OCAP- Who is capping whom?

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by Justin Thyme, Jan 13, 2006.

  1. Jan 17, 2006 #61 of 169
    interactiveTV

    interactiveTV New Member

    863
    0
    Jul 2, 2000
    NYC

    Advertisements

    iTMS is STILL a PRODUCT (service), NOT A MARKET.

    It isn't a "monopoly on products." That is not the correct use of monopoly.

    There are plenty of substitutes for purchasing music. iTMS is the only for iPod but that doesn't matter. I and others have named many.

    You want to stick to your very distorted definition of monopoly, you can do so. It just makes no sense. Keep to your view, Justin. Changing it does nothing for me. It does make a conversation much more difficult as you are the ONLY one here using the term (incorrectly) like that.

    iTunes music store is NOT a monopoly. It plays in the downloadable music arena in which there are MANY choices from HUGE players.

    _ITV
     
  2. Jan 17, 2006 #62 of 169
    Justin Thyme

    Justin Thyme Contra sceleris

    3,306
    1
    Mar 29, 2005
    Eh? Never called it an OS- only that it can serve as an OS equivalent. The generic term for the two might be "software platform". I said it a couple of times, I'll say it again. The position of such software platforms in the system hierarchy is irrelevant. Although Corba and Java are middleware, they can be used in a successful OS strategy, because they are platforms that can be written to without regard to the underlying operating system or hardware environment. People can write code to those platforms without any knowlege what hardware they will be running on, or what system software. Does that make it equivalent to an OS? In many respects yes, and enough so that OS producers take notice. Or perhaps you think Microsoft was hallucinating about an the threat posed by Java to Windows in the mid 1990's.

    I am not making a generic attack on Video plus behavior. That is inevitable, and sure there will be MalWare, Adware, whatever. There will also be some really cool stuff. There is nothing necessarily different than the content+behavior uses and misues that you see on the net.

    Are all OS strategies? No- while ubiquity is nice for application formats and languages, having a VM or system api controlled by a particular industry entity is very different.

    Let's dissect how the others do not apply:
    • Mpeg+metadata (eg non code formatting information- like the way DVDs have "interactive" menus and special features. No code here means there is very little power to the platform. Sure everyone can play your data type, but they won't be able to do other things like create a photo album App on a DVR that interacts with the ComCast photo site.
    • Mpeg +XML- again, just data. There is nothing to prevent anyone from ignoring the XML and just playing the Mpeg2. You can write a browser that handles XML or not. XML is already a standard, but so there is no OS advantage- no one owns the specification or can exact penalties for non compliance.
    • MPEG+language like Perl or javascript- These are languages that do not maintain a virtual machine. For example, whether you are on a Panasonic or Samsung DVR, the virtual machine has state- for example the OCAP DVR VM knows and maintains how large the current rewind video buffer is, and our location in it.
    • Mpeg+Java Close but not quite. Java is no longer closely controled by Sun, so it cannot be used as an OS tool for their business interests. Is the same true of OCAP? If CableLabs wants to prevent any noncompliant OCAP platform from playing an OCAP file (for example because the manufacturer added a feature to optionally turn off popups), then CableLabs could do that.
    • Mpeg+anything not required by the Cablecard Spec. People want access to all services of the Carrier networks as promised by the 1996 telecom law. They want VOD, switched broadcasts. If the Cablecard 2.0 spec requires a particular language, that is a huge impetus to make it the interactive Video standard format and not something else.
    In a sense, all the programs written for DOS and later for Windows could just be thought of as files that a computer that had licensed DOS or Windows could "play". There are lots of different data files, and the popularity of them means that you probably have something that can display .GIF, .JPG, .WAV, and .MP3. So maybe they are the same? Nope, because OS's are jealous creatures.

