What really shocks me about the results thus far (and I'll spot you non-scientific, self-selected sample, &c.) is how overwhelmingly far ahead the I don't play video games option is. I certainly didn't expect any of the options having that much of a lead. When I voted, I anticipated seeing either 1 hour or 2-3 hours having a plurality of the votes with myself and the other non-gamers totaling somewhere in the low three-digit range.

Sir (or miss, or ma'am, or droid ... what are you?), you have no business implying that add-on authors should test in the Aurora channel (or even Nightly) to make sure that their add-on continues to work. Clearly, the old Mozilla method in which base versions were allowed to stagnate for months and even years — allowing add-on developers to relax and not worry about things like version updates — must be catered to!

A publisher holds some form of copyright on the work. That's not true in this case, despite what the troll plaintiffs claim.

Apparently people and groups in China suing Apple for cash (which has close to $100B on hand) is now a thing — witness the lawsuit filed by flat-ass broke Proview over the iPad name it gave up the rights to years ago (via a Taiwan subsidiary so it could try to hide the money Apple paid it from its creditors).

This sounds like a nuisance lawsuit filed against a big company specifically to try to extort a cash settlement out of convenience, rather than suing the actual copyright infringer (which is probably not as well-financed and may not even be known to the "authors' group"). I think they're in for a surprise when they get to court.

Apple is serving as a retailer here, not a publisher like Random House or Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Apple is not the content creator nor is it the publisher of said content. In this instance, it's a retail outlet only.

I believe that novel was already written by a Mr. S. King of Maine.