Why the hell would Microsoft even care about this name? Would any reasonable person really think this was their official site? Maybe if they were functionally illiterate, in which case they wouldn't have much use for Microsoft products. All this is doing is generating some bad press for Microsoft and some media exposure for the kid. I'm betting this gets dropped soon, as there is no way they could win in court.
True, but knowing ad execs they would rather spend time putting together ever more obnoxious commercials using pop music from 2 years ago rather than doing something that will actually increase sales. When it comes to selling electronics to women, it seems like cheezy ads would be less effective than making it clear that a particular store has better deals, more useful devices, etc.
Normally I don't respond to some AC posting drivel, but this one begs a response. A patent covers a particular drug, not a type of drug. If you are able to treat the same disease in the exact same way without technically infringing the patent, more power to you. If you need to rip off someone else's idea without compensating them, that is when the law steps in. You just refuted your own argument, successfully I might add, when you said that drug companies will not allow cheap African production since the drugs would find their way into other markets. This has already happened in the U.S. Like I said before, if you take the profit out of drug development then say goodbye to any future drugs. Yes, this is harsh for people of the developing world but it won't work any other way. Perhaps Mr. AC would like to log in and post a reply? Nah, I doubt he has the guts.
OK, I know this comment will be treated as blasphemy on Slashdot, but I really don't see a problem with Apple's DRM. They obviously did not want to restrict users' ability to make use of the files, which is why they allow them to be copied on CD or put on a portable player. They had to use some sort of protection to keep someone from downloading a file and then immediately and effortlessly sharing it on the Internet. Not only would it hurt their profits if people do this, but how could they get any record label to license their music to the service? This is not a bad balance between protection of copyrights and preservation of fair use. And if you're determined to use iTunes and get a DRM free file, its not like it is difficult to do.
Wow, that is a great point. If a 'new breed' of media companies sprung up with lower priced merchandise, they would have an excellent selling point over their mainstream competitors. In addition to the lower price, they could assure consumers that they would not be restricted or get in trouble for use of the product. They would probably find it to their advantage to market the product in a way that allows copies to be made (while still cracking down on wholesale, for profit pirates).
My god, how I wish you could turn this off. Nothing is worse than browsing the web and having the debug message pop up a thousand times on somebody's poorly designed website. Yea, like I really want to debug their code. I know you can turn off script debugging in IE, but if you have Visual Studio, it must override that setting since it always changes back when you close the browser or restart the computer.
Nobody is banned from producing AIDS treatments. What they are banned from is selling the treatment at far below actual cost and giving the companies that formulated it nothing. Do you think it would be a good idea to allow poor nations to manufacture any patented drug they want without compensating the inventor at all? Let me give you a hint, if this ever happened, it would be the end of new drug development. Who would spend upwards of a billion dollars on R&D knowing that they would get no real reward for it? Drug companies do, and should, give a certain amount of medicine to poor countries as a charitable donation. But this is far different than allowing the country to produce it without paying the inventor.
I think PVR makers will always include some sort of work around if the player requires the recording of commercials. Why? So they can play both sides of the field. They can assure media companies that people cannot easily change a setting to simply block all commercials. At the same time, they know that PVR sales would drop dramatically if there was no way to bypass commercials. I for one would find a PVR to be completely useless if this were the case.
I'm surprised it would say Average. Even the Deutsch Bank shill who was trying to pump the price last summer after BayStar gave SCO $50 million said that the stock was highly risky and would likely be worth nothing if SCO lost their lawsuit against IBM. All of the SCO shills, such as Yankee Group, say that the stock is a gamble, but that it will become extremely valuable if SCO prevails. What they severely underestimate (or just lie about) is the likelyhood of SCO losing in court.
The only way Nasdaq will begin delisting procedures is if a stock has traded for under $1 a share for 30 days. This post explains more about how this process works. There are things a company can do to prevent delisting, but for the most part it is inevitable for stocks that trade at $1 a share long term.
Were they actually able to 'pick any fruit'? From what I have seen, Microsoft and Sun bought SCO licenses most likely to support the FUD machine. Has any other company actually been confirmed to have paid SCO for the use of Linux?
If this is the case, I wonder if Microsoft and Sun thought about this when they bought their SCO license? Once SCO goes bankrupt and their assets are sold at auction, these licenses along with audit rights if they exist will transfer to the buyer. Who will be the lucky company with audit rights against Sun and Microsoft?
I highly doubt the record labels will pay out twice. They'll say something along the lines of "We're not paying you twice, if you don't like it, sue us." We can all imagine just how much of a chance an artist has at prevailing in a suit against the well funded RIAA.
