Otherwise some asshole will demand to see your source to prove you didn't lift anything.
But the asshole can demand all they like, you just tell them to piss off. They'll have to go to court, and accuse you of infringing the copyright of their code, and then they'd first have to show that they have code that is infringed, _and_ convince a court that you have to hand over the code, and then they still don't get the code - their lawyers do, they can show it to an expert, but if those lawyers or experts showed any code to Redhat, there would be hell to pay.
Memory, on the other hand, is a descriptive mark, which is the least protected and only one step above an unprotectable generic word. "Memory" is directly related to the meaning of the board game in which you must "remember" the location of the cards to match them. The only way that descriptive marks gain protection is if they have developed some secondary meaning in the marketplace. As such, Ravensburger has a much higher standard to prove that they are considered to be the source of the "Memory" game than any other "memory" game on the market.
The argument is correct, but it applies to the word "Memory" only in English speaking countries. And Ravensburger doesn't have a trademark on Memory in the USA, UK, Ireland, Australia, or Newzealand. We can guess why. If an American company wants to call a game "GedÃchtnis" and get a trademark for that name, I doubt they would have any problems.
From Gamasutra: "The countries in which Ravensburger claims to hold the trademark, according to the Apple notice that one developer forwarded to us, are as follows: Armenia, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Equador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and Venezuela. "
You may notice some countries that are missing: Australia, Ireland, Newzealand, United Kingdom, USA. That's because getting a trademark for the word "Memory" for a game that tests your memory in an English-speaking country would be quite difficult.
On the Apple App Store, developers have a huge list of checkboxes where they can choose where to sell a program. If "Memory" is in the title of a game, they can continue selling it in Australia, Ireland, Newzealand, United Kingdom, and the USA. Just remove the checkbox for those countries where Ravensburger has a trademark on the name.
Don't know if Apple allows selling a program under a different name in different countries. I suppose they should. For example, translating the name of a game into German for the German version, or French for the French version, would easily get around the problem.
A lie of omission is still a lie. If a judge asks a defendant if they've ever been convicted and they reveal a traffic ticket but don't reveal an armed robbery conviction, it's a lie. Hogan did a similar thing, described a lawsuit with an employee while leaving out a lawsuit against company owned by Samsung after which he had to file bankruptcy and lost his house.
The question was "The next question is, have you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?" Samsung wants you to believe that the question was "Give us a complete list of any lawsuits that you, or a family member, or someone very close, have ever been involved in". But that wasn't the question.
Which he was not required to, since it was more than 10 years prior, as per the (claimed) court instructions.
That was Hogan's excuse. Which was a rather stupid excuse, but that doesn't matter, because it was long after the trial that he made this claim.
The fact is: He was asked whether he was involved in any trial. He said yes, and mentioned a trial that he was involved in. So far everything is fine. At that point, the judge, or the lawyers, or whoever asked the question, should have asked if he was involved in any other trials. That didn't happen.
Samsung alleges lots of things, as you would do if a court decided that you should pay more than a million dollars. However, during the jury selection the judge asked Hogan whether he was involved in any litigation, he answered correctly that he was involved in some litigation a few years ago, and the judge then forgot to ask him if he was involved in any other litigation.
I think it was known to Samsung that he was a patent other. Being a patent owner doesn't make him pro-patent, and if he was, then Samsung didn't ask him about it.
The claim that he has a grudge against Samsung because of something that happened 19 years ago with another company is just ridiculous. Of course, it is a claim that I would make if I were Samsung's lawyer after losing a $1bn court case, but I haven't seen any evidence so far that Hogan was even aware of a connection between Samsung and Seagate. And if he was aware of it, I can't see any evidence that he had a grudge against Seagate - most people would have a grudge against the people responsible (which he knew). And even if he had a grudge against Seagate, held for 19 years (which I would consider abnormal), I can't see any evidence why that grudge would extend to someone doing business with Seagate.
For all the high-and-mighty talk Apple bandies about regarding how carefully they analyze every app before approving it to be posted in the App Store, there sure are a lot of iOS Apps that do shady stuff like this.
This app doesn't do anything bad apparently unless it is installed on a jailbroken device. In that case, all odds are off. It may even be that the app is sandboxed and cannot do what it does on a non-jailbroken device.
How does that change the fact that the guy has paid his dues with regard to the dictionary? Even if he pirated all other applications - which he denies - this doesn't give the dictionary a right to accuse the owner of anything. Besides, the guy claims that he needed Installus for a legitimate purpose: " you can use it to go back to an older version of an app you legally own. This is otherwise impossible in iOS."
Difficult. Legally, it may very well be that if you have paid for a copy that you are not using, and then install another copy that you haven't paid for, it is copyright infringement even when no harm was done to the copyright owner. Not saying it is, but it might be. It may also be that paying for an app on the App Store gives you a license to install the app on several devices that you own, but not on a jailbroken device.
Clearly if the guy paid for the app, he is not a thief. On the other hand, the Slashdot mantra is "copyright infringement is not theft", and that mantra might now be biting him back: "No theft" doesn't imply "no copyright infringement" either.
I read the actual article, and I have the impression that the "82% pass rate" for Asian kids, for example, doesn't mean that Asian kids need to solve 82% of the problems in a test to pass, but that a school or school teacher needs to have a pass rate of 82% among Asian kids in order to pass as a good school or a good school teacher.
It's obvious that some kids are brighter than others. If school A decides to only accept exceptionally bright children, and school B decides to do the best they can for children who are not very bright, to give them the best possible chance, then you would expect school A to have a higher pass rate than school B. If you want to figure out which school does a better job, you need to take into account what kids they are teaching.
I would stop doing business in countries that don't seem to understand the difference between a search engine that indexes the internet and the original site that hosted the material. Screw them.
I'm quite sure the court did perfectly understand the difference. But Google makes lots of money from its search engine, so the court expected Google to use some of that money to remove search results that pointed to websites defaming this man. The court didn't even expect Google to actively search and remove such search results, just to remove them when requested by the plaintiff's lawyer.
would have made it onto the June 2000 supercomputer list, and would have made 2nd place in the June 1993 list, both with the CPU alone. At least if Dongarra wrote the Linpack code:-)
2.3 GHz, 4 cores, 256 bit vector registers, one add + one multiply per cycle throughput = 73.6 GFlop/s theoretical limit; with hyperthreading one should get quite close to that limit. Top 500 in June 2000 was only 44 GFlop/s, 2nd place in June 1993 was 30 GFlop/s.
"with a Linpack benchmark of more than 17 petaflops a second"
Supercomputers calculate on an accelerating performance curve now?
Sure. Just the number is wrong. If the top computer does 17 petaflops, and the list is run for about 30 years = about 1 gigasecond, then the average growth is 17 megaflops per second. Actual growth was a lot more in the last year, and less before.
We are all about enforcement of the GPL to protect our rights in the free software movement, yet when a company uses EXACTLY the same laws that give us the freedom to choose alternate software everyone gets up-in-arms about the big bad business pursuing a claim against someone who has essentially stolen their copyrighted work and is using it to make money?
I don't think anybody says Toshiba doesn't have the right to do this, but their action doesn't help Toshiba nor their customers in any way and therefore is stupid.
I'm curious - could individuals host single pages, under the Fair Use doctrine? If you have enough individuals doing that, ones who don't forbid an aggregator from reframing their content (whilst hosting none itsef),...
That would be missing the point. As a manufacturer, you should be glad if your documentation is widely available. I could understand checksumming your PDF files and checking that, because you wouldn't want modified documentation, but what Toshiba does looks stupid to me.
Of course Toshiba has the copyright, and I could understand using that copyright to prevent modified derivatives. But why on earth would you want to prevent original documentation from being distributed?
With billions at stake, why didn't Samsung's lawyers know the background of every potential juror down to the name of their first cat?
