"Lastly, re: economic absurdity, I never said people would buy Macs specifically to run Windows. People will buy Macs to run Mac OS X."
Actually, about two years ago I was forced to buy a PC to run some software that would definitely not run on a Macintosh, even under emulation (some CD copy protection scheme). I bought the cheapest eMachines PC I could find. Had something like the Mac Mini been available and had it been capable of running Windows, that is most definitely what I would have bought. I'd rather pay a little bit more for something that doesn't look as offensive, and in case of the Mac Mini the space savings are enormous.
I think if Apple sold Apple PCs (hardware identical to an Intel Macintosh, but with Windows XP installed instead of MacOS X), somewhere hidden in the corner of the Apple Store website, they could probably sell a few hundred thousand every year with no effort at all. First to Macintosh fans who need to buy a PC for some reason, second to Windows users who like nice hardware. Say half a percent of the total Windows PC market. Easy money.
XCode lets you target MacOS X 10.4 for Intel and MacOS X 10.3 for PowerPC simultaneously. In one universal binary. So the same binary can run on 10.3 Panther on PowerPC and 10.4 Tiger on Intel processors.
"While I understand that sometimes the person in question is from a non english speaking country and that english is a second, or third, language, my guess is that is rarely the case."
Posters should also realize that a person whose second or third language is English, will usually find it much harder to read and understand sentences with incorrect grammar or with spelling mistakes. For that reason, I consider it just basic politeness to try to use correct spelling and grammar.
You don't give evidence in your complaint. You put accusations into your complaint, the evidence comes separate. Some evidence you may not even have. For example, AMD would be likely to question the compiler engineers about their reasons why their compiler produces the code that it produces, and since lying means doing time in jail, these engineers will most likely tell the truth.
"I would think Intel writes their compilers to take full advantage of their chips. Should they also be examining the AMD chips to make sure that all the optimizations that work on Intel will continue to work properly on AMD?"
The Intel compiler team has two choices: The can choose not to test on AMD chips at all. Which is fine, since these chips are supposed to be Intel compatible, so all the Intel code should work just fine. The other choice is, they test on AMD.
If they test on AMD, it doesn't make any difference to the testing effort whether the compiler uses the Intel optimised code paths on AMD as well and the compiler team tests whether the Intel optimised code runs correctly on AMD, or whether they use a slow code path on AMD and test that slow code path.
In other words, testing effort is in no way an excuse for what Intel is accused of doing.
"If it is their CPU, they use the special features of their product.
If it is a competing product they simply use the most reliable implementation.
Sounds quite reasonable to me, and anything less could get them in trouble.
What if they coded in an AMD feature incorrectly, and didn't happen to notice?"
AMD processors have exactly the same special features. The P4 optimised code can run on an AMD processor just as reliable as it will run on a P4. And if it doesn't, that would be AMD's problem, not Intel's.
Actually, if it didn't run on AMD chips, that would give Intel a way to f*** AMD legally. Since they didn't choose to do that, I would think they couldn't produce code that would run on P4 and not on AMD.
Now if Intel could find instructions that are much slower on AMD than on P4, and used them a lot in their P4 code, that would be entirely legal. I know it could be done the other way round, because P4 has some interesting performance traps.
"Do they really believe that whatever form of encryption they use won't eventually be cracked?"
Lets say you build a monitor with this encryption. Your monitor has a public key that identifies it and a set of private keys. If anyone manages to extract the private keys, and builds the right hardware, they could then decode any contents so far.
As a result, that monitor would be blacklisted. Anyone owning that monitor would not be able to see any content created after the crack was known. Can you see how there would be some very unhappy customers and some very unhappy manufacturer? So the manufacturer will do everything they can to protect the private keys.
I don't think so. Itanium is a collection of everything that was a good idea in 1996. Many things that were a good idea in 1996 are not a good idea in 2005. And including _everything_ that was a good idea in 1996 wasn't a good idea in 1996!
"I ranted about this sort of thing on my blog recently. What's happening here is simply that companies are failing to supply what consumers want."
