Microsoft can certainly blamed for their actions regarding licensing, which meant no PC company was willing to risk shipping BeOS, either as dual boot or standalone.
People should just be thankful that they're not able to get away with that anymore, otherwise you could kiss goodbye to Linux netbooks.
Microsoft's best tactic is doing very little and letting their competitors fail through their own mistakes, that's how they've gained most of their market share.
They derived most of their market share indirectly, due to the popularity of PCs.
My dislike of Windows XP's interface had nothing to do with what hardware it was running on. My laptop has an Intel Core Duo, but I've still reverted to the "classic" 2000 look.
In what way was Fisher Price theme before its time? Has it come into fashion now?
Speaking of Windows 2000 - we've got a couple clients that won't run anything else. Their entire operation, all their workstations, is built on Windows 2000.
My main computer still runs 2000! I wouldn't put it in the same category as all the "old" OSes - there's not a huge difference between it and XP, and in terms of time, XP is only slightly younger than it anyway. But XP is what many people still use, and indeed, many geeks have avoided going onto Vista.
Plus there's the distinction between versions and operating systems - Windows 2000 is an earlier version of an OS that's still around; compared with "old" operating systems like Windows 9x and "classic" MacOS that are different OSes altogether, and are no longer updated.
Well I know I'll be fine - I'll be googling away on my "Iphone-like device" that isn't an Iphone. No one will suspect a thing, because it's physically impossible for any other device that isn't from Apple to have access to the Internet. Even if I tried, the Apple fan sitting next to me will get out his Iphone, make a big speech about "Wow, I can access the Internet on my Iphone", and then just as he's about to get kicked off the jury, tell me that whilst my phone might have Internet access, it doesn't just "work", or something like that.
I know it's cool to hate Apple, but get your head out of your ass.
I know it's cool to love Apple and write childish insults at anyone who disagrees, but the sales figures suggest otherwise - it's just as likely that many people's first smartphone was a Blackberry.
Secondly, even if it was true that Apple owned the majority of the market (they're not even close btw - try looking at Nokia), it's still wrong to talk about the Iphone as being the only phone capable of doing this, or the first. It's yet another case of trying to hype a mundane story up by putting "On Your Iphone!", whilst simultaneously giving free advertising to Apple.
Consider, when people refer to operating systems generically as "Windows" or the web as "Internet Explorer", they get no end of ridicule from geeks on Slashdot - even though there, unlike Apple, MS do have a monopoly.
Lastly, restricting the category to the ill-defined "smart phone" makes no sense, when almost all phones can do Internet access - whilst this feature appeared on "smart" phones first, it still trickled down to be commonplace on all phones, long before the Iphone appeared. It's debatable whether the Iphone should count as a smart phone in the first place, when it misses features that bog standard phones have. For hundreds of millions of people, their first Internet phone was not a smartphone, and not an Iphone.
If you had a BlackBerry five years ago, it's a safe bet you were at one of the desks rather than in the jury box.
How is five years ago relevant, when the Iphone was only released two years ago! By 2007, Blackberrys were in common use. And since you ask about five years ago - yes, even back then, ordinary non-smart phones had general Internet access (I got one myself about four and a half years ago).
Windows 2000 works fine, as a superset of Windows 9x, in my experience at least. There doesn't seem to be much between 2000 and XP, apart from the annoying UI that we all disable.
As an Amiga user, I remember rolling my eyes in 1994 when I saw PC companies bragging about this new OS/2 thing that could multitask. Little did I know at the time that that would be nothing compared with the hype of a certain Microsoft OS to follow a year later...
There is not a "huge difference". IANAL but my understanding is that the plaintiff first has to prove that they have been damaged (otherwise there is no libel) but that a defence against this is that it is the truth.
This is what I was wondering - if there is a requirement to prove that they have suffered damages as a result, then it's a lot less worrying. (I don't think that every single statement someone says must be backed by evidence, but if your statement causes damages, one would hope you have evidence.)
Surely the likes of Singh and Goldacre have evidence for what they say, far more than the other sides here? Perhaps we should let this go to court - it would be funny if the court declares the BCA and Matthias Rath to be in the wrong (although I suppose it's a valid point that science shouldn't be a matter for courts to decide).
