I assume that you are the same troll that responded to my post above. This thread is not about the case against Microsoft. To say that because they were found guilty they can't do anything is absolutely stupid. While I know that Microsoft bashing is a fun game for a lot of you, try to avoid doing it out of context.
He said they haven't shown that they want to control every facet. I responded by showing him that they have shown a desire. At no point did we discuss whether they have or evil will commit any illegal acts.
Netscape have yet to show that they want to control every facet of your PC experience
You do know that Netscape is owned by AOLTW, right? You know, that company that owns most of the music, tv and movies you watch/listen too, that owns lots of cable lines, that has 28 Million subscribers. I bet you also forgot that Sun and Netscape have an alliance called IPlanet that is developing a web server, communications server and e-commerce solution.
Don't fool yourself. Sun and Netscape would be very happy to control your life. They just haven't gotten there, yet.
Of course, their short-term investments are classified for sale. If they were not they would be devalued to cost (or nothing). You obviously aren't an accountant. I on the other hand am. Just because something is available for sale, doesn't mean that it can be sold.
Figure it this way - Case settled, Microsoft has to pay $20B. Stock market crashes and that $30B in short term investments is worthless wheras the $3.1B in cash is still good. This is why there is a distinction on the balance sheet with between Cash and Cash Equivalents and Short Term Investments.
A Cash equivalent by the way is more along what you are thinking is a short term investment. It is anything that can be immediately turned into a specific amount of cash.
Several points. I realize that you didn't say penalties. That was more of a "for everybody" sentiment. As for stock, my 401(k) does not contain stock, it contains funds. Microsoft splitting would probably create two stocks that have a combined value lower than the original. And there are lots of people with worthless Lucent stock who are complaining.
Don't even get me started on the AT&T breakup. How phone service now sucks. How we had to deal with slamming and constant telemarkers. how our phone bills are not much lower, they are just spread out over more bills.
And if you read my posts in another group, Microsoft hardly has too much economic power. They are 79 in the country and 201 in the world in revenue. If any of those companies, or any person, divested that much money it would destroy the economy.
How recently was that? Looking at their 3rd Quarter 10Q they had a $1B Investment loss in the third quarter. Analysts always like to bitch and moan about dividends but if Microsoft were to cash out on a lot of their investments you would likely see a snowball effect throughout the market.
That is one of the points I wanted to add to my other posts about Short Term investments and cash. You all want to see Microsoft pay $30B in penalties but you do realize that the effect on the market would be devastating. This is not just about Microsoft, that $30B in investments is in a lot of companies. While a lot of you kids out there might nor care, some of us have already seen enough of our 401(k) float away.
Short term investments is not cash in the bank. If it was, it would be included in cash and equivalents. There are two separate lines for a reason. Just because something is a short term investment it doesn't mean they can turn it into cash overnight or even within several months. Anything less than a year is short term.
Interesting. According to their last 10Q (that's an SEC filing that is made every quarter) Microsoft has $3.1B in Cash. Microsoft has a suprisingly small amount of long term assets (just a few $billion). Most of their money is tied up in investments. All of this is available through Edgar Online but that requires a registration (may even cost money - I seem to still have an account from my prior job).
As for Bill Gates, it really doesn't matter. As much as you may hate him I don't see the courts "piercing the corporate veil" to get to him.
By the way, I am not disputing your point in anyway but just clarifying your made up numbers.
I also would like to add (at the risk of Karma) that Microsoft is not quite as powerful as you think. They are far from being the largest company in the world and even in the US. In terms of revenue (as from Fortune 500) they are number 79 in US and 201 in the world. AOLTW is not listed because of the merger but most likely would have been in the Top 40 in the US. Philips happens to be 107 in the world.
Just because they control the desktop market, don't believe for a second that they control the content providers.
In a way it is like a trademark but it really is more of a seal of approval. By putting a logo on the CD it is way for the producer to certify that they followed the standards laid out by Philips. I would also say that the trademark held by Philips is that Compact Disc logo you see on most CD's not just the two letters CD alone.
Nice Troll but I don't see Warner Music (subsidiary of AOLTW) distributing their music in a way that limits listening to it to Windows or special players. You give Microsoft way too much credit.
Also note, that the deals with the "CD players" you talk about I assume are the DVD deals from last week. In those deals the players do not stop playing regular DVD's or play them at any less quality. They do, however, allow people to play more formats through their DVD player.
Please remember that Royal Philips Electronics is headquartered in the Netherlands. This doesn't mean that they are immune to the effects of DMCA but they are in a better position than most American companies to challenge it.
Like I said, I don't think that the RIAA (or any other IP holder) will go after libraries. I also don't see libraries rejecting donations or tossing old copies. Maybe some more well-funded libraries will make an effort but the small town library can't afford to pass up much of anything.
I don't think that the record industry intends to re-release every cd ever created with encryption. Therefore, The question of whether libraries will have to remove old copies of CD's is moot. Libraries are also not a popular target for IP holders. Even the record industry recognizes that taking away content from libraries (which are very popular with the middle and lower income families) would not be a politically correct decision.
I think that he sees them as lesser of several evils. Would you rather see an internet controlled by AOLTW? Remember, Microsoft may control a good amount of the software infrastructure but they control little (if any) of the hardware and even less of the content. Disney has tons of content but no hardware and little software.
Again there is not much you can do in the way of enforcement though. If I don't have offices in China, don't do business in China, and never plan to visit China I am safe. These are civil cases so there is no extradition (and wouldn't be with China anyway). France and Germany happen to be neighbors so a German company probably has a lot of business in France and therefore would be more apt to comply.
France in general is really pushing the envelope on a lot of international issues lately and I wonder when the EU is going to step up and get them under control.
Re:About Microsoft Documentation @# +4 : Bingo #@
on
Writing Documentation
·
· Score: 1
That's a good point. I have had that happen before too but not nearly the norm.
Is it possible he clicked on the link to a New York Times article and saw the registration page? Unless you are registered and logged in it can look like an advertisement for NY Times.
When all of your code is documented, you'll become expandable
Is that because you'll sit back and eat lots of twinkies? I think the word you are looking for is expendable.
Re:About Microsoft Documentation @# +4 : Bingo #@
on
Writing Documentation
·
· Score: 1, Informative
How about doing a search on google? I've yet to come across a question/problem that somebody else hasn't had. I typically start by searching the regular sites and then switch to the newsgroups (groups tag on google).
I assume english is not your first language and commend you on the pretty good attempt. The truth is that when it comes to copyright, trademark, and patent laws companies in one country (including the US) don't have any right to pursue a violation in a country in which they do not have a registered copyright, trademark, or patent. They can of course prevent any offending products from being sold in the US however. If you evidence of the contrary please feel free to post a link to it.
I find myself responding to so much ignorance and stupidity in this discussion that I am going to put everything in one post and use small words to make it easy on all of you.
First off, trademark laws differ from country to country. I am going to discuss US trademark laws not because they are the laws in this case but because they clarify some misconceptions in general.
From the US Patent Office - A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others.
In other words, Oracle has a trademark on the word Oracle (which is a real word) for computer software and database design for others (as well as other things). They have exclusive right to create a software product with the name Oracle. Fedmet Resources Corporation also has a trademark on the word Oracle. Their trademark is for refractory or ceramic brick. You can see that few people would confuse an Oracle database with a brick (no comment).
So a company doesn't "own" a word by trademarking it. They reserver the right to sell particular products with that word as its name.
I hope this clarifies things for some people.
I'm afraid his post is not insightful but just plain stupid. Trademarks for common english words make up most of US Trademarks. If Apple could not trademark the word Apple for computers then I could go out and build a Windows box and call it an Apple PC. This would obviously be misleading to the general public. This is how trademark laws work. Next time, you and the moderator should do some research first.
Slashdot is trademarked for News features and public commentary by BlockStackers Inc. CORPORATION MICHIGAN 116 E 18th St Holland MICHIGAN 49423. There are some 86 trademarks (including dead ones) that include the word slash.
Slashdot Mirror
I assume that you are the same troll that responded to my post above. This thread is not about the case against Microsoft. To say that because they were found guilty they can't do anything is absolutely stupid. While I know that Microsoft bashing is a fun game for a lot of you, try to avoid doing it out of context.
He said they haven't shown that they want to control every facet. I responded by showing him that they have shown a desire. At no point did we discuss whether they have or evil will commit any illegal acts.
Netscape have yet to show that they want to control every facet of your PC experience
You do know that Netscape is owned by AOLTW, right? You know, that company that owns most of the music, tv and movies you watch/listen too, that owns lots of cable lines, that has 28 Million subscribers. I bet you also forgot that Sun and Netscape have an alliance called IPlanet that is developing a web server, communications server and e-commerce solution.
Don't fool yourself. Sun and Netscape would be very happy to control your life. They just haven't gotten there, yet.
Of course, their short-term investments are classified for sale. If they were not they would be devalued to cost (or nothing). You obviously aren't an accountant. I on the other hand am. Just because something is available for sale, doesn't mean that it can be sold.
Figure it this way - Case settled, Microsoft has to pay $20B. Stock market crashes and that $30B in short term investments is worthless wheras the $3.1B in cash is still good. This is why there is a distinction on the balance sheet with between Cash and Cash Equivalents and Short Term Investments.
A Cash equivalent by the way is more along what you are thinking is a short term investment. It is anything that can be immediately turned into a specific amount of cash.
Several points. I realize that you didn't say penalties. That was more of a "for everybody" sentiment. As for stock, my 401(k) does not contain stock, it contains funds. Microsoft splitting would probably create two stocks that have a combined value lower than the original. And there are lots of people with worthless Lucent stock who are complaining.
Don't even get me started on the AT&T breakup. How phone service now sucks. How we had to deal with slamming and constant telemarkers. how our phone bills are not much lower, they are just spread out over more bills.
And if you read my posts in another group, Microsoft hardly has too much economic power. They are 79 in the country and 201 in the world in revenue. If any of those companies, or any person, divested that much money it would destroy the economy.
How recently was that? Looking at their 3rd Quarter 10Q they had a $1B Investment loss in the third quarter. Analysts always like to bitch and moan about dividends but if Microsoft were to cash out on a lot of their investments you would likely see a snowball effect throughout the market.
That is one of the points I wanted to add to my other posts about Short Term investments and cash. You all want to see Microsoft pay $30B in penalties but you do realize that the effect on the market would be devastating. This is not just about Microsoft, that $30B in investments is in a lot of companies. While a lot of you kids out there might nor care, some of us have already seen enough of our 401(k) float away.
Short term investments is not cash in the bank. If it was, it would be included in cash and equivalents. There are two separate lines for a reason. Just because something is a short term investment it doesn't mean they can turn it into cash overnight or even within several months. Anything less than a year is short term.
Interesting. According to their last 10Q (that's an SEC filing that is made every quarter) Microsoft has $3.1B in Cash. Microsoft has a suprisingly small amount of long term assets (just a few $billion). Most of their money is tied up in investments. All of this is available through Edgar Online but that requires a registration (may even cost money - I seem to still have an account from my prior job).
As for Bill Gates, it really doesn't matter. As much as you may hate him I don't see the courts "piercing the corporate veil" to get to him.
By the way, I am not disputing your point in anyway but just clarifying your made up numbers.
I also would like to add (at the risk of Karma) that Microsoft is not quite as powerful as you think. They are far from being the largest company in the world and even in the US. In terms of revenue (as from Fortune 500) they are number 79 in US and 201 in the world. AOLTW is not listed because of the merger but most likely would have been in the Top 40 in the US. Philips happens to be 107 in the world.
Just because they control the desktop market, don't believe for a second that they control the content providers.
In a way it is like a trademark but it really is more of a seal of approval. By putting a logo on the CD it is way for the producer to certify that they followed the standards laid out by Philips. I would also say that the trademark held by Philips is that Compact Disc logo you see on most CD's not just the two letters CD alone.
Nice Troll but I don't see Warner Music (subsidiary of AOLTW) distributing their music in a way that limits listening to it to Windows or special players. You give Microsoft way too much credit.
