Then Apple can sue those individuals....NOT thinksecret.
If people at ThinkSecret paid for the information, they are very much liable and responsible. They made money by breaking the law. If they did not pay for the information, then it is a debatable matter of ethics. They profited, but I don't see it as inciting or conspiring in the criminal action.
And how is reporting the specs of a coming product "trade secrets".
It is actually a textbook example of trade secrets. New technology, coming to market is about as much of a trade secret as you can get.
Or, if you just want to stay in your dream, before the outsourcing industry graced us, we were all snake-charmers riding elephants and we had never seen money or a calculator.
TV has lead me to believe you are actually a bunch of very silly dancers, with hair reminiscent of elvis, clothing fashion that is a cross between the 70's in the U.S. and the aforementioned elephant riders, and completely incomprehensible plots that always seem to involve some guy twirling for no apparent reason.:)
In all actuality I think the average U.S. citizen has no clue about India, as it is not on TV very much except occasionally on CNN when mother nature is beating the crap out of you. I have a few friends from India, but in truth, I realize I have little idea how the average person lives there. If I had to guess I'd say it is probably more varied than the U.S. with more people living in poverty in low-tech surroundings, but a significant portion living in a style not too different than the U.S. Am I close?
Apple has crippled the iPod's capabilities by disabling support for the WMA format (it has that support built into the PortalPlayer chipset it uses).
Yeah, I'm sure it has nothing to do with having to pay a licensing fee to MS for every ipod. Others have already debunked your supposed lack of other online stores. Apple did not want MS to control media, so they made a better solution and people bought it. Now you think this is a bad thing? It is less restrictive them the Windows version and legally removable. I'm really surprised they managed to convince the RIAA to go for such a consumer friendly deal, and I'm sure not going to complain about it.
You don't have a choice to switch to other stuff, there's no alternatives.
And with WMA you can go with any number of people who licensed it from MS, until it becomes popular and MS kills off all the competition because they control the format. Smart.
We've tried calling them to talk about it. Their response is to simply bounce us around between different people until the connection gets "accidentally" lost. Nobody at Verizon has shown any interest in discussing this charge. Their attitude is clearly "We put it on your bill, so you have to pay it."
And you let it go? I had something similar happen to me. My cable company tried to charge me for a cable modem that I never returned when I quit the service. Of course since I was using my own, I never got one from them. Obviously no one there is willing to say you don't have to pay for it, or if they do, it does not matter since someone else bills you again. Try this crazy tactic that works for me. Don't pay them.
You see it works like this, you don't give them any money, and they can go stuff themselves. If they call to complain tell them you don't owe them any money. Eventually they hire a collection agency, when they call or write tell them you don't owe any money. Check your credit report, if a mark show up, tell them to remove it or you will sue them. If anyone threatens to take you to court, tell them you'll see them there. Everyone shuts up and backs off remarkably quickly.
I read about new tech all the time, but the only thing I ever see sold are incremental improvements to existing technologies. Maybe I should move to Japan or something. Where are my consumer priced video-phones, laser guns, flying cars, transporters, cloaking devices, etc.????
"Nevermind that Apple has ALWAYS been ALL ABOUT proprietary hardware (save a brief and failed attempt at opening same to OEMs) - they've adopted a *nix variant to base their OS on, so let's forgive them all their past transgressions, and start buying some of that proprietary hardware/software along with the more open stuff! It's just so sexy-looking!"
Don't assume everyone else shares your values. Some of us just want a stable, functional, secure system that actually gets things done. OSs are tools to get things done. If the best tool is open source, on x86, great. If the best tool is a mix of open and closed on a proprietary or uncommon hardware platform, that is fine too. If the best solution is Windows on x86 that is fine too.
I use OSX on an Apple laptop, because it is the best solution to my problems. (I also use NetBSD, Windows 2K, and Linux for particular things.) If Windows or Linux ever becomes the best solution to my problems, I will switch. Anyone who thinks OSX is used by geeks because it is "sexy looking" should have their head examined. It is used because it works, it works well, it works easily, it works powerfully. For what I do, it saves me an hour a day, minimum, which I squander posting to Slashdot.
Apple will not license their DRM to play on anything other than apple computers and apple ipods.
I'm sure someone has already pointed out that it runs on Windows machines, and Motorola has announced licensing it for a phone.
Windows Media DRM scheme, while more oppressive in most ways, is licensed to several different portable players (i believe).
