Patents are only supposed to be awarded for inventions that would not be obvious to an expert in the field. Doesn't that mean that every patent should be REQUIRED to be reviewed by an EXPERT in the field, as well as having a prior art check done? Seems like all they do now is a quick prior art check and then award the patent. This goes entirely against what the patent system was supposed to do for us. We're now being prohibited from using obvious techniques and business methods. This is part of what is so screwed up about the patent system.
Re:patent "problem" is part of something much bigg
on
Do Patents Still Work?
·
· Score: 2
It seems to me that the Constitution is quite vague about the power it gives Congress with respect to copyright. What is a limited time?
It doesn't explicitly give Congress the power to retroactively extend copyright terms, but it doesn't explicitly prohibit it either. You have any idea how the courts have looked at this kind of thing in the past? Doesn't it mean that the power goes to the states if it isn't specifically given to Congress by the Constitution? Or have they used the "interstate commerce" wildcard again? Btw, I've forgotten what amicus briefs are. Fill me in?
Wouldn't they have to be almost exactly identical for it to be a copyright violation? If the code is significantly different, could it still be a copyright violation even if the games look similar? I'm not sure I even understand what the hell copyright is anymore. It's getting all bent out of shape.
I'm not disagreeing that there is a place for proprietary software. As long as that proprietary software doensn't contain GPL'd or other OS licensed code, I don't have a problem with it.
Is it preferable to have the Library of Congress innaccessible to the majority of the country? Most people can't afford, time or money-wise, a trip to D.C. to read a book. It would be idiotic not to digitize the books. It's not like we'll be tossing the originals out when we're finished. They'll still be there, but now the rest of us will be able to do the research we want to do without having to come up with the time or money to make a trip to D.C.
And I would have if I'd known that I'd be hit with a hail of gross generalizations. You must be exposed to a different sort of company than I work for.
I'm talking about people wanting to move to a new distro that is just like their current distro. If RedHat were to close up the code somehow, many people would want to move to something else. It makes sense to move to another distro that is just like your current distro so that nothing breaks (more than usual). I'm not sure what your comment has to do with the comment I made.
In this hypothetical situation, who is going to stop them?
The people who hold the copyrights to the code that RedHat is trying to unlawfully use. They would likely be represented by the FSF.
Sorry but I have yet to meet a manager that gives a damn about OPEN. There is a reason that MS is still selling products.
No, the reason MS is still selling products is that they have a virtual monopoly on the file formats that people are locked into using in order to communicate reliably. A second reason is that until recently there were no good alternatives to MS Office. Now good alternatives exist, but maintaining file format compatibility will probably be a challenge.
If such a hypothetical situation did occur, a new Distro would be right where the small distro's are now, fighting for there 3% against the RedHat 80%.
Sure, at first. But if they are using the EXACT SAME CODE that RedHat is using, then moving to the new distro would be simple as well as being a good financial decision.
As for managers caring about "open", I think that if they are smart they will care, and if they are not, they will soon be seen as fools by those who are smart. Then the fools will eventually see the error of their ways or be replaced because they are financially harming the company. Granted, how the situation will play out depends a lot on the size of the company, and whether it is publicly or privately held, but I think there will be a general consensus at some point that all things being equal, open is better than closed. It's common sense.
By the definition you're using, ALL code is proprietary unless it is public domain. I don't see Caldera putting their code in the public domain, so until they do that, they have no right to complain about Open Source software being "proprietary."
Couldn't happen like that. If RedHat did try to close everything up, nevermind the fact that they can't actually do this because they didn't write all, or even most of the code, the complete source for everything up til that point is available. Some other enterprising group would pick up where RedHat left off and create a new, OPEN, distro that offers all the same features as RedHat's distro, but has the added advantage of being open, which prevents lock-in. That would likely be more appealing to a company than an equivalent, but proprietary product.
You're not allowed to just distribute it any way you want, so it is in fact - CLOSED AND PROPRIETARY.
