Some misconceptions in this thread on how inventory turnover is calculated.
It is (commonly) calculated as COGS / Average Inventory.
Let's say your COGS for a Macbook is $500. You buy material on Jan 1 to make it, assemble on Jan 2, and ship Dec 31. Your turnover is $500 / $500 = 1 for the year.
If you buy parts to make 2 Macbooks on Jan 1 your inventory turnover would be 0.5 ($500 / $1000).
This accounts for unused A5 chips in stock (or anything else unused), and online sales don't count as "0 days".
But if you buy finished iPads from Foxcon then they don't count until the finished iPad is shipped out the door.
Whereas Dell might buy in NVidia cards, Intel CPUS, Corsair memory and assemble it itself so that does count.
Although Apple are good it's largely a trick of how they manufacture. If Dell had it's assembly plant as a subsidiary company and wasn't billed for the computer until Fedex shipped it - they could have a 1minute turnover.
Sure, but don't try to hack this metric too much. Manufacturers use it and don't try to game it. They actually want to improve it. Apple partners with Foxcon to get this number at 5, and wouldn't have it at 5 if they didn't believe Foxcon could manage demand. Apple would maintain inventories in their warehouse if that was the case.
This metric speaks as much about Foxcon's success as it does Apple's.
Yes this is mostly down to Foxcon and that Apple sells a relatively small range of machines with little customization.
And it only counts for Apple's own stores, not machines on the shelf at Staples etc
And if you take this metric to extremes then something like the Morgan car company - where there is a multi-year waiting list for their hand built sportscars - is the most efficient company in the world !
Though I don't presume to have read his mind, I feel like sirrocco is falling prey to a line of thought that I often do with regards to law. As a programmer, I often want to build some sort of deterministic decision tree regarding matters. The instinct of "Once I have all possible behaviors and paths modeled, an optimal solution will present itself!" is a strong one.
And then my friends in law school remind me, sometimes loudly, how the facts or circumstances can vary greatly, and how nothing in life is quite that simple. Alas.
My loved ones are smart enough to not dick around with life sustaining hardware and software.
On a less snarky note, it's absurd that I can't do what I want with something I bought and paid for, whether that be a game console or a breathing mask. It's not the law's job to protect me from myself.
And I say lawyers ruin everything because the legal profession has a vested interest in keeping the lay person from being able to understand and use the law effectively. including such idiocy as the OP's scenario.
> And I say lawyers ruin everything because the legal profession has a vested interest in keeping the lay person from being able to understand and use the law effectively.
This may be true, but it is not the reason law is hard for the lay person to understand.
Western legal theory has taken "justice" to mean that, given the same facts, and irrespective of the personal opinions of the judge or jury, the court should reach the same decision. Just think about that for a second-- it's not an easy problem. In fact it's a fabulously difficult problem, even before you add the condition that the system should remain fair over time in excess of a human lifespan.
The (clearly sub-optimal) solution we've arrived at over the past few thousand years is basically to implement an enormous natural-language virtual machine in which individual agents (lawyers) execute programs (laws) using a very precisely-defined instruction set (legal jargon) which is very similar in structure to English. The reason the laws cannot be written in English is that English has natural ambiguities; this is fine for conversation, but is absolutely unacceptable when human freedom or livelihood is on the line.
The obvious downside is that it means that average citizens can actually not learn the law simply by reading the law. To mitigate that, we've constructed an execution context in which a separate lawyer represents each interested party, with a judge acting as a neutral third party present to represent the interests of the law. The jury is asked only to establish the facts; understanding of the law is not required. It's really all pretty clever.
Obviously it's not perfect. But, before you criticize the system wholesale, remember that law didn't always work this way. Time was you would just take your grievance before the king, and depending on if he was feeling merciful or surly or liked your family, you would either get what you wanted or not. If you were lucky, there would be rhyme or reason to the king's judgments, and you might be able to predict what he'd say. If not, well... sucks to be you.
The complexity of the law, the cost of employing full-time legal scholars for every interaction, and the occasional abuses of the system-- these are the price we pay for fairness.
I'm not saying I think lawyers are awesome, but a world without them would be a hell of a lot worse than most people think.
That's only true on the surface. In the US lawyers execute not just statue (laws written by the legislator and signed into law by the executive that have yet to be over turned) but case law. Which acts as a single vary large multidimentional training set that's clear at the extremes but vary vague in the middle. The reason it's vague is people pretend there is far more stability in the system than actually exists so there is case law supporting any vaguely reasonable line of argument. Thus, lawyers are there not to help interpret the law, but create the most reasonable argument supporting their clients goals and providing their clients feedback to how well that argument might stand up in court. Under this interpretation you can clearly see how a talented team of lawyers can help bend the law to their client's point of view and 'distort' the impartiality of the system.