    Say you are running the OCAP virtual DVR machine. Okay- lessee- that's 620 pages of OCAP spec and 176 pages of OCAP DVR extensions. The VM is running all the time so that you are ready to execute bytecode as soon as it comes down the wire. Great- you can play interactive shows from CableVision just fine- the OCAP code is running along waiting for the right moment, then, ok- up goes an advertisement for an upcoming movie, and there is a dialog there and I guess I want to click ok record that and it goes and adds that to the programs to record list.

    Fine, now my DVR also plays DVDs so I insert the Blu-Ray disk into the machine and to play it according the BD spec I have to be running a BD-J VM machine, so well crimeny, ok let's add some more ram to the machine so that it can run that different virtual machine and have it sitting there so there isn't an excruciating amount of time loading the VM just so I can get a menu on the BD disk. Ok now it is a Disney movie but it has downloaded an Advert from the net and it tells me about a nice kids show on TeenDisney Channel. So I say Ok record that but uhhh. Does one virtual machine know what the other did? What if I changed the timeline- does the other VM know its is no longer valid in time for it to get a new timeline? Are the states managed properly? Ok fine- really bright lads figured out the problems after all they are both GEM based platforms but now- well shoot. I want to "Play" another file. No problem- just like JPG vs. Tiff vs. Mpeg2 vs. Mpeg4, right?

    OK Microsoft has got a great show that uses its own interactive layer that I downloaded from the net and relies on a .NET machine which I can download to my DVR but.... System error not enough memory etc etc.

    You can have N data formats and N scripting languages. But having more than one virtual machine active can create some nasty incompatibilities even if you had the system resources to support more than one. On a PC- sure you could run multiple virtual machines with enough memory. Where you get into troubles is where different VMs assume they own the state of a peripheral. Has this external disk drive had it's cache flushed or not? Is this printer in the middle of a job or not? A consumer real time device could run a virtual machine but not multiple ones due to the complexities of each having to have a synchronized correct understanding of hardware state.

    When you write to a Java VM, you are unaware what the underlying operating system API is. That makes it a competitor to the native platform OS's. Only one of these OS's (or VM's) will win.

    Shall the government be party to a document that makes one Mandatory on a large number of CE devices in the home? Shall the control for that required software platform come from a single company, or a consortium of companies from a particular market segment?

    These are significant questions.
     
  3. Jan 17, 2006 #63 of 169
    smark

    smark Well-Known Member

    12,207
    780
    Nov 20, 2002
    Denver, CO
    Well considering it's our equipment, I think we should be able to dictate on how it communicates with us in a way that makes it most effiecent for us and our customers.

    We have to deal with the customers and it makes it much easier to have a standard way to access our content.
     
  4. Jan 17, 2006 #64 of 169
    Justin Thyme

    Justin Thyme Contra sceleris

    3,306
    1
    Mar 29, 2005
    Heavens. I apologize Smark. In my earlier note, I mixed you with someone else and thought when you said "our content" earlier, you were someone else speaking as a consumer/ fair use advocate. Sorry. Ignore my previous response on that issue.

    What you say would be fair if it affected just your (Comcast's) equipment. We are speaking here about Cablecard Hosts. Not the Cablecard or Headend equipment. And to give an idea of the expense here, one vendor's Blu-Ray system without BD-J virtual machine had an estimated price of $1000. The system with BD-J was estimated at $1800. source

    I wouldn't expect a real snappy response on the 300MHZ cpus common on a lot of these set top boxes.

    Is there a lot of variation between cable companies in the kinds of systems doing VOD? Or is one supplier pretty much supplying all cablecos the same system with different bells and whistles? If more than one, are they widely differing architectures?

    I have a real dumb question. Assuming low end STBs can do VOD and PPV, why do I need to have a serious computer in my third party Cablecard device to get the same functionality. I mean sure- I understand the need for virtualization due to other VOD/PPV implmentations and equipment, but why not a server side virtualization?
     
  5. Jan 17, 2006 #65 of 169
    Justin Thyme

    Justin Thyme Contra sceleris

    3,306
    1
    Mar 29, 2005

    Advertisements

    Well, why doesn't it matter? Doesn't that show that iTMS is a separate market as I stated? If there are substitutes for online commercial music on an iPod, where are they?

    Perhaps you personally feel my view of the tieing is distorted. If it is, then U.S. District Judge James Ware of Northern California didn't seem to think so. He agreed that Apple must face an antitrust lawsuit on the claim Apple forces people who own iPods to buy music online only from iTunes.

    I think that is what I have been saying. Since you are not offering me much more than empty bluster, I will try to put forth an answer to my claim of separate market. Perhaps ripping CDs will be ruled to be a viable alternative to online music and so not constitute a separate market? Do you think the courts should rule that ripping CDs is an adequate legal substitute? Or perhaps the court should rule that buying commercial online music from iTMS competitors, breaking the DRM and copying as MPEG to iPod is legal substitute? ;)
     
  6. Jan 17, 2006 #66 of 169
    Justin Thyme

    Justin Thyme Contra sceleris

    3,306
    1
    Mar 29, 2005
    Well, same response as to TivoPhish- if the two products are distinct and there is a fiefdom principle in effect, then yeah, for this theoretical remedy, that would be the correct application.

    As a practical observation, if all the other DVRs decided to buy their guide from Tivo at $12.95 per month, per user, I am not sure you would get too much argument from Tivo.
     
  7. Jan 17, 2006 #67 of 169
    smark

    smark Well-Known Member

    12,207
    780
    Nov 20, 2002
    Denver, CO

    In general most of the headend equipment is the same with Motorola and SciAtl being the biggest providers. The same as well providers of VOD though different companies, SeaChange for example.

    As far a server side virtualization, that isn't how the headend is setup as more or less the DAC controls the whole market processing authorizations, orders, etc so it has other things to do rather than virtualize the implmentation. By the same token the VOD servers do what they are supposed to do, receive requests for content, stream the content and send the information back to the billing system for charges if needed.

    The low-end STBs are basically just sending a call out to the servers and then the servers are responding with the requested content. They need to talk via a standard so that it works across all cable systems like OCAP is designed for as well as make the customer experience worth it by having those of the less technology inclined being able to call and be told where to go to access said content in a reasonable amount of time, especially those who have a hard time understanding that the box AND television need to be one. Plus the whole security provided by DCAS as well.
     
  8. Jan 17, 2006 #68 of 169
    TiVoPhish

    TiVoPhish New Member

    181
    0
    Mar 12, 2003
    Long Island, NY
    Mentioned several times already in this thread. NO ONE forces you to buy an iPod or use iTunes. MSN Music, Napster, Real, Musicmatch, Walmart -- all sell music and you have a choice of players to pick from.

    Because one guy and three law firms filed a lawsuit a year ago, that certainly isn't proof that Apple holds a monopoly for online music commerce, nor that their solution is the ONLY solution. What it proves is that a guy can file a lawsuit, and a judge is willing to hear the case (though several motions were already thrown out).

    Isn't Dish doing the same thing with Arcos? Their content will only play on an Archos player.

    Didn't Sony try something similar -- Connect. Connect music only plays back on Sony portable products.

    An anti-trust "expert" from the BBC said: "Slattery can win if he can prove that the iTunes brand is 'a market in itself separate from the rest of the online music market.' iTunes isn't different from other music stores, though--it just chooses a different way of presenting the media you buy." And let me add... it is only choosing a different model for portable playback... every other type of playback is pretty similar to other online music shops.

    Not for nothin', and this is just my opinion, but this reminds me of the guy who sued McDonalds for making him fat. This guy went and bought his music through iTunes and then went and bought an iPod to play them on-the-go, and now he wants to be "rewarded" by the courts because big-bad-Apple forced him to buy an iPod. Sorry. Not buying it.

    If we're citing lawsuits lets look at one from abroad that touched on this exact issue. VirginMega filed an anti-competition suit against Apple in France for this exact scenario... because anyone buying music from IT'S store couldn't load their music into an iPod, and because Apple refused to license Fairplay to them to make iPod plug-n-play compatibility possible.

