Maybe they should, but that's their choice, not yours. It's their business decision.
In general, companies are afraid of wifi (and legitimately so, I believe) because it causes people to sit around, NOT consuming things. Sure I might go buy a drink at sbux and sit and read a book for 30 mins or something, but with wireless I'll sit there with that drink for 4 hours. I'm not going to buy more.
They aren't suing because they're competition, they're suing because they own 28% of Craigslist, and Craigslist has been (supposedly) diluting their share. This is EXTREMELY illegal, if done for reasons other than sound financial judgment (and I can't believe Craigslist has a legit reason for issuing more shares, if that is what they've been doing).
Regardless of what you think of eBay, this is a bad deal by Craigslist, if true.
For those of you that are going to ask
on
eBay Sues Craigslist
·
· Score: 5, Informative
1) Craigslist is a closely held company not traded on the open market
2) This is a dilution suit. This means that basically, in a closely held company, it's easy for a majority shareholder to screw a minority shareholder, since the minority shareholder can't outvote them and can't get other shareholders to support it. Therefore, we have a lot of laws protecting minority shareholders. In this case, it seems that eBay has issued extra stock, which means that eBay no longer really has 28%, but rather less, effectively. This CAN be legal, but there has to be a solid, nonpredatory reason for it.
3) eBay managed to get its share because craigslist had issued some shares to close employees, on the assumption that it didn't matter and was just to feel nice. One of those employees decided to sell his stake publicly, and eBay bought it. Normally, no one would have been able to get access to Craigslist stock.
I'm a 3L at Northeastern, and they never used to allow internet access in the classrooms. Access points were carefully spaced so that they wouldn't reach the classrooms. Then this year, the University finally came to the law school and said "No. You have to have 100% wireless access throughout the entire school." Basically, the University strong-armed the school into 100% wireless because they wanted to be able to brag to US News/etc that the entire University was 100% wireless.
The result? Well, I'm sitting in class right now, so you take your pick.
At some level this is redundant, but I'm going to state it in a slightly different way.
Of course distributing via BitTorrent is cheaper for the originator, nobody could possibly argue this. But I'd like to see a study on the TOTAL cost to society. In other words, yes it's cheaper for the originator, but there is no such thing as a free lunch. SOMEBODY is paying for all that bandwidth/etc. If you have bandwidth limits, perhaps you are paying for them to distribute their file. If you don't (as we in the US do not) then the telecommunications company is paying. Bandwidth does not materialize out of thin air. SOMEBODY pays. Further, BitTorrent is not exactly efficient. It uses a lot more requests/connections/etc to download or distribute via BT than it does via HTTP/FTP/etc.
The offsetting factor may be the more distributed load over the system, since there's no central point, really. I'm not sure how much this really helps though.
I guess my point is, the total cost to society of BitTorrent use may very well be higher than that for distributing by older methods.
Yes, that's why they announced the bid. They've been trying to reach a deal to purchase, and can't get Diebold to agree, so they're going straight to the shareholders.
Anyway, I've been trying to find a job at UTC for years... they're a great conglomerate (and based nearby). Maybe I can find one at Diebold UTC;-)
BD was demonstrated (by Pioneer, I want to say, but I don't feel like searching right now) at 200 GB. So you can talk about 3-layer, 45 GB HD-DVD all you want, but it was no more real than 200 GB BD's.
It was funny when you had no idea who he was, what he was coming from, etc. It's like Anonymous Lawyer - once I found out he was just some kid that went to law school and didn't become a lawyer, it was much less interesting than when it seemed like he might be some big firm lawyer just grossly exaggerating what went on.
Do not call is one thing. That's people actively annoying you. But that's different from people not being able to FIND you. So what I want to know (unless I'm blind and didn't see it in the article) is what exactly they intend to restrict. Phone numbers and names should available. They always were in phone books, and the internet is really no different. When I get a call I don't recognize, I want to look it up. It's annoyed me for years that cell phones usually aren't listed in whitepages.com reverse lookups.
Now, I can understand the restriction of some data - at some point, it probably does get too much. But I'm not sure where that point is, and I sure as heck know that it isn't "name+phone#=bad." I want people to be able to find my number online when they need to, and I want to find others. Saying "well it'd be your option" isn't accurate, because it'd be other peoples option as to whether or not I'd find theirs.
