So what you're saying is that a lack of capitalization could prevent someone from competing in a given market.
Gues what? That's what we have now.
Even with patents, I can't establish a new nuclear-reactor manufacturing facility because I've not got a sufficient number of millions of dollars in my back pocket. I can't set up a new movie making and distribution company and expect to compete with MGM/UA, Warner Bros, Disney and Fox, and have my movies shown in all of the big multiplexes with saturation advertising a'la Harry Potter. Why? None of the film companies have a patent on movie cameras and 35mm film technology. I've just not got the money available.
If I base my business plan on doing something like that, then I have a poor business plan that will likely fail.
So I ask again, how does a patent "protect" me? For every "good" example, someone can point out a bad one. I believe that, on balance, the bad points outweigh the good.
Why should you be "guaranteed that for a few years nobody is going to steal your idea"? If I spend big money and build a new bookstore, there's no "guarantee" that someone else won't set up a competing bookstore across the street from me. Why should this be any different?
develop the software to do everything that my TiVo can on the PC sitting in my closet, I'd probably dedicate a good 9-18 months perfecting it.
I suppose that if there is sufficient interest in developing software of this type, someone will set up openpvr.org or whatever and start a project.
Incidentally, openpvr.org was in fact registered on August 25, 2000, though it appears no web site was established. It belongs to EnReach Technology, Inc.
Bo Wu
in San Jose, CA, whoever that is. "Broadband TV software to monetize your network", according to http://www.enreach.com
Re:Royalties until you take a dump?
on
Patented Seeds
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Will he be sued for selling the crop?
Yes he will indeed be sued. It's happening right now. See this link: http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
And this one: http://nelsonfarm.net/
Re:Great, now we can't eat either
on
Patented Seeds
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I am screwed, because I can't sell or use my corn anymore, it has been polluted by their patented garbage, but they have the right to call up their school of bottom feeding, scum sucking lawyers and sue me.
Sadly, that's a fact of life and has been so since long before Julius Caeasr's court. Very likely Og the Caveman lost his best woman because Mig the Caveman had a larger collection of wooly mammoth hides.
"How much justice can you afford" is not a rhetorical question. Do you see any millionaire's sons on death row anywhere in the USA? Or serving life sentences?
like the other guy said, that little FDIC sticker means something
Sure. It means they have a sticker.
If I was going to set up some sort of a banking scam, one of the first things I would do is to make up some pretty "federally guaranteed" stickers to put on the front door.
we call the bank and verify if the address, phone, name they provide us correspond...
I'm not sure that I like this.
"Hello, I'm Joe Schmoe, account manager at Schmoe Enterprises and I'd like to find out if Mr. John Smith has an account at your institution?..... I see. And what address do you have on file for him?..... I see. And do you have his phone number?"
I don't know about you, but if my bank responded to any of those questions with more than "None of your damn business" without WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION from me, then I would be pretty ticked off.
demand they publish their file formats and networking protocols.
The file formats and networking protocols need to not only be published but also be free for anyone to use. Remember the kerfuffle about the "undocumented" portion of Microsoft's Kerobos token authentication. They did indeed "publish" that (evenutally) but hung a license on it such that any use of the information was not possible.
Be careful what you wish for, as the saying goes. "Here is the protocol specification, but if you actually use it for anythng we'll sue you" isn't of much value and could actually be detrimental to someone who's trying to write a compatible interface. "Prove you didn't use our published spec, or we'll sue you."
I have my computer on a large banquet table; the case sits sideways under the table with the "back" of the case facing out the edge of the table. It works well, and the table is large enough to accommodate my 19" monitor and all of the other papers, books, tea cups and so on.
Microsoft could easily say "we coplied with the ruling" while blaming everything on Linux.
Isn't that what the "special master" or oversight committee is for? To insure that the ruling is complied with IN FACT and not just "well, we tried."
The oversight committee's response should be "Prove that you tried" and they should have the power to hire consultants and programers on MS's tab to insure compliance.
I agree with you that MS is a de-facto monopoly, but I knew and believed that before the court cases and I don't lean on that decision to prove my point.
That's where the proposed "special master" or oversight committee is supposed to jump in and say, "Prove it."
The onus would be (or should be) on MS to show that best efforts have been made to provide required functionality. If that means MS has to hire outside consultants and programmers who are uber-proficient in Linux programming and pay them major bucks to do the necessary work, so be it.
Apple should be legally banned from providing any version of OS 7
*shudder*
Don't say that, please.
