What's the practical distinction to US citizens, though? We access the whole Internet through US-based ISPs, and the US government can impose regulations on ISPs, so as far as I'm concerned the government has the ability to control the Internet.

Of course, I would much rather have them in control than the ISPs themselves...

That's not how it works. The reason they can do that with this Internet is that they were the ones who invented it in the first place.

Not to rub salt in your wound, but this seems kind of ironic given that the logic behind a lot of the attacks on iOS is that users should be able to choose whether they want to use it or not. It seems to me that not having the option not to use Flash is just as bad as not having the option to use it.

Am I missing something here that says we have to compare all these people on the merits of their accomplishments?

Steve Jobs did great things. Dennis Ritchie did great things as well. We can argue all day about who was "better" or "more influential", but what's the point? Why not just celebrate their lives to honor them, instead of to passive-aggressively piss off people who look up to someone else?

If you celebrate Dennis Ritchie, do it for his monumental contributions to computing. If you do it just because you think Steve Jobs got too much attention, you're doing a disservice to both of their memories.

I did. Here are the first five; tell me which of them looks remotely like an iPad to you?

Yes, and in this case those rules state that you must return found property to its owner, or—if you can't find its owner—the police, otherwise it's stealing.

And where is the contention here, exactly?

Theft? Selling stolen property? If you lost your phone and the person who found it decided to sell it instead of return it to you, would it be a crime then? Or does it only become okay when it happens to a company you dislike?

That is the full article.

Thaaaaaaaaaat is not Techdirt. It's a publication with a similar name but which I've never heard of (and also seems to harbor some odd hatred for Apple).

How is it bad for someone with no programming knowledge that they aren't free to, for example, look at the source code of iOS or distribute modified versions?

In California, not turning in to the authorities a found object with a value greater than $100 is considered stealing.

Because it only confirms that it belongs to Apple if Apple makes a public announcement, not asks for it back privately, right?

I realize there's a presumption of innocence and they haven't been found guilty of anything, but come on, man. They publicly acknowledged purchasing property they knew was stolen, destroyed it, and when the owners asked for it back they wouldn't listen unless the owners would announce publicly that it was theirs. They indisputably broke the law in more than one way, and it sucks to see them getting off scot-free.

No one's deriving money from royalties—Apple is literally selling customers iPhones, and Microsoft is making OEMs license Windows. Google makes their money from advertising; Android is a loss leader for them. It is definitely a legitimate business model, but "more sustainable"? Please. Charging people money for the things you've created is the oldest business model in the world, and I don't think it's going anywhere anytime soon.

Also: telecom carriers do not give away phones, they're subsidized into the cost of the contract. It might be free up front, but you're actually paying for it every month (this is why termination fees exist: because if you terminate your contract early, you have to pay off the rest of the phone). The phone manufacturers get paid every cent of what that "free" phone costs. Sure, it goes down in value over time, but what piece of technology doesn't?

MS and Apple have retaliated in the marketplace with products and services. "Better" is arguable, but you can't say their efforts to compete hinge on patent litigation; it's simply not true. Furthermore, they're not "patent trolls"—you can disagree with their use of patent litigation, but as they are actively developing and selling their products, they are not trolling.

Right, and if they know that Android infringes on someone else's intellectual property it's their responsibility to license it! This is the real world. Whether you believe software patents should be valid or not, the fact is they're legal right now. Google can't take a stand on principle and expect to get off scott-free.

No one's blaming Google for thinking software patents suck. They're blaming them for trying to get for free what everyone else has to pay for.

You don't understand what a patent troll is (see above). Whether or not the platforms are "open" is irrelevant. Microsoft, Apple and Oracle are all actively developing and selling products.

No, but giving away what other companies must charge for could be described that way.

If you are going to attempt to disrupt a technology market, you have to be prepared for the existing players to retaliate.

True, but given their reaction to this patent deal it seems more than likely that they think Android might infringe on at least a few of those patents.

How is this relevant?

Let's be clear: Microsoft, Apple and Oracle teamed up for the Novell patents, not the Nortel patents. And guess what: Google was invited to join up with that group to bid! They declined, bid on their own, and lost. That's entirely Google's fault, not Apple and Microsoft teaming up to take Google down.

Also, no one is blaming Google for complaining about software patents (especially on Slashdot). The patent system is broken. The reason people are calling Google hypocritical is because they played the patent game and bid for the patents, and only complained about the patents being "bogus" and their competitors being "unfair" when they lost. Google's not standing on principle here, they're just being sore losers.

Source: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-patents-attack-android.html

TFS might have mixed up Novell and Nortel, but Google complained about other companies banding together for both deals.