You are wrong again good sir. The license allows Apple to pass on the entire costs of defending the case, including damages, to whoever submitted the application to the app store. It's a nasty clause that exists in 99.9999999999 recurring percent of developer agreements.
Your inability or unwillingness to learn to use Open Office aside, no pragmatic reasons exist for not using it for everything, even that which you state can't be achieved.
That is not for you to decide. The person choosing whether to use it or not chooses whether there is a pragmatic reason not to use it. And don't go assuming that everyone's requirements are the same - they aren't.
The browser makers already have. Microsoft led first, and everyone else thought it was a great idea (X-FRAME-OPTIONS HTTP header to tell browsers whether the page allows framing) and implemented it. Well, Microsoft, Apple and Google implemented it.
Actually, they don't indemnify at all. I've seen stories that apparently they are forming a patent pool for Theora and WebM/VP8, but the only place I can't find any confirmation of that is from MPEG LA themselves. The "official stance" referred to by the AC was mentioned in the story about them forming a VP8 pool, but said statement (and VP8 plan) doesn't exist on their site.
So, to me, it sounds like it is actually impossible to create and license a product under GPL3 which is written in Visual Basic.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but I doubt the intent of the license was to prohibit writing applications in certain languages while still opening the code.
Unless of course you install Windows Server 2008 Core. Core uses virtually no space (and doesn't even have Explorer. Until recently, it couldn't even run ASP.NET due to an oversight when they stripped out the framework).
Yes, and in that wide discussion, it was noted that TomTom was hardly blameless as well (apparently TomTom had been rumbling over something else as well- presumably what they attacked back with).
Being that defensive purposes is why these patents (supposedly) exist, that kind of makes sense. Doesn't make it right, but that's not what's under debate.
To be a patent troll one would have to actually litigate against someone. Microsoft doesn't (it occasionally threatens to, but never actually does). By definition, they aren't a patent troll.
The whole point of what SanityInAnarchy is saying is that browsers shouldn't need to know anything about the codecs needed. The operating system already has the libraries (QuickTime for Mac, GStreamer for most Linux disributions and DirectShow for Windows). More fragmentation is the exact opposite of what is needed.
You're saying it's a waste of taxpayer money. I'm absolutely certain that Apple's taxes are far more than your taxes, so it's certainly not taking any money off your plate.
If the trade secrets are acquired through misappropriation (for example, by buying a stolen phone) then that is illegal. If Gawker had acquired photos taken by the original finder, who then properly turned it in to Apple or the police, then there would likely be no case. Which did Gawker do?
I'm also somewhat concerned by the fact that "Martinson" called the police after the (dead and wiped) iPhone prototype was connected to her computer briefly and she was worried that Apple would be able to trace it back to her. Now, I'm all for making it easier to recover stolen property, but Apple being able to tell if a dead product was connected to a computer and remotely identify it sounds (I hope) rather far-fetched. Either way, I'm sticking with avoiding Apple products wherever possible.
Makes sense. Hogan was trying to reload the firmware. The first thing iTunes would do in that case would be grab the model identifier from the device, and ask the iTunes store whether the iTunes account has access to download firmware for that model. Since the model identifier would be something like "iPhone 5,1" - which Apple knows is the prototype, they could easily tell that someone has attempted to connect it. And worse, they presumably know what iTunes account it was attempted with. And since iTunes accounts have your address attached...
I agree that this specific case is waste of taxpayer money, but your argument that it isn't a stealth bomber is a sign that you really understand what any of this is about.
Bzzzt, wrong. You're forgetting that Apple is a taxpayer too, and I can guarantee that their taxes are much, much more than what this case has cost in county resources.
Slashdot Mirror
You are wrong again good sir. The license allows Apple to pass on the entire costs of defending the case, including damages, to whoever submitted the application to the app store. It's a nasty clause that exists in 99.9999999999 recurring percent of developer agreements.
Your inability or unwillingness to learn to use Open Office aside, no pragmatic reasons exist for not using it for everything, even that which you state can't be achieved.
That is not for you to decide. The person choosing whether to use it or not chooses whether there is a pragmatic reason not to use it. And don't go assuming that everyone's requirements are the same - they aren't.
The browser makers already have. Microsoft led first, and everyone else thought it was a great idea (X-FRAME-OPTIONS HTTP header to tell browsers whether the page allows framing) and implemented it. Well, Microsoft, Apple and Google implemented it.
X-FRAME-OPTIONS. Supported in virtually every browser nowadays.
Jesus fuck twitter's still here!
Only he could take a discussion about Lost and turn it into a Microsoft bashing sham. Bravo.
I think that had more to do with the prior finale of "V" than the finale of Lost.
Although I agree that it was bad, the outcome (free browsers - as in beer and in speech) certainly was to everyone's benefit. Netscape needed to die.
Actually, they don't indemnify at all. I've seen stories that apparently they are forming a patent pool for Theora and WebM/VP8, but the only place I can't find any confirmation of that is from MPEG LA themselves. The "official stance" referred to by the AC was mentioned in the story about them forming a VP8 pool, but said statement (and VP8 plan) doesn't exist on their site.
And they sue. A lot.
They are founding a patent pool for human gene patents though. That can't be evil at all.
So, to me, it sounds like it is actually impossible to create and license a product under GPL3 which is written in Visual Basic.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but I doubt the intent of the license was to prohibit writing applications in certain languages while still opening the code.
Because Canonical is a word? Next you'll be asking why there is a record type called "Canonical" in DNS servers.
Unless of course you install Windows Server 2008 Core. Core uses virtually no space (and doesn't even have Explorer. Until recently, it couldn't even run ASP.NET due to an oversight when they stripped out the framework).
If you're a Mac OS user, then you should know that's CMD+c, and CMD+v. No Ctrl here.
Better is subjective. If he prefers the GUI, then it quite simply is better. For him.
So don't go around trying to authoritatively say "CLI is better".
And I eat my hat over today's news.
Still not a patent troll though, as the defining point of a troll is that they have no products.
Yes, and in that wide discussion, it was noted that TomTom was hardly blameless as well (apparently TomTom had been rumbling over something else as well- presumably what they attacked back with).
Being that defensive purposes is why these patents (supposedly) exist, that kind of makes sense. Doesn't make it right, but that's not what's under debate.
To be a patent troll one would have to actually litigate against someone. Microsoft doesn't (it occasionally threatens to, but never actually does). By definition, they aren't a patent troll.
How the fuck is it being naive to recognise there are differences between our two countries?
Please stop being obtuse.
Some distributors (Canonical for example) obtain the licenses for you, so it's A-OK.
Hmm. Apparently your court system sucks more than ours. Over here, co-operation actually counts for something.
The whole point of what SanityInAnarchy is saying is that browsers shouldn't need to know anything about the codecs needed. The operating system already has the libraries (QuickTime for Mac, GStreamer for most Linux disributions and DirectShow for Windows). More fragmentation is the exact opposite of what is needed.
You're saying it's a waste of taxpayer money. I'm absolutely certain that Apple's taxes are far more than your taxes, so it's certainly not taking any money off your plate.
Stealing something and then returning it is still illegal.
If the trade secrets are acquired through misappropriation (for example, by buying a stolen phone) then that is illegal. If Gawker had acquired photos taken by the original finder, who then properly turned it in to Apple or the police, then there would likely be no case. Which did Gawker do?
I'm also somewhat concerned by the fact that "Martinson" called the police after the (dead and wiped) iPhone prototype was connected to her computer briefly and she was worried that Apple would be able to trace it back to her. Now, I'm all for making it easier to recover stolen property, but Apple being able to tell if a dead product was connected to a computer and remotely identify it sounds (I hope) rather far-fetched. Either way, I'm sticking with avoiding Apple products wherever possible.
Makes sense. Hogan was trying to reload the firmware. The first thing iTunes would do in that case would be grab the model identifier from the device, and ask the iTunes store whether the iTunes account has access to download firmware for that model. Since the model identifier would be something like "iPhone 5,1" - which Apple knows is the prototype, they could easily tell that someone has attempted to connect it. And worse, they presumably know what iTunes account it was attempted with. And since iTunes accounts have your address attached...
I agree that this specific case is waste of taxpayer money, but your argument that it isn't a stealth bomber is a sign that you really understand what any of this is about.
Bzzzt, wrong. You're forgetting that Apple is a taxpayer too, and I can guarantee that their taxes are much, much more than what this case has cost in county resources.