22july2013
About
- Username
- 22july2013
- Joined
- Visits
- 146
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 7,544
- Badges
- 2
- Posts
- 3,847
Reactions
-
Epic refutes Apple's claim 'Fortnite' lawsuit was marketing exercise
You put a lot of thought into your reply. I respect that. You largely anticipated my train of thought in the reply I was going to craft to the answer to the question I posed. The problem with your arguments (which make them weak but not utterly useless) is that they count only in the court of public opinion, not in a court of law. The fact that one platform has 70 million and the other has 1,500 million is irrelevant to any law whatsoever. So is the history of the platform. Mentioning irrelevant facts is a distraction from a weak case. The law doesn't root for the underdog, no matter how much you want it to.cloudguy said:
You are kidding, right? The mobile platforms all began primarily as operating systems for mobile phones (cell phones). They merely extended to other device categories - tablets, smart TV boxes, smart watches, smart home/IoT devices - because of the massive success of the mobile platforms and the ability to connect to the other devices with the primary smartphone device. (Note that Microsoft wanted to accomplish the same with their PC and XBox platforms but failed. Instead, now a PC is just another client for the smartphone with Continuity for macOS and a number of apps to connect Android phones to Windows PCs and the Chrome browser.)22july2013 said:
What is the Nintendo Switch, a mobile ecosystem or a console ecosystem? After you answer, I may have a follow up question to determine your level of consistency in applying the rules.CheeseFreeze said:A mobile ecosystem is not a console ecosystem.
Granted, the Nintendo Switch uses a mobile hardware platform: it is the same hardware, drivers and Vulkan graphics stack as the Nvidia Shield K1 Android tablet. Even the dock providing connectivity for USB controllers and HDMI has been common on Android devices since at least 2011. But the software for Nintendo Switch is the same as is used for the Nintendo 3DS (with APIs added for compatibility with the Nvidia SOC drivers and Vulkan). As the Nintendo 3DS has absolutely nothing to do with mobile phones beyond several very good 3DS emulators being available for Android then no, the Nintendo Switch is not a mobile ecosystem. It is a console ecosystem that was implemented using hardware and API standards created for the Android mobile ecosystem, true, but the software ecosystem is from their already in existence 3DS console.
The Switch being portable, having Wi-Fi access and an app store is no big deal. Any number of handheld consoles - including the PlayStation Portable - have the same. Moreover, Windows 10, ChromeOS and even Linux tablets are very much a thing. They all have app stores supplied by their various operating systems and it is possible to add third party app stores to them all as well. Yet no one calls Windows 10, ChromeOS or Linux "mobile ecosystems" because they were all designed for and are primarily desktop, PC (and in the case of Linux ... workstation, server and cloud) operating systems.
Bottom line: no judge is going to accept Apple's argument that tries to draw an equivalence between a platform that is on nearly 1.5 billion mobile phones and tablets and runs - for example - video production, banking, engineering and diagnostic medical applications (iOS) and a platform that is on less than 70 million "Android tablets" for whom the only non-video game apps available are Hulu and YouTube .
The real case is this: Apple has an operating system and it wants to require developers who want to sell things on this operating system to obey certain rules (many of the rules follow industry standards like the 30% usage fee.) License agreements that enforce rules have been a common business practice for 50 years. Does Apple have the legal right to enforce any rules? Epic wants the court to force Apple to change its license agreement. Under what federal law should Apple be forced to change its license agreement? Epic keeps mentioning anti-trust laws. But haha, the US Supreme Court has said very clearly that monopolies in the entertainment business are 100.000% legal. That's the final court of the land. I'm sure you can look that one up on wikipedia. The only way to force the Supreme Court to act differently is to create a new constitutional amendment. What would you like that amendment to say? I will listen to anything you have to say.
I'm actually hoping that Apple utterly loses this case completely with an insane ruling like, "Apple cannot enforce any rules in any app store license agreement." If so, Apple will likely shut down its app store completely and switch to the model it had with the first iPhone: (1) no app store; (2) all apps come from Apple only. But I'm afraid Apple will easily win this case completely.
Which of the 500 App Store rules do you want revoked by the courts? All of them? Be specific.
-
Lawsuit claims Apple appropriated idea for diverse emoji characters
Here are fairly accurate or official definitions:HeliBum said:Can you really copyright an idea? Even patents don't work that way (or they're not supposed to anyway).- A Copyright is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the exclusive right to make copies of a creative work, usually for a limited time. The creative work may be in a literary, artistic, educational, or musical form. Copyright is intended to protect the original expression of an idea in the form of a creative work, but not the idea itself.
- Patents are granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent, subject to the conditions and requirements of the law.
- Trade secrets are a type of intellectual property that comprise formulas, practices, processes, designs, instruments, patterns, or compilations of information that have inherent economic value because they are not generally known or readily ascertainable by others, and which the owner takes reasonable measures to keep secret.
I can't read the complaint now because the link in the article has become broken. But in theory any or all of these three principles of law could be used. In this case, copyrights could be used if the company can prove that the images look too much like their own images. Patents could potentially be used if they have a patent and that patent is violated by the mechanisms Apple has implemented either visually or behind the scenes. Trade Secrets could be used if the company shared information privately with Apple and Apple knew the information was meant to remain private but Apple used it.
Let the courts do their constitutionally mandate jobs. Let the case progress. Some countries don't have fair judicial systems. Celebrate your system!
I am always happy when anything goes to the courts. The job of the courts is to get to the truth. Nothing is ever wrong with the truth.
-
YouTube restricts iOS 14 picture-in-picture feature to Premium subscribers, 4K not availab...
Google once said it's mantra was "DO NO EVIL". Now I realize that "NO" always stood for "Next Opportunity."
-
Ad group urges 'dialogue' with Apple about iOS 14 privacy features
Here's quite an interesting article about iOS 10's (September 2016) Limited Ad Tracking feature. It shows that about 18% of users worldwide have enabled it. From what I've read in the news that could go up to 50% now with the next iOS update to IDFA tracking tags. These pages come from some private company's website and I have no idea whether they are biased or not, but it seems to be fair, although they see to sell a product to advertisers that helps to get around Apple's restrictions.
https://www.adjust.com/glossary/limit-ad-tracking/ <--
https://www.adjust.com/blog/limit-ad-tracking-rates-per-country/ <--
https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT205223 <-- where this feature is enabled
-
Apple Watch saves cop stabbed during an arrest
The main reason I bought the Apple Watch was for emergency 911 calling.
But I've had another good reason to have it. In March 2020, during the COVID panic, my Apple Watch warned me of a heart concern (that I likely would not have noticed without the Watch) and I called my doctor who said to go to the emergency room. I've had many tests, which are still ongoing, but it wasn't a diagnosis with a high probability of fatality (so I can't definitely say that the Watch "saved my life") but it still does require ongoing treatment. Not every health alert that the Watch gives will actually be a life saving alert, but this alert certainly made a difference for me.
So I'm definitely a fan of the Watch. I'll decline to offer my exact diagnosis. No need to offer details.
