That's a lot of words and an odd way of saying "I have no idea what I'm talking about and don't know that the autopilot feature has an explicit disclaimer that it is still in beta and actually instructs the user thatthey must remain alert and ready to take control of the vehicle at any time."
The argument was that the name "autopilot" made it sound like it should function fully autonomously like the autopilot in a plane.
I was pointing out that, in fact, the autopilot in a plane does not function that way and does require constant attention from a pilot, just like Tesla's autopilot requires constant attention from the driver.
You (and the AC before you, who won't be getting a reply) are attacking a claim I never made. Bravo.
I never said, or implied, otherwise, so I'm going to assume your comment was in support of my point and thank you for the effort. This is correct.
Of course, there are other types of trademarks, including trade dress (color schemes and other design elements used in products) and logos, a trademark isn't always a word or phrase. But I think we're all on the same page here, that we're talking about words.
Surely, the AC I was replying to knows this, as well, given his claimed background in law.
Now, one can say the part of just 'comparing' against a database isn't 'smart' and shouldn't be considered part of the chessgame, but that would be faulty. Chessplayers, and certainly the top-players ALSO learn and know myriads of games that were played in the past, and also fall back on that when it can be applied. We didn't use to have any problems with that, and also considered it part of their prowess in chess, so I don't see why we should now deny that, because computers do it a millionfold better.
That's not what I'm referring to. I'm not saying computers that learn from past games aren't "smart", but they're also not the ones who beat grandmasters. Computing (or having pre-computed) every possible outcome into a lookup table is the only strategy thus far that can consistently beat a grandmaster, and that's not smart, it's somewhat of a cheat. And no, no human can do that.
I'm actually reasonably content if I find someone on slashdot or another forum, who's willing to debate in a calm and reasonable manner. Sometimes ideas just differ, and sometimes the premises one start with is too divergent to come to any fruitful conclusion, but it's highly preferable to just the nonsensical flamefests one sees all too often these days.
Likewise; of late though, I'm running thin on the patience to find that.
I would diverge opinion with you, thus, that slashdot is like chess.
I can agree to disagree but, first, I would like to explain my point.
There is a fair amount of strategy involved in entering a debate, just as there is in a game of chess. Sure, there are differences; especially when you know there is a high probability the your opponent is simply a troll. As for rules, standard debate rules apply[1] and when the opponent fails to render an argument or works to degrade the conversation into one of the aforementioned flamefests, they're showing that they've ceded the debate and are simply being a poor sport (e.g. you've won at that point); sometimes they don't even know they've done it and won't admit defeat, but if they've stopped posing arguments to defend their point they've lost, just as you've lost when you've run out of pieces with which to defend your king. Indeed, there are enough parallels that can be drawn that you can treat the two as similar.
Ultimately, the victor is made clear and accepted by BOTH parties
That assumes that both players are mature and experienced enough to recognize the loss. I haven't played much actual chess since I was a kid playing against my dad, mostly because the people I can find to play with tend to refuse to accept the loss even when they clearly have no viable moves. Checkmate, but the king still stands. It's clear, when someone has no move left but to call names and make personal attacks, they've lost. So yes, there's a clear victor in a debate, even an online debate: either the two parties agree that one won, or one concedes the match. Yes, stalemates also happen; sometimes, both opponents cede the argument and resort to name calling and personal attacks; sometimes there is no winner, just as with chess.
and in the very exceptional case where there is dispute, it's the tournament leader that decides who's the victor
You can only make that argument if you artificially restrict the definition of "chess" to only include tournament play. Even then, the moderation system serves that purpose, to a degree.
Check.
[1]: Of course, it's not formal, there's no official Slashdot rulebook. However, as someone who seems to appreciate a good debate, you might appreciate this, as well.
Spotify wasn't allowing a creation of a free account that would provide the service. Instead, in their app, they were allowing the creation of a free account that would tell them where to buy the service. That's not how the App Store works.
My client's app, which sees one or two updates a month (12-20 reviews by Apple per year) and does the exact same thing, begs to differ.
