posted
So the Supremes decided that the 2nd and 14th Amendments are still in force. But they didn't quash the idea of patenting software code, which sucks. Copyright is one thing, but patenting algorithms? That's like patenting points of view. It's nonsensical.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not that I'm insensitive to that argument, but what other system for software code ownership rewards those who create it, and incentivizes innovations?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Not that I'm insensitive to that argument, but what other system for software code ownership rewards those who create it, and incentivizes innovations?
Before that discussion kicks up, we can probably just reference older threads where many facets of this discussion have already taken place.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Not that I'm insensitive to that argument, but what other system for software code ownership rewards those who create it, and incentivizes innovations?
Um... copyright. Not that I think that system hasn't been abused as well, but... do you remember about 10 years ago, there was some guy who tried to patent the plot of a book? He was justifiably turned away. But it took them a while to make that decision. What's the difference between patenting a book plot and patenting a software algorithm?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to admit, given your libertarian politics, I'm a bit baffled as to why you would oppose intellectual property as a concept. How else will the individual profit from their brains and work? Or, put another way, why should other inviduals without those brains and without that work profit from the first one's efforts without paying for it?
That sounds a lot like taxes to me. Taxation on the smart.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Not that I'm insensitive to that argument, but what other system for software code ownership rewards those who create it, and incentivizes innovations?
Before that discussion kicks up, we can probably just reference older threads where many facets of this discussion have already taken place.
posted
That wasn't the question I asked, Lisa. How else would you go about incentivizing innovation? It is clearly, undeniably incentivized right now. Look at pharmaceutical companies: they spend billions of dollars a year all over the world in the headlong rush to create the next big wonder-pill, because the payoff will be huge. Why do they spend that money? It's an investment. People don't invest without incentive. For that cart to move anywhere, you have to have a horse, and the faster you want it to move, the better the horse has to be.
However, to answer your question, the plot of a book and a software algorithm are two quite different things. What exactly is 'the plot of a book'? How do you pin down when someone has exactly the same plot of a book, and thus has abused the patent? Pretty much the only way you could go about it is if they used exactly the same words in exactly the same order, or the vast majority of both, and if I'm not mistaken that's rather what the standard is now.
A software algorithm, though...well, I'm no programmer but I don't think you can switch around some digits and necessarily have the precise same function. So, in that sense, the two are quite different, and obviously so.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Not that I'm insensitive to that argument, but what other system for software code ownership rewards those who create it, and incentivizes innovations?
Before that discussion kicks up, we can probably just reference older threads where many facets of this discussion have already taken place.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: That wasn't the question I asked, Lisa. How else would you go about incentivizing innovation? It is clearly, undeniably incentivized right now. Look at pharmaceutical companies: they spend billions of dollars a year all over the world in the headlong rush to create the next big wonder-pill, because the payoff will be huge.
Do you have any hard data showing that pharmaceutical research done by those big companies has resulted in cures for cancer or other major diseases? Yes, we might not have gotten Viagra. I don't consider that worth subsidizing an entire industry.
People make that argument a lot, but I can't think of a single example where an area that was not patentable became patentable with a resultant increase in innovation. I can think of at least one case where innovation dropped off radically after it became patentable, and that's software.
Everyone assumes that just because it makes sense, in an ivory tower sort of way, to assume that people will innovate more if they're granted a monopoly over the results, but it doesn't seem to work that way.
What we have is a system where pharmaceutical companies can extend their patents far beyond the original terms by making tiny changes. Sure that's incentive. But you could make the case that politicians will work harder if you allow them to accept bribes. That's an incentive, too.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Why do they spend that money? It's an investment. People don't invest without incentive.
