Motorola Wins Injunction Against Apple's iCloud in Germany

[watcha]

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]haha another wall of text from watcha. Keep crying about the old issues man. Just admit you lost the argument.[/citation]

= no content whatsoever

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom] 1) My PC is 100% positively not infected. It is not 100% secure. Those are two completely different things. You still haven't found me an "industry expert" saying "you can never be sure your PC is not infected" like you claimed.[/citation]

1 - How do you know your PC isn't infected?
2 - Have you proved your PC isn't infected?
3 - Doesn't the fact that it's not secure mean that it could easily have been infected without your knowledge?
4 - I said that NO industry expert would ever claim anything is 100% secure. I've also explained to you that a) This is an opinion, b) Absence of things can't be proved and that c) Even if I was wrong, it still wouldn't mean you proved that any pc is 100% virus free.

It's nice that you're not 'crying about the old issues', 'man'... ;-)

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]2) All advertising is NOT true, even Apple ads can be false or misleading[/citation]

If the agency which gets to decide whether or not it's misleading or not, thinks it is misleading, the ad gets banned. As I told you 2 years ago. If they don't think it's misleading, it isn't - since they have more authority to decide than you. And lets be very clear not to change the subject from the specific advert you posted - you linked it for a reason. You have not in any way proven that that ad is misleading.

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]

.3) Linking an Apple ad from Youtube is a viable means of listing an Apple ad. Saying "IT DONT COUNT" over and over is just so typical of you and totally laughable. [/citation]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]
You linked a Youtube video. Youtube video does not necessarily equal advert. Simple, obvious.
[/citation]
[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]
2 - You still haven't shown that the video in question is an advert.
[/citation]
citation][nom]watcha[/nom]
What I actually said was that just because a video is on Youtube, doesn't mean it's an advert.

That is, and will always be true[/citation]

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]
4) Demanding evidence while claiming any evidence is not valid, then getting upset because said evidence is not provided = freaking hilarious (for both the fact my PC is NOT infected and the Apple ad being false)
[/citation]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]
Just to add a little food for thought which you would describe as 'circular' and I would describe as 'why you're dumb'...

The only way to settle this, is by you finding the advert, and then proving that it got banned by an ad standards agency (which would prove it was misleading - the only way you can prove that). But when you do that, you prove that it's no longer being used as advertising and you prove me right.

In other words, you can never win, that's where your failed logic gets you.

[/citation]

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]
5) Claiming I'm the one arguing after repeatedly getting upset that I won't argue the issues with you = freaking hilarious! Your walls of text are massive here. You read every line and try to attack everything said by anyone in total desperation. I skim your crap and post a few lines to keep you going.[/citation]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]
Are you seriously trying to claim you're not arguing about the old issues? After all you've posted?
[/citation]

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]
6) Keep those veins popping in your forehead.[/citation]
[/citation]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]
'I reject your reality, and substitute my own'
[/citation]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]
So, for the... how many times in a row now? You have YET to prove:

a) The 'advert' ever aired'
b) That it is misleading
c) That you can have a 100% virus free pc and prove that is the case.
[/citation]

QED

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]blah blah blah[/citation]
You do realise that no one actually reads your posts don't you?
...
All that typing and copy/pasting is a total waste of effort because all people do is ingore what you write, thumb down and move on, if you can't make your point in just two posts, a statement and a reply to a rebutal, then all you are doing is spamming the forum
...
It used to be funny, but now it's just sad

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]You do realise that no one actually reads your posts don't you?...All that typing and copy/pasting is a total waste of effort because all people do is ingore what you write, thumb down and move on, if you can't make your point in just two posts, a statement and a reply to a rebutal, then all you are doing is spamming the forum...It used to be funny, but now it's just sad[/citation]

.... he says, whilst taking the time to reply.

' all people do is ingore what you write, thumb down and move on'

Explains a lot... insults you more than me.

'if you can't make your point in just two posts, a statement and a reply to a rebutal,'

Making a point depends on the capability of the recipient to understand basic logic. The point was clearly made 2 years ago to anyone with intelligence.

