You're letting your hatred of MS blind you to the likely, and perfectly reasonable, response they would take.
First, I don't "hate" Microsoft. I dislike their products and business practices and would prefer not to have to deal with their shit as much as I do, but emotions like "hate" and "love" are wasted on something as impersonal as a large corporation.
Second, their history strongly indicates that they don't do "reasonable".
but if Google were to block Microsoft ads
I don't expect they would. My comment was an example of behaviour approximately equivalent to what Microsoft is doing with the WP YouTube app, not a prediction of Google's response. As you say, it would be incredibly stupid of Google to start a war involving the suppression of advertising, and I haven't seen anything from them suggesting they'd play that way. I do expect they'll take measures to block the WP app, but I don't know how it'll play out after that. I think they might have solid grounds for a trademark complaint.
Near as I can determine, Google's main strategy for competing with Microsoft's mobile stuff is to just avoid being associated with it, and this cease and desist against the YouTube app is consistent with that approach. I don't see anything particularly "evil" about that.
If this is just a pissing contest between two behemoths, neither of whom is one bit less than 50% evil, then I just don't care.
Yeah, it's definitely a pissing contest between two behemoths. That's the difference from the various apps and extensions which do the same sorts of things.
That being said, I'm going to root for the behemoth that I don't personally dislike. Google provides me with useful services. Microsoft has a long history of giving my nothing by high blood pressure. It's a no brainer.
If Google modified the Chrome browser to strip out ads on/from Microsoft owned properties, Microsoft would have a fit. Anti-trust complaints in multiple jurisdiction, legal threats, political lobbying, chair throwing, the works.
It's like the even bigger fuckfaces of the older politician generation bred just wimps on purpose so they wouldn't be ousted before being literally too senile to talk.
George Bush Jr. demonstrated how badly that strategy can backfire...
AOL reads your messages. Google reads your messages. Facebook reads your messages. Apple reads your messages. Microsoft reads your messages.
How is this news? The price for free IM is that they read your messages and sell the info they gather to advertisers.
Microsoft's recent ad campaign suggesting that Google reading your messages is somehow unethical make it news, I'd imagine.
There *may* be some moral difference between reading your messages for your protection versus reading your messages to target ads, but I doubt that Microsoft bothered to make that distinction when they were complaining about Google's practices.
This is a bad indicator for MSFT right here as you haven't been able to get non Windows X86 from the mainstream OEMs since OS/2 was canceled because to do so was the kiss of death.
Except netbooks. Which, in a way, is another solid example of Microsoft losing their their shit. Having to keep XP "alive" for a few extra years maybe did a bit to hobble Vista growth.
Windows 8 is the only version I have seen where people around you will spontaneously chime in and tell you how much they hate it. Even WinME wasn't like that.
I got that with Vista. Heck, I had people blaming Vista for stuff which wasn't even its fault, like saving.docx by default. Understandable, at some level. If you put a turd in a box, the scent's going to permeate the other contents.
On the other hand, I don't know anyone yet who's actually tried Windows 8 enough to bitch about it.
No one cares what the testing procedure is as long as everyone does the same test and it's repeatable.
Wrong.
It's like standardized CPU or GPU benchmarks; manufacturers cannot be trusted not to cheat on the tests and blow off "real world" scenarios just to make the numbers look good for marketing.
If a car spends 80% of its lifetime on the Interstate at 70MPH, you'll probably care if it's getting 45MPG or 35MPG, irrespective of the 47MPG it claims to get at 60MPH in testing.
A hat with some discrete solar panels and some hidden batteries would be practical and not be too dorky. Depending on the hat.
Real dorks would wear a beanie with a propeller for recharging. Although I'm not sure there's enough wind in their parents basement to make a difference.
The WRT54G and its derivatives are positively ancient in computer terms. They date to 2002- over 11 years ago. They can't really keep up with modern demands on routers.
It depends on your demands. My WRT54G is fine for 95% of the things I throw at it... about the only thing it chokes on is streaming 1080p video over wireless. Since my main media player is on ethernet, that's mostly a non-issue.
Admittedly, I'm in a very rural area and my ISP is over a fixed wireless connection which maxes out at 90's era DSL speeds, so I'm not exactly hammering on it like city folks would and I don't have to fight with 2.4GHz congestion.
Eventually I'll get around to replacing it. The added range of the newer wireless standards would be nice, and I'd love a USB port or two. But it's no hurry.
If you have one of the WRT54G series now, do you really need frequent updates on the firmware?
That's a legit argument. The only thing I've really wanted beyond the original Linksys firmware is QoS, sshd, and some of the security enhancements/fixes. Tomato from 2010 gives me everything I need.
If it's a painting that money can be made from by selling duplicates then it's not unfair on the artist if you do that - the artist could just as well have done it themselves but they opted to sell it you.
Actually, the artist could have made a scan before the sale, and as the copyright owner (unless the sale involves an explicit rights transfer) they would always have the right to crank out copies. Might be useful if the buyer's cheque bounces...
So what if neither the artist nor the owner are the ones who decide to make the copies? What if the cleaner snaps a high res photo, uploads it to a stock photo site, and someone else makes the copies?
I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of a shorter term, but the problem with the GP's solution is it appeared to assume that copyrighted goods are continuously marketed and copied throughout their lifetime, and as soon as the creator stops cranking out copies it goes public domain. It's actually not a bad idea if you can somehow figure out how to apply it to Disney without essentially destroying the market for unique or limited run pieces.
I believe that should be part of ANY copyright law. In order for copyright to be maintained. A work of art must be available for sale within a 5 year period. Stop selling it, and you lose your copyright.
So, if I buy a one-of-a-kind painting and hold on to it for 5 years and one month, the original artist loses his/her copyright (since it's no longer being sold) and I can sell as many copies as I like?
He's pushing into a gray area and setting a very early precedent that will impact the availability of 3D printing for the rest of America.
What he's doing doesn't really matter. It could just as easily be someone printing dildos in Alabama or cloned Games Workshop miniatures. At some point, someone is going to use 3D printing to do something the government really doesn't like, and... well, I'm not sure anyone really knows what's going to happen.
Personally, I'd prefer that the government gets a bloody nose going after the second amendment nuts than quietly shutting down sex toy creators.
I *really* hope that sanity will prevail, but I'm not holding my breath.
Yeah, that's pretty much my feelings when I see anything to do with the US government and copyright. It's sad when the best you can hope for is that it doesn't get much worse.
I can't wait! But haven't they done so already by suing Motorola?
Well, you'd think, but I'm not sure. For a company that talks about how others are stealing their innovation, Microsoft seems pretty reluctant to tackle Google head-on over their supposed Android patent violations. And these periodic one-sided "Android maker licensed our stuff" announcements...
I can't quite put my finger on it, but I just get the feeling that Microsoft doesn't really hold the cards they're telling people they have.
Personally I'd buy a huge yacht (inc. surface to air missiles) and sail around the world with a harem of supermodel concubines. For the rest of my natural life...
Ah, the John McAfee package. Seems to be popular with the techie crowd. We're also having a special this week on the Kim Dotcom plan, if you're interested?
Ah... anyhow, there's probably a reason that these people are extremely rich and you're not. Luck is obviously a factor, but it takes a certain kind of drive to keep playing the game well after you need to.
No doubt there's something in her Facebook activity history indicating whether she joined herself or was added by someone else. That should be all the proof she needs.
Microsoft may have done some innovation and may have the patents to prove it, but given their history as an abuser of the patent system, legal system, innocent chairs, and the very word "innovation", nobody is going to just take their word for it.
Well, apparently, the USPTO did. But they were under a lot of pressure at the time...
From the context, I would have thought it was obvious that I meant "nobody who knows anything thing at all about patents or innovation". But thank you anyways for pointing that out.
I would like you to invent something, spend millions of dollars developing it, and then have some other little upstart steal the idea and get rich off your idea without giving you a single dime or line of recognition.
Exactly. Someone busts their ass, comes up with a great idea, patents it, builds it, markets it, and then some dipshit comes along and adds some obvious, trivial modification like "on a computer", "on a phone", "on a bicycle", etc to your idea, patents this trivial change, and rakes in the dough.
