Actually, apple is now screwed. Their entire case on the west coast was predicated on "we were harmed by their unreasonable terms" Apple quite literally just gave the judge evidence of the exact opposite of their claims in court, by now making a FRand offer. House of cards -> fallen apart.
Google doesn't need to block apple, nor will they. They also don't have to accept this offer from Apple. This also won't resolve any of apple's past infringement, should that part of this process move forward. However, this shows one thing right away: apple is now fucked, and no longer the aggressor in the situation. Not that it's much of a surprise considering they're losing in every court on the planet.
They also don't have to, because the other judgments were reversed in the countries that Apple tried to cite them. The UK judges never had to make such a decision in the first place.
You know, the whole world doesn't follow US caselaw.
You can ignore the spirit of the law here - plenty do. We have different law here. In the UK? you'd be a damned fool, or clearly Apple - to be willing to do that.
Russia? The land known for being the absolutely worst for polls? Where polls have greater than 100% turnout?
Excuse me if I'm extremely skeptical that even a single individual voted positively for a blacklist without being under political duress or physical coercion, let alone manipulation.
Apple did not follow the letter of the law, and it's amazing they haven't fired the lawyers for informing them that they may be flouting the judge's decision. He did not just say a link from the home page.He said a link from the home page stating samsung did not copy apple.
He did not say "please include commentary", or "please cite additional judgements which have been invalidateD".
Nothing is stopping you from entering the french website name. But yes, how dare google show you the relevant search results when searching for french articles aka what you fucking asked for. Right?
I dare you to even find a desktop that can handle 2560x1600 for modern games that doesn't cost you upwards of $2000 and I quadruple dare you to find one even for $3000 that can even reach 60fps consistently because they don't exist.
However, putting higher resolution in just for display purposes, the laptops can handle it. Maybe not for gaming, but there are a lot of other uses for resolution.
Just because you know people by no means whatsoever implies that people share the same viewpoint as you. While people do have a bias towards wanting to find individuals who agree with them, that doesn't mean it's fact. If you tell an entire office of people that a voting tool exists, it doesn't mean that you're influencing the politics.
Can people voting influence the election? Yes. Can providing them neutral tools to find information, if they are already able to vote? No.
It's not even a question of legal or not. Just because RIAA and MPAA made it a glaring issue doesn't mean that I will stop intentionally downloading everything, illegally or legally, anything and everything. Whether I pay for something is *my* choice. That is not a question of access. I already have access, so there's no question of "am I going to pay or not?". That's a decision I make solely on the basis of whether or not the content creator respects that it's 2012 or not. Humblebundles? Bought every one. Series on TV? Never buying any. TV? Don't even watch it. Movies? Don't even go to theatres anymore.
Just because the laws are behind the times doesn't mean the people using the technology are - and we're not going to wait for the laws to get updated, either.
"piracy" is something involving pirates of the sea. Try using an actual word - software piracy not being an accurate one for associating things involving RIAA/MPAA either.
Simple - a lack of common business sense and a lack of historical analysis. It defines people, such as these stereotypical MBA's you mention - who if their MBA was worth the paper it was written on would never make such a decision without proper market research.
This is common across almost any situation where decisions are incredibly stupid.
Exactly, and not only that who else is pushing for it? Older media.
So, what will be the end result? if they really do push for this we'll end up replacing the internet, just like every other technology that becomes dated because a bunch of idiots who don't understand it make it crap.
This is the only correct option. Truth be told, either one group (ITU) or the other (US) is going to have to accept this, because the public is sending clear signals they will accept no less than complete and total lack of control.
Not to mention that tons and tons of bias and misleading comments escape articles instantly once a company realizes they can pay people to "manage" their wiki page - aka every technology page on wikipedia.
In addition to the fact that it will never be nearing completion, the phrasing is simply incorrect.
What exactly is your basis of this imagination from? Beyond it being completely incorrect and defining yourself as both ignorant and stupid, where do you come up with this? Please don't tell me this is that "you only have so many brain cells" misnomer which has been scientifically proven to be incorrect.
They didn't make it narrow or specifically technical at all. At what point does "we concocted a giant story discussing the matter and other issues" as opposed to just stating "Samsung did not copy Apple" sound like an even remotely narrow interpretation? This isn't following the spirit or the letter of the law.
which is why bing (microsoft, oracle, and apple - all in concert) wants to shut down google. The reality is that this is going to either invalidate antitrust altogether, or encourage more antitrust investigation from the EU and the US onto all three of them. They're literally creating evidence by pushing for this.
If you can't find a linux interface that works for you, you haven't tried any linux interfaces. It's that fucking simple. Literally people pick it up easier than windows, it just carries a bullshit stigma of "it's just too hard/too complicated/must be command line".
doing the exact same thing but changing the device in a loose definition is not going to bode well with them - again, this isn't difficult to put together.
This is almost comedy - apple is going to try to claim what samsung proved *apple* did in the lawsuit against samsung which it has now basically lost? Talk about trying for a third attempt to stop your competition through abusing the legal system. Outlined here: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121022054044954
summary is that Apple: sued samsung, claiming samsung abused patents ("charging too much!") while simultaneously abusing patents and encouraging people to use windows phones (hello antitrust!) and anyone other than google. This should set the DOJ off onto investigating *apple/ms/oracle*.
Not only is that hilariously pot -> kettle, but also it doesn't mean the DOJ is investigating anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Which part's not burdensome to apple?
The part where they sued google in half a dozen countries?
The part where they claimed google was unreasonable for wanting 2.25% per device when apple wanted $25?
Please, please tell me where it's apple that is the victim, Bonch/$apple/oracle/ms troll.
Actually, apple is now screwed.
Their entire case on the west coast was predicated on "we were harmed by their unreasonable terms" Apple quite literally just gave the judge evidence of the exact opposite of their claims in court, by now making a FRand offer. House of cards -> fallen apart.
Google doesn't need to block apple, nor will they. They also don't have to accept this offer from Apple. This also won't resolve any of apple's past infringement, should that part of this process move forward. However, this shows one thing right away: apple is now fucked, and no longer the aggressor in the situation. Not that it's much of a surprise considering they're losing in every court on the planet.
They also don't have to, because the other judgments were reversed in the countries that Apple tried to cite them. The UK judges never had to make such a decision in the first place.
You know, the whole world doesn't follow US caselaw.
You can ignore the spirit of the law here - plenty do. We have different law here. In the UK? you'd be a damned fool, or clearly Apple - to be willing to do that.
Russia? The land known for being the absolutely worst for polls? Where polls have greater than 100% turnout?
Excuse me if I'm extremely skeptical that even a single individual voted positively for a blacklist without being under political duress or physical coercion, let alone manipulation.
No, the judge was explicitly clear about what he wanted. He wanted an honest answer.
He didn't say "please mislead with the statement and violate the spirit of the law."
see: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121101091853360
Apple did not follow the letter of the law, and it's amazing they haven't fired the lawyers for informing them that they may be flouting the judge's decision. He did not just say a link from the home page .He said a link from the home page stating samsung did not copy apple.
He did not say "please include commentary", or "please cite additional judgements which have been invalidateD".
So why is this even relevant then?
Nothing is stopping you from entering the french website name. But yes, how dare google show you the relevant search results when searching for french articles aka what you fucking asked for. Right?
I dare you to even find a desktop that can handle 2560x1600 for modern games that doesn't cost you upwards of $2000 and I quadruple dare you to find one even for $3000 that can even reach 60fps consistently because they don't exist.
However, putting higher resolution in just for display purposes, the laptops can handle it. Maybe not for gaming, but there are a lot of other uses for resolution.
Just because you know people by no means whatsoever implies that people share the same viewpoint as you. While people do have a bias towards wanting to find individuals who agree with them, that doesn't mean it's fact. If you tell an entire office of people that a voting tool exists, it doesn't mean that you're influencing the politics.
