What say does Microsoft have over studios releasing Linux clients for their games? One of MS' biggest Xbox 360 partners, Epic, has been releasing Linux binaries for years.
I don't. I make a hell of a lot less than 100k, and my idea of buying a nice car was a new Mustang (not even a GT, at that). Anything top-end is way out of my league, and I don't think 100k would put me into it, even if I kept living in my crappy apartment.
So they point out that their license is different from an open source license, rather than try to pretend that it's the same thing, and you criticize them? Call me crazy, but aren't they clarifying the very thing that Shared Source has taken flak around here for?
MS could cure cancer and people would still bitch.
That certainly looks like a corporate check on their site. I wouldn't be surprised if, as part of PA's getting religion about business, they incorporated.
I'm pretty sure a lot of us are profiting from this deceitful fraud. How much did the computer you're typing this on cost? Yes, we have an absurdly out-of-balance distribution of wealth in this country. But then again, we have an absurd amount of wealth compared to the poorest parts of the world.
Also, is there any evidence for the assertion that Gates has asked for revisions to the exhibit?
Simple answer: only allow patents for MODIFIED genes that actually do something. Furthermore, make it so only an exact duplication of a patented gene sequence is valid. That way, people will restrict their patents to the valid section, and someone who finds another way to achieve the same goal can patent that as well.
No, this isn't perfect, as genes are likely far more finicky than my idea takes into account. However, it's better than what we've got.
You're right. I'm a Windows user, and I'd dual-boot a high-performance gaming distro of Linux. I'd need regularly updated, high-performance, full-featured drivers for the most common gaming hardware, and support from more than half the games I buy in a year to make it worth my while, however.
That's a good thing. When you're trying to support someone else, knowing what their environment is going to look and act like gives you basic information you don't have to get out of them.
Yes, but would it really deliver a 20% increase in performance? Sure, you can disable a lot of stuff to free up resources, but you can do that on Windows too, and Vista will do that automatically when starting a game.
No offense, but if someone's attention is costing a business millions of dollars a year, it seems like a good idea to hire someone to handle the more mundane stuff so they don't have to take their mind off of what they're working on.
What's a half-hour of a CEO's time worth? If it's more than the cost of a driver's, then someone else had better be behind the wheel.
I would hope, when determining what constitutes a reasonable effort to utilize the patent, that small inventors and MS/IBM/Oracle would be held to different standards based on their resources.
Then again, we can't seem to rely on the patent office to make proper judgments about technology patents as it is.
Interesting idea: what about a limitation on patents that you have to either work to put it into production, resell, or license it inside of a given time frame, or else lose the patent to the public domain? That would retain the purpose of patents (spurring innovation) while preventing the laying of IP minefields.
A further possibility would be to make this a sliding window - not only do you have to put it into production, you have to keep it there. This is a lot like the current situation for trademarks (which is commonly misconceived to apply to patents and copyrights anyway) - use it or lose it.
I'm not saying it's a solution; just wondering about the pros and cons of such a move (if it doesn't exist already; I'm not a patent lawyer).
Since when are stored procedures, triggers, and views (freaking VIEWS) enterprise features? Log shipping or automatic failover are enterprise features. Procs and views are basics.
If you raise the price, you drive your legitimate customers towards your competitors. Eventually, you get to the point where you have to sell a single copy of your software to one competitor. At that point, they might as well have just paid you directly to write it.
My point was a little lower-level than that. The analogy wasn't the situation, but rather the reaction - it's easy to stand against someone else's principles, but what about your own?
So how would everyone react if a 14-year-old decided to willfully violate the GPL, start their own business based on your code, and then admit to it all?
Slashdot Mirror
What would it matter if it was a smaller studio? What's MS really going to do to them?
What say does Microsoft have over studios releasing Linux clients for their games? One of MS' biggest Xbox 360 partners, Epic, has been releasing Linux binaries for years.
I don't. I make a hell of a lot less than 100k, and my idea of buying a nice car was a new Mustang (not even a GT, at that). Anything top-end is way out of my league, and I don't think 100k would put me into it, even if I kept living in my crappy apartment.
