Add to that the requirement that "confusion in the market" has to be possible and it makes trademarked domain names laughable. IIRC, there was a case between the American Red Cross vs Red Cross Shoes and ARC lost in part because of this, besides the fact that RCS had their mark before ARC registered. Also, trademarks can be lost if not defended. There are plenty of abandoned trademarks out there.
People possess a remarkable ability for recalling pictures
They are basically talking about eyewitness identification. That has already been debunked as the most unreliable source for anything. There are too many variables involved. Everything from remembering what image you used to repeating that image consistently over time is under fire. This just won't work for so many reasons...
There has to be some responsibility on the part of the buyer to know what they are buying. If the buyer declines to read the contract, it is not the seller's fault.
This is too much like Douglas Adams' "...they were in the bottom drawer of a locked filing cabinet, stuck upside-down, in a disused toilet with a sign on the door saying 'BEWARE OF THE LEOPARD!...'"
Companies are more than willing to display advertising promoting a product in 10000 point, red, bold font while putting the nasties in Swahili 1.5 point italics semi-transparent ink on the back page of the ad.
correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't YouTube own the content after she uploads it?
I don't think so. YouTube is acting as a hosting service and profiting off it through ads to support the "free" nature of it. The way I know this is the fact that DMCA notices are reacted on without challenge. If they did own it, then they would be less likely to knee jerk it off there. No, they are using the DMCA safe harbor clause that applies to ISPs.
The only problem I have with this case is the fact that she *is* suing the wrong party here. Her beef lies with YouTube for their knee jerk reaction in pulling the video on unsubstantiated copyright claims. That is the hazard of the DMCA. For all we know, the label being sued could be "Joe Jobbed" in this. All it takes for some places (YouTube being one of those places) is an email claiming copyright infringement and POOF! There goes your content. The DMCA was purposely setup this way. YouTube could lose their safe harbor status if they didn't. It's a flaw in the DMCA that hasn't been addressed.
I don't think this will even make it to a court solely based on that.
Company A want to pay lower wages in country A and sell for higher prices in country B. Customers in country B decide to buy Company A's product at a reduced price out of country A. Company A the screams "FOUL!!! They are doing what we are!!!" Can't have that now can we...
If someone doesn't think its fair then don't buy it, its only a video game.
Uummm...NO. It is any product that allows regionalization. DVDs come to mind here very quickly.
The problem as I see it is one of companies wanting to have the benefits of globalization while denying those benefits to their customers. They want unfettered access to exploit lower wages abroad but don't want their customers exploiting the lower prices they offer these products overseas. Although not illegal (yet) it is hypocritical to say the least.
Microsoft will publish an irrevocable pledge not to assert any patents it may have over the interoperability information against non-commercial open source software development projects.'
Umm... Is it just me or is this just mealy mouthed enough to get projects into HUGE trouble down the road when they are distributed commercially? Just what is Microsoft's definition of "non-commercial"?
In order for linux or any other os to take share from windows, it has to overcome the hassle of learning a new system and losing all the software you've used for years. When me and the redhat ceo can't get windows out of our lives, it's hard to tell others to do so.
Familiarity plays a large part but by far the OEM lock-in plays a bigger part especially with new users. People are lazy plain and simple. They aren't going to go through the headache of installing an OS when one comes with the new machine. Microsoft has made it that way and OEMs aren't really pushing for anything different since each new iteration of Windows usually requires new hardware. It's an incestuous relationship. Apple also plays this game with their OS. It is nothing new. Breaking this alliance between the OEM and Microsoft should be a priority for the antitrust oversight board but it simply isn't as evidenced by the extension to the settlement by some State DAs.
Thousands if not millions of dollars are spent every year by government and corporations on catering to special needs, which may or may not ever be used.
I don't disagree with the base premise you have going here but I do draw the line at government. The handicapped are expected to abide by the rules made by their elected officials and as such deserve a say in what those officials do. They can't make an informed decision if the information is denied them. There is no reason technically that a site can't be ADA complaint either and in fact would do the world a load of good if it was. Besides, they pay taxes too and deserve the same level of service from their government that you get.
