Fifty billion dollar? So why do we always hear sob stories about little Uber fighting the evil monopoly of taxi drivers?

How many of that fifty billion dollar goes towards convincing politicians? And as with other big companies, if a fifty billion company breaks the law, then any fines must be big enough so that a fifty billion dollar company notices them and changes its way.

In which alternate universe is arresting the people running an illegal business the "least logical way possible"?

Oh, that's no problem. Freemium claimed (and likely has the numbers) that their income from sleazy installs against the wishes of the computer went down, and that it was due to Avira's software (which they probably also can prove). So Avira _did_ interfere with Freemium's business, there is no doubt about that. The question was whether they interfered in a legal way, or in an illegal way. And the judge said it was legal. I suppose if Avira put up an alert saying "Don't install this, this software will cause cancer" they would have lost.

It's also a lot less work to find a case that is quite close and copy what the judge in the other case found. Instead of figuring all the details out himself, which is hard work, the judge just needs to check that all the details of the other court case match.

But tell me, where is the interoperability with Java? Google has its own VM, so they don't really need Java interoperability.

I suspect that (1) there is a license allowing the inclusion of header files, for example the GPL license terms might allow this, (2) NVidia is merely using, but not copying the header files (unlike Google), and (3) if someone insisted that NVidia can't include kernel header files to build its drivers, then instead of a GPL'd driver Linux users will end up with no driver. And if the same thing happens with ARM / AMD, then good night Linux.

Have a look on Apple's website at the design of the batteries in newer MacBooks. It's not quite "battery juice", but the batteries do come in shapes that fill the smallest gap, something that would be impossible with a removable battery.

You forgot to mention that the huge majority are heterosexual and have no problem getting laid with a member of the opposite sex. I guess as a slash dotter without that kind of experience it didn't occur to you.

I thought the only people who care about removable batteries are the people who love Android and haven't figured out yet that the latest Samsung Android phones come without removable battery. Oh well, and some people who love Android and figured out that the latest Samsung Android phones come without removable battery can complain about that as well :-)

If it's just a god damned (I fully agree here) piece of coloured cloth, then what are you complaining about?

Your source, which you verified carefully without doubt, is free to send any evidence to the French police which will take care of it. Well, unless of course your source is lying or doesn't exist.

More precisely: They are sensitive to believing that an antenna is working. There have been studies where people showed symptoms when a button was pressed and a red light went on to demonstrate that an antenna was transmitting, and the symptoms disappeared when the button was pressed again and the red light went off. (Nothing was transmitted at any time during the experiment).

That one is the ultimate horror story what happens when you get stupid lawyers involved. Short summary: Guy named Uzi Nissan registers and uses www.nissan.com. Nissan car company wants the URL. Lawyers get involved. Judge decides that nobody can use it.

Between reasonable people without lawyers the outcome would have been that Uzi Nissan would have received a generous amount of cash, perhaps a new car made by guess what company, and Nissan car company had used the URL. Instead, everyone lost, except possibly Nissan's lawyers who declared this a victory for Nissan (which obviously it isn't).

People entering www.youtube.com/lush expect to see marketing information from the same guy who registered the name many years ago, not some random company. Not sure what your thought process is here. Lush cosmetics doesn't own the site.

And in my own not so humble opinion it's exactly the opposite.

You say that Apple is in it for the money - guess what Google is after? The difference is that Apple produces and sells hardware. Apple's customers are the people buying the hardware. And Apple keeps its customers happy by doing what's good for them, and not what's good for the government.

Google, on the other hand, makes most of its money from advertisements. How you can think that Google wants to defend your privacy, when their biggest source of money is selling out your privacy so that advertisers get adverts directed at you, that is beyond me.

And let's just say that the browser on your Android device is most likely running lots of code developed by Apple.