which explictly granted them the rights to protect themselves agains sco lawsuit. They were one of the first companies to indemify there customer base (using solaris)
Is that you would not be satisfied if microsoft lived up to in.
If microsoft release a core kernel and told companies build up there own OS just don't infringe on our brand by calling it windows or claim it was compatiable with windows.
you would be complaining this solution would not change the market place because consumers would not consider kernel only version a "real OS"
The real difference with the hiding option is that, in practice, you are still paying MS for IE and WMP because they are still getting installed. Surely those products has considerable development cost and hence considerable value to MS. If they aren't effectively charging for them when they charge for Windows, then something is astray. Truth is that you are paying fr them when you pay for Windows.
The problem with this arguement is when the cost saving for having the product intergrated far exceed the development costs like in the case of IE or generated additional revenue as a by product of being well distributed.
This principle is documented in the adware business model where companies give away product to generate revenue streams from advertisers.
In the case of IE intergration of the browser allowed microsoft to distribute service packs and updates far more cost effectively than standard methods (windowsupdate.microsoft.com vs telephone support). A fact that was absolutely proven by microsoft increasing the life expectancy of windows 98 by a FULL year without increasing its cost at all.
The reality is if you consider these cost saving and additional revenue sources the net development costs are negative
or claim that it was windows compatible
would you still consider a fair deal.
If so any of microsoft competitors could licience the windows source code and making a competitive os
In your example there is a distinction
There is nothing to stop you from liciencing the windows source code from microsoft and creating a competititive product.
That is exactly what companies did when they created the embedded NT OS (originally called impala). While microsoft ultimately bought the company out and renamed the product embedded windows NT to leverage their BRAND. Its existance in the market place disproves your arguement.
a more accurate analogy would be taking Red Hat Linux software changing components so the API changes and still misappropriating the RED HAT brand name to cause market confusion.
this is worst idea that you could come up with because it not only crossing the line between civil and criminal sanctions.
but you also having the government randomly give a competitive advantage to a company, in the form of the fine you are randomly giving away.
The solution is not to attack microsoft with technically/legally weak arguments like a browser case.
The fact every time a competitor uses the government to attack microsoft because they lost the market to them, they create a situation where microsoft can increase their power by fighting until they establish the desired legal precident and the settle to get the issue cleared out of the way.
The fact is Microsoft only intergrated the browser into the OS after SUN made the arguement that having two browsing engines (one for local files and remote files) was stupid (with ther NC). This Establishs that the DOJ should have told Netscape to go to hell.
If they had done this the appeals court precedent which defined the "rule of reason" would not exist and the substantially more legitimate case for bundling media players.
Had the DOJ targetted microsoft for this bundling instead without setting up bad legal precedents first a valuable line could have been drawn between applications which truely belong into the OS (tcp/ip stack, dun, internet browser) and applications which run above the application layer of the OSI and therefore truly represent illegal bundling.
fight.
It would be interesting to do a ROI analysis comparing how much money they spent on legal expenses vs how much it would have cost them to buy the amount of advertising on the news sources they got the press on.
I got the funny feeling the ROI was pretty good
but i think you have this wrong
jim agreed to include code in linux by gpl it in the first place
joe included it into apache as a module
the worst jim could do is sue joe for including it into apache module claiming that he must gpl all the code of the module and apache if the module did create a chinese wall.
Of course the licience protects every intelligent coder (and the organization) who uses gpl code in the right way (chinese wall around the module).
basically john would be force to re write his module to issolate the code, and gpl
or
remove the offending code
apache good developers would be protected
"The owner of the copyright in any work may assign the right, either wholly or partially, and either generally or subject to limitations relating to territory, medium or sector of the market or other limitations relating to the scope of the assignment, and either for the whole term of the copyright or for any other part thereof, and may grant any interest in the right by licence"
and "Where, under any partial assignment of copyright, the assignee becomes entitled to any right comprised in copyright, the assignee, with respect to the rights so assigned, and the assignor, with respect to the rights not assigned, shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as the owner of the copyright, and this Act has effect accordingly."
That how sco is making the arguement that it is both a contract dispute and a copyright violation
you can still own the copyright to work and be prevented from giving it away. That how you get exclusive right assignments guys. The two are not mutually exclusive.
ie one being true does not automatically make the second false.
Not saying that it is not the case but it doesn't HAVE to be the case.
When i read this i though it didn't even match the standard rumours that were on the net.
Namely that darth Vader is not really anikin but a clone of anikin.
(which would explain why he did not know about leia) and why his body deteriated so quickly.
The final battle was going to be anikin (real) vs anikin (clone) with clone winning and the audience would know the truth because anikin clone hand would be bleeding (the hand that anikin lost in SW II)
thats the point the premise of the show should have been a true prequel.
this time paradox was created for the sole purpose of not having to deal with star treks history.
This whole zinde (sp?) issue should have been the klingons because according TNG the first contact with the klingons resulted in the civil war that existed thru TOS.
They had so many good story arcs that actually come from TNG, TOS and DS9 that they could have spun into the series. Things that Star Trek Fans would have loved to see.
I really would have adversly effected the day to day store lines (think x-files for the idea of normal stories vs core arc stories)
If they had stuck to the story line were established by TNG, TOS and DS9
this show would have been great
according to TNG (the first contact with the klingons started the federation klingon civil war)
that could have been a series long story line.
the federation would be formed out of necessity to survive against a hostle force (klingon) which would lead to stories where they shared technology etc to get allies (which seems like a good idea) but ultimately bite them in the ass.
This story arc would result in the formation of the prime directive. And the federation charter.
Once that was done (say by season 3) you could have a story line about the creation of section 31 (from DS9 story lines) to get results when the prime directive gets in the way.
which could lead to dozens of section 31 vs enterprise stories where morally archer was right but section 31 was necessary
The problem with enterprise is that they choose to F_ck the Star Trek Bible and explain it all away with the time traveller story line.
Slashdot Mirror
which explictly granted them the rights to protect themselves agains sco lawsuit. They were one of the first companies to indemify there customer base (using solaris)
Is that you would not be satisfied if microsoft lived up to in.
If microsoft release a core kernel and told companies build up there own OS just don't infringe on our brand by calling it windows or claim it was compatiable with windows.
you would be complaining this solution would not change the market place because consumers would not consider kernel only version a "real OS"
The real difference with the hiding option is that, in practice, you are still paying MS for IE and WMP because they are still getting installed. Surely those products has considerable development cost and hence considerable value to MS. If they aren't effectively charging for them when they charge for Windows, then something is astray. Truth is that you are paying fr them when you pay for Windows.
The problem with this arguement is when the cost saving for having the product intergrated far exceed the development costs like in the case of IE or generated additional revenue as a by product of being well distributed.
This principle is documented in the adware business model where companies give away product to generate revenue streams from advertisers.
In the case of IE intergration of the browser allowed microsoft to distribute service packs and updates far more cost effectively than standard methods (windowsupdate.microsoft.com vs telephone support). A fact that was absolutely proven by microsoft increasing the life expectancy of windows 98 by a FULL year without increasing its cost at all.
The reality is if you consider these cost saving and additional revenue sources the net development costs are negativeor claim that it was windows compatible would you still consider a fair deal. If so any of microsoft competitors could licience the windows source code and making a competitive os
In your example there is a distinction There is nothing to stop you from liciencing the windows source code from microsoft and creating a competititive product.
That is exactly what companies did when they created the embedded NT OS (originally called impala). While microsoft ultimately bought the company out and renamed the product embedded windows NT to leverage their BRAND. Its existance in the market place disproves your arguement.
a more accurate analogy would be taking Red Hat Linux software changing components so the API changes and still misappropriating the RED HAT brand name to cause market confusion.
this is worst idea that you could come up with because it not only crossing the line between civil and criminal sanctions. but you also having the government randomly give a competitive advantage to a company, in the form of the fine you are randomly giving away. The solution is not to attack microsoft with technically/legally weak arguments like a browser case. The fact every time a competitor uses the government to attack microsoft because they lost the market to them, they create a situation where microsoft can increase their power by fighting until they establish the desired legal precident and the settle to get the issue cleared out of the way. The fact is Microsoft only intergrated the browser into the OS after SUN made the arguement that having two browsing engines (one for local files and remote files) was stupid (with ther NC). This Establishs that the DOJ should have told Netscape to go to hell. If they had done this the appeals court precedent which defined the "rule of reason" would not exist and the substantially more legitimate case for bundling media players. Had the DOJ targetted microsoft for this bundling instead without setting up bad legal precedents first a valuable line could have been drawn between applications which truely belong into the OS (tcp/ip stack, dun, internet browser) and applications which run above the application layer of the OSI and therefore truly represent illegal bundling.
fight. It would be interesting to do a ROI analysis comparing how much money they spent on legal expenses vs how much it would have cost them to buy the amount of advertising on the news sources they got the press on. I got the funny feeling the ROI was pretty good
but i think you have this wrong jim agreed to include code in linux by gpl it in the first place joe included it into apache as a module the worst jim could do is sue joe for including it into apache module claiming that he must gpl all the code of the module and apache if the module did create a chinese wall. Of course the licience protects every intelligent coder (and the organization) who uses gpl code in the right way (chinese wall around the module). basically john would be force to re write his module to issolate the code, and gpl or remove the offending code apache good developers would be protected
Interesting how they would sneak in a reference to ""MacGyver" in each eps.
"The owner of the copyright in any work may assign the right, either wholly or partially, and either generally or subject to limitations relating to territory, medium or sector of the market or other limitations relating to the scope of the assignment, and either for the whole term of the copyright or for any other part thereof, and may grant any interest in the right by licence"
and
"Where, under any partial assignment of copyright, the assignee becomes entitled to any right comprised in copyright, the assignee, with respect to the rights so assigned, and the assignor, with respect to the rights not assigned, shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as the owner of the copyright, and this Act has effect accordingly."
That how sco is making the arguement that it is both a contract dispute and a copyright violation
you can still own the copyright to work and be prevented from giving it away. That how you get exclusive right assignments guys. The two are not mutually exclusive. ie one being true does not automatically make the second false. Not saying that it is not the case but it doesn't HAVE to be the case.
they did go to lindash.com the lin--- is for publicity.
When i read this i though it didn't even match the standard rumours that were on the net. Namely that darth Vader is not really anikin but a clone of anikin. (which would explain why he did not know about leia) and why his body deteriated so quickly. The final battle was going to be anikin (real) vs anikin (clone) with clone winning and the audience would know the truth because anikin clone hand would be bleeding (the hand that anikin lost in SW II)
thats the point the premise of the show should have been a true prequel. this time paradox was created for the sole purpose of not having to deal with star treks history. This whole zinde (sp?) issue should have been the klingons because according TNG the first contact with the klingons resulted in the civil war that existed thru TOS. They had so many good story arcs that actually come from TNG, TOS and DS9 that they could have spun into the series. Things that Star Trek Fans would have loved to see. I really would have adversly effected the day to day store lines (think x-files for the idea of normal stories vs core arc stories)
If they had stuck to the story line were established by TNG, TOS and DS9 this show would have been great according to TNG (the first contact with the klingons started the federation klingon civil war) that could have been a series long story line. the federation would be formed out of necessity to survive against a hostle force (klingon) which would lead to stories where they shared technology etc to get allies (which seems like a good idea) but ultimately bite them in the ass. This story arc would result in the formation of the prime directive. And the federation charter. Once that was done (say by season 3) you could have a story line about the creation of section 31 (from DS9 story lines) to get results when the prime directive gets in the way. which could lead to dozens of section 31 vs enterprise stories where morally archer was right but section 31 was necessary The problem with enterprise is that they choose to F_ck the Star Trek Bible and explain it all away with the time traveller story line.