I cannot stand games that save their files into "My documents". Their config files are not documents of mine! Stick 'em in %APPDATA% (or %LOCALAPPDATA%) where they should be so it doesn't clutter up all my real documents that I want to see.
It is especially bad when you play demos and they leave empty folders around the place.
As for Steam DRM, it is not without its problems, especially if you play games on a laptop. Offline mode works most of the time, but there are occasions where it will refuse to launch Steam because it saw there was an update to install the last time that it was online. I know now to turn on Offline mode and then immediately restart Steam to test whether it will really launch the next time around.
Finally, Steam locks games to a particular account, so you can't resell them or lend them to friends. Because I that, I never spend more than $5 on a game. If they prevent me from buying a 2nd hand copy, then I will only ever pay 2nd hand prices.
Yeah, the HIB ought to put to rest the notion that Linux users won't pay for software (at least not software of an artistic character). We're on average paying more than both Apple and MS users.
Linux users will pay more just to reward those developers who support Linux. As a Windows gamer, I do a similar thing and pay more for bundles that donate to charity. I find that I pay 3 times more when there is a charity involved.
Also, it is far more likely that Windows owners would already own at least one of the titles on offer. In the current bundle, I already owned all but one of the games. I bought the bundle just for the soundtracks (I'm listening to Bastion right now), but I only paid about half of what I would usual pay.
Ok, I see these creation vs. evolution stories all the time, and we always assume the creationists are wrong, but what if they aren't? And why is it OK to have multiple points of view in the scientific community, unless you think that the world was created (by a higher power or other means).
But this isn't a story about including creationism in the textbooks, it is about excluding evolution. So it seems that the creationists are also guilty of not wanting multiple points of view.
The big difference is that creationists will attempt to hide actual documented facts (eg. discovered fossils) that support another point of view. It is hardly suprising that, according to a survey of South Koreans, "41% said that there was insufficient scientific evidence to support (evolution)". When those people are prevented from seeing any scientific evidence, then obviously they will think that none exists. It is just a pity that those people do not subject their own religious beliefs to the same level of scepticism and demands of evidence.
NOBODY IS ARGUING THAT COPYRIGHTS AND PATENTS ARE DIFFERENT BEASTS!
Seriously, what is the point of continuing to keep posting virtually the same message no matter what is said to you? Do you just not read the messages or something? Do you just look for keywords like "copyright" in a story about patents and then post rants? Are you incapable of entertaining the idea that you misunderstood what the original poster said? If people use a car analogy, do you start arguments about gas vs diesel?
I am beginning to suspect that you might be trolling me to see how long you can keep the thread going on. Try this for a change. Have a look at the two statements in bold in my last message and tell me which one is false. Feel free to append your next rewording of your original message to it if you so desire.
Oh dear. I made the mistake of having a peek to see if you had replied
Let me make it even simpler for you. Look at the subject line of this thread. "Their work, their say". It is a theme that is reflected in the last sentence (the take home message). "Creator gets the say". It appears that the topic the OP wished to discuss was that the patent holder has final say over who gets to use his patents. His main point was that it doesn't matter if you do not make commercial use of your patent or copyright, you still have control over how it is used and people can't just appropriate it:
But in neither case does this mean others are free to take what I've created and do with it what I do not wish.
And that is the crux of his message. It is the same as his subject line. It is the same as his last line. It is what his examples were all about.
The controversial part for you was that he could not see that this should be different for patents. So is that true? Compare these two statements:
A copyright holder can dictate the use of his copyright, and can ask for money for its use.
A patent holder can dictate the use of his patent, and can ask for money for its use.
Are both statements true? If so, then his analogy is sound because that is all his message discussed. He did not make any other claims about the two systems. He certainly showed no signs of making the common mistake of mixing up the copyright, patent and trademark laws. The fact the he referenced both copyrights and patents as separate systems shows that he is aware that there are differences.
The reason you think he is making the grand claims of 100% similarity is that you are fixated on those two sentence fragments that you keep quoting. But you are looking at them out of the context of the message and reading a different meaning to them than was indicated by the surrounding sentences.
All of your responses are arguing against a statement that nobody else here has made. That is why I said that we were arguing around in circles. You are obviously not wrong that patents and copyright are different things, and everyone here would agree with that position. So hooray! You can go to bed tonight knowing that your ideas are correct. But so can the original poster, because he never claimed anything different.
