He clearly pointed out that IE is free when you download it just like a stick of gum is free if I give you one.
But, it is illogical to conclude that the copy you pay cash for is free just like it is illogical to conclude that the pack of gum you buy is free.
Judge Jackson is way ahead of you on this. The law is way ahead of you on this.
When you pay cash for a bag of bolts, each bolt costs you a portion of your cash. That is reality. If the salesman claims that the 1/4" stuff is free, he is pulling your leg or lying outright. And, if you know that the 1/4" stuff is bundled so that the vendor can preclude competing 1/4" products, then you know you have a liar.
That is particularly true with the R&D costs billions and continues to cost real money on an ongoing basis.
Monopolist have no reason to sell products for free. They do not have to. They just force you to pay. It is not your choice what so ever. Unless the federal courts require that you be given a choice.
Ask Microsoft what they have spent on R&D, Marketing and legal fees in order to force IE upon all consumers.
Go ahead. Ask them.
You can also ask them what they told stockholders about the money allocated to cover for those expenses. Hint: Microsoft publicly claims that 20% of all OS revenue is allocated to "unearned revenue" which Microsoft says includes IE. And, that was before they stopped free phone support. Let me see now. What is 20% of all of the OS revenue (including servers I presume)?
Yea. That is zero alright. IE must be free after all since no revenue is attributed to its sale by Microsoft.
You know, sometimes when people lie they tell other people a different story.
It is sort of like CNet explaining to the public why they censor some opinions. They may tell one person one story but tell another person a completely contradictory story proving that one or the other must be false. So which is it, CNET?
Was censorship imposed because the opinions were highly regarded by CNet Community Manager? Or, was censorship imposed because some unidentified readers asked for the censorship? Or, was it because some views contrary to Microsoft's interests have caused a drop in readership or the use of Talkback?
Which one is it? Do any of them justify defrauding the reader by engaging in secret censorship?
Or, to tie it back to IE... is IE so good that Microsoft has to lie to the public about the price being charged?
Having a case of "Microsoft" sounds like street talk for brain cancer or something. I am sure there is a medical term for it. Some members of my own family suffer from it as well. And, it seriously corrupts there thinking on several levels.
It costs billions to develop. And, there is no reason whatsoever that a monopolist who knows you must buy it would price it at zero. None. There are no reason.
Oh, they can lie about it.
But, Judge Jackson had it correct. IE is free when downloaded as is any product that you get without paying money. But, when you part with cash and you get IE in the box, you did in fact pay part of your money for IE.
Ask your mother. Ask your mother about those toys in your Happy Meal. She will tell you that they are not free. The toy in CrackerJacks is not free either. But, the HappyMeal toys are better, right? And, the HappyMeal costs more too, right?
Do not be confused into thinking gum you buy at the store must be free because a friend of yours gave you a free stick the day before. (That is the stupid argument that IE must be free because "others" can download it without paying. That is not what determines the price of your HappyMeal.)
You can participate in beta programs. Almost all linux distributors have them. Some are more open than others. But, a lot of very useful work can be contributed in that way. And, it is not just limited to finding and reporting bugs either.
You can help by proposing alternative outlines or menu structures.
Right now Mandrake 8.2 is a fine distribution for many purposes. But, the menu outline is highly confusing. In part this is caused by the separate contributions of GNOME and KDE. And, in part it is caused by the very nature of collecting together contributed work from many separate or independant sources.
Windows, MAC, Xandros Linux, Corel Linux and Lindows each benefit from an effort to reform the presentation to the user into at least a chewable structure.
The LSB is an example of this kind of reform at the internal level. But, the face presented to the user needs some real improvement if the popularity of linux is going to increase. It has to be more organized, consistent and understandable.
For the user, Interface Design is a lot more important than the code. And, you can conclude from that the success of linux is going to be based upon how well the interface is designed rather than the quality of the coding. Microsoft has proven that to be the case time and time again.
The upcoming remedy in the States' case could be very helpful. But, it will not be sufficient. That is why AOL, SUN and BE filed their own private antitrust law suits. But, of course, their law suits will take years to work their way through the legal system. 5-8 years may be involved. And, if Microsoft continues illegal practices, several law suits by linux distributors may join in the mess.
In some ways the linux distributors should file suit now.
They could form a class action and sue OEMs and Microsoft to force open fair market opportunities for the distributors. The DELL case is a prime example. And, RedHat has already said publicly that many of the OEMs they have approached turn cold when linux on the desktop comes up.
Well. A class action of all linux distributors would be in order.
And, the purpose of that suit would be to stop all marketing agreements which serve to preclude lessor volume products from having fair and open markets.
The prime example is the huge discount that Microsoft offers if only Microsoft products are sold. Those kinds of agreements are in essence exclusive deals. No OEM can afford to pay $10 more per copy of windows in order to sell 5-10% of its systems pre-loaded with linux (or bare). Economically, it is cost prohibitive.
Some OEMs may be able to form separate subsidiaries just for the linux sales. Set up two companies. Share on the hardware deals but make separate and distinct software deals. Not that you will fool Microsoft. But, rather that the agreements are not being violated. In fact, they would be complied with since company B would be selling the linux products. And, company B has no deal with Microsoft at all. The fact they would use the same hardware is of no significance.
And, there may be other ways to avoid Microsoft precluding trade in linux products. Filing law suits is just one of those other ways.
