So does hardware. And it has a higher replication cost.
Each piece of hardware has to be designed. The processor, the motherboard, the RAM, the networking cards, the graphics cards, the hard drive controllers - the hard drives. All these things have a high research and development cost as well as a high replication cost.
Software just has a high design cost. I write proprietary software, and I expect to get paid for it. But that doesn't suddenly mean that the hardware I write the software on doesn't have a design cost, or doesn't have a high replication cost.
Hell, my value to my employer - and therefore my contribution to the cost of their software - is an entirely arbitrary value set by current labour rates. The cost of pressing a microprocessor onto silicon, however, is dictated by the labour cost of the design teams + the cost of the silicon + the cost of the plant etc. etc.
Or are you contending that hardware designers are somehow worth less than software designers?
She wasn't awarded $400,000 for "being out of commission for 8 days"; McDonalds were punished to the tune of $400,000 - thus the term "punitive" damages.
She was only awarded (and only asked for) her medical expenses. Yes, she received the value of the punitive damages; but the purpose of the damages is not to award the victim, but to punish the perpetrator. Whether you agree with that principle is another matter.
Imagine if e-mail was just plain old ASCII text with no attachment support. *sigh*
Then I wouldn't be able to e-mail myself images, diagrams or executables created at work to run on my home machine.
Certainly there's a lot to be said for plain old ASCII (unless you're from a country that requires unicode to represent the language of course), but it only permits text messages. As such, it doesn't actually solve any business problems. Sending binary files is one of the reasons that businesses actually use e-mail.
The problem is not binaries per-se, the problem is trust. People trust their e-mail system. They also trust their AV software. So when a virus comes along that does not yet have a signature available from their vendor, they trust the attachment, as they believe that the mail has been cleaned by the corporate/personal/ISP virus blocker. This impression is re-inforced as people are frequently (and incorrectly) told not to trust attachments from people they don't know - but they're not told to distrust e-mails from people they do know but were not expecting.
Binaries in e-mail has provided business (and individual) benefits that far outways it's problems. The real problem here is that wrong or incomplete, advice is being given to end users; and a false sense of security is being instilled in users because they have followed past advice and used anti-virus products. They've not been told, however, that their AV signatures could be updated every minute, and they're still at risk.
With (e) I think their effort here is to pick a technologically weak company with shareholders who have less of a technical education
The nature of the business bears no relation to the nature of or education of its share holders. Just because AutoZone is an automotive company does not mean that it's share holders are mechanics. The shareholders are no less inclined to be technical in nature than the shareholders of IBM, Microsoft, or any other company: they're just interested in the profit.
Similarly with their lawyers: just because they're an automotive company does not mean that their lawyers are too stupid to get in someone who does understand the pertinent law.
Second, if the submitter actually mean "rulings" instead of "issues", how would this be possible?
The ruling in question is that a jury will only be able to consider the pre-1985 meaning of the word "windows", and not it's current use as an operating system brand name. Microsoft want the eventual trial to be held using the current use of the word - which would automatically imply that it had the right to trademark the word in the first place.
In essence, Lindows defense appears to be resting on the idea that Microsoft has no right to trademark a generic term. Microsoft is arguing that it's too late now, and as it got away with it for so long, it's become a new de-facto standard term for an operating system. The appeal is specifically on the ruling of which definition of the word is to be used. (again, IANAL and all that!)
Third, there's a trial? Who's on trial for what? I thought trials were for criminial cases.
When you bring a civil case to court, there's a trial (IANAL etc.)
Re:Bill Gates, Hall of Fame Hacker? (P.S. First Po
on
Hackers Hall of Fame
·
· Score: 1
Bill Gates would still be stuck flogging DOS licenses to IBM customers if it hadn't been for Compaq. Remember that MS-DOS only ran on IBM machines, and it was only when Compaq successfully cloned the IBM-PC with a masterful stroke of reverse engineering that the IBM-PC Compatible became cheap enough to achieve the market dominance it enjoys today.
Gates got lucky because of Compaq. He himself did nothing to bring easy to use cheap PC's to the desktop.
"Without so much as a hearing, ICANN today formally asked us to shut down the Site Finder service"
Which as The Register has pointed out is somewhat ironic. All those who were consulted by Veri$ign before they introduced their "service" raise their hands.
So you can have a separate find files output window, a separate build output window, a separate class view window, a separate resource window etc. etc ?
