Slashdot Mirror

it's in the interest of that jurisdiction to ensure that people complete their tax returns accurately

Not necessarily for two reasons. First, it's in the government's interest for people who are entitled to deductions or credits to miss those deductions or credits. Second, it's in the (conflicted) interest of the members of the legislature to stay in office. Big tax preparers like Intuit and H&R Block have spent big bucks to convince legislators that only dirty commies would take tax money to drive private-sector tax preparers out of the market. (Source: "How the Maker of TurboTax Fought Free, Simple Tax Filing" by Liz Day; "CCIA's View on Government Competition")

Your own argument selectively and deliberately misinterprets reality.

If people wouldn't make content without DRM, you and I wouldn't be on this website for many reasons, including the fact that the much of the software - both commercial and open source - that supports it and allows us to access it would never have been developed in the first place. Heck, MS-DOS is often cited as becoming dominant in large part due to piracy. And, as one can see, the content industry hasn't melted down in the years since the Internet rose, either, despite a lack of DRM for a large chunk of it. People develop software, write music, make videos, and many other things for reasons other than money. Those who do make money off of it continue to profit despite how often DRM is circumvented now. One example is - surprise, surprise - Cory Doctrow himself, the author, who makes money giving his stuff away pretty much for free. Even ignoring all of the uses of it such as, say, retail software, work would be created for hire, and even relatively recently, studies show that fair use is more valuable to the economy than copyright enforced work.

At this point, copyright has been perverted from its original intent and has become a net public burden. If the companies were reasonable and stopped, say, copyrighting everything for all eternity and trying to mangle general purpose computers into devices that they control, then it wouldn't be a problem. But it is, and DRM is a symptom of the disease. It, and copyright enforcement and privacy in general, are part of a general thrust to remove the ability of the consumer to control their own devices and dictate what can and cannot be done with them. "Walled garden" computing platforms, chips that prevent firmware modification, attempts to legalize restrictions on resale of cars because of software, tractors, lockout chips... it's all part of the same general trend, and it's a dangerous one at that, with accompanying laws that they just keep trying to ram past voters even though they have made their opinion plain, each time hoping nobody will notice (SOPA, PIPA, etc.).

The increasing strength of copyright has become not only a net public burden, but outright dangerous. When this topic comes up, questions like these attempt to dismiss the full picture of just what content is, where it comes from, and how it has continued to exist and be produced. Usually tired questions such as "you wouldn't work for free, would you?," are thrown out, which are basically straw men. That particular straw man would probably take a few posts to answer thoroughly, but to be brief, most of the software that runs the Internet was developed in part or in whole on a volunteer basis, plus the removal of DRM and reform of copyright do not necessarily mean the end of copyright protections. "You wouldn't work for free, would you?" in this context is a question that essentially and deliberately ignores reality. These loaded questions try to portray DRM-enforced copyright as the One True Hope with an extremely tiny, simplistic and biased model of how the economy and society operate regarding copyrighted work. But DRM is not a hope in any sense of the term, unless you want everyone's devices to be controlled by a corporation and/or government, and if anything it's what should be feared.

Anyone who is reading this who is interested, I would invite you to read Richard Stallman's short essay The Right To Read. Stallman, while espousing many controversial points, has some pretty darn interesting insights. This is one of them, especially since things are already progressing towards a future similar to what was portrayed in that essay. It is worth the few minutes it takes to read it.

The only worthwhile "after DRM" is "no DRM." You may oppose the end of DRM, for whatever your reasons (altruistic, selfish, both, or neither), but if this is gibberish then either you haven't read enough about this, or you don't care to because you've already made up your mind, screw the consequences.

I have not RTFA to know whether it is adopting a strict definition or not, but non-copyrightable facts are not examples of fair use - they are examples of something which falls outside the copyright regime.

In this case I would suggest you at least throw a cursory glance at the actual report (PDF warning) because from page 15 they list some examples of how "Other Information Services industry (NAICS 519)" benefit of Fair Use and Other Limitations and Exceptions to Copyright Law (which is what this report is targeting). They list several statutory provisions like: 102(a) non-copyrightability of facts, 102(b) idea/expression dichotomy, 107 fair use: criticism; comment; news reporting; browser, cache copies; teaching; scholarship; research, 108 library uses, 109 first-sale doctrine, 512 ISP safe harbors, 302-304 copyright term and 105 no copyright in U.S. Government works. Granted, those are very brief descriptions of what are undoubtedly lengthy legalese but I hope that someone makes it clear that this report is not referring strictly to just fair use in the sense that you are speaking of. It's talking about fair use related industries that rely on provisions like the above.

