I worry that this one is going to be knocked down by a higher court. A lot of legally knowledgable people I know say that Jackson migh have been a little to quick on the draw for this to stand. Any lawyer out there care to comment?
IANAL. Well, the way I understand it is Jackson's actually playing this pretty smart. Yes, he did frog-march Microsoft through the remedy phase, but what can happen? If the remedies don't stand up on appeal it just comes back into Jackson's court - he gets to fix it. This is nothing like the kind of problem he'd have if the conclusions of law didn't stand, and that's why he was so careful and thorough making those totally solid and bulletproof.
Personally, I think he's handled this case just brilliantly from end to end, and his most recent stroke of genius is to get the whole process ready for the Supreme Court's fall session - otherwise, Microsoft might have been able to delay the whole process by yet another year. --
By making the split so that Applications (Office) and Browsers (MSIE) are still in the same group, they'll still be able to do this to consumers who rely on Microsoft applications.
Not only that, but they will be able to continue to play the one-two game with browsers and servers, hooking them together will all kinds of proprietary and polluted protocols. The remedies do a little bit to interfere with this strategem, but not enough. The inevitable result of this weakness will be yet another legal go around when it becomes obvious that the new Microsoft Apps monopoly needs to be further dismantled. --
Wish I had points now to moderate you up but I'll do the next best thing by quoting you:
Like everyone else who has replied so far, I disagree with your perception of Microsoft, but damn I admire what you wrote. You have stood up to the angry mob, and done it in a fair and even handed manner. This has got to be the most courageous and articulate post I've ever seen on Slashdot. Microsoft doesn't deserve you.
Well said.
Actually, just like a lot of responders I see here, I used to be paranoid about the possibility of Microsoft trolls coming onto Slashdot en masse and polluting it - team moderation on Microsoft threads, that kind of thing - but I now see it an entirely different way. My belief is that a goodly portion of the Microsoft employees that do come onto Slashdot (yes, they do, lots do) are actually learning to think the way we do: first to stop loathing us, then to respect us, then... who knows, maybe even become like us. There really is no desciple quite so zealous as a convert. --
Blizzard has said they will have the game ported to Linux as soon as there are sales figures to support it... How can you argue with that?
I can ask: if Blizzard is really sincere then why don't they cut a deal with Loki to do the port at Loki's expense, in return for which Loki gets a cut of the royalties? I don't know exactly how Loki's business model works but I imagine it's something like that. No risk for Blizzard. Hardly any risk for Loki either, because they know their market and their programming abilities very well. --
If you develop a product that competes against their similar product, they cannot take action. But if you infringe on their patents, they CAN take action.
Nope, you don't get it. They can't take *any* action, legal or not, against you if it violates the terms of the remedy. That would include creating and patent licence conditions that would violate the terms of the remedy, or enforcing them if they somehow existed. They can have their patent but they can't use it against us.
This gives us three years to figure out how to defeat the patents themselves. --
"Restriction on Binding Middleware Products to Operating System Products. Microsoft shall not, in any Operating System Product distributed six or more months after the effective date of this Final Judgment, Bind any Middleware Product to a Windows Operating System... "
This is the one that really gets me. This whole trial started over the "illegal" tying of IE into Windows, and according to this, they don't have to take it out. Since it's already in, it gets to stay in.
You got it exactly backwards. This says that IE can't be tied to Windows in any future distribution.
I can't see where anyone can claim they weren't out to get get MS from the begining
Who's claiming that? Everbody knows we're out to "get" Microsoft, because they cheat and break the law, while consistently carrying on business without any detectable shred of ethics or morality. --
They can still keep their patents. But they can't take action (etc) if a 3rd party develops something that competes with their software.
So if you develop a player for FOO multimedia files and are thus competing with MS they can't attack you. But you can't just use their patents - that's not the same as competition, b/c it's illegal on it's own.
You answered this yourself: But they can't take action. Please tell me how a patent that they can't legally enforce is going to stop anyone from doing anything. We will have three years to figure out how to get the stupid patent itself overturned. --
Can we find the terms of their file format patent license to be a contractual tie? (bet you we can)
Well, actually, no, not the way this restriction is written. But another provision of the remedy does offer a lot of promise:
Developer Relations. Microsoft shall not take or threaten any action affecting any ISV or IHV (including but not limited to giving or withholding any consideration such as licensing terms; discounts; technical, marketing, and sales support; enabling programs; product information; technical information; information about future plans; developer tools or developer support; hardware certification; and permission to display trademarks or logos) based directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, on any actual or contemplated action by that ISV or IHV to -
i. use, distribute, promote or support any Microsoft product or service, or
ii. develop, use, distribute, promote or support software that runs on non-Microsoft Middleware or a non-Microsoft Operating System or that competes with any Microsoft product or service...
