> This sets a precident that will be a lot more useful in the long run than simply 'busting up' Microsoft for the Internet Explorer issue.
>
>This decision rocks!
How is it any better than breaking MS up? Conduct remedies will be a much bigger burden on the government and the chance they will be able to actually do anything if MS ignores the conduct remedies will be slim to none. What will they do, take MS to court? Fifteen years later MS will be fined for pocket change after they own the entire computer industry. They are obviously giving concessions to MS, and this will only weaken their case. Anyway, if they're not trying to block XP, time has little to no meaning.
Post after post of some nutcase company thinking they invented something way after it was used for the first time. What's next, "Company claims patent on circular contraption used for the conveyance of people and objects"?
Smart, anti-social people, deeply interested in working with technology. I wonder if they'll discover very social, less intelligent people, deeply interested in sports. If you don't get my gist, your as dense as the people that did this study.
-- Usefull
This is not an issue of DCMA, but one of either - copyright law, or whatever laws govern reverse engineering and theft of poorly protected secrets.
This case is not about reverse engineering, it's about the posting of and/or linking to code that decrypts the MPAAs format in which was meant to stop copyright theft. So it IS an issue of the DMCA and copyright. You are missing the entire point of the DMCA...
1. Why and how is a computer program expressive speech? What does it express? 2600's lawyers are entirely familiar with Touretzky's Gallery, so forget about those. Assume you have some C or perl staring at you, any random block of code in any random print-out. What does it express? Why should that code be protected expression?
Let's look at this simply.
Programming code is written in a language.
It expresses a unique solution, understanding, and knowledge of a problem.
Other people gain insight and understanding from it.
This seems eerily close to any other possible type of publication in existence, all considered legal forms of expression (otherwise, could they copyright books, newspapers, etc?). My question, how is it not expression? Could we explain in english how exactly to write the program, and would it be legal then? If programming code isn't expression, then neither is anything anyone has ever written in any language...
> Since George W. Bush has been elected (fair and square mind you), and since he realizes just what Fortune 10 company has been driving the > American economy in the last 10 years, he's going to ask Ashcroft to ignore his fundamentalist leanings (I mean, MS does write > software for infidel languages, like Arabic, Aramaic and Hebrew) and lighten up on MS. My prediction, a fine of a few million dollars, a slap on the wrist, > and MS is given carte blanche to compete as only they know how to compete.
First, George W. Bush hasn't lightened up yet, and he's been president for over a month. Second, the states involved already said they weren't going to give up, even if the US DOJ does. Third, the thought that MS itself has driven the economy for the last 10 years is rediculous (Let's see, could Personal Computers be driving the economy? Transistors? I believe hardware development might be a slight bit above microsoft in driving the economy).
> Surely it's not coincidence that the American economy has taken a nosedive just as the Microsoft trial came to fruition.
So the downturn had nothing to do with all those internet companies going out of business, and the overall realization that technology companies were overvaluated? I realize Microsoft does have some impact, but give me a break.
> You would think that the American government would learn from the mistakes of all the nations in the world that try to overregulate thier economies:
So we should completely deregulate, and become like Mexico, just to bring all the businesses to America? (Who cares about human rights or the constitution)
> Please, let's free up Microsoft to compete
Compete with whom?
The book IS way too early and pesumptuous. Only because the trial is not complete, and even they did break up microsoft, there would only be two monopolies instead of just one.
Of the articles I read, they did not answer a few questions.
1. How would it be specifically tied to the PC? (There was some very vague speculation, but nothing concrete)
2. What happens if the computer doesn't have an internet connection? (I don't think MS will completely ignore this)
3. Why would they make it so complicated and time consuming, when I (a lowly CS student) can think of better and easier ways to do something similar. (While they have an entire marketing department, and last time I checked they don't ignore the obvious, especially when it comes to money)
Just a thought, while you all are screaming "the sky is falling!"
It makes sense that they would want to introduce such a technology, when it becomes available a large number of people will have high bandwidth connections. I do not believe that most people, by choice, would use this service though. Why I believe people will not want to use this service:
Bandwidth - The person using it will have to have a fast connection, which not everybody will have or want.
You don't have to go through Microsoft to do this. All you need is a computer, the right application(s), and the right 'net connections.
Why would you pay a rental rate when you can pay a fixed amount for previously suggested equipment.
Will people really trust Microsoft and The Internet that much? Will it really improve that much when they release this?
It's new, and people will not know how reliable it is (what will replace the ever popular blue screen?).
They haven't shown any technology that is beyond the currently available software.
How they may actually get some people into this:
They can simply make it the only way to work with all their software (I don't think this would work for very long, if in the end it isn't beneficial).
Make it a permanent part of the desktop (it's also a way to annoy the heck out of people). If you shove it in their face, they will come.
If they maintain low rates, they may lure people that constantly travel.
Market it towards small or start up companies that need, but do not have, a WAN or Permanent Internet Connection (although that would counter the logic that the user needs a high bandwidth connection to access the services).
This is almost analogous to that breakthrough technology they called DivX.
Slashdot Mirror
> This sets a precident that will be a lot more useful in the long run than simply 'busting up' Microsoft for the Internet Explorer issue.
>
>This decision rocks!
How is it any better than breaking MS up? Conduct remedies will be a much bigger burden on the government and the chance they will be able to actually do anything if MS ignores the conduct remedies will be slim to none. What will they do, take MS to court? Fifteen years later MS will be fined for pocket change after they own the entire computer industry. They are obviously giving concessions to MS, and this will only weaken their case. Anyway, if they're not trying to block XP, time has little to no meaning.
If you can't beat 'em, give up?
Post after post of some nutcase company thinking they invented something way after it was used for the first time. What's next, "Company claims patent on circular contraption used for the conveyance of people and objects"?
As the picture with the story implies:
Resistance is futile, you WILL be assimilated.
Smart, anti-social people, deeply interested in working with technology. I wonder if they'll discover very social, less intelligent people, deeply interested in sports. If you don't get my gist, your as dense as the people that did this study. -- Usefull
This is not an issue of DCMA, but one of either - copyright law, or whatever laws govern reverse engineering and theft of poorly protected secrets.
This case is not about reverse engineering, it's about the posting of and/or linking to code that decrypts the MPAAs format in which was meant to stop copyright theft. So it IS an issue of the DMCA and copyright. You are missing the entire point of the DMCA...
1. Why and how is a computer program expressive speech? What does it express? 2600's lawyers are entirely familiar with Touretzky's Gallery, so forget about those. Assume you have some C or perl staring at you, any random block of code in any random print-out. What does it express? Why should that code be protected expression?
Let's look at this simply.
Programming code is written in a language.
It expresses a unique solution, understanding, and knowledge of a problem.
Other people gain insight and understanding from it.
This seems eerily close to any other possible type of publication in existence, all considered legal forms of expression (otherwise, could they copyright books, newspapers, etc?). My question, how is it not expression? Could we explain in english how exactly to write the program, and would it be legal then? If programming code isn't expression, then neither is anything anyone has ever written in any language...
$39.99 for ADSL 640kbps down, 90kpbs up
$114.95 for ADSL 1.6Mbps down, 90kbps up
$204.95 for ADSL 7.1Mbps down, 680kbps up
No option for SDSL.
Yes, Verizon is a Monopoly, I wish there was some CHOICE!!! 90kpbs up unless you fork out $205 a month!
> Since George W. Bush has been elected (fair and square mind you), and since he realizes just what Fortune 10 company has been driving the
> American economy in the last 10 years, he's going to ask Ashcroft to ignore his fundamentalist leanings (I mean, MS does write
> software for infidel languages, like Arabic, Aramaic and Hebrew) and lighten up on MS. My prediction, a fine of a few million dollars, a slap on the wrist,
> and MS is given carte blanche to compete as only they know how to compete.
First, George W. Bush hasn't lightened up yet, and he's been president for over a month. Second, the states involved already said they weren't going to give up, even if the US DOJ does. Third, the thought that MS itself has driven the economy for the last 10 years is rediculous (Let's see, could Personal Computers be driving the economy? Transistors? I believe hardware development might be a slight bit above microsoft in driving the economy).
> Surely it's not coincidence that the American economy has taken a nosedive just as the Microsoft trial came to fruition.
So the downturn had nothing to do with all those internet companies going out of business, and the overall realization that technology companies were overvaluated? I realize Microsoft does have some impact, but give me a break.
> You would think that the American government would learn from the mistakes of all the nations in the world that try to overregulate thier economies:
So we should completely deregulate, and become like Mexico, just to bring all the businesses to America? (Who cares about human rights or the constitution)
> Please, let's free up Microsoft to compete
Compete with whom?
The book IS way too early and pesumptuous. Only because the trial is not complete, and even they did break up microsoft, there would only be two monopolies instead of just one.
Of the articles I read, they did not answer a few questions.
1. How would it be specifically tied to the PC? (There was some very vague speculation, but nothing concrete)
2. What happens if the computer doesn't have an internet connection? (I don't think MS will completely ignore this)
3. Why would they make it so complicated and time consuming, when I (a lowly CS student) can think of better and easier ways to do something similar. (While they have an entire marketing department, and last time I checked they don't ignore the obvious, especially when it comes to money)
Just a thought, while you all are screaming "the sky is falling!"
Why I believe people will not want to use this service:
How they may actually get some people into this:
This is almost analogous to that breakthrough technology they called DivX.