Copyright itself is a complex subject, when you apply it to code it gets more complex.

I think this is the format, some parts are split ( maybe some obfuscation attempt )

0-4 month 4-7 year 8-10 hour 11-15 day 22-23 hour 24-29 flags 30-31 year

I might be misunderstanding, but this seems very wrong. your method on the first entry:

  10011011010100101100001101010000
  year = 101 00 (20? year should be 25 or 2025)
  month = 1001 (9, but month is Nov)
  day = 1001 (9, not enough bits to encode large days)
  hour = 01 1 or 01 11 (3, 7, or 14 reversed, should be 11)
  no minute field

ah sorry, when I was debugging I changed the endianness.

  0x9B530150 -> 0x5001539B ->
  01(year_1) 010000(flags) 00(hour_2) 000001(minute) 01010(day) 011(hour_1) 1001(year_2) 1011(month)
  month 1011 -> 11
  year  01 1001 -> 25
  day = 01010 -> 10
  hour = 011 00 -> 12
  minute = 000001 -> 1


 with no endianness change should be: 

 1001(year_2) 1011(month) 01010(day) 01100(hour) 000001(minute) 01(year_1) 010000(flags)

 with your data:

 1001(year_2) 1011(month) 01010(day) 01011 (hour) 000011(minute) 01(year_1) 010000(flags)
 
 16+9=25       11            10        11              3

Isn't this same as Fortnite windows situation?; windows allows exe but Epic still forces the store.

Illegally = like smoking weed in Amsterdam

Except few countries, all EU countries tolerate this

Although the EES biometric system that just got added is intended to crack down on this

Despite being required to, most crossings I did recently did not use it, though

I think it is more for overstays. Years ago when I asked about my stayed days ( I was traveling a lot ) , border guard took passport and tried to count then gave up

I think it depends; speculating but probably volte is a very complicated spec with many optional enhancements ( think ssl with cipher types )

So carrier can choose to whitelist/blacklist phones depending on extensions available

> whitelist/blacklist phones depending on extensions available

That would be, I believe, fine. Those are capabilities-based restrictions.

From my point of view, the issue would be if the same phone worked with the same technology over the same mobile network when connected via a carrier A but the same phone on the same network refused to work with the same technology when connected via a carrier B.

> From my point of view, the issue would be if the same phone worked with the same technology over the same mobile network when connected via a carrier A but the same phone on the same network refused to work with the same technology when connected via a carrier B.

But thats the whole point of carrier profiles ( If I didn't understand wrong. )

Eventually it is the carrier who decides what you can do. ( this can also may be related to deals they made with manufacturers )

I think in this case, it is just missing carrier profile. ( which is like a config file )

Yeah but those times were easy. Now drivers are binary blobs and firmwares basically.

I think it is kind of levels:

"can't participate in society without a mobile phone" "can't participate in society without internet" "can't participate in society without google"

not sure where is the logical correct threshold making it wrong. because we all accept maybe people not participating without internet.

Clearly the logical threshold is when a single private corporation becomes the gatekeeper to your life. The internet itself is decentralized so that's fine. Mobile phones as a concept is also fine.

Almost. Having access to the internet requires a device, or public computer if available. A just society would at least maintain ability to interact with all government services through in-person and through post office. Universal access.

At least in some countries you can use a public computer at a library or other government-provided institution. I agree that it ideally shouldn't be required though.

This seems to be percieved as an explicit intended loophole. I've seen contests where they say "for free entry, go to website..." followed with "internet access can be obtained at libraries".

Obviously, the idea of "you don't have to pay to participate" has a strong legal footing, but I have to wonder if they can find a way to pivot that to "I don't have to acquire an Android/iOS device". Maybe they would develop a kiosk-mode version of the OS that will run apps tethered to a placeholder library account.

> At least in some countries you can use a public computer at a library or other government-provided institution

...for now, at least.

I hope people can see what I am saying here, but this is just what the Affordable Health Care Act was in the United States. The government forced up to buy health insurance from private companies, and no one saw a problem with that.

So having health care was dependent on a private third party.

I don't think it's an issue to require Internet to participate in society, just like it wouldn't be an issue to require a mobile phone if you can use any phone (including a Linux phone or degoogled Android).

The problem is that now you need a phone with Apple or Google software running it.

> not sure where is the logical correct threshold making it wrong

This can't be more clear: Forcing to use the duopoly is against the competition and is totally wrong.

I meant a bit like: Let's say you have 2 mobile phone operators in your country ( duopoly ) we are ok that for example using SMS for banking interaction ( second factor etc )

I think this is a process; and somehow slowly people accepting those levels, and in a society it becomes normal ( to have whatsapp for friend group, to have facebook for family photos etc etc ) and you are being left out eventually if you are outside of those norms.

So it is not so different for bank to require something like google provided software.

I think if we accept that market concentration for essential services cannot alawys be avoided, there must be an obligation for these companies to provide those services to everyone.

The difficult part is how to guarantee this right without opening the floodgates for all sorts of scammers and organised criminals.

We need some sort of due process proportional in cost to the effects of account terminations (or rejections) on people's lives.

Isn't this how utilities are regulated?

In the UK some utilities do have a legal duty to supply.

I'm not familiar with the details though, so I have no idea what happens if someone is accused of having violated their terms of service. I think there are different rules for different utilities.

Okay, but as the owner then I should at the very least be allowed to load my own signing keys for the boot-rom to load other software. Like what if I want to run/port linux to the device. A locked down boot-loader deprives me of full enjoyment of the use of my tangible property.

That is totally fair.

...but we're conspicuously not implementing that feature. So take it, leave it, or build your own phone.

By the way, if you do go down the route of building your own phone, pedophiles, drug dealers, and terrorists will use it, and you're now on the hook to do something about it.

...Back to square one.

That silly pedophile point is getting old. Most victims of pedophiles are part of their own family or social circles. In a majority of cases no phone or even the internet is involved to commit the crime.

We could ban the internet completely and minors wouldn't be any safer.

In Catalonia they're now arresting people with GraphemeOS on suspicion of being drug dealers because only drug dealers would use secure phones.

Which is a great advertisement for GrapheneOS.

No they're not. Please cite a single source of this happening.

There were unofficial statements made by third party android news sites that Catalan police claimed that "Every time we see a Google Pixel, we think it could be a drug dealer"... which, while obviously wrong on its own, is completely different than claiming they are actually arresting people on suspicion of drug dealing merely by using GrapheneOS.

Please stop spreading misinformation.

If you consider developer has the right to determine who runs their software, it is actually.

My last 10 apk installs:

- 9 apps not available in the local store - 1 app I changed some setting in the manifest

For less technical people it will also include some shady apk's for example promising free La Liga match broadcast but then scraping everything from phone.

I've found myself having to sideload more apps in Android lately, simply because they didn't update and were removed by Google from the Play Store. Great apps that worked for years and did what I needed them to do are now no longer good enough because the developer didn't choose to stay on a ridiculous treadmill.

> presence of the established mark "Deepkit"

I think this is the key point, according to EU it is not

No, according to the EU there is no documentation that any of "hundreds of thousands" of users are located in the EU.

In neither case is it relevant to the idea that it is "reasonable" for Deepki to desire to use their mark in coexistence with the mark "Deepkit". Your argument is that they didn't want coexistence because the other mark didn't exist.