I'm sure others will mention this, but I thought this quote was worth highlighting.
Microsoft really doesn't care about what you think; they care about what the RIAA and the MPAA think.
Anyhoo, I thought this was a good, well ballanced article. He's much more realistic than most about what may happen, both on the paranoid and the hopeful angles.
Ok, I think we can all agree that while the company doing this is bad it's the patent office that needs to be fixed. Now it seems obvious that this is a case in which the USPTO excersized gross negligance, and it seems obvious to me that it is at expense to the industries they are supposed to protect. So is there any legal way to bring charges against the USPTO?
Re:These are sooooo last millenium...
on
Gyroscopic Mouse
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Do you remember the optical mice of that same time period? I ask because you could say the exact same thing about optical mice, provided you hadn't used a new one.
All I want to know... Is do you like your OS?
Anyhoo, on a more serious note, another good question is are the Linux companies happy? They are of comfortable size, and make a decent profit, and aren't anywhere near large enough to handle the kind of business MS gets.
It's been said that patent officers should be experts with regards to the field they are judging (for example, only software engineers should be allowed to grant software patents). With the large number of bad patents being granted here in the US it seems quite attractive. What are your opinions on the matter?
How did this get modded up? Yes, you disagree with how the Italians do things, and their laws. We all know that Italian law is different than American law. The only real issue is if Amarican law or Italian law applies.
Nobody seems to ask why the regular editions special features aren't on the special edition. There is a place for special editions to exist, and this is it exactly, but it makes no sense to cut things out of the special edition. (well, no common sense, I guess it makes marketing sense, which is completely different, and evil)
Just about everyone who commented on Palladium feared the possibility of being compelled to use the system because someday it will be the only platform that will play content.
What kind of stupid culture do we live in where a majority of the people are worried about being forced into doing something just because a majority of the people are doing it?
Exactly. Businesses don't want anything to do with honesty or consiseness (that isn't a word, is it?).
Seriously though, it does do those things, but it's also not professional. Like it or not, the professional world doesn't like blunt honesty. It prefers people only complain in private, and be nice and 'professional' to each others faces. I don't understand this in the least, but I am quite sure it's true.
And both Larry and Sergey Brin firmly believe that if we concentrate on users, everything else -- including money -- will follow.
With all the news about immoral corporations sometimes it's easy to forget that there are good ones out there. And it's always nice to be reminded that doing things right does pay off. Keep up the good work.
"Urie says his company doesn't heavily research consumer attitude, noting, "We tend to ask how can we make more money and sell more product, not deal with consumer gripes."
Ok, being out of touch is one thing. But openly saying that he doesn't care about his customers, just how much money he makes? It makes me sick that a person like this can be taken seriously. I know American business is all screwed up, but when people can actively ignore the desires of the customers and expect to prosper, ugh, something needs to be fixed.
And for that matter, how can anybody not realize that satisfying customers IS a way of making more money?
Palladium may be good for large corporations, but won't be good for the home user. What I mean is that in the best case senario the corporations get something and the home user looses something.
Since this technology needs to permeate both places for it to be effective, why in the world would home users pay for this? Well, intelligent home users won't, but right now there are enough sheep out there to keep MS on top.
Perhaps they siezed the computers because they believed somthing bigger was going on? Perhaps they were hoping to catch some hacking or warez distrubution? I don't know, it just seems unnecesary, all they needed to do was grab the modems to prove they were modified and get the use logs from the ISP to prove breach of contract and see how much bandwidth was illegally used. Either that or I've been hanging around here with the conspiricy theorists too long.
Palladium is all about deciding what's trustworthy.
And that is the heart of the issue. Why should MS tell me what's trustworthy? Like eveything coming from MS, it has it's place. It's place is not every single computer on the Earth, which is where MS seems to think all of their product belongs.
So how do you people justify equating Church and religion? My understanding has always been that there is a freedom of religion, meaning the state will not force anyone to follow a particular religion, and there is a seperation of Church and state. The seperation of Church and state, as I understand it, was intended to keep the Chruch from gaining political power and influence, such as the Church of England.
I'd be happy to hear counter evidence though.
Well if MS can fight with FUD...
on
Is Linux Dead?
