It doesn't matter when the app is in place with respect to the filing, but when it was invented (the US has a first to invent NOT a first to file system). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent. Key is that it needs to be filed within some period of time AFTER it becomes public knowledge. For instance, if you publish the idea, you have one year to file for a patent.
In the (IMHO unlikely) event Shyster wins, Apple will simply reintroduce their older strategy of including a ROM in every mac,
or the built-in DRM of the Intel chip to lock the OS to the machine.
The Apple case is different from the Data General case because the limit isn't to the purchaser or even an owner of the machine, only that it must be installed on an "apple labeled device". The limitation isn't on licensing, but installation, so the tying issue hasn't been tried yet.
The notion that somehow a Shyster victory here is going to lead to a Xanadu with every machine running OS X is simply silly - even if you can get it to work in some limited ways, most configurations will fail miserably. I mean Apple has problems with supporting the video cards they ship with the Mac Pro, where do you think all the drivers for the other cards ATI and Nvidia produces are going to come from? Etc.
The real issue is going to turn not on licensing but trademark, as in misuse of Apple's trademarks on Shyster's web pages. They can build any machine they want to, but they can't mention Apple without violating a trademark.
Options are not necessarily cheaper or riskier than shares; it depends on your trading strategy.
An example of an option being more expensive than a share, would be a share that traded at $10, and you wanted to buy a put at a strike price of $40 (that gave you the right to shell the shares at $40). The put would be worth at least $30 (the difference between the current price and the strike price of the put) plus a premium mostly based on the time limit of the put.
As to risk, consider a share worth $100 and you think the price will go up $10 today. You can buy the share for $100 (risking $100 for $10) or a call with the strike price of $100 for considerably less. In the former case you would, if correct, stand to gain 10%, and in the latter many 100s of % if you were correct. If wrong, you are exposed for the full price of the stock, and lets assume your call expires worthless (so the full price of the call). The latter has less money in play, thus, less risk (e.g., if the stock goes down 10%, you don't lose $10 as you would owning the stock, only the $1 or less you paid for the call).
Covered options are a risk control strategy - that's where you, e.g., write calls against stock you already own. But I'll let you go read about those elsewhere.
They also decided at that time to attack the one institution that had more to do with the rise of the middle class way of life - the American Labor Movement.
That is what the socialist media would have you believe.
Tell you what: Go look at the cost of living in states on the east coast where the Dems and unions have been in control for the last 50 years, and compare them to states on the west coast where they haven't. Heck, look at the average cost of health care adjusted for the same net rate of improvement.
You will notice that unions and the Democratic party are not quite as helpful as you think they are.
Socialization of risk, redistribution of income, disincentives to productive employment and continuous attacks on the US Constitution have all been hallmarks of Democratic administrations since FDR. And folks who vote Democratic are generally of the mindset that they're "entitled" to something. That the government should "take care of them". At least JFK had the sense to say "Ask not what your country can do for you... but what you can do for your country." Unfortunately no voter in modern times has had that little bit of sense, it's all "what's in it for me."
Are the Republicans better? Heck no. Both parties support unconstitutional idiocies from the "war on drugs" to imperialistic ambitions. They're both a losing proposition. Anyone interested in elected positions clearly are not qualified for them. And voting only encourages them.
No, friend, you are wrong if you think there is a huge difference between voting Republican and voting Democratic in 2008. It's a bit of wool over the eyes to make us all into sheep thinking we're changing the world with a pull of the lever. We're changing things, but always for the worse.
The only decent human who ran in the current cycle hasn't got a prayer of being elected, but I'll write him in anyway: Ron Paul.
Actually this is nothing more than another case of a company pirating the hard work of another company to grab money they didn't earn.
Apple created Mac OS to sell hardware. It's what makes Macs different from other PCs. Same can be said of their bundled iLife applications - reasons to buy a Mac instead of something else. You might not like that business model, but that's what it is. If you don't want to pay, go play elsewhere.
While I agree with the general tenor of your argument, I'm not sure even the fair use claim holds water. Fair use is for PARTIAL TIME LIMITED portions, not wholesale copies to be used forever. Fair use also only applies to copyrights, not patents. Some of the material in Mac OS X is patented, there are no "fair use" exemptions to getting a license to use them.
By all means, run your purchased version of OS X on many machine you want. The only problem is, you can't purchase OS X from a retailer, only license it. Purchasing OS X requires negotiating directly with Apple, and I don't think the price tag will be something most folks who post to these forums can afford.
You see its the shortsightedness that in the long run costs you WAY MORE than if you simply keep the options in mind and work towards a solution.
Actually it's an insurance problem. There are an infinite number of possible future disasters, and we'd all be broke in the stone age if we tried to address all of them. Like lazy evaluation, sometimes putting off actually solving the problem makes a lot of sense because the problem may never even materialize, or by the time it does, there are better and cheaper ways to fix it.
