They could have done it differently, and coexisted with Apple. Now, they reap their reward. I don't really understand why this is so hard for the Android fanbois to understand.
I don't think you understand Apple's business model. They've got a loooong list of bullshit patents ready to unleash on anybody who dares to compete with them. Samsung is the most successful Android phone maker, that's why they're being picked on. When Samsung defeats the 'rounded corners' lawsuit Apple will just pick another one from their list. So it goes...
Well, it seems like a very VERY good thing that there are companies like Google and Samsung willing to put out the cash to fight Apple. Imagine for a moment what your smartphone choices would be in Android were not in the hands of a company with the resources Google has or if handsets were not being very successfully manufactured by a company as big as Samsung (and others). The more Apple sues (hopefully) the more if its patents get invalidated and the weaker their position becomes. The fact that this "war" is being waged over devices and technology that the average juror actually uses every day and may well have in their pocket during the trial helps more "average" people see how hurtful these outcomes can be to average people because they actually use the technology. It's not like were talking about patents for technology that controls satellites or some more exotic and seemingly distant technology.
You would destroy all of the freedoms so many have died for you to obtain -- if only because a group is using speech you deem unacceptable. Shame. Shame on you sir.
I think the point here is that for example, you have the right/freedom to tell me to go fuck myself, but that does not mean I won't punch you in the nose for it. I agree and defend freedom of speech, but those speaking need to understand that there may be consequences to their expression separate from their right to make it.
That all of the other "browsewrap" style agreements we see outside the internet are also invalid? By this I mean items like attraction admission tickets, parking lot receipts and for that matter airline tickets that say things like "acceptance/use of this ticket constitutes agreement with this contract" (such as seen here https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2617/3708171070_cd5418d1e5_b.jpg)
Well, if they're getting it early they must me stroking their cocks with it or something because most/all of the major players are STILL shipping new products running ancient versions of Android.
Why not go with the best overall standard regardless of who introduced it and whether or not it was the first. Now this doesn't mean I'm for or against either standard, it just seems that the assumption is that it should be ignored because it wasn't first and because Microsoft introduced it.
It shouldn't matter where the money comes from, if Oracle agree to "support their DB on Itanium so long as Intel produced it", then it doesn't matter where the money comes from.
to Oracle: Did you agree to "support Itanium so long as Intel produced it"?
Yes? Done.
This situation is EXACTLY what a contract is for.
Does anyone remember the contract between Microsoft and Nvidia (where Microsoft had first right to buy Nvidia because it made the chips for the Xbox)?
It sounds like Oracle probably has some contractual obligations to live up to, and if so, HP deserves for them to uphold their end of the bargain. That said, I can understand Oracle's lack of desire to throw good money after bad. Itanic might not be dead, but it's comatose in a hospice with friends and family gathered around. Who'd want to spend much time and effort on a system that almost nobody wants?
Well, if you're going to get technical about it 40,000 sq meters / 35,800 workers is VERY optimistic because it doesn't account for the space taken up by the machinery.
It's not unreasonable for a home (ie, non-commercial, not another ISP, etc) subscriber to a subscription service such as Internet to be accountable for the activities of other people who use the services in his home. As a parent, I'm held responsible for the activities of my children. I see no reason why I, as an ISP subscriber, should not be also accountable for what people do with a network connection that I pay for. If I don't trust someone to do things that I don't want them to, I shouldn't be letting them on my network.
And as for people who run unlocked wireless routers and let anybody in the neighborhood utilize their bandwidth, I have zero sympathy.
This comment will probably be misinterpreted as as a troll, but it's not. I'm just a hard-ass who follows the rules and it just plain pisses me off that some other people figure they can ignore them just because their chance of being caught is infinitesimal.
Firstly if we are talking about visitors to your home, any adults should be responsible for their own behavior and if there are children involved then THEIR parents should be responsible. Furthermore, how do you know malware on your visiting uncle Bob's laptop didn't do it (and yes this could still happen even if Bob had taken reasonable precautions against it)? The point is that in this situation all of this would end up on your doorstep, it would be like being held responsible for something a care thief did with your stolen car.
'the purchaser of a license for a program is entitled, as a rule, to observe, study or test its functioning so as to determine the ideas and principles which underlie that program.'"
Google is not a purchaser of a license for JME, so this ruling is irrelevant to the jury for that case, sorry.
