"..and how many of those people used computers before 1991 (let alone the early 80's when computers were cost prohibitive) , and how many of those people have ever directly used an os other than a M$ product?What does that matter? MS software was a large part of the popularization of computers.
Second, every GUI-paned desktop environment looks like windows in a building (or on a desk, I suppose), so "windows" has become a generic term, even if it wasn't one before. If everyone thinks of GUI desktops as "windows", then MS doesn't have a right to retain a trademark on it.
Not everyone thikns of GUI desktops as windows. As the article points out, over 70% of people think Microsoft when the term Windows is used.
Windows hasn't become generic (if anything, it has become more distinctive as time goes on), the issue is whether windows was generic when adopted. Why? You can't take a dictionary definition of a word and basically prevent others from using it to refer to their own product. For example, the newest Ford car will not be called AUTOMOBILE, as that term generically refers to the class of goods.
Windows is not trademarked in its own trademark and thus Microsoft has no rights to the word Windows in any way.
Everytime there is an article about the Windows name, there are multiple people who post that MS doesn't have a trademark to Windows, but to Microsoft Windows. Microsoft owns registation number 1,872,264 for the mark WINDOWS. The original NYT article is about MS trying to enforce their registered trademark! How can you not deduce that, hey MS owns the trademark to WINDOWS. (Whether its valid or not is what is currently at issue in the case, but for now, MS does own the TM to WINDOWS).
Despite widely held belief that conservatives are pro-business and are willing to support anything that businesses support, famous conservative columnist Phyllis Schlafly wrote a column today decrying the way copyrights are used by the media conglomerates. The instances she cites probably won't be new info to/.ers, but some may be surprised the thoughts come from a conservative.
You are not accutately describing the situation. Windows is a generic term. Trademarking windows is like me going and trademarking "wiper blades."
A more accurate analogy would be you trademarking "wiper blades," but not for use with wiper blades, but for use with a car. All cars have wiper blades, just like all GUIs have windows. But you don't generically refer to a car as a wiper blade, just like you don't generically refer to an OS as Windows.
It would be incredibly stupid to name a car wiper blade, and it wasn't very smart for MS to use the name Windows either, but it is not generic with reference to a class of goods, it is generic to a feature that is common to a class of goods.
I think it is descriptive of an element of an OS. Imagine that the next Ford car was named the Windshield. Other manufacturers would still refer to their own cars, which all contain a windshield. But the Ford Windshield would refer to a specific car manufactured by Ford.
Yes, that would be a stupid name and the situation is not quite analogous, but Windows is descriptive of an element that is common in graphical OSs. To be generic, the name would have to refer to a class of goods, not a feature.
Some organizations are so large that one part doesn't know what they other part is doing. You think AOL Time Warner has it bad as an information provider that is somewhat invested in technology? How about Sony which is not only a huge information provider, but is also a huge technology provider. What Sony Music wants is not necessarily what Sony Consumer Electronics wants.
It's not earth shattering if they lose. They rarely use the term Windows alone anyway, usually saying Microsoft Windows or Microsoft Windows XP (98 or ME or NT, etc.) The funny thing about the case is that Lindows, while claiming that the term "Windows" is generic, names there product, not because of the association with the generic boxes that open on the monitor, but because it was originally designed to run Windows programs under Linux (hence the substitution of the L).
I'm not sure if MS will win. Based on the judge's earlier ruling (you can find the rulings here), it seems like the judge is pretty well convinced by Lindows. It didn't help MS that they just kept repeating their argument over and over, instead of trying to address Lindows's claim.
You are missing the point.
Windows is a GENERIC term. Linux is not.
Windows is not a generic term now. If someone says Linux, you know what they are talking about (the specific OS). By the same terms, if someone says that a program they wrote "runs on Windows" you know, with 100% certainty, that they are referring to the specificMS OS called Windows. That is the perfect illustration of secondary meaning, when you say a name do people think you generally mean a type of product or do you think of a specific product. For example, when you say "hand me a Kleenex" you probably don't give a hoot if I give you Kleenex brand tissues, Puffs brand, or Wal-Mart brand. But if I say I want a Windows program, you know that I don't want some program written for Linux.
The issue in the case is not whether or not the term Windows is generic now (it obviously isn't), but wheter or not the term Windows was generic when it was initially adopted, because there are a few cases that say that if a term is generic, it can never become trademarked, even if the name is associated with the one particular product. The most famous case for this prinicple is the Shredded Wheat case.