I know you believe that. I know that's "common knowledge". But funnily enough, it doesn't seem to be the case. How many man-hours do you think have gone into the creation of Wikipedia? Just as an example. I remember back in the early 90s when software was exploding everywhere. Freeware and shareware, mostly. Though most freeware was called shareware at the time. Very little of it was crippleware that you needed to pay for to unlock completely. All of that was back in the days before software was declared patentable. All that's happened since is that the big players have made it more difficult for new players to enter the market, because even the threat of legal action can chill innovation more than anything else.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: However, to answer your question, the plot of a book and a software algorithm are two quite different things. What exactly is 'the plot of a book'? How do you pin down when someone has exactly the same plot of a book, and thus has abused the patent? Pretty much the only way you could go about it is if they used exactly the same words in exactly the same order, or the vast majority of both, and if I'm not mistaken that's rather what the standard is now.
A software algorithm, though...well, I'm no programmer but I don't think you can switch around some digits and necessarily have the precise same function.
Sheesh. I am a programmer. And it's more art than science. You can get to a given end point in any number of ways. Just like you can get to the ending of a story. I mean, hell, I've written controls that I've posted to shared source code sites, and there are people who use it. The idea that I should be allowed to charge someone for using those controls is just ridiculous. And not a little horrifying.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Aside from one Constitutional law course I took in college, I have not studied any law, so I'm hoping that someone who has can shed some light on this for me.
Wasn't the ruling based on substantive due process? Isn't this, um, anti-originalism? And aren't Thomas and Scalia two of the biggest proponents of originalism? How are they reconciling that view with this decision?
I'm pretty sure there's something I'm missing here with my very limited experience of Constitutional law. That, and I haven't read the opinions just the media coverage of them.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you have any hard data showing that pharmaceutical research done by those big companies has resulted in cures for cancer or other major diseases? Yes, we might not have gotten Viagra. I don't consider that worth subsidizing an entire industry.
Huh... Are you serious? Flu vaccines, the small pox vaccine, polio, Hep A, seratonin-reuptake inhibitors and other anti-depressants and mood stabilizers (some of which I believe you've said you take yourself), anti-psychotics, anti-convulsives, antibiotics such as azithromycin, vancomycin, amoxicillin, penicillin, and bactrim, lipitor, nexium, claritin, allegra, various pain relieving opioid compounds such as hydrocodone, oxycontin, vicodin, insulin replacement serums of various types which have kept my father alive for 45 years... the list goes on.
And who do you think develops chemotherapy treatments? Not the pharmas? Chemo doesn't cure cancer?
What *are* you talking about?
quote: Everyone assumes that just because it makes sense, in an ivory tower sort of way, to assume that people will innovate more if they're granted a monopoly over the results, but it doesn't seem to work that way.
Is this like the Santa Anna winds blowing over the whole US this week or something? We've got Rabbit the scientist talking about ID, and we've got you talking about common property rights. This is just too freakin' weird. The sad part is neither of you will ever realize how weird it is.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty much with you on patenting software, Lisa. I think it's a bad idea.
Sometimes an algorithm provides competitive advantage. I can see why if someone thought they could write a better recommendation engine than the one that Netflix uses, they'd want to "own" that way of doing it. They could potentially make a lot of money that way.
But for me, that's a bit like owning a particular method of plotting a suspense novel. Yeah, a guy like Koontz could maybe make a case that he invented some methods of plotting that are useful, and yeah, he could maybe make more money selling the results of that method if others are prevented from competing at the same game. But since he already has copyright, and protecting his plot algorithm would tend to stifle other contributions to the collective body of fictional work, I don't like it.
I do see why software patents have some advocates. (As mentioned above, it's not completely nonsensical.) Beating Netflix at their recommendation engine game would probably require some investment; if you don't get exclusive use of that method, you might not make that investment. IOW, I think ruling out software patents has some real costs/downsides. However, I'm not convinced the benefits of software patents outweigh the downsides.
quote:I remember back in the early 90s when software was exploding everywhere. Freeware and shareware, mostly. Though most freeware was called shareware at the time. Very little of it was crippleware that you needed to pay for to unlock completely. All of that was back in the days before software was declared patentable. All that's happened since is that the big players have made it more difficult for new players to enter the market, because even the threat of legal action can chill innovation more than anything else.
I think you're ignoring some very significant factors:
1) If we agree that innovation has slowed (which I don't think I really agree to [see (2)], but for the sake of argument let's run with it for a moment) - if you can't point to innovations that should be happening but aren't, I think the more reasonable conclusion is that opportunities for innovation are less obvious, or require more resources, than in the past.
I think an emerging industry, like personal computing was in past decades, has a lot of room for really novel yet simple innovations in the beginning, and requires less novel and harder-to-accomplish innovations after the low hanging fruit has been harvested.
2) And yet the pace of change in software is very fast. I don't see how you can make a case that innovation has been slowed.
There's still a ton of freeware being released. Some of it is a lot more sophisticated and powerful than the stuff that got shared around in the 80s and 90s.
---
So anyway in theory I think software patents are probably bad because of the potential to interfere with progress, but in reality the effects don't seem nearly as clear cut and drastic as you have claimed.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I keep seeing the word "SCOTUS" and wondering if it's contagious. Should I take some Vitamin C or something to avoid getting it?
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Due to software patents? Or what? I'll have to admit my memory and industry insight aren't the best, but if we looked at the variety of applications being built, or some similar metric, I would think we'd see a steady acceleration.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Not that I'm insensitive to that argument, but what other system for software code ownership rewards those who create it, and incentivizes innovations?
Um... copyright. Not that I think that system hasn't been abused as well, but... do you remember about 10 years ago, there was some guy who tried to patent the plot of a book? He was justifiably turned away. But it took them a while to make that decision. What's the difference between patenting a book plot and patenting a software algorithm?
Well, off the top of my head, one is art and the other is a tool. Art in this case meaning, "a thing intended to hold aesthetic or emotional value" rather than "a process relying heavily on creative intuition and individual skill."
It seems to me that copyrighting a book plot is reasonable in the same way that copyrighting a painting would be.
And patenting an algorithm would be reasonable in the same way that patenting an axe would be.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, if you think that the only worthwhile med invented in the past 60 years is Viagra then you have no clue at all about the field. Ori and I don't usually agree on much, although we don't usually battle either, but the list of things HE listed is a very good start.
And it's only a start, a VERY basic list.
I don't particularly care for big Pharm myself, but saying they haven't developed anything worth having other than Viagra is beyond ridiculous.
The cost of attempting to develop even a single vaccine is huge, way beyond what most people realize, and most attempts fail. Almost 95% of them fail to make a single dollar of profit, even though they all add to our knowledge of the disease process. As a matter of fact a lot of researchers think we learn more from our failures than from our successes.
Any time YOU want to invest $1,000,000 in something that is likely to never make a dollar of profit, feel free to do so. I bet that the only reason YOU'D be willing to do so is that 3-4% of the time you have the chance to make HUGE profits. And those profits are what pays for the next round of failures, which leads to the next round of almost successes, which lead to the next 2-3% of successes......
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: if we looked at the variety of applications being built, or some similar metric, I would think we'd see a steady acceleration
What new type of application has been invented in the last two years?
I don't know. I was thinking more in terms of the array of features within and across different types of applications. Integrating Google Maps into your treadmill's route simulation, while not a new type of application, is a new thing.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you have any hard data showing that pharmaceutical research done by those big companies has resulted in cures for cancer or other major diseases? Yes, we might not have gotten Viagra. I don't consider that worth subsidizing an entire industry.
OK, now I'm beginning to think I shouldn't take you seriously on this subject. Is your standard really 'major disease cure, or it's not working'? New treatments and medicines are created by pharmaceutical companies all the time. Now, we can talk a great deal about just how effective that system is and how broken it is, but there is no reasonable denying that it has some benefit as opposed to the 'doesn't cure anything' approach you're taking.
