Another irrelevant case. You're comparing apples to oranges. GM is losing out to other major competitors who are able to produce at a cheaper rate - plus people still see foreign cars as superior to domestic. MS, with it's about 90% market share does not suffer such an issue.
You don't think Honda, Toyota and Nissan sprang up out of thin air, do you?
While I suppose GM never had 90% market share, it certainly had an incredibly large percentage and it could be talked about in terms of other countries GDP - For all GMs failings it is still a much bigger company than MS is today.
American cars used to be good cars, and definately held a perception of being good cars. Everything being described here is relevant, it's just 30+ years ago, not today. OSS is cheaper and many people are starting to see it as a superior alternative. To me there does seem to be a lot of parallels.
I don't know how this myth got started... perhaps it's just a convenient way for law-makers to appease people while still letting them have cell phones, perhaps it's just cluelessness, and perhaps it's the hands-free kit manufacturers. The growing evidence for those that actually read studies on this show no measurable difference between hands-free and holding a phone. The issue is apparently not one of dexterity, but one of concentration. That's why drinking a soda or smoking don't materially increase accident rates. Maintaining a conversation with someone who is not in the car with you, on the other hand, requires more attention than the average person is able to give up. This is different from conversing with someone in the car because they are able to tell why you might be non-responsive for a moment: there is no pressure to maintain the conversation when the other person is there with you...
# A much richer experience when you do go to drive your vehicle for fun, because there will be more venues catering to a wider audience due to the greater demand.
The reason there's not a lot of places to race isn't due to lack of demand: it's the f*&!$#!ingneighbours who complain about the noise.
I was looking for a backing link, but AFAIK, the Laguna Seca raceway in Monterey CA has a 92db @ 50ft sound limit: forced on the track by people who built houses next to it -- people who build houses next to a raceway and then complain about the noise!??! and then people wonder why there's 'racing' on the streets...
'sides, before everyone gets on cayenne8's case for wanting to LIVE!, let's remember that lots of people are unsafe at any speed. The requirements for getting a driver's license are pathetic. I don't know how it is elsewhere, but parallel parking is part of the test here, but things like crash avoidance, skidding and severe road conditions are not... wtf? people can go their whole lives avoiding parallel parking if they don't feel comfotable, but shit happens on the road whether you want it to or not and if you don't know what to do, or how your specific car reacts then you are fully and totally fskered.
imho, people that practice driving faster and getting into sticky situations when there's no one around are a lot more likely to survive when the unexpected happens. but IANADAoIA [driving instructor or insurance agent;) ]
I hate the way this whole 'naked PC' thing is painted as purely a piracy issue.
It's all marketing.
I remember hearing once that McDonald's marketing goal was to make your dinner decision be the question: "McDonalds: yes/no?" as opposed to "McDonalds / Burger King / Taco Bell /... ?" because they basically have a 50/50 shot at that answer, as opposed to sharing the odds with the others.
So what Microsoft is trying for here is to convince everyone that the only alternatives are 'piracy' and 'purchasing Windows'. By denying that other choices even exist they push them down in the mindset of the audience, (conversely by adding say Linux in the mix, they legitimize it)
It's the old "Are you still drowning kittens?" question, either 'yes' or 'no' paints you as a monster, when in reality you've never done any such thing. Formulating questions and answers that go together is what marketing is...
Yup.
My coffee did come with the restriction that I not assault someone with it... to that same extent there are restrictions on everything we do. There is nothing that is 100% unrestricted: My right to swing my arm ends where your face begins.
Living in a civil society means we have to learn to play nice together... my point was more that I refuse to play with those that don't want to play nice with me.
"The consequences of Linux not supporting DRM would be that fixed-purpose consumer electronics and Windows PCs would be the sole entertainment platforms available," Ayars said
I'm amused that he believes the only way to play media is in shackles. I, for one, actually started down the Win-to-Lin migration path *because* of things like DRM. I absolutely refuse to let someone else tell me how I am going to use my general purpose computer.
The coffee I bought at Starbucks this morning didn't come with usage restrictions, and neither will any media I consume or use.