    The decision:

    "The Conseil de la concurrence concluded that FairPlay was not an essential facility for the following reasons: First, the competition authority found that only a minor share of the market would listen to music from a portable device, the majority would listen to music via the computer or burn songs onto a CD. Second, and rather unorthodoxly, it described in detail a method how consumers could get around the existing lack of interoperability and download music from VirginMega onto their iPod. Third, the French competition authority found that the market for portable music players was sufficiently competitive and offered several portable players in addition to the iPod. In other words, there were alternative players available that could process VirginMega’s DRM standard. In conclusion, the French competition authority did not consider FairPlay an essential facility because consumers had a choice"
     
  9. Jan 18, 2006 #69 of 169
    Justin Thyme

    Justin Thyme Contra sceleris

    3,306
    1
    Mar 29, 2005
    If it was as absurd a proposition as you and ITV seem to think it is, then the Federal Judge would have dismissed all claims.

    "Apple moved to dismiss all the claims, but U.S. District Judge James Ware rejected the bulk of the motion."

    So perhaps you should write a letter to Judge Ware instructing him how he erred. Be sure to quote the French legal precedent that should guide his opinion when you do. :rolleyes:

    As to the accuracy of your quotes: Here's what you said appeared in from the BBC:
    Here is what actually appeared in the BBC article:
    The anti trust expert only stated the select point on separate market that I have all along emphasized. He didn't say any of the rest of the gibberish in that quote about how itunes isn't any different than other stores.

    I'm not sure why you are making stuff up, but it is not helpful.
     
  10. Jan 18, 2006 #70 of 169
    Justin Thyme

    Justin Thyme Contra sceleris

    3,306
    1
    Mar 29, 2005
    Wow. I had it all wrong. So I am getting the picture that the motivation to put interactions like VOD that can be done by simple STB's into OCAP is not virtualization of a bunch of client server interactions that will vary from one cableco to the next. The interactions are largely very similiar due to the widespread use of the same equipment at the headend eg. a Moto DAC-6000 or a sciAtl S-A DNCS server.

    The key motivations for using OCAP to handle the service is:
    1) less support time costs due to simpler UI
    2) greater security.

    Have I got that right?
     
  11. Jan 18, 2006 #71 of 169
    TiVoPhish

    TiVoPhish New Member

    181
    0
    Mar 12, 2003
    Long Island, NY
    And you seem to think that because the Judge agreed to hear (and let Slattery resubmit) some of the motions, that means Slattery will win. Our courts don't work that way. Agreeing to hear a case just means it's worth listening to -- it doesn't at all mean it warrants a decision in the plaintiff's favor. Even an obviously insane fan of David Letterman got a temporary restraining order based on obsurdities, but ultimately, in the end, it didn't play out in her favor.

    If you don't think international law bares relevance in a global market, you're sadly mistaken. Even the Supreme Court has made decisions citing international legal opinion.
     
  12. Jan 18, 2006 #72 of 169
    interactiveTV

    interactiveTV New Member

    863
    0
    Jul 2, 2000
    NYC
    Which way was Lexmark originally ruled? Heck, a Fed judge TAKING a case means very, very little. He was shopped for.

    Don't hang your hat on that, Justin. It's like finding the guy in the stands with the sign that says, "The End is Nigh" and using it as proof of the end of the world.

    Telling anyone they're "making stuff up" is not only a sign of your rudeness and your complete inability to listen to anyone else's opinion, it is a sure sign that you, Justin, continue to grasp at ANY straw.

    I'm done. Pound the table to open all APIs and open the world. It's like the guy with that sign...

    _ITV
    http://www.calahouston.org/best.html

    My personal favorite which probably gets a chuckle from the techie crowd here:

    According to the San Antonio Express-News, a dozen students who took a Microsoft computer certification course at the Houston branch of Southern Methodist University are suing the school, contending they were misled the course would be easy.
    The 12 enrolled in June 1997 and all failed certification tests that would have made them eligible for jobs overseeing Microsoft computer systems.