Nothing about Linux is closed, period. The GPL does not make Linux proprietary. It does place restrictions on the distribution of code that you got from someone else and then modified. This is what makes Open Source work. If anyone could make changes and distribute the result without source, then nobody else could make changes to that code and distribute the resultant code. You're saying that you should be able to take away the very thing that allowed you to create the piece of software that you now want to protect. If you want to protect it so badly, then write the whole thing yourself and don't take advantage of someone else's work without giving anything back.
If you feel that it is ok to take someone else's code and then make it proprietary, and that's exactly what you're talking about, then you have no reason for using Open Source code in the first place. It is obviously not compatible with your desire to distribute proprietary, CLOSED software.
Seems like Unisys is charging way too much now and everybody is sick of it. I expect GIF to be phased out by major sites that actually have to purchase a license for it. Smaller sites will probably continue to use them just because they are unlikely to be noticed by Unisys. With Mozilla supporting png, and MSIE probably supporting it too (I have no idea what the status is on MSIE, does it support png already?), sites won't have to use the GIF format anymore and Unisys will have just priced itself out of the game for the remaining years of its patent.
I wouldn't mind them using demographic info, as long as it's only used in an aggregate form. I don't want my demographic info being associated with my identity. That begs for abuse. Targeting is going to be done whether they have data to go on or not. This could help them be more certain of what sort of people are watching. It won't help them make any better assumptions about what those people are interested in or are likely to buy.
This is exactly what I figured was happening when the ISPs banned users from using Napster even though they weren't going over their bandwidth limit. If they aren't going over their limit, then what's the problem? The ISP wasn't even threatened as far as I can tell, so why ban the servers unless they were just using up more bandwidth than the ISP wanted them to use even though the users were promised more than they were using.
And people need to understand that if they support giving the government more power, that power is going to eventually be used for things that they don't support.
This is very true.:) I see all these special interest groups trying to get the government to pass laws to further their interests and I have to wonder if they've really thought about what they're asking. I think the problem is that people have grown too dependent on the government. When they want something done, the first thing they do is run to the government and demand that it do something to get whatever it is done.
Now, like the previous poster said, if something can be done, then the power to do it must rest somewhere. I'll take it a step further and say that I don't think you can even take the power away from corporations anyway. You can only keep them from using that power with the threat of greater power that can be brought to bear against them. This is why we need government. Without it, we end up with a bunch of little governments that provide us with a lot less protection. A cyberpunk future where mega-corporations serve as regional governments is not that farfetched. The real problem, as I see it, is that we don't feel we have much control over our government, and that it is more influenced by money than by sensible arguments. This will only get worse I fear. The education system in this country is in a pitiful state. If it keeps going the way it is now, it won't be much longer before the populace can't even comprehend the issues, let alone have an informed opinion on which to base their voting decisions. We already see this a lot today. Look at all the people who weigh in with their opinion on the Microsoft trial. How many of them read the trial transcripts or investigated Microsoft's history? How many even understood what the case was about? Now, realize that the same problem exists for political issues. The way the government obfuscates the issues doesn't help matters either. The whole debate about how the "surplus" should be spent was a perfect, and particularly sickening example. Without much much better education, the country will soon be completely ruled by the elite few that can afford to attend the best schools. The rest won't even be able to understand what's going on and will make their decisions based on which political group has the best commercials. If I were the Democrats, I'd get the Bud frogs and lizards on my side now.
After reading Lawrence Lessig's book, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, it was painfully clear to me that technology alone would make the Net into what we want it to be. In fact, relying on technology alone would doom efforts to keep the Net open and free.
Like it or not, the government and corporations are the ones that will be deciding the future of the Net unless enough people take an interest in keeping it a free zone. Technology can't do it alone because technology is subject to regulation. Crypto is the perfect example. The police may not be able to determine whether you're guilty of a crime or not if you encrypt your communications, but if the government decided that you should be assumed guilty if you try to hide your communications, or if you refuse to decrypt your communications, then you're screwed either way. This is not that farfetched. Check out Britain, leading the free world in bad Net regulation.
