'' There are a bunch of vulnerabilities listed there that are from Apple implemented libraries.
Some of the really bad ones ("arbitrary code execution"): ''
For each of the vulnerabilities listed, could you check which ones can definitely be exploited, and then check for which ones an exploit actually exists?
A bullet through the head will kill you, whether you live in a quiet little town in England or in the middle of Baghdad. I feel considerably safer in England.
'' but even if you don't use a firewall, try plugging your up to date mac directly into your internet connected modem and wait for its security to be compromised.i don't advise you to hold your breath. ''
Statistically, if you connect a PC with a fresh install of Windows to the internet with a broadband connection, and you hold your breath until it is infected, you will die with a propability of 90 percent.
'' Question from a developer to all you Mac fans out there. Does the Intel Mac systems signal a return to fat binaries? Will developers need two Macs, one PPC and one x86, to develop Mac applications? ''
You can build fat binaries on an Intel machine, then test the x86 version, then test the PowerPC version running under Rosetta. I would say that Rosetta isn't likely to hide bugs, but more likely to introduce bugs, so if your application runs fine under Rosetta, it should run fine on a PowerPC.
I am also told that nowadays gdb can debug PowerPC applications on an x86 Macintosh, just in case you have bugs that don't happen in the x86 version.
'' Intel has spent many years dealing with register starvation and they make excellent use of register renaming to deal with context switching.
''
Intel processors can execute up to three operations per cycle. Every time a program has to spill a register to memory and load it back later, it costs four operations (one for address, one for load or store). There is no way to get these four wasted operations back.
Add 1 to register = one operation. Load from memory, add one, store to memory = 5 operations.
'' There's not nearly enough evidence to reach a conclusion either way. QuickTime export is one of Altivec's strongest areas, and Xbench scores are notoriously bad at having any relationship to reality. Let's wait and see how they do in real life; perhaps you'll find Apple really does have a clue. ''
One of the XBench tests where the iMac x86 gets "slaughtered" is the "User Interface" test.
It turns out that the iMac x86 runs this test at 67 frames per second. Which is quite consistent with some newer Apple technotes that tell you that screen updates are now coupled with the monitor's refresh rate. If you draw more frames per second then the monitor can display, you are just wasting your time. Seems that the other Macs tested run this test at several hundred frames per second.
'' Explain the advantage or even the point, of buying a machine that costs upwards to 4 times the cost of a regular PC to run Windows XP? Because I'd really like to understand that. ''
Ask the Dell customers. Dell sells machines that cost upwards to 4 times the cost of a regular PC as well.
'' Nice try dumbass, but OS X does have preemptive multitasking. OS 9 and earlier used cooperative multitasking, but OS X does implement preemptive multitasking. Go and troll somewhere else. ''
Actually, even on MacOS 9 there was preemptive multitasking. The only problem was that everything that is now the "Classic" environment, including all MacOS 9 applications, was one single process, with cooperative multitasking being used to switch between the applications.
But any application could easily create separate threads that would run multithreaded. Unfortunately, no access to the user interface from preemptive threads. But things like an MP3 encoder could easily run in a thread using preemptive multitasking.
''So it appears that Linux and probably Mac users are less aware of malware and do some really careless things because the probability of getting a virus is extremely low. ''
I think the average Linux and Mac users are exactly as aware of malware as the average PC user: Not at all.
Then there is the category of users who have been bitten by malware, but don't know what to do about (except suffering quietly, buying a new computer, ask an educated friend for help, or pay money for removing viruses). This category is much too large on PCs, and quite empty on Macs and Linux.
Then there is the category of users who know how to protect themselves. One difference between PC and Linux/Mac: On Linux/Mac, protection consists of having a firewall (just in case), not doing anything stupid, and hoping the operating system is as safe as it should be. There is nothing else you can do. There is no antivirus software that would actually _protect_ you against anything because there are no known threats. On Windows, protection consists of having a firewall, running virus scanners and malware checkers all the time, not doing anything stupid, not entering more dubious websites, and praying.
