Krozy - Slashdot User

Comment Yes, the customer pays indirectly, but that still (Score 3, Insightful) 93

by Krozy on Saturday June 04, 2011 @12:06AM (#36335566) Attached to: Court Demands American Airlines List Its Flights On Orbitz

Yes, the customer pays indirectly, but that still doesn't change the fact that AA is being forced to provide the information through an intermediary that is a competitor. We have both sides that have a stake in how the information is transferred in an effort to reduce costs on their end, increasing profits, which inversely affects the other. I'm torn between siding with AA who owns the information, and Orbitz who was/is already wired to use their provider. As a consumer, I could wash my hands of this as I rarely fly AA due to costs, but I think the principle of the matter is important here.

Comment Am I missing something? (Score 4, Insightful) 93

by Krozy on Friday June 03, 2011 @11:43PM (#36335494) Attached to: Court Demands American Airlines List Its Flights On Orbitz

Maybe I'm misinterpreting the article, but what is up with a business (AA) being forced to use a specific third party processor owned by a competitor and paying for the "privilege" in this manner. AA is the originator of the information and it should be at their discretion to which global distribution systems they publish it to According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_reservations_system) there are a handful of systems. The top two each serve just under half of the U.S. market share, one of which is created by American Airlines. The next largest is Travelport's "Worldspan" which is used by Orbitz.

Comment Calculation error? (Score 2, Informative) 307

by Krozy on Sunday November 04, 2007 @06:08PM (#21235291) Attached to: The Dying PC Market

If prepaid runs less then $.01/min, then shouldn't you be able to get 450 minutes a month for less then $4.50, as opposed to the $8 you stated?

Submission + - Eminem Sues Apple for iTunes Sales (macworld.co.uk)

Submitted by puk on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @01:30PM

puk writes: MacWorld UK is reporting that Eminem's publisher is suing Apple, alleging that his label, Universal, did not have the right to authorize online sales of digital versions of Eminem's music. Therefore, they argue, Apple is violating Eminem's copyright by selling his songs through the iTunes Music Store.

Of course, if this turns out to be the case, Universal may also be on the hook for the damages, if indirectly. Looks like another case of trying to figure out whether old contracts authorize new activities...

Submission + - Lord British fundraising for video game museum (statesman.com)

Submitted by

SethJohnson

on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @12:06AM

SethJohnson writes: "In order to raise funds to develop the University of Texas' upcoming Video Game Archive at the Center for American History, Richard Garriott is throwing a party at his Austin estate. Festivities will include Segway scooter polo, classic arcade games, a replica of Shakespeare's Globe Theatre and the chance to win a zero-gravity flight 32,000 feet above Earth. Garriott is best known as the creator of the Ultima series of computer RPGs and is working to support the video game archive so that early works in the field will be preserved for future reflection. Tickets for the fundraiser start at $75 per person and escalate to $5,000."

Submission + - Eminem Sues Apple for iTunes Sales (macworld.co.uk)

Submitted by puk on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @09:06PM

puk writes: MacWorld UK is reporting that Eminem's publisher is suing Apple, alleging that his publisher did not have the right to authorize Apple's online sales of digital versions of Eminem's music through the iTunes Music Store and that therefore Apple is violating Eminem's copyright by doing so.

Of course, if this turns out to be the case, Universal may also be on the hook for the damages, if indirectly. Looks like another more case of trying to figure out whether old contracts authorize new activities...

UK Rejects Extending Music Copyright 338

Posted by kdawson on Wednesday July 25, 2007 @05:12AM from the beatles-coming-up-soon dept.

timrichardson writes "The British Government has rejected extending copyright for sound recordings. This is an important development in the face of trends to extend copyright duration, although it leaves British copyright protection for music recordings at a shorter duration than for written works. The decision came despite fierce lobbying from the large British music industry. The music industry will now lobby directly to the European Commission, but without the support of the national government, its position is significantly weakened. British copyright for music recordings therefore remains at 50 years after the date of release of a recording, in contrast to 95 years in the US and 70 years in Australia."

PubPat Kills Four Key Monsanto Patents 436

Posted by kdawson on Wednesday July 25, 2007 @02:23AM from the going-to-seed dept.

IP Ergo Sum writes "PubPat's request for reexamination resulted in the rejection of four key Monsanto patents. According to PubPat, those particular patents were being used to 'harass, intimidate, sue — and in many cases bankrupt — American farmers.'"

Slashdot Top Deals