flydog

gatorguy said:

roake said:

"At Google, we've always put users and their privacy first."

This actually made me laugh out loud.

Maybe they meant first on the auction block...?

At least the data itself never left Google. 

I'm sorry, what? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Google_data_breach

https://hub.packtpub.com/google-is-circumventing-gdpr-reveals-braves-investigation-for-the-authorized-buyers-ad-business-case/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-exposed-user-data-feared-repercussions-of-disclosing-to-public-1539017194

22july2013 said:

However I think the restriction on card counting apps should be removed. The reason given below is that card counters are "illegal." I don't live in the US, but I googled whether card counting is illegal, and the answer was no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_counting#Legal_status Wikipedia documents no country in the world where card counting is "illegal." So the Apple rules are wrong when they claim that card counting apps are "illegal gambling aids".

I find it interesting that Apple won't sell apps that help you defeat the casinos (card counting apps) but they will sell apps that let you defeat the police (police location apps). Apple supports "casinos over people" but not the "police over people."

The difference is that "defeat the police" is a collection of meaningless words that you made up to substantiate your nonsensical argument.  You haven't offered anything that is illegal that Apple allows on the App Store, only your personal opinion that things that help "defeat the police" shouldn't be allowed. 

Gambling on the other hand is a concrete thing, and is defined as wagering money on the outcome of a game, which is (a) illegal or regulated in all states, and (b) an objective standard that can be applied to determine whether somethign is or isn't "gambling."

Second, card counting with the aid of anything but your own brain is in fact illegal in every state with legalized gambling. See, e.g., Nevada Revised Statues 465.075:

It is unlawful for any person to use, possess with the intent to use or assist another person in using or possessing with the intent to use any computerized, electronic, electrical or mechanical device, or any software or hardware, or any combination thereof, which is designed, constructed, altered or programmed to obtain an advantage at playing any game in a licensed gaming establishment or any game that is offered by a licensee or affiliate, including, without limitation, a device that . . . Keeps track of cards played or cards prepared for play in the game . . . 

mike1 said:

If this is all true, I'm very surprised to learn that Hyundai uses separate plant(s) to manufacture essentially the same car(s).

I also doubt that Kia would need to "agree to take control of production". They'd be told they are producing the car.

Kia is a separate company with a separate board and leadership structure.  Hyundai owns just 35% of Kia and has 1 seat on the board, so yes, Kia would need to agree.  

texfla said:

They also left several-hundred-year-old rules against murder and theft intact...as well as the constitution. The article appears to imply that the age of the rules is an inherent negative. There are lots of old laws that are good and new laws that are crummy that have been put in place by both parties.

Licensing rules and laws shouldn't be judged as good or bad based on their age or by which party is in power when they're implemented.

They're good or bad based on their effectiveness in creating a fair balance between the rights of content creators and the interests of the consumers that they're willing to sell to. The middle men are unimportant except in the context how the rules impact their ability to add value to creators and consumers.

So...ignoring the age of the laws and the particular administration making the decision...what are the actual merits of keeping the existing rules vs scrapping them?

Talk about reading way too much into something. Geez. 

rob53 said:

Sounds like judge is prejudiced against Apple. It’s like using witnesses in a murder trial who end up being caught telling lies about the murder and not telling the jury they did. 

How many of VirnetX’s patents in question are currently valid? One, two, none?

Based on what?  Do you have access to all the trial evidence, and you personally reviewed all of it?  Did you read the judge's opinion and the parties' motions?   Do you know anything at all about patent law or civil procedure?  The answer to all of these quesitons is, of course, no.

The fact that the USPTO deemed the subject of the patents "unpatentable" is irrelevant because the US Court of Appeals reversed the USPTO's decision.  The patents were valid, enforceable, and Apple infringed on them.  This case has been around for 10 years, and every single court and jury has ruled againt Apple.  
 
End of story.