I can't speak about the rest of Java, but SWT, the GUI toolkit that Eclipse uses, requires you to manually dispose of GUI objects when you're done with them.
Needless to say, this can cause leaks if you're used to Java freeing things up for you. Of course, it helps that SWT disposes of any child objects when you dispose of a parent object... or at least it's supposed to.
Microsoft also gets the protection of Trademarks, including having a trademark on the term Windows in a computer related context, even though there's prior art there (prior art restricts patents, not trademarks).
I don't know about in the EU, but Microsoft doesn't have a trademark on "Windows" in the US, presumably because it was denied for being too obvious.
Instead, they have a trademark on "Microsoft Windows."
Sadly, the PC wasn't really mass market yet when those products came out. The IBM compatible PC didn't really start taking off until the mid-late 90s, at which point those products had largely been replaced by Microsoft Access, Microsoft Excel, and Microsoft Word (collectively known as Microsoft Office).
Microsoft ONLY create the Windows OS, not the hardware and force (by "special" agreements and other incentives) every major OEM to bundle it with their hardware.
I don't think you understand what the word "force" means. If you bribe me to do something, I'm willing doing it; you're not forcing me to do it.
I did notice that. I have a famous quote for you, though:
In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew; And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.
-- Martin Niemöller
Adobe has already acted in bad faith once, there's nothing stopping them from doing so again.
Yes, that company was Microsoft, but that doesn't change the fact that they threatened to sue them over its inclusion for "antitrust reasons" (read: It would hurt the sales of Acrobat).
PDF isn't an open standard. If you want to implement it, Adobe apparently retains the right to sue you for it at any time.
Personally, I think we should use less petroleum products over here, but convincing people to use their cars less (which accounts for 50% or so of our petroleum usage) isn't easy as long as people here choose to live in Suburbia.
Of course, in the US anyway, you can't trademark common words.
Because of this, almost all of Microsoft's trademarks also include the word Microsoft: Microsoft Office Microsoft Word Microsoft Access Microsoft Windows Windows Media Player (this one's an exception, it contains Windows instead)
I'd have to agree that WordPerfect was a better product, but Microsoft used strategy number 2 with option 1 on it: Undersell the competition until your product is the de facto standard, then raise the price several hundred percent.
The problem isn't that the DMCA itself is entirely bad, it's just that even the good parts are abused.
For instance, I run a website that deals entirely with user-created content. It used to be that companies or individuals (Bobby Prince comes to mind) would threaten to sue us. Now, they have to fill out a DMCA takedown form.
Of course, we've all heard about Viacom and Youtube.
The real problem is that the DRM provisions were also added by the DMCA. DRM is very much anti-consumer.
You are aware that SCO was claiming that IBM stole code from UNIX and put it into Linux? That was the entire basis of their lawsuit.
However, Novell said "Hey, we own UNIX." (paraphrased) A judge agreed. SCO's lawsuit evaporates.
Furthermore, Novell has been fighting SCO on this since 2003.
Novell also purchased SUSE Linux in 2003 and turned it into OpenSUSE, which it also uses as the base for its commercial Linux products.
Novell has also made significant contributions to XGL, Compiz, and OpenOffice to name a few projects.
Despite the constant FUD since the Novell/Microsoft deal, Novell's business model now revolves around FOSS software, so any attempt to kill it would be cutting their own throat.
Assuming that you're in the US, you'd have to ask the idiots... er... senators and representatives that passed the Digital Millenium Copyright Act that, as I can't answer the logic behind them passing it.
While I personally agree and think dynamically linked programs should be exempt, the FSF doesn't think so and would most likely go after you if you tried it with something like GNU Readline (a GPLed library).
More to the point, it's the entire reason that the LGPL exists. I wouldn't be surprised if the GPL used that as a reason if such a suit was ever brought up.
I'm still not sure how that doesn't work to our (the people's) advantage.
Essentially, the court just said that a ringtone counts as part of the song it was taken from. That works to our advantage, because it just confirmed that it's legal for us to take a portion of a song we've paid for and use it as a ringtone.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't speak about the rest of Java, but SWT, the GUI toolkit that Eclipse uses, requires you to manually dispose of GUI objects when you're done with them.
Needless to say, this can cause leaks if you're used to Java freeing things up for you. Of course, it helps that SWT disposes of any child objects when you dispose of a parent object... or at least it's supposed to.
I don't know about in the EU, but Microsoft doesn't have a trademark on "Windows" in the US, presumably because it was denied for being too obvious.
Instead, they have a trademark on "Microsoft Windows."
Er... how long ago did you last use Windows? I use Windows XP Professional SP2; even on that 1 and 7 are wrong.
