Ima 'spear-ienced Softwear Projekt Manger. Plus, I've got produkt mangment experience to. And I can market stuff. ANd I have a deep voice, so I sound good in tv pictures.
Or did you mean to say that the GOP milks the contractors?
No matter.
The sad truth is that the GOP milks the Contractors which milk the GSA, which does the unenviable tast of implementing the rules created by the GOP which is milking the...
Of course...
The same is true of the DEM (anti-GOP), so its all a moot point.
Seems to me that "reasonable use" is still up in the air. (No pun intended.)
To you, sharing songs is reasonable, to the RIAA, it is criminal.
While decisions have been made in various courts and other governmental agencies, that agree with the RIAA, I don't think the Supreme Court has weighed in with a decision specific to this situation.
Moreover, the S Court has not made a defintive decision on the whole concept of file-sharing have they?
Considering the lack of a decision by the Supreme COurt, and the views of the COurt of Public Opinion, I would argue that "plausible denial" should be more than sufficient to protect oneself from the RIAA.
Scenario.....
RIAA - You must go to jail for file-sharing You - But I didn't share anything
RIAA - You let people use your bandwidth! You - Yes. And it IS my bandwidth isn't it? I paid for it.
RIAA - The shared files are on your bandwidth! You - I don't know that. I don't keep logs of that stuff.
RIAA - You're suppossed to watch what people do on your network! You - You mean spy on them? Nope. This is America. I don't spy on my neighbors.
RIAA - It doesn't matter if you spy or not. We are watching all of the traffic in and out of your IPs. And we suspect that people are sharing music that they like with other people that might like it too. This is bad!!! You - You guys are really scary.
specifically states that SCO has a right to protect the IP and has full power to do so
It doesn't matter what any contract says - if you don't own the patent you have no standing in a court of law to claim infringement. Period.
Okay. They have the right and power to protect the IP.
BUT... If the Actual Owner(tm) of the IP (Novell in this case) decides to use its trump card of ownership to block the efforts of the licensee (SCO), I think its pretty open and closed.
Simplistic analogy forthcoming--->
Joe Novell gives Doug SCO the chance to housesit for him while he is on vacation. J Novell lets D SCO uses his address while he is elsewhere.
Joe Sixpack comes to visit his friend Joe Novell. Unbeknownst to J Sixpack, J Novell is vacationing somewhere else.
D. SCO has J Sixpack thrown in jail for trespassing.
J Novell comes home and says, "Hey! SCO! You have NO RIGHT to go against my wishes and have Sixpack thrown in jail. I OWN this property. You're just using my address. And according to my rights as the OWNER, I hereby revoke any previously given rights to any use you previously had to my address.
I used to work for a small, but sorta national, bookstore chain.
Some of the other managers in my district used to go into the nearby Borders and B&N and mix the shelves around. After we (... Oops.. after THEY) were done, you would find dog training books in the cook book aisle. THe #10 bestseller was placed in front of the #1, so that you couldn't see it, etc
Okay. I'm nodda Loi-yer. But I've played one on TV. And this is one thing I have learned...
In every contract I have written, signed, and/or approved there has been a clause that says something to the effect of...
"Just because I decide not to enforce a particular section of this contract today, doesn't mean I don't have the right to call for enforcement tomorrow."
I don't know all the details of the GPL, and I don't know all the details of any agreements that SCO has with other companies. But, at first glance, I rate it this way...
"Any and all" > "Just because I decided to sue you and not him"
Of course, as some have pointed out, If SCO can prove that their IP was given out, without their knowlege, then the "any and all" may be pre-empted.
Then again... If the IP was given out, and SCO did know about it, but they chose not to enforce it at all for a given length of time, then their rights are forfeit BECAUSE they didn't enforce it.
So.. Here's the question.... Did SCO own something, and not know what they owned, and who was using it, for a really long time? A) No. They didn't know, and they didn't enforce their rights. Therefore, SCO is dumb and they lose. B) Yes. They knew, but didn't enforce. SCO loses again
No witty signature here. Nothing to see. Move along.
For starters...
In this post, you seem to have a problem with the fact that I used uncommon misspellings. However, in your original post you stated "...long as you can read it and get the meaning, thats whats important."
I believe that you were able to to get my meaning. Correct?
Continuing...
In your original post you also state "Nothing annoys me more than a person who nitpicks about the smallest details and then goes on to demonstrate that they have no comprehension of the bigger picture."
It seems to me that you are nitpicking on the fact that I used so many misspelled words in one place. Who cares how many I use as long as you get the meaning?
And...
I'll agree that some of the "creative spelling" that I used could be constued as examples of typos, but I don't understand your statement, "A person who spends alot of time typing has an easy time reading through them."
How do you connect typing a lot with reading?
As for the general education part...
You're probably right. It was a silly assumption to make based on your first post. Can I make it from your first combined with your second?
-"purposfully" (Add an "e")
-"alot" (a lot)
-"immediatly" (Add an "e")
-"accel" (excel?)
-"I am, personally, of the opinion that the time spent proofreading and hunting down such typos that are not caught immediatly (as most are) is wasted time" (This sounds just plain lazy and ridiculous to me. If you are too lazy to double check your work, you'd be too lazy to work for me.)
Quick question--Is 2+2=5 close enough to be acceptable? What about 2+2=3.9? If these are not acceptable, then why is "thru" when you mean "through"?
(Sorry. I'm not normally this combatitive, but your defense of symple lazynes kinda iritated mi.)
It seems that what MS is doing is what they always do.
They offer just a little bit of functionality. Then, they leave the door open for other companies to improve upon on what they have offered.
For example...
--Windows Defrag is okay, but Norton is better.
--VB is okay, but the 3rd party add-ons are better
--Notepad is okay, but a whole bunch of freeware is better
--CD Player/mediaplayer is okay, but WinAmp is better
Alot of people have built entire companies around the idea of improving upon what MS has offered. (Go ahead-Insert your favorite Linux dist. here)
Think of all of the anti-virus companies that would go out of business if MS actually put a real modicum of effort into the area. For reference, think about how many office productivity suites Windows users *really* get to choose from. There is basically only one. And, that's because MS put real effort into it.
The fact that MS is putting minor MP3 ability into the software will not put much of a dent into the sales of third party software. If anything, I expect it will help increase the number of choices from new, and existing, companies.
Now... Before anybody flames me as Bill G - wannabe, I just want to mention that I think it is rather silly to add MP3 ripping to an OS. (Can you say Bloat?) Also, it is rather silly to expect the MP3 ripper tacked onto the OS to perform as well as a seperate program. Think about it - How many of you use the Windows CD Player or the Address Book?
Returning a CD to a retail outlet costs them nothing but time and paperwork. And, returns happen every day.
"Smart store operators" know enough that they won't antagonize their customers. They simply return the defective CD to the publisher (for full credit).
It happens every day.
The difference here is that it would be "massive" returns of a particular title that the music publisher has brought everyone's attention to.
As the Contracts Administrator for my company, it is my job to read through contracts for just this type of thing. If I didn't find and point out the fact that MS (or anyone) is double charging us, I would expect to get canned pretty quickly.
On the flip side, the fun part of writing contracts is putting in everything you can think of, just to see if anyone catches it.
On the serious side, any company that writes a contract is going to weigh it in their favor. You don't expect people to agree, but if they do, you don't expect to ever utilize the clause(s), but they are there just in case.
Slashdot Mirror
Ima 'spear-ienced Softwear Projekt Manger. Plus, I've got produkt mangment experience to. And I can market stuff. ANd I have a deep voice, so I sound good in tv pictures.
Seriously. Hire me.
Hire me.
Seriously.
"to just milk GOP projects"
...
GOP? Did you mean GPO? Or GSA?
Or did you mean to say that the GOP milks the contractors?
No matter.
The sad truth is that the GOP milks the Contractors which milk the GSA, which does the unenviable tast of implementing the rules created by the GOP which is milking the
Of course...
The same is true of the DEM (anti-GOP), so its all a moot point.
It sounds kind of cool actually.
(ummm.. Does this mean I really AM a geek?)
Seems to me that "reasonable use" is still up in the air. (No pun intended.)
To you, sharing songs is reasonable, to the RIAA, it is criminal.
While decisions have been made in various courts and other governmental agencies, that agree with the RIAA, I don't think the Supreme Court has weighed in with a decision specific to this situation.
Moreover, the S Court has not made a defintive decision on the whole concept of file-sharing have they?
