Really, I think it all boils down to fairness. People expect to have the unconditional right to install and use purchased software in whatever manner they see fit. The GPL and other free sofgtware licenses grant that right. So did a lot of licenses in the old days. Typically they would grant the right to isntall on a machine, make backups, and run it. Ijn fact, they usually existed to clarify matters that were not totally clear under normal copyright (e.g. many pieces of software had a clause allowing it to be installed on multiple computers as long as it was only used on one at a time). People tend not to object to this.
What is unfair is removing expected rights. The right to publish reviews, resell, and so on. And there's not much of a choice on whether you agree. The publishers have a monopoly on their software.
There does seem to be some confused logic here. And I really don't see why everyone agrees that a license has been sold rather than a copy. The box says it contains the game, and if it claims it is only a license, will only be in the small print.
Also, although my knowledge of the law is only obtained from a groklaw article on this subject, isn't a license different from a contract? If I agree to a license, I am granted permission withing the limitations. If I breach that license, then I am simply not given express permission to do what is permitted by it. It does not mean breach of contract. It does not mean I cannot do what is expressly permitted by it, unless doing so violates the licensors rights.
But the really strange thing is that the bnetd guys don't seem to have been doing anything wrong. They are allowing people to run their own servers so that people can get more out of the game.
Electoral College vs IRV vs Condorcet vs... but how will we decide which system to use, since a majority vote obviously isn't good enough? Do we draw straws?
But this is always a problem with democratic systems. At some level, someone has to make a decision, and simply inflict it upon people.
You can ask the people, with a simple yes/no vote once you've made the decision, but the details of how that vote works also have to be chosen by someone.
Joe Voter will correctly navigate a ranking system, when he can't even push the whole chad out of the correct row.
This doesn't really matter, as long as enough people do manage to make a valid vote. And as long as the stupid people are evenly distributed, it all balances out. (The problem with the Florida butterfly ballot was that it was prejudiced against stupid people voting for Gore. Stupid Bush supporters didn't have the chance to make a mistake).
Joe Voter has even the foggiest notion what's best for the country.
Well, we've eliminated the stupid people. That should help. Democracy isn't a perfect system, but unless something better comes along, it's probably best to stick with it.
I'm not sure this is a problem (or I'm missing something here). The nice thing about Condorcet, is that you can vote for as many or as few candidates as you like. If you are only interested in 2 candidates, choose those (the system even works if you rank them the same). If you know precisely the order you'd like 100 candidates, rank them 1 to 100.
The motor industry is that industry which manufactures and sells cars and motor-vehicles. The Computer industry is that industry that manufactures and sells hardware, software, and offers computer related services.
Similarly, the copyright industry is the industry that produces and sells copyrighted information.
What's wrong with it as an expression. It's a useful term, that makes sense, and conveniently lumps together the movie industry, the music industry, book publishers, and software producers.
Oh, I see! You're the head of a multinational drugs company, so you're going to be a horrible weasle;) And try to get away with breaking anti-cartel laws (probably succesfully). Okay. I was a bit slow there.
From a game theory point of view, your strategy certainly makes sense.
I think he sees it as equivalent to extra DIMM slots and drive bays. There's no immediate need for them, but it's important to consider potential future expansion.
are no cars at all. Cars kill people, animals, plants, pollute the earth and require the sealing up of the Earth
I agree. (On the whole, this is a "me too" post.) I also like my car. I realise this possibly makes me a little hypocritical.
...challenge you with "you got a better idea?"
Living in London, I can say a decent, reliable and extensive, public transport (underground or light rail system) is a better idea for city transport. Unfortunately, while London underground is extensive, and pretty decent when it works, it isn't reliable. Definitely a much better way of getting around a city than car though. I'm sure there are some very succesful similar public transport systems.
For longer distances, cars are okay. Still not all that clean, and a little inefficient when carrying just the driver, but high speed trains aren't as clean as environmentalists like to believe. Apparently a full train causes more pollution per passenger than a full car.
We need a safer, "open sourced" approach from the ground up for transportation.
However, with all of the SUV bashing you see on this site, it should be mentioned that they are the safest vehicles on the road.
Really? I've heard a lot of people come off a lot worse after colliding with them than they would with a normal car.
So next time you see someone bashing an SUV for gas mileage, just remember the person who died today.
And remember all the people who are being killed by pollutants.
The only person an SUV is safer for is the driver. And that's assuming you discount the increased risk of actually being involved in an accident. The stopping distance in the things suck, and so does the steering. The safest cars are those that can avoid accidents.
Get a minivan, which has all the claimed benefits of an SUV, better fuel efficiency, and is safer.
Indeed. And we will make a profit. You on the other hand are planning to prevent the release of a marketable profitable product because you're hoping for your team of miracle workers to come up with a rival "me too" product, think you can cut a decent chunk of the market from a company that already has established market share.
Yes. I'm willing to sell a product that vastly undercuts the opposition who have an established market share. Especially since I already have the cure, but not the treatment.
Integrating the computer into any specific item or part of clothing is, in itself, not innovative
The abstract is not the patent. There's more to this invention than building a computer into a wearable collar. In fact, it even goes as far as to reference a number of such inventions. The invention is on the means of making a useable computer integrated into a specific item of cliothing. make your own collar computer and you will not infringe.
And having an idea isn't the same as making one. I came up with the idea of a robot to do the sandwich run when it's raining. It doesn't mean I actually made one.
Do you have detailed plans of how to make one of these? If so, apply for a patent.
It's the fact that it's a cunning implementation of a wearable computer with a means to have a display and extra peripherals while still allowing the user to keep his hands free.
Is the collar computer obvious? If so, why has nobody thought of making one before? Just think, all of you guys who came up with this idea years ago could have made a million dollars producing one of these.
Jeez, these guys come up with an invention. Sure, it doesn't change the world, but it's a clever idea, and its original.
why and how should a media player damage the os, if decently programmed?
It depends on what you call Media Player. Most people would consider it to be just the executable, and possibly DLLs and data files that are used only by the application.
On the other hand, the MS legal department considers it to also include any system libraries that it may use, including windowing and disk access libraries, audio drivers, and any line of code that gets called when it is being run. At least that seemed to be the thrust of their argument when complainign that IE was part oft he OS.
And the third world DIES because of medicine patents.
You're assuming the drugs would exist without the patents. Penicillin was not patented. Nobody was willing to research it because there was no profit in it. It wasn't until mass production of penicillin was patented that it was actually used.
A solution to a problem may well be something quite simple, like a shaped surface (e.g. a wing). I could spend years experimenting with a wind tunnel, and different shapes for a wing, gradually refining it until I manage a more efficient surface. Once I've developed it and sold it, all my competitor has to do is measure it. Any attempt to prevent reveerse engineering will interfere with the functionality.
Why would I bother with the research in the first place? It's cost me a lot of money, and given me no benefit.
Slashdot Mirror
Really, I think it all boils down to fairness. People expect to have the unconditional right to install and use purchased software in whatever manner they see fit. The GPL and other free sofgtware licenses grant that right. So did a lot of licenses in the old days. Typically they would grant the right to isntall on a machine, make backups, and run it. Ijn fact, they usually existed to clarify matters that were not totally clear under normal copyright (e.g. many pieces of software had a clause allowing it to be installed on multiple computers as long as it was only used on one at a time). People tend not to object to this.
What is unfair is removing expected rights. The right to publish reviews, resell, and so on. And there's not much of a choice on whether you agree. The publishers have a monopoly on their software.
There does seem to be some confused logic here. And I really don't see why everyone agrees that a license has been sold rather than a copy. The box says it contains the game, and if it claims it is only a license, will only be in the small print.
Also, although my knowledge of the law is only obtained from a groklaw article on this subject, isn't a license different from a contract? If I agree to a license, I am granted permission withing the limitations. If I breach that license, then I am simply not given express permission to do what is permitted by it. It does not mean breach of contract. It does not mean I cannot do what is expressly permitted by it, unless doing so violates the licensors rights.
But the really strange thing is that the bnetd guys don't seem to have been doing anything wrong. They are allowing people to run their own servers so that people can get more out of the game.
Oh, I see. I thimk I made that mistake when I first saw it.
Of course, a matrix based voting system would be interesting. It would be possible to have a circular list of preferences.
Electoral College vs IRV vs Condorcet vs ... but how will we decide which system to use, since a majority vote obviously isn't good enough? Do we draw straws?
But this is always a problem with democratic systems. At some level, someone has to make a decision, and simply inflict it upon people.
You can ask the people, with a simple yes/no vote once you've made the decision, but the details of how that vote works also have to be chosen by someone.
Joe Voter will correctly navigate a ranking system, when he can't even push the whole chad out of the correct row.
This doesn't really matter, as long as enough people do manage to make a valid vote. And as long as the stupid people are evenly distributed, it all balances out. (The problem with the Florida butterfly ballot was that it was prejudiced against stupid people voting for Gore. Stupid Bush supporters didn't have the chance to make a mistake).
Joe Voter has even the foggiest notion what's best for the country.
Well, we've eliminated the stupid people. That should help. Democracy isn't a perfect system, but unless something better comes along, it's probably best to stick with it.
I'm not sure this is a problem (or I'm missing something here). The nice thing about Condorcet, is that you can vote for as many or as few candidates as you like. If you are only interested in 2 candidates, choose those (the system even works if you rank them the same). If you know precisely the order you'd like 100 candidates, rank them 1 to 100.
they're criminals.
Well, hang on a moment! That's a bit strong isn't it, considering they haven't even been charged with a criminal offense.
Defending themselves will cost a lot more than paying a settlement. Therefore, for all practical purposes, thety are helpless.
The motor industry is that industry which manufactures and sells cars and motor-vehicles. The Computer industry is that industry that manufactures and sells hardware, software, and offers computer related services.
Similarly, the copyright industry is the industry that produces and sells copyrighted information.
What's wrong with it as an expression. It's a useful term, that makes sense, and conveniently lumps together the movie industry, the music industry, book publishers, and software producers.
