Patents don't cover ideas, they cover how you 'practice' an idea.
Lets say I have a patent for a device designed to cut paper. Let's call my invention "scissors." The patent doesn't cover "how to cut paper", it covers a specific device capable of cutting paper. There are many methods that can be used to cut paper... there is a "paper cutter", a "paper shredder", cutting it with a knife, tearing it, etc. Each of these 'inventions' is a specific method which allows me to practice an idea -- cutting paper.
The idea of "making a note related to a phone call" isn't what is being patented. The particular method they used to solve the problem IS.
Unless of course the shield broke away in chunks and hit parts of the shuttle in the process... then you'd end up damaging tiles. Which would defeat the purpose.
No, there were only enough emails to prove abuse of a monopoly position and product tying. Everything Microsoft did would have been legal if it were held that they did not have a monopoly in the x86 operating systems market.
What if the person buying it has no knowledge that the copy isn't legitimate? For example, Joe Sixpack goes down to his local mom-and-pop computer store and buys a new computer. Unbeknownst to him, the shop installs a pirated copy of Windows XP. Joe has no actual knowledge that the copy isn't legit, and indeed would be hard pressed to determine as such unless he educates himself as to how to tell.
The law makes no exceptions for unknowingly receiving stolen goods; I fail to see why Microsoft should.
Yet, they are. If you rat out the guys who sold you the stolen goods, they'll give you a genuine copy for free. If you refuse to rat out the guys who sold you the stolen goods (because, say, it was your best friend), they'll still let you purchase a legit copy at half price.
Upon re-reading TFA, you are correct. My bad. However, there is another possibility: people with less-than-legit copies of Windows will turn off the automatic updates for fear of being busted. It's possible they might make the same mistake I did, by assuming all downloads are subject to this ban. Either way, the result is the same: unpatched Windows boxes.
That is a specious arguement and you know it. Either you know you did something wrong and screw yourself attempting to cover your ass or you don't. I have no sympathy for people who pirate software intentionally and are too stupid to keep it up to date.
I wouldn't classify security patches as "new features", I would classify them as "we made a broken product, here's the fix". See my "exploding battery" analogy above.
I don't either. But as I've said, they're providing security updates. But we're not just talking about security updtaes here; Microsoft provides more than just security patches. We're talking about new versions of IE. New versions of Media Player. Nifty little utilities like TweakUI. An anti-spyware product. A desktop search product. New versions of frameworks/technology (directx,.net, etc). In the future, you'll see Longhorn certain features made available on XP.
THIS is what they're making unavailable to people who pirate their software. And I see no reason why they should make it available to someone who didn't purchase a legitimate copy.
Man, you've got your troll on today. Three points:
1) Purchasing a pirated copy of Windows is in no way similar to purchasing a product from an unauthored dealer. At best, it is similar to purchasing a drill from someone who stole it off a truck.
2) They are still offering security updates to anyone, regardless of the origin of the software they have on their box (nullifying your "broken product" complaint). To follow through on your analogy, the recall would still be honored in this case.
3) They are under no obligation to provide new features to people who didn't purchase the product originally. To follow through on your analogy, if DeWalt offered a free drill bit to those who sent in proof of purchase, and your UPC symbol was cut off the box (because the thief who stole it didn't want the goods to be traced back to them), you wouldn't be able to get the free drill bit.
Good question; I don't own a network adapter for the PS2 so it isn't an area I track actively. I remember when it first came out that all of the review sites were saying you'd need a subscription for each game if you wanted to use online capabilities.
The trademark is for "Windows Vista", not "Microsoft Vista" or "Vista"; they have already applied for and were granted the "Windows Vista" trademark by the USPTO.
The distinctive difference here is that one is a word in a product's name, and the other is the word in a company name.
No, they've patented a method of identifying and displaying emoticons. Part of that method requires the use of a specific image size saved in an open format.
The problem hasn't changed. Just because IE7 is released doesn't mean that people would magically upgrade to it on older platforms. In fact, I would suggest that people running on older platforms are the least likely people to upgrade to a new version of IE in the first place (they haven't updated their OS in 5-8 years, why would they update their browser?).
In what universe is 2 paragraphs from a 6 page article full of comments from devs talking about how much they like the system mean that "developers are having troulbe with the hardware and actual real life performance isn't up to snuff?"
You've got two guys complaining that the beta kits aren't as close to the final hardware as they'd like, and you've got a few other comments mentioning that the system punishes you for writing poor code (which is a giant DUH given the architecture of the system).
Did you even bother to read the article you referenced?
* What gamers want to know, however, is will the games look better than the early versions at E3? Will they run with fast framerates and look spectacular? All of the developers' indirect answers leaned to "Yes." How will that happen? The Beta Kits are simply more powerful than the Alpha Kits. They're a better, closer representation to the final console's power.
* "They're better than the Alpha Kits," said one local developer. "They're still not quite as powerful as final hardware, but they're much more representative of what we expect final hardware to look like."
* When asked about the power of the system, he said the best example of that was Gears of War. "You've seen the answer to (all of your) questions. It's called Gears of War. What you've seen is just a tiny sample of what we'll be able to achieve in our first generation Xbox 360 title and clearly we're pretty darn excited about it. More will be revealed over time."
* "On our side, we've been working very hard to tap into the full power of the Betas. On a technical side, while the GPU is nearly twice as powerful as the Alpha kits, the CPU architecture requires very clean logic coding in order to take advantage of its full potential." (We'll get to the clean logic bit later on in the story.)
These were the only two negative performance paragraphs in the article:
* "Right now, we're still wrapping our heads around them, but I have to be honest, I'm a bit disappointed with the Beta Kits. Microsoft still has a lot of work to do in terms of optimization. Also, the Beta Kits are loud to a point of distraction."
* "In some respects, the Beta Kits are a bit slower," explained one local coder. "But we're still working on partial hardware, and I'm quite sure Microsoft will get us dev kits that will be running perfectly in the next stage."
None of them make any reference to the Alpha kits.
No, he isn't. The limitation relates directly to the work he did at Microsoft. His job at Microsoft was "head of search research division in china". His new job at Google is "head of search research division in china". Notice they're specific. Notice they're the same. THAT is the problem. If we went to work at google on, say, google maps, there wouldn't be an issue.
A real online component? As opposed to the fake ones from everyone else?
Nobody else has an online service yet. Some offer online play, but it is through 3rd parties and such a setup requires you to manage a subscription for each game you own.
Sony has shipped out alpha dev kits as well, though what is in them at this point can't really be determined (not that it would matter; alpha dev kits, unlike beta dev kits, aren't representative of what you'll find in the final product). They are definately huge (http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000747047835/) though...
In my particular case, I was making a left turn and was t-boned by the vehicle traveling behind me. The vehicle was doing 2x the speed limit (by my estimate) and was driving on the wrong side of the road (they hit me after I had crossed the yellow line). That bastard was driving in a 1974 piece of solid detroit steel. He hit me so hard that the front end of my car came around to hit his vehicle. His car wouldn't run afterwards. My vehicle had only 3 tires touching the ground at any given point in time.
The other driver lied his ass off while I was being taken to the hospital, and the police report labeled me at fault. It had me making a u-turn past the intersection. Gah. Still pisses me off. *mad*
When it is cheaper to build an entire corporate campus in a foreign country and hire skilled people there, there is a problem in this country with supplying skilled people.
Yes, that would definately qualify as a very poor matchmaking system.
The best ones I've seen are based around an ELO ranking, where your rank increases/decreases relative to who you beat (base don their ranking) and how badly you beat them.
The matchmaking system selects people with a similar ELO ranking (there is an acceptable range) and throws them into a match together.
Slashdot Mirror
The stock has split since the last time you were paying attention.
Patents don't cover ideas, they cover how you 'practice' an idea.
... there is a "paper cutter", a "paper shredder", cutting it with a knife, tearing it, etc. Each of these 'inventions' is a specific method which allows me to practice an idea -- cutting paper.
Lets say I have a patent for a device designed to cut paper. Let's call my invention "scissors." The patent doesn't cover "how to cut paper", it covers a specific device capable of cutting paper. There are many methods that can be used to cut paper
The idea of "making a note related to a phone call" isn't what is being patented. The particular method they used to solve the problem IS.
Etc.
You can typically mute the voices of annoying people through the live menus.
The 360 controllers are wireless. Nothing to plug in.
What do you think "Web surfing" ecompases? It was the largest "use" by a significant margin ...
Unless of course the shield broke away in chunks and hit parts of the shuttle in the process ... then you'd end up damaging tiles. Which would defeat the purpose.
... is that the average slashdot poster is not as smart as a rocket scientist. :p
No, there were only enough emails to prove abuse of a monopoly position and product tying. Everything Microsoft did would have been legal if it were held that they did not have a monopoly in the x86 operating systems market.
A violation would occur if the entity set out to acquire a monopoly. If market forces cause a monopoly to emerge, nothing illegal has been done.
What if the person buying it has no knowledge that the copy isn't legitimate? For example, Joe Sixpack goes down to his local mom-and-pop computer store and buys a new computer. Unbeknownst to him, the shop installs a pirated copy of Windows XP. Joe has no actual knowledge that the copy isn't legit, and indeed would be hard pressed to determine as such unless he educates himself as to how to tell.
.net, etc). In the future, you'll see Longhorn certain features made available on XP.
The law makes no exceptions for unknowingly receiving stolen goods; I fail to see why Microsoft should.
Yet, they are. If you rat out the guys who sold you the stolen goods, they'll give you a genuine copy for free. If you refuse to rat out the guys who sold you the stolen goods (because, say, it was your best friend), they'll still let you purchase a legit copy at half price.
Upon re-reading TFA, you are correct. My bad. However, there is another possibility: people with less-than-legit copies of Windows will turn off the automatic updates for fear of being busted. It's possible they might make the same mistake I did, by assuming all downloads are subject to this ban. Either way, the result is the same: unpatched Windows boxes.
That is a specious arguement and you know it. Either you know you did something wrong and screw yourself attempting to cover your ass or you don't. I have no sympathy for people who pirate software intentionally and are too stupid to keep it up to date.
I wouldn't classify security patches as "new features", I would classify them as "we made a broken product, here's the fix". See my "exploding battery" analogy above.
I don't either. But as I've said, they're providing security updates. But we're not just talking about security updtaes here; Microsoft provides more than just security patches. We're talking about new versions of IE. New versions of Media Player. Nifty little utilities like TweakUI. An anti-spyware product. A desktop search product. New versions of frameworks/technology (directx,
THIS is what they're making unavailable to people who pirate their software. And I see no reason why they should make it available to someone who didn't purchase a legitimate copy.
Man, you've got your troll on today. Three points:
1) Purchasing a pirated copy of Windows is in no way similar to purchasing a product from an unauthored dealer. At best, it is similar to purchasing a drill from someone who stole it off a truck.
2) They are still offering security updates to anyone, regardless of the origin of the software they have on their box (nullifying your "broken product" complaint). To follow through on your analogy, the recall would still be honored in this case.
3) They are under no obligation to provide new features to people who didn't purchase the product originally. To follow through on your analogy, if DeWalt offered a free drill bit to those who sent in proof of purchase, and your UPC symbol was cut off the box (because the thief who stole it didn't want the goods to be traced back to them), you wouldn't be able to get the free drill bit.
Good question; I don't own a network adapter for the PS2 so it isn't an area I track actively. I remember when it first came out that all of the review sites were saying you'd need a subscription for each game if you wanted to use online capabilities.
The trademark is for "Windows Vista", not "Microsoft Vista" or "Vista"; they have already applied for and were granted the "Windows Vista" trademark by the USPTO.
The distinctive difference here is that one is a word in a product's name, and the other is the word in a company name.
No, they've patented a method of identifying and displaying emoticons. Part of that method requires the use of a specific image size saved in an open format.
Mainstream support for their desktop os lasts 2 years after their next desktop release. Extended support lasts 5 years after mainstream support ends.
In other words, if Longhorn comes out Sept 2006, mainstream support for XP will last until Sept 2008, and extended support will end Sept 2013.
If you want to know what the difference between mainstream and extended support is, look it up on Microsoft's website: http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy
The problem hasn't changed. Just because IE7 is released doesn't mean that people would magically upgrade to it on older platforms. In fact, I would suggest that people running on older platforms are the least likely people to upgrade to a new version of IE in the first place (they haven't updated their OS in 5-8 years, why would they update their browser?).
The PS2 does indeed have this feature.
In what universe is 2 paragraphs from a 6 page article full of comments from devs talking about how much they like the system mean that "developers are having troulbe with the hardware and actual real life performance isn't up to snuff?"
You've got two guys complaining that the beta kits aren't as close to the final hardware as they'd like, and you've got a few other comments mentioning that the system punishes you for writing poor code (which is a giant DUH given the architecture of the system).
Take the Sony shades off and join the real world.
Did you even bother to read the article you referenced?
* What gamers want to know, however, is will the games look better than the early versions at E3? Will they run with fast framerates and look spectacular? All of the developers' indirect answers leaned to "Yes." How will that happen? The Beta Kits are simply more powerful than the Alpha Kits. They're a better, closer representation to the final console's power.
* "They're better than the Alpha Kits," said one local developer. "They're still not quite as powerful as final hardware, but they're much more representative of what we expect final hardware to look like."
* When asked about the power of the system, he said the best example of that was Gears of War. "You've seen the answer to (all of your) questions. It's called Gears of War. What you've seen is just a tiny sample of what we'll be able to achieve in our first generation Xbox 360 title and clearly we're pretty darn excited about it. More will be revealed over time."
* "On our side, we've been working very hard to tap into the full power of the Betas. On a technical side, while the GPU is nearly twice as powerful as the Alpha kits, the CPU architecture requires very clean logic coding in order to take advantage of its full potential." (We'll get to the clean logic bit later on in the story.)
These were the only two negative performance paragraphs in the article:
* "Right now, we're still wrapping our heads around them, but I have to be honest, I'm a bit disappointed with the Beta Kits. Microsoft still has a lot of work to do in terms of optimization. Also, the Beta Kits are loud to a point of distraction."
* "In some respects, the Beta Kits are a bit slower," explained one local coder. "But we're still working on partial hardware, and I'm quite sure Microsoft will get us dev kits that will be running perfectly in the next stage."
None of them make any reference to the Alpha kits.
No, he isn't. The limitation relates directly to the work he did at Microsoft. His job at Microsoft was "head of search research division in china". His new job at Google is "head of search research division in china". Notice they're specific. Notice they're the same. THAT is the problem. If we went to work at google on, say, google maps, there wouldn't be an issue.
A real online component? As opposed to the fake ones from everyone else?
Nobody else has an online service yet. Some offer online play, but it is through 3rd parties and such a setup requires you to manage a subscription for each game you own.
Microsoft shipped the beta dev kits out about a month after E3, and apparently one kid managed to get his hands on a near final xbox 360 prototype that his dad brought home (http://www.360hacker.net/articles/07-18-2005/firs t-xbox-360-seen-in-the-wild/).
...
Sony has shipped out alpha dev kits as well, though what is in them at this point can't really be determined (not that it would matter; alpha dev kits, unlike beta dev kits, aren't representative of what you'll find in the final product). They are definately huge (http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000747047835/) though
At least the other driver admitted fault.
In my particular case, I was making a left turn and was t-boned by the vehicle traveling behind me. The vehicle was doing 2x the speed limit (by my estimate) and was driving on the wrong side of the road (they hit me after I had crossed the yellow line). That bastard was driving in a 1974 piece of solid detroit steel. He hit me so hard that the front end of my car came around to hit his vehicle. His car wouldn't run afterwards. My vehicle had only 3 tires touching the ground at any given point in time.
The other driver lied his ass off while I was being taken to the hospital, and the police report labeled me at fault. It had me making a u-turn past the intersection. Gah. Still pisses me off. *mad*
When it is cheaper to build an entire corporate campus in a foreign country and hire skilled people there, there is a problem in this country with supplying skilled people.
Yes, that would definately qualify as a very poor matchmaking system.
The best ones I've seen are based around an ELO ranking, where your rank increases/decreases relative to who you beat (base don their ranking) and how badly you beat them.
The matchmaking system selects people with a similar ELO ranking (there is an acceptable range) and throws them into a match together.
You can read about it here, if you're curious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELO_rating_system