Roca states what is the real problem with Microsoft. They are in reality an unregulated monopoly. The problem in the US is that we think that all monopolies should be illegal monopolies, but what this usually means is that only bad (as defined as which judge or executive branch official) monopolies are slapped.
We should come to accept that a monopoly can exist by either market or financial forces. The market forceds in Microsoft's favor is its continual desire to keep as much compatibility with prior versions of its software. What that means it that it creates a long-term viability for programmers and the people who buy its software. The financial forces are the fact that Microsoft invests in profits in adding features, buying competitors and entering into markets that might threaten its franchise.
This is a classic example of why a monopoly has to be regulated. There was no need for Microsoft to invest its surplus profits into building Microsoft Office. These monopoly profits should have been returned to its customers who overpaid for the product.
Utilities are a perfect example of legal monopolies. We regulate them, we make sure they don't invest in stupid things (because we will pay for them in the form of rate increases), if they overcharge they return the money back to their customers.
Do I think that my electric utility should my rates to buy up competing power plants to prevent competition without approval from a public body. No but we allow Microsoft to use its profits to attempt to put Palm, Real Networks, Linux, Apple, Wordperfect, Netscape, XYWrite, PC File all out of business. Microsoft used my money to do this. Am I supposed to applaud this?
Incorporation is a powerful tool for companies to raise capital by preventing loss of capital beyond the value of its stock. However, it should come with stipulations that state what happens if a company achieves monopoly status.
I don't fault Microsoft, I fault ourselves for allowing Microsoft to exist in its current form.
People are thinking that IBM bought these patents or just went fishing. I'm sure these patents are from the IBM-Sears joint Prodigy service. Prodigy really was ahead of its time in many of its concepts.
Because with SED and other technologies coming out in the near future flat screen prices are going to take a drop to the point where ordinary people will start buying 50' TVs. At that point people are going to realize that their DVDs are not as good as they thought.
Also ironically, DVD has primed people for the idea that stored material that you purchase should be higher in quality than the live TV you watch. DVD picture quality is inferior to HDTV, so naturally you should have something of equivalent quality.
The real driving force on home theatres has been the drastically improved sound systems rather than picture quality. So now it is the turn for the picture to catch up with the improved sound.
Well he says he has tens of millions lined up and he'll show his invention off to the public in a few months. If he were complety full of gossep he would say it was a few years off. A few months doesn't get stretched can't get stretched beyond a year or the claim gets meaningless. Also those "tens of millions" will dry up quick if something isn't shown.
I don't care about the physics (my physicist daughter would cring at this) if it works. Anything that can get rid of the Middle East as the major energy source of mankind and reduce CO2 emissions has received my vote.
Slashdot Mirror
Roca states what is the real problem with Microsoft. They are in reality an unregulated monopoly. The problem in the US is that we think that all monopolies should be illegal monopolies, but what this usually means is that only bad (as defined as which judge or executive branch official) monopolies are slapped. We should come to accept that a monopoly can exist by either market or financial forces. The market forceds in Microsoft's favor is its continual desire to keep as much compatibility with prior versions of its software. What that means it that it creates a long-term viability for programmers and the people who buy its software. The financial forces are the fact that Microsoft invests in profits in adding features, buying competitors and entering into markets that might threaten its franchise. This is a classic example of why a monopoly has to be regulated. There was no need for Microsoft to invest its surplus profits into building Microsoft Office. These monopoly profits should have been returned to its customers who overpaid for the product. Utilities are a perfect example of legal monopolies. We regulate them, we make sure they don't invest in stupid things (because we will pay for them in the form of rate increases), if they overcharge they return the money back to their customers. Do I think that my electric utility should my rates to buy up competing power plants to prevent competition without approval from a public body. No but we allow Microsoft to use its profits to attempt to put Palm, Real Networks, Linux, Apple, Wordperfect, Netscape, XYWrite, PC File all out of business. Microsoft used my money to do this. Am I supposed to applaud this? Incorporation is a powerful tool for companies to raise capital by preventing loss of capital beyond the value of its stock. However, it should come with stipulations that state what happens if a company achieves monopoly status. I don't fault Microsoft, I fault ourselves for allowing Microsoft to exist in its current form.
People are thinking that IBM bought these patents or just went fishing. I'm sure these patents are from the IBM-Sears joint Prodigy service. Prodigy really was ahead of its time in many of its concepts.
Also ironically, DVD has primed people for the idea that stored material that you purchase should be higher in quality than the live TV you watch. DVD picture quality is inferior to HDTV, so naturally you should have something of equivalent quality.
The real driving force on home theatres has been the drastically improved sound systems rather than picture quality. So now it is the turn for the picture to catch up with the improved sound.
Well he says he has tens of millions lined up and he'll show his invention off to the public in a few months. If he were complety full of gossep he would say it was a few years off. A few months doesn't get stretched can't get stretched beyond a year or the claim gets meaningless. Also those "tens of millions" will dry up quick if something isn't shown. I don't care about the physics (my physicist daughter would cring at this) if it works. Anything that can get rid of the Middle East as the major energy source of mankind and reduce CO2 emissions has received my vote.
Since it it will initially be used for movie theatres, it is likely that that it will be a DLP design.