From the article: "While processing 212 small retail orders that Knight had received from its customers...."
They processed these 212 orders. For their customers. Then they processed the same orders again. Without being asked to do so by their customers, so it was on their own account. Then again, and again, and again.
It's perfectly legal no matter what Apple says. Creating a business to redistribute like Psystar did isn't legal. A hobbyist should have full rights to create a hackintosh.
You're not allowed to copy any software except if the license allows it. Apple's license allows installing it on Apple branded computers. (Often more than one for the paid for versions, depending on the situation. For a free-as-in-free-beer version, it doesn't make a difference). There's also just a very small amount of DRM which checks if the OS is running on Apple hardware. It's easy to get around it, but still enough so that the DMCA catches.
That said, the difference between hobbyists and Psystar is whether Apple cares about it and takes action or not. Psystar not only created a business, but they made very very loud noises claiming that what they were doing was perfectly legal, making it basically impossible for Apple to ignore them.
And if the patent was filed in, say, 2003, where do you find 20 programmers who have been locked in a closet for the past decade such that their knowledge of the art is limited to what existed at the time of filing? Because everything is obvious in hindsight, if you give it sufficient time. I bet almost any Slashdotter in here could draw a spec for a simple internal combustion engine or steam engine on a napkin... so therefore those shouldn't have been patentable in the 1800s?
There are things that are obvious in hindsight - they are obvious once you see the invention. There are other things that are obvious because of the progress of things around us. I'd say a TiVo would be pretty obvious today, even if we never had seen one.
Now we just need to stop issuing obvious patents like being first to market with a device that has curved corners.
You're probably talking about Samsung. I know they have this rounded corner patent for the Galaxy S3, but they are not first to the market, and their previous products copied someone else.
It's free if you own a sufficiently new preceding version of OSX. If your current version is too old, you have to buy an intermediate version, upgrade to that, then upgrade to that again. Odds are, however, that such a machine doesn't meet the system requirements anyway.
Actually, no. You must own an Apple branded computer (that's the license requirement), and obviously you must have a Mac that is capable of running 10.9. In that case, it is free. If your current OS is too old to support the app store, it's a bit more difficult to get it, but not impossible. (Basically, ask someone else to download the installer for you and put it on a memory stick).
I'm not sure about the loser paying when the loser is the defendant. That means you can pay arbitrarily high fees to a lawyer to sue someone as long as you think you'll win.
German method: Plaintiff asks for money, defendant offers money (less or possibly zero). Court sets cost according the the value that is in argument (the difference). That's the fees that the lawyers get! Then if defendant is ordered to pay what he offered to pay anyway, he has won the case. If its more, the percentage he is ordered to pay is the percentage of the lawyers that he pays.
Example: You ask for $2.1 million. I offer $100,000. The court orders me to pay $120,000. We argued about two million. I was ordered to pay $20,000 = one percent beyond what I offered to pay anyway. I pay one percent of my lawyers and your lawyers, you pay 99%. And the lawyers get paid at the fixed "$2,000,000 rate" which is some small percentage of these two million.
Agreed. The solution is to use statute to redefine "obviousness". That standard should be redefined in statute to match the common understanding of that word instead of the absurd legal definition. You know that thing about a patent not being valid if a person of ordinary skill in the art [wikipedia.org] could reproduce it? To prove that all they should have to do is put twenty programmers on the stand and if ten of them can come up with that solution, then it's invalid. Done. And after that, the troll has to pay costs.
It's not just the obviousness. Patents should be on _how_ something is achieved, not _what_ is achieved. So there _might_ be a patent on _how_ a single click is transformed into a complete order, but I should be able to transform a single click into a complete order using a different method, without infringing on the patent.
If I invent a method that makes the brakes in your car more effective and reduces your stopping time, I should get a patent on that method, but not a patent on making cars stop quicker. Anyone else should be free to use a different method.
I think quite some progress has actually made in the non-obviousness department. The hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art is only ordinarily inventive, but has an unlimited knowledge of absolutely everything that has ever been published in the field. So none of your twenty developers might figure out that something can be achieved by combining totally obscure method A with totally obscure method B, since they have never heard of either. But combining them is still not patent worthy.