This is never going to end, because we are going around in circles. My final comment would be to suggest that you look up the definition of the word analogy and see that it describes a similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar. Copyright and patents do not need to be 100% agreement for an analogy to take place, especially when the differences do not alter the intent of the original statement.
I still disagree. Just as someone else can take their own photographs of the same subject matter, so to can other companies solve the multipath Wi-Fi problem using a technology other than the one the patent provided. For example, if you can make your own Wi-Fi standard and avoid having to use fast fourier transforms to cancel out the echo then you would not owe the CSIRO a cent.
But I think you are missing the point of the original poster. The AC was merely pointing out that the CSIRO invented the technology and appropriately patented it. This means that they get to license their patents as they see fit. The creator gets their say, be they the copyright holder or a patent holder. Both are using the IP laws as they were intended, despite any differences between copyright and patents that you may find.
Patent trolls absolutely license their patents - they simply do so at absurd rates (e.g., $220M for some wireless patents of dubious quality).
Your argument rests on the idea that the patents are of dubious quality. What about them is dubious? They solved a problem that nobody else at the time could solve. Doesn't that mean that they were indeed a non-obvious invention?
The CSIRO did actually shop the technology around the place to get people to license it, long before it got used in a standard. This was not a submarine patent.
So it is more like saying that someone's not a thief because they spend their stolen money on really cool stuff.
Copyright and patent are very different. Patents give you exclusive rights to an idea, process, or method. Copyrights only cover making copies of a specific implementation. Comparisons between the two will always result in a flawed analogy.
It is true that copyright and patents are different, but then so are cars and patents - and yet we still accept car analogies. Being different doesn't mean the analogy is flawed. So where exactly did the grandparent go wrong?
Perhaps government agencies should leave "business" to businesses.
Why? What would businesses do in the case of the Wi-Fi patents that would be different to (and better than) what the CSIRO is doing? It seems to me that how the CSIRO has handled the patent situation prove that they don't need to leave "business" to businesses; the government is doing quite well enough.
I think perhaps that your argument stems from ideological views rather than an objective analysis of the facts. The CSIRO Wi-Fi technology happened as a byproduct of their research into radio astronomy. Do you really think that businesses can be relied on to do all the work required for astronomy? Is there are big market for that sort of thing?
And you can have a look at the rest of the list at the Indie Kings bundle tracker, although not all of the 18 listed bundles should really be there (eg. The Blackwell Bundle). However, there is even a couple of free bundles to grab.
Suggestion: the game plays better with a control pad, so consider acquiring one of those if you don't have one already.
I've seen this claim made before... and it's never been true IME.
I bought my Xbox 360 controller when I got Batman: Arkham Asylum based on advice I had been given. That game was a bit of a mess. I know everyone seem to love that game, but I found it disappointingly frustrating to play.
That is until half way through when I decided to see what the mouse/keyboard was like. All of a sudden I was fighting with the finesse that Batman should have. It was not longer a chore just to get Batman to look around, it was just a flick of the mouse.
I do believe that for some people, the controller is the better option. For me, it is almost never the case. I think it all comes down to what you are the most familiar with. People need to try a controller with different game types to see if it suits them, but you can't just make a blanket statement one way or the other (as both you and the grandparent did).
Not according to Wikipedia. It claims that Aero first made an appearance in Vista Beta 1 and that it was feature complete by build 5270 (the December Community Technology Preview). After that there were many releases including Beta 2 and Release Candidates 1 & 2.
Fair enough, but my original question still stands. Other than the original drafters of the constitution, who actually thought that the Nortel patent purchase would result in anything other than what we have today? The complaint that you and 3seas have is with the patent system in general, not with this particular action.
Them setting up an organisation that managed the patents for defensive purposes only?
How quaint. Given that the patents are now being run by the folks who used to run Nortel's patent licensing program, it means that not much has really changed under the new ownership. Nortel may have claimed to want to use them defensively, but they still had a licencing program for them.
Actually, a lot of us predicted this, but were drowned out by the flood of astroturf that's overwhelming Slashdot.
Just because someone disagrees with you, that does not make them an astroturfer.
This is SOP for Microsoft. They have zero interest in spending money developing new products or improving their existing lines and every interest in killing off any competition that might force them to spend that money.
Why are you picking on Microsoft? Shouldn't you also blame Apple, EMC, RIM, Ericsson, and Sony? And also Google, who also attempted to buy the patents.
This is in clear violation of the original intent of patents.
How so? The purpose of a patent is to give someone a monopoly over a specific invention, meaning to prevent other people from being able to use it or even import goods that duplicate the invention. In the event that the patent holder cannot make use of the patent themselves (eg. too costly to implement) then they can licence it or even transfer the ownership of the patent to someone else, usually for a fee.
This is exactly what has happened here. Ownership has been transferred. This is business as usual in the patent industry.
Now you may believe that patents should not be owned by companies, only individual inventors. But that simplistic idea disappeared long ago; long before the Nortel patents went on the market. Surely nobody actually expected these particular patents to be used in the limited way they were hundreds of years ago.
So a group of companies band together to buy patents and they create a single organisation to handle it. What else would they do? It is hardly likely that any company would be happy with the whole lot being overseen by one of the other member companies, and they would be in negotiation for years if they tried to split them all up.
So the question to the submitter is: what other outcome did you expect?
While the world media headlines are blaring "Apple sues Samsung" or "Samsung sues Apple", Apples is providing Samsung more one billion U. S. dollars to keep Samsung's Austin, Texas fab in operation
So what is your point? That Samsung should be so grateful to Apple for choosing them as a supplier of parts that they stop competing with Apple in other markets? If that is how things work then all Microsoft has to do is buy a billion dollars worth of Macs and Apple will drop the iPhone so they don't compete with Windows Mobile phones.
The fact that these massive companies can do business with each other on one hand while filing lawsuits with the other hand is not unusual. It is as relevant to this story as them both having members of staff named Eric.
It is possible that misunderstood your point. If that is the case then please tell us what possible scenario you had in mind when you said that you suspected that there is more than meets the eye? That Apple has paid Samsung to be its whipping boy so they can look like dicks when they sue them for using rounded corners? Or perhaps Apple are using this dispute to renegotiate their other contracts with Samsung. Or maybe it is all just to fill up newspaper columns so that journalists don't start talking about the other players in this area like Microsoft or Blackberry. (If the last one is true then it certainly worked!)
It's a pretty silly argument to say that Google have been unfairly singled out, and quite wrong too. The companies that you mention have all had their share of regulatory intervention, especially in the EU. Your first example, Microsoft (exactly who was inconvenienced by their OOXML standard?) is the first company that springs to mind when thinking of EU intervention. Remember the browser choice screen or the two billion dollars in fines?
They are also keeping their eye on Apple in the eBook market, although I maintain that the consumer has benefited from Apple being able to strong-arm the record industry on removing their DRM. Facebook's privacy problems have also been the subject of scrutiny in the EU. And for Oracle...
No, I can't bring myself to even appear to defend Oracle!
So the idea that Google should be given a free pass because they are being unfairly picked on is just rubbish. That doesn't mean to say that the EU's complaint isn't without issue. The fact that Google displays links to its own vertical search services doesn't seem too unreasonable, and it is a practice that has gone on in the industry for years. I first saw this used by Yahoo when they linked to their own services in their results (eg. Yahoo Finance). And when I search for "microsoft stock price" on Google, I got links to an assortment of financial sites at the top of the results (eg. Yahoo Finance).
Similarly, when they include reviews or news from other sites, they always link to the source. That said I can see that there would be a concern if they show the entire news story or review which means that you never have to follow the link. I guess there is a legitimate concern about some of Google's practices, but I am wary of the heavy handed, simplistic approach that the EU regulators sometimes utilise.
I hear Bill Clinton wants to move there and run for office.
It wouldn't work, I'm afraid. He would have to be an Australian citizen to stand for office, and I have heard that Bill Clinton was actually born in Kenya.
Slashdot Mirror
I cannot stand games that save their files into "My documents". Their config files are not documents of mine! Stick 'em in %APPDATA% (or %LOCALAPPDATA%) where they should be so it doesn't clutter up all my real documents that I want to see.
It is especially bad when you play demos and they leave empty folders around the place.
As for Steam DRM, it is not without its problems, especially if you play games on a laptop. Offline mode works most of the time, but there are occasions where it will refuse to launch Steam because it saw there was an update to install the last time that it was online. I know now to turn on Offline mode and then immediately restart Steam to test whether it will really launch the next time around.
Finally, Steam locks games to a particular account, so you can't resell them or lend them to friends. Because I that, I never spend more than $5 on a game. If they prevent me from buying a 2nd hand copy, then I will only ever pay 2nd hand prices.
Yeah, the HIB ought to put to rest the notion that Linux users won't pay for software (at least not software of an artistic character). We're on average paying more than both Apple and MS users.
Linux users will pay more just to reward those developers who support Linux. As a Windows gamer, I do a similar thing and pay more for bundles that donate to charity. I find that I pay 3 times more when there is a charity involved.
Also, it is far more likely that Windows owners would already own at least one of the titles on offer. In the current bundle, I already owned all but one of the games. I bought the bundle just for the soundtracks (I'm listening to Bastion right now), but I only paid about half of what I would usual pay.
Why are we letting these people win over science?
Because if the creationists were wrong, then God would tell them - so they must be right! QED.
Ok, I see these creation vs. evolution stories all the time, and we always assume the creationists are wrong, but what if they aren't? And why is it OK to have multiple points of view in the scientific community, unless you think that the world was created (by a higher power or other means).
But this isn't a story about including creationism in the textbooks, it is about excluding evolution. So it seems that the creationists are also guilty of not wanting multiple points of view.
The big difference is that creationists will attempt to hide actual documented facts (eg. discovered fossils) that support another point of view. It is hardly suprising that, according to a survey of South Koreans, "41% said that there was insufficient scientific evidence to support (evolution)". When those people are prevented from seeing any scientific evidence, then obviously they will think that none exists. It is just a pity that those people do not subject their own religious beliefs to the same level of scepticism and demands of evidence.
NOBODY IS ARGUING THAT COPYRIGHTS AND PATENTS ARE DIFFERENT BEASTS!
Seriously, what is the point of continuing to keep posting virtually the same message no matter what is said to you? Do you just not read the messages or something? Do you just look for keywords like "copyright" in a story about patents and then post rants? Are you incapable of entertaining the idea that you misunderstood what the original poster said? If people use a car analogy, do you start arguments about gas vs diesel?
I am beginning to suspect that you might be trolling me to see how long you can keep the thread going on. Try this for a change. Have a look at the two statements in bold in my last message and tell me which one is false. Feel free to append your next rewording of your original message to it if you so desire.
Oh dear. I made the mistake of having a peek to see if you had replied
Let me make it even simpler for you. Look at the subject line of this thread. "Their work, their say". It is a theme that is reflected in the last sentence (the take home message). "Creator gets the say". It appears that the topic the OP wished to discuss was that the patent holder has final say over who gets to use his patents. His main point was that it doesn't matter if you do not make commercial use of your patent or copyright, you still have control over how it is used and people can't just appropriate it:
But in neither case does this mean others are free to take what I've created and do with it what I do not wish.
And that is the crux of his message. It is the same as his subject line. It is the same as his last line. It is what his examples were all about.
The controversial part for you was that he could not see that this should be different for patents. So is that true? Compare these two statements:
A copyright holder can dictate the use of his copyright, and can ask for money for its use.
A patent holder can dictate the use of his patent, and can ask for money for its use.
Are both statements true? If so, then his analogy is sound because that is all his message discussed. He did not make any other claims about the two systems. He certainly showed no signs of making the common mistake of mixing up the copyright, patent and trademark laws. The fact the he referenced both copyrights and patents as separate systems shows that he is aware that there are differences.
The reason you think he is making the grand claims of 100% similarity is that you are fixated on those two sentence fragments that you keep quoting. But you are looking at them out of the context of the message and reading a different meaning to them than was indicated by the surrounding sentences.
All of your responses are arguing against a statement that nobody else here has made. That is why I said that we were arguing around in circles. You are obviously not wrong that patents and copyright are different things, and everyone here would agree with that position. So hooray! You can go to bed tonight knowing that your ideas are correct. But so can the original poster, because he never claimed anything different.
Different rules, invalid comparison.
