In my VERY recent experience, I left a consulting position to take a job with a client. YES, there was a no-compete clause and the company DOES have a lot of cash on hand to engage in lawsuits.
Generally speaking, people leave jobs all the time. It's a cost of doing business. Unless you are doing material damage to the company such as taking a customer list, they probably won't be able to sue you. Remember, if you're going to sue someone, it's best demonstrate that some real harm has been inflicted.
No damages, no recovery.
As for the contracts that say, "anything you create belongs to us," is utter nonsense. If you painted portraits as a side hobby and a museum gallery were interested in them, would the company be entitled to them first? I don't think so. People, in the normal course of their lives, create things without being required to do so by an outside entity. At work, with company resources, anything you do belongs to the company - that's how far the scope extends.
Nor can they claim that you "owe" them anything for training or procedures learned. A technical profession REQUIRES that one stay current.
Anyone can present you with a piece of paper to sign. Just because they tell you that they can sue you, it doesn't mean that it's possible to sue you. Let's face it, people can be real bastards. People take advantage of each other all the time. It's common sense to know what you can you and, more importantly, what THEY can and can't do to you.
Those who do not know their rights are condemned to perpetual servitude.
NEXGEN. Do you remember what AMD was doing in the early 1990's? They were playing a continual game of catch-up with Intel. If memory serves me correctly, there were going to be a LOT of barriers to adopting the original Pentium technology to clone. Intel was going to squeeze them out.
Fortunately, there was a little company called NexGen. Simply put, they devised a way to hook up an instruction translator to a RISC core. I bought one of those motherboards in 1993 and it works well to this day - using Linux, of course. AMD bought the company and used the technology to to develop the K5 and the K6 series processors. I don't remember NexGen making a lot of money, either, but then they weren't public for very long before AMD bought them out. AMD had the brand name recognition as well as the funding to push the new technology.
Transmeta seems to fit this mold. Like NexGen, they've developed a disruptive technology. AMD is interested in them. I think there's a buyout in Transmeta's future.
"The IBM project, developed using software from @themoment in San Mateo, Calif., will allow Big Blue to automatically adjust pricing on its server line in real time based on metrics such as customer demand and product life cycle. As a result, customers will find that pricing will dynamically change when they visit IBM's Web site on any given day."
OK. So their going to try to apply real-time pricing based on perceived supply/demand. This seems to work best when there is only one clearinghouse where things are bought and sold, such as a stock market. In a stock market situation, everyone comes to ONE place to buy and sell. Prices are then set as trading occurs.
But in this situation, there are MANY, MANY places to buy computers. You can buy them from established sellers, from mom and pop places or assemble them yourself from parts. Futhermore, a large buyer is going to want a locked-in contract price - and is going to be able to better negociate a lower price. A smaller buyer will collect quotes from a number of sources and make an informed decision based on price/performance. Again, that smaller buyer will have a written quote. Most quotes have established time frames (ie 15 or 30 days). If IBM thinks that they'll win customers by suddenly raising their prices after 3 days, they're living in a dream world. Competition is such that MANY clearinghouses exist for computers and the buyer will just go elseswhere. Compounding this will be their OWN sales force. These people make money off commissions of products that they SELL. If there is a fine line between a sale or a customer walking away, the sales force will undermine the pricing system to make the sale.
Home users will shop for bargains just as they always do.
Given the razor-thin margins on hardware these days, I can't see great shifts in price for computer systems occurring on a daily basis. Sure a few dollars for a system can mean millions in the larger scheme of things, but screwing around neednessly with customers in a competitive sales environment is asking for trouble.
I think I see his problem... He's SCARED...
on
Mundie Responds
·
· Score: 2
"The GPL turns our existing concepts of intellectual property rights on their heads. Some of the tension I see between the GPL and strong business models is by design, and some of it is caused simply because there remains a high level of legal uncertainty around the GPL--uncertainty that translates into business risk."
Legal uncertainty? But isn't the GPL available for all to see? It's also been around for awhile. What's uncertain about THAT? Business risk? Business is by definition risky.
"In my opinion, the GPL is intended to build a strong software community at the expense of a strong commercial software business model. "
OH! Now I See... You think the GPL is bad because it prevents YOU from making money. Sort of like business competition, but with no one to drive out. I guess I'd be scared, too, if I couldn't figure out how to defend myself. Maybe I'd declare my opponent a threat to everything wholesome and decent and let the government take care of him...
"What is at issue with the GPL? In a nutshell, it debases the currency of the ideas and labor that transform great ideas into great products."
My GOD!!! GPL IS a debaser! I'll bet those GPL people download LOTS of pr0n, too...
"...a critical flow of information and experimental data follows every major scientific discovery and results in the verification, refutation or refinement of the new idea or theory. To facilitate this process, neither copyright nor patent protections are available for abstract ideas or theories. This is as it should be... Legendary inventors such as Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison and Henry Ford (who held thousands of patents between them) succeeded precisely because they were able to use funding, management and market insight to deliver their innovations as unique, practical and useful products. "
So it's OK to exchange vague ideas and theories, but not concrete ideas and plans you can make money on. Let's look at Thomas Edison. For all his imagination, he couldn't foresee people sitting in theaters watching movies on a big screen. If he had had his way, he would have had us watching factory-made short-clips on the equivalent of kinetoscopes. He couldn't foresee what a great art form (Hollywood notwithstanding) it could become. Likewise, he did everything in his power to kill AC power generation in favor of his DC scheme, calling DC the better power distribution model.
Let's face it. Microsoft is scared of something that they can't fight. GPL is something that threatens (at least in the short term) to turn operating systems and associated server software into mere commodities. This will GUT Microsoft's business structure. Since WHEN does Microsoft show ANY concern of how a competitor conducts his business. If GPL WERE a flawed model, they would just ignore it, or encourage others to waste their time with it. It may NOT make anyone any money, but it isn't a flawed model.
