Re:Proof Apple is still not enterprise ready...
on
Jaguar is Over
·
· Score: 1
They're not killing off Jaguar. They even haven't killed off 101 yet, security updates that affect it are still released when necessary. They do have to (and can) keep improving Mac OS X though, since it's still quite young (and no, I'm not talking about iChat A/V).
You mean the Alanis Morissette that's featured in Apples iTunes Music Store promotional video (round 4:35) and who can't praise it high enough? Seems like the spokesperson of the firm are more concerned about it than the artists...
1.I know this sounds like flaimbait, but Mac users will buy anything Steve Jobs tells them is good. (I admit it, I really want to get a 17 inch powerbook)
That's not just flamebait, it's plain wrong. Or did you forget about the Cube?
2.They are used to paying full price for things having to do with technology, because Apple products and peripherals don't go on sale.
Huh? Even Apple themselves hold sales every now and then, though they don't advertise them as such most of the time. They simply slash prices of systems that are going to be renewed in the near future. When they do hold an explicit sale, it means their inventory management failed, but I've seen that happen only once since Steve Jobs came back to Apple (Januari 2001, I remember that since I took advantage of it by buying my G4/400).
That is why the iTunes music store was such an unprecidented success. It was not just sheer luck.
I completely agree it was not just sheer luck. It was actually listening to the complaints of the consumers instead of trying to convince them that they were wrong (like the music industry does).
In fact, Slashdot should really just close up shop since all they do is repeat articles and news easily gleaned from browsing through 5 or 10 thousand websites,
I was wondering if they'd be charging for it or if it would be a Software Update
I'm 100% certain it won't be distributed via direct download of Software Update. Just like with 10.0.x -> 10.1, it would be too big to download. It could be distributed like 10.1 (ie. for $20 or something like that), but I doubt it...
It's not a G5, it's a PPC970, completely different beasts.
G5 is not processor model, it's a generation identifier (just like the G4 encompasses the 7400, 7410, 7450, 7455, 7457 and some more). The 970 is indeed probably something completely different from what Motorola's G5 processors will be, but nothing can stop Apple from calling the 970 a G5 processor.
1GHz bus? gimme a break. Intel hasn't yet reached this. Two points impossible
The PPC970 uses a processor bus that runs at half the processor speed, so a 2GHz model would indeed have a 1GHz bus. Intel also doesn't have a 900MHz bus yet (afaik), while that has been announced by IBM already as the bus speed for the 1.8 GHz version of the PPC970.
Almost believable, but for the moment Apple are phasing out the use of NVIDIA cards in their machines. I highly doubt they'll be used.
You mean like the latest introduced products - the Powerbook 12" and 17" -, which both use NVidia chipsets?
Only one FW800 port? Why would Apple stick with FireWire 400 anyway?
Because the connector for FW800 is different and requires an adapter if you want to connect legacy 400 mpbs devices.
Also, Apple have a long standing habit of using Firewire instead of USB 2.0. I take this as one point impossible
Current Powermac G4's already include an USB controller that is USB 2.0 capable... It's true they favor Firewire over USB 2.0, but I certainly wouldn't count this point as impossible.
Bad grammar, but optical audio in a graphics machine?
Who claimed this is just a graphics machine? These are simply Apple's professional machines... They also included gigabit ethernet before it was practically useful (it still isn't in most environments), it's simply a way to distinguish them from the pack (and in this case, to finally offer surround sound at the same time probably).
Now, you can still think it's a fake (it's quite possible, I don't know), but your arguments sound quite unconvincing to me.
A requirement like this would have a huge chilling effect on any individual who owns a domain name ("company") and wants to make an unpopular comment. Said individual would be forced to publish all the replies!
No no no no no. How many times does this still have to be posted? You only have to post replies from individuals you explicitly mentioned in your "unpopular" comment. I.e. people which you personally attacked. And companies don't have the same right (so if you attack a company, you are NOT forced to post their reply).
But on page 18 of the report, second paragraph near the end, it says "The
rapporteur's amendments would also very clearly exclude the grant for patents for noninventive business methods." (emphasis mine). So it seems he does/did not intend to banish patents on business methods in general at all.
This report indicates that software patents (at least in the way they're implemented in the US) are not beneficial to the innovation process at all and that they in fact hamper it.
She's contradicting herself in one and the same sentence, trying to spread FUD ("if we don't accept this guideline about software patents, big companies will cherrypick ideas and patent them").
Not necessarily FUD. The scenario to explain this was set forth above. Only large companies, or small companies with seminal technologies that have attracted investment have any plausible means to manage an international portfolio.
Ok, let's suppose we have a company that does not have enough money for an international patent. There are two possibilities:
Software patents are not allowed in Europe: the company doesn't patent it anywhere (since it can't afford an international patent), but a big company has and patents it internationally (except in Europe, since software patents are not allowed there)
Software patents are allowed in Europe: the company has to patent its invention in Europe, since otherwise big_company will patent it in Europe and prohibit small company from making its own stuff. Small company does not have enough money for an international patent, so big company patents it internationally.
Now how does having software patents in Europe prevent big companies from patenting other people's ideas? That quote from her is completely besides the point. Whether or not Europe has software patents, the international situation stays the same (so introducing software patents in Europe will not prevent big companies from cherrypicking ideas and patenting them).
OTOH, allowing software patents in Europe will force everyone to patent his own "software inventions", because otherwise a big company may patent his idea and start forcing him to pay for using it. So the situation is exactly the reverse from the way she represents it imo.
In my experience as a patent lawyer, patents, including software patents, are actually quite narrow.
A software patent doesn't have to be broad to apply to a broad range of programs. In fact, I said "software patents cover such small and sometimes even basic components, that a single program may infringe on hundreds of patents." A program is a computerized mathematical formula. If you patents certain parts of math, others can't do anyting but use your patents if they want to do something, that's the way maths work. And maths (and computer programs) are different from other fields in that they used everywhere, not just in one branch and as such hamper innovation much more than they can encourage it.
Your argument seems to be thus: (1) a portfolio of 3000 software patents necessarily covers most programs; (2) IBM has it, and can use it to obtain a license from anybody from whom they want one; (3) this is unique to software patents and is bad.
It's 30000+, not 3000. Point 2 is admitted by IBM themselves in the article I linked to in my previous post (they use it as an argument to show how great an investment they are). The problem with point 3 is that software is different from other fields (just like mathematics and music). Look near the end of this post as to why I think that is so.
IBM pays a lot in licensing fees, as they do collect quite a bit.
I can only find news stories of IBM either collecting fees or going into cross licensing deals. I can't find any place where they have to actually pay.
They get dinged every now and then for patent infringement, as does Microsoft and every large corporation that engages in a wide area of R&D and commerce. Ergo, counterexamples exist.
At least I can't find them, they always seem to be able to get a cross licensing deal. Maybe some examples exist; like when they're sued by a holding that doesn't produce software itself (but which has got some software patents, so IBM force a cross licensing deal). That does not help any of the software producing c
I read your post. With all due respect, an honest disagreement over patent policy is hardly FUD.
I wasn't alluding to my disagreement with her over the patent policy, I was talking about the quote from her article in my post. She's contradicting herself in one and the same sentence, trying to spread FUD ("if we don't accept this guideline about software patents, big companies will cherrypick ideas and patent them").
The argument you make is viable in markets that do not produce as much novel technology as they consumer.
No, it's viable for every software producing company, except for the biggest. IBM has 30000+ software patents. How many programs do you think exist that do not infringe on at least one of those? How many companies even have the financial power to investigate whether one of their programs doesn't infringe on one of those patents? It's just by the grace of IBM that a lot of programs can be sold and if for one of their competitors becomes too annoying, they can leverage their patent portfolio to "convince" the other party to do as they say.
I don't think that traditional patents are plain bad. The problem is that software is entirely different. If you make a machine, in general it's covered by maybe one or two patents, so licensing is perfectly possible. However, software patents cover such small and sometimes even basic components, that a single program may infringe on hundreds of patents. You just cannot sell such a program if you need a license for all of those patents, unless the owners allow you to get a license for 0.0001% of the profits or so.
