Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Wins Hyperlink TV Pause Battle
TripMaster Monkey writes "The Register is running an interesting story on a patent recently granted to Microsoft. This patent, which covers 'pausing television programming in response to selection of hypertext link', among other things, has been in contention for over twelve years, and the language used in the patent reveals its age ('The Internet has recently exploded in popularity,' and, 'a computer user with a modem can get on-line.'). Despite its age, however, this patent, which covers 35 claims in all, will be of major importance in the impending IPTV battle in the States."
Cupidity = excessive desire, especially for wealth. And The Register is heavily dependant on Microsoft for advertising. No connection of course.
I didn't look/read the patent but alot of this crap is getting passed that's really obvious. What's happening is that there's now a race to "think" about what might be handy to do and then patent that even though anybody else knowledgeable in the field, would come to the same conclusion if put the the task. What really sucks is that companies like Microsoft, with tons of cash, can afford to throw lawyers at anybody they want to in order to shut them down or steal/buy their technology.
Anyways, since Tivo already has the ability to pause and you can go to another information/data page/display while the video is still feeding the DVR buffer, there shouldn't be anything to this. A URL is no different than an onscreen or offscreen button IMO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Hmm, Dada has been entirely consistent in his description of coercive and non-coercive monoplies. They are not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination. (errm, wait, I forgot where I was.)
As Dada has stated and restated - coercive monopolies require the use of force to perpetuate. Usually this means government force - but could mean illegal use of force by the entity. Note that I said Illegal use of force. There are legal barriers to entry eg the Bell System you mentioned. Bell couldn't have behaved as they did with out the fed's gun supporting them.
A non-coercive monopoly could be based on any of several factors for it's existence. Generally - a better product, better service, better business strategy. No legal barriers to entry into the market. They exist because they do it better than everyone else. What remedy would you propose? That they publicise their processes for anyone to use? Why should they? If you don't like it, go do it better. Yes they exist and they should be left alone.
FDR
Garet Garrett http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garet_Garrett was one of the most eloquent of his critics. He wrote extensively of what was done, why it was done, how it was done and the ramifications to the Republic - consolidated in 1951 into The Peoples Pottage
Excerpts from part of it, The Revolution Was http://www.rooseveltmyth.com/docs/The_Revolution_W as.html:
"one thing takes the place of another, so that the ancient laws will remain, while the power will be in the hands of those who have brought about revolution in the state." -Aristotle
Julius C. Smith, of the American Bar Association, saying: "Is there any labor leader, any businessman, any lawyer or any other citizen of America so blind that he cannot see that this country is drifting at an accelerated pace into administrative absolutism similar to that which prevailed in the governments of antiquity, the governments of the Middle Ages, and in the great totalitarian governments of today? Make no mistake about it. Even as Mussolini and Hitler rose to absolute power under the forms of law... so may administrative absolutism be fastened upon this country within the Constitution and within the forms of law."