It has been my experience that companies who exhibit this kind of litigious behavior and reliance upon proprietary whatzits (technical term) are generally going down.
Not to mention the negative influence on current and potential customers. If customers become disenchanted with the product, the 3rd party support (game developers) will dry up. Then what is the market value of their proprietary API?
The Internet is not a haven for lawlessness. It's high time you twits figured that out.
Well, from my perspective, the alarm comes not from any notion of "new" legal precedents. Nor does it come from the real-world consequences of Internet behaviour. What does concern me is the variation of laws in different geographic entities.
It is a given that I have no control over where my words go. Anyone who reads this posting might save it to a server anywhere. Anywhere. Do I have any means of checking that I'm not violating any law in existence anywhere in the world? Of course not. Yet, this ruling underscores the fact that I could be held liable for local laws in regions that I have never physically entered, nor directly contacted.
If I write an inflammatory article about a particular state or nation, can I be extradited? As others have pointed out, U.S. courts would likely prevent the execution of any judgement for a case like that. But what about "offensive" (i.e., unprotected) speech?
It's hard enough to find rationality in the courts within one jurisdiction. Now, it would seem, that every person on the Net must comply with the set of all laws from every jurisdiction on the planet. (It's not too hard to imagine mutually contradictory laws arising between, say, the U.S. and France. What do we do then?)
The bottom line is, not too many people are arguing that no laws apply to the Internet. But doesn't it seem a bit ludicrous that every jurisdication can enforce their own local code on netizens from anywhere in the world?
Not entirely true. Nobody outside the network of dealers makes money. The "public" offering is really offered to whoever the underwriters feel like favoring.
This can be part of a quid pro quo (as in 'Hey man, I picked up that dog that you were trying to unload last month, you have to take this one!') or currying favor to strengthen a relationship with a favored counterparty (as in 'I hear you've got front-row Knicks tickets. Let's talk about RedHat.')
These first-tier dealers are the ones who pay the actual IPO price (say $16/share). Then, they turn around and sell it immediately at "market" price (maybe $50/share). Of course, "market" price is a bit nebulous when an issue first starts trading, but the dealers have a pretty good idea of what the demand is by looking at what people are offering.
This system for placing issues on the market is supposed to ensure market efficiency by having multiple channels by which the initial offering is traded. If the underwriter sold directly to the market, they would be in a uniquely advantaged position. Instead, we have a few dealers in highly, but not uniquely, advantaged positions.
I am a consultant. Are you suggesting I leave my employer or the client? Regardless, the IT community in this city is surprisingly small, and reputations get around quickly.
In the world today, that sort of departure does not get you a reputation for uncompromising quality. It would merely get you branded as difficult to work with--a prima donna.
Besides, the answer to every unpleasantness in the workplace is not to switch jobs. Believe me. I have switched employers three times in as many years. It's one crapshoot after another. Some companies are great, some are miserable. Will overall conditions ever improve? I like the economic darwinism theory. Companies that treat their skilled workers badly soon have only unskilled workers and will therefore be less competitive. I like that idea. But I would also like a more active response. My professional existance is not a token sloshing about from one company to another, looking for a favorable ecological niche.
I haven't found the answers yet, but I'm still looking for ways to improve the entire ecosystem. Darwinian evolution takes a long time, and I am impatient. Nature, red in tooth and claw, is not kind to the entities who are evolving.
Many of these posters are laboring under the misapprehension that the current style of vendor certification would be extended to the profession as a whole. This is not necessarily accurate.
True, technical certification is not long-lived. What we need to discuss, however, is certification of technique. You don't get certified as an OO developer or as a device-driver-writer, any more than an architect gets certified to use a cantilevered beam. You get certified as a professional who adheres to a code of ethics. You get certified as one who can judge risks, balance economic and technical concerns.
The medical profession has a credo: "First, do no harm." Have we any such guiding principles?
If there was no pressure from a marketing department to get a product out the door, then this plan might have a chance, but sadly, that's not the case, so ultimately I guess it's not the programmers fault at all if something fails because it was released before it was ready.
If your license were at risk, would you bow to that pressure? Do you think there is no pressure to get a building up and running? Do you think that there is no pressure to get a bridge completed?
Of course, the inevitable comeback will be: "If I refuse to work the job, they'll just find some unlicensed slob to do the job." That will be true if licenses are not mandatory to work in this field. What other professional field allows people to work without licenses? Architects? No. Doctors? No. Laywers? No. Accountants? No. Stock brokers? No. Real estate agents? No.
All of these were once unlicensed, unregulated professions. They all banded together and instituted licesning procedures for their own protection and the protection of their chosen fields. Yes, that protection does imply protecting their own exclusivity--a necessary evil.
Let me start by saying that I starting programming in my early teens. I took my first professional job when I was 16. I now work as a software architect for a consulting firm. I code at home, too. I'd do this even if I didn't get paid for it.
Having established my credentials, let me say that I have long advocated a certification process for programmers. I support it not for the benefit of employers, but for my own protection.