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"
on
Stalling Cars Via OnStar
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Can someone explain why this would be a bad thing?
My problem with it isn't so much the police as it is all the other agencies out there. Implement this and I don't think it will be too long before it becomes government and/or insurance required. It is the mandating that I dread. To really put my tinfoil hat on this could be taken to the Nth degree and used by other groups. For example, overdue on insurance? No problem. Your car won't start or will slow down to a crawl until you do. Didn't make that car payment? Well we no longer repossess the car we disable it! Going a little too fast? Automatic transmitters get triggered to disable you until police can show up to give you your ticket. See where this is going?
Yes, I know those are extreme but they are not beyond the realm of possibility.
Q1: Do you support the right of persons, groups, companies and corporations to own intellectual property?
It depends on what you mean by the nebulous phrase "intellectual property". If by that you are asking if I believe that thoughts can be property, the answer is no. The only reason for the laws governing thoughts is to encourage the publication of those thoughts. I argue that our current crop of laws has the opposite effect especially when, more often than not, the one with the thought isn't the one who has control over that thought.
Q2: If yes to Q1, do you then agree that these entities are entitled to determine the use and distribution of their property within existing commercial statutes?
That was a no to your first question but given that the author isn't the one who has control over distribution in our current scheme, this one is moot. Distribution in our current scheme is in the hands of large corporate conglomerates that have a tight hold on the distribution channels. This gives them an unequal position at the bargaining table. Don't sign over all rights, don't get distributed. Those are the choices facing the authors. It gets worse with patents.
Q3: Of what value would the commercial statutes be if they weren't backed by force of law?
Not all value is measured by the almighty dollar.
Q4: Should the laws be applied differently based on a person's socio-economic status?
They already are. Those with the gold make the laws. To apply an old saying, we have the best politicians money can buy. And just who is looking out for the public domain in all this struggle to control thoughts?
You have added extra steps in your argument that the original poster didn't have. Let's review:
I use Avast free home edition anti-virus program and that's it. No firewall (and I turn off the "firewall" that comes with XP) and no anti-spyware programs. And in more than 3 years I have had zero malware of any sort on my computers running XP.
The only thing he is running is the free avast. He has disabled all firewalls. He doesn't do anything for malware/spyware. So let's see what you posted:
#1: I'm malware free. #2: No you're not, you just don't notice it.
That is where the OP has stopped. He didn't continue with:
#1: Well, I rebooted into safe-mode, ran two anti-virus scans, some rootkit detectors, spy-ware detectors... all came up negative. My harwdware firewall shows no abnormal traffic...
which nullifies you next:
#2: Maybe the virus also infected your firewall and hides itself from the scanners! Theres no way to know!
With a la carte there will be even more pressure on niche programming. To stay profitable, you either have to charge a premium so that you can support the shows that fewer people watch, or else you have to get just a couple of quite popular shows and run them continuously.
You are making a common mistake. Namely that revenue from one channel supports another and that support will discontinue if people have the choice not to watch them. It doesn't work that way especially with ad supported TV. I was listening to the hearings on the issue of blocking technology the House of Representatives had. The issue of a-la-carte was raised at that hearing (why block something you don't want when there is a-la-carte). This issue was raised and the elephant in the room was why can't those popular shows still support the not-so-popular as they are doing today? If they are coming from the same producer there is no reason they still can't support the crap. You will still have the same viewership as before.
There are many reasons people won't convert until forced.
1.) Broadcasters have done a rotten job of educating the public on any benefits of going digital. Not a word has been broadcast outside of the geek forums like here on just why one would want to go digital. Nobody has explained either just how they are going to get that digital signal to distant recievers that currently get really fuzzy reception on analog. Is it going to require a cable run? Is it going to be broadcast? Just exactly how are they going to transmit the signal has been left out of any information you get on it today.
