|In reply to Comment 31 (Amon_Re):|
>There are already laws to persue damages, but patents not only allow you to
>keep the stuff to yourself, it locks it for 15 years,
Exactly. So if I design something. ME!!! ME!! ME!!!... It's MINE!!! Then I feel I have a right to it for at least 15 years. Now, it would be stupid to keep it to myself and 99.999*% of people wont want to do that because the main reason of patents is to put something on the market so that tou can MAKE MONEY!!!
> the problem is that patents are not legal all over the world,
No, you're right. However this is changing...
plus you have the right to disasm a program in order to maintain compability, this is what patents legally block, amongst others, and thus invalidates that right, do you want to return to a world of propriaty filetypes? Or do you want to be able to use your data in the way you wish? It's not just about locking idea's up, it's also about the way you handle YOUR OWN DATA in the end (check out M$'s patents on XML extentions)
You've lost me here. You either choose to use a program or a filetype or you don't. Nothing is forced.
>No, they told Apple that if they wanted Office, then they had to give
>Microsoft those rights (in other words, microsoft used it's Office suite as a
> leverage to wrongfully obtain Apple's sourcecode (well parts of it anyway)
> because they knew Apple had no alternative)
And what was wrong with this? MS delveloped a killer app and used it as a chip in a poker game. At the end of the day, MS has part of Apples sourcecode and Apple has MS Office. Nothing was wrongfully obtained - it was bargained for. Compromises were made. Would you say that Apple wrongfully optained MS Office by using their source code to force MS into giving it up? This was business.
>Your analogy is flawed, it would be like having to buy a BMW to be able to use
> diesel fuel, it's not the technology alone that's affected by patents, it's
> also the way data is distributed, and made available.
If BMW have the patent on diesel engines and only use them in their cars then it's a simple fact of life that if you want to use diesel then you buy a BMW. Nobody is forcing you to walk - you can still buy a petrol driven car. If you want something bad enough then you have to accept the rules. Imagine that you want to join a club that has a rule that all gentlemen must wear a jacket and tie. You have a simple choice - wear a jacket and tie or don't bother joining.
>Just for the kicks, put up an mp3 with a songtitle on your webspace, and wait
>for the RIAA bots to pick up that filename, you'll be suprised how quickly
> you'll receive a letter from them
No thanks. I don't want my Green Card revoked!!! :-)
>No, i'm saying that if Xerox had the "marketing skills" of Microsoft, there
> would have been only one OS with a decent GUI, the rest would have been sued
> to death (and this does include AOS amongst others)
Or Xerox would have made a nice licensing fee on each copy of the other OS's sold...
>Tell that to Netscape then, the situation you describe is simular enough to
>bring up that bit, about abusing monopoly positions & effectively killing your
> competition by giving away simular stuff for free (granted, this doesn't
What killed Netscape was MS distributing a perfectly good browser for FREE with their OS and the inability of the average Windows user to install a new program without screwing up his whole OS installation. Or even uninstall a program... " Ijust went into C:Programs, deleted the folder and now I get errors!" :-)
>Patents won't change that, patents is only good for the corporate world, lets
> assume you have a patent on something, and microsoft abuses it, do you think
> you have any chance in the world to win? With your financial status compared
>to the hordes of lawyers M$ has?
It's is also for the individual. You could patent something tomorrow and you could send your complaints to infringements to the Feds. Theft is theft.
How do you know MS wont win? They've been sued before and when they know they're going to lose they settle quietly or buy the company. Either way, people get their money.
> besides, the lawsuits in that field are all based on the DCMA act, and don't
>It's not so simple, there are only 400 DVD dechriptor keys available for
>licencing, wich means the licence fee will probably be an amount higher then
>the linux community (or the AmigaOS community) can afford,
Are you sure? You say "probably", but are you sure Linux users can't aford it? Don't Linux users "buy" anything?
>if i buy a DVD, it is within my rights to play it on whatever platform i
>choose (the fair use act, wich is in conflict with the DCMA act),
Not really. You have a right to play it on anything that has a licensed player. If it doesn't have a player then you may want to play it, you just can't. You can't play DVD's on cassette deck either.
> CSS is a means by the RIAA to make it, amongst others, hard for people to use
>imported dvd's, if i visit eg, the US, and buy a DVD there, why should it be
>forbidden for me to watch said dvd at home?
Now we're onto a subject that really annoys me too. I have DVD's at home from many different regions... thank goodness for "hidden menus".