69 posts • joined 12 Mar 2010
Worth the Wait
"Geriatric Douche Canoes." That, my friends, is why I read the Register, and why it is worth wading through pages of troll comments (and even sage responses) to get to the real gold.
It is now a part of my standard repertoire. You're never too old to learn.
Re: Use the fines to prop up physical book publishers/sellers
I don't agree with this post, but I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment. In point of fact, I personally would like (which no one cares about, quite rightfully, but which I will share anyway) both directions to flourish. I say without any consideration of the realities that either support or hinder the possibility. The point is, I want the convenience of e-books and electronic publishing when it is convenient to ME - at work, during some travel (when in trains, plains, and automobiles and access to luggage and their contents is restricted), and paper product when I am at leisure to truly appreciate it. I truly doubt I am alone in this. I fell in love early in life with the sensibility of the local bookstore and library, and the feel, smell and overall psychology of holding (and even OWNING) a physical, bound work of recorded thought. They both have their place, and I am loathe to be forced to choose between them. Progress is supposed to, under at least one definition, meet the desires of a society, whether those desires lead one forward or back. (Yes, progress can be made by returning to a desired prior state.) I therefore support both ends, and hope I can continue to enjoy the middle.
Re: Common sense prevails
@ Malcolm Weir
I think these are excellent points for discussion, particularly point 4 and 6, which rather go hand in hand. It appears, from Apple's conduct (as opposed to the arguments of Apple's subjective intentions), that Apple was more interested in ensuring a basic profit model, from which the consumer would derive no benefit and from which Apple (and its alleged co-conspirators) could obtain relief from prevailing market forces. Apple was not interested in true combat with those market forces, or their correction (to the extent Apple could argue that they those forces were manipulated and not truly purely free market), but rather with simply avoiding their effect by establishing a different market with the unpermitted help of others. This does not necessarily lead one to the conclusions of the "executive summary," but does explain why its arguments to the judge based on how it was really looking to do "good," and how a finding against it would harm the market were not accepted.
Re: Common sense prevails
Indeed. By attempting what could most charitably on Apple's part be labeled as "helpful correction" of the market, Apple was acting not, in fact, to benefit the market, or to remove the allegedly heavy thumb of Amazon on e-book transactions, but rather was simply looking to change the market enough to allow Apple to take a turn at skimming the cream from the consumer. Ideally, anti-trust laws exist and are enforced to protect the consumer; that they are not utilized this was often enough, or to seldom wholly ignore the repercussion to consumers entirely, is a different (but equally interesting) issue. Here, Apple had no right to declare their own image of how things should be done more righteous (as it were) than another, and has been found simply engaging in the same type of improper conduct they tried to use as an affirmatively defensive argument.
It will be interesting to read the arguments put forth in Apple's inevitable appeal. Even if the appeal is taken less for actual legal vindication than for leverage to settle without confession of liability (the usual impetus for appeals by businesses), I would think Apple would have to focus very sharply on the details of the actual deals entered into, and the details of the allegations against them, rather than broader arguments of markets as a whole or any submitted benefit to any consumers.
Just my two cents (and you get what you pay for).
The argument is one based on the rule of law. As mentioned above, this is a lesson that is repeatedly attempted to be taught, on both sides of the large pond, in grade school. It is a reflection on our societies' failures that such menial lessons so often don't seem to have been integrated into the student's worldview. As with most lessons of this type, the penalties for failing to learn (and consistently flaunting that failure in front of others) can be severe. It would be far more economical to concentrate on the proper teaching, rather than the correcting. If only there weren't so many spectacular successes arising from just such asocial behavior . . .
@ Jai 16:32
There is no "person" responsible in this type of case; the entities involved were corporations, and the entities which executed the agreements sued upon were corporations. Mitt Romney is still wrong - corporations are NOT people, my friend.
Corporations also don't go to jail. There are fines, however, and other injunctive relief available to make sure it doesn't happen again.
