Any decent OCR will already have run the results through a spelling checker (and hopefully flag the ones that aren't in the dictionary). Of course, you'd then have to go and fix errors you care about, which takes quite a lot of time.
Perfect OCR isn't necessary for searching documents. As long as the OCR is pretty good, you can get pretty good searches. Since the question stated that they want to look at the diagrams, the original image obviously needs to be saved.
One could make the text hidden as suggested by post #27.
No, I think it is more likely that they don't want to get cut out of the loop (they have egos too). They did this quickly and are doing it en banc since they figured that would be the best way to get the Supreme Court to let them take it. This is, after all, a major, major case.
There probably are a few of the judges who personally dislike Jackson (remember, only 3 were on the panel that struck down Jackson's ruling), but I don't think this is the likely motivation for the whole court.
They may have 60 days to appeal, but they also have a 90 day deadline to implement Judge Jackson's court order. Putting it off 60 days would give them only 30 days to implement the order if their request for a stay were denied for any reason.
Microsoft is a huge company and the 90 days that they have to comply with the order is probably fairly difficult as it is. They need to know immediately whether a stay will be granted. The rest of the appeal they want dragged out, as they can continue making their monopoly profits as long as it's on appeal. (Well, even when they're broken up, they'll be two monopolies instead of one - they'll still be able to get monopoly prices, though that may be somewhat limited by the conduct remedies).
The reason that Microsoft had power over Apple at that time was that the Apple II+ came bundled with Microsoft software... Applesoft BASIC. Removing this software from the Apple II was essentially impossible. Microsoft supposedly threatened to withhold the license if Apple released a BASIC on the Mac (which they had already developed). At the time, Apple had no choice but to acceed to Microsoft's wishes, since to do otherwise would kill Apple (sound familiar?)
The proposed split is creating two monopolies instead of one. It's not as if the new Microsoft Apps company would have to stop worrying about anti-trust laws.
Also, historically the Apps company has made a LOT of money off the Macintosh market. ($1 billion/year? - not trivial even for MS. I've heard that MS makes more money on the Mac than Apple does.) Apple's market share has been growing recently, so I assume that money MS makes is only growing.
I agree that current Microsoft would have dropped Office for the Mac in a second if they felt that they could have got away with it. The motivation would have been to eliminate MacOS so there would be no competition for Windows. This motivation goes away when the OS/Apps are split into different companies.
From what I've read, Joel Klein is pushing for it and Judge Jackson has indicated that he's also "favorably inclined" (or something like that). Microsoft, though, first has to officially file the appeal before anything like that happens.
Note, though that it's the Solicitor General, not the DOJ who must request it. Also, the Supreme Court doesn't have to accept it.
Oh, and did it ever occur to you to wonder why Quicktime does not have an MPEG-2 decoder? It isn't because apple doesn't have one written, i'll tell you that
Quicktime 5 (or whatever they're going to call it) will have an MPEG-2 encoder and decoder. It's supposed to come out this summer
How about having a mode where posts of different scores are given different shades of grey... score 5 would be bold and black, score 0 a barely readable light grey and score -1 white! We could tell at a glance how high a score a post has. (Perhaps we could even have flamebait in red?). Yes, I know this is silly.
With respect to the second charge, I feel Microsoft stands a good chance of being granted relief by the Appeals Court. In the Consent Decree ruling, the appellate judges essentially concluded that separate demand for two products, and even separate marketing, do not necessarily indicate that those two products cannot be integrated.
Judge Jackson explicitly dealt with the issue of the previous Appeals Court ruling. He concluded that the issue the appeals court previously ruled upon was, by necessity, a narrow ruling about the consent decree. Otherwise, antitrust law could not apply to software (that is, anyone could bundle anything, anytime and claim some plausible "benefit"), which he considered an absurdity. Judge Jackson, rightly in my opinion, rejected this. To guard against the Appeals Court, he quoted from numerous Supreme Court rulings that supported his rejection of a broad interpretation of the their ruling (after all, as a lower court judge, he was walking a fine line in telling the Appeals Court what they thought).
ii. when an OEM removes End-User Access to a Middleware Product from any Personal Computer on which Windows is preinstalled, the royalty paid by that OEM for that copy of Windows is reduced in an amount not less than the product of the otherwise applicable royalty and the ratio of the number of amount in bytes of binary code of (a) the Middleware Product as distributed separately from a Windows Operating System Product to (b) the applicable version of Windows.
Is this encouragement to produce a slimmer version of Internet Explorer? Or a more bloated Windows?
Slashdot Mirror
Any decent OCR will already have run the results through a spelling checker (and hopefully flag the ones that aren't in the dictionary). Of course, you'd then have to go and fix errors you care about, which takes quite a lot of time.
