What is wrong with doing research on a contract basis rather than with patent licenses to repay the investment?
Additionally, software patents are *always* bad because writing software is something that anyone can participate in. (zero cost of entry) Furthermore anything resembling an algorithm is only a piece of mathematical knowledge and should not be patentable.
You suggest that a patent-free society would hurt startups. I would argue that startups can still copyright a specific implementation, market their products better, conduct business more efficiently than their big competitors, etc. If their competitors play dirty games, then you have a case for anti-trust.
I think the problem IS with patents because the love of money WILL override moral judgment. You can't change human nature. Maybe we should have patents, but if it was up to me, about 90% of them would be thrown out as trivial.
If it's patented, then you can't reproduce it without paying whatever royalties the patent owner wants, period.
..which also means that software which falls under the patent MUST be commercial unless the patent is licensed freely to all. Otherwise, the developers cannot pay the licensing fees to the patent holder. This is the old system that we're trying to get away from! Do you really want to PAY for the ability to playback DVD's in the free OS of your choosing, when people have already written free software to do so in their spare time?
As much as I feel that things that are obvious should not be patented, Even I agree that something so difficult to do should be afforded patent protection.
This 'middle ground' approach doesn't work for several reasons: 1.) No idea stands on its own; it is the culmination of previous knowledge. 2.) What is hard for you might be very easy for someone else. 3.) Anyone with similar previous knowledge to the patent holder would likely come up with a nearly identical solution if given the same problem independently. So it's a matter of who got asked to find a solution first. Innovation is a process, not a product.
I'm not an expert on AC3, but ac3dec is a rather small piece of code. What does AC3 do? If I'm no mistaken, it is merely method of taking several compressed audio streams and multiplexing them together with a SMPTE timing signal so that the decoder can piece them back together in synch with say.. a seperate video signal. The AC3 signal would of course also send a packet of data to let the decoder know how many channels, what bitrate, etc. None of the technologies going into AC3 are new, so the patent is merely on the combination of these technologies in one place. The funny thing is, I've never read the AC3 docs, but for all I know, I just "re-invented" AC3 in this post, minus the implementation. Catch my drift?
By all means, I am NOT against research and development firms like Dolby. However, IMO an ethical way to fund research without patents might go as follows:
Manufacturers (1 or many): "We see a market for a product that does -this-, but don't have the needed R&D."
R&D Firm: "OK, we'll research this for you guys for a one time fee of $this much money. In comparison, our competitor, SomeOther R&D will do the same research for a cheaper initial price, but demand patent royalties for every product sold."
Manufacturers: "We can't afford $this much money right now"
R&D Firm: "Then we will negotiate with your competitors and split the research cost equally among you, since you all want the same thing. Or you can form an industry consortium to handle this (ala MPEG)."
Manufacturers: "Ok, that works for us, we make all our money off selling final products anyways."
This way, manufacturers get what they need and stick to what they're good at (economies of scale), the R&D people get paid big $$$, open standards are formed naturally (why pay to repeat similar research?), and free software/hardware hackers can do whatever they please. What about free-riders? That is irrelevant--they must still own a means of production to do business. If they can produce the final product cheaper or better than the original guys, good for them. This approach even works for software. (although many would argue correctly that software research, in the few cases when actually necessary, is no different from mathematical research and should not be patentable) Indeed, both closed and open business models can benefit from contracted software research if it is truly needed.
Give Capitalism a chance. It really does work if you let it.
Samba isn't developed in the US, so all they have to do is release a version with and without the supposed patented password changing algorithm. (or just have a patch.) That won't stop admins in the US from downloading the full version while they transition entirely to free software. And how would MS be able to control that?
Getting bored with the latest distribution? Uhh.. No. But the latest Debian Testing is absolutely excellent I might add.
Or getting tired of searching for drivers for your 8 bit soundblaster (in)compatible? Umm.. They exist, but why would I use an 8-bit SoundBlaster?
You'd think Linux and FreeBSD sucked or something. Why should one have any interest whatsoever in a proprietary operating system running on overpriced hardware? Sorry, but proprietary is going the way of the dinosaur. Survival of the fittest. Adapt or die.
If Open Source developers start getting bogus software patents in the name of anti-commercialism, it's just going to start a big pissing contest as proprietary software companies will follow suit and try to grab up as many software patents as they can now before the next guy gets them. What we need is to put an end to patents altogether. They had their time, but are now only a roadblock to innovation in the modern age of computers, biotechnology, and instant dissemination of ideas. The world is a small place, while ideas are in infinite supply. Why are we still fighting?
Open Source has leadership, just not centralized corporate style leadership. That's part of the beauty of it--intelligent people working together without management because that would only slow them down. Leadership exists only where intelligence and creativity abound. It is the antithesis of Dilbert. The fact is, unlike the rest of the tech industry right now, Open Source is thriving, not floundering.
Go therefore, Write code, Have fun, Show your love, Change the world.
This kind of fear and hype is almost as bad as all the Y2K nonsense. C'mon people, think! Microsoft doesn't own the Internet. They don't even have close to a majority of servers running their insecure software. If they had, CodeRed would have actually had an impact. If M$ ever tries to push some proprietary replacement for TCP/IP, it'll fall on its face faster than the Intel chip ID. Who in the right mind would limit their marketshare by using a non-standard technology. Imagine if a commerce site like Amazon started using this proposed "TCP/MS." All of a sudden, millions of viewers try the site and think it's down so they shop on elsewhere. And I don't just mean Linux/BSD users. I don't think much consideration has been made to just how many home users are still running Windows95 on an old Pentium.
