Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: groklaw.net

Stories and comments across the archive that link to groklaw.net.

Comments · 2,839

  1. Re:Dvorak is very good by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Interesting · on Advocating Dvorak
    You both know, of course, that the Gentoo guy is now working for Microsoft. And that Microsoft is into DRM and trying to subvert XML and the Open Document format.

    So what are you going to do when your new gentoo keyboard detects that your system has some of that nasty "open sores" stuff on it, and decides to do an "emerge MicrosoftDRMPlus"? It won't be the first time Microsoft used the keyboard controller to work around a bug in their OS (remember Windows 3x and using the keyboard controller instead of triple-faulting the 286 to go from protected mode back to real mode?)

    Will this happen? Not today, certainly, but eventually? Only time will tell.

  2. Re:When does it stop? by NickFortune · · Score: 1 · on More Patent Worries for Mobile Phones
    If I write the laws then NickFortune's patent is little more then a copyright on the design of the burnt chip but it sounds like you believe in a system where embodying anything which can be reduced to software in hardware prevents others from doing the same thing a different way.

    Nope. Actually I agree with you, I just didn't phrase that especially well.

    If I write the laws then I'd be tempted to allow a device that does foo by a certain method to be patentable. However, I would say that any such patent does not extend to any software involved in the device. That software may be copyrighted, but not patented.

    If after the software is removed from the picture, the remaining device is no longer novel, then you do not have a patent. If the device - sans software - is still patentable, then you can patent it.

    This would apply even if the software was embodied in clockwork, or by a systems of rods and levers. Suppose you invent a mechanical novelty nutcracker shaped like a monkey that cracked nuts by whacking them with a little hammer. You could implement that with cogs and levers, and it'd be hard to say why it shouldn't be patented. However the control sequence that defines the monkey's actions would be considered to be software, and would not be covered by the patent. That means that if I later use that sequence of actions in a video game, you couldn't sue me for patent violation.

    Basically, it's the Groklaw Definition.

    There is one area we disagree:

    If you come up with just a new method of manipulating data, no choice of setting or field of use should allow this to become patentable and hence protected from competition.

    You see, if we're writing the law here, then we don't need to be consistent with other areas of patents. The entire field of legislation is one gigantic exercise in Case Based Reasoning, and as such is largely a compendium of exceptions and special cases.

    So, since we're writing laws, we don't need to be consistent, because I job consists of writing exception handling code to deal with inconsistencies in external reality.

    We seem to be agreed that softwate patents are both harmful and unnecessary. So if the only reason to allow them at all is consistency, then it makes more sense to define software patents as a special case.

    The only question then is where should we draw the line. If I write the law then the line is: "No software patents, ever! No patents on data, nor on symbols. No patents on sequences of commands. Any patent infringemnt claim against software will always fail, irrespective of the other factors involved."

    Hopefully that's a bit clearer ;)

  3. First question by artifex2004 · · Score: 3, Funny · on New Open Source Magazine Launches

    You won't be hiring Maureen O'Gara, right? Hope not.

  4. Different audiences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Could Apple's Intel Desktop Threaten Linux?

    If there is a slugfest between Linux, OS X and Windows in Intel space, it'll come down to who has better inoperability between them (read: ability to handle universal binaries) as much as desktop issues. Given how hard the KDE and Gnome crowd have come but have yet to go to catch up with either Apple or Microsoft, playing catch-up with them isn't going to advance Linux on the desktop any more than it has already. Put a completely new desktop that strives to incorporate new ideas about user interfaces (remember BeOS?), give it ability to seamlessly run Windows apps (especially Office) and maybe you have a chance of competing.

    But is competing important? Invading Microsoft's turf will bring their crushing wrath down upon Apple. Merely a nuisance now, they'll take over from Linux as Microsoft's biggest headache. It'll be sad to watch Apple wither away once they're a direct threat to Redmond. But what does that mean for Linux? Absolutely nothing. Linux will continue with or without Apple in their space, and may ironically provide it breathing room while Microsoft focuses on crushing Apple.

    Incidently, an angle no one seems to be following is how moving to Intel puts Apple into line with DRM initiatives that Hollywood wants. Intel has been going there but IBM had not. Groklaw had an interesting spin on this at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200506061 95856716, but no other commentaries I've seen even touch this issue. Given how important this is to Apple, one wonders how important this was in Apple's decision to jump into Intel space.

    And finally, why switch to Intel when AMD's Opteron is currently king of the performance hill? That decision speaks volumes about what Apple thinks about Pentium D and Pentium M, and how they must feel that will put Intel back in the lead.

  5. Re:Good to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1 · on Trust in a Bottle

    Here's a list of the some of the current activity of SCO's various court battles.

    Quick update: SCO has filed a "report".


  6. Current events, calendar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative · on SCO Announces Q2 2005 Results

    Here's a list of the some of the current activity of SCO's various court battles.

    Quick update: SCO has filed a "report" stating that they will not be filing a motion for a preliminary restraining order against Autozone.

    Current events:

    • SCOvIBM: Four motions have been briefed, and a hearing was held on 21 May 2005. Judge Kimball is still considering these motions regarding the scheduling order, the motion to narrow the scope of IBM's 9th counterclaim, the motion to depose IBM's CEO, and SCO's motion to file another amended complaint. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out, with IBM and SCO apparently unable to agree entirely on what will remain sealed. Another discovery battle is shaping up around the issue of privilege logs, though the parties have agreed to consult with each other before making a motion to the court to resolve such disputes.

    • SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has taken Novell's motion to dismiss SCO's amended complaint under advisement, after the 25 May 2005 hearing.

    • RedHatvSCO: This case is still completely stayed. However, "if the claims or counterclaims in the pending SCO litigations change, and it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources for this court to consider whether the LINUX system contains any misappropriated UNIX system source code, or if there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues of this case, or the Utah litigation," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay.

    • SCOvAutoZone: The "60 days of limited discovery" regarding the preliminary restraining order have ended, and SCO has declined the opportunity to file a motion for a preliminary restraining order. Thus, the matter is stayed "pending further order of the court." In SCO's report to the court regarding the just completed discovery, SCO hints that it may file a motion to lift the stay to pursue claims "based solely on Autozone's migration to Linux," because they claim to have found "extensive copying ... of what SCO believes to be programs containing ... OpenServer code." This matter is unrelated to any copyright infringement action SCO could bring against a general Linux user.

    In summary:

  7. Current events, calendar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative · on SCO Announces Q2 2005 Results

    Here's a list of the some of the current activity of SCO's various court battles.

    Quick update: SCO has filed a "report" stating that they will not be filing a motion for a preliminary restraining order against Autozone.

    Current events:

    • SCOvIBM: Four motions have been briefed, and a hearing was held on 21 May 2005. Judge Kimball is still considering these motions regarding the scheduling order, the motion to narrow the scope of IBM's 9th counterclaim, the motion to depose IBM's CEO, and SCO's motion to file another amended complaint. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out, with IBM and SCO apparently unable to agree entirely on what will remain sealed. Another discovery battle is shaping up around the issue of privilege logs, though the parties have agreed to consult with each other before making a motion to the court to resolve such disputes.

    • SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has taken Novell's motion to dismiss SCO's amended complaint under advisement, after the 25 May 2005 hearing.

    • RedHatvSCO: This case is still completely stayed. However, "if the claims or counterclaims in the pending SCO litigations change, and it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources for this court to consider whether the LINUX system contains any misappropriated UNIX system source code, or if there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues of this case, or the Utah litigation," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay.

    • SCOvAutoZone: The "60 days of limited discovery" regarding the preliminary restraining order have ended, and SCO has declined the opportunity to file a motion for a preliminary restraining order. Thus, the matter is stayed "pending further order of the court." In SCO's report to the court regarding the just completed discovery, SCO hints that it may file a motion to lift the stay to pursue claims "based solely on Autozone's migration to Linux," because they claim to have found "extensive copying ... of what SCO believes to be programs containing ... OpenServer code." This matter is unrelated to any copyright infringement action SCO could bring against a general Linux user.

    In summary:

  8. Current events, calendar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative · on SCO Announces Q2 2005 Results

    Here's a list of the some of the current activity of SCO's various court battles.

    Quick update: SCO has filed a "report" stating that they will not be filing a motion for a preliminary restraining order against Autozone.

    Current events:

    • SCOvIBM: Four motions have been briefed, and a hearing was held on 21 May 2005. Judge Kimball is still considering these motions regarding the scheduling order, the motion to narrow the scope of IBM's 9th counterclaim, the motion to depose IBM's CEO, and SCO's motion to file another amended complaint. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out, with IBM and SCO apparently unable to agree entirely on what will remain sealed. Another discovery battle is shaping up around the issue of privilege logs, though the parties have agreed to consult with each other before making a motion to the court to resolve such disputes.

    • SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has taken Novell's motion to dismiss SCO's amended complaint under advisement, after the 25 May 2005 hearing.

    • RedHatvSCO: This case is still completely stayed. However, "if the claims or counterclaims in the pending SCO litigations change, and it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources for this court to consider whether the LINUX system contains any misappropriated UNIX system source code, or if there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues of this case, or the Utah litigation," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay.

    • SCOvAutoZone: The "60 days of limited discovery" regarding the preliminary restraining order have ended, and SCO has declined the opportunity to file a motion for a preliminary restraining order. Thus, the matter is stayed "pending further order of the court." In SCO's report to the court regarding the just completed discovery, SCO hints that it may file a motion to lift the stay to pursue claims "based solely on Autozone's migration to Linux," because they claim to have found "extensive copying ... of what SCO believes to be programs containing ... OpenServer code." This matter is unrelated to any copyright infringement action SCO could bring against a general Linux user.

    In summary:

  9. Current events, calendar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative · on SCO Announces Q2 2005 Results

    Here's a list of the some of the current activity of SCO's various court battles.

    Quick update: SCO has filed a "report" stating that they will not be filing a motion for a preliminary restraining order against Autozone.

    Current events:

    • SCOvIBM: Four motions have been briefed, and a hearing was held on 21 May 2005. Judge Kimball is still considering these motions regarding the scheduling order, the motion to narrow the scope of IBM's 9th counterclaim, the motion to depose IBM's CEO, and SCO's motion to file another amended complaint. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out, with IBM and SCO apparently unable to agree entirely on what will remain sealed. Another discovery battle is shaping up around the issue of privilege logs, though the parties have agreed to consult with each other before making a motion to the court to resolve such disputes.

    • SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has taken Novell's motion to dismiss SCO's amended complaint under advisement, after the 25 May 2005 hearing.

    • RedHatvSCO: This case is still completely stayed. However, "if the claims or counterclaims in the pending SCO litigations change, and it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources for this court to consider whether the LINUX system contains any misappropriated UNIX system source code, or if there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues of this case, or the Utah litigation," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay.