I know people who don't pay 12 or 15 pound for a quality DVD, but they pay five pound for a crappy pirated copy. They buy it because it is cheap. I think it would be no technical problem at all to make an encoder that can produce "Video Recorder Quality" DVDs, and then sell them for half the price of normal DVDs. That should get rid of a lot of piracy.
I wonder what it would do to sales. Many people would buy xx pounds worth of DVDs every month, and they would buy more if they are cheaper. But piracy would definitely go down.
First of all it is copyright infringement.
Second, I am quite willing to call copyright infringement theft if and only if the act of copyright infringement is in some way damaging to the copyright holder.
Example 1: We have a bet that I can find 200 different versions of "Bridge Over Troubled Water" on the internet. I manage to download 178 different versions. Did this damage anyone? No. Therefore, no theft.
Example 2: We enter a record store. You pick a record, take your wallet, and you are going to buy the record. I stop you from buying it by saying: "I bought that CD already; I'll make a copy for you.". When I make the copy, it is theft.
Now example 3: Same situation as example 2, but I stopy you from buying the CD by saying: "I bought that CD already; believe me, it is utter crap and you don't want to waste your money on it". The damage done is exactly the same. The only difference is that it was perfectly legal.
There is also the question: How _much_ theft is it? I would argue that _only_ the parts covered by copyright are actually stolen. If the record store loses profits, or the company printing the CDs, or the people involved with delivering the CDs, they cannot really complain. So the actual theft is less than the retail price of the CD.
"At least here in Denmark, downloading copyrighted material is NOT theft. It is (surprise, surprise) violation of copyright."
Downloading copyrighted material is _NOT_ violation of copyright. It is only violation of copyright if it happens without the consent of the copyright owner.
You can go to www.microsoft.com, or www.apple.com, or www.intel.com and download tons of copyrighted material without any copyright violation. For example, WindowsXP Service Pack 2 is copyrighted material. Not only are you allowed to download it, the copyright holder even encourages you to make additional copies and distribute them.
Conversation between software developer and customer:
Customer: Your application doesn't work on the Macintosh. Developer: Just buy our Windows application, dual-boot the Macintosh into Windows, and run it. Customer: Bugger that.
Who says you can't use the box for very long? Say it takes you two weeks to port your code to MacOS X Intel. After the two weeks, you are left with a perfectly healthy Mac development system that you can use for another 18 months.
"What I really find interesting about this Thievs/Hackers analogy is that you never hear people telling the victims of Theives that they should have had three deadbolts on the door, or saying "shame on you you don't have bars on your windows, of course you'll get broken into.""
In Britain, the police now threatens to tell insurance companies after a burglary if a window wasn't properly locked, which means the insurance won't pay. I'm curious how that will turn out, considering that a helpful neighbour who did the same thing and got caught ratting on you would most likely get their face smashed in.
It is a design patent. A design patent describes what an invention _looks_ like.
Looking similar is no problem. It is only a problem if it looks so similar that customers could buy the wrong product unintentionally because they are confused by the similarity of the looks.
If I took this drawing, and removed the titles that say "Whatever company" and "Apple", would you know which one is iTunes and which one isn't, or would you be confused?
If most people can see the difference and not confuse them, then he has no case. Remember: It is a _design_ patent.
The patent isn't ridiculous at all. It's just not what you think it is: It is a _design_ patent. It is not a patent for a technical innovation, he is patenting the _looks_ of it.
That means he can put anything into the patent he likes, it doesn't need any technical merit at all. And Apple will lose if iTunes _looks the same_. However, having three columns and the same titles doesn't make it look the same.
To succeed against Apple, he has to convince a court that his design and iTunes look so similar that someone going to a shop to buy his invention could end up buying iTunes instead by mistake. That's a tough call. I would think that it takes just one look at an Apple application and a non-Apple application to see that they are not the same.