It still doesn't make sense - if it's civil law, why isn't it done on the balance of probabilities (i.e., whichever side is more likely to be true), as is done for other civil cases?
Imagine if the civil system in general was like that - someone could sue you for anything, and you'd be liable unless you could prove otherwise beyond reasonable doubt!
Although note his point is still in general valid - what he should have said is "Can I watch TV without paying the tax?" The answer is No, even if you're not watching BBC channels.
It's not a tax on owning or buying TVs, but the licence is a tax on watching TV.
Indeed - whilst I like the BBC, the TV Licencing are idiots. They send threatening, harrassing, and fraudulent letters to anyone who doesn't have a licence (claiming they must be breaking the law - even if they don't watch any TV), the kind that would surely be illegal for any other company to send out.
They also can't even manage a simple database - numerous times over the years, I've received these letters, even though I pay money. They then short-change you - if you buy a licence in the middle of the month, they round it down (so a "year" licence might only be 11 months or so). And if you've previously had a licence, but take a gap, they'll assume you're "renewing" it, and backdate it to when your last licence ran out!
The joke is that if someone doesn't want to pay, it's trivial to get away with it, because they have no real power, but it just causes harrassment for the rest of us - as well as wasting money that we've paid them.
I agree. It may be a licence, but it's not unreasonable to also refer to it as a tax.
The BBC is not Government controlled in the sense of them controlling what airs, but it's certainly the Government who ultimately enforce this situation where everyone who watches any TV must pay the tax to the BBC.
I agree he gets no points by his claims of "stealing", though:
On Twitter moreover, because in Court he might have to explain exactly where the creative work is in a wood-grain texture (in the tree), or what harm he's suffered as a result (none).
For the latter point, I don't see that showing harm is required for something to be copyright infringement.
The former is more intersting - under US law, there is that ruling (that I agree with) that a direct reproduction of a public domain image can't itself be copyrighted, as there is no creative element. OTOH, in general photos of scenes can be copyrighted. A photograph of a tree could be copyrighted too - there is still a creative element, no matter how minimal.
It would be interesting to see how this might work for something as simple as close up wood textures. The thing is that there are awful lot of stock texture sites out there, some of them under various creative commons licences, but many of them commercial. A court ruling could have wide ranging implications, for better or worse.
To be honest I don't have that much sympathy for the people using his image. If I'm writing software, I sometimes need stock texture images for games I write - if I'm going to be distributing them, I make damn sure I get the licences right. That doesn't mean they deserve to be sued with RIAA style damages, nor does it mean they are stealing - but at the same time, they are idiots for not following the licences, especially if they are doing this for profit (think how little sympathy there is when there's a for-profit application that violates the GPL?)
I actually find it quite galling we are referring to the creator of a wood-grain pattern as an artist at all - let alone suggesting that he should have absolute rights over every use of said pattern. At the very least there HAS to be some pattern out there, that's so close to this one, that could be considered as proof of prior existence. I'm going to start digging out my childhood drawings and seeing who I can sue for infringements.
You're confusing copyrights with patents. His copyright only covers his particular drawing. If you had another drawing, you'd have copyright over that too.
There may be a debate about how simple something can be whilst still being copyrightable, but it's not an issue of how close his drawing is to other drawings. The problem, AIUI, isn't that these people used a "similar" image, the allegation is that they used his image.
But the issue was copyright law - so no, that's not more to the point. (Also I'm not sure I'd agree that the people here were passing it off as their own - they weren't rehosting them as stock images, for example.)
Who says there'll be no app store? There might well be plenty, if MS don't restrict it so that you can only run apps from one store.
No one says that the Windows platform (or Linux, OS X, Amiga or whatever) would be better if you could only download apps from one app store. And clearly, not having that doesn't mean you then have nowhere to obtain apps from!
Agreed. And even if they were as bad as Apple, it's still ludicrous and clear bias to refer to Apple's store as "open", and to spin it that Microsoft not following suit is somehow a bad thing.
--- I'm still a bit confused by the article - if she's paying for it herself, why does she need the insurance to pay for it? I presumed this must be about insurance that covers products being stolen?
Yes, the whole thing seems mad that insurers would prefer expensive products, but in some sense, she's still gained by moving technology: she can now spend $300 on a Samsung N110 or phone, instead of $8,000. Even if she can't get it insured, on average she'd still be better off - unless her device gets stolen over 26 times during its lifetime.
And how many of us here bother to spend insurance on electronic items (I know some do, but I don't think it's universal)? Or is the article on about something else altogether? ---
By "paying for it herself" I do not mean the Iphone, I mean the $8,000 device too, which as the article states, she paid for it. So either the article is wrong, or her insurance isn't funding either device, in which case the comparison of the two devices is meaningless.
It was the earlier poster who started shouting - he's the one with anger issues.
RTFA:
"A couple of years ago, she spent more than $8,000 to buy a computer, approved by Medicare"
So yes, it is suggested that they pick up the tab. If they're doing it already, yes that's their stupidity if she'd be happier with a cheaper device. But the article is rather misleading as to who's paying what. The article tries to spin it as "she's forced to spend 20 times as much" - if it turns out it's really "I want an Iphone instead of what they're offering me", then that issue has already been covered by earlier posters (e.g., the fact that the extra cost is due to it being approved for medical use).
A couple of years ago, she spent more than $8,000 to buy a computer, approved by Medicare
NO IT'S NOT.
Or if it is, then if her health insurance covers neither, why mention the more expensive item at all?
Currently they will pay for expensive, more customized devices
Such as? If the company pays for the $8,000 device, then the article is very confusing and misleading - it didn't cost her $8,000, it cost her nothing. She is not forced to pay $8,000 as the article nonsensically claims.
I was merely asking for clarification - it's just a shame that the moderation system is so broken on Slashdot these days. What trolls are getting all the mod points? I haven't had any in years.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft can certainly blamed for their actions regarding licensing, which meant no PC company was willing to risk shipping BeOS, either as dual boot or standalone.
People should just be thankful that they're not able to get away with that anymore, otherwise you could kiss goodbye to Linux netbooks.
Microsoft's best tactic is doing very little and letting their competitors fail through their own mistakes, that's how they've gained most of their market share.
They derived most of their market share indirectly, due to the popularity of PCs.
My dislike of Windows XP's interface had nothing to do with what hardware it was running on. My laptop has an Intel Core Duo, but I've still reverted to the "classic" 2000 look.
In what way was Fisher Price theme before its time? Has it come into fashion now?
Speaking of Windows 2000 - we've got a couple clients that won't run anything else. Their entire operation, all their workstations, is built on Windows 2000.
My main computer still runs 2000! I wouldn't put it in the same category as all the "old" OSes - there's not a huge difference between it and XP, and in terms of time, XP is only slightly younger than it anyway. But XP is what many people still use, and indeed, many geeks have avoided going onto Vista.
Plus there's the distinction between versions and operating systems - Windows 2000 is an earlier version of an OS that's still around; compared with "old" operating systems like Windows 9x and "classic" MacOS that are different OSes altogether, and are no longer updated.
Well I know I'll be fine - I'll be googling away on my "Iphone-like device" that isn't an Iphone. No one will suspect a thing, because it's physically impossible for any other device that isn't from Apple to have access to the Internet. Even if I tried, the Apple fan sitting next to me will get out his Iphone, make a big speech about "Wow, I can access the Internet on my Iphone", and then just as he's about to get kicked off the jury, tell me that whilst my phone might have Internet access, it doesn't just "work", or something like that.
I know it's cool to hate Apple, but get your head out of your ass.
I know it's cool to love Apple and write childish insults at anyone who disagrees, but the sales figures suggest otherwise - it's just as likely that many people's first smartphone was a Blackberry.
Secondly, even if it was true that Apple owned the majority of the market (they're not even close btw - try looking at Nokia), it's still wrong to talk about the Iphone as being the only phone capable of doing this, or the first. It's yet another case of trying to hype a mundane story up by putting "On Your Iphone!", whilst simultaneously giving free advertising to Apple.
Consider, when people refer to operating systems generically as "Windows" or the web as "Internet Explorer", they get no end of ridicule from geeks on Slashdot - even though there, unlike Apple, MS do have a monopoly.
Lastly, restricting the category to the ill-defined "smart phone" makes no sense, when almost all phones can do Internet access - whilst this feature appeared on "smart" phones first, it still trickled down to be commonplace on all phones, long before the Iphone appeared. It's debatable whether the Iphone should count as a smart phone in the first place, when it misses features that bog standard phones have. For hundreds of millions of people, their first Internet phone was not a smartphone, and not an Iphone.
If you had a BlackBerry five years ago, it's a safe bet you were at one of the desks rather than in the jury box.
How is five years ago relevant, when the Iphone was only released two years ago! By 2007, Blackberrys were in common use. And since you ask about five years ago - yes, even back then, ordinary non-smart phones had general Internet access (I got one myself about four and a half years ago).
minimal on an iPhone-type device
You may be interested to hear of a simpler term for the cumbersome "iPhone-type device": phone
Windows 2000 works fine, as a superset of Windows 9x, in my experience at least. There doesn't seem to be much between 2000 and XP, apart from the annoying UI that we all disable.
As an Amiga user, I remember rolling my eyes in 1994 when I saw PC companies bragging about this new OS/2 thing that could multitask. Little did I know at the time that that would be nothing compared with the hype of a certain Microsoft OS to follow a year later...
There is not a "huge difference". IANAL but my understanding is that the plaintiff first has to prove that they have been damaged (otherwise there is no libel) but that a defence against this is that it is the truth.
This is what I was wondering - if there is a requirement to prove that they have suffered damages as a result, then it's a lot less worrying. (I don't think that every single statement someone says must be backed by evidence, but if your statement causes damages, one would hope you have evidence.)
Surely the likes of Singh and Goldacre have evidence for what they say, far more than the other sides here? Perhaps we should let this go to court - it would be funny if the court declares the BCA and Matthias Rath to be in the wrong (although I suppose it's a valid point that science shouldn't be a matter for courts to decide).
It still doesn't make sense - if it's civil law, why isn't it done on the balance of probabilities (i.e., whichever side is more likely to be true), as is done for other civil cases?
Imagine if the civil system in general was like that - someone could sue you for anything, and you'd be liable unless you could prove otherwise beyond reasonable doubt!
Although note his point is still in general valid - what he should have said is "Can I watch TV without paying the tax?" The answer is No, even if you're not watching BBC channels.
It's not a tax on owning or buying TVs, but the licence is a tax on watching TV.
Indeed - whilst I like the BBC, the TV Licencing are idiots. They send threatening, harrassing, and fraudulent letters to anyone who doesn't have a licence (claiming they must be breaking the law - even if they don't watch any TV), the kind that would surely be illegal for any other company to send out.
They also can't even manage a simple database - numerous times over the years, I've received these letters, even though I pay money. They then short-change you - if you buy a licence in the middle of the month, they round it down (so a "year" licence might only be 11 months or so). And if you've previously had a licence, but take a gap, they'll assume you're "renewing" it, and backdate it to when your last licence ran out!
The joke is that if someone doesn't want to pay, it's trivial to get away with it, because they have no real power, but it just causes harrassment for the rest of us - as well as wasting money that we've paid them.
I agree. It may be a licence, but it's not unreasonable to also refer to it as a tax.
The BBC is not Government controlled in the sense of them controlling what airs, but it's certainly the Government who ultimately enforce this situation where everyone who watches any TV must pay the tax to the BBC.
I generally like the BBC too, but just one point:
All of it without adverts.
They happily advertise their own stuff on there.
Also they happily flog BBC content (paid for by licence payers) off to other UK channels (such as UKTV Gold), which have adverts on.
Look at all the even more popular phones without touchscreen.
Not that correlation is causation, anyway.
It's probably twitter marketing parasites. Any "news" item that even remotely mentions twitter gets spammed everywhere.
What with Twitter and the Iphone mention, it means that an otherwise uninteresting mundane event becomes frontpage news!
I agree he gets no points by his claims of "stealing", though:
On Twitter moreover, because in Court he might have to explain exactly where the creative work is in a wood-grain texture (in the tree), or what harm he's suffered as a result (none).
For the latter point, I don't see that showing harm is required for something to be copyright infringement.
The former is more intersting - under US law, there is that ruling (that I agree with) that a direct reproduction of a public domain image can't itself be copyrighted, as there is no creative element. OTOH, in general photos of scenes can be copyrighted. A photograph of a tree could be copyrighted too - there is still a creative element, no matter how minimal.
It would be interesting to see how this might work for something as simple as close up wood textures. The thing is that there are awful lot of stock texture sites out there, some of them under various creative commons licences, but many of them commercial. A court ruling could have wide ranging implications, for better or worse.
To be honest I don't have that much sympathy for the people using his image. If I'm writing software, I sometimes need stock texture images for games I write - if I'm going to be distributing them, I make damn sure I get the licences right. That doesn't mean they deserve to be sued with RIAA style damages, nor does it mean they are stealing - but at the same time, they are idiots for not following the licences, especially if they are doing this for profit (think how little sympathy there is when there's a for-profit application that violates the GPL?)
I actually find it quite galling we are referring to the creator of a wood-grain pattern as an artist at all - let alone suggesting that he should have absolute rights over every use of said pattern. At the very least there HAS to be some pattern out there, that's so close to this one, that could be considered as proof of prior existence. I'm going to start digging out my childhood drawings and seeing who I can sue for infringements.
You're confusing copyrights with patents. His copyright only covers his particular drawing. If you had another drawing, you'd have copyright over that too.
There may be a debate about how simple something can be whilst still being copyrightable, but it's not an issue of how close his drawing is to other drawings. The problem, AIUI, isn't that these people used a "similar" image, the allegation is that they used his image.
If only they spent $10m - they might realise that actually, people think differently to each other.
But the issue was copyright law - so no, that's not more to the point. (Also I'm not sure I'd agree that the people here were passing it off as their own - they weren't rehosting them as stock images, for example.)
Who says there'll be no app store? There might well be plenty, if MS don't restrict it so that you can only run apps from one store.
No one says that the Windows platform (or Linux, OS X, Amiga or whatever) would be better if you could only download apps from one app store. And clearly, not having that doesn't mean you then have nowhere to obtain apps from!
Agreed. And even if they were as bad as Apple, it's still ludicrous and clear bias to refer to Apple's store as "open", and to spin it that Microsoft not following suit is somehow a bad thing.
Not sure why this post is tagged msastroturf.
When I said:
---
I'm still a bit confused by the article - if she's paying for it herself, why does she need the insurance to pay for it? I presumed this must be about insurance that covers products being stolen?
Yes, the whole thing seems mad that insurers would prefer expensive products, but in some sense, she's still gained by moving technology: she can now spend $300 on a Samsung N110 or phone, instead of $8,000. Even if she can't get it insured, on average she'd still be better off - unless her device gets stolen over 26 times during its lifetime.
And how many of us here bother to spend insurance on electronic items (I know some do, but I don't think it's universal)? Or is the article on about something else altogether?
---
By "paying for it herself" I do not mean the Iphone, I mean the $8,000 device too, which as the article states, she paid for it. So either the article is wrong, or her insurance isn't funding either device, in which case the comparison of the two devices is meaningless.
It was the earlier poster who started shouting - he's the one with anger issues.
RTFA:
"A couple of years ago, she spent more than $8,000 to buy a computer, approved by Medicare"
So yes, it is suggested that they pick up the tab. If they're doing it already, yes that's their stupidity if she'd be happier with a cheaper device. But the article is rather misleading as to who's paying what. The article tries to spin it as "she's forced to spend 20 times as much" - if it turns out it's really "I want an Iphone instead of what they're offering me", then that issue has already been covered by earlier posters (e.g., the fact that the extra cost is due to it being approved for medical use).
FTA:
A couple of years ago, she spent more than $8,000 to buy a computer, approved by Medicare
NO IT'S NOT.
Or if it is, then if her health insurance covers neither, why mention the more expensive item at all?
Currently they will pay for expensive, more customized devices
Such as? If the company pays for the $8,000 device, then the article is very confusing and misleading - it didn't cost her $8,000, it cost her nothing. She is not forced to pay $8,000 as the article nonsensically claims.
I was merely asking for clarification - it's just a shame that the moderation system is so broken on Slashdot these days. What trolls are getting all the mod points? I haven't had any in years.