Securing views Berg

I agree with Jocke's vision of the digital and physical reality is a reality that only takes two different forms. Social media is not a computer game, a virtual game that is decoupled from the physical reality, but simply a variety of digital communication channels.

For me, the discussion a mixture of etiquette in combination with a discussion of work-related stress.

Stress may be the turbo of the technology means that many can work everywhere and there are fewer and fewer "protected space" where you do not even need to explain why they were not inter / re / act. The cell phone will be a good working tool for most tasks, coverage with good speed are basically everywhere, mobile services for air is introduced continuously, which means that the person is unable to say stop having fewer opportunities to relax due to the forced stop.

I also think it's interesting communication etiquette and priorities.
- You sit on-one and talking and ringing. What are you doing? Do the direct (phone always goes first), do not respond (biased Never remove the physically), looks at the number and then determine who to prioritize.
- You sit in a meeting and it rings. What are you doing? It can not happen - the phone is switched off at the meeting, you have it on silent, depending on who it is, go from the room and takes the call, you answer and talk far and wide in space [1]
- You sit in the cinema and it rings. What are you doing? It can not happen - you have the phone turned off to the movies, you have it on silent, depending on who it is, go from the room and takes the call, you answer and talk extensively in theater

Then replace the one phone call to email, twitter, facebook status update, and what those might be. When is it OK to give priority to people at a distance in front of those who endeavored to meet you face to face? When is it disrespectful, unpleasant and ouppfostrat to choose the absent rather than present? Note: it currently is rarely part of the conversation with the absent but the case of a pure off prioritization in the normal case.

So the question is what you want, is the concern for twittraren for him not to burn out or is it an annoyance than a totally cool to be socially out priority of the man endeavored to meet face to face? The arguments for the two scenarios are quite different and it gets pretty messy if you can not keep them apart.

[1] There are cultural differences here. I get myself COMPLETELY BONKERS on Italians who - in my eyes totally disrespectful - in language happily responds and babbles on, thereby sabotaging the physical meeting they participate in. Not just prioritize them off meeting they participate in - they also make it impossible for this meeting the others.

After reading about file-sharing film company that is a chain of thought which I can not let go;

• The copyright gives an exclusive right to make copies. ( % https://lagen.nu/1960 3A729 # P2S1 )
• Only those who have a legal industrial model has the right to disseminate it to a close circle of friends https://lagen.nu/1960% 3A729 # P12S1 )
• Torrent protocol makes everyone who downloads also, by definition, upload (or at least based on a deliberate indifference actually intentionally upload).
• This article states that the studios download; http://berg.to/blog/eoa
• The film companies possess the lawful specimen.

My conclusion is then that each segment from a movie production company behind a given movie makes available by sharing via torrent becomes a legal industrial model and thus the URL § 12 without restriction in paragraph 4. The film company that shares, wash block by block away status as illegal copy.

To Hakan Juholts mouth is a frog factory of epic proportions is becoming increasingly evident, and for all with the least insight into the telecom industry is the latest The move astounding.

All sections must be supported by all networks.

The State shall determine the roll-out plans for private parties so clearly contrary to all rhyme or reason. It's like forcing op to build some stores, to legislate for the Y-bus to travel inland part or Bring to set up mailboxes on Gotska Sandon.

Enterprise are normally based on the private players to optimize their operations based on need and demand, which they do better than any politician in the country. The trader learns its market and optimize their presence.

The government can of course choose to do that at the 3G licensing process - make demands on national expansion to gain access to the license. It was an auction where the bid was the coverage we undertook to establish.

There is only one relevant option and that is the phenomenon known as the USO (Universal Service Obligation), which means that the state is saying we want to have national coverage and procures it to the lowest bidder. All are offered and the one who is willing to do the job to the team's charge gets the assignment. To instruct all, however, TOTALLY unrealistic in every way.

The restaurant exists that organized crime promises to protect the restaurant owner. The protection consists of the offender promise not to self-sabotage restaurant owner, but also protection against others who are in similar cases.

In any kind of theoretical model can be said that the case of a relevant service that is bought, but in a fully functioning society, there should be no threat to guard against such practical terms, this is just a form of blackmail. It is illegitimate and should be fought by all available means.

Therefore, it is almost shocking to Copyswede engaged in an entirely comparable activities in relation to the business of storage media.

In one form of theoretical reality as one can argue that any storage media can be used to store the copyrighted material. You have the right to copy for private use and by a levy on the media so the authors have a revenue source also for the legal storage. A side effect is so clear that any copying of an illicit model (piracy) are taxed in the same way, which Copyswede are well aware of and probably also consider the primary goal. The underlying legitimate service is a very small percentage of what they charge for. In exactly the same way as "guardians".

The problem is that you must pay the same fee also for the media that you have everything else that does not really concern Copyswede. It stores pictures you have taken yourself (which is saved on multiple disks to avoid risking a broken hard drive destroying all pictures ever taken), it stores the video you recorded yourself digitally and the films are great to use USB drives to get to their important documents and so on. Many will thus pay big bucks to store the data they themselves produced, and that no one can reasonably expect a copyright-motivated income.

On a Mafia-like manner to Copyswede now persuade merchants to pay for that one sells storage media. It is a flawed development only worthy of a State that has nothing to complain about this type of racketeering and that kind of state I have no confidence.

Skype is driving development, was once the telephony service, and they built an infrastructure to deliver it. Then came the IP wave where there were a number of more or less clumsy attempts to migrate voice telephony as a service on top of IP. Fragmentation and lack of bandwidth mess, combined with the operators hardly saw this migration as something good. It sucks out a huge portion of the proceeds and all that be over the increased costs of bandwidth under the flat rate data that one typically sells.

