Maybe there is a legitimate use for this patent, but I'm sure Apple would love to make people believe their iPhone will get disabled if they jailbreak it. I wouldn't be surprised if this patent is in part for scare tactics like this.
If a photographer wants to take a picture of a building out of personal interest, I'll side with him. If he wants to share that photo, I'll still side with him. But this isn't just a photograph, it's being attached to GPS coordinates and being included in a navigable recreation of the world- something very different from a simple photograph.
Another way to look at it is people's concern over privacy with regard to data mining by corporations. Most people aren't too concerned about one piece of data being out there: name, address, favorite (something), job, salary, so long as they aren't linked together. When you start grouping that information, it goes from casual use of information to a potential intrusion of privacy. Personally, I don't feel Street View infringes my privacy enough to have a problem with it, but I understand how others might feel it is invasive.
(note to mods: this is a copy of my post below, I'm posting twice as I don't expect mods to still be reading this story-- you can ignore this copy)
If a photographer wants to take a picture of a building out of personal interest, I'll side with him. If he wants to share that photo, I'll still side with him. But this isn't just a photograph, it's being attached to GPS coordinates and being included in a navigable recreation of the world- something very different from a simple photograph.
Another way to look at it is people's concern over privacy with regard to data mining by corporations. Most people aren't too concerned about one piece of data being out there: name, address, favorite (something), job, salary, so long as they aren't linked together. When you start grouping that information, it goes from casual use of information to a potential intrusion of privacy. Personally, I don't feel Street View infringes my privacy enough to have a problem with it, but I understand how others might feel it is invasive.
People opted out of Google's maps, not being in any picture, ever. This article has nothing to do with amateur photographers pursuing their hobby, but an attempt to force everyone to be included in a commercially created database. This is like making a phone book of unlisted phone numbers. If you want to see what's missing on Google Earth, go see it yourself- just like how you can call an unlisted phone number if you really want to. If someone isn't interested in being included in Street View, chances are you wouldn't care about them if they were included, so I don't see much of a claim of harm being done by people's request for privacy. Keep in mind the people opting out simply contacted Google and were done with it- no harassment involved.
If people taking personal pictures were being harassed, I would be right with you on this, but this guy is just putting his sense of entitlement ahead of people's wishes. The law doesn't dictate what is right (see copyrights and patents)- sometimes discretion is needed.
I learned long ago whenever an advertiser says "up to" to just ignore that number. Of course in the case of ISPs there is no competition to run to when they don't give you a straight answer, which is what makes this such an issue.
If they switch to usage-based billing, they'll just target the numbers so they get the same or more money if customers don't change their habits, and they'll have less incentive to upgrade their system as customers won't be using that extra bandwidth once they learn how much it costs them.
I think the best model for fair use of the neighborhood pipe is to have a moving window (say 72 hours), and your speed is a base (say 128 kpbs) plus a fraction of the available bandwidth determined by your usage compared to your neighbors who are currently using the pipe. That way you only get penalized for being a "bandwidth hog" at times when others want to use that bandwidth, but you can still check the weather, email, etc no matter what without a problem.
Sure, the above system does nothing to encourage ISPs to upgrade their systems, but I'm convinced the only thing that will is true competition or strong government regulation, both of which are doubtful to happen soon. Therefore I'll settle for a fair system to manage what bandwidth we can get.
The story here is the government recognizes the misleading marketing as a problem, which implies there may be changes in the near future- unlike those popes and bears which aren't going anywhere.
Not necessarily faking it- it could be kind of a reverse placebo effect, plus stress. Although technically that would be "in their heads", as long as the kid thinks he's sick he might actually feel a little sick. (IANAD, etc. etc.)
I'm saying the average person knows how to behave, and will do so as needed (such as when getting/keeping a job), but people with little social experience can't even do that. Not to mention you can't be one of the minority who actually are nice people if you don't know how. Of course, this comment and my comment above are independent of home-schooling, and entirely dependent upon poor parenting.
I think refusing a breathalyzer test is just fine, so long as you understand when it's your word against his in court, you will lose (there's no other good way to prove a DUI case if the driver refuses the test). That way we don't need to conflict with the 5th amendment, as penalties for refusing the breathalyzer are redundant and useless. Of course, given the (relatively) recent case about the breathalyzer code being horribly written, I should hope everyone accused of drunk driving is allowed to opt for a blood test.
You're talking about reducing problems down to understandable math- these students are trying to learn that math. After that, you can give them problems that have to be parsed out, but the questions have to be designed to help the teacher figure out the students' current understanding (therefore you might include both the simple problems and your suggested harder problems).
Assassinating the messenger is a false argument. The government isn't blaming Assange for the contents of the documents- the issue is the act of dissemination. If the government was going after someone reporting about Assange leaking documents, that would be assassinating the messenger. Also, just because someone had to leak the documents to him doesn't make him any less culpable. If you find top secret documents on the subway, you would be an idiot to assume you are free to send copies to the local newspapers- Assange goes a step further and handles all the dissemination himself and covers his source from probable prosecution. Whether he should be prosecuted for said dissemination and harboring a criminal is dependent upon whether you think the leak is just, but these acts still bear responsibility.
The biggest problem I have with Assange is by taking no responsibility for his actions (unlike newspapers/journalists when protecting their sources)- he puts himself above the law just like many of his targets, so the government can have him for all I care. It's fine if you disagree, but painting him like he's being framed by the government is a bit extreme.
The FBI is mostly in charge of putting white collar criminals behind bars, but since 9/11 upper management wants more focus on national security and terrorism, so FBI agents have less and less time for going after real criminals. Every once in a while there is a news article about the FBI foiling some terrorist plot, so their efforts may be successful, but I still think the FBI may have gone overboard pulling people off of white collar and corruption cases.
Such a system would work just fine for me to read slashdot, for example- load pages when I'm connected, read the pages when I have no connection. It won't be good for click-intensive browsing, but checking the weather, sports scores news and email should work fine assuming cabs aren't too far apart. While it doesn't compete with more conventional internet connections, when away from such access this is a step up from either foregoing internet or paying exorbitant data rates on your cellphone.
Yeah even though I think it is possible to have a legal system that properly discourages collusion and whatnot, I know it won't happen until we properly discourage collusion between the government and corporations (likely never).
The courts don't have to remove all profit from price fixing, just enough that companies believe they can profit more when competing. For example:
Let's say they can boost profits by 30% by colluding, but a conviction is severe enough to hurt profits 10% compared to not colluding. Now let's also say that part of the conviction penalty involves paying non-colluding competitors, so those competitors profit an extra 5% per guilty company. Given a high enough chance of conviction and a 3-company market, it would on average be more profitable if your company competes, the others collude, and they get convicted (so your company boosts profits by 10%). As long as companies act selfishly, they all want to be the odd man out, so they never agree to collude.
Of course, price fixing doesn't happen without all parties cooperating- my example just illustrates how you can use the prisoner's dilemma against companies so the optimal solution (all colluding) never happens.
Because excess profit is hard to define, MFN defines it for us. Think eminent domain (I doubt it applies, but similar logic is in play)- the government says it acts in the interest of the people, so it will pay a fair price and no more. The government isn't in a position to tell Oracle the price, so they trust Oracle to do that for them.
Unless you want the government to waste more time and money bargaining for the best price on everything, it is a lot more simple for everyone if they just use MFN.
The two scenarios still aren't the same- Amazon and Apple (I don't know numbers here)are most of the ebook market, so if they effectively say they get the same price, you get a price floor. The competing companies are getting the same price, eliminating the competition. The government does not compete, so it gets the same price as $Company, but that company is competing with others for the lowest price.
Yes, there will always be the pressure for Oracle or whomever to resist lowering prices as it would only hurt their government contract, but either there is enough of a market outside the government to keep competition, or the market is the government, in which case "best for the consumer" doesn't make much sense (like with companies that just work for government contracts). No, it isn't a perfect solution, but no matter what government contracts will affect the market- I feel the MFN solution is the best compromise (good for taxpayers and uses a price the market sets). In the end it's an argument of what you think the government's role is.
You have two companies competing to sell ebooks. If they have contracts saying they get the same price on the ebooks, you get a price floor. I could see an argument for MFN clauses being allowable for products that aren't resold, as it doesn't create a price floor for consumers, but I'll leave that to the lawyers and economists to figure out.
As for the government, it is best for the consumer (tax payer) for the government to minimize expenses. Paying for excess profits doesn't do that, so the simplest way for the government to ensure they act in taxpayer's interest is to use MFN clauses. Apple and Amazon represent enough sales their contracts can establish a price floor. Oracle still has to compete and satisfy enough non-government clients that holding prices in light of the government's contract wouldn't likely make sense (I don't know Oracle's client base, maybe I'm wrong here). Sure, you could argue the government still gets a bit of a double standard, but if the government didn't get any it wouldn't be a very effective government.
I guess overall I'm saying MFN clauses are generally anti-competitive and bad for the market, but in the government's case they're a necessary evil given their unique status.
As I point out in an above post, the government does not profit from the Oracle contract, they are simply using the systems (as opposed to selling them). If you can tell me who the government should be competing with, and how competition is being stifled with their Oracle contract, maybe you have a point. Until then your post is just apples to oranges.
I don't know what negotiations are like when asking for a lower price from the supplier, but Amazon could, for example, include a guarantee to sell X books (to give the publisher greater profits than at the higher price), or give that publisher more visible placement on the website. This wouldn't be agreeable, though, as Apple would get that price without any other strings attached. In effect, such MFN clauses discourage competition.
The issue is price fixing, from a selling standpoint. The government is buying stuff to use, and makes no profit from the purchases. Amazon and Apple, on the other hand, want lowest prices in order to maximize profits when they turn around and sell the product. IANAL, but I assume if Amazon signed a MFN agreement with Dell when purchasing computers for internal use (not sale), it would be legal.
The voluntary part of the agreement has nothing to do with it- cartels are often voluntary, and although indirect the publishers are complicit with forming an effective cartel here. Also, Amazon and Apple are not acting as agents for the consumer if they say "we don't want to compete". As clearly stated in the article, this practice keeps prices up.
Just because we aren't in *problem country* doesn't mean Afghanistan and Iraq are purely for business reasons. If some people are in favor of a moral war (defining a moral war isn't my concern here), and others are in favor of a profitable war, a country like Iraq is about the best compromise you can get. There are people looking to profit from every war, so discounting everyone else is poor logic conveniently used when in your favor.
To what extent are we in Iraq for moral reasons, as opposed to materialistic ones? I don't know, but I don't get people who see a material gain and drop the moral argument all together.
NB: Fyngyrz I don't care about any response, seeing your replies elsewhere I don't agree with any of your logic so I doubt you agree with me. We can leave it at that.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe there is a legitimate use for this patent, but I'm sure Apple would love to make people believe their iPhone will get disabled if they jailbreak it. I wouldn't be surprised if this patent is in part for scare tactics like this.
If a photographer wants to take a picture of a building out of personal interest, I'll side with him. If he wants to share that photo, I'll still side with him. But this isn't just a photograph, it's being attached to GPS coordinates and being included in a navigable recreation of the world- something very different from a simple photograph.
Another way to look at it is people's concern over privacy with regard to data mining by corporations. Most people aren't too concerned about one piece of data being out there: name, address, favorite (something), job, salary, so long as they aren't linked together. When you start grouping that information, it goes from casual use of information to a potential intrusion of privacy. Personally, I don't feel Street View infringes my privacy enough to have a problem with it, but I understand how others might feel it is invasive.
(note to mods: this is a copy of my post below, I'm posting twice as I don't expect mods to still be reading this story-- you can ignore this copy)
If a photographer wants to take a picture of a building out of personal interest, I'll side with him. If he wants to share that photo, I'll still side with him. But this isn't just a photograph, it's being attached to GPS coordinates and being included in a navigable recreation of the world- something very different from a simple photograph.
Another way to look at it is people's concern over privacy with regard to data mining by corporations. Most people aren't too concerned about one piece of data being out there: name, address, favorite (something), job, salary, so long as they aren't linked together. When you start grouping that information, it goes from casual use of information to a potential intrusion of privacy. Personally, I don't feel Street View infringes my privacy enough to have a problem with it, but I understand how others might feel it is invasive.
People opted out of Google's maps, not being in any picture, ever. This article has nothing to do with amateur photographers pursuing their hobby, but an attempt to force everyone to be included in a commercially created database. This is like making a phone book of unlisted phone numbers. If you want to see what's missing on Google Earth, go see it yourself- just like how you can call an unlisted phone number if you really want to. If someone isn't interested in being included in Street View, chances are you wouldn't care about them if they were included, so I don't see much of a claim of harm being done by people's request for privacy. Keep in mind the people opting out simply contacted Google and were done with it- no harassment involved.
If people taking personal pictures were being harassed, I would be right with you on this, but this guy is just putting his sense of entitlement ahead of people's wishes. The law doesn't dictate what is right (see copyrights and patents)- sometimes discretion is needed.
I learned long ago whenever an advertiser says "up to" to just ignore that number. Of course in the case of ISPs there is no competition to run to when they don't give you a straight answer, which is what makes this such an issue.
If they switch to usage-based billing, they'll just target the numbers so they get the same or more money if customers don't change their habits, and they'll have less incentive to upgrade their system as customers won't be using that extra bandwidth once they learn how much it costs them.
I think the best model for fair use of the neighborhood pipe is to have a moving window (say 72 hours), and your speed is a base (say 128 kpbs) plus a fraction of the available bandwidth determined by your usage compared to your neighbors who are currently using the pipe. That way you only get penalized for being a "bandwidth hog" at times when others want to use that bandwidth, but you can still check the weather, email, etc no matter what without a problem.
Sure, the above system does nothing to encourage ISPs to upgrade their systems, but I'm convinced the only thing that will is true competition or strong government regulation, both of which are doubtful to happen soon. Therefore I'll settle for a fair system to manage what bandwidth we can get.
The story here is the government recognizes the misleading marketing as a problem, which implies there may be changes in the near future- unlike those popes and bears which aren't going anywhere.
He didn't say anything about not using the device, he was just being a geek and trying to find out how robust the system is.
Not necessarily faking it- it could be kind of a reverse placebo effect, plus stress. Although technically that would be "in their heads", as long as the kid thinks he's sick he might actually feel a little sick. (IANAD, etc. etc.)
I'm saying the average person knows how to behave, and will do so as needed (such as when getting/keeping a job), but people with little social experience can't even do that. Not to mention you can't be one of the minority who actually are nice people if you don't know how. Of course, this comment and my comment above are independent of home-schooling, and entirely dependent upon poor parenting.
I think refusing a breathalyzer test is just fine, so long as you understand when it's your word against his in court, you will lose (there's no other good way to prove a DUI case if the driver refuses the test). That way we don't need to conflict with the 5th amendment, as penalties for refusing the breathalyzer are redundant and useless. Of course, given the (relatively) recent case about the breathalyzer code being horribly written, I should hope everyone accused of drunk driving is allowed to opt for a blood test.
...and it was only used against blacks. Many white people voting had no chance on those tests either.
Of course, as much as I'm tempted to boot idiots from the voting population, I can't quite morally justify it.
Those people know how they are supposed to behave, and choose not to. Socially deprived kids just don't have a clue in the first place.
You're talking about reducing problems down to understandable math- these students are trying to learn that math. After that, you can give them problems that have to be parsed out, but the questions have to be designed to help the teacher figure out the students' current understanding (therefore you might include both the simple problems and your suggested harder problems).
Assassinating the messenger is a false argument. The government isn't blaming Assange for the contents of the documents- the issue is the act of dissemination. If the government was going after someone reporting about Assange leaking documents, that would be assassinating the messenger. Also, just because someone had to leak the documents to him doesn't make him any less culpable. If you find top secret documents on the subway, you would be an idiot to assume you are free to send copies to the local newspapers- Assange goes a step further and handles all the dissemination himself and covers his source from probable prosecution. Whether he should be prosecuted for said dissemination and harboring a criminal is dependent upon whether you think the leak is just, but these acts still bear responsibility.
The biggest problem I have with Assange is by taking no responsibility for his actions (unlike newspapers/journalists when protecting their sources)- he puts himself above the law just like many of his targets, so the government can have him for all I care. It's fine if you disagree, but painting him like he's being framed by the government is a bit extreme.
The FBI is mostly in charge of putting white collar criminals behind bars, but since 9/11 upper management wants more focus on national security and terrorism, so FBI agents have less and less time for going after real criminals. Every once in a while there is a news article about the FBI foiling some terrorist plot, so their efforts may be successful, but I still think the FBI may have gone overboard pulling people off of white collar and corruption cases.
Such a system would work just fine for me to read slashdot, for example- load pages when I'm connected, read the pages when I have no connection. It won't be good for click-intensive browsing, but checking the weather, sports scores news and email should work fine assuming cabs aren't too far apart. While it doesn't compete with more conventional internet connections, when away from such access this is a step up from either foregoing internet or paying exorbitant data rates on your cellphone.
Yeah even though I think it is possible to have a legal system that properly discourages collusion and whatnot, I know it won't happen until we properly discourage collusion between the government and corporations (likely never).
The courts don't have to remove all profit from price fixing, just enough that companies believe they can profit more when competing. For example:
Let's say they can boost profits by 30% by colluding, but a conviction is severe enough to hurt profits 10% compared to not colluding. Now let's also say that part of the conviction penalty involves paying non-colluding competitors, so those competitors profit an extra 5% per guilty company. Given a high enough chance of conviction and a 3-company market, it would on average be more profitable if your company competes, the others collude, and they get convicted (so your company boosts profits by 10%). As long as companies act selfishly, they all want to be the odd man out, so they never agree to collude.
Of course, price fixing doesn't happen without all parties cooperating- my example just illustrates how you can use the prisoner's dilemma against companies so the optimal solution (all colluding) never happens.
Because excess profit is hard to define, MFN defines it for us. Think eminent domain (I doubt it applies, but similar logic is in play)- the government says it acts in the interest of the people, so it will pay a fair price and no more. The government isn't in a position to tell Oracle the price, so they trust Oracle to do that for them.
Unless you want the government to waste more time and money bargaining for the best price on everything, it is a lot more simple for everyone if they just use MFN.
The two scenarios still aren't the same- Amazon and Apple (I don't know numbers here)are most of the ebook market, so if they effectively say they get the same price, you get a price floor. The competing companies are getting the same price, eliminating the competition. The government does not compete, so it gets the same price as $Company, but that company is competing with others for the lowest price.
Yes, there will always be the pressure for Oracle or whomever to resist lowering prices as it would only hurt their government contract, but either there is enough of a market outside the government to keep competition, or the market is the government, in which case "best for the consumer" doesn't make much sense (like with companies that just work for government contracts). No, it isn't a perfect solution, but no matter what government contracts will affect the market- I feel the MFN solution is the best compromise (good for taxpayers and uses a price the market sets). In the end it's an argument of what you think the government's role is.
You have two companies competing to sell ebooks. If they have contracts saying they get the same price on the ebooks, you get a price floor. I could see an argument for MFN clauses being allowable for products that aren't resold, as it doesn't create a price floor for consumers, but I'll leave that to the lawyers and economists to figure out.
As for the government, it is best for the consumer (tax payer) for the government to minimize expenses. Paying for excess profits doesn't do that, so the simplest way for the government to ensure they act in taxpayer's interest is to use MFN clauses. Apple and Amazon represent enough sales their contracts can establish a price floor. Oracle still has to compete and satisfy enough non-government clients that holding prices in light of the government's contract wouldn't likely make sense (I don't know Oracle's client base, maybe I'm wrong here). Sure, you could argue the government still gets a bit of a double standard, but if the government didn't get any it wouldn't be a very effective government.
I guess overall I'm saying MFN clauses are generally anti-competitive and bad for the market, but in the government's case they're a necessary evil given their unique status.
As I point out in an above post, the government does not profit from the Oracle contract, they are simply using the systems (as opposed to selling them). If you can tell me who the government should be competing with, and how competition is being stifled with their Oracle contract, maybe you have a point. Until then your post is just apples to oranges.
I don't know what negotiations are like when asking for a lower price from the supplier, but Amazon could, for example, include a guarantee to sell X books (to give the publisher greater profits than at the higher price), or give that publisher more visible placement on the website. This wouldn't be agreeable, though, as Apple would get that price without any other strings attached. In effect, such MFN clauses discourage competition.
The issue is price fixing, from a selling standpoint. The government is buying stuff to use, and makes no profit from the purchases. Amazon and Apple, on the other hand, want lowest prices in order to maximize profits when they turn around and sell the product. IANAL, but I assume if Amazon signed a MFN agreement with Dell when purchasing computers for internal use (not sale), it would be legal.
The voluntary part of the agreement has nothing to do with it- cartels are often voluntary, and although indirect the publishers are complicit with forming an effective cartel here. Also, Amazon and Apple are not acting as agents for the consumer if they say "we don't want to compete". As clearly stated in the article, this practice keeps prices up.
Just because we aren't in *problem country* doesn't mean Afghanistan and Iraq are purely for business reasons. If some people are in favor of a moral war (defining a moral war isn't my concern here), and others are in favor of a profitable war, a country like Iraq is about the best compromise you can get. There are people looking to profit from every war, so discounting everyone else is poor logic conveniently used when in your favor.
To what extent are we in Iraq for moral reasons, as opposed to materialistic ones? I don't know, but I don't get people who see a material gain and drop the moral argument all together.
NB: Fyngyrz I don't care about any response, seeing your replies elsewhere I don't agree with any of your logic so I doubt you agree with me. We can leave it at that.