and (IIRC) Tandy's GUI system (sorry, I don't remember its name).
Deskmate. I've only used version 3.something, so I don't recall any UI changes (driven by Apple or anyone). On the other hand, knowing what I know of Apple's history of zealously protecting whatever it percieves as its IP, it seems plausible. I'm just too lazy to look up your claim.
I am not a lawyer: the following is just my reading of the readily available material on design property protection, mostly from a US perspective (mine). YMMV.
Since one of the trademarks of Apple's latest batch of products is its unique interface style and artwork
Regarding "trademark": "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Do you mean trademark literally? And legally? Industrial design intellectual property protection is kinda weird in the US. You can take out a design patent convering the non-functional "aesthetic" or ornamental aspects of a design. I've done some quick searches at the USPTO, and it doesn't appear that Apple has one of those yet.
The only thing approaching "trademark" is "trade dress", but that appears to be apply only very broadly to an entire company's look and feel, not of a particular product.
Or did you mean "trademark" as in "distinctive product look and feel", which is not implicitly protected by US IP law. (Canada, sure. If the design is registered. Or the EU. Or Japan.)
Sorry, I hate to say it, but knockoffs that don't incorporate or hint at actual registered trademarks or infringe on functional or design patents are almost certainly legal.
And at least in the U.S., discussion of knockoff-like entities (like software skins for your non-Apple smartphone) should always be permissible, according to that darn ol' Constitution. Any attempt to squelch such discussion feels like improper prior restraint and an unacceptable infringment of personal liberties in order to protect the marketing prerogatives of a corporate.
But even if it was a country then as individuals, we wouldn't be "invading" we would be migrating. And if we happen to be the majority then we have a democratic right to overthrow an oppressive regime.
If this place were even approximately "News for Nerds", Our Illustrious Editor would have realized that calling TCP Window Scaling "new" rises to the same level as referring to the recently-inaugurated Clinton administration. Literally: RFC 1323 dates to 1992.
I love the scare quotes around "features" at the end of the summary to. God forfend that that evil Micro$oft CORRECTLY implement a TCP standard.
Sigh. Look folks. In this case, MS isn't at fault. It's craptacular consumer-grade network gear which cuts corners on standards compliance. I acknowlege freely that MS is an evil monopolistic corporation bent on world domination, but in this case that's beside the point.
The US Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice have independently terminated investigations into Apple's reportedly irregular stock option grant activities. A DoJ spokesperson was quoted as saying "A superior jurisdiction has cleared Apple and Steve Jobs of all allegations, so we obviously have no grounds to pursue."
At least we don't shoot people for their "crimes". Yet.
If you use the colloquial meaning of "shoot" (as in "shoot up"), yes we do.
Up until 2004, Utah could impose death by firing squad as an execution sentence; the sentence is apparently still applicable to the few convicts that were sentenced before that moratorium and are still on death row.
So, if you were being ironic, ok. If you were being semi-ironic, well, ok. But in truth, we (our representatives in the government--all branches) do shoot people for crimes. My main worry is the sliding window of what constitutes a crime. And maybe, if you were being semi-ironic, that's what you were worrying about too.
If you can finagle some minicomputer-era hardware, like parts of a DEC PDP system (no one expects you to transport and functionally install this), that'd be cool for the "look how far we have come" tip.
Some early kit-build micros would be nifty. An IMSAI or a SWTPC 6800 system perhaps.
Early (pre 1980) "consumer" PCs, like an Apple ][ or a TRS-80 Model I. Or an original "calculator keyboard" PET. (Hell, I'd pay money to see one of those again.)
Stuff from the 80s, too. The early 16-bitters.
Now, a question for you. If you manage to pull together a significant and interesting cross-section of early PC history, how are you handling security? Consider that some of these systems were actually small enought to carry out in a coat, and many of the systems may be valuable enough to consider smash-n-grab.
Ah, you're talking in a PR sense. I meant in a legal sense, the only sense that matters to corporate overlords.
A more precise formulation is "HP did nothing illegal, just ask 'em." And if legislative developments continue as they seem to be shaping up, future instances of this behavior will continue to be legal, just ask 'em.
Settling without an admission of guilt is back-alley dealing, no matter how common it might be in civil litigation. (And I'm not fond of nolo contendere in criminal law, either.)
For the public good and the purposes of justice, guilt is as important as imposition of a penalty. The harm done has to be, in old theological terms, publicly "repented". The attachment of a designation of guilt makes it unarguably clear that the perpetrator understands it's got some reforming to do.
In this case? HP did nothing wrong, just ask 'em. $14m is chump change. Less than chump change. The board and the executives could hold a bake sale to raise that. And the other outcome? Two shiny new executive seats to fill. Darn. Two more opportunities to promote apple-polishers.