'' SImilary a phone list book typically is protected under copyright law and you can't just copy it, however, the individual phone numbers are not protected. ''
In Germany, there has been a judgement that it is illegal to make copies of German Telecom's CD containing the complete phone directory, and it is illegal to buy a complete collection of phone books and scan them, but it _is_ legal to buy a complete collection of phone books (weighs about two tons), hire a few dozen people to type everything into a computer, and use that to create, then duplicate and sell your own phone directory CD.
'' well you have the freedom to go make an OS just as worthy as os X and put it on whatever you want, and make it run on whatever you want. just as apple has the freedom to do what they want with what they make. when their freedom infringes on your freedom you have a valid reason for complaint. ''
While this sounds unrealistic at first, if you realise that there are a few hundred million PC owners, all you need to do is convince half of them to donate 10 dollars, and you will have more than enough money to create an operating system that is better than MacOS X:-)
'' For music/movies/etc: If I buy a DVD or a CD I should have get a license to own a copy of that work in whatever format I choose. If this means that as soon as I buy the CD I go and rip it to OGG, I should be able to do that, and if as soon as I buy a DVD if I want to rip it to AVI to have on my computer, that should be my right. I should also, upon a new format coming out (such as HD-VD) should be able to get my DVD replaced for the cost of the new media, no more. ''
I agree almost, but not completely. Both with music and movies, you pay for the music itself, and for the quality. You can buy a movie on a cheap VHS tape, on a cheap DVD, on a luxury DVD with extras, and in the future on some Blueray or HD DVD. I don't think buying the VHS tape should give you the right to an HD DVD. I do think buying the VHS tape should give you the right to make a copy and burn it on a DVD; which a lot of people will do with their VHS collection.
'' Slight correction: current Mac OS X prices are $129. Period. That's for the full OS on disc; there is no "upgrade" per se. We would probably see the introduction of a cheaper upgrade option rather than a more expensive "full" version. ''
It is de facto an upgrade. Show me anyone who didn't use it as an upgrade to an existing operating system supplied by Apple.
'' Isn't it considered "fair use" to record a broadcast for personal use? ''
Don't know about Windows, but there is some Macintosh software out there that claims it can record songs from Internet radio with Artist + Title added automatically - and not just one station, but as many as your Internet connection allows. That might be 8 MBit / sec, enough for 64 128 KBit streams.
I don't know whether that is legal or not, but I wouldn't consider it "fair use".
'' I recall a company in the past that wouldn't sell you their software unless you purchased their hardrware. They were taken to court and forced to unbundle the OS from the Hardware since the OS was capable for running on other hardware. I can't recall the company name off hand but I feel someone will to do the same to Apple. ''
If MacOS X is the only operating system that runs on your Dell computer, then Apple might have to sell it to Dell users. Since that is not the case, you have no point.
In any case, Apple would be allowed to charge a fair price for it. Currently, MacOS X upgrades are sold for $129. Full versions that you would need to install on your Dell would obviously be more expensive, maybe $499 or so.
'' MTBF isn't absolute. It's a statistical estimate. A hard drive may have a 500,000 hour MTBF. That particular model of drive wasn't tested for 57 years to see if it failed. ''
Also important: Products like harddisk have a limited life. That harddisk with 500,000 hour MTBF will wear out after five years or 50,000 hours; no way will it last 500,000 hours. The MTBF only means: If you buy 500 harddisks and run them for 1000 hours, you can expect one to fail.
''I own a PowerBook, and for me to have basic functionality in video support, you have to pay for it.
Basic functionality like Full Screen support, what the?!? ''
I can play videos in full screen in my Macintosh without any problems, without having to pay any money for it. Apple ships all Macs with a free video player. It is called iTunes.
'' Dude.. VPC will run windows at only a small performance hit now that you have Intel hardware. ''
I find that quite unlikely, since Virtual PC translates x86 instructions to PowerPC instructions to execute them on a PowerPC processor. If Rosetta is clever enough to handle this, and translate the PowerPC instructions back to x86, I will be impressed. It won't be fast. (However, I have seen the x86 version of Mame emulating a 68000 console game running under SoftWindows on a Macintosh, so it should be possible).
