Well, I can understand the argument that the economic policy might be considered unfair, but I think that China might be trying to extensively control the software that their government uses for legitimate reasons, mostly having to do with security. Our government essentially did the same thing for years before the proliferation of Microsoft. By developing all of their software internally, our government essentially closed the market on software it used. This was okay for us, because we hired American workers to develop this software, so it had virtually no negative economic impact on the US.
Let's put this simply: US software companies don't want to get shut out of a potentially huge market that has a legitimate reason for staying closed. If US software comanies want to compete for Chinese government contracts, there's going to have to be huge negotitations with the US giving up a lot to get a share of the Chinese market.
If someone views that public data, how are they invading your privacy?
Consider this metaphor: Someone is talking very quietly on their cellphone in a public park. If someone sits on the bench beside me and intently starts listening in on my conversation, at what point does that person's actions become an invasion of my privacy?
You're getting caught up in the semantic differences between "public data" and "privacy". "Public data" is simply defined as information that can be obtained legally and freely. "Privacy" though means different things in the literal, personal, and legal senses. And then we wonder about exactly what it means to "invade" one's privacy. Regardless of whether the data about me is public or not, if someone learns something about me I don't want them to know, I can consider that an "invasion of privacy".
Remember, unions only work if everyone buys into them. Join the game developer's union, pay your dues, and you can no longer work for an game shop who hires non-union developers. (If a company is able to find non union workers to replace you, they will!) In exchange, you get guaranteed working hours and/or compensated overtime. Welcome to the clock in/clock out daily grind where minutes must be accounted for. It's all part of the collective bargaining aggreements that the union lawyers and leaders hammer out with each individual company that hires game developers.
Basically it comes down to this: Companies don't like unions. It forces them to work within the stipulations of the CBA's, which can be very restrictive and cost-prohibitive. Employees don't want to *have* to work under the shield of a union. It severely magnifies the lens under which they work, and every action becomes scrutinized. They have to stick behind union decisions, whether they agree with them or not. Employers and employees are benefitted more from working together under mutual conditions. In most areas of software development, this is what happens. In the cases of a few specific companies (like EA) they take advantage of their employees. In this case, a class-action suit will soon sort it out. Yes, it's true that unions are established to prevent worker exploitation, but if you explain to everyone in our industry everything that is involved with establishing a union, you will find very little support.
I seriously doubt that one can simply swap word for word this story with that of the coal miners. Coal miners 100 years ago risked their lives in extremely unsafe conditions. They were barely able to provide for their families earning the best of wages, and when they died in the mines, there was no compensation given to the families. Puh leez.
Lots of reasons why, actually. Basically, a person with a good paying job isn't going to start or join a union. No reason to. A person out of work would have problems starting a union - no support from a majority of the employed workers who, despite the article, are not disgruntled with 80+ hours a week of work. And of course, there's the fear of losing one's job, the fear of companies outsourcing, etc. The truth is that a software dev's union will probably never happen because a majority of software devs are willing to work within the current walls of industry.
Ugh. So many thoughts and feelings about this. Part of me sympathizes. I've been there and done that, and it sucks. But at the same time, video games have evolved into this multi billion dollar industry, and corporate interests want a piece of the pie. And there's little that can be done to stop them: big budget advertising, financial strong-arming, existing business partnerships - all tools that can be used to put a stranglehold on the industry. The cold hard truth is that game development is no longer the chic nerd job. It's no longer the job that people want because it's fun. It's become corporate just like everything else.
Anonymous Coward Wrote: How can you patent the idea of determining a clock rate using circuitry?
Answer: You can't
From the US Patent Office Website: A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc., as has been said, and not upon the idea or suggestion of the new machine. A complete description of the actual machine or other subject matter for which a patent is sought is required.
The patent that was filed in 1999 is an approved and recognized patent for an "Apparatus and method for enhancing the performance of personal computers". It's basically an accelerator board that creates a "phase relationship" between the clock signals from the system board and accelerator board. In order for them to win the lawsuit, they have to prove that Intel did in fact use this exact method to achieve some sort of signal acceleration and sold it without license. The $500 million sum is probably a maximum amount, so that if they win the suit, the actual damages will fall within that amount. Seems to me it will be hard to prove that Intel crossed that fine line between patent infringement and the usage of common theory and practice.
It seems pretty obvious that that would be the case. Imagine 5 computer programmers, worked together through the dotcom bubble, with high-paying secured jobs. Life was good - not terribly swamped in work, maybe surfed the web a little too much on the job, but still managed to get work done. The programmers, being the introvert sort, never really speak up about how their jobs were important, that what they were doing really mattered to the company. No need to - they did their work and the company was doing well. They just assumed that other people understood that they were contributing.
Then the bubble bursts, economy's hurting everyone, layoffs start at the big companies. Our 5 programmers aren't worried - their small company is still running strong.
