Or maybe it's evidence that people think Siri is a massive leap forward in speech recognition integration in a consumer device. But, hey, why pass up a chance to insult people, right?
But you cannot buy a copy of Windows, install it on 1000 computers, and then sell those to 1000 different users.
That. Is. Copyright. Infringement.
Odds are Apple wouldn't have been able to sue for copyright infringement _IF_ the versions of OSX on the systems had each been bought and paid for. They weren't, however. They were copies made from a single copy.
So it is absolutely an abuse of copyright law to argue that the copy Psystar made to install the software is unlawful "distribution".
Um, what?!?!
That is pretty much the pure purpose of copyright law - to prevent people/companies from illegally copying your material and selling it on their own.
I know/. has its own view of what copyright should be but let's at least recognize what it actually is. Psystar didn't have a leg to stand on - they were making illegal copies of OSX and selling it. That is about as close to the the pure definition of copyright infringement as one can get.
And yes, I understand that there is a legally declared war...
No. There isn't. The US hasn't declared war in a very long time, in fact. I believe, if I remember correctly, that it's classified as a "military action". The US has not, however, declared war.
Well, except the war on drugs and the war on terrorism but I don't think that's what you meant when you said "legally declared war".
I believe the point that was being made, which you seemed to have missed, is that the vast (and I do mean vast) majority of users don't care how much RAM their tablet (or phone) has. They don't care what processor it has. They do no care. Sorry to all the geeks out there who think that stuff is vitally important but the reality is that it is not. What does matter is that the device works, works well, and that the user enjoys using it. That simple. And, until geeks start to figure that out, companies are going to continue releasing products to compete with the iPad that have superior specs but end up failing utterly on the market - consumers don't care about specs.
How posts like yours get modded to 4 - Interesting is absolutely beyond me. You absolutely and obviously have no clue what you're talking about. It shows, without a doubt, that the modders have lost their minds and the inmates are running the asylum...
RIM's major problem is their management. Problems like a lack of apps and whatever other reason you want to put forth all come _after_ RIM's management failed the company. Specifically, their management's lack of vision and ego.
When Apple released the iPhone, the mobile market changed. You may love Apple or you may hate Apple but that doesn't matter - the fact that does matter is that Apple changed everything with the release of the iPhone. Simply look at the vast majority of mobile phones before the iPhone and then look at the vast majority of phones after the iPhone. Everything changed.
Most companies recognized what the iPhone meant to the mobile market and thus they changed. Whether it was to "be more like Apple" or simply because they recognized that Apple was on to something big, the design of phones radically shifted. Specifically, keyboards largely vanished and touch screens were in. Phone makers changed gears.
Except the RIM with the Blackberry.
While everyone else was scrambling to adjust to the new reality in the mobile market, RIM's management steadfastly refused to acknowledge and, more importantly, recognize that things had changed. While even the most casual observer could tell that everything had changed, RIM's management somehow seemed to miss the signs and thus they didn't shift gears. Not until very recently have they begrudgingly released phones that kinda, sorta look and function like a touchscreen phone but, by now, it's too late. Momentum is well and truly swung and, once you get a massive shift in momentum like that, it's virtually impossible to stop it.
RIM's management utterly failed their company. Their inability to adapt to a changing landscape; their inability to recognize that the landscape had changed or their unwillingness to admit that it had; their arrogance in believing that their established client base made them immune to changes in the market all has lead to this point. Their management is ill-equipped to run a mobile device maker because the market demands leadership that can recognize change when it happens and adapt to that change in a timely manner. And, to be clear, when I say "management" I'm largely look right at the very top.
Is it a news aggregator? A search engine? An email service? An online gaming site? A social network? A web hosting company? A bookmark sharing site? A photo sharing site?
Sorry, are we talking about Google or Yahoo?
And, to be clear, everything you just pointed out as a negative about Yahoo is a positive for Google. Yahoo's just trying to find the same formula for success that Google did. Failing, but that's what they're trying to do.
