From what little i've read, I basically agree that what Clemson did is unreasonable. However, Clemson was well within their rights. Clearly Clemson's intent was not to "censor" anyone, they were concerned about preserving network bandwidth. Free Network access, believe it or not, is not an inalienable right--restricting it is not akin to "controlling society". You attend an institution, you pay X dollars to attend, out of that Y% is allocated to networking, do you really expect bandwidth to be infinite? Please spare me with your diatribe.
RedHat was the first major linux distribution to really write software that contributed to the ease of use. The fact that RedHat still writes so little of their package only strengthens my argument. You are also assuming that the official Redhat distro has the majority of the linux market share. I don't know the exact numbers offhand but downloads and cheapbytes type packages combined are extremely relevent--atleast if RedHat wishes to claim the Linux user base in the millions (they certainly can't do that with their sales). Furthermore, you are ignoring the recent rise of the other Linux distributions. Was it not just a couple months ago that it was announced that McMillan/Mandrake (sic) linux was outselling RedHat? Are SuSe's sales in Europe not many times larger than RedHat? RedHat can claim they're in different markets all they want, but, for me, it adds more doubtfull elements into the array.
This Pepsi vs. Coke argument is getting old because you fail to see the distinction. I'm going to reiterate it anyways. People aren't buying Coke because it bears the brand name, they're buying into those letters because it is something of a gaurantee of the underlying product (real or imagined). How many times have these soda companies tried to release a new line of soda and, despite intensive marketing campaigns failed? I can think of a number offhand, all prominently bearing the Pepsi/Coke logo. [Slightly offtopic, the soda fountains and the bottling process are totally different. People, atleast with the bottled sodas, CAN and DO taste the difference--even if to you and I it seems trivial.] The point is that even if Pepsi's taste is just imagined, your argument doesn't apply to GPL software--because most users understand on some level that a copy is a copy, is a copy. Are you telling me that if I produced a CD burner, copied your RH6.1 Pro CD, and offered you 50 dollars and an exact copy (no issues of reliability) of that CD, that you would not trade? The only possible reason would be for support and literature.
I suspect Cygnus was a good acquisition, however they're not terribly relevant to this argument. Cygnus was doing speciality consulting and what not, that is an entirely different animal than selling shrink wrapped support agreements with their CD. Likewise, the consulting firms you mentioned are vastly different as well.
There are no direct parallels to RedHat's proposed business model. So without wasting many more words, let me put it to you like this: We are both intuiting the vast majority of these arguments. The combination of my experience, education, and perspective leads me to different conclusions than you. There is no concrete answer here. If you find this argument tiresome, then let time tell. Otherwise, if you have any new information to bring to this argument, i'll be willing to listen. In the mean time, i'd rather short redhat then buy them.
you are merely viewing a bug in slashdot's code. The bug makes it appear as if I replied to a comment, when I actually replied to a reply of that comment (that happens to be -1...below your threshold in all probability). Please see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/01/28/23242 03&threshold=-1&commentsort=3&mode=threa d&pid=11 to view the actual sequence of events.
Congratulations - You failed Engish101 !
on
YETI@Home
·
· Score: 2
I believe the word you are looking for is "you're", not "your".
But Coke and Pepsi do contain different recipes and carbination processes. Though I personally couldn't give a damn, some people, atleast, can tell them apart. Many more yet claim they can. This is particularly true when it is Coke (et. al) vs. the generics. Whether it is their imagination or not is irrelevant, they feel justified because the recipes are unique. While it may be possible to create a cola that tastes intrinsically better than Coke, people are creatures of habit. They acquire a taste (real or imagined), and demand it.
The type of branding that Redhat needs to do will not hold out, when and if Redhat's market for their software climbs to Microsoftesque scale. Granted, they have generated significant revenues by selling this software at current date. Two points though:
a) RedHat packages used to package commercial software on their CDs (e.g., MetroX), until just recently. Cheapbytes never did this.
b) Cheapbytes CDs come without paper manuals and documentation. When the market grows, the free-loaders will copy this documentation. (RedHat's documentation really aint that great)
c) The market for Redhat's software has been relatively small, and as such the market for virtually free copies is even more non-existent. Your average linux newbie likely doesn't know that cheapbytes exists.
d) A number of Linux supporters, such as myself, have purchased RedHat's official CDs because we believe in what they're doing. I've seen Redhat spend some money on R&D and add value, thus i'm willing to purchase it at a premium. This is not going to translate with the growth, that loyalty won't hold.
e) Then there is what I call "convenience" sales, though somewhat redundant. Redhat has the market share of their own software because the market is small. It hasn't warranted any competitors to invest in properly marketing and documenting redhat's software. If Redhat's software climbs in popularity, you can be sure competition will enter.
These factors in combination leave me little doubt that CD sales will amount to much, not enough to justify even one fraction of their current market capitalization.
Support is vastly different. Deloitte & Touch and Anderson Consulting are heavily established companies with elite reputations in various industries. What is Redhat's reputation? They're a company that writes GPL software, who in the process has collected something of a following amongst techies. Are IT managers and management going to write checks based on this reputation? I have my doubts.
I'm sorry, but this stuff about a company not needing profits is bs. In the short run yeah, a company can do without them for awhile. Today, Redhat may have enough capital infusion such that they don't need to grow organically. But they can't survive in the red forever. Furthermore, as I alluded to earlier, having capital does not necessarily mean that they can properly grow their support division at a rate that could warrant their current market cap.
This is not to say that I believe that RedHat can't grow, but it is not going to be consistently huge growth--not the kind that would justify their valuation. Furthermore, Redhat and the majority of these Dot Coms are way overvalued. Worse yet, most of these companies lacking the profits, or even the revenues, to grow organically on their own, are going to fall on hard times when they no longer have these red hot valuations. These companies are likely going to go the way of the Bio Techs, red hot one minute, and the plague the next...but I digress.
If Redhat's future earnings are to come strictly from support, than I don't see how they can hope to grow all that rapidly. Unlike the software industry where you just merely print more software, service requires correspondingly large teams of people. Can they GROW at even 50% a year, for the next 10 years, and retain their same quality, especially with relatively low margins? (assuming they have high service quality to begin with) I think the service industry is very different from standard software. But if you have any examples that match the various criterion I listed, I'd love to hear them. While no precedents might not mean it is impossible, that market cap still gives me troubles. I would love to be wrong this time.
"Branding" may sound well and good, but RedHat is fundamentally different from Coke, Pepsi, Heinz, you name it. Besides the fact that Coke and Pepsi are established multibillion dollar companies, with huge sales and profits (e.g, there is little doubt that people will continue to buy Coke next year), both also spend hundreds of millions of dollars on marketing. Take Pepsi, they have a market cap of only 48 billion right now, but revenues of 21 billion, and almost 2 billion in profits. They're valued at 48 billion because they've got significant earnings, not because they own the word "Pepsi".
Furthermore, even though many (myself included) think the differences between, say, Coke and Pepsi are minor, many will say they taste different. Why is this? Because they DO in fact contain unique recipes. If you could buy an exact copy of Pepsi, in the same bottle, with merely different letters, for half the cost, would you still buy Pepsi? Yet with GPL software, this is exactly what you get. You can be sure that you're getting a byte for byte copy, and perhaps even additional propietary features from the competitors who choose to free load.
Now this might not apply to service contracts, but they haven't even started there. Perhaps RedHat has a chance, but is that chance worth 16 billion dollars by any stretch of the imagination? I don't know about you, but I can't think of any service firms in the high tech industry that competes on the same level (no IP) as their competitors (e.g., not Sun, IBM, or the like), yet still enjoys charging a premium based on their namebrand.
