As some have noted, having the files in the source they distributed is a possible copyright violation, even if the files aren't actually put on Android devices. And as others have noted, the liability would just fall on Google, not on the vendors of Android devices, and the damages would likely be small, so these copyright claims won't be a noticeable money maker for Oracle even if true.
I believe that Oracle doesn't really care much about the alleged copyright violations. They are just in there as a trial tactic. What Oracle is banking on are the patents. Throwing in the copyright claims does two things that are good for Oracle and bad for Google.
First, there is much that is subjective when it comes to patent infringement. Both sides will present as part of their cases an argument for what damages should be. Oracle will have an expert showing how Google should have to pay an astronomical amount. Google will have an expert arguing that if Google is found to have infringed, the damages should be very small. Determining which damage number to believe is rather subjective (and the jury will be able to go for something in between, too).
The jury will take into account, at least subconsciously, what they think of Google and Oracle. They can't avoid doing this--they are human beings, and that's how humans work. If Oracle can show that Google violated copyrights and patents, that will tend to make the jury see Google in a more negative light than if they just violated patents. Google will want to be seen, if found to infringe the patents, as a company that takes IP seriously and tried hard to not step on Oracle's rights, and the patent infringement was accidental. Oracle wants Google to be seen as a company with wanton disregard for other's IP.
Second, each side has limited time for its case. Some courts even go so far as to use chess clocks to track each side. Oracle can present a prima facie case for copyright infringement pretty quickly. Name some files. Show that they are the copyright owners. Show that they have registered the copyrights. Put up on the projector some diffs showing their files and Google's alleged copies. Point out the massive similarities. Sit down. Now Google gets to stand up, explain the concept of Java boilerplate code to the jury. Take them through the files showing that the commonalities are in boilerplate. For those things not in boilerplate, explain what they are doing and how there are just a few well-known good ways to do them and so it is quite likely different programmers would come up with the same structure. Explain naming conventions and show that they might reasonably even pick the same names.
Note that Google's defense of the copyright issues is likely to take longer to present than Oracle's accusation. If Oracle can spend 10 minutes on it, and Google needs 90 to respond, that's a damn good investment by Oracle. It's 90 minutes less time for Google to spend attacking the validity of Oracle's patents, or trying to show Google doesn't infringe, or to spend on a good closing argument to cement their case.
IPs don't correspond with any physical good or product and have an inherent value of zero dollars. You can't own numbers. Therefore you are crazy and have been sipping Enron's cool-aid.
The above is what happens when people are allowed to escape out of school without ever having to take any course in basic economics.
That only works if the picture is in memory that is accessible to the print screen software. I believe there are tricks you can do with modern video cards to compose the outputs from the computer-generated images and the output of the hardware video decoder on the card. So suppose the plug-in turned the picture into a movie, and then used GPU-accelerated video playback to decode that movie and insert it into the video output. It would never be in the frame buffer (or whatever you kids nowadays call the memory that holds pixels that the computers gets to read and write), and so out of reach of the print screen program.
If ebooks were in the $3-5 range I would buy everything, but $10 is a rip off. It's not my fault the industry hasn't laid off all the middle men and are trying to protect their jobs. So until they fire the extra costs, I say pirate away.
You are, of course, almost certainly lying. If ebooks were in the $3-5 range you would be here with an almost identical complaint about how that is too high, but if they were around $1 you would buy.
Actually, after the FSF complained about a port of GNU Go for iOS, Apple did modify their terms in a way that on first reading seemed to address the issue. It now does say that if an app store product is covered by a valid EULA from its developer, that applies instead of Apple's app store EULA. (I'd normally quote the exact language now, but until Slashdot fixes their copy/paste bug that makes paste not work in Safari and Chrome if there is anything already in the text box, it is too much work).
Many reading the new terms of service thought this ended the matter, but an FSF spokesmen decided that the product's EULA did not override all of the objectionable terms. It's arguable either way.
Maybe Apple will make a second attempt to clarify this, or maybe they'll give up since whatever they do (if it is short of making it a requirement that all apps on the store be GPL...) will not meet with FSF approval and just leave it the way it is.
Free Software is perfectly compatible with the iPod. It's just not compatible with the Apple Store.
That is by design. That's Apple's fault.
That should worry everyone, especially Apple users.
Free software distributed under nearly any free software license other than GPL is compatible with the Apple Store. It is only free software that uses the most restrictive free software license available that runs into trouble.
And note this has nothing to do with the GPL being a copyleft license. There are free software copyleft licenses compatible with the Apple Store.
What would be really fun would be to take the guy to court to get a declaratory judgement that publishing a GPL licensed application on the app store is _not_ in violation of the GPL and therefore not copyright infringement.
Since it is a violation, that is not going to happen.
Actually, lotto is occasionally in your favor, due to rollover. If no one wins, the prize is added to the next week's prize. That does tend to cause more people to buy tickets, but the ticket sales don't go up as much as the prize, so occasionally it crosses over, and the expected return on a $1 ticket is more than $1.
There has been at least one case where an investment group tried to exploit this by buying up every possible combination, to guarantee a win. (Yes, there was a risk they would have to share the prize--they took that into account). In the case I'm thinking of, they failed to get all the tickets they wanted. They only covered about half of the possible combinations, but they still ended up winning, and came out with a very nice profit.
Curiously, the reason I know about this case is that it literally was a case. It was in the casebook for the course in transnational taxation I took in law school. That's because the lottery was in the US, and the investment group was from Australia (I may be misremembering the countries), and so it raised issues of which countries would tax the winnings and by how much.
Actually yes, there's been a lot of progress on lower powered growhouses that make it difficult for the government to pinpoint based on power usage. However, the rock steady on off usage cycle would be picked up by a smart meter in a heartbeat.
Why have a rock steady on off usage cycle? Split the plants into several groups, with their cycles out of phase. Throw in some fuzzing of the start and end times for each group, and make the cycles fade in and out, and you should be able to present to the outside any usage pattern you wish.
Come on. Any of the settlements offered to Thomas-Rasset are outrageous, at different levels of outrageous.
They are all so far from fair that I just can't imagine that you genuinely believe that "a few thousand dollars" be "a pretty fair price". I must assume that you are a RIAA shill.
She was sharing nearly 2000 tracks. If she had bought instead of pirating, that would have been nearly $2k at the usual $1/track price, just to have the songs for her personal use. In addition she had them shared. I think that makes another couple of bucks per track reasonable. That brings us to about what the settlement offer was before the trial.
What would you consider to be a fair settlement for nearly 2000 songs? Remember to take into account that they weren't just downloaded for personal use--they were also made available to others.
Thomas-Rasset got what she asked for. She was sharing a couple thousands songs in reality, although they only sued over 24 of them. They offered to settle for a few thousand dollars, which is a pretty fair price considering the number she was actually sharing. However, she decided to reject that and go to trial, even though she had not even a remote chance of winning (hell, she couldn't even hope for jury nullification, since it is a civil case and a nullification would just be overturned on appeal). The minimum statutory damage award is $750 per infringed work, or $18000 in this case. If, somehow, the court decided that she was an innocent infringer (basically someone who had no reason to believe they were infringing copyright), that can be cut down to $200 per work, or $4800 in this case. There's pretty much no chance of that, so realistically she was looking at a minimum of $18000.
So, the best case she was looking at by going to trial was 3-4 times worse than settling, and that depending on the jury feeling sufficiently sympathetic to go as low as they could on the damages. And then she was pretty blatant about lying in court, she tried to blame her kids, and it came out that she tried to destroy evidence. So much for any chance of the jury being sympathetic...
So this guy gets 30 months for physically duplicating AND SELLING stuff, while Jammie Thomas et al get smacked with million-dollar fines for downloading a few handfuls of unpaid tunes for their own personal enjoyment? Maybe THIS guy should be the one getting smacked with million-dollar fines, considering he might have made millions from what he was doing.
Thomas has had multiple opportunities to settle for much less, some as low as around a couple thousand dollars (which would have been a pretty fair amount, considering that had in fact downloaded and was sharing a couple thousand songs, not a mere "few handfuls"). She had such opportunities before the first trial, and after each trial.
Thomas also lied under oath, tried to frame her children, and was caught trying to destroy evidence. Those things make the jury unsympathetic, and such damages are determined by the jury she got hit with big damages.
One thing we can be sure of is that a Verizon iPhone won't look like the one in their picture. What were they thinking putting a Verizon label on the phone itself?
Stallman writes and promotes "free software", not "open source". He considers the distinction very important. Calling what he does "open source" is probably as big an offense in his eyes as saying "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux".
