Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

•  

  

  Alphager, Apr 28th, 2011 @ 12:11am

  
  

  Nice but not innovative

  It's nice, but not innovative. I remember that O'Reilly hat the same offering in 2004.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Mike Masnick (profile), Apr 28th, 2011 @ 12:35am

  
  

  Re: Nice but not innovative

  It's nice, but not innovative. I remember that O'Reilly hat the same offering in 2004.
  
  
  Yeah, but a ton of content at FWK...

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 28th, 2011 @ 1:10am

  
  

  Re: Nice but not innovative

  It's not innovative, per se; many, many textbook companies offer this service. However, this usually means paying even more for some slight customization, and often means the end product (the student's textbook) is of substantially lower quality.
  
  I know some universities 'strongly encourage' professors to use personalized textbooks, because those textbooks can only be bought though that university's affiliated booksellers. FWK is doing the academic world a great service by offering freely-available personalized textbooks.
  
  I don't that O'Reilly has gone quite so far in this area, but they are another of the more respectable publishers as regarded by my personal acquaintances. I don't much care which of them comes up with a good idea, so long as that idea is out in the world helping people.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Apr 28th, 2011 @ 1:22am

  
  

  Re: Re: Nice but not innovative

  I don't that O'Reilly has gone quite so far in this area, but they are another of the more respectable publishers as regarded by my personal acquaintances. I don't much care which of them comes up with a good idea, so long as that idea is out in the world helping people.

  
  So is this where O'Reilly sue, claiming to have a patent that covers the online remixing of textbooks thus killing the idea and "helping drive innovation"? Or is that just be being cynical....?

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Chargone (profile), Apr 28th, 2011 @ 3:02am

  
  

  Re: Re: Re: Nice but not innovative

  if, like far too many other companies, they are run by idiots and/or lawyers, sure.
  
  otherwise, they find a way to be better, or serve a wider customer base, either of which leads to more sales for them (though the former also deprives FWK of customers, in theory, while the latter does not, also in theory)

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Berenerd (profile), Apr 28th, 2011 @ 5:51am

  
  

  Re: Re: Nice but not innovative

  My school does this (I am going back for another degree). The issue is they charge a whole 170bucks for a book for a 1 credit course which costs $250 to take. This allows them to say they have a lower tuition than other schools that offer the same thing. its innovation of how to lie to students. I am smart enough to go to the company that makes them to get a copy (for about half the price) but kids just out of highschool tend not to know they can do that. I have a habit on the first day of class to get in trouble for speaking out of turn when I say that to the class. Teachers can't do anything but say "but those are not the right version) even though the only difference is the typos are fixed in the one I have.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 28th, 2011 @ 8:33am

  
  

  Re: Nice but not innovative

  It's far more innovative enough to be patent worthy.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 28th, 2011 @ 8:39am

  
  

  Re: Re: Nice but not innovative

  It's far more than innovative enough to be patent worthy *
  
  (this statement is made within the context of our broken patent system and within the context of what IP maximists generally consider innovative).

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 28th, 2011 @ 8:40am

  
  

  Re: Nice but not innovative

  Besides, I think you miss the point. The point is that IP is not necessary for innovations to occur.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 28th, 2011 @ 8:53am

  
  

  Re: Re: Nice but not innovative

  (and better business models that don't include overly restrictive copy protection limitations are possible, so copy protection laws don't have to be nearly as restrictive and one sided as they currently are. Book publishers don't need to overly scam the public to publish innovative new books).

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 28th, 2011 @ 9:13am

  
  

  Re: Nice but not innovative

  "It's nice, but not innovative."
  
  It is innovative. You're confusing inventive with innovative.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Jon Renaut (profile), Apr 28th, 2011 @ 6:38am

  
  

  For the greater good

  This is a really positive thing for the rest of the country that thinks more open sharing of knowledge/content is generally a good thing. Nearly everyone gives more leeway when it's done in the name of education, and hopefully soon we can point to FWK and their success as a concrete argument in favor of scaling back copyright laws.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Add Your Comment