But it doesn't work. Hollywood is not dying, unfortunately not.
It may be a good idea to change the rules of the music business but TPB sustains them.
Also file sharing helps to promote all these gadgets. You don't buy an Ipod or Zune to store your cds on it. Also patent trolls are happy because file sharing promotes their formats instead of ogg.
File sharing leads to free music as in free beer but not in the sense of freedom. It promotes the production channels for the commercial trash. It is music industry against scapegoats.
What we've tried to do with "Burning the Ships" is take IP questions out of the realm of arcane debate among lawyers and show real people, in the midst of a highly dramatic internal struggle at Microsoft, learning how to deploy IP for tangible business benefit. As one reader put it, the book is a "thoroughly entertaining and informative canâ(TM)t-wait-to-get-to-the-next-page read."
Marshall Phelps wants to turn Microsoft into a kind of patent troll, or as they call it "open innovation".
IPW: A basic lesson in the book could be interpreted as, 'We were getting hurt by others who had patents, so we used our market power to require partners to agree not to enforce their patents until we had enough of our own patents to start enforcing them the way we didnâ(TM)t want others to do to us.' Can you address that?
PHELPS: Remember, this was back before software patents were a fact of life. MS was just getting a real head of steam but wasnâ(TM)t at all sure patenting was the way to go.
So either Microsoft kicks its bastards out or it simply deserves to suffer from these fines of a rotten patent system.
Sure, the recent job losses at Microsoft will not affect their "creation of IP". Look at SCO! Developers leave your company and lawyers litigate you to the ground. Great business model.
Microsoft is ideological. Apple has its open source kernel, it has DRM, it sues bloggers, it is more stylish, it makes you appear homosexual, all of everything.
So why do people dislike Microsoft? Is it because the company plays straight evil. Because if lobbies foreign governments and obstructs interoperability and open source policies.
Doc is just the legacy format, fine for elementary stuff and sufficiently decoded, with no hidden secret left, and docx is a technology dead end, everybody knows that. I think Microsoft is really committed to use odf.
The nice thing is these days you have myriads of these initiatives and all you can achieve with a lot of lobbying is to kill them. Poor old monopolist.
So why not start another one as to watch the chairs flying around...
All I wanted to say is that the rationality of investment and profit is flawed because it is based on the assumption that consumption and investment are different. As the person with the money you are free to spent on whatever you want, even if you made "no profit". Profit is a personal shadow price for delayed consumption.
Exactly. It is plain rationality and financial mathematics. Because financial products lack dimensions.
It challenges human freedom just in the same way as the spanish ceremonials restrict the exercise of power by the monarch. A feudal system in its extreme form can be run by a child king.
If your invention is not 1: Novel 2: Inventive 3: Industrially applicable
This is baseless and deceptive. "Inventive" is like "guilty" in inquisition. Words don't actually mean what they say. "Industrially applicable" means no weird bullshit and no perpetuum mobile.
Exactly. It does not work because it does not protect against patent trolls and normal business players won't sue you as they patent for defensive purposes and maybe just want licensing fees.
With your portfolio you could countersue IBM but what to do against Eolas and Sisvel? Oh, and a patent lawsuit costs 500k.
Of course there are different types of companies and associations. What is the difference of a public benefit, a party, and different sorts of companies or a website. An association of people can do whatever they want.
You and your neighbors can e.g. own a cooperative that supplies electricity to your block. And a milk farm won't manufacture tanks and rifles because they are more profitable, just an allocation of free capital to these entities is guarded by greed because that is the essence of capital investment.
Think of Popper: normative individualism. Once these free individuals associate and establish a legal person that legal person, the association or company, can also pursue their own objectives.
If I have money as a capitalist I can do whatever I like with it. There is no rule above me that says I have to maximize returns. There is also no clear destinction between investment and spending. With spending I invest with negative return expectations. E.g. I buy a concert ticket. The concert is over, the money is gone. I buy a house, I live in the house, I sell the house. I buy a car, I use the car, I sell the used car. With investment I spent with positive return expectations. I rent a concert hall and a band, I sell tickets, I make profit. I buy a house, I live in the house, I sell my house, I expect to make profit.
If I have n billions in cash and my personal goal is to go to built more energy-efficient machines who is going to stop me?
The real problem is here a depersonification of capital. Large capital investment is not personal choice but an abstract technocratic choice built around a normative homo economicus, a human model that is not "me" or "you".
You don't get it here. It is a transparency troll for awareness raising.
ACTA is a regulatory project enshrined in a trade agreement.
So all nations have to keep it secret because that would endanger international relations.
ACTA is a mass organiser for transparency because ACTA becomes transparent when in all participating nations ACTA is asked to be made public. But then ACTA is also dead because of public attention to the shit.
Slashdot Mirror
But it doesn't work. Hollywood is not dying, unfortunately not.
It may be a good idea to change the rules of the music business but TPB sustains them.
Also file sharing helps to promote all these gadgets. You don't buy an Ipod or Zune to store your cds on it. Also patent trolls are happy because file sharing promotes their formats instead of ogg.
File sharing leads to free music as in free beer but not in the sense of freedom. It promotes the production channels for the commercial trash. It is music industry against scapegoats.
Oh Billy boy, the pipes, the pipes are calling
Software patents are trivial because what they protect is not scarce.
Microsoft gets the paycheck for what it resisted so violently, even with lobbyists in third nations: sane patent reform.
Read this IPwatch article to get an idea what is going on in the Microsoft community. Phelps says:
What we've tried to do with "Burning the Ships" is take IP questions out of the realm of arcane debate among lawyers and show real people, in the midst of a highly dramatic internal struggle at Microsoft, learning how to deploy IP for tangible business benefit. As one reader put it, the book is a "thoroughly entertaining and informative canâ(TM)t-wait-to-get-to-the-next-page read."
Marshall Phelps wants to turn Microsoft into a kind of patent troll, or as they call it "open innovation".
IPW: A basic lesson in the book could be interpreted as, 'We were getting hurt by others who had patents, so we used our market power to require partners to agree not to enforce their patents until we had enough of our own patents to start enforcing them the way we didnâ(TM)t want others to do to us.' Can you address that?
PHELPS: Remember, this was back before software patents were a fact of life. MS was just getting a real head of steam but wasnâ(TM)t at all sure patenting was the way to go.
So either Microsoft kicks its bastards out or it simply deserves to suffer from these fines of a rotten patent system.
Ah, this is Marshall Phelps. A dark side of IBM import.
Sure, the recent job losses at Microsoft will not affect their "creation of IP". Look at SCO! Developers leave your company and lawyers litigate you to the ground. Great business model.
Babelfish?
A real coder should be able to write code that he understands, code that does not need comments. No one care for Eric Raymond and his language nazis.
Right so, English is a virus. Cmp. Ireland, they still stick to the colonial language.
It is better when people stick to their mother tongue. It is all about culture.
The point is that it is irrelevant to speak English for programming software. Real programmers talk Lojban.
/me has an idea what to ask Microsoft for...
I mean of course a creative commons release of the the Encarta MS reference font...
So what are the barriers actually.
I know both.
KEI = Knowledge Ecology International
Apple is the most proprietary system.
So what is the difference?
Microsoft is ideological. Apple has its open source kernel, it has DRM, it sues bloggers, it is more stylish, it makes you appear homosexual, all of everything.
So why do people dislike Microsoft? Is it because the company plays straight evil. Because if lobbies foreign governments and obstructs interoperability and open source policies.
Doc is just the legacy format, fine for elementary stuff and sufficiently decoded, with no hidden secret left, and docx is a technology dead end, everybody knows that. I think Microsoft is really committed to use odf.
Open XML is a dead horse.
The OOXML-ECMA?
Nuff said.
The nice thing is these days you have myriads of these initiatives and all you can achieve with a lot of lobbying is to kill them. Poor old monopolist.
So why not start another one as to watch the chairs flying around...
You after all don't get bribed for playing nice.
Indeed, there is no business reason for Microsoft to shoot that bill down except ideology.
After all Microsoft supports ODF, they are even in the OASIS Committee.
All I wanted to say is that the rationality of investment and profit is flawed because it is based on the assumption that consumption and investment are different. As the person with the money you are free to spent on whatever you want, even if you made "no profit". Profit is a personal shadow price for delayed consumption.
Exactly. It is plain rationality and financial mathematics. Because financial products lack dimensions.
It challenges human freedom just in the same way as the spanish ceremonials restrict the exercise of power by the monarch. A feudal system in its extreme form can be run by a child king.
If your invention is not
1: Novel
2: Inventive
3: Industrially applicable
This is baseless and deceptive. "Inventive" is like "guilty" in inquisition. Words don't actually mean what they say. "Industrially applicable" means no weird bullshit and no perpetuum mobile.
Exactly. It does not work because it does not protect against patent trolls and normal business players won't sue you as they patent for defensive purposes and maybe just want licensing fees.
With your portfolio you could countersue IBM but what to do against Eolas and Sisvel? Oh, and a patent lawsuit costs 500k.
Of course there are different types of companies and associations. What is the difference of a public benefit, a party, and different sorts of companies or a website. An association of people can do whatever they want.
You and your neighbors can e.g. own a cooperative that supplies electricity to your block. And a milk farm won't manufacture tanks and rifles because they are more profitable, just an allocation of free capital to these entities is guarded by greed because that is the essence of capital investment.
Think of Popper: normative individualism. Once these free individuals associate and establish a legal person that legal person, the association or company, can also pursue their own objectives.
If I have money as a capitalist I can do whatever I like with it. There is no rule above me that says I have to maximize returns. There is also no clear destinction between investment and spending. With spending I invest with negative return expectations. E.g. I buy a concert ticket. The concert is over, the money is gone. I buy a house, I live in the house, I sell the house. I buy a car, I use the car, I sell the used car. With investment I spent with positive return expectations. I rent a concert hall and a band, I sell tickets, I make profit. I buy a house, I live in the house, I sell my house, I expect to make profit.
If I have n billions in cash and my personal goal is to go to built more energy-efficient machines who is going to stop me?
The real problem is here a depersonification of capital. Large capital investment is not personal choice but an abstract technocratic choice built around a normative homo economicus, a human model that is not "me" or "you".
Could you get me a www reference to the respective laws or rules?
You don't get it here. It is a transparency troll for awareness raising.
ACTA is a regulatory project enshrined in a trade agreement.
So all nations have to keep it secret because that would endanger international relations.
ACTA is a mass organiser for transparency because ACTA becomes transparent when in all participating nations ACTA is asked to be made public. But then ACTA is also dead because of public attention to the shit.
Do you think social hacking is an answer to social engineering?