Comment Will Canva change pricing to subscription? (Score 1, Insightful) 31
I sure hope not! They'd immediately lose me as a customer.
I sure hope not! They'd immediately lose me as a customer.
I'm curious: What acquisitions has Apple done that you would subject to this review, in a way that would prevent Apple from arriving at the situation it's at now? Seems to me most of what Apple has done has been through in-house R&D and small-scale acquisitions that wouldn't rise to the level of "If you buy this company, it will totally warp the market." (And the linkage of R&D expenditures to stock buy-backs in the DoJ lawsuit makes no sense; one could argue Apple has been incredibly efficient at its in-house R&D to produce its products. Contrast Apple's Apple Vision Pro R&D investment with Meta's R&D in the same general product line.)
Those EU actions are also subject to judicial review. See the failure of the EU actions on taxeshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%27s_EU_tax_dispute The Fat Lady has not stopped singing on this, but the EU adminstrative decisions have not done well in court.
IANAL, but a lot of the arguments in the DoJ lawsuit seem really weak. See https://appleinsider.com/artic... Clearly this case will test legal definitions and interpretations on antitrust and related law. Apple will not only hire the best talent to defend itself, but it will also seek to set precedents on the interpretation of antitrust law as matters of law. Thus I suspect the DoJ "bowl of spaghetti" will end up setting a lot of precedents in ways that a stronger, more focused action would not.
In both this case and the Apple antitrust case, it seems that the overwhelming popularity of a product gets turned into a call for government control when some decide they don't like the terms under which the product is provided. The idea that a product which gains a significant market share because of its value/utility should suddenly submit to a different set of rules to meet demands by its customers, or by those who sell on that platform to the platform's customers, sure strikes me as conceptually and legally strange.
But that's not what they did. And if you're developing software for virtualized server containers, 'physical inspection' would be a bit hard to argue.
I think you could argue it's capricious. If the job can be done on-site or remotely, but only on-site would be eligible for promotion, that could be argued as "unfair evaluation criteria" not related to actual job performance.
One possible argument would be 'unfairly changing promotion criteria to include irrelevant behaviors'. The plaintiff would have to prove to the jury that 'forced commuting to the office' is 'irrelevant', and that this change/new policy is "arbitrary and capricious".
I wonder if this could be challenged in state courts, particularly by an employee living in a state with strong labor protection laws.
It's not that hard, actually. 99% of DNA is the same, but how the DNA is arranged is pretty unique per species.
Except that they aren't doing full genome sequencing (which is vastly more complicated and vastly more expensive). They are sequencing only specific regions of the genome. It would be similar to comparing the Bible to the Koran based on how many times they use the word "Thou". In the end you'll know they're both books and they're different but you won't know the chapter counts or the year of publication.
Surely a basic DNA test would at least check the number of chromosomes matches up.
Not necessarily, and for more than one reason.
It's why certain genetic diseases in humans can't be found in dogs exactly - the DNA that is problematic would exist in a different chromosome on a dog.
That doesn't apply here though. Sequencing technologies are not biased towards or against particular chromosomes, and the chromosomes are not sorted out before sequencing. The whole sample goes in and primers bind to anything they have affinity to. Sequencing then proceeds regardless of whether it starts on chromosome 4, 16, 21, or some other chromosome entirely - as long as the start and end are on the same chromosome. And if you're looking at variable regions within genes, the likelihood of those starting and ending on the same chromosome is exceptionally high.
CBC Marketplace did such a test nearly a year ago... and yes, they even submitted human DNA as well. Quite a few of the tested companies did detect it as "non dog DNA".
Which may just mean that the other company had included some additional tests to look for "non dog DNA", and this company did not. That's a smart control that this company should have thought of, although depending on the scenario it might only tell you about contamination, not complete substitution.
Without life, Biology itself would be impossible.