Apple doesn't compete with Microsoft. They have completely different customer bases. Plus, Microsoft owns a big chunk of Apple.
Linux, on the other hand, is uncontrolled and disruptive. Microsoft has been trying to slow the adoption of Linux since the SCO lawsuit started.
As Linux gets better (and OMG has it gotten better!), it is a massive threat to Microsoft. Not to Apple, though. The customer base is too technophobic to even approach a Linux box for the next 10 years or so. Microsoft has about 5 left before a really good distro puts a huge dent in their profits.
So, I can take a movie print, scan it with a different exposure than normal, post it online, and legally claim a copyright on it? Damn, I may have to quit my day job! I mean, after all, if that's all it takes to assume copyright, I'll be golden!
Sweat of the brow, good intentions and an altruistic rationale does not give you a copyright. I would have to argue that if their intent was historical preservation, they would put them online for distribution, happy that people would be able to freely enjoy them forever. Sadly, that does not seem to be the case.
What in the hell are you talking about? Mike has never argued that exact copies of photographs receive a new copyright when moved to a new medium. He's argued the opposite numerous times, and the law (and common sense) agrees.
I've got a Winmo phone with the original battery. The sensor sticker on the phone is red. The sensor on the battery is white. Anyone see a problem here?
If a monopoly was truly necessary for invention and innovation, and such things existed in software, then there would be no Linux, no open source anything. The very existance of such projects (and many research projects are open source) is proof enough to any reasonable person that there is no need for patents in general, and certainly not for software.
Re: Like the Patent Examiner Guy said... nothing to see here
You say this like it's all OK... There is no logical reason ANYONE should be able to patent ANY part of ANY biological structure. It's a massive abuse of the system, brought about by people who confuse morals and ethics with law. FYI: Just because you CAN get away with something, doesn't mean you should do it.
I challenge you to defend your position based on logic, morals and ethics, not on what is legal right here and right now.
When Bush was voted in with a Republican majority in both houses, I expected anti-abortion legislation. Didn't happen. Wonder why? Look at a bumper-sticker.
If abortion was illegal, they would lose the majority of their supporters.
Why governments fail and have to be revolutionized every 300-500 years. I'm beginning to see why.
When everything is "too big to fail", the whole system fails.
Boycott the entertainment industry. Not just in the UK, here in the US as well.
Don't buy any more DVD's, rent or watch what you already have.
And don't go to the movies!
Make it clear that this is wrong, and you won't stand for it.
Or just lie down, shut up and take it, like the good doggie you are!
My original deed to my first house forbade selling the house to someone who was not "a member of the white race." These freaks are just following in the footsteps of the many freaks before them.
That is the problem - they don't tell you how to implement the patent. They describe only the highest-level functionality. There is no code or pseudo-code listed, because that would limit the patent to that particular implementation. Instead they use incredibly broad language to capture every implementation possible, and often even software features which were unrelated to the original implementation. The last of the truly usefull usefull patents were written when no one thought software could be patented(The infamous GIF compression patent jumps to mind).
The other problem, of course, is that patent reviewers are not skilled enough to know weather or not the description in question will allow someone to practice the invention. On the contrary, they seem to be geared to allow someone with no skill in the art (the reviewer) to get the gist of the process, while leaving out much of the information necessary for the actual use of the patent.
By the way, don't forget about the "obviousness" test that's supposed to exist under law, but is consistantly ignored. Guess some laws matter more than others.
I just bought "The Raven" on Amazon. Region 2. Why? Because the region 1 dvd is $37 and the region 2 dvd is $7. Now, why does a movie made in 1963 have a region code?
How about hardware/software update/upgrade sales? If the new stuff isn't innovative, you won't buy it. It's got to have some feature that you're willing to spend money on, or at least spend time to download, for it to be worth while. You could probably cut out new sales, as that may be people just trying out the platform. In any case, it would be much more reasonable than counting patents.
Sounds like a great idea! When someone is accused of copyright infringement, we turn off their major line of commmunication! We'll call it... Excommunication! And since these accused infringers obviously don't BELIEVE in our business model, and we're looking for a stronger term than, "Pirates", let's call them, "Business Model Heretics" or just "Heretics" for short. Then we'll sue the Heretics, take away their possessions and property, make them confess their heresy, and finally burn them at the stake!
