There are any number of reasons to charge exorbitant licensing fees which may prevent people from using your patent, up to and including the fact that you may have your own product based on it, and the prospective licensor wants to make a competing product. There are also exclusive patent licensing deals, which do not permit the licensor to relicense, effectively preventing anyone else from making a product based on the same patent until the agreement expires.
Then that means the answer is "No, patents are not stifling innovation." Because if patent-holders are going to go to those lengths, that's going to force you to come up with new ideas and new ways of doing things that won't involve those patents. If that doesn't spark creativity, I don't know what will.
And just because something is patented, doesn't mean you can't use it. All it means is that the holder of the patent is entitled to compensation if you use their patented idea/technology in your gizmo. The only way a patent can truly stifle development is if a patent-holder charges too much for the right to use the idea/technology outlined in the patent. Most aren't going to do that however, as the patent represents a source of cash.
Yeah, but I'm not about to pick a product/service based on the zealotry of some users; what I need is quality information, a breakdown of the good and bad points, which everything has. Screaming from the top of your lungs how great something is doesn't inspire confidence in me, especially when you ask about limitations/problems and are shouted down for even suggesting there might be any. The fact that the "fanboy" is going to claim victory just because I did my own cost-benefit analysis and decided to use the same thing is just another sign of how pathetic they really are. A product/service must rise or fall on its own merits; I am suspicious of any product that engenders rabid sentimentalism and proselytization.
The fanboy is fixated, a product of the Skinner box of technology. They find a particular product/service to be so useful, so much like what they have always wanted (read: reinforcing), that the idea that there is anything different/better out there is inconceivable. Also, deprive them of their fixation, and they go into withdrawals.
The fixation is unhealthy and limiting. People with fixations are frequently unable to adapt to changes in their environment. They cling to a thing even after that thing ceases to bring them the comfort/serenity that it first did. They will viciously attack anyone who disparages they chosen tool, unable to see the light of even the most cogent argument.
I've personally never let an individual piece of technology/software or service consume me. Some are nice, some are useful, some are downright cool. But this is the Internet Age -- if you wait five minutes, something new and better will invariably come along. If you don't allow yourself to be open to new ideas and ways of thinking, you're bound to be left behind.
If the RIAA could find a way to charge people for listen to music floating on the air, they would. The RIAA is in it for the money, to line their coffers. They will take advantage of anything that will allow them to continue their stranglehold on the music industry. Perhaps it's because deep down, they realize that the Internet has upset the apple cart, and they cannot maintian their grip. It's now possible for bands to record, mix, and produce their own music without interference from a record label. That frightens them -- the idea that consumers might actually be able to get the music they want, when they want, how they want, without ponying up to them.
The same basic argument would seem to apply to a memory stick or thumb drive. If I leave them lying around, does that make me liable if someone steals them and copies the data? Not really, anymore than you could be charged with manslaughter if someone steals your car and kills someone with it while running from the cops.
However, just because the files are there, does not mean they were put there with the intent to distribute them to the populace in general. While the folders may have been public, the fact is no one is under any obligation to change the permissions on a folder. And it's also possible that changing the permission might make the content inaccessible to some form of media player that would access the folder. Also, even if the permissions are changed, that does not stop someone with adequate knowledge or superuser permissions from altering the permissions or copying the content despite the permissions.
Just because the files are there doesn't automatically mean he was intending to share them or anything else. They simply are. Implying that the existence of something proves guilt is a bit of a flawed argument. The RIAA has to prove intent and they don't have the evidence.
Half the problem is that the ISS was designed by Congress and the President of the United States (Reagan, Bush I, Clinton), not by NASA, vis-a-vis the NASA budget dance. The White House and Congress were continually changing and reshaping its mission, its design, and eventually decided that we had to partner with other countries if we were ever going to get it built. Ask any old NASA engineer and they'll tell you -- this is not your father's space station.
That said, it is modular, and could be reconfigured with the addition/subtraction of modules. It could be converted from a pure research facility to more of a way station. Mind you, it would still not be the most efficient design for that job, but given the cost of lofting payload into orbit given our current chemical rocket technology, we've already bought a great deal of the effort required. To start over and perhaps have to assemble another station to use for Moon/Mars missions, would be even more expensive in current dollars than making use of what we already have.
