Beneficiary Forms In Microsoft Word: Fill & Download for Free

I know very little about Jobs (didn’t see the movie or read the book; never owned any Apple products), but I’ve heard that of all the top tech millionaires and billionaires, he was one of the least charitable. Despite being one of the most visible tech leaders, I’ve never heard of any social activism or efforts to improve humanity. Compare with Wozniak. He used his money to put on tech and cultural events just because they were fun to do, and not seeking to make a profit.Instead, Jobs was ruthlessly litigious, suing a teen for previewing a soon-to-be-released Mac on his blog (imagine if Trump sued the press for leaks), trying to trademark the English word, “pod,” suing Samsung (or was it Google?) for using a swipe to unlock phones, shutting down Mac clone manufacturers, etc, etc — basically stifling free expression and competition. I mean, if your product is superior, why do you need to suppress the competition? If iPhones are superior to Samsung phones, whether in features or value, consumers will go to you. Who chooses a phone because of a swipe? If Macs are such great products, then they should outsell Mac-clones, right? Why not give consumers choice? And why threaten a teen — a huge Mac fan and advocate since he was 13yo — with a huge lawsuit when leaking is an internal corporate issue? Indeed, the main beneficiary of his blog were Mac consumers, not Microsoft or any other rival. Behind Jobs’ huge ego was clearly some insecurity about his products — that they wouldn’t sell on merit alone.By the way, the rationale for trademarking ”pod” was so that consumers wouldn’t be tricked into thinking that non-Apple products were made by Apple. But there were already a tried-and-true protection. Third party manufacturers put disclaimers like, “This is not made by or endorsed by Apple.” Just enforce that. Instead, Apple wanted to control a common English word from free usage by anyone. Now that’s ego! Had Apple been successful, I have no doubt that he would’ve done the same thing with “Pad” and maybe even, “Phone.”In retrospect, Jobs seemed to be guided by a belief that what benefits consumers is not what benefits Apple. Indeed, it was often seen as a threat. Hence, the tight tyrannical control of words, images (aka the big product unveilings), and consumer choice (as in almost none, if you choose Mac over PC/Windows, iOS over Android. But that’s not necessarily bad. Forced standardization makes tech support infinitely easier — albeit much more expensive for consumer).Now that I think about it, there is a lot in common between Trump and Jobs. And that’s not a compliment.Disclaimer: Again, I’m not very knowledgeable about Jobs so I may have mentioned events that occurred before Jobs re-joined Apple.

The market seems to be giving Google a pass on this deal it is not seen as adding value nor is Google's enterprise value down as much as removing the cost of the deal from Googles balance sheet will result in.The other common thread heard from the majority of analysts speaking about the deal is that Google is after the patents not the handset manufacturing part of the company.Addendum 8/16/2011Dow Jones Tech View reports By Therese Poletti;--Some believe preferential treatment Motorola has already received fromGoogle will continue--Few believe Google trying to create an Apple-like ecosystem--Google could develop special features in Android for Motorola phonesexclusively"When the dust settles from Google Inc.'s (GOOG) proposed deal to buy Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. (MMI), it's feasible that Microsoft Corp. (MSFT)might end up becoming one of the biggest beneficiaries of this $12.5 billionacquisition.Of course, this theory depends on how Google integrates Motorola Mobilityinto its business. It also depends on how much Google stays true to its wordsdelivered Monday, in which it practically swore an oath that it intends to keepthe Android platform open and that the main driver of the deal was to get accessto Motorola's fat portfolio of wireless patents--which would presumably benefitall companies in the Android market.But at least some believe that the preferential treatment Motorola hasalready received from Google may continue, in terms of getting early access toAndroid software updates. And that may give other makers of Android handsetssome pause."This would place other hardware vendors at a disadvantage and may lead themto question their commitment to the platform, potentially pushing them towardsother platforms," said Ovum analyst Nick Dillon, in a note on Monday, whomentioned specifically that Microsoft's Windows Phone platform would be the most obvious beneficiary.Few believe that Google is trying to create an Apple Inc. (AAPL)-likeecosystem, where the company's hardware and software development are tied at the hip..."I also read two different analysts who said that this deal would allow HP to take its failing WebOS operating system and license it to companies currently using Google's Android.

Strictly speaking that depends on how you acquired the referenced book. If your acquisition was subject to copyright, you are free to disseminate its knowledge; if subject to license under contract, you are bound by the contractual terms.If it was sold to you under Copyright, of course you can teach the concepts, that is what the western educational system is predicated on. If you make it a requirement that each student buys the book, you have just made the author an economic participant and beneficiary to your course. That is what motivates authors to share their knowledge.If the book was granted to you subject to a licensing agreement, as part of a course the author taught him or her self, then the waters get muddied. Now you are captive to that licensing scheme, including non disclosure and non circumvent.You cannot take internal Oracle teaching materials and teach Oracle DB principles without previous written agreement. The same goes for any large tech company extending the concept of intellectual property via contract. Today, somebody leaving employment at say Microsoft, would not dare publish or quote any teaching material that was issued subject to their employment contract.Intellectual property is a trade secret under State law. By extension its part of the modern employment contract.I have reviewed medical industry agreements, where the application and enforcement of contract trumps the free dissemination of knowledge under copyright. I have seen the contract for a genetics course that is subject to a license agreement that precludes putting said knowledge into practice, unless strictly tied to their process, materials and economic benefit.Science is predicated on free dissemination. A programming book based on licensing requirements, cannot by definition be science. Its not, its coding, not computer science. Coding books sold under copyright do not quote their sources and references, because its knowledge stolen from the licensor counter party.In other words, the answer depends on what terms you acquired the book(s).Copyright, yes absolutely. Always reference all your sources, its the right thing to do. You do not legally have to, but its been academic practice to do so for over two centuries. Copyright has traditionally been life of the author plus seventy years. Even if the author died two millennia ago and is beyond a doubt not subject to copyright, you should still quote your sources.With a contract based license, it depends entirely on the terms of the contract.Thanks for the ask, always a pleasure.