The difference is that if MS bought Doubleclick, Google would still dominate the market.
Something decent about MS for once is that MS doesn't track your word docs, your powerpoint presentations etc... In this day and age, increased privacy is a MS strategic directive.
I'm pretty sure that you can successfully prosecute a copyright violation without demonstrating intent. Maybe someone else can comment.
My understanding that the only time intent is important is in determination of authorship.
Section 1201 makes it illegal to (1) "circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work"
Seriously, couldn't a modification of Shareza effectively be construded as a DMCA violation? In this case, they are associating additional information with the work, which is an effective change in access to the work.
"Doubleclick will probably be no more and merge into Google's Adsense"
Are you serious? You don't spend $3B to throw something away.
Google can't do non-text ads worth shit. They don't have much in the way business devlopment, hardly any sales force. They do spot contracting (auctions) - they don't really have "relationships". In non-text ads they can't predict quality, and they are completely uselss here. With the new data, plus their existing assets, they will become Doubleclick on steriods.
My understanding is that Google bought YouTube was so that insiders on Google's board could exit several hundred million from their YouTube investment under the lunacy of public google stock hype.
My understanding is that DoubleClick went private becuase it was making too much money to be punished in the stock market from being so nasty, and for the dot com implosion. And probably for less regs too.
So it's really just the 'oil' that google is greasing these deals with.
Fortunately the main reference is useless - 'upcoming article... Guadagno and Cialdini (2007)', thus the slashdot community can continue an uninformed discussion.
For the record, my contrarian thoughs can be found in my forthcoming article in 2009. Discuss...
Many squatters are effectively stealing property, because they leach off the goodwill of many existing brands. They hurt consumer welfare as they make it harder for the public to find the information they are looking for. Squatters can also hurt innovation as they increase the costs to small businesses in defining a new brand. Becuase the trademark suits that those businesses would want to bring are more expensive than the 1-5K the squatters ask for, they have a harder time launching new products.
MS won't solve this but the problem is easy to solve. Remembering that.com registrations are for companies, renewal fees should be increased to $100/year, which will go unnnoticed by most companies, and severely reduce the inventories of squatter whores on the net.
They may be looking at the addresses not the content. For example, they might be looking for influential people in networks (politicing) vs. terrorists (security).
From TFA....
"Heavier IT users are taking on more work. This slows down the work they're already doing, but because they're doing so much more, they're more productive."
I have signed up for the beta too, and while they do not affirmatively state that they will use your information for whatevery the hell they feel like, they only privacy they offer is limited protection in relation to third party disclosures. I like the last part of this snippet, in giving you the opportunity...
"Information you provide - When you sign up for a Google Account... We may combine the information you submit under your account with information from other Google services or third parties in order to provide you with a better experience and to improve the quality of our services. For certain services, we may give you the opportunity to opt out of combining such information..."
It wasn't my intention to ignore the well known holes in MS, and clearly any webapps it offers are more targetted and vunerable, but one can take many MS apps offline, avoiding network transmissions and third party access.
I said for business apps. Functionality is clearly higher in Office 2007. And unlike Google Apps, with MS Office no third party controls data. With MS an individual would actually have to break the law to get proprietary company data. With Google control over company data is gone from day 1.
Amen. As far as software companies go, MS does more in-licensing, either directly or through acquisition, than anyone else. Imagine if MS wanted to fill our computers with ad-ware like doubleclick, shit all over every corner of my desktop with services like aol, yahoo, or realplayer, or permanently cache all records of our email like google? I'm not saying MS is perfect by any stretch, and criticisms of their competitive practices are valid, but they get too much greif becuase they're the big boy.
Without knowing much specifically about this case, there is a good chance that the decision will reverse as historically that has been the case about 35-40% of the time. From what I read I doubt the decision will stand given the license reaching back to something in Bell Labs, and the fact that the whole industry missed this patent.
Unfortunately, it might also be to MS strategic interest if mp3 licenses are expensive. It will serve to increase entry barriers for smaller firms.
Slashdot Mirror
Given the choice (as if!), I prefer the former.
We know who you are Anonymous Coward ... Love Google
The difference is that if MS bought Doubleclick, Google would still dominate the market. Something decent about MS for once is that MS doesn't track your word docs, your powerpoint presentations etc... In this day and age, increased privacy is a MS strategic directive.
I'm pretty sure that you can successfully prosecute a copyright violation without demonstrating intent. Maybe someone else can comment. My understanding that the only time intent is important is in determination of authorship.
Section 1201 makes it illegal to (1) "circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work" Seriously, couldn't a modification of Shareza effectively be construded as a DMCA violation? In this case, they are associating additional information with the work, which is an effective change in access to the work.
Is the google's share of online ad market large enough to warrant a Justice investigation?
Are you serious? You don't spend $3B to throw something away.
Google can't do non-text ads worth shit. They don't have much in the way business devlopment, hardly any sales force. They do spot contracting (auctions) - they don't really have "relationships". In non-text ads they can't predict quality, and they are completely uselss here. With the new data, plus their existing assets, they will become Doubleclick on steriods.
I submitted this disturbingly similar story today but it is still pending with the /. editors.
Ya, and my glass is half a swimming pool full.
My understanding is that Google bought YouTube was so that insiders on Google's board could exit several hundred million from their YouTube investment under the lunacy of public google stock hype. My understanding is that DoubleClick went private becuase it was making too much money to be punished in the stock market from being so nasty, and for the dot com implosion. And probably for less regs too. So it's really just the 'oil' that google is greasing these deals with.
For the record, my contrarian thoughs can be found in my forthcoming article in 2009. Discuss...
Dude, so there's not harm in drinking the kewl-aid?
MS won't solve this but the problem is easy to solve. Remembering that
They may be looking at the addresses not the content. For example, they might be looking for influential people in networks (politicing) vs. terrorists (security).
My solution? Assign homework but allow the students to get others to do it.
Still, for those rare dvd's one does want to own, why would you want a shit burned DVD with some crap injet label instead of a slick case with insert?
Has the RIAA become so heavy handed that they don't even need to give a reason anymore?
Different email registrations for different domains is an awesome idea. Thanks for the tip. And fuck best buy.
Well, it should have been obvious from reading your own post that someone on /. would have the opposite opinion.
Your OS analogy is off. A better one would be comparing the guy who uses outlook, with the one who uses outlook, word, excel, powerpoint, and access.
From TFA.... "Heavier IT users are taking on more work. This slows down the work they're already doing, but because they're doing so much more, they're more productive."
I have signed up for the beta too, and while they do not affirmatively state that they will use your information for whatevery the hell they feel like, they only privacy they offer is limited protection in relation to third party disclosures. I like the last part of this snippet, in giving you the opportunity...
"Information you provide - When you sign up for a Google Account ... We may combine the information you submit under your account with information from other Google services or third parties in order to provide you with a better experience and to improve the quality of our services. For certain services, we may give you the opportunity to opt out of combining such information..."
It wasn't my intention to ignore the well known holes in MS, and clearly any webapps it offers are more targetted and vunerable, but one can take many MS apps offline, avoiding network transmissions and third party access.
Amen. As far as software companies go, MS does more in-licensing, either directly or through acquisition, than anyone else. Imagine if MS wanted to fill our computers with ad-ware like doubleclick, shit all over every corner of my desktop with services like aol, yahoo, or realplayer, or permanently cache all records of our email like google? I'm not saying MS is perfect by any stretch, and criticisms of their competitive practices are valid, but they get too much greif becuase they're the big boy.
Unfortunately, it might also be to MS strategic interest if mp3 licenses are expensive. It will serve to increase entry barriers for smaller firms.