What Novell wrote sounds open, straightforward, and intelligent.
Alas, it's pure marketing nonsense; FUD as bad as any that MS has ever been accused of putting out.
Consider:
As with all purchasing considerations, customers should keep software patents in perspective. In reality, open source software poses no greater risk of patent infringement than does closed source software.
Now this is a pretty bold assertion. But they seem to back it up..
Consistent with this belief, Novell will use its patent portfolio to protect itself against claims made against the Linux kernel or open source programs included in Novell's offerings, as dictated by the actions of others.
Right? Right? Well, no. not really.
The patent issue in OSS is "third party infringement" that works as such:
Company P has a patent on X.
OSS Developer A unknowingly uses X in his OSS product L.
Company BigCo uses L. P notices that BigCo uses L and claims that because the source for L is "open", that BigCo has a legal duty to check to see that no patents are violated. P sues BigCo.
Contrast this to the case where product L$ is not OSS and so BigCo feels secure that even if there is some infringement, it could not have reasonably known about it (so P sues A$)
The Novell claim does nothing about this third party problem except in the perverse and unlikely situation where invention P just happens to be actually based on some of Novell's prior art in the first place (and probably a few common variants of that, too). Great.. nice to see that Novell would fight for this, I guess. But that hardly seems worthwhile making an announcement over.
So how is this FUD? (or rather some weird inverse of FUD, where you're falsely trying to instill certainty and comfort). Plainly, because Novell has done nothing to address the fundamental problem of OSS and Patents but has claimed nevertheless that patents are not an issue.
N.B. In the final analysis, they might not be an issue. But do you want to be the first BigCo that gets sued by some P? I think it's reasonable for BigCos to sit out and wait until some other BigCo pays the legal bills to get that question solved..
How long until we all complain about Google's monopoly of the Internet?
You must be new to the internet. When microsoft bundles a media player, it's monopolistic and evil. When google, a closed-source, for profit, questionable-privacy, utterly nontransparent, fairly monopolistic, multi-billion dollar corporation is involved, it's "Go Google!"
Umm, CFR 14 (Code of Federal Regulations Part 14 - aka the Federal Aviation Regulations) Chapter III has been around for quite a while. Nothing new to see here, folks.
Umm, dumbass.. the Ansaris were born in Iran, but made their fortunes in the USA. Even Bush wouldn't claim that it's your place of birth or ethnicity that makes you part of the 'axis of evil.' The Iranian government in no way had anything to do with the X-prize.
I knew I'd get called on my 600' comment. Wasn't thinking.
however, your comment that the anti-icing on the TBM is "totally inadequate" actually is likewise completely bollocks. The TBM's anti-icing is pretty robust--I was being modest for the sake of the GA pilots. Do you even know what a TBM 700 is?
and where exactly are you popping out at 500' AGL (bearing in mind that the typical NP approach will be 600 AGL for the sort of aircraft I assume you are flying)? You'll be hard pressed to find an ILS (P approach) without suitable lights..
I assume the 500 vs 600 was just embelleshment:)
Furthermore, where are you flying instrument approaches "in winter" in small aircraft (presumably)? If it's somewhere where it's cold, either one of two things is likely true: a) you shouldn't be in the clouds anyway unless your airplane is seriously approved for known icing (and I used to fly a TBM700 for a while and that I would consider barely adequate) or b) why would you point out that you were flying in winter, when it is SUMMER when the visibility is bound to be poorer, plus there is less light overall as the snow is not adding a bit of whiteness / reflectivity to what little light there is...
It's amazing that your one info about pilots eating different meals is accurate, and yet you still think that airplanes have navigators.
Some old airplanes still have Flight Engineers (boeing 747-1/200s used in cargo service, 727s), but those are getting few and far between. Flight Engineers have never been "flight capable", whatever the heck that means (and yes, I have flown large products made by boeing from the left seat).
I am not sure when the last time a commercial flight in the USA had a navigator was, but, well, it was a heck of a while ago.
I fail to see how this is substantially different from the US, other than by scale.
oooh.. argument from moral equivalence... arguably the most illogical and underhanded debate tactic that a person can use. compounding it, one is never quite sure whether the person making the argument is genuinely an idiot making the claim, or just using it as a debating trick of some sort to make the counter-er seem pedantic.
If you leave, don't leave now
Please don't take my heart away
Promise me just one more night
Then we'll go our separate ways
With hours left time on our sides
Now it's fading fast
Every second every moment
We've got to--we've gotta make it last
props to those who get the joke, and jeers to those who mod this down because they don't
Strong IP laws favour the big companies - weak IP laws favour the little guy more.
Bullhooey. Strong IP laws are what allow little companies to turn into big companies without existing big companies simply stealing their ideas and using their market presence to dominate.
In practice, small companies are bought out by big companies for their IP. The founders of the small companies with good ideas get rich and the big companies have the ability to squeeze the idea to maximum benefit by having the broadest reach to consumers. The medical device industry is case #1 for this and in fact is most of engineering.
I run a small company that has prospered only due to strong IP laws. I employ people only because of strong IP laws.
I dont know who this guy is or what the debate is about, but by the time I read the paragraph that started:
I mention this to point out that because I actually lived in a communist state,...
I was convinced that this guy was a total jackass.
At the same time he both embraces and denounces academic pretension. You know--the whole basis of an academe is that you can study things without necessarily being there (for example, I wasnt in the 15th century, but I know about columbus). So, to discount those who haven't been there as therefore not worthy of opinions is basically discounting the whole basis for yours and every other PhD--which is fine--if you then dont go to flaunt your PhD! (note: not to say that academics shouldnt try to 'get their hands dirty' in the field where they can--but to discount academics or whoever he's discounting because they didn't have his prepubescent experiences in "a dark corner of the ex ussr" before the age of 13 is simply pretensious, ad-hominem bullshit that kept me from reading the rest of his PhD political science genius rant.
The idea that you can have a monopoly on ringtones that the government should care about is patently stupid.
Let's say you owned the rights to all of the yellow tulips in the world. If you charged $1 billion each, should the government break down your doors and accuse you of price fixing?
Of course not. If you get the rights to all of the yellow tulips, all other colors of tulips are still available. For that matter, tulips compete against other flowers, etc.
Likewise, ringtones compete for your entertainment dollar along with countless other entertainment sources (psst--audio CDs too). To price them at anything but near what the market will accept is just stupid.
Now, that said (and I didn't RTFA) I'm guessing that this article is not about monopoly, but rather a price-fixing cartel like scheme. Big deal. Same rule applies. Dont buy ringtones if the price doesn't suit you.
Shhh! You're exposing the real cracks in the OSS model!
Commercial Software
a few guys then
a few products then
early success then
money! then
more guys then
a few more products then
more money!
then more products (some good some bad) then
more money! then
more guys then..
OSS:
a few guys then
a few products then
early success then
fame and glory for a few guys then
more guys then
a few more products then
some fame for more guys then
maybe some people will join here and there then
a few bug fixes and patches then
not really any fame for the new guys then
people just stop caring because..
it suddenly dawns the german dork who spent 3 months in his basement writing a slighly faster screen refresh algorithm for some OSS spreadsheet program that has 1% market and that is pretty much only due to some for-profit entity working to the letter but not the spirit of the GPL that a) deep down, nobody gives a damn about where their spreadsheet screen refresh algoritm comes from and b) that there is an outside, and that even chasing girls unsuccessfully is better than working for redhat/ibm/whatever without getting paid.
An examination of the facts, put in historical perspective, shows that the engines of global progress have always been fed by the sharing of knowledge
I am an economist to some extent. At this point, I stopped reading the article (well, i read a little more to see if he at all tried to substantiate this very very very very very very very bald assertion - he did not).
His "facts" are not facts to the world of economists who study the issue in detail. While some may agree upon this position, many more do not (well, it's hard to tell, what exactly is 'global progress' anyway?).
His article was nothing more than cheerleading. It was not a balanced look. It was FUD.
get a microphoned pocketpc with 128mb ram. price = $200 on ebay.
do a little programming, taking care to make note of the fact that you will most likely need to "wake up" the machine from a sleep state, start recording, and shut down. time to program for an experienced pocket pc programmer: 4 hours.
When a copy protection scheme makes it desireable for legitimate users to used cracked versions of the software then there needs to be a rethink.
Bullshit. Every copy protection scheme is more difficult on the user than none at all. In some cases, if obtaining pirated copies is easier than doing the steps necessary to deal with the legitimate copy protection, then more prosecution of the pirates may be necessary to increase the cost of piracy. It may not be that the steps are too hard - it may be that piracy is too easy.
however, now with open source software (and the movement) reaching the critical mass
I have no doubt whatsoever that this will be modded up to +5, insightful. I also have no doubt whatsoever that your statement is bald zealotry. If the current corporate adoption of OSS is what constitutes critical mass (ie a few marginal projects here and there), then continue to welcome our current microsoft overlords..
more realistically, what CA did is called a no-risk offer. They post some bounty which is worth far less than what true development would cost them plus get some free publicity to book. and if it doesn't work out? well, nothing lost by them.
