All you did was restate the Harvard line in EE-talk.
There's nothing inherently bistable in the OS market. The current trends in distributed computing, from Google to mobile phones, all mean "market share" is just looking at the previous market to predict the next one. Like looking at IBM's early 1980s minicomputer market to predict the 1990s PC market, if that's even a representative guide.
There's a lot of other cycles going on, including the long time before XP came online, and people's satisfaction with XP, simultaneous with getting fed up with Microsoft. And the reemergence of Apple. And those mobile phones.
The Harvard take on the MS market momentum is purely linear. But the actual market is expanding unpredictably, is more interconnected for sharing dislike of Microsoft (and liking alternatives), features both convergence and many new niches. It's highly nonlinear. So I don't think a flip/flop, or just "monopolies win" is an adequate model for predicting the market for an OS, whether it's Vista or Linux.
How about IBM bailed out of the OS business after MS monopoly-judo'ed it by sabotaging OS/2, and bailed out of the PC and HD business that MS never touched when profit margins went negative?
"Plaintiffs cannot at this time, without an opportunity for full discovery present by affidavit facts essential to justify their opposition to Defendant's motion."
They mean "Plaintiffs cannot at this time, without an opportunity for full discovery, present by affidavit facts essential to justify their opposition to Defendant's motion."
Without that extra comma, the "present" they wrote has the accent on the first syllable, meaning "now", rendering their statement grammatically incorrect and nonsense. With the comma, they have produced at least a lame excuse for the judge to let them really invade the defendant's life.
The judge should throw out the case. And free DVDs for everyone!
If we aren't making plastic out of atmospheric CO2 and energy a century from now, we either won't need plastic, or we won't need energy that much. Because our current rate of consumption growth demands we generate vast amounts of energy and plastic from something other than oil from the ground, which will be long gone by 2106. If not something like solar and CO2, then just scrubbed coal, extracted so efficiently that we can spend much of its energy cleaning it to near-zero emissions.
If we don't go down one of those paths, we'll pollute so much CO2 into the air that we will force our radically reduced plastic and energy needs, by destroying our civilization.
I haven't shopped at Amazon since they "unilaterally changed" ("violated") their privacy policy to divulge my personal info they required I store with them. Of course I changed it all before I notified them it was unacceptable, and of course they ignored me (and doubtless thousands of others). Now this bullshit, from the people who patented one-click shopping.
Where's the online aggregation of independent booksellers, getting Amazon's economies of scale but retaining their individual connection to the interests of their customers? Big enough to put Amazon back in the dotcom bust where it should have stayed.
If the Society for the Blind is serious about access, not just their share of "damage awards", they'll offer a free toolkit that presents a crappy, but legally compliant, ecommerce system. Then instead of sites getting sued, they can get sent free software. Hosting the system would really make sense. And funding it with whatever ADA funding and damages they get would make it all make sense.
That setup would be inclusive. It would not only make a bigger percentage of sites accessible to the blind, but also just a lot more sites. With fewer hassles.
Of course the same goes for all the other organizations that represent disabled people. And remember, short of telepathy, we're all at least somewhat disabled when interfacing with computers/networks. And disabled people are enabled. We've got a lot to learn from each other. If we don't just sue each other into oblivion first.
No, the rails are a natural monopoly. And it certainly does carry a large percentage of journeys. Are you actually familiar with NYC and our subways? We're talking millions of riders per day. And in Manhattan especially, other than feet (no subsidy or services, beyond sidewalks - another government "natural monopoly"), there's no better way. All those other vehicles are worse in every way, for everyone but the rider.
Eventually these packet cars should convince us to automate roada taxis. The city should still operate the natural monopoly of the roads, with privatized cars, like now. But of course we also tried privatized buses, which still compete badly with city buses. Not economically, but service quality.
Transit competition and monopolies in many forms have been tested in NYC. Government monopoly wins. The problem is entirely in the state grabbing the power, which happened when NYC went broke in the mid-1970s and never returned, away from the city and its riders. That state MTA is the problem that's kept the system problematic. City control is more accountable to the riders, while avoiding the redundant waste and inequitable service to the city as a whole that competition proved. The only real change the system needs is returned control to the city government. I wouldn't be surprised if the new governor, Spitzer, does exactly that. I'll be applying for the job running it:).
Yes, exactly like that, to start. NYC would also like "therefore it is often the only line to run normally during labor strikes", especially after the last strike that gained little while covering the MTA management's $1BILLION theft while raising fares again.
Nice in theory, but NYC tried that and it failed. The wasteful redundancy of NYC's 2, then 3 subway systems is still with us, preventing incompatible lines from connecting, forcing extra support systems. While still private, the systems didn't serve the city, but just the "lowest hanging fruit".
There's room for only one rail system. It's a "natural monopoly", which is always best run by a government accountable to the people. Maybe we could try competing car systems, something like the taxi fleets on the city roads, though that cartel is extremely inefficient, and the #1 contender to lock up the new rail traffic.
There's so much public benefit that public subsidy is public investment. After trying privatized rail in NYC for several decades, we learned that public rail was better for the city. If private systems are so much more efficient, they'll compete and win. After they already failed, I doubt it.
The point is that the passengers don't know anything about the routing, including how trains combine and split. A passenger at a station presses their destination on a system map, and gets a magstripe card with their car's ID# printed on it. The map sends the request for a car, which arrives with its sign showing its ID# and destination station. The passenger gets in, inserts their magstripe to confirm, the doors close. The car zips them to their destination, routing/combining automatically according to the system's state. They get out. If there's another passenger waiting for a car there, the car's sign changes to the new ID# and destination. Or it zips to whichever station requires it.
The passenger just presses a map, gets a card, sees a car, gets in, inserts card, gets out, next. Much simpler than planning the route, including transfers.
Especially in NYC, with our many split-second decisions between different lines/routes, express/local, empty/full (of thugs), dirty cars. The Dutch rail systems I've taken don't have those problems (OK, maybe some thugs, but they were Romanian or New Yorkers;). This kind of system could so much more efficiently use our rail capacity in our gridlocked city that we should pour $BILLIONS into bringing it online.
"artificial government monopolies must merely balance freedom of expression against investment protection. They are obvious to anyone in business. It's obvious to people patenting how much advantage they gain. And it's obvious to people excluded how much competition it prohibits.
Maybe now that American business is becoming at least as much a consumer of IP as a producer, these corporations will battle away the IP law imbalances that crimp their economy."
I can be more explicit.
Business patents create business monopolies, which overbalances freedom of expression against capitalism by excluding any competition. Mere monopolies on devices don't work so hard against competition. The already unacceptable extreme business process patent would reach its ultimate expression in a patent on segmenting a market. Patents on devices already go too far for freedom, and must be carefully awarded to ensure they don't destroy other freedoms than just expression. Modern business cycles already mean that the duration of the "temporary" monopoly on a device should be reduced (rather than the consistent trend to extend them indefinitely). The whole business is going in the wrong direction, long ago having left behind its arguable basis in protecting investment, towards guaranteeing profit. Which is exactly against both capitalism's essential competition, and freedom. So it has nothing to do with that "compromise", and everything to do with profit at any cost.
I'd love to see tests of robocars on subway tracks. Start with just GPS on the usual cars, to integrate live positioning into the signaling/switching system. Then put GPS on some empty cars steered from the central signaling/switching control stations. Then let people request destinations from originating stations. First big chains of cars carrying people between their shared endpoints. Then little individual cars between points. At first filling the spaces between traditional trains on traditional lines.
Eventually the "circuit switched" subways will be replaced with much more efficient, safe packet switched trains. Which link up along their shared segments for greater efficiency, but connect custom paths on demand.
"HP will be fined but it won't impact them in any way.
That money will go to the city/state which will then be used for more decadent art and show palaces for the rich."
You had me until "decadent art and show palaces for the rich". "Decadent art"? You mean fingerpainting in public schools? Why don't you like that? And what is "show palaces for the rich", anyway? That sounds completely insane.
"There's apparently no need to worry about possibility of compromised personal information; the company believes the tapes were destroyed at a landfill."
They "believed" the tapes were locked-down safe before, but they weren't. Now they "believe" the tapes were destroyed. Who cares what they "believe"? Corporations can't "believe" anything.
They need to produce evidence that these tapes were destroyed, offer proactive credit monitoring until the the personal info expires, and assume liability for any misuse of the info they exposed, indefinitely.
Or they'll just "believe" they can do it again, and just keep it better hidden next time.
Monopolies on individual specific devices are not the same kind of restraint on business as a business monopoly.
No process, business or otherwise, should be subject to patent, though we are discussing a problematic case of exactly that kind of inappropriate patent.
You have a point about identifying marks being subject to copyright, but it's irrelevant.
These principles are obvious to anyone who looks at them sensibly. "Obvious" is obviously a subjective quality. It requires reasonable people to agree, not just hairsplitters, poser lawyers (or wannabes), or blather about "universal self-evident statements of truth".
You are obviously seeking an argument with straw men, about what is the law. While I am talking about making sense.
Business patents are by definitionmonopolies. No patent should be awarded on anything that isn't a working mechanical device, at least a prototype. Descriptions of ideas, whether human readable or machine readable, are subject only to copyright. Identifying marks, like logos and slogans, are only trademarks.
These principles are obvious. Not only are they politically obvious to anyone who understands that artificial government monopolies must merely balance freedom of expression against investment protection. They are obvious to anyone in business. It's obvious to people patenting how much advantage they gain. And it's obvious to people excluded how much competition it prohibits.
Maybe now that American business is becoming at least as much a consumer of IP as a producer, these corporations will battle away the IP law imbalances that crimp their economy. Then we'll also see how obvious it is that corporations are the only "persons" which matter to the government.
Do these stemcells we're reading about include the telomeres that act like "time to live" cell division countdown timers in cells' DNA? Do embryonic stemcells have more generations left in them than do more adult stemcells?
When I publish some text, like this comment you're reading, it's copyright protected by me automatically. You cannot copy it outside of the transaction in which you're receiving it, except for explicitly limited "fair use" exceptions (like storing it for retrieval by the same recipient), and of course any expressly permitted uses stated by me, the copyright holder.
Personal info, including contact info, must be covered by the same kind of protection from copying. To legally protect the kind of discretion and confidentiality we're all familiar with as simply "good manners".
Corporate info is heavily protected by our current government. "Pirates" and "leakers" routinely get prosecuted, fined, even jailed. Humans are second-class citizens in the copyright regime. We need a new copyright law that protects us at least as much as the corporations producing merely commercial data.
Now when people send me paper documents, I will require digitally signed digital copies as the authentic "masters". Because the "paper trail" could disappear after I accept the paper copy.
Apparently Xerox is trying to get all the electronic voting business that Diebold is losing because the people are demanding paper trails.
Wanting MS to pay for the load it creates when it makes money isn't the same as forcing it to do so, as AT&T/Verizon/backboneISPs want. It's simple economics, said by a private individual not wielding either a telecom cartel or the Senate.
Slashdot Mirror
All you did was restate the Harvard line in EE-talk.
There's nothing inherently bistable in the OS market. The current trends in distributed computing, from Google to mobile phones, all mean "market share" is just looking at the previous market to predict the next one. Like looking at IBM's early 1980s minicomputer market to predict the 1990s PC market, if that's even a representative guide.
There's a lot of other cycles going on, including the long time before XP came online, and people's satisfaction with XP, simultaneous with getting fed up with Microsoft. And the reemergence of Apple. And those mobile phones.
The Harvard take on the MS market momentum is purely linear. But the actual market is expanding unpredictably, is more interconnected for sharing dislike of Microsoft (and liking alternatives), features both convergence and many new niches. It's highly nonlinear. So I don't think a flip/flop, or just "monopolies win" is an adequate model for predicting the market for an OS, whether it's Vista or Linux.
How about IBM bailed out of the OS business after MS monopoly-judo'ed it by sabotaging OS/2, and bailed out of the PC and HD business that MS never touched when profit margins went negative?
Short version in English: Harvard says that because MS has more market share, it will have more market share.
Isn't that the thinking that kept IBM in control of computing in the 1970s?
"Plaintiffs cannot at this time, without an opportunity for full discovery present by affidavit facts essential to justify their opposition to Defendant's motion."
They mean "Plaintiffs cannot at this time, without an opportunity for full discovery, present by affidavit facts essential to justify their opposition to Defendant's motion."
Without that extra comma, the "present" they wrote has the accent on the first syllable, meaning "now", rendering their statement grammatically incorrect and nonsense. With the comma, they have produced at least a lame excuse for the judge to let them really invade the defendant's life.
The judge should throw out the case. And free DVDs for everyone!
If we aren't making plastic out of atmospheric CO2 and energy a century from now, we either won't need plastic, or we won't need energy that much. Because our current rate of consumption growth demands we generate vast amounts of energy and plastic from something other than oil from the ground, which will be long gone by 2106. If not something like solar and CO2, then just scrubbed coal, extracted so efficiently that we can spend much of its energy cleaning it to near-zero emissions.
If we don't go down one of those paths, we'll pollute so much CO2 into the air that we will force our radically reduced plastic and energy needs, by destroying our civilization.
I haven't shopped at Amazon since they "unilaterally changed" ("violated") their privacy policy to divulge my personal info they required I store with them. Of course I changed it all before I notified them it was unacceptable, and of course they ignored me (and doubtless thousands of others). Now this bullshit, from the people who patented one-click shopping.
Where's the online aggregation of independent booksellers, getting Amazon's economies of scale but retaining their individual connection to the interests of their customers? Big enough to put Amazon back in the dotcom bust where it should have stayed.
If the Society for the Blind is serious about access, not just their share of "damage awards", they'll offer a free toolkit that presents a crappy, but legally compliant, ecommerce system. Then instead of sites getting sued, they can get sent free software. Hosting the system would really make sense. And funding it with whatever ADA funding and damages they get would make it all make sense.
That setup would be inclusive. It would not only make a bigger percentage of sites accessible to the blind, but also just a lot more sites. With fewer hassles.
Of course the same goes for all the other organizations that represent disabled people. And remember, short of telepathy, we're all at least somewhat disabled when interfacing with computers/networks. And disabled people are enabled. We've got a lot to learn from each other. If we don't just sue each other into oblivion first.
No, the rails are a natural monopoly. And it certainly does carry a large percentage of journeys. Are you actually familiar with NYC and our subways? We're talking millions of riders per day. And in Manhattan especially, other than feet (no subsidy or services, beyond sidewalks - another government "natural monopoly"), there's no better way. All those other vehicles are worse in every way, for everyone but the rider.
:).
Eventually these packet cars should convince us to automate roada taxis. The city should still operate the natural monopoly of the roads, with privatized cars, like now. But of course we also tried privatized buses, which still compete badly with city buses. Not economically, but service quality.
Transit competition and monopolies in many forms have been tested in NYC. Government monopoly wins. The problem is entirely in the state grabbing the power, which happened when NYC went broke in the mid-1970s and never returned, away from the city and its riders. That state MTA is the problem that's kept the system problematic. City control is more accountable to the riders, while avoiding the redundant waste and inequitable service to the city as a whole that competition proved. The only real change the system needs is returned control to the city government. I wouldn't be surprised if the new governor, Spitzer, does exactly that. I'll be applying for the job running it
Yes, exactly like that, to start. NYC would also like "therefore it is often the only line to run normally during labor strikes", especially after the last strike that gained little while covering the MTA management's $1BILLION theft while raising fares again.
Nice in theory, but NYC tried that and it failed. The wasteful redundancy of NYC's 2, then 3 subway systems is still with us, preventing incompatible lines from connecting, forcing extra support systems. While still private, the systems didn't serve the city, but just the "lowest hanging fruit".
There's room for only one rail system. It's a "natural monopoly", which is always best run by a government accountable to the people. Maybe we could try competing car systems, something like the taxi fleets on the city roads, though that cartel is extremely inefficient, and the #1 contender to lock up the new rail traffic.
There's so much public benefit that public subsidy is public investment. After trying privatized rail in NYC for several decades, we learned that public rail was better for the city. If private systems are so much more efficient, they'll compete and win. After they already failed, I doubt it.
Hey AC, you're redundant.
The point is that the passengers don't know anything about the routing, including how trains combine and split. A passenger at a station presses their destination on a system map, and gets a magstripe card with their car's ID# printed on it. The map sends the request for a car, which arrives with its sign showing its ID# and destination station. The passenger gets in, inserts their magstripe to confirm, the doors close. The car zips them to their destination, routing/combining automatically according to the system's state. They get out. If there's another passenger waiting for a car there, the car's sign changes to the new ID# and destination. Or it zips to whichever station requires it.
;). This kind of system could so much more efficiently use our rail capacity in our gridlocked city that we should pour $BILLIONS into bringing it online.
The passenger just presses a map, gets a card, sees a car, gets in, inserts card, gets out, next. Much simpler than planning the route, including transfers.
Especially in NYC, with our many split-second decisions between different lines/routes, express/local, empty/full (of thugs), dirty cars. The Dutch rail systems I've taken don't have those problems (OK, maybe some thugs, but they were Romanian or New Yorkers
I also originally said
"artificial government monopolies must merely balance freedom of expression against investment protection. They are obvious to anyone in business. It's obvious to people patenting how much advantage they gain. And it's obvious to people excluded how much competition it prohibits.
Maybe now that American business is becoming at least as much a consumer of IP as a producer, these corporations will battle away the IP law imbalances that crimp their economy."
I can be more explicit.
Business patents create business monopolies, which overbalances freedom of expression against capitalism by excluding any competition. Mere monopolies on devices don't work so hard against competition. The already unacceptable extreme business process patent would reach its ultimate expression in a patent on segmenting a market. Patents on devices already go too far for freedom, and must be carefully awarded to ensure they don't destroy other freedoms than just expression. Modern business cycles already mean that the duration of the "temporary" monopoly on a device should be reduced (rather than the consistent trend to extend them indefinitely). The whole business is going in the wrong direction, long ago having left behind its arguable basis in protecting investment, towards guaranteeing profit. Which is exactly against both capitalism's essential competition, and freedom. So it has nothing to do with that "compromise", and everything to do with profit at any cost.
Yes, you're right. I used GPS without thinking about the coverage.
NYC subways are outdoors quite a bit, outside Manhattan. Under cover they can use other location tech.
The subways should use realtime location data anyway, so we can look at realtime maps and ETA estimates to plan our trips.
I'd love to see tests of robocars on subway tracks. Start with just GPS on the usual cars, to integrate live positioning into the signaling/switching system. Then put GPS on some empty cars steered from the central signaling/switching control stations. Then let people request destinations from originating stations. First big chains of cars carrying people between their shared endpoints. Then little individual cars between points. At first filling the spaces between traditional trains on traditional lines.
Eventually the "circuit switched" subways will be replaced with much more efficient, safe packet switched trains. Which link up along their shared segments for greater efficiency, but connect custom paths on demand.
"HP will be fined but it won't impact them in any way.
That money will go to the city/state which will then be used for more decadent art and show palaces for the rich."
You had me until "decadent art and show palaces for the rich". "Decadent art"? You mean fingerpainting in public schools? Why don't you like that? And what is "show palaces for the rich", anyway? That sounds completely insane.
"There's apparently no need to worry about possibility of compromised personal information; the company believes the tapes were destroyed at a landfill."
They "believed" the tapes were locked-down safe before, but they weren't. Now they "believe" the tapes were destroyed. Who cares what they "believe"? Corporations can't "believe" anything.
They need to produce evidence that these tapes were destroyed, offer proactive credit monitoring until the the personal info expires, and assume liability for any misuse of the info they exposed, indefinitely.
Or they'll just "believe" they can do it again, and just keep it better hidden next time.
Moderation -1
100% Offtopic
TrollMods think repeating Watergate in DC is offtopic to repeating it in Sweden.
Monopolies on individual specific devices are not the same kind of restraint on business as a business monopoly.
No process, business or otherwise, should be subject to patent, though we are discussing a problematic case of exactly that kind of inappropriate patent.
You have a point about identifying marks being subject to copyright, but it's irrelevant.
These principles are obvious to anyone who looks at them sensibly. "Obvious" is obviously a subjective quality. It requires reasonable people to agree, not just hairsplitters, poser lawyers (or wannabes), or blather about "universal self-evident statements of truth".
You are obviously seeking an argument with straw men, about what is the law. While I am talking about making sense.
Business patents are by definition monopolies. No patent should be awarded on anything that isn't a working mechanical device, at least a prototype. Descriptions of ideas, whether human readable or machine readable, are subject only to copyright. Identifying marks, like logos and slogans, are only trademarks.
These principles are obvious. Not only are they politically obvious to anyone who understands that artificial government monopolies must merely balance freedom of expression against investment protection. They are obvious to anyone in business. It's obvious to people patenting how much advantage they gain. And it's obvious to people excluded how much competition it prohibits.
Maybe now that American business is becoming at least as much a consumer of IP as a producer, these corporations will battle away the IP law imbalances that crimp their economy. Then we'll also see how obvious it is that corporations are the only "persons" which matter to the government.
So, Mick Jagger is an alien, QED.
Do these stemcells we're reading about include the telomeres that act like "time to live" cell division countdown timers in cells' DNA? Do embryonic stemcells have more generations left in them than do more adult stemcells?
When I publish some text, like this comment you're reading, it's copyright protected by me automatically. You cannot copy it outside of the transaction in which you're receiving it, except for explicitly limited "fair use" exceptions (like storing it for retrieval by the same recipient), and of course any expressly permitted uses stated by me, the copyright holder.
Personal info, including contact info, must be covered by the same kind of protection from copying. To legally protect the kind of discretion and confidentiality we're all familiar with as simply "good manners".
Corporate info is heavily protected by our current government. "Pirates" and "leakers" routinely get prosecuted, fined, even jailed. Humans are second-class citizens in the copyright regime. We need a new copyright law that protects us at least as much as the corporations producing merely commercial data.
Now when people send me paper documents, I will require digitally signed digital copies as the authentic "masters". Because the "paper trail" could disappear after I accept the paper copy.
Apparently Xerox is trying to get all the electronic voting business that Diebold is losing because the people are demanding paper trails.
You spelled "Ed Whitacre" wrong.
Wanting MS to pay for the load it creates when it makes money isn't the same as forcing it to do so, as AT&T/Verizon/backboneISPs want. It's simple economics, said by a private individual not wielding either a telecom cartel or the Senate.