It just struck me that this lawsuit may have a single good effect coupled to it.
Until now, the major corporations used patents mainly to keep the small guy out of the market, and by cross-licensing ensured that they didn't have to fear anything from each other. Here we have a firm that, by its own admission, lives by litigation. So offering them a cross-licensing deal doesn't work. A firm that holds just ONE key patent, but doesn't need that patent (and patents held by others) for its products, is immune to the cross-licensing snare, and can cause a whole lot of trouble for the big guys.
I think that if a few more companies get into the litigation business this way, the molochs will start using their influence to get the patenting system overturned. Of course, the fact that Patriot is sueing Japanese firms and not American ones, may be an indication that they are afraid of exactly that. But I have no worries that IBM, Intel and their peers won't catch on.
A brilliant mature game is Infocom's text adventure "Leather Goddesses of Phobos". Well-written, fun to play, and full of spicy humor. Loads of bad movie references too.
Of course, when they created a sequel it was with graphics, and this game was actually very bad. Although the graphics were pretty tame.
Michael Moore, of course, covered this in Bowling for Columbine. Since the teenagers that killed their classmates went bowling before going on a killing spree, obviously bowling must be the cause of their actions...
Statistics actually show that people who play violent games are most unlikely to commit violent crimes. Take the two premises: (1) someone who plays violent games will commit violent crimes; and (2) someone who plays violent games will NOT commit violent crimes. I now pull a statistic out of my hat, which will probably be more or less correct, that out of 10,000 people who play violent games only 1 commits a violent crime. That means there is 99.99% confirmation for premise (2), and only 0.01% confirmation for premise (1). So the odds are that premise (2) is correct and premise (1) isn't. Conclusion: someone who plays violent games will very likely not commit violent crimes. Therefore, to avoid violent crimes more people should play violent games.
Yes, I know, this is no way to do statistics. But it actually is the way statistics are often applied in the media to "prove" very simplistic stands.
The reason that the Harry Potter movies are so close to the books that it seriously hurts the movies, is that they are made for children.
Imagine: children read this Harry Potter books again and again and again, and they go to the movie to see the exact same text in pictures. As soon as there is a deviation, they are disturbed. They feel the movie let them down. They want the book to the screen in every single detail and not one missing, nosirree.
Now, LotR was made for the fans of the LotR books, and therefore...
...why the hell does Microsoft need to campaign so much against it? It is not as if Linux is campaigning to push Microsoft out of the market, is it? If Linux becomes a big player, it will only be because of its merits. And Microsoft claims the merits aren't there. So what are they worried about?
I work at the Computer Science department of a university. I found that at the moment many universities are starting "game designer" courses. This is in my own area of research, but I don't think such a specific line of study is a good start for a career as a game developer. The basic groundwork for any job in computer science is simply computer science. Game design is not different. Do level design as a hobby but make sure your education covers the basics. It will not only give you better chances at becoming a game developer, but also opens up a huge alternative market for your talents.
I'd like to add that it depends on what game you like to play what level design tools you should use. I like NWN, so I use the Aurora Engine, even if the Quake Mod tools are better or easier to use. Good level design means you have to understand what makes the game fun. I could never design a good Quake mod because I don't like Quake.
So, for level design my advice is: pick a couple of games you like and see how the tools for those games are. If they are not too daunting, jump in. It'll take a couple of weeks to get familiar with ANY tool, but there are usually good forums that'll help you along.
Don't be too surprised. It's manager speak. We may think it's bull, but they like it. It's a whole different world (and I'm not saying that because I read Dilbert, but because I actually had to work with several layers of managers). Point is, this interview does not make Darl the laughing stock of the business world - rather the opposite, in fact.
I have observed, from closeby, many people starting their own software business in the last few years. The ones that survived were the ones that had a client from the outset.
You can build something you like and/or you think is useful, and then try to sell it. That doesn't work. Most likely no-one is interested, or only interested in your product if it is changed considerably. Moreover, if you have an "off-the-shelf" product, people don't want to pay a lot for it.
Get a client, and build what that client likes. This brings in money. Make sure you take into account that on average you work 20 paid hours per week, no more. The rest is needed for time between jobs and for finding new clients.
You will still be cheaper than the big guys, so you may be able to sell yourself. Especially since renting someone from a big guy is as likely to get you a cheat as a good developer, while you, obviously, are a certified good developer.
