"The commercial web is dead, killed by the greed and arrogance of our corporate culture and its basic hatred for its customers, who don't always do what the advertisers spend 3 billion dollars a year telling them to do."
It's not dead, just the big spenders are dropping out. If it was really dead, would we be getting corporate friendly laws (WIPO, UCITA, DMCA, software patents) passed left and right?
Small businesses that serve a market and follow the Cluetrain Mainfesto (knowingly or not) are able to get by. They learned what works from experience and not having millions of dollars to flush away. They aren't getting rich, but they are sucessfully using the web commercially.
Don't forget porn. They're in-your-face and making out like bandits!
and other internal networks.
Unfortunately, most companies I have worked at prefer a Windows-only policy for network access and client machines. Such an environment AFAIK, only exists in some corporations. But it still exists.
"New language CURL ditches all existing web work for a proprietary, windows-only format."
How to make money using the 'Net:
1. Fire all marketing and business experts.
2. read Cluetrain Mainfesto
3. Determine if your business can beneft from an *interactive global* network.
4. If the answer to #3 is 'no' continue yor business plan.
5. If the answer to #3 is 'yes' add the Internet to your business plan.
Stupid Net business plans
1. Competing on price
2. Traditional marketing pushing commodity products
Great business plans
1. Use the net to communicate with your clients to establish a relationship.
2. use the net to reduce business costs
3. small business with low overhead serving niche audiences (like hobbies)
Don't worry, the US seems intent on continuing the privatized profits, subsidized losses we've been seeing since the late 70s.
With an abundance of information comes the specialist. The specialist makes money based on his knowledge. This is not new to the Internet, the information economy or any other post-industrial phenomenon.
The same thing happened to religions hundreds, even thousands of years ago. As the religions and sect splintered monks sat in their isolated monastaries poring over specialized texts over particular subjects so that they could be well versed in one subject to the neglect of others. An individual may be an expert in the sutras of the Nichiren School, but ignorant of the basic teachings of the Ch'an School.
Today these people are specialist doctors, lawyers, and programmers. They make good money if their skills are in demand, but suffer when they are not. Society moves on most people still ignorant of anything beyond their immediate concerns.
"What incentive does the BBC or any other non-US based production have in using the regioning system?"
Well, you do see some comapnies producing non region encoded DVDs. But they seem to come mainly from China and HK. Even those seem to becoming more frequently coded as Region 3. What happens is that if overseas studios want to distribute their movies in the US, they have to get a US distributor. These are increasngly being done by the big 5, the same people who came up with region encoding in the first place.
For example, Tsui Hark's Time and Tide will undergo a big release later this year (limited release is undergoing now) from Columbia Tri Star (Sony). In order for this to happen the contract will specify all DVDs of the film need to be region encoded. So you can't get a (legal) DVD that isn't region 3.
Overseas film companies can potentially get more money by having their movies exhibted in the US so they'll sign over those rights. Unfortunately, distributors don't have to exhibit movies in theaters or release to DVD. Miramax (Disney) has lots of films you can't show in the US nor will they rent them to small theaters to show. They just sit on them, or reedit them resulting in horrible dubs and editted versions (witness Supercop, Fong Sai Yuk 1 and 2 etc etc).
Want to bet that Once Upon a Time in China 1-3 will be encoded very soon so you can't get a region free version?
MS's success is from preying on the weaknesses of human nature: herd mentality and laziness. Until people in the US get off their butt and do something other than worry about theirs and start acting in a socially meaningful way, nothing will change.
Laziness and the herd mentality are instinctual. That MS and other big companies rely on that for their income is no surprise. What is a surprise is to think that anything will change until US citizens want a change. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening in the next 5 years.
Instead of just bitching, go do something or suggest an alterntative. Then you too can make money.
