You're assuming that Rouge had an authorized copy given to him/her by the top tier organization with permission, explicit or implicit, to distribute it. I doubt this. So it's closer to a case of an employee stealing a car from his employer and selling it. Or better, a truck driver working for a trucking company offering to sell you a brand new, in the box, TV.
I'm only saying that the copies were not released into the Public Domain, nor are they now authorized copies that anyone may freely distribute. I'm not condoning this, nor am I saying that anyone is going to escape the fallout from this discovery.
They were granted the patent, but it won't be enforceable because microsoft didn't disclose the prior art. What is particularly embarrassing and points to the fraudulence of MS is that the people who's names where on the patent were also on the IPv6 committee.
There should be a very stiff penalty for knowingly filing a fraudulent patent application. Both monetary, and being prohibited from filing for any other patents for a period of time sounds about right.
The concept of DRM is itself a kind of a kludge, until the media companies figure out what most of us already know: If they give us a product that we want at a reasonable price (to be determined by the market, not by a price-fixing cartel), MOST people will gladly pay.
I don't know how much it will minimize the wrath of Jobs, but it gives them the interoperability defense with regards to the DCMA (not that it worked with DeCSS).
I think my Centris 650 had sosumi, which is roughly contemporary with your 550? Do you still have the 550? I've still got my 650, or the carcass anyway. Most of the components have been scavenged for the 7100, which still runs.
They might have a case, as you say, but there are a couple of clear counter arguments. If Apple doesn't want to sell unDRMed songs then they shouldn't, i.e., they should be DRMed at their end, and not on the user's computer.
If you look at the order of events, you pay Apple first before being allowed to download the song. Apple then completes the transaction by sending the bits down the wire. What you do with those bits are up to you (within normal copyright restrictions) because you haven't agreed to any additional terms. It's just a straight transaction.
If you want to come at this from a DMCA angle, it comes down to an interoperability issue, at least as far as linux goes, and those Mac and Windows OSes that do not meet the minimum system requirements.
I wonder if soon we will see additions to anti-discrimination laws so that they read, "We do not discriminate based on race, sex, religion, or operating system.
What's funny is that you'll often find me arguing on slashdot for the rights of creators. However, to me it's not a black and white issue, and creator's rights must be balanced with the users fair use rights. I support this because fair use is extremely important, although I do understand Apple's position. I hope they realize that suing DVD Jon is a waste of time. (Similarly, I wish that the EFF realized that representing the Apple rumor sites is a waste of time, dilutes their efforts, and decreases their credibility.)
Yes, the Blackbirds were sweet. I wanted one so badly! Tell me, did Robert Brunner and his team design the case? Who designed the layout of the components? Was that Apple or Sony?
I don't doubt you because I know Brunner was the head of Apple's Industrial Design Lab at one time (and I think the "founder"), but I got my information from Lowendmac.com's PB 100 page, which states, "Sony designed the 100 by starting with the Mac Portable and reducing the size and weight of components as much as possible."
I'm not at all denigrating Brunner's design; I'm not one of those who slam aesthetics, especially when they serve (or at least compliment) functionality. I've loved every Mac that I've owned, even the ugly Centris 650 and the Beige G3. Do you know if Brunner designed the TiBook I'm typing this on, or had he already left Apple?
Exactly. Let the market decide. If individuals and groups want their sites to be easily displayed on small devices, they'll do. More opportunities for developers, especially anyone developing an application that will make conversions easier.
Well, I think you're changing the argument from what was or should have been obvious back in 1968 to something else entirely.
Fine, I'll go with it. First of all, you assume that all Alan Kay did was mention in an off-hand conversation, "Wouldn't it be cool to have a computer that was like a book." The truth of the matter is that he did considerable work on it, although it ultimately didn't succeed. However, others that came after, that did succeed, where based on the ideas he had developed.
Which goes to your second error, that you cannot DESIGN something for which there isn't all the available technology. You are completely wrong on this. If no one attempts such designs and figures out where the missing elements are in the current technology, technological development would go a lot more slowly, if at all. We build success on our failures.
I'm sorry if my original reply was abrasive. I probably overreacted to what I thought were dumb statements. Obviously, you're not a dummy, but I still think you're wrong on these points.
What is obvious today wasn't obvious in 1968, when there weren't even desktop computers. The computer was the entire desk.
However, it's good to see that you have evolved so much beyond the humans of 1968 that you're much smarter than they were, so that such ideas are obvious to you.
That was true maybe twelve years ago (and further back). If you attended SIGGRAPH in the 80s or very early 90s, you'd have seen there was a greater emphasis on academic work. Since then, the overwhelming mass of advancements have come from private companies that are in competition with each other.
Also, note that there really is not the same motivation in Academia for cheaper, although certainly there is one for better.
If you want to argue that Capitalism has unfortunate excesses, and that we'd be wise to address them, I'm in agreement with you. However, I'm also of the belief that capitalism is over all the strongest engine for innovation and creation. It's not the only engine, and in certain cases it's not the best, nor do we need to be ideological purists. Linux is not dependent on capitalism, but has been able to harness capitalism to develop and expand at a much faster rate. Indeed, it might otherwise still be a only hobbyist OS today, if people didn't have an expectation of profiting from Linux in some way.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd talk to me in a mirror universe.
You're assuming that Rouge had an authorized copy given to him/her by the top tier organization with permission, explicit or implicit, to distribute it. I doubt this. So it's closer to a case of an employee stealing a car from his employer and selling it. Or better, a truck driver working for a trucking company offering to sell you a brand new, in the box, TV.
I'm only saying that the copies were not released into the Public Domain, nor are they now authorized copies that anyone may freely distribute. I'm not condoning this, nor am I saying that anyone is going to escape the fallout from this discovery.
If it was a pipe, wouldn't it be F|?
No wonder Ed keeps getting bonuses, raises and personal commendations from Bill.
That gives me an idea. Next time someone brings up "Al Gore invented the internet," jokingly or not, simply reply, "Which one?"
processes controlling elecron movement
So you're AC and DC, eh?
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
They were granted the patent, but it won't be enforceable because microsoft didn't disclose the prior art. What is particularly embarrassing and points to the fraudulence of MS is that the people who's names where on the patent were also on the IPv6 committee.
There should be a very stiff penalty for knowingly filing a fraudulent patent application. Both monetary, and being prohibited from filing for any other patents for a period of time sounds about right.
it?s doubtful the internet would be what it is today.
This is preferable to fido-net? I mean, for other than pr0n.
The concept of DRM is itself a kind of a kludge, until the media companies figure out what most of us already know: If they give us a product that we want at a reasonable price (to be determined by the market, not by a price-fixing cartel), MOST people will gladly pay.
I don't know how much it will minimize the wrath of Jobs, but it gives them the interoperability defense with regards to the DCMA (not that it worked with DeCSS).
I think my Centris 650 had sosumi, which is roughly contemporary with your 550? Do you still have the 550? I've still got my 650, or the carcass anyway. Most of the components have been scavenged for the 7100, which still runs.
They might have a case, as you say, but there are a couple of clear counter arguments. If Apple doesn't want to sell unDRMed songs then they shouldn't, i.e., they should be DRMed at their end, and not on the user's computer.
If you look at the order of events, you pay Apple first before being allowed to download the song. Apple then completes the transaction by sending the bits down the wire. What you do with those bits are up to you (within normal copyright restrictions) because you haven't agreed to any additional terms. It's just a straight transaction.
If you want to come at this from a DMCA angle, it comes down to an interoperability issue, at least as far as linux goes, and those Mac and Windows OSes that do not meet the minimum system requirements.
I wonder if soon we will see additions to anti-discrimination laws so that they read, "We do not discriminate based on race, sex, religion, or operating system.
What's funny is that you'll often find me arguing on slashdot for the rights of creators. However, to me it's not a black and white issue, and creator's rights must be balanced with the users fair use rights. I support this because fair use is extremely important, although I do understand Apple's position. I hope they realize that suing DVD Jon is a waste of time. (Similarly, I wish that the EFF realized that representing the Apple rumor sites is a waste of time, dilutes their efforts, and decreases their credibility.)