Climate instability (nee 'global warming') may be a case in point. It's not clear that CO2 is the cause, and even if it is part of the problem, sequestering it is getting cheaper (certainly a lot cheaper than having everyone stop driving or using electricity). There are other "problems" that seem to be more excuses to spend massive amounts of money relative to the actual risk (anything from worry about near earth collisions, to the "health care crisis")
Adam Smith's invisible hand will take care of many things. While I certainly am not arguing against research, I don't think rushing to implement half baked solutions is ever a good idea (though it seems to be the only way things get done in Congress).
Yes, note that the government uses the same kind of funny math when they talk about tax cuts "costing" the government money.
The point is, everything is relative.
Suppose, when Toyota brought out the Prius, that the gas filler was square instead of round, and that Mobil gas stations had an exclusive deal to provide gas with square nozzles on their pumps.
The problem with your analogy is that current wireless networks aren't commodities (at least, not as far as the network providers are concerned). A better analogy would be to state that every gas company had their own grade of gas, and the Prius will only take the 92.75 octane sold by Mobil. Further, Toyota states that if you use any other level of octane in your car, it may break, if not now, then perhaps in the future after a mandatory recall, because their design assumption was for 92.75 octane gas.
No Mobil where you live? So buy another car. Toyota has no duty to provide cars that are satisfactory for your needs; they choose their market not you.
I don't see how either of them could be considered "evil" in this case. It's not as though they surprised you after the sale and said "oh by the way, now that you've already bought your Prius, we're installing a mandatory upgrade to only use Mobile gas." You know everything you need to know up front, and can make a fully-informed decision as to if you want to buy the product or not.
Now stop your whining and go invent something yourself.
If The Open Group is "making standards work" (TM), then who is Making Work Standard?
Well, if you're in software development, it's The Wonderful Folks at CMU misinforming management everywhere that what is primarily an art is actually an assembly line. Nevermind undecidability... or efficiency for that matter. [But repeatability, oh yes, you have repreatability. I'm always writing the same code over and over. Not.]
But hey, if it supports outsourcing, who wouldn't be for it?
Do you really think 1% of iPhone buyers want to write apps?!.01% is more like it. All app developers I know own phones, but none write apps for them, nor do they have any interest in doing so. Sometimes folks want to do something other than their day job...
If you're buying the 8 core box, and you're NOT buying a SATA raid w/card to go with it, you're pissing in the wind... because you'll NEVER keep the processors busy enough..
Folks who studied CS would know that there are a large number of functions that are not disk (i.e. memory) bound. Try finding the best "busy beaver" function for 5 bits of memory just to start you off. Check back when you have news...
I've heard this from Marine officers too: Apparently many of the guys prefer having an eye be dark-adapted, as even in very low light situations it often gives a lot of peripheral information the scope won't give you (very limited field of view). My own experience on the NITE course is that the two-eye one tube standard issue scope takes a lot of effort to use; autofocus comes to mind as a substantial first improvement rather than color. As for depth perception - you get some info just from focus:-).
And Microsoft made out like bandits on that investment.
As I recall, in a back page newstory of the time, MS simultaneously shorted their position. So they didn't make anything on the "investment": it was a PR stunt.
It is the fact that Apple primarily run OS X and OS X only runs on Apple. So in 2, 5, 10, 20 years when Apple Quality begins to drop and stink like it did in the early-mid 90's companies software are stuck with Apple. At least with Microsoft Windows if what ever PC brand they are using begins to loose it competitive edge they can switch quite easily.
I think the concern is that they can't switch easily to something that doesn't run Windows , and that's where the quality stinks . At least with Apple they can stick to opensource and UNIX tools, and then move their employees to Linux, FreeBSD or even Suns with just a recompile.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that the Mac is a PC. The Windows laptops really are ICs - impersonal computers.
It doesn't matter when the app is in place with respect to the filing, but when it was invented (the US has a first to invent NOT a first to file system). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent. Key is that it needs to be filed within some period of time AFTER it becomes public knowledge. For instance, if you publish the idea, you have one year to file for a patent.
The Apple case is different from the Data General case because the limit isn't to the purchaser or even an owner of the machine, only that it must be installed on an "apple labeled device". The limitation isn't on licensing, but installation, so the tying issue hasn't been tried yet.
The notion that somehow a Shyster victory here is going to lead to a Xanadu with every machine running OS X is simply silly - even if you can get it to work in some limited ways, most configurations will fail miserably. I mean Apple has problems with supporting the video cards they ship with the Mac Pro, where do you think all the drivers for the other cards ATI and Nvidia produces are going to come from? Etc.
The real issue is going to turn not on licensing but trademark, as in misuse of Apple's trademarks on Shyster's web pages. They can build any machine they want to, but they can't mention Apple without violating a trademark.
You're comparing the market for PCs and leaving out a lot of other markets. Apple has, what, 70% of the mp3 player market? What's M$'s share of that?
Options are not necessarily cheaper or riskier than shares; it depends on your trading strategy.
An example of an option being more expensive than a share, would be a share that traded at $10, and you wanted to buy a put at a strike price of $40 (that gave you the right to shell the shares at $40). The put would be worth at least $30 (the difference between the current price and the strike price of the put) plus a premium mostly based on the time limit of the put.
As to risk, consider a share worth $100 and you think the price will go up $10 today. You can buy the share for $100 (risking $100 for $10) or a call with the strike price of $100 for considerably less. In the former case you would, if correct, stand to gain 10%, and in the latter many 100s of % if you were correct. If wrong, you are exposed for the full price of the stock, and lets assume your call expires worthless (so the full price of the call). The latter has less money in play, thus, less risk (e.g., if the stock goes down 10%, you don't lose $10 as you would owning the stock, only the $1 or less you paid for the call).
Covered options are a risk control strategy - that's where you, e.g., write calls against stock you already own. But I'll let you go read about those elsewhere.
That is what the socialist media would have you believe. Tell you what: Go look at the cost of living in states on the east coast where the Dems and unions have been in control for the last 50 years, and compare them to states on the west coast where they haven't. Heck, look at the average cost of health care adjusted for the same net rate of improvement. You will notice that unions and the Democratic party are not quite as helpful as you think they are. Socialization of risk, redistribution of income, disincentives to productive employment and continuous attacks on the US Constitution have all been hallmarks of Democratic administrations since FDR. And folks who vote Democratic are generally of the mindset that they're "entitled" to something. That the government should "take care of them". At least JFK had the sense to say "Ask not what your country can do for you... but what you can do for your country." Unfortunately no voter in modern times has had that little bit of sense, it's all "what's in it for me." Are the Republicans better? Heck no. Both parties support unconstitutional idiocies from the "war on drugs" to imperialistic ambitions. They're both a losing proposition. Anyone interested in elected positions clearly are not qualified for them. And voting only encourages them. No, friend, you are wrong if you think there is a huge difference between voting Republican and voting Democratic in 2008. It's a bit of wool over the eyes to make us all into sheep thinking we're changing the world with a pull of the lever. We're changing things, but always for the worse. The only decent human who ran in the current cycle hasn't got a prayer of being elected, but I'll write him in anyway: Ron Paul.
Actually this is nothing more than another case of a company pirating the hard work of another company to grab money they didn't earn. Apple created Mac OS to sell hardware. It's what makes Macs different from other PCs. Same can be said of their bundled iLife applications - reasons to buy a Mac instead of something else. You might not like that business model, but that's what it is. If you don't want to pay, go play elsewhere.
While I agree with the general tenor of your argument, I'm not sure even the fair use claim holds water. Fair use is for PARTIAL TIME LIMITED portions, not wholesale copies to be used forever. Fair use also only applies to copyrights, not patents. Some of the material in Mac OS X is patented, there are no "fair use" exemptions to getting a license to use them.
By all means, run your purchased version of OS X on many machine you want. The only problem is, you can't purchase OS X from a retailer, only license it. Purchasing OS X requires negotiating directly with Apple, and I don't think the price tag will be something most folks who post to these forums can afford.
Actually it's an insurance problem. There are an infinite number of possible future disasters, and we'd all be broke in the stone age if we tried to address all of them. Like lazy evaluation, sometimes putting off actually solving the problem makes a lot of sense because the problem may never even materialize, or by the time it does, there are better and cheaper ways to fix it.
Climate instability (nee 'global warming') may be a case in point. It's not clear that CO2 is the cause, and even if it is part of the problem, sequestering it is getting cheaper (certainly a lot cheaper than having everyone stop driving or using electricity). There are other "problems" that seem to be more excuses to spend massive amounts of money relative to the actual risk (anything from worry about near earth collisions, to the "health care crisis")
Adam Smith's invisible hand will take care of many things. While I certainly am not arguing against research, I don't think rushing to implement half baked solutions is ever a good idea (though it seems to be the only way things get done in Congress).
This too, shall pass.
Recall that ROAD is an acronym for "Retired On Active Duty". A great description of most of the sales folks I know.
Yes, note that the government uses the same kind of funny math when they talk about tax cuts "costing" the government money. The point is, everything is relative.
Clearly some Republicans are not evil
No Mobil where you live? So buy another car. Toyota has no duty to provide cars that are satisfactory for your needs; they choose their market not you.
I don't see how either of them could be considered "evil" in this case. It's not as though they surprised you after the sale and said "oh by the way, now that you've already bought your Prius, we're installing a mandatory upgrade to only use Mobile gas." You know everything you need to know up front, and can make a fully-informed decision as to if you want to buy the product or not.
Now stop your whining and go invent something yourself.
It's not just greed; the federales would also have to repeal ITAR restrictions.
Do you really think 1% of iPhone buyers want to write apps?! .01% is more like it. All app developers I know own phones, but none write apps for them, nor do they have any interest in doing so. Sometimes folks want to do something other than their day job...
They're just not less expensive. Nothing in this article contradicts that.
I've heard this from Marine officers too: Apparently many of the guys prefer having an eye be dark-adapted, as even in very low light situations it often gives a lot of peripheral information the scope won't give you (very limited field of view). My own experience on the NITE course is that the two-eye one tube standard issue scope takes a lot of effort to use; autofocus comes to mind as a substantial first improvement rather than color. As for depth perception - you get some info just from focus :-).