 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
OK. I am all for IP. I am less for some moron telling me that I, or
someone else, can't alter it to make it work right. Mind you, his
mistake may have basically been suggesting donations, but the rest of
just 100% total and complete BS.
http://forums.creative.com/creativelabs/board/message?
board.id=soundblaster&thread.id=116332&view=by_date_ascending&page=
1
Basically, one guy figured out that Creative Labs has been lying about
incompatibility between some cards and Vista, that they could fix it
over night, if they wanted to, and that they haven't even attempted to
put out drivers that work right for the latest cards, all with the
apparent purpose of forcing people to upgrade to the next card, which
*will* be full Vista supported. The guy that figured this out patched
the existing drivers so they do work, but since it still required
"their" unpatched, otherwise incompatible, and defective drivers, and
because he made the stupid mistake of giving people the option to donate
to him for his trouble, Creative deleted all forum threads and told him
to cease and desist. Pretty much *everyone* that was dumb enough to
install Vista, and has a Creative card, is.. less than amused. Can't say
I am either. I might have thought about getting a better card at some
point, if I wanted to push my gaming capabilities, but I am not sure at
this point that I would want one from the company that *used to be* the
best on the market (and if the damn things still had functional drivers
for them, might still be).
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraz net> wrote:
> http://forums.creative.com/creativelabs/board/message?
> board.id=soundblaster&thread.id=116332&view=by_date_ascending&page=1
It seem dubious to me what kind of intellectual property was "stolen"
here.
Copyright applies to actual software source code. It does not apply to
algorithms nor functionality. If you create a program which behaves in the
same way as another program you are not infringing copyright, as long as
your code is original.
Claiming that making a program which interfaces with a piece of hardware
is IP theft is absolutely ludicrous. Imagine if, for example, Intel suddenly
claimed that every piece of program (especially commercial ones) ever
written to run on Intel processors was an IP theft and threatened to sue.
They would be laughed off. It would never pass on any court.
But of course in the US you can sue for anything. Just threatening to
sue is enough for most people. It's a rather effective means to scare
people.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Basically, one guy figured out that Creative Labs has been lying about
> incompatibility between some cards and Vista, that they could fix it
> over night, if they wanted to, and that they haven't even attempted to
> put out drivers that work right for the latest cards, all with the
> apparent purpose of forcing people to upgrade to the next card, which
> *will* be full Vista supported. The guy that figured this out patched
> the existing drivers so they do work,
Number 1 rule of making artificial differences between your products: make
sure it's impossible or very difficult for anyone to "upgrade" by
themselves.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Patrick Elliott" <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote in message
news:MPG.225a3139b1ec29f598a135@news.povray.org...
> Basically, one guy figured out that Creative Labs has been lying about
> incompatibility between some cards and Vista, that they could fix it
> over night, if they wanted to
I'm really not happy with creative at the Moment.
I have an X-fi card and am running Windows 2000. According to Creative, the
X-Fi drivers don't work on 2000. Actually, they do, perfectly. The only
problem is that there's an explicit check for XP somewhere in the installer.
I have the X-Fi working on 2000, because someone found out how to disable
that check.
Now, is there any way to get working drivers for the X-Fi in Vista?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <47f08daf@news.povray.org>, initialsurname@sentech says...
>
> "Patrick Elliott" <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote in message
> news:MPG.225a3139b1ec29f598a135@news.povray.org...
>
> > Basically, one guy figured out that Creative Labs has been lying about
> > incompatibility between some cards and Vista, that they could fix it
> > over night, if they wanted to
>
> I'm really not happy with creative at the Moment.
>
> I have an X-fi card and am running Windows 2000. According to Creative, t
he
> X-Fi drivers don't work on 2000. Actually, they do, perfectly. The only
> problem is that there's an explicit check for XP somewhere in the install
er.
>
> I have the X-Fi working on 2000, because someone found out how to disable
> that check.
>
> Now, is there any way to get working drivers for the X-Fi in Vista?
>
After about the first 900+ posts from people telling them they have
destroyed and/or thrown away their cards, and would never buy anything
from them again, they reinstated the threads specific to *some* of the
cards. The X-Fi is probably not one of them, since its newer. So, the
answer would be, "Not until Creative gets their heads out of their asses
and fixes the bugs themselves, which they clearly don't intend to so,
since one of their comments was *specifically* that if they 'chose not
to release features with one card that come with another, its our right
to do so'." In other words, your X-Fi is a brick on Vista, because they
***wanted*** it to be a brick, and you will have to buy their
"patch/fix/addon" to fix it. Maybe the drivers that are not available
again also cover it too, but.. who knows.