The investment in time, money, and energy has already been made. To abandon it now, no matter how dysfunctional it is, would be a bigger waste. If the initiatives to return to the Moon and move on to Mars are going to go forward (and given Congress' past performance in this regard, I highly doubt it), then ISS is a necessary platform to span the gap between the Earth and the Moon. MInd you, when the United States was first thinking of going to the Moon, Werner von Braun put forward the plan to build a space station first, then use it as the assembly point for the journey to the Moon. Then, the platform would already have been established, and the Space Shuttle would have been the next natural extension after the end of Apollo. But the idea was shelved in order to get to the Moon by 1970, and as a result we have the current situation. So, we have done it backwards, but to abandon it now would be truly a giant step in reverse.
Let's face it, these rejections are driven by China. No, the government of China is not leaning on Google, Yahoo!, et. al., but is making it quite clear that the continued right to operate in China via Chinese web connections requires some... alterations. And because China is seen as such a lucrative market given its population size, non of these companies is willing to put itself in a position to be banned by the Chinese, ceding dominance of the market to its competitors.
I'll be most impressed if one of them decides to stand up and say "enough is enough". The fact is, the population of China is large, but they only comprise 1.3 billion of the 6+ billion people on the planet. A significant fraction, but not enough to justify turning their back on principle.
But it makes business sense to maintain the old even as you replace it. I worked for a company that changed their website from the old Perl-driven one to a new Java-driven one. My job was to keep the old one a) running and b) up-to-date with the new one, so when the switchover was made to the new one, it would be seamless and no one would notice the difference.
Verizon has to look at it the same way: if they neglect the copper, no matter how nifty the FiOS is, they stand to lose customers, who want decent phone service now and are not willing to wait for the upgrade.
While that may be true on the surface, in fact the Federal government has under-funded the programs that are supposed to work to support the act, leaving the states to foot the bill, using already stretched school budgets (Note: they are stretched because frankly a lot of that money is being wasted... but I digress).
It isn't enough for Washington to come up with ideas -- they have to make the ideas practical and easily fundable. But when it comes to money, Washington is a town full of amnesiacs.
I didn't say anything of the sort. I'm saying the states are balking at picking up the price tag. I for one wouldn't mind the standardization of license information for the purposes of making it easier to identify drivers within the United States. I draw the line at turning it into a nationalized ID system for the purposes of tracking people. And frankly, if the US Government thinks this up, then they should foot part of the bill for its implementation, since this is a national program. The money in the Federal budget comes from we the taxpayers, and I don't see why my local taxes need to be driven up just so Washington can stroke its ego.
Sadly, yes, not only is our Governor too stupid to wear his seatbelt, but he hasn't done much to stop the unfunded mandates, nor lower property taxes significantly.
The Wisconsin State Journal has an incredibly good analysis of the mess. They write:
States have rebelled at the $14 billion in costs the act imposes on states, as well as worries that the new security system will invade residents' privacy and create what amounts to a national ID card.
Emphasis mine. That's what makes this so unpalatable to the states, just like "No Child Left Behind" or welfare reform. The United States Government is saying "we're going to create these standards and you are going to pay to implement them" and the states are naturally balking at having to foot the bill for Washington D.C.'s foolishness.
Apparently a "Spam King" is like a hydra; cut off one head and a bunch more pop up. Until there's some kind of live monetary cost for sending out emails, the profit in spamming outweighs the possible penalty, especially if you live outside the US. Then you can thumb your nose at CAN-SPAM.
Too true. "King" is a royal and regal word, watered down enough by a bunch of potentate wannabes, without subjecting it to the likes of this moron's ilk. I'm thinking "Chief Spam Weasel" is more in keeping with what he is.
Sunday's New York Times reported that the federal government had weighed in on the matter, urging state attorneys general who had received Google's complaint not to investigate Microsoft further. According to the article, a memo from Thomas O. Barnett, assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice, had been circulated to some state-level competition authorities.
This can only mean:
Microsoft is adhering to its deal with the DOJ and they have investigated the matter and find Google's complaint without merit - or -
The DOJ is trying to keep the state Attorneys General from getting involved in what they regard as a Federal matter
Then again, you might fall into the trap of having to administer an older version of a system where the flaw is still extant. Never hurts to have that knowledge at your fingertips (I personally have been keeping O'Reilly in business for the past few years) and I think that even if a pitfall gets programmed out, there may be resonances of it in the current release or perhaps in a different distro altogether.
