Derek raised some very important points in his posting re: DMCA and its effects. I noticed that you (Derek) are a Software Developer, and you stated in your posting that you would be very annoyed about someone using your "ideas" and grabbing some of your market share from the use of such ideas (perhaps in the form of a similar program etc). This is where I get very confused. You see- for a long time I have listened to copyright protectors declaring to consumers that they need to copyright their software so that all benefit. Funny, I don't see any benefit from keeping back what amounts to "ideas" and "information" and making it "mine"--unless of course you pay the monies for me to give you a license to look at them/use them. Ideas simply should not be copyrighted or patented. Information should be a free vehicle for the expansion and progression of freedom and the human race full stop; exploiting a consumers power to spend by tying up your "ideas" in a package is fine, and some may think this is reasonable, but when you then say that that same information is yours alone and cannot be "copied" neither in word nor deed--that's dangerous. If this was how early scientific leaders dealt with their findings and research results, we would all be living in extreme conditions. Information, in its raw form, should be entirely open. That same information should be exploitable by all and for all. To patent schemes or information or applications is wrong and antithetical to sharing and furtherance of society and even business. I know I may get flamed heavily for this stance, but the reason I got into free software is because of the above arguments. Being tied into a proprietary tag, paying their price, and yet owning nothing of the product really annoys me! Being told that my ideas when transmitted over an open standards based networking medium (the Internet) become the property of an intellectual property owner and cease to be my ideas and information annoys me; when consumers don't have the power of choice and then are told that they neither have choice nor the right to look at the code that powers their machines--that annoys me. When programmers pretend that their money comes from software sales based on spurious mathematics on how much development time and therefore product value inherently survives because of that--that gets my back up. When programmers declare their programs and information "theirs" and not to be copied or used without royalty fees--that annoys me. That's just me though. The DMCA is purely a money making scheme (it would seem to me). The problem with the web at this time is that too many people see it as a source of revenue and not enough people see it a s free flow of information and ideas that could benefit all--communications serving people and not just business. Business users of the web are mostly to blaim for wanting more patents and more proprietary technology: "I'll have my slice of the web and you have yours; you'll pay to see mine and I'll pay to see yours.Either way we make lots of cash from consumers who will need to see both sets of information". For me, the fear is that the DMCA will further alienate the non-programmer and consumer and therefore lead to dumb PC users who can only use what nanny says they can, and only if they have a proper licensed software product. Linux is something that challenges all this trash. They don't like it for that! Linux users generally care about the free, open, flow of information and that's what the DMCA wants to deter. Again- these are just my opinons on the topic. I may be wrong. You may disagree with me. That's fine. What I'm sure we all want though is to maintain that free, open flow of information. That source code you hold in your hands, found on your Linux disks, stands for the most powerful things that man has ever accomplished- freedom and choice, sharing, and openness. Aren't these to be more protected than some programmer's small income from software sales? PS: I am not saying that programmers should not get paid ;-) I am saying that the monies they make from software sales ("bits" as Eric Raymond calls them) is very small compared to money they make from in-house programming and other related tasks. Software sales could generally be stopped tomorrow and hardly any programmers would lose from it--that's not where they earn from (unless you program for M$). Just thought I'd clarify that! Paul <hiding under table waiting for flames>
On 12 Dec 2001 at 13:59, Paul Munro wrote:
PS: I am not saying that programmers should not get paid ;-) I am saying that the monies they make from software sales ("bits" as Eric Raymond calls them) is very small compared to money they make from in-house programming and other related tasks. Software sales could generally be stopped tomorrow and hardly any programmers would lose from it--that's not where they earn from (unless you program for M$). Just thought I'd clarify that!
I don't know that you could stop software sales without noticing... Working for a software house, the majority of our money comes from Licensing and support services (yes we too only issue a license to use the software!), but the sale of our software does produce a nice cash injection that can be used for new equipment purchases, investments etc. As a programmer for my employer, I don't have any rights over the software I produce anyway. I do however write software for myself out of company time. I would not be annoyed if somebody took my ideas and wrote from scratch overcoming the same issues I did similar software to mine. I would be annoyed if they took my code and profited out of it. Surely it's up to the individual as to how they release a product (be that software or music!). If I want people to have the code and benefit from my experience I can release it under the GPL. If I don't want them to have it, I release a binary distributable under a proprietary license. Then it's my choice if I want to charge for my binary software or not. For me, it's more a matter of freedom of choice rather than freedom of information, I don't believe we have the god given right to all information, but we should have the right of choice!. It seems that this right of choice is what is going to be removed from us the the introduction of the DMCA and SSSCA acts should those become law. Don't kid yourselves either, if they become law in the USA, there will be a big impact on Open-Source software regardless of whether they become law in the UK or not. The next point is more business orientated.. what about the cost of investment that international business has in Linux as a whole. Webservers, email servers, firewalls... who is going to foot the bill to replace these if it becomes illegal to use them ?? And finally... So what if it's illegal to run one of these operating systems.. like that's going to stop Mr terrorist and Mr Drug dealer using it anyway?! They can kill thousands of people and sell illegal drugs. Obviously they are going to be so scared of running illegal operating system on their PC incase they get caught..... right.......... -Andy- ============================================================ Andrew Johnson, Technical Consultant Drive Computer Services Tel +44 (0)1924 280388 Extn 223 Fax +44 (0)1924 280117 Mobile +44 (0)7970 284594 Vmail/Fax +44 (0)7092 362849 Email : andrew.johnson@drivecomputing.co.uk { The contents of this communication (plus any attachments which may be included along with it) are solely intended for the individual(s) and/or group(s) listed as a recipient above. None of the contents should be relayed in any form to any third party without the prior consent of the author. All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily those of my employer. }
On Wed, 12 Dec 2001, Paul Munro wrote:
Ideas simply should not be copyrighted or patented. Information should be a free vehicle for the expansion and progression of freedom and the human race full stop; exploiting a consumers power to spend by tying up your "ideas" in a package is fine, and some may think this is reasonable, but when you then say that that same information is yours alone and cannot be "copied" neither in word nor deed--that's dangerous. If this was how early scientific leaders dealt with their findings and research results, we would all be living in extreme conditions. Information, in its raw form, should be entirely open. That same information should be exploitable by all and for all. To patent schemes or information or applications is wrong and antithetical to sharing and furtherance of society and even business.
I tend to agree with the general direction here. Information should, by default, be freely redistributable and modifiable. This is taken into account by current UK law: it is explicitly impossible to patent an algorithm, mathematical formula or software, for example. However, I do think that copyright works quite well in its current form, at least in this country. If I write a piece of software then it's mine, in the same way that if I write a book it is also mine. You are free to re-use any ideas from my software; you are only restricted from copying the actual code I have written in order to do so. If I want to give my software away (which I do) then I can do so via the GPL and be assured that copyright law will prevent anyone from ripping off the code that I have written. The patent situation is tending towards the ridiculous. Patents are allegedly designed to protect R&D investments, but this is clearly not how they are used in practice. Consider James Dyson - the cost of patenting his invention through the years before production started nearly bankrupted him. Now consider IBM patenting a method for automatically moving a search dialog when the search highlights a term hidden beneath the dialog. Patents are used by people who already have plenty of money in order to make life difficult for potential competitors. They do not provide any realistic protection for the small inventor, or the company that doesn't have the resources to employ a team of lawyers to enforce a patent. The current storm about digital rights management is, as far as I can see, pretty much irrelevant because it's provably impossible to implement. It has about as much relevance as would a law passed to change the acceleration due to gravity. However, the possibility of software patents becoming legal in this country is seriously worrying. Just my 2p, Michael
However, I do think that copyright works quite well in its current form, at least in this country. If I write a piece of software then it's mine,
The problems with copyright is that IMHO only makes sense to have either long term which covers only actual copying or short term which has wider scope. However what we are tending to end up with is long term "copyright" which also has other aspects, sometimes ending up more as a "useright". Also so called "harmonization" appears to in practice mean the world doing things the American way (The US started with copyright which whilst quite draconian and even somewhat patent like was short term. But has been stretched until the regular copyright term is longer than the average human lifespan.)
in the same way that if I write a book it is also mine. You are free to re-use any ideas from my software; you are only restricted from copying the actual code I have written in order to do so.
If you follow the American model this is no longer the case. A "derived work" has it's copyright held by the original copyright holder. Which is why you will see such things as "fan fiction" covered with disclaimers about not owning the *characters*...
If I want to give my software away (which I do) then I can do so via the GPL and be assured that copyright law will prevent anyone from ripping off the code that I have written.
