Re:Rev-eng feats never cease to amaze me
on
Samba Turns 10
·
· Score: 1
Since the computers using the protocol are not Microsoft's, generally speaking, what right does Microsoft have to tell people what they can or cannot do with their property. That is like saying speaking French is reserved for the french.
I believe reverse engineering is a God-given right. We received the right to do it when God gave us the ability to do it. Things like reverse engineering birds, atoms, etc. don't typically require a license.
But I can understand how some might feel differently.
2. Based upon your knowledge and upon any consumer contact received by your member companies, have any discs entered the U.S. market that may not be copied on a device or on media for which a royalty has been paid under the AHRA?
This is really the point of his question. The AHRA allows the collection of a royalty on recording media, but this comes in exchange for the priviledge of the consumer to make these copies. By making copy protected originals, the priviledge is removed. Congressman Boucher's questions are pulling tight the noose the RIAA has made for itself out of all that rope.
From a business perspective, this would be a beautiful marketing tool for Slashdot. The site could deliver marketing to self selected groups and affinities.
"Java Programmers", "Sysadmins", "Linux Advocates" (who would have a collective set of "MS astroturfer" foes
Everyone line up for your own abusive advertising!
I have one of these, and have been very happy with it. It is small enough to slip into your pocket at the gym. It works as a disk drive under linux and windows. The batteries easily account for over half of its weight.
I agree, the headphones are uncomfortable, but they are easily replaced by a nice pair of earbuds.
is that professors/universities will now require students to sign assignments of patents as long as they work with said professor's/university's resources. Corporations do this as part of their hiring process, and I don't see why a student researcher wouldn't have to sign something to use the resources. University's do not have to let students use university resources.
Now this will give universities and professors a justified excuse to force students to give up their rights to their patents. The courts have turned a gray area where students could escape notice into a very black and white one where universities will have the upperhand.
Hundreds of rolls of film cost hundreds to thousands of dollars depending on the quality. On top of that, the film needs to be processed at several dollars per roll. Let's forget the cost of prints. That $20 book now starts sounding like a budget item.
The cheapest computer with the cheapest CD writer would put you ahead of the $20 book and film in probably 50-60 rolls of film. Admittedly, the picture quality is not the same. But lets be realistic about the real cost of film.
I personally have a digital camera and last I checked I have over 4500 pictures stashed away. For those pictures I have spent exactly the price of the camera and memory cards, the CD writer and the CDRs to put them on. I wouldn't dream of doing this with film for casual photos, and I would think twice about it as a business.
While for a normal company, this may be perfectly legal. Microsoft has been found to be a monopoly, and the rules are different for monopolies in the United States. Tying products is one of those potential no-no's. Whether its hardware and software (IBM of old) or software and content, tying products is tying products.
Reading some of the comments about the "obvious" failure of these internet appliances makes me think many slashdot readers have crystal balls. Many of these companies banked on broadband access to the internet to be commonplace within the time frame of their business plans.
If every house has a T1 line to it, an internet appliance makes a lot of sense for the average consumer. The extra network traffic wouldn't slowdown average applications since the bandwidth is there for it.
And it makes sense to have a central computer requiring zero administrative work by Joe Public. Their appliance would just work with the latest and greatest software. For the those wearing linux-colored glasses, imagine having your computer always running the latest and greatest distribution with no work or compatibility headaches on your end.
The real failure of the internet appliances can be blamed on communication companies that couldn't find a way to make broadband a reality fast enough. With the recent failures of DSL and wireless internet providers, it seems that not only has the crop withered, ie. the appliances, but the farm isn't worth keeping either!
Looking at my personal crystal ball, if the phone companies, cable companies, et al. get their act together and provide broadband access to substantially more customers at reasonable rates, internet appliances will be back.
From the perspective of encouraging people to understand the realities of email, this is a GOOD thing. A reason people do not use encryption on their email is the belief that no one will read the email enroute. The first high-profile case of someone being arrested for statements made in supposedly private email will drive the public to protect themselves.
An example of this is the now common confidential paper handling companies. Twenty years ago companies didn't hire these confidential paper shredding companies as a matter of normal business. Even shredders were not that common outside of payroll and human resources departments. Companies found out that they had no expectation of privacy for papers in their dumpster. Police shows and news reports highlighted secrets being found through dumpster diving. Today, one may be hard pressed to find a company that doesn't ensure as many documents as possible find their way into confidential trash bins picked up by specialized waste handlers.
In the end, the more hub-bub that comes out of this reality, the better. Nothing drives sales like a real risk uncovered.
I look forward to a Law & Order episode where they read the email of a suspect, find it all encrypted, and later find out the suspect had nothing to do with the crime.
The problem is not the ability to innovate within the framework you describe. It is getting people to coordinate their activities. It is much easier to coordinate when the problem is within the boundaries of one organizations (ie. one monolithic program) than when they are along the boundaries between organizations. Basically, when the problems are between organizations, it is very difficult to avoid the tendency to say, "It's not my fault, fix your program". Unfortunately, the monolithic program is difficult to create under the open source framework, and the coordination problem has not been solved successfully in the non-technical areas of open source.
For the kernel or the underpinnings of a GUI (ie. gnome, kde), it is easier to come to agreement on the right way of doing things or submitting to the technical leader, such as Linus or Miguel. If the problem cannot be quantified, some people have a hard time being humble and compromising their feelings of the "right way" to do something.
There have been some successes in the open source arena on word processors such as Abiword. The reason some of the open source office applications have made it so far is because they have been able to defer to the Microsoft way of doing things. The need to humble one self can be buried under the explanation of maintaining conformity with the way people are used to doing things.
Unfortunately, the wrong type of people are involved with the open source efforts, by design. Egos are the reason open source has gotten as far as it had. The desire to have one's name up there in the lights like Linus is what motivates many people to participate in open source development. This is exactly the wrong type of person to create the compromises necessary to build user applications.
What we need is email that is routed through the US Postal Service so they can postmark it and guarantee a minimum level of privacy (ie. SSL to and from USPS servers). They could charge a nominal fee which I am sure most companies would be happy to pay in lieu of postage. And the post office could use their legal authority on spammer's, mail fraud, etc.
It would be one email address that I could give out with some sense of security that it won't be abused. I could even go into the local post office to authenticate myself with my Driver's License. I would even be willing to pay $20-30 for an the hardware at my end that would be my digital mailbox.
Actually Kodak was upset because Window XP ignored the Kodak software when Kodak's customer plugged Kodak's camera into the customer's PC. Instead, Microsoft's photo software with built-in links to Microsoft's business partner's would come up. One shortcoming of this is that Kodak would then be responsible for handling customer support for their camera with Microsoft's software.
Or would the Kodak customer expect Microsoft to help them get their camera working with Windows.
Admittedly, I am a little biased in that I am a very happy Kodak customer (DC250). And the Kodak software worked perfectly for me right out of the box.
As hard as it is for some people to believe, most companies are only interested in software development to the extent that it aids their business. Software development is an incidental expense of doing business, and it does not lend a competitive advantage in their primary business. For instance, a manufacturer is only interested in software only to the extent that improvements are made to the process of making stuff.
For these companies, there is more to be gained from sharing this noncompetitive technology than from trying to create everything from scratch. And if it helps sell more stuff, ie. IBM, great!
This suggests for the majority of companies not in the business of selling software, the open source model is a success. It keeps development costs down and as business acclimate to the use of open source, open source will provide a very simple way to keep software vendors honest. Software vendors will truly have to demonstrate value above and beyond what is available freely via open source.
In this respect, as open source software begins to cover more and more problem spaces, the proponents of the open source model will be able to demonstrate its success.
I don't see this as a problem if they had chose this route. But if Microsoft had, wouldn't the expectation from the market be that the new functions that IE would have been using been documented for Netscape, et. al. to use as well? That may have been usefeul from the consumer's and developer's perspective.
This is similar to the thoughts I had on the response.
Because intellectual property laws allow a company to create successful business models (ie. provide economic growth to the business) validates neither intellectual property laws nor the derived business models. A threat to a business model, however, is something an executive may be able to relate to.
The question in my mind is do these same executives see that Microsoft's business model is at the expense of their own? In other words, for Microsoft to succeed, Microsoft must find a way to seperate their customers from their money -- in this case throught the government granted monopoly of intellectual property laws.
As a customer, I would not want a government granted monopoly threatening my business model whether it is through intellectual property laws, local utility monopolies, or patents (ie. pharmecuticals vs. insurance companies).
If an executive's line of business is not software, it would seem that intellectual property laws are increasing the cost of doing business -- according to Microsoft's Mr. Mundie.
No state would be foolish enough to tax exports. If it costs 49 other states x% more to buy from such a state, thats 49 state populations that would buy elsewhere. They might as well shut all businesses down within their borders.
States are capable of taxing imports because the customer wants the product enough to pay the sales tax (unless they move).
