The only reason apple don't offer all their music without DRM is because the record companies won't let them.
Apple has done more to promote and legitimize DRM than any other company, and they have earned enormous amounts of money with DRM. Nobody forced them to do that, and nobody forced them to become filthy rich from it. Of course, they are responsible for pushing DRM.
They are allowing amazon to have DRM free music in order to try and reduce apple's marketshare and thus reduce apple's chips at the negotiation table with the record companies.
The ARIA can impose fees on the public performance. But format shifting isn't public performance, it's something that's done prior to public performance, and separately.
A recording industry association can't arbitrarily define themselves what's legal and what isn't under copyright law. They are bound by copyright law as much as everybody else.
Format shifting is not a public performance. Therefore, it should be covered under standard copyright law and not require separate licensing.
Public performance of the music can, of course, be subject to licensing fees. But the recording industry shouldn't be able to set licensing fees based on which media or equipment the DJ happens to use.
As experience shows, many terrorists also earn a living as taxi drivers, waiters, cooks, and accountants. I think we should put stiff penalties on people practicing those professions as well, just to be safe.
Office Live does not let you create MS Office files with the browser. The option simply doesn't exist in the menu.
Office Live does not let you edit MS Office files with the browser. If you open an MS Office file in Office Live, it tells you that you need to use "the application" to do so, namely Microsoft Office.
If you have MS Office installed, it may embed the Office editor into the browser window, but that has all the same disadvantages of using MS Office in an external window.
Then there's the super fun idea that Novell is putting in source code from Windows that Windows "accidentally" gave Novell which does several things at once. It justifies Novell's payment for protection from Microsoft litigation, it hobbles their competitors in the Linux realm and it gives Microsoft the power to go after any user or company using Linux with the 'stolen' code. It would also tie up Linux for a bit until that mess was sorted out.
The origin of source code in Linux can be traced. If Microsoft and Novell were doing what you are suggesting, then this could be traced back and courts would simply throw out Microsoft's claims. And if Microsoft kept spreading FUD about it, one could get a declaratory judgment.
Now you're picking nits. Using the offline feature in Google Docs is going to require a plug-in also... GASP!
I'm sure to a Microsoft fanboy and shill like you, having to buy and install Microsoft Office makes no difference; you probably get it free from Microsoft for all the misinformation you spread for them.
To the rest of the world, the difference between "all you need is a browser" and "buy and install Microsoft Office", however, is $360 and a lot of work. I don't own a copy of Microsoft Office at all; it would cost more than my entire computer.
As for Google Gears, you don't need it for editing or sharing Google Docs and most people never install it. If you do want to install it, it's free, it's tiny, it's open source, and enables off-line capabilities in a lot of other web applications.
that's why Office sells so many copies in the first place. Seriously.
Office sells so many copies because Microsoft established a near monopoly through bundling, tying, and other dirty tricks.
100% wrong. I don't know how new the feature is, but Office Live has let you do this for some time. Please don't spread FUD.
I have Office Live up on my screen. It does not support browser-based editing.
Perhaps you're confusing some kind of MS Office ActiveX embedding with browser-based editing. Or maybe you're simply lying.
Really? I've never come across one...
Well, evidently, you're living under a rock.
care to show us some examples?
Go read the Google Docs API documentation, or just try out one of the many third party Google Docs gadgets; they're a right click away in Google Spreadsheets.
Ah yes, the "fewer features are better" view. Seriously?
Within this context, it's not a view, it's a fact. Seriously.
Sometimes I'm shocked how much people pass off second-hand or third-hand information instead of rolling up their sleeves
You mean like you just did? After all, you didn't say you tried it, you just talked to someone who claimed it worked.
Unlike you, I did try it out before posting. Just like everybody else is saying, it doesn't work. The only document types that I can create are notes, lists, task lists, contact lists, and event lists. There's no way to create PowerPoint, no Word, no Excel.
If I upload a document and try to open it, it says:
A read-only preview of your document appears below. To view or edit a version with full functionality, open the document in its original application.
Is that clear enough for you? Or how much clearer do you need Microsoft to spell it out for you?
Now, why don't you go and try it out yourself, instead of making unfounded accusations against other people and proving yourself to be an idiot.
As long as you are editing/viewing someone else's Office Live Document, the same is true.
Office Live doesn't let people create or edit Word, PowerPoint, or Excel files from the browser. And it doesn't work with Firefox on Linux at all (not because of Linux, but because Microsoft has disabled it).