Everyone, except some morons that fail to grasp the fact that Creative
may be in violation of their *own* EULA by failing to provide the
functionality, not to mention Warp's point, is saying, "Too little, too
late.", and crying for Creative to be hoisted on a pittard for, "false
advertising", since their own boxes "claim" all sorts of features that
the cards are "supposed" to have, some of which Creative now admits it
doesn't want working in Vista at this point, and a lot that just doesn't
work.
All in all, I thought Microsoft shot itself in the foot a few times
recently, including with the release of Vista, but they couldn't top
this if Gates got drunk tomorrow some place and admitted in front of TV
cameras that he intentionally broke the law and tried to screw his
customers the entire time he was in charge.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Basically, one guy figured out that Creative Labs has been lying about
> incompatibility between some cards and Vista, that they could fix it
> over night, if they wanted to, and that they haven't even attempted to
> put out drivers that work right for the latest cards, all with the
> apparent purpose of forcing people to upgrade to the next card, which
> *will* be full Vista supported.
Mmm, interesting.
Of course, technically it's Creative's product and if they don't want it
to be able to do X, they can legally do that. But given that their
game's been rumbled, I would say that's be rather stupid to try to stick
to this stretagy now... But hey, what do I know about running a vast
stunningly successful multinational conglomerate?
I'm not worried. My old soundcard is VIA, my new one is impronouncible,
and I won't be installing Vista for a *very* long time. (Hopefully, mmm,
*never*. But we'll see...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, some a**holes will exercise their rights in a way that is not as
helpful to the lives of others as we may wish.
Looks like Creative Labs' competitors have an opportunity to capture
some market share.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> But of course in the US you can sue for anything.
I have a question here for anyone having knowledge of the legal systems
outside of the US.
Can a judge in your country be punished for allowing a frivolous suit to
proceed?
Here in the US I have not seen any case where a judge was sanctioned for
allowing a frivolous suit to be litigated. There have been instances
where the plaintiff or the plaintiff's counsel were disciplined in some
way, but never the judge.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Copyright applies to actual software source code. It does not apply to
> algorithms nor functionality. If you create a program which behaves in the
> same way as another program you are not infringing copyright, as long as
> your code is original.
I think it's a little different in the USA. You're infringing on the
copyright if you copied the code. It doesn't even matter if it does
something completely different. If you learn that Creative's driver for
some reason will run your printer too, it's still copyright infringement
to give it out for the purposes of running the printer.
> Claiming that making a program which interfaces with a piece of hardware
> is IP theft is absolutely ludicrous.
If it's 98% Creative's code, with 2% changes, then it's a derivative
work. I don't know the whole story, but this doesn't sound like he
created a driver from scratch. (Indeed, the way I read it almost made
it sound like he was making Creative's drivers work on non-Creative
cards.) But from comments, it sounds like he took Creative's drivers
for cards that *do* work on Vista, and back-ported the changes to cards
that don't work on Vista.
> But of course in the US you can sue for anything. Just threatening to
> sue is enough for most people. It's a rather effective means to scare
> people.
I was wondering - what do other countries do about this? I couldn't come
up with any good way of solving such a problem in the legal system. It
would have to be cultural, that you don't sue simply to intimidate someone.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Patrick Elliott" <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote
>OK. I am all for IP. I am less for some moron telling me that I, or
>someone else, can't alter it to make it work right. Mind you, his
>mistake may have basically been suggesting donations, but the rest of
>just 100% total and complete BS.
Almost every single hardware manufacturer (most visible are CPU/GPU
manufacturers) as well as almost every single software manufacturer sell
crippled versions of their goods under different SKUs. It's their wares,
they can not only chose to not develop certain lines for all markets, but
they can purposefully cripple equipment or software to sell to lower priced
markets. If reverse engineering is explicitly prohibited, third parties can
not re-market such goods by undoing the crippling or adding more
functionality. I don't exactly know what he is doing, if he's patching their
(Creative's) drivers, that's a no-no. If he's writing his own from scratch,
without using any of their protected code (very unlikely, I'd say), then
Creative has no leg to stand on, except that they are not of course
obligated to provide free advertising for him on their own forums. It's hard
to feel sympathy for the big guy, but how would you feel if someone was
reverse engineering the lower priced version of your software to enable its
advanced features and thus wreaking havoc with your pricing structure? How
would you feel if time limits on your shareware version were being patched
out? Business is not charity and businesses are not obligated to provide
everyone with everything technically possible, to their own detriment.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