Yes, the Blackbirds were sweet. I wanted one so badly! Tell me, did Robert Brunner and his team design the case? Who designed the layout of the components? Was that Apple or Sony?
I don't doubt you because I know Brunner was the head of Apple's Industrial Design Lab at one time (and I think the "founder"), but I got my information from Lowendmac.com's PB 100 page, which states, "Sony designed the 100 by starting with the Mac Portable and reducing the size and weight of components as much as possible."
I'm not at all denigrating Brunner's design; I'm not one of those who slam aesthetics, especially when they serve (or at least compliment) functionality. I've loved every Mac that I've owned, even the ugly Centris 650 and the Beige G3. Do you know if Brunner designed the TiBook I'm typing this on, or had he already left Apple?
I find weather.com to just be user unfriendly, period, regardless of what platform I happen to me on.
Same with TVGuide.com. It's almost like they're trying to create horrible user experience.
Exactly. Let the market decide. If individuals and groups want their sites to be easily displayed on small devices, they'll do. More opportunities for developers, especially anyone developing an application that will make conversions easier.
Well, I think you're changing the argument from what was or should have been obvious back in 1968 to something else entirely.
Fine, I'll go with it. First of all, you assume that all Alan Kay did was mention in an off-hand conversation, "Wouldn't it be cool to have a computer that was like a book." The truth of the matter is that he did considerable work on it, although it ultimately didn't succeed. However, others that came after, that did succeed, where based on the ideas he had developed.
Which goes to your second error, that you cannot DESIGN something for which there isn't all the available technology. You are completely wrong on this. If no one attempts such designs and figures out where the missing elements are in the current technology, technological development would go a lot more slowly, if at all. We build success on our failures.
I'm sorry if my original reply was abrasive. I probably overreacted to what I thought were dumb statements. Obviously, you're not a dummy, but I still think you're wrong on these points.
Who knew that something as small and as insignificant looking as the comma could carry such a heavy semantic load? =)
I did indeed know what he meant. I also know a good set up when I see it.
A note to the anti-grammar Nazi Nazis: This is why you get so much shit!
I'm in a rush to get out the door, so I can't elaborate, but here is one key factor to early funding of computer graphics in academia: DARPA.
Heh heh. Anachronistic marketing idea:
The Osbourne: Smells like teen spirit!
What is obvious today wasn't obvious in 1968, when there weren't even desktop computers. The computer was the entire desk.
However, it's good to see that you have evolved so much beyond the humans of 1968 that you're much smarter than they were, so that such ideas are obvious to you.
I remember a mate of mine used to take his Amiga 600 with him everywhere in a rucksack. Pretty cool little machine that...
that what? Do we have to wait for Timothy's dupe to get this cliff hanger resolved? Stay tuned for the next exciting dupe on "As the Slash Dots"?
Look at this timeline and tell me who had the idea first.
Uh, Sony? They designed and manufactured the 100 for Apple (to Apple's specs, of course).
"well, you see, son, daddy has a computer. And mommy has a data center."
Anyone remember the good old UNIVAC PDA?
Back then, it was considered clever to quip, "Is that a UNIVAC in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?"
That was true maybe twelve years ago (and further back). If you attended SIGGRAPH in the 80s or very early 90s, you'd have seen there was a greater emphasis on academic work. Since then, the overwhelming mass of advancements have come from private companies that are in competition with each other.
Also, note that there really is not the same motivation in Academia for cheaper, although certainly there is one for better.
If you want to argue that Capitalism has unfortunate excesses, and that we'd be wise to address them, I'm in agreement with you. However, I'm also of the belief that capitalism is over all the strongest engine for innovation and creation. It's not the only engine, and in certain cases it's not the best, nor do we need to be ideological purists. Linux is not dependent on capitalism, but has been able to harness capitalism to develop and expand at a much faster rate. Indeed, it might otherwise still be a only hobbyist OS today, if people didn't have an expectation of profiting from Linux in some way.