Or were you thinking of something else?
That's the crux of the problem. Few have a beef against the idea that if you innovated, it's nice if you get paid. The problem is that there's an incredibly tenuous link between patents and real innovation, and it's to the point now where most smart people treat them as entirely independent things.
Now, since patents and innovation are largely considered unrelated, the only way someone can determine whether a patent truly represents innovation is by looking at the patent itself. Absent that, and particularly in scenarios where someone refuses to identify the patent(s), the only sane assumption one can make is that it's not innovation.
Hence the present situation with Microsoft, and pretty much anyone else who waves around patents without allowing verification, not to mention those who wave around whatever shit they can get rubber stamped by their patent office.
Microsoft may have done some innovation and may have the patents to prove it, but given their history as an abuser of the patent system, legal system, innocent chairs, and the very word "innovation", nobody is going to just take their word for it.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean "pieces of terrorist dust", don't you?
I thought it was to burn the entire field to the ground, then sift the ashes over a magnet?
First, I don't "hate" Microsoft. I dislike their products and business practices and would prefer not to have to deal with their shit as much as I do, but emotions like "hate" and "love" are wasted on something as impersonal as a large corporation.
Second, their history strongly indicates that they don't do "reasonable".
I don't expect they would. My comment was an example of behaviour approximately equivalent to what Microsoft is doing with the WP YouTube app, not a prediction of Google's response. As you say, it would be incredibly stupid of Google to start a war involving the suppression of advertising, and I haven't seen anything from them suggesting they'd play that way. I do expect they'll take measures to block the WP app, but I don't know how it'll play out after that. I think they might have solid grounds for a trademark complaint.
Near as I can determine, Google's main strategy for competing with Microsoft's mobile stuff is to just avoid being associated with it, and this cease and desist against the YouTube app is consistent with that approach. I don't see anything particularly "evil" about that.
Yeah, it's definitely a pissing contest between two behemoths. That's the difference from the various apps and extensions which do the same sorts of things.
That being said, I'm going to root for the behemoth that I don't personally dislike. Google provides me with useful services. Microsoft has a long history of giving my nothing by high blood pressure. It's a no brainer.
If Google modified the Chrome browser to strip out ads on/from Microsoft owned properties, Microsoft would have a fit. Anti-trust complaints in multiple jurisdiction, legal threats, political lobbying, chair throwing, the works.
So yes, fuck them.
George Bush Jr. demonstrated how badly that strategy can backfire...
Microsoft's recent ad campaign suggesting that Google reading your messages is somehow unethical make it news, I'd imagine.
There *may* be some moral difference between reading your messages for your protection versus reading your messages to target ads, but I doubt that Microsoft bothered to make that distinction when they were complaining about Google's practices.
A one-word first post from an Anonymous Coward which accurately and completely describes my feelings about the whole deal.
They must be ice skating in Hell today, I tell you...
I used to have that problem too, but then I got myself a 3D printer...
Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got another set of ABS meathooks to clean up.
I'd pledge $5 to the "Send Snooki Home" kickstarter...
Except netbooks. Which, in a way, is another solid example of Microsoft losing their their shit. Having to keep XP "alive" for a few extra years maybe did a bit to hobble Vista growth.
I got that with Vista. Heck, I had people blaming Vista for stuff which wasn't even its fault, like saving .docx by default. Understandable, at some level. If you put a turd in a box, the scent's going to permeate the other contents.
On the other hand, I don't know anyone yet who's actually tried Windows 8 enough to bitch about it.
Wrong.
It's like standardized CPU or GPU benchmarks; manufacturers cannot be trusted not to cheat on the tests and blow off "real world" scenarios just to make the numbers look good for marketing.
If a car spends 80% of its lifetime on the Interstate at 70MPH, you'll probably care if it's getting 45MPG or 35MPG, irrespective of the 47MPG it claims to get at 60MPH in testing.
A hat with some discrete solar panels and some hidden batteries would be practical and not be too dorky. Depending on the hat.
Real dorks would wear a beanie with a propeller for recharging. Although I'm not sure there's enough wind in their parents basement to make a difference.
