The only motivation for change would be competition, and I don't see that
I don't see how more competition would encourage them to stop transactions on their servers to benefit you and to deprive themselves of a transaction fee.
Close your CC account and get a new one. Your CC company should be able to chargeback if the merchant does not provide service. Period.
If your CC company doesn't do this, don't do business with them anymore. It's a buyers market out there and there are plenty of CC companies that guarantee transactions.
You are not against machines enforcing the code. You are against the code itself.
Most people who think speed limits should not be enforced by automated photoradar also think that the speed limits are unreasonably low. And I agree.
The Right Thing(tm) is to fix the stupid laws. There are several minor things such as jaywalking that should not be considered offences. However, I am all for automated enforcement when people run red lights, etc.
I'm shocked that such a blatantly racist statement can get modded up on this board.
I'm sorry you were rejected from a whole slew of grad schools. I'm sorry your abilities, your knowledge and your intelligence were deemed inferior to a whole bunch of people inspite of the natural advantage you held as far as the language and accessibility of technology is concerned.
I'm sorry, universities are not run as a charity system. Most scholarships are paid for by industrial sponsors who want to see research results from their money.
I went to grad school at a top-10 school for CS. There is a whole slew of scholarships and opportunities that are available for US citizens and residents which are just not there for foreign students. As a result, many US students were admitted over much better international students. The few foreign students that were there were the cream of the class - and outdid most of the local students in terms of what they achieved for their professors and for the prestige of the university.
Just typing some crap here to satisfy Slashdots lame lameness filter which doesn't recognize that intelligent comments can be made in less than 15 seconds....
No, not them. YOU - and the idiots who modded you up.
At work, they recently introduced unified messaging. Guess what? I love it! When someone leaves me a voicemail, it shows up as an email in my inbox with a sound-file as an attachment. I can check my voicemail anywhere that I have email access. I have one place where I get incoming messages - be they email or voicemail. I can work away from my desk without worrying about not seeing that blinking red light on my phone.
So, YOU welcome to the real world. Not everyone works exactly where you do in exactly the same way you do. In the real world, some people prefer to leave voicemail. Some people leave messages even when they don't have access to a computer or their address book.
So exactly who is clueless? Is it the average Slashdotter who makes fun of something without even understanding what it does?
At a minimum, Balmer's comment here reflects a complete inability to grasp that the competition this time is different. It's not another Microsoft, another software company that they can pin a name to, use the same strategy and crush it through whatever mechanisms.
I know you want to believe he's an idiot really bad. However, when I read his statement it sounds to me that that is exactly his point. The point he is making is that Linux can't be defeated the same way they defeated Novell. Novell was defeated by making it bankrupt. Linux is a different animal altogether and trying to make it bankrupt is not going to kill it (because it is already bankrupt in a sense and is not dead).
Would you rather have your news from independent organizations or from an official government mouthpiece? The BBC is a state-run organization and is controlled and owned by the British government.
Some things the BBC is better at than CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc.: - Greater international coverage - Less fluff and "human interest" stories. More real news.
The BBC does a great job of showing a semblance of unbiasedness. It actually criticizes the British government sometimes. What's particularly dangerous, however, is all the bias that's hidden in the reporting veiled by that pretense of unbiasedness. For example, the BBC finds it almost impossible to do a story about a third-world former British colony without pointing out exactly how the cretins are unable to govern themselves (the implication being that they would have been better off under British rule).
If you read any of the cricket coverage on the BBC, the stories have a particular slant including "journalism" that's nothing but slander accusing every other country and umpire of cheating.
Those are just examples. You see the same thing all through their coverage. They are anything but unbiased and objective. They do a great job of spreading propoganda to people who know nothing about the actual issue, however. So if you knew nothing about the actual situation in Zimbabwe, the BBC would do a great job of projecting the British viewpoint on your subject and you'll make the mistake of believing it is objective and unbiased.
By your logic, no one should be prosecuted for lying under oath or for committing fraud since "no words, utterances, guttural noises, sound waves, speach patterns, vocal emissions or other speach can ever be illegal under the 1st amendment".
Since Windows can start in a "fail safe" mode, is that admitting the default mode is "fail prone"?
Uhh, yes? The default mode is prone to failures caused by bad drivers just like a car is prone to failures caused by you failing to install a front wheel.
Want a cookie for that?
