The other big case the Clinton Department of Justice won against a monopoly/cartel was against Big Tobacco. It's now coming to light that Bush's Justice Department interfered with the followthru. As part of their now obvious process of coporatizing the Justice Department to serve monopolies like Microsoft. I expect it's only a matter of time before we learn how Bush deliberately ditched the MS monopoly judgement. His favorite lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, got his lobbyist career started at Preston, Gates, Bill Gates III's father's law firm. I expect there's a lot more to the story, all bad.
Patent owners should indeed have to prove they are using their "temporary" synthetic monopoly to promote the progress of science or the useful arts by producing the invention, not just sitting on it. That is in fact a parallel to the more sensible trademark rules, which require use of the mark, and active confrontation with diluters. Because trademark's governing "Lanham Act" is designed to protect the consumer from confusion, to protect commerce, not just profitmaking.
Further, patents should register their costs in development of the patent, not just the product after the patent, and expire the patent once either the time or a multiple ROI is reached. The ROI should be a maximum of 10x (probably even just 2x, but actual research and ongoing parameters should establish the precise ROI that promotes). And the time should be per-industry, with software/IT times governed more by Moore's Law and software obsolescence studies. Software itself is obviously (to anyone but greedheads) copyright, not patent, material.
The whole system is rotten. But if it were tweaked a little, pared back to its justifiable framework, it could form the basis for a system that actually promotes the progress that justifies the monopoly in conflict with expression freedom.
lying about offering a smartphone running Linux with a PalmOS GUI/compatibility layer.
Obviously you didn't read the article to which you linked:
Access says ALP 1.0's task-oriented user interface builds on the "legendary" usability of the original Palm OS user interface. [...] Also planned for later release is a "Garnet VM Compatibility Kit" which appears to represent the final frontier for Palm OS. Together, the SDK and Garnet VM will provide an upgrade path for hundreds of thousands of Palm OS application developers, Access says.
In other words, no PalmOS on their Linux phone. They've been "planning" it for years. They announced they'd be releasing it in 2006. 2007 will be at least half over, and they'll still be "planning" it. Liars.
Wondering whether it's true on the evidence so far is perfectly free speech. And researching its facts is even further protected from libel charges. Maybe if you knew more about libel, Anonymous scaredy Coward, you'd be able to spell it.
If a new Mac can cost $300 like a cheap new PC, how come these new little embedded devices still cost $100? The embedded ones don't have HDs, much RAM, displays or even power supplies. They run Linux or other $free OS. And they're supposed to sell many more units to the general public than do Macs, so their scale economy should be better. Why do they cost about 50% their much bigger, more complex cousins?
Access, the company now stifling innovation with the dormant BeOS code, is also the Japanese mobile phone corporate giant that bought out PalmOS, lying about offering a smartphone running Linux with a PalmOS GUI/compatibility layer.
Funny how they keep spending money on OS'es that they never profit from. Their mission seems to be to kill OS'es that have a chance to innovate around Microsoft's monopoly. I wonder whether their license to deploy Windows phones in Japan was contingent on doing that kind of Microsoft dirty work, perhaps even secretly funded (or subsidized) by Microsoft.
So what you're saying is that only Communists have technology policies? And that China doesn't anymore? WRONG.
Anonymous Johnny-come-lately Coward, you really know nothing about Communism, capitalism, national policies, or anything else. Even your sarcasm is pretty weak.
If the US had a tech policy, instead of a "tax cuts for billionaires" policy, we'd have no trouble competing with a Johnny-come-lately like China.
This must be exactly the same position the UK was in before WWI, while the British crown pampered its imperial lords as the US focused on radio, rail and other strategic industries.
If ICANN offshores to Switzerland, I bet the US government won't do anything to stop them. Then it will be too late. ICANN is already part of the outgoing Republicy system to cede control of the Net to WIPO and GATT. Maybe incoming Democrats will stop them, but they've got other priorities.
I've never liked ICANN, and don't trust it to stay under US control. People like Esther Dyson are too sneaky and plugged into a multinational network that cares about the US only as a money donor.
Whatever Americans do to rein in ICANN and its VeriSign profit charity, we have to do it quick, before ICANN moves to Switzerland to avoid US control a la Halliburton.
And the reason to regularly move these ("portable") data centers is...? And Microsoft's experience with unmanned, yet critical path, infrastructure, that actually works without operator intervention is...?
What is the actual %efficiency of these dyes, or a curve (especially in their claimed low light operation)? And how much energy is consumed manufacturing them (and their carrier infrastructure), other than "less than silicon"?
Photosynthesis is maximum 12% efficient - putting the current max ~25% of silicon in perspective. But silicon panels, though relatively expensive (in $ and energy) to manufacture, last so long at full efficiency that there's little energy required to maintain them, for decades, until they're expensive again in recycling/disposal. If these dyes are less stable in punishing sunlight (up to 1KW:m^2), and need costly maintenance, at lower efficiency, silicon might still be the lowest cost solution.
These dyes could capture some power from artificial lighting in architecture, interior and on city streets. Only a fraction, but that fraction could make artificial lighting more efficient. Combined with solar collectors by day, with less artificial light needed in darkness, perhaps the entire lighting budget could be slashed.
They should merge with Halliburton and move to Dubai. By the time the oil runs out Cheney will be dead, and all these quasi-government monopolies funneling money from people through the military/industrial corporate complex will need a "new paradigm", anyway.
Wasn't that what Enron was supposed to be doing, oil and Internet via offshored hidey holes?
3D, whatever. Just as long as they've got my X system using the superfast graphics coprocessor for rendering, offloading from my CPU, they can keep it looking "old and stale", by doubling (or more) my old, stale PC power. If they actually find some 3D features, like rotating idle objects into profile for less screen real estate, or 3D pipes among onscreen widgets for dataflow direction among app GUIs, then that's great. But not nearly as great as offering multiprocessing desktops on these multiprocessor machines.
Eidos has to weigh the larger returns in later releases to an increased market against the loss of all revenue until then from holding back.
They should release whatever they can now to make what they can now, while rolling out the next generation game for 2008's expanded market. The development and marketing resources aren't both needed for each of those tasks by the company. Unless perhaps the current market can't return enough profit to pay to market to it. Which would really mean Eidos has terrible marketing profitability, which it should fix before a big 2008 launch, anyway.
Or they could just let their cowardly marketers promote a 2006 game in the field with the others with flashy 2008 games.
So at worst, Morfik should recoup its total costs that it risked by pouring them into developing this invention. And even a 100% profit, to promote progress in science and the useful arts. Collectively from the actual infringers, who have themselves poured lots of money into delivering their versions of the invention. I think that means a few thousand infringers have to split the bill to Morfik of under $100K. Which Morfik will need later when someone else with even more prior art shows Morfik is infringing them, and Morfik has to pay it all, but without the people who got out in the first round.
There are more blood factors than just the ABO and Rh factors that contribute to defining exclusive immunological blood types, so this extremely valuable process is not a panacea.
We're talking at different levels. There is a little error correction data to compensate for the error rate of every writing tech, no matter how expensive - just fewer errors for a lot more money, asymptotically. And every filesystem does have it - I never said that it's specific to one filesystem, though I was replying to a given filesystem. The CDDA format is not a filesystem, doesn't have it, and can deal with corrupt data by dropping it before output.
But that's not error correction for the data decay we're talking about with this article, aging. Though my redundant discs scheme, addressing decay, would also address all the writing errors inherent in the HW.
Well yes, there is a filesystem, ISO9660, which eats some data as overhead. And the 288 bytes error correction/detection. But that's not data redundancy, it's really detection, not correction. For correction it would have to have 1168 bytes of correction for 1168 bytes of data.
And you can't use the "extra" bytes above 2048 per frame for data, because you need the filesystem to do what it does. If you encoded in CDDA, which is no filesystem/overhead, you start losing data immediately on different players than the one that originally recorded it, and probably even with the original. It's not really redundancy if you can't do without it.
There is no redundancy like that. Or else you'd already see "1.8GB: use at your own risk" discs. Or CDs that are a lot more loss resistant than they are now. Or at least a mention in the article we're discussing of this triple redundancy.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't you back that up, instead of just squeaking out an empty insult?
That's why I live in the US. Where I was born, so I don't compromise on my freedom. Some other Americans have no excuse for such compromises.
The other big case the Clinton Department of Justice won against a monopoly/cartel was against Big Tobacco. It's now coming to light that Bush's Justice Department interfered with the followthru. As part of their now obvious process of coporatizing the Justice Department to serve monopolies like Microsoft. I expect it's only a matter of time before we learn how Bush deliberately ditched the MS monopoly judgement. His favorite lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, got his lobbyist career started at Preston, Gates, Bill Gates III's father's law firm. I expect there's a lot more to the story, all bad.
Patent owners should indeed have to prove they are using their "temporary" synthetic monopoly to promote the progress of science or the useful arts by producing the invention, not just sitting on it. That is in fact a parallel to the more sensible trademark rules, which require use of the mark, and active confrontation with diluters. Because trademark's governing "Lanham Act" is designed to protect the consumer from confusion, to protect commerce, not just profitmaking.
Further, patents should register their costs in development of the patent, not just the product after the patent, and expire the patent once either the time or a multiple ROI is reached. The ROI should be a maximum of 10x (probably even just 2x, but actual research and ongoing parameters should establish the precise ROI that promotes). And the time should be per-industry, with software/IT times governed more by Moore's Law and software obsolescence studies. Software itself is obviously (to anyone but greedheads) copyright, not patent, material.
The whole system is rotten. But if it were tweaked a little, pared back to its justifiable framework, it could form the basis for a system that actually promotes the progress that justifies the monopoly in conflict with expression freedom.
Obviously you didn't read the article to which you linked:
In other words, no PalmOS on their Linux phone. They've been "planning" it for years. They announced they'd be releasing it in 2006. 2007 will be at least half over, and they'll still be "planning" it. Liars.
Wishing doesn't make it so, for you either.
Wondering whether it's true on the evidence so far is perfectly free speech. And researching its facts is even further protected from libel charges. Maybe if you knew more about libel, Anonymous scaredy Coward, you'd be able to spell it.
If a new Mac can cost $300 like a cheap new PC, how come these new little embedded devices still cost $100? The embedded ones don't have HDs, much RAM, displays or even power supplies. They run Linux or other $free OS. And they're supposed to sell many more units to the general public than do Macs, so their scale economy should be better. Why do they cost about 50% their much bigger, more complex cousins?
Access, the company now stifling innovation with the dormant BeOS code, is also the Japanese mobile phone corporate giant that bought out PalmOS, lying about offering a smartphone running Linux with a PalmOS GUI/compatibility layer.
Funny how they keep spending money on OS'es that they never profit from. Their mission seems to be to kill OS'es that have a chance to innovate around Microsoft's monopoly. I wonder whether their license to deploy Windows phones in Japan was contingent on doing that kind of Microsoft dirty work, perhaps even secretly funded (or subsidized) by Microsoft.
So what you're saying is that only Communists have technology policies? And that China doesn't anymore? WRONG.
Anonymous Johnny-come-lately Coward, you really know nothing about Communism, capitalism, national policies, or anything else. Even your sarcasm is pretty weak.
If the US had a tech policy, instead of a "tax cuts for billionaires" policy, we'd have no trouble competing with a Johnny-come-lately like China.
This must be exactly the same position the UK was in before WWI, while the British crown pampered its imperial lords as the US focused on radio, rail and other strategic industries.
If ICANN offshores to Switzerland, I bet the US government won't do anything to stop them. Then it will be too late. ICANN is already part of the outgoing Republicy system to cede control of the Net to WIPO and GATT. Maybe incoming Democrats will stop them, but they've got other priorities.
I've never liked ICANN, and don't trust it to stay under US control. People like Esther Dyson are too sneaky and plugged into a multinational network that cares about the US only as a money donor.
Whatever Americans do to rein in ICANN and its VeriSign profit charity, we have to do it quick, before ICANN moves to Switzerland to avoid US control a la Halliburton.
And the reason to regularly move these ("portable") data centers is...?
And Microsoft's experience with unmanned, yet critical path, infrastructure, that actually works without operator intervention is...?
Next they'll be selling us flying cars.
What is the actual %efficiency of these dyes, or a curve (especially in their claimed low light operation)? And how much energy is consumed manufacturing them (and their carrier infrastructure), other than "less than silicon"?
Photosynthesis is maximum 12% efficient - putting the current max ~25% of silicon in perspective. But silicon panels, though relatively expensive (in $ and energy) to manufacture, last so long at full efficiency that there's little energy required to maintain them, for decades, until they're expensive again in recycling/disposal. If these dyes are less stable in punishing sunlight (up to 1KW:m^2), and need costly maintenance, at lower efficiency, silicon might still be the lowest cost solution.
These dyes could capture some power from artificial lighting in architecture, interior and on city streets. Only a fraction, but that fraction could make artificial lighting more efficient. Combined with solar collectors by day, with less artificial light needed in darkness, perhaps the entire lighting budget could be slashed.
Our bosses say that about us humans.
Thanks. Nice to know I have fans who span all my website outlets. Have you seen my syndication they picked up at _Bestiality Today_? I knew you had.
They should merge with Halliburton and move to Dubai. By the time the oil runs out Cheney will be dead, and all these quasi-government monopolies funneling money from people through the military/industrial corporate complex will need a "new paradigm", anyway.
Wasn't that what Enron was supposed to be doing, oil and Internet via offshored hidey holes?
3D, whatever. Just as long as they've got my X system using the superfast graphics coprocessor for rendering, offloading from my CPU, they can keep it looking "old and stale", by doubling (or more) my old, stale PC power. If they actually find some 3D features, like rotating idle objects into profile for less screen real estate, or 3D pipes among onscreen widgets for dataflow direction among app GUIs, then that's great. But not nearly as great as offering multiprocessing desktops on these multiprocessor machines.
Eidos has to weigh the larger returns in later releases to an increased market against the loss of all revenue until then from holding back.
They should release whatever they can now to make what they can now, while rolling out the next generation game for 2008's expanded market. The development and marketing resources aren't both needed for each of those tasks by the company. Unless perhaps the current market can't return enough profit to pay to market to it. Which would really mean Eidos has terrible marketing profitability, which it should fix before a big 2008 launch, anyway.
Or they could just let their cowardly marketers promote a 2006 game in the field with the others with flashy 2008 games.
So at worst, Morfik should recoup its total costs that it risked by pouring them into developing this invention. And even a 100% profit, to promote progress in science and the useful arts. Collectively from the actual infringers, who have themselves poured lots of money into delivering their versions of the invention. I think that means a few thousand infringers have to split the bill to Morfik of under $100K. Which Morfik will need later when someone else with even more prior art shows Morfik is infringing them, and Morfik has to pay it all, but without the people who got out in the first round.
There are more blood factors than just the ABO and Rh factors that contribute to defining exclusive immunological blood types, so this extremely valuable process is not a panacea.
We're talking at different levels. There is a little error correction data to compensate for the error rate of every writing tech, no matter how expensive - just fewer errors for a lot more money, asymptotically. And every filesystem does have it - I never said that it's specific to one filesystem, though I was replying to a given filesystem. The CDDA format is not a filesystem, doesn't have it, and can deal with corrupt data by dropping it before output.
But that's not error correction for the data decay we're talking about with this article, aging. Though my redundant discs scheme, addressing decay, would also address all the writing errors inherent in the HW.
Well yes, there is a filesystem, ISO9660, which eats some data as overhead. And the 288 bytes error correction/detection. But that's not data redundancy, it's really detection, not correction. For correction it would have to have 1168 bytes of correction for 1168 bytes of data.
And you can't use the "extra" bytes above 2048 per frame for data, because you need the filesystem to do what it does. If you encoded in CDDA, which is no filesystem/overhead, you start losing data immediately on different players than the one that originally recorded it, and probably even with the original. It's not really redundancy if you can't do without it.
There is no redundancy like that. Or else you'd already see "1.8GB: use at your own risk" discs. Or CDs that are a lot more loss resistant than they are now. Or at least a mention in the article we're discussing of this triple redundancy.