Since Motorola does business in Germany also, what's to prevent the German court from imposing (stiffer) penalties on Motorola Germany for NOT abiding by the German ruling?
The German ruling allows Motorola to enforce a ban, it does not require them to do so.
Simply put, Apple's policy is that for any app in the appstore, if you desire someone to purchase additional features for your app, and you tell them about it, they must be done through in-app purchases.
Where can we see the actual language of that policy? Without signing as "iOS developers" that is.
How about the entire history of humanity? Most music creators who have ever lived were not paid, nor credited for their work. We probably haven't hear a fraction of a percent of the amount of music people have created over the course of human existence. This century is fucked.
Do not confuse "work" with "hobby". I don't get paid for my hobbies either.
For clarity, is "once" more than the usual "never"?
For clarity, please provide supporting evidence for your assertion that music creators are usually never paid for their work (using commonly accepted definitions of "usual", "never" and "work").
This guy is an astrophysicist, not an astrobiologist. Don't trust a chemist to talk about physics, you don't trust a geologist about climate science, and you don't trust a astrophysicist to talk about biology.
He could be a janitor for all I care. The only important question is: is his science sound or not.
The ruling in that case was a default judgment and as such does not prove anything. For all that we know UMaple could have won the case had they bothered to show. That said, they did distribute a modified client, which does constitute copyright infringement and were nabbed for that, not for being "compatible".
I am not familiar with the bnetd case.
Move more of the logic to the back end so the front end becomes useless without it
That's tricky. Move not enough of the logic to the back end, and people can analyze the communication with the server and "record" all the assets that the server streams to the single-player client. Move too much of the logic to the back end, and you end up with something like OnLive, which stands no chance of fitting into monthly data transfer caps especially on mobile devices.
If the AI is on the server side, analyzing the stream gives you nothing.
If I set up a chess engine and allow you to play against it online, do you think that analyzing the traffic will let you duplicate it?
We can keep at it until the cows come home so let me repeat my ultimate argument: If the business model is not profitable, find a different one. If you cannot, find a different business. If supply dwindles to nothing while demand exists, a solution will be found.
Yet another option would be to provide online play and charge for it.
For one thing, without copyright, anyone can write compatible server software.
For one thing, copyright does not protect against "compatible" implementations, only against copying/distributing the actual work. For another, if you can write a good back end, you're better off teaming up with someone who can do a front end and $profit$.
For another, how would the developer derive revenue from those people who choose to play the single-player portion of a video game while a passenger in a vehicle?
Move more of the logic to the back end so the front end becomes useless without it (or a demo at best).
That said, if you cannot figure out a way to derive revenue without a government-granted monopoly, find another line of business. There's always a market for good engineers for the physical world.
Suggestions please. What sort of business model would you suggest to fund the development of a video game that is distributed as free software?
The most obvious suggestion will be to avoid fields which prove to be unprofitable. You don't have to make video games, do you? If no games are made and the market still demands them, a solution will be found. The problem as I see it is that copyright was foisted upon society without any hard evidence that its lack will cause scarcity.
Another possibility, which I do not personally like or advocate, is DRM, which does not need copyright protection to function. Valve seems to be doing OK with Steam.
Yet another option would be to provide online play and charge for it.
That's three different suggestions and I am sure more can be found.
Without copyright you could take my work and use it without giving me any reward for having created it. That does not seem right to me for some reason.
To be a monopoly, you have to have government on your side, setting barriers of entry that are not market barriers, but instead artificial barriers that cannot be overcome with simply market economics.
You are redefining the meaning of the word "monopoly" to apply only to a subset of monopolies. In particular, you are ignoring "natural monopolies". I do not know whether you do it deliberately (to frame the argument) or not but if you want to have a meaningful discussion, kindly use the commonly accepted definition.
Your so-called "economy of scale" can often afford to (and sometimes does) lower prices below cost in order to undercut competitors and force them out. Then, while it regains the monopoly, charge "what the market would bear" (a.k.a gouge).
Maybe you are concerned about newcomers into the market too much, I am only worried about my ability to BUY good stuff cheaply.
You conveniently ignored the the last part of my statement. Once your "efficient" company gets rid of the competition, there is no incentive to continue charging low prices. In fact, the most efficient strategy is to ramp the prices to the maximum that the market will bear (which is quite a lot if you provide an essential good or service) and only once potential competition pops up, lower them to undercut it. It works surprisingly well in areas where there are naturally high barriers to entry, like, for example, the rare earth elements market that I mentioned.