First slashdot cries that RIAA members are fat middlemen then do nothing for the artists. Won't somebody please think of the artists!
But when 2000 job cuts are imminent, suddenly those workers are just hardworkin' folk.
Look, idiot submitters: consolidation and merger between relative equals happens in SHRINKING industries (makes hand gestures like Ben Affleck trying to explain basic economics to Jay and Silent bob from that "strike back movie"), not expanding ones. so maybe, just maybe you tinfoil hat crowd can see this as a *good* thing for your nevertheless ill-thought out anti-riaa crusade.
note: i challenge anybody to suggest how apple selling music is fundamentally different than wal-mart doing it in the sense that neither wal-mart nor apple can really promote artists other than one can give britney an endcap and the other can give her some banner ad or other prominent website mention. at the end of the tune, itunes, the coca-cola music store, and every other digital music place that is popping up whack-a-mole fashion are just RETAILERS. there is a massive difference between this and actual promoters and distributors and the difference will continue to grow as there are more and more digital retail outlets out there and so the incentive for an individual retailer to be anything but a bottom feeder pricewise shrinks more and more.
Just because you are not familiar with these strategies doesn not mean the don't exist.
oh stop it. i've played more team sports - from cricket thru rugby league through association croquet through american football (with pads) through beach volleyball through even a bit of aussie rules than you know exist (hmm.. i guess i just called croquet a sport - that actually classifies as perhaps *the* most intellectual sport, if you count it as a sport).
Your argument is "because all sports involve some degree of strategic thinking, therefore all sports involve the same degree of strategic thinking." this is equivalent to "because linux has gimp, it is equivalent to (other platform) with photoshop."
which is to say, an intellectually dishonest argument.
Re:Changed the view of the US?
on
Bobby Fischer Found
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
What you say may or may not be true, but it bears noting that baseball and american football are two of the most intellectual sports around. In fact, off the top of my head i'm having a hard time coming up wih any examples of more intellectual major team sports (and mind you, I have been a rather serious futbol player for quite a number of years now - the beautiful game is more about skill, athleticism, and spur-of-the-moment creativity than intellect).
In fact, the only continental team sport that comes close in terms of intellectual elegance i think is cycling (a la the tour de france - forget about team pursuit and other such stupidities), and even then the issue is somewhat muddled because you have different teams vying for different goals (different jerseys, stage victories, long stage leads to maximize sponsor exposure, etc).
You may or may not think that baseball is boring, and you may be of the mistaken impression that american football is a game where people don't get hurt seriously because they wear pads, but to call these sports the opposite of intellectual may not be the best example. both involve deep strategy in addition to atheleticism, skill, an undersanding of stochastic processes, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Cities are being redesigned as we speak to accomodate this thing, I'm sure.
Alas, it's pure marketing nonsense; FUD as bad as any that MS has ever been accused of putting out.
Consider:
As with all purchasing considerations, customers should keep software patents in perspective. In reality, open source software poses no greater risk of patent infringement than does closed source software.
Now this is a pretty bold assertion. But they seem to back it up..
Consistent with this belief, Novell will use its patent portfolio to protect itself against claims made against the Linux kernel or open source programs included in Novell's offerings, as dictated by the actions of others.
Right? Right? Well, no. not really.
The patent issue in OSS is "third party infringement" that works as such:
- Company P has a patent on X.
- OSS Developer A unknowingly uses X in his OSS product L.
- Company BigCo uses L. P notices that BigCo uses L and claims that because the source for L is "open", that BigCo has a legal duty to check to see that no patents are violated. P sues BigCo.
Contrast this to the case where product L$ is not OSS and so BigCo feels secure that even if there is some infringement, it could not have reasonably known about it (so P sues A$)The Novell claim does nothing about this third party problem except in the perverse and unlikely situation where invention P just happens to be actually based on some of Novell's prior art in the first place (and probably a few common variants of that, too). Great.. nice to see that Novell would fight for this, I guess. But that hardly seems worthwhile making an announcement over.
So how is this FUD? (or rather some weird inverse of FUD, where you're falsely trying to instill certainty and comfort). Plainly, because Novell has done nothing to address the fundamental problem of OSS and Patents but has claimed nevertheless that patents are not an issue.
N.B. In the final analysis, they might not be an issue. But do you want to be the first BigCo that gets sued by some P? I think it's reasonable for BigCos to sit out and wait until some other BigCo pays the legal bills to get that question solved..
You must be new to the internet. When microsoft bundles a media player, it's monopolistic and evil. When google, a closed-source, for profit, questionable-privacy, utterly nontransparent, fairly monopolistic, multi-billion dollar corporation is involved, it's "Go Google!"
Umm, CFR 14 (Code of Federal Regulations Part 14 - aka the Federal Aviation Regulations) Chapter III has been around for quite a while. Nothing new to see here, folks.
so which is #1? Employee reistance? User backlash? Employee resentment? which? You seem to have more or less outlined six different things as your #1.
Umm, dumbass.. the Ansaris were born in Iran, but made their fortunes in the USA. Even Bush wouldn't claim that it's your place of birth or ethnicity that makes you part of the 'axis of evil.' The Iranian government in no way had anything to do with the X-prize.
however, your comment that the anti-icing on the TBM is "totally inadequate" actually is likewise completely bollocks. The TBM's anti-icing is pretty robust--I was being modest for the sake of the GA pilots. Do you even know what a TBM 700 is?
I assume the 500 vs 600 was just embelleshment :)
Furthermore, where are you flying instrument approaches "in winter" in small aircraft (presumably)? If it's somewhere where it's cold, either one of two things is likely true: a) you shouldn't be in the clouds anyway unless your airplane is seriously approved for known icing (and I used to fly a TBM700 for a while and that I would consider barely adequate) or b) why would you point out that you were flying in winter, when it is SUMMER when the visibility is bound to be poorer, plus there is less light overall as the snow is not adding a bit of whiteness / reflectivity to what little light there is...
It's amazing that your one info about pilots eating different meals is accurate, and yet you still think that airplanes have navigators.
Some old airplanes still have Flight Engineers (boeing 747-1/200s used in cargo service, 727s), but those are getting few and far between. Flight Engineers have never been "flight capable", whatever the heck that means (and yes, I have flown large products made by boeing from the left seat).
I am not sure when the last time a commercial flight in the USA had a navigator was, but, well, it was a heck of a while ago.
Would one be a hypocrite if one tells a person who just got hit by a bus to go to the hospital but not one who just got a papercut?
no.
QED.
oooh.. argument from moral equivalence... arguably the most illogical and underhanded debate tactic that a person can use. compounding it, one is never quite sure whether the person making the argument is genuinely an idiot making the claim, or just using it as a debating trick of some sort to make the counter-er seem pedantic.
Please don't take my heart away
Promise me just one more night
Then we'll go our separate ways
With hours left time on our sides
Now it's fading fast
Every second every moment
We've got to--we've gotta make it last
props to those who get the joke, and jeers to those who mod this down because they don't
Bullhooey. Strong IP laws are what allow little companies to turn into big companies without existing big companies simply stealing their ideas and using their market presence to dominate.
In practice, small companies are bought out by big companies for their IP. The founders of the small companies with good ideas get rich and the big companies have the ability to squeeze the idea to maximum benefit by having the broadest reach to consumers. The medical device industry is case #1 for this and in fact is most of engineering.
I run a small company that has prospered only due to strong IP laws. I employ people only because of strong IP laws.
I mention this to point out that because I actually lived in a communist state, ...
I was convinced that this guy was a total jackass.
At the same time he both embraces and denounces academic pretension. You know--the whole basis of an academe is that you can study things without necessarily being there (for example, I wasnt in the 15th century, but I know about columbus). So, to discount those who haven't been there as therefore not worthy of opinions is basically discounting the whole basis for yours and every other PhD--which is fine--if you then dont go to flaunt your PhD! (note: not to say that academics shouldnt try to 'get their hands dirty' in the field where they can--but to discount academics or whoever he's discounting because they didn't have his prepubescent experiences in "a dark corner of the ex ussr" before the age of 13 is simply pretensious, ad-hominem bullshit that kept me from reading the rest of his PhD political science genius rant.
Let's say you owned the rights to all of the yellow tulips in the world. If you charged $1 billion each, should the government break down your doors and accuse you of price fixing?
Of course not. If you get the rights to all of the yellow tulips, all other colors of tulips are still available. For that matter, tulips compete against other flowers, etc.
Likewise, ringtones compete for your entertainment dollar along with countless other entertainment sources (psst--audio CDs too). To price them at anything but near what the market will accept is just stupid.
Now, that said (and I didn't RTFA) I'm guessing that this article is not about monopoly, but rather a price-fixing cartel like scheme. Big deal. Same rule applies. Dont buy ringtones if the price doesn't suit you.
Commercial Software
a few guys then
a few products then
early success then
money! then
more guys then
a few more products then
more money!
then more products (some good some bad) then
more money! then
more guys then..