This is never going to end, because we are going around in circles. My final comment would be to suggest that you look up the definition of the word analogy and see that it describes a similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar. Copyright and patents do not need to be 100% agreement for an analogy to take place, especially when the differences do not alter the intent of the original statement.
I still disagree. Just as someone else can take their own photographs of the same subject matter, so to can other companies solve the multipath Wi-Fi problem using a technology other than the one the patent provided. For example, if you can make your own Wi-Fi standard and avoid having to use fast fourier transforms to cancel out the echo then you would not owe the CSIRO a cent.
But I think you are missing the point of the original poster. The AC was merely pointing out that the CSIRO invented the technology and appropriately patented it. This means that they get to license their patents as they see fit. The creator gets their say, be they the copyright holder or a patent holder. Both are using the IP laws as they were intended, despite any differences between copyright and patents that you may find.
Patent trolls absolutely license their patents - they simply do so at absurd rates (e.g., $220M for some wireless patents of dubious quality).
Your argument rests on the idea that the patents are of dubious quality. What about them is dubious? They solved a problem that nobody else at the time could solve. Doesn't that mean that they were indeed a non-obvious invention?
The CSIRO did actually shop the technology around the place to get people to license it, long before it got used in a standard. This was not a submarine patent.
So it is more like saying that someone's not a thief because they spend their stolen money on really cool stuff.
Copyright and patent are very different. Patents give you exclusive rights to an idea, process, or method. Copyrights only cover making copies of a specific implementation. Comparisons between the two will always result in a flawed analogy.
It is true that copyright and patents are different, but then so are cars and patents - and yet we still accept car analogies. Being different doesn't mean the analogy is flawed. So where exactly did the grandparent go wrong?
Perhaps government agencies should leave "business" to businesses.
Why? What would businesses do in the case of the Wi-Fi patents that would be different to (and better than) what the CSIRO is doing? It seems to me that how the CSIRO has handled the patent situation prove that they don't need to leave "business" to businesses; the government is doing quite well enough.
I think perhaps that your argument stems from ideological views rather than an objective analysis of the facts. The CSIRO Wi-Fi technology happened as a byproduct of their research into radio astronomy. Do you really think that businesses can be relied on to do all the work required for astronomy? Is there are big market for that sort of thing?
And you can have a look at the rest of the list at the Indie Kings bundle tracker, although not all of the 18 listed bundles should really be there (eg. The Blackwell Bundle). However, there is even a couple of free bundles to grab.
I also notice that they missed out on the Just Adventure - Pay What You Want Special 3 Maybe 4 Great Games. Now I just need a time machine to play all these games.
Suggestion: the game plays better with a control pad, so consider acquiring one of those if you don't have one already.
I've seen this claim made before... and it's never been true IME.
I bought my Xbox 360 controller when I got Batman: Arkham Asylum based on advice I had been given. That game was a bit of a mess. I know everyone seem to love that game, but I found it disappointingly frustrating to play.
That is until half way through when I decided to see what the mouse/keyboard was like. All of a sudden I was fighting with the finesse that Batman should have. It was not longer a chore just to get Batman to look around, it was just a flick of the mouse.
I do believe that for some people, the controller is the better option. For me, it is almost never the case. I think it all comes down to what you are the most familiar with. People need to try a controller with different game types to see if it suits them, but you can't just make a blanket statement one way or the other (as both you and the grandparent did).
Vista Aero was introduced in RTM too.
Not according to Wikipedia. It claims that Aero first made an appearance in Vista Beta 1 and that it was feature complete by build 5270 (the December Community Technology Preview). After that there were many releases including Beta 2 and Release Candidates 1 & 2.
Fair enough, but my original question still stands. Other than the original drafters of the constitution, who actually thought that the Nortel patent purchase would result in anything other than what we have today? The complaint that you and 3seas have is with the patent system in general, not with this particular action.
Them setting up an organisation that managed the patents for defensive purposes only?
How quaint. Given that the patents are now being run by the folks who used to run Nortel's patent licensing program, it means that not much has really changed under the new ownership. Nortel may have claimed to want to use them defensively, but they still had a licencing program for them.
Apple, EMC, RIM, Ericsson, and Sony
Oops. I meant to edit out EMC.
Actually, a lot of us predicted this, but were drowned out by the flood of astroturf that's overwhelming Slashdot.
Just because someone disagrees with you, that does not make them an astroturfer.
