decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Microsoft Removes Embarrassing 'Big [redacted]' String From Linux Code | 111 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Microsoft Removes Embarrassing 'Big [redacted]' String From Linux Code
Authored by: soronlin on Monday, July 23 2012 @ 06:15 AM EDT
Microsoft Removes Embarrassing 'Big [redacted]' String From Linux Code

What a heartening tale; it seems Microsoft now allows unprofessional schoolboys to post code in public.

I find it a little disturbing though that the author of the article and reportedly many other people are making the assumption that this puerility will offend all women and no men. Personally I don't know of any woman who would be offended by coming across such a term, which is after all of the most infantile variety. In fact most if not all the women I know would use that term in general conversation referring to their own or another's anatomy, think nothing of it and not be thought crude whoever their audience. I'm sure many people will find this particular use of it in bad taste, I am one of them, but that reaction will not be limited to people of any one particular gender.

I'm male myself, so I have to be circumspect, but I don't see it helps women's cause for them to be seen as fragile and easily offended. People who perpetuate that image do more damage than the puerile idiot at Microsoft.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Nokia Shopping Exclusive Windows Phone 8 Deal in Europe
Authored by: Gringo_ on Monday, July 23 2012 @ 12:23 PM EDT

The article posted at the Financial Times requires (free) registration. I declined, since there are other sources available, such as this one at PCMag.

They say...

Nokia is reportedly considering a new strategy to drum up excitement for its upcoming Windows- based smartphones.
I say good luck with that - especially when the same magazine also has an article titled "Advance Demand for Apple's Next iPhone 'Unprecedented'".

The article also states...
In June 2011, PCMag went to carrier retail stores and found that there wasn't much enthusiasm from carriers or from their sales people to push the platform."
and
"In the U.S., Nokia offers the Lumia 900 exclusively on AT&T. Last week, Nokia slashed the Windows phone price from $99 to $49.99...
, so we see how well that worked out for AT&T. One doesn't cut the price of their flagship phone until the next model is ready and will be available shortly, or as I suspect is the case here, to move dead stock out of the way for other phones.

Meanwhile, Samsung and Google products are set for record sales. What carrier wants to get tied in to a loser Windows phone now? The Financial Times said the idea is for carriers to receive financial incentives to actively promote Nokia products, whereas the PCMag article seems to be suggesting they are looking for a partner willing to invest in the relationship.
"A source told the Financial Times that Nokia's new relationships would also offer service providers a financial stake in the phones' success, which Nokia hopes will provide an incentive for the carriers to push Windows Phone device at the retail level."
That doesn't sound like a subsidy to me, but rather, an invitation for the carrier to invest in the venture. We already know how that is working out for previous win phone partners, from Nokia to AT&T.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Nokia in Windows talks with operators
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 23 2012 @ 12:28 PM EDT
If you liked Tomi Ahonen's text and analysis, here is more. Digging Deeper into Nokia Q2 Results - and exactly how many 'awesome' sales was AT&T and China... and If Apple is running away from this strategy, and Samsung growing by opposite strategy, why is Elop trying 'exclusive' carrier strategy for Nokia and Microsoft. He must be mad! This time without any Military History, haha.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Revenge of the Nerds - If Lisp, then where is IP for Oracle in their appeal?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 23 2012 @ 02:45 PM EDT
Quote - "We were after the C++ programmers. We managed to drag a lot of
them about halfway to Lisp."

- Guy Steele, co-author of the Java spec

Comment, so if all the languages are derived from Lisp, then what does that mean
(if you are Oracle or anyone else trying to sue)?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Revenge of the Nerds
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 23 2012 @ 04:05 PM EDT
If you look at these languages in order,
Java, Perl, Python, you notice an interesting pattern.


*BUT* nothing surprising there ,-just like all wheel are round

because it works , and at then there wasn't patent

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple and FB contacts: how to actually opt out?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 23 2012 @ 06:32 PM EDT
I like PJ's note saying that she's asking people she knows not to put any of her
information in their Contacts if they're going to use FB to maintain it. But I
have a deadly serious question for her: how does she plan to enforce this?

The people I know who have been responsible for me receiving invitations to join
FB are the sort who simply don't understand why I will never do so. I could ask
them to delete me from their contacts, but even if they agreed, I wouldn't trust
them to actually do it properly. And even if they did, I certainly don't trust
FB to ever delete anything, so I don't believe it could possibly do any good.

I think the only reasonable assumptions to make about the visibility of your
information to FB are these:

1. If any FB user has ever seen it, they will publish it to FB; and

2. If it has ever been published to FB, FB will keep it forever.

It doesn't matter what you want FB to keep or publish. It doesn't matter what
you tell your friends to do with your information. Third parties (people who are
not you and are not FB) who have your information will willingly provide it to
FB as part of their site usage. And FB seems to think that makes it their
property to do with as they see fit.

I would really, REALLY, like to see a class action against FB that results in FB
making a meaningful and legally-binding pledge to purge their systems of all
personal information that was given to them by any third party without the
consent of the owner of the information, and to "blackhole" any such
information in the future. I do not expect to ever see this happen, because it
would make FB a real opt-in system, whereas their business model depends on it
continuing to be (as it currently is) an opt-out-if-you-can system.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )