Sue Micro$oft

[ukb007]

Doom9 has made a very interesting observation in the 5/11/04 NewsSheet:

"The author of the popular Winny P2P network application (widely used in Japan) has been arrested and has been accused of developing software that aids and abets copyright infringement and piracy. Hmm, how about suing Microsoft next? After all, most people illegally downloading copyrighted content from the Internet use their operating systems as a tool. How about suing any company that makes a product that can be used for illegitimate purposes while we're at it (starting right with kitchen knives - you've seen Scream, haven't you?)? Sounds ridiculous? Join the club. Where will we get if you now have to be afraid of releasing a software that can potentially be used to do something you're not supposed to do?"

This is deep, this is. If you care to think about the concept, then it goes right down to the root of our civilization. You have to sue Henry Ford (bless his soul) for inventing the motorcar because I rode a car to go get the Athlon FX 64 processor using which I cracked the copyright code on the proprietory software...

Or let's sue all carpenters for making tables on which we put our computers and work on those infringements!

And why should we let the good old Tommy (Thomas Alva Edison) go scot free? He was one of those involved in the contemptible feat of putting electricity in everyone's household!

When would the self-appointed guardians of our morality wake up to the dangers of not suing all those people whose stories are read by our kids in schools ?

Really, when are we going to come out of this madness and grow up? Are we really ready for a civilised existence? Mr Orwell, your 1984 is forever!

Regards.

[joshyg2]

good point

[Mug Funky]

bah. this argument's come up so so many times, usually in relation to gun control.

the people you're arguing with will not listen, it's that simple. to say this is a legal grey area is an understatement - certainly i suspect the arrest of the winny author was illegal (anyone contacted amnesty international over this one? it's not the worst case out there, but the guy is certainly more a political prisoner than a criminal).

it's infuriating though. it's terrifying how much power corporations have when compared to actual citizens (ie. voters)

[ripplefactor]

It really seems to be e big debate when it comes to this topic, I agree. "Is the Knife the convict or the killer". One thing which can be clearly said is that until and unless you have a corporate hold and height to scream out that you have a software to share files.... you are still a criminal. Look at the Napster Boy...where is he? Sharman is facing what not threats. Lets hope that as earlier mentioned some voter will be able to sue Microsoft® :mad:

[jimmy basushi]

how does that line in spiderman go? "society exists to lift the few exceptional people onto thier shoulders" or something along those lines. when green goblin is trying to convert spiderman to his side..

thats the way capitalism works, its definately not a fair system but ive heard my parents stories about commies to know that they arent much better.. global socialism for all! :)

[ukb007]

Well, here we go again. Is this finally a question of Capitalism vs Communism ? Probably not; it's more fundamental.

Communism's live experiment in the erstwhile Soviet Union has failed. The live experiment of Capitalism in the United States is showing strain, and time will tell.

What, then, is the third alternative? Is there any ?

Regards.

[markrb]

First off Henry Ford did not invent the motor car. He invented a way to mass produce the motor car so that it became affordable. Before he did this, and in the process revolutionized mass production, cars were often hand built and very expensive.

Why is communism flawed? Very simply human nature makes true communism impossible. The strong gain all the power and dictate policy to the weaker. Over time this grows more and more evident.
All people are equal, just some are more equal then others. (To paraphrase Animal farm)

Why is democracy flawed? Again human nature. In this country the very people that bitch and complain about our government don't do anything about it. When voter turnout of registered voters averages less then 30% then they only have themselves to blame about who gets into power. You can argue all day that one vote doesn't make a difference, but if all those that felt that way did vote then we could have a very different country now.

At least in a democratic society anyone can make something of themselves. Your choices decide what happens to you. Some have it easier then others, but that doesn't stop you from improving yourself. My brother was born and raised in the projects, living on food stamps and welfare and now he is a millionaire.

Democracy isn't the best system of government out there, it's just the best that we know of.

To get back to the subject at hand though. To arrest somebody for inventing a piece of software that simply allows people to share files is crazy. Might as well shut down the whole internet then. Certainly newsgroups have to go. Arrest the people that are stealing not the train they ride on.
On the other hand if they have proof that he intended and wrote the software for illegal use then maybe they have a case, but so far I have seen nothing that looks like that to me.

Mark

[ukb007]

Sorry about Henry Ford; I stand half corrected. Who was it? (Chrysler? I'd like to know.)

Human nature is at the root of life's pleasures and woes, yes. Perhaps in a perfect world the people will all be clones from one near-perfect specimen of man and woman: all with similar mental make-ups. Ambitious - everyone; crook - everyone. Governance will be easier, whatever system is applied, I guess. Only one flaw in that, though - two different kinds of mental make-ups: one for men, and the other for woman. Because unknown quantities should not be multiplied unnecessarily, accepting two kinds in the first place rather than one is taking the first step into an infinite divergent regress. But, then, will the clones be happy with only one kind around? Or should we have machines as the population rather than humans? Maybe we have to ask Jimmy (James Cameron).

Regards.

[GWD]

Topics and their ultimate dichotomy...

This is an example of divergent information being used in place of an actual understanding or opinion. The file sharing program/software situation has progressed into that of viri - a virus could simply be considered a piece of software that is capable of very effectively damging peoples computers but has no intention of being maliciously used to cause damage to people's computers... but we know better and have assigned this instance with a status of impropriety and if was just sitting there for anyone to look at and use in whatever fashion, then someone is going to implement it to it's full damaging capacity. A case of "Pie, I'm gonna start chomping like this, and if you get in the way and get eaten, then it's all your fault!" (or something like that...thankyou very much, Homer J. Simpson... maybe someone can look up the exact phrasing and insert it :p )

Stangely enough, this is part of the progress towards better networking solutions and databases. Without people testing the boundaries and creating such software, the whole network environment would soon stagnate or be dominated by those corporations that saw fit to only give us what they think we need, and not what we are looking for - a situation that the advertising world seems to be showing us that it's clinging to... Guys, this just one step in its progression.