Visual Studio doesn't infringe the patent. Yes you have tabs on dockable windows; but importantly you can't pick up a tab and create a new dockable window out of that. On my screen at the moment, I have an output window - with it's corresponding Build, Debug, Find in Files x etc tabs - and a project window with it's ClassView, ResourceView, and FileView tabs. Now I can picku up the project window (for example) and move all the tabs in that window around but I can't (and this is the fundamental bit) pick up the ClassView tab, drag it off the window to create a floating ClassView toolbox. With Macromedia's products, they chose to follow the precise same look and feel of Adobe - to the extent that they're virtually the same to use. But it's the way the tabs interact that is the issue.
I'll bite. I don't own a car, and I do cycle / walk everywhere (and I do mean everywhere).
I personally think that the Segways a daft idea - I simply can't see what advantage it gives over the humble two wheeled bicycle, which uses advanced gyroscopic devices (know as wheels) to stay upright.
Regardless of the fact that this is a hoax: Yes they do have a right to publish such garbage. It's called freedom of speech, and freedom of expression. Freedom of speech is not, and should not be limited because you don't like it.
It certaintly is a superbly well done paradoy/hoax - the biggest clue is in little jokes in the options when you sign the guestbook (ahem! - prayer book), my choice of religion: macintosh:)
However, the reason it works so well is because there really are too many fundamentalist christians that really do go for this tripe. Wherever you see the "WWJD" type books/seminars/bumper stickers, you're watching people fall for the same old trick. It is of course, not a phenomenon limited to christians, but sadly to most religions.
I'm just waiting for the book "Toilet cleaning - the christian way"
If you're making money from advertising, then what's stopping you providing advertising when the server returns the document ? As has been stated before: If you want a document presented in a certain way, then it is your responsibility to ensure that that occurs - at the point of delivery. It's a very simple thing to do.
If you're making money from reselling content, then you should be placing the content in a protected area anyway. Most content that is publically viewable has little re-saleable value, as it lacks rarity. Only by placing that content in a position where only authorised people can access it do you gain rarity of goods, and thus place commercial value on it.
Either way; if you're creating a business from on-line content, then you really should know this already anyway.
As has been pointed out many times before: It depends upon how you define "IP-impairing". The GPL license requires you to open-source any software written that uses code from another GPL'd license. Indeed it enforces the rights of the original author of open-source code, by ensuring that no work can be created that simply rips off existing GPL'd code. In this respect, the GPL is IP-enforcing.
MS make much mileage by demonstrating principles of the GPL that simply do not exist. For example: If I were to write an application that works on Linux, I am under no obligation to open my source code. On the other hand, if I write code that uses code from a GPL'd product, then I am using someone elses intellectual property, and - just as MS require you to abide by their license in order to use their IP - I am required to abide by the license under which the original codes author has licensed their work.
If you believe the FUD that MS have been throwing around regarding the GPL - then you've obviously never read it.
TV's future is going to be like those DVD disks where you can't fast-forward past the copyright notices/trailers, and your DVD player brings up a "stop" sign, or (in the case of the PS2) states "This operation is not permitted on this disk".
Change channel? "This operation is not permitted on this channel".
Turn off television ? "This operation is not permitted on this channel".
And don't forget the truly digital wired house. When you try to leave the living room while a commercial is on, the door shuts fast, locks itself, while the TV bleeps "This operation is not permited on this channel"
That's not the case. It is illegal to own any device capable of receiving television transmissions without a proper license.
Personally, I don't mind the license fee (except for the recent hike to cover digital use, when I don't have, can't get and don't want digital). The BBC are usually prepared to put better stuff on than most commercial channels, and you don't have to sit through adverts every quater of an hour.
As for the big switch of in the UK: It going to happen in 2007, by when the government expects all television transmissions to be digital, and the analogue transmissions will simply be switched off - rendering any remaining analogue devices useless. But then, I guess the government also expects that the schools, hospitals, etc etc will also work by then;)
Let's face it, there's no such thing as an uncopyable media. Never has been, never will be. What matters here is that a court has simply stated what most people try to assert on their sites in the first place - that images have a copyright. The court hasn't stated that a _link_ per-se is illegal, it's stated that _embedding_ the image in a site is illegal. This doesn't infringe on your freedom of speach, and it doesn't infringe on your fair use rights.
Incidentally: In the UK (where I am), there's no such thing as fair use rights. If a site hosted in the UK attempted to use my copyrighted images - even as a thumbnail - I would be able to sue for copyright infringement. So another interesting question would be: could I enforce those rights abroad! (ans: probably not, with any luck).
It's also not always valid to muck around with the settings of the apache browser to prevent images being served with the wrong referral. First of all: as an Opera user (at home), I have the option of disabling the referrer completely - in accordance with the RFC; so I would start getting to sites that mysteriously had no images at all (although sometimes there's a lot to be said for that idea).
Second: as a dial-up account holder, I don't have the option of controlling a webpage, I have to host on someone elses server (my ISP's). Do my images deserve less protection because I don't run my own server ?