' then all you are doing is spamming the forum'

All my comments to both yourself and beayn are replies. Read that and think, just for a moment ;-)

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]testerguy3[/nom]But in the eleventh hour Apple managed to convince the appeals court to lift the ban. DPA reporter Christoph Dernbach was the first to report the news, taking to Twitter. Apple in statement commented, "All iPad and iPhone models will be back on sale through Apple's online store in Germany shortly. Apple appealed this ruling because Motorola repeatedly refuses to license this patent to Apple on reasonable terms, despite having declared it an industry standard patent seven years ago."http://www.dailytech.com/Germany+B [...] e23929.htmOopsie, epic fail from you again? Surely not.[/citation]
The ban was lifted because Apple payed a bond to prevent the ban. The case is far from being over.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]The ban was lifted because Apple payed a bond to prevent the ban. The case is far from being over.[/citation]

Absolutely right. That the case is far from being over has been precisely my point throughout.

We finally agree!

 

[beayn]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]"Any proper engineer would know that nobody can ever be 100% sure their PC doesn't have viruses, as I said, even the top level engineers who work for anti-virus companies wouldn't make such a claim."[/citation]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]4 - I said that NO industry expert would ever claim anything is 100% secure[/citation]

Quoted outright as changing your argument because you were losing.

Focus on just this one issue for the moment. IF I took the several hours it would take to prove to you that my PC is not infected, would you believe it? I listed off several methods of proving it in a previous post which (as always) you were quick to disregard. If I did all that, would you EVER believe it?

Nope. (You already said this)

So, why do you keep demanding this evidence? Why would I bother giving ol' watcha more time than the few minutes it takes to get you riled up? Not to mention the fact it would be very technical and you would never understand it. Sorry dude, but your job as a car shop manager doesn't give you the experience required to understand despite how much you think you know.

My PC is NOT infected! 😀

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]Quoted outright as changing your argument because you were losing.[/citation]

Really?

'even the top level engineers who work for anti-virus companies wouldn't make such a claim'

' I said that NO industry expert would ever claim anything is 100% secure'

Looks the same to me....

I believe I even highlighted 'WOULD NOT' to you, before, and explained what it means.

Hint: 'No [job] would ever'

and...

'even [job] would not' ... are the same thing.

... unless you're saying that top level engineers are not industry experts? Good luck with that?

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]
Focus on just this one issue for the moment. IF I took the several hours it would take to prove to you that my PC is not infected, would you believe it? I listed off several methods of proving it in a previous post which (as always) you were quick to disregard. If I did all that, would you EVER believe it?Nope. (You already said this)So, why do you keep demanding this evidence? [/citation]

I'm not demanding the evidence. I'm saying you could NEVER prove it, and THEREFORE have no evidence. If you did 'prove' it, I would of course believe - but my point is that you can't.

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]

Why would I bother giving ol' watcha more time than the few minutes it takes to get you riled up? Not to mention the fact it would be very technical and you would never understand it. [/citation]

As I said, your role is a low level (albeit very specialized one), don't even try to comprehend what is it I can and cannot understand.

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]Sorry dude, but your job as a car shop manager doesn't give you the experience required to understand despite how much you think you know.My PC is NOT infected![/citation]

Now I'm a car shop manager? Leaving poor old McDonalds in the lurch?

Everybody reading this thread knows that you believe your pc is not infected. But everybody reading this thread also knows that your pc is not 100% secure. Everybody on this thread also knows that not all viruses can be detected, and therefore cannot be disproved. The fact that it's not secure, on its own, means that it has a susceptibility to viruses - which can happen at any time. This means even if there was software, or a technique which could detect all viruses (which there isn't), it would immediately be out of date. You say this is not relevant, but that is simply wrong.

 

[beayn]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]Really?'even the top level engineers who work for anti-virus companies wouldn't make such a claim'' I said that NO industry expert would ever claim anything is 100% secure'Looks the same to me....[/citation]

hahaha you just don't get it!!! You said TWO DIFFERENT things, I quoted you saying two different things. Secure != infected. Infected != secure. You made a wild claim that no industry expert would say his computer isn't INFECTED, then you changed it to SECURE because you couldn't prove nobody said it. The possibility of getting infected in the future has nothing to do with what you claimed.

Your complete lack of understanding of computers and technology is why you can't fathom a computer that is not infected, or that someone out there might actually know what they're doing enough to say they are not infected.

