Apparently you can't read, have a reading comprehension problem, or are just plain stupid. Those is the only explanations for your horrible supposition. The cases have almost nothing in common.
This is a case where a company hired lawyers to file a frivolous lawsuit, lost, and the judge penalized the plaintiff's law firm for it's conduct.
What you describe is a small company suing a large company and being "out-spent" and being forced to concede the lawsuit or going bankrupt. It would be pretty hard for Sony to deny that they have violated copyright law as the copyrights are on file. It would be a fairly straight forward case, and the plaintiff could file for summary judgment if Sony tried to delay the trail and the would probably get it.
Now, please show me where Sony has ever re-listed someone's catalog without permission. It seems to me that you would be more likely to do that to Sony than Sony do that to someone else. After all, look at all the people who violate copyright laws now.
Sounds like you are afraid Sony will act like, well, someone like you.
Religion is a few stupid people telling other, more gullible, stupid people how to live using a bunch of fairy tales.
"We" do know how this world came about and there was no god involved. Your post is so full of ignorance and stupidity I am surprised you can manage to use a web browser.
The meaning of the word theory when used in the context of science:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Now, remember, Gravity is just a theory as well, so why don't you test it by jumping out off of a very tall building.
Reminds me of something I saw on Yahoo!Answers. Guy asked what people would think if a stranger tried to strike up a conversation with them. Several of the females answered "That would be creepy".
It blows my mind that people think it's creepy for someone to try and talk to them.
Your attempt to seem superior to those you put down fails because of you have "taken bunchies and bunchies of tests and quizzes and questions on the okcupid site"
Having watched over the shoulder of some female friends scrolling through their Yahoo Personals inboxes, some of them get far too many messages to reply to (and even if they had time to reply, they'd only be leading on most of the correspondents, since there would never be enough time to actually meet all of them).
It would only be "leading on" if they responded "Hi I like you"? They have the option of sending a response of "Sorry, but I don't think we are a match." But, they don't bother to do so. I am not sure, but there may actually be a canned response available.
One of the reasons that women get so many responses to their ads is because men don't get many responses to their own ad. Also, the men may get few, if any, replies to their responses. They resort to sending responses to any ad that catches their eye, after all, what do they have to loose? Want to fix that? Women should make the first move. They should try contacting guys first instead of just sitting there. Oh, wait, that would mean they would have to risk rejection and we all know women are generally not brave enough to do that. They prefer to pick and choose and then whine about their choices.
I would suggest making a site where only the women could contact the men, but then that site would fail because women are not willing to risk making the first contact.
Yeah, ok. But, how do you fix stupidity? Other than killing off the stupid people?
Women are afraid men on the internet are going to kill them:
This is an issue with women. Seriously, what are they thinking?
"I think the internet is filled with freaks and perverts who probably kill me, so I am going to sign up for an internet dating site and meet a nice guy."
Really, if one thinks the pool is loaded with sharks, one should not go for a swim. Is it really that hard to comprehend? Or, do these women think they will be able to tell the good from the bad from a picture (remember, they don't click through so they don't even read the blurb)?
Men are marginalized by men who only want sex
This is also a problem with women. The problem is that women are willing to ignore the signs that a man only wants sex if he is attractive enough. Then, the women blame all men for their own bad judgment. Part of this is because many women think their emotions influence other people behavior. This is evidenced by the use of the phrase "I love him, why does he treat me this way?"
If you haven't guessed, my experiences have led me to have a (very obvious) low opinion of most women.
Why shouldn't they be protected from the actions of scumbags? Do you suggest they just close off those ports instead of throttling the usage of a few to benefit the rest of their customers?
Or do you think your desire to illegally download movies outweighs rights of those who wish to engage in legal usage?
Oh, I know. Maybe they should modify their acceptable use and terms of services so people who download illegal items must pay one dollar a kilobyte.
Microsoft encouraged VARs to not sell it pre-installed,
Let's not whitewash the past. Microsoft used it's monopoly position to strong arm VARs into not selling it pre-installed with Windows. MS stated clearly that the VARs had to either stop pre-installing BeOS with Windows or had to pay retail for Windows, which would have been a death sentence for any VAR distributing BeOS.
That was the basis for one of the anti-trust lawsuits filed against Microsoft.
No, not even close. A killer app would have to appeal to the masses, not just computer geeks who want to run one OS on another.
The killer app for the adoption of PCs was VisiCalc, not because it appealed to computer geeks, but because it appealed to many businessmen.
A killer app for Linux would have to be available on Linux or work best on Linux, appeal to everyone, and have a strong enough appeal to make it worth while to learn a new system.