Remember: Virtual PC is a PowerPC application. It executes PowerPC code. It generates PowerPC code by taking bytes in memory that just by coincidence happen to be x86 instructions, and translating them. There will be no speed gain until the emulation technology in Virtual PC is completely rewritten. It won't become faster because it runs on an x86 processor, just as an ARM emulator or an Itanium emulator wouldn't become any faster.
'' There was a clip of this on Top Gear in the UK. Apparently a journalist asked Mercedes to show hiw how well it worked, so they filled one of their testing facilities with smoke & arranged a demo for the cameras.
The cars braked fine, they just stopped about 15 yards too late!! So obviously there's something not quite right with the radar system, you've gotta chuckle at the comparison they make... ''
The story was actually a bit different. First, Mercedes told the journalist that the system wouldn't work inside a hall built from metal. Which is fine, people rarely drive cars in huge metal halls covered in fog. The journalist convinced them to just fake it - instead of the the system breaking automatically, they would put a piece of would on the floor, and when the car drove over the wood, the driver would feel it and stop the car.
Unfortunately, this was Mercedes S Class. When the car drove over the wood, the driver didn't feel anything, and didn't break. Result: Crash. The radar system itself was never involved in any of this.
''However, since the Mac is a PC (the only difference between a Mac and a PC now is OS X vs. Windows/Linux/BSD, since they're both x86 now), I wonder what will happen when somebody figures out how to get OS X for x86 working on their Dell or Sony box? Don't get me wrong, I like these new Intel Macs and they are very good (I want one!), but isn't Apple a bit worried about PC users buying OS X and installing it on their $299 Dells?''
Since you can't have MacOS X running on a $299 Dell or on any other non-Apple PC legally, and since you have to circumvent copy protection measurements to make it run on a non-Apple PC, doing so is not just the usual plain copyright infringement (with substantial punishments possible), but a criminal offence under the DMCA act.
On the other hand, Apple could just be nasty and reformat any harddisk containing an illegal copy of MacOS X the next time you run Software Update.
''What is to stop Apple from "agreeing" to tiered pricing while embedding more profit into the sale of each song for themselves? It would be the perfect opportunity for them to do so, raise prices and let the industry take all the blame. ''
It looks like Apple wants to keep it simple. Simple means: One song = $0.99, one record = $9.99 (different prices in other countries).
As an extreme example, everyone in Britain sold the Life Aid single for £1.49 online, with £0.70 of the price going to Life Aid. Apple sold it for $0.79 as all other singles, and paid the £0.70 out of its own pocket.
''Turn off OSX and get Steve Job's dick out of your ass.''
If that's your kind of argument, go and fuck yourself, because nobody else will.
'' The fact is, Apple wanted to license the technology, and when they didn't like the agreement instead of working at something they decided to sue. ''
The fact is, Apple _never_ thought that Burst had anything worth licensing. And when Apple found out that Burst wanted money for technology that Apple doesn't use, and apparently now wants money for video downloads to iPods where Burst technology is completely irrelevant, they decided to sue.
>> The media loves Apple, and because of all the fan boys they start believing the hype.... "they are perfect and above all others" blah blah blah.
Unfortunately for them they are not, and they can't brake the law. I personally don't agree with the current patent law, but it's still the law. They way to change it is through legislation not the courts. This is a frivolous lawsuit and it's unfortunate that Apple's lawyers aren't held in contempt for wasting the courts time simply because they don't want to pay royalties.
Rarely heard so much nonsense. The situation is: Burst wants money, Apple doesn't want to pay. In such a situation, three things can happen: 1. Nothing happens. 2. Burst sues Apple for money. 3. Apple sues Burst, asking a court to order Burst not to sue them and not to claim that Apple is doing anything wrong. That is how things go.
There is very little difference between (2) and (3). In both cases, the court has to decide whether Burst's claims are valid. The only difference is that Apple has to show that there is a reasonable threat that Burst might sue; but that is quite obvious. On the other hand Burst can just tell the court that they are definitely not suing Apple, and the court case against them will just disappear in thin air.
This is the same thing as in the Redhat vs. SCOX case, where SCO makes wild accusations of illegally copied code in Redhat Linux, and Redhat asks the court to stop SCO from making these accusations, and to stop SCO from threatening to sue Redhat.
