Planetfurry BBS Forum Index Planetfurry BBS
Forums for Planetfurry Site Members and more
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   DonateDonate   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

HAAAA!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Planetfurry BBS Forum Index -> Everyday blither-blather
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
anthony
Site Owner
Site Owner


Joined: 12 Nov 2001
Posts: 1304
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ryan Fox wrote:
I can even dual boot Ubuntu Linux on my older PPC G5 quad Razz


you lucky... fox...
I want one of those, too. Except they're still too expensive on the second-paw market for me to go out an buy one without a good reason.

Swap you a SUN SparcStation 5 for it?
(I'm keeping the UltraSparc 5 myself.)
I may have a PC daughterboard for it, too...
(Or was that for the Ultra?)

Quote:

As for the iPhone.. got one... loving it ^^ , got the Nokia n97 too... just stay away from Windows mobile... My Samsung Omnia met a rather unusual end not too long ago.. >=)

I haven't gotten hold of a JesusPhone, myself.
Can't see the need for it, really.
But the Windown Immobile phones....

AAAARGH!

Yes, they're the IT-department's headache at work.
A lot of people want them to synch their outlook inbox with them for one reason or another.
I guess they're OK if we get the user to reset them once every week.
(As if... )

_________________
"My name's Lion, Anthony Lion"
A fur with a license to purr...
---
Like my Avatar?
Why not surf over to www.micecomics.com and tell Mary what a stellar job she did...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Syrius
Registered User


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1463
Location: The S.S. ScurvyDog, Arizona! YARR!

PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Styx wrote:


Syrius wrote:
Ten bricked phones is more than enough evidence that updating is at least *capable* of bricking a phone.


To be fair this can happen whenever you update the firmware on any device, I can't tell you how many times a week I get cases at work where a motherboard or notebook was killed by a firmware update. It's basically brain surgery for the device and sometimes the surgery doesn't go well Confused It wouldn't surprise me to hear that "legit" iphones some times get bricked by firmware updates too.


Fair enough. I retract my claim in light of that.

_________________
Hey, Sony... IT'S PAYBACK TIME!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Skype Name
Rifts980
Registered User


Joined: 03 May 2009
Posts: 200
Location: Orbiting around a point just to left of four seconds in the future

PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ryan Fox wrote:
Rifts980 wrote:
Apple is for people who cannot compute.




Actually its pretty complex under the hood ^^ Ever tried bash scripting or compiling software under Windows?
Its just got a really 'friendly' user interface.. and *.app folders that contain all the required libraries (or most) for that application. Apart from searching under //lib.
Besides I prefer it above Windows... even though I use Ubuntu Linux, SunOS5.10u8, IRX etc. I can even dual boot Ubuntu Linux on my older PPC G5 quad Razz

I dunno -shrugs-... OSX does have its own issues, but at least its stable and 'irritation' free ^^

As for the iPhone.. got one... loving it ^^ , got the Nokia n97 too... just stay away from Windows mobile... My Samsung Omnia met a rather unusual end not too long ago.. >=)



OSX Is like catching aids.

ALSO

Steve Jobs Owns A PC.

_________________
The Banana is in the Package. Irish need not apply for winter solstice, we are full. I'm in your operations, changing your views.

CW4adfrw A+ C- D+ H+++ M--- P+++ R++ T+++ W Sm- RLLW a- cn++ e+ f h* iw+++ p+++ sm-
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Styx
Site Owner
Site Owner


Joined: 25 Dec 2002
Posts: 3176
Location: West Covina, California

PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Of course he does the man would have need of a real computer not just a graphics machine Mr. Green
_________________
"Political Correctness is tyranny with manners." Charlton Heston

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
admford
Registered User


Joined: 19 Oct 2003
Posts: 316
Location: Illinois (was Italy)

PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Syrius wrote:
I don't see why "Iphones and I-pods play music from I-Tunes" would equal "I-phones will never, ever under any circumstance play music from another source, and will only play what you get from Apple." Slanted against Apple, yes. Spreading false information, no.

Because if they said that they play music from the Zune store, or Rhapsody, or the new Napster, (which comes in DRM WMA format), that would be inaccurate, false and misleading information. Ergo, Ipods do NOT play music from ANY source. Again, "Plays music from Itunes store" does not equal "It won't play anything else. Ever." Potatoe, potato. But fine. Let's pretend they said this in their article: "To be fair, you can play music obtained from other means that are not DRM-ed. Like CDs or MP3s." Does that defeat their points? I don't see how. And anyone who has an Ipod and has used Itunes, knows it won't only play stuff from their store.


Umm.... Amazon's MP3 store is DRM Free, and such, it's music can be freely played on most any music player. And yes, that includes iPods and iPhones. While most people can whole heartedly agree that the WMV/A format is probably one of the worst on the market. Microsoft does not produce any WMV/A codec packages for any operating system other than Windows. True, that there is a WMV/A 9 codec for Mac OS X, but it's made by a third party company.

Formats like MP4 and MP3 are more widely accepted, due to the fact that the formats are more open, and easily licensed.

Syrius wrote:
Oh, snap: http://gizmodo.com/303171/apple-says-unlocked-iphones-will-brick-after-software-update-+-what-does-it-mean

Granted. There is nothing that says they did it on purpose. But until I see evidence to the contrary, I stand by my claim. However, it wouldn't take them too much work to make sure an unlocked Iphone returns to their virgin status *without* bricking it after an update, either.


By any industry taking an easier way with a solution is usually the cheapest road. By installing or modifying not approved software on an iPhone, such as the jailbreak, you would naturally void the phone's warranty. Apple at that point doesn't care if their software update bricks a modified phone, since they're only obligated to support their original, non modified products.

You don't buy a car and modify the engine and expect the dealership to honor a warranty that's been voided by the owner, do you? And the people who modified the car for you, if they don't offer a warranty on their workmanship, then you're stuck.

Unlocking and Jailbreaking iPhones is best described with a few simple words... "Do at your own risk" (in other words, the jailbreakers provide the means, but they won't replace your warranty if something messes up your iPhone in the future because of their modifications).

Syrius wrote:
Broken by whom? The reporter who did not sign such NDA? Also, Freedom of the press>>>>NDAs that have nothing to do with the reporter in question. And here's the clincher: The case didn't need to be thrown out, or settled. Apple lost: http://www.eff.org/cases/apple-v-does/ (Yes, that's the reporter Cracked was talking about.)

Sony has done that and lost. (Sony VS Immersion Technologies, though it was a case of Sony being the infringing party, to be honest.) Microsoft did that and lost. Apple tried the same, and lost. They are no different in this regard than the other companies. Or are we to believe that their attorneys didn't know about the statutes that protected the reporter(s) and made them prevail? How can such action not be called reprobable, at least? Shouldn't they know who signed the NDAs to begin with, and therefore go after them?


If we all could know what's going on in everybody's head, and the true intentions of whoever you meet, the would would be a wonderful place.

But reality says the contrary. Apple cannot read the minds or know the intentions of everyone that would like to see it's new products before they're released. So it's better to have some legal documentation to protect the company.

Syrius wrote:
Then explain to me how I can run Linux on this very same laptop (Which says on the front that is "Designed for Windows XP Professional") that I am typing my reply on, and how MS or Gateway or Intel can't do a thing about it. Or how I can use refilled cartridges on my printer and Lexmark can't do a thing about it. Or Rockbox on a Sansa player (Or an Ipod) and Sandisk can't do anything about it. (Other than denying me service, of course.) Their rights end where mine begin. Especially if I am not running their software. Which is the point of jailbreaking (and the one I was trying to make), in the case of the Iphone.


Umm... Would you care asking if the producer of said laptop will develop full drivers for complete support of their hardware under Linux, Solaris, or any other operating system that you might want to run, other than Windows? Most won't.

Naturally it comes down to the fact that running a non supported Operating System on mostly any computer is just that. You won't get any support from the manufacturer of the hardware.

Syrius wrote:
When I buy the hardware, and pay them full money for it, I can do whatever I want with it. That's the base of free enterprise. Like using it with another provider. Or running open source software, and not theirs. (Granted, I'd have to be very stupid and greedy and hypocritical to get an update from Apple fully knowing it may cause a brick, for whatever reason, and then crying about it.) My point is, again, their rights end where mine begin. I paid them money for the hardware (not the right to use it) and they gave me hardware for the money. By their logic, it's only free enterprise until I start to stick my freedom into their enterprise.


May I re-iterate the fact that Apple, or in fact any other company is not legally obliged to support any device that has been modified outside it's own specifications, be it hardware or software. If your jailbreaked phone is bricked by a update issued by Apple, then you shouldn't be mad at Apple, but ask the jailbreakers why it's taking so long to make a version of that software that will work with your jailbreaked phone.

Syrius wrote:
The fact they will not let you use the I-phone with any other provider (The way Google is doing with the Nexus), is enough to call it Vendor Lock-in. I was referring to that. Legal, yes. The right thing to do, not so much.


The locking of the phone to a vendor is usually done by the vendors themselves, and it's usually their choice. I own a iPhone 3G, which I bought on it's launch in Italy, along with a 2 year service contract. I use Telecom Italia Mobile (TIM) as my operator, and I can confirm that my iPhone is not operator locked, and I can use any SIM on it, be it from Italy or from the States. SimLock is entirely decided by the phone operator.

Syrius wrote:
Please drop the ad-hominem. I never said they are already doing it. Just that compared to the examples you quoted (DVD User prohibited operations, ads in movies and the like) the idea seems Orwellian, and that that's why it wasn't going to fly. Concern stems from the fact they went as far as applying for a patent.


It's still questionable as to what use Apple with do with it. One can say anything regarding a patent application, but until it's either implemented or litigated, all one has is opinions.

_________________
Big... Shinee.. Red.. Button!!!
Press button get cookie! Press button get cookie!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
admford
Registered User


Joined: 19 Oct 2003
Posts: 316
Location: Illinois (was Italy)

PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rifts980 wrote:
OSX Is like catching aids.

The usual mentality of someone who's used only one type of OS in their lives.

I've gone through Windows 2.0, 3.11, 95a, 95b, 95c, 98, 98se, XP, Vista. Not to mention a few of the later iterations of DOS. Amiga OS 3.0, 3.1 (don't have the hardware for 4.0 though). Mac OS 6-9, Mac OS X preview to 10.5. I've lately started messing around in Linux and Solaris. And I should have a copy of SCO's UnixWare somewhere among my collection.

Rifts980 wrote:
Steve Jobs Owns A PC.

Well duh! He's been known for never using his own company's products. While at NeXT he used a standard PC, instead of NeXT Station, though he did have NeXT Step for x86 on it. Forgive a guy's mentality on his own private choice of products that he uses.

Heck, Steve Ballmer has banned all Apple products at his home. There goes freedom of choice for his kids, or anyone that's invited over.

_________________
Big... Shinee.. Red.. Button!!!
Press button get cookie! Press button get cookie!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Syrius
Registered User


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1463
Location: The S.S. ScurvyDog, Arizona! YARR!

PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

admford wrote:
Stuff.


*Facepalms with both hands* What's with the taking out of context?

For the sake of brevity:

Response was aimed at the fact that Xaqtly commented the article was slanted by making it seem the I-pod/Iphone would ONLY play files from the Apple store. This is not the case. I simply clarified the article couldn't also claim the hardware would play music from ANY source, because DRM-ed files from other services like Yahoo or Rhapsody sure as heck won't play.

Two. Response aimed at the claim that simple updating wouldn't ever brick an Iphone, jailbroken or not. Hence the link, to disprove that claim specifically. I never said I'd expect Apple to honor warranties after a jail break. (Much less specially after I myself have a modded PS1, PS2, PSP, Xbox, Saturn and Wii.)

Three. Please read the link about the EFF. Apple went after the little guy. Why didn't they go directly after whoever did sign the NDAs, is beyond my understanding. Their legal protections and NDAs hold no power over the rights of freedom of the press, and statutes of the Constitution of the State of California, which is what granted the win to the reporters who got subpoenaed to hell and back. The reporters in question did not sign the agreements. They were not liable to begin with.

Response four. No expectation of support was implied or expressed. It was aimed at the claim that Apple, for being the designers of the hardware, has complete right over what is installed on it. Examples quoted to disprove claim, backed up and clarified by Styx's response. My hardware, my software. Granted, at my own risk and with no support from the official manufacturer. "Can't do anything about it" also applies to support, for better or worse.

Response five: See above. No expectation of support was implied.

Response six: We actually envy and want the Euro system of "choose any carrier you want on any compatible cell". We don't have it here in the USA, and are at the mercy of the agreements between hardware makers and carriers. Hence the birth of jailbreaking. (AT&T service is legendary for its terrible quality, at least here in my city.) Granted, Apple probably is bound by an agreement too, and if they could, I am sure they'd make their product available to any carrier. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. But for now, it IS vendor (or carrier) lock-in. Consider yourself very, very lucky.

Response seven: Pardon my paranoia. Until I see proof no one (not only Apple) will use that idea/technology, I repeat: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Thanks.

EDIT: Minor grammar correction.

_________________
Hey, Sony... IT'S PAYBACK TIME!


Last edited by Syrius on Thu Mar 11, 2010 6:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Skype Name
Red Reynart
Registered User


Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 169
Location: Moveing up state =^.^=

PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is just like Colt vs ManhattanArms. Back in the day and I mean the day. Colt owned all rights to the pattent for the revolver. Yeah sorta sucks huh? ManhattanArms knew this so what they did was create something simular called the pepperbox pistol. Though a pice of junk, it was a good over the table gun and small plus concilable. Thus a nice tool to carry.. Though when the pattent on the Colt Revolver ended you can see how that technology revolutionize America.

Basicly Apple is full of crud. Touch Screen LMAO I seen resturants using touch screens as seating charts and to get everyones order in. Its just life simple. What now? Sue Nintendo for the DS?

But it said that it was due to other software.. This being the case, I do see why anyone would pursue a lawsuit. But after reading the report. I just lol more. For its more over features than software. like minimising and scaleing windows. If it was like I unno apple programs but MS Exael or Word yeah I can see a fuss. But simple features. Again just like Colt.. Just wait till the pattent runs out in the mean time give us them pepperboxes.

_________________
Walking threw the forest
the wind calls my name
Unknow to the world
it casts its shadow upon the fallen leaf.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Xaqtly
Registered User


Joined: 07 Mar 2003
Posts: 442
Location: Las Vegas

PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Syrius wrote:
I don't see why "Iphones and I-pods play music from I-Tunes" would equal "I-phones will never, ever under any circumstance play music from another source, and will only play what you get from Apple." Slanted against Apple, yes. Spreading false information, no.


Misdirection along with half truths. As an example, it's like saying "Zunes play music from Zune Marketplace." While that's technically true, it's not the whole truth, and the sentence was specifically constructed to feed you the idea that it only play music from the marketplace. That was entirely intentional, and that's my point. To make it seem worse than it is.

Syrius wrote:
Granted. There is nothing that says they did it on purpose. But until I see evidence to the contrary, I stand by my claim. However, it wouldn't take them too much work to make sure an unlocked Iphone returns to their virgin status *without* bricking it after an update, either.


Guilty until proven innocent, huh? Suggesting that Apple should be responsible for preventing bricking - something caused specifically by the jailbreaking software that Apple didn't create or support - doesn't seem like a reasonable request at all. How is it in any way Apple's fault if they're not doing it intentionally? Why should it be their responsibility? Sorry, but if you jailbreak it, you are on your own.

Syrius wrote:
The fact that the article was posted on a satire or humor site does not detract from the veracity of its points. Especially when they can be confirmed with a simple search. For my retort, look at the link I posted earlier. Ten bricked phones is more than enough evidence that updating is at least *capable* of bricking a phone.


The veracity of its points? You mean the ones that are mostly wrong? When you say confirmed with a simple search, you didn't actually confirm what Cracked was saying, which is that jailbreaking bricks your phone and Apple does it on purpose. And as I said, there have been cases of bricking. But on purpose? No. And a 100% jailbreak-to-brick ratio? No.

Syrius wrote:
Then explain to me how I can run Linux on this very same laptop (Which says on the front that is "Designed for Windows XP Professional") that I am typing my reply on, and how MS or Gateway or Intel can't do a thing about it.


I thought I made that pretty clear. Apple owns the hardware AND the software. Does Gateway own Linux? See what I'm saying now? Like I said, you have a false sense of entitlement regarding Apple products.

Syrius wrote:
My accusation, however, was launched at the fact that Apple has banned from the store programs that outdo their own. Because obviously it's going to cost them money when someone presents a better product, they block it. Google Voice being the prime example. What can we call that? "Exercising their rights", okay. But we have to append a "for the sake of snuffing out competition" to it.


That's a fair amount of supposition you're doing there. You're assuming that these products "outdo their own", but do they? And is that really the reason Apple prevents them? Where's your reasoning behind that assumption? Apple has a clause about duplicating functionality, not "banning things that are better". I'd also like to point out that you can use Opera on the iPhone, as well as Skype and a bunch of other stuff you probably think isn't available.

Oh yeah, and Google Voice. Think about that one for a minute. How would that possibly lose Apple money? Everything Google Voice does is in the phone service sector. Apple isn't the carrier, AT&T is. In what way could Google Voice possibly affect Apple's interests at all?

Syrius wrote:
When I buy the hardware, and pay them full money for it, I can do whatever I want with it.


This isn't free enterprise, this is Apple owning every part of this scenario. Let me put this another way. What you are suggesting is the same thing as saying that you have the right to put a PS3 disc into an Xbox and expect it to work. Why not, right? You bought it, you should be able to do whatever you want with it.

So why doesn't it work? Well, because Sony owns both the PS3 and the format that the media is based on. They don't have to let you do jack squat with it, despite free enterprise. You can complain to Sony that their discs don't work in Xboxes, but they'll just laugh at you when you tell them "I paid full money for it and I can do whatever I want with it."

Anybody who expects that to work for the reasons you're giving has a false sense of entitlement. Apple doesn't have to let you do jack squat with the iPhone. They are under absolutely zero obligation to make it "open" or to let you do whatever you want on it. If you want to get around that by jailbreaking it, you can. But Apple won't support that, and you are on your own.

Yes, you bought the hardware, and Apple designed it to not work with any software other than their own, or their approved software like the apps. You knew that when you bought it. Apple owes you nothing. If you don't like it, get a different phone. THAT is what free enterprise is about.

Syrius wrote:
The fact they will not let you use the I-phone with any other provider (The way Google is doing with the Nexus), is enough to call it Vendor Lock-in. I was referring to that. Legal, yes. The right thing to do, not so much.


That's actually true of nearly every smartphone in the US. Palm Pre, Droid, Nexus One, iPhone. It should also be noted that the iPhone is sold unlocked in other countries, and works on dozens of different carriers. Just not in the US, and that is not Apple's fault.

Syrius wrote:
I said (and agree with Cracked, and the many other examples I just posted) that they are reprobable for the evil reactions they take against people after the deeds are done. Phone, court or software-wise.


There has only been one questionable action, and that was going after O'Grady - but again, that case was settled. Everything else, Apple was fully within their legal rights to do.

Syrius wrote:
The fact they take care of the spam ones doesn't detract from them removing several applications better than their own for no reason. The right not to buy Apple products applies here as well, and that's why they blocked it. Because people could have gone for something better.


And people still can go for something "better", they just have to do it on another platform. You act like Apple is a monopoly. They aren't. And again, the "better" thing is complete supposition. Just because you think you know Apple's reasoning doesn't mean you do.

Syrius wrote:
That's why I posted facts, links and comparisons. It's not hearsay. If that O'Grady ruling or the ongoing FCC investigation is not enough to at least say their actions are wrong (Just like MS', Sony's, and Nintendo's have been in the past) then I don't know what is.


The fact that the O'Grady case was actually settled should shed some light on that. The FCC is investigating a lot of companies right now, that's not really a good enough reason - especially since the FCC hasn't found them in the wrong for anything. You're going to have to present some better arguments than that.

Syrius wrote:
I myself would be royally upset if they set their legal hounds after me for getting some info from someone else who broke an NDA, or banning my applications that are more competitive than theirs after I play by their rules. If that is not liking how they operate, then, yes. I don't like it.


And that's fine. Don't buy their products. But you are wrong about one thing there - Apple's rules specifically state that you can't build an app that duplicates functionality already present in Apple's apps. If you submit an app like that you are ispo facto not playing by their rules and Apple, again, has every right to ban your app. You don't have to like it, but you do have to play by their rules. Or just not develop for them. It's not like Apple is going to prevent you from building an Android app that does the same thing.

And as far as you calling them "I-tunes" and "I-phone" - you're either doing that intentionally or you're not aware of how those things are spelled. If you're doing it intentionally, that's childish and petty. I don't call it "Microsuck" or "Losix", and you should give me the same courtesy. If you're just not aware of how they're spelled though, that's fine. They're spelled "iPhone" and "iTunes".

_________________
Changed my name to Kantaro.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
anthony
Site Owner
Site Owner


Joined: 12 Nov 2001
Posts: 1304
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Syrius wrote:
I myself would be royally upset if they set their legal hounds after me for getting some info from someone else who broke an NDA, or banning my applications that are more competitive than theirs after I play by their rules. If that is not liking how they operate, then, yes. I don't like it.