"Honestly, some things are nicer on OSX, but I don't really see it as being $200/year nicer (for two machines). "
It costs as much as you want it to cost. Just wait for 10.5; puts your cost down to $200 every three years. Or wait until your oldest machine needs replacing and get a new version as part of the new machine. Or stay with 10.3.
You are not playing "devil's advocate", you are just being plain silly.
The difference is: The GPL authors sued to achieve the same status as if no copyright infringement had taken place. The infringer _did_ have the right to include GPL'd code into their product and sell it as long as the source code had been made available. After being sued and losing the case, all they are forced to do is what they should have done in the first place.
Now if you download and burn a dozen CDs, and the RIAA sues you: You obviously had the right to go to a shop and buy this dozen CDs. The only difference would have been lets say $120-150 less in your pocket, and probably slightly better quality of your CDs. So if the RIAA forced you to pay the normal retail price for the CDs, that would be fine. However, you can be forced to pay excessive fines that are in absolutely no relation to the damage you have done.
If the GPL author sued them for millions of dollars in damages, that would be on the same level as the RIAA. Not that it couldn't work: The damage when copying GPL'd software without permission (for example buy acting against the GPL) would be at least the amount of money for which you could buy a proprietary license to the code.
Zero credibility = no correlation between fact and her claims.
Negative credibility = negative correlation. Facts are strongly related to the opposite of her claims.
Get it?
Does she have credibility? About as much as Ken Brown ("A swedish student named Linux Torvald copied Linus from Minux which his professor Tannenbaum copied from Unix"), Rob PretEnderle (the one with the Ferrari Notebook that makes Vroom Vroom noises) and Maureen O' Gara (Linux is completely stolen from SCO) together. Minus infinity + Minus infinity + Minus infinity = Minus Infinity.
Realistically, the courts could say "well, the GPL is invalid, so the code is in the public domain", and literally, all the GPL code out there would be up for grabs.
Equally realistically, the courts could throw you into jail for being stupid. If the GPL is invalid, then the GPL is invalid and treated as if not existing. Code distributed under the GPL would be treated the same as code distributed without any license. Copyright law applies automatically, and makes further distribution without a license from the copyright holder illegal.
If I write software and distribute it under the GPL, and someone else rips it off and distributes it under violation of the terms of the GPL (as seems to be the case here), then the GPL suddenly becomes completely irrelevant.
What is relevant is distribution of copyrighted software without a valid license from the copyright holder. PearPC should just have a look at Groklaw and see what SCO is doing to IBM. If SCO can do that, without a shred of evidence, what do you think PearPC can do when they have ample of evidence?
Just let the relevant people at the CherryOS company produce affidavits that they haven't copied the PearPC software (lie in an affidavit and go to jail), let them produce a list of the programmers and let every programmer give an affidavit and so on...
>> How am I gonna convince my wife?
If there was a store that sold both Dell computers and Macs, then this would be quite easy: Take her to the shop, show her the Dell, and the Mac Mini, and ask her which one she wants in her living room.
If she doesn't pick the Mac Mini, then something is seriously wrong with your wife.
I have been getting paid to write software for about 24 years. I don't think they come more "techie" than me. I use a Macintosh at home because it is easier to use. I don't have the f***ing time to waste on Windows.
I prefer the one-button mouse. You may be told that a Macintosh comes with a one button mouse because two are too difficult to use, but the people telling you that are complete idiots. It comes with a one button mouse because it is _easier_ to use. Two buttons are _more difficult_, not _too difficult_. I could operate a two button mouse with my hands tied on my back by using my toes, if I had to. It is not _too difficult_, it is _more difficult_, you moron. And Steve Jobs is the kind of person who won't replace a better mouse with a less good mouse just because millions of morons are screaming.
Rocket scientists and brain surgeons don't want to waste their time figuring out how their computer works.
I think it was x dollars now and y dollars if he tells anybody about the exact terms of the settlement. x being a rather small number and y being large enough to keep him from talking for it forever.
And the next guy posting a prerelease Mac OS on Bittorrent will be offered a settlement of y dollars.
