In a classic HBR (Harvard Business Review) article back in the early 90s, the domination of the computer industry by Microsoft and Intel was predicted.
The foundation of this article was the position that control of a lower layer in the stack allowed you to extract significnatly more revenue higher up in the stack. Microsoft by controlling the OS could extract revenue for applications; Intel by controlling the processor could extract revenue for support chips and logic boards.
This has turned out to be a "law" and has worked to the advantage of both these companies.
It now looks like Apple is working to grab the "Music Sales and Distribution" layer, and it looks like this will allow them to extract revenues they previously were not able to get.
Interesting...gives hope for Apple down the road...
My observations below come from my experience managing a distributed software engineering organization with presence in San Jose, CA and Delhi, India. I have a total of about 25 people working for me with have in the US and have in India (think of that poor guy who is split between the two countries - that must be me with all of my travel between the two!).
Let's face it will swing back to balance over time.
Right now, there is an incredible head-count cost advantage to moving a project to India, with many companies doing. The drive to offshore to India is driving demand there heavily. It is difficult to hire quality people, wages are going up quickly, people are jumping between companies, and it is much like things were in Silicon Valley during the bubble years.
What we will see, is that the head-count cost advantage, over time, will narrow and the other costs of going off-shore will come into play (coordination, latency, frequent travel, etc.). As this happens people will become more and more selective about what goes and what stays.
In the long-term, I think "offshore outsourcing" will fade to a degree, while "internal offshoring" (building distributed development teams within your company. I believe that the trend towards distributed deveopment organizations that take advantage of cost differntials and cherry pick the best talent in various geographies (as hard as it might be to believe, not everyone wants to live in Silicon Valley or the US for that matter, I have an excellent manager, with US Citizenship, orginally from India who moved back) will continue and accelerate.
What does this mean for us in the US? It means that we will have to go up the "software value stack" and work at a higher level. If a task can be done somewhere else for less cost, it wll be. This mans that we have to be constantly working to be at the cutting edge and have the breadth and depth to add significant value and coordinate project in these distributed teams. In a sense we each have to take the role in our projects that Linus has in driving the development of Linux.
If it is any comfort, realize that we aren't the only ones feeling threatened. My friends in India are all worried and looking over their shoulders at places like China, Vietnam, Ukraine, etc. wondering how they will move to higher and higher value-add activities over time.
The thrust of an anti-trust action is that it has or will harm consumers. If you get down the road and it can be demonstrated that consumers aren't harmed, then there is little need to seek a remedy.
Remember that unlike theft - the grounds on which Napster, et al have been pursued - anti-trust is a civil, not crimanl action.
The goal of our anti-trust laws are to insure that consumers are not harmed by anti-competitive behavior on the part of businesses. If there is no harm, then there is no foul.
As a civil action, the goal of anti-trust enforcement is to seek a remedy that will generate competition and will protect consumers from anti-competitive behavior.
In this case, the DOJ is simply saying, "At this point in time there is no evidence of lack of choice or anti-competitive behavior (though that might not have been the case when we started). Therefore, there is no need for a remedy at this point in time.
To be clear, the DOJ isn't saying that they didn't attempt to engage in anti-competitive behavior, rather, that there is no evidence that consumers have been or are being harmed. Remember, "No harm, no foul!"
I wuold agree with the parent post that reviewing slashdot (though not for five hours as the grandparent post "suggested") on a daily basis is a good thing. That it shows that you are tracking the risks and threats in the environment at large.
I have to say that I agree strongly with this position. If they identified him as a security vunerability, and did so with mailice and an intent to profit, then they have done him harm (known in legalise as a "tort") and he does have ground against them.
That said, he probably doesn't have grounds against the employer (though if he is in California, with its loosey/goosey definition of "at will", he is sure to find someone to take his case).
I would have him contact an attorney who specialize in employment law in his state (contact the local bar association for a referral).
I would then put together a very clear and concise summary of his involvment in the situation starting from the begining and running through to the end. Start with his hiring and running through to his termination. Put dates, summary titles, and then details. Be dispassionate. If there are any warts (do you gamble, drink to excess, use controlled substances, surf porn sites at work, in heavy debt, previous convictions, etc.) be honest about them.