So if operators and Skype are repelled by magnets, and you look in between Microsoft and Nokia to hold the chain. What attracts you to this conclusion? Someone who can think of something talented on how the chain Skype <-> Microsoft <-> Nokia <-> operator must work?

Bloomberg today has an interesting article about Apple, positioning, and a generalized discussion about the integrity of the authorities in response to this.

http://berg.to/blog/6j

Apple is REALLY tight! I've never heard Apple use the word bug
in context with their products. In addition, it is referred here to TWO
various bugs which must be unique. ( See here )

When I last summer was in contact with Apple because their kids
knasade out of themselves in relation to the GSM network. When we visited a 2G network but
had a USIM stood visit the network's name remains displayed and it went
not to get rid of it. I then got the most bizarre answers I received, which
summary can be summarized:

"We are aware of the phenomenon. We can not confirm that it is a bug, we
can not confirm that it will be fixed in next version of the OS,
we can not confirm that there will be heterogeneity iOS4och we can not
either confirm that it will in a few days. We have never had this conversation. "

How can you like such a company?

To my delight, I see that the Danish EU MP Bendt Bendtsen from The Conservative People's Party at the European level now want to pursue the issue that the jailbreak will be permitted

Jailbreak is likely a violation of Apple's terms of use, and to succeed it must be examined and "reverse engineera" parts of the system, find a weakness and find a way to execute code that uses this weakness. To make the jailbreak has allowed Apple banned the use of restrictive contractual but you also have to reverse engineer explicitly allowed. Just to allow implementation of the jailbreak will be partly pointless if Apple can still legally attack those who develop the jailbreak mechanism.

Personally I do not see the value in that jailbreak per se would be permitted, but the point is that you want to achieve that which is achieved through jailbreak, that you can install software not provided by Apple. That is because

a) you do not want to depend on Apple to accept a particular program and

b) they want it because you want there to be competition, distribution, and hence price competition.

Thus;

It would have been better if Mr Bendt Bendtsen, had focused on making sure that Apple was not allowed to have a distribution monopoly for Apps, so he had addressed the legal question rather than a sequela to the basic problem.

Mobile phone providers've recently påkommits to both store positioning information, which is a big deal in many parts of the world.

Just the same way as the Competition Authority did not take hold of the issue of Apple's abuse of dominant position in respect to technical and legally block competing Appstores, so now take Datainspektionen not get hold of this.

In December I sent my complaint against Apple for abuse of dominant position. Administrator (Peter majority, 08-700 16:34) announced that it was itself decided what would be included and that this would not be processed.

The Competition Authority does not comment on legal facts of a particular case where the issue is not nearly have been investigated by us. However, where appropriate, provide some general guidance only. It is Konkurrensverketsom in each individual case examination of the question presented to them will be examined further.

In light of your comments, I would emphasize the following. I understand there is no specific obstacles for a company to choose which strategy to vertically integrate. In some areas, such as "smart phones", companies have apparently adopted different business strategies. Another important factor from the competition point is whether there is exclusion of the companies that make applications ("apps"), ie. that they would be denied to deliver their solutions to one or more companies. Some of these data, we have no access to. Against this background, there is insufficient basis for us to further investigate the circumstances that you have submitted.

My answer was this:

I interpret the response to NPP requires that there are instances of any denied access.

Normally, it may safely be satisfied by notification by a Party is concerned, which is not in my case where I point to a fundamental lack of competition in the structure without itself being an affected party.

Is KKVs assessment of the affected app, if so, must have a connection to Sweden (= KKVs jurisdiction)?

Quoted recently by the way, a Gartner report estimates the market value on the app market (total) to $ 15 billion for 2011.

Below is a case for Apple for various reasons refused Apps access to the App store:

First - Adobe may not deliver Flash for IOS-armed units. In addition;

1) Apple refuses a newspaper app of this network is all about Android:

http://berg.to/blog/dq

2) Apple refuses Spotify (it dissolves):

http://berg.to/blog/2W

3) Apple refuses Danish Ektrabladets App based on nudity

http://berg.to/blog/pP

A subset - that is unlikely to fall within the NPP's jurisdiction is the expression dimension:

http://berg.to/blog/kd
http://berg.to/blog/pu

4) prylportalen.se have examples of seven apps that are not permitted:

http://berg.to/blog/3R

5) Christian app (the name is not repeated, but the journalist should be able to provide details)

http://berg.to/blog/Bq

6) Google Latitude (later resolved)

http://berg.to/blog/a5
http://berg.to/blog/41K

7) Google talk (an interesting article in general on the subject)

http://berg.to/blog/Tb

Wikileaks app was approved by the revoked

http://berg.to/blog/v0

9) manhattan Declaration.org - anti-gay app

http://berg.to/blog/Ml

10) A program that emulates the old computer, the Commodore 64

http://berg.to/blog/oj

11) more light

http://berg.to/blog/8n

I hope these ten examples clearly show that there are lots of examples of Apps that have been spiked. As I was clear in my initial submission so they are therefore legally and technically unable to make their creations available because Apple products are locked against any attempt to install software not authorized.

My mail was registered, but it prompted no matter and therefore also no reference number of this answer:

Thanks for your additional comments. For your information I would like to clarify that in each case independently determine whether the matter is notified to us for further analysis or not. In support of our priorities is a general policy, partly based on an assessment of the seriousness of the alleged problem or phenomenon is. In your case, we believe that there are insufficient grounds to initiate an investigation on our part. Thus, there is no reason for us to register your e-mail (see your question on the reference number). The e-mail received by the Competition Authority will be public documents and are therefore to be arranged by us.