The browser threatened to make the OS a commodity. If the browser ran on several platforms and could do the same things on all of them, it wouldn't matter what OS you ran. That could kill Windows, which would, in turn, kill their Office monopoly which is where they make their money. That's why Netscape had to go.
MS makes the most profit from their office suite because they control the platform it runs on and nobody can really compete with them there. It's the defacto standard. MS wouldn't last long if it actually had to compete on even ground. I don't think they'll get into Linux in any serious way. There is too much ill will towards them in the Linux community and too much competition right now as well. They wouldn't last.
For free applications to be used over commercial apps they need 150% of the functionality. Cost is not an issue, Microsoft has made a business out of having their software pirated, and benefitted very much so in the long run.
I don't agree that free apps need 150% of the functionality. One of the things that makes them better is that they don't include a bunch of useless junk that almost nobody would ever use. Even somewhat advanced users use only about half of the functionality in MS Office. They don't use any of the other features for 2 main reasons. First, the features are difficult and/or buggy. Second, there are better/easier ways to accomplish the desired effect.
The free office suites don't need all the useless extras in order to compete. They need to do all the basics, and do them better and faster than Microsoft. Then, if other features are needed, they can be added. First and foremost though, the app must be stable and run as fast as possible. Do that and people will use it.
That's a mighty hostile response there. I sense a lot of insecurity eminating from your post. Perhaps you are feeling inadequate because your MSPaperclip rejected you? Now you are bitter and resent others having pleasant relationships with their software.
Just a thought. I could be wrong. Anyway, that wasn't a well thought out response. First of all, you assume that MSOffice allows you to focus on the content rather than screw with the software. Hmm.. obviously you haven't tried to use a toc and section/page numbers in a large document. Even Microsoft execs couldn't do it right for their court statements. Second, you assume that there aren't any office suites for Linux that allow you to focus on content. I think you were wrong on both counts.
Ha!.. just as I'm writing this, Excel just crashed on my boss' computer and took everything with it. Funny.
Tell them to cut the lifespan of software patents down drastically as well. As someone else here stated, "20 years is several lifetimes in the computer industry"(paraphrased). They should last less than 5 years. I think 3 would be ideal.
How about Microsoft patenting CSS. The ideas have been around for years and the W3C (which MS is a member of) was working on the standards and Microsoft just decided to go patent it. Even if they do license it for free, it's still wrong for them to own the patent on something that they didn't invent or even buy and for which examples of prior art exist. It doesn't mean that software patents are evil, but that the current system is woefully inadequate to deal with them due to lack of resources and lack of patent researchers/inspectors (whatever the people at the USPTO are called) who are knowledgeable about computers and software engineering. Basically all the good software engineers can get better (and better paying) jobs, so there aren't any knowledgeable people willing to work for the patent office.
Okay, I think you argued your point pretty well. I don't think your argument defends patents as they exist today very well, but you do make a point that there has to be some incentive or guarantee that you will have an opportunity to profit from your research if it produces something useful in order for real innovation to occur. That I can agree with.
Now the only issue is whether the current system of patents actually works. I don't believe it does. I'm trying to come up with an alternative that is fair to all involved. Not sure if I'll post it here or somewhere else yet.
You say that fifteen programs that do the same thing must use the same algorithm. If that is true, then it's not an invention, it's a law. Like gravity or any mathematical rule you care to name, it isn't created, it is a truth that is discovered. Now I will agree that it takes knowledge and creativity to push the limits in certain areas in order to discover new truths, but if there is only one way of doing something according to the laws of mathematics or physics, the method should not be able to be patented. An invention that is derived from this discovery might patentable, but not the discovery itself. I'm trying to figure out a better way of doing patents anyway, so I may change my mind on some points if I am persuaded by a good argument.
Not just reform minor points. Patents are fine for some industries. I think there should be a new form of protection for the software industry. Something like a patent, but that will last for maybe 3 years and probably have a few other restrictions placed on it as well. I'm trying to figure out the details...
Without knowing what your software does, it would be difficult to argue anything about it, let alone that 2 guys working evenings and weekends could do better.
On the other hand, if you want to be abstract about it, I would say that the guy that took your base code and produced a program that worked "a zillion times better" due to his interface ideas was benefiting consumers more than a government enforced patent on something that may or may not be reproduceable in some other way. Btw, are you now implementing any of the interface ideas that the guy used in the program that he made using your ideas? If you can't honestly answer "no" to that question, then I don't think you get any right to complain about other people stealing your ideas. Patents or no patents, you are either for or against taking other people's ideas and using them in your own software. Which is it?
We _must_still_ protect the legitimate ideas of inventors and programmers with the ability to patent thier ideas. Let's suppose that I came up with the next super-cool K-rad encryption algorythm. Sure I may be able to get a product out first, but what's to prevent a powerful, industry leading company from *integerating* _MY_ idea into thier next release, muscling me out of the market.
Actually, you would simply copyright your algorithm and then the company that wanted to use it would have to pay you royalties. Patents should not apply to software. An algorithm is not an invention, it's a mathmatical discovery. I agree that you should get the credit for the discovery and should be allowed to reap the benefits. That's why you would simply copyright it. I don't see any reason for a patent in your example.
What good is it to have a 20 year old idea relating to computers and software get into the public domain? If we've lived without the idea for that long, or only bought software from the company that owns that patent, then how has it helped innovation? Software inventors can't keep their ideas secret. If they want to make money from their software, they have to sell the software. When someone learns what the software can do, it can be recreated.
As far as I can tell, there has never been any need for an incentive to develop new software. It will be done with or without patents. The whole idea of patents just doesn't work with software and the government needs to realize this rather than just blindly doing what business wants. They are not helping to promote innovation.
I haven't seen anything truly unique, difficult, or innovative being patented lately. Mostly just vague notions that companies come up with like "using a database to store information for online commerce taking place in a network environment over phone lines" or some such crap. They are being BADLY ABUSED and since the government can't or won't do anything to address the abuses, they should simply stop allowing software patents. All software patents should be declared null and void. Even if this requires refunding patent fees. It will be worth it in the long run. The 20 year term of a patent is ridiculously long for software. That's like a 200 year patent on any other invention. If they are going to allow software patents, they should only last for 2 or 3 years at most.
Let Evil Co. have its patent. The question is whether anyone else, say dude2, who wants to use the idea is blocked from doing so. Dude2 can always claim "but I just got the idea from this article", or "I just read this here source code".
Unfortunately, that's not how it works. If Evil Co. gets a patent on the software, then they can enforce that patent in court. Do you think dude2 wants to risk getting sued by Evil Co? I sure wouldn't. The thing about software patents is that they aren't like a copyright. With a copyright, you prevent people from stealing your code and using it in their product. With a patent, you just prevent people from implementing your idea (or an idea you found somewhere). They don't have to use the same code to be infringing on the patent. IANAL, so if someone else can correct or clarify this, you're welcome to do so. This is how I understand the situation to be though.
Actually it was NT 3.5 with service pack 3 that was certified on (I believe) 3 different hardware configurations. Everything else you said looks correct though:)
I have to agree with you on the Ed Curry issue. He really got screwed over bad. For Microsoft, the truth has always been a touchy thing, best left to "behind closed doors" discussions rather than something to be known publicly. Unfortunately, that's also the way that much of the government is run. It's not surprising that they are taking sides with Microsoft. To put it plainly, something stinks.
The government, and the military in particular, have been switching entire installations over to Microsoft OSes and software illegally. Congress has already ruled that a couple of these transitions were illegal, but didn't do anything about it because it would cost more money to change them to something else now that they've been switched over to NT networks. From what I've read, there were no consequences for anyone. I've also read that there are more of these conversions still going on and that they will probably continue because the government won't put a stop to it. I'd like to know who is making the money off of these deals besides Microsoft. Somebody has to be making alot of money or this wouldn't be happening.
I HIGHLY doubt that ANY NT machine can stay up for 2 years without a reboot, let alone TWO of them. Let's see, what version of NT was out two years ago? You must be running a pretty old version of NT since you can't upgrade without rebooting. Heck, you can't even install most software without rebooting. Quite frankly, I don't buy it. Those machines would have to be doing next to nothing to stay up for anything near that length of time. I think you're just a troll who is fibbing.