Re:Woz + Jobs, RMS + MIA?
on
I, Woz
·
· Score: 2, Funny
If a controversial eccentric like Stallman can do great things from a hermit-like AI lab, then Woz would have had opportunities even without Jobs.
The question for me isn't "has RMS done a lot for free as in freedom?" but rather, "how much more could RMS have done as the thinker behind someone charismatic?
I do wonder how many people see RMS like a train-wreck: sure, they can't help but to look, but it doesn't change their lives/opinions/etc.
It's tomorrow, and I suspect no one's reading this thread anymore, but I can't help but respond to this last post:
No. Pharmaceuticals are a good example here (although their patent protection has more in common with copyright than with other patents). Pharmaceuticals cost millions to develop. The biggest part of this cost is all the trials to verify safety. If anyone could just copy the drug after the trials, there would be no point. Companies would not bother to get drugs approved.
This is completely untrue. Drug companies exist in every nation, whether or not they have drug patents. Switzerland (IIRC) only had patents added to an otherwise thriving pharmaceutical industry in the 70's. It was then, and continues to be a world leader in pharmaceuticals. Patents changed nothing.
Secondly, trials would need to be repeated for a second company making drugs (how can the FCC be sure that the second-arriver got the same drug?) so these costs and this time spent is not a freebie to the 'leech' company. It's important to note that even breaking down a pill into it's basic elements doesn't tell you the process by which it was made, and therefore doesn't tell you how it was made. Work still needs to be done to re-create it.
Thirdly, while drugs do cost relatively lots to make, so does a factory, so what? It's a sunk cost for the company... should making factories be protected by law?
Drug companies just make something that the bulk of us don't understand and can't really play with in our basements. It's shrouded in mystery, it looks complicated, and they state that they need high drug prices to cover future innovation. Bullshit. They make billions in profit. While I'm not opposed to profit, I am against laws that create artificial profits. If the drug companies didn't make a profit, then I could (perhaps) look at some laws and/or mechanisms like perhaps grants and subsidies (which by the way they get as well to ensure that research happens. So, now we have a situation where the drug companies are pocketing billions (i.e. not plowing that money back into research, but keeping it as profit) and then complaining that they need patent protection to pay for the future drugs...?!?? wtf!?
Read Chapter 8: Does Intellectual Monopoly Increase Innovation? (PDF warning) for more info on drug companies...
This is the primary point of patents (and copyrights). They reward the original inventor for taking the effort to come up with the invention in the first place.
A secondary effect is that patents require that the inventor expose the inner workings of the invention..[snip]. The exposing is not necessary for the promotion of creativity; it's just an additional benefit of the system.
You've got it exactly backwards. Read up again. Patents are for advancing and promoting useful arts and sciences. No where does it state that it is for rewarding any individual. The reward is a means or a mechanism to accomplish this end; The promotion of advancement of useful arts and sciences is the end. There is nothing intrinsically 'right' about being given a monopoly over an idea for 20+ yrs...
The interesting thing is that you are right on the last point: exposing the 'inner workings' doesn't promote innovation, and that is exactly why patents are unnecessary. Innovation happens without them, but they add considerable cost to consumers by way of monopoly pricing and legal activities (lawsuits) by the patent holder.
Actually, to make a fine point, it's ignorance of the law that is not a defence.
In this case, it's ignorance that the material in question is a trade secret. You need to know and profit and/or cause damange and some other bits. There's already several links in this thread to the law if you want to read it for your self.
My position on the Asteroid postings is that I didn't steal the information and I didn't ask for it. Someone volunteered it to me and it looked credible, so I posted it. It wasn't marked confidential, trade secret or any such thing but it looked legit to me, so I ran it. When Apple later asked me to remove it, I complied.
In General.-- Whoever, intending or knowing that the offense will benefit any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent, knowingly-- (3) receives, buys, or possesses a trade secret, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization
So assuming he doesn't get journalist protection (which imho he should, and in which case this entire case is pretty much moot), then they have to prove that he knew it was obtained without authorization. Since he says it wasn't marked, and he wasn't told, unless they can prove otherwise, I'd say Apple is SOL... 'course IANAL.:)
I'm going to assume that Apple doesn't so much want him, as the for him to give up the source so they can lay some real hurt...