This summary of your situation would be the backbone of any suit. I would send this to the attorney prior to meeting with them with a note saying, "please review and then lets meet for you to ask me questions of clarification and to discuss the chances of this proposed action."
The author of the parent post is correct: once you get into a suit, you will be able to get into discovery and will be able to ask for the report, any communications related to the report, commmunications related to yourself, etc. This would be a potential goldmine.
It wasn't on a bet or dare from Robert Anson Heinlein. It was in response to a comment from John W. Campbell - the Editor of Astounding/Analog - and it well documented in his correspondence, copyrighted by Campbell - not Hubbard, which is why we have it.
Actually, the key chain was part of the Apple Open Collaboration Environment (AOCE), which was brought to market in 1995 at part of Mac OS 7.5 (codename Capone).
Let's think about this for a moment and puzzle out why Apple might be willing to have iTunes Music Service be a loss leader right now.
Now, most folks thinks this is so that they can sell iPods. And while I think this is probably part of the reason, I think there are other reasons.
In fact, it could be argued that the zero margins on iTunes Music Service and the margins on iPods are part of a long-term investment in an even bigger business.
And what might that long-term investment be?
Think about this: currently the RIAA are the gatekeepers to the great libraries of music. They have the talent and content that matters under their control If you are going to get to the music which drives traffic and deals, you have to cut the RIAA in for a piece of the action.
But the RIAA is caught in the fantasy of maintaining a business model which is broken and won't settle for a piece of the action which is less than what they are getting now.
So, you have to make a deal with the devil. You have to give the RIAA a deal which is economically unsatistactory in order to get any deal whatsoever.
Of course, if you have another source of revenue with decent margins, this isn't really all that bad for you. You can give away the blades in order to sell the razors and to establish yourself as the defacto standard. Sound familiar? And you are able to do this without losing money in the process.
Of course, the next time Metallica's or Sting's or Byonce's contracts are up for renewal if they have a savvy business manager, they are going to look at their sales distribution and maybe notice the fact that they are paying a lot to the RIAA to essentially collect a check from Apple, cash it, and then write a check to the artist in question.
How long do you think it will be until some major name breaks ranks and decides to negotiate a contract that cuts the RIAA out of this portion of the distribution scheme and then cut a deal between themselves and Apple?
Once a single name does it, they dam will be broken and the flood will start. Apple will be able to increase the major it gets on each iTune sales and the artists will be able to increase their cut of each song. It will be a win-win proposition for the Artists and Apple, and the RIAA will quickly be relegated the position of being the CD distribution business.
In this play, Apple, the Artists, and the Consumers win, and the RIAA and Microsoft lose. Makes you understand why Microsoft has been attacking iTunes for Windows and the iPod so strongly...
Open Source isn't the only way to have solved this problem. A simple thing called a source code escrow would have solved this problem. If this had existed, with the term that if company goes out of business or is otherwise unable or unwilling to fullfill it contractual obligations or have them fullfilled by a successor within 30 days, the escrow is broken, everything would have been fine.
Of course, if you are a carpenter, ever tool is hammer and the world is filled with nails; and if you are an Open Source zealot, then all problems can be solved by Open Source.
Don't get me wrong. I like Open Source in many situations. But it isn't the solution to each an every problem on the planet.
It also depends on your life situation and priorities.
I have a wife and three children. If we need to call 911, I want to know that 1) the call will go through, 2) it will be answered in seconds not minutes (in California all 911 calls go to the California Highway Patrol which can take as much as 15 minutes to answer), and 3) they will know where to find me at once.
Cell phones, VOIP, etc., don't cut it. When your life is on the line give me POTS on the PSTN.
I have Cingular. The reception at home is crap. And the reality is that wireless doesn't have the reliabity and robustness of the landline setup we have built in this country.
As I noted in another posting in this discussion, after the 1989 earthquake, the first service that came back for me was my phone. I didn't have power, but I had a phone.
I want the reliability of the landline phone infrastructure in the US, but I want a better pricing plan and more respectful customer service.
You and your comrades have my thanks. People don't realize what a marvel and gift we have in the telecommunications grid. It is fantastic!
Yes, you deliver much better than 5 9's reliabiilty throughout all kinds of problems. The first thing which came back after the Loma Preita earthquake in 1989 was my local phone service. I couldn't see (my power was out), but I could call and talk to friends within hours of the earthquake.
The local phone guys - and the people that designed this system - are my heros!
I don't loath the phone company, because I have to pay them every month. I loath the poor service I get from them sometimes, but the reality is that it is better than what I get from my ISP.
the reality is that I will be paying someone for access and bandwidth. The question is, who?
If you compare what VOIP gives me vs. POTS, POTs wins hands-down in relieabiilty, quality, and availability.
Now, I do like what VOIP an POTS competition are doing to POTS pricing. What I want is a plan that offers me a flat-rate pricing plan with a big number of minutes to whereever I call. Charge me $50.00 a month for 1,000 anytime, anywhere minutes and you will have my business.
As far as I can see, there isn't a "Great Firewall of China". I am staying at the "The China Hotel by Marriott" in Guangzhou. A Chinese hotel which is managed by Marriott. It has Western and Chinese guests, and the ADSL service (which is a bit less of a broadband than I would like) is provided by a local Chinese company.
I have hit a wide range of sites from Slashdot, to News.COM, to the NY Times, to WSJ, etc. I haven't tried to hit sites that I know would be no-nos, but I have yet to be blocked.
But then maybe, the Chinese government in its guest to build up Open Source systems is giving full and free access to "Slashdot". I can just see it: Slashdot, read it - just like the Chinese Government!
The adoption is going well. We head in for our physical this morning. She is a beautiful little girl. Quite intelligent and interested in the world. I think she will get along with her two older brothers just fine!
Well, I have to go and give her a bath and get her ready for our group breakfast.
This is Jordan Dea-Mattson, broadcasting from Guangzhou China! Signing off now!
Hey, I am willing to beat up on Microsoft as much as the next citizen of slashdot city, but let's be fair here. A lot of the problems that are hitting people are due to people not applying the patches that are available.
I use both Mac OS X and Windows XP. On both systems, I use the software update mechanisms and religously apply the patches that are made available. On Windows I also have a virus protection utility in place. I have never once been caught with my pants down by a worm, virus, trojan horse, etc. And to answer the question of this out there that are already preparing to ask it, I have also never had my system "broken" by a patch.
So my respone, is that people shouldn "Just Apply The Damn Patches".
Jordan Dea-Mattson
Posting from China, where I am to adopt my daughter! Back to the US in a week!
While this is a good step in the right direction, it isn't really driving up the cost.
If DirectTV knew that if it sued people and lost, that they would be paying both their legal expenses plus those of the people they sued, they might be a little less willing to file lawsuits.
This is why I strongly support and advocate a transition to what is called the "British system" or "loser pays" in the US. Many, many litigants are engaging in "litigation extorition". They file a lawsuit at little - or no cost, if they are a indigant plantiff, make a demand that is less than fighting the suit, and wait for people to rollover and pay.
Of course, if judges were more willing to dismiss groundless lawsuits via summary judgment and penalize those that file such lawsuits, this wouldn't be necessary.
As I noted in another discussion, the problem is that this litigation is too damn cheap. It is like SPAM, in htat it costs the relatively nothing to file these lawsuits, but costs those that have to respond a lot to respond. Even if you win, you end up owing. So, what do you do? If you are "wise" you fold. And they can cite another win against a nasty pirate.
Now, if we were in an English-style, "loser pays", system then we would be able to fight this, win, and stick the bill to DirectTV. You can bet that if they faced the cost of fighting these suits on both sides, that they would quickly reevaluate their strategy.
So, my solution to two major problems (obnoxious litigation and SPAM) is to simple: increase the cost to initating the activity!
Another note, in case you don't know, an easement means that we and they both have legal access to the property at any time for any reason (that is how zero-lot lines work in California). Letting them know what we were doing was a courtesy.