1. With billions at stake, why didn't Samsung's lawyer know the difference between an iPad and a Samsung tablet when held up in the air? (Very bad preparation and should never have happened to them).
2. With billions at stake, you would know all this and then use it, if convenient, if the case goes against you.
3. Does anyone seriously believe that someone would hold a grudge against some company for 19 years, and then extends the grudge against a company who buys up the remains of that company when they get in trouble? Most people who hated Seagate would be _happy_ for another company to buy them up.
Samsung didn't own any part of Seagate 19 years ago. And to be honest, if I had a dislike for a company (for example Seagate), and it then turns out the company makes bad business decisions, has to sell up, and someone gobbles up the remains, I wouldn't feel any anger against the new owners. If I was so interested in the company that I actually knew there were new owners.
Why ding Apple for products they tried and failed with, when the format iPod Nano has changed on the last 3 or 4 versions. Tall and thin => Different tall and thin => square => tall and thin again. I don't think that Apple knows where it is going with this one.
But they know what they are doing. If someone has a tall and thin iPod Nano then you can buy a different tall and thin as a birthday or Christmas present. And then you can buy a square one as a birthday present. And then a tall and thin one again. Lots of iPods are sold that way.
The iPod Classic, on the other hand, is something that you buy for yourself because it is exactly what you want (or you don't buy it), it's not something you buy as a present. So there is no need to change it, because if you are an iPod Classic customer, you are not going to buy a new one for a different shape.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Commenting on your signature: Calling someone a "hater" means that you detest their attitude, you believe that it is a sign of irrational hatred, and that their arguments are not worth rebutting.
The guy in question doesn't actually need these images for any medical purposes. He just wants them to put them "in his records". Just for his own pleasure. And the NHS told him that delivering the images would cost £2,000. Since he wants them only for his own pleasure, he has now the choice of stopping to be an arse and asking that the UK tax payers spend £2,000 for his enjoyment, or paying £2,000, or forcing the NHS to make a decision. If I was the one to make the decision, I'd probably be so shocked at his demand that I dropped and broke the video disk with his images, with the sharp remains having to be destroyed because they are a danger.
The main advantage of LLVM is that it will provide much needed competition for GCC which for the last decade has only had VCC to spur it on. Note that LLVM code can be freely transplanted into GCC while the reverse is not allowed, probably enough in itself to ensure GCC's continued preeminence even with Apple's fat checkbook backing LLVM.
So gcc is to Samsung as LLVM is to Apple? One creates, one copies?
or GCC will simply grab the better code and GPL it leaving it with another lesser competator
You mean proponents of so-called "free" software would deliberately appropriate source code and try to prevent people from using it according to the license that the author intended?
Also, LLVM isn't actually designed for JIT: some people have managed to make it work, but not without problems. GCC isn't designed for JIT either, of course; it's outside the problem space of both.
WTF? Apple's first use of LLVM was as a JIT for OpenGL. When compiling OpenGL to code for various graphics cards became a maintenance nightmare, they used LLVM: OpenGL compiles to the internal representation of LLVM, same code for all graphics cards, and LLVM compiles to code for the graphics card, all at runtime.
Most likely the BSD maintainers and developers out there.... bout thats less then 0.00001% of 7+billion people. I'm going to guess anywhere between 1-1000 =)
Now add in all the Mac and iOS developers and the number increases just slightly. MacOS X 10.8 is completely built using Clang + LLVM. OpenGL uses LLVM. OpenCL uses LLVM.
Unfortunatly, IOS && OSX of today are greatly modified versions of BSD, with a different kernel and apis. Macs were a great unix desktop ten years ago, now they just kind of blow. Linux is the only way to go these days for Unix && desktop.
Strange what you say there, considering that MacOS X is actually POSIX certified, and Linux for obvious reasons isn't. If you want Linux, use Linux. If you want Unix, Linux isn't Unix. Never was. Never will be.
Slashdot Mirror
Otherwise some asshole will demand to see your source to prove you didn't lift anything.