Suddenly two bad quarters in a row, sales are down, cashflow gets weak, and suddenly the company is worried about being able to write everyone's paychecks. 2 of our 5 programmers, who might have had 2 or 3 bad marks (previously thought of as "minor") on their performance reviews, get canned. Our 3 remaining programmers start thinking, "Oh crap! I could be next!" Suddenly there's a real push for productivity and visibility from our programmers. Not only were they doing %40 more work, but they now make sure everyone knows about it.
Wouldn't you?
Scary thing is, if a company can scare employees into working harder with laying off a few, seemingly overpaid pieces of "deadwood", it certainly make business sense.
Hits a little too close to home for some readers out there, doesn't it?
Basically, the problem is that big movie accounting, much like big business accounting (a la Enron) has become the modern day "alchemy". With terms like gross points, net earnings, and loosely defined "profits", movie accounting provides millions of obfuscated legal terms to confuse the contractees such that no money gets paid.
The idea that a blockbuster movie like Spiderman made no profit seems ludicrous, but on paper, accountants paint a different picture. It sounds like Stan Lee signed a contract that would get him a percentage of the "adjusted gross". "Adjusted gross" is a movie mumbo-jumbo term that basically means "what's left over after everyone gets paid", which almost always comes out to be absolutely nothing.
Had Stan Lee been smart, and had the legal clout to pull it off, he should have tried for "gross points". "Gross points" are where the real money lives, and the types of contracts that grant gross points are usually reserved for the big name producers, big-wig movie execs, and A-list movie stars. Basically gross points are percentage points of the overall revenues that a movie brings in, before anything else happens to money - before expenses, before taxes, before the studios gets their checks.
My guess is that Marvel had a deal that would grant them something like half a gross point (which is actually a lot), and Stan Lee's contract was with Marvel (not the movie studio) which would give him a percentage of that cut deemed "profitable". The problem is that Marvel's own number crunchers probably account for every penny of that revenue granted by the movie studio, leaving nothing left for Mr. Lee, because there are no operating "profits".
It comes down to legal terminology in the actual contract, which is probably written to legally protect Marvel and the studios from the type of lawsuit that Stan Lee is seeking, and they will probably try to have the case dismissed based on legal precedent. (Hollywood sees this type of thing all the time) IANAL, but it seems like Mr. Lee's primary defense is that he was misled by the contract into thinking he would get a share of the actual *revenue*, not the *profits*.
-AAAWalrus
Foreign Markets and Moving Targets
on
Halloween VII
·
· Score: 2
Microsoft, like any other mega-corp, continues to seek ways to increase revenue with increased customer base. The US market hasn't completely dried up (in terms of *new* users), but it isn't the hotbed of growth it was during the early 90's. Newer, more capable, and more stable products, compounded with steady high prices means that people don't feel they have to do a software upgrade of their computer every year or two.
The growth is in foreign markets, primarily in Europe and Southeast Asia. So Microsoft has two goals - continue to maintain marketshare in the US, and increase marketshare in Europe. The problem Microsoft runs into is that many countries are a virtually clean slate, untainted by Best Buys and Wal Marts selling almost entirely Windows software. With Open Source permeating so much of the internet as a "free alternative to Microsoft", Microsoft has to discredit Open Source and convince people that it's worth their Euros and Yen to buy Microsoft stuff. None of this is new, and there is little the Open Source community can do to stop Microsoft from doing whatever it will do anyway, except continue to develop solid, usable technology.
Microsoft is fighting a different kind of battle - the opponent isn't one they can buy out, sue, or place a heavy financial lean on. This is both good and bad for the open source movement. Open source advocates can't be directly targeted by Microsoft, and it provides Microsoft with a moving target. But open source also has no unified body to directly organize a challenge against Microsoft - it all has to be done from the developers up.
None of the stuff in that report should come as a surprise. The problem is that there is no organized entity to act on it. There is no one person who can stand up and mandate that all of Open Source must execute one course of action.
As long as people can continue to develop good technology, use it in practice, scour the web as advocates, and spread the word that people don't *have* to use Microsoft, eventually the undecided parties will get informed about the choice that Microsoft doesn't want them to have.
It seems to me that because PanIP is targeting small businesses who cannot afford to properly defend themselves in court, it could, in fact, be seen as legal extortion. Perhaps there is an effective legal defense tool in that alone - that PanIP targets small comapanies because large companies would be more willing to take it to trial and poke a hole in the patent claim, possibly getting it revoked altogether. Is there anyone who knows enough legalese to say whether or not the plaintiff's targeting of small "defenseless" companies is grounds for an effective defense in and of itself?
For example, a lawyer could try to argue parallelism between BarnesAndNoble.com and DeBrand's, pointing out in minute detail the exact similarities between the two companies and their online sales technology, arguing that if one is in violation of the patent, then the other is definitively as well? By drawing common ground of the defendants' being "small cap" companies, why then target them? Is this possible grounds for dismissal or defense of any kind?
-AAAWalrus
PS - DeBrand's chocolates are nothing short of amazingly tasty. You see them around quite a bit in Indiana, and they're hard to pass up. If this pans out in favor of the good guys, it would be tasty justice indeed!
In Indiana, this already exists. Basically, our law states that if you've registered to be blocked from telemarketing, no one can telemarket to your phone unless they are a registered local fundraiser (i.e. Volunteer Fire Dept, etc) or a company you already do business with. In other words, Citibank could call be to offer me the latest services for my credit card. Kinda bites, because Citi is one of the worst for me when it comes to telemarketing. But I don't get any more offers to change my long distance service, thank goodness.
>What is great about to have yet another way to kill people?
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I never read anything that said solid state lasers would be used as anti-personnel weapons. I read that they would be used for defense, with the abilty to remove live missiles and mortars. Which, if you think about it, is a way to reduce the risk of loss of human life going into war.
Basically, these would be used as a defense mechanism in conventional war. Contrary to popular belief, military objectives during conventional war are not to inflict human casualties, but to eliminate the threat in the most efficient way possible. Loss of life does happen, however, and any effort to reduce the loss of life during war would be applauded, I would think.
As far as I can tell, ".NET" is Microsoft's latest creation of an obfuscated buzzword that is their newest attempt at making a new technology the "standard" for desktop operating systems. It started out as a nifty idea that is being blown to Microsoft-marketing-department proportions.
As far I can tell, it's simply a virtual machine that uses a common-language-runtime (CLR) to allow multiple languages to interact with each other via the VM with just-in-time (JIT) compiling of native.NET components. It's supposed to replace COM, eliminate "DLL Hell", allow "secure" components be presented to the web, and have high performance.
Ultimately, what you have is a cool VM technology that runs exclusively on Windows machines that are.NET enabled (Windows XP comes with the.NET runtime installed).
With so many people asking "What is.NET?", the more interesting question is, "If nobody understands what.NET is supposed to accomplish, how is Microsoft going to sell it?" Also, I'd like to know what (not if!) anti-competitive devices have been built into the.NET platform by Microsoft.
How do you see the current weak economy affecting the IT industry today? Is the lack of corporate spending hurting the number of jobs, increasing the workload of IT professionals, or reducing the amount of technology brought into the modern workplace? Or is it merely affecting where companies choose to spend their dollars? (such as Linux instead of Solaris or Windows, open source instead of closed source, new faster hardware or older, not-as-fast but adequate hardware)
People have established that Microsoft isn't attacking hackers directly. If you want to open up your xbox and piss on the circuits, BillyBorg can't stop you. If you manufacture and sell commercially a means to circumvent or alter their code, they can. The real question is, why?
Basically, MS could care less about someone making money doing this. What they really care about is what this enables. A commercial outfit, manufacturing and selling components *enables* virtually all people to purchase xboxes with the *intent* of using them for alternate purposes. If they leave hack-shops unchecked for long, they have basically allowed a competing market to develop against what they really want to sell - games and service.
If I want to purchase an xbox because I want to mod it AND I know I can just buy a chip online with ease, Microsoft would rather not sell me the xbox in the first place. Since they can't discriminate against buyers, they can make it more difficult for me to purchase a chip. Microsoft is not targetting the hardcore hackers. If you want to hack an xbox that badly and you have the skills, you'll do it. Who they *are* targetting is the average Joe Sixpack who buys an xbox. If he buys it and later sees he can easily purchase and install a mod to do things like play pirated games or run a webserver, Microsoft has just lost marketshare in the market that counts.
THAT's what they are trying to stop. Not hacking, but the widespread usage of manufactured mods by average users.
I'll bet most parents today would advocate a game like D&D that promotes actual problem-solving and creativity over trigger-finger-reaction games. Just another sign of the times.
"Timmy, why don't you play a nice wholesome game like Dungeons and Dragons with the kid next door instead of making his head explode like a blood sausage with a sniper rifle? There's a good boy."
The decline of arcades is not because of "the man" keeping the violent game-playing kids out of trouble in the malls, it's because arcade games just aren't the profitable business they were 15 years ago. (Arcades are SO 1980's!) I remember when I was a kid, arcades were a big deal because I never had a console. Even the friends who did have Ataris and Nintendos liked the arcades because they had higher quality games. So, it was worth a special trip to the mall to play "Altered Beast" or "Mortal Kombat".
Arcade games now are played more for the novelty than the experience. With the exception of maybe multiplayer racing games with cockpits, racing wheels, and gas pedals, games on todays home consoles are much higher quality, don't require rolls and rolls of quarters, and don't require a trip to the mall or the local pizza joint. The only reason I have to play a coin-op today is because there just happens to be one in the place I'm grabbing a burger, not because I'm going out of my way to play them. And if I see Galaxian sitting next to the latest version of Virtua Fighter, chances are I'm playing Galaxian, because I want a fun, simple game I don't have to pump 20 quarters in to master.