Um, no. useful: In the same way that Esperanto is useful. Yet, almost no one uses that either. Why? Because they would have to learn something new.
usable: For some people in some circumstances. But, what about those people that never want to see a command line? Or have laptops with broadcom wireless? Or want to use an app not available for whatever distribution they are using? Or a Windows program that won't run under WINE?
reliable: Yeah, and so is a properly maintained Windows box.
extensible: Most people don't care about this. The vast majority of people are not going to "extend" their operating system, even the geeks.
free: Windows came with my computer and it would have cost MORE to get the computer without Windows. That makes Windows effectively free to me. My time is valuable. Linux is not free when I have to sink time into getting and installing it.
unencumbered: Most people don't care about this. Most people don't even have a clue as to what you are talking about.
You own, for a limited time, the right to determine who can or cannot enter the apartment you rent.
You do not own that apartment. You cannot will it to your heirs in perpetuity.
Oh, you want to use that as an analogy? Fine, let me put it in a way someone of your limited intellect can understand.
One can purchase a multi-year lease. If I purchase a 100 year lease on an apartment, I can, in fact, will the right to that 100 year lease to my heirs, who may continue to use said apartment long after I am dead. This is just like how intellectual property copy rights survive the death of the original owner. This hypothetical lease and intellectual property copyright also share something else in common. The exclusive rights are for a limited time; 100 years for the lease, and for whatever the law allows for the copy right. Perpetuity does not enter into it.
I am probably older than you are. Now, do yourself a favor and shut the fuck up.
What is your opinion of the MS monopoly situation and the way the justice department handled it? What will your administration do about companies that abuse the H1-B system? Will you over-haul it? Are you for or against Net Neutrality? Is intercepting email the same as wire-tapping? Do you believe control of the internet should be given over completely to ICANN? Will the export of cryptographic software remain illegal if you are elected? Will you switch the government to FLOSS?
You own, for a limited time, the right to control who can legally make copies of your works. That is why it is called copyright, get it, Copy Right. The intellectual property is property. While you may not own the property, you own the right to control the copying and distribution of said property as long as you hold the copyright. If you sell the copyright, someone else then owns the right to control the copying and distribution of said property.
The really bad thing is that potheads will assume this means he is for decriminalization or legalization of pot, when he is really saying that the laws and enforcement should be handled at the state level.
Ron Paul is not for legalizing pot, he is for making the states deal with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently you can't read, have a reading comprehension problem, or are just plain stupid. Those is the only explanations for your horrible supposition. The cases have almost nothing in common.
This is a case where a company hired lawyers to file a frivolous lawsuit, lost, and the judge penalized the plaintiff's law firm for it's conduct.
What you describe is a small company suing a large company and being "out-spent" and being forced to concede the lawsuit or going bankrupt. It would be pretty hard for Sony to deny that they have violated copyright law as the copyrights are on file. It would be a fairly straight forward case, and the plaintiff could file for summary judgment if Sony tried to delay the trail and the would probably get it.
Now, please show me where Sony has ever re-listed someone's catalog without permission. It seems to me that you would be more likely to do that to Sony than Sony do that to someone else. After all, look at all the people who violate copyright laws now.
Sounds like you are afraid Sony will act like, well, someone like you.
There is nothing complex about religion.
Religion is a few stupid people telling other, more gullible, stupid people how to live using a bunch of fairy tales.
"We" do know how this world came about and there was no god involved. Your post is so full of ignorance and stupidity I am surprised you can manage to use a web browser.
It falls in line with being a video game.
All the nuts roll down to Florida.
I am trying to climb my way out.
Now, remember, Gravity is just a theory as well, so why don't you test it by jumping out off of a very tall building.
Reminds me of something I saw on Yahoo!Answers. Guy asked what people would think if a stranger tried to strike up a conversation with them. Several of the females answered "That would be creepy".
It blows my mind that people think it's creepy for someone to try and talk to them.
Your attempt to seem superior to those you put down fails because of you have "taken bunchies and bunchies of tests and quizzes and questions on the okcupid site"
My signature applies to you.
If it were only that. Alas, it was when I started doing the online dating site thing that my opinion really nose-dived.
One word: Vì@gr@
It would only be "leading on" if they responded "Hi I like you"? They have the option of sending a response of "Sorry, but I don't think we are a match." But, they don't bother to do so. I am not sure, but there may actually be a canned response available.
One of the reasons that women get so many responses to their ads is because men don't get many responses to their own ad. Also, the men may get few, if any, replies to their responses. They resort to sending responses to any ad that catches their eye, after all, what do they have to loose? Want to fix that? Women should make the first move. They should try contacting guys first instead of just sitting there. Oh, wait, that would mean they would have to risk rejection and we all know women are generally not brave enough to do that. They prefer to pick and choose and then whine about their choices.
I would suggest making a site where only the women could contact the men, but then that site would fail because women are not willing to risk making the first contact.
This is an issue with women. Seriously, what are they thinking?
Really, if one thinks the pool is loaded with sharks, one should not go for a swim. Is it really that hard to comprehend? Or, do these women think they will be able to tell the good from the bad from a picture (remember, they don't click through so they don't even read the blurb)?
This is also a problem with women. The problem is that women are willing to ignore the signs that a man only wants sex if he is attractive enough. Then, the women blame all men for their own bad judgment. Part of this is because many women think their emotions influence other people behavior. This is evidenced by the use of the phrase "I love him, why does he treat me this way?"
If you haven't guessed, my experiences have led me to have a (very obvious) low opinion of most women.
Well, then stop complaining about net neutrality or STFU.
Why shouldn't they be protected from the actions of scumbags? Do you suggest they just close off those ports instead of throttling the usage of a few to benefit the rest of their customers?
Or do you think your desire to illegally download movies outweighs rights of those who wish to engage in legal usage?
Oh, I know. Maybe they should modify their acceptable use and terms of services so people who download illegal items must pay one dollar a kilobyte.
You are a selfish asshole.
They will come from people who bother to learn assembly and C and experiment on their own and can show their worth.
Let's not whitewash the past. Microsoft used it's monopoly position to strong arm VARs into not selling it pre-installed with Windows. MS stated clearly that the VARs had to either stop pre-installing BeOS with Windows or had to pay retail for Windows, which would have been a death sentence for any VAR distributing BeOS.
That was the basis for one of the anti-trust lawsuits filed against Microsoft.
You prove my point. Thanks.
Once again, most people don't care about that.
No, not even close. A killer app would have to appeal to the masses, not just computer geeks who want to run one OS on another.
The killer app for the adoption of PCs was VisiCalc, not because it appealed to computer geeks, but because it appealed to many businessmen.
A killer app for Linux would have to be available on Linux or work best on Linux, appeal to everyone, and have a strong enough appeal to make it worth while to learn a new system.
Um, no.
useful: In the same way that Esperanto is useful. Yet, almost no one uses that either. Why? Because they would have to learn something new.
usable: For some people in some circumstances. But, what about those people that never want to see a command line? Or have laptops with broadcom wireless? Or want to use an app not available for whatever distribution they are using? Or a Windows program that won't run under WINE?
reliable: Yeah, and so is a properly maintained Windows box.
extensible: Most people don't care about this. The vast majority of people are not going to "extend" their operating system, even the geeks.
free: Windows came with my computer and it would have cost MORE to get the computer without Windows. That makes Windows effectively free to me. My time is valuable. Linux is not free when I have to sink time into getting and installing it.
unencumbered: Most people don't care about this. Most people don't even have a clue as to what you are talking about.
Oh, you want to use that as an analogy? Fine, let me put it in a way someone of your limited intellect can understand.
One can purchase a multi-year lease. If I purchase a 100 year lease on an apartment, I can, in fact, will the right to that 100 year lease to my heirs, who may continue to use said apartment long after I am dead. This is just like how intellectual property copy rights survive the death of the original owner. This hypothetical lease and intellectual property copyright also share something else in common. The exclusive rights are for a limited time; 100 years for the lease, and for whatever the law allows for the copy right. Perpetuity does not enter into it.
I am probably older than you are. Now, do yourself a favor and shut the fuck up.
Or, even better:
What is your opinion of the MS monopoly situation and the way the justice department handled it?
What will your administration do about companies that abuse the H1-B system? Will you over-haul it?
Are you for or against Net Neutrality?
Is intercepting email the same as wire-tapping?
Do you believe control of the internet should be given over completely to ICANN?
Will the export of cryptographic software remain illegal if you are elected?
Will you switch the government to FLOSS?
My signature applies to you.
#3 fails.
He said "Check with your state, suckers."
Hi. You are stupid.
You own, for a limited time, the right to control who can legally make copies of your works. That is why it is called copyright, get it, Copy Right. The intellectual property is property. While you may not own the property, you own the right to control the copying and distribution of said property as long as you hold the copyright. If you sell the copyright, someone else then owns the right to control the copying and distribution of said property.
The really bad thing is that potheads will assume this means he is for decriminalization or legalization of pot, when he is really saying that the laws and enforcement should be handled at the state level.
Ron Paul is not for legalizing pot, he is for making the states deal with it.
Two out of five questions have nothing to do with technology. And, one of the three is only marginally about technology.
Fail.