>> Apple were negotiating with Burst, but reached an impasse where neither side wanted to give.
It doesn't really look like "Apple were negotiating". Burst contacted Apple to tell them they want money. Apple diligently listened to what Burst was saying, why they wanted money, and how much. I would assume that Apple's lawyers then asked Apple's engineers about their opinion: Did they develop anything using Burst's patents? Did they develop anything that was in hindsight covered by Burst's patents? Did they know of anything that might invalidate Burst's patents?
I would assume that they then decided how much money Apple would be willing to pay, based on this information, but also based on the assumption that unlike Microsoft, Apple has a reputation to lose. My guess is what Apple was willing to pay was not more than $1 million, and quite possibly zero.
Of course, once you start a lawsuit, you throw _everything_ at them. That's why Apple will try to invalidate Burst's patents; nobody knows how much chance this has to succeed. More likely Apple will succeed by demonstrating that they don't actually do anything covered by Burst's patents. But Apple's lawyers will and must put everything into the lawsuit that increases their chances to win.
>> Watch the sky or background. You can see the artifacts. Where there should be a clean black or a clean color gradient you can see blocks and patches of color, somewhat like a much shrunken gif or jpeg. HD-DVD or Blu-ray, with its more powerful and accurate H.264 or VC-1 codec eliminates these problems to a large extent.
Actually, H.264 on its own would eliminate these problems to a large extent on its own; HD-DVD or Blu-Ray is not really needed. A dual layer DVD gives you 9.4 GB or 10 Megabit/second for a two hour movie; that is plenty for H.264 to get rid of any artefacts.
You'd still need a new player, because a DVD player won't have the muscle to decode H.264 in realtime, even if you could upgrade the firmware, but most of the hardware, starting at the DVD press, could be used unchanged.
>> In fact, by wanting the government to protect the student, you're advocating the reduction of civil liberties, by wanting the government to interfere in a private matter between two parties.
If someone beats you up on the street, would you want the governement in the form of a policeman to interfere in a private matter between two parties?
Slashdot Mirror
'' There are a bunch of vulnerabilities listed there that are from Apple implemented libraries.
Some of the really bad ones ("arbitrary code execution"): ''
For each of the vulnerabilities listed, could you check which ones can definitely be exploited, and then check for which ones an exploit actually exists?
A bullet through the head will kill you, whether you live in a quiet little town in England or in the middle of Baghdad. I feel considerably safer in England.
'' but even if you don't use a firewall, try plugging your up to date mac directly into your internet connected modem and wait for its security to be compromised.i don't advise you to hold your breath. ''
Statistically, if you connect a PC with a fresh install of Windows to the internet with a broadband connection, and you hold your breath until it is infected, you will die with a propability of 90 percent.
'' Question from a developer to all you Mac fans out there. Does the Intel Mac systems signal a return to fat binaries? Will developers need two Macs, one PPC and one x86, to develop Mac applications? ''
You can build fat binaries on an Intel machine, then test the x86 version, then test the PowerPC version running under Rosetta. I would say that Rosetta isn't likely to hide bugs, but more likely to introduce bugs, so if your application runs fine under Rosetta, it should run fine on a PowerPC.
I am also told that nowadays gdb can debug PowerPC applications on an x86 Macintosh, just in case you have bugs that don't happen in the x86 version.
'' Intel has spent many years dealing with register starvation and they make excellent use of register renaming to deal with context switching.
''
Intel processors can execute up to three operations per cycle. Every time a program has to spill a register to memory and load it back later, it costs four operations (one for address, one for load or store). There is no way to get these four wasted operations back.
Add 1 to register = one operation. Load from memory, add one, store to memory = 5 operations.
'' There's not nearly enough evidence to reach a conclusion either way. QuickTime export is one of Altivec's strongest areas, and Xbench scores are notoriously bad at having any relationship to reality. Let's wait and see how they do in real life; perhaps you'll find Apple really does have a clue. ''
One of the XBench tests where the iMac x86 gets "slaughtered" is the "User Interface" test.
