No matter how many times this gets posted on slashdot my grandmother is still unaware of this 'feature'. So please spare us your "it's your own damn fault!" routine. Privacy groups look out for those who don't have the technical savvy or "big picture" view necessary to make infomed decisions about what products they purchase.
Perhaps your Grandmother would have read it on the TiVo signup message she got when she started using TiVo then? You know, the one that lets you decide whether you provide data or not, and that explains it in nice big words right on your TV screen.
What, you mean the OS where a kernel exploit was left unpatched for several months because people couldn't be bothered to push it out to their end users? Which also lead to a number of high profile hacks into Debian.
A friend at work said that he couldn't stop IE from going to a range of search pages with pop-ups when he started it. He'd run Adaware and still couldn't get rid of the problem. He went away with a USB flash device containing the latest Mozilla installer
You couldn't just tell him how to change his homepage back to a non-spamming site and get him to install the Google toolbar instead?
Why not? I can't see anything in that license which forbids having script download the file, open it, and then create a symbolic link from the dll to the MPlayer codec directory. After all, if a human can do those things, why not an automated script?
Read this:
"you may not copy, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any part thereof."
In any case, the MPlayer group distibute copyrighted material (separate from MPlayer itself, I might add), but all such material is freely downloadable elsewhere. Without knowing the licenses for all the codecs it uses, I can't comment whether it is illegal or not.
Furthermore, why haven't the copyright holders done anything about it? Surely they must know by now. In any case, because all the codecs are freely downloadable on the web, it wouldn't be too hard to create a script to grab all the packages for the user, and then to take out the dlls needed. The effect would be the same, and once you've downloaded all the packages, you can put the dlls upon your machine however you like. I guess it's just easier to package them in a zip.
In addition, to my knowledge, none of the authors of the copyrighted Win32 codecs have released their libraries for Linux, so Mplayer is not reducing their profits, nor benefitting unfairly from their efforts. Mplayer is taking freely released codecs that can be downloaded for no charge, and placing them in a zip. KISS is benefitting unfairly from Mplayer's efforts. It's using their code to profit without giving the maintainers anything in return
MPlayer is benefitting unfairly from others' efforts too. It doesn't matter if the codecs aren't available for a given platform; that's the choice of the legal owner of the copyrighted code which has been illegally redistributed.
Here's some choice bits and pieces from the license that comes with Quicktime; where one of the sets of codecs that they redistribute comes from.
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single computer at a time. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time. You may make one copy of the Apple Software in machine-readable form for backup purposes only; provided that the backup copy must include all copyright or other proprietary notices contained on the original. Except as and only to the extent expressly permitted in this License or by applicable law, you may not copy, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any part thereof.
Which means, in case you're wondering, that no, they couldn't create a script to circumvent it.
Note: You have to apply for a license to redistribute it - and you can only redistribute it in its entirety.
So no, Mplayer is completely in the wrong, legally and otherwise. That's just one example. Feel free to track down the license agreements for their other codecs to check for yourself.
Ah yes, but all such accusations have been, more or less, entirely on the money. OSS developers don't go around accusing companies here there and everywhere that they've stolen their code. And when they do accuse, they usually have a lot of evidence for it, and show the evidence straight up. As opposed to, say, SCO.
See MPlayer vs. KISS.
Note, by the way, that the same Mplayer developers who complain that their IP is getting ripped off, also quite happily pirate other peoples' software and distribute it on their website in violation of the copyright, licensing and distribution agreements that come with that software.
Ah, 1954, just before the launch of USS Nautilus spearheaded by Rickover. One wonders what the father of the nuclear navy, a man both brilliant and a trifle autocratic, would have made of the patent mess, the virus mess, the open/closed source mess.
Who? You mean Feynman? The guy who owned the patent on the nuclear submarine.
Of course you could have written the novel, using a pencil, stick in the sand or typewriter instead for instance. But you couldn't have taken out a copyright on it for the English version, if you didn't speak English and there wasn't anyone (or other resources) around to teach it to you, because you wouldn't have fixed the work in a language you knew nothing about. And the only reason you would be writing about stuff nobody has invented yet is that your novel would be a work of fiction.
You know, this might have been fun and all about 5 hours ago, but right now, I'm really bored with this topic.
You are quoting a microsoft front group to make a point about the "natural rights" of IP.
I am? That's news to me. Although of course, if what they wrote was actually factually incorrect, you'd have stated that. As you haven't, I assume that you agree with their analysis?
You have no shame. I have to say your consistency as a shill is admirable.
And I have to say that your efforts in trying to dodge difficult questions by trying to turn the debate into an ad hominem one are laughable.
It's plainly unobvious. How can they even say they alone wrote the code, when they wouldn't have written anything or wouldn't have fixed it in that form had not the language and technology they used existed.
If I use a pen to write a novel, does that mean that my novel is unoriginal because it's obviously a derived work of Bic or Uniball or Pilot? After all, without that pen, I couldn't have written the novel.
Don't confuse the tools with the work that is created. Even if those tools require similar work to create them, that does not mean that the work is derivative of them.
You seem to be using RMS's version of "derivative" which varies depending on whether you're linking dynamically or statically to a library. ie. a completely made up version of the concept, which doesn't have any basis in reality.
Most great scientists say they stood on the shoulders of giants.
Actually, Newton said that as a sardonic remark, regarding Hooke. But you'll have to excuse me... I'm not sure quite what you meant by including that sentence. Could you explain in detail, instead of including pithy quotes?
I once had a natural right to copy a work. That's where Jefferson and others said the man made copyright came from, a transfer of a natural right.
Hmmm... no.
The intellectual property owner is the one with the natural rights. What copyright gives you as the owner of the intellectual property is the same rights over any copies of your property as over the original property itself.
You should read your sources again. You don't have a natural right to copy another's work; you have a natural ability to do that. It's not a right. The argument for copyright is that a person who expends time and energy to create a work of intellectual property has the natural right to be the one who benefits from that property - ie. they have the natural right to deny you your ability to copy something.
The notion of a natural right of copyright, indeed the very concept of natural rights, arose through the work of Locke, who also strongly argued for a right to property as a reward for labor. Subsequent authors applied Locke's natural right to property not only to physical products of labor but also to intellectual products as well. Citing Locke's arguments for a right of property, Blackstone directly argued for the natural right of an author to prevent unauthorized copies of his work: "When a man by the exertion of his rational powers has produced an original work, he has clearly a right to dispose of that identical work as he pleases, and any attempt to take it from him, [...] is an invasion of his right of property."
If someone copyrights some of their code, they didnt invent the language (eg c) and they didnt invent many of the functions that the program does (eg printing to the screen) and they certainly didnt invent the compiler or the CPU that the program runs under and they had nothing to do even with the storage medium their program is on (hd/cdrom/paper)! Now i can kind of understand the ownership of ideas eg a method of selecting some information which causes relevent information to be revealed, but even that is based on the idea of "information" and human thought so you cant say thats something original. So what exactly denotes something original? and why should you be able to copyright something thats not original for far longer than is needed to create incentive? (eg 70 years after your death!)
Quite simply this:
They're not trying to copyright the language. They're not trying to copyright the functions the program uses. They're not trying to copyright the CPU or the compiler that the program runs under. They're not trying to copyright the storage medium.
They are copyrighting the code that they wrote.
I can't imagine why you didn't understand this from the get-go. It's plainly obvious.
For the moment, let's assume you're a brilliant writer who's just released the best selling book ever written. Because you've got copyright on it until 70 years after you die, you're set for life... hell, your kids will never have to work a day. I hardly see that as encouraging you to create more works, and if you're that good, maybe society would benefit from more than a one-shot.
Now, coming back to reality, let's assume that you're the average writer who gets published, who doesn't earn much if anything from their work - ie. they're not one of the maybe 100 authors in the world who make the Steven King / JK Rowling style big bucks.
You will need that copyright protection, plus the royalties from ten or twenty books (each taking upwards of 6 months to write... sometimes each one will take you 2 years or more) to make ends meet.
Congrats. You found a boundary case. But that's not the common case, so what are you bitching about? The law is *not* designed for edge cases. It's designed to handle the common case. That's why they have judges.
I've seen several articles about the Moon's He3 resources, but almost none about the Moon's even greater potential as a source of solar power.
Well, I hope everyone's taking into account the effect of changing the Moon's albedo. (They certainly never bothered for Earth-based solar panel systems).
The reason file sharing scares them so is that it lets people hear music from bands that they don't control.
Bullshit. If that's really the case, then come up with a version of Napster that is *only* used for unsigned artists and *then* see how much they try to sue you.