Of course it's a quality issue. People are getting tired of buying crap products. Sure, some people can only afford the cheap ones so they make due but most people are tired of spending _several hundred dollars_ and getting a product they aren't happy with. If you're going to spend _several hundred dollars_, wouldn't you rather buy a good product? I suspect most people would.
Apple is a least suing using patents they had not promised to anyone for free and nondiscriminatory use...
_FAIR_, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory. Not free. A FRAND patent must still be licensed from the holder. When the holder submits the patent into an industry standard (such as what Motorola and Samsung have done with certain patents), they are often required to make the patent a FRAND patent and thereby agree to offer the patent for license to anyone and everyone at fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory rates. Apple still has to pay for the patents in question but must only do so at fair and reasonable rates. And Samsung and Motorola cannot withhold a license for the patents. And, more specifically, they cannot force Apple to cross-license in order to gain access to the patents. Fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory.
If Motorola is wielding FRAND patents against Apple (or any other company), as is claimed (and nobody has refuted the claim), then they are not honoring their obligation to license the patent for Fair and Reasonable rates to any and all who want to license it.
How do you call a CEO with a salary of $1/ year a tightwad (especially in today's day and age of CEO's earning hundreds of times what the average person makes)? Oh, he made tons and tons of money but he drew an annual salary less than what you spend on coffee in the morning. Not to mention, as others have already pointed out, he may well be donating substantial amounts anonymously.
I'm curious if you wave your finger at story submissions that are biased against Microsoft or Apple, because there sure are a hell of a lot of those that get posted.
Feel free to read through my posting history and I'm sure you'll find several. I can recall at least two, if not three other times I've complained about this problem. I don't care what company it's about - when the bias of a news submission is so overwhelmingly obvious, I find it degrades the value of Slashdot.
As for criticism of Google to keep things fair - sure. In the comments. Leave it out of the news submissions. Summarize the news and then post your thoughts in the comments.
Would it be too much to ask for people, when submitting a story, to keep their bias out of it and let us form our own opinion. If you want to voice your _opinion_, save it for the comments section. Let's leave story summaries to, you know, summaries.
This summary couldn't have been more obviously anti-Google biased if it tried. It's utterly tedious trying to stay informed about geek news while being bombarded with such overwhelming biases. Its annoying in the comments section, but that's where I expect to see it.
No, really - you make statements as if they are fact yet the facts that are publicly available contradict you. Do you have facts that support your claim (beyond personal opinion)? I'm guessing no.
Were I a significant shareholder of Acer, I would be calling for the replacement of JT Wang. His comments have consistently shown a disconnect from reality and that is not the sort of person one should want directing a corporation. Closing your eyes and pretending things are the way you want them to be rather than how they are isn't a sound business strategy.
I realize that he shouldn't be a cheerleader for the competition but he's gone beyond that and is well into the realm of ignoring facts that are clear to anyone paying even a cursory attention to the market.
Apple is currently fed by conspicous consumers constantly buying the current season's product. They buy it just to show it off. They might not even use it.
It's impossible to have a serious discussion with someone when they make a comment like that. Seriously, it shows either a complete and total disconnect from reality or it shows the person is trolling, hardcore. If you even vaguely believe the comment you just made, then my advice to you is to get out more often because, simply put, you could not be more wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
And you know this about Siri based on how much experience? I'm guessing absolutely none at all.
Or maybe it's evidence that people think Siri is a massive leap forward in speech recognition integration in a consumer device. But, hey, why pass up a chance to insult people, right?
Except:
1) Most of the patents Samsung is asserting over Apple are covered by F/RAND requirements and
2) As I understand it, Apple has already bought licenses to Samsung's patents through their parts suppliers who pay royalties to Samsung.
I don't think Samsung has as much of a leg to stand on as people think they do.
But you cannot buy a copy of Windows, install it on 1000 computers, and then sell those to 1000 different users.
That. Is. Copyright. Infringement.
