Rather than IBM saying it will never attack Linux with patents, I would rather they say that they'll *defend* Linux and some open source projects with their patents.
In fact as patents become a bigger and bigger shadow over software, groups like Novell, IBM and maybe Sun should look at building some sort of defensive patent system for major open source projects.
Although I imagine that if a company has invested enough in an open source project that it'll spring to its defence anyway, a la IBM defending the kernel from SCO.
I reckon Nintendo shares are traded on the stock market. I am not sure how much of Nintendo Yamauchi owns, but if the "Super Gamecube" is a flop then investors might be only too happy to sell their shares to Gates.
Enter the Matrix is a good example why this is a good idea. Atari could have put anything out and earned a fortune. In fact this is done with many brands - back in my gaming hay day THQ were infamous for this.
It's a great idea, as it protects the brand by discouraging game publishers trying to make a quick buck.
Lots of people know this, but for those who don't a program called Alien can convert packages from RPMs to DEBs etc. http://www.kitenet.net/programs/alien/
It's not just dignity that's lost. Its control over what you want to do.
Windows software protects itself from its users.
This is a fundamental difference with Linux et al. Where the user is seen as number one.
Nintendo "hiding in it's niche market" keeps it being out Playstation 2ed by Sony. The Console industry is so big these days that it can hold 2 or maybe 3 players.
At least Nintendo knows the market segment it's aiming at (budget[ish] gaming for younger kids) - XBOX at the moment is trying to do everything for everyone and not being all that successful at it - despite millions spent (and lost).
For those who don't know much about the EU's competition commisioner - he is a tough cookie and isn't afraid to take on large companies.
Look at what he did to Nintendo recently and also the $45bn GE and Honeywell merger - which he basically stopped - even thought the US would have allowed it. The last case shows what the competition commision thinks about "consistency".
The founder, long term investors, long term employees etc. would most likely instigate long-term contracts
That's the message from the article - that those companies with founders are to some extent interested in the long term growth of their companies
I know people have got burnt recently - they've been deceived, uneducated and frankly stupid. But the market works in the long term - look at a graph of any stockmarket over 50 years and you'll see it goes up and up
i am a management student - cringely has got a point.
managers are only interested in their stock options / bonuses while they are still at the company. it's only *rational* that they think short term.
in a speculative environment, shareholders may not even care about the longer term (look back at the last few years).
the solution should be to make management's incentives longer term.
e.g. stipulate contracts which delay the stock related payment of a manager for X years after he has left the company.
i suggest beginning by teaching english (as english teachers are always in short supply). suss out the place, get to know the language, then apply for technically oriented jobs.
good luck.
The main point though, is that people in china (and developing countries) simply can't afford spending a couple of hundred dollars on software. Therefore piracy.
Slashdot Mirror
Chess was also frowned upon in England around the 12th and 13th centuries by the Catholic church.
Rather than IBM saying it will never attack Linux with patents, I would rather they say that they'll *defend* Linux and some open source projects with their patents.
In fact as patents become a bigger and bigger shadow over software, groups like Novell, IBM and maybe Sun should look at building some sort of defensive patent system for major open source projects.
Although I imagine that if a company has invested enough in an open source project that it'll spring to its defence anyway, a la IBM defending the kernel from SCO.
I reckon Nintendo shares are traded on the stock market. I am not sure how much of Nintendo Yamauchi owns, but if the "Super Gamecube" is a flop then investors might be only too happy to sell their shares to Gates.
But the GUI sucks. giFt (with the fastrack plugin) and apollon kick ass.
If I buy a game, and I know that I can get X% percent back by selling it second hand if it's crap etc. Then I'll buy more *new* games!
Plus most people I know sell their games in order to buy new ones. It's a win win situation!
Enter the Matrix is a good example why this is a good idea. Atari could have put anything out and earned a fortune. In fact this is done with many brands - back in my gaming hay day THQ were infamous for this.
It's a great idea, as it protects the brand by discouraging game publishers trying to make a quick buck.
Lots of people know this, but for those who don't a program called Alien can convert packages from RPMs to DEBs etc. http://www.kitenet.net/programs/alien/
The race to get next gen machines to market begins now!
It's not just dignity that's lost. Its control over what you want to do. Windows software protects itself from its users. This is a fundamental difference with Linux et al. Where the user is seen as number one.
How can Mario Kart 64 be more popular than Super MK. Super MK is the best game ever. MK64 is the worst in the series...
Nintendo "hiding in it's niche market" keeps it being out Playstation 2ed by Sony. The Console industry is so big these days that it can hold 2 or maybe 3 players.
At least Nintendo knows the market segment it's aiming at (budget[ish] gaming for younger kids) - XBOX at the moment is trying to do everything for everyone and not being all that successful at it - despite millions spent (and lost).
Games are about winning.
That's the problem with open ended games - there's little adrenaline and they become tedious.
Wrong!
As far as I understand Nashes approach was a wholey rational one.
This neural science approach ackowledges that people aren't rational and tries to explain why.
flash is an option - install is quick and painless.
... and does anyone know for sure what it's good for yet ?!? :P
Ask Jeeves should know what it wants to provide.
If its a search engine then people will get pissed off at getting results not based on quality, but on dollars spent with Jeeves.
Customer satisfaction will plummet - if it can plummet any lower.
For those who don't know much about the EU's competition commisioner - he is a tough cookie and isn't afraid to take on large companies.
Look at what he did to Nintendo recently and also the $45bn GE and Honeywell merger - which he basically stopped - even thought the US would have allowed it. The last case shows what the competition commision thinks about "consistency".
beer, cigarettes and petrol are taxes are huge in the UK - don't blame the companies, blame your government.
but then again maybe it's better to have less beer, cigarettes and petrol :):)
Who is going to do that?
The founder, long term investors, long term employees etc. would most likely instigate long-term contracts
That's the message from the article - that those companies with founders are to some extent interested in the long term growth of their companies
I know people have got burnt recently - they've been deceived, uneducated and frankly stupid. But the market works in the long term - look at a graph of any stockmarket over 50 years and you'll see it goes up and up
in fact markets have become astoundingly jumpy and irrational - whether in recent boom or bust times.
things will settle soon enough, and we can get back to longer term investment - rather than the recent (last 10 years) spate of speculation.
i am a management student - cringely has got a point. managers are only interested in their stock options / bonuses while they are still at the company. it's only *rational* that they think short term. in a speculative environment, shareholders may not even care about the longer term (look back at the last few years). the solution should be to make management's incentives longer term. e.g. stipulate contracts which delay the stock related payment of a manager for X years after he has left the company.
i suggest beginning by teaching english (as english teachers are always in short supply). suss out the place, get to know the language, then apply for technically oriented jobs. good luck.
i would gladly give up my (offline) life for broadband - seems i already have...
The main point though, is that people in china (and developing countries) simply can't afford spending a couple of hundred dollars on software. Therefore piracy.