In the past when I did odd jobs I usually offered a "no cure no pay" scheme, if it wasn't a very big job. Clients are willing to pay more for such a scheme, and as long as you know you will succeed, no harm done (just make sure you define the "cure" conditions).
If there is any time remaining, build your brilliant general solution and try to market it.
There are several good books available on writing and marketing software as a small business. Find one and read it. It will help you avoid the greatest pitfalls. I learned a lot from Hudgik's "Writing and Marketing Shareware". It's fairly old but contains lots of good advice.
Several times I have had bosses come up to me, saying "We need to patent more!"
I always tell them I can have a new patent fly out of my @$$ every day, no problem there. The problem is, who is going to foot the bill (about $20K per patent) to file it to the patent office? And I can't guarantee that any of those patents will ever bring in any money, if they get accepted. Most of them won't actually, unless we get a team of marketeers to aggressively sell them and/or a team of lawyers to aggressively sue potential patent offenders.
Now if I would have a billion in company capital to work with, I could probably make a profit this way.
And what about the people that wanted to go in machine vision technology but had to give up on it because they could afford neither the license fees nor the costs of going to court? Can they now sue for damages?
I'm also fairly certain no one would be able to patent a specific method of tournament elimination, or alternate method of scoring for baseball or any other sport for that matter.
A doctorate you get for scientific research, which you explore in a doctoral thesis, which gets peer reviewed.
In that sense, Gates got it for free. "The Road Ahead" can not be called a thesis. Especially not since the future it predicted was shown to exist only in Gates' mind within six months after publication.
Well, it's likely that MS is supporting SCO in this case. For MS, it doesn't matter how much it will cost, as long as there is trouble for Linux. I strongly suspect that when SCO runs out of money, MS will buy some more "licenses" from them. I also suspect IBM knows this, so they won't settle out of court - they will take this case as far as it needs to go to get a judge pronounce Open Source, and Linux specifically, completely legitimate.
A school in the Netherlands awarded Bill Gates an honorary doctorate. So he already has the highest scientific achievement you can get without doing anything for it. Of course, it is pretty telling that it is not a school of computer science that awarded him this title, but a school of management - and, as it is, in the Netherlands this school is considered to be more a "school of networking": it does not teach you anything, but boy can you be assured of a good job if you finish it. "Nobby parents get nobby children high-paying jobs that do not require any skills". Fits Gates well, I should think.
...about the wedding night of Bill and Melinda Gates. She was very disappointed because all Bill did was sit on the edge of the bed and tell her how good it would be when she would finally get it.
Microsoft has always been good on promises. The fact is that spam is getting worse and worse. Microsoft at the moment does absolutely nothing about it. I had to let go of my hotmail address because I got so much spam in it that the mailbox would overflow twice a day. I have tried several freemail providers and hotmail is absolutely the worst in every respect, certainly regarding spam.
But Gates flashes a big smile and says Microsoft solves the spam problem! Yes, it will be gone Real Soon Now. Don't worry but trust Microsoft! Have we ever let you down?
However, adding third-person view is usually a "solution" for simplifying the controls: if you can't lean around corners, how are you going to plan your next move in a first-person view? In third-person there's no need for a lean option.
I always move with the cursor keys and look with the mouse. That way I can look in any direction I want to. No need for peripheral vision. By default the Thief games are configured differently, but with a bit of control meddling you can get them to respond right.
That said, what we are probably going to miss in Thief 3 is the "lean" option, which makes looking around corners from a first-person perspective a lot less viable. They scrapped it from Deus Ex:IW because it's too difficult for the console. If third-person is their "solution", I hope they scrap the game before we get another disappointment.
"Just out of curiosity, on average how many DVDs that you watch are made for regions other than the one you live in?"
For me, about 70%. I live in Europe, and region 2 DVDs in general suck compared to region 1 DVDs. Many have fixed subtitles and miss most of the extras. Furthermore, lots of movies are simply not released in region 2 (Criterion collection? Forget it). Finally, they are more expensive over here. Things have got a little better in the last year or so, but we are still behind.
To give an example, I read that Newline had to force the region 2 producer/distributor to release the extended version of LotR: FotR exactly as it had been released in the USA. It was going to be a cheap rip, because the distributor thought the production costs would get too high. We got lucky with LotR, but many movies do not fare so well. After having been disappointed several times, I decided to quit buying region 2 DVDs and now only buy region 1, except when they are really discounted.
Luckily, region-free DVD players are easy to get over here, and usually they are the cheapest you can get.
going for a brisk walk (not heavy sport, because that tires you out)
smoking a joint (depends on the person but for many people this does the trick)
playing a game (solitaire?)
Not to be boastful or lift myself over the/. crowd, but the solution to the ring/time machine-puzzle in Zork III had stumped me for six months, and then struck me after a good romp with my new girlfriend.
In your example, you describe someone willing to exploit an invention. So, sure, IMHO good patent.
How do you measure intent? No idea. However, I have been approached several times in the past by people who tried to get me to pay lots of money for a patent they didn't want to set up a business for to exploit it themselves. Obviously their only intent was to get an idiot to give them cash. That's not what the patent system is for.
Finally, about lawyers (of which I have several in my family): I meant advocates (English is not my native language). Of course, the job of a judge is to hold up the intent of the law.
Be wise, listen to SCO, and make Open Source illegal in the USA.
The First and Third world will probably not be so insightful and will continue to allow Open Source and its products, such as Linux.
Our businesses will suffer because we can't make any money anymore from programming commercial software for billions of users. Instead we'll have to rely on (admittedly cheap and trustworthy) software to drive our businesses and get money from building dedicated software and more tangible products. OK, we may get rich, even filthy rich, but we will never get disgustingly rich.
In the meantime, in the USA you will be safe from the Open Source evil and can trust in your home-produced, expensive (and therefore obviously excellent) Microsoft products. We are very sorry that the export of those same products will come to a halt, but such is life.
You can be sure that we will examine the papers of any Open Source geeks that want to emigrate from the USA closely. We wouldn't want the USA to lose their tech potential. Of course, we can't guarantee anything, since many countries would welcome them, but be ensured that you have our sympathies.
And anyway, litigation is much more lucrative than producing actual goods. Too bad here we have not yet been able to latch on to the litigation bubble, but it is certainly the way of the future.
The games I really love I want in a box. I have been buying an playing games for twenty years. Had I kept all the boxes, they would have filled two bookcases. Now I have two shelves with boxes, all of games I really enjoyed. Wouldn't want to miss them. I store the manuals of the other games in those boxes too.
Imagine: The original Ultima IV -- in its box! The original System Shock -- in its box! Original Infocom Adventures -- in their boxes! With feelies!
...because mathematicians solve problems by reducing them to other problems they know the solution to. Repton is the Ultimate game in the sense that all other games can be reduced to it. When thinking of a new game concept a mathematician will simply prove that it is, effectivily, Repton, and be satisfied.
Slashdot Mirror
Until now, the major corporations used patents mainly to keep the small guy out of the market, and by cross-licensing ensured that they didn't have to fear anything from each other. Here we have a firm that, by its own admission, lives by litigation. So offering them a cross-licensing deal doesn't work. A firm that holds just ONE key patent, but doesn't need that patent (and patents held by others) for its products, is immune to the cross-licensing snare, and can cause a whole lot of trouble for the big guys.
I think that if a few more companies get into the litigation business this way, the molochs will start using their influence to get the patenting system overturned. Of course, the fact that Patriot is sueing Japanese firms and not American ones, may be an indication that they are afraid of exactly that. But I have no worries that IBM, Intel and their peers won't catch on.
Of course, when they created a sequel it was with graphics, and this game was actually very bad. Although the graphics were pretty tame.
Statistics actually show that people who play violent games are most unlikely to commit violent crimes. Take the two premises: (1) someone who plays violent games will commit violent crimes; and (2) someone who plays violent games will NOT commit violent crimes. I now pull a statistic out of my hat, which will probably be more or less correct, that out of 10,000 people who play violent games only 1 commits a violent crime. That means there is 99.99% confirmation for premise (2), and only 0.01% confirmation for premise (1). So the odds are that premise (2) is correct and premise (1) isn't. Conclusion: someone who plays violent games will very likely not commit violent crimes. Therefore, to avoid violent crimes more people should play violent games.
Yes, I know, this is no way to do statistics. But it actually is the way statistics are often applied in the media to "prove" very simplistic stands.
Imagine: children read this Harry Potter books again and again and again, and they go to the movie to see the exact same text in pictures. As soon as there is a deviation, they are disturbed. They feel the movie let them down. They want the book to the screen in every single detail and not one missing, nosirree.
Now, LotR was made for the fans of the LotR books, and therefore...
Oh, wait...
It's typical for the state of affairs in "litigation country" that even a simple key-combination is called "an invention".
...why the hell does Microsoft need to campaign so much against it? It is not as if Linux is campaigning to push Microsoft out of the market, is it? If Linux becomes a big player, it will only be because of its merits. And Microsoft claims the merits aren't there. So what are they worried about?
I'd like to add that it depends on what game you like to play what level design tools you should use. I like NWN, so I use the Aurora Engine, even if the Quake Mod tools are better or easier to use. Good level design means you have to understand what makes the game fun. I could never design a good Quake mod because I don't like Quake.
So, for level design my advice is: pick a couple of games you like and see how the tools for those games are. If they are not too daunting, jump in. It'll take a couple of weeks to get familiar with ANY tool, but there are usually good forums that'll help you along.
Don't be too surprised. It's manager speak. We may think it's bull, but they like it. It's a whole different world (and I'm not saying that because I read Dilbert, but because I actually had to work with several layers of managers). Point is, this interview does not make Darl the laughing stock of the business world - rather the opposite, in fact.
I have observed, from closeby, many people starting their own software business in the last few years. The ones that survived were the ones that had a client from the outset.
You can build something you like and/or you think is useful, and then try to sell it. That doesn't work. Most likely no-one is interested, or only interested in your product if it is changed considerably. Moreover, if you have an "off-the-shelf" product, people don't want to pay a lot for it.
Get a client, and build what that client likes. This brings in money. Make sure you take into account that on average you work 20 paid hours per week, no more. The rest is needed for time between jobs and for finding new clients.
You will still be cheaper than the big guys, so you may be able to sell yourself. Especially since renting someone from a big guy is as likely to get you a cheat as a good developer, while you, obviously, are a certified good developer.
In the past when I did odd jobs I usually offered a "no cure no pay" scheme, if it wasn't a very big job. Clients are willing to pay more for such a scheme, and as long as you know you will succeed, no harm done (just make sure you define the "cure" conditions).
If there is any time remaining, build your brilliant general solution and try to market it.
There are several good books available on writing and marketing software as a small business. Find one and read it. It will help you avoid the greatest pitfalls. I learned a lot from Hudgik's "Writing and Marketing Shareware". It's fairly old but contains lots of good advice.
I always tell them I can have a new patent fly out of my @$$ every day, no problem there. The problem is, who is going to foot the bill (about $20K per patent) to file it to the patent office? And I can't guarantee that any of those patents will ever bring in any money, if they get accepted. Most of them won't actually, unless we get a team of marketeers to aggressively sell them and/or a team of lawyers to aggressively sue potential patent offenders.
Now if I would have a billion in company capital to work with, I could probably make a profit this way.
Boss goes off, mumbling...
And what about the people that wanted to go in machine vision technology but had to give up on it because they could afford neither the license fees nor the costs of going to court? Can they now sue for damages?
Wrong.
Microsoft patented Scoring based upon goals achieved and subjective elements.
A doctorate you get for scientific research, which you explore in a doctoral thesis, which gets peer reviewed.
In that sense, Gates got it for free. "The Road Ahead" can not be called a thesis. Especially not since the future it predicted was shown to exist only in Gates' mind within six months after publication.
Well, it's likely that MS is supporting SCO in this case. For MS, it doesn't matter how much it will cost, as long as there is trouble for Linux. I strongly suspect that when SCO runs out of money, MS will buy some more "licenses" from them. I also suspect IBM knows this, so they won't settle out of court - they will take this case as far as it needs to go to get a judge pronounce Open Source, and Linux specifically, completely legitimate.
A school in the Netherlands awarded Bill Gates an honorary doctorate. So he already has the highest scientific achievement you can get without doing anything for it. Of course, it is pretty telling that it is not a school of computer science that awarded him this title, but a school of management - and, as it is, in the Netherlands this school is considered to be more a "school of networking": it does not teach you anything, but boy can you be assured of a good job if you finish it. "Nobby parents get nobby children high-paying jobs that do not require any skills". Fits Gates well, I should think.