Which makes sense if you are starting from a position as an underdog and your goal is market share, you need to get as many allies as possible. Also, when the creator is MS, you don't have to worry about profit, since you can just roll the costs into your already established monopoly. Anyone who thinks MS is the one any consumer would want holding the keys to this kingdom is a bloody fool. What do you think will happen if MS ever gets 80% market share here. Do you doubt that this will happen once MS bundles it into the OS? Here is your integrated Media center that cannot be removed and runs twice as fast as all the competition for some unknown reason. And here is your 200 'free' songs (that you were forced to pay for with the OS). They cannot be converted to any other format, so why use 2 players? keep it all the same and use Windows media today sheeple, err people.
They simply allowed their music to be played on the iPod. Period.
Oh, and they did so using Apple's servers and a hack to make it look kosher. Yeah, I sure wouldn't mind is someone was authenticating against my servers without my permission. That sure wouldn't be security hole or anything.
There is NO JOB that a Mac running OSX can't do which a Wintel box will do.
This is just not true. There are plenty of niche applications that have no equivalent on the Mac. That does not mean they could not be ported, or an alternative created, but it does mean many companies and individuals have significant barrier to switching. Conversely, there are some applications and niche markets that have no Windows software equivalent. Regardless, your statement is not true.
Nope, wrong. There are people writing OSs and "making money". For example, the silly SkyOS thing is a closed source, commercial OS and is "making money". A monopoly is much harder to define than that.
SkyOS is still in beta, and not making money commercially to my knowledge. As far as I know, you can download the OS, but not purchase it. Even if they were making money, this is from a perspective of the marketplace, so anything with a very small share and without significant influence on the market, is not considered. The only people I can think of who qualify might be WindRiver and their embedded OSs, but even they mostly make money on the dev tools and services.
My statements were paraphrasing a lawyer who explained the concept to me. The legal requirements in the U.S. for being a monopoly are that no one can compete against you commercially, even with a better or equal product. You control the market space. Note, this does not mean a company has broken any laws. Monopolies are legal, abusing them is illegal.
I won't comment on whether Apple has *reached* a monopoly in these markets - I'm honestly not sure what those criteria are. But they're CLEARLY dominant, and it is the DMCA which is enabling them to protect this position.
I will. A monopoly is (legally) when no one can enter the market and make money, even if they have a better product. MS is a monopoly because no one can make money selling OSs except them. Everyone else makes their money in services, hardware, or both. Superior offerings from others, OS 2, BeOS, NextOS have all failed.
Apple has no monopoly. Music services are offered by everyone and their mother, so are digital music players. Most mp3 makers are making money. A number of music services are making money. Customers have choices. Even if Apple obtained a 95% market share in both players and music downloads, they still would not have a monopoly if others can enter with a better product and make money. Apple maintains it's position with a better product. They are convenient, easy to use, have a good selection, and are trendy. They also have a loophole in their DRM that allows export to standard CDs and other formats. I don't buy their products, but many people do. Anyone with a clue is not locked in, unlike those using Windows media format, from which there is no legal means of conversion.
However, if what you say is true, then how do you explain the fact that Microsoft was forced to remove the Windows Media Player from its operating system?
Microsoft is a monopoly. Free trade does not work with monopolies. I've already explained this umpteen times. Here it goes again:
A monopoly on cars is legal. A monopoly on pork is legal. If Ford has a monopoly on cars, it is illegal for them to use this to get a monopoly on pork. I can sell cars. I can sell cars with a free lifetime supply of pork. I can make cars as a hobby, and give away both cars and a lifetime supply of pork. If I have a monopoly on cars, I cannot include a free lifetime supply of pork. This is because all the pork sellers would go out of business since I can include my costs in with a product everyone has to buy already and no one can compete. Hence, monopolies break free trade.
Apple is not monopoly, hence no one is forced to pay for their pork, since no one has to buy their cars. MS is a monopoly, they cannot, thus, include pork with their cars, even if another company who sells battleships also includes a free car and pork.
The press "induces" people to spill secrets all the time. And thinksecret is the press here. If Apple has the right to sue anyone, it's the people who broke their confidentiality agreements. Not the press.
The press is a commercial entity as well as a bastion of free speech. They are not exempt from laws. If Time-Warner had some of their reporters get hired on as employees at a competitor's business, like Sony, sign NDA's and then spill information in order to devalue Sony stock, and make themselves money, should they be exempt from lawsuits?
ThinkSecret made money on this deal. They may or may not have provided money to people in order to induce them to break confidentiality agreements. Until we know the facts, there is not much point debating either the ethics or the legality.