Listen. If I have $100 in Microsoft stock and I want them to make a Linux version of Office, are they going to do that? No. They'll do what the majority of the shareholders (not people, the amount of shares they control) want. Corporations don't operate on the principle of one stockholder one vote, they operate based on the amount of stock you hold. So in effect, you buy your influence, which is not democratic.
I don't see anybody calling for an end to corporations or profits, what they want is some control over their lives, which you don't have unless you're a stockholder. When corporations get copyrights on the laws they write and lobby for laws that benefit their needs over the needs of people, democracy suffers. I can replace a scummy politician with a less savory one every few years. I do not have the option of removing Michael Eisner from Disney, or boardmembers from companies that knowingly pollute the environment because it's cheaper to pay fines than prevent the pollution in the first place.
If corporations want the benefits they get from the government they should have to abide from the same laws as its citizens.
And it is debatable how much wealth they create for the average jack and joe.
This article uses a sophist trick that seems to have flown over most of the heads of people here. What people want is control of their information, not absolute privacy. McNealy (and most here) equate absolute privacy with control of information. While that may be true, what *most* people want i control over their information - who gets what and what is shared among people, groups, and companies.
McNealy is right that most people want physicians to have access to medical records. What he seems to neglect is that most people don't want medical purchases automatically sent to their insurers or doctors. That is a big difference and one McNealy doesn't seem to grasp in it's entirety.
Since Scott can't argue against *control* of user information, he uses the extreme example of absolute privacy as a red herring. Too many people have fallen for that.
"The largest impact Mozilla could have in the areas of browsers could very well be cell/Yopi like devices that require easy to build sharp looking interfaces for embedded systems like PDA's with wireless internet access."
Actually, the symbian reference platform has gone with Opera. Doesn't mean all vendors will use it, but it *is* the reference app for HTML derived content.
I understand and point taken. But AFAIK, you *can* own an M-16. Just not a fully automatic version of it. I forget the desgination of the gun (I think it is the Colt AR-15?), but again, it uses the least restrictive method (full auto being illegal) while allowing ownership for legal uses (single shot).
Remember, the full auto weapon modifications were one of the excuses for raiding the Branch Davidian compond. Not the fact they owned guns.
"but the Napster case did set a legal precedent for saying that any service that can be used to transfer copyrighted materials can be challenged and.or shut down."
Sure AIMster is used to transfer copyrighted material. But the laws state that if something can *potentially* be used to commit illegal acts, laws need to be set so that *legal* uses can also be allowed. That is to say, use the least restrictive means to prevent illegal activities whiole still allowing legal use.
Of course this is what was argued in the recent Napster appeal and the judges didn't appear to buy it. Have they made a ruling yet?
If you go, could you ask an employee when the OSX and/or Altivec ports will be out? I haven't gotten an answer via e-mail. Seems these have been promised to us Mac users for a (seeming) eternity. I think the PS2 has been getting all the developer time lately.
Your solution is best for consumers in that it still allows the DVD to be copied without any kind of degradation. th eonly thing missing is the hologram, an element the consumer couldn't see until after purchase anyway given current packaging.
As somebody else pointed, out pirates can also do holograms.
The industry wants to declare war on its own customer base. None of the proposed solutions really prevents the DVD from being copied bit for bit by pros, it only restricts the consumers' playback and use. You can bet when the entertainment industry feels they've stomped out the rights of consumes to use non threatening hardware or software, DVD prices will go from the $15-$20 range to the $40-$50 range.
OSX on Intel is a long way away. As others hav said, there's many other components and issues that will prevent any kind of OSX on Intel machine in the next few years.
OTOH, what Apple could do is release Darwin with the GUI of Mac Classic with Darwin underneath. It woudl make sense, because the timeframe to implement it would ensure that OSX is the default PPC version. You'd not have the Java or Aqua support so you're not endangering your core market.
I'm not sure Apple would bother making any apps beyond server apps, which would doom the thing to obscurity ala Be, but if the open source crowd picked it up and took advantage of a good GUI (and followed the interface guidelines, which I doubt) then Apple could have a "back door" into low end servers.
There is a means to "reboot"the American government. It's called the Constituional Convention. It's covered in Article 5 of the Bill of Rights under the rubric of amending the Constitution. Theoretically, you could amend the Constitution to such an extent you throw it out.
However, since there has only been one "Con Con" it is doubtful such a thing would be done. Since there is no laws on how such a thing would be carried out (indeed some people claim all laws would be suspended) there's no guarantee that you wouldn't end up in a country where the RIAA and MPAA aren;t the government.
There's a related movement called the Fully Informed Jury Association that argues that jury trials are to be used to not only determine guilt or innocene of the accused but whether the law under which the defendent is being tried is worth enforcing at all. If such a thing were possible you could bet things would indeed be very different.
For more info on FIJA see: http://www.juryduty.org.
"This is a binding treaty with another group of nations, and it will be much harder for the american people to get out of it."
IANAL, but AFAIK Int'l treaties signed by the US are not valid if they conflict with US law. So unless this is passed as a US Federal law you onl yneed worry about parts that have US counterparts.
If Int'l treaties did apply there'd be more lawsuits trying to get UN Charter on Human Rights enforced.
"Lastly, let me assure you that the next time we hold a vote over Most Favored Nation status for China, and when we vote about China's admission to the WTO, and when China is considered to host the 2008 Olympics... I sincerely promise you that we will, at that time, say "fuck off and die you damned red commie bastards!" "
Mush as I'd like to see this happen, it won't. Pepsi, IBM, and the other multi nationals want to make their money in China. Meanwhile, record trade surpluses and human rights abuses continue in China. Many (maybe most) US citizens don't want MFN for China, but their own government doesn't listen.
If trade really would open democracy in China, why haven't we been doing it in Cuba the past 30 years?
As i understand it, and so far doesn't appear to be mentioned here is that MS has taken an open standard (SOAP) and started the "embrace and extend" approach.
The fact that Dave is a coauthor of the spec (AFAIK he seems to say it a lot if you read davenet or scripting.com) makes it doubly frustrating to him.
While I can understand Winer's POV, he often let's his emotions overcome him and pummels things into the ground. That just demonstrates his dedication in one respect, but it often seems to overcome his objections and cloud his judgement.
I'm pretty sure MS (and IBM) will take SOAP into directions that Dave didn't want, just as the Netscape folks decided to do with RSS. However, unlike Winer's constructive approach of working on RSS 0.92 (ratehr than 1.0) I haven't seen anything constructive yet. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and believe he's coming up with some uber plan for SOAP.
Regardless of what happens, I am sure he'll continue his version/vision of SOAP in his Manila products. I realy wish him well. It'd be a shame to not be able to use his products or have them not work with MS products merely out of spite from MS.
"So, yes, many people are suspicious of Apple, and based on Apple's history, there is some reason for that. I think one can ask with equal justification why so many people are so in love with Apple."
I am certainly not in love with Apple. However, I am in love with the Mac interface. It makes computing a pleasure for me unlike my experience with either Windows or Linux. I don't won't to speak for others, but I would venture many Mac users would feel the same way.
I think your comments illustrate the failure of people to seperate the product from the company. Believe it or not, MS makes some good products. They're just on the Mac!:)
"Apple is primarily a money-making venture; innovation, law suits, image, style, quality, open source, and other issues are merely means to that end."
Well I think that's the defintion of a business. I think businesses should be able to make a (reasonable) profit. But again, I think the reaction that somehow Apple stole theme.org's hardware steps way over the line of common sense.
If there was a history of Apple grabbing other people's hardware, I could understand, but AFAIK that's never happened. The worst cases I am familiar with (and I've been following Apple on the web for about 4 years now) is the "cease and desist" letter usually followed up by the removal of the content in question. The fact that themes.org has done this in the past would seem to strengthen the argument that Apple *didn't* take their hardware to me.