Case law is still about fairness, though. The ideal is that the same facts should be decided the same way. Of course, since no case ever has exactly the same circumstances as a previous one, there's always some wiggle room to argue that this one is more like that one or the other one and so should be decided in that particular way. The adversarial system is a way to try to balance that; you make your best argument, I make my best argument, and somebody disinterested decides which one they buy.
Saying "you can use case law to support any argument" is hyperbole; you can use any case which was been decided the way you'd like in the past, and the older the statute the more cases have been decided and the more wiggle room you have. But it's not a binary thing; the strength of your argument is affected by how similar the circumstances are, how much body of precedent there is for and against, how close the jurisdiction was, the reasoning given for the previous decision, and many other factors.
Of course this is really hard to keep track of if you're not a full-time legal scholar in that particular area of law, and it makes the whole thing seem even more impenetrable to the rest of us. But again, it's all in the spirit of fairness. It's not perfect, but consider the alternative: a justice system where previous decisions didn't matter -- where the law was just "the law", decided fresh by whatever judge you happen to stand before -- would be far more capricious.
Not totally accurate. There isn't much uncertainty in the law, but rather whether you broke it. Plaintiff has the burden of proof. And while there may not be a specific statute spelling out liability, case law has equal wait in the US.
Here is an example. This is a common 3 part test used to decide whether a manufacturer is liable for failure to warn:
1. Manufacturer had actual knowledge of the alleged danger
2. Manufacturer had no reason to know that consumers would know of this danger.
3. Manufacturer failed to exercise reasonable care to inform customers of the danger.
Despite the "no refund for deposits" clause, you are entitled to your full money back. It doesn't matter that they offer no warranties, express or implied, either.
You may have to go to small claims court to get it. Or you may have to get an attorney to get it (Tough to do, I know).
Just know he is feeding you BS and you will have to assert yourself to get it.
I am in Alabama. I let him know how unethical I, and many others in our community, would feel his business practices were had he kept the money. He promptly returned my email within an hour letting me know he would return the entire amount.
Hypothetical: Baio downloads the latest Linux kernel. He changes all variable and function names to words of his choosing. Baio now says that he has the right to distribute BaioNix code free from GPL copyright restrictions and does so. The Free Software Foundation sues Baio alleging copyright infringement.
Who wins and why? How is this different from or the same as Maisel v. Baio?
Completely different cases. The GPL covers binary distributions as well, and if your source compiles to the mostly-the-same binary that doesn't make it different enough, and you're bound by the GPL to release the modified source.
I think the concept of derivative work is more important here. IANAL but I suspect there's a difference between copying someone's Skip List class (maybe modding it a bit) vs. writing your own even if your own compiles to mostly-the-same binary. Your own wasn't derivative even if the end result was very similar.
I think your attempt at a distinction in paragraph 1 actually proves my point. Yes, GPL covers binaries, or however else the code is distributed. Just like how copyright law protects a Miles Davis picture on an album cover, a CD liner, and on a web page when it is "mostly-the-same."
People seem to like downvoting you. Anyway, I agree with you on the mostly-the-same part, and I think it's a derivative work anyway. The article's "You're just copying what was copied" is an interesting argument that I agree with but it's not really relevant to the copyright laws--again applying to a programming example, just because you bought a licensed copy doesn't mean someone can copy your copy without a license.
Do I think people should be able to make pixelized versions of photos for whatever purpose? Sure. Do I think the current law would be okay with that? No.
Those two pictures are not out of context. They are from the case that Baio cited himself. On Baio's blog (http://waxy.org/2011/06/kind_of_screwed/) he cites an "influential paper on fair use" as his reasoning and authority for his own fair use argument.
These pictures show what the paper writer is actually using as the "transformativeness" example. Baio never bothered to dig into the writer's citations to figure out the details. Trying to claim his own work is similar to the Blanch v. Koons case is a mistake. They aren't alike at all.
The problem with hypotheticals is that there's no end to them. For every hypothetical you can come up with to show your point, I can come up with another to show mine.
Please, just use some common sense: BAIO WAS NOT PUBLISHING THE PHOTOGRAPH! He was publishing the MUSIC ; the photograph was just incidental, to show (at a glance) the relationship between the original music and the remixed Bloop music. Do you REALLY think that people bought the album because of the pixellated artwork? It had absolutely NO impact on the sales. I've bought many a record (and CD) in my lifetime, and I don't recall ever buying a single one because of the cover.
I am a hardcore supporter of the rights of the individual artists and musicians, and even I think Maisel was dead wrong.
Insulting everyone by implying they haven't used common sense simply because they don't agree with you is incredibly fatuous. Chill with the righteous HEY YOU GUYS IF YOU JUST SAW IT MY WAY caps and italics; most of us aren't particularly dumb here.
The pixel art was definitely published by any useful meaning of the word publish, 200 copies of the liner version. Also, it was the background of the site, clearly used as promotion.
Let's say everyone accepts your argument that you can only violate artist rights if you gain a profit directly driven by the unauthorized use. It'd be perfectly fine to use a struggling unsigned band's best song to sell Volkswagens, since no one would buy a car because of music in an ad.