It depends on your demands. My WRT54G is fine for 95% of the things I throw at it... about the only thing it chokes on is streaming 1080p video over wireless. Since my main media player is on ethernet, that's mostly a non-issue.
Admittedly, I'm in a very rural area and my ISP is over a fixed wireless connection which maxes out at 90's era DSL speeds, so I'm not exactly hammering on it like city folks would and I don't have to fight with 2.4GHz congestion.
Eventually I'll get around to replacing it. The added range of the newer wireless standards would be nice, and I'd love a USB port or two. But it's no hurry.
That's a legit argument. The only thing I've really wanted beyond the original Linksys firmware is QoS, sshd, and some of the security enhancements/fixes. Tomato from 2010 gives me everything I need.
Actually, the artist could have made a scan before the sale, and as the copyright owner (unless the sale involves an explicit rights transfer) they would always have the right to crank out copies. Might be useful if the buyer's cheque bounces...
So what if neither the artist nor the owner are the ones who decide to make the copies? What if the cleaner snaps a high res photo, uploads it to a stock photo site, and someone else makes the copies?
I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of a shorter term, but the problem with the GP's solution is it appeared to assume that copyrighted goods are continuously marketed and copied throughout their lifetime, and as soon as the creator stops cranking out copies it goes public domain. It's actually not a bad idea if you can somehow figure out how to apply it to Disney without essentially destroying the market for unique or limited run pieces.
So, if I buy a one-of-a-kind painting and hold on to it for 5 years and one month, the original artist loses his/her copyright (since it's no longer being sold) and I can sell as many copies as I like?
What he's doing doesn't really matter. It could just as easily be someone printing dildos in Alabama or cloned Games Workshop miniatures. At some point, someone is going to use 3D printing to do something the government really doesn't like, and... well, I'm not sure anyone really knows what's going to happen.
Personally, I'd prefer that the government gets a bloody nose going after the second amendment nuts than quietly shutting down sex toy creators.
Yeah, that's pretty much my feelings when I see anything to do with the US government and copyright. It's sad when the best you can hope for is that it doesn't get much worse.
Well, you'd think, but I'm not sure. For a company that talks about how others are stealing their innovation, Microsoft seems pretty reluctant to tackle Google head-on over their supposed Android patent violations. And these periodic one-sided "Android maker licensed our stuff" announcements...
I can't quite put my finger on it, but I just get the feeling that Microsoft doesn't really hold the cards they're telling people they have.
Eventually, they're actually going to have to tell Motorola/Google (and everyone else) exactly what the patents are...
Ah, the John McAfee package. Seems to be popular with the techie crowd. We're also having a special this week on the Kim Dotcom plan, if you're interested?
Ah... anyhow, there's probably a reason that these people are extremely rich and you're not. Luck is obviously a factor, but it takes a certain kind of drive to keep playing the game well after you need to.
No doubt there's something in her Facebook activity history indicating whether she joined herself or was added by someone else. That should be all the proof she needs.
From the context, I would have thought it was obvious that I meant "nobody who knows anything thing at all about patents or innovation". But thank you anyways for pointing that out.
Exactly. Someone busts their ass, comes up with a great idea, patents it, builds it, markets it, and then some dipshit comes along and adds some obvious, trivial modification like "on a computer", "on a phone", "on a bicycle", etc to your idea, patents this trivial change, and rakes in the dough.
Or were you thinking of something else?
That's the crux of the problem. Few have a beef against the idea that if you innovated, it's nice if you get paid. The problem is that there's an incredibly tenuous link between patents and real innovation, and it's to the point now where most smart people treat them as entirely independent things.
Now, since patents and innovation are largely considered unrelated, the only way someone can determine whether a patent truly represents innovation is by looking at the patent itself. Absent that, and particularly in scenarios where someone refuses to identify the patent(s), the only sane assumption one can make is that it's not innovation.
Hence the present situation with Microsoft, and pretty much anyone else who waves around patents without allowing verification, not to mention those who wave around whatever shit they can get rubber stamped by their patent office.
Microsoft may have done some innovation and may have the patents to prove it, but given their history as an abuser of the patent system, legal system, innocent chairs, and the very word "innovation", nobody is going to just take their word for it.