    • SCOvAutoZone: The "60 days of limited discovery" regarding the preliminary restraining order have ended, and SCO has declined the opportunity to file a motion for a preliminary restraining order. Thus, the matter is stayed "pending further order of the court." In SCO's report to the court regarding the just completed discovery, SCO hints that it may file a motion to lift the stay to pursue claims "based solely on Autozone's migration to Linux," because they claim to have found "extensive copying ... of what SCO believes to be programs containing ... OpenServer code." This matter is unrelated to any copyright infringement action SCO could bring against a general Linux user.

    In summary:

  10. Current events, calendar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative · on SCO Announces Q2 2005 Results

    Here's a list of the some of the current activity of SCO's various court battles.

    Quick update: SCO has filed a "report" stating that they will not be filing a motion for a preliminary restraining order against Autozone.

    Current events:

    • SCOvIBM: Four motions have been briefed, and a hearing was held on 21 May 2005. Judge Kimball is still considering these motions regarding the scheduling order, the motion to narrow the scope of IBM's 9th counterclaim, the motion to depose IBM's CEO, and SCO's motion to file another amended complaint. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out, with IBM and SCO apparently unable to agree entirely on what will remain sealed. Another discovery battle is shaping up around the issue of privilege logs, though the parties have agreed to consult with each other before making a motion to the court to resolve such disputes.

    • SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has taken Novell's motion to dismiss SCO's amended complaint under advisement, after the 25 May 2005 hearing.

    • RedHatvSCO: This case is still completely stayed. However, "if the claims or counterclaims in the pending SCO litigations change, and it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources for this court to consider whether the LINUX system contains any misappropriated UNIX system source code, or if there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues of this case, or the Utah litigation," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay.

    • SCOvAutoZone: The "60 days of limited discovery" regarding the preliminary restraining order have ended, and SCO has declined the opportunity to file a motion for a preliminary restraining order. Thus, the matter is stayed "pending further order of the court." In SCO's report to the court regarding the just completed discovery, SCO hints that it may file a motion to lift the stay to pursue claims "based solely on Autozone's migration to Linux," because they claim to have found "extensive copying ... of what SCO believes to be programs containing ... OpenServer code." This matter is unrelated to any copyright infringement action SCO could bring against a general Linux user.

    In summary:

  11. Current events, calendar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative · on SCO Announces Q2 2005 Results

    Here's a list of the some of the current activity of SCO's various court battles.

    Quick update: SCO has filed a "report" stating that they will not be filing a motion for a preliminary restraining order against Autozone.

    Current events:

    • SCOvIBM: Four motions have been briefed, and a hearing was held on 21 May 2005. Judge Kimball is still considering these motions regarding the scheduling order, the motion to narrow the scope of IBM's 9th counterclaim, the motion to depose IBM's CEO, and SCO's motion to file another amended complaint. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out, with IBM and SCO apparently unable to agree entirely on what will remain sealed. Another discovery battle is shaping up around the issue of privilege logs, though the parties have agreed to consult with each other before making a motion to the court to resolve such disputes.

    • SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has taken Novell's motion to dismiss SCO's amended complaint under advisement, after the 25 May 2005 hearing.

    • RedHatvSCO: This case is still completely stayed. However, "if the claims or counterclaims in the pending SCO litigations change, and it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources for this court to consider whether the LINUX system contains any misappropriated UNIX system source code, or if there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues of this case, or the Utah litigation," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay.

    • SCOvAutoZone: The "60 days of limited discovery" regarding the preliminary restraining order have ended, and SCO has declined the opportunity to file a motion for a preliminary restraining order. Thus, the matter is stayed "pending further order of the court." In SCO's report to the court regarding the just completed discovery, SCO hints that it may file a motion to lift the stay to pursue claims "based solely on Autozone's migration to Linux," because they claim to have found "extensive copying ... of what SCO believes to be programs containing ... OpenServer code." This matter is unrelated to any copyright infringement action SCO could bring against a general Linux user.

    In summary:

  12. Current events, calendar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative · on SCO Announces Q2 2005 Results

    Here's a list of the some of the current activity of SCO's various court battles.

    Quick update: SCO has filed a "report" stating that they will not be filing a motion for a preliminary restraining order against Autozone.

    Current events:

    • SCOvIBM: Four motions have been briefed, and a hearing was held on 21 May 2005. Judge Kimball is still considering these motions regarding the scheduling order, the motion to narrow the scope of IBM's 9th counterclaim, the motion to depose IBM's CEO, and SCO's motion to file another amended complaint. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out, with IBM and SCO apparently unable to agree entirely on what will remain sealed. Another discovery battle is shaping up around the issue of privilege logs, though the parties have agreed to consult with each other before making a motion to the court to resolve such disputes.

    • SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has taken Novell's motion to dismiss SCO's amended complaint under advisement, after the 25 May 2005 hearing.

    • RedHatvSCO: This case is still completely stayed. However, "if the claims or counterclaims in the pending SCO litigations change, and it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources for this court to consider whether the LINUX system contains any misappropriated UNIX system source code, or if there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues of this case, or the Utah litigation," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay.

    • SCOvAutoZone: The "60 days of limited discovery" regarding the preliminary restraining order have ended, and SCO has declined the opportunity to file a motion for a preliminary restraining order. Thus, the matter is stayed "pending further order of the court." In SCO's report to the court regarding the just completed discovery, SCO hints that it may file a motion to lift the stay to pursue claims "based solely on Autozone's migration to Linux," because they claim to have found "extensive copying ... of what SCO believes to be programs containing ... OpenServer code." This matter is unrelated to any copyright infringement action SCO could bring against a general Linux user.