In the low technology service industry, I do know of atleast one company that does this, but they compete on price, do a better job for less money, while simultaneously enjoying higher profit margins than their competitors. The problem with this analogy though, is that I don't know if it could translate very well to a large (needs to be to justify a 16 billion dollar valuation so many years off) technology support company. Furthermore, this company is relatively young, with an extremely experienced CEO that knows how to run a company, and relatively small (well if you count the management atleast, which is what they specialize in). Even though this company is still growing quite rapidly, I don't think it would translate very well on the supposed scale of Redhat. Other than that, the analogy is a good one, because the company hires the same class of employee is their competitors, likewise I don't think RedHat can reasonably expect their lowest level support employees to be any better than the competition.
As it stands today, RedHat may have a name for themselves as a GPL contributing company, but they're pratically non-existent in service. Where are their service gurus? (I admit, I haven't looked at their management lately) I'd expect them to bring in an experienced management team at this alone, as it's a very different industry. Merely wanting to do service and holding a name that is popular in a different arena is not sufficient in the corporate arena.
Sorry if I'm rambling, but i'm tired...perhaps tomorrow.
a) The courts resolve questionable patents (that is not new) -- I was addressing the habit of slashdot to go non-linear on the mention of any new patents it regards to be "obvious". The distinction I draw is the difference between paper and reality. A patent may claim one thing, but that doesn't mean that it ends up that way.
b) The system CAN be improved, it is the degree and the extent to which that I question. I do believe that frequent judicial intervention will always be necessary. The costs might be lessened to some degree, but remember that by resigning ourselves to paper and bureaucrats we run the risk of creating a system that can not adapt, and can't exercise reasonable judgement. There are tradeoffs to be made if you want to impliment many of these mentioned improvements. Do you really want to put your future in the hands of some bureaucrat that is empowered to act even more arbitrarily? When is the last time you ever (in history, or in any country) dealt with a truely effective, fair, and speedy bureacracy? In a field such as IT, how do you plan to draw talented people into the USPTO, who will remain motivated, and not play politics, or "err to the side of safety" all the time?
c) I readily concede that there is something of a skew towards better capitalized firms. None the less, it is most often misunderstood or exaggerated on slashdot. I hear all too often on slashdot that the only firms that can prosper with IP are Fortune 500 firms. Or that a small firm can't possibly beat a big firm. I can personally point to several people I know in different industries who've created multi-million (even multi-billion) dollar companies, and don't fit any of the descriptions alluded to by Slashdot Jrs.
d) I believe the capital market system tends to work reasonably well on the aggregate. In other words, if your idea is truely worth developing and you are capable of developing it, you will eventually find the money you need, to pay for a patent portfolio, or what have you. So if some undergraduate can't afford 50k for IP, then he probably can't develop the product anyways, never mind marketing it, etc.
e) When referring to the companies/entreprenuers that I mentioned, it covers a wide swath. From the college aged kid to the middle aged entreprenuer with 2-5 sucessfull multimillion dollar companies behind. From low technology, to high technology. From medical technology to computer hardware to aerospace. From East Coast to the West Coast. From companies with no competition, to companies that enter the fray against many Fortune 1000 firms and emerge on top (within their target industry). You can always argue it isn't a perfect sample, but I think it is good enough. I can say with absolute confidence, for example that there are many cases where intellectual property isn't only helpful, it's downright necessary (which many on slashdot will deny).
Ok. Because I was ranting, I did not use as precise or as complete language as I would normally use. We, in reality, share a similar point of view. Allow me to clear up a few misperceptions you have about my beliefs.
Let me preface this by saying that I was addressing many often stated sycophantic statements on slashdot, and that: a) I don't think the Patent system is perfect b) I don't think that the patent system can't necessarily be improved c) I'm not a big fan of VCs (though not worthless) empirically speaking, though theoretically they're highly valuable.
While I think there is definetly a great deal of theoretical space for improvement in the patent system, particularly where it pertains to the startup, I do not think it is simple by any means. Humans and companies are at constant odds with one another, I don't see any system in the future that will make judicial remedies much less unnecessary. The intellectual property system is messy largely because life is. We are never going to find a perfectly equitable and educated and intelligent patent office, particularly given that it is a government agency. By removing judicial intervention, and resigning ourselves to paper and bureaucrats, we would be subjecting ourselves to a highly inflexible system, that can't adapt very well at all. There are trade offs to be made (yet there still is a fair amount of crap in the middle). As such, we leave it to judicial processes, where both sides can present their case when and where disagreement arises. This is not to say that nothing can be done to improve the state of things, but rather it's not nearly as simple as most on slashdot purport it to be.
When I was addressing the fact that the real test of patent is the courts, not the USPTO, I was referring to the test for the viability of IP protection. I was specifically addressing the frequently uttered concerns of Slashdot Jr.'s about every patent claim, and telling them that the claims are not the same thing as reality. Most of these aggregious patents will not stand up. Furthermore, I was not implying, by any means, that intellectual property and the legal means to support it are, in and of themselves, sufficient. I'd be the first to tell you how important it is to have an excellent CEO, good management team, a good business plan, a differentiable product that people would want to use, capital to finance actual development, and many other things.
While IP alone does not cover blood and sweat, it can provide sufficient protection of your idea, that would allow you to justify an investment of blood, swear, and tears into a product or service. If the entrepreneur lacks the intelligence and/or the capital to properly develop (market, finance, etc) the product and the company, the IP probably won't do them any good anyways. This is part of the reason why I feel that many of these would-be entreprenuers are, in reality, not as greatly affected patent costs as many would indicate. It does erect increased barriers to entry, but I sincerely believe that most competent CEOs will eventually clear it. In short, I believe the capital market system does a reasonably good job, on the aggregate, of delivering money to people who can actually develop a viable product with it.
Regarding Redhat's market capitalization, we have a difference of opinion here. In my opinion, merely returning to the "support" model, does not warrant a market cap of 16 billion dollars. If support is indeed the way to go, as you say, and RedHat remains truely Open Source, why should RedHat retain a market cap. at 16b, when the competition (LinuxCare, et. al) is every bit as prepared to offer support as RedHat is (particularly when the competition is not at all burdened by R&D costs)? My point is not so much that the support market is irrelevant, but rather how can RedHat gain the majority of that market share? In either case, Redhat is unproven, and 16 billion dollars is not even approximately in proportion with the risks. Even under a best case scenario (maximum reasonable growth potential) 16 billion dollars is a hell of a lot.
I'm not a big fan of quibbling, particularly when it comes to academic terminology. However, the definition of asset depends largely on your audience, and widely considered, in financial circles atleast, to be anything with commercial or exchange value. Furthermore, when I modify "asset" with "liquid", that implies, that, it can be re-sold near that stated value in a relatively short period of time. Thus while cash is most definetly a liquid asset under just about anyone's definition, liquid (depending on just how liquid it is) assets can include (or exclude) a great deal more than just cash (e.g., t-bills, bank deposits, money market shares, etc.). Generally speaking, in a corporate financial statement, liquid assets primarily include just: cash, marketable securities, and accounts recievable. When I refer to liquid assets though, I'm not adhering to GAAP, as it can be misleading.
Dividend policy is highly controversial, as you well know. We could get into the theory for several pages worth each, but i'd rather not. Empirically speaking, however, one look at firms listing on NASDAQ gives you a good idea of what you can 'reasonably' expect. Amazon is, of course, in the red, and as such they can not reasonably issue dividends anyways.
Just for the record, i'm of the opinion that most companies don't pay out enough dividends, but many of these high growth firms, particularly technology firms, really do not have the luxary of issuing them. One thing you must remember is that their cost (not to mention timing) of acquiring capital is higher. Their product/sales are not nearly as stable, nor do they tend to be as diverse, and as such can't necessarily be considered sufficiently sustainable. Many need to reinvest in new projects (e.g., R&D) before the previous one starts paying off significantly. When it comes to liquidity, many are also faced with the possibility of immediate mergers and acquisitions (in addition to growth prospects), making dividends less necessary. In short, they're in a fundamentally different position.
I do agree with you about tax policy for the most part though. =)
PS: Nit pick: In regards to your stock buyback statement(s), it is not unheard of for companies to buy out smaller investors to cut down on paper costs...there are other perfectly legitimate reasons for buybacks as well, but I digress. Cheers =)
In my opinion, what differentiates Amazon from the competition is not so much their intellectual property (well, except for the Amazon trademark, possibly), than it is their marketing position (e.g., brand "loyalty") and having this huge equity base from which to draw (as long as the DotCom's don't phase change to dogs--like the BioTechs of yesteryear). Both of which I have my doubts about, even though it's hard to see how future competitors could one up them--they can certainly put a great deal of price pressure on them--I don't see a decisive victor on either side on the horizon.
PS: You're a differnet guppy, but I too currently live in PA, just outside of Philly, essentially the same age, and likely similar studies/profession. Cheers =)
The brokerage houses ARE collectively making a lot of money. It doesn't take a genius to see the risk involved in many of these equities. It IS going to be a problem.
Historically and empirically speaking, this has been demostrated to be a problem. The 80s and the BioTech crash is a great example of this, it's been demonstrated many times that these firms would keep on pressing them even though they KNEW they the security was fundamentally bad.
Brokering is a fundamentally different issue than selling merchandise. Brokers are merely intermediaries, they don't control the merchandise. The merchandise is beyond their control, and therein lies infinite deniability. Furthermore, most buyers understand that there is a certain amount of risk (unlike merchandise buyers, who expect an absolute gaurantee). So if the buyer were to lose 30% of their retirement money, how are they to know that their problems are the result of freak bad luck, or symptomatic of a larger systemic problem in the brokerage firms? How are they to know that their broker could have known? That it wasn't just the market?
Even without this absolute callousness issue, there is a question of risk aversion. It is not their money that they're putting on the line. A risk of 1% of these companies defaulting might be tolerable to them, but intolerable to the individual that is heavily into those securities. Their customers have to incur some risk anyways (if they want to play the stock market), they add a little more risk, and they can increase their volume by a multiple.... Never mind individual brokers whose interests are not necessarily the same as their brokerage house....Particularly when the customer needs little to no urging.
I basically agree, however one minor point: dividend's alone to not comprise a companies intrinsic current value. For example, if Amazon had 50 billion dollars in cash and other liquid assets, with no debt, it would be very difficult to give them a valuation much lower than 50b, completely ignoring future earnings. Furthermore, most every high growth (tech mostly) company doesn't issue dividends, because they're supposed to be reinvesting those retained earnings. That being said, I think Amazon is way way overvalued valued.
The original poster is somewhat mistaken, however LNUX is way overvalued by any traditional measure. They've got a market cap of 5 billion dollars and they're not even profitable yet. To justify these kind of valuations you have to have HUGE expected growth, but what do they have to justify these expectations? 5 Billion dollars is a hell of a lot of money to risk on one fledgling little company without any propietary technology (well almost) of their own. What they have is maybe a marketing position, but then you'd have to ignore the likes of Dell, Compaq, gateway, etc? And can you give me any good reason why VA Linux is in any better of a position to capture the Linux market share than say ASlabs?
Another point i'll make is that these investment banks and brokerage houses really don't give a damn how good a security ACTUALLY is. Whether you, the investor, win or lose money doesn't much affect them. They want to see maximum volume, that is how they make their money. It is in their interest in fact to keep their mouths shut.
My bet (and yes, they're a dime a dozen) is that these Dot Com stocks go the way of the Bio Tech stocks of the 80s and 90s, from RedHot to the plague in 1 second, I suspect within the next year or two. No one is going to want anything to do with them. The real shame is that while these stocks Dot Coms are redhot, they push many more legitimate companies out (e.g., VCs now have a totally unrealistic time frame/turnover and growth (not real growth, but valuations rather) expectations with the Dot Coms). And when they finally plummet, the more legitimate Dot Coms that eventually emerge will find it very very difficult to raise capital. I'm counting the days....
Why does it seem that those who least understand the system always scream the loudest? No where is this more true than when slashdot discusses Intellectual property. Damn few here have ever patented anything themselves. Even fewer have ever developed a usefull product with it. Yet, we have 10k experts telling us how the system IS, and how it needs to be improved.
I'm not an expert with the patent system by any means, but nor am I purporting that we need to toss the system out the window (or anything radical like that). However, I do happen to have a number of friends and family in the high-tech industry, who have developed a number of products and technologies (startups), and I know a thing or two. I have some bones to pick with slashdot, a few of which are:
a) One major slashdot misconceptions is that the startup/entreprenuer can no longer afford to patent, or that it is geared strictly in favor of big companies. From personal experience, I can tell you that this is simply untrue.
b) That just because the patent office OKs a patent, does not mean you are protected. That is, and always has been, the case. The real test is the courts. So most of these "obvious" software patent gripes on slashdot are pointless. It is not new to software, and it hasn't stopped other industry.
c) Intellectual property is still very necessary (not everyone on slashdot disagrees with this, but many do). To extol the virtues of those 2 or 3 open source companies, and draw from that that IP is uneccessary is even more absurd. I hear all these sycophantic calls about Redhat's sucess, that "support" revnues are sufficient. Their only real major success right now is as a financial security. Redhat is not even profitable yet, and the long term viability of their current model is still VERY questionable. Currently, RedHat's "support" division contribution to their income is negligible. What little money they have made, is by selling their software and manuals based AROUND convenience alone, not IP (that much is new). This convenience method probably can't last, atleast not on a microsoftesque scale. Put simply, if Redhat were to ever approach 1 billion dollars in software (convenience) sales, you can be sure that the competition will move in with byte for byte copies of their software (and maybe even toss some extra stuff in), and sell it for half the cost. The point is not that Redhat is a horrible company, but merely that they are not tried and true. To suggest we scrap all traditional business models based on one nominal and questionable success is naive. But I digress..
d) That "defensive" patents are only used by evil companies, and that they cause harm to the system. Again, being very familiar with a few companies that use them, this is not true. I feel that part of the problem is that many on slashdot don't understand that the solution lies in the COURTS, not at the patent office. As such, overly narrow patent(s) can prove to be dangerous. Overly broad patents can, and are routinely, struck down. You erect these patent walls such that you have a defensible position in court. The stronger your position, the easier it is to defend. The less likely you are to be steamrolled, especially by much bigger companies. It is not just big evil companies that use these, if anything, it's even more crucial for a startup.
In summation, if you want a good picture of the state of the patent system, talk to a successful entreprenuer who's actually done it. Not people who've NEVER been there themselves; the academics, open source advocates, lawyers, and company, in general can't see the whole picture. I know my rant isn't going to change the general tune of slashdot, but perhaps I can appeal to a few more rational individuals.
Eistein did NOT build the A-bomb, he was not part of the Manhattan Project. He layed some of the ground work (very fundamental, and important, but not direct), and recommended to the President that we start such a project; that is just about as far as you can take it. He also, later, was an outspoken critic of the program, and future programs (e.g., H-bomb).
Nevermind the politics of using the A-bomb, and the justification...
I happen to live in PA, but I have a beach house in NJ. Having driven through there numerous times, and being stopped by their cops (who are all too happy to give out tickets), I can tell you that they've never even attempted to give me a ticket for such a thing, even when they've seen me do it. I'm aware that there is a Bill pending, but on last check it is in NJ's Assembly Committee on Transportation. Furthermore, I suspect an outright ban will never pass. Many states are pushing for such legislation, but they'll probably merely ban the use of hand helds (e.g., you can only use it if it's on speaker phone in a cradle). Which I basically agree with.