The App Store is much more like a consignment store than a grocery store,
I wasn't the one who made the grocery store argument; you'll note that I pointed out a very obvious flaw in that argument and alluded to the existence of several more.
so a consignment store that didn't allow people using its services to advertise in their shop how to get the stuff cheaper would be a better comparison.
Better, yes; but still not quote right. There's not a brick and mortar store concept that really fits; stores sell products that require registration all the time. Further, the email sent to people who register via the app is not part of the app, which is all Apple's rules can govern. Again, if this was against the rules, Apple would have pulled my client's app during one of the over 100 reviews it's undergone since its release nearly 6 years ago.
“Shortly after Spotify submitted its app on May 26, our team identified a number of issues, including that the In-App Purchase feature had been removed and replaced with an account sign-up feature clearly intended to circumvent Apple’s In-App Purchase rules,” Sewell explains.
So, then, every app with an account sign-up feature must be in violation, right? No? Well, then...
Spotify submitted a new version which continued to ask users for an email address in order to invite them to sign up for a subscription via the web interface at $9.99 per month while simultaneously jacking up in-app subscription price to $12.99.
Apple's rules say nothing about asking for email addresses, nor do (or can) they prohibit external advertising.
Apple does not allow links to or mentions of other places where you can buy services. Spotify is in compliance with those guidelines; if they were not, Apple would have stated as much and left it at that. Instead, they're whining about shit like "we feel like they're doing this to get around our rules without actually violating them, so we're not going to allow it" while allowing the exact same behavior in other apps, including several they directly point to as "doing it right" in their response.
Hell, one of my clients has an app that sees updates on at least a monthly basis; their app requires a login and provides facilities to create an account (including collecting an email address) right there, on the screen it presents to you the first time you run it. It gets reviewed by Apple no less than 12-20 times a year. If that wasn't allowed, it wouldn't be in the store.
You even have those that actually *learn* from their own play, and some who offer some randomness when they have two options that are equal, making them far more unpredictable, even when in the exact same situation.
Are those the programs that play better than their human counterparts? Or is it the ones "reading from the playbook"? I know the answer. Do you?
Just like you, I used to think it's that 'awareness' that makes the difference
Does awareness make a difference in chess when you have a playbook of every possible outcome? No. Does it make one smarter? Yes. There's a huge difference between having the smarts to figure something out (that's intelligence) and having the ability to, essentially, read a map and skip routes that won't take you where you want to go. The computers that "beat" the best human players do the latter; the ones attempting to do the former don't fare quite as well.
In fact, if I would beat you in chess, am I then 'smart' and you not?
It would depend not only on how you define "smart" (as you state), but also how you beat me. Did you beat me because the reference of past games that was handed to you was more complete than the one that was handed to me? Because that's how the computers that routinely beat the best human players do it; they run, essentially, on cheat sheets. Did you beat me by studying my prior games and learning my habits so you can counter them? You might be smarter. Was it chance? We'll have to play again to find out.
Arguing on Slashdot is very much akin to chess and I don't often lose. I've had a stalemate on occasion, and I've encountered the odd opponent who refused to realize his king was in jeopardy, who I decided it would be entertaining to string along, but a loss is very rare. You might prefer Global Thermonuclear War.
I think he meant "congested" as in traffic. And when more people take public transportation, the congestion dies down, people notice, and go back to driving their cars because "well it's not so bad anymore", and there you have it: more congestion.
He was saying more people use it in areas where driving is inconvenient due to traffic. Whether or not that's true is debatable, but if we work on that assumption, the above becomes plausible.
Exactly. Society should be held responsible for creating a situation where so many people want to kill so many other people. If we didn't have guns, would you be going after knife manufacturers? Baseball bat manufacturers? Spoon manufacturers? Whichever being, entity, or process ultimately created water?
Because any of those could be used to kill people, instead.
They're all pretty ineffective against a brown bear that wants to rip your face off on the trail, though. Or a deer you can't get close enough to in order to stab, bash in, or drown so that you can have a meal that night.
They're all also a hell of a lot less humane than a slug the the brain. Why do you want to torture animals?
Fact is they have a driver assist system called "autopilot" where autopilot is a fairly well defined term.
