It's worth fighting because before the DMCA, only a Court could go around ordering people to remove stuff.
Before the DMCA, the worst-case scenario would be that MS would take/. to court and force them to remove the posts.
The whole *point* of copyright law is to protect the financial interests of the owner. If I write a book, only I am have a *right* to profit off of it. MicroSoft isn't selling their specs, they're giving them away. Nor is/. charging to view the comments. Neither side is losing any money over this. Before the DMCA, a Court (and only a Court) could have ordered the posts removed, and only after due process. Now, thanks to the DMCA,/. can be held financially liable and is presumed guilty simply because MS said so.
I think/. should fight this in court. They should expect to lose and have to remove the copyrighted material (but not the links or WinZip suggestions), but they also stand a chance to strike down the DMCA and its chilling effects on freedom of speech and perversion of burden of proof.
> When my property taxes rise because of Internet based sales taking eating away at the local tax base
Well, this was my point about the regressive nature of sales taxes in general. Since you're local gov't isn't getting its sales tax, they have to tax something else. And since the sales taxes effect the poor disproportionate to the rich, you'll find the rich start lobbying to save their money.
> they are making *broad* taxation decisions for the *GOOD* of the nation
But they aren't elected by the nation at large. They're elected by those local shopkeepers and consumers. The same people that elected those State reps also elected the Congressmen.
If voters feel that the tax cut outweighs the local impact when they vote for Congress, why do they feel differently when they vote local representatives?
Frankly, I think all sales taxes are bad because they are simply the most regressive tax. But that's another thread entirely...
I think X won because Display Postscript was proprietary and expensive.
My site had mostly NCD terminals and wasn't about to spend a fortune on Display Postscript licenses when a free alternative existed. I wish they felt the same way when they decided to replace the NCDs with PCs. Why use NT when Linux and BSD are still around.
Record Companies Settle Antitrust Suit
on
An MP3 Update
·
· Score: 3
The problem is *how* they limit their liability. In this case, the construction company called the software vendor and ordered the product. The vendor shipped the product without disclaiming liability. The dissenting judge found that *this* was when the contract was made and that if the vendor felt that additional terms were required, they had the opportunity to request them *before* shipping the product.
In this case, the shrink-wrap license appeared *after* the contract was made which substantially alters the contract.
The truly remarkable thing is that the majority even accept that the vendor installed the package and the end-user NEVER EVEN SAW the shrink-wrap license.
But to address your concern: yes, small software vendors *can* disclaim liabilities, but they must do so when the contract is made and not after they ship the product...
I think you're trouble here is assuming that/. has some sort of hive mind and that the hive mind is a hypocrite if you read two opposing viewpoints.
/. is not a hive mind. It is a collection of individuals, each representing their own thoughts and no one elses. Perhaps there are some hypocrites here on/., but probably no more so than in society at large. But the notion of "mass hypocrisy" is ridiculous. Note, for example, that there were many posters who defended katz et al over the Hellmouth thing. Note also that many of the/. critics were arguing that the/. gang were the hypocrites for saying that the posters "owned" their comments while simultaneously treating the posts as though they were in the public domain.
> MS is only a monopoly if you believe that the general public is too stupid to use any other OS
Well, they usually *have* to pay for Windows, even if they want something else. MS has also made it difficult to network its computers with non-MS machines. Note that SAMBA was reverse-engineered, just as Star Office and evertyhing else. And Win2K has Win-Kerberos. There are WinModems that only work with MS. And MS also paid web developers to target for special IE-only features (or at least offer IE enhanced pages). There's not Windows Media Player for Linux or BSDs.
MS was able to gain a large market share because they already had a large share of the market. They forced OEMs to not install competing products; they "integrated" their software into their OS for the sole purpose of making it worthless to add Netscape. They *paid* AOL to use IE (specifically, they paid off AOL's contract with Netscape). Part of the AOL deal also included sacraficing MSN (by putting AOL in the On-Line folder).
MicroSoft does not compete fairly. From DR-DOS to Java, they have used their position as the dominant player to thrwart competition rather than competing on the merits.
Look at the Halloween documents. No where do they suggest competing with Linux by actually producing a better product (which, in fact, the author suggests MS is incapable of doing).
"In the case of such Intellectual Property that is related to the Internet browser, the license shall not grant the Operating System Business any right to develop, license, or distribute modified or derivative versions of the Internet browser."
As for Bill talking to Bill:
"After Implementation of the Plan, and throughout the term of this Final Judgment, neither the Operating Systems Business nor the Applications Business, nor any member of their respective Boards of Directors, shall acquire any securities or assets of the other Business;"
Re:Before you condemn, RTFB
on
Fighting UCITA
·
· Score: 5
Perhaps before defending the MD UCITA, you should read the article...
