Because Google is Netscape reincarnated. After you stop laughing, think about it.
With Netscape, it was essentially all about the web.
With Google, it is essentially all about the web.
Problem for MS is that if focus shifts from the OS to the web (Google will run on any OS), then they quickly become irrelevant. Companies will write web apps instead of regular apps. Ties loosen.
Google is starting to spread out into some of Netscape's old areas (server software). As long as they are ahead of MS, MS will see them as a viable threat.
You do remember that Netscapes whole goal was to move everything onto the web, and leave the user with (essentially) a thin client. That is why MS treated Netscape as such a dangerous competitor (and went ballistic). The same strategy MS is trying now, and the same strategy Google may succeed at.
I thought the EU didn't support software patents (yet).
Additionally, the EU cannot take action against MS for pulling out of the market if MS pays the current fines. To declare MS's copyright void in such a case would set the kind of precedent that Washington DC politicians hunger for. If anything, the US government is proud of MS. It is a US company, and a real money maker. Whatever issues you think the government has with MS will disappear if the EU tries to pull anything.
China's and Europe's primary trading partner is the US. If anything, China would be happy that trading (or communicating) with Europe becomes that much harder. It just means more business for China.
The EU is hurt in a bad way, as well. Their economies (with the exception of eastern soviet bloc countries) are in hell right now. Compare the US, which champions military spending (which can be cut in an instant with relatively little fallout) with the EU, which provides a 35 hour work week and cradle-to-grave benefits. Me thinks the Europeans will scream a lot louder about their benefits being cut than Americans putting up with a few base closings.
When you throw in the amount of time spent retraining and porting software to Linux, most companies would rather throw in the towel. Or strangle some politicians. Or both. The CEO of those companies are not going to care that OSS is fre or good for society or whatever. What they care about is that the software they paid $$$$$$$$ for now has to be rewritten for even more $$$$$$$. Their staff has to be retrained. And the software they are going to use is not as user friendly or as supported as their previous software.
EU companies will import software from the US, and they will like it. MS will stop development of European language packs (saving quite a bundle-> no 30+ languages). The French will really have something to scream about when the software that their companies run on are only available in English, and there isn't a damn thing they can do about. And MS's revenues will stay about the same.
The OSS revolution won't happen. The EU is not a better US (with more economic might and better social benefits).
Countries which mandate OSS will continue to fall behind, and the EU will serve as a poster boy for MS.
I hope MS does pull out of the EU, as the resulting damage to the EU's economy would be f*cking hilarious. I'd buy as much MS stock as my credit cards would allow, buying it on the down swing (when they announce they are pulling out), and selling it on the upswing (EU companies by MS software overseas).
If it's unprofitable, they will. As long as MS makes one more cent than they pay in taxes, fines, and general SW development (+ upkeep), they will stay in Europe.
If it becomes unprofitable, they are out like lightning. Mr. Gates couldn't care less how sovereign those nations think they are, when your biggest Market (for Europe-> the US) uses software that you can no longer legally buy, and your entire infrastructure is built around that software, you will hear screaming. And having to switch your entire company over to Linux, BSD, or Mac OS X is a hell of a lot more painful than MS missing a quarter or two.
Try this: you can install Windows XP or not install Windows XP. No one is forcing your hand.
What, you don't want to have IE bundled with Windows XP? Then don't buy it. The seller decides under what terms they will sell their product, and you, the buyer, decide whether to buy based on those terms. You don't decide to get the f*cking government installed. You move on, to something that suits your needs.
Oh, this is good. I mean, I read the/. headline 10 minutes, and haven't stopped laughing. It's so right, and so wrong, all at the same time.
Think about it. The GPL is price-fixing: the price is set at zero (or thereabouts). It's funny because it's true. It's right because it's true. It's wrong because the law was crafted with different intentions (punishing wealthy cartels, monopolies) in the name of defending the little guy. Now we see what happens when the shoe is on the other foot.
The law which was once used to smack the big guys around, with much cheering from the people, is now used by the big guys to punish the people. Frankly, I can't decide whether I want to shoot the guy or shake his hand. You have to admit, this is one for the textbooks. To quote the BOFH, it's like encountering a water buffalo in your jacuzzi.
This is like the time Sun, IBM, et al. used the government anti-trust laws to smash MS. Up until that point, MS had about one lobbyist in Washington DC. MS considered themselves removed from politics. Now how many lobbyists do they have?
