I basically agree with your sentiment. I only used a specific distro as an example. I don't really see a problem with the status quo. However, if a change is being mandated, I think the change should not be one that winds up costing consumers, whether in time, money or botched installs.
First of all, I don't think YOU understand what "bricking" means. Unable to be recovered "ever"? Um no, not necessarily. Just because the end user doesn't have the knowledge or means to repair something doesn't mean it's non-repairable in principle. And that goes for PCs, routers, iPhones, whatever.
Second, and more important, try actually reading instead of excitedly rushing to poke a hole in what you imagine a person has written. I chose my words carefully - I didn't say people's PCs would be bricked. I said horror stories would get passed around, and hence people would be fearful of bricking their PCs. By people I meant normal people, not scientists such as you, who have the innate ability to immediately distinguish between the various esoteric error states technically referred to as bricked, crashed, fried, hosed or borked.
1. Forcing computer users to install their own operating system may seem easy-peasy the Slashdot crowd, but in reality, a lot of people will have problems with this initial step. And that will translate into higher support costs. Which will translated into higher retail costs. In other words, goodbye huge savings. Hello having to pay for other people's "free" Linux installs.
2. Oops, except for Apple. So suddenly the choice will boil down to getting an Apple PC all set up and ready to go OR getting another brand that you have to basically set up yourself. I understand that people want to punish Microsoft but it doesn't seem quite fair that Dell, Acer, HP etc should be penalized as well.
3. Of course, in reality what would happen is that the big box stores would set up, install and warranty your PC for a fee. 90% of people would get this option even for their Linux install, because horror stories will get passed around and nobody wants to be the person who bricked their $1000 system. So thanks to paying the "Geekdog" premium (or whatever they call it) people would wind up paying MORE for their Linux model than the equivalent Windows model in the old system. And they STILL won't be able to play Bioshock.
4. Here's my compromise: Force hardware manufacturers to install Windows dual boot with another OS if they bundle it at all. For example, get Windows/Ubuntu installed in dual boot configuration OR get Ubuntu by itself for a discount which must by law be equal at a minimum to the wholesale price paid for the Windows OEM. Or of course, get a bare system, but then no OS warranty, and the cost of you screwing up your install isn't passed on to the rest of us.
Microsoft is clearly hoping the whole web app idea will fail. To a large extent, Office IS Microsoft. It is their huge cash cow and must be protected at all costs.
But, they don't want to be caught totally unprepared for a paradigm shift, so placing web apps allows them to gauge the market penetration and use of these types of applications, as well as keeping users locked into the MS camp.
But they don't really want to see this succeed, not even a little bit. MS doesn't "get" the web, never has, and if they have to compete on Google's home turf, they will lose.
Haha, I've never seen Numb3rs. Well, I didn't say it never happened, just that it's rare. Thanks for the pointer though, now I'm curious about the show.
It's very rare to see a fictional TV show revolving around an engineer, mathematician, physicist or hard science major of any kind. The only counterexample I can think of offhand is Ross from Friends, but to the extent that his job was mentioned at all it was usually in some ridiculous context. Contrast that with the hundreds of shows there have been about doctors, lawyers, judges, financiers and reporters. Hence, those professions are considered sexy and lucrative, even when they aren't particularly so (public defenders and beat reporters), whereas scientists are considered obscure and arcane at best, geeky and borderline irresponsible at worst. The one looming exception is the astronaut/astrophysicist type on sci-fi shows, but what they tend to do, blast through galaxies and meet aliens, is something so unrealistic that it doesn't lend itself to employment aspirations.
Of course, it's not just Americans who watch TV but the problem particular to Americans is that their real-life experience seems to parallel what they see on TV, they deal with plenty of brokers, doctors and lawyers in real life and have little contact with engineers and scientists. Americans also pay their doctors and lawyers extremely highly. In other countries doctors and lawyers are not quite so highly compensated and engineers have higher social status overall.
I'm expecting much speechifying and self-righteous anger before Congress gets down to the business of mollifying its paying customers. (No silly, I don't mean taxpayers.)
I'm sure if these networking companies, some of which are extremely wealthy, wanted to be clear of patent concerns, they could form an association to buy out the patent at a fair price and declare it to be free of royalties. Instead, they'd rather do without the tech. Who's greedy?
Interesting find, but four years out of date. Those numbers were gathered during the most successful phase of the war/terror propaganda machine, and they'd have to be compared with years before and after to show where we're headed. Three years does not a trend make.
