6 months is an awful long time to lock something up in this industry. It does help over all, but it harms the cutting edge products as they're not able to compete when Apple decides to buy up the entire supply of screens for use in their phones. Being able to launch a new product with those screens 6 months later is a pretty significant disadvantage when products are often refreshed every year or two.
Like most areas of antitrust law it's going to depend a great deal on the particular circumstances. But ultimately if the effect of this is such that it harms competition then it definitely could be an antitrust violation.
The thing that's stopping other companies from doing it is the cost. There aren't very many companies in this industry that are as vertically integrated as Apple is. Consequently the barrier to an antitrust violation is significantly smaller than if say Dell were to do the same thing.
I was wondering how this wouldn't be a possible antitrust violation. It's one thing to fund additional lines to guarantee timely shipments, but if one is buying up the entire supply of something that's something that has the potential for antitrust violations.
I'm not suggesting that it's gotten to that stage here, but it's definitely a possibility.
It can be made to work, the question is whether they can make it practical to own and operate. The airforce has had folding planes for decades, but I doubt that even if you were to strip the weapons and modify it for road use that it would be affordable.
It's a joke, a nuclear reactor large enough to power a light bulb wouldn't fit in a backyard. I live a couple miles from a reactor that's designed for teaching and it's a fairly large complex. Just because you're dealing in only small amounts of nuclear materials doesn't mean that the walls need to be any less thick to prevent radiation from escaping or that the control room needs any less equipment.
Around here the city has been giving away trees for planting in the parking strip along city streets. Part of the reason why is the effect they have on pollution, but the other reason is that it tends to cause traffic to slow a bit and obey the speed limit.
I was somewhat skeptical myself, but I noticed that although I'm not one for speeding, that I would want to speed along streets with long stretches of nothing along one or both sides. It just seemed like I was getting nowhere even when I was going precisely the speed limit.
Not really, this has been an extremely productive year for hydroelectric dams, hardly a typical year, we'll be lucky not to have a year this productive for quite some time. Now, if this were a normal year or the figures weren't so skewed from hydroelectric dams having to top out their capacity, this might suggest just that.
Here's a good example of why people say that about Fox: Fox News Finally Admits There Are No Death Panels. And it's hardly the only example of them flat out making up shit to put on the air in their never ending war against liberalism.
Allegedly the investigator did it so that the voicemail wouldn't run out of space. As in they'd heard the ones on the phone, but wanted to ensure that they could hear new ones coming in.
Except that they were allegedly selling the equipment specifically for the purpose of spying on the citizens. I take it you haven't been following the lawsuit that was filed against them. This isn't a case of providing equipment that's later modified for nefarious purposes, this is a case where they've been sued for allegedly providing materials specifically too spy on political dissidents.
It remains to be seen how strong the case is and whether they'll be found liable, but it's hardly a matter of providing hardware that was repurposed.
It's hardly a double standard considering the scale of the human rights abuses in China versus the US.
I know it's cool to hate the US, but seriously grow up, the comparison you're trying to make beggars belief. It's astonishing to me that you don't see the difference between a country that regularly locks up political dissidents and a country which by and large doesn't do so. As bad as things have been in the US lately we still aren't anywhere near the level of human rights violations of China.
Probably because it's nearly impossible to find goods that are completely without ties to China. Thanks to the labeling requirements, you can think you're buying American and really be paying for most of the work to be done in some undisclosed nation.
That's perfectly legal and not at all dodgy, however providing the technology for an oppressive regime to spy on its citizens is definitely dodgy by any reasonable standard.
It's "chomping at the bit" in America, not "champing at the bit." In fact "champ" in that context isn't a word that anybody over here recognizes in that context.
(I'm sure that you're corrections will prove your superiority in the end.
That was my thought, I got a 3 pack of RCA HDMI cables for about $4 each quite a while back and I'd be surprised if they break in the next 20 years. They're clearly well made despite the lower cost. And they aren't even the short ones either, they've got plenty of length to them.
But really any half way decent company ought to be able to make an HDMI cable that works properly.
The thing is that right now the Amazon app store is essentially 2nd out of 2 appstores for the Android platform, there are other places to get apps from, but Amazon got to be number two more or less by opening up shop.
You'd still do that, even if the USPTO get it right 98% of the time there would still be those 2% of the cases where trolling through the patents would be warranted.
Sure, you can do remixes, but if you want to move much beyond parodies, it's not going to happen. As somebody that's apparently into movie making you ought to know better than to suggest that you can mix in clips from some other source and have it work. Sure you can do that, but the work necessary is hardly trivial and unlikely to be of sufficient value to justify the effort.
A journalist does get to think and have opinions, but that isn't to say that such opinions on the job representing a news agency are acceptable to express on the air. Journalists are a bit like historians, doesn't matter what their opinion is if it can't be backed with facts. And the aim is always supposed to be on finding the most accurate account of events possible.
There are organizations like Fox that feel the need to make up their stories and editorialize all over the place, but to call them "journalists" is misleading and quite dishonest.
The problem is that it's an extremely limited concept. I suppose you could offer up stock footage on that basis, but you'd still need an incredible amount of actual footage to go with. Probably the best bet would be to offer up Blender models for rendering with a permissive license.
And stock footage rarely if ever looks good, I've seen it in all sorts of places over the years and probably the only place that it seemed to work was on the Muppet Babies.
HBO has the advantage of being able to put plot points anywhere in the episode that it wants. TV shows for networks with ads are constrained by placing them in places which maximize the ad revenue. On top of that by virtue of being a pay station, they're bound by significantly fewer restrictions in terms of what they're able to show without censoring it.
Not that it negates the success they've had, it's just important to keep in mind that most channels don't have that luxury.
Says you, we consider that to be the event that signifies the start of our country. It's the point when we stopped recognizing the crown as the ruler of our land. Strikes me as a completely legitimate way of deciding when to start counting.
I don't see any problem with that, as long as they're over there and not over here for reasons other than a visit. Considering that we haven't had any wars with the Brits in nearly 200 years, I'm not sure there's anything wrong with being fascinated by the royal family.
Slashdot Mirror
6 months is an awful long time to lock something up in this industry. It does help over all, but it harms the cutting edge products as they're not able to compete when Apple decides to buy up the entire supply of screens for use in their phones. Being able to launch a new product with those screens 6 months later is a pretty significant disadvantage when products are often refreshed every year or two.
Like most areas of antitrust law it's going to depend a great deal on the particular circumstances. But ultimately if the effect of this is such that it harms competition then it definitely could be an antitrust violation.
The thing that's stopping other companies from doing it is the cost. There aren't very many companies in this industry that are as vertically integrated as Apple is. Consequently the barrier to an antitrust violation is significantly smaller than if say Dell were to do the same thing.
I was wondering how this wouldn't be a possible antitrust violation. It's one thing to fund additional lines to guarantee timely shipments, but if one is buying up the entire supply of something that's something that has the potential for antitrust violations.
I'm not suggesting that it's gotten to that stage here, but it's definitely a possibility.
It can be made to work, the question is whether they can make it practical to own and operate. The airforce has had folding planes for decades, but I doubt that even if you were to strip the weapons and modify it for road use that it would be affordable.
It's a joke, a nuclear reactor large enough to power a light bulb wouldn't fit in a backyard. I live a couple miles from a reactor that's designed for teaching and it's a fairly large complex. Just because you're dealing in only small amounts of nuclear materials doesn't mean that the walls need to be any less thick to prevent radiation from escaping or that the control room needs any less equipment.
Around here the city has been giving away trees for planting in the parking strip along city streets. Part of the reason why is the effect they have on pollution, but the other reason is that it tends to cause traffic to slow a bit and obey the speed limit.
I was somewhat skeptical myself, but I noticed that although I'm not one for speeding, that I would want to speed along streets with long stretches of nothing along one or both sides. It just seemed like I was getting nowhere even when I was going precisely the speed limit.
Not really, this has been an extremely productive year for hydroelectric dams, hardly a typical year, we'll be lucky not to have a year this productive for quite some time. Now, if this were a normal year or the figures weren't so skewed from hydroelectric dams having to top out their capacity, this might suggest just that.
Here's a good example of why people say that about Fox: Fox News Finally Admits There Are No Death Panels. And it's hardly the only example of them flat out making up shit to put on the air in their never ending war against liberalism.
Allegedly the investigator did it so that the voicemail wouldn't run out of space. As in they'd heard the ones on the phone, but wanted to ensure that they could hear new ones coming in.
Except that they were allegedly selling the equipment specifically for the purpose of spying on the citizens. I take it you haven't been following the lawsuit that was filed against them. This isn't a case of providing equipment that's later modified for nefarious purposes, this is a case where they've been sued for allegedly providing materials specifically too spy on political dissidents.
It remains to be seen how strong the case is and whether they'll be found liable, but it's hardly a matter of providing hardware that was repurposed.
It's hardly a double standard considering the scale of the human rights abuses in China versus the US.
I know it's cool to hate the US, but seriously grow up, the comparison you're trying to make beggars belief. It's astonishing to me that you don't see the difference between a country that regularly locks up political dissidents and a country which by and large doesn't do so. As bad as things have been in the US lately we still aren't anywhere near the level of human rights violations of China.
Probably because it's nearly impossible to find goods that are completely without ties to China. Thanks to the labeling requirements, you can think you're buying American and really be paying for most of the work to be done in some undisclosed nation.
That's perfectly legal and not at all dodgy, however providing the technology for an oppressive regime to spy on its citizens is definitely dodgy by any reasonable standard.
It's "chomping at the bit" in America, not "champing at the bit." In fact "champ" in that context isn't a word that anybody over here recognizes in that context.
(I'm sure that you're corrections will prove your superiority in the end.
No, that should be high speed, high speed was the label given to HDMI category 2 cables.
That was my thought, I got a 3 pack of RCA HDMI cables for about $4 each quite a while back and I'd be surprised if they break in the next 20 years. They're clearly well made despite the lower cost. And they aren't even the short ones either, they've got plenty of length to them.
But really any half way decent company ought to be able to make an HDMI cable that works properly.
The thing is that right now the Amazon app store is essentially 2nd out of 2 appstores for the Android platform, there are other places to get apps from, but Amazon got to be number two more or less by opening up shop.
You'd still do that, even if the USPTO get it right 98% of the time there would still be those 2% of the cases where trolling through the patents would be warranted.
There was some grumbling about Google not providing the source for Gingerbread at the same time that the binary release was made IIRC.
Sure, you can do remixes, but if you want to move much beyond parodies, it's not going to happen. As somebody that's apparently into movie making you ought to know better than to suggest that you can mix in clips from some other source and have it work. Sure you can do that, but the work necessary is hardly trivial and unlikely to be of sufficient value to justify the effort.
You're trolling, right?
A journalist does get to think and have opinions, but that isn't to say that such opinions on the job representing a news agency are acceptable to express on the air. Journalists are a bit like historians, doesn't matter what their opinion is if it can't be backed with facts. And the aim is always supposed to be on finding the most accurate account of events possible.
There are organizations like Fox that feel the need to make up their stories and editorialize all over the place, but to call them "journalists" is misleading and quite dishonest.
The problem is that it's an extremely limited concept. I suppose you could offer up stock footage on that basis, but you'd still need an incredible amount of actual footage to go with. Probably the best bet would be to offer up Blender models for rendering with a permissive license.
And stock footage rarely if ever looks good, I've seen it in all sorts of places over the years and probably the only place that it seemed to work was on the Muppet Babies.
HBO has the advantage of being able to put plot points anywhere in the episode that it wants. TV shows for networks with ads are constrained by placing them in places which maximize the ad revenue. On top of that by virtue of being a pay station, they're bound by significantly fewer restrictions in terms of what they're able to show without censoring it.
Not that it negates the success they've had, it's just important to keep in mind that most channels don't have that luxury.
Says you, we consider that to be the event that signifies the start of our country. It's the point when we stopped recognizing the crown as the ruler of our land. Strikes me as a completely legitimate way of deciding when to start counting.
I don't see any problem with that, as long as they're over there and not over here for reasons other than a visit. Considering that we haven't had any wars with the Brits in nearly 200 years, I'm not sure there's anything wrong with being fascinated by the royal family.