I respect whistleblowers, and newspapers that protect their sources and expose the wrongdoing of industry. This is neither case. There was no wrongdoing from Apple. This is just spilling trade secrets, probably for money.
In other news, Standard Oil, your only source for oil and oil based products has announced a new product called "don't randomly explode" that prevents your oil and oil based products from randomly exploding due to the recent accidental introduction of high explosives into their shipping oil products. For just $50 a month they can guarantee that none of you cars, lamps, or household soaps explode. Remember Standard Oil is the best, and only, source for your petroleum products, so buy from them or don't, we don't care hahahahahaha!
If I already have other MP3 players, why the heck would I want an iPod? I have NO need for an iPod. Therefor, iTunes is useless to me... I hope they lose this one big time.
Oh you poor person, I can see why you need to be compensated for the horrible way they ripped you off. They made several products you did not want to buy. Those bastards!
The very fact that you looked at their offerings, did not like them, and went with another solution is proof that this lawsuit is crap.
What's the difference between a user suing a record company because he/she can't play a CD in their PC because of DRM, and a user suing a record distribution company (Apple) because he/she can't play a song in his/her choice of mp3 player?
They are actually quite numerous. First, Users have expectations for CDs defined by their previous behaviors, and because there is an open and accepted standard for the behavior of CDs. The lawsuits about CDs not playing are actually lawsuits about items that look like CDs, are sold with CDs, but are actually not CDs. This deceit is a necessary component of the lawsuit.
Apple sells online music licenses and makes it clear in what ways that music will function. They do not try to trick the user into thinking their music is an mp3.
Also, apple is not a convicted monopolist (or any sort of monopoly). The RIAA is a convicted monopolist (convicted of abusing a monopoly through price fixing).
Basically, it boils down to choice. If you want to buy most music you have to deal with the RIAA (as does Apple). If they abuse that position, you have legal recourse. If you want to buy a digital music player, or digital music, you do not have to deal with Apple. If you do deal with Apple, and they live up to the agreement you made, you have no one to blame but yourself. You could just as easily have gone with a competitor. Get it?
They have the choice to license FairPlay to competitors and I know a number would do it if given the opportunity, but they have not so they can maintain control.
Because it is regarded as a trade secret, we do not know Apple's legal position with regard to Fairplay. We do know that they originally contracted a third party to develop it. We do not know if Apple or that unnnamed third party has the rights to license it to others. We do know that it can be licensed because Motorola has managed a deal to obtain a license for an upcoming phone.
Now maybe Apple is the sole gatekeeper, and is keeping it exclusive as a business move. In this case, I think they are making a mistake, but I don't think they are legally or ethically in the wrong. I really can't fathom how many Slashdot readers can't understand the concepts of monopolies, abuse of monopolies, and bundling. I've only explained it myself about ten times, and I've seen many other people explain it. It really isn't that hard of a concept.
Apple didn't sue ThinkSecret you mouth-breathing retard
I believe you are mistaken. Apple has filed a lawsuit against ThinkSecret, separate from the subpoenas issued in their John Doe lawsuits against people who leaked information earlier. They claim that ThinkSecret solicited trade secrets. I'm no expert on the legality of soliciting trade secrets, but if ThinkSecret offered compensation, then it is a clear case of industrial espionage. If ThinkSecret did not offer compensation, then I do not know if they are in the clear legally speaking. I imagine not too many people do, given the obscurity of the legal system.
Linguistically a monopoly exists when there is no competition. Legally, it the concept is somewhat fuzzier - note how Microsoft is legally classed as having a monopoly in the operating systems market in spite of the existence of competing products, due to their ability to control the market.
A legal monopoly in the U.S. is determined by it's influence on the market. Basically, the courts ask if it is possible to compete in the space with a reasonable chance of success, and if a better product can compete. In the case of MS, they ruled that other companies cannot make money by selling OSs, even if they have better OSs. This was demonstrated by several attempts. By the same definition I don't think Apple would qualify. Other companies can and do enter the market and make profits. Note this is completely separate from whether or not they have illegally abused that monopoly. Further note, IANAL and this is just the layman's explanation that was given to me.
Interestingly enough I buy most of my music in AAC format, but not from Apple. The standard is open and much nicer than mp3 in my opinion. Files have the same quality with smaller file sizes; drastically smaller for files that are just speaking (like audio books). All my files work just fine with itunes, and play fine on ipods (although i do not own one myself). If Apple were to cheaply license Fairplay, I would be happier about the state of the industry and less worried about MS taking over with their more restrictive DRM. But I'm not unhappy with the current state of things and Apple will only get my business if I cannot find an easier place to buy something. They are my third choice behind non DRM legal downloads and used CD purchases. If I have to I will buy from them, then remove the DRM through a legal method.
