Basically, Microsoft is letting this happen, because it means that the world's most popular and well-deployed browser, with 90+% of the market share, is suddenly not just not supporting plug-ins, but specifically not supporting plug-ins for Flash and Java.
This means that Flash and Java are no longer ubiquitous ways to distribute web applications and advertisements. It also kills any momentum that SVG might be building up, and reduces the use of PDF files as a means of distribution. Microsoft couldn't be happier about such an announcement.
It buys Microsoft time, by being the "good guys" legally and gaining good press, to actually write their own dynamic-web-animation system, all built in their own proprietary VB or JScript API, eliminating the need for Flash and SVG and all that entirely. And of course opening up a tremendous amount of new security holes for/. to report on.
They want this to happen. They want the web world to not be dependent on Java and Flash and all that stuff. And now this patent suit is giving them what they want and still making them smell like a rose when they do it...
No, the public domain still exists, such as copyright regs recognize it. The issue is that the PTO doesn't acknowledge it. The Law still does, but it'll cost you an arm and leg (or the equiv of 24 gallons of gas at current california prices) to prove it.
There's the PTO and the Law. The Law overrules the PTO at all times, provided you're willing to pay for it.
As I've posted time and again on every "patent on prior art" Slashdot post since 2000 at least: the PTO has gone on record (including in an interview here at slashdot a couple of years ago) to say that the only source they have or use for Prior Art investigations is their own database. If a patent application has been filed on it, there's prior art. If it hasn't, then there isn't any prior art and it never existed before.
The PTO just automatically assumes that anything one person feels worthy of patenting is something that everybody else should have felt it worthy.
That's it. No google, no interviews with field experts, nothing. If a patent's been filed, there's prior art. If not, then it passes the "new" test.
The steam engine was developed before thermodynamics but it wasn't built before the equations of water->steam were figured out. It was built on science first. Joseph Black (a Scot) discovered the specifics of water's latent heat, in order to help Scotch whiskey makers conserve fuel and ice. He was an assistant to James Watt, and Watt used Black's numbers in order to fix the problems with Neukeman's water pump (being used in the tin mines off the Cornish coast), and in doing so, created the steam engine. And the whole issue of the pump was using the (scietifically proven through invention of the barometer) vaccuum pump in the first place.
Watt couldn't have done it without the science spcifically the heat chemistry of water and the discovery of the vaccuum. Science did lead engineering in this case.
the "spirit" of a document means nothing to the law. the letter of the document does. intentions are all good and well, but are secondary to the legalize and the way the lawyers on either side interpret it and present it to judge and jury. only in hollywood do contracts mean more or less than what they say.
Linus and Stallman have no trump cards. If GPL is invalid, Stallman will rewrite the invalid items as best he (and FSF's counsel) can to keep the spirit intact, and all FSF software will move to GPL 3.0 (its at 2.0 now, b.t.w.).
SCO: If IBM were serious about addressing the real problems with Linux, it would offer full customer indemnification and move away from the GPL license.
Sanity: Guh?! Since when is the GPL license the problem - even if SCO's claims did prove to be true? And how exactly does IBM "move away" from the software license under which their primary operating system is distributed?
I don't think IBM considers linux their "primary" operating system at this point. At any rate, "move away" in SCO's terms I think really means to move away from Linux entirely and go back to solely distributing products based in AIX, to which IBM would have to continue to pay SCO for. Its a statement that's certainly not in IBMs best interests, but certainly is in SCO's.
Yeah, but IBM isn't using its patents against SCO's Linux distro?
The fun part about patents is that one can selectively apply/enforce them (give or take GPL restrictions; i can't remember what the GPL patent policy is and i'm not in the mood to re-read the legalize right now). This is different from copyright and trademarks, where failure to enforce with one infringer may set bad precedents when followup infringement is alleged. Copyrights are safer in this, in that a copyright holder can apply a license retroactively to the infringer they didn't care about. Trademarks are more risky -- you don't enforce it once and you can lose it entirely.
IP isn't one thing. Trademark, Patents, and Copyrights are all different.
I really thing RedHat was suing for one purpose : to get through subpoena (and thus, free of the Non-Disclosure agreements) the specific code samples out of SCO that they refuse to release publically themselves.