I have, in previous engagements, been asked to perform services that would not meet the ACM's code of ethics. From time to time, I have also needed to make project managers and sponsors aware of some unpleasant realities about their systems or proposed systems. Let me tell you, those conversations were not well received. There are still plenty of "shoot-the-messenger" organizations out there. While I felt that I was discharging my obligations as a professional, by making them aware of these potential disasters, the reaction was to ignore the situation. I was directed to continue working the planned course of action. When the inevitable train wreck occurred, the same perpetrators sought scapegoats.
If we had an accrediting body, or if I had a license, I could have taken the much stronger position: "I will not continue on this path, or I will lose my license." Would the threat of losing your license to work in your chosen field motivate you? I think it would. If you think laywers are sleazy now, imagine what they would be like without the threat of disbarrment!
I have also had the experience of working with teammates who were grossly underqualified. Unfortunately, the client did not have the capability to detect the BS artists before hiring. Thus, I would be stuck with teammates who provided a net negative to the project. If there were such a licensing program (or better still, tiered licenses: e.g., apprentice, journeyman, master) the client would have been better able to detect those who should not have been hired.
Of course, any such licensing program is perilous in many ways: technical change, anarchist revolt, enforcement, and many others. There will also be failures of the system--unqualified individuals slipping by, irregularities in the review procedure-- the same as every other professional accreditation system. By and large, however, I think we will ultimately need to adopt such a system for our own protection.
Funny how people only want code to the cool things out there;-)
Sarcasm aside, this is a good point that many of these companies seem to miss. Opening the code is only the first step. A project must also attract developers. I think we are close to reaching an attention economy of open source projects.
Oops, that sounded a little too much like JonKatz -- I'd better explain. (Just kidding, Jon!) Developers willing and able to contribute to these open source projects compose the pool of resources in this economy. That pool is decidedly finite. As the number of projects increases, they will be competing for the finite time of those developers.
Don't make the mistake of assuming that "encryption capabilities" means an algorithm. Their "3D capabilities" are not implemented as a renderer in silicon. Their "multimedia capabilities" do not mean there is a codec on the chip.
Most likely, they will be introducing new instructions to make implementation of encryption simpler/faster.
Of course, that's just what we need. More instructions. Instructions are to processors as features are to software. Selling points, branding, market differentiators. Usually unnecessary.
Kinda makes me nostalgic for the whole RISC vs. CISC debate. We need a whooooole new category for these beasts.
x86 + MMX + Katmai + DES = SCISC (super-complex instruction set computer)?
if Prof. Schalmansee will have any credibility left among his peers after this. Anyone at MIT who can tell us what the Ec dept. thinks of their duelling profs?
Slashdot Mirror
Since when is reasonability required in the law? I see unreasonable things upheld by the courts all the time.
Well done!
Can you post this link here? I, for one, would very much like to see that.
--
A good parody should not be stupid. A good parody should mimic the original voice, accentuating the humorous aspects of the subject.
Sophomoric humor makes for poor satire. Case in point: South Park, the movie.
--
Not to mention the negative influence on current and potential customers. If customers become disenchanted with the product, the 3rd party support (game developers) will dry up. Then what is the market value of their proprietary API?
Must be time to short TDFX.
Well, from my perspective, the alarm comes not from any notion of "new" legal precedents. Nor does it come from the real-world consequences of Internet behaviour. What does concern me is the variation of laws in different geographic entities.
It is a given that I have no control over where my words go. Anyone who reads this posting might save it to a server anywhere. Anywhere. Do I have any means of checking that I'm not violating any law in existence anywhere in the world? Of course not. Yet, this ruling underscores the fact that I could be held liable for local laws in regions that I have never physically entered, nor directly contacted.
If I write an inflammatory article about a particular state or nation, can I be extradited? As others have pointed out, U.S. courts would likely prevent the execution of any judgement for a case like that. But what about "offensive" (i.e., unprotected) speech?
It's hard enough to find rationality in the courts within one jurisdiction. Now, it would seem, that every person on the Net must comply with the set of all laws from every jurisdiction on the planet. (It's not too hard to imagine mutually contradictory laws arising between, say, the U.S. and France. What do we do then?)
The bottom line is, not too many people are arguing that no laws apply to the Internet. But doesn't it seem a bit ludicrous that every jurisdication can enforce their own local code on netizens from anywhere in the world?
Not entirely true. Nobody outside the network of dealers makes money. The "public" offering is really offered to whoever the underwriters feel like favoring.
This can be part of a quid pro quo (as in 'Hey man, I picked up that dog that you were trying to unload last month, you have to take this one!') or currying favor to strengthen a relationship with a favored counterparty (as in 'I hear you've got front-row Knicks tickets. Let's talk about RedHat.')
These first-tier dealers are the ones who pay the actual IPO price (say $16/share). Then, they turn around and sell it immediately at "market" price (maybe $50/share). Of course, "market" price is a bit nebulous when an issue first starts trading, but the dealers have a pretty good idea of what the demand is by looking at what people are offering.