GSM cell phones are more than just the GSM voice encoding algorithm. These other security measures include: Gaussian Minimum Shift Keying (GMSK) digital modulation, slow frequency hopping, and Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) time slot architecture. While i'm aware that they can be broken, it's not nearly as trivial as using a simple modified CB radio scanner. For more information, check out:
I don't have all the specific details for either system, but based on experience I can tell you that:
a) The system in place in LA is partial and expensive.
b) LA is far ahead of most cities, especially relative to the East coast, particularly Philadelphia. The way this cellphone system is described, it could be implimented on the cheap, and without having to mobilize PennDOT (et. al) to get off their asses and do something.
c) A high resolution (per car) system, such as the one described in the article, could be extremely usefull in designing proper freeways. You could get a computer to analyze how each cars interact with one another at particular on and offramps, intersections, etc on a LARGE scale (I don't know of any other system that can claim this). Imagine if you could collect and compile computer data over a period of a month showing that 99% of cars merge left, cutting across traffic, resulting in slowdowns of 20%....you get the point. There are many freeways in Philly, where, for nominal expenses (e.g., traffic light, divider, better lanes, bumping it up a few feet, etc.), they could redesign the traffic flow and alleve traffic concerns considerably, using this type of data.
Referring to your top 5 lines, sure both that local broadcaster and the advertizer aren't hurt. But they're not the plantiffs in this case, the movie studios are. They are hurt, as I've made relatively clear. If viewer's are to watch this ICrave instead of their local TV stations, and they watch ads that are ineffective, that would have to effect of reducing the number of licensing fees that the creators can collect....
If that local station is selling locally targeted advertising (e.g., state lotto, local franchise specific ads, Ritas waterice, etc.), then the advertising is essentially useless out of the region. Of course, if those same out of region viewers choose to watch the internet instead (though doubtfull) of their own local stations, that would have the effect of reducing the fees that the owners/producers of the content (e.g., movies, news, sitcoms, talk shows, etc) can collect. Also, how are the producers/owners/licensors supposed to price the TV station that is getting rebroadcasted? Perhaps the state is regulated differently, and hence can't put certain high paying ads on (e.g., alchohol). Or perhaps that state costs less to do business in, and simply doesn't need to put in as much ad time as others. There are lots of different potential reasons.
In your last sentence, do you mean licensee (local affiliate station) or licenser (The plantiffs: Fox universal, etc)? For the licensor, my argument makes lots of sense. The rebroadcasted licensee (local station) would either not care, or might like it. That is not to say, however, that the other licensees (the rest, who are only being distributed via public TV) would like it, which can, of course, ultimately hurt the licensor.
In either case, I haven't thought of all the issues, but i'm sure there are more. In such a case, i'm inclined to side with the OWNERS of that intellectual property, until I can say I've exhausted all possibilities (reasons why they'd object), and that they're simply being unreasonable and uncharitable (to those who live in the true boondocks). I, as everyone else on slashdot, has yet to hear their arguments. Because they are the owners, I extend them leeway. Clearly, if these studios' interests could only be furthered, they would probably realize it, and they would not be taking this small fry company to court.
The issue here is not the local TV stations, it is the original CREATORS of that content; copyrights are very much at issue here! As it said in the article, "Copyrighted programs and films don't fall from the skies; they evolve from creative artists, supported by considerable financial investments." These sitcoms, movies, talk shows, news, etc. cost money to create; the producers recoup their money by selling/licensing their works to the TV stations to be broadcast. The TV stations in-turn recoup this money by selling advertising space. The mere fact that that content is delivered in a certain format over a public medium does not mean that it is public property. All of the listed plantiffs (e.g., Fox, ABC, NBC, Disney, Orion, Universal, etc) in this case are the CREATORS of the content, who are, evidently trying to protect their work. Besides the fact that it is THEIR intellectual property, in which they should be allowed to determine how it is displayed and sold, allowing ICrave to get away with this DOES pose a possible threat to their profitability. ICrave isn't paying them a dime, yet ICrave is selling their own ads and otherwise profiting.
It would seem as if you believe, that, since it is being rebroadcast over the internet it is OK. Let us imagine for a second that instead of being rebroadcast over the internet, it is rebroadcast on another TV station, only this TV station doesn't have to pay anything (like ICrave). Now how many TV stations do you think are going to pay the producers? Not only does it cost them more to pay for it, but it could also put them at a competetive disadvantage, in that the freeloading/rebroadcasting stations don't have to rely on advertising dollars nearly as much, allowing them to put fewer and fewer ads up. Would you still argue this isn't a threat either? This entire argument is silly to begin with. Being able to view something on public airwaves doesn't give you the right to do anything with it. Just like purchasing a video cassette doesn't give you the right to broadcast it. These are basic intellectual property questions, and they're not nearly as new as you would have us believe.
Regarding political airtime, I agree with you to a degree, however, your view is again overly simplistic. The first point i'll make is that in most every city, I believe, there are more than enough channels available for the public to use. Secondly, politicians aren't just paying for their ads to be broadcast to people who'd like to tune in. Quite the contrary, the politicians are putting them IN FRONT of viewers who'd otherwise not tune in. In otherwords, they're putting them between shows during prime time, and what not, on heavily watched stations. These stations aren't heavily watched just merely because they are licensed to broadcast on station X; they're watched because they have CONTENT there (not just once, but on a regular basis. They've bought that userbase's eyeballs, in a way). Which brings me to my next point. It costs money to create that content, and it costs money to broadcast it. Mandating the insertion of any political ads takes away the industry's opportunity to recoup their costs. I'm not sure exactly how much they can afford, but please understand that it doesn't come for free.
Additionally, as you mentioned, how do we keep the screwballs off (such as Buchananon) to prevent an utter crowding out? Should only the "most popular" should be allowed? Many pay before they're "popular". Based on polling results? Based on some stuffed shirts that decide who's electable? How? I don't see any sterile way to handle it. This market based system of purchasing ad slots does serve as an equalizer of sorts, it prevents both gluts and shortages. We can atleast be sure that those who can buy a significant # of ad slots have their act together to a degree (a sort of natural selection) The question is, is it desirable that society makes it a necessity for politicians to raise millions of dollars? It would appear that that is how lobbyists turn political ears these days. I'd be half tempted to ban all privately political ads (despite the constitution). Instead, force all such ads to be paid for by a select FEW government grants, and create a giant government (megabandwidth) website of sorts...call it election.gov, or something. Allow each politician to put as much material as he needs up there, for as many people wish to see it. If they just want to "speak" to the people, that seems to be to be the ideal way to do it anyways....relatively cheap, accurate, it would force more meaningful discussion (better than most all political TV ads that are mere soundbites), etc etc etc....
Yes, it was a typo/brain fart. Of course, when I post something small like that I don't put a lot of attention into the details. If I were commenting on some other poster's spelling and making spelling mistakes myself, then criticism would be well called for. However, it's plenty appropriate for me to knock Katz for his _fundamental_ lack of substance and his insincerity.
Maybe it's a bit harsh to say that he has "mediocre skills and limited intelligence", but his work never seems to break free. It's not a detail. It's not even a product of a particularly good education to be able to write with some direction, never mind coherance. I would expect a reasonably intelligent writer to at least come up with something of substance every once in awhile. All I get from his work is repetition of common themes on slashdot mixed in with own rambling stream of consciousness, at best. His unique input, other than noise, is 0.
I'm not saying it is or isn't. What I said, or meant to imply, was that no one in this day and age is saying that cars are the cure to all the ills of the world, while many still are hyping computers up to be just that. A lot of this applies to slashdot too.
Warning: Some might consider this flame bait. Caveat Emptor.
Katz is a hack. He doesn't really care to think or challenge anything. All he wants to do is make a name for himself, sell "books", etc. To do that, when you have mediocre skills and limited intelligence, you must find your niche. Katz does this by being the loudest voice in the heard.
When computers are "hot", he'll be their greatest cheerleader. When the internet is hot, he'll be there too. But when the Dot Coms start crashing, and there is a large sentiment that he can cash in on AGAINST it, he'll be there just as quickly. Never mind consistency. Just read his stuff over the past couple of years.
I see Katz as a Clintonesque figure, albeit, without the charisma, intelligence, etc...always holding his finger out to the wind of public opinion or, rather, his niche audience of teenage "geeks".