I think a better description would be "All Limiting Exceptions to Copyright" than "Fair Use" for this particular study. Side note: I think you can see how Google and others benefit from the protection under cache copies to a very large degree.

Woah, dude, did you even read the thread? See what Bruce Schneier has to say and then come back. Also, having a java exploit is marginally less useful if you can't own the machine, and it's hard to own the machine if you don't know the OS. It's one more layer of security.

You haven't thought this through. It's pretty well accepted that a monoculture is bad for computer security. If you would like to discuss the issue, then I suggest you inform yourself on the research and arguments in the topic, and then you will be much better informed to make an insightful comment. Then we can talk.

Uh, no and this part of the site is suspect for it's treatment of Vista and Debian security. UAC was designed to be annoying and offers little if any real security. Others have questioned Vista's security improvement over XP and other versions of Windows, but the comparison is kind of like winning a gold star at the Special Olympics. To M$, monopoly power and business models are more important than your data integrity, privacy, the internet or general welfare of users and the world. If M$ spent $100,000,000 on UAC and "security" it was squandered but we can be sure the majority of it was used for advertising and other business model security. It is amazing that the knowlegable people who put the site together could claim that Vista security is "teh best ever, but bad vendors ruinz it" and then compare Debian's late problem with OpenSSL. Debian's mistake is serious but it's not in the same league as M$'s continuing failures.

i think you've missed the fact that the people going up against the *iaa is the Computer and Communications Industry Association meaning the organization is backed by as much business muscle as the *iaa, if not more so. this is not jimmy down the road or your mom and pop group going up against the *iaa here is a list of CCIA members http://www.ccianet.org/members.html now if you look at the membership, just two of the members alone could crush the *iaa together or at least tie up their resources for several years.

It is well known that FLOSS has fewer bugs per 1000 lines of source code. The bloat that went into Vista brought in plenty of bugs to be sure.

Hmm, yet you have no proof of anything, just that you think Vista is bloated. Sorry, there's nothing 'to be sure' about in your statement.

M$ gets stuff determined by the sales department. We know how well salesmen design systems.

So you're claiming that salesmen are doubling as software architechs at MS?

Linux is designed to be modular so the complexity of each piece is less. M$ has stuff where the browser installs code, printing a document can cause pieces of the file to be executed, etc.

Windows is modular as well. The browser installing code is an ActiveX control, FF has the same capabilities.

There are far more projects in FLOSS than there are coders in M$. More manpower, with properly filtered output results in more correct code.

Sorry, having more coders does not mean that the code ends up more correct. Another logic fallacy here..

If a bug bugs me, I can look at the code, file a bug report, or suggest a patch. There is no way that can be done with M$'s way of doing things. Vista release was as buggy as a Linux release candidate.

You can file a bug report with MS as well. Whether or not you understand the code, and how it all interrelates is debatable though. Your claim that Vista RTM is as buggy as a Linux RC is again nothing more than a statement you claim to be true with no actual facts. For myself, and many others, Vista has been exteremely stable. I've not had a single issue since I've installed the OS.

see Cyberinsecurity at http://www.ccianet.org/filings/cybersecurity/cyber insecurity.pdf

see release-critical bugs at http://bugs.debian.org/bugs/release-critical

Where have you seen transparent quality control like that at M$?

So transparent I can't even see it, as both of those links result in a 404. I don't need a bug list (although its there for any patch) to determine if an OS is buggy or not, I can see that by simply using the OS.

• M$ gets stuff determined by the sales department. We know how well salesmen design systems.
• Linux is designed to be modular so the complexity of each piece is less. M$ has stuff where the browser installs code, printing a document can cause pieces of the file to be executed, etc.
• There are far more projects in FLOSS than there are coders in M$. More manpower, with properly filtered output results in more correct code.
• If a bug bugs me, I can look at the code, file a bug report, or suggest a patch. There is no way that can be done with M$'s way of doing things. Vista release was as buggy as a Linux release candidate.

see Cyberinsecurity at http://www.ccianet.org/filings/cybersecurity/cyber insecurity.pdf

see release-critical bugs at http://bugs.debian.org/bugs/release-critical

Where have you seen transparent quality control like that at M$?

Geer and company stated that any uniform and ubiquitous OS could cause similar problems, so it is not as though this is a MSFT-only situation.