Of course, the unsigned band was just about to license their song to sell cat food and pay the rent, but now the cat food manufacturer doesn't want the same song that's in that damn Volkswagen commercial. Oops! Shoulda moved faster, indie band!
If you think that an artist or a musician should have no control over where their work is reproduced or published as long as it can be argued that it wasn't the main draw of any profit, you're not a hardcore supporter of the rights of individual artists and musicians.
I wasn't around for any negotiations Maisel's or his attorney had with Baio, but it does see like Maisel was a bit of a jerk about this. A jerk solidly in his rights, however.
First, I can't say that I am surprised my post currently sits at 4 downvotes here on HN. A programmer's work is sacred while a photographer's is not.
Use some common sense? Baio absolutely published the photograph, which is why we are all having this discussion.
It doesn't matter why people buy something or if it had an impact on sales. A copyright holder retains the sole right to publish a work and its derivatives. That is the essence of how we protect works of art fixed in a tangible means of expression.
Interesting hypothetical but mostly not relevant at all in this case. Details are lost making the analogy and when it comes to fair use, the details are often very important.
For example, are you changing the names of all the system calls? That will break lots of software. You have to figure out how important that is.
That's a discussion that really has no analogy in a discussion about transforming a real photograph to appear like it came from a Nintendo game like all the music on the album.
The only way it could really be worth discussing is pointing out how it is different. Your example seems like basically modifying the software for the sole purpose of evading copyright. In the Baio case, it is very clear that he's not simply making superficial changes in order to claim fair use.
Source code changes that I am suggesting will allow the new BaioNix to functionally "work" just as Linux does, just like how Baio created a picture but it "works" as a homage to an earlier Miles Davis photo.
And I am not suggesting trivial code modifications for the sole purpose of evading copyright. The changes that BaioNix has produce a simpler naming convention that enables programmers to understand the code easier.
People are acting like Baio has a slam dunk case but had to settle because he doesn't have money to defend. In reality Maisel has a slam dunk case and Baio wisely settled and cut his losses.
Is this a just result? As with everything, that is up for debate. But if you want to change the law to allow Baio-works one needs to consider what else it affects.
It's not a slam dunk case, it's a 50/50 case. What we know for sure is that it was a dick move on the part of Maisel. Sort of like calling the cops on your neighbor because their dog barks a lot, even though you don't actually hear it when you're sleeping or working or doing anything else important.
(Sorry for replying again)
A better analogy would be: you think porting the Linux kernel to a PDP-11 would be a smashing idea (for the PDP-11 enthusiasts out there). So you painstakingly obtain permission from Linus, etc. and get the kernel ported to the PDP-11 architecture. You put the release on a CD, and use a hand-drawn rendition of RedHat's CD cover as your cover (without asking RedHat).
Then RedHat turns around and sues you for violating their copyright.
The PDP-Linux maker should be sued for copyright (and trademark) infringement. Buyers may believe they are getting RedHat Linux because that is what the cover is, but they are not getting Red Hat Linux.
Once again, the programmer's work is sacred and we need Linus's permission, but an artist who creates cover art did trivial work and deserves no protection.
The motivation for moving from "per valve" to "total for all valves" was cost savings in monitoring. There are thousands of these in plants. Operators didn't want to have to check each one individually, so they got the rule changed to a total measurement.
To actually measure they "randomly" sample their valves, monitor, and then extrapolate to the rest. I say "randomly" because the best ones get checked repeatedly.
The steam valves are designed with pressure relief valves. When pressure exceeds a specified limit, the release is opened to the atmosphere.
Increasing releases is a symptom of other issues in a plant, some very dangerous and some just a reflection on increased utilization.
I have a BS/MS in Electrical & Computer Engineering. For a while I designed/manufactured sensor systems. Our customers were nuclear plants, oil refineries, chemical plants, etc. My company had a line of products that monitored steam valves, among other systems.
For a bunch of reasons I decided to go back to law school and added that skill.
So now I operate at the intersection of law, management/operations, and engineering for small companies. So far it is working out as a good niche.
I am a lawyer, and what ggchappell said is correct.
The work required to license either isn't difficult. Arguing back and forth on terms is how the legal bills add up. It all boils down to how much money must be paid.
Your product is mostly the underlying asset, not the streamlined process.
Remember, every licensee of the copyright or trademark will be selling the same thing (mostly). How do they differentiate themselves in the market? Probably price, in a multitude of ways.
It is (commonly) calculated as COGS / Average Inventory.
Let's say your COGS for a Macbook is $500. You buy material on Jan 1 to make it, assemble on Jan 2, and ship Dec 31. Your turnover is $500 / $500 = 1 for the year.
If you buy parts to make 2 Macbooks on Jan 1 your inventory turnover would be 0.5 ($500 / $1000).
This accounts for unused A5 chips in stock (or anything else unused), and online sales don't count as "0 days".
More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventory_turnover