In fact, they owe their very existence to Linus & gang since 1994
No, don't think so. After all, Linux isn't the first target Caldera had. They went for Microsoft before now, remember? That whole Dr-Dos case that was settled out of court?
Of course, now it's Linux (in general) being sued as opposed to Microsoft, everyone on Slashdot is against it - but before, they were in favor.
When Collin Powel considered running for president, all the white people mentioned that "He speaks so well. He speaks so well". How the fuck is he supposed to speak? "Ima be pres-o-dent!"
I believe the word you're looking for is "eloquently".
There's a difference between not speaking like a stereotypical black american (complete with comb sticking out of afro and doobie in one hand), and speaking with an elegant turn of phrase and great insight - which Colin Powell does on a regular basis.
Basically, the guy is one damn smart mofo, and it shows in his speeches.
Because they believe that women are lesser creatures that have next to no rights?
Look at how women and other religious minorities are treated before you start saying that other geeks are just like them.
Humans are the same the world over. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a racist bigot.
Unfortunately, that means being able to accept that all humans have the propensity to be nasty mean son-of-a-bitches who will happily trample one another for a cheap DVD player, or who will mindlessly kill one group because they look or smell funny.
This applies the world over. It's not the exclusive province of one country or another. And every country and every race has a history of barbarism. Western society didn't invent the lynching, the iron maiden, the anal and vaginal pear, the gas chamber or the burning cross for nothing.
Until recently, women weren't allowed to vote, and were treated as chattle. If you want to blame anything, blame religion.
I liked the CNet article a lot; they could have mentioned SQL Slammer's apparent role in the blackouts last year. I guess that hasn't been explicitly proven and overty recognized,
No, but it has been explicitly ruled out by the FBI and the taskforce assigned to look at the blackouts.
WSH is news to me. But that's probably because the only Windows OS I've dealt with in several years is a tiny W98se partition on my laptop for playing games while travelling.
Given that WSH came out with Windows 98 (not XP as the OP claimed), you should be familiar with it then.
A note on stop smoking aids containing nicotine: Maybe some people find them helpful, but there is one thing wrong with them - they contain nicotine! They're frikken nic-teasers! They delay the time ( 4th day cold turkey ) when physical urges cease! I can't imagine putting up with that for months.... Maybe ONE patch to bring you down, but then you'll have 3 days of physical urges after that, and that first day you will still be bored and want a ciggarrette. Maybe substuting ONE DAYS WORTH OF cigars ( throwing any extras in the toilet ) for the one patch would help ameliorate the I smoked a cigarrette - I got a buzz association but that fourth day completely nic-free is golden.
The trick with nicotine patches is that they don't get rid of the nicotine cravings - they help you break the physical addiction.
I've had success with them so far... (Not over and done with yet, but getting there).
The trick is, you have to remember to put it on every morning (I tried putting it on the night before when I started quitting... I had exceptionally vivid dreams... very freaky). If you don't put it on first thing, you'll start feeling withdrawal after a couple of hours which will drive you completely nuts. The first thing you must do every day is put it on.
In other words... don't punish yourself or test yourself and see how long you can go without. It doesn't work that way.
Right now, I'm doing great. Stepped down to 14mg, and about to step down to 7mg. I don't get the urge to smoke any more, and weaning myself off this way takes the edge off the physical cravings nearly completely - and the stepping down is relatively painless.
Smokers, as a user of alcohol and caffeine, I've nothing against your drug of choice. I just don't understand why the "cigarette" has to be the only delivery device for it. Why hasn't the market responded to what seems to be a pretty big pent-up demand for a more discreet nicotine delivery device?
Because all of the other delivery devices have dangerous side effects.
There is no way other than cigarettes that give the same amount of nicotine in a condensed burst without causing the user to throw up, or have other more extreme side effects.
Nicotine is a poisonous stimulant; one droplet of it can kill a horse.
Patches give a low dose all the time with a tail-off - it's nothing like smoking, and takes at least a month to get used to (I know, I'm on it). You get a continously accelerated heart rate and higher blood pressure the entire time - instead of in bursts. This has actually made it more likely that I will get nosebleeds and migraine headaches.
On the plus side, I can breathe more easily.
Gum? You have to be exceptionally careful how you chew it. You can't swallow it. You have to time your chews and make sure that you don't do too much.
Again, it's not a good substitute for a cigarette unless you really want to quit; the amount of nicotine delivered is not the same.
