|
|
|
| Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 04:36 AM EST |
"I know. All of a sudden, you like him."
Yes, things are changing. Back
in 1992 (Oh, is it really that long?!) Bill Clinton became the first cool, yes,
and I mean cool, president ever.
See for
yourselves.
People who dare to go out of the box without losing
dignity tend to be more likeable. Judge Grewal already has my
vote.
---
______
IMANAL
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lnuss on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 07:50 AM EST |
...
---
Larry N.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lnuss on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 07:51 AM EST |
...
---
Larry N.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Google Creates €60 Million, $82 Million Charity for French Newspapers (heh) - Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 11:16 AM EST
- CBS Bans SodaStream Ad - CBS is protecting its relationship with Coke and Pepsi - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 12:12 PM EST
- Why Is Barrett Brown Facing 100 Years in Prison ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 12:18 PM EST
- Today's chuckle - Authored by: JamesK on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 03:23 PM EST
- ABA Journal Blawg 100 - Authored by: Wol on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 06:55 PM EST
- Harvard details suspensions in massive cheating scandal - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 11:45 PM EST
- Creator Of The X-Plane Flight Simulator Seeks Help Fighting A Patent Troll - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 03 2013 @ 01:48 AM EST
- Tell Google.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 03 2013 @ 05:12 AM EST
- Some relevant background reading - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 03 2013 @ 06:38 AM EST
- Reputation Metrics Startups Aim To Disrupt The Scientific Journal Industry - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 03 2013 @ 11:07 AM EST
- BRAINSHARE - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 03 2013 @ 12:26 PM EST
- Fancy a piece of the Google 'Pi' ($million) - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 03 2013 @ 02:41 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: lnuss on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 07:55 AM EST |
...
---
Larry N.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lnuss on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 07:56 AM EST |
...
---
Larry N.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 07:59 AM EST |
That was one OS the best episodes of the original series. As I've been
writing more fiction myself, I've ended up trading message with David
Gerrold one or twice. Man has a wicked sense of humor.
Way e
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 09:05 AM EST |
Apple (A$) has grown to deserve as much spite as M$. Apple
deserves no sympathy what so ever.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 11:00 AM EST |
"This lawsuit has been detrimental to its brand in a very big way."
It's a little hard to feel that much sympathy for self inflicted injuries.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: albert on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 11:39 AM EST |
.. I don't like the Tribbles metaphor. Tribbles were cute and harmless. I'm
thinking along the lines of head lice, or roaches, or that itch that just
doesn't go away..[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mtew on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 02:57 PM EST |
Intended pun?
---
MTEW[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 03:40 PM EST |
Doc.2222:
The proposed redactions consist of information regarding
Samsung’s participation in standards setting organizations,
...
primarily consists of a dispute between the parties’ attorneys
about the breadth of the attorney-client privilege.
...
Apple seeks to redact portions describing its use of
Samsung components in its devices
...
Apple seeks to redact portions of the deposition describing
whether alternative designs for the corners of the original
iPhone were considered.
...
he discusses his methodology in analyzing Apple’s
licensing agreements. He does not reveal the content
of any of the agreements &c, &c, &c.
Magistrate Judge Grewal seems to have come the realisation that
this is a commercial dispute between the parties that has little
to do with patents, or contracts, and that everything should be
on the table open, or not here at all. He also is probably annoyed
with himself and Judge Koh that they didn't a lot earlier do a Posner,
send both parties away with a flea in their ears.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 04 2013 @ 12:29 AM EST |
As an employee, it is usual that the copyright for code I write is owned by my
employer. As an external supplier/contractor you better believe that if the
contract is to transfer copyright of work I create, it should be compensated in
that contract. More typical is a license including a license for that source
code.
In the case of a student who is not being paid to attend class, indeed is
compelled under a legal burden to attend and cannot simply decline and
negotiate for a better offer that does not involve giving up their copy rights,
this is *NOT* business as usual. In fact, if you want to consider the flow of
finance in this transaction, it is often the student is the paying customer of
the educational institution - how do you feel about paying someone to take
that burdensome copyright off your hands?