Odds are Apple wouldn't have been able to sue for copyright infringement _IF_ the versions of OSX on the systems had each been bought and paid for. They weren't, however. They were copies made from a single copy.
That. Is. Copyright. Infringement.
Really, is it that hard to understand?
So it is absolutely an abuse of copyright law to argue that the copy Psystar made to install the software is unlawful "distribution".
Um, what?!?!
/. has its own view of what copyright should be but let's at least recognize what it actually is. Psystar didn't have a leg to stand on - they were making illegal copies of OSX and selling it. That is about as close to the the pure definition of copyright infringement as one can get.
That is pretty much the pure purpose of copyright law - to prevent people/companies from illegally copying your material and selling it on their own.
I know
And yes, I understand that there is a legally declared war...
No. There isn't. The US hasn't declared war in a very long time, in fact. I believe, if I remember correctly, that it's classified as a "military action". The US has not, however, declared war.
Well, except the war on drugs and the war on terrorism but I don't think that's what you meant when you said "legally declared war".
I believe the point that was being made, which you seemed to have missed, is that the vast (and I do mean vast) majority of users don't care how much RAM their tablet (or phone) has. They don't care what processor it has. They do no care. Sorry to all the geeks out there who think that stuff is vitally important but the reality is that it is not. What does matter is that the device works, works well, and that the user enjoys using it. That simple. And, until geeks start to figure that out, companies are going to continue releasing products to compete with the iPad that have superior specs but end up failing utterly on the market - consumers don't care about specs.
How posts like yours get modded to 4 - Interesting is absolutely beyond me. You absolutely and obviously have no clue what you're talking about. It shows, without a doubt, that the modders have lost their minds and the inmates are running the asylum...
RIM's major problem is their management. Problems like a lack of apps and whatever other reason you want to put forth all come _after_ RIM's management failed the company. Specifically, their management's lack of vision and ego.
When Apple released the iPhone, the mobile market changed. You may love Apple or you may hate Apple but that doesn't matter - the fact that does matter is that Apple changed everything with the release of the iPhone. Simply look at the vast majority of mobile phones before the iPhone and then look at the vast majority of phones after the iPhone. Everything changed.
Most companies recognized what the iPhone meant to the mobile market and thus they changed. Whether it was to "be more like Apple" or simply because they recognized that Apple was on to something big, the design of phones radically shifted. Specifically, keyboards largely vanished and touch screens were in. Phone makers changed gears.
Except the RIM with the Blackberry.
While everyone else was scrambling to adjust to the new reality in the mobile market, RIM's management steadfastly refused to acknowledge and, more importantly, recognize that things had changed. While even the most casual observer could tell that everything had changed, RIM's management somehow seemed to miss the signs and thus they didn't shift gears. Not until very recently have they begrudgingly released phones that kinda, sorta look and function like a touchscreen phone but, by now, it's too late. Momentum is well and truly swung and, once you get a massive shift in momentum like that, it's virtually impossible to stop it.
RIM's management utterly failed their company. Their inability to adapt to a changing landscape; their inability to recognize that the landscape had changed or their unwillingness to admit that it had; their arrogance in believing that their established client base made them immune to changes in the market all has lead to this point. Their management is ill-equipped to run a mobile device maker because the market demands leadership that can recognize change when it happens and adapt to that change in a timely manner. And, to be clear, when I say "management" I'm largely look right at the very top.
Is it a news aggregator? A search engine? An email service? An online gaming site? A social network? A web hosting company? A bookmark sharing site? A photo sharing site?
Sorry, are we talking about Google or Yahoo?
And, to be clear, everything you just pointed out as a negative about Yahoo is a positive for Google. Yahoo's just trying to find the same formula for success that Google did. Failing, but that's what they're trying to do.
Apples claims will not stand up to reality.
Yet, so far, in numerous courts, around the world, their claims are standing up.
Maybe it's a quality issue?
