Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Client != potential client (Score 1) 185

This is what you wrote:

Unless Gogo has all your potential clients tied up for a decade with exclusive contracts

This was what was in the article:

At least two companiesâ"ViaSat and Global Eagle Entertainment (GEE)â"are encroaching on its airspace, winning business by offering faster, cheaper connections that use satellites instead of cell towers.

Now you are writing:

An airline that has already deployed a particular provider's service is a "client", not a "potential client". This means a "potential client" for ViaSat is an airline that 1. isn't already a ViaSat client and 2. isn't already in an exclusive contract with Gogo.

If Gogo's competitors already have contracts with some airlines, your "all" point is nonsense. That's like saying Comcast could potentially look all my neighbors into contracts. Except that it is a fact that they haven't and can't.

Comment Re:Am I the only person... (Score 1) 185

And ATG at 3GHz is the only option? In the article, it mentions competitors that are using satellites. And the last time I checked 3GHz wasn't the only frequency. And again, you are free to pursue your own solution although not having a few billion in capital may be a hindrance especially when there isn't exactly a lucrative market.

Comment Re:No Competition Only GoGo And $$$ To CEOs (Score 1) 185

Please. Gogo has not had many competitors historically but that is changing. You however want to contribute that all to bribes and kickbacks rather than the simple truth that is is freakishly expensive to create the infrastructure to supply wifi to passenger jet where maybe 10% of the passengers are willing to pay for the service. They are now getting competition because it takes time and money to build a competing infrastructure.

Comment Re:Am I the only person... (Score 1) 185

But in your example of computers imagine if Intel only sold a hundred thousand processors a year instead of millions. And that AMD never really existed. While there might be progress but technology does not advance without financial motivations. If you want to spend billions and start your own company to offer faster airplane wifi, go right ahead.

Comment Re:Slow is why it's expensive. (Score 1) 185

How about cost? Hey if you think that you can provide a better, cheaper service, you're free to do so. However as the story pointed out, Gogo's current technology relies on a network of 225 towers which may be located in remote places. Building and maintaining this network can't be cheap. Their new competitors will rely on a network of satellites. That also isn't cheap to do.

Comment Re:Woah (Score 1) 67

Generally, the District Attorney is the city's head official when it comes to legal matters. Most of the time they focus on criminal matters as a city would have more of those to deal with than civil matters. For large cities, they may have separate DAs to civil and criminal and divisions to handle both sides.

Comment Re:Woah (Score 1) 67

In this case an outside firm was handling the case. This isn't unusual as the city would not necessarily have lawyers with copyright expertise. Also it could be that their attorneys wanted no part of the case as well. But the expert copyright lawyer the city hired SHOULD have known better, but it may have been what the client wanted.

Submission + - Judge rules that Inglewood, California cannot copyright public videos->

UnknowingFool writes: Recently a judge ruled in California, that the city of Inglewood cannot hold copyrights of videos of public city council meetings which they published on their youtube account and thus cannot sue individuals for copyright infringement for using them. In several youtube videos, Joseph Teixeira, a resident of Inglewood, California criticized the mayor, James Butts. (Yes that's his real name). Under the account name, Dehol Truth, Teixeira took city council meetings posted on their youtube account and edited them to make pointed criticisms about the mayor.

The city responded by registering the videos with copyrights and then suing Teixeira for copyright infringement. Many would say it was a thinly veiled attempt to silence a critic. Teixeira filed a motion to dismiss arguing that (1) the city cannot claim copyright over public records (videos of public city council meetings) and (2) even if they could, his videos fell under Fair Use.

Unsurprisingly a judge dismissed the city's case citing California law which bars the city from holding copyrights on most public records. What is notable is that the judge dismissed the case with prejudice meaning that the city cannot refile. Normally judges do not do this unless they feel that the plaintiff's case was so weak that he feels no judge should hear the case ever again. Also because the judge agreed with the defendant Teixeira on the first point, he would not normally need to address Teixeira's Fair Use defense, but he did anyway. Anticipating that the city may appeal his decision, judge ruled that Teixeira's videos substantially met all four factors for Fair Use:
  1. There is no evidence Teixeira used the videos for commericial gain and was transformative
  2. His work was creative by adding music and commentary to the normally boring council videos
  3. Despite the city's claim he used their "entire work", it clear that he only used portions of meetings that lasted as long as four hours editing them down to a max of 15 minutes.
  4. Teixeira did not harm the city's market for the videos because the city is barred by state law from recouping more than direct costs of duplication. Even if the city could sell the videos (which they published themselves for free on youtube), his short videos are not a substitute.

This case may not be over as Teixeira's pro bono lawyer has not filed for attorney's fees. The ruling can be found here
Link to Original Source

Submission + - Behind the Microsoft write-off of Nokia->

UnknowingFool writes: Previously Microsoft had announced that they write-off the Nokia purchase for $7.6B in the last quarter. In doing so Microsoft would create only the third unprofitable quarter in the company's history. Released on July 31, new financial documents detail some of the reasoning and financials behind this decision. At the core of the problem was that the Phone Hardware business was only worth $116M after adjusting for costs and market factors. One of those factors was poor sales of Nokia handhelds in 2015. Financially it made more sense to write it all off.

the carrying value of Phone Hardware goodwill exceeded its estimated fair value. Accordingly, we recorded a goodwill impairment charge of $5.1 billion, reducing Phone Hardware’s goodwill from $5.4 billion to $116 million

Link to Original Source

Comment Re:bullshit translator go: (Score 1) 119

Stop. stop with the fever-dream of a phone. you lost seven billion dollars on the phone thing. real people lost jobs because of your half-assed insistance on dominating all markets forever.

Not only that but Microsoft held a funeral for the iPhone when they launched the Windows Phone. Hubris?

The IQ of the group is the lowest IQ of a member of the group divided by the number of people in the group.