Cases between large companies generally can be brought in any district, because the companies have a nationwide presence. A plaintiff might pick a particular district for a variety of reasons. One consideration will be how busy the calendar is for that district. A patent case is complex, with lots of depositions, discover, rulings from the court on claims interpretation, and other things before you even got to actually holding a trial. You want a district that isn't so busy that it will take forever for your case to work through. Also, you want a district that doesn't have too many criminal cases, because the accused in a criminal case has a Constitutional right to a speedy trial, meaning that criminal cases filed after your patent case can jump it in the calendar. (I've heard that in districts where the stupid "war on drugs" is heavily fought, civil cases can take years to even get to preliminary hearings).
Another factor is the experience of the judges in the district. As I said, a patent case is complicated. An important part is deciding exactly what the words in the claims and specification mean. This is done at a pretrial hearing. The results of this hearing can make or break the case. You don't want a judge who has never seen a patent case before.
Another factor would be to avoid territory where the defendant is strong. You probably would not want to sue Microsoft in Seattle, for instance, as they are a major contributor to the Washington economy, and jurors, especially non-technical jurors, are likely to have a very favorable impression of them.
BTW, the judges in districts will sometimes specifically try to attract patent cases (or other large, complex cases) to their districts. Partly this is because they like the challenge of complex cases. That's one of the big reasons Eastern District of Texas became big in patents. One judge there was a math major, and worked as a computer programmer and system analyst before going to law school. He likes patent cases for the engineering and the intellectual challenge. Another judge there went to Texas Tech (so presumably has some interest in science or engineering, although I don't know what his major was), and became interested in patent cases when in private practice his firm defended a big patent case, and sought them out when he became a judge.
Partly it is simply to help their district--after all, they are usually residents of the district and have as much interest as anyone else who lives there in wanting to bring in new business. And yes, complex cases bring in business. I was involved as an inventor and witness in a case in Eastern District of Texas, which involved a large company. By the time it got to the trial, there were probably 100+ people combined from both sides there. That's 100+ rooms booked for a month in the local hotels (good hotels, not the cheap places). The two or three biggest conference/meeting rooms booked too (essentially each side sets up a law office for the trial, with 6-10 lawyers, a bunch of paralegals, secretaries, half a dozen IT/support people, some graphics and animation people to work on exhibits, 2 or 3 expert witnesses, the inventors and representatives of their company, and so on). Lots of room service charges, lots of meals in the hotel restaurants charges to rooms. High speed leased line for internet. During the two weeks of actual trial, dozens of people sending off suits for dry cleaning each night. That's a lot of business, especially if the trial is held in a small town in the district.
While I hate spammers as much as the next guy, Dan's little crusade seems less than legal to me. Having a valid opt-out isn't good enough.
He's correct. Having a valid opt-out is NOT good enough. There are two reasons for that.
First, if a valid opt-out were good enough, it would mean every spammer gets a freebie, and then we have to actually take positive action to not receive further spam from them.
Second, opting out requires communicating with the spammer--letting them know that you actually spent time looking at their spam. That is likely to just get you even more spam.
A true hunt-and-peck typist is concentrating on finding the letters when typing. A touch typist devotes almost no conscious effort to typing. If I try some unfamiliar keyboard layout, so that I can no longer touch type, I find that my coding has two mutually exclusive phases--thinking and typing. When using a layout for which I can touch type, there is only one phase--thinking. Thus, I think it is important that a coder be able to touch type.
As far as touch typing speed goes, it probably doesn't matter too much, as long as it is fast enough to keep up with your thought. I don't think it is valid to just look at how many words could be typed at different speeds and note that the difference at the end of the day is not much. If the typing is slower than the thinking, you will find yourself having to interrupt thinking to let the typing catch up. That will be annoying, and will, I think, reduce productivity more than just the raw difference in number of words that can be typed would account for.
Another factor to consider is communicating with others. Up until recently I had coworkers who worked thousands of miles away. We did a lot of communicating over a company IM server. It always annoyed me chatting with coworkers who typed noticeably slower than me.
Slashdot Mirror
As some have noted, having the files in the source they distributed is a possible copyright violation, even if the files aren't actually put on Android devices. And as others have noted, the liability would just fall on Google, not on the vendors of Android devices, and the damages would likely be small, so these copyright claims won't be a noticeable money maker for Oracle even if true.
