Probably. It's quite common to use patents defensively. I'm sure they came out in support of EU's proposal on patentability of computer programs though.
Okay, I realise I know next to nothing about this sort of stuff, but maybe they figured it was a high risk high reward gamble. It was unlikely that SCO would succeed, but if they did, then they would rake in some serious cash, and if they failed, their losses would be manageable (i.e. it was unlikely that the company would go bust).
Curiously, the investment paid off. SCO's stock prices are pretty good right now. I get the feeling this was more luck than judgement.
If you're arguing that you think copyright infringement ought to be made a criminal offence
Not as such. Just raising a question. I don't think this would be a good idea, but neither do I think it's sensible that the record industry can sue file sharers for the amount they seem to be able to do. I'm wondering what other people think though.
What do you think the civil courts are for if not to arbitrate civil disputes, compensate the party with the grievance and punish the party who is in the wrong?
I don't think they should be punishing the guilty. If the injured party has been adequately compensated for their loss, and for the inconvenience of going to court, why should they receive more? It's the "eye for an eye" argument.
So, should they be charged with a criminal offence? Or should the costs simply be the amount that the record industry has lost through piracy due to the file sharing by that particular person? It strikes me as a little unfair that someone who is accused of breaking the law doesn't get the legal protections of those who are charged with crimes with a smaller penalty.
It was a rhetorical question. The thing is, if the crime is so henious that it can be punished by the amounts being claimed, should the defendant not have the same rights as a criminal in cases where the fine is considerably lower? Should we be using the civil courts ro punish wrongdoers?
It's called - concidentally - "Starving Artist", where you play the part of an aspiring star, sign up to a record label, make your first song a hit, and end up in debt to the record company.
They should look into the law about this and take appropriate measures.
Firstly, for a DMCA notice to be valid, certain terms are required. IANAL, so I can't tell you whether this is compliant, but really that's just a formality. Even if it is not valid, they'll simply send another one.
However, in response to a correct DMCA takedown notice, the accused can send a counter notice. From chilling effects
"In order to ensure that copyright owners do not wrongly insist on the removal of materials that actually do not infringe their copyrights, the safe harbor provisions require service providers to notify the subscribers if their materials have been removed and to provide them with an opportunity to send a written notice to the service provider stating that the material has been wrongly removed. [512(g)] If a subscriber provides a proper "counter-notice" claiming that the material does not infringe copyrights, the service provider must then promptly notify the claiming party of the individual's objection. [512(g)(2)] If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)]"
To keep it down, Diebold would have to sue the people behind BlackBoxvoting.org. This will be embarrassing since they will have to claim that the incrtiminating evidence was created by them.
Your employer typically has no interest in your weblog, or he novel you write in your free time (unless they're a publisher), or anything that's not related to their business.
Simply ask them to exclude anything that is done entirely in your free time without use of company equipment, and most companies will accept. It doesn't cost them anything, and even though the market is in decline, they still don't want to get rid of employees over trivial disputes over contractual clauses.
Second of all, DirectX might as well be called Direct ProprietaryStupidOnlyWorksOnWindowsX and actually that's what I'm going to call it from now on because the whole idea of it makes me sick to the stomach.
That makes you sound stupid.
And thirdly, you are still an idiot.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
And you know if you use GLUT with OpenGL I'm pretty darn sure you can get all the mousey, keyboardy, inputy thing-a-ling all happening, which is nice I suppose
Yes, but glut isn't exactly fantastic for a game. It's not hugely responsive or flexible when it comes to keyboard input.
And sound in games is for sissys.
And trolling in the Ask Slashdot section is also for sissies.
And what sort of crap is Direct ProprietaryStupidOnlyWorksOnWindowsX anyway.
It's a fairly flexible API, supported by a lot of hardware.
Is it Free?
Who cares? It doesn't cost anything.
Does it run on any machine I own?
Dunno. It runs on any machine I own, as well as the machines that about 95% of users own.
Pointless stupid and crap.
It has a point - Games development under windows. What makes it stupid and crap?
Well, open standards certainly won't make much money for the manufacturers, so they don't work very well together.
Actually, the companies tend to be quite fond of open standards. The trouble is, they like standards they own a little bit more, and don't communicate too well, so end up with lots of competing standards. When they do come up with a proper open standard, they actually do quite well. DVD, PC hardware, TVs ae all based on fairly open standards, and have done very well. Non-standards e.g. DVR-R/+R/RAM, have trouble being accepted, so don't do as well.
If you were a non-techy, you might not have heard of ebay. At least you wouldn't have used it, and it does take most people a while to get comfortable with things.
You obviously have a newer version of Word than me since mine gives the option to automatically correct text, or correct spelling and grammar. I don't want to do either of these. In fact, I want to not do these. And there's the problem. Online help never works! Even if it does, people are so used to it answering the wrong question that they've given up completely.
Which is a little arrogant perhaps. It is possible that there are other forces in the universe that we don't know about. Who says they're not giving off waves of Crappon particles that science is unable to detect, but do manage to affect things?
And while we're at it, the gravitational effect of the obstetrician is currently much lower than that of most planets since he's not standing right next to me any more. Perhaps if he decdied to visit me, astrology would have something to say about that.
n.b. I stil think its all bunk, but Sagan's argument is rubbish.
But games manufacturers can't redistribute Windows
They can if MS licences their code. This would be fantastic for MS. They'd be able to demand a license fee for every copy of a game that was ever produced.
Most games developers have enough to think about without having to build an OS "installer" too
It would be a standard kit. Just copy the OS to the CD, name your executable Game.exe, and it just runs.
Assign A: DF0: should give you a logical drive A (unless I got that the wrong way round). Or simply sticking a floppy named A in the drive. Can't remember if there was a way to change actual device names though.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably. It's quite common to use patents defensively. I'm sure they came out in support of EU's proposal on patentability of computer programs though.
Okay, I realise I know next to nothing about this sort of stuff, but maybe they figured it was a high risk high reward gamble. It was unlikely that SCO would succeed, but if they did, then they would rake in some serious cash, and if they failed, their losses would be manageable (i.e. it was unlikely that the company would go bust).
Curiously, the investment paid off. SCO's stock prices are pretty good right now. I get the feeling this was more luck than judgement.
Bizarre really considering they keep losing patent cases, and tend not to be particulalrly aggressive when it comes to their own patents.
Stop assuming my single!
Yes, I am. Apart from that goddamn stalker!
Yeah, but you;ve got to admit it's a pretty cool diagram. Shame SCO can't take credit for it.
I assume you keep your money under your mattress and never use a credit card.
I keep most of my money in a numbered account, and rarely use a credit card.
If someone really wants to know where you are going, 'They' can pay someone to follow you.
Which is considerably more expensive than tracking me by smartcard payments. They can't do this to everyone.
Because I don't like being tracked. I find it offensive.
If you're arguing that you think copyright infringement ought to be made a criminal offence
Not as such. Just raising a question. I don't think this would be a good idea, but neither do I think it's sensible that the record industry can sue file sharers for the amount they seem to be able to do. I'm wondering what other people think though.
What do you think the civil courts are for if not to arbitrate civil disputes, compensate the party with the grievance and punish the party who is in the wrong?
I don't think they should be punishing the guilty. If the injured party has been adequately compensated for their loss, and for the inconvenience of going to court, why should they receive more? It's the "eye for an eye" argument.
So, should they be charged with a criminal offence? Or should the costs simply be the amount that the record industry has lost through piracy due to the file sharing by that particular person? It strikes me as a little unfair that someone who is accused of breaking the law doesn't get the legal protections of those who are charged with crimes with a smaller penalty.
It was a rhetorical question. The thing is, if the crime is so henious that it can be punished by the amounts being claimed, should the defendant not have the same rights as a criminal in cases where the fine is considerably lower? Should we be using the civil courts ro punish wrongdoers?
Why are they always suing in civil proceedings rather than prosecuting with a criminal trial?
It's called - concidentally - "Starving Artist", where you play the part of an aspiring star, sign up to a record label, make your first song a hit, and end up in debt to the record company.
They should look into the law about this and take appropriate measures.
Firstly, for a DMCA notice to be valid, certain terms are required. IANAL, so I can't tell you whether this is compliant, but really that's just a formality. Even if it is not valid, they'll simply send another one.