I vowed, long ago, to never buy HP. This reinforces my determination.
From an engineering firm with great public and professional ethics to just another cut-throat robber-baron vendor of inferior-grade cruft. How far indeed have the mighty and righteous fallen.
So if all the spammers move to Indonesia, that fact can at least be used as another factor to improve spam filtering. I don't receive a lot of legitimate e-mail from Indonesia.
Unfortunately, even if every spammer moves to Indonesia, they're not relocating their rented botnets to Indonesia. Sorry, no magic bullet there; the spams will continue to originate from a random worldwide assortment of pwn'd business servers in Europe, bulletproof hosters in China, and clueless lusers' trojanized home PCs on US broadband.
The only difference is that the spammers themselves will be outside of the easy reach of US law. That's a big plus, if you're one of the spammers. Extradition is so much more work, and in some third world countries you can easily evade detection or extradition with the connivance of local and national authorities if you have enough money.
It's a global internet. Spam is a global problem. There is no global solution. Therefore, spam will be eterenal. QED.
Slashdot Mirror
and (IIRC) Tandy's GUI system (sorry, I don't remember its name).
Deskmate. I've only used version 3.something, so I don't recall any UI changes (driven by Apple or anyone). On the other hand, knowing what I know of Apple's history of zealously protecting whatever it percieves as its IP, it seems plausible. I'm just too lazy to look up your claim.
Geez, fanboi, try to read the summary, if you can't be troubled to read the article.
The problem is not that the iPod locks you into one music provider. The problem is that ITMS locks you into one music player.
So, let's try your slightly fanciful courtroom drama in a more on-topic fashion:
Norwegian Prosecuter: This is bad - the consummer is harmed
Apple lawyer shill: Judge here is a list of the portable music players that play music sold by iTunes Music Store.
Judge: Ummm... the only name on this list is "iPod".
Apple shill: Yeah, ain't it insanely great?
Judge: Guilty. (WTF are they thinking? Textbook definition of anti-consumer monopolism!)
That's how we fight SPAM.
I am not a lawyer: the following is just my reading of the readily available material on design property protection, mostly from a US perspective (mine). YMMV.
Since one of the trademarks of Apple's latest batch of products is its unique interface style and artwork
Regarding "trademark": "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Do you mean trademark literally? And legally? Industrial design intellectual property protection is kinda weird in the US. You can take out a design patent convering the non-functional "aesthetic" or ornamental aspects of a design. I've done some quick searches at the USPTO, and it doesn't appear that Apple has one of those yet.
The only thing approaching "trademark" is "trade dress", but that appears to be apply only very broadly to an entire company's look and feel, not of a particular product.
Or did you mean "trademark" as in "distinctive product look and feel", which is not implicitly protected by US IP law. (Canada, sure. If the design is registered. Or the EU. Or Japan.)
Sorry, I hate to say it, but knockoffs that don't incorporate or hint at actual registered trademarks or infringe on functional or design patents are almost certainly legal.
And at least in the U.S., discussion of knockoff-like entities (like software skins for your non-Apple smartphone) should always be permissible, according to that darn ol' Constitution. Any attempt to squelch such discussion feels like improper prior restraint and an unacceptable infringment of personal liberties in order to protect the marketing prerogatives of a corporate.
I think they're hoping for one thing - that the judges will get (too) pissed off and make a mistake.
Or, quoting from SCO's litigation strategy documents:
Yup. Every day, Steve-oh is learning more and more: The Reality Distortion Field (tm) does not function in court.
But even if it was a country then as individuals, we wouldn't be "invading" we would be migrating. And if we happen to be the majority then we have a democratic right to overthrow an oppressive regime.
Dang right. Just ask the Texians.
W...T...F...?
If this place were even approximately "News for Nerds", Our Illustrious Editor would have realized that calling TCP Window Scaling "new" rises to the same level as referring to the recently-inaugurated Clinton administration. Literally: RFC 1323 dates to 1992.
I love the scare quotes around "features" at the end of the summary to. God forfend that that evil Micro$oft CORRECTLY implement a TCP standard.
Sigh. Look folks. In this case, MS isn't at fault. It's craptacular consumer-grade network gear which cuts corners on standards compliance. I acknowlege freely that MS is an evil monopolistic corporation bent on world domination, but in this case that's beside the point.
And.... laptops? None there, mate. TFA was about a laptop purchase. So laptops apparently don't run free OSs.
