Our university had a group of engineering management students do a project on the feasibility of making robotic lawyers. First, they had to determine if a computer program to pass the bar exam. They came up with a bunch of prior art. As long as the exam is multiple choice, there were no problems. Next, they figured the robot would need to be really good at arguing. They made a model computer program, and you can make a computer argue really well. Finally, they checked into billing. Writing computer programs to mindlessly send out large invoices is easy. The key technical challenges were solved: passing the bar, arguing, and generating eye-popping bills.
When presenting the results of the project, a professor in the examining committee asked: "Surely lawyers do more than pass exams, argue, and bill clients?" The students thought for a bit, and then one piped up: "Well actually the lawyer's secretaries bill the clients."
In the semiconductor industry, it is quite difficult to copy functionality from your competitors chips. They have a long development cycle, and frequent process changes. If you wait for your competitor to do all the innovation, your chips will lag behind theirs severely.
In this case, both Company A and Company B probably developed the same technology independently. I doubt Qualcom knowingly copied a patented function from a Broadcom chip. In all likelihood, the function was relatively obvious. Both teams of engineers came up with similar solutions independently.
The FCC has (had?) an exemption that allows RF testing on the site of a college / university.
If you tried this off-campus, you would be toast. The BBC article mentioned a 40% efficiency. For a 60 W light bulb, this implies about 150 W of total input power and 90 W of losses. Some of these losses must be RF losses. The device must be over the 1 W maximum transmitter power limit of the FCC for personal use, assuming the FCC would even permit the device.
The HF frequency range (10 MHz) is used extensively for communications. A number of amateur radio operators are likely to be unhappy if someone is using a device like this near their radio receivers.
Those horses don't work right. If you don't feed them, they get cranky and just go off and graze. They refuse to go near the buggy to tow it anywhere. Some of the really cranky ones, just run away whenever you walk near them. If you surprise horses from behind, they can kick you! They can really hurt you if you get kicked. Horses also leave piles of horse manure wherever they go.
Horses are far too unreliable. Humanity should just stick to walking.
With conventional economic models, if you pay more, you can overcome an artificial shortage. If I want to spend $1200 on my PS3/Wii/Xbox, I will probably get one. DRM isn't like that. If I want to pay $1200 for a copy of StarWars that I can use easily, then I can't do it. However, if I steal a copy of StarWars by "illegally" ripping the DVD, or downloading it off of BitTorrent, then I have the unprotected content.
DRM encourages people to get protected content by paying less for it. Artificial shortages are supposed to increase unit selling price. DRM actually reduces the average selling price. This is the fundamental problem with the RIAA/MPAA marketing strategies.
I used to work at a company, where the standing joke at headquarters was if a plant (factory) did anything wrong, they would close it. The big boss would say: "Either they make target, or I'm going to close the plant!" Of course, the targets were completely unrealistic, so the next meeting would be: "Well close the plant dammit!!! Close the plant!"
The people at HQ would keep a running tally of how many divisions (plants) were closed that week. 15 plant closures was a bad week, as the company only had 13 plants. At one point, things got so bad they had to purchase a few more plants to make up for the plants they really did close. I'm glad I'm not working for that company anymore.
Yes, it is possible for management to discuss closing more plants than they have, and to fire more employees than they have hired...
The part met the design target of 1 year of survival. This ensures no defects within the warranty period. It did so economically with no extra expense and no extra survival time. These parts meet spec! This is a feature, not a defect!
I have been hanging around the automotive industry to long... Does it show?
It looks like you are using ps. ps on Linux can give misleading memory usage reports. Specifically, it counts the entire shared library against every process that loads it. For a program that loads shared libraries, like bash, this results in a significant memory allocation that isn't "real". If one copy of bash was the only program on the system, then bash would use 1 GB. However, 3 copies of bash, don't use 3 GB. They use much less. Additionally, if the same shared libraries used in bash are used in any other programs running on your system, and on Linux they probably are, then the total memory allocation falls further.
My Motto for Backups is: "I have never had a backup that failed to loose information." or "All my backups have failed to restore in the critical moment."
After a few backup/disaster/restore cycles, I learned my lesson. A backup is only good if you check that you can actually restore it, and are able to restore it easily with freshly purchased computer equipment. Always assume that when the thieves/flood/disaster comes, you are left without any equipment whatsoever.