The point is that Neil, Tim, and the rest are correct. Without the social structures to support our privacy, there is no way to guarantee it. Btw, I highly recommend Lessig's book. It's not that big, go read it. He makes a lot of sense. I plan to read it again this summer, just so I'll have more time to really think about some of the things he's saying.
"People like Katz are so set in their ways that very little can be done to change their mindset. It's unfortunate, but true."
Actually, Jon was putting forth well-reasoned arguments and supporting facts, not just saying that WAVE is bad and should be scrapped. The difference between his opinion and Pinkerton's opinion is that he supported his opinion. Pinkerton never rebutted most of his arguments, they just said it wasn't their problem or that some task force decided it was a good program. That's why Jon reasoned that there was no budging them on the issue because they are a corporate entity and they smell profits. They obviously weren't interested in a debate on the morality or responsibility involved in their program. They just want to move forward in a way that will create as little controversy as possible, thereby not jeopardizing their profits.
So, Katz isn't being close-minded, Pinkerton just didn't even try to put forth an argument to change his mind.
but they seem to forget that the underlying philosophy of the American system has historically been Hippocratic: First, do no harm.
I actually considered that there is some benefit to a perpetually semi-paralyzed government, but I think that there comes a point where it's gone downhill far enough that we need a real change. We can't get that with the current system. When I think of a better voting system, I think of a cascading-vote type system. You rank the candidates from your favorite down to the one whom you would not let pet your dog. Then, the votes are tallied and the candidates who got the fewest votes are tossed out and those ballots are re-counted using the next-favorite candidate that is still in the race. Repeat until you have a winner. This system would still allow people to vote for the status-quo if they feel it is doing a good job. Fringe interests still won't have that much influence, but a widely-appreciated third-party candidate would have a much better chance of getting into office simply because people wouldn't fear wasting their vote by voting for him.
Umm... can you give me an example of a software company that doesn't play hardball like MS?
Software companies, just like any other type, are free to play hardball if they want, unless they are a monopoly, at which point they play by a different set of rules. There is good reason for this. The US, more than any other nation I can think of, demands that its companies compete. Many other nations are much more protective of their "champion" corporations. They do what they can to shield them from competition. That's one reason why our economy is so strong and we are a major center of innovation. We don't let our corporations get so fat and happy that they lose their edge, or at least if they do get that way, we don't try to protect them from the consequences (usually, although there have been some significant exceptions where corps have been bailed out by the government).
Microsoft has a monopoly on desktop operating systems. While that is not illegal, it is not considered to be beneficial to competition or our economy in general. That is why we have anti-trust laws. Under those laws, Microsoft is not allowed to use its monopoly power to prevent competitors from entering and competing in that market. They are not allowed to create artificial barriers to entry. They are not allowed to leverage their monopoly in one market to try to dominate another market. They are not allowed to "play hardball" like non-monopoly companies. This is for the good of competition. We assume that competition is good for innovation and for consumers because it helps produce the best products at the best prices.
I'd suggest that a new set of rules was in order, but govt. restraint of the software industry will only slow the economy and the progress of technology.
I don't see how people can go throwing these kinds of assumptions around when history shows us exactly the opposite. Go read this article and get back to me. It's not specifically about Microsoft, or even anti-trust in general. It's about open access to infrastructure, namely phone and cable networks, but it does help to illustrate why regulation is often the best way to keep innovation alive rather than leaving it up to a single corp or handful of corps. We make the rules based on what serves the country best, not what serves the big corporations best. These corporations have no deity-given rights to protection from our government. We decided to give them certain protections and privileges, but it is done on our terms. The terms that serve the country. Now, it hasn't always worked, but we've gotten this far and we're doing better than most. I don't think that anti-trust laws or regulation in general should be chucked out the window just because people don't want to offend the country's biggest... err second biggest corporation. Yes they've been wildly successful. They also broke many laws to keep themselves on top and to get rid of the competition. That doesn't fly here, or at least it shouldn't. It remains to be seen whether Microsoft can buy a political fix for its legal problems.