Re:Time for a Cringely topic icon?
on
Open Source TV
·
· Score: 3
I totally agree. It would be great to have a Cringely topic.
I'm not trolling here but I would really like to be able to use that to filter out his idiotic thoughts.
"Open Source TV" isn't original or interesting or insightful. Quite the opposite. It is the most obvious next step if you're obsessing over the GPL and how "evil movie dudes" control all the DVDs you want to watch without paying for. However, it betrays a lack of thought. The GPL does not apply or make any sense in this context. There are other open source licensing schemes which would work much better.
Cringely doesn't seem to have thought through the issues he is talking about here - he just seems to have tried to figure out the square root of 4 and come up with 2, been delighted with the solution and a whole bunch of fanboys on Slashdot will worship him for it. He missed the (-2) however.
* FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation.
Seems like you don't understand the meaning of the words "Freedom of Association". You are still allowed to associate with whoever you want. There's nothing wrong with the government monitoring you while you're doing so - your freedom is not threatened.
Wow, you really are a sucker for all that crap you are force-fed aren't you?
You don't seem to understand. If Palladium becomes a de facto standard, virtually all content will require a Palladium machine. Microsoft will monopolize the gateway to that content. If you want to read the news, listen to music, or watch movies, you will have to use Palladium.
Only if the producers of the content CHOOSE to publish only in trusted mode. Nothing stops someone from publishing content that they want to allow free distribution of. And if the people who authored the news article WANT it to be only in trusted mode, what argument could anyone else have against that?
Blind people will be unable to read electronic books because we can't encrypt braille.
Wow! You must be incredibly stupid to think that is true. I don't even want to go into the number of reasons why that's a hilarious suggestion.
Palladium is a direct attack on Open Source Software (OSS). Sure, in theory, OSS can process DRM protected content, but first it has to be signed. If you change the software, it will not work with protected content unless the changes are signed. This flies in the face of software freedom. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the signing authority will sign future versions of OSS. Even if the signing authority signs OSS, it will require a lengthy and expensive auditing process, slowing development and artificially inflating the price.
The Palladium scheme allows Microsoft to decide who can, or can not create trusted software. If it's anything like the DVD-CCA, the opportunity will cost $112,000. After spending the $112,000, the author then has to follow whatever draconian rules Microsoft puts forth or their license will be revoked. This is clearly intended to create an artificial barrier to entry and cut off competition. It also gives Microsoft power over hardware manufacturers and software companies. Based on Microsoft's history, I have no doubt they will use their signing power as leverage when dealing with hardware manufacturers and software developers. If a hardware manufacturer or software company fails to comply with Microsoft's demands, they will encounter roadblocks when signing their drivers and software.
FUD FUD FUD
Palladium also sets up a key authority to control the master keys. If you want your content protected, you have to get permission from the key authority. Rest assured, the price and restrictions will be well within reach of most media companies, but out of reach for most independent publishers. This is just another artificial barrier to cut off competition. You can also be certain that the price scheme will be more economical for large publishers than for small ones, thus encouraging consolidation.
What part of "You can publish content untrusted if you don't like Palladium" are you too goddamn stupid to understand? So if I understand you right, you're saying Palladium is bad because some people can't take advantage of its features and therefore it should not be implemented at all and no one should be able to use its features.
Palladium includes the ability to revoke licenses for content, thus allowing the government to outlaw content through court rulings, legislation, executive orders, FCC rules, etc (just like the Bush administration removed content from libraries after 9/11). The system will also allow the media to 'erase' historical news reports (Texaco get accused of accounting fraud, so they pay the media to erase news reports about Enron), and revoke licenses during times of national tragedy, similar to Clear Channel's post 9/11 blacklist (don't want people hearing John Lennon's Imagine when they're supposed to be clamoring for revenge).
Hmm.. so what you're saying is that it is bad because 1) The content producers can decide to revoke content THEY PRODUCED and 2) If our constitutional system fails completely and we have a government that wants to do away with our fundamental rights they can use Palladium to do so...
For 1, I'll say it is their business and I see nothing wrong with that. For 2, I think we'll have other things to worry about if that happens. Need I remind you that the government already has NUKES it can use against us if it needs to? For some reason, I'm not worried it will happen, though.
By acquiring a Palladium machine, you are helping to entrench Palladium as a de facto standard, making it easier for content companies to wrap all their content in DRM.