Autopilot is a fairly well defined term, yes... in the aviation field. And, even then, pilots are required to remain at the controls in case something goes wrong and they need to react.
Are you a pilot? No.
How do I know? Because I know actual commercial pilots and I've asked them (out of prior curiosity) what they can and can not do with autopilot.
A pilot would never, for example, turn on autopilot and take a nap at the same time as their copilot; they'd get fired for that, or worse. Yes, a pilot can take a nap during a flight, while autopilot is engaged and their copilot is awake, alert, and able to control the plane. There are always at least two entities in control of the plane, lest one of them fuck up.
There is a mile of difference between a trade mark and a generic descriptive term.
Yup, a trademark is usually a name of something and a generic descriptive term usually is not. Does your name describe what you do or how you work? Or does it just identify you as a person?
If you gave a person a book containing a table of every possible chess game outcome and let them reference it during the game with no time limit, the human could do what the computer does: look up its moves in that table.
That's not being "smart", that's having the answers handed to you.
Here's one reference to case law from 2006, though not the one I was referring to (which was much older). This one's relating to the use of said manuals for tracking maintenance intervals, rather than performing actual maintenance. The courts basically said not allowing use of the manuals in this way would grant a judicially-enforced monopoly on maintenance tracking and would be injurious to the enforcement of antitrust and restriction-of-trade laws. IIRC, the ruling I'm thinking of says something very similar with regard to using said manual for actual repairs; maintenance tracking was left for the courts to rule on in 2006 as it is a wholly different use of the manuals.
It comes down to case law and I don't have the case name handy. I know it was tested in court a few years back and found to be fair use; I don't work in that field and hadn't really thought it relevant until recently, so I never looked that closely. I'll come back and post that info here if I find it.
If they throw it away they pay for it; if the supplier buys it back, they buy it back (and that, my friend, is a sale). Credit is irrelevant. I spent a decade in retail, none of this is news to me. Yes, I simplified it a bit, but my point still stands: the store is buying from the supplier; Apple is not buying from Spotify.
Spotify can have their app in the iOS app store and not use Apple's payment system.
Spotify is claiming that Apple did not allow their update to do just this. The article you referenced about Apple's response (thanks, again) did not state otherwise. In fact, it stated:
“Shortly after Spotify submitted its app on May 26, our team identified a number of issues, including that the In-App Purchase feature had been removed and replaced with an account sign-up feature clearly intended to circumvent Apple’s In-App Purchase rules,” Sewell explains.
So they were rejected for removing the in-app purchases and allowing users to create a free account to browse the content they can pay to stream? Neither of those are violations of Apple's terms and Apple is stretching with their "intent" statement.
Spotify submitted a new version which continued to ask users for an email address in order to invite them to sign up for a subscription via the web interface at $9.99 per month while simultaneously jacking up in-app subscription price to $12.99.
Apple's terms dictate that they can not state this within the app itself but place no such restrictions on external advertising, such as email. Additionally, Spotify did not "jack up" the price from $9.99 to $12.99 in the app, they've always charged that price. They pay out 70% of revenue in royalties based on a $9.99/mo subscription; what's left after Apple takes the other 30%? They charge more through the iOS app so they can have some revenue to pay their employees, pay for servers and bandwidth, and keep the lights on.
For example, every large chain grocery store has it's own "branded" food alongside regular 3rd party products, which significantly disadvantages 3rd party products.
There's so much wrong with that statement and it doesn't apply here for so many reasons. Where to start?...
First of all, Spotify is paying Apple for inclusion in their store (developer fees), whereas grocery stores pay for the items on their shelves, whether they sell or not. Do I need to go on? Let me know; I can if necessary.
Do you actually believe Spotifiy doesn't make far more than 20% profit on their rates?
Spotify pays out 70% of revenue. Then, they, have to pay their employees, pay for servers and bandwidth, and keep the lights on. Their margins are very, very slim.
Not to mention that you forget higher profits through increased sales.
Increased sales do not affect margins; more sales at a loss is just a bigger loss.
IOW it is possible, others do it, but somehow Spotify fucked up and it's Apple's fault.