Bingo! We just have to have an ISV (Red hat? Suse? Mandrake?) bring out a media player that incorporates ASF, Microsoft sues, and gets slammed by this provision. Any of you lawyers out there care to comment? --
Wall Street has expected this for a long time. I'm no stock guru, but I'd say that the ~35 point drop we saw in the last few months has a lot to do with people basically reacting to what happened today (if that makes sense). If MS wins an appeal, I would expect to see the stock price bounce right back to where it was.
Microsoft won't win an appeal. This isn't going to be another rigged game like the last three trips to the circuit court - it's going straight to the supreme court and Judge Jackson's work is as airtight as it gets. Even during the period before the Supreme Court rules on it, Microsoft will be hobbled by restrictions we'd never have imagined just a year or so ago. This isn't speculation, it's for sure. When the thickheaded market finally realizes this, guess which way Microsoft's stock is headed.
Don't forget also that there are a hundred or so private suits in progress (more to come no doubt) and all those guys have their greedy eyes on Microsoft's $50 billion cash horde. --
It will be years and years before this gets enforced.
No, you're wrong. Significant parts of the remedy take effect exactly 90 days from now. Make no mistake about it: In 90 days they're putting the handcuffs on Microsoft and marching them off to jail. From the remedies:
This Final Judgment shall take effect 90 days after the date on which it is entered;
3. Provisions In Effect Until Full Implementation of the Plan of Divestiture.The provisions in this section 3 shall remain in effect until the earlier of three years after the Implementation of the Plan or the expiration of the term of this Final Judgment...
Ban on Adverse Actions for Supporting Competing Products. Microsoft shall not take or threaten any action adversely affecting any OEM Uniform Terms for Windows Operating System
Products Licensed to Covered OEM. Microsoft shall license Windows Operating System Products to Covered OEMs pursuant to uniform license agreements with uniform terms and conditions and shall not employ market development allowances or discounts...
OEM Flexibility in Product Configuration. Microsoft shall not restrict (by contract or otherwise, including but not limited to granting or withholding consideration) an OEM from modifying the boot sequence...
Disclosure of APIs, Communications Interfaces and Technical Information. Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs in a Timely Manner, in whatever media Microsoft disseminates such information to its own personnel, all APIs, Technical Information and Communications Interfaces that Microsoft employs...
Knowing Interference with Performance. Microsoft shall not take any action that it knows will interfere with or degrade the performance of any non-Microsoft Middleware...
Developer Relations. Microsoft shall not take or threaten any action affecting any ISV or IHV Ban on Exclusive Dealing. Microsoft shall not enter into or enforce any Agreement in which a third party agrees, or is offered or granted consideration...
Ban on Contractual Tying. Microsoft shall not condition the granting of a Windows Operating System Product license...
Restriction on Binding Middleware Products to Operating System Products. Microsoft shall not, in any Operating System Product distributed six or more months after the effective date of this Final Judgment, Bind any Middleware Product to a Windows Operating System...
Agreements Limiting Competition. Microsoft shall not offer, agree to provide, or provide any consideration to any actual or potential Platform Software competitor in exchange for such competitor's agreeing to refrain...
Continued Licensing of Predecessor Version. Microsoft shall, when it makes a major Windows Operating System Product release...
So, what I'm saying is: go ahead and pop the cork... Microsoft is going into the slammer, it's for real. We're got 90 days to figure out the best ways to exploit the new leverage the good judge is giving us. What's on the top of my mind is how the ban on contractual tying could be used to counter Microsoft's slimy dealings on ASF. Can we find the terms of their file format patent license to be a contractual tie? (bet you we can) And get it thrown back in their face immediately. Boy, wouldn't that be sweet? And at the same time give the DCMA and UCITA, with their oppressive new restrictions on reverse engineering etc., a swift kick in the nuts. Same goes for their attempt to pollute Kerberos, though I truly that one is being handled well through other means. But Microsoft really has some strong attacks going on the legal, intellectual property and patent fronts (just as Halloween II recommended) and up to now things haven't been going all that well for the rebel alliance.