DELL was made the patsy. They gave it a try until the chief idiots at Redmond took out their baseball bats. I call them idiots because it comes very close to extortion.
You can use the Microsoft tradename in your comments as you like.
Microsoft's right to the trademark only extends to the right to attach it to products being sold. It does not have the right to prevent the of their trademark in public discussions about their company or their products.
Besides, if you use the correct trademark "Microsoft", then the comments you make will be correctly associated with the correct trademark and not some fake moniker.
So, use "Microsoft". I try not to ever use MS, Micro$oft or any other false name.
It is the tradename that should carry the burden of the bad reputation causes by Microsoft's illegal acts. Not some other name.
Linux is the only OS that has a chance of being both extremely easy to install and at the same time very powerful (or difficult to install).
The reason is simple. There is not only one bunch of guys dictating what it looks and feels like.
All you have to do is install the old Corel Linux or the new Xandros Betas to know how simply installing linux can be. Lindows is another example.
If you install with a polished GUI that does not mean all the tweaking is precluded. You can still tweak all you want. And, that is the way it should be.
The objective needs to be to make installing linux as easiest as possible to also be attractive to the masses. That will create the critical mass necessary for a full range of desktop applications. But, that does not mean the "hard way" has to be blocked. It does not.
Lindows is based on Xandros. So, I am not sure you can really draw any distinction between them except as to the final form their product takes.
But, I think you have to be careful about rejecting software simply on the basis that it is not open source software. And, same is true about rejecting software because it is open source.
Since the industry began software took both forms. Initially operating systems were closed. All of them. But, any software you needed had to be developed in-house and that is open source to at least the development and support staff. So, from day one the industry has worked in a mixed invironment regardless of what some people want to think.
Now, if you want to be a purist that is fine.
But, I would not suggest turning away an easy to network Xandros simply because the software is not completely open source or not under the GPL. Xandros does use Samba of course. But, they have added a front end to it to make it easy to use. Other companies such as Mandrake have not. As a result, Xandros (Corel 1 and Corel 2) are much easier to use. The Xandros (Corel) File Manager is a clone of Windows Exporer. And, you may or may not like Windows Explorer. But, it is easy to share a directory with others or map a network directory and go to work. Mandrake is simply too foreign and difficult for non-techies. And, that is still true regardless of their effort to be easy to install, etc. I have used Mandrake 8.2 for months. I also removed it because I know I do not need to learn the difficult process to use it effectively. And, neither will I ever train anyone else to do so. I'll just install Xandros for them and take the day off.
Lindows is taking a different route. Lindows is focusing upon other efforts with their Clink_n_Run stuff.
Well. One of the real advantages that Linux has now and will retain oveer time is the ability to fully develop multiple ideas to enhance user access, functionaly, security, flexibility and ease of use. Remember the "BOb" thing? Disaster right? Sure was. And, during that time Microsoft only offered that one solution to see if it sticks. The same is true with.Net, Pallidium and any other technology they want to toss out. Any idea can fail. But, only linux will benefit from the concept that many different companies and many individuals can bring forth truly innovative technology on the linux platform and see how it rides. Microsoft can not and will not do that. They are restricted to one attempt at a time. And, when they fail consumers and the industry loses years at a time. Linux will not suffer that way.
Lindows may or may not be successful in their effort. But, even if they fail Xandros can be. And, Mandrake can be. And, RedHat can be. And, many others can be as well. That is the real power of having an open source OS. It permits value added features to be exposed to the market without the extremely high barriers that a strickly proprietary or closed OS would require. BE failed for several reasons. Extremely high barriers to entry and Microsoft's illegal acts could easily combine to cause that failure. And, did.
Microsoft can engage in many illegal acts (and already has) to make it difficult for linux. They use FUD and everything else at their disposal. But, in the end, true innovation is likely to surface from the linux platform and be unable to survive on a closed system. And, that is likely to be the case even though today Microsoft enjoys a monopoly position.
In the hearings for the antitrust case, AOL presented evidence of the Lego project. That project took the Microsoft OS and put up a custom frontend best suited for kids. Well. Microsoft wants to block it. And, maybe they can keep variety off of their products. But, that leaves linux open for those markets. The only question is whether having an open OS is sufficent. The only real problem that linux faces now for many customers is the lack of a full range of end-user applications that can be bought down at the corner. Sure, you can get a lot over the internet. And, Lindows is working hard to make that even easier (as are others). But, the mass shops Best-Buy and Circuit-City and other retail outlets. And, linux is at a disadvange in the retail markets.
Between the HP unit and the Apple, one is a toy and the other is a full commercial product.
What do I mean by that?
HP offered in your office service calls.
What else do I mean?
Data types from integer to Double precision. Remember the very first HP handheld calculators? 7.555767655 x 10^99 that kind of stuff. Real numbers with 10-12 significant digits. And, programable in BASIC. Check out the museum page for full specs.
http://www.hpmuseum.org/hp9830.htm
Most in the industry today have no idea of the quality of the HP unit they were selling as early as 1972. When did Apple make their first toy? 1976 or so? And, then the Trash 80.
The HP 9830A was so far ahead that it never did offer a floppy disc. Never. That technology was never considered by HP to be reliable enough until after the product was retired.