    In summary:

  13. Current events, calendar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative · on SCO Announces Q2 2005 Results

    Here's a list of the some of the current activity of SCO's various court battles.

    Quick update: SCO has filed a "report" stating that they will not be filing a motion for a preliminary restraining order against Autozone.

    Current events:

    • SCOvIBM: Four motions have been briefed, and a hearing was held on 21 May 2005. Judge Kimball is still considering these motions regarding the scheduling order, the motion to narrow the scope of IBM's 9th counterclaim, the motion to depose IBM's CEO, and SCO's motion to file another amended complaint. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out, with IBM and SCO apparently unable to agree entirely on what will remain sealed. Another discovery battle is shaping up around the issue of privilege logs, though the parties have agreed to consult with each other before making a motion to the court to resolve such disputes.

    • SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has taken Novell's motion to dismiss SCO's amended complaint under advisement, after the 25 May 2005 hearing.

    • RedHatvSCO: This case is still completely stayed. However, "if the claims or counterclaims in the pending SCO litigations change, and it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources for this court to consider whether the LINUX system contains any misappropriated UNIX system source code, or if there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues of this case, or the Utah litigation," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay.

    • SCOvAutoZone: The "60 days of limited discovery" regarding the preliminary restraining order have ended, and SCO has declined the opportunity to file a motion for a preliminary restraining order. Thus, the matter is stayed "pending further order of the court." In SCO's report to the court regarding the just completed discovery, SCO hints that it may file a motion to lift the stay to pursue claims "based solely on Autozone's migration to Linux," because they claim to have found "extensive copying ... of what SCO believes to be programs containing ... OpenServer code." This matter is unrelated to any copyright infringement action SCO could bring against a general Linux user.

    In summary:

  14. Current events, calendar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative · on SCO Announces Q2 2005 Results

    Here's a list of the some of the current activity of SCO's various court battles.

    Quick update: SCO has filed a "report" stating that they will not be filing a motion for a preliminary restraining order against Autozone.

    Current events:

    • SCOvIBM: Four motions have been briefed, and a hearing was held on 21 May 2005. Judge Kimball is still considering these motions regarding the scheduling order, the motion to narrow the scope of IBM's 9th counterclaim, the motion to depose IBM's CEO, and SCO's motion to file another amended complaint. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out, with IBM and SCO apparently unable to agree entirely on what will remain sealed. Another discovery battle is shaping up around the issue of privilege logs, though the parties have agreed to consult with each other before making a motion to the court to resolve such disputes.

    • SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has taken Novell's motion to dismiss SCO's amended complaint under advisement, after the 25 May 2005 hearing.

    • RedHatvSCO: This case is still completely stayed. However, "if the claims or counterclaims in the pending SCO litigations change, and it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources for this court to consider whether the LINUX system contains any misappropriated UNIX system source code, or if there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues of this case, or the Utah litigation," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay.

    • SCOvAutoZone: The "60 days of limited discovery" regarding the preliminary restraining order have ended, and SCO has declined the opportunity to file a motion for a preliminary restraining order. Thus, the matter is stayed "pending further order of the court." In SCO's report to the court regarding the just completed discovery, SCO hints that it may file a motion to lift the stay to pursue claims "based solely on Autozone's migration to Linux," because they claim to have found "extensive copying ... of what SCO believes to be programs containing ... OpenServer code." This matter is unrelated to any copyright infringement action SCO could bring against a general Linux user.

    In summary:

  15. Current events, calendar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative · on SCO Announces Q2 2005 Results

    Here's a list of the some of the current activity of SCO's various court battles.

    Quick update: SCO has filed a "report" stating that they will not be filing a motion for a preliminary restraining order against Autozone.

    Current events:

    • SCOvIBM: Four motions have been briefed, and a hearing was held on 21 May 2005. Judge Kimball is still considering these motions regarding the scheduling order, the motion to narrow the scope of IBM's 9th counterclaim, the motion to depose IBM's CEO, and SCO's motion to file another amended complaint. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out, with IBM and SCO apparently unable to agree entirely on what will remain sealed. Another discovery battle is shaping up around the issue of privilege logs, though the parties have agreed to consult with each other before making a motion to the court to resolve such disputes.

    • SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has taken Novell's motion to dismiss SCO's amended complaint under advisement, after the 25 May 2005 hearing.

    • RedHatvSCO: This case is still completely stayed. However, "if the claims or counterclaims in the pending SCO litigations change, and it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources for this court to consider whether the LINUX system contains any misappropriated UNIX system source code, or if there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues of this case, or the Utah litigation," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay.

    • SCOvAutoZone: The "60 days of limited discovery" regarding the preliminary restraining order have ended, and SCO has declined the opportunity to file a motion for a preliminary restraining order. Thus, the matter is stayed "pending further order of the court." In SCO's report to the court regarding the just completed discovery, SCO hints that it may file a motion to lift the stay to pursue claims "based solely on Autozone's migration to Linux," because they claim to have found "extensive copying ... of what SCO believes to be programs containing ... OpenServer code." This matter is unrelated to any copyright infringement action SCO could bring against a general Linux user.

    In summary:

  16. Current events, calendar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative · on SCO Announces Q2 2005 Results

    Here's a list of the some of the current activity of SCO's various court battles.

    Quick update: SCO has filed a "report" stating that they will not be filing a motion for a preliminary restraining order against Autozone.

