If the opponents of software patentability had a strong case that software patents really do a lot of harm and cause a lot of economic suffering (companies going out of business, having to lay off large numbers of people etc.), politicians would certainly act.
Like the economists who have studied the economics of patents and concluded they do not help?
Wow! Really? Apple's Gross Profit Margin is 41% whereas Microsoft's is 84.8%. Looks like MS has the higher profit margin, at more than twice Apple's. And I didn't know Amazon and Bestbuy were boutique retailers. Or are you just showing your anti-Apple bias?
That would totally explain why Motorola sued Apple first. No, wait, it wouldn't at all. Nokia also took the first swing in that scuffle as well. The only large recent suit where Apple instigated matters was against HTC.
Yes Motorola filed first but they knew Apple was filing a lawsuit themselves. Now if you know someone's going to sue you can wait or you can sue them first. Motorola decided to sue first.
This is all likely to end in one big cross-licensing deal where the established players carve out there own share of the market pie and keep anyone else from joining the party.
Except that's not possible. Some of those established players are using Android which is based on Linux and is GLPed.
I can very much understand why Apple is going down the patent-shaft though: If they've patented all their innovations, Microsoft would never have had the opportunity to become successful while they were small.
Except that's not true: I used to think that too, however as CEO of Apple John Sculley licensed parts of the Mac GUI to Microsoft. MS was already working on Windows by then, though it was called Interface Manager. Actually if anyone had patented the GUI it would have been Xerox. Xerox PARC developed the GUI. Then before Apple's IPO Xerox was allowed to buy stocks in Apple in exchange for allowing Steve Jobs and Apple engineers to tour the PARC facilities to see what they would be able to commercialize.
if I come up with an invention, and I actually go so far as manufacturing, it's not really fair that my competitors can just copy it and market it.
And if I come up with the same thing but you beat to the patent office it's not fair to me that you can stop me. Nor is it fair, or good that you can stop me when I make something better.
Without patents you would have huge companies just sitting around, monitoring the moves of the small guys, letting the small guys waste their money in R&D and then just steal the ideas and squash the small guy in the market.
As if that does not happen now. HAHA!!!! And not as if trolls don't hold back progress, which as you said yourself, are granted as an incentive. What incentive do I have investing in research if you can block me with a patent?
nor have I looked at the patents in question, and for the most part do not agree with software patents (software should only be protected by copyright, imo), but I do find hardware patents to be valid. If some one invents a true new technology, and patents it, he is in the right to sue anyone that attempts to profit on their invention without permissions.
Apple only went after HTC. Motorola then jumped Apple for other reasons and Apple countered.
Which.pdf is that? The article linked to, the Bloomberg article, says Apple's lawsuit against Nokia was a "precursor to Apple patent battles with Motorola Inc. and HTC Corp." The second says "Motorola threw down the gauntlet in what looked to me like a pre-emptive strike at a point when Motorola probably knew that Apple was already preparing suits against it."
If Apple was initiating all the lawsuits, I'd say this was true, but that does not seem to be the case.
Except Apple does have a walled garden. Apple arranged it so only software available for download from Apple can be installed on iPhones and iPads. And Apple keeps a tight grip on what download it allows.
my rule is: if in doubt, choose C. It's still in heavy use after almost forty years for a reason.
Now I'm working on the book Learn C on the Mac. As I said in another post most of what's taught in college now, and has been for years, is Windows. I need a refresher for C and C++, though I'm thinking of working on Objective C next, and because I'm using a Mac now I thought I'd try that book. Then I want to get a book on C programming on Linux, I have a Linux PC I want to set up as a server and I want to dual-boot my laptop.
You can justify it all you want from a code readability perspective, but the fact remains that it leads to really awkward coding practices, like indenting function bodies sixteen spaces just in case you need to add another nesting level.
I have trouble reading code that isn't indented and nested. Of course I don't read much code and if I did I might get better. Then again there's a lot to be said about readability.
It brings back memories of BASIC and line numbering every ten lines.
I first programmed use line numbers for every line, of course they were numbered 10, 20, 30. I was shocked the first tyme I saw a BASIC listing that was not numbered every line, I thought there was something wrong with the listing.