Actually, plain old talent can win out in the end. Not that I think that Microsoft's lawyers have shown much talent, but they have managed to do enough damage control to keep their witnesses from getting tossed in jail for contempt or charged with perjury. Considering some of the things they've said, that's no small feat:)
I have been extremely impressed by David Boies though. I've read through quite a few days worth of trial transcripts and I like the way he works. They never see it coming, or if they do, they can't do anything to stop it. It makes perfect sense really. Get them to admit to a few things, then hit them with the tough questions and watch them start to backtrack and contradict and correct themselves. Makes for few laughs sometimes too.
Wasn't Microsoft complaining a while back about domain hijacking? They were taking certain domains back that they claim were infringing on their trademarks and such. What hypocrites.
From what I've read, the performance increase is very modest. After checking some prices, it looks like you can get a PIII 450 for about $50 more than a PII 450, so many people may go ahead and buy a PIII instead. I just hate the fact that they spew all that crap about how it will make the net a much richer experience. The chip isn't going to do that. It takes bigtime bandwidth to make things more interesting. Unfortunately, they are allowed to make totally unsupported statements (stated as if they were fact) and then proceed to shout them from the mountaintop. People recognize this kind of thing when it comes from a shoe company or a even a car company sometimes, but when a tech company says things like this and then backs it up with meaningless techno-jargon, they believe it. Sad really.
Perhaps if someone could post a clearly labeled diagram with a step-by-step description of how the phone system works and who is being charged for what along the way. Then describe what the FCC just announced (i.e. which leg of the journey is now going to be considered long distance) and what the ramifications are. That way, we could all see exactly where the problems are and there would be no misunderstandings or misinterpretations. Just a thought, but if someone has enough knowledge about the phone system to do this, it would probably be a great help to those of us who don't know the phone system so well.
Slashdot Mirror
The browser threatened to make the OS a commodity. If the browser ran on several platforms and could do the same things on all of them, it wouldn't matter what OS you ran. That could kill Windows, which would, in turn, kill their Office monopoly which is where they make their money. That's why Netscape had to go.
MS makes the most profit from their office suite because they control the platform it runs on and nobody can really compete with them there. It's the defacto standard. MS wouldn't last long if it actually had to compete on even ground. I don't think they'll get into Linux in any serious way. There is too much ill will towards them in the Linux community and too much competition right now as well. They wouldn't last.
For free applications to be used over commercial apps they need 150% of the functionality. Cost is not an issue, Microsoft has made a business out of having their software pirated, and benefitted very much so in the long run.
I don't agree that free apps need 150% of the functionality. One of the things that makes them better is that they don't include a bunch of useless junk that almost nobody would ever use. Even somewhat advanced users use only about half of the functionality in MS Office. They don't use any of the other features for 2 main reasons. First, the features are difficult and/or buggy. Second, there are better/easier ways to accomplish the desired effect.
The free office suites don't need all the useless extras in order to compete. They need to do all the basics, and do them better and faster than Microsoft. Then, if other features are needed, they can be added. First and foremost though, the app must be stable and run as fast as possible. Do that and people will use it.
That's a mighty hostile response there. I sense a lot of insecurity eminating from your post. Perhaps you are feeling inadequate because your MSPaperclip rejected you? Now you are bitter and resent others having pleasant relationships with their software.
Just a thought. I could be wrong. Anyway, that wasn't a well thought out response. First of all, you assume that MSOffice allows you to focus on the content rather than screw with the software. Hmm.. obviously you haven't tried to use a toc and section/page numbers in a large document. Even Microsoft execs couldn't do it right for their court statements. Second, you assume that there aren't any office suites for Linux that allow you to focus on content. I think you were wrong on both counts.
Ha!.. just as I'm writing this, Excel just crashed on my boss' computer and took everything with it. Funny.
Tell them to cut the lifespan of software patents down drastically as well. As someone else here stated, "20 years is several lifetimes in the computer industry"(paraphrased). They should last less than 5 years. I think 3 would be ideal.