    Current events:

    • SCOvIBM: Four motions have been briefed, and a hearing was held on 21 May 2005. Judge Kimball is still considering these motions regarding the scheduling order, the motion to narrow the scope of IBM's 9th counterclaim, the motion to depose IBM's CEO, and SCO's motion to file another amended complaint. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out, with IBM and SCO apparently unable to agree entirely on what will remain sealed. Another discovery battle is shaping up around the issue of privilege logs, though the parties have agreed to consult with each other before making a motion to the court to resolve such disputes.

    • SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has taken Novell's motion to dismiss SCO's amended complaint under advisement, after the 25 May 2005 hearing.

    • RedHatvSCO: This case is still completely stayed. However, "if the claims or counterclaims in the pending SCO litigations change, and it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources for this court to consider whether the LINUX system contains any misappropriated UNIX system source code, or if there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues of this case, or the Utah litigation," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay.

    • SCOvAutoZone: The "60 days of limited discovery" regarding the preliminary restraining order have ended, and SCO has declined the opportunity to file a motion for a preliminary restraining order. Thus, the matter is stayed "pending further order of the court." In SCO's report to the court regarding the just completed discovery, SCO hints that it may file a motion to lift the stay to pursue claims "based solely on Autozone's migration to Linux," because they claim to have found "extensive copying ... of what SCO believes to be programs containing ... OpenServer code." This matter is unrelated to any copyright infringement action SCO could bring against a general Linux user.

    In summary:

  17. Current events, calendar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative · on SCO Announces Q2 2005 Results

    Here's a list of the some of the current activity of SCO's various court battles.

    Quick update: SCO has filed a "report" stating that they will not be filing a motion for a preliminary restraining order against Autozone.

    Current events:

    • SCOvIBM: Four motions have been briefed, and a hearing was held on 21 May 2005. Judge Kimball is still considering these motions regarding the scheduling order, the motion to narrow the scope of IBM's 9th counterclaim, the motion to depose IBM's CEO, and SCO's motion to file another amended complaint. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out, with IBM and SCO apparently unable to agree entirely on what will remain sealed. Another discovery battle is shaping up around the issue of privilege logs, though the parties have agreed to consult with each other before making a motion to the court to resolve such disputes.

    • SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has taken Novell's motion to dismiss SCO's amended complaint under advisement, after the 25 May 2005 hearing.

    • RedHatvSCO: This case is still completely stayed. However, "if the claims or counterclaims in the pending SCO litigations change, and it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources for this court to consider whether the LINUX system contains any misappropriated UNIX system source code, or if there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues of this case, or the Utah litigation," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay.

    • SCOvAutoZone: The "60 days of limited discovery" regarding the preliminary restraining order have ended, and SCO has declined the opportunity to file a motion for a preliminary restraining order. Thus, the matter is stayed "pending further order of the court." In SCO's report to the court regarding the just completed discovery, SCO hints that it may file a motion to lift the stay to pursue claims "based solely on Autozone's migration to Linux," because they claim to have found "extensive copying ... of what SCO believes to be programs containing ... OpenServer code." This matter is unrelated to any copyright infringement action SCO could bring against a general Linux user.

    In summary:

  18. Current events, calendar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative · on SCO Announces Q2 2005 Results

    Here's a list of the some of the current activity of SCO's various court battles.

    Quick update: SCO has filed a "report" stating that they will not be filing a motion for a preliminary restraining order against Autozone.

    Current events:

    • SCOvIBM: Four motions have been briefed, and a hearing was held on 21 May 2005. Judge Kimball is still considering these motions regarding the scheduling order, the motion to narrow the scope of IBM's 9th counterclaim, the motion to depose IBM's CEO, and SCO's motion to file another amended complaint. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out, with IBM and SCO apparently unable to agree entirely on what will remain sealed. Another discovery battle is shaping up around the issue of privilege logs, though the parties have agreed to consult with each other before making a motion to the court to resolve such disputes.

    • SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has taken Novell's motion to dismiss SCO's amended complaint under advisement, after the 25 May 2005 hearing.

    • RedHatvSCO: This case is still completely stayed. However, "if the claims or counterclaims in the pending SCO litigations change, and it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources for this court to consider whether the LINUX system contains any misappropriated UNIX system source code, or if there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues of this case, or the Utah litigation," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay.

    • SCOvAutoZone: The "60 days of limited discovery" regarding the preliminary restraining order have ended, and SCO has declined the opportunity to file a motion for a preliminary restraining order. Thus, the matter is stayed "pending further order of the court." In SCO's report to the court regarding the just completed discovery, SCO hints that it may file a motion to lift the stay to pursue claims "based solely on Autozone's migration to Linux," because they claim to have found "extensive copying ... of what SCO believes to be programs containing ... OpenServer code." This matter is unrelated to any copyright infringement action SCO could bring against a general Linux user.

    In summary:

  19. O'Gara Incident by Morosoph · · Score: 1 · on Linux Geeks To Take Over World
    The DOS was not the work of the Linux community.

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200505202 05027290

    More poor research on Rob Enderle's part.

  20. Nokia Offers Patents to Linux Kernel by anandpur · · Score: 5, Informative · on Stallman Unimpressed by Nokia Patent Pledge

    Some details at GROKLAW http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200505251 80125237
    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200505301 04251332&mode=print

  21. Nokia Offers Patents to Linux Kernel by anandpur · · Score: 5, Informative · on Stallman Unimpressed by Nokia Patent Pledge

    Some details at GROKLAW http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200505251 80125237
    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200505301 04251332&mode=print

  22. Re:Terrible Sunday News by team99parody · · Score: 2, Insightful · on No IE7 For 2k, Now In Extended Service
    Why/How can Firefox, which runs happily on W2K and others, offer better security, while IE cannot do the same on an OS developed by MS itself?

