can we really not have the false flag troll as a response to a troll?
Any corporation with billions can be a danger to anyone thanks to the legal environment in the US. Google tells people what they do and gives you a way to turn it off, apple tells you in fine print only but does not give you such an option.
Google is only as close to the concept of evil as the FUD against them. When people actually look at facts it's pretty abundantly clear that there are moneygrabs and competitors who want google's money, but not anything google has been found guilty of. When apple goes "we invented X" (even though they didn't) and sues google, does that mean google is questionable? Only if you believe fud like your post.
In the US they call them lobbyists/MPAA/RIAA. You don't think politicians actually write bills in the US, do you? They use templates that are boilerplate or just accept someone else's suggestion in it's entirety.
When this shit finally comes full circle and the entire planet's countries tell the US to fuck off as opposed to simply requiring that they observe the same rules that everyone else is expected to. At the rate we're going, we're increasing the speed and likeliness we will ever have this happen from "not likely if ever" to "eventually"
Thank you. Not everyone fails to comprehend how this works. There is more to the fudtrain than just "google is evil" stuff, and false flag trolls are extremely common.
I believe the judge kinda lead his opinion by saying that he disagreed with them being copyrighted, based on his comments about RangeCheck ("I could do this myself any day"). There are zero damages on the table now though, which is a far cry from 6 billion dollars - so the rest of this case should finish quickly. However, there is a question of whether the CAFC gets involved at the appeal level and simply rules pro-patent like they seem to do with everything lately, and whether the recent supreme court decision will impact that as well.
That was 9 jurors holding that it was far use, which would trump the copyright question, and 3 jurors disagreeing. Had this been held in the affirmative, it would trump any question of whether they're copyrightable altogether - although had it been a finding on them not being copyrightable that would be better, as fair use is a defense - not copyrightable is just "there's no question, you can do that and don't need to defend it".
also, having different opinions is great and important - but don't do it using the old arguments. We know when it's a rehashing of the same argument all the time with the intent to mislead. I would never expect that people should ever have to agree with me, but I would expect people to rely on facts to make their arguments, not make an argument entirely devoid of facts using either emotional arguments or moral ones.
It was the standard "I hate microsoft , but....(opposite argument)" troll. It's done all the time, and the phrase is repeated almost the exact same way every single time. Any time people fail to remember that a convicted monopolist is a convicted monopolist is to deny facts that have been proven in court. Or as the phrase goes "leopards don't change their spots", and this has proven true, especially for large companies.
Man, you don't keep up with MS developments, do ya. This social search thing they unveiled and the "search neutrality" rheotoric comes exclusively from Microsoft and google competitors.
Gotta love how the entire time we heard magic numbers from oracle, all fud, all pulling the microsoft blasphemy train, and the entire thing was clearly debunked by a jury faster than anyone's head can spin. Good thing I got to keep track of the shills.
groklaw had plenty of coverage highlighting exactly this.
I hope people know that this is typical for google and that people already knew the answer before the case even came forward. Now go back and stroll those articles to look who the trolls were from the old articles. History/Karma's a bitch, huh. one troll example .
No, if you go to a rally decrying the fact that there's porn on the internet you're a luddite. You may as well complain that electricity exists, or that sometimes magazines are printed which contain smut. The reasoning against porn is just as invalid in either form. They may as well have tried to claim protect the children.
Actually, there's something to be said of Microsoft accusing google of being a "monopoly" and abusing, search, etc when microsoft is doing the *same* thing.
The forest for the trees is that a: microsoft does this and b: they're the ones leading this campaign against google and encouraged others to campaign against google. But nice try.
changing search engines is exactly true, and you *can* do that. However, scraping data from "competitors" (which they aren't) - scraping data from sites with good data to aggregate their reviews is not an abuse of position. It's aggregation of information. Taking yelp reviews for google maps reviews is an agreement google had with yelp. That's not discrimination, that's a strawman to call that "competition" or abusing competition.
The adwords thing is something stupid, but it's not any different than Microsoft getting entire corporations to sign up for using windows and requiring that they do not support any other OS (yes, this is in every company wide subscription based windows 7 deployment/office365 agreement).
Nice try to mislead the entire issue, step by step, along with a similar reply. from Neokushan. Can we stop with the obvious shills to just make this sound like it's a real problem? the "I love (thing), but (comments of hate for a product)" is a really old shill technique and we're bored of it. It's like "I'm an MSCE and love windows and do windows deployments all day, but microsoft is evil". We're tired of that kind of shit.
If you had linked to a real article covering the matter you'd see that the EU is just telling google to comply before they look to press charges.
As someone who was raised jewish, I am just dumbfounded at how people who are serious about religion manage to play the "moral card" and generally idiotic about the fact that religion is in conflict with rights, because people want and expect more rights than religion tends to allow.
Not everyone lives in that little "religion-box" of thinking where doing what makes you happy = bad. In fact, most of us don't. That goes for any religion.
“No one here is a Luddite who denies the manifold benefits that technology has brought to mankind as a whole,” said Eytan Kobre, spokesman for the event.
Actually - yes, every single person that attended this rally is a luddite to me.
This is something that was never 100% clear for me: where is the responsibility shared vs divided when it comes to the DOJ attorneys, or any particular area of government's own sanctioned attorneys? Is it entirely at the direction of the president that they function, or who is responsible if they are advocating a position in a particular case?
So basically as TFA says, the hype is courtesy of the WSJ and vested interests that don't like independent businesses and new startups? Say it ain't so.
Exactly. This article is attributing to facebook what is a result of a: general market shift away from ridiculously overpriced messaging, and b: a result of simply better services that are out there, such as anything that does text messages over data, including google voice and that apple messenger thing.
Facebook's total influence on text messaging is probably neutral entirely, due to enabling people to get notifications via text messaging.
how many times do we need the exact same anon to defend this dipshit with his statements? this is comedy the amount of effort someone is making to stay anon. Why don't you really post as registered if you expect people to value the shit you say.
please save the republican agenda shit for people as stupid as yourself.
The rest of us know how to not support multinationals or at least make conscious decisions which ones we choose to support (google, whole foods, pirate party) and which we don't (microsoft, cisco, cargill, monsanto, intel, samsung, apple, att, tmobile, facebook, pinterest), and those which you have no choice if you deem a product essential. You'll never hear me support anyone other than the pirate party, but sure man, go ahead and delude. Every time I look at the facts in legal and court cases the facts show that google isn't violating a law, confirmed by judges that they aren't even *breaking* rules. But yes, please parrot out falsehoods as truth and claim that I am the one that's lying. We know how the republican/junk science/bias works.
Slashdot Mirror
can we really not have the false flag troll as a response to a troll?
Any corporation with billions can be a danger to anyone thanks to the legal environment in the US. Google tells people what they do and gives you a way to turn it off, apple tells you in fine print only but does not give you such an option.
Google is only as close to the concept of evil as the FUD against them. When people actually look at facts it's pretty abundantly clear that there are moneygrabs and competitors who want google's money, but not anything google has been found guilty of. When apple goes "we invented X" (even though they didn't) and sues google, does that mean google is questionable? Only if you believe fud like your post.
In the US they call them lobbyists/MPAA/RIAA. You don't think politicians actually write bills in the US, do you? They use templates that are boilerplate or just accept someone else's suggestion in it's entirety.
When this shit finally comes full circle and the entire planet's countries tell the US to fuck off as opposed to simply requiring that they observe the same rules that everyone else is expected to. At the rate we're going, we're increasing the speed and likeliness we will ever have this happen from "not likely if ever" to "eventually"
umm, no, it's not.
It depends on how many replies you've done. For some things it's 30 seconds. But thanks for posting!
Thank you. Not everyone fails to comprehend how this works. There is more to the fudtrain than just "google is evil" stuff, and false flag trolls are extremely common.
I believe the judge kinda lead his opinion by saying that he disagreed with them being copyrighted, based on his comments about RangeCheck ("I could do this myself any day"). There are zero damages on the table now though, which is a far cry from 6 billion dollars - so the rest of this case should finish quickly. However, there is a question of whether the CAFC gets involved at the appeal level and simply rules pro-patent like they seem to do with everything lately, and whether the recent supreme court decision will impact that as well.
That was 9 jurors holding that it was far use, which would trump the copyright question, and 3 jurors disagreeing. Had this been held in the affirmative, it would trump any question of whether they're copyrightable altogether - although had it been a finding on them not being copyrightable that would be better, as fair use is a defense - not copyrightable is just "there's no question, you can do that and don't need to defend it".
also, having different opinions is great and important - but don't do it using the old arguments. We know when it's a rehashing of the same argument all the time with the intent to mislead. I would never expect that people should ever have to agree with me, but I would expect people to rely on facts to make their arguments, not make an argument entirely devoid of facts using either emotional arguments or moral ones.
It was the standard "I hate microsoft , but....(opposite argument)" troll. It's done all the time, and the phrase is repeated almost the exact same way every single time. Any time people fail to remember that a convicted monopolist is a convicted monopolist is to deny facts that have been proven in court. Or as the phrase goes "leopards don't change their spots", and this has proven true, especially for large companies.