Perfect OCR isn't necessary for searching documents. As long as the OCR is pretty good, you can get pretty good searches. Since the question stated that they want to look at the diagrams, the original image obviously needs to be saved.
One could make the text hidden as suggested by post #27.
Here's Inforworld's article
Antitrust battle continues
No, I think it is more likely that they don't want to get cut out of the loop (they have egos too). They did this quickly and are doing it en banc since they figured that would be the best way to get the Supreme Court to let them take it. This is, after all, a major, major case.
There probably are a few of the judges who personally dislike Jackson (remember, only 3 were on the panel that struck down Jackson's ruling), but I don't think this is the likely motivation for the whole court.
They may have 60 days to appeal, but they also have a 90 day deadline to implement Judge Jackson's court order. Putting it off 60 days would give them only 30 days to implement the order if their request for a stay were denied for any reason.
Microsoft is a huge company and the 90 days that they have to comply with the order is probably fairly difficult as it is. They need to know immediately whether a stay will be granted. The rest of the appeal they want dragged out, as they can continue making their monopoly profits as long as it's on appeal. (Well, even when they're broken up, they'll be two monopolies instead of one - they'll still be able to get monopoly prices, though that may be somewhat limited by the conduct remedies).
How do you think they got to be so rich? Greedy people/institutions tend to have more money than those who aren't so greedy.
The reason that Microsoft had power over Apple at that time was that the Apple II+ came bundled with Microsoft software... Applesoft BASIC. Removing this software from the Apple II was essentially impossible. Microsoft supposedly threatened to withhold the license if Apple released a BASIC on the Mac (which they had already developed). At the time, Apple had no choice but to acceed to Microsoft's wishes, since to do otherwise would kill Apple (sound familiar?)
The proposed split is creating two monopolies instead of one. It's not as if the new Microsoft Apps company would have to stop worrying about anti-trust laws.
Also, historically the Apps company has made a LOT of money off the Macintosh market. ($1 billion/year? - not trivial even for MS. I've heard that MS makes more money on the Mac than Apple does.) Apple's market share has been growing recently, so I assume that money MS makes is only growing.
I agree that current Microsoft would have dropped Office for the Mac in a second if they felt that they could have got away with it. The motivation would have been to eliminate MacOS so there would be no competition for Windows. This motivation goes away when the OS/Apps are split into different companies.
From what I've read, Joel Klein is pushing for it and Judge Jackson has indicated that he's also "favorably inclined" (or something like that). Microsoft, though, first has to officially file the appeal before anything like that happens.
Note, though that it's the Solicitor General, not the DOJ who must request it. Also, the Supreme Court doesn't have to accept it.
A container ship or supertanker filled with DVDs would have even higher bandwidth - they're BIG. Although latency would be even a bit worse.
My only question is what happens in the cases of a virus like the famed "Melissa" who automatically passes it's self around?
It's obvious - toss the virus in jail and give it a $15,000 fine!
Oh, and did it ever occur to you to wonder why Quicktime does not have an MPEG-2 decoder? It isn't because apple doesn't have one written, i'll tell you that
Quicktime 5 (or whatever they're going to call it) will have an MPEG-2 encoder and decoder. It's supposed to come out this summer
How about having a mode where posts of different scores are given different shades of grey... score 5 would be bold and black, score 0 a barely readable light grey and score -1 white! We could tell at a glance how high a score a post has. (Perhaps we could even have flamebait in red?). Yes, I know this is silly.
Score -1, stupid.
With respect to the second charge, I feel Microsoft stands a good chance of being granted relief by the Appeals Court. In the Consent Decree ruling, the appellate judges essentially concluded that separate demand for two products, and even separate marketing, do not necessarily indicate that those two products cannot be integrated.
Judge Jackson explicitly dealt with the issue of the previous Appeals Court ruling. He concluded that the issue the appeals court previously ruled upon was, by necessity, a narrow ruling about the consent decree. Otherwise, antitrust law could not apply to software (that is, anyone could bundle anything, anytime and claim some plausible "benefit"), which he considered an absurdity. Judge Jackson, rightly in my opinion, rejected this. To guard against the Appeals Court, he quoted from numerous Supreme Court rulings that supported his rejection of a broad interpretation of the their ruling (after all, as a lower court judge, he was walking a fine line in telling the Appeals Court what they thought).
ii. when an OEM removes End-User Access to a Middleware Product from any Personal Computer on which Windows is preinstalled, the royalty paid by that OEM for that copy of Windows is reduced in an amount not less than the product of the otherwise applicable royalty and the ratio of the number of amount in bytes of binary code of (a) the Middleware Product as distributed separately from a Windows Operating System Product to (b) the applicable version of Windows.
Is this encouragement to produce a slimmer version of Internet Explorer? Or a more bloated Windows?