You don't need a patent to make software. Patent for a stradivarious is for making a physical product. Let's not strawman this shit into oblivion, please.
When a software patent expires, the knowledge doesn't "magically disappear" people just start doing what they could have done the last X years that the patent existed. It's a monopoly, not a benefit.
90 million is bullshit. The bonds for this stuff (software "patent infringement" via the ITC loophole) should start at a 1-2 billion dollars and go up. That would certainly stop these bogus lawsuits.
clarification: 8500/140k NSL's which can include wiretaps, 2700 NSL's before - but we're talking about 2700 *wiretaps* at the moment. That shows that the gov't has clearly moved in favor of NSL's.
Are you joking? This injunction isn't even enforceable, and if anything is going to make apple get more than warnings for anticompetitive behavior. DOJ's already investigating.
FRAND abuse means really nothing, the investigation was sparked by *microsoft* and a few senators were dumb enough to believe them.
Be careful? please. Guarantee even 6 months from now the Nexus will never stop being sold in the US.
You can replace google with every company that exists on the planet there - and you'd still be accurate. What's your point? Microsoft, apple, nokia, samsung, credit cards, paypal, ebay, etc.
You're already compromising your "spying" by buying anything in the first place.
NSL's are almost never even constitutional, so "not legal" wiretaps. Yet they're on an order of magnitude higher. 2700 wiretaps vs 8500 before the patriot act and 140k after the patriot act?
They shifted from legal methods (harder to obtain) to sanctioned but clearly illegal methods (simple to obtain, no judicial oversight, no perjury or accountability).
For those experienced with android it tells you something:
Nexus = owned by google = apple equivalent experience = things will work right.
Buying non-nexus products = responsibilities on the shoulders of either the mfr or the carrier if it's a phone = shoddy experience = things are broken and will not be fixed.
Not "end up with", we're already there. We already have 2 or 3 large players, but if you're thinking in terms of "competitors" you need to look at originators of the products, not the manufacturers.
We have: apple, google, microsoft.
There really isn't anyone else in the handset competitor category right now. Google entails: every major manufacturer. Apple entails: apple (via every manufacturer). Microsoft entails: every major manufacturer (eventually). So really it's everyone developing new things using the same subset of tools and trying to differentiate, but behind the scenes almost nothing in manufacturing has changed in more than probably 20 years.
It's called evernote, and it's done more (and in better ways) via going it's own direction than OneNote ever has. Also it works consistently across platforms and doesn't have gigantic issues sharing/hosting huge files.
You know why they gave their software away in another country? Because nobody went after them for dumping even though that's exactly what they did. They have even admitted this is the only reason for marketshare in China, as well.
There is nothing even logical about the argument you are making. Please don't make a stretched and ridiculously convoluted OS/device argument of open source vs microsoft vs apple comparison. There is no argument that is correct for Africa in your example.
Guess what. It's not expensive. The only reason for complaints is because it was never done in the first place. If this becomes properly commonplace it would easily provide benefit to more than just the hard of hearing. Some people, such as myself, would rather have a movie on mute with your own choice of preferred music instead of dramatic garbage they put into shitty movies. Or because movies are ridiculously loud. Or because of a TV and a computer in the same room - one person watching TV, the other on the computer.
This should not be about monetization - that is neither the answer nor even correct. This simply should be done for a variety of reasons such as foreign language speakers who can *read* english will then be able to watch movies or you can...gasp...have closed captions for other languages so that movies can be broadcast around the globe! Movie available for 1 country vs movie available in the 8 most popular languages. Which do you think gets more views (and thus more profit).
To act like there's somehow only a negative cost is to be completely and utterly dishonest to the fact that there's an enormous profit potential. This isn't a cost of business, this is an investment to make an obvious profit. Quit being intellectually dishonest.
Uh, you might want to look into what charities he donates. A few recently have been good;many in the past have been ethically questionable.
Donating to provide free microsoft products to africa and microsoft training? I wouldn't act like such a "charitable act" is as much as it was a business decision.
Without digging into the whole conversation here, I just want to add: hairyfeet is actually exact correct, laches is referenced extremely often when it comes to legal cases. It's not questionable - it's pretty strongly noted. It's just that it's not the primary defense because most of the time it's more a question of "is this patent even valid?"
Patents in software are being pushed back more and more, so a shaky broad claim in a patent will not simply stick through a trial or even make it *to a trial* anymore. Judges are waking up to this nonsense. There are more and more precedents affirmed even by SCOTUS affirming exactly that. Bilski simply set the tone.
yep. Leading the way as usual. It's not like you'll ever hear of this from any other large technology focused companies - that's for certain. Whether it's manufacturers or software developers or any other aspect of technology, all you get is a general lack of transparency.