A child's view of the $100 laptop is good and all
on
A Child's View of the OLPC
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
But what about a child's view of the $200 laptop?
Also, somebody might have pointed this out already, but this guy took a laptop from Nigeria to bring to the UK? That seems to defeat the point (from how it's stated in the article, it doesn't seem that it was from the buy one/give one program).
Most major universities control massive patent/IP portfolios... see the CalTech or BU for major examples. Universities are corporations, nothing more or less. The research done there is assigned to the corporation/school.
The vast majority of towers are no longer owned by the cell carriers... if companies want to put up equipment on the towers, they can. Any company. Not just the cell carriers. Call up American Tower. Call up any of the companies. Anyone can rent space on a tower.
I was going to say that I agree with you that the dramatic number of tax jurisdictions would make tracking internet tax very difficult... but the more that I think about it, the more I disagree.
First: Software to track taxes already exists, because of sales tax - big companies that have locations in many places already have to track this. It isn't as extensive as full internet tax would need to be (assuming every jurisdiction passes one, which is unlikely, but who knows) but the software would grow with the need. Yes, payment would be a bitch, I can't argue that.
Second: I do agree a flat rate across the board makes a lot of sense.
Third: Why is erasing some of the advantage of an internet business a bad thing? Personally, I'd love to see brick and mortar be able to be more competitive. How many of us abuse brick and mortar stores by going in, looking at things, then ordering them online for a few bucks (or a lot of bucks) savings? That's not fair to the b&m. Further, if it gets bad enough (and it is pretty bad), b&m's start shutting down, and then we really have nowhere to go. You may not lament the loss of these "rip off" stores, but when you want to go look at something and have nowhere to go, it's a serious problem. I'm not sad if internet companies have more overhead. Not to mention that b&m's have to charge you taxes, so why shouldn't net companies?
"Your tax burden in general should never be decreased - it's just a matter of how it's taken from you."
Why?
Perhaps I'm taking you out of context, but to suggest that taxes should never be decreased... well it's just wrong.
Tax burdens cannot be decreased as long as spending is the same (or higher). Of course we can decrease taxes if our spending goes drastically down, but given the same amount of spending, your burden cannot decrease - as it is, the government spends more than it takes in.
This actually makes sense to me, as much as most of/. will hate it. It means states, and even the feds, can't insert taxes on access or on most things, but it excludes from that ban a service which has a direct analogue in the... analog world. Taxes on phone services such as the Universal Service Fee go (at least theoretically) to extending access to people that don't have it.
Here's what it really comes down to - as taxes decrease from one source, they must increase from another. The government isn't spending less money, so if less people have phone lines, they must make up the money some other way. Like it or hate it, that's the fact. And yes, this means that eventually, there will probably be an internet sales tax. It's just a matter of what congressmen are willing to be vilified in the eyes of the public, in order to get it done. And if there isn't, it just means income tax (both fed and especially state) must be increased, or some other form of taxation found. Your tax burden in general should never be decreased - it's just a matter of how it's taken from you.
How about IBM FileNet? Or are you looking for something free? We use FileNet everywhere I've been.
The downside to the suggestions like Google Appliances is that you're then storing this information on Google servers.... something that most companies find HIGHLY objectionable (security).
They're talking about notice requirements... this is not a principled paper, this is not anything that will change or harm DRM in any way. Worse comes to worse for the companies is just them putting a notice somewhere saying they're doing this. Look elsewhere if you want news.
This whole "spotlight" on the group is silly. First off, the name notwithstanding, the group really isn't that full of "hate." But even if it was, who cares?! It's a group of people that think a certain way, and it's on a site that allows people to create groups to talk about whatever they want. Why should the group be censored? I don't want to have to worry about what somebody is going to let me say, on a social site.
We also know that Joe Average is fully willing to pay $1.98, especially for both song and ringtone. Ringtones at $2, $3, even $4 are a completely proven market - a MASSIVE market. People ARE willing to pay. And you know what? For $0.99 over what I've already paid, I'm not sure I wouldn't either.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they should, but that's their choice, not yours. It's their business decision.
