Yes it is idiotic. The system defies all logic. You might argue that he was an idiot for not going along with the insanity while knowing the potential consequences, but I would disagree.
You are missing the point. A video of a single one without horns is deeply unsettling for a lot of people. Seeing a massive horde of them in real life would do lasting psychological damage regardless of actual combat utility.
I didn't say it was in their best interest. Just that it provides a benefit in that they would be less capable of going after others. The fact that fighting them even if MS is wrong is likely more expensive than licensing is a big part of the problem, and a fairly good reason to make comparisons to extortion.
For Apple, it's because Apple and MS are buddy-buddy. There's no point in suing WP7 customers as they are already making money from. Also, there's the factor that Android is an amalgamation of the real threats to MS. It's an OS using the Linux kernel to make money for Google.
Actually competing on technical merit would be the first thing you should do. The benefit of a court case is that it requires MS to actually show what patents they claim Android is infringing. That means that the FOSS community can work on invalidating or working around said patents to shut MS up. A direct lawsuit could also make it a lot easier for patents required for interoperability to be licensed in a way compatible with FOSS via an antitrust case.
No, you can keep changes private under the GPL, provided you don't distribute the code to others. There are some licenses that don't allow for private changes at all, and those licenses are considered non-free by the FSF.
Also, BSDL and MITL are for tools. Real men concerned with 'true freedom' choose the WTFPL and accept no substitutes (except perhaps the public domain).
Most of the FAQ isn't dealing with ambiguities for those that haven't read it, instead focusing on other issues. Also, the GPL is pretty much a hack of conventional copyright, so it's hardly an example of something that would be clear.
We import and export insane copyright legislation. Blaming America is idiocy, because the heart of these things is the one way ratchet mechanism aimed at 'harmonization' of laws.
There is a provision for exceptions, but it's handled in the most ass backwards possible. Judges are a more likely route for getting exceptions, but the legal system is expensive.
However, the real constitutional question should lie with the fact that DRM really has nothing to do with copyright. The constitution allows Congress to pass laws granting legal monopolies to authors on the work they authored. It doesn't allow for anything else, and applying restrictions to DRM breaking technology falls with anything else.
1. They think that allowing patents on tax loophole methods will actually advance the art of tax loopholes.
2. They want to be sure that their corporate buddies don't have any trouble using tax loopholes.
It's a bit dark to think about, but perhaps some terminally ill children might opt for euthanasia, and they would be the right age group for this kind of thing.
Believe it or not, some people don't think Congress is always right. Disagreement with Congress is quite common in matters relating to patents and copyright. Perhaps you should present an argument besides an appeal to an authority, especially given that the authority cited is not an expert on the subject at hand.
I think you are being far to generous. If government funding of a project is over x% or $x, then you can't get a patent at all on the research that money resulted in. Patents are much like a subsidy, and government funding is a subsidy. Allowing one organization to receive both in any substantial manner is double dipping, which should not be tolerated.
In this case, they are saying that any patentable invention must be published, nobody involved will file patents, and any 'significant' software will be released under an open source license. The only disadvantage is that existing patents are the first choice when looking at prior art, so it's not as good at invalidating patents.
Universities also make a lot of money on their prestige, through the tuition, grants, and endowments. Research is a very good way of getting said prestige, and thus the money that prestige brings.
If we are going with the cold realities of our broken patent system, you can get patents on stuff that's already patented by someone else if you word it differently enough, so it doesn't really matter what the universities do.
I think you are too attached to our current economic models. The problem is that economic models exist to deal with scarcity, and what's happening is that scarcity is disappearing. You can panic about how that means things will change, or you can be excited about how that means things will change. Basically, it would a transition to a Star Trek economy, which means we get to devote our time and labor towards more meaningful endeavors, like holodeck sex.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it is idiotic. The system defies all logic. You might argue that he was an idiot for not going along with the insanity while knowing the potential consequences, but I would disagree.
Either that or he just ignores completely idiotic warnings.
Psychological warfare, perhaps?
You are missing the point. A video of a single one without horns is deeply unsettling for a lot of people. Seeing a massive horde of them in real life would do lasting psychological damage regardless of actual combat utility.
I didn't say it was in their best interest. Just that it provides a benefit in that they would be less capable of going after others. The fact that fighting them even if MS is wrong is likely more expensive than licensing is a big part of the problem, and a fairly good reason to make comparisons to extortion.
For Apple, it's because Apple and MS are buddy-buddy. There's no point in suing WP7 customers as they are already making money from. Also, there's the factor that Android is an amalgamation of the real threats to MS. It's an OS using the Linux kernel to make money for Google.
Tomato, Tomatoe. Microsoft, Apple. Republicans, Democrats. It's all two sides of the same coin.
Actually competing on technical merit would be the first thing you should do. The benefit of a court case is that it requires MS to actually show what patents they claim Android is infringing. That means that the FOSS community can work on invalidating or working around said patents to shut MS up. A direct lawsuit could also make it a lot easier for patents required for interoperability to be licensed in a way compatible with FOSS via an antitrust case.
you forgot c) with a good marketing team or a well known brand
Also, the existence of said clones doesn't mean anybody is buying them. but rather, that some developers THINK somebody will buy them.
No, you can keep changes private under the GPL, provided you don't distribute the code to others. There are some licenses that don't allow for private changes at all, and those licenses are considered non-free by the FSF.
Also, BSDL and MITL are for tools. Real men concerned with 'true freedom' choose the WTFPL and accept no substitutes (except perhaps the public domain).
Most of the FAQ isn't dealing with ambiguities for those that haven't read it, instead focusing on other issues. Also, the GPL is pretty much a hack of conventional copyright, so it's hardly an example of something that would be clear.
Unfortunately not. Technology has allowed people to have children without having sex.
We import and export insane copyright legislation. Blaming America is idiocy, because the heart of these things is the one way ratchet mechanism aimed at 'harmonization' of laws.
There is a provision for exceptions, but it's handled in the most ass backwards possible. Judges are a more likely route for getting exceptions, but the legal system is expensive.
However, the real constitutional question should lie with the fact that DRM really has nothing to do with copyright. The constitution allows Congress to pass laws granting legal monopolies to authors on the work they authored. It doesn't allow for anything else, and applying restrictions to DRM breaking technology falls with anything else.
I see two possibilities:
1. They think that allowing patents on tax loophole methods will actually advance the art of tax loopholes.
2. They want to be sure that their corporate buddies don't have any trouble using tax loopholes.
It's a bit dark to think about, but perhaps some terminally ill children might opt for euthanasia, and they would be the right age group for this kind of thing.
Just thinking about it gives me a shiver in the dark
perhaps we should get a helpful lawyer to give DIY instructions.
Believe it or not, some people don't think Congress is always right. Disagreement with Congress is quite common in matters relating to patents and copyright. Perhaps you should present an argument besides an appeal to an authority, especially given that the authority cited is not an expert on the subject at hand.
I think you are being far to generous. If government funding of a project is over x% or $x, then you can't get a patent at all on the research that money resulted in. Patents are much like a subsidy, and government funding is a subsidy. Allowing one organization to receive both in any substantial manner is double dipping, which should not be tolerated.
In this case, they are saying that any patentable invention must be published, nobody involved will file patents, and any 'significant' software will be released under an open source license. The only disadvantage is that existing patents are the first choice when looking at prior art, so it's not as good at invalidating patents.
Universities also make a lot of money on their prestige, through the tuition, grants, and endowments. Research is a very good way of getting said prestige, and thus the money that prestige brings.
If we are going with the cold realities of our broken patent system, you can get patents on stuff that's already patented by someone else if you word it differently enough, so it doesn't really matter what the universities do.
I think you are too attached to our current economic models. The problem is that economic models exist to deal with scarcity, and what's happening is that scarcity is disappearing. You can panic about how that means things will change, or you can be excited about how that means things will change. Basically, it would a transition to a Star Trek economy, which means we get to devote our time and labor towards more meaningful endeavors, like holodeck sex.
They aren't stealing from US companies, so the US government shouldn't mess with them.