or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by diddy

Summary judgments are pretty hard to actually come by in civil suits like this - court cases tend to drag on even if it’s obvious that somebody is going to loose. Take the Psystar case. Dragged on forever before Apple was granted a summary judgment and it was extremely obvious that Psystar was in the wrong and Apple had tons of evidence. And Psystar was not a big company. Summary judgments are a big thing and it is less likely to occur in this case. And I doubt that...
Because that’s not how the world works.
That is important - no charges whatsoever have been filed at all. The DOJ might think something is going on, but that's no different than the cops following a car that they suspect is stolen or is involved in illegal activities. That an investigation is going on does not mean that anyone is guilty. Heck, nobody can say that a crime has occurred. This could be nothing more than the DOJ saying "we are keeping an eye you here..."
I’m taking this with as much salt as any other random tech pundant. Think about it - if Samsung knew something (as a component maker), they would be under NDA and their legal team (busy with lawsuits) isn’t going to want the headache of dealing with a blatant violation possibly affecting other IP suits. No, this is nothing more than a “Apple has to do X” or “Apple should do X” or “Apple will do X to compete with Y”. We know how Apple appreciates outside advice on how to...
I think your post was grammatically correct and you probably have a better grasp of what censorship actually is and can distinctly the types are and doesn’t just toss it out there as if any form of it whatsoever puts you suddenly in the league of Satan!
It's also pretty much the way that every retailer works - to some degree they restrict what is allowed to be sold. It doesn't matter if the thing being sold is some sort of creative expression.
But he doesn't have to do that in order to distribute his free speech in general. Apple is jsut telling him what would be allowed. Godin isn't being told to do that by anybody. If he ends up making that decision, it would be him. That's how agreements between two parties work. If Godin wanted to maintain his work intact, he can find someone who will let him do that. He can even sell it by his lonesome self if it came to it. Let me make this 100% clear NOBODY IS...
Indeed - we can (and have) criticized Apples (and other companies) decisions. Heck, it's encouraged around here. Nobody wants this to be an area where we just cheer Apple on or just disparage the competition and nothing else. Nobody would tolerate it and this would be a barren wasteland. However we like to encourage valid and constructive criticism else it becomes meaningless. Just throwing the word censorship is pointless since it does two things: It sounds...
The iBookstore is a means for Apple to sell whatever books Apple wishes to sell - that's why they have guidelines just like every retailer does. It is not some institute owned by the public. I don't care who this guy is, nobody has a right to have their content sold everywhere. That right is an expression of freedom too. Nobody can force me to sell anything that I do not want to by arguing censorship. That's abusing the term to an extreme. Just because Apple or I says...
Yes they can and they should. Appe isn't saying to their customer "you cannot view this text and the links". They are saying, "we will not sell this". That is a huge difference. If I open a book store, I can choose what I want to sell and how I want to sell it. If there are competitive choices I can do that. I can open up a bookstore and say " I want to carry these types of books, I can refuse to sell a book that falls outside of my desires. I am not censoring...
New Posts  All Forums: