Re: It all depends on how the repairs were sold!
I'll try again.
Why was the company *selling* the infringing goods not being prosecuted for this.
47 posts • joined 10 Sep 2009
The goods were intercepted at import and the *importer* was charged with trademark infringement. Why was it not the *exporter* that was charged? It doesn't sound as though they got a phone repaired by this shop and then prosecuted them for using dodgy components.
If I buy a screen from HK or CN, and the seller advertises it as genuine, but when the goods arrive they are fake, why would I be the one to get prosecuted?
I'm confused - Apple's claim seems to be that the screens were counterfeit and thus violated their trademark, but they only violated the trademark because they had an Apple logo on them. So PCKompaniet are guilty of being sold counterfeit goods - so why are they being taken to court rather than the company that sold them the dodgy goods?
Would the screens have been OK if they did not have an apple logo on them?
You don't "need your own IP" - the number of web browsers that don't support SNI is getting close enough to zero now.
I'm surprised that Richard Barnes didn't refer to http://letsencrypt.org/ - the project that Mozilla are heavily involved with to make certificate signing free and automated.
OpenStreetMap has contour lines... Same view as in the article is approximately
That's on the "Cycle Map" view, which highlights cycle routes, contour lines and footpaths. You can change to the "standard" view if you prefer roads.
I'm not sure it's specific to IPv6. I've seen the updated certificate on a V6-capable connection, and the expired certificate on a IPV4-only connection (as well as vice versa). I think they have a CDN node that still hold the old certificate.
A colleague reported it via twitter, and was told (by @btcare) "Everything seems fine from our end".
Because them's the rules for Gift Aid.
http://www.museumsassociation.org/publications/12098 says: "Museums and others will only be able to claim Gift Aid on daily admission tickets if visitors give at least 10% more than the standard admission fee. (Museums will be able to claim Gift Aid on the whole amount, not just the 10%)."
Other places dodge the rules by selling "annual membership" for the price of admission, you can visit as many times as you like during the course of the year. This isn't because they love people revisiting for free, they're banking on most visitors being tourists that will use their "annual membership" for precisely one visit.
So, what happens if you buy CC for a year ($360, or whatever) and then decide to terminate the subscription?
Do you keep access to the software in its state as of the end of the subscription, or does the Adobe license manager delete it from your machine (or deny you access, which amounts to the same thing)?
I suspect the latter, and for that reason, I'm out. Subscription only works if it's cheap; Adobe hasn't realised that yet.
"Google has argued that as its search engine business is based in the US the EU's Data Protection Directive should not be applied to it."
Presumably by the same logic an EU company with a US subsidiary could claim exemption from US laws?
I'd love to see how that would work out.
WRT the actual case, as I understand it, the complaint is that the information must be published by law, but they don't want anyone to be able to find it.
Wouldn't a suitable robots.txt provide a solution for this?
They've abused their dominant market position so the repayment to competitors that they screwed over should be more than just 1:1 repayment since the extra costs to rivals will have reduced their ability to grow their customer base.
A better model for costs might be to repay 300% of what they overcharged, or a requirement to repay 100%+interest *and* discount future charges by 50% over demonstrable costs for 5 years.
Isn't the point that at the time when PV is generating electric, there's a surplus of production, so it's worth bugger all, and at the time when consumers *want* their leccy, then sun has gone down and it's all non-solar...
Presumably there's nothing to stop individuals from storing their generated electric (batteries, pumped hydro, molten salt etc) so that they are self-sufficient and can go off-grid. But I'm guessing that that's not economically viable (yet), so maybe they should just accept that electricity at 10am is not worth the same as electricity at 10pm.
TFA says "significantly representative of rights holders affected by the scheme". So how much is "significant"? 100? 1,000? 100,000? It doesn't matter.
Imagine that Mr Pirate buys one of these licenses, (I presume there's a licensing fee). Let's say he picks the "popular music" category. And then he gets a few mates (100, 1,000 or 100,000 - whatever) who create "works" in the category so that he can represent them. Those works don't have to be terribly good, someone singing "yo ho a pirate's life for me would probably count.
That's it. He now has a license to distribute *all* media in that category, for any fee he likes. Perhaps he could choose a fee of zero.
TPB can set up in this country, with the blessing of Cameron and all his cronies.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
One of our devs here says that the .NET framework updates are slower than normal to install. Previously, they did their optimization steps after installation, but this time round they seem to run them synchronously.
Also it seems like it might take more than one pass for the install to complete, so you need to keep re-running Windows Update until it says that there's nothing left to update. But that's nothing new.
If you've had 1000 nearly simultaneous withdrawals for £100, the bank can hardly claim that they must have been authorised transactions. So you'd hope that the account holder wouldn't have much trouble getting a refund.
Unless your account name is Ross Anderson, I guess. Cos that would be quite a good double-bluff attack.
"Ok, not exactly"
No, that's *exactly* what open source means. Open source is about sharing your work so that others can benefit from it.. If you think otherwise you are completely missing the point. Mac OS X uses a ton of open source software: MacOS is based on the MACH microkernel and variants of BSD. Safari is based on WebKit. XCode uses GCC. Apple list a load of stuff at http://apple.com/opensource/
It's interesting that Apple used Readability, and I bet the Arc90 team are as pleased as anything that their code is being used, but to say that Apple "lifted" the code, or that there's any controversy here has a tinge of Daily Fail journalism.
Or could you use this for stuff *other* than paying for your tube ticket/groceries/whatever?
Shirley NFC is a secure, contactless communications channel. So you could have a case with extra hardware in it (a bar code scanner or something).
Or you could have a contactless dock. If Apple build in inductive charging you could have a phone without a connector slot to accumulate crud.
Since water is one of the common causes of failure it might even be feasible to have a phone that's waterproof as standard (if you can get rid of the other leakage points).
Central government has done this before too. The one I've heard of was someone trying to use FOI to obtain details of all 'A' and 'B' roads in the UK, to assist with the OpenStreetmap project.
DTp released the data, but reminded the requester that such information was Crown Copyright, and could not be redistributed, so OpenStreetMap volunteers have had to re-survey the roads themselves, or use out-of-copyright Victorian maps.
The Information Commissioners Office confirmed that DTp (or any other public authority) were completely within their rights to impose whatever restrictions they chose on distribution of the info that they released.
The only thing that surprises me is that other public authorities don't pull this kind of cunning stunt on FOI queries.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020