In "the modern court system", it's the defendant who is presumed innocent (or not liable), not the plaintiff. The seller, if filing the suit as in this case, is not given the "benefit of the doubt." That would be totally backwards.
One of us is confused -- either me or the summary. From my parsing of TFA, it seems to me there are two separate things going on here that are being intermingled.
First, there is a rule requiring cable companies to do what they already do, for the most part -- have analog outs on their digital set top boxes. I don't think they'll care so much about that.
Second, there is a rule that they must continue to carry local channels, even after the digital switchover, some of which they'd love to replace with more lucrative pay cable channels.
What I can't tell from the summary or the article is if both of these requirements are in effect until 2012 or just one.
Of course it downloads new messages when the display is sleeping. There'd be no point to sleep if it didn't.
Generally speaking, the purpose of sleep mode in phones is to allow them to still receive phone calls while they're "off." Not to allow them to MAKE phone calls secretly. As a matter of fact, I just took an email capable phone on an international cruise and there were no unexpected charges. Actually, even when I have the phone "on" it doesn't download email or otherwise actively call the network without my request.
It seems to me that since the iPhone is currently a domestic-only device, that it should have a setting to allow international data roaming and that that setting should default to OFF.
In any event, the larger issue is not that the phone downloads email, but that there doesn't seem to be a warning that you WILL be charged an exorbitant rate for email if you leave the country, period The disclaimer that "substantial charges may be incurred if phone is taken out of the U.S. even if no services are intentionally used" could be interpreted to mean that the phone will rack up charges in the event that someone calls you or texts you. Not merely for being hooked up to the network.
So on day 2 they threatened him and his family if he didn't sign the NDA? And they shackled him to a rusty pipe and hooked electrodes up to his eyeballs, but he escaped by chewing off his own head? After swimming through molten sewage to freedom, he took time to defuse the nuclear bomb AMD had secreted under Raffles Place, to report a jaywalker to the authorities, and to rescue a puppy dog from a burning building? Wait, none of that happened...they asked him to sign an NDA, which is their right, and he declined and departed, which is his right. Where does the heroism come into play?
I don't even see why "AMD sucks." They could've just released no information at all, but decided it would be advantageous to release info under extremely restrictive terms. Obviously this guy didn't like the terms, but big deal. Am I a hero for not buying a Lamborghini because I don't like the terms? Cool.
but then I thought: what if the government stops other people from perpetrating uncalled-for violence against me? The ol' your-freedom-stops-at-my-nose idea.
I get what you're saying, but then, this isn't government increasing your freedom in an absolute sense, but instead acting as a deterrent to tyranny and slavery from third-party forces. Which I think is appropriate.
It seems to me that the most free state would be that of a solitary godhood (which makes one wonder why a god would surrender his freedom to cater to the prayers of his followers), but I suppose one could argue that a solitary person was perfectly free as well, although lacking in certain abilities that society could provide. Two people could exercise a fair amount of freedom as well. From there, like the three-body-problem, it gets considerably more complicated.:)
Anyway, an interesting reply. I vaguely remember Maslow from my college days, and I'll have to check out the J Curve book when I get a chance. Thanks for the recommendation.
I see. Intercontinental crisis averted, then. Cheney will be so disappointed he doesn't get to use his toys.
Why I was modded Insightful is not entirely clear to me.
It's an internet rule. If it's possible to interpret something non-humorously, someone will do it. Hence, smiley emoticons, which we got along with perfectly throughout the history of recorded writing until now. Except for those damned proto-Elamites and their "cheese" emoticon.
I've got nothing against Europe, but it's pretty lame if you think you're proving something by trotting out the same jingoistic slogans used by Uncle Sam. Europe's freer than the US in some respects, but not as free in others. There's no nation in the world that's totally free, and likely never will be, since "freedom" and "government" are a contradiction in terms.
On the other hand, if you were just referring to the freedom to buy an unlocked handset, well, um, never mind then.:)
The answer's in TFA, basically the entire penultimate paragraph. In part it says, "Users can adjust the settings to allow certain programs of their choice to come through at all times." That's interactivity.
No flames. I agree that Vista is eventually inevitable for most home users. People keep buying new computers in spite of Vista. But how much that's changed since the days when people would buy a new computer because of Windows 98 or Windows XP even. I've got four computers at home, two of them with XP and two with Vista, and frankly, Vista has no compelling features that would make me want to choose it over the older OS. I know it's potentially more secure out of the box. (I also know I just last week wound up turning off UAC because I couldn't get it to stop bugging me about the last.fm plugin. Off-topic but it boggles my mind that there is no way to exempt individual programs from UAC) So for MS to arbitrarily make DX10 Vista-only strikes me as a bit of a scam. They're trying to make it a reason to want to upgrade, but instead they've made it a reason for developers to stay DX9. Oops.
It's pretty funny that Microsoft in its stronghold (PC OSes) made the same exact mistake that Sony made in its stronghold (consoles). Sony thought that tying Blu-Ray to its new console would be a win-win for format licensing and for the Playstation sales, but instead, high prices and lack of compelling software have kept people back. Similarly, MS thought that tying DX10 to its PC OS would be a win-win for gaming licensing and Vista sales, but instead, high prices and lack of compelling software have kept people back. As a result, people generally prefer to keep buying last-gen PS2's and Windows XP.
If that rumor is true, what is it with Microsoft and the sneaky behind the scenes crap? We see how well that worked out for them with SCOX.
Seems to me they'd be better off just coming out with a version of the XB360 with an integrated HD-DVD.
Also, supposedly a few companies have released HD-DVD burners, but I have yet to see them at retail. They should be flooding retail chains with them by now.
Finally, how about getting the studios to stop charging a premium for those combo format HD-DVD/DVD discs? It means the HD-DVD people wind up paying extra for a lot of their releases and makes the format look much less attractive to casual buyers. I got a PC that plays HD-DVDs last Xmas and so far I've bought a total of one disc.
It's "intellectually dishonest" of you to describe someone's pointing out a simple fact as a defensive posture. One might think you were doing some defensive posturing of your own, but for what reason, I wonder? The poster's not calling you names nor drawing any adverse conclusions about your elision, just bringing it forth as an FYI.
Don't get all panicky. Not every stupid legal result becomes "precedent," particularly not at the trial level. Furthermore, trying to implead KazaA isn't really stupid even if it's wrong. It sounds like she's got decent legal representation. The best result for her is that there's no liability to begin with. But her lawyer wants to be prepared for that theory failing, so in the alternative, it was really KazaA's/AOL's fault to begin with. I'm sure he's also prepared to argue that even if there was some liability, there were mitigating circumstances and/or there were minimal damages, etc. Otherwise, she might as well just come out and say, "YOU GOT ME NOW! YOU FIGURED ME OUT! YOU CAUGHT ME RED HAINDED!" and let them monetarily rape her.
Adobe, who has the photo-editing market by the balls, would rather have you stuck with their proprietary formats as much as possible.
It seems to me this is the bottom line. Microsoft are desperate to prevent Adobe (or Apple, Google, Sony, or any other company) from ever owning a fully vertical solution in any area of computing. A Microsoft-free shop is their worst fear because of the possibility the independence could spread like a cancer and put an end to their Windows/MS Office gravy train. So they're willing to do anything to slow down the Adobe juggernaut, even giving away specs for free. In Vegas terms, they're comping the development community to keep them playing at Microsoft's tables.
all it cuts out (apart from patent trolls) are defensive patent portfolios and small research houses which attempt to develop and then sell ideas.
But that's a huge deal. Basically then, if you're an inventor, you're screwed. Let's say you come up with a way to increase the efficiency of jet engines. According to this, unless you actually plan on selling jet engines, you've got no way to enforce your patent. You can offer to sell the patent to a jet manufacturing company, but why should they buy it from you, since you've got no leverage over them? They can just go ahead and use your invention, and since you don't actually manufacture jet engines yourself, you can't stop them.
And that's more or less what happened to MercExchange, at least according to this article. eBay came to them to offer to buy their portfolio, but really they were just looking it over to see if they could get away with violating it. And after eBay's legal team looked things over, they simply decided to pull a Microsoft and totally violate the portfolio with no compensation. And make no mistake, they did violate it, as decided by a jury. They're simply hoping at this point that they can render moot the jury verdict by getting the underlying patents invalidated.
Make no mistake here. eBay are the bad guys here. MercExchange aren't a patent troll company - they've got a homegrown portfolio and in my opinion deserve to have their ideas protected, insofar as ideas should be protected at all. If you want to rail against software or business method patents in general, maybe you're right, but let's start with the big fishes' huge portfolios first before we go after the guppies.
Slashdot Mirror
I basically agree with your sentiment. I only used a specific distro as an example. I don't really see a problem with the status quo. However, if a change is being mandated, I think the change should not be one that winds up costing consumers, whether in time, money or botched installs.
First of all, I don't think YOU understand what "bricking" means. Unable to be recovered "ever"? Um no, not necessarily. Just because the end user doesn't have the knowledge or means to repair something doesn't mean it's non-repairable in principle. And that goes for PCs, routers, iPhones, whatever.
Second, and more important, try actually reading instead of excitedly rushing to poke a hole in what you imagine a person has written. I chose my words carefully - I didn't say people's PCs would be bricked. I said horror stories would get passed around, and hence people would be fearful of bricking their PCs. By people I meant normal people, not scientists such as you, who have the innate ability to immediately distinguish between the various esoteric error states technically referred to as bricked, crashed, fried, hosed or borked.
Third, "scientist"? Thanks for the laugh, AC.
1. Forcing computer users to install their own operating system may seem easy-peasy the Slashdot crowd, but in reality, a lot of people will have problems with this initial step. And that will translate into higher support costs. Which will translated into higher retail costs. In other words, goodbye huge savings. Hello having to pay for other people's "free" Linux installs.
2. Oops, except for Apple. So suddenly the choice will boil down to getting an Apple PC all set up and ready to go OR getting another brand that you have to basically set up yourself. I understand that people want to punish Microsoft but it doesn't seem quite fair that Dell, Acer, HP etc should be penalized as well.
3. Of course, in reality what would happen is that the big box stores would set up, install and warranty your PC for a fee. 90% of people would get this option even for their Linux install, because horror stories will get passed around and nobody wants to be the person who bricked their $1000 system. So thanks to paying the "Geekdog" premium (or whatever they call it) people would wind up paying MORE for their Linux model than the equivalent Windows model in the old system. And they STILL won't be able to play Bioshock.
4. Here's my compromise: Force hardware manufacturers to install Windows dual boot with another OS if they bundle it at all. For example, get Windows/Ubuntu installed in dual boot configuration OR get Ubuntu by itself for a discount which must by law be equal at a minimum to the wholesale price paid for the Windows OEM. Or of course, get a bare system, but then no OS warranty, and the cost of you screwing up your install isn't passed on to the rest of us.
Yes, you're correct. Copyrights can be sold or transferred, as we should know.
Microsoft is clearly hoping the whole web app idea will fail. To a large extent, Office IS Microsoft. It is their huge cash cow and must be protected at all costs.
But, they don't want to be caught totally unprepared for a paradigm shift, so placing web apps allows them to gauge the market penetration and use of these types of applications, as well as keeping users locked into the MS camp.
But they don't really want to see this succeed, not even a little bit. MS doesn't "get" the web, never has, and if they have to compete on Google's home turf, they will lose.
Haha, I've never seen Numb3rs. Well, I didn't say it never happened, just that it's rare. Thanks for the pointer though, now I'm curious about the show.
It's very rare to see a fictional TV show revolving around an engineer, mathematician, physicist or hard science major of any kind. The only counterexample I can think of offhand is Ross from Friends, but to the extent that his job was mentioned at all it was usually in some ridiculous context. Contrast that with the hundreds of shows there have been about doctors, lawyers, judges, financiers and reporters. Hence, those professions are considered sexy and lucrative, even when they aren't particularly so (public defenders and beat reporters), whereas scientists are considered obscure and arcane at best, geeky and borderline irresponsible at worst. The one looming exception is the astronaut/astrophysicist type on sci-fi shows, but what they tend to do, blast through galaxies and meet aliens, is something so unrealistic that it doesn't lend itself to employment aspirations.
Of course, it's not just Americans who watch TV but the problem particular to Americans is that their real-life experience seems to parallel what they see on TV, they deal with plenty of brokers, doctors and lawyers in real life and have little contact with engineers and scientists. Americans also pay their doctors and lawyers extremely highly. In other countries doctors and lawyers are not quite so highly compensated and engineers have higher social status overall.
I'm expecting much speechifying and self-righteous anger before Congress gets down to the business of mollifying its paying customers. (No silly, I don't mean taxpayers.)
I'm sure if these networking companies, some of which are extremely wealthy, wanted to be clear of patent concerns, they could form an association to buy out the patent at a fair price and declare it to be free of royalties. Instead, they'd rather do without the tech. Who's greedy?
Interesting find, but four years out of date. Those numbers were gathered during the most successful phase of the war/terror propaganda machine, and they'd have to be compared with years before and after to show where we're headed. Three years does not a trend make.
In "the modern court system", it's the defendant who is presumed innocent (or not liable), not the plaintiff. The seller, if filing the suit as in this case, is not given the "benefit of the doubt." That would be totally backwards.
One of us is confused -- either me or the summary. From my parsing of TFA, it seems to me there are two separate things going on here that are being intermingled.
First, there is a rule requiring cable companies to do what they already do, for the most part -- have analog outs on their digital set top boxes. I don't think they'll care so much about that.
Second, there is a rule that they must continue to carry local channels, even after the digital switchover, some of which they'd love to replace with more lucrative pay cable channels.
What I can't tell from the summary or the article is if both of these requirements are in effect until 2012 or just one.
Of course it downloads new messages when the display is sleeping. There'd be no point to sleep if it didn't.
Generally speaking, the purpose of sleep mode in phones is to allow them to still receive phone calls while they're "off." Not to allow them to MAKE phone calls secretly. As a matter of fact, I just took an email capable phone on an international cruise and there were no unexpected charges. Actually, even when I have the phone "on" it doesn't download email or otherwise actively call the network without my request.
It seems to me that since the iPhone is currently a domestic-only device, that it should have a setting to allow international data roaming and that that setting should default to OFF.
In any event, the larger issue is not that the phone downloads email, but that there doesn't seem to be a warning that you WILL be charged an exorbitant rate for email if you leave the country, period The disclaimer that "substantial charges may be incurred if phone is taken out of the U.S. even if no services are intentionally used" could be interpreted to mean that the phone will rack up charges in the event that someone calls you or texts you. Not merely for being hooked up to the network.
So on day 2 they threatened him and his family if he didn't sign the NDA? And they shackled him to a rusty pipe and hooked electrodes up to his eyeballs, but he escaped by chewing off his own head? After swimming through molten sewage to freedom, he took time to defuse the nuclear bomb AMD had secreted under Raffles Place, to report a jaywalker to the authorities, and to rescue a puppy dog from a burning building? Wait, none of that happened...they asked him to sign an NDA, which is their right, and he declined and departed, which is his right. Where does the heroism come into play?
I don't even see why "AMD sucks." They could've just released no information at all, but decided it would be advantageous to release info under extremely restrictive terms. Obviously this guy didn't like the terms, but big deal. Am I a hero for not buying a Lamborghini because I don't like the terms? Cool.
but then I thought: what if the government stops other people from perpetrating uncalled-for violence against me? The ol' your-freedom-stops-at-my-nose idea.
:)
I get what you're saying, but then, this isn't government increasing your freedom in an absolute sense, but instead acting as a deterrent to tyranny and slavery from third-party forces. Which I think is appropriate.
It seems to me that the most free state would be that of a solitary godhood (which makes one wonder why a god would surrender his freedom to cater to the prayers of his followers), but I suppose one could argue that a solitary person was perfectly free as well, although lacking in certain abilities that society could provide. Two people could exercise a fair amount of freedom as well. From there, like the three-body-problem, it gets considerably more complicated.
Anyway, an interesting reply. I vaguely remember Maslow from my college days, and I'll have to check out the J Curve book when I get a chance. Thanks for the recommendation.
It was just a joke.
I see. Intercontinental crisis averted, then. Cheney will be so disappointed he doesn't get to use his toys.
Why I was modded Insightful is not entirely clear to me.
It's an internet rule. If it's possible to interpret something non-humorously, someone will do it. Hence, smiley emoticons, which we got along with perfectly throughout the history of recorded writing until now. Except for those damned proto-Elamites and their "cheese" emoticon.
I've got nothing against Europe, but it's pretty lame if you think you're proving something by trotting out the same jingoistic slogans used by Uncle Sam. Europe's freer than the US in some respects, but not as free in others. There's no nation in the world that's totally free, and likely never will be, since "freedom" and "government" are a contradiction in terms.
:)
On the other hand, if you were just referring to the freedom to buy an unlocked handset, well, um, never mind then.
The answer's in TFA, basically the entire penultimate paragraph. In part it says, "Users can adjust the settings to allow certain programs of their choice to come through at all times." That's interactivity.
No flames. I agree that Vista is eventually inevitable for most home users. People keep buying new computers in spite of Vista. But how much that's changed since the days when people would buy a new computer because of Windows 98 or Windows XP even. I've got four computers at home, two of them with XP and two with Vista, and frankly, Vista has no compelling features that would make me want to choose it over the older OS. I know it's potentially more secure out of the box. (I also know I just last week wound up turning off UAC because I couldn't get it to stop bugging me about the last.fm plugin. Off-topic but it boggles my mind that there is no way to exempt individual programs from UAC) So for MS to arbitrarily make DX10 Vista-only strikes me as a bit of a scam. They're trying to make it a reason to want to upgrade, but instead they've made it a reason for developers to stay DX9. Oops.
It's pretty funny that Microsoft in its stronghold (PC OSes) made the same exact mistake that Sony made in its stronghold (consoles). Sony thought that tying Blu-Ray to its new console would be a win-win for format licensing and for the Playstation sales, but instead, high prices and lack of compelling software have kept people back. Similarly, MS thought that tying DX10 to its PC OS would be a win-win for gaming licensing and Vista sales, but instead, high prices and lack of compelling software have kept people back. As a result, people generally prefer to keep buying last-gen PS2's and Windows XP.
If that rumor is true, what is it with Microsoft and the sneaky behind the scenes crap? We see how well that worked out for them with SCOX.
Seems to me they'd be better off just coming out with a version of the XB360 with an integrated HD-DVD.
Also, supposedly a few companies have released HD-DVD burners, but I have yet to see them at retail. They should be flooding retail chains with them by now.
Finally, how about getting the studios to stop charging a premium for those combo format HD-DVD/DVD discs? It means the HD-DVD people wind up paying extra for a lot of their releases and makes the format look much less attractive to casual buyers. I got a PC that plays HD-DVDs last Xmas and so far I've bought a total of one disc.
It's "intellectually dishonest" of you to describe someone's pointing out a simple fact as a defensive posture. One might think you were doing some defensive posturing of your own, but for what reason, I wonder? The poster's not calling you names nor drawing any adverse conclusions about your elision, just bringing it forth as an FYI.
Don't get all panicky. Not every stupid legal result becomes "precedent," particularly not at the trial level. Furthermore, trying to implead KazaA isn't really stupid even if it's wrong. It sounds like she's got decent legal representation. The best result for her is that there's no liability to begin with. But her lawyer wants to be prepared for that theory failing, so in the alternative, it was really KazaA's /AOL's fault to begin with. I'm sure he's also prepared to argue that even if there was some liability, there were mitigating circumstances and/or there were minimal damages, etc. Otherwise, she might as well just come out and say, "YOU GOT ME NOW! YOU FIGURED ME OUT! YOU CAUGHT ME RED HAINDED!" and let them monetarily rape her.
Adobe, who has the photo-editing market by the balls, would rather have you stuck with their proprietary formats as much as possible.
It seems to me this is the bottom line. Microsoft are desperate to prevent Adobe (or Apple, Google, Sony, or any other company) from ever owning a fully vertical solution in any area of computing. A Microsoft-free shop is their worst fear because of the possibility the independence could spread like a cancer and put an end to their Windows/MS Office gravy train. So they're willing to do anything to slow down the Adobe juggernaut, even giving away specs for free. In Vegas terms, they're comping the development community to keep them playing at Microsoft's tables.
all it cuts out (apart from patent trolls) are defensive patent portfolios and small research houses which attempt to develop and then sell ideas.
But that's a huge deal. Basically then, if you're an inventor, you're screwed. Let's say you come up with a way to increase the efficiency of jet engines. According to this, unless you actually plan on selling jet engines, you've got no way to enforce your patent. You can offer to sell the patent to a jet manufacturing company, but why should they buy it from you, since you've got no leverage over them? They can just go ahead and use your invention, and since you don't actually manufacture jet engines yourself, you can't stop them.
And that's more or less what happened to MercExchange, at least according to this article. eBay came to them to offer to buy their portfolio, but really they were just looking it over to see if they could get away with violating it. And after eBay's legal team looked things over, they simply decided to pull a Microsoft and totally violate the portfolio with no compensation. And make no mistake, they did violate it, as decided by a jury. They're simply hoping at this point that they can render moot the jury verdict by getting the underlying patents invalidated.
Make no mistake here. eBay are the bad guys here. MercExchange aren't a patent troll company - they've got a homegrown portfolio and in my opinion deserve to have their ideas protected, insofar as ideas should be protected at all. If you want to rail against software or business method patents in general, maybe you're right, but let's start with the big fishes' huge portfolios first before we go after the guppies.