|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 12:27 PM EDT |
| ZDNet:
Without radical change in patent law, Android
ecosystem will
die [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- ZDNet: Without radical change in patent law, Android ecosystem will die - Authored by: PJ on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 12:36 PM EDT
- ZDNet: Without radical change in patent law, Android ecosystem will die - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 12:48 PM EDT
- ZDNet: Without radical change in patent law, Android ecosystem will die - Authored by: feldegast on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 01:05 PM EDT
- FUD article - ignore it (n/t) - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 01:36 PM EDT
- never read zdnet - Authored by: designerfx on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 03:24 PM EDT
- Here comes the FUD. Here comes the FUD. - Authored by: celtic_hackr on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 06:31 PM EDT
- Clueless:"If it came to it, Tim Cook would license via FRAND what is necessary to Jeff bezos..." - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 18 2012 @ 07:57 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: feldegast on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 01:25 PM EDT |
"...we are accountable when our software is hacked"
Really? i thought that the EULA excluded that and Microsoft
only does something because if Microsoft didn't nobody would
buy anything from them.
Also if they were accountable, why do Microsoft write
software so full of bugs?
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 01:32 PM EDT |
It is not just the part about copyright that is misinformation.
The whole bit about being open to cracking doesn't mention the point that MS
software is many times more susceptible to cracking than most open source.
Additionally, MS tends to be pretty careful to set up its license agreements to
limit its liability, so that having someone "responsible" that you can
go to for support is no guarantee that you will get better support than you
would for an open source product (even if you do not choose to explicitly
purchase support for the open source, which is available from a variety of
providers at competitive prices). And, even the unpaid support
John Macdonald[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 09:21 PM EDT |
That's right, it doesn't. Android device makers are free to use whatever
apps
they like. Google would of course prefer that they don't ship
pirated apps. And
the OHA, not Google, insists that OHA devices
must be "Google compatible",
whatever that means.
The Postscript about Google Play is interesting
too. You can take a
non-Google android device, point your browser at
play.google.com,
download and install the Play Store app, but it won't run. You
need
to obtain the Google Framework from an "unofficial" developer
site.
Will The
Real Android Please Stand Up? , and what license is implied by the
use of
Android?
Google: Accept Ownership Of Real Android . I don't expect that to
happen. After all isn't the OHA the
"owner" of the One True Android? And of
course Google wasn't leaning on Acer, simply doing the honorable
thing in
reminding another club member of their obligations.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 18 2012 @ 02:47 AM EDT |
| http://allthingsd.com/20120917/despite-verdict-j
udge-
koh-wont-lift-galaxy-tab-10-1-injunction-for-now/
Seems like
everyone involved has decided to punish
Samsung beyond the maximum reasonable
amount regardless of
facts, laws, or jury verdicts
Substantial issues
indeed... [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: indyandy on Tuesday, September 18 2012 @ 04:27 AM EDT |
| As a European I find the current behaviour of Microsoft, Dell and Asus
particularly galling. While Microsoft is claiming it was an 'accident' that
Europeans were not offered a choice of browser at install time, Dell and Asus
users (and maybe others?) are coerced into installing
BingBar.
Dell:
In the process of keeping my customers' computers
healthy I am obliged to launch Internet Explorer to check Flash is up to
date.
The default home page is of the form
http://dell.fr.msn.com/?pc=....
The content is a message which says (roughly
translated from the French):
Congratulations!
The Bing toolbar
is waiting for nothing but you.
By clicking on "OK" you accept the Microsoft
Service Agreement and Confidentiality Agreement. You will receive the latest
updates to the Bing toolbar and other Microsoft products through Microsoft
Update. This program may also download and install certain updates
automatically
(Screenshot available on request. 'Microsoft
Service Agreement', 'Confidentiality Agreement', and 'Microsoft Update' - or
their French equivalents - appear to be hyperlinks)
"Not much wrong with
that", you may think, "all you have to do is click on 'Cancel' and carry on
working. You have to click on 'OK' to opt in to this."
Except there is no
'Cancel'. The only obvious way to move on is to hit 'OK'. If you close the tab
or close IE then IE closes down and on the next launch the same page is
displayed.
I work with computers all day every day and it took me a minute or
two to work out how to continue without installing BingBar. What is poor Joe
Public going to do?
Asus
Asus is maybe even more
egregious
In the windows setup phase we are presented with a click-through
license agreement which reads as follows:
MICROSOFT SOFTWARE
LICENSE TERMS
WINDOWS 7 STARTER SERVICE PACK 1
These licence
terms are an agreement between you and ...
(The rest of the text is obscured on
my photo as it is necessary to scroll down the text box to see the remaining
text)
(Checkbox) I accept the license terms (required to use
Windows)
Bing Bar
Bing is installed and ready to go. If
you use the Bing Bar on this computer, some data about service performance, your
machine and your service use will be sent to Microsoft; this data will not be
used to personally identify you. Learn More
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?Linkid=74170
(checkbox) I accept the
license terms (required to use your computer)
(Slightly blurred
photograph available on request. Note this click-through agreement occurs so
early in the setup phase that it is impossible to access the URL unless you have
another computer next to you or you are prepared to note it down or memorize it
for later use.)
What??? I have to agree to the Bing Bar license
conditions before I can use the computer that my customer has bought and paid
for? I can (and do) uninstall BingBar once Windows is up and running but should
I be required to go this trouble if my true preference is to opt out?
In both
cases it could be argued that the user opted in to having Bing Bar on their
machines, but in both cases the user had almost no choice but to do so.
Am
I the only one who has had this experience? Am I just being over-sensitive?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
