On the other hand, it's pretty clear that Jackson had already made up his mind early on what the facts were. Another judge handling the trial "by the book", might have come up with a different set of facts. Overall, I'd say that Jackson did more to drown MS than to save it.
On appeal, Jackson was actually given a lot of deference on his findings which is the cultural norm for courts of appeal. It was that same cultural norm that made it unlikely that the settlement would be overturned.
So, According to your definition, the Consumer Electronics Show must be where they display all the new business equipment. The Consumer Price Index must include the cost of business equipment. Need I continue?
But will it actually increase competition? By removing features from Windows there will be less pressure on competitors to add new features or lower prices.
At one time it was believed that if IE became the dominant web browser, MS would dominate the web. That never happened. Punishing a market leader doesn't always result in greater competition.
First, your definition of "consumer" is wrong. You are merely acting on behalf of the company you work for, so the relationship is business to business.
Second, as a customer of server products, your company may or may not benefit from the sanctions.
This isn't about the consumer vs. Big Business. It's about Big Businesses like Sun that want to maintain their server share over a Bigger Business (but smaller in the server market) MS.
If, in the end, the sanctions are upheld, it's pure speculation that it will help consumers (AKA lusers at Slashdot) in any way.
Since when has the acronym FUD been used on Slashdot for its original meaning: a description of IBM's sales approach? These days it's more likely to be used as a synonym for propaganda.
Perhaps what you don't understand is that most software development is not about hacking, it's about business. If you want to be successful you should use the best tool for the job. Sometimes the best tool is not the politically correct one. If you just program as a hobby, use whatever you like.
"And you're right about the breed of programmer. I've met enough people who picked up a book on VB, learned a thing or two and think they should be earning 60K+/year because they now understand Computer Science."
I guess you're talking about would-be VB programmers. Few companies hire people (at any salary) to program in a particular language unless they have actual working experience in that language or are a recent CS graduate. This is no less true for VB than it is for C++, Java, Perl or any other computer language. Those who merely learned from a book need not apply.
I assume that you are not one of the Linux users who want to bring MS down and you don't care if Linux supercedes Windows. That would be consistent with your desire for Linux to remain powerful rather then simple.
On the other hand, some people preach the gospel of Linux and those people will have to give something up if they want the world to embrace it.
Perhaps you are correct, but it's hard to imagine that anyone expects to become a "renaissance man" by earning a CS degree.
Only students from the richest families can afford to attend college strictly on the basis of personal enrichment and most colleges would be out of business if those were the only students who attended.
One definition would be non-academic. The point is that college prepares you for the working world, it isn't equivalent to it. So your degrees demonstrate that you've at least met the minimum requirements to graduate, but they don't prove you will succeed in the business world.
I see your point, but I imagine that even for Type 2's there are some significant differences between the academic and commercial worlds.
As for type 1, I've seen many people with advanced degrees perform implementations as well as research. Many BSCS require 2 years of calculus, 1 year of physics and 1 year of chemistry. I'm sure PHD's take even more advanced classes, but it's not as if the BS degree is mathless.
My comment was in the context of CS (which is google's main area of interest), so it might not apply as well to a research scientist.
I think in the CS world there are a number of differences one of which is the idea of maintance or extendability. You may write a thesis or a create a project, but once you graduate neither you nor anyone else has to deal with it again.
Although there may be people that have to approve of your work, you don't really have customers in the traditional sense.
I think there are some differences. In the OSS case, you're not obligated to pay money or even provide your copyrighted material to the trademark holder, and you don't even have to notify them of who you are or your intent to distribute or modify their product. Since the possiblity of product confusion is very much higher than in a typical scenario, a court might determine that the trademark holder hasn't met the minimum standards to retain the trademark.
This is all speculation, of course, and I don't think anyone has attempted to defend themselves from a trademark violation by using this argument.
Since trademark law never anticipated something like the GPL, a trademark might be difficult to enforce in that context. By granting a license for anyone to redistribute and possibly modify the product, it might be difficult to convince a court that you took reasonable steps to protect your trademark.
For example, Xerox has placed advertisements in writer's magazines asking writers to refrain from using Xerox as a verb and reminding them that Xerox is a trademark. They did this primarily to create evidence that they were taking steps to protect their trademark.
I'm not sure what you are saying is entirely correct. Although Linus has control over his tree (which everyone agrees is the main one), that doesn't necessarily mean that other people can't modify Linux and still use the name Linux. Is there not even a single line of code in Red Hat's distro, for example, that doesn't appear in Linus's? If there isn't, Red Hat is adding even less value than I imagined.
I'm not an expert on such things. Perhaps it depends on the definition of "fork". For example, aren't all the commercial Linux distros a bit different?
My point was that if one of the key features of Open Source is that anybody can extend it, it seems that being unable to refer to the improved version by its orginal name greatly undermines that feature.
In addition, I don't understand how you could comply with the GPL if you distribute a derivative work that you can't identify by name. It looks like there may be a fundamental conflict between trademarks and copyrights in the context of the GPL.
The taglines for Slashdot are "News for Nerds" and "Stuff that matters". I don't see any guarantees that the site is going to be pro-linux although the staff clearly leans in that direction.
The fact that there are MS ads on Slashdot may have more to do with the viability of open source companies then it does with the purity of Slashdot and its corporate handler.
In other words, you could write a better Java, but you know you can't call it Java so nobody will use it so you won't bother to write it in the first place. Explain again how this trademark-restricted open source scenario is better than the way things are now.
Slashdot Mirror
reality-distortion field capability?
On the other hand, it's pretty clear that Jackson had already made up his mind early on what the facts were. Another judge handling the trial "by the book", might have come up with a different set of facts. Overall, I'd say that Jackson did more to drown MS than to save it.
On appeal, Jackson was actually given a lot of deference on his findings which is the cultural norm for courts of appeal. It was that same cultural norm that made it unlikely that the settlement would be overturned.
I agree with you, but to go even further:
The Honda problem didn't require any deliberate evil intent on the part of a third party to create it, but exploiting the OS vulnerability did.
So, According to your definition, the Consumer Electronics Show must be where they display all the new business equipment. The Consumer Price Index must include the cost of business equipment. Need I continue?
But will it actually increase competition? By removing features from Windows there will be less pressure on competitors to add new features or lower prices.
At one time it was believed that if IE became the dominant web browser, MS would dominate the web. That never happened. Punishing a market leader doesn't always result in greater competition.
Two points.
First, your definition of "consumer" is wrong. You are merely acting on behalf of the company you work for, so the relationship is business to business.
Second, as a customer of server products, your company may or may not benefit from the sanctions.
This isn't about the consumer vs. Big Business. It's about Big Businesses like Sun that want to maintain their server share over a Bigger Business (but smaller in the server market) MS.
If, in the end, the sanctions are upheld, it's pure speculation that it will help consumers (AKA lusers at Slashdot) in any way.
Since when has the acronym FUD been used on Slashdot for its original meaning: a description of IBM's sales approach? These days it's more likely to be used as a synonym for propaganda.
"It is only relatively very recently that MS put out a server that did not have to be re-booted every 24 hours!"
Relatively very recently = 1993 (Windows NT 3.1).
Perhaps what you don't understand is that most software development is not about hacking, it's about business. If you want to be successful you should use the best tool for the job. Sometimes the best tool is not the politically correct one. If you just program as a hobby, use whatever you like.
"And you're right about the breed of programmer. I've met enough people who picked up a book on VB, learned a thing or two and think they should be earning 60K+/year because they now understand Computer Science."
I guess you're talking about would-be VB programmers. Few companies hire people (at any salary) to program in a particular language unless they have actual working experience in that language or are a recent CS graduate. This is no less true for VB than it is for C++, Java, Perl or any other computer language. Those who merely learned from a book need not apply.
I didn't know that any programmers accompany VB. I didn't find them in the box.
Seriously, though, this is really about elitism. What's important is the quality of the result, not the language used.
I assume that you are not one of the Linux users who want to bring MS down and you don't care if Linux supercedes Windows. That would be consistent with your desire for Linux to remain powerful rather then simple.
On the other hand, some people preach the gospel of Linux and those people will have to give something up if they want the world to embrace it.
Perhaps you are correct, but it's hard to imagine that anyone expects to become a "renaissance man" by earning a CS degree.
Only students from the richest families can afford to attend college strictly on the basis of personal enrichment and most colleges would be out of business if those were the only students who attended.
One definition would be non-academic. The point is that college prepares you for the working world, it isn't equivalent to it. So your degrees demonstrate that you've at least met the minimum requirements to graduate, but they don't prove you will succeed in the business world.
I see your point, but I imagine that even for Type 2's there are some significant differences between the academic and commercial worlds.
As for type 1, I've seen many people with advanced degrees perform implementations as well as research. Many BSCS require 2 years of calculus, 1 year of physics and 1 year of chemistry. I'm sure PHD's take even more advanced classes, but it's not as if the BS degree is mathless.
My comment was in the context of CS (which is google's main area of interest), so it might not apply as well to a research scientist.
I think in the CS world there are a number of differences one of which is the idea of maintance or extendability. You may write a thesis or a create a project, but once you graduate neither you nor anyone else has to deal with it again.
Although there may be people that have to approve of your work, you don't really have customers in the traditional sense.
Regardless of what degree (if any) you earn, your ability to perform in the real world can't be demonstrated until you've worked in it.
I think there are some differences. In the OSS case, you're not obligated to pay money or even provide your copyrighted material to the trademark holder, and you don't even have to notify them of who you are or your intent to distribute or modify their product. Since the possiblity of product confusion is very much higher than in a typical scenario, a court might determine that the trademark holder hasn't met the minimum standards to retain the trademark.
This is all speculation, of course, and I don't think anyone has attempted to defend themselves from a trademark violation by using this argument.
Since trademark law never anticipated something like the GPL, a trademark might be difficult to enforce in that context. By granting a license for anyone to redistribute and possibly modify the product, it might be difficult to convince a court that you took reasonable steps to protect your trademark.
For example, Xerox has placed advertisements in writer's magazines asking writers to refrain from using Xerox as a verb and reminding them that Xerox is a trademark. They did this primarily to create evidence that they were taking steps to protect their trademark.
I'm not sure what you are saying is entirely correct. Although Linus has control over his tree (which everyone agrees is the main one), that doesn't necessarily mean that other people can't modify Linux and still use the name Linux. Is there not even a single line of code in Red Hat's distro, for example, that doesn't appear in Linus's? If there isn't, Red Hat is adding even less value than I imagined.
I'm not an expert on such things. Perhaps it depends on the definition of "fork". For example, aren't all the commercial Linux distros a bit different?
My point was that if one of the key features of Open Source is that anybody can extend it, it seems that being unable to refer to the improved version by its orginal name greatly undermines that feature.
In addition, I don't understand how you could comply with the GPL if you distribute a derivative work that you can't identify by name. It looks like there may be a fundamental conflict between trademarks and copyrights in the context of the GPL.
The taglines for Slashdot are "News for Nerds" and "Stuff that matters". I don't see any guarantees that the site is going to be pro-linux although the staff clearly leans in that direction.
The fact that there are MS ads on Slashdot may have more to do with the viability of open source companies then it does with the purity of Slashdot and its corporate handler.
The accountant should have said "Do you realize how many fewer accountants my company will need??
Then he'd really have a reason to shake.
In other words, you could write a better Java, but you know you can't call it Java so nobody will use it so you won't bother to write it in the first place. Explain again how this trademark-restricted open source scenario is better than the way things are now.