When your job is security, the best thing that can happen is that you do an excellent job, and the end result is - nothing. That's the whole idea of it. If you do your job right, nothing happens. If you do your job badly, shit happens. Stuff gets stolen, and so on.
So will anyone congratulate you for a job well done? No, they will only see money spent on your salary with zero results. You will look as if the company could do without you. You know better, but the people who might give you a raise don't. And the people who could fire you to safe on salaries and increase profits don't.
You get much better recognition in a job that visibly produces positive results.
So there is still wiggle room here for the police. Perhaps other jurisdictions will decide differently. Or perhaps, the search is reasonable in some cases but not others.
A search _is_ reasonable in some cases and not in others. The police can sometimes search your home without a warrant (if there is a crime in progress or similar), so obviously they can sometimes track your car without a warrant. It's just a rare situation.
i bet that the RSO needs to keep firm control when everybody around him is armed! I'd be like, what up mofo, I'm pretty sure I can use whatever ammunition I want!
He can ask you to leave. If you don't leave, it's called "armed trespass". In Florida, that's up to five years in jail. 10 years automatically if you point the gun at someone.
This is precisely why some argue that prostitution and recreational drugs should be legalized. When conflicts arise surrounding these relatively innocuous, yet illegal activities, there is no legal recourse for the parties involved. Only black-market resolutions are available (usually violence).
I remember reading that someone called the police because someone stole his illegal drugs. The police _did_ arrest the thief. They also arrested the guy who called the police...
Well, to be fair, Objective C is one thing, however Apple's related APIs are quite something else, and do represent potential vendor lock-in, particularly if you are careless about using them.
That's of course exactly the opposite of Windows APIs, or Android APIs, which will run anywhere. Or do they?
Why not make it official? Let's say politician X doesn't like the article written about him. Let him add a section _under his own name_ where he says what the truth is according to himself. Obviously the reader would know that this part wouldn't be unbiased.
On the other hand, there was the case of a German politician where Wikipedia got the name wrong - and wouldn't accept his statement what the correct name is. So it would be really good if that person could add a paragraph saying "these Wikidiots got my name wrong, and here's the correct name..."
I would have said that the fact that iWork is being bundled for free shows that Apple is concerned.
I love these pathetic attempts at spinning something into a negative. According to you, Google must be shitting themselves, since they have been giving away lots of software for free for many years.
This will be "unfair" compared to a mileage-tracking system in that people with more fuel-efficient cars will pay less than their share, and people with less fuel-efficient cars will pay more. But that seems reasonable from the perspective of pricing negative externalities: maybe people who use more gas per mile should be taxed more per mile.
To a large extent, your use of fuel is proportional to your damage to roads. Lots of weight, acceleration and braking, will all put more wear on the road and at the same time use more fuel.
... Which affect the 5 people who are actually using Windows 8. The entire interface is an unmitigated disaster. DOSSHELL looked prettier and was more functional than Windows 8. The OS has multiple personality disorder and the interface looks like it was gang-banged by Crayola. Nobody wants to touch it even with a 10 foot pole.:/
Yesterday, I had the "pleasure" of trying to help some people who were using Windows 8 and hated, hated, hated it. After about ten seconds I knew why. So far everybody getting hold of my MacBook has just used it. Windows 8 hides the UI. You can't do things unless you know how to. You can't figure out how to do things. It's just impossible. The bloody start page with its tiles just want sit still for a second. All the time things are changing, so it's impossible to concentrate on anything. Their most pressing question was how to have two different windows in the browser so you can look at two different things (nobody knew which browser it was and I couldn't find out). Took me ages and a web search to find out how to get at browser tabs. Two reasonably intelligent people who are not computer geeks just couldn't figure it out. From the UI, I wouldn't have figured it out.
And again, so far _everybody_ has been able to use my MacBook with Safari without any problems. Including four year olds and some people who are usually quite clueless.
The Microsoft KB says that all they changed was the user-agent string, taking out the "MSIE". Changing it back supposedly makes Google work. This implies Google has special-case code for Internet Explorer. I thought that went out with IE 6.
