These days, almost no business is started patent first, patents only come after the fact as "protection" from other patents.
Proprietary technology is considered crucial to entrepreneurial efforts, virtually required by angel investors and venture capitalists. Without it a new venture is vulnerable to free riders who will replicate products or services without having to replicate or contribute to the original inventor's R&D.
Again, you confuse the abuse of the current patent system with patents in general and are advocating throwing out the baby with the bath water. Reform the system to eliminate junk patents and lawsuits, but do not eliminate patents in general. That is a return to the failed 3rd world where inventors, investors, and other risk takers are not rewarded. You complain about big companies and big government, but you advocate a system where they have all the advantages?
"No, you can also have a hybrid that is more efficient than either extreme. One that promotes inventions by granting temporary monopolies. This give the little guy a chance. In either extreme the little guy has no chance, he either gets crushed by big corporations or big government."
Do you have any evidence that this happens in practice? (And by evidence, I mean a link to some sort of economic article.)
Haven't you taken Econ 101? "First Movers" have an advantage when they have proprietary technology. Otherwise an imitator can be a "free rider" and reap the benefits of the inventor's R&D at no cost. Especially in a market like SanDisk's where there is virtually no "switching cost". With respect to startups and small companies, that temporary monopoly from the patent is their only negotiating point when dealing with mega corporations. As for additional evidence, angel investors and venture capitalists virutally require some sort of proprietary technology before investing in a startup or an existing small company looking to grow, some sort of "barrier to entry" is required.
Look up the quoted phrases in an econ textbook, or if you prefer wikipedia. Also read virtually anything on new venture creation and entrepreneurship. Your belief that only big companies benefit from patents demonstrates a gaping hole in your knowledge.
Patents were originally for the encouragement of scientific advancement and innovation for a fledgling nation. We are now in a position where the very mechanism we put in place to help us is harming us.
Wrong. It helps any nation, not just a fledgling one. Patents increase the rate of technological advancement, eliminating patents would destroy the US economy faster than the current mess. The solution to junk patents and junk lawsuits is not eliminating patents.
"Patent Protection" seems to be the cry of all companies working with Microsoft.
It is also the cry of small/new companies that hope to compete against Microsoft and other mega corporations. Without patents, the little guys have virtually no chance.
Explain to me how Sandisk winning this suit will in any way advance the state of the art, or make more options available for consumers? It won't. The only possible effects this could have are negative, and therefore this move is bad news for everyone but Sandisk. Whether the patent is valid or not is irrelevant.
The state of the art has already been advanced, consumers have already benefited, by the offering of temporary monopolies to inventors. SanDisk and others would not have invented these great memory devices in the first place if their R&D wouldn't have had patent protections. Without patents, the rate of technological advancement would be slow. We would be at the mercy of mega corporations, far fewer new companies would be formed or succeed.
If the patent system is intended to exclude competitors, then even if it works as intended it still squelches any hope of a free market. We can either have free market capitalism or government granted monopolies, not both.
No, you can also have a hybrid that is more efficient than either extreme. One that promotes inventions by granting temporary monopolies. This give the little guy a chance. In either extreme the little guy has no chance, he either gets crushed by big corporations or big government.
You seem to be arguing that because flash memory is common there is nothing to patent. That is not true. New ideas may have been required to get modern higher density chips to work in the first place, or the new ideas may have been necessary to be able to manufacture modern high density chip. Even if the chips have no new inventions, the manufacturing process may.
"Ballmer's plan to acquire 100 startups in 5 years is still sketchy"
What kind of a plan is that? No wonder Microsoft is losing its way.
Compare and contrast with the business plan of Steve Jobs, which I think can be summed up as "make great products"...
Microsoft has been buying things for decades and has about 90% marketshare. Apple has made great products for decades and has around 5% marketshare. Apple has had great success with new products in the past (Apple II, Mac) only to eventually lose the market to inferior products (IBM PC, Windows). It's premature to claim Apple's strategy superior, history shows otherwise.
If it is an important file, why would you drop it in a public location in the first place...
GUIs are prone to errors, just like consoles. All that has changed is how the error manifests. When your finger slips at the console you get a typo. When your finger slips during a drag you may inadvertantly issue a mouse up and drop the file being moved prematurely, in the wrong folder. It can be a PITA when you were dragging over a bunch of subfolders in a list view.
"The heavier it is, the faster it falls from the sky."
Actually, Galileo demonstrated that weight does not change the speed at which something falls. You might want to go back and take your high school physics class again.
You are a little quick to quote physics, the earlier author demonstates a better understanding than you. We are discussing aircraft here, in addition to gravity we also have lift. While gravity is equal on light and heavy aircraft lift tends not to be. Heavier aircraft are usually less efficient with respect to lift. Greater airspeed normally compensates for this.
Well the word does come from a sci fi book, Heinlen's Stranger in a Strange Land. There was a metaphysical angle IIRC, its been decades since I read it.
The first large IT firm to really grok Linux was IBM.
IBM does not grok Linux. They do not share the ideals of the GPL faction of the FOSS movement. Linux is merely a low cost entry point into the IBM family. As a hardware and service vendor they don't mind not having to write all the software. Donations to Linux devs are like outsourcing, but even cheaper. IBM's commitment to Linux is like Apple's. It's useful for now, it'll be abandoned if and when it is convenient to do so. As Apple did when they briefly supported Linux while Mac OS X was being developed.
US Courts have ruled they are not, and that when non-personal information is associated with personally identifiable information the non-personal now becomes personal and subject to an complex array of legislation and court rulings.
It is perfectly understandable that a developers needs some information indicating what kind of hardware their customers are using. If it is collected anonymously, no account or character name nor IP address, is there any objection to info such as:
CPU model and speed
Video card and VRAM
Sound card and speakers
Operating system and version
Physical RAM
Removable media, CD or DVD
Note that this kind of info is so generic that your particular permutation will be shared with many others, rendering it depersonal.
Yes, I agree that IP addresses, applications installed, and peripherals connected are a different story. Assuming of course that by peripherals we are not talking about a DVD drive or speakers. Those seem relevant. The make and model of my printer or scanner would not be.
I'm curious to hear what others have to say. I had a business law class recently and researched the handling of personally identifiable information (PII) as a class project. It is my understanding that the list I offered above (CPU to DVD) would not be considered PII as long as there is no way to associate the info with an IP address, account name, etc. Anyone not wearing tinfoil vigorously disagree?
They could've taken advantage of Vista's losing streak and one upped Microsoft
Apple can not one up Microsoft. With parallels and boot camp Windows runs very well on Apple hardware. Apple users are now buying Windows, so called "switchers" are replacing their hardware vendor and still buying Windows. Microsoft is not losing sales. Apple is only hurting Dell, HP, etc.
Macs are not replacing Windows PCs, they have become Windows PCs. Buyers no longer have to choose Mac OS X or Windows, they can have both. That is the catalyst that is driving the increased sales.
There is little point in running Linux on the Mac. Mac OS X is a capable *nix box, most FOSS software is not Linux specific and targets Mac OS X as well. Plus Mac OS X has a superior user interface. If someone is running Parallels they are doing so to use Windows XP. Exceptions are rarities such as a developer who needs to do compatibility testing under Linux.
"You have proven that you have little imagination. Firearms are primarily used for sport. The Olympics features several such events."
I have seen many firearms. I have had several firearms pointed at me. I have never seen one used for 'sport.' Even if this were a sensible idea (and goodness knows what kind of 'sport' you are talking about)
Are you so dim that the word "Olympics" confounds you?
You do not have the right to threaten another citizen with death.
Wrong. The principle of self defense generally allows a would be victim to use lethal force when under imminent threat of death or severe bodily injury, if the later confounds you an example would be rape.
Everyone has a right to minimum force, and everyone has a right to due process. A gun provides neither.
Again, reality eludes you. In nearly all cases where a firearm is used in self defense the weapon is *not* fired. The attackers flees or surrenders.
It's unimaginable to me that we don't just imprison people who make or purchase firearms. Who wants to be shot? What else is a gun good for?
You have proven that you have little imagination. Firearms are primarily used for sport. The Olympics features several such events.
Americans are even fond of the notion that if they own the gun, it's ok, the only problem is when 'criminals' have guns - rather missing the point that by owning a gun they are undertaking a plan to kill somebody - from which it is readily concluded that they are criminals.
Apparently you lack common sense as well. Incidents of self defense usually do not require firing the weapon. More importantly, self defense is not a crime.
Slashdot Mirror
These days, almost no business is started patent first, patents only come after the fact as "protection" from other patents.
Proprietary technology is considered crucial to entrepreneurial efforts, virtually required by angel investors and venture capitalists. Without it a new venture is vulnerable to free riders who will replicate products or services without having to replicate or contribute to the original inventor's R&D.
Again, you confuse the abuse of the current patent system with patents in general and are advocating throwing out the baby with the bath water. Reform the system to eliminate junk patents and lawsuits, but do not eliminate patents in general. That is a return to the failed 3rd world where inventors, investors, and other risk takers are not rewarded. You complain about big companies and big government, but you advocate a system where they have all the advantages?
"No, you can also have a hybrid that is more efficient than either extreme. One that promotes inventions by granting temporary monopolies. This give the little guy a chance. In either extreme the little guy has no chance, he either gets crushed by big corporations or big government."
Do you have any evidence that this happens in practice? (And by evidence, I mean a link to some sort of economic article.)
