I missed this response, and duplicated part of mine for posterity.

I 100% agree that this is becoming increasingly murky as developers attempt to monetize purchases in different ways, in different venues, with subtle indicators in the in-app experience to suggest users look elsewhere for their in-app digital purchases. The contractual obligations Apple places on always offering an in-app purchase method if an out-of-app purchase method is available, are becoming increasingly difficult to enforce. Like you said, Apple is struggling to track and guess how much money is moving outside of their app-store. The reports of certain app developers being "nudged" to offer in-app purchases is also telling.

Whatever gets decided from this case, hopefully applies to all other digital venues. Consoles for sure are the closest to Apple's business model. I am hopeful that the market will handle this, but am somewhat leaning on case precedent speeding up the process to an equilibrium. Appreciate this response as well.

I appreciate the informed and well-thought out responses. I personally have somewhat different views on how the legality of right-to-repair and right-to-modify should evolve over time, and feel that a limited warranty on hardware should not be voided by jailbreaking unless Apple can prove that the device was run outside of its normal operating parameters (eg CPU was overclocked, SoC was modified). I think a mandate that phones should be jailbreakable with only core functionality preserved is reasonable- otherwise, the ability to jailbreak will remain a gentleman's agreement that will likely be eroded over time by artificial barriers and hardware consequences instituted by manufacturers, be it Apple or Motorola or any one of a litany of Android device manufacturers. The dissolution of a warranty alone is a serious deterrent against jail-breaking. Again, I am totally OK with the nature of the app store and the stipulations attached to it when running in a vanilla iOS. It just becomes murky when an alternative (being free of the walled garden) is not guaranteed or even defined by laws.

Of all the nonsense in the Epic brief, I think most of all the legality of applying fees to in-app purchases should be clearly defined to spur legislation. I won't lie that it personally makes me uncomfortable as it seems to abrogate one of the most common aspects of property ownership, which is immunity to peer-to-peer transactional fees outside of taxation. Apple and Google do their best to evade this legal avenue by considering purchase of an app "licensing". I don't think it would be the end of the world for Apple and Google if the ability to sidestep constraints on in-app purchases was made law. There would still be an astronomical number of app developers that would continue to use the provided ecosystems for convenience and security, although the fees would likely have to get a bit more competitive instead of floating around an industry average. But regardless of my opinion there, above all I just want this aspect of the EULA to be dissected and deemed perfectly OK, or not.

I did NOT know about this case w/ Lexmark and will certainly research it to enlighten myself. Again, I appreciate these responses, they are incredibly informative and pertinent and it's a shame that they are buried beneath the trite back-and-forth narratives for and against each company that have been festering in Slashdot, Reddit and so forth.

I didn't assert that having one "app store" violates basic notions of ownership and property rights. I don't even agree with the anti-trust basis of the majority of the Epic vs Apple lawsuit. I think the anti-trust angle is juvenile and ridiculous. I do however think courts should induce legislation on right-to-modify and the definitively decide whether or not Apple is legally allowed to place a surcharge on transactions that occur after a user "buys" (they call it "licensing") an app.

There is no guarantee a jailbroken iPhone has to work. There is no mandate that Apple must make a phone jail-breakable. There is no legislation dictating that they cannot render a phone inoperable if a user tries to jailbreak it. And it is not even clear just how OK it is to void a warranty if a phone is jailbroken. The most recent version of iOS cannot currently be jailbroken. This entire notion of jailbreaking phones is a gentlemen's agreement between the consumer and Apple (and a host of manufacturers of Android's phones). Your details on cars are great- didn't know most of that. It's nice that there is active legislation on the books that governs what can and cannot be done.

Ditto for the ability to sideload *unsigned* apps onto an iPhone. If it works, it's because Apple has chosen to allow it- not because they have to by law.

So I actually completely agree that it is within Apple's purview to do this: "aggressively retain control of how all users of their device browsed and paid for new functionality". I think the walled garden approach more broadly has serious benefits to security and UX. I don't think we should be able to compel Apple or Google to offer a store, either. I like most of your points and keep in mind that you set up some straw-men. It's totally OK for Apple to compel people to pay for apps through their store on their device. Where things get fuzzy are:

* Can Apple prevent devices from being jailbroken if they so choose to?
* Can Apple (and Google) render a device inoperable if it is jailbroken? Want phone calls, no-no to jailbreak?
* Can Apple disallow the sideloading of apps?
* Can Apple (and Google) through the legal morass that is a EULA compel developers to only use a specific method of in-app purchases, while collecting a fee on them? Again, this broad power is generally reserved for the government in the USA, EU, UK. The user in general owns their phone and is not leasing it from a 3rd party or the manufacturer. This sort of top-level, general surcharge invoked as a financial transaction is also ludicrously regulated within the banking industry (pretty sure you knew that already). It's regulated up the wazoo.