The soul of GPL lies in selfless individuals acting for the common good without regard to profit. Without a profit motivation, you can't be driven from competing with Microsoft in the traditional sense. No amount of marketing or advertising can sway someone who has access to source code and can see for themselves what a GPL program can or cannot do. Something with no box or shrink wrap (generally), negligible distribution expense (through the internet), quality that speaks for itself (through source code) and done by people for "fun" is a formidable force that Microsoft has to reckon with.
"In China, intellectual property is owned by the state. In the United States, copyright is being redefined by corporatists to grant businesses total contol over ideas in perpetuity, a perversion of the original American idea, which was to give creators and the public both acess to intellectual property, never intended to fall exclusively and in perpetuity into private hands."
I don't think China has ever had a tradition of Intellectual Property, that's why there's been a problem with the circulation of illegally obtained copywrited material (programs, music, videos, etc).
Actually, copywrite law ALWAYS intended for exclusive of information by a private individual or corporation. That was done to prevent unscrupulous persons from stealing the ideas of others. The owner of such a copywrite has a RIGHT to regulate the access and usage of his/her ideas from other people. A creator of an idea, therefore, has the right to be as greedy as they wish to be.
Now, is this a good thing? No. Greed never is a good idea. It impedes the distillation of public knowledge. It retards the development of society.
But I don't think I have a right to take those ideas from individuals for the "sake of the betterment of society." If we go around doing that, then we ultimately give ourselves the right to take whatever we please under the context of "the betterment of the state." This undermines the right of privacy of the individual and subjects him/her to the supervision of a police state. This also retards the development of society. Given a choice, I would keep the notion of Intellectual Property around because it allows an individual to remain free and not subject to a "big brother."
Perpetuity. Now there's a bad word. IP laws were first drawn up to protect an author's work during and for a period after his/her life. At the expiration of that time period, it becomes part of the public property. This is a good thing. It allows an entity to profit for a reasonable period, then allows others to use and improve upon the idea. Keeping an copywrite in perpetuity robs our children of tomorrow for the sake of making a quick buck today.
For large companies a steady payment steam is probably preferable. It keeps the accountants happy (they like steady payments) and the IT managers happy (no more fighting with the accountants for a software upgrade budget every 2-3 years).
In the home, people are different. A lot of casual users see a computer as a one-time buy (like a TV or a stereo). After 5 years or so, they upgrade everything. Generally, home users are more careful with their money.
This also has the effect of shifting their software business to a shorter business cycle. Before, people could be counted on to buy software and computers 5 years or so. Now people have to make what amounts to time payments. Guess what? In a recession or a business downturn, those are the first things to be eliminated. This might be good for Microsoft in the short term, but what about the long term? Sure they have LOTS of cash sitting around, but cash is meant to be put to work, not to shore up bad business plans in bad times. That's NOT good management.
Nothing in this world is equal. Everything is relative. Some things are stronger; some are weaker. Some people are smart; some are stupid. Some are industrious; others are plain lazy. Get the picture?
The pie of income property of which you speak to divide is grossly inproportionate. Some property is in more demand. Some property is valued more than other property. Try buying beachfront property. It's expensive because lots of people want to live there and there isn't enough of it to go around. When demand goes up and supply can't keep up, price moves up as well. Simple economics.
And what about that pie? Where does it come from? Have you considered the BAKERS of that pie? People created the pie. They also create other pies using their own resources. Should they be expected to share it without compensation? What's to encourage them to bake more pies? Maybe you'll want to distribute the hard earned flour and water and eggs from someone else to the pie makers? OK. But then, how do you compensate your suppliers? Maybe you don't, ultimately. Maybe your suppliers stop putting their hearts and souls into making their products because there's no special reward for them. The pie makers also start doing the same thing for the same reasons. At the end of the process, everyone gets a pie, but the pie created under the new system of distribution doesn't taste as good as the old pies do. They break apart, spoil more quickly and so go to waste.
But wait, you say. Let's EDUCATE everyone top and bottom so that everyone knows the game. Well, you find that not everyone shares your enthusiasm. Some are natually lazy. Others realize that no matter how hard they work, they'll never get ahead. So they either work for themselves on the side, or do nothing more than they absolutly have to. In the end, education means nothing.
Income property remains income property because the owners make it work. They take the risks no one else wants to take and they reap the rewards. The simple rule is this: You work; you eat. Nothing gets handed to you. This isn't slavery. It's survival.
Intellectual property protects artists, writers and inventors from other people wishing to steal what they own and profit from it. Our oceans of laws and rules help us live together in complex societies. If you don't want it, go and live in a jungle. If you do, plan on spending most of your time trying to survive. Food and avoidance of predators (the 2 and 4 legged kind) will consume your time.
The free software / open source movement will succeed, but not because it's the forefront of a great social movement. The ability of dedicated, communally-minded individuals to enter and exit the community of developers via the internet is it's biggest strength. When you have dedicated individuals, the odds of any project succeeding increase greatly.
Giving away things for free makes a lot of sense to people who don't earn a living for one reason or another. Everyone likes a free lunch. The trouble is that the lunch actually costs something, had to made by someone and had to be delivered to the consumer. Once you start earning a living and stop thinking that the world owes you something, you'll see things more clearly.
On a level playing field, MS might win out over producers of MP3 products. However, no playing field is level. Companies such as Sony, Hitachi and Panasonic have a vested interest in players of recorded music (ie the Walkman). Those products depend (although I don't know how much) on people playing music recorded from other places. Using cassette tapes as an example, I knew a lot of people who not only bought music, but listened to their own mixes or tapes illegally copied. The new digital formats coming out MIGHT stem this, but who knows just how much these companies rely on people copying music to sell their players.
