If the company is buying back their own stock, they must believe in their case. How can they be dumping if they're buying back outstanding shares?
Not quite true. There are several more reasons why a company might pursue a buyback.
A buyback announcement, in and of itself, will tend to push the stock price higher, which SCO would really like.
There is nothing in the announcement saying that SCO will buy back, only that they are authorized to do so.
The structure of the buyback program is such that SCO can choose who to buy back from, and at what price. A Buyback does not need to be at market prices. This provides a mechanism for buying off the shares of favored partners at greater than market, for buying the stock held by Canopy, or for paying the directors for their shares directly
SCO is using money raised by selling stock to buy stock? Seem a little circular to you?
Unfortunately, a buyback plan does not guarantee that SCO is not "...misleading people to inflate their stock worth". A buyback plan can be used for just that purpose.
I'm going to have to disagree here. Personally, I missed Firefly the first time around (I'm not much of a TV watcher), but I did see it on the DVD set. IMO, the reason that many people see this show as boring is that they're expecting Star Trek (choose your subseries) or something similar. Firefly has about as much in common with Star Trek as Hill Street Blues has with Car 54 Where Are You.
The comparison is, IMO, an apt one. Firefly is not based on SF concepts and conventions. These are just a wrapper around the real show. The show itself is a deep drama with a western theme, and the episodes that have been put out so far just touch the surface. How many continuing subplots and hanging plotlines did you notice in the series? That's *not* what people expect out of an episodic series, but that's what Whelan has given people here. This show is much closer in spirit to Hill Street Blues than it is to ST.
And, like the Blues, it would take some time to gain audience share, as people realized exactly what depth there was to the show. Blues got that time. Firefly did not. And Fox is braindead (I don't think I can forgive Fox for what they did to the Dragonriders of Pern).
Because, authentic or not, their are going to be some subpoenas issued as a result of this -- to SCO, Microsoft, the consultant, Baystar, and probably every hop the e-mail took getting from point A to point B.
Since it is real, lying off the bat (saying it's not real) and having the memo discovered to be real makes their second claim ("But it's all a misunderstanding by the consultant!") much less credible.
Hmmm... I have received the same one from Experts Exchange as well, with the appropriate changes (and 'ammount' spelled correctly). So which bleeding worm is sending this one out? Or is this a manual effort?
as to who it may be. Specifically, this complaint shows that Auto Zone and Sherwin Williams are referenced by name in the IBM complaint as having been (as it were) convinced by IBM to commit copyright infringement against SCO.
An interesting point, as marketing experts will tell you, is that people involved with purchasing software for the office will generally not buy something that is too inexpensive.
In other words, if WordPerfect 12 was priced at $49/desktop, it would not be purchased, because of the perception that "if it needs to be sold that cheaply, it's probably no good".
Balancing the price to inducement ratio is definitely the problem that a company like Corel has when dealing with marketing software against MS, especially Word. After all, you can get a full copy of Word + extra software for $99 list by buying MS Works (which has, for the last few versions, used Word as its word processing component). How do you compete....
Far too late for that. ICQ has had IM Spam for some time, as has Yahoo, MSChat, and AOL.
What *will* happen is that trawling robots will now also trawl for IM addresses, rather than just email addresses. As it is, only deliberate IM spammers (who are usually in an IM chat group with an intellectually stimulating name such as "Yung Hunnies 4 Married Men") are harvesting the IM addresses that show up in these chat groups. In the future, don't have your ICQ # or Jabber ID on your website, or you are setting yourself up for more spam.
Hmmm... a use for reverse 3133t spelling? "Contact me at ICQ #lEloAAT" (1310447)
An OCX is a programming component, like an EJB or a DLL. It is not an application, but applications can be built using it.
Similarly, if MS needs the O/S to be able to play WM video and audio, include some OCX or DLL including only that functionality (say, MSWMAVW.DLL), document the interface, and include an application (removable) that uses it.
Now, I build VanPlayer, a new player that plays all known audio and video formats, including the brand new OVA (Ogg/Van Audio, a new, more efficient Open Algorithm codec). I have the option of playing WMA files using MSWMAVW.dll, or I could use my own custom dll that plays WMA more efficiently. My choice. You, as the customer, have the choice of installing VanPlayer and removing Media Player, Leaving Media Player installed, or having both installed (with different default formats split between the players, e.g. MP10.5 plays WMA, and VanPlayer 1.0 played OVA.)
Actually, the last car I purchased new, I did not include a radio in it. You can purchase a car without a radio installed. Why can't I purchase a version of Windows without Media Player installed?
Reading the actual US Patent, instead of the panic, this appears to be a method of a descriptive file format to create a combined archive and menuing system for scripts, and that's it.
It doesn't apply to executables.
It does not only apply to XML formatted documents -- Paragraph 1, the basic description of the patent, does not include a mention of XML.
It doesn't apply to automatically run scripts on a web page or anywhere else -- the patent requires the user to select the script to run.
It does apply if you use the operating system to choose the execution method -- all it requires is that the file format enables more than one script type to be executed.
(Opinion) It doesn't seem to me as if this meets the non-obvious clause of patents.
I dunno -- I hope the USPTO hires someone who does modern coding sometime soon. This looks to me as something that is a pretty obvious (and, unless made mandatory, a generally pretty useless) methodology. The only way that I see to leverage a patent like this would be to make the Filesystem an XML Document.... Hmmmmm......
The first patent (the '307 patent) does not appear to be applicable directly, since it requires an O/S to be booted upon insertion of said medium. This also does not affect booting from a floppy (for instance), since it is the act of turning on the power, not the insertion of the removable media, that causes the system to be booted.
The second patent (the '156 patent) appears to require a remote control as part of its process. This would only be applicable to a multimedia PC with a remote control, not to a regular PC (would it be applicable to a DVD player?)
The third patent (the '863 patent) is the first one that possibly may apply (IMO), although it continues to refer to a remote control in almost all of the discussion. In fact, the "Field of the Invention" for both this patent and the '532 patent is "This invention relates to an apparatus and method for wireless remote control and use of interactive media and in particular to a remote control including a printed publication and/or a storage media and/or a data button." This does not look like anything that MS has to worry about to me.
At work, I am required to use Outlook, which is not my preferred mail client. Since I use Newsgroups, and post on websites for information relating to work, I get a fair piece of spam (60-70 each workday is normal).
It used to be an annoying time waster until I found the SpamBayes filter. Now, I have to check my 'maybe' folder once or twice a week, and only look at perhaps 10 messages (of which 75% are spam, but 7-14 a week isn't bad at all). Highly recommended, and even easy enough for a non-technical Outlook user, since there is a plugin install for Outlook (alas, not for the Express version, though, so I can't just send the link to my family.)
While on the subject: are there any other free filters that are as good as this one? I really would like to know before I decide on which one to use on Mozilla at home, and before I travel to my father's house to set up Spambayes for his Outlook Express.
Well, being an impossible snoop, and not having watched the Superbowl (no, that does *not* mean that I am un-American;-), I had to hunt down the image.
It's a bit scary to see how many different images are out there, in how many different formats. However, close-ups revealed several interesting bits:
Janet has pierced nipples.
Those sunbursts were pinned on.
The costume piece was held on with snaps.
Despite my theorizing, there is no evidence that there was supposed to be a 'second layer of cloth' under the cup.
Bottom line: It was planned, and it looks like it came off as planned (please pardon the pun.)
3.22 billion dollars is the maximum fine that the EU could impose on Microsoft under its laws and rules. That's not the same as saying that the EU is seriously considering a 3.22Bn dollar fine.
On page 18 of the PDF file of the report found here, there is a graph of temperatures that struck me as odd. So, I went and dug up some other information.
Starting sometime between 1350 and 1450, the Northern Hemisphere at least (and indications are that the entire world did, see this reference article for more information) experienced an extended period of cooling known as the 'Little Ice Age'. This extended until somewhere around 1850. However, the graph in the paper shows the period from 1400-1500 to be the warmest period experienced, even warmer than the 20th century (with peaks about 1425 and 1485).
So how did these folk come up with this, when climatologist using different methods (tree-rings, ice cores, isotope deposition in stalactites, etc) and cross-checking each other come up with an entirely different answer.
The paper appears to have som valid points, but without an explanation of this serious anomaly, I must suspect that their data is 'spun' to match pre-conceived needs.
Of course, when one considers the existance of the Little Ice Age, one must also wonder if the 'Global Warming' phenomenon is simply a return to a more normal average temperature. Is the 28% increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere attributable to the intervention of mankind? Do the other Greenhouse gases that are released by mankind (particularly Methane) the real cause? Is it a combination of causes?
All I can say for sure is that, if there is any significant chance that mankinds actions have caused the change in temperature, and that this increase will continue as projected, then expenditures now to limit or reverse these changes will be more economical than will letting the projected changes occur. If, for example, reductions in CO2 emissions for the next century would cost a projected 100 billion dollars, but would potentially prevent one trillion dollars in damages (how much would have to be expended to replace all seaside cities liable to oceanic flooding if the ocean's average level is raised by 5 feet?), then a 10% chance of the CO2 explanation being the true one is a break-even cost. If the change is 25%, then the CO2 reduction is, on the whole, a winner. Expend now to minimize your costs later.
In any case, I'm also not sure whether I agree with the whole idea of task-specific operating systems.
In many ways, this is the same problem that some people have in programming -- "I'm not sure whether I agree with the whole idea of task-specific programming languages"
However, no language yet does everything as well as a specialized language will. LISP does things that would send a C++ programmer into epileptic fits. C++ writes way faster code than VB. VB is great for doing those quick Windows UIs. APL is... well... it's APL (for whatever that's worth:-)
And we already have specialized O/Ss. Palm O/S is tightly written, designed for the tool. Should Palm users abandon it for the more general Windows version? How about Symbian -- abandon for Linux or Windows?
IMO, If designed correctly, and updated over the years, a special-purpose O/S should be more efficient in its task areas than a more general purpose O/S is.
Well, whoever wrote the article certainly failed to read the law. This exception applies (in MP3 terms) only to Ripping the audio to disk. Here is the complete section of the law:
1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
I've seen a number of people use a comparison like this one from further down the line:
[S]houldn't a shoplifter who is 12 years old be treated the same as another 12 year old who essentially is doing the same thing, only online? we tend to forget that music piracy IS a crime. if you were a musician would you like your music to be STOLEN by anybody 12 or 112 years old?
The comparison is not precise. A better comparison would be between file trading, and taking a picture of a piece of copyrighted art. Taking the picture is still a technical violation of copyright, but most people would not think of it as one.
Why is this a better comparison? Because nothing physical has been taken (unlike in shoplifting), and the copy is not a perfect reproduction.
So, I walk up to a painting for sale, and take a picture of it with a digital camera. If I offer this picture on my web site, I am subject to the same laws as a file trader is...
This patent may be good... it may not. That is opinion. However, I don't see any evidence that they got this idea from Internet Explorer (as some folk are claiming).
Look at the history of IE here. Notice the date mentioned in the first paragraph? 1995 -- that's when MS was working on IE1.
Now, look at the Patent Application. Notice the Date Filed? October 17, 1994. So, I really doubt that they took a time machine out to examine the browsers that had not yet been invented.
Yes the patent "only cover[s] the specific claims in the disclosure". But the claims are not the features or implementations described, which is what this disclaimer addresses.
As a stupid-but-valid example, If I held a patent on the Wheel, and described its use in the patent application with the example of a bicycle and a car, the patent would still cover the use of the wheel with a tricycle, because it is to be understood that the invention defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or acts described
The Offending Parts of the bill, re: Fritz
on
Fritz's Hit List
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The actual part of the bill that is being attacked here is down in the definitions:
(3) DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICE. -- The term "digital media device" means any hardware or software that --
(A) reproduces copyrighted works in digital form;
(B) converts copyrighted works in digital form into a form whereby the images and sounds are visible or audible; or
(C) retrieves or accesses copyrighted works in digital form and transfers or makes available for transfer such works to hardware or software described in subparagraph (B).
As I highlighted, B is the offending line. Consider - those buttons that are sewn into stuffed animals that play music when pressed? Those match the definition in (B).
But this is not the only technical offender. A digital camera can easily be in violation (see part (A) of the definition, then take a picture of a billboard). More significantly, the Internet itself is probably a definition (C) product - certainly, a modem, LAN card, or disk drive is (load a document, or display a web site).
Unfortunately, this definition is, at heart, flawed - way too broad, and way too inclusive.
Slashdot Mirror
So send in the clowns.... (Laghing on the outside, crying on the inside)
There's got to be clowns....
Oh Darl, you're here.
- A buyback announcement, in and of itself, will tend to push the stock price higher, which SCO would really like.
- There is nothing in the announcement saying that SCO will buy back, only that they are authorized to do so.
- The structure of the buyback program is such that SCO can choose who to buy back from, and at what price. A Buyback does not need to be at market prices. This provides a mechanism for buying off the shares of favored partners at greater than market, for buying the stock held by Canopy, or for paying the directors for their shares directly
- SCO is using money raised by selling stock to buy stock? Seem a little circular to you?
Unfortunately, a buyback plan does not guarantee that SCO is not "...misleading people to inflate their stock worth". A buyback plan can be used for just that purpose.I'm going to have to disagree here. Personally, I missed Firefly the first time around (I'm not much of a TV watcher), but I did see it on the DVD set. IMO, the reason that many people see this show as boring is that they're expecting Star Trek (choose your subseries) or something similar. Firefly has about as much in common with Star Trek as Hill Street Blues has with Car 54 Where Are You.
The comparison is, IMO, an apt one. Firefly is not based on SF concepts and conventions. These are just a wrapper around the real show. The show itself is a deep drama with a western theme, and the episodes that have been put out so far just touch the surface. How many continuing subplots and hanging plotlines did you notice in the series? That's *not* what people expect out of an episodic series, but that's what Whelan has given people here. This show is much closer in spirit to Hill Street Blues than it is to ST.
And, like the Blues, it would take some time to gain audience share, as people realized exactly what depth there was to the show. Blues got that time. Firefly did not. And Fox is braindead (I don't think I can forgive Fox for what they did to the Dragonriders of Pern).
Because, authentic or not, their are going to be some subpoenas issued as a result of this -- to SCO, Microsoft, the consultant, Baystar, and probably every hop the e-mail took getting from point A to point B.
Since it is real, lying off the bat (saying it's not real) and having the memo discovered to be real makes their second claim ("But it's all a misunderstanding by the consultant!") much less credible.
Hmmm... I have received the same one from Experts Exchange as well, with the appropriate changes (and 'ammount' spelled correctly). So which bleeding worm is sending this one out? Or is this a manual effort?
as to who it may be. Specifically, this complaint shows that Auto Zone and Sherwin Williams are referenced by name in the IBM complaint as having been (as it were) convinced by IBM to commit copyright infringement against SCO.
Looks like good odds to me....
An interesting point, as marketing experts will tell you, is that people involved with purchasing software for the office will generally not buy something that is too inexpensive.
In other words, if WordPerfect 12 was priced at $49/desktop, it would not be purchased, because of the perception that "if it needs to be sold that cheaply, it's probably no good".
Balancing the price to inducement ratio is definitely the problem that a company like Corel has when dealing with marketing software against MS, especially Word. After all, you can get a full copy of Word + extra software for $99 list by buying MS Works (which has, for the last few versions, used Word as its word processing component). How do you compete....
Far too late for that. ICQ has had IM Spam for some time, as has Yahoo, MSChat, and AOL.
What *will* happen is that trawling robots will now also trawl for IM addresses, rather than just email addresses. As it is, only deliberate IM spammers (who are usually in an IM chat group with an intellectually stimulating name such as "Yung Hunnies 4 Married Men") are harvesting the IM addresses that show up in these chat groups. In the future, don't have your ICQ # or Jabber ID on your website, or you are setting yourself up for more spam.
Hmmm... a use for reverse 3133t spelling? "Contact me at ICQ #lEloAAT" (1310447)
An OCX is a programming component, like an EJB or a DLL. It is not an application, but applications can be built using it.
Similarly, if MS needs the O/S to be able to play WM video and audio, include some OCX or DLL including only that functionality (say, MSWMAVW.DLL), document the interface, and include an application (removable) that uses it.
Now, I build VanPlayer, a new player that plays all known audio and video formats, including the brand new OVA (Ogg/Van Audio, a new, more efficient Open Algorithm codec). I have the option of playing WMA files using MSWMAVW.dll, or I could use my own custom dll that plays WMA more efficiently. My choice. You, as the customer, have the choice of installing VanPlayer and removing Media Player, Leaving Media Player installed, or having both installed (with different default formats split between the players, e.g. MP10.5 plays WMA, and VanPlayer 1.0 played OVA.)
BTW, MCI32.OCX is not what you think it is.
Paraphrased:
-
"The definition you like is Not Scottish!"
-
"My definition is Scottish!"
Brilliant parody of logical argument!(What? What do you mean "I wasn't trying for parody"?)
Actually, the last car I purchased new, I did not include a radio in it. You can purchase a car without a radio installed. Why can't I purchase a version of Windows without Media Player installed?
- It doesn't apply to executables.
- It does not only apply to XML formatted documents -- Paragraph 1, the basic description of the patent, does not include a mention of XML.
- It doesn't apply to automatically run scripts on a web page or anywhere else -- the patent requires the user to select the script to run.
- It does apply if you use the operating system to choose the execution method -- all it requires is that the file format enables more than one script type to be executed.
- (Opinion) It doesn't seem to me as if this meets the non-obvious clause of patents.
I dunno -- I hope the USPTO hires someone who does modern coding sometime soon. This looks to me as something that is a pretty obvious (and, unless made mandatory, a generally pretty useless) methodology. The only way that I see to leverage a patent like this would be to make the Filesystem an XML Document.... Hmmmmm......The first patent (the '307 patent) does not appear to be applicable directly, since it requires an O/S to be booted upon insertion of said medium. This also does not affect booting from a floppy (for instance), since it is the act of turning on the power, not the insertion of the removable media, that causes the system to be booted.
The second patent (the '156 patent) appears to require a remote control as part of its process. This would only be applicable to a multimedia PC with a remote control, not to a regular PC (would it be applicable to a DVD player?)
The third patent (the '863 patent) is the first one that possibly may apply (IMO), although it continues to refer to a remote control in almost all of the discussion. In fact, the "Field of the Invention" for both this patent and the '532 patent is "This invention relates to an apparatus and method for wireless remote control and use of interactive media and in particular to a remote control including a printed publication and/or a storage media and/or a data button." This does not look like anything that MS has to worry about to me.
However, DVD manufacturers should be concerned...
At work, I am required to use Outlook, which is not my preferred mail client. Since I use Newsgroups, and post on websites for information relating to work, I get a fair piece of spam (60-70 each workday is normal).
It used to be an annoying time waster until I found the SpamBayes filter. Now, I have to check my 'maybe' folder once or twice a week, and only look at perhaps 10 messages (of which 75% are spam, but 7-14 a week isn't bad at all). Highly recommended, and even easy enough for a non-technical Outlook user, since there is a plugin install for Outlook (alas, not for the Express version, though, so I can't just send the link to my family.)
While on the subject: are there any other free filters that are as good as this one? I really would like to know before I decide on which one to use on Mozilla at home, and before I travel to my father's house to set up Spambayes for his Outlook Express.
It's a bit scary to see how many different images are out there, in how many different formats. However, close-ups revealed several interesting bits:
- Janet has pierced nipples.
- Those sunbursts were pinned on.
- The costume piece was held on with snaps.
- Despite my theorizing, there is no evidence that there was supposed to be a 'second layer of cloth' under the cup.
Bottom line: It was planned, and it looks like it came off as planned (please pardon the pun.)3.22 billion dollars is the maximum fine that the EU could impose on Microsoft under its laws and rules. That's not the same as saying that the EU is seriously considering a 3.22Bn dollar fine.
On page 18 of the PDF file of the report found here, there is a graph of temperatures that struck me as odd. So, I went and dug up some other information.
Starting sometime between 1350 and 1450, the Northern Hemisphere at least (and indications are that the entire world did, see this reference article for more information) experienced an extended period of cooling known as the 'Little Ice Age'. This extended until somewhere around 1850. However, the graph in the paper shows the period from 1400-1500 to be the warmest period experienced, even warmer than the 20th century (with peaks about 1425 and 1485).
So how did these folk come up with this, when climatologist using different methods (tree-rings, ice cores, isotope deposition in stalactites, etc) and cross-checking each other come up with an entirely different answer.
The paper appears to have som valid points, but without an explanation of this serious anomaly, I must suspect that their data is 'spun' to match pre-conceived needs.
Of course, when one considers the existance of the Little Ice Age, one must also wonder if the 'Global Warming' phenomenon is simply a return to a more normal average temperature. Is the 28% increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere attributable to the intervention of mankind? Do the other Greenhouse gases that are released by mankind (particularly Methane) the real cause? Is it a combination of causes?
All I can say for sure is that, if there is any significant chance that mankinds actions have caused the change in temperature, and that this increase will continue as projected, then expenditures now to limit or reverse these changes will be more economical than will letting the projected changes occur. If, for example, reductions in CO2 emissions for the next century would cost a projected 100 billion dollars, but would potentially prevent one trillion dollars in damages (how much would have to be expended to replace all seaside cities liable to oceanic flooding if the ocean's average level is raised by 5 feet?), then a 10% chance of the CO2 explanation being the true one is a break-even cost. If the change is 25%, then the CO2 reduction is, on the whole, a winner. Expend now to minimize your costs later.
Out of cheese error!! Please reboot universe!
In any case, I'm also not sure whether I agree with the whole idea of task-specific operating systems.
:-)
In many ways, this is the same problem that some people have in programming -- "I'm not sure whether I agree with the whole idea of task-specific programming languages"
However, no language yet does everything as well as a specialized language will. LISP does things that would send a C++ programmer into epileptic fits. C++ writes way faster code than VB. VB is great for doing those quick Windows UIs. APL is... well... it's APL (for whatever that's worth
And we already have specialized O/Ss. Palm O/S is tightly written, designed for the tool. Should Palm users abandon it for the more general Windows version? How about Symbian -- abandon for Linux or Windows?
IMO, If designed correctly, and updated over the years, a special-purpose O/S should be more efficient in its task areas than a more general purpose O/S is.
I can't get to Groklaw at all now, not even the home page, so I suspect that /. just rang up another kill :-)
I've seen a number of people use a comparison like this one from further down the line:
[S]houldn't a shoplifter who is 12 years old be treated the same as another 12 year old who essentially is doing the same thing, only online? we tend to forget that music piracy IS a crime. if you were a musician would you like your music to be STOLEN by anybody 12 or 112 years old?
The comparison is not precise. A better comparison would be between file trading, and taking a picture of a piece of copyrighted art. Taking the picture is still a technical violation of copyright, but most people would not think of it as one.
Why is this a better comparison? Because nothing physical has been taken (unlike in shoplifting), and the copy is not a perfect reproduction.
So, I walk up to a painting for sale, and take a picture of it with a digital camera. If I offer this picture on my web site, I am subject to the same laws as a file trader is...
This patent may be good... it may not. That is opinion. However, I don't see any evidence that they got this idea from Internet Explorer (as some folk are claiming).
Look at the history of IE here. Notice the date mentioned in the first paragraph? 1995 -- that's when MS was working on IE1.
Now, look at the Patent Application. Notice the Date Filed? October 17, 1994. So, I really doubt that they took a time machine out to examine the browsers that had not yet been invented.
Yes the patent "only cover[s] the specific claims in the disclosure". But the claims are not the features or implementations described, which is what this disclaimer addresses.
As a stupid-but-valid example, If I held a patent on the Wheel, and described its use in the patent application with the example of a bicycle and a car, the patent would still cover the use of the wheel with a tricycle, because it is to be understood that the invention defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or acts described
The actual part of the bill that is being attacked here is down in the definitions:
(3) DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICE. -- The term "digital media device" means any hardware or software that --
(A) reproduces copyrighted works in digital form;
(B) converts copyrighted works in digital form into a form whereby the images and sounds are visible or audible; or
(C) retrieves or accesses copyrighted works in digital form and transfers or makes available for transfer such works to hardware or software described in subparagraph (B).
As I highlighted, B is the offending line. Consider - those buttons that are sewn into stuffed animals that play music when pressed? Those match the definition in (B).
But this is not the only technical offender. A digital camera can easily be in violation (see part (A) of the definition, then take a picture of a billboard). More significantly, the Internet itself is probably a definition (C) product - certainly, a modem, LAN card, or disk drive is (load a document, or display a web site).
Unfortunately, this definition is, at heart, flawed - way too broad, and way too inclusive.