What do we learn from this? Do not open Pandora's box. Using government legislation to achieve one's ends is like using a sledgehammer to crush a walnut. We're smarter than this. A number of us are engineers, designers, programmers, and scientists; there's a better way, find it!
Think of it this way. You decide that you want to reverse-engineer BitKeeper. However, there is a poison pill in the license agreement, saying something to the effect of "if you attempt to reverse-engineer this product or its protocals, your license is terminated immediately."
So you decide to get a friend of yours to run the product (and interact with it, while you observe the traffic). Since you have not signed a license with BitKeeper, you are not bound by its restrictions. However, your friend is. But he's not the one reverse-engineering BitKeeper, now is he? Seems like you outsmarted those lawyers who wrote that license agreement.
Except you didn't. Your friend is operating the program with full knowledge that you are monitoring his traffic, and that you are attempting to reverse-engineer the program.
This reflects back on your friend. In effect, by operating the program under these conditions, he is attempting to reverse-engineer the program, with the understanding that you are his accomplice.
Now what if you try to monitor his traffic without his knowledge? Those pesky federal wiretap laws cover the other half.
Curious. How do criminals and thieves contribute to a capitalist society, as opposed to spunging off people? (This is not a troll, I'm genuinely curious).
It certainly does. But like any other type of society, it suffers greatly when people commit fraud or theft. Doesn't matter that greed is the engine (easier to look out for yourself (capitalism) than others (socialism/communism)), what matters is that in both types of society what they are doing would be considered a crime.
Some would argue that greed spawns these types of problems, but I'd put my money on stupidity (short-sightedness) i.e. get in (to the customers wallet), get out (with their money), get away (from the Law).
A greedy capitalist knows that providing a service over X years typically pays off better than jacking a client. Only idiots pursue the latter, and are not capitalists, but thieves.
My point exactly. Go home, little girl. Tell your mom I said hi.
"If it takes you 2 hours to make a PB&J then you've got a major disability."
If it takes you more than a minute to realize that was an analogy, you have a major disability. Didn't score high on that verbal section, did you?
"a) It is not burnt, if it were burnt it would be carbonized"
Main Entry: 2burn Pronunciation: 'b&rn Function: verb Inflected Form(s): burned/'b&rnd, 'b&rnt/; or burnt/'b&rnt/; burning Etymology: Middle English birnen, from Old English byrnan, v.i., bærnan, v.t.; akin to Old High German brinnan to burn intransitive senses
3 a : to undergo alteration or destruction by the action of fire or heat
Alteration by heat.
"b) It's kind of like peeling an apple. There's nothing particularly redeeming about it, just not worth the effort of avoiding - something a person so focused on efficiency would have figured out long ago."
Hmm, buy an apple at the store, take it home, wash it off, then eat it or just buy the thing pre-peeled and eat it on the spot. Hmm, wonder which way is more efficent.
Oh good, name calling. Who's the 2 year old again?
But, getting to the point, it's more efficent. I could spend 2 hours washing and waxing my car, or 15 min at the local car wash (one of those nice Shell ones) while I grab some snacks (maybe a PBJ).
Tell me, oh authority of taste (licker of knives) and well of infinite knowledge (./ reader), what you find so redeeming about this 'crust'? It's the burnt part of the bread!
It seems like a really stupid patent, until you try those sandwiches. They are GOOD. For someone who doesn't like to spend a lot of time cooking (or in the case of the PBJ, getting the components together), and also as a guy who never got over the whole crusts thing (hate them, cut them off, always), this thing is a godsend. Laugh all you like, but try one first.
What if your product takes longer than that to fully develop?
Depending whose filing, the time to market may be months to years. A big company (like MS) can pop something out in 3 months. A lone inventor can take a lot longer (years, even with funding). What if the inventor is a college professor, who likes their current job as a researcher, not a developer (of a product)?
What if the inventor approaches a company, and the company would rather wait for the patent to expire? It's not unheard of.
Personally (and I'll be flamed for this), I favor the 20 year limit. It's such a large block of time for a company, that they'd rather license or buy a patent than wait. If you shorten the patent length, yeah, you'll cut a lot of companies. But overall, you're royally screwing the small inventor. A company can wait 5 years for a patent to expire; most can't wait 20 years. A lone inventor is really put under pressure with smaller terms; with larger ones, the power lies with them.
"The idea that you can monkey-type ideas on paper (which takes ZERO effort) and then sue 10 years later is BULLSHIT!."
Have you ever written a patent application? Just getting the format right takes a week or two. Getting the appropriate sections, filled with the right data, in the right order, within the stringent requirements is a challenge. It takes a lot more than two brain cells rubbing together, and you need to be completely sober.
Try it sometime. Come up with an original idea (harder than it sounds), and write one for kicks. It's an exercise in humility.
Permanent Injunction. Puts the full force of the law behind the patent holder. Think: PS2s and PSs show up on a boat, police storming the boats and impounding them. Not a line most companies want to cross.
The only course of action has left is to either seek a license or to appeal. They lose the appeal, they had to license the technology or stop selling.
If it is a Dual-Shock system, then yes. Patent infringement covers those who sell the products (think: a company creating a product overseas to get around a patent, then importing them).
Course, the main difference I've noticed between the original PS and the Dual-Shock system (controllers aside) is the media cables (the original PS has the RCA connections, whereas the Dual-Shock has a kinda proprietary media output).
Only if the patent applies. This is akin to reading the patent, figuring that you can get away without a license, then acting all surprised when you get caught. Getting the license in the first place is the cheapest option (not researching or researching and blowing it off).
Yeah, the Dual-Shock playstation (have the original, the dual, and the PS2). But according to the article, the Dual-Shock was also found to be infringing, not just the PS2.
Crummy gear? My 21" Sony Trinitron CRT begs to differ. And the ATI Radeon 9800 AIW is not a limiting factor either.
Secondly, 1024x768 is a comfortable resolution for standard tasks (writing code, watching movies). Hell, the only time I boost up to 1600x1200 is when I'm playing games (and the extra detail comes in handy). Having a desktop at 1600x1200 is fun until you're trying to point something out to someone else, and they can't read it because it's so tiny.
Strange you say that ("taxing underpants"). I was reading an article the other day about a certain state legislature who wanted to tax women's lingerie.
Slashdot Mirror
Because Google is Netscape reincarnated. After you stop laughing, think about it.
With Netscape, it was essentially all about the web.
With Google, it is essentially all about the web.
Problem for MS is that if focus shifts from the OS to the web (Google will run on any OS), then they quickly become irrelevant. Companies will write web apps instead of regular apps. Ties loosen.
Google is starting to spread out into some of Netscape's old areas (server software). As long as they are ahead of MS, MS will see them as a viable threat.
You do remember that Netscapes whole goal was to move everything onto the web, and leave the user with (essentially) a thin client. That is why MS treated Netscape as such a dangerous competitor (and went ballistic). The same strategy MS is trying now, and the same strategy Google may succeed at.
Yeah, right. Tell the government you're rich and are planning on skipping the country, see if they leave you alone for more than 10 minutes.
Philadelphia-> 2 bedroom apartment: $750/month.
I thought the EU didn't support software patents (yet).
/ us.html
Additionally, the EU cannot take action against MS for pulling out of the market if MS pays the current fines. To declare MS's copyright void in such a case would set the kind of precedent that Washington DC politicians hunger for. If anything, the US government is proud of MS. It is a US company, and a real money maker. Whatever issues you think the government has with MS will disappear if the EU tries to pull anything.
And the biggest economy is the US.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos
China's and Europe's primary trading partner is the US. If anything, China would be happy that trading (or communicating) with Europe becomes that much harder. It just means more business for China.
The EU is hurt in a bad way, as well. Their economies (with the exception of eastern soviet bloc countries) are in hell right now. Compare the US, which champions military spending (which can be cut in an instant with relatively little fallout) with the EU, which provides a 35 hour work week and cradle-to-grave benefits. Me thinks the Europeans will scream a lot louder about their benefits being cut than Americans putting up with a few base closings.
When you throw in the amount of time spent retraining and porting software to Linux, most companies would rather throw in the towel. Or strangle some politicians. Or both. The CEO of those companies are not going to care that OSS is fre or good for society or whatever. What they care about is that the software they paid $$$$$$$$ for now has to be rewritten for even more $$$$$$$. Their staff has to be retrained. And the software they are going to use is not as user friendly or as supported as their previous software.
EU companies will import software from the US, and they will like it. MS will stop development of European language packs (saving quite a bundle-> no 30+ languages). The French will really have something to scream about when the software that their companies run on are only available in English, and there isn't a damn thing they can do about. And MS's revenues will stay about the same.
The OSS revolution won't happen. The EU is not a better US (with more economic might and better social benefits).
Countries which mandate OSS will continue to fall behind, and the EU will serve as a poster boy for MS.
I hope MS does pull out of the EU, as the resulting damage to the EU's economy would be f*cking hilarious. I'd buy as much MS stock as my credit cards would allow, buying it on the down swing (when they announce they are pulling out), and selling it on the upswing (EU companies by MS software overseas).
*wrings hands* Oh please, oh please, oh please....
If it's unprofitable, they will. As long as MS makes one more cent than they pay in taxes, fines, and general SW development (+ upkeep), they will stay in Europe.
If it becomes unprofitable, they are out like lightning. Mr. Gates couldn't care less how sovereign those nations think they are, when your biggest Market (for Europe-> the US) uses software that you can no longer legally buy, and your entire infrastructure is built around that software, you will hear screaming. And having to switch your entire company over to Linux, BSD, or Mac OS X is a hell of a lot more painful than MS missing a quarter or two.
Try this: you can install Windows XP or not install Windows XP. No one is forcing your hand.
What, you don't want to have IE bundled with Windows XP? Then don't buy it. The seller decides under what terms they will sell their product, and you, the buyer, decide whether to buy based on those terms. You don't decide to get the f*cking government installed. You move on, to something that suits your needs.
Oh, this is good. I mean, I read the /. headline 10 minutes, and haven't stopped laughing. It's so right, and so wrong, all at the same time.
Think about it. The GPL is price-fixing: the price is set at zero (or thereabouts). It's funny because it's true. It's right because it's true. It's wrong because the law was crafted with different intentions (punishing wealthy cartels, monopolies) in the name of defending the little guy. Now we see what happens when the shoe is on the other foot.
The law which was once used to smack the big guys around, with much cheering from the people, is now used by the big guys to punish the people. Frankly, I can't decide whether I want to shoot the guy or shake his hand. You have to admit, this is one for the textbooks. To quote the BOFH, it's like encountering a water buffalo in your jacuzzi.
This is like the time Sun, IBM, et al. used the government anti-trust laws to smash MS. Up until that point, MS had about one lobbyist in Washington DC. MS considered themselves removed from politics. Now how many lobbyists do they have?
What do we learn from this? Do not open Pandora's box. Using government legislation to achieve one's ends is like using a sledgehammer to crush a walnut. We're smarter than this. A number of us are engineers, designers, programmers, and scientists; there's a better way, find it!
Think of it this way. You decide that you want to reverse-engineer BitKeeper. However, there is a poison pill in the license agreement, saying something to the effect of "if you attempt to reverse-engineer this product or its protocals, your license is terminated immediately."
So you decide to get a friend of yours to run the product (and interact with it, while you observe the traffic). Since you have not signed a license with BitKeeper, you are not bound by its restrictions. However, your friend is. But he's not the one reverse-engineering BitKeeper, now is he? Seems like you outsmarted those lawyers who wrote that license agreement.
Except you didn't. Your friend is operating the program with full knowledge that you are monitoring his traffic, and that you are attempting to reverse-engineer the program.
This reflects back on your friend. In effect, by operating the program under these conditions, he is attempting to reverse-engineer the program, with the understanding that you are his accomplice.
Now what if you try to monitor his traffic without his knowledge? Those pesky federal wiretap laws cover the other half.
Basically, you're screwed either way.
Curious. How do criminals and thieves contribute to a capitalist society, as opposed to spunging off people? (This is not a troll, I'm genuinely curious).
It certainly does. But like any other type of society, it suffers greatly when people commit fraud or theft. Doesn't matter that greed is the engine (easier to look out for yourself (capitalism) than others (socialism/communism)), what matters is that in both types of society what they are doing would be considered a crime.
Some would argue that greed spawns these types of problems, but I'd put my money on stupidity (short-sightedness) i.e. get in (to the customers wallet), get out (with their money), get away (from the Law).
A greedy capitalist knows that providing a service over X years typically pays off better than jacking a client. Only idiots pursue the latter, and are not capitalists, but thieves.
Do we expect them to repay it? I don't think so...
"I bet they'd be tasty deep fried, too"
;)
And now I am curious. Is it possible to combine my love of a crustless PBJ and deep-frying? I've heard of twinkies being deep-fried...
Thanks, I just found a new weekend project.
"It ain't name calling if it is the truth."
/'b&rnd, 'b&rnt/; or burnt /'b&rnt/; burning
My point exactly. Go home, little girl.
Tell your mom I said hi.
"If it takes you 2 hours to make a PB&J then you've got a major disability."
If it takes you more than a minute to realize that was an analogy, you have a major disability. Didn't score high on that verbal section, did you?
"a) It is not burnt, if it were burnt it would be carbonized"
Main Entry: 2burn
Pronunciation: 'b&rn
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): burned
Etymology: Middle English birnen, from Old English byrnan, v.i., bærnan, v.t.; akin to Old High German brinnan to burn
intransitive senses
3 a : to undergo alteration or destruction by the action of fire or heat
Alteration by heat.
"b) It's kind of like peeling an apple. There's nothing particularly redeeming about it, just not worth the effort of avoiding - something a person so focused on efficiency would have figured out long ago."
Hmm, buy an apple at the store, take it home, wash it off, then eat it or just buy the thing pre-peeled and eat it on the spot. Hmm, wonder which way is more efficent.
Oh good, name calling. Who's the 2 year old again?
But, getting to the point, it's more efficent. I could spend 2 hours washing and waxing my car, or 15 min at the local car wash (one of those nice Shell ones) while I grab some snacks (maybe a PBJ).
Tell me, oh authority of taste (licker of knives) and well of infinite knowledge (./ reader), what you find so redeeming about this 'crust'? It's the burnt part of the bread!
It seems like a really stupid patent, until you try those sandwiches. They are GOOD. For someone who doesn't like to spend a lot of time cooking (or in the case of the PBJ, getting the components together), and also as a guy who never got over the whole crusts thing (hate them, cut them off, always), this thing is a godsend. Laugh all you like, but try one first.
STFU. Anyone stupid enough to dial that number needs help. Serious help.
What if your product takes longer than that to fully develop?
Depending whose filing, the time to market may be months to years. A big company (like MS) can pop something out in 3 months. A lone inventor can take a lot longer (years, even with funding). What if the inventor is a college professor, who likes their current job as a researcher, not a developer (of a product)?
What if the inventor approaches a company, and the company would rather wait for the patent to expire? It's not unheard of.
Personally (and I'll be flamed for this), I favor the 20 year limit. It's such a large block of time for a company, that they'd rather license or buy a patent than wait. If you shorten the patent length, yeah, you'll cut a lot of companies. But overall, you're royally screwing the small inventor. A company can wait 5 years for a patent to expire; most can't wait 20 years. A lone inventor is really put under pressure with smaller terms; with larger ones, the power lies with them.
"The idea that you can monkey-type ideas on paper (which takes ZERO effort) and then sue 10 years later is BULLSHIT!."
Have you ever written a patent application? Just getting the format right takes a week or two. Getting the appropriate sections, filled with the right data, in the right order, within the stringent requirements is a challenge. It takes a lot more than two brain cells rubbing together, and you need to be completely sober.
Try it sometime. Come up with an original idea (harder than it sounds), and write one for kicks. It's an exercise in humility.
Permanent Injunction. Puts the full force of the law behind the patent holder. Think: PS2s and PSs show up on a boat, police storming the boats and impounding them. Not a line most companies want to cross.
The only course of action has left is to either seek a license or to appeal. They lose the appeal, they had to license the technology or stop selling.
If it is a Dual-Shock system, then yes. Patent infringement covers those who sell the products (think: a company creating a product overseas to get around a patent, then importing them).
Course, the main difference I've noticed between the original PS and the Dual-Shock system (controllers aside) is the media cables (the original PS has the RCA connections, whereas the Dual-Shock has a kinda proprietary media output).
Only if the patent applies. This is akin to reading the patent, figuring that you can get away without a license, then acting all surprised when you get caught. Getting the license in the first place is the cheapest option (not researching or researching and blowing it off).
Yeah, the Dual-Shock playstation (have the original, the dual, and the PS2). But according to the article, the Dual-Shock was also found to be infringing, not just the PS2.
We should have just stuck with the Alpha. Clean, efficent, fast.
Crummy gear? My 21" Sony Trinitron CRT begs to differ. And the ATI Radeon 9800 AIW is not a limiting factor either.
Secondly, 1024x768 is a comfortable resolution for standard tasks (writing code, watching movies). Hell, the only time I boost up to 1600x1200 is when I'm playing games (and the extra detail comes in handy). Having a desktop at 1600x1200 is fun until you're trying to point something out to someone else, and they can't read it because it's so tiny.
Strange you say that ("taxing underpants"). I was reading an article the other day about a certain state legislature who wanted to tax women's lingerie.
Heh. And I'll bet many of the rich would give up those 'benefits' if they weren't taxed so much.