The patent situation is tending towards the ridiculous. Patents are allegedly designed to protect R&D investments, but this is clearly not how they are used in practice. Consider James Dyson - the cost of patenting his invention through the years before production started nearly
Whilst in theory Mr Dyson is exactly the kind of person patents are ment to be for. To protect someone's novel ideas from being ripped off by a pre existing company... (Note also that in the US both copyright and patents derive from the same clause in the constitution. Which dosn't actually require either. Simply that the mechanisms used serve to encourage progress of "science and useful arts" and the disemination of the same.)
bankrupted him. Now consider IBM patenting a method for automatically moving a search dialog when the search highlights a term hidden beneath the dialog. Patents are used by people who already have plenty of money
Also you end up with the senario where old ideas gain patents simply because they use a computer...
in order to make life difficult for potential competitors. They do not provide any realistic protection for the small inventor, or the company that doesn't have the resources to employ a team of lawyers to enforce a patent.
IIRC there have been cases of people enforcing patents through LIP, but not only do quite a few judges dislike non lawyers litigating in patent cases if someone is spending all their time in court they can't do much to develop their invention.
The current storm about digital rights management is, as far as I can see, pretty much irrelevant because it's provably impossible to implement. It
But many of the people involved and those making the decisons simply do not understand that. What they want is literally "magic". (I don't mean the Clarke kind either.)
has about as much relevance as would a law passed to change the acceleration due to gravity. However, the possibility of software patents
Legislatures in the past have attempted to redefine universal constants by statute. e.g. PI...
becoming legal in this country is seriously worrying.
-- Mark Evans St. Peter's CofE High School Phone: +44 1392 204764 X109 Fax: +44 1392 204763
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 03:53:14PM +0000, Mark Evans wrote:
However, I do think that copyright works quite well in its current form, at least in this country. If I write a piece of software then it's mine,
The problems with copyright is that IMHO only makes sense to have either long term which covers only actual copying or short term which has wider scope.
However what we are tending to end up with is long term "copyright" which also has other aspects, sometimes ending up more as a "useright".
Also so called "harmonization" appears to in practice mean the world doing things the American way (The US started with copyright which whilst quite draconian and even somewhat patent like was short term. But has been stretched until the regular copyright term is longer than the average human lifespan.)
You're right about copyright being stretched and in principle and practice patenting and copyright are just two sides of the same coin IMO. The fact is that they are no longer used with their original intent to protect the small time inventor or business.
in the same way that if I write a book it is also mine. You are free to re-use any ideas from my software; you are only restricted from copying the actual code I have written in order to do so.
If you follow the American model this is no longer the case. A "derived work" has it's copyright held by the original copyright holder. Which is why you will see such things as "fan fiction" covered with disclaimers about not owning the *characters*...
If I want to give my software away (which I do) then I can do so via the GPL and be assured that copyright law will prevent anyone from ripping off the code that I have written.
The patent situation is tending towards the ridiculous. Patents are allegedly designed to protect R&D investments, but this is clearly not how they are used in practice. Consider James Dyson - the cost of patenting his invention through the years before production started nearly
Whilst in theory Mr Dyson is exactly the kind of person patents are ment to be for. To protect someone's novel ideas from being ripped off by a pre existing company...
(Note also that in the US both copyright and patents derive from the same clause in the constitution. Which dosn't actually require either. Simply that the mechanisms used serve to encourage progress of "science and useful arts" and the disemination of the same.)
Well at the moment it does anything but and the constitution is ignored in many other areas too.
bankrupted him. Now consider IBM patenting a method for automatically moving a search dialog when the search highlights a term hidden beneath the dialog. Patents are used by people who already have plenty of money
Also you end up with the senario where old ideas gain patents simply because they use a computer...
and the clever patent lawyers can run rings around the patent examiners - the days of Einstein working in a patent office are long gone. The guy in Australia patenting the wheel was a fairly graphic illustration of this. What technically clued-up person in their right mind is going to work for peanuts in a patent office when they can jump onto the IP scam/bandwagon themselves?
in order to make life difficult for potential competitors. They do not provide any realistic protection for the small inventor, or the company that doesn't have the resources to employ a team of lawyers to enforce a patent.
IIRC there have been cases of people enforcing patents through LIP, but not only do quite a few judges dislike non lawyers litigating in patent cases if someone is spending all their time in court they can't do much to develop their invention.