When you read of big companies filing patent suits against smaller ones, it's usually a big company on the way down, grasping at straws. For example, Unisys's attempts to enforce their patent on LZW compression. When you see a big company threatening patent suits, sell. When a company starts fighting over IP, it's a sign they've lost the real battle, for users.
Really? I think it fits perfectly. They haven't started suing yet because they are only on the brink of the downhill descent, where the talking happens. If Vista doesn't turn MS around, and they start to take a real slide in the sales and profts departments watch for them to follow this exact model.
It totally misses the entire premise of the system-- protecting a specific implementation of a process-- and locks out all possible competition.
Actually blocking out all competition is exactly the point of patents... software or otherwise. And as bad as they are for software, they are for all other fields...
There is no proof that innovation increases due to patents: the only thing guaranteed is that patents will be filed, and people will be sued.
if you invent something that nobody in the universe would have figured out in the next 25 years
There is nothing that one person will invent that another will also not invent. The greatest inventions of the past coupl'a hundred years were all invented by different people at about the same time:
Telephone: Bourseul, Reis, Gray, Bell
Radio: Marconi, Tesla, Lodge and Fessenden, Dolbear, Loomis
Airplane: Wright bros, Langley, Santos-Dumont
Patents and histroy books often only give credit to one person, but history is full of examples where the same ideas are being worked on by many people.
This sums it up:(emphasis mine)
Still, we don't want to deny Bell's brilliance. He produced a robust and viable telephone, and he had the force of personality to sell it to a skeptical public. But to do that, he did what all inventors do. He built on the combined wisdom of others -- just as Reis had built on the work of Bourseul before him.
So I think there are two very important points in this paragraph. He built on what others had done before him, and was able to market it succesfully.
would you like to be uncredited for inventing it ?
So to the question of whether or not you would like to be 'uncredited' for your invention, I think you'll have to ask Tesla, since he was granted a patent but then posthumously had his patent revoked. How's that for a kick in the teeth? The current system in no way ensures credit be given where it is due...
Without patents in software, a new feature (such as one-click) would be replicated, improved, or would spur new ideas, without fear of any recourse.
I believe this to be 100% correct. And I think it's not limited to software. Innovation is like a living organism: The shorter the generational gaps, the faster it mutates and evolves. Putting a 20yr hold on generations will only slow, not speed innovation.
But the idea of a short time (a single decade?) for a concept (not method) patents makes good sense.
From TFA:
There's nothing special about physical embodiments of control systems that should make them patentable, and the software equivalent not.
I agree with him: There is fundamentally no difference between a "concept" and a "method".
I think that patents are actually disruptive in all fields; it's just most easily visible in software because there are so many people playing, tinkering, coding. The shear volume and the ease with which joe-average can code means that it brings the dangers and downside of the patent system into your living room. If it were feasible for the average person to create chemicle compounds in their basement, this discussion would be about pharmaceutical companies and patents...so this is really about big businesses wanting a competitive advantage over their competition. They would innovate to gain sales (selling yesterday's innovation is how you go bankrupt), so thanks to patents they don't have to work nearly so hard: they have no competition.
sure, wiki agrees that Monaco is number 1 in population density. It's 32,409 people cover a mere 1.95km^2, or 16,620 persons per square km. New York City, however has 8,168,338 people crammed into 785.6km^2 which would slot it in second place (against countries) at 10,292 persons per square km.
So although New York only has about 2/3 the density, it has 250 times the total population. If you're looking for a customer base for some new tech I'd take my odds in New York (despite how rich Monaco is...)
Oh, and although Japan sits well above the United States in total density, Tokyo (the largest city) has a bit more than half the density of New York at 5655 persons per km^2...so I'm guessing population density isn't specifically the problem...
All I can say is thank God I build all my own systems, forcing people to buy something they don't want is a really unethical extortion racket, if I need to buy any prebuilt machine in the future I will always take the time to look for that 5% of dealers that will not make me purchase an OS.
Can you get naked laptops from a resonable/reliable manufacturer?
