Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Samuel L says (Score 1) 209

Another good reason to bring back extinct creatures who died off due to humans is to attempt to reverse the drastic drop in species diversity. A healthy ecosystem needs a diverse range of species with different characteristics to make it more resilient to change. Considering that we seem to be very good at introducing sudden and massive changes to ecosystems across the globe, it seems like it might be in our best interests to do something before they collapse.

Comment: Re:How about the price? (Score 1) 573

by Brannoncyll (#43042645) Attached to: Time Warner Cable: No Consumer Demand For Gigabit Internet

How about the price?

in rotterdam you can get 200 mbit for 30 euro's, 600 mbit for 37 euro's and 1Gbit for a few hundred euro's more...

I love to have 1Gbit, but I guess 600mbit is okay for now, well hell I would be happy if I could get 200 mbit at all...

It's just how much people are willing to pay for it. I think it still costs far too much....

This could be Rotterdam, or anywhere; Liverpool or Rome.... but nowhere in the States :)

Comment: Re:Weird sensation... (Score 1) 196

If this law is tailored to the job, not only will you have to be able to afford to go round after round of appeal, but if you lose on any of them, you face instant financial ruin.

If it's actually *your* patent, or if you're actively using the patent to do something other than suing people, then the requirements to post bond and pay the defense costs don't apply.

Maybe, but there are so many patents out there, and many are so broadly written, that it is almost impossible to know whether you actually have a valid patent or not. I read recently that there are more patents being released in a year in the mobile market alone (IIRC) that it would take more patent lawyers than exist in the entire US just to give all of them more than a cursory glance. Anyone fighting to uphold their patent is stepping into a very dangerous minefield - if you are a small company anyway. Larger companies will just reach a licensing settlement, but small companies will just be trodden on and destroyed.

Comment: Re:Good News (Score 1) 224

by Brannoncyll (#42990793) Attached to: Copyright Alert System To Launch Monday
I've been using Private Internet Access for a few months and have been very impressed - they are cheap at $7, have plenty of locations around Europe and North America, and they don't keep logs. The TorrentFreak article I linked also lists several other decent sounding VPN providers which might be worth a look.

Comment: Re:It would be fair... (Score 1) 475

by Brannoncyll (#42697701) Attached to: Unlocking New Mobile Phones Becomes Illegal In the US Tomorrow

Why should they? There are many reasons to unlock your phone that don't amount to exiting your contract early.

If the contract you signed specifically prohibits you from unlocking your phone, then they will be within their rights to sue you.

I'm not suggesting they should be given any additional rights (which are not specified in the contract that you agreed upon in advance).

Personally, I only get full priced unlocked phones. I then get a no-contract SIM card. Admittedly, it's much more affordable in the UK than in the US.

I'm a Brit living in the US for the past few years. I have an AT&T pay-as-you-go phone and it is actually very cheap. 10c per minute calls and 25c texts, although for $5 you can pick up a 200 message package. As I probably make less than 30m calls per month and rarely even approach the 200 texts limit from the package, my typical monthly expenditure is less than $10. The handset is very basic of course but I don't really care - I've long since past the days when I felt the desire to own the latest trendy gadgets.

Comment: Re:Good for Linux. (Score 1) 353

by Brannoncyll (#42347471) Attached to: Steam For Linux Is Now an Open Beta

But then, the things outrageous about consoles are price of storage and the restrictions. Not the price of consoles themselves.

That's only because console manufacturers typically sell their consoles at a loss with the intention of making their money back from games and accessories. The Playstation 2 and 3, as well as the XBox and XBox 360, and now the Wii-U all were/will be sold below cost price.

Comment: Re:Don't innovate, litigate! (Score 2) 211

by Brannoncyll (#42060759) Attached to: Form1 3D Printer and Kickstarter Get Sued For Patent Infringment

It is not the patent holders responsibility to publicize their patents. It is the responsibility of any inventor to do a patent search first to understand the patent landscape and determine where they have freedom to operate.

Ignorance is not a defense in the eyes of the law.

This argument is absurd because there are simply so many patents - no small company could possibly be able to search through them to make sure they aren't infringing. I don't know if you have seen this article in which they quote an estimate, made by the American Intellectual Property Law Association, of the total cost if each software company employed enough patent lawyers to check through even a year's worth of software patents, spending only 10 minutes on each: $1.5 trillion, nearly 10% of the US GDP. It would also require 50 times more patent lawyers than the total number currently practising in the US. Although there are presumably less patents on 3D printer technology, the point is still clear: the system is broken because it is generally impractical to be fully aware of every possible patent that you might accidentally violate while developing your product.

In fact the real absurdity of the system is that is allows people to claim ownership over an idea, which they can then use to extort honest people developing their own technology entirely independently. I agree that some sort of protection over copying someone's design can make sense, but there should be no protection against people independently developing something that just so happens to resemble your design.

Comment: Re:Apple Anti-Trust (Score 1) 347

by Brannoncyll (#41907949) Attached to: Google Doubts Apple Will Approve Its New Maps Application

So, your point is that if you exclude most iOS devices, Apple has a monopoly on one segment of portable devices relevant to Google Maps (and even then, nowhere near the level of MS in the Windows antitrust suit days)?

My point was only that Apple have a monopoly in the tablet market and in my opinion (for what that matters) are abusing their dominance to unfairly deny their customers the ability to choose a competing mapping application. This appears to me to be anticompetitive, much more so even than Microsoft, who, while bundling their browser with Windows, never went as far as actively preventing the installation of a competing browser.

Comment: Re:Apple Anti-Trust (Score 1) 347

by Brannoncyll (#41898111) Attached to: Google Doubts Apple Will Approve Its New Maps Application

Many years ago, Microsoft got slapped with an anti-trust suite for bundling a web browser with their OS because it was apparently anti-competitive.

Apple is now bundling a mapping program with their OS and is being very competitive. How is this not anti-trust? Why are they not under fire?

If you can't see the blindingly obvious reason why, then I feel really sorry for you. I guess that explains why you can't figure out how to log in either.

Well you can feel sorry for me too, as I also cannot see how Microsoft getting fined for pre-loading their web browser in their products while Apple is getting away with not only pre-loading their products with their mapping software but actively preventing you from being able to choose an alternative. If this behaviour is not anti-competitive I don't know what is. Are you arguing that because they produce the hardware they somehow have the right to maintain an unprecedented stranglehold over what the customers can do with said devices?

No, I'm arguing that Microsoft holding a monopoly position in the OS market and *then* bundling a browser to kill Netscape on Windows was the problem.

Had Microsoft not had a monopoly in the OS space then bundling IE and killing off Netscape would have been a dick move, but perfectly legal and fine.

If Apple decides to reject the Google Maps app then it will be totally legal and fine - they absolutely do not hold a monopoly in smartphones and/or tablets - whether it is a smart move, or a dick move is entirely separate. What it will be is legal, however.

According to this website the Ipad claims 76.4% of the 2012 US tablet market, which is typically large enough to be considered a monopoly in the US (justice.gov). I find myself surprised that Apple do not have a monopoly in the smartphone market considering how many people I see using Iphones in New York.

Comment: Re:Apple Anti-Trust (Score 1) 347

by Brannoncyll (#41894671) Attached to: Google Doubts Apple Will Approve Its New Maps Application

Many years ago, Microsoft got slapped with an anti-trust suite for bundling a web browser with their OS because it was apparently anti-competitive.

Apple is now bundling a mapping program with their OS and is being very competitive. How is this not anti-trust? Why are they not under fire?

If you can't see the blindingly obvious reason why, then I feel really sorry for you. I guess that explains why you can't figure out how to log in either.

Well you can feel sorry for me too, as I also cannot see how Microsoft getting fined for pre-loading their web browser in their products while Apple is getting away with not only pre-loading their products with their mapping software but actively preventing you from being able to choose an alternative. If this behaviour is not anti-competitive I don't know what is. Are you arguing that because they produce the hardware they somehow have the right to maintain an unprecedented stranglehold over what the customers can do with said devices?

Comment: Re:This is actually dead end... (Score 1) 279

by Brannoncyll (#41888933) Attached to: Kim Dotcom's Next Venture: Free Broadband To New Zealand

Does NZ have any presence in Afghanistan? Last I heard they had sold off most of their military and (unlike Australia, who still buy into all the hubris) don't waste money on silly foreign pissing contests.

No idea, but Dotcom, as far as I am aware, is not planning on suing the NZ government; he is actually (at least according to the summary) planning on suing the US government to fund his venture. The poster I was replying to was suggesting that we should not be happy with anyone suing the US government as the money ultimately comes out of the US taxpayers wallet. My point was simply that $400 million, while a lot of money, is a drop in the ocean compared to the cost of the war in Afghanistan ($582 billion according to google) and should not be used as an excuse to deny Dotcom justice.

When the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the plane, the plane will fly. -- Donald Douglas

Working...