTube. If Google/YouTube have actual evidence of that, it could very easily be a smoking gun.
I just wonder what will happen when they use this on a car hurtling down suburban streets at 100+mph. Killing the electronics would presumably knock out handling and stability controls as well (no power steering, no assisted or anti-lock brakes, no traction control, no airbags). Sure they can stop the engine, but they can't stop momentum. They would just turn the car into an virtually uncontrollable hunk of metal hurtling down the road at 100+mph.... until it hits something.
Strap it to a police helicopter (or a police UAV, in 10 years).
Sure, but this makes the distance much greater, requiring a yet larger arrangement (with larger capacitor bank and power supply). Police helicopters and UAVs really can't handle much of a payload. Also, even if you could get over the problem of the inverse square law with a pinpoint beam, there will still be the issue of RF bounce off the metal bodywork potentially affecting surrounding vehicles
Eureka Aerospace can call it "HPEMS", but really it is just another HERF device, and it is certainly not a new thing. In fact you can buy kits from places like this and build your own.
This is a High Energy Radio Frequency (HERF) gun not an EMP weapon, although the two are very similar in their final effects. EMP devices are omnidirectional and create a blanket pulse across a far larger portion of the EM spectrum. HERF affects a much smaller part of the spectrum, which allows the generating electronics to be tuned for higher efficiency and allowing the antennas to be directional. EMP devices are usually much higher power that fry the electronics, whereas HERF devices typically only cause disruption (requiring pulses to be sustained to prevent the normal function from restarting).
It will shut down the engine computers of most modern cars, but cars with carburetors and mechanical based ignition systems (ie. distributors) and diesel engines without electronic injection will be unnafected. While this may affect most cars and trucks made since 1970, it does not include them all.
To get to the power output that will stop a vehicle from distances usually seen in car chases would require a massive arrangement, capacitor bank, and a dedicated power supply to keep the HERF pulses sustained. This certainly will not be the kind of device that will be mounted on police cars any time soon.
I have to also wonder how effective it would be in an actual car chase (assuming they could find as way of making it mobile). They would typically be shooting it at the rear of the car where the bodywork would act as shielding for the engine computer, and there is nothing to stop portions of the RF pulses reflecting off the metal bodywork and disabling chasing police cars.
Actually, Apple claims that the rules SHOULD apply to them, and that it is Nokia that is wanting to change the rules in the case of a competitor that scares them. Whether this is true or not will come out in court, I imagine.
Whether this is true or not is rather irreleveant as Apple was LEGALLY OBLIGED to sort out that licensing deal BEFORE the iPhone was released. Apple didn't (presumably to keep the iPhone secret until the last minute). All Nokia need to do is prove that Apple knowingly released a product that would infringe on Nokia's patents, and the whole arguement about FRAND terms is pointless. Apple's legal defense seems to be 'they didn't want to sell it to usfor the price we wanted to pay, so that gives us the right to take it anyway'.
The reality is that, globally, Nokia is the larger company with a larger patent portfolio and has been in business far longer than Apple. Apple may have some key patents, but Nokia certainly have more in relation to mobile phone technology. The first patents at issue were ones necessary for GSM operation: without them, no GSM phone. It seems Apple, for whatever reason (possibly to maintain the secrecy of the iPhone development), decided not to sort out licensing before releasing the iPhone. This could be bad for Apple, if Nokia can prove in court that Apple deliberatly infringed on the patents to get the iPhone to market. Sure, Apple is arguing that license terms were not FRAND (as required by the GSM Association), but disagreement with licensing terms is not an exemption to put a product on the market.
Going to the USITC is simply the next step in this legal tit-for-tat. The seven patents at issue in Nokia's filing to the USITC (involving camera, antenna and power management technology) were different to the original ten patents it sued for in October (involving GSM and wireless technology). Apple countersued in December for thirteen patents. I have yet to see if Apple's USITC filing involes the same thirteen patents. If it does, Apple's USITC filing could be thrown out to avoid a situation of double jeopardy. If it doesn't it would be interesting to see what patents are in Apple's USITC filing.
