maximara

About

Username
maximara
Joined
Visits
35
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
328
Badges
0
Posts
409

Reactions

193Like0Dislike27Informative

  • Apple denied COVID app to secure contact tracing monopoly, lawsuit claims

    maximaramaximara
    chaicka said:
    ‘Monopoly’? What a joke this lawsuit is.

    There are COVID-19 contact tracing apps which are backed by Government and its Healthcare agency from other countries that have been approved and still available in App Store. How would that be a ‘Monopoly’?
    Given the program Apple used is free this makes even less sense the Epic suit which is also bag of hammers dumb.
    Anilu_777watto_cobra

  • Some Mac software has made it all the way from 68K to M1 - here's why

    maximaramaximara
    darkvader said:
    When will I stop receiving onscreen messages telling me 3rd Party Software installed on my Mac won’t be compatible with a future version of Mac OS and to contact the developer? It’s not the customers job to remind the developer to update their software to be compatible. 

    Never.  Apple will do this to you again and again.

    It would be trivial for Apple to support 68k software in System 11.  It would be trivial to support 68k, PowerPC, 32-bit Intel, and ARM software at the same time.  The only programs that truly couldn't handle it would be things like disk utilities. 

    But in the next few years you can expect that Apple will again f you over when they intentionally break 64-bit Intel software, just as they did for every previous architecture.

    I'm done.  No M1 for me.  Xubuntu is looking really nice these days, and it'll run on standard x86 hardware for the foreseeable future.  Hardware that also doesn't make me get new dongles for every new port that comes along because it still includes the old ports.  And with just a tiny hack, I can run x86 Mac software in VMware Workstation.  I can even get it to run Apple's last really good version of Mac OS X, 10.6.

    For now, I'm telling my clients to buy Intel Macs while they still can, avoid the M1 garbage like the plague it is.  That'll get them at least 5 years of reasonable functionality, then we can move on to what's next, which at this point isn't likely to be Apple.

    Microsoft OSs suck.  But did you know you can still run some 16-bit Windoze 1 software on current Windoze 10 20H2?  You can. 

    Intentionally breaking compatibility is insane.
    That backwards compatibility comes at a cost - a huge increasingly complex OS that has numerous issues because developers took shortcuts that make going to the next level.  Look at the horrid performance of Microsoft's x86 emulator vs Apple's translator.  Like it or not x86 has likely reached the end of the road of how it can be improved without getting into the 'doubles as a space heater' jokes again.  Nearly everybody (even AMD) has seen that ARM is the future be it Opterron (and the M1 competitor AMD is rumored to be working on) or the M1.  Hanging on the dying past is why Sears, Blockbuster, and dozens of other business are either walking undead are all but dead.

    I can run a World Builder, a 32-bit 68000 assembly program from 1986 via emulation on a modern Mac.  If you want to run old software there will be a market for emulators.  If their isn't a market not enough people really care about act old software...otherwise there would be emulators QED.
    Rayz2016chiadocno42

  • Apple loses iOS copyright claim in suit against security firm Corellium

    maximaramaximara
    THe one line that stood out to me was "On the other hand, he didn't throw out any motions related to the DMCA claim". But fair use should, at least AIUI, touch on some of the DMCA claim.  I really wish the article had gone into how the DMCA applies in all this.
    killroywatto_cobra

  • Apple purged 94,000 games from China App Store in 2020

    maximaramaximara

    larryjw said:
    leighr said:
    Shame China doesn’t have any laws about copyright, spyware and intellectual property. 
    Of course they do. The law says you need to copy, spy and abuse intellectual property for make benefit glorious People's Republic of China.
    Of course you must be aware of US history on protection of intellectual property, right? 

    The US was the worlds biggest thief of foreign intellectual property until the mid 1800's when some on the population started to create such property that it wanted to protect. On the copyright side, the big reason was Mark Twain. Before that, the US wasn't about to bow to pressure from foreign governments to give protection to their businesses and authors. 

    Up until very recently, the US still ignored many International intellectual property laws. 

    In my recent memory, the most newsworthy case involved a group which everyone here probably is familiar with. Monty Python. Foreign copyright laws protect "Moral Rights". The US never joined the 1893 Berne Convention specifically because that convention offered protection for moral rights of authors. 

    Monty Python got some protection in the US but it was one-off. The material from Monty Python was broadcast in the US in pieces so the full flavor of their antics were not allowed to show through. Their shows were, of course, developed and offered as a coherent set, and in the US, broadcasters didn't honor Monty Python's creativity in how they offered their skits. 

    Generally, the US only desires to protect economic side of intellectual property, and prefers to ignore non-economic principles. The Moral Rights are generally
             The right of attribution;
             The right to the publishing of materials or works;
             The right to have a work published under anonymous or pseudonymous means;
             The right to the inherent integrity of the work;
             The right to the preservation of the work from alteration of any kind.
    Very interesting. Thank you. I am not from the US, but this is an eye-opener.
    Except some of it is not entirely accurate.  The US did sign the Berne Convention but it was the 1971 Paris text.

    Terry Carroll provided an well detailed and "concise" Copyright FAQ with I believe Jan 1994 being the last update posted to Usenet (it was reposted in 1996 but unchanged) to the newsgroups misc.legal, misc.legal.computing, misc.int-property, comp.patents,misc.answers, comp.answers, and news.answers.  The following is the text from that document relating to Berne (edited for line breads otherwise the text is exactly it appeared (its information is inlay out of date of course :

    The Berne Convention has four main points:  National treatment, preclusion of formalities, minimum terms of protection, and minimum  exclusive rights.

    National treatment: Under Berne, an author's rights are respected in another country as though the author were a national (citizen) of that country (Art. 5(1)).  For example, works by U.S. authors are protected by French copyright in France, and vice versa, because both the U.S. and France are signatories to Berne.

    Preclusion of formalities: Under Berne, copyright cannot be dependent on formalities such as registration or copyright notice (Art. 5(2)).  However, as noted in sections 2.5 and 2.7, this provision apparently does  not prevent a member nation from taking adherence to formalities into  account when determining what remedies apply.

    Minimum terms of protection:  Under Berne, the minimum duration for copyright protection is the life of the author plus 50 years (Art. 7(1)).  Signatory nations may have provide longer durations if they so choose.

    Minimum exclusive rights: Under Berne, a nation must provide for protection of six rights: translation (Art. 8(1)), reproduction (Art. 9(1)), public performance (Art. 11(1), and Art. 11ter), adaptation (Art. 12), paternity (Art. 6bis(1)) and integrity (Art. 6bis(1)).  In certain of these areas, U.S. copyright law does not quite align with Berne.  For example, Berne requires that the paternity and integrity rights endure for the same term as the other rights (Art. 6bis(2)), while in the U.S., those rights terminate at the death of the author (17 U.S.C. 106A(e)).  The two have been reconciled by the premise that other sources of federal law, such as trademark, combined with the trademark, unfair competition, and defamation laws of the individual states, satisfy these requirements.

    The full thing should be google groups for those interested.

    gatorguybestkeptsecret

  • Epic argues Apple has 'no rights to the fruits' of its labor in 'Fortnite' filing

    maximaramaximara
    red oak said:
    FU Epic

    Tim Sweeney is a mental case.   He has flushed a half billion dollars down the toilet and is still going to lose the case

    What an ungrateful bastard

    I'm surprised the court has put up with this nonsense.  This case is getter more and more all the wall bananas.
    williamlondonlolliver