Actually, hasn't that been debated to the exact opposite in court? I seem to recall bomb-making, lock picking, etc things that have gone to court over that many times.
If what you said was true, eminem would be guilty of murder.
I don't know enough about markup in general, that I admit. However, I do understand bits and bytesm hexadeciaml, etc and how they apply to current software today, and why all of that basically should nullify software patents. However, if people think we can just go back on patents that have been unfortunately granted, they have a lot to learn as much of the law doesn't work that way, sadly.
We can seek the change for future, but just like people who abuse tax loopholes, we can't stop those who have already gotten away with it, even with bilski..
For what reason do you feel that software patents should not be allowed, that I have missed or not stated?
for the last time, in the USofA, if it is not hate speech, not threatening, maybe rude, derogatory, it is called freedom of speech. We understand that it gets abused sometimes, but your choice is either: be able to say what you want (aka comments -> slashdot), or have them moderated by the government. I don't know about you, but I'd rather let a few retarded idiots going "keep your government hands off my medicare" than stifle all speech altogether.
If you read the many above comments (10ghz) you'll see they specifically want to go after MS, because MS has stolen their patented idea. Standard MS strategy: have a meeting with competitor, figure out the offering, release their own version for free. Machines which have been purchased but not sold (say with word on it), are in the category that I4I has nothing to do with nor a focus upon. Notice how the focus is "new infringement", which that is not.
Or, I don't know, you could use open office, which they said isn't infringing? thus, the solution is simple, and free.
That is a legal nightmare to no one, your argument is focused in a different direction than what is occurring. They are exposed to no litigation. That is why people should be careful about how they interpret the situation.
what about MS's XML patents? surely interesting nobody says anything about that, huh. This is the problem we have, everyone is shortsighted.
The issue here is not "oh, MS is getting screwed on a baseless patent", it's more "we need the patent system fixed (removed from software)" as this is another reminder.
I'm not a shill, but you are a troll. I understand what SGML is, but we're stuck with patents as they are. I do know about SGML, but just because SGML *exists* doesn't mean it automatically predates all later forms of markup languages. We are stuck with patents as they are, so we have to deal with things as they are currently. I'm not looking at this from a computer perspective, more about a law perspective. Judges are required to interpret law based off the current situation.
Oh wait, all computing is math, and we had math before computers, thus all computing has prior evidence, right?
I actually think that in a way such a concept would make sense *IF* people understood it. Meanwhile, we have patents, and MS deliberately violated someone else's. Thus, we have said current patent thicket. So in this case, the question of was MS guilty or not? Evidence shows pretty well, that they were.
You're looking at a side of things that will affect 0 in the court of law. You can harp all day, but it's not going to affect anything other than your own rage.
There was no XML in the 80's, so your argument is way off. How is I4I supposed to predict the name of a product from the future? do they have magic premonition or are you full of shit? Oh right, I know the answer.
Try to read about things here, the patent is indeed about embedding meta data, there wasn't meta data at allin the 80's, and there wasn't XML even until in the mid 90s.
I4I said they would have sued sooner but were having financial problems. Gee, I wonder who might have caused those? Would it be MS who said "well, we had a business meeting with them, lets implement their plan without them and run them out of business"? Hmm. Now where is that lawsuit again? oh right.
No, they're going to try to get it overturned for themselves. Notice the issues they are and *aren't* appealing. They are staying far far away from overturning patents by themselves because it is a cash cow for them too.
No, it's not an if, at all. Corporate licenses work in two major forms: end user and OEM's. OEM's have blanket licensing per-year ish irregardless of volume, so no, I'd not assume that they pay per-license (as the costs for keeping track by itself is atrocious)
Who else do you think has power to enforce this other than the patent holder?
This is an odd issue for the courts, as Microsoft did legitimately cheat I4I out (read the details), but on the flip side software patents are an unnecessary burden.
I agree, battlefield's method is the best they can do but I think they let the game auto-change input to a joystick if you happen to be flying, or something.
My gripe was the whole concept of thinking that a console gamer will be as effective at what amounts to a first person shooter in multiplayer as a PC player. It won't happen.
