Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Absolutely right (Score 1) 274

Sorry Sir I respectfully disagree.
Let's assume for the sake of argument, that patents are not always evil.
The areas where patents do the least amount of harm have some things in common:
1) Already have big capital requirements i.e. cost of a patent is low compared to cost of a factory.
2) Products contain few patents.
3) Relatively few competitors (natural consequence of 1.)

Software on the other hand:
1) Low capital requirements i.e. you only need a computer.
2) Products contain possibly 100's of patents.
3) Anyone who records a macro in a word processor or enters a formula in a spreadsheet is potentially liable.

It's depressing that we have to endure the same ignorant drivel that were thoroughly debunked almost a decade ago when we convinced European parliament to reject the CII-directive.

Comment Nothing to hide? (Score 5, Interesting) 671

Same false argument has been put forward to defend of CCTV.
I prefer to shit in privacy, but it seems Eric Schmidt doesn't.

He should read this article.

Solove, Daniel J., 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy. San Diego Law Review, Vol. 44, 2007; GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 289. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=998565

Comment Re:My Bet (Score 1) 817

For real? I've been looking for a place that would take such a bet.
What % of the current stock price do you think they will have in 20 years?
I'd pay considerable money to someone who'd guarantee to buy a significant amount of MSFT shares at 25% the current stock price in 20 years.

Companies that rely on monopoly power lose their ability to compete.
Once Microsofts drops below 66% market share in operating systems and productivity software the company will implode, due to built up overhead over the past 20 years and inability to maintain talented employees (incentive schemes rely on increasing stock prices).

Comment Re:Hogwash (Score 1) 817

I suppose we should feel sorry for every company that ever released something for pay that eventually went out of business because someone else was able to do it for free?

Nope only when monopolies does it should you feel sorry for those who got trampled and only then is it illegal.

Comment Re:Hogwash (Score 1) 817

I also think the EU's ruling that shipping windows with IE as illegal doesn't make a lot of sense, given all the other stuff they ship with windows and always have shipped with windows. Why is only one of them a bad thing? If the others are ok, why is the browser not?

Who said only browser is a problem? IIRC US antitrust litigation was about Netscape, EU litigation was also about WIndowsMedia player.

It really is kinda simple. You're not allowed to use dominance in one market to conquer another, which is exactly what bundling does.

Microsoft

Microsoft Bought Sweden's ISO Vote on OOXML? 340

a_n_d_e_r_s writes "The vote on OOXML looked fairly secured. Most in the Working Group in Sweden was against the vote to approve OOXML. The day of the vote, though, more companies showed up at the door. Some 20 new companies — each one payed about $2500 to be allowed to vote — and vote they did ... for Microsoft. Most of the new companies were partners from Microsoft who suddenly out of the blue joined the Working Group, payed membership fees and voted yes for approval. From the OS2World story: 'The final result was 25 Yes, 6 No and 3 Abs and this would from the start be a done deal of saying No! Jonas Bosson who participated in today's meeting on behalf on FFII said that he left the meeting in protest and so did also IBM's Swedish local representative Johan Westman.'"

Slashdot Top Deals

Whatever is not nailed down is mine. Whatever I can pry up is not nailed down. -- Collis P. Huntingdon, railroad tycoon

Working...