In general, companies are afraid of wifi (and legitimately so, I believe) because it causes people to sit around, NOT consuming things. Sure I might go buy a drink at sbux and sit and read a book for 30 mins or something, but with wireless I'll sit there with that drink for 4 hours. I'm not going to buy more.
They aren't suing because they're competition, they're suing because they own 28% of Craigslist, and Craigslist has been (supposedly) diluting their share. This is EXTREMELY illegal, if done for reasons other than sound financial judgment (and I can't believe Craigslist has a legit reason for issuing more shares, if that is what they've been doing).
Regardless of what you think of eBay, this is a bad deal by Craigslist, if true.
1) Craigslist is a closely held company not traded on the open market
2) This is a dilution suit. This means that basically, in a closely held company, it's easy for a majority shareholder to screw a minority shareholder, since the minority shareholder can't outvote them and can't get other shareholders to support it. Therefore, we have a lot of laws protecting minority shareholders. In this case, it seems that eBay has issued extra stock, which means that eBay no longer really has 28%, but rather less, effectively. This CAN be legal, but there has to be a solid, nonpredatory reason for it.
3) eBay managed to get its share because craigslist had issued some shares to close employees, on the assumption that it didn't matter and was just to feel nice. One of those employees decided to sell his stake publicly, and eBay bought it. Normally, no one would have been able to get access to Craigslist stock.
I'm a 3L at Northeastern, and they never used to allow internet access in the classrooms. Access points were carefully spaced so that they wouldn't reach the classrooms. Then this year, the University finally came to the law school and said "No. You have to have 100% wireless access throughout the entire school." Basically, the University strong-armed the school into 100% wireless because they wanted to be able to brag to US News /etc that the entire University was 100% wireless.
The result? Well, I'm sitting in class right now, so you take your pick.
At some level this is redundant, but I'm going to state it in a slightly different way.
Of course distributing via BitTorrent is cheaper for the originator, nobody could possibly argue this. But I'd like to see a study on the TOTAL cost to society. In other words, yes it's cheaper for the originator, but there is no such thing as a free lunch. SOMEBODY is paying for all that bandwidth/etc. If you have bandwidth limits, perhaps you are paying for them to distribute their file. If you don't (as we in the US do not) then the telecommunications company is paying. Bandwidth does not materialize out of thin air. SOMEBODY pays. Further, BitTorrent is not exactly efficient. It uses a lot more requests/connections/etc to download or distribute via BT than it does via HTTP/FTP/etc.
The offsetting factor may be the more distributed load over the system, since there's no central point, really. I'm not sure how much this really helps though.
I guess my point is, the total cost to society of BitTorrent use may very well be higher than that for distributing by older methods.
Now, I'm finishing up a law degree. I did work for IBM for 8 years (I'm from Fairfield county).
Yes, that's why they announced the bid. They've been trying to reach a deal to purchase, and can't get Diebold to agree, so they're going straight to the shareholders.
;-)
Anyway, I've been trying to find a job at UTC for years... they're a great conglomerate (and based nearby). Maybe I can find one at Diebold UTC
BD was demonstrated (by Pioneer, I want to say, but I don't feel like searching right now) at 200 GB. So you can talk about 3-layer, 45 GB HD-DVD all you want, but it was no more real than 200 GB BD's.
Did you think /. was voting for Clinton in the first place?
It was funny when you had no idea who he was, what he was coming from, etc. It's like Anonymous Lawyer - once I found out he was just some kid that went to law school and didn't become a lawyer, it was much less interesting than when it seemed like he might be some big firm lawyer just grossly exaggerating what went on.
Fake Steve Jobs is far less funny now that we know who he really is.
Do not call is one thing. That's people actively annoying you. But that's different from people not being able to FIND you. So what I want to know (unless I'm blind and didn't see it in the article) is what exactly they intend to restrict. Phone numbers and names should available. They always were in phone books, and the internet is really no different. When I get a call I don't recognize, I want to look it up. It's annoyed me for years that cell phones usually aren't listed in whitepages.com reverse lookups.
Now, I can understand the restriction of some data - at some point, it probably does get too much. But I'm not sure where that point is, and I sure as heck know that it isn't "name+phone#=bad." I want people to be able to find my number online when they need to, and I want to find others. Saying "well it'd be your option" isn't accurate, because it'd be other peoples option as to whether or not I'd find theirs.