This ruling gives us lots of groovy new ways to hit Microsoft where it hurts, starting right now. The next chapter in this sorry saga is going to be mostly fun for the barbarians:-) --
The answer is "yes". To convince yourself of this, just try moving a CD image from one disk to another, or unpacking an archive of Mozilla. Not to mention the direct correlation with paging performance. --
Is there even one core product on the Microsoft line that is an original Microsoft innovation? How about the flight simulator? Maybe they did that first.
The Microsoft Flight Simulator was purchased from Bruce Artwick's Sublogic corp..
So I guess that just leaves Bob (tm). Unless somebody else knows why they can't even claim to have innovated *that* piece of carp. --
To an outsider whose eyes are clear of zealotry, the Linux game market looks like this:
1. There are only a handful of commercial games.
2. Those games are also available for Windows, so even if I decide to pick up Linux at Barnes & Noble I still have Windows around to play games with. Not sure why I would want to play the Linux version.
3. The freebie games are pretty horrendously unexciting. Yay! Hundreds of Tetris and Asteroids variants! Does Open Source somehow imply a lack of creativity?
4. All the nifty games like The Sims and FreeSpace 2 and Roller Coaster Tycoon aren't out for Linux.
But this is almost identical to the situation we saw when the PC took the games market away from the Apple II, and again when Windows took it away from Dos. Some people see a half-empty glass, some see it half-full. You're right, the situation is exactly as you describe it, but to me that's nothing but good news for Linux.
let's be honest about this. There are very few reasons to even consider using Linux for games...
Ah... I beg to differ. The big reason to use Linux for games is because you use it for everything else. Why should I waste disk space (not to mention letting myself in for all that aggravation and possible virus invasions) by having Windows on my system?
While I'm on the subject, by most accounts there are something like 10,000,000 Linux users already, and doubling every year. All well-educated, generally fun-loving, and generally possessing excellent earning power. That's a no-brainer as far as marketing goes. --
IBM's Visual Age for Java came with a slick install that looks and acts very much like Install Shield. I don't think it's that big a deal to do. This is helped a lot by the fact that Linux environments are pretty consistent these days - you can pretty much count on glibc being available, and XFree 3.3.6. The task is made far, far simpler when programs are statically linked, like most of the "big" systems are. Still, that's kind of a cop-out. I'd rather put up with a bit more fiddling with libraries, and be able to install lighter, tighter dynamically linked programs. This imposes some interesting new user-interface requirements on install programs - how do you gently explain to dear user that such-and-such library needs to be updated? The best approach would be to follow up immediately with a "shall I find it on the web, download it, and install it for you now?".
I have a couple of beefs with install programs in general, though. One thing: it would suck to have to download the entire install program with every package you install. (This is the status quo for Windows, and one of the reasons we get used to *every* program being multi-megabyte, even simple programs like email clients.) I guess what this means is: we need a standard library to support gui-style installing complete with the usual handholding, so the same code doesn't have to be bound redundantly into every package. The package itself should just contain some nice tight script, preferably compiled into bytecodes or some such.
OK, while I'm getting warmed up to this topic, there really isn't any excuse for failing to compress these install packages. RPM's have some kind of compression, but it's hardly optimal (I just tried compressing a few rpms to verify that). Let's go for the gusto and rely on bzip2 being available - it zips *significantly* better than gzip and pkzip.
My biggest beef with the glitzy installs I've seen is that they *don't* use the RPM (or any other) database, and so you lose all the nice query capabilities you have, and they don't show up in any of the graphical package management utilities.
So who is going to be the first to hack up a nice installer that uses RPM (you'd have to do a DEB version as well to cover the bases) and hooks into some nice script engine like Python, and relies on GTK? Sure, it won't work on every system but it will work on *most* of them, and almost all the new ones. Who is going to be the one that builds the Linux installer that catches on? --
Re:Reason to be civil
on
DeCSS Update
·
· Score: 2
This is the reason not to email hate mail/threats to the MPAA or RIAA. The people who did that gave the MPAA ammunition in their effort to keep the lawsuit out of the public eye and out of the press.
