But what if they won't settle for money? This brings us to Mike Doyle, who runs tiny Eolas Technology Inc., which controls a patent that covers embedding plug-ins, applets, scriptlets, or ActiveX Controls into Web pages -- the use of any algorithm that implements dynamic, bi-directional communications between an app embedded in a Web page and external applications. That more or less defines how the World Wide Web is used today. As I have written before, Eolas is suing Microsoft for patent infringement, and has been generally wiping the floor with Redmond. Of course, so did the DoJ, and look how THAT turned out. The suit comes to trial in the spring and should be very interesting, not just because of the principles involved, but also because Mike Doyle and Eolas insist they are looking for more than just money.
"It would sure be nice for someone to actually consider all of this from our point of view, rather than MS's," wrote Doyle in a recent message to me. "It amazes me that everyone just assumes that MS will be able to merely write a check and make the whole thing go away. What if someone went through the following, purely theoretical, of course;-), logical analysis?"
"Is there any practical settlement amount that is worth more to Eolas than a victory at trial? Considering the facts in the case and the magnitude of the stakes here, a highly likely outcome is that it will actually go to trial, and, once it does, that a jury will award us both damages and an injunction. Injunction is the key word here. That is what patent rights provide: the power to exclude. What if we were to just say no? Or, what if some other big player were to acquire or merge with us? What if only one best-of-breed browser could run embedded plug-ins, applets, ActiveX controls, or anything like them, and it wasn't IE? How competitive would the other browsers be without those capabilities? How would that change the current dynamics in the Industry?"
"One possible scenario is that Eolas would have the power necessary to re-establish the browser-as-application-platform as a viable competitor to Windows. That would be an interesting outcome, wouldn't it? How much would that be worth? The Web-OS concept, where the browser is the interface to all interactive apps on the client side, was always a killer idea. It still is. It lost momentum not because it wasn't economically or technically feasible, but because MS made it unlikely for anybody but them to make money on the Web-client side. Therefore, nobody could justify the necessary investment to take a really-serious shot at it. It doesn't have to be that way, does it? Just think of how we could use this patent to re-invigorate and expand the competitive landscape in this recently-moribund industry. What if we could do what the DOJ couldn't, and in the process make Eolas and everybody else, possibly excluding MS, richer? Wouldn't Eolas stand to profit more in such a scenario than any kind of pre-trial settlement could provide? Wouldn't everybody else?"
"The last couple of years in IT seem to have convinced people that the current status quo will continue indefinitely. They seem to have forgotten what seemed so obvious as little as three years ago, that change is the only invariance. That axiom has always proven out in the past, and I'm certain it will continue to do so in the future."
So will Mike Doyle give in to the Microsoft checkbook or will he opt, instead, to change the world of IT as we know it, knocking Microsoft down to size along the way? And notice how he referred to mergers and investors and being acquired? What if an IBM or an AOL or some party behind door number three was to do exactly that?
I looked at the picture. But I also read the specifications. And as I said, it's possible I missed something.
But it is not the case that there has got to be a way to do it. Yes it has the ports, but software must be written to enable input as well as output . . . plug and play not withstanding, you still need drivers.
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see ethernet as one of the input sources. I have that 1400 legal MP3s ripped from my CDs--I'm not sure I want to go thru that again.
We may be in total agreement, but I needed to check this. I went to
http://opensource.org/licenses/mozilla1.1.php
and read the distribution requirements. This is what I think applies to applications written using open source code licensed under the mozilla 1.1 license (which TurboPower said they would use):
3.7. Larger Works. You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Code with other code not governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larger Work as a single product. In such a case, You must make sure the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Code.
The open source stuff would be the Covered Code, and teh application created with it would be the Larger Work. So you'd have to give them the source for the components., but not for the rest of the app. Which is immoral, but hey, we're talking law here so . . .
I must have gotten lucky. I guarantee you I bought Delphi Studio Professional, from Programmers' Paradise, pre-release. I have a Kylix Professional disk from which I installed both the Pascal and C++ IDEs under Red Hat 8. Maybe I got a bonus for pre-ordering.
My understanding is, if you modify the source to the library, you have to release the modification. But if you use the source in a commercial app, you do not have to release the code you've written that uses the library.
I got mod point today, but I looked in the list and there's no "That's a damn good question" selection I can give you, so I'm setting it to "interesting".
It's been said that every organization, no matter what its original purpose, eventually ceases to pursue that purpose and becomes a vehicle to power. Our entertainment companies have long since reached that point and our liberties are falling victim to it because the organizations assigned to protect those liberties have also reached that point.
Copy protection schemes are always cracked. But they're always re-invented . . . and corporations always buy them in a vain attempt to stop piracy. Not that piracy actually hurt anyone, but I digress . . .
Anyway, it suddenly occurred to me that the target of this stuff may well be other corporations. As long as they make money selling it to other corporations, why should they care if hackers can break it? They'll just come up with another "unbreakable" scheme and sell it to the same paranoids that bought the last one.
in Google and got 6 hits. Teoma gave me 55, and I feel like they were more useful. I like Google a lot, but I'm adding Teoma to my very short list of useful search engines.
I don't know about take off, but if they include it free with Visual Studio which I believe they plan to do, I'd be tempted to give it a try to build some simple dev tools I've wanted.
Not free per se, but part of the bundle and intended to replace their, um, "Java" implementation.
. . . and that includes developers. Most developers have knowledge specific to their problem domain, and that domain usually does NOT include making the OS work. That's why it took something like Visual Basic (. . . gag) to produce enough Windows apps to make 3.1 hit critical mass. Sadly, you may have to "dumb down" Linux to some degree. Make the fun stuff accessible but don't require it. Believe me, you're not going to get the mass market, which has trouble programming VCRs, to buy Linux. You can (most likely will) conquer the server market entirely. But which program is your Mom most likely to use . . . emacs or Notepad?
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I can't think of a fundamental difference between VOIP traffic and any other IP traffic.
I get the feeling that back door would be useful for more than tapping VOIP.
Once you get in there, look for the workflow and project modules, under "Projects," then "Modules."
from The Pulpit (November last year):
;-), logical analysis?"
But what if they won't settle for money? This brings us to Mike Doyle, who runs tiny Eolas Technology Inc., which controls a patent that covers embedding plug-ins, applets, scriptlets, or ActiveX Controls into Web pages -- the use of any algorithm that implements dynamic, bi-directional communications between an app embedded in a Web page and external applications. That more or less defines how the World Wide Web is used today. As I have written before, Eolas is suing Microsoft for patent infringement, and has been generally wiping the floor with Redmond. Of course, so did the DoJ, and look how THAT turned out. The suit comes to trial in the spring and should be very interesting, not just because of the principles involved, but also because Mike Doyle and Eolas insist they are looking for more than just money.
"It would sure be nice for someone to actually consider all of this from our point of view, rather than MS's," wrote Doyle in a recent message to me. "It amazes me that everyone just assumes that MS will be able to merely write a check and make the whole thing go away. What if someone went through the following, purely theoretical, of course
"Is there any practical settlement amount that is worth more to Eolas than a victory at trial? Considering the facts in the case and the magnitude of the stakes here, a highly likely outcome is that it will actually go to trial, and, once it does, that a jury will award us both damages and an injunction. Injunction is the key word here. That is what patent rights provide: the power to exclude. What if we were to just say no? Or, what if some other big player were to acquire or merge with us? What if only one best-of-breed browser could run embedded plug-ins, applets, ActiveX controls, or anything like them, and it wasn't IE? How competitive would the other browsers be without those capabilities? How would that change the current dynamics in the Industry?"
"One possible scenario is that Eolas would have the power necessary to re-establish the browser-as-application-platform as a viable competitor to Windows. That would be an interesting outcome, wouldn't it? How much would that be worth? The Web-OS concept, where the browser is the interface to all interactive apps on the client side, was always a killer idea. It still is. It lost momentum not because it wasn't economically or technically feasible, but because MS made it unlikely for anybody but them to make money on the Web-client side. Therefore, nobody could justify the necessary investment to take a really-serious shot at it. It doesn't have to be that way, does it? Just think of how we could use this patent to re-invigorate and expand the competitive landscape in this recently-moribund industry. What if we could do what the DOJ couldn't, and in the process make Eolas and everybody else, possibly excluding MS, richer? Wouldn't Eolas stand to profit more in such a scenario than any kind of pre-trial settlement could provide? Wouldn't everybody else?"
"The last couple of years in IT seem to have convinced people that the current status quo will continue indefinitely. They seem to have forgotten what seemed so obvious as little as three years ago, that change is the only invariance. That axiom has always proven out in the past, and I'm certain it will continue to do so in the future."
So will Mike Doyle give in to the Microsoft checkbook or will he opt, instead, to change the world of IT as we know it, knocking Microsoft down to size along the way? And notice how he referred to mergers and investors and being acquired? What if an IBM or an AOL or some party behind door number three was to do exactly that?
As I said, it should be a VERY interesting trial.
I looked at the picture. But I also read the specifications. And as I said, it's possible I missed something.
But it is not the case that there has got to be a way to do it. Yes it has the ports, but software must be written to enable input as well as output . . . plug and play not withstanding, you still need drivers.
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see ethernet as one of the input sources. I have that 1400 legal MP3s ripped from my CDs--I'm not sure I want to go thru that again.
We may be in total agreement, but I needed to check this. I went to
http://opensource.org/licenses/mozilla1.1.php
and read the distribution requirements. This is what I think applies to applications written using open source code licensed under the mozilla 1.1 license (which TurboPower said they would use):
3.7. Larger Works.
You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Code with other code not governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larger Work as a single product. In such a case, You must make sure the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Code.
The open source stuff would be the Covered Code, and teh application created with it would be the Larger Work. So you'd have to give them the source for the components., but not for the rest of the app. Which is immoral, but hey, we're talking law here so . . .
I must have gotten lucky. I guarantee you I bought Delphi Studio Professional, from Programmers' Paradise, pre-release. I have a Kylix Professional disk from which I installed both the Pascal and C++ IDEs under Red Hat 8. Maybe I got a bonus for pre-ordering.
My understanding is, if you modify the source to the library, you have to release the modification. But if you use the source in a commercial app, you do not have to release the code you've written that uses the library.
The C++ IDE is also included with Delphi Studio 7 Professional. I have them both installed.
Sorry. When I think content, I think plot, original story line, such as that, interesting characters, etc. None of that is programmed into the Sims.
I only think like a programmer when I program. When I play games, I think like a consumer.
Maybe not. The Sims is stupidly popular, and it has like NO content that I can see.
In fact, if done from a first person perspective, Sim Nation could become the killer app for 3-D goggles. Snowcrash, anyone?
I got mod point today, but I looked in the list and there's no "That's a damn good question" selection I can give you, so I'm setting it to "interesting".
It's been said that every organization, no matter what its original purpose, eventually ceases to pursue that purpose and becomes a vehicle to power. Our entertainment companies have long since reached that point and our liberties are falling victim to it because the organizations assigned to protect those liberties have also reached that point.
Copy protection schemes are always cracked. But they're always re-invented . . . and corporations always buy them in a vain attempt to stop piracy. Not that piracy actually hurt anyone, but I digress . . .
Anyway, it suddenly occurred to me that the target of this stuff may well be other corporations. As long as they make money selling it to other corporations, why should they care if hackers can break it? They'll just come up with another "unbreakable" scheme and sell it to the same paranoids that bought the last one.
I entered:
delphi "cd ripper"
in Google and got 6 hits. Teoma gave me 55, and I feel like they were more useful. I like Google a lot, but I'm adding Teoma to my very short list of useful search engines.
I don't know about take off, but if they include it free with Visual Studio which I believe they plan to do, I'd be tempted to give it a try to build some simple dev tools I've wanted.
Not free per se, but part of the bundle and intended to replace their, um, "Java" implementation.
. . . and that includes developers. Most developers have knowledge specific to their problem domain, and that domain usually does NOT include making the OS work. That's why it took something like Visual Basic (. . . gag) to produce enough Windows apps to make 3.1 hit critical mass. Sadly, you may have to "dumb down" Linux to some degree. Make the fun stuff accessible but don't require it. Believe me, you're not going to get the mass market, which has trouble programming VCRs, to buy Linux. You can (most likely will) conquer the server market entirely. But which program is your Mom most likely to use . . . emacs or Notepad?