Microsoft has always been good on promises. The fact is that spam is getting worse and worse. Microsoft at the moment does absolutely nothing about it. I had to let go of my hotmail address because I got so much spam in it that the mailbox would overflow twice a day. I have tried several freemail providers and hotmail is absolutely the worst in every respect, certainly regarding spam.
But Gates flashes a big smile and says Microsoft solves the spam problem! Yes, it will be gone Real Soon Now. Don't worry but trust Microsoft! Have we ever let you down?
However, adding third-person view is usually a "solution" for simplifying the controls: if you can't lean around corners, how are you going to plan your next move in a first-person view? In third-person there's no need for a lean option.
I always move with the cursor keys and look with the mouse. That way I can look in any direction I want to. No need for peripheral vision. By default the Thief games are configured differently, but with a bit of control meddling you can get them to respond right.
That said, what we are probably going to miss in Thief 3 is the "lean" option, which makes looking around corners from a first-person perspective a lot less viable. They scrapped it from Deus Ex:IW because it's too difficult for the console. If third-person is their "solution", I hope they scrap the game before we get another disappointment.
If you follow the link, you'll see that the third person view is IN ADDITION to the first person view.
If the engine is good, it just means adding a camera viewpoint.
That said, I am going to play this in first-person mode.
For me, about 70%. I live in Europe, and region 2 DVDs in general suck compared to region 1 DVDs. Many have fixed subtitles and miss most of the extras. Furthermore, lots of movies are simply not released in region 2 (Criterion collection? Forget it). Finally, they are more expensive over here. Things have got a little better in the last year or so, but we are still behind.
To give an example, I read that Newline had to force the region 2 producer/distributor to release the extended version of LotR: FotR exactly as it had been released in the USA. It was going to be a cheap rip, because the distributor thought the production costs would get too high. We got lucky with LotR, but many movies do not fare so well. After having been disappointed several times, I decided to quit buying region 2 DVDs and now only buy region 1, except when they are really discounted.
Luckily, region-free DVD players are easy to get over here, and usually they are the cheapest you can get.
Not to be boastful or lift myself over the /. crowd, but the solution to the ring/time machine-puzzle in Zork III had stumped me for six months, and then struck me after a good romp with my new girlfriend.
Perhaps I could convince my boss to...
Nah.
Short reply:
In your example, you describe someone willing to exploit an invention. So, sure, IMHO good patent.
How do you measure intent? No idea. However, I have been approached several times in the past by people who tried to get me to pay lots of money for a patent they didn't want to set up a business for to exploit it themselves. Obviously their only intent was to get an idiot to give them cash. That's not what the patent system is for.
Finally, about lawyers (of which I have several in my family): I meant advocates (English is not my native language). Of course, the job of a judge is to hold up the intent of the law.
Dear Congress,
Be wise, listen to SCO, and make Open Source illegal in the USA.
The First and Third world will probably not be so insightful and will continue to allow Open Source and its products, such as Linux.
Our businesses will suffer because we can't make any money anymore from programming commercial software for billions of users. Instead we'll have to rely on (admittedly cheap and trustworthy) software to drive our businesses and get money from building dedicated software and more tangible products. OK, we may get rich, even filthy rich, but we will never get disgustingly rich.
In the meantime, in the USA you will be safe from the Open Source evil and can trust in your home-produced, expensive (and therefore obviously excellent) Microsoft products. We are very sorry that the export of those same products will come to a halt, but such is life.
You can be sure that we will examine the papers of any Open Source geeks that want to emigrate from the USA closely. We wouldn't want the USA to lose their tech potential. Of course, we can't guarantee anything, since many countries would welcome them, but be ensured that you have our sympathies.
And anyway, litigation is much more lucrative than producing actual goods. Too bad here we have not yet been able to latch on to the litigation bubble, but it is certainly the way of the future.
Regards,
The games I really love I want in a box. I have been buying an playing games for twenty years. Had I kept all the boxes, they would have filled two bookcases. Now I have two shelves with boxes, all of games I really enjoyed. Wouldn't want to miss them. I store the manuals of the other games in those boxes too.
Imagine: The original Ultima IV -- in its box! The original System Shock -- in its box! Original Infocom Adventures -- in their boxes! With feelies!
Yes, all on my shelf.
...because mathematicians solve problems by reducing them to other problems they know the solution to. Repton is the Ultimate game in the sense that all other games can be reduced to it. When thinking of a new game concept a mathematician will simply prove that it is, effectivily, Repton, and be satisfied.