The problem is the big companies abusing the current IP laws. MS in particular employs 600 lawyers. With there cash mountain they're unstoppable in court, they bog all litigants in IP cases down in expensive lawsuits and drive them out of business. Stac won their case but were put out of business by MS well before the settlement - even though Stac won the case they lost big. Which is why independent software vendors who come up with something novel sell out to MS - they're made an offer they can't refuse. Microsoft are no longer primarily a tech company, they're a legal company. I see that BT are trying to jump on this sordid little bandwagon and sue some ISP for infringing their `hyperlink' patent. I'd stop BT providing my 'phone line in protest but then I'd have to do without. Another bloody monopoly!
The current storm about digital rights management is, as far as I can see, pretty much irrelevant because it's provably impossible to implement. It
But many of the people involved and those making the decisons simply do not understand that. What they want is literally "magic". (I don't mean the Clarke kind either.)
The decisions on introducing IP legislation is made at the behest of firms like MS. They're on to a loser eventually but it buys them some time to dominate the market even more aggressively by using law bought to order. The American political system is undoubtedly as corrupt as anything on this planet and FWIW their legal sytem sucks too in that the more money you've got, the better chance you have of winning your case.
has about as much relevance as would a law passed to change the acceleration due to gravity. However, the possibility of software patents
Legislatures in the past have attempted to redefine universal constants by statute. e.g. PI...
becoming legal in this country is seriously worrying.
Being essentially a client state they'll try and go for it in this country but I think the Europeans might have their doubts about it - I guess we'll just have to wait & see. -- Frank *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Boroughbridge. Tel: 01423 323019 --------- PGP keyID: 0xC0B341A3 *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/
The problem is the big companies abusing the current IP laws. MS in particular employs 600 lawyers. With there cash mountain they're unstoppable in court, they bog all litigants in IP cases down in expensive lawsuits and drive them out of business. Stac won their case but were put out of business by MS well before the settlement - even though Stac won the case they lost big. Which is why independent software vendors who come up with something novel sell out to MS - they're made an offer they can't refuse. Microsoft are no longer primarily a tech company, they're a legal company.
I see that BT are trying to jump on this sordid little bandwagon and sue some ISP for infringing their `hyperlink' patent. I'd stop BT providing my 'phone line in protest but then I'd have to do without. Another bloody monopoly!
One side of me says campaign to have them regulated, but the other says don't. let them keep putting the price up because then Open Source will become increasingly attractive. I don't have a BT line at all. Its all NTL, mainly because its cheaper and faster. BT are not doing wonderfully well. Every dog has its day and MS haven't been going long in the scheme of things. The Roman Empire collapsed, so did the Soviet Union and MS dominance will last rether less lime than either but the dissidents need to collectively put their energy in in as effective ways as possible to shorten the timescale as much as possible. If they abuse their position the long term outcome will be inevitable, just a matter of when.
The American political system is undoubtedly as corrupt as anything on this planet and FWIW their legal sytem sucks too in that the more money you've got, the better chance you have of winning your case.
I can think of worse.
Being essentially a client state they'll try and go for it in this country but I think the Europeans might have their doubts about it - I guess we'll just have to wait & see.
Just keep lobbying. It can make a difference. -- IanL Open Source - save money - employ more teachers Use Star Office the free replacement for Microsoft Office
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 03:53:14PM +0000, Mark Evans wrote:
bankrupted him. Now consider IBM patenting a method for automatically moving a search dialog when the search highlights a term hidden beneath the dialog. Patents are used by people who already have plenty of money
Also you end up with the senario where old ideas gain patents simply because they use a computer...
and the clever patent lawyers can run rings around the patent examiners - the days of Einstein working in a patent office are long
They don't need to be that clever, since patent *examiners* might be better named "rubber stampers". The only exception which comes to mind is Russia where getting a patent granted by trickery is actually considered *fraud*.
The current storm about digital rights management is, as far as I can see, pretty much irrelevant because it's provably impossible to implement. It
But many of the people involved and those making the decisons simply do not understand that. What they want is literally "magic". (I don't mean the Clarke kind either.)
The decisions on introducing IP legislation is made at the behest of firms like MS. They're on to a loser eventually but it buys them some
Most commonly the movie and music publishing business. MS is just happy to go along for the ride...
time to dominate the market even more aggressively by using law bought to order.
