This is the same guy who registered "amazon.gr" and then tried to "partner" with Amazon.com. Not to repeat what's already been repeated, but this does reek of trying to use the legal system to make a fast buck. While most/.ers are in agreement that the case is frivolous, stupid, irrelevant and totally uncalled for, there is the problem that the judges and juries who decide the cases frequently do not understand what's really going on. That's where those analogies start to come into play, and whoever has the more plausable, convincing analogy wins. Legally, this is actually a pretty precarious time. Technology is moving forward at incredible speeds, but the judicial system is still figuring out how to cope with the new medium of the Internet. In many cases, the judges making the rulings don't know about the technical aspects, nor do they care to be enlightened beyond one or two sentences. I am reminded of many years ago, when cordless telephones were just entering the mainstream. Initially, the courts ruled that because cordless telephones transmitted on an FM band, they fell under the category of "radio" rather than "telephone," making tapping and recording without consent perfectly legal. Since then, that decision has been reversed. As far as I can see, until the judicial system becomes more familiar with the Internet, with domains and with how technology functions in general, there are still going to be a great deal of frivolous lawsuits, legal reversals and wrangling back and forth about who owns what and how what gets defined. Remember, the U.S. legal system was established back in 1787. It wasn't designed for the pace of the modern world.
Actually, from what I heard (from TheForce.net Lucas is, in fact, planning on releasing Ep 1 on DVD, and he's supposedly still refining it. I wouldn't be surprised if he held off on final release until after Eps 2 and 3 are out. But your info is correct, Lucas is doing Ep1 on DVD.
So is it illegal to go to your local library and check out a book on how to acquire pirated music or build a bomb? The dissemination of information is legal. Legally, I can tell you how to build a bomb, commit a murder without being caught, put together the perfect fake ID, etc. What you do with that information is up to you. In other words, a site can provide the information, but I don't think they can be held liable for the actions of visitors to their sites. Unless, of course, they blatantly mislead users (for example, by claiming the music is licensed and legal.)
Unlike M$, there is actually competition to AOL, so you're not exactly stuck with one choice. That being said, AOL does provide a valuable service: they keep most of the idiots in one domain. You're not going to get the losers off the Internet. AOL is your last, best hope. If you break up AOL, the idiots in your area just might be tying up YOUR ISP! Think about it... half of AOL's problem isn't the company, it's the people who subscribe!
Way back in 1989 or 1990 I was taking a class in Assembler and the teacher was remarking that the x86 was making itself obsolete. IIRC, he said that the memory addressing was horrendous and the whole reason they stuck with it was for backwards-compatibility.
There comes a time when backwards-compatibility needs to be sacrificed for genuine improvement or development. Apple no longer supports the 68k series of processors, barely supports any PPC lower than a 604, and is moving strongly toward G3 (or G4) only. Mac users howled, but it was expensive and counterproductive to try to keep too much backwards compatibility. Use older OSes and older apps for older computers and let newer computers become truly cutting-edge. IMHO there's no need for gigahertz PIIIs or Athlons to be able to run WordStar.
Our taste buds can only recognize a few basic tastes so our noses have to fill in the blanks, as it were. In theory, the e-nose could be harnessed for all sorts of purposes:
Kid: I don't want it! It looks yucky!
Parent: It's yummy! Daddy likes it!
Kid: No! It looks yucky!!
Parent: (pulls out the e-nose) Even Mr. Nose says it's yummy.
I hate to say it, but I really doubt the breakup will do much good. Sure, we'll have an applications company and an OS company, but where's the competition? Internet Explorer will continue to evolve on its current path, getting further and further away from standards-based HTML and more toward proprietary extensions, XML and ActiveFillInTheBlank (which, of course, all require the MS development kits to compile.) By adding all these "features" to IE and their other internet software, they are, in essence, trying to take control of the internet. Sure, you can use sendmail, Apache, Mozilla and whatever, but you'll miss out on so much unless you use Microsoft's Microsoft-enhanced products (here's where the proprietary Kerberos extensions come in.)
Splitting up the company into divisions won't solve anything; the baby Bills will continue acting the way they always have. And in 3 years, when the injunction expires, what's to prevent a merger? Judge Jackson should have ordered Microsoft split into 3 or 4 identical companies with equal access to all the source code. Then we'd have to see some innovation in order for any of those companies to survive!
Of course, my personal feeling on the matter is that Microsoft should be left intact, but Bill Gates should be found personally guilty and executed.
From the original post: This is pure trademark law and AFAIK the terms on Apogee's site have nothing to do with buying a software product from them. For example, I never bought any software from them, and yet I am sure that they feel I would be bound by these trademark use restrictions.
They might try to argue that, but I don't believe they can stop you from criticizing their company or products in a realm they don't control. That is, you can rip Duke Nukem all you want here and even get a negative review published in your local paper and they can't do anything about it - provided you don't misrepresent them or use their materials to misrepresent them. If you said the programmers were demonspawn, then they could go after you for slander, but if you said the graphics were weak and the gameplay interface was lacking, they wouldn't have a case. What you can't do is download images, etc from Apogee's site to use to defame them.
In short, you can say anything you want about them and their products, that's protected by the First Amendment. You simply can't use their logo, descriptions, images, accounts or other intellectual property without their express permission.
What gets me is that when it all began in the 1940s, programming was considered "women's work." The original ENIAC was programmed by women. It wasn't until the personal computer revolution that computers, and especially programming, became a "guy" thing.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the same guy who registered "amazon.gr" and then tried to "partner" with Amazon.com. Not to repeat what's already been repeated, but this does reek of trying to use the legal system to make a fast buck. While most /.ers are in agreement that the case is frivolous, stupid, irrelevant and totally uncalled for, there is the problem that the judges and juries who decide the cases frequently do not understand what's really going on. That's where those analogies start to come into play, and whoever has the more plausable, convincing analogy wins. Legally, this is actually a pretty precarious time. Technology is moving forward at incredible speeds, but the judicial system is still figuring out how to cope with the new medium of the Internet. In many cases, the judges making the rulings don't know about the technical aspects, nor do they care to be enlightened beyond one or two sentences. I am reminded of many years ago, when cordless telephones were just entering the mainstream. Initially, the courts ruled that because cordless telephones transmitted on an FM band, they fell under the category of "radio" rather than "telephone," making tapping and recording without consent perfectly legal. Since then, that decision has been reversed. As far as I can see, until the judicial system becomes more familiar with the Internet, with domains and with how technology functions in general, there are still going to be a great deal of frivolous lawsuits, legal reversals and wrangling back and forth about who owns what and how what gets defined. Remember, the U.S. legal system was established back in 1787. It wasn't designed for the pace of the modern world.
For news and rumors, see TheForce.net. Discussion boards are available at JediCouncil.net. Both are free
Actually, from what I heard (from TheForce.net Lucas is, in fact, planning on releasing Ep 1 on DVD, and he's supposedly still refining it. I wouldn't be surprised if he held off on final release until after Eps 2 and 3 are out. But your info is correct, Lucas is doing Ep1 on DVD.
So is it illegal to go to your local library and check out a book on how to acquire pirated music or build a bomb? The dissemination of information is legal. Legally, I can tell you how to build a bomb, commit a murder without being caught, put together the perfect fake ID, etc. What you do with that information is up to you. In other words, a site can provide the information, but I don't think they can be held liable for the actions of visitors to their sites. Unless, of course, they blatantly mislead users (for example, by claiming the music is licensed and legal.)
Unlike M$, there is actually competition to AOL, so you're not exactly stuck with one choice. That being said, AOL does provide a valuable service: they keep most of the idiots in one domain. You're not going to get the losers off the Internet. AOL is your last, best hope. If you break up AOL, the idiots in your area just might be tying up YOUR ISP! Think about it... half of AOL's problem isn't the company, it's the people who subscribe!
Way back in 1989 or 1990 I was taking a class in Assembler and the teacher was remarking that the x86 was making itself obsolete. IIRC, he said that the memory addressing was horrendous and the whole reason they stuck with it was for backwards-compatibility.
There comes a time when backwards-compatibility needs to be sacrificed for genuine improvement or development. Apple no longer supports the 68k series of processors, barely supports any PPC lower than a 604, and is moving strongly toward G3 (or G4) only. Mac users howled, but it was expensive and counterproductive to try to keep too much backwards compatibility. Use older OSes and older apps for older computers and let newer computers become truly cutting-edge. IMHO there's no need for gigahertz PIIIs or Athlons to be able to run WordStar.
Just my $0.02.Our taste buds can only recognize a few basic tastes so our noses have to fill in the blanks, as it were. In theory, the e-nose could be harnessed for all sorts of purposes:
Kid: I don't want it! It looks yucky!
Parent: It's yummy! Daddy likes it!
Kid: No! It looks yucky!!
Parent: (pulls out the e-nose) Even Mr. Nose says it's yummy.
Kid: Well in that case....
Researcher: Eureka! Caviar Raspberry Ripple Ice Cream!
Tester: (pulls out the e-nose) Sorry, bud, it only scores a 3.8 on the sniffer here. No can do.
Just think of it... a definitive way to measure the ultimate pizza....I hate to say it, but I really doubt the breakup will do much good. Sure, we'll have an applications company and an OS company, but where's the competition? Internet Explorer will continue to evolve on its current path, getting further and further away from standards-based HTML and more toward proprietary extensions, XML and ActiveFillInTheBlank (which, of course, all require the MS development kits to compile.) By adding all these "features" to IE and their other internet software, they are, in essence, trying to take control of the internet. Sure, you can use sendmail, Apache, Mozilla and whatever, but you'll miss out on so much unless you use Microsoft's Microsoft-enhanced products (here's where the proprietary Kerberos extensions come in.)
Splitting up the company into divisions won't solve anything; the baby Bills will continue acting the way they always have. And in 3 years, when the injunction expires, what's to prevent a merger? Judge Jackson should have ordered Microsoft split into 3 or 4 identical companies with equal access to all the source code. Then we'd have to see some innovation in order for any of those companies to survive!
Of course, my personal feeling on the matter is that Microsoft should be left intact, but Bill Gates should be found personally guilty and executed.
From the original post: This is pure trademark law and AFAIK the terms on Apogee's site have nothing to do with buying a software product from them. For example, I never bought any software from them, and yet I am sure that they feel I would be bound by these trademark use restrictions.
They might try to argue that, but I don't believe they can stop you from criticizing their company or products in a realm they don't control. That is, you can rip Duke Nukem all you want here and even get a negative review published in your local paper and they can't do anything about it - provided you don't misrepresent them or use their materials to misrepresent them. If you said the programmers were demonspawn, then they could go after you for slander, but if you said the graphics were weak and the gameplay interface was lacking, they wouldn't have a case. What you can't do is download images, etc from Apogee's site to use to defame them.
In short, you can say anything you want about them and their products, that's protected by the First Amendment. You simply can't use their logo, descriptions, images, accounts or other intellectual property without their express permission.
What gets me is that when it all began in the 1940s, programming was considered "women's work." The original ENIAC was programmed by women. It wasn't until the personal computer revolution that computers, and especially programming, became a "guy" thing.
"...The last three seconds of the audio track?"
Absolutely. Loved it. _Nice_ forshadowing? Are you kidding?
I wonder when advance tickets go on sale for Episode 2... heh heh heh...