Can people voting influence the election? Yes. Can providing them neutral tools to find information, if they are already able to vote? No.
Not quite. They want to get paid by force since they haven't tried to earn money via adapting to changes to technology.
Actually, true of most companies - let alone technology companies.
Most companies just want to be successful and don't give a shit about the quality of anything.
sorry, wrong.
It's not even a question of legal or not. Just because RIAA and MPAA made it a glaring issue doesn't mean that I will stop intentionally downloading everything, illegally or legally, anything and everything. Whether I pay for something is *my* choice. That is not a question of access. I already have access, so there's no question of "am I going to pay or not?". That's a decision I make solely on the basis of whether or not the content creator respects that it's 2012 or not. Humblebundles? Bought every one. Series on TV? Never buying any. TV? Don't even watch it. Movies? Don't even go to theatres anymore.
Just because the laws are behind the times doesn't mean the people using the technology are - and we're not going to wait for the laws to get updated, either.
"piracy" is something involving pirates of the sea. Try using an actual word - software piracy not being an accurate one for associating things involving RIAA/MPAA either.
Umm, SOPA/PIPA? Public has started to make it's voice heard a bit - even if people are completely ignorant on a lot of things.
Simple - a lack of common business sense and a lack of historical analysis. It defines people, such as these stereotypical MBA's you mention - who if their MBA was worth the paper it was written on would never make such a decision without proper market research.
This is common across almost any situation where decisions are incredibly stupid.
Exactly, and not only that who else is pushing for it? Older media.
So, what will be the end result? if they really do push for this we'll end up replacing the internet, just like every other technology that becomes dated because a bunch of idiots who don't understand it make it crap.
This is the only correct option. Truth be told, either one group (ITU) or the other (US) is going to have to accept this, because the public is sending clear signals they will accept no less than complete and total lack of control.
Not to mention that tons and tons of bias and misleading comments escape articles instantly once a company realizes they can pay people to "manage" their wiki page - aka every technology page on wikipedia.
In addition to the fact that it will never be nearing completion, the phrasing is simply incorrect.
What exactly is your basis of this imagination from? Beyond it being completely incorrect and defining yourself as both ignorant and stupid, where do you come up with this? Please don't tell me this is that "you only have so many brain cells" misnomer which has been scientifically proven to be incorrect.
They didn't make it narrow or specifically technical at all. At what point does "we concocted a giant story discussing the matter and other issues" as opposed to just stating "Samsung did not copy Apple" sound like an even remotely narrow interpretation? This isn't following the spirit or the letter of the law.
which is why bing (microsoft, oracle, and apple - all in concert) wants to shut down google. The reality is that this is going to either invalidate antitrust altogether, or encourage more antitrust investigation from the EU and the US onto all three of them. They're literally creating evidence by pushing for this.
If you can't find a linux interface that works for you, you haven't tried any linux interfaces. It's that fucking simple. Literally people pick it up easier than windows, it just carries a bullshit stigma of "it's just too hard/too complicated/must be command line".
doing the exact same thing but changing the device in a loose definition is not going to bode well with them - again, this isn't difficult to put together.
RT is "Asking to be sued" by the EC. It'll be entertaining when they get fucked for trying to pull the same browser restrictions a second time.
This is almost comedy - apple is going to try to claim what samsung proved *apple* did in the lawsuit against samsung which it has now basically lost? Talk about trying for a third attempt to stop your competition through abusing the legal system. Outlined here: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121022054044954
summary is that Apple:
sued samsung, claiming samsung abused patents ("charging too much!") while simultaneously abusing patents and encouraging people to use windows phones (hello antitrust!) and anyone other than google. This should set the DOJ off onto investigating *apple/ms/oracle*.
Not only is that hilariously pot -> kettle, but also it doesn't mean the DOJ is investigating anything.
which would leave the world in a much better place.