It turns out that the iMac x86 runs this test at 67 frames per second. Which is quite consistent with some newer Apple technotes that tell you that screen updates are now coupled with the monitor's refresh rate. If you draw more frames per second then the monitor can display, you are just wasting your time. Seems that the other Macs tested run this test at several hundred frames per second.
'' Explain the advantage or even the point, of buying a machine that costs upwards to 4 times the cost of a regular PC to run Windows XP? Because I'd really like to understand that. ''
Ask the Dell customers. Dell sells machines that cost upwards to 4 times the cost of a regular PC as well.
'' Nice try dumbass, but OS X does have preemptive multitasking. OS 9 and earlier used cooperative multitasking, but OS X does implement preemptive multitasking. Go and troll somewhere else. ''
Actually, even on MacOS 9 there was preemptive multitasking. The only problem was that everything that is now the "Classic" environment, including all MacOS 9 applications, was one single process, with cooperative multitasking being used to switch between the applications.
But any application could easily create separate threads that would run multithreaded. Unfortunately, no access to the user interface from preemptive threads. But things like an MP3 encoder could easily run in a thread using preemptive multitasking.
''So it appears that Linux and probably Mac users are less aware of malware and do some really careless things because the probability of getting a virus is extremely low. ''
I think the average Linux and Mac users are exactly as aware of malware as the average PC user: Not at all.
Then there is the category of users who have been bitten by malware, but don't know what to do about (except suffering quietly, buying a new computer, ask an educated friend for help, or pay money for removing viruses). This category is much too large on PCs, and quite empty on Macs and Linux.
Then there is the category of users who know how to protect themselves. One difference between PC and Linux/Mac: On Linux/Mac, protection consists of having a firewall (just in case), not doing anything stupid, and hoping the operating system is as safe as it should be. There is nothing else you can do. There is no antivirus software that would actually _protect_ you against anything because there are no known threats. On Windows, protection consists of having a firewall, running virus scanners and malware checkers all the time, not doing anything stupid, not entering more dubious websites, and praying.
'' SImilary a phone list book typically is protected under copyright law and you can't just copy it, however, the individual phone numbers are not protected. ''
In Germany, there has been a judgement that it is illegal to make copies of German Telecom's CD containing the complete phone directory, and it is illegal to buy a complete collection of phone books and scan them, but it _is_ legal to buy a complete collection of phone books (weighs about two tons), hire a few dozen people to type everything into a computer, and use that to create, then duplicate and sell your own phone directory CD.
'' well you have the freedom to go make an OS just as worthy as os X and put it on whatever you want, and make it run on whatever you want. just as apple has the freedom to do what they want with what they make. when their freedom infringes on your freedom you have a valid reason for complaint. ''
:-)
While this sounds unrealistic at first, if you realise that there are a few hundred million PC owners, all you need to do is convince half of them to donate 10 dollars, and you will have more than enough money to create an operating system that is better than MacOS X
'' For music/movies/etc: If I buy a DVD or a CD I should have get a license to own a copy of that work in whatever format I choose. If this means that as soon as I buy the CD I go and rip it to OGG, I should be able to do that, and if as soon as I buy a DVD if I want to rip it to AVI to have on my computer, that should be my right. I should also, upon a new format coming out (such as HD-VD) should be able to get my DVD replaced for the cost of the new media, no more. ''
I agree almost, but not completely. Both with music and movies, you pay for the music itself, and for the quality. You can buy a movie on a cheap VHS tape, on a cheap DVD, on a luxury DVD with extras, and in the future on some Blueray or HD DVD. I don't think buying the VHS tape should give you the right to an HD DVD. I do think buying the VHS tape should give you the right to make a copy and burn it on a DVD; which a lot of people will do with their VHS collection.
'' Slight correction: current Mac OS X prices are $129. Period. That's for the full OS on disc; there is no "upgrade" per se. We would probably see the introduction of a cheaper upgrade option rather than a more expensive "full" version. ''
It is de facto an upgrade. Show me anyone who didn't use it as an upgrade to an existing operating system supplied by Apple.