...and the judge turns to his clerk and says, "slash who? I though we arrested him last month?"
Actually, few would claim to be lawyers who are not. But, you still have to be very careful about taking any advice on a public forum.
The only advice you should take is to contact your own lawyer when you think it is at all important to do so. A big mistake a lot of businesses make is not consulting with their lawyers quick enough to stay out of trouble.
And, not all lawyers will fish you into an expensive law suit. Some will. But, look for the lawyers that try their best to keep you out of the court room and out of the neck high water.
Heck, even Microsoft lawyers told the federal judge that was their modus of operation. Of course, they lied. But, that is what they told the judge. And, that is what drew the comment from the judge about the fact she will remember what is being said now.
I think that is a not so veiled suggestion that if Microsoft breaches the final remedy anything close to what they did with the earlier consent decree, she will not be so kind to deal with. Microsoft claims they never breached the consent degree. They even told that to this judge. But, if you accept Microsoft's view of the consent decree it is completely meaningless. And, it is highly unlikely that either Microsoft, the DOJ or the judge had that understanding. It is not the way you interpret contracts. Microsoft even said at the time that they would just ignore it. And, they did. And, it did not matter because of the larger antitrust suit that was filed making the original consent decree all but moot.
Yes, Woz wanted HP to develop what he had in mind for the Apple unit. But, the engineering schematics were borrowed from HP's 2640A Terminal. As least that is what some engineers have said that say the Apple schematics.
The problem is that HP already had desktop systems that did calculations. And, they were very fine systems. They were first introduced in 1972 and were called calculators so that they would be easier to sell to state governments. By the time, Woz wanted HP to develop a "PC" for the hobby or personal market, HP had lots of things in the fire including the HP9830A calculator.
A lot of people do not know this but prior to Woz days, Hp sold and supported a desktop system that sported not only a hard disk drive but also up to 15 i/o devices including plotters, thermal printers, letter quality printers and a whole bunch of other items.
Take a look at this link and note the date and periferals.
http://www.hpmuseum.org/hp9830.htm
And all of that when the Woz was in "high school"? Almost.
A good lawyer may be able to tell you how, as you say.
But, you have to realize that most engineering problems can be solved more than one way. And, a lot of the times, your experience is in knowing what does not work. In other words, you do not proceed along lines that you know will fail.
Now, that kind of experience is difficult to prove even if it does come from work done by a previous employer. And, in part, that is the "experience" the new employer thinks is being hired.
I think the easiest mistake that you can make is just assuming you will have to "job your work" from previous work. You may gain a short head start but have serious problems later when the work actually does amount to something. Knowing that you need to steer clear of previous work can have its benefits.
If your intent is to sell a cloned product, then maybe you have to clone it and take your chances. But, most of the time good experience can lead to an even better approach and solution for the same problem. It is rare when you simply can not improve upon a previous solution.
And, of course, that is where the legal advice gets mucky sometimes. Is it really a different idea? Did you benefit from previous work? Well. You can benefit from previous work in most cases. And, for a practical matter you just can not make that so obvious.
Ask yourself how you would do it differently if you had to do it again? Could you put together a better product upon the second or third attempt?
And, if you actually decide you will have to license something or rip it off, then you can look at those alternatives. But, my guess is that most engineers can benefit from their experience, conclude more than one solution is available and pick a new and better one devoid of serious legal issues.
It is important to ask the right people. But, just as with engineers, they (lawyers) are not all equally qualified either.
And how many times have you heard someone say they have their own "in house computer expert" but they can never tell you what that person's expertise really is?
Does it matter?
Well. Yes it does.
If the expert is proficient in Cobol a C++ question may be a foul ball or strike out.
The point here is one of most difficult decisions that anyone has to make is to consult with the right people at the right time. That is a really tough call to make. You are always tossed between "I do not need to talk to this expert or that expert" and "if I always called the consultants, I'd be broke by the end of the day".
Well, yes, it is sort of like that.
And, then you have companies such as Microsoft who either do not hire competent legal help or they do not listen to them. Or, their ego gets in the way. Or, they simply take huge legal risks because some lawyers think they can get their client out of any mess.
I have often said that I doubt "my opinions" on the antitrust cases is very different from that of the Microsoft lawyers. Now, if you check my web site you will quickly conclude that the public statements made by Microsoft's lawyers differ quite a bit. But, I seriously doubt that what they say publicly matches what they advised Microsoft. Those conversations are private and will never be made public. But, I know there is a very big difference between what you tell a client in private and what you may say publicly.
The point here being that if you are doing anything based upon public statements made by Microsoft's lawyers, you have been mislead if not defrauded. You could say about the same with the State's lawyers or even the DOJ's lawyers. But, they have less reason to falsify their public statements. And, they even have an obligation not to mislead the public because that is who they are supposed to represent. The DOJ has failed in that regard however and has deliberately mislead both the public and the federal courts. Why they have done so is not clear. But, the fact they have done so is clear.
So be careful trying to learn the law from lawyers representing clients. Or, even non-lawyers.
As an employee, you are fully compensated for your work. So, generally speaking you do not retain any rights in the work you do.
Now that does not mean you have to forget everything you learn when you change jobs. But, it does mean you have to be careful that you do not infringe upon the IP rights of your former employer.
You do have a right to earn a living. But, that is not an absolute right. It comes with limitations.