1, 2, and 4 make sense to me, but Blu-Ray uses a different physical device than HD-DVD.
Sadly, the PC wasn't really mass market yet when those products came out. The IBM compatible PC didn't really start taking off until the mid-late 90s, at which point those products had largely been replaced by Microsoft Access, Microsoft Excel, and Microsoft Word (collectively known as Microsoft Office).
How the Windows API works internally is most likely considered a trade secret.
Besides, after seeing all the security holes and bugs the Windows API has, are you sure you'd WANT to implement it 100%?
I don't think you understand what the word "force" means. If you bribe me to do something, I'm willing doing it; you're not forcing me to do it.
-- Martin Niemöller
Adobe has already acted in bad faith once, there's nothing stopping them from doing so again.
Adobe recently threatened to sue a company that wanted to include PDF output into their word processor.
Yes, that company was Microsoft, but that doesn't change the fact that they threatened to sue them over its inclusion for "antitrust reasons" (read: It would hurt the sales of Acrobat).
PDF isn't an open standard. If you want to implement it, Adobe apparently retains the right to sue you for it at any time.
"Select, Delete, Copy, and Paste"
As long as it's not done by voice recognition.
If you mean our #1 foreign supplier, then yes, you're right.
The top 5 suppliers of petroleum to the US are The United States: 39.7%, Canada: 10.5%, Mexico: 8%, Saudi Arabia: 7.4%, and Venezuela: 7.4%.
(Information derived from Energy Information Administration statistics, which only shows the stats for 2005 and earlier)
Personally, I think we should use less petroleum products over here, but convincing people to use their cars less (which accounts for 50% or so of our petroleum usage) isn't easy as long as people here choose to live in Suburbia.
Of course, in the US anyway, you can't trademark common words.
Because of this, almost all of Microsoft's trademarks also include the word Microsoft:
Microsoft Office
Microsoft Word
Microsoft Access
Microsoft Windows
Windows Media Player (this one's an exception, it contains Windows instead)
I'd have to agree that WordPerfect was a better product, but Microsoft used strategy number 2 with option 1 on it: Undersell the competition until your product is the de facto standard, then raise the price several hundred percent.
The problem isn't that the DMCA itself is entirely bad, it's just that even the good parts are abused.
For instance, I run a website that deals entirely with user-created content. It used to be that companies or individuals (Bobby Prince comes to mind) would threaten to sue us. Now, they have to fill out a DMCA takedown form.
Of course, we've all heard about Viacom and Youtube.
The real problem is that the DRM provisions were also added by the DMCA. DRM is very much anti-consumer.
I'm Spartacus!
So, in other words, your question was rhetorical and you were just wasting my time?
If it requires the presence of GNU Readline, it's in violation of section 2 of the GPLv2, then.
However, looking in the manual, it can be compiled without GNU Readline or use NetBSD's libedit, so it's probably safe.
You are aware that SCO was claiming that IBM stole code from UNIX and put it into Linux? That was the entire basis of their lawsuit.
However, Novell said "Hey, we own UNIX." (paraphrased) A judge agreed. SCO's lawsuit evaporates.
Furthermore, Novell has been fighting SCO on this since 2003.
Novell also purchased SUSE Linux in 2003 and turned it into OpenSUSE, which it also uses as the base for its commercial Linux products.
Novell has also made significant contributions to XGL, Compiz, and OpenOffice to name a few projects.
Despite the constant FUD since the Novell/Microsoft deal, Novell's business model now revolves around FOSS software, so any attempt to kill it would be cutting their own throat.
Of course, SCO sued Novell because Novell said "We own UNIX." It turns out the judge agreed with Novell.
Assuming that you're in the US, you'd have to ask the idiots... er... senators and representatives that passed the Digital Millenium Copyright Act that, as I can't answer the logic behind them passing it.
While I personally agree and think dynamically linked programs should be exempt, the FSF doesn't think so and would most likely go after you if you tried it with something like GNU Readline (a GPLed library).
More to the point, it's the entire reason that the LGPL exists. I wouldn't be surprised if the GPL used that as a reason if such a suit was ever brought up.
Well, I interpreted the decision to mean that, if a ringtone isn't a derivitive work, it's considered part of the same work.
Which means a ringtone of said work is legal for you to have if you have the original song.
IANAL
I'm still not sure how that doesn't work to our (the people's) advantage.
Essentially, the court just said that a ringtone counts as part of the song it was taken from. That works to our advantage, because it just confirmed that it's legal for us to take a portion of a song we've paid for and use it as a ringtone.
a family company.
You can read RMS's position online.