Wasn't the kid's father a marine? No amount of gun control would have kept the guns out of that house. Where the gun control is necessary is in the house, not at the store.
I've heard stories of other companies protecting their trademarks to the end in very innocent situations. The one I remember was about a children's hospital that had an artist paint Walt Disney characters on the walls of the rooms. WD found out about it and made them remove the pictures. When Warner Brothers found out about it, they took advantage of the PR opportunity by going in and repainting the walls with their own characters. Of course, I probably heard this story third or fourth hand and have never heard another mention of it anywhere else so I don't know if its true or not. But I have heard of other instances of WD protecting their trademarks so I tend to believe it.
Regarding the notice by email; it seems to me some other infamous threatened litigations were initiated by email but followed up with hardcopy. After all, if you see a something on internet, email would be the easiest way to make contact.
I personally don't think MS could be so stupid as to try something like this unless they plan on moving their corporate offices to a courtroom. They can't seem to stay out of them these days anyway....
It used to be that programmers had to get down to the iron because there was no operating system there to do what they needed done. Hence, their programs were tied to the machine's architecture.
Now that we have a real operating system (linux) to do the grunt work, why does 'PC' need to mean 'IBM-PC clone'? Linux has already been ported to a few architectures that don't look anything like an IBM PC. A linux program sees the same thing whether it's run on a PC, an Alpha, a SPARC, a Mac, or whatever.
I've been considering making my next computer a Mac or something else. Since I would load linux on it anyway, what difference does the hardware make? My programs still compile and run the same.
If someone were to come out with a totally new computer that was well designed and thought out, kept the design open, and then ported linux to it, I'm sure it would sell.
Microsoft is trying to present itself as a company too stupid to create a monopoly. They're hoping Judge Jackson rules in their favor by deciding that they can't possibly be a monopoly because their management is too incompetent to create one.
Slashdot Mirror
Wasn't the kid's father a marine? No amount of gun control would have kept the guns out of that house. Where the gun control is necessary is in the house, not at the store.
Yeah, we're lazy. But I once heard that if you want to find a more efficient way to solve a problem, give it to a lazy person....
It may have been around for a while but it's never seen so many hits before...
Boy, if that doesn't look like a young Bill Gates...
Making it a buzzword is no good if people's understanding of the meaning of that buzzword is totally wrong.
I've heard stories of other companies protecting their trademarks to the end in very innocent situations. The one I remember was about a children's hospital that had an artist paint Walt Disney characters on the walls of the rooms. WD found out about it and made them remove the pictures. When Warner Brothers found out about it, they took advantage of the PR opportunity by going in and repainting the walls with their own characters. Of course, I probably heard this story third or fourth hand and have never heard another mention of it anywhere else so I don't know if its true or not. But I have heard of other instances of WD protecting their trademarks so I tend to believe it.
Regarding the notice by email; it seems to me some other infamous threatened litigations were initiated by email but followed up with hardcopy. After all, if you see a something on internet, email would be the easiest way to make contact.
I personally don't think MS could be so stupid as to try something like this unless they plan on moving their corporate offices to a courtroom. They can't seem to stay out of them these days anyway....
It used to be that programmers had to get down to the iron because there was no operating system there to do what they needed done. Hence, their programs were tied to the machine's architecture.
Now that we have a real operating system (linux) to do the grunt work, why does 'PC' need to mean 'IBM-PC clone'? Linux has already been ported to a few architectures that don't look anything like an IBM PC. A linux program sees the same thing whether it's run on a PC, an Alpha, a SPARC, a Mac, or whatever.
I've been considering making my next computer a Mac or something else. Since I would load linux on it anyway, what difference does the hardware make? My programs still compile and run the same.
If someone were to come out with a totally new computer that was well designed and thought out, kept the design open, and then ported linux to it, I'm sure it would sell.
What have you got against this poor site that you /. it two days in a row?
Microsoft is trying to present itself as a company too stupid to create a monopoly. They're hoping Judge Jackson rules in their favor by deciding that they can't possibly be a monopoly because their management is too incompetent to create one.