When disaster occurs, you need a credit card with a big limit, and the ability to restore onto the hardware that you just purchased that morning from the local Computer Store/Staples/Best Buy. Those expensive tape backup drives are difficult to replace quickly. If you use one, you need an additional tape drive off-site that works. Further, make sure you have the disaster recovery software and operating system software with you off-site.
A few hard drive images stored on portable USB drives can be a really handy component of the emergency backup strategy.
My local engineering association recommends only giving out licenses for all engineering works. The reasons are fairly obvious. Firstly, you can design a building (or a software program) for a client to use, without owning all the copyrights associated with it. For instance, suppose the consulting company used some example source code from Microsoft in the production code. They are allowed to do that. They aren't allowed to give the client the copyrights to Microsoft's example source code. It doesn't take long to realize that all those subsidiary libraries, code snippets, etc., are very difficult to get full copyright ownership on. However, using them in a piece of code is allowed and often encouraged. A license that ensures the client has the rights to use the software, and sidesteps the complexities of the copyright issues.
The other reason engineers stick to licenses is that portions of the engineering work may be in proprietary libraries used on a variety of client's projects. Again, this is okay, as long as the exact same piece of code isn't being sold to multiple clients with each client understanding that they have sole rights to "custom" code.
Finally, if you are dealing with engineers, a critical issue is who holds the liability insurance on the contract. If your software house has liability insurance, you are going to have a hard time proving "work for hire." Specifically, it isn't work for hire if you try suing them for non-performance of contract. That's a liability. It is only "work for hire" if you as the customer are absorbing all risks and pay all costs, and the software company is set up accordingly. Similarly, "work for hire" will be difficult to prove if the software house provides its own software, laptops, and/or offices.
You can't probe a signal if it's routed internally in the silicon, never leaving the chip.
Keeping a signal "locked" in the silicon is more difficult than one would like to think. Most of the chips with built in non-volatile memory have built-in interfaces to program that memory. These interfaces can be abused, and people have done it. Microchip's secure chips were breached. I am not sure where the hackers are at with the latest 32-bit and 64-bit hardware. It is hard to make something that "no one can copy". It is really hard when no physical security is present. People can remove the chips from the players and expose them to out-of-spec signals and voltage levels to find out what happens next.
b) The foreign companies are coming to American Patent Office and filing their own patents. Thus, the foreign companies can copy your design, get rich in their local markets, and show up a few years later in the American market with their own patents. Meanwhile, the small American can't compete worldwide, and as such, doesn't have the money to invest in new patents.
c) The obviousness test is really being pushed to its limits. I read a patent that essentially said (in about these words): "blinking Christmas lights exist, musical Christmas lights exist. We have invented combined musical blinking Christmas lights." The patent got issued.
d) People are patenting ideas. Software is an idea. A business method is an idea. If you patent that stuff in the U.S., all the competitor has to do is implement the idea elsewhere. Depending on what the invention is, the American company will never find out about the infringing activity.
e) Patent infringement is different than copyright infringement. Well documented practices exist to minimize the likelihood of copyright violations. Frequently, companies cannot actually avoid patent suits. Many startups simply assume they will be sued for patent violations. The shear number of patents, and the vagueness of the patents, make it difficult to employ any other strategy.
I have seen this effect three different ways, in real life:
1. The new laptops and even some desktops have heat pipes. If the heat pipes loose coolant, or become unbonded, then the processor automatically throttles back to avoid overheating. The result is that processors "slow down" or loose MHz.
2. On some older designs, the crystals have been known to go, and the computers really do loose MHz.
3. The "Anti-Virus" effect. Some antivirus packages are extremely slow. They use lots of CPU power. After each generation, the antivirus software gets sequentially slower, and the result is the PC really does slow down. If you remove the anti-virus software (not recommended), the PC gets immediately quicker.
It looks like a significant problem exists here. Specifically, I just looked up the DHCP addresses from the computer present on a handwritten note (Exhibit 17) http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=umg_ lindor_070223JacobsonEx17. Those DHCP servers are from CableVision. I am assuming that CableVision is a New York cable company???
It looks like Mrs. Lindor's computer was configured for cable modem access. Accusing her of downloading files over Verizon DSL with a cable modem is a bit of a stretch...
The bulk of the testimony seams to indicate that Mrs. Lindor had a Cable Modem. However, Dr. Jacobson testified he wasn't certain if she had a cable modem or a DSL modem. If you look at the tracert log you see the line:
You can run a tracert and find out if you are connected via that router by typing something like this at the Windows XP command line:
tracert slashdot.org
or
tracert 141.155.57.198
It would be really interesting to know if any New York customers connecting through a3-0-0-1728.dsl-rtr10.ny325.verizon-gni.net are running DSL or Cable Modems. It might really help the case.
