IBM stuff is EXPENSIVE. That is the exact opposite of predatory pricing, which is selling something for a very low price in order to drive competition out of business.
Re:Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
on
Intel's RISC-y Business
·
· Score: 4, Informative
IBM mainframes are z/Architecture machines, and they are certainly not RISC. z/Architecture has about 1000 opcodes, including things like 'Square Root' and 'Perform Cryptographic Operation' and 'Convert Unicode to UTF-8'.
Because they are desperate and can afford to try different treatments. It is completely asinine to say that because rich people seek alternative treatments elsewhere, that is somehow proof that our system doesn't work. Now, if the stories had been 'Payton Manning goes to Europe, gets stem cell treatments, and is now able to play' or 'Steve Jobs went and got stem cell treatments and now is cured of cancer', then maybe there would be a valid point. Instead we get 'rich people spend money on treatments that don't work and aren't available in the US, therefore this is proof that the US is screwed'.
Fair enough. But, in at least one of the cases cited (Peyton Manning) there is no fatal disease involved. There is no disease of any kind. He wanted to use stem cell treatment to recover from neck surgery faster so his streak of consecutive professional football starts wouldn't be broken.
Oh yeah? So once Coca-Cola sold the first bottle of Coke they lost the ability to sell more? Once Apple sold the first iPod they lost the ability to sell more? No, in every case you only lose the ability to sell that particular copy of the item. You can continue to sell (and more importantly, profit from) additional copies of the thing, as long as people want them. There is a difference between 'selling AN iPad' (which costs a few hundred dollars), and 'selling iPad' (which would cost a few billion dollars). When you buy music, you buy 'a COPY of a song', you do not buy 'the song'.
Which other job on Earth rewards 1 piece of work perpetually, for all eternity?
First, no 'job' does that, including jobs protected by copyright. Furthermore you are clouding the issue by adding 'job' in there. If you would ask the question correctly (what other producer of goods on Earth rewards 1 piece of work as long as people think it has value) the answer is much clearer. EXCEPT for works protected by copyright, which have an artificial expiration date (no matter how long it is), ALL of them.
If you make any product, no matter what it is or how long ago you 'made' it, you can sell that product and make a profit on it as long as people are willing to buy it. Only in things protected by copyright does that ability disappear after some arbitrary length of time.
Not living up to fiduciary responsibilities? How so? Their responsibility is to maximize their profits. How much has their profit suffered because of this announcement? Since it hasn't even happened yet you have no way to know, so any claim of not meeting their responsibilities is pure speculation.
The PC market is a crappy market to be in. It is a low margin, commodity market with pretty much zero chance of profit growth. Companies regularly exit businesses (even ones they were dominant in) that are no longer viable.
HP did not drive it's stock price down, panic-stricken speculators did.
Now we go really far off into la-la land. They intentionally drove their stock price down by (according to you) getting out of the only businesses they could possibly make money in, so that someone could buy cheap stock in a dying company???
How so? I bet not one investor is involved in any of these suits. Real investors are interested in the success of the company. Whether or not these actions are good for the company are yet to be seen. These suits are no doubt brought by gamblers (oops, I mean speculators) who are pissed that their horse stumbled on the way into the gate and they didn't have time to change their bets.
It's not if you knew about it and weren't supposed to, it's if you knew about and took action on that information, prior to the information being made public. Insiders obviously knew about the plan, but if they didn't use that information to buy or sell stock prior to the release of the information it is not insider trading.
You are asking the wrong question. The question should be "Is breaking into someones computer really worth getting smacked...". If the answer is NO, then don't break into someones computer.
The law has concepts like 'expectations' and 'reasonable' and 'opportunity'. There is no reasonable expectation that anyone will ever see his supposed TOS, or that any human would ever be involved on the server side. Therefore, he has no claim. On the other hand, it is reasonable to expect that a human is on the client side, and was presented with the opportunity to see a TOS. The fact that the human choose to use a machine as his agent does not absolve him of responsibility.
Are you really this dense, or are you just trolling? If there are 10 types of vehicle, and 10 types of events for vehicles, and 3 types of doctor visits, you need to enter a grand total of 23 items, which makes 300 codes. Nobody is ACTUALLY going through and entering 300 different codes.
Next, ever hear of 'context'? In the context of 'Animal' a '1' can mean 'bite' while at the same time it means 'crash' in the context of 'Vehicle'. So no, you can not encode bitten by lamppost or injured in a turtle crash.
