Check out who is part of MPEG-LA. It's basically every consumer company on this planet. You'd have to go live in a cave.

What do they expect to gain exactly? Apple has just one minor patent in the patent pool. You would think, actually, that Apple would benefit from a patent free codec.

Apple has not basis and no reason to spread FUD against Theora. It does not license any of the H264 patents (it has only 1 in the pool and it's minor). It gains no monetary benefit from H264 (that it would not gain from any other codec). H264 holds no strategic value.

This is Steve saying 'we can't support it because we'd get sued'. It's an a conspiracy. Time to take off the tin foil hat.

I hate to burst your bubble ..

- Apple has no significant H. 264 license and has no grounds to sue anyone related to Theora. Apple is saying they know litigation is pending by a 3rd party.

- Apple permits writers and publishers the ability to set their own eBook prices. The market defines the prices.

- The Apple engineer who lost the iPhone remains employed by Apple.

- Flash sucks right, we all agree to that, we all think it should die? Apple starts 'battling it' and it's evil?

These statements are carefully engineered FUD spread by the license holders of competing formats in order to discourage the use of unencumbered alternatives.

Apple is not a significant license holder of competing formats and, it's safe to assume, Steve Jobs is no one's mouthpiece other than his own. The question was asked why Apple does not implement these codecs. The answer is that Apple - possibly but not necessarily through it's participation in MPEG-LA - is aware that litigation against Ogg or Theora (or both) is imminent and it believes that litigation will have merit and so Apple cannot support that format as it could be the target of litigation itself.

Does this have anything to do with this story or are you just ranting? Because if your just ranting that sort of makes you as bad as the fanboys your ranting about.

Just as a reality check, Apple's has only a single patent in the H264 pool which, pretty clearly, does not infringe on Ogg or Theora. So, any expression of evil in this case will have nothing to do with Apple.

]{

There are hundreds of simple games for free on the AppStore. This is not about paying. This is about platform control. Whomever controls the dominant development platform is in a better position to compete.

The vast majority of major retailers in the civilized world make 'moral or ethical choices' on behalf of their customers. Get over it.

If there is a person who needs a hit from the 'peace pipe' more then Steve Jobs it's the average Slashdot reader.

Another company tried that - Microsoft - and look where that's gotten us.

]{

There is an app for that ...

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fortuneball/id285537465?mt=8

The reporting on the phone is not at issue. The issue is purchasing stolen properly. Taco and the Playboy collection under his bed are totally in the clear.

]{

1) The items in question were not stolen. According to the news coverage, not only did the person who found the phone, FIND it in a public place (which by definition can not be a theft, at least in the State of California). He then attempted to give it to Apple. Apple then said "not ours, we don't want it."

It is a crime in California to 'find' but not return another persons property. Indeed, it's a crime in virtually the entire civilized world. The fact that an item is 'found' in a public place is in no way relevant.

2) Under California State law, journalistic actions have many protections. The State can not force a journalist to reveal information pertaining to a source. The State can not confiscate goods relating to the distribution of news. The State can not prosecute a journalist who acted in the interest of journalism who acted good faith (with some non-related exceptions).

California State Law does not extend protection to a journalist purchasing a stolen item. The journalists in question clearly understood the property in question was not sold or otherwise made available to the seller by the owner.

The buyers argument should be that the seller tried to 'return' the property and was told it was not necessary (that Apple effectively 'gave' the seller the device) and so the buyer felt the transaction was legitimate. The fact that they are claiming journalistic protection rather than this simple argument suggests that the computers that were seized contain incriminating content (that Chen knew the device was not legitimate and bought it anyway).

It's not possible to do that. Many ARM licenses are already so open that they permit companies - like Qualcomm and TI - to basically create competing designs. If Apple decided to restrict ARM technology it would provide an opportunity for these companies to offer competing products superior to ARM offerings.

(Although that might be Steve's diabolical plan - limit ARM's licensing so as to create a whole industry of ARM design derivatives - and have Apple collect royalties in perpetuity.)

]{

My daughter is 3. She watches movies on an iPhone on road trips and plays - most educational - games, and generally amuses herself quite effectively. The same movies also synced with the the iPad and we now have that as an entertainment option (although, that said, for a small child an iPhone is better because it's easier to hold).

Admittedly we don't have many DVD's and the one's we do have have been ripped and re-encoded which does, admittedly, require some skill but then, you know, this is slashdot.