How do we know they didn't send those emails themselves? --
It's also very slow. You see on my main desktop ( A humble P200 with 64 megs and a 4 meg S3-Virge ) it takes several minutes to load X. Most of that wait time you have a blank screen.
Something is broken. On this 233 MHz machine it starts in a few seconds. Switch back to the text console while it's loading and see if there are any helpful messages. Check your sound card support (I had this problem). Check the log/messages file. --
I would be outraged by any such kowtowing on the part of my government.
On the other hand, should Microsoft be foolish enough to see such a move as a solution to their current problem, they would quickly find that Canadians are far pushier about obeying the law, and the spirit of the law, than Americans are. And also far more vocal about it. --
The government's proposal contains language to create a mechanism to ensure that Microsoft has to answer for any technical tricks that break compatibility with other products. Microsoft modestly proposes to change the language from "effectively interoperate" to just "interoperate".
Suppose everybody at birth were required by law to have a small transmitter embedded in their body which would be used to ensure they could be positively identified at all times. Suppose further that it were made illegal to appear in public without such a transmitter, functioning properly. This would actually be quite easy to do and to enforce. Sickening thought, isn't it?
Now why is appearing on the internet any different at all from walking on the street? In fact, a person walking on the street is capable of causing much more real, physical harm than a disembodied presence on the net.
If there is any legitimate need at all to deprive people of their right to anonymity on the net it should be controlled rigorously so that it cannot be abused. In other words, it should require the same process that is used to deprive people of their right to walk freely on the street: plublic declaration of martial law, or a state of emergency.
Let's repeat this to ourselves over and over again: Surfing the internet is the same as walking on the street. --
...but, it's not like you can run anything but Nintendo's OS on the NES, or SNES.
This isn't Nintendo. This isn't SNES.
Same way that Apple won't get in trouble by not letting other people make os's for their hardware, because, it is THEIR hardware, it's proprietary.
Microsoft is a monopolist. That is a fact, not an opinion. Monopolists must play by different rules than other companies. That is what anti-trust law is all about.
They can do what they like.
No they can't, at least not after final judgement is entered. This may be news to you, but Microsoft is going to jail.
I stand by my original comment: if Microsoft attempts to tie their OS to this product, they are in deep doodoo. --
Every X-Box is a Linux box too, unless Microsoft intentionally prevents this. In which case they will have some serious explaining to do on the anti-trust front. We should be alert for any signs that Microsoft is planning to restrict the type of OS that can run on this hardware. --
Has every body seen this article where Time O'Reilly dismantles Patent Office Director Q. Todd Dickinson?
Here's an exchange that really says it all:
Tim: Are you a lawyer by training?
Dickinson: Yes, I am.
Tim: How would you feel if a lawyer was able to patent an argument?
Dickinson: If it was new and non-obvious, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all.
Tim: And the ability to basically extract a royalty from other lawyers for using that same legal argument?
Dickinson: As I say, if it's new, and if it met the statutory standards for patentability (and that's the key question here), and it was incorporated into software in some form, that wouldn't be a problem.
Tim: No, not in software. Just in actual, in court.
Dickinson: Well, I don't want to deal in hypotheticals. The courts haven't dealt with that question.
Now, even when this guy was completely snookered by Tim he couldn't bring himself to concede the point. It was at this moment that every shred of confidence I have in the PTO evaporated completely. It went on...
Tim: Well, how about a basketball player invents a new move. Should that be patentable?
The comment in the article, warning about people holding IP crawling out of the woodwork if the standard is successful is definitely one to watch.
What would be fair is to have a set period for public commentary during which IP holders would have to declare their intent to enforce their rights, or forever hold their peace. But the situation we have now seems tailor-made to encourage immoral-but-legal submarining like Unisys did with GIF.
It's beyond me why failure to defend one's IP claims in a timely manner doesn't have the same weakening effect on patents as it does on trademarks. --
Why in the world would I spend $100,000 dollars for the coders, artists, musicians, and equipment necessary to get a first quality game created, when I can excercise a miniscule amount of patience and be second in line, receiving it for free?
Slashdot Mirror
I worry that this one is going to be knocked down by a higher court. A lot of legally knowledgable people I know say that Jackson migh have been a little to quick on the draw for this to stand. Any lawyer out there care to comment?
