I'm always fascinated by the "I didn't use the code, just the ideas" attitude (This may be a caricature of your true attitude, but I don't mean to accuse or quibble, just to focus the discussion), I haven't studied it much, but I'm not sure it would be a very useful legal defense (and I've seen people porting drivers from Linux to BSD use it, not just people speaking of things that are so small they might not even be copyrightable (I can't imagine a sane court applying copyright to a fix for an off by one error or whatever)).
The plans aren't unlimited (at least as far as I understand reality), they are just unmetered. If the end game results in ATT charging people for what they use, who exactly suffers?
(I don't expect ATT to actually charge people what I see as reasonable prices relative to their costs for providing services, but that's just smart business on their part, there are many people who are willing to far more than what I see as reasonable, to the point that they pay large amounts to use a congested network)
Here is a sample file with the commenting I am talking about enabled (I didn't generate the file and have nothing to do with it, I just tracked it down off the internets...):
If you have a recent version of Reader installed, add a comment to it and save. If you then open the file in another pdf viewer, I am pretty sure you will not be able to see that comment. So the system is proprietary to Adobe (assuming I have my ducks in a row).
It isn't a simple metadata flag, Acrobat cryptographically signs the pdf to enable commenting. The fact that it only works in Reader is the basis for my calling it "Adobe's proprietary comment system", I never said anything about it being the only way to make comments in a pdf.
I don't think it is the same thing as annotations, there are postings all over the web asking how to use open source tools to "Enable for commenting" in Reader, and no answers.
If you read the first link in the summary and then apply your 'because I read it on Slashdot' analysis, you will see that Microsoft has taken responsibility.
Did you get copyright assignments from all contributors? Or perhaps you wrote the entirety of the code, but it isn't just a matter of picking a license, if you want to be able to sell under a different license, getting contributions under the GPL isn't enough.
It isn't that tortured, previous cases have established that cops can check the contents of containers, this ruling establishes that cell phones do not qualify for that exception.
Really, the first world economies are so productive that the limiting factor on them is the amount of consumption available (Think about the abundance available in your average podunk grocery store).
The killer is that it makes it very difficult for people at the bottom to do anything that anybody wants to pay very much for.
My favorite theory is that spammers are making money by selling spamming services to suckers, not by actually selling a product in the spam.
I guess there is also some chance that there is some botnet out there set to verify that mail reaches addresses, and it is just running out of control.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as they still charge a profitable rate, I'm not real sure they actually suffer (I realize this is splitting hairs).
I'm always fascinated by the "I didn't use the code, just the ideas" attitude (This may be a caricature of your true attitude, but I don't mean to accuse or quibble, just to focus the discussion), I haven't studied it much, but I'm not sure it would be a very useful legal defense (and I've seen people porting drivers from Linux to BSD use it, not just people speaking of things that are so small they might not even be copyrightable (I can't imagine a sane court applying copyright to a fix for an off by one error or whatever)).
Vista and 7 probably have some additional hardware support in the box...
The plans aren't unlimited (at least as far as I understand reality), they are just unmetered. If the end game results in ATT charging people for what they use, who exactly suffers?
(I don't expect ATT to actually charge people what I see as reasonable prices relative to their costs for providing services, but that's just smart business on their part, there are many people who are willing to far more than what I see as reasonable, to the point that they pay large amounts to use a congested network)
Here is a sample file with the commenting I am talking about enabled (I didn't generate the file and have nothing to do with it, I just tracked it down off the internets...):
http://www.afritz.org/freetools/adding_PDF_comments.pdf
If you have a recent version of Reader installed, add a comment to it and save. If you then open the file in another pdf viewer, I am pretty sure you will not be able to see that comment. So the system is proprietary to Adobe (assuming I have my ducks in a row).
It isn't a simple metadata flag, Acrobat cryptographically signs the pdf to enable commenting. The fact that it only works in Reader is the basis for my calling it "Adobe's proprietary comment system", I never said anything about it being the only way to make comments in a pdf.
The one described here:
http://www.dynamicgraphics.com/dgm/Article/28754/
I don't think it is the same thing as annotations, there are postings all over the web asking how to use open source tools to "Enable for commenting" in Reader, and no answers.
So which partisan am I?
Or maybe I just have a tasteless sense of humor.
If you read the first link in the summary and then apply your 'because I read it on Slashdot' analysis, you will see that Microsoft has taken responsibility.
What about the war on health care?
To clarify, I'm razzing you for complaining about flying on a 10 year old plane.
Why would you fly between old countries like the U.S. and Japan when there are brand new ones that you could visit?
Boeing can demonstrate that the plane is safe, but they can't prove it.
Do you find significant similarities between that situation and the one you find yourself in?
Is this a parody?
Did you get copyright assignments from all contributors? Or perhaps you wrote the entirety of the code, but it isn't just a matter of picking a license, if you want to be able to sell under a different license, getting contributions under the GPL isn't enough.
Was it a boy or a girl?
It matters because Bruce's strategic consulting revenues are (apparently) being impacted by the law suits.
This is him trying to separate himself from the suits (in the public perception sense, he states that he is not party to them).
It isn't that tortured, previous cases have established that cops can check the contents of containers, this ruling establishes that cell phones do not qualify for that exception.
Computers will never be good enough for everything. That said, they are good enough for more and more things every day.
"on either the store or the manufacturer's dime" is a long hand way of saying "in the purchase price".
Really, the first world economies are so productive that the limiting factor on them is the amount of consumption available (Think about the abundance available in your average podunk grocery store).
The killer is that it makes it very difficult for people at the bottom to do anything that anybody wants to pay very much for.
Well, it's more like a runaway bulldozer than a sentient computer network bent on the destruction of humanity, but sure, why not.
My favorite theory is that spammers are making money by selling spamming services to suckers, not by actually selling a product in the spam.
I guess there is also some chance that there is some botnet out there set to verify that mail reaches addresses, and it is just running out of control.
Fun fact: I disabled the preloader.