And still the European Union still wants to shove the same patent system through our throats... Even though it is clear from every point of few that it is very flawed.
I do buy all my music. Those I download, I'll buy legally online.
which in turn are crippled with DRM, and you can't burn them to CD or play only a limited number of times, and only on the device it was downloaded to.
Why should it be okay to give away an IPod full of preloaded songs?
I was thinking the same thing, isn't it illegal to give away/sell pre-loaded iPods, regardless?
You know, I don't think the RIAA or any of those types of companies will ever sue the pope over this. Because they would know that they can't win. Their tactic is purely a bullying tactic, let's scare the little guys into bankruptcy.
If nothing is lost, how is it stealing? Not everyone has unlimited bandwidth.
Friends of mine only have an X amount of GB they can download/upload each 30 days. What if I took a portion of that, would that be considered stealing? Heck yes! I took a part of their available bandwidth, without paying for it.
Those apples from the tree of my neighbour were hanging on my side of the fence.. so technically I wasn't stealing them, they were on my property, so they were mine.
Go ahead and ban most of the internet then. Yahoo, Google and MSN already offer censored content to the Chinese public. That is already quite a large chunk of the available search engines.
I think it isn't as black and white as you state it. (It never is black or white, it is always a shade of gray) These corporations want to expand, but the American and European market is almost 'fullgrown' (or at least not growing as much) whereas the Asian market is growing pretty fast and in much respects blooming.
Many companies are also outsourcing many tasks to India for much lower labourcosts, would you want to ban them too, for encouraging cheap labour/exploitation?
This is what I was pondering too... Web 2.0 (which is a term I've grown to dislike, I do not like marketing words) seems to be indeed a rehash of the hype that we had in 1999. Nice and all, free and/or fluffy stuff on the 'net, but in the end only the good stuff will prevail.
You really can't take many of the Canadian Politicians seriously as most of them seem to be so uninformed that it really makes us civilians wonder why the Hell people elect them in the first place.
This is not only limited to Canadian Politics. Same goes for the Dutch. They are so incompetent, that you wonder how in earth they could be given the responsibility of steering a country.
Re: Multiple choice? I'd like to phone a friend...
"I'm assuming that you have never sat in on patent licensing negotiation, so I won;t harp on you for your comment. Basically, patent licensing negotiations can be EXTREMELY nasty and difficult. If you think about it, if there is no "clear" infringement, one party is saying "you have to pay me to use this" and the other is saying "I don;t owe you squat because your patent, which I think is crap by the way, doesn't even cover our product!" If there is "clear" infringement, and the parties know it, then this gives the patentee the ability the bully the proposed licensee into paying a very high licensing fee, which, of course, the licensee does not want to do. To say that patent licensing negotiations are generally "heated," would be a massive understatement."
Ok, I must admit, I did not know this.
but still, most times I hear of Patent lawsuit-cases, it is about the patenter sueing the infringer. In this case it is actually reversed, and that is what boggles my mind. Basically Apple says "We have a suspicion we might infringe him, but we want to exclude that, so we are going to spend a lot of money on lawyers/waste a judge's time to find this out." At least, that is how it comes across on me. The only people gaining from this strategy (in my eyes) are the lawyers.
But then again, I could see it incorrectly, as I don't understand the legal system.
Wait, do I get this straight, they practically give the judge a multiple choice question? either we aren't infringing or burst.com's patents are invalid? Isn't that a bit of misuse of the court system? Actually this whole case is strange. If they fear for patent infringement, why not work out a deal with Burst? And if they think they have nothing to fear, why sue at all? Or is this a new way of getting publicity? "To throw a SCO" :-)
it may be benificial for the writing skills, though I still doubt it, but language skills (or skillz) will most likely decrease. The above is merely an example, not really my style of communicating.
On the post: Attention English Teachers: Google Is Officially A Verb
hmm
On the post: GoDaddy Sued For Violating Patent On Auto Configuration Of New Servers
Re: Once again it blows.
On the post: Yet Another Expert Points Out That Copy Protection Doesn't Work
Re: That's a mouthful right there
which in turn are crippled with DRM, and you can't burn them to CD or play only a limited number of times, and only on the device it was downloaded to.
On the post: Pope Benedict: Stealing Songs?
Re: Am I the only one who thinks it isn't OK?
You know, I don't think the RIAA or any of those types of companies will ever sue the pope over this. Because they would know that they can't win. Their tactic is purely a bullying tactic, let's scare the little guys into bankruptcy.
On the post: Ethicist Says Nothing Wrong With Using Free WiFi
Re: This idiot is wrong...
Not everyone has unlimited bandwidth.
Friends of mine only have an X amount of GB they can download/upload each 30 days. What if I took a portion of that, would that be considered stealing? Heck yes! I took a part of their available bandwidth, without paying for it.
On the post: Ethicist Says Nothing Wrong With Using Free WiFi
Bad analogy warning
On the post: What's The Story With Your Area Code?
Re: my ### is bigger than yours.
oh and I already have a GMail addy.
On the post: VoIP? Yeah, That's All Patented Up Too...
Re: a new idea for a better world
On the post: Ask A Yakking Theater Patron To Be Quiet, Get Charged With Assault
figures...
On the post: Companies Not So Interested In Talking To Congress About China
Re: Ban them
I think it isn't as black and white as you state it. (It never is black or white, it is always a shade of gray)
These corporations want to expand, but the American and European market is almost 'fullgrown' (or at least not growing as much) whereas the Asian market is growing pretty fast and in much respects blooming.
Many companies are also outsourcing many tasks to India for much lower labourcosts, would you want to ban them too, for encouraging cheap labour/exploitation?
Where exactly do you draw the line for banning?
On the post: 1999 Is Calling. It Wants Its Hype Back
interesting
Nice and all, free and/or fluffy stuff on the 'net, but in the end only the good stuff will prevail.
On the post: Wikipedia Germany Shut Down
Re: Germonesians
Dude, where do you think Germany is located? FYI, it is located in Europe, not the Middle-east (where there are more devout Muslims)
The majority religion there is still Christianity.
On the post: Canadian Politician Threatens To Sue Critic Of Her Fundraising Habits
Re: Canadian Politics...
This is not only limited to Canadian Politics. Same goes for the Dutch. They are so incompetent, that you wonder how in earth they could be given the responsibility of steering a country.
On the post: Theaters Boycott New Film Over Simultaneous DVD Release
I'm sorry..
On the post: Baseball Still Insists It Owns Facts
Corporations getting stupid or more vocal?
On the post: Apple Goes On The Offensive: Sues Burst.com Over Burst's Patents
Re: Multiple choice? I'd like to phone a friend...
Ok, I must admit, I did not know this.
but still, most times I hear of Patent lawsuit-cases, it is about the patenter sueing the infringer. In this case it is actually reversed, and that is what boggles my mind. Basically Apple says "We have a suspicion we might infringe him, but we want to exclude that, so we are going to spend a lot of money on lawyers/waste a judge's time to find this out." At least, that is how it comes across on me.
The only people gaining from this strategy (in my eyes) are the lawyers.
But then again, I could see it incorrectly, as I don't understand the legal system.
On the post: Apple Goes On The Offensive: Sues Burst.com Over Burst's Patents
Multiple choice? I'd like to phone a friend....
either we aren't infringing or burst.com's patents are invalid? Isn't that a bit of misuse of the court system?
Actually this whole case is strange. If they fear for patent infringement, why not work out a deal with Burst? And if they think they have nothing to fear, why sue at all? Or is this a new way of getting publicity? "To throw a SCO" :-)
On the post: Bubble Time: Tiny Company, Barely Any Revenue, Expects To IPO
stupidity?
Or that investers are just plain stupid
On the post: Email Is Not Dead Yet (Nor Any Time Soon)
Video killed the radiostar?
Weblogs killed the email-star
RSS killed the email-star
Wiki killed the email-star
But email came and is still here
Oh-a-a-a-oh
On the post: Yet Another Study Says Text Messaging Boosts Writing Skills
Text Messaging Boosts Writing Skills
it may be benificial for the writing skills, though I still doubt it, but language skills (or skillz) will most likely decrease. The above is merely an example, not really my style of communicating.
Next >>