It seems that Apple is trying to force a settlement out of Nokia, but Apple have for more to lose in this situation. Sure, there is a possibility of a ban on Nokia phones in the US, but most of Nokia's market lies outside the US. It is hard to tell what will happen next, but if a settlement is going to happen it won't be soon. I wouldn't be surprised if Nokia's next step is to take the fight international, with a filing in the EU. I can't help feeling that Apple may come out of this battle worse off.
Public outcry doesn't mean an entire citizen revolt, but usually enough of a public statement to get media attention. It worked down here in NZ when the government tried to push a three strikes ammendment into law. Organisations like the Creative Freedom Foundation started up, and the government quickly withdrew the ammendment when it was apparent there was a growing public outcry against it. Many of those very same people down here will not hesitate to do the same thing again for ACTA (if only people knew what was really in it).
This only goes to prove that ACTA is utterly driven by lobbyists for the entertainment inductry (MPAA, RIAA and such). Politicians aren't doing this for the people, just big business, and keeping this secret is really about hiding their shame. If people knew what was really going on, talks would probably break down from public outcry alone.
...it's clear that many governments don't actually want their own people to see the proposals being made and to shape their outcome.
It goes to show that it really pays to be a lobbyist:
Keeping negotiations secret is how "you get big fees to be a lobbyist," since only the "insiders" have access to the process.
Walking into the someone's house and taking their hard drive is theft. The data that is on that drive, represented as actual physical magnetic states on the drive, is also considered stolen (you are depriving the owner if legal posession).
Your arguement seems to be based around whether having a copy of it is also stealing. Getting the data in the first place may be a crime, whether you phyically snuck in and copied it (breaking & entering) or pwned his box (unauthorised used of a computer system).
Simply being in posession if the data may not be a crime (unless you comitted a crime in the first place to get the data), but the question falls down to legal entitlement. If you are not legally entitled to the data, then doing anything with that data is (not surprisingly) illegal. Depeding on what you do with the data, you could be guilty of criminal conversion, copyright infringement, fraud, identity theft, blackmail, and any number of other laws (depending on your locality) that deal with libel, invasion of privacy and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
While it is almost certainly illegal (to obtain, use or in some circumstances even possess), the fact still remains that making a copy is not itself theft (the illegal taking of another person's property, with the intent to deprive the owner of the possession, without that person's freely-given consent).
The idea that "copyright infringement is theft" is perpetuated by the RIAA/MPAA to build public sympathy. This overstates the seriousness if the issue, it oversimplifies the laws involved, it generates fear in the uninformed public, and it makes the RIAA/MPAA out to be more of a victim than they really are. Theft is a violation of criminal law, where as copyright infringement is largely covered by civil law. While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime.
If he is so worried about the new guys who haven't made it yet, then he really need to challenge how lablels trap artists with advances and how the labels use ridiculously low royalty payments to offset that debt until the band is considered recouped. He needs to attack how the industry really doesn't care about an artist, how how many thousands of dollars that artists has made for them, until they're considered recouped. Too see how the industry really works, take a look at this.
Bono's only basis for this new crusade are the figures given to him by the major labels (aka the RIAA). Those say nothing of the growing number of minor labels (who aren't RIAA members) and artists putting work out there themselves. If you took that into account, then the RIAA figures would say something quite different. Yes, there is piracy, but the artists are also realising that the RIAA's business model sucks and that until now the RIAA have been taking a vastly disproportionate ammount of the profits from artists.
The only thing this article proves is that Bono is a RIAA shill, as if we didn't know that already.
The question is did Apple seek to license the patents before the iPhone was released?
Given that every other manufacturer has licensed these patents (and that they are in respect to a Standard) means that Apple would have known about them when it was developing the iPhone. Did Apple approach Nokia at any stage in the process or did Apple just forge ahead, knowing of a potential infringement, hoping to deal with it at a later point in time? Given Apple's secrecy of projects in development, it wouldn't surprise me if that was one of the main reasons they didn't sort out licensing ahead of time.
