If the Obama administration really wants to go after monopoly, the best place to start is to weaken copyright and patent laws and make the RIAA guys they hired earn their money. For some very interesting reading, they should start here.
I'm in chapter 5 of this book, and I'm already convinced that patents should be abolished, completely. I'm also forming the opinion that the success of the malware industry is exactly because they seek no protection or rents from patents, copyrights or other monopoly protection.
I'm not so sure about abolishing copyrights yet, but I haven't finished the book. Maybe a much shorter term is in order, perhaps 3-10 years.
The gist? Treaties don't trump the constitution. PJ summarizes thusly: "I read it as saying that nothing, not any treaty, not even the Berne Convention, can trump the US Constitution."
Your points are well taken. But discovery, months of discovery, showed that there was no stolen code. There were also some other trigger events that eventually released IBM from the partnership (I can't remember all the details, but they include change of ownership, expiration dates, etc.). In the end, there was really no evidence of wrong-doing on the part of IBM. In fact, well before the lawsuits, IBM made many statements of its intentions and followed through with no objection from SCO.
This is all very well documented at www.groklaw.net and available for your reading.
Really? I thought that hissing sound was the air escaping from Darl's ballon as it slowly comes to the ground. I still think this is the end of the corporate veil for those guys.
I am thinking that if SCO has no assets, there are going to be other places to look to see where the money went. Maybe they all have accounts with UBS.
Yeah, FCMobileLife. Franklin Covey? The Seven Habits of Successful People? Give me a break. How could those guys ever hook up with SCO? Oh, wait, they are both in Utah. I guess FC just wanted to give a local firm the business.
Um, everything they moved offshore? You know, those "core intellectual property" assets. And then there's the SCO Group and there's SCO Operations. Even without an approved reorganization plan, they were moving shells around like a street scammer.
Having said that, I wonder what will happen to the corporate veil once they are dissolved.
I've already begun to do this. I look for doctors who prescribe drugs only as a last resort. If they offer me a sample of something to try, I know that I've just become a guinea pig for a drug that the doctor received from a marketing campaign - and he probably didn't read the studies that vetted the drug in the first place.
With regard to Merck, it looks like this:
"Gosh, we pretty much own every G8 legislature, especially the US Congress, we're the largest lobby in the world, with some of the highest profit margins, with plenty of protection from competition, and yet, we still don't have complete control of everything. Let's create a fake journal so our drugs can pass the regulatory rigor. We can all sleep better knowing that we have our own prestigious medical journal to rely upon."
The change I want to see starts with a lifestyle change by me, because the drug companies won't change unless I do. I try to start with me first and see what happens.
How do you estimate 500 million? Linux has become a utility platform for computing for ventures large and small. And for a growing number, desktop computing. It could be that the value of Linux to many people is intangible. You know, freedom, transparency, that sort of thing. But that can translate into saved man-hours, which is money.
As far as risk is concerned, most companies and individuals have taken many calculated risks since there is no guarantee of profits. This is true for any venture (otherwise it's not capitalism).
I believe that the value of an open source graphics card will be worth the investment to the companies that do invest in it, in the long run.
...you underestimate the capacity of volunteers, or even companies that allow their engineers to work on such products. As an example, it's been well documented that the cost to build Linux exceeds at least a billion dollars. And few took Linux seriously in the beginning except the volunteers who believed in the project.
So if companies and individuals worldwide are willing to free themselves from proprietary graphics card designs so that their software will work better, then they're probably willing to invest a billion dollars or more, for it.
You seem to think that the performance would be so terrible for an open graphics card. Don't forget that the companies that have invested in Linux now have a world class operating system for things like supercomputing, transaction processing (think NYSE) and similar pursuits. This comes complete with the GCC which is highly regarded among programmers, some might even regard it as the best compiler available. Free.
If large corporations who use Linux weren't happy with the performance there, then they might have gone back to the proprietary software they were using before. But they didn't. I'm inclined to think that a similar line of progression can be anticipated with graphics cards.
Agreed. I'm not a gamer, but I like the idea of having an open implementation of a graphics card for my use. Lower the barriers to entry to the market, and things get really interesting.
I hope this group of engineers can succeed in producing an open board that eventually provides high-end graphics capabilities.
In one housing development here in West Valley, Garbett Homes in Highbury, Utopia ran their own conduit but before they could finish the job Qwest came in and pulled their own cables. This filled the conduit and prevented Utopia from using their own conduit. With some coordination, they both could have pulled cable together. But Qwest is fighting competition, right?
Qwest has telephone poles that they lease out to other service providers, but not Utopia. At least not without a court fight. They wanted to review all 27,000 poles, one at a time in court. Qwest seems to have forgotten who gave them the easement.
I have Comcast currently and on several occasions, the service has gone down. Seems to be happening more frequently, lately. But the fact the cable companies are so willing to fight this is the biggest reason of all to use a muniband service. Someone else has already pointed out the subsidies given to them over the years.
I have also read that Comcast is telling their shareholders that it would only cost $6 to double our speeds. But when they talk to the public and governments, they cry and moan about the costs of infrastructure.
If we can't have muniband, then it's time to reclassify all ISPs as common carriers. This will help to separate the content providers from the carriers with the conflict of interest that goes with them. Until that happens, the telecoms had better watch out, stand aside and let the citizens build what they want.
You have noticed the "hole" in the newspaper. The hole is not where the ads are, it's where the news should be but it isn't. And since advertisers pay for the vast majority of the costs of the newspaper, they determine the content.
When consumers dictate the content of the newspapers, then we will have real news because consumers will want real news. That could mean we'd have to pay for access. The problem is that the monied interests have far more concentrated capital to use to exert control over the media than a large group of disorganized consumers.
First, never assume evil before ignorance or stupidity. Obama just got here. Heck, they're still trying to find records on the Gitmo guys, which have been strewn all over the government.
I look at it like this: how would Obama look if he didn't fight it? Soft on Terrorism? Consorting with the spies? Remember how he tapped adversaries to be a part of his administration? This could be a setup case, where they have a chance to prove their point. And if they fail, things change. If not, well...Sovereign Immunity is perfectly plausible.
I think Obama is giving us the perfect opportunity to WAKE UP and pass laws that would fix the problem of unchecked surveillance.
And there is one other thing to consider: Obama, after being briefed by the former administration, found something absolutely frightening that was left over by the former administration. He might need to buy more time to figure out how to fix it. And I mean that in a good way. The time required to pass a repeal of the Patriot Act, or even a heavy MOD to that act, would take time.
That might be enough time to clean the mess left by the Bushies.
I think the real question is one of awareness. If MS can keep Linux off the shelves, people will have little or no awareness of Linux. So when I see MS gloating about how they now have 96% of the market for netbooks what they're really saying is "we just wanted to make damn sure you have *no* choice but to use Windows."
As others have pointed out, they just had to wait until the bottom came up to meet XP. And they can afford to give it away until Linux is not even considered by consumers. Once the competition has been killed off, they will start charging higher prices again.
Given the current animosity towards insurance companies (AIG, anyone?), and health insurance companies in particular, it's hard to see how it could get any worse. They seem to have it pretty good in Europe. The whole idea that health insurance should be employment based is turning out to be a farce, in my opinion. And anyone who has ever been tagged with a "pre-existing condition" is probably thinking of moving to Europe, anyway. Isn't the point of insurance to distribute risk?
And after reading this article, I'm inclined to think that turning over more power to the government is likely to be better, and/or not much worse than the current regime. But it could take the incentive to profit at the expense of customers away from those who would be tempted to do so. Profit might be an important factor in the administration of good health care. But it's clear that, in this country at least, the scales have tilted clearly in favor of profit over patient health.
So Oracle and Citigroup are thinking of buying Red Hat, eh? Perhaps they envy the freedom that Red Hat possesses. Perhaps they wish to control Red Hat in a way that no others could. Did they hear a whisper from Microsoft?
