Exactly. Open standards prevent entrenched incumbents from resting on their laurels while they collect their checks. This is not just true in open standards and open source software, this is true in terms of the rate of innovation. If there were no patents (note that OOXML is encumbered by patents), then anyone could copy anyone else's ideas. Even the incumbents would have to keep moving and making things better as the competition would follow them.
That is the best way to describe why patents aren't really a net gain to society. Thanks for that.
They haven't won by a longshot. Linux adoption and adoption of open standards continues around the world. One look at the membership of the OpenDocument Foundation gives a pretty clear hint.
Hmmm. Thanks for the observations. I was beginning to feel like I was surrounded by people who wouldn't touch Linux. I had no idea that the younger generation was so willing to experiment and I'm glad to see that is happening.
I use Linux myself after years of using Windows and a Mac. I started out on an Amiga and at the time, I so wanted to avoid Microsoft. Eventually, Amiga gave way to a Mac, then to Windows. I laughed when I saw how much software was available for the PC. Now I laugh when i see how much software is available for Linux and it's only one sudo command away.
It took me a few years to make a complete break from Windows and it's been a few years since I have done it. I'm now quite comfortable with Linux and I just cannot see myself going back. When the antivrus license expires on my wife's laptop, we're going to install Linux for her, too. Then the transition will be complete. She has watched me work and noticed that I'm doing just fine.
I am so grateful for Linux and I share what I know with anyone willing to listen to get them started.
...with insects as food. That could be a giant incentive to give it a try here in the states. Once the true potential of insects as an alternative and one that allows people to avoid heart disease and cancer, that could shift the balance in the market towards taxation of meat rather than subsidies. Elimination of greenhouse gases would just be a bonus.
As to whether or not Americans can find a palate for insects, I'm not worried. American food processors have figured out ways to incorporate soy and corn into thousands of products without giving any hint to the customer. It's unfortunate that ignorance of the food supply is so prevalent here, but with insects, that could actually be an advantage.
The kinesthetic experience of typing is something that I enjoy far more than using a a touchscreen. The connection between the impulse to strike a series of keys to write the words is far more appealing. I too, enjoy being able to type without looking at the keys to be sure I am selecting the right key. That its what makes stream of consciousness writing work on the computer for me.
When they finally do come up with voice recognition, we're probably going to have to speak the punctuation. I notice that when I type, it is almost an unconscious event to select the keys. If I type and try to think about what I'm typing, I goof it up. That makes it a right-brain experience for me.
I sense that the right-brain experience would be lost somewhat if I had to think about announcing my choice of punctuation. For now, I'm devoted to my keyboard wherever it may be. It will be a long, long time before I give up the tactile sensation of striking keys to put words on the screen.
This thread also has discussion about how hard it is to write programs that don't require admin to run. Quickbooks and Quicken are two that come to mind - they are two of the worst examples of how hard it is to get stuff work as non-admin.
The difficulty in getting stuff to work as non-admin is a topic worthy of discussion, but few talk about it as it's not well known by the public. The failure of the OS vendor and application vendor to get their heads together and cooperate on security needs to be highlighted so that there is at least full disclosure.
While I applaud your efforts to attain security for your customers, this part of security needs to be explained to them. I do that for every PC I build for someone else. I let them know that they have a choice. They could either put their butt out in the wind for all to see as admin or, they could set up an admin account for maintenance and run as a limited user for everything else. Heck, with Windows 7, you can even set up automatic update notifications for non-admins so they never really have to login as admin unless they need to install a new program or a printer.
For me, this is the first layer of security and everything else follows.
You make an interesting point here about the subsidies. The ISPs like to talk about how they have a private network, but fail to mention the subsidies and easements that they have been given to them by the government. Unless they're willing to give up their easements, they *don't* have a private network.
So, just on the basis of tangible and intangible assistance provided to the ISPs, we can say that they don't really have a private network, and they don't have the right to prioritize traffic on their own initiative.
That's why I say that unless we start calling the ISPs *common carriers*, they are going to win the net neutrality argument. The term "net neutrality" a straw man, a red herring, designed to distract everyone from the real issue at hand. The ISPs are running a public network and are subject to regulation under the police power. See Munn v. Illinois, 94 US 113 and other similar cases.
What you're talking about here is common carriers, and that's a good thing. Why? The term "net-neutrality" clouds the issue by making the assumption that ISP can unilaterally prioritize traffic, even for a fee. By using the term "common carrier" with respect to ISPs, then the issue of net-neutrality goes away because there is no assumptions to be made about what the rights of the ISP are.