The whole "Linux will never succeed" pessimism thing is also getting obnoxious. Don't believe the FUD. We're probably only a year away from a complete software solution for almost every user. I'm talking about an OOB experience far far superior to anything the commercial software world has ever produced. Furthermore, anyone who thinks Linux still carries a strong elitism attitude has had their head stuck in the sand for the last 2 years. If that describes you, find a local Linux Users Group and see just how many people are switching to Linux and absolutely loving it.
So, not only will there be a Linux version, but nearly everyone who buys the game will have it.
Only until a new version of glibc breaks it. Closed source is lame and unacceptable. There's no getting around it. If you fight it, it will only turn around and bite you in the arse. How many Linux people will buy a boxed copy of this when there is a free version. How many windows people will buy this being that it is a simple game from an unfamiliar company? What is there to gain by closing it? I don't think it would sell any less in the stores if it was GPL anyways considering the audience who will be looking at it.
As a side note, I am currently in the process of developing a GPL'ed-forever Linux game that will surpass most everything before it. I have recruited 5 other programmers and 2 graphics artists. All of them are willing to contribute in their free time because they like my idea. Who needs commercialism. Sounds vaporous? Yes. There will be details posted on Freshmeat once I get a nice looking page up with concept graphics and specs.
If they want to support both NVidia's GeForce3 and the upcoming ATI board (which will probably be called the Radeon 2), they'll have to write more code.
Or they could just write Open Source code. Then it would be eternally compatible with everything given enough developer interest.
As a sidenote, can anyone comment on where OpenGL stands in relation to this "PixelShader(tm)" thing in DirectX?
I think most of us agree that the patent system needs to be either scuttled or at least massively reformed. However, until that time, I do have an idea on how to fight these 'patent trolls' by using prior art to protect good ideas (even if obvious). IANAL, but maybe someone can suggest if this would be legally tenable..
Set up a web site in/. style where people can post neat ideas they've had. Others can then comment on them, improve upon them, etc. The original poster can then write a slightly more formal description of the idea, taking into account the comments. (but not written in confusing patent legalese.. just plain understandable english) Then if someone tries to get a stupid patent, the site can be used as example of prior art. As a side benefit, it would be a fun place for geeks to share innovative ideas and perhaps even for businesses to get ideas on how to improve their products. Sorta like Open Source, but for ideas. (not that it should be necessary..)
So now all we have to do is create an easy way to put someone's voice characteristics into perhaps an XML format and convert their face into a 3D model. For those of you who missed out, Matrox's new line of video cards has a special 3D function to aid in video conferencing by sending only movement data over the wire and then rendering a somewhat lifelike 3D head on the other ends to represent each party.
But in reality, I don't think the technology is anywhere near what would be required for a perfectly believable video conf. session. I wasn't all that impressed by the TTS demos. They sounded like Festival run through a couple filters and perhaps will a little better inflection. To do realistic synthesized voice, you need to be able to input a large amount of expression data. (sorta like MIDI synths) Telephony would require a speech recognition program able to not only perfectly recognize all spoken words, but also catch every nuance of expression.
As a side note to Festival users, try using a high quality voice module and set the pitch range higher than default.
From the article: Compulsory licenses help to avoid abuse of that monopoly ? preventing, for example, a recording company from seeking to reduce competition (and competitive pricing) in the sale of its works by restricting the number of venues where its music is sold online.
If this statement is true, then using DMCA to restrict online sales to those protected by proprietary encryption should not be allowed because this would essentially require all purchases to made through the publisher directly, hence eliminating competition. This is especially true when you consider that proprietary encryption is not supported on all operating systems a potential consumer may use. For example, you cannot view e-books on Linux or BSD or MacOS X because Adobe only offers a Windows and Mac 9.x client.
However, this is only a partial solution, if at all. Copyright and patent lengths are way too long for a modern information-based economy where so much information is produced, yet very little serves the public interest. It's time to restore balance to the owner / consumer scale.
Copyright is invented, a controversial law from the beginning.
Publishers rise to control physical distribution, pay authors--though not always fairly. There is no alternative.. people need books / records, authors need some cash. This system works relatively well for awhile. Consumers bootleg copyrighted materials by exchanging physical media. Losses are minimal and individuals aren't worth prosecuting.
Copyright law changes at the whim of publishers, effectively eliminating the creation of public domain works by extending the length of copyright indefinitely. Artists and authors increasingly produce "works for hire," which are then owned by the publisher they work for.
Popularization of the Internet and new data compression algorithms render traditional means of disseminating information nearly obsolete overnight. Some artists and authors realize that they don't need publishers anymore. Publishers ignore the Internet, seeing little threat.
Consumers realize that they can obtain copyrighted works on the Internet instead of paying for getting them on traditional media. Publishers for the most part look the other way.
DMCA quietly slips through Congress, in the guise of protecting US businesses and complying with international copyright treaties.
Napster shows the world the power of P2P information exchange with each user contributing a small part of the whole. Publishers get worried, can't sue every user, fumble for recourse. Napster falls and DMCA is challenged in numerous cases, but wins out in the end because money is power and those behind DMCA have lots of it. Consumers watch the Napster case curiously, stop using it after it's clear the end is near.
Publishers finally realize that the future of distribution is online and design crude digital copy control technologies which are protected under the DMCA. Each successful attempt to defeat these measures is crushed legally but is given little attention by the media.
Consumers aren't as comfortable with the new intangible online media and would prefer to keep buying books and CD's. Sales stagnate. Consumers don't realize the implications of future technologies that they have not yet experienced and remain quiet.
