Where is the limit with political speech ? Is that forbidden to state the opinion that violent action is the only way to bring change in a corrupt system ? Not that I defend this opinion, but the fact that is is censored disturbs me deeply.
I'll use my right of free speech and call you a bloody idiot. This wasn't to "bring change in a corrupt system", this was about having a bit of fun destroying stuff, beating up people, and looting.
Yes, those that go all the way to court against crooked bastards like Righthaven certainly have no lack of remedies when the bastards' case is thrown out, but for the little guy who basically was terrorized into settling, there's no remedy.
If Righthaven claimed that you infringed on their copyright, and you paid to avoid being sued, and it turns out that Righthaven never had any copyrights, then I think this falls straight under fraud. So I'd say the step to take is going straight to the police. And see what happens.
People already take this into account. The older driver will tend to drive in a more cautious manner to compensate for their reduced reaction times. This gets to the extreme when you find the really old folk driving at a third of the speed limit.
The older driver doesn't tend to believe they are invincible and nothing can ever happen to them. And the older driver has twenty years experience reading other drivers' behaviour, so he will know when the twenty year old is going to do something dangerous before the twenty year old knows himself.
What if just one branch for a new update doesn't get pushed out on the day of release, technically that's a violation
I don't think so. You can fulfil the source code requirements of the GPL by giving anyone who asks for it the source code. If nobody asks, you are fine. If someone asks, I don't think there is a definitive requirement how much time you would have.
I wonder how many people will be executed for this whole ordeal.
What idiots vote this nonsense "interesting"? China has executed people for selling milk with generous amounts of grinded plastic added, making hundred thousands sick. China has executed people for stealing millions from state owned businesses. China doesn't execute people for opening a shop with a false Apple logo.
Sorry guys, you can't have GPL'd code and trade secrets in one piece of software.
AND distribute the software AND not commit copyright infringement. You can of course use GPL'd code to build software that you use only internally without distribution; there is no requirement to give the source code to anyone, so the source code could contain trade secrets. And you can of course keep the source code secret and distribute the application; the distribution is of course copyright infringement.
Excuse me, but Apple didn't buy the Cups source code, which would be quite pointless because it is GPL licensed. Apple bought the copyright to the Cups source code. And not "supposedly" but really.
Absolutely. As a famous German poet said: "Ist der Ruf erst ruiniert, lebt's sich's gÃnzlich ungeniert". In English: Once your reputation is down the shitter, you (Florian Mueller) can post whatever you like.
The analytical approach: Everything that Florian Mueller posts will predict doom for Google, if at all possible, no matter whether it makes sense or not. Secondary, it will predict doom for Apple, if possible, unless this is in contradiction to the first premise. That makes it kind of pointless to actually read what you write, because the outcome is just predictable.
Apple's intervention claim is actually quite strong. They say we have a license to the patent, and the license terms mean that all developers can make use of our software implementing the patent on iOS without needing a license. If that argument flies, and it has a very good chance in my opinion, they can get rid of Lodsys at very low cost. All the judge has to do is check the license terms, which judges are much better at than checking patents. It does mean, however, that Apple doesn't help Android developers at all (but then there is no reason for Apple to help Android developers).
Google's intervention very nicely attacks at a different angle. So there may be twice the cost for Lodsys, who has plenty of work anyway with half a dozen cases against it for declaratory judgements.
Now, look who's trolling... I'm don't know much about Florian Muller, but I do know that he's the founder of the NoSoftwarePatents. That, to me, a sw developer, is quite enough to convince that he is not really troll unless peered through corporate goggles (or possibly in this case, an apple fanboy goggles).
He is also the guy who recommended to every developer in the Lodsys affair to roll over and pay up.
He never confirms or deny (reveal)that that the blog is funded by apple and microsoft to create about FUD about Android . Double Agent Florian Mueller.
If you keep track of what he does, he is clearly paid by Microsoft. Google is enemy number one. Apple, Linux, IBM are secondary enemies. In a case like this where a secondary enemy sues a primary enemy, he sides with the secondary enemy, but he will and has attacked Apple, Linux and IBM as well. And usually, as seen here, gives nonsense arguments. The case Apple vs. Samsung and now Apple vs. Motorola has nothing to do with Google at all; it only has to do with the shape and looks of the Samsung and Xoom devices and packaging over which Google has no control or influence.