IANAL. Well, the way I understand it is Jackson's actually playing this pretty smart. Yes, he did frog-march Microsoft through the remedy phase, but what can happen? If the remedies don't stand up on appeal it just comes back into Jackson's court - he gets to fix it. This is nothing like the kind of problem he'd have if the conclusions of law didn't stand, and that's why he was so careful and thorough making those totally solid and bulletproof.
Personally, I think he's handled this case just brilliantly from end to end, and his most recent stroke of genius is to get the whole process ready for the Supreme Court's fall session - otherwise, Microsoft might have been able to delay the whole process by yet another year.
--
By making the split so that Applications (Office) and Browsers (MSIE) are still in the same group, they'll still be able to do this to consumers who rely on Microsoft applications.
Not only that, but they will be able to continue to play the one-two game with browsers and servers, hooking them together will all kinds of proprietary and polluted protocols. The remedies do a little bit to interfere with this strategem, but not enough. The inevitable result of this weakness will be yet another legal go around when it becomes obvious that the new Microsoft Apps monopoly needs to be further dismantled.
--
Wish I had points now to moderate you up but I'll do the next best thing by quoting you:
Like everyone else who has replied so far, I disagree with your perception of Microsoft, but damn I admire what you wrote. You have stood up to the angry mob, and done it in a fair and even handed manner. This has got to be the most courageous and articulate post I've ever seen on Slashdot. Microsoft doesn't deserve you.
Well said.
Actually, just like a lot of responders I see here, I used to be paranoid about the possibility of Microsoft trolls coming onto Slashdot en masse and polluting it - team moderation on Microsoft threads, that kind of thing - but I now see it an entirely different way. My belief is that a goodly portion of the Microsoft employees that do come onto Slashdot (yes, they do, lots do) are actually learning to think the way we do: first to stop loathing us, then to respect us, then... who knows, maybe even become like us. There really is no desciple quite so zealous as a convert.
--
Blizzard has said they will have the game ported to Linux as soon as there are sales figures to support it ... How can you argue with that?
I can ask: if Blizzard is really sincere then why don't they cut a deal with Loki to do the port at Loki's expense, in return for which Loki gets a cut of the royalties? I don't know exactly how Loki's business model works but I imagine it's something like that. No risk for Blizzard. Hardly any risk for Loki either, because they know their market and their programming abilities very well.
--
If you develop a product that competes against their similar product, they cannot take action. But if you infringe on their patents, they CAN take action.
Nope, you don't get it. They can't take *any* action, legal or not, against you if it violates the terms of the remedy. That would include creating and patent licence conditions that would violate the terms of the remedy, or enforcing them if they somehow existed. They can have their patent but they can't use it against us.
This gives us three years to figure out how to defeat the patents themselves.
--
Microsoft is not a monopoly.
No, sorry, you're wrong - that's not in question. Does the word "fact" mean anything to you?
--
"Restriction on Binding Middleware Products to Operating System Products. Microsoft shall not, in any Operating System Product distributed six or more months after the effective date of this Final Judgment, Bind any Middleware Product to a Windows Operating System... "
This is the one that really gets me. This whole trial started over the "illegal" tying of IE into Windows, and according to this, they don't have to take it out. Since it's already in, it gets to stay in.
You got it exactly backwards. This says that IE can't be tied to Windows in any future distribution.
I can't see where anyone can claim they weren't out to get get MS from the begining
Who's claiming that? Everbody knows we're out to "get" Microsoft, because they cheat and break the law, while consistently carrying on business without any detectable shred of ethics or morality.
--
I loathe MS but I disagree with you.
They can still keep their patents. But they can't take action (etc) if a 3rd party develops something that competes with their software.
So if you develop a player for FOO multimedia files and are thus competing with MS they can't attack you. But you can't just use their patents - that's not the same as competition, b/c it's illegal on it's own.
You answered this yourself: But they can't take action. Please tell me how a patent that they can't legally enforce is going to stop anyone from doing anything. We will have three years to figure out how to get the stupid patent itself overturned.
--
Following up my own post...
