You may ponder about the definitions for "monopoly" as long as you want. There are legal definitions for a monopoly, and Microsoft fits in them. End of story.
It's wrong for a monopoly. That is. It's a violation of the Anti Trust Legislation (Kartellrecht in Germany). A de facto monopoly is not allowed to give incentives for exclusive deals.
And secondly: Giving incentives for a illegal deal (licensing not according to numbers or for a whole sale sum, but for units shipped without checking if the shipped unit carried the license is illegal, in Germany "sittenwidrig") is illegal itself.
In Frankfurt am Main, Germany, there is a datacenter in the old bunker at the airport. With all the security and technical infrastructure available at an airport, and the prime connection to every other airport of the world this just makes sense.;)
Says who? Who are you to tell someone how to run their store? Who is Microsoft to tell someone how to run their store?
In Germany we had the problem that the two largest computer retail chains at the time started to offer OS/2 as optional bundled OS with each PC. They got severly punished by Microsoft because Microsoft did no longer gave them the same rebates than Microsoft Only shops (in fact Microsoft demanded the license fee for each PC shipped, independently if it was shipped with Windows or not). With this lever Microsoft got the retailers back to line everytime someone was trying to defect from the Microsoft Tax.
So to free everyone from Microsoft command how to run their store it's better to cut the link between the sale of a PC and the sale of a copy of Microsoft Windows and moreso hinder Microsoft to ever use this lever again.
And where exactly is the problem in listing "Windows" or "Linux" or "FreeBSD" or "ZetaOS" as an extra option with a price? John Doe is choosing the memory size. John Doe is choosing the graphics card. John Doe is choosing the processor speed. Why not having him also choosing the OS? No one forbids actually selling Windows to John Doe, if he asks for it. It should just be forbidden to bundle Windows with each and every hardware configuration of the shop. Windows is just an option, and a costly one, and it should be displayed as such.
It's conventional wisdom that licensing is 10% of the total cost of the introduction of an ERP.
What people seem to forget is the realisation why you have ERPs in the first place: They are there to replace the old business processes. So introduction of an ERP is equivalent to a complete reorganisation of the company, or it is wasted money.
Imagine the introduction of a CNC machine in a handcraft metal shop. And then project the picture to an organisation which switches to an ERP.
But you forget that T-Mobile has to provide means to unlock the iPhone after the contract (at a maximum of 24 month) runs out. So Apple is in the same situation in Germany as well: Either they have an official way to unlock the iPhone, or T-Mobile will be forced to buy back all iPhones in two years time. I wonder if they might sue Apple for a defective product then and reclaim the money from the manufacturer.
Because the new stemcells replaced the old in the bone marrow. So his blood DNA slowly changed from his own to that of the new stem cells. First there were only blood cells from his DNA, and very few of the new one. Later one the blood cells with his own DNA got replaced by those produced from the new stem cells.
To elaborate my point: If you have Author's Right according to the Berne Convention you can't even trade the Right. Either you are the author, then you have Author's Right automatically, or you are not, then you will never get Author's Right. Even "work for hire" is not covered by the Berne Convention. So Author's Right is certainly not a property.
BTW, Copyright, the basis for the GPL, is also Intellectual Property. If IP really didn't exist, neither would the GPL. That's just plain wrong. Copyright is a right (to be more exact a priviledge) and not a property. Having rights to something doesn't make it your property, even though there are people who seem to think so. If you buy a flight ticket you have the right to fly on a plane at a certain seat. But in no way this turns the seat into your property.
I am currently wondering if I should use VM to make environments for all those remote environments I have to work with. Every one asks for a different toolset, and sometimes they interfere. So having just a VM for each environment with exactly the tools needed would save me much hassle.
It appears to be originally descended from a German verb that meant "to reap". Reaping, at least at the time the word was in use in Old High German, certainly involved a lot of work. The word you are referring to is "ernten" (to harvest). And no, this word has no "hard work" associated with it in German (I am german;) ). The "Ernte" is thought to be the reward for the hard work that had to go in before the actual harvest: "As we sow, so will we harvest". The time of harvest in old german folksongs is always a time of joy and festivity (and the German fest of Thanksgiving is called Erntedank = Thank for Harvest).
But the article is talking about very cheap hardware where even a discounted Windows operating system adds noticeably to the price. Think about best price shoppers who just want the cheapest computer in town, because they need the money for something else. To them even a $39 per seat license like the MS OEM licenses is expensive. If they can slash off another $39, they are happy.
Of course I note that. But I just doubt a little that it actually makes sense for the majority of software vendors to keep their source secret. Source code is protected by copyright law, and thus obfuscation by compilers doesn't add much of protection to it.
I wonder why SAP is still in the business of ERPs then. SAP's R/3 code is open (but not freely distributable). If you are interested in the inner workings of SAP's R/3, log in with developer priviledges (or just SAP*), fire up the R/3 builtin debugger and look how the code is actually working.
Yes. You can build a successful business with proprietary code and still show it to the world.
Because the security of the paper ballots relies on the fact that the very process of counting can be watched. (In fact you can watch the whole process of the elections from manufacturing the paper, during printing the ballots, distributing the ballots, sealing the ballot-boxes, identifying the voters, watching the voters putting the ballots in the boxes, opening the boxes, counting, resealing the boxes, transporting the boxes to the central election bureau, and finally storing the boxes at a secure place until all issues are resolved, and in no single situation this watching is harmful to the voting rights of the voters, because the actual process of casting the vote is hidden from everyone else's eyes.)
Any machine that counts faster than the human eye can follow, is thus denying the citizens the right to watch the count and thus the right of assurance that every vote counts equally.
To me fair counting is more important than voting results at the moment of closing the ballot places. It has to do with my personal experience of actually knowing how you rig elections by counting, and how you can prove afterwards that the elections were rigged because enough people were present during the count. As a compromise you could get preliminary results by scanning the ballots, but those are of purely informational value and are not legally binding.
For some reason you seem to believe that you can't resell a license. Why not? And for some reason you seem to believe that you can't sell some property that comes with a license. What happens if the shop that bought AutoCAD burns down? What do they claim from their insurance: 1 copy of AutoCAD? Or do they tell Autodesk: "Hey, your CD-Box which we happened to license from you just burnt down, please do your own claim!"
It is legal to place online bets inside a state if all parties are inside that state and that state permits it. This isn't inside the US, it is inside a state that is in the US. [Emphasis mine]
Cool! You even know why the U.S. regulatory is discriminatory against A&B:) No just draw the conclusion.
Why should Antigua and Barbuda care how the internal structure of the U.S. is? It has nothing to do with their case.
1. fact: It is possible to legally place online bets in the U.S. 2. fact: It is not possoble for A&B's companies to offer that service.
That's discriminating against foreign competitors. It's that simple.
Neither the WTO nor A&B care how the U.S. gets their act together to sort this out. If it's a fault in the construction of the U.S. legal system? Be it. If it's just some unwillingness to clear the mess up? Be it. Either the U.S. gets online betting completely banned in every state, the one way or the other, or the allow foreign companies to enter the market. "We can't because of constitutional issues." is an answer the WTO never ever accepted anywhere else. Why it should in the U.S.?
If the U.S. arguments where that good, why did the WTO and the appellate court rule that they weren't? I don't claim to know all issues, but I know that two instances have ruled against the U.S. So whatever you think, the arguments were too weak to hold before the WTO.
Because the U.S. allows online betting (at least some states do), and the U.S. allows casinos (again some states do), the ruling goes, it is discriminating against a non-U.S. company not to be allowed to offer online gambling to U.S.-citizens. So either the U.S. stops all online gambling inside the U.S. (and this includes online betting and online lottery), or it allows non-U.S. companies to offer the same services. The U.S. didn't comply, and the U.S. just mumbled something about some cultural problems with allowing online casinos. The WTO never cared about cultural issues, and so the U.S. is caught pants down with it.
Just because some properties are similar to theft this doesn't make it a theft.
If I do something that reduces the value of something you want to sell, then it is not necessarily theft. I don't steal something by spraying it pink. I damage it. I don't steal something from by telling everybody the thing would be poisonous. I mislead people. And I don't steal something from you by having something similar to sell, even if I might have got it in an unlawful way. I compete unfairly with you.
Please, you don't help anybody by stating everything would be the same, just because they have "you don't like it" as a common denominator.
It's quite strange to claim that a site is illegal, if 16 month of trying to find something illegal didn't yield anything yet. It's more like the local newspaper, that tells you about a flea market and gives directions how to get there. They also don't do anything illegal, even though someone on the flea market might sell stolen stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
You may ponder about the definitions for "monopoly" as long as you want. There are legal definitions for a monopoly, and Microsoft fits in them. End of story.
It's wrong for a monopoly. That is. It's a violation of the Anti Trust Legislation (Kartellrecht in Germany). A de facto monopoly is not allowed to give incentives for exclusive deals.
And secondly: Giving incentives for a illegal deal (licensing not according to numbers or for a whole sale sum, but for units shipped without checking if the shipped unit carried the license is illegal, in Germany "sittenwidrig") is illegal itself.
In Frankfurt am Main, Germany, there is a datacenter in the old bunker at the airport. With all the security and technical infrastructure available at an airport, and the prime connection to every other airport of the world this just makes sense. ;)
In Germany we had the problem that the two largest computer retail chains at the time started to offer OS/2 as optional bundled OS with each PC. They got severly punished by Microsoft because Microsoft did no longer gave them the same rebates than Microsoft Only shops (in fact Microsoft demanded the license fee for each PC shipped, independently if it was shipped with Windows or not). With this lever Microsoft got the retailers back to line everytime someone was trying to defect from the Microsoft Tax.
So to free everyone from Microsoft command how to run their store it's better to cut the link between the sale of a PC and the sale of a copy of Microsoft Windows and moreso hinder Microsoft to ever use this lever again.
And where exactly is the problem in listing "Windows" or "Linux" or "FreeBSD" or "ZetaOS" as an extra option with a price?
John Doe is choosing the memory size. John Doe is choosing the graphics card. John Doe is choosing the processor speed. Why not having him also choosing the OS?
No one forbids actually selling Windows to John Doe, if he asks for it. It should just be forbidden to bundle Windows with each and every hardware configuration of the shop. Windows is just an option, and a costly one, and it should be displayed as such.
Tell me news.
It's conventional wisdom that licensing is 10% of the total cost of the introduction of an ERP.
What people seem to forget is the realisation why you have ERPs in the first place: They are there to replace the old business processes. So introduction of an ERP is equivalent to a complete reorganisation of the company, or it is wasted money.
Imagine the introduction of a CNC machine in a handcraft metal shop. And then project the picture to an organisation which switches to an ERP.
But you forget that T-Mobile has to provide means to unlock the iPhone after the contract (at a maximum of 24 month) runs out. So Apple is in the same situation in Germany as well: Either they have an official way to unlock the iPhone, or T-Mobile will be forced to buy back all iPhones in two years time. I wonder if they might sue Apple for a defective product then and reclaim the money from the manufacturer.
Because the new stemcells replaced the old in the bone marrow. So his blood DNA slowly changed from his own to that of the new stem cells. First there were only blood cells from his DNA, and very few of the new one. Later one the blood cells with his own DNA got replaced by those produced from the new stem cells.
To elaborate my point: If you have Author's Right according to the Berne Convention you can't even trade the Right. Either you are the author, then you have Author's Right automatically, or you are not, then you will never get Author's Right. Even "work for hire" is not covered by the Berne Convention. So Author's Right is certainly not a property.
I am currently wondering if I should use VM to make environments for all those remote environments I have to work with. Every one asks for a different toolset, and sometimes they interfere. So having just a VM for each environment with exactly the tools needed would save me much hassle.
But the article is talking about very cheap hardware where even a discounted Windows operating system adds noticeably to the price. Think about best price shoppers who just want the cheapest computer in town, because they need the money for something else. To them even a $39 per seat license like the MS OEM licenses is expensive. If they can slash off another $39, they are happy.
Of course I note that. But I just doubt a little that it actually makes sense for the majority of software vendors to keep their source secret. Source code is protected by copyright law, and thus obfuscation by compilers doesn't add much of protection to it.
I wonder why SAP is still in the business of ERPs then. SAP's R/3 code is open (but not freely distributable). If you are interested in the inner workings of SAP's R/3, log in with developer priviledges (or just SAP*), fire up the R/3 builtin debugger and look how the code is actually working.
Yes. You can build a successful business with proprietary code and still show it to the world.
Because the security of the paper ballots relies on the fact that the very process of counting can be watched. (In fact you can watch the whole process of the elections from manufacturing the paper, during printing the ballots, distributing the ballots, sealing the ballot-boxes, identifying the voters, watching the voters putting the ballots in the boxes, opening the boxes, counting, resealing the boxes, transporting the boxes to the central election bureau, and finally storing the boxes at a secure place until all issues are resolved, and in no single situation this watching is harmful to the voting rights of the voters, because the actual process of casting the vote is hidden from everyone else's eyes.)
Any machine that counts faster than the human eye can follow, is thus denying the citizens the right to watch the count and thus the right of assurance that every vote counts equally.
To me fair counting is more important than voting results at the moment of closing the ballot places. It has to do with my personal experience of actually knowing how you rig elections by counting, and how you can prove afterwards that the elections were rigged because enough people were present during the count. As a compromise you could get preliminary results by scanning the ballots, but those are of purely informational value and are not legally binding.
That's right, but it doesn't need any of those much touted features the e-voting was supposed to have.
It's just a machine helping your hand while you are making your choice, like a jig or someting.
But this is just paper ballot voting. The only difference is the complexity of the used pencil.
For some reason you seem to believe that you can't resell a license. Why not?
And for some reason you seem to believe that you can't sell some property that comes with a license.
What happens if the shop that bought AutoCAD burns down? What do they claim from their insurance: 1 copy of AutoCAD? Or do they tell Autodesk: "Hey, your CD-Box which we happened to license from you just burnt down, please do your own claim!"
Cool! You even know why the U.S. regulatory is discriminatory against A&B
Why should Antigua and Barbuda care how the internal structure of the U.S. is? It has nothing to do with their case.
1. fact: It is possible to legally place online bets in the U.S.
2. fact: It is not possoble for A&B's companies to offer that service.
That's discriminating against foreign competitors. It's that simple.
Neither the WTO nor A&B care how the U.S. gets their act together to sort this out. If it's a fault in the construction of the U.S. legal system? Be it. If it's just some unwillingness to clear the mess up? Be it. Either the U.S. gets online betting completely banned in every state, the one way or the other, or the allow foreign companies to enter the market. "We can't because of constitutional issues." is an answer the WTO never ever accepted anywhere else. Why it should in the U.S.?
If the U.S. arguments where that good, why did the WTO and the appellate court rule that they weren't? I don't claim to know all issues, but I know that two instances have ruled against the U.S. So whatever you think, the arguments were too weak to hold before the WTO.
Because the U.S. allows online betting (at least some states do), and the U.S. allows casinos (again some states do), the ruling goes, it is discriminating against a non-U.S. company not to be allowed to offer online gambling to U.S.-citizens. So either the U.S. stops all online gambling inside the U.S. (and this includes online betting and online lottery), or it allows non-U.S. companies to offer the same services. The U.S. didn't comply, and the U.S. just mumbled something about some cultural problems with allowing online casinos. The WTO never cared about cultural issues, and so the U.S. is caught pants down with it.
Just because some properties are similar to theft this doesn't make it a theft.
If I do something that reduces the value of something you want to sell, then it is not necessarily theft. I don't steal something by spraying it pink. I damage it. I don't steal something from by telling everybody the thing would be poisonous. I mislead people. And I don't steal something from you by having something similar to sell, even if I might have got it in an unlawful way. I compete unfairly with you.
Please, you don't help anybody by stating everything would be the same, just because they have "you don't like it" as a common denominator.
They are... for a C5 Galaxy. The transport aircrafts didn't fly with accompagnying fighters.
It's quite strange to claim that a site is illegal, if 16 month of trying to find something illegal didn't yield anything yet.
It's more like the local newspaper, that tells you about a flea market and gives directions how to get there. They also don't do anything illegal, even though someone on the flea market might sell stolen stuff.