If ThinkSecret did no more than ask people on their web site to provide information, then I think they are ethically in the right. I don't know enough about trade secret laws to know if they are legally in the clear. If, on the other hand, they offered employees money, favors, or gifts in exchange for information, then that is clearly industrial espionage and I hope they lose their shirts. ThinkSecret is profiting by this in any case through increased bandwidth, but that is a pretty fine point. This is something that causes real changes to stock evaluations, and has been picked up by news sources with millions of readers. This is not peanuts.
The article isn't about "logical beliefs that can't be proven". There is no such thing. A logical belief is proven by definition, otherwise it's not logical.
Actually a logical belief is any belief that follows a reasoned progression of ideas and observations.
logical
adj 1: capable of or reflecting the capability for correct and valid reasoning; "a logical mind" [ant: illogical]
2: in accordance with reason or logic; "a logical conclusion" [syn: legitimate]
3: marked by an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts; "a logical argument"; "the orderly presentation" [syn: consistent, ordered, orderly]
4: based on known statements or events or conditions; "rain was a logical expectation, given the time of year"
Very few things can be proven in the scientific sense, and still fewer social concepts. If you RTFA (I know it's toast) you'd see that none of the ideas presented can be proven currently, they are just logical guesses, and yes that is valid terminology. For example if if I put 10 black rocks and one white one in a jar, then blindly draw one, it is logical for me to guess that it will be black. It cannot be proven, but it is a logical prediction.
As far as your statements about Freud and Jung, obviously they are related, Jung was Freud's student, but they are not illogical. Freud was making guesses based upon his analysis of his own psyche, and those of his patients. His work is colored by his own idiosyncrasies, but shows real insight into the human mind. He was one of the first psychologists to look logically at how the mind might work, based upon the way in which have evolved and based upon our formative environment. Jung took his work, and abstracted it to a useful, general case, rather than one based upon Freud himself. Jung also, applies the scientific method of theory and experiment which the definition of science. It is just science with more uncontrolled variables than most would think workable.
why you think the "it happens in nature" argument is very relevant to homosexuals and yet not to pedophiles?
Well, for starters, I never did say that it was a relevant argument. I merely said anyone that is not capable of finding basic facts, or is so set in their opinion that they do not want to see the facts, is not worth my time to discuss the topic with. Since there is no point in reasoning with the unreasonable.
To address your question about my non-existent statement, I do not think homosexuals are revered. For the most part they are discriminated against and ostracized. Pedophiles do have a lobby, and pedophilia is accepted in some cultures both past and present. The age of consent in countries around the world varies from 10 to 21 years of age, with some countries having different ages for homosexual and heterosexual sex.
Obviously the morality of both issues is very subjective and specific to cultures. The issue with children in my mind, is not being too young for sex, but being to young to make informed choices. Sex can be an important decision for anyone, and can certainly have serious medical consequences including both pregnancy and STDs. Immature people are not ready to make such serious decisions, and naiveté and social status make them easy targets for abuse. Anyone can be sexually abused. Children are taken advantage of because they provide easy targets. All of this is symptomatic of social problems with sex in general. People are uninformed, misinformed, and the entire issue is surrounded by taboos, self-esteem issues, religious strictures, laws, and media hype.
As far as pedophilia in nature is concerned, it is the result of non-rational creatures behaving naturally. Without reason animals will have sex according to their instincts, and those instincts are sometimes not discriminatory enough to accomplish the main drives for procreation. I am unaware of many examples in nature of coupling between animals that have not reached sexual maturity, but it would not surprise me to hear that it happens.
Basically, I have no problem with homosexuality because it does not harm anyone. I have problems with any pedophilia that victimizes anyone, or causes suffering. I'm not sure that "it happens in nature" has anything to do with it, other than do demonstrate that homosexuality is not unnnatural.
This is a rather silly Freudian idea you're spouting, for which you have no proof either.
Actually it is more of a Jungian idea. It is the same basic school of thought, but a lot more rational. Basically humanity has archetypal figures in it's collective unconscious, that are referenced on lower level of consciousness. It makes a lot of rational sense as a survival mechanism that predates reasoning in human development. If you want proofs, perhaps you should look to fields other than psychology or religion. For that matter maybe you should not be looking in an article about logical beliefs that cannot be proven. You seem to have missed the point.
