Slashdot Mirror

About libelf - 6 years ago Groklaw closed this "issue": http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20040722135616439 The varable names are the same in both headers, because they correspond to Tool Interface Standard (TIS) 1.1 (Oct 1993). http://webster.cs.ucr.edu/Page_TechDocs/pfmt11.pdf

This particular FUD is not about the Novell case, it's about the SCO-IBM case. (I.e. BEFORE the SCO-Novell case).

The SCO-IBM case had to be put on hold, because SCO didn't even own the copyrights on the disputed Unix code themselves (and that's the SCO-Novell case again).

Also, the day before judgement would be declared, SCO filed for bankruptcy so they didn't have to anymore.

It's easy to get confused trying to follow the pea under the three cups, but it's all on groklaw.net (left-side menu).

If you read this timeline over 6 years of litigation, you'll see that it's not easily condensed to a sound bite like "IBM copied our code!" "did not" "did so" etc. etc.

Captcha: aggrieve :-)
 

I think that this is part of the ELF code. See analysis here: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20040722135616439

In Gates v Bando the Tenth Circuit established the abstraction-filtration-comparison test that would become the standard in software copyright infringement. Specifically in the filtration step, all elements which are not protected by copyright must be removed from consideration. In this case, most of the code falls under scenes a faire: "expressions that are standard, stock, or common to a particular topic or that necessarily follow from a common theme or setting . .these external factors may include: hardware standards and mechanical specifications." Most of the code were simply declarations needed for compatibility and cannot be copyrighted.

This code was the last big unknown in this long sorry saga. Even if SCO owned the copyrights, (and hadn't distributed it under the GPL, and hadn't signed the UnitedLinux agreement, etc.) it is now crystal clear that SCO's Microsoft-funded anti-Linux campaign was based on a stack of frivolous law suits.

I think Darl's brother is scrambling to cover his backside so that when the disbarments and criminal charges come down, he has a chance to escape.

Groklaw (of course) has IBM's response to SCO's claims that these paltry examples are worth BILLIONS of dollars in copyright damages. None of the code they offered is protectable under copyright law. Some of it is BSD code that everyone is free to use however they want (if they include the copyright notice). A lot of it is header files that were not copy-and-pasted which are nearly impossible to protect under copyright law. Then they have some snippets of generic code. Given the size of the source code for Linux, it would be astounding if there weren't some similar snippets. The idea that this is proof that Linux violated any Unix copyrights is totally absurd. The idea that these generic snippets are what made Linux enterprise-ready is beyond insane.

The recent SCO v. Novell case decided that SCO never even owned the copyrights it was suing about. And then instead of the millions of lines of code they claimed were infringing, they presented this meager collection of totally unprotectable snippets. I sure hope SCO's lawyers get severely punished for perpetrating this fraud on the court for the past seven years.

Of course, this is retarded because with software there is no real distinction between the "diagram" and the "device". Source code and executable code are equivalent expressions of an abstract mathematical object. Software is entirely and completely math, and should be unpatentable for that reason.

The problem is that no one in the legal profession understands computation theory, so their intuitions about how computers work and what software is don't match the reality. As a consequence, for over 20 years we've had assorted bad precedents being set. A Groklaw member, PolR, wrote a very readable introduction to computation theory to try and explain the basics to them.

Robin is actually related to Pamela, PJ, I am not an IBM PR employee, Jones.

Here's the amicus brief written by the IEEE-USA president Professor Lee A. Hollaar. I direct your attention to footnote #28, which reads in relevant part:

It is unfortunate for purposes here that the early developers of programming language made their calculation-and-assignment statements look like mathematical equations so that they would seem familiar to scientists and engineers. But the common programming statement I = I + 1, which increments the value stored at location I, is essentially nonsense as a mathematical equation. Similarly, a computer program is a series of calculation-and-assignment statements that are processed sequentially, not a set of simultaneous mathematical equations that are solved for their variables.

(Freshly transcribed from the PDF; feel free to check for typos.)

Yes, I wrote it wrong when I said 1+1 instead of I+1 before. But however you write it, we're dealing with the successor function (either in general, or the successor of 1). It's related to the second Peano axiom as a function that helps us define the natural numbers (and thereby, the integers, rationals, reals, etc.).

But you knew that already, right? That's why you just threw up a [citation needed] rather than actually respond?

I suppose you must be two of a kind, with him calling the correspondence between programs and mathematics "cosmetic" rather than actually addressing it. To be fair, I suppose that proving the Curry Howard correspondence wrong would be a bit more of a challenge.

I mean, how do you disprove it or consider it "cosmetic" when the fine folks at MetaMath are writing out the foundations of mathematics as a computer program?

