Re:"Actively searching for new suppliers"?
on
iBox Episode 2
·
· Score: 1
It is important to remember, apple does NOT have a monopoly on parts. That is what is being misconstrued here. There are no parts on an apple motherboard that you cannot get from dozens of other manufacturers.
Apple has a monopoly on SOFTWARE, and they are refusing to sell it unless you buy their hardware.
It is, in my humble opinion, immoral to intentionally circumvent copyrights, but that doesn't mean we should be implementing laws this broad. I was saying "RIGHT ON!" to this article, right up until the point where the author started talking about software "designed to circumvent" crypto and locking mechanisms. I assume people writing crypto would be allowed to attempt to break their own code?
Furthermore, I have always been against taxing blank media.
Making CD's expensive to legitimate users because some people use them illegitimately is akin to making medical equipment more expensive because some people shoot herion.
I'd like to discard the bathwater, but not at the expense of the baby.
Kids can learn important computer skills on ANY operating system. Schools should be using Linux cause it allows them to put money back into other educational programs, like arts -- not because of some fancy road show, and certainly not because it can run Windows apps.
Hey, Microsoft's got a bigger legal staff than me, but I still won.
My real point was that the small fry shouldn't always back back down when threatened with jibber-jabber from a big company's legal dept.
Re:"Actively searching for new suppliers"?
on
iBox Episode 2
·
· Score: 1
This is exactly what I am talking about.
Erecting artificial barriers to market entry is a predatory practice, and it is what Apple is doing here, but as I said earlier, the burden of proof is on the person entering the market. For Apple, it's just business as usual. The new entity entering the market gets a legal notice, and the next thing you know it's all over/.
It should be noted that apple is protecting a hardware product by embedding software on the board. There is not much else preventing people from cloning Macs. The technology is common.
We used to build Amiga clones by buying kickstart upgrade chips from Commodore, but in this case, there is no-one to sell us the equivelant chip.
Apple is saying, we will only sell you our software if you buy our hardware. I'd consider this predatory to hardware developers.
This whole idea came to me in a dream a few months ago. I can think of many cases where SQL based filesystems would have serious performance advantages. It's not for everybody, but for some applications it would be great.
This is a bully game. I've been sent legal threats from Microsoft for reselling a legitimate product I purchased from them.
The key to winning out in situations like this is knowing the correct legal jibber-jabber for "F**k off".
Re:"Actively searching for new suppliers"?
on
iBox Episode 2
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Actually, it's a good analogy.
Monopolistic practices are illegal and cannot be enforced. Unfortunately, the burden of proof has shifted.
Meh, the software will cause their hard-drive read heads to bash the side of the case until they go hopelessly out of alignment, and then with run "The RIAA loves you" ads on the screen until you run down to the local record store, and purchase at least 40 records.
--
*Richard Fairthorne is a geek
Slashdot Mirror
It is important to remember, apple does NOT have a monopoly on parts. That is what is being misconstrued here. There are no parts on an apple motherboard that you cannot get from dozens of other manufacturers.
Apple has a monopoly on SOFTWARE, and they are refusing to sell it unless you buy their hardware.
It is, in my humble opinion, immoral to intentionally circumvent copyrights, but that doesn't mean we should be implementing laws this broad. I was saying "RIGHT ON!" to this article, right up until the point where the author started talking about software "designed to circumvent" crypto and locking mechanisms. I assume people writing crypto would be allowed to attempt to break their own code?
Furthermore, I have always been against taxing blank media.
Making CD's expensive to legitimate users because some people use them illegitimately is akin to making medical equipment more expensive because some people shoot herion.
I'd like to discard the bathwater, but not at the expense of the baby.
I guess I can abandon my Commodore 64 in a lunchbox now.
Kids can learn important computer skills on ANY operating system. Schools should be using Linux cause it allows them to put money back into other educational programs, like arts -- not because of some fancy road show, and certainly not because it can run Windows apps.
Hey, Microsoft's got a bigger legal staff than me, but I still won. My real point was that the small fry shouldn't always back back down when threatened with jibber-jabber from a big company's legal dept.
This is exactly what I am talking about. Erecting artificial barriers to market entry is a predatory practice, and it is what Apple is doing here, but as I said earlier, the burden of proof is on the person entering the market. For Apple, it's just business as usual. The new entity entering the market gets a legal notice, and the next thing you know it's all over /.
It should be noted that apple is protecting a hardware product by embedding software on the board. There is not much else preventing people from cloning Macs. The technology is common.
We used to build Amiga clones by buying kickstart upgrade chips from Commodore, but in this case, there is no-one to sell us the equivelant chip.
Apple is saying, we will only sell you our software if you buy our hardware. I'd consider this predatory to hardware developers.
This whole idea came to me in a dream a few months ago. I can think of many cases where SQL based filesystems would have serious performance advantages. It's not for everybody, but for some applications it would be great.
This is a bully game. I've been sent legal threats from Microsoft for reselling a legitimate product I purchased from them. The key to winning out in situations like this is knowing the correct legal jibber-jabber for "F**k off".
Actually, it's a good analogy. Monopolistic practices are illegal and cannot be enforced. Unfortunately, the burden of proof has shifted.
Meh, the software will cause their hard-drive read heads to bash the side of the case until they go hopelessly out of alignment, and then with run "The RIAA loves you" ads on the screen until you run down to the local record store, and purchase at least 40 records. -- *Richard Fairthorne is a geek
Finally something less reasonable than self-destructing DVD's.