Well, how about this: a piece of software (remember that we're talking about software, not just algorithms) is a system for bringing about physical (even if only within the confines of a computer) states of affairs given a set of initial conditions, not unlike a machine. You can (and should) be able to patent machines, so why shouldn't you be able to patent a piece of software?
Well, so far IE8's javasript performance is roughly 4x faster than IE7's (neowin), so...little bit of math...Safari 4's javascript performance should be about 7.5x faster than IE8 (beta)'s.
Plaintiffs' attorneys like class actions because they stand to get huge paydays. Of course, this is often a good thing for "the system" because it helps to close the gap between the caliber of legal teams that the defense and plaintiffs can afford
I have never heard quite that argument either, but I have heard the argument that the earth's resources were put here by God for our use and so, well...we'd better get to it! I know I've heard Mitt Romney say that, and I think (without much evidence) it is actually a relatively mainstream Mormon position.
To give you a slightly more serious answer, I was talking about the JUDICIARY. your examples of so-called corruption are from the legislative and executive.
Assume what you will about my character, but I'll bet I have a fair bit more experience with lawyers and litigation in federal courts than you.
Well, that's what they'll have to do now. The down side with this strategy is that:
1. It will he harder for the plaintiffs to get good lawyers because there will be a lot less money involved. (The way it attracts top lawyers to take up the plaintiffs' cause - due to the large paydays - is one of the benefits of the class action system). Though, as you say, they may not need lawyers at all this way. 2. Similarly, MS will almost certainly pay less in damages if the suits are individually litigated. Remember, MS wants the cases to be litigated individually.
OK. So I've read the order now and here's the story:
Under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), one has to show not only that the practices at issue were deceptive, but that the deception injured the plaintiffs. Makes sense, I think.
The injury that these plaintiffs are alleging is having overpaid for their computers. That is, their computers were priced higher than they would have been had they not been advertised as Vista-Capable.
For class certification, of course, the plaintiffs have to show that this price inflation was uniform for all members of the class (in a nationwide class action lawsuit, this means they have to show that the prices were inflated throughout the US). And this is where they run into trouble, because MS has pointed out, and the judge has agreed, that the plaintiffs have not introduced any specific evidence that would indicate that this is the case (for example, they could have provided an economic study of the effect that a Vista-Capable certification has on the price of a PC, by way of supply and demand)
So, yes, the plaintiffs perhaps could have tried a different damage theory as you suggested (hassle of finding a replacement) but it looks like these didn't go that way.
And, yes, under the CPA at least, deceptive marketing in and of itself is OK, so long as it does not injure anyone....of course, I can't see why you would deceptively label something without intending to injure customers somehow.
No one is saying they didn't make money. (Though, I believe that it has to be at the expense of the plaintiffs, but I could be wrong.) No one is saying MS wasn't unjustly enriched , just that the plaintiffs will have to each show that they overpaid individually. Remember: THIS ISN'T OVER.
Nope. It does matter whether they paid more. They are claiming unjust enrichment which requires that MS profit from the deceptive practices. This means that it has to be shown (now on a case by case basis) that the plaintiffs actually paid more than they otherwise would for the deceptively marketed computers.
(IANAL, but I will be AL soon and I have a fair deal of experience with these sorts of consumer class actions. And this, of course, is not legal advice. Take my word for it: the federal court system is far less corrupt than you think it is [though YMMV with state and local courts].)
The summary (and, indeed, the article) is a little misleading. It is not that they didn't show that the plaintiffs didn't pay more (if the judge had found that, the case probably would have been dismissed). Rather, they lost their clase certification because they hadn't shown that all the plaintiffs in the class had uniformly overpaid.
To form a class, the plaintiffs' situations situations have to be relevantly similar. Her ruling was just that, in essence, the cases hadn't been shown to be similar enough to be litigated as a class.
Now the cases will proceed individually, with each plaintiff having to show individually that they overpaid.
Although, there is the little known fact that when doing things like applying to law school you are still expected to disclose (and explain)d prior convictions even if you were a juvenile and your record was expunged. I imagine the same is true when you apply to the Bar. I went through this process and was surprised to find this wording on many schools' applications.
