The FSF makes the claim, for example, that just because software is easy to copy (as opposed to a book), that this is why you should be able to copy it and distribute it at will. What does the ease with which something can be reproduced have to do with a perceived right to distribute someone else's property?
Because the whole idea of property depends on scarcity (scarcity of resources, scarcity of access, etc.). Thus, the mechanics of property break down when things can be perfectly duplicated at zero cost.
And... What the heck, here's another gratuitous plug for my essay on the subject, Digital Sculptures, which attempts to illustrate the future foreshadowed by our computers.
We've got one post up there that says the Linux-configured box is $1K more than the NT box, while some other posts say that the Linux box is $200 cheaper.
1. MS wants to make money on the ported Office, plain and simple.
Nothin' wrong with that. It fits into my own pet theory, which is: If Bill thinks he can make money porting Office to Linux, he will do it. He has never demonstrated loyalty to anything other than making a buck.
3. A flaky port of Office would hurt the credibility of Linux.
4. A promised port of Office that never emerges would hurt the credibility of Linux.
Disagree. This would merely reinforce Microsoft's already legendary reputation for shoddy software and "promises" that never materialize. Linux can survive without Bill.
5. MS Office will require proprietary MS libs, allowing MS to gradually take over or corrupt Linux.
As long as they don't try and stick them in/lib or/usr/lib, they can go nuts with shared libraries. If, however, they try to replace files in/lib or/usr/lib, that's when I'll haul out the high-calibre ordnance.
6. Office and IE on Linux will help MS to decommoditize HTML and other protocols.
Disagree here, too. Unlike Windoze, Office and IE won't and can't be the sole option under Linux, so MS can't leverage anything.
7. Office on Linux is just a lost leader, with the upgrade to Office 2000 requiring a corresponding "upgrade" to Windows 2000 (your theory).
Given the "progress" Office has made since Word 5.1, I doubt Office 2000 will be compelling enough that customers will be willing to throw away Linux to get it.
8. Office on Linux is a desparation ploy, to keep users from migrating away from MS Office (due to Y2K), while MS finishes Windows 2000.
Mmmm... Possible, but when MS discovers that O2K isn't pulling people over to W2K, they may discover they'll make more money porting O2K to Linux.
For the longest time, I used FVWM. Not pretty, not easy to configure (I prefer immediate visual feedback), but perfectly usable. I recently decided I wanted something prettier, and something that would display a nice clock and battery meter off to one side. Because of some questions surrounding the licensing underlying KDE, I decided to go with WindowMaker. I'm happy.
However, when looking over KDE, I noticed that some apps are "enhanced" for special features KDE has. Forgive my naivate, but I thought the whole point of Xwindows was to allow apps to run under any window manager, and they would all look and work (more or less) the same.
So. With a major contributor like Red Hat backing KDE, will people like me currently using WindowMaker find themselves needing to switch to KDE because of all the apps tailored to it? I don't really have anything against KDE at this point, but WindowMaker works fine, and if, in the grand scheme of things, I shouldn't have to use a particular window manager, I'd prefer not to switch.
Are my concerns unfounded?
Schwab
I loved it. It was much better than Katz.
on
Feature:Distortions
·
· Score: 1
A few years ago, I tried to articulate what I saw as the fundamentally flawed assumptions being made by cable companies, phone companies, music and movie studios, and software companies in their rush to create the Information Superhighway.
What I ended up with was an essay I named Digital Sculptures. It takes the mechanical realities of today's computers and projects them into the future, leading to an unexpected economic discovery.
It's a bit dated today, and could probably stand a re-write. Nevertheless, it still makes the point reasonably well. If you read it, let me know what you think.
"Brought to you by the Bureau of Psychotic Children. Surround yourself with annoying shrill-voiced children."
"Gamera is really neat / He is full of turtle meat / We believe in Gamera!"
"Wow, Tokyo Disneyland sucks. There's NothingWorld and ParkingWorld..."
"o/~ He tried to kill him with a forklift!"
This one's imperfect: "Hi, Everyone. Let's Pitch In 'N Get Cracking Here In Louisiana Doing Right, Eh? Now Then, Hateful Rich Overbearing Ugly Guys Hurt Royally Everytime Someone Eats A Radish, Carrot, And Never Does Dishes. Eventually, Victor Eats Lettuce Over Peoria Mit Ein Neuesburger Tod."
"Guys! Guys!" "Yeah, Gypsy?" "That's not cheese..."
"You failed to properly compensate during the ion storm. Your agonizer, please." "But Captain Mike...!" "Your agonizer, please!" "Agonizer, agonizer... Where the heck did I put that doohickey?" "It's right there on your belt." "No, no, that's not it." "It is, too!" "Nope, no..."
"Joey The Lemur, the friend to mankind / A furry kind of monkey friend / He really does shine." "Joey The Lemur, he's great to have around / To snuggle and huggle / And fun fun fun." "Joey The Lemur, he'll run anywhere / Joey The Lemur, what kind of heck of animal is he, anyway / Um, uh, Joey The Lemur, the kind of animal that would go to the bathroom anywhere..." "Uh, Crow, stop." "Huh?" "Just stop." "...But there's more."
"Uh, that's not how you wear your Depends, Torgo..." "Been hittin' the Thighmaster, Torgo?"
"SLEEEEP!!"
"The Schick Electric Razor Car!"
"Meanwhile, the Soviets were launching Sputnik."
"Yes, it's never too early to fuse your spinal column together. In a few years, these children will be addicted to painkillers, but for now, little Johnny is paralyzed."
"We leave you with this question: If you enjoyed Catching Trouble in any way, there's something wrong with you."
"Now we head up to $(PLACE) to enjoy the sport of 'scheeing', as they call it. But you and I know it better as playing badminton and/or ping-pong with a Barbie doll frozen in a block of ice."
"Slab Bulkhead!"
"Put your helmet on, we'll be reaching speeds of 3!"
Intel owns part of Be, right? So basically Be will not run on PowerPC G3.
sigh
We've been over this before. BeOS doesn't run on G3 Macs because Apple won't cough up the specs for their motherboards. Apple has had this bug up their butt about releasing specs ever since the first Mac hit the shelves. While it's nice that LinuxPPC works, I can practically guarantee you that Apple will break it on the new G4 systems when they fiddle with the motherboard design again. Reverse-engineering is extremely time-consuming, and we just can't spare the people.
If Apple is truly interested in seeing BeOS run on their systems, they know where to find us.
I predict that in the future BeOS will NEVER run on Alpha, [... ]
We would love to see what BeOS could do on an MP Alpha system. But the fact is that such a port would require a gargantuan engineering effort, and Digital/Compaq have not made the request (so far as I know). There are only 80 of us, and it's taking all our efforts just to keep Intel and PowerPC moving forward.
At the risk of appearing like a PR flak, our resources are so limited that we have to direct them where we feel they will achieve the best returns. Right now, for better or worse, that direction is Intel-based platforms.
If Be would shift it's focus to it's customers and developers, instead of it's masters at Intel, I might care, [... ]
But that's exactly what we did do. Our customers told us, "It looks like it could be really nice, but I'm not willing to buy a new PowerPC-based machine just to try it out." Our developers told us, "Nice system, but it's hard for us to stay in business. Can you do anything to expand the potential market?" So we ported to Intel. And we made it co-exist with Windows. Thus, you can try it out at very little expense and risk.
Intel is simply an investor. They are our "masters" to the extent that any shareholder is our master. They occasionally help us out (like they did with the Pentium-III), and for that we are grateful.
I'd personally love for a modern CPU architecture to start gaining market share. I have managed to earn a living for the last 20 years avoiding the PC architecture. I came from the land of the MC68000, the ARM, and the PowerPC as well (via Amiga and 3DO). So when I joined Be and cracked open a book on the Intel Pentium for the first time just last year, I was appalled. "Only eight registers?!? A 'stack-based' FPU? No pc-relative addressing?!? What the heck is this, a 6502?"
We are fully aware of the vagaries of the Intel architecture, and all that implies. Believe me, we know. When it becomes possible for us to support a more modern architecture and stay in business, it will be a happy day for us all.
Disclaimer: I am an employee of Be, Inc.
Further Disclaimer: I am a lowly graphics device driver engineer, am not an official -- or even unofficial -- spokesperson, and my views are entirely my own, and should not be construed as the Officially Sanctioned Position of Be, Inc. I'm just foaming at the mouth here...
Schwab
Hi. My name's Leo, and I like Word. ("Hi, Leo.")
on
Microsoft-Compaq-BeOS
·
· Score: 1
I regret to admit that I like Microsoft Word (after you turn off all the idiot "wizards" and "helpers" and that fscking paperclip!). The last version of Word I really liked was Word 5.1a for the Mac.
Word is, of course, shoddy, but it's damn useful.
I have not tried any of the available office software for Linux. I tried LyX about two years ago, but found it a bit too primitive. So I do most of my writing in (brace yourself) 'vi'. If Word were to become available for Linux, I would probably buy it.
Though I don't know him very well, I've met Brett Glass on many occasions (back in the fabled Amiga Days, admittedly), and this doesn't sound like something he would write.
3DO finally switched to all software development and dropped the hardware side.
...And some of us who helped develop both that machine and the never-released 64-bit follow-on, M2, are still pretty cheesed about it. But that's another flame...
...But something seems fishy here. I would have expected the original authors of the emulator to post the sources. IIRC, GossiTheDog wasn't one of them.
I'm half inclined to grab the archive, whatever it is.
R4 is a great improvement over R3.2, and as an R3.2 owner, you can get an upgrade for less than $30.
However, we are the first to admit that not everyone will have a smooth experience with BeOS. This is why we offer a no-questions-asked money-back guarantee. If you don't like BeOS for any reason, return it, and we'll give you your money back. (We won't even make you play legal games with the license.) Whether our product addresses our customer's needs or not, we want them in any case to get a fair deal.
Compaq post-dates the introduction of the IBM PC. In fact, Compaq created the first PC clone, which was a luggable. I first saw it at the West Coast Computer Faire in San Francisco. Had I known at the time what its introduction foretold, I probably would have shot myself right there.
What a depressing conversation that was, talking with the Compaq flak:
"So, what does your new machine do?" "It's a PC clone." "Yeah, but what does it do?" "It does everything an IBM PC will do." "Yeah, but what else does it do?" "Nothing. It's a PC clone." "...You mean, this thing doesn't do anything new?" "No." "It's not faster?" "No." "It doesn't have better graphics?" "No." "Then why did you bother?" "You don't understand. It's a PC clone..."
And thus began the industry's long, slow downward slide...
Think what you will about Jerry (I know I do), but one portion of his brief missive on the subject is extremely important. Jerry believes that some people will use Refund Day as a way to screw MS out of some money while still using Windoze [sic] on their machines.
This must not happen.
If it does happen, you can bet that the Microsoft FUD Factory will play it to the hilt. "Linux Advocates Indicted for Software Piracy," is what the headlines will say.
Please, please, please don't do this. Do not "return" copies of Windows you are still using. Truly, the meager sum you receive is not worth the potential negative impact to the community. Don't do it.
As if it weren't obvious by now, the USPTO is off its rocker for awarding patents like this. However, it only just occurred to me that the claimed "technology" is far older than I initially suspected.
Thaddeus Cahill did exactly the same thing with his Teleharmonium in the 1900's! For a fee, Thaddeus would pipe music to you over the telephone, generated by his Teleharmonium.
So, instead of using the telephone, SIGHTSOUND.COM uses the Internet; and instead of using cash or checks, they use credit cards. It doesn't take a brainsurgeon to see this is not a novel extension of Cahill's technology.
Can I buy a car without a radio? Maybe, but probably not easily.
Actually, that's incorrect. There have been several court cases over the years that have established pretty much unambiguously that customers are not required to buy things they don't want.
The car radio is a classic example (particularly when FM radios started showing up). When car manufacturers started including radios in their vehicles, customers complained because the radio was of low quality and overpriced. Many people wanted to install after-market radios. But the manufacturers and dealers said, "Sorry, it comes with the car." Several cases later, courts reaffirmed the consumer's right to choose what they want to buy, and pay for only that.
The wrinkle here is that, if the shrinkwrap "agreements" are to be believed, a sale is not taking place. Therefore the consumer doesn't enjoy the protections accompanying outright sales. You're entering into a contract, which lifts you out of consumer retail sale law and into the hideously twisted world of contract law. All your rights and remedies are spelled out in the contract; anything not in the contract is Your Problem.
As I've been saying for years, this is evil. Shrinkwraps raise Caveat Emptor to what I regard to be unreasonable heights. (And... Why not? Here's a link to my editorial again.)
Yours is the first report I have ever heard from inside the USPTO. If the case is going to be made that the patent office is out of control and awarding bogus patents, then we need as many "war stories" as we can get our hands on.
Please, describe your experiences at the USPTO. Encourage your colleagues there to come forward and describe the process, the rules and pressures under which they work, and their own stories. What do they do when confronted with an application whose technology they simply don't understand? Are they allowed to seek consultation from outside?
As long as they don't demand (or develop) some lame-ass IDE or a whacking great collection of useless Foundation Classes, I think pulling in some Windoze programmers could be good.
It could also be a beneficial experience for them, as well. "Wait a minute. These APIs actually work! And they make sense! You mean it could have been as easy and as stress-free as this all along?"
Slashdot Mirror
Because the whole idea of property depends on scarcity (scarcity of resources, scarcity of access, etc.). Thus, the mechanics of property break down when things can be perfectly duplicated at zero cost.
And... What the heck, here's another gratuitous plug for my essay on the subject, Digital Sculptures, which attempts to illustrate the future foreshadowed by our computers.
Schwab
We've got one post up there that says the Linux-configured box is $1K more than the NT box, while some other posts say that the Linux box is $200 cheaper.
Could someone do a detailed comparison?
Schwab
Nothin' wrong with that. It fits into my own pet theory, which is: If Bill thinks he can make money porting Office to Linux, he will do it. He has never demonstrated loyalty to anything other than making a buck.
Disagree. This would merely reinforce Microsoft's already legendary reputation for shoddy software and "promises" that never materialize. Linux can survive without Bill.
As long as they don't try and stick them in /lib or /usr/lib, they can go nuts with shared libraries. If, however, they try to replace files in /lib or /usr/lib, that's when I'll haul out the high-calibre ordnance.
Disagree here, too. Unlike Windoze, Office and IE won't and can't be the sole option under Linux, so MS can't leverage anything.
Given the "progress" Office has made since Word 5.1, I doubt Office 2000 will be compelling enough that customers will be willing to throw away Linux to get it.
Mmmm... Possible, but when MS discovers that O2K isn't pulling people over to W2K, they may discover they'll make more money porting O2K to Linux.
Schwab
For the longest time, I used FVWM. Not pretty, not easy to configure (I prefer immediate visual feedback), but perfectly usable. I recently decided I wanted something prettier, and something that would display a nice clock and battery meter off to one side. Because of some questions surrounding the licensing underlying KDE, I decided to go with WindowMaker. I'm happy.
However, when looking over KDE, I noticed that some apps are "enhanced" for special features KDE has. Forgive my naivate, but I thought the whole point of Xwindows was to allow apps to run under any window manager, and they would all look and work (more or less) the same.
So. With a major contributor like Red Hat backing KDE, will people like me currently using WindowMaker find themselves needing to switch to KDE because of all the apps tailored to it? I don't really have anything against KDE at this point, but WindowMaker works fine, and if, in the grand scheme of things, I shouldn't have to use a particular window manager, I'd prefer not to switch.
Are my concerns unfounded?
Schwab
I hereby declare that the best post ever!
Schwab
A few years ago, I tried to articulate what I saw as the fundamentally flawed assumptions being made by cable companies, phone companies, music and movie studios, and software companies in their rush to create the Information Superhighway.
What I ended up with was an essay I named Digital Sculptures. It takes the mechanical realities of today's computers and projects them into the future, leading to an unexpected economic discovery.
It's a bit dated today, and could probably stand a re-write. Nevertheless, it still makes the point reasonably well. If you read it, let me know what you think.
Schwab
"Brought to you by the Bureau of Psychotic Children. Surround yourself with annoying shrill-voiced children."
"Gamera is really neat / He is full of turtle meat / We believe in Gamera!"
"Wow, Tokyo Disneyland sucks. There's NothingWorld and ParkingWorld..."
"o/~ He tried to kill him with a forklift!"
This one's imperfect: "Hi, Everyone. Let's Pitch In 'N Get Cracking Here In Louisiana Doing Right, Eh? Now Then, Hateful Rich Overbearing Ugly Guys Hurt Royally Everytime Someone Eats A Radish, Carrot, And Never Does Dishes. Eventually, Victor Eats Lettuce Over Peoria Mit Ein Neuesburger Tod."
"Guys! Guys!"
"Yeah, Gypsy?"
"That's not cheese..."
"You failed to properly compensate during the ion storm. Your agonizer, please."
"But Captain Mike...!"
"Your agonizer, please!"
"Agonizer, agonizer... Where the heck did I put that doohickey?"
"It's right there on your belt."
"No, no, that's not it."
"It is, too!"
"Nope, no..."
"Joey The Lemur, the friend to mankind / A furry kind of monkey friend / He really does shine."
"Joey The Lemur, he's great to have around / To snuggle and huggle / And fun fun fun."
"Joey The Lemur, he'll run anywhere / Joey The Lemur, what kind of heck of animal is he, anyway / Um, uh, Joey The Lemur, the kind of animal that would go to the bathroom anywhere..."
"Uh, Crow, stop."
"Huh?"
"Just stop."
"...But there's more."
"Uh, that's not how you wear your Depends, Torgo..."
"Been hittin' the Thighmaster, Torgo?"
"SLEEEEP!!"
"The Schick Electric Razor Car!"
"Meanwhile, the Soviets were launching Sputnik."
"Yes, it's never too early to fuse your spinal column together. In a few years, these children will be addicted to painkillers, but for now, little Johnny is paralyzed."
"We leave you with this question: If you enjoyed Catching Trouble in any way, there's something wrong with you."
"Now we head up to $(PLACE) to enjoy the sport of 'scheeing', as they call it. But you and I know it better as playing badminton and/or ping-pong with a Barbie doll frozen in a block of ice."
"Slab Bulkhead!"
"Put your helmet on, we'll be reaching speeds of 3!"
"...Fer cryin' out loud. EACH! OF! YOU! WILL! ENTER! A! SPACE! CAPSULE!"
"...Uh, camera three, get off the track. Camera three... AAAGGHHHH!!!"
"Have you ever thought about being evil? I mean really evil?"
"You know, not kneeing you in the groin is a constant struggle."
I can't hear it very clearly. "That's 'cause it's a RAZOR BLADE IN A GLASS!"
Feel free to add more, people.
Schwab
sigh
We've been over this before. BeOS doesn't run on G3 Macs because Apple won't cough up the specs for their motherboards. Apple has had this bug up their butt about releasing specs ever since the first Mac hit the shelves. While it's nice that LinuxPPC works, I can practically guarantee you that Apple will break it on the new G4 systems when they fiddle with the motherboard design again. Reverse-engineering is extremely time-consuming, and we just can't spare the people.
If Apple is truly interested in seeing BeOS run on their systems, they know where to find us.
We would love to see what BeOS could do on an MP Alpha system. But the fact is that such a port would require a gargantuan engineering effort, and Digital/Compaq have not made the request (so far as I know). There are only 80 of us, and it's taking all our efforts just to keep Intel and PowerPC moving forward.
At the risk of appearing like a PR flak, our resources are so limited that we have to direct them where we feel they will achieve the best returns. Right now, for better or worse, that direction is Intel-based platforms.
But that's exactly what we did do. Our customers told us, "It looks like it could be really nice, but I'm not willing to buy a new PowerPC-based machine just to try it out." Our developers told us, "Nice system, but it's hard for us to stay in business. Can you do anything to expand the potential market?" So we ported to Intel. And we made it co-exist with Windows. Thus, you can try it out at very little expense and risk.
Intel is simply an investor. They are our "masters" to the extent that any shareholder is our master. They occasionally help us out (like they did with the Pentium-III), and for that we are grateful.
I'd personally love for a modern CPU architecture to start gaining market share. I have managed to earn a living for the last 20 years avoiding the PC architecture. I came from the land of the MC68000, the ARM, and the PowerPC as well (via Amiga and 3DO). So when I joined Be and cracked open a book on the Intel Pentium for the first time just last year, I was appalled. "Only eight registers?!? A 'stack-based' FPU? No pc-relative addressing?!? What the heck is this, a 6502?"
We are fully aware of the vagaries of the Intel architecture, and all that implies. Believe me, we know. When it becomes possible for us to support a more modern architecture and stay in business, it will be a happy day for us all.
Disclaimer: I am an employee of Be, Inc.
Further Disclaimer: I am a lowly graphics device driver engineer, am not an official -- or even unofficial -- spokesperson, and my views are entirely my own, and should not be construed as the Officially Sanctioned Position of Be, Inc. I'm just foaming at the mouth here...
Schwab
I regret to admit that I like Microsoft Word (after you turn off all the idiot "wizards" and "helpers" and that fscking paperclip!). The last version of Word I really liked was Word 5.1a for the Mac.
Word is, of course, shoddy, but it's damn useful.
I have not tried any of the available office software for Linux. I tried LyX about two years ago, but found it a bit too primitive. So I do most of my writing in (brace yourself) 'vi'. If Word were to become available for Linux, I would probably buy it.
Disclaimer: I am an employee of Be, Inc.
Schwab
Though I don't know him very well, I've met Brett Glass on many occasions (back in the fabled Amiga Days, admittedly), and this doesn't sound like something he would write.
I think it's an impostor.
Schwab
...And some of us who helped develop both that machine and the never-released 64-bit follow-on, M2, are still pretty cheesed about it. But that's another flame...
Schwab
...But something seems fishy here. I would have expected the original authors of the emulator to post the sources. IIRC, GossiTheDog wasn't one of them.
I'm half inclined to grab the archive, whatever it is.
Schwab
Modem Configurations for Internet Speed Comparison
Yeah, the differences are academic.
Schwab
R4 is a great improvement over R3.2, and as an R3.2 owner, you can get an upgrade for less than $30.
However, we are the first to admit that not everyone will have a smooth experience with BeOS. This is why we offer a no-questions-asked money-back guarantee. If you don't like BeOS for any reason, return it, and we'll give you your money back. (We won't even make you play legal games with the license.) Whether our product addresses our customer's needs or not, we want them in any case to get a fair deal.
Schwab
(not really speaking for Be)
The Bulletin article also calls on Microsoft to turn the patent over to the W3C, and relinquish all claims to the "technology."
Clearly, more than just us geeks are getting sick to the teeth of bogus patents.
Schwab
Further evidence of Microsoft's legendary and endemic incompetence. They can't even fake evidence without screwing it up.
Schwab
Compaq post-dates the introduction of the IBM PC. In fact, Compaq created the first PC clone, which was a luggable. I first saw it at the West Coast Computer Faire in San Francisco. Had I known at the time what its introduction foretold, I probably would have shot myself right there.
What a depressing conversation that was, talking with the Compaq flak:
"So, what does your new machine do?"
"It's a PC clone."
"Yeah, but what does it do?"
"It does everything an IBM PC will do."
"Yeah, but what else does it do?"
"Nothing. It's a PC clone."
"...You mean, this thing doesn't do anything new?"
"No."
"It's not faster?"
"No."
"It doesn't have better graphics?"
"No."
"Then why did you bother?"
"You don't understand. It's a PC clone..."
And thus began the industry's long, slow downward slide...
Schwab
Think what you will about Jerry (I know I do), but one portion of his brief missive on the subject is extremely important. Jerry believes that some people will use Refund Day as a way to screw MS out of some money while still using Windoze [sic] on their machines.
This must not happen.
If it does happen, you can bet that the Microsoft FUD Factory will play it to the hilt. "Linux Advocates Indicted for Software Piracy," is what the headlines will say.
Please, please, please don't do this. Do not "return" copies of Windows you are still using. Truly, the meager sum you receive is not worth the potential negative impact to the community. Don't do it.
Schwab
As if it weren't obvious by now, the USPTO is off its rocker for awarding patents like this. However, it only just occurred to me that the claimed "technology" is far older than I initially suspected.
Thaddeus Cahill did exactly the same thing with his Teleharmonium in the 1900's! For a fee, Thaddeus would pipe music to you over the telephone, generated by his Teleharmonium.
So, instead of using the telephone, SIGHTSOUND.COM uses the Internet; and instead of using cash or checks, they use credit cards. It doesn't take a brainsurgeon to see this is not a novel extension of Cahill's technology.
So who do we clobber at the USPTO?
Schwab
Actually, that's incorrect. There have been several court cases over the years that have established pretty much unambiguously that customers are not required to buy things they don't want.
The car radio is a classic example (particularly when FM radios started showing up). When car manufacturers started including radios in their vehicles, customers complained because the radio was of low quality and overpriced. Many people wanted to install after-market radios. But the manufacturers and dealers said, "Sorry, it comes with the car." Several cases later, courts reaffirmed the consumer's right to choose what they want to buy, and pay for only that.
The wrinkle here is that, if the shrinkwrap "agreements" are to be believed, a sale is not taking place. Therefore the consumer doesn't enjoy the protections accompanying outright sales. You're entering into a contract, which lifts you out of consumer retail sale law and into the hideously twisted world of contract law. All your rights and remedies are spelled out in the contract; anything not in the contract is Your Problem.
As I've been saying for years, this is evil. Shrinkwraps raise Caveat Emptor to what I regard to be unreasonable heights. (And... Why not? Here's a link to my editorial again.)
Schwab
What's the legalese translation of, "Go fsck yourself?"
Schwab
Yours is the first report I have ever heard from inside the USPTO. If the case is going to be made that the patent office is out of control and awarding bogus patents, then we need as many "war stories" as we can get our hands on.
Please, describe your experiences at the USPTO. Encourage your colleagues there to come forward and describe the process, the rules and pressures under which they work, and their own stories. What do they do when confronted with an application whose technology they simply don't understand? Are they allowed to seek consultation from outside?
Schwab
2001 is the work of Arthur C. Clarke. As talented as he is in his own right, Kubrik "simply" directed the film version of Clarke's novel.
Schwab
Who the fsck would use Windoze in what is essentially an embedded system? Have they caught him yet?
Schwab
As long as they don't demand (or develop) some lame-ass IDE or a whacking great collection of useless Foundation Classes, I think pulling in some Windoze programmers could be good.
It could also be a beneficial experience for them, as well. "Wait a minute. These APIs actually work! And they make sense! You mean it could have been as easy and as stress-free as this all along?"
Schwab