RedHat's lawsuit can probably get that information far faster than the IBM case would be able to. And as soon as RedHat has it without the NDA, they'll publish it up front and give IBM, Linus & Alan, and the community the time to remove the code if its really infringing and replace it.
Similar "beat the bootleggers at their own game" techniques have been enacted by Marillion, Fish, Asia, Steve Hackett, and King Crimson, over the last few years, and the real beauty of a work now is being done by Phish, the Who, and Peter Gabriel, who all have legal means of acquiring sound-board quality cds at reasonable prices ($25 / show) of their recent summer tours.
1) The "borrowing" model reminds me of the Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice bit in the climax of Trading Spaces (Murphy/Ackroyd).
2) The record labels do have one function that makes them a "necessary evil" : tour support. Bands can't really break into a national scene without playing outside of their regions, and that in America gets *expensive*.
Even a modestly popular and established band like Marillion, who when they tour small clubs selling out 600-1200 seaters throughout the states, will *lose* $30,000. Generally, that $30K is covered by the record label (part of a secondary "advance"), who account for it in the hopes that it will be made up for in increased record sales due to the promotion.
3) There's one other Force against Nature in all of this, one whose legal budget alone is worth more than Snapster could ever hope to raise : ASCAP. They won't go for this. ASCAP wants to and WILL take a cut from every copy, not just the original purchase.
In the example of a clothing store in a shopping mall playing the local top 40 station, ASCAP collects first from the station's purchase of the CD, second from the radio station's own broadcast license, and third from the clothing store itself to have a "public performance" license.
Out of an annual income of $8.6 billion, ASCAP claims to give 84% of all its income to the copyright holders. Sounds great, until you realize just how many lawyers can be bought with 16% of 8 billion dollars...With less than one year's "profits", ASCAP could buy controlling interest in Snapster 2.0 and shut it down in a heartbeat. Or just sue it into oblivion until a broadcast license rate is reached that makes operating it prohibitive.
As in, if you want to bike the mountains for exercise, head up the hills near San Diego to the Palomar observatory.
While in San Diego, bike through Balboa Park and hit the Zoo ('cause its there) and the Air and Space museum.
In DC, in a few months time, you can bike 20 miles down the W & OD trail (a former railroad track now a paved park a total of 47 miles long) to go from downtown to the new Air and Space Museum annex located near Dulles Airport. It's where the Air France Concorde that just made its last flight will sit, among other things.
I know of both of these (Smart Tag in VA certainly has the shorter lines, though not the discounts). In particular its $1.25 vs. $2.00 for the Deleware stretch if I-95. Technically , Deleware also has the left lane for EZPass only, but its unenforced and still backs up like the rest, with 9 cars in 10 trying to get out of the EZPass booths at the last second.
For some, like my friend I mentioned before, the shorter lines aren't worth the difference. That's his value judgement, not mine, and certainly not typical, but present none-the-less.
Termination does result in a refund of unused money, minus a minor handling fee, but that's not the real problem.
The problem is that its being treated as a utility program like your water and electric bill, but charged as a pay-first mechanism. You pay $25, they deduct as you use it.
Meanwhile, their coffers collect interest on the amount you aren't using that they're holding. They are collecting interest on YOUR money, interest you are NOT collecting, nor is it being applied to your account. If it were a matter of establishing proper credit (the utilities don't need a deposit if your credit is good), then why aren't they using credit cards to accept final payment? The credit card alone should be *some* sign that the credit is good, even if they don't want to do a full credit check.
The trouble is that the states want their tax money first, and didn't establish a relationship with EZ-Pass (or SmartTag in VA) that allowed those companies to maintain an opening debt to the state until such time as enough money is collected up at the end of the month to cover the bill THEY receive from the state. The states wouldn't accept that kind of a deal because they themselves are all in too much debt.
I accepted this crapola of pre-payments, but I have friends who refuse to, and continue to shell out quarters rather than let some independent company collect interest on money that isn't theirs.
Why does it matter that users hate micropayments? Because users are the ones with the money, and micropayments do not take user preferences into account. [...]
To summarize, when the cost of clicking a link is only time (how long will it take to load that link on my 28.8 modem), its a relatively simple decision. When its both time and money, a judgement has to be made. Sure, for a penny a page, one might not worry about it, but nobody's going to make money on a penny a page, no matter what "they" say; that only works on click-rates the size of CNN, MSNBC, Slashdot, source-forge, etc. And even then, when they see "the bill", it'll be like getting their first credit card bill and having no idea just how much they "spent" online...then they'll be reconsidering each and every link and users don't want to do that.