2.) Many see the switch to digital as the death of free (as in beer) TV they have grown up with. They think that the digital signal they get will be charged for much like cable / satelite is and nobody has refuted this in public. Also, given the lie that was perpetrated by the cable companies when they were first getting established of lower prices as things move forward, it is little wonder the average Joe is gun shy.
3.) Other than huge corporate profits for the winner of the spectrum bid, the average Joe has no idea why this switch is need now. For example, they don't realize that some of that spectrum is needed by emergency responders because it can be received inside of buildings (something the 9/11 commission found they can't do now). So the average Joe again only sees the obscene profit the Government is going to make on the sale of the spectrum and seeing little benefit to themselves by it.
4.) This is probably the biggest reason... It requires the purchase of new equipment just to recieve the crap that is regular broadcast TV. It is an expense that many see as unnecessary for the quality of programming local TV has to offer.
5.) The retail stores and TV manufacturers have done poorly in obsoleting the analog TVs they sell. In fact, they have become even more attractive because of their price reduction without any warning that they will be obsolete when the switch is made. So instead of less analog TVs being produced and sold there are more.
I'm sure there are even more obscure reasons people will give. They won't switch without being forced into it no matter how long a time frame they have. They just don't see any benefit to it.
Re:News?.... Minor correction
on
DOS 5 Upgrade Video
·
· Score: 2, Informative
My bad memory...
DriveSpace was released in 6.2. Could have sworn it was in 5.0 that came with my 386.
Much better than 4. And the memory management did help. I remember with the help of QEMM I was able to get something like 633K free, which was incredible.
The problem with your statement is that QEMM was made by Quarterdeck not Microsoft. Microsoft had emm386 as their memory manager. It was far below the capabilities of QEMM.
It was also the death knell for Stak Electronics with the release of DriveSpace in 5.
It is amazing how hyped corporations get over this crap. The whole part on how much money corporations would make never really transpired. It really translates into the money Microsoft made.
no one was forcing microsoft to write their own anti-virus software. just like no one was forcing them to write their own media player.
That isn't exactly true is it? There are three factors that can be perceived as force. First, the customers and partners that call and demand those features. That isn't really as compelling as it needs to be but it still exists. Second, competition in the market, especially in emerging markets. This is much more of a reason than customer demand. The lure of money in a market will always be a driving force. It is why Microsoft wants to get into the "services" business. Lastly, and most importantly, share holder pressure. A publicly traded company has a responsibility to the stockholders to increase shareholder value. The moment it becomes public that Microsoft let an opportunity slip by them, the stockholders would let them know, sometimes very vocally. Large companies like Microsoft sometimes see this as their only reason for existence. I've seen companies doing fine up until the IPO then their whole focus shifts from product and customer to shareholder interests. What happened to Mandrake (now Mandriva) is a classic example of this in action.
None of this excuses Microsoft of their nasty business practices nor does it excuse the DOJ / Courts in their neglect of their oversight duties as agreed to in the settlement. It does show that they may have felt "pressure" to expand in those areas that they have done.
that however is not the main difference between bundling in a linux distribution and bundling in windows. Linux is not made by one company but by hundreds of thousands of amateur and professional developers worldwide. commercial software for watching videos or browsing the web does not really exist for linux, so let's take a different example. what would happen if a bunch of amateur programmers got together and improved blender so far that it really ate into maya's sales? could maya scream anti-trust? no they couldn't. the blender code would presumably remain freely available for everybody and freedom is the most important thing for the gpl, be it freedom for the user to use the software for whatever he/she wants or freedom for the distributor to include whatever gpl or free software he/she wants.