I'm actually very familiar with MS and it's history.
MS did listen to it's customers at one time. Up until the early 90's, Lotus and WordPerfect were the supreme productivity packages. As their quality deteriorated (and I'm talking about the MS-DOS versions), MS's products gained that lost market share. I know this, because I used to do software support back then. I personally started using Excel and Word when Lotus 123 and WordPerfect could no longer offer the features I wanted (or MS offered better features).
During the late 80's and early 90's (until Windows 95) you could actually get a knowledgeable tech on the phone to answer questions, even if you had an unregistered copy of Windows or MS-Office.
During 1994-1995 there was ample opportunity for them to push Windows onto computer-makers hard drives. OS/2 didn't cut it (very good OS, lousy product management). DR-DOS was aquired by Novell and died a quiet death. What else was there? Linux at the time was a tiny blip on the radar screen. Unix? Wasn't a real option for most consumers.
Sure they used their muscle time and again, but during the late '80s and early '90s, they either made better products or were the only viable game in town.
As for how they aquired MS-DOS (called QDOS at the time), well, what's illegal about that? Also ethics don't bind a person to reveal just how valuable something is to a seller. If MS couldn't deliver it, then Gates and company were screwed. As for Seattle Computer Products, the company that sold it to them, THEY weren't coerced and they asked no questions when these KIDS offered him $50,000 (about $93,000 in today's dollars) in CASH. Later, in 1981, Paterson, the writer of QDOS, found employment at Microsoft (too bad he didn't stick around, he'd be rich today). QDOS was based on Gary Kildall's CP/M system - Patterson wrote it in 6 weeks while refering to the CP/M manual. Ironically, Kildall was first approached by IBM for HIS OS.
Actually, I didn't just read THE article - I read BOTH of them - BEFORE I posted.
"Microsoft, for example, plans to severely limit the quality of music that can be recorded as an MP3 file using software built into the next version of its personal-computer operating system, Windows XP, according to the report."
That's from one of the articles. Here's a quote from another one:
"Microsoft, for example, plans to severely limit the quality of music that can be recorded as an MP3 file using software built into the next version of its personal-computer operating system, Windows XP."
In both quotes, the phrase, "severely limit the quality of music that can be recorded..." appears (of course were talking about the same article reproduced in two different places, but you get the point). So my original posting wasn't really off the mark at all.
Of COURSE they want to control the recording format so people can't rip their own CD's, sell pirated versions or do whatever else that takes money from RIAA's pockets. Subverting MP3 as a means to this end isn't going to work. Before Microsoft can fully realize this, another format will take MP3's place and the whole game will start over.
...In other news, enterprising hackers alter the encoding of MP3 standard slightly and change the extention to MP4, thereby thwarting the attempts of Microsoft and its evil minions to subvert music quality on a user's HOME PC.
Seriously, who do they think they're kidding here? With broadband around the corner, a much better music format can easily be introduced and distributed if Microsoft wants to screw around this way. At best this action buys them only 6 months of control. People WILL find a way around this EASILY.
The article also doesn't mention all the makers of MP3 players who will suddenly be threatened by this action. Some of them are very big and have LOTS of resources.
Ultimately, Microsoft's efforts this will probably go nowhere. MS became successful by LISTENING to individuals. When you stop listening, others who do listen better will take your place. IBM learned this lesson the hard way when Microsoft upstaged them. I'm sure there's someone waiting in the wings to do the same to Microsoft since THEY have lost the ability to listen.
Sorry. Just having guns around doesn't mean that they suddenly sprout legs and kill people.
Back in the mid-eighties, I had the opportunity to go to Israel a couple of times. Because of the political situation, every adult (practically) is required to carry an automatic rifle. Well, Israel doesn't suffer from huge crime waves.
Automatic weapons were freely available to US citizens after WWI. Were was the crime wave (apart from prohibition-related crime) as a result?
The problems with firearms in the US have more to do with the lack of societal responsibility assumed by the common citizen than anything else. THIS is dangerous. THIS will collapse our republic.
When WASN'T the net dominated by corporate and political interests? People and institutions with M-O-N-E-Y created the net for use in government and corporate projects. Use of the net as a PRIVATE activity didn't really start until the early 1990's.
Domination by government and corporate interests isn't its fate - that's NORMAL. The new thing on the block is the incursion of private individuals. The people that actually OWN the net, namely the corporations and government, will eventually take it back.
I suppose Scientology has every right to protects it's copyrights, but isn't the basis of copyright law there to keep others from unfairly profitting from someone else's work? The reprinting of the OT III was done in the context of a series of critical articles about Scientology, shouldn't THAT carry some weight?
If Slashdot invites comments, then the whole body of comments should constitute a single body of work, shouldn't it? That isn't simply a copyright violation. It's FREE EXPRESSION.
I used something like this back in 1981-1983. It was called the TRS-80 POCKET COMPUTER. It was programmable in BASIC, stored data and had an input/output port that could hook up to a tape recorder or a printer. While it certainly didn't hook up to a mainframe, the device probably could have. This device certainly predated these patents....
"In The Social Life of Information, John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid worry about losing the value of face-to-face personal and office encounters. Stories told around the water cooler are critical to businesses and institutions, they write, offering nuance, cues and personal connections that are essential in real communications, but which are sometimes lost online. "
The huge company I work for decided LONG ago to establish offices in a country I won't name, but that is 12 time zones away from me. Well, after doing some initial coding, I sent my source to the other office for inclusion into the "BIG WEB PROJECT." As with all things, there were some minor difficulties. Due to the distance and the venues of communication (internet chat, email and telephone chat), I won't be able to resolve these problems in less than 2 days. I'm not on a schedule, but this COULD have been resolved in an hour if we could only see and talk to each other face to face.
Yes, the internet is a wonderful thing, but old style face to face contact will NEVER be improved upon by anything. Humans need human contact; it's in out genes.
This seems to break down into the right to spam vs someone's property rights on their own system. While, I'm against spamming (I hate dealing with it in my inbox), I can't honestly believe that I can keep someone from saying what they want to say. I mean, what if someone sends spam about a political situation or a crime being committed by a public figure? Should THAT be banned as well?
On the other hand, people can't just chew up bandwidth on other people's servers just for the hell of it. If you want to spam, then spam. Just pay in cash for the services you use to do it. Most mail servers are privately owned and therefore, I think, the owners deserve the right to say who uses their systems and who doesn't. The alternative to this is to establish an open public mail server to let people spam as they with. If the end user doesn't like it, they can just block the domain, or the particular person at that domain.
Maybe we need to establish different classes of email. The post office uses 1st, 2nd and 3rd class mail to make distinctions. Perhaps the time has come for a new e-mail standard. E-mail protocols haven't changed much in the last 20 years, except for client-side security additions. Perhaps new classes of e-mail should be created and linked to server security so that we can all be happy: "Legitimate" e-mail is freely allowed while "spam" is regulated according to the sys-admin's wishes.
And while we're on the subject of sys-admins, perhaps the sys-admin in the article can read his/her manual and block filter outside user who use his/her server to spam???
He wasn't plotting the doom of his fellow classmates? I thought all those loner kids were dangerous psychopaths just waiting to explode in a murderous fury....
Just goes to show you that you REALLY can't predict their behavior. Better lock the whole bunch up just to be safe.....
The article said that Eazel plans to make money through it's subscription services. Well, that's OK in a good economy when people have money to spend. In a slower economy (or recession), the luxuries are the first to be budgeted. I don't see this business model working during a slow economy.
Perhaps they should merge with Ximian and work to actually SELL a product. Open source is nice, but only for people who don't expect to earn money. When your employees need to earn money to pay the mortgage and feed the kids, giving a major product away for free doesn't help. Laying off their business people may be a good stop-gap measure, but in the end, they will have to SELL their product. GOOD programmers are notoriously BAD salespeople.
Companies like Redhat are trying to earn money selling what amounts to consulting services, not Linux. The Linux distributions are a nice extra though.
It seems Transmeta wants a familiar development OS for their product. Since Linux IS free, it aids in the recognition of their platform.
I don't think Transmeta is trying to become a Linux Distro per se, since that would remove the focus from their hardware manufacturing operations.
IBM uses a version of Linux for their mainframes, but no one accuses THEM of trying to be a Linux Distro.
Linux, as it stands, is the cheapest, most complete, stable, recognizable, cross-platform OS out there. I think it's going to become the IBM AT of the software industry...
"That has been the fate of every great revolution in modern history, from the American to the French to the Russian. They spring from virtuous ideals, but it's difficult to keep citizens involved and motivated. When the revolutions fall out of the hands of their leaders and followers, and into the hands of elites and special interests, the participants lose heart and interest. The revolutions lose steam."
Sorry Katz. All those revolutions involved very real issues of property, overtaxation, government mismanagement and famine. The "masses" were driven by a need to feed their families more so than the lofty goals of liberty and justice for all.
This present "Internet Revolution" is NOT a revolution. A closer parallel is that of an opening frontier. It comes complete with open land(domain names), claim jumpers(Domain Name Squatters), hostile natives (Old Unix nerds), new settlers (Microsoft Windows and AOL users), lawlessness (think abundant porn, offshore gambling, script kiddies, DoS attacks, etc - all the bad things about today's internet), partitioning and development of land (new domains and new trunk lines, bridges/routers, Broadband systems), frontier lawmen (reformed "crackers" helping the government),etc etc.. The similiarities are more apparent with this comparison.
1. It doesn't use existing cradles. I purchased an extra cradle for my home when I purchased my VISOR. Handspring says I have to purchase another one now?!?!
2. At $399, Jumping up to one of the WinCE devices isn't going to be that much of leap. For myself, I'm going to wait for a Linux device. But for other people, the incentive to buy a WinCE device will be greater: Color, Multimedia, the MICROSOFT (tm) name.
The older Visors offer many of the benefits of the new Edge Visor without the price hike. Is $200 justified for more memory? Sure you also get an OS upgrade, but this is invisible to the average user. Over the past few years I've seen 2 classes of devices: The cheap (around $150-$200), but powerful Palms/Visors and the expensive WinCE devices. Anything in the middle usually includes wireless (like the Palm VII) and doesn't seem to be as popular. I don't see the real appeal of the Edge Visor as it doesn't seem to offer a decent performance for the price.
3. Wireless connectivity. Forget these stupid subscription services. I want to see REAL wireless networking. I want to see wireless TCP/IP capable devices NOW. I want to see these handheld companies team up with manufacturers of wireless hubs and access points and give me something I can use to connect to my building's wireless network. I'll worry about the ultimate connection to the internet. As long as I have a choice in the matter, I'll be able to negociate the best deal for ME.
I read it online a few weeks ago. It was so gripping that I literally spent 5 days at work doing NOTHING but reading it.
It is the sad story about L. Ron Hubbard, the people he tortured, the lies he told and the destructive organization he founded.
BTW - Scientology is NOT a religion. It is a commercial enterprise that masquarades as a religion and is only devoted to separating you from your money.
Aren't there laws that protect consumers? Any company can place anything it wants into a license agreement, but it can't ALL be legal. We have to stand up for our rights!!!
Slashdot Mirror
In my VERY recent experience, I left a consulting position to take a job with a client. YES, there was a no-compete clause and the company DOES have a lot of cash on hand to engage in lawsuits.
Generally speaking, people leave jobs all the time. It's a cost of doing business. Unless you are doing material damage to the company such as taking a customer list, they probably won't be able to sue you. Remember, if you're going to sue someone, it's best demonstrate that some real harm has been inflicted.
No damages, no recovery.
As for the contracts that say, "anything you create belongs to us," is utter nonsense. If you painted portraits as a side hobby and a museum gallery were interested in them, would the company be entitled to them first? I don't think so. People, in the normal course of their lives, create things without being required to do so by an outside entity. At work, with company resources, anything you do belongs to the company - that's how far the scope extends.
Nor can they claim that you "owe" them anything for training or procedures learned. A technical profession REQUIRES that one stay current.
Anyone can present you with a piece of paper to sign. Just because they tell you that they can sue you, it doesn't mean that it's possible to sue you. Let's face it, people can be real bastards. People take advantage of each other all the time. It's common sense to know what you can you and, more importantly, what THEY can and can't do to you.
Those who do not know their rights are condemned to perpetual servitude.
NEXGEN. Do you remember what AMD was doing in the early 1990's? They were playing a continual game of catch-up with Intel. If memory serves me correctly, there were going to be a LOT of barriers to adopting the original Pentium technology to clone. Intel was going to squeeze them out.
Fortunately, there was a little company called NexGen. Simply put, they devised a way to hook up an instruction translator to a RISC core. I bought one of those motherboards in 1993 and it works well to this day - using Linux, of course. AMD bought the company and used the technology to to develop the K5 and the K6 series processors. I don't remember NexGen making a lot of money, either, but then they weren't public for very long before AMD bought them out. AMD had the brand name recognition as well as the funding to push the new technology.
Transmeta seems to fit this mold. Like NexGen, they've developed a disruptive technology. AMD is interested in them. I think there's a buyout in Transmeta's future.
"The IBM project, developed using software from @themoment in San Mateo, Calif., will allow Big Blue to automatically adjust pricing on its server line in real time based on metrics such as customer demand and product life cycle. As a result, customers will find that pricing will dynamically change when they visit IBM's Web site on any given day."
OK. So their going to try to apply real-time pricing based on perceived supply/demand. This seems to work best when there is only one clearinghouse where things are bought and sold, such as a stock market. In a stock market situation, everyone comes to ONE place to buy and sell. Prices are then set as trading occurs.
But in this situation, there are MANY, MANY places to buy computers. You can buy them from established sellers, from mom and pop places or assemble them yourself from parts. Futhermore, a large buyer is going to want a locked-in contract price - and is going to be able to better negociate a lower price. A smaller buyer will collect quotes from a number of sources and make an informed decision based on price/performance. Again, that smaller buyer will have a written quote. Most quotes have established time frames (ie 15 or 30 days). If IBM thinks that they'll win customers by suddenly raising their prices after 3 days, they're living in a dream world. Competition is such that MANY clearinghouses exist for computers and the buyer will just go elseswhere. Compounding this will be their OWN sales force. These people make money off commissions of products that they SELL. If there is a fine line between a sale or a customer walking away, the sales force will undermine the pricing system to make the sale.
Home users will shop for bargains just as they always do.
Given the razor-thin margins on hardware these days, I can't see great shifts in price for computer systems occurring on a daily basis. Sure a few dollars for a system can mean millions in the larger scheme of things, but screwing around neednessly with customers in a competitive sales environment is asking for trouble.
"The GPL turns our existing concepts of intellectual property rights on their heads. Some of the tension I see between the GPL and strong business models is by design, and some of it is caused simply because there remains a high level of legal uncertainty around the GPL--uncertainty that translates into business risk."
Legal uncertainty? But isn't the GPL available for all to see? It's also been around for awhile. What's uncertain about THAT? Business risk? Business is by definition risky.
"In my opinion, the GPL is intended to build a strong software community at the expense of a strong commercial software business model. "
OH! Now I See... You think the GPL is bad because it prevents YOU from making money. Sort of like business competition, but with no one to drive out. I guess I'd be scared, too, if I couldn't figure out how to defend myself. Maybe I'd declare my opponent a threat to everything wholesome and decent and let the government take care of him...
"What is at issue with the GPL? In a nutshell, it debases the currency of the ideas and labor that transform great ideas into great products."
My GOD!!! GPL IS a debaser! I'll bet those GPL people download LOTS of pr0n, too...
"...a critical flow of information and experimental data follows every major scientific discovery and results in the verification, refutation or refinement of the new idea or theory. To facilitate this process, neither copyright nor patent protections are available for abstract ideas or theories. This is as it should be... Legendary inventors such as Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison and Henry Ford (who held thousands of patents between them) succeeded precisely because they were able to use funding, management and market insight to deliver their innovations as unique, practical and useful products. "
So it's OK to exchange vague ideas and theories, but not concrete ideas and plans you can make money on. Let's look at Thomas Edison. For all his imagination, he couldn't foresee people sitting in theaters watching movies on a big screen. If he had had his way, he would have had us watching factory-made short-clips on the equivalent of kinetoscopes. He couldn't foresee what a great art form (Hollywood notwithstanding) it could become. Likewise, he did everything in his power to kill AC power generation in favor of his DC scheme, calling DC the better power distribution model.
Let's face it. Microsoft is scared of something that they can't fight. GPL is something that threatens (at least in the short term) to turn operating systems and associated server software into mere commodities. This will GUT Microsoft's business structure. Since WHEN does Microsoft show ANY concern of how a competitor conducts his business. If GPL WERE a flawed model, they would just ignore it, or encourage others to waste their time with it. It may NOT make anyone any money, but it isn't a flawed model.
The soul of GPL lies in selfless individuals acting for the common good without regard to profit. Without a profit motivation, you can't be driven from competing with Microsoft in the traditional sense. No amount of marketing or advertising can sway someone who has access to source code and can see for themselves what a GPL program can or cannot do. Something with no box or shrink wrap (generally), negligible distribution expense (through the internet), quality that speaks for itself (through source code) and done by people for "fun" is a formidable force that Microsoft has to reckon with.
"In China, intellectual property is owned by the state. In the United States, copyright is being redefined by corporatists to grant businesses total contol over ideas in perpetuity, a perversion of the original American idea, which was to give creators and the public both acess to intellectual property, never intended to fall exclusively and in perpetuity into private hands."
I don't think China has ever had a tradition of Intellectual Property, that's why there's been a problem with the circulation of illegally obtained copywrited material (programs, music, videos, etc).
Actually, copywrite law ALWAYS intended for exclusive of information by a private individual or corporation. That was done to prevent unscrupulous persons from stealing the ideas of others. The owner of such a copywrite has a RIGHT to regulate the access and usage of his/her ideas from other people. A creator of an idea, therefore, has the right to be as greedy as they wish to be.
Now, is this a good thing? No. Greed never is a good idea. It impedes the distillation of public knowledge. It retards the development of society.
But I don't think I have a right to take those ideas from individuals for the "sake of the betterment of society." If we go around doing that, then we ultimately give ourselves the right to take whatever we please under the context of "the betterment of the state." This undermines the right of privacy of the individual and subjects him/her to the supervision of a police state. This also retards the development of society. Given a choice, I would keep the notion of Intellectual Property around because it allows an individual to remain free and not subject to a "big brother."
Perpetuity. Now there's a bad word. IP laws were first drawn up to protect an author's work during and for a period after his/her life. At the expiration of that time period, it becomes part of the public property. This is a good thing. It allows an entity to profit for a reasonable period, then allows others to use and improve upon the idea. Keeping an copywrite in perpetuity robs our children of tomorrow for the sake of making a quick buck today.
For large companies a steady payment steam is probably preferable. It keeps the accountants happy (they like steady payments) and the IT managers happy (no more fighting with the accountants for a software upgrade budget every 2-3 years).
In the home, people are different. A lot of casual users see a computer as a one-time buy (like a TV or a stereo). After 5 years or so, they upgrade everything. Generally, home users are more careful with their money.
This also has the effect of shifting their software business to a shorter business cycle. Before, people could be counted on to buy software and computers 5 years or so. Now people have to make what amounts to time payments. Guess what? In a recession or a business downturn, those are the first things to be eliminated. This might be good for Microsoft in the short term, but what about the long term? Sure they have LOTS of cash sitting around, but cash is meant to be put to work, not to shore up bad business plans in bad times. That's NOT good management.
... lies in one word - INEQUALITY.
Nothing in this world is equal. Everything is relative. Some things are stronger; some are weaker. Some people are smart; some are stupid. Some are industrious; others are plain lazy. Get the picture?
The pie of income property of which you speak to divide is grossly inproportionate. Some property is in more demand. Some property is valued more than other property. Try buying beachfront property. It's expensive because lots of people want to live there and there isn't enough of it to go around. When demand goes up and supply can't keep up, price moves up as well. Simple economics.
And what about that pie? Where does it come from? Have you considered the BAKERS of that pie? People created the pie. They also create other pies using their own resources. Should they be expected to share it without compensation? What's to encourage them to bake more pies? Maybe you'll want to distribute the hard earned flour and water and eggs from someone else to the pie makers? OK. But then, how do you compensate your suppliers? Maybe you don't, ultimately. Maybe your suppliers stop putting their hearts and souls into making their products because there's no special reward for them. The pie makers also start doing the same thing for the same reasons. At the end of the process, everyone gets a pie, but the pie created under the new system of distribution doesn't taste as good as the old pies do. They break apart, spoil more quickly and so go to waste.
But wait, you say. Let's EDUCATE everyone top and bottom so that everyone knows the game. Well, you find that not everyone shares your enthusiasm. Some are natually lazy. Others realize that no matter how hard they work, they'll never get ahead. So they either work for themselves on the side, or do nothing more than they absolutly have to. In the end, education means nothing.
Income property remains income property because the owners make it work. They take the risks no one else wants to take and they reap the rewards. The simple rule is this: You work; you eat. Nothing gets handed to you. This isn't slavery. It's survival.
Intellectual property protects artists, writers and inventors from other people wishing to steal what they own and profit from it. Our oceans of laws and rules help us live together in complex societies. If you don't want it, go and live in a jungle. If you do, plan on spending most of your time trying to survive. Food and avoidance of predators (the 2 and 4 legged kind) will consume your time.
The free software / open source movement will succeed, but not because it's the forefront of a great social movement. The ability of dedicated, communally-minded individuals to enter and exit the community of developers via the internet is it's biggest strength. When you have dedicated individuals, the odds of any project succeeding increase greatly.
Giving away things for free makes a lot of sense to people who don't earn a living for one reason or another. Everyone likes a free lunch. The trouble is that the lunch actually costs something, had to made by someone and had to be delivered to the consumer. Once you start earning a living and stop thinking that the world owes you something, you'll see things more clearly.
On a level playing field, MS might win out over producers of MP3 products. However, no playing field is level. Companies such as Sony, Hitachi and Panasonic have a vested interest in players of recorded music (ie the Walkman). Those products depend (although I don't know how much) on people playing music recorded from other places. Using cassette tapes as an example, I knew a lot of people who not only bought music, but listened to their own mixes or tapes illegally copied. The new digital formats coming out MIGHT stem this, but who knows just how much these companies rely on people copying music to sell their players.
I'm actually very familiar with MS and it's history.