So they point out that their license is different from an open source license, rather than try to pretend that it's the same thing, and you criticize them? Call me crazy, but aren't they clarifying the very thing that Shared Source has taken flak around here for?
MS could cure cancer and people would still bitch.
They're actually donating it to the ESA's charitable foundation. So yes, it's going to go where it can do some good.
"I'd like to see how many lawyers it will take to get Jack off."
Whoa, man, bad mental picture. I'm going to go pour bleach in my eyes now.
That certainly looks like a corporate check on their site. I wouldn't be surprised if, as part of PA's getting religion about business, they incorporated.
I'm pretty sure a lot of us are profiting from this deceitful fraud. How much did the computer you're typing this on cost? Yes, we have an absurdly out-of-balance distribution of wealth in this country. But then again, we have an absurd amount of wealth compared to the poorest parts of the world.
Also, is there any evidence for the assertion that Gates has asked for revisions to the exhibit?
Simple answer: only allow patents for MODIFIED genes that actually do something. Furthermore, make it so only an exact duplication of a patented gene sequence is valid. That way, people will restrict their patents to the valid section, and someone who finds another way to achieve the same goal can patent that as well.
No, this isn't perfect, as genes are likely far more finicky than my idea takes into account. However, it's better than what we've got.
You're right. I'm a Windows user, and I'd dual-boot a high-performance gaming distro of Linux. I'd need regularly updated, high-performance, full-featured drivers for the most common gaming hardware, and support from more than half the games I buy in a year to make it worth my while, however.
Perfect for geeks != perfect for everyone else.
"Every copy looks the same"
That's a good thing. When you're trying to support someone else, knowing what their environment is going to look and act like gives you basic information you don't have to get out of them.
Yes, but would it really deliver a 20% increase in performance? Sure, you can disable a lot of stuff to free up resources, but you can do that on Windows too, and Vista will do that automatically when starting a game.
"What does a company do when a gene is found that causes a 100% chance of the individual being sociopathic?"
Give them a reality TV show?
No offense, but if someone's attention is costing a business millions of dollars a year, it seems like a good idea to hire someone to handle the more mundane stuff so they don't have to take their mind off of what they're working on.
What's a half-hour of a CEO's time worth? If it's more than the cost of a driver's, then someone else had better be behind the wheel.
I would hope, when determining what constitutes a reasonable effort to utilize the patent, that small inventors and MS/IBM/Oracle would be held to different standards based on their resources.
Then again, we can't seem to rely on the patent office to make proper judgments about technology patents as it is.
Interesting idea: what about a limitation on patents that you have to either work to put it into production, resell, or license it inside of a given time frame, or else lose the patent to the public domain? That would retain the purpose of patents (spurring innovation) while preventing the laying of IP minefields.
A further possibility would be to make this a sliding window - not only do you have to put it into production, you have to keep it there. This is a lot like the current situation for trademarks (which is commonly misconceived to apply to patents and copyrights anyway) - use it or lose it.
I'm not saying it's a solution; just wondering about the pros and cons of such a move (if it doesn't exist already; I'm not a patent lawyer).
So are you going to actually refute his argument, or just smear the presenter?
The guy may be an industry shill, but that doesn't prove his argument wrong or yours right.
Since when are stored procedures, triggers, and views (freaking VIEWS) enterprise features? Log shipping or automatic failover are enterprise features. Procs and views are basics.
If you raise the price, you drive your legitimate customers towards your competitors. Eventually, you get to the point where you have to sell a single copy of your software to one competitor. At that point, they might as well have just paid you directly to write it.
My point was a little lower-level than that. The analogy wasn't the situation, but rather the reaction - it's easy to stand against someone else's principles, but what about your own?
Do you have a logical argument for why open systems will take marketshare from closed competitors? Or is this more rah-rah bullshit?
So how would everyone react if a 14-year-old decided to willfully violate the GPL, start their own business based on your code, and then admit to it all?
I can't tell whose sarcasmometer is broken - yours, or mine.
Don't think you're off the hook. We have the same shit in Indiana, and guess who's on the list?