Same with Office Live. Different way of "seeing" and I prefer Google's but both work.
In Google Docs, when one user selects and changes a cell in a spreadsheet, all other users see that in real time in their own application instances. Office Live doesn't have anything like that.
More to the point, I'd be curious to know about how easy those mashups are to create in Google Docs. I guess I've got more research to do!;)
Very easy. Many on-line services accept Google Docs as sources and/or sinks, you can create mashups with Google Gadgets by simply selecting a range and a gadget in the spreadsheet (and then publish the Gadget), and you can design an input form right in Docs.
The ease of use for inviting others is the same.
I can't even sign up from Linux, the sign-up process is buggy, and there doesn't seem to be anything like Google Apps.
(Free as in beer vs. works with 100% of your current documents.)
It's a myth that MS Office works with 100% of MS Office documents; there are serious version incompatibilities, font problems, and macro problems.
In fact, I find the limits Google Docs imposes on formatting to be an advantage because it keeps people from wasting their time and my time by adding tricky features to documents.
I'm not sure what you're asking. You always edit your document in the browser. If you happen to be off-line, it stores the changes and reconciles them when it can. If you happen to share the document and someone else edits it, you see their edits in real time. You don't need to do anything special or even think about it in either case.
That's idiotic advice. Prior art claims are hard enough to establish anyway, and you simply don't want to spend time arguing in court about whether a blog post counts as prior art.
There's a bunch of established ways of publishing something so that it counts reliably as prior art. Use one of them. Doing anything else is unnecessarily risky.
(You seem to assume that public accessibility and an established publication date are sufficient to establish prior art. That is incorrect: there are additional requirements, and it is far from clear that a blog post or a Slashdot post meet them.)
It is in-browser. It uses Google Gears, a small open source extension that makes it easy for people to turn on-line apps into off-line apps. It works on major platforms and browsers, including Windows, Windows Mobile, MacOS, and Linux. Remember The Milk, Zoho Office, and others are already using Google Gears, as is Google Reader.
Google Docs off-line was an obvious use for Google Gears, and the main question is: why did it take so long?
It's a good bet that off-line versions of GMail and Google Calendar are next.
What's the difference between Google Docs' new functionality and Office Live?
Several major ones: (1) Google Docs sharing is actually live; you can see other people's edits being made in real time, (2) all you need with Google Docs is a web browser--nothing to install, (3) Google Docs are data sources and sinks for mashups and other applications (including web forms submissions), (4) user management and sharing is much, much simpler with Google Docs--you can share and work with anybody, (5) Google Docs can integrate with both MS Office and OpenOffice, (6) Google Docs has mobile access.
Oh, also: Office Live exists right now (albeit in beta), and Google only has a press release.
Google Docs has had the limited sharing functionality found in Office Live since before Office Live even existed. The new Gears-based off-line mode is simpler and better and something that Microsoft simply doesn't have at all.
People have been using mixed on-line/off-line computing for a long time; neither Microsoft nor Google invented this or were the first to figure out that it was useful.
What matters is how exactly it's done. I find Google's offerings a lot more persuasive than Microsoft's. Microsoft's collaborative features are cumbersome and hard to use, and Microsoft's office suite is expensive and heavy-weight. Google Docs is easy to get started with and works for most people; mainly what it needs is better embedded object support (including math) and bug fixing.
You need to publish your invention in an archival format. Write it up for Dr. Dobbs or some other magazine.
Publishing it on the Internet is not enough; it doesn't count as prior art.
Even if you publish in an archival format, companies will often still patent almost the same thing and then worry about fighting it out in court. There are all sorts of ways of basically invalidating your publication for the purpose of counting as prior art, but it's still the best chance you have.
Patenting is pretty hopeless: it's enormously expensive, and trying to enforce a patent is even more costly. Patents are not useful for inventors or open source, they are only useful as legal ammunition for big companies and law firms to play games with.
I think what we need now is an open source compatibility test suite to detect and flag when Microsoft departs from the OOXML standard, as they invariably will sooner or later.
We need to establish that the standard (such as it is) defines the format, not Microsoft's Diet Coke swilling VC++ hackers.
How about backing up some of your assertions with some facts or logic.
I have given you facts:
* Apple has a long history of deliberately incompatible formats and standards, showing that Apple believes incompatibilities to be in their commercial interest. There is no indication or reason that they are doing anything different for iWork.