2) Laws about computers are interpreted by judges who don't understand them.
It seemed to me the judge understood very well how computers work. Company sets up an email system that handles their company business just fine. Union sends tons of emails with the purpose of harassing the company. Email system breaks down. DoS attack.
A lot of non-working and low income poor may be forced out of London.
They will be forced out of homes that people on middle-to-good incomes who don't get benefits can't afford to pay for. And if you have no job and no income, then you should have plenty of time to look for a home in a cheaper area.
Having read the patent (RE40,092 [uspto.gov] in case anyone is interested), it's claims are so broad and complete that any implementation of any kind of acceleration of the booting process would violate it. In fact, they're so complete, that any hibernate mode would also likely violate them, which suggests that it shouldn't be hard to find prior art since hibernate modes substantially predate this patent. I suspect that Apple will use prior art to get the patent invalidated, but it's tough to say for sure.
Having read the patent claims, I came to quite the opposite conclusion, that they are suggesting a very specific technique that Apple is definitely not using. They suggest that just after a boot, you make a copy of the computer's memory and save it to disk. On the next boot, you read that copy from disk instead of performing the actual boot operations, then you check whether the configuration (like config.sys) has changed, and if it has changed, you perform the full boot. That is a very specific (and in my humble opinion not very good) technique to do this.
What Apple does for example is keeping a list of all disk sectors that were read during one boot process, and during the next boot that list is used, the sectors are read in optimal order into a cache, and that cache used to satisfy read request. That technique safes lots of time (except on SSD drives), and is totally safe - if the boot process goes elsewhere due to a changed configuration, it just has to read from the hard drive as usual. Totally different than the patent, and not covered by it.
So, Apple can sue any company that makes a table computer that simply looks similar to an iPad? Thankfully this type of thinking didn't exist when the first desktop or laptop computers were being produced. I had an HP tablet with removable keyboard that wasn't all that dissimilar in looks to an iPad. Apple is crossing a line here.
"not all that dissimilar" isn't the same as "looks the same". When the first iMacs were released, eMachines promptly released a copycat machine, and was stopped by Apple, because Apple had design patents protecting the iMac design. (It turned out that eMachines also had design patents for an all-in-one computer that looked totally different).
Just wondering: Do you think Jonathan Ive could come up with a different design for a tablet that looks good and sells well? I'm sure we see that when the iPad 3 or iPad 4 is released. So wouldn't it great for other companies to compete by hiring a competent designer who creates something that looks _better_ than the iPad?
A few individual companies suing each other over patent disputes is one thing. When Apple is going out and suing ANYONE who has anything to do with an Android phone (which is raping the iPhone in sales and market share), that's using litigation over innovation.
Apple isn't suing everyone. They are suiing for example Samsung who has been creating phones and now tablets that are intended to look exacty the same as iPhone and iPad. Your comments on market share show that you don't understand what is actually going on. First, Apple takes about 2/3rds of the profits in the phone market, so much for "raping". Second, Apple's sales are growing at enormous rate, and so is there percentage of the whole phone market. Android phones are just taking the low-end market where dumb phones are replaced with cheap Android phones. Samsung should use innovation over copying.
As an Apple spokesperson put it: âoeItâ(TM)s no coincidence that Samsungâ(TM)s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging.
The Android prototypes that were shown before the release of the iPhone didn't look like an iPhone at all. They looked amazingly like a Blackberry, which was the marketleader at the time. Then the iPhone came, and everyone changed their designs.
But more than that, the real bullshit is that in any group that size, there's no way the communication is "secure", in fact it MUST be broadcast (by tweet or whatever) where anyone could see it. Yes that lets rioters group but it also SHOULD give police a heads-up where to be. If technology is to blame for the riots then the police are almost as much to blame for allowed the riots to occur when the targets are handed to them on a digital platter beforehand.
According to theregister, the police cannot get live intercepts for legal reason (anti-wiretapping laws). However, any messages that are archived are fair game. And you can assume safely that RIM is now archiving any message sent in the UK, and that this information will be used.
So, Apple can sue over patents, and the RIAA can extort money, but if you combine the two it's suddenly over the line? Don't get me wrong, this guy had it coming, but let's not pretend that somehow the issue of patent trolling and extortion is being dealt with on any decent level. Had this guy worked for any large company, he'd be in the clear.
The point here was that a patent holder says "I have a patent, I sue you, so just pay me a small amount that is much less than you would spend to beat me in court". That is abusing the court system; going to court not because you have a case but because it is cheaper for the defendant to pay you off than to win.
That is surely not what Nokia did to Apple, and what Apple is doing to Samsung now. Apple is saying to Samsung "I have this patent, and I don't want you to do the stuff in the patent". No paying off, no extortion.
And what the RIAA did, while it can be considered extortion, is something completely different again. They at least _believe_ that they have a case. The patent troll here _knows_ they don't have a case. (And copyright cases have been lost with sanctions when the copyright holder _knew_ they had no case, like Righthaven).
Therefore we can't time or format shift, can't use copyrighted material in parodies or for other works without getting permission from the copyright holder, and so forth.
Time shifting and format shifting doesn't fall under "fair use" in the US either. There is a huge difference between what you and I would consider fair (anything that doesn't hurt the copyright holder) and what is "fair use" according to copyright law. (Just occurred to me that the copyright holder may feel very much hurt by a parody of his works, but it is still "fair use").
A DMCA takedown notice sent by someone who is not the copyright holder is a criminal offense. CRIMINAL. Which everyone should remember (including nasty buggers who think about sending them out to restrict someone's free speech. You better own the copyright before you do that).
Instead of doing the right thing--giving them your advice, and when they refused to follow it, politely saying you could no longer work for them--you administrated the illegal software, took their money for doing do, then turned right around to the BSA and took their money (offer) for ratting out your co-conspirators. You probably put an engineering company employing over 30 people out of business and got paid for doing so.
The company was advised they needed licenses, they were advised that not having the licenses would make the employee liable, and they said they didn't care. Frankly, at that point any moral obligations that an employee should have towards his employer have just disappeared in a puff of smoke.
At that point the employee has no moral reason to quit immediately, without having another job lined up, but is free to do what is best for him or her. That is make sure to avoid any liability, possibly by ratting, appear to be doing the job, take the salary, and look for another job. He can be sure that his boss is doing the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Where is the limit with political speech ? Is that forbidden to state the opinion that violent action is the only way to bring change in a corrupt system ? Not that I defend this opinion, but the fact that is is censored disturbs me deeply.
I'll use my right of free speech and call you a bloody idiot. This wasn't to "bring change in a corrupt system", this was about having a bit of fun destroying stuff, beating up people, and looting.
Yes, those that go all the way to court against crooked bastards like Righthaven certainly have no lack of remedies when the bastards' case is thrown out, but for the little guy who basically was terrorized into settling, there's no remedy.
If Righthaven claimed that you infringed on their copyright, and you paid to avoid being sued, and it turns out that Righthaven never had any copyrights, then I think this falls straight under fraud. So I'd say the step to take is going straight to the police. And see what happens.
People already take this into account. The older driver will tend to drive in a more cautious manner to compensate for their reduced reaction times. This gets to the extreme when you find the really old folk driving at a third of the speed limit.
The older driver doesn't tend to believe they are invincible and nothing can ever happen to them. And the older driver has twenty years experience reading other drivers' behaviour, so he will know when the twenty year old is going to do something dangerous before the twenty year old knows himself.
What if just one branch for a new update doesn't get pushed out on the day of release, technically that's a violation
I don't think so. You can fulfil the source code requirements of the GPL by giving anyone who asks for it the source code. If nobody asks, you are fine. If someone asks, I don't think there is a definitive requirement how much time you would have.
I wonder how many people will be executed for this whole ordeal.
What idiots vote this nonsense "interesting"? China has executed people for selling milk with generous amounts of grinded plastic added, making hundred thousands sick. China has executed people for stealing millions from state owned businesses. China doesn't execute people for opening a shop with a false Apple logo.
Sorry guys, you can't have GPL'd code and trade secrets in one piece of software.
AND distribute the software AND not commit copyright infringement. You can of course use GPL'd code to build software that you use only internally without distribution; there is no requirement to give the source code to anyone, so the source code could contain trade secrets. And you can of course keep the source code secret and distribute the application; the distribution is of course copyright infringement.
Excuse me, but Apple didn't buy the Cups source code, which would be quite pointless because it is GPL licensed. Apple bought the copyright to the Cups source code. And not "supposedly" but really.
