Is it a settled argument that the US statutory termination right applies to copyrights granted by the common open source licenses? Could you maybe point to a good legal discussion of this issue?
People obtaining the show from other sources before it is released on Netflix might be a reason for the show not doing well enough on Netflix to be worth picking up. Plus the marketing probably was only half-hearted, since Netflix doesn't own the US streaming rights.
They do weekly releases for some shows (maybe most shows that they don't produce themselves).
I assumed it was some ridiculous commercial arrangment that meant they couldn't show it until after the season has finished in the states - but I have no idea
I'm curious whether the Retpoline mitigation will still be necessary/recommended for user applications (that don't operate as a JIT or interpreter) once the kernel and CPU mitigations for Spectre that are currently in the works have been applied.
I suppose this is because they are afraid to upset certain segments of their users. In the German Netflix you'll often see angry comments in the review section of any show that isn't completely dubbed. Maybe they could avoid this by having a separate "original language only" section.
In Germany the Netflix app shows different available audio tracks and subtitles depending on the user profile language, at least for the "Netflix Originals". Have you tried setting the language of the kids profile to Danish (via the "Manage profiles" screen in the Netflix web app)?
I just tried this again on the German Netflix website: Danish was listed and selectable for the audio track and subtitle of "Troll hunters" and "Tarzan and Jane" after switching the Kids profile language to Danish, but not when the profile language was set to German or English.
The battery comparison with the 2015 MacBook Pro is not really fair, because he turns the brightness "all the way" up for his benchmark, even though the new models have screens with 500 nits brightness while the 2015 model only has 300 nits.
I'm less concerned with the 2015 -> 2016 battery life regression (general use with auto brightness bears this out as well, so the delta is there, it just might not be as great), and more concerned with the fact that the Function Key Pro gets 10% better battery life.
Tl;dr: Android is open sourced, Google Play services are not. Licenses for manufacturers to preinstall the proprietary Google Play app require them to also to preinstall Google search.
Android manufacturers aren't forced to preinstall Play services. Users can still uninstall either Play, search, or any number of the preinstalled manufacturer apps (which aren't locked by manufacturers), right? How is this different than if Google made just one app for play and search?
The legal question is whether the exclusivity terms in the licensing deals are anti-competitive given Google's dominant market share in Europe.
"handset-makers that wish to pre-install Google Play must, among other apps, also add Google Search and make it the device’s default search service; if they want to share in Google’s ad revenues they have to exclusively pre-install Google Search; and if they pre-install Google’s apps on any of their models, they must commit to install only Google’s standard version of Android on each and every one of their models."
That's a quality control clause to keep manufacturers from pushing apps that don't work to users. The Google play apps are not compiled to run on every conceivable custom configuration of open-sourced Android. Samsung installs Tizen on it's models that don't use play services.
If I understand "if they pre-install Google’s apps on any of their models, they must commit to install only Google’s standard version of Android on each and every one of their models" correctly, Google does not allow handset-makers to sell models with custom Android versions (but without Google Play) if that maker also wants to sell any model with an approved Android version and Google Play.
Tizen is not an Android derivative. Do you know enough about Google's licensing terms to be able to contradict the accusation in the article?
Btw, I entirely understand and sympathize with the desire to prevent Android fragmentation.
Yeah, I wasn't aware of restricting the specific forks. I'm not sure how that works if you open source software but then license someone to only use a specific version.
In tightly controlled ecosystems the default state is effectively what most consumers will keep and use. This is sometimes informally called the power of default. Entire billion dollar markets can rise and fall based on something as simple as an opt-out versus opt-in policy. It's a little like that Supreme Court ruling that said ''the power to tax is the power to destroy''. The power of default is not much different especially when you control the entire underlying OS. Anti-trust regulators are right to focus on what these default settings are.
If Apple had vast majority of market share, pre-installed iTunes, integrated iTunes functionality throughout the OS so that it had more intuitive prominence than other competing services, then yes, that would be close to the definition of antitrust as I understand it (using dominant control in one market to create or maintain dominant control in a second market). This is what Microsoft was penalized for, appropriately, with Windows and the browser market.
Copyright and patents are not "fundamentally the same thing". A copyright gives you the right to exclude others from copying a work. A patent gives you more than that right, it gives you a monopoly over an idea (or at least a more or less vaguely defined implementation of an idea). A patent gives you the right to exclude others from using that idea or implementation even if they discovered that idea on their own and didn't copy anything.
My understanding of copyright is that it applies to the idea too. If you change the names and wording but keep the plot of a novel, even if the text are not strictly identical, you could still be sued for breach of copyright.
If you "change the names and wording" you're actually copying and making a modification. However, if by pure chance you came up with some say detective story that has a plot very similar to one of the existing billion other detective stories, no can sue you unless there is sufficient evidence that you actually infringed a copyright.
Independent reinvention is a complete defense for copyright (you can't infringe copyright if you didn't copy), but not for patents (someone you've never heard of can sue you).
The courts are less clear on that. There's no statutory language that gives you copyright to the idea of a novel (which is dangerously close to genre if you ask me).
They will probably have to "pay" for it. It will make it easier to figure out net gains and losses within each venture.
I expect this to increase the reported revenue of Google (infrastructure), as significant costs incur in infrastructure management.
On the other hand is also possible that Alphabet companies can use the google's "cloud" infrastructure with a significant discount.
I'm less curious about infrastructure that be commoditized and more about things like shared source code and access to subject-matter experts working on various teams at Google.