Under UCITA, this practice is outlawed on home computers by our consumer protection laws and is heavily restricted in the commercial market.
As the article points out, you're only a "consumer" if it's for personal use and explicitly *excludes* commercial/professional users.
Read the article for more little nasties that slipped past the MD legislature.
Let's pretend for just a minute that MicroSoft really did invent the GUI and internet (or, as they would say, they "innovated" them).
What does yesterday have to do with today? There are certainly a large number of Linux folx working on making it even easier to use. In many ways, MicroSoft stands in the way. Their restrictive OEM requirements have made it difficult to get Linux pre-installed when users want it. Even now that Dell offers to install Linux, they don't give you a price discount for *not* ordering Windows.
Linux is not easy for a new user to install, and I don't think it ever will be. I don't think MicroSoft is especially easy to install either. Debates about which is easier are irrelevant to a newbie because he will never install it himself. MicroSoft has not been helping the newbie through the OEM channel lately.
MicroSoft also does not embrace open standards without extending them. This makes it *harder* for newbies (and even old pros) to use both MicroSoft and anything else. Once again, MicroSoft is no friend of the newbie unless the newbie is committed 100% to MicroSoft. Linux, on the other hand, has been committed to Open Standards and groups like the SAMBA team have even stood against MicroSoft to make MS's protocols available everyone. Who's more user-friendly? The company that doesn't want you using competing software, or the group of volunteers who work to make MicroSoft interoperable?
MicroSoft apps also take advantage of the inside-knowledge of the OS. While this helps MS write apps that are allegedly more user-friendly, it is also intended to prevent anyone else from writing better apps that compete with this MS apps. If the OS were a separate company, they'd have to let *anyone* write a good, integrated Office app.
The point is that even you believe that MS did wonderous things in the past, that doesn't give them the sole right to control all future "innovations". Just as AT&T had single-handedly wired telephones for the entire nation, they became stale and a vast leap forward was made after they were split up.
According to this C|NET article (last paragraph), Lucas is suing him for using the THX sound effect on his album. He apparently *asked* to use it, but was denied (and used it anyway).
I think *you* missed the point. I don't think he was calling for the elimination of GUIs, just that the scripting must be there, *somewhere*, available for when a user gets over being a novice. If a User Interface completely lacks the ability to script, you'll be stuck using the GUI for even the most mundane repetitive tasks.
Imagine, for example, if the only way to copy a file was via drag and drop. Even Windows isn't so stupid to restrict the user that way, but they put comparable restrictions around so much of their OS. They certainly don't make it easy to change things.
I did a little research. I found this little thing in history called the Crusades. Tremendous violence. And y'know what? They didn't even have video games!
The whole case was about how MS leveraged one part of the business (monopoly OS) to force acceptance of their standards and keep that monopoly. They had to wipe out Netscape as quickly as possible. They gave IE away; they paid AOL to take it; they forced OEMs to stop installing Netscape; they paid web developers to develop IE-enhanced pages.
As a separate company, it would be impossible for the OS company to tell OEMs that they had to install apps from the MS-apps company and *not* from any other company. They couldn't use the copyright defense since they would be forcing OEMs to install software that would be owned by another company. Suddenly, OEMs would again be free to determine which were the best apps and install them. If Mozilla becomes a better browser than IE, OEMs would distribute it. Suddenly, MS would have to have a better product *before* everyone started using it. They couldn't use this leverage to make their apps the defacto standards.
And how is the company that makes IE going to make any money? The more it's accepted, the more it costs the MS-apps company. With no income and a requirement to produce the best software, the Apps company would soon fade into oblivion.
Under the Findings of Fact, it was revealed that not only did MS give IE away, but they actually paid AOL to take it (specifically, they paid off AOL's contract with Netscape). The purpose was to keep others from developing software for Netscape and thus protect the OS.
As separate companies, the Apps company would lose money and the OS company would make money. There's no easy way to cross-subsidize losses in one company from another. Even if it was legal for the OS company to pay the Apps company for the collusion, it would be impossible to hide such a payment and stockholders would react accordingly.
But the Glass Steagal Act has been repealed and there is no longer a legal requirement in the US that prohibits banks from carrying out all types of financial transactions.
Slashdot Mirror
MRI was originally called NMRI. The N stood for Nuclear. It was dropped because people are afraid of all things nuclear...
And, to avoid panic, no MRI is not "nuclear" powered.
It's worth fighting because before the DMCA, only a Court could go around ordering people to remove stuff.
/. to court and force them to remove the posts.
