applebynature

I'm a bit confused as to why Apple would be so against this when they already have a ready-to-go service (that they voluntarily developed themselves) that would scan for such images while keeping end-to-end encryption intact.

123Go said:

It is a bit different operating in a democracy. Indian workers cannot be exploited like their Chinese counterparts. May be the workers who make the incredibly profitable iPhone can get more of a share of the profits for their labour through higher wages and better conditions. 

 The 12hour/day, 48hour/week is actually laxer than the labor laws in China. In China the law stipulates 8hours/day, 44hours/week. If their labor union approves it, they can also add on 1 hour of overtime/day. Their laws also include a minimum wage, mandatory pension, medical coverage, unemployment coverage, maternity leave, and workers' comp.

Just because China is not a democracy doesn't mean they don't have labor laws. They arguably have better labor laws and protections than here in the US (perhaps as long as you aren't Uyghur or Kazakh).

mikethemartian said:

How would the ban be practically implemented? The OpenAI servers don’t need to be located within the EU for residents to access them.

It would be the same as the GDPR. Tech companies don't have to have servers, or even a single office or employee based in the EU to fall under its scope. If you allow EU citizens to use your service within the EU, then you must abide by the rules they have imposed. If you do not wish to abide by those rules, you can ban EU citizens from utilizing your services. Sure, an EU citizen could use a VPN based outside of the EU and supply fake information to your company saying you are not within the EU to gain access to your company's systems, but your company would no longer be held liable in that instance, as you have made a good faith effort on your side to ban them.

danox said:

In patent, cases, such as this always challenge the patent validity upfront, because the patent office seems to grant patents for just about anything, their philosophy appears to be, people, companies or any other interested party should fight it out in court later. In short, the patent office doesn’t want to take any real responsibility.

I might add the upper division (the corpocracy ) actually prefers it this way, so change probably isn’t going to happen.

I think one of the main issues is that the Patent Office cannot do much other than "to grant patents for just about anything". They do not have an adequate system nor anywhere close to the adequate resources required to fully vet every single one of the thousands of patents filed each day. So yes, the courts are left to decide most patent disputes at a later time, mostly by design. I'm not saying it should be this way, but it's the way its been for a very long time.

These recent trademarks really roll off the tongue quite eloquently. Definitely not too many syllables. Doesn't sound ridiculous at all. /s