Just because Google is one of the larger companies in the ad-revenue business does not make them a monopoly in any way. There is alot of competition - one of them being Microsoft itself.
"Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, provides, in Article 19, that:
'Everyone has the right to opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.'"
If only there were a single, well defined and completely open document format that could be used by anyone, with any office suite. That would be just great.
As much as there is the *potential* for problems let's be very frank about this and realize that Microsoft has not been the company doing the suing.
Actually thats not true. Cases Like VirtualDub and SCO - Microsoft suing by proxy - are examples that Microsoft can do a fair share of suing - when needed.
Since Microsoft has been crusing opponents in other ways they do not need to use the courts to stop them. But be well aware that even the hint from Microsoft that they will sue can force a company to rethink its strategy. Noone wants to be on the other side of a lawsuit brought upon them from Microsoft.
HP is brought into court for that they dont allow the consumers the option to buy the computer without an operating system and thus forcing the consumers to buy an operating system from Microsoft or not buy the computer at all.
No but it should be good consumerfriendly if computers are sold giving the consumer the option to select which OS they want to install and even give them the option to buy the OS from another seller.
If the software for Ipod was avaiable as a separate product then the option to buy and Ipod without the software should be available according to the law.
However since the software for most consumer products aint a separate product that are not an issue for them.
Microsoft licened Xenix från AT&T 1979. Microsoft used code from BSD to create Internet connectability. And they understood that software patents was shite:
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented
and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today." -- Bill Gates , Microsoft, 1991
Yes Microsoft had their moments. Sadly they did not really consider them for the long haul.
Of course it matters how its coded. There is more than one way to make iron from ore. In the same way its more than one way to make a program behave in a specific way.
So its of course possible to take out any patent infringments from the code if there exist any.
However since Ballmer just make these general statements its no proof that any such infringement even exists - just look at the SCO case where SCO came out with the same statements and now looks like they will cease to exist since thier case us worthless.
Now Ballmer tries to do a SCO - it can be the end of Microsoft.
Say that to Steve Jacksson Games who produced games and got raided for it:
"The 1993 case of Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service sprung from a raid by the U.S. Secret Service on the Austin headquarters of Steve Jackson Games in 1990. This raid is often attributed to Operation Sundevil, a nation-wide crackdown on 'illegal computer hacking activities', although SJ Games and the EFF claim otherwise."
It's an organization that can have human rights abusing governments having seats on the Human Rights Commission.
Why is that so strange ? FN also let nations who atombomb other countries and covertly overthrown freely elected goverments with dictaturships to sit in the Security Council.
FN is open to everyone who wants to be a memberstate.
Netscape Navigator wasn't being given away for free - it was sold.
But Microsoft gave away its browser for free - to steal market share. That stopped that market to developed and Netscape could no longer sell its browser and forced Netscape to give Navigator away for free.
So yes its basically the same thing with Microsoft killing another market by its dominating force.
No reasonable person can place the blame on Microsoft here.
Actually no reasonable person can ignore the fact that its Microsofts own fault.
Its because of Microsoft inability to create secure software that Symantec, McAfee et al exists at all. So basically its Microsofts inability to create good software that forces them to do these changes now.
Basically bad choices from before has come back and bitten them in the tail. Bad hacks has a tendency to do just that.
The law as it was written - before the new version - was that downloading a song from the Internet was not a crime. It was also allowed to share it with family and friends. Thus P2P of others material was basically lawful before the law was changed and a large number of people was used to this activity being legal now found themselves being criminals. In fact there exist parties in parlament (yes not only the Pirate Party wants this) that want the old law back as it was before this was was changed.
So there are many in Sweden who think the law needs to be changed. Many feel that the copyright law was heavily changed in favour of the music industry and not taking into account peoples former rights regarding copyrighted materials.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because Google is one of the larger companies in the ad-revenue business does not make them a monopoly in any way. There is alot of competition - one of them being Microsoft itself.
This is just sour grapes from Microsoft side.
"Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, provides, in Article 19, that:
'Everyone has the right to opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.'"
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech
Small things like:
- Ericsson(Sweden) and Nokia(Finland) are the two biggest companies in creating telecommunication infrastructure and phones.
- A very large portions of the populations has broadband.
- Most people have cell phones. The coverage are like 99% of the countries for GSM and 3G mobile phone networks.
Dont be. DMCA is called EUCD in EU and are part of the laws there. As long Sweden stays in EU - it is illegal to break DRM here too.
Well, there are two options:
1. Ballmer is right and are not protecting shareholders interest.
2. Ballers is wrong and are lying to his shareholders.
Whats true ? Whats worse ? Either way - he's out on a limb on this one - wonder who will push him off it ?
In Sweden one university was thinking of switching to Linux - a couple of days later it got a sweet deal from Microsoft.
According to rumours they got a 90% rebate on the normal licensing fee for software.
If only there were a single, well defined and completely open document format that could be used by anyone, with any office suite. That would be just great.
ISO 26300 aka Open Document
As much as there is the *potential* for problems let's be very frank about this and realize that Microsoft has not been the company doing the suing.
Actually thats not true. Cases Like VirtualDub and SCO - Microsoft suing by proxy - are examples that Microsoft can do a fair share of suing - when needed.
Since Microsoft has been crusing opponents in other ways they do not need to use the courts to stop them. But be well aware that even the hint from Microsoft that they will sue can force a company to rethink its strategy. Noone wants to be on the other side of a lawsuit brought upon them from Microsoft.
Prove that this defect in the Zune will not be "back-ported" to Linux. (Answer: You can't.)
Actually backporting Microsoft propriatory code inti Linux is not something Linus nor Steve would approve. GPL rules in the Linux kernel.
A simple solution would be to forward the message to yourself - with the added comments.
Also add TODO into the subject.
Then let Thunderbird automatically filter all messages with TODO into its own folder.
Thus you have an inbox folder with every thing you need to do.
Read the article. You got it wrong!
HP is brought into court for that they dont allow the consumers the option to buy the computer without an operating system and thus forcing the consumers to buy an operating system from Microsoft or not buy the computer at all.
No but it should be good consumerfriendly if computers are sold giving the consumer the option to select which OS they want to install and even give them the option to buy the OS from another seller.
If the software for Ipod was avaiable as a separate product then the option to buy and Ipod without the software should be available according to the law.
However since the software for most consumer products aint a separate product that are not an issue for them.
RTFA - Read the F-ing article.
It says the law is that HP must provide the consumers the option to buy the computer without an OS.
Currently that option does not exists - therefor they are in violation of the law.
Nothing else.
A computer without an OS is not functional. An OS without a computer is not functional. It's a stupid law.
How functional is a DVD-player without a DVD ? Or a CD-player without a CD ?
Is it OK if all DVD-players included a a copy of the Lion King. And all CD-players are sold with a copy of Celine Dions greatest hits ?
Word 2007 - the one that is not out yet.
Microsoft licened Xenix från AT&T 1979.
Microsoft used code from BSD to create Internet connectability.
And they understood that software patents was shite:
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented
and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today."
-- Bill Gates , Microsoft, 1991
Yes Microsoft had their moments. Sadly they did not really consider them for the long haul.
Of course it matters how its coded. There is more than one way to make iron from ore. In the same way its more than one way to make a program behave in a specific way.
So its of course possible to take out any patent infringments from the code if there exist any.
However since Ballmer just make these general statements its no proof that any such infringement even exists - just look at the SCO case where SCO came out with the same statements and now looks like they will cease to exist since thier case us worthless.
Now Ballmer tries to do a SCO - it can be the end of Microsoft.
Say that to Steve Jacksson Games who produced games and got raided for it:
v s._The_Secret_Service
"The 1993 case of Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service sprung from a raid by the U.S. Secret Service on the Austin headquarters of Steve Jackson Games in 1990. This raid is often attributed to Operation Sundevil, a nation-wide crackdown on 'illegal computer hacking activities', although SJ Games and the EFF claim otherwise."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games_
It's an organization that can have human rights abusing governments having seats on the Human Rights Commission.
Why is that so strange ? FN also let nations who atombomb other countries and covertly overthrown freely elected goverments with dictaturships to sit in the Security Council.
FN is open to everyone who wants to be a memberstate.
Netscape Navigator wasn't being given away for free - it was sold.
But Microsoft gave away its browser for free - to steal market share. That stopped that market to developed and Netscape could no longer sell its browser and forced Netscape to give Navigator away for free.
So yes its basically the same thing with Microsoft killing another market by its dominating force.
Symantec's and McAffee's respective antivirus products are some of the buggiest software I've ever seen.
:-)
You must never have used Windows then!
No reasonable person can place the blame on Microsoft here.
Actually no reasonable person can ignore the fact that its Microsofts own fault.
Its because of Microsoft inability to create secure software that Symantec, McAfee et al exists at all. So basically its Microsofts inability to create good software that forces them to do these changes now.
Basically bad choices from before has come back and bitten them in the tail. Bad hacks has a tendency to do just that.
Not a problem - patents are only valid for 20 years!
The law as it was written - before the new version - was that downloading a song from the Internet was not a crime. It was also allowed to share it with family and friends. Thus P2P of others material was basically lawful before the law was changed and a large number of people was used to this activity being legal now found themselves being criminals. In fact there exist parties in parlament (yes not only the Pirate Party wants this) that want the old law back as it was before this was was changed.
So there are many in Sweden who think the law needs to be changed. Many feel that the copyright law was heavily changed in favour of the music industry and not taking into account peoples former rights regarding copyrighted materials.