Local software communicates with the Internet on a separate channel. That's the point here. They've found a way to transfer sensitive data from your browser, outside the sandbox, to other apps that do whatever, including steal, it sell it on the black market, or Target you with ads against your will
Copyright is obviously not a natural property of anything. It's a legal attribute defined by jurisdiction. 'Inheritence of copyright infringement by proxy' as a concept is a good illustration of the fact that we really haven't dug too deeply into all of the edge cases.
agreed. it'll just be a cheaper commodity. Like youtube video learning. nobody is going to subscribe to Bob Villa's Home Improvement book club anymore now that youtube exists. His books still have value, but it's marginalized by fungible products
That, I believe, is precisely what the courts will be called upon to decide in all of these cases. The rest of this nonsense is just people bloviating about how they think it should be.
I took PseudoThink's reply as an explanation of why treating this as zero sum is a bad idea. You must have missed the first of the three lines in the reply because you seem to have only responded to one of them.
People who give any credence to the cat being both alive and dead at the same time have no idea what they're talking about. The cats life-status is rendered classical by decoherence long before anyone looks inside the box.
The EU pushed google to keep third party cookies. they claimed that eliminating them was squashing the competitors ability to compete with their privacy sandbox.
China doesn't only make cheap junk. They make intermediate goods. Stuff that 'Made in the USA' companies assemble and label as our own. They also make a lot of cheap junk, but that's actually their least important input/outputs.
This strategy may buy them something with Trump, but ultimately, it doesn't help much. Trump isn't litigating this case. And Trump isn't going to be around when the appeals all expire and whatever happens (a breakup, a gigantic fine, who knows) as a result takes effect. At best, that argument is a play to get the case dismissed on the whims of a naked emperor (no clothes, get it?) But it's a long shot.
"Spend" is used this way daily in the tech/corporate world. I've heard it used this way for decades. It's odd to me that someone is calling it out at this late hour. You do know that oxford adds words to the dictionary based on usage right? So if people use it, that MAKES it correct.