* FOSS clearly is competing with Apple at universities and on corporate desktops, and any support they give that makes FOSS more viable in those markets would likely be a threat to them. On the other hand, Apple has made a deal with Microsoft for Microsoft Office on OS X, which gives them a competitive advantage relative to FOSS. Hence, promoting ODF is not in their interest.
* Apple didn't need to wait for ODF ratification in 2006 in order to adopt an open XML format for iWork. The OpenOffice XML format was around and well-documented when Apple started iWork, but Apple ignored it. A couple of years later, ODF was well along and could have formed the basis for Apple's redesigned format, but Apple ignored it again and chose to design their own next generation format.
* ODF's structure can easily represent MS Office and iWork documents (since that's one of their use cases); since iWork supports MS Office compatibility, adding ODF support to iWork should be quite easy.
* Instead of openly responding to issue requests for ODF support in iWork, Apple quietly deletes such feature requests from their developer issue tracker.
* TextEdit's "support" for ODF is so limited that it simply doesn't constitute a threat to Apple's proprietary formats.
Everything you've presented so far has been an empty assertion or a fact I have demonstrated is false or does not prove what you hoped it did. In logic, facts precede forming an opinion.
You have demonstrated nothing. You have simply been waving your hands trying to argue that, despite all the facts, there is still some possibility that things aren't the way they seem. Your arguments are not persuasive. The fact remains that Apple iWork uses a proprietary XML format, even though Apple had ample opportunity to adopt formats that are compatible with open source systems, first OpenOffice then ODF. Apple's behavior is consistent with their corporate policies and their commercial interests.
Of course, Apple can do whatever they like. But open source developers should remember that Apple is not their friend, Apple is a competitor that is every bit as dirty and ruthless as Microsoft, and Apple should be treated accordingly.
Why don't schools teach logic anymore?
Maybe if you had paid better attention, it wouldn't have gone over your head.
The solution is simple: get a sheet magnet (http://www.custom-magnets.com/Adhesive_magnet_rolls.htm) and print a fake license plate on paper
The readers check for this and compare the license plate against the actual model of car you're driving; you'll be stopped half a mile later for driving with an illegal license plate.
Reusable, and you have plausable deniability, too, since 'anyone' can stick something on the outside of your car....
It's your responsibility to ensure before you get in your car that your license plate is correct and readable.
Apple doesn't really compete with OSS in the desktop space.
OSS is widely used on the desktop, probably more widely than Macintosh. You're confusing the desktop with the home market.
Currently, I wouldn't recommend it.
What does that have to do with anything?
Except TextEdit has both read and write support for ODF.
Well, hey, no need to buy iWork then, right? Don't make me laugh.
The first reports of iWork in development were in 2003.
Yes, and they could have adopted OpenOffice XML at the time, then moved to ODF along with OpenOffice. Instead, they went through two poorly designed XML formats that were homegrown.
Claiming that Apple is intentionally avoiding compatibility is a stretch.
Apple has a long history of intentional incompatibilities, and Apple has no interest in helping ODF adoption or risking their relationship with Microsoft.
Using RFID combined with detectors at every street corner will allow for constant surveillance of every car all the time.
So do license plate readers, and they can operate from greater distances and completely passively. Cost for a license plate reader is about the same as a good RFID reader, and they are probably at least as reliable. Furthermore, you are required to keep your license plate readable.
Some cities are already starting to implement complete license plate-based tracking of vehicles.
Tires already come with RFID tags, which can also be read and tracked remotely. Cars probably also emit all sorts of other unique signals that can be recognized and tracked.
Of course, cars also come with this thing called a "license plate", which can also be tracked remotely and wirelessly.
what is the intellectual value in your mind of prosecuting the usa alone for crimes all of humanity is guilty of?
Nobody is talking about "prosecuting"; we are talking about what we want our politicians and bureaucrats to do on our behalf. And propaganda is something we don't want.
As for your examples of Clausewitz, Machiavelli, Sun Tzu, or Tokugawa, those were at best ethically challenged men working for undemocratic governments; we don't want the US to follow in their footsteps. In fact, many people came to the US exactly in order to escape the political machinations of people like that.
Slashdot Mirror
The only reason apple don't offer all their music without DRM is because the record companies won't let them.
Apple has done more to promote and legitimize DRM than any other company, and they have earned enormous amounts of money with DRM. Nobody forced them to do that, and nobody forced them to become filthy rich from it. Of course, they are responsible for pushing DRM.
They are allowing amazon to have DRM free music in order to try and reduce apple's marketshare and thus reduce apple's chips at the negotiation table with the record companies.
Good. I hope they drive iTunes out of business.
The ARIA can impose fees on the public performance. But format shifting isn't public performance, it's something that's done prior to public performance, and separately.
A recording industry association can't arbitrarily define themselves what's legal and what isn't under copyright law. They are bound by copyright law as much as everybody else.
Format shifting is not a public performance. Therefore, it should be covered under standard copyright law and not require separate licensing.
Public performance of the music can, of course, be subject to licensing fees. But the recording industry shouldn't be able to set licensing fees based on which media or equipment the DJ happens to use.
As experience shows, many terrorists also earn a living as taxi drivers, waiters, cooks, and accountants. I think we should put stiff penalties on people practicing those professions as well, just to be safe.
Office Live does not let you create MS Office files with the browser. The option simply doesn't exist in the menu.
Office Live does not let you edit MS Office files with the browser. If you open an MS Office file in Office Live, it tells you that you need to use "the application" to do so, namely Microsoft Office.
If you have MS Office installed, it may embed the Office editor into the browser window, but that has all the same disadvantages of using MS Office in an external window.
Those are the facts. Now stop lying.
Then there's the super fun idea that Novell is putting in source code from Windows that Windows "accidentally" gave Novell which does several things at once. It justifies Novell's payment for protection from Microsoft litigation, it hobbles their competitors in the Linux realm and it gives Microsoft the power to go after any user or company using Linux with the 'stolen' code. It would also tie up Linux for a bit until that mess was sorted out.
The origin of source code in Linux can be traced. If Microsoft and Novell were doing what you are suggesting, then this could be traced back and courts would simply throw out Microsoft's claims. And if Microsoft kept spreading FUD about it, one could get a declaratory judgment.
Now you're picking nits. Using the offline feature in Google Docs is going to require a plug-in also... GASP!
I'm sure to a Microsoft fanboy and shill like you, having to buy and install Microsoft Office makes no difference; you probably get it free from Microsoft for all the misinformation you spread for them.
To the rest of the world, the difference between "all you need is a browser" and "buy and install Microsoft Office", however, is $360 and a lot of work. I don't own a copy of Microsoft Office at all; it would cost more than my entire computer.
As for Google Gears, you don't need it for editing or sharing Google Docs and most people never install it. If you do want to install it, it's free, it's tiny, it's open source, and enables off-line capabilities in a lot of other web applications.
that's why Office sells so many copies in the first place. Seriously.
Office sells so many copies because Microsoft established a near monopoly through bundling, tying, and other dirty tricks.
100% wrong. I don't know how new the feature is, but Office Live has let you do this for some time. Please don't spread FUD.
I have Office Live up on my screen. It does not support browser-based editing.
Perhaps you're confusing some kind of MS Office ActiveX embedding with browser-based editing. Or maybe you're simply lying.
Really? I've never come across one...
Well, evidently, you're living under a rock.
care to show us some examples?
Go read the Google Docs API documentation, or just try out one of the many third party Google Docs gadgets; they're a right click away in Google Spreadsheets.
Ah yes, the "fewer features are better" view. Seriously?
Within this context, it's not a view, it's a fact. Seriously.
You mean like you just did? After all, you didn't say you tried it, you just talked to someone who claimed it worked.
Unlike you, I did try it out before posting. Just like everybody else is saying, it doesn't work. The only document types that I can create are notes, lists, task lists, contact lists, and event lists. There's no way to create PowerPoint, no Word, no Excel.
If I upload a document and try to open it, it says:
Is that clear enough for you? Or how much clearer do you need Microsoft to spell it out for you?
Now, why don't you go and try it out yourself, instead of making unfounded accusations against other people and proving yourself to be an idiot.
As long as you are editing/viewing someone else's Office Live Document, the same is true.
;)
Office Live doesn't let people create or edit Word, PowerPoint, or Excel files from the browser. And it doesn't work with Firefox on Linux at all (not because of Linux, but because Microsoft has disabled it).
Same with Office Live. Different way of "seeing" and I prefer Google's but both work.
In Google Docs, when one user selects and changes a cell in a spreadsheet, all other users see that in real time in their own application instances. Office Live doesn't have anything like that.
More to the point, I'd be curious to know about how easy those mashups are to create in Google Docs. I guess I've got more research to do!
Very easy. Many on-line services accept Google Docs as sources and/or sinks, you can create mashups with Google Gadgets by simply selecting a range and a gadget in the spreadsheet (and then publish the Gadget), and you can design an input form right in Docs.
The ease of use for inviting others is the same.
I can't even sign up from Linux, the sign-up process is buggy, and there doesn't seem to be anything like Google Apps.
(Free as in beer vs. works with 100% of your current documents.)
It's a myth that MS Office works with 100% of MS Office documents; there are serious version incompatibilities, font problems, and macro problems.
In fact, I find the limits Google Docs imposes on formatting to be an advantage because it keeps people from wasting their time and my time by adding tricky features to documents.
It's a bit sluggish, but usable. It should get a bit better in Firefox 3, and a lot better once the new JavaScript engine has been integrated.
I'm not sure what you're asking. You always edit your document in the browser. If you happen to be off-line, it stores the changes and reconciles them when it can. If you happen to share the document and someone else edits it, you see their edits in real time. You don't need to do anything special or even think about it in either case.
That's idiotic advice. Prior art claims are hard enough to establish anyway, and you simply don't want to spend time arguing in court about whether a blog post counts as prior art.
There's a bunch of established ways of publishing something so that it counts reliably as prior art. Use one of them. Doing anything else is unnecessarily risky.
(You seem to assume that public accessibility and an established publication date are sufficient to establish prior art. That is incorrect: there are additional requirements, and it is far from clear that a blog post or a Slashdot post meet them.)
It is in-browser. It uses Google Gears, a small open source extension that makes it easy for people to turn on-line apps into off-line apps. It works on major platforms and browsers, including Windows, Windows Mobile, MacOS, and Linux. Remember The Milk, Zoho Office, and others are already using Google Gears, as is Google Reader.
Google Docs off-line was an obvious use for Google Gears, and the main question is: why did it take so long?
It's a good bet that off-line versions of GMail and Google Calendar are next.
What's the difference between Google Docs' new functionality and Office Live?
Several major ones: (1) Google Docs sharing is actually live; you can see other people's edits being made in real time, (2) all you need with Google Docs is a web browser--nothing to install, (3) Google Docs are data sources and sinks for mashups and other applications (including web forms submissions), (4) user management and sharing is much, much simpler with Google Docs--you can share and work with anybody, (5) Google Docs can integrate with both MS Office and OpenOffice, (6) Google Docs has mobile access.
Oh, also: Office Live exists right now (albeit in beta), and Google only has a press release.
Google Docs has had the limited sharing functionality found in Office Live since before Office Live even existed. The new Gears-based off-line mode is simpler and better and something that Microsoft simply doesn't have at all.
People have been using mixed on-line/off-line computing for a long time; neither Microsoft nor Google invented this or were the first to figure out that it was useful.
What matters is how exactly it's done. I find Google's offerings a lot more persuasive than Microsoft's. Microsoft's collaborative features are cumbersome and hard to use, and Microsoft's office suite is expensive and heavy-weight. Google Docs is easy to get started with and works for most people; mainly what it needs is better embedded object support (including math) and bug fixing.
You need to publish your invention in an archival format. Write it up for Dr. Dobbs or some other magazine.
Publishing it on the Internet is not enough; it doesn't count as prior art.
Even if you publish in an archival format, companies will often still patent almost the same thing and then worry about fighting it out in court. There are all sorts of ways of basically invalidating your publication for the purpose of counting as prior art, but it's still the best chance you have.
Patenting is pretty hopeless: it's enormously expensive, and trying to enforce a patent is even more costly. Patents are not useful for inventors or open source, they are only useful as legal ammunition for big companies and law firms to play games with.
I think what we need now is an open source compatibility test suite to detect and flag when Microsoft departs from the OOXML standard, as they invariably will sooner or later.
We need to establish that the standard (such as it is) defines the format, not Microsoft's Diet Coke swilling VC++ hackers.
How about backing up some of your assertions with some facts or logic.
I have given you facts:
* Apple has a long history of deliberately incompatible formats and standards, showing that Apple believes incompatibilities to be in their commercial interest. There is no indication or reason that they are doing anything different for iWork.