Again, I don't think the majority of readers here are worried about what this means for arcades. It's just an unfortunate nail in the coffin. What people *should* be worried about is how far the advocates of banning violent games will take this - internet cafes, online content, what is sold in the local Best Buy?
That's about right. DB2 is an integral part of IBM's solutions platforms, and they make a lot of money on that software. You'll never hear an IBM "consultant" say, "Oh yeah, to reduce cost, I recommend this free database technology over buying 250 seats for our DB2 platform." Three reasons:
1) Licensing fees for DB2 are a significant source of revenue. 2) Professional installation of DB2 on IBM hardware is a significant source of revenue. 3) Custom integration of DB2 is a significant source of revenue.
IBM can make extremely good arguments about why DB2 is technologically superior product to MySQL, but it's extremely difficult to argue its cost-effectiveness, which they never did in that article (that I could see).
Besides, when you're talking about providing solutions, open-source often fights uphill battles against the "more expensive is better" and "we must spend our entire budget" attitudes.
So, wireless network connectivity points aren't free in and of themselves. You have to pay for the equipment, you have to pay for the service, and you have to have dependable points to serve as wireless hubs, not to mention people to provide at least minimal maintenance on the thing. The advertising juggernaut that was thought to pay for the dotcom success has shown that online advertising doesn't work too well. NetZero no longer provides unlimited advertising-subsidized connectivity free to the end user due to the lack of effectiveness of online advertising. Convincing advertisers to foot the bill for something like this is unlikely to work. What *might* work is highly localized advertising informing locals of events/special deals/promotional offers - the kind of things college kids go for. Unfortunately, convincing local businesses of the cost effectiveness of providing free services to already cash-strapped college kids is not likely. And truth be told, local businesses are just as likely to make money from stapling posters to light poles on well-walked street corners.
But if the idea is to simply get a free wireless service in a 4 block area of Bloomington (or whichever college town in Indiana you're in), you'd probably have better luck knocking on the doors of the University, rich alumni, or even City Hall. You'd have a much easier time convincing these people that free wireless internet is a worthwile service for the college community rather than trying to convince businesses that money is to be made through advertising. Heck, businesses might be willing to *donate* money to an wireless portal they can use themselves rather than buy into some sales pitch about how advertising will generate higher sales.
A 1 year warranty? Sounds like that kind of sucks. Basically they are saying that they really don't expect their drives to last longer than a year, or else they would leave it at a 3 year warranty. I know I personally have had 2 hard drives (Western Digital) replaced by warranty, both around 2 years old when they died. That warranty is worth a lot more than many people think.
Would a company buy 160GB drives for its servers if it only had a 1 year warranty? Prolly not, since shortened warranties imply lower quality, which is more of an enemy than high prices and lower capacity, since such a premium is placed on data reliance. Granted, tape backups are in place to help reduce data loss, but still, one year? Any time you have to restore from tape, you're losing *some* data and more importantly, time. Increasing the probability of hardware failure, despite safeguards, is a bad bad thing.
Maybe I'm only one of a few who appreciates the warranty on a hard drive, but I've saved a few hundred bucks because of them, and longer warranties certainly increase the confidence of a consumer that a piece of hardware is backed by the manufacturer.
I dunno about anyone else, but I don't understand what you just said. Telecommunications companies trying to "devalue the entertainment industry"? Why? What "exclusive content"? What does this have to do with copyright law?
You've made my brain hurt with your conspiracy mumbo jumbo.
Basically, you have a donor who "anonymously" threw $1 million at Duke to fund "advocacy and research" of battling copyright law expansion. Why this is good is hopefully apparent. It's basic economics of the new millenium.
Basically, corporations believe that public knowledge of technology and processes is bad, because it's hard to make money off of something everyone can reproduce. This country is founded on democracy (good) but also has strong roots in free-market capitalism (mostly good). Making money is why we as a country are so well off, and people seek to maximize their money making. Public domain knowledge of technology and processes reduces the chance to make money because people will pay you more for something that only *you* can make, hence putting a premium on innovative AND proprietary information.
Lawmakers in a capitalist society are easily swayed by the corporations with their lobbying and donations, making it possible to influence law in their favor. In this case, copyright law, when expanded, better protects the information of corporations, making it harder for technology and processes to come into the public domain. In a society where money is so valued, any chance to make money by the corporations is often countered by ways to save money by the consumers.
We as consumers would love to see copyright law weakened rather than expanded because it increases the potential to save money. Also, there is a certain ideology in promoting the free sharing of thought, ideas, and technology for the betterment of society. So when someone donates money to the cause of actively opposing copyright law expansion, it serves to benefit us (the consumers).
But the real question is this: Why would someone do this? Certainly someone with a cool million lying around did something to make that money. What is to be gained by an individual donating that much money to a cause that has its roots in opposing the big corporation and "the man"? Likely, it isn't because it was just philosophically the "right thing to do".