On the post: Microsoft Suggests Android Violates Its Patents... But Gets HTC To Buy A License
Re: WOW
Linux, on the other hand, is uncontrolled and disruptive. Microsoft has been trying to slow the adoption of Linux since the SCO lawsuit started.
As Linux gets better (and OMG has it gotten better!), it is a massive threat to Microsoft. Not to Apple, though. The customer base is too technophobic to even approach a Linux box for the next 10 years or so. Microsoft has about 5 left before a really good distro puts a huge dent in their profits.
On the post: Historical Association Claims Copyright To Scans Of 100 Year Old Photos
Re: these would not be 'exact' reproductions
Sweat of the brow, good intentions and an altruistic rationale does not give you a copyright. I would have to argue that if their intent was historical preservation, they would put them online for distribution, happy that people would be able to freely enjoy them forever. Sadly, that does not seem to be the case.
On the post: Historical Association Claims Copyright To Scans Of 100 Year Old Photos
Re: Re:
Another useless troll by another useless AC.
On the post: iPhone Hits Just Keep On Coming For Apple: Sued Over Liquid Damage Sensors
Sensors are crap
I hope she wins big.
On the post: McDonald's Laughs Off Criticism Embedded In April Fool's Joke
Re:
Joyce, do you know what site you're posting on?
Besides, anyone with children knows that McDonald's food REEKS after a day or two. That's how you find that half-eaten hamburger in your car!
On the post: What If The Very Theory That Underlies Why We Need Patents Is Wrong?
Open source software
On the post: Indian Scientists Refuse To Patent Tuberculosis Genome, Encourage Anyone To Make The Drugs
Re: Like the Patent Examiner Guy said... nothing to see here
I challenge you to defend your position based on logic, morals and ethics, not on what is legal right here and right now.
On the post: Pfizer, Novartis & Eli Lilly Received A Bunch Of Illegal Pharma Patents In India
Re:
Ed Murrow -"Who owns this patent?"
Jonas Salk - "No one. Could you patent the sun?"
On the post: Institutions Will Seek To Preserve The Problem For Which They Are The Solution
Politics
If abortion was illegal, they would lose the majority of their supporters.
On the post: How Pfizer And The US Gov't Set Up A Fake Subsidiary To Take The Brunt Of Lawsuit Over Falsely Marketed Drugs
I've always wondered...
When everything is "too big to fail", the whole system fails.
On the post: UK House Of Commons On Digital Economy Bill: We'll Approve Now, Debate Later?
only one thing for it...
Don't buy any more DVD's, rent or watch what you already have.
And don't go to the movies!
Make it clear that this is wrong, and you won't stand for it.
Or just lie down, shut up and take it, like the good doggie you are!
On the post: Publisher Realizes Google Books Isn't Evil, But Quite Beneficial
Re: Re: Re: They also need to realize...
You got wood.
PS WTF is a personal clamshell?
On the post: Patent Office Hires Economist To Add Some Actual Evidence To Patent Policy
Or
I hope I'm wrong.
On the post: Developers Trying To Treat Houses Like Copyright; Want A Cut Of Every Future Resale
Not that new
On the post: Software Patents Violate The Patent Bargain, Since There Is No Disclosure To Trade-Off
Re: Only Partiall True
The other problem, of course, is that patent reviewers are not skilled enough to know weather or not the description in question will allow someone to practice the invention. On the contrary, they seem to be geared to allow someone with no skill in the art (the reviewer) to get the gist of the process, while leaving out much of the information necessary for the actual use of the patent.
By the way, don't forget about the "obviousness" test that's supposed to exist under law, but is consistantly ignored. Guess some laws matter more than others.
On the post: Solicitor General Tells Supreme Court That First Sale Shouldn't Apply To Foreign-Made Goods
Not quite the same, but similar...
On the post: Can We Come Up With A Better Way To Measure Innovation?
Hardware/Software update sales
On the post: Just As It Tries To Kick People Offline, The British Gov't Wants To Move All Public Service Online
History repeats itself
Woo-hoo! No more stealers 'round here no more!
On the post: Jaron Lanier Says That Musicians Using Free To Succeed Are Lying
Well...
On the post: US Patent Office Decides That One Click Really Is Patentable
USPTO is worthless...
Next >>