There's no proof that patents are acting in the way you describe. Common sense tells you that what you're saying is true. But I think we're seeing evidence ("one click buying", for example) that patents primary use is to preempt ideas from competitors rather than protect implementations.
So, I'll ask you. What evidence do you have that patents are working in the manner you describe?
"The problem with your scheme is that it chills potential innovation"
In what way? You can't prove a link between patents and innovation. In fact, based on history, I could argue that patents have a chilling effect on innovation.
Real innovation comes about through the free exchange of ideas, not through cross-licensing of patents from major corporations.
Since most home users buy a computer, and that computer will come with a legitimate copy of Windows installed, I'd wager there are actually few consumers in the US pirating windows.
I'm assuming that only fanatics replace their OS.
Anyway, MS Office might be a different story; I don't know since Open Office now suits me fine and I don't need to pay $400+ to write a letter.
The problem is congress and the administration are convinced they can protect American interests with these ridiculous IP laws. I believe congress thinks they can: (1) Keep American "domininance" in technology fields (2) Make American companies more profitable over the long term.
On the surface, it has a lot of appeal; there's the oft repeated mantra that "If I engage in research I should be rewarded; if I don't get rewarded, why would I engage in research. Therefore strong IP are the best way to ensure companies have a reason to innovate".
The problem is, there doesn't appear to be any evidence this is true, and based on stories like this (and my own experience in the computer field), I think this is exactly wrong. Innovation comes about from the unrestricted sharing of ideas.
I only hope the US doesn't become a 3rd world technology nation before Congress and the Administration (Clinton, Bush, and future administrations) understands they're destroying what they're trying to protect.
If they have half a brain, they use some sort of distributed tool (something like Akamai) so that you'd need to know more about them. More than likely, the addresses they use belong to an ISP or multiple ISPs.
The netblock they advertise is their business network.
"Virtually everyone posting on slashdot seems to think that pirating music is their right"
I haven't seen anyone say that on slashdot, ever.
Lets stop this argument right here: we all know copyright violations are against the law. No argument. We all know that copyright holders are within their rights to attempt to stop those violations (again, within the limit of the law).
But the argument here seems to go like this: "Digital copying is so easy, and costs the RIAA so much money that they shouldn't have to go to court to follow due process. Copyright holder should be allowed to simply demand any private information they want".
But why? Why is this crime deserving of special status? I can see no rational reason for this stance.
This is the equivalent of the store that sells CD's saying "I suspect you of stealing CD's. Therefore I will search your house to see if you have any CD's that are stolen".
You'd say "That's ridiculous". But somehow with electronic copyright violations, you throw out years of law simply to satisfy the RIAA?
I don't get your reasoning here. It doesn't make any sense.
Exactly (although the other guy made a good point).
If we agree that Copyright violations are against the law and cause someone economic harm, then we can agree that the law should act as it always has.
What's so horrible about copyright violations that we need to give RIAA and MPAA members special privledges ? Hell, if I steal the digital masters the RIAA uses to burn the CD's, I have more rights than if I copied the MP3's that somebody ripped and put on Kazaa.
Jefferson was *against* copyrights and patents. He thought them unnatural. He only left them in as a compromise.
James Madison was the person who viewed copyrights (and patents) as necessary.
Here's something to consider (from an article at MSNBC):
"While Jefferson acknowledged that a limited copyright could potentially encourage creativity, it had not been demonstrated. Therefore, Jefferson wrote, "the benefit of even limited monopolies is too doubtful, to be opposed to that of their general suppression." "
Read the article at this link: "http://www.msnbc.com/news/594462.asp"
If you go to Monticello, the curators will proudly tell you that Jefferson invented a new type of plow that became popular, but he never patented out of principle.
Sony released a Digital Camera 18 months ago that had a 3" CD-ROM built into it. It used the same rechargables as their video cameras.
People hated it "Only 2 Megapixels" they whined. "CD-ROM isn't as whizzy as CF" they said.
They missed the point. There are two problems with a digital camera when used on vacations (a) You won't have a PC with you for 2 weeks (b) The battery life either has to be measured in thousands of pictures or be easily rechargable.
Well the Sony solved these two problems. It had 150M of storage space on cheap ($1) media. You moved it to your PC by moving the CD-ROM. Plus, the sony had enough space that the JPG compression used was light. I love these cameras that advertise 6 megapixels, and then they compress the images so much that it might as well be 1.5 megapixels. Plus, the camera's battery would last 150 pictures and be rechargeable in under an hour.
The reason is that open software promotes hardware choices as well as software choices.
What platform does Linux run on?
What platform does Windows run on?
Also, if you want to control the hardware platform (aka Palladium), then its important to give people the feeling that they have no choice in software.
Just because MacOS could be ported to run on X86 doesn't mean it would work on PC Compatible hardware.
A "Mac BIOS" that could make the Mac as closed and proprietary as it is today. The could make the same nice hardware, with the tight integration between OS and hardware that Mac customers expect. Only the processor inside might say Intel or AMD.
Slashdot Mirror
ATI has their share of problems, but the All-In-Wonder line is the only decent card to include a tuner.
There's no proof that patents are acting in the way you describe. Common sense tells you that what you're saying is true. But I think we're seeing evidence ("one click buying", for example) that patents primary use is to preempt ideas from competitors rather than protect implementations.
So, I'll ask you. What evidence do you have that patents are working in the manner you describe?
"The problem with your scheme is that it chills potential innovation"
In what way? You can't prove a link between patents and innovation. In fact, based on history, I could argue that patents have a chilling effect on innovation.
Real innovation comes about through the free exchange of ideas, not through cross-licensing of patents from major corporations.
Since most home users buy a computer, and that computer will come with a legitimate copy of Windows installed, I'd wager there are actually few consumers in the US pirating windows.
I'm assuming that only fanatics replace their OS.
Anyway, MS Office might be a different story; I don't know since Open Office now suits me fine and I don't need to pay $400+ to write a letter.
"It might frighten you to learn this, but making a profit on your work is not evil."
It might be interesting to learn that making a profit on your work in not guaranteed.
The problem is congress and the administration are convinced they can protect American interests with these ridiculous IP laws. I believe congress thinks they can: (1) Keep American "domininance" in technology fields (2) Make American companies more profitable over the long term.
On the surface, it has a lot of appeal; there's the oft repeated mantra that "If I engage in research I should be rewarded; if I don't get rewarded, why would I engage in research. Therefore strong IP are the best way to ensure companies have a reason to innovate".
The problem is, there doesn't appear to be any evidence this is true, and based on stories like this (and my own experience in the computer field), I think this is exactly wrong. Innovation comes about from the unrestricted sharing of ideas.
I only hope the US doesn't become a 3rd world technology nation before Congress and the Administration (Clinton, Bush, and future administrations) understands they're destroying what they're trying to protect.
I haven't used it since 4, but the lack of up-to-date Javascript support in Opera was disappointing.
I took the proxy settings from Mozilla in the prefs.js and transferred them to phoenix, and it didn't work.
Makes it useless at work.
In fact, the entire "advanced" section of preferences is not present.
Maybe next version?
If they have half a brain, they use some sort of distributed tool (something like Akamai) so that you'd need to know more about them. More than likely, the addresses they use belong to an ISP or multiple ISPs.
The netblock they advertise is their business network.
"Virtually everyone posting on slashdot seems to think that pirating music is their right"
I haven't seen anyone say that on slashdot, ever.
Lets stop this argument right here: we all know copyright violations are against the law. No argument. We all know that copyright holders are within their rights to attempt to stop those violations (again, within the limit of the law).
But the argument here seems to go like this:
"Digital copying is so easy, and costs the RIAA so much money that they shouldn't have to go to court to follow due process. Copyright holder should be allowed to simply demand any private information they want".
But why? Why is this crime deserving of special status? I can see no rational reason for this stance.
This is the equivalent of the store that sells CD's saying "I suspect you of stealing CD's. Therefore I will search your house to see if you have any CD's that are stolen".
You'd say "That's ridiculous". But somehow with electronic copyright violations, you throw out years of law simply to satisfy the RIAA?
I don't get your reasoning here. It doesn't make any sense.
Exactly (although the other guy made a good point).
If we agree that Copyright violations are against the law and cause someone economic harm, then we can agree that the law should act as it always has.
What's so horrible about copyright violations that we need to give RIAA and MPAA members special privledges ? Hell, if I steal the digital masters the RIAA uses to burn the CD's, I have more rights than if I copied the MP3's that somebody ripped and put on Kazaa.
Its crazy.
Yes, people are pirating music, but so what?
People shoplift.
People speed.
People do all sorts of horrible nasty things. But we've managed to stick with due process
What's so different and important about alleged copyright violations that we need to jettison the the Bill of Rights?
Can someone please explain why the RIAA and MPAA members are deserving of a new special status under the law?
Since many under the age of 18 use computers, can a EULA be binding on a minor?
I've asked this many times of many, and I've never received any response other than a shrug.
Jefferson was *against* copyrights and patents. He thought them unnatural. He only left them in as a compromise.
James Madison was the person who viewed copyrights (and patents) as necessary.
Here's something to consider (from an article at MSNBC):
"While Jefferson acknowledged that a limited copyright could potentially encourage creativity, it had not been demonstrated. Therefore, Jefferson wrote, "the benefit of even limited monopolies is too doubtful, to be opposed to that of their general suppression." "
Read the article at this link: "http://www.msnbc.com/news/594462.asp"
If you go to Monticello, the curators will proudly tell you that Jefferson invented a new type of plow that became popular, but he never patented out of principle.
I'm typing this on a powerbook using 10.2, but I still think the trashcan should be removed from the whole UI.
I understand all the points people are making, but I don't find the GUI particularly intuitive (or unintuitive).
The real reason I prefer 10.x these days is that underneath all the UI stuff is BSD, the GUI is beautiful, but nothing earthshaking.
But I love my powerbook.
Apple's trash can.
You don't eject disks, you throw them in the trash can.
Doesn't that strike you as odd given Apple's criticism of virtually every other UI over the years?
Sony released a Digital Camera 18 months ago that had a 3" CD-ROM built into it. It used the same rechargables as their video cameras.
People hated it "Only 2 Megapixels" they whined. "CD-ROM isn't as whizzy as CF" they said.
They missed the point. There are two problems with a digital camera when used on vacations (a) You won't have a PC with you for 2 weeks (b) The battery life either has to be measured in thousands of pictures or be easily rechargable.
Well the Sony solved these two problems. It had 150M of storage space on cheap ($1) media. You moved it to your PC by moving the CD-ROM. Plus, the sony had enough space that the JPG compression used was light. I love these cameras that advertise 6 megapixels, and then they compress the images so much that it might as well be 1.5 megapixels. Plus, the camera's battery would last 150 pictures and be rechargeable in under an hour.
It was and is a great idea.
No, I'm not joking, and yes, this new character looks like its based on this lineage.
Nice links, by the way.
The classic SciFi book Starship Trooper used this idea decades ago.
The question is whether this character's "look" is unique; I doubt anyone is claiming the idea of soldiers in mechnized suits is new or unique.
I find the characters look alike, but then I think it looks like it was ripped off from the old Japanese Anime "Eight Man" and "Astro boy".
In the end, its a tempest in a teapot.
The reason is that open software promotes hardware choices as well as software choices.
What platform does Linux run on?
What platform does Windows run on?
Also, if you want to control the hardware platform (aka Palladium), then its important to give people the feeling that they have no choice in software.
"I'm appauled we're still busting all those poor innocent shoplifters and breaking up domestic disputes! "
I had no idea the FBI was concerned with shoplifting and domestic disputes.
Does the US Attorney General also get involved with these cases?
What else about the US Criminal justice system would you like to share?
"If you break the law, you're going to get in trouble, I have no problem with this."
Yeah...they should've thrown the book at Rosa Parks breakin' the law like that.
Who did she think she was?
Just because MacOS could be ported to run on X86 doesn't mean it would work on PC Compatible hardware.
A "Mac BIOS" that could make the Mac as closed and proprietary as it is today. The could make the same nice hardware, with the tight integration between OS and hardware that Mac customers expect. Only the processor inside might say Intel or AMD.
I think it would be a smart move on Apple's part.
"Without the innovations of Apple, we would still be using dos based OS's."
They certainly popularized the WIMP GUI, but they didn't invent it (PARC), and its likely that someone else would have brought WIMP to the masses.