But the asshole can demand all they like, you just tell them to piss off. They'll have to go to court, and accuse you of infringing the copyright of their code, and then they'd first have to show that they have code that is infringed, _and_ convince a court that you have to hand over the code, and then they still don't get the code - their lawyers do, they can show it to an expert, but if those lawyers or experts showed any code to Redhat, there would be hell to pay.
Memory, on the other hand, is a descriptive mark, which is the least protected and only one step above an unprotectable generic word. "Memory" is directly related to the meaning of the board game in which you must "remember" the location of the cards to match them. The only way that descriptive marks gain protection is if they have developed some secondary meaning in the marketplace. As such, Ravensburger has a much higher standard to prove that they are considered to be the source of the "Memory" game than any other "memory" game on the market.
The argument is correct, but it applies to the word "Memory" only in English speaking countries. And Ravensburger doesn't have a trademark on Memory in the USA, UK, Ireland, Australia, or Newzealand. We can guess why. If an American company wants to call a game "GedÃchtnis" and get a trademark for that name, I doubt they would have any problems.
From Gamasutra: "The countries in which Ravensburger claims to hold the trademark, according to the Apple notice that one developer forwarded to us, are as follows: Armenia, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Equador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and Venezuela. "
You may notice some countries that are missing: Australia, Ireland, Newzealand, United Kingdom, USA. That's because getting a trademark for the word "Memory" for a game that tests your memory in an English-speaking country would be quite difficult.
On the Apple App Store, developers have a huge list of checkboxes where they can choose where to sell a program. If "Memory" is in the title of a game, they can continue selling it in Australia, Ireland, Newzealand, United Kingdom, and the USA. Just remove the checkbox for those countries where Ravensburger has a trademark on the name.
Don't know if Apple allows selling a program under a different name in different countries. I suppose they should. For example, translating the name of a game into German for the German version, or French for the French version, would easily get around the problem.
A lie of omission is still a lie. If a judge asks a defendant if they've ever been convicted and they reveal a traffic ticket but don't reveal an armed robbery conviction, it's a lie. Hogan did a similar thing, described a lawsuit with an employee while leaving out a lawsuit against company owned by Samsung after which he had to file bankruptcy and lost his house.
The question was "The next question is, have you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?" Samsung wants you to believe that the question was "Give us a complete list of any lawsuits that you, or a family member, or someone very close, have ever been involved in". But that wasn't the question.
Which he was not required to, since it was more than 10 years prior, as per the (claimed) court instructions.
That was Hogan's excuse. Which was a rather stupid excuse, but that doesn't matter, because it was long after the trial that he made this claim.
The fact is: He was asked whether he was involved in any trial. He said yes, and mentioned a trial that he was involved in. So far everything is fine. At that point, the judge, or the lawyers, or whoever asked the question, should have asked if he was involved in any other trials. That didn't happen.
Samsung alleges lots of things, as you would do if a court decided that you should pay more than a million dollars. However, during the jury selection the judge asked Hogan whether he was involved in any litigation, he answered correctly that he was involved in some litigation a few years ago, and the judge then forgot to ask him if he was involved in any other litigation.
I think it was known to Samsung that he was a patent other. Being a patent owner doesn't make him pro-patent, and if he was, then Samsung didn't ask him about it.
The claim that he has a grudge against Samsung because of something that happened 19 years ago with another company is just ridiculous. Of course, it is a claim that I would make if I were Samsung's lawyer after losing a $1bn court case, but I haven't seen any evidence so far that Hogan was even aware of a connection between Samsung and Seagate. And if he was aware of it, I can't see any evidence that he had a grudge against Seagate - most people would have a grudge against the people responsible (which he knew). And even if he had a grudge against Seagate, held for 19 years (which I would consider abnormal), I can't see any evidence why that grudge would extend to someone doing business with Seagate.
For all the high-and-mighty talk Apple bandies about regarding how carefully they analyze every app before approving it to be posted in the App Store, there sure are a lot of iOS Apps that do shady stuff like this.