Man, you don't keep up with MS developments, do ya. This social search thing they unveiled and the "search neutrality" rheotoric comes exclusively from Microsoft and google competitors.
The Jury was leaning heavily on them not being copyrightable anyway. See: https://twitter.com/FedcourtJunkie/status/205370887078285313
Gotta love how the entire time we heard magic numbers from oracle, all fud, all pulling the microsoft blasphemy train, and the entire thing was clearly debunked by a jury faster than anyone's head can spin. Good thing I got to keep track of the shills.
groklaw had plenty of coverage highlighting exactly this.
I hope people know that this is typical for google and that people already knew the answer before the case even came forward. Now go back and stroll those articles to look who the trolls were from the old articles. History/Karma's a bitch, huh. one troll example .
No, if you go to a rally decrying the fact that there's porn on the internet you're a luddite. You may as well complain that electricity exists, or that sometimes magazines are printed which contain smut. The reasoning against porn is just as invalid in either form. They may as well have tried to claim protect the children.
Actually, there's something to be said of Microsoft accusing google of being a "monopoly" and abusing, search, etc when microsoft is doing the *same* thing.
Not that it's mentioned anywhere.
Please. They've sued dead people. If you think this is rock bottom you've forgotten the last 12 years.
The forest for the trees is that a: microsoft does this and b: they're the ones leading this campaign against google and encouraged others to campaign against google. But nice try.
changing search engines is exactly true, and you *can* do that. However, scraping data from "competitors" (which they aren't) - scraping data from sites with good data to aggregate their reviews is not an abuse of position. It's aggregation of information. Taking yelp reviews for google maps reviews is an agreement google had with yelp. That's not discrimination, that's a strawman to call that "competition" or abusing competition.
The adwords thing is something stupid, but it's not any different than Microsoft getting entire corporations to sign up for using windows and requiring that they do not support any other OS (yes, this is in every company wide subscription based windows 7 deployment/office365 agreement).
Nice try to mislead the entire issue, step by step, along with a similar reply. from Neokushan. Can we stop with the obvious shills to just make this sound like it's a real problem? the "I love (thing), but (comments of hate for a product)" is a really old shill technique and we're bored of it. It's like "I'm an MSCE and love windows and do windows deployments all day, but microsoft is evil". We're tired of that kind of shit.
If you had linked to a real article covering the matter you'd see that the EU is just telling google to comply before they look to press charges.
Music affects your mental state. Breathing affects your mental state. Ban breathing, lest you cause a fatal accident.
As someone who was raised jewish, I am just dumbfounded at how people who are serious about religion manage to play the "moral card" and generally idiotic about the fact that religion is in conflict with rights, because people want and expect more rights than religion tends to allow.
Not everyone lives in that little "religion-box" of thinking where doing what makes you happy = bad. In fact, most of us don't. That goes for any religion.
Actually - yes, every single person that attended this rally is a luddite to me.
This is something that was never 100% clear for me: where is the responsibility shared vs divided when it comes to the DOJ attorneys, or any particular area of government's own sanctioned attorneys? Is it entirely at the direction of the president that they function, or who is responsible if they are advocating a position in a particular case?
So basically as TFA says, the hype is courtesy of the WSJ and vested interests that don't like independent businesses and new startups? Say it ain't so.
Exactly. This article is attributing to facebook what is a result of a: general market shift away from ridiculously overpriced messaging, and b: a result of simply better services that are out there, such as anything that does text messages over data, including google voice and that apple messenger thing.
Facebook's total influence on text messaging is probably neutral entirely, due to enabling people to get notifications via text messaging.
It also highlights why all the rulings have been against piratebay in Dutch courts too, which may result in a lot of decisions being challenged.
how many times do we need the exact same anon to defend this dipshit with his statements? this is comedy the amount of effort someone is making to stay anon. Why don't you really post as registered if you expect people to value the shit you say.
please save the republican agenda shit for people as stupid as yourself.
The rest of us know how to not support multinationals or at least make conscious decisions which ones we choose to support (google, whole foods, pirate party) and which we don't (microsoft, cisco, cargill, monsanto, intel, samsung, apple, att, tmobile, facebook, pinterest), and those which you have no choice if you deem a product essential. You'll never hear me support anyone other than the pirate party, but sure man, go ahead and delude. Every time I look at the facts in legal and court cases the facts show that google isn't violating a law, confirmed by judges that they aren't even *breaking* rules. But yes, please parrot out falsehoods as truth and claim that I am the one that's lying. We know how the republican/junk science/bias works.
Police "participate" in riots via trying to shut them down, and commonly wear masks. So are the police going to be arrested?
hello law of unintended consequences.