But just because Apple defends it's IP doesn't mean they'd do a raid and seize hardware on their own initiaitive.
Yes, I agree with your comments, especially point 1. Apple's legal tactics have infuriated the Mac community on many occasions and will undoubtedly continue to do so.
But there's a big difference between asking themes.org to remove something (something themes.org has done in the past and say they agree with protecting copyrights) and assuming that Apple had taken the site's hardware.
I'm just guessing here, but I would think that themes.org would notify it's audience that Apple was threatening legal action long before a court decision was handed down that said the site must come down. There's also a big difference between having a site go down or offline and having the hardware confiscated as you pointed out. What I don't understand is why people would think Apple can take their hardware.
I also think it was a cheap shot to say that in the summary, but sadly, I'm not surprised.
As usually happens, the simplest explanation is the correct one. I just wish that people would think before making accusations that just dont make sense.
As for point 2 I see that way too often here, especially in the last year. I have this love/hate thing for/. in the last year and keep hoping that the people full of hate would diminish or at least provide some good debate, but unfortunately, I don't see that happening.
Anyway, glad I got a reasoned response, even though I agree with everything you said, I was hoping somebody else would say it in a polite manner.
" it was *not* Apple seizing the hardware, like a couple of submitors had thought. "
Are linux users that suspicious/ full of hate of Apple? What reasoning can people use to come to the conclusion that Apple can seize theme.org's hardware? I don't mean this as flamebait, but come on, how can *Apple* legally grab their hardware?
Slashdot Mirror
"The commercial web is dead, killed by the greed and arrogance of our corporate culture and its basic hatred for its customers, who don't always do what the advertisers spend 3 billion dollars a year telling them to do."
It's not dead, just the big spenders are dropping out. If it was really dead, would we be getting corporate friendly laws (WIPO, UCITA, DMCA, software patents) passed left and right?
Small businesses that serve a market and follow the Cluetrain Mainfesto (knowingly or not) are able to get by. They learned what works from experience and not having millions of dollars to flush away. They aren't getting rich, but they are sucessfully using the web commercially.
Don't forget porn. They're in-your-face and making out like bandits!
*groan*
and other internal networks. Unfortunately, most companies I have worked at prefer a Windows-only policy for network access and client machines. Such an environment AFAIK, only exists in some corporations. But it still exists. "New language CURL ditches all existing web work for a proprietary, windows-only format."
I agree with nearly everything you say.
How to make money using the 'Net:
1. Fire all marketing and business experts.
2. read Cluetrain Mainfesto
3. Determine if your business can beneft from an *interactive global* network.
4. If the answer to #3 is 'no' continue yor business plan.
5. If the answer to #3 is 'yes' add the Internet to your business plan.
Stupid Net business plans
1. Competing on price
2. Traditional marketing pushing commodity products
Great business plans
1. Use the net to communicate with your clients to establish a relationship.
2. use the net to reduce business costs
3. small business with low overhead serving niche audiences (like hobbies)
Don't worry, the US seems intent on continuing the privatized profits, subsidized losses we've been seeing since the late 70s.
with richard benjamin,right? i remember.
Scott: And the script is fantastic. It's unlike a lot of the other "Star Trek" scripts and pilot.
Sorry. I had to laugh. Of course, he has to promote the series, but to badmouth the others? Is he saying it won't take much to surpass the others?
also....
SCOTT BACULA: We want to, we're out there peacefully exploring.
MARK: Picking up litter as you go?
SCOTT: Exactly.
http://www.etonline.com/television/a4451.htm
With an abundance of information comes the specialist. The specialist makes money based on his knowledge. This is not new to the Internet, the information economy or any other post-industrial phenomenon.
The same thing happened to religions hundreds, even thousands of years ago. As the religions and sect splintered monks sat in their isolated monastaries poring over specialized texts over particular subjects so that they could be well versed in one subject to the neglect of others. An individual may be an expert in the sutras of the Nichiren School, but ignorant of the basic teachings of the Ch'an School.
Today these people are specialist doctors, lawyers, and programmers. They make good money if their skills are in demand, but suffer when they are not. Society moves on most people still ignorant of anything beyond their immediate concerns.
And so shall it always be.
"What incentive does the BBC or any other non-US based production have in using the regioning system?"
Well, you do see some comapnies producing non region encoded DVDs. But they seem to come mainly from China and HK. Even those seem to becoming more frequently coded as Region 3. What happens is that if overseas studios want to distribute their movies in the US, they have to get a US distributor. These are increasngly being done by the big 5, the same people who came up with region encoding in the first place.
For example, Tsui Hark's Time and Tide will undergo a big release later this year (limited release is undergoing now) from Columbia Tri Star (Sony). In order for this to happen the contract will specify all DVDs of the film need to be region encoded. So you can't get a (legal) DVD that isn't region 3.
Overseas film companies can potentially get more money by having their movies exhibted in the US so they'll sign over those rights. Unfortunately, distributors don't have to exhibit movies in theaters or release to DVD. Miramax (Disney) has lots of films you can't show in the US nor will they rent them to small theaters to show. They just sit on them, or reedit them resulting in horrible dubs and editted versions (witness Supercop, Fong Sai Yuk 1 and 2 etc etc).
Want to bet that Once Upon a Time in China 1-3 will be encoded very soon so you can't get a region free version?
MS's success is from preying on the weaknesses of human nature: herd mentality and laziness. Until people in the US get off their butt and do something other than worry about theirs and start acting in a socially meaningful way, nothing will change.
Laziness and the herd mentality are instinctual. That MS and other big companies rely on that for their income is no surprise. What is a surprise is to think that anything will change until US citizens want a change. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening in the next 5 years.
Instead of just bitching, go do something or suggest an alterntative. Then you too can make money.
Listen. If I have $100 in Microsoft stock and I want them to make a Linux version of Office, are they going to do that? No. They'll do what the majority of the shareholders (not people, the amount of shares they control) want. Corporations don't operate on the principle of one stockholder one vote, they operate based on the amount of stock you hold. So in effect, you buy your influence, which is not democratic.
I don't see anybody calling for an end to corporations or profits, what they want is some control over their lives, which you don't have unless you're a stockholder. When corporations get copyrights on the laws they write and lobby for laws that benefit their needs over the needs of people, democracy suffers. I can replace a scummy politician with a less savory one every few years. I do not have the option of removing Michael Eisner from Disney, or boardmembers from companies that knowingly pollute the environment because it's cheaper to pay fines than prevent the pollution in the first place.
If corporations want the benefits they get from the government they should have to abide from the same laws as its citizens.
And it is debatable how much wealth they create for the average jack and joe.
This article uses a sophist trick that seems to have flown over most of the heads of people here. What people want is control of their information, not absolute privacy. McNealy (and most here) equate absolute privacy with control of information. While that may be true, what *most* people want i control over their information - who gets what and what is shared among people, groups, and companies.
McNealy is right that most people want physicians to have access to medical records. What he seems to neglect is that most people don't want medical purchases automatically sent to their insurers or doctors. That is a big difference and one McNealy doesn't seem to grasp in it's entirety.
Since Scott can't argue against *control* of user information, he uses the extreme example of absolute privacy as a red herring. Too many people have fallen for that.
"The largest impact Mozilla could have in the areas of browsers could very well be cell/Yopi like devices that require easy to build sharp looking interfaces for embedded systems like PDA's with wireless internet access."
Actually, the symbian reference platform has gone with Opera. Doesn't mean all vendors will use it, but it *is* the reference app for HTML derived content.
I understand and point taken. But AFAIK, you *can* own an M-16. Just not a fully automatic version of it. I forget the desgination of the gun (I think it is the Colt AR-15?), but again, it uses the least restrictive method (full auto being illegal) while allowing ownership for legal uses (single shot).
