If you read the article it says that Microsoft will reimburse legal costs for any infringement that results from use of microsoft software. So essentially they will reimburse when their software infringes.
The key is this -- a patent holder will always sue the party with the deep pockets. And when MS software infringes MS is liable as well as the embedded device maker that licenced the code. And lets face it, Microsoft has deeper pockets than any embedded device maker out there. Thus, it is 99% certain that whoever sues an embedded device maker for patent infringement of their software code will also sue microsoft. Now since Microsoft will have to pay to defend themselves anyway, they would not incur much additional costs in taking over the defense of their client as well.
Now, even if the patent holder sues only the embedded device maker and not Microsoft, MS would still have a big stake in the case, because if the patent holder wins that will make it easier for them to win against Microsoft in the future. Thus, MS would probably prefer to join the defense of that case as well.
Thus, this policy does not really cost microsot much in addition to what they would have to incur for patent defense even if the policy was not there.
But it still does provide embedded device makers with some help. Note also that if the embedded device maker loses the case, MS does not agree to reimburse the judgements, or the costs of injunctions and that is what may kill RIM, not the legal fees.
I am not sure if content developers would get much benefit here. Remember that Vista will probably run mostly on x86 machines while Xbox runs cell processors. So the developers must compile different binaries for each platform. But it gets worse -- the cell processors require a different style of coding in order to perform well... i.e. they need software which has a lot of simultaneasly running threads and the threads must be kept busy at all times for maximum efficiency.
This is not true of x86 processors. Although Intel are coming out with some multicore designs, it is safe to say that the majority of computers will have no more than two cores, and usually one. The strngth of x86 processors has usually been their ability to get high speed from a single core.
So the two architectures will require very different styles of coding, therefore developers will have to code their software separately for each.
If that happens developers will switch to opengl or may just use the older versions of directX. No game company will develop games which are exclusive to an OS that nobody owns. The worst thing you can say about a game is "you need a new computer to be able to play this".
Even games that push the enevelope (e.g., the Id. games) make sure that they play in a reduced graphics mode on existing systems, so that people get a chance to tery the game before they decide whether it is worthwhile to upgrade.
If wine gets support for Vista we might get the situation where Wine and Cedega are resleased for Windows XP in order to allow Windows users to run new Microsoft software.
This is something professor Moglen from the EFF has also suggested. I suppose the idea is that if everyone's personal facts are made public then there will emerge social rules that prevent anybody from using personal details to humiliate or discriminate based on that personal information.
I guess you could say that in a world where everyone lives in a glass house, nobody will be throwing stones.
Sounds interesting but it would not be easy to achieve in our society.
"I am not too worried unless the taps were not on inbound international calls from known terrorists calling people here in the US. If that is what they are, then there is no crime in doing that."
If that is what they are they would not have to be done illegally because the courts would be glad to issue warrants for them. So it is obvious that that is not what they are.
But it is nice of you to use your imagination to help out the president. I am sure he appreciates it.
This is the problem of monopolies. Do you notice how Verizon suddenly forgot about all their damn customers that pay them $ 30 - 50 per month for internet access. I mean, they are the ones using their precious pipes. And they PAY for it. Furthermore, Google also pays to send data through the pipes. So you have pipes at each end of which there is a paying customer, Verizon is making billions off of them and at the same time they are bitching that their customers are cheating them.
But of course Verizon can pretend their customers do not exist because they are part of an oligopoly and their only "competitors" are the cable companies which are doing exactly the same thing.
Now imagine if this think happened in an actual competitive, free market industry. Imagine for example if GM starts complaining that all those people keep using "their trucks" for profit and try to extract payment from everyone that purchases a Chevy truck and uses it haul things for money. It would be ridiculous. It would laughable. And of course GM do not do that. In fact they would actually try very hard to get you to buy their truck and use it for profit without reimbursing them.
But of course GM are part of a competitive industry, while Verison are monopolists.
It is obvious now that a company that obtains a secure monopoly will use it to screw over their customers and everyone else. The big orgy of telecom mergers of the 90's should have never been allowed. But now that it has been allowed, the government or the courts should step in or bar monopolistic behaviour.
PS I hope Verizon do not succeed in making internet access more expensive (either in temrs of fees or adds) because then I will have to stop using their cell phone and they do have a pretty decent network.
I agree with the grand parent -- in this case the incorrect usage is still incorrect and the fact that a majority of people are actually using the incorrect definition should not make it correct.
It is also probably true that the majority of people use "it's" when they mean "its" but that does not make it correct.