Considering the lack of a decision by the Supreme COurt, and the views of the COurt of Public Opinion, I would argue that "plausible denial" should be more than sufficient to protect oneself from the RIAA.
Scenario.....
RIAA - You must go to jail for file-sharing
You - But I didn't share anything
RIAA - You let people use your bandwidth!
You - Yes. And it IS my bandwidth isn't it? I paid for it.
RIAA - The shared files are on your bandwidth!
You - I don't know that. I don't keep logs of that stuff.
RIAA - You're suppossed to watch what people do on your network!
You - You mean spy on them? Nope. This is America. I don't spy on my neighbors.
RIAA - It doesn't matter if you spy or not. We are watching all of the traffic in and out of your IPs. And we suspect that people are sharing music that they like with other people that might like it too. This is bad!!!
You - You guys are really scary.
In the part of the US I live in we refer to it as a "billy" club.
Spell it right, or we'll sue!
specifically states that SCO has a right to protect the IP and has full power to do so
It doesn't matter what any contract says - if you don't own the patent you have no standing in a court of law to claim infringement. Period.
Okay. They have the right and power to protect the IP.
BUT... If the Actual Owner(tm) of the IP (Novell in this case) decides to use its trump card of ownership to block the efforts of the licensee (SCO), I think its pretty open and closed.
Simplistic analogy forthcoming--->
Joe Novell gives Doug SCO the chance to housesit for him while he is on vacation. J Novell lets D SCO uses his address while he is elsewhere.
Joe Sixpack comes to visit his friend Joe Novell. Unbeknownst to J Sixpack, J Novell is vacationing somewhere else.
D. SCO has J Sixpack thrown in jail for trespassing.
J Novell comes home and says, "Hey! SCO! You have NO RIGHT to go against my wishes and have Sixpack thrown in jail. I OWN this property. You're just using my address. And according to my rights as the OWNER, I hereby revoke any previously given rights to any use you previously had to my address.
---- End of analogy
On an unrelated note...
.. after THEY) were done, you would find dog training books in the cook book aisle. THe #10 bestseller was placed in front of the #1, so that you couldn't see it, etc
I used to work for a small, but sorta national, bookstore chain.
Some of the other managers in my district used to go into the nearby Borders and B&N and mix the shelves around. After we (... Oops
I had nothing to do with this idea, I swear.
Okay. I'm nodda Loi-yer. But I've played one on TV. And this is one thing I have learned...
In every contract I have written, signed, and/or approved there has been a clause that says something to the effect of...
"Just because I decide not to enforce a particular section of this contract today, doesn't mean I don't have the right to call for enforcement tomorrow."
I don't know all the details of the GPL, and I don't know all the details of any agreements that SCO has with other companies. But, at first glance, I rate it this way...
"Any and all" > "Just because I decided to sue you and not him"
Of course, as some have pointed out, If SCO can prove that their IP was given out, without their knowlege, then the "any and all" may be pre-empted.
Then again... If the IP was given out, and SCO did know about it, but they chose not to enforce it at all for a given length of time, then their rights are forfeit BECAUSE they didn't enforce it.
So.. Here's the question.... Did SCO own something, and not know what they owned, and who was using it, for a really long time?
A) No. They didn't know, and they didn't enforce their rights. Therefore, SCO is dumb and they lose.
B) Yes. They knew, but didn't enforce. SCO loses again
No witty signature here. Nothing to see. Move along.
Speaking as someone who actually received the letter from MS, I wanted to make a brief comment.
MS is asking system builders to point out organizations that are misusing their licenses. That's all.
I'm not gullible enough to automatically believe that MS is merely going to explain the proper way to use the license. But, it is possible.
Of course, if the whole license issue was less complicated, the organizations would not be accidentally misusing their licenses.
Actually, I read that it was 6%.
And, "Geek Influence" does exist. I'm a "Geek". (And, depending on who you ask, I'm also a Dork, Moron, and/or Dipshit).
I'm also a Product Manager at an OEM. My Geek-luence rubs off on Sales, and therefore onto the customers.
I agree that Intel can survive a price war. But, can they survive marketing blunders+expensive products+shoddy (ahem) products?
For starters...
In this post, you seem to have a problem with the fact that I used uncommon misspellings. However, in your original post you stated "...long as you can read it and get the meaning, thats whats important."
