Microsoft should spank em'

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

You favor stealing people's hard work inventions and art?

I favor fair use. That includes at least the ability to reverse engineer interfaces. I also beleive in open engineering standards, and "freedom to tinker".. I resent the use of engineering practice to restrict my use of devices that I own, or to unfairly restrict competition and invention.

I especially think the idea of patenting an algorythm is ludicrous, and have ever since that court decision came down in the 1970's.

As for "stealing art", you'll have to clarify what you mean by that. I admire the work of Lawrence Lessig in this area. I'm in substantial agreement with Cory Doctorow's thoughts about Digital Rights Management too.

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I favor fair use. That includes at least the ability to reverse engineer interfaces. I also beleive in open engineering standards, and "freedom to tinker".. I resent the use of engineering practice to restrict my use of devices that I own, or to unfairly restrict competition and invention.

I especially think the idea of patenting an algorythm is ludicrous, and have ever since that court decision came down in the 1970's.

MaggieL has cited a problem occurring in a nation where 'experience with innovation' is diminishing - especially among those who make laws.

For example, had Microsoft split Windows from Application Software groups, then Windows would not be manipulated to selfishly serve Applications group. Then Windows would have been more helpful; telling us what various functions did. Currently, too much in Windows is held secret for little reason technical. For example, do you know what each *.DLL does? And yet no 'proprietary secret' exists there. Reasons to hide that information may be due more to avoiding embarrassment.

Once Microsoft did tell us what the various functions inside Windows and DOS do. We are not discussing 'release of code'. We are discussing what each general function (ie *.DLL file) does. The only reason to keep that secret is self serving. Therefore it amazes me how many computer experts don't even know what happens in an OS. What does alg.exe do and why can we not even know what it is doing? Secret. Don't ask or Cheney will have us arrested? That's bull. Again, violating 'rights to tinker' only for self serving reasons.

For example, PING (like in all other OSes) returns a code based upon its actions. Generally a program that encounters no error returns an error code of zero (as Unix was doing 30 years ago). So what are the return codes (errorlevel) returned by PING? You don't need to know? That's a secret? No. That's bullshit to stifle 'tinkering'. Or to hide some glaring 'programmer has a disorganized mind' errors in PING.

Why should Mickey Mouse be protected under copyright for 70 years? Same nonsense. Whereas patents and copyrights should provide the creator with a decade or two of protection, today we keep chaning the laws - increasing the number of decades - protect a dead creator for only self serving reasons. Its also called buying a politician or called corruption.

This need to protect a manufacturer means he has maybe four plus years to profit. Four years later, if he does not have a better product, then cloners should take up that market. That is what happened to IBM in the late 1980s when IBM management was intentionally stifling innovation (because of 'computer illiteracy'). You should know the names of stifled innovation: Microchannel, VGA video, PS/2, Token Ring, OS/2, Taligent and even a need to keep selling 286 based machines. As a result (because we did not protect an anti-innovation IBM), then tinkers and other innovators advanced the computer industry. Too much protection for any manufacturer is bad and yet is too often advocated by those with little 'innovation' experience and a love for decisions based upon political contributions.

One final point. An innovator in GM develops a new suspension. GM refuses to use this patented idea. So the idea should sit stifled for 30 years? Bull. If a company chooses to not use or market that innovation, then its creator should have free access to his innovation. Current laws instead pervert innovation. This example was McPherson Strut suspension described to me by a mechanical engineer back in the late 60s and not seen in America because is was being stifled - not used. McPherson Strut was patented by GM in 1946 and kept out of the world for how long - how many decades? You tell me.

If you know what should and should not be patented, then you first know details of innovation stories such as McPherson Suspension. If you don't appreciate such stories, then you may have a lawyers or MBAs perspective; therefore be part of the problem. Those who want to stifle even tinkering are also another example of the Fatherland Security attitude.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by tw

Why should Mickey Mouse be protected under copyright for 70 years?

95 at this point. Mickey's corporate.

I agree with a lot of what you are talking about TW. But, existing, current, patents should be respected.
Art & intellectual property should not be stolen within the copyright period.
Those copyrights should not be extended forever, I agree with that also.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

But, existing, current, patents should be respected.

The Patent Office is a currently a joke.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The Patent Office is a currently a joke.

Well, that was enlightening.

Do all you computer/software geeks realize that most people that use a PC don't have a clue....nor do they want to. They want to buy a turnkey package even if they have to hire the Geek Squad to come and do it all, although they'd rather not have that additional expense.

For all intents a purposes, Windows works....as a package it works. And if they have a problem they can talk to their friends and neighbors about it because they have Windows too.
It's like driving a 1960 VW Beetle, piece of shit, but it gets people where they want to go....basic transportation.


I'm far from knowledgeable when it comes to PCs but I've tinkered a little, sometimes even successfully. But for the life of me I can't understand why Microsoft should be obliged to tell me how they did it?

Bitch about Windows and Bill all you want, but he/it is the reason the nation and much of the world is online.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Bitch about Windows and Bill all you want, but he/it is the reason the nation and much of the world is online.

What utter foolishness. Without billg we would have had Apple or Amiga or any of a hundred other possibilites. Gates was a superb opportunist, and did what he did better than anybody. But his key skill was being at the right place at the right time and just before anybody else; to say "nobody else could have done it differently" is balderdash. Gawdawmighty, look at how hard billg and friends mocked and resisted the Internet itself before 1994...when they finally realized if they didn't get on the boat they were going to miss it completely and ran out at the last minute to buy Mosaic?

Apple certainly isn't a paragon of openness of course (and keep a sharp eye on the Palladium stuff they've got in OSX-86) but Amiga certainly was. And *crowds* of people were working on user-friendliness.

Go read that link to Doctorow I posted earlier, too.

I can't say I'm thrilled with the EU in a whole host of ways, and some of the stuff that's come through WIPO lately is totally bogus. But DMCA is anathema in that it makes it illegal for anyone to even *try* to reverse engineer an interface, much less compel technical disclosure.

What if your car worked that way? People still seem to be able to drive...

[Undertoad]

Interesting to consider:

AOL got its momentum as Q-Link, a community ONLY AVAILABLE ON COMMODORE 64 and 128. In 1988 they added a Mac interface. They didn't have a Windows interface until 1992.

billg failed to mention the Internet AT ALL in his 1995 book about the future of computing, "The Road Ahead". He believed that MSN would be the network of the future.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

billg failed to mention the Internet AT ALL in his 1995 book about the future of computing, "The Road Ahead". He believed that MSN would be the network of the future.

"Embrace, extend, extinguish."

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

What if your car worked that way? People still seem to be able to drive...

They're trying. And in many cases they're starting to do it. With the DMCA in place lots of car companies are obfuscating the outout of the control chip so mechanics have to buy an expensive chip reader from them.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Interesting to consider:

AOL got its momentum as Q-Link, a community ONLY AVAILABLE ON COMMODORE 64 and 128. In 1988 they added a Mac interface. They didn't have a Windows interface until 1992.

billg failed to mention the Internet AT ALL in his 1995 book about the future of computing, "The Road Ahead". He believed that MSN would be the network of the future.

'88? '92? '95? there was still sword-fighting and nickers and dragons until '98 or '99. That's when people that weren't interested in computers, or even electronics, except for what it would do for them by just plugging it in, showed interest.
Only after there was a proven package they didn't have to take classes to use and somebody they new personally told them what it could do for them, or the kids/grandchildren said they wanted/needed one.

I know people that never turn the PC on unless they're babysitting the grandkids......and god forbid the rugrats go home without turning it off.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

'88? '92? '95? there was still sword-fighting and nickers and dragons until '98 or '99. That's when people that weren't interested in computers, or even electronics, except for what it would do for them by just plugging it in, showed interest.

Which is how long it took billg to realize he couldn't supercede the Internet and decide to embrace it as A Good Thing...and convince folks like you it was his idea all along. Software usable by nontechnical people was far from a new idea...look at Electric Pencil and Wordstar.

Where whould we be if Berners-Lee kept HTTP proprietary? I dunno, but we sure wouldn't be using HTTP. There surely would be something *like* the Web, because there had been similar ideas for at least half a century.

The idea that a perpetual monopoly has to be available to get people to create new products is bogus.

[Undertoad]

By 1992, *everyone* with a desk job used computers at work. The personal computer was a business device first.

By 1995 the country and globe were crossed by private networks as large as the Internet itself. TV Guide, for example, bought a T1 just to move their issue from the east coast to the west coast. 99.9% of the time, it was unused.

Private online companies like Compuserve, AOL, Prodigy, etc. brought in a few million customers. I will always remember looking at my yearly summary of Amex charges and realizing that Compuserve cost me $600 in 1989. Today that same monthly nut buys me a connection 10 times faster than that TV Guide circuit.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

By 1992, *everyone* with a desk job used computers at work. ... By 1995 the country and globe were crossed by private networks as large as the Internet itself. .... Today that same monthly nut buys me a connection 10 times faster than that TV Guide circuit.

So are you saying that we should ban tinkers because it is good for and right for big industry to do so? Are you saying its good to let big business restrict others so as to do all innovating and enhancements? I don't understand how this applies to MaggieL's posts. MaggieL has defined the point in this thread. How do examples of 'big business suddenly discovering their oversight' agree or contradict what MaggieL has posted?

[Radar]

The simple truth is Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly. This is especially true in Europe....the home of Linux. Microsoft should NEVER comply with that court ruling. In fact Microsoft should tell the court to screw themselves, not pay a penny, and refuse to support their products within that country until they stop making unreasonable demands. Microsoft still has a large enough marketshare among the governments and major businesses in Europe that this would cause a big enough impact that the businesses would pressure the government to stop harassing Microsoft.