Haven't you taken Econ 101? "First Movers" have an advantage when they have proprietary technology. Otherwise an imitator can be a "free rider" and reap the benefits of the inventor's R&D at no cost. Especially in a market like SanDisk's where there is virtually no "switching cost". With respect to startups and small companies, that temporary monopoly from the patent is their only negotiating point when dealing with mega corporations. As for additional evidence, angel investors and venture capitalists virutally require some sort of proprietary technology before investing in a startup or an existing small company looking to grow, some sort of "barrier to entry" is required.
Look up the quoted phrases in an econ textbook, or if you prefer wikipedia. Also read virtually anything on new venture creation and entrepreneurship. Your belief that only big companies benefit from patents demonstrates a gaping hole in your knowledge.
Patents were originally for the encouragement of scientific advancement and innovation for a fledgling nation. We are now in a position where the very mechanism we put in place to help us is harming us.
Wrong. It helps any nation, not just a fledgling one. Patents increase the rate of technological advancement, eliminating patents would destroy the US economy faster than the current mess. The solution to junk patents and junk lawsuits is not eliminating patents.
"Patent Protection" seems to be the cry of all companies working with Microsoft.
It is also the cry of small/new companies that hope to compete against Microsoft and other mega corporations. Without patents, the little guys have virtually no chance.
Explain to me how Sandisk winning this suit will in any way advance the state of the art, or make more options available for consumers? It won't. The only possible effects this could have are negative, and therefore this move is bad news for everyone but Sandisk. Whether the patent is valid or not is irrelevant.
The state of the art has already been advanced, consumers have already benefited, by the offering of temporary monopolies to inventors. SanDisk and others would not have invented these great memory devices in the first place if their R&D wouldn't have had patent protections. Without patents, the rate of technological advancement would be slow. We would be at the mercy of mega corporations, far fewer new companies would be formed or succeed.
If the patent system is intended to exclude competitors, then even if it works as intended it still squelches any hope of a free market. We can either have free market capitalism or government granted monopolies, not both.
No, you can also have a hybrid that is more efficient than either extreme. One that promotes inventions by granting temporary monopolies. This give the little guy a chance. In either extreme the little guy has no chance, he either gets crushed by big corporations or big government.
You seem to be arguing that because flash memory is common there is nothing to patent. That is not true. New ideas may have been required to get modern higher density chips to work in the first place, or the new ideas may have been necessary to be able to manufacture modern high density chip. Even if the chips have no new inventions, the manufacturing process may.
"Ballmer's plan to acquire 100 startups in 5 years is still sketchy"
What kind of a plan is that? No wonder Microsoft is losing its way. Compare and contrast with the business plan of Steve Jobs, which I think can be summed up as "make great products"...
Microsoft has been buying things for decades and has about 90% marketshare. Apple has made great products for decades and has around 5% marketshare. Apple has had great success with new products in the past (Apple II, Mac) only to eventually lose the market to inferior products (IBM PC, Windows). It's premature to claim Apple's strategy superior, history shows otherwise.
If it is an important file, why would you drop it in a public location in the first place ...
GUIs are prone to errors, just like consoles. All that has changed is how the error manifests. When your finger slips at the console you get a typo. When your finger slips during a drag you may inadvertantly issue a mouse up and drop the file being moved prematurely, in the wrong folder. It can be a PITA when you were dragging over a bunch of subfolders in a list view.
FWIW:
Is it reasonable for a game to collect the following information in order to design future patches, expansions, and games?
Unreasonable Don't Care Reasonable Responses
CPU model 21.2% (7) 18.2% (6) 60.6% (20) 33
CPU speed 21.2% (7) 12.1% (4) 66.7% (22) 33
Amount of RAM 21.2% (7) 12.1% (4) 66.7% (22) 33
Make/Model of Video Card 27.3% (9) 9.1% (3) 63.6% (21) 33
Amount of Video RAM 24.2% (8) 9.1% (3) 66.7% (22) 33
Screen Resolution 24.2% (8) 15.2% (5) 60.6% (20) 33
Make/Model of Sound Card 24.2% (8) 21.2% (7) 54.5% (18) 33
Speakers (Stereo, 2.1, 5.1) 30.3% (10) 21.2% (7) 48.5% (16) 33
Type of Media (CD, DVD) 24.2% (8) 21.2% (7) 54.5% (18) 33
Operating System 30.3% (10) 9.1% (3) 60.6% (20) 33
DirectX / OpenGL version 24.2% (8) 12.1% (4) 63.6% (21) 33
For a helicopter I would think autorotation would be a greater factor than shape.
The safety record of air travel in Africa is already so bad that it can't get any worse.
;-)
Perhaps we could create some sort of online mechanism to solicit donations to improve Nigerian air safety. An email campaign?