I'm sure they will have no problem explaining this away given how much attention the situation has received, but it will still be a nuisance.
I don't know anything about the actual Swedish laws in play here, but it seems to me that yours is just the usual, unpersuasive argument from vagueness. Clearly, both the Pirate Bay and, say, Slashdot are aiding in the making available of copyrighted works. The difference, of course, is of degree.
The Pirate Bay makes it a core objective to assist in making copyrighted files available. (Just look at their name!) When they assist in making the files available, they do it deliberately and for its own sake.*
Slashdot, by contrast, aids in making available to a much smaller degree and only incidentally while pursuing journalistic (-ish) ends.
"The fact of twilight does not mean you cannot tell day from night." - Samuel Johnson
*Of course, none of this should be read as suggesting that I think that "assisting making available" should be a crime...or whatever it is under Swedish law.
I didn't say that Photoshop isn't overrated, or that it isn't overpriced. I don't know that either of these allegations are true, but I wouldn't rule them out.
But, the fact is, and it sounds like you agree, that Photoshop has quite a few features that the Gimp doesn't, features that a number of us find useful. And even if I agree with you that 90% of users don't need these features, that leaves 10% of us who do.
And this is not to mention the rather shop-worn UI issue.
Again, I love the Gimp and have nothing but respect for the people who make it. I use it daily and would be the first in line to shake the developers' hands if they ever were to dethrone Photoshop as the king of photo-manipulation software. Its just that, today, they aren't there yet. Many tasks remain that are either only possible or much easier in Photoshop.
But, to be serious for a moment, Gimp is a fine piece of software, and its developers have every right to be proud of what they've created. But, alas, it still isn't Photoshop. We can only hope that they keep up their good work and eventually bridge the gap.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, how about this: a piece of software (remember that we're talking about software, not just algorithms) is a system for bringing about physical (even if only within the confines of a computer) states of affairs given a set of initial conditions, not unlike a machine. You can (and should) be able to patent machines, so why shouldn't you be able to patent a piece of software?
"Software is math."
Seriously, what the hell does that even mean?
"people not in favor of using embryonic stem research"
I'm pretty sure he doesn't read Slashdot.
Well, so far IE8's javasript performance is roughly 4x faster than IE7's (neowin), so...little bit of math...Safari 4's javascript performance should be about 7.5x faster than IE8 (beta)'s.
That's exactly right. See also my comment here.
Plaintiffs' attorneys like class actions because they stand to get huge paydays. Of course, this is often a good thing for "the system" because it helps to close the gap between the caliber of legal teams that the defense and plaintiffs can afford
Interesting. Thanks. (I'd mod you as such if I could)
I have never heard quite that argument either, but I have heard the argument that the earth's resources were put here by God for our use and so, well...we'd better get to it! I know I've heard Mitt Romney say that, and I think (without much evidence) it is actually a relatively mainstream Mormon position.
But, again, why would a company do this? And why would we want to stop them?
To give you a slightly more serious answer, I was talking about the JUDICIARY. your examples of so-called corruption are from the legislative and executive.
Assume what you will about my character, but I'll bet I have a fair bit more experience with lawyers and litigation in federal courts than you.
LOL
Well, that's what they'll have to do now. The down side with this strategy is that:
1. It will he harder for the plaintiffs to get good lawyers because there will be a lot less money involved. (The way it attracts top lawyers to take up the plaintiffs' cause - due to the large paydays - is one of the benefits of the class action system). Though, as you say, they may not need lawyers at all this way.
2. Similarly, MS will almost certainly pay less in damages if the suits are individually litigated. Remember, MS wants the cases to be litigated individually.
OK. So I've read the order now and here's the story:
Under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), one has to show not only that the practices at issue were deceptive, but that the deception injured the plaintiffs. Makes sense, I think.
The injury that these plaintiffs are alleging is having overpaid for their computers. That is, their computers were priced higher than they would have been had they not been advertised as Vista-Capable.
For class certification, of course, the plaintiffs have to show that this price inflation was uniform for all members of the class (in a nationwide class action lawsuit, this means they have to show that the prices were inflated throughout the US). And this is where they run into trouble, because MS has pointed out, and the judge has agreed, that the plaintiffs have not introduced any specific evidence that would indicate that this is the case (for example, they could have provided an economic study of the effect that a Vista-Capable certification has on the price of a PC, by way of supply and demand)
So, yes, the plaintiffs perhaps could have tried a different damage theory as you suggested (hassle of finding a replacement) but it looks like these didn't go that way.
And, yes, under the CPA at least, deceptive marketing in and of itself is OK, so long as it does not injure anyone. ...of course, I can't see why you would deceptively label something without intending to injure customers somehow.
(again, not legal advice and IANAL yet)
No one is saying they didn't make money. (Though, I believe that it has to be at the expense of the plaintiffs, but I could be wrong.) No one is saying MS wasn't unjustly enriched , just that the plaintiffs will have to each show that they overpaid individually. Remember: THIS ISN'T OVER.
That's a fair question. Once I'm able to find and read the actual order, I'll try to say something about that.
Nope. It does matter whether they paid more. They are claiming unjust enrichment which requires that MS profit from the deceptive practices. This means that it has to be shown (now on a case by case basis) that the plaintiffs actually paid more than they otherwise would for the deceptively marketed computers.
(IANAL, but I will be AL soon and I have a fair deal of experience with these sorts of consumer class actions. And this, of course, is not legal advice. Take my word for it: the federal court system is far less corrupt than you think it is [though YMMV with state and local courts].)
The summary (and, indeed, the article) is a little misleading. It is not that they didn't show that the plaintiffs didn't pay more (if the judge had found that, the case probably would have been dismissed). Rather, they lost their clase certification because they hadn't shown that all the plaintiffs in the class had uniformly overpaid.
To form a class, the plaintiffs' situations situations have to be relevantly similar. Her ruling was just that, in essence, the cases hadn't been shown to be similar enough to be litigated as a class.
Now the cases will proceed individually, with each plaintiff having to show individually that they overpaid.
True! Thanks.
I don't see how that's a contradiction. Why can't more than one person be responsible?
Who cares? :)
OP assumed that TPB was making available infringing works for the sake of his argument. I did likewise in order to properly respond. That is all.
Although, there is the little known fact that when doing things like applying to law school you are still expected to disclose (and explain)d prior convictions even if you were a juvenile and your record was expunged. I imagine the same is true when you apply to the Bar. I went through this process and was surprised to find this wording on many schools' applications.
I'm sure they will have no problem explaining this away given how much attention the situation has received, but it will still be a nuisance.
I don't know anything about the actual Swedish laws in play here, but it seems to me that yours is just the usual, unpersuasive argument from vagueness. Clearly, both the Pirate Bay and, say, Slashdot are aiding in the making available of copyrighted works. The difference, of course, is of degree.
The Pirate Bay makes it a core objective to assist in making copyrighted files available. (Just look at their name!) When they assist in making the files available, they do it deliberately and for its own sake.*
Slashdot, by contrast, aids in making available to a much smaller degree and only incidentally while pursuing journalistic (-ish) ends.
"The fact of twilight does not mean you cannot tell day from night." - Samuel Johnson
*Of course, none of this should be read as suggesting that I think that "assisting making available" should be a crime...or whatever it is under Swedish law.
I didn't say that Photoshop isn't overrated, or that it isn't overpriced. I don't know that either of these allegations are true, but I wouldn't rule them out.
But, the fact is, and it sounds like you agree, that Photoshop has quite a few features that the Gimp doesn't, features that a number of us find useful. And even if I agree with you that 90% of users don't need these features, that leaves 10% of us who do.
And this is not to mention the rather shop-worn UI issue.
Again, I love the Gimp and have nothing but respect for the people who make it. I use it daily and would be the first in line to shake the developers' hands if they ever were to dethrone Photoshop as the king of photo-manipulation software. Its just that, today, they aren't there yet. Many tasks remain that are either only possible or much easier in Photoshop.
Well played sir. I was waiting for that. :)
But, to be serious for a moment, Gimp is a fine piece of software, and its developers have every right to be proud of what they've created. But, alas, it still isn't Photoshop. We can only hope that they keep up their good work and eventually bridge the gap.
Or, on the desktop, name any Adobe product - Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign._