An equally likely question would be "Why didn't you check the publicly available patents and check to see if you were violating any of them?" More likely, the judge would let the two sides present their cases before asking a lot of questions.
In any case, attempting to resolve an issue like this would usually mean negotiating a license agreement for the patent, not denying a patent infringment occured.
As I've said around here going on 7 times in the last few years, the antitrust case was a civil one, MS hasn't been convicted of anything and the case was light-years away from anybody going to jail.
Just because some group of people say "let us see the proof by May 1st and if you don't provide it, we'll know you're lying" doesn't mean it's true. A patent holder is not required to prove anything unless they want to go to court to fight you, which they can do at their own convenience.
The F/OSS community has their own code and all MS patents are publicly available, so they have all the information they need to determine if they have a patent violation. Of course, it will not be equivalent to a court making that determination, but that would be case if MS revealed their code as well.
That's sounds more plausible than the "just as fast" claim. Of course network communications were much slower at the time X was created than they are today, which is part of the reason I believe that we had to go through a non-network-transparent phase to boostrap Internet clients economically. Whether X is really is the future of Windowing systems beyond Unix/BSD/Linux still remains to be seen.
Again, you have me at a disadvantage, but at a minimum if X11 is performing different processing for local vs. network than it must be determing which behavior is appropriate and that takes CPU cycles that native rendering doesn't require. So I strongly suspect there is a performance hit and the issue is just how big it is.
I think the value of X11 is dependent on your perspective.
When you have limited client processing capability (as they did at the time of X11's development) it seems reasonable to make networking a core part of UI implementation because you really don't have any choice.
If you have powerful client machines, performing UI operations over a network seems unnecessarily indirect and inefficient. The idea of using a network layer even for a local UI seems really extreme (I don't know enough about the X11 implementation to know how much of a performance hit it creates).
Frankly I don't think we could have gotten to this level of Internet use so soon if Unix was the sole driving force. Early PC's and Mac's provided low-cost platforms that weren't powerful enough to run X11 in any reasonable way. They really bootstrapped the Internet from a client perspective. In the case of the PC, it boostrapped Linux which reinvigorated Unix as well. If we all needed Sun workstations to connect to the Internet, there wouldn't be many people doing it.
The setup takes place on the client side for browser apps when you install and configure the browser. This is a bit like the argument that a Java app is more platform-independent than a 'C' app (but by the way you need to install a platform-dependent JVM to run programs).
Windows apps can be as "network transparent" as browser apps, but yes, like browser apps there has to be something installed on the client machine to make it possible.
He said "Browser apps look better than most Windows apps... with regard to network transparency." Last time I checked browser apps aren't OS's, so yes we are talking about apps, not OS's
"Browser based stuff looks good in comparison to what's generally available for Windows so people assume it is a step forward instead of the step sideways that it appears to be to me."
Browser apps look better than most Windows apps? What are you smoking? X applications are hardly the benchmark for GUI quality either.
It wasn't a fear of competition, it was the fear of not getting paid for your work (unless you see printing somebody's book without paying them a royalty, legitimate competition).
"The advertisers who use Ms. Gellar's image for pimping their products don't give a rat's ass about the revenue model of the medium that gave her stardom."
I never said they did. The point is that she's famous because millions of dollars have been spent directly or indirectly to make it so.
"If, for example, Jolt Cola wanted to pay Star Wars Kid up for commercial appearances, they'd do so solely because he was perceived as a "famous" person that could push a product, in spite of the fact that he's not an actor or earned money elsewhere."
Sure, but the point is they're not hiring him and he's not all that famous to the general public. Perhaps he could do commercials for products targeted to young Star Wars fans (I'll bet 90% of SW fans over 30 have never heard of him).
"Now.... if your point was noting the chicken/egg paradox of migrating to my lame revenue model, then you indeed have a point. Some producer and set of actors would need to risk producing a show "for nothing" in the hopes that they'll reap returns on their investment when the actors become famous and start doing product endorsements. If it worked, then the model could catch on a snowball into a new era media revenue. As with all new ventures, it takes invested money, a plan, and luck/skill."
What you describe is pretty much the way things work now. A producer puts up money and takes a chance that a network or studio will pick up the show and that it will be a hit. You hire cheap unknowns to act in it. If it's a long-term hit the actors start demanding more money and eventually it gets too expensive to make and you quit.
Make no mistake though, you have to have some money to invest at the start or you can't make a quality show.
Well, if the shareholders bought Google stock just before the announcement and sold after the acquisition closed they made about 14% profit. Note that you could have made much, much more money selling "worthless" dot-bomb stocks at the right time in the boom years. Long-term shareholders are going to be angry if the acquisition doesn't actually lead to real profits.