/. charging to view the comments. Neither side is losing any money over this. Before the DMCA, a Court (and only a Court) could have ordered the posts removed, and only after due process. Now, thanks to the DMCA, /. can be held financially liable and is presumed guilty simply because MS said so.
/. should fight this in court. They should expect to lose and have to remove the copyrighted material (but not the links or WinZip suggestions), but they also stand a chance to strike down the DMCA and its chilling effects on freedom of speech and perversion of burden of proof.
Before the DMCA, the worst-case scenario would be that MS would take
The whole *point* of copyright law is to protect the financial interests of the owner. If I write a book, only I am have a *right* to profit off of it. MicroSoft isn't selling their specs, they're giving them away. Nor is
I think
> When my property taxes rise because of Internet based sales taking eating away at the local tax base
Well, this was my point about the regressive nature of sales taxes in general. Since you're local gov't isn't getting its sales tax, they have to tax something else. And since the sales taxes effect the poor disproportionate to the rich, you'll find the rich start lobbying to save their money.
> they are making *broad* taxation decisions for the *GOOD* of the nation
But they aren't elected by the nation at large. They're elected by those local shopkeepers and consumers. The same people that elected those State reps also elected the Congressmen.
If voters feel that the tax cut outweighs the local impact when they vote for Congress, why do they feel differently when they vote local representatives?
Frankly, I think all sales taxes are bad because they are simply the most regressive tax. But that's another thread entirely...
> Passing this bill DOES NOT AFFECT YOUR LOCAL CONGRESSPERSON politically
You mean Congressmen don't have to answer to the voters in their district? How do they get to Congress?
Moderators: wrong information is not really "insightful".
W was not an OS. W was a Window System. X replaced it (because W was proprietary).
I think X won because Display Postscript was proprietary and expensive.
My site had mostly NCD terminals and wasn't about to spend a fortune on Display Postscript licenses when a free alternative existed. I wish they felt the same way when they decided to replace the NCDs with PCs. Why use NT when Linux and BSD are still around.
According to today's NY Times Biggest Music Companies Settle Antitrust Case on CD Price-Fixing.
The Register is reporting that an MS spokesperson claimed that the Love Bug does effect Linux and Apple.
The problem is *how* they limit their liability. In this case, the construction company called the software vendor and ordered the product. The vendor shipped the product without disclaiming liability. The dissenting judge found that *this* was when the contract was made and that if the vendor felt that additional terms were required, they had the opportunity to request them *before* shipping the product.
In this case, the shrink-wrap license appeared *after* the contract was made which substantially alters the contract.
The truly remarkable thing is that the majority even accept that the vendor installed the package and the end-user NEVER EVEN SAW the shrink-wrap license.
But to address your concern: yes, small software vendors *can* disclaim liabilities, but they must do so when the contract is made and not after they ship the product...
The Apache story was posted in the Apache section yesterday...
7 225&mode=thread
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/04/121
I think you're trouble here is assuming that /. has some sort of hive mind and that the hive mind is a hypocrite if you read two opposing viewpoints.
/., but probably no more so than in society at large. But the notion of "mass hypocrisy" is ridiculous. Note, for example, that there were many posters who defended katz et al over the Hellmouth thing. Note also that many of the /. critics were arguing that the /. gang were the hypocrites for saying that the posters "owned" their comments while simultaneously treating the posts as though they were in the public domain.
/. is not a hive mind. It is a collection of individuals, each representing their own thoughts and no one elses. Perhaps there are some hypocrites here on
> MS is only a monopoly if you believe that the general public is too stupid to use any other OS
Well, they usually *have* to pay for Windows, even if they want something else. MS has also made it difficult to network its computers with non-MS machines. Note that SAMBA was reverse-engineered, just as Star Office and evertyhing else. And Win2K has Win-Kerberos. There are WinModems that only work with MS. And MS also paid web developers to target for special IE-only features (or at least offer IE enhanced pages). There's not Windows Media Player for Linux or BSDs.
MS was able to gain a large market share because they already had a large share of the market. They forced OEMs to not install competing products; they "integrated" their software into their OS for the sole purpose of making it worthless to add Netscape. They *paid* AOL to use IE (specifically, they paid off AOL's contract with Netscape). Part of the AOL deal also included sacraficing MSN (by putting AOL in the On-Line folder).
MicroSoft does not compete fairly. From DR-DOS to Java, they have used their position as the dominant player to thrwart competition rather than competing on the merits.
Look at the Halloween documents. No where do they suggest competing with Linux by actually producing a better product (which, in fact, the author suggests MS is incapable of doing).
Go back and read again. Specifically:
"In the case of such Intellectual Property that is related to the Internet browser, the license shall not grant the Operating System Business any right to develop, license, or distribute modified or derivative versions of the Internet browser."
