Sorry Sir I respectfully disagree. Let's assume for the sake of argument, that patents are not always evil. The areas where patents do the least amount of harm have some things in common: 1) Already have big capital requirements i.e. cost of a patent is low compared to cost of a factory. 2) Products contain few patents. 3) Relatively few competitors (natural consequence of 1.)
Software on the other hand: 1) Low capital requirements i.e. you only need a computer. 2) Products contain possibly 100's of patents. 3) Anyone who records a macro in a word processor or enters a formula in a spreadsheet is potentially liable.
It's depressing that we have to endure the same ignorant drivel that were thoroughly debunked almost a decade ago when we convinced European parliament to reject the CII-directive.
Same false argument has been put forward to defend of CCTV. I prefer to shit in privacy, but it seems Eric Schmidt doesn't.
He should read this article.
Solove, Daniel J., 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy. San Diego Law Review, Vol. 44, 2007; GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 289. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=998565
QNX from mid 90ies was an OS that would fit on a 1.44Mb floppy although not written entirely in assembly. Among features were win95ish gui, webbrowser, PPP dialer, TCP/IP stack.
Sweedish pirate party is not unreasonable or extremist. They will abolish patents completely and make private filesharing legal, but they will maintain a 5 year copyright term for commercial usage. Seems reasonable enough to me.
For real? I've been looking for a place that would take such a bet. What % of the current stock price do you think they will have in 20 years? I'd pay considerable money to someone who'd guarantee to buy a significant amount of MSFT shares at 25% the current stock price in 20 years.
Companies that rely on monopoly power lose their ability to compete. Once Microsofts drops below 66% market share in operating systems and productivity software the company will implode, due to built up overhead over the past 20 years and inability to maintain talented employees (incentive schemes rely on increasing stock prices).
I suppose we should feel sorry for every company that ever released something for pay that eventually went out of business because someone else was able to do it for free?
Nope only when monopolies does it should you feel sorry for those who got trampled and only then is it illegal.
I also think the EU's ruling that shipping windows with IE as illegal doesn't make a lot of sense, given all the other stuff they ship with windows and always have shipped with windows. Why is only one of them a bad thing? If the others are ok, why is the browser not?
Who said only browser is a problem? IIRC US antitrust litigation was about Netscape, EU litigation was also about WIndowsMedia player.
It really is kinda simple. You're not allowed to use dominance in one market to conquer another, which is exactly what bundling does.
Re:ISO standards themselves are closed!
on
ISO Puts OOXML On Hold
·
· Score: 3, Informative
This is how standards organisations have been financed. 150$ for a standard of socket sizes for light blubs is petty cash compared to cost of facilities needed to produce them. Standards-(organisations) is still mostly concerned with manufacture of physical goods and their thinking heavily influenced by industrial era (as is most of society, most people have no clue what it means to live in the information age).
"1. Do you acknowledge the legitimacy of intellectual property to begin with? " No
"That is, do you believe that intellectual property is a valid construct equivalent to physical property, or do you think it's illusory? " Illusory.
"If not, why? " Unlike physical property those whose intellectual rights are violated haven't lost anything. If I steal your horse you can't ride. If I use your idea for a better cart, you can still build your cart. Stealing an idea requires surgery of some kind.
"2. If so, how would you go about protecting the rights of intellectual property holders in a way that doesn't require unfair usage limitations or resort to predatory abuse of the tort system?"
While it may not be what you expected for youself when you started in IT industry work with what pays the bills and seek your personal fullfillment among family and friends when you're not working.
Check headline on ISO annual report from 2002, "One standard, One Test, accepted everywhere".
Pretty sure the "One Standard" thingy was part of their slogan for ages.
"The reason for the board's decision is that the SIS has information indicating that one of the participants of the working group cast more than one vote."
From reading original I think the following may be more accurate:
"... one of the particippants of the working group have had more than one vote/voice."
Doesn't sweedish "röst" have dual meaning of voice/vote like "stemme" has in danish.
The sad thing is its probably not in their best interest, but they are too stupid to see it. - OOXML gets rejected by ISO - Public procurement policies dictate ODF - Microsoft supports ODF - Customers are free of lock-in - Larger percentage will choose F/LOSS - costs shift from license fees to training / consulting - more money for local companies.
Wrong! Only required parts of specification are covered by NLA & CNS, any implementation of OOXML would need to implement optional parts of specification to do anything usefull. Read this blog entry from Rob Weir.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry Sir I respectfully disagree.
Let's assume for the sake of argument, that patents are not always evil.
The areas where patents do the least amount of harm have some things in common:
1) Already have big capital requirements i.e. cost of a patent is low compared to cost of a factory.