    Jason Crowson, the group’s attorney said: “They were told all they had to know how to do was point a mouse and click.”
     
  13. Jan 18, 2006 #73 of 169
    dt_dc

    dt_dc Mostly Harmless

    2,013
    0
    Jul 31, 2003
    Northern...
    "Forced" functionality / mandatory supported features ...

    JT:

    Ok ... you seem to have an aversion to CableLabs writing specs that "force" features or functionality on bi-directional cable-ready (BDCR) CE devices ...

    Do you have a problem with anyone forcing functionality and mandatory supported features on CE devices (or just CableLabs)? For example ... going back to your "Public but closed" scenerio in your following post:
    http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=3677712&&#post3677712

    Let's say CableLabs publishes a full set of APIs that define VOD, iPPV, switched broadcasts, an EPG and guide data, etc ... very robust ... every possible functionality of the cable system is available to be used as desired by CE devices ... or not.

    Ok, now Tivo wants to release a BDCR that supports iPPV, switched broadcasts, and all other linear services. But they don't want to support VOD at all. Or ... perhaps they want to support (some) VOD ... but they've made a deal with Netflix so that they only offer VOD titles from the cable company that Netflix does not also carry. Anything Netflix carries can be downloaded and viewed from them ... but not the cable company.

    I'm not talking minor tweaks that potentially provides additional functionality (your own guide that integrates your own GUI and potential content from other sources). I'm talking major functionality ... and mandatory support (or not). Should the CEA be allowed to sell "Advanced Cable Ready" devices that don't support VOD at all for example ... or don't support anything above 750Mhz ... or don't support the (rather funky) MPEG2 profile cable uses on their digital music channels ... etc.

    Can the CEA just pick and choose whatever functionality they want (or not). Or is it acceptable to have some set of baseline mandatory supported features.
     
  14. Jan 18, 2006 #74 of 169
    Justin Thyme

    Justin Thyme Contra sceleris

    3,306
    1
    Mar 29, 2005
    DT- I have some family chores and it will take some time to chew on your note. I had been working on a prior note, but it is in no way a response to yours.]

    Readers may wonder what the point of all of the iTunes antitrust dustup was about. The point is that the Apple iPod-iTunes fiefdom is an modest instance of what the carriers shall be able to do with products in the home. [EDIT- didn't complete my sentence here. What I intended to finish was was this: Content and platform cross leverage each other in the same way as the MS mantra of- Software sells the Platform, the Platform sells the Software. Consumer demand for content fluidity gives competitive advantage to those with highest interoperability. Preventing such interoperability between can be used as an effective mechansim to lock out competitors- making a whole family of CE devices a separate market dominated by a single provider with monopoly power. ]

    I recognize that existing law may not be sufficient to deal with such fiefdoms as I described. I am not making a Brand loyalty/ scorn flame here. I like my iPod and think Apple amply deserves financial reward for making technology easy for the masses.

    The key point of what I am saying is that Companies are using the complexities of software interoperability and DRM to lock users into separate markets that they control. The market is separate from functionally similar devices in the general market because the general market devices cannot interoperate with the monopolist's family of products.

    The interoperability has become so difficult to reverse engineer, and interoperable products from third parties are so easy to thwart, that it seems to me that one solution to this fiefdom effect when it arises is to require that companies publish an APIs for interoperation between different categories of products.

    This sort of approach allows customers to mix and match products. I can buy music player X or Y, but that doesn't mean I have to buy music from just from X's or just from Y's music store. If Y offers music for 49 cents, well by golly you can buy from them. The markets are no longer separate, and so no party enjoys monopoly position, competition thrives, economic benefit accrues to the innovators, not to those who build the most comprehensive fiefdom set of products.

    In the same way that demand for media is used to bind one product to another, Carriers can use formats and interoperability APIs to lock consumers into a family of products in a separate market in which they exercize monopoly power.