'' Isn't it considered "fair use" to record a broadcast for personal use? ''
Don't know about Windows, but there is some Macintosh software out there that claims it can record songs from Internet radio with Artist + Title added automatically - and not just one station, but as many as your Internet connection allows. That might be 8 MBit / sec, enough for 64 128 KBit streams.
I don't know whether that is legal or not, but I wouldn't consider it "fair use".
'' I recall a company in the past that wouldn't sell you their software unless you purchased their hardrware. They were taken to court and forced to unbundle the OS from the Hardware since the OS was capable for running on other hardware. I can't recall the company name off hand but I feel someone will to do the same to Apple. ''
If MacOS X is the only operating system that runs on your Dell computer, then Apple might have to sell it to Dell users. Since that is not the case, you have no point.
In any case, Apple would be allowed to charge a fair price for it. Currently, MacOS X upgrades are sold for $129. Full versions that you would need to install on your Dell would obviously be more expensive, maybe $499 or so.
'' MTBF isn't absolute. It's a statistical estimate. A hard drive may have a 500,000 hour MTBF. That particular model of drive wasn't tested for 57 years to see if it failed. ''
Also important: Products like harddisk have a limited life. That harddisk with 500,000 hour MTBF will wear out after five years or 50,000 hours; no way will it last 500,000 hours. The MTBF only means: If you buy 500 harddisks and run them for 1000 hours, you can expect one to fail.
''I own a PowerBook, and for me to have basic functionality in video support, you have to pay for it.
Basic functionality like Full Screen support, what the?!? ''
I can play videos in full screen in my Macintosh without any problems, without having to pay any money for it.
Apple ships all Macs with a free video player. It is called iTunes.
'' Dude.. VPC will run windows at only a small performance hit now that you have Intel hardware. ''
I find that quite unlikely, since Virtual PC translates x86 instructions to PowerPC instructions to execute them on a PowerPC processor. If Rosetta is clever enough to handle this, and translate the PowerPC instructions back to x86, I will be impressed. It won't be fast. (However, I have seen the x86 version of Mame emulating a 68000 console game running under SoftWindows on a Macintosh, so it should be possible).
Remember: Virtual PC is a PowerPC application. It executes PowerPC code. It generates PowerPC code by taking bytes in memory that just by coincidence happen to be x86 instructions, and translating them. There will be no speed gain until the emulation technology in Virtual PC is completely rewritten. It won't become faster because it runs on an x86 processor, just as an ARM emulator or an Itanium emulator wouldn't become any faster.
'' There was a clip of this on Top Gear in the UK. Apparently a journalist asked Mercedes to show hiw how well it worked, so they filled one of their testing facilities with smoke & arranged a demo for the cameras.
The cars braked fine, they just stopped about 15 yards too late!! So obviously there's something not quite right with the radar system, you've gotta chuckle at the comparison they make... ''
The story was actually a bit different. First, Mercedes told the journalist that the system wouldn't work inside a hall built from metal. Which is fine, people rarely drive cars in huge metal halls covered in fog. The journalist convinced them to just fake it - instead of the the system breaking automatically, they would put a piece of would on the floor, and when the car drove over the wood, the driver would feel it and stop the car.
Unfortunately, this was Mercedes S Class. When the car drove over the wood, the driver didn't feel anything, and didn't break. Result: Crash. The radar system itself was never involved in any of this.
''However, since the Mac is a PC (the only difference between a Mac and a PC now is OS X vs. Windows/Linux/BSD, since they're both x86 now), I wonder what will happen when somebody figures out how to get OS X for x86 working on their Dell or Sony box? Don't get me wrong, I like these new Intel Macs and they are very good (I want one!), but isn't Apple a bit worried about PC users buying OS X and installing it on their $299 Dells?''
Since you can't have MacOS X running on a $299 Dell or on any other non-Apple PC legally, and since you have to circumvent copy protection measurements to make it run on a non-Apple PC, doing so is not just the usual plain copyright infringement (with substantial punishments possible), but a criminal offence under the DMCA act.
On the other hand, Apple could just be nasty and reformat any harddisk containing an illegal copy of MacOS X the next time you run Software Update.
''What is to stop Apple from "agreeing" to tiered pricing while embedding more profit into the sale of each song for themselves? It would be the perfect opportunity for them to do so, raise prices and let the industry take all the blame. ''
It looks like Apple wants to keep it simple. Simple means: One song = $0.99, one record = $9.99 (different prices in other countries).
As an extreme example, everyone in Britain sold the Life Aid single for £1.49 online, with £0.70 of the price going to Life Aid. Apple sold it for $0.79 as all other singles, and paid the £0.70 out of its own pocket.
''Turn off OSX and get Steve Job's dick out of your ass.''
If that's your kind of argument, go and fuck yourself, because nobody else will.
'' The fact is, Apple wanted to license the technology, and when they didn't like the agreement instead of working at something they decided to sue. ''
The fact is, Apple _never_ thought that Burst had anything worth licensing. And when Apple found out that Burst wanted money for technology that Apple doesn't use, and apparently now wants money for video downloads to iPods where Burst technology is completely irrelevant, they decided to sue.
>> The media loves Apple, and because of all the fan boys they start believing the hype.... "they are perfect and above all others" blah blah blah.
Unfortunately for them they are not, and they can't brake the law. I personally don't agree with the current patent law, but it's still the law. They way to change it is through legislation not the courts. This is a frivolous lawsuit and it's unfortunate that Apple's lawyers aren't held in contempt for wasting the courts time simply because they don't want to pay royalties.
Rarely heard so much nonsense. The situation is: Burst wants money, Apple doesn't want to pay. In such a situation, three things can happen: 1. Nothing happens. 2. Burst sues Apple for money. 3. Apple sues Burst, asking a court to order Burst not to sue them and not to claim that Apple is doing anything wrong. That is how things go.
There is very little difference between (2) and (3). In both cases, the court has to decide whether Burst's claims are valid. The only difference is that Apple has to show that there is a reasonable threat that Burst might sue; but that is quite obvious. On the other hand Burst can just tell the court that they are definitely not suing Apple, and the court case against them will just disappear in thin air.
This is the same thing as in the Redhat vs. SCOX case, where SCO makes wild accusations of illegally copied code in Redhat Linux, and Redhat asks the court to stop SCO from making these accusations, and to stop SCO from threatening to sue Redhat.
>> Apple were negotiating with Burst, but reached an impasse where neither side wanted to give.
It doesn't really look like "Apple were negotiating". Burst contacted Apple to tell them they want money. Apple diligently listened to what Burst was saying, why they wanted money, and how much. I would assume that Apple's lawyers then asked Apple's engineers about their opinion: Did they develop anything using Burst's patents? Did they develop anything that was in hindsight covered by Burst's patents? Did they know of anything that might invalidate Burst's patents?
I would assume that they then decided how much money Apple would be willing to pay, based on this information, but also based on the assumption that unlike Microsoft, Apple has a reputation to lose. My guess is what Apple was willing to pay was not more than $1 million, and quite possibly zero.
Of course, once you start a lawsuit, you throw _everything_ at them. That's why Apple will try to invalidate Burst's patents; nobody knows how much chance this has to succeed. More likely Apple will succeed by demonstrating that they don't actually do anything covered by Burst's patents. But Apple's lawyers will and must put everything into the lawsuit that increases their chances to win.
>> Watch the sky or background. You can see the artifacts. Where there should be a clean black or a clean color gradient you can see blocks and patches of color, somewhat like a much shrunken gif or jpeg. HD-DVD or Blu-ray, with its more powerful and accurate H.264 or VC-1 codec eliminates these problems to a large extent.
Actually, H.264 on its own would eliminate these problems to a large extent on its own; HD-DVD or Blu-Ray is not really needed. A dual layer DVD gives you 9.4 GB or 10 Megabit/second for a two hour movie; that is plenty for H.264 to get rid of any artefacts.
You'd still need a new player, because a DVD player won't have the muscle to decode H.264 in realtime, even if you could upgrade the firmware, but most of the hardware, starting at the DVD press, could be used unchanged.
>> In fact, by wanting the government to protect the student, you're advocating the reduction of civil liberties, by wanting the government to interfere in a private matter between two parties.
If someone beats you up on the street, would you want the governement in the form of a policeman to interfere in a private matter between two parties?