Can we find the terms of their file format patent license to be a contractual tie? (bet you we can)
Well, actually, no, not the way this restriction is written. But another provision of the remedy does offer a lot of promise:
Developer Relations. Microsoft shall not take or threaten any action affecting any ISV or IHV (including but not limited to giving or withholding any consideration such as licensing terms; discounts; technical, marketing, and sales support; enabling programs; product information; technical information; information about future plans; developer tools or developer support; hardware certification; and permission to display trademarks or logos) based directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, on any actual or contemplated action by that ISV or IHV to -
i. use, distribute, promote or support any Microsoft product or service, or
ii. develop, use, distribute, promote or support software that runs on non-Microsoft Middleware or a non-Microsoft Operating System or that competes with any Microsoft product or service...
Bingo! We just have to have an ISV (Red hat? Suse? Mandrake?) bring out a media player that incorporates ASF, Microsoft sues, and gets slammed by this provision. Any of you lawyers out there care to comment?
--
Wall Street has expected this for a long time. I'm no stock guru, but I'd say that the ~35 point drop we saw in the last few months has a lot to do with people basically reacting to what happened today (if that makes sense). If MS wins an appeal, I would expect to see the stock price bounce right back to where it was.
Microsoft won't win an appeal. This isn't going to be another rigged game like the last three trips to the circuit court - it's going straight to the supreme court and Judge Jackson's work is as airtight as it gets. Even during the period before the Supreme Court rules on it, Microsoft will be hobbled by restrictions we'd never have imagined just a year or so ago. This isn't speculation, it's for sure. When the thickheaded market finally realizes this, guess which way Microsoft's stock is headed.
Don't forget also that there are a hundred or so private suits in progress (more to come no doubt) and all those guys have their greedy eyes on Microsoft's $50 billion cash horde.
--
No, you're wrong. Significant parts of the remedy take effect exactly 90 days from now. Make no mistake about it: In 90 days they're putting the handcuffs on Microsoft and marching them off to jail. From the remedies:
This Final Judgment shall take effect 90 days after the date on which it is entered;
3. Provisions In Effect Until Full Implementation of the Plan of Divestiture. The provisions in this section 3 shall remain in effect until the earlier of three years after the Implementation of the Plan or the expiration of the term of this Final Judgment...
Ban on Adverse Actions for Supporting Competing Products. Microsoft shall not take or threaten any action adversely affecting any OEM Uniform Terms for Windows Operating System
Products Licensed to Covered OEM. Microsoft shall license Windows Operating System Products to Covered OEMs pursuant to uniform license agreements with uniform terms and conditions and shall not employ market development allowances or discounts...
OEM Flexibility in Product Configuration. Microsoft shall not restrict (by contract or otherwise, including but not limited to granting or withholding consideration) an OEM from modifying the boot sequence...
Disclosure of APIs, Communications Interfaces and Technical Information. Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs in a Timely Manner, in whatever media Microsoft disseminates such information to its own personnel, all APIs, Technical Information and Communications Interfaces that Microsoft employs...
Knowing Interference with Performance. Microsoft shall not take any action that it knows will interfere with or degrade the performance of any non-Microsoft Middleware...
Developer Relations. Microsoft shall not take or threaten any action affecting any ISV or IHV Ban on Exclusive Dealing. Microsoft shall not enter into or enforce any Agreement in which a third party agrees, or is offered or granted consideration...
Ban on Contractual Tying. Microsoft shall not condition the granting of a Windows Operating System Product license...
Restriction on Binding Middleware Products to Operating System Products. Microsoft shall not, in any Operating System Product distributed six or more months after the effective date of this Final Judgment, Bind any Middleware Product to a Windows Operating System...
Agreements Limiting Competition. Microsoft shall not offer, agree to provide, or provide any consideration to any actual or potential Platform Software competitor in exchange for such competitor's agreeing to refrain...
Continued Licensing of Predecessor Version. Microsoft shall, when it makes a major Windows Operating System Product release...
:-)
So, what I'm saying is: go ahead and pop the cork... Microsoft is going into the slammer, it's for real. We're got 90 days to figure out the best ways to exploit the new leverage the good judge is giving us. What's on the top of my mind is how the ban on contractual tying could be used to counter Microsoft's slimy dealings on ASF. Can we find the terms of their file format patent license to be a contractual tie? (bet you we can) And get it thrown back in their face immediately. Boy, wouldn't that be sweet? And at the same time give the DCMA and UCITA, with their oppressive new restrictions on reverse engineering etc., a swift kick in the nuts. Same goes for their attempt to pollute Kerberos, though I truly that one is being handled well through other means. But Microsoft really has some strong attacks going on the legal, intellectual property and patent fronts (just as Halloween II recommended) and up to now things haven't been going all that well for the rebel alliance.