Slashdot Mirror
"Lastly, re: economic absurdity, I never said people would buy Macs specifically to run Windows. People will buy Macs to run Mac OS X."
Actually, about two years ago I was forced to buy a PC to run some software that would definitely not run on a Macintosh, even under emulation (some CD copy protection scheme). I bought the cheapest eMachines PC I could find. Had something like the Mac Mini been available and had it been capable of running Windows, that is most definitely what I would have bought. I'd rather pay a little bit more for something that doesn't look as offensive, and in case of the Mac Mini the space savings are enormous.
I think if Apple sold Apple PCs (hardware identical to an Intel Macintosh, but with Windows XP installed instead of MacOS X), somewhere hidden in the corner of the Apple Store website, they could probably sell a few hundred thousand every year with no effort at all. First to Macintosh fans who need to buy a PC for some reason, second to Windows users who like nice hardware. Say half a percent of the total Windows PC market. Easy money.
XCode lets you target MacOS X 10.4 for Intel and MacOS X 10.3 for PowerPC simultaneously. In one universal binary. So the same binary can run on 10.3 Panther on PowerPC and 10.4 Tiger on Intel processors.
"While I understand that sometimes the person in question is from a non english speaking country and that english is a second, or third, language, my guess is that is rarely the case."
Posters should also realize that a person whose second or third language is English, will usually find it much harder to read and understand sentences with incorrect grammar or with spelling mistakes. For that reason, I consider it just basic politeness to try to use correct spelling and grammar.
You don't give evidence in your complaint. You put accusations into your complaint, the evidence comes separate. Some evidence you may not even have. For example, AMD would be likely to question the compiler engineers about their reasons why their compiler produces the code that it produces, and since lying means doing time in jail, these engineers will most likely tell the truth.
"I would think Intel writes their compilers to take full advantage of their chips. Should they also be examining the AMD chips to make sure that all the optimizations that work on Intel will continue to work properly on AMD?"
The Intel compiler team has two choices: The can choose not to test on AMD chips at all. Which is fine, since these chips are supposed to be Intel compatible, so all the Intel code should work just fine. The other choice is, they test on AMD.
If they test on AMD, it doesn't make any difference to the testing effort whether the compiler uses the Intel optimised code paths on AMD as well and the compiler team tests whether the Intel optimised code runs correctly on AMD, or whether they use a slow code path on AMD and test that slow code path.
In other words, testing effort is in no way an excuse for what Intel is accused of doing.
"If it is their CPU, they use the special features of their product.
If it is a competing product they simply use the most reliable implementation.
Sounds quite reasonable to me, and anything less could get them in trouble.
What if they coded in an AMD feature incorrectly, and didn't happen to notice?"
AMD processors have exactly the same special features. The P4 optimised code can run on an AMD processor just as reliable as it will run on a P4. And if it doesn't, that would be AMD's problem, not Intel's.
Actually, if it didn't run on AMD chips, that would give Intel a way to f*** AMD legally. Since they didn't choose to do that, I would think they couldn't produce code that would run on P4 and not on AMD.
Now if Intel could find instructions that are much slower on AMD than on P4, and used them a lot in their P4 code, that would be entirely legal. I know it could be done the other way round, because P4 has some interesting performance traps.
"Do they really believe that whatever form of encryption they use won't eventually be cracked?" Lets say you build a monitor with this encryption. Your monitor has a public key that identifies it and a set of private keys. If anyone manages to extract the private keys, and builds the right hardware, they could then decode any contents so far. As a result, that monitor would be blacklisted. Anyone owning that monitor would not be able to see any content created after the crack was known. Can you see how there would be some very unhappy customers and some very unhappy manufacturer? So the manufacturer will do everything they can to protect the private keys.
"Great idea, bad execution..."
I don't think so. Itanium is a collection of everything that was a good idea in 1996. Many things that were a good idea in 1996 are not a good idea in 2005. And including _everything_ that was a good idea in 1996 wasn't a good idea in 1996!
"I ranted about this sort of thing on my blog recently. What's happening here is simply that companies are failing to supply what consumers want."
I know people who don't pay 12 or 15 pound for a quality DVD, but they pay five pound for a crappy pirated copy. They buy it because it is cheap. I think it would be no technical problem at all to make an encoder that can produce "Video Recorder Quality" DVDs, and then sell them for half the price of normal DVDs. That should get rid of a lot of piracy.
I wonder what it would do to sales. Many people would buy xx pounds worth of DVDs every month, and they would buy more if they are cheaper. But piracy would definitely go down.
First of all it is copyright infringement. Second, I am quite willing to call copyright infringement theft if and only if the act of copyright infringement is in some way damaging to the copyright holder. Example 1: We have a bet that I can find 200 different versions of "Bridge Over Troubled Water" on the internet. I manage to download 178 different versions. Did this damage anyone? No. Therefore, no theft. Example 2: We enter a record store. You pick a record, take your wallet, and you are going to buy the record. I stop you from buying it by saying: "I bought that CD already; I'll make a copy for you.". When I make the copy, it is theft. Now example 3: Same situation as example 2, but I stopy you from buying the CD by saying: "I bought that CD already; believe me, it is utter crap and you don't want to waste your money on it". The damage done is exactly the same. The only difference is that it was perfectly legal. There is also the question: How _much_ theft is it? I would argue that _only_ the parts covered by copyright are actually stolen. If the record store loses profits, or the company printing the CDs, or the people involved with delivering the CDs, they cannot really complain. So the actual theft is less than the retail price of the CD.
"At least here in Denmark, downloading copyrighted material is NOT theft. It is (surprise, surprise) violation of copyright."
Downloading copyrighted material is _NOT_ violation of copyright. It is only violation of copyright if it happens without the consent of the copyright owner.
You can go to www.microsoft.com, or www.apple.com, or www.intel.com and download tons of copyrighted material without any copyright violation. For example, WindowsXP Service Pack 2 is copyrighted material. Not only are you allowed to download it, the copyright holder even encourages you to make additional copies and distribute them.
Conversation between software developer and customer:
Customer: Your application doesn't work on the Macintosh.
Developer: Just buy our Windows application, dual-boot the Macintosh into Windows, and run it.
Customer: Bugger that.
Sales: 0.
Who says you can't use the box for very long? Say it takes you two weeks to port your code to MacOS X Intel. After the two weeks, you are left with a perfectly healthy Mac development system that you can use for another 18 months.
"What I really find interesting about this Thievs/Hackers analogy is that you never hear people telling the victims of Theives that they should have had three deadbolts on the door, or saying "shame on you you don't have bars on your windows, of course you'll get broken into."" In Britain, the police now threatens to tell insurance companies after a burglary if a window wasn't properly locked, which means the insurance won't pay. I'm curious how that will turn out, considering that a helpful neighbour who did the same thing and got caught ratting on you would most likely get their face smashed in.
You didn't read the patent.
It is a design patent. A design patent describes what an invention _looks_ like.
Looking similar is no problem. It is only a problem if it looks so similar that customers could buy the wrong product unintentionally because they are confused by the similarity of the looks.
If I took this drawing, and removed the titles that say "Whatever company" and "Apple", would you know which one is iTunes and which one isn't, or would you be confused?
If most people can see the difference and not confuse them, then he has no case. Remember: It is a _design_ patent.
The patent isn't ridiculous at all. It's just not what you think it is: It is a _design_ patent. It is not a patent for a technical innovation, he is patenting the _looks_ of it. That means he can put anything into the patent he likes, it doesn't need any technical merit at all. And Apple will lose if iTunes _looks the same_. However, having three columns and the same titles doesn't make it look the same. To succeed against Apple, he has to convince a court that his design and iTunes look so similar that someone going to a shop to buy his invention could end up buying iTunes instead by mistake. That's a tough call. I would think that it takes just one look at an Apple application and a non-Apple application to see that they are not the same.
"Honestly, some things are nicer on OSX, but I don't really see it as being $200/year nicer (for two machines). "
It costs as much as you want it to cost. Just wait for 10.5; puts your cost down to $200 every three years. Or wait until your oldest machine needs replacing and get a new version as part of the new machine. Or stay with 10.3.
You are not playing "devil's advocate", you are just being plain silly. The difference is: The GPL authors sued to achieve the same status as if no copyright infringement had taken place. The infringer _did_ have the right to include GPL'd code into their product and sell it as long as the source code had been made available. After being sued and losing the case, all they are forced to do is what they should have done in the first place. Now if you download and burn a dozen CDs, and the RIAA sues you: You obviously had the right to go to a shop and buy this dozen CDs. The only difference would have been lets say $120-150 less in your pocket, and probably slightly better quality of your CDs. So if the RIAA forced you to pay the normal retail price for the CDs, that would be fine. However, you can be forced to pay excessive fines that are in absolutely no relation to the damage you have done. If the GPL author sued them for millions of dollars in damages, that would be on the same level as the RIAA. Not that it couldn't work: The damage when copying GPL'd software without permission (for example buy acting against the GPL) would be at least the amount of money for which you could buy a proprietary license to the code.
Zero credibility = no correlation between fact and her claims. Negative credibility = negative correlation. Facts are strongly related to the opposite of her claims. Get it?
Does she have credibility? About as much as Ken Brown ("A swedish student named Linux Torvald copied Linus from Minux which his professor Tannenbaum copied from Unix"), Rob PretEnderle (the one with the Ferrari Notebook that makes Vroom Vroom noises) and Maureen O' Gara (Linux is completely stolen from SCO) together. Minus infinity + Minus infinity + Minus infinity = Minus Infinity.
Realistically, the courts could say "well, the GPL is invalid, so the code is in the public domain", and literally, all the GPL code out there would be up for grabs. Equally realistically, the courts could throw you into jail for being stupid. If the GPL is invalid, then the GPL is invalid and treated as if not existing. Code distributed under the GPL would be treated the same as code distributed without any license. Copyright law applies automatically, and makes further distribution without a license from the copyright holder illegal.
If I write software and distribute it under the GPL, and someone else rips it off and distributes it under violation of the terms of the GPL (as seems to be the case here), then the GPL suddenly becomes completely irrelevant.
What is relevant is distribution of copyrighted software without a valid license from the copyright holder. PearPC should just have a look at Groklaw and see what SCO is doing to IBM. If SCO can do that, without a shred of evidence, what do you think PearPC can do when they have ample of evidence?
Just let the relevant people at the CherryOS company produce affidavits that they haven't copied the PearPC software (lie in an affidavit and go to jail), let them produce a list of the programmers and let every programmer give an affidavit and so on...
>> How am I gonna convince my wife? If there was a store that sold both Dell computers and Macs, then this would be quite easy: Take her to the shop, show her the Dell, and the Mac Mini, and ask her which one she wants in her living room. If she doesn't pick the Mac Mini, then something is seriously wrong with your wife.
I have been getting paid to write software for about 24 years. I don't think they come more "techie" than me. I use a Macintosh at home because it is easier to use. I don't have the f***ing time to waste on Windows.
I prefer the one-button mouse. You may be told that a Macintosh comes with a one button mouse because two are too difficult to use, but the people telling you that are complete idiots. It comes with a one button mouse because it is _easier_ to use. Two buttons are _more difficult_, not _too difficult_. I could operate a two button mouse with my hands tied on my back by using my toes, if I had to. It is not _too difficult_, it is _more difficult_, you moron. And Steve Jobs is the kind of person who won't replace a better mouse with a less good mouse just because millions of morons are screaming.
Rocket scientists and brain surgeons don't want to waste their time figuring out how their computer works.
I think it was x dollars now and y dollars if he tells anybody about the exact terms of the settlement. x being a rather small number and y being large enough to keep him from talking for it forever. And the next guy posting a prerelease Mac OS on Bittorrent will be offered a settlement of y dollars.