"The heavier it is, the faster it falls from the sky."
Actually, Galileo demonstrated that weight does not change the speed at which something falls. You might want to go back and take your high school physics class again.
You are a little quick to quote physics, the earlier author demonstates a better understanding than you. We are discussing aircraft here, in addition to gravity we also have lift. While gravity is equal on light and heavy aircraft lift tends not to be. Heavier aircraft are usually less efficient with respect to lift. Greater airspeed normally compensates for this.
Well the word does come from a sci fi book, Heinlen's Stranger in a Strange Land. There was a metaphysical angle IIRC, its been decades since I read it.
The first large IT firm to really grok Linux was IBM.
IBM does not grok Linux. They do not share the ideals of the GPL faction of the FOSS movement. Linux is merely a low cost entry point into the IBM family. As a hardware and service vendor they don't mind not having to write all the software. Donations to Linux devs are like outsourcing, but even cheaper. IBM's commitment to Linux is like Apple's. It's useful for now, it'll be abandoned if and when it is convenient to do so. As Apple did when they briefly supported Linux while Mac OS X was being developed.
I decided to formalize my curiosity and create a survey. Thank you for your participation. I'll post results back here at some point.
Click Here to take survey
How is an IP address even close to anonymous?
US Courts have ruled they are not, and that when non-personal information is associated with personally identifiable information the non-personal now becomes personal and subject to an complex array of legislation and court rulings.
It is perfectly understandable that a developers needs some information indicating what kind of hardware their customers are using. If it is collected anonymously, no account or character name nor IP address, is there any objection to info such as:
CPU model and speed
Video card and VRAM
Sound card and speakers
Operating system and version
Physical RAM
Removable media, CD or DVD
Note that this kind of info is so generic that your particular permutation will be shared with many others, rendering it depersonal.
Yes, I agree that IP addresses, applications installed, and peripherals connected are a different story. Assuming of course that by peripherals we are not talking about a DVD drive or speakers. Those seem relevant. The make and model of my printer or scanner would not be.
I'm curious to hear what others have to say. I had a business law class recently and researched the handling of personally identifiable information (PII) as a class project. It is my understanding that the list I offered above (CPU to DVD) would not be considered PII as long as there is no way to associate the info with an IP address, account name, etc. Anyone not wearing tinfoil vigorously disagree?
Oops, with the troll modded to -1 it disappeared from the thread hierarchy and confused me.
They could've taken advantage of Vista's losing streak and one upped Microsoft
Apple can not one up Microsoft. With parallels and boot camp Windows runs very well on Apple hardware. Apple users are now buying Windows, so called "switchers" are replacing their hardware vendor and still buying Windows. Microsoft is not losing sales. Apple is only hurting Dell, HP, etc.
I wrote "Plus Mac OS X has a superior user interface". Perhaps you hit the wrong reply button? :-)
Macs are not replacing Windows PCs, they have become Windows PCs. Buyers no longer have to choose Mac OS X or Windows, they can have both. That is the catalyst that is driving the increased sales.
There is little point in running Linux on the Mac. Mac OS X is a capable *nix box, most FOSS software is not Linux specific and targets Mac OS X as well. Plus Mac OS X has a superior user interface. If someone is running Parallels they are doing so to use Windows XP. Exceptions are rarities such as a developer who needs to do compatibility testing under Linux.
"You have proven that you have little imagination. Firearms are primarily used for sport. The Olympics features several such events."
I have seen many firearms. I have had several firearms pointed at me. I have never seen one used for 'sport.' Even if this were a sensible idea (and goodness knows what kind of 'sport' you are talking about)
Are you so dim that the word "Olympics" confounds you?
You do not have the right to threaten another citizen with death.
Wrong. The principle of self defense generally allows a would be victim to use lethal force when under imminent threat of death or severe bodily injury, if the later confounds you an example would be rape.
Everyone has a right to minimum force, and everyone has a right to due process. A gun provides neither.
Again, reality eludes you. In nearly all cases where a firearm is used in self defense the weapon is *not* fired. The attackers flees or surrenders.
You think weapons systems defending large military ships at sea are operated by people?
:-)
The guns can not point at the ship, only mostly empty ocean.
It's unimaginable to me that we don't just imprison people who make or purchase firearms. Who wants to be shot? What else is a gun good for?
You have proven that you have little imagination. Firearms are primarily used for sport. The Olympics features several such events.
Americans are even fond of the notion that if they own the gun, it's ok, the only problem is when 'criminals' have guns - rather missing the point that by owning a gun they are undertaking a plan to kill somebody - from which it is readily concluded that they are criminals.
Apparently you lack common sense as well. Incidents of self defense usually do not require firing the weapon. More importantly, self defense is not a crime.