Who gives billions in aid to the world? Capitalist countries.

And which countries, do you think, make many times that much by exploiting the inequalities of cheap foreign labor?

Poe's law will cause you problems here...

I didn't miss the irony in AC's post, if that's what you're thinking.

Because their design patents are standards essential for making a mobile phone.

Right on! Apple's competitors could give their phones sharp corners, or use a polkadot pentagonal shape instead of a black rectangular one.

I informed him that I make available the source code [only] to my users whom I've distributed a binary to and that the GPL specifically allows for this.

That's only the case if you include the source code along with the binaries. Otherwise you must accompany the binaries with a written offer for the source code, of which anybody (including those who aren't your customers) is then free to take advantage.

THE DISTRIBUTOR IS REQUIRES TO DISTRIBUTE THE SOURCE CODE

So if you get the binary from an AppStore, you are entitled for the source code. IF you then get it from a 3rd party, then that 3rd party is required to give you the source code, NOT the original distributor through the AppStore.

Not true. If the developer in question chose to include a written offer for the source code instead of the source code itself, that developer is then required to provide the sources to anybody who chooses to take advantage of the written offer, regardless of whether or not they obtained the binaries directly from the developer.

... morons not understand what GPL even is.

No, I suppose they don't.

However that binary you paid for is under the seller's copyright, and you need his permission and must comply with his terms if you want to redistribute it.

Wrong. The GPL requires derivative works to be distributed under the same terms as the original work. This means anybody who gets a GPL'd binary from you is free to redistribute that binary and is entitled to a copy of the source code.

They say once they're done with this latest DMCA notice they'll be left with "an impossible task of policing our indexing bots." I'm not aware of any law requiring content to be filtered as it arrives, so why would they have to police their indexing bots?

"Misunderstood, my ass. Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest."

Imagine Facebook receives an order to remove information concerning a particular incident. How does Facebook remove this information without going through what all its users have shared or otherwise posted to their accounts?

To grant one person the right to be forgotten is to deprive another of the right to remember. The sharing of information once legitimately published cannot become illegitimate just because the person involved doesn't want it to be known. The "right" to be forgotten is a form of censorship and has nothing at all to do with privacy.

You mean by not passing SOPA and PIPA? I mean, 2/3 is a pretty good average

Ideologically, 2 out of 3 is far far less than a unanimous vote.

The DMCA (which is the only one that passed) is arguably beneficial, and in any case far less intrusive than the other two. So I don't get your point.

The DMCA's safe harbor provisions are certainly beneficial, but the takedown procedures are not. The DMCA's takedown procedures have been abused and misused on numerous occasions, and the requirement that user accounts be disabled after repeated instances of alleged infringement is a serious problem.

"... it is essential that the Internet remain stable, secure, and free from government control" -- 112th United States Congress.

Lets see if they abide by this once the next round of Internet-specific legislation comes along.

If only they would do this for their own attempts to regulate the Internet (think SOPA, PIPA and DMCA), the Internet would be much better off than it is today.

Does this apply to all apps or just games? If it's just games then the claim may be indeed be legitimate (or not), but if it's all apps then it's certainly a case of overreaching by the trademark holder (or else an overreaction by Apple).

The most ridiculous element is the ban on the use of "memory" as a keyword. Trademark law was never intended to forbid others from naming competitors' products or from using trademarked words in their descriptive sense ("this game will enhance your memory and give you super-strength!").

Can the authorities abuse their position of power for various nefarious deeds? Absolutely. Are some of their requests legally or ethically dubious? No doubt. Nevertheless, there's plenty of legitimate reasons for governments to request user information and it should come as no surprise that the number of such requests is increasing.

The problem with "legitimate" requests begins when they become so routine that they end up as fishing expeditions rather than legitimate criminal investigations.