I remember a few years ago there was some kind of talk about 'returning' windows licenses...does that work? did it ever? I don't see me buying too many desktops anymore - the freedom/power to cost ratio is low enough that I foresee all my future computers being laptops, and my last one came with XP on it...so even though FC5 will go on it shortly, I still paid the M$ tax...
sadly, the comment was none of the above.... guess the mods havn't had their coffee yet this morning. I mean, it wasn't particularly funny either, but I'm sure that was the intent... not flamebait, definately not informative, but maybe! overrated to compensate for the informative, but really, can't the meta-mods deal with that?
I'll never buy another Sony product.
But for me, the rootkit fiasco was just the final nail... imho, the quality is no where near what it was 15-20yrs ago. Their products still command the price premium of the brand, but don't deliver any better quality than Samsung (as one example).
No, I don't have any actual stats or failure rates, it's just my opinion based on personal experience of me and others I know (yes, a small sample blah blah blah...still my opinion)
What I do think this shows is that companies are realising that there are profits in not having to re-invent the wheel everytime they want to build something. While Sony has a long history of creating their own closed standards (and watching them die some time later), they have now released TVs with Linux (err, GNU/Linux, sorry RMS!) and are part of IBM's OIN which (if I read it right) is a bunch of companies agreeing to share their innovations (and patents) for the greater common good...that's very contrary to the Intellectual Monopolists that normally lurk the patent hallways...and seems contrary to the general patents-are-necessary! propoganda, no?
hey - my bad!
Don't know why I never heard this one, (I'll have to do some reading now)... but since the prices are still in lock-step, I'd say this 'victory' is as empty as the MS anti-trust:(
Strange, isn't it, how we never hear so much in the media about the recording industries crimes against humanity near so much as we hear about a couple of 'illegal' downloads... less strange that they admit no wrong doing and settled at $20/person (gimme a break!) to avoid costly litigation and move on with business...right.
well, if you wanna get real picky (and I see you do) they in fact hold monopolies over specified 'ideas', and are in fact monopolists. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't thought it all the way through, and anyone who ignores what I say based on their own misconceptions...well, I can't help stupidity, and I'm not here to change the world.
So here goes anyways;-)
Whereas the Oil Cartel (an admitted/explicit cartel) all sell oil that is indistinguishable one from another, Matisyahu's new studio album Youth is not an alternative to Coldplay's X&Y, and are very distinguishable from one another. Further, while any of the OPEC members can sell oil to any buyer, only EMI can (legitimately) sell you a new copy of X&Y. (meaning Sony can't sell it to you despite the fact that they sell Youth). It's important to note that one piece of creative work is not an alternative to another. They are not in direct competition any more than Braun is with Ford. Coffee makers and cars compete for the same dollar, true, but we don't decide to buy one and therefore not need the other. We may run out of money and only be able to buy one, but we don't buy one to replace the other.
So, in this case, they may be a cartel - this is unproven though under investigation. Stating that they are a cartel might cause people to dismiss your ideas, since this is unproven, regardless of how much you (and many others) believe it to be true.
They do however form a general music oligopoly by the definition that there are a very limited number of sellers controlling the majority of the (more general) recorded music market.
Most importantly however they do have individual monopolies on specified works, making them monopolists. They are in fact the only true kind of monopoly: one that is state-guaranteed (by law). Any monopoly that is not enshrined in law eventually finds itself in competition. Thanks to copyright, they have no legal competitors for their unique works.
Read this if you're still interested. (multiple PDF warning)
Slashdot Mirror
While I suppose GM never had 90% market share, it certainly had an incredibly large percentage and it could be talked about in terms of other countries GDP - For all GMs failings it is still a much bigger company than MS is today.
American cars used to be good cars, and definately held a perception of being good cars. Everything being described here is relevant, it's just 30+ years ago, not today. OSS is cheaper and many people are starting to see it as a superior alternative. To me there does seem to be a lot of parallels.
sheesh ... ROT-3? That's not security.
Somebody shoulda told this guy about ROT13! And for extra security, always apply it twice.
The growing evidence for those that actually read studies on this show no measurable difference between hands-free and holding a phone. The issue is apparently not one of dexterity, but one of concentration. That's why drinking a soda or smoking don't materially increase accident rates. Maintaining a conversation with someone who is not in the car with you, on the other hand, requires more attention than the average person is able to give up. This is different from conversing with someone in the car because they are able to tell why you might be non-responsive for a moment: there is no pressure to maintain the conversation when the other person is there with you...
I was looking for a backing link, but AFAIK, the Laguna Seca raceway in Monterey CA has a 92db @ 50ft sound limit: forced on the track by people who built houses next to it -- people who build houses next to a raceway and then complain about the noise!??! and then people wonder why there's 'racing' on the streets...
'sides, before everyone gets on cayenne8's case for wanting to LIVE!, let's remember that lots of people are unsafe at any speed. The requirements for getting a driver's license are pathetic. I don't know how it is elsewhere, but parallel parking is part of the test here, but things like crash avoidance, skidding and severe road conditions are not ... wtf? people can go their whole lives avoiding parallel parking if they don't feel comfotable, but shit happens on the road whether you want it to or not and if you don't know what to do, or how your specific car reacts then you are fully and totally fskered. ;) ]
imho, people that practice driving faster and getting into sticky situations when there's no one around are a lot more likely to survive when the unexpected happens. but IANADAoIA [driving instructor or insurance agent
GNU/Larix ?
...doesn't have the same ring to it.
I remember hearing once that McDonald's marketing goal was to make your dinner decision be the question: "McDonalds: yes/no?" as opposed to "McDonalds / Burger King / Taco Bell /
So what Microsoft is trying for here is to convince everyone that the only alternatives are 'piracy' and 'purchasing Windows'. By denying that other choices even exist they push them down in the mindset of the audience, (conversely by adding say Linux in the mix, they legitimize it)
It's the old "Are you still drowning kittens?" question, either 'yes' or 'no' paints you as a monster, when in reality you've never done any such thing.
Formulating questions and answers that go together is what marketing is...
My coffee did come with the restriction that I not assault someone with it
Living in a civil society means we have to learn to play nice together
The $%^!!*#%! Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) has archives of their shows in Real format...
The coffee I bought at Starbucks this morning didn't come with usage restrictions, and neither will any media I consume or use.
I do wonder how many people see RMS like a train-wreck: sure, they can't help but to look, but it doesn't change their lives/opinions/etc.
Secondly, trials would need to be repeated for a second company making drugs (how can the FCC be sure that the second-arriver got the same drug?) so these costs and this time spent is not a freebie to the 'leech' company. It's important to note that even breaking down a pill into it's basic elements doesn't tell you the process by which it was made, and therefore doesn't tell you how it was made. Work still needs to be done to re-create it.
Thirdly, while drugs do cost relatively lots to make, so does a factory, so what? It's a sunk cost for the company
Drug companies just make something that the bulk of us don't understand and can't really play with in our basements. It's shrouded in mystery, it looks complicated, and they state that they need high drug prices to cover future innovation.
Bullshit.
They make billions in profit. While I'm not opposed to profit, I am against laws that create artificial profits. If the drug companies didn't make a profit, then I could (perhaps) look at some laws and/or mechanisms like perhaps grants and subsidies (which by the way they get as well to ensure that research happens. So, now we have a situation where the drug companies are pocketing billions (i.e. not plowing that money back into research, but keeping it as profit) and then complaining that they need patent protection to pay for the future drugs...?!?? wtf!?
Read Chapter 8: Does Intellectual Monopoly Increase Innovation? (PDF warning) for more info on drug companies... You've got it exactly backwards. Read up again. Patents are for advancing and promoting useful arts and sciences. No where does it state that it is for rewarding any individual. The reward is a means or a mechanism to accomplish this end; The promotion of advancement of useful arts and sciences is the end. There is nothing intrinsically 'right' about being given a monopoly over an idea for 20+ yrs...
The interesting thing is that you are right on the last point: exposing the 'inner workings' doesn't promote innovation, and that is exactly why patents are unnecessary. Innovation happens without them, but they add considerable cost to consumers by way of monopoly pricing and legal activities (lawsuits) by the patent holder.
Actually, to make a fine point, it's ignorance of the law that is not a defence.
In this case, it's ignorance that the material in question is a trade secret. You need to know and profit and/or cause damange and some other bits. There's already several links in this thread to the law if you want to read it for your self.
I'm going to assume that Apple doesn't so much want him, as the for him to give up the source so they can lay some real hurt...