The NSA, meanwhile, used to mitigate the risk by using the same OS (*nix variant) compiled in different ways.

CCIA still has the report on its Website: http://www.ccianet.org/papers/cyberinsecurity.pdf.

The report is as true today as ever......

Will Rodger

They already do have "features" specific to their format.

Read "Microsoft's Approach to Disclosures of XML File Formats for Word 2003 and Excel 2003" available here (pdf warning) or you can view the Google "CCIA-XML" html version.

In a few years when Linux global desktop market share reaches 10% (10 x 10!) why will Linux be differnet than Windows? Specifically, other than not (yet!) being targeted by virus/trojan/{spy,mal}ware authors, what makes linux more secure than windows?

Because Linux is a moving target. Take look at DistroWatch sometime, there are more than one hundred distributions out there and you can't write a worm that'll infect them all. Linux might end up in the same situation as Windows but my bet is that even if it does, it'll never, ever become as bad as the situation Windows is in. Think about it, if you find a flaw in Windows then theoretically all Windows boxes will fall. I wouldn't be surprised if a common flaw was discovered that could take down a third, maybe even half of all Linux machines on the net but when it comes to Windows, one flaw could mean every single Windows machine out there. In some ways, thanks to it's dominance, Microsoft and Windows becomes a single point of failure for our infrastructure.

The only single point of failure for Linux systems is what they all have in common, the kernel, but even the kernel can be customized and configured to such an extent that exploiting all Linux machines at once would be very, very difficult (e.g. keep grsecurity, selinux in mind etc.). Not to forget, we also have the BSD's to replace Linux if things got really hairy.

Here are a some interesting links for you explaining this line of reasoning:
http://www.ccianet.org/papers/cyberinsecurity.pdf
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5081214.html?ta g=nl
http://netsecurity.about.com/cs/generalsecurity/i/ issue_mono.htm

This would be great news if you knew your apps/docs would only have to be parsed by Office dll's.
This was not the case reported last July.

I wonder if anything has changed?

Mr. Geer's report. You would think they would have learned from experience. I guess the USAF enjoys the "abuse". Some people(militaries) will have to learn the hard way I see.

Why does it seem that groups with "Industry" in them are bad news for the consumer/public? This group represents big business and their issues and to be surprised that they would take a payoff, if thats what they did, shouldnt surprise you. They support H1-B visas as well. Although emotions on these visas may be mixed, they certainly benefit the corporations first and the public second - anyone who thinks differently should perhaps read "The Grapes of Wrath". No big surprises here for me.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) is a nonprofit membership organization for companies and senior executives from diverse sectors of the computer and communications industry. CCIA's mission is to further our members' business interests by being the leading industry advocate in promoting open, barrier-free competition in the offering of computer and communications products and services worldwide.

So, now that Microsoft is a member, CCIA is working for them to further their member's business interests. Barrier-free competition means Microsoft shouldn't have to deal with annoying lawsuits.

IMHO, the announcement says the CCIA is now Microsoft's bitch.

Wait a second. According to the Press Release, "As part of this agreement, Microsoft will join the membership of CCIA".

This is extremely strange, especially seeing that CCIA are a member of te Open Source Development Labs.

So, though indirectly, Microsoft are now members of the Open Source Development Labs ! Could everyone repeat after me, wtf?

His payment was approved by the CCIA board, which includes Sun Microsystems, Yahoo and Oracle.

And OSDL and RedHat. Was the submitter trying to imply complicity between Sun and Microsoft by omitting those other members from that list?

An independant overview of Microsoft's "Word XML" and "Excel XML" can be found here in Google's format and herein PDF.

Quite interesting.

At a more fundamental level, a great report by some of the best:

Cyber InSecurity: The Cost of Monopoly

After the initial frustration and perplexity I thought "this can't be true".

I remembered reading the alleged letter and the first thing that surpirsed me is that it was not addressed to any person in particular. Strange in my book.

Although I did not read the full thing (it made me physically sick, as other /.er also noted) it sounded as a plausible thing for Dear SCO's Leader Darl to put in writing (indeed I recollect he has said more or same the same stuff in diverse occassions, he is nuts) as anything else he has ejaculated before.

But this morning I thought, who are these OSAIA guys? I went to their website and apart from their grandiose home page statement (" The Open Source & Industry Alliance (OSAIA) represents the interests of the broad array of companies, organizations, and individuals that comprise the open source community. We are our members' eyes, ears and voice in legislative, executive and judicial forums throughout the world") I could find very precious little.