Slashdot Mirror
Software Has A Design Cost
So does hardware. And it has a higher replication cost.Each piece of hardware has to be designed. The processor, the motherboard, the RAM, the networking cards, the graphics cards, the hard drive controllers - the hard drives. All these things have a high research and development cost as well as a high replication cost.
Software just has a high design cost. I write proprietary software, and I expect to get paid for it. But that doesn't suddenly mean that the hardware I write the software on doesn't have a design cost, or doesn't have a high replication cost.
Hell, my value to my employer - and therefore my contribution to the cost of their software - is an entirely arbitrary value set by current labour rates. The cost of pressing a microprocessor onto silicon, however, is dictated by the labour cost of the design teams + the cost of the silicon + the cost of the plant etc. etc.
Or are you contending that hardware designers are somehow worth less than software designers?
She wasn't awarded $400,000 for "being out of commission for 8 days"; McDonalds were punished to the tune of $400,000 - thus the term "punitive" damages.
She was only awarded (and only asked for) her medical expenses. Yes, she received the value of the punitive damages; but the purpose of the damages is not to award the victim, but to punish the perpetrator. Whether you agree with that principle is another matter.
Imagine if e-mail was just plain old ASCII text with no attachment support. *sigh*
Then I wouldn't be able to e-mail myself images, diagrams or executables created at work to run on my home machine.
Certainly there's a lot to be said for plain old ASCII (unless you're from a country that requires unicode to represent the language of course), but it only permits text messages. As such, it doesn't actually solve any business problems. Sending binary files is one of the reasons that businesses actually use e-mail.
The problem is not binaries per-se, the problem is trust. People trust their e-mail system. They also trust their AV software. So when a virus comes along that does not yet have a signature available from their vendor, they trust the attachment, as they believe that the mail has been cleaned by the corporate/personal/ISP virus blocker. This impression is re-inforced as people are frequently (and incorrectly) told not to trust attachments from people they don't know - but they're not told to distrust e-mails from people they do know but were not expecting.
Binaries in e-mail has provided business (and individual) benefits that far outways it's problems. The real problem here is that wrong or incomplete, advice is being given to end users; and a false sense of security is being instilled in users because they have followed past advice and used anti-virus products. They've not been told, however, that their AV signatures could be updated every minute, and they're still at risk.With (e) I think their effort here is to pick a technologically weak company with shareholders who have less of a technical education
The nature of the business bears no relation to the nature of or education of its share holders. Just because AutoZone is an automotive company does not mean that it's share holders are mechanics. The shareholders are no less inclined to be technical in nature than the shareholders of IBM, Microsoft, or any other company: they're just interested in the profit.
Similarly with their lawyers: just because they're an automotive company does not mean that their lawyers are too stupid to get in someone who does understand the pertinent law.
Second, if the submitter actually mean "rulings" instead of "issues", how would this be possible?
The ruling in question is that a jury will only be able to consider the pre-1985 meaning of the word "windows", and not it's current use as an operating system brand name. Microsoft want the eventual trial to be held using the current use of the word - which would automatically imply that it had the right to trademark the word in the first place.
In essence, Lindows defense appears to be resting on the idea that Microsoft has no right to trademark a generic term. Microsoft is arguing that it's too late now, and as it got away with it for so long, it's become a new de-facto standard term for an operating system. The appeal is specifically on the ruling of which definition of the word is to be used. (again, IANAL and all that!)
Third, there's a trial? Who's on trial for what? I thought trials were for criminial cases.
When you bring a civil case to court, there's a trial (IANAL etc.)
Bill Gates would still be stuck flogging DOS licenses to IBM customers if it hadn't been for Compaq. Remember that MS-DOS only ran on IBM machines, and it was only when Compaq successfully cloned the IBM-PC with a masterful stroke of reverse engineering that the IBM-PC Compatible became cheap enough to achieve the market dominance it enjoys today.
Gates got lucky because of Compaq. He himself did nothing to bring easy to use cheap PC's to the desktop.
"Without so much as a hearing, ICANN today formally asked us to shut down the Site Finder service"
Which as The Register has pointed out is somewhat ironic. All those who were consulted by Veri$ign before they introduced their "service" raise their hands.
So you can have a separate find files output window, a separate build output window, a separate class view window, a separate resource window etc. etc ?
Visual Studio doesn't infringe the patent. Yes you have tabs on dockable windows; but importantly you can't pick up a tab and create a new dockable window out of that.
On my screen at the moment, I have an output window - with it's corresponding Build, Debug, Find in Files x etc tabs - and a project window with it's ClassView, ResourceView, and FileView tabs.
Now I can picku up the project window (for example) and move all the tabs in that window around but I can't (and this is the fundamental bit) pick up the ClassView tab, drag it off the window to create a floating ClassView toolbox.
With Macromedia's products, they chose to follow the precise same look and feel of Adobe - to the extent that they're virtually the same to use. But it's the way the tabs interact that is the issue.
I'll bite. I don't own a car, and I do cycle / walk everywhere (and I do mean everywhere). I personally think that the Segways a daft idea - I simply can't see what advantage it gives over the humble two wheeled bicycle, which uses advanced gyroscopic devices (know as wheels) to stay upright.
Regardless of the fact that this is a hoax: Yes they do have a right to publish such garbage. It's called freedom of speech, and freedom of expression. Freedom of speech is not, and should not be limited because you don't like it.
It certaintly is a superbly well done paradoy/hoax - the biggest clue is in little jokes in the options when you sign the guestbook (ahem! - prayer book), my choice of religion: macintosh :)
However, the reason it works so well is because there really are too many fundamentalist christians that really do go for this tripe. Wherever you see the "WWJD" type books/seminars/bumper stickers, you're watching people fall for the same old trick. It is of course, not a phenomenon limited to christians, but sadly to most religions.
I'm just waiting for the book "Toilet cleaning - the christian way"
If you're making money from advertising, then what's stopping you providing advertising when the server returns the document ? As has been stated before: If you want a document presented in a certain way, then it is your responsibility to ensure that that occurs - at the point of delivery. It's a very simple thing to do.
If you're making money from reselling content, then you should be placing the content in a protected area anyway. Most content that is publically viewable has little re-saleable value, as it lacks rarity. Only by placing that content in a position where only authorised people can access it do you gain rarity of goods, and thus place commercial value on it.
Either way; if you're creating a business from on-line content, then you really should know this already anyway.
As has been pointed out many times before: It depends upon how you define "IP-impairing". The GPL license requires you to open-source any software written that uses code from another GPL'd license. Indeed it enforces the rights of the original author of open-source code, by ensuring that no work can be created that simply rips off existing GPL'd code. In this respect, the GPL is IP-enforcing.
MS make much mileage by demonstrating principles of the GPL that simply do not exist. For example: If I were to write an application that works on Linux, I am under no obligation to open my source code. On the other hand, if I write code that uses code from a GPL'd product, then I am using someone elses intellectual property, and - just as MS require you to abide by their license in order to use their IP - I am required to abide by the license under which the original codes author has licensed their work.
If you believe the FUD that MS have been throwing around regarding the GPL - then you've obviously never read it.
TV's future is going to be like those DVD disks where you can't fast-forward past the copyright notices/trailers, and your DVD player brings up a "stop" sign, or (in the case of the PS2) states "This operation is not permitted on this disk".
Change channel? "This operation is not permitted on this channel".
Turn off television ? "This operation is not permitted on this channel".
And don't forget the truly digital wired house. When you try to leave the living room while a commercial is on, the door shuts fast, locks itself, while the TV bleeps "This operation is not permited on this channel"
:o)
That's not the case. It is illegal to own any device capable of receiving television transmissions without a proper license. ;)
Personally, I don't mind the license fee (except for the recent hike to cover digital use, when I don't have, can't get and don't want digital). The BBC are usually prepared to put better stuff on than most commercial channels, and you don't have to sit through adverts every quater of an hour.
As for the big switch of in the UK: It going to happen in 2007, by when the government expects all television transmissions to be digital, and the analogue transmissions will simply be switched off - rendering any remaining analogue devices useless. But then, I guess the government also expects that the schools, hospitals, etc etc will also work by then
Let's face it, there's no such thing as an uncopyable media. Never has been, never will be. What matters here is that a court has simply stated what most people try to assert on their sites in the first place - that images have a copyright. The court hasn't stated that a _link_ per-se is illegal, it's stated that _embedding_ the image in a site is illegal. This doesn't infringe on your freedom of speach, and it doesn't infringe on your fair use rights.
Incidentally: In the UK (where I am), there's no such thing as fair use rights. If a site hosted in the UK attempted to use my copyrighted images - even as a thumbnail - I would be able to sue for copyright infringement. So another interesting question would be: could I enforce those rights abroad! (ans: probably not, with any luck).
It's also not always valid to muck around with the settings of the apache browser to prevent images being served with the wrong referral. First of all: as an Opera user (at home), I have the option of disabling the referrer completely - in accordance with the RFC; so I would start getting to sites that mysteriously had no images at all (although sometimes there's a lot to be said for that idea).
Second: as a dial-up account holder, I don't have the option of controlling a webpage, I have to host on someone elses server (my ISP's). Do my images deserve less protection because I don't run my own server ?