·
· Score: 1
Well if MS can fight with FUD then why can't we?
(ps, the answer is something about us not being evil)
So who decides what the US economy is? More and more, I get the impression that when reports and studies talk about the "US economy" they actually mean "the big businesses with lobbyists."
I think the current patent system is missing a necessary part of what should be patent regulation. Complexity. A simple idea should not be patentable. The thing is, a simple idea requires insight, not work. No one needs to stimulate insight, it is part of work, you need to stimulate creative work. Now, perhaps if it can be shown that significant work was required to produce a simple thing then it could be patentable, but that's not a major issue.
There is a part to be played by AV-company-sponsored warnings, I'll give you that much. But it doesn't have to be in the form of deception. This kind of thing does the public little good and it alienates people who know the truth. The place that those warnings has is public education.
Anyway, my general response to your post is this. If people would stop thinking that you have to be dishonest to get anything accomplished it would probably stop being true.
What is with software companies thinking every computer user should be using their product. AV should be a small but lucrative business. They have a lot of big businesses running their software, but not a lot of work to do to maintain it. (Small note, the AV companies look, from where I'm stiting, like they have a racket much like gas companies. A relatively small number of companies do it, and they fix the prices)
AV is one of those things that just shouldn't be a huge business, there's nothing there to make it so. If the companies doing AV could accept that and stay a small rich company instead of trying to be a big rich company then eveyone would be happy.
The people selling these things want to make money, which means they want to give people whatever it is that they want to pay the most for.
That is certainly not supported by the facts. More and more, the people selling these things want to make it so that people HAVE to buy thier thing, so that they don't have to worry about if the customer wants to buy it.
Overall, he's not too far off, but I dislike his view on DRM. It's like Robin Hood, except backwards. He wants to take something away from everyone so that money goes up the ladder. I don't see why those handfull of people at the top of the recording industry deserve another 10% sales more than users deserve the freedom to use technology to move data that they own.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure others will mention this, but I thought this quote was worth highlighting.
Microsoft really doesn't care about what you think; they care about what the RIAA and the MPAA think.
Anyhoo, I thought this was a good, well ballanced article. He's much more realistic than most about what may happen, both on the paranoid and the hopeful angles.
Ok, I think we can all agree that while the company doing this is bad it's the patent office that needs to be fixed. Now it seems obvious that this is a case in which the USPTO excersized gross negligance, and it seems obvious to me that it is at expense to the industries they are supposed to protect. So is there any legal way to bring charges against the USPTO?
Do you remember the optical mice of that same time period? I ask because you could say the exact same thing about optical mice, provided you hadn't used a new one.
Note that they want to sell it. I don't think they are so much concerned with DRM, as they are interested in capatalising on western stupidity.
Right up until they miss. "Oops, sorry about that small hole in your cheek."
All I want to know... Is do you like your OS? Anyhoo, on a more serious note, another good question is are the Linux companies happy? They are of comfortable size, and make a decent profit, and aren't anywhere near large enough to handle the kind of business MS gets.
It's been said that patent officers should be experts with regards to the field they are judging (for example, only software engineers should be allowed to grant software patents). With the large number of bad patents being granted here in the US it seems quite attractive. What are your opinions on the matter?
How did this get modded up? Yes, you disagree with how the Italians do things, and their laws. We all know that Italian law is different than American law. The only real issue is if Amarican law or Italian law applies.
Nobody seems to ask why the regular editions special features aren't on the special edition. There is a place for special editions to exist, and this is it exactly, but it makes no sense to cut things out of the special edition. (well, no common sense, I guess it makes marketing sense, which is completely different, and evil)
Just about everyone who commented on Palladium feared the possibility of being compelled to use the system because someday it will be the only platform that will play content.
What kind of stupid culture do we live in where a majority of the people are worried about being forced into doing something just because a majority of the people are doing it?
Note: I'm a Computer Engineer. I'm not an English Major. Do not reply just to critique my spelling.
I'm both! Err, wait a minute... crap.
it communicates /.'s bias honestly and concisely
Exactly. Businesses don't want anything to do with honesty or consiseness (that isn't a word, is it?).
Seriously though, it does do those things, but it's also not professional. Like it or not, the professional world doesn't like blunt honesty. It prefers people only complain in private, and be nice and 'professional' to each others faces. I don't understand this in the least, but I am quite sure it's true.
And both Larry and Sergey Brin firmly believe that if we concentrate on users, everything else -- including money -- will follow.
With all the news about immoral corporations sometimes it's easy to forget that there are good ones out there. And it's always nice to be reminded that doing things right does pay off. Keep up the good work.
"Urie says his company doesn't heavily research consumer attitude, noting, "We tend to ask how can we make more money and sell more product, not deal with consumer gripes."
Ok, being out of touch is one thing. But openly saying that he doesn't care about his customers, just how much money he makes? It makes me sick that a person like this can be taken seriously. I know American business is all screwed up, but when people can actively ignore the desires of the customers and expect to prosper, ugh, something needs to be fixed.
And for that matter, how can anybody not realize that satisfying customers IS a way of making more money?
Palladium may be good for large corporations, but won't be good for the home user. What I mean is that in the best case senario the corporations get something and the home user looses something.
Since this technology needs to permeate both places for it to be effective, why in the world would home users pay for this? Well, intelligent home users won't, but right now there are enough sheep out there to keep MS on top.
Perhaps they siezed the computers because they believed somthing bigger was going on? Perhaps they were hoping to catch some hacking or warez distrubution? I don't know, it just seems unnecesary, all they needed to do was grab the modems to prove they were modified and get the use logs from the ISP to prove breach of contract and see how much bandwidth was illegally used. Either that or I've been hanging around here with the conspiricy theorists too long.
Palladium is all about deciding what's trustworthy.
And that is the heart of the issue. Why should MS tell me what's trustworthy? Like eveything coming from MS, it has it's place. It's place is not every single computer on the Earth, which is where MS seems to think all of their product belongs.
So how do you people justify equating Church and religion? My understanding has always been that there is a freedom of religion, meaning the state will not force anyone to follow a particular religion, and there is a seperation of Church and state. The seperation of Church and state, as I understand it, was intended to keep the Chruch from gaining political power and influence, such as the Church of England.
I'd be happy to hear counter evidence though.
Well if MS can fight with FUD then why can't we? (ps, the answer is something about us not being evil)
So who decides what the US economy is? More and more, I get the impression that when reports and studies talk about the "US economy" they actually mean "the big businesses with lobbyists."
There's no need to reinvent the wheel every time a new problem must be solved.
Tell that to the USPTO.
I think the current patent system is missing a necessary part of what should be patent regulation. Complexity. A simple idea should not be patentable. The thing is, a simple idea requires insight, not work. No one needs to stimulate insight, it is part of work, you need to stimulate creative work. Now, perhaps if it can be shown that significant work was required to produce a simple thing then it could be patentable, but that's not a major issue.
There is a part to be played by AV-company-sponsored warnings, I'll give you that much. But it doesn't have to be in the form of deception. This kind of thing does the public little good and it alienates people who know the truth. The place that those warnings has is public education.
Anyway, my general response to your post is this. If people would stop thinking that you have to be dishonest to get anything accomplished it would probably stop being true.
What is with software companies thinking every computer user should be using their product. AV should be a small but lucrative business. They have a lot of big businesses running their software, but not a lot of work to do to maintain it. (Small note, the AV companies look, from where I'm stiting, like they have a racket much like gas companies. A relatively small number of companies do it, and they fix the prices)
AV is one of those things that just shouldn't be a huge business, there's nothing there to make it so. If the companies doing AV could accept that and stay a small rich company instead of trying to be a big rich company then eveyone would be happy.
The people selling these things want to make money, which means they want to give people whatever it is that they want to pay the most for.
That is certainly not supported by the facts. More and more, the people selling these things want to make it so that people HAVE to buy thier thing, so that they don't have to worry about if the customer wants to buy it.
Overall, he's not too far off, but I dislike his view on DRM. It's like Robin Hood, except backwards. He wants to take something away from everyone so that money goes up the ladder. I don't see why those handfull of people at the top of the recording industry deserve another 10% sales more than users deserve the freedom to use technology to move data that they own.