Prediction
Publishers attempt to phase in online media sales. Some consumers bite, but are quickly frustrated by the inability to read an e-book or listen to music on multiple computers they own. HDTV arrives with its own copy protections. VCR's recording functions stop working. Copy protected audio disks don't work in consumers older players or in car players. Works are distributed in both old and new formats while consumers are encouraged to buy new (and better) hardware that supports the new formats. [This process would likely take at least 10-20 years given the installed base of CD players, saturation of the home computer market, and lack of inexpensive, eye-friendly electronic books]
Just when the publishers think they have won the war over content, a movement similar to Open Source is established that sweeps the world and begins a modern cultural renaissance. Publishers disappear. The public domain expands rapidly. Artists and authors are fairly reimbursed by using alternative business models and handling distribution themselves. (eg. give away music, sell concert tickets) The world is a better place.
Wishful thinking? People said the same thing about Open Source 5 years ago and IT hasn't even fully taken off yet.
It's nice to know that at least one publisher in this world 'gets it' even as others resort to lame copy protection. *cough*ebooks*cough* If I'm going to buy technical books, they'll be O'reilly without question. Not only are they of excellent quality and a reasonable price, but O'reilly understands fair use and actually gives back to the community as seen here. If only other publishers of all types would follow in their footsteps and realize they don't need DMCA to make money..
I think the goal of supporting the community while still making a profit is very respectable and hope other OSS companies follow as appropriate. However, I do have a couple concerns for the longevity of the current model theKompany uses.
1.) Developing applications which will remain closed-source forever, even with free updates after the initial purchase, still creates a situation of lock-in due to the nature of binary code. For example, if a customer buys a program which 4 years down the road is 'discontinued,' what will happen when a new glibc comes out or the customer decides that one of the BSD's better suits their needs? It's not practical for the software company to keep up with fixing old software for new compatibility, so a support/profitability conflict arises. Instead, why not let the cutting edge release be closed for a time but open all older versions under full GPL, perhaps even setting up a seperate non-profit group to coordinate it or finding a maintainer among the community. Once a product has been developed to its full potential, turn it loose and find a new market. I would be much more inclined to buy a piece of software if I had promise that it would be opened say 1 year after the purchase. That way I would be directly funding the development of quality Open Source while also meeting my immediate needs at a much reduced cost compared with competing products.
2.) Despite its popularity among hackers and academics, the Open Source movement has not yet reached critical mass in terms of everyday desktop applications which will draw further developers. Once this happens, I expect to see many businesses and even savvy home users realize the enormous savings in community software development and ditch commercial software entirely. I believe this economic breaking point will be when existing GPL software is close enough to meeting needs that it is cheaper for businesses to invest a small amount on adding the remaining needed features than to license a completely seperate commercial package. It may take awhile for the large companies to grow wise to this, but small, intelligent companies much like theKompany will be quick to jump on these new opportunities. This is another reason I believe that if Open Source software companies are to exist in the future (that is if they are needed), they must use a model of "plant a product for a price but give it up once the roots have grown." Then once the big dumb companies finally realize what's going on, there will finally be a market for Open Source support services.
Either way, I wish theKompany the best of luck with for the future and I'll certainly be checking out KDE Studio Gold if KDevelop doesn't meet my needs.
Yes, that's right, your local library. You know.. That physical structure made of brick and mortar that you actually have to leave your computer to get to. Chances are they have a lot of quality music on CD that you can borrow for free. Find yourself some classical, blues, jazz, ethnic, or whatever else looks interesting. Open your mind to more refined musical styles that you'll rarely find on the lame file sharing services. Once you gain a taste for good music, you'll never go back to crappy corporate pop musak marketed with excessive skin and a dozen layers of digital filters.
Then spread the word. And perhaps learn to play an instrument. Now that will be a music revolution.
Truly incredible high-end audio doesn't have to cost a fortune. The article is right when it says high-end audio isn't sold at Circuit City. That's an understatement. But the key for those on a budget is.. Do It Yourself!
I'm a hard-core audiophile, but I'm by no means ready to shell out mega-bucks on a sound system. When it comes to audio, think like an engineer. There are two ways to solve this "problem" of creating a great sound system: throw money at it until you (think) you're satisfied, or think first (do the math) and then spend wisely. As an engineer, look for elegant solutions. Remember that people who spend exorbitant amounts on their systems are only wasting it on "snake oil" or a really nice finishing job! It's the old law of diminishing returns at work..
The best thing about DIY audio is that you learn a lot about electronics, acoustics, physics, and even woodworking in the process. For starters, I recommend the book "The Complete Guide to High End Audio." Read it cover to cover, then do some serious searching for DIY audio resources online. The wealth of info is rather overwealming at first, but stick with it and learn the tech-speak and background theory. Once you know what you doing (groan), begin a project to replace one of your current audio components--speakers are kinda obvious as a newbie project. If all this stuff interests you, run with it. It's almost as much fun as building a Beowulf cluster out of old 486's pulled out of a dumpster! (-:
For those interested, here's my current rig.. I might add that it sounds better than ANY system I've ever listened to (and that includes crazy $50-100k systems at ultra-high-end stores.)
Discontinued Carver THX power amp, 5 chan. ($500 ebay)
Custom built Linkwitz-Riley active crossover so I can bi-amp the mains ($0, spare parts from broken crap)
Custom built main speakers using Vifa drivers, MTM vented enclosure, MDF + plywood ($300, parts and wood)
Denon AVR-2000 AC-3 decoder / surround pre-amp for DVD movies and receiving digital Toslink from my sound card ($200, used)
Sonotube + MDF (tubular) subwoofer using Shiva driver that produces 115db at 20Hz. and -3db at 17Hz. ($200, parts)
Paradigm Titans as surround speakers ($175, store)
Cable and interconnects made from Plenum CAT5 (yes, that's right, network cable!) and special-ordered Teflon coated Silver-plated copper wire ($150, parts and wire)
Sand-weighted speaker stands using leftover MDF from speaker cabinets, spikes added ($25, spun-metal spikes)
AC Line conditioner ($50, mostly spare parts)
Ok, so that's a fair amount ($1600), but that's a far cry from what some people spend, and I'll have this system the rest of my life. (Not to mention the fact that now I am a much more diversified engineer) Ultra high-end audio is well within the reach of your average geek.