I believe that you were able to to get my meaning. Correct?
Continuing...
In your original post you also state "Nothing annoys me more than a person who nitpicks about the smallest details and then goes on to demonstrate that they have no comprehension of the bigger picture."
It seems to me that you are nitpicking on the fact that I used so many misspelled words in one place. Who cares how many I use as long as you get the meaning?
And...
I'll agree that some of the "creative spelling" that I used could be constued as examples of typos, but I don't understand your statement, "A person who spends alot of time typing has an easy time reading through them."
How do you connect typing a lot with reading?
As for the general education part...
You're probably right. It was a silly assumption to make based on your first post. Can I make it from your first combined with your second?
-"purposfully" (Add an "e")
-"alot" (a lot)
-"immediatly" (Add an "e")
-"accel" (excel?)
-"I am, personally, of the opinion that the time spent proofreading and hunting down such typos that are not caught immediatly (as most are) is wasted time" (This sounds just plain lazy and ridiculous to me. If you are too lazy to double check your work, you'd be too lazy to work for me.)
Quick question--Is 2+2=5 close enough to be acceptable? What about 2+2=3.9? If these are not acceptable, then why is "thru" when you mean "through"?
(Sorry. I'm not normally this combatitive, but your defense of symple lazynes kinda iritated mi.)
Sownds too mi lyke yore tryng to maik excoosez fur yore lak uv spellink abilitee and genural lak of edumakashun.
Actually, I asked basically this same question of the Director of Channel Marketing for Intel. (I work at an OEM.)
I asked if they were going to move the PIII into the Celeron realm, and simply get rid of the Celeron name?
His response is that they were going to lose the PIII name, and use the PIII technology in the Celeron. (Basically, un-step on the Celeron).
Look for it in 2002.
Hey! I like(d) Triumph.
It seems that what MS is doing is what they always do.
They offer just a little bit of functionality. Then, they leave the door open for other companies to improve upon on what they have offered.
For example...
--Windows Defrag is okay, but Norton is better.
--VB is okay, but the 3rd party add-ons are better
--Notepad is okay, but a whole bunch of freeware is better
--CD Player/mediaplayer is okay, but WinAmp is better
Alot of people have built entire companies around the idea of improving upon what MS has offered. (Go ahead-Insert your favorite Linux dist. here)
Think of all of the anti-virus companies that would go out of business if MS actually put a real modicum of effort into the area. For reference, think about how many office productivity suites Windows users *really* get to choose from. There is basically only one. And, that's because MS put real effort into it.
The fact that MS is putting minor MP3 ability into the software will not put much of a dent into the sales of third party software. If anything, I expect it will help increase the number of choices from new, and existing, companies.
Now... Before anybody flames me as Bill G - wannabe, I just want to mention that I think it is rather silly to add MP3 ripping to an OS. (Can you say Bloat?) Also, it is rather silly to expect the MP3 ripper tacked onto the OS to perform as well as a seperate program. Think about it - How many of you use the Windows CD Player or the Address Book?
Just my 2 cents worth of nonsense...
Simple.
Take a "low profile" case. (Aopen.)
Put in the MS-6340M from Microstar (Its microATX, Integrated audio/video)
Add an Athlon
Add your memory
Add a 1/2 size NIC
Returning a CD to a retail outlet costs them nothing but time and paperwork. And, returns happen every day.
"Smart store operators" know enough that they won't antagonize their customers. They simply return the defective CD to the publisher (for full credit).
It happens every day.
The difference here is that it would be "massive" returns of a particular title that the music publisher has brought everyone's attention to.
I mean, why the x86 compatability? So it can mimic an x86 processor? So you can continue to run 16 bit software on it?
Umm... Yes. I believe that IS the point. And, 32-bit software too.
Ahem...
When I started all we had was one abacus for the entire crew.
My subject says it for me
As the Contracts Administrator for my company, it is my job to read through contracts for just this type of thing. If I didn't find and point out the fact that MS (or anyone) is double charging us, I would expect to get canned pretty quickly.
On the flip side, the fun part of writing contracts is putting in everything you can think of, just to see if anyone catches it.
On the serious side, any company that writes a contract is going to weigh it in their favor. You don't expect people to agree, but if they do, you don't expect to ever utilize the clause(s), but they are there just in case.