The only reason Maya couldn't cry antitrust is because the Blender Foundation isn't a monopoly. If it was, then they could and probably would make that cry. As I said in my original post, monopolies aren't illegal and indeed are sanctioned by law in some cases. Only the abuse of the monopoly is illegal. As I replied to the other guy, I think Microsoft would still be accused of antitrust even if it was to include FOSS applications with its OS. If not by the closed source folk then by the FOSS folk who weren't included. They would be stepping on toes no matter what they did closed or open. This is the dilemma Microsoft created, and continues to create, for itself.
what would happen, however, if microsoft invested billions of dollars in developing a competitor for maya and then released it free of charge bundled with the operating system? one would understandably be suspicious. why would microsoft want to do such a thing? it is clear why they introduced media player and internet explorer: they wanted to extend their monopoly into new fields. taking control of the net and common media formats was a good start.
That's only because Microsoft *is* a monopoly and has shown that it will abuse that monopoly position to stay a monopoly. I don't disagree with your assessment but I don't think monopoly maintenance is the only reasons (see above).
you say "microsoft is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't" as if that's a reason to cut microsoft some slack. i do not agree. it is quite possible to be in a situation where there is no acceptable way out. microsoft is in this situation now.
Would you be on the MS payroll I could understand you.
But for non-MS people your writing is incomprehensible.
I am not now, nor have I ever been on any software company's payroll. If I had to write software for a living, I'd starve. I don't even own a copy (legal or otherwise) of any version of Windows. My preferred OS is Gentoo Linux since 2000. That aside...
The big difference between MS and Linux distro's including such utilities is that MS is forcing competing commercial offerings out of the market by leveraging it's OS.
I said so much in my post. I also know (as well as I suspect you do) that for them to try to include such programs would raise the roof on complaints of antitrust even if the software they included were FOSS ones (something that will NEVER happen with the current thinking in Redmond).
The one about Windows Defender is quite transparent, first they write software (OS and applications) that is suseptible to abuse and expect others to build a line of defence. By the time the defensive stuff starts making money off it's own, Microsoft (the originator of the weaknesses) comes up with an in-house 'solution'.
Had that solution been the hardening of the OS and applications no-one would have complained but with Defender they try to make money off their own failings.
I never said that Microsoft didn't create their own nightmare. In fact, I said they did. But when they tried to fix it, the first words out of those companies that it affected was "antitrust". Thier push for TCP in Vista is another example with the antivirus vendors (Symantic in particular) when they weren't given the "trusted software" status. The first thing Symantic did was scream antitrust even though I do consider their program an intrusive resource hog that buries itself deeper into the OS than any spyware can possibly do. Now you have Google screaming antitrust because Microsoft includes search features that Google thinks only it should provide. Again, no matter what Microsoft does, it will always step on some other company's toes. That's the nature of the closed source for-profit beast. There will always be some need that will be met by 3rd party providers that will be challenged when Microsoft enters their arena for whatever reason. And the first thing those companies will cry is "antitrust". This is Microsoft's own doing. No doubt about it.
I think what you meant to say is that you don't understand the concept of monopoly or antitrust or why consumers should need or get relief from same.
I think the OP is confusing a monopoly, something that is totally legal and is actually something that true open markets lead to, with antitrust (abuse of that monopoly) which is something that is illegal. To add to the confusion, there are several forms of monopoly that are protected in law (copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret). It is little wonder that such a complex concept is beyond the modern citizen especially since the very things that are being challenged are also protected by those laws.
Microsoft has been convicted of abuse of its monopoly position. The settlement would have worked somewhat had not only the DOJ but the court's oversight body been doing their job. The fact that Vista was allowed to be released without the "features" they are just now putting into SP1 is proof that there is no oversight of the settlement. The rigging of votes in standards bodies and lack of released documentation for their APIs and document formats is another.
Many here are speculating that the EU will be tougher, and that may be the case, but in the end it will have no effect on Microsoft's abuse of monopoly anywhere else outside of Europe. Microsoft will ship a neutered version of their product to Europe and point fingers at the EU saying, "Blame them for the lack of features (or a broken OS more likely since media DRM is so tied into Vista) that others around the globe have. Can't play that DVD you just bought? Blame the EU Commission not us!"
Microsoft is walking a fine line (often crossing it with impunity it seems) between functionality and abuse of monopoly. Any new technology out of Redmond becomes suspect since they always seem to be pushing that technology onto vendors via their OS dominance. I don't think Microsoft will ever get out from under the cloud they have cast over themselves of being "evil". I also don't see things changing no matter who gains the White House hot seat simply because of the political clout such a large employer has.
The other thing that is in relation to what I just said is Microsoft is damned if they do and damned if they don't in many cases especially where security is concerned. Companies like Symantic and McAffee and the like have built a large business on the insecurities inherent in the Microsoft platform. When Microsoft announced Windows Defender these companies screamed "antitrust!" The same is happening for any features Microsoft adds be it media, search indexing, security, etc. These are things that Microsoft customers are screaming for but any attempt by Microsoft to address them gets a call for antitrust because they will always step on some provider's toes no matter what they do. Consider this, if Microsoft were to include into their OS all the things that a Linux distro does, the calls for antitrust would be so great you could hear it on Pluto without the need for a radio.
On a side note: has anyone seriously investigated how secure these biometric memory sticks are?
Well, if it is anything like the ones for security doors that are being pushed as "unbeatable" on Homeland Security then yes. The Myth Busters did a whole thing on it and beat it not once, not twice, but ALL the tries they did.
I think a better measure would be just to look at the drop in music sales over each year. There's no doubt that people are buying music less, but it's still a stretch to correlate that drop entirely to piracy. I wonder how much of that drop is due to high CD prices due to price fixing, people getting pissed for the RIAA suing the American public, and the lack of creative new music.
More importantly, it is more likely the "Wal-Mart Effect". That effect tends to not only reduce competition in a geographical area but drives the price of competing products down.
This study is so full of false assumptions. They are also equating one song with one CD sale. Last I checked, you don't get singles on a CD. That is one reason people go to online (even "illegal") sources. They don't want all the fluff you get on a CD but instead only want a song or two.
Slashdot Mirror
Add to that the requirement that "confusion in the market" has to be possible and it makes trademarked domain names laughable. IIRC, there was a case between the American Red Cross vs Red Cross Shoes and ARC lost in part because of this, besides the fact that RCS had their mark before ARC registered. Also, trademarks can be lost if not defended. There are plenty of abandoned trademarks out there.
They are basically talking about eyewitness identification. That has already been debunked as the most unreliable source for anything. There are too many variables involved. Everything from remembering what image you used to repeating that image consistently over time is under fire. This just won't work for so many reasons...
This is too much like Douglas Adams' "...they were in the bottom drawer of a locked filing cabinet, stuck upside-down, in a disused toilet with a sign on the door saying 'BEWARE OF THE LEOPARD!...'"
Companies are more than willing to display advertising promoting a product in 10000 point, red, bold font while putting the nasties in Swahili 1.5 point italics semi-transparent ink on the back page of the ad.
I don't think so. YouTube is acting as a hosting service and profiting off it through ads to support the "free" nature of it. The way I know this is the fact that DMCA notices are reacted on without challenge. If they did own it, then they would be less likely to knee jerk it off there. No, they are using the DMCA safe harbor clause that applies to ISPs.
I agree completely....
The only problem I have with this case is the fact that she *is* suing the wrong party here. Her beef lies with YouTube for their knee jerk reaction in pulling the video on unsubstantiated copyright claims. That is the hazard of the DMCA. For all we know, the label being sued could be "Joe Jobbed" in this. All it takes for some places (YouTube being one of those places) is an email claiming copyright infringement and POOF! There goes your content. The DMCA was purposely setup this way. YouTube could lose their safe harbor status if they didn't. It's a flaw in the DMCA that hasn't been addressed.
I don't think this will even make it to a court solely based on that.
Here, let me help you with this...
Company A want to pay lower wages in country A and sell for higher prices in country B. Customers in country B decide to buy Company A's product at a reduced price out of country A. Company A the screams "FOUL!!! They are doing what we are!!!" Can't have that now can we...
Uummm...NO. It is any product that allows regionalization. DVDs come to mind here very quickly.
The problem as I see it is one of companies wanting to have the benefits of globalization while denying those benefits to their customers. They want unfettered access to exploit lower wages abroad but don't want their customers exploiting the lower prices they offer these products overseas. Although not illegal (yet) it is hypocritical to say the least.
Umm... Is it just me or is this just mealy mouthed enough to get projects into HUGE trouble down the road when they are distributed commercially? Just what is Microsoft's definition of "non-commercial"?
Thanks for the info on virtualbox. I didn't know it existed. I'm installing it now and seeing how well it stacks up to vmware.
Familiarity plays a large part but by far the OEM lock-in plays a bigger part especially with new users. People are lazy plain and simple. They aren't going to go through the headache of installing an OS when one comes with the new machine. Microsoft has made it that way and OEMs aren't really pushing for anything different since each new iteration of Windows usually requires new hardware. It's an incestuous relationship. Apple also plays this game with their OS. It is nothing new. Breaking this alliance between the OEM and Microsoft should be a priority for the antitrust oversight board but it simply isn't as evidenced by the extension to the settlement by some State DAs.
The problem then becomes one of relevance...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Where+are+my+keys%3F&btnG=Google+Search
returns:
Results 1 - 10 of about 509,000,000 for Where are my keys?
Are you really telling me there are 509,000,000 places they can be? Sounds like you will be searching for a while there...
I don't disagree with the base premise you have going here but I do draw the line at government. The handicapped are expected to abide by the rules made by their elected officials and as such deserve a say in what those officials do. They can't make an informed decision if the information is denied them. There is no reason technically that a site can't be ADA complaint either and in fact would do the world a load of good if it was. Besides, they pay taxes too and deserve the same level of service from their government that you get.
My problem with it isn't so much the police as it is all the other agencies out there. Implement this and I don't think it will be too long before it becomes government and/or insurance required. It is the mandating that I dread. To really put my tinfoil hat on this could be taken to the Nth degree and used by other groups. For example, overdue on insurance? No problem. Your car won't start or will slow down to a crawl until you do. Didn't make that car payment? Well we no longer repossess the car we disable it! Going a little too fast? Automatic transmitters get triggered to disable you until police can show up to give you your ticket. See where this is going?
Yes, I know those are extreme but they are not beyond the realm of possibility.
It depends on what you mean by the nebulous phrase "intellectual property". If by that you are asking if I believe that thoughts can be property, the answer is no. The only reason for the laws governing thoughts is to encourage the publication of those thoughts. I argue that our current crop of laws has the opposite effect especially when, more often than not, the one with the thought isn't the one who has control over that thought.
That was a no to your first question but given that the author isn't the one who has control over distribution in our current scheme, this one is moot. Distribution in our current scheme is in the hands of large corporate conglomerates that have a tight hold on the distribution channels. This gives them an unequal position at the bargaining table. Don't sign over all rights, don't get distributed. Those are the choices facing the authors. It gets worse with patents.
Not all value is measured by the almighty dollar.
They already are. Those with the gold make the laws. To apply an old saying, we have the best politicians money can buy. And just who is looking out for the public domain in all this struggle to control thoughts?
The only thing he is running is the free avast. He has disabled all firewalls. He doesn't do anything for malware/spyware. So let's see what you posted:
That is where the OP has stopped. He didn't continue with:
which nullifies you next:
You are making a common mistake. Namely that revenue from one channel supports another and that support will discontinue if people have the choice not to watch them. It doesn't work that way especially with ad supported TV. I was listening to the hearings on the issue of blocking technology the House of Representatives had. The issue of a-la-carte was raised at that hearing (why block something you don't want when there is a-la-carte). This issue was raised and the elephant in the room was why can't those popular shows still support the not-so-popular as they are doing today? If they are coming from the same producer there is no reason they still can't support the crap. You will still have the same viewership as before.
There are many reasons people won't convert until forced.
1.) Broadcasters have done a rotten job of educating the public on any benefits of going digital. Not a word has been broadcast outside of the geek forums like here on just why one would want to go digital. Nobody has explained either just how they are going to get that digital signal to distant recievers that currently get really fuzzy reception on analog. Is it going to require a cable run? Is it going to be broadcast? Just exactly how are they going to transmit the signal has been left out of any information you get on it today.
2.) Many see the switch to digital as the death of free (as in beer) TV they have grown up with. They think that the digital signal they get will be charged for much like cable / satelite is and nobody has refuted this in public. Also, given the lie that was perpetrated by the cable companies when they were first getting established of lower prices as things move forward, it is little wonder the average Joe is gun shy.
3.) Other than huge corporate profits for the winner of the spectrum bid, the average Joe has no idea why this switch is need now. For example, they don't realize that some of that spectrum is needed by emergency responders because it can be received inside of buildings (something the 9/11 commission found they can't do now). So the average Joe again only sees the obscene profit the Government is going to make on the sale of the spectrum and seeing little benefit to themselves by it.
4.) This is probably the biggest reason... It requires the purchase of new equipment just to recieve the crap that is regular broadcast TV. It is an expense that many see as unnecessary for the quality of programming local TV has to offer.
5.) The retail stores and TV manufacturers have done poorly in obsoleting the analog TVs they sell. In fact, they have become even more attractive because of their price reduction without any warning that they will be obsolete when the switch is made. So instead of less analog TVs being produced and sold there are more.
I'm sure there are even more obscure reasons people will give. They won't switch without being forced into it no matter how long a time frame they have. They just don't see any benefit to it.
My bad memory...
DriveSpace was released in 6.2. Could have sworn it was in 5.0 that came with my 386.
Thanks for the correction.
The problem with your statement is that QEMM was made by Quarterdeck not Microsoft. Microsoft had emm386 as their memory manager. It was far below the capabilities of QEMM.
It was also the death knell for Stak Electronics with the release of DriveSpace in 5.
It is amazing how hyped corporations get over this crap. The whole part on how much money corporations would make never really transpired. It really translates into the money Microsoft made.
As far as advertising goes, this one sucks!
That isn't exactly true is it? There are three factors that can be perceived as force. First, the customers and partners that call and demand those features. That isn't really as compelling as it needs to be but it still exists. Second, competition in the market, especially in emerging markets. This is much more of a reason than customer demand. The lure of money in a market will always be a driving force. It is why Microsoft wants to get into the "services" business. Lastly, and most importantly, share holder pressure. A publicly traded company has a responsibility to the stockholders to increase shareholder value. The moment it becomes public that Microsoft let an opportunity slip by them, the stockholders would let them know, sometimes very vocally. Large companies like Microsoft sometimes see this as their only reason for existence. I've seen companies doing fine up until the IPO then their whole focus shifts from product and customer to shareholder interests. What happened to Mandrake (now Mandriva) is a classic example of this in action.
None of this excuses Microsoft of their nasty business practices nor does it excuse the DOJ / Courts in their neglect of their oversight duties as agreed to in the settlement. It does show that they may have felt "pressure" to expand in those areas that they have done.
The only reason Maya couldn't cry antitrust is because the Blender Foundation isn't a monopoly. If it was, then they could and probably would make that cry. As I said in my original post, monopolies aren't illegal and indeed are sanctioned by law in some cases. Only the abuse of the monopoly is illegal. As I replied to the other guy, I think Microsoft would still be accused of antitrust even if it was to include FOSS applications with its OS. If not by the closed source folk then by the FOSS folk who weren't included. They would be stepping on toes no matter what they did closed or open. This is the dilemma Microsoft created, and continues to create, for itself.
That's only because Microsoft *is* a monopoly and has shown that it will abuse that monopoly position to stay a monopoly. I don't disagree with your assessment but I don't think monopoly maintenance is the only reasons (see above).
Oh, quite the opposite. I d
I am not now, nor have I ever been on any software company's payroll. If I had to write software for a living, I'd starve. I don't even own a copy (legal or otherwise) of any version of Windows. My preferred OS is Gentoo Linux since 2000. That aside...
I said so much in my post. I also know (as well as I suspect you do) that for them to try to include such programs would raise the roof on complaints of antitrust even if the software they included were FOSS ones (something that will NEVER happen with the current thinking in Redmond).
I never said that Microsoft didn't create their own nightmare. In fact, I said they did. But when they tried to fix it, the first words out of those companies that it affected was "antitrust". Thier push for TCP in Vista is another example with the antivirus vendors (Symantic in particular) when they weren't given the "trusted software" status. The first thing Symantic did was scream antitrust even though I do consider their program an intrusive resource hog that buries itself deeper into the OS than any spyware can possibly do. Now you have Google screaming antitrust because Microsoft includes search features that Google thinks only it should provide. Again, no matter what Microsoft does, it will always step on some other company's toes. That's the nature of the closed source for-profit beast. There will always be some need that will be met by 3rd party providers that will be challenged when Microsoft enters their arena for whatever reason. And the first thing those companies will cry is "antitrust". This is Microsoft's own doing. No doubt about it.
I think the OP is confusing a monopoly, something that is totally legal and is actually something that true open markets lead to, with antitrust (abuse of that monopoly) which is something that is illegal. To add to the confusion, there are several forms of monopoly that are protected in law (copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret). It is little wonder that such a complex concept is beyond the modern citizen especially since the very things that are being challenged are also protected by those laws.
Microsoft has been convicted of abuse of its monopoly position. The settlement would have worked somewhat had not only the DOJ but the court's oversight body been doing their job. The fact that Vista was allowed to be released without the "features" they are just now putting into SP1 is proof that there is no oversight of the settlement. The rigging of votes in standards bodies and lack of released documentation for their APIs and document formats is another.
Many here are speculating that the EU will be tougher, and that may be the case, but in the end it will have no effect on Microsoft's abuse of monopoly anywhere else outside of Europe. Microsoft will ship a neutered version of their product to Europe and point fingers at the EU saying, "Blame them for the lack of features (or a broken OS more likely since media DRM is so tied into Vista) that others around the globe have. Can't play that DVD you just bought? Blame the EU Commission not us!"
Microsoft is walking a fine line (often crossing it with impunity it seems) between functionality and abuse of monopoly. Any new technology out of Redmond becomes suspect since they always seem to be pushing that technology onto vendors via their OS dominance. I don't think Microsoft will ever get out from under the cloud they have cast over themselves of being "evil". I also don't see things changing no matter who gains the White House hot seat simply because of the political clout such a large employer has.
The other thing that is in relation to what I just said is Microsoft is damned if they do and damned if they don't in many cases especially where security is concerned. Companies like Symantic and McAffee and the like have built a large business on the insecurities inherent in the Microsoft platform. When Microsoft announced Windows Defender these companies screamed "antitrust!" The same is happening for any features Microsoft adds be it media, search indexing, security, etc. These are things that Microsoft customers are screaming for but any attempt by Microsoft to address them gets a call for antitrust because they will always step on some provider's toes no matter what they do. Consider this, if Microsoft were to include into their OS all the things that a Linux distro does, the calls for antitrust would be so great you could hear it on Pluto without the need for a radio.
Well, if it is anything like the ones for security doors that are being pushed as "unbeatable" on Homeland Security then yes. The Myth Busters did a whole thing on it and beat it not once, not twice, but ALL the tries they did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA4Xx5Noxyo
More importantly, it is more likely the "Wal-Mart Effect". That effect tends to not only reduce competition in a geographical area but drives the price of competing products down.
This study is so full of false assumptions. They are also equating one song with one CD sale. Last I checked, you don't get singles on a CD. That is one reason people go to online (even "illegal") sources. They don't want all the fluff you get on a CD but instead only want a song or two.