Google needed special code both for Internet Explorer and for Safari to get around users' privacy settings.
OTOH Apple did a bunch of decent technical work, and some truly mind-blowing design work. Then they sued people on the basis of the design patents. Since they never agreed not to do that, and it was trivial for Samsung to design it's way around said patents once they realized that courts enforce design patents, Samsung got it's ass reamed in court and nobody is worried that Samsung will be forced out of the smartphone market.
As an example of working around design patents, look at Samsung Galaxy S3 and later. You always hear the "Apple patented rounded rectangles" brigade screaming, but fact is that the S3 with its rounded corners does _not_ infringe on Apple's design patent, and Samsung actually has its own "rounded corner" design patent for the S3, so if Apple (fat chance) or anyone else copied it, Samsung could successfully sue them.
What I'm wondering, is if the patents are so essential to an industry, why doesn't the government just come in and say "Hey Samsung, we're taking your patent. You are free to continue to use it without paying us any licensing fees, but we will also license it out to who ever we choose"? What is the benefit of letting Samsung keep the patent vs the method I just described?
No, Samsung is supposed to get a fair and reasonable license fee for these patents. And standard essential patents are not standard essential by magic. They are standard essential because a standard was created that uses the patent, and the patent holder agreed to it being included in the standard.
nd the solution that would have been used is to invalidate the patents by the EU (nuclear option) if Samsung did not quit abusing.
I think the threat of a 13.7 BILLION Euro fine was slightly more nuclear. Plus obviously any attempt to enforce these patents would be illegal, no matter whether the patents were valid or not.
Slashdot Mirror
From the article: "While processing 212 small retail orders that Knight had received from its customers...."
They processed these 212 orders. For their customers. Then they processed the same orders again. Without being asked to do so by their customers, so it was on their own account. Then again, and again, and again.
It's perfectly legal no matter what Apple says. Creating a business to redistribute like Psystar did isn't legal. A hobbyist should have full rights to create a hackintosh.
You're not allowed to copy any software except if the license allows it. Apple's license allows installing it on Apple branded computers. (Often more than one for the paid for versions, depending on the situation. For a free-as-in-free-beer version, it doesn't make a difference). There's also just a very small amount of DRM which checks if the OS is running on Apple hardware. It's easy to get around it, but still enough so that the DMCA catches.
That said, the difference between hobbyists and Psystar is whether Apple cares about it and takes action or not. Psystar not only created a business, but they made very very loud noises claiming that what they were doing was perfectly legal, making it basically impossible for Apple to ignore them.
And if the patent was filed in, say, 2003, where do you find 20 programmers who have been locked in a closet for the past decade such that their knowledge of the art is limited to what existed at the time of filing? Because everything is obvious in hindsight, if you give it sufficient time. I bet almost any Slashdotter in here could draw a spec for a simple internal combustion engine or steam engine on a napkin... so therefore those shouldn't have been patentable in the 1800s?
There are things that are obvious in hindsight - they are obvious once you see the invention. There are other things that are obvious because of the progress of things around us. I'd say a TiVo would be pretty obvious today, even if we never had seen one.
Now we just need to stop issuing obvious patents like being first to market with a device that has curved corners.
You're probably talking about Samsung. I know they have this rounded corner patent for the Galaxy S3, but they are not first to the market, and their previous products copied someone else.
Next issue: Making software patents entirely illegal. Math is a public good.
Software isn't maths.
Unless you agree that everything other than software is quantum physics.
It's free if you own a sufficiently new preceding version of OSX. If your current version is too old, you have to buy an intermediate version, upgrade to that, then upgrade to that again. Odds are, however, that such a machine doesn't meet the system requirements anyway.
Actually, no. You must own an Apple branded computer (that's the license requirement), and obviously you must have a Mac that is capable of running 10.9. In that case, it is free. If your current OS is too old to support the app store, it's a bit more difficult to get it, but not impossible. (Basically, ask someone else to download the installer for you and put it on a memory stick).
It's not free. It's bundled with expensive hardware.
No. It's free. It's bundled with expensive hardware. As it so happens, with expensive hardware that is worth the money.
I'm not sure about the loser paying when the loser is the defendant. That means you can pay arbitrarily high fees to a lawyer to sue someone as long as you think you'll win.
German method: Plaintiff asks for money, defendant offers money (less or possibly zero). Court sets cost according the the value that is in argument (the difference). That's the fees that the lawyers get! Then if defendant is ordered to pay what he offered to pay anyway, he has won the case. If its more, the percentage he is ordered to pay is the percentage of the lawyers that he pays.
Example: You ask for $2.1 million. I offer $100,000. The court orders me to pay $120,000. We argued about two million. I was ordered to pay $20,000 = one percent beyond what I offered to pay anyway. I pay one percent of my lawyers and your lawyers, you pay 99%. And the lawyers get paid at the fixed "$2,000,000 rate" which is some small percentage of these two million.
Agreed. The solution is to use statute to redefine "obviousness". That standard should be redefined in statute to match the common understanding of that word instead of the absurd legal definition. You know that thing about a patent not being valid if a person of ordinary skill in the art [wikipedia.org] could reproduce it? To prove that all they should have to do is put twenty programmers on the stand and if ten of them can come up with that solution, then it's invalid. Done. And after that, the troll has to pay costs.
It's not just the obviousness. Patents should be on _how_ something is achieved, not _what_ is achieved. So there _might_ be a patent on _how_ a single click is transformed into a complete order, but I should be able to transform a single click into a complete order using a different method, without infringing on the patent.
If I invent a method that makes the brakes in your car more effective and reduces your stopping time, I should get a patent on that method, but not a patent on making cars stop quicker. Anyone else should be free to use a different method.
I think quite some progress has actually made in the non-obviousness department. The hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art is only ordinarily inventive, but has an unlimited knowledge of absolutely everything that has ever been published in the field. So none of your twenty developers might figure out that something can be achieved by combining totally obscure method A with totally obscure method B, since they have never heard of either. But combining them is still not patent worthy.
When your job is security, the best thing that can happen is that you do an excellent job, and the end result is - nothing. That's the whole idea of it. If you do your job right, nothing happens. If you do your job badly, shit happens. Stuff gets stolen, and so on.
So will anyone congratulate you for a job well done? No, they will only see money spent on your salary with zero results. You will look as if the company could do without you. You know better, but the people who might give you a raise don't. And the people who could fire you to safe on salaries and increase profits don't.
You get much better recognition in a job that visibly produces positive results.
So there is still wiggle room here for the police. Perhaps other jurisdictions will decide differently. Or perhaps, the search is reasonable in some cases but not others.
A search _is_ reasonable in some cases and not in others. The police can sometimes search your home without a warrant (if there is a crime in progress or similar), so obviously they can sometimes track your car without a warrant. It's just a rare situation.
i bet that the RSO needs to keep firm control when everybody around him is armed! I'd be like, what up mofo, I'm pretty sure I can use whatever ammunition I want!
He can ask you to leave. If you don't leave, it's called "armed trespass". In Florida, that's up to five years in jail. 10 years automatically if you point the gun at someone.
This is precisely why some argue that prostitution and recreational drugs should be legalized. When conflicts arise surrounding these relatively innocuous, yet illegal activities, there is no legal recourse for the parties involved. Only black-market resolutions are available (usually violence).
I remember reading that someone called the police because someone stole his illegal drugs. The police _did_ arrest the thief. They also arrested the guy who called the police...
Consequently, things like secret tracking to discover a crime without a warrant is inadmissible, but not punishable.
Evidence being inadmissable _is_ the punishment.
Well, to be fair, Objective C is one thing, however Apple's related APIs are quite something else, and do represent potential vendor lock-in, particularly if you are careless about using them.
That's of course exactly the opposite of Windows APIs, or Android APIs, which will run anywhere. Or do they?
Its garbage like this, and Apple's willingness to let the NSA spy on their customers 24/7 that has turned me away from OS X.
So what evidence is there that Apple has been willing to let the NSA spy on their customers _ever_?