This is SOP for Microsoft. They have zero interest in spending money developing new products or improving their existing lines and every interest in killing off any competition that might force them to spend that money.
Why are you picking on Microsoft? Shouldn't you also blame Apple, EMC, RIM, Ericsson, and Sony? And also Google, who also attempted to buy the patents.
This is in clear violation of the original intent of patents.
How so? The purpose of a patent is to give someone a monopoly over a specific invention, meaning to prevent other people from being able to use it or even import goods that duplicate the invention. In the event that the patent holder cannot make use of the patent themselves (eg. too costly to implement) then they can licence it or even transfer the ownership of the patent to someone else, usually for a fee.
This is exactly what has happened here. Ownership has been transferred. This is business as usual in the patent industry.
Now you may believe that patents should not be owned by companies, only individual inventors. But that simplistic idea disappeared long ago; long before the Nortel patents went on the market. Surely nobody actually expected these particular patents to be used in the limited way they were hundreds of years ago.
So a group of companies band together to buy patents and they create a single organisation to handle it. What else would they do? It is hardly likely that any company would be happy with the whole lot being overseen by one of the other member companies, and they would be in negotiation for years if they tried to split them all up.
So the question to the submitter is: what other outcome did you expect?
While the world media headlines are blaring "Apple sues Samsung" or "Samsung sues Apple", Apples is providing Samsung more one billion U. S. dollars to keep Samsung's Austin, Texas fab in operation
So what is your point? That Samsung should be so grateful to Apple for choosing them as a supplier of parts that they stop competing with Apple in other markets? If that is how things work then all Microsoft has to do is buy a billion dollars worth of Macs and Apple will drop the iPhone so they don't compete with Windows Mobile phones.
The fact that these massive companies can do business with each other on one hand while filing lawsuits with the other hand is not unusual. It is as relevant to this story as them both having members of staff named Eric.
It is possible that misunderstood your point. If that is the case then please tell us what possible scenario you had in mind when you said that you suspected that there is more than meets the eye? That Apple has paid Samsung to be its whipping boy so they can look like dicks when they sue them for using rounded corners? Or perhaps Apple are using this dispute to renegotiate their other contracts with Samsung. Or maybe it is all just to fill up newspaper columns so that journalists don't start talking about the other players in this area like Microsoft or Blackberry. (If the last one is true then it certainly worked!)
It's a pretty silly argument to say that Google have been unfairly singled out, and quite wrong too. The companies that you mention have all had their share of regulatory intervention, especially in the EU. Your first example, Microsoft (exactly who was inconvenienced by their OOXML standard?) is the first company that springs to mind when thinking of EU intervention. Remember the browser choice screen or the two billion dollars in fines?
They are also keeping their eye on Apple in the eBook market, although I maintain that the consumer has benefited from Apple being able to strong-arm the record industry on removing their DRM. Facebook's privacy problems have also been the subject of scrutiny in the EU. And for Oracle...
No, I can't bring myself to even appear to defend Oracle!
So the idea that Google should be given a free pass because they are being unfairly picked on is just rubbish. That doesn't mean to say that the EU's complaint isn't without issue. The fact that Google displays links to its own vertical search services doesn't seem too unreasonable, and it is a practice that has gone on in the industry for years. I first saw this used by Yahoo when they linked to their own services in their results (eg. Yahoo Finance). And when I search for "microsoft stock price" on Google, I got links to an assortment of financial sites at the top of the results (eg. Yahoo Finance).
Similarly, when they include reviews or news from other sites, they always link to the source. That said I can see that there would be a concern if they show the entire news story or review which means that you never have to follow the link. I guess there is a legitimate concern about some of Google's practices, but I am wary of the heavy handed, simplistic approach that the EU regulators sometimes utilise.
The real question is, what movie am I spoiling?
Spartacus? It's not much of a spoiler, as it turned out that they were all Spartacus.
My turn: Rob Schneider.
There, what movie did that spoil? Click here for the answer.
.. and why would you want to discuss the show with Americans anyway?
Good question. Why don't you post it on slashdot.org.au and find out?
I hear Bill Clinton wants to move there and run for office.
It wouldn't work, I'm afraid. He would have to be an Australian citizen to stand for office, and I have heard that Bill Clinton was actually born in Kenya.