I think this offering will be a disaster. It's not ready for primetime and Office 2007 is lightyears ahead of everything else for business apps. A linux server is cheaper, on functionality and security MS is far superior. There's no middle market here.
You're post is completely riduculous. I think you assume that everyone is as irrational as you are. Major players will typically cross-license or settle key patent differences except in head-to-head technologies, like standards, where the best hand is often to broadly license anyway.
Small players will always sue a major if they 1. have good patent claims, 2. don't have big products of their own, and 3. think they can afford to. MS is a bit slow on the IP scene, really starting it up in the late 90's, but their actions won't really change the overall ecosystem except perhaps to concetrate it a bit more by knocking out some weaker players. Not ideal, but this is the reality of any industry that is, in many of its products, maturing.
The fact that most people don't know that there's a format war going on is the point. Sony hasn't won but can make a compelling arguement. As hardward purchases are based on expectations of future complements, they idea is if they fool enough retards at the local circuit city and they will have a self-fulfilling prophecy on their hands.
This can totally work even without unique id's. Why...
1. Non-Compliance: Goes to intent... For law enforcement, allows additional investigation of an individual if they are found to be using a non-registered id. Perhaps help in getting a warrent or charges to stick. In a case, this could make the difference between identifying a trolling predator or someone that made a bad in the moment decision.
2. Compliance: Goes to affirmation of community standards. A predator in a weak momement might be reminded by myspace that they can not use that id on myspace etc... They could also potentially enjoy restricted service, such as they can't make friends under 18. Remember, a "don't walk on the greass" sign doesn' keep you off the grass, it reminds you of the standards.
3. An unique arguement against this in the nsona is that this would create private marketing lists for pedophiles. Great. Law enforcement can put in dummy addresses and monitor spam putting those other fucks in jail too.
Of course, who would want to share an ID with a known predator? but this isn't much of an arguement as many people already have the same NAMES as predators.
It's called monopolistic tying. Apple is arguably using music DRM to enforce its monopoly position in another market (ipods). This is the same tactic that got MS into trouble - tying MS explorer to windows against Netscape. I don't know much in the way of details but the same thing may be a problem for apple in the US... http://www.boingboing.net/2007/01/03/apple_sued_fo r_itune.html
First, patented minor improvements, trademarks, and marketing power all create means of appropriability post initial innovation. This is nothing new and I fail to see how it has anything to do with early innovation incentives.
The bigger issue is that patents and regulatory incentives can either align or disconnect. In the classic model, we think of an inventor as patenting and then having enough time to get through an expensive regulatory process to make money on the other side. But, many long published compounds, we're probably talking thousands in chemical abstracts over the last hundred years, don't get a second look by big pharma because patent protection is unknown or lost on them. Given the lack of appropriability of these compounds (Levin et al 1987 on pharma/chem vs. other industries), nobody will invest in clinical trials becuase the risks and expenses are too high to start. A patent grant based on regulatory investment (i.e. exclusivity given initiation and sucessful trials) would work fine for these. You pay you play.
Couldn't, reasonable expectation of privacy be applied to the case when there is a contractual expectation that the ISP will not release the data except as required? What I'm getting at is isn;t there a difference between 'as required by law' vs. 'as required/requested by a law enforcement agency?"
Crap someones going to have to invent modems and private BBS's again. Seriously, I'm worried about net neutrality to the point of resigned to its loss, but there are a number of ways this might not matter.
1. First, worst case, if all our kids are turning into media/ consumerist retards, they may as well just pay the man to have friends. This might not be too bad - there is so much garbage, and worse, redundant copies of garbage, that maybe all webpages shouldn't get the same weight (i.e. adfarms).
But 2. preferrably, if our kids move things forward, information will out. Historically, the priveledged owned very large private libraries and this may be where things might be going. Maybe massive information repositories with some degree of quality control wouldn't be so bad.
I wonder what will happen to all the free google goodies I use when people realize that Google is more-or-less a traditional media company?
I also wonder what happens when traditional media catches up using higher quality media. Limiting the use of texts ads does not sound like allowing all those innovation flowers to bloom.
They're not smart for the longer term. Google's business development blows (#3) - if ads dry up (i.e. competition figures out text ads, or web advertising matures and growth slows), and/or there's a money pinch, they couldn't deal there way out of a wet paper bag. Yahoo, MS totally different - both these firms have a capacity to manage an impressive breadth of businesses.
Since when are licensing schemes not fundamental to the software business? Innovation is appropriation from invention. Microsoft is clearly and continues to be an innovator.
And of course the are a TECHNOLOGY firm. They track competitor technology better than any other firm I know - that isn't technically easy to do. So just because their technology development and marketing are aligned doesn't make them any less of a TECHNOLOGY firm than a few gearheads tinkering on something that will never be used.
And of course, most network admins should now call themselves Information Marketing professionals?
Maybe this is how you make sense of things, but its not really supportable...
First, founding fathers put not conditions on the patents and copyrights as vehicles -- the patent system as we know it evolved much later in the US (about 80 years).
Note that Article I, section 8, does not say anything about patents or copyright "Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." -->
Second patents and copyrights have a rich history {european} in the CONTROL of information, and tacit knowledge, not the free flow of ideas. Ignoring early mining patents, patent terms as we know them were given in the UK in the Statute of Monopolies, with terms set as 2x the standard apprentiship, or 14 years, theoretically preventing apprentices from using or teaching others if they left the employ of their masters.
Cuban is a loud mouth and egoist but not an idiot. Cuban is both a content owner and content provider. Primarily, he wants clear legal decisions in this area - without it why should anyone else license his content? But there also is a big profit upside out of the suit too.
Google and MS don't push porn in ads, so I'm certain their indexes are optimized on minimizing impact of porn content. For example, google weighs text links, not porn related data content, as a measure of 'votes'. That is, if a jpg file is not treated as a vote, a porn gallery counts as 1 page, no votes. In a more porn friendly index, 1 page with 90 jpg addresses would count as 91 voting pages. 3rd party ads probably aren't treated as votes either.
In the final anaylsis, Google and MS should deliver for their ad programs, and their indices should match their customers needs - ie. adwords is likely 99% not porn.
I think you're reading far too much specificity into the claims. The claims are far broader than the specific instances you suggest, apply to all media, and don't specify the 'other things' that basically work into the 'interestingness' regression/analysis to get the score. The prior art for this is absurd, i.e. every academic that uses time series to get a score on some 'media', which could be text, or practically anything else (ie. meta data can be any and all data). The claims could even include such things as packet inspection in bit streams for prioritizing internet trafffic...
Anyway, we should all ignore the obvious nature of the patent and it should be desk rejected (as if examiners dare or care to do that!) on the basis that every claim I looked at was in commercial use at the likely application date.
Plus, remember to 'vote' in the exit polls tool. Exit poll discrepancies are used as evidence of legitimate voting (well, everywhere but the US at least...)
Oh yes, there is a need for this!! Maybe he can publish this path breaking idea in an top CS/IS journal? Lord knows, no one has thought of this before. Which is especially strange given how many people read Simon's Sciences of the Artificial. The 'Information Science' and 'Design Science' folks will get even more from this.
I was surprised that Comedy Central pulled the show - the reason Chappelle show killed other DVD sales is becuase the online clips moved it from a sleeper to a hit.
The tension probably arises from the fact that one arm (prob. comedy central) made an agreement with iTunes, whereas another arm (i.e. Viacom) profits from DVD sales and/or general ad revenue. Obviously iTunes is a stupid idea - who cares to see the whole show vs. a particular segment.
There are two reasons the MBAs are confused, including TFA, but not your reason -
1. Google has all its eggs in one basket - adsense/adwords, but no one knows how big the ad market can be when ad views move from TV to the web.
2. Google's death in adsense will be really hard to predict - the dynamic is that if/when their search results start to suck, a consumer will search more to compensate for the poorer results, ironically delivering more ads... That is, as an end nears in adsense, Google will increase in profitability (their last hurrah will be spectacularly profitable).
This seemed like an obvious solution to me too, but any system where you can after the election demonstrate your vote outside the poll is subject to manipulation (ie. your boss wan't too see your vote or will fire you etc...). You want a system that is publically verifiable/accountable but also completely private and non-retriavable. I think human verifiably printed results at the poll that are turned in, with an ability for the voter to dispute/correct, is a better scheme.
My last post wasn't clear enough - reversion to the mean is a fact of life and statistics, but the results of the studies don't rely on this. What the more compelling studies have done is test the deviation of actual results from polling results. In many cases there are larger than expected error shifts, to both democratic and republican candidates, in both democratic and republican districts. In moderate or low dem disctricts (i.e. mod or high rep districts) this is random, as we would expect. But consistent with fraud in high dem districts it is directional - ie. only where there are a lot of dem votes, the shifts favor republicans.
What does this math mean - when there are a lot of pres. democratic votes at stake there was an extremely high likelihood that the results would 1. deviate signficantly from the polling numbers and 2. these would not deviate in a random way. In high rep. disctricts similar abborations were not found.
Cheap example - 1000 voters
High dem - 900d 100r ---> switch 100 random votes, get 810d, 190r
Mod dem - 500d 500r ----> switch 100 random votes, get same 500d, 500r
It's tough to write here in Gitmo, but I';ll get this out quickly... 1) The statistical evidence only shows abnormal variations in a certain districts. Individually this is not a problem, but accross districts, a consistent bias to republicans is demonstrated to be highly unlikely as arising by chance. This does not demonstrate that either side isn't cheating, just that it is unlikely to be 'chance' that the overwhelming majority of abnormal skews favor republicans. 2)They did, they failed. They don't have the courts, eaither florida or federally. It didn't help that jackass Kerry ceeded on election night. Shit is hitting the fan all over the place http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold. Plus whistleblower protections have collapse under the republicans making it very difficult to challenge the institutions. 3) The hard one. Why are democrats so useless? I have no idea. But, rememeber that incumbant dems have nothing to gain in a fight, and the challengers are zeros unless elected.
The only real option, Kerry, showed a complete lack of leadership in his loss. I think after 20 years of BS we need a constituional admendment to ban all Yale alums from running for or holding higher office.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this offering will be a disaster. It's not ready for primetime and Office 2007 is lightyears ahead of everything else for business apps. A linux server is cheaper, on functionality and security MS is far superior. There's no middle market here.
Given the pervasive ues of powerpoint to present data, why would any business want to forgo this functionality?
Small players will always sue a major if they 1. have good patent claims, 2. don't have big products of their own, and 3. think they can afford to. MS is a bit slow on the IP scene, really starting it up in the late 90's, but their actions won't really change the overall ecosystem except perhaps to concetrate it a bit more by knocking out some weaker players. Not ideal, but this is the reality of any industry that is, in many of its products, maturing.
The fact that most people don't know that there's a format war going on is the point. Sony hasn't won but can make a compelling arguement. As hardward purchases are based on expectations of future complements, they idea is if they fool enough retards at the local circuit city and they will have a self-fulfilling prophecy on their hands.
This can totally work even without unique id's. Why... 1. Non-Compliance: Goes to intent... For law enforcement, allows additional investigation of an individual if they are found to be using a non-registered id. Perhaps help in getting a warrent or charges to stick. In a case, this could make the difference between identifying a trolling predator or someone that made a bad in the moment decision. 2. Compliance: Goes to affirmation of community standards. A predator in a weak momement might be reminded by myspace that they can not use that id on myspace etc... They could also potentially enjoy restricted service, such as they can't make friends under 18. Remember, a "don't walk on the greass" sign doesn' keep you off the grass, it reminds you of the standards. 3. An unique arguement against this in the nsona is that this would create private marketing lists for pedophiles. Great. Law enforcement can put in dummy addresses and monitor spam putting those other fucks in jail too. Of course, who would want to share an ID with a known predator? but this isn't much of an arguement as many people already have the same NAMES as predators.
It's called monopolistic tying. Apple is arguably using music DRM to enforce its monopoly position in another market (ipods). This is the same tactic that got MS into trouble - tying MS explorer to windows against Netscape. I don't know much in the way of details but the same thing may be a problem for apple in the US... http://www.boingboing.net/2007/01/03/apple_sued_fo r_itune.html
The bigger issue is that patents and regulatory incentives can either align or disconnect. In the classic model, we think of an inventor as patenting and then having enough time to get through an expensive regulatory process to make money on the other side. But, many long published compounds, we're probably talking thousands in chemical abstracts over the last hundred years, don't get a second look by big pharma because patent protection is unknown or lost on them. Given the lack of appropriability of these compounds (Levin et al 1987 on pharma/chem vs. other industries), nobody will invest in clinical trials becuase the risks and expenses are too high to start. A patent grant based on regulatory investment (i.e. exclusivity given initiation and sucessful trials) would work fine for these. You pay you play.
Couldn't, reasonable expectation of privacy be applied to the case when there is a contractual expectation that the ISP will not release the data except as required? What I'm getting at is isn;t there a difference between 'as required by law' vs. 'as required/requested by a law enforcement agency?"
Crap someones going to have to invent modems and private BBS's again. Seriously, I'm worried about net neutrality to the point of resigned to its loss, but there are a number of ways this might not matter. 1. First, worst case, if all our kids are turning into media/ consumerist retards, they may as well just pay the man to have friends. This might not be too bad - there is so much garbage, and worse, redundant copies of garbage, that maybe all webpages shouldn't get the same weight (i.e. adfarms). But 2. preferrably, if our kids move things forward, information will out. Historically, the priveledged owned very large private libraries and this may be where things might be going. Maybe massive information repositories with some degree of quality control wouldn't be so bad.
I wonder what will happen to all the free google goodies I use when people realize that Google is more-or-less a traditional media company? I also wonder what happens when traditional media catches up using higher quality media. Limiting the use of texts ads does not sound like allowing all those innovation flowers to bloom.
They're not smart for the longer term. Google's business development blows (#3) - if ads dry up (i.e. competition figures out text ads, or web advertising matures and growth slows), and/or there's a money pinch, they couldn't deal there way out of a wet paper bag. Yahoo, MS totally different - both these firms have a capacity to manage an impressive breadth of businesses.
And of course the are a TECHNOLOGY firm. They track competitor technology better than any other firm I know - that isn't technically easy to do. So just because their technology development and marketing are aligned doesn't make them any less of a TECHNOLOGY firm than a few gearheads tinkering on something that will never be used.
And of course, most network admins should now call themselves Information Marketing professionals?
Huh? Maybe if you drew a picture...
First, founding fathers put not conditions on the patents and copyrights as vehicles -- the patent system as we know it evolved much later in the US (about 80 years).
Note that Article I, section 8, does not say anything about patents or copyright "Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." -->
Second patents and copyrights have a rich history {european} in the CONTROL of information, and tacit knowledge, not the free flow of ideas. Ignoring early mining patents, patent terms as we know them were given in the UK in the Statute of Monopolies, with terms set as 2x the standard apprentiship, or 14 years, theoretically preventing apprentices from using or teaching others if they left the employ of their masters.
And again, congratulations, now you overlord employer can ensure that you voted for the right candidate in the privacy of your office.
Cuban is a loud mouth and egoist but not an idiot. Cuban is both a content owner and content provider. Primarily, he wants clear legal decisions in this area - without it why should anyone else license his content? But there also is a big profit upside out of the suit too.
