@NightAuthor@beehaw.org
Are you an academic or just dense?
I thought beehaw is all about inclusivity and safe space and friendly shit
SafetyGoggles
joined 2 years ago
We were armchair warriors on Reddit. Now, we are armchair warriors on Lemmy. insert spidermen pointing fingers at each other meme here
TL;DR: If you want to use Tesla's charger patent, you're allowing Tesla to steal your patent and you can't sue Tesla for it, even if the patent is not related to charging technology.
Well yes, but to use it the company will have to give up a lot.
From https://www.makeuseof.com/why-manufacturers-dont-use-tesla-superchargers/:
Tesla offers its patents free of charge and won't launch a lawsuit against any company using them. This sounds great, but this only applies to companies acting in "good faith", as defined Tesla's Patent Pledge. This clause has significant business implications and explains why many haven't utilized Tesla's patents.
According to Nicholas Collura, an attorney writing for Duane Morris LLP, using Tesla's patents forfeits a company's right to bring action against Tesla for any form of copyright infringement—not just in relation to the patents. Essentially, if Tesla stole a company's software code, that company would need to give up any protections offered under Tesla's Patent Pledge to pursue legal action.
Furthermore, and even more importantly, using Tesla's patents means that a company cannot assert its own patent right against any other electric vehicle company. This is especially risky for companies that rely on patents to gain a competitive edge.
The terms also deem that a company can't challenge any Tesla patent, including those outside of the Patent Pledge, nor can it have any financial involvement in a company that does so. Collura notes the vagueness of this, saying that "Tesla could argue that a supplier has a financial stake in its customer's challenge of a Tesla patent."
That's gotta be part of the reason why he joined Threads. To spite Elong.
Standard business practice. Every company create their own proprietary stuff and try to make them the standard via lobbying etc, then earn money from other companies when their stuff becomes the standard.
How is "GNOME is bloat" an objective fact? Maybe to you GNOME is bloat because you don't use it. But they use GNOME, so it's not bloat to them.
Conversely, if they don't use XFCE, then having XFCE installed by default is a bloat to them.
Don't be so dense.
And they say Lemmy will not become Reddit. Pfft. The culture of reading only the headline and immediately take the rage bait is already seeping in.
Maybe I shouldn't have said all, but it's annoying to me when the they put a "k" in the name in a very awkward way just because it's an KDE app.
Seems like I'm the outlier here that prefers Gnome over KDE. Gnome feels more polished than KDE for me. Granted KDE comes with more features out of the box, but I don't find anything lacking in Gnome for me.
Tried KDE long time ago to compare it to Gnome 3, went back to Gnome. Tried KDE again a few months ago to compare to Gnome 42, came back to Gnome again.
I also can't stand having all my programs' name starting with K.
A Google search for "France phone camera" only gives this posted link and dailymail.co.uk article, both of which are not really trustworthy sources, IMO.
So I'm gonna go with "this is very possibly fake news".
France passes bill to allow police to remotely activate phone camera and microphone to spy on people
A Google search for "France phone camera" only gives this posted link and dailymail.co.uk article, both of which are not really trustworthy sources, IMO.
So I'm gonna go with "this is very possibly fake news".
Agree. People like to act like Lemmy is a utopia where privacy is always protected and what not. The fact is when it comes down to it, the admins have to comply with the law. If a warrant shows up at their door, they got no choice but to give up information.