This ruling gives us lots of groovy new ways to hit Microsoft where it hurts, starting right now. The next chapter in this sorry saga is going to be mostly fun for the barbarians
--
My real question is "IS THERE A NEED FOR THIS?"
The answer is "yes". To convince yourself of this, just try moving a CD image from one disk to another, or unpacking an archive of Mozilla. Not to mention the direct correlation with paging performance.
--
Is there even one core product on the Microsoft line that is an original Microsoft innovation? How about the flight simulator? Maybe they did that first.
The Microsoft Flight Simulator was purchased from Bruce Artwick's Sublogic corp..
So I guess that just leaves Bob (tm). Unless somebody else knows why they can't even claim to have innovated *that* piece of carp.
--
To an outsider whose eyes are clear of zealotry, the Linux game market looks like this:
1. There are only a handful of commercial games.
2. Those games are also available for Windows, so even if I decide to pick up Linux at Barnes & Noble I still have Windows around to play games with. Not sure why I would want to play the Linux version.
3. The freebie games are pretty horrendously unexciting. Yay! Hundreds of Tetris and Asteroids variants! Does Open Source somehow imply a lack of creativity?
4. All the nifty games like The Sims and FreeSpace 2 and Roller Coaster Tycoon aren't out for Linux.
But this is almost identical to the situation we saw when the PC took the games market away from the Apple II, and again when Windows took it away from Dos. Some people see a half-empty glass, some see it half-full. You're right, the situation is exactly as you describe it, but to me that's nothing but good news for Linux.
let's be honest about this. There are very few reasons to even consider using Linux for games...
Ah... I beg to differ. The big reason to use Linux for games is because you use it for everything else. Why should I waste disk space (not to mention letting myself in for all that aggravation and possible virus invasions) by having Windows on my system?
While I'm on the subject, by most accounts there are something like 10,000,000 Linux users already, and doubling every year. All well-educated, generally fun-loving, and generally possessing excellent earning power. That's a no-brainer as far as marketing goes.
--
IBM's Visual Age for Java came with a slick install that looks and acts very much like Install Shield. I don't think it's that big a deal to do. This is helped a lot by the fact that Linux environments are pretty consistent these days - you can pretty much count on glibc being available, and XFree 3.3.6. The task is made far, far simpler when programs are statically linked, like most of the "big" systems are. Still, that's kind of a cop-out. I'd rather put up with a bit more fiddling with libraries, and be able to install lighter, tighter dynamically linked programs. This imposes some interesting new user-interface requirements on install programs - how do you gently explain to dear user that such-and-such library needs to be updated? The best approach would be to follow up immediately with a "shall I find it on the web, download it, and install it for you now?".
I have a couple of beefs with install programs in general, though. One thing: it would suck to have to download the entire install program with every package you install. (This is the status quo for Windows, and one of the reasons we get used to *every* program being multi-megabyte, even simple programs like email clients.) I guess what this means is: we need a standard library to support gui-style installing complete with the usual handholding, so the same code doesn't have to be bound redundantly into every package. The package itself should just contain some nice tight script, preferably compiled into bytecodes or some such.
OK, while I'm getting warmed up to this topic, there really isn't any excuse for failing to compress these install packages. RPM's have some kind of compression, but it's hardly optimal (I just tried compressing a few rpms to verify that). Let's go for the gusto and rely on bzip2 being available - it zips *significantly* better than gzip and pkzip.
My biggest beef with the glitzy installs I've seen is that they *don't* use the RPM (or any other) database, and so you lose all the nice query capabilities you have, and they don't show up in any of the graphical package management utilities.
So who is going to be the first to hack up a nice installer that uses RPM (you'd have to do a DEB version as well to cover the bases) and hooks into some nice script engine like Python, and relies on GTK? Sure, it won't work on every system but it will work on *most* of them, and almost all the new ones. Who is going to be the one that builds the Linux installer that catches on?
--
This is the reason not to email hate mail/threats to the MPAA or RIAA. The people who did that gave the MPAA ammunition in their effort to keep the lawsuit out of the public eye and out of the press.
How do we know they didn't send those emails themselves?
--
It's also very slow. You see on my main desktop ( A humble P200 with 64 megs and a 4 meg S3-Virge ) it takes several minutes to load X. Most of that wait time you have a blank screen.
