qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 17,865 (2.81/day)
- Location
- Quantum Well UK
| System Name | Quantumville™ |
|---|---|
| Processor | Intel Core i7-2700K @ 4GHz |
| Motherboard | Asus P8Z68-V PRO/GEN3 |
| Cooling | Noctua NH-D14 |
| Memory | 16GB (2 x 8GB Corsair Vengeance Black DDR3 PC3-12800 C9 1600MHz) |
| Video Card(s) | MSI RTX 2080 SUPER Gaming X Trio |
| Storage | Samsung 850 Pro 256GB | WD Black 4TB | WD Blue 6TB |
| Display(s) | ASUS ROG Strix XG27UQR (4K, 144Hz, G-SYNC compatible) | Asus MG28UQ (4K, 60Hz, FreeSync compatible) |
| Case | Cooler Master HAF 922 |
| Audio Device(s) | Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Fatal1ty PCIe |
| Power Supply | Corsair AX1600i |
| Mouse | Microsoft Intellimouse Pro - Black Shadow |
| Keyboard | Yes |
| Software | Windows 10 Pro 64-bit |
When Apple sued Psystar (and eventually won), it had to reveal certain confidential software secrets to the court, which were then kept under court seal. However, those secrets then surfaced - effectively 'pirated' - on a website and made public. Despite this, Apple wants those secrets to remain under court seal as it hasn't officially disclosed them, claiming that they still deserve trade secret protection. However, U.S. Federal District Judge William Alsup disagreed and has denied Apple's bid, saying "Apple cannot have this court seal information merely to avoid confirmation that the publicly available sources got it right." Those trade secrets contained "information about its Mac OS X operating system and computer products, including Apple's technological protection measure, system integrity checks and thermal management techniques, according to court documents." reported Bloomberg.
One might reasonably ask, why bother to keep this under court seal when the information is already out in the open? Well, Apple does have a point here: there is nothing like getting information directly from the source, in this case Apple, as the third party information may well have errors or omissions in it that won't be present from the original source, which only works in Apple's favour. Besides, it's a bit galling for Apple to have to confirm someone's leak, isn't it?
View at TechPowerUp Main Site
One might reasonably ask, why bother to keep this under court seal when the information is already out in the open? Well, Apple does have a point here: there is nothing like getting information directly from the source, in this case Apple, as the third party information may well have errors or omissions in it that won't be present from the original source, which only works in Apple's favour. Besides, it's a bit galling for Apple to have to confirm someone's leak, isn't it?
View at TechPowerUp Main Site
