Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: It's not just games.. (Score 1) 345

by RabidRabb1t (#31628884) Attached to: GameStop Sued Over Lack of DLC For Used Games
Textbook publishers have been doing an analogous thing for years. They set up some pitiful homework website and the code to use it only comes bundled with the new book or will set you back $49.99. Usually this isn't an issue, but some prof's are too lazy to grade the homework and get roped into this scheme (e.g.: mastering physics). It's a total scam. I, for one, bought an old copy of the textbook used for $30. Then i found out that because I didn't buy the new, ~200 textbook, I would have to pay $50 to do my homework!

Comment: Maybe the teaching is just that bad... (Score 1) 427

by RabidRabb1t (#31616244) Attached to: BC Prof Suggests Young Children Need Less Formal Math, Not More
Maybe the parents were simply better at teaching their students math. I remember back in elementary school when they tried to teach us "new math" through these misguided methods that were extremely unhelpful and confused many students. My parents taught me how to divide the real way.

Comment: Re:inalienable rights (Score 2, Insightful) 243

by RabidRabb1t (#31602846) Attached to: GoDaddy Follows Google's Lead; No More Registrations In China
Companies like Google and GoDaddy leaving China is not the result of them foisting their (or as you put it, American) views upon the Chinese; they are acting in what they believe to be their best interests. Filtering internet content or maintaining a backlog of photos and business IDs takes time and costs money. These companies did not like the control China was trying to exercise over them. The Chinese told them to get lost, and they did.

Comment: Re:Not gonna happen (Score 1) 2424

by RabidRabb1t (#31571012) Attached to: House Passes Massive Medical Insurance Bill, 219-212
I have student health insurance. It costs $1500 per year and it's quite decent insurance. They can do this not because of the "skyrocketing" price of healthcare, but because the population they are covering has a mean age in the low 20's and is generally healthy. Young and healthy people should not have to pay the same rate that some gangly old fart about to kick the bucket pays; it should be assessed on risk.

Comment: Re:$10 trillion? (Score 4, Informative) 193

by RabidRabb1t (#31325466) Attached to: "Patent Markings" Lawsuits Could Run Into the Trillions
Those are the maximum damages allowable under the statute. Actual damages may be much lower; a reward of $0.01 or even $0.10 per cup might not be so unreasonable for committing a billion counts of fraud. What is interesting to note, however, is that one must prove both that either the cups were never patented, or if they were that they were manufactured after the patent expired.

Comment: Re:They're missing the point! (Score 1) 865

by RabidRabb1t (#29955380) Attached to: Apple Says Booting OS X Makes an Unauthorized Copy

I agree with you completely. In fact, now that I think about it, I do seem to remember a case involving a company that offered cheap upgrades to the TurboTax software. The idea was that if you had already purchased TurboTax the year before, you could buy this cheap upgrade that hijacked the TurboTax engine and updated everything for the new year's taxes. If I remember correctly, the case came to an end with TurboTax victorious. I can't tell you about any appeals. I'm not sure how/if Apple can use this particular case because Psystar is cleverly arguing that their modifications are for the sole purpose of utilizing Apple's software which is allowed under some portion of the copyright law.

What's really bizarre about this case is how poorly Apple's business plan meshes with copyright law, which was created with the intent of protecting the sale of the intellectual work; Apple's business plan is to use that intellectual work to get you to buy their hardware at extremely inflated prices. This would work fine if they didn't already offer their intellectual work on a DVD. As an analogy to this thought, think of the college bookstore and how they often want to sell you the solutions manual and textbook 'set'. Unfortunately, this doesn't stop me from buying a used copy, which is similar to Apple's case.

The way I see it, Apple thinks that their software is actually worth ~$500 per copy (since the hardware in the lappy isn't worth their asking price), and is upset that Psystar has found a way to avoid paying full price. Further, they're mad that they can't profit off the hardware too. They have many options at their disposal, but since they're sleazy, they'd rather sue.

Comment: They're missing the point! (Score 1) 865

by RabidRabb1t (#29945908) Attached to: Apple Says Booting OS X Makes an Unauthorized Copy

IANAL, and maybe I think my 2 cents is worth a little more than what it's stamped on, but I'm gonna give this one a try: this seems like a tactic by Apple's lawyer's to make Psystar's lawyers work harder and make the case take longer. Reading the briefs, it's evident that Apple has superior lawyers (both number and quality), as well as money to pay them with; they're strong-arming them.

From what I've read in the briefs, Apple's argument rests solely on the one clause from their "Software License Agreement" (Henceforth SLA), which states OSX may only be installed and run on Apple hardware. Without this clause, Apple would have a very difficult time arguing that the the copies are truly unauthorized; whether or not the clause is enforceable is, as far as I know, untested. I believe it is easier and less risky for Apple to drown Psystar in litigation and obfuscate the issue entirely than to actually find out.

As for the creation of unauthorized copies, they're only unauthorized if the first copy is unauthorized as well. Since Psystar legally purchased the media, Apple can't argue that discs are illegal -- simply that the copies on the hard drive are because they aren't on Apple hardware. I have a hard time believing Apple's other argument, namely that an altered boot loader and kernel extensions constitute copyright infringement, especially when 1) similar bundling techniques are routinely practiced with their Windows counterparts and 2) Apple has been paid for the software it is distributing.

I have just one question for Apple: If your computers are truly a hardware and software package, why do you bother to sell the software separately?

If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants. -- Isaac Newton

Working...