I know there are good arguments for letting language evolve and grow but in some cases thats not a good idea. The most important aspect of a language the ability to express one self through that language. And, in my opinion, a language that allows people to easily expres complex concepts is much preferable, because it not only makes communication easier, but it can also improve peoples' thinking.
Now here we have a phrase which describes a relatively complex concept, and it is being incorrectly used to describe a much simpler concept. There are many other phrases to describe the simpler concept (i.e., "raising the question") but all other phrases which may be used to describe the more complex concept are much more cumbersome and awkward. Thus, if we allow this phrase to change its meaning we would really be robbing the English language of some of its richness and power to describe concepts.
As far as "trying to sound smart" goes this whole problem was cause by people "trying to sound smart" which used the phrase "begging the question" without knowing what it means.
I applaud the grandparent and all other pedantic pricks that which try to preserve the English language.
Infiniti navigation systems already feature 3-d displays.
But it would be nice if you had a nav system connected to the internet so that it gets updated data. Also Google's local search would be great if put into car's navigation system, but once again it must be connected to the internet.
The problem with navigation systems is that they come on a CD (or DVD) and do not get any updates. And while streets do not change that often, businesses change all the time so a navigation system is usually worthless when trying to locate a business.
China is very different. First of all China is experiencing incredible growth so it is building large numbers of powerplants of all types. Secondly China has comparatively little fossil fuels. And most importantly, the Chinese government is not accountable to its citizens and does not care much about their health.
I know people that lived in the heavily industrialized areas of ex-communist countries. There most people would die comparatively young, age fast and suffer from many nasty cancers and other diseases through their middle age. I would not wish that on anyone and you have Greanpeace and other environmentalists to thank that is not happening to you (well i hope it isnt).
As far as coal goes, the idea that environmentalists are giving coal a miss while relentlessly attacking nuclear is simply false. Environmentalists are protesting against many coal plants as well. The reason while currently many coal plants are getting fewer regulations has nothing to do with greenpeace -- it has to do with corruption in government. You may have noticed that the present administration does not care much about environmentalists.
Now there may be a cultural effect where the word nuclear is associated with danger so much in the minds of ordinary people that they are more likely to be receptive to Greenpeace protests to nuclear than ones to coal. Also people may be more willing to punish politicians when they cut environmental standards for nuclear than when they do it for coal. But that cultural bias may be more reasonable than people assume. After all the worst case scenario for nuclear plants is much worse than one for coal. And all the safety assurances of nuclear plants really depend on people and people are not that dependable.
But regardless of how defendable the common person's natural aversion to nuclear is, it is not the fault of environmentalists which have been criticizing coal as well as nuclear.
Nuclear still has a lot of unsolved problems. Nobody knows how to deal with nuclear waste. Furthermore, while nuclear proponents love to give you estimates of how cheap nuclear energy is to produce, the market says otherwise -- every US nuclear plant was built by massive subsidies.
The fact that no new nuclear plants are being built is not because the government is banning them (it hasnt) but because the government has refused to subsidize them. If nuclear plants were truly low cost, they would be getting built without government subsidies.
BTW as other posters noted the "dependency on oil" (sic) has very little to do with nuclear plants.
"The fact is, if you didn't go to war, no-one would have investigated the claims and they would have said you should have gone to war."
That's just bullshit. The WMD claims were investigated before the war by the weapons inspectors and everyone even the american weapons inspectors said there were no WMDs.
The rest of your post is just dumb ignorant racism.
"Beyond that, we have to look at who EA is. I really hate it when people say "I hate Company YYY." "
EA may have a lot of different producers, but they are not independent thay are all controlled by EA. And they may all be tight knit as you say but EA is the one that sets the production schedules and allocates resources, and they are responsible for the quality of the end product.
"In the end, EA is providing the market what it has accepted as a level of quality: a not-quite-ready model of product selling before finalization."
I dont think the market has accepted that as a level of quality -- thats why EA's profits are down 30 %.
I am not sure what the actual property situation is, but even if there is an easement it was an easement which was forced by the govenrnment. Cable companies and phone companies did not obtain the right to place their equipment by dealing with property owners in the free market. They had the government legislate that right, for the public good.
So the point the original poster made stands. Verizon and every other phone and cable monopoly exists only thanks to government intervention for the public good and should be subject to government regulation to ensure their continued operation continues to be for the public good.
"Why should the retailer, of all people, be able to buy used games for $5 and turn around and sell it for $20 without handing ANY profit over to the people who actually created or published the game?"
The same reason why a used car dealer makes money from selling used cars without having to pay the manufacturer. We live in a free (and free market) country and people should be able to dispose of their property any way they wish.
If game manufacturers do not like it they can make their new games so good that nobody will want to buy used ones or make their current games so good that nobody will want to sell them. Personally, I never sell games that I like.
I agree with this. I have no problem with MS not bundling their anti-virus software.
But I am not sure they should even be selling any. I mean, the goal of windows should be to be resistant from viruses by itself without needing any additional protection. When they start selling antivirus software they will obviously have a conflict of interst... making vista secure from the ground up would greatly decrease the need for virus protection and therefore cut off an MS stream of revenue.
MS would make a much stronger statement (and would greatly benefit their reputation) if they simply told the anti-virus companies "we will not compete against you but we will drive you out of business by making an OS so secure that only few critical systems would need additional antivirus software."
Lets face it anti-virus software has always been an mperfect solution. The way it works, is that it must wait for a virus to spread out in the wild sufficiently and then in order to reach the computers of the AV company, and only then the AV company will ectract a signature from it and update their definitions so that the anti-virus program can remove it. In otherwords a virus must be sufficiently spread out in the wild in order to be controlled by AV software.
I dont buy this theory that Chinese don't need freedom. Japan's culture is simalar to that of China (also based on confucianism) and they make some of the best porn on the net!!!
Of course Microsoft also helps China sensor computing and they are also invited to Congress to discuss potential new laws to prevent human rights abuses (see slashdot story submitted shortly before this one) so when Bill Gates defends Google he really defends Microsoft which does the same things Google is being accused of.
Please take the time to read the things you are putting on the website. The post you submitted says: "The U.S. Government is questioning Google in relation to corporate behavior under anti-bribery laws."
But the article that it links to talks about something completely different. It talks about Google being questioned about human rights issues with China. The anti-bribery laws are only mentioned by the article as an aside -- to show an example of Congress passing laws which govern US corporations abroad. This is only relevant because now congress is considering passing a law to govern US corporations abroad in regards to human rights.
Google is not accused of breaking or otherwise being investigated regarding the antibribery laws (as the slashdot story suggests).
I know very few of the slashdot readers actually read the articles, but one would hope that the editors would.
Slashdot Mirror
If you read the article it says that Microsoft will reimburse legal costs for any infringement that results from use of microsoft software. So essentially they will reimburse when their software infringes.
The key is this -- a patent holder will always sue the party with the deep pockets. And when MS software infringes MS is liable as well as the embedded device maker that licenced the code. And lets face it, Microsoft has deeper pockets than any embedded device maker out there. Thus, it is 99% certain that whoever sues an embedded device maker for patent infringement of their software code will also sue microsoft. Now since Microsoft will have to pay to defend themselves anyway, they would not incur much additional costs in taking over the defense of their client as well.
Now, even if the patent holder sues only the embedded device maker and not Microsoft, MS would still have a big stake in the case, because if the patent holder wins that will make it easier for them to win against Microsoft in the future. Thus, MS would probably prefer to join the defense of that case as well.
Thus, this policy does not really cost microsot much in addition to what they would have to incur for patent defense even if the policy was not there.
But it still does provide embedded device makers with some help. Note also that if the embedded device maker loses the case, MS does not agree to reimburse the judgements, or the costs of injunctions and that is what may kill RIM, not the legal fees.
I am not sure if content developers would get much benefit here. Remember that Vista will probably run mostly on x86 machines while Xbox runs cell processors. So the developers must compile different binaries for each platform. But it gets worse -- the cell processors require a different style of coding in order to perform well ... i.e. they need software which has a lot of simultaneasly running threads and the threads must be kept busy at all times for maximum efficiency.
This is not true of x86 processors. Although Intel are coming out with some multicore designs, it is safe to say that the majority of computers will have no more than two cores, and usually one. The strngth of x86 processors has usually been their ability to get high speed from a single core.
So the two architectures will require very different styles of coding, therefore developers will have to code their software separately for each.
If that happens developers will switch to opengl or may just use the older versions of directX. No game company will develop games which are exclusive to an OS that nobody owns. The worst thing you can say about a game is "you need a new computer to be able to play this".
Even games that push the enevelope (e.g., the Id. games) make sure that they play in a reduced graphics mode on existing systems, so that people get a chance to tery the game before they decide whether it is worthwhile to upgrade.
If wine gets support for Vista we might get the situation where Wine and Cedega are resleased for Windows XP in order to allow Windows users to run new Microsoft software.
That would be funny.
This is something professor Moglen from the EFF has also suggested. I suppose the idea is that if everyone's personal facts are made public then there will emerge social rules that prevent anybody from using personal details to humiliate or discriminate based on that personal information.
I guess you could say that in a world where everyone lives in a glass house, nobody will be throwing stones.
