Considering the Nokia N810 and N900, and the Atom netbook they recently launched, there is potential that Nokia might come up with an ARM based cheap netbook one day. Dell is also a potential contender, they have made moves towards both Linux and ARM, but maybe they are still too wedded to Intel & WIndows to make a push to a new market.
Doctors, lawyers, engineers and even construction workers get paid for doing their work once, as a service, for someone who needs expertise on their specific problem. They don't wait around to get paid in perpetuity for work they did once a long time ago, as is the custom in considerable parts of the software industry. Is it so unbelievable that the same model as used by other professionals could also work for software development?
You'll also notice that lawyers, who are uniquely qualified to lobby for new kinds of government regulation, are quite happy with the status quo. In particular, they could lobby for patents for legal strategies, or stronger copyrights for legal opinions. On the contrary, what lawyers do is much closer to open source software in that they share common arguments and legal strategies with no compensation whatsoever for the original inventor.
I wonder if the increasingly contrived ways of explaining Ripley's appearances aren't somehow connected to Ripley's believe it or not...
There may only be three bits in a SHA-3 key, but those bits are extremely hard to guess.
I really have a hard time understanding this idea that investing a lot of effort into making a good reproduction should give the copier rights over the work. Why should the legal status of the end result depend on how it was created?
In all fields of endeavour, what takes little effort for one person can take enormous effort for another, and can even be entirely out of the reach of others of lesser skill, yet the end results are treated the same, legally. And surely the mere presence of effort cannot justify protection, unless the end result is something that is worthy of protection in itself?