throwawaykf02

10 ms·

31.
by throwawaykf02 13y ago
As always, things are more nuanced than "it started before the acquisition". (A previous comment of mine has a bit more detail: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6332432 ) Basically, Google had more than a year
32.
by throwawaykf02 13y ago
Another comment I made downthread might address this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6495063
33.
by throwawaykf02 13y ago
So you mean if you make use of other's "intellectual property", you derive no benefit from it? If not, why do you make use of it? Maybe there's a reason we as a society have accepted the concept of Intellectual Property
34.
by throwawaykf02 13y ago
If you (the collective "you", not you specifically) did not subvert their property rights through piracy, they would not feel the need to subvert yours through DRM. It's a mistake to think that content creators are in the bus
35.
by throwawaykf02 13y ago
Some blame should surely be placed at AT&T's feet too, but IMO not as much. Going back to the door analogy, whoever leaves it carelessly unlocked will definitely get less sympathy (e.g. insurance may decline to cover the loss), but
36.
by throwawaykf02 13y ago
Some potentially relevant screenshots from the other thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6427599
37.
by throwawaykf02 13y ago
Can you (or anyone) post screenshots of the login and email pages?
38.
by throwawaykf02 13y ago
Not unprecedented. Remember, they eventually only managed to get Al Capone on tax evasion.
39.
by throwawaykf02 13y ago
> What weev did was quite different in that he accessed this web service in exactly the way it was intended. So is a thief who walks through a door carelessly left unlocked "accessing it exactly in the way it was intended." I
40.
by throwawaykf02 13y ago
He accessed data belonging to other people that he should not have, and knew he should not have. (And then went on to make very unwise statements about his intentions of how to handle that data.) That's all that really matters to the
41.
by throwawaykf02 13y ago
Oh, don't think this is a problem that is localized to some countries -- it happens all over the world. The actual work itself may be outsourced to some countries (some Eastern Bloc countries spring to mind; I met a couple of guys from
42.
by throwawaykf02 13y ago
Right, and somebody simply reverse engineers your creative work and re-implements it, completely bypassing any protection provided by IP. As long as you make something that cannot be hidden away in the cloud or protected as trade secrets, y
43.
by throwawaykf02 13y ago
> But how did Facebook, Twitter, and Github grow without applying for patents for years Network effects and jealously guarding their data. These days the technology is not nearly as important as the data.
44.
by throwawaykf02 13y ago
It could be argued that without VisiCalc, 1-2-3 might never have existed. After all, besides the development work, VisiCalc had also done all the hard work of creating and validating a new market. If somebody does all that work only to be d
45.
by throwawaykf02 13y ago
Oh yeah, the memo was definitely an expensive mistake, as I said elsewhere on this thread. I was just saying the majority of the damage was done before he joined.
46.
by throwawaykf02 13y ago
Look at Nokia's share price over the last 10 years. It went from $40 down to $10 even before Elop was hired. During his reign it bottomed out at a couple of bucks before going back up to about $4 until the acquisition announcement. But
47.
by throwawaykf02 13y ago
In addition to Pavlov's comment: The Chinese knockoffs are mostly eating into Nokia's lowe-end market share. They have been doing so in India and China as well, and since before Elop took over.
48.
by throwawaykf02 13y ago
In the interest of DRY: Yay-sayers: "That's not obvious at all -- look at all Android manufacturers other than Samsung" Nay-Sayers: "Nokia had the capability to sufficiently differentiate their hardware to avoid the fate
49.
by throwawaykf02 13y ago
NOK had crashed long before Elop was hired. The subsequent decline was due to the leaked memo saying they were scrapping Symbian entirely rather than the move to Windows Phone. The stock would have crashed even if they had announced a move
50.
by throwawaykf02 13y ago
> Who on earth cares that the damages turned out to be relatively small, but hey, earlier he wrote that the monetary amount didn't matter? Well, actually he said the legal implications will matter more than the money, so that&#x27
51.
by throwawaykf02 13y ago
Microsoft cast the first stone in October 2010, and made its FRAND allegations in November 2010 [1]. Google announced its acquisition of Motorola in August 2011 [2] and completed it in May 2012 [3]. This decision comes more than a year afte
52.
by throwawaykf02 13y ago
Agreed. This is an unprecedented level of detail compared to the snippets and vague "sources say" rumors you hear otherwise. Probably intentionally leaked by one or both of the parties, but can't imagine why.
53.
by throwawaykf02 13y ago
Also, I just realized, the rampaging patent monster is another reason MS did not buy the patents outright. Nokia has active lawsuits against many companies and I doubt anybody wants to inherit that kind of baggage.
54.
by throwawaykf02 13y ago
And multiple Chinese manufacturers taking all the dumbphone market in previously-huge Nokia strongholds like India and China.
55.
by throwawaykf02 13y ago
Android certainly does not have lower system requirements than Windows Phone. I mean, it could run on lower spec hardware... for some definition of "run". Mine are both last-gen devices, but my Lumia has half the cores and RAM a
56.
by throwawaykf02 13y ago
Why yes, you're right! I totally missed that. And your rationale makes sense as well. As for the Nokia patent monster, well... it's already been rampaging the countryside for a few months now. I haven't thought through the ra
57.
by throwawaykf02 13y ago
I know a couple of savvy guys working for Intel's competitors moaning about how Intel is going to demolish them. Haswell and its descendants, it seems, are the real deal, and in the long term, they hold out little hope for ARM in the m
58.
by throwawaykf02 13y ago
I have no specific knowledge at all of any cross-licensing here (and if I did, I surely won't comment on it in public), but from the few license deals I very tangentially know of, they happen in terms of portfolios of assets valid at a
59.
by throwawaykf02 13y ago
I think people dug into their latest earnings and made a case that MS did make a few hundred mil on Android phone licenses. But you're right: it's chump change to MS, and Nokia putting out even a single Android phone would have be
60.
by throwawaykf02 13y ago
Most Windows Phones were #1 best sellers on Amazon too. Look at where their market share is right now.

More ›