Unfortunately, the cigarette is the most effective nicotine delivery mechanism ever devised. The smoke itself acts as an anti-nausea mechanism, and actually increases uptake of the drug. So there you go.
Slashdot Mirror
No matter how many times this gets posted on slashdot my grandmother is still unaware of this 'feature'. So please spare us your "it's your own damn fault!" routine. Privacy groups look out for those who don't have the technical savvy or "big picture" view necessary to make infomed decisions about what products they purchase.
Perhaps your Grandmother would have read it on the TiVo signup message she got when she started using TiVo then? You know, the one that lets you decide whether you provide data or not, and that explains it in nice big words right on your TV screen.
Then he muttered under his breath, "like Linux."
What, you mean the OS where a kernel exploit was left unpatched for several months because people couldn't be bothered to push it out to their end users? Which also lead to a number of high profile hacks into Debian.
A friend at work said that he couldn't stop IE from going to a range of search pages with pop-ups when he started it. He'd run Adaware and still couldn't get rid of the problem. He went away with a USB flash device containing the latest Mozilla installer
You couldn't just tell him how to change his homepage back to a non-spamming site and get him to install the Google toolbar instead?
Wow, dude, that's cold.
Why not? I can't see anything in that license which forbids having script download the file, open it, and then create a symbolic link from the dll to the MPlayer codec directory. After all, if a human can do those things, why not an automated script?
Read this:
"you may not copy, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any part thereof."
Now do you understand?
Furthermore, why haven't the copyright holders done anything about it? Surely they must know by now. In any case, because all the codecs are freely downloadable on the web, it wouldn't be too hard to create a script to grab all the packages for the user, and then to take out the dlls needed. The effect would be the same, and once you've downloaded all the packages, you can put the dlls upon your machine however you like. I guess it's just easier to package them in a zip.
In addition, to my knowledge, none of the authors of the copyrighted Win32 codecs have released their libraries for Linux, so Mplayer is not reducing their profits, nor benefitting unfairly from their efforts. Mplayer is taking freely released codecs that can be downloaded for no charge, and placing them in a zip. KISS is benefitting unfairly from Mplayer's efforts. It's using their code to profit without giving the maintainers anything in return
MPlayer is benefitting unfairly from others' efforts too. It doesn't matter if the codecs aren't available for a given platform; that's the choice of the legal owner of the copyrighted code which has been illegally redistributed
Here's some choice bits and pieces from the license that comes with Quicktime; where one of the sets of codecs that they redistribute comes from.
Which means, in case you're wondering, that no, they couldn't create a script to circumvent it.
You should also read this:
Apple's Quicktime redistribution agreement
Note: You have to apply for a license to redistribute it - and you can only redistribute it in its entirety.
So no, Mplayer is completely in the wrong, legally and otherwise. That's just one example. Feel free to track down the license agreements for their other codecs to check for yourself.
Ah yes, but all such accusations have been, more or less, entirely on the money. OSS developers don't go around accusing companies here there and everywhere that they've stolen their code. And when they do accuse, they usually have a lot of evidence for it, and show the evidence straight up. As opposed to, say, SCO.
See MPlayer vs. KISS.
Note, by the way, that the same Mplayer developers who complain that their IP is getting ripped off, also quite happily pirate other peoples' software and distribute it on their website in violation of the copyright, licensing and distribution agreements that come with that software.
Hypocrits.
Ah, 1954, just before the launch of USS Nautilus spearheaded by Rickover.
One wonders what the father of the nuclear navy, a man both brilliant and a trifle autocratic, would have made of the patent mess, the virus mess, the open/closed source mess.
Who? You mean Feynman? The guy who owned the patent on the nuclear submarine.
Of course you could have written the novel, using a pencil, stick in the sand or typewriter instead for instance. But you couldn't have taken out a copyright on it for the English version, if you didn't speak English and there wasn't anyone (or other resources) around to teach it to you, because you wouldn't have fixed the work in a language you knew nothing about. And the only reason you would be writing about stuff nobody has invented yet is that your novel would be a work of fiction.
You know, this might have been fun and all about 5 hours ago, but right now, I'm really bored with this topic.
You are quoting a microsoft front group to make a point about the "natural rights" of IP.
I am? That's news to me. Although of course, if what they wrote was actually factually incorrect, you'd have stated that. As you haven't, I assume that you agree with their analysis?
You have no shame. I have to say your consistency as a shill is admirable.
