maestro64

gatorguy said:

maestro64 said:

I know people are concerned about their privacy, but the camera is outward facing. It is recording people who come to your door who do not have a reasonable expectation of any privacy being out in public on your property. The same is true for the average person walk or driving past your house. Why do you care, there are all kinds of camera facing the public and no one has pull out the pitch forks and demand it be stopped.

The only issue would be if the police used it to monitor who was coming and going from your own home. If Amazon is in fact sharing this information with police I suspect a number or lawyers have view the legality of the action. The other thing, is Amazon sharing live video or the stored video. If you do not like this kind of cooperation remove device.

True, in general there's no expectation of privacy in public which would include looking at your home/possessions/person from street side (walking/driving/mapping vehicle/police) or outward towards the street from your front door 

There is one except to this and if people are not careful where they point the camera may get them in trouble. 

In an old neighborhood I lived in, a neighbor found out the hard way when the police showed up at his house. You can not point your camera on someone's home/property and record what is going on in the neighbor's home through a window or what could not other be seen by the general public. The reason the police show showed up at the neighbors house, was due to the fact one of his security cameras was pointing across the street and had line of sigh to the other neighbors daughter's bedroom. Got the guy on peeking tom charges and child porn since the police found VHS video of the girl changing.

gatorguy said:

maestro64 said:

yisheng508 said:

lmac said:

Rather than getting more in bed with China, Apple should help Japan and S. Korea sort this out, and keep diversifying the supply chain.

Very biased opinion！！！You are brainwashed by CNN, China is not as bad as it is imagined.

China see things as it is all for the common good no one gets to own anything and everyone is allow to benefit for what anyone is doing. Most Chinese do not really understand the concept of Copywrites, or Intellectual Property since these ideas do not really exist in a communist world.

Attitudes towards intellectual property in China today have vastly improved and more in agreement with Western ideas than they were 10 years ago. That means better, still not perfect. 

https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/11/21/chinas-actions-copyrights-support-ip-rights/id=103269/
https://www.china-briefing.com/news/intellectual-property-protection-china-laws-registration-procedures/

You do know that China is Communist county and controls all information flow and they present to the world what they want the world to see. The reason the trade deal is falling apart with China is because they are refusing to put any teeth into their so called IP and copyright enforcement. As an example, since US company are required to do a JV to do business in China, any information transferred to the JV is not subject to an IP claim since it now owned by a Chinese entity or the JV has to make the claim.

yisheng508 said:

lmac said:

Rather than getting more in bed with China, Apple should help Japan and S. Korea sort this out, and keep diversifying the supply chain.

Very biased opinion！！！You are brainwashed by CNN, China is not as bad as it is imagined.

I do not listen to CNN and my views are based on 20yrs of working with China and Chinese company first hand and prior to that I work with Japan and Japanese company. As difficult as it is dealing with Japanese companies it far better than what you have to deal with in China.  

From inside China they see nothing wrong with what they do. Using (stealing) other people's idea and solution is not seen the same way as the rest of the modern world see it. China see things as it is all for the common good no one gets to own anything and everyone is allow to benefit for what anyone is doing. Most Chinese do not really understand the concept of Copywrites, or Intellectual Property since these ideas do not really exist in a communist world.

I kind of like the feature, the current problem is many apps do not use it so it not a muscle memory feature that is not automatic. For the apps that use it I find it is hard making sure i do not activate 3D when I only want to just highlight text to copy. This is because apps which do not use it a light press and a hard press act the same then you switch to the app with 3D touch if you press too hard to get something you did not want.

just my view of the feature not sure if I am going to miss it or not, but i do use it mostly with the Apple built in functions.

gatorguy said:

tmay said:

gatorguy said:

GeorgeBMac said:

Pushing the boundaries of law is a good thing and I'm glad Apple does that.
Pushing the boundaries of morals, ethics and decency are BAD things and I'm glad Apple does not do that.