Yes.
There's a right way and a wrong way to abuse the DMCA. Diebold chose the wrong way.
Erm... This isn't a chink in the DMCA. It's an exception written into the law to prevent abuse of the the legislation.
Unusually for a DMCA story, this part of the law is being used in exactly the way it was intended.
Oh, I see! You're the head of a multinational drugs company, so you're going to be a horrible weasle;) And try to get away with breaking anti-cartel laws (probably succesfully). Okay. I was a bit slow there.
From a game theory point of view, your strategy certainly makes sense.
I think he sees it as equivalent to extra DIMM slots and drive bays. There's no immediate need for them, but it's important to consider potential future expansion.
are no cars at all. Cars kill people, animals, plants, pollute the earth and require the sealing up of the Earth
...challenge you with "you got a better idea?"
I agree. (On the whole, this is a "me too" post.) I also like my car. I realise this possibly makes me a little hypocritical.
Living in London, I can say a decent, reliable and extensive, public transport (underground or light rail system) is a better idea for city transport. Unfortunately, while London underground is extensive, and pretty decent when it works, it isn't reliable. Definitely a much better way of getting around a city than car though. I'm sure there are some very succesful similar public transport systems.
For longer distances, cars are okay. Still not all that clean, and a little inefficient when carrying just the driver, but high speed trains aren't as clean as environmentalists like to believe. Apparently a full train causes more pollution per passenger than a full car.
We need a safer, "open sourced" approach from the ground up for transportation.
Indeed we do. Hopefully we'll come up with one.
I don't think a dog room would be a good idea. Dogbert would get the run of the house, and Dilbert would be tied to a leesh in the dog room
However, with all of the SUV bashing you see on this site, it should be mentioned that they are the safest vehicles on the road.
Really? I've heard a lot of people come off a lot worse after colliding with them than they would with a normal car.
So next time you see someone bashing an SUV for gas mileage, just remember the person who died today.
And remember all the people who are being killed by pollutants.
The only person an SUV is safer for is the driver. And that's assuming you discount the increased risk of actually being involved in an accident. The stopping distance in the things suck, and so does the steering. The safest cars are those that can avoid accidents.
Get a minivan, which has all the claimed benefits of an SUV, better fuel efficiency, and is safer.
Indeed. And we will make a profit. You on the other hand are planning to prevent the release of a marketable profitable product because you're hoping for your team of miracle workers to come up with a rival "me too" product, think you can cut a decent chunk of the market from a company that already has established market share.
How are you going to get this 50% market share?
Yes. I'm willing to sell a product that vastly undercuts the opposition who have an established market share. Especially since I already have the cure, but not the treatment.
Mel Brooks claimed he'd never make a Spaceballs 2. However, he might make a Spaceballs 3: The search for Spaceballs 2.
Integrating the computer into any specific item or part of clothing is, in itself, not innovative
The abstract is not the patent. There's more to this invention than building a computer into a wearable collar. In fact, it even goes as far as to reference a number of such inventions. The invention is on the means of making a useable computer integrated into a specific item of cliothing. make your own collar computer and you will not infringe.
And having an idea isn't the same as making one. I came up with the idea of a robot to do the sandwich run when it's raining. It doesn't mean I actually made one.
Do you have detailed plans of how to make one of these? If so, apply for a patent.
It's the fact that it's a cunning implementation of a wearable computer with a means to have a display and extra peripherals while still allowing the user to keep his hands free.
Check the nomadic radio link. It's not jsut vapourware
It's also not the same invention. The nomadic radio doesn't use a display, for example.
Is the collar computer obvious? If so, why has nobody thought of making one before? Just think, all of you guys who came up with this idea years ago could have made a million dollars producing one of these.
Jeez, these guys come up with an invention. Sure, it doesn't change the world, but it's a clever idea, and its original.
why and how should a media player damage the os, if decently programmed?
It depends on what you call Media Player. Most people would consider it to be just the executable, and possibly DLLs and data files that are used only by the application.
On the other hand, the MS legal department considers it to also include any system libraries that it may use, including windowing and disk access libraries, audio drivers, and any line of code that gets called when it is being run. At least that seemed to be the thrust of their argument when complainign that IE was part oft he OS.
why give someone a $100 drug that will cure the problem they have when you can get $1000/yr out of them to treat the symptoms?
Because then another drugs company can get $100 to cure the disease.
At least, that's the theory.
And the third world DIES because of medicine patents.
You're assuming the drugs would exist without the patents. Penicillin was not patented. Nobody was willing to research it because there was no profit in it. It wasn't until mass production of penicillin was patented that it was actually used.
It's not always that easy though.
A solution to a problem may well be something quite simple, like a shaped surface (e.g. a wing). I could spend years experimenting with a wind tunnel, and different shapes for a wing, gradually refining it until I manage a more efficient surface. Once I've developed it and sold it, all my competitor has to do is measure it. Any attempt to prevent reveerse engineering will interfere with the functionality.
Why would I bother with the research in the first place? It's cost me a lot of money, and given me no benefit.