I think that the worst possible thing is for Red Hat to be consumed by a larger company such as Citigroup or Oracle. Their statements and actions demonstrate little understanding or regard for the culture in Red Hat.
Their wish to buy Red Hat is akin to the wish to put a flowing river in a bucket. Once the water is in the bucket, it is no longer flowing.
To put it differently, to derive the benefits of Red Hat, they would either just buy the software they produce and use it, or buy their stock and sit on it. But as soon as they try to control it at their own whim, that which was free and living, will squirm away, somewhere else.
Imagine what will happen to all the customers, developers and channel resellers who trust Red Hat now. It will simply not be the same with a new master.
I hope Red Hat can maintain their indepence for the sake of everyone who depends on them.
Thank you. I'm an admin and I see a lot of places giving their users admin rights simply because many programmers either simply assume that users will have admin rights or, the programmers refuse to follow common sense security policy. Intuit, anyone?
So what do I have to do? I have to research every application that breaks when the user does not have admin rights. I have to go the vendor's website, and see if there is an article describing how to run the program as non-admin. Often, the article I do find is a description of about 15-30 minutes of configuration changes to fix it.
If that doesn't exist, I have to call the company, possibly pay for extra support on this issue, and sometimes, find out that the configuration I have in mind is not even documented. Ha, ha.
On the other hand, from what I can see, Linux programmers make the assumption from the gitgo that users are not running as root. Which means I NEVER have to run as root, (except for maintenance and installs with Synaptics or Apt) and don't want to. And yes, even on Ubuntu, when I download files, the execute bit is turned off. Which means that someone is still paying attention to security, rather than assuming a desire for convenience.
Windows security has improved quite a bit, but until they are able to turn their giant ship around, it's going to be a long time before the programming philosophy changes enough to match the security model of linux. When ATT wrote Unix in 1969, the philosophy was that no user should be able to destroy the work of another user. I think despite the changes since then, that philosophy holds true today.
Agreed. I don't think it's limited to Mormons, either. It has more to do with a desire to work and earn a living while raising kids - without having to watch what the kids are doing.
More parental (or grandparental) involvement is needed. The 50-60 hour week is really what is the problem here. Maybe not so much during this recession, but that is a big part of the problem.
Sorry about the late response, as the first one was all I could muster while dealing with other, more pressing matters (life, in general).
I never said Bush was evil. I try to avoid assuming evil before stupidity.
Once we get started blurring out the "sensitive" sites, people are going to want to have their own houses blurred, too. Before long, it will be one big blurry map, except for the oceans.
I'd like to focus on this issue of security through obscurity. We live in an open society. The success of our society depends on openness and transparency. Anyone familiar with the success of Linux can see that. Anyone familiar with the causes of the current economic meltdown will see that secrecy is a big part of it.
So, once we blur those sensitive sites, we keep law abiding people unaware of what is happening next to them. Terrorists will eventually find their own sources of images, given time, resources and determination. But any citizen with an interest in making a contribution to the security of our sensitive areas will be at a disadvantage to do so. The opportunity to do so will have been foreclosed.
For 7 years, I watched as the White House started with Ashcroft and his memo telling all agencies to deny FOIA requests rather than release documents. Deny, withhold, accuse.
The previous administration has been acknowledged as the most secretive that we have ever had. They didn't want to listen to outsiders, never took advice, slammed dissent, and pretty did what they wanted. Since they did it their own way, they get to live with their own failure and let others clean it up.
That's not what I want in a democracy.
There. I feel better now. That is what I should have said the first time.
Slashdot Mirror
If the Obama administration really wants to go after monopoly, the best place to start is to weaken copyright and patent laws and make the RIAA guys they hired earn their money. For some very interesting reading, they should start here.
I'm in chapter 5 of this book, and I'm already convinced that patents should be abolished, completely. I'm also forming the opinion that the success of the malware industry is exactly because they seek no protection or rents from patents, copyrights or other monopoly protection.
I'm not so sure about abolishing copyrights yet, but I haven't finished the book. Maybe a much shorter term is in order, perhaps 3-10 years.
I think this article puts a finer point on it:
The gist? Treaties don't trump the constitution. PJ summarizes thusly: "I read it as saying that nothing, not any treaty, not even the Berne Convention, can trump the US Constitution."
What do you think of that?
Then Darl might want to read that book again.
Your points are well taken. But discovery, months of discovery, showed that there was no stolen code. There were also some other trigger events that eventually released IBM from the partnership (I can't remember all the details, but they include change of ownership, expiration dates, etc.). In the end, there was really no evidence of wrong-doing on the part of IBM. In fact, well before the lawsuits, IBM made many statements of its intentions and followed through with no objection from SCO.
This is all very well documented at www.groklaw.net and available for your reading.
Really? I thought that hissing sound was the air escaping from Darl's ballon as it slowly comes to the ground. I still think this is the end of the corporate veil for those guys.
I am thinking that if SCO has no assets, there are going to be other places to look to see where the money went. Maybe they all have accounts with UBS.
Perhaps this is the first pinhole in the corporate veil?
Wow. Thanks for the hot tip on the office furniture. That's way cool. Now if I can only convince my boss to buy one of those chairs.
Yeah, FCMobileLife. Franklin Covey? The Seven Habits of Successful People? Give me a break. How could those guys ever hook up with SCO? Oh, wait, they are both in Utah. I guess FC just wanted to give a local firm the business.
Um, everything they moved offshore? You know, those "core intellectual property" assets. And then there's the SCO Group and there's SCO Operations. Even without an approved reorganization plan, they were moving shells around like a street scammer.
Having said that, I wonder what will happen to the corporate veil once they are dissolved.
Agreed.
I've already begun to do this. I look for doctors who prescribe drugs only as a last resort. If they offer me a sample of something to try, I know that I've just become a guinea pig for a drug that the doctor received from a marketing campaign - and he probably didn't read the studies that vetted the drug in the first place.
With regard to Merck, it looks like this:
"Gosh, we pretty much own every G8 legislature, especially the US Congress, we're the largest lobby in the world, with some of the highest profit margins, with plenty of protection from competition, and yet, we still don't have complete control of everything. Let's create a fake journal so our drugs can pass the regulatory rigor. We can all sleep better knowing that we have our own prestigious medical journal to rely upon."
The change I want to see starts with a lifestyle change by me, because the drug companies won't change unless I do. I try to start with me first and see what happens.
How do you estimate 500 million? Linux has become a utility platform for computing for ventures large and small. And for a growing number, desktop computing. It could be that the value of Linux to many people is intangible. You know, freedom, transparency, that sort of thing. But that can translate into saved man-hours, which is money.
As far as risk is concerned, most companies and individuals have taken many calculated risks since there is no guarantee of profits. This is true for any venture (otherwise it's not capitalism).
I believe that the value of an open source graphics card will be worth the investment to the companies that do invest in it, in the long run.
...you underestimate the capacity of volunteers, or even companies that allow their engineers to work on such products. As an example, it's been well documented that the cost to build Linux exceeds at least a billion dollars. And few took Linux seriously in the beginning except the volunteers who believed in the project.
So if companies and individuals worldwide are willing to free themselves from proprietary graphics card designs so that their software will work better, then they're probably willing to invest a billion dollars or more, for it.
You seem to think that the performance would be so terrible for an open graphics card. Don't forget that the companies that have invested in Linux now have a world class operating system for things like supercomputing, transaction processing (think NYSE) and similar pursuits. This comes complete with the GCC which is highly regarded among programmers, some might even regard it as the best compiler available. Free.
If large corporations who use Linux weren't happy with the performance there, then they might have gone back to the proprietary software they were using before. But they didn't. I'm inclined to think that a similar line of progression can be anticipated with graphics cards.