    Concerning minor points recently posted in this thread, I think the facts speak for themselves.

    The anti trust expert did not say the things ascribed to him. The antitrust argument I have made is a legitimate argument. People may differ on whether this is the best way to go about anti-trust, or whether the bulk of current caselaw supports such an argument, but the argument has sufficient legal merit to be heard.
     
  15. Jan 18, 2006 #75 of 169
    classicsat

    classicsat Astute User

    17,877
    0
    Feb 18, 2004
    Ontario Canada.
    What you have is a perceived monopoly, not a defacto monopoly.

    You are perceiving the "market" as iTms/iPod, when the market is online music and PMPs as a whole.

    The same applies to multichannel providers.
    Cable is a perceived monopoly, as you can purchase your progamming from two or more satellite providers, plus numerous new technologies such as VDSL and FIOS, despite you each being a perceived monopoly unto themselves.
     
  16. Jan 18, 2006 #76 of 169
    classicsat

    classicsat Astute User

    17,877
    0
    Feb 18, 2004
    Ontario Canada.
    IMO:

    Cable labs should release the low-level APIs directly to the CE manufacturer, or as OCAP "stubs" with an established standard "interface", so that CE manufacturers can access the advanced features of the cable system they care to, using the UI of the STB, and the cable providers be obligated to provide that access.

    Conversely, the 3rd party STB should have the full OCAP VM, so the end user can fully access the Advanced features that the STB manufacturer may not care to implement, for whatever reason they choose, or uses the advanced features through the OCAP VM, with the full OCAP applet.

    And at that, in either case, none can block access to content or sevices from the one, when a competing affiliation agreement exists on the other.
    For examle, Comcast, which may have a Shop-At-Home channel purchasing agreement and applet, cannot prevent a TiVo QVC applet from running, nor can Tivo prevent the Shop-At-Home applet from running.
     
  17. Jan 18, 2006 #77 of 169
    classicsat

    classicsat Astute User

    17,877
    0
    Feb 18, 2004
    Ontario Canada.
    Because they can write the VOD/PPV/guide app they want in low level native processor code, and massge a particular version for a provider to match their system.

    You need the 300 Mhz CPU on the aftermarket STB to run basically an emulator, to do what the original STB would do.
     
  18. Jan 18, 2006 #78 of 169
    Justin Thyme

    Justin Thyme Contra sceleris

    3,306
    1
    Mar 29, 2005
    I am confused by your position. You earlier stated that the Carrier must publish it's api (presumably server api including on wire formats etc). I understand that the CE vendor could provide a VM to run MSO provided bytecode, or their own to do the interaction. They need to implement a VM if they want to access the server api with OCAP bytecode. But are they prohibited from writing native code that does the same, and can run with far less demand on system resources?
     
  19. Jan 18, 2006 #79 of 169
    TiVoPhish

    TiVoPhish New Member

    181
    0
    Mar 12, 2003
    Long Island, NY
    Just for sake of space I cut your quote down... but I'll probably address multiple parts of it.

    What you seem to be missing is that each company you want to readily cooperate is a business, and those businesses have a right to fairly compete with one another. Cable has a right to offer services that others cannot and vice versa. Making stand-alone set-top-boxes that cooperate is almost a separate argument.

    I say "almost" because it isn't completely fair for Cable to take over the market making it's own set-top-boxes a required purchase/lease... if a consumer chooses cable. Why is that? Because cable is in a unique position to take advantage of their customers by forcing them to buy/lease their own boxes (while iTunes is NOT in that position).

    Here's the analogy:

    If I want cable TV (content), and choose to go to Cable (company) then I must purchase or lease their box/DVR (product) just to see and record said content -- UNFAIR, and LOCKS OUT all STB competitors.

    If I want music (content), and I choose iTMs/Apple (company), I do NOT have to buy/lease their box (product/computer/software/iPod). I have a multitude of ways to listen to that music (including the FREE software itself), or on other devices (CD players, iPod, and even other softwares/portable devices). FAIR, it doesn't lock out anyone.

