Yes, the original complaint was valid. Verizon changed the ad, though, to specify that they're referring to 3G coverage, and AT&T is still complaining.
AT&T complained, Verizon changed the ad to note that they were referring to 3G only. That wasn't good enough for AT&T, though, hence the lawsuit. I can understand the original complaint, but not the continuing action.
This has been mentioned in a few comments here, but not thoroughly discussed...why is there not yet a foreign competitor to Google et al? It would seem that a company that offers comparable services and can guarantee that the feds can't get their dirty little fingers on our data (legitimately, at least) would be able to find a market.
My understanding is that I *do* own whatever is under my property. If there's oil/gas/other valuable stuff under the property that I own, then those resources are my property. Conversely, if there's nasty stuff in the ground under my property (old chemical tanks, etc.), then I'm responsible to remove said stuff or pay the price for environmental damage that they might cause.
"...some bright soul's going to have figured out that there's a lot of mechanics needing socket sets and there's a profit to be made in supplying them." And this is exactly my point. Not everyone who uses software is a programmer, just as not everyone who uses tools is a tool fabricator. The tool fabricator doesn't make tools just so that he can hide his name somewhere within the tool and make a name for himself with all the other tool fabricators. He's in it for the profit, for the cash, for the food it puts on his table.
For F/OSS to take over the market on the large scale, it relies on there being enough photographers, artists, scientists, designers, accountants, etc., etc., etc. who are both expert programmers AND enjoy their programming hobby so much that they're willing to dedicate all of their spare time to creating and maintaining the software that they need to do their day jobs. This model just isn't sustainable.
"...it'll still be cheaper and easier for us to fix the bugs or add the features and release the results back for others to maintain than it will be to switch over to (IME inferior) commercial software or to try maintaining the patches ourselves." I see your point in this specific case, but it relies on the people using the F/OSS software being the same people who create/maintain it. Their incentive for creating/maintaining it is that their use of the software they've created/maintained makes their lives easier/more productive. How does this model carry out to the larger picture? What is my incentive for creating/maintaining software that isn't going to directly impact my life or my productivity in some way? As the original poster said, recognition simply isn't going to cut it in the long term.
"Yes, F/OSS is very bad for programmers who make their living selling software commercially to others to use. But that's like saying that the advent of the automobile was very bad for the people who made horse-drawn wagons, carriages and such, and the people who bred and sold horses to pull them: it pretty much meant the end of most of their business. But those people were a small minority compared to the number of people who merely used wagons and carriages, and now trucks and automobiles, to move cargo and people around." In your analogy, though, the people who had been breeding horses and crafting carriages moved on to doing other things that helped them to put food on the table. OSS relies on programmers to continue programming, despite the fact that doing so no longer offers the monetary incentive that it once did. This seems, to me, like a model that will not long sustain itself.
Well, I suppose the question of what it would take for an idea to be 100% original could make for an interesting philosophical conversation. As far as how popular this 100% original idea would be, I again think that's speculative.
You're right in that most work (artistic and otherwise) is based, in part, on work that has preceded it. This incremental innovation is not only built upon works that are currently out of copyright, however, and copyrights do not prevent it in any way. In film, for example, most of the schlock that's currently being released is completely derivative. And don't even get me started on TV.
The question here isn't ideas, it's the work itself. Why should I be able to make money off the actual work of another? Why is the person who did the work (or that person's family) not entitled to make money off my use of his or her work? Why should I be able to use a recording of a Beatles song in my sneaker ad just because a certain amount of time has passed since the composer wrote the song and the musicians recorded it?
As to whether that's a good thing, consider the fact that if copyright had always been indefinite then most of the literature, software, music around now wouldn't exist.
Fact? This is speculative at best. Is it really your assertion that there are no original ideas left to be had? Is it not also possible that much of the truly original literature, software and music that we have today wouldn't be around now if it's creators had not, by copyright laws, been prevented from taking the easy way out and copying the previous work of others?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the original complaint was valid. Verizon changed the ad, though, to specify that they're referring to 3G coverage, and AT&T is still complaining.
AT&T complained, Verizon changed the ad to note that they were referring to 3G only. That wasn't good enough for AT&T, though, hence the lawsuit. I can understand the original complaint, but not the continuing action.
This has been mentioned in a few comments here, but not thoroughly discussed...why is there not yet a foreign competitor to Google et al? It would seem that a company that offers comparable services and can guarantee that the feds can't get their dirty little fingers on our data (legitimately, at least) would be able to find a market.
My understanding is that I *do* own whatever is under my property. If there's oil/gas/other valuable stuff under the property that I own, then those resources are my property. Conversely, if there's nasty stuff in the ground under my property (old chemical tanks, etc.), then I'm responsible to remove said stuff or pay the price for environmental damage that they might cause.
For F/OSS to take over the market on the large scale, it relies on there being enough photographers, artists, scientists, designers, accountants, etc., etc., etc. who are both expert programmers AND enjoy their programming hobby so much that they're willing to dedicate all of their spare time to creating and maintaining the software that they need to do their day jobs. This model just isn't sustainable.
Well, I suppose the question of what it would take for an idea to be 100% original could make for an interesting philosophical conversation. As far as how popular this 100% original idea would be, I again think that's speculative.
You're right in that most work (artistic and otherwise) is based, in part, on work that has preceded it. This incremental innovation is not only built upon works that are currently out of copyright, however, and copyrights do not prevent it in any way. In film, for example, most of the schlock that's currently being released is completely derivative. And don't even get me started on TV.
The question here isn't ideas, it's the work itself. Why should I be able to make money off the actual work of another? Why is the person who did the work (or that person's family) not entitled to make money off my use of his or her work? Why should I be able to use a recording of a Beatles song in my sneaker ad just because a certain amount of time has passed since the composer wrote the song and the musicians recorded it?