EMIRELADERO
A good thought to keep in mind about Anthropic:
> "Anthropic believes that they are the ones who should have final say over how Anthropic is used; given that they think only they should be developing leading edge AI, they by extension think that only they should have final say over AI generally. When you further combine this realization with the company’s pronouncements about AI’s ability to conduct all economic activity, you realize that Anthropic’s leadership effectively wants to have power over everything and everyone."
Source: https://stratechery.com/2026/anthropics-safety-superpower/
You educate/culture it out of them, which is what the Nordics, and Western Europe more generally, choose to do. Seems to be working fine so far.
Can you elaborate on this? How does cultural homogeneity relate to the State being able to ditch retributive principles?
> When heinous criminals get to live out their days, people feel that justice is not being done, breeding vigilantes and unrest. Especially when they get released early, but even if they are never released.
That just seems like a problem for education, no? If people are told by their teachers and other figures of authority that retribution isn't good, that should be enough. Again that's how the Nordics do it and it seems to be working out for them.
At the end of the day, the death penalty's only possible justification is retribution. It does not deter crime and incapacitation of the criminal can already be achieved by locking them up. Your logic presupposes that "an eye for an eye" is a legitimate philosophy for a modern State to hold, which is reprehensible.
There's no connection between "protect[ing] people" and "vengeance", The latter is not necessary for the former.
The retributive instinct should not be "fed" by the State. It is perfectly normal to have that feeling, but we should recognize it for what it is and let it stay as such. You might think this isn't possible or stable but the Nordics would prove you wrong.
"As we get closer to building AI, it will make sense to start being less open. The Open in OpenAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it's totally OK to not share the science (even though sharing everything is definitely the right strategy in the short and possibly medium term for recruitment purposes)."
-Ilya Sutskever (email to Elon musk and Sam Altman, 2016)
No it's not. There has never been a case establishing that, and it's absurd on its face. The protection measures that the law makes illegal to break must control access to a copyrighted work, and you can't copyright functionality.
At the top of what? After all the massacres the remaining billionaires and their families would be all that's left of humanity. Who would want to rule over a human-empty, machine-led Earth for the rest of their lives? Not to mention the attitude and morality of their families and those close to them.
Apple can charge for API use in the sense that they physically can, not in the sense that the law only allows that arrangement.
The law does not forbid people from developing unauthorized accessories to products, full stop. It only protects IP from being redistributed.
The hook that allows Apple to charge for API usage by developers is a technical one, not a legal one.
And there's no need to go for the ad-hominems that you have been going for since the beginning. Why such hostility?
That would be illegal, yes, but for an entirely different reason (DRM bypass to get copyrighted material), not because it's calling an existing API. It's not the case for 99% of apps.
> In any case, you're still ignoring distribution. You start with the assumption that a binary is already on the iPhone. The technology is already inside the iPhone, but the third-party app is not. Distribution is an entirely different legal matter than personal use.
The third-party app does not contain any Apple-owned or licensed technology just because it's programmed to make use of it once inside a phone, and there's no IP right to control distribution of material that uses proprietary technology if that technology is not actually in the distributed material. The only barrier is Apple's own actions in how they programmed iOS to reject unsigned code and their developer program, not a legal one based on IP.
Because calling APIs is not a "use" of the technology that IP laws would cover. Having a binary call a proprietary API but not actually containing the underlying technology that makes that API possible is not a derivative work. The technology is already inside the iPhone, the apps just call it in a very specific way, and since IP laws only regulate distribution of the technology itself, the third-party developer isn't doing anything illegal.
I was referring to the distribution of the licensed technologies by Apple to the hardware purchasers. Returning to your own interpretation though, the hypothetical community SDK wouldn't contain proprietary code, so the distribution aspect is solved there. It's the same principle by which homebrew game console scenes work, or how you can build Windows software on Linux without touching any Microsoft code.
> This doesn't answer my question. I asked which fee needed to be waived. There is no fee to get Xcode, so there's nothing to be waived by opting out.
The waiver scenario is meant in the context of Apple using the 5% and $99 fees as payment for the maintenance/R&D of the official dev experience. The fees would be waived because the dev isn't making any use of those tools in a hypothetical FOSS SDK.
This point was never raised in any of those cases. Apple just did aome hand-waving "IP compensation" justification and everyone just went along with it, because the case wasn't about that particular point.
> Apple itself has to pay license fees for some technologies in iPhone
And such costs are more than made up for by hardware sales. The only reason this persists is because of greed, not because it's essential to profitability.
> and those licenses do not automatically extend to third-party developers via the consumer. It's not a license agreement with the consumer.
They don't need to extend them because the consumer is already entitled to use those technologies merely by having purchased the device. That entitlement comes from the fact that they get legal copies of the technologies when they take posession of the hardware. IP rights regulate distribution, not consumption.
As for the rest of your comment, the overall problem is the requiremet to deal with Apple at all, the $99 fee and the 5% commission are just the cherry on top.
They have the technical ability to prevent me from running the code I want, and they exercise that ability for that purpose. They're not a passive actor in this situation, they explicitly block me from doing things that they themselves can do, even after the sale.
Again, this should be a concern merely because of the power imbalance.
> That's a choice for them to make. You might then say that Coca-Cola is forcing supermarkets to carry their product because customers want to buy them.
Not the same thing at all. The mobile app market is a top-level one in a way the Coca-Cola one is not. Apple is controlling a huge amount of commerce for products that have nothing to do with them, besides being digital accessories to iDevices.
The better analogy would be: there are only two store companies in the entire US. If you want to sell any product at all, of any category (silverware, food, lawnmowers etc) you must contract with them and there's no other way, and anyone who wants to purchase any product whatsoever only has those two options.
No, because Apple chooses to prevent me from controlling the device the way I want. The skill involved is about finding holes in the system, not in enabling an "expert mode" or something.
The imbalance of power is itself a problem. A hardware manufacturer should be legally prohibited from designing their devices in such a way that they retain more control over them post-sale than the actual owner. Device ownership should mean maximum control over code execution.
> Who was forced to buy an iPhone?
Nobody, but I'm not a free market absolutist.
> Who was forced to develop for Apple devices?
Every developer who wants to cater to ~half of the mobile user population (~85% if it's young Americans)
A restaurant is private property, you're just a customer in someone else's turf. An iPhone (and the individual iOS copy inside it that provides the advertised functionality) is the intellectual property of Apple, but also the private property of the user, and it is the traditional property ownership status that determines who gets to interact with the functionality. Apple is unfairly forcing themselves into the dev-user relationship here.