I think the reason for the subpoena is that the Hollywood gang thinks that the people behind Open Bittorrent and The Pirate Bay are the same.

Right after the PB trial there was a lot of discussion regarding whether TPB would have been illegal if it hadn't done so much. For example, TPB was convicted because they were actually hosting torrent files, which caused them to fall under a different law than, for example, and ISP. But what if the illegal parts were dropped? Why, you'd be untouchable. The problem is then, is there a way to distribute the functionality of TPB so that the constituent websites are all legal, but taken together, they provide exactly the same service as TPB?

A little while later, Open Bittorrent opened up.

So when the next lawsuit comes up, it will not be Hollywood vs. one site that in itself isn't illegal, but Hollywood vs. a bunch of sites that taken together are claimed to be illegal. However, in order for this to work, there must be proof that the websites are really connected. That's what they're going for.

My prediction: OpenBittorrent will be convicted. TPB was found guilty because they received and hosted torrent files, which in turn triggered liability. You don't have to actually host illegal copies, as long as you receive, store information for a longer period of time than (roughly) the actual transmission of the information, and then send it to one or more consumers, you do not have "common carrier" immunity under Swedish law, and must not only not host illegal content - you must not host anything connected with any illegal acts. Such as a torrent file that is used for illegal purposes.

Now OpenBittorrent doesn't host torrent files. But it does host something else - the list of peers. It is a tracker, after all.

So I think any OBT trial will be pretty much like TPB trial. The TPB verdict showed that it is very easy (almost too easy) to become an accessory to a crime in Sweden.

I only remember this point being brought up after Apple had released the new SDK terms. It is possible that Adobe was overstating the difficulties of turning the Flash compiler into a code generator before they realized that their current application was toast.

But the originally written clause was the one I remember being used to shoot down the "generate XCode" way around.

I tried to find a reference, but couldn't find any official Adobe statement.

That your code isn't originally written in Obj-C. Technically, the difference is zero, of course. Legally it is a world of difference.

I'm afraid that's not all. Adobe did consider the obvious solution (export Flash to XCode), but that was shot down for the reason above - the code wouldn't have been originally written in ObjC.

Section 3.3.1:

So it doesn't matter if you include an XCode step. The app must be originally written in OC, C, C++ or JS. Sorry, but your solution won't work.

I really don't think it was anything except a mistake. But, and here is my point: Some systems have injustice built-in. A system where someone decides what someone else may see, read or hear is just flat out impossible to get right.

This itself is of course not black-or-white: There is such a thing as quality control, but I'd rather Apple sold everything in the app store and by default limited searches to "Apple QA Approved" applications, or something.

You know, that is a very good example. Two points I'd like to bring up: DRM free music. Being able to buy one track at a time for $0.99. I am in awe of Apple's negotiation skills on that one, and I promise you that when all that went down, I was telling everyone about it. (Just imagine what amount of arm-twisting it must've taken to get the labels to give up DRM - you'd have to connect a jet engine starter to their arms.)

But while we may look at it as manifest destiny now, there was really no guarantee that Apple would succeed with the iPod and iTunes. ("less space than a Nomad...", etc.)

Back in the bad old days of music we had a bunch of labels to choose from, and it took Apple and a massively successful device (iPod) to fix the situation. Plus, I'm willing to bet, ten tons of sweat and a ton of pure dumb luck to top it off.

While we have multiple mobile platforms now, it is not guaranteed that the market will fix itself by itself. My fear is that if Apple is successful in creating a walled garden, just as the record labels were before, we'd have to wait for someone to break down those walls and meanwhile choose which walled garden we want to be imprisoned in - because if Apple successfully builds a walled garden, others will follow.

So I figure, I'll just raise a real big stink about what I think Apple is doing wrong right now, before they become a monopoly, and maybe they will never become a monopoly. I see that as my 2 cent contribution to the free market. I bitch and whine.

(Finally, thank you for a very well written and thoughtful response. I try, I try...)

Apple would be free to allow or disallow anything for any reason in their App store, if they only allowed other app stores. But are you sure that Apple's definition of porn is equal to yours, and even if it were, that they apply that definition consistently?

It's not really about "I WANT MY PORN", but rather that Apple decides to decide for me what I can and can not see. Maybe we're both ok about not having porn on our phones. I sure don't know what I'd do with it on my phone. But maybe I want to play an "Obama IQ" game, even if I think it is loony. Is it right for Apple to keep an application that is political speech away from me? What about Mark Fiore's app? A mistake, certainly, and Jobs has said so, but the problem really is with the concept that someone should sit and approve content for all.

Apple is free to have an App Store where they approve everything for whatever bizarre reasons, but then they must allow other app stores. Otherwise it's like Wal-Mart both deciding what they sell, and making sure there are no other stores, and that's not good for market diversity.

I understand that there are quality issues with the Flash plug-in, so I can understand why Apply wants to keep it off the iPhone. Again, refuse it in the Apple app store until it passes quality control. (And then maybe refuse it anyway.)

This is another one I have problems with. First, it is never the case that you're just a compile away from supporting other architectures, UI elements, etc. Even if it were, you have to do that recompile. Apple, for example, is still using Carbon for iTunes, and if I understand things right, were using it for the Finder up until a little while ago.

Second, programming is moving more and more toward using Domain Specific Languages for better productivity. The user interface is written in a "user interface language", the AI of games in an AI language, and so on. Disallowing cross-compilation just makes it that much harder to develop for the iPhone.

Third, mandating XCode has a terrible lock-in effect. This is bad for the software ecosystem, just as vendor lock-in is everywhere else, because the vendors are no longer competing on merits, but on inertia.

Shown what way? There were smartphones before the iPhone, and Android is so different from the iPhone that it certainly hasn't followed Apple's way.

First, Apple can do as much quality control as they want - of their own stuff. When it comes to quality control of what I and others bring to market, it should really not be up to Apple.

Second, the improvement to the world comes in the same way as the world is improved by free markets.

Not quite true. First, there's a third option: Buy another device. Second, to say that anyone who complains is someone who wouldn't buy an iPad anyway is plain wrong. There are many, many products that I have thought about buying, but that I ended up not buying because they, in the end, didn't do what I needed them to do. Many marketing people spend a lot of time trying to figure out just why some people won't buy their stuff. They are seen as potential customers, not as "those dorks who wouldn't buy our shit anyway".

I don't like it when people cast things into a "love it or leave it" mold (or "buy it or leave it", in this case). It is never just those two choices.

Let's get a couple of things straight here - I resent the label "whiney", and I resent being accused of "pushing [an] agenda". Could you explain just what agenda I'm pushing? In particular, just what about what I write is it you disagree with? Or are you just going to come here and vaguely accuse me of whining and "pushing an agenda", without addressing anything I actually state?

I understand, and I can only advice you to exercise your right to not read those articles here on Slashdot. There is a big fight going on here, with Jobs etc. expressing their view that Apple is right - which is their right. So certainly I have the right to say that they are wrong.

Look, there are a couple million people out there who Steve hopes will buy an iPad, and that I hope will buy something else.

Apple isn't a "love it or leave it" deal. There is also a future where Apple stops their walled-garden philosophy and become the choice for the creative person again, and one where they become the new IBM of old or Microsoft of recent memory.

There are a lot of people who are undecided, and as long as some people tries to sway them their way, I have the right to try to sway them the other. I'm sorry if this disturbs you. I'd like for everyone to just get along as well, but it is evident that that's not going to happen by itself here, and then I will argue for the side I think is right.

But what is good for Apple isn't necessarily good for the world. Microsoft's decision to get all monopolistic on Netscape was a good business decision (Netscape is dead and Microsoft got off with a slap on the wrist). Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish is a good business strategy (works great), but it's not good for the consumers.

If we're going to discuss this in terms of "what is good for Apple", and ignore the effect that has on the rest of us, then we have really entered the most cynical and immoral of ways of doing business.

(And before you try, don't give me that old line about responsibility to maximize profits - there is no such thing. If a company wants to have a moral compass, they can.)

The solution is parental controls, locked down by default. Otherwise, by your reasoning, Apple has to adopt to the least-tolerant segment of the market.

Not only do I have the right to not buy iPads or iAnything, I also have the right to tell others why they should not buy them.

This whole "if you don't like them, don't buy them, but for God's sake, don't tell anyone about your opinion" is pure BS. After all, if Apple and their supporters take the right to tell me why the iPad is superior to other products (that they presumably haven't bought), I should be able to do the same. I don't buy Microsoft Office, and I also tell people why using native Office formats is bad. I won't buy an iPad, and I'll tell people why.

In regards to Light Peak replacing both USB and FireWire: Anyone knows if LP uses a hub-controlled topology like USB or P2P-ish like firewire? Even 100GB/s throughput won't do much good if we have a huge bottleneck in the hub. I've tried to find out but couldn't find anything in regards to this.

Isn't that exactly what US medevac would do as well? In that case, would it not be a war crime to fire upon the medics?

...which was not what happened, since in this case the van did manifestly stop. Now if your wife had been given orders to kill people helping wounded, well... she'd be a war criminal if she obeyed.

I understand that there may be more to this than what we see, but I can for the life of me not think of anything that might be.

Not uncommon as it may be, that was not what happened here. They drove up and started to tend to the wounded, so I don't see how that affects this particular case. I'm afraid fact is that two trigger-happy flyboys killed some innocent civilians, in a situation where I think we can demand better judgment of our armed forces.

No, it is your goals that are completely compatible with the enemy in this case. Bin Laden and his ilk have repeatedly stated that they want a completely indiscriminate bloodbath where the ends justify the means.

Even so, explain to me what military purpose the shooting of the van served. Are you suggesting that we should start shooting any car in Iraq, because insurgents might jump out of them?