This court also has a history of being skeptical of the scope of patent protection, having dealt several anti-patent rulings in the last few years. Of course, all of that means nothing, since past performance is no guarantee of future results. They could just as easily reverse the trend this time. What is important is to fund out which side has hired Paul Clement, since the conservative justices love him and pretty much do whatever he wants, most of the time.
I can imagine the wonderful goodwill Microsoft will engender when their loyal XBox customers get suddenly left out in the cold. Microsoft won't sell XBox. They can't. There are too many windows OS and other intellectual property crucial to the Microsoft that they won't give up to a potential competitor. It's crazy to give up the XBox. Yes, it loses money. So does advertising. No one suggests that Microsoft cut advertising and marketing, yet the XBox is their biggest marketing tool available to them. Dumb. How do CEO's get these types of jobs. So many of them, like Elop, stink at what they do, yet they never have trouble finding work.
When did this start happening? I just downloaded something from them a few weeks ago. Is this recent? Is there any way to bypass this "custom installer"?
No, but I could use an 8-bit ISA CGA video card and a CGA monitor if you have one.
This trekkie prefers the original TOS series, since that's what I grew up with. I'm loving this new series, and I hope it lives long and prospers!
No, the casting and acting in this new version is much better, even though there's been improvement in the more recent series (the beginning ones were just plain awful). It also has better production values overall, I don't see why both can't coexist together.
Except the New Voyages Phase II is... well... awful. They did a good job with sets and such, but the acting is absolutely terrible... pretty much unwatchable. I mean the guy who plays Mr. Spock has a giant beer gut. It's just not that good, especially compared to this recreation. This episode really captures the feel of the original series, and it has decent acting. I mean they even have the light shining on Kirk's face just like the original. They really did a good job here. I wish the actors had lower pitched voices, but if that's the only complaint, that's not too bad.
Garage Band on an iPad (or even an iPhone) is as good as $100/hr trip at the local recording studio. Heck, it's better than what you could get even 20 years ago, back when the only real home recording option was multitrack cassette tape. Technology improved enough in the 90's to allow home computers to do good multitrack recordings, and suddenly everything changed. Nowadays, you can whip up a quick demo on your iPhone without the need of any musical instruments, and it would be just as good as that $500 demo tape you had produced in the 1980's. A 10 year old can do it in no time at all and without any help. It's really amazing!
Is is certain that these apps are meant for the app store? When Android had their app inventor program going, they specifically prevented those apps from going to the app store. The limitation could be removed by clever hacking of the apk, but Google really wanted these programs to be of very limited distribution.
Unless they changed things recently, getting a developers license for Windows Phone is trivial and cost free. Yes, you still need to apply for a license for sideloading, which is obnoxious, but it's only a minor hindrance.
One of the big drawbacks of Apple is the idea that you should be able to easily use apple products to promote creativity, as long as the creativity doesn't involve creating an "app" or programming an Apple product in any personal way. At that point, you're shoved into massive restrictions, high cost, and weird programming languages to discourage kids and novices from coding. Android is much more open with their philosophy, but their tools are hardly user friendly for the curious would-be programmer. Microsoft is being smart here and sticking with their roots. While Apple diverged from what made them a big company in the first place (the openness and flexibility of the Apple II), Microsoft seems to be returning to their core philosophy of "Developers, developers, developers" of all types, shapes and sizes. Remember that Microsoft got its start with BASIC for beginning programmers, and one of their biggest products of all time has been Visual Basic--a tool for simple programming. Allowing people to easily create smartphone content for themselves is one easy and smart way to differentiate themselves from their competitors. It seems that after flirting with the idea that they must copy Apple, Microsoft has hopefully decided to do what Microsoft does best--make semi-open systems that are easy to program and customize for users.
There was plenty of interest, but Google decided to listen to Steve Jobs's advice and "shut down" anything that wasn't "core" to their operations. Why someone would take advice from a competitor that has promised to "bury you" is beyond me, but they did. App Inventor was quite popular. It's main limitation was the inability to create "multi form" screens. Otherwise it was pretty powerful and useful for a point and click interface.
And yet, on the same day, this same panel ruled against Jim Brown's likeness lawsuit against EA, saying that personal trademarks were not violated by EA's Madden all star team.
The players do get a cut of the money that the NCAA makes on the games. They not only get scholarships, but they get new facilities, equipment, training staff, etc. The money that comes from big name programs goes right back into big name programs. Very few athletic programs actually make a profit. Most lose money. Why? Well, the non-revenue sports such as women's volleyball, crew, soccer, etc. can get very expensive, too, and football and/or basketball subsidize those sports. In many schools, even football loses money, since it is the most expensive sport of them all. This idea that schools are raking in the dough while these poor athletes suffer being treated as gods on campus is an erroneous one. Unfortunately, it seems that the courts are really being affected by the sob stories instead of reality. The result is that we, the ordinary consumer, lose. There will be no more historical games, not just in sports, but anything involving the last century involving any real people. The dissenting opinion stated that under this ruling, the movie Forrest Gump would have been illegal. Historical sporting games are out, of course, and any current realistic amateur sporting games are also toast. It's a broadly dangerous ruling that pretty much tramples historical legal precedent on the first amendment. I hope that someone takes this appeal and somehow rights this wrong, but I doubt it. I don't think the judges are aware how broad and artistically stifling this ruling is.
Most states have some sort of right of publicity legislation. It varies from state to state, but pretty much every state recognizes this right.