"The stream URLs can be accessed with any web browser, the streams can be played by any media player. If my app is infringing, so are iTunes, Windows Media Player, Safari, Internet Explorer, and Firefox. So is your car radio, for that matter."
None of those are charging for the access. And I think that is the only reason for CBC's aggressive approach.
>Not to beat this to death, but the developer created software. You're paying for the software, not the content.
The software only allows access to CBC content. I don't see any way of adding additional streams to the list. That's what they're objecting to, probably.
The whole thing started with him labeling the app as if it is from CBC, brand name, logo and all. I think that's a pretty serious case of infringement, and CBC's attitude most likely stems from that.
You can still make an analog radio yourself without having to purchase a license to do so. At least, in he US (not sure if you need a content license). So that argument is a little off. Plus, in that analogy, the authors argument still holds up - you are buying an app (car radio) that lets you view (hear) content that is otherwise distributd (broadcast) for free.
I think you've misunderstood. Someone said that the issue is due to the app author charging for the app. Someone else said that even a radio isn't free, since you have to pay for that.
The judge's justification here sounds flimsy at best. Both tablets are "minimalist and modern" with "flat screens and round edges"? So Samsung can only make archaically designed tablets, if possible with a curved screen?
And then: "The court is of the opinion that Apple's minimalistic design isn't the only technical solution to make a tablet computer," Brueckner-Hoffmann explained, "other designs are possible."
I'm not a lawyer, so I might get laughed out here, but this just seems like a ridiculous claim. Other designs are possible, that much is true. You can make a car with 5 wheels and the engine in the passenger's seat too, doesn't mean there's going to be a market for it.
My common sense might be too common, but I hope this gets thrown out at higher levels of the court.
Edit: To clarify, I own neither, and I am not interested in either, I just found the situation too absurd not to chime in.
From what I remember, tablets before the iPad looked rather different[1]. The full glass/plastic front hadn’t really been tried. Early [Apple tablet mockups[1][2] based on the iPod touch, though close, lacked the thick black border and the now iconic home screen. Those features are now considered obvious, but clearly, they really weren’t.
So does that mean Apple now has a monopoly on capacitive tablets with slim bodies? It's still ridiculous when you think about it. That's how competition happens in a given market - by building similar features. Apple does it, too.
it appears, having one or less buttons on a tablet is patented by apple. hopefully samsung will add at least two buttons on galaxy tab 7.7 and stop copying apple.
People think that Apple did a lot of things on the iPad, but all they did was removing the pen, removing some useless physical buttons, using a tailored touch-oriented OS instead of adapting one from desktop computers, bootstrapping this operating system on years of success of the one for phones, using a single sheet of glass instead of plastic screen + plastic bezel, using the internet for app and media distribution, cutting corners to provide a midrange-laptop instead of costing an arm or a leg...
Don't forget how much they disappointed their geek fan base when they announced that their tablet was just a "bigger iPhone" instead of a "smaller iOS". And that's where Android wins: Android managed to actually change the opinions of geeks.
Seriously, Apple did some breakthrough changes. Android follows suit. Those lawsuits might piss you off, but give credit where credit is due.
The only time I've ever been remotely satisfied with the download manager in Firefox was when I completely replaced it with an add-on, so I'm looking forward to this change.
What surprised me even more was that it was only the 14th largest donation in history made to higher education. Here's the list if anyone else was wondering: http://chronicle.com/stats/big_gifts.htm
King Abdullah's is not a donation or an endowment. It's a drop in the bucket; the royal family giving to the people less than a fraction of one percent of what they looted from the country, and its wealth.
I think this is a very subjective viewpoint, which is understandable considering the website we're on, but it still overlooks how huge the PC market really is, along with the Windows userbase, and the nature of a lot of its users. There's a huge segment of the Windows userbase who will always be beginners at computers, and their habits and methods are usually mindblowing to any "knowledgeable" user. One such example was the mass of people who typed "facebook login" into Google any time they wanted to log-in into Facebook, and got thoroughly confused and angry when the first hit suddenly led them to ReadWriteWeb's article on Facebook's log-in, filling the comments section with cries of where is the log-in, what is this crap, shitty re-design, let me in!, etc.
Because of users like this, Microsoft is where it is. Any big revamp, and they'll just get millions of confused customers who suddenly can't make sense of the most basic functionality. It is Microsoft's own doing that they made their users get used to interfaces like this, but it's not as easy as just scraping it and throwing up something new.
It's also easy to forget that Windows has a userbase 10 times its nearest competitor (which is to say this brings in challenges which competitors might not face).
One thing I was left wondering about and maybe someone here can shed some more light on this, what happens to the supposedly enormous amount of "serial killer" white blood cells after they're done with the cancer cells? Do they function normally, until a new "infection" comes, basically serving as a permanent leukemia antidote?
(I hope no one is offended by my quite flimsy grasp of medicine and the human body)
According to the New England Journal of Medicine article, those white blood cells are still targeting and killing the B-cells. From my (non-biologist) reading of the article, they crafted a virus which targeted all B-cell, of which, some were lukemia. Apparently there are treatments to restore B-cells in a person, so the article seemed to imply once the T-cell count (the "serial killer" white blood cells) went down, they would treat him to restore his normal B-cell count.
Like you, I'm unclear on what exactly the side-effects are here. If they boost the B-cell count in the patient, do they risk re-introducing lukemia? Are these "serial killer" white blood cells a general immunosupressant? There was a part of the article about a developed resistance in the B-cells that I didn't understand.
Either way pretty amazing, and it sounds like while the patient had the worst flu of his life for five days, it's way better than chemo
"More good news stems from the fact that the modified cells remain in the body and have been seen to reactivate and kill new cancer cells as long as 12 months after they were first injected."
None of those are charging for the access. And I think that is the only reason for CBC's aggressive approach.