It's typical for companies to be fearful when a new competitor comes along, but the fear is usually unreasonably strong. Remember how brick-and-motar businesses were going to go belly-up because of Internet stores? Remember how thin clients, Java, Lotus Notes, etc were going to wipe out MS? Remember "Push" technology?
In ten years we'll look back at Google and wonder what all the fuss was about.
Sarah Michelle Gellar is paid to do commercials soley because she is well-known through TV and movies that used the old revenue models. How many actors are getting big bucks doing commercials just on the basis of a YouTube video?
Yes, but it's the Linux hotel, not the Linus hotel. It was Linus's idea (borrowing a lot from Unix of course) but he didn't build it by himself and he doesn't own it. Many people have dedicated their life to a project without being able to call all the shots. Linus has been around long enough to know this (and he probably does).
It scores a lot of runs but also leads the industry in strike-outs.
I think that the dot-com dumbness was mostly confined to the SV (except for the investors). At least I didn't see those software developers that were in it only for the money in my area.
I can see your point, but Jobs doesn't, since he believes that most iPod users don't buy their music on iTunes. So if he's right, it's not a problem for most iPod users, if he's wrong, then lock-in is more of an issue than he claims.
To put it bluntly, if Jobs wants the market to decide, then he should let it decide and keep his own mouth shut. The difference between Jobs and Gates on this issue is that Gates isn't pretending that he's putting the "little guy's" interest above his own. To use the cliche, Jobs is talking the talk but not walking the walk.
"To be successful in anything, one needs to know when what you believe in is going to be practical or not. "
Sure, that's a practical POV. It's just not one that is consistent with believing DRM is bad. As I said in a related discussion, nobody forced Apple to open the iTunes store. If Jobs realized that it couldn't be successful without DRM and he really believed DRM was bad, he would have decided against opening the store in the first place. If Jobs was correct when he claimed that only a small percentage of iPod users buy songs from iTunes, the iPod would be a success without iTunes.
His actions are inconsistent with the philosophy he claims to have.
Slashdot Mirror
An equally likely question would be "Why didn't you check the publicly available patents and check to see if you were violating any of them?" More likely, the judge would let the two sides present their cases before asking a lot of questions.
In any case, attempting to resolve an issue like this would usually mean negotiating a license agreement for the patent, not denying a patent infringment occured.
As I've said around here going on 7 times in the last few years, the antitrust case was a civil one, MS hasn't been convicted of anything and the case was light-years away from anybody going to jail.
Just because some group of people say "let us see the proof by May 1st and if you don't provide it, we'll know you're lying" doesn't mean it's true. A patent holder is not required to prove anything unless they want to go to court to fight you, which they can do at their own convenience.
The F/OSS community has their own code and all MS patents are publicly available, so they have all the information they need to determine if they have a patent violation. Of course, it will not be equivalent to a court making that determination, but that would be case if MS revealed their code as well.
There's no evidence that MS stole any code from Linux or any reasonable explanation as to why they'd want to.
That's sounds more plausible than the "just as fast" claim. Of course network communications were much slower at the time X was created than they are today, which is part of the reason I believe that we had to go through a non-network-transparent phase to boostrap Internet clients economically. Whether X is really is the future of Windowing systems beyond Unix/BSD/Linux still remains to be seen.
Again, you have me at a disadvantage, but at a minimum if X11 is performing different processing for local vs. network than it must be determing which behavior is appropriate and that takes CPU cycles that native rendering doesn't require. So I strongly suspect there is a performance hit and the issue is just how big it is.
I think the value of X11 is dependent on your perspective.
When you have limited client processing capability (as they did at the time of X11's development) it seems reasonable to make networking a core part of UI implementation because you really don't have any choice.
If you have powerful client machines, performing UI operations over a network seems unnecessarily indirect and inefficient. The idea of using a network layer even for a local UI seems really extreme (I don't know enough about the X11 implementation to know how much of a performance hit it creates).
Frankly I don't think we could have gotten to this level of Internet use so soon if Unix was the sole driving force. Early PC's and Mac's provided low-cost platforms that weren't powerful enough to run X11 in any reasonable way. They really bootstrapped the Internet from a client perspective. In the case of the PC, it boostrapped Linux which reinvigorated Unix as well. If we all needed Sun workstations to connect to the Internet, there wouldn't be many people doing it.
The setup takes place on the client side for browser apps when you install and configure the browser. This is a bit like the argument that a Java app is more platform-independent than a 'C' app (but by the way you need to install a platform-dependent JVM to run programs).
Windows apps can be as "network transparent" as browser apps, but yes, like browser apps there has to be something installed on the client machine to make it possible.