This system for placing issues on the market is supposed to ensure market efficiency by having multiple channels by which the initial offering is traded. If the underwriter sold directly to the market, they would be in a uniquely advantaged position. Instead, we have a few dealers in highly, but not uniquely, advantaged positions.
In the world today, that sort of departure does not get you a reputation for uncompromising quality. It would merely get you branded as difficult to work with--a prima donna.
Besides, the answer to every unpleasantness in the workplace is not to switch jobs. Believe me. I have switched employers three times in as many years. It's one crapshoot after another. Some companies are great, some are miserable. Will overall conditions ever improve? I like the economic darwinism theory. Companies that treat their skilled workers badly soon have only unskilled workers and will therefore be less competitive. I like that idea. But I would also like a more active response. My professional existance is not a token sloshing about from one company to another, looking for a favorable ecological niche.
I haven't found the answers yet, but I'm still looking for ways to improve the entire ecosystem. Darwinian evolution takes a long time, and I am impatient. Nature, red in tooth and claw, is not kind to the entities who are evolving.
True, technical certification is not long-lived. What we need to discuss, however, is certification of technique. You don't get certified as an OO developer or as a device-driver-writer, any more than an architect gets certified to use a cantilevered beam. You get certified as a professional who adheres to a code of ethics. You get certified as one who can judge risks, balance economic and technical concerns.
The medical profession has a credo: "First, do no harm." Have we any such guiding principles?
If your license were at risk, would you bow to that pressure? Do you think there is no pressure to get a building up and running? Do you think that there is no pressure to get a bridge completed?
Of course, the inevitable comeback will be: "If I refuse to work the job, they'll just find some unlicensed slob to do the job." That will be true if licenses are not mandatory to work in this field. What other professional field allows people to work without licenses?
Architects? No.
Doctors? No.
Laywers? No.
Accountants? No.
Stock brokers? No.
Real estate agents? No.
All of these were once unlicensed, unregulated professions. They all banded together and instituted licesning procedures for their own protection and the protection of their chosen fields. Yes, that protection does imply protecting their own exclusivity--a necessary evil.
Having established my credentials, let me say that I have long advocated a certification process for programmers. I support it not for the benefit of employers, but for my own protection.
I have, in previous engagements, been asked to perform services that would not meet the ACM's code of ethics. From time to time, I have also needed to make project managers and sponsors aware of some unpleasant realities about their systems or proposed systems. Let me tell you, those conversations were not well received. There are still plenty of "shoot-the-messenger" organizations out there. While I felt that I was discharging my obligations as a professional, by making them aware of these potential disasters, the reaction was to ignore the situation. I was directed to continue working the planned course of action. When the inevitable train wreck occurred, the same perpetrators sought scapegoats.
If we had an accrediting body, or if I had a license, I could have taken the much stronger position: "I will not continue on this path, or I will lose my license." Would the threat of losing your license to work in your chosen field motivate you? I think it would. If you think laywers are sleazy now, imagine what they would be like without the threat of disbarrment!
I have also had the experience of working with teammates who were grossly underqualified. Unfortunately, the client did not have the capability to detect the BS artists before hiring. Thus, I would be stuck with teammates who provided a net negative to the project. If there were such a licensing program (or better still, tiered licenses: e.g., apprentice, journeyman, master) the client would have been better able to detect those who should not have been hired.
Of course, any such licensing program is perilous in many ways: technical change, anarchist revolt, enforcement, and many others. There will also be failures of the system--unqualified individuals slipping by, irregularities in the review procedure-- the same as every other professional accreditation system. By and large, however, I think we will ultimately need to adopt such a system for our own protection.
Sarcasm aside, this is a good point that many of these companies seem to miss. Opening the code is only the first step. A project must also attract developers. I think we are close to reaching an attention economy of open source projects.
Oops, that sounded a little too much like JonKatz -- I'd better explain. (Just kidding, Jon!) Developers willing and able to contribute to these open source projects compose the pool of resources in this economy. That pool is decidedly finite. As the number of projects increases, they will be competing for the finite time of those developers.
Cheers,
-Nygard
So we can remember what SGI once was, even if they have lost their way.
Is it safe to assume this is meant sarcastically?
before i even got to the bottom of the post.
I wonder what the working definition of "planet" would be, if this passes. Is there a size requirement? Orbital eccentricity limit?
Maybe its just a case of the big planets trying to close out the game, now that they've won.
Don't make the mistake of assuming that "encryption capabilities" means an algorithm. Their "3D capabilities" are not implemented as a renderer in silicon. Their "multimedia capabilities" do not mean there is a codec on the chip.
Most likely, they will be introducing new instructions to make implementation of encryption simpler/faster.
Of course, that's just what we need. More instructions. Instructions are to processors as features are to software. Selling points, branding, market differentiators. Usually unnecessary.
Kinda makes me nostalgic for the whole RISC vs. CISC debate. We need a whooooole new category for these beasts.
x86 + MMX + Katmai + DES = SCISC (super-complex instruction set computer)?
Or is it VCISC?
if Prof. Schalmansee will have any credibility left among his peers after this. Anyone at MIT who can tell us what the Ec dept. thinks of their duelling profs?