Well, then where is a membership list? Nowhere to be found.

The forums? All empty.

The topics? All empty.

Explanation about the source of the fax? Nowhere to be found.

Then I decided to dig a bit more:

Part of the WHOIS search:
Domain ID:D96754855-LROR
Domain Name:OSAIA.ORG
Created On:23-Apr-2003 19:31:13 UTC
Last Updated On:17-Sep-2003 20:17:44 UTC
Expiration Date:23-Apr-2005 19:31:13 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:R91-LROR
Status:OK
Registrant ID:GODA-02937029
Registrant Name:Edward Black
Registrant Organization:CCIA
Registrant Street1:666 11th St., NW
Registrant Street2:Suite 600
Registrant City:Washington
Registrant State/Province:District of Columbia
Registrant Postal Code:20001
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.2027830070
Registrant Email:eblack@ccianet.org

Now go to ccianet.org and look at the membership: Read Hat, Sun, Oracle, Kodak, Yahoo and somehow mistifyingly Time Warner

So I googled for OSAIA and found this. Vapourware organization?

I will email them later on tonight in order to try to confirm where did they get the letter, but this certainly looks very interesting. If these people are in the side of OSS it is good news, but I wish they will be more careful about how they go about debunking SCO. Publicizing letters out of thin air without proper attribution or explanation is not a good tactic IMHO.

1. Microsoft Windows: Insecure by Design. The mainstream media is starting to realize that Microsoft products are especially insecure.
2. (PDF file): The Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) urges the Department of Homeland Security to stop using insecure (Microsoft) products. The computer industry attempts to educate those in government about the insecurity of Microsoft software.

We will always need new OS models as the needs of business and the technology of networks are always changing. A monoculture of either OS design or business model will always be inherently inferior than a wide playing feild that allows multiple approaches to solving the problems that business, information technology, media, and personal comunication pose to developers. The weakness that is discussed in this (now famous) report, are not unique to a Microsoft dominated network, but to any large network that is overly reliant on a single OS architecture.

Including one that is based on Linux, BSD or any other notoriously secure operating system. The problem lies in the replication of the same flaw from host to host (or router to router, server to server, server to host, etc). If a single point of weakness can be counted on occuring on every host in a network, then the network belongs to any script kiddie who knows of that weakness.

It is also important that development of a variety of designs is available in non-security areas of OS design as well, because performance will vary based on kernel design depending upon the task(s) that the host is required for. The mostly monolithic design of the Linux kernel provides superior service for most computing tasks than does a microkernel implementation, such as the HURD, but when the host is pperforming tasks that do not require a great number of context swaps a microkernel design will usually outperform a monolithic kernel design. There are also some newer models that further remove kernel function from services and program/hardware interfaces than the current microkernel designs that may well make context swapping irrelevant.

What I'm getting at in my rambling diatribe is this: You may not need the HURD, I may not need the HURD (I won't know until I play with it a bit), but it is impossible for either you or I to know that there is no reason to continue development of the HURD, or that there is no-one for whom the HURD is a superior choice.

CCIA and the report's authors have arrived at their conclusions independently. Indeed,
the views of the authors are their views and theirs alone. However, the growing
consensus within the computer security community and industry at large is striking,
and had become obvious: The presence of this single, dominant operating system in the
hands of nearly all end users is inherently dangerous.

- Has anyone actually read the report? It says right there - the views in the report are of the authors alone!

Fucking @stake!

Did he do this on his own, or as an @stake employee?

In the paper's (pdf) list of authors, he is listed as "Daniel Geer, Sc.D -- Chief Technical Officer, @Stake"

Also perhaps of interest is the fact that he is listed first of the paper's seven authors

I find it rather disturbing that a company can fire you for something you do of your own accord. What's next, are companies who like to suck up to MS gonna fire you for developing a linux program?

If your company has a financial stake in the success of X and you take deliberate action to reduce the success of X (in this case, making a public warning that the success itself results in harm to the public at large), then yes.

Did he do this on his own, or as an @stake employee?

The report itself stated quite clearly in several places that Dr Geer was the Chief Technical Officer of @Stake.

I can't find a disclaimer anywhere in the report saying that he wasn't representing @Stake, and yet he used it to back up his authoritarian position, and intentional or not it appear that he was speaking on behalf of the company he worked for.

Perhaps more details will emerge about what actually went on, but it does seem quite irresponsible to make it appear that you're speaking on behalf of a company if you're not... if that's what happened.

1. Microsoft doesn't use it for its own products. If .NET is so good, why? If someone said, "I would never eat this, but here is some for you", would you take what was offered?
2. Programs written in .NET are more easily decompiled. If you discover and implement an especially good algorithm, others may be able to see what you did. Maybe that is the reason for number 1, above.
3. All the tools are proprietary. The programmer and his employer become like dogs on a leash. Their fortunes are tied to the management decisions of the proprietary vendor. Computer company managements often make sink-the-company decisions; consider the .com self-destruction, for example. When your company uses proprietary tools, your company is dependent on the lifestyle of the proprietary vendor's management, the vendor's ability to hire and keep good people, the vendor's financial decisions, and the vendor's estimation of whether they want to invest more in the tools you are using.
4. My understanding is that the license agreement for .NET prevents a company from using .NET to compete with Microsoft in some areas. But how does a company know if software it develops will eventually compete with Microsoft?

1. Microsoft Windows: Insecure by Design
   The mainstream media is starting to realize that Microsoft products are especially insecure.
2. (PDF file): The Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) urges the Department of Homeland Security to stop using insecure (Microsoft) products.
   The computer industry attempts to educate those in government about the insecurity of Microsoft software.
3. Stupid Microsoft Tricks -- Why the Richest Company on Earth Feels it Needs to Cheat
   A famous industry columnist exposes an example of Microsoft's apparent dishonesty. When ordered by a court to produce all its email records concerning a company that alleges theft by Microsoft, there was a 35-week gap.

So I guess you would be fine if there were no safety requirements on cars and airplanes?

All I'm saying is that upon a casual inspection, it looks like this organization is a lobbying group with vested interests in seeing Microsoft fail. As such, anything they say that is anti Microsoft, is inherently untrustworthy regardless of whether or not their core statement is truthful. The most dangerous lies are not the big ones because these can be easily seen as false. The dangerous ones are those that cling to bits and pieces of obvious truth. This organization's stated purpose is to further its members business interests not to protect consumers or homeland security. Go here to see the list of member companies.

After all "open, barrier-free competition" is the only thing you are interested in.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. That is a quote excerpted from the CCIA's mission statement. It has nothing to do with my interests.

Amazing! A company whose tag line is "open markets, open systems, open networks, and full, fair, and open competition" urges the adoption of open source software? And The Inquirer posted this MS bashing news story?

Next thing you know, it will be linked off of slashdot. This is highly irregular behavior, and very newsworthy.

Slow news day?

CNet is running a peice on the Open Source And Industry Alliance an advocacy and lobbying group sponsored by the Computer & Communications Industry Association.

This is indeed great news. Now perhaps the OpenSource community can get behind this effort to politicise itself and vigorously advocate where it most counts, the halls of the U.S. Congress.

In its statment of principles and purpose, the OSAIA states:

Business, government and private individuals must be free to choose software and technologies that best suit their needs, independent of the methodologies or licenses used in their development.

The marketplace must be free of prejudice against open source software, whether through law, regulation, defamation or other means. OSAIA will act to achieve this goal."

This is a good start. The CCIA boasts a formidable stable of memebers including AOL, Kodak, Oracle, Fujitsu, Verizon, Yahoo and others.

There are several good resources on the web that are acting as clearinghouses for information that can be drawn upon as resources in this fight. Notably are TWikIWeThey , the Open Source Initiative , the Free Software Foundation.

Numerous weblogs are available as resources most notably Groklaw.
Pam has amassed an incredible wealth of links and facts surrounding the SCO v IBM issue. Another good site for legal info is the Daily Whirl which is a legal blog site index devoted to lawyers for lawyers covering among other subjects, copyright. GrepLaw and A Copy Fighter's Musings are two good places to start.

Finally, for those of you who want to develop good arguments against intellectual monopolies visit Boldrin and Levine's, Intellectual Property Page .

If no one posted it already, this link is interesting. It points to the summary of the complaints that started said case.

I was just looking forward to hear from it again.

17 pages, but if one cares to read, there is much more into it than "Media Player bundled with Windows is evil".

Computer & Communications Industry Association also filed an amicus brief in this case both at the district level and now at the appealate level arguing that this is the exact type of activity allowed under DMCA's exceptions and that SCC is not violating the DMCA. Press release can be found here.

Computer & Communications Industry Association also filed an amicus brief in this case both at the district level and now at the appealate level arguing that this is the exact type of activity allowed under DMCA's exceptions and that SCC is not violating the DMCA. Press release can be found here.

Computer & Communications Industry Association also filed an amicus brief in this case both at the district level and now at the appealate level arguing that this is the exact type of activity allowed under DMCA's exceptions and that SCC is not violating the DMCA. Press release can be found here.

'Nuff said.

If one thinks that the benefits from running this or that O.S. are just stability, usability, and price, and that he could change his working enviroment just to get away from some EULA's issues, he is plain wrong.

That is why the major issue, in this thread and many others, is not Linux vs Windows, but proprietary vs free software. Microsoft is probably the most notable example of how much harm can proprietary software do, with it's monopoly generating ever more monopolies.

But, specially developers, should take care of these issues. Even if one feels not int he mood of writing exclusively free software from now on, the free software tools for development will ensure they can do as they choose with the software they produce - some libraries require that the resulting software be free software too, but the compilers and design tools never do this. Market it as proprietary, or free, and absolutely no burdens on the final consumer.

http://www.ccianet.org/ec_complaint/members.pdf

Rep Berman spoke at our washington caucus 2 weeks ago where he announced the p2p self help bill he is working on. One of the more interesting things he said was that he never was interested in IP, and didn't know much about it before coming to Congress, but considering that he represented Hollywood, he figured he should get on the IP subcommittee to "represent his district."

Incidently, PTO head, James Rogan (formerly a Congressman from Orang County) pretty much said the same thing motivated him to get into IP issues which heknew next to nothing about before coming to Congress.

We have prepared on analysis of this bill andit is online here, much easier than reading through the 30 pages, a condensed outline version. We oppose the bill and sent a letter to Sen. Hollings yesterday saying so, we also cc: to all members of the Committee (inc. Sen. Lott). You can also read our press release from our front page here.

We do not want to see the Internet, and Internet commerce treated differently than non-internet commerce. We do not want discriminatory effects placed on the Internet, and wide ranging new regulations and sever legal penalties that will bankrupt many firms. If you conduct any business with a web site, you should oppose this bill!

We have prepared on analysis of this bill andit is online here, much easier than reading through the 30 pages, a condensed outline version. We oppose the bill and sent a letter to Sen. Hollings yesterday saying so, we also cc: to all members of the Committee (inc. Sen. Lott). You can also read our press release from our front page here.

We do not want to see the Internet, and Internet commerce treated differently than non-internet commerce. We do not want discriminatory effects placed on the Internet, and wide ranging new regulations and sever legal penalties that will bankrupt many firms. If you conduct any business with a web site, you should oppose this bill!

We have prepared on analysis of this bill andit is online here, much easier than reading through the 30 pages, a condensed outline version. We oppose the bill and sent a letter to Sen. Hollings yesterday saying so, we also cc: to all members of the Committee (inc. Sen. Lott). You can also read our press release from our front page here.

We do not want to see the Internet, and Internet commerce treated differently than non-internet commerce. We do not want discriminatory effects placed on the Internet, and wide ranging new regulations and sever legal penalties that will bankrupt many firms. If you conduct any business with a web site, you should oppose this bill!

Whoops, that's what happens when you accidently submit before previewing-- now with correct html:

We have prepared a section by section analysis of the bill that can be found here. Also you can read our press release opposing the bill.

Whoops, that's what happens when you accidently submit before previewing-- now with correct html:

We have prepared a section by section analysis of the bill that can be found here. Also you can read our press release opposing the bill.

Whoops, that's what happens when you accidently submit before previewing-- now with correct html:

We have prepared a section by section analysis of the bill that can be found here. Also you can read our press release opposing the bill.

We have prepared a section by section analysis of the bill that can be found here. Also you can read ,a href="http://www.ccianet.org/press/02/0418.php3"&g t;our press release opposing the bill.

We have prepared a section by section analysis of the bill that can be found here. Also you can read ,a href="http://www.ccianet.org/press/02/0418.php3"&g t;our press release opposing the bill.

We have prepared a section-by-section analysis of this bill that can be found here.

Enjoy!

We have prepared a section-by-section analysis of this bill that can be found here.

Enjoy!

Yes, you can find the complete non-settling state's proposal here. This is a redlined version as they made some alterations on this from their original one (not to be confused with the sellout DoJ/MS crafted settlement).

Enjoy, fun read!

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) submitted this filing as part of our 3 part Tunney Act filing. The other two parts are our legal analysis and an economic analysis by nobel winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) submitted this filing as part of our 3 part Tunney Act filing. The other two parts are our legal analysis and an economic analysis by nobel winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.