Absolutely. As a famous German poet said: "Ist der Ruf erst ruiniert, lebt's sich's gÃnzlich ungeniert". In English: Once your reputation is down the shitter, you (Florian Mueller) can post whatever you like.
The analytical approach: Everything that Florian Mueller posts will predict doom for Google, if at all possible, no matter whether it makes sense or not. Secondary, it will predict doom for Apple, if possible, unless this is in contradiction to the first premise. That makes it kind of pointless to actually read what you write, because the outcome is just predictable.
Didn't read who was posting. The name explains it.
It has a vertical touch screen. Grandma's arms will be falling off after ten minutes of use.
Apple's intervention claim is actually quite strong. They say we have a license to the patent, and the license terms mean that all developers can make use of our software implementing the patent on iOS without needing a license. If that argument flies, and it has a very good chance in my opinion, they can get rid of Lodsys at very low cost. All the judge has to do is check the license terms, which judges are much better at than checking patents. It does mean, however, that Apple doesn't help Android developers at all (but then there is no reason for Apple to help Android developers).
Google's intervention very nicely attacks at a different angle. So there may be twice the cost for Lodsys, who has plenty of work anyway with half a dozen cases against it for declaratory judgements.
Now, look who's trolling... I'm don't know much about Florian Muller, but I do know that he's the founder of the NoSoftwarePatents. That, to me, a sw developer, is quite enough to convince that he is not really troll unless peered through corporate goggles (or possibly in this case, an apple fanboy goggles).
He is also the guy who recommended to every developer in the Lodsys affair to roll over and pay up.
He never confirms or deny (reveal)that that the blog is funded by apple and microsoft to create about FUD about Android . Double Agent Florian Mueller.
If you keep track of what he does, he is clearly paid by Microsoft. Google is enemy number one. Apple, Linux, IBM are secondary enemies. In a case like this where a secondary enemy sues a primary enemy, he sides with the secondary enemy, but he will and has attacked Apple, Linux and IBM as well. And usually, as seen here, gives nonsense arguments. The case Apple vs. Samsung and now Apple vs. Motorola has nothing to do with Google at all; it only has to do with the shape and looks of the Samsung and Xoom devices and packaging over which Google has no control or influence.
2) Laws about computers are interpreted by judges who don't understand them.
It seemed to me the judge understood very well how computers work. Company sets up an email system that handles their company business just fine. Union sends tons of emails with the purpose of harassing the company. Email system breaks down. DoS attack.
A lot of non-working and low income poor may be forced out of London.
They will be forced out of homes that people on middle-to-good incomes who don't get benefits can't afford to pay for. And if you have no job and no income, then you should have plenty of time to look for a home in a cheaper area.
Having read the patent (RE40,092 [uspto.gov] in case anyone is interested), it's claims are so broad and complete that any implementation of any kind of acceleration of the booting process would violate it. In fact, they're so complete, that any hibernate mode would also likely violate them, which suggests that it shouldn't be hard to find prior art since hibernate modes substantially predate this patent. I suspect that Apple will use prior art to get the patent invalidated, but it's tough to say for sure.
Having read the patent claims, I came to quite the opposite conclusion, that they are suggesting a very specific technique that Apple is definitely not using. They suggest that just after a boot, you make a copy of the computer's memory and save it to disk. On the next boot, you read that copy from disk instead of performing the actual boot operations, then you check whether the configuration (like config.sys) has changed, and if it has changed, you perform the full boot. That is a very specific (and in my humble opinion not very good) technique to do this.
What Apple does for example is keeping a list of all disk sectors that were read during one boot process, and during the next boot that list is used, the sectors are read in optimal order into a cache, and that cache used to satisfy read request. That technique safes lots of time (except on SSD drives), and is totally safe - if the boot process goes elsewhere due to a changed configuration, it just has to read from the hard drive as usual. Totally different than the patent, and not covered by it.
So, Apple can sue any company that makes a table computer that simply looks similar to an iPad? Thankfully this type of thinking didn't exist when the first desktop or laptop computers were being produced. I had an HP tablet with removable keyboard that wasn't all that dissimilar in looks to an iPad. Apple is crossing a line here.
"not all that dissimilar" isn't the same as "looks the same". When the first iMacs were released, eMachines promptly released a copycat machine, and was stopped by Apple, because Apple had design patents protecting the iMac design. (It turned out that eMachines also had design patents for an all-in-one computer that looked totally different).