And I have to say that your efforts in trying to dodge difficult questions by trying to turn the debate into an ad hominem one are laughable.
It's plainly unobvious. How can they even say they alone wrote the code, when they wouldn't have written anything or wouldn't have fixed it in that form had not the language and technology they used existed.
If I use a pen to write a novel, does that mean that my novel is unoriginal because it's obviously a derived work of Bic or Uniball or Pilot? After all, without that pen, I couldn't have written the novel.
Don't confuse the tools with the work that is created. Even if those tools require similar work to create them, that does not mean that the work is derivative of them.
You seem to be using RMS's version of "derivative" which varies depending on whether you're linking dynamically or statically to a library. ie. a completely made up version of the concept, which doesn't have any basis in reality.
Most great scientists say they stood on the shoulders of giants.
Actually, Newton said that as a sardonic remark, regarding Hooke. But you'll have to excuse me... I'm not sure quite what you meant by including that sentence. Could you explain in detail, instead of including pithy quotes?
Hmmm... no.
The intellectual property owner is the one with the natural rights. What copyright gives you as the owner of the intellectual property is the same rights over any copies of your property as over the original property itself.
You should read your sources again. You don't have a natural right to copy another's work; you have a natural ability to do that. It's not a right. The argument for copyright is that a person who expends time and energy to create a work of intellectual property has the natural right to be the one who benefits from that property - ie. they have the natural right to deny you your ability to copy something.
http://www.cpsr.org/essays/2001/CPSRCCJU7.htm
Author of "The Wind Done Gone" would say otherwise...
That's a completely different issue entirely. That's a matter of fair use, not copyright duration.
Which, if you'll note, existing copyright law already provides for.
So if copyright were, say, only 20 years from publication, is the author hurt?
I don't know.
If copyright were - as is the case now - 70 years, is anyone else hurt? I don't think so.
If someone copyrights some of their code, they didnt invent the language (eg c) and they didnt invent many of the functions that the program does (eg printing to the screen) and they certainly didnt invent the compiler or the CPU that the program runs under and they had nothing to do even with the storage medium their program is on (hd/cdrom/paper)! Now i can kind of understand the ownership of ideas eg a method of selecting some information which causes relevent information to be revealed, but even that is based on the idea of "information" and human thought so you cant say thats something original. So what exactly denotes something original? and why should you be able to copyright something thats not original for far longer than is needed to create incentive? (eg 70 years after your death!)
Quite simply this:
They're not trying to copyright the language.
They're not trying to copyright the functions the program uses.
They're not trying to copyright the CPU or the compiler that the program runs under.
They're not trying to copyright the storage medium.
They are copyrighting the code that they wrote.
I can't imagine why you didn't understand this from the get-go. It's plainly obvious.
For the moment, let's assume you're a brilliant writer who's just released the best selling book ever written. Because you've got copyright on it until 70 years after you die, you're set for life... hell, your kids will never have to work a day. I hardly see that as encouraging you to create more works, and if you're that good, maybe society would benefit from more than a one-shot.
Now, coming back to reality, let's assume that you're the average writer who gets published, who doesn't earn much if anything from their work - ie. they're not one of the maybe 100 authors in the world who make the Steven King / JK Rowling style big bucks.
You will need that copyright protection, plus the royalties from ten or twenty books (each taking upwards of 6 months to write... sometimes each one will take you 2 years or more) to make ends meet.
Congrats. You found a boundary case. But that's not the common case, so what are you bitching about? The law is *not* designed for edge cases. It's designed to handle the common case. That's why they have judges.
I've seen several articles about the Moon's He3 resources, but almost none about the Moon's even greater potential as a source of solar power.
Well, I hope everyone's taking into account the effect of changing the Moon's albedo. (They certainly never bothered for Earth-based solar panel systems).
The reason file sharing scares them so is that it lets people hear music from bands that they don't control.
Bullshit. If that's really the case, then come up with a version of Napster that is *only* used for unsigned artists and *then* see how much they try to sue you.
In fact, they owe their very existence to Linus & gang since 1994
No, don't think so. After all, Linux isn't the first target Caldera had. They went for Microsoft before now, remember? That whole Dr-Dos case that was settled out of court?
Of course, now it's Linux (in general) being sued as opposed to Microsoft, everyone on Slashdot is against it - but before, they were in favor.
So many sheeple here.
When Collin Powel considered running for president, all the white people mentioned that "He speaks so well. He speaks so well". How the fuck is he supposed to speak? "Ima be pres-o-dent!"