How about Microsoft patenting CSS. The ideas have been around for years and the W3C (which MS is a member of) was working on the standards and Microsoft just decided to go patent it. Even if they do license it for free, it's still wrong for them to own the patent on something that they didn't invent or even buy and for which examples of prior art exist. It doesn't mean that software patents are evil, but that the current system is woefully inadequate to deal with them due to lack of resources and lack of patent researchers/inspectors (whatever the people at the USPTO are called) who are knowledgeable about computers and software engineering. Basically all the good software engineers can get better (and better paying) jobs, so there aren't any knowledgeable people willing to work for the patent office.
Okay, I think you argued your point pretty well. I don't think your argument defends patents as they exist today very well, but you do make a point that there has to be some incentive or guarantee that you will have an opportunity to profit from your research if it produces something useful in order for real innovation to occur. That I can agree with.
Now the only issue is whether the current system of patents actually works. I don't believe it does. I'm trying to come up with an alternative that is fair to all involved. Not sure if I'll post it here or somewhere else yet.
You say that fifteen programs that do the same thing must use the same algorithm. If that is true, then it's not an invention, it's a law. Like gravity or any mathematical rule you care to name, it isn't created, it is a truth that is discovered. Now I will agree that it takes knowledge and creativity to push the limits in certain areas in order to discover new truths, but if there is only one way of doing something according to the laws of mathematics or physics, the method should not be able to be patented. An invention that is derived from this discovery might patentable, but not the discovery itself. I'm trying to figure out a better way of doing patents anyway, so I may change my mind on some points if I am persuaded by a good argument.
Not just reform minor points. Patents are fine for some industries. I think there should be a new form of protection for the software industry. Something like a patent, but that will last for maybe 3 years and probably have a few other restrictions placed on it as well. I'm trying to figure out the details...
I am just now getting a chance to respond to some of the posts in here, but I don't think I could have said it better myself. Thanks.
Without knowing what your software does, it would be difficult to argue anything about it, let alone that 2 guys working evenings and weekends could do better.
On the other hand, if you want to be abstract about it, I would say that the guy that took your base code and produced a program that worked "a zillion times better" due to his interface ideas was benefiting consumers more than a government enforced patent on something that may or may not be reproduceable in some other way. Btw, are you now implementing any of the interface ideas that the guy used in the program that he made using your ideas? If you can't honestly answer "no" to that question, then I don't think you get any right to complain about other people stealing your ideas. Patents or no patents, you are either for or against taking other people's ideas and using them in your own software. Which is it?
We _must_still_ protect the legitimate ideas of inventors and programmers with the ability to patent thier ideas. Let's suppose that I came up with the next super-cool K-rad encryption algorythm. Sure I may be able to get a product out first, but what's to prevent a powerful, industry leading company from *integerating* _MY_ idea into thier next release, muscling me out of the market.
Actually, you would simply copyright your algorithm and then the company that wanted to use it would have to pay you royalties. Patents should not apply to software. An algorithm is not an invention, it's a mathmatical discovery. I agree that you should get the credit for the discovery and should be allowed to reap the benefits. That's why you would simply copyright it. I don't see any reason for a patent in your example.
What good is it to have a 20 year old idea relating to computers and software get into the public domain? If we've lived without the idea for that long, or only bought software from the company that owns that patent, then how has it helped innovation? Software inventors can't keep their ideas secret. If they want to make money from their software, they have to sell the software. When someone learns what the software can do, it can be recreated.
As far as I can tell, there has never been any need for an incentive to develop new software. It will be done with or without patents. The whole idea of patents just doesn't work with software and the government needs to realize this rather than just blindly doing what business wants. They are not helping to promote innovation.
I haven't seen anything truly unique, difficult, or innovative being patented lately. Mostly just vague notions that companies come up with like "using a database to store information for online commerce taking place in a network environment over phone lines" or some such crap. They are being BADLY ABUSED and since the government can't or won't do anything to address the abuses, they should simply stop allowing software patents. All software patents should be declared null and void. Even if this requires refunding patent fees. It will be worth it in the long run. The 20 year term of a patent is ridiculously long for software. That's like a 200 year patent on any other invention. If they are going to allow software patents, they should only last for 2 or 3 years at most.
Let Evil Co. have its patent. The question is whether anyone else, say dude2, who wants to use the idea is blocked from doing so. Dude2 can always claim "but I just got the idea from this article", or "I just read this here source code".