Oh, BTW, your URL got split by the Mighty Mighty /. page-widening troll protection system. Try the <URL> tag, like so: http://www.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx /nseries?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd&redirect=1
The US Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice have independently terminated investigations into Apple's reportedly irregular stock option grant activities. A DoJ spokesperson was quoted as saying "A superior jurisdiction has cleared Apple and Steve Jobs of all allegations, so we obviously have no grounds to pursue."
At least we don't shoot people for their "crimes". Yet.
If you use the colloquial meaning of "shoot" (as in "shoot up"), yes we do.
Up until 2004, Utah could impose death by firing squad as an execution sentence; the sentence is apparently still applicable to the few convicts that were sentenced before that moratorium and are still on death row.
So, if you were being ironic, ok. If you were being semi-ironic, well, ok. But in truth, we (our representatives in the government--all branches) do shoot people for crimes. My main worry is the sliding window of what constitutes a crime. And maybe, if you were being semi-ironic, that's what you were worrying about too.
Which will work BEAUTIFULLY, because no one would every lie and tag, for instance, tubgirl, SFW. Ambush linkers would never go that far.
If you can finagle some minicomputer-era hardware, like parts of a DEC PDP system (no one expects you to transport and functionally install this), that'd be cool for the "look how far we have come" tip.
Some early kit-build micros would be nifty. An IMSAI or a SWTPC 6800 system perhaps.
Early (pre 1980) "consumer" PCs, like an Apple ][ or a TRS-80 Model I. Or an original "calculator keyboard" PET. (Hell, I'd pay money to see one of those again.)
Stuff from the 80s, too. The early 16-bitters.
Now, a question for you. If you manage to pull together a significant and interesting cross-section of early PC history, how are you handling security? Consider that some of these systems were actually small enought to carry out in a coat, and many of the systems may be valuable enough to consider smash-n-grab.
Yes, I'm paranoid. Aren't you?
There may be more stupid questions, but there are no questions more stupid.
I dunno. I actually subscribed to it waaay early in its US career. I always found it interesting.
Sometimes, "horrible gruesome high-speed multivehicle multi-fatality accident" interesting. Sometimes, "huh, that's cool" interesting.
Kinda like the net.
Although I'm grateful for the relative immunity to online angry fruit salad I developed by suffering through the "cutting edge" style of Wired.
Well then, why don't you fix it, and then submit patches back?
Ah, you're talking in a PR sense. I meant in a legal sense, the only sense that matters to corporate overlords.
A more precise formulation is "HP did nothing illegal, just ask 'em." And if legislative developments continue as they seem to be shaping up, future instances of this behavior will continue to be legal, just ask 'em.
This isn't some back-alley dealing,
Settling without an admission of guilt is back-alley dealing, no matter how common it might be in civil litigation. (And I'm not fond of nolo contendere in criminal law, either.)
For the public good and the purposes of justice, guilt is as important as imposition of a penalty. The harm done has to be, in old theological terms, publicly "repented". The attachment of a designation of guilt makes it unarguably clear that the perpetrator understands it's got some reforming to do.
In this case? HP did nothing wrong, just ask 'em. $14m is chump change. Less than chump change. The board and the executives could hold a bake sale to raise that. And the other outcome? Two shiny new executive seats to fill. Darn. Two more opportunities to promote apple-polishers.
I vowed, long ago, to never buy HP. This reinforces my determination.
From an engineering firm with great public and professional ethics to just another cut-throat robber-baron vendor of inferior-grade cruft. How far indeed have the mighty and righteous fallen.
There is a slight gap between "reality" and "entertainment".
According to this research, the gap may be more slight than you credit.
And what's the going price for a 4-digit ID? A 3-digit one?
Also, for some very very odd reason, after around 18 months, the solder joints begin to somehow grow little spikes and cause pins to short out.
Ah, tin whiskers. An extra-special gift from our European friends.
So if all the spammers move to Indonesia, that fact can at least be used as another factor to improve spam filtering. I don't receive a lot of legitimate e-mail from Indonesia.
Unfortunately, even if every spammer moves to Indonesia, they're not relocating their rented botnets to Indonesia. Sorry, no magic bullet there; the spams will continue to originate from a random worldwide assortment of pwn'd business servers in Europe, bulletproof hosters in China, and clueless lusers' trojanized home PCs on US broadband.
The only difference is that the spammers themselves will be outside of the easy reach of US law. That's a big plus, if you're one of the spammers. Extradition is so much more work, and in some third world countries you can easily evade detection or extradition with the connivance of local and national authorities if you have enough money.
It's a global internet. Spam is a global problem. There is no global solution. Therefore, spam will be eterenal. QED.
Brick is not mined; it's man-made.
From clay, which is mined.
We'll refine the metric at a screening later. For now, let the standard be "Star Wars cast member X gets a bad feeling about it.".