Google and MS don't push porn in ads, so I'm certain their indexes are optimized on minimizing impact of porn content. For example, google weighs text links, not porn related data content, as a measure of 'votes'. That is, if a jpg file is not treated as a vote, a porn gallery counts as 1 page, no votes. In a more porn friendly index, 1 page with 90 jpg addresses would count as 91 voting pages. 3rd party ads probably aren't treated as votes either. In the final anaylsis, Google and MS should deliver for their ad programs, and their indices should match their customers needs - ie. adwords is likely 99% not porn.
Anyway, we should all ignore the obvious nature of the patent and it should be desk rejected (as if examiners dare or care to do that!) on the basis that every claim I looked at was in commercial use at the likely application date.
Plus, remember to 'vote' in the exit polls tool. Exit poll discrepancies are used as evidence of legitimate voting (well, everywhere but the US at least...)
Oh yes, there is a need for this!! Maybe he can publish this path breaking idea in an top CS/IS journal? Lord knows, no one has thought of this before. Which is especially strange given how many people read Simon's Sciences of the Artificial. The 'Information Science' and 'Design Science' folks will get even more from this.
The tension probably arises from the fact that one arm (prob. comedy central) made an agreement with iTunes, whereas another arm (i.e. Viacom) profits from DVD sales and/or general ad revenue. Obviously iTunes is a stupid idea - who cares to see the whole show vs. a particular segment.
There are two reasons the MBAs are confused, including TFA, but not your reason - 1. Google has all its eggs in one basket - adsense/adwords, but no one knows how big the ad market can be when ad views move from TV to the web. 2. Google's death in adsense will be really hard to predict - the dynamic is that if/when their search results start to suck, a consumer will search more to compensate for the poorer results, ironically delivering more ads... That is, as an end nears in adsense, Google will increase in profitability (their last hurrah will be spectacularly profitable).
This seemed like an obvious solution to me too, but any system where you can after the election demonstrate your vote outside the poll is subject to manipulation (ie. your boss wan't too see your vote or will fire you etc...). You want a system that is publically verifiable/accountable but also completely private and non-retriavable. I think human verifiably printed results at the poll that are turned in, with an ability for the voter to dispute/correct, is a better scheme.
My last post wasn't clear enough - reversion to the mean is a fact of life and statistics, but the results of the studies don't rely on this. What the more compelling studies have done is test the deviation of actual results from polling results. In many cases there are larger than expected error shifts, to both democratic and republican candidates, in both democratic and republican districts. In moderate or low dem disctricts (i.e. mod or high rep districts) this is random, as we would expect. But consistent with fraud in high dem districts it is directional - ie. only where there are a lot of dem votes, the shifts favor republicans. What does this math mean - when there are a lot of pres. democratic votes at stake there was an extremely high likelihood that the results would 1. deviate signficantly from the polling numbers and 2. these would not deviate in a random way. In high rep. disctricts similar abborations were not found. Cheap example - 1000 voters High dem - 900d 100r ---> switch 100 random votes, get 810d, 190r Mod dem - 500d 500r ----> switch 100 random votes, get same 500d, 500r
It's tough to write here in Gitmo, but I';ll get this out quickly...
1) The statistical evidence only shows abnormal variations in a certain districts. Individually this is not a problem, but accross districts, a consistent bias to republicans is demonstrated to be highly unlikely as arising by chance. This does not demonstrate that either side isn't cheating, just that it is unlikely to be 'chance' that the overwhelming majority of abnormal skews favor republicans.
2)They did, they failed. They don't have the courts, eaither florida or federally. It didn't help that jackass Kerry ceeded on election night. Shit is hitting the fan all over the place http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold. Plus whistleblower protections have collapse under the republicans making it very difficult to challenge the institutions.
3) The hard one. Why are democrats so useless? I have no idea. But, rememeber that incumbant dems have nothing to gain in a fight, and the challengers are zeros unless elected.
The only real option, Kerry, showed a complete lack of leadership in his loss. I think after 20 years of BS we need a constituional admendment to ban all Yale alums from running for or holding higher office.