The cost of running a couple lousy servers?! I'd gladly see a few thousandths of a cent of my tax dollars go to that. And I can think of a lot WORSE ways to spend our tax dollars. C'mon now, this is the digital age. We should expect such free information resources from our govt.
Of course GPL is bad for business. (that is if you define 'bad for business' as 'the software industry making less money') I don't think many would argue that. As nature abhors a vacuum, OpenSource software abhors corporate culture and commercialism. So what. We don't need them anyhow. The point is good software, free software--not emulating our commercial predecessors. Given enough time, all of the software most people need will be available under some OSI approved license and the software industry will no longer have its precious virtual market of information goods. Sure, there will always be programmers to tailor to specific needs and write in-house code (which is already 75% of the job market IIRC), but the big software house is a dying breed.
Hint for Calera/RedHat/etc. managers: think services, not products or licensing
It's very simple. Don't give them a market. The rich get richer by looking for new ways to make money. Sometimes that means twisting and redefining the legal system in their favor or to squelch "competitors." If you are a "professional" musician, don't deal with labels or publishers. Make a self-sufficient business around your art. If you are an "amateur" musician (and don't suck!:-), then try your hand at composing. Play locally, distribute globally.
Culture yields freedom. Freedom yields culture.
It doesn't matter where their headquarters are based. The corporate world loves their copyrights and that's all there is to it. They're not going to give in. Ever! Because frankly, there is without doubt less money *for them* if they adopt different models of production and distribution. (ie. Open Source, street performer protocol, etc.). It's simply how the capitalist system works when applied to non-physical goods. You can all yell and whine and complain all you want, but it's not going to change a darn thing. You can write all the encryption cracking software you can dream up and distribute masses of copyrighted material on Freenet, but it's not going to change a darn thing. And no perfectly worded, highly moderated/. post proclaiming a utopian world where big business, geeks, and IP all get along is going to change a darn thing either.
If you want to change the culture of information, you have but ONE option. Produce that culture yourself and set it free. Write music. Write code. Write literature. Find your art and express it to the world. Remove the market from the equation legitimately and you'll have what you want.
Well, that's the last time I ever use Yahoo. No matter.. Google is far superior anyways. What a dumb decision on their part, though. Nothing like totally shattering a company's public image just to make a few bucks.. I wonder how many users in the 'moral minority' they just lost today?
When will MS learn? They have already lost the battle AND the war. Not because of the situation today, but because time is on our side. Open Source will never go away. It is not a competitor that CAN be defeated. I think MS and the rest of "corporate America" have failed to grasp this. Commercial software producters are bound to the rules of their own game. Ultimately: They *must* make money. The Open Source community plays by no rules, and herein lies our infinite advantage.
It doesn't matter if RedHat or other Linux ventures fail. It doesn't matter if free software programmers make less money than others--or even resort to just coding for the love of their art. Granted, I hope this never happens, but it's a matter of principle. Code set free will never die.
Sure, Linux/*BSD aren't ready for the average tech illiterate desktop junkie, but it is only a matter of time. It doesn't matter if it takes us 2 more years to produce an office suite with the same capabilities as MS Office. When we do, MS will lose a *major* portion of its income because nobody in their right mind would pay for something they can legally get for free. Sure, they can try their best to delay the inevitable by keeping ahead in features for the time being. But they have no chance whatsoever competing with an Open Source project that has reached "critical mass." Just look at Apache vs. IIS. The only market left is in the ignorant.
I know even some Open Source advocates will disagree on this point, but it is very conceivable that all of the world's software needs will in time be met by Open Source software. The power of never having to re-invent the wheel is awesome. The lack of it is what keeps proprietary software companies in business today. In a world where all software is Free, there is no room for commercial entities who specialize only in software. That's not to say that programmers will be without jobs--they just won't work for *software* companies.
And MS thinks we don't have anything revolutionary..
If I recall correctly, part of the purpose of Bluetooth is that you can use your PDA to access the Internet or local services using a public 802.11-style router transceiver *OR* you can link up to other people in peer to peer fashion. This way, you can walk into a restaurant, connect to their local uplink, and order your food / pay your bill via your Bluetooth enabled PDA. Or you can easily swap files / contact info / etc. with your buddies. OR do both at the same time. 802.11 is nothing more than an Ethernet replacement. So I think MS is making a huge mistake and we can all rejoice. This could make Linux even more suited for portable devices.
These tablet PC's appear to have excellent market potential if done properly. I've been waiting for something like this for years to replace ALL my remaining uses for paper. But the problem is.. MS is going to be writing the OS and functionality software and therefore GNU/BSD people are going to be missing out. I say we start now and have equivalent GNU/BSD software ready for when the tablet PC's ship. In fact, how about BETTER software.. that runs faster and does more than WinXP.
And think of the cool things we could do with such devices.. like design a cryptographically secure p2p networking system so you could say.. play games or files/music/etc. with your buddies during class or lunchbreak. Or how about speech recognition / synthesis? Or a head-mounted display?
Here's another idea: "e-book" software that is truly well designed and uses no proprietary formats or copy control mechanisms. Imagine if while writing a report, you could just highlight a selection and it would automatically be quoted and properly referenced. Imagine where we could go with electronic books in general if there were no copy controls. (You know the MS version will have them) Universities and students could easily write and openly "publish" many of their textbooks. Development of materials could be shared and the "many eyes" approach would ensure far greater accuracy than having one or two authors and a handful of people submitting corrections. There are a lot of potentials here, but the point is, we need FREE SOFTWARE to turn this technology into something truly wonderful.