I believe that Oracle doesn't really care much about the alleged copyright violations. They are just in there as a trial tactic. What Oracle is banking on are the patents. Throwing in the copyright claims does two things that are good for Oracle and bad for Google.
First, there is much that is subjective when it comes to patent infringement. Both sides will present as part of their cases an argument for what damages should be. Oracle will have an expert showing how Google should have to pay an astronomical amount. Google will have an expert arguing that if Google is found to have infringed, the damages should be very small. Determining which damage number to believe is rather subjective (and the jury will be able to go for something in between, too).
The jury will take into account, at least subconsciously, what they think of Google and Oracle. They can't avoid doing this--they are human beings, and that's how humans work. If Oracle can show that Google violated copyrights and patents, that will tend to make the jury see Google in a more negative light than if they just violated patents. Google will want to be seen, if found to infringe the patents, as a company that takes IP seriously and tried hard to not step on Oracle's rights, and the patent infringement was accidental. Oracle wants Google to be seen as a company with wanton disregard for other's IP.
Second, each side has limited time for its case. Some courts even go so far as to use chess clocks to track each side. Oracle can present a prima facie case for copyright infringement pretty quickly. Name some files. Show that they are the copyright owners. Show that they have registered the copyrights. Put up on the projector some diffs showing their files and Google's alleged copies. Point out the massive similarities. Sit down. Now Google gets to stand up, explain the concept of Java boilerplate code to the jury. Take them through the files showing that the commonalities are in boilerplate. For those things not in boilerplate, explain what they are doing and how there are just a few well-known good ways to do them and so it is quite likely different programmers would come up with the same structure. Explain naming conventions and show that they might reasonably even pick the same names.
Note that Google's defense of the copyright issues is likely to take longer to present than Oracle's accusation. If Oracle can spend 10 minutes on it, and Google needs 90 to respond, that's a damn good investment by Oracle. It's 90 minutes less time for Google to spend attacking the validity of Oracle's patents, or trying to show Google doesn't infringe, or to spend on a good closing argument to cement their case.
IPs don't correspond with any physical good or product and have an inherent value of zero dollars. You can't own numbers. Therefore you are crazy and have been sipping Enron's cool-aid.
The above is what happens when people are allowed to escape out of school without ever having to take any course in basic economics.
The files say that they are from the ASF. Did you bother to even read the article and look at the files before you posted?
Got any evidence to back your claim that he's a troll?
more information
That only works if the picture is in memory that is accessible to the print screen software. I believe there are tricks you can do with modern video cards to compose the outputs from the computer-generated images and the output of the hardware video decoder on the card. So suppose the plug-in turned the picture into a movie, and then used GPU-accelerated video playback to decode that movie and insert it into the video output. It would never be in the frame buffer (or whatever you kids nowadays call the memory that holds pixels that the computers gets to read and write), and so out of reach of the print screen program.
If ebooks were in the $3-5 range I would buy everything, but $10 is a rip off. It's not my fault the industry hasn't laid off all the middle men and are trying to protect their jobs. So until they fire the extra costs, I say pirate away.
You are, of course, almost certainly lying. If ebooks were in the $3-5 range you would be here with an almost identical complaint about how that is too high, but if they were around $1 you would buy.
Actually, after the FSF complained about a port of GNU Go for iOS, Apple did modify their terms in a way that on first reading seemed to address the issue. It now does say that if an app store product is covered by a valid EULA from its developer, that applies instead of Apple's app store EULA. (I'd normally quote the exact language now, but until Slashdot fixes their copy/paste bug that makes paste not work in Safari and Chrome if there is anything already in the text box, it is too much work).
Many reading the new terms of service thought this ended the matter, but an FSF spokesmen decided that the product's EULA did not override all of the objectionable terms. It's arguable either way.
Maybe Apple will make a second attempt to clarify this, or maybe they'll give up since whatever they do (if it is short of making it a requirement that all apps on the store be GPL...) will not meet with FSF approval and just leave it the way it is.
Free Software is perfectly compatible with the iPod. It's just not compatible with the Apple Store.
That is by design. That's Apple's fault.
That should worry everyone, especially Apple users.
Free software distributed under nearly any free software license other than GPL is compatible with the Apple Store. It is only free software that uses the most restrictive free software license available that runs into trouble.
And note this has nothing to do with the GPL being a copyleft license. There are free software copyleft licenses compatible with the Apple Store.
What would be really fun would be to take the guy to court to get a declaratory judgement that publishing a GPL licensed application on the app store is _not_ in violation of the GPL and therefore not copyright infringement.
Since it is a violation, that is not going to happen.
Actually, lotto is occasionally in your favor, due to rollover. If no one wins, the prize is added to the next week's prize. That does tend to cause more people to buy tickets, but the ticket sales don't go up as much as the prize, so occasionally it crosses over, and the expected return on a $1 ticket is more than $1.
There has been at least one case where an investment group tried to exploit this by buying up every possible combination, to guarantee a win. (Yes, there was a risk they would have to share the prize--they took that into account). In the case I'm thinking of, they failed to get all the tickets they wanted. They only covered about half of the possible combinations, but they still ended up winning, and came out with a very nice profit.
Curiously, the reason I know about this case is that it literally was a case. It was in the casebook for the course in transnational taxation I took in law school. That's because the lottery was in the US, and the investment group was from Australia (I may be misremembering the countries), and so it raised issues of which countries would tax the winnings and by how much.
Actually yes, there's been a lot of progress on lower powered growhouses that make it difficult for the government to pinpoint based on power usage. However, the rock steady on off usage cycle would be picked up by a smart meter in a heartbeat.
Why have a rock steady on off usage cycle? Split the plants into several groups, with their cycles out of phase. Throw in some fuzzing of the start and end times for each group, and make the cycles fade in and out, and you should be able to present to the outside any usage pattern you wish.
4: Solid password storage. Crypto 101 here: You never store a password....
...
9: Store passwords of unlimited length
Uhm...
Bayesian inference.
Come on. Any of the settlements offered to Thomas-Rasset are outrageous, at different levels of outrageous.
They are all so far from fair that I just can't imagine that you genuinely believe that "a few thousand dollars" be "a pretty fair price". I must assume that you are a RIAA shill.
She was sharing nearly 2000 tracks. If she had bought instead of pirating, that would have been nearly $2k at the usual $1/track price, just to have the songs for her personal use. In addition she had them shared. I think that makes another couple of bucks per track reasonable. That brings us to about what the settlement offer was before the trial.
What would you consider to be a fair settlement for nearly 2000 songs? Remember to take into account that they weren't just downloaded for personal use--they were also made available to others.
Thomas-Rasset got what she asked for. She was sharing a couple thousands songs in reality, although they only sued over 24 of them. They offered to settle for a few thousand dollars, which is a pretty fair price considering the number she was actually sharing. However, she decided to reject that and go to trial, even though she had not even a remote chance of winning (hell, she couldn't even hope for jury nullification, since it is a civil case and a nullification would just be overturned on appeal). The minimum statutory damage award is $750 per infringed work, or $18000 in this case. If, somehow, the court decided that she was an innocent infringer (basically someone who had no reason to believe they were infringing copyright), that can be cut down to $200 per work, or $4800 in this case. There's pretty much no chance of that, so realistically she was looking at a minimum of $18000.
So, the best case she was looking at by going to trial was 3-4 times worse than settling, and that depending on the jury feeling sufficiently sympathetic to go as low as they could on the damages. And then she was pretty blatant about lying in court, she tried to blame her kids, and it came out that she tried to destroy evidence. So much for any chance of the jury being sympathetic...
So this guy gets 30 months for physically duplicating AND SELLING stuff, while Jammie Thomas et al get smacked with million-dollar fines for downloading a few handfuls of unpaid tunes for their own personal enjoyment? Maybe THIS guy should be the one getting smacked with million-dollar fines, considering he might have made millions from what he was doing.
Thomas has had multiple opportunities to settle for much less, some as low as around a couple thousand dollars (which would have been a pretty fair amount, considering that had in fact downloaded and was sharing a couple thousand songs, not a mere "few handfuls"). She had such opportunities before the first trial, and after each trial.
Thomas also lied under oath, tried to frame her children, and was caught trying to destroy evidence. Those things make the jury unsympathetic, and such damages are determined by the jury she got hit with big damages.
There's some good technical discussion in the Hacker's News discussion of this issue.
One thing we can be sure of is that a Verizon iPhone won't look like the one in their picture. What were they thinking putting a Verizon label on the phone itself?
And thanks to the new Obamacare we all get forced to pay for the healthcare of idiots like this.
You should probably learn how health care works in the US before further embarrassing yourself on this subject.