Unfortunately, that's not how it works. If Evil Co. gets a patent on the software, then they can enforce that patent in court. Do you think dude2 wants to risk getting sued by Evil Co? I sure wouldn't. The thing about software patents is that they aren't like a copyright. With a copyright, you prevent people from stealing your code and using it in their product. With a patent, you just prevent people from implementing your idea (or an idea you found somewhere). They don't have to use the same code to be infringing on the patent. IANAL, so if someone else can correct or clarify this, you're welcome to do so. This is how I understand the situation to be though.
Here is a link I found on the Rainbow books.
http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/rainbow.htm
Actually it was NT 3.5 with service pack 3 that was certified on (I believe) 3 different hardware configurations. Everything else you said looks correct though :)
I have to agree with you on the Ed Curry issue. He really got screwed over bad. For Microsoft, the truth has always been a touchy thing, best left to "behind closed doors" discussions rather than something to be known publicly. Unfortunately, that's also the way that much of the government is run. It's not surprising that they are taking sides with Microsoft. To put it plainly, something stinks.
The government, and the military in particular, have been switching entire installations over to Microsoft OSes and software illegally. Congress has already ruled that a couple of these transitions were illegal, but didn't do anything about it because it would cost more money to change them to something else now that they've been switched over to NT networks. From what I've read, there were no consequences for anyone. I've also read that there are more of these conversions still going on and that they will probably continue because the government won't put a stop to it. I'd like to know who is making the money off of these deals besides Microsoft. Somebody has to be making alot of money or this wouldn't be happening.
I didn't know Plato was a Linux person. They didn't teach us that in school. I think it's time to revise the curriculum. :)
I HIGHLY doubt that ANY NT machine can stay up for 2 years without a reboot, let alone TWO of them. Let's see, what version of NT was out two years ago? You must be running a pretty old version of NT since you can't upgrade without rebooting. Heck, you can't even install most software without rebooting. Quite frankly, I don't buy it. Those machines would have to be doing next to nothing to stay up for anything near that length of time. I think you're just a troll who is fibbing.
Actually, plain old talent can win out in the end. Not that I think that Microsoft's lawyers have shown much talent, but they have managed to do enough damage control to keep their witnesses from getting tossed in jail for contempt or charged with perjury. Considering some of the things they've said, that's no small feat :)
I have been extremely impressed by David Boies though. I've read through quite a few days worth of trial transcripts and I like the way he works. They never see it coming, or if they do, they can't do anything to stop it. It makes perfect sense really. Get them to admit to a few things, then hit them with the tough questions and watch them start to backtrack and contradict and correct themselves. Makes for few laughs sometimes too.
Wasn't Microsoft complaining a while back about domain hijacking? They were taking certain domains back that they claim were infringing on their trademarks and such. What hypocrites.
Actually, Linux competes in the Unix market, therefore it could be argued in court that Microsoft would be entering the Unix market.
500 Server Error
The hard access limit for this user has been reached
Sigh... owell.. maybe I'll get in later..
From what I've read, the performance increase is very modest. After checking some prices, it looks like you can get a PIII 450 for about $50 more than a PII 450, so many people may go ahead and buy a PIII instead. I just hate the fact that they spew all that crap about how it will make the net a much richer experience. The chip isn't going to do that. It takes bigtime bandwidth to make things more interesting. Unfortunately, they are allowed to make totally unsupported statements (stated as if they were fact) and then proceed to shout them from the mountaintop. People recognize this kind of thing when it comes from a shoe company or a even a car company sometimes, but when a tech company says things like this and then backs it up with meaningless techno-jargon, they believe it. Sad really.
Now if they could only get them to put out a product that was worth $50 they would have a good deal on their hands. :)
Perhaps if someone could post a clearly labeled diagram with a step-by-step description of how the phone system works and who is being charged for what along the way. Then describe what the FCC just announced (i.e. which leg of the journey is now going to be considered long distance) and what the ramifications are. That way, we could all see exactly where the problems are and there would be no misunderstandings or misinterpretations. Just a thought, but if someone has enough knowledge about the phone system to do this, it would probably be a great help to those of us who don't know the phone system so well.