There are huge organizations called "schools" made specifically for the purpose of educating people. Once someone works as a programmer, it's too late to tolerate idiotic crap from him.
As has been true for years, today what's taught in college is Windows and one IDE or another not programming. The best programming class I had in years was programming PERL. For it we didn't use an IDE, we typed using a text editor then dropped down to the command-line for testing.
I'd modify this to say "always, always, always have a peer-review process". Junior devs are prevented from checking in crap because it gets caught by senior devs. The junior devs also learn quality habits from reviewing senior devs' code.
Though not the same when new programmers in school have asked on Slashdot how they can get experience or contribute to open source one bit of advise given is to pick an open source project then take one of the bugs listed as needing to be fixed. Then after a programmer has submitted some bug fixes they may be accepted as a contributor.
And once they do, the guys with the expensive plans can certainly drop their prices. Once the newcomer is absorbed or out of business, back up they go...
I don't think it would be as easy to drive newcomers out of business as you think, if there were a freemarket. The expensive part is the initial infrastructure setup, which as I stated elsewhere would not be expensive if it were not for licensing and regulations.
The internet has proven as much. Brick and mortar book and music stores (BMB&Ms) are going out of business because they can't compeat with the Apple iTunes music store or Amazon. And soon there will be another large competitor, Google. Google is about to open an e-book store. This tyme though small BMB&Ms stores will be able to sign up with Google too. Netflix has done the same with Blockbuster and other Brick and Mortar video stores.
I don't entirely disagree with your premise - I just think that the providers have done their research in determining current price points; and that they're probably getting close to an optimal balance between pricing and volume.
Like banks, hedge funds, and mortgage businesses I doubt they've done much research. Because I'm disabled and my disability is being screwed with I have to watch my money. I used shop at smaller local stores as I prefer to support them. When money started getting tight though I started shopping at lower cost stores like Walmart and Home Depot (for gardening supplies). When things got even tighter I started shopping online. I am a member of 2 local food co-ops but I'm about to start ordering food from Amazon.
So if I could, I'd jump on a low cost but reliable cellphone/wireless broadband provider(s) in an instant. And I'm sure there are others like me.
I was just using "fast and loose" in the context of TFA, which called it "fast and loose" to allow a process to execute when key data is null (or at least that's how I interpreted it, TFA wasn't exactly clear).
Thinking about it I suppose it can be taken 2 ways. One, the way I looked at it, at least the "fast" part is that the program runs fast. It is optimized. The second way, perhaps what you meant, was that the program itself was written quickly. It wasn't given much thought to how it was programmed.
f we simply had OK, and Close buttons at the bottom right of dialogs, and the menus near the top right our programs would have been easier for new users.
If you use Windows but not all Linux distros or OSX is laid out the same. Heck, they can even be customized to work the way the users wants them, within certain areas. I use OS X and Ubuntu now but when I used Windows I even rearranged it's layout.
We've come a long way from when hackers tried reduce the size of programs, however we've lost a lot along the way. Hell, to be a hacker as those in MIT's Tech Model Railroad Club was to be along the best programmers. Now a hacker is someone who's looked at a criminal.
Better checking for null in one common place and let the process fail gracefully than to check for nulls in the multitude of places that call this function.
That's a hacker routine, reducing the number of lines a program takes up. However that's not "fast and loose" programming.
"I'm going to write this whole thing in Python or Ruby" simply because it's the latest "cool" language.
TFA above has this piece: "There seems to be two sorts of people who love Python [7]: those who hate brackets, and scientists. The former helped create the language by building a version of Perl [8] that is easier to read and not as chock-full of opening and closing brackets as a C descendant."
You should choose the language based on what will best do the job, not based on what's popular today, and you should choose one language for the entire project before you start writing the first line of code.
But what if a project is large and different sections are best written in different languages? With modularity a project can be broken down into different modules then the appropriate language can be used for each module.
or he has no idea what programming is. I can guarantee a lot of programmers are not doing "engineering" and most aren't doing "science", but as a whole programming software has a lot in common with those fields.
One of my favorite professors, I had him for calculus, physics, and programming, used to say to solve some of the problems in the classes he taught being creative would be helpful. Sometimes a problem had to be looked at in a different way, coming from a different angle.