He said "Browser apps look better than most Windows apps... with regard to network transparency." Last time I checked browser apps aren't OS's, so yes we are talking about apps, not OS's
Only an X11 fan would assume that an unqualified use of the word "look" would have something to do with a network.
Which windows apps "copy the complete user profile between server and client at login/logout"?
"Browser based stuff looks good in comparison to what's generally available for Windows so people assume it is a step forward instead of the step sideways that it appears to be to me."
Browser apps look better than most Windows apps? What are you smoking? X applications are hardly the benchmark for GUI quality either.
these poor third-party vendors would be ready.
It wasn't a fear of competition, it was the fear of not getting paid for your work (unless you see printing somebody's book without paying them a royalty, legitimate competition).
My sarcasm detectors are properly tuned, but my obscure point detectors apparently aren't.
"The advertisers who use Ms. Gellar's image for pimping their products don't give a rat's ass about the revenue model of the medium that gave her stardom."
I never said they did. The point is that she's famous because millions of dollars have been spent directly or indirectly to make it so.
"If, for example, Jolt Cola wanted to pay Star Wars Kid up for commercial appearances, they'd do so solely because he was perceived as a "famous" person that could push a product, in spite of the fact that he's not an actor or earned money elsewhere."
Sure, but the point is they're not hiring him and he's not all that famous to the general public. Perhaps he could do commercials for products targeted to young Star Wars fans (I'll bet 90% of SW fans over 30 have never heard of him).
"Now.... if your point was noting the chicken/egg paradox of migrating to my lame revenue model, then you indeed have a point. Some producer and set of actors would need to risk producing a show "for nothing" in the hopes that they'll reap returns on their investment when the actors become famous and start doing product endorsements. If it worked, then the model could catch on a snowball into a new era media revenue. As with all new ventures, it takes invested money, a plan, and luck/skill."
What you describe is pretty much the way things work now. A producer puts up money and takes a chance that a network or studio will pick up the show and that it will be a hit. You hire cheap unknowns to act in it. If it's a long-term hit the actors start demanding more money and eventually it gets too expensive to make and you quit.
Make no mistake though, you have to have some money to invest at the start or you can't make a quality show.
Well, if the shareholders bought Google stock just before the announcement and sold after the acquisition closed they made about 14% profit. Note that you could have made much, much more money selling "worthless" dot-bomb stocks at the right time in the boom years. Long-term shareholders are going to be angry if the acquisition doesn't actually lead to real profits.
It's typical for companies to be fearful when a new competitor comes along, but the fear is usually unreasonably strong. Remember how brick-and-motar businesses were going to go belly-up because of Internet stores? Remember how thin clients, Java, Lotus Notes, etc were going to wipe out MS? Remember "Push" technology?
In ten years we'll look back at Google and wonder what all the fuss was about.
Sarah Michelle Gellar is paid to do commercials soley because she is well-known through TV and movies that used the old revenue models. How many actors are getting big bucks doing commercials just on the basis of a YouTube video?
Yes, but it's the Linux hotel, not the Linus hotel. It was Linus's idea (borrowing a lot from Unix of course) but he didn't build it by himself and he doesn't own it. Many people have dedicated their life to a project without being able to call all the shots. Linus has been around long enough to know this (and he probably does).
"First off, nice touchy feely people get nothing done"
Right! Well, at least that's what all the assholes say.
It scores a lot of runs but also leads the industry in strike-outs.
I think that the dot-com dumbness was mostly confined to the SV (except for the investors). At least I didn't see those software developers that were in it only for the money in my area.
he said that most of the music played on the iPod wasn't purchased legitimately on iTunes.
I can see your point, but Jobs doesn't, since he believes that most iPod users don't buy their music on iTunes. So if he's right, it's not a problem for most iPod users, if he's wrong, then lock-in is more of an issue than he claims.
To put it bluntly, if Jobs wants the market to decide, then he should let it decide and keep his own mouth shut. The difference between Jobs and Gates on this issue is that Gates isn't pretending that he's putting the "little guy's" interest above his own. To use the cliche, Jobs is talking the talk but not walking the walk.
"To be successful in anything, one needs to know when what you believe in is going to be practical or not. "
Sure, that's a practical POV. It's just not one that is consistent with believing DRM is bad. As I said in a related discussion, nobody forced Apple to open the iTunes store. If Jobs realized that it couldn't be successful without DRM and he really believed DRM was bad, he would have decided against opening the store in the first place. If Jobs was correct when he claimed that only a small percentage of iPod users buy songs from iTunes, the iPod would be a success without iTunes.
His actions are inconsistent with the philosophy he claims to have.