To put this in perspective, ISPs insist that they have a private network. Sure, as long as they are not conveying data from public networks. They're private if and only if they are supplying their own content in a self-contained network. But as soon as they connect to the public network, they are a common carrier.
This, I believe is the most important point missing from the discussion.
I'm seeing more and more businesses forgo the "Exchange" experience in the last few years. There are plenty of alternatives available. Check out the list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mail_servers
Agreed. I've noticed this for some time now. The patentees are suing on the basis of claims rather than methods, a fact that is usually missed by the press. It would be nice if someone actually noticed that having more than one implementation to achieve the goals in a patent claim is a good thing. In fact, some lawyers have claimed that patents drive innovation by forcing people to innovate around the patent.
That would be true if everyone *could* innovate around the patent. But as long as patentees are suing based on the claims rather than the method used to reach those claims, we're in for a bit of a pickle.
...how well patents are benefiting small businesses. I mean, that's one of the biggest reasons to support patents, right? To protect the little guy.
So, when Microsoft gets a patent, it's big news. But if a tiny little company got the same patent, no one would know about it or hear about it. Then when Microsoft discovers the idea "independently" and finds out about the patent later on, no one would be the wiser. They could negotiate a negligible license fee and act like nothing happened, until a commercial linux distribution tries to do the same thing. Then they'd sue the distribution.
Until the public interest is served by patents, I'd be happy to see patents go away.
You are still free to use Bing, Yahoo! or any of the 100+ search engines out there. There is nothing stopping you or me from doing so, and Google knows that.
Yes, Google is huge and they are the best to use for search. When they started, I was still using Alta Vista. I only heard about them through word of mouth. I never saw an ad on TV, in the newspaper, anywhere. Google grew by word of mouth despite all the MS lemmings out there pontificating about how great MS was (just adding emphasis here, not to imply that you're a lemming, too). On the other hand, on a daily basis, I can skip the commercials beseeching me to Bing! and decide. (Google tells us not to use their name as a verb, Microsoft wants us to Bing! everywhere.)
I don't see Google pushing closed standards or operating systems like MS was and still does. That's because Google is OS agnostic and they really have no vested interest in which operating system you choose to use to the extent that Microsoft does. Their mission statement says it all. They want to be the best organizer of information available and to a very large extent, they are. And they have a 1st Amendment right to do so. Therefore, I don't think that the sort of scrutiny applied to Microsoft should be applied to Google. We still have a choice.
The implications of the lawsuits are worth considering from the point of discovery. In discovery, Google may be required to reveal the algorithms used for search. Microsoft may very well be interested in seeing Google divested of it's own hard work, for competitive gain.
The difference between Microsoft and Google is a matter of goodwill, and I would prefer Google as an ally rather than Microsoft for now.
I read articles for and against Microsoft, in and out of Groklaw. As far as I can tell, the evidence is against Microsoft and that body of evidence identifying Microsoft as a bad player in the market is rather overwhelming. I don't see Groklaw or Google trying to "cut off the air supply" of Microsoft as Microsoft has done to so many others.
Do you have any credible evidence that Microsoft is not engaged in a legal proxy war against competitors like Google? Is there any credible source willing to say that Microsoft is really trying to play nice with everyone else? Is there any source willing to call Groklaw a smear campaign? Maybe these awards don't really count.
I haven't seen one credible source yet that would disagree. Perhaps you could point me to one. When Microsoft is willing to make better products rather than sue their competition to oblivion (or threaten to do so), by proxy or itself, I might be convinced otherwise.
Their failure was relying upon a Windows platform. It's pretty well known that MS likes to change the APIs without telling anyone. DRDOS, Novell, and a host of others have complained about this to the courts over the years. Behavior like that shows that MS is more interested in "choking air supply" for the competition than making better products.
Had they produced their software for other platforms, rather than just exclusively for Windows, we might have some real competition in the OS market. Apple and Linux are finally bringing that to bear on Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, only Microsoft software will reproduce each and every document with perfect fidelity.
Exactly. Open standards prevent entrenched incumbents from resting on their laurels while they collect their checks. This is not just true in open standards and open source software, this is true in terms of the rate of innovation. If there were no patents (note that OOXML is encumbered by patents), then anyone could copy anyone else's ideas. Even the incumbents would have to keep moving and making things better as the competition would follow them.
That is the best way to describe why patents aren't really a net gain to society. Thanks for that.