Also note, that the deals with the "CD players" you talk about I assume are the DVD deals from last week. In those deals the players do not stop playing regular DVD's or play them at any less quality. They do, however, allow people to play more formats through their DVD player.
Please remember that Royal Philips Electronics is headquartered in the Netherlands. This doesn't mean that they are immune to the effects of DMCA but they are in a better position than most American companies to challenge it.
Like I said, I don't think that the RIAA (or any other IP holder) will go after libraries. I also don't see libraries rejecting donations or tossing old copies. Maybe some more well-funded libraries will make an effort but the small town library can't afford to pass up much of anything.
I don't think that the record industry intends to re-release every cd ever created with encryption. Therefore, The question of whether libraries will have to remove old copies of CD's is moot. Libraries are also not a popular target for IP holders. Even the record industry recognizes that taking away content from libraries (which are very popular with the middle and lower income families) would not be a politically correct decision.
I think that he sees them as lesser of several evils. Would you rather see an internet controlled by AOLTW? Remember, Microsoft may control a good amount of the software infrastructure but they control little (if any) of the hardware and even less of the content. Disney has tons of content but no hardware and little software.
AOLTW on the other hand has huge control over hardware, software and content. Add to that the fact that they have significant influences within the US Government (see President's Council of Advisors, Bush's appointment of AOLTW President Richard Parsons as US Trade Representative., and the fact that Colin Powell was on the AOL Board ) and you have a pretty good picture of why Microsoft is not as damaging to the internet when compared to other companies.
Again there is not much you can do in the way of enforcement though. If I don't have offices in China, don't do business in China, and never plan to visit China I am safe. These are civil cases so there is no extradition (and wouldn't be with China anyway). France and Germany happen to be neighbors so a German company probably has a lot of business in France and therefore would be more apt to comply.
France in general is really pushing the envelope on a lot of international issues lately and I wonder when the EU is going to step up and get them under control.
That's a good point. I have had that happen before too but not nearly the norm.
Is it possible he clicked on the link to a New York Times article and saw the registration page? Unless you are registered and logged in it can look like an advertisement for NY Times.
When all of your code is documented, you'll become expandable
Is that because you'll sit back and eat lots of twinkies? I think the word you are looking for is expendable.
How about doing a search on google? I've yet to come across a question/problem that somebody else hasn't had. I typically start by searching the regular sites and then switch to the newsgroups (groups tag on google).
I assume english is not your first language and commend you on the pretty good attempt. The truth is that when it comes to copyright, trademark, and patent laws companies in one country (including the US) don't have any right to pursue a violation in a country in which they do not have a registered copyright, trademark, or patent. They can of course prevent any offending products from being sold in the US however. If you evidence of the contrary please feel free to post a link to it.
Maybe I am wrong but he was comparing this to Microsoft trying to trademark Windows, Word or Office. Sounds like Microsoft bashing to me.
I find myself responding to so much ignorance and stupidity in this discussion that I am going to put everything in one post and use small words to make it easy on all of you. First off, trademark laws differ from country to country. I am going to discuss US trademark laws not because they are the laws in this case but because they clarify some misconceptions in general. From the US Patent Office - A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others. In other words, Oracle has a trademark on the word Oracle (which is a real word) for computer software and database design for others (as well as other things). They have exclusive right to create a software product with the name Oracle. Fedmet Resources Corporation also has a trademark on the word Oracle. Their trademark is for refractory or ceramic brick. You can see that few people would confuse an Oracle database with a brick (no comment). So a company doesn't "own" a word by trademarking it. They reserver the right to sell particular products with that word as its name. I hope this clarifies things for some people.
I'm afraid his post is not insightful but just plain stupid. Trademarks for common english words make up most of US Trademarks. If Apple could not trademark the word Apple for computers then I could go out and build a Windows box and call it an Apple PC. This would obviously be misleading to the general public. This is how trademark laws work. Next time, you and the moderator should do some research first.
Slashdot is trademarked for News features and public commentary by BlockStackers Inc. CORPORATION MICHIGAN 116 E 18th St Holland MICHIGAN 49423. There are some 86 trademarks (including dead ones) that include the word slash.