Sounds interesting but it would not be easy to achieve in our society.
"I am not too worried unless the taps were not on inbound international calls from known terrorists calling people here in the US. If that is what they are, then there is no crime in doing that."
If that is what they are they would not have to be done illegally because the courts would be glad to issue warrants for them. So it is obvious that that is not what they are.
But it is nice of you to use your imagination to help out the president. I am sure he appreciates it.
This is the problem of monopolies. Do you notice how Verizon suddenly forgot about all their damn customers that pay them $ 30 - 50 per month for internet access. I mean, they are the ones using their precious pipes. And they PAY for it. Furthermore, Google also pays to send data through the pipes. So you have pipes at each end of which there is a paying customer, Verizon is making billions off of them and at the same time they are bitching that their customers are cheating them.
But of course Verizon can pretend their customers do not exist because they are part of an oligopoly and their only "competitors" are the cable companies which are doing exactly the same thing.
Now imagine if this think happened in an actual competitive, free market industry. Imagine for example if GM starts complaining that all those people keep using "their trucks" for profit and try to extract payment from everyone that purchases a Chevy truck and uses it haul things for money. It would be ridiculous. It would laughable. And of course GM do not do that. In fact they would actually try very hard to get you to buy their truck and use it for profit without reimbursing them.
But of course GM are part of a competitive industry, while Verison are monopolists.
It is obvious now that a company that obtains a secure monopoly will use it to screw over their customers and everyone else. The big orgy of telecom mergers of the 90's should have never been allowed. But now that it has been allowed, the government or the courts should step in or bar monopolistic behaviour.
PS I hope Verizon do not succeed in making internet access more expensive (either in temrs of fees or adds) because then I will have to stop using their cell phone and they do have a pretty decent network.
I agree with the grand parent -- in this case the incorrect usage is still incorrect and the fact that a majority of people are actually using the incorrect definition should not make it correct.
It is also probably true that the majority of people use "it's" when they mean "its" but that does not make it correct.
I know there are good arguments for letting language evolve and grow but in some cases thats not a good idea. The most important aspect of a language the ability to express one self through that language. And, in my opinion, a language that allows people to easily expres complex concepts is much preferable, because it not only makes communication easier, but it can also improve peoples' thinking.
Now here we have a phrase which describes a relatively complex concept, and it is being incorrectly used to describe a much simpler concept. There are many other phrases to describe the simpler concept (i.e., "raising the question") but all other phrases which may be used to describe the more complex concept are much more cumbersome and awkward. Thus, if we allow this phrase to change its meaning we would really be robbing the English language of some of its richness and power to describe concepts.
As far as "trying to sound smart" goes this whole problem was cause by people "trying to sound smart" which used the phrase "begging the question" without knowing what it means.
I applaud the grandparent and all other pedantic pricks that which try to preserve the English language.
Infiniti navigation systems already feature 3-d displays.
But it would be nice if you had a nav system connected to the internet so that it gets updated data. Also Google's local search would be great if put into car's navigation system, but once again it must be connected to the internet.
The problem with navigation systems is that they come on a CD (or DVD) and do not get any updates. And while streets do not change that often, businesses change all the time so a navigation system is usually worthless when trying to locate a business.
Desktop Linux is here now. Get over it.
China is very different. First of all China is experiencing incredible growth so it is building large numbers of powerplants of all types. Secondly China has comparatively little fossil fuels. And most importantly, the Chinese government is not accountable to its citizens and does not care much about their health.
I know people that lived in the heavily industrialized areas of ex-communist countries. There most people would die comparatively young, age fast and suffer from many nasty cancers and other diseases through their middle age. I would not wish that on anyone and you have Greanpeace and other environmentalists to thank that is not happening to you (well i hope it isnt).
As far as coal goes, the idea that environmentalists are giving coal a miss while relentlessly attacking nuclear is simply false. Environmentalists are protesting against many coal plants as well. The reason while currently many coal plants are getting fewer regulations has nothing to do with greenpeace -- it has to do with corruption in government. You may have noticed that the present administration does not care much about environmentalists.
Now there may be a cultural effect where the word nuclear is associated with danger so much in the minds of ordinary people that they are more likely to be receptive to Greenpeace protests to nuclear than ones to coal. Also people may be more willing to punish politicians when they cut environmental standards for nuclear than when they do it for coal. But that cultural bias may be more reasonable than people assume. After all the worst case scenario for nuclear plants is much worse than one for coal. And all the safety assurances of nuclear plants really depend on people and people are not that dependable.
But regardless of how defendable the common person's natural aversion to nuclear is, it is not the fault of environmentalists which have been criticizing coal as well as nuclear.
Nuclear still has a lot of unsolved problems. Nobody knows how to deal with nuclear waste. Furthermore, while nuclear proponents love to give you estimates of how cheap nuclear energy is to produce, the market says otherwise -- every US nuclear plant was built by massive subsidies.
The fact that no new nuclear plants are being built is not because the government is banning them (it hasnt) but because the government has refused to subsidize them. If nuclear plants were truly low cost, they would be getting built without government subsidies.
BTW as other posters noted the "dependency on oil" (sic) has very little to do with nuclear plants.
This is something i found after a quick google search: http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweapons.html
"The fact is, if you didn't go to war, no-one would have investigated the claims and they would have said you should have gone to war."
That's just bullshit. The WMD claims were investigated before the war by the weapons inspectors and everyone even the american weapons inspectors said there were no WMDs.
The rest of your post is just dumb ignorant racism.
Just threaten to sue. Stars hate lawsuits because the court documents usually end up on the "smoking gun" or "celebrity justice".
"Beyond that, we have to look at who EA is. I really hate it when people say "I hate Company YYY." "
EA may have a lot of different producers, but they are not independent thay are all controlled by EA. And they may all be tight knit as you say but EA is the one that sets the production schedules and allocates resources, and they are responsible for the quality of the end product.
"In the end, EA is providing the market what it has accepted as a level of quality: a not-quite-ready model of product selling before finalization."
I dont think the market has accepted that as a level of quality -- thats why EA's profits are down 30 %.
It is kind of sad that these guys are becoming bigger and more well known than the much better game company they ripped off their name from -- PopTop.
Here is to hoping PopTop come up with something as good as Railrood Tycoon 2 again.
I think they are just talking about mass mailings. Ie if your message has only one recipient it will probably b4e ok.
I am not sure what the actual property situation is, but even if there is an easement it was an easement which was forced by the govenrnment. Cable companies and phone companies did not obtain the right to place their equipment by dealing with property owners in the free market. They had the government legislate that right, for the public good.
So the point the original poster made stands. Verizon and every other phone and cable monopoly exists only thanks to government intervention for the public good and should be subject to government regulation to ensure their continued operation continues to be for the public good.
"Why should the retailer, of all people, be able to buy used games for $5 and turn around and sell it for $20 without handing ANY profit over to the people who actually created or published the game?"
The same reason why a used car dealer makes money from selling used cars without having to pay the manufacturer. We live in a free (and free market) country and people should be able to dispose of their property any way they wish.
If game manufacturers do not like it they can make their new games so good that nobody will want to buy used ones or make their current games so good that nobody will want to sell them. Personally, I never sell games that I like.
please let us know.
I agree with this. I have no problem with MS not bundling their anti-virus software.
But I am not sure they should even be selling any. I mean, the goal of windows should be to be resistant from viruses by itself without needing any additional protection. When they start selling antivirus software they will obviously have a conflict of interst... making vista secure from the ground up would greatly decrease the need for virus protection and therefore cut off an MS stream of revenue.
MS would make a much stronger statement (and would greatly benefit their reputation) if they simply told the anti-virus companies "we will not compete against you but we will drive you out of business by making an OS so secure that only few critical systems would need additional antivirus software."
Lets face it anti-virus software has always been an mperfect solution. The way it works, is that it must wait for a virus to spread out in the wild sufficiently and then in order to reach the computers of the AV company, and only then the AV company will ectract a signature from it and update their definitions so that the anti-virus program can remove it. In otherwords a virus must be sufficiently spread out in the wild in order to be controlled by AV software.
I dont buy this theory that Chinese don't need freedom. Japan's culture is simalar to that of China (also based on confucianism) and they make some of the best porn on the net!!!
Of course Microsoft also helps China sensor computing and they are also invited to Congress to discuss potential new laws to prevent human rights abuses (see slashdot story submitted shortly before this one) so when Bill Gates defends Google he really defends Microsoft which does the same things Google is being accused of.
Zonk,
Please take the time to read the things you are putting on the website. The post you submitted says: "The U.S. Government is questioning Google in relation to corporate behavior under anti-bribery laws."
But the article that it links to talks about something completely different. It talks about Google being questioned about human rights issues with China. The anti-bribery laws are only mentioned by the article as an aside -- to show an example of Congress passing laws which govern US corporations abroad. This is only relevant because now congress is considering passing a law to govern US corporations abroad in regards to human rights.
Google is not accused of breaking or otherwise being investigated regarding the antibribery laws (as the slashdot story suggests).
I know very few of the slashdot readers actually read the articles, but one would hope that the editors would.