Let me resay it. Fucking stupid argument. This meme that we're all breaking arrestable criminal laws all the time without knowing it is nonsense. It's libertarian nonsense.
(Which isn't to say cops don't overstep their powers on occasion. But arrest is not the same thing as prosecution with adequate evidence.)
Can you recite every law and ordinance in your jurisdiction from memory?
Yes./s
Fucking stupid argument.
If not, then what makes you believe that you have broken none of them?
So many people here are having a comprehension problem. None existence of anything incriminating on my phone does not mean I've never committed a crime.
The problem is you don't know what will be incriminating. You happen to have a phone on your phone that has the murder victim in the background? You can't say you never saw them can you?
What utter shit. That's not even logical, let alone reflecting reality. You've watched too much TV.
Pro tip: When your pharmacist says, "I hope you have insurance." - worry.
None of the pharmacists here ever say that. The cost is always the same fixed fee per item - about $5. Where an item tends to be a 28 day supply of whatever the drug is.
And it's completely free for those on means tested welfare.
The antitrust laws are a bit more complicated than that. You don't need to have an actual monopoly to violate them (likewise, a monopoly alone is not illegal). Microsoft didn't have a monopoly on computer operating systems when it was attacked for antitrust law violations.
I'm very well aware of the DOJ vs MS case. Yes they did have a monopoly. That's a matter of legal fact. Judged by having market share in the high nineties of product category - PCs. Neither Google nor Apple does with regard to smartphones, nor smartphone apps.
Shutting down the currentC app would be anti-competitive behavior
Companies are allowed to be anti-competitive. It's only an issue if they have a monopoly.
Viewed from one perspective, so do all businesses. But look at it from another perspective, no company is successful if they don't meet needs of their customers.
Nonsense. Apple doesn't have a monopoly of mobile App Stores.
You may think that they have a monopoly of App Stores for iOS. But monopolies doesn't work like that. Having control of your own product isn't a monopoly. A product isn't a market.
Likewise no problem with Gillette only allowing Gillette blades, or HP printers only allowing HP ink.
If Apple could be subject to monopoly rules forcing them to stock apps, it would have been an issue already many times over the years. It hasn't been because there's no legal problem here.
Apple and Google between them pretty much own the app store market, at least in North America.
You can't group two companies together to claim a monopoly. The fact that there are two big companies fighting it out proves there isn't any monopoly. If they were working together as a cartel, then that would be an anti-trust issue. But every indication is that they are vigorous and aggressive competitors, so it's quite unlikely they would agree to not allow CurrentC apps. They might independently do it - but that doesn't make it a trust issue. CurrentC doesn't have an entitlement to have an app in an app store any more than Google and Apple have an entitlement to be enabled on CurrentC companies' merchant terminals.
That's not what they mean. Different meaning of controller. The rule is to not allow using iPhones as the computing device (controller) WITHIN a vehicle, using GPS. e.g. When the vehicle kills someone they don't want the negative publicity of an iPhone being the autopilot.
A manufacturer's own product doesn't comprise "a market". Apple is entitled to limit what software goes on it's products, same as razor manufacturers can limit what blades you can use and printer manufacturers can limit what ink cartridges you can use. If you can find a way to hack around it, fine, but there's no legal reason Apple have to enable it.
The market is mobile phones, and there are plenty of alternatives if you don't want to be limited to Apple's App Store. However, many people value the curation that Apple does. They feel much safer about downloading apps.
From your description, it sounds like the rejection was valid. I'm surprised the appeal worked. Free trials, and functions that have a UI but lead only to a dead and and a nag are AFAIUI not allowed.
Actually what happens in these cases is that the original developer ends up selling more. Apple does the basic easy to use version, and anyone who want's extra feature and more customisability goes for the original. Apple introducing people to the app category is what propels the sales for the 3rd party.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me resay it. Fucking stupid argument. This meme that we're all breaking arrestable criminal laws all the time without knowing it is nonsense. It's libertarian nonsense.
(Which isn't to say cops don't overstep their powers on occasion. But arrest is not the same thing as prosecution with adequate evidence.)
A link would be useful.
No. Now give me my phone back and go away. You've got nothing.
Can you recite every law and ordinance in your jurisdiction from memory?
Yes. /s
Fucking stupid argument.
If not, then what makes you believe that you have broken none of them?
So many people here are having a comprehension problem. None existence of anything incriminating on my phone does not mean I've never committed a crime.
I'm well aware I've done illegal things. But I haven't documented them on my phone. You'd have to be dumb to do so.
The problem is you don't know what will be incriminating. You happen to have a phone on your phone that has the murder victim in the background? You can't say you never saw them can you?
What utter shit. That's not even logical, let alone reflecting reality. You've watched too much TV.