We have more than enough laws to cover stuff that probably shouldn't be covered by laws.
Unfortunately, when enough people say, "There ought to be a law" then some politician decides that a good way to curry favour would be to institute such a law. Even if the law doesn't make sense or fail the "is this really necessary?" and "is there a better way?" tests.
I'd imagine there's still some apps out there that *only* run on DOS, and are still mission critical stuff.
Lots.
Industrial process-control type stuff. Need to re-program the old PLC in your waste-water treatment plant? Guess what the programming interface runs on?
Etc.
You'd be surprised what runs on DOS and only on DOS.
In my mind, the registry is better than a pant load of.ini files.
I'll take the pantload of.ini files. It's easier to deal with when you don't know what you're looking for, specifically, but just need to browse around looking for something that's out-of-place. Also, in that situation you can make changes (and un-make them) without blowing something else out of the water.
With the registry, who knows what's going to happen. "Go ahead, press that button." Do I really want to? How do I get back to where I am now if this doesn't work?
Give me a nice editable text file that I can read, copy, edit, and put back the way that it was if needed.
This is a problem NOW. I doubt this shut-down is intended to be permanent. It's a situation of "shut it down until you can get it right". After a secure system is developed and implemented, the judge will likely re-visit his order.
if I run joe smoes website and collect some info, I don't that this judge has legal backing to just shut me down.
If one of your "customers" can show that your collection/storage of that data is causing irreparable harm to his interests, then the judge could indeed make such an order. Whatever would make you think otherwise?
Slashdot Mirror
Get a warrant. I'll show you anything you want to see,
that's listed in the warrant. Don't get a warrant to search my workshop and then decide to search my house while you're here.
So what you're saying is that a lack of capitalization could prevent someone from competing in a given market.
Gues what? That's what we have now.
Even with patents, I can't establish a new nuclear-reactor manufacturing facility because I've not got a sufficient number of millions of dollars in my back pocket. I can't set up a new movie making and distribution company and expect to compete with MGM/UA, Warner Bros, Disney and Fox, and have my movies shown in all of the big multiplexes with saturation advertising a'la Harry Potter. Why? None of the film companies have a patent on movie cameras and 35mm film technology. I've just not got the money available.
If I base my business plan on doing something like that, then I have a poor business plan that will likely fail.
So I ask again, how does a patent "protect" me? For every "good" example, someone can point out a bad one. I believe that, on balance, the bad points outweigh the good.
But then, what do I know. I'm just a lamb....
Do you have a better plan?
How about simply doing a better job?
Why should you be "guaranteed that for a few years nobody is going to steal your idea"? If I spend big money and build a new bookstore, there's no "guarantee" that someone else won't set up a competing bookstore across the street from me. Why should this be any different?
develop the software to do everything that my TiVo can on the PC sitting in my closet, I'd probably dedicate a good 9-18 months perfecting it.
I suppose that if there is sufficient interest in developing software of this type, someone will set up openpvr.org or whatever and start a project.
Incidentally, openpvr.org was in fact registered on August 25, 2000, though it appears no web site was established. It belongs to EnReach Technology, Inc.
Bo Wu
in San Jose, CA, whoever that is. "Broadband TV software to monetize your network", according to http://www.enreach.com
Will he be sued for selling the crop?
Yes he will indeed be sued. It's happening right now. See this link: http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
And this one: http://nelsonfarm.net/
I am screwed, because I can't sell or use my corn anymore, it has been polluted by their patented garbage, but they have the right to call up their school of bottom feeding, scum sucking lawyers and sue me.
It's being done right now, as we speak.
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
Read it and weep, as it were.
They dont operate in the rules they make them.
He who has the gold makes the rules.
Sadly, that's a fact of life and has been so since long before Julius Caeasr's court. Very likely Og the Caveman lost his best woman because Mig the Caveman had a larger collection of wooly mammoth hides.
"How much justice can you afford" is not a rhetorical question. Do you see any millionaire's sons on death row anywhere in the USA? Or serving life sentences?
like the other guy said, that little FDIC sticker means something
Sure. It means they have a sticker.
If I was going to set up some sort of a banking scam, one of the first things I would do is to make up some pretty "federally guaranteed" stickers to put on the front door.
we call the bank and verify if the address, phone, name they provide us correspond...
I'm not sure that I like this.
"Hello, I'm Joe Schmoe, account manager at Schmoe Enterprises and I'd like to find out if Mr. John Smith has an account at your institution?..... I see. And what address do you have on file for him?..... I see. And do you have his phone number?"
I don't know about you, but if my bank responded to any of those questions with more than "None of your damn business" without WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION from me, then I would be pretty ticked off.
demand they publish their file formats and networking protocols.
The file formats and networking protocols need to not only be published but also be free for anyone to use. Remember the kerfuffle about the "undocumented" portion of Microsoft's Kerobos token authentication. They did indeed "publish" that (evenutally) but hung a license on it such that any use of the information was not possible.
Be careful what you wish for, as the saying goes. "Here is the protocol specification, but if you actually use it for anythng we'll sue you" isn't of much value and could actually be detrimental to someone who's trying to write a compatible interface. "Prove you didn't use our published spec, or we'll sue you."
I have my computer on a large banquet table; the case sits sideways under the table with the "back" of the case facing out the edge of the table. It works well, and the table is large enough to accommodate my 19" monitor and all of the other papers, books, tea cups and so on.
More likely it will be some kind of filtering device.
And we all know how well those work.
I'd like to see their subscription content, and would probably pay for it, if they just told me they'd strip out all the damned ads if I paid.
I think that is, in fact, what they do. Part of the deal and all - if you pay for a subscription they remove the advertising.
It doesn't restrict free speech?
Interesting. I purchase a device, bring it home, look it over carefully and now I can't tell you what I saw.
What kind of "speech" is being restricted there, if not mine.
Microsoft could easily say "we coplied with the ruling" while blaming everything on Linux.
Isn't that what the "special master" or oversight committee is for? To insure that the ruling is complied with IN FACT and not just "well, we tried."
The oversight committee's response should be "Prove that you tried" and they should have the power to hire consultants and programers on MS's tab to insure compliance.
they are a legally prooven monopoly, jackass.
And everything "legal" is correct and right.
Skylarov...
I agree with you that MS is a de-facto monopoly, but I knew and believed that before the court cases and I don't lean on that decision to prove my point.
Why does everyone forget about Corel WordPerfect Office?
Because it doesn't have 100% file compatibility with MS Office.
There are good reasons why I own some 17 or 18 legal copies of WP, and ONE of Word.
And the main one is stated just above here, right?
That's where the proposed "special master" or oversight committee is supposed to jump in and say, "Prove it."
The onus would be (or should be) on MS to show that best efforts have been made to provide required functionality. If that means MS has to hire outside consultants and programmers who are uber-proficient in Linux programming and pay them major bucks to do the necessary work, so be it.
That's what the committee is for.
How much did a '95 Mustang cost?
A few tens of thousands of dollars, I suppose.
How much did a '95 windows cost?
Several hundreds of thousands of dollars, in an enterprise application with a large number of machines involved.
What was your point again?
Apple should be legally banned from providing any version of OS 7
*shudder*
Don't say that, please.
We have more than enough laws to cover stuff that probably shouldn't be covered by laws.
Unfortunately, when enough people say, "There ought to be a law" then some politician decides that a good way to curry favour would be to institute such a law. Even if the law doesn't make sense or fail the "is this really necessary?" and "is there a better way?" tests.
I'd imagine there's still some apps out there that *only* run on DOS, and are still mission critical stuff.
Lots.
Industrial process-control type stuff. Need to re-program the old PLC in your waste-water treatment plant? Guess what the programming interface runs on?
Etc.
You'd be surprised what runs on DOS and only on DOS.
In my mind, the registry is better than a pant load of .ini files.
.ini files. It's easier to deal with when you don't know what you're looking for, specifically, but just need to browse around looking for something that's out-of-place. Also, in that situation you can make changes (and un-make them) without blowing something else out of the water.
I'll take the pantload of
With the registry, who knows what's going to happen. "Go ahead, press that button." Do I really want to? How do I get back to where I am now if this doesn't work?
Give me a nice editable text file that I can read, copy, edit, and put back the way that it was if needed.
I have an unlisted phone number, yet I still get telemarketers calling.
...
Sequential dialers, like the old-time "war dialers" from a few years back.
555-1111 - no answer
555-1112 - no answer
555-1113 - pass call to salesman
555-1114
And so on. Sooner or later they get to you.
This is a problem NOW. I doubt this shut-down is intended to be permanent. It's a situation of "shut it down until you can get it right". After a secure system is developed and implemented, the judge will likely re-visit his order.
if I run joe smoes website and collect some info, I don't that this judge has legal backing to just shut me down.
If one of your "customers" can show that your collection/storage of that data is causing irreparable harm to his interests, then the judge could indeed make such an order. Whatever would make you think otherwise?