Millions in Brazil are dying of AIDS now. What did you expect their government to do? Throw up their hands and say "Well, we just don't have the money to pay the 1st World companies. Sorry but you're just going to have to die."?
Brazil did exactly what they needed to. The cost to their society not to treat victims of AIDS is too high. But the cost to get treatment from the multi-nationals was prohibitive. So they cut the proverbial Gordian Knot and started up an industry to make generic drugs they could afford. So yes, in this case, it was the best thing for the government to say how much of a profit is enough.
And if the drug companies don't like it then tough. If they had done the human thing and sold the drugs to the 3rd World for minimal or no profit they could have advertised that and bought my goodwill. They would have proven themselves to be good stewards of the IP given to them by the government. I would want them to have more. There is a business term for this but I forget it atm. Quite honestly, they can spend billions in ads now and it will never erase this one NYT piece.
Point 1 - Atm, it cannot be done. We have treaties that would have to be redone and you then open the door for other industries to clamor for such special protections. And yes, when it comes to patents, the USPTO considers a shortened patent length to be a protection.
Your model would also fall apart in implementation. It would add additional red tape to the patent process. How am I to prove how much I've spent and how many man-hours my company has put in to coming up with patent X? What takes precident - impact of the invention or the return on my investmest. I could spend ten years working on somehthing that only has an impact for two or I invent something I saw in a dream that completely changes the industry.
Point 2 is also flawed. Who in the W3C is going to look over that patent or the 10K other web patents? How long will they remain "respected" in the industry when they approve a few patents or turn down others?
Is it really worth wasting the resources and more than likely the reputation of a standards organization to get a "fair" patent?
IMNSHO, the only resolution to business model/software patents is their elimination. I look at the software industry and do not see a need to hold out the patent carrot to get the software donkey to innovate. And at the same time, I see segments of the software industry that relies on collaboration and altruism which would be hindered by the barrage of patents currently being issued. Just because the courts currently hold the opinon that anything under the sun invented by man can be patented does not mean it is society's best interest to do so.
Ummm, maybe you want to go to his site and get the story from the author before you speculate on a cause.
If I may be so bold as to exercise a little fair use here I find one thing King said to be telling.
If anything has discouraged me about the course of The Plant from July until December, it has been the almost total lack of discussion of the story. Let's get back to that and try to stay there.
I'll register fubar.com "News for Dolts, S*it that don't change", trademark:-( for my logo and then sue despair.com for trademark dilution! I'll be rich, rich I say!
Son I think we need to talk. Mom is sick and tired of you drinking milk from the jug. 55 years and you haven't figured out what a glass is for. I do despair.
And by the way, when are you going to get a job? Mom wants a sewing room and I'm getting a little tired of 70 years without any spontaneous "quality" time with your mom. No offense, but you have to go.
Yeah, I remember being an angst-ridden cynic after I had my first beer too.
Seriously though, get over being ostricized in high school and move on. The truth is most of us are not evil. The truth is a new dark age isn't going to "heal" Mother Earth.
The truth is the problem has more to do with people like you who "feel" so deeply and wax poetic, badly I might add, then don't do shit about actually implementing change. You're like the person who bitches that the government is going to destroy us all but won't take the time to get informed and vote or write your official about something you want them to do. Instead it's easier to angst like some poseur goth and lament "When will I wake up from this terrible dream!"
Hint. My selfish, evil self has a better chance of helping the environment by informing my congress critter that I don't want Gov. Whitney to head the EPA. I find her opinion that environmental regulation needs to take into account the economy to be wishful thinking.
Then there is Gale Norton who is Bush's nomination for Secretary of the Interior. I'd rather concede Ashcroft's appointment than let her have that job. Property owners do not have the right to pollute. Her previous actions have proven her to be the exact opposite of what that department needs.
But of course, being involved is futile and useless with all the evil humans. My best bet is to pray for a comet to hit the earth and wake me from this ghastly dream.
Wrong. There are the questions posted by some unnamed correspondent that covers the masses and then there is the question posed by Timothy which is directed toward the/. crowd. Sorry, but geeks get to have a say here too.:)
And while I know that many of the masses like Apple products I would be willing to postulate that the masses like MS products even more. Considering that even tossing in Apple's share of the market Windows has 85+ percent of the consumers locked those masses are not going to toss out their 1Ghz P IVs to buy a slightly more expensive G4 cube.
Add to that the fact that the masses can dabble in linux on a machine dual booting Windows and my answer is no. OS X is not going to threaten linux at all.
4) A willingness to support all that PC hardware in its myriad configurations.
While Apple does support a lot more hardware than it did just a couple of years ago, it does not compare to what they would face in the PC market. Apple would have to be willing to sacrifice their PPC sales, enter a market where they will not control the hardware nor exclusively profit from it, and invest additional resources to support the new platform.
If Apple's previous dealing with the Mac clone companies are any example we will never see OS X for the x86.
So there shouldn't be a reason for Win2K SP1 I take? iirc, work on SP1 was being done just after Win2K went gold. Note, that's before it was even pressed for release. Hell, there are issues with NT that require the creation of SP7.
Next time buy a clue before going into naive hysterics over a non-issue. This is the way software development works.
Yeah, and isn't it intertesting that the group behind these socialist taxing scheme just happen to be greedy multi-nationals....
People need to get over this stupid concept that every tax under the sun is some "liberal/socialist" conspiracy. Oh, and btw, the answer to all this "I paid the tax so I can pirate now right?" is of course a resounding no. There is no government out there that won't have Sony, BMI, Seagrams, etc lobbying to make sure that a loophole like that is ever exploited. An additional tax is not going to somehow invalidate current copyright laws and WIPO treaty agreements.
In my experience, the same people who support open source software are the ones who support the whole pirate warez scene.
Then you have limited experience. The Windows stuff I have on my machine is bought and paid for. It's why I have so little of it now. I'm not going to spend $200 dollars every year and a half to upgrade Office or $100 plus a new machine whenever an OS upgrade comes out. I'd rather put that money to better use.
My experience has been that the majority of users are supporters of closed source software like Windows. A greater percentage of them support the pirate/warez scene than those who use OSS or Free software.
Oh, and you got something else wrong. There is a huge degree of altruism in the open source movement. To take it to a ridiculous extreme, Stallman is more akin to Mother Theresa then he is to Stalin.
Please take the time to refine your rhetoric before replying. TIA
It's still kinda crazy. Let's be generous and say they can get 5000 people in the class action. $5B US - 33 percent for fees is $3.35B. Each of our 5000 plaintiffs grosses $670,000. That's an awful lot of money imho.
Of course, someone will break it. But, such a scheme will violate the patent(s). You won't be able to get a modded recorder in the States. Just like you couldn't develop a competing product using the RSA algorithm. Not only would it violate the DMCA but it violate the monopoly granted by patent law. An American developer helping to circumvent this protection scheme is going to totally reamed legally, in my non-laywer opinion.
Using a patented method is a damn smart idea unfortunately. Much better than that lame trade secret they used with CSS. The entertainment industry now has 20 years in which nobody can legally create a recording device without permission. That's 20 years to increase their IP porfolio(sp?)in preparation for the next protection scheme which can again be patented for another 20 years. Maybe more if the laws change.
It's not a fake. Went and downloaded the reader and then grabbed the book. Sure enough, click menu, then Info then the permissions button and there it is.
This may be redundant but I figured it would be worth verifying the story. And like most people here, whether it is enforcable or not, the presumption of these people is inexcusable. My recently deceased mother-in-law used to volunteer reading to the blind. To make a distinction between a printed medium and an e-book like this is quite seriously braindead. Looks like I'll have to write my congressman on this one.
The top three for me was Bradley, Gore, and Nader. Have to admit I think it would have been much more interesting to see Bradley vs. McCain than what we have now. While it was informative with the links and all it hasn't changed my mind. I'm still voting for Nader on the 7th.
I'm pretty sure that if they are job related you could write off the books. They do cost a hell of a lot less than tuition though.
I would consider the tax break an incentive to produce a better educated workforce. This isn't a bad thing whatever somebody's opinion might be on getting that education through college or not.
You're right. You do have the right to complain. I also have the right to judge what you have to say on the merit of whether you voted or not. Not voting greatly diminishes your complaint.