This app doesn't do anything bad apparently unless it is installed on a jailbroken device. In that case, all odds are off. It may even be that the app is sandboxed and cannot do what it does on a non-jailbroken device.
How does that change the fact that the guy has paid his dues with regard to the dictionary? Even if he pirated all other applications - which he denies - this doesn't give the dictionary a right to accuse the owner of anything. Besides, the guy claims that he needed Installus for a legitimate purpose: " you can use it to go back to an older version of an app you legally own. This is otherwise impossible in iOS."
Difficult. Legally, it may very well be that if you have paid for a copy that you are not using, and then install another copy that you haven't paid for, it is copyright infringement even when no harm was done to the copyright owner. Not saying it is, but it might be. It may also be that paying for an app on the App Store gives you a license to install the app on several devices that you own, but not on a jailbroken device.
Clearly if the guy paid for the app, he is not a thief. On the other hand, the Slashdot mantra is "copyright infringement is not theft", and that mantra might now be biting him back: "No theft" doesn't imply "no copyright infringement" either.
I read the actual article, and I have the impression that the "82% pass rate" for Asian kids, for example, doesn't mean that Asian kids need to solve 82% of the problems in a test to pass, but that a school or school teacher needs to have a pass rate of 82% among Asian kids in order to pass as a good school or a good school teacher.
It's obvious that some kids are brighter than others. If school A decides to only accept exceptionally bright children, and school B decides to do the best they can for children who are not very bright, to give them the best possible chance, then you would expect school A to have a higher pass rate than school B. If you want to figure out which school does a better job, you need to take into account what kids they are teaching.
I would stop doing business in countries that don't seem to understand the difference between a search engine that indexes the internet and the original site that hosted the material. Screw them.
I'm quite sure the court did perfectly understand the difference. But Google makes lots of money from its search engine, so the court expected Google to use some of that money to remove search results that pointed to websites defaming this man. The court didn't even expect Google to actively search and remove such search results, just to remove them when requested by the plaintiff's lawyer.
would have made it onto the June 2000 supercomputer list, and would have made 2nd place in the June 1993 list, both with the CPU alone. At least if Dongarra wrote the Linpack code :-)
2.3 GHz, 4 cores, 256 bit vector registers, one add + one multiply per cycle throughput = 73.6 GFlop/s theoretical limit; with hyperthreading one should get quite close to that limit. Top 500 in June 2000 was only 44 GFlop/s, 2nd place in June 1993 was 30 GFlop/s.
"with a Linpack benchmark of more than 17 petaflops a second"
Supercomputers calculate on an accelerating performance curve now?
Sure. Just the number is wrong. If the top computer does 17 petaflops, and the list is run for about 30 years = about 1 gigasecond, then the average growth is 17 megaflops per second. Actual growth was a lot more in the last year, and less before.
We are all about enforcement of the GPL to protect our rights in the free software movement, yet when a company uses EXACTLY the same laws that give us the freedom to choose alternate software everyone gets up-in-arms about the big bad business pursuing a claim against someone who has essentially stolen their copyrighted work and is using it to make money?
I don't think anybody says Toshiba doesn't have the right to do this, but their action doesn't help Toshiba nor their customers in any way and therefore is stupid.
I'm curious - could individuals host single pages, under the Fair Use doctrine? If you have enough individuals doing that, ones who don't forbid an aggregator from reframing their content (whilst hosting none itsef), ...
That would be missing the point. As a manufacturer, you should be glad if your documentation is widely available. I could understand checksumming your PDF files and checking that, because you wouldn't want modified documentation, but what Toshiba does looks stupid to me.
Of course Toshiba has the copyright, and I could understand using that copyright to prevent modified derivatives. But why on earth would you want to prevent original documentation from being distributed?
With billions at stake, why didn't Samsung's lawyers know the background of every potential juror down to the name of their first cat?
1. With billions at stake, why didn't Samsung's lawyer know the difference between an iPad and a Samsung tablet when held up in the air? (Very bad preparation and should never have happened to them).