Come to think of it, I mentioned it twice before and both times you chose to avoid the subject. So let the third time be the charm.
From Wikipedia: By 1890, Standard Oil controlled 88% of the refined oil flows in the United States. In 1904, Standard controlled 91% of production and 85% of final sales.
As I keep repeating: an economy of scale is not a monopoly. Economy of scale can offer the best product at the lowest price, and once it stops doing so, there is no government force with all the licenses, special taxes, special regulations - all these and other barriers to entry into the market.
Your so-called "economy of scale" can often afford to (and sometimes does) lower prices below cost in order to undercut competitors and force them out. Then, while it regains the monopoly, charge "what the market would bear" (a.k.a gouge).
For a current example, see the rare earth elements market.
De Beers is quite successful, the most successful cartel on this planet. Of-course there is plenty COMPETITION to De Beers. You do realise that you do NOT HAVE TO BUY DIAMONDS, do you? Or are you that brainwashed? What, a cubic zirconia ring is not good enough for you?
I was thinking of industrial diamonds, which comprise 80% of all mined diamonds and had practically no alternatives until synthetic diamonds became commercially viable (in the late 50's I believe). Good luck replacing those with cubic zirconium with its inferior hardness and abysmal thermal conductivity.
As for your poor attempt at a personal attack, we have never had (nor wanted) any kind of gem on our rings. But the fact that you failed to consider that option shows which one of us is brainwashed.
Microsoft used government protection in form of copyrights to create a very high barrier of entry, however it is not a monopoly
Leaving aside the issue of what is the more dangerous entity (mostly because the distinction between the interests of governments and of said "corporate financial interests" is blurring fast), I have to respond to some of your assertions.
the monopoly is accountable to you through your vote. it is an extension of your will, not an imposition of an alien will on you
This is true in theory but, as we all know, the difference between theory and practice is much larger in practice than in theory.
The effectiveness of the vote, and therefore the accountability, has been nullified by several mechanisms.
Firstly, an democratic process can only function effectively with an informed, rational and involved populace. It stops working when the flow of information is controlled by, for example, allowing the concentration of traditional media outlets in a few hands with aligned interests, passing laws that curtail free-speech in the name of "security", drowning the significant information in a sea of important-sounding trivia, constantly attacking the internet (which will eventually succeed) and so on. It stops working when the rationality is removed by constantly bombarding the audience with FUD, scaring them with terrorist and child molesters that lurk behind every corner. And it stops working when active involvement carries very unpleasant consequences.
Note that, due to the nature of democracy, the tactics above need not be 100% effective. One only needs to influence a percentage of the potential voters sufficient to ensure the desired result. You may be immune, but for every you there are several that will not be.
Another mechanism is removing choices. Leave the voter with a limited number of mostly identical options (only two in the US) and provide trivial differences to maintain the illusion of choice. Furthermore, raise the barrier of entry to prevent any true alternative from competing.
heal YOUR government by removing the corporate infection
1. It is not YOUR government 2. It does not want to be "healed". In fact, it considers itself to be quite healthy. 3. You can't force it.
Slashdot Mirror
That's kinda always been Java's thing, supported everywhere, slow everywhere.
Sort of like Canadian healthcare?
Since Motorola does business in Germany also, what's to prevent the German court from imposing (stiffer) penalties on Motorola Germany for NOT abiding by the German ruling?
The German ruling allows Motorola to enforce a ban, it does not require them to do so.
Simply put, Apple's policy is that for any app in the appstore, if you desire someone to purchase additional features for your app, and you tell them about it, they must be done through in-app purchases.
Where can we see the actual language of that policy?
Without signing as "iOS developers" that is.
How about the entire history of humanity? Most music creators who have ever lived were not paid, nor credited for their work. We probably haven't hear a fraction of a percent of the amount of music people have created over the course of human existence. This century is fucked.
Do not confuse "work" with "hobby".
I don't get paid for my hobbies either.
For clarity, is "once" more than the usual "never"?
For clarity, please provide supporting evidence for your assertion that music creators are usually never paid for their work (using commonly accepted definitions of "usual", "never" and "work").