Of course it's a quality issue. People are getting tired of buying crap products. Sure, some people can only afford the cheap ones so they make due but most people are tired of spending _several hundred dollars_ and getting a product they aren't happy with. If you're going to spend _several hundred dollars_, wouldn't you rather buy a good product? I suspect most people would.
Contact your Member of Parliament. Express your thoughts. They need to know we won't tolerate this.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx
Apple is a least suing using patents they had not promised to anyone for free and nondiscriminatory use...
_FAIR_, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory. Not free. A FRAND patent must still be licensed from the holder. When the holder submits the patent into an industry standard (such as what Motorola and Samsung have done with certain patents), they are often required to make the patent a FRAND patent and thereby agree to offer the patent for license to anyone and everyone at fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory rates. Apple still has to pay for the patents in question but must only do so at fair and reasonable rates. And Samsung and Motorola cannot withhold a license for the patents. And, more specifically, they cannot force Apple to cross-license in order to gain access to the patents. Fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory.
Samsung should halt all production of chips to Apple and see what happens.
Easy - they'd lose about $6 billion a year. I'm going to guess they're not keen on playing hardball, as you describe it.
Motorola could claim that GSM can be worked around...
Uh, no. You're missing the point. Entirely. Research FRAND patents. Here - I'll make it easy for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair,_reasonable,_and_non-discriminatory_terms
If Motorola is wielding FRAND patents against Apple (or any other company), as is claimed (and nobody has refuted the claim), then they are not honoring their obligation to license the patent for Fair and Reasonable rates to any and all who want to license it.
Who losses a phone in a bar anyway?!
Drunk people?
How do you call a CEO with a salary of $1/ year a tightwad (especially in today's day and age of CEO's earning hundreds of times what the average person makes)? Oh, he made tons and tons of money but he drew an annual salary less than what you spend on coffee in the morning. Not to mention, as others have already pointed out, he may well be donating substantial amounts anonymously.
I'm curious if you wave your finger at story submissions that are biased against Microsoft or Apple, because there sure are a hell of a lot of those that get posted.
Feel free to read through my posting history and I'm sure you'll find several. I can recall at least two, if not three other times I've complained about this problem. I don't care what company it's about - when the bias of a news submission is so overwhelmingly obvious, I find it degrades the value of Slashdot.
As for criticism of Google to keep things fair - sure. In the comments. Leave it out of the news submissions. Summarize the news and then post your thoughts in the comments.
Would it be too much to ask for people, when submitting a story, to keep their bias out of it and let us form our own opinion. If you want to voice your _opinion_, save it for the comments section. Let's leave story summaries to, you know, summaries.
This summary couldn't have been more obviously anti-Google biased if it tried. It's utterly tedious trying to stay informed about geek news while being bombarded with such overwhelming biases. Its annoying in the comments section, but that's where I expect to see it.
I know, I know. I must be new here...
Ok, that made me laugh. Two points. :)
How are you able to breathe with your head stuck in the sand like that?
Sad but true.
Citation needed.
No, really - you make statements as if they are fact yet the facts that are publicly available contradict you. Do you have facts that support your claim (beyond personal opinion)? I'm guessing no.
Were I a significant shareholder of Acer, I would be calling for the replacement of JT Wang. His comments have consistently shown a disconnect from reality and that is not the sort of person one should want directing a corporation. Closing your eyes and pretending things are the way you want them to be rather than how they are isn't a sound business strategy.
I realize that he shouldn't be a cheerleader for the competition but he's gone beyond that and is well into the realm of ignoring facts that are clear to anyone paying even a cursory attention to the market.
Apple is currently fed by conspicous consumers constantly buying the current season's product. They buy it just to show it off. They might not even use it.
It's impossible to have a serious discussion with someone when they make a comment like that. Seriously, it shows either a complete and total disconnect from reality or it shows the person is trolling, hardcore. If you even vaguely believe the comment you just made, then my advice to you is to get out more often because, simply put, you could not be more wrong.