2. With billions at stake, you would know all this and then use it, if convenient, if the case goes against you.
3. Does anyone seriously believe that someone would hold a grudge against some company for 19 years, and then extends the grudge against a company who buys up the remains of that company when they get in trouble? Most people who hated Seagate would be _happy_ for another company to buy them up.
Samsung owns 9.6% of Seagate
Samsung didn't own any part of Seagate 19 years ago. And to be honest, if I had a dislike for a company (for example Seagate), and it then turns out the company makes bad business decisions, has to sell up, and someone gobbles up the remains, I wouldn't feel any anger against the new owners. If I was so interested in the company that I actually knew there were new owners.
Why ding Apple for products they tried and failed with, when the format iPod Nano has changed on the last 3 or 4 versions. Tall and thin => Different tall and thin => square => tall and thin again. I don't think that Apple knows where it is going with this one.
But they know what they are doing. If someone has a tall and thin iPod Nano then you can buy a different tall and thin as a birthday or Christmas present. And then you can buy a square one as a birthday present. And then a tall and thin one again. Lots of iPods are sold that way.
The iPod Classic, on the other hand, is something that you buy for yourself because it is exactly what you want (or you don't buy it), it's not something you buy as a present. So there is no need to change it, because if you are an iPod Classic customer, you are not going to buy a new one for a different shape.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Commenting on your signature: Calling someone a "hater" means that you detest their attitude, you believe that it is a sign of irrational hatred, and that their arguments are not worth rebutting.
In the U.S., the provider eats that cost.
The guy in question doesn't actually need these images for any medical purposes. He just wants them to put them "in his records". Just for his own pleasure. And the NHS told him that delivering the images would cost £2,000. Since he wants them only for his own pleasure, he has now the choice of stopping to be an arse and asking that the UK tax payers spend £2,000 for his enjoyment, or paying £2,000, or forcing the NHS to make a decision. If I was the one to make the decision, I'd probably be so shocked at his demand that I dropped and broke the video disk with his images, with the sharp remains having to be destroyed because they are a danger.
The main advantage of LLVM is that it will provide much needed competition for GCC which for the last decade has only had VCC to spur it on. Note that LLVM code can be freely transplanted into GCC while the reverse is not allowed, probably enough in itself to ensure GCC's continued preeminence even with Apple's fat checkbook backing LLVM.
So gcc is to Samsung as LLVM is to Apple? One creates, one copies?
or GCC will simply grab the better code and GPL it leaving it with another lesser competator
You mean proponents of so-called "free" software would deliberately appropriate source code and try to prevent people from using it according to the license that the author intended?
But the tokenizer and parser for an IDE have to work incrementally (parsing as you type), making them wholly different beasts.
No need to work incrementally, as long as you just work _fast_. That's what you have fast processors for, to recompile after every keystroke.
Also, LLVM isn't actually designed for JIT: some people have managed to make it work, but not without problems. GCC isn't designed for JIT either, of course; it's outside the problem space of both.
WTF? Apple's first use of LLVM was as a JIT for OpenGL. When compiling OpenGL to code for various graphics cards became a maintenance nightmare, they used LLVM: OpenGL compiles to the internal representation of LLVM, same code for all graphics cards, and LLVM compiles to code for the graphics card, all at runtime.
Most likely the BSD maintainers and developers out there.... bout thats less then 0.00001% of 7+billion people. I'm going to guess anywhere between 1-1000 =)
Now add in all the Mac and iOS developers and the number increases just slightly. MacOS X 10.8 is completely built using Clang + LLVM. OpenGL uses LLVM. OpenCL uses LLVM.
Unfortunatly, IOS && OSX of today are greatly modified versions of BSD, with a different kernel and apis. Macs were a great unix desktop ten years ago, now they just kind of blow. Linux is the only way to go these days for Unix && desktop.
Strange what you say there, considering that MacOS X is actually POSIX certified, and Linux for obvious reasons isn't. If you want Linux, use Linux. If you want Unix, Linux isn't Unix. Never was. Never will be.