Slashdot Mirror
From what little i've read, I basically agree that what Clemson did is unreasonable. However, Clemson was well within their rights. Clearly Clemson's intent was not to "censor" anyone, they were concerned about preserving network bandwidth. Free Network access, believe it or not, is not an inalienable right--restricting it is not akin to "controlling society". You attend an institution, you pay X dollars to attend, out of that Y% is allocated to networking, do you really expect bandwidth to be infinite? Please spare me with your diatribe.
RedHat was the first major linux distribution to really write software that contributed to the ease of use. The fact that RedHat still writes so little of their package only strengthens my argument. You are also assuming that the official Redhat distro has the majority of the linux market share. I don't know the exact numbers offhand but downloads and cheapbytes type packages combined are extremely relevent--atleast if RedHat wishes to claim the Linux user base in the millions (they certainly can't do that with their sales). Furthermore, you are ignoring the recent rise of the other Linux distributions. Was it not just a couple months ago that it was announced that McMillan/Mandrake (sic) linux was outselling RedHat? Are SuSe's sales in Europe not many times larger than RedHat? RedHat can claim they're in different markets all they want, but, for me, it adds more doubtfull elements into the array.
This Pepsi vs. Coke argument is getting old because you fail to see the distinction. I'm going to reiterate it anyways. People aren't buying Coke because it bears the brand name, they're buying into those letters because it is something of a gaurantee of the underlying product (real or imagined). How many times have these soda companies tried to release a new line of soda and, despite intensive marketing campaigns failed? I can think of a number offhand, all prominently bearing the Pepsi/Coke logo. [Slightly offtopic, the soda fountains and the bottling process are totally different. People, atleast with the bottled sodas, CAN and DO taste the difference--even if to you and I it seems trivial.] The point is that even if Pepsi's taste is just imagined, your argument doesn't apply to GPL software--because most users understand on some level that a copy is a copy, is a copy. Are you telling me that if I produced a CD burner, copied your RH6.1 Pro CD, and offered you 50 dollars and an exact copy (no issues of reliability) of that CD, that you would not trade? The only possible reason would be for support and literature.
I suspect Cygnus was a good acquisition, however they're not terribly relevant to this argument. Cygnus was doing speciality consulting and what not, that is an entirely different animal than selling shrink wrapped support agreements with their CD. Likewise, the consulting firms you mentioned are vastly different as well.
There are no direct parallels to RedHat's proposed business model. So without wasting many more words, let me put it to you like this: We are both intuiting the vast majority of these arguments. The combination of my experience, education, and perspective leads me to different conclusions than you. There is no concrete answer here. If you find this argument tiresome, then let time tell. Otherwise, if you have any new information to bring to this argument, i'll be willing to listen. In the mean time, i'd rather short redhat then buy them.
you are merely viewing a bug in slashdot's code. The bug makes it appear as if I replied to a comment, when I actually replied to a reply of that comment (that happens to be -1...below your threshold in all probability). Please see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/01/28/23242 03&threshold=-1&commentsort=3&mode=threa d&pid=11 to view the actual sequence of events.
I believe the word you are looking for is "you're", not "your".
But Coke and Pepsi do contain different recipes and carbination processes. Though I personally couldn't give a damn, some people, atleast, can tell them apart. Many more yet claim they can. This is particularly true when it is Coke (et. al) vs. the generics. Whether it is their imagination or not is irrelevant, they feel justified because the recipes are unique. While it may be possible to create a cola that tastes intrinsically better than Coke, people are creatures of habit. They acquire a taste (real or imagined), and demand it.
The type of branding that Redhat needs to do will not hold out, when and if Redhat's market for their software climbs to Microsoftesque scale. Granted, they have generated significant revenues by selling this software at current date. Two points though:
a) RedHat packages used to package commercial software on their CDs (e.g., MetroX), until just recently. Cheapbytes never did this.
b) Cheapbytes CDs come without paper manuals and documentation. When the market grows, the free-loaders will copy this documentation. (RedHat's documentation really aint that great)
c) The market for Redhat's software has been relatively small, and as such the market for virtually free copies is even more non-existent. Your average linux newbie likely doesn't know that cheapbytes exists.
d) A number of Linux supporters, such as myself, have purchased RedHat's official CDs because we believe in what they're doing. I've seen Redhat spend some money on R&D and add value, thus i'm willing to purchase it at a premium. This is not going to translate with the growth, that loyalty won't hold.
e) Then there is what I call "convenience" sales, though somewhat redundant. Redhat has the market share of their own software because the market is small. It hasn't warranted any competitors to invest in properly marketing and documenting redhat's software. If Redhat's software climbs in popularity, you can be sure competition will enter.
These factors in combination leave me little doubt that CD sales will amount to much, not enough to justify even one fraction of their current market capitalization.
Support is vastly different. Deloitte & Touch and Anderson Consulting are heavily established companies with elite reputations in various industries. What is Redhat's reputation? They're a company that writes GPL software, who in the process has collected something of a following amongst techies. Are IT managers and management going to write checks based on this reputation? I have my doubts.
I'm sorry, but this stuff about a company not needing profits is bs. In the short run yeah, a company can do without them for awhile. Today, Redhat may have enough capital infusion such that they don't need to grow organically. But they can't survive in the red forever. Furthermore, as I alluded to earlier, having capital does not necessarily mean that they can properly grow their support division at a rate that could warrant their current market cap.
This is not to say that I believe that RedHat can't grow, but it is not going to be consistently huge growth--not the kind that would justify their valuation. Furthermore, Redhat and the majority of these Dot Coms are way overvalued. Worse yet, most of these companies lacking the profits, or even the revenues, to grow organically on their own, are going to fall on hard times when they no longer have these red hot valuations. These companies are likely going to go the way of the Bio Techs, red hot one minute, and the plague the next...but I digress.
If Redhat's future earnings are to come strictly from support, than I don't see how they can hope to grow all that rapidly. Unlike the software industry where you just merely print more software, service requires correspondingly large teams of people. Can they GROW at even 50% a year, for the next 10 years, and retain their same quality, especially with relatively low margins? (assuming they have high service quality to begin with) I think the service industry is very different from standard software. But if you have any examples that match the various criterion I listed, I'd love to hear them. While no precedents might not mean it is impossible, that market cap still gives me troubles. I would love to be wrong this time.
...back to bed. G'night
"Branding" may sound well and good, but RedHat is fundamentally different from Coke, Pepsi, Heinz, you name it. Besides the fact that Coke and Pepsi are established multibillion dollar companies, with huge sales and profits (e.g, there is little doubt that people will continue to buy Coke next year), both also spend hundreds of millions of dollars on marketing. Take Pepsi, they have a market cap of only 48 billion right now, but revenues of 21 billion, and almost 2 billion in profits. They're valued at 48 billion because they've got significant earnings, not because they own the word "Pepsi".
Furthermore, even though many (myself included) think the differences between, say, Coke and Pepsi are minor, many will say they taste different. Why is this? Because they DO in fact contain unique recipes. If you could buy an exact copy of Pepsi, in the same bottle, with merely different letters, for half the cost, would you still buy Pepsi? Yet with GPL software, this is exactly what you get. You can be sure that you're getting a byte for byte copy, and perhaps even additional propietary features from the competitors who choose to free load.
Now this might not apply to service contracts, but they haven't even started there. Perhaps RedHat has a chance, but is that chance worth 16 billion dollars by any stretch of the imagination? I don't know about you, but I can't think of any service firms in the high tech industry that competes on the same level (no IP) as their competitors (e.g., not Sun, IBM, or the like), yet still enjoys charging a premium based on their namebrand.
In the low technology service industry, I do know of atleast one company that does this, but they compete on price, do a better job for less money, while simultaneously enjoying higher profit margins than their competitors. The problem with this analogy though, is that I don't know if it could translate very well to a large (needs to be to justify a 16 billion dollar valuation so many years off) technology support company. Furthermore, this company is relatively young, with an extremely experienced CEO that knows how to run a company, and relatively small (well if you count the management atleast, which is what they specialize in). Even though this company is still growing quite rapidly, I don't think it would translate very well on the supposed scale of Redhat. Other than that, the analogy is a good one, because the company hires the same class of employee is their competitors, likewise I don't think RedHat can reasonably expect their lowest level support employees to be any better than the competition.
As it stands today, RedHat may have a name for themselves as a GPL contributing company, but they're pratically non-existent in service. Where are their service gurus? (I admit, I haven't looked at their management lately) I'd expect them to bring in an experienced management team at this alone, as it's a very different industry. Merely wanting to do service and holding a name that is popular in a different arena is not sufficient in the corporate arena.
Sorry if I'm rambling, but i'm tired...perhaps tomorrow.
A few quick explanations:
a) The courts resolve questionable patents (that is not new) -- I was addressing the habit of slashdot to go non-linear on the mention of any new patents it regards to be "obvious". The distinction I draw is the difference between paper and reality. A patent may claim one thing, but that doesn't mean that it ends up that way.
b) The system CAN be improved, it is the degree and the extent to which that I question. I do believe that frequent judicial intervention will always be necessary. The costs might be lessened to some degree, but remember that by resigning ourselves to paper and bureaucrats we run the risk of creating a system that can not adapt, and can't exercise reasonable judgement. There are tradeoffs to be made if you want to impliment many of these mentioned improvements. Do you really want to put your future in the hands of some bureaucrat that is empowered to act even more arbitrarily? When is the last time you ever (in history, or in any country) dealt with a truely effective, fair, and speedy bureacracy? In a field such as IT, how do you plan to draw talented people into the USPTO, who will remain motivated, and not play politics, or "err to the side of safety" all the time?
c) I readily concede that there is something of a skew towards better capitalized firms. None the less, it is most often misunderstood or exaggerated on slashdot. I hear all too often on slashdot that the only firms that can prosper with IP are Fortune 500 firms. Or that a small firm can't possibly beat a big firm. I can personally point to several people I know in different industries who've created multi-million (even multi-billion) dollar companies, and don't fit any of the descriptions alluded to by Slashdot Jrs.
d) I believe the capital market system tends to work reasonably well on the aggregate. In other words, if your idea is truely worth developing and you are capable of developing it, you will eventually find the money you need, to pay for a patent portfolio, or what have you. So if some undergraduate can't afford 50k for IP, then he probably can't develop the product anyways, never mind marketing it, etc.
e) When referring to the companies/entreprenuers that I mentioned, it covers a wide swath. From the college aged kid to the middle aged entreprenuer with 2-5 sucessfull multimillion dollar companies behind. From low technology, to high technology. From medical technology to computer hardware to aerospace. From East Coast to the West Coast. From companies with no competition, to companies that enter the fray against many Fortune 1000 firms and emerge on top (within their target industry). You can always argue it isn't a perfect sample, but I think it is good enough. I can say with absolute confidence, for example that there are many cases where intellectual property isn't only helpful, it's downright necessary (which many on slashdot will deny).
Ok. Because I was ranting, I did not use as precise or as complete language as I would normally use. We, in reality, share a similar point of view. Allow me to clear up a few misperceptions you have about my beliefs.
Let me preface this by saying that I was addressing many often stated sycophantic statements on slashdot, and that:
a) I don't think the Patent system is perfect
b) I don't think that the patent system can't necessarily be improved
c) I'm not a big fan of VCs (though not worthless) empirically speaking, though theoretically they're highly valuable.
While I think there is definetly a great deal of theoretical space for improvement in the patent system, particularly where it pertains to the startup, I do not think it is simple by any means. Humans and companies are at constant odds with one another, I don't see any system in the future that will make judicial remedies much less unnecessary. The intellectual property system is messy largely because life is. We are never going to find a perfectly equitable and educated and intelligent patent office, particularly given that it is a government agency. By removing judicial intervention, and resigning ourselves to paper and bureaucrats, we would be subjecting ourselves to a highly inflexible system, that can't adapt very well at all. There are trade offs to be made (yet there still is a fair amount of crap in the middle). As such, we leave it to judicial processes, where both sides can present their case when and where disagreement arises. This is not to say that nothing can be done to improve the state of things, but rather it's not nearly as simple as most on slashdot purport it to be.
When I was addressing the fact that the real test of patent is the courts, not the USPTO, I was referring to the test for the viability of IP protection. I was specifically addressing the frequently uttered concerns of Slashdot Jr.'s about every patent claim, and telling them that the claims are not the same thing as reality. Most of these aggregious patents will not stand up. Furthermore, I was not implying, by any means, that intellectual property and the legal means to support it are, in and of themselves, sufficient. I'd be the first to tell you how important it is to have an excellent CEO, good management team, a good business plan, a differentiable product that people would want to use, capital to finance actual development, and many other things.
While IP alone does not cover blood and sweat, it can provide sufficient protection of your idea, that would allow you to justify an investment of blood, swear, and tears into a product or service. If the entrepreneur lacks the intelligence and/or the capital to properly develop (market, finance, etc) the product and the company, the IP probably won't do them any good anyways. This is part of the reason why I feel that many of these would-be entreprenuers are, in reality, not as greatly affected patent costs as many would indicate. It does erect increased barriers to entry, but I sincerely believe that most competent CEOs will eventually clear it. In short, I believe the capital market system does a reasonably good job, on the aggregate, of delivering money to people who can actually develop a viable product with it.
Regarding Redhat's market capitalization, we have a difference of opinion here. In my opinion, merely returning to the "support" model, does not warrant a market cap of 16 billion dollars. If support is indeed the way to go, as you say, and RedHat remains truely Open Source, why should RedHat retain a market cap. at 16b, when the competition (LinuxCare, et. al) is every bit as prepared to offer support as RedHat is (particularly when the competition is not at all burdened by R&D costs)? My point is not so much that the support market is irrelevant, but rather how can RedHat gain the majority of that market share? In either case, Redhat is unproven, and 16 billion dollars is not even approximately in proportion with the risks. Even under a best case scenario (maximum reasonable growth potential) 16 billion dollars is a hell of a lot.
I'm not a big fan of quibbling, particularly when it comes to academic terminology. However, the definition of asset depends largely on your audience, and widely considered, in financial circles atleast, to be anything with commercial or exchange value. Furthermore, when I modify "asset" with "liquid", that implies, that, it can be re-sold near that stated value in a relatively short period of time. Thus while cash is most definetly a liquid asset under just about anyone's definition, liquid (depending on just how liquid it is) assets can include (or exclude) a great deal more than just cash (e.g., t-bills, bank deposits, money market shares, etc.). Generally speaking, in a corporate financial statement, liquid assets primarily include just: cash, marketable securities, and accounts recievable. When I refer to liquid assets though, I'm not adhering to GAAP, as it can be misleading.
Dividend policy is highly controversial, as you well know. We could get into the theory for several pages worth each, but i'd rather not. Empirically speaking, however, one look at firms listing on NASDAQ gives you a good idea of what you can 'reasonably' expect. Amazon is, of course, in the red, and as such they can not reasonably issue dividends anyways.
Just for the record, i'm of the opinion that most companies don't pay out enough dividends, but many of these high growth firms, particularly technology firms, really do not have the luxary of issuing them. One thing you must remember is that their cost (not to mention timing) of acquiring capital is higher. Their product/sales are not nearly as stable, nor do they tend to be as diverse, and as such can't necessarily be considered sufficiently sustainable. Many need to reinvest in new projects (e.g., R&D) before the previous one starts paying off significantly. When it comes to liquidity, many are also faced with the possibility of immediate mergers and acquisitions (in addition to growth prospects), making dividends less necessary. In short, they're in a fundamentally different position.
I do agree with you about tax policy for the most part though. =)
PS: Nit pick: In regards to your stock buyback statement(s), it is not unheard of for companies to buy out smaller investors to cut down on paper costs...there are other perfectly legitimate reasons for buybacks as well, but I digress. Cheers =)
In my opinion, what differentiates Amazon from the competition is not so much their intellectual property (well, except for the Amazon trademark, possibly), than it is their marketing position (e.g., brand "loyalty") and having this huge equity base from which to draw (as long as the DotCom's don't phase change to dogs--like the BioTechs of yesteryear). Both of which I have my doubts about, even though it's hard to see how future competitors could one up them--they can certainly put a great deal of price pressure on them--I don't see a decisive victor on either side on the horizon.
PS: You're a differnet guppy, but I too currently live in PA, just outside of Philly, essentially the same age, and likely similar studies/profession. Cheers =)
The brokerage houses ARE collectively making a lot of money. It doesn't take a genius to see the risk involved in many of these equities. It IS going to be a problem.
Historically and empirically speaking, this has been demostrated to be a problem. The 80s and the BioTech crash is a great example of this, it's been demonstrated many times that these firms would keep on pressing them even though they KNEW they the security was fundamentally bad.
Brokering is a fundamentally different issue than selling merchandise. Brokers are merely intermediaries, they don't control the merchandise. The merchandise is beyond their control, and therein lies infinite deniability. Furthermore, most buyers understand that there is a certain amount of risk (unlike merchandise buyers, who expect an absolute gaurantee). So if the buyer were to lose 30% of their retirement money, how are they to know that their problems are the result of freak bad luck, or symptomatic of a larger systemic problem in the brokerage firms? How are they to know that their broker could have known? That it wasn't just the market?
Even without this absolute callousness issue, there is a question of risk aversion. It is not their money that they're putting on the line. A risk of 1% of these companies defaulting might be tolerable to them, but intolerable to the individual that is heavily into those securities. Their customers have to incur some risk anyways (if they want to play the stock market), they add a little more risk, and they can increase their volume by a multiple.... Never mind individual brokers whose interests are not necessarily the same as their brokerage house....Particularly when the customer needs little to no urging.
I basically agree, however one minor point: dividend's alone to not comprise a companies intrinsic current value. For example, if Amazon had 50 billion dollars in cash and other liquid assets, with no debt, it would be very difficult to give them a valuation much lower than 50b, completely ignoring future earnings. Furthermore, most every high growth (tech mostly) company doesn't issue dividends, because they're supposed to be reinvesting those retained earnings. That being said, I think Amazon is way way overvalued valued.
PS: Are you the guppy I know?
The original poster is somewhat mistaken, however LNUX is way overvalued by any traditional measure. They've got a market cap of 5 billion dollars and they're not even profitable yet. To justify these kind of valuations you have to have HUGE expected growth, but what do they have to justify these expectations? 5 Billion dollars is a hell of a lot of money to risk on one fledgling little company without any propietary technology (well almost) of their own. What they have is maybe a marketing position, but then you'd have to ignore the likes of Dell, Compaq, gateway, etc? And can you give me any good reason why VA Linux is in any better of a position to capture the Linux market share than say ASlabs?
Another point i'll make is that these investment banks and brokerage houses really don't give a damn how good a security ACTUALLY is. Whether you, the investor, win or lose money doesn't much affect them. They want to see maximum volume, that is how they make their money. It is in their interest in fact to keep their mouths shut.
My bet (and yes, they're a dime a dozen) is that these Dot Com stocks go the way of the Bio Tech stocks of the 80s and 90s, from RedHot to the plague in 1 second, I suspect within the next year or two. No one is going to want anything to do with them. The real shame is that while these stocks Dot Coms are redhot, they push many more legitimate companies out (e.g., VCs now have a totally unrealistic time frame/turnover and growth (not real growth, but valuations rather) expectations with the Dot Coms). And when they finally plummet, the more legitimate Dot Coms that eventually emerge will find it very very difficult to raise capital. I'm counting the days....
/* Disclaimer: This is merely a rant */
Why does it seem that those who least understand the system always scream the loudest? No where is this more true than when slashdot discusses Intellectual property. Damn few here have ever patented anything themselves. Even fewer have ever developed a usefull product with it. Yet, we have 10k experts telling us how the system IS, and how it needs to be improved.
I'm not an expert with the patent system by any means, but nor am I purporting that we need to toss the system out the window (or anything radical like that). However, I do happen to have a number of friends and family in the high-tech industry, who have developed a number of products and technologies (startups), and I know a thing or two. I have some bones to pick with slashdot, a few of which are:
a) One major slashdot misconceptions is that the startup/entreprenuer can no longer afford to patent, or that it is geared strictly in favor of big companies. From personal experience, I can tell you that this is simply untrue.
b) That just because the patent office OKs a patent, does not mean you are protected. That is, and always has been, the case. The real test is the courts. So most of these "obvious" software patent gripes on slashdot are pointless. It is not new to software, and it hasn't stopped other industry.
c) Intellectual property is still very necessary (not everyone on slashdot disagrees with this, but many do). To extol the virtues of those 2 or 3 open source companies, and draw from that that IP is uneccessary is even more absurd. I hear all these sycophantic calls about Redhat's sucess, that "support" revnues are sufficient. Their only real major success right now is as a financial security. Redhat is not even profitable yet, and the long term viability of their current model is still VERY questionable. Currently, RedHat's "support" division contribution to their income is negligible. What little money they have made, is by selling their software and manuals based AROUND convenience alone, not IP (that much is new). This convenience method probably can't last, atleast not on a microsoftesque scale. Put simply, if Redhat were to ever approach 1 billion dollars in software (convenience) sales, you can be sure that the competition will move in with byte for byte copies of their software (and maybe even toss some extra stuff in), and sell it for half the cost. The point is not that Redhat is a horrible company, but merely that they are not tried and true. To suggest we scrap all traditional business models based on one nominal and questionable success is naive. But I digress..
d) That "defensive" patents are only used by evil companies, and that they cause harm to the system. Again, being very familiar with a few companies that use them, this is not true. I feel that part of the problem is that many on slashdot don't understand that the solution lies in the COURTS, not at the patent office. As such, overly narrow patent(s) can prove to be dangerous. Overly broad patents can, and are routinely, struck down. You erect these patent walls such that you have a defensible position in court. The stronger your position, the easier it is to defend. The less likely you are to be steamrolled, especially by much bigger companies. It is not just big evil companies that use these, if anything, it's even more crucial for a startup.
In summation, if you want a good picture of the state of the patent system, talk to a successful entreprenuer who's actually done it. Not people who've NEVER been there themselves; the academics, open source advocates, lawyers, and company, in general can't see the whole picture. I know my rant isn't going to change the general tune of slashdot, but perhaps I can appeal to a few more rational individuals.
/* Aspestos Suit: On */
Eistein did NOT build the A-bomb, he was not part of the Manhattan Project. He layed some of the ground work (very fundamental, and important, but not direct), and recommended to the President that we start such a project; that is just about as far as you can take it. He also, later, was an outspoken critic of the program, and future programs (e.g., H-bomb).
Nevermind the politics of using the A-bomb, and the justification...
I happen to live in PA, but I have a beach house in NJ. Having driven through there numerous times, and being stopped by their cops (who are all too happy to give out tickets), I can tell you that they've never even attempted to give me a ticket for such a thing, even when they've seen me do it. I'm aware that there is a Bill pending, but on last check it is in NJ's Assembly Committee on Transportation. Furthermore, I suspect an outright ban will never pass. Many states are pushing for such legislation, but they'll probably merely ban the use of hand helds (e.g., you can only use it if it's on speaker phone in a cradle). Which I basically agree with.
/* disclaimer: I'm not a crypto buff */
k ing/gsm-secur.html
GSM cell phones are more than just the GSM voice encoding algorithm. These other security measures include: Gaussian Minimum Shift Keying (GMSK) digital modulation, slow frequency hopping, and Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) time slot architecture. While i'm aware that they can be broken, it's not nearly as trivial as using a simple modified CB radio scanner. For more information, check out:
http://www.semionoff.com/cellular/hacking/phrea
I don't have all the specific details for either system, but based on experience I can tell you that:
a) The system in place in LA is partial and expensive.
b) LA is far ahead of most cities, especially relative to the East coast, particularly Philadelphia. The way this cellphone system is described, it could be implimented on the cheap, and without having to mobilize PennDOT (et. al) to get off their asses and do something.
c) A high resolution (per car) system, such as the one described in the article, could be extremely usefull in designing proper freeways. You could get a computer to analyze how each cars interact with one another at particular on and offramps, intersections, etc on a LARGE scale (I don't know of any other system that can claim this). Imagine if you could collect and compile computer data over a period of a month showing that 99% of cars merge left, cutting across traffic, resulting in slowdowns of 20%....you get the point. There are many freeways in Philly, where, for nominal expenses (e.g., traffic light, divider, better lanes, bumping it up a few feet, etc.), they could redesign the traffic flow and alleve traffic concerns considerably, using this type of data.
Referring to your top 5 lines, sure both that local broadcaster and the advertizer aren't hurt. But they're not the plantiffs in this case, the movie studios are. They are hurt, as I've made relatively clear. If viewer's are to watch this ICrave instead of their local TV stations, and they watch ads that are ineffective, that would have to effect of reducing the number of licensing fees that the creators can collect....
If that local station is selling locally targeted advertising (e.g., state lotto, local franchise specific ads, Ritas waterice, etc.), then the advertising is essentially useless out of the region. Of course, if those same out of region viewers choose to watch the internet instead (though doubtfull) of their own local stations, that would have the effect of reducing the fees that the owners/producers of the content (e.g., movies, news, sitcoms, talk shows, etc) can collect. Also, how are the producers/owners/licensors supposed to price the TV station that is getting rebroadcasted? Perhaps the state is regulated differently, and hence can't put certain high paying ads on (e.g., alchohol). Or perhaps that state costs less to do business in, and simply doesn't need to put in as much ad time as others. There are lots of different potential reasons.
In your last sentence, do you mean licensee (local affiliate station) or licenser (The plantiffs: Fox universal, etc)? For the licensor, my argument makes lots of sense. The rebroadcasted licensee (local station) would either not care, or might like it. That is not to say, however, that the other licensees (the rest, who are only being distributed via public TV) would like it, which can, of course, ultimately hurt the licensor.
In either case, I haven't thought of all the issues, but i'm sure there are more. In such a case, i'm inclined to side with the OWNERS of that intellectual property, until I can say I've exhausted all possibilities (reasons why they'd object), and that they're simply being unreasonable and uncharitable (to those who live in the true boondocks). I, as everyone else on slashdot, has yet to hear their arguments. Because they are the owners, I extend them leeway. Clearly, if these studios' interests could only be furthered, they would probably realize it, and they would not be taking this small fry company to court.
The issue here is not the local TV stations, it is the original CREATORS of that content; copyrights are very much at issue here! As it said in the article, "Copyrighted programs and films don't fall from the skies; they evolve from creative artists, supported by considerable financial investments." These sitcoms, movies, talk shows, news, etc. cost money to create; the producers recoup their money by selling/licensing their works to the TV stations to be broadcast. The TV stations in-turn recoup this money by selling advertising space. The mere fact that that content is delivered in a certain format over a public medium does not mean that it is public property. All of the listed plantiffs (e.g., Fox, ABC, NBC, Disney, Orion, Universal, etc) in this case are the CREATORS of the content, who are, evidently trying to protect their work. Besides the fact that it is THEIR intellectual property, in which they should be allowed to determine how it is displayed and sold, allowing ICrave to get away with this DOES pose a possible threat to their profitability. ICrave isn't paying them a dime, yet ICrave is selling their own ads and otherwise profiting.
It would seem as if you believe, that, since it is being rebroadcast over the internet it is OK. Let us imagine for a second that instead of being rebroadcast over the internet, it is rebroadcast on another TV station, only this TV station doesn't have to pay anything (like ICrave). Now how many TV stations do you think are going to pay the producers? Not only does it cost them more to pay for it, but it could also put them at a competetive disadvantage, in that the freeloading/rebroadcasting stations don't have to rely on advertising dollars nearly as much, allowing them to put fewer and fewer ads up. Would you still argue this isn't a threat either? This entire argument is silly to begin with. Being able to view something on public airwaves doesn't give you the right to do anything with it. Just like purchasing a video cassette doesn't give you the right to broadcast it. These are basic intellectual property questions, and they're not nearly as new as you would have us believe.
Regarding political airtime, I agree with you to a degree, however, your view is again overly simplistic. The first point i'll make is that in most every city, I believe, there are more than enough channels available for the public to use. Secondly, politicians aren't just paying for their ads to be broadcast to people who'd like to tune in. Quite the contrary, the politicians are putting them IN FRONT of viewers who'd otherwise not tune in. In otherwords, they're putting them between shows during prime time, and what not, on heavily watched stations. These stations aren't heavily watched just merely because they are licensed to broadcast on station X; they're watched because they have CONTENT there (not just once, but on a regular basis. They've bought that userbase's eyeballs, in a way). Which brings me to my next point. It costs money to create that content, and it costs money to broadcast it. Mandating the insertion of any political ads takes away the industry's opportunity to recoup their costs. I'm not sure exactly how much they can afford, but please understand that it doesn't come for free.
Additionally, as you mentioned, how do we keep the screwballs off (such as Buchananon) to prevent an utter crowding out? Should only the "most popular" should be allowed? Many pay before they're "popular". Based on polling results? Based on some stuffed shirts that decide who's electable? How? I don't see any sterile way to handle it. This market based system of purchasing ad slots does serve as an equalizer of sorts, it prevents both gluts and shortages. We can atleast be sure that those who can buy a significant # of ad slots have their act together to a degree (a sort of natural selection) The question is, is it desirable that society makes it a necessity for politicians to raise millions of dollars? It would appear that that is how lobbyists turn political ears these days. I'd be half tempted to ban all privately political ads (despite the constitution). Instead, force all such ads to be paid for by a select FEW government grants, and create a giant government (megabandwidth) website of sorts...call it election.gov, or something. Allow each politician to put as much material as he needs up there, for as many people wish to see it. If they just want to "speak" to the people, that seems to be to be the ideal way to do it anyways....relatively cheap, accurate, it would force more meaningful discussion (better than most all political TV ads that are mere soundbites), etc etc etc....
Yes, it was a typo/brain fart. Of course, when I post something small like that I don't put a lot of attention into the details. If I were commenting on some other poster's spelling and making spelling mistakes myself, then criticism would be well called for. However, it's plenty appropriate for me to knock Katz for his _fundamental_ lack of substance and his insincerity.
Maybe it's a bit harsh to say that he has "mediocre skills and limited intelligence", but his work never seems to break free. It's not a detail. It's not even a product of a particularly good education to be able to write with some direction, never mind coherance. I would expect a reasonably intelligent writer to at least come up with something of substance every once in awhile. All I get from his work is repetition of common themes on slashdot mixed in with own rambling stream of consciousness, at best. His unique input, other than noise, is 0.
I'm not saying it is or isn't. What I said, or meant to imply, was that no one in this day and age is saying that cars are the cure to all the ills of the world, while many still are hyping computers up to be just that. A lot of this applies to slashdot too.
Warning: Some might consider this flame bait. Caveat Emptor.
Katz is a hack. He doesn't really care to think or challenge anything. All he wants to do is make a name for himself, sell "books", etc. To do that, when you have mediocre skills and limited intelligence, you must find your niche. Katz does this by being the loudest voice in the heard.
When computers are "hot", he'll be their greatest cheerleader. When the internet is hot, he'll be there too. But when the Dot Coms start crashing, and there is a large sentiment that he can cash in on AGAINST it, he'll be there just as quickly. Never mind consistency. Just read his stuff over the past couple of years.
I see Katz as a Clintonesque figure, albeit, without the charisma, intelligence, etc...always holding his finger out to the wind of public opinion or, rather, his niche audience of teenage "geeks".