Contacting your own lawyer (or companies lawyer) is the only valid approach if you have any doubt about what you can use from prior employment.
And, be careful about distinguishing between what "your rights" might be and what the rights of your new employer might be. They can be different. If you think you retain any IP rights in your former work, a private lawyer would be the appropriate one to contact. Perhaps both.
It is not easy to draw a line between using "your experience" and somehow using the IP of your former employer.
All you have to do is compare the public opinions of the States' lawyers with those of the Microsoft lawyers and you will realize that you can just punt.
But, it is not too hard to understand that some things you must just stay away from. Examples are "copying large quantities of code or designs". Now to some that may seem obvious.
But, I recall hearing from engineers in the late 70's that if you look at the schematic of the original Apple what you see is the schematic of the HP 2640A Communications Terminal (which sported an Intel 8008 chip). And, yes, had RAM and a display as well as communications. Now, who was that fellow, anyway?
The point here is that an awlful amount of work has been shared around Silicon Valley for years. Some of was legit. And, some was not.
But, in any particular case, if you are in doubt, by all means contact your legal counsel and get some guidance. Failure to be upfront with your own lawyers is only likely to get yourself and your company in hot water.
What ever you do, do not rely upon general information or discussions you may hear on/. even if the poster is a lawyer.
You can be as critical as you wish about the Lindows version of linux.
But, at least they are trying very hard to put linux on the desktop. Most other linux distros only pay it lip service (if that).
RedHat has pretty much said it is just not interested. And, their product shows it. Lindows on the other hand is focused upon the desktop and if you want a server OS they are glad to refer you to RedHat or others.
Xandros is another company that is focused upon linux for the desktop. (Actually, Lindows is based upon Xandros but it is not clear just how much of the Xandros distribution will be included in Lindows.)
Xandros, taken from the Corel Linux 3rd distro (not publicly released) at least tries very hard to make networking with windows systems easy. RedHat ignores the problem. Even Mandrake only offers a rather sickly ability to network. Oh sure, they all use Samba. But, Samba is similar to the old DOS based server/redirector crap that is all but impossible for regular people to use.
Xandros offers networking equivilent to Windows Explorer. Just right-click and pick "sharing". Mandrake hides how to accomplish the same.
How will Lindows do it?
Not sure. The version currently being included with some Wal-mart systems (SPX) is a bit of a pre-release. Even so it is better than many versions sold in the millions by Microsoft only a few years ago. And, for many it is easier to install than the Micorosoft crap is today.
The ability to run applications written for the Microsoft systems is important for many users. At least for those who already have such applications but may want to try out linux. And, getting consumers into thinking of alternatives can do wonders. Why don't they just pick up Mandrake or RedHat and grap OpenOffice, etc.? Some will.
And, when Xandros can release their distro a very easy to use distro will also network right along side the Microsoft boxes. Sorry, but Corel Linux 1st was easier to network than any other linux distro since then. And, that is 3-4 years ago.
Linux on the desktop will take off once the distro companies actually focus upon the desktop user instead of the back room. And, that requires that it is easier than Microsoft. Focusing upon servers is not going to do it.
It is nice to think that aliens have landed here or there but the odds are against it.
For one, it is so much more likely that we will establish a form of communication hundreds, thousands perhaps even millions of years before we get a visit from anyone.
Radio communication does travel at the speed of light. And, despite the success in the Star Trek type shows, it is not very likely that anyone (no matter how intelligent they are) will be able to physically travel anything close to the distances they can communicate over.
Besides, who would risk sending a group of beings to a planet that has nuclear weapons and is itching to use them for a good cause? It just does not make any sense to risk your people that way.
Do you think we could send people out pass our solar system without having any knowledge of who is out there and which direction they live? Or, whether they might be friendly?
I think you call first to find out if you may be welcome. Even if they sound friendly, you just would not know would you?
Even on our own planet most of the explorers were looking for places they thought they knew about. They were just hoping to find better routes not new and strange people. And, of course we did not have any communications ability to check out the new worlds before sending over some sailors. We have that now. Of course, SETI hears nothing yet.
And, any intelligent beings are going to have enormous communication technologies that permit long distance communication before they can travel across the universe.
Heck, you are more likely to get spam from an alien than you are likely to have a visit from one. Or, a phone call. Even on your cell phone or PDA.
You also have to keep in mind that in addition to the SETI program both amateur and professional radio operators have been talking and listening on a whole range of radio frequencies for many years. And, to date, I do not recall even one of them claiming to have talked to an alien.
The real problem with the UFOs and sitings is that we have a tendency to think that the lack of an explanation is positive proof of an alien visitor. But, of course there is absolutely no basis for that because we have no documented proof of a communication or visit ever. So we simply have no idea what an alien encounter (or communication) is even like.
Slashdot Mirror
Read the court decision by Judge Jackson.
He clearly pointed out that IE is free when you download it just like a stick of gum is free if I give you one.
But, it is illogical to conclude that the copy you pay cash for is free just like it is illogical to conclude that the pack of gum you buy is free.
Judge Jackson is way ahead of you on this. The law is way ahead of you on this.
When you pay cash for a bag of bolts, each bolt costs you a portion of your cash. That is reality. If the salesman claims that the 1/4" stuff is free, he is pulling your leg or lying outright. And, if you know that the 1/4" stuff is bundled so that the vendor can preclude competing 1/4" products, then you know you have a liar.
That is particularly true with the R&D costs billions and continues to cost real money on an ongoing basis.
Monopolist have no reason to sell products for free. They do not have to. They just force you to pay. It is not your choice what so ever. Unless the federal courts require that you be given a choice.
Ask Microsoft what they have spent on R&D, Marketing and legal fees in order to force IE upon all consumers.
Go ahead. Ask them.
You can also ask them what they told stockholders about the money allocated to cover for those expenses. Hint: Microsoft publicly claims that 20% of all OS revenue is allocated to "unearned revenue" which Microsoft says includes IE. And, that was before they stopped free phone support. Let me see now. What is 20% of all of the OS revenue (including servers I presume)?
Yea. That is zero alright. IE must be free after all since no revenue is attributed to its sale by Microsoft.
You know, sometimes when people lie they tell other people a different story.
It is sort of like CNet explaining to the public why they censor some opinions. They may tell one person one story but tell another person a completely contradictory story proving that one or the other must be false. So which is it, CNET?
Was censorship imposed because the opinions were highly regarded by CNet Community Manager? Or, was censorship imposed because some unidentified readers asked for the censorship? Or, was it because some views contrary to Microsoft's interests have caused a drop in readership or the use of Talkback?
Which one is it? Do any of them justify defrauding the reader by engaging in secret censorship?
Or, to tie it back to IE... is IE so good that Microsoft has to lie to the public about the price being charged?
Having a case of "Microsoft" sounds like street talk for brain cancer or something. I am sure there is a medical term for it. Some members of my own family suffer from it as well. And, it seriously corrupts there thinking on several levels.
If you are really that confused about products versus diseases, yes. Your aunt has Microsoft.
IE is not free.
It costs billions to develop. And, there is no reason whatsoever that a monopolist who knows you must buy it would price it at zero. None. There are no reason.
Oh, they can lie about it.
But, Judge Jackson had it correct. IE is free when downloaded as is any product that you get without paying money. But, when you part with cash and you get IE in the box, you did in fact pay part of your money for IE.
Ask your mother. Ask your mother about those toys in your Happy Meal. She will tell you that they are not free. The toy in CrackerJacks is not free either. But, the HappyMeal toys are better, right? And, the HappyMeal costs more too, right?
Do not be confused into thinking gum you buy at the store must be free because a friend of yours gave you a free stick the day before. (That is the stupid argument that IE must be free because "others" can download it without paying. That is not what determines the price of your HappyMeal.)
More than just the code.
There are many things you can do short of coding.
You can participate in beta programs. Almost all linux distributors have them. Some are more open than others. But, a lot of very useful work can be contributed in that way. And, it is not just limited to finding and reporting bugs either.
You can help by proposing alternative outlines or menu structures.
Right now Mandrake 8.2 is a fine distribution for many purposes. But, the menu outline is highly confusing. In part this is caused by the separate contributions of GNOME and KDE. And, in part it is caused by the very nature of collecting together contributed work from many separate or independant sources.
Windows, MAC, Xandros Linux, Corel Linux and Lindows each benefit from an effort to reform the presentation to the user into at least a chewable structure.
The LSB is an example of this kind of reform at the internal level. But, the face presented to the user needs some real improvement if the popularity of linux is going to increase. It has to be more organized, consistent and understandable.
For the user, Interface Design is a lot more important than the code. And, you can conclude from that the success of linux is going to be based upon how well the interface is designed rather than the quality of the coding. Microsoft has proven that to be the case time and time again.
Antitrust laws can work but it is a slow process.
The upcoming remedy in the States' case could be very helpful. But, it will not be sufficient. That is why AOL, SUN and BE filed their own private antitrust law suits. But, of course, their law suits will take years to work their way through the legal system. 5-8 years may be involved. And, if Microsoft continues illegal practices, several law suits by linux distributors may join in the mess.
In some ways the linux distributors should file suit now.
They could form a class action and sue OEMs and Microsoft to force open fair market opportunities for the distributors. The DELL case is a prime example. And, RedHat has already said publicly that many of the OEMs they have approached turn cold when linux on the desktop comes up.
Well. A class action of all linux distributors would be in order.
And, the purpose of that suit would be to stop all marketing agreements which serve to preclude lessor volume products from having fair and open markets.
The prime example is the huge discount that Microsoft offers if only Microsoft products are sold. Those kinds of agreements are in essence exclusive deals. No OEM can afford to pay $10 more per copy of windows in order to sell 5-10% of its systems pre-loaded with linux (or bare). Economically, it is cost prohibitive.
Some OEMs may be able to form separate subsidiaries just for the linux sales. Set up two companies. Share on the hardware deals but make separate and distinct software deals. Not that you will fool Microsoft. But, rather that the agreements are not being violated. In fact, they would be complied with since company B would be selling the linux products. And, company B has no deal with Microsoft at all. The fact they would use the same hardware is of no significance.
And, there may be other ways to avoid Microsoft precluding trade in linux products. Filing law suits is just one of those other ways.
DELL was made the patsy. They gave it a try until the chief idiots at Redmond took out their baseball bats. I call them idiots because it comes very close to extortion.
You can use the Microsoft tradename in your comments as you like.
Microsoft's right to the trademark only extends to the right to attach it to products being sold. It does not have the right to prevent the of their trademark in public discussions about their company or their products.
Besides, if you use the correct trademark "Microsoft", then the comments you make will be correctly associated with the correct trademark and not some fake moniker.
So, use "Microsoft". I try not to ever use MS, Micro$oft or any other false name.
It is the tradename that should carry the burden of the bad reputation causes by Microsoft's illegal acts. Not some other name.
Linux is the only OS that has a chance of being both extremely easy to install and at the same time very powerful (or difficult to install).
The reason is simple. There is not only one bunch of guys dictating what it looks and feels like.
All you have to do is install the old Corel Linux or the new Xandros Betas to know how simply installing linux can be. Lindows is another example.
If you install with a polished GUI that does not mean all the tweaking is precluded. You can still tweak all you want. And, that is the way it should be.
The objective needs to be to make installing linux as easiest as possible to also be attractive to the masses. That will create the critical mass necessary for a full range of desktop applications. But, that does not mean the "hard way" has to be blocked. It does not.
It is nice to think you want you vehicle or frame to bust right through the rock or brick wall you hit. But, it is not going to happen.
If you want a "frame" tough enough to not "give and take" then you are as good as hitting the rock or brick wall with you birthday suit.
You are dead.
All you have done is changed the color hue of the object you have hit.
Lindows is based on Xandros. So, I am not sure you can really draw any distinction between them except as to the final form their product takes.
.Net, Pallidium and any other technology they want to toss out. Any idea can fail. But, only linux will benefit from the concept that many different companies and many individuals can bring forth truly innovative technology on the linux platform and see how it rides. Microsoft can not and will not do that. They are restricted to one attempt at a time. And, when they fail consumers and the industry loses years at a time. Linux will not suffer that way.
But, I think you have to be careful about rejecting software simply on the basis that it is not open source software. And, same is true about rejecting software because it is open source.
Since the industry began software took both forms. Initially operating systems were closed. All of them. But, any software you needed had to be developed in-house and that is open source to at least the development and support staff. So, from day one the industry has worked in a mixed invironment regardless of what some people want to think.
Now, if you want to be a purist that is fine.
But, I would not suggest turning away an easy to network Xandros simply because the software is not completely open source or not under the GPL. Xandros does use Samba of course. But, they have added a front end to it to make it easy to use. Other companies such as Mandrake have not. As a result, Xandros (Corel 1 and Corel 2) are much easier to use. The Xandros (Corel) File Manager is a clone of Windows Exporer. And, you may or may not like Windows Explorer. But, it is easy to share a directory with others or map a network directory and go to work. Mandrake is simply too foreign and difficult for non-techies. And, that is still true regardless of their effort to be easy to install, etc. I have used Mandrake 8.2 for months. I also removed it because I know I do not need to learn the difficult process to use it effectively. And, neither will I ever train anyone else to do so. I'll just install Xandros for them and take the day off.
Lindows is taking a different route. Lindows is focusing upon other efforts with their Clink_n_Run stuff.
Well. One of the real advantages that Linux has now and will retain oveer time is the ability to fully develop multiple ideas to enhance user access, functionaly, security, flexibility and ease of use. Remember the "BOb" thing? Disaster right? Sure was. And, during that time Microsoft only offered that one solution to see if it sticks. The same is true with
Lindows may or may not be successful in their effort. But, even if they fail Xandros can be. And, Mandrake can be. And, RedHat can be. And, many others can be as well. That is the real power of having an open source OS. It permits value added features to be exposed to the market without the extremely high barriers that a strickly proprietary or closed OS would require. BE failed for several reasons. Extremely high barriers to entry and Microsoft's illegal acts could easily combine to cause that failure. And, did.
Microsoft can engage in many illegal acts (and already has) to make it difficult for linux. They use FUD and everything else at their disposal. But, in the end, true innovation is likely to surface from the linux platform and be unable to survive on a closed system. And, that is likely to be the case even though today Microsoft enjoys a monopoly position.
In the hearings for the antitrust case, AOL presented evidence of the Lego project. That project took the Microsoft OS and put up a custom frontend best suited for kids. Well. Microsoft wants to block it. And, maybe they can keep variety off of their products. But, that leaves linux open for those markets. The only question is whether having an open OS is sufficent. The only real problem that linux faces now for many customers is the lack of a full range of end-user applications that can be bought down at the corner. Sure, you can get a lot over the internet. And, Lindows is working hard to make that even easier (as are others). But, the mass shops Best-Buy and Circuit-City and other retail outlets. And, linux is at a disadvange in the retail markets.
Have not even seen it yet, yet it is excluded from the possible?
That will not get you anywhere.
If it did, everyone would still be running Microsoft crap.
I can see why you refuse to use your own name.
Right across from the weavers? Not bad placement. For CodeWeavers that is.
Between the HP unit and the Apple, one is a toy and the other is a full commercial product.
What do I mean by that?
HP offered in your office service calls.
What else do I mean?
Data types from integer to Double precision. Remember the very first HP handheld calculators? 7.555767655 x 10^99 that kind of stuff. Real numbers with 10-12 significant digits. And, programable in BASIC. Check out the museum page for full specs.
http://www.hpmuseum.org/hp9830.htm
Most in the industry today have no idea of the quality of the HP unit they were selling as early as 1972. When did Apple make their first toy? 1976 or so? And, then the Trash 80.
The HP 9830A was so far ahead that it never did offer a floppy disc. Never. That technology was never considered by HP to be reliable enough until after the product was retired.
you bet ...
...and the judge turns to his clerk and says, "slash who? I though we arrested him last month?"
Actually, few would claim to be lawyers who are not. But, you still have to be very careful about taking any advice on a public forum.
The only advice you should take is to contact your own lawyer when you think it is at all important to do so. A big mistake a lot of businesses make is not consulting with their lawyers quick enough to stay out of trouble.
And, not all lawyers will fish you into an expensive law suit. Some will. But, look for the lawyers that try their best to keep you out of the court room and out of the neck high water.
Heck, even Microsoft lawyers told the federal judge that was their modus of operation. Of course, they lied. But, that is what they told the judge. And, that is what drew the comment from the judge about the fact she will remember what is being said now.
I think that is a not so veiled suggestion that if Microsoft breaches the final remedy anything close to what they did with the earlier consent decree, she will not be so kind to deal with. Microsoft claims they never breached the consent degree. They even told that to this judge. But, if you accept Microsoft's view of the consent decree it is completely meaningless. And, it is highly unlikely that either Microsoft, the DOJ or the judge had that understanding. It is not the way you interpret contracts. Microsoft even said at the time that they would just ignore it. And, they did. And, it did not matter because of the larger antitrust suit that was filed making the original consent decree all but moot.
Yes, Woz wanted HP to develop what he had in mind for the Apple unit. But, the engineering schematics were borrowed from HP's 2640A Terminal. As least that is what some engineers have said that say the Apple schematics.
The problem is that HP already had desktop systems that did calculations. And, they were very fine systems. They were first introduced in 1972 and were called calculators so that they would be easier to sell to state governments. By the time, Woz wanted HP to develop a "PC" for the hobby or personal market, HP had lots of things in the fire including the HP9830A calculator.
A lot of people do not know this but prior to Woz days, Hp sold and supported a desktop system that sported not only a hard disk drive but also up to 15 i/o devices including plotters, thermal printers, letter quality printers and a whole bunch of other items.
Take a look at this link and note the date and periferals.
http://www.hpmuseum.org/hp9830.htm
And all of that when the Woz was in "high school"? Almost.
A good lawyer may be able to tell you how, as you say.
But, you have to realize that most engineering problems can be solved more than one way. And, a lot of the times, your experience is in knowing what does not work. In other words, you do not proceed along lines that you know will fail.
Now, that kind of experience is difficult to prove even if it does come from work done by a previous employer. And, in part, that is the "experience" the new employer thinks is being hired.
I think the easiest mistake that you can make is just assuming you will have to "job your work" from previous work. You may gain a short head start but have serious problems later when the work actually does amount to something. Knowing that you need to steer clear of previous work can have its benefits.
If your intent is to sell a cloned product, then maybe you have to clone it and take your chances. But, most of the time good experience can lead to an even better approach and solution for the same problem. It is rare when you simply can not improve upon a previous solution.
And, of course, that is where the legal advice gets mucky sometimes. Is it really a different idea? Did you benefit from previous work? Well. You can benefit from previous work in most cases. And, for a practical matter you just can not make that so obvious.
Ask yourself how you would do it differently if you had to do it again? Could you put together a better product upon the second or third attempt?
And, if you actually decide you will have to license something or rip it off, then you can look at those alternatives. But, my guess is that most engineers can benefit from their experience, conclude more than one solution is available and pick a new and better one devoid of serious legal issues.
That is where you want to go, perhaps?
It is important to ask the right people. But, just as with engineers, they (lawyers) are not all equally qualified either.
And how many times have you heard someone say they have their own "in house computer expert" but they can never tell you what that person's expertise really is?
Does it matter?
Well. Yes it does.
If the expert is proficient in Cobol a C++ question may be a foul ball or strike out.
The point here is one of most difficult decisions that anyone has to make is to consult with the right people at the right time. That is a really tough call to make. You are always tossed between "I do not need to talk to this expert or that expert" and "if I always called the consultants, I'd be broke by the end of the day".
Well, yes, it is sort of like that.
And, then you have companies such as Microsoft who either do not hire competent legal help or they do not listen to them. Or, their ego gets in the way. Or, they simply take huge legal risks because some lawyers think they can get their client out of any mess.
I have often said that I doubt "my opinions" on the antitrust cases is very different from that of the Microsoft lawyers. Now, if you check my web site you will quickly conclude that the public statements made by Microsoft's lawyers differ quite a bit. But, I seriously doubt that what they say publicly matches what they advised Microsoft. Those conversations are private and will never be made public. But, I know there is a very big difference between what you tell a client in private and what you may say publicly.
The point here being that if you are doing anything based upon public statements made by Microsoft's lawyers, you have been mislead if not defrauded. You could say about the same with the State's lawyers or even the DOJ's lawyers. But, they have less reason to falsify their public statements. And, they even have an obligation not to mislead the public because that is who they are supposed to represent. The DOJ has failed in that regard however and has deliberately mislead both the public and the federal courts. Why they have done so is not clear. But, the fact they have done so is clear.
So be careful trying to learn the law from lawyers representing clients. Or, even non-lawyers.
As an employee, you are fully compensated for your work. So, generally speaking you do not retain any rights in the work you do.