Why not make it official? Let's say politician X doesn't like the article written about him. Let him add a section _under his own name_ where he says what the truth is according to himself. Obviously the reader would know that this part wouldn't be unbiased.
On the other hand, there was the case of a German politician where Wikipedia got the name wrong - and wouldn't accept his statement what the correct name is. So it would be really good if that person could add a paragraph saying "these Wikidiots got my name wrong, and here's the correct name..."
I would have said that the fact that iWork is being bundled for free shows that Apple is concerned.
I love these pathetic attempts at spinning something into a negative. According to you, Google must be shitting themselves, since they have been giving away lots of software for free for many years.
This will be "unfair" compared to a mileage-tracking system in that people with more fuel-efficient cars will pay less than their share, and people with less fuel-efficient cars will pay more. But that seems reasonable from the perspective of pricing negative externalities: maybe people who use more gas per mile should be taxed more per mile.
To a large extent, your use of fuel is proportional to your damage to roads. Lots of weight, acceleration and braking, will all put more wear on the road and at the same time use more fuel.
If you have the resources to put somebody in space, you can afford to pay a lawyer to answer this question....
If you have the resources to put somebody into space, but not the resources to get them back, then the lawyer you need is quite expensive...
... Which affect the 5 people who are actually using Windows 8. The entire interface is an unmitigated disaster. DOSSHELL looked prettier and was more functional than Windows 8. The OS has multiple personality disorder and the interface looks like it was gang-banged by Crayola. Nobody wants to touch it even with a 10 foot pole. :/
Yesterday, I had the "pleasure" of trying to help some people who were using Windows 8 and hated, hated, hated it. After about ten seconds I knew why. So far everybody getting hold of my MacBook has just used it. Windows 8 hides the UI. You can't do things unless you know how to. You can't figure out how to do things. It's just impossible. The bloody start page with its tiles just want sit still for a second. All the time things are changing, so it's impossible to concentrate on anything. Their most pressing question was how to have two different windows in the browser so you can look at two different things (nobody knew which browser it was and I couldn't find out). Took me ages and a web search to find out how to get at browser tabs. Two reasonably intelligent people who are not computer geeks just couldn't figure it out. From the UI, I wouldn't have figured it out.
And again, so far _everybody_ has been able to use my MacBook with Safari without any problems. Including four year olds and some people who are usually quite clueless.
The Microsoft KB says that all they changed was the user-agent string, taking out the "MSIE". Changing it back supposedly makes Google work. This implies Google has special-case code for Internet Explorer. I thought that went out with IE 6.
Google needed special code both for Internet Explorer and for Safari to get around users' privacy settings.
OTOH Apple did a bunch of decent technical work, and some truly mind-blowing design work. Then they sued people on the basis of the design patents. Since they never agreed not to do that, and it was trivial for Samsung to design it's way around said patents once they realized that courts enforce design patents, Samsung got it's ass reamed in court and nobody is worried that Samsung will be forced out of the smartphone market.
As an example of working around design patents, look at Samsung Galaxy S3 and later. You always hear the "Apple patented rounded rectangles" brigade screaming, but fact is that the S3 with its rounded corners does _not_ infringe on Apple's design patent, and Samsung actually has its own "rounded corner" design patent for the S3, so if Apple (fat chance) or anyone else copied it, Samsung could successfully sue them.
What I'm wondering, is if the patents are so essential to an industry, why doesn't the government just come in and say "Hey Samsung, we're taking your patent. You are free to continue to use it without paying us any licensing fees, but we will also license it out to who ever we choose"? What is the benefit of letting Samsung keep the patent vs the method I just described?
No, Samsung is supposed to get a fair and reasonable license fee for these patents. And standard essential patents are not standard essential by magic. They are standard essential because a standard was created that uses the patent, and the patent holder agreed to it being included in the standard.
nd the solution that would have been used is to invalidate the patents by the EU (nuclear option) if Samsung did not quit abusing.
I think the threat of a 13.7 BILLION Euro fine was slightly more nuclear. Plus obviously any attempt to enforce these patents would be illegal, no matter whether the patents were valid or not.