I believe the word you're looking for is "eloquently".
There's a difference between not speaking like a stereotypical black american (complete with comb sticking out of afro and doobie in one hand), and speaking with an elegant turn of phrase and great insight - which Colin Powell does on a regular basis.
Basically, the guy is one damn smart mofo, and it shows in his speeches.
Because they believe that women are lesser creatures that have next to no rights?
Look at how women and other religious minorities are treated before you start saying that other geeks are just like them.
Humans are the same the world over. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a racist bigot.
Unfortunately, that means being able to accept that all humans have the propensity to be nasty mean son-of-a-bitches who will happily trample one another for a cheap DVD player, or who will mindlessly kill one group because they look or smell funny.
This applies the world over. It's not the exclusive province of one country or another. And every country and every race has a history of barbarism. Western society didn't invent the lynching, the iron maiden, the anal and vaginal pear, the gas chamber or the burning cross for nothing.
Until recently, women weren't allowed to vote, and were treated as chattle. If you want to blame anything, blame religion.
I liked the CNet article a lot; they could have mentioned SQL Slammer's apparent role in the blackouts last year. I guess that hasn't been explicitly proven and overty recognized,
No, but it has been explicitly ruled out by the FBI and the taskforce assigned to look at the blackouts.
But I guess that doesn't fit with your dogma.
Because neither Apple nor YOU are monopolies.
According to the logic that Hanging Judge Jackson used, Apple is a monopoly in the PowerPC based consumer desktop PC market.
WSH is news to me. But that's probably because the only Windows OS I've dealt with in several years is a tiny W98se partition on my laptop for playing games while travelling.
Given that WSH came out with Windows 98 (not XP as the OP claimed), you should be familiar with it then.
A note on stop smoking aids containing nicotine: Maybe some people find them helpful, but there is one thing wrong with them - they contain nicotine! They're frikken nic-teasers! They delay the time ( 4th day cold turkey ) when physical urges cease! I can't imagine putting up with that for months.... Maybe ONE patch to bring you down, but then you'll have 3 days of physical urges after that, and that first day you will still be bored and want a ciggarrette. Maybe substuting ONE DAYS WORTH OF cigars ( throwing any extras in the toilet ) for the one patch would help ameliorate the I smoked a cigarrette - I got a buzz association but that fourth day completely nic-free is golden.
:)
The trick with nicotine patches is that they don't get rid of the nicotine cravings - they help you break the physical addiction.
I've had success with them so far... (Not over and done with yet, but getting there).
The trick is, you have to remember to put it on every morning (I tried putting it on the night before when I started quitting... I had exceptionally vivid dreams... very freaky). If you don't put it on first thing, you'll start feeling withdrawal after a couple of hours which will drive you completely nuts. The first thing you must do every day is put it on.
In other words... don't punish yourself or test yourself and see how long you can go without. It doesn't work that way.
Right now, I'm doing great. Stepped down to 14mg, and about to step down to 7mg. I don't get the urge to smoke any more, and weaning myself off this way takes the edge off the physical cravings nearly completely - and the stepping down is relatively painless.
There's a knack to it
Smokers, as a user of alcohol and caffeine, I've nothing against your drug of choice. I just don't understand why the "cigarette" has to be the only delivery device for it. Why hasn't the market responded to what seems to be a pretty big pent-up demand for a more discreet nicotine delivery device?
Because all of the other delivery devices have dangerous side effects.
There is no way other than cigarettes that give the same amount of nicotine in a condensed burst without causing the user to throw up, or have other more extreme side effects.
Nicotine is a poisonous stimulant; one droplet of it can kill a horse.
Patches give a low dose all the time with a tail-off - it's nothing like smoking, and takes at least a month to get used to (I know, I'm on it). You get a continously accelerated heart rate and higher blood pressure the entire time - instead of in bursts. This has actually made it more likely that I will get nosebleeds and migraine headaches.
On the plus side, I can breathe more easily.
Gum? You have to be exceptionally careful how you chew it. You can't swallow it. You have to time your chews and make sure that you don't do too much.
Again, it's not a good substitute for a cigarette unless you really want to quit; the amount of nicotine delivered is not the same.
Unfortunately, the cigarette is the most effective nicotine delivery mechanism ever devised. The smoke itself acts as an anti-nausea mechanism, and actually increases uptake of the drug. So there you go.