That ship sailed when Lamo and Poulson shopped Manning to the feds.
Lamo, who is the one who contacted the feds, is not a journalist.
Stallman writes and promotes "free software", not "open source". He considers the distinction very important. Calling what he does "open source" is probably as big an offense in his eyes as saying "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux".
Cases between large companies generally can be brought in any district, because the companies have a nationwide presence. A plaintiff might pick a particular district for a variety of reasons. One consideration will be how busy the calendar is for that district. A patent case is complex, with lots of depositions, discover, rulings from the court on claims interpretation, and other things before you even got to actually holding a trial. You want a district that isn't so busy that it will take forever for your case to work through. Also, you want a district that doesn't have too many criminal cases, because the accused in a criminal case has a Constitutional right to a speedy trial, meaning that criminal cases filed after your patent case can jump it in the calendar. (I've heard that in districts where the stupid "war on drugs" is heavily fought, civil cases can take years to even get to preliminary hearings).
Another factor is the experience of the judges in the district. As I said, a patent case is complicated. An important part is deciding exactly what the words in the claims and specification mean. This is done at a pretrial hearing. The results of this hearing can make or break the case. You don't want a judge who has never seen a patent case before.
Another factor would be to avoid territory where the defendant is strong. You probably would not want to sue Microsoft in Seattle, for instance, as they are a major contributor to the Washington economy, and jurors, especially non-technical jurors, are likely to have a very favorable impression of them.
BTW, the judges in districts will sometimes specifically try to attract patent cases (or other large, complex cases) to their districts. Partly this is because they like the challenge of complex cases. That's one of the big reasons Eastern District of Texas became big in patents. One judge there was a math major, and worked as a computer programmer and system analyst before going to law school. He likes patent cases for the engineering and the intellectual challenge. Another judge there went to Texas Tech (so presumably has some interest in science or engineering, although I don't know what his major was), and became interested in patent cases when in private practice his firm defended a big patent case, and sought them out when he became a judge.
Partly it is simply to help their district--after all, they are usually residents of the district and have as much interest as anyone else who lives there in wanting to bring in new business. And yes, complex cases bring in business. I was involved as an inventor and witness in a case in Eastern District of Texas, which involved a large company. By the time it got to the trial, there were probably 100+ people combined from both sides there. That's 100+ rooms booked for a month in the local hotels (good hotels, not the cheap places). The two or three biggest conference/meeting rooms booked too (essentially each side sets up a law office for the trial, with 6-10 lawyers, a bunch of paralegals, secretaries, half a dozen IT/support people, some graphics and animation people to work on exhibits, 2 or 3 expert witnesses, the inventors and representatives of their company, and so on). Lots of room service charges, lots of meals in the hotel restaurants charges to rooms. High speed leased line for internet. During the two weeks of actual trial, dozens of people sending off suits for dry cleaning each night. That's a lot of business, especially if the trial is held in a small town in the district.
While I hate spammers as much as the next guy, Dan's little crusade seems less than legal to me. Having a valid opt-out isn't good enough.
He's correct. Having a valid opt-out is NOT good enough. There are two reasons for that.
First, if a valid opt-out were good enough, it would mean every spammer gets a freebie, and then we have to actually take positive action to not receive further spam from them.
Second, opting out requires communicating with the spammer--letting them know that you actually spent time looking at their spam. That is likely to just get you even more spam.
A true hunt-and-peck typist is concentrating on finding the letters when typing. A touch typist devotes almost no conscious effort to typing. If I try some unfamiliar keyboard layout, so that I can no longer touch type, I find that my coding has two mutually exclusive phases--thinking and typing. When using a layout for which I can touch type, there is only one phase--thinking. Thus, I think it is important that a coder be able to touch type.
As far as touch typing speed goes, it probably doesn't matter too much, as long as it is fast enough to keep up with your thought. I don't think it is valid to just look at how many words could be typed at different speeds and note that the difference at the end of the day is not much. If the typing is slower than the thinking, you will find yourself having to interrupt thinking to let the typing catch up. That will be annoying, and will, I think, reduce productivity more than just the raw difference in number of words that can be typed would account for.
Another factor to consider is communicating with others. Up until recently I had coworkers who worked thousands of miles away. We did a lot of communicating over a company IM server. It always annoyed me chatting with coworkers who typed noticeably slower than me.