This has little to do with the actual algorithm. The government plans to simply brute force the 4 digit code. The change involved is to remove the 'retry' limit that would cause erasure. Apple could have deployed the best encryption available and it's still just a couple of hours max to brute force your way in. Hell, a human being could sit there and do it. It was silly of them to provide a way to update the OS without unlocking the phone and that's likely what they'll change.

Oh, you mean this? "Originality remains the sine qua non of copyright; accordingly, copyright protection may extend only to those components of a work that are original to the author." The article does state that the author must show a "modicum of creativity," but it never defines creativity to any extent that I saw used in this case. Besides, Java obviously fulfilled all requirements.

Now I know your arguing specifically about the 9 lines of code, but I still see nothing that says this is the reason Google won. Google admitted to copying the code, stating it was negligible and already removed. The Jury decided Google infringed with those nine lines forcing Oracle to pretty much admit the lines had no monetary value. The judge ruled in Google's favor, his logic: "The idea that someone would copy that when they could do it themselves just as fast, it was an accident. There’s no way you could say that was speeding them along to the marketplace. You’re one of the best lawyers in America, how could you even make that kind of argument?" Originality/creativity were never really the point.

Words can be jockeyed around to mean different things based on context. Yes, creative and create share a root, good for you. Are you actually implying that all things created are creative? Original has a specific legal context which is why, once again, that word is used to define work that can be copyrighted in the article you linked. I'm done, we're getting nowhere. In general though, lack of creativity, no matter your definition, will not get you out of trouble for copying code nor do I think most would want to set that precedent.

I didn't miss it, I simply don't see how that applies to creativity. Once again, I don't disagree with the verdict, I simply disagree with the claim that the verdict was reached because it was not creative. That wasn't even a consideration because Google admitted to copying the code, and claimed it was an accidental, but negligible oversight committed by an employee. The judge agreed, so do I.

Creativity has no specific legal meaning. You can only get a copyright on an original work. There are legal concepts and you can't change them to mean what you want.

I've simply said creativity of code is not a factor in copyrighting an entire piece of software. You seem to have created a whole different argument on my behalf. I specifically stated in my first reply, "nine lines of code isn't sufficient to prove anything," yet you seem to be assuming I disagree with the original verdict. So I'll restate my question that you failed to answer, this time more specifically. Where exactly did the judge even once utter the word 'creativity' in his verdict. My bet is, NOWHERE. One doesn't have to prove 'creativity,' that's far to nebulous a concept. One does have to defend originality when it's said that the code was stolen, but the code involved was far too limited and common to win Oracle's case. That doesn't mean the code was not 'creative.'

Blanket statements with no evidence are great right? I've personally have never heard of someone being unable to obtain copyright for a large piece of software because nine lines of code weren't creative. Or are you arguing that Java as a whole wasn't creative? So, I'll bite, please enlighten me.

What I think you'll find is that copyright law uses the term "original" not "creative" if you were to actually look. First paragraph of copyright law that I see even discussing this is as such: "Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device."

Prior art was a bad choice of words though you seem to be disagreeing with me for the sake of it. Perhaps I should have said plagiarism. Regardless: Your conclusion "APIs are purely functional, not creative," and mine "'creativity' is simply not a factor'...

One is not required to provide a complete copy of source code for programs exceeding 50 pages of code, 'creativity' is simply not a factor. If someone attempts to prove prior art that's a different factor. One does not have to prove creativity in advance, they only have to defend originality and that's only when it's called into question.

As far as I'm concerned the discussion is irrelevant. Nine lines of code isn't sufficient to prove anything.

Can you really claim someone is affecting change at 70k a pop? Even with a good car loan the payments would exceed the monthly payments on my house. I'd take sufficient performance and affordability over excessive performance and high cost any day. Maybe if he sticks around long enough price will go down, but I doubt it, nothing about him suggests to me that he is aiming for anything beyond the premium market.

Sure, it's possible, but the company requesting NAT assignments would need to know the public facing source port which would only be possible if the user was connecting directly to the company requesting information. That is comparatively hard compared to requesting lists of ip addresses from a torrent tracker per say.

The company requesting information would need to know the public facing source port and correlating time otherwise there would be no way to look up the correct state/mapping. The company requesting this information wouldn't be able to know this information unless the user was connecting directly to their servers or they themselves were playing man-in-the-middle. The former option is plausible with some activity, i.e. if a peer were directly connecting to them in a torrent, but the latter option would be illegal in most any situation I can think of. So while it still may be /possible/, it is definitely much more difficult nor am I convinced ISPs would be held to such exacting standards -- I run some relatively small routers by comparison, and at any point in time there can be thousands of (relatively short-lived) states, we're taking about some pretty massive amounts of data compared to what is required now.

Sure, but something like ELMO also directly supports HDMI directly (cutting out the computer) and comes with its own mount. Once plugged into the TV it's as close to a turnkey solution as you're going to get. ELMO document cameras can get pretty expensive as you said, but you can find cheaper/older models (new) for a few hundred dollars.

Because that was the whole point to the original article? I'm guessing a 7" or 10" tablet, magnified to the size he wants, isn't going to hold much text.

Now, if your question was, "why don't they just buy an ebook and increase the font size?", then I could agree with you. This comes off as a kind of a backward use of technology. One of the biggest reasons I prefer reading on various devices these days is because I can bump up the font size and read without having my contacts in. It may be it's a situation in which the books aren't available in a digital format. Some people still insist on preferring "real books," but this doesn't seem like a legitimate excuse when you involve as much technology as he is talking about.

I can't really see someone (successfully) holding a book in one hand, SLR in another, while also focusing their attention on a TV. I suppose if you used a camera stand, but then you might as well just use an ELMO (document camera, not the character) which was, quite frankly, designed for similar purposes and wouldn't cost you more than an average SLR. Not to mention I have yet to see a DSLR whose complexity of operation wouldn't get in the way of pleasure reading for something like this.