I think the fact that indemnification is being offered at all is rather convincing for a lot of corporate executives, even if their company is not actually indemnified by a vendor. What I mean is, when a CxO sees that respected industry leaders like IBM, Intel, Novell, RedHat and others say that they will cover the legal bills of any customer that gets sued, they assume that the SCO case must be weak. Why else would these companies put themselves on the hook for what could otherwise be millions of dollars in attorney fees? If they perceive the chance of being sued as very remote, they are a lot more likely to invest in Linux, even if there is still a small chance of a lawsuit. Remember, any company that is producing or selling anything takes risks of being sued as a result of their everyday operations. And like I said earlier, for largish companies, the savings in Microsoft licenses could pay all the legal fees they would ever encounter from Linux use.
Well, Linux does have a lot in common with Unix. This is the main reason it has become so popular. I think its accurate to say that Unix is the basis for the creation of Linux, but that does not mean that SCO has a case against Linux users. You might infer that from reading the article, but otherwise, this seems to be one of the more balanced Reuters/Forbes articles I have seen about this issue. I still pity any poor loser who has bought SCO stock based on Forbes articles.
If indemnification makes people more likely to adopt open source software in the short term, it is a good thing. Yes, it will suck for smaller software companies that can not afford indemnification, but as more companies realize that open source is not as scary as Microsoft wants them to believe, its usage will pick up dramatically. For large companies, the savings in software licensing fees could pay for all the legal representation they need to defend their open source usage and distribution. Once the SCO case falls apart and potential copycats realize that extorting money out of free software users is harder than it appeared at first, such lawsuits, along with the fear of being sued, will drop off.
SCO is not big or powerful enough to get a government bailout, no matter how hard they cry. Their only long term hope is to reform the company after bankruptcy, but I don't even see that happening. I give them 2 years max before they implode, and it will probably damage Canopy as a whole quite badly.
There is plenty of free speech going on at this website every day, a lot of it is critical of the U.S. government and likely being posted by U.S. citizens. If freedom of speech no longer existed, the FBI would have shut this site down, along with most of the Internet, long ago. I know, government conspiracies are fun and all, but there just isn't one in this story.
I don't see why anyone would need a public IP address for their toaster. Assuming we have appliances that are internet-enabled, they would most likely all connect to a household server for central control. So at most you would need an IP address for your appliance control server. Considering most internet connected devices are behind a firewall/proxy and not directly on the internet anyway, I don't think the IP address shortage will be as bad as people originally believed. And besides, would you want someone hacking directly into your toaster through some port you didn't know was open?
Slashdot Mirror
Why the hell would Microsoft even care about this name? Would any reasonable person really think this was their official site? Maybe if they were functionally illiterate, in which case they wouldn't have much use for Microsoft products. All this is doing is generating some bad press for Microsoft and some media exposure for the kid. I'm betting this gets dropped soon, as there is no way they could win in court.
It would be even better if she decided to have a hyphenated last name.
True, but knowing ad execs they would rather spend time putting together ever more obnoxious commercials using pop music from 2 years ago rather than doing something that will actually increase sales. When it comes to selling electronics to women, it seems like cheezy ads would be less effective than making it clear that a particular store has better deals, more useful devices, etc.
Normally I don't respond to some AC posting drivel, but this one begs a response. A patent covers a particular drug, not a type of drug. If you are able to treat the same disease in the exact same way without technically infringing the patent, more power to you. If you need to rip off someone else's idea without compensating them, that is when the law steps in. You just refuted your own argument, successfully I might add, when you said that drug companies will not allow cheap African production since the drugs would find their way into other markets. This has already happened in the U.S. Like I said before, if you take the profit out of drug development then say goodbye to any future drugs. Yes, this is harsh for people of the developing world but it won't work any other way. Perhaps Mr. AC would like to log in and post a reply? Nah, I doubt he has the guts.
OK, I know this comment will be treated as blasphemy on Slashdot, but I really don't see a problem with Apple's DRM. They obviously did not want to restrict users' ability to make use of the files, which is why they allow them to be copied on CD or put on a portable player. They had to use some sort of protection to keep someone from downloading a file and then immediately and effortlessly sharing it on the Internet. Not only would it hurt their profits if people do this, but how could they get any record label to license their music to the service? This is not a bad balance between protection of copyrights and preservation of fair use. And if you're determined to use iTunes and get a DRM free file, its not like it is difficult to do.
Wow, that is a great point. If a 'new breed' of media companies sprung up with lower priced merchandise, they would have an excellent selling point over their mainstream competitors. In addition to the lower price, they could assure consumers that they would not be restricted or get in trouble for use of the product. They would probably find it to their advantage to market the product in a way that allows copies to be made (while still cracking down on wholesale, for profit pirates).
My god, how I wish you could turn this off. Nothing is worse than browsing the web and having the debug message pop up a thousand times on somebody's poorly designed website. Yea, like I really want to debug their code. I know you can turn off script debugging in IE, but if you have Visual Studio, it must override that setting since it always changes back when you close the browser or restart the computer.
Nobody is banned from producing AIDS treatments. What they are banned from is selling the treatment at far below actual cost and giving the companies that formulated it nothing. Do you think it would be a good idea to allow poor nations to manufacture any patented drug they want without compensating the inventor at all? Let me give you a hint, if this ever happened, it would be the end of new drug development. Who would spend upwards of a billion dollars on R&D knowing that they would get no real reward for it? Drug companies do, and should, give a certain amount of medicine to poor countries as a charitable donation. But this is far different than allowing the country to produce it without paying the inventor.
I think PVR makers will always include some sort of work around if the player requires the recording of commercials. Why? So they can play both sides of the field. They can assure media companies that people cannot easily change a setting to simply block all commercials. At the same time, they know that PVR sales would drop dramatically if there was no way to bypass commercials. I for one would find a PVR to be completely useless if this were the case.
I'm surprised it would say Average. Even the Deutsch Bank shill who was trying to pump the price last summer after BayStar gave SCO $50 million said that the stock was highly risky and would likely be worth nothing if SCO lost their lawsuit against IBM. All of the SCO shills, such as Yankee Group, say that the stock is a gamble, but that it will become extremely valuable if SCO prevails. What they severely underestimate (or just lie about) is the likelyhood of SCO losing in court.
Those were the days... When college network connections were screaming fast since everybody had not yet figured out how to download music.
The only way Nasdaq will begin delisting procedures is if a stock has traded for under $1 a share for 30 days. This post explains more about how this process works. There are things a company can do to prevent delisting, but for the most part it is inevitable for stocks that trade at $1 a share long term.
All I know is they would have better luck selling Europe licenses (or oceanfront property in Kansas, for that matter) than Linux 'IP Licenses'.
Imagine trying to block spammers, if they have free annonymous internet access.
Were they actually able to 'pick any fruit'? From what I have seen, Microsoft and Sun bought SCO licenses most likely to support the FUD machine. Has any other company actually been confirmed to have paid SCO for the use of Linux?
If this is the case, I wonder if Microsoft and Sun thought about this when they bought their SCO license? Once SCO goes bankrupt and their assets are sold at auction, these licenses along with audit rights if they exist will transfer to the buyer. Who will be the lucky company with audit rights against Sun and Microsoft?
Dont forget the third part: Extinguish.
I highly doubt the record labels will pay out twice. They'll say something along the lines of "We're not paying you twice, if you don't like it, sue us." We can all imagine just how much of a chance an artist has at prevailing in a suit against the well funded RIAA.
I think the fact that indemnification is being offered at all is rather convincing for a lot of corporate executives, even if their company is not actually indemnified by a vendor. What I mean is, when a CxO sees that respected industry leaders like IBM, Intel, Novell, RedHat and others say that they will cover the legal bills of any customer that gets sued, they assume that the SCO case must be weak. Why else would these companies put themselves on the hook for what could otherwise be millions of dollars in attorney fees? If they perceive the chance of being sued as very remote, they are a lot more likely to invest in Linux, even if there is still a small chance of a lawsuit. Remember, any company that is producing or selling anything takes risks of being sued as a result of their everyday operations. And like I said earlier, for largish companies, the savings in Microsoft licenses could pay all the legal fees they would ever encounter from Linux use.
Well, Linux does have a lot in common with Unix. This is the main reason it has become so popular. I think its accurate to say that Unix is the basis for the creation of Linux, but that does not mean that SCO has a case against Linux users. You might infer that from reading the article, but otherwise, this seems to be one of the more balanced Reuters/Forbes articles I have seen about this issue. I still pity any poor loser who has bought SCO stock based on Forbes articles.
If indemnification makes people more likely to adopt open source software in the short term, it is a good thing. Yes, it will suck for smaller software companies that can not afford indemnification, but as more companies realize that open source is not as scary as Microsoft wants them to believe, its usage will pick up dramatically. For large companies, the savings in software licensing fees could pay for all the legal representation they need to defend their open source usage and distribution. Once the SCO case falls apart and potential copycats realize that extorting money out of free software users is harder than it appeared at first, such lawsuits, along with the fear of being sued, will drop off.
SCO is not big or powerful enough to get a government bailout, no matter how hard they cry. Their only long term hope is to reform the company after bankruptcy, but I don't even see that happening. I give them 2 years max before they implode, and it will probably damage Canopy as a whole quite badly.
There is plenty of free speech going on at this website every day, a lot of it is critical of the U.S. government and likely being posted by U.S. citizens. If freedom of speech no longer existed, the FBI would have shut this site down, along with most of the Internet, long ago. I know, government conspiracies are fun and all, but there just isn't one in this story.
Try raising money for a U.S. based group or cause in Saudi Arabia or Iran and see what happens.
I don't see why anyone would need a public IP address for their toaster. Assuming we have appliances that are internet-enabled, they would most likely all connect to a household server for central control. So at most you would need an IP address for your appliance control server. Considering most internet connected devices are behind a firewall/proxy and not directly on the internet anyway, I don't think the IP address shortage will be as bad as people originally believed. And besides, would you want someone hacking directly into your toaster through some port you didn't know was open?