Sure, but I suppose the definition of 'purchaser' in this context needs to be clarified. After all if you download a 'free' piece of software, then are you 'buying' a piece of software for 0€? This is important, since Java can freely be downloaded in compiled or source form, with the latter under GPL.
It seems like it should be legal, if I buy you a copy of TurboTax for your birthday and give it to you (effectively transferring the license to you) then YOU own the program even though you didn't pay for it. Maybe buying someone a computer with Windows already installed would be a better example or the software in a car's integrated navigation system.
You're absolutely right, most people don't realize that copper has a grain like wood. If your data travels across or against (gasp!) the grain then obviously it will come out the other end corrupt (if at all!). That's why each conductor in the cables I use is.99999999999999999999999999999% pure aligned copper and at least 1/4 inch thick, it is then insulated with polyethylene and a layer of lead. I mean seriously, how else would you move a 1 volt signal at 20mA 3 feet?
Not having data feeds from millions of dollars of satellite equipment available, weather forecasters have instead been using a bag of d20s to make their predictions and oddly, forecast reliability has improved 12%!
If you don't like what Apple is doing with their products, THEN STOP BUYING APPLE PRODUCTS. Forget about lord Jobs changing his mind, he's got so many people so far up his ass telling him he is always right that there is no point in trying. As usual the ONLY way to get companies to take you seriously is to use (or not use) your wallet. Next time your Mac/iPhone/iPod craps out or gets lost then buy a competing product.
For a conversation on a landline, assuming there is a long distance charge, then only the originating party pays. When it comes to the telco/cable ISPs, I thought I was paying for the pipe and it seems I should be allowed to choose what I do with it. I don't understand how the ISPs can think that there would be a market for their service if it wasn't for youtube/netflix/google, they are the reason I have an internet connection at all. It would be like paying for a phone line and having no one to call.
What if Amazon had sold a paper book that turned out to have been printed illegally, could they compel you to return the book if they had already sold it to you? If I had to guess, I'd still have my book.
Slashdot Mirror
They could have done it differently, and coexisted with Apple. Now, they reap their reward. I don't really understand why this is so hard for the Android fanbois to understand.
I don't think you understand Apple's business model. They've got a loooong list of bullshit patents ready to unleash on anybody who dares to compete with them. Samsung is the most successful Android phone maker, that's why they're being picked on. When Samsung defeats the 'rounded corners' lawsuit Apple will just pick another one from their list. So it goes...
Well, it seems like a very VERY good thing that there are companies like Google and Samsung willing to put out the cash to fight Apple. Imagine for a moment what your smartphone choices would be in Android were not in the hands of a company with the resources Google has or if handsets were not being very successfully manufactured by a company as big as Samsung (and others). The more Apple sues (hopefully) the more if its patents get invalidated and the weaker their position becomes. The fact that this "war" is being waged over devices and technology that the average juror actually uses every day and may well have in their pocket during the trial helps more "average" people see how hurtful these outcomes can be to average people because they actually use the technology. It's not like were talking about patents for technology that controls satellites or some more exotic and seemingly distant technology.
You would destroy all of the freedoms so many have died for you to obtain -- if only because a group is using speech you deem unacceptable. Shame. Shame on you sir.
I think the point here is that for example, you have the right/freedom to tell me to go fuck myself, but that does not mean I won't punch you in the nose for it. I agree and defend freedom of speech, but those speaking need to understand that there may be consequences to their expression separate from their right to make it.
Steve repeatedly used that demand like heavy artillery, I don't think he'd hesitate to do so with the little island off the coast of Europe.
I recall the Germans thinking that same shit in the 40s. It didn't turn out the way they expected, and I seriously doubt it would for Apple.
That all of the other "browsewrap" style agreements we see outside the internet are also invalid? By this I mean items like attraction admission tickets, parking lot receipts and for that matter airline tickets that say things like "acceptance/use of this ticket constitutes agreement with this contract" (such as seen here https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2617/3708171070_cd5418d1e5_b.jpg)
Well, if they're getting it early they must me stroking their cocks with it or something because most/all of the major players are STILL shipping new products running ancient versions of Android.
Why not go with the best overall standard regardless of who introduced it and whether or not it was the first. Now this doesn't mean I'm for or against either standard, it just seems that the assumption is that it should be ignored because it wasn't first and because Microsoft introduced it.
It shouldn't matter where the money comes from, if Oracle agree to "support their DB on Itanium so long as Intel produced it", then it doesn't matter where the money comes from. to Oracle: Did you agree to "support Itanium so long as Intel produced it"? Yes? Done. This situation is EXACTLY what a contract is for. Does anyone remember the contract between Microsoft and Nvidia (where Microsoft had first right to buy Nvidia because it made the chips for the Xbox)?
It sounds like Oracle probably has some contractual obligations to live up to, and if so, HP deserves for them to uphold their end of the bargain. That said, I can understand Oracle's lack of desire to throw good money after bad. Itanic might not be dead, but it's comatose in a hospice with friends and family gathered around. Who'd want to spend much time and effort on a system that almost nobody wants?
OS/2 Anyone?
Well, if you're going to get technical about it 40,000 sq meters / 35,800 workers is VERY optimistic because it doesn't account for the space taken up by the machinery.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that ALL the employees will not be present at the SAME TIME.
It's not unreasonable for a home (ie, non-commercial, not another ISP, etc) subscriber to a subscription service such as Internet to be accountable for the activities of other people who use the services in his home. As a parent, I'm held responsible for the activities of my children. I see no reason why I, as an ISP subscriber, should not be also accountable for what people do with a network connection that I pay for. If I don't trust someone to do things that I don't want them to, I shouldn't be letting them on my network.
And as for people who run unlocked wireless routers and let anybody in the neighborhood utilize their bandwidth, I have zero sympathy.
This comment will probably be misinterpreted as as a troll, but it's not. I'm just a hard-ass who follows the rules and it just plain pisses me off that some other people figure they can ignore them just because their chance of being caught is infinitesimal.
Firstly if we are talking about visitors to your home, any adults should be responsible for their own behavior and if there are children involved then THEIR parents should be responsible. Furthermore, how do you know malware on your visiting uncle Bob's laptop didn't do it (and yes this could still happen even if Bob had taken reasonable precautions against it)? The point is that in this situation all of this would end up on your doorstep, it would be like being held responsible for something a care thief did with your stolen car.
'the purchaser of a license for a program is entitled, as a rule, to observe, study or test its functioning so as to determine the ideas and principles which underlie that program.'"
Google is not a purchaser of a license for JME, so this ruling is irrelevant to the jury for that case, sorry.
Sure, but I suppose the definition of 'purchaser' in this context needs to be clarified. After all if you download a 'free' piece of software, then are you 'buying' a piece of software for 0€? This is important, since Java can freely be downloaded in compiled or source form, with the latter under GPL.
It seems like it should be legal, if I buy you a copy of TurboTax for your birthday and give it to you (effectively transferring the license to you) then YOU own the program even though you didn't pay for it. Maybe buying someone a computer with Windows already installed would be a better example or the software in a car's integrated navigation system.
Shades?
They did this because they couldn't buy Nextel again?
So they're choking fat people on cell phones?!
What the hell is an "accurate estimate"?
There's tons of it on the moon....
You're absolutely right, most people don't realize that copper has a grain like wood. If your data travels across or against (gasp!) the grain then obviously it will come out the other end corrupt (if at all!). That's why each conductor in the cables I use is .99999999999999999999999999999% pure aligned copper and at least 1/4 inch thick, it is then insulated with polyethylene and a layer of lead. I mean seriously, how else would you move a 1 volt signal at 20mA 3 feet?
Not having data feeds from millions of dollars of satellite equipment available, weather forecasters have instead been using a bag of d20s to make their predictions and oddly, forecast reliability has improved 12%!
Duuddddeee.......
If you don't like what Apple is doing with their products, THEN STOP BUYING APPLE PRODUCTS. Forget about lord Jobs changing his mind, he's got so many people so far up his ass telling him he is always right that there is no point in trying. As usual the ONLY way to get companies to take you seriously is to use (or not use) your wallet. Next time your Mac/iPhone/iPod craps out or gets lost then buy a competing product.
For a conversation on a landline, assuming there is a long distance charge, then only the originating party pays. When it comes to the telco/cable ISPs, I thought I was paying for the pipe and it seems I should be allowed to choose what I do with it. I don't understand how the ISPs can think that there would be a market for their service if it wasn't for youtube/netflix/google, they are the reason I have an internet connection at all. It would be like paying for a phone line and having no one to call.
I see two problems here:
1) Pirates go after locker ships, and take them over
2) This defense mechanism sounds like something the pirates will want to get their hands on.
What if Amazon had sold a paper book that turned out to have been printed illegally, could they compel you to return the book if they had already sold it to you? If I had to guess, I'd still have my book.
I want DRDs.....