airglow

@airglow@lemmy.world

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. For a complete list of posts, browse on the original instance.

airglow ,

Let's say you want to buy a printer from a retailer. The retailer also sells replacement ink cartridges, and so does the printer manufacturer. The manufacturer prefers that you buy the ink cartridges directly from them, because their margins are higher when they don't have to pay the retailer a cut.

To encourage customers to buy the cartridges directly from them, the manufacturer provides a link or QR code to their online ink cartridge store on the product box, printer manual, and another paper insert inside the box. The manufacturer might offer more competitive pricing than the retailer or some other enticement, like a coupon.

However, the retailer implements an anti-steering rule, preventing the printer manufacturer from providing a link or QR code to their online ink cartridge store on the product packaging, printer manual, or anything inside the box, as a requirement for the printer to appear on the retailer's shelves. (As a result of corporate consolidation, there is only one other retailer in the entire country.) This is the equivalent of what Apple is doing to apps in their App Store: preventing developers from disclosing that users can purchase subscriptions or other app-related digital goods on the developer's website.

Lemmy.ml tankie censorship problem

I feel like we need to talk about Lemmy's massive tankie censorship problem. A lot of popular lemmy communities are hosted on lemmy.ml. It's been well known for a while that the admins/mods of that instance have, let's say, rather extremist and onesided political views. In short, they're what's colloquially referred to as...

airglow ,

I don't think that's the case. The v0.19.0 release notes say:

Instance Blocks for Users

Users can now block instances. Similar to community blocks, it means that any posts from communities which are hosted on that instance are hidden. However the block doesn’t affect users from the blocked instance, their posts and comments can still be seen normally in other communities.

airglow , (edited )

Based on the statements Google previously made, Google most likely sent a check for a fraction of the damages that a jury could find them liable for.

It's unclear just how big the check was. The court filing redacted key figures to protect Google's trade secrets. But Google claimed that testimony from US experts "shrank" the damages estimate "considerably" from initial estimates between $100 million and $300 million, suggesting that the current damages estimate is "substantially less" than what the US has paid so far in expert fees to reach those estimates.

According to Reuters, Google has not disclosed "the size of its payment" but has said that "after months of discovery, the Justice Department could only point to estimated damages of less than $1 million."

A fine of less than $1 million is absolutely not what anyone except Google is asking for.

airglow , (edited )

Only Google is claiming that the damages are less than $1 million. You're taking Google's self-interested claim as fact while overlooking Google's financial motivation to pay less than what they owe, which a jury could find to be in the hundreds of millions. For obvious reasons, court judgments aren't decided by the defendants.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •