I know it sounds insane, because it was, but since it was a stupid idea, I'm sure its being vigorously enforced to this day. Can anyone surprise me with a more modern anecdote? Perhaps with a different slightly newer TI model. But I guarantee it will be enforced that every single device on the desk will be identical, whatever it ends up being.
Didn't we always hear that kids _must_ be raised on Windows so they can function properly in the workplace? Reminds me that the number of people claiming this seems to has gone down, probably because the hordes of school leavers that are unemployable now because they learned Windows XP or Windows Vista instead of Windows 7.
...and they could have just have easily been using Netbooks or Laptops for this. And the advantage of a laptop is that these starving students would save themselves even that $600 the tablet costs as they need a laptop for real work anyway.
An iPad doesn't cost $600. And a netbook wouldn't save anything because they need a laptop for real work anyway.
The question is: How is publishing code as open source of advantage to you? That's what you have to ask yourself. If you base your work on existing open source code, then you obviously have the advantage of being able to use that code, and the disadvantage that everyone else can use your additions. Or if you had a customer that would pay you lots of money if you let them integrate your code into their open source code, that would be an advantage. But I can't quite see in your case how you benefit from opening up your source.
Did they? Have you seen any Xerox Star demos? They're on youtube if you're interetsed.
I _have_ seen an Apple Lisa and a Xerox Star running side by side on CeBit around 1983, and considering the Xerox Star sold for about five times as much, it wasn't even funny how badly it was beaten.
Xerox were "kindly" allowed to buy apple stock in return for letting apple engineers visit their research centre. Apple never directly paid for any of the innovations they used.
Kindly allowed to buy at a reduced price. And if they hadn't sold the stock, it would be worth several billion dollars today.
And no, she shouldn't go down for libel, unless it can be proven that what she wrote was untrue, and that she knew it was untrue before writing it. Simply saying, "That's libel!" should NOT be justification enough to require someone to reveal their sources.
Nobody asks her to reveal her sources, if she actually has any. Remember the judge's point that it would be evidence of being a journalist if she had checked that what she posted was true? A proper journalist would have done that, and either found nothing, meaning the source was possibly lying, and would not have published anything, or found proper evidence and then published with the evidence backing it.
The headline is "bloggers are not journalists", but there is a bit more to the case.
Mrs. Cox wrote stuff in her blog that would be clearly libel if untrue, and clearly something someone wouldn't want people to hear if it was true. So she is in court for libel, and the defence against libel would be that she wrote the truth.
Now she says that what she wrote is based on information from a source which she wants to protect. If someone tried to sue the unknown source for libel, then shield laws would protect or not protect that person, and whether she is a journalist or a blogger would make a difference. But it isn't the source who is sued, it is Mrs. Cox herself. And to defend herself, she would need to have evidence that she wrote the truth. If her only evidence is a witness who doesn't want to come forward, and whom she doesn't want to present to the court, then she has no evidence that the statements she wrote are true.
Where shield laws would make a difference: If an employee gives a blogger or a journalist evidence that a company does something wrong. The blogger or journalist now _has_ the evidence. The company wants to take revenge and fire the employee. But here the situation is different; she can protect her witness all she wants, but if she does, she will go down for libel.
Even dumb phones have rectangular screens, and according to Apple those are not allowed.
You didn't read the article, or you wouldn't have posted such nonsense. Any manufacturer is allowed to use any single detail of the design used in the iPhone or iPad. It is the sum of all those details that is the problem. Apple has a design patent for A + B + C + D + E. You claim "A is not allowed according to Apple". False. A is allowed. B is allowed. A + B is allowed. A + B + C + D + E is what is not allowed, and A + B + D + E might get you into trouble.
I'm sure you can find plenty of examples of such things, look here's one:
So you're saying that since Western Digital made this hard disk in a rectangular black case with rounded corners, nobody else is allowed to put any device in a rectangular black case with rounded corners. That's why the Apple TV is in a square black case with rounded corners, not a rectangular black case with rounded corners.