It doesn't work the other way around. Take a look at how many export tariffs there are internationally versus import tariffs.
Slashdot Mirror
Since the computers using the protocol are not Microsoft's, generally speaking, what right does Microsoft have to tell people what they can or cannot do with their property. That is like saying speaking French is reserved for the french.
I believe reverse engineering is a God-given right. We received the right to do it when God gave us the ability to do it. Things like reverse engineering birds, atoms, etc. don't typically require a license.
But I can understand how some might feel differently.
2. Based upon your knowledge and upon any consumer contact received by your member companies, have any discs entered the U.S. market that may not be copied on a device or on media for which a royalty has been paid under the AHRA?
This is really the point of his question. The AHRA allows the collection of a royalty on recording media, but this comes in exchange for the priviledge of the consumer to make these copies. By making copy protected originals, the priviledge is removed. Congressman Boucher's questions are pulling tight the noose the RIAA has made for itself out of all that rope.
Very funny indeed.
From a business perspective, this would be a beautiful marketing tool for Slashdot. The site could deliver marketing to self selected groups and affinities.
"Java Programmers", "Sysadmins", "Linux Advocates" (who would have a collective set of "MS astroturfer" foes
Everyone line up for your own abusive advertising!
I have one of these, and have been very happy with it. It is small enough to slip into your pocket at the gym. It works as a disk drive under linux and windows. The batteries easily account for over half of its weight.
I agree, the headphones are uncomfortable, but they are easily replaced by a nice pair of earbuds.
This ad was in the Wall Street Journal last week. Two full pages in the technology section if I remember correctly.
is that professors/universities will now require students to sign assignments of patents as long as they work with said professor's/university's resources. Corporations do this as part of their hiring process, and I don't see why a student researcher wouldn't have to sign something to use the resources. University's do not have to let students use university resources.
Now this will give universities and professors a justified excuse to force students to give up their rights to their patents. The courts have turned a gray area where students could escape notice into a very black and white one where universities will have the upperhand.
Being a monopoly is not a crime! Using the power of a monopoly is a crime.
Analogy: Being white is not a crime. Using the power of being white in a business setting is a crime (ie. harrassment, discriminatory hiring, etc.)
Punish the actions as the law allows in antitrust cases: treble damages. Let a jury decide damages.
Let me get this straight.
Hundreds of rolls of film cost hundreds to thousands of dollars depending on the quality. On top of that, the film needs to be processed at several dollars per roll. Let's forget the cost of prints. That $20 book now starts sounding like a budget item.
The cheapest computer with the cheapest CD writer would put you ahead of the $20 book and film in probably 50-60 rolls of film. Admittedly, the picture quality is not the same. But lets be realistic about the real cost of film.
I personally have a digital camera and last I checked I have over 4500 pictures stashed away. For those pictures I have spent exactly the price of the camera and memory cards, the CD writer and the CDRs to put them on. I wouldn't dream of doing this with film for casual photos, and I would think twice about it as a business.
While for a normal company, this may be perfectly legal. Microsoft has been found to be a monopoly, and the rules are different for monopolies in the United States. Tying products is one of those potential no-no's. Whether its hardware and software (IBM of old) or software and content, tying products is tying products.
Reading some of the comments about the "obvious" failure of these internet appliances makes me think many slashdot readers have crystal balls. Many of these companies banked on broadband access to the internet to be commonplace within the time frame of their business plans.
If every house has a T1 line to it, an internet appliance makes a lot of sense for the average consumer. The extra network traffic wouldn't slowdown average applications since the bandwidth is there for it.
And it makes sense to have a central computer requiring zero administrative work by Joe Public. Their appliance would just work with the latest and greatest software. For the those wearing linux-colored glasses, imagine having your computer always running the latest and greatest distribution with no work or compatibility headaches on your end.
The real failure of the internet appliances can be blamed on communication companies that couldn't find a way to make broadband a reality fast enough. With the recent failures of DSL and wireless internet providers, it seems that not only has the crop withered, ie. the appliances, but the farm isn't worth keeping either!
Looking at my personal crystal ball, if the phone companies, cable companies, et al. get their act together and provide broadband access to substantially more customers at reasonable rates, internet appliances will be back.
From the perspective of encouraging people to understand the realities of email, this is a GOOD thing. A reason people do not use encryption on their email is the belief that no one will read the email enroute. The first high-profile case of someone being arrested for statements made in supposedly private email will drive the public to protect themselves.
An example of this is the now common confidential paper handling companies. Twenty years ago companies didn't hire these confidential paper shredding companies as a matter of normal business. Even shredders were not that common outside of payroll and human resources departments. Companies found out that they had no expectation of privacy for papers in their dumpster. Police shows and news reports highlighted secrets being found through dumpster diving. Today, one may be hard pressed to find a company that doesn't ensure as many documents as possible find their way into confidential trash bins picked up by specialized waste handlers.
In the end, the more hub-bub that comes out of this reality, the better. Nothing drives sales like a real risk uncovered.
I look forward to a Law & Order episode where they read the email of a suspect, find it all encrypted, and later find out the suspect had nothing to do with the crime.
The problem is not the ability to innovate within the framework you describe. It is getting people to coordinate their activities. It is much easier to coordinate when the problem is within the boundaries of one organizations (ie. one monolithic program) than when they are along the boundaries between organizations. Basically, when the problems are between organizations, it is very difficult to avoid the tendency to say, "It's not my fault, fix your program". Unfortunately, the monolithic program is difficult to create under the open source framework, and the coordination problem has not been solved successfully in the non-technical areas of open source.
For the kernel or the underpinnings of a GUI (ie. gnome, kde), it is easier to come to agreement on the right way of doing things or submitting to the technical leader, such as Linus or Miguel. If the problem cannot be quantified, some people have a hard time being humble and compromising their feelings of the "right way" to do something.
There have been some successes in the open source arena on word processors such as Abiword. The reason some of the open source office applications have made it so far is because they have been able to defer to the Microsoft way of doing things. The need to humble one self can be buried under the explanation of maintaining conformity with the way people are used to doing things.
Unfortunately, the wrong type of people are involved with the open source efforts, by design. Egos are the reason open source has gotten as far as it had. The desire to have one's name up there in the lights like Linus is what motivates many people to participate in open source development. This is exactly the wrong type of person to create the compromises necessary to build user applications.
What we need is email that is routed through the US Postal Service so they can postmark it and guarantee a minimum level of privacy (ie. SSL to and from USPS servers). They could charge a nominal fee which I am sure most companies would be happy to pay in lieu of postage. And the post office could use their legal authority on spammer's, mail fraud, etc.
It would be one email address that I could give out with some sense of security that it won't be abused. I could even go into the local post office to authenticate myself with my Driver's License. I would even be willing to pay $20-30 for an the hardware at my end that would be my digital mailbox.
Or would the Kodak customer expect Microsoft to help them get their camera working with Windows.
Admittedly, I am a little biased in that I am a very happy Kodak customer (DC250). And the Kodak software worked perfectly for me right out of the box.
For these companies, there is more to be gained from sharing this noncompetitive technology than from trying to create everything from scratch. And if it helps sell more stuff, ie. IBM, great!
This suggests for the majority of companies not in the business of selling software, the open source model is a success. It keeps development costs down and as business acclimate to the use of open source, open source will provide a very simple way to keep software vendors honest. Software vendors will truly have to demonstrate value above and beyond what is available freely via open source.
In this respect, as open source software begins to cover more and more problem spaces, the proponents of the open source model will be able to demonstrate its success.
I don't see this as a problem if they had chose this route. But if Microsoft had, wouldn't the expectation from the market be that the new functions that IE would have been using been documented for Netscape, et. al. to use as well? That may have been usefeul from the consumer's and developer's perspective.
This is similar to the thoughts I had on the response. Because intellectual property laws allow a company to create successful business models (ie. provide economic growth to the business) validates neither intellectual property laws nor the derived business models. A threat to a business model, however, is something an executive may be able to relate to. The question in my mind is do these same executives see that Microsoft's business model is at the expense of their own? In other words, for Microsoft to succeed, Microsoft must find a way to seperate their customers from their money -- in this case throught the government granted monopoly of intellectual property laws. As a customer, I would not want a government granted monopoly threatening my business model whether it is through intellectual property laws, local utility monopolies, or patents (ie. pharmecuticals vs. insurance companies). If an executive's line of business is not software, it would seem that intellectual property laws are increasing the cost of doing business -- according to Microsoft's Mr. Mundie.
No state would be foolish enough to tax exports. If it costs 49 other states x% more to buy from such a state, thats 49 state populations that would buy elsewhere. They might as well shut all businesses down within their borders.
States are capable of taxing imports because the customer wants the product enough to pay the sales tax (unless they move).
It doesn't work the other way around. Take a look at how many export tariffs there are internationally versus import tariffs.