Most professional organizations will hold you to a higher standard than the legal standard for perjury. There was a case in England and Canada of a Pathologist who gave misleading evidence at multiple trials. He is having difficulty practicing medicine in either of the two countries now. As a Professional, you are expected to be more knowledgeable and better experienced than the average person.
I would expect my licensing body would get annoyed with me if I spent "45 minutes" (Page 54) drafting a report that was used as part of litigation. They expect that Professional Engineers check our facts so as not to mislead a jury. This avoids sequences of questions like that from Page 42, where the witness essentially admits:
a) he did not look for alternative explanations,
b) he did not check how accurate his findings were (potential rate of error),
c) he has no standards or controls,
d) he is not using published methods accepted by the scientific community, and
e) has no way of determining if the information given to him was correct.
It is considered a substantial problem if a Professional Engineer misleads a jury, as it can pervert justice. As such, it is very important for the legal duties be taken seriously and with the required standards of care.
I'm a Computer Engineer and a Professional Engineer. If I testify in legal proceedings, I am required to adhere to specific professional standards. My certifying body takes our legal obligations fairly seriously. A customer would be wise to hire properly licensed engineers for matters involving legal responsibility and/or large contracts. Amongst other requirements, licensed engineering firms require liability insurance, so if things go bad, the customer has some recourse. We also have ethical standards constraining what we can say or do.
2. Quantum Mechanics - Even Einstein didn't particularly like Quantum Mechanics and the search for the unified model. It was the home of the quote "God doesn't play dice with the universe."
3. Darwin's Theory of Evolution - This was hotly debated at the time, and still is. On-going debates in school boards still occur.
4. String Theory - Hotly contested, mostly because no one can show if it is actually correct.
5. Newtonian Calculus - The notation sucked. Most of the calculus done today uses Leibniz's or Euler's notation, however all of Euler's, Newton's, Lagrange's and Leibniz's notations are still in use.
6. Periodic Table - This was a key chemical discovery, and initially not accepted. It was a big change to the understanding at the time.
7. Freud - The father of psychoanalysis. Many of his notions were not widely accepted, correctly perhaps. Nevertheless, he founded psychiatry.
8. Armstrong and the FM Radio. He also designed the double-heterodyne tuner, which is the primary tuner type in use today. He died poor after leading a controversial life, and butting heads with Sarnoff at RCA.
9. AC Power - Edison was firmly behind DC power. AC power can be sent long distances efficiently by using a transformer. DC power cannot. AC power is in use in almost all homes throughout the world, and Edison lost this technology debate.
10. Transatlantic Radio - At first, it was not at all decided if transatlantic radio was technically feasible, and even then if it was commercially feasible. Times have changed.
It turns out that most scientific discoveries are highly controversial initially. This controversy is a sign that they are new ground-breaking research.
I work on many systems where downtime costs money, and accidents cost lives. If you are engineering a critical system, you want to know what is going to happen. You want to make sure that nothing overrides the code you wrote. If you have to override and delete every non-essential function on the PC, then you will do it. Doing anything less leaves the threat of lingering lawsuits, financial damages, and potential accidents.
DRM on Vista must be all encompassing, and there must be no way to shut it off. If the DRM wasn't all encompassing, then it could easily be turned off, and there wouldn't be much point in having it. DRM only works if it is all encompassing.
I have watched Microsoft water down its "Microsoft Windows NT is a secure C3 operating system" promise with 2000, XP, and now Vista. Either the customer is in charge of their computer, or Hollywood is. You can't have it both ways.
Think about it: Do you want your surgeon making decisions based on computer output from code designed by a movie studio?
We once had a 15 year old, 40 MegaByte Hard Drive stolen! It was virtually impossible to source a replacement non-IDE hard drive. The hard drive was embedded in an industrial machine, and it was a nightmare to source spares. We finally wound up replacing the entire computer.
I think the bill came to something like $45,000 in machine downtime, $2,000 in a replacement hardware, and $20 for a USB memory key... It was an expensive 40MB hard drive.