It's like complaining about a muscle car beating your rally car in a 0-60 from a green light when forgetting the capabilities are intended for cornering. Why delude ourselves?
Umm, FPS games are by definition, not typically "Designed" for consoles.
Nobody said mice are better, but they are much better at controlling first person shooters for obvious reasons.
For a racing game when you don't have a joystick/wheel, or a fighter, I'd much rather a controller than a keyboard+mouse. It's very simple, called "use the right tool for the job".
Round hole, round peg. Easy comparison to your own: ever tried playing quake on a g1 or an iphone? It's kind of, you know, pretty hard to do. some interfaces work for certain things.
Likewise, a VR interface (helmet, gloves, etc) even if it had FPS controls, is pretty horrible for most FPS games.
Not really. 10 thousand sales of an app at 2 dollars vs paying maybe a grand for the people to give you those good reviews where you might have made 500 bucks?
Really, the people writing the reviews get better guaranteed cash, but you know, people will gamble for anything.
google voice has been retarded enough that I'm almost ready to drop it/swear off google.
They have switched routing phone numbers for it like 30 freakin times, and it's hidden from visual sight on the g1. Honestly, this is just stupid/frustrating. I use myfaves for everything but google voice, really I can't afford to use hundreds of minutes on google voice.
Don't you realize what this does? This is a "you're fucked and you can no longer resell your game". The benefit is you no longer need cds. Their benefit is you no longer own cds.
Lets say you have 4 games on your account, and you want to sell one off? You know right of first sale, you don't play x game anymore, etc. Whoops.
really? what planet do you live on. What do you think We have no plans to allow lan play implies? They never said once that it's just for verification. They quite clearly are saying "you're going to have to get online to play". Opening ports to players after being online, even in a lan environment, is basically something that can be easily defined as unsuccessful by many developers.
Many times, legitimate purchasers of games never ever intend to get online for verification. A simple example of this was the above stated lan party. At a lan party, the total bandwidth per user (to the net) is equiavlent to dialup at best. Note: *AT BEST*, not at worst. You want to see how bad it is? Ever tried to watch 20 or 30 pc's just trying to get steam into offline mode (which is a simple verification) at a lan, who fry about 4 hotel-supplied enterprise routers in the process? I've seen it. Every single time, including when they add "please get steam into offline mode before leaving for the lan" because not everyone thinks of it.
You think it's going to be better if it's just verification? Think again. Many lans deliberately do not have an outside internet connection for lots of reasons (virus risks are only internal, legal liability), etc. Likewise, never underestimate the sound of a thousand pings of programs that people forgot are trying to connect to the internet while playing over lan. It's like it's own little unblockable DDOS on the routers, which are made to handle traffic flow *up to a point*.
wow on linux runs quite well with wine. Blizz just doesn't want to officially support it, as that means putting devs on it(linux) as opposed to being lazy/not spending a penny and leaving the work to wine devs.
the Lan question has been covered. I think a short summary is that your entire gaming customer group at large is incredibly angry at the online only requirement (and how that screws up lan gaming), so I will not get into that or the ensuing boycott that I (and every lan party I know and/or have been a part of) are boycotting your products now.
My question is: in what ways has the activision merger done anything good for the company? All I have seen so far is basically the equivalent of extremely bad policy moves and basically squeezing your gamers for money, more than you used to.
Now that almost every game requires online activation, online play, etc, why are you complicit in essentially creating your own form of DRM for your products in that they won't even work without Blizzard servers?
The thing is, pacer records are intended to be public and supposed to be free. Lieberman has asked about this before. The creation of documents online was supposed to make them free eventually, specifically.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, hasn't that been debated to the exact opposite in court? I seem to recall bomb-making, lock picking, etc things that have gone to court over that many times.
If what you said was true, eminem would be guilty of murder.
I don't know enough about markup in general, that I admit. However, I do understand bits and bytesm hexadeciaml, etc and how they apply to current software today, and why all of that basically should nullify software patents. However, if people think we can just go back on patents that have been unfortunately granted, they have a lot to learn as much of the law doesn't work that way, sadly.
