Exactly - If the industry would create a policy where they offered a one for one replacement then they could take the backup issue off the table.
Why won't they do this? I'd like to think that it is more from an over developed worry about pirates making perfect copies than a strategy to generate additional revenues but I just don't trust them that much.
Given the temporal market nature of most games, vendors could offer replacements after the point where they are just making marginal profits on the games and probably have both a happier user base and the issue removed from discussions about fair use (see above on trust though).
Good point - What I was trying to do is to highlight the fact that arguing over what I can do to something that I own misses the big issue which is defining what is 'fair use'.
Restricting rights is really the issue with the more significant part being about what I can do that has overwhelmingly good reasons (ie backup, timeshift, different replay devices, etc).
If you think about it, if making backups wasn't a violation then the arguments against mod chips would be less valid.
So if its mine then I should be able to take a semi-auto weapon and modify it so that it fires full auto? As long as I don't "use" it then that's ok?
I think the argument should be focused on whether what they claim is illegal should be illegal - If I want to make backups thats fair use - If I want to pirate that illegal.
Simply arguing that I own it misses the more important issue.
Evidently the new idea is that even the product your suing shouldn't be considered prior art. The first patent,
5,597,307, was filed in May 1995. The last Beta of Windows 95 was in March 1995 and the Microsoft DRG people were talking about it in 1994 (Auto-play was evangelized to ISVs - "Mr ISV you need to make sure that your application uses Auto-play").
What it looks like here is that the current patent strategy is to wait until someone releases a product then patent the features that aren't covered.
Hopefully this is yet another nail in the stuipidity of patent issuing.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually Microsoft made money on most of its divisions except for the option charges it took when it converted options to shares.
Here is a Seattle PI story on it 2 Microsoft units post losses"
They're profitable over most of their divisions, some more than others and there are thoses that are losing money.
Exactly - If the industry would create a policy where they offered a one for one replacement then they could take the backup issue off the table.
Why won't they do this? I'd like to think that it is more from an over developed worry about pirates making perfect copies than a strategy to generate additional revenues but I just don't trust them that much.
Given the temporal market nature of most games, vendors could offer replacements after the point where they are just making marginal profits on the games and probably have both a happier user base and the issue removed from discussions about fair use (see above on trust though).
Good point - What I was trying to do is to highlight the fact that arguing over what I can do to something that I own misses the big issue which is defining what is 'fair use'. Restricting rights is really the issue with the more significant part being about what I can do that has overwhelmingly good reasons (ie backup, timeshift, different replay devices, etc). If you think about it, if making backups wasn't a violation then the arguments against mod chips would be less valid.
So if its mine then I should be able to take a semi-auto weapon and modify it so that it fires full auto? As long as I don't "use" it then that's ok?
I think the argument should be focused on whether what they claim is illegal should be illegal - If I want to make backups thats fair use - If I want to pirate that illegal.
Simply arguing that I own it misses the more important issue.
Evidently the new idea is that even the product your suing shouldn't be considered prior art. The first patent, 5,597,307, was filed in May 1995. The last Beta of Windows 95 was in March 1995 and the Microsoft DRG people were talking about it in 1994 (Auto-play was evangelized to ISVs - "Mr ISV you need to make sure that your application uses Auto-play"). What it looks like here is that the current patent strategy is to wait until someone releases a product then patent the features that aren't covered. Hopefully this is yet another nail in the stuipidity of patent issuing.