Music lobby group, the BPI, welcomed the move, saying music creators 'deserve to be paid for their work just like everyone else'
"Just like everyone else" means "once".
If it doesn't get vetoed, then it's time to use the ammo box. This just fucked up the future of my children. I will give my life for them.
The fuck you will.
You don't even have the conviction to back your grandstanding with a nick.
When it comes to actual actions you will do jack shit.
This begs the question
Raises.
Sorry. I need help.
Beg for it.
This guy is an astrophysicist, not an astrobiologist. Don't trust a chemist to talk about physics, you don't trust a geologist about climate science, and you don't trust a astrophysicist to talk about biology.
He could be a janitor for all I care. The only important question is: is his science sound or not.
Could the telomeres of chromosomes be lengthened?
I foresee a new kind of spam.
Child abuse isn't taken seriously? Here in the states, child services can take your kid away from you if you so much as look at it wrong in public.
Which is almost never beneficial to the child.
It isn't evil to vote against the worst evil.
It is, because it perpetuates a system in which only evil wins.
If supply dwindles to nothing while demand exists, a solution will be found.
What kind of solution to this problem will be found? Or by "if" do you mean "when and only when"?
Yes, I actually do.
There is no incentive to innovate when the government protects your existing business model.
copyright does not protect against "compatible" implementations
The ruling in this article disagrees with you, as does the ruling in the bnetd case.
The ruling in that case was a default judgment and as such does not prove anything. For all that we know UMaple could have won the case had they bothered to show. That said, they did distribute a modified client, which does constitute copyright infringement and were nabbed for that, not for being "compatible".
I am not familiar with the bnetd case.
Move more of the logic to the back end so the front end becomes useless without it
That's tricky. Move not enough of the logic to the back end, and people can analyze the communication with the server and "record" all the assets that the server streams to the single-player client. Move too much of the logic to the back end, and you end up with something like OnLive, which stands no chance of fitting into monthly data transfer caps especially on mobile devices.
If the AI is on the server side, analyzing the stream gives you nothing.
If I set up a chess engine and allow you to play against it online, do you think that analyzing the traffic will let you duplicate it?
We can keep at it until the cows come home so let me repeat my ultimate argument:
If the business model is not profitable, find a different one.
If you cannot, find a different business.
If supply dwindles to nothing while demand exists, a solution will be found.
Yet another option would be to provide online play and charge for it.
For one thing, without copyright, anyone can write compatible server software.
For one thing, copyright does not protect against "compatible" implementations, only against copying/distributing the actual work.
For another, if you can write a good back end, you're better off teaming up with someone who can do a front end and $profit$.
For another, how would the developer derive revenue from those people who choose to play the single-player portion of a video game while a passenger in a vehicle?
Move more of the logic to the back end so the front end becomes useless without it (or a demo at best).
That said, if you cannot figure out a way to derive revenue without a government-granted monopoly, find another line of business. There's always a market for good engineers for the physical world.
Telling a joke is a copyright infringement.
Eh? :) An incorporation process cannot nullify existing covenants retroactively.
A future publicly traded company will assume both assets *and* existing contractual obligations.
Is this promise a contractual obligation?
Google asked this question before the live trial AND it was answered by Elison as bing [sic] correct
That was a low blow on his part.
Suggestions please. What sort of business model would you suggest to fund the development of a video game that is distributed as free software?
The most obvious suggestion will be to avoid fields which prove to be unprofitable. You don't have to make video games, do you? If no games are made and the market still demands them, a solution will be found. The problem as I see it is that copyright was foisted upon society without any hard evidence that its lack will cause scarcity.
Another possibility, which I do not personally like or advocate, is DRM, which does not need copyright protection to function. Valve seems to be doing OK with Steam.
Yet another option would be to provide online play and charge for it.
That's three different suggestions and I am sure more can be found.
Without copyright you could take my work and use it without giving me any reward for having created it. That does not seem right to me for some reason.
Fix your business model.
What you see here is the result letting an organization take charge that willingly misspells the word "fact" in order to name themselves.
I don not remember hearing you complain when French Connection UK used a similar tactic.
To be a monopoly, you have to have government on your side, setting barriers of entry that are not market barriers, but instead artificial barriers that cannot be overcome with simply market economics.
You are redefining the meaning of the word "monopoly" to apply only to a subset of monopolies. In particular, you are ignoring "natural monopolies".