The ignorant will go: "those questions are all answered! it's not illegal!"

No. First, just because Apple and Google have been doing something for a while, doesn't make it legal. Second, just because individual states have not pre-empted any applicable laws, does not mean it will remain legal. I believe it is time we received distinct answers and case precedent on these questions in the USA. I don't want unspoken, incidental rules. The only issue that actually has active legislation right now is "right to repair", and that is only in less than half the states. In the rest of them Apple can compel you to only have iPhones repaired at their officially branded or sanctioned stores. Flagrant violation of ownership refers to stuff like that- if everyone who bought a new car had to go to the same dealer or dealerships to have any repairs done without violating their warranty, they'd riot! They'd go batshit crazy. Phones have come so far because for the longest time they were a novelty, a pocket Facebook or Twitter for most users. Now they're not quite so. Everything else is basically "not illegal" and existing through gentlemen's agreements. I don't like this, I really don't think you should either, or anyone technical. Even if leaning towards a hyper-capitalist view of technology in industry, it's not really ideal for Apple and Google to just do whatever the hell they want because our politicians are too lazy or incompetent to provide answers.

First, there are probably federal and state regulations that govern whether or not you can modify the firmware of a vehicle (which is far more dangerous than jailbreaking an iPhone). Screw up the firmware of a vehicle and you could hurt someone. There aren't really equivalent laws (across all states) for right-to-repair, right-to-modify, among others. The consequence of lawsuits such as Epic vs. Apple is that we may finally end up with legislation that definitively answers the questions over which components of Apple's (and Google's) EULA are valid and legal.

Second, there's certainly a difference between firmware and the apps from an app store. The argument you responded to still stands and is not dispelled by your example. Why are EULAs associated with phones and app stores allowed to be so constraining and restrictive that they flagrantly violate basic notions of ownership and property rights? You again don't owe a car manufacturer a cut when upgrading your speakers, nor must those speakers be purchased by a special "exclusive" store, nor can Ford render your engine inoperable if you don't comply. Something happened over time where basic notions of ownership do not apply to phones and - more broadly- software. I personally find it incredibly strange how it is legal for Apple to dictate a fee on all in-app purchases. The broad and sweeping power to apply fees to commerce *post-sale* and after ownership is transferred is generally reserved only for governments.

A long time ago this company partnered with General Electric in a mutually beneficial relationship through a so called joint venture company. Some people somewhere had a vision for the future.

Years later this partnership was dissolved and let there be no doubt that the reason had to do with margins. In the 90s and 2000s software was king. FANUC just wasn't pumping out cash as fast as GE's shareholders would have liked. But the (I would call prescient) folks at FANUC just soldiered on and here we were today. Another lost opportunity because fiduciary responsibility often translates to 'make strategic mistakes to satisfy investors'. Sadly, has GE learned? Activist investors have just recently infiltrated the company so I would say no, nothing has been learned.

You underestimate the natural sense of intuition prevalent in most free-thinking human beings.

Referring to the goal as prosaic isn't a good usage of the word. Used correctly, the header would have been something like: "...began with a prosaic declaration: Make a rocket at least 10 times cheaper than is possible today." Nothing about the initial goal is prosaic; it is the way Elon Musk described it in his manifesto for SpaceX that was blunt and matter of fact.

You underestimate the malleability of technology in that it can be applied to any and every human problem imaginable. Automation is unstoppable unless its existence is forcibly restricted (a good or bad idea is for you to decide).

Either a company pays someone to flip burgers what they think flipping burgers is worth, or they make robots. Either a company pays someone at the register what they think cashiers are worth, or they automate. Do not assume that just because you and I would rather people do the jobs, that they can not be automated.

I would rather see a (hopefully smiling...) face when checking out of a grocery store or buying a burger at McDonalds than the terminal of a machine, but I somberly accept that there may come a time when that lifestyle disappears because, contrary to what you say, they will not go out of business if they stop paying someone to flip burgers or bag groceries.

I don't think this is correct (along with the short versions above), in the sense that there's probably a better way to model this scenario and get a more accurate answer. We could describe the arrival of asteroids as a Poisson distribution, with details at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

And then the question would be phrased as: Given the arrival of asteroids is modeled by a Poisson distribution, calculate the probability of a single event (asteroid arrival) in a period of 50 years that strikes a population-dense area. Assume an equal probability to hit any point on earth.