Small companies can do very little against such big companies if they per chance would be able to get a software patent, unless they don't produce any software themselves. Otherwise, if they would try to get some money out of e.g. IBM, the latter will probably tell the small company that they infringe on 200 patents of their, but since they are such nice guys, they'll propose a cross-licensing deal. So all this encourages is holdiongs with a ton of patents they don't intend on using themselves, but for extorting money from other companies.
Yes, it really boils down to extortion in some cases. IBM actively seeks out companies which have new technology that interests them and then uses their patent portfolio to force the other company to give them access to that technology as part of a cross licensing deal (look here).
The question is whether or not you are innovative. If you are making technology, and your nation gives no protection, then you -- in your local market -- are subject to arbitrary freeloading.
And of their is a way of protection for software, then you are subject to buying forced "protection" from big companies, like above, and give all your own inventions to them. It's almost a mob system (see some of the comments at the previous url). If there is no way of buying protection like that, then small companies have at least an advantage over copycats, in that they will always be a small step ahead (since they are the innovators).
Besides, in software, having a novel idea is quite easy (just look at the dozens of stalled sourceforge projects). Implementing, polishing and finishing it however, is something completely different and you cannot copy that. It's there that most software distinguishes itself from other software, not in which algorithms and datastructures it uses and in what its purpose is.
Well, if you think that way, the whole world should just ask Bush&Co to rule them. This is quite a different situation from the Iraq war imho, I doubt Bush will suddenly declare the whole of Europe a terrorist state if they throw out the whole software patent fallacy. Also, if Europe does not accept software patents and has no intention of ever accepting them, having software patents in the US may actually start hurting those big companies over time more than it benefits them.
And Darwin isn't better than Linux -- it's a totally different system with totally different goals. Linux/*BSD are monolithic kernels with typical unix-like authentication and system calls. OSX is closer to BSD-lite, running the Mach microkernel, and using Mach IPC, etc. etc. Totally different systems.
I do agree Darwin and Linux are plain different without one being generally better than the other, but your technical arguments are a bit strange. Darwin also has unix-like authentication. Or do you mean that our Linux machines which use NIS also don't have unix-like authentication for some reason? It's really trivial to configure Darwin so that it uses flat files in/etc, if that's what you mean.
Additionally, Darwin also has almost the whole "standard" array of system calls. Keep in mind that the kernel has both a Mach and BSD personality, so Mach IPC is mainly an additional way to communicate with the kernel. And although the Darwin kernel is based on the Mach kernel, it runs in one address space like the Linux kernel. That doesn't make it a monolithic kernel, of course.
You probably need each and every one of those patents to be able MPEG-2 video. That's RMS' point exactly: in software, one program (or even algorithm, as in this case) is often covered by dozens patents, making licensing just not feasable as it is with traditional patents.
Do you think the united states congress will sitback and allow that to happen without putting severe restrictions on european companies importing products into the states?
So because the US' patent system has completely gotten out of hand so that it is used as an example of how about not to do things all around the world, Europe should follow suit? Don't you think it would be better if Europe said no to software patents and tried to convince the US of abolishing theirs as well?
Also European software companies themselfs would never allow that to happen. Europe needs to catchup in software not go backward.
And software patents are going to help that in exactly which way?
Most people are not against patents, but against the way patents are implemented in reality (the USPTO is a very good example of how it should not be done, and the European patent office isn't much better, fortunately there are still stricter rules in Europe regarding what can be patented) and against software patents.
The reason for being against software patents is that software is fundamentally different from classical "inventions". RMS equates it to composing music. Suppose there were musical patents when Beethoven lived. Although he was no copycat at all and was actually quite revolutionary in his time, he wasn't that great that he reinvented music from scratch and still could make something that people liked to listen to. He used a lot of "musical techniques" used by other people before him.
However, just like you can't just throw a couple of existing "musical techniques" together and get something that sounds good, you cannot throw just a couple of algorithms and data structures together and get a great program. As such, allowing patents on these components doesn't make sense because that way, they hurt innovation instead of encouraging it.
