HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

tiledjinn

no profile record

comments

tiledjinn
·il y a 11 mois·discuss
texas has its own so that it doesn't need to meet the regulations of the others
tiledjinn
·l’année dernière·discuss
Either the one little Timmy wanted, or the one the clerk tells her is selling fast (whether or not it's selling fast).
tiledjinn
·l’année dernière·discuss
Ok; package up Cloudflare, Facebook, or E-Trade and let people host it.
tiledjinn
·l’année dernière·discuss
> - Put an expiration date on the storefront and make it clear that your software is not guaranteed to continue working after date X.

This software is not guaranteed beyond 0 Unix time.

> - Have your server source code (stripped down of proprietary stuff) ready for public release at EoL.

This isn't viable, and i would expect anyone on this site to understand that. it's roughly equivalent to saying "just make facebook stripped of proprietary code and ready for the public to run"

> - Allow customers to reverse engineer the binaries and communication protocol after EoL.

This is a reasonable path forward, but likely a non-starter in the US for political reasons. I understand that "stop killing games" is an EU thing.

> - Package dedicated server binaries with the game and allow customers to connect to it via a LAN or direct IP option.

See point 2. This is nonsensical.
tiledjinn
·l’année dernière·discuss
i wouldn't use it if you paid me
tiledjinn
·l’année dernière·discuss
Juris Doctor. A lawyer.
tiledjinn
·il y a 2 ans·discuss
More fair to say Epic is money pitting from, given discoveries from Epic v Apple and Epic v Google..
tiledjinn
·il y a 2 ans·discuss
Epic v Apple the court decided not to answer the question of whether Apple is a monopoly.
tiledjinn
·il y a 2 ans·discuss
Better to say Apple failed to lose. The court explicitly left open the question as to whether they are a monopoly. They just didn't provide any meaningful injunctions as a result of that case.
tiledjinn
·il y a 2 ans·discuss
Which case is that? Because that's not how the Apple ruling went.
tiledjinn
·il y a 2 ans·discuss
Apple wasn't ruled not a monopoly. It was ruled that Epic failed to bring convincing evidence and arguments.

So yes, Apple could be subject to similar restrictions in the future. Either through another monopoly case, or [imo more likely] regulation.
tiledjinn
·il y a 2 ans·discuss
Apple wasn't ruled not a monopoly. It was ruled that the evidence Epic brought in the case was insufficient to show Apple was a monopoly, and the court would entertain other arguments in the future.

Apple didn't need to do anything, but they didn't "win" that convincingly.
tiledjinn
·il y a 2 ans·discuss
access to money. don't even need to use it.