It must be a slow newsday, though. This case is old news, until the judge makes a decision (Lindows filed its summary judgment motion in October). Yet it makes both NYT and/.
I can't believe they didn't include any slot machine "simulators." In a real casino, the only joy you get from slot machines is the chance to actually win money. Yet the computerized version gets rid of that, so you are stuck hitting the "spin reels" button over and over again, while occassionally "winning" credits. What a pointless waste of time!
I can't believe the PaintBall simulations aren't on the list either. Simulating something that is a simulation for a real gun fight in the first place is ludicrous, when a user can just play Half-life and the like.
I always begged my parents to get me the 2600 and they wouldn't. (I had an Odyssey instead). But, after playing Pac-Man on the 2600, I was glad they didn't. The Atari 800 port was so much better . . .
What, precisely, constitutes a "general computer"? Is a PVR (such as Tivo) a "general computer"? Before you answer that, remember that Tivo and many other PVRs use Linux [an operating system written for general purpose computers] as their base OS. What about a PDA? Or an MP3 playback/recording device? Or a Sony Minidisc Recorder? These things are certainly based on general purpose computing devices.
My point is that computers and consumer electronics are converging. This is a result of the natural evolution of the technology. Certainly the AHRA took into account advances in such technology?
No, the AHRA didn't take any advances into account. The AHRA definition of "digital audio recording device" is this:
A ''digital audio recording device'' is any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use . ..
Under that definition, an iPod or MD player/recorder probably could fall under the definition of digital audio recording device. But that would mean paying royalties for all MDs. If extended to CD-Rs, you would be immune from prosecution, but would pay royalties for blank CD-Rs (like the "music CD-Rs" currently available.
IIRC, the AHRA was enacted specifically for because of DAT. Consumer DAT machines have SCMS, which prevents making a copy of a copy. You can make any number of copies from an original, but you can't make direct digital copies of a copy. However, IIRC, you could make an "analog" copy of a DAT by running the copy through the D/A converters and back through the A/D converters. Thereafter, you could make unlimited copies of the "analog" copy. I think it is arguable that MP3 encoding is equivalent to going through an extra layer of D/A and A/D conversions in that the copy is not "exact" but is probably "good enough" for most.
Remember that fair use allows me to take my legally purchased copyrighted music CDs, rip them to MP3 files, and then burn them to a "mix" CD. There's nothing illegal about that.
Well, that is your position anyway. If you look at the Audio Home Recording Act ("AHRA"), you'll see that there is an immunity to making some types of recordings. One cannot be prosecuted for making those types of recordings. However, the RIAA's position (as seen here) is that CD-R drives on computers are not covered by the Audio Home Recording Act:
Multipurpose devices, such as a general computer or a CD-ROM drive, are not covered by the AHRA. This means that they are not required to pay royalties or incorporate SCMS protections. It also means, however, that neither manufacturers of the devices, nor the consumers who use them, receive immunity from suit for copyright infringement.
All this may mean, however, is that, instead of looking at the Audio Home Recording Act to see if making a personal copy is legal, one would have to look at the traditional Fair Use factors. It is very arguable that the AHRA was originally intended to prevent perfect digital copies of CDs, and an MP3 is not a perfect digital copy. In fact, one may argue that distributing MP3s is a "noncommercial use," as those who place music on Kazaa are not seeking renumeration, so are thus within the spirit (though possibly not within the letter) of the AHRA.
Need a new microwave, you can get a decent one for $30-40. Need a toaster, I can find a 4 wide-slice for $20-25. So why compare those cheap products to something expensive.
Need a phone? I can find dozens for under $100 (if you are willing to switch plans). Why is OP so attached to the phone. You used the phone for a couple of year, got good usage out of it: get a new phone (with a warranty)!
I had one really odd experience that I can't explain. I use Exact audio Copy to rip CDs. Usually, I rip an image of the entire disc, so I can make a backup that is as close as possible to the original. For two particular CD (Front Line Assembly and Queens of the Stone Age), EAC was completely unable to rip the entire disc. This has never happened with any other CD I've tried. Faulty disc? No, I was able to rip the CDs track by track, just not the entire image. I don't think it was DRM (because I was able to rip individual tracks), but an odd experience anyway.
Plus, don't forget the Arnold Schwarzenegger film, The Sixth Day, where Arnold cut off someone's hand and used the severed hand to fool the fingerprint detector.
That is the case in ALL jobs that are below lawyer or doctor in the food chain.