    That one's easy.

    It's a strategic decision of Microsoft's to provide poor security on older products, since their business model is extremely focused on getting recurring revenue from people upgrading to newer versions. Since businesses are running fine on the old versions, Microsoft needs to create problems with the old stuff to force them to upgrade.

    Fortunatelly the solution comes naturally with Microsoft's development process. Can you believe these guys go for months checking in software to their source control system without any peer review of users&customers like Linux gets.

  23. A great writeup of relevant OSS history by toby · · Score: 1 · on McVoy Strikes Back

    See Peter Salus' excellent series, The Daemon, the GNU and the Penguin serialised at Groklaw.

  24. A great writeup of relevant OSS history by toby · · Score: 1 · on McVoy Strikes Back

    See Peter Salus' excellent series, The Daemon, the GNU and the Penguin serialised at Groklaw.

  25. Re:So.. by zerbot · · Score: 1 · on VX30 Ad-Stats Code Online

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200505091 40911151

    Pay attention to the quotes from Stallman. Back in those days, everybody pretty much would have compiled their own, prebuilt binaries were largely confined to proprietary vendors targeting a particular platform.

    These days, with the standarization of libraries, and POSIX conformance being important, it is much easier to distribute binaries.

    I do see your point, but the historical perspective on the time is that Stallman probably never gave or sold anybody a binary in the first place. Of course, $150 was worth a lot more back then than it is now, and there's no way in hell that you could use his business model now to make enough to live on.

  26. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Pingtel Open Source VoIP Debuts in Europe

    Groklaw's credibility has been diminished for very specific reasons, including its censorship policy, hypocrisy and flouting Godwin's law.

    Let's be clear: PJ threw the first punch at MoG by publicly accusing her of lying. Thereafter, the Groklaw community regularly attacked MoG in the most vicious and personal terms. If someone was anonymously running a web site attacking me, I sure would want to find out who was behind it.

  27. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Pingtel Open Source VoIP Debuts in Europe

    Groklaw's credibility has been diminished for very specific reasons, including its censorship policy, hypocrisy and flouting Godwin's law.

    Let's be clear: PJ threw the first punch at MoG by publicly accusing her of lying. Thereafter, the Groklaw community regularly attacked MoG in the most vicious and personal terms. If someone was anonymously running a web site attacking me, I sure would want to find out who was behind it.

  28. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Pingtel Open Source VoIP Debuts in Europe

    Groklaw's credibility has been diminished for very specific reasons, including its censorship policy, hypocrisy and flouting Godwin's law.

    Let's be clear: PJ threw the first punch at MoG by publicly accusing her of lying. Thereafter, the Groklaw community regularly attacked MoG in the most vicious and personal terms. If someone was anonymously running a web site attacking me, I sure would want to find out who was behind it.

  29. Oh please... by tveidt · · Score: 1 · on "Get the Facts" Campaign Working
    This was already deFUDed a month ago.

    Groklaw article

    Great how Slashdot supports MS at recycling old and debunked FUD.

  30. Pfft! Information overload indeed! by killmenow · · Score: 2, Funny · on Information Overload Overblown, Says Gates
    I don't have a problem with information overload. Here's how I know:
    1. I have several e-mail accounts to deal with
    2. I chat on IRC daily
    3. I follow several USENET news groups
    4. I routinely post on a variety of message boards
    5. I subscribe to Mental Floss, SysAdmin Magazine and Columbus Monthly
    6. I read /. and technocrat and fark and El Reg and Something Awful and Google News and Groklaw and The Onion and Maddox and Ars Technica and USA Today and NewsForge every single day
    7. I use Stumble Upon to find random, new and interesting web sites
    8. ...AND I CAN'T GET ENOUGH!!!
    See, no problem at all!
  31. Groklaw calls Windows users Nazis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic · on Google Might Disappear in Five Years

    "The Windows community is slowly turning into a state of chaos, and now it boasts paranoid crackpots yearning for the Third Reich."

  32. Groklaw calls Windows users Nazis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic · on New Shoe Designed to Kick-Start Couch Potatoes

    "The Windows community is slowly turning into a state of chaos, and now it boasts paranoid crackpots yearning for the Third Reich."

  33. Researching prior art. by AltGrendel · · Score: 1 · on USPTO Issues Email Address Patent to Microsoft

    Once again, Groklaw comes to the rescue. Check out the sixth article down.

  34. Re:Pamela Jones EXPOSED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on 512MB GeForce 6800 Ultra Reviewed

    You complain about Maureen's excellent expose on PJ but you think PJ is nothing but perfect? LOL. Groklaw's credibility has been diminished for very specific reasons, including its censorship policy, hypocrisy and flouting Godwin's law.

    Let's be clear: PJ threw the first punch at MoG by publicly accusing her of lying. Thereafter, the Groklaw community regularly attacked MoG in the most vicious and personal terms. If someone was anonymously running a web site attacking me, I sure would want to find out who was behind it.

  35. Re:Pamela Jones EXPOSED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on 512MB GeForce 6800 Ultra Reviewed

    You complain about Maureen's excellent expose on PJ but you think PJ is nothing but perfect? LOL. Groklaw's credibility has been diminished for very specific reasons, including its censorship policy, hypocrisy and flouting Godwin's law.