They are worried that Linus warming will contribute to global average temperature rise. This could be offset however, by eliminating a source of greenhouse gas emissions. Suggestions include Steve Ballmer...
Slashdot Mirror
Then that means the answer is "No, patents are not stifling innovation." Because if patent-holders are going to go to those lengths, that's going to force you to come up with new ideas and new ways of doing things that won't involve those patents. If that doesn't spark creativity, I don't know what will.
And just because something is patented, doesn't mean you can't use it. All it means is that the holder of the patent is entitled to compensation if you use their patented idea/technology in your gizmo. The only way a patent can truly stifle development is if a patent-holder charges too much for the right to use the idea/technology outlined in the patent. Most aren't going to do that however, as the patent represents a source of cash.
Yeah, but I'm not about to pick a product/service based on the zealotry of some users; what I need is quality information, a breakdown of the good and bad points, which everything has. Screaming from the top of your lungs how great something is doesn't inspire confidence in me, especially when you ask about limitations/problems and are shouted down for even suggesting there might be any. The fact that the "fanboy" is going to claim victory just because I did my own cost-benefit analysis and decided to use the same thing is just another sign of how pathetic they really are. A product/service must rise or fall on its own merits; I am suspicious of any product that engenders rabid sentimentalism and proselytization.
The fanboy is fixated, a product of the Skinner box of technology. They find a particular product/service to be so useful, so much like what they have always wanted (read: reinforcing), that the idea that there is anything different/better out there is inconceivable. Also, deprive them of their fixation, and they go into withdrawals.
The fixation is unhealthy and limiting. People with fixations are frequently unable to adapt to changes in their environment. They cling to a thing even after that thing ceases to bring them the comfort/serenity that it first did. They will viciously attack anyone who disparages they chosen tool, unable to see the light of even the most cogent argument.
I've personally never let an individual piece of technology/software or service consume me. Some are nice, some are useful, some are downright cool. But this is the Internet Age -- if you wait five minutes, something new and better will invariably come along. If you don't allow yourself to be open to new ideas and ways of thinking, you're bound to be left behind.
Just think of what this will do to chiropractors... they'll all suddenly have to become IT experts.
Chiropractor: Here's the reason your bandwidth is so low... CRAAAAACCCKKK!!!
...and they still couldn't nail Tony Soprano. The FBI is a shadow of its former self.
If the RIAA could find a way to charge people for listen to music floating on the air, they would. The RIAA is in it for the money, to line their coffers. They will take advantage of anything that will allow them to continue their stranglehold on the music industry. Perhaps it's because deep down, they realize that the Internet has upset the apple cart, and they cannot maintian their grip. It's now possible for bands to record, mix, and produce their own music without interference from a record label. That frightens them -- the idea that consumers might actually be able to get the music they want, when they want, how they want, without ponying up to them.
The same basic argument would seem to apply to a memory stick or thumb drive. If I leave them lying around, does that make me liable if someone steals them and copies the data? Not really, anymore than you could be charged with manslaughter if someone steals your car and kills someone with it while running from the cops.
However, just because the files are there, does not mean they were put there with the intent to distribute them to the populace in general. While the folders may have been public, the fact is no one is under any obligation to change the permissions on a folder. And it's also possible that changing the permission might make the content inaccessible to some form of media player that would access the folder. Also, even if the permissions are changed, that does not stop someone with adequate knowledge or superuser permissions from altering the permissions or copying the content despite the permissions.
Just because the files are there doesn't automatically mean he was intending to share them or anything else. They simply are. Implying that the existence of something proves guilt is a bit of a flawed argument. The RIAA has to prove intent and they don't have the evidence.
Half the problem is that the ISS was designed by Congress and the President of the United States (Reagan, Bush I, Clinton), not by NASA, vis-a-vis the NASA budget dance. The White House and Congress were continually changing and reshaping its mission, its design, and eventually decided that we had to partner with other countries if we were ever going to get it built. Ask any old NASA engineer and they'll tell you -- this is not your father's space station.
That said, it is modular, and could be reconfigured with the addition/subtraction of modules. It could be converted from a pure research facility to more of a way station. Mind you, it would still not be the most efficient design for that job, but given the cost of lofting payload into orbit given our current chemical rocket technology, we've already bought a great deal of the effort required. To start over and perhaps have to assemble another station to use for Moon/Mars missions, would be even more expensive in current dollars than making use of what we already have.