Wouldn't you agree?
Agreed. I'm not a gamer, but I like the idea of having an open implementation of a graphics card for my use. Lower the barriers to entry to the market, and things get really interesting.
I hope this group of engineers can succeed in producing an open board that eventually provides high-end graphics capabilities.
Agreed. Question is, will they produce a 64-bit version before I reinstall with 64-bit OS?
Why? Here are a few reasons:
In one housing development here in West Valley, Garbett Homes in Highbury, Utopia ran their own conduit but before they could finish the job Qwest came in and pulled their own cables. This filled the conduit and prevented Utopia from using their own conduit. With some coordination, they both could have pulled cable together. But Qwest is fighting competition, right?
Qwest has telephone poles that they lease out to other service providers, but not Utopia. At least not without a court fight. They wanted to review all 27,000 poles, one at a time in court. Qwest seems to have forgotten who gave them the easement.
I have Comcast currently and on several occasions, the service has gone down. Seems to be happening more frequently, lately. But the fact the cable companies are so willing to fight this is the biggest reason of all to use a muniband service. Someone else has already pointed out the subsidies given to them over the years.
I have also read that Comcast is telling their shareholders that it would only cost $6 to double our speeds. But when they talk to the public and governments, they cry and moan about the costs of infrastructure.
If we can't have muniband, then it's time to reclassify all ISPs as common carriers. This will help to separate the content providers from the carriers with the conflict of interest that goes with them. Until that happens, the telecoms had better watch out, stand aside and let the citizens build what they want.
You have noticed the "hole" in the newspaper. The hole is not where the ads are, it's where the news should be but it isn't. And since advertisers pay for the vast majority of the costs of the newspaper, they determine the content.
When consumers dictate the content of the newspapers, then we will have real news because consumers will want real news. That could mean we'd have to pay for access. The problem is that the monied interests have far more concentrated capital to use to exert control over the media than a large group of disorganized consumers.
You might want to go here for real news.
First, never assume evil before ignorance or stupidity. Obama just got here. Heck, they're still trying to find records on the Gitmo guys, which have been strewn all over the government.
I look at it like this: how would Obama look if he didn't fight it? Soft on Terrorism? Consorting with the spies? Remember how he tapped adversaries to be a part of his administration? This could be a setup case, where they have a chance to prove their point. And if they fail, things change. If not, well...Sovereign Immunity is perfectly plausible.
I think Obama is giving us the perfect opportunity to WAKE UP and pass laws that would fix the problem of unchecked surveillance.
And there is one other thing to consider: Obama, after being briefed by the former administration, found something absolutely frightening that was left over by the former administration. He might need to buy more time to figure out how to fix it. And I mean that in a good way. The time required to pass a repeal of the Patriot Act, or even a heavy MOD to that act, would take time.
That might be enough time to clean the mess left by the Bushies.
I think the real question is one of awareness. If MS can keep Linux off the shelves, people will have little or no awareness of Linux. So when I see MS gloating about how they now have 96% of the market for netbooks what they're really saying is "we just wanted to make damn sure you have *no* choice but to use Windows."
As others have pointed out, they just had to wait until the bottom came up to meet XP. And they can afford to give it away until Linux is not even considered by consumers. Once the competition has been killed off, they will start charging higher prices again.
In this case, familiarity breeds contempt.
Given the current animosity towards insurance companies (AIG, anyone?), and health insurance companies in particular, it's hard to see how it could get any worse. They seem to have it pretty good in Europe. The whole idea that health insurance should be employment based is turning out to be a farce, in my opinion. And anyone who has ever been tagged with a "pre-existing condition" is probably thinking of moving to Europe, anyway. Isn't the point of insurance to distribute risk?
And after reading this article, I'm inclined to think that turning over more power to the government is likely to be better, and/or not much worse than the current regime. But it could take the incentive to profit at the expense of customers away from those who would be tempted to do so. Profit might be an important factor in the administration of good health care. But it's clear that, in this country at least, the scales have tilted clearly in favor of profit over patient health.
What do you think of that?
Thanks for the clarification. I had the impression that Citigroup OR Oracle would by RH.
So Oracle and Citigroup are thinking of buying Red Hat, eh? Perhaps they envy the freedom that Red Hat possesses. Perhaps they wish to control Red Hat in a way that no others could. Did they hear a whisper from Microsoft?
I think that the worst possible thing is for Red Hat to be consumed by a larger company such as Citigroup or Oracle. Their statements and actions demonstrate little understanding or regard for the culture in Red Hat.
Their wish to buy Red Hat is akin to the wish to put a flowing river in a bucket. Once the water is in the bucket, it is no longer flowing.
To put it differently, to derive the benefits of Red Hat, they would either just buy the software they produce and use it, or buy their stock and sit on it. But as soon as they try to control it at their own whim, that which was free and living, will squirm away, somewhere else.
Imagine what will happen to all the customers, developers and channel resellers who trust Red Hat now. It will simply not be the same with a new master.
I hope Red Hat can maintain their indepence for the sake of everyone who depends on them.
Thank you. I'm an admin and I see a lot of places giving their users admin rights simply because many programmers either simply assume that users will have admin rights or, the programmers refuse to follow common sense security policy. Intuit, anyone?
So what do I have to do? I have to research every application that breaks when the user does not have admin rights. I have to go the vendor's website, and see if there is an article describing how to run the program as non-admin. Often, the article I do find is a description of about 15-30 minutes of configuration changes to fix it.
If that doesn't exist, I have to call the company, possibly pay for extra support on this issue, and sometimes, find out that the configuration I have in mind is not even documented. Ha, ha.
On the other hand, from what I can see, Linux programmers make the assumption from the gitgo that users are not running as root. Which means I NEVER have to run as root, (except for maintenance and installs with Synaptics or Apt) and don't want to. And yes, even on Ubuntu, when I download files, the execute bit is turned off. Which means that someone is still paying attention to security, rather than assuming a desire for convenience.
Windows security has improved quite a bit, but until they are able to turn their giant ship around, it's going to be a long time before the programming philosophy changes enough to match the security model of linux. When ATT wrote Unix in 1969, the philosophy was that no user should be able to destroy the work of another user. I think despite the changes since then, that philosophy holds true today.
Agreed. I don't think it's limited to Mormons, either. It has more to do with a desire to work and earn a living while raising kids - without having to watch what the kids are doing.
More parental (or grandparental) involvement is needed. The 50-60 hour week is really what is the problem here. Maybe not so much during this recession, but that is a big part of the problem.
Sorry about the late response, as the first one was all I could muster while dealing with other, more pressing matters (life, in general).
I never said Bush was evil. I try to avoid assuming evil before stupidity.
Once we get started blurring out the "sensitive" sites, people are going to want to have their own houses blurred, too. Before long, it will be one big blurry map, except for the oceans.
I'd like to focus on this issue of security through obscurity. We live in an open society. The success of our society depends on openness and transparency. Anyone familiar with the success of Linux can see that. Anyone familiar with the causes of the current economic meltdown will see that secrecy is a big part of it.
So, once we blur those sensitive sites, we keep law abiding people unaware of what is happening next to them. Terrorists will eventually find their own sources of images, given time, resources and determination. But any citizen with an interest in making a contribution to the security of our sensitive areas will be at a disadvantage to do so. The opportunity to do so will have been foreclosed.
For 7 years, I watched as the White House started with Ashcroft and his memo telling all agencies to deny FOIA requests rather than release documents. Deny, withhold, accuse.
The previous administration has been acknowledged as the most secretive that we have ever had. They didn't want to listen to outsiders, never took advice, slammed dissent, and pretty did what they wanted. Since they did it their own way, they get to live with their own failure and let others clean it up.
That's not what I want in a democracy.
There. I feel better now. That is what I should have said the first time.
I'm sorry. I must have missed that. What was the answer again?