In each of those cases, the patents involved affected only one company (FreeType or MS), whereas this patent threatens the entire phone and digital music industries. It's visible in the image on the right that the article covers downloading music to a computer and putting it on a portable device (most MP3 stores, podcasts, etc), or downloading directly to a portable device (phones). This is a "killer patent", and in my mind, one that has the potential to stagnate the industry until it's killed.
A lot of digg users bury Roughly Drafted stories on site. There's no algorithym change involved in his claims of being censored. Digg users just think he stories are very biased pro-Apple, and also are annoyed because he has dozens of digging sockpuppets.
It's not that uncommon. The theory is that the you can buy the guy's loyalty, and if he's skilled enough to hack you, he's smarter than your guys (or at least smart enough to be on the team). There are a lot of things that are easier to "train" into someone than talent.
Actually, the reason it was likely banned was for traffic reasons. Most non-file-sharers users on a campus network average like 200MB or less a day, even if they visit YouTube or install stuff from online every once in a while. File-sharers, however, use 10x as much traffic. This can clog traffic in areas that are somewhat limited, like older buildings still wired with 10MB wired or wireless. Also, at 100KB+ a second, more than a few filesharers would seriously slow internet access to the campus. (I know this because I downloaded an Ubuntu.iso while on campus and got a mean email).
They intend to associate the word Bittorrent with a legal source of content to shift people over to paying for their media. The problem for them is that there is this uncontrollable protocol that makes mass distribution of large files easy. They cant make the protocol itself illegal, so they have to obfuscate it's function in the mind of your average joe.
That's a bad idea on their part then (which isn't surprising in and of itself). I mean, if the average Joe associates Bittorrent and legal, then hears some p2p network advertising bittorrent and free, then he's going to be mightily swayed by the free thing. "Reclaiming" Bittorrent only works if the name isn't being used by other programs that are more popular.
I mean, it seems to take forever to get simple messages into some people. I have only now impressed upon my roommate: "CHR* music, free, legal - pick two". (CHR is "contemporary hit radio", like the RIAA songs you hear on the radio).
I'm horrible with directions. Seeing stuff like "this is what the building looks like", or "here's the corner where you turn right" is a massive help.
Insofar as profit: Well, MS's theory is likely two-fold.
1) Stop Google from getting customers, and put a crimp in the style of the guys they are facing elsewhere. 2) If they can offer some amazing new feature you can't get elsewhere, it's a reason to use live.com, which is a reason to use IE, which is a reason to use Windows. The goal of Microsoft is to give Windows enough "extra" features and abilities that when you try to move to BSD/Linux/OSX/whoever, you wind up having to look for 100 replacements for all the things you used to use, like Office, IE-based sites, non-ported games, anything involving Access, etc. That quickly makes a switch more burdensome.
BTW, patents are public record -- they are all publicly available on the USPTO website.
However, this requires a large amount of vigilance. There are tens of thousands of patents, and they're all pretty vague and legalese. Additionally, it's hard to get a crap patent thrown out.
Personally, I'm starting to think that the fact that there are so many patents that we can't effective dredge through them is the problem.
It's not like the PMP market did not exist when the iPod first became available for Windows. Granted, it was smaller, much smaller, but it existed.
Hardware-wise, almost everyone now has USB2 and a good enough processor handle CD ripping at decent speeds. That means that almost every computer out there (except for really old ones in dire need of upgrade) today can host a PMP and do digital music at decent speeds. That wasn't the case five years ago.
Five years ago, USB2 was only a year old, and the fastest PC out there was a 1.5 GHz P4 on a 400MHz bus with DDR. Which means that a lot of the computing market was likely sub-1GHz, and probably under a third had a USB2 port. That means that the market to sell to was a lot smaller. That's ignoring bandwidth advances, and also CD-ROM speed advances.
I define scam a bit more broadly than you do. That qualifies as a scam to me (assuming Daryl McBride knows the lawsuit is unfounded), since he's wasting shareholder money.
*Windows Aero - Doesn't work in basic edition (AFAIK), also the least productive of the accelerated desktops from my experience * Desktop Search - Not exactly new, just new as a 1st-party Windows thing. * Sidebar - Konfabulator. * Protected-Mode IE - an IE that doesn't screw up my computer? I'm supposed to pay for that? * BitLocker Drive Encryption - you need a TPM on your Motherboard.
a more neutral/appropriate headline might make this a more reputable site.
I once tried to explain the SCO case to someone. They thought I was BSing them. The case is simply so screwed up from pretty much any rational (and non-scamming) perspective that even if Slashdot were neutral, it should stand up and say, "HEY! This is messed up". Sometimes I worry we get so caught up in NPOV and neutrality that we forget that there is objective truth, and the objective truth is that SCO is making dozens of claims it can't back up, to the judge's annoyance.
I think that they are. I'd be a bit surprised if those numbers weren't high. My general strategy in negotiating is to say "Even if you're right and..., I'm still right". If I say something based on the most generous figures, I head off a lot of counter-arguments, since no one will seriously claim that 8%-10% or more of home desktops run Linux or BSD.
It's an educated guess. If 2-3% of total home desktops run Linux (since most of Linux's market share is in server set-ups, both figures are again, educated guesses), and 33%-50% of Linux users will only use an OGG-supporting player (which seems not-unreasonable, as many Linuxers install questionable codecs anyways), then you get about 1% of the market. That's likely optimistic. But even if it's 2% of the market they're losing, that X% consists of ideologically motivated Linux users, who think that 1) most MS products suck (because of bad Windows experiences) and/or 2) hate Microsoft for various other reasons (just like I boycott Sony hardware), and also likely 3) hate the DRM and the whole Zune points, and all that sort of stuff. They wouldn't buy a Zune, so there's not much point in pursuing them.
OK. But the minute someone gets sued, they have to raise a shit-ton of money to go prove that. If they're an end-user-company, it's far cheaper to switch to MS stuff or just pay MS their extortion for the patent, and that's what they'll do. If it's a developer who isn't a major company (like IBM or Red Hat), they're up shit's creek. If it is Red Hat who gets sued, well, at least they can fight the uphill battle to eliminate the patent.
Don't kid yourself. It might have sold better in the FOSS-supporting Windows market, but that's not a huge market. The Zune would have been helped by having PlaysForSure compatibility, and Linux/Mac compatibility. Ogg is going to be at best 1% of the market, and it's going to be the 1% least likely to buy anything Microsoft.
That's a totally different issue though. Back then, MP3 players were relatively rare. Today, almost everyone has at least played with one (if they don't own one), and there are tens of millions on the streets (in the US alone). Back then, iPod sales were slow because MP3 player sales were slow.
I don't have statistics either. I'm just saying that I've seen more dumb ones than I can count on two hands. The reverse of that is that naturally, most of the cases we hear about aren't the open-shut ones.
I really have to wonder how the RIAA think they're going to get anywhere with all of this. They are suing people, but they're suing like.001% of filesharers, and it looks like 5-10 percent of their cases are missing horribly (dead people, people without computers, etc.). Then they make all sorts of ridiculous demands and steamroller people with their financial backings. I mean, they're totally destroying the US legal system and wrecking lives at random, but they can't be making that much money off this, and they aren't cutting down on piracy.
You're right. This survey is pretty messed up. I mean, we're comparing *bugs fixed*. Not bugs still open, or any measure of severity, or what got exploited, or any measure of turn-around time.
This is like saying that Fire Department A put out less fires than Fire Department B. That's nice, but what I really want to know is how long it took for the trucks to arrive, the size of the fires, and also if there are any houses that burned down before the Fire Department got there.
I know you're kidding, but having the Cell go to 65nm will help drop the PS3 price (to Sony, maybe not MSRP). Won't help with the current supply problems, as they are currently being caused by a blue-laser-diode-thingy that's in short supply industry-wide (hence other Blu-Ray player delays).
Slashdot Mirror
In each of those cases, the patents involved affected only one company (FreeType or MS), whereas this patent threatens the entire phone and digital music industries. It's visible in the image on the right that the article covers downloading music to a computer and putting it on a portable device (most MP3 stores, podcasts, etc), or downloading directly to a portable device (phones). This is a "killer patent", and in my mind, one that has the potential to stagnate the industry until it's killed.