I guess that means don't even bother innovating or building anything. I hate the patent system - it has become so broken as to be sorry. I thought patents should protect truly innovative ideas not commonly thought up things such as shapes. What next, someone will try and patent the tri-angle (hyphenated on purpose.)
You should have read the article. It contains pages of exhibits of actual products that made different design choices. It discusses pages of exhibits of what Samsung claimed was prior art and which is actually quite different from the iPhone; each of these designs would have been fine from Apple's point of view. Samsung is very welcome to innovate by creating a design that is not a copy of Apple's.
What kind of idiotic mods modded this post up to +4? This is the kind of person who would probably claim that the F700 [gsmarena.com] was a clone of the iPhone since it's a black monolith with a single button. Never mind that it was released before the iPhone and that most of the samsung phones look much more like the F700 than the iPhone.
There have been many claims on the web that the F700 was released before the iPhone. However, these claims were based on some heavily photoshopped evidence which changed the number "2007" to "2006" in a few images.
You have to copy pretty much everything to get into trouble. And that Samsung did. They could have used a rectangular case with rounded corners, a dark black bezel with two silver or tastefully grey lines running through the bezel and put the speakers on the side - they would have been fine.
People should really take time to read this disposition. Firstly, the advice that Apple gives how to make a design that is not covered by Apple's design patent is in each case accompanied by exhibits - so there are in each case one or several actual products that do exactly what Apple asks Samsung to do.
Second, Samsung seems to have come up with a list of items that they claim are prior art. And the expert witness then says "this is not prior art because it is different in this respect. This is not prior art because it is different in that respect. etc. etc.". In other words, each of the designs that Samsung claimed as prior art wouldn't be infringing on Apple's design patent because they are different.
To be in trouble, a design must match Apple's design patent in every single aspect. One difference, and Samsung would have been safe.
Apparently, the GPL being incompatible with Apple's App store is a murky issue at best. Currently, there are several apps that are licensed with the GPL, such as the iOS Wordpress App [wordpress.org] and Doom. So what is the final word on GPL apps in the App Store?
The problem in the case of VLC for the iPhone was that one copyright holder told Apple that they would be sued if VLC was available on the App Store. At that point it doesn't matter whether there is a problem with GPL or not, Apple will just remove an app if a copyright holder asks them to.
Apple itself has no objections to GPL licensed software on the store. So if (1) the developers believe that there is no problem with the GPL, or (2) the developers want to make their software available to iOS users, whether there is a problem or not, or (3) the developers think there is a problem but can't be bothered to do anything, then GPL licensed software can be put on the iOS app store.
My take is this: It is perfectly fine to develop for example a VLC version that runs on the iPhone, and give anyone who wants it the source code with GPL license in a form that can be easily compiled and run on an iPhone, and everyone receiving that version can run it on the iPhone emulator, or an a real iPhone (after becoming an official iPhone developer). It is also possible to put a version onto the app store that includes the GPL license and the complete source code (iPhone apps are bundles that can contain anything, including their own complete source code), so anyone installing it from the app store would be in exactly the same situation as in the first variant.
We have now the opposite of the Tivo situation: The Tivo problem was that a company could follow the letter of the GPL, while making it impossible for the end user to use the "freedoms" that the GPL license was supposed to guarantee. Here, it seems that the App Store doesn't follow the letter of the GPL license, while the user has all the freedoms.
Citation needed. Despite all of the doomsday predictions, this has not been happening. Sales in 2010 rose over 2009 - not as much as they expected, but it was still an increase, not a decrease.
According to Gartner, overall PC sales including Macs have grown very slighlty in the last year, but if you count only non-Mac PCs the number has gone down very slightly. Now there is an argument that either tablets like the iPad should be counted under PCs, or that netbooks should never have counted, and in either case sales would be growing.
if 'X loses a phone to a thief who sells it to 'Y', and 'X' buys a new phone, this isn't a new sale. 'Y' would have bought a new phone if there was no stolen phone available to buy.
You are counting phones, not money. If X owns a phone worth $500, and a thief steals it, Y will buy it for maybe $50, while X pays $500 for a new phone. Y wouldn't have bought a $500 phone at full price, but a $50 phone.
Shape that isn't rectangular and cluttered appearance:-D Brillant!!!!
Stupid you. Google for "sony tablet" or for "toshiba tablet" and you will find two nice tablet designs that are rectangular and look nothing like an iPad. If Sony and Toshiba can do it, then surely Samsung can do it.
The person tailgating you is likely going faster than you. So why do you feel it's your right/duty to block them? You are not the enforcer of laws. Get out of the way, let them go by, or whatever. It's not your job to police people. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
If someone drives into my car, it is safest if the collision is straight, centre on centre. If it happens while I am moving out of the way then I feel I am in danger. And here comes the point: If there is a situation where I feel save to get out of the way, I will do so. But I have had drivers behind me where I felt that they might do something completely stupid at the point where I get out of the way, and when I feel like that, I don't mind if they do of a heart attack behind me.
I have also had people tailgating on a two lane motorway where the slow lane was completely filled with trucks, the right lane completely filled with traffic, so that (1) there was absolutely no possibility to move on the other lane and stay alive, and (2) there was absolutely nothing to be gained from passing me.
The question is, can a government agency or anyone else call up Apple or a carrier and have them remotely activate CarrierIQ on the iPhone?
Apple wanted to provide carriers with some means of diagnosing certain faults, and did that. They are not telling you exactly what they do, but diagnostics will only be turned on if you want to. Quite possible that if you had problems with your phone, and called your carrier for support, they might ask you to turn this software on - so they can diagnose this problem.
If Apple wanted to spy on you, you wouldn't notice. Same as with this idiotic outrage about location data stored on your phone: That data is cached information coming from Apple's servers. If they wanted to keep track of your location, they would record the info on their servers, and you wouldn't notice.
The claim that it's possible that there is a God that affects evolution? That's a very weak claim that requires no evidence, since the burden of proof would be squarely on people to show the converse, i.e. it's not possible for a God that affects evolution to exist.
It is a claim that cannot be falsified, and therefore unscientific. The very first hurdle for any statement to be considered in science is that it can be falsified, that is _if_ it is wrong then there would be some way to find evidence it is wrong. The burden of showing _possibility of proof or disproof_ is squarely on the person making the claim.
I think free speech is a must for a democracy to work. How can you vote for what you want when it's illegal to say it?
As an example: Germany has a so-called "President". That person has very little power, but his or her job is to represent the country, beat up politicians who misbehave, and so on. All parties together elect a person for that job who they all believe is reliable, has a good reputation, and is impartial.
Insulting the German president is the same as insulting the country. This is unlike insulting the German chancellor, or insulting the US president (weird how they use the same word for different things), which is insulting that person, and not the country. The Thai's probably see that insulting their king is the same as insulting their country. You don't need a right to insult your country to make democracy work.
Is a company a human being? Not it is not. Some insane tax related legislation in the USA might suggest it is. If so, it's wrong.
Also remember: One person, one vote. So even if companies counted as human beings, it would be one vote for Microsoft, one for Apple, one for IBM, one for GE, one for the first janitor working at Microsoft, one for the janitor's wife, one for the janitor's eldest son, one for the janitor's eldest daughter, one for his mom, one for his dad, four for the grandparents...
Slashdot Mirror
Hopefully this ruling can be implemented fast enough to halt xmas and January sales. Imagine an Apple store unable to sell iPhones...
Imagine Motorola having to pay for damages when it is decided that this injunction wasn't issued properly.
