As long as you make it obvious that you are expressing an opinion ("I *think* Microsoft is doing this..."), you're free and clear and Microsoft can't touch you -- at least not for libel (they may find another way to quiet you...)
The RIAA may also be peppering their speech with the extremely useful "may" (i.e. "Did you know you may be exposing your personal information and credit card numbers?"), which, try as you might, you can't "prove" wrong.
i did this math the other day: 1 ipod = $400 1 ipod = 7500 songs 1 song @ itunes = $1 7500 songs @ itunes = $7500 cost of duplicating music = $0 $400 + $7500 = $7900 it costs the consumer $7900 to get an ipod fully loaded with the past.
The 300+ CDs I own I also consider "the past" and they're taking up most of the space on my iPod. Already paid for, natch.
I've seen this crazy math before...don't any of you guys own CDs anymore?
My first computer wasn't really mine...I used a TI Silent 700 paper terminal to dial up a VAX a Bell Labs (where my parents worked) and play Adventure, Zork and and Trek compusively. I actually didn't get my own computer until 1987, at which point my interest in those UNIX games had led me down the path of C programming...and fuming that the C compilers for the Mac were so lame:-) ah Consulair C, Aztec C...
(and yes, we replaced our terminal every year, so I did have a cursor adressable CRT terminal to play rogue on)
So, now I'm a C++ application developer. Guess it did affect me!
Absolutely. My band has been selling our latest CD through cdbaby.com over the past year and we've always received timely checks and excellent service, as well as opportunities for more exposure (allowing part of our inventory to be sent as free "bonuses" for repeat cdbaby customers) -- which is more than I can say for other services we've tried.
Seeing that we're already a member, we figured an extra $40 was fair to see what happens with iTMS (and other online dist.).
I'm getting my information from the USPTO, patent# 1,242,872 from 1917.
Clearly nobody believes that a patent means "think to first of it." It means "first to protect it legally as an original idea." All those "stores back then" you're so quite sure about should have gotten a good lawyer and protected their idea before Mr. Clarence Saunders did -- just like eBay should have done (if they indeed came up with their online autioning system before MercExchange did).
Anyway, my point was that "obvious" patents have been around forever -- it's nothing new.
Exactly. And if MercExchange's patent had read like that, then it would not have been granted. FYI, the Abstract of the relevant patent is:
"A method and apparatus for creating a computerized market for used and collectible goods by use of a plurality of low cost posting terminals and a market maker computer in a legal framework that establishes a bailee relationship and consignment contract with a purchaser of a good at the market maker computer that allows the purchaser to change the price of the good once the purchaser has purchased the good thereby to allow the purchaser to speculate on the price of collectibles in an electronic market for used goods while assuring the safe and trusted physical possession of a good with a vetted bailee."
The convenience store was patented somewhere around 1913 -- prior to its invention, people had to ask clerks to take goods of the shelves. The inventor realized that if you put the stocking shelves in the front of the store, you could have the customers do all the work.
Point is, just because something seems obvious, doesn't mean it doesn't meet the test of uniqueness.
Reverse engineering a product (or software) in and of itself is not a violation of the DMCA. Only reverse engineering for the purpose of "circumventing a technological measure" in defeating copyright protection is in violation.
In other words, feel free to open up a base station yourself -- just don't try to decrypt anything meant to protect copyright (I don't think anything meets this criteria inside a base station).
Would you care to tell the overjoyed, newly freed Iraqi citizens who are throwing roses at our troops that we have no business there?
No, but I'd tell them that even though they may think this new freedom means they can finally say anything they want without fear of persecution from Mr. Saddam Hussein, they'll still have to deal with people like you telling them to "SHUT THE HELL UP" when they try to exercise their new found right to criticize the government.
Of course, the release of the original IBM PC a couple of years later completely overshadowed Apple's moment in the sun.
The IBM PC played its part in Apple's fall from grace, but don't underestimate Apple's miserable attempt at a business-centric machine, the Apple III -- it likely put the final nail in the coffin as far as Apple's role in the business computer market.
"But I want to get Apple's full support. I want to make sure I'm on the up and up. I'm an Apple supporter. It's not something I want to clash with them about. I want to make sure what I'm doing is legal."
How is creating a low cost box that will cut into Apple's hardware sales (where they make the MAJORITY of their revenue) "supporting" Apple?
I remember that the Bell Labs Intelligent Terminal (BLIT) bitmapped terminal used a coffee cup (i.e. "go get a cup of coffee while you wait") icon for waiting, which gives you an idea of how long you had to wait sometimes...always got a kick out of that. Bring the coffee cup to the Mac!
That would be "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman" A subtle distinction.;-)
And to stay on topic, XML sucks for some things and doesn't suck for others, just like any other technology. A hammer claw is a fine tool for removing a nail, but not as useful for removing a splinter from your finger. Less energy needs to be spent on arguing whether technologies like XML suck or not, and more energy needs to be put into studying their most practical and optimal uses.
...of a material science class I took where we studied compounds that expand against the direction of an applied force. If such a material were to be written up by the popular media, I'm sure it would begin "In a feat that goes against the laws of Nature..." If it exists in Nature, it certainly doesn't break those laws, but this type of (non)thinking does result in a much nicer journalistic hook.
The version number for Jaguar is 10.2, i.e., Mac OS X 10.2. I assume the Panther release will be Mac OS X 10.3 or something similar. No logo change required.
What I *really* hope the anounce is support for AMD's x86-64 architecture.
It's been said many times already, so I'll just make it short: If Apple were to support the x86 architecture, it would only be on Apple hardware. For the near future (as long as Apple makes its money from hardware sales), you can forget about running OS X on your x86 box.
Finally, please, PLEASE Steve, simple admit that a two-button mouse (along with scroll well which also serves as a third button) is simply better than a single-button Apple mouse, and get on with it!!! A one-button mouse SUCKS!!!
I agree, which is why I use a three button/scroll wheel mouse on all my Macs. It really doesn't cost that much, and I don't have to spend any energy frustrated about what Steve Jobs thinks.;-)
Combining competing technologies is an unique salvo in your typical market share battles. Along similar lines, some high end DVD players now come with both SACD and DVD-Audio decoders.
So the question is, will the average cellphone purchaser pay extra for the convenience, or do cost-sensitve buyers always end up tilting the market towards one technology?
Now somebody needs to build a unified J2ME and BREW platform...
Clearly you've made up this entire story about Al Gore "reappearing" and saying something about Tennessee U. Lying and making up stories isn't going to help your, ahem, "debating" skills, but whatever floats your boat.
Courage? Let's see...first you accuse me of making up a quote from CNN. I show you the actual CNN transcript. Then, instead of apologizing, instead of admitting that the quote is accurate, you try to change the subject! That doesn't sound courageous to me at all. A truly courageous person would say, "Okay, I'm sorry I accused you of making that quote up."
If you really want to be courageous, go ahead and look at these links (some are pro-Gore, some are anti-Gore) and then admit you're wrong.
Here: In fact, as CyberAlert readers know, Gore made the boast not at a political gathering but in an interview aired on the March 9 edition of CNN's Late Edition/Prime Time
And here:...in a March 9 interview on CNN's Late Edition/Prime Time Gore insisted: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
And here: Several times, George W. Bush and his campaign have questioned Al Gore's credibility. One of their favorite examples is when on 09March 1999, Gore told CNN's Wolf Blitzer....
And here: During a March 1999 CNN interview, while trying to differentiate himself from rival Bill Bradley, Gore boasted: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
And here:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet," Gore said during an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer
And here: In March of 1999 while appearing on a CNN program hosted by Wolf Blitzer, Al Gore briefly alluded to his role in the development of the Internet. This comment became controversial overnight and was used to the former Vice President's disadvantage during the 2000 campaign. And EVEN here: March 9, 1999; CNN interview CLAIM: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Or, if you still want to believe Gore said "I invented the Internet" during a debate, than go ahead. But I will reserve the right to get pissed off when people like you falsely accuse me of lying.
Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat may win. That would prove that it is illegal to talk bad about your competetor.
/. is in trouble. No one can post anything bad about them.
No, it would prove that it is illegal to make false claims about your competitor.
The Microsoft can sue anyone who uses a dollar sign in place of an s when referring to them.
No again.
Then
And a final no. This might help you.
As long as you make it obvious that you are expressing an opinion ("I *think* Microsoft is doing this..."), you're free and clear and Microsoft can't touch you -- at least not for libel (they may find another way to quiet you...)
The RIAA may also be peppering their speech with the extremely useful "may" (i.e. "Did you know you may be exposing your personal information and credit card numbers?"), which, try as you might, you can't "prove" wrong.
i did this math the other day: 1 ipod = $400 1 ipod = 7500 songs 1 song @ itunes = $1 7500 songs @ itunes = $7500 cost of duplicating music = $0 $400 + $7500 = $7900 it costs the consumer $7900 to get an ipod fully loaded with the past.
The 300+ CDs I own I also consider "the past" and they're taking up most of the space on my iPod. Already paid for, natch.
I've seen this crazy math before...don't any of you guys own CDs anymore?
is a Do-Not-Sue list!
My first computer wasn't really mine...I used a TI Silent 700 paper terminal to dial up a VAX a Bell Labs (where my parents worked) and play Adventure, Zork and and Trek compusively. I actually didn't get my own computer until 1987, at which point my interest in those UNIX games had led me down the path of C programming...and fuming that the C compilers for the Mac were so lame :-) ah Consulair C, Aztec C...
(and yes, we replaced our terminal every year, so I did have a cursor adressable CRT terminal to play rogue on)
So, now I'm a C++ application developer. Guess it did affect me!
Seeing that we're already a member, we figured an extra $40 was fair to see what happens with iTMS (and other online dist.).
IMHO, it's a great opportunity at a great price.
I'm getting my information from the USPTO, patent# 1,242,872 from 1917.
Clearly nobody believes that a patent means "think to first of it." It means "first to protect it legally as an original idea." All those "stores back then" you're so quite sure about should have gotten a good lawyer and protected their idea before Mr. Clarence Saunders did -- just like eBay should have done (if they indeed came up with their online autioning system before MercExchange did).
Anyway, my point was that "obvious" patents have been around forever -- it's nothing new.
Exactly. And if MercExchange's patent had read like that, then it would not have been granted. FYI, the Abstract of the relevant patent is:
"A method and apparatus for creating a computerized market for used and collectible goods by use of a plurality of low cost posting terminals and a market maker computer in a legal framework that establishes a bailee relationship and consignment contract with a purchaser of a good at the market maker computer that allows the purchaser to change the price of the good once the purchaser has purchased the good thereby to allow the purchaser to speculate on the price of collectibles in an electronic market for used goods while assuring the safe and trusted physical possession of a good with a vetted bailee."
Now tell me -- is this "nothing new?"
The convenience store was patented somewhere around 1913 -- prior to its invention, people had to ask clerks to take goods of the shelves. The inventor realized that if you put the stocking shelves in the front of the store, you could have the customers do all the work.
Point is, just because something seems obvious, doesn't mean it doesn't meet the test of uniqueness.
Reverse engineering a product (or software) in and of itself is not a violation of the DMCA. Only reverse engineering for the purpose of "circumventing a technological measure" in defeating copyright protection is in violation.
In other words, feel free to open up a base station yourself -- just don't try to decrypt anything meant to protect copyright (I don't think anything meets this criteria inside a base station).
Would you care to tell the overjoyed, newly freed Iraqi citizens who are throwing roses at our troops that we have no business there?
No, but I'd tell them that even though they may think this new freedom means they can finally say anything they want without fear of persecution from Mr. Saddam Hussein, they'll still have to deal with people like you telling them to "SHUT THE HELL UP" when they try to exercise their new found right to criticize the government.
Of course, the release of the original IBM PC a couple of years later completely overshadowed Apple's moment in the sun.
The IBM PC played its part in Apple's fall from grace, but don't underestimate Apple's miserable attempt at a business-centric machine, the Apple III -- it likely put the final nail in the coffin as far as Apple's role in the business computer market.
Apple didn't develop Hydra, a group of comp sci students in Munich did.
"But I want to get Apple's full support. I want to make sure I'm on the up and up. I'm an Apple supporter. It's not something I want to clash with them about. I want to make sure what I'm doing is legal."
How is creating a low cost box that will cut into Apple's hardware sales (where they make the MAJORITY of their revenue) "supporting" Apple?
Sure sounds like "clashing" to me.
Now all we need is someone to develop shiny white plastic armor that looks cool, but is disturbingly inadequate for stopping a laser blast.
I remember that the Bell Labs Intelligent Terminal (BLIT) bitmapped terminal used a coffee cup (i.e. "go get a cup of coffee while you wait") icon for waiting, which gives you an idea of how long you had to wait sometimes...always got a kick out of that. Bring the coffee cup to the Mac!
That would be "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman" A subtle distinction. ;-)
And to stay on topic, XML sucks for some things and doesn't suck for others, just like any other technology. A hammer claw is a fine tool for removing a nail, but not as useful for removing a splinter from your finger. Less energy needs to be spent on arguing whether technologies like XML suck or not, and more energy needs to be put into studying their most practical and optimal uses.
Ah, a cable staple that lent itself and its charms to one's slightly drug-induced gray matter. Yes...
...of a material science class I took where we studied compounds that expand against the direction of an applied force. If such a material were to be written up by the popular media, I'm sure it would begin "In a feat that goes against the laws of Nature..." If it exists in Nature, it certainly doesn't break those laws, but this type of (non)thinking does result in a much nicer journalistic hook.
The version number for Jaguar is 10.2, i.e., Mac OS X 10.2. I assume the Panther release will be Mac OS X 10.3 or something similar. No logo change required.
What I *really* hope the anounce is support for AMD's x86-64 architecture.
;-)
It's been said many times already, so I'll just make it short: If Apple were to support the x86 architecture, it would only be on Apple hardware. For the near future (as long as Apple makes its money from hardware sales), you can forget about running OS X on your x86 box.
Finally, please, PLEASE Steve, simple admit that a two-button mouse (along with scroll well which also serves as a third button) is simply better than a single-button Apple mouse, and get on with it!!! A one-button mouse SUCKS!!!
I agree, which is why I use a three button/scroll wheel mouse on all my Macs. It really doesn't cost that much, and I don't have to spend any energy frustrated about what Steve Jobs thinks.
Another product/service of mine bites the dust; I really hope someone keeps the service up.
Oh well, being an early adopter sucks sometimes.
Now, will someone finally go and buy up Kozmo's IP and get that idea going again? I need a DVD, some bagels and a bottle of milk. Thanks.
Combining competing technologies is an unique salvo in your typical market share battles. Along similar lines, some high end DVD players now come with both SACD and DVD-Audio decoders.
So the question is, will the average cellphone purchaser pay extra for the convenience, or do cost-sensitve buyers always end up tilting the market towards one technology?
Now somebody needs to build a unified J2ME and BREW platform...
Clearly you've made up this entire story about Al Gore "reappearing" and saying something about Tennessee U. Lying and making up stories isn't going to help your, ahem, "debating" skills, but whatever floats your boat.
Have a nice day.
If you really want to be courageous, go ahead and look at these links (some are pro-Gore, some are anti-Gore) and then admit you're wrong.
Here:
In fact, as CyberAlert readers know, Gore made the boast not at a political gathering but in an interview aired on the March 9 edition of CNN's Late Edition/Prime Time
And here: ...in a March 9 interview on CNN's Late Edition/Prime Time Gore insisted: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
And here:
Several times, George W. Bush and his campaign have questioned Al Gore's credibility. One of their favorite examples is when on 09March 1999, Gore told CNN's Wolf Blitzer....
And here:
During a March 1999 CNN interview, while trying to differentiate himself from rival Bill Bradley, Gore boasted: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
And here:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet," Gore said during an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer
And here:
In March of 1999 while appearing on a CNN program hosted by Wolf Blitzer, Al Gore briefly alluded to his role in the development of the Internet. This comment became controversial overnight and was used to the former Vice President's disadvantage during the 2000 campaign.
And EVEN here:
March 9, 1999; CNN interview
CLAIM: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Or, if you still want to believe Gore said "I invented the Internet" during a debate, than go ahead. But I will reserve the right to get pissed off when people like you falsely accuse me of lying.