The system is not designed to perfectly capture every possible scenario. No system can do that. It is designed to provide ENOUGH information to be useful to the people who use it (researchers, doctors, health agencies, insurance, etc). The alternative is natural language, which, until systems like Watson are pervasive, is completely unsuitable for searching, categorizing, research, etc and even with Watson is probably useless internationally when different languages are involved. And even with natural language you STILL have to use the right codes (words) and spell them correctly.
Finally, these codes are not used only for living patients, they are also used for cause of death. So spacecraft does belong there.
Instead of making ill-informed rants, why don't you look at the actual purpose of these codes.
Nowhere in his post does he say (or even hint) that he is talking about simultaneous discovery or invention. "If I made" is ambiguous - does it mean "if I had made" (past), or "if I were to make" (future)?
Furthermore, how many of the claims in question in any of the various suits claim to be the result of 'simultaneous discovery'? I don't think any of them.
Yes, there are billions of individuals. At least a few billion of them live in societies that don't have strong IP laws. According to the theory you and others seem to be espousing, they should be innovating at an even greater rate than the stone age IP societies are. They should have moved past the ancient cell phone technology onto something far more innovative by now. Yet, for some reason, I don't see that happening. I wonder why?
You completely missed the point. Nobody went through that list and said 'I think we should add struck by turtle'. Instead, they classified a turtle as an animal, and said all animals can bite and strike. When you automatically combine all the animals with all the things animals can do, you get some weird combinations. Struck by turtle (which btw means the turtle hit you, not you were hit with a turtle) makes little sense, but struck by bear makes perfect sense, and is liable to to cause various internal and external injuries.
Same with your water ski and spacecraft examples. Water skis and spacecraft are types of vehicles. Vehicles can crash and burn among other things. No-one consciously thought 'better add burning water skis to the list'.
If an airplane hits a deer the code would be 'aircraft, collision with other object'. If a woodpecker gives you a concussion it would be 'struck by bird' plus whatever the code is for concussion. It isn't all that difficult.
What you apparently don't understand is that the codes are like mini sentences, with part of the code being the noun (turtle) and another part being the verb (bite). Yes, you can put together some bizarre sentences.
Do you have any idea how much stuff is required to make a cell phone? Those little tiny chips don't just magically appear you know. It took years and many billions of dollars to develop them and the processes and tools to make them. Same for the batteries. Same for the displays. Who is going to make that kind of investment if there is no way for them to earn any of that money back because any 'competitor' can say 'I see what you did, and I can copy it and sell my product for 10% of the cost of yours, because I don't have to pay for any development (including all the failed attempts that occurred before you got it to work)'? If you cant see causation between patent protection and the incredible pace of development we currently have you have your head really far up your ass.
I didn't say they are STILL patented, I said they were patented when they were developed. If you remove ANY of those links in the chain (let's say starting with the invention of the transistor), you don't wind up at 'cell phone'.
I don't know what the time limit of patents should be. However, 5 years is certainly way too short. If you invent something like a new, small, powerful battery, or a new display screen technology, or a new processor, or a new chip manufacturing process, it could take 5 years before there are any devices capable of using those inventions.
I didn't say Apple invented anything. Who invented the stuff is immaterial. The topic of the thread was 'do patents encourage innovation', not 'look what Apple has invented'.
The OP was putting forth the ridiculous premise that just because he could build his own cell phone, it was somehow proof that there is nothing innovative in cell phones, therefore patents are useless. He (and a lot of other people on this thread) conveniently ignore the thousands and thousands of innovations (mostly patented) that occurred in the decades between the invention of the Leyden jar, Bakelite, the radio, the digital computer, and the transistor, and now, and act as if those things would have happened anyway, in the same timeframe, even if there was no commercial incentive in the form of patents.
As I said in a post above, think about what cell phone technology was 30 years ago. Now think about where it is today. Now think about the thousands and thousands of innovations it took to get from there to here. Everything from materials to magnets to batteries to software to manufacturing processes to chip design, etc. Virtually every one of those innovations was done by someone trying to make money. If you really believe we would have what we have today with intellectual property laws protecting all those developments you are seriously deluding yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
IBM stuff is EXPENSIVE. That is the exact opposite of predatory pricing, which is selling something for a very low price in order to drive competition out of business.
IBM mainframes are z/Architecture machines, and they are certainly not RISC. z/Architecture has about 1000 opcodes, including things like 'Square Root' and 'Perform Cryptographic Operation' and 'Convert Unicode to UTF-8'.
Who in this day and age has predatory pricing?
Google 'Mayo Clinic' and 'Arab'.
Because they are desperate and can afford to try different treatments. It is completely asinine to say that because rich people seek alternative treatments elsewhere, that is somehow proof that our system doesn't work. Now, if the stories had been 'Payton Manning goes to Europe, gets stem cell treatments, and is now able to play' or 'Steve Jobs went and got stem cell treatments and now is cured of cancer', then maybe there would be a valid point. Instead we get 'rich people spend money on treatments that don't work and aren't available in the US, therefore this is proof that the US is screwed'.
Fair enough. But, in at least one of the cases cited (Peyton Manning) there is no fatal disease involved. There is no disease of any kind. He wanted to use stem cell treatment to recover from neck surgery faster so his streak of consecutive professional football starts wouldn't be broken.
Oh yeah? So once Coca-Cola sold the first bottle of Coke they lost the ability to sell more? Once Apple sold the first iPod they lost the ability to sell more? No, in every case you only lose the ability to sell that particular copy of the item. You can continue to sell (and more importantly, profit from) additional copies of the thing, as long as people want them. There is a difference between 'selling AN iPad' (which costs a few hundred dollars), and 'selling iPad' (which would cost a few billion dollars). When you buy music, you buy 'a COPY of a song', you do not buy 'the song'.
Which other job on Earth rewards 1 piece of work perpetually, for all eternity?
First, no 'job' does that, including jobs protected by copyright. Furthermore you are clouding the issue by adding 'job' in there. If you would ask the question correctly (what other producer of goods on Earth rewards 1 piece of work as long as people think it has value) the answer is much clearer. EXCEPT for works protected by copyright, which have an artificial expiration date (no matter how long it is), ALL of them.
If you make any product, no matter what it is or how long ago you 'made' it, you can sell that product and make a profit on it as long as people are willing to buy it. Only in things protected by copyright does that ability disappear after some arbitrary length of time.
Not living up to fiduciary responsibilities? How so? Their responsibility is to maximize their profits. How much has their profit suffered because of this announcement? Since it hasn't even happened yet you have no way to know, so any claim of not meeting their responsibilities is pure speculation.
The PC market is a crappy market to be in. It is a low margin, commodity market with pretty much zero chance of profit growth. Companies regularly exit businesses (even ones they were dominant in) that are no longer viable.
HP did not drive it's stock price down, panic-stricken speculators did.
Now we go really far off into la-la land. They intentionally drove their stock price down by (according to you) getting out of the only businesses they could possibly make money in, so that someone could buy cheap stock in a dying company???
Um, no. Geohotz did not get sued for violating TOS, he got sued for violating a law (DMCA). You don't have to agree to anything to be bound by a law.
Bullshit. http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2009/2009-221.htm
How so? I bet not one investor is involved in any of these suits. Real investors are interested in the success of the company. Whether or not these actions are good for the company are yet to be seen. These suits are no doubt brought by gamblers (oops, I mean speculators) who are pissed that their horse stumbled on the way into the gate and they didn't have time to change their bets.
Yes
It's not if you knew about it and weren't supposed to, it's if you knew about and took action on that information, prior to the information being made public. Insiders obviously knew about the plan, but if they didn't use that information to buy or sell stock prior to the release of the information it is not insider trading.
You are asking the wrong question. The question should be "Is breaking into someones computer really worth getting smacked...". If the answer is NO, then don't break into someones computer.
The law has concepts like 'expectations' and 'reasonable' and 'opportunity'. There is no reasonable expectation that anyone will ever see his supposed TOS, or that any human would ever be involved on the server side. Therefore, he has no claim. On the other hand, it is reasonable to expect that a human is on the client side, and was presented with the opportunity to see a TOS. The fact that the human choose to use a machine as his agent does not absolve him of responsibility.
Are you really this dense, or are you just trolling? If there are 10 types of vehicle, and 10 types of events for vehicles, and 3 types of doctor visits, you need to enter a grand total of 23 items, which makes 300 codes. Nobody is ACTUALLY going through and entering 300 different codes.
Next, ever hear of 'context'? In the context of 'Animal' a '1' can mean 'bite' while at the same time it means 'crash' in the context of 'Vehicle'. So no, you can not encode bitten by lamppost or injured in a turtle crash.
The system is not designed to perfectly capture every possible scenario. No system can do that. It is designed to provide ENOUGH information to be useful to the people who use it (researchers, doctors, health agencies, insurance, etc). The alternative is natural language, which, until systems like Watson are pervasive, is completely unsuitable for searching, categorizing, research, etc and even with Watson is probably useless internationally when different languages are involved. And even with natural language you STILL have to use the right codes (words) and spell them correctly.
Finally, these codes are not used only for living patients, they are also used for cause of death. So spacecraft does belong there.
Instead of making ill-informed rants, why don't you look at the actual purpose of these codes.
WTF? Yes, clearly a company with 400,000 employees should be unable to generate more than 1 patent per month.
Nowhere in his post does he say (or even hint) that he is talking about simultaneous discovery or invention. "If I made" is ambiguous - does it mean "if I had made" (past), or "if I were to make" (future)?
Furthermore, how many of the claims in question in any of the various suits claim to be the result of 'simultaneous discovery'? I don't think any of them.
Yes, there are billions of individuals. At least a few billion of them live in societies that don't have strong IP laws. According to the theory you and others seem to be espousing, they should be innovating at an even greater rate than the stone age IP societies are. They should have moved past the ancient cell phone technology onto something far more innovative by now. Yet, for some reason, I don't see that happening. I wonder why?
You completely missed the point. Nobody went through that list and said 'I think we should add struck by turtle'. Instead, they classified a turtle as an animal, and said all animals can bite and strike. When you automatically combine all the animals with all the things animals can do, you get some weird combinations. Struck by turtle (which btw means the turtle hit you, not you were hit with a turtle) makes little sense, but struck by bear makes perfect sense, and is liable to to cause various internal and external injuries.
Same with your water ski and spacecraft examples. Water skis and spacecraft are types of vehicles. Vehicles can crash and burn among other things. No-one consciously thought 'better add burning water skis to the list'.
If an airplane hits a deer the code would be 'aircraft, collision with other object'. If a woodpecker gives you a concussion it would be 'struck by bird' plus whatever the code is for concussion. It isn't all that difficult.
What you apparently don't understand is that the codes are like mini sentences, with part of the code being the noun (turtle) and another part being the verb (bite). Yes, you can put together some bizarre sentences.
Do you have any idea how much stuff is required to make a cell phone? Those little tiny chips don't just magically appear you know. It took years and many billions of dollars to develop them and the processes and tools to make them. Same for the batteries. Same for the displays. Who is going to make that kind of investment if there is no way for them to earn any of that money back because any 'competitor' can say 'I see what you did, and I can copy it and sell my product for 10% of the cost of yours, because I don't have to pay for any development (including all the failed attempts that occurred before you got it to work)'? If you cant see causation between patent protection and the incredible pace of development we currently have you have your head really far up your ass.
I didn't say they are STILL patented, I said they were patented when they were developed. If you remove ANY of those links in the chain (let's say starting with the invention of the transistor), you don't wind up at 'cell phone'.
I don't know what the time limit of patents should be. However, 5 years is certainly way too short. If you invent something like a new, small, powerful battery, or a new display screen technology, or a new processor, or a new chip manufacturing process, it could take 5 years before there are any devices capable of using those inventions.
I didn't say Apple invented anything. Who invented the stuff is immaterial. The topic of the thread was 'do patents encourage innovation', not 'look what Apple has invented'.
The OP was putting forth the ridiculous premise that just because he could build his own cell phone, it was somehow proof that there is nothing innovative in cell phones, therefore patents are useless. He (and a lot of other people on this thread) conveniently ignore the thousands and thousands of innovations (mostly patented) that occurred in the decades between the invention of the Leyden jar, Bakelite, the radio, the digital computer, and the transistor, and now, and act as if those things would have happened anyway, in the same timeframe, even if there was no commercial incentive in the form of patents.
Obviously I meant WITHOUT IP laws.
As I said in a post above, think about what cell phone technology was 30 years ago. Now think about where it is today. Now think about the thousands and thousands of innovations it took to get from there to here. Everything from materials to magnets to batteries to software to manufacturing processes to chip design, etc. Virtually every one of those innovations was done by someone trying to make money. If you really believe we would have what we have today with intellectual property laws protecting all those developments you are seriously deluding yourself.