We can seek the change for future, but just like people who abuse tax loopholes, we can't stop those who have already gotten away with it, even with bilski..
For what reason do you feel that software patents should not be allowed, that I have missed or not stated?
for the last time, in the USofA, if it is not hate speech, not threatening, maybe rude, derogatory, it is called freedom of speech. We understand that it gets abused sometimes, but your choice is either: be able to say what you want (aka comments -> slashdot), or have them moderated by the government. I don't know about you, but I'd rather let a few retarded idiots going "keep your government hands off my medicare" than stifle all speech altogether.
If you read the many above comments (10ghz) you'll see they specifically want to go after MS, because MS has stolen their patented idea. Standard MS strategy: have a meeting with competitor, figure out the offering, release their own version for free. Machines which have been purchased but not sold (say with word on it), are in the category that I4I has nothing to do with nor a focus upon. Notice how the focus is "new infringement", which that is not.
Or, I don't know, you could use open office, which they said isn't infringing? thus, the solution is simple, and free.
That is a legal nightmare to no one, your argument is focused in a different direction than what is occurring. They are exposed to no litigation. That is why people should be careful about how they interpret the situation.
what about MS's XML patents? surely interesting nobody says anything about that, huh. This is the problem we have, everyone is shortsighted.
The issue here is not "oh, MS is getting screwed on a baseless patent", it's more "we need the patent system fixed (removed from software)" as this is another reminder.
I'm not a shill, but you are a troll. I understand what SGML is, but we're stuck with patents as they are. I do know about SGML, but just because SGML *exists* doesn't mean it automatically predates all later forms of markup languages. We are stuck with patents as they are, so we have to deal with things as they are currently. I'm not looking at this from a computer perspective, more about a law perspective. Judges are required to interpret law based off the current situation.
Oh wait, all computing is math, and we had math before computers, thus all computing has prior evidence, right?
I actually think that in a way such a concept would make sense *IF* people understood it. Meanwhile, we have patents, and MS deliberately violated someone else's. Thus, we have said current patent thicket. So in this case, the question of was MS guilty or not? Evidence shows pretty well, that they were.
You're looking at a side of things that will affect 0 in the court of law. You can harp all day, but it's not going to affect anything other than your own rage.
There was no XML in the 80's, so your argument is way off. How is I4I supposed to predict the name of a product from the future? do they have magic premonition or are you full of shit? Oh right, I know the answer.
Try to read about things here, the patent is indeed about embedding meta data, there wasn't meta data at allin the 80's, and there wasn't XML even until in the mid 90s.
I4I said they would have sued sooner but were having financial problems. Gee, I wonder who might have caused those? Would it be MS who said "well, we had a business meeting with them, lets implement their plan without them and run them out of business"? Hmm. Now where is that lawsuit again? oh right.
No, they're going to try to get it overturned for themselves. Notice the issues they are and *aren't* appealing. They are staying far far away from overturning patents by themselves because it is a cash cow for them too.
No, it's not an if, at all. Corporate licenses work in two major forms: end user and OEM's. OEM's have blanket licensing per-year ish irregardless of volume, so no, I'd not assume that they pay per-license (as the costs for keeping track by itself is atrocious)
No, the injunction was quite correct. Did you read what I4I said? They said they won't go after the existing copies, only new infringement.
Who else do you think has power to enforce this other than the patent holder?
This is an odd issue for the courts, as Microsoft did legitimately cheat I4I out (read the details), but on the flip side software patents are an unnecessary burden.
I agree, battlefield's method is the best they can do but I think they let the game auto-change input to a joystick if you happen to be flying, or something.
My gripe was the whole concept of thinking that a console gamer will be as effective at what amounts to a first person shooter in multiplayer as a PC player. It won't happen.
It's like complaining about a muscle car beating your rally car in a 0-60 from a green light when forgetting the capabilities are intended for cornering. Why delude ourselves?
Umm, FPS games are by definition, not typically "Designed" for consoles.
Nobody said mice are better, but they are much better at controlling first person shooters for obvious reasons.