2) Products contain few patents.
3) Relatively few competitors (natural consequence of 1.)
Software on the other hand:
1) Low capital requirements i.e. you only need a computer.
2) Products contain possibly 100's of patents.
3) Anyone who records a macro in a word processor or enters a formula in a spreadsheet is potentially liable.
It's depressing that we have to endure the same ignorant drivel that were thoroughly debunked almost a decade ago when we convinced European parliament to reject the CII-directive.
Switching costs > Licencensing costs
X$ > Y$ per year !? something about this equation doesn't make sense.
Wouldn't you have to know how many years we're talking about?
Same false argument has been put forward to defend of CCTV.
I prefer to shit in privacy, but it seems Eric Schmidt doesn't.
He should read this article.
Solove, Daniel J., 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy. San Diego Law Review, Vol. 44, 2007; GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 289. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=998565
QNX from mid 90ies was an OS that would fit on a 1.44Mb floppy although not written entirely in assembly.
Among features were win95ish gui, webbrowser, PPP dialer, TCP/IP stack.
Sweedish pirate party is not unreasonable or extremist. They will abolish patents completely and make private filesharing legal, but they will maintain a 5 year copyright term for commercial usage. Seems reasonable enough to me.
For real? I've been looking for a place that would take such a bet.
What % of the current stock price do you think they will have in 20 years?
I'd pay considerable money to someone who'd guarantee to buy a significant amount of MSFT shares at 25% the current stock price in 20 years.
Companies that rely on monopoly power lose their ability to compete.
Once Microsofts drops below 66% market share in operating systems and productivity software the company will implode, due to built up overhead over the past 20 years and inability to maintain talented employees (incentive schemes rely on increasing stock prices).
I suppose we should feel sorry for every company that ever released something for pay that eventually went out of business because someone else was able to do it for free?
Nope only when monopolies does it should you feel sorry for those who got trampled and only then is it illegal.
I also think the EU's ruling that shipping windows with IE as illegal doesn't make a lot of sense, given all the other stuff they ship with windows and always have shipped with windows. Why is only one of them a bad thing? If the others are ok, why is the browser not?
Who said only browser is a problem? IIRC US antitrust litigation was about Netscape, EU litigation was also about WIndowsMedia player.
It really is kinda simple. You're not allowed to use dominance in one market to conquer another, which is exactly what bundling does.
Apple denies users freedom to tinker.
The fact that you can buy a tinkering permit for 99$ doesn't change this.
N/T
This is how standards organisations have been financed.
150$ for a standard of socket sizes for light blubs is petty cash compared to cost of facilities needed to produce them.
Standards-(organisations) is still mostly concerned with manufacture of physical goods and their thinking heavily influenced by industrial era (as is most of society, most people have no clue what it means to live in the information age).
"1. Do you acknowledge the legitimacy of intellectual property to begin with? "
No
"That is, do you believe that intellectual property is a valid construct equivalent to physical property, or do you think it's illusory? "
Illusory.
"If not, why? "
Unlike physical property those whose intellectual rights are violated haven't lost anything.
If I steal your horse you can't ride. If I use your idea for a better cart, you can still build your cart.
Stealing an idea requires surgery of some kind.
"2. If so, how would you go about protecting the rights of intellectual property holders in a way that doesn't require unfair usage limitations or resort to predatory abuse of the tort system?"
N/A
While it may not be what you expected for youself when you started in IT industry work with what pays the bills and seek your personal fullfillment among family and friends when you're not working.
Check headline on ISO annual report from 2002, "One standard, One Test, accepted everywhere". Pretty sure the "One Standard" thingy was part of their slogan for ages.
"The reason for the board's decision is that the SIS has information indicating that one of the participants of the working group cast more than one vote." From reading original I think the following may be more accurate: "... one of the particippants of the working group have had more than one vote/voice." Doesn't sweedish "röst" have dual meaning of voice/vote like "stemme" has in danish.
Röst doesn't that have dual meaning of voice and vote? I know "stemme" has dual meaning in Danish.
The sad thing is its probably not in their best interest, but they are too stupid to see it.
- OOXML gets rejected by ISO
- Public procurement policies dictate ODF
- Microsoft supports ODF
- Customers are free of lock-in
- Larger percentage will choose F/LOSS
- costs shift from license fees to training / consulting
- more money for local companies.
Wrong! Only required parts of specification are covered by NLA & CNS, any implementation of OOXML would need to implement optional parts of specification to do anything usefull. Read this blog entry from Rob Weir.
http://www.noooxml.org/petition