It's your assumption that "virtually everyone else alive" is like you. People overestimate the extent to which people are like them.
I haven't asserted never breaking a law. I've asserted there's nothing incriminating on my phone. It's a fact.
One of the charges was for 'aggressive hostile surveilance using Google Maps'.
Bollocks.
You'd be surprised how many felonies and misdemeanors they could find on your phone.
I wouldn't be at all surprised. They'll find none. Don't assume everyone is like you.
What I enjoy is having folders like Documents, Videos and Music, and being able to copy documents, videos and music into them
I bet the long winter evenings just fly by.
Lets hope in 100 years time people aren't still using filing cabinet metaphors on communications devices.
... if you are carrying incriminating evidence on your phone, or you have other reasons, perhaps political for needing it to remain secret.
Not defending this in any way. Just pointing out that for the average person, it probably doesn't make finger-print locks problematic.
But if you need to keep stuff secret from the authorities, use a good password on a phone OS with good security.
Is that so hard ?
Without regulation, yes. One of the many flaws in your libertarian ideology.
Pro tip: When your pharmacist says, "I hope you have insurance." - worry.
None of the pharmacists here ever say that. The cost is always the same fixed fee per item - about $5. Where an item tends to be a 28 day supply of whatever the drug is.
And it's completely free for those on means tested welfare.
No insurance ever required.
Thank you Britain's National Health Service.
Damn you for conflating the the terms "fuck" and "damn you".
You are quite simply wrong. An attempt at a monopoly is illegal too.
Yes it is. That doesn't make me wrong. I didn't claim to outline every aspect of monopoly law. That bit isn't relevant to the point in question.
No, shutting down the CurrentC app wouldn't be a slam dunk antitrust case, but it would absolutely carry antitrust risk-
It is not illegal.
especially if Apple colluded with Google.
Which as already mentioned is highly unlikely.
Would posting a message like that make you look homophobic?
The antitrust laws are a bit more complicated than that. You don't need to have an actual monopoly to violate them (likewise, a monopoly alone is not illegal). Microsoft didn't have a monopoly on computer operating systems when it was attacked for antitrust law violations.
I'm very well aware of the DOJ vs MS case. Yes they did have a monopoly. That's a matter of legal fact. Judged by having market share in the high nineties of product category - PCs. Neither Google nor Apple does with regard to smartphones, nor smartphone apps.
Shutting down the currentC app would be anti-competitive behavior
Companies are allowed to be anti-competitive. It's only an issue if they have a monopoly.
Viewed from one perspective, so do all businesses. But look at it from another perspective, no company is successful if they don't meet needs of their customers.
Nonsense. Apple doesn't have a monopoly of mobile App Stores.
You may think that they have a monopoly of App Stores for iOS. But monopolies doesn't work like that. Having control of your own product isn't a monopoly. A product isn't a market.
Likewise no problem with Gillette only allowing Gillette blades, or HP printers only allowing HP ink.
If Apple could be subject to monopoly rules forcing them to stock apps, it would have been an issue already many times over the years. It hasn't been because there's no legal problem here.
Apple and Google between them pretty much own the app store market, at least in North America.
You can't group two companies together to claim a monopoly. The fact that there are two big companies fighting it out proves there isn't any monopoly. If they were working together as a cartel, then that would be an anti-trust issue. But every indication is that they are vigorous and aggressive competitors, so it's quite unlikely they would agree to not allow CurrentC apps. They might independently do it - but that doesn't make it a trust issue. CurrentC doesn't have an entitlement to have an app in an app store any more than Google and Apple have an entitlement to be enabled on CurrentC companies' merchant terminals.
That's not what they mean. Different meaning of controller. The rule is to not allow using iPhones as the computing device (controller) WITHIN a vehicle, using GPS. e.g. When the vehicle kills someone they don't want the negative publicity of an iPhone being the autopilot.
seems like anti competitive behavior.
A manufacturer's own product doesn't comprise "a market". Apple is entitled to limit what software goes on it's products, same as razor manufacturers can limit what blades you can use and printer manufacturers can limit what ink cartridges you can use. If you can find a way to hack around it, fine, but there's no legal reason Apple have to enable it.
The market is mobile phones, and there are plenty of alternatives if you don't want to be limited to Apple's App Store. However, many people value the curation that Apple does. They feel much safer about downloading apps.
From your description, it sounds like the rejection was valid. I'm surprised the appeal worked. Free trials, and functions that have a UI but lead only to a dead and and a nag are AFAIUI not allowed.
Actually what happens in these cases is that the original developer ends up selling more. Apple does the basic easy to use version, and anyone who want's extra feature and more customisability goes for the original. Apple introducing people to the app category is what propels the sales for the 3rd party.
Then you're an idiot. You don't get your own way with the US government just because you wield a gun. It never ends well for the idiot libertarians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...