A lot of digg users bury Roughly Drafted stories on site. There's no algorithym change involved in his claims of being censored. Digg users just think he stories are very biased pro-Apple, and also are annoyed because he has dozens of digging sockpuppets.
It's not that uncommon. The theory is that the you can buy the guy's loyalty, and if he's skilled enough to hack you, he's smarter than your guys (or at least smart enough to be on the team). There are a lot of things that are easier to "train" into someone than talent.
Actually, the reason it was likely banned was for traffic reasons. Most non-file-sharers users on a campus network average like 200MB or less a day, even if they visit YouTube or install stuff from online every once in a while. File-sharers, however, use 10x as much traffic. This can clog traffic in areas that are somewhat limited, like older buildings still wired with 10MB wired or wireless. Also, at 100KB+ a second, more than a few filesharers would seriously slow internet access to the campus. (I know this because I downloaded an Ubuntu .iso while on campus and got a mean email).
They intend to associate the word Bittorrent with a legal source of content to shift people over to paying for their media. The problem for them is that there is this uncontrollable protocol that makes mass distribution of large files easy. They cant make the protocol itself illegal, so they have to obfuscate it's function in the mind of your average joe.
That's a bad idea on their part then (which isn't surprising in and of itself). I mean, if the average Joe associates Bittorrent and legal, then hears some p2p network advertising bittorrent and free, then he's going to be mightily swayed by the free thing. "Reclaiming" Bittorrent only works if the name isn't being used by other programs that are more popular.
I mean, it seems to take forever to get simple messages into some people. I have only now impressed upon my roommate: "CHR* music, free, legal - pick two". (CHR is "contemporary hit radio", like the RIAA songs you hear on the radio).
I'm horrible with directions. Seeing stuff like "this is what the building looks like", or "here's the corner where you turn right" is a massive help.
Insofar as profit: Well, MS's theory is likely two-fold.
1) Stop Google from getting customers, and put a crimp in the style of the guys they are facing elsewhere.
2) If they can offer some amazing new feature you can't get elsewhere, it's a reason to use live.com, which is a reason to use IE, which is a reason to use Windows. The goal of Microsoft is to give Windows enough "extra" features and abilities that when you try to move to BSD/Linux/OSX/whoever, you wind up having to look for 100 replacements for all the things you used to use, like Office, IE-based sites, non-ported games, anything involving Access, etc. That quickly makes a switch more burdensome.
BTW, patents are public record -- they are all publicly available on the USPTO website.
However, this requires a large amount of vigilance. There are tens of thousands of patents, and they're all pretty vague and legalese. Additionally, it's hard to get a crap patent thrown out.
Personally, I'm starting to think that the fact that there are so many patents that we can't effective dredge through them is the problem.
It's not like the PMP market did not exist when the iPod first became available for Windows. Granted, it was smaller, much smaller, but it existed.
Hardware-wise, almost everyone now has USB2 and a good enough processor handle CD ripping at decent speeds. That means that almost every computer out there (except for really old ones in dire need of upgrade) today can host a PMP and do digital music at decent speeds. That wasn't the case five years ago.
Five years ago, USB2 was only a year old, and the fastest PC out there was a 1.5 GHz P4 on a 400MHz bus with DDR. Which means that a lot of the computing market was likely sub-1GHz, and probably under a third had a USB2 port. That means that the market to sell to was a lot smaller. That's ignoring bandwidth advances, and also CD-ROM speed advances.
I define scam a bit more broadly than you do. That qualifies as a scam to me (assuming Daryl McBride knows the lawsuit is unfounded), since he's wasting shareholder money.
Missing Option: Rainbow Colored
*Windows Aero - Doesn't work in basic edition (AFAIK), also the least productive of the accelerated desktops from my experience
* Desktop Search - Not exactly new, just new as a 1st-party Windows thing.
* Sidebar - Konfabulator.