The investment in time, money, and energy has already been made. To abandon it now, no matter how dysfunctional it is, would be a bigger waste. If the initiatives to return to the Moon and move on to Mars are going to go forward (and given Congress' past performance in this regard, I highly doubt it), then ISS is a necessary platform to span the gap between the Earth and the Moon. MInd you, when the United States was first thinking of going to the Moon, Werner von Braun put forward the plan to build a space station first, then use it as the assembly point for the journey to the Moon. Then, the platform would already have been established, and the Space Shuttle would have been the next natural extension after the end of Apollo. But the idea was shelved in order to get to the Moon by 1970, and as a result we have the current situation. So, we have done it backwards, but to abandon it now would be truly a giant step in reverse.
Better:
If you are what you eat, then I'm a vegetarian.
I second that. The question now is: how long will the Chinese continue to put up with repression?
Let's face it, these rejections are driven by China. No, the government of China is not leaning on Google, Yahoo!, et. al., but is making it quite clear that the continued right to operate in China via Chinese web connections requires some... alterations. And because China is seen as such a lucrative market given its population size, non of these companies is willing to put itself in a position to be banned by the Chinese, ceding dominance of the market to its competitors.
I'll be most impressed if one of them decides to stand up and say "enough is enough". The fact is, the population of China is large, but they only comprise 1.3 billion of the 6+ billion people on the planet. A significant fraction, but not enough to justify turning their back on principle.
But it makes business sense to maintain the old even as you replace it. I worked for a company that changed their website from the old Perl-driven one to a new Java-driven one. My job was to keep the old one a) running and b) up-to-date with the new one, so when the switchover was made to the new one, it would be seamless and no one would notice the difference.
Verizon has to look at it the same way: if they neglect the copper, no matter how nifty the FiOS is, they stand to lose customers, who want decent phone service now and are not willing to wait for the upgrade.
While that may be true on the surface, in fact the Federal government has under-funded the programs that are supposed to work to support the act, leaving the states to foot the bill, using already stretched school budgets (Note: they are stretched because frankly a lot of that money is being wasted... but I digress).
It isn't enough for Washington to come up with ideas -- they have to make the ideas practical and easily fundable. But when it comes to money, Washington is a town full of amnesiacs.
I didn't say anything of the sort. I'm saying the states are balking at picking up the price tag. I for one wouldn't mind the standardization of license information for the purposes of making it easier to identify drivers within the United States. I draw the line at turning it into a nationalized ID system for the purposes of tracking people. And frankly, if the US Government thinks this up, then they should foot part of the bill for its implementation, since this is a national program. The money in the Federal budget comes from we the taxpayers, and I don't see why my local taxes need to be driven up just so Washington can stroke its ego.
Sadly, yes, not only is our Governor too stupid to wear his seatbelt, but he hasn't done much to stop the unfunded mandates, nor lower property taxes significantly.
Emphasis mine. That's what makes this so unpalatable to the states, just like "No Child Left Behind" or welfare reform. The United States Government is saying "we're going to create these standards and you are going to pay to implement them" and the states are naturally balking at having to foot the bill for Washington D.C.'s foolishness.
He better hope his bunkmate in prison isn't one of his former customers who got the penis enlargement pills but found out sadly they didn't work...
Apparently a "Spam King" is like a hydra; cut off one head and a bunch more pop up. Until there's some kind of live monetary cost for sending out emails, the profit in spamming outweighs the possible penalty, especially if you live outside the US. Then you can thumb your nose at CAN-SPAM.
Too true. "King" is a royal and regal word, watered down enough by a bunch of potentate wannabes, without subjecting it to the likes of this moron's ilk. I'm thinking "Chief Spam Weasel" is more in keeping with what he is.
This can only mean:
- or -
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Then again, you might fall into the trap of having to administer an older version of a system where the flaw is still extant. Never hurts to have that knowledge at your fingertips (I personally have been keeping O'Reilly in business for the past few years) and I think that even if a pitfall gets programmed out, there may be resonances of it in the current release or perhaps in a different distro altogether.
They are worried that Linus warming will contribute to global average temperature rise. This could be offset however, by eliminating a source of greenhouse gas emissions. Suggestions include Steve Ballmer...