Because your right to do it doesn't magically transfer to Optus. A lot of people seem to be of the opinion that this is bad news but I think it is really good news. If the courts sided with Optus then changes to copyright law to close the loophole would certainly have eventuated, perhaps with other negative side effects in tow.
Of course it harms the copyright holder and the "short amount of time" is part of the problem for them. The rights holders for live sport will not be able to sell the distribution rights for online/mobile for a decent amount of money if any company can distribute the content with a minimal delay.
You have to wonder what Optus were thinking. It was always a legally dubious idea with too much money at stake for them not to get sued and their best case scenario leaves them with no long term advantage, their competitors in the marketplace could then equally do it or the law will be changed to remove the loophole. IE a lot of risk for very little reward. Perhaps worth it if you are a small company with little to lose a la Napster but a strange move for an established company.
Really? Take away iPhones and iPods, and what do you have left? Their desktop/laptop business? Yeah, that's viable
It was and probably is. And if you took away the iPhones and iPods there's still the iPads where there's more excitement today.
If you actually wanted to 'hurt' Apple you'd take away iTunes. Not because it's a massive profit center in itself but because it's what makes the iPod user buy an iPhone, iPad, Apple TV etc etc.
MS has no gateway drug, they thought they did with Windows (and for a long time that was true) but somehow the world changed and a more frequent refresh of the iPhone line is far more exciting that the tick/tock (bad/good) release of Microsofts OS line.
How did you manage that?
The iPad was released in March 2010.
Apple had stopped using DRM for music on iTunes by the end of March 2009, a year earlier.
Why would you assume that? Since governments print the money and different governments share techniques on how to make it counterfeit proof, it would just be a trade secret. There's no point in making a patent on it.
Of course there is, just because you are are printing money doesn't mean you don't want to make money.
Securency (involved in producing a lot of modern polymer notes) certainly hold patents on techniques they use.
a good part of their research dollars come from patents on stuff they come up with
That might be overstating it a little, CSIRO's income from IP:
2006-7 30.6M
2007-8 81.7M
2008-9 229.6M
2009-10 46.7M
2010-11 29.2M
For 2010-11 income from IP was only ~2% of their total revenue.
2008-9 was a big year, making about 20% of their revenue and includes the $205 million settlement from a previous WiFi case.
Which isn't to say that CSIRO should not bother chasing IP revenue, obviously it can be very rewarding.
It seems difficult to make the case that the best thing for the Australian Government to do would be to enter the patent into the public domain.
As far as return on investment (ie Australian taxpayers money) goes licencing the product to the world seems a far better idea than giving it away and hoping for some tangential return in Australian tax revenue.
While the global population is so much larger than the Australian population it is a no-brainer.
As I understand it the Slashdot article is (predictably) rather misleading. The technology involved isn't wifi per se but a clever signal processing method used in newer wifi standards (IE 802.11 N). IIRC it's the bit which allows signals recieved at multiple antennas to be used in a way that identifies multiple distinct signals coming from different directions at the same time (an increasingly important feature as the the number of devices explodes).
It also demonstrates some of the benefits of a cross-specialisation science organisation like the CSIRO. IIRC the original idea was come up with (and used) by someone at CSIRO working in radio astronomy. More commercial uses were identified and they sought to commercialise it by licencing it to anyone who could make use of it.
This is not the case of a patent troll buying some patent and belatedly wielding it as a weapon in an established market nor a company leveraging a patent to hurt competitors. It's a genuine invention that they tried to licence but ultimately had to go to court over because the Wifi companies (perhaps not used to dealing with entities outside their patent clique) refused to licence.
In other words, doing well where it actually matters to a company, not doing so well where it matters to dick-waving fanboys?
Re:Take my organs, but how 'bout some anesthetic?
on
When Are You Dead?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It does seem kind of dumb. If someone is paying $750k for an organ, why can't they pay $751 so the patient can get the anesthetic?
Seems more likely that there are medical reasons rather than cost reasons, perhaps wanting the harvested bits to be as free from anything that might cause complications in their next home as possible.
In one example, emails reveal that Stratfor had been tracking the political performance art collective The Yes Men, a group famous for impersonating politicians and corporate representatives in order to showcase the absurdity and corruption present within powerful institutions. But “tracking” in this case merely involved selling the government a list of public appearances planned by the group’s members.
but the very page they link to in that quote has the "Yes Men Monitoring" related emails being sent to:
These scientists were irresponsible in their dealings with their press.
Bollocks, I am pretty sure it was always explained as an unexpected result, not a new discovery.
They should have kept it strictly within the community
How would they do that?
rather than embarrass themselves, and physics, in this manner.
It is far better for the public to see scientists acting openly, showing their data and asking for help. Science is a process, not a result.
Trying to get the public to trust science by hiding things from them is precisely the wrong way to go about it. It is akin to suggesting they should trust the scientist because the scientist is always right rather than because the process of science works.
He's not suggesting that it is necessary from a manufacturing point of view.
He's claiming it is a necessary stage from a developmental point of view, ie that there is no other (or at least no better) way of transitioning from a largely pre-industrial/agrarian society.
What are China's other options? It is tempting to view this from a western perspective and see it as some sort of "race to the bottom". From a chinese perspective that wouldn't be the case as they are seeing massive reductions in poverty.
With the tele on in the background, the 4S was much more reliable.
It is easy to have a poke at Apple as trying to force people to upgrade but there are other reasons for them to be cautious.
If Siri did have dubious performance then it would be dismissed as a half-arsed gimmick, likely damaging it's reputation for a long time. As there are a lot more older iPhones out there being used than there are 4S models the majority of people experiencing Siri would be doing so with inferior sound quality and judging it accordingly.
As it is it looks pretty cool but I will probably keep using my 3GS for at least one more generation if it keeps on ticking.
Sony wants to use GPL-licensed code except for projects the license is actually enforced.
As you suggest, this seems to be the reasonable interpretation of the motivation.
Could this not be used as evidence that Sony knowingly avoids it's obligations except when forced to? Could this lead to greater punitive damages in future lawsuits against Sony?
Sony is perhaps missing the real opportunity for competitive advantage here. Sony could easily put processes in place to get their GPL compliance up to scratch. They could then, either in partnership with other right holders or perhaps on the back of their own contributions, use GPL enforcement to interfere with competitors who aren't meeting their requirements when distributing hardware to consumers.
Sony does not gain any competitive advantage by working with competitors to take Busybox out of the loop. It could gain advantage by complying appropriately and stopping competitors who don't from distributing their product.
Slashdot Mirror
"Main institution"? There are more than one scientific and academic journal.
A journal certainly isn't the arbiter of what is libel, a court does that.
This bit of the law only adds a defence to libel for scientific and academic publication that meets certain standards.
The Slashdot article seems to single out a single part of the bill for some reason. The actual bill has a lot more, including a "truth" defence.
Who's he kidding? The UK Border Agency would be irrelevant to Chuck Norris.
That sounds like the opposite of being immortalised.
I bet that "evil plans" sub directory is really a front and there's some serious man on man action pictures hidden inside those files.
If only there was a website where you could pay people with mod points to mod for you.
Because your right to do it doesn't magically transfer to Optus. A lot of people seem to be of the opinion that this is bad news but I think it is really good news. If the courts sided with Optus then changes to copyright law to close the loophole would certainly have eventuated, perhaps with other negative side effects in tow.
Of course it harms the copyright holder and the "short amount of time" is part of the problem for them. The rights holders for live sport will not be able to sell the distribution rights for online/mobile for a decent amount of money if any company can distribute the content with a minimal delay.
You have to wonder what Optus were thinking. It was always a legally dubious idea with too much money at stake for them not to get sued and their best case scenario leaves them with no long term advantage, their competitors in the marketplace could then equally do it or the law will be changed to remove the loophole. IE a lot of risk for very little reward. Perhaps worth it if you are a small company with little to lose a la Napster but a strange move for an established company.
It was and probably is. And if you took away the iPhones and iPods there's still the iPads where there's more excitement today.
If you actually wanted to 'hurt' Apple you'd take away iTunes. Not because it's a massive profit center in itself but because it's what makes the iPod user buy an iPhone, iPad, Apple TV etc etc.
MS has no gateway drug, they thought they did with Windows (and for a long time that was true) but somehow the world changed and a more frequent refresh of the iPhone line is far more exciting that the tick/tock (bad/good) release of Microsofts OS line.
How did you manage that?
The iPad was released in March 2010.
Apple had stopped using DRM for music on iTunes by the end of March 2009, a year earlier.
Of course there is, just because you are are printing money doesn't mean you don't want to make money. Securency (involved in producing a lot of modern polymer notes) certainly hold patents on techniques they use.
If you read the link you'll see they went after both which is, I think, entirely reasonable.
This isn't about search results. It's about adverts saying "Brand XYZ" that take people to "Brand ABC".
That might be overstating it a little, CSIRO's income from IP:
2006-7 30.6M
2007-8 81.7M
2008-9 229.6M
2009-10 46.7M
2010-11 29.2M
For 2010-11 income from IP was only ~2% of their total revenue.
2008-9 was a big year, making about 20% of their revenue and includes the $205 million settlement from a previous WiFi case.
Which isn't to say that CSIRO should not bother chasing IP revenue, obviously it can be very rewarding.
It seems difficult to make the case that the best thing for the Australian Government to do would be to enter the patent into the public domain. As far as return on investment (ie Australian taxpayers money) goes licencing the product to the world seems a far better idea than giving it away and hoping for some tangential return in Australian tax revenue.
While the global population is so much larger than the Australian population it is a no-brainer.
As I understand it the Slashdot article is (predictably) rather misleading. The technology involved isn't wifi per se but a clever signal processing method used in newer wifi standards (IE 802.11 N). IIRC it's the bit which allows signals recieved at multiple antennas to be used in a way that identifies multiple distinct signals coming from different directions at the same time (an increasingly important feature as the the number of devices explodes).
It also demonstrates some of the benefits of a cross-specialisation science organisation like the CSIRO. IIRC the original idea was come up with (and used) by someone at CSIRO working in radio astronomy. More commercial uses were identified and they sought to commercialise it by licencing it to anyone who could make use of it.
This is not the case of a patent troll buying some patent and belatedly wielding it as a weapon in an established market nor a company leveraging a patent to hurt competitors. It's a genuine invention that they tried to licence but ultimately had to go to court over because the Wifi companies (perhaps not used to dealing with entities outside their patent clique) refused to licence.
After, I believe, substantial attempts to get people to negotiate licences without involving a court.
In other words, doing well where it actually matters to a company, not doing so well where it matters to dick-waving fanboys?
Seems more likely that there are medical reasons rather than cost reasons, perhaps wanting the harvested bits to be as free from anything that might cause complications in their next home as possible.
A (relatively) readable Higgs explanation
but the very page they link to in that quote has the "Yes Men Monitoring" related emails being sent to:
none of which suggest that they are "selling the government" this information.
Bollocks, I am pretty sure it was always explained as an unexpected result, not a new discovery.
How would they do that?
It is far better for the public to see scientists acting openly, showing their data and asking for help. Science is a process, not a result. Trying to get the public to trust science by hiding things from them is precisely the wrong way to go about it. It is akin to suggesting they should trust the scientist because the scientist is always right rather than because the process of science works.
He's not suggesting that it is necessary from a manufacturing point of view. He's claiming it is a necessary stage from a developmental point of view, ie that there is no other (or at least no better) way of transitioning from a largely pre-industrial/agrarian society.
What are China's other options? It is tempting to view this from a western perspective and see it as some sort of "race to the bottom". From a chinese perspective that wouldn't be the case as they are seeing massive reductions in poverty.
It is easy to have a poke at Apple as trying to force people to upgrade but there are other reasons for them to be cautious. If Siri did have dubious performance then it would be dismissed as a half-arsed gimmick, likely damaging it's reputation for a long time. As there are a lot more older iPhones out there being used than there are 4S models the majority of people experiencing Siri would be doing so with inferior sound quality and judging it accordingly.
As it is it looks pretty cool but I will probably keep using my 3GS for at least one more generation if it keeps on ticking.
As you suggest, this seems to be the reasonable interpretation of the motivation.
Could this not be used as evidence that Sony knowingly avoids it's obligations except when forced to? Could this lead to greater punitive damages in future lawsuits against Sony?
Sony is perhaps missing the real opportunity for competitive advantage here. Sony could easily put processes in place to get their GPL compliance up to scratch. They could then, either in partnership with other right holders or perhaps on the back of their own contributions, use GPL enforcement to interfere with competitors who aren't meeting their requirements when distributing hardware to consumers.
Sony does not gain any competitive advantage by working with competitors to take Busybox out of the loop. It could gain advantage by complying appropriately and stopping competitors who don't from distributing their product.