There is the problem of govt officials taking action to be seen taking action, but voter short term memory when it comes to govt failure is still the biggest reason as to why we have govts we complain about.

Just remember, "guns don't kill people, govt legislature kills people..."

'gards

GWD :sly:

[killingspree]

Originally posted by ukb007
Sorry about Henry Ford; I stand half corrected. Who was it? (Chrysler? I'd like to know.)


well... not so easy... :) depends on what you call an automobile ...

But credits for the first true automobile definitely do go to europe... either to germany or to france depending if you allow a steam engine accelerated car as a normal car or insist on the internal combustion engine...

read more here:
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blcar.htm

cheers
steVe

[markrb]

No need to apologize. It is a common misconception.
He is still considered the "father of the modern auto", because he made it available to the masses.

I was always led to believe it was first invented in France, but I never really looked too deeply into it.

But if you believe the French then the first plane was made their too and not the Wright Brothers. On this one I stick with the Wright Brothers.

Mark

[Joe Fenton]

Ford didn't invent the assembly line, Olds did. What Ford did was to ignore the patent on the internal combustion engine powered motor vehicle to sell the car at a cheap price. When the patent owners came after Ford, he managed to successfully fight the patent in court. It was the patent that made cars expensive, not the way they were made.

It is coming down to the same thing today - ignoring the software patents and other DRM the old media conglomerates are using to try to control media. The MPAA and RIAA are like those original automobile manufacturers - putting out an inferior product at an outrageous price and relying on patents and DRM to keep them living high off the hog. We're still waiting for the Henry Ford of media to step forward... and be taken to court.

[ukb007]

Please tell us details about Olds in a nutshell.

Regards.

[markrb]

I must admit I am a bit ignorant on the whole patent thing, but if what you say is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, that one item is not the whole reason behind the Ford cars success and make Henry Ford a sort of legend. He was the first to intentionally set out to make a car the average person could afford. Every effort was made to lessen the cost. So it seems one of them was possibly violating a patent, but if it went to court and they ruled in his favor then you can't say he violated it under the laws at that time.
Here is some info on this very subject I found on the web. Since the patent holder never actually made an engine or a car himself until after the lawsuite was initiated the patent was found to be invalid. The patent would have expired only 1 year later anyway.
http://www.cojoweb.com/us-patent-2.html

Olds may have invented the production line again I am fuzzy on this, but Ford used it to create the "common mans car".

Here are a few lines from the Henry Ford Museums website
http://www.hfmgv.org/exhibits/hf/default.asp#fmc

Henry Ford realized his dream of producing an automobile that was reasonably priced, reliable, and efficient with the introduction of the Model T in 1908. This vehicle initiated a new era in personal transportation. It was easy to operate, maintain, and handle on rough roads, immediately becoming a huge success.

Learn more about the Model T

By 1918, half of all cars in America were Model Ts. To meet the growing demand for the Model T, the company opened a large factory at Highland Park, Michigan, in 1910. Here, Henry Ford combined precision manufacturing, standardized and interchangeable parts, a division of labor, and, in 1913, a continuous moving assembly line. Workers remained in place, adding one component to each automobile as it moved past them on the line. Delivery of parts by conveyor belt to the workers was carefully timed to keep the assembly line moving smoothly and efficiently. The introduction of the moving assembly line revolutionized automobile production by significantly reducing assembly time per vehicle, thus lowering costs. Ford's production of Model Ts made his company the largest automobile manufacturer in the world.

Strange to see that the first Ford Automobile company that he started and quite became Cadillac Motor Car Co. Now owned by GM, one of Fords biggest rivals.

Mark

[Joe Fenton]

From The Great Idea Finder (among other sources):

In order to keep up with the increasing demand for those newfangled contraptions, horseless carriages, Ransom E. Olds created the assembly line in 1901. The new approach to putting together automobiles enabled him to more than quadruple his factory’s output, from 425 cars in 1901 to 2,500 in 1902.

Olds should have become known as "The father of automotive assembly line," although many people think that it was Henry Ford who invented the assembly line. What Ford did do was to improve upon Olds’s idea by installing conveyor belts. That cut the time of manufacturing a Model T from a day and a half to a mere ninety minutes. Henry Ford should been called "The father of automotive mass production."

From "The History of the Automobile":

George Selden (1846-1922) was a patent attorney from Rochester, New York. In 1879, Selden filed a patent what he called a "road engine". Due to the patent laws of the era, the George Selden patent was pre-dated to 1877. Over the years, Selden expanded the claims of his patent and when it was finally granted in 1895, Selden had a patent for a three cylinder motor vehicle that allowed George Selden to collect royalties from all American car manufacturers. The car manufacturers were paying Selden's holding company (Association of Licensed Automotive Manufacturers or ALAM) for the patent licensing rights to build cars.

The patent was questionable, George Selden had never built a car. One car manufacturer refused to pay any licensing fees to George Selden. Henry Ford refused to pay George Selden and Selden took Henry Ford to a long court battle.

In 1904, the judge of the Selden vs Ford court case ordered an automobile built according to the George Selden patent. The Selden car was a failure and the Selden patent was overturned in 1911 that stopped Selden from collecting any more royalties and American car manufacturers were free to build cars at a lower cost.