This. The RIAA's gains from these cases are cash from out-of-court settlements, to a small degree, and public terror about daring to challenge them on intellectual property law, to a much larger degree.
Let's face it, the penalties levelled were never going to stand up in court in the long run. They were never meant to. They're a threat designed to scare people into settling. If a few of the RIAA's actual court victories are overturned, so what? Their main revenue stream is out-of court. Until a judge puts down an injunction forbidding them from sending out threatening letters to the populace, they'll still have that.
It's not a real debt as far as the contract is concerned, of course, I'm just thinking more generally. It's not part of the agreement now, but if termination fees were terminated more widely I'm sure it would sneak in there. Maybe even a clause that the phone isn't yours and is just rented in the manner of a cable TV box.
Let's not forget that Hasbro hasn't so much as a patent on Scrabble itself, just a vague claim to copyright on the rules (which may not apply) and a trademark (Scrabble name, and perhaps the appearance of the board and tiles). If there's no risk of mistakenly assuming that the Scrabble-likes are actually Scrabble, then there's no trademark infringement to answer for.
So if Hasbro takes them to court for infringing the board design (which IIRC is far shakier than the misuse of the trademark) then they can just delete that. The immediately available user-created boards which look like original Scrabble are, of course, not Wordscraper's fault.
As an example: on T-Mobile's $40 plan, you can get a free phone worth about $100 or so, giving you about $4 off per month if you flog the phone. On their most expensive plan, you can get...
Exactly the same phones.
What a bunch of cheesemeisters! At least in the UK we get better free phones with more expensive contracts!
You could buy the phone outright on credit, I suppose, and then get on a cheap SIM-only contract. I do wonder if such things even exist in the US, though. I have enough trouble finding top-ups for my phone.
That's a good motivation to switch as soon as your contract expires, IMO. Or to ask for a phone upgrade from your phone company*. Either way, sell the flashy new phone they give you on switching, and that helps bring down the effective cost of your phone contract. (Don't sell the old one, depreciation.)
*I'm not sure what it's like in the US, but in the UK you can get a new phone out of your mobile operator pretty much every time your contract renews, or every few years at worst.
I should say, if Sprint switched to a more reasonable termination penalty - it sounds like others are more reasonable and may not be affected by this particular decision.
That actually sounds very equitable. If phone companies switched to a more reasonable termination penalty, perhaps pro-rata fee where you basically bought out your subsidised phone (which is an outstanding debt you owe to the company) then this decision would not affect them.
Also, operators (particularly resellers like Carphone Warehouse) are willing to "buy out" contracts to encourage people to switch. They eat the termination fee on your behalf. Phone Company X gets its subsidy, Phone Company Y gets its customer, Customer gets his free or cheap phone.
It's simply a question of the right model for the job. As everybody knows, a geocentric model of planetary motion can be pretty reasonably accurate, although it's inelegant. Heliocentric models, or better yet, neutral gravitational models of the solar system provide more accurate results, and have the advantage of a certain degree of elegance. The questions are, how accurate is the fit, how efficient is the method, and how powerful are the predictions?
These are the questions scientists have in mind when working with all models, from empirical simulations of human behaviour all the way down to ab initio quantum mechanical simulations of chemistry, be they performed on computer or on paper. It's a qualitative issue, not a simple "this model is right, that model is wrong" problem. I'm sure chemistry students can relate - depending on the situation, atoms can be handled as anything from billiard balls and sticks to freaky quantum-mechanical assemblages.
Off topic, but just what is the deal with that? I know it gets the mail to the top of the inbox, but why 2038 specifically? *googley* OIC, it's related to the year 2038 problem. I should've realised that.
The laws of physics a harsh mistress to anybody considering flying one, too. Running out of gas is an entirely different prospect at 30 feet in the air, never mind 3000. To say nothing of power cables or those damn ducks.
Consumer computers, cars and air travel took off in part because of the steadily lowering price, but also because they were practical and desirable for the average joe. I think the portion of people willing to put their life in the hands of their own flying skill is at the one-per-million level. The benefits are massively outweighed by the risk for most.
The Eee and its ilk have shown that people are willing to buy Windowsless boxes, which is an affront to Microsoft's business model. You have to wonder if Midori is a "plan B" to allow them to continue to get revenue from Linux users. Alan, Bob and Clarence may well be willing to pay $10 a month for "Windows access" on their Eees if it lets them use Office, and this way Microsoft have a guaranteed revenue stream whatever OS people actually buy with their machine. Especially if it's agressively marketed and bundled.
It's not a mental health issue. These aren't pranksters either as the summary suggests - they're mentally sound people who genuinely don't appreciate that certain issues are not suitable for 999 assistance. We've had news articles about these sorts of calls every year or so, reminding people that it's an emergency number only.
You jest, but actually the high energy density of hydrocarbons makes them a viable energy source for fuel cells. This makes them a great potential stepping-stone, coupling the efficiency, quietness, and NOxlessness of electric with the existing infrastructure and energy density of gasoline, meth eth prop and butane.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad I already read this story and understand the metaphor, because the summary is rather unintentionally surreal otherwise.
It didn't mention that it was a dupe a couple of hours ago. ;)
This. The RIAA's gains from these cases are cash from out-of-court settlements, to a small degree, and public terror about daring to challenge them on intellectual property law, to a much larger degree.