Slashdot Mirror
Then Apple can sue those individuals....NOT thinksecret.
If people at ThinkSecret paid for the information, they are very much liable and responsible. They made money by breaking the law. If they did not pay for the information, then it is a debatable matter of ethics. They profited, but I don't see it as inciting or conspiring in the criminal action.
And how is reporting the specs of a coming product "trade secrets".
It is actually a textbook example of trade secrets. New technology, coming to market is about as much of a trade secret as you can get.
Or, if you just want to stay in your dream, before the outsourcing industry graced us, we were all snake-charmers riding elephants and we had never seen money or a calculator.
TV has lead me to believe you are actually a bunch of very silly dancers, with hair reminiscent of elvis, clothing fashion that is a cross between the 70's in the U.S. and the aforementioned elephant riders, and completely incomprehensible plots that always seem to involve some guy twirling for no apparent reason. :)
In all actuality I think the average U.S. citizen has no clue about India, as it is not on TV very much except occasionally on CNN when mother nature is beating the crap out of you. I have a few friends from India, but in truth, I realize I have little idea how the average person lives there. If I had to guess I'd say it is probably more varied than the U.S. with more people living in poverty in low-tech surroundings, but a significant portion living in a style not too different than the U.S. Am I close?
Apple has crippled the iPod's capabilities by disabling support for the WMA format (it has that support built into the PortalPlayer chipset it uses).
Yeah, I'm sure it has nothing to do with having to pay a licensing fee to MS for every ipod. Others have already debunked your supposed lack of other online stores. Apple did not want MS to control media, so they made a better solution and people bought it. Now you think this is a bad thing? It is less restrictive them the Windows version and legally removable. I'm really surprised they managed to convince the RIAA to go for such a consumer friendly deal, and I'm sure not going to complain about it.
You don't have a choice to switch to other stuff, there's no alternatives.
And with WMA you can go with any number of people who licensed it from MS, until it becomes popular and MS kills off all the competition because they control the format. Smart.
Yes.
We've tried calling them to talk about it. Their response is to simply bounce us around between different people until the connection gets "accidentally" lost. Nobody at Verizon has shown any interest in discussing this charge. Their attitude is clearly "We put it on your bill, so you have to pay it."
And you let it go? I had something similar happen to me. My cable company tried to charge me for a cable modem that I never returned when I quit the service. Of course since I was using my own, I never got one from them. Obviously no one there is willing to say you don't have to pay for it, or if they do, it does not matter since someone else bills you again. Try this crazy tactic that works for me. Don't pay them.
You see it works like this, you don't give them any money, and they can go stuff themselves. If they call to complain tell them you don't owe them any money. Eventually they hire a collection agency, when they call or write tell them you don't owe any money. Check your credit report, if a mark show up, tell them to remove it or you will sue them. If anyone threatens to take you to court, tell them you'll see them there. Everyone shuts up and backs off remarkably quickly.
I read about new tech all the time, but the only thing I ever see sold are incremental improvements to existing technologies. Maybe I should move to Japan or something. Where are my consumer priced video-phones, laser guns, flying cars, transporters, cloaking devices, etc.????
"Nevermind that Apple has ALWAYS been ALL ABOUT proprietary hardware (save a brief and failed attempt at opening same to OEMs) - they've adopted a *nix variant to base their OS on, so let's forgive them all their past transgressions, and start buying some of that proprietary hardware/software along with the more open stuff! It's just so sexy-looking!"
Don't assume everyone else shares your values. Some of us just want a stable, functional, secure system that actually gets things done. OSs are tools to get things done. If the best tool is open source, on x86, great. If the best tool is a mix of open and closed on a proprietary or uncommon hardware platform, that is fine too. If the best solution is Windows on x86 that is fine too.
I use OSX on an Apple laptop, because it is the best solution to my problems. (I also use NetBSD, Windows 2K, and Linux for particular things.) If Windows or Linux ever becomes the best solution to my problems, I will switch. Anyone who thinks OSX is used by geeks because it is "sexy looking" should have their head examined. It is used because it works, it works well, it works easily, it works powerfully. For what I do, it saves me an hour a day, minimum, which I squander posting to Slashdot.
Apple will not license their DRM to play on anything other than apple computers and apple ipods.
I'm sure someone has already pointed out that it runs on Windows machines, and Motorola has announced licensing it for a phone.
Windows Media DRM scheme, while more oppressive in most ways, is licensed to several different portable players (i believe).