Yet here we all are reading Slashdot, using an OS(Linux) we got for free that is eating at Microsofts share.
Saying that we shouldn't use Linux because its getting in the way of profits that should rightfully belong to Microsoft is like saying we should all stop breathing because nobody is getting rich even though we are consuming oxygen. Ok, so it's not exactly the same. The point is that if it can be made or had for free, or very cheaply, then it will be hard to make money on it. In this case, distributed effort has helped to produce a very good operating system that can be had for very little cost. Operating systems aren't the only products affected by this. Try selling ice to an eskimo sometime.
The best thing we could do to solve the MS problem is to ignore them.
Ignoring them would be foolish in the extreme. Doing so would simply allow them to build more and more artificial dependency into their products and raise the cost more and more for a company to switch to something else. If we stand idly by while Microsoft works even harder to achieve a stronger customer lock-in, we will end up losing a lot of ground. If Microsoft is allowed to own the standards, how can anyone else compete?
By going to the government and asking them to solve this, we are inviting the government in to regulate everything, including Linux and Open Source.
You talk like the DOJ is moving into new territory here or something. Anti-trust laws have been on the books for over 100 years. This is nothing new. It's not opening any new doors or creating any new type of regulation. They are simply enforcing the law. As I said before, the US bases its laws on the assumption that competition is good. Therefore, a lack of competition is bad, and attempting to use monopoly power to maintain that lack of competition is illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
Patents are only supposed to be awarded for inventions that would not be obvious to an expert in the field. Doesn't that mean that every patent should be REQUIRED to be reviewed by an EXPERT in the field, as well as having a prior art check done? Seems like all they do now is a quick prior art check and then award the patent. This goes entirely against what the patent system was supposed to do for us. We're now being prohibited from using obvious techniques and business methods. This is part of what is so screwed up about the patent system.
It seems to me that the Constitution is quite vague about the power it gives Congress with respect to copyright. What is a limited time?
It doesn't explicitly give Congress the power to retroactively extend copyright terms, but it doesn't explicitly prohibit it either. You have any idea how the courts have looked at this kind of thing in the past? Doesn't it mean that the power goes to the states if it isn't specifically given to Congress by the Constitution? Or have they used the "interstate commerce" wildcard again? Btw, I've forgotten what amicus briefs are. Fill me in?
Wouldn't they have to be almost exactly identical for it to be a copyright violation? If the code is significantly different, could it still be a copyright violation even if the games look similar? I'm not sure I even understand what the hell copyright is anymore. It's getting all bent out of shape.
I'm not disagreeing that there is a place for proprietary software. As long as that proprietary software doensn't contain GPL'd or other OS licensed code, I don't have a problem with it.
Is it preferable to have the Library of Congress innaccessible to the majority of the country? Most people can't afford, time or money-wise, a trip to D.C. to read a book. It would be idiotic not to digitize the books. It's not like we'll be tossing the originals out when we're finished. They'll still be there, but now the rest of us will be able to do the research we want to do without having to come up with the time or money to make a trip to D.C.
And I would have if I'd known that I'd be hit with a hail of gross generalizations. You must be exposed to a different sort of company than I work for.
I never said RedHat == Linux.
I'm talking about people wanting to move to a new distro that is just like their current distro. If RedHat were to close up the code somehow, many people would want to move to something else. It makes sense to move to another distro that is just like your current distro so that nothing breaks (more than usual). I'm not sure what your comment has to do with the comment I made.
In this hypothetical situation, who is going to stop them?
The people who hold the copyrights to the code that RedHat is trying to unlawfully use. They would likely be represented by the FSF.
