"the bottom line to me is that a process that worked perfectly well when folks all trusted each other falls into chaos when there are allegations of dirty tricks or undue pressure"...well DUH...
I don't know for sure, but the vista-only drivers could be just because Microsoft won't certify anything for XP anymore.
I think that NT had some sort of "trusted driver" thingy where a driver had to be signed (probably by microsoft) to be loaded, and since XP is based off of NT, it probably carried over. Heck, you have to hack the swap file to bypass it.
So the major manufacturers may not have any choice in the matter, at least not without forging the signature process, which would probably void warranties or get MS to refuse even vista signatures, or any other number of consequential or retaliatory actions.
If sony has a gun to our heads, it could be because MS has a gun to *their* heads.
Personally, I think they should move to a supply and demand based system, where you are charged per packet or per megabyte, and per-unit prices rise during periods of peak demand.
There are a few power companies who announce 24 hours in advance how much they're going to charge per Kwh in any given hour, and their customers can time their usage to take advantage of slack space, since the prices are based on demand.
If we do the same thing with internet service *both in and out*, a real bandwidth hog is going to wind up paying a shitload of money for his service, especially if he tries to tie up the net during peak hours. However, a casual user won't get burned.
And, coincidentally, it would solve the nasty "RIAA's making me block bittorrent" by comcast, or at least make it much harder for them to hide behind such a statement.
One particular property shared by almost ALL multimedia is that it is friggin HUGE. A movie can easily run into multiple gigabytes.
So start charging per-unit fees, and you'll put a massive leash on filesharing of media files. Suddenly, all those shared movies are costing major beaucoup to get, and they start going away.
You can only count a customer as a loss if they were both willing and able to buy from you had it not been for the illegal sharing.
I, for example, don't qualify as a potential customer, because I'm too piss poor to afford it.
And many others may simply not be interested in spending 15 bucks on a CD, regardless of if they can get it for free or not, legally or not.
Offering illegal shares lowers revenue, sure. But technically, it also raises supply, thus reducing the price at where the equilibrium intersection of supply and demand is.
The only customers the RIAA loses to filesharing are those who are willing to buy it anyway.
If any devs from MSFT start contributing code, the LF better have some damn good lawyers to make sure they don't get screwed.
I'd be in favor of the following indemnification.
1. Any MS developer expressly warrants, under penalty of perjury if possible, that no code they contribute will fall under a patent, copyright, or other legal stumbling block that is not GPL compliant.
2. If any developer DOES slip something non-GPL'able under the table, perhaps if MS actually has ulterior motives and would try to slyly sabotage linux by sneaking proprietary code into it, and later suing, the developer who screwed up is responsible for all of the LF's costs in resolving the problem.
I'm honestly worried that MS might use this as a chance to slip an infringing landmine into the linux source code.
The right to gripe anonymously is essential for sidestepping a backlash of retaliation.
You can get sued into oblivion by companies with deep pockets. Or worse, you wind up pissing off the wrong person and wind up with a bounty on your head from some mafia type organization.
Or, perhaps, you're so scared of the previous points that you consider it's safer to keep your trap shut.
Slashdot Mirror
It's called "Intentional interference with contractual relations".
It's actually a tort and you can sue for damages.
Actually WoW bot doesn't need to break copyright to get sued by Blizzard.
It's against the TOS to bot, and the TOS is effectively a contract.
By publishing a bot, the bot maker is effectively a third party inducing a breach of contract.
Naw, just me paying tribute to Captain Obvious.
I would agree with you if the EU actually had balls enough to get some sanctions against MS and wasn't afraid of pissing off the US.
Microsoft is WAY bad, and deserves more than piddly symbolic fines that MS might not even wish to pay.
Fining someone only does good if you can collect. The EU needs to start enforcing its fines. Maybe a few seizures and reposessions will wake up MS.
I think that a loser pays system would work if it worked like this:
Only if you actually LOSE your case, as in you get a bad VERDICT, should you have to pay.
Of course, there will be an incentive to drop a case, but the incentive will probably fade if you have a solid defense or offense.
I think that was the GNU philosophy for building a Free OS.
At least I think that's what RMS mentioned when he was building HURD. Make each piece open, but working, and the whole will also work.
Strange thing for Microsoft to mimic...
"the bottom line to me is that a process that worked perfectly well when folks all trusted each other falls into chaos when there are allegations of dirty tricks or undue pressure" ...well DUH...
I don't know for sure, but the vista-only drivers could be just because Microsoft won't certify anything for XP anymore.
I think that NT had some sort of "trusted driver" thingy where a driver had to be signed (probably by microsoft) to be loaded, and since XP is based off of NT, it probably carried over. Heck, you have to hack the swap file to bypass it.
So the major manufacturers may not have any choice in the matter, at least not without forging the signature process, which would probably void warranties or get MS to refuse even vista signatures, or any other number of consequential or retaliatory actions.
If sony has a gun to our heads, it could be because MS has a gun to *their* heads.
First you display goatse stuff, and then you lock up my box so I can't close the window.
you are scum.
Actually, the fact you are a retailer at the mercy of your wholesale upstream proves our point.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
I agree with the mods on GP (for once). It was an attempt at humor and was properly labelled as such.
Personally, I think they should move to a supply and demand based system, where you are charged per packet or per megabyte, and per-unit prices rise during periods of peak demand.
There are a few power companies who announce 24 hours in advance how much they're going to charge per Kwh in any given hour, and their customers can time their usage to take advantage of slack space, since the prices are based on demand.
If we do the same thing with internet service *both in and out*, a real bandwidth hog is going to wind up paying a shitload of money for his service, especially if he tries to tie up the net during peak hours. However, a casual user won't get burned.
And, coincidentally, it would solve the nasty "RIAA's making me block bittorrent" by comcast, or at least make it much harder for them to hide behind such a statement.
One particular property shared by almost ALL multimedia is that it is friggin HUGE. A movie can easily run into multiple gigabytes.
So start charging per-unit fees, and you'll put a massive leash on filesharing of media files. Suddenly, all those shared movies are costing major beaucoup to get, and they start going away.
All right, who was the idiot moderator that slapped parent with flamebait? It was interesting at least, and insightful at best.
The real problem is that people are so damn greedy and backstabbing that we NEED patents in the first place.
And how fitting that the captcha word for this post is "bribing".
Actually, it has.
You can only count a customer as a loss if they were both willing and able to buy from you had it not been for the illegal sharing.
I, for example, don't qualify as a potential customer, because I'm too piss poor to afford it.
And many others may simply not be interested in spending 15 bucks on a CD, regardless of if they can get it for free or not, legally or not.
Offering illegal shares lowers revenue, sure. But technically, it also raises supply, thus reducing the price at where the equilibrium intersection of supply and demand is.
The only customers the RIAA loses to filesharing are those who are willing to buy it anyway.
Ah, yes.
I'm actually well aware of the signoff procedure.
However, are there penalties for falsely signing off on something?
Hey, they'll probably do a better job of it :/
I hope funds get spent efficiently, even if they come out of the wrong pocket.
Linux IS ready. What about the $200 laptop?
They didn't quit making it until Wal-Mart quit selling it.
If any devs from MSFT start contributing code, the LF better have some damn good lawyers to make sure they don't get screwed.
I'd be in favor of the following indemnification.
1. Any MS developer expressly warrants, under penalty of perjury if possible, that no code they contribute will fall under a patent, copyright, or other legal stumbling block that is not GPL compliant.
2. If any developer DOES slip something non-GPL'able under the table, perhaps if MS actually has ulterior motives and would try to slyly sabotage linux by sneaking proprietary code into it, and later suing, the developer who screwed up is responsible for all of the LF's costs in resolving the problem.
I'm honestly worried that MS might use this as a chance to slip an infringing landmine into the linux source code.
Unfortunately companies are not bound to respect your first amendment rights. The restriction only affects government.
:)
I think that should change though
The right to gripe anonymously is essential for sidestepping a backlash of retaliation.
You can get sued into oblivion by companies with deep pockets. Or worse, you wind up pissing off the wrong person and wind up with a bounty on your head from some mafia type organization.
Or, perhaps, you're so scared of the previous points that you consider it's safer to keep your trap shut.
McLibel.
Do what I do, and either go to the local internet-ready library, or hop into a cyber cafe.
Heck, I DO have a computer at home that isn't on the 'net.
If the GPL is tanked with copyright, all is well because abuse of copyright is exactly what the GPL fights against.
Oh come on moderator, that was funny!