The main lesson you are teaching students here is that their entire life's work,
everything they produce from their own labor, every original contribution and
though, already belongs to someone else. How does that inspire a generation
to create and build something new? Or do we want a generation of
consumers of nothing but imported content? (Jumping to the likely
conclusion of a generation trained to pay to consume, with active dis-
incentive to produce)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DannyB on Monday, February 04 2013 @ 10:49 AM EST |
I have none.
This isn't the Apple computer that I loved in the 80's and 90's. It isn't the
Apple that was so far ahead of the rest of the industry that it looked like
everyone else would never catch up. It wasn't the Apple that produced a torrent
of innovations the just kept coming and coming seemingly without end. It wasn't
until the mid 90's with Copeland and the dire need for a real OS underneath that
things started falling apart.
I have to admit being charmed by Steve Jobs when I was younger. He was
attractive, well spoken and seemed to have a lot to do with the seemingly
endless innovations pouring out of Apple.
My delusion was somewhat shattered when both (A) Apple stumbled in the early to
mid 1990's, and (B) I read The Mac Bathroom Reader. This book was very credible
to me because many things it said matched up with my personal knowledge, yet
many things I didn't know I found to be quite shocking about Steve Jobs. I had
never had any idea of how badly he treated people in general, and some people in
particular.
I was unhappy with Apple going with NeXT for its new OS instead of BeOS. I had
a lot of high end and expensive Apple hardware. It was clear that a new OS
would be along in a few years before my hardware "aged out" and was
not usable. Apple in one step obsoleted a huge amount of hardware -- and
software, prematurely. I got into Linux. I didn't have bad feelings about
Apple, I just wished them well and moved on with this new exciting Linux thing.
And OpenOffice. And other things. It was like I had discovered an endless
toybox of cool stuff in open source.
I had expected a patent thermonuclear war for a few years. I just didn't think
it would be Apple, yes *apple* of all companies, to start it.
After Steve Jobs death, and a lot of information becoming more public about his
life, I had a complete change of heart about the man. If I had known in my
youth what I now know, I would not have been as spellbound. In hindsight, Apple
never was about "the rest of us" it was about "the rich of
us".
I had realized that a lot of the innovation in the earlier Apple had happened
without Steve Jobs help. It happened after he left when he was stripped of his
power by Scully. In fact, it was Jobs who was holding things back. I did
personally know in the early days that it was Jobs who insisted that the Mac
have only 128 K and that's it. Forever. Software developers (including myself)
were screaming at Apple that if they wanted cool third party software they
needed to add some memory to the machine to enable the kind of promise that
people could see in the Macintosh. It was Jobs who didn't see the need for a
hard drive. Really? How do you do anything with two incredibly slow floppy
drives? It was Jobs that said "no color" and "no slots".
It's amusing that the Mac II was the first huge advancement after Jobs left, and
that's when the flood of innovations came. Lots of memory. Color. Slots.
CD-ROM. Lots of SCSI peripherals. ADB. Ethernet cards. Huge monitors. Much
better graphics cards. And so on.
But back to my subject line. Not only did Apple start this thermonuclear war,
it is clear to me that Apple wants nothing less than an absolute monopoly on
smartphones, and perhaps even mobile phones in general.
Now I believe monopolists are evil. And Microsoft's history is like a
re-telling of the book Big Blue: IBM's Use and Abuse of Power. But if Apple had
gotten the monopoly that Microsoft had, it is clear to me now that Apple would
have been far worse.
It is clear that Steve Jobs was passionate in his dislike or even hatred of
Android. But that passion is because these pesky kids at Google disrupted his
dream of having an absolute monopoly on a unique high priced product.
I find Apple's arrogance distasteful. (And I have to admit to the "been
there done that" when I was younger and an Apple fan.) But Pride goes
before destruction, and haughtiness before a fall.
I have no sympathy. Let Apple burn.
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