    So because of Cable's position, it IS fair for the proper legal entities to step in and say "no, you can't force people to buy or lease additional equipment from you" -- and if that's the case, to set the guidelines and rules on how everyone needs to cooperate with one another.

    It is in Cable's best interest to be sure that stand-alone set-top-boxes will interface well with their offerings... and that is not an easy task... and to get there, YES, some functionality may have to suffer, or you may have to put up with "java" windows that provide their own interface. But can you imagine the nightmare for Cable to try to support a zillion different boxes if they all don't follow a specific standard -- both in design and performance? If I own a TiVo Series 7 that won't properly interface with VOD content, who do I blame and, as a customer, call for support?

    And again, I say "almost" because all of this doesn't preclude Cable from continuing to offer their own set-top-boxes and compete with the stand-alones. That is fair and gives consumers choices. What isn't fair is locking everyone into only THEIR boxes.

    Should they be allowed to offers something unique above and beyond what stand-alone set-top-boxes can do? Such as the iTMS + iPod tie-in. Sure, why not? TiVo will certainly be offering services Cable cannot provide (Netflix as an example)... so why shouldn't cable be able to do the same to fairly compete? Then the consumer can say "well, I'd prefer the choice of Netflix over PPV content" (just as an example). What Cable CANNOT do is lock out all the competition, and try to compete unfairly.

    Same for Apple. They are allowed to give you the benefit of the iTunes + iPod combination. That doesn't preclude you from listening to the music you purchase from iTunes anywhere you like... because you can. But the benefit is the "plug-n-play" aspect of it. It's completely your choice, as a consumer. If you like the Creative Zen better, think it's a better player, you can buy it and buy your music from anywhere you like... including iTunes. The only thing you won't get is the ability to plug your Zen right INTO iTunes... and you don't HAVE to have the ability, because lots of other sources will provide it, for the EXACT same content.



    ps. running out the door, so excuse an typos or misphrasings ;)
     
  20. Jan 18, 2006 #80 of 169
    interactiveTV

    interactiveTV New Member

    863
    0
    Jul 2, 2000
    NYC
    Justin, perhaps you should re-read Phish's post. He quoted from http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2005Jan/bma20050107028590.htm correctly, including the quote within a quote (' versus "). I can see your confusion but assuming that Phish "made it up" rather than giving him the benfit of the doubt is where I take issue. He DIDN'T make it up. Sourcing would have helped it but assuming he "made it up" is rather a drastic opinion to come to. Don't you think?

    Of course it is, Justin. You know, it's funny, I don't pretend to be a geek and understand even 10% of some of the stuff around here. Yet, with one (STUPID) lawsuit filed you believe you have a legitimate arguement even though you don't seem, from my standpoint, to understand anti-trust 101.

    But, hey, what do I know? Keep telling yourself it's a legitimate arguement. Personally, I don't care. It just makes for a tough conversation when you use a different definition of word than everyone else.

    You're kidding, right? Do you have any idea how many MORONIC cases get heard that have NO legitimate arguement? Just because a judge takes a case on docket doesn't mean squat. Next you'll tell me all briefs are meaningful.

    Justin, you're out of your realm here. "Hearing a case" means nothing. You can judge shop -- and some are REAL crackpots but a job for life is not bad -- you can get someone bored, or, more often than not, it might sound like an interesting twist even though it doesn't really cut the mustard. Always fun to break ground and judges love it. Helps you move up. Of course, not this judge. He's never moving up.

    I gave you an example of some really stupid lawsuits. You think those were legitimate arguements?

    You can find a class action lawyer for just about anything...


    _ITV

    BTW: Ware's name MIGHT sound familiar if you ever followed the saga of the stolen sex.com domain. His name is familiar to other judges when up for an appeals court slot he got nailed in a total fabrication. But that's another story and not a pretty one
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements