I think you are making the mistake of thinking that Apple was sued for something that remotely makes sense. They weren't.

Apple sold music with DRM in 2006. That music was hard or impossible to copy, as music with DRM should be. But that's not what Apple was sued for. And making it impossible for music with DRM to be copied is actually what DRM is there for.

Realnetworks had developed their own DRM "solution". Which had the unfortunate disadvantage that it didn't play on iPods, and it didn't play on Microsoft "Playforsure" compatible players either. So it was quite dead in the water. So Realnetworks decided to create a hack where they removed their own DRM, then put fake "FairPlay" (that's Apple's DRM) around it, and copied that to the iPod.

It turned out that they damaged directory structures on the iPod, and the iPod's "FairPlay" implementation noticed that there was something fishy about these files. Altogether so bad that Apple's software suggested that you reformat the iPod. And that is what these lawyers complain about: That Apple didn't allow their hacked DRM to play on an iPod.

The obvious and 100% iPod compatible solution would have been to remove the DRM and _not_ to try to add Fairplay DRM to the music. Music without DRM, like mp3, AAC, WAV, ALAC has always played on all iPods.

No, she was the largest vessel, briefly afloat :-)

Most likely the sale is only entered at a later stage. Could be if the charge your credit card, could be if the ship.

And most likely, they have terms and conditions that basically say "we offer what you see on the website, except if there are obvious mistakes". And the only way you could complain is if you spot a pattern, like if this happens repeatedly, or if they refuse to sell to you but don't change the advertised price.

Now all that said, from all I've heard the authors of the GPL were quite competent in what they were doing, so it is quite likely that the GPL says what they meant.

I think the most important thing is about remedies, and there is quite strong precedence. It seems that if you use open-sourced software and don't do what you are supposed to do according to the license, you are a copyright infringer, and not someone in breach of contract. So the damages are those of a copyright infringer (up to $150,000 per work, or the proven damage), and not those of a person in breach of contract.

I really wouldn't think so. Sure, it has to be made clear that the license for the software doesn't include the license for the patents. But it would make absolute sense if a patent holder made it easy for companies to actually use their patent by providing open source software to use the patent, instead of everyone having to create their own proprietary software.

Well... Copyright law is about different things, mostly about copying and creating derivative works. A judge would decide whether someone made a copy, or whether someone created a derivative work, according to the law, and the GPL cannot override this. With that decided, the judge will then conclude that either you did need permission by the GPL, or you didn't need permission by the GPL to do what you did.

On the other hand, the GPL can say in its own terms what it allows you to do. They could say "you are allowed to create a derivative work if you do A, B and C; we consider it a derivative work if you did X, Y and Z". Then the judge would check if you did X, Y and Z to decide whether you needed to do A, B and C to get permission from GPL.

If you didn't need permission, then it doesn't matter what the GPL says. If you did need permission, then it matters.

Even so, what the lawyers who created the license intended doesn't matter. Or what he was told that the license should achieve, doesn't matter either. The text of the license matters.

The taxi drivers are arguing that since there is a shitload of rules and regulations that they have to follow to be allowed to drive people to their destination and charge, others shouldn't be allowed to do so without following the same shitload of rules and regulations.

They are also probably worried that prices are driven down by a company exploiting people who just want to make a bit of extra money. I'd love to see what percentage of Uber drivers have proper insurance and pay their taxes.

They just received 1200 million dollars funding. Astorturfing is cheap.

In the UK, a few years ago they had a "petrol strike" where drivers refused to transport fuel to petrol stations. Panic ensued. One owner of a petrol station who still had fuel left decided to double the price.

Three days later the strike was over. Two months later, the station closed down, bankrupt.

Well, look at the guys. Their religion tells them to dress and to behave towards women so that no woman would touch them with a barge pole unless forced to. The average bearded muslim looks ten times worse than the average Unix programmer and has a tenth of the brain, so they have no chance to get laid by any woman volunteering without getting paid.

And that just drives them nuts and hateful. Instead of shaving and getting a decent haircut and doing something to make themselves a bit attractive, they believe some fairy tales of virgins waiting for them in heaven. Sorry, guys, heaven is not where you are going! No virgins for you!

The ones that are already rolled in you won't stop easily. It's about the impressionable ones that are not enrolled.

If you don't understand why Muslims are angry about drawings of Mohammed, then you are a big part of the problem.

Consider this: These people are not muslims. They are total fuckwits who lost their minds and got their hands on some guns. If the religion that they claim to "support" is correct in what it teaches, then these guys will end up in hell for what they are doing. If other religions are correct in what they teach, they will end up in a slightly different but equally terrible place. That's one of the few negative aspects of being an atheist, knowing that these guys won't get the punishment they deserve.

Not at all. You can be falsely convicted of rape, then you are not a rapist. Or you can be wrongly set free, then you are still a rapist. "Rapist" is about the fact that someone has committed the crime. "Convicted rapist" is someone being convicted for the crime.