For a racing game when you don't have a joystick/wheel, or a fighter, I'd much rather a controller than a keyboard+mouse. It's very simple, called "use the right tool for the job".
Round hole, round peg. Easy comparison to your own: ever tried playing quake on a g1 or an iphone? It's kind of, you know, pretty hard to do. some interfaces work for certain things.
Likewise, a VR interface (helmet, gloves, etc) even if it had FPS controls, is pretty horrible for most FPS games.
Not really. 10 thousand sales of an app at 2 dollars vs paying maybe a grand for the people to give you those good reviews where you might have made 500 bucks?
Really, the people writing the reviews get better guaranteed cash, but you know, people will gamble for anything.
Assuming they aren't already. You know Rogers and the other providers are going to be watching very closely how this develops.
well, in case you're wondering, it's almost the first result on google. So hmm, gee, someone says why is my power so bad? oh, right.
you can enable unsigned drivers in xp/vista/7 many different ways and is relevant for such things as graphics card drivers, etc.
anyone who doesn't run powertop is just blindly ignorant, basically. Those are the people who post questions like in the summary.
Really, powertop let me get over 2 hours out of an Asus c90. Those things usually die in under an hour without it.
google voice has been retarded enough that I'm almost ready to drop it/swear off google.
They have switched routing phone numbers for it like 30 freakin times, and it's hidden from visual sight on the g1. Honestly, this is just stupid/frustrating. I use myfaves for everything but google voice, really I can't afford to use hundreds of minutes on google voice.
"in what ways has the activision merger done anything good for the company?" is pretty straightforward, even with the rest there.
"why are you creating DRM for your games?" is also direct and relevant. Both are things that I watn to see answered.
Don't you realize what this does? This is a "you're fucked and you can no longer resell your game". The benefit is you no longer need cds. Their benefit is you no longer own cds.
Lets say you have 4 games on your account, and you want to sell one off? You know right of first sale, you don't play x game anymore, etc. Whoops.
really? what planet do you live on. What do you think We have no plans to allow lan play implies? They never said once that it's just for verification. They quite clearly are saying "you're going to have to get online to play". Opening ports to players after being online, even in a lan environment, is basically something that can be easily defined as unsuccessful by many developers.
Many times, legitimate purchasers of games never ever intend to get online for verification. A simple example of this was the above stated lan party. At a lan party, the total bandwidth per user (to the net) is equiavlent to dialup at best. Note: *AT BEST*, not at worst. You want to see how bad it is? Ever tried to watch 20 or 30 pc's just trying to get steam into offline mode (which is a simple verification) at a lan, who fry about 4 hotel-supplied enterprise routers in the process? I've seen it. Every single time, including when they add "please get steam into offline mode before leaving for the lan" because not everyone thinks of it.
You think it's going to be better if it's just verification? Think again. Many lans deliberately do not have an outside internet connection for lots of reasons (virus risks are only internal, legal liability), etc. Likewise, never underestimate the sound of a thousand pings of programs that people forgot are trying to connect to the internet while playing over lan. It's like it's own little unblockable DDOS on the routers, which are made to handle traffic flow *up to a point*.
what?
wow on linux runs quite well with wine. Blizz just doesn't want to officially support it, as that means putting devs on it(linux) as opposed to being lazy/not spending a penny and leaving the work to wine devs.
Blizzard,
the Lan question has been covered. I think a short summary is that your entire gaming customer group at large is incredibly angry at the online only requirement (and how that screws up lan gaming), so I will not get into that or the ensuing boycott that I (and every lan party I know and/or have been a part of) are boycotting your products now.
My question is: in what ways has the activision merger done anything good for the company? All I have seen so far is basically the equivalent of extremely bad policy moves and basically squeezing your gamers for money, more than you used to.
Now that almost every game requires online activation, online play, etc, why are you complicit in essentially creating your own form of DRM for your products in that they won't even work without Blizzard servers?
if only there was a term for a transformative robot of some sort...
The thing is, pacer records are intended to be public and supposed to be free. Lieberman has asked about this before. The creation of documents online was supposed to make them free eventually, specifically.