Remember, the full auto weapon modifications were one of the excuses for raiding the Branch Davidian compond. Not the fact they owned guns.
"but the Napster case did set a legal precedent for saying that any service that can be used to transfer copyrighted materials can be challenged and.or shut down."
Sure AIMster is used to transfer copyrighted material. But the laws state that if something can *potentially* be used to commit illegal acts, laws need to be set so that *legal* uses can also be allowed. That is to say, use the least restrictive means to prevent illegal activities whiole still allowing legal use.
Of course this is what was argued in the recent Napster appeal and the judges didn't appear to buy it. Have they made a ruling yet?
If you go, could you ask an employee when the OSX and/or Altivec ports will be out? I haven't gotten an answer via e-mail. Seems these have been promised to us Mac users for a (seeming) eternity. I think the PS2 has been getting all the developer time lately.
Oh, and have some fun dagnabit!
Your solution is best for consumers in that it still allows the DVD to be copied without any kind of degradation. th eonly thing missing is the hologram, an element the consumer couldn't see until after purchase anyway given current packaging.
As somebody else pointed, out pirates can also do holograms.
The industry wants to declare war on its own customer base. None of the proposed solutions really prevents the DVD from being copied bit for bit by pros, it only restricts the consumers' playback and use. You can bet when the entertainment industry feels they've stomped out the rights of consumes to use non threatening hardware or software, DVD prices will go from the $15-$20 range to the $40-$50 range.
OSX on Intel is a long way away. As others hav said, there's many other components and issues that will prevent any kind of OSX on Intel machine in the next few years.
OTOH, what Apple could do is release Darwin with the GUI of Mac Classic with Darwin underneath. It woudl make sense, because the timeframe to implement it would ensure that OSX is the default PPC version. You'd not have the Java or Aqua support so you're not endangering your core market.
I'm not sure Apple would bother making any apps beyond server apps, which would doom the thing to obscurity ala Be, but if the open source crowd picked it up and took advantage of a good GUI (and followed the interface guidelines, which I doubt) then Apple could have a "back door" into low end servers.
But this is Apple we're talkign about...
"Clear Channel, which owns 1170 radio stations has ordered them all to stop streaming their on air feeds."
Maybe this will help show the mainstream how much control corporations have on the media.
Wait. This is America. How would they find out?
There is a means to "reboot"the American government. It's called the Constituional Convention. It's covered in Article 5 of the Bill of Rights under the rubric of amending the Constitution. Theoretically, you could amend the Constitution to such an extent you throw it out.
However, since there has only been one "Con Con" it is doubtful such a thing would be done. Since there is no laws on how such a thing would be carried out (indeed some people claim all laws would be suspended) there's no guarantee that you wouldn't end up in a country where the RIAA and MPAA aren;t the government.
There's a related movement called the Fully Informed Jury Association that argues that jury trials are to be used to not only determine guilt or innocene of the accused but whether the law under which the defendent is being tried is worth enforcing at all. If such a thing were possible you could bet things would indeed be very different.
For more info on FIJA see: http://www.juryduty.org.
"This is a binding treaty with another group of nations, and it will be much harder for the american people to get out of it."
IANAL, but AFAIK Int'l treaties signed by the US are not valid if they conflict with US law. So unless this is passed as a US Federal law you onl yneed worry about parts that have US counterparts.
If Int'l treaties did apply there'd be more lawsuits trying to get UN Charter on Human Rights enforced.
"Lastly, let me assure you that the next time we hold a vote over Most Favored Nation status for China, and when we vote about China's admission to the WTO, and when China is considered to host the 2008 Olympics... I sincerely promise you that we will, at that time, say "fuck off and die you damned red commie bastards!" "
Mush as I'd like to see this happen, it won't. Pepsi, IBM, and the other multi nationals want to make their money in China. Meanwhile, record trade surpluses and human rights abuses continue in China. Many (maybe most) US citizens don't want MFN for China, but their own government doesn't listen.
If trade really would open democracy in China, why haven't we been doing it in Cuba the past 30 years?
Yeah, SOAP itself is NOT GPL'ed. It was submitted to W3, but Dave himself is not a GPL advocate for his software and he makes that known.
He is interested in open standards and interop though.
As i understand it, and so far doesn't appear to be mentioned here is that MS has taken an open standard (SOAP) and started the "embrace and extend" approach.
The fact that Dave is a coauthor of the spec (AFAIK he seems to say it a lot if you read davenet or scripting.com) makes it doubly frustrating to him.
While I can understand Winer's POV, he often let's his emotions overcome him and pummels things into the ground. That just demonstrates his dedication in one respect, but it often seems to overcome his objections and cloud his judgement.
I'm pretty sure MS (and IBM) will take SOAP into directions that Dave didn't want, just as the Netscape folks decided to do with RSS. However, unlike Winer's constructive approach of working on RSS 0.92 (ratehr than 1.0) I haven't seen anything constructive yet. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and believe he's coming up with some uber plan for SOAP.
Regardless of what happens, I am sure he'll continue his version/vision of SOAP in his Manila products. I realy wish him well. It'd be a shame to not be able to use his products or have them not work with MS products merely out of spite from MS.
"So, yes, many people are suspicious of Apple, and based on Apple's history, there is some reason for that. I think one can ask with equal justification why so many people are so in love with Apple."
:)
I am certainly not in love with Apple. However, I am in love with the Mac interface. It makes computing a pleasure for me unlike my experience with either Windows or Linux. I don't won't to speak for others, but I would venture many Mac users would feel the same way.
I think your comments illustrate the failure of people to seperate the product from the company. Believe it or not, MS makes some good products. They're just on the Mac!
"Apple is primarily a money-making venture; innovation, law suits, image, style, quality, open source, and other issues are merely means to that end."
Well I think that's the defintion of a business. I think businesses should be able to make a (reasonable) profit. But again, I think the reaction that somehow Apple stole theme.org's hardware steps way over the line of common sense.
If there was a history of Apple grabbing other people's hardware, I could understand, but AFAIK that's never happened. The worst cases I am familiar with (and I've been following Apple on the web for about 4 years now) is the "cease and desist" letter usually followed up by the removal of the content in question. The fact that themes.org has done this in the past would seem to strengthen the argument that Apple *didn't* take their hardware to me.
But just because Apple defends it's IP doesn't mean they'd do a raid and seize hardware on their own initiaitive.
Yes, I agree with your comments, especially point 1. Apple's legal tactics have infuriated the Mac community on many occasions and will undoubtedly continue to do so.
/. in the last year and keep hoping that the people full of hate would diminish or at least provide some good debate, but unfortunately, I don't see that happening.
But there's a big difference between asking themes.org to remove something (something themes.org has done in the past and say they agree with protecting copyrights) and assuming that Apple had taken the site's hardware.
I'm just guessing here, but I would think that themes.org would notify it's audience that Apple was threatening legal action long before a court decision was handed down that said the site must come down. There's also a big difference between having a site go down or offline and having the hardware confiscated as you pointed out. What I don't understand is why people would think Apple can take their hardware.
I also think it was a cheap shot to say that in the summary, but sadly, I'm not surprised.
As usually happens, the simplest explanation is the correct one. I just wish that people would think before making accusations that just dont make sense.
As for point 2 I see that way too often here, especially in the last year. I have this love/hate thing for
Anyway, glad I got a reasoned response, even though I agree with everything you said, I was hoping somebody else would say it in a polite manner.
" it was *not* Apple seizing the hardware, like a couple of submitors had thought. "
Are linux users that suspicious/ full of hate of Apple? What reasoning can people use to come to the conclusion that Apple can seize theme.org's hardware? I don't mean this as flamebait, but come on, how can *Apple* legally grab their hardware?