The only real complaints I've read about the Wii demos at E3 were that people would have liked to be able to adjust sensitivity settings. While that was unworkable in an E3 demo setting, I see no reason why it won't be supported on the release version of the console.
From what I've read that was actually possible in many E3 demos if you took the time to look into the options menu.
I'm not sure however if Windows hasn't been genericised for referring to specific GUI elements.
Pod is not a specific enough word to make it ownable across all markets. You can't name your music player a pod (especially a pod with a small letter in front of it) but you can very well call your car a pod because noone's going to assume it's an Apple product because it's called pod (in fact Apple's identifying mark is the small i in front of a word, not Pod).
Depends on what you mean with "right to profit". You do have a right to get paid if you deliver what people want. People taking your output for free goes against that. It depends on what you get paid for, if you get paid for making a hoe you can't dictate that hoe must be used in a specific way but if you get paid for a DVD that's for private display only then the buyer agreed he won't do more than private display with it. But people taking more than what was specified in the sales contract (explicitely or implicitely) should be required to pay you as they aren't upholding their end of the contract correctly and the sum they paid for the contract may have been greater had it included those extra usages. E.g. you can get a DVD for public performance but expect to pay a lot more for it. Taking a cheaper DVD that doesn't include public performance rights and using those rights anyway should not be allowed in any form.
That's what it worked like before copyright was around, problem is it costs a lot to hire an artist so back then only the rich could affort having any art made for them. The current system makes art cheaper for the common man instead of making it a status symbol of the rich. Of course you could use a "everyone pays into a common fund" model but that would be much more limited and not really encourage much competition, never mind that almost noone would pay for that as they can just get everything for free instead. The money going into the arts sector would greatly decrease in any case which would hurt the rate at which new art is produced. I really don't think that's in the public interest.
I don't think legislators cared much about the public domain, they simply didn't want to have to protect these things forver. Would suck to be sued because your work resembles some 200 year old story someone else found in his attic during spring cleaning.
Because unlike polished turds, one song is not interchangeable with another. If you want to hear "Hit Me Baby One More Time", but you don't want to pay the asking price, you aren't going to be satisfied with another song that has different lyrics and different music, even if it is free. It's not the same thing.
Who says other goods are more interchangeable? If you want a Ferrari a Fiat Panda isn't going to do it for you. If you want Kellog's Cornflakes Granola won't help you.
Copyright does not strive to create the lowest price possible for a given work but it strives to create as many "good" (i.e. selling) works as possible. If Britney's songs are too expensive for you, look at songs made by another singer, perhaps you'll find something you like just as much for cheaper. Of course, if you want only that specific song you have the option to buy or not buy, as with all goods.
P2P should not be considered valid competition for anyone (except other download methods). It is obviously free and it doesn't take much effort to take a published work and put it on P2P while it does cost a lot to create said work and that money is only spent in the hope to see sales of the work bringing in more money. That's why P2P is illegal, because it is not possible to compete with it if you are a creator of works, any time or money spent on creating the work puts you at a disadvantage and since P2P is free you can't make any of that back.
Also the amount of infringement necessary to invalidate a trademark is enormous. That only happens when people use the trademark as part of their normal speech. When people say e.g. photoshopping instead of photo manipulating or "using Adobe Photoshop TM to modify a photo" that can invalidate a trademark but people referring to your trademarked term in another work (e.g. mentioning that the character carries an iPod) will not invalidate it since it doesn't lose its function as a unique item description (ordering a "coke" can net you a Pepsi in some regions but ordering a "Playstation 2" won't be understood as "give me an XBox" by anyone).
No, a summary would not be sufficient. The implementation details are the critical part since prior art claims need to use this same implementation. A summary would cause too many false-positives.
Perhaps Infinium Labs (Infineon should have freaking sued them for trademark infringement, I know that name confuses me regularly) will offer a system that doesn't have a cracked client available that can download all of the games offered for free without needing cracks or going to a warez site?
Don't forget that PDAs are slow for games as they lack specialized hardware and the OS probably interferes. Even without the control issues I have doubts that my PDA could play e.g. Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow at any decent framerate.
A PDA combines the touch screen with the native resolution of these games, if you only want SCUMMVM that may be a better choice (of course I don't think you'll find a PDA as cheap as a DS...).
The right click only really annoyed me for Sam & Max, in Monkey Island I just drag across the screen to see hotspots. Might trigger an action but usually it's not a problem.
Can't say anything about the resolution, I'm using a PDA, that can display the games' native resolution when used in horizontal mode.
I think that "The 360 is selling worse than the XBox!" bit was just the OMG-Dreamcast-360-all-hail-Sony troll we get regularly.
The difference in control difficulty is minimal to you but to a person who has never used a controller having to remember which mouse button clicks is much easier than remembering which console button does the same. Mostly because there's four face buttons on a controller and two on a mouse. One if you're using a Mac. Never mind that pointing is much more natural with a mouse than driving the cursor with a stick.
I think the MS (at least the MS2) uses the 9-pin serial ports that were common on computers back then. I remember plugging a C64 joystick in one and playing Sonic with it. Those joysticks often have two buttons and a switch to set them to one or two button mode. I only tested one button but I think two should work, too.
The Xbox at least did have its share of ported PC adventure games, of course no mom would use a 12 button, 2 sticks, 1 dpad controller for a game that works with a mouse, works on a computer without having to fight with the husband over the TV and costs less on the PC.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, sounds perfect then since that's what XBLA offers.
The only real complaints I've read about the Wii demos at E3 were that people would have liked to be able to adjust sensitivity settings. While that was unworkable in an E3 demo setting, I see no reason why it won't be supported on the release version of the console.
From what I've read that was actually possible in many E3 demos if you took the time to look into the options menu.
