That's my point. The only way to check any of those things is to actually run code on the machine, so perhaps there's a way to crack the firmware to always give Sony the expected result.
Of course, they could go to their older methods and try to install a rootkit... but I don't know how well that's going to go down with everyone.
I'm wondering, does anyone know how Sony can detect a jailbroken device?
Is it some sort of firmware integrity test that is invoked remotely, perhaps? If so, can't the integrity test itself be overridden with custom code that always reports "A-OK"?
The two platforms are identical in that they HATE not being able to control their users, so I don't see how your conscientious buying made any difference.
Your conclusion compels me to raise the question: If any proper lawyer could have warned ICE that these seizures were headed for a legal brick wall, why did they go through with them?
Also, why are they making so many mistakes?
It's almost as if it's intentional, to provoke people...
They are NOT protecting any children by taking websites offline. If they really wanted to protect the children, they'd be arresting the people who put those websites online.
Is that clear enough or do you want me to draw you a diagram?
Wrong. If you find child porn on something.mooo.com, you find the host of the content, find who put up that content and TAKE THEM OFF THE STREETS.
Hiding the problem by taking some websites off the internet does not solve the problem. The problem is that there are people who abuse children, so track THEM down. In fact, that they're putting stuff up on the internet gives the police new ways to find out who they are!
TAM, I think you're so desperate find something to accuse Mike of that you're forgetting to actually read TFA. Mike didn't make the comparison, the NY Times did.
Is seizing sites legal? -> YES, seize
|
V
NO, go to court
Is seizing sites declared legal? -> YES, seize
|
V
NO, try to change the law
Is seizing sites declared legal? -> YES, seize
|
V
NO
Blame the interns and try something else
I would guess the delay was caused by negotiations taking place between MPEG LA, Microsoft and Apple, who have teamed up to promote H.264 just to be a thorn in Google's side.
Microsoft is releasing "plugins" for H.264 for both Firefox and Chrome (which IIRC have dropped built-in support for the codec, or will soon). I suppose since Microsoft is already paying (or rather, users are paying) for H.264 to be in WMP, so this makes no big difference to them.
I don't think I'm getting through here. Let me repeat this point for the third time and let's hope it sticks:
Bringing a product to market is not done overnight. Even if you are just copying somebody else's product, it can take months until you have something for sale in shops. Keep in mind all the relevant considerations, including marketing and even the strength of your competitor's brand by the time you enter the market.
Also remember that the more complex a product is, the longer it takes to reverse-engineer. Simple innovations that are not really worth anything will be easily copyable, but larger innovations will take skilled labour and significantly more time.
And in case you haven't noticed, I've been talking about patents. :)
I'm sure it's more than just a "feeling", TAM. Are you not a patent lawyer with an obvious personal interest in keeping the patent wars going on forever?
As for finding "other" solutions, why not let competition determine which solutions are examined? Instead of forcing progress to travel laterally for 20 years before it's allowed to go forwards, why not let it go forward until there's a need to go back and revisit alternative methods of doing things?
If companies want to improve their position in the market, simply copying others won't keep them going forever. At some point, even copycats will be forced to innovate to stay current.
"It's the reason why we have Ipads, Samsung Galaxy, HP pads, and everything down through the Kindle: Different technologies, different operating systems, different designs, different functionality. There is no patent or copyright getting in the way of innovation here"
The reason all those exist is because a bunch of different companies are battling to push their technologies forwards. The patent wars between them are costing billions, and that cost trickles down to the consumer. Where is the money going? To the lawyers, of course.
"200ms is the time it takes to connect from a remote location almost anywhere on the internet today."
Thanks very much. How long does it take to bring a product to market? Months. Sometimes even years.
"No, they had no need for them - they had communication at the speed of a man walking"
Not the case when they lived in the same city, as was the case in ancient Athens for example. Cue in Socrates stopping Plato from writing his dialogues... No, wait...
"That is true, but it is also true that there is no indication that there is any significant impediment put in place by the system. As I said, Mike will toss up his needlessly complicated "patent thicket" graphic every so often to try to make a point, but he rarely addresses the facts of rapid development of cell and smart phones."
I dunno, could the rapid development of those things can be because it's driven by the market? A huge market for smart phones was discovered, and a bunch of companies are trying to fill that market. Simple as that. As for the "patent thicket", it's there regardless of what you think of Mike's (or anyone else's) diagrams.
But to add an obelix to that, there is of course absolutely no way to tell if the speedup of human progress was because of the patent system.
If history can teach us anything, it's that art and science have always thrived when civilisations were at their peak. Look at the Greeks and the Romans -- they didn't have copyrights or patents.
As for your second point, I can assure you it takes a bit longer than 200ms to bring a product to market, even if you are just copying somebody else's product.
Though I'm glad that you seem to agree that today intellectual monopolies are only useful for halting competition for their duration.
On the post: Sony Continues To Attack PS3 Jailbreakers: Threatens To Cut Them Off From PlayStation Network
Re: Re:
Of course, they could go to their older methods and try to install a rootkit... but I don't know how well that's going to go down with everyone.
On the post: Sony Continues To Attack PS3 Jailbreakers: Threatens To Cut Them Off From PlayStation Network
Re: Re: Re: But they're losing money!
On the post: Sony Continues To Attack PS3 Jailbreakers: Threatens To Cut Them Off From PlayStation Network
Is it some sort of firmware integrity test that is invoked remotely, perhaps? If so, can't the integrity test itself be overridden with custom code that always reports "A-OK"?
On the post: Sony Continues To Attack PS3 Jailbreakers: Threatens To Cut Them Off From PlayStation Network
Re: But they're losing money!
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re:
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Your conclusion compels me to raise the question: If any proper lawyer could have warned ICE that these seizures were headed for a legal brick wall, why did they go through with them?
Also, why are they making so many mistakes?
It's almost as if it's intentional, to provoke people...
On the post: Did Homeland Security Seize... And Then Unseize... A Dynamic DNS Domain?
Re: Re: Re:
They are NOT protecting any children by taking websites offline. If they really wanted to protect the children, they'd be arresting the people who put those websites online.
Is that clear enough or do you want me to draw you a diagram?
On the post: Did Homeland Security Seize... And Then Unseize... A Dynamic DNS Domain?
On the post: Did Homeland Security Seize... And Then Unseize... A Dynamic DNS Domain?
Re: Re: Re:
Hiding the problem by taking some websites off the internet does not solve the problem. The problem is that there are people who abuse children, so track THEM down. In fact, that they're putting stuff up on the internet gives the police new ways to find out who they are!
On the post: Did Homeland Security Seize... And Then Unseize... A Dynamic DNS Domain?
Re:
On the post: Did Homeland Security Seize... And Then Unseize... A Dynamic DNS Domain?
If you'd looked yesterday, the Google cache of a bunch of mooo subdomains had the ICE seizure graphic on.
Right now, the top Google result for "mooo.com" brings this up:
http://newworld.mooo.com/
which funnily enough leads to a Wikileaks mirror. The Google cache still shows a placeholder for the ICE graphic.
On the post: Would Shakespeare Have Survived Today's Copyright Laws?
Re:
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Another 18 Domain Names, With No Adversarial Hearings Or Due Process
Re:
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Another 18 Domain Names, With No Adversarial Hearings Or Due Process
Is seizing sites legal? -> YES, seize
|
V
NO, go to court
Is seizing sites declared legal? -> YES, seize
|
V
NO, try to change the law
Is seizing sites declared legal? -> YES, seize
|
V
NO
Blame the interns and try something else
On the post: MPEG-LA Follows Through On Its Promise To Go After Google For Daring To Offer Patent-Free Video
Microsoft is releasing "plugins" for H.264 for both Firefox and Chrome (which IIRC have dropped built-in support for the codec, or will soon). I suppose since Microsoft is already paying (or rather, users are paying) for H.264 to be in WMP, so this makes no big difference to them.
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce Wants More Censorship, More IP Protectionism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bringing a product to market is not done overnight. Even if you are just copying somebody else's product, it can take months until you have something for sale in shops. Keep in mind all the relevant considerations, including marketing and even the strength of your competitor's brand by the time you enter the market.
Also remember that the more complex a product is, the longer it takes to reverse-engineer. Simple innovations that are not really worth anything will be easily copyable, but larger innovations will take skilled labour and significantly more time.
And in case you haven't noticed, I've been talking about patents. :)
On the post: Vivaelamor's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce Wants More Censorship, More IP Protectionism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for finding "other" solutions, why not let competition determine which solutions are examined? Instead of forcing progress to travel laterally for 20 years before it's allowed to go forwards, why not let it go forward until there's a need to go back and revisit alternative methods of doing things?
If companies want to improve their position in the market, simply copying others won't keep them going forever. At some point, even copycats will be forced to innovate to stay current.
"It's the reason why we have Ipads, Samsung Galaxy, HP pads, and everything down through the Kindle: Different technologies, different operating systems, different designs, different functionality. There is no patent or copyright getting in the way of innovation here"
The reason all those exist is because a bunch of different companies are battling to push their technologies forwards. The patent wars between them are costing billions, and that cost trickles down to the consumer. Where is the money going? To the lawyers, of course.
"200ms is the time it takes to connect from a remote location almost anywhere on the internet today."
Thanks very much. How long does it take to bring a product to market? Months. Sometimes even years.
"No, they had no need for them - they had communication at the speed of a man walking"
Not the case when they lived in the same city, as was the case in ancient Athens for example. Cue in Socrates stopping Plato from writing his dialogues... No, wait...
"That is true, but it is also true that there is no indication that there is any significant impediment put in place by the system. As I said, Mike will toss up his needlessly complicated "patent thicket" graphic every so often to try to make a point, but he rarely addresses the facts of rapid development of cell and smart phones."
I dunno, could the rapid development of those things can be because it's driven by the market? A huge market for smart phones was discovered, and a bunch of companies are trying to fill that market. Simple as that. As for the "patent thicket", it's there regardless of what you think of Mike's (or anyone else's) diagrams.
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce Wants More Censorship, More IP Protectionism
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If history can teach us anything, it's that art and science have always thrived when civilisations were at their peak. Look at the Greeks and the Romans -- they didn't have copyrights or patents.
As for your second point, I can assure you it takes a bit longer than 200ms to bring a product to market, even if you are just copying somebody else's product.
Though I'm glad that you seem to agree that today intellectual monopolies are only useful for halting competition for their duration.
Next >>