MS did listen to it's customers at one time. Up until the early 90's, Lotus and WordPerfect were the supreme productivity packages. As their quality deteriorated (and I'm talking about the MS-DOS versions), MS's products gained that lost market share. I know this, because I used to do software support back then. I personally started using Excel and Word when Lotus 123 and WordPerfect could no longer offer the features I wanted (or MS offered better features).
During the late 80's and early 90's (until Windows 95) you could actually get a knowledgeable tech on the phone to answer questions, even if you had an unregistered copy of Windows or MS-Office.
During 1994-1995 there was ample opportunity for them to push Windows onto computer-makers hard drives. OS/2 didn't cut it (very good OS, lousy product management). DR-DOS was aquired by Novell and died a quiet death. What else was there? Linux at the time was a tiny blip on the radar screen. Unix? Wasn't a real option for most consumers.
Sure they used their muscle time and again, but during the late '80s and early '90s, they either made better products or were the only viable game in town.
As for how they aquired MS-DOS (called QDOS at the time), well, what's illegal about that? Also ethics don't bind a person to reveal just how valuable something is to a seller. If MS couldn't deliver it, then Gates and company were screwed. As for Seattle Computer Products, the company that sold it to them, THEY weren't coerced and they asked no questions when these KIDS offered him $50,000 (about $93,000 in today's dollars) in CASH. Later, in 1981, Paterson, the writer of QDOS, found employment at Microsoft (too bad he didn't stick around, he'd be rich today). QDOS was based on Gary Kildall's CP/M system - Patterson wrote it in 6 weeks while refering to the CP/M manual. Ironically, Kildall was first approached by IBM for HIS OS.
Actually, I didn't just read THE article - I read BOTH of them - BEFORE I posted.
"Microsoft, for example, plans to severely limit the quality of music that can be recorded as an MP3 file using software built into the next version of its personal-computer operating system, Windows XP, according to the report."
That's from one of the articles. Here's a quote from another one:
"Microsoft, for example, plans to severely limit the quality of music that can be recorded as an MP3 file using software built into the next version of its personal-computer operating system, Windows XP."
In both quotes, the phrase, "severely limit the quality of music that can be recorded..." appears (of course were talking about the same article reproduced in two different places, but you get the point). So my original posting wasn't really off the mark at all.
Of COURSE they want to control the recording format so people can't rip their own CD's, sell pirated versions or do whatever else that takes money from RIAA's pockets. Subverting MP3 as a means to this end isn't going to work. Before Microsoft can fully realize this, another format will take MP3's place and the whole game will start over.
...In other news, enterprising hackers alter the encoding of MP3 standard slightly and change the extention to MP4, thereby thwarting the attempts of Microsoft and its evil minions to subvert music quality on a user's HOME PC.
Seriously, who do they think they're kidding here? With broadband around the corner, a much better music format can easily be introduced and distributed if Microsoft wants to screw around this way. At best this action buys them only 6 months of control. People WILL find a way around this EASILY.
The article also doesn't mention all the makers of MP3 players who will suddenly be threatened by this action. Some of them are very big and have LOTS of resources.
Ultimately, Microsoft's efforts this will probably go nowhere. MS became successful by LISTENING to individuals. When you stop listening, others who do listen better will take your place. IBM learned this lesson the hard way when Microsoft upstaged them. I'm sure there's someone waiting in the wings to do the same to Microsoft since THEY have lost the ability to listen.
That was a very good book, BTW.
Sorry. Just having guns around doesn't mean that they suddenly sprout legs and kill people.
Back in the mid-eighties, I had the opportunity to go to Israel a couple of times. Because of the political situation, every adult (practically) is required to carry an automatic rifle. Well, Israel doesn't suffer from huge crime waves.
Automatic weapons were freely available to US citizens after WWI. Were was the crime wave (apart from prohibition-related crime) as a result?
The problems with firearms in the US have more to do with the lack of societal responsibility assumed by the common citizen than anything else. THIS is dangerous. THIS will collapse our republic.
When WASN'T the net dominated by corporate and political interests? People and institutions with M-O-N-E-Y created the net for use in government and corporate projects. Use of the net as a PRIVATE activity didn't really start until the early 1990's.
Domination by government and corporate interests isn't its fate - that's NORMAL. The new thing on the block is the incursion of private individuals. The people that actually OWN the net, namely the corporations and government, will eventually take it back.
Sad, but true. They who own it, control it.
Not a troll, but just a fact...
Can't I get a PocketPC for the just about the same price as m505? The HP Jornada is $499 at HP's web site.
Personally, I wouldn't be caught dead running a WinCE device, but won't most of the casual consumers out there will compare prices only?
I suppose Scientology has every right to protects it's copyrights, but isn't the basis of copyright law there to keep others from unfairly profitting from someone else's work? The reprinting of the OT III was done in the context of a series of critical articles about Scientology, shouldn't THAT carry some weight?
If Slashdot invites comments, then the whole body of comments should constitute a single body of work, shouldn't it? That isn't simply a copyright violation. It's FREE EXPRESSION.
I used something like this back in 1981-1983. It was called the TRS-80 POCKET COMPUTER. It was programmable in BASIC, stored data and had an input/output port that could hook up to a tape recorder or a printer. While it certainly didn't hook up to a mainframe, the device probably could have. This device certainly predated these patents....
Maybe TANDY should sue NCR!!!!!
"In The Social Life of Information, John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid worry about losing the value of face-to-face personal and office encounters. Stories told around the water cooler are critical to businesses and institutions, they write, offering nuance, cues and personal connections that are essential in real communications, but which are sometimes lost online. "
The huge company I work for decided LONG ago to establish offices in a country I won't name, but that is 12 time zones away from me. Well, after doing some initial coding, I sent my source to the other office for inclusion into the "BIG WEB PROJECT." As with all things, there were some minor difficulties. Due to the distance and the venues of communication (internet chat, email and telephone chat), I won't be able to resolve these problems in less than 2 days. I'm not on a schedule, but this COULD have been resolved in an hour if we could only see and talk to each other face to face.