Now that does not mean you have to forget everything you learn when you change jobs. But, it does mean you have to be careful that you do not infringe upon the IP rights of your former employer.
You do have a right to earn a living. But, that is not an absolute right. It comes with limitations.
Contacting your own lawyer (or companies lawyer) is the only valid approach if you have any doubt about what you can use from prior employment.
And, be careful about distinguishing between what "your rights" might be and what the rights of your new employer might be. They can be different. If you think you retain any IP rights in your former work, a private lawyer would be the appropriate one to contact. Perhaps both.
It is not easy to draw a line between using "your experience" and somehow using the IP of your former employer.
All you have to do is compare the public opinions of the States' lawyers with those of the Microsoft lawyers and you will realize that you can just punt.
/. even if the poster is a lawyer.
But, it is not too hard to understand that some things you must just stay away from. Examples are "copying large quantities of code or designs". Now to some that may seem obvious.
But, I recall hearing from engineers in the late 70's that if you look at the schematic of the original Apple what you see is the schematic of the HP 2640A Communications Terminal (which sported an Intel 8008 chip). And, yes, had RAM and a display as well as communications. Now, who was that fellow, anyway?
The point here is that an awlful amount of work has been shared around Silicon Valley for years. Some of was legit. And, some was not.
But, in any particular case, if you are in doubt, by all means contact your legal counsel and get some guidance. Failure to be upfront with your own lawyers is only likely to get yourself and your company in hot water.
What ever you do, do not rely upon general information or discussions you may hear on
You can be as critical as you wish about the Lindows version of linux.
But, at least they are trying very hard to put linux on the desktop. Most other linux distros only pay it lip service (if that).
RedHat has pretty much said it is just not interested. And, their product shows it. Lindows on the other hand is focused upon the desktop and if you want a server OS they are glad to refer you to RedHat or others.
Xandros is another company that is focused upon linux for the desktop. (Actually, Lindows is based upon Xandros but it is not clear just how much of the Xandros distribution will be included in Lindows.)
Xandros, taken from the Corel Linux 3rd distro (not publicly released) at least tries very hard to make networking with windows systems easy. RedHat ignores the problem. Even Mandrake only offers a rather sickly ability to network. Oh sure, they all use Samba. But, Samba is similar to the old DOS based server/redirector crap that is all but impossible for regular people to use.
Xandros offers networking equivilent to Windows Explorer. Just right-click and pick "sharing". Mandrake hides how to accomplish the same.
How will Lindows do it?
Not sure. The version currently being included with some Wal-mart systems (SPX) is a bit of a pre-release. Even so it is better than many versions sold in the millions by Microsoft only a few years ago. And, for many it is easier to install than the Micorosoft crap is today.
The ability to run applications written for the Microsoft systems is important for many users. At least for those who already have such applications but may want to try out linux. And, getting consumers into thinking of alternatives can do wonders. Why don't they just pick up Mandrake or RedHat and grap OpenOffice, etc.? Some will.
And, when Xandros can release their distro a very easy to use distro will also network right along side the Microsoft boxes. Sorry, but Corel Linux 1st was easier to network than any other linux distro since then. And, that is 3-4 years ago.
Linux on the desktop will take off once the distro companies actually focus upon the desktop user instead of the back room. And, that requires that it is easier than Microsoft. Focusing upon servers is not going to do it.
It is nice to think that aliens have landed here or there but the odds are against it.
For one, it is so much more likely that we will establish a form of communication hundreds, thousands perhaps even millions of years before we get a visit from anyone.
Radio communication does travel at the speed of light. And, despite the success in the Star Trek type shows, it is not very likely that anyone (no matter how intelligent they are) will be able to physically travel anything close to the distances they can communicate over.
Besides, who would risk sending a group of beings to a planet that has nuclear weapons and is itching to use them for a good cause? It just does not make any sense to risk your people that way.
Do you think we could send people out pass our solar system without having any knowledge of who is out there and which direction they live? Or, whether they might be friendly?
I think you call first to find out if you may be welcome. Even if they sound friendly, you just would not know would you?
Even on our own planet most of the explorers were looking for places they thought they knew about. They were just hoping to find better routes not new and strange people. And, of course we did not have any communications ability to check out the new worlds before sending over some sailors. We have that now. Of course, SETI hears nothing yet.
And, any intelligent beings are going to have enormous communication technologies that permit long distance communication before they can travel across the universe.
Heck, you are more likely to get spam from an alien than you are likely to have a visit from one. Or, a phone call. Even on your cell phone or PDA.
You also have to keep in mind that in addition to the SETI program both amateur and professional radio operators have been talking and listening on a whole range of radio frequencies for many years. And, to date, I do not recall even one of them claiming to have talked to an alien.
The real problem with the UFOs and sitings is that we have a tendency to think that the lack of an explanation is positive proof of an alien visitor. But, of course there is absolutely no basis for that because we have no documented proof of a communication or visit ever. So we simply have no idea what an alien encounter (or communication) is even like.
Source availability creates security risks for your own customer applications too.
In fact, it is the same risk.
That is why source code is protected the way it is.
The last pre-made computer I purchased was a 286 from Televideo. Since then it has always been parts, parts and more parts.
But, then I am a lawyer.
You would fully expect a lawyer to roll his own, not?