Slashdot Mirror
Our university had a group of engineering management students do a project on the feasibility of making robotic lawyers. First, they had to determine if a computer program to pass the bar exam. They came up with a bunch of prior art. As long as the exam is multiple choice, there were no problems. Next, they figured the robot would need to be really good at arguing. They made a model computer program, and you can make a computer argue really well. Finally, they checked into billing. Writing computer programs to mindlessly send out large invoices is easy. The key technical challenges were solved: passing the bar, arguing, and generating eye-popping bills.
When presenting the results of the project, a professor in the examining committee asked: "Surely lawyers do more than pass exams, argue, and bill clients?" The students thought for a bit, and then one piped up: "Well actually the lawyer's secretaries bill the clients."
The students got an A.
In the semiconductor industry, it is quite difficult to copy functionality from your competitors chips. They have a long development cycle, and frequent process changes. If you wait for your competitor to do all the innovation, your chips will lag behind theirs severely.
In this case, both Company A and Company B probably developed the same technology independently. I doubt Qualcom knowingly copied a patented function from a Broadcom chip. In all likelihood, the function was relatively obvious. Both teams of engineers came up with similar solutions independently.
The FCC has (had?) an exemption that allows RF testing on the site of a college / university.
If you tried this off-campus, you would be toast. The BBC article mentioned a 40% efficiency. For a 60 W light bulb, this implies about 150 W of total input power and 90 W of losses. Some of these losses must be RF losses. The device must be over the 1 W maximum transmitter power limit of the FCC for personal use, assuming the FCC would even permit the device.
The HF frequency range (10 MHz) is used extensively for communications. A number of amateur radio operators are likely to be unhappy if someone is using a device like this near their radio receivers.
I am wondering what SDS means too. This is the wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SDS
Those horses don't work right. If you don't feed them, they get cranky and just go off and graze. They refuse to go near the buggy to tow it anywhere. Some of the really cranky ones, just run away whenever you walk near them. If you surprise horses from behind, they can kick you! They can really hurt you if you get kicked. Horses also leave piles of horse manure wherever they go.
Horses are far too unreliable. Humanity should just stick to walking.
With conventional economic models, if you pay more, you can overcome an artificial shortage. If I want to spend $1200 on my PS3/Wii/Xbox, I will probably get one. DRM isn't like that. If I want to pay $1200 for a copy of StarWars that I can use easily, then I can't do it. However, if I steal a copy of StarWars by "illegally" ripping the DVD, or downloading it off of BitTorrent, then I have the unprotected content.
DRM encourages people to get protected content by paying less for it. Artificial shortages are supposed to increase unit selling price. DRM actually reduces the average selling price. This is the fundamental problem with the RIAA/MPAA marketing strategies.
The Phone that runs Windows Vista: This I have to see ...
Or on second thoughts, maybe not!
I used to work at a company, where the standing joke at headquarters was if a plant (factory) did anything wrong, they would close it. The big boss would say: "Either they make target, or I'm going to close the plant!" Of course, the targets were completely unrealistic, so the next meeting would be: "Well close the plant dammit!!! Close the plant!"
The people at HQ would keep a running tally of how many divisions (plants) were closed that week. 15 plant closures was a bad week, as the company only had 13 plants. At one point, things got so bad they had to purchase a few more plants to make up for the plants they really did close. I'm glad I'm not working for that company anymore.
Yes, it is possible for management to discuss closing more plants than they have, and to fire more employees than they have hired ...
The part met the design target of 1 year of survival. This ensures no defects within the warranty period. It did so economically with no extra expense and no extra survival time. These parts meet spec! This is a feature, not a defect!
I have been hanging around the automotive industry to long ... Does it show?
It looks like you are using ps. ps on Linux can give misleading memory usage reports. Specifically, it counts the entire shared library against every process that loads it. For a program that loads shared libraries, like bash, this results in a significant memory allocation that isn't "real". If one copy of bash was the only program on the system, then bash would use 1 GB. However, 3 copies of bash, don't use 3 GB. They use much less. Additionally, if the same shared libraries used in bash are used in any other programs running on your system, and on Linux they probably are, then the total memory allocation falls further.
This website explains the problem better: http://virtualthreads.blogspot.com/2006/02/underst anding-memory-usage-on-linux.html
This is a well documented bug. I don't actually use a Mac, but likely the Mac O/S running bash exhibits the same behaviors as Linux.
My Motto for Backups is: "I have never had a backup that failed to loose information." or "All my backups have failed to restore in the critical moment."
After a few backup/disaster/restore cycles, I learned my lesson. A backup is only good if you check that you can actually restore it, and are able to restore it easily with freshly purchased computer equipment. Always assume that when the thieves/flood/disaster comes, you are left without any equipment whatsoever.
When disaster occurs, you need a credit card with a big limit, and the ability to restore onto the hardware that you just purchased that morning from the local Computer Store/Staples/Best Buy. Those expensive tape backup drives are difficult to replace quickly. If you use one, you need an additional tape drive off-site that works. Further, make sure you have the disaster recovery software and operating system software with you off-site.
A few hard drive images stored on portable USB drives can be a really handy component of the emergency backup strategy.
My local engineering association recommends only giving out licenses for all engineering works. The reasons are fairly obvious. Firstly, you can design a building (or a software program) for a client to use, without owning all the copyrights associated with it. For instance, suppose the consulting company used some example source code from Microsoft in the production code. They are allowed to do that. They aren't allowed to give the client the copyrights to Microsoft's example source code. It doesn't take long to realize that all those subsidiary libraries, code snippets, etc., are very difficult to get full copyright ownership on. However, using them in a piece of code is allowed and often encouraged. A license that ensures the client has the rights to use the software, and sidesteps the complexities of the copyright issues.
The other reason engineers stick to licenses is that portions of the engineering work may be in proprietary libraries used on a variety of client's projects. Again, this is okay, as long as the exact same piece of code isn't being sold to multiple clients with each client understanding that they have sole rights to "custom" code.
Finally, if you are dealing with engineers, a critical issue is who holds the liability insurance on the contract. If your software house has liability insurance, you are going to have a hard time proving "work for hire." Specifically, it isn't work for hire if you try suing them for non-performance of contract. That's a liability. It is only "work for hire" if you as the customer are absorbing all risks and pay all costs, and the software company is set up accordingly. Similarly, "work for hire" will be difficult to prove if the software house provides its own software, laptops, and/or offices.
The complications in your story are:
a) China can still do this anyway.
b) The foreign companies are coming to American Patent Office and filing their own patents. Thus, the foreign companies can copy your design, get rich in their local markets, and show up a few years later in the American market with their own patents. Meanwhile, the small American can't compete worldwide, and as such, doesn't have the money to invest in new patents.
c) The obviousness test is really being pushed to its limits. I read a patent that essentially said (in about these words): "blinking Christmas lights exist, musical Christmas lights exist. We have invented combined musical blinking Christmas lights." The patent got issued.
d) People are patenting ideas. Software is an idea. A business method is an idea. If you patent that stuff in the U.S., all the competitor has to do is implement the idea elsewhere. Depending on what the invention is, the American company will never find out about the infringing activity.
e) Patent infringement is different than copyright infringement. Well documented practices exist to minimize the likelihood of copyright violations. Frequently, companies cannot actually avoid patent suits. Many startups simply assume they will be sued for patent violations. The shear number of patents, and the vagueness of the patents, make it difficult to employ any other strategy.
I have seen this effect three different ways, in real life:
1. The new laptops and even some desktops have heat pipes. If the heat pipes loose coolant, or become unbonded, then the processor automatically throttles back to avoid overheating. The result is that processors "slow down" or loose MHz.
2. On some older designs, the crystals have been known to go, and the computers really do loose MHz.
3. The "Anti-Virus" effect. Some antivirus packages are extremely slow. They use lots of CPU power. After each generation, the antivirus software gets sequentially slower, and the result is the PC really does slow down. If you remove the anti-virus software (not recommended), the PC gets immediately quicker.
April Fools day jokes are wonderful.
It looks like a significant problem exists here. Specifically, I just looked up the DHCP addresses from the computer present on a handwritten note (Exhibit 17) http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=umg_ lindor_070223JacobsonEx17. Those DHCP servers are from CableVision. I am assuming that CableVision is a New York cable company???
It looks like Mrs. Lindor's computer was configured for cable modem access. Accusing her of downloading files over Verizon DSL with a cable modem is a bit of a stretch ...
The bulk of the testimony seams to indicate that Mrs. Lindor had a Cable Modem. However, Dr. Jacobson testified he wasn't certain if she had a cable modem or a DSL modem. If you look at the tracert log you see the line:
This would lead me to believe that this is likely a DSL address. It is a pretty major detail could really weaken the RIAA case. The exhibit is at: http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=umg_ lindor_070223JacobsonEx13
You can run a tracert and find out if you are connected via that router by typing something like this at the Windows XP command line:
or
It would be really interesting to know if any New York customers connecting through a3-0-0-1728.dsl-rtr10.ny325.verizon-gni.net are running DSL or Cable Modems. It might really help the case.
Most professional organizations will hold you to a higher standard than the legal standard for perjury. There was a case in England and Canada of a Pathologist who gave misleading evidence at multiple trials. He is having difficulty practicing medicine in either of the two countries now. As a Professional, you are expected to be more knowledgeable and better experienced than the average person.
I would expect my licensing body would get annoyed with me if I spent "45 minutes" (Page 54) drafting a report that was used as part of litigation. They expect that Professional Engineers check our facts so as not to mislead a jury. This avoids sequences of questions like that from Page 42, where the witness essentially admits:
a) he did not look for alternative explanations,
b) he did not check how accurate his findings were (potential rate of error),
c) he has no standards or controls,
d) he is not using published methods accepted by the scientific community, and
e) has no way of determining if the information given to him was correct.
It is considered a substantial problem if a Professional Engineer misleads a jury, as it can pervert justice. As such, it is very important for the legal duties be taken seriously and with the required standards of care.
I'm a Computer Engineer and a Professional Engineer. If I testify in legal proceedings, I am required to adhere to specific professional standards. My certifying body takes our legal obligations fairly seriously. A customer would be wise to hire properly licensed engineers for matters involving legal responsibility and/or large contracts. Amongst other requirements, licensed engineering firms require liability insurance, so if things go bad, the customer has some recourse. We also have ethical standards constraining what we can say or do.
They have a patent. Therefore, no one can break their security. It would be illegal.
I'm convinced.
This is my list of 10 key discoveries that were initially rejected by scientific peers, or at least not easily accepted:
t es/1921/press.html
1. Theory of Relativity wasn't well received at the time. In fact, Einstein didn't actually get a Nobel Prize for it. Instead, he received the prize for other work he did dealing with quanta. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laurea
2. Quantum Mechanics - Even Einstein didn't particularly like Quantum Mechanics and the search for the unified model. It was the home of the quote "God doesn't play dice with the universe."
3. Darwin's Theory of Evolution - This was hotly debated at the time, and still is. On-going debates in school boards still occur.
4. String Theory - Hotly contested, mostly because no one can show if it is actually correct.
5. Newtonian Calculus - The notation sucked. Most of the calculus done today uses Leibniz's or Euler's notation, however all of Euler's, Newton's, Lagrange's and Leibniz's notations are still in use.
6. Periodic Table - This was a key chemical discovery, and initially not accepted. It was a big change to the understanding at the time.
7. Freud - The father of psychoanalysis. Many of his notions were not widely accepted, correctly perhaps. Nevertheless, he founded psychiatry.
8. Armstrong and the FM Radio. He also designed the double-heterodyne tuner, which is the primary tuner type in use today. He died poor after leading a controversial life, and butting heads with Sarnoff at RCA.
9. AC Power - Edison was firmly behind DC power. AC power can be sent long distances efficiently by using a transformer. DC power cannot. AC power is in use in almost all homes throughout the world, and Edison lost this technology debate.
10. Transatlantic Radio - At first, it was not at all decided if transatlantic radio was technically feasible, and even then if it was commercially feasible. Times have changed.
It turns out that most scientific discoveries are highly controversial initially. This controversy is a sign that they are new ground-breaking research.
I work on many systems where downtime costs money, and accidents cost lives. If you are engineering a critical system, you want to know what is going to happen. You want to make sure that nothing overrides the code you wrote. If you have to override and delete every non-essential function on the PC, then you will do it. Doing anything less leaves the threat of lingering lawsuits, financial damages, and potential accidents.
DRM on Vista must be all encompassing, and there must be no way to shut it off. If the DRM wasn't all encompassing, then it could easily be turned off, and there wouldn't be much point in having it. DRM only works if it is all encompassing.
I have watched Microsoft water down its "Microsoft Windows NT is a secure C3 operating system" promise with 2000, XP, and now Vista. Either the customer is in charge of their computer, or Hollywood is. You can't have it both ways.
Think about it: Do you want your surgeon making decisions based on computer output from code designed by a movie studio?
We once had a 15 year old, 40 MegaByte Hard Drive stolen! It was virtually impossible to source a replacement non-IDE hard drive. The hard drive was embedded in an industrial machine, and it was a nightmare to source spares. We finally wound up replacing the entire computer.
... It was an expensive 40MB hard drive.
I think the bill came to something like $45,000 in machine downtime, $2,000 in a replacement hardware, and $20 for a USB memory key