If someone attempts to give you information that you know, or believe to be protected by a NDA, you REALLY shouldn't accept it.
Information protected by a NDA is to be considered stolen property.
(It's a bit of a legal gray matter)

Incidentally, if you take the formula for Coca cola, Jarlsberg cheese or any other 'well known' product and go to one of their competitors, not only will they throw you on the head out, but they will also call up the people from the company that owns the formula and tell them everything about it.
(Besides, they already KNOW the exact details... )

_________________
"My name's Lion, Anthony Lion"
A fur with a license to purr...
---
Like my Avatar?
Why not surf over to www.micecomics.com and tell Mary what a stellar job she did...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Syrius
Registered User


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1463
Location: The S.S. ScurvyDog, Arizona! YARR!

PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mods, please don't think I am trying to stir the pot. I think this hasn't evolved into a flame war. For the sake of quoting, here's the actual ruling available from the link.

California Court of Appeal wrote:

Apple Computer, Inc. (Apple), a manufacturer of computer hardware and software, brought this action alleging that persons unknown caused the wrongful publication on the World Wide Web of Apple’s secret plans to release a device that would facilitate the creation of digital live sound recordings on Apple computers. In an effort to identify the source of the disclosures, Apple sought and obtained authority to issue civil subpoenas to the publishers of the Web sites where the information appeared and to the email service provider for one of the publishers. The publishers moved for a protective order to prevent any such discovery. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that the publishers had involved themselves in the unlawful misappropriation of a trade secret. We hold that this was error because (1) the subpoena to the email service provider cannot be enforced consistent with the plain terms of the federal Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2712); (2) any subpoenas seeking unpublished information from petitioners would be unenforceable through contempt proceedings in light of the California reporter’s shield (Cal. Const., art. I, § 2, subd (b); Evid. Code, § 1070); and (3) discovery of petitioners’ sources is also barred on this record by the conditional constitutional privilege against compulsory disclosure of confidential sources (see Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 268 (Mitchell)). Accordingly, we will issue a writ of mandate directing the trial court to grant the motion for a protective order.


Now, Anthony, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I guess it is clearly stated here that Constitutional Freedom defeats NDA. Since 1984.


Xaqtly, for the sake of not getting this thread locked, let's keep it civil.

Guilty until proven innocent? Very good, and valid argument. You realize that it could be applied to your judgement of the Cracked article as well, right? Please also notice I retracted my point, because as Styx noted, even non jail-broken phones (and any phone for that matter) can get bricked. No evidence that Apple bricks phones on purpose gives me no ground to accuse them of engineering updates to do so. Keep in mind this also applies to your assumption that Cracked lied. In fact, I don't see how a simple statement like that one, can equal a lie. When it's the truth: Iphones and Ipods play music from the Itunes store. Statement=true. It's not their responsibility to advertise each and every feature of the hardware. It's Apple's. And, as I mentioned, given that most people do own a piece of Apple hardware nowadays, they probably already know that. No false information is being disseminated here.

My retort about a simple search was based on the point that you mentioned that "Updating a jailbroken iPhone does NOT, I repeat does NOT brick the phone." Bricks happen. For whatever reason. I admitted above there is no evidence that Apple does it on purpose, and retracted my point. But the bricks happen as result of updates. As confirmed by a simple search. Also, I never said that it would always break.

See Styx's post. Apple does not own the hardware once I pay for it. Otherwise, they could demand its return at any moment. Your own point of me being "on my own" once I jailbreak it, confirms that I am entitled to own that hardware. Entitled to run whatever I want and get support? No, because I am not playing by the rules. But getting it to run another OS, on my own? Yes. Gateway does not own Linux. But they cannot prevent me from installing Linux. No support? No problem. I am aware of that. Please, drop the ad-hominems. Attack my points, not my persona.

Google voice. What other application does Google voice duplicate the functionality of? "How it would lose them money" was exactly my point. If they don't outdo Apple's products, then explain that to me. I'm still trying to wrap my head around it. Again, attack my points. Not my persona. No need to assume I am assuming certain programs aren't available.

What if I can get a PS3 to get an Xbox disc to work and boot, as slow and complicated as it may be? Nobody said I should expect it to work. (I've stuck Turbo Grafx CD and Sega CD games in my Xbox, and made them work, for the record.) If it works, fine. If it doesn't, fine. Please notice I never said I should expect Apple to support me when I install whatever I want on their hardware. Just that I can, and there's nothing they can do to prevent me from doing so. I really don't get how that equals me expecting support from Apple. Which I never said. Again. (I did say it would be very hypocritical, greedy and stupid of me to jail break a phone and expect full support from Apple.)

