Slashdot Mirror

can be found here. The interesting part is this:

The Zero-Knowledge software works using three servers, located at leased sites in scattered locations worldwide. Client software encrypts Internet access requests and information using three layers of public-key encryption software. Each of the three servers only knows part of the information needed to identify a user and the contents of an Internet session. Even Zero-Knowledge itself doesn't know the identity of the owner of particular pseudonyms, so it can't divulge that information if subpoenaed.

Of course implementation is everything, but I'm all in favor of any step towards ubiquitous encryption and pervasive privacy.

If you don't remember Corel sold its jBridge technology to Graphon in exchange for 25% ownership a little over a year ago. This "Bridge" technology that will allow linux clients to run Windows applications is just an extension of what Corel started. I wouldn't think it would be too expensive, given Corel's share in this company and their vested interest in seeing Linux take off.

Some more info on my previous post, and based upon a quick web search (gotta love NorthernLight):

Microsoft Claims Victory in $1 Million Oracle Bounty

Microsoft's Press Release for that date, which strangely doesn't specifically mention the contest

MS Press Release...scroll thru the usual PR BS to find some "real" data on the benchmark.

---------
Question: How do I leverage the power of the internet?

1. Microsoft can create clean room Java implementations.

   Duh! Can we say Kaffe? Japhar? Can we say "Sun has explicitly stated that this is ok for a very long time, even when HP threatened to do the same thing"?

   So, what exactly is new here? To me, the Judge just said "snow is white, grass is green, and MS can create Java clean room implementations". All three things are facts which have been known for a long time.

2. Microsoft's current products embody Sun's intellectual property.

   Another non-issue. Isn't that what the entire contract was about, the fact that Microsoft was licensing Java technology from Sun? So therefore it obviously follows that Microsoft products have Sun's Java technology in them?

3. Issue of Microsoft violating Sun's "Java" trademark.

   This to me seems also like an extremely straightforward point. Sun only allows certain Java products to officially use the logo and Java trademark; these are ones that pass their compatibility tests at minimum, and most likely ones that are based on their actual intellectual property. Clean room implementations do not a priori fit this category, so they can't officially bear the Java logo or name. (Unless Sun of course decides to explicitly give them this right.)

   So, if Microsoft follows Sun's rules, they can bear the logo and name, if they don't, they can't. This applies regardless of clean room implementation or not.

   This also seems to be another clear-cut issue unaffected by Judge Whyte's rulings (except peripherally, meaning that determining Microsoft violated the contract with Sun also means determining Microsoft violated use of the Java trademark).

The only significant thing here is that Judge Whyte has decided that Microsoft violated the Java license by not passing the compatibility tests. Why the emphasis? Because this is what the trial is about in the first place! (See here.)

This trial was not originally about clean room implementations; it's been known from the beginning that is acceptable. It's only about whether Microsoft had a contractual obligation to comply with the full Java spec and Sun's compatibility tests. From that regard, Judge Whyte's "preliminary rulings" are equivalent to deciding the trial: Microsoft is guilty.
----------