It isn't a fallacy. In a perfectly competitive market, the price will move towards the marginal cost of production. This marginal cost of production includes "normal profits" that investors require as a return on their money to compensate them for the risk they are taking.
Anyway, it isn't 13 year old girls who will be paying for it. They will get their music from the latest adware ridden p2p program. It is 40+ year old men who will be paying for them.
Actually most spammers operate from Florida. Their botnets may be mostly in China, but that's just because that is where most of the internet connected home computers are.
So why do people get extradited from Scotland/England to the US for allegedly defrauding the Royal Bank of Scotland while employed for them in England - when the Met Police investigated it and decided there was no case to answer, and when the US has the death penalty, which is not permitted under the European declaration of human rights. Search for "Natwest three" to find out more.
Problem is that where patents are involved, there isn't a market to decide on the price. Just the monopoly patent holder who wants to maximise returns for their shareholders.
People don't need to be aware of the intricracies of pagerank to know whether or not Google gives them the sort of sites they are looking for, and that ultimately, is what matters. If google doesn't give them what they want, they will go to live.com or yahoo or some other place.
But the patent isn't on the software. You can't patent software. The patent is on "a device or apparatus that [in this case recognises speech]", ie some speech recognition software running on a computer. The "running on a computer" bit is the important thing here.
The CD containing the software is not a patentable device or apparatus. It becomes patentable when it is loaded on a computer. That didn't happen in the US, so it falls outside US juristiction.
In all other respects, it doesn't make software any less patentable, as there is mostly no point in having it if you can't run it on a computer.
What I don't expect them to do is introduce measures that reduce the number of copies they sell. That is what they appear to have done.
Their duty to the shareholders is to increase the number of sales. Reducing the number of "pirated" copies is not an aim, and something they should only do if it increases the number of sales.
I guess there is a very big difference between the technical ability of child pornographers and the people who do things like sell crack cocaine by the tonne or arrange to fly planes into skyscrapers.
Your experience of the use of encryption probably stems from the fact that you work with local police on small scale criminals rathern than for the CIA on big inernational operations.
If the police saw him browsing the internet on his laptop, and saw there was no obvious sign of a mobile phone connection, that gives them the reasonable suspicion they need to carry out a stop and search. From that, they can get the information they need to assess whether or not they should arrest him.
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't a fallacy. In a perfectly competitive market, the price will move towards the marginal cost of production. This marginal cost of production includes "normal profits" that investors require as a return on their money to compensate them for the risk they are taking.
Anyway, it isn't 13 year old girls who will be paying for it. They will get their music from the latest adware ridden p2p program. It is 40+ year old men who will be paying for them.
Actually most spammers operate from Florida. Their botnets may be mostly in China, but that's just because that is where most of the internet connected home computers are.
So why do people get extradited from Scotland/England to the US for allegedly defrauding the Royal Bank of Scotland while employed for them in England - when the Met Police investigated it and decided there was no case to answer, and when the US has the death penalty, which is not permitted under the European declaration of human rights. Search for "Natwest three" to find out more.
Problem is that where patents are involved, there isn't a market to decide on the price. Just the monopoly patent holder who wants to maximise returns for their shareholders.
Or alternatively, we live in a world where people will lie to a market researcher for a bar of chocolate.
People don't need to be aware of the intricracies of pagerank to know whether or not Google gives them the sort of sites they are looking for, and that ultimately, is what matters. If google doesn't give them what they want, they will go to live.com or yahoo or some other place.
A simple translation of a work into a different language is a derivitave work, and requires a copyright licence.
That is well establised for translating from English to French and so on, so I think the same would apply for translating from Perl to Fortran.
But the patent isn't on the software. You can't patent software. The patent is on "a device or apparatus that [in this case recognises speech]", ie some speech recognition software running on a computer. The "running on a computer" bit is the important thing here.
The CD containing the software is not a patentable device or apparatus. It becomes patentable when it is loaded on a computer. That didn't happen in the US, so it falls outside US juristiction.
In all other respects, it doesn't make software any less patentable, as there is mostly no point in having it if you can't run it on a computer.
What assets are these? The only asset they have now is a bit of cash in the bank, and we aren't talking huge sums in the overall scheme of things.
What I don't expect them to do is introduce measures that reduce the number of copies they sell. That is what they appear to have done.
Their duty to the shareholders is to increase the number of sales. Reducing the number of "pirated" copies is not an aim, and something they should only do if it increases the number of sales.
I moved to 2k as soon as it came out because it was so much more stable than 98. And 2k was very popular for its target market, the corporate desktop.
Vista doesn't seem to be popular anywhere, and I won't be switching until I have a good reason.
The antitrust acts are there to protect competition, not to protect competitors.
Intel are gaining market share by coming out with a better product. That's how competition is supposed to work.
Priveleged file list is basically *.doc and outlook.pst - ie the correspendence to/from your lawyer.
The average Joe has either not heard of them, or remembers they used to sell operating systems and is surprised they are still around.
I can't see how this is different to what you can do already with FreeNX, except that FreeNX is available now, and this is vapourware.
Trains can go a lot faster than that. Even British trains can manage 125mph.
I guess there is a very big difference between the technical ability of child pornographers and the people who do things like sell crack cocaine by the tonne or arrange to fly planes into skyscrapers.
Your experience of the use of encryption probably stems from the fact that you work with local police on small scale criminals rathern than for the CIA on big inernational operations.
My understanding is that they save a lot of money for retirement - enough to fund about 20% of the US government debt.
In the town I live in in England, the arithmetic mean income is £36,000, and the median income is £22,000. 40% earn less than £14,000.
So I don't think you can say that average, either median or mean income is representative of the income of the population here.
Bud evidence obtained illegally probably isn't admissable in court, so it isn't going to work.
How do you know they weren't interested in the case of beer, or didn't think it appropriate to take you up on the offer?
If the police saw him browsing the internet on his laptop, and saw there was no obvious sign of a mobile phone connection, that gives them the reasonable suspicion they need to carry out a stop and search. From that, they can get the information they need to assess whether or not they should arrest him.
That could be why he was prosecuted with dishonestly obtaining an electronic communications service rather than unauthorised access to a computer.
Not quite true. Moderators can still comment, but if they do, their moderations are reversed, and they don't get their mod points back.
In the first instance, yes, you have a licence to use the code under the GPL, so you can continue using it.
In the second instance, no, because you do not have any sort of valid licence from the copyright holder.