The system can work, if you want it to.
Re: So to summarise:
Dude (Philip Lewis),
If you need to collect pieces of paper or Mensa membership numbers to tell you how smart you are, guess what? You really aren't that smart. (Mensa? Really?) You need only be smart enough to succeed. You'll know when you've gotten there, without the papers or memberships. Honest.
Re: Google Glass...no one knows
Jobs wouldn't be so short sighted . . . I see what you did there.
Re: Glasses??? Really?
If you don't think the MPAA filters content, what do you think their rating letters are for? Those letters have the ability to kill a commercial release through restriction of available outlets. It isn't that unusual in societies, in general, nor necessarily always that offensive, but it does happen regularly.
The rest of your post reflects a certain amount of defensiveness and tinfoil. I actually agree with you that whether the "kidz" wear Google Glass is not really, in the larger picture, a subject needing immediate and intense social debate (maybe later, when it actually works in ways feared by many).
I guess my question is that you truly are concerned about the "larger issues" (for which I admire you), why are you here, talking about this? Surely you could do more good on other sites with a greater connection to social good than complaining to those that are much less likely to share your own views on that subject.
In the meantime, do you think these glasses make me look fat?
Re: @Ledswinger Hmm@A J Stiles
You may be right that it isn't mentioned in polite company, but it comes up all the time in conversation here in the United States.
Re: Not a good day for apple
Thanks for that - I hadn't seen it before. Interesting that Apple would make the representation that a sheet of paper that says applications for Android can be had at one location, and applications from Apple may be had at another, is accused of intentionally misleading a reader that the two are the same. Oh, I know that the argument really points to use of the term "AppStore" and that Apple accuses Amazon of trying to mislead consumers into believing that the service is the same in each location, but that's a very uphill battle. Refreshing to see a common-sense approach to such arguments. I have a feeling that Apple has much more to its argument than was presented in the article.
Re: Humour test
Of course - that is the point. This order was not a test of Apple's sense of humor, and certainly not a wish by any of the judges to exercise theirs (I believe American judges largely have their senses of humor surgically removed upon ascension to the bench), but an attempt to actually get a specific result. Apple quite intentionally showed that they did not believe they had to produce that result. That misapprehension has been corrected. I have no doubt that the judges quite honestly hope they will not have to go back for any additional correction. If so, there will be no happy campers.
Re: Well, what did he expect?
The problem, even if he did say it, was that it was in no way any part of the holding or ruling on the case. Such a simple thing, and so hard for some to understand. To say that anyone Apple would hire to represent them can't tell the difference between a casual remark and a decision from the bench would be an insult to the brain-dead. The judge also could have ordered a pastrami sandwich while off the record and it would have had no place in any description or analysis of the ruling. You guys are a pleasure to read - opinionated, bright, funny, well-rounded and full of unexpected knowledge in many areas, but boy, there sure are some klunkers that periodically slouch their way in. You don't have to agree, but at least try to pretend you thought about it first, if only to allow the rest of us to imagine that all that money for public education isn't going directly into the toilet.
Re: We Kpop now!
Does the South Korean government get a share? If so, you can't consider that a gamble!
Re: KAMiKZ @ 16:52
I'm not going to downvote you, but if you really think any pointed comment here has any influence on Apple's corporate progress, or represents anything other than a relatively mild expression of preference for any possible number of characteristics (including the ones you obviously feel), or even possibly the opportunity to simply make a joke, you are sadly mistaken. And quite likely on the wrong website. Have a beer instead.
To be fair, though, it seems to be more fun to piss and moan on Andrew and Lewis. At least comments are available now.
I'm sure you'd have an Eighth Amendment complaint on your hands. (Amendment to the US Constitution - prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishments" for those not forced to memorize such things.)
Re: 14 days?
"What an insult to the judges intelligence - its like they are begging for a contempt charge." - Chet Mannly @ 20:43
I feel you there, but what really surprised me was that the judges were aware that such a change COULD be made within one day. I know a lot of judges that would have simply accepted Apple's representation because they didn't know any better.
"Actually, the judges are pompous self righteous fuckwits. They are modifying their original judgement without due process, and their original order was verging on ultra vires in the first place. Rather to full of their own importance." - AC, at 1940 GMT.
I have not appeared in an English courtroom, but as an American lawyer (put that sharp object down, sir!), I tend to agree with the general sentiment of the first sentence here in application to the judiciary universally. I can tell you that as to the second sentence you have no idea what you are talking about. The third sentence is considered as informative as "water is wet" where I practice. I'd say overall your comment is pretty much what could be expected from an ill-informed corporate apologist.
There really is no doubt the judge(s) had the power and authority to do what they did, and under the fact presented it is not surprising that they exercised that power and authority.
By the way: Tossup between "Judge Jacob said: I’m at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this," and "Apple's original statement was not considered to be robust" for biggest LOL.
Re: I got to the end of paragraph 3...
Thank you, Mr. Cook!
Re: Called it
I agree. The judge's opinion of "cool" is not a part of the Court Opinion - it is something called "dicta" and has no force for enforcement purposes; it quite literally is not a part of the ruling. On the other hand, the judge's perception that Apple had engaged in extra-judicial name-calling and media engagement so as to warrant the presentation of a correction is a part of the decision. It occurs relatively frequently when a party has introduced misleading or flat-out incorrect info in a perceived attempt to manipulate the court or the public. That part is not ridiculous or so very unusual. The unusual part is that Apple should have left itself open to such an order, a d then displayed such open passive-aggressiveness more common to a kindergarten schoolyard. When you play with the big boys you don't always get to make your own rules. That expectation is a fail.
Re: Swiss Neutrality ?
"The Arms of Krupp," by William Manchester, an interesting history of Germany's largest and most thoroughly integrated cannon and munitions manufacturer, provides some relevant tidbits on this and many other subjects dealing with Germany's relationships with other nations in the pre-war runups and post-war rundowns of that nation's history. I only read it because it detailed an extremely distant part of our family, but I re-read it twice because I believe it is an execeptional, well-researched and informative read.
Re: Swiss Neutrality ?
Oh, please. Normally I would just let a comment like this go, but the idea of Swiss individuals who keep hunting rifles at home being an ultimate deterrent to the German Wehrmacht is just silly. If Germany had really been serious and had gotten around to it, I can't help but believe the Swiss would have been swept from their land in a relatively short time. Yes, some Germans would have been killed; a helluva lot more Swiss would have been lost. Switzerland did not pose a realistic threat to German interests at that time (I will leave others to determine or argue why that was so, and what interests were involved) and so was not militarily removed. That is all there is to it. I strongly admire Swiss independence and the principles upon which it rests, and I take a back seat to none in applauding their political acumen during the Second World War. But to try to frame an argument, as the author of the linked material seems to, that its was the right embodied in the American Second Constitutional Amendment that preserved their freedom isn't worth the energy I just spent on this comment. This is why I normally let this stuff pass. . . Hopefully I just read the link incorrectly and only made a fool of myself (something I do more often than post comments).
Re: Umm, so which is it?
Contrary to what seems to be a firm belief in forums, there is no law or even rule against the placing of jurors in a panel with relevant experience with the issues in the case being tried. The general preference of trial lawyers (both defense and plaintiff) is to have a blank slate upon which to write their own opinions and facts, and not have to worry about a juror realizing that there is more to an issue than they are being told, or that the party (or attorney) is not telling them the truth. Having said that, such a preference is obviously not always practical - you have a limited pool of people from which to pull jurors, and even in a case like this a judge will not allow unlimited peremptory (without cause) removal of a prospective juror. The determining factor is whether a juror can be fair with the knowledge presented at trial, based on that juror's own life experience, not whether a juror will put aside his/her own real experience and indulge in accepting only the arguments presented while ignoring what they know to be true in the "real world." Given that, it is not unusual to assume that both technical knowledge, economic experience and basic common sense all found their way into the jury room for deliberations. Even given a lawyer's preference for a jury having minimal opinions of their own, no one wants a bunch of idiots making decisions for their clients. (I realize this is a great set-up line - swing away!)
You can argue with a jury's decision based on a lot of factors, but you should be able to count on a certain amount of garden-variety common sense being applied. If it doesn't appear to have been so, I would suggest looking a little closer at the arguments and exhibits permitted or denied at trial or the jury instructions presented to the jury. That is usually the source of the public's true disagreement with trial results. Of course, it is always possible for juries to mistake instructions and misinterpret evidence or argument, but again, it sometimes depends on the perspective of the observer or comment.
Re: If this hadn't happened to a tech journo, but an ordinary mortal...
"Sure security policies by apple, amazon and the like need to be investigated after this . . . "
Well, it turns out they really should have been investigated and vetted BEFORE this happened. Try as you might, the story really is the apparently rather easy ability of someone without real knowledge of an individual or account to get where this hacker got, primarily by being stubborn. Placing the blame on the journalist's difficulty in replacing data because is doesn't fit one's idea of Apple saintliness is not much of a contribution to the discussion, which I think should be on the loss of data in the first place. I like the Apple products a lot, though I don't like the premium (my family all have iPhones, though old ones now). This should not blind one, however, to either the original problem or the rather unhelpful response action given by Apple in this instance. (And this appears to be only the latest of instances of the latter event.)
Admittedly, I don't have a bunch of answers to help Apple here, and not enough details, but at least I think I see the proper pressure point. If we intend to make serious comments, let's keep our eye on the ball.
"Sir, we have 650 GB of porn now, we're ready to shut it down!" "Well, I think we could use a little more, just to be sure. I'll just di it muself; be sure to close the door on your way out . . ."
I would be more than willing to tell you that you've slipped up if I could get at all past the basic concept as it is described. Fascinating, but more than a little outside my field; perhaps when it's made into a comic book . . .
Maybe ultimately in the product, but I expect less so in the transaction. Get what you ordered, ans get it free? Not too disappointing.
Re: Still nonsense Apple bashing...
Joerge: Dude, you really don't get this stuff at all, do you? I am a California lawyer, but I don't specialize in intellectual property so I largely stay out of these discussions. Some of the comments here are insightful, some are rather amusing, but yours is just clueless. I suggest sticking with what you are good at, and give it another try after you have taken an opportunity to educate yourself. The documents in this case are interesting reading, and can be a real education.
I would not bother commenting, but by my opposable thumbs, sometimes you reach a point . . .
Re: USA:most valuable and influential smartphone market in the world
Wow! You know, as an American I resent that . . . and I really wish it weren't true.
Re: Fragmentation = Choice = Confusion = Complications
And a telephone book (remember them?) is complicated to certain people. There are limitations to using email on the iPhone, as well as in other well-documented areas (I have the 4), and though it does not make it more complicated, it also does not make anything "easier." As you say, "it's a phone," and I would expect to each his own. I'm not sure why you would "detest" a phone, though I have to add that my mobile phones have all been the result of my own (occasionally misplaced) judgment, rather than rationed out by a generous employer, so I can only confess to my own mistakes. I would anticipate that, since you're wise enough in the world to interact here at El Reg, you are also wise enough to avoid any Android malware by use of common sense. But you're right, that could be too complicated. I will be looking to Android, I believe, in the near future.
Re: null and void
Agree with the thrust of this comment. I think you have to account for the apparent fact that most of the rewriting is from press pieces rather than any attempt at hard or strictly factual news to begin with. The failure to add any value through follow-up or independent critical thinking is really just frosting on the cake.