I would imagine every really successful company bumps up to the legality line fairly regularly. Once in awhile they get too aggressive with it or misjudge the winds and end up in illegal territory. With well run companies that's rare and Apple is one of those.

In Sewell's defense he does say had he known the entire details surrounding Mr Jobs and his communications with and between the publishers he implies he would have recommended against designing it the was Apple did. He seems to be admitting in hindsight that it was illegal as done tho he was not originally privy to all of it. 

There's the impression that what Steve Jobs did was illegal, yet many do not see that.

I certainly don't see that, but it is also true that the publishers did collude with each other.

https://www.idownloadblog.com/2013/05/16/doj-steve-jobs-apple-guilty/




Sewell would have almost certainly have been aware of Steve Job's email at that time, and not of the collusion between publishers.

Apple was absolutely aware of the "collusion between publishers' as they were the ones keeping each of then apprised of what each of the others agreed to. 

Apple devised a Most Favored Nation (MFN) clause in its contracts with publishers which "guaranteed that the e-books in Apple’s e-bookstore would be sold for the lowest retail price available in the marketplace," Cote wrote. For the publishers to charge up to $14.99 for e-books on Apple's iBooks store, they had to raise prices on Amazon's Kindle store as well by collectively forcing Amazon to accept the agency model.

As Cue acknowledged at trial, “I just wanted to assure them that they weren’t going to be alone, so that I would take the fear away of the Amazon retribution that they were all afraid of.” By acting in concert, enabled by Apple being the coordinator between them, they removed Amazon as a problem.

I don't think Sewell would have signed off on it had he known all the communication details and he now suggests that's exactly what he would have done, recommended against it  It doesn't make Apple the corporation "bad", more a rare error in judgement by executive management. 

There was no evidence presented that Apple knew about communications between Publisher, if they did it would have been "collusion" the real legal term is acting in concert with one another or conspired, there is no law about collusion. Apple knew what they said to each publisher, but was not aware the publisher were all talking behind the scenes and using Apples proposal to under mind what Apple was trying to do.

MFN clauses are pretty standard. They all say, if company lowers the selling price to a competitor, they have to offer it to you at the same price. I have negotiated these terms many times in the past and they usually have other language around them which we have not see in the Apple case. The extra language usually boxes in the MFN clause so it does not apply in all transactions. In one contract I did, the supplier show up with a check one quarter because they sold parts to a competitor at price below our negotiate price and the MFN clause so they do work and are legal. Most times this does not happen since a company gets around MFN by offering a rebate verses unit price discount. Apple could have done this if all they were worried about was protecting their profits.

In the Ibook Case Apple was allowing Publishers to set the selling price which Apple would get a % of the sale, High unit selling price mean more $ in apples bank account. Verses Apple buying the books at give price and then selling it at what every price they like (normal distribution modal). Apple's MFN clause was just saying do not put the Ibook store at a disadvantage if they allowed Amazon to sell at a lower cost. The real issue here is the fact Publisher did not control Amazon's selling price in all cases and in some cases Amazon sold books at a loss. In other cases Publisher sold books to Amazon pennies on dollar when they over produced a book. This was the dirty little secret that did not come out in the court case, the Publishers did not want to lose the ability to dump books they over produced. Keep in mind Authors usually get paid after expenses, the same way musician go paid after the record label covered all their costs on making/distributing/marketing an album. If publishers over produce a book, those costs came out before an author got their check. If Publishers pissed Amazon off they would loose this ability to recoup costs.

The Court blamed Apple for having the MFN clause with all the publishers who then use it to conspire with one another. Then someone in the circle decide to rat them all out.

As Sewell said, if he had known the publisher were working in conjunction with one another the approach may have been different. But I believe his statement was not about how they argue the case against the government. I kind of get the feeling his statement was about how they set up the agreement with the Publishers. Most likely his staff had to signoff on those agreements before they were executed which in turn started the ball rolling into the court case.