Did Apple know about the patents while the iPhone was in development? Did Apple approach Nokia in any way prior to the iPhone's release? Did Apple release the iPhone knowing that it was infringing on on or more of Nokia's patents? If the answer is yes, then arguements over F/RAND terms are rather moot.
Apple's countersuit is a bargaining tactic - an attempt to force Nokia to settle. The most recent filing by Nokia seems to indicate that they are not willing to settle (at least not yet, and any settlement will be under their terms), and that they think they have a good chance. Time will tell, but this is shaping up to be a very interesting case.
I thought I made it pretty clear that if you want me to watch an hour and ten minute critique of a two hour and thirteen minute movie, you had better do a better job than what I saw in the first ten minutes
Really? You made it clear? Can you please point out the part in your original comment where you said that? You never made that claim in any form.
That aside, you never watched the whole thing, so you feel qualified to critique it? It is like reveiwing the plot of a movie by watching just the trailer (that may be possible with a lot of Hollywood movies, but not true for every movie).
What you're saying now is that your three paragraph diatribe was just a big TL;DR.
So you didn't watch the whole thing?? Your three paragraph diatraibe is rather wothless if you didn't watch the whole thing. The guy does know a thing or two about making film, and what makes this review funny isn't just ripping apart The Phantom Menace (which in itself isn't hard to do), but the way he does it and the way it is revealed there is something else about the reviewer. While this review makes some serious points pulling apart TPM, it is not a serious review itself.
How about you watch the whole thing and then start your diatribe?
Ensuring that it's mainly useful for large corporations rather than any smaller artists.
Which is exactly why groups like the Creative Freedom Foundation are pushing for penalties for false or frivolous use of the notice system and fighting for improved rights for small artists over large corporations. But you are right in that copyright has always favoured the large corporations.
With fundamentally unethical laws like this judicial oversight doesn't make up for it...
What exactly makes this 'fundamentally unethical'? I never said I liked the law, but surely this is far more ethical than the previous version that had guilt upn accusation and no judicial oversight.
It's become obvious that the disastrous abomination of a legal experiment called 'copyright' needs to be completely abolished to protect a free and open society.
The world would be an interesting place if copyright were to be abolished but that is just a fantasy, as much as I and many others would like to see it come true. We could all play the what-if game, but I'm more interested in helping to encourage the modification of this proposal for the better before it gets written into law (it hasn't actually become law yet).
Actually the $15,000NZ and the six month disconnection are just the maximums the Copyright Tribunal can hand down. The summary makes it seem like they are the default judgements: they aren't. Rights holders will need to prove that they were damaged severly to get awarded this. Really, the maximum penalty of $15,000NZ for effectively three infringements is tiny compared to judgements in the US against people like Jammie Thomas.
As much as I despise three strikes laws like this, at least this legislation has judicial oversight and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. As I understand, there will be a fee associated fo lodging and infringement notice, so it won't be a free for all for the MPAA or RIAA (or their NZ counterparts). However, penalties for false notices haven't been addressed yet, although organisations like the Creative Freedom Foundation are pushing to have this addressed before it becomes law.
The non-slim PS3s could run linux, but it was crippled you couldn't access the RSX directly. I'd say that these PS3s would be cheap slim models. At the very least, the USAF would have PS3 dev kits to let them write code that would access the RSX directly (not through some silly hypervisor). They probably even pulled a few strings and got Sony to change the PS3 system software to let them do what they want with the hardware.
Some people have said that Sony must be pissed as they lose money on each sale, but 2,200 consoles is effectively nothing to them in terms of monthly sales numbers. Sony get to move on some stock, they get a few more console sales to wave at their shareholders, and they get some good press that is worth more than the price of 2,200 consoles. In saying that, I imagine they charged the USAF full price for a PS3 dev kit or two.
In my opinion they're looking to:
1) take a larger share of the profit from game sales (what woud have been the physical manufacturing and distribution costs is now profit for Sony). I'm guessing that games will not be any cheaper and game developers/studios will not see any more money than they get currently.
2) stamp out the market for second hand games. Online distribution will lock the game to the device, so no used games, and no lending a game to a friend. This is something that games publishers have been complainging about for a while now (ie. not seeing a cut of second hand sales), but now they will have to pay the Sony tax for this to happen (see above).
3) attempt to take on the iPhone and iPod Touch. The problem is that for the iPhone and iPod Touch, games are a secondary use. They are first and foremost media platforms (and a phone in the case of the iPhone as well) The iPhone and iPod Touch have thousands of apps aside from games. The PSP Go doesn't have that going for it either.
I think that the PSP Go will be a spectacular flop for Sony (at least outide of Japan/Korea). They have already infuriated gamers by going back on their promise to allow PSP Go copies of games already purchased on UMD. The fact that Sony has gone proprietary with everything (and different connectors from PSP) is just another reason that gamers are going to walk away from this device.
Sure some people will buy this, but given reviews already out, there is not going to be a buying frenzy for the PSP Go. Sony could kill the PSP 3000, but in doing so they will kill the whole PSP line in the process. The fact that they haven't shows thay are not confident in the PSP Go.
On the surface it seems like NoScript had descended into the point of malware, but take a look into the history of why Giorgio did what he did and you will see that AdBlockPlus (Wladimir) and EasyList (Ares2) weren't entirely innocent in the matter (namely specifically blacklisting NoScript's domains). I notice that Giorgio was quick to apologise for his part, but Wladimir still refuses to apologise for his actions that certainly contributed.
Yes, there needs to be a more trustworthy NoScript, but at the same time there also need to be a more trustworthy AdBlockPlus and more transparency over subscription filtersets like EasyList.
I, personally have taken AdBlockPlus off my system, not because of this debacle, but because one of the updates recently broke my browser. I have found Privoxy much better suited to my needs.
Slashdot Mirror
In the days before electronic hearing aids, they used ear trumpets.
It looks odd to us because noone uses them anymore, but back then they would have been common for deaf people.
She is probably listening to the film crew telling her what to do.
Apologies. You are correct. The board is a custom part, and I doubt that you will find replacements from anyone but Apple, so they still have vendor lock-in, and Apple can easily EOL parts, so there is still a degree of planned obsolescence.
The MacBook Air is a pretty poor example to choose as a shift to SSDs. In the MacBook Air, the SSD chips are soldered to the logic board. It is not like there is a choice on what kind of drive can be installed. When 64GB isn't enough, there is no way to upgrade. When the SSD gets a fault, there is no drive to swap out - it would be time for a new logic board. With NAND Flash having a finite lifetime, soldering the SSDs to the logic board is a prime example of planned obsolescence. When the SSD dies (when, not if), there is only Apple to turn to, so Apple effectively has vendor lock-in as well, but we have come to expect that from Apple.
Marketing isn't going to shift far away from traditional hard drives any time soon. Yes, prices for NAND flash is dropping but there are disadvantages to using flash: low capacities (compared with HDDs), relatively low write performance and a finite lifetime of write cycles (yes wear levelling does help, but doesn't eliminate the core of the problem).
So, this stolen identity was used to create a website in the same business area as the company you work for? You have an unusual name, and someone has managed to find out and use detailed information about you to buy the domain? This sounds like an inside job. Is there someone at your workplace that really doesn't like you and is making grabs for your job? I'd call the police (if they haven't been called before now), and get myself a lawyer. This sounds a little more calculating than some spammer ripping off your ID. At the very least this sounds like some serious fraud.
Unfortunately, I cannot find a link to the actual study, so it is impossible to tell if their methods really are accurate. However, I do believe that only 1000 of the most highly seeded files is not an accurate representation of all BitTorrent traffic. In fact that very requirement that they be the highest seeded sets up a bias within this study. A study of 100,000 randomly selected files from as many trackers as they can find would yeild far more acurate results.
Who knows? Maybe this is what they did originally and their results were not as cut and dried as their corporate backers wanted. I note that the Internet Commerce Security Lab at the University of Ballarat doesn't detail their "collaborative partnerships within industry" on the website.
But don't dare criticize them for acting unprofessional, trying to milk the story, or otherwise disagree with them. They will ban or unstar you at a moment's notice.
Unfortunately Engadget can be just as bad, especially in the way they treated their readers and commenters in the time leading up to the iPad release.
I disagree with a blog treats their readership like children (effectively saying we needed time-out), while at the same time sticking their fingers in their ears and ignoring the comments of the vast majority of their readership. Shutting down the commenting system of your blog to remove offensive and threatening comments is one thing. Carrying on with the behaviour that triggered those comments and censoring any vaguely critical views is another. I do not like being treated like a child, especially when I'm not at fault.
It is their blog: they can do what they want, and I will just move somewhere else.
I'm not seeing the evil. All I see is discussions about covering their asses and a few individuals admitting to copyright infringement (with no actual evidence and no indication that this was done by YouTube itself). I see an acknowledgement that much of the material could be potentially infinging, but I also see discussions on how to proceed with takedown processes (whether to have a direct reporting link or wait for a takedown notice). As this kind of thing hadn't been done before, it could be argued that waiting for a takedown notice was a perfectly legal option, instead of having to be proactive.
There seems to be very little factual evidence in all of these IM and email quotes, not to mention that they are all taken out of context or given new context by Viacom's lawyers (prime example is the personal opinion that rightsholders were assholes being touted as a general disregard for copyright). It seems that much of this could easily be classed as hearsay (mainly the IM conversations) not factual evidence, and is only really useful in establishing character of the Google and YouTube management.
It seems that if Viacom are dredging up these emails and IM conversations as key evidence, they may not have much of a case, and that putting them out there is more about trying to publically shame YouTube into a settlement. If this is all they have to file for summary judgement, the rest of the case may be pretty flimsy.
Contrast this with YouTube/Google's filing for sumary judgement that argues that Viacom were placing videos on YouTube through covert and very deliberate means. This shows Viacome were being complete hypocrites, and it can be easily argued that Viacom could have been using this to entrap YouTube. If Google/YouTube have actual evidence of that, it could very easily be a smoking gun.
I just wonder what will happen when they use this on a car hurtling down suburban streets at 100+mph. Killing the electronics would presumably knock out handling and stability controls as well (no power steering, no assisted or anti-lock brakes, no traction control, no airbags). Sure they can stop the engine, but they can't stop momentum. They would just turn the car into an virtually uncontrollable hunk of metal hurtling down the road at 100+mph.... until it hits something.
Strap it to a police helicopter (or a police UAV, in 10 years).
Sure, but this makes the distance much greater, requiring a yet larger arrangement (with larger capacitor bank and power supply). Police helicopters and UAVs really can't handle much of a payload. Also, even if you could get over the problem of the inverse square law with a pinpoint beam, there will still be the issue of RF bounce off the metal bodywork potentially affecting surrounding vehicles
Eureka Aerospace can call it "HPEMS", but really it is just another HERF device, and it is certainly not a new thing. In fact you can buy kits from places like this and build your own.
This is a High Energy Radio Frequency (HERF) gun not an EMP weapon, although the two are very similar in their final effects. EMP devices are omnidirectional and create a blanket pulse across a far larger portion of the EM spectrum. HERF affects a much smaller part of the spectrum, which allows the generating electronics to be tuned for higher efficiency and allowing the antennas to be directional. EMP devices are usually much higher power that fry the electronics, whereas HERF devices typically only cause disruption (requiring pulses to be sustained to prevent the normal function from restarting).
It will shut down the engine computers of most modern cars, but cars with carburetors and mechanical based ignition systems (ie. distributors) and diesel engines without electronic injection will be unnafected. While this may affect most cars and trucks made since 1970, it does not include them all.
To get to the power output that will stop a vehicle from distances usually seen in car chases would require a massive arrangement, capacitor bank, and a dedicated power supply to keep the HERF pulses sustained. This certainly will not be the kind of device that will be mounted on police cars any time soon.
I have to also wonder how effective it would be in an actual car chase (assuming they could find as way of making it mobile). They would typically be shooting it at the rear of the car where the bodywork would act as shielding for the engine computer, and there is nothing to stop portions of the RF pulses reflecting off the metal bodywork and disabling chasing police cars.
Actually, Apple claims that the rules SHOULD apply to them, and that it is Nokia that is wanting to change the rules in the case of a competitor that scares them. Whether this is true or not will come out in court, I imagine.
Whether this is true or not is rather irreleveant as Apple was LEGALLY OBLIGED to sort out that licensing deal BEFORE the iPhone was released. Apple didn't (presumably to keep the iPhone secret until the last minute). All Nokia need to do is prove that Apple knowingly released a product that would infringe on Nokia's patents, and the whole arguement about FRAND terms is pointless. Apple's legal defense seems to be 'they didn't want to sell it to usfor the price we wanted to pay, so that gives us the right to take it anyway'.
The reality is that, globally, Nokia is the larger company with a larger patent portfolio and has been in business far longer than Apple. Apple may have some key patents, but Nokia certainly have more in relation to mobile phone technology. The first patents at issue were ones necessary for GSM operation: without them, no GSM phone. It seems Apple, for whatever reason (possibly to maintain the secrecy of the iPhone development), decided not to sort out licensing before releasing the iPhone. This could be bad for Apple, if Nokia can prove in court that Apple deliberatly infringed on the patents to get the iPhone to market. Sure, Apple is arguing that license terms were not FRAND (as required by the GSM Association), but disagreement with licensing terms is not an exemption to put a product on the market.
Going to the USITC is simply the next step in this legal tit-for-tat. The seven patents at issue in Nokia's filing to the USITC (involving camera, antenna and power management technology) were different to the original ten patents it sued for in October (involving GSM and wireless technology). Apple countersued in December for thirteen patents. I have yet to see if Apple's USITC filing involes the same thirteen patents. If it does, Apple's USITC filing could be thrown out to avoid a situation of double jeopardy. If it doesn't it would be interesting to see what patents are in Apple's USITC filing.
It seems that Apple is trying to force a settlement out of Nokia, but Apple have for more to lose in this situation. Sure, there is a possibility of a ban on Nokia phones in the US, but most of Nokia's market lies outside the US. It is hard to tell what will happen next, but if a settlement is going to happen it won't be soon. I wouldn't be surprised if Nokia's next step is to take the fight international, with a filing in the EU. I can't help feeling that Apple may come out of this battle worse off.
Public outcry doesn't mean an entire citizen revolt, but usually enough of a public statement to get media attention. It worked down here in NZ when the government tried to push a three strikes ammendment into law. Organisations like the Creative Freedom Foundation started up, and the government quickly withdrew the ammendment when it was apparent there was a growing public outcry against it. Many of those very same people down here will not hesitate to do the same thing again for ACTA (if only people knew what was really in it).
...it's clear that many governments don't actually want their own people to see the proposals being made and to shape their outcome.
It goes to show that it really pays to be a lobbyist:
Keeping negotiations secret is how "you get big fees to be a lobbyist," since only the "insiders" have access to the process.
Walking into the someone's house and taking their hard drive is theft. The data that is on that drive, represented as actual physical magnetic states on the drive, is also considered stolen (you are depriving the owner if legal posession).
Your arguement seems to be based around whether having a copy of it is also stealing. Getting the data in the first place may be a crime, whether you phyically snuck in and copied it (breaking & entering) or pwned his box (unauthorised used of a computer system).
Simply being in posession if the data may not be a crime (unless you comitted a crime in the first place to get the data), but the question falls down to legal entitlement. If you are not legally entitled to the data, then doing anything with that data is (not surprisingly) illegal. Depeding on what you do with the data, you could be guilty of criminal conversion, copyright infringement, fraud, identity theft, blackmail, and any number of other laws (depending on your locality) that deal with libel, invasion of privacy and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
While it is almost certainly illegal (to obtain, use or in some circumstances even possess), the fact still remains that making a copy is not itself theft (the illegal taking of another person's property, with the intent to deprive the owner of the possession, without that person's freely-given consent).
The idea that "copyright infringement is theft" is perpetuated by the RIAA/MPAA to build public sympathy. This overstates the seriousness if the issue, it oversimplifies the laws involved, it generates fear in the uninformed public, and it makes the RIAA/MPAA out to be more of a victim than they really are. Theft is a violation of criminal law, where as copyright infringement is largely covered by civil law. While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime.
If he is so worried about the new guys who haven't made it yet, then he really need to challenge how lablels trap artists with advances and how the labels use ridiculously low royalty payments to offset that debt until the band is considered recouped. He needs to attack how the industry really doesn't care about an artist, how how many thousands of dollars that artists has made for them, until they're considered recouped. Too see how the industry really works, take a look at this.
Bono's only basis for this new crusade are the figures given to him by the major labels (aka the RIAA). Those say nothing of the growing number of minor labels (who aren't RIAA members) and artists putting work out there themselves. If you took that into account, then the RIAA figures would say something quite different. Yes, there is piracy, but the artists are also realising that the RIAA's business model sucks and that until now the RIAA have been taking a vastly disproportionate ammount of the profits from artists.
The only thing this article proves is that Bono is a RIAA shill, as if we didn't know that already.
The question is did Apple seek to license the patents before the iPhone was released?
Given that every other manufacturer has licensed these patents (and that they are in respect to a Standard) means that Apple would have known about them when it was developing the iPhone. Did Apple approach Nokia at any stage in the process or did Apple just forge ahead, knowing of a potential infringement, hoping to deal with it at a later point in time? Given Apple's secrecy of projects in development, it wouldn't surprise me if that was one of the main reasons they didn't sort out licensing ahead of time.
Did Apple know about the patents while the iPhone was in development? Did Apple approach Nokia in any way prior to the iPhone's release? Did Apple release the iPhone knowing that it was infringing on on or more of Nokia's patents? If the answer is yes, then arguements over F/RAND terms are rather moot.
Apple's countersuit is a bargaining tactic - an attempt to force Nokia to settle. The most recent filing by Nokia seems to indicate that they are not willing to settle (at least not yet, and any settlement will be under their terms), and that they think they have a good chance. Time will tell, but this is shaping up to be a very interesting case.
I thought I made it pretty clear that if you want me to watch an hour and ten minute critique of a two hour and thirteen minute movie, you had better do a better job than what I saw in the first ten minutes
Really? You made it clear? Can you please point out the part in your original comment where you said that? You never made that claim in any form.
That aside, you never watched the whole thing, so you feel qualified to critique it? It is like reveiwing the plot of a movie by watching just the trailer (that may be possible with a lot of Hollywood movies, but not true for every movie).
What you're saying now is that your three paragraph diatribe was just a big TL;DR.
So from watching the first part,
So you didn't watch the whole thing?? Your three paragraph diatraibe is rather wothless if you didn't watch the whole thing. The guy does know a thing or two about making film, and what makes this review funny isn't just ripping apart The Phantom Menace (which in itself isn't hard to do), but the way he does it and the way it is revealed there is something else about the reviewer. While this review makes some serious points pulling apart TPM, it is not a serious review itself.
How about you watch the whole thing and then start your diatribe?
Ensuring that it's mainly useful for large corporations rather than any smaller artists.
Which is exactly why groups like the Creative Freedom Foundation are pushing for penalties for false or frivolous use of the notice system and fighting for improved rights for small artists over large corporations. But you are right in that copyright has always favoured the large corporations.
With fundamentally unethical laws like this judicial oversight doesn't make up for it...
What exactly makes this 'fundamentally unethical'? I never said I liked the law, but surely this is far more ethical than the previous version that had guilt upn accusation and no judicial oversight.
