I personally don't think this will ever happen simply because Flash is such a huge movement on the Internet.
It could have also been because around this time Adobe was working on their Flash competitor, LiveMotion. They had to have known the case wouldn't get to court for years, so stopping Flash to give a young LiveMotion a boost can't be it.
Maybe it's because one of the product differentiators of LiveMotion was that it had the same interface as all other Adobe products. Then Macromedia starts making all their products look like Adobe's, blowing their differentiator.
This is the equivalent of a car company patenting their cup holders and suing any other manufacturer who put them in.
Actually, I'd bet the really cool pop-out cupholders in the Audi A6 I rented are probably patented. Note that I'm talking about their design of cupholder, not cupholders in general.
That's detachable tabs with build-your-own-palette. Adobe specified early Excel tabbing in their patent as prior art they were deviating from with their own invention.
you'd have to get people to sign your T-shirt, then you'd have to get your shirt notarized, then you could shoot them.
Why? If the sign on a store/site is a binding contract, why not my T-shirt? By talking to me they agreed to accept an illegal action, same as your view that by people shopping at a store, they agree to accept illegal actions.
I'm going to open the most dishonest store around, ripping people off like crazy in violation of consumer protection laws, but just put up the disclaimer "By shopping here you agree to waive your rights under any law or custom" to keep me safe. That appears to be the world of your dreams.
I haven't had anything to do with OpenOffice so far. I just now decide for the first time to go there and download it, turns out it's now 1.0 and it's been Slashdotted.
Butlers, Maids, Waiters, Waitresses, are all indentured servants. Indentured means "having entered into a contract of servitude". It has nothing to do with freedom because they get paid in exchange for their services.
There is one major difference. A butler can quit, an indentured servant can't. If you could waive your rights given by consumer protection laws, then all laws would be useless due to a disclaimer on the front door of every business. That's absurd.
I'm going to get a T-shirt that says "By pissing me off, you hereby waive all rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and then shoot everyone who pisses me off. I hope you will contribute to my legal defense fund.
The basic question is: You know a brick-and-mortar store could never get away with doing something like this. Why should an online store be allowed to?
Nobody forces you to agree to their agreement. You have the right to waive your consumer protection rights, and that's what you do when you agree to such agreements. Buyer beware.
You don't really have that right. You have rights within law that you cannot waive. Why, for example, is indentured servitude illegal? It's just a contract between an employer and employee. It's illegal because you are not allowed to sign away your right to freedom -- the contract would be completely unenforceable. There's ample Supreme Court precedence for this concept.
The agreement you agreed to when you registered for their site clearly explains that they reserve the right to cancel any order for any reason they want. Furthermore it explicity stated that prices are subject to change without notification.
They can throw up all the disclaimers they want, but that means nothing in the face of consumer protection laws. This is like those unenforceable rediculous "give us your first born" EULAs.
The reason is that you forget the whole concept of American copyright is not for the good of the author but for the good of the public that new things are created and disseminated. The only reason authors get copyright is to give them some incentive to create new works, and even then it's barely tolerated and limited according to original intent.
Therefore, if it makes for wider public distribution, even at the expense of the copyright owners (without actually violating their copyright), it is perfectly in line with our system of copyright.
See the above FindLaw link. The authors tried to gain control over their works after First Sale, and were put down. There are many other cases like this one.
On the other hand, of course they have a right to do what they're doing, free speech and all. I think they've learned their lesson over the last couple hundred years that they'll lose if they try anything in the courts because our system of copyright doesn't agree with their system of greed.
Authors themselves in the past have tried to kill the doctrine of first sale in order to make more profits. Here's a previous case where the Supreme Court told the authors their control over sale ends at first sale. It's not just the *AAs that want to kill free-market secondary sales at our expense, the authors tried long ago.
Huh? There were booth babes all over. Maybe not the American silicon ideal, but they're there and they're cute. Many are students hired from the nearby universities such as at Goettingen (I rode partway back with one on the train and I got the whole story -- it ain't easy money).
And Game Cube is cheaper, has great hardware, great games, and is more oriented towards a great gaming experience rather than being a technological showcase. And do you need what's probably a third DVD player in your house? I've got the other stuff, I want a pure gamer's machine -- the Game Cube.
Famous people. That'll be nice. "Jim Jones just died and took down all of his clients with him."
Locations: NEVER name them after locations. I was at a place that named all computers by building and room number. This fell apart quickly on the next big office juggling.
Aside from that, we have named servers after rivers in the world.
Then comes a problem. If Linux buyers produce a jump in sales, them MS can claim vastly higher sales numbers.
This leads to a public perception that this is the console that's going to succeed (they don't know why they're being bought), which in turn has the habit of making it the console that will succeed.
The history was superficial, and the information on the current consoles was wrong in respect to the Game Cube.
First, he makes the common mistake of giving the polygon/sec counts. MS and Sony have theoretical maximum counts while Nintendo's count is real-world with all of the eye candy turned on. He then uses this comparison to show the inferiority of the Cube hardware when the framerate of Cube games could be higher given the same games with complex action.
Look at the columns of features. See "N/A" next to most of the Cube's fetures? It makes it look like there's nothing there, yet the Cube has good marks in most of these rows, such as audio, HDTV, broadband and 56K modem.
They reserved the right to be assholes in the future.
I think this is going to take pure numbers. If enough scholars try to publish blatantly illegal (according to DMCA) papers, and the RIAA/MPAA threatens and backs down on all of them after the damage is done, there will have been enough precedent that a later judge will not be able to ignore.
Like Cato said, there are severe dangers in judicial pre-review of a law.
However, I would love a Congressional rule forcing censure of at least those co-sponsoring, if not also those voting for, a bill later ruled unconstitutional "on its face." Then say we propose a "three strikes" rule to go with that.
But we know that wouldn't happen because it would end grandstanding for brownie points (CDA/COPA) and paying back bribes (DMCA).
Slashdot Mirror
Therefore you obviously haven't read the patent we're talking about, because it mentions Excel specifically.
I personally don't think this will ever happen simply because Flash is such a huge movement on the Internet.
It could have also been because around this time Adobe was working on their Flash competitor, LiveMotion. They had to have known the case wouldn't get to court for years, so stopping Flash to give a young LiveMotion a boost can't be it.
Maybe it's because one of the product differentiators of LiveMotion was that it had the same interface as all other Adobe products. Then Macromedia starts making all their products look like Adobe's, blowing their differentiator.
This is the equivalent of a car company patenting their cup holders and suing any other manufacturer who put them in.
Actually, I'd bet the really cool pop-out cupholders in the Audi A6 I rented are probably patented. Note that I'm talking about their design of cupholder, not cupholders in general.
The Macromedia MX series now uses stackable and dockable palettes. After using it for a month I can say it's neither better nor worse, just different.
Good. Maybe they should have tried that in the first place instead of ripping off the dominant graphics app GUI.
and I sure as shit am not about to use pagemill.
I'd sure hope not, as that's from the days of Dreamweaver 1. Try GoLive 6, it blows Dreamweaver away.
That's detachable tabs with build-your-own-palette. Adobe specified early Excel tabbing in their patent as prior art they were deviating from with their own invention.
you'd have to get people to sign your T-shirt, then you'd have to get your shirt notarized, then you could shoot them.
Why? If the sign on a store/site is a binding contract, why not my T-shirt? By talking to me they agreed to accept an illegal action, same as your view that by people shopping at a store, they agree to accept illegal actions.
I'm going to open the most dishonest store around, ripping people off like crazy in violation of consumer protection laws, but just put up the disclaimer "By shopping here you agree to waive your rights under any law or custom" to keep me safe. That appears to be the world of your dreams.
I haven't had anything to do with OpenOffice so far. I just now decide for the first time to go there and download it, turns out it's now 1.0 and it's been Slashdotted.
Thanks to Slashdot for the links.
Butlers, Maids, Waiters, Waitresses, are all indentured servants. Indentured means "having entered into a contract of servitude". It has nothing to do with freedom because they get paid in exchange for their services.
There is one major difference. A butler can quit, an indentured servant can't. If you could waive your rights given by consumer protection laws, then all laws would be useless due to a disclaimer on the front door of every business. That's absurd.
I'm going to get a T-shirt that says "By pissing me off, you hereby waive all rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and then shoot everyone who pisses me off. I hope you will contribute to my legal defense fund.
The basic question is: You know a brick-and-mortar store could never get away with doing something like this. Why should an online store be allowed to?
Nobody forces you to agree to their agreement. You have the right to waive your consumer protection rights, and that's what you do when you agree to such agreements. Buyer beware.
You don't really have that right. You have rights within law that you cannot waive. Why, for example, is indentured servitude illegal? It's just a contract between an employer and employee. It's illegal because you are not allowed to sign away your right to freedom -- the contract would be completely unenforceable. There's ample Supreme Court precedence for this concept.
They can throw up all the disclaimers they want, but that means nothing in the face of consumer protection laws. This is like those unenforceable rediculous "give us your first born" EULAs.
they found that half of the population was ratting out the other half to the Stasi...
The reason is that you forget the whole concept of American copyright is not for the good of the author but for the good of the public that new things are created and disseminated. The only reason authors get copyright is to give them some incentive to create new works, and even then it's barely tolerated and limited according to original intent.
Therefore, if it makes for wider public distribution, even at the expense of the copyright owners (without actually violating their copyright), it is perfectly in line with our system of copyright.
See the above FindLaw link. The authors tried to gain control over their works after First Sale, and were put down. There are many other cases like this one.
On the other hand, of course they have a right to do what they're doing, free speech and all. I think they've learned their lesson over the last couple hundred years that they'll lose if they try anything in the courts because our system of copyright doesn't agree with their system of greed.
Authors themselves in the past have tried to kill the doctrine of first sale in order to make more profits. Here's a previous case where the Supreme Court told the authors their control over sale ends at first sale. It's not just the *AAs that want to kill free-market secondary sales at our expense, the authors tried long ago.
Through DMCA and other legislation, and now pressure from authors, the doctrine of first sale is dying a slow and horrible death.
Huh? There were booth babes all over. Maybe not the American silicon ideal, but they're there and they're cute. Many are students hired from the nearby universities such as at Goettingen (I rode partway back with one on the train and I got the whole story -- it ain't easy money).
And Game Cube is cheaper, has great hardware, great games, and is more oriented towards a great gaming experience rather than being a technological showcase. And do you need what's probably a third DVD player in your house? I've got the other stuff, I want a pure gamer's machine -- the Game Cube.
I don't get it. I played with a LOT of toys at CeBIT. The place is full of them.
Famous people. That'll be nice. "Jim Jones just died and took down all of his clients with him."
Locations: NEVER name them after locations. I was at a place that named all computers by building and room number. This fell apart quickly on the next big office juggling.
Aside from that, we have named servers after rivers in the world.
I agree. It stands unique as the worst one I've seen so far.
Then comes a problem. If Linux buyers produce a jump in sales, them MS can claim vastly higher sales numbers.
This leads to a public perception that this is the console that's going to succeed (they don't know why they're being bought), which in turn has the habit of making it the console that will succeed.
Public perception counts for a lot.
The history was superficial, and the information on the current consoles was wrong in respect to the Game Cube.
First, he makes the common mistake of giving the polygon/sec counts. MS and Sony have theoretical maximum counts while Nintendo's count is real-world with all of the eye candy turned on. He then uses this comparison to show the inferiority of the Cube hardware when the framerate of Cube games could be higher given the same games with complex action.
Look at the columns of features. See "N/A" next to most of the Cube's fetures? It makes it look like there's nothing there, yet the Cube has good marks in most of these rows, such as audio, HDTV, broadband and 56K modem.
They reserved the right to be assholes in the future.
I think this is going to take pure numbers. If enough scholars try to publish blatantly illegal (according to DMCA) papers, and the RIAA/MPAA threatens and backs down on all of them after the damage is done, there will have been enough precedent that a later judge will not be able to ignore.
Like Cato said, there are severe dangers in judicial pre-review of a law.
However, I would love a Congressional rule forcing censure of at least those co-sponsoring, if not also those voting for, a bill later ruled unconstitutional "on its face." Then say we propose a "three strikes" rule to go with that.
But we know that wouldn't happen because it would end grandstanding for brownie points (CDA/COPA) and paying back bribes (DMCA).
I'm not sure about the alpha blending itself, but I Quartz is hardware accelerated, and alpha blending is part of Quartz, so....
But maybe they didn't accelerate that part of Quartz?