Which makes sense if you are starting from a position as an underdog and your goal is market share, you need to get as many allies as possible. Also, when the creator is MS, you don't have to worry about profit, since you can just roll the costs into your already established monopoly. Anyone who thinks MS is the one any consumer would want holding the keys to this kingdom is a bloody fool. What do you think will happen if MS ever gets 80% market share here. Do you doubt that this will happen once MS bundles it into the OS? Here is your integrated Media center that cannot be removed and runs twice as fast as all the competition for some unknown reason. And here is your 200 'free' songs (that you were forced to pay for with the OS). They cannot be converted to any other format, so why use 2 players? keep it all the same and use Windows media today sheeple, err people.
They simply allowed their music to be played on the iPod. Period.
Oh, and they did so using Apple's servers and a hack to make it look kosher. Yeah, I sure wouldn't mind is someone was authenticating against my servers without my permission. That sure wouldn't be security hole or anything.
There is NO JOB that a Mac running OSX can't do which a Wintel box will do.
This is just not true. There are plenty of niche applications that have no equivalent on the Mac. That does not mean they could not be ported, or an alternative created, but it does mean many companies and individuals have significant barrier to switching. Conversely, there are some applications and niche markets that have no Windows software equivalent. Regardless, your statement is not true.
Nope, wrong. There are people writing OSs and "making money". For example, the silly SkyOS thing is a closed source, commercial OS and is "making money". A monopoly is much harder to define than that.
SkyOS is still in beta, and not making money commercially to my knowledge. As far as I know, you can download the OS, but not purchase it. Even if they were making money, this is from a perspective of the marketplace, so anything with a very small share and without significant influence on the market, is not considered. The only people I can think of who qualify might be WindRiver and their embedded OSs, but even they mostly make money on the dev tools and services.
My statements were paraphrasing a lawyer who explained the concept to me. The legal requirements in the U.S. for being a monopoly are that no one can compete against you commercially, even with a better or equal product. You control the market space. Note, this does not mean a company has broken any laws. Monopolies are legal, abusing them is illegal.
I won't comment on whether Apple has *reached* a monopoly in these markets - I'm honestly not sure what those criteria are. But they're CLEARLY dominant, and it is the DMCA which is enabling them to protect this position.
I will. A monopoly is (legally) when no one can enter the market and make money, even if they have a better product. MS is a monopoly because no one can make money selling OSs except them. Everyone else makes their money in services, hardware, or both. Superior offerings from others, OS 2, BeOS, NextOS have all failed.
Apple has no monopoly. Music services are offered by everyone and their mother, so are digital music players. Most mp3 makers are making money. A number of music services are making money. Customers have choices. Even if Apple obtained a 95% market share in both players and music downloads, they still would not have a monopoly if others can enter with a better product and make money. Apple maintains it's position with a better product. They are convenient, easy to use, have a good selection, and are trendy. They also have a loophole in their DRM that allows export to standard CDs and other formats. I don't buy their products, but many people do. Anyone with a clue is not locked in, unlike those using Windows media format, from which there is no legal means of conversion.
However, if what you say is true, then how do you explain the fact that Microsoft was forced to remove the Windows Media Player from its operating system?
Microsoft is a monopoly. Free trade does not work with monopolies. I've already explained this umpteen times. Here it goes again:
A monopoly on cars is legal. A monopoly on pork is legal. If Ford has a monopoly on cars, it is illegal for them to use this to get a monopoly on pork. I can sell cars. I can sell cars with a free lifetime supply of pork. I can make cars as a hobby, and give away both cars and a lifetime supply of pork. If I have a monopoly on cars, I cannot include a free lifetime supply of pork. This is because all the pork sellers would go out of business since I can include my costs in with a product everyone has to buy already and no one can compete. Hence, monopolies break free trade.
Apple is not monopoly, hence no one is forced to pay for their pork, since no one has to buy their cars. MS is a monopoly, they cannot, thus, include pork with their cars, even if another company who sells battleships also includes a free car and pork.
The press "induces" people to spill secrets all the time. And thinksecret is the press here. If Apple has the right to sue anyone, it's the people who broke their confidentiality agreements. Not the press.
The press is a commercial entity as well as a bastion of free speech. They are not exempt from laws. If Time-Warner had some of their reporters get hired on as employees at a competitor's business, like Sony, sign NDA's and then spill information in order to devalue Sony stock, and make themselves money, should they be exempt from lawsuits?
ThinkSecret made money on this deal. They may or may not have provided money to people in order to induce them to break confidentiality agreements. Until we know the facts, there is not much point debating either the ethics or the legality.