They make you scared to produce anything, because almost everything you think of, has probably already been thought of by someone else before. If e.g. IBM would enforce all of its software patents, I don't think a lot of companies would be left making/selling software in the US. Some of the bigger ones would be, because they also own a lot of patents and they could cut software licensing deals. The rest would be out of luck.
Of course they exist, that's exactly what I said in my original message. But introducing them in Europe will not help any European company. There would be no difference in your example if software patents existed in Europe as well, except that maybe the US company would already own the relevant patents in Europe, so the European company couldn't even sell its software there.
OTOH, the European company can/could get a patent in the US before it creates the software (so before the US company can patent the idea), so having no software patents in Europe is an advantage that European companies have over US companies. I just don't understand how you can say that introducing software patents in Europe will somehow be good for European companies. It's only good for companies coming from places where software patents already exist! (especially since they already got a lot of experience with that matter, while European companies don't)
If we fail to offer European industry the possibility of patent protection, we will hand over our inventiveness and creativity to big business, who can cherrypick ideas and patent them.
So what she's saying is "If we don't allow (software) patents in Europe, big businesses will patent every thing". Hello, this is you wake-up call: if there are no software patents, big businesses can't get them either!
It's exactly the reverse: if there are no software patents in Europe, then European businesses (and inventors and every one else) can still get software patents abroad (e.g. in the US), while foreign businesses can not enforce their software patents here in Europe. So if there are no software patents in Europe, the Europeans actually have an advantage over foreign (big, small and everything in between) companies.
Slashdot Mirror
Adding more pics to the parent dir.
Original (.mac site, bandwidth will be exceeded soon probably). Mirror on my machine. Another one (side view) here.
They're not killing off Jaguar. They even haven't killed off 101 yet, security updates that affect it are still released when necessary. They do have to (and can) keep improving Mac OS X though, since it's still quite young (and no, I'm not talking about iChat A/V).
Anyone knows a non-overloaded irc server with a moderated channel that posts live updates?
You mean the Alanis Morissette that's featured in Apples iTunes Music Store promotional video (round 4:35) and who can't praise it high enough? Seems like the spokesperson of the firm are more concerned about it than the artists...
Apple is more or less part of the darwinports project (Jordan K Hubbard is one of its project leads)
Now, you can still think it's a fake (it's quite possible, I don't know), but your arguments sound quite unconvincing to me.
But on page 18 of the report, second paragraph near the end, it says "The rapporteur's amendments would also very clearly exclude the grant for patents for noninventive business methods." (emphasis mine). So it seems he does/did not intend to banish patents on business methods in general at all.
This report indicates that software patents (at least in the way they're implemented in the US) are not beneficial to the innovation process at all and that they in fact hamper it.
Ok, let's suppose we have a company that does not have enough money for an international patent. There are two possibilities:
Now how does having software patents in Europe prevent big companies from patenting other people's ideas? That quote from her is completely besides the point. Whether or not Europe has software patents, the international situation stays the same (so introducing software patents in Europe will not prevent big companies from cherrypicking ideas and patenting them).
OTOH, allowing software patents in Europe will force everyone to patent his own "software inventions", because otherwise a big company may patent his idea and start forcing him to pay for using it. So the situation is exactly the reverse from the way she represents it imo.
A software patent doesn't have to be broad to apply to a broad range of programs. In fact, I said "software patents cover such small and sometimes even basic components, that a single program may infringe on hundreds of patents." A program is a computerized mathematical formula. If you patents certain parts of math, others can't do anyting but use your patents if they want to do something, that's the way maths work. And maths (and computer programs) are different from other fields in that they used everywhere, not just in one branch and as such hamper innovation much more than they can encourage it.
It's 30000+, not 3000. Point 2 is admitted by IBM themselves in the article I linked to in my previous post (they use it as an argument to show how great an investment they are). The problem with point 3 is that software is different from other fields (just like mathematics and music). Look near the end of this post as to why I think that is so.
I can only find news stories of IBM either collecting fees or going into cross licensing deals. I can't find any place where they have to actually pay.
At least I can't find them, they always seem to be able to get a cross licensing deal. Maybe some examples exist; like when they're sued by a holding that doesn't produce software itself (but which has got some software patents, so IBM force a cross licensing deal). That does not help any of the software producing c
I don't think that traditional patents are plain bad. The problem is that software is entirely different. If you make a machine, in general it's covered by maybe one or two patents, so licensing is perfectly possible. However, software patents cover such small and sometimes even basic components, that a single program may infringe on hundreds of patents. You just cannot sell such a program if you need a license for all of those patents, unless the owners allow you to get a license for 0.0001% of the profits or so.
Small companies can do very little against such big companies if they per chance would be able to get a software patent, unless they don't produce any software themselves. Otherwise, if they would try to get some money out of e.g. IBM, the latter will probably tell the small company that they infringe on 200 patents of their, but since they are such nice guys, they'll propose a cross-licensing deal. So all this encourages is holdiongs with a ton of patents they don't intend on using themselves, but for extorting money from other companies.
Yes, it really boils down to extortion in some cases. IBM actively seeks out companies which have new technology that interests them and then uses their patent portfolio to force the other company to give them access to that technology as part of a cross licensing deal (look here).
And of their is a way of protection for software, then you are subject to buying forced "protection" from big companies, like above, and give all your own inventions to them. It's almost a mob system (see some of the comments at the previous url). If there is no way of buying protection like that, then small companies have at least an advantage over copycats, in that they will always be a small step ahead (since they are the innovators).Besides, in software, having a novel idea is quite easy (just look at the dozens of stalled sourceforge projects). Implementing, polishing and finishing it however, is something completely different and you cannot copy that. It's there that most software distinguishes itself from other software, not in which algorithms and datastructures it uses and in what its purpose is.
Well, if you think that way, the whole world should just ask Bush&Co to rule them. This is quite a different situation from the Iraq war imho, I doubt Bush will suddenly declare the whole of Europe a terrorist state if they throw out the whole software patent fallacy. Also, if Europe does not accept software patents and has no intention of ever accepting them, having software patents in the US may actually start hurting those big companies over time more than it benefits them.
Additionally, Darwin also has almost the whole "standard" array of system calls. Keep in mind that the kernel has both a Mach and BSD personality, so Mach IPC is mainly an additional way to communicate with the kernel. And although the Darwin kernel is based on the Mach kernel, it runs in one address space like the Linux kernel. That doesn't make it a monolithic kernel, of course.
Did you even read any other posts made in reaction to this story? She's spreading contradictory FUD, e.g. see this post of mine.
You probably need each and every one of those patents to be able MPEG-2 video. That's RMS' point exactly: in software, one program (or even algorithm, as in this case) is often covered by dozens patents, making licensing just not feasable as it is with traditional patents.
The reason for being against software patents is that software is fundamentally different from classical "inventions". RMS equates it to composing music. Suppose there were musical patents when Beethoven lived. Although he was no copycat at all and was actually quite revolutionary in his time, he wasn't that great that he reinvented music from scratch and still could make something that people liked to listen to. He used a lot of "musical techniques" used by other people before him.
However, just like you can't just throw a couple of existing "musical techniques" together and get something that sounds good, you cannot throw just a couple of algorithms and data structures together and get a great program. As such, allowing patents on these components doesn't make sense because that way, they hurt innovation instead of encouraging it.
They make you scared to produce anything, because almost everything you think of, has probably already been thought of by someone else before. If e.g. IBM would enforce all of its software patents, I don't think a lot of companies would be left making/selling software in the US. Some of the bigger ones would be, because they also own a lot of patents and they could cut software licensing deals. The rest would be out of luck.
OTOH, the European company can/could get a patent in the US before it creates the software (so before the US company can patent the idea), so having no software patents in Europe is an advantage that European companies have over US companies. I just don't understand how you can say that introducing software patents in Europe will somehow be good for European companies. It's only good for companies coming from places where software patents already exist! (especially since they already got a lot of experience with that matter, while European companies don't)
It's exactly the reverse: if there are no software patents in Europe, then European businesses (and inventors and every one else) can still get software patents abroad (e.g. in the US), while foreign businesses can not enforce their software patents here in Europe. So if there are no software patents in Europe, the Europeans actually have an advantage over foreign (big, small and everything in between) companies.