On the other hand - as seems to be happening - when 10,000,00 sign up for a $100 service, why would they change the price to $10?
One, has 10,000,00 signed up for these plans? And two might not a low cost competitor, a disruptive competitor such as cellphones are to land-line phones, upset even grandiose plans? Potential wireless providers could be very disruptive to large providers if licensing was not required.
Right. Now we just have to actually reach "no monopolies" and "no restrictions on competition", because the cost of building an initial set of cell towers is most certainly restricting new players from entering the market.
Making transceivers doesn't cost much actually, the costly part is locating towers. However with higher powered transceivers fewer towers are needed. Regulations though set maximum power levels. Another way to reduce the number of towers and transceivers needed is using shortwave broadcasting. I used to get a kick out of listening to Radio Moscow on shortwave, before the collapse of the Soviet Union. And I lived in Florida then. When disasters happen knocking out land-line communications, shortwave radios are used. Still today Radio Shack sells shortwave receivers, of course I'd rather go to Skycraft to buy the parts then build one myself.
What Does Monopoly Mean?
A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high prices and inferior products.
Legal Dictionary
1 : exclusive control of a particular market that is marked by the power to control prices and exclude competition and that esp. is developed willfully rather than as the result of superior products or skill —see also ANTITRUST Sherman Antitrust Act in the IMPORTANT LAWS section
Monopoly
Market situation where one producer (or a group of producers acting in concert) controls supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted.
A monopoly does not necessarily mean only one entity controlling a market. For instance though MS Windows and MS Office both have dominate but not exclusive monopolies of Operating Systems and Office suites, MS is a monopoly. Let's also make it clear, being a monopoly is not necessarily bad or illegal, how the monopoly is used determines that. For instance MS forcing OEM computer manufacturers not to sell PCs with operating systems other than MS OSes such as BeOS and Linux, and not allowing them to install Netscape as the browser or WordPerfect or other office suites instead of MS Office is what was illegal.
Meanwhile, power companies have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
You asked about monopolies and power companies are monopolies.
I'm thinking you're trolling so I'm not going to reply again.
I guess there's nothing that doesn't end up being commercialized. Wikipedia has certain problems — when I look up topics in which I'm an expert, I always find the articles full of mistakes — but it was nice to see something that was relatively free of commercial spin. No more, it seems.
Wiki is still there without going through Amazon. For those subjects with mistakes, there's Google's Knol which only publishes articles by experts.
What monopolies? How about those monopolies granted to cable, phone, and power companies that grant exclusive use of easements or rights-of-way.
Are you saying there is only one cellular provider in the U.S.?
No I didn't, nor am I saying it now, there is only 1 cell service provider in the US. Are you really so stupid to believe I said anything like that? Or is it FUD you're tries to spread?
The government also needs to address the fact that these companies charge amounts 100x the cost of a monthly bill with a straight face.
No what the government needs to address is the monopolies the government itself gave to these companies. Remove any and all artificial barriers to competition is what needs to be done. Remove easements or the exclusive use of right-of-ways and remove licensing requirements to transmit over the airwaves.
They will charge what people are willing to pay, and that's the end of it. In that context, what they're doing is perfectly logical. Illogical would be charging a flat rate, when people would willingly pay premium rates for tiered pricing.
If 10,000,000 sign up for a $10 service where only 10,000 sign up for a service costing $100, the logical price point is $10.
Of course that ignores variable costs. However if fixed costs plus variable costs per unit are below the lower price point then profits will be maximized at the lower price.
Slashdot Mirror
If the opponents of software patentability had a strong case that software patents really do a lot of harm and cause a lot of economic suffering (companies going out of business, having to lay off large numbers of people etc.), politicians would certainly act.
Like the economists who have studied the economics of patents and concluded they do not help?
Falcon
Wow! Really? Apple's Gross Profit Margin is 41% whereas Microsoft's is 84.8%. Looks like MS has the higher profit margin, at more than twice Apple's. And I didn't know Amazon and Bestbuy were boutique retailers. Or are you just showing your anti-Apple bias?
Falcon
That would totally explain why Motorola sued Apple first. No, wait, it wouldn't at all. Nokia also took the first swing in that scuffle as well. The only large recent suit where Apple instigated matters was against HTC.
Yes Motorola filed first but they knew Apple was filing a lawsuit themselves. Now if you know someone's going to sue you can wait or you can sue them first. Motorola decided to sue first.
This is all likely to end in one big cross-licensing deal where the established players carve out there own share of the market pie and keep anyone else from joining the party.
Except that's not possible. Some of those established players are using Android which is based on Linux and is GLPed.
Falcon
I can very much understand why Apple is going down the patent-shaft though: If they've patented all their innovations, Microsoft would never have had the opportunity to become successful while they were small.
Except that's not true: I used to think that too, however as CEO of Apple John Sculley licensed parts of the Mac GUI to Microsoft. MS was already working on Windows by then, though it was called Interface Manager. Actually if anyone had patented the GUI it would have been Xerox. Xerox PARC developed the GUI. Then before Apple's IPO Xerox was allowed to buy stocks in Apple in exchange for allowing Steve Jobs and Apple engineers to tour the PARC facilities to see what they would be able to commercialize.
Falcon
if I come up with an invention, and I actually go so far as manufacturing, it's not really fair that my competitors can just copy it and market it.
And if I come up with the same thing but you beat to the patent office it's not fair to me that you can stop me. Nor is it fair, or good that you can stop me when I make something better.
Without patents you would have huge companies just sitting around, monitoring the moves of the small guys, letting the small guys waste their money in R&D and then just steal the ideas and squash the small guy in the market.
As if that does not happen now. HAHA!!!! And not as if trolls don't hold back progress, which as you said yourself, are granted as an incentive. What incentive do I have investing in research if you can block me with a patent?
Falcon
nor have I looked at the patents in question, and for the most part do not agree with software patents (software should only be protected by copyright, imo), but I do find hardware patents to be valid. If some one invents a true new technology, and patents it, he is in the right to sue anyone that attempts to profit on their invention without permissions.
BS! Neither hardware nor software patents should be granted. All they do is hold back progress. Economists say copyright and patent laws are killing innovation; hurting economy. Let’s just shut down all progress using copyright and patent. Actually I do support copyrights, but only for 5 to 7 years max. None of this "Life plus 50 year" BS!
Falcon
Apple only went after HTC. Motorola then jumped Apple for other reasons and Apple countered.
Which .pdf is that? The article linked to, the Bloomberg article, says Apple's lawsuit against Nokia was a "precursor to Apple patent battles with Motorola Inc. and HTC Corp." The second says "Motorola threw down the gauntlet in what looked to me like a pre-emptive strike at a point when Motorola probably knew that Apple was already preparing suits against it."
If Apple was initiating all the lawsuits, I'd say this was true, but that does not seem to be the case.
Except Apple does have a walled garden. Apple arranged it so only software available for download from Apple can be installed on iPhones and iPads. And Apple keeps a tight grip on what download it allows.
Falcon
my rule is: if in doubt, choose C. It's still in heavy use after almost forty years for a reason.
Now I'm working on the book Learn C on the Mac. As I said in another post most of what's taught in college now, and has been for years, is Windows. I need a refresher for C and C++, though I'm thinking of working on Objective C next, and because I'm using a Mac now I thought I'd try that book. Then I want to get a book on C programming on Linux, I have a Linux PC I want to set up as a server and I want to dual-boot my laptop.
You can justify it all you want from a code readability perspective, but the fact remains that it leads to really awkward coding practices, like indenting function bodies sixteen spaces just in case you need to add another nesting level.
I have trouble reading code that isn't indented and nested. Of course I don't read much code and if I did I might get better. Then again there's a lot to be said about readability.
It brings back memories of BASIC and line numbering every ten lines.
I first programmed use line numbers for every line, of course they were numbered 10, 20, 30. I was shocked the first tyme I saw a BASIC listing that was not numbered every line, I thought there was something wrong with the listing.
Falcon
There are huge organizations called "schools" made specifically for the purpose of educating people. Once someone works as a programmer, it's too late to tolerate idiotic crap from him.
As has been true for years, today what's taught in college is Windows and one IDE or another not programming. The best programming class I had in years was programming PERL. For it we didn't use an IDE, we typed using a text editor then dropped down to the command-line for testing.
Falcon
I'd modify this to say "always, always, always have a peer-review process". Junior devs are prevented from checking in crap because it gets caught by senior devs. The junior devs also learn quality habits from reviewing senior devs' code.
Though not the same when new programmers in school have asked on Slashdot how they can get experience or contribute to open source one bit of advise given is to pick an open source project then take one of the bugs listed as needing to be fixed. Then after a programmer has submitted some bug fixes they may be accepted as a contributor.
Falcon
I love that and have been saying it for years. "All things in moderation, including moderation itself
Falcon
And once they do, the guys with the expensive plans can certainly drop their prices. Once the newcomer is absorbed or out of business, back up they go...
I don't think it would be as easy to drive newcomers out of business as you think, if there were a freemarket. The expensive part is the initial infrastructure setup, which as I stated elsewhere would not be expensive if it were not for licensing and regulations.
The internet has proven as much. Brick and mortar book and music stores (BMB&Ms) are going out of business because they can't compeat with the Apple iTunes music store or Amazon. And soon there will be another large competitor, Google. Google is about to open an e-book store. This tyme though small BMB&Ms stores will be able to sign up with Google too. Netflix has done the same with Blockbuster and other Brick and Mortar video stores.
I don't entirely disagree with your premise - I just think that the providers have done their research in determining current price points; and that they're probably getting close to an optimal balance between pricing and volume.
Like banks, hedge funds, and mortgage businesses I doubt they've done much research. Because I'm disabled and my disability is being screwed with I have to watch my money. I used shop at smaller local stores as I prefer to support them. When money started getting tight though I started shopping at lower cost stores like Walmart and Home Depot (for gardening supplies). When things got even tighter I started shopping online. I am a member of 2 local food co-ops but I'm about to start ordering food from Amazon.
So if I could, I'd jump on a low cost but reliable cellphone/wireless broadband provider(s) in an instant. And I'm sure there are others like me.
Falcon
I was just using "fast and loose" in the context of TFA, which called it "fast and loose" to allow a process to execute when key data is null (or at least that's how I interpreted it, TFA wasn't exactly clear).
Thinking about it I suppose it can be taken 2 ways. One, the way I looked at it, at least the "fast" part is that the program runs fast. It is optimized. The second way, perhaps what you meant, was that the program itself was written quickly. It wasn't given much thought to how it was programmed.
Falcon
f we simply had OK, and Close buttons at the bottom right of dialogs, and the menus near the top right our programs would have been easier for new users.
If you use Windows but not all Linux distros or OSX is laid out the same. Heck, they can even be customized to work the way the users wants them, within certain areas. I use OS X and Ubuntu now but when I used Windows I even rearranged it's layout.
Falcon
We've come a long way from when hackers tried reduce the size of programs, however we've lost a lot along the way. Hell, to be a hacker as those in MIT's Tech Model Railroad Club was to be along the best programmers. Now a hacker is someone who's looked at a criminal.
Better checking for null in one common place and let the process fail gracefully than to check for nulls in the multitude of places that call this function.
That's a hacker routine, reducing the number of lines a program takes up. However that's not "fast and loose" programming.
Falcon
TFA links to 7 programming languages on the rise, print version.
"I'm going to write this whole thing in Python or Ruby" simply because it's the latest "cool" language.
TFA above has this piece: "There seems to be two sorts of people who love Python [7]: those who hate brackets, and scientists. The former helped create the language by building a version of Perl [8] that is easier to read and not as chock-full of opening and closing brackets as a C descendant."
You should choose the language based on what will best do the job, not based on what's popular today, and you should choose one language for the entire project before you start writing the first line of code.
But what if a project is large and different sections are best written in different languages? With modularity a project can be broken down into different modules then the appropriate language can be used for each module.
Falcon
or he has no idea what programming is. I can guarantee a lot of programmers are not doing "engineering" and most aren't doing "science", but as a whole programming software has a lot in common with those fields.
One of my favorite professors, I had him for calculus, physics, and programming, used to say to solve some of the problems in the classes he taught being creative would be helpful. Sometimes a problem had to be looked at in a different way, coming from a different angle.