They haven't won by a longshot. Linux adoption and adoption of open standards continues around the world. One look at the membership of the OpenDocument Foundation gives a pretty clear hint.
Hmmm. Thanks for the observations. I was beginning to feel like I was surrounded by people who wouldn't touch Linux. I had no idea that the younger generation was so willing to experiment and I'm glad to see that is happening.
I use Linux myself after years of using Windows and a Mac. I started out on an Amiga and at the time, I so wanted to avoid Microsoft. Eventually, Amiga gave way to a Mac, then to Windows. I laughed when I saw how much software was available for the PC. Now I laugh when i see how much software is available for Linux and it's only one sudo command away.
It took me a few years to make a complete break from Windows and it's been a few years since I have done it. I'm now quite comfortable with Linux and I just cannot see myself going back. When the antivrus license expires on my wife's laptop, we're going to install Linux for her, too. Then the transition will be complete. She has watched me work and noticed that I'm doing just fine.
I am so grateful for Linux and I share what I know with anyone willing to listen to get them started.
Thank for the enlightenment on this. I had no idea that driver writers went through all that trouble for any driver, for any graphics standard.
...with insects as food. That could be a giant incentive to give it a try here in the states. Once the true potential of insects as an alternative and one that allows people to avoid heart disease and cancer, that could shift the balance in the market towards taxation of meat rather than subsidies. Elimination of greenhouse gases would just be a bonus.
As to whether or not Americans can find a palate for insects, I'm not worried. American food processors have figured out ways to incorporate soy and corn into thousands of products without giving any hint to the customer. It's unfortunate that ignorance of the food supply is so prevalent here, but with insects, that could actually be an advantage.
The kinesthetic experience of typing is something that I enjoy far more than using a a touchscreen. The connection between the impulse to strike a series of keys to write the words is far more appealing. I too, enjoy being able to type without looking at the keys to be sure I am selecting the right key. That its what makes stream of consciousness writing work on the computer for me.
When they finally do come up with voice recognition, we're probably going to have to speak the punctuation. I notice that when I type, it is almost an unconscious event to select the keys. If I type and try to think about what I'm typing, I goof it up. That makes it a right-brain experience for me.
I sense that the right-brain experience would be lost somewhat if I had to think about announcing my choice of punctuation. For now, I'm devoted to my keyboard wherever it may be. It will be a long, long time before I give up the tactile sensation of striking keys to put words on the screen.
I think that by then, they will have perfected the cone of silence.
Good god, I hope not. I like the space of a real keyboard. I hope they get voice recognition running reliably before that.
...Comcast, AT&T and others are really just common carriers. That's why I say that Net Neutrality is a ruse.
Hmmm. I've read down to the bottom and I don't see anything like this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2486741/posts
90% of Windows 7 security issues go away if users are not admin and UAC is turned on.
This thread also has discussion about how hard it is to write programs that don't require admin to run. Quickbooks and Quicken are two that come to mind - they are two of the worst examples of how hard it is to get stuff work as non-admin.
The difficulty in getting stuff to work as non-admin is a topic worthy of discussion, but few talk about it as it's not well known by the public. The failure of the OS vendor and application vendor to get their heads together and cooperate on security needs to be highlighted so that there is at least full disclosure.
While I applaud your efforts to attain security for your customers, this part of security needs to be explained to them. I do that for every PC I build for someone else. I let them know that they have a choice. They could either put their butt out in the wind for all to see as admin or, they could set up an admin account for maintenance and run as a limited user for everything else. Heck, with Windows 7, you can even set up automatic update notifications for non-admins so they never really have to login as admin unless they need to install a new program or a printer.
For me, this is the first layer of security and everything else follows.
Ah, yes. I recall that Super AntiSpyware does this automatically. It will redirect blacklisted website addresses to the loopback. Interesting.
Looks like it could be one.
You make an interesting point here about the subsidies. The ISPs like to talk about how they have a private network, but fail to mention the subsidies and easements that they have been given to them by the government. Unless they're willing to give up their easements, they *don't* have a private network.
So, just on the basis of tangible and intangible assistance provided to the ISPs, we can say that they don't really have a private network, and they don't have the right to prioritize traffic on their own initiative.
That's why I say that unless we start calling the ISPs *common carriers*, they are going to win the net neutrality argument. The term "net neutrality" a straw man, a red herring, designed to distract everyone from the real issue at hand. The ISPs are running a public network and are subject to regulation under the police power. See Munn v. Illinois, 94 US 113 and other similar cases.
What you're talking about here is common carriers, and that's a good thing. Why? The term "net-neutrality" clouds the issue by making the assumption that ISP can unilaterally prioritize traffic, even for a fee. By using the term "common carrier" with respect to ISPs, then the issue of net-neutrality goes away because there is no assumptions to be made about what the rights of the ISP are.
To put this in perspective, ISPs insist that they have a private network. Sure, as long as they are not conveying data from public networks. They're private if and only if they are supplying their own content in a self-contained network. But as soon as they connect to the public network, they are a common carrier. This, I believe is the most important point missing from the discussion.
I'm seeing more and more businesses forgo the "Exchange" experience in the last few years. There are plenty of alternatives available. Check out the list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mail_servers
Agreed. I've noticed this for some time now. The patentees are suing on the basis of claims rather than methods, a fact that is usually missed by the press. It would be nice if someone actually noticed that having more than one implementation to achieve the goals in a patent claim is a good thing. In fact, some lawyers have claimed that patents drive innovation by forcing people to innovate around the patent.
That would be true if everyone *could* innovate around the patent. But as long as patentees are suing based on the claims rather than the method used to reach those claims, we're in for a bit of a pickle.
Hear, hear! I totally agree with you on that one.
...how well patents are benefiting small businesses. I mean, that's one of the biggest reasons to support patents, right? To protect the little guy.
So, when Microsoft gets a patent, it's big news. But if a tiny little company got the same patent, no one would know about it or hear about it. Then when Microsoft discovers the idea "independently" and finds out about the patent later on, no one would be the wiser. They could negotiate a negligible license fee and act like nothing happened, until a commercial linux distribution tries to do the same thing. Then they'd sue the distribution.
Until the public interest is served by patents, I'd be happy to see patents go away.
You are still free to use Bing, Yahoo! or any of the 100+ search engines out there. There is nothing stopping you or me from doing so, and Google knows that.
Yes, Google is huge and they are the best to use for search. When they started, I was still using Alta Vista. I only heard about them through word of mouth. I never saw an ad on TV, in the newspaper, anywhere. Google grew by word of mouth despite all the MS lemmings out there pontificating about how great MS was (just adding emphasis here, not to imply that you're a lemming, too). On the other hand, on a daily basis, I can skip the commercials beseeching me to Bing! and decide. (Google tells us not to use their name as a verb, Microsoft wants us to Bing! everywhere.)
I don't see Google pushing closed standards or operating systems like MS was and still does. That's because Google is OS agnostic and they really have no vested interest in which operating system you choose to use to the extent that Microsoft does. Their mission statement says it all. They want to be the best organizer of information available and to a very large extent, they are. And they have a 1st Amendment right to do so. Therefore, I don't think that the sort of scrutiny applied to Microsoft should be applied to Google. We still have a choice.
The implications of the lawsuits are worth considering from the point of discovery. In discovery, Google may be required to reveal the algorithms used for search. Microsoft may very well be interested in seeing Google divested of it's own hard work, for competitive gain.
The difference between Microsoft and Google is a matter of goodwill, and I would prefer Google as an ally rather than Microsoft for now.
I read articles for and against Microsoft, in and out of Groklaw. As far as I can tell, the evidence is against Microsoft and that body of evidence identifying Microsoft as a bad player in the market is rather overwhelming. I don't see Groklaw or Google trying to "cut off the air supply" of Microsoft as Microsoft has done to so many others.
Do you have any credible evidence that Microsoft is not engaged in a legal proxy war against competitors like Google? Is there any credible source willing to say that Microsoft is really trying to play nice with everyone else? Is there any source willing to call Groklaw a smear campaign? Maybe these awards don't really count.
I haven't seen one credible source yet that would disagree. Perhaps you could point me to one. When Microsoft is willing to make better products rather than sue their competition to oblivion (or threaten to do so), by proxy or itself, I might be convinced otherwise.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100904101642564
Or did they break the story?
That's what I thought. I knew Mr. Morden was in there somewhere.
Seems like a reasonable solution to me.
Their failure was relying upon a Windows platform. It's pretty well known that MS likes to change the APIs without telling anyone. DRDOS, Novell, and a host of others have complained about this to the courts over the years. Behavior like that shows that MS is more interested in "choking air supply" for the competition than making better products. Had they produced their software for other platforms, rather than just exclusively for Windows, we might have some real competition in the OS market. Apple and Linux are finally bringing that to bear on Microsoft.