Sorry but I have yet to meet a manager that gives a damn about OPEN. There is a reason that MS is still selling products.
No, the reason MS is still selling products is that they have a virtual monopoly on the file formats that people are locked into using in order to communicate reliably. A second reason is that until recently there were no good alternatives to MS Office. Now good alternatives exist, but maintaining file format compatibility will probably be a challenge.
If such a hypothetical situation did occur, a new Distro would be right where the small distro's are now, fighting for there 3% against the RedHat 80%.
Sure, at first. But if they are using the EXACT SAME CODE that RedHat is using, then moving to the new distro would be simple as well as being a good financial decision.
As for managers caring about "open", I think that if they are smart they will care, and if they are not, they will soon be seen as fools by those who are smart. Then the fools will eventually see the error of their ways or be replaced because they are financially harming the company. Granted, how the situation will play out depends a lot on the size of the company, and whether it is publicly or privately held, but I think there will be a general consensus at some point that all things being equal, open is better than closed. It's common sense.
By the definition you're using, ALL code is proprietary unless it is public domain. I don't see Caldera putting their code in the public domain, so until they do that, they have no right to complain about Open Source software being "proprietary."
Couldn't happen like that. If RedHat did try to close everything up, nevermind the fact that they can't actually do this because they didn't write all, or even most of the code, the complete source for everything up til that point is available. Some other enterprising group would pick up where RedHat left off and create a new, OPEN, distro that offers all the same features as RedHat's distro, but has the added advantage of being open, which prevents lock-in. That would likely be more appealing to a company than an equivalent, but proprietary product.
You're not allowed to just distribute it any way you want, so it is in fact - CLOSED AND PROPRIETARY.
Nothing about Linux is closed, period. The GPL does not make Linux proprietary. It does place restrictions on the distribution of code that you got from someone else and then modified. This is what makes Open Source work. If anyone could make changes and distribute the result without source, then nobody else could make changes to that code and distribute the resultant code. You're saying that you should be able to take away the very thing that allowed you to create the piece of software that you now want to protect. If you want to protect it so badly, then write the whole thing yourself and don't take advantage of someone else's work without giving anything back.
If you feel that it is ok to take someone else's code and then make it proprietary, and that's exactly what you're talking about, then you have no reason for using Open Source code in the first place. It is obviously not compatible with your desire to distribute proprietary, CLOSED software.
Seems like Unisys is charging way too much now and everybody is sick of it. I expect GIF to be phased out by major sites that actually have to purchase a license for it. Smaller sites will probably continue to use them just because they are unlikely to be noticed by Unisys. With Mozilla supporting png, and MSIE probably supporting it too (I have no idea what the status is on MSIE, does it support png already?), sites won't have to use the GIF format anymore and Unisys will have just priced itself out of the game for the remaining years of its patent.
Just looked at it again and realized they don't actually offer it "at this time." My mistake.
This site does make some suggestions on how to obtain the videos though.
http://www.reel.com/movie.asp?MID=888
I wouldn't mind them using demographic info, as long as it's only used in an aggregate form. I don't want my demographic info being associated with my identity. That begs for abuse. Targeting is going to be done whether they have data to go on or not. This could help them be more certain of what sort of people are watching. It won't help them make any better assumptions about what those people are interested in or are likely to buy.
This is exactly what I figured was happening when the ISPs banned users from using Napster even though they weren't going over their bandwidth limit. If they aren't going over their limit, then what's the problem? The ISP wasn't even threatened as far as I can tell, so why ban the servers unless they were just using up more bandwidth than the ISP wanted them to use even though the users were promised more than they were using.
Doesn't ICQ respond to file requests if you let it?
And people need to understand that if they support giving the government more power, that power is going to eventually be used for things that they don't support.
This is very true. :) I see all these special interest groups trying to get the government to pass laws to further their interests and I have to wonder if they've really thought about what they're asking. I think the problem is that people have grown too dependent on the government. When they want something done, the first thing they do is run to the government and demand that it do something to get whatever it is done.
