Sorry if that confused you. I mean: Why should the professors be in fear of being sued now (since they are doing this pre-emptive "I'm going to sue to make sure you can't" thing). It is already known that they have cracked or found a way to circumvent the watermark, so the damage has been done. The watermark is useless.
They were (the first time around) just pissed they spent a lot of money to develop a faulty authentication product, and now can't make money off of it.
The secret's out now though, so I'm not sure it really matters that these professor show how they cracked it. The point was that it can be cracked. So why should anyone care enough to sue them. They might not have anything to worry about, but I guess it's good to cover you back.
I don't think anyone is disputing that the U.S. government is weaker than MS. The point is the damage that a Monopoly does to the consumer.
You say that MS holds its position by the virtue of its product, but if you are willing to admit that Microsoft is a monopoly (which I don't see how you can't) then MS holds its position because the virtue of its product is that it is the ONLY product. Monopolies are never good, and I don't care what people say about the new economy being different and that the days of the anti-trust battles against the RailRoads, AT&T and IBM are a thing of the past.
If you want a present day example, look at INTEL and its battle with AMD and VIA. One more blunder by AMD, and INTEL would have the same type of monopoly in the CPU departement as currently owned by MS in the OS department. Where would be then? Probably still stuck around 600 MHz, that's where. Have you seen the prices of CPUS these days? And if INTEL was as effective at bullying chip makers (like VIA) as MS was at bullying computer makers, we'd either be stuck with the 440bx chipset still (It was a damn good chip set though...) or paying outrageous prices of RDRAM. I gurantee, the hardware for being a web designer and graphic artist would be a lot more expensive in these conditions.
MS has innovated, no one can take that away from them. They've done it really well. But they have also crushed, bullyed and stifled innovation whenever somebody else did it first and they couldn't buy or steal it. You don't fault MS for that, they are a corporation who exists to keep its profits high and its shareholders happy. But the government is here to protect the consumer and the economy.
One choice is no choice at all for a consumer. Not only that, but do you realize where the economy would be with Monopolies such as these. I'd guess most of us would be out of a job. Two companies with a similar product, sharing 50 percent market share hire a LOT more people than a single company with 100 percent market share. Compeition creates jobs and MS is evil.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry if that confused you. I mean: Why should the professors be in fear of being sued now (since they are doing this pre-emptive "I'm going to sue to make sure you can't" thing). It is already known that they have cracked or found a way to circumvent the watermark, so the damage has been done. The watermark is useless.
They were (the first time around) just pissed they spent a lot of money to develop a faulty authentication product, and now can't make money off of it.
The secret's out now though, so I'm not sure it really matters that these professor show how they cracked it. The point was that it can be cracked. So why should anyone care enough to sue them. They might not have anything to worry about, but I guess it's good to cover you back.
I don't think anyone is disputing that the U.S. government is weaker than MS. The point is the damage that a Monopoly does to the consumer. You say that MS holds its position by the virtue of its product, but if you are willing to admit that Microsoft is a monopoly (which I don't see how you can't) then MS holds its position because the virtue of its product is that it is the ONLY product. Monopolies are never good, and I don't care what people say about the new economy being different and that the days of the anti-trust battles against the RailRoads, AT&T and IBM are a thing of the past. If you want a present day example, look at INTEL and its battle with AMD and VIA. One more blunder by AMD, and INTEL would have the same type of monopoly in the CPU departement as currently owned by MS in the OS department. Where would be then? Probably still stuck around 600 MHz, that's where. Have you seen the prices of CPUS these days? And if INTEL was as effective at bullying chip makers (like VIA) as MS was at bullying computer makers, we'd either be stuck with the 440bx chipset still (It was a damn good chip set though...) or paying outrageous prices of RDRAM. I gurantee, the hardware for being a web designer and graphic artist would be a lot more expensive in these conditions. MS has innovated, no one can take that away from them. They've done it really well. But they have also crushed, bullyed and stifled innovation whenever somebody else did it first and they couldn't buy or steal it. You don't fault MS for that, they are a corporation who exists to keep its profits high and its shareholders happy. But the government is here to protect the consumer and the economy. One choice is no choice at all for a consumer. Not only that, but do you realize where the economy would be with Monopolies such as these. I'd guess most of us would be out of a job. Two companies with a similar product, sharing 50 percent market share hire a LOT more people than a single company with 100 percent market share. Compeition creates jobs and MS is evil.