It's become obvious that the disastrous abomination of a legal experiment called 'copyright' needs to be completely abolished to protect a free and open society.
The world would be an interesting place if copyright were to be abolished but that is just a fantasy, as much as I and many others would like to see it come true. We could all play the what-if game, but I'm more interested in helping to encourage the modification of this proposal for the better before it gets written into law (it hasn't actually become law yet).
Actually the $15,000NZ and the six month disconnection are just the maximums the Copyright Tribunal can hand down. The summary makes it seem like they are the default judgements: they aren't. Rights holders will need to prove that they were damaged severly to get awarded this. Really, the maximum penalty of $15,000NZ for effectively three infringements is tiny compared to judgements in the US against people like Jammie Thomas.
As much as I despise three strikes laws like this, at least this legislation has judicial oversight and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. As I understand, there will be a fee associated fo lodging and infringement notice, so it won't be a free for all for the MPAA or RIAA (or their NZ counterparts). However, penalties for false notices haven't been addressed yet, although organisations like the Creative Freedom Foundation are pushing to have this addressed before it becomes law.
The non-slim PS3s could run linux, but it was crippled you couldn't access the RSX directly. I'd say that these PS3s would be cheap slim models. At the very least, the USAF would have PS3 dev kits to let them write code that would access the RSX directly (not through some silly hypervisor). They probably even pulled a few strings and got Sony to change the PS3 system software to let them do what they want with the hardware.
Some people have said that Sony must be pissed as they lose money on each sale, but 2,200 consoles is effectively nothing to them in terms of monthly sales numbers. Sony get to move on some stock, they get a few more console sales to wave at their shareholders, and they get some good press that is worth more than the price of 2,200 consoles. In saying that, I imagine they charged the USAF full price for a PS3 dev kit or two.
Translation: they killed the PSP.
No, they're just trying to kill it.
In my opinion they're looking to:
1) take a larger share of the profit from game sales (what woud have been the physical manufacturing and distribution costs is now profit for Sony). I'm guessing that games will not be any cheaper and game developers/studios will not see any more money than they get currently.
2) stamp out the market for second hand games. Online distribution will lock the game to the device, so no used games, and no lending a game to a friend. This is something that games publishers have been complainging about for a while now (ie. not seeing a cut of second hand sales), but now they will have to pay the Sony tax for this to happen (see above).
3) attempt to take on the iPhone and iPod Touch. The problem is that for the iPhone and iPod Touch, games are a secondary use. They are first and foremost media platforms (and a phone in the case of the iPhone as well) The iPhone and iPod Touch have thousands of apps aside from games. The PSP Go doesn't have that going for it either.
I think that the PSP Go will be a spectacular flop for Sony (at least outide of Japan/Korea). They have already infuriated gamers by going back on their promise to allow PSP Go copies of games already purchased on UMD. The fact that Sony has gone proprietary with everything (and different connectors from PSP) is just another reason that gamers are going to walk away from this device.
Sure some people will buy this, but given reviews already out, there is not going to be a buying frenzy for the PSP Go. Sony could kill the PSP 3000, but in doing so they will kill the whole PSP line in the process. The fact that they haven't shows thay are not confident in the PSP Go.
If you read the summary, it shows SHE was the person who comissioned HIM.
Of course you could always RTFA to find out that is the case, but this is Slashdot after all. ;)
On the surface it seems like NoScript had descended into the point of malware, but take a look into the history of why Giorgio did what he did and you will see that AdBlockPlus (Wladimir) and EasyList (Ares2) weren't entirely innocent in the matter (namely specifically blacklisting NoScript's domains). I notice that Giorgio was quick to apologise for his part, but Wladimir still refuses to apologise for his actions that certainly contributed.
Yes, there needs to be a more trustworthy NoScript, but at the same time there also need to be a more trustworthy AdBlockPlus and more transparency over subscription filtersets like EasyList.
I, personally have taken AdBlockPlus off my system, not because of this debacle, but because one of the updates recently broke my browser. I have found Privoxy much better suited to my needs.