I respect whistleblowers, and newspapers that protect their sources and expose the wrongdoing of industry. This is neither case. There was no wrongdoing from Apple. This is just spilling trade secrets, probably for money.
In other news, Standard Oil, your only source for oil and oil based products has announced a new product called "don't randomly explode" that prevents your oil and oil based products from randomly exploding due to the recent accidental introduction of high explosives into their shipping oil products. For just $50 a month they can guarantee that none of you cars, lamps, or household soaps explode. Remember Standard Oil is the best, and only, source for your petroleum products, so buy from them or don't, we don't care hahahahahaha!
If I already have other MP3 players, why the heck would I want an iPod? I have NO need for an iPod. Therefor, iTunes is useless to me... I hope they lose this one big time.
Oh you poor person, I can see why you need to be compensated for the horrible way they ripped you off. They made several products you did not want to buy. Those bastards!
The very fact that you looked at their offerings, did not like them, and went with another solution is proof that this lawsuit is crap.
What's the difference between a user suing a record company because he/she can't play a CD in their PC because of DRM, and a user suing a record distribution company (Apple) because he/she can't play a song in his/her choice of mp3 player?
They are actually quite numerous. First, Users have expectations for CDs defined by their previous behaviors, and because there is an open and accepted standard for the behavior of CDs. The lawsuits about CDs not playing are actually lawsuits about items that look like CDs, are sold with CDs, but are actually not CDs. This deceit is a necessary component of the lawsuit.
Apple sells online music licenses and makes it clear in what ways that music will function. They do not try to trick the user into thinking their music is an mp3.
Also, apple is not a convicted monopolist (or any sort of monopoly). The RIAA is a convicted monopolist (convicted of abusing a monopoly through price fixing).
Basically, it boils down to choice. If you want to buy most music you have to deal with the RIAA (as does Apple). If they abuse that position, you have legal recourse. If you want to buy a digital music player, or digital music, you do not have to deal with Apple. If you do deal with Apple, and they live up to the agreement you made, you have no one to blame but yourself. You could just as easily have gone with a competitor. Get it?
They have the choice to license FairPlay to competitors and I know a number would do it if given the opportunity, but they have not so they can maintain control.
Because it is regarded as a trade secret, we do not know Apple's legal position with regard to Fairplay. We do know that they originally contracted a third party to develop it. We do not know if Apple or that unnnamed third party has the rights to license it to others. We do know that it can be licensed because Motorola has managed a deal to obtain a license for an upcoming phone.
Now maybe Apple is the sole gatekeeper, and is keeping it exclusive as a business move. In this case, I think they are making a mistake, but I don't think they are legally or ethically in the wrong. I really can't fathom how many Slashdot readers can't understand the concepts of monopolies, abuse of monopolies, and bundling. I've only explained it myself about ten times, and I've seen many other people explain it. It really isn't that hard of a concept.
Apple didn't sue ThinkSecret you mouth-breathing retard
I believe you are mistaken. Apple has filed a lawsuit against ThinkSecret, separate from the subpoenas issued in their John Doe lawsuits against people who leaked information earlier. They claim that ThinkSecret solicited trade secrets. I'm no expert on the legality of soliciting trade secrets, but if ThinkSecret offered compensation, then it is a clear case of industrial espionage. If ThinkSecret did not offer compensation, then I do not know if they are in the clear legally speaking. I imagine not too many people do, given the obscurity of the legal system.
Linguistically a monopoly exists when there is no competition. Legally, it the concept is somewhat fuzzier - note how Microsoft is legally classed as having a monopoly in the operating systems market in spite of the existence of competing products, due to their ability to control the market.
A legal monopoly in the U.S. is determined by it's influence on the market. Basically, the courts ask if it is possible to compete in the space with a reasonable chance of success, and if a better product can compete. In the case of MS, they ruled that other companies cannot make money by selling OSs, even if they have better OSs. This was demonstrated by several attempts. By the same definition I don't think Apple would qualify. Other companies can and do enter the market and make profits. Note this is completely separate from whether or not they have illegally abused that monopoly. Further note, IANAL and this is just the layman's explanation that was given to me.
Apple can open up AAC and we can all be happy?
Interestingly enough I buy most of my music in AAC format, but not from Apple. The standard is open and much nicer than mp3 in my opinion. Files have the same quality with smaller file sizes; drastically smaller for files that are just speaking (like audio books). All my files work just fine with itunes, and play fine on ipods (although i do not own one myself). If Apple were to cheaply license Fairplay, I would be happier about the state of the industry and less worried about MS taking over with their more restrictive DRM. But I'm not unhappy with the current state of things and Apple will only get my business if I cannot find an easier place to buy something. They are my third choice behind non DRM legal downloads and used CD purchases. If I have to I will buy from them, then remove the DRM through a legal method.