Your out of the box thinking is fundamentally flawed. A non-vote does not carry the weight that a vote does. Ever. Over 50% of the population doesn't vote and nothing has changed. To get elected a politician has to pander to people who do vote. Your boycott of the political process has no effect, nada, zip, zilch of whether they get elected or not. Quite simply, as a non-voter you are persona non-grata to anybody running for office.
As for the money issue. Well, if you own voting stock in a company and pass on an issue like moving a plant to another country you have no effect on the decision or the direction the company takes. Just like taxes, you have bought into something to make your life better but without your input you are letting others take control of your life.
I'm sorry but the truth is inaction is irrelevency. I don't see you as for or against me as much as I see you as ineffective in instigating change.
Slashdot Mirror
Brazil did exactly what they needed to. The cost to their society not to treat victims of AIDS is too high. But the cost to get treatment from the multi-nationals was prohibitive. So they cut the proverbial Gordian Knot and started up an industry to make generic drugs they could afford. So yes, in this case, it was the best thing for the government to say how much of a profit is enough.
And if the drug companies don't like it then tough. If they had done the human thing and sold the drugs to the 3rd World for minimal or no profit they could have advertised that and bought my goodwill. They would have proven themselves to be good stewards of the IP given to them by the government. I would want them to have more. There is a business term for this but I forget it atm. Quite honestly, they can spend billions in ads now and it will never erase this one NYT piece.
Your model would also fall apart in implementation. It would add additional red tape to the patent process. How am I to prove how much I've spent and how many man-hours my company has put in to coming up with patent X? What takes precident - impact of the invention or the return on my investmest. I could spend ten years working on somehthing that only has an impact for two or I invent something I saw in a dream that completely changes the industry.
Point 2 is also flawed. Who in the W3C is going to look over that patent or the 10K other web patents? How long will they remain "respected" in the industry when they approve a few patents or turn down others?
Is it really worth wasting the resources and more than likely the reputation of a standards organization to get a "fair" patent?
IMNSHO, the only resolution to business model/software patents is their elimination. I look at the software industry and do not see a need to hold out the patent carrot to get the software donkey to innovate. And at the same time, I see segments of the software industry that relies on collaboration and altruism which would be hindered by the barrage of patents currently being issued. Just because the courts currently hold the opinon that anything under the sun invented by man can be patented does not mean it is society's best interest to do so.
If I may be so bold as to exercise a little fair use here I find one thing King said to be telling.
I'll register fubar.com "News for Dolts, S*it that don't change", trademark :-( for my logo and then sue despair.com for trademark dilution! I'll be rich, rich I say!
I'll give a second. My wife provided the same answers. Kinda funny if you ask me. Anyone have an idea how much they paid for it?
And by the way, when are you going to get a job? Mom wants a sewing room and I'm getting a little tired of 70 years without any spontaneous "quality" time with your mom. No offense, but you have to go.
Seriously though, get over being ostricized in high school and move on. The truth is most of us are not evil. The truth is a new dark age isn't going to "heal" Mother Earth.
The truth is the problem has more to do with people like you who "feel" so deeply and wax poetic, badly I might add, then don't do shit about actually implementing change. You're like the person who bitches that the government is going to destroy us all but won't take the time to get informed and vote or write your official about something you want them to do. Instead it's easier to angst like some poseur goth and lament "When will I wake up from this terrible dream!"
Hint. My selfish, evil self has a better chance of helping the environment by informing my congress critter that I don't want Gov. Whitney to head the EPA. I find her opinion that environmental regulation needs to take into account the economy to be wishful thinking.
Then there is Gale Norton who is Bush's nomination for Secretary of the Interior. I'd rather concede Ashcroft's appointment than let her have that job. Property owners do not have the right to pollute. Her previous actions have proven her to be the exact opposite of what that department needs.
But of course, being involved is futile and useless with all the evil humans. My best bet is to pray for a comet to hit the earth and wake me from this ghastly dream.
Not.
And while I know that many of the masses like Apple products I would be willing to postulate that the masses like MS products even more. Considering that even tossing in Apple's share of the market Windows has 85+ percent of the consumers locked those masses are not going to toss out their 1Ghz P IVs to buy a slightly more expensive G4 cube.
Add to that the fact that the masses can dabble in linux on a machine dual booting Windows and my answer is no. OS X is not going to threaten linux at all.
While Apple does support a lot more hardware than it did just a couple of years ago, it does not compare to what they would face in the PC market. Apple would have to be willing to sacrifice their PPC sales, enter a market where they will not control the hardware nor exclusively profit from it, and invest additional resources to support the new platform.
If Apple's previous dealing with the Mac clone companies are any example we will never see OS X for the x86.
Ummm, to be able to get off AppleTalk and have a decent IP stack under the hood? Lord knows they need it, especially on switched networks.
Next time buy a clue before going into naive hysterics over a non-issue. This is the way software development works.
Well, no. But I do think about Soylent Green and keeping those movie/music industry fatcats well fed.....
People need to get over this stupid concept that every tax under the sun is some "liberal/socialist" conspiracy. Oh, and btw, the answer to all this "I paid the tax so I can pirate now right?" is of course a resounding no. There is no government out there that won't have Sony, BMI, Seagrams, etc lobbying to make sure that a loophole like that is ever exploited. An additional tax is not going to somehow invalidate current copyright laws and WIPO treaty agreements.
Then you have limited experience. The Windows stuff I have on my machine is bought and paid for. It's why I have so little of it now. I'm not going to spend $200 dollars every year and a half to upgrade Office or $100 plus a new machine whenever an OS upgrade comes out. I'd rather put that money to better use.
My experience has been that the majority of users are supporters of closed source software like Windows. A greater percentage of them support the pirate/warez scene than those who use OSS or Free software.
Oh, and you got something else wrong. There is a huge degree of altruism in the open source movement. To take it to a ridiculous extreme, Stallman is more akin to Mother Theresa then he is to Stalin.
Please take the time to refine your rhetoric before replying. TIA
But seriously, you bring up a good point. I spaced on the stock options.
It's still kinda crazy. Let's be generous and say they can get 5000 people in the class action. $5B US - 33 percent for fees is $3.35B. Each of our 5000 plaintiffs grosses $670,000. That's an awful lot of money imho.
Using a patented method is a damn smart idea unfortunately. Much better than that lame trade secret they used with CSS. The entertainment industry now has 20 years in which nobody can legally create a recording device without permission. That's 20 years to increase their IP porfolio(sp?)in preparation for the next protection scheme which can again be patented for another 20 years. Maybe more if the laws change.
This may be redundant but I figured it would be worth verifying the story. And like most people here, whether it is enforcable or not, the presumption of these people is inexcusable. My recently deceased mother-in-law used to volunteer reading to the blind. To make a distinction between a printed medium and an e-book like this is quite seriously braindead. Looks like I'll have to write my congressman on this one.
Forget a Royal Rumble. Have them do BattleBots and then we'll get to see how much of a geek Al Gore really is.
You need to listen to some old Ministry. Everyday is Halloween. Now you will have to excuse me. I need to get out and grab a beer.
The top three for me was Bradley, Gore, and Nader. Have to admit I think it would have been much more interesting to see Bradley vs. McCain than what we have now. While it was informative with the links and all it hasn't changed my mind. I'm still voting for Nader on the 7th.
I would consider the tax break an incentive to produce a better educated workforce. This isn't a bad thing whatever somebody's opinion might be on getting that education through college or not.
Your out of the box thinking is fundamentally flawed. A non-vote does not carry the weight that a vote does. Ever. Over 50% of the population doesn't vote and nothing has changed. To get elected a politician has to pander to people who do vote. Your boycott of the political process has no effect, nada, zip, zilch of whether they get elected or not. Quite simply, as a non-voter you are persona non-grata to anybody running for office.
As for the money issue. Well, if you own voting stock in a company and pass on an issue like moving a plant to another country you have no effect on the decision or the direction the company takes. Just like taxes, you have bought into something to make your life better but without your input you are letting others take control of your life.
I'm sorry but the truth is inaction is irrelevency. I don't see you as for or against me as much as I see you as ineffective in instigating change.
I think that Democrat is in for a big larting at the next convention....