I agree with you on that. Plus it should be a feature Wikipedia benefits from. They should receive a fee for any redirect or any book sold that way. But to be fair Wikipedia should offer an API to any booksellers to do this. A feature that would help customers choosing their bookseller.
1) a person browses Wikipedia (the portal of knowledge)
2) she finds an interesting book referred from Wikipedia
3) chooses her bookseller to buy the book (the deposit of knowledge)
5) profit !
As long as H.264 has patent issues it does not suit to be part of html. html is an open standards, not a patented format.
The only legs Adobe may have to stand on is if they were lead to believe that their platform was to be accepted (written contract or verbal) and then at the 11th hour to be shafted? Well then maybe they have a case.
And a fairly limited case, at that. Development tools for the iPhone OS probably don't generate large profits. The costs to add iPhone capabilities to the Flash IDE were probably rather modest. Loss of good will from developers who get caught in the middle of this is hard to quantify. So even if Adobe prevails, the court is likely to decide that the damages done to Adobe are quite modest. And while IANAL, it seems unlikely to me that the court would do more than require Apple to reimburse Adobe; I certainly don't see the court forcing Apple to retract this restriction on developers.
If you can afford to run 10Gbps to your off-site backup location it's either not far enough away to be useful or you're so rich that the shipping costs of tape vs. disk are irrelevant.
No. What part of "XP does not support hardware acceleration on it's desktop" do people not understand?
So you don't offer hardware acceleration on XP. Or you implement your hardware acceleration differently. Everybody is still releasing brand new software for XP, with hardware acceleration and everything, so why can't Microsoft?
It's especially weird since Microsoft designed both XP and IE9, so surely they could have figured out a way to make them compatible. But they didn't. Not because they aren't able to, but because they don't want to. It's as simple as that.
Now they hide behind an excuse that IE9 isn't compatible with something in XP, but that's only true because they made it that way themselves.
Quark! Quark! Beware the quantum duck!