itstheinternet
About
- Username
- itstheinternet
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- -
- Roles
- member
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 401
Reactions
Comments
-
Quote: Originally Posted by ruddy You guys keep wanting to pretend that declaring code isn't literal code, that it's magic fairy dust instead of something extremely complex and creative that can be copied. Because I write it every day and I k…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by hill60 Gotta kowtow to your betters, huh, doff your cap and be thankful? I'm a successful independent contractor, believe me when I say I don't have to be thankful to any betters. I simply respect the judicial …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by hill60 Facts as seen through the eyes of a dodgy judge, paid off for his efforts of distorting the truth and his "old boy" mates who blindly support their own because, well because that's just how it is. Gotta ke…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by hill60 He was a right, dodgy old prick paid off for judicial abuse of power. Apple was proved and continues to be proved correct under other jurisdictions, Samsung stole their inventions in order to copy them. …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf "declaring code" is the same thing as an API. After all, an API is precisely a collection of declarations for functions and constants. Copying Microsoft's API (as WINE and MinGW have done) is the same thing …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by MachineShedFred As someone who has actually used an Atom device based on the new Bay Trail core launched in Q4, you are completely wrong. We're considering putting together touch based call-handling terminals u…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by hill60 The Guardian and that stupid Judge, forgot his name, the one who made Apple post a notice on their website then went on to work for Samsung in the US. You mean The Right Honourable Sir Robin Jacob. Nic…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Tallest Skil Seems like it should be possible to ban a device via its MAC address, rendering it completely useless until he buys a new one. A forcible entry cost of $299 to post his dreck would be pretty nice. …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by SolipsismX Would that count as a smartphone in today's market, or only in a historical sense? I would argue that even the original iPhone is not a 'modern smartphone' although it certainly was a smartphone at th…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by hill60 No. The fact that it wasn't open to 3rd party developers at that time, did not detract from the fact that Apple was able to install any number of Apps they felt like. If your old SonyEricsson was a Symbi…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by hill60 The technical definition of a smartphone used to be a phone capable of installing and running native applications. Whether they are used that way or not is another issue. Wouldn't that mean that the fi…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by hill60 Not one of Apple's innovative, custom made ones, that's for sure. Well obviously, Apple bought Authentec lol. That's why I'm saying, it'll be interesting to see what sensor is even available to them. I hav…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by ytseman3 Ok, now I want to see all those people who were against a fingerprint scanner from Apple chiming in on how bad an idea it is for Android phones. Where are all those "I don't trust Apple with my fingerprint"…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by hill60 ...but you couldn't multitask like an iPhone on GSM i.e. use voice and data at the same time. Verizon's CDMA network was incapable of simultaneous voice and data, that came later with 4G. Ah I see, wel…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by hill60 The Droid, a copyrighted name used by Verizon to describe their first Android phone, a Motorola accompanied by a one hundred million dollar advertising campaign, which due to the inadequacy of the CDMA netwo…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 The fact that an advertiser does not know your name is true. But, they know your device address and can be even more specific in what they target you with that any mail addressed to "occupant" that rea…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by ruddy Honestly, what is your problem with understanding that WINE did not copy any code? Google did copy Java code. 7000+ lines of it verbatim, and they even admit it. That is the source of the infringement. No one h…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by ruddy Yes I have. Reverse engineering the functionality of software is legal. It copies no code. It doesn't even copy the SSO of the code. Reverse engineering is not the same thing as VERBATIM COPYING of 7000 lines o…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by ruddy The only thing that really matters is that Microsoft went out of its way to make WINE possible, and WINE doesn't infringe any of Microsoft's copyrights. Different companies have different API strategies. Duh. …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by ruddy Declarative code is still copyrighted code and Google copied over 7000 lines of it verbatim. It's fascinating watching self proclaimed "developers" try and weasel around this fact. Until the appeal is ruled…