It depends on who you ask. I've heard some say that, to big law firms at least, the most valuable lawyers are those 4-5 years out of law school. The reasoning: in the first 1-2 years, you are training the lawyers and they are very inefficient. By the time they get more experience, they are able to timely and efficiently handle the work, with little supervision. However, once they go past that peak time, they become too expensive, as they are trying to make partner, demanding larger salaries, and are billing too much per hour to be of use to some clients.
For those that don't want to click a lot ...
on
Games of the Year
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Here are the winners:
Gamespot: Best budget game: Serious Sam: The Second Encounter Most Improved Sequel: Hitman 2: Silent Assassin: Biggest Surprise: Battlefield 1942 Best Game No One Played: Moonbase Commander Best single-player action: No-One Lives Forever 2: A Spy in H.A.R.M.'s Way Best Multiplay action: Battlefield 1942 Best Adventure: Syberia Best Driving: Rally Trophy Best RPG: Neverwinter Nights Best Sci-Fi Simulation: Star Trek: Bridge Commander Best Simulation: Flanker 2.5 Best Sports: Madden 2003 Best Single Player Strategy: Medieval: Total War Best Multiplayer Strategy: Warcraft III Game of the Year: Warcraft III Most Dissapointing: Civ III: Play the World Worst Game: Demonworld: Darl Armor
Gamespy: Action Game of the Year: Grandtheft Auto III Adventure Game: Syberia RPG: Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind Strategy: Medieval: Total War Sports Game: Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2003 Racing: NASCAR Racing 2002 Game of the Year: No One Lives Forever 2: A Spy in H.A.R.M.'s Way
The American Conservative Union and the Americans for Democratic Action, two diametrically opposed organizations both rank his voting record as highly conservative.
Neither organization would consider McCain's 2001 year to be "highly conservative." The American Conservative Union rates senators on this page. A higher rating means more conservative. For example, Arizona Republican John Kyl scores a 100 (very conservative) while California Democrat Barbara Boxer scores a 0 (very liberal). Senator McCain scored a 68 in 2001. In 2000 he scored 81 and his lifetime rating is 84. He is obviously becoming more liberal by these ratings.
McCain wasn't the lowest scoring Republican, as Sen. Spector from PA and both the Maine senators scored lower. McCain also scored higher than any democrat, the most conservative of whom is GA's Miller, with a score of 60. For reference, Sen. Lott scored 96 and Sen. Frist scored 100, while Sen. Daschle scored an 8 and Sen. Kennedy scored 4. So, by ACU standards, he is one of the more liberal Republicans in the Senate, though he should not be called a liberal.
The Americans for Democratic Action have a similar system, but they score it oppositely: a rating of 0 = very conservative and a rating of 100 = very liberal. You can see a.PDF file of the 2001 ratings on this page. Sen. McCain scored a 40, higher than the lowest Democrat (Sen. Miller of GA) who scored a 35. By ADA reckoning, McCain was tied for the most liberal Republican Senator (with Spector (PA) and Sen. Snowe (ME)).
His Stances and choices usually support what the Democrats want, and often exceeds their wildest dreams.
Slashdot Mirror
" ..and how many of those people used computers before 1991 (let alone the early 80's when computers were cost prohibitive) , and how many of those people have ever directly used an os other than a M$ product?What does that matter? MS software was a large part of the popularization of computers.
Not everyone thikns of GUI desktops as windows. As the article points out, over 70% of people think Microsoft when the term Windows is used.
Windows hasn't become generic (if anything, it has become more distinctive as time goes on), the issue is whether windows was generic when adopted. Why? You can't take a dictionary definition of a word and basically prevent others from using it to refer to their own product. For example, the newest Ford car will not be called AUTOMOBILE, as that term generically refers to the class of goods.
Everytime there is an article about the Windows name, there are multiple people who post that MS doesn't have a trademark to Windows, but to Microsoft Windows. Microsoft owns registation number 1,872,264 for the mark WINDOWS. The original NYT article is about MS trying to enforce their registered trademark! How can you not deduce that, hey MS owns the trademark to WINDOWS. (Whether its valid or not is what is currently at issue in the case, but for now, MS does own the TM to WINDOWS).
Despite widely held belief that conservatives are pro-business and are willing to support anything that businesses support, famous conservative columnist Phyllis Schlafly wrote a column today decrying the way copyrights are used by the media conglomerates. The instances she cites probably won't be new info to /.ers, but some may be surprised the thoughts come from a conservative.
A more accurate analogy would be you trademarking "wiper blades," but not for use with wiper blades, but for use with a car. All cars have wiper blades, just like all GUIs have windows. But you don't generically refer to a car as a wiper blade, just like you don't generically refer to an OS as Windows.
It would be incredibly stupid to name a car wiper blade, and it wasn't very smart for MS to use the name Windows either, but it is not generic with reference to a class of goods, it is generic to a feature that is common to a class of goods.
And every waiter/waitress in the US will correct you, "We serve Pepsi, is that OK?" Coke does not refer to colas in general but to a specific one.
Yes, that would be a stupid name and the situation is not quite analogous, but Windows is descriptive of an element that is common in graphical OSs. To be generic, the name would have to refer to a class of goods, not a feature.
Some organizations are so large that one part doesn't know what they other part is doing. You think AOL Time Warner has it bad as an information provider that is somewhat invested in technology? How about Sony which is not only a huge information provider, but is also a huge technology provider. What Sony Music wants is not necessarily what Sony Consumer Electronics wants.
I'm not sure if MS will win. Based on the judge's earlier ruling (you can find the rulings here), it seems like the judge is pretty well convinced by Lindows. It didn't help MS that they just kept repeating their argument over and over, instead of trying to address Lindows's claim.
Windows is not a generic term now. If someone says Linux, you know what they are talking about (the specific OS). By the same terms, if someone says that a program they wrote "runs on Windows" you know, with 100% certainty, that they are referring to the specificMS OS called Windows. That is the perfect illustration of secondary meaning, when you say a name do people think you generally mean a type of product or do you think of a specific product. For example, when you say "hand me a Kleenex" you probably don't give a hoot if I give you Kleenex brand tissues, Puffs brand, or Wal-Mart brand. But if I say I want a Windows program, you know that I don't want some program written for Linux.
The issue in the case is not whether or not the term Windows is generic now (it obviously isn't), but wheter or not the term Windows was generic when it was initially adopted, because there are a few cases that say that if a term is generic, it can never become trademarked, even if the name is associated with the one particular product. The most famous case for this prinicple is the Shredded Wheat case.
It must be a slow newsday, though. This case is old news, until the judge makes a decision (Lindows filed its summary judgment motion in October). Yet it makes both NYT and /.
I can't believe they didn't include any slot machine "simulators." In a real casino, the only joy you get from slot machines is the chance to actually win money. Yet the computerized version gets rid of that, so you are stuck hitting the "spin reels" button over and over again, while occassionally "winning" credits. What a pointless waste of time!
I can't believe the PaintBall simulations aren't on the list either. Simulating something that is a simulation for a real gun fight in the first place is ludicrous, when a user can just play Half-life and the like.
I always begged my parents to get me the 2600 and they wouldn't. (I had an Odyssey instead). But, after playing Pac-Man on the 2600, I was glad they didn't. The Atari 800 port was so much better . . .
My point is that computers and consumer electronics are converging. This is a result of the natural evolution of the technology. Certainly the AHRA took into account advances in such technology?
No, the AHRA didn't take any advances into account. The AHRA definition of "digital audio recording device" is this:
Under that definition, an iPod or MD player/recorder probably could fall under the definition of digital audio recording device. But that would mean paying royalties for all MDs. If extended to CD-Rs, you would be immune from prosecution, but would pay royalties for blank CD-Rs (like the "music CD-Rs" currently available.IIRC, the AHRA was enacted specifically for because of DAT. Consumer DAT machines have SCMS, which prevents making a copy of a copy. You can make any number of copies from an original, but you can't make direct digital copies of a copy. However, IIRC, you could make an "analog" copy of a DAT by running the copy through the D/A converters and back through the A/D converters. Thereafter, you could make unlimited copies of the "analog" copy. I think it is arguable that MP3 encoding is equivalent to going through an extra layer of D/A and A/D conversions in that the copy is not "exact" but is probably "good enough" for most.
Well, that is your position anyway. If you look at the Audio Home Recording Act ("AHRA"), you'll see that there is an immunity to making some types of recordings. One cannot be prosecuted for making those types of recordings. However, the RIAA's position (as seen here) is that CD-R drives on computers are not covered by the Audio Home Recording Act:
All this may mean, however, is that, instead of looking at the Audio Home Recording Act to see if making a personal copy is legal, one would have to look at the traditional Fair Use factors. It is very arguable that the AHRA was originally intended to prevent perfect digital copies of CDs, and an MP3 is not a perfect digital copy. In fact, one may argue that distributing MP3s is a "noncommercial use," as those who place music on Kazaa are not seeking renumeration, so are thus within the spirit (though possibly not within the letter) of the AHRA.Need a phone? I can find dozens for under $100 (if you are willing to switch plans). Why is OP so attached to the phone. You used the phone for a couple of year, got good usage out of it: get a new phone (with a warranty)!