I do not know whether you do it deliberately (to frame the argument) or not but if you want to have a meaningful discussion, kindly use the commonly accepted definition.
Your so-called "economy of scale" can often afford to (and sometimes does) lower prices below cost in order to undercut competitors and force them out. Then, while it regains the monopoly, charge "what the market would bear" (a.k.a gouge).
Maybe you are concerned about newcomers into the market too much, I am only worried about my ability to BUY good stuff cheaply.
You conveniently ignored the the last part of my statement. Once your "efficient" company gets rid of the competition, there is no incentive to continue charging low prices. In fact, the most efficient strategy is to ramp the prices to the maximum that the market will bear (which is quite a lot if you provide an essential good or service) and only once potential competition pops up, lower them to undercut it. It works surprisingly well in areas where there are naturally high barriers to entry, like, for example, the rare earth elements market that I mentioned.
Come to think of it, I mentioned it twice before and both times you chose to avoid the subject.
So let the third time be the charm.
Standard Oil was never a monopoly.
From Wikipedia:
By 1890, Standard Oil controlled 88% of the refined oil flows in the United States.
In 1904, Standard controlled 91% of production and 85% of final sales.
As I keep repeating: an economy of scale is not a monopoly. Economy of scale can offer the best product at the lowest price, and once it stops doing so, there is no government force with all the licenses, special taxes, special regulations - all these and other barriers to entry into the market.
Your so-called "economy of scale" can often afford to (and sometimes does) lower prices below cost in order to undercut competitors and force them out. Then, while it regains the monopoly, charge "what the market would bear" (a.k.a gouge).
For a current example, see the rare earth elements market.
De Beers is quite successful, the most successful cartel on this planet. Of-course there is plenty COMPETITION to De Beers. You do realise that you do NOT HAVE TO BUY DIAMONDS, do you? Or are you that brainwashed? What, a cubic zirconia ring is not good enough for you?
I was thinking of industrial diamonds, which comprise 80% of all mined diamonds and had practically no alternatives until synthetic diamonds became commercially viable (in the late 50's I believe). Good luck replacing those with cubic zirconium with its inferior hardness and abysmal thermal conductivity.
As for your poor attempt at a personal attack, we have never had (nor wanted) any kind of gem on our rings. But the fact that you failed to consider that option shows which one of us is brainwashed.
Microsoft used government protection in form of copyrights to create a very high barrier of entry, however it is not a monopoly
The DOJ begs to differ.
Without government force there is no monopoly.
Tell that to Standard Oil.
Or to United Aircraft and Transport Corporation.
Or to AT&T.
Or to De Beers.
Or to Microsoft.
Or, most recently, to the global rare earths market.
But you already knew that.
Leaving aside the issue of what is the more dangerous entity (mostly because the distinction between the interests of governments and of said "corporate financial interests" is blurring fast), I have to respond to some of your assertions.
the monopoly is accountable to you through your vote. it is an extension of your will, not an imposition of an alien will on you
This is true in theory but, as we all know, the difference between theory and practice is much larger in practice than in theory.
The effectiveness of the vote, and therefore the accountability, has been nullified by several mechanisms.
Firstly, an democratic process can only function effectively with an informed, rational and involved populace. It stops working when the flow of information is controlled by, for example, allowing the concentration of traditional media outlets in a few hands with aligned interests, passing laws that curtail free-speech in the name of "security", drowning the significant information in a sea of important-sounding trivia, constantly attacking the internet (which will eventually succeed) and so on. It stops working when the rationality is removed by constantly bombarding the audience with FUD, scaring them with terrorist and child molesters that lurk behind every corner. And it stops working when active involvement carries very unpleasant consequences.
Note that, due to the nature of democracy, the tactics above need not be 100% effective. One only needs to influence a percentage of the potential voters sufficient to ensure the desired result. You may be immune, but for every you there are several that will not be.
Another mechanism is removing choices. Leave the voter with a limited number of mostly identical options (only two in the US) and provide trivial differences to maintain the illusion of choice. Furthermore, raise the barrier of entry to prevent any true alternative from competing.
heal YOUR government by removing the corporate infection
1. It is not YOUR government
2. It does not want to be "healed". In fact, it considers itself to be quite healthy.
3. You can't force it.