Yammer knows they have made a killing and absolutely lack the willingness or the balls to take responses to this decision. They know the obvious: they will be hammered for this with questions they don't want to have to answer. Microsoft knows sharepoint has always been complete garbage aside from certain business functionality (which ties in to what Yammer can do), so this is just an acknowledgement of an easily 10-15 year gap/weakness in their products.
Does this acquisition fix anything? Nope. We're easily looking at 1-2 years to "integrate" Yammer properly in some fashion, let alone dealing with Windows 8 at the same time may prove to create serious issues. Does anyone think Yammer of today is necessarily what people need a minimum of 2 years from now? That's the question which will be proven in time, but you don't need to be a genius to predict an answer of "no".
I hate Microsoft (so my view is not entirely unbiased), but if they're trying to do anything *other* than fail this is not the way to proceed. A solution would be: fixing some of their existing products (focus on quality) instead of taking hardline definitions of what is "in scope" for any particular program/product. Yet they simultaneously say "bolt on more programs if you want more functionality". Fixing things would go a very long way to making their products less shitty. Security is simply not a valid reason by itself for why expansion in scope for any product is refused and simply ignored outright. Then again, that's what you get with a proprietary vendor - it's their choice to disregard *your* feedback as a customer.
Boat. not Torpedo. Carrying a pair of torpedos in the water with supercavitating propellers on the front does not mean the boats supercavitate. Claiming a catamaran can go through the water would require more than just the "torpedos" to supercavitate. RTFA. A catamaran above the water is substantially different than the claims at hand - which is *underwater*.
I didn't say a thing about torpedos, because that's not even a question here.
Slashdot Mirror
I was referring to his "brands at newegg/best buy" of which the only proper choice is NONE.
this is bullshit.
You don't need a patent to make software.
Patent for a stradivarious is for making a physical product.
Let's not strawman this shit into oblivion, please.
When a software patent expires, the knowledge doesn't "magically disappear" people just start doing what they could have done the last X years that the patent existed. It's a monopoly, not a benefit.
Not if you don't want to get a cheap and/or gigantic piece of shit that can't even keep things secure, want actual functionality, etc.
90 million is bullshit. The bonds for this stuff (software "patent infringement" via the ITC loophole) should start at a 1-2 billion dollars and go up. That would certainly stop these bogus lawsuits.
That sure is a fine line there, isn't it.
except google maintained - so updates will come from google and won't wait on the carrier = stays up to date.
clarification: 8500/140k NSL's which can include wiretaps, 2700 NSL's before - but we're talking about 2700 *wiretaps* at the moment. That shows that the gov't has clearly moved in favor of NSL's.
Are you joking? This injunction isn't even enforceable, and if anything is going to make apple get more than warnings for anticompetitive behavior. DOJ's already investigating.
FRAND abuse means really nothing, the investigation was sparked by *microsoft* and a few senators were dumb enough to believe them.
Be careful? please. Guarantee even 6 months from now the Nexus will never stop being sold in the US.
You can replace google with every company that exists on the planet there - and you'd still be accurate. What's your point? Microsoft, apple, nokia, samsung, credit cards, paypal, ebay, etc.
You're already compromising your "spying" by buying anything in the first place.
really? How much proof do you need?
http://epic.org/privacy/nsl/#stats
NSL's are almost never even constitutional, so "not legal" wiretaps. Yet they're on an order of magnitude higher. 2700 wiretaps vs 8500 before the patriot act and 140k after the patriot act?
They shifted from legal methods (harder to obtain) to sanctioned but clearly illegal methods (simple to obtain, no judicial oversight, no perjury or accountability).
For those experienced with android it tells you something:
Nexus = owned by google = apple equivalent experience = things will work right.
Buying non-nexus products = responsibilities on the shoulders of either the mfr or the carrier if it's a phone = shoddy experience = things are broken and will not be fixed.
Except that we don't have a trial and he possibly faces extradition before a trial. Nice and fair, right? /sarcasm.
Not "end up with", we're already there. We already have 2 or 3 large players, but if you're thinking in terms of "competitors" you need to look at originators of the products, not the manufacturers.
We have: apple, google, microsoft.
There really isn't anyone else in the handset competitor category right now. Google entails: every major manufacturer. Apple entails: apple (via every manufacturer). Microsoft entails: every major manufacturer (eventually). So really it's everyone developing new things using the same subset of tools and trying to differentiate, but behind the scenes almost nothing in manufacturing has changed in more than probably 20 years.