Ah, now it finally comes out. You're a prepubescent living in your moms basement and you want to be able to copy music for free. The rest is just a bunch of blather you tell yourself to pretend you're more than a petty content thief wannabe.
So Linux 2.4 was released with a major known bug in it which causes a critical backup feature to not work at all putting you at risk of losing all your work?
Yes, but Microsoft unfortunately doesn't have the first f**king clue about the electronics market. Sony does, in fact Sony are the biggest electronics manufacturer in the world. The reason that Sony don't just throw a bunch of off-the-shelf components into a box is because they understand their business better than Microsoft do.
Flashback to 1982:
Yes, but Microsoft unfortunately doesn't have the first f**king clue about the computers market. IBM does, in fact IBM are the biggest computer manufacturers in the world. The reason that IBM don't just sell software is because they understand their business better than Microsoft do.
Give it a couple of years and I'll bet you'll see Microsoft giving up on DOS.
Re-read the parent post - and then re-read mine. I am not debating the virtues of intellectual property rights.
The parent poster said the patent holder should relinquish his rights because eBay was one of the only companies doing well in a faltering economy and his actions would cause people to lose jobs, etc.
My point was simply that it was ridiculous to expect him to give up his rights "for the greater good" and that he was perfectly entitled to a share of eBays profits if they did have an infringing patent that they couldn't move away from.
Have you ever worked in a sophisticated IT environment? I have and there are several reasons why you would roll out your upgrades slowly.
Most sophisiticated IT deployments take several months while you test scenarios and interoperability - first in a test environment, then in a partial production, wait for an available window and the appropriate resources to do it, etc. Remember, the servers you are running are mission critical and it is far more important to your business that those servers keep running without a hitch than it is to have the latest whizbang software or hardware on them. Adequate care must therefore be exercised.
Jeez. Regardless of the system, the governments role continues to be to uphold the law and protect individual and collective property rights. In this case, eBay would be infringing upon the patent holders property rights and the government would play a valid role in interfering there.
Anyway, my point was not about Randian capitalism at all (I haven't read any Rand either). My point was about the implicit shame in asserting ones individual rights against the greater good. The author of the parent post said the patent holder should give up his rights because that would somehow lead to the greater good (i.e. prop up eBay in a faltering economy). That is utter nonsense and causing someone to give up their own rights (either by force of law or by collective guilt) is counterproductive as the communists discovered because it removes the incentive to produce.
Disclaimer: Personally, I think that this patent is ridiculous and obvious and therefore should not have been granted. For the sake of this discussion, let's assume it was some other kind of thing that was patented and infringed upon by eBay.
Probably not. Personal greed is the American Way. It's more important that I get MY piece of the pie, even if it means letting the rest of the pie spoil -- at least I got mine!
What a bunch of crap! There is nothing wrong or immoral with asserting your rights. There's two models of society: One where everyone works only for the greater good, not caring about personal gain. The other where everyone focuses only on satisfying their personal goals.
The first is the communist system. It's a great idea in principle, but as anyone older than 15 will tell you, it just doesn't work.
The other is the capitalist system we are in - which has been proven to work great. Individuals assert their own rights and work to benefit themselves and in doing so, benefit society at large.
eBay is one of those *few* examples of a pure internet business that is doing well and making money. Given the state of the economy today, I feel this kind of attempt is almost criminal in intent. It's pretty close to sabotage for this corner of the technology sector, way to go! Make sure your lawyer asks for the firstborn of their CEO too!
Someone fighting for CEO's rights - on Slashdot! That's when I begin to think this is a troll. eBay is a business. The CEOs and shareholders are getting rich off what they do. Now, if it turns out that they are doing so by infringing on someone elses patents, then it should be the patent holder not the CEO's who should be profiting from it. If as you say, it would be impossible for eBay to succeed without infringing the patent, I see nothing wrong with eBay sharing some of their profits with the inventor who they owe their success to.
Slashdot Mirror
The only motivation for change would be competition, and I don't see that
I don't see how more competition would encourage them to stop transactions on their servers to benefit you and to deprive themselves of a transaction fee.
You should read this website then.
Close your CC account and get a new one. Your CC company should be able to chargeback if the merchant does not provide service. Period.
If your CC company doesn't do this, don't do business with them anymore. It's a buyers market out there and there are plenty of CC companies that guarantee transactions.
You are not against machines enforcing the code. You are against the code itself.
