You're right that the legislation itself may be useless; but at the very least it may have a chilling effect on Microsoft's future actions, and on the actions of other companies who might try similar tricks. Hopefully now they will ask themselves "Could this be considered an anticompetitive use of our monopoly? Is it worth the risk of spending years in court defending our actions?". Many will decide that no, it isn't, and will choose a more ethical way of conducting their business instead.
The companies will surely argue in friend of the court briefs that giving them additional copyright time will cause them to keep old works in distribution, which is a public benefit
I'd love to see the opposing lawyer shoot that argument down by pointing out that with computers and the Internet, anyone can "keep a work in distribution", and that copyrights are typically the main thing keeping works out of distribution -- not the other way around.
Well, Macs run about all the software found in stores.
True, to an extent, but the problem is most people own Intel-based PCs, and thus Macintosh software is not an available alternative for them. Note that with OS/X, Apple could port their OS to the Intel platform quite easily, and yet they don't. Why not? Guess which company also has a near-monopoly in the Office Suite market, and leverages that power to keep other companies (like Apple) from competing in the OS market? ("if you so much as think about porting OS/X to Intel, we'll cancel Office, and then nobody will buy your hardware anymore...")
This legislation is only harming you and I. If it is successful, then MS's products will only become more expensive and of lower quality than they already are.
That would be fine with me; perhaps it would counteract MS's strong-arm tactics enough that some competition would creep in. At the very least, it would make it more obvious that there are many people who are 'locked in' to Microsoft products and couldn't change no matter how much better the competition is -- which in turn might lead to a demand for resolution to the problem.
Not to mention the 'Microsoft is too important to be held accountable for their actions' argument is ethically unsound -- should Microsoft be above the law merely because they have crushed out all opposition, and hence made themselves 'indespensible'?
You may not believe Microsoft has a monopoly, however the US justice system has found that they do have one. You may disagree with anti-trust laws, but they are still the law, and Microsoft has been found guilty of breaking them.
I personally think the case against Microsoft has managed to be ineffective despite having all the facts on their side; but I think the problems are with the politics (read: George Bush punting from the 3 yard line) rather than the laws themselves, which were enacted reasons that were and continue to be valid.
As a side question, what other company besides Microsoft provides an OS that can run the bulk of the applications available at any software store? I'd like to know.
I doubt it.... if Microsoft wants to bury the GPL, why would they use it and risk (a) giving it credibility, or (b) reinforcing their image as a bunch of cheaters? It's not as if they can't afford to write their own code...
If you can explain why this is illegal, please do.
Certainly. US anti-trust legislation states that if you have a monopoly, you may not use that monopoly to lock competitors out of the marketplace. By effectively prohibiting Dell and other companies from shipping competing OS's with their PCs, Microsoft effectively prohibited competitors from competing in the OS market. Hence, Microsoft broke the law.
Of course not. Nor does it guarantee a full, happy life, great sex, or a mint on your pillow. It's still better than closed source, though.
Open Source only guarantees that you would have the ability to check for holes.
Yup. And given the ability to, someone probably will. And the more people that check, the more likely a hole will be found and fixed. Hence, a net benefit to me, even if I don't bother to check the source myself.
Microsoft did not hold a gun up to Dell's head did they? I think not. Both parties (Dell and MS) willingly entered an agreeement. The only force invloved was the market force. If Dell had not put Windows on their machines, then they would have gone bankrupt (most likely).
And there you have it, in your own words. Dell had to agree to pretty much any terms Microsoft cared to set, or else Dell would have gone bankrupt. If that's not a "gun to the head", what is?
What use is the GPL if the software created under it is unusable?
Obviously none at all. But there is plenty of GPL software that is quite useful, as well as plenty of closed-source software that is buggy shite. Of course you have to be careful to select and use only software that will meet your needs, that goes without saying. But all other things being equal, GPL'd software does have a longevity advantage over closed software, as the previous poster pointed out.
The existence of GPL'd software that doesn't meet your needs is not relevant to arguments about the GPL in general. (and even in the worst case, it's better than having no GPL'd software alternatives at all)
A little off topic, but open source != better security
Perhaps so, but if Morpheus had access to the FastTrack source, they could easily work around the problems that Sharman networks introduced. Instead, they have to throw away their whole system and start over with Gnutella. An excellent demonstration of the dangers of depending on closed source software, IMHO.
This situation is NOT by accident! A useful method would have been to put the comments into a searchable database. They knew that, but it would have made cross checking too easy, and their tissue of lies could be blown away by a gradeschool student doing simple comparisons.
Perhaps. So now some perl-savvy Slashdotter should write a script to mirror the site into a database, and post the resulting URL. Shouldn't be more than an hour or two of work for someone who has the skills...
If you don't mean to be offensive, why are you using the word 'gay' when you mean 'unattractive or poorly done'? What do homosexuals have to do with Aqua?
I suspect that most people prefer to use a search engine which has, historically, given them results they find useful. I'm also pretty sure they don't care how the results of a particular search are obtained, only that they are useful.