I know it sounds insane, because it was, but since it was a stupid idea, I'm sure its being vigorously enforced to this day. Can anyone surprise me with a more modern anecdote? Perhaps with a different slightly newer TI model. But I guarantee it will be enforced that every single device on the desk will be identical, whatever it ends up being.
Didn't we always hear that kids _must_ be raised on Windows so they can function properly in the workplace? Reminds me that the number of people claiming this seems to has gone down, probably because the hordes of school leavers that are unemployable now because they learned Windows XP or Windows Vista instead of Windows 7.
Pads on the other a bit harder to recover from. That and it's a fucking iPad. Are we going out of our way to teach our children to be douche bags?
So you are more or less seriously saying that using an iPad would "teach a child to be a douche bag"? You should re-think your outlook on the world.
...and they could have just have easily been using Netbooks or Laptops for this. And the advantage of a laptop is that these starving students would save themselves even that $600 the tablet costs as they need a laptop for real work anyway.
An iPad doesn't cost $600. And a netbook wouldn't save anything because they need a laptop for real work anyway.
The question is: How is publishing code as open source of advantage to you? That's what you have to ask yourself. If you base your work on existing open source code, then you obviously have the advantage of being able to use that code, and the disadvantage that everyone else can use your additions. Or if you had a customer that would pay you lots of money if you let them integrate your code into their open source code, that would be an advantage. But I can't quite see in your case how you benefit from opening up your source.
Did they? Have you seen any Xerox Star demos? They're on youtube if you're interetsed.
I _have_ seen an Apple Lisa and a Xerox Star running side by side on CeBit around 1983, and considering the Xerox Star sold for about five times as much, it wasn't even funny how badly it was beaten.
Xerox were "kindly" allowed to buy apple stock in return for letting apple engineers visit their research centre. Apple never directly paid for any of the innovations they used.
Kindly allowed to buy at a reduced price. And if they hadn't sold the stock, it would be worth several billion dollars today.
Space characters in the name of a Unix command line tool is asking for trouble.
And no, she shouldn't go down for libel, unless it can be proven that what she wrote was untrue, and that she knew it was untrue before writing it. Simply saying, "That's libel!" should NOT be justification enough to require someone to reveal their sources.
Nobody asks her to reveal her sources, if she actually has any. Remember the judge's point that it would be evidence of being a journalist if she had checked that what she posted was true? A proper journalist would have done that, and either found nothing, meaning the source was possibly lying, and would not have published anything, or found proper evidence and then published with the evidence backing it.
The headline is "bloggers are not journalists", but there is a bit more to the case.
Mrs. Cox wrote stuff in her blog that would be clearly libel if untrue, and clearly something someone wouldn't want people to hear if it was true. So she is in court for libel, and the defence against libel would be that she wrote the truth.
Now she says that what she wrote is based on information from a source which she wants to protect. If someone tried to sue the unknown source for libel, then shield laws would protect or not protect that person, and whether she is a journalist or a blogger would make a difference. But it isn't the source who is sued, it is Mrs. Cox herself. And to defend herself, she would need to have evidence that she wrote the truth. If her only evidence is a witness who doesn't want to come forward, and whom she doesn't want to present to the court, then she has no evidence that the statements she wrote are true.
Where shield laws would make a difference: If an employee gives a blogger or a journalist evidence that a company does something wrong. The blogger or journalist now _has_ the evidence. The company wants to take revenge and fire the employee. But here the situation is different; she can protect her witness all she wants, but if she does, she will go down for libel.
Even dumb phones have rectangular screens, and according to Apple those are not allowed.
You didn't read the article, or you wouldn't have posted such nonsense. Any manufacturer is allowed to use any single detail of the design used in the iPhone or iPad. It is the sum of all those details that is the problem. Apple has a design patent for A + B + C + D + E. You claim "A is not allowed according to Apple". False. A is allowed. B is allowed. A + B is allowed. A + B + C + D + E is what is not allowed, and A + B + D + E might get you into trouble.
