macgui

badmonk said:

Can’t someone just give him a golf trophy (or bribe) so he can just stop this nonsense?

You don't realize he can't be bought. Specifically his loyalty can't be bought that is. No amount of money or material bribes can ensure he won't turn on them in an instant. It doesn't make any difference if he's offered a bribe or airplane, if he solicits a bribe or airplane, or he extorts money (I don't think he extorted Gold Farce One). 

badmonk said:
This administration is turning out to be the most business unfriendly  administration in history (outside of the oil, coal and steel interests that most have bribed him).

He seems determined to crater the economy.

Turning out to be? Where have you been? This started in 2017 and hasn't stopped since. The roll was inconvenienced by Biden's intervention but machinations never stopped. Many corporations and businesses have benefitted tremendously at the expense of others, and mainly Trump's lack of business acumen.

People voted for this in spite of his known track record as a "business man" and morally bereft individual. There still 3.5 years to be endured. There are a crapton of people who won't see that they'll never get what he promised them and that by voting for him it's their fault.

He's not determined to crater the economy. He's pursuing personal agendas without any knowledge or regard of the economy which is cratering the economy. He absolutely won't tell the truth about the state of the economy.

What he has accomplished is making the US an authoritarian government, with no clue as to how the US should best interact with nations we want to trade with.  The Art of the Deal. He want business moved back to the US and throws tariffs in their way and not incentives. What joke. Be careful what you wish for is the old saying.

Meanwhile, let's see the Epstein files.

Clearly a number of poster not only don't understand what trademark (or copyright law) is, but how it is applied let alone why it's applied.

Monster Cable had the predatory practice of going after everyone who used the word "monster" in their business name or products. I don't know how many of those cases when to court and how many were found for Monster. Many of the defendants settled because they didn't have the money for court costs. Monster hasn't been in the news for a long time but they're still in business. They hawk overpriced gear (Monster speaker cable) but that's a different matter.

This is not what Apple is doing. Apple Cinemas' logo is clearly a stylized version of Apple's apple. They knew this going in and Apple apparently let this single use alone. Years later Apple Cinemas has plans to add 100 theaters and now it's a potential threat to Apple's trademark, people thinking that this is related to Apple Inc in some way. So Apple sues.

I can see that the time span of 2010 to 2025 will probably need to be addressed in court, but I have no doubt that Apple will prevail. Rightfully so. The "Apple" and apple in Cinemas' logo are not mere descriptors as in apple pie. Apple is not suing manufacturers of candy apple red paint. All this has been detailed in several other posts.

This is more than just some posters not understanding trademark and copyright law. This is some posters not seeing Apple as protecting their brand, but as Apple being an 800lb gorilla crushing the sole of poor innocent businesses. Regardless of trademark law. Bad Apple. Bad bad Apple.

That's not the case. 

Apple Cinemas will probably not get to use that name for additional theaters. Will they have to eliminate it from the original MA theater? Could Apple say keep that but the rest have to go? I look forward to the outcome whatever it may be.

As Apple hasn't shipped a folder I don't know that there's a crease that needs to be fixed. So I'll wait to see what they ship before criticizing. Even so I imagine it'll be pricy. My current phone was $780 and that was pricy for me. My next new phone will probably be near $1000 and that's a proverbial bitter pill.

I'll check out Apple's entry out of curiosity when it ships, but I'm sure the price will be in "Do you really want this?" range.

This example "from Apple" is far more detailed than anything I've been receiving lately. The phishing emails have been increasing steadily over the last few months. I don't get a lot but a few is a lot for me.

Scam phone calls and texts are increasing. It's only a few but I got none when others were complaining about being inundated.

charlesn said:

Stabitha_Christie said:

charlesn said:

Stabitha_Christie said:

Wesley_Hilliard said:

Stabitha_Christie said:

I love a good rumor as much as the next person but can we not normalize this kind of behavior? While it isn't illegal to take someone's photo in public is still an invasion of privacy and promoting this kind of thing will only lead to more instances of this kind of thing. 

Sorry to say, but the law is quite clear, when in public, it is fair game. While I can't take a photo of someone and use it commercially, there's nothing stopping anyone from taking photos, recording video, or capturing audio of anyone in public.

Like I said in the piece, it's not something that's going to be a problem because these kinds of design changes are very rare. Nearly every other prototype iPhone has looked identical to its predecessor with the exception of iPhone X, which was prototyped in a literal brick-sized box IIRC.

I wouldn't worry about this becoming a common way to leak iPhone information.

Not sure if you missed the point or intentionally avoiding it. I clearly stated it wasn’t illegal but legality doesn’t make it right. People should be able to go out in public without someone photographing them. When you use the photos you are ultimately enabling the behavior. Cool that you didn’t break the law but did y’all make the right choice. This person now has their pictures splattered around the internet. The news value?  That there is a new phone and if you put in a giant case no one will see what it looks like? Stop the presses! 

Stabitha, I hear the Photography Police are actively recruiting. Give it some thought. Seems like you'd be an enthusiastic candidate. 

Yes, suggesting that we should respectful of people's privacy is really just me being overbearing. What a terrible world it would be if we respected each other.

This is YOUR idea of what's respectful and how the world should work. And I fully support your right to live your life this way! Have at it! But like most pompous, overbearing people, you believe your POV is correct and that anyone who doesn't abide by it is wrong--in this particular case, they're being disrespectful. No--we just don't agree with your opinion, that's all. 

But it's ok when you do it. The irony is adorable.