Trademark definitely has fair use.
http://www.publaw.com/fairusetrade.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(US_trademark_law)
But what about a child's view of the $200 laptop?
Also, somebody might have pointed this out already, but this guy took a laptop from Nigeria to bring to the UK? That seems to defeat the point (from how it's stated in the article, it doesn't seem that it was from the buy one/give one program).
That's true of much research though. The government funds a lot of research, both in universities and elsewhere.
Most major universities control massive patent/IP portfolios... see the CalTech or BU for major examples. Universities are corporations, nothing more or less. The research done there is assigned to the corporation/school.
The vast majority of towers are no longer owned by the cell carriers... if companies want to put up equipment on the towers, they can. Any company. Not just the cell carriers. Call up American Tower. Call up any of the companies. Anyone can rent space on a tower.
I was going to say that I agree with you that the dramatic number of tax jurisdictions would make tracking internet tax very difficult... but the more that I think about it, the more I disagree.
First: Software to track taxes already exists, because of sales tax - big companies that have locations in many places already have to track this. It isn't as extensive as full internet tax would need to be (assuming every jurisdiction passes one, which is unlikely, but who knows) but the software would grow with the need. Yes, payment would be a bitch, I can't argue that.
Second: I do agree a flat rate across the board makes a lot of sense.
Third: Why is erasing some of the advantage of an internet business a bad thing? Personally, I'd love to see brick and mortar be able to be more competitive. How many of us abuse brick and mortar stores by going in, looking at things, then ordering them online for a few bucks (or a lot of bucks) savings? That's not fair to the b&m. Further, if it gets bad enough (and it is pretty bad), b&m's start shutting down, and then we really have nowhere to go. You may not lament the loss of these "rip off" stores, but when you want to go look at something and have nowhere to go, it's a serious problem. I'm not sad if internet companies have more overhead. Not to mention that b&m's have to charge you taxes, so why shouldn't net companies?
"Your tax burden in general should never be decreased - it's just a matter of how it's taken from you."
Why?
Perhaps I'm taking you out of context, but to suggest that taxes should never be decreased... well it's just wrong.
Tax burdens cannot be decreased as long as spending is the same (or higher). Of course we can decrease taxes if our spending goes drastically down, but given the same amount of spending, your burden cannot decrease - as it is, the government spends more than it takes in.
This actually makes sense to me, as much as most of /. will hate it. It means states, and even the feds, can't insert taxes on access or on most things, but it excludes from that ban a service which has a direct analogue in the ... analog world. Taxes on phone services such as the Universal Service Fee go (at least theoretically) to extending access to people that don't have it.
Here's what it really comes down to - as taxes decrease from one source, they must increase from another. The government isn't spending less money, so if less people have phone lines, they must make up the money some other way. Like it or hate it, that's the fact. And yes, this means that eventually, there will probably be an internet sales tax. It's just a matter of what congressmen are willing to be vilified in the eyes of the public, in order to get it done. And if there isn't, it just means income tax (both fed and especially state) must be increased, or some other form of taxation found. Your tax burden in general should never be decreased - it's just a matter of how it's taken from you.
I should amend what I said. I was referring to Google Desktop Search, not the standalone, separated Google Appliance application/hw.
How about IBM FileNet? Or are you looking for something free? We use FileNet everywhere I've been.
The downside to the suggestions like Google Appliances is that you're then storing this information on Google servers.... something that most companies find HIGHLY objectionable (security).
They're talking about notice requirements... this is not a principled paper, this is not anything that will change or harm DRM in any way. Worse comes to worse for the companies is just them putting a notice somewhere saying they're doing this. Look elsewhere if you want news.
This whole "spotlight" on the group is silly. First off, the name notwithstanding, the group really isn't that full of "hate." But even if it was, who cares?! It's a group of people that think a certain way, and it's on a site that allows people to create groups to talk about whatever they want. Why should the group be censored? I don't want to have to worry about what somebody is going to let me say, on a social site.
We also know that Joe Average is fully willing to pay $1.98, especially for both song and ringtone. Ringtones at $2, $3, even $4 are a completely proven market - a MASSIVE market. People ARE willing to pay. And you know what? For $0.99 over what I've already paid, I'm not sure I wouldn't either.