It's kinda sad that the only way to do business in America, once you get to a certain size, is to bribe the more amoral of this country's politicians. What's the lesson here? Don't get big (so you don't have to bribe), or don't have scruples (so you can bribe)?
Microsoft Japan is suspected of attaching improper restrictive conditions when signing software deals with Japanese personal computer manufacturers, such as requiring that Japanese companies allow infringement of their patents.
I have a strong suspicion that Microsoft's deal partners knew full well what restrictive conditions were included in the contracts. That said, those computer manufacturers should have no access to recoursive actions by the government: they voluntarily entered into the contract with Microsoft.
Therein lies the beauty of economic power vs. political power: the government has the monopoly on the use of force. Microsoft could no more have "forced" the computer manufacturers to sign restrictive contracts against their will than they could have "forced" you to give them your money at the ATM. There is a popular quote going around these days: free choice ends at the point of a gun. Only the government uses physical force to impose its will on others... Microsoft has *never* (to anyone's knowledge) threatened physical harm to computer manufacturers to get them to sign contracts -- they're not the mafia after all (or the IRS for that matter).
Anyone remember when Netscape used to *charge* for their web browser, and that was the only option? How much were consumers complaining when MS included IE in Windows free, therefore making nearly all future web browsers free? The only complaints came from competitors, who couldn't do the same (poor them). The true benefit of bundling software with the OS is that you don't have to *buy* separate features that should come with the OS. Why complain now that WMP has more power than it "should"?
You're right, rules like yours do make for grey areas, which make for arbitrary laws, which make for arbitrary judgments.
Oh, and how long an application remains an app, and when it is included in an OS is something the market's already figured out... see for example IE and WMP (or, if you like, Quicktime).
Perhaps we'll end up living in a transparent society...
Only, instead of big brother being the government, it really WILL be your big brother spying on you. And your sister, your cousin, your neighbor, etc., etc.
The FCC found that low-power FM stations can be operated in the gaps of spectrum between major stations without substantially interfering with those major stations.
Um, couldn't a major station just apply for another license to "fill the gap" between major stations and essentially put low-power competitors out of business? Or would low-power FM stations need licenses for those "gaps" in the spectrum, therefore protecting their right to the gap?
Then neither would Palm PDAs, VCRs that start playing as soon as a tape is inserted, and DVD players that autoplay the DVD when inserted.
Well, you have to stop and think for a moment about whether we're talking about a concept or a method for autoplay. Although the USPTO has been known to make mistakes from time to time, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't issue a patent for a simple concept, i.e. inserting media and automatically playing it on any kind of electronic device.
No, the odds are better that the USPTO granted patents for specific methods of implementing autoplay on computers, which Microsoft may or may not be infringing.
This guy is a pussy and he's selling out if he thinks these changes would benefit his USER BASE (i.e. students) in any way. Professors get anonymous, private reviews every semester at most schools. What's the point of having another resource (TeacherReviews.com) tell the professor privately what his potential students want to know?
Obviously libelous and false reviews should be removed from the site, or moderated before they even appear live. However, no professor should have the right to remove ALL reviews just because the reviewers didn't kiss his ass.
Wow, kids and technology these days. Cub scouts? The poster must be, what, between 7-10? Not only can he work a DV camera and edit home movies, but he has such nice grammar!
The article said that the company planned to use repeaters to strengthen the signal. I would imagine these would work like the repeaters for satellite radio do in the US... you can get the signal inside buildings, in tunnels, etc. when in range of the repeater (even when you can't see the satellite).
Really, though. Who better to lead a group in opposition to stronger antitrust regulations than one of the most stringent opponents to stronger antitrust regulation? I don't see how anyone thinks this is at all corruption, since the ABA is not a governing agency, and this appointment is simply to lobby congress, not make the laws.
Yup, if you don't have it included in your plan, which I didn't. I eventually got them to block SMS for my phone number after months of support calls. (Who the hell uses it anyway? If you have your phone, and your friend has his phone, why not just talk on the phone?)
Actually, when I had service from AT&T I would get 5-6 spam SMS messages every day. I had to pay for each one of those messages, while the sender, presumably using the ##########@attws.com email method, never had to pay a cent. If anything, SMS spam is the worst of all unsolicited commercial messages, because it results in a direct financial loss to the recipient.
Remember, though, that the patent was applied for some time in 1994, which means (as some have pointed out) that prior art must be proven one year before application. I don't see many ActiveX controls circa 1993.
I would imagine you could expect a patent soon... though not for what you'd like to complain about. Rather than being able to patent the "form" of matter, the scientists will be able to apply for a patent (if they haven't already) on the *specific process* they used to create material in that form.
Now, if the patented process turns out to be the only way to physically create the new form of matter, then yes, your fears will be realized. Darn, after all that research, the scientists are the only ones allowed to profit from their discovery!
This patent was applied for over four years ago, December 8, 1999 to be exact. Does that count for "quite a while ago" or did you have something else in mind?
(Not trying to be flippant -- just wondering how long people have been doing this on their own.)
Because the patent text details a *novel* and *non-obvious* way to do it. Yes, you can say "Any network obviously needs to have users authenticate themselves." True, but that's not the point of the patent... this patent protects the *specific* method of implementing user authentication outlined in its text.
In this case, it took nearly four years to get the patent. United States Patent #6,636,894 was applied for on December 8, 1999 and was issued on October 21, 2003.
Here's an easy way to tell if OSS came up with it first: when was the OSS project started, before or after December 8, 1999?
Slashdot Mirror
It's kinda sad that the only way to do business in America, once you get to a certain size, is to bribe the more amoral of this country's politicians. What's the lesson here? Don't get big (so you don't have to bribe), or don't have scruples (so you can bribe)?
I have a strong suspicion that Microsoft's deal partners knew full well what restrictive conditions were included in the contracts. That said, those computer manufacturers should have no access to recoursive actions by the government: they voluntarily entered into the contract with Microsoft.
Therein lies the beauty of economic power vs. political power: the government has the monopoly on the use of force. Microsoft could no more have "forced" the computer manufacturers to sign restrictive contracts against their will than they could have "forced" you to give them your money at the ATM. There is a popular quote going around these days: free choice ends at the point of a gun. Only the government uses physical force to impose its will on others ... Microsoft has *never* (to anyone's knowledge) threatened physical harm to computer manufacturers to get them to sign contracts -- they're not the mafia after all (or the IRS for that matter).
You're right, rules like yours do make for grey areas, which make for arbitrary laws, which make for arbitrary judgments.
Oh, and how long an application remains an app, and when it is included in an OS is something the market's already figured out ... see for example IE and WMP (or, if you like, Quicktime).
Ryan
I never knew making a product that "sucks" was a crime worthy of antitrust implications. Huh, you learn something new every day.
Nope, this is America and here they have every right to pursue a profit motive.
Only, instead of big brother being the government, it really WILL be your big brother spying on you. And your sister, your cousin, your neighbor, etc., etc.
Well, you have to stop and think for a moment about whether we're talking about a concept or a method for autoplay. Although the USPTO has been known to make mistakes from time to time, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't issue a patent for a simple concept, i.e. inserting media and automatically playing it on any kind of electronic device.
No, the odds are better that the USPTO granted patents for specific methods of implementing autoplay on computers, which Microsoft may or may not be infringing.
This guy is a pussy and he's selling out if he thinks these changes would benefit his USER BASE (i.e. students) in any way. Professors get anonymous, private reviews every semester at most schools. What's the point of having another resource (TeacherReviews.com) tell the professor privately what his potential students want to know? Obviously libelous and false reviews should be removed from the site, or moderated before they even appear live. However, no professor should have the right to remove ALL reviews just because the reviewers didn't kiss his ass.
Wow, kids and technology these days. Cub scouts? The poster must be, what, between 7-10? Not only can he work a DV camera and edit home movies, but he has such nice grammar!
The article said that the company planned to use repeaters to strengthen the signal. I would imagine these would work like the repeaters for satellite radio do in the US ... you can get the signal inside buildings, in tunnels, etc. when in range of the repeater (even when you can't see the satellite).
And, some people drop their packet upon seeing a girl ...
Really, though. Who better to lead a group in opposition to stronger antitrust regulations than one of the most stringent opponents to stronger antitrust regulation? I don't see how anyone thinks this is at all corruption, since the ABA is not a governing agency, and this appointment is simply to lobby congress, not make the laws.
Oh, of course not. Your senator passed CAN-SPAM for that.
80% of the market? Monopoly! Prosecute!
Is this the first-ever Shashdotted GameCube? First-ever Slashdotted game console period?
Yup, if you don't have it included in your plan, which I didn't. I eventually got them to block SMS for my phone number after months of support calls. (Who the hell uses it anyway? If you have your phone, and your friend has his phone, why not just talk on the phone?)
Actually, when I had service from AT&T I would get 5-6 spam SMS messages every day. I had to pay for each one of those messages, while the sender, presumably using the ##########@attws.com email method, never had to pay a cent. If anything, SMS spam is the worst of all unsolicited commercial messages, because it results in a direct financial loss to the recipient.
Remember, though, that the patent was applied for some time in 1994, which means (as some have pointed out) that prior art must be proven one year before application. I don't see many ActiveX controls circa 1993.
Now, if the patented process turns out to be the only way to physically create the new form of matter, then yes, your fears will be realized. Darn, after all that research, the scientists are the only ones allowed to profit from their discovery!
Oh, well there goes their chance to patent this invention.
... except that environmentalists don't actually care about people.
(Not trying to be flippant -- just wondering how long people have been doing this on their own.)
Because the patent text details a *novel* and *non-obvious* way to do it. Yes, you can say "Any network obviously needs to have users authenticate themselves." True, but that's not the point of the patent ... this patent protects the *specific* method of implementing user authentication outlined in its text.
Here's an easy way to tell if OSS came up with it first: when was the OSS project started, before or after December 8, 1999?
Not only that, but we can also get rid of composers and replace them with "trial-and-error" number crunchers. Finally, freedom from the RIAA!