Let's face it, the penalties levelled were never going to stand up in court in the long run. They were never meant to. They're a threat designed to scare people into settling. If a few of the RIAA's actual court victories are overturned, so what? Their main revenue stream is out-of court. Until a judge puts down an injunction forbidding them from sending out threatening letters to the populace, they'll still have that.
I guess things have changed since I last bought a phone. Admittedly that was, uh, 2002...
It's not a real debt as far as the contract is concerned, of course, I'm just thinking more generally. It's not part of the agreement now, but if termination fees were terminated more widely I'm sure it would sneak in there. Maybe even a clause that the phone isn't yours and is just rented in the manner of a cable TV box.
I'm not saying it was particularly moral, just very clever. The precident on trademark infringement by user-created game content is very clear.
Let's not forget that Hasbro hasn't so much as a patent on Scrabble itself, just a vague claim to copyright on the rules (which may not apply) and a trademark (Scrabble name, and perhaps the appearance of the board and tiles). If there's no risk of mistakenly assuming that the Scrabble-likes are actually Scrabble, then there's no trademark infringement to answer for.
If you threw in some pentagons, you could play Scrabble on the outside of a buckyball.
So if Hasbro takes them to court for infringing the board design (which IIRC is far shakier than the misuse of the trademark) then they can just delete that. The immediately available user-created boards which look like original Scrabble are, of course, not Wordscraper's fault.
As an example: on T-Mobile's $40 plan, you can get a free phone worth about $100 or so, giving you about $4 off per month if you flog the phone. On their most expensive plan, you can get...
Exactly the same phones.
What a bunch of cheesemeisters! At least in the UK we get better free phones with more expensive contracts!
You could buy the phone outright on credit, I suppose, and then get on a cheap SIM-only contract. I do wonder if such things even exist in the US, though. I have enough trouble finding top-ups for my phone.
That's a good motivation to switch as soon as your contract expires, IMO. Or to ask for a phone upgrade from your phone company*. Either way, sell the flashy new phone they give you on switching, and that helps bring down the effective cost of your phone contract. (Don't sell the old one, depreciation.)
*I'm not sure what it's like in the US, but in the UK you can get a new phone out of your mobile operator pretty much every time your contract renews, or every few years at worst.
I should say, if Sprint switched to a more reasonable termination penalty - it sounds like others are more reasonable and may not be affected by this particular decision.
That actually sounds very equitable. If phone companies switched to a more reasonable termination penalty, perhaps pro-rata fee where you basically bought out your subsidised phone (which is an outstanding debt you owe to the company) then this decision would not affect them.
Most phones are locked to a carrier in Europe, too. Fortunately unlocking is ubiquitous and cheap.
Also, operators (particularly resellers like Carphone Warehouse) are willing to "buy out" contracts to encourage people to switch. They eat the termination fee on your behalf. Phone Company X gets its subsidy, Phone Company Y gets its customer, Customer gets his free or cheap phone.
It's simply a question of the right model for the job. As everybody knows, a geocentric model of planetary motion can be pretty reasonably accurate, although it's inelegant. Heliocentric models, or better yet, neutral gravitational models of the solar system provide more accurate results, and have the advantage of a certain degree of elegance. The questions are, how accurate is the fit, how efficient is the method, and how powerful are the predictions?
These are the questions scientists have in mind when working with all models, from empirical simulations of human behaviour all the way down to ab initio quantum mechanical simulations of chemistry, be they performed on computer or on paper. It's a qualitative issue, not a simple "this model is right, that model is wrong" problem. I'm sure chemistry students can relate - depending on the situation, atoms can be handled as anything from billiard balls and sticks to freaky quantum-mechanical assemblages.
Off topic, but just what is the deal with that? I know it gets the mail to the top of the inbox, but why 2038 specifically? *googley* OIC, it's related to the year 2038 problem. I should've realised that.
I suppose they could go nuts and put a proper zero-zero ejector seat in there, but then I'd probably set it off under a tree or something.
The laws of physics a harsh mistress to anybody considering flying one, too. Running out of gas is an entirely different prospect at 30 feet in the air, never mind 3000. To say nothing of power cables or those damn ducks.
Consumer computers, cars and air travel took off in part because of the steadily lowering price, but also because they were practical and desirable for the average joe. I think the portion of people willing to put their life in the hands of their own flying skill is at the one-per-million level. The benefits are massively outweighed by the risk for most.
Alas, in light of the better description of Midori provided below, my speculations are proven incorrect.
The Eee and its ilk have shown that people are willing to buy Windowsless boxes, which is an affront to Microsoft's business model. You have to wonder if Midori is a "plan B" to allow them to continue to get revenue from Linux users. Alan, Bob and Clarence may well be willing to pay $10 a month for "Windows access" on their Eees if it lets them use Office, and this way Microsoft have a guaranteed revenue stream whatever OS people actually buy with their machine. Especially if it's agressively marketed and bundled.
It's not a mental health issue. These aren't pranksters either as the summary suggests - they're mentally sound people who genuinely don't appreciate that certain issues are not suitable for 999 assistance. We've had news articles about these sorts of calls every year or so, reminding people that it's an emergency number only.
You jest, but actually the high energy density of hydrocarbons makes them a viable energy source for fuel cells. This makes them a great potential stepping-stone, coupling the efficiency, quietness, and NOxlessness of electric with the existing infrastructure and energy density of gasoline, meth eth prop and butane.