or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by elroth

As I think about it, maybe it's not so surprising that Apple came up with this. After all, it's kind of what they've been doing (as it's been rumored) to ensure secrecy of their new products - they give different employees different parts of it, with different "contextual clues", so if it leaks, they can track down where the leak came from. It's pretty clever to expand this to a system of tracking down spammers.
Three stars to you for the Catch-22 reference.
What, no Bitcoins? I'm destroying my SquareStand, along with my iPad, iPhone, iPod, iMac, and even a photograph of my IIsi. Rise up!
Yes and no. Those were basically the original terms, but it wasn't clearly spelled out that he was strictly limited to that. Further, when Cote hired him, the two opf them discussed widening his job, and apparently agreed that he could do more investigating of Apple. The Justice Department supported the expanded powers in statements they made (I believe even in court to Judge Cote). Bromwich acted on the wider mandate, and was investigating Apple beyond the original order,...
Here's another story that's a much better analysis of the ruling, the issues involved, and the road ahead:   Court: Antitrust monitor Bromwich stays, with limits | MacNN
You don't understand it at all. Money is never an "irreparable harm", because if it's later found to be unjust or "outlandish", they can order Bromwich to pay it back (and the harm is repaired).
I'm pretty disappointed in this AI story, especially with the false headline. It's not a good summary of what the court ruled - for that, go to the link in Sacto Joe's previous post. This is a win for Apple, though not a total victory (the monitor stays for now). If you really look at it, during the appeal the DOJ backed down in a major way - they actually said (quoted in today's ruling) that the monitor was only authorized to look into Apple's antitrust compliance...
It's is a court proceeding, not a policy debate. The DOJ actions have absolutely nothing to do with the Apple/Samsung trial. In the U.S. court system (unlike China, Korea and other places), EVERY company deserves fair treatment, whether it's American or foreign. For a lawyer to appeal to nationalism is prejudicial, and not allowed. It should be the same verdict as if it were Apple v. Google instead of Apple v. Samsung. Of course, judges can make mistakes, issue bad...
I don't know - that may be true to some degree in a number of industries, but the U.S. was making pretty crappy televisions, and not improving them (Magnavox? Zenith?). I don't know if the Asian companies like Sony stole American IP, but they sure did improve the quality and functionality of televisions. Of course, after that came all the cheap Asian TVs that are still built today.
 Wait until Google starts sending holographic advertising images into your living room when you're lounging around, personalized ads that mention what you're wearing and what you had for dinner, and offers to deliver your daughter's favorite ice cream flavor in 15 minutes. Then tell me you're not worried.
New Posts  All Forums: