Regardless of whether or not you think they should have a trademark on Windows, they do. They either defend their trademark or lose it. Lindows was derrived to sound like Windows -- even the guy who formed the company said he called it Lindows for that very reason.
MikeRoweSoft is phonentically the same as Microsoft. Mike Rowe is his name, not Mike Rowe Soft. He, again, stated he chose the name because it sounded like Microsoft. MS has to either defend their trademark or lose it; what do you expect them to do? Say "oh, we really don't like our company name, let's lose our trademark and then change it..."? Once they found out he was a kid they came to a reasonable agreement whereby the kid got a bunch of free stuff and MS got the domain name.
They didn't say WHAT the customer feedback was, just that it was based on customer feedback. They probably polled customers to see how many people would be pissed off if they increased it. And then found that most didn't care.:p
Re:of course there near perfect.
on
Halo 2 Reviews
·
· Score: 1
You must be new here. Anything related to Microsoft MUST be a rehash of someone else's old idea and can never be implemented well. It doesn't matter if that perception defies reality.:p
Re:Emphasis on AGAIN
on
Halo 2 Reviews
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Does Joe have to re-license the use of all 130 protocols elsewhere?
Q. I noticed a number of these protocols are available for license via other avenues - for instance, under license agreements promulgated by members of a standards setting body. If I already have rights to implement protocols (e.g., under other agreements), do I also have to sign a royalty-free license? A. No, unless you wish to obtain rights available under the royalty-free license that are not available under other license agreements you may have.
The ordinary Joe? Squat. A programmer? A level playing field. It guarantees that you have the same rights to those protocols/technology that Microsoft does.
If MS terminates the license after 30 days, then what?
Then you are in the same boat you were before.
Does Joe have to re-license the use of all 130 protocols elsewhere? And is Joe aware that there may be rights that are no longer valid making him have only partial rights to documentation and protocols?
WTF are you trying to say here?
And, under the terms of the license, no improvement to the protocols is allowed either even if MS has no rights in that particular protocol.
It says no enhancements are licensed by Microsoft, not that you can't do them. In other words, if you modify the protocol to a specification someone else owns rights to, Microsoft is not providing you a license to those rights.
This is part of the DOJ settlement requiring Microsoft to license communications protocols essential for 3rd party software/operating systems to interoperate with Windows. No matter how stupid, trivial, or ancient, they're required to license them.
And now they have.
From the FAQ (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url =/library/en-us/randz/protocol/published_protocols _and_royalty-free_license_faq.asp):
Q. When I sign a royalty-free agreement for these protocols, what am I licensing?
A. The list of protocols under this license includes protocols for which documentation has been published, and that Microsoft has implemented in Windows client operating systems to interoperate with Windows server operating systems (up to and including Windows Server 2003). However, just because a protocol appears on the list does not mean that Microsoft is the owner or sole owner of rights in that protocol or its documentation. What the royalty-free license does is ensure that a license is available from Microsoft under whatever rights it may have in the published documentation and/or protocols on the list.
Rice is slang term. In prehistoric times, it was used to describe any Japaneese automobile.
As Japaneese cars changed over the years from being ultra-economy gas sipping cars to what you see today, the usage of the term rice changed -- morphing into "someone who makes their car look like it is something that it isn't" -- sticking stickers on your car for stuff you didn't have, "fake" discs behind the rims to hide drum brakes, putting a V6 emblem on a car with an I4, cutting springs, etc.
And time continued to march on. Now rice refers to just about any dumbass tasteless modification you can do to a car. Rice wings. Underbody neons. LED windshield washer nozzles. Body kits installed but not painted (ie: left primer grey). Coffee can exhausts. Etc. In other words, any ghey looking car.
It's the 21st century. Time to update your vocabulary.
"If you offer a 'limited' written warranty, the law allows you to include a provision that restricts the duration of implied warranties to the duration of your limited warranty. For example, if you offer a two-year limited warranty, you can limit implied warranties to two years."
It doesn't matter; it is not functioning as a replacement part, nor is it something required for the console to function. It's an add-on; a modification. The ruling doesn't come anywhere near modchips.
Everything else I would say regarding the matter I've already said in another post: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=127268&cid=106 39105
The ruling has no relevance to modchips. I'm not making any statement on the legality of modchips or their potential uses, just that the ruling in question has no bearing on the matter.
The ruling essentially states you can't copyright a "code" required for interoperability. It also states that a code (ex: encryption key) itself isn't an access control mechanism (though that doesn't mean that a code can't be part of an access control mechanism).
The ruling says nothing about disabling part of an access control mechanism itself (like a modchip would) because it said that Lexmark didn't have an access control mechanism in the first place.
The ruling *does* however have relevance to another aspect of consoles relating to how games are published. The key they use to sign games in order to allow them to get past their access control mechanism cannot be copyrighted. This means that you can't be sued for copyright infringement by publishing a game using that key without the console manufacturer's 'consent.' The key itself also isn't an access control mechanism, so signing a game with the key is not curcumventing an access control mechanism. This means anyone producing a signed game/disc without the console manufacturer's consent is not at risk can't be sued under the DMCA.
Actually, I would say the opposite is being said here.
A modchip is not acting as a replacement part. It does not 'unlock' or permit operation of the console. The purpose of a modchip is to bypass the signing mechanism used to prevent you from playing pirated games.
What this DOES say is that it is legal to reverse engineer the copy protection process in order to get a game YOU authored to run on a console. In other words the "signing" key used to sign games cannot be copyrighted, and it is not considered copyright infringement to use such a key to sign your own game with (ie: you don't need the console manufacturer's approval to release such a game).
Buy the DVDs. There were 14 episodes of Firefly. The DVDs have 3 episodes they didn't show on TV (and those episodes were just as excellent as the rest of the series).
Pushing up the release isn't possible. It just went gold last week. They're stamping out copies of the game as fast as they can to make the Nov 9th release date, and I'm pretty sure they're paying extra to make sure it happens given how close to the release date they went gold...
Yup; I'm not saying that it's the best solution, but it definately works longer than diverting social security revenue to a different location leaving current benefits unfunded...
He's saying the solution to the problem is to spend Social Security money on Social Security, and not other government projects.
There isn't any way that Social Security can "survive" by any of the methods proposed. All of the Republican proposals take more money out of the system. So they too would have to may payroll taxes higher or reduce benefits.
Both parties claim they will do neither. Practically speaking, I don't think either can reach that goal. However, as far as plans for dealing with the problem go, the plan to spend Social Security taxes paying Social Security benefits would seem to have a high chance of success than taking Social Security taxes and putting them somewhere else...
How many times do I have to tell the computer that Firefox is my default browser?
Once, if Firefox is registered as the default browser correctly. My machine gets it right, why doesn't yours?
With SP2, XP has been annoyingly telling me I may not be protected (I run without anti-virus but am locked down regardless and still scan regularly- with no virus or reinstall in 2 years).
Two options: 1) Update your AV software to a version that tells the security center when it is up to date. 2) Select the "I will manage my AV software myself" option, and the security center won't bug you about any AV related details.
In today's update, it keeps nagging me to reboot.
Your computer is still vulnerable until you reboot the machine. What's the point of applying the patch if the updated files don't get loaded?
And why do I have to sign yet another goddamned EULA to install critical patches?
For the same reason every company requires you to sign a EULA before installing/updating software. If you want a detailed reason, ask the lawyers.
Their orbits are not parallel. In other words, each time the piece of space junk orbits it's angle of intersection with ISS's orbit change. Eventually the piece of space junk may be intercepting the ISS orbit at a 90 degree angle. If the ISS happens to be there when it happens, mucho pain.
I avoid doing business with criminals in general as a matter of course.
There was nothing "criminal" about what Kodak did. You may not like it, but not liking something doesn't make it criminal. Unethical, maybe. Criminal, no.
However, if everyone did this, if no one did business with them, then it'd be the end of the company.
The reality is that their primary customers don't give a rats ass. The patent paranoid slashdot reader isn't exactly their target audience.
Slashdot Mirror
Regardless of whether or not you think they should have a trademark on Windows, they do. They either defend their trademark or lose it. Lindows was derrived to sound like Windows -- even the guy who formed the company said he called it Lindows for that very reason.
MikeRoweSoft is phonentically the same as Microsoft. Mike Rowe is his name, not Mike Rowe Soft. He, again, stated he chose the name because it sounded like Microsoft. MS has to either defend their trademark or lose it; what do you expect them to do? Say "oh, we really don't like our company name, let's lose our trademark and then change it..."? Once they found out he was a kid they came to a reasonable agreement whereby the kid got a bunch of free stuff and MS got the domain name.
They didn't say WHAT the customer feedback was, just that it was based on customer feedback. They probably polled customers to see how many people would be pissed off if they increased it. And then found that most didn't care. :p
You must be new here. Anything related to Microsoft MUST be a rehash of someone else's old idea and can never be implemented well. It doesn't matter if that perception defies reality. :p
Technically, Halo came out a month before RTCW.
You can't license what you don't own.
Sure you can. What else do you think a sub-licensing agreement is for?
Stupid slashdot ate part of my post.
Does Joe have to re-license the use of all 130 protocols elsewhere?
Q. I noticed a number of these protocols are available for license via other avenues - for instance, under license agreements promulgated by members of a standards setting body. If I already have rights to implement protocols (e.g., under other agreements), do I also have to sign a royalty-free license?
A. No, unless you wish to obtain rights available under the royalty-free license that are not available under other license agreements you may have.
Of what use is this license to the ordinary Joe?
The ordinary Joe? Squat. A programmer? A level playing field. It guarantees that you have the same rights to those protocols/technology that Microsoft does.
If MS terminates the license after 30 days, then what?
Then you are in the same boat you were before.
Does Joe have to re-license the use of all 130 protocols elsewhere? And is Joe aware that there may be rights that are no longer valid making him have only partial rights to documentation and protocols?
WTF are you trying to say here?
And, under the terms of the license, no improvement to the protocols is allowed either even if MS has no rights in that particular protocol.
It says no enhancements are licensed by Microsoft, not that you can't do them. In other words, if you modify the protocol to a specification someone else owns rights to, Microsoft is not providing you a license to those rights.
This is part of the DOJ settlement requiring Microsoft to license communications protocols essential for 3rd party software/operating systems to interoperate with Windows. No matter how stupid, trivial, or ancient, they're required to license them.
l =/library/en-us/randz/protocol/published_protocols _and_royalty-free_license_faq.asp):
And now they have.
From the FAQ (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?ur
Q. When I sign a royalty-free agreement for these protocols, what am I licensing?
A. The list of protocols under this license includes protocols for which documentation has been published, and that Microsoft has implemented in Windows client operating systems to interoperate with Windows server operating systems (up to and including Windows Server 2003). However, just because a protocol appears on the list does not mean that Microsoft is the owner or sole owner of rights in that protocol or its documentation. What the royalty-free license does is ensure that a license is available from Microsoft under whatever rights it may have in the published documentation and/or protocols on the list.
Rice is slang term. In prehistoric times, it was used to describe any Japaneese automobile.
As Japaneese cars changed over the years from being ultra-economy gas sipping cars to what you see today, the usage of the term rice changed -- morphing into "someone who makes their car look like it is something that it isn't" -- sticking stickers on your car for stuff you didn't have, "fake" discs behind the rims to hide drum brakes, putting a V6 emblem on a car with an I4, cutting springs, etc.
And time continued to march on. Now rice refers to just about any dumbass tasteless modification you can do to a car. Rice wings. Underbody neons. LED windshield washer nozzles. Body kits installed but not painted (ie: left primer grey). Coffee can exhausts. Etc. In other words, any ghey looking car.
It's the 21st century. Time to update your vocabulary.
You might want to try reading the act first.
"If you offer a 'limited' written warranty, the law allows you to include a provision that restricts the duration of implied warranties to the duration of your limited warranty. For example, if you offer a two-year limited warranty, you can limit implied warranties to two years."
Yes. Eject whatever disk you have sitting in it and look at the tray.
s io n_comparison.htm
http://www.llamma.com/xbox/Repairs/xbox_dvd_ver
It doesn't matter; it is not functioning as a replacement part, nor is it something required for the console to function. It's an add-on; a modification. The ruling doesn't come anywhere near modchips.
6 39105
Everything else I would say regarding the matter I've already said in another post: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=127268&cid=10
You misunderstand what I'm saying.
The ruling has no relevance to modchips. I'm not making any statement on the legality of modchips or their potential uses, just that the ruling in question has no bearing on the matter.
The ruling essentially states you can't copyright a "code" required for interoperability. It also states that a code (ex: encryption key) itself isn't an access control mechanism (though that doesn't mean that a code can't be part of an access control mechanism).
The ruling says nothing about disabling part of an access control mechanism itself (like a modchip would) because it said that Lexmark didn't have an access control mechanism in the first place.
The ruling *does* however have relevance to another aspect of consoles relating to how games are published. The key they use to sign games in order to allow them to get past their access control mechanism cannot be copyrighted. This means that you can't be sued for copyright infringement by publishing a game using that key without the console manufacturer's 'consent.' The key itself also isn't an access control mechanism, so signing a game with the key is not curcumventing an access control mechanism. This means anyone producing a signed game/disc without the console manufacturer's consent is not at risk can't be sued under the DMCA.
Actually, I would say the opposite is being said here.
A modchip is not acting as a replacement part. It does not 'unlock' or permit operation of the console. The purpose of a modchip is to bypass the signing mechanism used to prevent you from playing pirated games.
What this DOES say is that it is legal to reverse engineer the copy protection process in order to get a game YOU authored to run on a console. In other words the "signing" key used to sign games cannot be copyrighted, and it is not considered copyright infringement to use such a key to sign your own game with (ie: you don't need the console manufacturer's approval to release such a game).
Buy the DVDs. There were 14 episodes of Firefly. The DVDs have 3 episodes they didn't show on TV (and those episodes were just as excellent as the rest of the series).
Pushing up the release isn't possible. It just went gold last week. They're stamping out copies of the game as fast as they can to make the Nov 9th release date, and I'm pretty sure they're paying extra to make sure it happens given how close to the release date they went gold...
Yup; I'm not saying that it's the best solution, but it definately works longer than diverting social security revenue to a different location leaving current benefits unfunded...
He's saying the solution to the problem is to spend Social Security money on Social Security, and not other government projects.
...
There isn't any way that Social Security can "survive" by any of the methods proposed. All of the Republican proposals take more money out of the system. So they too would have to may payroll taxes higher or reduce benefits.
Both parties claim they will do neither. Practically speaking, I don't think either can reach that goal. However, as far as plans for dealing with the problem go, the plan to spend Social Security taxes paying Social Security benefits would seem to have a high chance of success than taking Social Security taxes and putting them somewhere else
How many times do I have to tell the computer that Firefox is my default browser?
Once, if Firefox is registered as the default browser correctly. My machine gets it right, why doesn't yours?
With SP2, XP has been annoyingly telling me I may not be protected (I run without anti-virus but am locked down regardless and still scan regularly- with no virus or reinstall in 2 years).
Two options:
1) Update your AV software to a version that tells the security center when it is up to date.
2) Select the "I will manage my AV software myself" option, and the security center won't bug you about any AV related details.
In today's update, it keeps nagging me to reboot.
Your computer is still vulnerable until you reboot the machine. What's the point of applying the patch if the updated files don't get loaded?
And why do I have to sign yet another goddamned EULA to install critical patches?
For the same reason every company requires you to sign a EULA before installing/updating software. If you want a detailed reason, ask the lawyers.
You seem to be forgetting that the volcano has indeed spit out ash during this reset set of activity ...
The papers expired at 4pm. He was arrested at 8pm. You can't serve expired papers.
Yes; at least I think that's the proper way to phrase it...been awhile since I had to take a physics course. ;)
Their orbits are not parallel. In other words, each time the piece of space junk orbits it's angle of intersection with ISS's orbit change. Eventually the piece of space junk may be intercepting the ISS orbit at a 90 degree angle. If the ISS happens to be there when it happens, mucho pain.
I avoid doing business with criminals in general as a matter of course.
There was nothing "criminal" about what Kodak did. You may not like it, but not liking something doesn't make it criminal. Unethical, maybe. Criminal, no.
However, if everyone did this, if no one did business with them, then it'd be the end of the company.
The reality is that their primary customers don't give a rats ass. The patent paranoid slashdot reader isn't exactly their target audience.
Somehow, I don't think the amount of money you'd give them over the course of your life will match or exceed the billion they just got...