If you simulate a physical process on a computer, say, the sun going nova, you can look out the window and the sun will still be there (it hasn't actually gone nova). If you "simulate" a mathematical process on a computer, you end up with the same result as if you'd done it by hand (assuming you don't screw up).

You can read my submissions supporting Groklaw in the past (I have, what? Maybe 10 accepted SCO stories with Groklaw as a source? I don't remember any more.). I have trumpeted her site quite loudly for several years and cheered SCO's slow demise. I hope you're not going to lump me in with shills & astro-turfers. I honestly question how many of those there are, because PJ lumps *anyone* who disagrees with her in with them, or so it seems. I've also fought against Microsoft on OOXML and the rest and supported IBM's Rob Weir when discussing how much OOXML sucks ass (seriously, he's a good guy, his blog also has some information on wine making, if you're into that). If I'm some kind of shill who hates Groklaw or IBM for no reason, well, I must have been replaced by a doppleganger recently. Here are a few links that go allllll the way back to 2004, when hardly anybody knew who the hell Groklaw was and show me agreeing with and promoting the site. I've read her site daily since the RU days and remember when she had a hard time surviving a Slashdotting, before she moved to iBiblio. I think I contributed one or two of those early, hard-to-survive Slashdottings, for that matter.

That support is in the past, I'm afraid. PJ is a huge jerk, mostly in private, and you'll probably only see that if you disagree with her. I can give you her real email (it's close to the public email, pj@groklaw.net, which has more filtering), if you want me to prove that I've been in contact. I don't think it's a big deal to put that out here because she's more than capable of switching it if the spammers get hold of it.

She's had way more than three fallings-out, incidentally. But most of the people feel like they're the only ones. AllParadox is a good example because he wrote stories for Groklaw once upon a time. It's not like he's some nobody who lurked for a little while. It's more like almost anyone who worked with her closely got driven out. Except for Mathfox, I guess.

There are quite a few people she's parted ways with. Heck, ESR may be next on that list for saying that she "jumped the shark" when she attacked his friend, Jay Maynard (who got booted from Groklaw, even though he has nothing to do with TurboHercules the company; even if he's a friend of some of the founders thereof). His crime? Saying he felt threatened when IBM called the QPL-licensed Hercules emulator an "infringing platform." He's not Darl McBride. He's not a party to the EU complaint. He's a guy who dresses up in a Tron outfit and writes an emulator, for crying out loud. We're not talking "conspirator" here. But PJ sees "conspiracy" everywhere these days. I can't blame her, after SCO, but I won't agree, either.

You can read AllParadox's account of his departure here, incidentally.

Sadly, now, apparently, anyone who refers to "AllParadox" risks having their post deleted. If past complaints by former Groklaw regulars are any guide, anyone who naively trys to re-post a deleted post, or innocently inquires of PJ about the problem, also risks having their Groklaw account deleted.

See also Groklaw

Diana Ross was not available for comment's. Rejoicing software developer's liberally apply apostrophe's in the street's but are they celebrating too soon?

By the time I'm writing this, the comment to which I'm replying has a Score of 0 and is categorized as a "Troll" posting. When the discussion here started, it had moved up quickly to a score of 5 and was regarded as Interesting if not Insightful.

But then there were calls on Groklaw, such as this one, to rush over here to /. and use mod points against me.

I'm sure there's a huge number of very reasonable people on Groklaw, but there's PJ and a circle of people who use such schemes to suppress the very truth that Groklaw falsely claims to dig for.

I perfectly understand that /. is meant to be a self-moderating platform. However, in order for such a system to work, mod points must be used according to reasonable standards. If a posting disagrees with Groklaw, which my comment certainly did, but does so in a polite, factual, focused and on-topic way, there's absolutely no justification for categorizing it as a "Troll" posting. It's also unacceptable to vote it down to a score of 0. It's obvious that a posting that is less popular with a certain audience won't move up as quickly as another, or that it might not move up too much at all, but a score of 0 must be justified and in this case, if you read the original comment I'm referring to (here's a link), that is not the case.

I have complained to /. management over this organized misuse of mod points and hijacking of a neutral, opinion-forming platform (which is what /. has been for a long time) by another community that certainly has a lot of overlap (hence they have mod points here).

If this kind of attack is accepted and if the same people can misuse mod points again and again, this would mean that /. is at the mercy of the hardcore, unreasonable part of the Groklaw crowd that is a minority not only on /. but even on Groklaw itself.

Give it up Florian, you have been measure and found wanting.

IBM has done nothing wrong.

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20100408153953613

Good grief, read the earlier posts before commenting. Your lack of knowledge adds nothing to the discourse.

Again read this: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20100408153953613

IBM has done nothing wrong.

can we not go through this again? it's been debunked thoroughly.

This is the fault of Hercules trying to get IBM to license the way Hercules wants, not anything that is IBM's fault.