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I can understand the argument that the economic policy might be considered unfair, but I think that China might be trying to extensively control the software that their government uses for legitimate reasons, mostly having to do with security. Our government essentially did the same thing for years before the proliferation of Microsoft. By developing all of their software internally, our government essentially closed the market on software it used. This was okay for us, because we hired American workers to develop this software, so it had virtually no negative economic impact on the US.
Let's put this simply: US software companies don't want to get shut out of a potentially huge market that has a legitimate reason for staying closed. If US software comanies want to compete for Chinese government contracts, there's going to have to be huge negotitations with the US giving up a lot to get a share of the Chinese market.
If someone views that public data, how are they invading your privacy?
Consider this metaphor: Someone is talking very quietly on their cellphone in a public park. If someone sits on the bench beside me and intently starts listening in on my conversation, at what point does that person's actions become an invasion of my privacy?
You're getting caught up in the semantic differences between "public data" and "privacy". "Public data" is simply defined as information that can be obtained legally and freely. "Privacy" though means different things in the literal, personal, and legal senses. And then we wonder about exactly what it means to "invade" one's privacy. Regardless of whether the data about me is public or not, if someone learns something about me I don't want them to know, I can consider that an "invasion of privacy".
Remember, unions only work if everyone buys into them. Join the game developer's union, pay your dues, and you can no longer work for an game shop who hires non-union developers. (If a company is able to find non union workers to replace you, they will!) In exchange, you get guaranteed working hours and/or compensated overtime. Welcome to the clock in/clock out daily grind where minutes must be accounted for. It's all part of the collective bargaining aggreements that the union lawyers and leaders hammer out with each individual company that hires game developers.
Basically it comes down to this: Companies don't like unions. It forces them to work within the stipulations of the CBA's, which can be very restrictive and cost-prohibitive. Employees don't want to *have* to work under the shield of a union. It severely magnifies the lens under which they work, and every action becomes scrutinized. They have to stick behind union decisions, whether they agree with them or not. Employers and employees are benefitted more from working together under mutual conditions. In most areas of software development, this is what happens. In the cases of a few specific companies (like EA) they take advantage of their employees. In this case, a class-action suit will soon sort it out. Yes, it's true that unions are established to prevent worker exploitation, but if you explain to everyone in our industry everything that is involved with establishing a union, you will find very little support.
Hrm... how about that both technologies started as chic geek projects and are now exploited by corporate interests?
I seriously doubt that one can simply swap word for word this story with that of the coal miners. Coal miners 100 years ago risked their lives in extremely unsafe conditions. They were barely able to provide for their families earning the best of wages, and when they died in the mines, there was no compensation given to the families. Puh leez.
Lots of reasons why, actually. Basically, a person with a good paying job isn't going to start or join a union. No reason to. A person out of work would have problems starting a union - no support from a majority of the employed workers who, despite the article, are not disgruntled with 80+ hours a week of work. And of course, there's the fear of losing one's job, the fear of companies outsourcing, etc. The truth is that a software dev's union will probably never happen because a majority of software devs are willing to work within the current walls of industry.
Ugh. So many thoughts and feelings about this. Part of me sympathizes. I've been there and done that, and it sucks. But at the same time, video games have evolved into this multi billion dollar industry, and corporate interests want a piece of the pie. And there's little that can be done to stop them: big budget advertising, financial strong-arming, existing business partnerships - all tools that can be used to put a stranglehold on the industry. The cold hard truth is that game development is no longer the chic nerd job. It's no longer the job that people want because it's fun. It's become corporate just like everything else.
Maybe Lucas wants to prove that he can create something worse than Episodes I and II.
Answer: You can't
From the US Patent Office Website:
A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc., as has been said, and not upon the idea or suggestion of the new machine. A complete description of the actual machine or other subject matter for which a patent is sought is required.
The patent that was filed in 1999 is an approved and recognized patent for an "Apparatus and method for enhancing the performance of personal computers". It's basically an accelerator board that creates a "phase relationship" between the clock signals from the system board and accelerator board. In order for them to win the lawsuit, they have to prove that Intel did in fact use this exact method to achieve some sort of signal acceleration and sold it without license. The $500 million sum is probably a maximum amount, so that if they win the suit, the actual damages will fall within that amount. Seems to me it will be hard to prove that Intel crossed that fine line between patent infringement and the usage of common theory and practice.
It seems pretty obvious that that would be the case. Imagine 5 computer programmers, worked together through the dotcom bubble, with high-paying secured jobs. Life was good - not terribly swamped in work, maybe surfed the web a little too much on the job, but still managed to get work done. The programmers, being the introvert sort, never really speak up about how their jobs were important, that what they were doing really mattered to the company. No need to - they did their work and the company was doing well. They just assumed that other people understood that they were contributing.
Then the bubble bursts, economy's hurting everyone, layoffs start at the big companies. Our 5 programmers aren't worried - their small company is still running strong.
Suddenly two bad quarters in a row, sales are down, cashflow gets weak, and suddenly the company is worried about being able to write everyone's paychecks. 2 of our 5 programmers, who might have had 2 or 3 bad marks (previously thought of as "minor") on their performance reviews, get canned. Our 3 remaining programmers start thinking, "Oh crap! I could be next!" Suddenly there's a real push for productivity and visibility from our programmers. Not only were they doing %40 more work, but they now make sure everyone knows about it.
Wouldn't you?
Scary thing is, if a company can scare employees into working harder with laying off a few, seemingly overpaid pieces of "deadwood", it certainly make business sense.
Hits a little too close to home for some readers out there, doesn't it?
-AAAWalrus
Basically, the problem is that big movie accounting, much like big business accounting (a la Enron) has become the modern day "alchemy". With terms like gross points, net earnings, and loosely defined "profits", movie accounting provides millions of obfuscated legal terms to confuse the contractees such that no money gets paid.
The idea that a blockbuster movie like Spiderman made no profit seems ludicrous, but on paper, accountants paint a different picture. It sounds like Stan Lee signed a contract that would get him a percentage of the "adjusted gross". "Adjusted gross" is a movie mumbo-jumbo term that basically means "what's left over after everyone gets paid", which almost always comes out to be absolutely nothing.
Had Stan Lee been smart, and had the legal clout to pull it off, he should have tried for "gross points". "Gross points" are where the real money lives, and the types of contracts that grant gross points are usually reserved for the big name producers, big-wig movie execs, and A-list movie stars. Basically gross points are percentage points of the overall revenues that a movie brings in, before anything else happens to money - before expenses, before taxes, before the studios gets their checks.
My guess is that Marvel had a deal that would grant them something like half a gross point (which is actually a lot), and Stan Lee's contract was with Marvel (not the movie studio) which would give him a percentage of that cut deemed "profitable". The problem is that Marvel's own number crunchers probably account for every penny of that revenue granted by the movie studio, leaving nothing left for Mr. Lee, because there are no operating "profits".
It comes down to legal terminology in the actual contract, which is probably written to legally protect Marvel and the studios from the type of lawsuit that Stan Lee is seeking, and they will probably try to have the case dismissed based on legal precedent. (Hollywood sees this type of thing all the time) IANAL, but it seems like Mr. Lee's primary defense is that he was misled by the contract into thinking he would get a share of the actual *revenue*, not the *profits*.
-AAAWalrus
Microsoft, like any other mega-corp, continues to seek ways to increase revenue with increased customer base. The US market hasn't completely dried up (in terms of *new* users), but it isn't the hotbed of growth it was during the early 90's. Newer, more capable, and more stable products, compounded with steady high prices means that people don't feel they have to do a software upgrade of their computer every year or two.
The growth is in foreign markets, primarily in Europe and Southeast Asia. So Microsoft has two goals - continue to maintain marketshare in the US, and increase marketshare in Europe. The problem Microsoft runs into is that many countries are a virtually clean slate, untainted by Best Buys and Wal Marts selling almost entirely Windows software. With Open Source permeating so much of the internet as a "free alternative to Microsoft", Microsoft has to discredit Open Source and convince people that it's worth their Euros and Yen to buy Microsoft stuff. None of this is new, and there is little the Open Source community can do to stop Microsoft from doing whatever it will do anyway, except continue to develop solid, usable technology.
Microsoft is fighting a different kind of battle - the opponent isn't one they can buy out, sue, or place a heavy financial lean on. This is both good and bad for the open source movement. Open source advocates can't be directly targeted by Microsoft, and it provides Microsoft with a moving target. But open source also has no unified body to directly organize a challenge against Microsoft - it all has to be done from the developers up.
None of the stuff in that report should come as a surprise. The problem is that there is no organized entity to act on it. There is no one person who can stand up and mandate that all of Open Source must execute one course of action.
As long as people can continue to develop good technology, use it in practice, scour the web as advocates, and spread the word that people don't *have* to use Microsoft, eventually the undecided parties will get informed about the choice that Microsoft doesn't want them to have.
-AAAWalrus
It seems to me that because PanIP is targeting small businesses who cannot afford to properly defend themselves in court, it could, in fact, be seen as legal extortion. Perhaps there is an effective legal defense tool in that alone - that PanIP targets small comapanies because large companies would be more willing to take it to trial and poke a hole in the patent claim, possibly getting it revoked altogether. Is there anyone who knows enough legalese to say whether or not the plaintiff's targeting of small "defenseless" companies is grounds for an effective defense in and of itself?
For example, a lawyer could try to argue parallelism between BarnesAndNoble.com and DeBrand's, pointing out in minute detail the exact similarities between the two companies and their online sales technology, arguing that if one is in violation of the patent, then the other is definitively as well? By drawing common ground of the defendants' being "small cap" companies, why then target them? Is this possible grounds for dismissal or defense of any kind?
-AAAWalrus
PS - DeBrand's chocolates are nothing short of amazingly tasty. You see them around quite a bit in Indiana, and they're hard to pass up. If this pans out in favor of the good guys, it would be tasty justice indeed!
In Indiana, this already exists. Basically, our law states that if you've registered to be blocked from telemarketing, no one can telemarket to your phone unless they are a registered local fundraiser (i.e. Volunteer Fire Dept, etc) or a company you already do business with. In other words, Citibank could call be to offer me the latest services for my credit card. Kinda bites, because Citi is one of the worst for me when it comes to telemarketing. But I don't get any more offers to change my long distance service, thank goodness.
-AAAWalrus
>What is great about to have yet another way to kill people?
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I never read anything that said solid state lasers would be used as anti-personnel weapons. I read that they would be used for defense, with the abilty to remove live missiles and mortars. Which, if you think about it, is a way to reduce the risk of loss of human life going into war.
Basically, these would be used as a defense mechanism in conventional war. Contrary to popular belief, military objectives during conventional war are not to inflict human casualties, but to eliminate the threat in the most efficient way possible. Loss of life does happen, however, and any effort to reduce the loss of life during war would be applauded, I would think.
-AAAWalrus
As far as I can tell, ".NET" is Microsoft's latest creation of an obfuscated buzzword that is their newest attempt at making a new technology the "standard" for desktop operating systems. It started out as a nifty idea that is being blown to Microsoft-marketing-department proportions.
.NET components. It's supposed to replace COM, eliminate "DLL Hell", allow "secure" components be presented to the web, and have high performance.
.NET enabled (Windows XP comes with the .NET runtime installed).
.NET?", the more interesting question is, "If nobody understands what .NET is supposed to accomplish, how is Microsoft going to sell it?" Also, I'd like to know what (not if!) anti-competitive devices have been built into the .NET platform by Microsoft.
As far I can tell, it's simply a virtual machine that uses a common-language-runtime (CLR) to allow multiple languages to interact with each other via the VM with just-in-time (JIT) compiling of native
Ultimately, what you have is a cool VM technology that runs exclusively on Windows machines that are
With so many people asking "What is
How do you see the current weak economy affecting the IT industry today? Is the lack of corporate spending hurting the number of jobs, increasing the workload of IT professionals, or reducing the amount of technology brought into the modern workplace? Or is it merely affecting where companies choose to spend their dollars? (such as Linux instead of Solaris or Windows, open source instead of closed source, new faster hardware or older, not-as-fast but adequate hardware)
People have established that Microsoft isn't attacking hackers directly. If you want to open up your xbox and piss on the circuits, BillyBorg can't stop you. If you manufacture and sell commercially a means to circumvent or alter their code, they can. The real question is, why?
Basically, MS could care less about someone making money doing this. What they really care about is what this enables. A commercial outfit, manufacturing and selling components *enables* virtually all people to purchase xboxes with the *intent* of using them for alternate purposes. If they leave hack-shops unchecked for long, they have basically allowed a competing market to develop against what they really want to sell - games and service.
If I want to purchase an xbox because I want to mod it AND I know I can just buy a chip online with ease, Microsoft would rather not sell me the xbox in the first place. Since they can't discriminate against buyers, they can make it more difficult for me to purchase a chip. Microsoft is not targetting the hardcore hackers. If you want to hack an xbox that badly and you have the skills, you'll do it. Who they *are* targetting is the average Joe Sixpack who buys an xbox. If he buys it and later sees he can easily purchase and install a mod to do things like play pirated games or run a webserver, Microsoft has just lost marketshare in the market that counts.
THAT's what they are trying to stop. Not hacking, but the widespread usage of manufactured mods by average users.
I'll bet most parents today would advocate a game like D&D that promotes actual problem-solving and creativity over trigger-finger-reaction games. Just another sign of the times.
"Timmy, why don't you play a nice wholesome game like Dungeons and Dragons with the kid next door instead of making his head explode like a blood sausage with a sniper rifle? There's a good boy."
-the walrus
The decline of arcades is not because of "the man" keeping the violent game-playing kids out of trouble in the malls, it's because arcade games just aren't the profitable business they were 15 years ago. (Arcades are SO 1980's!) I remember when I was a kid, arcades were a big deal because I never had a console. Even the friends who did have Ataris and Nintendos liked the arcades because they had higher quality games. So, it was worth a special trip to the mall to play "Altered Beast" or "Mortal Kombat".
Arcade games now are played more for the novelty than the experience. With the exception of maybe multiplayer racing games with cockpits, racing wheels, and gas pedals, games on todays home consoles are much higher quality, don't require rolls and rolls of quarters, and don't require a trip to the mall or the local pizza joint. The only reason I have to play a coin-op today is because there just happens to be one in the place I'm grabbing a burger, not because I'm going out of my way to play them. And if I see Galaxian sitting next to the latest version of Virtua Fighter, chances are I'm playing Galaxian, because I want a fun, simple game I don't have to pump 20 quarters in to master.
Again, I don't think the majority of readers here are worried about what this means for arcades. It's just an unfortunate nail in the coffin. What people *should* be worried about is how far the advocates of banning violent games will take this - internet cafes, online content, what is sold in the local Best Buy?
-the walrus
>IBM has made a ton of money on databases
That's about right. DB2 is an integral part of IBM's solutions platforms, and they make a lot of money on that software. You'll never hear an IBM "consultant" say, "Oh yeah, to reduce cost, I recommend this free database technology over buying 250 seats for our DB2 platform." Three reasons:
1) Licensing fees for DB2 are a significant source of revenue.
2) Professional installation of DB2 on IBM hardware is a significant source of revenue.
3) Custom integration of DB2 is a significant source of revenue.
IBM can make extremely good arguments about why DB2 is technologically superior product to MySQL, but it's extremely difficult to argue its cost-effectiveness, which they never did in that article (that I could see).
Besides, when you're talking about providing solutions, open-source often fights uphill battles against the "more expensive is better" and "we must spend our entire budget" attitudes.
-AAAWalrus
So, wireless network connectivity points aren't free in and of themselves. You have to pay for the equipment, you have to pay for the service, and you have to have dependable points to serve as wireless hubs, not to mention people to provide at least minimal maintenance on the thing. The advertising juggernaut that was thought to pay for the dotcom success has shown that online advertising doesn't work too well. NetZero no longer provides unlimited advertising-subsidized connectivity free to the end user due to the lack of effectiveness of online advertising. Convincing advertisers to foot the bill for something like this is unlikely to work. What *might* work is highly localized advertising informing locals of events/special deals/promotional offers - the kind of things college kids go for. Unfortunately, convincing local businesses of the cost effectiveness of providing free services to already cash-strapped college kids is not likely. And truth be told, local businesses are just as likely to make money from stapling posters to light poles on well-walked street corners.
But if the idea is to simply get a free wireless service in a 4 block area of Bloomington (or whichever college town in Indiana you're in), you'd probably have better luck knocking on the doors of the University, rich alumni, or even City Hall. You'd have a much easier time convincing these people that free wireless internet is a worthwile service for the college community rather than trying to convince businesses that money is to be made through advertising. Heck, businesses might be willing to *donate* money to an wireless portal they can use themselves rather than buy into some sales pitch about how advertising will generate higher sales.
A 1 year warranty? Sounds like that kind of sucks. Basically they are saying that they really don't expect their drives to last longer than a year, or else they would leave it at a 3 year warranty. I know I personally have had 2 hard drives (Western Digital) replaced by warranty, both around 2 years old when they died. That warranty is worth a lot more than many people think.
Would a company buy 160GB drives for its servers if it only had a 1 year warranty? Prolly not, since shortened warranties imply lower quality, which is more of an enemy than high prices and lower capacity, since such a premium is placed on data reliance. Granted, tape backups are in place to help reduce data loss, but still, one year? Any time you have to restore from tape, you're losing *some* data and more importantly, time. Increasing the probability of hardware failure, despite safeguards, is a bad bad thing.
Maybe I'm only one of a few who appreciates the warranty on a hard drive, but I've saved a few hundred bucks because of them, and longer warranties certainly increase the confidence of a consumer that a piece of hardware is backed by the manufacturer.
-AAAWalrus
I dunno about anyone else, but I don't understand what you just said. Telecommunications companies trying to "devalue the entertainment industry"? Why? What "exclusive content"? What does this have to do with copyright law?
You've made my brain hurt with your conspiracy mumbo jumbo.
Basically, you have a donor who "anonymously" threw $1 million at Duke to fund "advocacy and research" of battling copyright law expansion. Why this is good is hopefully apparent. It's basic economics of the new millenium.
Basically, corporations believe that public knowledge of technology and processes is bad, because it's hard to make money off of something everyone can reproduce. This country is founded on democracy (good) but also has strong roots in free-market capitalism (mostly good). Making money is why we as a country are so well off, and people seek to maximize their money making. Public domain knowledge of technology and processes reduces the chance to make money because people will pay you more for something that only *you* can make, hence putting a premium on innovative AND proprietary information.
Lawmakers in a capitalist society are easily swayed by the corporations with their lobbying and donations, making it possible to influence law in their favor. In this case, copyright law, when expanded, better protects the information of corporations, making it harder for technology and processes to come into the public domain. In a society where money is so valued, any chance to make money by the corporations is often countered by ways to save money by the consumers.
We as consumers would love to see copyright law weakened rather than expanded because it increases the potential to save money. Also, there is a certain ideology in promoting the free sharing of thought, ideas, and technology for the betterment of society. So when someone donates money to the cause of actively opposing copyright law expansion, it serves to benefit us (the consumers).
But the real question is this: Why would someone do this? Certainly someone with a cool million lying around did something to make that money. What is to be gained by an individual donating that much money to a cause that has its roots in opposing the big corporation and "the man"? Likely, it isn't because it was just philosophically the "right thing to do".
-AAAWalrus