    Let's be clear: PJ threw the first punch at MoG by publicly accusing her of lying. Thereafter, the Groklaw community regularly attacked MoG in the most vicious and personal terms. If someone was anonymously running a web site attacking me, I sure would want to find out who was behind it.

  36. Re:Pamela Jones EXPOSED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on 512MB GeForce 6800 Ultra Reviewed

    You complain about Maureen's excellent expose on PJ but you think PJ is nothing but perfect? LOL. Groklaw's credibility has been diminished for very specific reasons, including its censorship policy, hypocrisy and flouting Godwin's law.

    Let's be clear: PJ threw the first punch at MoG by publicly accusing her of lying. Thereafter, the Groklaw community regularly attacked MoG in the most vicious and personal terms. If someone was anonymously running a web site attacking me, I sure would want to find out who was behind it.

  37. Re:Brought to you by the letters A, B, C and D(vor by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1 · on Dvorak on the LinuxWorld Fracas
    DoS attack? Pure FUD. No evidence.

    Unless you count five (5) lines from the http log to be 'evidence'.

    And as I pointed out on Groklaw, the logs can be forged. There is no way to prove that a DoS attack occurred.

  38. How's it about Anti-Trust? by KwKSilver · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Begins anti-virus Software Development

    When there's been no anti-trust enforcement!? Just a slap on the wrist,and a "Naughty boys" scolding. So what if there's lawyers involved, when they are all Microsoft lawyers?

    Your point "b" is bullcrap and whiney bullcrap at that. No one above has complained that "Microsoft doesn't destroy desktop security segment with free AV..."

    Doesn't matter if its free or not, what's to keep them from giving their own AV special treatment & inside info, and thereby screw the non-MS AV players like they did to WordPerfect & Lotus 1-2-3 developers when preparing Office to nuke the competition back in the days leading to Win95? See, the complaint here. Nothing. And what would the DOJ do if they caught them at it? Nothing.

    Since there's no downside to destroying the competition, they may as well make a few extra bucks at it. Expect MS AV, AS and firewall to be mandatory with Foghorn. Expect to pay through the nose--or whatever orifice it amuses MS to extract it from--and on a regular basis, sucker.

  39. Automated Deployment of Firefox / OO.org by KagatoLNX · · Score: 2, Informative · on Updating Free Software in the Enterprise?

    A lot of people have seemed to think this question was about going totally Linux (and many claiming that the MS deal was a good "value").

    In case the question was about using FOSS on a Windows network (for the time being), the following might help.

    This tool is fairly useful for deploying Firefox on a network:

    http://firefox.dbltree.com/

    As for OpenOffice, I use central network location, see the setup guide (I think you have to run setup.exe with the -net option). I'm not sure what must be done from there to automate installation, we usually do it manually because Workstation installs of OOo (from a central network location) take seconds.

    As for the question of whether the MS deal was a "good value". First, let me say that there's more to "value" than cost. Also realize that $50000 per year might be cheaper than MS's $15000. Once you figure in MSCE training for an IT team and the increased labor it takes to run a Windows network you might be surprised. Believe me, once configured, Linux machines can be dead reliable and reimaged lightning fast, I do it for a living. That said, Firefox has saved me 8 hours per week at one client that only has 10 computers.

    Well, ask your purchasing department how many suppliers it has for, say, light bulbs. While more than a few places say "just one", I find universities in particular tend to have four or five suppliers solely for the purpose of leveraging one against the other for good pricing.

    What's the point of my story? The point is that MS as a single supplier means you will pay as much as they want you to. Of course it will always be "a little cheaper". In a software world with real competition, that will change.

    Regardless, it's worth pointing out that increasingly it is the case that people are choosing FOSS for reasons other than price:

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200504260 92929216

  40. Paul Murphy blows smoke once again by nadamsieee · · Score: 4, Informative · on Could Microsoft Buy Red Hat?

    GrokLaw readers will recognize Paul Murphy as the SYS-CON writer who likes to defend SCO. The statement from the ZDNet blog that should raise a red flag is this:

    The second most important threat facing them is that an IBM Linux on Cell offering gives the Linux and general open source communities an opportunity to rebel against Red Hat's pretense of selling support with free licenses rather than licenses with free support.

    Anyone who isn't an idiot knows that F/OSS business are supposed to sell support with their Free licenses, not the other way around. The only rebellion I see against traditional software vendors like Microsoft, not RedHat. This guy is just spreading FUD.

  41. Groklaw and prior art. by AltGrendel · · Score: 3, Informative · on Macrovision Applies for P2P Interdiction Patents

    Groklaw has an listing of a HOW-TO on prior art. You need to scroll down to the third article.

  42. Re:Now is the critical time for /.ers support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on LinuxWorld Senior Editorial Staff Resigns

    You can make sure you don't visit SysCon sites, at least with Linux browsers, with this script, which you'll need to snip out and run as root

    #!/bin/bash
    # from a suggestion by jjb
    # http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200505141 04521978
    #
    loc=127.0.0.1
    cat >>/etc/hosts NoThanksSysCon
    $loc coldfusion.sys-con.com
    $loc dotnet.sys-con.com
    $loc eclipse.sys-con.com
    $loc issj.sys-con.com
    $loc itsolutions.sys-con.com
    $loc jdj.sys-con.com
    $loc linux.sys-con.com
    $loc linuxbusinessweek.sys-con.com
    $loc mxdj.sys-con.com
    $loc pbdj.sys-con.com
    $loc symbian.sys-con.com
    $loc weblogic.sys-con.com
    $loc webservices.sys-con.com
    $loc websphere.sys-con.com
    $loc wireless.sys-con.com
    $loc www.sys-con.tv
    $loc xml.sys-con.com
    $loc www.linuxworld.com
    $loc www.sys-con.com
    NoThanksSysCon

  43. Re:A Chilling Effect by rpdillon · · Score: 1 · on Free Software Mag Interviews Sys-Con Publisher
    Yeah, exactly, because commenting has something to do with Journalism (huh?), and of course Pamela Jones doesn't mention anywhere that it is a non-commercial site, and she reserves the right to moderate as she sees fit. Oh wait, yeah she does:

    Comments Guidelines

    Groklaw is a noncommercial site. It's my home on the internet, and just like if I invited you to my home, I'd appreciate it if you helped keep it clean, tidy and a friendly place to visit.

    The Groklaw goal has always been civil speech and devotion to the truth, even when discussing those to whom we are opposed. Especially then. Groklaw has never been just a news site, althought it is a news site, because we have a purpose: to unFUD the FUD by laying out the facts. We pool our knowledge and work as a group. Our discussions require tolerance and politeness, so that we can focus on our goal.

    We don't need hatefulness, or crudity, or venom. The truth is enough. While I welcome your comments, kindly keep them on the topics at hand. I reserve the right to moderate, although I have no duty to do so. You are responsible for your comments. This is a legal research and antiFUD site and we work as a community on projects. Therefore, divisive topics are not appropriate here. Keep in mind that Groklaw has visitors from all over the world. I would like everyone to feel at home, so please stick to the one thing that we share in common, an interest in legal cases in the news, currently SCO v. Everybody.

    Consequently, I will delete any nasty or obscene remarks, any obvious trolling, any personal attacks, any illegal suggestions, any URLs to loathsome content or dangerous or annoying scripts, at a minimum. I reserve the right to remove user accounts as well. If you have any licensing instructions, include them in your comments. I will also remove misleading or incorrect statements or links thereto made by persons having an interest in the stock price of any company involved in any of the cases we cover on Groklaw, and no permission is granted to any such persons to reproduce the content of Groklaw.
    [Emphasis mine]

    This has nothing to do with journalistic integrity. Don't try to confuse the issue of whether or not it's OK to hunt someone down and publish personal information about them and their relatives with whether or not you can write whatever you want on someone else's private website, even after they've told you they won't tolerate certain behavior and reserve the right to ban/delete accounts/comments.

  44. Re:Huh? Does this man use his own dictionary? by aricusmaximus · · Score: 1 · on Free Software Mag Interviews Sys-Con Publisher
    "A reporter's job is to report the news, but reporting news doesn't mean you're a reporter."

    Wrong. As soon as you publish something as news, then you are a reporter. There is no such thing as a "reporter's" badge or a reporter's license. The only difference between being a amateur or professional reporter is if you get a paycheck out of it. Any formal requirement, such as a "Reporer's Licence" would be a inherent violation of your First Amendment rights.

    If PJ was not claiming to be a reporter, then you might have a leg to stand on. Unfortunately, you didn't take the 5-10 seconds to check the groklaw website and mission statement. To quote:
    • "IANAL. I am a journalist with a paralegal background"
    • "First, [Groklaw is] a journalistic enterprise..."

    "For example a policeman's job is to enforce the law, but if you or I enforce the law we are vigilantes, not policemen."

    Wrong again. Enforcing the law, inlcuding making citizen's arrest is not vigilantism.

    Two strikes. Care for a third?

  45. There are articles on groklaw about it by Hecatonchires · · Score: 1 · on LinuxWorld Editorial Machinations

    here and here.

    This is the bad article[google cache] in question, and it's really quite horrifying that they allowed it to be published.

  46. There are articles on groklaw about it by Hecatonchires · · Score: 1 · on LinuxWorld Editorial Machinations

    here and here.

    This is the bad article[google cache] in question, and it's really quite horrifying that they allowed it to be published.

  47. Re:The Credibility of Groklaw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll · on Free Software Mag Interviews Sys-Con Publisher

    Groklaw's credibility has been diminished for very specific reasons, including its censorship policy, hypocrisy and flouting Godwin's law.

    Let's be clear: PJ threw the first punch at MoG by publicly accusing her of lying. Thereafter, the Groklaw community regularly attacked MoG in the most vicious and personal terms. If someone was anonymously running a web site attacking me, I sure would want to find out who was behind it.

  48. Re:The Credibility of Groklaw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll · on Free Software Mag Interviews Sys-Con Publisher

    Groklaw's credibility has been diminished for very specific reasons, including its censorship policy, hypocrisy and flouting Godwin's law.

    Let's be clear: PJ threw the first punch at MoG by publicly accusing her of lying. Thereafter, the Groklaw community regularly attacked MoG in the most vicious and personal terms. If someone was anonymously running a web site attacking me, I sure would want to find out who was behind it.

  49. Re:The Credibility of Groklaw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll · on Free Software Mag Interviews Sys-Con Publisher

    Groklaw's credibility has been diminished for very specific reasons, including its censorship policy, hypocrisy and flouting Godwin's law.

    Let's be clear: PJ threw the first punch at MoG by publicly accusing her of lying. Thereafter, the Groklaw community regularly attacked MoG in the most vicious and personal terms. If someone was anonymously running a web site attacking me, I sure would want to find out who was behind it.

  50. Incidentally... by dacarr · · Score: 4, Interesting · on Free Software Mag Interviews Sys-Con Publisher

    PJ has her own pointers regarding what O'Gara did over here. Her side doesn't line up with Kircaali's statement - and under the circumstances, I'd believe her first.