SCOTUS is looking into it (google "in re Bilski"), but no information is yet coming out: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100617102220583.

captcha: vulture :-)

• IEEE-USA's brief to the Supreme Court for Bilski, last year
• Groklaw discussion
• All the other Bilski briefs (for the Supreme Court case, begun 2009, decision pending)
• Bilski overview

• IEEE-USA's brief to the Supreme Court for Bilski, last year
• Groklaw discussion
• All the other Bilski briefs (for the Supreme Court case, begun 2009, decision pending)
• Bilski overview

Why do you insist others to produce possibly erronous summarization about what takes some five minutes to read yourself? But I'll be so kind to give you a snippet from the decision:

Those "certain assets" are set forth in more detail in Schedule 1.1(a) and do not include the excluded assets set out in Schedule 1.1(b) Under the plain language of the original APA, the copyrights were excluded from the transaction.

You can read APA from Groklaw or google for it. In the APA search for phrases schedule 1.1(a) and schedule 1.1(b). They are too long sections to summarize in sentence or two. But basically what was in tried in court is written in schedule 1.1(b) is part V. Intellectual Property which clearly says "All copyrights and trademarks" were excluded.

Does this suit you better?

It took time to add links to the footnotes of the text of the decision. Over time, in the way Groklaw works, the footnote text will become links to text versions of the associated documents, which link to the official court PDFs, and a link to the blog post will appear in the summary page here, or a child page. That's how Groklaw does things. The members contribute to fund the purchase of the documents from the court. Groklaw was a tiny bit slower than Ars Technica this time but in the fullness of time GrokLaw makes a better record that the Library of Congress has deemed worthy to record. This is certainly the best recorded copyright infringement case ever, and that's solely because of GrokLaw. Not only that, but the thorough documentation makes it a case study in all forms of intellectual property litigation and even all forms of extended litigation practice. Pamela isn't the fastest always, though she usually is because this case is a specialty - but her site is the definitive record of this series of court cases. Groklaw doesn't have the attention deficit disorder that /. suffers from, nor does it tolerate certain types of troll, nor obscenity. Pamela might have chosen the slashdot moderation system instead of the one she did given an adequate education and foresight in blogging and technology - but she didn't. She's not a geek like us, she's a paralegal and the decision point was more than seven years ago. It's a paralegal's blog and given the persistence and popularity of her site she chose well. Groklaw might have obsessive compulsive disorder in that it follows religiously minutia on a court case most people don't care about, but that's a different issue. Groklaw is thorough. It's a worthy reference for this specific topic, and the only one worth mentioning.

The site is also producing text-based documentation of the Comes V. Microsoft collection of documents. In Comes, the plaintiff forced production of a vast collection of documents that offer an interesting view into the internal operation of the Microsoft monopoly, and published them on their website which closed when Microsoft settled. Most of these documents were captured, and are being indexed by the Groklaw team. This is a worthy endeavor that could use help if you're interested.

Groklaw has no advertising - it's fully funded by its interested members (in this group I am proud to stand) and supported with servers and bandwidth by ibiblio because it's a noteworthy and popular endeavor that promotes openness. Ars Technica reports on major events in the case, and references their other articles on the case. Ars does this to attract page hits that drive their advertising funding. It's in no way similar to the way Groklaw works.

Groklaw is notable not just for this case but in providing an exemplary example to follow for documenting a notable legal case. This has never been done before in this way and Pamela Jones deserves considerable respect for inventing this method of preventing a miscarriage of justice. What these cases need more than anything else to secure justice is the full light of public knowledge of what's happening. Had that public awareness and thorough documentation provided by GrokLaw not been the case, an unpleasantly different outcome was almost certain.

For me GrokLaw is not just about this case though that is a prime focus now. It's about how we, the common geeks through our collective memory and obsessive attention to detail can derail the attempts to halt progress by seasoned lawyers who are ignorant of how things actually work, and inattentive to when they were inven

It took time to add links to the footnotes of the text of the decision. Over time, in the way Groklaw works, the footnote text will become links to text versions of the associated documents, which link to the official court PDFs, and a link to the blog post will appear in the summary page here, or a child page. That's how Groklaw does things. The members contribute to fund the purchase of the documents from the court. Groklaw was a tiny bit slower than Ars Technica this time but in the fullness of time GrokLaw makes a better record that the Library of Congress has deemed worthy to record. This is certainly the best recorded copyright infringement case ever, and that's solely because of GrokLaw. Not only that, but the thorough documentation makes it a case study in all forms of intellectual property litigation and even all forms of extended litigation practice. Pamela isn't the fastest always, though she usually is because this case is a specialty - but her site is the definitive record of this series of court cases. Groklaw doesn't have the attention deficit disorder that /. suffers from, nor does it tolerate certain types of troll, nor obscenity. Pamela might have chosen the slashdot moderation system instead of the one she did given an adequate education and foresight in blogging and technology - but she didn't. She's not a geek like us, she's a paralegal and the decision point was more than seven years ago. It's a paralegal's blog and given the persistence and popularity of her site she chose well. Groklaw might have obsessive compulsive disorder in that it follows religiously minutia on a court case most people don't care about, but that's a different issue. Groklaw is thorough. It's a worthy reference for this specific topic, and the only one worth mentioning.