Slashdot Mirror
What is wrong with doing research on a contract basis rather than with patent licenses to repay the investment?
Additionally, software patents are *always* bad because writing software is something that anyone can participate in. (zero cost of entry) Furthermore anything resembling an algorithm is only a piece of mathematical knowledge and should not be patentable.
You suggest that a patent-free society would hurt startups. I would argue that startups can still copyright a specific implementation, market their products better, conduct business more efficiently than their big competitors, etc. If their competitors play dirty games, then you have a case for anti-trust.
I think the problem IS with patents because the love of money WILL override moral judgment. You can't change human nature. Maybe we should have patents, but if it was up to me, about 90% of them would be thrown out as trivial.
If it's patented, then you can't reproduce it without paying whatever royalties the patent owner wants, period.
..which also means that software which falls under the patent MUST be commercial unless the patent is licensed freely to all. Otherwise, the developers cannot pay the licensing fees to the patent holder. This is the old system that we're trying to get away from! Do you really want to PAY for the ability to playback DVD's in the free OS of your choosing, when people have already written free software to do so in their spare time?
As much as I feel that things that are obvious should not be patented, Even I agree that something so difficult to do should be afforded patent protection.
This 'middle ground' approach doesn't work for several reasons: 1.) No idea stands on its own; it is the culmination of previous knowledge. 2.) What is hard for you might be very easy for someone else. 3.) Anyone with similar previous knowledge to the patent holder would likely come up with a nearly identical solution if given the same problem independently. So it's a matter of who got asked to find a solution first. Innovation is a process, not a product.
I'm not an expert on AC3, but ac3dec is a rather small piece of code. What does AC3 do? If I'm no mistaken, it is merely method of taking several compressed audio streams and multiplexing them together with a SMPTE timing signal so that the decoder can piece them back together in synch with say.. a seperate video signal. The AC3 signal would of course also send a packet of data to let the decoder know how many channels, what bitrate, etc. None of the technologies going into AC3 are new, so the patent is merely on the combination of these technologies in one place. The funny thing is, I've never read the AC3 docs, but for all I know, I just "re-invented" AC3 in this post, minus the implementation. Catch my drift?
By all means, I am NOT against research and development firms like Dolby. However, IMO an ethical way to fund research without patents might go as follows:
Manufacturers (1 or many): "We see a market for a product that does -this-, but don't have the needed R&D."
R&D Firm: "OK, we'll research this for you guys for a one time fee of $this much money. In comparison, our competitor, SomeOther R&D will do the same research for a cheaper initial price, but demand patent royalties for every product sold."
Manufacturers: "We can't afford $this much money right now"
R&D Firm: "Then we will negotiate with your competitors and split the research cost equally among you, since you all want the same thing. Or you can form an industry consortium to handle this (ala MPEG)."
Manufacturers: "Ok, that works for us, we make all our money off selling final products anyways."
This way, manufacturers get what they need and stick to what they're good at (economies of scale), the R&D people get paid big $$$, open standards are formed naturally (why pay to repeat similar research?), and free software/hardware hackers can do whatever they please. What about free-riders? That is irrelevant--they must still own a means of production to do business. If they can produce the final product cheaper or better than the original guys, good for them. This approach even works for software. (although many would argue correctly that software research, in the few cases when actually necessary, is no different from mathematical research and should not be patentable) Indeed, both closed and open business models can benefit from contracted software research if it is truly needed.
Give Capitalism a chance. It really does work if you let it.
Samba isn't developed in the US, so all they have to do is release a version with and without the supposed patented password changing algorithm. (or just have a patch.) That won't stop admins in the US from downloading the full version while they transition entirely to free software. And how would MS be able to control that?
Getting bored with the latest distribution? Uhh.. No. But the latest Debian Testing is absolutely excellent I might add.
Or getting tired of searching for drivers for your 8 bit soundblaster (in)compatible? Umm.. They exist, but why would I use an 8-bit SoundBlaster?
You'd think Linux and FreeBSD sucked or something. Why should one have any interest whatsoever in a proprietary operating system running on overpriced hardware? Sorry, but proprietary is going the way of the dinosaur. Survival of the fittest. Adapt or die.
If Open Source developers start getting bogus software patents in the name of anti-commercialism, it's just going to start a big pissing contest as proprietary software companies will follow suit and try to grab up as many software patents as they can now before the next guy gets them. What we need is to put an end to patents altogether. They had their time, but are now only a roadblock to innovation in the modern age of computers, biotechnology, and instant dissemination of ideas. The world is a small place, while ideas are in infinite supply. Why are we still fighting?
Open Source has leadership, just not centralized corporate style leadership. That's part of the beauty of it--intelligent people working together without management because that would only slow them down. Leadership exists only where intelligence and creativity abound. It is the antithesis of Dilbert. The fact is, unlike the rest of the tech industry right now, Open Source is thriving, not floundering.
Go therefore, Write code, Have fun, Show your love, Change the world.
This kind of fear and hype is almost as bad as all the Y2K nonsense. C'mon people, think! Microsoft doesn't own the Internet. They don't even have close to a majority of servers running their insecure software. If they had, CodeRed would have actually had an impact. If M$ ever tries to push some proprietary replacement for TCP/IP, it'll fall on its face faster than the Intel chip ID. Who in the right mind would limit their marketshare by using a non-standard technology. Imagine if a commerce site like Amazon started using this proposed "TCP/MS." All of a sudden, millions of viewers try the site and think it's down so they shop on elsewhere. And I don't just mean Linux/BSD users. I don't think much consideration has been made to just how many home users are still running Windows95 on an old Pentium.