Most people who think speed limits should not be enforced by automated photoradar also think that the speed limits are unreasonably low. And I agree.
The Right Thing(tm) is to fix the stupid laws. There are several minor things such as jaywalking that should not be considered offences. However, I am all for automated enforcement when people run red lights, etc.
mean there are some seriously stupid people who have 99% on EVERY section of the GRE.
Nonsense. I had perfect scores on the Quantitative and Analytical sections and that only qualifies for a 98%ile.
If the general math standards weren't so pathetic in the US, maybe the Quantitative section wouldn't be the joke it is right now.
The maximum score in the Computer Science subject test is 890.
I know, I got it.
I'm shocked that such a blatantly racist statement can get modded up on this board.
I'm sorry you were rejected from a whole slew of grad schools. I'm sorry your abilities, your knowledge and your intelligence were deemed inferior to a whole bunch of people inspite of the natural advantage you held as far as the language and accessibility of technology is concerned.
I'm sorry, universities are not run as a charity system. Most scholarships are paid for by industrial sponsors who want to see research results from their money.
I went to grad school at a top-10 school for CS. There is a whole slew of scholarships and opportunities that are available for US citizens and residents which are just not there for foreign students. As a result, many US students were admitted over much better international students. The few foreign students that were there were the cream of the class - and outdid most of the local students in terms of what they achieved for their professors and for the prestige of the university.
Yeah! And that's why they were single!
Just typing some crap here to satisfy Slashdots lame lameness filter which doesn't recognize that intelligent comments can be made in less than 15 seconds....
No, not them. YOU - and the idiots who modded you up.
At work, they recently introduced unified messaging. Guess what? I love it! When someone leaves me a voicemail, it shows up as an email in my inbox with a sound-file as an attachment. I can check my voicemail anywhere that I have email access. I have one place where I get incoming messages - be they email or voicemail. I can work away from my desk without worrying about not seeing that blinking red light on my phone.
So, YOU welcome to the real world. Not everyone works exactly where you do in exactly the same way you do. In the real world, some people prefer to leave voicemail. Some people leave messages even when they don't have access to a computer or their address book.
So exactly who is clueless? Is it the average Slashdotter who makes fun of something without even understanding what it does?
At a minimum, Balmer's comment here reflects a complete inability to grasp that the competition this time is different. It's not another Microsoft, another software company that they can pin a name to, use the same strategy and crush it through whatever mechanisms.
I know you want to believe he's an idiot really bad. However, when I read his statement it sounds to me that that is exactly his point. The point he is making is that Linux can't be defeated the same way they defeated Novell. Novell was defeated by making it bankrupt. Linux is a different animal altogether and trying to make it bankrupt is not going to kill it (because it is already bankrupt in a sense and is not dead).
Would you rather have your news from independent organizations or from an official government mouthpiece? The BBC is a state-run organization and is controlled and owned by the British government.
Some things the BBC is better at than CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc.:
- Greater international coverage
- Less fluff and "human interest" stories. More real news.
The BBC does a great job of showing a semblance of unbiasedness. It actually criticizes the British government sometimes. What's particularly dangerous, however, is all the bias that's hidden in the reporting veiled by that pretense of unbiasedness. For example, the BBC finds it almost impossible to do a story about a third-world former British colony without pointing out exactly how the cretins are unable to govern themselves (the implication being that they would have been better off under British rule).
If you read any of the cricket coverage on the BBC, the stories have a particular slant including "journalism" that's nothing but slander accusing every other country and umpire of cheating.
Those are just examples. You see the same thing all through their coverage. They are anything but unbiased and objective. They do a great job of spreading propoganda to people who know nothing about the actual issue, however. So if you knew nothing about the actual situation in Zimbabwe, the BBC would do a great job of projecting the British viewpoint on your subject and you'll make the mistake of believing it is objective and unbiased.
\end{mindless_rant}
By your logic, no one should be prosecuted for lying under oath or for committing fraud since "no words, utterances, guttural noises, sound waves, speach patterns, vocal emissions or other speach can ever be illegal under the 1st amendment".
Since Windows can start in a "fail safe" mode, is that admitting the default mode is "fail prone"?
Uhh, yes? The default mode is prone to failures caused by bad drivers just like a car is prone to failures caused by you failing to install a front wheel.
Want a cookie for that?
I totally agree. It would be great to have a Cringely topic.