Users surf or they don't. If you had to pay a per-minute charge for doing real surfing in the pacific ocean, you wouldn't surf, so (extending the metaphore) why would you do it at home? There's a reason AOL and all the other ISPs got rid of their traditional per-minute charges and people buy cell phone and long-distance plans with max minutes instead of per-minute charging; the variable at the end of the month isn't worth the hassle.
Actually, it depends on the extent of the (highly unlikely) victory. If they only win on the specific "lines of code" that IBM took, then IBM pays a negligable amount (by IBM standards) and IBM rewrites the code (or has someone else do it). If IBM settles out of court, nothing changes, so a new court case would have to come up to prove McBride's idiocy.
If they win the big one, the "linux is a derivative" claim (unlikely given the precedent set in the BSD case), then they would be within their rights to overrule Linus and change the license to the 2.4 kernel. The GPL would be irrelevant because any distribution of 2.4 under the GPL was already established as an illegal distribution. Copyright holders can (and do; look at XP vs the old win98 system) change the licenses for products.
It still mystifies me why IBM isn't doing anything at this point.
One thing to remember, even post-2000: IBM is SLOW. Every move is calculated, weighed, optioned, signed off by multiple layers of beauracracy, and conditioned in sherry casks, before actually being acted upon. They will make no move before they have to. Right now, they (still) don't have to, and it wouldn't help much, anyways 'cause McBride's an asshole and IBM is above all that. The bully will back down, or be taken down, but it'll happen on IBM's time because that's how IBM operates. IBM's had almost 50 years of being able to deal with this type of legal idiot; trust their experience.
Exactly...this is referred to in propaganda literature as "Proof by Repeated Assertions".
Basically, they know they aren't going to get all 2.4 million (and companies like IBM and RedHat) to pony up, but if it makes a buck or two from the 2000 or so idiots that don't read the details behind the headlines, well, that's a good $400,000+ (ave $200 / license) in income just by a single press release. Not a bad piece of marketting when it comes to cost/income differences.
Never said LAMP should be used for Enterprise actions. I even mentioned the current Enterprise heavyweight leaders (Oracle, IBM, Sun, BAE), all currently basing their offerings around J2EE technologies (or proprietary alternatives).
I was asserting that Microsoft wants to get the Enterprise App market, 'cause that's where the REALLY big bucks are, but are having difficulty making inroads into that because of their inability to even put a reasonable cost-effective alternative to LAMP.
The question is, what is the greatest threat to MS - Linux vs Windows?
Its LAMP vs. IIS/ASP/MSQL. Microsoft's standard web-server line and the Apache/P[erl|hp|ython]/MySQL combo are both relatively equal in capabilities, support, and stability. Its the one area where Free is more than worth it, FAR more.
Then there's the web admins' impressions. People aren't taking Microsoft seriously when they try to make inroads into the J2EE/Oracle domain with.NET when they can barely keep pace with such low-end free software.
In order to take on the web heavyweights like BEA, IBM, and Oracle, they need to show that they're better than the low-end free stuff like MySQL and Apache. And they aren't succeeding in that. Thus, Linux and friends is the current threat...its a threat to the future they REALLY want to control.
Re:CDBurners not the end for high-capacity Zip dri
on
DVD Burner Round-up
·
· Score: 1
From the original post: Gone are the days of storage floppies and zip drives...
My comment was a reply to that assertion of the original post, which tried to assert that cdburners were the reason for the drop in use of floppies and their related (ZIP) products.
CDBurners not the end for high-capacity Zip drives
on
DVD Burner Round-up
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The real reason zips are going away is the key-chain size USB storage device. Why carry around a 100meg disc and have to have a drive installed on both ends (or have to carry the drive itself around) when you can simply stick this pen-sized piece of plastic into the back of a USB port (one of the reasons new models have additional USB ports up front), and boom!, instant 32-256 meg filesystems.
The only significant delay was Windows 98 first edition and Win95, neither of which supported filesystems on USB devices. 98SE and beyond did, so once the majority of windows boxes moved on to 2K and XP, there was nothing stopping them.
The extras on the first release are the "preview" items, meaning those that don't (necessarilly) spoil the film.
The extras on the second release are the "good" ones, those that really go into depth just how this, that, and the other thing happened, spoilers be damned.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically, Microsoft is letting this happen, because it means that the world's most popular and well-deployed browser, with 90+% of the market share, is suddenly not just not supporting plug-ins, but specifically not supporting plug-ins for Flash and Java.
/. to report on.
This means that Flash and Java are no longer ubiquitous ways to distribute web applications and advertisements. It also kills any momentum that SVG might be building up, and reduces the use of PDF files as a means of distribution. Microsoft couldn't be happier about such an announcement.
It buys Microsoft time, by being the "good guys" legally and gaining good press, to actually write their own dynamic-web-animation system, all built in their own proprietary VB or JScript API, eliminating the need for Flash and SVG and all that entirely. And of course opening up a tremendous amount of new security holes for
They want this to happen. They want the web world to not be dependent on Java and Flash and all that stuff. And now this patent suit is giving them what they want and still making them smell like a rose when they do it...
No, the public domain still exists, such as copyright regs recognize it. The issue is that the PTO doesn't acknowledge it. The Law still does, but it'll cost you an arm and leg (or the equiv of 24 gallons of gas at current california prices) to prove it.
There's the PTO and the Law. The Law overrules the PTO at all times, provided you're willing to pay for it.
As I've posted time and again on every "patent on prior art" Slashdot post since 2000 at least: the PTO has gone on record (including in an interview here at slashdot a couple of years ago) to say that the only source they have or use for Prior Art investigations is their own database. If a patent application has been filed on it, there's prior art. If it hasn't, then there isn't any prior art and it never existed before.
The PTO just automatically assumes that anything one person feels worthy of patenting is something that everybody else should have felt it worthy.
That's it. No google, no interviews with field experts, nothing. If a patent's been filed, there's prior art. If not, then it passes the "new" test.
correction, Watt was Black's assistant, not the other way around.
and i'm only in the first few paragraphs...
The steam engine was developed before thermodynamics but it wasn't built before the equations of water->steam were figured out. It was built on science first. Joseph Black (a Scot) discovered the specifics of water's latent heat, in order to help Scotch whiskey makers conserve fuel and ice. He was an assistant to James Watt, and Watt used Black's numbers in order to fix the problems with Neukeman's water pump (being used in the tin mines off the Cornish coast), and in doing so, created the steam engine. And the whole issue of the pump was using the (scietifically proven through invention of the barometer) vaccuum pump in the first place.
Watt couldn't have done it without the science spcifically the heat chemistry of water and the discovery of the vaccuum. Science did lead engineering in this case.
the "spirit" of a document means nothing to the law. the letter of the document does. intentions are all good and well, but are secondary to the legalize and the way the lawyers on either side interpret it and present it to judge and jury. only in hollywood do contracts mean more or less than what they say.
Linus and Stallman have no trump cards. If GPL is invalid, Stallman will rewrite the invalid items as best he (and FSF's counsel) can to keep the spirit intact, and all FSF software will move to GPL 3.0 (its at 2.0 now, b.t.w.).
hadn't seen that before. my bad.
SCO: If IBM were serious about addressing the real problems with Linux, it would offer full customer indemnification and move away from the GPL license.
Sanity: Guh?! Since when is the GPL license the problem - even if SCO's claims did prove to be true? And how exactly does IBM "move away" from the software license under which their primary operating system is distributed?
I don't think IBM considers linux their "primary" operating system at this point. At any rate, "move away" in SCO's terms I think really means to move away from Linux entirely and go back to solely distributing products based in AIX, to which IBM would have to continue to pay SCO for. Its a statement that's certainly not in IBMs best interests, but certainly is in SCO's.
Yeah, but IBM isn't using its patents against SCO's Linux distro?
The fun part about patents is that one can selectively apply/enforce them (give or take GPL restrictions; i can't remember what the GPL patent policy is and i'm not in the mood to re-read the legalize right now). This is different from copyright and trademarks, where failure to enforce with one infringer may set bad precedents when followup infringement is alleged. Copyrights are safer in this, in that a copyright holder can apply a license retroactively to the infringer they didn't care about. Trademarks are more risky -- you don't enforce it once and you can lose it entirely.
IP isn't one thing. Trademark, Patents, and Copyrights are all different.