Examples given include CPUs, CEOs, and Ph.D.s. (NB: the use of the serial comma, as well).
I had one really odd experience that I can't explain. I use Exact audio Copy to rip CDs. Usually, I rip an image of the entire disc, so I can make a backup that is as close as possible to the original. For two particular CD (Front Line Assembly and Queens of the Stone Age), EAC was completely unable to rip the entire disc. This has never happened with any other CD I've tried. Faulty disc? No, I was able to rip the CDs track by track, just not the entire image. I don't think it was DRM (because I was able to rip individual tracks), but an odd experience anyway.
Plus, don't forget the Arnold Schwarzenegger film, The Sixth Day, where Arnold cut off someone's hand and used the severed hand to fool the fingerprint detector.
It depends on who you ask. I've heard some say that, to big law firms at least, the most valuable lawyers are those 4-5 years out of law school. The reasoning: in the first 1-2 years, you are training the lawyers and they are very inefficient. By the time they get more experience, they are able to timely and efficiently handle the work, with little supervision. However, once they go past that peak time, they become too expensive, as they are trying to make partner, demanding larger salaries, and are billing too much per hour to be of use to some clients.
Here are the winners:
Gamespot:
Best budget game: Serious Sam: The Second Encounter
Most Improved Sequel: Hitman 2: Silent Assassin:
Biggest Surprise: Battlefield 1942
Best Game No One Played: Moonbase Commander
Best single-player action: No-One Lives Forever 2: A Spy in H.A.R.M.'s Way
Best Multiplay action: Battlefield 1942
Best Adventure: Syberia
Best Driving: Rally Trophy
Best RPG: Neverwinter Nights
Best Sci-Fi Simulation: Star Trek: Bridge Commander
Best Simulation: Flanker 2.5
Best Sports: Madden 2003
Best Single Player Strategy: Medieval: Total War
Best Multiplayer Strategy: Warcraft III
Game of the Year: Warcraft III
Most Dissapointing: Civ III: Play the World
Worst Game: Demonworld: Darl Armor
Gamespy:
Action Game of the Year: Grandtheft Auto III
Adventure Game: Syberia
RPG: Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind
Strategy: Medieval: Total War
Sports Game: Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2003
Racing: NASCAR Racing 2002
Game of the Year: No One Lives Forever 2: A Spy in H.A.R.M.'s Way
Gamespot doesprovide links to demos. If you click on the game name, if there is a demo available at gamespot, it will be listed.
And you ignore the rest of the post showing that McCain isn't "highly conservative" as you say, but would more properly be termed a moderate.
See this post.
Neither organization would consider McCain's 2001 year to be "highly conservative." The American Conservative Union rates senators on this page. A higher rating means more conservative. For example, Arizona Republican John Kyl scores a 100 (very conservative) while California Democrat Barbara Boxer scores a 0 (very liberal). Senator McCain scored a 68 in 2001. In 2000 he scored 81 and his lifetime rating is 84. He is obviously becoming more liberal by these ratings.
McCain wasn't the lowest scoring Republican, as Sen. Spector from PA and both the Maine senators scored lower. McCain also scored higher than any democrat, the most conservative of whom is GA's Miller, with a score of 60. For reference, Sen. Lott scored 96 and Sen. Frist scored 100, while Sen. Daschle scored an 8 and Sen. Kennedy scored 4. So, by ACU standards, he is one of the more liberal Republicans in the Senate, though he should not be called a liberal.
The Americans for Democratic Action have a similar system, but they score it oppositely: a rating of 0 = very conservative and a rating of 100 = very liberal. You can see a .PDF file of the 2001 ratings on this page. Sen. McCain scored a 40, higher than the lowest Democrat (Sen. Miller of GA) who scored a 35. By ADA reckoning, McCain was tied for the most liberal Republican Senator (with Spector (PA) and Sen. Snowe (ME)).
His Stances and choices usually support what the Democrats want, and often exceeds their wildest dreams.
Give us some examples.
The McCain-Feingold-Cochran Campaign Reform Act. This act was assailed by many conservatives as being unconstitutional and giving incumbants free reign in their campaigns.