The American political system is undoubtedly as corrupt as anything on this planet and FWIW their legal sytem sucks too in that the more money you've got, the better chance you have of winning your case.
Unfortunatly most Americans don't even realise there is a problem, either domestically or the way the US treats the rest of the world. -- Mark Evans St. Peter's CofE High School Phone: +44 1392 204764 X109 Fax: +44 1392 204763
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 07:47:57AM +0000, Ian wrote:
The problem is the big companies abusing the current IP laws. MS in particular employs 600 lawyers. With there cash mountain they're unstoppable in court, they bog all litigants in IP cases down in expensive lawsuits and drive them out of business. Stac won their case but were put out of business by MS well before the settlement - even though Stac won the case they lost big. Which is why independent software vendors who come up with something novel sell out to MS - they're made an offer they can't refuse. Microsoft are no longer primarily a tech company, they're a legal company.
I see that BT are trying to jump on this sordid little bandwagon and sue some ISP for infringing their `hyperlink' patent. I'd stop BT providing my 'phone line in protest but then I'd have to do without. Another bloody monopoly!
One side of me says campaign to have them regulated, but the other says don't. let them keep putting the price up because then Open Source will become increasingly attractive.
It was established in the findings of fact that there is no pressure on them whatsoever to cut their prices. Their margins are obscene & it was a crucial piece of evidence in establishing that they were a monopoly in the first place. People often have to run Windows whether they like it or not - even I have to run it - and believe me I don't like it. Price is not an issue. The only way to stop this continuing is to regulate & regulate hard.
I don't have a BT line at all. Its all NTL, mainly because its cheaper and faster. BT are not doing wonderfully well.
I don't get NTL out in the sticks here. BT & the rest of the telecoms companies aren't doing terribly well because they got screwed over by their respective governments for their 3G licences - which was not good for anybody as they've now got stuff all money to invest in infrastructure & they'll never get more than a fraction back of what they paid for the licences.
Every dog has its day and MS haven't been going long in the scheme of things. The Roman Empire collapsed, so did the Soviet Union and MS dominance will last rether less lime than either but the dissidents need to collectively put their energy in in as effective ways as possible to shorten the timescale as much as possible. If they abuse their position the long term outcome will be inevitable, just a matter of when.
Agreed. Thankfully there's no historical precedent for 1000yr Reichs ;-)
The American political system is undoubtedly as corrupt as anything on this planet and FWIW their legal sytem sucks too in that the more money you've got, the better chance you have of winning your case.
I can think of worse.
Name & shame them! I can't think of any political system where corruption and bribery of the political class is institutionalised in the shape of the PACs (political action commitees). Everywhere else it seems to be done on an `ad hoc' basis.
Being essentially a client state they'll try and go for it in this country but I think the Europeans might have their doubts about it - I guess we'll just have to wait & see.
Just keep lobbying. It can make a difference.
Will do :) -- Frank *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Boroughbridge. Tel: 01423 323019 --------- PGP keyID: 0xC0B341A3 *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/ Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood. -- Daniel Hudson Burnham
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 09:07:46AM +0000, Mark Evans wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 03:53:14PM +0000, Mark Evans wrote:
bankrupted him. Now consider IBM patenting a method for automatically moving a search dialog when the search highlights a term hidden beneath the dialog. Patents are used by people who already have plenty of money
Also you end up with the senario where old ideas gain patents simply because they use a computer...
and the clever patent lawyers can run rings around the patent examiners - the days of Einstein working in a patent office are long
They don't need to be that clever, since patent *examiners* might be better named "rubber stampers".
They should throw them out & replace them with machines FWIW ;)
The only exception which comes to mind is Russia where getting a patent granted by trickery is actually considered *fraud*.
That's interesting. They should certainly pick that up over here and it would certainly cut down on the scams. The thought of a prison sentence would certainly focus their minds.
The current storm about digital rights management is, as far as I can see, pretty much irrelevant because it's provably impossible to implement. It
But many of the people involved and those making the decisons simply do not understand that. What they want is literally "magic". (I don't mean the Clarke kind either.)
The decisions on introducing IP legislation is made at the behest of firms like MS. They're on to a loser eventually but it buys them some
Most commonly the movie and music publishing business. MS is just happy to go along for the ride...