As for hard evidence, well, you haven't offered any either, just pointed elsewhere at a book you claim does. I'll put it on my list of things to read, but that's a long list. You're offering a pretty weird proposition, though: market incentives don't help innovation at all. Up to you to provide some evidence for it.
quote: How many man-hours do you think have gone into the creation of Wikipedia?
That's...that's one of your arguments? Bad enough to use wikipedia as a source on a paper or something, but to use it as proof of the quality of free labor? Sure, wiki is handy, but I wouldn't, y'know, stick it in my veins. Or can I go to wiki, pose a currently unknown across the board of humanity question, and get an accurate example just by the teeming masses thinking about it?
quote:Sheesh. I am a programmer. And it's more art than science. You can get to a given end point in any number of ways. Just like you can get to the ending of a story. I mean, hell, I've written controls that I've posted to shared source code sites, and there are people who use it. The idea that I should be allowed to charge someone for using those controls is just ridiculous. And not a little horrifying.
So, what's your incentive for posting this code to shared code source sites? Idle pleasure, tedium, charity? I'm trying to parse this in light of what else I know about your politics, Lisa. I suppose it's beginning to make a bit more sense, this angle you're taking that if we just remove almost all controls, things will not only keep working, but work better.
It's still pretty strange coming from you, though. Private business shouldn't profit from innovation because permitting that stifles innovation?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: So, what's your incentive for posting this code to shared code source sites? Idle pleasure, tedium, charity? I'm trying to parse this in light of what else I know about your politics, Lisa. I suppose it's beginning to make a bit more sense, this angle you're taking that if we just remove almost all controls, things will not only keep working, but work better.
It's still pretty strange coming from you, though. Private business shouldn't profit from innovation because permitting that stifles innovation?
I'll get to the rest later. But as far as this part, who said businesses shouldn't profit from innovation? Being the first to market with something is a huge benefit. Particularly if you do it well. Where does an artificial government-fiat monopoly come in?
Look at the telephone. Honestly, turning innovation into a footrace? You get to the patent office an hour later, and the other guy gets a monopoly on something that you invented at the same time?
As far as why I posted my code there, it's because I thought it was useful. I derive benefit from the code others post there; it only makes sense that I should do the same. Not that there should be a law making me do so, but there's a moral sense to benevolence and voluntary sharing.
As far as Wikipedia is concerned, slogans are nice, but studies have shown that Wikipedia is as accurate as encyclopedias like the Brittanica. Check it out if you don't believe me.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'll get to the rest later. But as far as this part, who said businesses shouldn't profit from innovation? Being the first to market with something is a huge benefit. Particularly if you do it well. Where does an artificial government-fiat monopoly come in?
Well, alright then. You don't want business to profit from innovation as much as they do now. The profits of innovation are, shall we say, substantial in the present. They range from minimal if you invent something that sells decent on infomercials to enormous if your lab produces the next effective cancer treatment. In the case of the latter, how will we go about incentivizing new research without a huge potential payoff? Because the research is enormously expensive.
It's not 'ivory tower' thinking, it's simple business. How will private business profit from innovation in these cases when the effort towards it is so enormously expensive? Why do you think 'being first to market' would be enough? OK, so you're first to market. You make a good profit for, say, a few months or something. Enough time for your business rivals to take what you've created, duplicate it, and produce it as well. Then they copy your product and suddenly they're in the business too, with exactly the same product no less, having spent almost none of the costs to invent it.
quote:Look at the telephone. Honestly, turning innovation into a footrace? You get to the patent office an hour later, and the other guy gets a monopoly on something that you invented at the same time?
That's a pretty ridiculous example. Just how many inventions have really been so down to the wire as that, out of all inventions that have been patented or copyrighted total?
quote:As far as Wikipedia is concerned, slogans are nice, but studies have shown that Wikipedia is as accurate as encyclopedias like the Brittanica. Check it out if you don't believe me.
I do believe you. The content of wikipedia, however, is not innovation. The concept of wikipedia, that's innovation. But as for what's in it now? That's overwhelmingly knowledge that is already known, and thus not remotely the same thing as new medicines.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Celaeno: Regarding the gun ruling:
Aside from one Constitutional law course I took in college, I have not studied any law, so I'm hoping that someone who has can shed some light on this for me.
Wasn't the ruling based on substantive due process? Isn't this, um, anti-originalism? And aren't Thomas and Scalia two of the biggest proponents of originalism? How are they reconciling that view with this decision?
I'm pretty sure there's something I'm missing here with my very limited experience of Constitutional law. That, and I haven't read the opinions just the media coverage of them.
I have no experience with Constitutional law, and I have seen no discussion about the interplay of originalism and due process in the McDonald case.
However, I have seen some ink about the impact of both the 14th and 2nd amendments on Scalia's and Thomas' opinions. I would hazard a guess that the due process is reconciled with originalism in this case through the fact that "the right to keep and bear arms" is an enumerated right, rather than an unenumerated one.
You might find some further hints in this exchange over at Slate between Paul Clement (Georgetown Law Professor and former Solicitor General), Walter Dellinger (Duke Law Professor and former acting Solicitor General) and Dahlia Lithwick (Slate's legal correspondent).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, alright then. You don't want business to profit from innovation as much as they do now.
Oh, come on. That's crap. There's fundamental, qualitative difference between profit that comes from someone willingly paying you in exchange for value received, and profit that you get because the government grants it to you. They aren't even remotely the same thing. The first is moral. The second is inherently immoral.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: In the case of the latter, how will we go about incentivizing new research without a huge potential payoff? Because the research is enormously expensive.
It isn't the place of government to "incentivize" anything. What do you think, we'll all sit on our hands and die of neglect if the government doesn't take care of us like a good nanny?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's not 'ivory tower' thinking, it's simple business. How will private business profit from innovation in these cases when the effort towards it is so enormously expensive?
The goal isn't profit. No more than Jefferson wrote about the right to life, liberty and happiness. He wrote about the right of the pursuit of happiness. And people should be free to pursue profits.
Honestly, I don't know what kind of world you're imagining. What do you think would happen if the government didn't go around "incentivizing"? What picture do you have in your head?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Why do you think 'being first to market' would be enough? OK, so you're first to market. You make a good profit for, say, a few months or something. Enough time for your business rivals to take what you've created, duplicate it, and produce it as well.
Not really. Actually, that's not how it's happened. I mean, hell, what's the "market share" (theoretically, since it's free) of OpenOffice? It does everything MS Office does, and more. And it's free. So why are people still paying for MS Office?
Your theory trips over the facts. No matter how much sense your theory might make in the absence of facts.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Look at the telephone. Honestly, turning innovation into a footrace? You get to the patent office an hour later, and the other guy gets a monopoly on something that you invented at the same time?
That's a pretty ridiculous example. Just how many inventions have really been so down to the wire as that, out of all inventions that have been patented or copyrighted total?
It doesn't matter. Why should I risk investing in research when there's a serious risk that the guy down the street might be doing the same thing and beat me to the patent office?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:As far as Wikipedia is concerned, slogans are nice, but studies have shown that Wikipedia is as accurate as encyclopedias like the Brittanica. Check it out if you don't believe me.
I do believe you. The content of wikipedia, however, is not innovation. The concept of wikipedia, that's innovation. But as for what's in it now? That's overwhelmingly knowledge that is already known, and thus not remotely the same thing as new medicines.
Progress might be slower in the absence of government meddling. It might not. You assume that your theory gives the answer. But your theory fails to predict the things that actually happen. Some people might, on the basis of that, question the theory.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It doesn't matter. Why should I risk investing in research when there's a serious risk that the guy down the street might be doing the same thing and beat me to the patent office?
It does matter when the alternative has even less of an incentive for investment in research, and when your example is an outlier.
