Year 2000
---------
Senatorial aid: Senator! There's a computer program that lets kids share music illegally!
Senator: Humm, must shut it down...
Year 2001
---------
Senatorial aid: Senator! Since we shut down Napster all the kids are using new programs that not only share music illegally, but pr0n too!
Senator: D'oh! Screwed ourselves again.
"Domoco should have expected this, given that they have such a similar situation to microsoft. Yes, the market is different (cells vs. software) but the context is similar."
That's a bad analogy.
It's not perfect, but it's not bad either.
The reason that NTT are in the position of market dominance that they now enjoy is because they were a government-sanctioned monopoly. You literally could not compete with NTT, if you did, you would eventually be arrested. The law stated that NTT were the only people permitted to run a telco, and that was that.
Good point, but the focus of my comment was not that Docomo and Microsoft got to where they are, and stay where they are the same way, but that right now they are in very similar situations. I point this out because Docomo really should have realized that when they had reached a postion similar to Microsoft's they would be subject to the same problems Microsoft has, namely viruses.
Say what you like about Microsoft, but they achieved market dominance by competing in a free market. Linux is a viable alternative for many applications, you are free to distribute and use it as you please. Neither Microsoft nor the government are in any way able to enforce that you do otherwise - in fact there's this little thing called the Constitution that protects you.
This is completely offtopic. As I outlined above, I merely wanted to point out that Docomo should have expected this, given Microsoft's history. If you read my article, you'll see that I didn't bash Microsoft (Ok, maybe outlook...).
So, really, the situation isn't similar at all.
Yes, it is.
I'm not trying to start a flamewar or anything, but I believe you misconstrued the point of my comment.
"Anyway, the funny part is that these attachments, if opened, will do nifty things like call arbitrary phone numbers (your worst enemy? Emergency?) or simply freeze your phone. Docomo has market penetration that makes local cel phone mega corps look like mom and pop shops."
So, lets see, Docomo has incredible market penetration (to the nearly monopolistic level). And their products are under attack by viruses that target only their products and no one elses. (*cough*Outlook*cough*)
Does this sound like microsoft to anyone else?
Domoco should have expected this, given that they have such a similar situation to microsoft. Yes, the market is different (cells vs. software) but the context is similar.
"This despite their consistent claims that cell phone radiation is harmless."
The point is not that the brain shields actually do anything-all the scientific evidence so far states that the EM coming off of cells is harmless. It's pure marketing; yet another attempt to offer some "feature" that makes your product appear better than your competition's. Expect to see more "features" of dubious value as the cell market achieves saturation.
First off, let me offer my condolences to this young man's family and friends.
Now, you'd think that the politicians would see this and realize that maybe they're wrong about things, that maybe zero tolerance policies and draconian punishments for benign computer hijinks are wrong, but I doubt it.
Who wants to bet that the politicians and the school boards are instead going to blame computers and the internet for the whole thing?
I urge all of us, if we have children of any age, to get involved in the school boards, and remember this when elections come around and do what we can to inject a little sanity into the world. And if we are really lucky, maybe other young people will be spared the experience that lead to this young man's mistake.
I think the problems you raise here are only apparent problems.
1) As it is all open source, there is nothing to stop others muscling in on this so-called "lucrative" support deal, undercutting HP and generally significantly reducing HP's income from support.
Yes, there is nothing stopping others from providing support in addtion to HP. However, this has been HP's project for years. If I was a sysanalyst, I'd go with the company that has the most experience with the software, rather than an upstart.
2) HP would no longer have control over the source per se, nor would they directly know what was happening to it unless the spend time (and hence money) to keep looking at what's going on - makes supporting a product bloody difficult when you have no control over it and don't know what's being done to it - the only way to know is to pay lots of people to watch the development, and if you are going to invest thatsort of time, money and manpower then you may as well just develop it inhouse for less cost anyway.
Yes they would have to spend money in keeping up with the software as it is revised, but the money they would make from support would easily offset this. (If it were otherwise, I doubt there would be many software consultants around.)
You seem also to contradict yourself, you say that the costs involved in keeping up the revisions would be prohibitive, yet in your first point you assert that other companies could muscle in on HP's support business. If HP couldn't afford keeping up with the revisions (which I strongly disagree with), certainly a company without any prior knowledge of the software couldn't afford it either.