Something is broken. On this 233 MHz machine it starts in a few seconds. Switch back to the text console while it's loading and see if there are any helpful messages. Check your sound card support (I had this problem). Check the log/messages file.
--
I would be outraged by any such kowtowing on the part of my government.
On the other hand, should Microsoft be foolish enough to see such a move as a solution to their current problem, they would quickly find that Canadians are far pushier about obeying the law, and the spirit of the law, than Americans are. And also far more vocal about it.
--
The government's proposal contains language to create a mechanism to ensure that Microsoft has to answer for any technical tricks that break compatibility with other products. Microsoft modestly proposes to change the language from "effectively interoperate" to just "interoperate".
Does anyone besides me smell a rat?
--
Suppose everybody at birth were required by law to have a small transmitter embedded in their body which would be used to ensure they could be positively identified at all times. Suppose further that it were made illegal to appear in public without such a transmitter, functioning properly. This would actually be quite easy to do and to enforce. Sickening thought, isn't it?
Now why is appearing on the internet any different at all from walking on the street? In fact, a person walking on the street is capable of causing much more real, physical harm than a disembodied presence on the net.
If there is any legitimate need at all to deprive people of their right to anonymity on the net it should be controlled rigorously so that it cannot be abused. In other words, it should require the same process that is used to deprive people of their right to walk freely on the street: plublic declaration of martial law, or a state of emergency.
Let's repeat this to ourselves over and over again: Surfing the internet is the same as walking on the street.
--
Are you mentally deficient?
...but, it's not like you can run anything but Nintendo's OS on the NES, or SNES.
Are you rude?
I don't mean to insult you...
Yes you do.
This isn't Nintendo. This isn't SNES.
Same way that Apple won't get in trouble by not letting other people make os's for their hardware, because, it is THEIR hardware, it's proprietary.
Microsoft is a monopolist. That is a fact, not an opinion. Monopolists must play by different rules than other companies. That is what anti-trust law is all about.
They can do what they like.
No they can't, at least not after final judgement is entered. This may be news to you, but Microsoft is going to jail.
I stand by my original comment: if Microsoft attempts to tie their OS to this product, they are in deep doodoo.
--
Every X-Box is a Linux box too, unless Microsoft intentionally prevents this. In which case they will have some serious explaining to do on the anti-trust front. We should be alert for any signs that Microsoft is planning to restrict the type of OS that can run on this hardware.
--
Has every body seen this article where Time O'Reilly dismantles Patent Office Director Q. Todd Dickinson?
Here's an exchange that really says it all:
Tim: Are you a lawyer by training?
Dickinson: Yes, I am.
Tim: How would you feel if a lawyer was able to patent an argument?
Dickinson: If it was new and non-obvious, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all.
Tim: And the ability to basically extract a royalty from other lawyers for using that same legal argument?
Dickinson: As I say, if it's new, and if it met the statutory standards for patentability (and that's the key question here), and it was incorporated into software in some form, that wouldn't be a problem.
Tim: No, not in software. Just in actual, in court.
Dickinson: Well, I don't want to deal in hypotheticals. The courts haven't dealt with that question.
Now, even when this guy was completely snookered by Tim he couldn't bring himself to concede the point. It was at this moment that every shred of confidence I have in the PTO evaporated completely. It went on...
Tim: Well, how about a basketball player invents a new move. Should that be patentable?
Dickinson: Moves aren't patentable subject matter.
It continues in this vein. Eventually the moderator steps in to rescue him from embarrassing himself further. Read the entire article.
In my opinion, this man is the problem.
--
The comment in the article, warning about people holding IP crawling out of the woodwork if the standard is successful is definitely one to watch.
What would be fair is to have a set period for public commentary during which IP holders would have to declare their intent to enforce their rights, or forever hold their peace. But the situation we have now seems tailor-made to encourage immoral-but-legal submarining like Unisys did with GIF.
It's beyond me why failure to defend one's IP claims in a timely manner doesn't have the same weakening effect on patents as it does on trademarks.
--
Why in the world would I spend $100,000 dollars for the coders, artists, musicians, and equipment necessary to get a first quality game created, when I can excercise a miniscule amount of patience and be second in line, receiving it for free?
:-)
You missed a zero, maybe two!
--