Yes, the internet is a wonderful thing, but old style face to face contact will NEVER be improved upon by anything. Humans need human contact; it's in out genes.
This seems to break down into the right to spam vs someone's property rights on their own system. While, I'm against spamming (I hate dealing with it in my inbox), I can't honestly believe that I can keep someone from saying what they want to say. I mean, what if someone sends spam about a political situation or a crime being committed by a public figure? Should THAT be banned as well?
On the other hand, people can't just chew up bandwidth on other people's servers just for the hell of it. If you want to spam, then spam. Just pay in cash for the services you use to do it. Most mail servers are privately owned and therefore, I think, the owners deserve the right to say who uses their systems and who doesn't. The alternative to this is to establish an open public mail server to let people spam as they with. If the end user doesn't like it, they can just block the domain, or the particular person at that domain.
Maybe we need to establish different classes of email. The post office uses 1st, 2nd and 3rd class mail to make distinctions. Perhaps the time has come for a new e-mail standard. E-mail protocols haven't changed much in the last 20 years, except for client-side security additions. Perhaps new classes of e-mail should be created and linked to server security so that we can all be happy: "Legitimate" e-mail is freely allowed while "spam" is regulated according to the sys-admin's wishes.
And while we're on the subject of sys-admins, perhaps the sys-admin in the article can read his/her manual and block filter outside user who use his/her server to spam???
He wasn't plotting the doom of his fellow classmates? I thought all those loner kids were dangerous psychopaths just waiting to explode in a murderous fury....
Just goes to show you that you REALLY can't predict their behavior. Better lock the whole bunch up just to be safe.....
The article said that Eazel plans to make money through it's subscription services. Well, that's OK in a good economy when people have money to spend. In a slower economy (or recession), the luxuries are the first to be budgeted. I don't see this business model working during a slow economy.
Perhaps they should merge with Ximian and work to actually SELL a product. Open source is nice, but only for people who don't expect to earn money. When your employees need to earn money to pay the mortgage and feed the kids, giving a major product away for free doesn't help. Laying off their business people may be a good stop-gap measure, but in the end, they will have to SELL their product. GOOD programmers are notoriously BAD salespeople.
Companies like Redhat are trying to earn money selling what amounts to consulting services, not Linux. The Linux distributions are a nice extra though.
It seems Transmeta wants a familiar development OS for their product. Since Linux IS free, it aids in the recognition of their platform.
I don't think Transmeta is trying to become a Linux Distro per se, since that would remove the focus from their hardware manufacturing operations.
IBM uses a version of Linux for their mainframes, but no one accuses THEM of trying to be a Linux Distro.
Linux, as it stands, is the cheapest, most complete, stable, recognizable, cross-platform OS out there. I think it's going to become the IBM AT of the software industry...
"That has been the fate of every great revolution in modern history, from the American to the French to the Russian. They spring from virtuous ideals, but it's difficult to keep citizens involved and motivated. When the revolutions fall out of the hands of their leaders and followers, and into the hands of elites and special interests, the participants lose heart and interest. The revolutions lose steam."
Sorry Katz. All those revolutions involved very real issues of property, overtaxation, government mismanagement and famine. The "masses" were driven by a need to feed their families more so than the lofty goals of liberty and justice for all.
This present "Internet Revolution" is NOT a revolution. A closer parallel is that of an opening frontier. It comes complete with open land(domain names), claim jumpers(Domain Name Squatters), hostile natives (Old Unix nerds), new settlers (Microsoft Windows and AOL users), lawlessness (think abundant porn, offshore gambling, script kiddies, DoS attacks, etc - all the bad things about today's internet), partitioning and development of land (new domains and new trunk lines, bridges/routers, Broadband systems), frontier lawmen (reformed "crackers" helping the government),etc etc.. The similiarities are more apparent with this comparison.
1. It doesn't use existing cradles. I purchased an extra cradle for my home when I purchased my VISOR. Handspring says I have to purchase another one now?!?!
2. At $399, Jumping up to one of the WinCE devices isn't going to be that much of leap. For myself, I'm going to wait for a Linux device. But for other people, the incentive to buy a WinCE device will be greater: Color, Multimedia, the MICROSOFT (tm) name.
The older Visors offer many of the benefits of the new Edge Visor without the price hike. Is $200 justified for more memory? Sure you also get an OS upgrade, but this is invisible to the average user. Over the past few years I've seen 2 classes of devices: The cheap (around $150-$200), but powerful Palms/Visors and the expensive WinCE devices. Anything in the middle usually includes wireless (like the Palm VII) and doesn't seem to be as popular. I don't see the real appeal of the Edge Visor as it doesn't seem to offer a decent performance for the price.
3. Wireless connectivity. Forget these stupid subscription services. I want to see REAL wireless networking. I want to see wireless TCP/IP capable devices NOW. I want to see these handheld companies team up with manufacturers of wireless hubs and access points and give me something I can use to connect to my building's wireless network. I'll worry about the ultimate connection to the internet. As long as I have a choice in the matter, I'll be able to negociate the best deal for ME.
I read it online a few weeks ago. It was so gripping that I literally spent 5 days at work doing NOTHING but reading it.
It is the sad story about L. Ron Hubbard, the people he tortured, the lies he told and the destructive organization he founded.
BTW - Scientology is NOT a religion. It is a commercial enterprise that masquarades as a religion and is only devoted to separating you from your money.
Aren't there laws that protect consumers? Any company can place anything it wants into a license agreement, but it can't ALL be legal. We have to stand up for our rights!!!