Here's what a few of you had to say about our recent stories. To post a remark online in our feedback forums, enter your comments in the text box at the end of any story (registration required). Additionally, you can give our Skype feedback line a call at (415) 992-NEWS (415-992-6397), or message us on Skype at our user name: wirednews.
Re: How France Is Saving Civilization
By Leander Kahney
From: Mike
If tech and business history have taught us anything, it's that no matter how "solid" one company's monopoly is, eventually it will become obsolete.
Many people in the '80s and '90s raved about how Apple got "betamaxed" because of the cheaper VHS format. But guess what, try to find a VHS player for sale in stores these days, there aren't too many models anymore.
Granted, it is a generalization, but the point is market forces will determine the future. Microsoft didn't just get big because they were completely underhanded; they made some good business decisions early on and capitalized on a vision of where the world was going. Meanwhile, Apple decided that margins were more important than market-share. The rest is history.
The real thing is to realize that the market place is a more efficient method of letting good ideas grow and bad ideas die quickly (Anyone want a "New Coke"?) than government to legislate an anti-monopoly law. Natural monopolies are not necessarily bad, but only in cases where a monopoly erects barriers to entry does it become necessary to regulate. Apple's iTunes and iPod do not rise to this level of monopoly due to competing systems offering the same services.
Legislating openness means that the investment and innovation will suffer because all you're going to have are "me too" products. It forces everyone into a one-size-fits-all world.
Look at it this way: If the law were on the books 10 years ago, would we have iTunes and iPods? If the law were on the books 30 years ago, would we even have Macs and PCs?
(For full disclosure, I own a Mac Mini, A B&W G3 Mac, a IIsi, an Apple IIe and an Apple II+ with an 80 column card & a green screen.)
- - -
Re: How France Is Saving Civilization
By Leander Kahney
From: Paul Pollock
There used to be a war between VHS and Betamax. While Betamax lost out in the U.S., many companies (including Sony, the inventor of Betamax) began making VHS via a little tool called a "license." RCA, to this day, continues to collect a fee for this technology license.
Is there somehow a vacuum of reasoning between videotape technology vs. copyright protection methodologies that permits the obvious suspension of moral and legal rights? France is doing nobody in the intellectual property debate any favors, and has just fired a shot across the bow for no intellectual rights of any kind.
This is not merely a mundane debate; this matter is an outrage to any thinking man with a sense of pride and enlightened self-interest (read capitalism). Fairplay is a technology which can be licensed. Apple has every right to profit by its leadership in Fairplay's distribution. When Sony could not beat RCA, it joined RCA. If Creative, Microsoft and others can't beat Apple, where's the harm in purchasing a seat at the table? The same kind of table that Microsoft has been operating against its competitors. Equitable conduct is not a request; it's a requirement.
- - -
Re: How France Is Saving Civilization
By Leander Kahney
From: Paul Angelo
Intellectual property rights are the cornerstone of the technology industry and indeed of capitalism in general. If individuals and companies cannot profit, or fully realize the fruits of their creativity and industry, then innovation ceases.
Moreover, investment in new ventures or capital projects becomes meaningless, unless the owner can recoup his investment and hopefully make a profit. Apple has no regulated monopoly such as AT&T. Apple's dominance in this space is the result of its innovation and speed to market, and as such the company is entitled to harvest the profits of its efforts.
I have never owned any product from Apple Computer. I have, however, created software, and other materials that have a copyright . If unable to maintain my rights to these properties, I would not have had the economic incentive to create them. This is an argument that only the economically naive, or a socialist, could love.
- - -
Re: Actor Tries to Trademark 'N' Word
By Rogers Cadenhead
From: Alfonso Smith
I'm a member of the community who tries to give back, which is extremely hard to do when faced with so many negatives. I am active in my church in the inner city, serving as Sunday school superintendent and mentoring where I can through a Boys to Men program we are trying to establish with Carter School.
In any event, I would really like to see someone address this in the media. This is really giving the wrong impression, not to mention legitimizing something that for me strikes a very harsh chord. I don't like the word, get offended by anyone who refers to me in that tone, and go out of my way to educate others on the origin and just plain ugliness of the word.
Dr. King, Medger Evers, even Malcolm X are spinning in their graves: They would be shocked by what we have allowed to perpetuate in our community for the mere fallacy of calling someone an artist. Not to mention an example of someone who has made it out financially by selling garbage. We should be demanding some form of accountability from people who, unfortunately, do have a lot of influence on impressionable young minds. I am speaking of our so-called artists.
- - -
