Comment Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. (Score 1) 491
I have always believed that there would be no form of creation if there were no longer to be respect for upholding and respect for copyright and author’s rights.
--Sarkozy
I have always believed that there would be no form of creation if there were no longer to be respect for upholding and respect for copyright and author’s rights.
--Sarkozy
Right. ALL copyright is theft. Artists should have absolutely no protections along these lines.
Don't know if you're trolling or if your entire post broke my sarcasm meter, but although I don't agree with Copyright as a good means to an end, it is not theft; it's a deal. (between the public and the artists in theory)
The bit that makes it theft is the retroactive extension. If the increased duration was for new works there would be no theft, but there would be a new deal.
That only one side is really represented at the bargaining table and that all the research (I've seen) suggests that shorter terms would be more beneficial to society isn't really part of this discussion.
and the two companies couldn't work out a deal
While interesting, that Google tried to strike a license deal doesn't mean they believed they would be infringing on valid patents; they may have felt it was easier/cheaper to license than fight. Once the license price hit a threshold they decided to fight if necessary. And they may have felt that Sun wouldn't litigate -- had they know Oracle would buy it they might have been willing to pay more to avoid litigation. But that doesn't mean they think they're "in the wrong". The license may have included additional value; at the very least would have made them customers of "Java" technology which they are now not. Having Android==Java might have been a good thing for Sun. We can speculate all day, but at the end all this means is that Google talked to Sun about Java, and then didn't implement Java.
In short, the negotiating is a (not very) interesting historical trivia and nothing more.
Google used the code
This implies a copyright issue; they're being sued for patent infringement.
People have known about Google being in the wrong
again, citation needed [...to the other people who presume Google's "wrong" not you who did provide linky
It should be noted that many of the patent claims have already been invalidated w/o further consideration.
Where this all ends is yet to be determined, but I tire (in general terms) of the growing presumption of guilt (in general terms) before trials are concluded. That's not a Oracle/Google thing, but a we-believe-in-trials-to-resolve-disputes or for the criminal trials; we believe in innocent until proven guilty.
Google is in the wrong here
[citation needed]
They don't care if they knock out 10,000 sites like my own.
The only safety is to give your music over to the MAFIAA; their sites alone are authorised to have music
Why is Apple the bad guy?
In a word: Expectation.
I don't see my microwave as being a general purpose computer which has been arbitrarily locked down. For your example to work it would have to refuse to reheat chicken on Tuesdays.
but which the manufacturer prevents you from easily running arbitrary code.
In a word: Intention.
I don't think that they are actively preventing you (which you seem to imply). It may be difficult (as you suggest) but that's because they are not selling a device intended for running arbitrary code; they are selling a device for specific purpose. Apple on the other hand wants to sell a device that is intended to run arbitrary code, but only code they approve of.
Don't trust Google and Facebook with your personal information! Store it with Anonymous instead!
Campaign Tag Line:
Don't make us come and get it.
I reach for my gun
Congrats! You just made the Crazy People List. (trademark pending)
Now, thanks to that one comment on-line, the local and federal authorities have placed you on the Watch List (long ago trademarked). Should you go further in your anti-authority ways we may read about you in the paper with heavy slant about how you made dangerous remarks on-line. Or we may never hear from you again as some Secret Terrorist Court (trademark denied: "generic") deems you unfit to be amongst the law abiding citizens. And for our own good, we will let them keep you.
Either way; reaching for your gun works for them, not against them.
They've been arrested.
... There will be a trial. How much more due process do you think a criminal deserves?
I don't think those words mean what you think they do.
"No job too big; no fee too big!" -- Dr. Peter Venkman, "Ghost-busters"