Now if they could just learn ( say catch up a bit ) and stop acting like they have to own everything software, maybe slashdotters will stop treating them so terribly.
One issue for that organization, thoughis that the old version will not read newer MSOfficeversion's files. This is not an issue if they only deal with internal documents, but if they receive documents from outside the organization, they will likely have no control over those external version, and would therefore be under pressure to upgrade to be able to read the newer formats.
Governments are NOT IT shops and they don't usually have the expertise in either programming or managing programming projects to be able to do this in any way cost effectively.
They have an IT component that *ought* to be competent in programming or managing programming or procuring applications.
True, Government, itself, is not an IT shop, but they do have an IT shop associated with them. Not many organizations are IT shops. Most have one associated with them, as part of the organization, but are enabling, not core, in just the same situation as Government.
True, Governments are not IT shops. But lets look at part of that statement again. "..don't usually have the expertise in either programming or managing programming projects...". That seems to me to be claiming that there is no IT associated with Goverment. Which is not true.
I wasnt nessecarily arguing that having their IT div do the work was a good thing ( or a bad thing ), just seemed that the parent to my post thought that there was no IT associated in any way with govt, which is not the case ( leastways, as I understand it... )
Perhaps we have. There are a very large number of very intelligent people at Microsoft.
But my mind boggles. What I have always thought that you would use something in the supercomputer class for is lots of number crunching, math intensive type computation.
I am sure that ease of use has some place in all of this, but I cant help but imagine that it's far below performance and robustness and correctness.
So, hypothetically, all I have to do is put something on the doorstep that the people in the house have to step over that says "by leaving the house, you grant me right and title to enter the house and remove all goods I find to be of value, for whatever end use I made make, including selling them for a profit. Further, you indemnify me against injury while I am in your house, and hold me harmless for any breakage incurred in the removal of goods and services. I reserve the right to change and amend this agreement at any time, with or without notice to you.".
Say no. When you are about to type slashdot, stop yourself.
Remap your keyboard to replace the letter 'c' with the letter 'b'. Oh, no, that wont work. Try replacing 's' with 'b'. Then you will get blabhdot.com. Doesnt exist, so you cant accidently link to it from there.
Replace your PC with an old S/36 minicomputer. ( you can sell any heaters you have, you wont need them anymore ).
If your hand offends thee, cut it off. No browsing that way.
Course, they may realize that, and want people to think that she is full of it.
If things are as she has said, then the suit could be a PR move as well as a way to attempt to get her to back down and stop complaining.
If things are not as she said, I would be interested to know why she is persisting. She has little ones to think of. Perhaps there is some prior history between her and the developer. I would expect that to come to light in a trial, and she seems to want a trial. Course, that could be gamesmanship on her part.
The law is not "up" with the latest and greatest capability we have medically, unless we ask ourselves what is ethical. Law seems to be reactive, not static, we have new laws added every year, nominally to deal
What is the law about in the first place? Codifying what we find to be right and wrong, I think.
How will the laws be framed?
If all we do is ask "what is legal", we will find "legal" to be twisted to fit whatever.
We have, at least here in the US, the ability to donate our bodies for cases like those you bring up. I think, with time, we may have similiar outs for such issues.
I think it right and proper that we reflect on these questions. I further think that we should always ( in all situations ) be asking what is ethical, as well as what is legal.
...hence not recommended or practiced very long if a company wants to stay in business...
This is the ideal, true.
But how many businesses are in business despite ethical lapses.
Take for instance, Sony, the subject of much talk here of late. They may suffer some small loss of profits, but very likely will continue in business. If you are not in the "Microsoft can do no wrong" camp, I, personally, believe them to be an excellent example of doing some degree of wrong over a while and continuing in business.
I think other examples could be found as well.
The basic problems with the ideal are that it is difficult to educate yourself as a consumer as to the ethical lapses of those you are considering doing business with. That is getting easier, but there are some fundamental issues that may never be overcome.
It is difficult as a business to know the bottom line costs to themselves of certain actions, and even if it is, it will likely be decided not by right and wrong, but on bottom line costs ( Look up the issues about Ford Pinto's catching fire in rear end collisions, and how Ford decided in that case ).
...an ignorant society that abandons its morals will invariably have have a corrupt government...
Quite true, but this is true of just about any government instituted amoung men. Some are better than others. Democracy is good, provided there is accountablity and visibility ( something America needs more of, in my considered opinion ). And your point is right on target there, I guess we get as much of that as we insist on, overall. I wish we insisted on more. Capitalism, in my mind, is a blind animalistic set of passions travelling on it's stomach. It is as good in this regard as the regulations ( whether instituted in effective law, or naturally arising from the participants thereof )
You appear to be correct in stating that Microsoft has a trademark on "Windows"
However:
From GigaLaw
"Is "Windows" a Generic Term?
SEE ALSO Making Your (Trade)Mark on the World
Compelling Business Reasons to Take Trademarks Seriously
Basic Facts About Registering a Trademark Microsoft's intriguing legal fight to prevent a startup from identifying itself and its software as "Lindows" provides some valuable lessons for companies of every size -- including Microsoft itself, which has had more trademark troubles than necessary for a Fortune 100 company.
The current dispute, which Microsoft brought against Lindows.com, already has backfired against the software giant. In March, a federal district judge in Seattle denied Microsoft's request for a preliminary injunction preventing Lindows.com from using its trademark, which Microsoft said violated its own rights to the Windows trademark. In doing so, the judge said the case raised "serious questions" about the validity of the Windows trademark.
Here's why: An elementary principle of trademark law says that generic terms cannot be protected. So, for example, no company could obtain trademark rights to the word "computer" to describe what we all know as a computer. As the judge in the ongoing Lindows case explained: "when a trademark's primary significance is to describe the type of product rather than the producer or source, the mark is a generic term." Generic terms can be used by anyone."
Your assumptions matter in how you discuss the matter.
So, they matter that much. And I dont know that it is clear that they were working from the assumption that it was trademarkable, they might have been working from the assumption that as a small fry, it might be too expensive to attempt to litigate, or not worth the bother.
And how does the Australian trademark matter to US companies?
* He used name including the ( common ) word Windows. * Microsoft decided to use the name "Windows Defender" * Microsoft noticed the name was already used by this guy * Microsoft decided to see if they could chase him off * He relented and gave up the name
A: You seem to have done well in the point scoring defending Microsoft.
B: They tell him *after* they decide they want the name that he is infringing a trademark, not "we want to use the name". Classy would have been Microsoft offering him some quid pro quo for surrendering the name.
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking only for myself, depends on how they get it.
If they get it by being excellent, fine. If they
get it by running competing business's off, then
not fine.
Also depend on how they maintain it.
If that is also by excellence, also fine. If they try
to lock people in, manipulate, steal, etc, then not
fine.
Yes, definately.
Along with the rest of the machine.
All you say is quite true.
Now if they could just learn ( say catch up a bit ) and
stop acting like they have to own everything software,
maybe slashdotters will stop treating them so terribly.
You have a good point.
One issue for that organization, thoughis that the old version will not
read newer MSOfficeversion's files. This is not an issue if
they only deal with internal documents, but if they receive
documents from outside the organization, they will likely have
no control over those external version, and would therefore
be under pressure to upgrade to be able to read the newer
formats.
They have an IT component that *ought* to be competent in programming or managing programming or procuring applications.
True, Government, itself, is not an IT shop, but they do have an IT shop associated with them. Not many organizations
are IT shops. Most have one associated with them, as part of the organization, but are enabling, not core,
in just the same situation as Government.
True, Governments are not IT shops. But lets look at part of that statement again. "..don't usually have the expertise in either programming or managing programming projects...". That seems to me to be claiming that there is no IT associated with Goverment.
Which is not true.
So, does his magnification software work with Open Office for Windows?
Or just Microsoft's?
Nope, never had the pleasure. :-)
I wasnt nessecarily arguing that having their IT div do the
work was a good thing ( or a bad thing ), just seemed that
the parent to my post thought that there was no IT associated
in any way with govt, which is not the case ( leastways, as
I understand it... )
They do have an IT department.
Perhaps we have. There are a very large number of
very intelligent people at Microsoft.
But my mind boggles. What I have always thought that you
would use something in the supercomputer class for is lots
of number crunching, math intensive type computation.
I am sure that ease of use has some place in all of this,
but I cant help but imagine that it's far below performance
and robustness and correctness.
Imagine a Microsoft cluster of those!
So, hypothetically, all I have to do is put something on the doorstep that the
people in the house have to step over that says "by leaving the house, you grant
me right and title to enter the house and remove all goods I find to be of value,
for whatever end use I made make, including selling them for a profit. Further,
you indemnify me against injury while I am in your house, and hold me harmless
for any breakage incurred in the removal of goods and services. I reserve the
right to change and amend this agreement at any time, with or without notice
to you.".
3: execute!
4: profit!
Say no. When you are about to type slashdot, stop yourself.
Remap your keyboard to replace the letter 'c' with the letter 'b'.
Oh, no, that wont work. Try replacing 's' with 'b'. Then you
will get blabhdot.com. Doesnt exist, so you cant accidently
link to it from there.
Replace your PC with an old S/36 minicomputer. ( you can sell
any heaters you have, you wont need them anymore ).
If your hand offends thee, cut it off. No browsing that way.
Not quite a chapter, but I will work on it.
Use your Hungarian/English phrase book.
True enough, if she is full of it.
Course, they may realize that, and want people to
think that she is full of it.
If things are as she has said, then the suit could
be a PR move as well as a way to attempt to get her
to back down and stop complaining.
If things are not as she said, I would be interested
to know why she is persisting. She has little ones
to think of. Perhaps there is some prior history
between her and the developer. I would expect that to
come to light in a trial, and she seems to want a
trial. Course, that could be gamesmanship on her
part.
The law is not "up" with the latest and greatest capability we have medically, unless
we ask ourselves what is ethical. Law seems to be reactive, not static, we have new
laws added every year, nominally to deal
What is the law about in the first place? Codifying what we find to be right and wrong, I think.
How will the laws be framed?
If all we do is ask "what is legal", we will find "legal" to be twisted to fit whatever.
We have, at least here in the US, the ability to donate our bodies for cases like
those you bring up. I think, with time, we may have similiar outs for such issues.
I think it right and proper that we reflect on these questions. I further think
that we should always ( in all situations ) be asking what is ethical, as well as
what is legal.
It would depend, in my mind anyway, on the beliefs of the person who died, and on the beliefs of the person's relatives.
In any case, it seems a very personal decision, with the one "thing" ( your body )
that you most truly "own".
I understand where you are coming from, I wish more people would donate. I dont
think it should be a governmental decision.
This is the ideal, true.
But how many businesses are in business despite ethical lapses.
Take for instance, Sony, the subject of much talk here of late.
They may suffer some small loss of profits, but very likely will
continue in business. If you are not in the "Microsoft can do no
wrong" camp, I, personally, believe them to be an excellent example
of doing some degree of wrong over a while and continuing in business.
I think other examples could be found as well.
The basic problems with the ideal are that it is difficult to educate
yourself as a consumer as to the ethical lapses of those you are considering
doing business with. That is getting easier, but there are some fundamental
issues that may never be overcome.
It is difficult as a business to know the bottom line costs to themselves
of certain actions, and even if it is, it will likely be decided not by
right and wrong, but on bottom line costs ( Look up the issues about
Ford Pinto's catching fire in rear end collisions, and how Ford decided
in that case ).
Quite true, but this is true of just about any government instituted amoung men. Some are better than others.
Democracy is good, provided there is accountablity and visibility ( something America needs more of, in my
considered opinion ). And your point is right on target there, I guess we get as much of that as we insist
on, overall. I wish we insisted on more. Capitalism, in my mind, is a blind animalistic set of passions
travelling on it's stomach. It is as good in this regard as the regulations ( whether instituted in effective
law, or naturally arising from the participants thereof )
Note to self: Remember to do a few leading searches on the computer of the person I am trying to frame for a crime.
I've mailed and I've mailed, but you
wont send me the goods!
I wish I had moderator points.
You appear to be correct in stating that Microsoft has a trademark on "Windows"
:-)
However:
From GigaLaw
"Is "Windows" a Generic Term?
SEE ALSO
Making Your (Trade)Mark on the World
Compelling Business Reasons to Take Trademarks Seriously
Basic Facts About Registering a Trademark
Microsoft's intriguing legal fight to prevent a startup from identifying itself and its software as "Lindows" provides some valuable lessons for companies of every size -- including Microsoft itself, which has had more trademark troubles than necessary for a Fortune 100 company.
The current dispute, which Microsoft brought against Lindows.com, already has backfired against the software giant. In March, a federal district judge in Seattle denied Microsoft's request for a preliminary injunction preventing Lindows.com from using its trademark, which Microsoft said violated its own rights to the Windows trademark. In doing so, the judge said the case raised "serious questions" about the validity of the Windows trademark.
Here's why: An elementary principle of trademark law says that generic terms cannot be protected. So, for example, no company could obtain trademark rights to the word "computer" to describe what we all know as a computer. As the judge in the ongoing Lindows case explained: "when a trademark's primary significance is to describe the type of product rather than the producer or source, the mark is a generic term." Generic terms can be used by anyone."
site here
That said, I dont know how they work in the land down under....
As to reading the article, you must be new here...
Yes, having read the article, I see why Austrialian trademarks would factor in.
Your assumptions matter in how you discuss the matter.
So, they matter that much. And I dont know that it is clear
that they were working from the assumption that it was trademarkable,
they might have been working from the assumption that as a small fry,
it might be too expensive to attempt to litigate, or not worth the
bother.
And how does the Australian trademark matter to US companies?
You are working from the assumption that that is a trademarkable name.
I am not.
Were you correct ( in my estimation ), I would be in agreement with you.
As I dont believe you are correct about that, I disagree with you.
Can you show where Microsoft can legally claim "Windows" as
a trademark?
More likely it went this way:
* He used name including the ( common ) word Windows.
* Microsoft decided to use the name "Windows Defender"
* Microsoft noticed the name was already used by this guy
* Microsoft decided to see if they could chase him off
* He relented and gave up the name
A: You seem to have done well in the point scoring defending Microsoft.
B: They tell him *after* they decide they want the name that he is infringing a trademark, not "we want to use the name". Classy would have been Microsoft offering him some quid pro quo for surrendering the name.