Just wondering: Do you think Jonathan Ive could come up with a different design for a tablet that looks good and sells well? I'm sure we see that when the iPad 3 or iPad 4 is released. So wouldn't it great for other companies to compete by hiring a competent designer who creates something that looks _better_ than the iPad?
A few individual companies suing each other over patent disputes is one thing. When Apple is going out and suing ANYONE who has anything to do with an Android phone (which is raping the iPhone in sales and market share), that's using litigation over innovation.
Apple isn't suing everyone. They are suiing for example Samsung who has been creating phones and now tablets that are intended to look exacty the same as iPhone and iPad. Your comments on market share show that you don't understand what is actually going on. First, Apple takes about 2/3rds of the profits in the phone market, so much for "raping". Second, Apple's sales are growing at enormous rate, and so is there percentage of the whole phone market. Android phones are just taking the low-end market where dumb phones are replaced with cheap Android phones. Samsung should use innovation over copying.
Time to buy as many as you can get your hands on to sell on eBay at a nice 25% markup.
Who would by Samsung for a 25% markup?
As an Apple spokesperson put it: âoeItâ(TM)s no coincidence that Samsungâ(TM)s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging.
The Android prototypes that were shown before the release of the iPhone didn't look like an iPhone at all. They looked amazingly like a Blackberry, which was the marketleader at the time. Then the iPhone came, and everyone changed their designs.
But more than that, the real bullshit is that in any group that size, there's no way the communication is "secure", in fact it MUST be broadcast (by tweet or whatever) where anyone could see it. Yes that lets rioters group but it also SHOULD give police a heads-up where to be. If technology is to blame for the riots then the police are almost as much to blame for allowed the riots to occur when the targets are handed to them on a digital platter beforehand.
According to theregister, the police cannot get live intercepts for legal reason (anti-wiretapping laws). However, any messages that are archived are fair game. And you can assume safely that RIM is now archiving any message sent in the UK, and that this information will be used.
So, Apple can sue over patents, and the RIAA can extort money, but if you combine the two it's suddenly over the line? Don't get me wrong, this guy had it coming, but let's not pretend that somehow the issue of patent trolling and extortion is being dealt with on any decent level. Had this guy worked for any large company, he'd be in the clear.
The point here was that a patent holder says "I have a patent, I sue you, so just pay me a small amount that is much less than you would spend to beat me in court". That is abusing the court system; going to court not because you have a case but because it is cheaper for the defendant to pay you off than to win.
That is surely not what Nokia did to Apple, and what Apple is doing to Samsung now. Apple is saying to Samsung "I have this patent, and I don't want you to do the stuff in the patent". No paying off, no extortion.
And what the RIAA did, while it can be considered extortion, is something completely different again. They at least _believe_ that they have a case. The patent troll here _knows_ they don't have a case. (And copyright cases have been lost with sanctions when the copyright holder _knew_ they had no case, like Righthaven).
Therefore we can't time or format shift, can't use copyrighted material in parodies or for other works without getting permission from the copyright holder, and so forth.
Time shifting and format shifting doesn't fall under "fair use" in the US either. There is a huge difference between what you and I would consider fair (anything that doesn't hurt the copyright holder) and what is "fair use" according to copyright law. (Just occurred to me that the copyright holder may feel very much hurt by a parody of his works, but it is still "fair use").
Then file a DMCA takedown.
A DMCA takedown notice sent by someone who is not the copyright holder is a criminal offense. CRIMINAL. Which everyone should remember (including nasty buggers who think about sending them out to restrict someone's free speech. You better own the copyright before you do that).
Instead of doing the right thing--giving them your advice, and when they refused to follow it, politely saying you could no longer work for them--you administrated the illegal software, took their money for doing do, then turned right around to the BSA and took their money (offer) for ratting out your co-conspirators. You probably put an engineering company employing over 30 people out of business and got paid for doing so.
The company was advised they needed licenses, they were advised that not having the licenses would make the employee liable, and they said they didn't care. Frankly, at that point any moral obligations that an employee should have towards his employer have just disappeared in a puff of smoke.
At that point the employee has no moral reason to quit immediately, without having another job lined up, but is free to do what is best for him or her. That is make sure to avoid any liability, possibly by ratting, appear to be doing the job, take the salary, and look for another job. He can be sure that his boss is doing the same thing.