The whole "Linux will never succeed" pessimism thing is also getting obnoxious. Don't believe the FUD. We're probably only a year away from a complete software solution for almost every user. I'm talking about an OOB experience far far superior to anything the commercial software world has ever produced. Furthermore, anyone who thinks Linux still carries a strong elitism attitude has had their head stuck in the sand for the last 2 years. If that describes you, find a local Linux Users Group and see just how many people are switching to Linux and absolutely loving it.
So, not only will there be a Linux version, but nearly everyone who buys the game will have it.
Only until a new version of glibc breaks it. Closed source is lame and unacceptable. There's no getting around it. If you fight it, it will only turn around and bite you in the arse. How many Linux people will buy a boxed copy of this when there is a free version. How many windows people will buy this being that it is a simple game from an unfamiliar company? What is there to gain by closing it? I don't think it would sell any less in the stores if it was GPL anyways considering the audience who will be looking at it.
As a side note, I am currently in the process of developing a GPL'ed-forever Linux game that will surpass most everything before it. I have recruited 5 other programmers and 2 graphics artists. All of them are willing to contribute in their free time because they like my idea. Who needs commercialism. Sounds vaporous? Yes. There will be details posted on Freshmeat once I get a nice looking page up with concept graphics and specs.
If they want to support both NVidia's GeForce3 and the upcoming ATI board (which will probably be called the Radeon 2), they'll have to write more code.
Or they could just write Open Source code. Then it would be eternally compatible with everything given enough developer interest.
As a sidenote, can anyone comment on where OpenGL stands in relation to this "PixelShader(tm)" thing in DirectX?
I think most of us agree that the patent system needs to be either scuttled or at least massively reformed. However, until that time, I do have an idea on how to fight these 'patent trolls' by using prior art to protect good ideas (even if obvious). IANAL, but maybe someone can suggest if this would be legally tenable..
/. style where people can post neat ideas they've had. Others can then comment on them, improve upon them, etc. The original poster can then write a slightly more formal description of the idea, taking into account the comments. (but not written in confusing patent legalese.. just plain understandable english) Then if someone tries to get a stupid patent, the site can be used as example of prior art. As a side benefit, it would be a fun place for geeks to share innovative ideas and perhaps even for businesses to get ideas on how to improve their products. Sorta like Open Source, but for ideas. (not that it should be necessary..)
Set up a web site in
So now all we have to do is create an easy way to put someone's voice characteristics into perhaps an XML format and convert their face into a 3D model. For those of you who missed out, Matrox's new line of video cards has a special 3D function to aid in video conferencing by sending only movement data over the wire and then rendering a somewhat lifelike 3D head on the other ends to represent each party.
But in reality, I don't think the technology is anywhere near what would be required for a perfectly believable video conf. session. I wasn't all that impressed by the TTS demos. They sounded like Festival run through a couple filters and perhaps will a little better inflection. To do realistic synthesized voice, you need to be able to input a large amount of expression data. (sorta like MIDI synths) Telephony would require a speech recognition program able to not only perfectly recognize all spoken words, but also catch every nuance of expression.
As a side note to Festival users, try using a high quality voice module and set the pitch range higher than default.
From the article: Compulsory licenses help to avoid abuse of that monopoly ? preventing, for example, a recording company from seeking to reduce competition (and competitive pricing) in the sale of its works by restricting the number of venues where its music is sold online.
If this statement is true, then using DMCA to restrict online sales to those protected by proprietary encryption should not be allowed because this would essentially require all purchases to made through the publisher directly, hence eliminating competition. This is especially true when you consider that proprietary encryption is not supported on all operating systems a potential consumer may use. For example, you cannot view e-books on Linux or BSD or MacOS X because Adobe only offers a Windows and Mac 9.x client.
However, this is only a partial solution, if at all. Copyright and patent lengths are way too long for a modern information-based economy where so much information is produced, yet very little serves the public interest. It's time to restore balance to the owner / consumer scale.
Printing press and phonograph invented
Copyright is invented, a controversial law from the beginning.
Publishers rise to control physical distribution, pay authors--though not always fairly. There is no alternative.. people need books / records, authors need some cash. This system works relatively well for awhile. Consumers bootleg copyrighted materials by exchanging physical media. Losses are minimal and individuals aren't worth prosecuting.
Copyright law changes at the whim of publishers, effectively eliminating the creation of public domain works by extending the length of copyright indefinitely. Artists and authors increasingly produce "works for hire," which are then owned by the publisher they work for.
Popularization of the Internet and new data compression algorithms render traditional means of disseminating information nearly obsolete overnight. Some artists and authors realize that they don't need publishers anymore. Publishers ignore the Internet, seeing little threat.
Consumers realize that they can obtain copyrighted works on the Internet instead of paying for getting them on traditional media. Publishers for the most part look the other way.
DMCA quietly slips through Congress, in the guise of protecting US businesses and complying with international copyright treaties.
Napster shows the world the power of P2P information exchange with each user contributing a small part of the whole. Publishers get worried, can't sue every user, fumble for recourse. Napster falls and DMCA is challenged in numerous cases, but wins out in the end because money is power and those behind DMCA have lots of it. Consumers watch the Napster case curiously, stop using it after it's clear the end is near.
Publishers finally realize that the future of distribution is online and design crude digital copy control technologies which are protected under the DMCA. Each successful attempt to defeat these measures is crushed legally but is given little attention by the media.
Consumers aren't as comfortable with the new intangible online media and would prefer to keep buying books and CD's. Sales stagnate. Consumers don't realize the implications of future technologies that they have not yet experienced and remain quiet.
Prediction
Publishers attempt to phase in online media sales. Some consumers bite, but are quickly frustrated by the inability to read an e-book or listen to music on multiple computers they own. HDTV arrives with its own copy protections. VCR's recording functions stop working. Copy protected audio disks don't work in consumers older players or in car players. Works are distributed in both old and new formats while consumers are encouraged to buy new (and better) hardware that supports the new formats. [This process would likely take at least 10-20 years given the installed base of CD players, saturation of the home computer market, and lack of inexpensive, eye-friendly electronic books]
Just when the publishers think they have won the war over content, a movement similar to Open Source is established that sweeps the world and begins a modern cultural renaissance. Publishers disappear. The public domain expands rapidly. Artists and authors are fairly reimbursed by using alternative business models and handling distribution themselves. (eg. give away music, sell concert tickets) The world is a better place.
Wishful thinking? People said the same thing about Open Source 5 years ago and IT hasn't even fully taken off yet.
It's nice to know that at least one publisher in this world 'gets it' even as others resort to lame copy protection. *cough*ebooks*cough* If I'm going to buy technical books, they'll be O'reilly without question. Not only are they of excellent quality and a reasonable price, but O'reilly understands fair use and actually gives back to the community as seen here. If only other publishers of all types would follow in their footsteps and realize they don't need DMCA to make money..
1.) Developing applications which will remain closed-source forever, even with free updates after the initial purchase, still creates a situation of lock-in due to the nature of binary code. For example, if a customer buys a program which 4 years down the road is 'discontinued,' what will happen when a new glibc comes out or the customer decides that one of the BSD's better suits their needs? It's not practical for the software company to keep up with fixing old software for new compatibility, so a support/profitability conflict arises. Instead, why not let the cutting edge release be closed for a time but open all older versions under full GPL, perhaps even setting up a seperate non-profit group to coordinate it or finding a maintainer among the community. Once a product has been developed to its full potential, turn it loose and find a new market. I would be much more inclined to buy a piece of software if I had promise that it would be opened say 1 year after the purchase. That way I would be directly funding the development of quality Open Source while also meeting my immediate needs at a much reduced cost compared with competing products.
2.) Despite its popularity among hackers and academics, the Open Source movement has not yet reached critical mass in terms of everyday desktop applications which will draw further developers. Once this happens, I expect to see many businesses and even savvy home users realize the enormous savings in community software development and ditch commercial software entirely. I believe this economic breaking point will be when existing GPL software is close enough to meeting needs that it is cheaper for businesses to invest a small amount on adding the remaining needed features than to license a completely seperate commercial package. It may take awhile for the large companies to grow wise to this, but small, intelligent companies much like theKompany will be quick to jump on these new opportunities. This is another reason I believe that if Open Source software companies are to exist in the future (that is if they are needed), they must use a model of "plant a product for a price but give it up once the roots have grown." Then once the big dumb companies finally realize what's going on, there will finally be a market for Open Source support services.
Either way, I wish theKompany the best of luck with for the future and I'll certainly be checking out KDE Studio Gold if KDevelop doesn't meet my needs.
Local Libraries
Yes, that's right, your local library. You know.. That physical structure made of brick and mortar that you actually have to leave your computer to get to. Chances are they have a lot of quality music on CD that you can borrow for free. Find yourself some classical, blues, jazz, ethnic, or whatever else looks interesting. Open your mind to more refined musical styles that you'll rarely find on the lame file sharing services. Once you gain a taste for good music, you'll never go back to crappy corporate pop musak marketed with excessive skin and a dozen layers of digital filters.
Then spread the word. And perhaps learn to play an instrument. Now that will be a music revolution.
Truly incredible high-end audio doesn't have to cost a fortune. The article is right when it says high-end audio isn't sold at Circuit City. That's an understatement. But the key for those on a budget is.. Do It Yourself!
I'm a hard-core audiophile, but I'm by no means ready to shell out mega-bucks on a sound system. When it comes to audio, think like an engineer. There are two ways to solve this "problem" of creating a great sound system: throw money at it until you (think) you're satisfied, or think first (do the math) and then spend wisely. As an engineer, look for elegant solutions. Remember that people who spend exorbitant amounts on their systems are only wasting it on "snake oil" or a really nice finishing job! It's the old law of diminishing returns at work..
The best thing about DIY audio is that you learn a lot about electronics, acoustics, physics, and even woodworking in the process. For starters, I recommend the book "The Complete Guide to High End Audio." Read it cover to cover, then do some serious searching for DIY audio resources online. The wealth of info is rather overwealming at first, but stick with it and learn the tech-speak and background theory. Once you know what you doing (groan), begin a project to replace one of your current audio components--speakers are kinda obvious as a newbie project. If all this stuff interests you, run with it. It's almost as much fun as building a Beowulf cluster out of old 486's pulled out of a dumpster! (-:
For those interested, here's my current rig.. I might add that it sounds better than ANY system I've ever listened to (and that includes crazy $50-100k systems at ultra-high-end stores.)
Discontinued Carver THX power amp, 5 chan. ($500 ebay)
Custom built Linkwitz-Riley active crossover so I can bi-amp the mains ($0, spare parts from broken crap)
Custom built main speakers using Vifa drivers, MTM vented enclosure, MDF + plywood ($300, parts and wood)
Denon AVR-2000 AC-3 decoder / surround pre-amp for DVD movies and receiving digital Toslink from my sound card ($200, used)
Sonotube + MDF (tubular) subwoofer using Shiva driver that produces 115db at 20Hz. and -3db at 17Hz. ($200, parts)
Paradigm Titans as surround speakers ($175, store)
Cable and interconnects made from Plenum CAT5 (yes, that's right, network cable!) and special-ordered Teflon coated Silver-plated copper wire ($150, parts and wire)
Sand-weighted speaker stands using leftover MDF from speaker cabinets, spikes added ($25, spun-metal spikes)
AC Line conditioner ($50, mostly spare parts)
Ok, so that's a fair amount ($1600), but that's a far cry from what some people spend, and I'll have this system the rest of my life. (Not to mention the fact that now I am a much more diversified engineer) Ultra high-end audio is well within the reach of your average geek.
Good luck with your own!
The cost of running a couple lousy servers?! I'd gladly see a few thousandths of a cent of my tax dollars go to that. And I can think of a lot WORSE ways to spend our tax dollars. C'mon now, this is the digital age. We should expect such free information resources from our govt.
Of course GPL is bad for business. (that is if you define 'bad for business' as 'the software industry making less money') I don't think many would argue that. As nature abhors a vacuum, OpenSource software abhors corporate culture and commercialism. So what. We don't need them anyhow. The point is good software, free software--not emulating our commercial predecessors. Given enough time, all of the software most people need will be available under some OSI approved license and the software industry will no longer have its precious virtual market of information goods. Sure, there will always be programmers to tailor to specific needs and write in-house code (which is already 75% of the job market IIRC), but the big software house is a dying breed.
Hint for Calera/RedHat/etc. managers: think services, not products or licensing
It's very simple. Don't give them a market. The rich get richer by looking for new ways to make money. Sometimes that means twisting and redefining the legal system in their favor or to squelch "competitors." If you are a "professional" musician, don't deal with labels or publishers. Make a self-sufficient business around your art. If you are an "amateur" musician (and don't suck! :-), then try your hand at composing. Play locally, distribute globally.
Culture yields freedom. Freedom yields culture.
It doesn't matter where their headquarters are based. The corporate world loves their copyrights and that's all there is to it. They're not going to give in. Ever! Because frankly, there is without doubt less money *for them* if they adopt different models of production and distribution. (ie. Open Source, street performer protocol, etc.). It's simply how the capitalist system works when applied to non-physical goods. You can all yell and whine and complain all you want, but it's not going to change a darn thing. You can write all the encryption cracking software you can dream up and distribute masses of copyrighted material on Freenet, but it's not going to change a darn thing. And no perfectly worded, highly moderated /. post proclaiming a utopian world where big business, geeks, and IP all get along is going to change a darn thing either.
If you want to change the culture of information, you have but ONE option. Produce that culture yourself and set it free. Write music. Write code. Write literature. Find your art and express it to the world. Remove the market from the equation legitimately and you'll have what you want.
Resistance is futile. You must not comply.
Well, that's the last time I ever use Yahoo. No matter.. Google is far superior anyways. What a dumb decision on their part, though. Nothing like totally shattering a company's public image just to make a few bucks.. I wonder how many users in the 'moral minority' they just lost today?
When will MS learn? They have already lost the battle AND the war. Not because of the situation today, but because time is on our side. Open Source will never go away. It is not a competitor that CAN be defeated. I think MS and the rest of "corporate America" have failed to grasp this. Commercial software producters are bound to the rules of their own game. Ultimately: They *must* make money. The Open Source community plays by no rules, and herein lies our infinite advantage.
It doesn't matter if RedHat or other Linux ventures fail. It doesn't matter if free software programmers make less money than others--or even resort to just coding for the love of their art. Granted, I hope this never happens, but it's a matter of principle. Code set free will never die.
Sure, Linux/*BSD aren't ready for the average tech illiterate desktop junkie, but it is only a matter of time. It doesn't matter if it takes us 2 more years to produce an office suite with the same capabilities as MS Office. When we do, MS will lose a *major* portion of its income because nobody in their right mind would pay for something they can legally get for free. Sure, they can try their best to delay the inevitable by keeping ahead in features for the time being. But they have no chance whatsoever competing with an Open Source project that has reached "critical mass." Just look at Apache vs. IIS. The only market left is in the ignorant.
I know even some Open Source advocates will disagree on this point, but it is very conceivable that all of the world's software needs will in time be met by Open Source software. The power of never having to re-invent the wheel is awesome. The lack of it is what keeps proprietary software companies in business today. In a world where all software is Free, there is no room for commercial entities who specialize only in software. That's not to say that programmers will be without jobs--they just won't work for *software* companies.
And MS thinks we don't have anything revolutionary..
If I recall correctly, part of the purpose of Bluetooth is that you can use your PDA to access the Internet or local services using a public 802.11-style router transceiver *OR* you can link up to other people in peer to peer fashion. This way, you can walk into a restaurant, connect to their local uplink, and order your food / pay your bill via your Bluetooth enabled PDA. Or you can easily swap files / contact info / etc. with your buddies. OR do both at the same time. 802.11 is nothing more than an Ethernet replacement. So I think MS is making a huge mistake and we can all rejoice. This could make Linux even more suited for portable devices.
These tablet PC's appear to have excellent market potential if done properly. I've been waiting for something like this for years to replace ALL my remaining uses for paper. But the problem is.. MS is going to be writing the OS and functionality software and therefore GNU/BSD people are going to be missing out. I say we start now and have equivalent GNU/BSD software ready for when the tablet PC's ship. In fact, how about BETTER software.. that runs faster and does more than WinXP.
And think of the cool things we could do with such devices.. like design a cryptographically secure p2p networking system so you could say.. play games or files/music/etc. with your buddies during class or lunchbreak. Or how about speech recognition / synthesis? Or a head-mounted display? Here's another idea: "e-book" software that is truly well designed and uses no proprietary formats or copy control mechanisms. Imagine if while writing a report, you could just highlight a selection and it would automatically be quoted and properly referenced. Imagine where we could go with electronic books in general if there were no copy controls. (You know the MS version will have them) Universities and students could easily write and openly "publish" many of their textbooks. Development of materials could be shared and the "many eyes" approach would ensure far greater accuracy than having one or two authors and a handful of people submitting corrections. There are a lot of potentials here, but the point is, we need FREE SOFTWARE to turn this technology into something truly wonderful.