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
Look at slide 16 - the Blackjack | 188 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Look at slide 16 - the Blackjack
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 12 2012 @ 07:16 PM EDT
The Reality Distortion Field is not emanating from Apple. It is coming from
America as a whole. Big Business has worked hard on it for a long time. So have
the politicians.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Actually - I might take that one step further
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2012 @ 03:49 PM EDT

I haven't read the article yet, so this could change. From part of the newspick comment:

Non-Android devices would have received a $3 discount for “not using Apple proprietary features,” according to the document.
So if I understand that part correctly:
    Use our proprietary treasure and pay us a license fee of $21/$30!
    Don't use our proprietary treasure and pay us $18 for our license... argggg!
Seriously? Apple wants products that don't infringe their ppprrrreeecccciioouusssss to pay for an $18 license? License for what?

Talk about scalliwags on the high seas. A license for.... a promise not to sue over nothing???

I really have to read the article to see if it adds any info to what the “not using Apple proprietary features,” means. I'm hoping it's just an indication that not using the visual physical characteristics, but using the embedded software tech still is what it's refering to.

RAS

[ 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 )