Why not? "Nice" often translates into money on the bottom line. If people don't like you, they find reasons to take their business elsewhere. IBM learned that lesson a few decades ago.
(They didn't "pass" on the patent, though; they went defensive. They disclosed it, and in so doing made sure that no-one else could use it against them. They do that with quite a number of potential patents every year.)
With no comment whatsoever on the viability of Sun's future business plans or products - "in development" means "we've spent lots of money on it but it hasn't started to pay back". You don't stay in a business because you've already invested heavily in the development of something that isn't out there yet; you stay in it because it's expected to pay back well. If not, you cut your loses as soon as you can, and get out.
Let's get real - this looks more like the judge handing the defendent a size 15 cluebat to the effect that she needs to get some legal representation urgently. She either doesn't understand the legal niceties and the rules that she *must* play by, or chose to ignore them - and she just dodged a bullet. If the judge hadn't pulled her irons out of the fire this time by pointing to an apparent failure on the RIAA side to follow the rules as well, she'd already be toast.
The "proof" on that site is nothing of the sort. It's simply a java applet that gives an opinion on whether a particular position is a win, loss or draw. Except, of course, where, without explanation, it reports that the position was not analysed.
Let's be real. As given, that's no proof that any mathematician would recognise as such. Thanks to the cases not analysed, it's not even a brute-force proof - the reasoning behind excluding those cases could be simple, maybe even blindingly obvious when explained, but it isn't given, and for all anyone reading that site knows, it's wrong. In fact, all that the website "proof" is, is a big helping of "Trust us". With side orders of "Our logic is correct", "Our programming is accurate and bug-free", "We've crunched one HECK of a lot of numbers" and "WOW! Aren't you impressed?". But still, ultimately, just "Trust us".
One has to assume that the Schaeffer and his team have rather more and better than the webs site content to offer to the mathematical community.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not? "Nice" often translates into money on the bottom line. If people don't like you, they find reasons to take their business elsewhere. IBM learned that lesson a few decades ago. (They didn't "pass" on the patent, though; they went defensive. They disclosed it, and in so doing made sure that no-one else could use it against them. They do that with quite a number of potential patents every year.)
With no comment whatsoever on the viability of Sun's future business plans or products - "in development" means "we've spent lots of money on it but it hasn't started to pay back". You don't stay in a business because you've already invested heavily in the development of something that isn't out there yet; you stay in it because it's expected to pay back well. If not, you cut your loses as soon as you can, and get out.
Let's get real - this looks more like the judge handing the defendent a size 15 cluebat to the effect that she needs to get some legal representation urgently. She either doesn't understand the legal niceties and the rules that she *must* play by, or chose to ignore them - and she just dodged a bullet. If the judge hadn't pulled her irons out of the fire this time by pointing to an apparent failure on the RIAA side to follow the rules as well, she'd already be toast.
The "proof" on that site is nothing of the sort. It's simply a java applet that gives an opinion on whether a particular position is a win, loss or draw. Except, of course, where, without explanation, it reports that the position was not analysed.
Let's be real. As given, that's no proof that any mathematician would recognise as such. Thanks to the cases not analysed, it's not even a brute-force proof - the reasoning behind excluding those cases could be simple, maybe even blindingly obvious when explained, but it isn't given, and for all anyone reading that site knows, it's wrong. In fact, all that the website "proof" is, is a big helping of "Trust us". With side orders of "Our logic is correct", "Our programming is accurate and bug-free", "We've crunched one HECK of a lot of numbers" and "WOW! Aren't you impressed?". But still, ultimately, just "Trust us".
One has to assume that the Schaeffer and his team have rather more and better than the webs site content to offer to the mathematical community.