The site is also producing text-based documentation of the Comes V. Microsoft collection of documents. In Comes, the plaintiff forced production of a vast collection of documents that offer an interesting view into the internal operation of the Microsoft monopoly, and published them on their website which closed when Microsoft settled. Most of these documents were captured, and are being indexed by the Groklaw team. This is a worthy endeavor that could use help if you're interested.

Groklaw has no advertising - it's fully funded by its interested members (in this group I am proud to stand) and supported with servers and bandwidth by ibiblio because it's a noteworthy and popular endeavor that promotes openness. Ars Technica reports on major events in the case, and references their other articles on the case. Ars does this to attract page hits that drive their advertising funding. It's in no way similar to the way Groklaw works.

Groklaw is notable not just for this case but in providing an exemplary example to follow for documenting a notable legal case. This has never been done before in this way and Pamela Jones deserves considerable respect for inventing this method of preventing a miscarriage of justice. What these cases need more than anything else to secure justice is the full light of public knowledge of what's happening. Had that public awareness and thorough documentation provided by GrokLaw not been the case, an unpleasantly different outcome was almost certain.

For me GrokLaw is not just about this case though that is a prime focus now. It's about how we, the common geeks through our collective memory and obsessive attention to detail can derail the attempts to halt progress by seasoned lawyers who are ignorant of how things actually work, and inattentive to when they were inven

It took time to add links to the footnotes of the text of the decision. Over time, in the way Groklaw works, the footnote text will become links to text versions of the associated documents, which link to the official court PDFs, and a link to the blog post will appear in the summary page here, or a child page. That's how Groklaw does things. The members contribute to fund the purchase of the documents from the court. Groklaw was a tiny bit slower than Ars Technica this time but in the fullness of time GrokLaw makes a better record that the Library of Congress has deemed worthy to record. This is certainly the best recorded copyright infringement case ever, and that's solely because of GrokLaw. Not only that, but the thorough documentation makes it a case study in all forms of intellectual property litigation and even all forms of extended litigation practice. Pamela isn't the fastest always, though she usually is because this case is a specialty - but her site is the definitive record of this series of court cases. Groklaw doesn't have the attention deficit disorder that /. suffers from, nor does it tolerate certain types of troll, nor obscenity. Pamela might have chosen the slashdot moderation system instead of the one she did given an adequate education and foresight in blogging and technology - but she didn't. She's not a geek like us, she's a paralegal and the decision point was more than seven years ago. It's a paralegal's blog and given the persistence and popularity of her site she chose well. Groklaw might have obsessive compulsive disorder in that it follows religiously minutia on a court case most people don't care about, but that's a different issue. Groklaw is thorough. It's a worthy reference for this specific topic, and the only one worth mentioning.

The site is also producing text-based documentation of the Comes V. Microsoft collection of documents. In Comes, the plaintiff forced production of a vast collection of documents that offer an interesting view into the internal operation of the Microsoft monopoly, and published them on their website which closed when Microsoft settled. Most of these documents were captured, and are being indexed by the Groklaw team. This is a worthy endeavor that could use help if you're interested.

Groklaw has no advertising - it's fully funded by its interested members (in this group I am proud to stand) and supported with servers and bandwidth by ibiblio because it's a noteworthy and popular endeavor that promotes openness. Ars Technica reports on major events in the case, and references their other articles on the case. Ars does this to attract page hits that drive their advertising funding. It's in no way similar to the way Groklaw works.

Groklaw is notable not just for this case but in providing an exemplary example to follow for documenting a notable legal case. This has never been done before in this way and Pamela Jones deserves considerable respect for inventing this method of preventing a miscarriage of justice. What these cases need more than anything else to secure justice is the full light of public knowledge of what's happening. Had that public awareness and thorough documentation provided by GrokLaw not been the case, an unpleasantly different outcome was almost certain.

For me GrokLaw is not just about this case though that is a prime focus now. It's about how we, the common geeks through our collective memory and obsessive attention to detail can derail the attempts to halt progress by seasoned lawyers who are ignorant of how things actually work, and inattentive to when they were inven

Come on guys. Groklaw has been covering this thing since the very beginning. The least you could do is link to the article there. Give a little respect to Pam Jones for following this long slog like a trouper.

