or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Tulkas

I'm not American, but I'm not so daft to not see the humour in Britain's "police force". Just as I see the comedy of their court system today.
As useless as unarmed UK bobbies. "Stop or I'll say stop again! And I'll mean it this time!"
Just following orders. Again.   (and the raspberry they tossed in while doing it was brilliant. Just scroll)
The funniest part? Apple added javascript to their page that ensures, no matter what screen size or resolution you are using, the link and the text on the main page will be below the bottom of your display. You are forced to scroll if you want to see it. Genuis. http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/11/03/apple-hides-samsung-apology-on-its-uk-site-so-it-cant-be-seen-without-scrolling/     At this point, I whole heartedly applaud Apple giving the UK courts the finger,...
It is essential only because those companies chose to use it. Apple used their own. MS uses NFTS for their desktops and servers. SUN/Oracle own a couple.    It is essential only to those that decided FAT. Yes, they did so because it was common and interoperable, but that was still their choice. MS also has a choice how and for how much they choose to license it and to whom. And that is the problem I have with not just seeking to have it (or anything) declared a de-facto...
They buried it? It was the opening paragraph.
There are many, many alternative file systems companies could use. But FAT has become common. Google search is common too. I would disagree with any government action that forced either to effectively open up their IP to any and all. Just because they have successfully marketed their IP or otherwise made it popular does not mean the government should be able to dictate how they use their property or how much they can charge. If, however, they legally pledge to do so, then...
Once it's a standard, entirely different different expectations are set as to how much one can charge. 
MS or Apple (neither mentioned by name, so either is an assumption) the concept is the same. Once you have popularized it, they want the government to force you to let them use it as though you promised to do so. That is wrong. Companies that obligate themselves to do something should have higher standards of behavior, with regard to those properties, than companies that never promised to do the same with theirs. I wonder, would the be willing to let any and all license...
ummm, it was mentioned in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that was looking into google behavior with regard to Apple and MS and SEP/FRAND patents that Google is attacking them with. They specifically argue that standards should be standard even if not ratified or approved by a standard body but because they have become common.       They may not have mentioned Apple by name, but they didn't have to. The subject of the hearings was Google's abuses of their...
New Posts  All Forums: