Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #115185
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day |
| Date | 2012-06-18 22:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <CC056284.3950%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> (permalink) |
| References | (16 earlier) <4fdee581$0$2570$c3e8da3$f5af001f@news.astraweb.com> <CC04A959.3817%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <4fdfe64c$0$1670$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com> <CC054078.3933%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <4fe00ce7$0$1670$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com> |
On 6/18/12 10:23 PM, in article 4fe00ce7$0$1670$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com, "Voodoo Magoo" <voodoo@thats.me.com> wrote: ... >> You are making this accusation... but not showing MS making money from >> Android or Android sellers making money from MS. > > if you are unaware of multiple press releases on the subject of android > manufactures paying ms for patent licenses there is no point in taking > this any further. go learn. So you admit that companies using Android are paying MS to use MS's technology. Did they have permission or did they just plagiarize and not pay a dime until forced? If the latter, which is what I think it has been in most cases, why blame MS and not those who are doing the plagiarizing? Is it simply because you do not think MS should be able to claim ownership in the things they legally are claiming ownership of? Anything else? You are making a strong case against Android here - not MS. >> So is Android using MS technology? Yes or no? MS says yes. Google >> says no. Is it possible each thinks they are right? Why not? No foul >> play needed to understand that! > > your questions are irrelevant to the issue of ms being a freetard. ms has > some patents. barnes and noble was so upset at the weakness of the > patents that their lawyers wrote to the US federal government requesting > an investigation. You mean some patents are in question! Oh my! What a bizarre world we live in where groups of people with *major* financial incentives are each wanting to see things in a way that is beneficial to them. Almost like people have a tendency to want to do best for themselves. What an amazing psychological finding! > that is a very clear indication that no plagiarism is needed for android to > violate ms patents. The idea that someone with a financial incentive to disagree does, in fact, disagree is - to you - a strong indication that they are right? And you think this is convincing evidence? > that would mean that ms, with its patents, is allowed to drain money from the > independent work of others while not contributing anything toward that work. If their work is not being used then what are they being paid for? Do not get me wrong: MS is just as prone to see things in ways to benefit themselves... so I am not saying they are proved right any more than you are. But you have reached a conclusion when their is no evidence to back it. > that is 'freetard'. am i using the wrong word here? freetard? parasite? > freetards, while they do not contribute back, do not diminish their host. Using someone's else's work and thus reducing the sales of the one you plagiarize certainly does "diminish their host". And even if it did not, if others are plagiarizing MS's work MS has a right to work to stop this and seek compensation. Heck, given the way the laws work, if they do not they risk losing ownership of their own property simply because they did not work to protect it. They have to stop what amounts to people gaining "squatters rights". ... >> So you are not aware that companies look at each other's products? >> Really? > > 'plagiarism' in a scholarly setting has a much tighter meaning than > Loosely Based On. how do you envision that android developers have lifted > code or patents from ms? I am not the one making the claim that they have - it is MS that is making that claim. And neither you nor I have shown any evidence to show they are right or wrong - though we both acknowledge there are some with financial incentives to disagree who have disagreed. There are even some without a financial incentive who disagree... though some of these people are folks who believe that IP rights should be taken away from people out of some bizarre principle that people should not have such rights. > i do not question that android is or may be bumping against ms patents. i > absolutely reject the claim that this constitutes either plagiarism or > any type of contribution by ms. I get you reject this... the question has been if you have any logical basis for this rejection. Pointing to others who also reject it is not a good argument. In your own words: where is your basis of rejection? >>> do you have another scenario to add to this list? you will have to help >>> me here. i cannot form a picture that will fit your pieces together. >> >> At least you admit to your lack of understanding. >> >> Competitors look at each others products - esp. ones that do well in the >> market - and get ideas. To some extent this is OK... but it is not OK to >> cross a line and plagiarize. Unfortunately this line is fuzzy. This is >> not a black and white issue. > > there is that plagiarize word again. email has been around for a long > time, way too long to get a patent on it. someone out there (not > microsoft) took that idea and applied it to a cell phone ... boom! a > patent. if i took a fedora distro and ported it to an android phone, > would i be plagiarizing the email on a cell phone patent? some lines are > less fuzzy than others. The law on this is complex... and the questions are far more complex than presented in COLA. I do not know the details of this one, but I do know the lies about Apple claiming to have invented rounded rectangles and the like. Similar arguments where the COLA "advocate" claims are out and out lies. This does not mean, however, that you are lying above. I am just noting that the history of your "side" of such reasoning in COLA is not a good and honest one. > one of the problems with software patents is that it does not just block > others from using the patent holder's method of solving a problem, it > blocks all methods of solving a problem. > > that is why your insistence on 'plagiarism' with these microsoft patents > is off the mark. Oh, the patent system is broken. This is not the fault of MS. >> Does that help you to understand? > > does that help you to understand? I have been quite clear on this topic since the start. ... >>> yes. dfs is just a propaganda bot and does not rate the emotional >>> stirring that goes with an insult. i will drop the blizzard tag. >> >> Well, he does make up bizarre claims and runs when questioned about >> them. No doubt. But I still do not support name calling. > > heh! he claims foss coders live in their mother's basement. even posted a > link to a picture of some character with a long beard as proof. Oh, no doubt: he does some amazingly immoral and dishonest things. I certainly do not deny that. I can give specific examples of him lying about me if you wish - lies that when he was proved wrong he just turned tail and ran. And I have seen him do similar things to others (though mostly of the type you note - just making up stories about people that are absurd... few people do what I do and actually take the time to prove such idiotic claims to be false... heck, look at my recent debate with Carroll and cc... they have been proved wrong in half a dozen major points in that debate and they still blabber... and I keep responding... but this is getting off topic and into my own areas of weakness - I keep responding to even the most inane of people in Usenet no matter how severely they are proved wrong or how baseless their claims... but I digress). > somewhere, maybe the photo file name, maybe the link, was an indication > that he works at/on/with abi-soft. but wow! that picture! check out that > background. good god damn. if my mother had a fully stocked, popular, > beer-hall/beer-garden/pub in her basement i would sure live there. LOL! :) -- The indisputable facts about that absurd debate: <http://goo.gl/2337P> cc being proved wrong about his stats BS: <http://goo.gl/1aYrP> 7 simple questions cc will *never* answer: <http://goo.gl/cNBzu> cc again pretends to be knowledgeable about things he is clueless about.
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Hardon <hardon.quirk@gmail.com> - 2012-06-11 12:41 +0000
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-06-11 16:53 +0100
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day "Clogwog" <clogwog@anon.eu> - 2012-06-11 22:15 +0200
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Foster <frankfoster50@yahoo.com> - 2012-06-11 16:22 -0400
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-06-13 12:37 +0100
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day "Clogwog" <clogwog@anon.eu> - 2012-06-13 19:14 +0200
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-06-13 19:30 +0100
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day "Clogwog" <clogwog@anon.eu> - 2012-06-15 21:35 +0200
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Foster <frankfoster50@yahoo.com> - 2012-06-15 15:48 -0400
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Voodoo Magoo <voodoo@thats.me.com> - 2012-06-16 18:42 +0000
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2012-06-17 12:23 -0400
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Voodoo Magoo <voodoo@thats.me.com> - 2012-06-17 18:54 +0000
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2012-06-17 23:40 -0400
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Voodoo Magoo <voodoo@thats.me.com> - 2012-06-18 05:17 +0000
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-17 22:34 -0700
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Voodoo Magoo <voodoo@thats.me.com> - 2012-06-18 05:59 +0000
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-17 23:25 -0700
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Voodoo Magoo <voodoo@thats.me.com> - 2012-06-18 08:23 +0000
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2012-06-18 06:07 -0400
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2012-06-18 09:19 -0400
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-18 09:46 -0700
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Voodoo Magoo <voodoo@thats.me.com> - 2012-06-19 02:39 +0000
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-18 20:30 -0700
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Voodoo Magoo <voodoo@thats.me.com> - 2012-06-19 05:23 +0000
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2012-06-19 08:58 -0400
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Voodoo Magoo <voodoo@thats.me.com> - 2012-06-19 14:50 +0000
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2012-06-19 18:45 -0400
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Voodoo Magoo <voodoo@thats.me.com> - 2012-06-20 02:09 +0000
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-18 22:56 -0700
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Voodoo Magoo <voodoo@thats.me.com> - 2012-06-20 05:12 +0000
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2012-06-20 06:46 -0500
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 09:18 -0700
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Voodoo Magoo <voodoo@thats.me.com> - 2012-06-21 02:50 +0000
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 21:07 -0700
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Voodoo Magoo <voodoo@thats.me.com> - 2012-06-21 07:52 +0000
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 09:41 -0700
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Voodoo Magoo <voodoo@thats.me.com> - 2012-06-22 01:32 +0000
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 22:25 -0700
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 08:05 +0100
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 07:39 -0700
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Voodoo Magoo <voodoo@thats.me.com> - 2012-06-23 03:15 +0000
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 20:41 -0700
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Voodoo Magoo <voodoo@thats.me.com> - 2012-06-23 04:10 +0000
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 21:21 -0700
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Voodoo Magoo <voodoo@thats.me.com> - 2012-06-27 03:08 +0000
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-26 20:38 -0700
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Voodoo Magoo <voodoo@thats.me.com> - 2012-06-27 05:50 +0000
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-26 23:28 -0700
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Voodoo Magoo <voodoo@thats.me.com> - 2012-06-27 06:40 +0000
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-27 00:06 -0700
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2012-06-27 06:03 -0400
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-27 08:56 -0700
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2012-06-23 06:41 -0400
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2012-06-25 07:25 -0500
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2012-06-22 11:55 -0400
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Voodoo Magoo <voodoo@thats.me.com> - 2012-06-23 01:05 +0000
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2012-06-22 22:19 -0400
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Nobody <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-06-24 08:19 -0500
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2012-06-11 17:09 -0400
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2012-06-11 17:12 -0400
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2012-06-11 17:31 -0400
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-06-13 12:35 +0100
Re: Andy Rubin says Android activations hit 900k a day bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-06-13 19:23 +0100
csiph-web