I'm hesitant to post a solution to this, because the 2nd issue I observe is that the constants we are using are naive. They go by # of urban areas or not populated land and not population density. We would want to calculate the area covered by some percentile of population density for circular areas(say 95% for extremely dense) over the total surface area of the planet. And this can complicate the problem even more if we want to treat those circular population areas as a Monte Carlo dart throw- asteroid lands inside is a 1 and lands outside is a 0. Additionally, the constant for average # of asteroids in our interval, needed for the Poisson distribution, is something I'd want to spend a fair amount of time researching; I think it was pulled out of a hat here.

Agreed. I'm just trying to recognize that many, many Kickstarter projects fail horribly. They succeeded beyond reasonable measures. The interest in VR has grown dramatically and has prompted a new look at the space.

I'm glad that happened, so what I am trying to say is I do not regret Oculus VR existing through kickstarter.

But I am not pleased to have been deceived, and I am sad to witness base human nature triumph over passion for innovation and technology. Could they not have taken the moral high ground, at least for a little longer? Finish what you promised, go as long as you can, if you are going to lose- and only then- sell out? I was so inspired by Oculus and their activism (I attended their convention in Boston). This decision has caused me to bounce back to reality- greed usually wins.

Oculus served their purpose; there will be good competition now. I suppose the donors got their "money's worth" in that regard.

At the same time, this serves as a reminder of the varying motives of entrepreneurs, irregardless of their skills or strengths or vision. The difference between, say, Elon Musk, and the founder of Oculus, are astounding. One is motivated to see the technology to its end, the other is motivated by money- pure and simple.

I'm no longer inspired by Kickstarter. I don't like how a small group of people can cash out on humanity's dime. I don't like how people who are clearly motivated by greed, no matter how exceptional they are, can deceive us and give companies like Facebook the last laugh. The founder should be proud of his achievements, but should also be ashamed of what has transpired. People on Kickstarter donated based on a charter, encompassing a vision and the expectation is to see it carried out to the end with effort and dignity. That means continue until you have achieved your charter, ie release a consumer version. From there, I don't really care- sell out, although if the this whole process of crowd-sourcing made sense, the intellectual property would be open and not privately sold. Kickstarter often serves to manipulate passionate, good-natured people who buy into a vision.

I propose no solution for Kickstarter, but I will be more mindful of the for-profit ventures there, if I even use it again at all. I didn't donate to support an intrusive, unethical company founded entirely on shareholder equity from an over-valued IPO build its portfolio and devour promising technology. In this regard, Kickstarter is yet another way for large companies to take advantage of the natural, incredible output of human ingenuity found outside their organization with no effort. In fact, other people paid for it. Thus I am completely on the side of Markus Persson.

That's a very limited comment you got here. Here is my substantial response:

"In some cases, before using force that is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to the aggressor, a person who is under attack should attempt to retreat or escape, but only if an exit is reasonably possible."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Self-Defense

" a person who is under attack should attempt to retreat or escape, but only if an exit is reasonably possible."

If being in your freaking car is not a reasonably possible escape from someone who is walking down the street and unaware of you, then I don't know what to tell you buddy.

We need to understand the difference between self-defense and self-offense. When you stalk a person incidentally travelling down the street- man, women, or child- and that person ultimately ends up dead by your hands, you have committed murder as manslaughter. You are the instigator. Your choices, not happenstance, led to the death of someone. All the details- I called the police first, "He/she looked suspicious!", emotions, race- are just extra and will be used by the defense and the prosecution to either escalate the charge or keep it at manslaughter.

Zimmerman, the moment he followed an incidental passer-by with ANY intent, was at risk of manslaughter should Martin die. It doesn't matter of Trayvon Martin broke every bone in Zimmerman's body before he was shot- Zimmerman was the instigator; this is not self-defense.

This case has set a disgusting precedent, at least in Florida, where we can leave the safety of our homes in pursuit of *suspicious* figures, and ultimately kill them, and that may be known as quote self-defense quote... if the victim puts up a fight.

What can fiction tell us about anything? Man that's pretty narrow-minded. I don't know how that's insightful.

http://www.google.com/think/articles/yesterdays-sci-fi.html

Very often sci-fi becomes reality. Okay, maybe we won't have wormholes opening any time soon. But like- widespread, debilitating cyber attacks to cripple an enemy? You need to follow Slashdot and even classic news better. Cyberwarfare IS becoming the new norm. I'm going to take a screenshot of this now for when this particular scifi becomes reality.

Risk profiling software will be a forerunner for big data applications that simply watch people.

If you don't think this will work, you are wrong. It will get increasingly better, and the point will be to track "risky" individuals not only in the airplane but in the country itself. The NSA (US) is likely working on this right now.

So instead of arguing it won't work and calling for more pat-down thugs, I would agree with a few thoughtful people here who are pointing out that it will be *abused* in the future.