What is interesting to me, is that the attorney should have known this and should have advised them that they didn't have a leg to stand upon. What they wanted us to do, was give them the name of our insurance company, with the hope that the insurance company would settle rather than go for the cost of litigation. I bet you that they carefully calculated the amount ($1,500) to find a saddle-point on settlement vs. litigation.
Of course, they didn't count on us increasing the cost of their "spam". The second we did, they backed down. The lesson here, for both litigation and spam control, is to increase the cost of asocial behavior. The courts and the Internet are a commons. The costs of abusing them are borne by all of us, with those doing the abusing getting a free ride.
Actually, we tried that. We went over a 1/2 dozen times (in the morning and early evening) to no avail prior to giving them something in writing. And the note we gave them was handwritten with a nice ps inviting them to join us for a nice Chinese dinner after things were completed. We tried to be highly civil and interact with them. They are the folks that called the police and tried to cite us with trespassing (at which the police officer essentially laughed at). They were the folks that didn't respond to our attempt to follow-up on the call to the police and then dropped an extoration letter in our lap.
This one is easily enough dealt with by a slight amendment to the DCMA.
What we have to due, is to introduce a requirement that any "violation notices" be based on a reasonable belief that IP is being infringed and then make the complaining party responsible for any legal expenses on the part of the accused party for an unreasonable violation notice.
It would be a bit like the British, loser pays system, that forces a party realy consider the strength of their case prior to bringing it or defending it at all costs. It helps prevent the kind of "litigation extorition" that we see all the times in the states.
A great example of "litigation extorition" happened to me and my wife shortly after we got married. We decided to install a gas stove (you need that for good Chinese cooking) and needed a gas line to do so. To install the gas line we needed access to the easement inside our neighbors yard (zero lot line). We requested it in writing heard nothing. Assuming that silence implies consent - an old Common Law Legal concept - we went forward with accessing the easement. The day of the installation in the evening a police officer shows up on our doorstep, after getting my wife's version of events he stated, "there is nothing here!" A week later we got a letter from an attorney from our neighbor asking for $1,000 or the name of our insurance company to "resolve this matter".
Well, my wife is a supervising paralegal and I am someone who has read a lot of law. We knew a shake down when we say it. So, we put together a little package (12 exhibits in total) informing them that we were willing to drop this matter at this point, but if they pursued it further that we would be counter-suing. We also dropped a line on the State Bar Association Office of Professional Conduct about this attorney. A few days later we got a note that the attorney in question was no longer representing this client and to forward any and all communications to our neighbor (a breach of Legal ethics, which we sent onto the Office of Professional Conduct).
The bottom line, needless litigation is like Spam: if we increase the cost just a little, it will dramatically reduce it. The problem is that in the US Legal system is doesn't (if you are in the right financial situation) cost you anything but your time and energy to force people to spend money responding to you. If we make people pay some of the cost of litigation.
Very few (if any) of the products from Casady & Greene were owned by C & G. C & G was a publisher and only had publishing rights. The copyrights were in general held by the respective authors.
In the case of Glider, the author was not an employee of C & G, but rather used them as a publisher. I don't know his contract, but if it was like the one I had for my book, it states that if the publisher ceases to publish the work in question, that the publication rights revert back to me (as the copyright holder) and I can do with it as a will.
Slashdot Mirror
In a classic HBR (Harvard Business Review) article back in the early 90s, the domination of the computer industry by Microsoft and Intel was predicted.
The foundation of this article was the position that control of a lower layer in the stack allowed you to extract significnatly more revenue higher up in the stack. Microsoft by controlling the OS could extract revenue for applications; Intel by controlling the processor could extract revenue for support chips and logic boards.
This has turned out to be a "law" and has worked to the advantage of both these companies.
It now looks like Apple is working to grab the "Music Sales and Distribution" layer, and it looks like this will allow them to extract revenues they previously were not able to get.
Interesting...gives hope for Apple down the road...
Yours,
Jordan
PS. Love my iPod!
My observations below come from my experience managing a distributed software engineering organization with presence in San Jose, CA and Delhi, India. I have a total of about 25 people working for me with have in the US and have in India (think of that poor guy who is split between the two countries - that must be me with all of my travel between the two!).
Let's face it will swing back to balance over time.
Right now, there is an incredible head-count cost advantage to moving a project to India, with many companies doing. The drive to offshore to India is driving demand there heavily. It is difficult to hire quality people, wages are going up quickly, people are jumping between companies, and it is much like things were in Silicon Valley during the bubble years.
What we will see, is that the head-count cost advantage, over time, will narrow and the other costs of going off-shore will come into play (coordination, latency, frequent travel, etc.). As this happens people will become more and more selective about what goes and what stays.
In the long-term, I think "offshore outsourcing" will fade to a degree, while "internal offshoring" (building distributed development teams within your company. I believe that the trend towards distributed deveopment organizations that take advantage of cost differntials and cherry pick the best talent in various geographies (as hard as it might be to believe, not everyone wants to live in Silicon Valley or the US for that matter, I have an excellent manager, with US Citizenship, orginally from India who moved back) will continue and accelerate.
What does this mean for us in the US? It means that we will have to go up the "software value stack" and work at a higher level. If a task can be done somewhere else for less cost, it wll be. This mans that we have to be constantly working to be at the cutting edge and have the breadth and depth to add significant value and coordinate project in these distributed teams. In a sense we each have to take the role in our projects that Linus has in driving the development of Linux.
If it is any comfort, realize that we aren't the only ones feeling threatened. My friends in India are all worried and looking over their shoulders at places like China, Vietnam, Ukraine, etc. wondering how they will move to higher and higher value-add activities over time.
You are correct. I should have said "largely a civil action".
Yes, but US criminal anti-trust is more often than not pursued. It is the civil actions that are largerly what is pursued.
Why you might ask? Because it is easier to complete a civil action vs. a criminal action.
A civil action is held to the "preponderence of evidence" standard, while a criminal action faces the much stiffer "beyond a reasonable doubt."
This is the same reason why Law Enforcement prefers the drug seizure laws, a civil action, vs. trying to get a criminal conviction.
Actually, it isn't a "crock of crap".
The thrust of an anti-trust action is that it has or will harm consumers. If you get down the road and it can be demonstrated that consumers aren't harmed, then there is little need to seek a remedy.
Remember that unlike theft - the grounds on which Napster, et al have been pursued - anti-trust is a civil, not crimanl action.
The goal of our anti-trust laws are to insure that consumers are not harmed by anti-competitive behavior on the part of businesses. If there is no harm, then there is no foul.
As a civil action, the goal of anti-trust enforcement is to seek a remedy that will generate competition and will protect consumers from anti-competitive behavior.
In this case, the DOJ is simply saying, "At this point in time there is no evidence of lack of choice or anti-competitive behavior (though that might not have been the case when we started). Therefore, there is no need for a remedy at this point in time.
To be clear, the DOJ isn't saying that they didn't attempt to engage in anti-competitive behavior, rather, that there is no evidence that consumers have been or are being harmed. Remember, "No harm, no foul!"
I wuold agree with the parent post that reviewing slashdot (though not for five hours as the grandparent post "suggested") on a daily basis is a good thing. That it shows that you are tracking the risks and threats in the environment at large.
I have to say that I agree strongly with this position. If they identified him as a security vunerability, and did so with mailice and an intent to profit, then they have done him harm (known in legalise as a "tort") and he does have ground against them.
That said, he probably doesn't have grounds against the employer (though if he is in California, with its loosey/goosey definition of "at will", he is sure to find someone to take his case).
I would have him contact an attorney who specialize in employment law in his state (contact the local bar association for a referral).
I would then put together a very clear and concise summary of his involvment in the situation starting from the begining and running through to the end. Start with his hiring and running through to his termination. Put dates, summary titles, and then details. Be dispassionate. If there are any warts (do you gamble, drink to excess, use controlled substances, surf porn sites at work, in heavy debt, previous convictions, etc.) be honest about them.
This summary of your situation would be the backbone of any suit. I would send this to the attorney prior to meeting with them with a note saying, "please review and then lets meet for you to ask me questions of clarification and to discuss the chances of this proposed action."
The author of the parent post is correct: once you get into a suit, you will be able to get into discovery and will be able to ask for the report, any communications related to the report, commmunications related to yourself, etc. This would be a potential goldmine.
It wasn't on a bet or dare from Robert Anson Heinlein. It was in response to a comment from John W. Campbell - the Editor of Astounding/Analog - and it well documented in his correspondence, copyrighted by Campbell - not Hubbard, which is why we have it.
Yours,
Jordan Dea-Mattson
I don't know how anyone can call this parent link "Informative" or in any way appropriate.
I clicked on it expecting to be taken to something germaine to this discussion, and ended up wanting to throw up at what came across my screen.
If I still had my mod points from this morning, I would mod this down by -2 for disgusting and unhelpful and troll.
Actually, the key chain was part of the Apple Open Collaboration Environment (AOCE), which was brought to market in 1995 at part of Mac OS 7.5 (codename Capone).
Yours,
Jordan Dea-Mattson
Well, I can think of a couple of other pieces of prior art:
1. Mac OS keychain
This one goes back to Mac OS 7.5 (circa 1994-95). It has all of the functionality described in this high-level description.
2. Quicken Vault
Don't know how long it has been around, but it sure sounds like it provides this functionality to me.
Yours,
Jordan Dea-Mattson
Let's think about this for a moment and puzzle out why Apple might be willing to have iTunes Music Service be a loss leader right now.
Now, most folks thinks this is so that they can sell iPods. And while I think this is probably part of the reason, I think there are other reasons.
In fact, it could be argued that the zero margins on iTunes Music Service and the margins on iPods are part of a long-term investment in an even bigger business.
And what might that long-term investment be?
Think about this: currently the RIAA are the gatekeepers to the great libraries of music. They have the talent and content that matters under their control If you are going to get to the music which drives traffic and deals, you have to cut the RIAA in for a piece of the action.
But the RIAA is caught in the fantasy of maintaining a business model which is broken and won't settle for a piece of the action which is less than what they are getting now.
So, you have to make a deal with the devil. You have to give the RIAA a deal which is economically unsatistactory in order to get any deal whatsoever.
Of course, if you have another source of revenue with decent margins, this isn't really all that bad for you. You can give away the blades in order to sell the razors and to establish yourself as the defacto standard. Sound familiar? And you are able to do this without losing money in the process.
Of course, the next time Metallica's or Sting's or Byonce's contracts are up for renewal if they have a savvy business manager, they are going to look at their sales distribution and maybe notice the fact that they are paying a lot to the RIAA to essentially collect a check from Apple, cash it, and then write a check to the artist in question.
How long do you think it will be until some major name breaks ranks and decides to negotiate a contract that cuts the RIAA out of this portion of the distribution scheme and then cut a deal between themselves and Apple?
Once a single name does it, they dam will be broken and the flood will start. Apple will be able to increase the major it gets on each iTune sales and the artists will be able to increase their cut of each song. It will be a win-win proposition for the Artists and Apple, and the RIAA will quickly be relegated the position of being the CD distribution business.
In this play, Apple, the Artists, and the Consumers win, and the RIAA and Microsoft lose. Makes you understand why Microsoft has been attacking iTunes for Windows and the iPod so strongly...
Yours,
Jordan Dea-Mattson
Open Source isn't the only way to have solved this problem. A simple thing called a source code escrow would have solved this problem. If this had existed, with the term that if company goes out of business or is otherwise unable or unwilling to fullfill it contractual obligations or have them fullfilled by a successor within 30 days, the escrow is broken, everything would have been fine.
Of course, if you are a carpenter, ever tool is hammer and the world is filled with nails; and if you are an Open Source zealot, then all problems can be solved by Open Source.
Don't get me wrong. I like Open Source in many situations. But it isn't the solution to each an every problem on the planet.
Yours,
Jordan Dea-Mattson
It also depends on your life situation and priorities.
I have a wife and three children. If we need to call 911, I want to know that 1) the call will go through, 2) it will be answered in seconds not minutes (in California all 911 calls go to the California Highway Patrol which can take as much as 15 minutes to answer), and 3) they will know where to find me at once.
