Let's start making stuff up about it, saying that it will require that every human being on the planet register on a global network and that it gives copyright protection organizations the right to install kill switches in everyone's brain.
They will be so afraid of the pitchforks and torches generated from this that they'll be forced to do what they should have done in the first place: tell us what it actually contains.
Well, at least google hasn't jailed people for thought and information crimes yet. If you see google as a possible evil, they are most certainly the lesser so far.
LCD monitors are already polarized. All it takes is a company to have them output circular polarization, which would be easy even for a tiny company to figure out.
It was once thought that 14 years was a reasonable amount of time to capitalize on a copyright. Now, distribution and capitalization happens much more quickly, and yet copyright duration has continued to get longer and longer.
The only way this could NOT be a scam is if they have accomplished two or more of the following:
1. Made incredible leaps in computing power that nobody is aware of yet 2. Overcome many laws of physics 3. Decided to charge people so much that they might as well have bought a computer/console anyway
Also, my television has about 100ms of input lag. Add another 50-150 for Onlive to render, encode video, and stream back, and it won't just be FPS games that are unplayable. Nobody is even going to want to play Plants vs. Zombies when it feels like you're moving your mouse through hot tar.
People are going to start designing corporate press releases (or ultimately, all news if it starts going this direction) in such a way that it gets them attention, just like when people try to game google.
I have never once witnessed a significant decrease of the size and power of the federal government during my entire lifetime Same here. I think the last time there was a significant decrease in governmental power in the United States was when we declared independence from our previous government in 1776.
Are the rights of a corporation more important, or the rights of an actual human being more important?
To quote something I read before on slashdot (pardon me for not remembering your name, although I hold you in the highest regard!):
Companies don't need anything. People need things. Companies are nothing more than tools we create in order to benefit actual human beings. When you talk about the needs of companies, you are treating them as ends, not as means. Then we--human beings--become the means to satisfy their needs.
If this patent is as specific as half the people in this thread state, could such a tiny feature have damaged i4i/gained Microsoft $296,000,000? I know nothing of patent law or XML, but a minor change being worth $296M sounds a bit extreme. Even if the damages were awarded to make an example of MS, I can't imagine either company benefitting 1/10th of that.
I'm totally against prosecuting people who share information at no profit, but people like this have no leg to stand on. If anyone should make money, it should be the holders of those copyrights.
Slashdot Mirror
But it doesn't mean their burgers are better.
Just sayin'
If you don't live in BFE and don't visit BFE very often, AT&T is superior in every way.
Verizon has better coverage. That is its only advantage. Everything else goes ATT's way.
Let's start making stuff up about it, saying that it will require that every human being on the planet register on a global network and that it gives copyright protection organizations the right to install kill switches in everyone's brain.
They will be so afraid of the pitchforks and torches generated from this that they'll be forced to do what they should have done in the first place: tell us what it actually contains.
Not the rest of the world I don't think...maybe Belgium, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a few others
Most countries are moving faster and with higher or no caps.
The US is falling behind on science. Why not technology, while we're at it? Bring on the stone age!
Well, at least google hasn't jailed people for thought and information crimes yet. If you see google as a possible evil, they are most certainly the lesser so far.
LCD monitors are already polarized. All it takes is a company to have them output circular polarization, which would be easy even for a tiny company to figure out.
Wait...it's already been done
http://www.berezin.com/3D/3ddisplay.htm
Mass produce that tech and it will be very affordable using passive glasses, just like the theaters.
I had a really good idea that nobody wanted to buy. How much money would I be entitled to?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Copyright_term.svg
Also this.
...under the weight of their own stupidity.
It was once thought that 14 years was a reasonable amount of time to capitalize on a copyright. Now, distribution and capitalization happens much more quickly, and yet copyright duration has continued to get longer and longer.
Police can pull you over using automobile technology that is in common use. Doesn't mean that they can pull everyone over for funsies.
As a cranky literature lover, I'll have you know that utilizing "waltzing" for personification diminishes the term in no way.
I got norton.
[in before people who don't get the reference]
The only way this could NOT be a scam is if they have accomplished two or more of the following:
1. Made incredible leaps in computing power that nobody is aware of yet
2. Overcome many laws of physics
3. Decided to charge people so much that they might as well have bought a computer/console anyway
Also, my television has about 100ms of input lag. Add another 50-150 for Onlive to render, encode video, and stream back, and it won't just be FPS games that are unplayable. Nobody is even going to want to play Plants vs. Zombies when it feels like you're moving your mouse through hot tar.
People are going to start designing corporate press releases (or ultimately, all news if it starts going this direction) in such a way that it gets them attention, just like when people try to game google.
I have never once witnessed a significant decrease of the size and power of the federal government during my entire lifetime
Same here. I think the last time there was a significant decrease in governmental power in the United States was when we declared independence from our previous government in 1776.
Are the rights of a corporation more important, or the rights of an actual human being more important?
To quote something I read before on slashdot (pardon me for not remembering your name, although I hold you in the highest regard!):
Companies don't need anything. People need things. Companies are nothing more than tools we create in order to benefit actual human beings. When you talk about the needs of companies, you are treating them as ends, not as means. Then we--human beings--become the means to satisfy their needs.
I've been wanting this for years.
Dammit. I need better financial advice.
If this patent is as specific as half the people in this thread state, could such a tiny feature have damaged i4i/gained Microsoft $296,000,000? I know nothing of patent law or XML, but a minor change being worth $296M sounds a bit extreme. Even if the damages were awarded to make an example of MS, I can't imagine either company benefitting 1/10th of that.
If the pub was robbed using a knife from said pub, should the pub also be responsible for what the person committing the crime did?
I'm totally against prosecuting people who share information at no profit, but people like this have no leg to stand on. If anyone should make money, it should be the holders of those copyrights.
This invention may someday prove to be useful for killing Sarah Connor.
I'm voting for Cincinnatus next election.
Even Batman thought that a network monitoring everyone at all times was evil. His R&D guy threatened to resign over it.