Motorola asked apple to take a license. apple turned around and sued and requested an EU investigation, while suing in like 5 different places. this is the result. Many of those have been shut down.
How is that exactly motorola going after folks?
I don't know if they were even seeking licenses as much as that if they don't request that someone licenses what they're using they have no redress. Kinda more a patent law issue and less a patents themselves issue.
The fallout from this to SEP patents is also a big deal, so unless we finally stop allowing software patents this will basically stop royalty pools, licensing pools. Why contribute to an actual de-facto standard with your research if you can't even be compensated, I believe was the argument I heard frequently.
also, it's not surveillance. surveillance is the stuff with the vans, and the cameras, and not glass. not unless someone's going to go on a rooftop and try to google glass you, which would be hilarious.
okay umm, this might have been an interesting post 10 years ago, but today? have you even looked at linux without the false flag troll argument since the XP days?
I'd guess - no, in fact I'd bet the answer is legitimately no, because this is just a false flag troll with the "I'm a linux user too, but linux has it's flaws".
netflix has been an incumbent for a long time now. I hope people have realized that. The acceptance of silverlight was the signal of when they swapped.
This was my first thought. What I was surprised by was the wording: "surveillance device".
Since when is glass a focus of surveillance device but private recordings and/or public cameras (such as those employed by the police) are not a focus?
this is the court case where the judge is in MS's pocket. Groklaw has this well documented.
It's not even about the patents anymore, as much as a highly questionable judge doing something which there is no precedent for ever having been done in any court in the united states.
To think this is about Google's ownership of patents, I would find that somewhat questionable in this case, which I should point out they were sued by *Microsoft*, and that this case was about RAND/SEP more than anything.
I can find no compelling argument or claim from your entire post that I agree with.
Since when did google become arrogant? Where does this claim even come from?
Google seems to be a continual innovator and they have problems dealing with hollywood in general, but I don't think that equates to arrogance or "impossible to be wrong".
have people not noticed for a long time that vested interests have long trumped the noble goals of wikipedia?
example: look at any major technology and their competitor's pages. You'll see tons of trashtalking about the competitor and/or removal/hiding of controversy.
Re: Re:
you absolutely can be too careful. It comes up the second you start responding to civil disobedience and/or non-violence with violence.
the whole situation is questionable
Motorola asked apple to take a license. apple turned around and sued and requested an EU investigation, while suing in like 5 different places. this is the result. Many of those have been shut down.
How is that exactly motorola going after folks?
I don't know if they were even seeking licenses as much as that if they don't request that someone licenses what they're using they have no redress. Kinda more a patent law issue and less a patents themselves issue.
The fallout from this to SEP patents is also a big deal, so unless we finally stop allowing software patents this will basically stop royalty pools, licensing pools. Why contribute to an actual de-facto standard with your research if you can't even be compensated, I believe was the argument I heard frequently.
Re: DRM is just technology, Mike. Accept it without question.
you don't have to accept recording from glass.
it's also not relevant to the article.
also, it's not surveillance. surveillance is the stuff with the vans, and the cameras, and not glass. not unless someone's going to go on a rooftop and try to google glass you, which would be hilarious.
Re: Re: A Bit Upset With Netflix Here
okay umm, this might have been an interesting post 10 years ago, but today? have you even looked at linux without the false flag troll argument since the XP days?
I'd guess - no, in fact I'd bet the answer is legitimately no, because this is just a false flag troll with the "I'm a linux user too, but linux has it's flaws".
Re: Re: Re: A Bit Upset With Netflix Here
netflix has been an incumbent for a long time now. I hope people have realized that. The acceptance of silverlight was the signal of when they swapped.
Re: The question that needs to be asked...
This was my first thought. What I was surprised by was the wording: "surveillance device".
Since when is glass a focus of surveillance device but private recordings and/or public cameras (such as those employed by the police) are not a focus?
google glass panic
those on that stopthecyborgs site are veiling everything in privacy for themselves.
I guess transparency only goes so far when you register a domain anonymously and refuse to identify in any form who you are, huh?
sound a little like typical Microsoft propaganda?
Frisk bloomberg
That's the obvious first choice.
amount of guns/illegal drugs to be found as a result? if you don't tell us, then the terrorists win!
I wouldn't assume anything
this is the court case where the judge is in MS's pocket. Groklaw has this well documented.
It's not even about the patents anymore, as much as a highly questionable judge doing something which there is no precedent for ever having been done in any court in the united states.
To think this is about Google's ownership of patents, I would find that somewhat questionable in this case, which I should point out they were sued by *Microsoft*, and that this case was about RAND/SEP more than anything.
see: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130426080437848
Re: Re:
you can't keep the internet out of a debate. you can keep the debate out of the internet.
guess which one of those matters more with those who vote for the pirate party?
Re:
This is hilarious. Do you write newsletters or something with that crazy, AC?
Re: There's a Better Way to Book than what you suggest!
Uh, you put different days in than Mike did.
MAD FCO was 4/29. Which I see for $264 (lowest) searched individually in ITA. Which is umm, $500 less?
Re: what about ITA?
clarification, it said prices are in NOK.
what about ITA?
I'm not sure you can do the multi-city thing in ITA, but I'll test.
Google seems to default to business class for 2 of the flights as well.
http://matrix.itasoftware.com/view/details?session=42373449-43f1-46e4-8906-c102bb4d5ef0
comes out to around $3400.
Searching individually finds the first flight for $184? wow.
http://matrix.itasoftware.com/view/details?session=ab204067-2277-401b-84bd-e79c08daa325
Re:
ethics, not mental competency. anyone can fake that they're not stupid, not everyone can agree to all aspects of ethics.
Re:
I can find no compelling argument or claim from your entire post that I agree with.
Since when did google become arrogant? Where does this claim even come from?
Google seems to be a continual innovator and they have problems dealing with hollywood in general, but I don't think that equates to arrogance or "impossible to be wrong".
Re: Re:
the one party that gave their consent is the one that said it can be recorded, not you. you are the 2nd party.
it's more simple than that, no?
you don't have to request their approval. That automated message works both ways.
It says, explicitly: "this call may be monitored for quality assurance". That gives you the permission just as much as it does them.
how long ago did wikipedia become trash
have people not noticed for a long time that vested interests have long trumped the noble goals of wikipedia?
example: look at any major technology and their competitor's pages. You'll see tons of trashtalking about the competitor and/or removal/hiding of controversy.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
point is, you just made the false claim, and rikuo called you on it.