We need far too many programs just to protect ourselves:
Firewalls to protect us from hackers, Antivirus programs to protect us from viruses, Pop-up Blockers to protect us from pop-ups, Cookie Managers to protect our privacy, Spam Blockers to protect us from Spam, Hosts Files to save us from ad-servers, Spyware Removers to protect us from snoops. And if those weren't enough we need Registry Repair-Tools to keep it all working. And then we still have to figure out how to be productive! Computer technology has brought us constant struggle and daily frustrations, daily disappointment, cost us tons of money and time, put everyone on the defensive in a war against telemarketers, virus creators, advertisers, spammers, and corporations trying to monitor ever facet of our lives so they can sell that to the spammers and telemarketers and adservers. On top of these daily attacks we dole out our money on buggy software, faulty hardware to an entire industry built on the principle of "planned obselecense". If the automotive industry worked this way it would be dead, we'd be dead.
IBM is the first example that comes to mind of a company that successfully built a business model around opensource. I'm specifically referring to hardware and how IBM freely licensed the IBM architecture so that any company could manufacture and sell their own, competing, IBM Clone PCs. Perhaps you will remember the early '80's when Apple had all the market share, followed closely by Commodore and the IBM PC was a fledgling no company was worried about. What happened? They 'opensourced' their hardware architecture which Apple and Commodore refused to do. Within a matter of years Apple and Commodore were suddenly competing not just against IBM, but against scores of rival computer manufacturers. What was the end result? IBM-compatible PCs (clones) were far less expensive, parts were plentiful and easy to find, and all the software developers migrated towards DOS because that's where the market was... once that happened, most of the available software was also IBM PC-compatible which just further encouraged people to buy IBM Clones. Had Apple and Commodore been less stingy with their proprietary hardware technology, things could have played out very differently and today everyone might have an Apple and Microsoft might not even be around. But you might ask, "how is the free licensing that IBM implemented, open source?" It was open source because manufacturers were and still are free to propose and develop hardware standards designed to further improve the IBM Clone architecture and they don't need IBM's permission to do it, they need only to get approval from the various standards bodies. If this is not a clear example of how open-source has worked as a successful business model, then I don't know what is. Rather than fight over the market-share that Apple and Commodore owned, IBM just created an entirely new market -- far larger than the one it replaced. So what if IBM had to compete against their own technology they gave away to other Clone manufacturers? Which would you prefer: 10% of 50 million units, or 100% of 1 million units?
Tapwave Zodiac 2
HP IPAQ H4350
SONY CLIE PEG-UX50 etc..
Smaller devices have finally started to rely on bluetooth as a means to communicate with a variety of nearby electronics. BMW's have built in bluetooth that allows one to use a bluetooth enabled phone through their steering wheel, there are probably 10 different bluetooth enabled GPS receivers designed for use with PocketPC and PalmOS. We've been hearing about the death of bluetooth since the year it came out, and for some time it looked likely, but not anymore. There are far too many useful devices that have come out in the last year which have made great use of bluetooth. Is it going to die someday? Obviously. But not as long as products keep shrinking and the need for close-proximity communication continues to rise at the same rate that market forces demand lower pricing.
I understand that everyone wants their right to exist peacefully without being harassed. However, there are occaisional occurances of wanted individuals being caught simply because their car broke down. Let's be honest: If anyone pulls off a roadway and parks their car, they have to be aware that at some point there will be law enforcement who cruise by and will see them. Anyone must be able to deduce that it is not unreasonable to expect that at some point, they may be questioned by an officer... so it shouldn't come as a complete surprise. Do we really want law enforcement to just start turning a blind eye to any car they see occupied that has a passenger inside? It seems to me that refusing to give one's name or ID is very unhelpful and almost antagonistic. People are always observing that Police don't spend enough time stopping real serious crimes, but when individuals like this person refuse to be helpful, it takes that officer's time away that he could have spent on a serious crime. The point is the officer was just doing what he felt was the right thing for him to do and it is possible he ended up getting angry, but being angry over someone who's wasting your time and the gov't's time isn't so abnormal a reaction, is it? Would we really be better off if we made it illegal for an officer to expect someone to give them their name? I don't see how. If someone has a better idea on how the police should react when a person refuses to identify themselves, I would be keen to listen.
In the future I'd recommend spending a little more time looking at prices BEFORE you start theorizizing about market prices in the US. You'll find that the best prices on an "external" tuner are about $500 even at WalMart. Internal tuners add $300 to the cost of a set... Go check it out. Look at identical model televisions, ones that are "HDTV MONITORS" (Term for those w/o the built in tuner) and look at their identical counsins that are "HDTV TELEVISIONS" and the price difference is a MINIMUM of $300. So theorize all you want about prices in a country you don't live in, but your argument isn't with me it's with reality.
... just tell them, " I'm glad you brought this up, and even happier you read/., because they actually posted my submission on this very topic and an hour later I had excellent karma "
...that the best way to fund the current HDTV rollout was to force every consumer who buys a new 25"+ Television after 2004 to spend an extra $300 for the built-in (mandatory) terristrial HDTV tuner even though they may not want it or even need it? Thanks, but no thanks.
not going to be approved by the FTC or the FCC. Their stake Verizon (the country's largest wireless carrier), plus the purchase of ATTWS (The nation's #3 Carrier) was going to be blocked by the FTC without a selloff of Verizon. That was public knowledge during the bidding. They were informed of that beforehand. It has a lot to do with total market-capitalization, and the scuttlebut was that if they owned both co's, that was just going to be too large a percentage of the market for one co. to hold. Yes, there are still regulatory approvals needed for the current deal to go through, but my understanding is that there isn't a major problem that would require one company to sell off it's stake in another.
stressing under the weight of years worth of hardware & software Bibles. If there is such a miracle as a good diagnostic program that can keep up with the daily onslaught of new hardware, protocols and standards, then I have wasted a lot of my time but wish you the best of luck on your quest.
Vodaphone owns 47% of Verizon Wireless (I believe, percentage may be slightly off, but close). Part of the deal was that the gov't was going to require Vodaphone to sell off their entire stake in Verizon if they won the bid for ATTWS. Thus, the # of competitors remains the same.
... doesn't mean he's going to spend a limitless amount of money for Disney, or that he even seriously wants Disney. For all we know, he told the board exactly how much they could bid for Disney before he gets pissed and votes his 7% against the whole proposal.
A) They like the amount Comcast offered, but don't think Comcast has the realistic ability to scrape together that kind of bread
B) They want to fan the flames a little to see who else wants to pony up for a ride on the You bid, they bid, we get back to you, then let's repeat.. train. Considering what's going on between Cingular and Vodaphone over ATT Wireless right now, I can't say I'd be surprised if that's their motivation.
I'd just like to ask, "where's the beef in this article?". To my eyes, it reads like a general complaint on life in general. Should he have titled this article, "My rant" ? There's nothing, I repeat, NO THING, in this article that wasn't already said, more eloquantly, in yesterday's slashdot article: What the Internet Isn't"
...quite some time. I would like to point out parts 6,7,9 which all contain elements that should be directed squarely at Verisign and their renewed push to reinstate sitefinder.
Part 6: "There's good business in providing commodities, but every attempt to add value to the Internet itself must be resisted. To be specific: Those who provide Internet connectivity inevitably will want to provide content and services also because the connectivity itself will be too low-priced"
Part 7: "Because the Internet is an agreement, it doesn't belong to any one person or group. Not the incumbent companies that provide the backbone. Not the ISPs that provide our connections. Not the hosting companies that rent us servers. Not the industry associations that believe their existence is threatened by what the rest of us do on the Net. Not any government, no matter how sincerely it believes that it's just trying to keep its people secure and complacent."
Part 9: "Nobody owns it: Businesses are defined by what they own, as governments are defined by what they control." "Anybody can improve it: Business and government cherish authorized roles. It's the job of only certain people to do certain things, to make the right changes."
I know what you mean. I used to be a computer hardware reseller and I'd always tell my clients to spend the majority of their budget on the best quality monitor, since that's probably the only part of their purchase that won't be obsolete in 3 years. I don't think that's quite as true today as it was in the 1990's, though.
The article is an excellent beginner's guide to display technology formats, however, they make that oft-repeated forcast that soon LCDs will be cheap. We've been hearing that for years. Active-Matrix displays have been in use in Notebooks for 10 years and still they are the most expensive part of the notebook. They've certainly come down in price, but I wonder why so many people latch onto this belief that soon they will be so cheap they'll replace everything. Every couple years we hear about a world-wide "supply shortage" which jacks the price of LCDs up about 20%, there are inherent limitations in the design process which require an entirely separate production line to produce a 15" display, a 19", etc... What about Hot-Pixels? How happy would you be to spend $10k on an LCD display that has hotpixels?
the year of the linux-desktop is not going to happen until Linux creates some standards and conformity among distros. I know, I know, "the beauty of linux is its ability to be any flavor you want". Well, I don't agree. KDE, GNOME should merge, having 2 competing desktop environments is not productive. There are WAY TOO MANY DISTROS. Confuses the hell out of newbies. The mainstream demands conformity and wants 1 desktop and 1 distro to be dominant. Hardware detection needs to get a lot better, too. Someone on here mentioned that the linux office suites are as good or better than those of Windows... That's complete hogwash, not even close. The latest OOo is much better than before, but still a 2nd tier solution to MS office. Staroffice is still 2nd tier, too.
I'm amazed that someone pointed out that Linus uses a laptop that has Windows on it, as well as linux, and used that as an example of what an honest guy Linus is (because he was willing to tell everyone, since presumeably, Gates would never be that honest if his laptop had linux). The fact that Linus has Windows loaded on his laptop along with Linux is a blatant example of the fact that LINUX IS NOT COMPLETELY READY FOR MAINSTREAM. Maybe, Linus should be using his laptop without Windows before he declares 2004 the "year of the linux desktop".
Okay, now everyone go ahead and flame away, I've set myself up here I suppose, but just keep in mind I'm very much PRO-LINUX. I want nothing more than 2004 to be the year of the linux-desktop... I'm just a realist and there are a lot of people in the Linux community who are realists, too, who understand that linux is headed in too many different directions to be mainstream. Organize, combine, simplify:1 distro, 1 desktop, solid hardware detection, simple upgrades.
Hey, being a good corporate citizen starts first with producing a product that isn't crippled. If it is crippled, it should say so on the box. I don't think removing functionality from a product is being a good corporate citizen, unless it says so right on the front of the $650 box.
There really isn't a justification for Software...
on
When Good Patents Go Bad
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
...patents.
Before I get flamed, let me say that the article eludes to this, but doesn't quite make the case.
The whole purpose of the patent system was designed to provide an incentive(payment) for a company to willingly incrue the costs associated with the research and design of a new product. That incentive came in the form of a patent (guaranteed monopoly for 20 years) to recover the associated costs that went into research and design.
In software, although there are certainly costs incrued in the full-fledged development of a product from start-to-finish... aren't our current copyright laws sufficient protection on completed works? Even though some console games can cost millions to produce, are those millions really associated with research and design, or are they associated with actual coding, graphic art, music soundtracks, etc... ?
My argument is that there is no need for patents on software, since there is no detrimental impact on companies who innovate. In hardware, a company might spend a billion$ trying to develop a product before it can ever come to market -- that's a detrimental impact on that company's bottom line, and they should have a 20 year monopoly. If that company was not to receive that monopoly, in most cases, they would not have a necessary incentive to spend a billion$ on R&D.
Contrast that with software innovation... Does anyone REALLY BELIEVE that without software/internet patents, Amazon wouldn't have developed 1-click-shopping??? Of course they would have, because it didn't cost them anything extra to develop and it pays instant rewards in increased sales. Do you think for a second that we wouldn't have browser plug-ins without patents? Do you think for a second that we wouldn't have turbotax, halo, amazon, ebay, slashdot without patents? Of course we would! The question is what do we NOT have because of software patents. What companies are being shut-down, stifled, put out of business -- what REAL innovations are being stamped out because they might "infringe" on something as asinine as 1-click-shopping?
Everyone agrees that without industrial patents, we wouldn't have 1/10th the innovation in aerospace, electronics, mining, or environmental science... but without software/internet patents we'd have even MORE innovation than we have today.
Is anyone else tired of hearing about people building PVRs and HTPCs that have no ability to record digital cable/setellite feeds?
How many high-tech home-theater gurus do you know who only subscribe to basic cable.
Until someone figures out a reasonable way to get digital Satellite and Cable (I'm NOT talking about terrestrial HDTV) onto a hard-drive, building a personal PVR seems like a patience-stretching, expensive, excersize in pointlessness. An Uber-recorder needs to have built-in Cable/Satellite decoding if it's going to be of any use to someone who has 500 channels. Honestly, if all you've got is standard basic cable, you might as well save your time and money you'd spend on a PVR and go get Digital Cable for a couple years. Maybe you won't be able to record anything, but at least you'll always have something to watch.
excerpt from the bill and appearing in the CNET story:... [these penalties apply when the film] "was intended for commercial distribution but had not been so distributed at the time." This is an attack on people within the movie industry who receive pre-release versions of movies to critique, but in recent years have been making copies available online before the opening weekend. Unless a movie studio has a fifteen year old on their VIP list to receive pre-release movies, I don't think teenagers have anything to worry about, nor does anyone else. The truth is, this is probably good for the public, as it will enable the MPAA to review their decision earlier this year that outlawed all pre-release distributions for Oscar nominations which has really hurt the independant film co's from getting equitable Oscar consideration.
Slashdot Mirror
- We need far too many programs just to protect ourselves:
Firewalls to protect us from hackers, Antivirus programs to protect us from viruses, Pop-up Blockers to protect us from pop-ups, Cookie Managers to protect our privacy, Spam Blockers to protect us from Spam, Hosts Files to save us from ad-servers, Spyware Removers to protect us from snoops. And if those weren't enough we need Registry Repair-Tools to keep it all working. And then we still have to figure out how to be productive! Computer technology has brought us constant struggle and daily frustrations, daily disappointment, cost us tons of money and time, put everyone on the defensive in a war against telemarketers, virus creators, advertisers, spammers, and corporations trying to monitor ever facet of our lives so they can sell that to the spammers and telemarketers and adservers. On top of these daily attacks we dole out our money on buggy software, faulty hardware to an entire industry built on the principle of "planned obselecense". If the automotive industry worked this way it would be dead, we'd be dead.IBM is the first example that comes to mind of a company that successfully built a business model around opensource. I'm specifically referring to hardware and how IBM freely licensed the IBM architecture so that any company could manufacture and sell their own, competing, IBM Clone PCs. Perhaps you will remember the early '80's when Apple had all the market share, followed closely by Commodore and the IBM PC was a fledgling no company was worried about. What happened? They 'opensourced' their hardware architecture which Apple and Commodore refused to do. Within a matter of years Apple and Commodore were suddenly competing not just against IBM, but against scores of rival computer manufacturers. What was the end result? IBM-compatible PCs (clones) were far less expensive, parts were plentiful and easy to find, and all the software developers migrated towards DOS because that's where the market was... once that happened, most of the available software was also IBM PC-compatible which just further encouraged people to buy IBM Clones. Had Apple and Commodore been less stingy with their proprietary hardware technology, things could have played out very differently and today everyone might have an Apple and Microsoft might not even be around. But you might ask, "how is the free licensing that IBM implemented, open source?" It was open source because manufacturers were and still are free to propose and develop hardware standards designed to further improve the IBM Clone architecture and they don't need IBM's permission to do it, they need only to get approval from the various standards bodies. If this is not a clear example of how open-source has worked as a successful business model, then I don't know what is. Rather than fight over the market-share that Apple and Commodore owned, IBM just created an entirely new market -- far larger than the one it replaced. So what if IBM had to compete against their own technology they gave away to other Clone manufacturers? Which would you prefer: 10% of 50 million units, or 100% of 1 million units?
Tapwave Zodiac 2
HP IPAQ H4350
SONY CLIE PEG-UX50
etc..
Smaller devices have finally started to rely on bluetooth as a means to communicate with a variety of nearby electronics. BMW's have built in bluetooth that allows one to use a bluetooth enabled phone through their steering wheel, there are probably 10 different bluetooth enabled GPS receivers designed for use with PocketPC and PalmOS. We've been hearing about the death of bluetooth since the year it came out, and for some time it looked likely, but not anymore. There are far too many useful devices that have come out in the last year which have made great use of bluetooth. Is it going to die someday? Obviously. But not as long as products keep shrinking and the need for close-proximity communication continues to rise at the same rate that market forces demand lower pricing.
I understand that everyone wants their right to exist peacefully without being harassed. However, there are occaisional occurances of wanted individuals being caught simply because their car broke down. Let's be honest: If anyone pulls off a roadway and parks their car, they have to be aware that at some point there will be law enforcement who cruise by and will see them. Anyone must be able to deduce that it is not unreasonable to expect that at some point, they may be questioned by an officer... so it shouldn't come as a complete surprise. Do we really want law enforcement to just start turning a blind eye to any car they see occupied that has a passenger inside? It seems to me that refusing to give one's name or ID is very unhelpful and almost antagonistic. People are always observing that Police don't spend enough time stopping real serious crimes, but when individuals like this person refuse to be helpful, it takes that officer's time away that he could have spent on a serious crime. The point is the officer was just doing what he felt was the right thing for him to do and it is possible he ended up getting angry, but being angry over someone who's wasting your time and the gov't's time isn't so abnormal a reaction, is it? Would we really be better off if we made it illegal for an officer to expect someone to give them their name? I don't see how. If someone has a better idea on how the police should react when a person refuses to identify themselves, I would be keen to listen.
In the future I'd recommend spending a little more time looking at prices BEFORE you start theorizizing about market prices in the US. You'll find that the best prices on an "external" tuner are about $500 even at WalMart. Internal tuners add $300 to the cost of a set... Go check it out. Look at identical model televisions, ones that are "HDTV MONITORS" (Term for those w/o the built in tuner) and look at their identical counsins that are "HDTV TELEVISIONS" and the price difference is a MINIMUM of $300. So theorize all you want about prices in a country you don't live in, but your argument isn't with me it's with reality.
... just tell them, " I'm glad you brought this up, and even happier you read /., because they actually posted my submission on this very topic and an hour later I had excellent karma "
...that the best way to fund the current HDTV rollout was to force every consumer who buys a new 25"+ Television after 2004 to spend an extra $300 for the built-in (mandatory) terristrial HDTV tuner even though they may not want it or even need it? Thanks, but no thanks.
not going to be approved by the FTC or the FCC. Their stake Verizon (the country's largest wireless carrier), plus the purchase of ATTWS (The nation's #3 Carrier) was going to be blocked by the FTC without a selloff of Verizon. That was public knowledge during the bidding. They were informed of that beforehand. It has a lot to do with total market-capitalization, and the scuttlebut was that if they owned both co's, that was just going to be too large a percentage of the market for one co. to hold. Yes, there are still regulatory approvals needed for the current deal to go through, but my understanding is that there isn't a major problem that would require one company to sell off it's stake in another.
stressing under the weight of years worth of hardware & software Bibles. If there is such a miracle as a good diagnostic program that can keep up with the daily onslaught of new hardware, protocols and standards, then I have wasted a lot of my time but wish you the best of luck on your quest.
has a stake in Verizon. & Docomo has a stake in ATTWS... Standard case of Corporate-Incest, but not all related to SBC&BellSouth.
I bet we see Vodaphone or Verizon grab T-Mobile now.
Vodaphone owns 47% of Verizon Wireless (I believe, percentage may be slightly off, but close). Part of the deal was that the gov't was going to require Vodaphone to sell off their entire stake in Verizon if they won the bid for ATTWS. Thus, the # of competitors remains the same.
... doesn't mean he's going to spend a limitless amount of money for Disney, or that he even seriously wants Disney. For all we know, he told the board exactly how much they could bid for Disney before he gets pissed and votes his 7% against the whole proposal.
A) They like the amount Comcast offered, but don't think Comcast has the realistic ability to scrape together that kind of bread
B) They want to fan the flames a little to see who else wants to pony up for a ride on the You bid, they bid, we get back to you, then let's repeat.. train. Considering what's going on between Cingular and Vodaphone over ATT Wireless right now, I can't say I'd be surprised if that's their motivation.
I'd just like to ask, "where's the beef in this article?". To my eyes, it reads like a general complaint on life in general. Should he have titled this article, "My rant" ? There's nothing, I repeat, NO THING, in this article that wasn't already said, more eloquantly, in yesterday's slashdot article: What the Internet Isn't"
...quite some time. I would like to point out parts 6,7,9 which all contain elements that should be directed squarely at Verisign and their renewed push to reinstate sitefinder.
Part 6: "There's good business in providing commodities, but every attempt to add value to the Internet itself must be resisted. To be specific: Those who provide Internet connectivity inevitably will want to provide content and services also because the connectivity itself will be too low-priced"
Part 7: "Because the Internet is an agreement, it doesn't belong to any one person or group. Not the incumbent companies that provide the backbone. Not the ISPs that provide our connections. Not the hosting companies that rent us servers. Not the industry associations that believe their existence is threatened by what the rest of us do on the Net. Not any government, no matter how sincerely it believes that it's just trying to keep its people secure and complacent."
Part 9: "Nobody owns it: Businesses are defined by what they own, as governments are defined by what they control." "Anybody can improve it: Business and government cherish authorized roles. It's the job of only certain people to do certain things, to make the right changes."
Amen.
I know what you mean. I used to be a computer hardware reseller and I'd always tell my clients to spend the majority of their budget on the best quality monitor, since that's probably the only part of their purchase that won't be obsolete in 3 years. I don't think that's quite as true today as it was in the 1990's, though.
The article is an excellent beginner's guide to display technology formats, however, they make that oft-repeated forcast that soon LCDs will be cheap. We've been hearing that for years. Active-Matrix displays have been in use in Notebooks for 10 years and still they are the most expensive part of the notebook. They've certainly come down in price, but I wonder why so many people latch onto this belief that soon they will be so cheap they'll replace everything. Every couple years we hear about a world-wide "supply shortage" which jacks the price of LCDs up about 20%, there are inherent limitations in the design process which require an entirely separate production line to produce a 15" display, a 19", etc... What about Hot-Pixels? How happy would you be to spend $10k on an LCD display that has hotpixels?
...a brand new distribution from the original creator of MikeRoweSoft.com to be available for installation on the Xbox soon.
I'm amazed that someone pointed out that Linus uses a laptop that has Windows on it, as well as linux, and used that as an example of what an honest guy Linus is (because he was willing to tell everyone, since presumeably, Gates would never be that honest if his laptop had linux). The fact that Linus has Windows loaded on his laptop along with Linux is a blatant example of the fact that LINUX IS NOT COMPLETELY READY FOR MAINSTREAM. Maybe, Linus should be using his laptop without Windows before he declares 2004 the "year of the linux desktop".
Okay, now everyone go ahead and flame away, I've set myself up here I suppose, but just keep in mind I'm very much PRO-LINUX. I want nothing more than 2004 to be the year of the linux-desktop... I'm just a realist and there are a lot of people in the Linux community who are realists, too, who understand that linux is headed in too many different directions to be mainstream. Organize, combine, simplify: 1 distro, 1 desktop, solid hardware detection, simple upgrades.
Hey, being a good corporate citizen starts first with producing a product that isn't crippled. If it is crippled, it should say so on the box. I don't think removing functionality from a product is being a good corporate citizen, unless it says so right on the front of the $650 box.
...patents. Before I get flamed, let me say that the article eludes to this, but doesn't quite make the case.
The whole purpose of the patent system was designed to provide an incentive(payment) for a company to willingly incrue the costs associated with the research and design of a new product. That incentive came in the form of a patent (guaranteed monopoly for 20 years) to recover the associated costs that went into research and design.
In software, although there are certainly costs incrued in the full-fledged development of a product from start-to-finish... aren't our current copyright laws sufficient protection on completed works? Even though some console games can cost millions to produce, are those millions really associated with research and design, or are they associated with actual coding, graphic art, music soundtracks, etc... ?
My argument is that there is no need for patents on software, since there is no detrimental impact on companies who innovate. In hardware, a company might spend a billion$ trying to develop a product before it can ever come to market -- that's a detrimental impact on that company's bottom line, and they should have a 20 year monopoly. If that company was not to receive that monopoly, in most cases, they would not have a necessary incentive to spend a billion$ on R&D.
Contrast that with software innovation... Does anyone REALLY BELIEVE that without software/internet patents, Amazon wouldn't have developed 1-click-shopping??? Of course they would have, because it didn't cost them anything extra to develop and it pays instant rewards in increased sales. Do you think for a second that we wouldn't have browser plug-ins without patents? Do you think for a second that we wouldn't have turbotax, halo, amazon, ebay, slashdot without patents? Of course we would! The question is what do we NOT have because of software patents. What companies are being shut-down, stifled, put out of business -- what REAL innovations are being stamped out because they might "infringe" on something as asinine as 1-click-shopping?
Everyone agrees that without industrial patents, we wouldn't have 1/10th the innovation in aerospace, electronics, mining, or environmental science... but without software/internet patents we'd have even MORE innovation than we have today.
Is anyone else tired of hearing about people building PVRs and HTPCs that have no ability to record digital cable/setellite feeds? How many high-tech home-theater gurus do you know who only subscribe to basic cable. Until someone figures out a reasonable way to get digital Satellite and Cable (I'm NOT talking about terrestrial HDTV) onto a hard-drive, building a personal PVR seems like a patience-stretching, expensive, excersize in pointlessness. An Uber-recorder needs to have built-in Cable/Satellite decoding if it's going to be of any use to someone who has 500 channels. Honestly, if all you've got is standard basic cable, you might as well save your time and money you'd spend on a PVR and go get Digital Cable for a couple years. Maybe you won't be able to record anything, but at least you'll always have something to watch.
77% of illegal pre-release movies available on P2P networks are put there by movie-industry insiders
excerpt from the bill and appearing in the CNET story: ... [these penalties apply when the film] "was intended for commercial distribution but had not been so distributed at the time." This is an attack on people within the movie industry who receive pre-release versions of movies to critique, but in recent years have been making copies available online before the opening weekend. Unless a movie studio has a fifteen year old on their VIP list to receive pre-release movies, I don't think teenagers have anything to worry about, nor does anyone else. The truth is, this is probably good for the public, as it will enable the MPAA to review their decision earlier this year that outlawed all pre-release distributions for Oscar nominations which has really hurt the independant film co's from getting equitable Oscar consideration.