I'm sure you can find plenty of examples of such things, look here's one:
So you're saying that since Western Digital made this hard disk in a rectangular black case with rounded corners, nobody else is allowed to put any device in a rectangular black case with rounded corners. That's why the Apple TV is in a square black case with rounded corners, not a rectangular black case with rounded corners.
I guess that means don't even bother innovating or building anything. I hate the patent system - it has become so broken as to be sorry. I thought patents should protect truly innovative ideas not commonly thought up things such as shapes. What next, someone will try and patent the tri-angle (hyphenated on purpose.)
You should have read the article. It contains pages of exhibits of actual products that made different design choices. It discusses pages of exhibits of what Samsung claimed was prior art and which is actually quite different from the iPhone; each of these designs would have been fine from Apple's point of view. Samsung is very welcome to innovate by creating a design that is not a copy of Apple's.
What kind of idiotic mods modded this post up to +4? This is the kind of person who would probably claim that the F700 [gsmarena.com] was a clone of the iPhone since it's a black monolith with a single button. Never mind that it was released before the iPhone and that most of the samsung phones look much more like the F700 than the iPhone.
There have been many claims on the web that the F700 was released before the iPhone. However, these claims were based on some heavily photoshopped evidence which changed the number "2007" to "2006" in a few images.
You have to copy pretty much everything to get into trouble. And that Samsung did. They could have used a rectangular case with rounded corners, a dark black bezel with two silver or tastefully grey lines running through the bezel and put the speakers on the side - they would have been fine.
People should really take time to read this disposition. Firstly, the advice that Apple gives how to make a design that is not covered by Apple's design patent is in each case accompanied by exhibits - so there are in each case one or several actual products that do exactly what Apple asks Samsung to do.
Second, Samsung seems to have come up with a list of items that they claim are prior art. And the expert witness then says "this is not prior art because it is different in this respect. This is not prior art because it is different in that respect. etc. etc.". In other words, each of the designs that Samsung claimed as prior art wouldn't be infringing on Apple's design patent because they are different.
To be in trouble, a design must match Apple's design patent in every single aspect. One difference, and Samsung would have been safe.
Apparently, the GPL being incompatible with Apple's App store is a murky issue at best. Currently, there are several apps that are licensed with the GPL, such as the iOS Wordpress App [wordpress.org] and Doom. So what is the final word on GPL apps in the App Store?
The problem in the case of VLC for the iPhone was that one copyright holder told Apple that they would be sued if VLC was available on the App Store. At that point it doesn't matter whether there is a problem with GPL or not, Apple will just remove an app if a copyright holder asks them to.
Apple itself has no objections to GPL licensed software on the store. So if (1) the developers believe that there is no problem with the GPL, or (2) the developers want to make their software available to iOS users, whether there is a problem or not, or (3) the developers think there is a problem but can't be bothered to do anything, then GPL licensed software can be put on the iOS app store.
My take is this: It is perfectly fine to develop for example a VLC version that runs on the iPhone, and give anyone who wants it the source code with GPL license in a form that can be easily compiled and run on an iPhone, and everyone receiving that version can run it on the iPhone emulator, or an a real iPhone (after becoming an official iPhone developer). It is also possible to put a version onto the app store that includes the GPL license and the complete source code (iPhone apps are bundles that can contain anything, including their own complete source code), so anyone installing it from the app store would be in exactly the same situation as in the first variant.
We have now the opposite of the Tivo situation: The Tivo problem was that a company could follow the letter of the GPL, while making it impossible for the end user to use the "freedoms" that the GPL license was supposed to guarantee. Here, it seems that the App Store doesn't follow the letter of the GPL license, while the user has all the freedoms.
Citation needed. Despite all of the doomsday predictions, this has not been happening. Sales in 2010 rose over 2009 - not as much as they expected, but it was still an increase, not a decrease.
