I guess I didn't make myself clear. Microsoft would NEVER have to even file a lawsuit. It would simply use its patents in sales negotiations.
Imagine a relatively poor school district considering using OpenOffice. Of course Microsoft would send sales people to the school to change their minds.
Microsoft would talk about the "real" price of open source, e.g., the cost of re-training. Microsoft would talk about have better support. Microsoft would offer pretty good deals.
And lastly, Microsoft would make a threat, "By the way, we have quite a few patents that OpenOffice is violating. We know your district is low on money and we'd really hate to see it caught up in extremely expensive patent litigation. So why don't you just sign right here."
Part of Rosen's argument is based on the fact that patent suits are hard to win in court. The other part of Rosen's argument assumes that anyone using patents against open source is looking for money, i.e., royalty payments.
Both of those arguments fail when applied to Microsoft. Microsoft would never use its software patents to collect royalties. It would use them to make companies afraid to use open source and compel them to use Microsoft's products.
Thus, it does not matter if Microsoft's patents are valid or not, when a company gets sued, Microsoft will offer a deal similar to this: Stop using open source and buy our products.
The money monkeys in charge of the companies will fold because it will be more cost effective to simply buy Microsoft's products rather than risk losing at trial. After Micrsoft wins a few of these "settlements" open source will begin to look unattractive to anyone else considering it.
Most people (correctly) criticized the US Supreme Court's Eldred decision because it essentially held that "limited time" could mean forever.
Beyond that mistake, the Court went further and stated throughout the opinion the fair use rights citizens have are the societal benefits mandated by the Constitution. In other words, the Court strengthened its support for fair use rights.
However, if the public domain is taken away. And if fair use rights are legislated away, then exactly where is the Constitutionally mandate benefits for citizens?! Does anyone even care about the Constitution other than for internet porn and gun rights?!
Nope, first degree murder is a specific intent crime. A drunk driver could never validily get convicted of first degree murder unless the specific intent should be shown.
In a normal murder case is can be shown by the defendant buying a gun, buying bullets, sitting outside his girlfriends apartment, and then shooting her when she passes by.
But there is no specific intent to murder merely because you're drunk and have no idea what you're doing.
I know all about black out rules. They make no sense to me. Imagine a band saying that unless so many CDs sell in an area, they're not going to perform in the area. Wouldn't that destroy a great marketing opportunity?
In the same way, if attendance to a sporting event is poor, it necessarily follows that the team is sucking. The worse thing you can do at that point is further distance yourself from your fans by making it harder for them to watch and support you.
"The NFL is exceptionally stupid in the way they handle their old footage...If they would sell teams seasons to the fans"
Maybe, just maybe, the reason they don't sell DVDs of old games, is because there is absolutely no market for them, other than a few odd balls, of course. I find it very hard to believe that such a market exists but yet the NFL refuses to make money off of it.
Football is boring enough as it is, but who in their right mind would ever try to share it online AFTER the game is over?! And worse, who would be afraid of that happening?! Where's the lucrative market in old football games.
It appears that nVidia is kicking ATI's ass in Doom3. As someone who owns or owned a Rage Fury, Rage Fury Pro, Radeon 64, AIW 9600, and a Radeon 9700 Pro, I'm glad. Competition is a good thing.
While I agree with you in theory, I don't think my post is worthy of your critisizm.
There is no doubt that people who buy PS2s are in fact consumers. Thus there was no problem in me calling them consumers. They might also be citizens, but that's a different issue.
It does not matter if every single mod chip was used to play ripped games. The issue is whether we own what we buy. It appears that consumers in the UK do not.
Thank you very much for your reply. As someone who played around with OSX a little bit I should have guessed that. I'm still not convinced that OSX needs that much power to run well, but it's still valid reason.
Yes I realize that Longhorn is codename. But god, just once TRY to think for yourself!!
Why is it that you never hear Microsoft call Longhorn an update to Windows, but almost always a successor to Windows. Do a google search for: longhorn "successor to Windows" And see how many hits you get.
Now do a search for: Longhorn "upgrade to Windows" How many hits do you get referring to Longhorn as an upgrade to Windows? None, that's how many I counted.
Successor means a replacement. If at work you're Bob's successor, you replaced him. Thus, Longhorn is going to replace Windows.
Also, in case you haven't heard, Microsoft is considering eliminating the Win32 API from Longhorn. Would you honestly consider an OS without Win32 support to be Windows?
And isn't your small brain even a little suspicious about the use of the phrase "Windows" in the settlement. Why is it so specific?
My speculative mind may be utterly incorrect. Maybe Longhorn will be the same crappy Windows OS we've grown to love. But at least I thought for myself rather than like a sheep.
The settlement specifically uses "Microsoft's Windows" and not, for example, "Microsoft's Operating System." I thought the purpose of that specific language was to make Longhorn exempt from the settlement. It's nice to know I'm wrong in this instance.
Nearly all game demos and patches are made available through bittorrent. The game publisher saves some bandwidth and gamers don't have to sign their souls over to fileplanet.
Some may argue that Congress wouldn't consider gaming worth of protecting. But just remind Congress that gamers are a billion dollar business, and that'll pique their interest.
When Lindows started using Linspire in the US. It made no sense other than to prepare for an eventual settlement. I do wish Robertson would have held out for more money. 20 million is NOTHING to Microsoft.
Re:Been dealing with this for 4 years
on
VoIP Questioned
·
· Score: 1
I have an ATI AIW in one of my computers that records all of my shows. I'm able to edit the commericals out of those shows with TMPGEnc DVD Author and burn them to DVD. I can pause, fast forward, and rewind live television. On recorded shows I can use PowerDVD to skip 30 seconds, i.e., skip commericals. I can also put my entire music collection on it. I can also play games on it. And it comes with a great remote control that works through the entire house.
I do NOT have to pay any monthly fee. It NEVER records shows that it thinks I might like. I does NOT need a phone connection, ever.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess I didn't make myself clear. Microsoft would NEVER have to even file a lawsuit. It would simply use its patents in sales negotiations.
Imagine a relatively poor school district considering using OpenOffice. Of course Microsoft would send sales people to the school to change their minds.
Microsoft would talk about the "real" price of open source, e.g., the cost of re-training. Microsoft would talk about have better support. Microsoft would offer pretty good deals.
And lastly, Microsoft would make a threat, "By the way, we have quite a few patents that OpenOffice is violating. We know your district is low on money and we'd really hate to see it caught up in extremely expensive patent litigation. So why don't you just sign right here."
Part of Rosen's argument is based on the fact that patent suits are hard to win in court. The other part of Rosen's argument assumes that anyone using patents against open source is looking for money, i.e., royalty payments.
Both of those arguments fail when applied to Microsoft. Microsoft would never use its software patents to collect royalties. It would use them to make companies afraid to use open source and compel them to use Microsoft's products.
Thus, it does not matter if Microsoft's patents are valid or not, when a company gets sued, Microsoft will offer a deal similar to this: Stop using open source and buy our products.
The money monkeys in charge of the companies will fold because it will be more cost effective to simply buy Microsoft's products rather than risk losing at trial. After Micrsoft wins a few of these "settlements" open source will begin to look unattractive to anyone else considering it.
Right?!
No, that's internet porn and free software. Internet porn and guns are the two most important things for country music fans.
Most people (correctly) criticized the US Supreme Court's Eldred decision because it essentially held that "limited time" could mean forever.
Beyond that mistake, the Court went further and stated throughout the opinion the fair use rights citizens have are the societal benefits mandated by the Constitution. In other words, the Court strengthened its support for fair use rights.
However, if the public domain is taken away. And if fair use rights are legislated away, then exactly where is the Constitutionally mandate benefits for citizens?! Does anyone even care about the Constitution other than for internet porn and gun rights?!
Nope, first degree murder is a specific intent crime. A drunk driver could never validily get convicted of first degree murder unless the specific intent should be shown.
In a normal murder case is can be shown by the defendant buying a gun, buying bullets, sitting outside his girlfriends apartment, and then shooting her when she passes by.
But there is no specific intent to murder merely because you're drunk and have no idea what you're doing.
I got my analogy sucked. Here's a better one. Imagine a band not allowing their music to be played on local radio unless their concerts sell out.
Sorry for the sucky one.
I know all about black out rules. They make no sense to me. Imagine a band saying that unless so many CDs sell in an area, they're not going to perform in the area. Wouldn't that destroy a great marketing opportunity?
In the same way, if attendance to a sporting event is poor, it necessarily follows that the team is sucking. The worse thing you can do at that point is further distance yourself from your fans by making it harder for them to watch and support you.
Like I said, it makes no sense to me.
"The NFL is exceptionally stupid in the way they handle their old footage...If they would sell teams seasons to the fans"
Maybe, just maybe, the reason they don't sell DVDs of old games, is because there is absolutely no market for them, other than a few odd balls, of course. I find it very hard to believe that such a market exists but yet the NFL refuses to make money off of it.
Football is boring enough as it is, but who in their right mind would ever try to share it online AFTER the game is over?! And worse, who would be afraid of that happening?! Where's the lucrative market in old football games.
It appears that nVidia is kicking ATI's ass in Doom3. As someone who owns or owned a Rage Fury, Rage Fury Pro, Radeon 64, AIW 9600, and a Radeon 9700 Pro, I'm glad. Competition is a good thing.
While I agree with you in theory, I don't think my post is worthy of your critisizm.
There is no doubt that people who buy PS2s are in fact consumers. Thus there was no problem in me calling them consumers. They might also be citizens, but that's a different issue.
It does not matter if every single mod chip was used to play ripped games. The issue is whether we own what we buy. It appears that consumers in the UK do not.
Eventually every company will be infected, i.e., sued. But, will corporate America ever get wise enough to do something about it?
Thank you very much for your reply. As someone who played around with OSX a little bit I should have guessed that. I'm still not convinced that OSX needs that much power to run well, but it's still valid reason.
Can someone explain to me why a Mac would need such a powerful gaming card?!
Baah... Baah...
And the cable companies would NEVER use it to shut down things they don't like, e.g., online gaming servers, p2p programs, etc.
Oh, and you NEVER attacked my intellegence?! At least you proved your lack thereof with your sheeplike thinking.
Yes I realize that Longhorn is codename. But god, just once TRY to think for yourself!!
Why is it that you never hear Microsoft call Longhorn an update to Windows, but almost always a successor to Windows. Do a google search for: longhorn "successor to Windows"
And see how many hits you get.
Now do a search for:
Longhorn "upgrade to Windows"
How many hits do you get referring to Longhorn as an upgrade to Windows? None, that's how many I counted.
Successor means a replacement. If at work you're Bob's successor, you replaced him. Thus, Longhorn is going to replace Windows.
Also, in case you haven't heard, Microsoft is considering eliminating the Win32 API from Longhorn. Would you honestly consider an OS without Win32 support to be Windows?
And isn't your small brain even a little suspicious about the use of the phrase "Windows" in the settlement. Why is it so specific?
My speculative mind may be utterly incorrect. Maybe Longhorn will be the same crappy Windows OS we've grown to love. But at least I thought for myself rather than like a sheep.
The settlement specifically uses "Microsoft's Windows" and not, for example, "Microsoft's Operating System." I thought the purpose of that specific language was to make Longhorn exempt from the settlement. It's nice to know I'm wrong in this instance.
Nearly all game demos and patches are made available through bittorrent. The game publisher saves some bandwidth and gamers don't have to sign their souls over to fileplanet.
Some may argue that Congress wouldn't consider gaming worth of protecting. But just remind Congress that gamers are a billion dollar business, and that'll pique their interest.
When Lindows started using Linspire in the US. It made no sense other than to prepare for an eventual settlement. I do wish Robertson would have held out for more money. 20 million is NOTHING to Microsoft.
As long as Disney is around, forever.
I have an ATI AIW in one of my computers that records all of my shows. I'm able to edit the commericals out of those shows with TMPGEnc DVD Author and burn them to DVD. I can pause, fast forward, and rewind live television. On recorded shows I can use PowerDVD to skip 30 seconds, i.e., skip commericals. I can also put my entire music collection on it. I can also play games on it. And it comes with a great remote control that works through the entire house.
I do NOT have to pay any monthly fee. It NEVER records shows that it thinks I might like. I does NOT need a phone connection, ever.
Exactly what functionality am I missing?