That thing has automated online updates anyway.
The EU had 350 million people before the last expansion.
I already call the BigMac a Mac Mini because it's actually pretty small. Apple won't like that.
I'm not sure however if Windows hasn't been genericised for referring to specific GUI elements.
Pod is not a specific enough word to make it ownable across all markets. You can't name your music player a pod (especially a pod with a small letter in front of it) but you can very well call your car a pod because noone's going to assume it's an Apple product because it's called pod (in fact Apple's identifying mark is the small i in front of a word, not Pod).
Well, I suppose you don't call 'em photoshopped pics either...
Pfft, just sue the universe.
Which is why the IFPI was filing the lawsuits, not the RIAA.
Depends on what you mean with "right to profit". You do have a right to get paid if you deliver what people want. People taking your output for free goes against that. It depends on what you get paid for, if you get paid for making a hoe you can't dictate that hoe must be used in a specific way but if you get paid for a DVD that's for private display only then the buyer agreed he won't do more than private display with it. But people taking more than what was specified in the sales contract (explicitely or implicitely) should be required to pay you as they aren't upholding their end of the contract correctly and the sum they paid for the contract may have been greater had it included those extra usages. E.g. you can get a DVD for public performance but expect to pay a lot more for it. Taking a cheaper DVD that doesn't include public performance rights and using those rights anyway should not be allowed in any form.
That's what it worked like before copyright was around, problem is it costs a lot to hire an artist so back then only the rich could affort having any art made for them. The current system makes art cheaper for the common man instead of making it a status symbol of the rich. Of course you could use a "everyone pays into a common fund" model but that would be much more limited and not really encourage much competition, never mind that almost noone would pay for that as they can just get everything for free instead. The money going into the arts sector would greatly decrease in any case which would hurt the rate at which new art is produced. I really don't think that's in the public interest.
I don't think legislators cared much about the public domain, they simply didn't want to have to protect these things forver. Would suck to be sued because your work resembles some 200 year old story someone else found in his attic during spring cleaning.
Because unlike polished turds, one song is not interchangeable with another. If you want to hear "Hit Me Baby One More Time", but you don't want to pay the asking price, you aren't going to be satisfied with another song that has different lyrics and different music, even if it is free. It's not the same thing.
Who says other goods are more interchangeable? If you want a Ferrari a Fiat Panda isn't going to do it for you. If you want Kellog's Cornflakes Granola won't help you.
Copyright does not strive to create the lowest price possible for a given work but it strives to create as many "good" (i.e. selling) works as possible. If Britney's songs are too expensive for you, look at songs made by another singer, perhaps you'll find something you like just as much for cheaper. Of course, if you want only that specific song you have the option to buy or not buy, as with all goods.
P2P should not be considered valid competition for anyone (except other download methods). It is obviously free and it doesn't take much effort to take a published work and put it on P2P while it does cost a lot to create said work and that money is only spent in the hope to see sales of the work bringing in more money. That's why P2P is illegal, because it is not possible to compete with it if you are a creator of works, any time or money spent on creating the work puts you at a disadvantage and since P2P is free you can't make any of that back.
Well, there has to be SOMEONE buying all those EA games...
I'd put my money on his publisher ('s lawyers) intentionally feeding him lies so he prevents fan works from competing with any sequels.
Also the amount of infringement necessary to invalidate a trademark is enormous. That only happens when people use the trademark as part of their normal speech. When people say e.g. photoshopping instead of photo manipulating or "using Adobe Photoshop TM to modify a photo" that can invalidate a trademark but people referring to your trademarked term in another work (e.g. mentioning that the character carries an iPod) will not invalidate it since it doesn't lose its function as a unique item description (ordering a "coke" can net you a Pepsi in some regions but ordering a "Playstation 2" won't be understood as "give me an XBox" by anyone).
No, a summary would not be sufficient. The implementation details are the critical part since prior art claims need to use this same implementation. A summary would cause too many false-positives.
Perhaps Infinium Labs (Infineon should have freaking sued them for trademark infringement, I know that name confuses me regularly) will offer a system that doesn't have a cracked client available that can download all of the games offered for free without needing cracks or going to a warez site?
Don't forget that PDAs are slow for games as they lack specialized hardware and the OS probably interferes. Even without the control issues I have doubts that my PDA could play e.g. Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow at any decent framerate.
A PDA combines the touch screen with the native resolution of these games, if you only want SCUMMVM that may be a better choice (of course I don't think you'll find a PDA as cheap as a DS...).
The right click only really annoyed me for Sam & Max, in Monkey Island I just drag across the screen to see hotspots. Might trigger an action but usually it's not a problem.
Can't say anything about the resolution, I'm using a PDA, that can display the games' native resolution when used in horizontal mode.
I think that "The 360 is selling worse than the XBox!" bit was just the OMG-Dreamcast-360-all-hail-Sony troll we get regularly.
The difference in control difficulty is minimal to you but to a person who has never used a controller having to remember which mouse button clicks is much easier than remembering which console button does the same. Mostly because there's four face buttons on a controller and two on a mouse. One if you're using a Mac. Never mind that pointing is much more natural with a mouse than driving the cursor with a stick.
You see, that's only for the W3C CSS standard. There is no official test suite for the Microsoft CSS standard.
I think the MS (at least the MS2) uses the 9-pin serial ports that were common on computers back then. I remember plugging a C64 joystick in one and playing Sonic with it. Those joysticks often have two buttons and a switch to set them to one or two button mode. I only tested one button but I think two should work, too.
The Xbox at least did have its share of ported PC adventure games, of course no mom would use a 12 button, 2 sticks, 1 dpad controller for a game that works with a mouse, works on a computer without having to fight with the husband over the TV and costs less on the PC.