As for Bill talking to Bill:
"After Implementation of the Plan, and throughout the term of this Final Judgment, neither the Operating Systems Business nor the Applications Business, nor any member of their respective Boards of Directors, shall acquire any securities or assets of the other Business;"
Under UCITA, this practice is outlawed on home computers by our consumer protection laws and is heavily restricted in the commercial market.
As the article points out, you're only a "consumer" if it's for personal use and explicitly *excludes* commercial/professional users.
Read the article for more little nasties that slipped past the MD legislature.
Let's pretend for just a minute that MicroSoft really did invent the GUI and internet (or, as they would say, they "innovated" them).
What does yesterday have to do with today? There are certainly a large number of Linux folx working on making it even easier to use. In many ways, MicroSoft stands in the way. Their restrictive OEM requirements have made it difficult to get Linux pre-installed when users want it. Even now that Dell offers to install Linux, they don't give you a price discount for *not* ordering Windows.
Linux is not easy for a new user to install, and I don't think it ever will be. I don't think MicroSoft is especially easy to install either. Debates about which is easier are irrelevant to a newbie because he will never install it himself. MicroSoft has not been helping the newbie through the OEM channel lately.
MicroSoft also does not embrace open standards without extending them. This makes it *harder* for newbies (and even old pros) to use both MicroSoft and anything else. Once again, MicroSoft is no friend of the newbie unless the newbie is committed 100% to MicroSoft. Linux, on the other hand, has been committed to Open Standards and groups like the SAMBA team have even stood against MicroSoft to make MS's protocols available everyone. Who's more user-friendly? The company that doesn't want you using competing software, or the group of volunteers who work to make MicroSoft interoperable?
MicroSoft apps also take advantage of the inside-knowledge of the OS. While this helps MS write apps that are allegedly more user-friendly, it is also intended to prevent anyone else from writing better apps that compete with this MS apps. If the OS were a separate company, they'd have to let *anyone* write a good, integrated Office app.
The point is that even you believe that MS did wonderous things in the past, that doesn't give them the sole right to control all future "innovations". Just as AT&T had single-handedly wired telephones for the entire nation, they became stale and a vast leap forward was made after they were split up.
Try: http://slashdot.org/articles/99/10/01/0956208.shtm l
I think BeOS's bootman is, at the very least, prettier than lilo.
According to this C|NET article (last paragraph), Lucas is suing him for using the THX sound effect on his album. He apparently *asked* to use it, but was denied (and used it anyway).
Hypocrite!
I think *you* missed the point. I don't think he was calling for the elimination of GUIs, just that the scripting must be there, *somewhere*, available for when a user gets over being a novice. If a User Interface completely lacks the ability to script, you'll be stuck using the GUI for even the most mundane repetitive tasks.
Imagine, for example, if the only way to copy a file was via drag and drop. Even Windows isn't so stupid to restrict the user that way, but they put comparable restrictions around so much of their OS. They certainly don't make it easy to change things.
I did a little research. I found this little thing in history called the Crusades. Tremendous violence. And y'know what? They didn't even have video games!
The whole case was about how MS leveraged one part of the business (monopoly OS) to force acceptance of their standards and keep that monopoly. They had to wipe out Netscape as quickly as possible. They gave IE away; they paid AOL to take it; they forced OEMs to stop installing Netscape; they paid web developers to develop IE-enhanced pages.
As a separate company, it would be impossible for the OS company to tell OEMs that they had to install apps from the MS-apps company and *not* from any other company. They couldn't use the copyright defense since they would be forcing OEMs to install software that would be owned by another company. Suddenly, OEMs would again be free to determine which were the best apps and install them. If Mozilla becomes a better browser than IE, OEMs would distribute it. Suddenly, MS would have to have a better product *before* everyone started using it. They couldn't use this leverage to make their apps the defacto standards.
And how is the company that makes IE going to make any money? The more it's accepted, the more it costs the MS-apps company. With no income and a requirement to produce the best software, the Apps company would soon fade into oblivion.
Under the Findings of Fact, it was revealed that not only did MS give IE away, but they actually paid AOL to take it (specifically, they paid off AOL's contract with Netscape). The purpose was to keep others from developing software for Netscape and thus protect the OS.
As separate companies, the Apps company would lose money and the OS company would make money. There's no easy way to cross-subsidize losses in one company from another. Even if it was legal for the OS company to pay the Apps company for the collusion, it would be impossible to hide such a payment and stockholders would react accordingly.
But the Glass Steagal Act has been repealed and there is no longer a legal requirement in the US that prohibits banks from carrying out all types of financial transactions.
I'm surprised no one cited the Wired artice: Strike 3 for MS Handhelds article.