According to Gartner, overall PC sales including Macs have grown very slighlty in the last year, but if you count only non-Mac PCs the number has gone down very slightly. Now there is an argument that either tablets like the iPad should be counted under PCs, or that netbooks should never have counted, and in either case sales would be growing.
This is why we have free software and open source software.
So that we're not bound by the whims of some business model.
Unfortunately, some of the "free" software authors don't allow you to get the free software from an app store of a company they don't like.
if 'X loses a phone to a thief who sells it to 'Y', and 'X' buys a new phone, this isn't a new sale. 'Y' would have bought a new phone if there was no stolen phone available to buy.
You are counting phones, not money. If X owns a phone worth $500, and a thief steals it, Y will buy it for maybe $50, while X pays $500 for a new phone. Y wouldn't have bought a $500 phone at full price, but a $50 phone.
Shape that isn't rectangular and cluttered appearance :-D Brillant!!!!
Stupid you. Google for "sony tablet" or for "toshiba tablet" and you will find two nice tablet designs that are rectangular and look nothing like an iPad. If Sony and Toshiba can do it, then surely Samsung can do it.
The person tailgating you is likely going faster than you. So why do you feel it's your right/duty to block them? You are not the enforcer of laws. Get out of the way, let them go by, or whatever. It's not your job to police people. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
If someone drives into my car, it is safest if the collision is straight, centre on centre. If it happens while I am moving out of the way then I feel I am in danger. And here comes the point: If there is a situation where I feel save to get out of the way, I will do so. But I have had drivers behind me where I felt that they might do something completely stupid at the point where I get out of the way, and when I feel like that, I don't mind if they do of a heart attack behind me.
I have also had people tailgating on a two lane motorway where the slow lane was completely filled with trucks, the right lane completely filled with traffic, so that (1) there was absolutely no possibility to move on the other lane and stay alive, and (2) there was absolutely nothing to be gained from passing me.
The question is, can a government agency or anyone else call up Apple or a carrier and have them remotely activate CarrierIQ on the iPhone?
Apple wanted to provide carriers with some means of diagnosing certain faults, and did that. They are not telling you exactly what they do, but diagnostics will only be turned on if you want to. Quite possible that if you had problems with your phone, and called your carrier for support, they might ask you to turn this software on - so they can diagnose this problem.
If Apple wanted to spy on you, you wouldn't notice. Same as with this idiotic outrage about location data stored on your phone: That data is cached information coming from Apple's servers. If they wanted to keep track of your location, they would record the info on their servers, and you wouldn't notice.
The claim that it's possible that there is a God that affects evolution? That's a very weak claim that requires no evidence, since the burden of proof would be squarely on people to show the converse, i.e. it's not possible for a God that affects evolution to exist.
It is a claim that cannot be falsified, and therefore unscientific. The very first hurdle for any statement to be considered in science is that it can be falsified, that is _if_ it is wrong then there would be some way to find evidence it is wrong. The burden of showing _possibility of proof or disproof_ is squarely on the person making the claim.
I think free speech is a must for a democracy to work. How can you vote for what you want when it's illegal to say it?
As an example: Germany has a so-called "President". That person has very little power, but his or her job is to represent the country, beat up politicians who misbehave, and so on. All parties together elect a person for that job who they all believe is reliable, has a good reputation, and is impartial.
Insulting the German president is the same as insulting the country. This is unlike insulting the German chancellor, or insulting the US president (weird how they use the same word for different things), which is insulting that person, and not the country. The Thai's probably see that insulting their king is the same as insulting their country. You don't need a right to insult your country to make democracy work.
Is a company a human being? Not it is not. Some insane tax related legislation in the USA might suggest it is. If so, it's wrong.
Also remember: One person, one vote. So even if companies counted as human beings, it would be one vote for Microsoft, one for Apple, one for IBM, one for GE, one for the first janitor working at Microsoft, one for the janitor's wife, one for the janitor's eldest son, one for the janitor's eldest daughter, one for his mom, one for his dad, four for the grandparents...