I can indeed say what you don't understand. I can see what you don't understand plain as day when you talk yourself deeper into this hole you dug for yourself.

Car shop manager, just going by what you said. You said you work at a car plant. I think you exaggerated where you work and you're probably a used car salesman, which would explain why you're always so evasive when asked direct questions.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]hahaha you just don't get it!!! You said TWO DIFFERENT things, I quoted you saying two different things. Secure != infected. Infected != secure. You made a wild claim that no industry expert would say his computer isn't INFECTED, then you changed it to SECURE because you couldn't prove nobody said it. The possibility of getting infected in the future has nothing to do with what you claimed.[/citation]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]
Everybody on this thread also knows that not all viruses can be detected, and therefore cannot be disproved[/citation]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]
I can't believe you don't recognise the link between software never being 100% secure and you never being able to prove that it is secure. That alone is reason why this conversation is doomed to fail. If NO software can know that you have a virus (potentially), how do YOU know, that you don't? The answer is: to know that your pc was secure (virus free) - you could only know that through SOFTWARE. If the SOFTWARE can guarantee that you are 100% virus free, it could also prevent viruses. Hence the obvious, painfully obvious link. Starting to see why you're a computer engineer....

You say being vulnerable does NOT mean you ARE infected - which is absolutely true, but absolutely irrelevant. The question is not whether you ARE infected or not, the question is can you ever prove, or even KNOW that you aren't. Again, the whole reason for this lengthy, back and forth which annoys Back_By_Demand so much, is your absolute failure to read, or to understand the points being made.
[/citation]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]
1 - How do you prove a computer is secure, if you can't detect all viruses?
2 - I haven't changed my argument, I just proved that a respected guy in the industry believes you can't ever be 100% secure. If you can't be 100% secure, how can you prove you have been in the past? (or prove you have no viruses). One requires the other.
3 - Remember, YOU are the one who claimed that you CAN be 100% virus free AND HAVE TO PROVE IT. You still haven't.
[/citation]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]
Your complete lack of understanding of computers and technology is why you can't fathom a computer that is not infected, or that someone out there might actually know what they're doing enough to say they are not infected.
[/citation]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]You say being vulnerable does NOT mean you ARE infected - which is absolutely true, but absolutely irrelevant. The question is not whether you ARE infected or not, the question is can you ever prove, or even KNOW that you aren't[/citation]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]
The fact that it's not secure, on its own, means that it has a susceptibility to viruses - which can happen at any time. This means even if there was software, or a technique which could detect all viruses (which there isn't), it would immediately be out of date[/citation]

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]
I can indeed say what you don't understand. I can see what you don't understand plain as day when you talk yourself deeper into this hole you dug for yourself.Car shop manager, just going by what you said. You said you work at a car plant. I think you exaggerated where you work and you're probably a used car salesman, which would explain why you're always so evasive when asked direct questions.[/citation]

It's called security (as opposed to desperate insecurity).

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]That is just the Motorola argument, it's not necessarily the law. All we're doing is presenting differing sides of the argument in a court case which will take a long time to be resolved, despite Motorola having won this early case it could easily change at appeal.And the reason why the sentence you said doesn't apple, in this case, according to Apple, is that they were willing to pay 'reasonable' license fees all along - but Motorola did not offer them 'reasonable terms' - so Apple had no choice but to refuse.What you posted would be relevant if Apple had refused a reasonable license offer from Motorola.As Dailytech said:'As part of its antitrust procedure in authorizing the purchase, it may examine whether Motorola unfairly denied Apple FRAND licensing in the two of its three Mannheim Court lawsuits that were based on 3G patents.'[/citation]

Just because I love when reality proves me right:

The Karlsruhe court ruled that Apple's latest licensing proposal was fair and reasonable enough that Motorola was legally obligated to license the patent to its rival. The key point in the case was that the patents in the case (which Apple was found to infringe by lacking a license) were 3G standards patents governed by fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing terms.

Motorola made it clear it had a lot of issues with Apple's licensing proposal, and for a time the appeals court appeared to be on its side. But via an "iterative approach", Apple crafted a licensing proposal, which was the appeals court felt was fair enough, according to FOSS Patents. To refuse to license under the terms of that revised offer would be a clear antitrust violation, the German appeals court stated.

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=24099&red=y#comments