OSS:
a few guys then
a few products then
early success then
fame and glory for a few guys then
more guys then
a few more products then
some fame for more guys then
maybe some people will join here and there then
a few bug fixes and patches then
not really any fame for the new guys then
people just stop caring because..
it suddenly dawns the german dork who spent 3 months in his basement writing a slighly faster screen refresh algorithm for some OSS spreadsheet program that has 1% market and that is pretty much only due to some for-profit entity working to the letter but not the spirit of the GPL that a) deep down, nobody gives a damn about where their spreadsheet screen refresh algoritm comes from and b) that there is an outside, and that even chasing girls unsuccessfully is better than working for redhat/ibm/whatever without getting paid.
I am an economist to some extent. At this point, I stopped reading the article (well, i read a little more to see if he at all tried to substantiate this very very very very very very very bald assertion - he did not).
His "facts" are not facts to the world of economists who study the issue in detail. While some may agree upon this position, many more do not (well, it's hard to tell, what exactly is 'global progress' anyway?).
His article was nothing more than cheerleading. It was not a balanced look. It was FUD.
get a microphoned pocketpc with 128mb ram. price = $200 on ebay.
do a little programming, taking care to make note of the fact that you will most likely need to "wake up" the machine from a sleep state, start recording, and shut down. time to program for an experienced pocket pc programmer: 4 hours.
done.
Bullshit. Every copy protection scheme is more difficult on the user than none at all. In some cases, if obtaining pirated copies is easier than doing the steps necessary to deal with the legitimate copy protection, then more prosecution of the pirates may be necessary to increase the cost of piracy. It may not be that the steps are too hard - it may be that piracy is too easy.
Hardware company that treats software as an afterthought sees a way to sell more printers.
IBM Open source projects
Ah yes, IBM. (puts pinkie finger to side of mouth). Still trying to find the solution that will make them A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS. (dr evil laugh).
IBM Wont Use Patents Against Linux
Quite an accomplishment. Good project, that.
Software giants feel open source pressure
Sure, some. But critical mass means it has its own momentum. I highly doubt that and the article doesn't even imply that too strongly.
Sun, Java and Open Source
Hardly a done deal or a slam-dunk.
Nokia fights Microsoft by addressing Series 60 developer complaints
???
I have no doubt whatsoever that this will be modded up to +5, insightful. I also have no doubt whatsoever that your statement is bald zealotry. If the current corporate adoption of OSS is what constitutes critical mass (ie a few marginal projects here and there), then continue to welcome our current microsoft overlords..
more realistically, what CA did is called a no-risk offer. They post some bounty which is worth far less than what true development would cost them plus get some free publicity to book. and if it doesn't work out? well, nothing lost by them.
But when 2000 job cuts are imminent, suddenly those workers are just hardworkin' folk.
Look, idiot submitters: consolidation and merger between relative equals happens in SHRINKING industries (makes hand gestures like Ben Affleck trying to explain basic economics to Jay and Silent bob from that "strike back movie"), not expanding ones. so maybe, just maybe you tinfoil hat crowd can see this as a *good* thing for your nevertheless ill-thought out anti-riaa crusade.
note: i challenge anybody to suggest how apple selling music is fundamentally different than wal-mart doing it in the sense that neither wal-mart nor apple can really promote artists other than one can give britney an endcap and the other can give her some banner ad or other prominent website mention. at the end of the tune, itunes, the coca-cola music store, and every other digital music place that is popping up whack-a-mole fashion are just RETAILERS. there is a massive difference between this and actual promoters and distributors and the difference will continue to grow as there are more and more digital retail outlets out there and so the incentive for an individual retailer to be anything but a bottom feeder pricewise shrinks more and more.
Just because you are not familiar with these strategies doesn not mean the don't exist.
oh stop it. i've played more team sports - from cricket thru rugby league through association croquet through american football (with pads) through beach volleyball through even a bit of aussie rules than you know exist (hmm.. i guess i just called croquet a sport - that actually classifies as perhaps *the* most intellectual sport, if you count it as a sport).
Your argument is "because all sports involve some degree of strategic thinking, therefore all sports involve the same degree of strategic thinking." this is equivalent to "because linux has gimp, it is equivalent to (other platform) with photoshop."
which is to say, an intellectually dishonest argument.
In fact, the only continental team sport that comes close in terms of intellectual elegance i think is cycling (a la the tour de france - forget about team pursuit and other such stupidities), and even then the issue is somewhat muddled because you have different teams vying for different goals (different jerseys, stage victories, long stage leads to maximize sponsor exposure, etc).
You may or may not think that baseball is boring, and you may be of the mistaken impression that american football is a game where people don't get hurt seriously because they wear pads, but to call these sports the opposite of intellectual may not be the best example. both involve deep strategy in addition to atheleticism, skill, an undersanding of stochastic processes, etc.