Now, like the previous poster said, if something can be done, then the power to do it must rest somewhere. I'll take it a step further and say that I don't think you can even take the power away from corporations anyway. You can only keep them from using that power with the threat of greater power that can be brought to bear against them. This is why we need government. Without it, we end up with a bunch of little governments that provide us with a lot less protection. A cyberpunk future where mega-corporations serve as regional governments is not that farfetched. The real problem, as I see it, is that we don't feel we have much control over our government, and that it is more influenced by money than by sensible arguments. This will only get worse I fear. The education system in this country is in a pitiful state. If it keeps going the way it is now, it won't be much longer before the populace can't even comprehend the issues, let alone have an informed opinion on which to base their voting decisions. We already see this a lot today. Look at all the people who weigh in with their opinion on the Microsoft trial. How many of them read the trial transcripts or investigated Microsoft's history? How many even understood what the case was about? Now, realize that the same problem exists for political issues. The way the government obfuscates the issues doesn't help matters either. The whole debate about how the "surplus" should be spent was a perfect, and particularly sickening example. Without much much better education, the country will soon be completely ruled by the elite few that can afford to attend the best schools. The rest won't even be able to understand what's going on and will make their decisions based on which political group has the best commercials. If I were the Democrats, I'd get the Bud frogs and lizards on my side now.
After reading Lawrence Lessig's book, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, it was painfully clear to me that technology alone would make the Net into what we want it to be. In fact, relying on technology alone would doom efforts to keep the Net open and free.
Like it or not, the government and corporations are the ones that will be deciding the future of the Net unless enough people take an interest in keeping it a free zone. Technology can't do it alone because technology is subject to regulation. Crypto is the perfect example. The police may not be able to determine whether you're guilty of a crime or not if you encrypt your communications, but if the government decided that you should be assumed guilty if you try to hide your communications, or if you refuse to decrypt your communications, then you're screwed either way. This is not that farfetched. Check out Britain, leading the free world in bad Net regulation.
The point is that Neil, Tim, and the rest are correct. Without the social structures to support our privacy, there is no way to guarantee it. Btw, I highly recommend Lessig's book. It's not that big, go read it. He makes a lot of sense. I plan to read it again this summer, just so I'll have more time to really think about some of the things he's saying.
"People like Katz are so set in their ways that very little can be done to change their mindset. It's unfortunate, but true."
Actually, Jon was putting forth well-reasoned arguments and supporting facts, not just saying that WAVE is bad and should be scrapped. The difference between his opinion and Pinkerton's opinion is that he supported his opinion. Pinkerton never rebutted most of his arguments, they just said it wasn't their problem or that some task force decided it was a good program. That's why Jon reasoned that there was no budging them on the issue because they are a corporate entity and they smell profits. They obviously weren't interested in a debate on the morality or responsibility involved in their program. They just want to move forward in a way that will create as little controversy as possible, thereby not jeopardizing their profits.
So, Katz isn't being close-minded, Pinkerton just didn't even try to put forth an argument to change his mind.
There would have to be some regulatory remedies as well. A published price list for OEMs would be a real good start.
Yep. That was it. I read at 0, so I didn't see the post he was replying to. My mistake.
but they seem to forget that the underlying philosophy of the American system has historically been Hippocratic: First, do no harm.
I actually considered that there is some benefit to a perpetually semi-paralyzed government, but I think that there comes a point where it's gone downhill far enough that we need a real change. We can't get that with the current system. When I think of a better voting system, I think of a cascading-vote type system. You rank the candidates from your favorite down to the one whom you would not let pet your dog. Then, the votes are tallied and the candidates who got the fewest votes are tossed out and those ballots are re-counted using the next-favorite candidate that is still in the race. Repeat until you have a winner. This system would still allow people to vote for the status-quo if they feel it is doing a good job. Fringe interests still won't have that much influence, but a widely-appreciated third-party candidate would have a much better chance of getting into office simply because people wouldn't fear wasting their vote by voting for him.