Come on guys. Groklaw has been covering this thing since the very beginning. The least you could do is link to the article there. Give a little respect to Pam Jones for following this long slog like a trouper.

Patience...just wait for the dupe.

Come on guys. Groklaw has been covering this thing since the very beginning. The least you could do is link to the article there. Give a little respect to Pam Jones for following this long slog like a trouper.

Come on guys. Groklaw has been covering this thing since the very beginning. The least you could do is link to the article there. Give a little respect to Pam Jones for following this long slog like a trouper.

Patience...just wait for the dupe.

Come on guys. Groklaw has been covering this thing since the very beginning. The least you could do is link to the article there. Give a little respect to Pam Jones for following this long slog like a trouper.

Come on guys. Groklaw has been covering this thing since the very beginning. The least you could do is link to the article there. Give a little respect to Pam Jones for following this long slog like a trouper.

Patience...just wait for the dupe.

Come on guys. Groklaw has been covering this thing since the very beginning. The least you could do is link to the article there. Give a little respect to Pam Jones for following this long slog like a trouper.

Come on guys. Groklaw has been covering this thing since the very beginning. The least you could do is link to the article there. Give a little respect to Pam Jones for following this long slog like a trouper.

Patience...just wait for the dupe.

Thanks for citing her! However, the link to the red dress got lost and needs adding.

http://www.groklaw.net/

I can't wait for IBM to sue for all the time and money spent just to gather the source code:

Complying with the Court's Order involved more than 4,700 hours of work from more than 400 IBM employees. This does not include the time spent by IBM's counsel and consultants on this project, which was likewise considerable. IBM produced a total of more than 80 GB of source code and other electronic data to SCO, and more than 900,000 pages of paper (which were scanned and produced in electronic form on CDs).

Come on guys. Groklaw has been covering this thing since the very beginning. The least you could do is link to the article there. Give a little respect to Pam Jones for following this long slog like a trouper.

Come on guys. Groklaw has been covering this thing since the very beginning. The least you could do is link to the article there. Give a little respect to Pam Jones for following this long slog like a trouper.

I guess it depends on your point of view. For me for the last decade reading the mainstream tech press has been all about Microsoft spin detection. Of course now that we have the Comes collection we know why: Microsoft is all over the influencing mindshare thing, influencing "analysts" like Rob Enderle and Maureen O'Gara by funding their "research" or feeding them pre-release gems to make them seem prescient, paying for "studies" by IDC, Gartner and the rest to buy their results, advertising in publications that print favorable articles and so on. These things are all now a part of the official public record. Even here on slashdot it's pretty easy to tell the astroturfers from the people who are giving their real opinion and whether they're ignorant fools influenced by mindshare or cynical IT pros with long experience. The most beautiful illustration of this was the Vista threads where the number of paid slashdot bloggers must have numbered in the hundreds and their reality denial was absolute.

Anybody can scan this very thread for AC comments and make a list of Microsoft talking points. Then they can index those against the registered members and find out who's spouting the company's line and who isn't. If you can come up with a pro-Microsoft point of view that isn't echoed by three AC's, you might have something interesting - otherwise you're just repeating what you heard. Every Microsoft thread for the last five years is the same. "When Linux and OS-X are as popular as Windows they will have viruses too" is one of my favorite indicators of turfness. If you've posted this gem you deserve to be dismissed as an idiot until you've recanted. I'm pretty sure a scientific analysis of this phenomenon is publication-worthy if anybody's looking for a paper to write.

That crap might play on PC World (though you don't see it as much any more in the articles). Even on PCWorld and CNET and other mainstream press the comments are now mostly insightful, interesting and dismissive of Microsoft's efforts as they could possibly be. Even with paid bloggers and funded analysts Microsoft can't defeat the basic truths that their ability to provide innovation ended more than a decade ago. The world has changed. The value of classical reportage has diminished considerably. The vast majority of Internet content that people read isn't the reportage, it's the comments where individuals give their own experience, insight and opinion - not for pay but for the self satisfaction of being right the vast majority of the time. It's a self-reward, self-actualization game and even Microsoft's blogger budget can't overcome an entire world of bloggers disgusted with Microsoft products who want a future where they get new stuff that works.

I'll choose Microsoft for an example, although this sort of boilerplate is fairly standard. I quote from the license terms for Microsoft Office:

The software is licensed, not sold. [...] You may not:

• work around any technical limitations in the software;
• use the software in any way that is against the law;
• rent, lease or lend the software;

The first user of the software may make a one-time transfer of the software, and this agreement, directly to a third party.

And many other restrictions.

So Microsoft can (successfully, in the Central District of California) sue you for copyright infringement the moment you load Office into RAM after: fixing their product for them; using it for any purpose that is "against the law" (which law?); borrowing it from anyone; buying a 2nd hand copy.

You think that's ridiculous? The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California doesn't think so. They think that the EULA gives Microsoft exactly that right.

This is not hyperbole or speculation; this is now established case law in that District (pending appeal).

You don't think Microsoft would ever exercise this power? OK, pick a different name then. Adobe. Apple. SCO. Choose your poison.

Look, while I agree with some of the basic feeling you've put in here, I can't let this go.

Somewhere up the comment tree is someone with an exceptionally long view: all companies go out of business eventually. Thus, unless a company gives back to investors some profits investors eventually get nothing for their investment. It's true in theory but fortunately capitalism doesn't work that way in practice. Companies can persist for a very long time, change their mode from growth to utility and back again. They can pay dividends, investors can reap benefit from their voting rights or increased access to timely information that being a shareholder provides. They can, through their investment participate in the great things that a corporation can do through pooled capital. Ultimately a well-run company can pay out far more than is paid in adjusted for inflation in addition to the socially useful things they do like build dams, railroads and asteroid mines. Most don't.

You are correct that a "share" is a fraction of ownership of the corportation and so at any point in time is a nominal ownership of this vast pooled capital thing that is the corporation - so it does have point-in-time real value as well as a perceived value in the market. And so you're correct in a way, from a point of view.

But then your metaphor breaks down. Take, for example, Adaptec. Here's a company that has great products that, beset by poor management squandered huge opportunities until it's now being scuttled by an vulture fund. Novell is a future example. Then there's companies that really go off the rails, like SCO, which has taken half a billion dollars in paid-in capital and in their long history only turned a profit in one quarter, and a court later found they stole much of that. Then there are even worse examples, but you get the idea.

Now, that would be a fair comparison to an investment in a bar of gold if your investment were some certificate of shared ownership of a bar of gold in someone else's care. They could steal it. They could lose it. They could hire some fool to mind it. They could throw huge parties with the money you paid for your certificates of ownership (paper or digital) and laugh at what a fool you are and never buy any gold at all. If your investment were on the other hand an actual physical gold bar (or more commonly a stack of well-known gold coins) that was physically in your possession then to lose the actual intrinsic value of your gold they would have to come to where you kept it, overcome your security measures and probably risk some physical harm to their persons without the protection of either lawyers or distance. Now that's not the same thing.

So no, ownership of equities is not similar to ownership of a gold bar - but has some similarity to ownership of shares in one theoretically held by someone else.

Everyone on Slashdot will be whining about how patents shouldn't apply to nanotechnology, because all the new "inventions" are obvious, and anyway a duration of 2-3 years is far more appropriate for nanites, and really you shouldn't be able to patent them at all because they're so small, and the economics of stuff that small is just different

I haven't noticed a single Slashdot poster complain about patents relating to existing advances in nanotechnology. To say they would do this and pretend that it somehow weakens the case against software patents is just plain silly and dishonest.

I don't care to argue the minutiae of why software should or should not be patentable, for that would take a great deal more effort than I'm willing to put into a silly Slashdot debate. I will, however, point you to the following paper which presents a computer professional's argument against software patents: Computational Theory for Lawyers.

I doubt it will work with Google. If you want to look for prior art on some patent, where are you going to look? Yahoo? Bing? Google has so well served searching for information that their company name is now the verb for that activity. Anybody who thinks theres a current patent that can't be defeated by prior art is kidding himself. If you're Google, there's always prior art. Even Marconi's radio patents were invalidated eventually in favor of Tesla - who was dead by then.

Google paid $133,000,000 for On2 and they didn't just buy their VP8 Codec, they bought the entire company including customers, patents and cross-patent licensing agreements that date back as far as the early 1990's, engineers, executives and lawyers. Google got an awesomely good deal here - the price of On2 was severely depressed below its true value by the market conditions, which is why wise companies save up their cash in good times by the way. If there were a better company to buy for video encoding, who would know that better than Google? Google is Google. They know stuff. On2 by itself has a long history of mergers and acquisitions - it was once valued at $1B. On2's VP6 was selected as the Macromedia Flash 8 video codec. VP3 was the basis of Theora. In 2005 Skype licensed the On2 codecs, all current and future versions. It was licensed by AOL. Even Microsoft has licensed On2 technologies since 1997. Oh, and China. China's big, right? China's DVD format is based on On2 codecs.

If the H.264 patent licensing consortium MPEG LA (Founded, 1996) wants a fight, I think Google's got a fight for them and Google's loaded for bear.

So we've got On2 codecs and technologies used in Flash, YouTube, China, Microsoft's video, and vastly many others over a nearly 20 year span. It's endorsed and supported by ARM, AMD(ATI) and Nvidia. Um, this one is completely over. The guy that thinks the On2 codecs are derivative of H.264 may be reversing his entropy arrow, but really it doesn't matter any more than the squeaking of a mouse blocking a tank tread.

We've also got a proponent with deep pockets. Google turns a profit of $2B a quarter. That's $22M a day, 7 days a week. They can afford some good lawyers, and lots of 'em. Maybe all of 'em. And that's not considering they have enough cash on hand to buy Kansas. They can afford to keep up the good fight forever without so much as an entry on their SEC forms. They can be stubborn, too... who walks away from the China market? Stubborn and well funded does not a good troll target make.

Somebody might try to get an edge here, but to steal a Star Wars quote: "These Federation types are cowards. The negotiations will be short."

Or not... this is the sort of epic "Clash of the titans" legal brawl I'd like to see play out on groklaw, now that the SCO thing is pretty much over.

Groklaw has just turned seven, and SCO vs. IBM/Novell/Red Hat etc. cases are still going with nary a piece of evidence in sight.

Multiple screens and switching.

this was the original shout out requesting reader prior art:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071011205044141

about 10 comments into the discussion someone mentions this is exactly what the amiga had.

http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20071011205044141&title=M%24+Virtual+Desktop+Manager+licensed+by+IP+Innovation%3F&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=634370#c634821

Multiple screens and switching.

this was the original shout out requesting reader prior art:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071011205044141

about 10 comments into the discussion someone mentions this is exactly what the amiga had.

http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20071011205044141&title=M%24+Virtual+Desktop+Manager+licensed+by+IP+Innovation%3F&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=634370#c634821

The iPhone OS is pretty new so it's hard to know what will be found, if investigated. But if based on recent legal precedents, change won't come from US legal action.

At the end of 2008, Apple's Macintosh "walled garden" practices were brought before Judge William Alsup in the Apple vs Psystar case. Psystar filed counterclaims insisting that Apple's EULA was invalid because it was "tying" Mac OS X to Apple hardware. They were basically laughed out of court.

You can read Groklaw's analysis of that ruling, but my armchair lawyering just can't see too much difference between the OS X "walled garden" and the iPhone OS "walled garden" legally.

You're obviously not a programmer. Computer programming is no more a form of mathematics than engineering is. They both involve maths, but they are not maths.

This is a common misconception. I recommend you read An Explanation of Computation Theory for Lawyers because it walks through the whole thing. It's long but worthwhile.

tl;dr software is math, no exceptions.

5,533,183, entitled “User Interface With Multiple Workspaces for Sharing Display System Objects” which issued on July 2, 1996

5,394,521, entitled “User Interface With Multiple Workspaces for Sharing Display System Objects” which issued on February 28, 1995

Source: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IPvRH-1.pdf

Although Android is FOSS most companies that use it actually pay Google for integration services and apps. It's only free for the companies that don't do this, and HTC isn't one of those I don't think. So Android isn't always free even if it's FOSS.

Windows Phone 7 and Windows Embedded 7 are a rebranding. They have nothing to do with Windows 7. Perhaps they're also a rewrite but they've rebooted the development team twice in the past 2 years. It seems unlikely they've managed to develop a secure, robust, user friendly OS from scratch that's multi-platform friendly since the last reboot. Exceedingly unlikely, considering who they work for and that boss's output in the realm to date. If the products are of the poor quality one would expect from that history and the incredible depth of suck that is the history of Windows Mobile and Windows Embedded then the only thing this will accomplish is to rub off what little shine is on Windows 7 by associating it with products with absolutely no redeeming value.

Windows 7 doesn't quite suck as much as Microsoft's previous OS products. It seems relatively stable and for the most part doesn't suck all of the performance out of energy efficient platforms. The security seems to have somewhat more of a reasonable balance between insecure and unusable. It may one day reach 60% share on the desktop if Microsoft doesn't screw it up. It doesn't yet have enough positive inertia to tow sucktackular phone and embedded products into common acceptance and every bit of lift W7 gives up right now sets back a lot of other stuff.

Most likely what HTC has done here is pulled an EV1. The end result will probably be the same. Robert Marsh (headsurfer) became disgusted with the backlash (customer flight, hate mail, vilification in the press, death threats) from the one bad decision of paying $800k for Linux license from SCO under an NDA contract that let SCO spin the deal into more than $3M in the press. He sold out to a venture capital group. Everyone's Internet was absorbed by ThePlanet, removing the tarnish of the EV1 brand applied with this bad deal. EV1 is no more. This is very probably the end result that Microsoft was looking for in driving the HTC deal - threaten with lawyers and offer a sweet compromise with secret terms, filled with hidden poison. When all the geeks that adored HTC/Android for its openness vomit vitriol all over it for this sellout, they either abandon their Android efforts and embrace Windows Embedded 7, or wither and die. It's a win/win for Microsoft. That's some slick strategy - we'll see if it pays off. Like I said though, one day the details will be available on Groklaw. Note that absolutely none of this has anything to do with the relative value or merits of the platforms, software or IP claims. This is a very competetive IT phase, and it's best if your CEO isn't a pussy. It would also be good if when the Microsoft lawyers came calling everybody remembered that IT'S A TRAP! Novell is suffering some of the same abuse from their deal with the devil. If you dance with the devil, you will pay his fee.

SCO's case against IBM would have _some_ (and i say _some_) merit.

Actually, no, the Caldera / The SCO Group lawsuit never had any merit and it was learned through discovery that it was known by all the Caldera / The SCO Group insiders that there was absolutely no merit to their case from the onset.

After intensive and expensive internal attempts to find something that could be used to sue linux user's for a SCO Tax the Caldera / The SCO Group investigation found absolutely *nothing*. ie no evidence of any copyright infringement whatsoever.

Before this entire fiasco started it was known all the way to the top of their organization that there was no basis for their plans, yet they went forward with the scam anyway. Many people have lost their jobs, some have lost money and a few have actually lost their lives from this scam. If there were any justice this single fact uncovered in discovery would have resulted in fraud charges against the perpetrators of this scam long ago.

How is Windows a monopoly? I'm being serious, what constitutes a monopoly, what's the definition?

When a company engages in practices like this:

"A computer on every desk and in every home, running Microsoft software". This is the mission statement of Microsoft itself; it is the definition of the conditions under which Microsoft itself can declare overall victory.

Once a platform has reached a certain degree of support in the industry, it becomes self-perpetuating (for reasons discussed below).

from
Comes vs Microsoft exhibit PX3096

and this:

Bottom line do our best to show the great value of our software to these customers and ensure we get opaid(sic) for it under NO circumstances lose against Linux before ensuring we have used this program actively and in a smart way.

Comes vs Microsoft exhibit PX9685

Microsoft KNOWS they can't win on price or performance, so.. they bribe instead. They also know they can never be perceived to lose (e.g. London Stock Exchange case) because once the customers see what's going on and start to leave, they'll never come back.

How is Windows a monopoly? I'm being serious, what constitutes a monopoly, what's the definition?

When a company engages in practices like this:

"A computer on every desk and in every home, running Microsoft software". This is the mission statement of Microsoft itself; it is the definition of the conditions under which Microsoft itself can declare overall victory.

Once a platform has reached a certain degree of support in the industry, it becomes self-perpetuating (for reasons discussed below).

from
Comes vs Microsoft exhibit PX3096

and this:

Bottom line do our best to show the great value of our software to these customers and ensure we get opaid(sic) for it under NO circumstances lose against Linux before ensuring we have used this program actively and in a smart way.

Comes vs Microsoft exhibit PX9685

Microsoft KNOWS they can't win on price or performance, so.. they bribe instead. They also know they can never be perceived to lose (e.g. London Stock Exchange case) because once the customers see what's going on and start to leave, they'll never come back.

"OS/2 promptly ate my partition table and destroyed all my DVX, windows and dos partitions", by juuri

"This market also contains many companies that will give us their total support in establishing OS/2 as the next standard in personal computing. If we harness this support with a series of great products and great marketing, OS/2 will win", billg 1989

"I was super enthustiac that we shipped OS/2 , SteveO"

'The demos of OS/2 were excellent, crashing the system had the intended effect '

'In the Mopping Up phase, Evangelism's goal is to put the final nail into the competing technology's coffin, and bury it in the burning depths of the earth. Ideally, use of the competing technology becomes associated with mental deficiency, as in,

"he believes in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and OS/2." Just keep rubbing it in, via the press, analysts, newsgroups, whatever. make the complete failure of the competition's technology part of the mythology of the computer industry', Microsoft Evangelist 2000

He's had more money than he knew what to do with since he was 25.

How do you explain away Gates' sociopathic obsession with accumulating wealth and totalitarian market share, then?

He has no qualms about breaking the law to shave market share from the competition while still being just a hair's breadth from 100% all the while. What would you call that? Greed doesn't seem to cover it.

(And yes, the Foundation is just a continuation of the same demented war on civilisation.)

As for Jobs... he could be a lot less mercenary. But the legal obligations to shareholders - not to mention the megalomania of management - apparently leave public companies hidebound to perpetrate horrors on their market and consumers. (Including Adobe, who milk their category leadership for all it's worth.)

Sheri Fink certainly deserves recognition for her compelling story, but surely PJ over at Groklaw also deserves recognition from the mainstream media for her amazing work over the years.

PJ posts "Why I Believe IBM is Free to Sue The Pants Off TurboHercules" at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100408153953613