Did anybody think about this updates for free aspect? It took MS 5 years to update XP to Vista. You could have 5 years of non-existent Office updates given Microsoft's recent track record -- but they'll all be for free!
There is an immigration judge out here who has all but said that he became a judge so he could help keep immigrants out of this country. Judges shouldn't have an agenda.
If the law allows barring them (you don't distinguish if we're speaking of illegal, or legal, immigrants here), and other judges aren't following the law as written (and how likely is that?) then he may well have reason to want to be a judge that others of us feel we need more of.
Btw, you don't just become a judge. You don't wake up one morning and decide, "I want to be a judge now for the rest of my life. I should be starting in my new position by this afternoon at the latest."
Meanwhile, uTorrent has made huge gains during this period soaring into second place and posing a genuine challenge to LimeWire.
I would say more accurately that it poses a major challenge to the RIAA/MPAA then to LimeWire, which is hardly going to suffer from the success of another P2P client/network.
All this does is prove how overpriced Apple gear really is.
Umm, did you end with an attempt to troll?
When another company can make a profit selling a more powerful system for half the price, it's not trolling to point out the obvious that the more expensive one is likely overpriced. Only hyper-sensitive Apple FanBois (who did pay too much) can take offense at common sense.
So doesn't this mark a very rapid change of outlook on Seagate's part?
He just didn't know which possible patents he could throw against it at the time and didn't want to be questioned on that point. Now he believes he knows that answer.
Not only doesn't Seagate have any competing product here, but they're going to do their best to ensure that nobody else does either. While that may benefit Seagate, it harms the rest of us - which isn't what the patent system is supposed to be all about. That defines Seagate as scum.
If this is just a SATA connection, how does Seagate own it to start with? Other companies make SATA hard drives. And if they don't own it, how are you in trouble adhering to it?
I see that Intel is potentially dragged into this as well. Wouldn't it be great if Intel announced that their next chipset wouldn't connect to Seagate drives unless Seagate cross-licensed some new protocol item. And once they did, Intel extends that licensing to other drive manufacturers. After all, this nonsense can't be good for Intel's business.
Monster Cable are the clowns who convince clueless morons that their $150 HDMI cables provide better pictures to your big screen than ordinary HDMI cables.
Hey, It's Digital, Clowns! It either works, or it doesn't. It doesn't work halfway.
I'm sure it's gonna take Apple seconds to upgrade their OS so that it refuses to work on these things.
You obviously don't understand what's involved in releasing an update to an operating system. For starters, they're not going to recall existing copies off of the shelves. They might try to kill it through Apple Update, and then tell the purchaser that it's not their fault that their operating system doesn't run on approved hardware any longer. They might not have a quick fix at all that doesn't break too much existing gear.
Of course that's outright TERRIBLE PR for Apple themselves since if any of these people had intended to buy Apple branded hardware they would have done so in the first place.
More likely they'll try to kill it through the courts, or make the Leopard successor attempt to detect Apple Genuine Advantage Hardware properly.
All this does is prove how overpriced Apple gear really is.
It's about time the legality of some of Apple's claims and actions are tested in the legal system. Apple gets away with a lot, some of which is questionable?
(I.e. once you sell an operating system, are you really allowed to restrict it to your hardware? Ford can't restrict their cars to only running on Ford gas, and only being repaired with Genuine Ford Parts, for example.)
Could Apple legally say that no other O/S than OS-X is allowed to be run on their computers - just to ensure that you have to buy the O/S from them?
It's not often I'm in favor of Comcast these days (and yes, I am a subscriber to it due to lack of other available options, despite the FCC's contention that there's ample competition in broadband), but this time I'm happy that they've won. Spammers, along with Phishers, Virus/Trojan Writers, and 'Bot Herders are the true scum of the Internet.
The biggest fraud in this whole thing is that UMG filed was is to all effects a DMCA takedown notice. They complied with every aspect of the requirements of the DMCA, which is why the auctions were pulled down in the first place. eBay doesn't take chances in losing their safe harbor provisions. If UMG hadn't complied fully with the DMCA, eBay would have been just fine doing nothing.
But the DMCA also has a provision to punish fraudulent use of its provisions, and the punishment is rather severe.
So what does the awful UMG argue? Hey that wasn't an official DMCA notice. We only happened to coincidentally meet all the requirements listed in it. But because it wasn't an "official DMCA takedown request", we're not bound by the DMCA at all. You can't punish us under it!
I hope the court is not so stupid as to let them get away with this fraud, lie, and abuse of the DMCA process.
Slashdot Mirror
Did anybody think about this updates for free aspect? It took MS 5 years to update XP to Vista. You could have 5 years of non-existent Office updates given Microsoft's recent track record -- but they'll all be for free!
This will solve piracy for Microsoft. An idea this dumb, with so many free alternatives out there, won't be worth the effort to pirate.
As far as paying by credit card goes, you're likely protected by your card company against fraud so you shouldn't be too concerned there.
Next thing you know we're going to be needing small atoms to keep Moore's Law humming along.
If the law allows barring them (you don't distinguish if we're speaking of illegal, or legal, immigrants here), and other judges aren't following the law as written (and how likely is that?) then he may well have reason to want to be a judge that others of us feel we need more of.
Btw, you don't just become a judge. You don't wake up one morning and decide, "I want to be a judge now for the rest of my life. I should be starting in my new position by this afternoon at the latest."
We as consumers can only hope that this will be true.
How about a Leave Me Alone Registry that registers you to all these other registries?
The best news is to find out that your own P2P app isn't even listed. That might put you below the litigation radar threshold.
I would say more accurately that it poses a major challenge to the RIAA/MPAA then to LimeWire, which is hardly going to suffer from the success of another P2P client/network.
When another company can make a profit selling a more powerful system for half the price, it's not trolling to point out the obvious that the more expensive one is likely overpriced. Only hyper-sensitive Apple FanBois (who did pay too much) can take offense at common sense.
InfoBahn?
He just didn't know which possible patents he could throw against it at the time and didn't want to be questioned on that point. Now he believes he knows that answer.
If this is just a SATA connection, how does Seagate own it to start with? Other companies make SATA hard drives. And if they don't own it, how are you in trouble adhering to it?
I see that Intel is potentially dragged into this as well. Wouldn't it be great if Intel announced that their next chipset wouldn't connect to Seagate drives unless Seagate cross-licensed some new protocol item. And once they did, Intel extends that licensing to other drive manufacturers. After all, this nonsense can't be good for Intel's business.
Hey, It's Digital, Clowns! It either works, or it doesn't. It doesn't work halfway.
I believe the proper iSlang is PWNED!
You obviously don't understand what's involved in releasing an update to an operating system. For starters, they're not going to recall existing copies off of the shelves. They might try to kill it through Apple Update, and then tell the purchaser that it's not their fault that their operating system doesn't run on approved hardware any longer. They might not have a quick fix at all that doesn't break too much existing gear.
Of course that's outright TERRIBLE PR for Apple themselves since if any of these people had intended to buy Apple branded hardware they would have done so in the first place.
More likely they'll try to kill it through the courts, or make the Leopard successor attempt to detect Apple Genuine Advantage Hardware properly.
All this does is prove how overpriced Apple gear really is.
(I.e. once you sell an operating system, are you really allowed to restrict it to your hardware? Ford can't restrict their cars to only running on Ford gas, and only being repaired with Genuine Ford Parts, for example.)
Could Apple legally say that no other O/S than OS-X is allowed to be run on their computers - just to ensure that you have to buy the O/S from them?
Lower taxes! Now go away and leave me alone, Mr. Troll Anonymous.
Oh really? Cable systems are trying to switch off bandwidth-hogging analog as fast as they can too.
You don't really think that the incumbent telcos are going to let you survive to complete this, do you?
Except that Bayer is the Defendant here bein evil!
This is nothing more than sheer harassment disguised as a blatant fishing expedition.
I've had exactly that same problem with them, which is why I now use a free gMail account.
It's not often I'm in favor of Comcast these days (and yes, I am a subscriber to it due to lack of other available options, despite the FCC's contention that there's ample competition in broadband), but this time I'm happy that they've won. Spammers, along with Phishers, Virus/Trojan Writers, and 'Bot Herders are the true scum of the Internet.
But the DMCA also has a provision to punish fraudulent use of its provisions, and the punishment is rather severe.
So what does the awful UMG argue? Hey that wasn't an official DMCA notice. We only happened to coincidentally meet all the requirements listed in it. But because it wasn't an "official DMCA takedown request", we're not bound by the DMCA at all. You can't punish us under it!
I hope the court is not so stupid as to let them get away with this fraud, lie, and abuse of the DMCA process.