Quite right. And that explains Google's skyrocketing popularity, despite much in the way of advertising. It gives users the most useful results, not the most paid-for ones.
No kidding. If a person does it, it's "stalking" and you can get a restraining order. If a company does it, its "market research" and perfectly legal.
(Yes, I know, you don't have to do business with a company that does this sort of thing. But that presumes that (a) you know that the company is spying on you, and (b) that there exist reasonable alternatives)
The average consumer thinks Windows is "included" with their PC purchase. That means that in their mind it's free, not a major portion of the actual cost. As long as that price is hidden it won't be a factor in a purchasing decision
Consumer goes to Best Buy and sees a row of PCs with Windows selling for $500-$1000. Then he goes to the next aisle and sees a row of PCs without Windows (but otherwise the same), selling for $300-$800. I think he can then put two and two together.
This is why I plan to vote for Green party candidates for the forseeable future -- in addition to having a platform that I agree with (well, 95% anyway), they do not accept campaign contributions from corporations. I'm sure there is a correlation there.
At best, some of them will get elected and actually represent the public good, as opposed to the corporate agendas that completely dominate politics today. At worst, no Greens get elected, but they siphon off enough votes from the Democrats that the Democratic party will be forced to wake up and re-examine what used to be its core principals, before it sold itself like a $2 whore in return for campaign money.
If in the meantime, the Republicans win a few elections, then so be it.
And instead of running on inconvenient roads, you just need to build a special 1.5 meter track to your destination. My, this IS cheaper and easier than driving!
Actually, it could be... especially if you don't own a car, and/or those roads are traffic-jammed. No parking fees to pay, either. Assuming there are enough pods to go around, it's almost like having your own chauffeur...
[the article] implied that it's possible to take money out of the manufacturers without having the cost passed on to consumers
Well, of course you are right. Somebody has to pay. But under our current system, computer consumers are encouraged to pass the cost on to the rest of the world in the form of environmental damage. Computer users have no incentive (other than their own conscience) to recycle their toxic equipment, and a fairly good incentive (recycling fees) not to. Having the consumers pay a deposit up front should at least remove the disincentive (since the recycling would now be "free"), and could even provide an incentive to recycle (partial deposit refunds).
Deposits works pretty well for cans and bottles; a similar scheme works nicely for income taxes; I don't see any reason it couldn't work for computers as well. So I'm all for it. If you're well-off enough to buy a computer, you're well-off enough to pay a little extra to make sure it gets disposed of properly when you're done with it.
I think the point is that justice must be done, even if it's too late to compensate the victim. Otherwise, what is to stop the perpetrator from doing the same thing again to the next company that comes along?
Correct. But these guys enabled others to use their warez'd binaries. Was that their purpose? Hell no. But it's a result. Their work circumvented a copy control on multiple products and facilitated others in the creation of tools to expand the circumvention to games not even on store shelves. Come on this is one of the things the DMCA was put into place for.
Funny, the PCs that Dell sold to the warez'ers are guilty of all the same 'crimes'. Shall we force Dell to stop selling PCs now?
It's amazing how quickly an otherwise non-story can become a big story with such sensationalist responses simply because Microsoft's name is attached to it.
Well, yes. If I am seen boarding a plane headed for Washington DC, that's not news. If Osama Bin Ladin is seen boarding a plane headed for Washington DC, that's news.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right that the legislation itself may be useless; but at the very least it may have a chilling effect on Microsoft's future actions, and on the actions of other companies who might try similar tricks. Hopefully now they will ask themselves "Could this be considered an anticompetitive use of our monopoly? Is it worth the risk of spending years in court defending our actions?". Many will decide that no, it isn't, and will choose a more ethical way of conducting their business instead.
I'd love to see the opposing lawyer shoot that argument down by pointing out that with computers and the Internet, anyone can "keep a work in distribution", and that copyrights are typically the main thing keeping works out of distribution -- not the other way around.
True, to an extent, but the problem is most people own Intel-based PCs, and thus Macintosh software is not an available alternative for them. Note that with OS/X, Apple could port their OS to the Intel platform quite easily, and yet they don't. Why not? Guess which company also has a near-monopoly in the Office Suite market, and leverages that power to keep other companies (like Apple) from competing in the OS market? ("if you so much as think about porting OS/X to Intel, we'll cancel Office, and then nobody will buy your hardware anymore...")
This legislation is only harming you and I. If it is successful, then MS's products will only become more expensive and of lower quality than they already are.
That would be fine with me; perhaps it would counteract MS's strong-arm tactics enough that some competition would creep in. At the very least, it would make it more obvious that there are many people who are 'locked in' to Microsoft products and couldn't change no matter how much better the competition is -- which in turn might lead to a demand for resolution to the problem.
Not to mention the 'Microsoft is too important to be held accountable for their actions' argument is ethically unsound -- should Microsoft be above the law merely because they have crushed out all opposition, and hence made themselves 'indespensible'?
I personally think the case against Microsoft has managed to be ineffective despite having all the facts on their side; but I think the problems are with the politics (read: George Bush punting from the 3 yard line) rather than the laws themselves, which were enacted reasons that were and continue to be valid.
As a side question, what other company besides Microsoft provides an OS that can run the bulk of the applications available at any software store? I'd like to know.
I doubt it.... if Microsoft wants to bury the GPL, why would they use it and risk (a) giving it credibility, or (b) reinforcing their image as a bunch of cheaters? It's not as if they can't afford to write their own code...
Certainly. US anti-trust legislation states that if you have a monopoly, you may not use that monopoly to lock competitors out of the marketplace. By effectively prohibiting Dell and other companies from shipping competing OS's with their PCs, Microsoft effectively prohibited competitors from competing in the OS market. Hence, Microsoft broke the law.
Of course not. Nor does it guarantee a full, happy life, great sex, or a mint on your pillow. It's still better than closed source, though.
Open Source only guarantees that you would have the ability to check for holes.
Yup. And given the ability to, someone probably will. And the more people that check, the more likely a hole will be found and fixed. Hence, a net benefit to me, even if I don't bother to check the source myself.
And there you have it, in your own words. Dell had to agree to pretty much any terms Microsoft cared to set, or else Dell would have gone bankrupt. If that's not a "gun to the head", what is?
Exactly right. And one someone has "won", the competition is over, and it's time to start another game. Hence anti-trust legislation.
Moron.
Why don't you give it a little thought yourself, before posting childish flames?
Given that, why is it that they can't be bothered to check their spam relays, to make sure they are "inaccessible from outside"???
Obviously none at all. But there is plenty of GPL software that is quite useful, as well as plenty of closed-source software that is buggy shite. Of course you have to be careful to select and use only software that will meet your needs, that goes without saying. But all other things being equal, GPL'd software does have a longevity advantage over closed software, as the previous poster pointed out.
The existence of GPL'd software that doesn't meet your needs is not relevant to arguments about the GPL in general. (and even in the worst case, it's better than having no GPL'd software alternatives at all)
I'm personally amazed by the number of people who post spelling flames with spelling errors in them...
Awesome :^)
Perhaps so, but if Morpheus had access to the FastTrack source, they could easily work around the problems that Sharman networks introduced. Instead, they have to throw away their whole system and start over with Gnutella. An excellent demonstration of the dangers of depending on closed source software, IMHO.
Perhaps. So now some perl-savvy Slashdotter should write a script to mirror the site into a database, and post the resulting URL. Shouldn't be more than an hour or two of work for someone who has the skills...
If you don't mean to be offensive, why are you using the word 'gay' when you mean 'unattractive or poorly done'? What do homosexuals have to do with Aqua?
Quite right. And that explains Google's skyrocketing popularity, despite much in the way of advertising. It gives users the most useful results, not the most paid-for ones.
(Yes, I know, you don't have to do business with a company that does this sort of thing. But that presumes that (a) you know that the company is spying on you, and (b) that there exist reasonable alternatives)
Consumer goes to Best Buy and sees a row of PCs with Windows selling for $500-$1000. Then he goes to the next aisle and sees a row of PCs without Windows (but otherwise the same), selling for $300-$800. I think he can then put two and two together.
This is why I plan to vote for Green party candidates for the forseeable future -- in addition to having a platform that I agree with (well, 95% anyway), they do not accept campaign contributions from corporations. I'm sure there is a correlation there.
At best, some of them will get elected and actually represent the public good, as opposed to the corporate agendas that completely dominate politics today. At worst, no Greens get elected, but they siphon off enough votes from the Democrats that the Democratic party will be forced to wake up and re-examine what used to be its core principals, before it sold itself like a $2 whore in return for campaign money.
If in the meantime, the Republicans win a few elections, then so be it.
Actually, it could be... especially if you don't own a car, and/or those roads are traffic-jammed. No parking fees to pay, either. Assuming there are enough pods to go around, it's almost like having your own chauffeur...
Well, of course you are right. Somebody has to pay. But under our current system, computer consumers are encouraged to pass the cost on to the rest of the world in the form of environmental damage. Computer users have no incentive (other than their own conscience) to recycle their toxic equipment, and a fairly good incentive (recycling fees) not to. Having the consumers pay a deposit up front should at least remove the disincentive (since the recycling would now be "free"), and could even provide an incentive to recycle (partial deposit refunds).
Deposits works pretty well for cans and bottles; a similar scheme works nicely for income taxes; I don't see any reason it couldn't work for computers as well. So I'm all for it. If you're well-off enough to buy a computer, you're well-off enough to pay a little extra to make sure it gets disposed of properly when you're done with it.
I think the point is that justice must be done, even if it's too late to compensate the victim. Otherwise, what is to stop the perpetrator from doing the same thing again to the next company that comes along?
Funny, the PCs that Dell sold to the warez'ers are guilty of all the same 'crimes'. Shall we force Dell to stop selling PCs now?
Well, yes. If I am seen boarding a plane headed for Washington DC, that's not news. If Osama Bin Ladin is seen boarding a plane headed for Washington DC, that's news.