I'm not trolling here but I would really like to be able to use that to filter out his idiotic thoughts.
"Open Source TV" isn't original or interesting or insightful. Quite the opposite. It is the most obvious next step if you're obsessing over the GPL and how "evil movie dudes" control all the DVDs you want to watch without paying for. However, it betrays a lack of thought. The GPL does not apply or make any sense in this context. There are other open source licensing schemes which would work much better.
Cringely doesn't seem to have thought through the issues he is talking about here - he just seems to have tried to figure out the square root of 4 and come up with 2, been delighted with the solution and a whole bunch of fanboys on Slashdot will worship him for it. He missed the (-2) however.
* FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation.
Seems like you don't understand the meaning of the words "Freedom of Association". You are still allowed to associate with whoever you want. There's nothing wrong with the government monitoring you while you're doing so - your freedom is not threatened.
Wow, you really are a sucker for all that crap you are force-fed aren't you?
You don't seem to understand. If Palladium becomes a de facto standard, virtually all content will require a Palladium machine. Microsoft will monopolize the gateway to that content. If you want to read the news, listen to music, or watch movies, you will have to use Palladium.
Only if the producers of the content CHOOSE to publish only in trusted mode. Nothing stops someone from publishing content that they want to allow free distribution of. And if the people who authored the news article WANT it to be only in trusted mode, what argument could anyone else have against that?
Blind people will be unable to read electronic books because we can't encrypt braille.
Wow! You must be incredibly stupid to think that is true. I don't even want to go into the number of reasons why that's a hilarious suggestion.
Palladium is a direct attack on Open Source Software (OSS). Sure, in theory, OSS can process DRM protected content, but first it has to be signed. If you change the software, it will not work with protected content unless the changes are signed. This flies in the face of software freedom. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the signing authority will sign future versions of OSS. Even if the signing authority signs OSS, it will require a lengthy and expensive auditing process, slowing development and artificially inflating the price.
The Palladium scheme allows Microsoft to decide who can, or can not create trusted software. If it's anything like the DVD-CCA, the opportunity will cost $112,000. After spending the $112,000, the author then has to follow whatever draconian rules Microsoft puts forth or their license will be revoked. This is clearly intended to create an artificial barrier to entry and cut off competition. It also gives Microsoft power over hardware manufacturers and software companies. Based on Microsoft's history, I have no doubt they will use their signing power as leverage when dealing with hardware manufacturers and software developers. If a hardware manufacturer or software company fails to comply with Microsoft's demands, they will encounter roadblocks when signing their drivers and software.
FUD FUD FUD
Palladium also sets up a key authority to control the master keys. If you want your content protected, you have to get permission from the key authority. Rest assured, the price and restrictions will be well within reach of most media companies, but out of reach for most independent publishers. This is just another artificial barrier to cut off competition. You can also be certain that the price scheme will be more economical for large publishers than for small ones, thus encouraging consolidation.
What part of "You can publish content untrusted if you don't like Palladium" are you too goddamn stupid to understand? So if I understand you right, you're saying Palladium is bad because some people can't take advantage of its features and therefore it should not be implemented at all and no one should be able to use its features.
Palladium includes the ability to revoke licenses for content, thus allowing the government to outlaw content through court rulings, legislation, executive orders, FCC rules, etc (just like the Bush administration removed content from libraries after 9/11). The system will also allow the media to 'erase' historical news reports (Texaco get accused of accounting fraud, so they pay the media to erase news reports about Enron), and revoke licenses during times of national tragedy, similar to Clear Channel's post 9/11 blacklist (don't want people hearing John Lennon's Imagine when they're supposed to be clamoring for revenge).
Hmm.. so what you're saying is that it is bad because 1) The content producers can decide to revoke content THEY PRODUCED and 2) If our constitutional system fails completely and we have a government that wants to do away with our fundamental rights they can use Palladium to do so...
For 1, I'll say it is their business and I see nothing wrong with that. For 2, I think we'll have other things to worry about if that happens. Need I remind you that the government already has NUKES it can use against us if it needs to? For some reason, I'm not worried it will happen, though.
By acquiring a Palladium machine, you are helping to entrench Palladium as a de facto standard, making it easier for content companies to wrap all their content in DRM.
Ah, now it finally comes out. You're a prepubescent living in your moms basement and you want to be able to copy music for free. The rest is just a bunch of blather you tell yourself to pretend you're more than a petty content thief wannabe.
People just don't seem to understand Palladium. There's nothing you can do on a non-Palladium computer that you can't also do on a Palladium machine.
However, there will be some content which you can only access on a Palladium machine.
Given that, I see no reason to CHOOSE not to have one (except for cost).
So Linux 2.4 was released with a major known bug in it which causes a critical backup feature to not work at all putting you at risk of losing all your work?
I thought we beat up Billy Boy for doing that.
Yes, but Microsoft unfortunately doesn't have the first f**king clue about the electronics market. Sony does, in fact Sony are the biggest electronics manufacturer in the world. The reason that Sony don't just throw a bunch of off-the-shelf components into a box is because they understand their business better than Microsoft do.
Flashback to 1982:
Yes, but Microsoft unfortunately doesn't have the first f**king clue about the computers market. IBM does, in fact IBM are the biggest computer manufacturers in the world. The reason that IBM don't just sell software is because they understand their business better than Microsoft do.
Give it a couple of years and I'll bet you'll see Microsoft giving up on DOS.
Re-read the parent post - and then re-read mine. I am not debating the virtues of intellectual property rights.
The parent poster said the patent holder should relinquish his rights because eBay was one of the only companies doing well in a faltering economy and his actions would cause people to lose jobs, etc.
My point was simply that it was ridiculous to expect him to give up his rights "for the greater good" and that he was perfectly entitled to a share of eBays profits if they did have an infringing patent that they couldn't move away from.
I don't see protocol drivers for odd devices (think palmtops) accessible within the existing file management paradigm, and so on.
I am not sure what you are trying to say but I have been able to access my PocketPC filesystem through explorer quite nicely, thank you.
Have you ever worked in a sophisticated IT environment? I have and there are several reasons why you would roll out your upgrades slowly.
Most sophisiticated IT deployments take several months while you test scenarios and interoperability - first in a test environment, then in a partial production, wait for an available window and the appropriate resources to do it, etc. Remember, the servers you are running are mission critical and it is far more important to your business that those servers keep running without a hitch than it is to have the latest whizbang software or hardware on them. Adequate care must therefore be exercised.
Jeez. Regardless of the system, the governments role continues to be to uphold the law and protect individual and collective property rights. In this case, eBay would be infringing upon the patent holders property rights and the government would play a valid role in interfering there.
Anyway, my point was not about Randian capitalism at all (I haven't read any Rand either). My point was about the implicit shame in asserting ones individual rights against the greater good. The author of the parent post said the patent holder should give up his rights because that would somehow lead to the greater good (i.e. prop up eBay in a faltering economy). That is utter nonsense and causing someone to give up their own rights (either by force of law or by collective guilt) is counterproductive as the communists discovered because it removes the incentive to produce.
Did you read the article? The research work was conducted on the IKEA Pax cupboard. The Swedes are in it from the beginning.
Disclaimer: Personally, I think that this patent is ridiculous and obvious and therefore should not have been granted. For the sake of this discussion, let's assume it was some other kind of thing that was patented and infringed upon by eBay.
Probably not. Personal greed is the American Way. It's more important that I get MY piece of the pie, even if it means letting the rest of the pie spoil -- at least I got mine!
What a bunch of crap! There is nothing wrong or immoral with asserting your rights. There's two models of society: One where everyone works only for the greater good, not caring about personal gain. The other where everyone focuses only on satisfying their personal goals.
The first is the communist system. It's a great idea in principle, but as anyone older than 15 will tell you, it just doesn't work.
The other is the capitalist system we are in - which has been proven to work great. Individuals assert their own rights and work to benefit themselves and in doing so, benefit society at large.
eBay is one of those *few* examples of a pure internet business that is doing well and making money. Given the state of the economy today, I feel this kind of attempt is almost criminal in intent. It's pretty close to sabotage for this corner of the technology sector, way to go! Make sure your lawyer asks for the firstborn of their CEO too!
Someone fighting for CEO's rights - on Slashdot! That's when I begin to think this is a troll. eBay is a business. The CEOs and shareholders are getting rich off what they do. Now, if it turns out that they are doing so by infringing on someone elses patents, then it should be the patent holder not the CEO's who should be profiting from it. If as you say, it would be impossible for eBay to succeed without infringing the patent, I see nothing wrong with eBay sharing some of their profits with the inventor who they owe their success to.