* Protected-Mode IE - an IE that doesn't screw up my computer? I'm supposed to pay for that?
* BitLocker Drive Encryption - you need a TPM on your Motherboard.
Most of them may not be announced yet, since there's no point in putting them on sale right after the holiday season.
a more neutral/appropriate headline might make this a more reputable site.
I once tried to explain the SCO case to someone. They thought I was BSing them. The case is simply so screwed up from pretty much any rational (and non-scamming) perspective that even if Slashdot were neutral, it should stand up and say, "HEY! This is messed up". Sometimes I worry we get so caught up in NPOV and neutrality that we forget that there is objective truth, and the objective truth is that SCO is making dozens of claims it can't back up, to the judge's annoyance.
Nope, i hold that patents on ears, they cant tax them without paying me first.
So that's why no one ever listens when I talk! There's a licensing fee!
I think that they are. I'd be a bit surprised if those numbers weren't high. My general strategy in negotiating is to say "Even if you're right and..., I'm still right". If I say something based on the most generous figures, I head off a lot of counter-arguments, since no one will seriously claim that 8%-10% or more of home desktops run Linux or BSD.
It's an educated guess. If 2-3% of total home desktops run Linux (since most of Linux's market share is in server set-ups, both figures are again, educated guesses), and 33%-50% of Linux users will only use an OGG-supporting player (which seems not-unreasonable, as many Linuxers install questionable codecs anyways), then you get about 1% of the market. That's likely optimistic. But even if it's 2% of the market they're losing, that X% consists of ideologically motivated Linux users, who think that 1) most MS products suck (because of bad Windows experiences) and/or 2) hate Microsoft for various other reasons (just like I boycott Sony hardware), and also likely 3) hate the DRM and the whole Zune points, and all that sort of stuff. They wouldn't buy a Zune, so there's not much point in pursuing them.
OK. But the minute someone gets sued, they have to raise a shit-ton of money to go prove that. If they're an end-user-company, it's far cheaper to switch to MS stuff or just pay MS their extortion for the patent, and that's what they'll do. If it's a developer who isn't a major company (like IBM or Red Hat), they're up shit's creek. If it is Red Hat who gets sued, well, at least they can fight the uphill battle to eliminate the patent.
Don't kid yourself. It might have sold better in the FOSS-supporting Windows market, but that's not a huge market. The Zune would have been helped by having PlaysForSure compatibility, and Linux/Mac compatibility. Ogg is going to be at best 1% of the market, and it's going to be the 1% least likely to buy anything Microsoft.
That's a totally different issue though. Back then, MP3 players were relatively rare. Today, almost everyone has at least played with one (if they don't own one), and there are tens of millions on the streets (in the US alone). Back then, iPod sales were slow because MP3 player sales were slow.
I don't have statistics either. I'm just saying that I've seen more dumb ones than I can count on two hands. The reverse of that is that naturally, most of the cases we hear about aren't the open-shut ones.
As I understand it, the dead guy was alive when they claim he pirated the songs.
I can't wait for them to sue a deaf guy.
I really have to wonder how the RIAA think they're going to get anywhere with all of this. They are suing people, but they're suing like .001% of filesharers, and it looks like 5-10 percent of their cases are missing horribly (dead people, people without computers, etc.). Then they make all sorts of ridiculous demands and steamroller people with their financial backings. I mean, they're totally destroying the US legal system and wrecking lives at random, but they can't be making that much money off this, and they aren't cutting down on piracy.
You're right. This survey is pretty messed up. I mean, we're comparing *bugs fixed*. Not bugs still open, or any measure of severity, or what got exploited, or any measure of turn-around time.
This is like saying that Fire Department A put out less fires than Fire Department B. That's nice, but what I really want to know is how long it took for the trucks to arrive, the size of the fires, and also if there are any houses that burned down before the Fire Department got there.
I know you're kidding, but having the Cell go to 65nm will help drop the PS3 price (to Sony, maybe not MSRP). Won't help with the current supply problems, as they are currently being caused by a blue-laser-diode-thingy that's in short supply industry-wide (hence other Blu-Ray player delays).