So far your mental strategy in these arguments is to find any example, no matter how tenuous, to stretch as an application of how a system works in sum, then rely on it absolutely. The telephone patent controversy reference is a great demonstration of that: the patent system is so remarkably different from the 'innovation as a footrace' scenario you present from the 1870's that it is left with practically no bearing on today's intellectual marketplace anyway. Yet, for all intents and purposes, it makes everything else about the patent system in action today "not matter." Essentially.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, come on. That's crap. There's fundamental, qualitative difference between profit that comes from someone willingly paying you in exchange for value received, and profit that you get because the government grants it to you. They aren't even remotely the same thing. The first is moral. The second is inherently immoral.
The third sentence here could serve as an exact description of patent and copyright law as it exists today. If I want to use a software program someone else has developed, and I want to pay the price they set for doing so, I am willingly and voluntarily paying them for it. Likewise with medication. The government doesn't grant you the profit, all the government does is create and protect an institution which permits you to profit from your work.
quote:It isn't the place of government to "incentivize" anything. What do you think, we'll all sit on our hands and die of neglect if the government doesn't take care of us like a good nanny?
It most certainly is the position of the government to protect incentives for some things, but that's an argument that won't go anywhere between so, so I'll move on.
quote:The goal isn't profit. No more than Jefferson wrote about the right to life, liberty and happiness. He wrote about the right of the pursuit of happiness. And people should be free to pursue profits.
Honestly, I don't know what kind of world you're imagining. What do you think would happen if the government didn't go around "incentivizing"? What picture do you have in your head?
Actually, the relevant document that contains something like that doesn't mention pursuit of happiness at all, but life, liberty, and property not being deprived without due process. Is property just real estate? I don't think so. I don't know where the line should be drawn, but I don't think it should be drawn necessarily only at tangible things.
As for what kind of world I'm imagining, I'm imagining a kind of world where private industry does not spend as much money as intensely on research, because the potential profit drops sharply.
quote:Not really. Actually, that's not how it's happened. I mean, hell, what's the "market share" (theoretically, since it's free) of OpenOffice? It does everything MS Office does, and more. And it's free. So why are people still paying for MS Office?
Your theory trips over the facts. No matter how much sense your theory might make in the absence of facts.
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't MS Office out about a decade before OpenOffice? Using wikipedia as a resource, I see that OpenOffice got its start as privately owned code by a German company.
quote:It doesn't matter. Why should I risk investing in research when there's a serious risk that the guy down the street might be doing the same thing and beat me to the patent office?
Lisa, which risk is worse? The 'serious' risk that someone is at exactly the same place in research as you, will continue at exactly the same pace, but will arrive just a little bit ahead? Or the risk that you will make your product first, after spending years of effort and resources, and then only be the main money-maker on it for exactly as long as it takes anyone out there to duplicate and distribute your product? Or, for that matter, for any much bigger private business with much more resources be able to duplicate the process, produce it, and market it using their economies of scale to do all of that at a lower price than you, cutting you out of the market for something that wouldn't have existed without you?
This is a pretty easy question, Lisa. Whether or not this is a rational discussion for you will be shown in your answer.
quote:Progress might be slower in the absence of government meddling. It might not. You assume that your theory gives the answer. But your theory fails to predict the things that actually happen. Some people might, on the basis of that, question the theory.
In that respect, I'm no different from you. You are claiming that the absence of government 'meddling' will definitely speed innovation, but so far you have failed to give a conclusive example of even one industry where this is clearly true. Note: anecdotes about software are not conclusive.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Conversely I can provide multiple examples of where absence of government meddling will actually slow innovation and common benefit (non-profitable genetic, pharmaceutical, and immunology work, for instance).
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: OpenOffice does NOT do everything MS Office does.
Just sayin.
i would be happy with openoffice if it just did its more limited subset more competently.
Which sort of answers the question about "why are people still buying Office?" Bugs. Limited support. It is expectedly way more glitchy and bug-prone than MS's product and way slower on the update/compatibility curve. It's not going to be any other way, because projects like openoffice can't usually afford to staff reliable QA for their programmers.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