Falcon
On the other hand - as seems to be happening - when 10,000,00 sign up for a $100 service, why would they change the price to $10?
One, has 10,000,00 signed up for these plans? And two might not a low cost competitor, a disruptive competitor such as cellphones are to land-line phones, upset even grandiose plans? Potential wireless providers could be very disruptive to large providers if licensing was not required.
Falcon
Right. Now we just have to actually reach "no monopolies" and "no restrictions on competition", because the cost of building an initial set of cell towers is most certainly restricting new players from entering the market.
Making transceivers doesn't cost much actually, the costly part is locating towers. However with higher powered transceivers fewer towers are needed. Regulations though set maximum power levels. Another way to reduce the number of towers and transceivers needed is using shortwave broadcasting. I used to get a kick out of listening to Radio Moscow on shortwave, before the collapse of the Soviet Union. And I lived in Florida then. When disasters happen knocking out land-line communications, shortwave radios are used. Still today Radio Shack sells shortwave receivers, of course I'd rather go to Skycraft to buy the parts then build one myself.
Another way cellphone service is and was restricted is by the use of System Identification Numbers, or SIDs. Licensing is required.
Falcon
I asked what was making the U.S. cellular market fail and you claimed a government granted monopoly was the cause.
So, either you have no idea what a monopoly is or you are, in fact, claiming that there is only one cell provider.
It's you who has no idea what a monopoly is. Let's correct that now.
A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high prices and inferior products.
1 : exclusive control of a particular market that is marked by the power to control prices and exclude competition and that esp. is developed willfully rather than as the result of superior products or skill —see also ANTITRUST Sherman Antitrust Act in the IMPORTANT LAWS section
Market situation where one producer (or a group of producers acting in concert) controls supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted.
A monopoly does not necessarily mean only one entity controlling a market. For instance though MS Windows and MS Office both have dominate but not exclusive monopolies of Operating Systems and Office suites, MS is a monopoly. Let's also make it clear, being a monopoly is not necessarily bad or illegal, how the monopoly is used determines that. For instance MS forcing OEM computer manufacturers not to sell PCs with operating systems other than MS OSes such as BeOS and Linux, and not allowing them to install Netscape as the browser or WordPerfect or other office suites instead of MS Office is what was illegal.
Meanwhile, power companies have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
You asked about monopolies and power companies are monopolies.
I'm thinking you're trolling so I'm not going to reply again.
Falcon
I guess there's nothing that doesn't end up being commercialized. Wikipedia has certain problems — when I look up topics in which I'm an expert, I always find the articles full of mistakes — but it was nice to see something that was relatively free of commercial spin. No more, it seems.
Wiki is still there without going through Amazon. For those subjects with mistakes, there's Google's Knol which only publishes articles by experts.
Falcon
What monopoly?
What monopolies? How about those monopolies granted to cable, phone, and power companies that grant exclusive use of easements or rights-of-way.
Are you saying there is only one cellular provider in the U.S.?
No I didn't, nor am I saying it now, there is only 1 cell service provider in the US. Are you really so stupid to believe I said anything like that? Or is it FUD you're tries to spread?
Falcon
Which government interference would you say is the problem?
The granting of monopolies for one.
What should the government stop doing to improve the market?
Stop granting monopolies! Get rid of monopolies altogether. Get rid of licensing too.
Falcon
The government also needs to address the fact that these companies charge amounts 100x the cost of a monthly bill with a straight face.
No what the government needs to address is the monopolies the government itself gave to these companies. Remove any and all artificial barriers to competition is what needs to be done. Remove easements or the exclusive use of right-of-ways and remove licensing requirements to transmit over the airwaves.
Falcon
They will charge what people are willing to pay, and that's the end of it. In that context, what they're doing is perfectly logical. Illogical would be charging a flat rate, when people would willingly pay premium rates for tiered pricing.
If 10,000,000 sign up for a $10 service where only 10,000 sign up for a service costing $100, the logical price point is $10.
Of course that ignores variable costs. However if fixed costs plus variable costs per unit are below the lower price point then profits will be maximized at the lower price.
Falcon