It seems that MS wants to become the provider of choice when it comes to digital entertainment & they seem to be shaping an unholy trinity of music/publishing, government and themselves in order to establish a further monopoly.
time to dominate the market even more aggressively by using law bought to order.
The American political system is undoubtedly as corrupt as anything on this planet and FWIW their legal sytem sucks too in that the more money you've got, the better chance you have of winning your case.
Unfortunatly most Americans don't even realise there is a problem, either domestically or the way the US treats the rest of the world.
That's right, they barely know about what's going on outside their front doors let alone foreign shores. Most don't travel and just take in the Hollywood/media drivel without even thinking. FWIW, I don't hate Americans. All the Americans I've met are usually quite nice people - the problem is that most are unbelievably naive & still firmly believe in apple pie, the tooth fairy and that God exists and probably looks like John Wayne. All a bit tragic really. -- Frank *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Boroughbridge. Tel: 01423 323019 --------- PGP keyID: 0xC0B341A3 *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/ My folks didn't come over on the Mayflower, but they were there to meet the boat.
On Friday 14 December 2001 04:57, Frank Shute wrote:
It was established in the findings of fact that there is no pressure on them whatsoever to cut their prices. Their margins are obscene & it was a crucial piece of evidence in establishing that they were a monopoly in the first place.
People often have to run Windows whether they like it or not - even I have to run it - and believe me I don't like it. Price is not an issue.
I disagree. If they charged £1000 a machine for Windows you would see a mass rush to Linux. Its a matter of degree. With proper competition I should think Windows would be less than a tenner without proper competition its £100. If MS did reduce this to say £20 it would make it a lot harder to establish Linux. If they have lower sales volumes (as is happening) and they keep putting the price up, the economic argument for Linux will eventually get the upper hand.
The only way to stop this continuing is to regulate & regulate hard.
If the regulators did set a price of say £10 a licence for windows and £10 for Office you could probably say good bye to any real chance of a shift to Linux at the desktop. Its why I think on balance it could well be better to give MS enough rope to hang itself. Greed is a difficult emotion for the greedy to resist and if sales volume is reduced by fewer PCs going out there the temptation is to keep putting the price up to maintain the revenue the shareholders have come to expect.
I don't have a BT line at all. Its all NTL, mainly because its cheaper and faster. BT are not doing wonderfully well.
I don't get NTL out in the sticks here. BT & the rest of the telecoms companies aren't doing terribly well because they got screwed over by their respective governments for their 3G licences - which was not good for anybody as they've now got stuff all money to invest in infrastructure & they'll never get more than a fraction back of what they paid for the licences.
So the money has gone into the public purse. Good scam on behalf of the tax payer :-) All depends on your point of view. Personally, I think taxing IT infrastructure is detrimental and will delay things a few years. Delays might actually help Linux as it gives it longer to strengthen and mature before things like .net have tme to establish another monopoly.
Every dog has its day and MS haven't been going long in the scheme of things. The Roman Empire collapsed, so did the Soviet Union and MS dominance will last rether less lime than either but the dissidents need to collectively put their energy in in as effective ways as possible to shorten the timescale as much as possible. If they abuse their position the long term outcome will be inevitable, just a matter of when.
Agreed. Thankfully there's no historical precedent for 1000yr Reichs ;-)
The American political system is undoubtedly as corrupt as anything on this planet and FWIW their legal sytem sucks too in that the more money you've got, the better chance you have of winning your case.
I can think of worse.
Name & shame them! I can't think of any political system where corruption and bribery of the political class is institutionalised in the shape of the PACs (political action commitees).
I should think the Taliban, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin and a few other ran more corrupt governments by a long way.
Everywhere else it seems to be done on an `ad hoc' basis.
I don't think ethnic cleansing of Jews was particularly ad hoc.
Being essentially a client state they'll try and go for it in this country but I think the Europeans might have their doubts about it - I guess we'll just have to wait & see.
Just keep lobbying. It can make a difference.
Will do :)
-- IanL Open Source - save money - employ more teachers Use Star Office the free replacement for Microsoft Office
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 08:11:09PM +0000, Ian wrote:
On Friday 14 December 2001 04:57, Frank Shute wrote:
It was established in the findings of fact that there is no pressure on them whatsoever to cut their prices. Their margins are obscene & it was a crucial piece of evidence in establishing that they were a monopoly in the first place.
