He found a player or two that were better at doing one single thing than the iPod, but did not offer the good general all round package you expect from Apple.
The fact it didn't do WMA files was a bonus; I've done my damnedest to ensure there is not a WMA file in my jukebox.
As mentioned earlier, you simply set up a site that has no chance of being confused with the previous owners. How do you think all those domain parking sites get away with it?
If it makes you happy, you can even put a disclaimer on the front page denying affiliation; then you have them over a barrel
If you however, setup a site on "passport.com" containing information on passport control and customs, or a site on "hotmail.co.uk" about postal regulations, you would a) be able to bypass this claim b) get a lot of hits due to the previous owners stupidity c) Be able to generate lots of ad impressions d) Profit!
Adopt a strategy of [shock!] playing live at concerts, using the MP3s as advertising instead of your revenue stream. You also realise that you can still make bucketloads of money by selling t-shirts coffe mugs and anything with your logo on it, including (horror!) the actual CD. People want to own memories, and a digital recording is not a memory.
The simple reason, as other posters have pointed out, is attachment of a device to a person or his possessions requires some form of interference with those possessions or the person.
Anything which involves intrusion should require a warrant.
.. government should only grant patents becuase of a need to force advances out in the open, otherwise it should not interfere. Judging by the fact software seems to progress forward quite nicely without such patents, why do it?
I guess I should prepare to get modded down, because I know this opinion isn't popular here You're an AC, why do you care about being modded down?
I wrote to my MEP to protest and got this back - the only problem is, that like a typical politicians speech, I'm not quite sure at the ened of the day what its saying. I get the impression this is a little double edged. See what you make of it.
Dear Mr Roberts,
Thank you for your email, which has been passed to me as your local MEP from Philip Bushill-Matthews MEP.
Conservatives in the European Parliament have supported the objectives of the Directive to set out and defend the status quo in Europe following changes to the patent system in the USA and also planned for Japan. There is a clear intention across the EU Member States to see that Europe does not follow the USA and Japan in allowing widespread patent availability for software and business methods. Copyright will remain the principal method of protecting intellectual property in these cases. I and my UK Conservative colleagues support the general line that the Commission has taken which builds on and clarifies the existing patent law across the European Union and makes it clear that only software which forms part of a technological process will be patentable. This will allow patents to be provided for genuine technical inventions and stimulate European economic development in areas of economic strength like mobile telephony, digital television and computer controlled machine tools to name just a few possibilities. Contrary to the impression given in your letter there is no intention what so ever to allow generic patenting of software in Europe.
The amendments agreed by the Legal Affairs and Internal Market Committee last week, and supported by Conservative MEPs, have clarified the test conditions for software (deciding whether it has a technical effect) before authorising a patent. The Parliament amendments improve the text while ensuring that its principles are supported. Codification of the existing position will also avoid raising complicated issues of the validity of existing patents across Europe or allowing current unpatentable technologies to claim new patents. This will allow European businesses the chance to develop ideas with certainty as to their legal position. It will also reduce the pressure from companies holding permissive American software patents who wish to gain an extension of their patent rights in Europe.
Finally, I must point out that the Directive contains detailed provisions for review of its operation and for early revision should its provisions not work as intended. If it is clear, from the type of inventions being patented or from ongoing legal cases, that the goals of outlawing generic software patents are not being met, then a process of revision can be implemented quickly.
Is anyone able to give an estimate for when SCO is likely to lose this battle? After all, if SCO stock is still riding high after 3 months or so, then shorting the stock short term is likely to be a bust.
So what timeframe are we looking at for some decisions to adversly affect SCO and the stock to head south?
Must be walking around with a big cheesy grin on their faces at the moment. For years they've been the bad guys or even the Big Bad Wolf in most computing cases (e.g antitrust and patent cases) and now suddenly they're the heroes.
Looks like that investment in Linux is starting to pay off big time in goodwill.
In other comments here, it has been suggested that because GPL'ed code does not have a dollar value tagged with it, it has no value and thuis estimating damages is impossible. This is simply untrue.
In a breach of the GPL, a person/ company/ organisation is selling GPL'ed code for a dollar amount. It is thus charging for software that the user could obtain for free. THIS dollar amount is the figure which could be used as a basis for damages. Also, equivalent software to GPL'ed code has a development cost, a marketing cost and a general overhead cost.
It should be remembered that damages are often based on an ESTIMATE of the value; for example, the RIAA in charging $100,000 per song is simply making an estimate; there is no reason GPL'ed code should be any different.
I'd like to propose that all GPL projects switch to a new version of the GPL, containing the following extra paragraph.
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2.1, January 200?..........
11. You may not copy, redistribute or modify this code in any way such that it runs on any form of SCO Unix. The freedoms granted by the GPL are not applicable to SCO systems.
The intro is too long and is painful to read, almost like a troll article. Couldn't you have split it into a few lines of intro and a main text section?
Ok, this has been said before but then I thought of an application...
Next time Slashdot points to your web site, have a primary web server redirect the duty of serving the web page to one of a beowulf cluster of these. Because of the intrinsic delay your site won't be Slashdotted. K00l!!
SCo has a dispute with IBM; there is currently no legal action against Linux itself. Therefore the point is not sub-judice. You have no contract or agreement with SCO. You have reasonable grounds for a mail fraud claim in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
You should never design your website when angry. Wait till you calm down, or you'll make mistakes. Cool, Calm Site Scripting (CCSS) is much better.
He found a player or two that were better at doing one single thing than the iPod, but did not offer the good general all round package you expect from Apple.
The fact it didn't do WMA files was a bonus; I've done my damnedest to ensure there is not a WMA file in my jukebox.
As mentioned earlier, you simply set up a site that has no chance of being confused with the previous owners. How do you think all those domain parking sites get away with it?
If it makes you happy, you can even put a disclaimer on the front page denying affiliation; then you have them over a barrel
..but at $1.50 you would have 23.33UKP - you used $2 = 1UKP
;-P
Stop digging!
Even when being funny it helps to be right
$35 = 21.08GBP at $1.66 = 1GBP BBC Exchange rates
The above does not include commission charges or a buy/sell spread, so 25UKP would be better.
If you however, setup a site on "passport.com" containing information on passport control and customs, or a site on "hotmail.co.uk" about postal regulations, you would
a) be able to bypass this claim
b) get a lot of hits due to the previous owners stupidity
c) Be able to generate lots of ad impressions
d) Profit!
Its all dutch (well, german) to me
...his web server is not very scaleable in response to Slashdotting!
..with optional basketball hopop located just above it for an additional challenge when filing requests.
... will it be able to do Math correctly?
Adopt a strategy of [shock!] playing live at concerts, using the MP3s as advertising instead of your revenue stream. You also realise that you can still make bucketloads of money by selling t-shirts coffe mugs and anything with your logo on it, including (horror!) the actual CD. People want to own memories, and a digital recording is not a memory.
Cowboy Neil?
"You killed the sofa, you bastid!"
The simple reason, as other posters have pointed out, is attachment of a device to a person or his possessions requires some form of interference with those possessions or the person.
Anything which involves intrusion should require a warrant.
.. government should only grant patents becuase of a need to force advances out in the open, otherwise it should not interfere. Judging by the fact software seems to progress forward quite nicely without such patents, why do it?
I guess I should prepare to get modded down, because I know this opinion isn't popular here
You're an AC, why do you care about being modded down?
No, but if anyone stored credit card data on their Newton the patent can be shown to be generally invalid.
Is anyone able to give an estimate for when SCO is likely to lose this battle? After all, if SCO stock is still riding high after 3 months or so, then shorting the stock short term is likely to be a bust.
So what timeframe are we looking at for some decisions to adversly affect SCO and the stock to head south?
Must be walking around with a big cheesy grin on their faces at the moment. For years they've been the bad guys or even the Big Bad Wolf in most computing cases (e.g antitrust and patent cases) and now suddenly they're the heroes.
Looks like that investment in Linux is starting to pay off big time in goodwill.
In other comments here, it has been suggested that because GPL'ed code does not have a dollar value tagged with it, it has no value and thuis estimating damages is impossible. This is simply untrue.
In a breach of the GPL, a person/ company/ organisation is selling GPL'ed code for a dollar amount. It is thus charging for software that the user could obtain for free. THIS dollar amount is the figure which could be used as a basis for damages. Also, equivalent software to GPL'ed code has a development cost, a marketing cost and a general overhead cost.
It should be remembered that damages are often based on an ESTIMATE of the value; for example, the RIAA in charging $100,000 per song is simply making an estimate; there is no reason GPL'ed code should be any different.
I'd like to propose that all GPL projects switch to a new version of the GPL, containing the following extra paragraph.
..... .....
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2.1, January 200?
11. You may not copy, redistribute or modify this code in any way such that it runs on any form of SCO Unix. The freedoms granted by the GPL are not applicable to SCO systems.
The intro is too long and is painful to read, almost like a troll article. Couldn't you have split it into a few lines of intro and a main text section?
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!
Ok, this has been said before but then I thought of an application...
Next time Slashdot points to your web site, have a primary web server redirect the duty of serving the web page to one of a beowulf cluster of these. Because of the intrinsic delay your site won't be Slashdotted. K00l!!
For 350K, I'm sure you can create your own distribution tailored specifically for your needs.
Should've gone in the article about power. Stikll good though
SCo has a dispute with IBM; there is currently no legal action against Linux itself. Therefore the point is not sub-judice. You have no contract or agreement with SCO. You have reasonable grounds for a mail fraud claim in this case.