I can just see it now:
"Did we get screwed? I think so"
while the reality is "Maybe we should have researched this before investing"
Did you forget the part of "Girl is out for money" (last paragraph of guardian/entire other article) among other things?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-12-09/us/28247531_1_wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-swedish-women-condom
It's called evernote, and it's done more (and in better ways) via going it's own direction than OneNote ever has. Also it works consistently across platforms and doesn't have gigantic issues sharing/hosting huge files.
You know why they gave their software away in another country? Because nobody went after them for dumping even though that's exactly what they did. They have even admitted this is the only reason for marketshare in China, as well.
There is nothing even logical about the argument you are making. Please don't make a stretched and ridiculously convoluted OS/device argument of open source vs microsoft vs apple comparison. There is no argument that is correct for Africa in your example.
Guess what. It's not expensive. The only reason for complaints is because it was never done in the first place. If this becomes properly commonplace it would easily provide benefit to more than just the hard of hearing. Some people, such as myself, would rather have a movie on mute with your own choice of preferred music instead of dramatic garbage they put into shitty movies. Or because movies are ridiculously loud. Or because of a TV and a computer in the same room - one person watching TV, the other on the computer.
This should not be about monetization - that is neither the answer nor even correct. This simply should be done for a variety of reasons such as foreign language speakers who can *read* english will then be able to watch movies or you can...gasp...have closed captions for other languages so that movies can be broadcast around the globe! Movie available for 1 country vs movie available in the 8 most popular languages. Which do you think gets more views (and thus more profit).
To act like there's somehow only a negative cost is to be completely and utterly dishonest to the fact that there's an enormous profit potential. This isn't a cost of business, this is an investment to make an obvious profit. Quit being intellectually dishonest.
Uh, you might want to look into what charities he donates. A few recently have been good;many in the past have been ethically questionable.
Donating to provide free microsoft products to africa and microsoft training? I wouldn't act like such a "charitable act" is as much as it was a business decision.
Without digging into the whole conversation here, I just want to add: hairyfeet is actually exact correct, laches is referenced extremely often when it comes to legal cases. It's not questionable - it's pretty strongly noted. It's just that it's not the primary defense because most of the time it's more a question of "is this patent even valid?"
Patents in software are being pushed back more and more, so a shaky broad claim in a patent will not simply stick through a trial or even make it *to a trial* anymore. Judges are waking up to this nonsense. There are more and more precedents affirmed even by SCOTUS affirming exactly that. Bilski simply set the tone.
"we'll add 20% to what was paid for Instagram, because we're top dog damnit"
Yep, that logic actually sounds right on for MS.
yep. Leading the way as usual. It's not like you'll ever hear of this from any other large technology focused companies - that's for certain. Whether it's manufacturers or software developers or any other aspect of technology, all you get is a general lack of transparency.
Yammer knows they have made a killing and absolutely lack the willingness or the balls to take responses to this decision. They know the obvious: they will be hammered for this with questions they don't want to have to answer.
Microsoft knows sharepoint has always been complete garbage aside from certain business functionality (which ties in to what Yammer can do), so this is just an acknowledgement of an easily 10-15 year gap/weakness in their products.
Does this acquisition fix anything? Nope. We're easily looking at 1-2 years to "integrate" Yammer properly in some fashion, let alone dealing with Windows 8 at the same time may prove to create serious issues. Does anyone think Yammer of today is necessarily what people need a minimum of 2 years from now? That's the question which will be proven in time, but you don't need to be a genius to predict an answer of "no".
I hate Microsoft (so my view is not entirely unbiased), but if they're trying to do anything *other* than fail this is not the way to proceed. A solution would be: fixing some of their existing products (focus on quality) instead of taking hardline definitions of what is "in scope" for any particular program/product. Yet they simultaneously say "bolt on more programs if you want more functionality". Fixing things would go a very long way to making their products less shitty. Security is simply not a valid reason by itself for why expansion in scope for any product is refused and simply ignored outright. Then again, that's what you get with a proprietary vendor - it's their choice to disregard *your* feedback as a customer.
Boat. not Torpedo. Carrying a pair of torpedos in the water with supercavitating propellers on the front does not mean the boats supercavitate. Claiming a catamaran can go through the water would require more than just the "torpedos" to supercavitate. RTFA. A catamaran above the water is substantially different than the claims at hand - which is *underwater*.
I didn't say a thing about torpedos, because that's not even a question here.
Basically, scientists say the "supercavitating boat" is basically a bunch of BS and/or not that likely. Hype as usual.