They are a corporation and they have a fiduciary responsibility to protect their IP from theft. In other words, Apple had no choice but to launch this lawsuit
No, it means that nowadays it's the obvious design because the technology (which had nothing to do with Apple) matured enough to support it. Apple was just the first to take advantage of the obvious evolution in design. They didn't "innovate" it.
Before the iPhone came out, you simply didn't have a device with not only the outside shape (which is where you stopped describing it), but a screen that dominated one face save for a single button at the bottom. Seriously, like GP said - that design simply did not exist outside of a few devices (e.g. the LG Prada).
Sounds like every LCD monitor I've ever seen. Since touchscreen technology has matured enough to let phones remove the need for a physical input device, they're basically just a display device now. Is it really non-obvious that you would take what is the De-facto standard design for other display devices (monitors) and apply them to a phone? Isn't Apple's design patent really just for an LCD monitor with an embedded phone?
The end result? Many of these services don't exist or never get started.
Yes, that's the whole point. The RIAA will gladly give up royalties if they can eliminate competition.
If they had their way (which they are), the only music you could hear would be from RIAA owned artists and the only way you could hear it was from RIAA owned distribution channels.
You mean potential losses, or maybe no loss at all, or maybe even a gain... nobody really knows for sure. However, let's just call it "substantial losses" since that fits with your agenda better.
I thought the whole point of safe harbor in the DMCA was that the hosting sites were not supposed to be held liable. It sounds like the RIAA wants to ignore that, and go after them anyway.
What I meant was... what makes you think the government isn't paying attention to Apple?
It's easy to see that Copyright laws are written to benefit the MAFIAA. However, the current patent law mess is what is allowing Apple to go after Samsung.
So if going after the people who actually committed infringement is too hard, that means they should go after easy targets whether or not they are liable?
RapidShare, MegaUpload, Demonoid, etc all provide competition to the distribution monopoly of the RIAA members. That's their real problem. It isn't about piracy. The RIAA member/cartel are more worried about artists deciding that the middlemen are no longer necessary.
As long as the RIAA has their way, it will be impossible to operate a file locker/linking service without being arbitrarily shutdown by the "piracy" boogeyman. That's what they want, and right now they're the ones writing the laws.
Therefore it has a value to you, and you're just pirating because you're cheap.
No, it says the value placed on it by you is lower than the value placed on it by the seller. I wouldn't say that "you're cheap" vs "it's overpriced" are necessarily the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
They are a corporation and they have a fiduciary responsibility to protect their IP from theft. In other words, Apple had no choice but to launch this lawsuit
Nonsense.
No, it means that nowadays it's the obvious design because the technology (which had nothing to do with Apple) matured enough to support it. Apple was just the first to take advantage of the obvious evolution in design. They didn't "innovate" it.
as instructed by a patent-holder foreman.
Who holds a DVR patent that was granted after devices like the Tivo already existed.
Of course the patent trolls won the case, the foreman of the jury was also a patent troll.
Media is trying to be objective, for the most part.... the news coverage could effect the final outcome.
What makes you think the media doesn't want to effect the final outcome?
But at the end of the day, coding is a creative process, and creativity fares poorly under standardized, one-size-fits-all models.
What some want is for it to be more like "paint by numbers". Sometimes it's OK, but as you say, most of the time it's a poor fit.
vi
Yep, which is why unexpected things happening to the avionics at those times is "Really Bad".
There's nothing special about the first 10 and last 10 minutes of a flight, other than it's the most likely time for a plane to crash land.
Actually, that's exactly what's special about those times.
That Apple "owned" the concept of grids of colorful icons.
Of course they do. Don't you know that Apple invented color!
Before the iPhone came out, you simply didn't have a device with not only the outside shape (which is where you stopped describing it), but a screen that dominated one face save for a single button at the bottom. Seriously, like GP said - that design simply did not exist outside of a few devices (e.g. the LG Prada).
Sounds like every LCD monitor I've ever seen. Since touchscreen technology has matured enough to let phones remove the need for a physical input device, they're basically just a display device now. Is it really non-obvious that you would take what is the De-facto standard design for other display devices (monitors) and apply them to a phone? Isn't Apple's design patent really just for an LCD monitor with an embedded phone?
Lawyers from all sides get to ask questions of the jury and get some number of exclusions by default.
How do you get them all excluded when there are "some number" + 1?
Can somebody explain why the government is involved in this at all?
Because they're owned by the RIAA.
How should someone who writes and records an album verify that the songs he wrote don't accidentally infringe a third party's copyright?
Hire more lawyers than the third party does.
The end result? Many of these services don't exist or never get started.
Yes, that's the whole point. The RIAA will gladly give up royalties if they can eliminate competition.
If they had their way (which they are), the only music you could hear would be from RIAA owned artists and the only way you could hear it was from RIAA owned distribution channels.
Of course they don't mention what apps were being illegally copied. In addition, they don't mention who requested the take down.
My guess would be that if these were apps written by independent developers or small shops, the FBI wouldn't care.
You mean potential losses, or maybe no loss at all, or maybe even a gain... nobody really knows for sure. However, let's just call it "substantial losses" since that fits with your agenda better.
What is the legal definition of "geared towards piracy"?
I thought the whole point of safe harbor in the DMCA was that the hosting sites were not supposed to be held liable. It sounds like the RIAA wants to ignore that, and go after them anyway.
What I meant was... what makes you think the government isn't paying attention to Apple?
It's easy to see that Copyright laws are written to benefit the MAFIAA. However, the current patent law mess is what is allowing Apple to go after Samsung.
Don't worry, they'll get to them.
So if going after the people who actually committed infringement is too hard, that means they should go after easy targets whether or not they are liable?
Of course there's a difference. Google has a lot more money than TPB does. Bullies go after the weak, not other kids bigger than they are.
Who says they are?
RapidShare, MegaUpload, Demonoid, etc all provide competition to the distribution monopoly of the RIAA members. That's their real problem. It isn't about piracy. The RIAA member/cartel are more worried about artists deciding that the middlemen are no longer necessary.
As long as the RIAA has their way, it will be impossible to operate a file locker/linking service without being arbitrarily shutdown by the "piracy" boogeyman. That's what they want, and right now they're the ones writing the laws.
Therefore it has a value to you, and you're just pirating because you're cheap.
No, it says the value placed on it by you is lower than the value placed on it by the seller. I wouldn't say that "you're cheap" vs "it's overpriced" are necessarily the same thing.