*cough* I don't think so... "...If you write a book, then for the period of time during which your copy right exists, I am not free to also write the same book. My speech is infringed..."
You *could* still write the same book, you just couldn't profit from it nor distribute it. You're arguement is silly though for the simple reason of: Why would you want to create the same words as someone else EXCEPT to make profits? Saying it's for 'altruistic reasons' is facetious.
If I buy a new hard drive will I have to pay a Linux tax now? I want a machine without Linux on it! I want freedom of choice when I buy my hardware! Stop forcing me to use your software with it's restrictive licensing procedures!
Just replace Linux with Microsoft and you have a standard Slashdot rant. /sarcasm
Actually music piracy HAS killed people. There was an article posted on CBS (CBS Report) recently about how the same sort of violence that one finds in the drug dealing crime circles is starting to appear in the music piracy circles.
Except you don't own the copyright on your works at work now do you? Generally most companies have you acknowledge that you have created a 'work for hire' which basically waves your copyright.
Of course copyrights are still relevent. If *I* create something it (a copyright) protects *me* and *my* work. I don't work for free and I doubt you do either. Why would anyone bother to create new works if they couldn't have some semblence of a guarantee of being justly compensated for it if that's what they want? Just because you apparently believe that all things should be *free* doesn't mean everyone else does (in fact I would argue that the vast majority of people would disagree with you).
Even Linux has benefitted from copyright. Think about it this way: Those that have contributed code to Linux and other *free* software projects had to earn their money in some way. Odds are likely (almost guaranteed) that most of those methods for earning income were supplied via a patent, a copyright or a trademark. Be it the guy working for a multi-million dollar corporation producing commerical software to the college student who's parents support them by working for an advertising company, to the college student who pays the bills by working at a fast-food restaurant. The point is that the wholesale destruction or disallowance of copyrights and / or patents is ridiculous.
Abusive patents and copyrights however should be fair game.
You however have just changed copyright law by stating "...it seems foriegn to them that intellectual property should be released into general ownership after its creator's death."
Fourteen years after creation and then another fourteen if they are still alive seems fair to me. If they die during either term the copyright should still be valid.
Example, someone creates the 'next big thing' in publishing. It garners great acclaim, there are movie rights, etc. Someone kills the author. Should his/her copyright expire immediately? What about their heirs, should they get nothing of this work?
They state in the article that the unit will sell for as little as $799 (depending on software. One has to assume Lindows for that price point) and that it's a bargain compared to a $2500 tablet PC.
Yes, some Tablet PC's run for as much as $2500. Let's compare shall we?
Docunote at $799: (from their site) Processor: 667 mhz Ram: 256 MB HD: 20 gb OS: Lindows (unknown handwriting support) Screen. 8.4" TFT (800 x 600) LCD display
Compaq TC1000 at $1699 Transmeta(TM) Crusoe(TM) processor 1.0 GHz Memory 256MB, 1 DDR SDRAM Module Hard Drive 30GB Display 10.4" XGA (1024x768) display Operating System Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional Tablet PC Edition Modem 56K V.92 Modem Network Card 10/100 NIC
Faster processor, bigger / higher resolution screen. I think it's worth the extra $800 bucks.
Wouldn't happen. The Gate is a Regulated Navigation Area with extremely tight traffic lanes. If you obstructed one (even during servicing of anything underwater) you'd bring some bad mojo down on you. VTS get's grumpy when they have to reroute traffic.
As has been posted elsewhere, *most* Microsoft licences will allow you to transfer the licence. However, in the case of 'Open' or 'Select' licenses, you need Microsoft's permission to transfer the licence. This is because of a number of reasons. One of the biggest I can think of is that with the older 'Select' licensing, you received a CD of EVERY product that Microsoft makes. It is under the 'Select' agreement that you agree that Microsoft can audit your usage of the products and make sure you haven't used too many credits (you purchase 'credits' when you get the licence. These credits can then be 'spent' on whatever software you want (i.e. Windows 2000 on one machine, XP on another, etc) Read more about 'Select' and 'Open' licensing here: Microsoft Licensing)
It's not fair to say that they are making software a 'non-asset' as it was never your asset to begin with. You had only the licence to the software, not the software itself. A minor point, but I believe a valid one.
Um, no. The IBM/Linux pieces were neither 'spraychalked' nor 'bio-degradeable'. Over a YEAR later, they are still visibile. This is after thousands of people walking over them, rains, sidewalk washings and even IBM paying a private company to try to remove them. They were eventually fined by the City but it doesn't make them go away.
These stickers and such are nothing compared to the IBM/Linux spray ads.
From Microsoft: "More than 5,000 nonprofit organizations benefited from over $39.9 million in cash and $207 million in software given by Microsoft and its employees in 2002."
That's seperate from the over one billion that the Gates Foundation handed out. Like him or not, Gates is a generous guy.
Well, first of all, this is not Microsoft. This is the Gates Foundation, which just happens to have been founded by the CEO of Microsoft.
Microsoft Corp. on the other hand has a whole slew of different funding activities targeting different areas. You can read about them here: Microsoft Giving
And no, I don't work for Microsoft. I just did a bunch of research on American corporations vs. other countries in regards to donations. It's interesting.
They are the largest private contributor fighting global health issues (and it is believed to be the largest driving force behind malaria eradication in the world)
Wow, no offense but was the political diatribe at the end really useful?
Patricia Seitz was nominated to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in 1998 by then President Clinton. She was most recently tied (politcally speaking) to the election campaign of former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno.
So, I doubt she's a Republican and probably not very conservative.
You may think she made a bad call, however, if you'll notice in the Order granting defendant's motion to dismiss she made the decision that Congress very narrowly defined the definition of a 'place of public accomodation'. (Obligatory 'I am not a lawyer') I would have to agree with her on that issue, when the ADA states that X,Y,Z places are covered and doesn't say "The Internet" as one of those then it doesn't cover it. Personally I think that regulating accessibility in websites is ridiculous. By that logic, all books would have to be printed in braille.
(Please keep in mind I am not intentionally being arguementative, more so being 'devils advocate') Why should a proprietary network protocol be like an RFC? I mean, I understand (I don't agree with it 100%) the belief that 'information wants to be free' but not all information does. If, for example, I wrote a networking protocol and had no interest in having anyone else connect to my network, why should I have to share it with you?
Slashdot Mirror
"Of course, the actual logic of spending this money to build their own version of what everyone else already had is the troublesome part..."
Why is that troubling at all? They wrote a competing application / OS.
Isn't this all about competition?
I still find it funny when the EFF and the ACLU are brought up in a discussion in which someone elses 1st Amendment rights are being lambasted.
Doesn't this guy have a right to free speech as well?
*cough* I don't think so...
"...If you write a book, then for the period of time during which your copy right exists, I am not free to also write the same book. My speech is infringed..."
You *could* still write the same book, you just couldn't profit from it nor distribute it. You're arguement is silly though for the simple reason of: Why would you want to create the same words as someone else EXCEPT to make profits? Saying it's for 'altruistic reasons' is facetious.
If I buy a new hard drive will I have to pay a Linux tax now? I want a machine without Linux on it! I want freedom of choice when I buy my hardware! Stop forcing me to use your software with it's restrictive licensing procedures!
/sarcasm
Just replace Linux with Microsoft and you have a standard Slashdot rant.
Actually music piracy HAS killed people. There was an article posted on CBS (CBS Report) recently about how the same sort of violence that one finds in the drug dealing crime circles is starting to appear in the music piracy circles.
Except you don't own the copyright on your works at work now do you? Generally most companies have you acknowledge that you have created a 'work for hire' which basically waves your copyright.
:)
Nice try though
Of course copyrights are still relevent. If *I* create something it (a copyright) protects *me* and *my* work. I don't work for free and I doubt you do either. Why would anyone bother to create new works if they couldn't have some semblence of a guarantee of being justly compensated for it if that's what they want? Just because you apparently believe that all things should be *free* doesn't mean everyone else does (in fact I would argue that the vast majority of people would disagree with you).
Even Linux has benefitted from copyright. Think about it this way: Those that have contributed code to Linux and other *free* software projects had to earn their money in some way. Odds are likely (almost guaranteed) that most of those methods for earning income were supplied via a patent, a copyright or a trademark. Be it the guy working for a multi-million dollar corporation producing commerical software to the college student who's parents support them by working for an advertising company, to the college student who pays the bills by working at a fast-food restaurant. The point is that the wholesale destruction or disallowance of copyrights and / or patents is ridiculous.
Abusive patents and copyrights however should be fair game.
You however have just changed copyright law by stating "...it seems foriegn to them that intellectual property should be released into general ownership after its creator's death."
Fourteen years after creation and then another fourteen if they are still alive seems fair to me. If they die during either term the copyright should still be valid.
Example, someone creates the 'next big thing' in publishing. It garners great acclaim, there are movie rights, etc. Someone kills the author. Should his/her copyright expire immediately? What about their heirs, should they get nothing of this work?
They state in the article that the unit will sell for as little as $799 (depending on software. One has to assume Lindows for that price point) and that it's a bargain compared to a $2500 tablet PC.
Yes, some Tablet PC's run for as much as $2500. Let's compare shall we?
Docunote at $799: (from their site)
Processor: 667 mhz
Ram: 256 MB
HD: 20 gb
OS: Lindows (unknown handwriting support)
Screen. 8.4" TFT (800 x 600) LCD display
Compaq TC1000 at $1699
Transmeta(TM) Crusoe(TM) processor 1.0 GHz
Memory 256MB, 1 DDR SDRAM Module
Hard Drive 30GB
Display 10.4" XGA (1024x768) display
Operating System Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional Tablet PC Edition
Modem 56K V.92 Modem
Network Card 10/100 NIC
Faster processor, bigger / higher resolution screen. I think it's worth the extra $800 bucks.
I mean, come on, he was trying to listen to a Toto CD! ;P
Maybe one under the Golden Gate someday??
Wouldn't happen. The Gate is a Regulated Navigation Area with extremely tight traffic lanes. If you obstructed one (even during servicing of anything underwater) you'd bring some bad mojo down on you. VTS get's grumpy when they have to reroute traffic.
Wasn't everyone just complaining about the Microsoft Monopoly and how it was bad for competition?
/.
Doesn't Adobe have a (relative) monopoly on PDF as they are the largest player in the space?
Therefore, this is a *GOOD* thing, except possibly on
The MS Office Assistant is actually one smart little monkey.
:)
Check out some more information about it here at Microsoft Research.
And no, I don't work for Microsoft
All judgement decisions of publically traded corporations are released after the market closes.
Just as earnings statements are released after market close.
...but it's all Flash :(
Touché
=)
As has been posted elsewhere, *most* Microsoft licences will allow you to transfer the licence. However, in the case of 'Open' or 'Select' licenses, you need Microsoft's permission to transfer the licence. This is because of a number of reasons. One of the biggest I can think of is that with the older 'Select' licensing, you received a CD of EVERY product that Microsoft makes. It is under the 'Select' agreement that you agree that Microsoft can audit your usage of the products and make sure you haven't used too many credits (you purchase 'credits' when you get the licence. These credits can then be 'spent' on whatever software you want (i.e. Windows 2000 on one machine, XP on another, etc) Read more about 'Select' and 'Open' licensing here: Microsoft Licensing)
It's not fair to say that they are making software a 'non-asset' as it was never your asset to begin with. You had only the licence to the software, not the software itself. A minor point, but I believe a valid one.
I don't know what IBM did in New York. But in San Francisco, they spray painted them. I'll try and get a photo of one of them later today.
Um, no. The IBM/Linux pieces were neither 'spraychalked' nor 'bio-degradeable'. Over a YEAR later, they are still visibile. This is after thousands of people walking over them, rains, sidewalk washings and even IBM paying a private company to try to remove them. They were eventually fined by the City but it doesn't make them go away.
These stickers and such are nothing compared to the IBM/Linux spray ads.
Oops, I forget to post this:
From Microsoft: "More than 5,000 nonprofit organizations benefited from over $39.9 million in cash and $207 million in software given by Microsoft and its employees in 2002."
That's seperate from the over one billion that the Gates Foundation handed out. Like him or not, Gates is a generous guy.
Well, first of all, this is not Microsoft. This is the Gates Foundation, which just happens to have been founded by the CEO of Microsoft.
Microsoft Corp. on the other hand has a whole slew of different funding activities targeting different areas. You can read about them here: Microsoft Giving
And no, I don't work for Microsoft. I just did a bunch of research on American corporations vs. other countries in regards to donations. It's interesting.
First read about them here: Gates Foundation
Here's a few highlights of the year ending 12/31/2001
Financial Position highlights
Amounts are in thousands of dollars.
Net assets: $32,751,466
(note: That's BILLIONS)
Grants Paid
Global Healthcare: $855,567
Education: $177,944
They are the largest private contributor fighting global health issues (and it is believed to be the largest driving force behind malaria eradication in the world)
Wow, no offense but was the political diatribe at the end really useful?
Patricia Seitz was nominated to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in 1998 by then President Clinton. She was most recently tied (politcally speaking) to the election campaign of former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno.
So, I doubt she's a Republican and probably not very conservative.
You may think she made a bad call, however, if you'll notice in the Order granting defendant's motion to dismiss she made the decision that Congress very narrowly defined the definition of a 'place of public accomodation'. (Obligatory 'I am not a lawyer') I would have to agree with her on that issue, when the ADA states that X,Y,Z places are covered and doesn't say "The Internet" as one of those then it doesn't cover it. Personally I think that regulating accessibility in websites is ridiculous. By that logic, all books would have to be printed in braille.
(Please keep in mind I am not intentionally being arguementative, more so being 'devils advocate') Why should a proprietary network protocol be like an RFC? I mean, I understand (I don't agree with it 100%) the belief that 'information wants to be free' but not all information does. If, for example, I wrote a networking protocol and had no interest in having anyone else connect to my network, why should I have to share it with you?
yes, typo on my part. Should have said 'protocol'
:)
Not enough coffee