If ThinkSecret did no more than ask people on their web site to provide information, then I think they are ethically in the right. I don't know enough about trade secret laws to know if they are legally in the clear. If, on the other hand, they offered employees money, favors, or gifts in exchange for information, then that is clearly industrial espionage and I hope they lose their shirts. ThinkSecret is profiting by this in any case through increased bandwidth, but that is a pretty fine point. This is something that causes real changes to stock evaluations, and has been picked up by news sources with millions of readers. This is not peanuts.
The article isn't about "logical beliefs that can't be proven". There is no such thing. A logical belief is proven by definition, otherwise it's not logical.
Actually a logical belief is any belief that follows a reasoned progression of ideas and observations.
logical
adj 1: capable of or reflecting the capability for correct and valid reasoning; "a logical mind" [ant: illogical]
2: in accordance with reason or logic; "a logical conclusion" [syn: legitimate]
3: marked by an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts; "a logical argument"; "the orderly presentation" [syn: consistent, ordered, orderly]
4: based on known statements or events or conditions; "rain was a logical expectation, given the time of year"
Very few things can be proven in the scientific sense, and still fewer social concepts. If you RTFA (I know it's toast) you'd see that none of the ideas presented can be proven currently, they are just logical guesses, and yes that is valid terminology. For example if if I put 10 black rocks and one white one in a jar, then blindly draw one, it is logical for me to guess that it will be black. It cannot be proven, but it is a logical prediction.
As far as your statements about Freud and Jung, obviously they are related, Jung was Freud's student, but they are not illogical. Freud was making guesses based upon his analysis of his own psyche, and those of his patients. His work is colored by his own idiosyncrasies, but shows real insight into the human mind. He was one of the first psychologists to look logically at how the mind might work, based upon the way in which have evolved and based upon our formative environment. Jung took his work, and abstracted it to a useful, general case, rather than one based upon Freud himself. Jung also, applies the scientific method of theory and experiment which the definition of science. It is just science with more uncontrolled variables than most would think workable.
why you think the "it happens in nature" argument is very relevant to homosexuals and yet not to pedophiles?
Well, for starters, I never did say that it was a relevant argument. I merely said anyone that is not capable of finding basic facts, or is so set in their opinion that they do not want to see the facts, is not worth my time to discuss the topic with. Since there is no point in reasoning with the unreasonable.
To address your question about my non-existent statement, I do not think homosexuals are revered. For the most part they are discriminated against and ostracized. Pedophiles do have a lobby, and pedophilia is accepted in some cultures both past and present. The age of consent in countries around the world varies from 10 to 21 years of age, with some countries having different ages for homosexual and heterosexual sex.
Obviously the morality of both issues is very subjective and specific to cultures. The issue with children in my mind, is not being too young for sex, but being to young to make informed choices. Sex can be an important decision for anyone, and can certainly have serious medical consequences including both pregnancy and STDs. Immature people are not ready to make such serious decisions, and naiveté and social status make them easy targets for abuse. Anyone can be sexually abused. Children are taken advantage of because they provide easy targets. All of this is symptomatic of social problems with sex in general. People are uninformed, misinformed, and the entire issue is surrounded by taboos, self-esteem issues, religious strictures, laws, and media hype.
As far as pedophilia in nature is concerned, it is the result of non-rational creatures behaving naturally. Without reason animals will have sex according to their instincts, and those instincts are sometimes not discriminatory enough to accomplish the main drives for procreation. I am unaware of many examples in nature of coupling between animals that have not reached sexual maturity, but it would not surprise me to hear that it happens.
Basically, I have no problem with homosexuality because it does not harm anyone. I have problems with any pedophilia that victimizes anyone, or causes suffering. I'm not sure that "it happens in nature" has anything to do with it, other than do demonstrate that homosexuality is not unnnatural.
This is a rather silly Freudian idea you're spouting, for which you have no proof either.
Actually it is more of a Jungian idea. It is the same basic school of thought, but a lot more rational. Basically humanity has archetypal figures in it's collective unconscious, that are referenced on lower level of consciousness. It makes a lot of rational sense as a survival mechanism that predates reasoning in human development. If you want proofs, perhaps you should look to fields other than psychology or religion. For that matter maybe you should not be looking in an article about logical beliefs that cannot be proven. You seem to have missed the point.