People often have to run Windows whether they like it or not - even I have to run it - and believe me I don't like it. Price is not an issue.
I disagree. If they charged £1000 a machine for Windows you would see a mass rush to Linux. Its a matter of degree.
True.
With proper competition I should think Windows would be less than a tenner without proper competition its £100. If MS did reduce this to say £20 it would make it a lot harder to establish Linux.
They're essentially stuck at charging what they presently charge even if there was proper competition. They can't reduce it because the shareholders have come to expect a suitably huge income as you mention.
If they have lower sales volumes (as is happening) and they keep putting the price up, the economic argument for Linux will eventually get the upper hand.
The lower sales volumes are as a result of fewer sales of PCs with of course their preloaded stuff on every PC you buy. The problem is that Intel & the clone chips give so much now that even MS can't take it away with their bloatware. I think this box is about 3 yrs old (300MHz) and it runs NT, Linux & BSD quite happily so I can't really see me needing another for a few years yet. Although I say that my university says they will give me 250 quid towards a new one which is probably too good an opportunity to pass up. It means I get a 1GHz machine for an outlay of 250 myself =)
The only way to stop this continuing is to regulate & regulate hard.
If the regulators did set a price of say £10 a licence for windows and £10 for Office you could probably say good bye to any real chance of a shift to Linux at the desktop.
They'd never tell them at what price they should sell their products at - that's rightfully a business decision for them to make.
Its why I think on balance it could well be better to give MS enough rope to hang itself. Greed is a difficult emotion for the greedy to resist and if sales volume is reduced by fewer PCs going out there the temptation is to keep putting the price up to maintain the revenue the shareholders have come to expect.
They're not putting up the price per se ie. a copy of NT bought a few years ago is pretty much the price of a copy of 2K/XP today. What they are doing is imposing onerous licence conditions on businesses in particular to ensure that they have to upgrade at MS's whim thus ensuring their revenue. They'll also extend the .NET/Passport stuff & eventually get their customers to move away from TCP/IP and onto a proprietry protocol - that seems to be the game plan. Lock them in even further. This is where their needs to be regulation. Force them to use open protocols so they can be re-implemented by others. Otherwise they'll just carry on like they always have and embrace, extend & proprietrise.
I don't have a BT line at all. Its all NTL, mainly because its cheaper and faster. BT are not doing wonderfully well.
I don't get NTL out in the sticks here. BT & the rest of the telecoms companies aren't doing terribly well because they got screwed over by their respective governments for their 3G licences - which was not good for anybody as they've now got stuff all money to invest in infrastructure & they'll never get more than a fraction back of what they paid for the licences.
So the money has gone into the public purse. Good scam on behalf of the tax payer :-) All depends on your point of view. Personally, I think taxing IT infrastructure is detrimental and will delay things a few years. Delays might actually help Linux as it gives it longer to strengthen and mature before things like .net have tme to establish another monopoly.
I agree with you, taxing infrastructure is detrimental to us all & it's set back the telecoms business back years. I can't see that it particularly helps MS more than Linux or vice versa. We'd all like to see Broadband connections etc. so to my mind it has been a disaster for the development of the industry as a whole. It might have seemed like a good idea to grab a pile of money for the public purse at the time but I think in hindsight it was a damn fool idea & was probably one of the major causes of the recession.
The American political system is undoubtedly as corrupt as anything on this planet and FWIW their legal sytem sucks too in that the more money you've got, the better chance you have of winning your case.
I can think of worse.
Name & shame them! I can't think of any political system where corruption and bribery of the political class is institutionalised in the shape of the PACs (political action commitees).
I should think the Taliban, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin and a few other ran more corrupt governments by a long way.
They weren't corrupt in the way that they could be bought like the American political system. Unpleasant - undoubtedly. But corrupt - not particularly.
Everywhere else it seems to be done on an `ad hoc' basis.
I don't think ethnic cleansing of Jews was particularly ad hoc.
I don't see that corruption & genocide have much in common. -- Frank *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Boroughbridge. Tel: 01423 323019 --------- PGP keyID: 0xC0B341A3 *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/ Bondage maybe, discipline never! -- T.K.
participants (6)
-
Andrew Johnson -
Frank Shute -
Ian -
Mark Evans -
Michael Brown -
Paul Munro