Also, I must contest your statement that inhouse developement would cost less. Understand that all developement costs are sunk; you don't get them back.
Good point. However, even though open-sourcing is not a guarantee other developers will participate (we agree there), there is no reason why they would not. This is a fairly popular, solid piece of software here, and there is no reason why developers wouldn't jump on it.
While I am unfamiliar with Sun's StarOffice suite's developement, the Netscape/Mozilla project has been hampered by the requirement of a proprietary set of developement tools. If they eliminated this requirement, the number of developers willing to participate would likely go through the roof, so to speak.
Actually, if they were willing to provide support (for $$$) open-sourcing the program would be an extremely smart move. As Eric Raymond explains in his book The Cathedral and the Bazaar, by open-sourcing the project they get free developement and bug fixing. And by providing support services, they can make a ton of money without investing sunk developement costs. While you may raise the objection that other companies could also provide support, HP would not only have the cred (it has been their project) but also has the support service infrastructure set up. These two advantages would ensure that they were primary support providers for the near future. Given this, they would get the mucho moola of support services, without the hassle of developement. Sound like a good deal?
If RMS' statements bother you, check out the article by Bradley M. Kuhn mentioned in the story, its much clearer (and more emotional).
BTW: RMS is most certainly interested in the Components of Intellectual propertie rights, he just doesn't feel comfortable commenting on the entire issue in such a short piece (he wouldn't have enough time to fully explain his stance). To find out his true opinions on the issues invovled, check out his excellent The Cathedral and the Bazaar
The point of the litigation is not about the possible confusion that could erupt over an unrelated movie with the same name. The point is that Blizzard legally reserved "Diablo" as a movie name already. It is perfectly reasonable for Blizzard to expect their trademark will be protected.
This is very similar to a (hypothetical) case where two movie companies are disputing a movie title, which I beleive is a fairly cut and dry scenario (whomever registered the name first wins). And I would like to point out this case is much more like two movie companies than like Ford and AMD (your example); Blizzard and movie companies are both media, whereas with Ford and AMD you have a dissimilar product.
BTW: Your last point is well taken. I really hope Blizzard realizes what a large market they're overlooking by excluding the linux community.
Slashdot Mirror
---------
Senatorial aid: Senator! There's a computer program that lets kids share music illegally!
Senator: Humm, must shut it down...
Year 2001
---------
Senatorial aid: Senator! Since we shut down Napster all the kids are using new programs that not only share music illegally, but pr0n too!
Senator: D'oh! Screwed ourselves again.
---------
Me: Will they ever learn?
... find it odd that Segfault got the scoop on this little tidbit 3 days in advance of slashdot :-D
That's a bad analogy.
It's not perfect, but it's not bad either.
The reason that NTT are in the position of market dominance that they now enjoy is because they were a government-sanctioned monopoly. You literally could not compete with NTT, if you did, you would eventually be arrested. The law stated that NTT were the only people permitted to run a telco, and that was that.
Good point, but the focus of my comment was not that Docomo and Microsoft got to where they are, and stay where they are the same way, but that right now they are in very similar situations. I point this out because Docomo really should have realized that when they had reached a postion similar to Microsoft's they would be subject to the same problems Microsoft has, namely viruses.
Say what you like about Microsoft, but they achieved market dominance by competing in a free market. Linux is a viable alternative for many applications, you are free to distribute and use it as you please. Neither Microsoft nor the government are in any way able to enforce that you do otherwise - in fact there's this little thing called the Constitution that protects you.
This is completely offtopic. As I outlined above, I merely wanted to point out that Docomo should have expected this, given Microsoft's history. If you read my article, you'll see that I didn't bash Microsoft (Ok, maybe outlook...).
So, really, the situation isn't similar at all.
Yes, it is.
I'm not trying to start a flamewar or anything, but I believe you misconstrued the point of my comment.
So, lets see, Docomo has incredible market penetration (to the nearly monopolistic level). And their products are under attack by viruses that target only their products and no one elses. (*cough*Outlook*cough*)
Does this sound like microsoft to anyone else?
Domoco should have expected this, given that they have such a similar situation to microsoft. Yes, the market is different (cells vs. software) but the context is similar.
The point is not that the brain shields actually do anything-all the scientific evidence so far states that the EM coming off of cells is harmless. It's pure marketing; yet another attempt to offer some "feature" that makes your product appear better than your competition's. Expect to see more "features" of dubious value as the cell market achieves saturation.
Seriously, though, it really doesn't pay to rely on ads to give you any meaningful information, other than the existence of the product/service.
Caveat Emptor -- still the best advice
...that one Isaac Asimov story. You know the one.
sorry, incorrect link. Here is the correct link at U.S. patent office
You can search through patent info at the U.S. patent office
Now, you'd think that the politicians would see this and realize that maybe they're wrong about things, that maybe zero tolerance policies and draconian punishments for benign computer hijinks are wrong, but I doubt it.
Who wants to bet that the politicians and the school boards are instead going to blame computers and the internet for the whole thing?
I urge all of us, if we have children of any age, to get involved in the school boards, and remember this when elections come around and do what we can to inject a little sanity into the world. And if we are really lucky, maybe other young people will be spared the experience that lead to this young man's mistake.
1) As it is all open source, there is nothing to stop others muscling in on this so-called "lucrative" support deal, undercutting HP and generally significantly reducing HP's income from support.
Yes, there is nothing stopping others from providing support in addtion to HP. However, this has been HP's project for years. If I was a sysanalyst, I'd go with the company that has the most experience with the software, rather than an upstart.
2) HP would no longer have control over the source per se, nor would they directly know what was happening to it unless the spend time (and hence money) to keep looking at what's going on - makes supporting a product bloody difficult when you have no control over it and don't know what's being done to it - the only way to know is to pay lots of people to watch the development, and if you are going to invest thatsort of time, money and manpower then you may as well just develop it inhouse for less cost anyway.
Yes they would have to spend money in keeping up with the software as it is revised, but the money they would make from support would easily offset this. (If it were otherwise, I doubt there would be many software consultants around.)
You seem also to contradict yourself, you say that the costs involved in keeping up the revisions would be prohibitive, yet in your first point you assert that other companies could muscle in on HP's support business. If HP couldn't afford keeping up with the revisions (which I strongly disagree with), certainly a company without any prior knowledge of the software couldn't afford it either.
Also, I must contest your statement that inhouse developement would cost less. Understand that all developement costs are sunk; you don't get them back.
While I am unfamiliar with Sun's StarOffice suite's developement, the Netscape/Mozilla project has been hampered by the requirement of a proprietary set of developement tools. If they eliminated this requirement, the number of developers willing to participate would likely go through the roof, so to speak.
Actually, if they were willing to provide support (for $$$) open-sourcing the program would be an extremely smart move. As Eric Raymond explains in his book The Cathedral and the Bazaar, by open-sourcing the project they get free developement and bug fixing. And by providing support services, they can make a ton of money without investing sunk developement costs. While you may raise the objection that other companies could also provide support, HP would not only have the cred (it has been their project) but also has the support service infrastructure set up. These two advantages would ensure that they were primary support providers for the near future. Given this, they would get the mucho moola of support services, without the hassle of developement. Sound like a good deal?
Sorry, brain burp. The Cathedral and the bazaar is by Eric S. Raymond, not RMS.
BTW: RMS is most certainly interested in the Components of Intellectual propertie rights, he just doesn't feel comfortable commenting on the entire issue in such a short piece (he wouldn't have enough time to fully explain his stance). To find out his true opinions on the issues invovled, check out his excellent The Cathedral and the Bazaar
The point of the litigation is not about the possible confusion that could erupt over an unrelated movie with the same name. The point is that Blizzard legally reserved "Diablo" as a movie name already. It is perfectly reasonable for Blizzard to expect their trademark will be protected.
This is very similar to a (hypothetical) case where two movie companies are disputing a movie title, which I beleive is a fairly cut and dry scenario (whomever registered the name first wins). And I would like to point out this case is much more like two movie companies than like Ford and AMD (your example); Blizzard and movie companies are both media, whereas with Ford and AMD you have a dissimilar product.
BTW: Your last point is well taken. I really hope Blizzard realizes what a large market they're overlooking by excluding the linux community.