Umm... can you give me an example of a software company that doesn't play hardball like MS?
Software companies, just like any other type, are free to play hardball if they want, unless they are a monopoly, at which point they play by a different set of rules. There is good reason for this. The US, more than any other nation I can think of, demands that its companies compete. Many other nations are much more protective of their "champion" corporations. They do what they can to shield them from competition. That's one reason why our economy is so strong and we are a major center of innovation. We don't let our corporations get so fat and happy that they lose their edge, or at least if they do get that way, we don't try to protect them from the consequences (usually, although there have been some significant exceptions where corps have been bailed out by the government).
Microsoft has a monopoly on desktop operating systems. While that is not illegal, it is not considered to be beneficial to competition or our economy in general. That is why we have anti-trust laws. Under those laws, Microsoft is not allowed to use its monopoly power to prevent competitors from entering and competing in that market. They are not allowed to create artificial barriers to entry. They are not allowed to leverage their monopoly in one market to try to dominate another market. They are not allowed to "play hardball" like non-monopoly companies. This is for the good of competition. We assume that competition is good for innovation and for consumers because it helps produce the best products at the best prices.
I'd suggest that a new set of rules was in order, but govt. restraint of the software industry will only slow the economy and the progress of technology.
I don't see how people can go throwing these kinds of assumptions around when history shows us exactly the opposite. Go read this article and get back to me. It's not specifically about Microsoft, or even anti-trust in general. It's about open access to infrastructure, namely phone and cable networks, but it does help to illustrate why regulation is often the best way to keep innovation alive rather than leaving it up to a single corp or handful of corps. We make the rules based on what serves the country best, not what serves the big corporations best. These corporations have no deity-given rights to protection from our government. We decided to give them certain protections and privileges, but it is done on our terms. The terms that serve the country. Now, it hasn't always worked, but we've gotten this far and we're doing better than most. I don't think that anti-trust laws or regulation in general should be chucked out the window just because people don't want to offend the country's biggest... err second biggest corporation. Yes they've been wildly successful. They also broke many laws to keep themselves on top and to get rid of the competition. That doesn't fly here, or at least it shouldn't. It remains to be seen whether Microsoft can buy a political fix for its legal problems.
Yet here we all are reading Slashdot, using an OS(Linux) we got for free that is eating at Microsofts share.
Saying that we shouldn't use Linux because its getting in the way of profits that should rightfully belong to Microsoft is like saying we should all stop breathing because nobody is getting rich even though we are consuming oxygen. Ok, so it's not exactly the same. The point is that if it can be made or had for free, or very cheaply, then it will be hard to make money on it. In this case, distributed effort has helped to produce a very good operating system that can be had for very little cost. Operating systems aren't the only products affected by this. Try selling ice to an eskimo sometime.
The best thing we could do to solve the MS problem is to ignore them.
Ignoring them would be foolish in the extreme. Doing so would simply allow them to build more and more artificial dependency into their products and raise the cost more and more for a company to switch to something else. If we stand idly by while Microsoft works even harder to achieve a stronger customer lock-in, we will end up losing a lot of ground. If Microsoft is allowed to own the standards, how can anyone else compete?
By going to the government and asking them to solve this, we are inviting the government in to regulate everything, including Linux and Open Source.
You talk like the DOJ is moving into new territory here or something. Anti-trust laws have been on the books for over 100 years. This is nothing new. It's not opening any new doors or creating any new type of regulation. They are simply enforcing the law. As I said before, the US bases its laws on the assumption that competition is good. Therefore, a lack of competition is bad, and attempting to use monopoly power to maintain that lack of competition is illegal.
Near as I can tell, he was referring to the article, and a list of some of Microsoft's past transgressions. Which part didn't you understand?