Yes, it's possible and others do it; Apple is not allowing Spotify to do it, but that does not necessarily indicate that Spotify fucked up.
You always take a dump onto these pages every time you post here - fine that you finally admit it.
:) I was literally sitting on the toilet taking my morning dump. Funny, though.
So you ignored everything you wrote? Good idea. Bye
Your post, not my quotes therein.
The lack of points against (or even mention of) the legal facts and opinions I presented is very telling, indeed.
Our guidelines help competition, not hurt it. The fact that we compete has never influenced how Apple treats Spotify or other successful competitors like Google Play Music, Tidal, Amazon Music, Pandora or the numerous other apps on the App Store that distribute digital music.
“That’s why we find it troubling that you are asking for exemptions to the rules we apply to all developers and are publicly resorting to rumors and half-truths about our service,“ Sewell concludes.
While it may hold true that the guidelines themselves may help competition (arguable) and that Apple's own competition may not influence how they treat competitors (arguable), that statement ignores one very important fact. In markets where Apple does compete (e.g. music streaming), Apple does, in fact, not apply those same rules to all developers; they allow themselves to sell directly from within their own apps. Sure, they might argue that they also charge themselves the same 30%, but that's probably the most hollow argument they could make; if you have $100 and you pay yourself $30, you still have $100; however, if you take the same $100 and you pay me $30, you only have $70.
The exemptions Spotify is seeking are exemptions which would bring Apple's conduct back in line with existing antitrust laws. See my analysis. IANAL but I do have legal education.
You mean apart from swallowing the fee themselves, like most other companies do?
That would be the "take an 18% loss" option.
Or simply not offering a subscription in-app?
Their claim is that this is what they were trying to do in the update that was rejected. That would be the "or leave" option.
You'd have trouble finding your own ass,
I'm shitting as I write this; I'd say I found my own ass just fine, thanks.
but that's beside the point.
Having read you entire post twice and discarded the invalid, incorrect, or irrelevant portions, I'm left with nothing and have to ask: what was the point?
What Microsoft got in trouble was that they got in trouble before and consented " not to tie other Microsoft products to the sale of Windows " to get out of it.
Yes, that's bundling which is illegal under...
You wouldn't find that statute if you were a lawyer either.
Are you ready to stand corrected? The Sherman Antitrust Act, as well as the Clayton Antitrust Act. I wasn't sure either applied in this case, so I gave them another read-through. The Sherman Act is short so you can probably manage to read it all, but look specifically at section 2. Since it's quite packed with legalese (now, I did say IANAL, but I did not say I don't have any formal education in the field; I do and I can read and understand this crap just fine, I simply don't work with it every day in order to be able to recall it on-demand), you might have some difficulty in following it, so here are a couple easierreferences for the Sherman Act.
The Clayton Act clarifies the Sherman Act, specifically stating:
(f) Knowingly inducing or receiving discriminatory price
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, knowingly to induce or receive a discrimination in price which is prohibited by this section.
and
Sec. 14. Sale, etc., on agreement not to use goods of competitor
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.
Read between the lines and the real message here is that Apple Music is kicking Spotify's ass.
At last count, Spotify has 30 million subscribers to Apple Music's 15 million; and that's despite Apple Music recently being made available on Android. The lines pretty clearly indicate that Spotify is beating the shit out of Apple Music, whether you read on, over, under, or between them.
What's interesting is that, because the car makers often make the manuals unavailable, or only available under onerous terms or fees, the possession and use of an illicit copy of such a manual in the course of a repair has been legislated to be fair use. Because possession of the manual is fair use, any other fair use of the material is also defensible; for example, education, criticism, commentary, or parody. It's still technically illegal to distribute the manuals (outside of the fair use exceptions), but that's gotten around by distributing them from countries where US copyright means fuck-all.
Illegally obtained copies of vehicle repair manuals are fair use when the manufacturer does not make them available to the end user through legal channels; this is no different.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a lot of words and an odd way of saying "I have no idea what I'm talking about and don't know that the autopilot feature has an explicit disclaimer that it is still in beta and actually instructs the user thatthey must remain alert and ready to take control of the vehicle at any time."
The argument was that the name "autopilot" made it sound like it should function fully autonomously like the autopilot in a plane.
I was pointing out that, in fact, the autopilot in a plane does not function that way and does require constant attention from a pilot, just like Tesla's autopilot requires constant attention from the driver.
You (and the AC before you, who won't be getting a reply) are attacking a claim I never made. Bravo.
Impressive, if repeatable. Chance (people make mistakes) if not.
I never said, or implied, otherwise, so I'm going to assume your comment was in support of my point and thank you for the effort. This is correct.
Of course, there are other types of trademarks, including trade dress (color schemes and other design elements used in products) and logos, a trademark isn't always a word or phrase. But I think we're all on the same page here, that we're talking about words.
Surely, the AC I was replying to knows this, as well, given his claimed background in law.
Now, one can say the part of just 'comparing' against a database isn't 'smart' and shouldn't be considered part of the chessgame, but that would be faulty. Chessplayers, and certainly the top-players ALSO learn and know myriads of games that were played in the past, and also fall back on that when it can be applied. We didn't use to have any problems with that, and also considered it part of their prowess in chess, so I don't see why we should now deny that, because computers do it a millionfold better.
That's not what I'm referring to. I'm not saying computers that learn from past games aren't "smart", but they're also not the ones who beat grandmasters. Computing (or having pre-computed) every possible outcome into a lookup table is the only strategy thus far that can consistently beat a grandmaster, and that's not smart, it's somewhat of a cheat. And no, no human can do that.
I'm actually reasonably content if I find someone on slashdot or another forum, who's willing to debate in a calm and reasonable manner. Sometimes ideas just differ, and sometimes the premises one start with is too divergent to come to any fruitful conclusion, but it's highly preferable to just the nonsensical flamefests one sees all too often these days.
Likewise; of late though, I'm running thin on the patience to find that.
I would diverge opinion with you, thus, that slashdot is like chess.
I can agree to disagree but, first, I would like to explain my point.
There is a fair amount of strategy involved in entering a debate, just as there is in a game of chess. Sure, there are differences; especially when you know there is a high probability the your opponent is simply a troll. As for rules, standard debate rules apply[1] and when the opponent fails to render an argument or works to degrade the conversation into one of the aforementioned flamefests, they're showing that they've ceded the debate and are simply being a poor sport (e.g. you've won at that point); sometimes they don't even know they've done it and won't admit defeat, but if they've stopped posing arguments to defend their point they've lost, just as you've lost when you've run out of pieces with which to defend your king. Indeed, there are enough parallels that can be drawn that you can treat the two as similar.
Ultimately, the victor is made clear and accepted by BOTH parties
That assumes that both players are mature and experienced enough to recognize the loss. I haven't played much actual chess since I was a kid playing against my dad, mostly because the people I can find to play with tend to refuse to accept the loss even when they clearly have no viable moves. Checkmate, but the king still stands. It's clear, when someone has no move left but to call names and make personal attacks, they've lost. So yes, there's a clear victor in a debate, even an online debate: either the two parties agree that one won, or one concedes the match. Yes, stalemates also happen; sometimes, both opponents cede the argument and resort to name calling and personal attacks; sometimes there is no winner, just as with chess.
and in the very exceptional case where there is dispute, it's the tournament leader that decides who's the victor
You can only make that argument if you artificially restrict the definition of "chess" to only include tournament play. Even then, the moderation system serves that purpose, to a degree.
Check.
[1]: Of course, it's not formal, there's no official Slashdot rulebook. However, as someone who seems to appreciate a good debate, you might appreciate this, as well.
Spotify wasn't allowing a creation of a free account that would provide the service. Instead, in their app, they were allowing the creation of a free account that would tell them where to buy the service. That's not how the App Store works.
My client's app, which sees one or two updates a month (12-20 reviews by Apple per year) and does the exact same thing, begs to differ.
The App Store is much more like a consignment store than a grocery store,
I wasn't the one who made the grocery store argument; you'll note that I pointed out a very obvious flaw in that argument and alluded to the existence of several more.
so a consignment store that didn't allow people using its services to advertise in their shop how to get the stuff cheaper would be a better comparison.
Better, yes; but still not quote right. There's not a brick and mortar store concept that really fits; stores sell products that require registration all the time. Further, the email sent to people who register via the app is not part of the app, which is all Apple's rules can govern. Again, if this was against the rules, Apple would have pulled my client's app during one of the over 100 reviews it's undergone since its release nearly 6 years ago.
“Shortly after Spotify submitted its app on May 26, our team identified a number of issues, including that the In-App Purchase feature had been removed and replaced with an account sign-up feature clearly intended to circumvent Apple’s In-App Purchase rules,” Sewell explains.
So, then, every app with an account sign-up feature must be in violation, right? No? Well, then...
Spotify submitted a new version which continued to ask users for an email address in order to invite them to sign up for a subscription via the web interface at $9.99 per month while simultaneously jacking up in-app subscription price to $12.99.
Apple's rules say nothing about asking for email addresses, nor do (or can) they prohibit external advertising.
Apple does not allow links to or mentions of other places where you can buy services. Spotify is in compliance with those guidelines; if they were not, Apple would have stated as much and left it at that. Instead, they're whining about shit like "we feel like they're doing this to get around our rules without actually violating them, so we're not going to allow it" while allowing the exact same behavior in other apps, including several they directly point to as "doing it right" in their response.
Hell, one of my clients has an app that sees updates on at least a monthly basis; their app requires a login and provides facilities to create an account (including collecting an email address) right there, on the screen it presents to you the first time you run it. It gets reviewed by Apple no less than 12-20 times a year. If that wasn't allowed, it wouldn't be in the store.
You even have those that actually *learn* from their own play, and some who offer some randomness when they have two options that are equal, making them far more unpredictable, even when in the exact same situation.
Are those the programs that play better than their human counterparts? Or is it the ones "reading from the playbook"? I know the answer. Do you?
Just like you, I used to think it's that 'awareness' that makes the difference
Does awareness make a difference in chess when you have a playbook of every possible outcome? No. Does it make one smarter? Yes. There's a huge difference between having the smarts to figure something out (that's intelligence) and having the ability to, essentially, read a map and skip routes that won't take you where you want to go. The computers that "beat" the best human players do the latter; the ones attempting to do the former don't fare quite as well.
In fact, if I would beat you in chess, am I then 'smart' and you not?
It would depend not only on how you define "smart" (as you state), but also how you beat me. Did you beat me because the reference of past games that was handed to you was more complete than the one that was handed to me? Because that's how the computers that routinely beat the best human players do it; they run, essentially, on cheat sheets. Did you beat me by studying my prior games and learning my habits so you can counter them? You might be smarter. Was it chance? We'll have to play again to find out.
Arguing on Slashdot is very much akin to chess and I don't often lose. I've had a stalemate on occasion, and I've encountered the odd opponent who refused to realize his king was in jeopardy, who I decided it would be entertaining to string along, but a loss is very rare. You might prefer Global Thermonuclear War.
I think he meant "congested" as in traffic. And when more people take public transportation, the congestion dies down, people notice, and go back to driving their cars because "well it's not so bad anymore", and there you have it: more congestion.
He was saying more people use it in areas where driving is inconvenient due to traffic. Whether or not that's true is debatable, but if we work on that assumption, the above becomes plausible.
Exactly. Society should be held responsible for creating a situation where so many people want to kill so many other people. If we didn't have guns, would you be going after knife manufacturers? Baseball bat manufacturers? Spoon manufacturers? Whichever being, entity, or process ultimately created water?
Because any of those could be used to kill people, instead.
They're all pretty ineffective against a brown bear that wants to rip your face off on the trail, though. Or a deer you can't get close enough to in order to stab, bash in, or drown so that you can have a meal that night.
They're all also a hell of a lot less humane than a slug the the brain. Why do you want to torture animals?
Fact is they have a driver assist system called "autopilot" where autopilot is a fairly well defined term.
Autopilot is a fairly well defined term, yes... in the aviation field. And, even then, pilots are required to remain at the controls in case something goes wrong and they need to react.
Are you a pilot? No.
How do I know? Because I know actual commercial pilots and I've asked them (out of prior curiosity) what they can and can not do with autopilot.
A pilot would never, for example, turn on autopilot and take a nap at the same time as their copilot; they'd get fired for that, or worse. Yes, a pilot can take a nap during a flight, while autopilot is engaged and their copilot is awake, alert, and able to control the plane. There are always at least two entities in control of the plane, lest one of them fuck up.
There is a mile of difference between a trade mark and a generic descriptive term.
Yup, a trademark is usually a name of something and a generic descriptive term usually is not. Does your name describe what you do or how you work? Or does it just identify you as a person?
If you gave a person a book containing a table of every possible chess game outcome and let them reference it during the game with no time limit, the human could do what the computer does: look up its moves in that table.
That's not being "smart", that's having the answers handed to you.
Here's one reference to case law from 2006, though not the one I was referring to (which was much older). This one's relating to the use of said manuals for tracking maintenance intervals, rather than performing actual maintenance. The courts basically said not allowing use of the manuals in this way would grant a judicially-enforced monopoly on maintenance tracking and would be injurious to the enforcement of antitrust and restriction-of-trade laws. IIRC, the ruling I'm thinking of says something very similar with regard to using said manual for actual repairs; maintenance tracking was left for the courts to rule on in 2006 as it is a wholly different use of the manuals.
It comes down to case law and I don't have the case name handy. I know it was tested in court a few years back and found to be fair use; I don't work in that field and hadn't really thought it relevant until recently, so I never looked that closely. I'll come back and post that info here if I find it.
If they throw it away they pay for it; if the supplier buys it back, they buy it back (and that, my friend, is a sale). Credit is irrelevant. I spent a decade in retail, none of this is news to me. Yes, I simplified it a bit, but my point still stands: the store is buying from the supplier; Apple is not buying from Spotify.
Spotify can have their app in the iOS app store and not use Apple's payment system.
Spotify is claiming that Apple did not allow their update to do just this. The article you referenced about Apple's response (thanks, again) did not state otherwise. In fact, it stated:
“Shortly after Spotify submitted its app on May 26, our team identified a number of issues, including that the In-App Purchase feature had been removed and replaced with an account sign-up feature clearly intended to circumvent Apple’s In-App Purchase rules,” Sewell explains.
So they were rejected for removing the in-app purchases and allowing users to create a free account to browse the content they can pay to stream? Neither of those are violations of Apple's terms and Apple is stretching with their "intent" statement.
Spotify submitted a new version which continued to ask users for an email address in order to invite them to sign up for a subscription via the web interface at $9.99 per month while simultaneously jacking up in-app subscription price to $12.99.
Apple's terms dictate that they can not state this within the app itself but place no such restrictions on external advertising, such as email. Additionally, Spotify did not "jack up" the price from $9.99 to $12.99 in the app, they've always charged that price. They pay out 70% of revenue in royalties based on a $9.99/mo subscription; what's left after Apple takes the other 30%? They charge more through the iOS app so they can have some revenue to pay their employees, pay for servers and bandwidth, and keep the lights on.
For example, every large chain grocery store has it's own "branded" food alongside regular 3rd party products, which significantly disadvantages 3rd party products.
There's so much wrong with that statement and it doesn't apply here for so many reasons. Where to start? ...
First of all, Spotify is paying Apple for inclusion in their store (developer fees), whereas grocery stores pay for the items on their shelves, whether they sell or not. Do I need to go on? Let me know; I can if necessary.
Do you actually believe Spotifiy doesn't make far more than 20% profit on their rates?
Spotify pays out 70% of revenue. Then, they, have to pay their employees, pay for servers and bandwidth, and keep the lights on. Their margins are very, very slim.
Not to mention that you forget higher profits through increased sales.
Increased sales do not affect margins; more sales at a loss is just a bigger loss.
IOW it is possible, others do it, but somehow Spotify fucked up and it's Apple's fault.
Yes, it's possible and others do it; Apple is not allowing Spotify to do it, but that does not necessarily indicate that Spotify fucked up.
You always take a dump onto these pages every time you post here - fine that you finally admit it.
:) I was literally sitting on the toilet taking my morning dump. Funny, though.
So you ignored everything you wrote? Good idea. Bye
Your post, not my quotes therein.
The lack of points against (or even mention of) the legal facts and opinions I presented is very telling, indeed.
I find this interesting, though:
Our guidelines help competition, not hurt it. The fact that we compete has never influenced how Apple treats Spotify or other successful competitors like Google Play Music, Tidal, Amazon Music, Pandora or the numerous other apps on the App Store that distribute digital music.
“That’s why we find it troubling that you are asking for exemptions to the rules we apply to all developers and are publicly resorting to rumors and half-truths about our service,“ Sewell concludes.
While it may hold true that the guidelines themselves may help competition (arguable) and that Apple's own competition may not influence how they treat competitors (arguable), that statement ignores one very important fact. In markets where Apple does compete (e.g. music streaming), Apple does, in fact, not apply those same rules to all developers; they allow themselves to sell directly from within their own apps. Sure, they might argue that they also charge themselves the same 30%, but that's probably the most hollow argument they could make; if you have $100 and you pay yourself $30, you still have $100; however, if you take the same $100 and you pay me $30, you only have $70.
The exemptions Spotify is seeking are exemptions which would bring Apple's conduct back in line with existing antitrust laws. See my analysis. IANAL but I do have legal education.
You mean apart from swallowing the fee themselves, like most other companies do?
That would be the "take an 18% loss" option.
Or simply not offering a subscription in-app?
Their claim is that this is what they were trying to do in the update that was rejected. That would be the "or leave" option.
You'd have trouble finding your own ass,
I'm shitting as I write this; I'd say I found my own ass just fine, thanks.
but that's beside the point.
Having read you entire post twice and discarded the invalid, incorrect, or irrelevant portions, I'm left with nothing and have to ask: what was the point?
What Microsoft got in trouble was that they got in trouble before and consented " not to tie other Microsoft products to the sale of Windows " to get out of it.
Yes, that's bundling which is illegal under...
You wouldn't find that statute if you were a lawyer either.
Are you ready to stand corrected? The Sherman Antitrust Act, as well as the Clayton Antitrust Act. I wasn't sure either applied in this case, so I gave them another read-through. The Sherman Act is short so you can probably manage to read it all, but look specifically at section 2. Since it's quite packed with legalese (now, I did say IANAL, but I did not say I don't have any formal education in the field; I do and I can read and understand this crap just fine, I simply don't work with it every day in order to be able to recall it on-demand), you might have some difficulty in following it, so here are a couple easier references for the Sherman Act.
The Clayton Act clarifies the Sherman Act, specifically stating:
(f) Knowingly inducing or receiving discriminatory price
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, knowingly to induce or receive a discrimination in price which is prohibited by this section.
and
Sec. 14. Sale, etc., on agreement not to use goods of competitor
.
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce
Here's an easier to follow reference for the Clayton Act, as well.
And, before I drive my point home, the Black’s Law Dictionary definition of “induce", found on page 915 of the referenced edition (4th):
To bring on or about, to affect, cause, to influence to an act or course of conduct, lead by persuasion or reasoning, incite by motives,
Can you cite a source for this? It'll be the first I've heard of it if you can.
Read between the lines and the real message here is that Apple Music is kicking Spotify's ass.
At last count, Spotify has 30 million subscribers to Apple Music's 15 million; and that's despite Apple Music recently being made available on Android. The lines pretty clearly indicate that Spotify is beating the shit out of Apple Music, whether you read on, over, under, or between them.
What's interesting is that, because the car makers often make the manuals unavailable, or only available under onerous terms or fees, the possession and use of an illicit copy of such a manual in the course of a repair has been legislated to be fair use. Because possession of the manual is fair use, any other fair use of the material is also defensible; for example, education, criticism, commentary, or parody. It's still technically illegal to distribute the manuals (outside of the fair use exceptions), but that's gotten around by distributing them from countries where US copyright means fuck-all.
Apple's service manuals are no different.
Piss off, "freeman".
Illegally obtained copies of vehicle repair manuals are fair use when the manufacturer does not make them available to the end user through legal channels; this is no different.