Try reading your own post, particularly: "Price fixing is an agreement among competitors" It goes about "conspiracy", which requires two or more parties. A manufacturer making the rules for all dealers can not be a conspiracy because it is a single entity, under any interpretation of the law.
Manufacturers allow a limited number of distributors in a given area, for the sole purpose that they do not compete against each other. This is why they fix territories. One dealer may have south Texas, another Louisiana. They are not competitors in any legal sense because they are restricted by contract to NOT compete. In a distributorship arrangement, a competitor would be defined as someone who is not part of the network and sells a DIFFEENT brand.
The dealers within the network are associates, NOT competitors. Often, one will call another if he is out of "model 123", and the second will ship a spare "model 123" at cost, with the understanding that the other dealer would do the same for him. It is cooperative, not competitive. That is the goal of any manufacturer, and the reason for the restrictions. They both benefit from "BRAND A" having good dealers across the US, and from national advertising that the manufacturer is able to do because of the profits and cooperation of the distributors. Yes, they might like to sell equipment outside their area, at any price, but this would hurt the network, thus the manufacturer, and in time, themselves. This is why they agree, by contract, to not do this. In the end, the customer can choose from Brand A, B or C because all 3 manufacturers have good dealer networks. The customer has MORE choice.
Price fixing in my example would be where TWO OR MORE HOT TUB MANUFACTURERS agreed to a fixed price for their products. An individual manufacturer can set any limits they see fit for the privilege of distributing their products.
A real world example: All bread makers in a city decide that $1 is too cheap for a loaf of bread, so they get together and conspire that none will charge less than $5. THIS is exactly what your quote refers to. If the "Bob's Bread" company independently wants to charge $5, or limit his bread to only Walmart stores and require that they do not advertise their price lower than $5 (or advertise at all), then this is legal. They do not have a monopoly and have not conspired to do anything. Walmart can agree, or say "screw you" because they can get bread from other bakers.
The market division clause is where "Bob's Bread" takes the east side of town and "Fred's Bread" takes the west side by agreement, so they can keep prices up. They are different companies, thus conspired to keep prices high by limiting competition BETWEEN DIFFERENT BRANDS.
Distributorships are complex, but you have to remember, the whole idea behind dealers is so they DONT compete with each other, and instead compete with other BRANDS (where this law WOULD take effect.)
The entire structure of American Capitalism is based on distributorship principals (although less so now than 60 years ago). It allows for manufacturers to get their products to the people throught a reliable, sustainable chain of distribution that is protected from itself via the restrictions the manufacturer puts in place, but must compete against other companies according to your post.
McDonalds franchises (and others) are on the same principal. They compete with Burger King and Wendies, not each other. The corporate restrictions on advertising and methods insure the customer gets the same experience each time. It is a form of control of dealers/francisees, yes, for the benefit of the consumer.
Or maybe it's just the demo that God presents at fairs to attract VC. I wonder if he sells licenses or subscriptions...
I think subscriptions. 20+ years ago when I actually went to church, I would always see them pass around a metal plate, and everyone was expected to put money in it.
What about Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Japan?:P
Legit question, and point taken. I have never done any business with companies in those countries like I have in the US and Europe, so I have no experience. I wouldn't be against it, but I would have to do some research first. I haven't seen any products there that I couldn't get here, so haven't had the reason to look into it before. 99.5% of the time I find what I want in North America anyway, which is local for me.
The key is that those countries have well established consumer protection laws that are similar to the US, which is NOT the case in Russia, much of eastern Europe, and parts of the middle and far East. I haven't bought from Mexico or South America either, although I have sold and shipped to a few countries there.
Or I could just do business with reputable companies, which is a whole lot easier. Why would I do business with a company that will not provide their real address? Throw away credit card or not, I am just not interested in dealing with companies like that.
Do you buy Rolex watches from guys hanging out on the street?
Not allowing them to display a price in advertising is right on the edge of price fixing, but specifying a minimum advertised price or minimum price to sell something at is the very essence of price fixing.
This is done every day, in many industries, and it is perfectly legal. If I manufacture a product, you do not have a god given right to sell it. _I_ get to decide who sells it, and how it is displayed and sold. The only time a manufacture or product provider has to give up some rights of control is when they have a legal monopoly. There are dozens of court decisions upholding this right, and dozens of reasons why placing these limits is a GOOD idea.
Hot tubs are a good example (I dont sell/make them, but they are a good analogy). Most hot tub manufacturers are going to have clauses that limit what a dealer can advertise the hot tub for on the internet. If you don't like the clause, don't sell the product. If you violate the clause, you lose your right to sell my product. It is a contract, and it has other restrictions as well, for the purpose of pretecting the image, profitability and stability of the manufacturer.
If you DON'T have limits, I can tell you from experience what EXACTLY will happen:
ABC company sells pool tables, outdoor equipment and hot tubs. He makes a living on the other stuff, so he doesn't need a huge margin on the hot tubs. He is in a cheap metro area, so labor and rent is cheap. His cost is $2000 for a unit, and his other overhead is only $400 average. He put them on the web for $2800. On the other hand, 123, Inc. is in New York, and his cost is $2000, but his overhead is $1200, so he can't sell them for $2800. He complains to the manufacturer, who does nothing, so 123, Inc. switches to another brand. Pretty soon, ABC is the only company selling your product because he has run off all the other dealers. Now he raises the price way high, or goes out of business for some reason (old, death, etc). Either way, as a manufacturer, you are fucked. As a consumer, you have to pay more for the same product.
So you put limits on what they can advertise to MAKE THE PLAYING FIELD LEVEL. They can sell in their store for whatever they want, they just can't cut fellow dealer's throats on the internet (out of their territory).
If I am the manufacturer, I have every right to set limits on what my dealers can and can't do with respect to advertising (or they can buy another brand..I don't have a monopoly). The purpose is to give every dealer a chance to make a living, and the customer can pick from any dealer, any brand (not just mine) and find the best deal. My dealer's will be able to be profitable, and will be there for years to come with service, and thus, provide a good value.
This is the whole concept behind distributor networks, from car dealers to pool tables. The manufacturer sets the rules so all the distributors have a fair chance to make a living. You might not like this, and think that you would get a better deal if they could cut each other's throats (and you would, for the first few weeks...), but most would end up out of business, and you will end up with LESS choice and higher prices.
However, if some (much less ALL) of the labels agreed to cut Apple out, in order to force Apple to agree to a higher price, the price-fixing lawsuit would happen so fast, you'd be reading about it in Groklaw the next day.
IANAL, but no, I'm pretty sure they would not, not unless they actually conspired to do so, which they do not have to in order to get the action done. If they all just quit licensing Apple to sell its product without "conspiracy" proven, then there is nothing to sue about.
A manufacturer HAS THE RIGHT to put limits on what a distributor can charge or advertise, price wise, on the web. (local newspaper ads are ok) This is perfecly legal and legit. My company does it, not allowing distributors to advertise ANY price on the web, although we SELL on the web ourselves. Because we are the only one showing a price on the web, we can maintain the integrity of that price, and guarantee the dealer a profit.
If the individual record companies independently decide they don't want their music sold for 99 cents (one says 1.25 is lowest, the other, 1.45, another, 1.32, etc) and they are not working TOGETHER, then they have acted 100% legal, and they are within their rights as a manufacturer of a product.
It would still be DUMB, but perfectly legal. It's really easy to accuse someone of "price fixing", but proving it in a court of law is a lot harder. You have to have real evidence, not conjecture.
I would guess that they can cut Apple out. Music isn't a commodity (well, it is, but it isn't...) so they can select whomever they want to distribute their products. This is one vulnerability of Apple, as they can not FORCE any labels to allow them sell music, and because it is copyrighted, they can't go get it elsewhere and resell it.
If Apple was cut out, and there was no chance they could again sell music and had to only sell IPODs, you can bet "someone" would quickly have a hack out to make the IPOD more useful with P2P. Start looking for ipod banner ads on isohunt if that happens;)
It would be a stupid mistake that would cost them the majority of their online music business. This would be like the Chinese Govt. saying "We don't want any good we export to the US to be sold at Walmart". You just don't do that unless you are trying to lose sales. Then again, you normally don't sue customers in order to get them to buy more product either, but that isn't stoping the RIA*
Before I would buy from a website that registers its name with bogus info (mp3search.ru) or send my credit card info to Russia (both sites are Russian, do a whois) I would explore some options a bit closer to home.
If you LIVE in Russia, fine, but I won't be giving my credit card info to companies out of the US, Canada and western Europe.
I think you have it right on. My understanding is that you can even use your own NON GPL code in the same application as GPL code and you do not ever have to publish YOUR additions, as long as you do not distribute the program outside of your organization. While this may not be the most desirable situation for some, it appears to be perfectly legal.
So if ABC, Inc. modifies a GPL application for its own use, adds its own code to modify it, the corporation owns the modifications, so even if some yahoo employee distributes the changed modification, the changes are not GPL because the employee didn't own the new code, or have the authority to distribute the changes, thus ABC still owns the copyright to the changes. As long as they do not distribute it, they can use the code as they see fit.
Once they start selling/offering the software to anyone else, THEN the GPL distribution clause kicks in, and they must provide the source and assumably either GPL their additions, or find some way to license them seperately that is not in conflict with the GPL (not likely, but possible depending upon the changes).
One example is that we use some GPL code for web applications here that customers access (shipment tracking, etc.) Usually its snippets of code, subroutines or very small programs to do basic stuff that we modify. We usually do not distribute the applications to anyone. The apps ARE GPL but we do not distribute them, thus provide no source code. The couple of apps we have distributed reflected this with proper credit within the provided source. If I started giving this software to our DEALERS, so they could use it, I would ONLY be obligated to provide the source code to THEM, not the general public, because I have only distributed the changes to them. I would have no authority to stop them from distributing further, however.
As I read the article, Versions 3 would muddy the waters in a situation like this, and could make some version 3 GPL software less attractive. It is still just a draft, but I think RMS has to be careful not to push the GPL into what many would consider to be less than really Free.
I think the term you are looking for is "sell", not "sell out". He is the largest share holder and has every right to explore any buyout offered to the company.
The previously refused offer of over $100 million indicate his 41% is worth more than 11 or 20 million. Activision offered $90 million for just the distribution rights to Doom 3 as well. We'll let a court decide, but on the surface, those numbers don't add up and seem to support his claim. If they had offered to buy his shares at market value, then there wouldn't be a story. The market already had a buyer for his stock at over 41 million.
The fact that the others didn't trust him because he wanted to sell the company is not legal grounds for termination nor undervalueing his stock. Again, a court will sort it out, but sounds like they are trying to screw him, for whatever reason.
People who make $40k a year telling people who make $3500k a year how they should act, what they should buy, and how they should live is NO different than a rich guy telling a working guy what to do. It's no one else's business.
You must have no idea of the kinds of personal expenses it takes in order to make 3.5m a year. Even $250k a year, you have to "spend money to make money", including being presentable to those who might trust you with millions of dollars worth of business.
Another thing is taxes. You DO buy the expensive home(s) as a corporate asset to get depreciation, to offset taxes, because at that level, you are paying 38% of your income in taxes, but your capital gains when you sell is 20%. (think 1.25 million in income tax, plus state income tax if you don't) Tax deductions for interest on your home starts to disappear once you get over ~150k, so yes, you do find ways to move your money around and convert income into capital gains.
Anyone who says that if they made 3.5 million, they would live like they made 50k or 100k is either full of crap, or the concept of 3.5 million a year is simply beyond their comprehension. You would get a CPA, he would tell you to do all the deductions you could, which means expenses or it is paid as tax. Its pretty easy to show on paper how it saves you hundred(s) of thousands in tax per year, legally.
So yes, it can bankrupt someone even if their lifestyle is not so extreme.
But how many of you actually get that important phone calls?
Um, I do, including international calls from suppliers and customers, daily at work and home. I don't think your method would work for those of us in the corporate world.
I am NOT on the Do Not Call List, but I am getting about 90% less telemarketers calling me. I would have to say its a pretty good track record considering I didn't do anything. Some are having problems, but no one is getting MORE calls than before, unlike spam and CAN-SPAM.
This is because many companies that do telephone marketing are doing something else instead (spam maybe?). So while the system isn't perfect, and can be improved, it has to be considered a success for the most part.
My boss does the same thing, I own my own code, and we have an understanding that it doesn't get sold to anyone, or released in it's current configuration, but I can reuse the code in other projects of my own.
This is part of the reason I was up at 5am this morning, trying to learn some new stuff, because I get a benefit out of the overtime as well. Also, I have used code from personal projects in our business applications, so it works both ways. If anything I used at work suddenly became company property, I wouldn't use by best code that I wrote at home. I would instead waste time rewriting it at work, in a lesser way, so it's in the bosses best interest sometimes to be open about it.
Keep in mind, we are a relatively small company and I've been there over 10 years. I don't program full time, so we are not talking about a million of lines of code here. But it sounds like a similar situtation. We do not have a contract regarding code, which may sound crazy, but code isn't what we do for a living, we just have to write our own apps to support our unique sales methods.
everyone else just wants their shit to work. And that's exactly what Microsoft provides.
My OpenOffice opens every document, period, from any office program I have tried, old or new. It just works. My newest version of MS Office doesn't. It doesn't work on all format, only it's own proprietary formats and a few older formats.
Hell, Windows NOTEPAD can't even translate an end of line (\n, \012\) properly unless it has a \r attached. This means that unix files are not opened properly, with that famous "one contuous line with funny squares" look that makes you open it in another program first. It would be trivial for them to make it read the unix standard, but they just choose not to. Incompatability is a choice.
Granted, not everyone needs to move files from unix to windows, but at least tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of users do, and they have decided to insure their system is difficult to do this.
So if you want a program that reads ALL formats, it isn't MS anything. Oh, and I hear they are not going to support the OpenOffice XML standard either.....
ANY top Scifi list that puts Voyager ahead of DS9 is suspect, especially when DS9 isn't even on the list. 7 years, solid ratings, consistant cast throughout, and they quit instead of being cancelled. They even put Voyager ahead of Lost in Space (campy or not, it was a great show!)
I have read about half the list, and already figured its a hack list by someone who is reading someone elses notes, and hasn't actually watched a lot of scifi.
And they ranked Futurama 41, behind all kinds of crap. Jeez.
I have heard the same for photographs. Today's photographic paper isn't the same as older stuff, with less silver, and it tends to fade quicker. While we can rely on 100 year old photographs, our decendents may not. Most paper nowdays is relatively acidic as well, so it breaks down faster with any exposure. This would mean books as well. While there is good paper that is better than the old stuff, most is made to be cheap, not high quality.
I think he was speaking of using something like Ethereal, which runs on both Linux and Windows. Zone Alarm doesn't run on Linux or Mac, and not everyone uses Windows.
Zone Alarm is a fine for a client side firewall, but its not hardly a replacment for a real firewall. If the application automatically opens up IE to send its data via your web browser (before you can stop it), then Zone Alarm has been effectively bypassed unless you had all internet access locked down.
I can do the same by unplugging my ethernet cable, or just logging into my linux router and turn off forwarding with a few keystrokes. Except this way actually works no matter what.
Yea, Zone Alarm is a nice program, especially for free, but it is far from complete protection. Especially on operating systems it doesn't install on.
Usually, that means you can't charge people for using it on their computers, ie: your own P2P removal service for hire. I'm pretty sure that isn't a huge threat with this software.
98% of the time, I play engy, and have since 1998. Had our own servers (4) for over 4 years even. Still love 2fort, although a decent defense should always be able to prevent any caps in that map.
You put the dispensor in the upper elevator room, so it blocks the doorway (have to duck/jump to get over). They don't see it until they hit it, because they are trying to get out of the ramp room quickly. Building the SG in the left close corner as you enter is nice for once he kills the dispensor with his nailgun on the way in, still running too fast to pay attention. Great way for just one man to limit their movement to the hall ramps, *if* you are a good engy.
Been there, done that, except it was Air Force. That was 20 years ago, and I'm pretty sure they don't take 40 year olds now. Besides, I'm pretty sure I would not survive a rocket jump from one of those suckers....
Reminds me of when I was a teen, and the lawn mower wouldn't start. Didn't have a little brother, but usually had a friend inexperienced enough to hold the spark plug while I cranked, so I could see if it was getting fire. Only can do that once per friend.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Or a captured asteroid.
Try reading your own post, particularly: "Price fixing is an agreement among competitors" It goes about "conspiracy", which requires two or more parties. A manufacturer making the rules for all dealers can not be a conspiracy because it is a single entity, under any interpretation of the law.
Manufacturers allow a limited number of distributors in a given area, for the sole purpose that they do not compete against each other. This is why they fix territories. One dealer may have south Texas, another Louisiana. They are not competitors in any legal sense because they are restricted by contract to NOT compete. In a distributorship arrangement, a competitor would be defined as someone who is not part of the network and sells a DIFFEENT brand.
The dealers within the network are associates, NOT competitors. Often, one will call another if he is out of "model 123", and the second will ship a spare "model 123" at cost, with the understanding that the other dealer would do the same for him. It is cooperative, not competitive. That is the goal of any manufacturer, and the reason for the restrictions. They both benefit from "BRAND A" having good dealers across the US, and from national advertising that the manufacturer is able to do because of the profits and cooperation of the distributors. Yes, they might like to sell equipment outside their area, at any price, but this would hurt the network, thus the manufacturer, and in time, themselves. This is why they agree, by contract, to not do this. In the end, the customer can choose from Brand A, B or C because all 3 manufacturers have good dealer networks. The customer has MORE choice.
Price fixing in my example would be where TWO OR MORE HOT TUB MANUFACTURERS agreed to a fixed price for their products. An individual manufacturer can set any limits they see fit for the privilege of distributing their products.
A real world example: All bread makers in a city decide that $1 is too cheap for a loaf of bread, so they get together and conspire that none will charge less than $5. THIS is exactly what your quote refers to. If the "Bob's Bread" company independently wants to charge $5, or limit his bread to only Walmart stores and require that they do not advertise their price lower than $5 (or advertise at all), then this is legal. They do not have a monopoly and have not conspired to do anything. Walmart can agree, or say "screw you" because they can get bread from other bakers.
The market division clause is where "Bob's Bread" takes the east side of town and "Fred's Bread" takes the west side by agreement, so they can keep prices up. They are different companies, thus conspired to keep prices high by limiting competition BETWEEN DIFFERENT BRANDS.
Distributorships are complex, but you have to remember, the whole idea behind dealers is so they DONT compete with each other, and instead compete with other BRANDS (where this law WOULD take effect.)
The entire structure of American Capitalism is based on distributorship principals (although less so now than 60 years ago). It allows for manufacturers to get their products to the people throught a reliable, sustainable chain of distribution that is protected from itself via the restrictions the manufacturer puts in place, but must compete against other companies according to your post.
McDonalds franchises (and others) are on the same principal. They compete with Burger King and Wendies, not each other. The corporate restrictions on advertising and methods insure the customer gets the same experience each time. It is a form of control of dealers/francisees, yes, for the benefit of the consumer.
Or maybe it's just the demo that God presents at fairs to attract VC. I wonder if he sells licenses or subscriptions...
I think subscriptions. 20+ years ago when I actually went to church, I would always see them pass around a metal plate, and everyone was expected to put money in it.
What about Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Japan? :P
Legit question, and point taken. I have never done any business with companies in those countries like I have in the US and Europe, so I have no experience. I wouldn't be against it, but I would have to do some research first. I haven't seen any products there that I couldn't get here, so haven't had the reason to look into it before. 99.5% of the time I find what I want in North America anyway, which is local for me.
The key is that those countries have well established consumer protection laws that are similar to the US, which is NOT the case in Russia, much of eastern Europe, and parts of the middle and far East. I haven't bought from Mexico or South America either, although I have sold and shipped to a few countries there.
Or I could just do business with reputable companies, which is a whole lot easier. Why would I do business with a company that will not provide their real address? Throw away credit card or not, I am just not interested in dealing with companies like that.
Do you buy Rolex watches from guys hanging out on the street?
Not allowing them to display a price in advertising is right on the edge of price fixing, but specifying a minimum advertised price or minimum price to sell something at is the very essence of price fixing.
This is done every day, in many industries, and it is perfectly legal. If I manufacture a product, you do not have a god given right to sell it. _I_ get to decide who sells it, and how it is displayed and sold. The only time a manufacture or product provider has to give up some rights of control is when they have a legal monopoly. There are dozens of court decisions upholding this right, and dozens of reasons why placing these limits is a GOOD idea.
Hot tubs are a good example (I dont sell/make them, but they are a good analogy). Most hot tub manufacturers are going to have clauses that limit what a dealer can advertise the hot tub for on the internet. If you don't like the clause, don't sell the product. If you violate the clause, you lose your right to sell my product. It is a contract, and it has other restrictions as well, for the purpose of pretecting the image, profitability and stability of the manufacturer.
If you DON'T have limits, I can tell you from experience what EXACTLY will happen:
ABC company sells pool tables, outdoor equipment and hot tubs. He makes a living on the other stuff, so he doesn't need a huge margin on the hot tubs. He is in a cheap metro area, so labor and rent is cheap. His cost is $2000 for a unit, and his other overhead is only $400 average. He put them on the web for $2800. On the other hand, 123, Inc. is in New York, and his cost is $2000, but his overhead is $1200, so he can't sell them for $2800. He complains to the manufacturer, who does nothing, so 123, Inc. switches to another brand. Pretty soon, ABC is the only company selling your product because he has run off all the other dealers. Now he raises the price way high, or goes out of business for some reason (old, death, etc). Either way, as a manufacturer, you are fucked. As a consumer, you have to pay more for the same product.
So you put limits on what they can advertise to MAKE THE PLAYING FIELD LEVEL. They can sell in their store for whatever they want, they just can't cut fellow dealer's throats on the internet (out of their territory).
If I am the manufacturer, I have every right to set limits on what my dealers can and can't do with respect to advertising (or they can buy another brand..I don't have a monopoly). The purpose is to give every dealer a chance to make a living, and the customer can pick from any dealer, any brand (not just mine) and find the best deal. My dealer's will be able to be profitable, and will be there for years to come with service, and thus, provide a good value.
This is the whole concept behind distributor networks, from car dealers to pool tables. The manufacturer sets the rules so all the distributors have a fair chance to make a living. You might not like this, and think that you would get a better deal if they could cut each other's throats (and you would, for the first few weeks...), but most would end up out of business, and you will end up with LESS choice and higher prices.
However, if some (much less ALL) of the labels agreed to cut Apple out, in order to force Apple to agree to a higher price, the price-fixing lawsuit would happen so fast, you'd be reading about it in Groklaw the next day.
IANAL, but no, I'm pretty sure they would not, not unless they actually conspired to do so, which they do not have to in order to get the action done. If they all just quit licensing Apple to sell its product without "conspiracy" proven, then there is nothing to sue about.
A manufacturer HAS THE RIGHT to put limits on what a distributor can charge or advertise, price wise, on the web. (local newspaper ads are ok) This is perfecly legal and legit. My company does it, not allowing distributors to advertise ANY price on the web, although we SELL on the web ourselves. Because we are the only one showing a price on the web, we can maintain the integrity of that price, and guarantee the dealer a profit.
If the individual record companies independently decide they don't want their music sold for 99 cents (one says 1.25 is lowest, the other, 1.45, another, 1.32, etc) and they are not working TOGETHER, then they have acted 100% legal, and they are within their rights as a manufacturer of a product.
It would still be DUMB, but perfectly legal. It's really easy to accuse someone of "price fixing", but proving it in a court of law is a lot harder. You have to have real evidence, not conjecture.
I would guess that they can cut Apple out. Music isn't a commodity (well, it is, but it isn't...) so they can select whomever they want to distribute their products. This is one vulnerability of Apple, as they can not FORCE any labels to allow them sell music, and because it is copyrighted, they can't go get it elsewhere and resell it.
;)
If Apple was cut out, and there was no chance they could again sell music and had to only sell IPODs, you can bet "someone" would quickly have a hack out to make the IPOD more useful with P2P. Start looking for ipod banner ads on isohunt if that happens
It would be a stupid mistake that would cost them the majority of their online music business. This would be like the Chinese Govt. saying "We don't want any good we export to the US to be sold at Walmart". You just don't do that unless you are trying to lose sales. Then again, you normally don't sue customers in order to get them to buy more product either, but that isn't stoping the RIA*
Before I would buy from a website that registers its name with bogus info (mp3search.ru) or send my credit card info to Russia (both sites are Russian, do a whois) I would explore some options a bit closer to home.
If you LIVE in Russia, fine, but I won't be giving my credit card info to companies out of the US, Canada and western Europe.
I think you have it right on. My understanding is that you can even use your own NON GPL code in the same application as GPL code and you do not ever have to publish YOUR additions, as long as you do not distribute the program outside of your organization. While this may not be the most desirable situation for some, it appears to be perfectly legal.
So if ABC, Inc. modifies a GPL application for its own use, adds its own code to modify it, the corporation owns the modifications, so even if some yahoo employee distributes the changed modification, the changes are not GPL because the employee didn't own the new code, or have the authority to distribute the changes, thus ABC still owns the copyright to the changes. As long as they do not distribute it, they can use the code as they see fit.
Once they start selling/offering the software to anyone else, THEN the GPL distribution clause kicks in, and they must provide the source and assumably either GPL their additions, or find some way to license them seperately that is not in conflict with the GPL (not likely, but possible depending upon the changes).
One example is that we use some GPL code for web applications here that customers access (shipment tracking, etc.) Usually its snippets of code, subroutines or very small programs to do basic stuff that we modify. We usually do not distribute the applications to anyone. The apps ARE GPL but we do not distribute them, thus provide no source code. The couple of apps we have distributed reflected this with proper credit within the provided source. If I started giving this software to our DEALERS, so they could use it, I would ONLY be obligated to provide the source code to THEM, not the general public, because I have only distributed the changes to them. I would have no authority to stop them from distributing further, however.
As I read the article, Versions 3 would muddy the waters in a situation like this, and could make some version 3 GPL software less attractive. It is still just a draft, but I think RMS has to be careful not to push the GPL into what many would consider to be less than really Free.
I think the term you are looking for is "sell", not "sell out". He is the largest share holder and has every right to explore any buyout offered to the company.
The previously refused offer of over $100 million indicate his 41% is worth more than 11 or 20 million. Activision offered $90 million for just the distribution rights to Doom 3 as well. We'll let a court decide, but on the surface, those numbers don't add up and seem to support his claim. If they had offered to buy his shares at market value, then there wouldn't be a story. The market already had a buyer for his stock at over 41 million.
The fact that the others didn't trust him because he wanted to sell the company is not legal grounds for termination nor undervalueing his stock. Again, a court will sort it out, but sounds like they are trying to screw him, for whatever reason.
People who make $40k a year telling people who make $3500k a year how they should act, what they should buy, and how they should live is NO different than a rich guy telling a working guy what to do. It's no one else's business.
You must have no idea of the kinds of personal expenses it takes in order to make 3.5m a year. Even $250k a year, you have to "spend money to make money", including being presentable to those who might trust you with millions of dollars worth of business.
Another thing is taxes. You DO buy the expensive home(s) as a corporate asset to get depreciation, to offset taxes, because at that level, you are paying 38% of your income in taxes, but your capital gains when you sell is 20%. (think 1.25 million in income tax, plus state income tax if you don't) Tax deductions for interest on your home starts to disappear once you get over ~150k, so yes, you do find ways to move your money around and convert income into capital gains.
Anyone who says that if they made 3.5 million, they would live like they made 50k or 100k is either full of crap, or the concept of 3.5 million a year is simply beyond their comprehension. You would get a CPA, he would tell you to do all the deductions you could, which means expenses or it is paid as tax. Its pretty easy to show on paper how it saves you hundred(s) of thousands in tax per year, legally.
So yes, it can bankrupt someone even if their lifestyle is not so extreme.
But how many of you actually get that important phone calls?
Um, I do, including international calls from suppliers and customers, daily at work and home. I don't think your method would work for those of us in the corporate world.
I am NOT on the Do Not Call List, but I am getting about 90% less telemarketers calling me. I would have to say its a pretty good track record considering I didn't do anything. Some are having problems, but no one is getting MORE calls than before, unlike spam and CAN-SPAM.
This is because many companies that do telephone marketing are doing something else instead (spam maybe?). So while the system isn't perfect, and can be improved, it has to be considered a success for the most part.
My boss does the same thing, I own my own code, and we have an understanding that it doesn't get sold to anyone, or released in it's current configuration, but I can reuse the code in other projects of my own.
This is part of the reason I was up at 5am this morning, trying to learn some new stuff, because I get a benefit out of the overtime as well. Also, I have used code from personal projects in our business applications, so it works both ways. If anything I used at work suddenly became company property, I wouldn't use by best code that I wrote at home. I would instead waste time rewriting it at work, in a lesser way, so it's in the bosses best interest sometimes to be open about it.
Keep in mind, we are a relatively small company and I've been there over 10 years. I don't program full time, so we are not talking about a million of lines of code here. But it sounds like a similar situtation. We do not have a contract regarding code, which may sound crazy, but code isn't what we do for a living, we just have to write our own apps to support our unique sales methods.
everyone else just wants their shit to work. And that's exactly what Microsoft provides.
My OpenOffice opens every document, period, from any office program I have tried, old or new. It just works. My newest version of MS Office doesn't. It doesn't work on all format, only it's own proprietary formats and a few older formats.
Hell, Windows NOTEPAD can't even translate an end of line (\n, \012\) properly unless it has a \r attached. This means that unix files are not opened properly, with that famous "one contuous line with funny squares" look that makes you open it in another program first. It would be trivial for them to make it read the unix standard, but they just choose not to. Incompatability is a choice.
Granted, not everyone needs to move files from unix to windows, but at least tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of users do, and they have decided to insure their system is difficult to do this.
So if you want a program that reads ALL formats, it isn't MS anything. Oh, and I hear they are not going to support the OpenOffice XML standard either.....
Not sure if they were trying to be cute, or if there is just some guy named Bill in Seattle who is delusional and has terrible grammar.
ANY top Scifi list that puts Voyager ahead of DS9 is suspect, especially when DS9 isn't even on the list. 7 years, solid ratings, consistant cast throughout, and they quit instead of being cancelled. They even put Voyager ahead of Lost in Space (campy or not, it was a great show!)
I have read about half the list, and already figured its a hack list by someone who is reading someone elses notes, and hasn't actually watched a lot of scifi.
And they ranked Futurama 41, behind all kinds of crap. Jeez.
I have heard the same for photographs. Today's photographic paper isn't the same as older stuff, with less silver, and it tends to fade quicker. While we can rely on 100 year old photographs, our decendents may not. Most paper nowdays is relatively acidic as well, so it breaks down faster with any exposure. This would mean books as well. While there is good paper that is better than the old stuff, most is made to be cheap, not high quality.
I think he was speaking of using something like Ethereal, which runs on both Linux and Windows. Zone Alarm doesn't run on Linux or Mac, and not everyone uses Windows.
Zone Alarm is a fine for a client side firewall, but its not hardly a replacment for a real firewall. If the application automatically opens up IE to send its data via your web browser (before you can stop it), then Zone Alarm has been effectively bypassed unless you had all internet access locked down.
I can do the same by unplugging my ethernet cable, or just logging into my linux router and turn off forwarding with a few keystrokes. Except this way actually works no matter what.
Yea, Zone Alarm is a nice program, especially for free, but it is far from complete protection. Especially on operating systems it doesn't install on.
And what does "..for private use only." mean?
Usually, that means you can't charge people for using it on their computers, ie: your own P2P removal service for hire. I'm pretty sure that isn't a huge threat with this software.
Well you could just monitor out going packets to see if it's sending anything....
So you can know AFTER it sends its payload to the RIAA police? What good does that do?
98% of the time, I play engy, and have since 1998. Had our own servers (4) for over 4 years even. Still love 2fort, although a decent defense should always be able to prevent any caps in that map.
You put the dispensor in the upper elevator room, so it blocks the doorway (have to duck/jump to get over). They don't see it until they hit it, because they are trying to get out of the ramp room quickly. Building the SG in the left close corner as you enter is nice for once he kills the dispensor with his nailgun on the way in, still running too fast to pay attention. Great way for just one man to limit their movement to the hall ramps, *if* you are a good engy.
</engineer>
Been there, done that, except it was Air Force. That was 20 years ago, and I'm pretty sure they don't take 40 year olds now. Besides, I'm pretty sure I would not survive a rocket jump from one of those suckers....
Reminds me of when I was a teen, and the lawn mower wouldn't start. Didn't have a little brother, but usually had a friend inexperienced enough to hold the spark plug while I cranked, so I could see if it was getting fire. Only can do that once per friend. :)