Re: Anna, Anna, Anna
While going through your dictionary, I suggest you look up the word "ironic." Your use is.
Re: Without Prejudice?
Exactly. Judge Posner (whom I respect immensely as a rare judicial clear thinker) has basically said that neither side has sufficient goods to prevail on their claims. He would, however, allow each to retire to their respective corners and try to re-write their complaints to meet the applicable threshold. The "tentative" part is a warning: these judges don't often change their tentative rulings, particularly when they have been made public. (They don't want a reputation of being uncertain.). I expect that the tentative will. E the order unless someone can show him some pretty convincing (and real, not some marketing drone powerpoint whining) evidence. A day to be much hoped for, in my view.
Okay. . .
. . . You're a fanboi(s). (The "s" is silent.)
Here's To . . .
. . . da beers!
(Oh please, you knew it was coming!)
And the difference is . . .?
Is this outpouring so different from the aesthetic quality of the typical Facebook page anyway? Is there really a reason to complain?
I am now compelled to downvote you for the sake of symmetry in this thread. You brought it on yourself.
I don't know
From what I've read (no direct personal experience) from the usual suspects (Anandtech, et al), Llano has it all over Atom in its present incarnation, and this next round from Intel isn't likely to make a difference, particularly with graphics capabilities. Any opinions out there, as if I didn't know?
For reminding me how bodily-function-loosening funny Harvey Korman was.
Re: Oh put a sock on it @ 22:39 GMT
I disagree. Given the author and subject matter, I have just skipped the articles and dove right into the comments. You would rob me of many minutes of pleasure.
The Key Phrase
The key phrase in your comment is "similar specs". Looking at the Apple closed system with integrated vertical management and "take it or leave it" features, we do not find a similar spec to, say, the Tab currently at issue, or more open alternatives to Apple. You may argue that what is really a premium price for what you get from Apple is worth it ("it just works" (for you), ineffable "cool" factor, etc.), and I would not (could not, since it is a matter of opinion) argue with you, but then that is a different issue.
No Opinion, Except
No opinion on the phone, but keep an eye on the psychopath on the illustrated screen, trying to entrap innocent users with coffee bait.
I would definitely become terminally confused between this and an actual iPhone - they are virtually indistinguishable. I am not in any way a fan of Apple (or any closed system), but: Way. Way. Cool.
@Manu T re: Price and Mass Market
Your arguments are circular, inconsistent and difficult to follow. Nevertheless, I do understand where you are going. The point where I believe you are seriously wrong is: "Apple has the best position for the passive consumer market because of their ties with music- and moviesuppliers and unrivaled the success of iTunes-store as a passive media-selling portal." Barring some cataclysmic head injury with an inability to differentiate between a slice of toast and a polar bear with hemorrhoids, I doubt I will ever admit that the cogital abortion known as "iTunes" is a positive in any world.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sure You Would
You say you'd buy it, but you wouldn't really. Not because you wouldn't want to, but because Apple wouldn't let you until they were done suing its creator out of existence, if possible.
I respect your intent and analysis even while I disagree with your conclusions. Really, touting the low price of an Apple because it is less than a Sony?
The people who post here sometimes just amaze me with their impenetrable problems and inability to change the smallest of habits (which are generally only the result of their laziness and available funds). Convenience, like most things after all, is a matter of taste, perspective and genetic pre-disposition.
Plus one, though, for admitting the laziness and "more money than sense".
. . . buy a notebook for the backpack or briefcase, I don't buy a phone for the case or charger plug, I don't buy a television for its . . . its . . . whatever you buy with televisions. I buy the item I intend to buy, at the right price and with the right features. If I want accessories, I buy the damn accessories, not an unnecessary money sinkhole. If you buy a piece of technology for its accessories, I submit that you not only bought the wrong technology, but you had no business having that much money to begin with.