And we repeat the conundrum. If I can install and run something better on Apple's hardware (the way I already do on other platforms), there's nothing they can do about it, except deny support. Which I, and plenty of other people around the world, are fine with. As I've stated.

Please see the quoted text above. The O'Grady case and others weren't settled. A legal precedent and their constitutional rights actually prevented Apple from getting what they wanted (Info on who let the cat out of the bag). The reporters didn't have to settle; no compromise was reached. Apple lost. My word for it doesn't have to be taken. The link is there for anyone to see. Straight from the organization who defended the reporters.

Not hyphenating the names on purpose. I've seen it hyphenated, and non-hyphenated. I've typed it both ways along the course of the topic (I've also typed X-box, PS-X, PSX and N-64 in the past, unintentionally). I've also called other products "Winblows" and "Loonix", because I also dislike their bad points. So, please, no more character attacks. This discussion can be handled in a civilized manner without having the mods tell us "You two, settle down", and have the thread locked because we disagree in several points.

_________________
Hey, Sony... IT'S PAYBACK TIME!


Last edited by Syrius on Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:22 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Skype Name
anthony
Site Owner
Site Owner


Joined: 12 Nov 2001
Posts: 1304
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No...

This just means that REPORTERS are 'just about' immune.
Anyone else, though, may have to cough up the name of the source of the NDA material.

NDA material is NDA for good reason.

It may be very early drafts, which may change significantly, it may be complete specifications for new products, which competitors would like to see. It may be 'business secrets' like the formula for Coca Cola.
Letting this stuff become public knowledge can result in a large financial loss for the company that owns the information.

As for the 'Shield act', it's NOT relevant to this case, as to quote the act:
http://california-discovery-law.com/rptr_priv.htm
Quote:

Purpose of privilege

Protect free flow of information vital for informed democracy


The knowledge of a new Apple product is not normally 'vital for informed democracy'.
So, frankly, I can't understand what the appeals court was sniffing when they accepted that piece of legaleese.

_________________
"My name's Lion, Anthony Lion"
A fur with a license to purr...
---
Like my Avatar?
Why not surf over to www.micecomics.com and tell Mary what a stellar job she did...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Syrius
Registered User


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1463
Location: The S.S. ScurvyDog, Arizona! YARR!

PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very good on that. However, the point I bolded is what barred Apple (or anyone else) from forcing the defendants in question to give up the source of their information, as farfetched the resolution on the shield act was. Though I think I know how that managed to get off the ground.
_________________
Hey, Sony... IT'S PAYBACK TIME!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Skype Name
anthony
Site Owner
Site Owner


Joined: 12 Nov 2001
Posts: 1304
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And this case is one of the reasons many companies are now 'seeding' NDA documents with deliberate inaccuracies.
(And if those inaccuracies can be found in published materials... )

Also, I can't see how constitutional Freedom can trump a NDA?

A NDA is a legal contract freely signed by those who receive the information. Giving this information to someone else, or even leaving it where a third party can access it is a breach of that contract.
In other words, signing such a contract means you relinquish your right to spread this information, no matter the contents.
(With the possible exception if the documents contains incriminating evidence, of course.)

There's a lot of stuff being said or published where the people who are saying it claims a Constitutional 'Freedom of Speach' without realising what is or isn't protected.

_________________
"My name's Lion, Anthony Lion"
A fur with a license to purr...
---
Like my Avatar?
Why not surf over to www.micecomics.com and tell Mary what a stellar job she did...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Syrius
Registered User


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1463
Location: The S.S. ScurvyDog, Arizona! YARR!

PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let me rephrase that, then. It was a constitutional right what barred the accusing party from having the defendants disclose their sources. I also wonder how they expected to enforce the terms of the NDA against someone who didn't sign the NDA. (Bloggers, reporter, their employers and ISPs)

They didn't go after whoever relinquished the right to spread the information (and then broke the agreement). They went after the third party to whom the information was spread.

Mike can't force you (Anthony) to paint his house because I told you the color he contracted me to paint it with.

Or can he??? Twisted Evil

_________________
Hey, Sony... IT'S PAYBACK TIME!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Skype Name
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Planetfurry BBS Forum Index -> Everyday blither-blather All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group