However, in response to a correct DMCA takedown notice, the accused can send a counter notice. From chilling effects
"In order to ensure that copyright owners do not wrongly insist on the removal of materials that actually do not infringe their copyrights, the safe harbor provisions require service providers to notify the subscribers if their materials have been removed and to provide them with an opportunity to send a written notice to the service provider stating that the material has been wrongly removed. [512(g)] If a subscriber provides a proper "counter-notice" claiming that the material does not infringe copyrights, the service provider must then promptly notify the claiming party of the individual's objection. [512(g)(2)] If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)]"
To keep it down, Diebold would have to sue the people behind BlackBoxvoting.org. This will be embarrassing since they will have to claim that the incrtiminating evidence was created by them.
Your employer typically has no interest in your weblog, or he novel you write in your free time (unless they're a publisher), or anything that's not related to their business.
Simply ask them to exclude anything that is done entirely in your free time without use of company equipment, and most companies will accept. It doesn't cost them anything, and even though the market is in decline, they still don't want to get rid of employees over trivial disputes over contractual clauses.
Corruption is. EU lawmakers are simply just as easily bought as US lawmakers. Maybe even easier.
No they're not. While they're just as corrupt, the laws about accepting campaign contributions are a lot stronger.
OK, first up I've gotta say, 'You are an idiot.'
I've got to say, you're an idiot.
Second of all, DirectX might as well be called Direct ProprietaryStupidOnlyWorksOnWindowsX and actually that's what I'm going to call it from now on because the whole idea of it makes me sick to the stomach.
That makes you sound stupid.
And thirdly, you are still an idiot.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
And you know if you use GLUT with OpenGL I'm pretty darn sure you can get all the mousey, keyboardy, inputy thing-a-ling all happening, which is nice I suppose
Yes, but glut isn't exactly fantastic for a game. It's not hugely responsive or flexible when it comes to keyboard input.
And sound in games is for sissys.
And trolling in the Ask Slashdot section is also for sissies.
And what sort of crap is Direct ProprietaryStupidOnlyWorksOnWindowsX anyway.
It's a fairly flexible API, supported by a lot of hardware.
Is it Free?
Who cares? It doesn't cost anything.
Does it run on any machine I own?
Dunno. It runs on any machine I own, as well as the machines that about 95% of users own.
Pointless stupid and crap.
It has a point - Games development under windows. What makes it stupid and crap?
Well, open standards certainly won't make much money for the manufacturers, so they don't work very well together.
Actually, the companies tend to be quite fond of open standards. The trouble is, they like standards they own a little bit more, and don't communicate too well, so end up with lots of competing standards. When they do come up with a proper open standard, they actually do quite well. DVD, PC hardware, TVs ae all based on fairly open standards, and have done very well. Non-standards e.g. DVR-R/+R/RAM, have trouble being accepted, so don't do as well.
If you were a non-techy, you might not have heard of ebay. At least you wouldn't have used it, and it does take most people a while to get comfortable with things.
You obviously have a newer version of Word than me since mine gives the option to automatically correct text, or correct spelling and grammar. I don't want to do either of these. In fact, I want to not do these. And there's the problem. Online help never works! Even if it does, people are so used to it answering the wrong question that they've given up completely.
Yep. It's all IBM's fault for not coming up with a name for their PC.
No. Why?
Which is a little arrogant perhaps. It is possible that there are other forces in the universe that we don't know about. Who says they're not giving off waves of Crappon particles that science is unable to detect, but do manage to affect things?
And while we're at it, the gravitational effect of the obstetrician is currently much lower than that of most planets since he's not standing right next to me any more. Perhaps if he decdied to visit me, astrology would have something to say about that.
n.b. I stil think its all bunk, but Sagan's argument is rubbish.
Yes it was. Unless the obstetrician had no mass at all.
The gravitational pull of the obstetrician will be about 10 times that of mars.
But games manufacturers can't redistribute Windows
They can if MS licences their code. This would be fantastic for MS. They'd be able to demand a license fee for every copy of a game that was ever produced.
Most games developers have enough to think about without having to build an OS "installer" too
It would be a standard kit. Just copy the OS to the CD, name your executable Game.exe, and it just runs.
Assign A: DF0: should give you a logical drive A (unless I got that the wrong way round). Or simply sticking a floppy named A in the drive. Can't remember if there was a way to change actual device names though.