The timing for an IPO is bad. Now that they appear to be turning an operating profit, protential investors can only see the limitations of Opera's profit potential. When Opera was still sustaining losses, investors could (unrealistically) fill in the blanks on Opera's potential. I suspect that many investors are savvy about a company whose chief competitor is the 800 lb gorilla of the industry and whose major competing products are free of charge.
I've often wondered why something is described as "enterprise" one year but not so in the prior year. It's the same product but spiffed up with comestic flourishes, not the least of which is a new name. Sounds like marketing b.s.
It seems more like, "Anything *ix related that IBM creates is our code. Any methodologies learned while creating *ix code and used in creating other *ix code makes that code our code. Hence, contributing any *ix code to Linux is stealing it from us."
Although SCO's complaint pushes heavily on the derivative works angle, it is far more insidious in implying that the knowledge and experience of engineers who worked on AIX & Dynix prior to being assigned to the Linux project are also the domain and IP of SCO. The complaint quotes comments in some of the code that state that it was based on the work of a specific engineer from another project (AIX?). The complaint further states that the existing community of Linux contributors, apparently a hapless group of bumbling amateurs and hobbyists, lack the knowledge, experience and hardware-testing resources to create enterprise level product. That gap could only be filled by the expertise of IBM's professionals who honed their knowledge through many years of developing AIX and Dynix. By extension, any work done by these IBM and Sequent engineers on Linux could be deemed part of SCO IP even if it bears no resemblance to or has no precedence in Unix source code.
Consumers could really benefit from a third significant processor designer. Cyrix was in the game for a while but their CPU's were not competitive performers but, in the end, they could only compete on price for low end machines. With only two major players from which to choose, I don't believe innovation will transcend revving up the clock speeds or adding more cache memory in a tit-for-tat race of incremental "improvements".
Why would anyone pay for Office for Linux, a proprietary suite of office applications, when I can get Star/Open office for the cost of a download? Not to mention the activation hassles.
If i made a company that sold pop and called it Soca-Cola Company, and made the cans red, I think I would get sued by Coke and no one would think that Coca-Cola was wrong...
I'd sue you for having a product name crappy name.
Longhorn is just a code name or project name, if you will. I'm sure Microsoft will give it an original name when it gets rolled out in 2005 or 2006. Something like Windows 2005.
The suggested retail price of the latest MS Office Pro 2003 is $799 (although we all know that very few people actually pay that amount). If the cost of media, reproduction, warehousing, etc. is 1/1000th of the full retail price, then it only costs MS $0.80 to make one copy. I don't know what MS's actual cost is but I think we can safely assume that it cost more than $0.80 to produce a single copy.
We don't need to go all the way to phylosophy. The Patent Act (which (IIRC) provides the basis for all patents in the US) says, for example "excluded from such patent protection are laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas." This does not depend on the dichotomy between invention and discovery. Up until the mid-1970s by the CCPA (Court of Customs & Patent Appeals) no one thought you could or should be able to patent mathematics.
It's fine that laws of nature and natural phenomena are not patentable but people have easily skirted that issue. Patents have been granted on the use of specific human genetic sequences, often with the patent holder not understanding what the sequence actually does. While the gene sequence itself cannot be patented (or else we'd all be getting an invoice for license fees from the owner of said protected IP), the use of the genetic sequence in any process or invention is protected.
We've come a long way from Jonas Salk, and frankly, we need to go back.
I think there was a litigation over who owns the patent over the laser. I don't remember the names of the 3 parties but there was an inventor who actually came up with the first working laser, the two scientists/researchers who applied for and received the patent and another fellow who as a student had his notebook detailing his ideas for the laser notarized prior to other existing claims. I don't know the ultimate resolution of the patent claim.
Although laser technology is ubiquitous today, it took many years before the technology became widely applied. In the case of laser technology, I don't think that patent protection arrested its development and adoption into everyday use. However, ideas, especially some of the bogus Internet-related patents applied for after the fact, do affect widespread acceptance of technology.
I think US patents are only applicable in the US. If a similar patent exists in another country, it would not have any bearing on granting a patent in the US.
Re:SCO being a member of United Linux...
on
United Linux Dead
·
· Score: 1
Apparently, they refused to leave after the litigation was initiated. From the stand point of the rest of the members, SCO is an unwelcome member.
Slashdot Mirror
The timing for an IPO is bad. Now that they appear to be turning an operating profit, protential investors can only see the limitations of Opera's profit potential. When Opera was still sustaining losses, investors could (unrealistically) fill in the blanks on Opera's potential. I suspect that many investors are savvy about a company whose chief competitor is the 800 lb gorilla of the industry and whose major competing products are free of charge.
I'm still dumbfounded by Russell's paradox. But I'm gonna figure this out, ya know.
And I thought the P in PERL meant Practical.
The best liar gets an Oscar.
"Rights" like this are illusory. I need both hands to hold it and to shake it afterwards.
I've often wondered why something is described as "enterprise" one year but not so in the prior year. It's the same product but spiffed up with comestic flourishes, not the least of which is a new name. Sounds like marketing b.s.
Lines 662-664 seem especially damning. :^)
Wasn't SCO still a 16-bit OS at the time? Really, an OS put out by amateurs and hobbyists.
Boies is a litagator. If the case goes to trial, we'll be seeing more of him.
It seems more like, "Anything *ix related that IBM creates is our code. Any methodologies learned while creating *ix code and used in creating other *ix code makes that code our code. Hence, contributing any *ix code to Linux is stealing it from us."
Although SCO's complaint pushes heavily on the derivative works angle, it is far more insidious in implying that the knowledge and experience of engineers who worked on AIX & Dynix prior to being assigned to the Linux project are also the domain and IP of SCO. The complaint quotes comments in some of the code that state that it was based on the work of a specific engineer from another project (AIX?). The complaint further states that the existing community of Linux contributors, apparently a hapless group of bumbling amateurs and hobbyists, lack the knowledge, experience and hardware-testing resources to create enterprise level product. That gap could only be filled by the expertise of IBM's professionals who honed their knowledge through many years of developing AIX and Dynix. By extension, any work done by these IBM and Sequent engineers on Linux could be deemed part of SCO IP even if it bears no resemblance to or has no precedence in Unix source code.
Consumers could really benefit from a third significant processor designer. Cyrix was in the game for a while but their CPU's were not competitive performers but, in the end, they could only compete on price for low end machines. With only two major players from which to choose, I don't believe innovation will transcend revving up the clock speeds or adding more cache memory in a tit-for-tat race of incremental "improvements".
That article makes me want to run out and get a dual Opteron system. :^)
Why would anyone pay for Office for Linux, a proprietary suite of office applications, when I can get Star/Open office for the cost of a download? Not to mention the activation hassles.
My first was quick, but, alas, not humorous.
Think "Hubble".
If i made a company that sold pop and called it Soca-Cola Company, and made the cans red, I think I would get sued by Coke and no one would think that Coca-Cola was wrong...
I'd sue you for having a product name crappy name.
Longhorn is just a code name or project name, if you will. I'm sure Microsoft will give it an original name when it gets rolled out in 2005 or 2006. Something like Windows 2005.
The SCO suit may be #1 in these parts but to the rest of the world it's low on the radar.
The suggested retail price of the latest MS Office Pro 2003 is $799 (although we all know that very few people actually pay that amount). If the cost of media, reproduction, warehousing, etc. is 1/1000th of the full retail price, then it only costs MS $0.80 to make one copy. I don't know what MS's actual cost is but I think we can safely assume that it cost more than $0.80 to produce a single copy.
It's fine that laws of nature and natural phenomena are not patentable but people have easily skirted that issue. Patents have been granted on the use of specific human genetic sequences, often with the patent holder not understanding what the sequence actually does. While the gene sequence itself cannot be patented (or else we'd all be getting an invoice for license fees from the owner of said protected IP), the use of the genetic sequence in any process or invention is protected.
We've come a long way from Jonas Salk, and frankly, we need to go back.
I think there was a litigation over who owns the patent over the laser. I don't remember the names of the 3 parties but there was an inventor who actually came up with the first working laser, the two scientists/researchers who applied for and received the patent and another fellow who as a student had his notebook detailing his ideas for the laser notarized prior to other existing claims. I don't know the ultimate resolution of the patent claim.
Although laser technology is ubiquitous today, it took many years before the technology became widely applied. In the case of laser technology, I don't think that patent protection arrested its development and adoption into everyday use. However, ideas, especially some of the bogus Internet-related patents applied for after the fact, do affect widespread acceptance of technology.
I think US patents are only applicable in the US. If a similar patent exists in another country, it would not have any bearing on granting a patent in the US.
Apparently, they refused to leave after the litigation was initiated. From the stand point of the rest of the members, SCO is an unwelcome member.
Hey, saying queer is ok now. Haven't you heard of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy"?