Really? I think it fits perfectly. They haven't started suing yet because they are only on the brink of the downhill descent, where the talking happens. If Vista doesn't turn MS around, and they start to take a real slide in the sales and profts departments watch for them to follow this exact model.
There is no proof that innovation increases due to patents: the only thing guaranteed is that patents will be filed, and people will be sued.
Telephone: Bourseul, Reis, Gray, Bell
Radio: Marconi, Tesla, Lodge and Fessenden, Dolbear, Loomis
Airplane: Wright bros, Langley, Santos-Dumont
Patents and histroy books often only give credit to one person, but history is full of examples where the same ideas are being worked on by many people. This sums it up: (emphasis mine)
So I think there are two very important points in this paragraph. He built on what others had done before him, and was able to market it succesfully. So to the question of whether or not you would like to be 'uncredited' for your invention, I think you'll have to ask Tesla, since he was granted a patent but then posthumously had his patent revoked. How's that for a kick in the teeth? The current system in no way ensures credit be given where it is due...I think that patents are actually disruptive in all fields; it's just most easily visible in software because there are so many people playing, tinkering, coding. The shear volume and the ease with which joe-average can code means that it brings the dangers and downside of the patent system into your living room. If it were feasible for the average person to create chemicle compounds in their basement, this discussion would be about pharmaceutical companies and patents...so this is really about big businesses wanting a competitive advantage over their competition. They would innovate to gain sales (selling yesterday's innovation is how you go bankrupt), so thanks to patents they don't have to work nearly so hard: they have no competition.
New York City, however has 8,168,338 people crammed into 785.6km^2 which would slot it in second place (against countries) at 10,292 persons per square km.
So although New York only has about 2/3 the density, it has 250 times the total population. If you're looking for a customer base for some new tech I'd take my odds in New York (despite how rich Monaco is...)
Oh, and although Japan sits well above the United States in total density, Tokyo (the largest city) has a bit more than half the density of New York at 5655 persons per km^2...so I'm guessing population density isn't specifically the problem...
907337: So is that your father's UID?
I remember a few years ago there was some kind of talk about 'returning' windows licenses...does that work? did it ever?
I don't see me buying too many desktops anymore - the freedom/power to cost ratio is low enough that I foresee all my future computers being laptops, and my last one came with XP on it...so even though FC5 will go on it shortly, I still paid the M$ tax...
anyone?
But for me, the rootkit fiasco was just the final nail
No, I don't have any actual stats or failure rates, it's just my opinion based on personal experience of me and others I know (yes, a small sample blah blah blah...still my opinion)
What I do think this shows is that companies are realising that there are profits in not having to re-invent the wheel everytime they want to build something. While Sony has a long history of creating their own closed standards (and watching them die some time later), they have now released TVs with Linux (err, GNU/Linux, sorry RMS!) and are part of IBM's OIN which (if I read it right) is a bunch of companies agreeing to share their innovations (and patents) for the greater common good...that's very contrary to the Intellectual Monopolists that normally lurk the patent hallways...and seems contrary to the general patents-are-necessary! propoganda, no?
Don't know why I never heard this one, (I'll have to do some reading now)
Strange, isn't it, how we never hear so much in the media about the recording industries crimes against humanity near so much as we hear about a couple of 'illegal' downloads... less strange that they admit no wrong doing and settled at $20/person (gimme a break!) to avoid costly litigation and move on with business...right.
So here goes anyways ;-)
Whereas the Oil Cartel (an admitted/explicit cartel) all sell oil that is indistinguishable one from another, Matisyahu's new studio album Youth is not an alternative to Coldplay's X&Y, and are very distinguishable from one another. Further, while any of the OPEC members can sell oil to any buyer, only EMI can (legitimately) sell you a new copy of X&Y. (meaning Sony can't sell it to you despite the fact that they sell Youth). It's important to note that one piece of creative work is not an alternative to another. They are not in direct competition any more than Braun is with Ford. Coffee makers and cars compete for the same dollar, true, but we don't decide to buy one and therefore not need the other. We may run out of money and only be able to buy one, but we don't buy one to replace the other.
Read this if you're still interested. (multiple PDF warning)