* FOSS clearly is competing with Apple at universities and on corporate desktops, and any support they give that makes FOSS more viable in those markets would likely be a threat to them. On the other hand, Apple has made a deal with Microsoft for Microsoft Office on OS X, which gives them a competitive advantage relative to FOSS. Hence, promoting ODF is not in their interest.
* Apple didn't need to wait for ODF ratification in 2006 in order to adopt an open XML format for iWork. The OpenOffice XML format was around and well-documented when Apple started iWork, but Apple ignored it. A couple of years later, ODF was well along and could have formed the basis for Apple's redesigned format, but Apple ignored it again and chose to design their own next generation format.
* ODF's structure can easily represent MS Office and iWork documents (since that's one of their use cases); since iWork supports MS Office compatibility, adding ODF support to iWork should be quite easy.
* Instead of openly responding to issue requests for ODF support in iWork, Apple quietly deletes such feature requests from their developer issue tracker.
* TextEdit's "support" for ODF is so limited that it simply doesn't constitute a threat to Apple's proprietary formats.
Everything you've presented so far has been an empty assertion or a fact I have demonstrated is false or does not prove what you hoped it did. In logic, facts precede forming an opinion.
You have demonstrated nothing. You have simply been waving your hands trying to argue that, despite all the facts, there is still some possibility that things aren't the way they seem. Your arguments are not persuasive. The fact remains that Apple iWork uses a proprietary XML format, even though Apple had ample opportunity to adopt formats that are compatible with open source systems, first OpenOffice then ODF. Apple's behavior is consistent with their corporate policies and their commercial interests.
Of course, Apple can do whatever they like. But open source developers should remember that Apple is not their friend, Apple is a competitor that is every bit as dirty and ruthless as Microsoft, and Apple should be treated accordingly.
Why don't schools teach logic anymore?
Maybe if you had paid better attention, it wouldn't have gone over your head.
The solution is simple: get a sheet magnet (http://www.custom-magnets.com/Adhesive_magnet_rolls.htm) and print a fake license plate on paper
The readers check for this and compare the license plate against the actual model of car you're driving; you'll be stopped half a mile later for driving with an illegal license plate.
Reusable, and you have plausable deniability, too, since 'anyone' can stick something on the outside of your car....
It's your responsibility to ensure before you get in your car that your license plate is correct and readable.
Apple doesn't really compete with OSS in the desktop space.
OSS is widely used on the desktop, probably more widely than Macintosh. You're confusing the desktop with the home market.
Currently, I wouldn't recommend it.
What does that have to do with anything?
Except TextEdit has both read and write support for ODF.
Well, hey, no need to buy iWork then, right? Don't make me laugh.
The first reports of iWork in development were in 2003.
Yes, and they could have adopted OpenOffice XML at the time, then moved to ODF along with OpenOffice. Instead, they went through two poorly designed XML formats that were homegrown.
Claiming that Apple is intentionally avoiding compatibility is a stretch.
Apple has a long history of intentional incompatibilities, and Apple has no interest in helping ODF adoption or risking their relationship with Microsoft.
Using RFID combined with detectors at every street corner will allow for constant surveillance of every car all the time.
So do license plate readers, and they can operate from greater distances and completely passively. Cost for a license plate reader is about the same as a good RFID reader, and they are probably at least as reliable. Furthermore, you are required to keep your license plate readable.
Some cities are already starting to implement complete license plate-based tracking of vehicles.
Tires already come with RFID tags, which can also be read and tracked remotely. Cars probably also emit all sorts of other unique signals that can be recognized and tracked.
Of course, cars also come with this thing called a "license plate", which can also be tracked remotely and wirelessly.
Basically, if you drive, you can be tracked.
The fact is that most people can't tell the difference
Anybody who isn't legally blind will be bothered by the difference between 8 bits/channel and 6 bits/channel color; it causes streaking and banding.
And trying to pass of the latter as the former is fraud, plain and simple.
what is the intellectual value in your mind of prosecuting the usa alone for crimes all of humanity is guilty of?
Nobody is talking about "prosecuting"; we are talking about what we want our politicians and bureaucrats to do on our behalf. And propaganda is something we don't want.
As for your examples of Clausewitz, Machiavelli, Sun Tzu, or Tokugawa, those were at best ethically challenged men working for undemocratic governments; we don't want the US to follow in their footsteps. In fact, many people came to the US exactly in order to escape the political machinations of people like that.