Cell phones, VOIP, etc., don't cut it. When your life is on the line give me POTS on the PSTN.
Yours,
Jordan Dea-Mattson
I have Cingular. The reception at home is crap. And the reality is that wireless doesn't have the reliabity and robustness of the landline setup we have built in this country.
As I noted in another posting in this discussion, after the 1989 earthquake, the first service that came back for me was my phone. I didn't have power, but I had a phone.
I want the reliability of the landline phone infrastructure in the US, but I want a better pricing plan and more respectful customer service.
Yours,
Jordan Dea-Mattson
Hey KD7JZ -
You and your comrades have my thanks. People don't realize what a marvel and gift we have in the telecommunications grid. It is fantastic!
Yes, you deliver much better than 5 9's reliabiilty throughout all kinds of problems. The first thing which came back after the Loma Preita earthquake in 1989 was my local phone service. I couldn't see (my power was out), but I could call and talk to friends within hours of the earthquake.
The local phone guys - and the people that designed this system - are my heros!
Yours,
Jordan Dea-Mattson
I don't loath the phone company, because I have to pay them every month. I loath the poor service I get from them sometimes, but the reality is that it is better than what I get from my ISP.
the reality is that I will be paying someone for access and bandwidth. The question is, who?
If you compare what VOIP gives me vs. POTS, POTs wins hands-down in relieabiilty, quality, and availability.
Now, I do like what VOIP an POTS competition are doing to POTS pricing. What I want is a plan that offers me a flat-rate pricing plan with a big number of minutes to whereever I call. Charge me $50.00 a month for 1,000 anytime, anywhere minutes and you will have my business.
Yours,
Jordan Dea-Mattson
Hi -
How about a pointer to the filtering/spam blocking service you have in place. I would like to get this for my server.
Yours,
Jordan
Hi Darby -
As far as I can see, there isn't a "Great Firewall of China". I am staying at the "The China Hotel by Marriott" in Guangzhou. A Chinese hotel which is managed by Marriott. It has Western and Chinese guests, and the ADSL service (which is a bit less of a broadband than I would like) is provided by a local Chinese company.
I have hit a wide range of sites from Slashdot, to News.COM, to the NY Times, to WSJ, etc. I haven't tried to hit sites that I know would be no-nos, but I have yet to be blocked.
But then maybe, the Chinese government in its guest to build up Open Source systems is giving full and free access to "Slashdot". I can just see it: Slashdot, read it - just like the Chinese Government!
The adoption is going well. We head in for our physical this morning. She is a beautiful little girl. Quite intelligent and interested in the world. I think she will get along with her two older brothers just fine!
Well, I have to go and give her a bath and get her ready for our group breakfast.
This is Jordan Dea-Mattson, broadcasting from Guangzhou China! Signing off now!
Yours,
Jordan
Hey, I am willing to beat up on Microsoft as much as the next citizen of slashdot city, but let's be fair here. A lot of the problems that are hitting people are due to people not applying the patches that are available.
I use both Mac OS X and Windows XP. On both systems, I use the software update mechanisms and religously apply the patches that are made available. On Windows I also have a virus protection utility in place. I have never once been caught with my pants down by a worm, virus, trojan horse, etc. And to answer the question of this out there that are already preparing to ask it, I have also never had my system "broken" by a patch.
So my respone, is that people shouldn "Just Apply The Damn Patches".
Jordan Dea-Mattson
Posting from China, where I am to adopt my daughter! Back to the US in a week!
While this is a good step in the right direction, it isn't really driving up the cost.
If DirectTV knew that if it sued people and lost, that they would be paying both their legal expenses plus those of the people they sued, they might be a little less willing to file lawsuits.
This is why I strongly support and advocate a transition to what is called the "British system" or "loser pays" in the US. Many, many litigants are engaging in "litigation extorition". They file a lawsuit at little - or no cost, if they are a indigant plantiff, make a demand that is less than fighting the suit, and wait for people to rollover and pay.
Of course, if judges were more willing to dismiss groundless lawsuits via summary judgment and penalize those that file such lawsuits, this wouldn't be necessary.
As I noted in another discussion, the problem is that this litigation is too damn cheap. It is like SPAM, in htat it costs the relatively nothing to file these lawsuits, but costs those that have to respond a lot to respond. Even if you win, you end up owing. So, what do you do? If you are "wise" you fold. And they can cite another win against a nasty pirate.
Now, if we were in an English-style, "loser pays", system then we would be able to fight this, win, and stick the bill to DirectTV. You can bet that if they faced the cost of fighting these suits on both sides, that they would quickly reevaluate their strategy.
So, my solution to two major problems (obnoxious litigation and SPAM) is to simple: increase the cost to initating the activity!
Another note, in case you don't know, an easement means that we and they both have legal access to the property at any time for any reason (that is how zero-lot lines work in California). Letting them know what we were doing was a courtesy.
What is interesting to me, is that the attorney should have known this and should have advised them that they didn't have a leg to stand upon. What they wanted us to do, was give them the name of our insurance company, with the hope that the insurance company would settle rather than go for the cost of litigation. I bet you that they carefully calculated the amount ($1,500) to find a saddle-point on settlement vs. litigation.
Of course, they didn't count on us increasing the cost of their "spam". The second we did, they backed down. The lesson here, for both litigation and spam control, is to increase the cost of asocial behavior. The courts and the Internet are a commons. The costs of abusing them are borne by all of us, with those doing the abusing getting a free ride.
Actually, we tried that. We went over a 1/2 dozen times (in the morning and early evening) to no avail prior to giving them something in writing. And the note we gave them was handwritten with a nice ps inviting them to join us for a nice Chinese dinner after things were completed. We tried to be highly civil and interact with them. They are the folks that called the police and tried to cite us with trespassing (at which the police officer essentially laughed at). They were the folks that didn't respond to our attempt to follow-up on the call to the police and then dropped an extoration letter in our lap.
This one is easily enough dealt with by a slight amendment to the DCMA.
What we have to due, is to introduce a requirement that any "violation notices" be based on a reasonable belief that IP is being infringed and then make the complaining party responsible for any legal expenses on the part of the accused party for an unreasonable violation notice.
It would be a bit like the British, loser pays system, that forces a party realy consider the strength of their case prior to bringing it or defending it at all costs. It helps prevent the kind of "litigation extorition" that we see all the times in the states.
A great example of "litigation extorition" happened to me and my wife shortly after we got married. We decided to install a gas stove (you need that for good Chinese cooking) and needed a gas line to do so. To install the gas line we needed access to the easement inside our neighbors yard (zero lot line). We requested it in writing heard nothing. Assuming that silence implies consent - an old Common Law Legal concept - we went forward with accessing the easement. The day of the installation in the evening a police officer shows up on our doorstep, after getting my wife's version of events he stated, "there is nothing here!" A week later we got a letter from an attorney from our neighbor asking for $1,000 or the name of our insurance company to "resolve this matter".
Well, my wife is a supervising paralegal and I am someone who has read a lot of law. We knew a shake down when we say it. So, we put together a little package (12 exhibits in total) informing them that we were willing to drop this matter at this point, but if they pursued it further that we would be counter-suing. We also dropped a line on the State Bar Association Office of Professional Conduct about this attorney. A few days later we got a note that the attorney in question was no longer representing this client and to forward any and all communications to our neighbor (a breach of Legal ethics, which we sent onto the Office of Professional Conduct).
The bottom line, needless litigation is like Spam: if we increase the cost just a little, it will dramatically reduce it. The problem is that in the US Legal system is doesn't (if you are in the right financial situation) cost you anything but your time and energy to force people to spend money responding to you. If we make people pay some of the cost of litigation.
Very few (if any) of the products from Casady & Greene were owned by C & G. C & G was a publisher and only had publishing rights. The copyrights were in general held by the respective authors.
In the case of Glider, the author was not an employee of C & G, but rather used them as a publisher. I don't know his contract, but if it was like the one I had for my book, it states that if the publisher ceases to publish the work in question, that the publication rights revert back to me (as the copyright holder) and I can do with it as a will.