I really thing RedHat was suing for one purpose : to get through subpoena (and thus, free of the Non-Disclosure agreements) the specific code samples out of SCO that they refuse to release publically themselves.
RedHat's lawsuit can probably get that information far faster than the IBM case would be able to. And as soon as RedHat has it without the NDA, they'll publish it up front and give IBM, Linus & Alan, and the community the time to remove the code if its really infringing and replace it.
Similar "beat the bootleggers at their own game" techniques have been enacted by Marillion, Fish, Asia, Steve Hackett, and King Crimson, over the last few years, and the real beauty of a work now is being done by Phish, the Who, and Peter Gabriel, who all have legal means of acquiring sound-board quality cds at reasonable prices ($25 / show) of their recent summer tours.
1) The "borrowing" model reminds me of the Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice bit in the climax of Trading Spaces (Murphy/Ackroyd).
2) The record labels do have one function that makes them a "necessary evil" : tour support. Bands can't really break into a national scene without playing outside of their regions, and that in America gets *expensive*.
Even a modestly popular and established band like Marillion, who when they tour small clubs selling out 600-1200 seaters throughout the states, will *lose* $30,000. Generally, that $30K is covered by the record label (part of a secondary "advance"), who account for it in the hopes that it will be made up for in increased record sales due to the promotion.
3) There's one other Force against Nature in all of this, one whose legal budget alone is worth more than Snapster could ever hope to raise : ASCAP. They won't go for this. ASCAP wants to and WILL take a cut from every copy, not just the original purchase.
In the example of a clothing store in a shopping mall playing the local top 40 station, ASCAP collects first from the station's purchase of the CD, second from the radio station's own broadcast license, and third from the clothing store itself to have a "public performance" license.
Out of an annual income of $8.6 billion, ASCAP claims to give 84% of all its income to the copyright holders. Sounds great, until you realize just how many lawyers can be bought with 16% of 8 billion dollars...With less than one year's "profits", ASCAP could buy controlling interest in Snapster 2.0 and shut it down in a heartbeat. Or just sue it into oblivion until a broadcast license rate is reached that makes operating it prohibitive.
As in, if you want to bike the mountains for exercise, head up the hills near San Diego to the Palomar observatory.
While in San Diego, bike through Balboa Park and hit the Zoo ('cause its there) and the Air and Space museum.
In DC, in a few months time, you can bike 20 miles down the W & OD trail (a former railroad track now a paved park a total of 47 miles long) to go from downtown to the new Air and Space Museum annex located near Dulles Airport. It's where the Air France Concorde that just made its last flight will sit, among other things.
I know of both of these (Smart Tag in VA certainly has the shorter lines, though not the discounts). In particular its $1.25 vs. $2.00 for the Deleware stretch if I-95. Technically , Deleware also has the left lane for EZPass only, but its unenforced and still backs up like the rest, with 9 cars in 10 trying to get out of the EZPass booths at the last second.
For some, like my friend I mentioned before, the shorter lines aren't worth the difference. That's his value judgement, not mine, and certainly not typical, but present none-the-less.
Termination does result in a refund of unused money, minus a minor handling fee, but that's not the real problem.
The problem is that its being treated as a utility program like your water and electric bill, but charged as a pay-first mechanism. You pay $25, they deduct as you use it.
Meanwhile, their coffers collect interest on the amount you aren't using that they're holding. They are collecting interest on YOUR money, interest you are NOT collecting, nor is it being applied to your account. If it were a matter of establishing proper credit (the utilities don't need a deposit if your credit is good), then why aren't they using credit cards to accept final payment? The credit card alone should be *some* sign that the credit is good, even if they don't want to do a full credit check.
The trouble is that the states want their tax money first, and didn't establish a relationship with EZ-Pass (or SmartTag in VA) that allowed those companies to maintain an opening debt to the state until such time as enough money is collected up at the end of the month to cover the bill THEY receive from the state. The states wouldn't accept that kind of a deal because they themselves are all in too much debt.
I accepted this crapola of pre-payments, but I have friends who refuse to, and continue to shell out quarters rather than let some independent company collect interest on money that isn't theirs.
To summarize, when the cost of clicking a link is only time (how long will it take to load that link on my 28.8 modem), its a relatively simple decision. When its both time and money, a judgement has to be made. Sure, for a penny a page, one might not worry about it, but nobody's going to make money on a penny a page, no matter what "they" say; that only works on click-rates the size of CNN, MSNBC, Slashdot, source-forge, etc. And even then, when they see "the bill", it'll be like getting their first credit card bill and having no idea just how much they "spent" online...then they'll be reconsidering each and every link and users don't want to do that.
Users surf or they don't. If you had to pay a per-minute charge for doing real surfing in the pacific ocean, you wouldn't surf, so (extending the metaphore) why would you do it at home? There's a reason AOL and all the other ISPs got rid of their traditional per-minute charges and people buy cell phone and long-distance plans with max minutes instead of per-minute charging; the variable at the end of the month isn't worth the hassle.
Actually, it depends on the extent of the (highly unlikely) victory. If they only win on the specific "lines of code" that IBM took, then IBM pays a negligable amount (by IBM standards) and IBM rewrites the code (or has someone else do it). If IBM settles out of court, nothing changes, so a new court case would have to come up to prove McBride's idiocy.
If they win the big one, the "linux is a derivative" claim (unlikely given the precedent set in the BSD case), then they would be within their rights to overrule Linus and change the license to the 2.4 kernel. The GPL would be irrelevant because any distribution of 2.4 under the GPL was already established as an illegal distribution. Copyright holders can (and do; look at XP vs the old win98 system) change the licenses for products.
But IBM's not going to lose this one.
It still mystifies me why IBM isn't doing anything at this point.
One thing to remember, even post-2000: IBM is SLOW. Every move is calculated, weighed, optioned, signed off by multiple layers of beauracracy, and conditioned in sherry casks, before actually being acted upon. They will make no move before they have to. Right now, they (still) don't have to, and it wouldn't help much, anyways 'cause McBride's an asshole and IBM is above all that. The bully will back down, or be taken down, but it'll happen on IBM's time because that's how IBM operates. IBM's had almost 50 years of being able to deal with this type of legal idiot; trust their experience.
Exactly...this is referred to in propaganda literature as "Proof by Repeated Assertions".
Basically, they know they aren't going to get all 2.4 million (and companies like IBM and RedHat) to pony up, but if it makes a buck or two from the 2000 or so idiots that don't read the details behind the headlines, well, that's a good $400,000+ (ave $200 / license) in income just by a single press release. Not a bad piece of marketting when it comes to cost/income differences.
Never said LAMP should be used for Enterprise actions. I even mentioned the current Enterprise heavyweight leaders (Oracle, IBM, Sun, BAE), all currently basing their offerings around J2EE technologies (or proprietary alternatives).
I was asserting that Microsoft wants to get the Enterprise App market, 'cause that's where the REALLY big bucks are, but are having difficulty making inroads into that because of their inability to even put a reasonable cost-effective alternative to LAMP.
The question is, what is the greatest threat to MS - Linux vs Windows?
.NET when they can barely keep pace with such low-end free software.
Its LAMP vs. IIS/ASP/MSQL. Microsoft's standard web-server line and the Apache/P[erl|hp|ython]/MySQL combo are both relatively equal in capabilities, support, and stability. Its the one area where Free is more than worth it, FAR more.
Then there's the web admins' impressions. People aren't taking Microsoft seriously when they try to make inroads into the J2EE/Oracle domain with
In order to take on the web heavyweights like BEA, IBM, and Oracle, they need to show that they're better than the low-end free stuff like MySQL and Apache. And they aren't succeeding in that. Thus, Linux and friends is the current threat...its a threat to the future they REALLY want to control.
My comment was a reply to that assertion of the original post, which tried to assert that cdburners were the reason for the drop in use of floppies and their related (ZIP) products.
The real reason zips are going away is the key-chain size USB storage device. Why carry around a 100meg disc and have to have a drive installed on both ends (or have to carry the drive itself around) when you can simply stick this pen-sized piece of plastic into the back of a USB port (one of the reasons new models have additional USB ports up front), and boom!, instant 32-256 meg filesystems.
The only significant delay was Windows 98 first edition and Win95, neither of which supported filesystems on USB devices. 98SE and beyond did, so once the majority of windows boxes moved on to 2K and XP, there was nothing stopping them.
"Bleeding" works for me.
The extras on the first release are the "preview" items, meaning those that don't (necessarilly) spoil the film.
The extras on the second release are the "good" ones, those that really go into depth just how this, that, and the other thing happened, spoilers be damned.