Slashdot Mirror

I'm not opposed to this in principle, but isn't it technically a bill of attainer

No.

The classic definition for a bill of attainder is "A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial" (e.g., here).

Did ZTE receive a trial on this and we somehow all missed it? Specific citations welcome.

Rep. Curt Weldon : Thank you. Let me see if I can liven things up here in the last couple of minutes of the luncheon. First of all, I apologize for being late. And I thank Bob and the members of the caucus for inviting me here.

...

But the point is that when John Hamre briefed me, and gave me the three key points of this change, there are a lot of unanswered questions. He assured me that in discussions that he had had with people like Bill Gates and Gerstner from IBM that there would be, kind of a, I don't know whether it's a, unstated ability to get access to systems if we needed it., Now, I want to know if that is part of the policy, or is that just something that we are being assured of, that needs to be spoke. Because, if there is some kind of a tacit understanding, I would like to know what it is.

Because that is going to be subjected to future administrations, if it is not written down in a clear policy way. I want to know more about this end use certificate. In fact, sitting on the Cox Committee as I did, I saw the fallacy of our end use certificate that we were supposedly getting for HPCs going into China, which didn't work. So, I would like to know what the policies are. So, I guess what I would say is, I am happy that there seems to be a comming together. In fact, when I first got involved with NSA and DOD and CIS, and why can't you sit down with industry, and work this out. In fact, I called Gerstner, and I said, can't you IBM people, and can't you software people get together and find the middle ground, instead of us having to do legislation.

...

Rep. Curt Weldon : Thank you. Let me see if I can liven things up here in the last couple of minutes of the luncheon. First of all, I apologize for being late. And I thank Bob and the members of the caucus for inviting me here.

...

But the point is that when John Hamre briefed me, and gave me the three key points of this change, there are a lot of unanswered questions. He assured me that in discussions that he had had with people like Bill Gates and Gerstner from IBM that there would be, kind of a, I don't know whether it's a, unstated ability to get access to systems if we needed it., Now, I want to know if that is part of the policy, or is that just something that we are being assured of, that needs to be spoke. Because, if there is some kind of a tacit understanding, I would like to know what it is.

Because that is going to be subjected to future administrations, if it is not written down in a clear policy way. I want to know more about this end use certificate. In fact, sitting on the Cox Committee as I did, I saw the fallacy of our end use certificate that we were supposedly getting for HPCs going into China, which didn't work. So, I would like to know what the policies are. So, I guess what I would say is, I am happy that there seems to be a comming together. In fact, when I first got involved with NSA and DOD and CIS, and why can't you sit down with industry, and work this out. In fact, I called Gerstner, and I said, can't you IBM people, and can't you software people get together and find the middle ground, instead of us having to do legislation.

...

The parent didn't say "agreements." The only agreements that you could be talking about here deal with infrastructure, and eliminating them would just lead to redundant infrastructure. Woohoo.

There is a solution to promoting competition which doesn't involve this problem, it was implemented in 1999, but it's only ever applied to DSL because in 2002 the FCC decided to classify other ISPs as "information services" rather than as "telecommunication services."

In other words, this is one more way in which the current FCC's decision has screwed us.

Yes, and it was Kevin Martin who classified Cable service as an information service to relieve them from having to open up their networks to all competitors as the telephone companies had been reluctantly doing.

I need a cite for this.

FCC Classifies DSL as Information Service [fcc.gov]

BTW, you do realize the cable service is not the same as internet service right? So if you do understand this, I'm not sure we are in disagreement. If not, there is our problem.

In what respect do you believe is cable service different from DSL in this context? And while I do disagree with you in this assertion, I have a somewhat awkward assurance of your error that Kevin Martin also disagrees with you as can be seen in the link I supplied above.

Without it, all that would happen is a little inconvenience and a few companies would have to limit who they sell to or find another way to reach people.

Yes, that entire common carriage thing was such a nuisance what with those regulated utilities having to open up their networks to allow for competition. And we can all see exactly how well this decision has worked our given that most of us here in the US pay more for crappy service than most of the rest of the developed world. And while we're resting on our laurels, let's not forget Comcast, who has achieved the distinction of being recognized as having the worst customer service out of any corporation in our country.

The FCC has basically ignored 47 years of precedence in order to enact some political agenda. Read the filing. It lists all it's supporting evidence near the beginning. It is huge.

Given that the internet, as we think of it today, hasn't been around for 47 years, what are you talking about? In fact, it was the common carriage rules which made it possible for all of those independent ISPs to exists.

On another note, how is it that you can make all these assertions without knowing who Kevin Martin was, what his leadership over the FCC did and what effect it had over this entire process?

The Portland case doesn't really say that. It basically says that information services use telecommunication services to develop and deliver the information services. It in essence says cable companies were telecommunication companies when they offer telecommunications services carrying information services over their infrastructure.

http://www.techlawjournal.com/...

The news brief you linked to was about the FCC using this to develop and roll out broadband because it now has authority that can restrict or override local franchising boards.

I don't think it is a matter of being able to switch between the two rather that the lines between the two are getting blurred. For instance, you use a telecommunications service to transmit an information service but when it is IP telephony (like Vonage), you are transmitting a telecommunications service over a telecommunications service as if it was an information service.

Utter crap, insightful my ass.

You're taking a fairly clear case, such as Google's use of Java APIs (which are being used by Google as if they were completely free and under public domain, even though a really big chunk of Oracle's business is in tight integration of Oracle database products with Java, which is technically their property as it was Sun's), and trying to extend it to cases that are really, really unclear. ... Just like it is with a lot of those other technologies you rattled off, many that are at least partially IN the public domain and can be derived from as is their nature as object oriented languages.

You know you're reading something stupid when someone opens with a baseless statement that blatantly confuses lay-speak and legal-speak. Public Domain does not mean "published where other people can see it", it means "copyright or patent expired/does not apply/has been broadly licensed to everyone under an unrevocable license (e.g. BSD-esque license)". If Java is copyright then C and C++ are as well, every major modern language was invented after 1960 so the Mickey Mouse is a Cunt Copyright Act protects everything from around 1930 onward.

The owners of C suing C++? What are you talking about? Someone...maybe one of the various Unix variation's owners...who owns some of the algorithms behind the stdio apis suing Bjarne Stroustrop?

So you can't read but feel compelled to make broad statements anyway?
int printf(char *format_string, ...);
This is an API, the TFA is claiming that APIs are copyright which makes:
namespace std { int printf(const char *format_string, ...); }
A derivative (C++) work that requires a license. To hammer the obvious point, we're talking what I just showed you, not the code inside those functions, just the declarations — the return type, the name, the parameter types and parameter names. [C/C++ is a bad example because both came out of AT&T so are legally okay; Java, however, is derived from C++ so Sun/Oracle owes AT&T several trucks filled with money]

And wouldn't they get sued themselves for deriving from earlier works if that were true?

If Oracle's legal team weren't overreaching idiots then they would have realised the rather horrible implication, yes.

In a nutshell, I know how many of you are Android fanboys and I understand that there will be some who whine about Oracle suing Google over their misuse of their technology, but basically anyone even slightly familiar with Android's Java implementation knows that it's not quite "real" Java. And Microsoft got their pants sued off for doing basically the same thing (and people didn't complain so much about the end of programming as we knew it because it was Microsoft), so there is certainly a precedent for this lawsuit.

The first statement demonstrates your own bias more than it does about everyone else; rather than addressing the argument, just call them idiots and beneath notice, I'm sure that is intellectually honest. FYI, Microsoft licensed the Java Trademark not the copyrights, MS signed a contract that said they would faithfully implement the Java standard and be allowed to call it Official Java in return. MS decided "fuck that shit" and implemented it wrong so that it wasn't compatible but they labelled it "Sun Java Compatible" anyway despite the fact it wasn't. Sun sued them for contract and trademark violation.

Google doesn't call Android "Sun Java", they call it Android. Your attempt to paint the cases as even related let alone similar is either ignorant or dishonest.

However, it's awful doubtful to me that the Netscape people will have a solid case to sue everyone who uses javascript, and that Bjarne Stroustroup will get sued for C++ by some Unix property

I think Wine and ReactOS have not been targeted because they aren't big enough to be worth the major bad PR.

I agree that ReactOS is pretty insignificant at the moment (although I do have hopes for it), but Wine is the poster-child for running Windows apps on non-Microsoft platforms. I think it is definitely big enough to be on the radar.

Example, what about WISE ?

I don't see how WISE could be considered to be similar. I found it quite difficult to get any real details about the case, since most reports are vague about the details. However, according to the summary in Tech Law Journal:

"Bristol had a contract with Microsoft that commenced in September 1994, and expired in September 1997, under which Microsoft provided Bristol with source code for Windows NT 3.0 and earlier OS software. Microsoft was not obligated under this contract to provide Bristol with Windows NT 4.0 or 5.0 source code, and Microsoft has not provided it to Bristol. Bristol and Microsoft negotiated, but did not reach, a contract to provide 4.0 and 5.0 source code."

So it appears that Microsoft had contracted to supply the source to v3.0, and Bristol complained when MS wanted more money for a contact for 4.0 and up. That is nothing like what people are claiming that they will do with Mono.

A open standard isn't really enough : http://tuxdeluxe.org/node/296

What a stupid article. It complains because Microsoft implemented the standards strictly. I have always found it amusing that people complained when the file format of Office 2007 was different to the standardised Office Open XML (due to later changes in the standard), but then Micrsoft also copped flak because they implemented the ODF standard rather than the extensions used by OpenOffice.org. It seems that embracing and extending is good, but only if you are not Microsoft.

Go away, lying revisionist troll.

The lawsuit in 1997 against Bill's Microsoft by Sun was about contract violation. Microsoft had a contract to distribute java, not their own proprietary version of java, but bona fide java true to the published specifications. The allegations, proven in court, were that Microsoft aimed to harm to Java platform, violated the Sherman Act by illegally monopolizing and illegally maintaining aon the Intel-compatible PC OS market and the web browser market and the office productivity suite market. Microsoft was also illegal tying products, and illegally entering into exclusive dealing and exclusionary agreements (violation of Sec 1 of Sherman Act), and engaging in copyright infringement, and restraint of trade and unfair competition. It was also attempting to illegally start a monopoly in the server operating system market.

• Complaint 1997 Java case.
• Sun's complete filings in 1997 case
• Sun v. MS Case History page
• Sun's press releases on the case
• Sun v. MS Settlement agreement
• Sun Summary - 2002 antitrust case
• US District Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore, ruling granting Sun's motions [PDF], Dec. 23, 2002
• Court Order re the Injunctions, January 21, 2003 [PDF]
• District Court Rules MS Must Carry Sun's Java

Not only do you Microsoft toads ruin the economy, you make the net more expensive and create security problems. It'd be just fine if DHS started checking hard drives during entry or exit at the US borders and nuked any and all NTFS partitions they find. HFS, FFS, UFS, or EXT would be put on instead. Give a few months warning first and hand out Fedora CDs to those getting a warning. Then after the deadline, bam.

Yet in AT&T v. Portland the federal court ruled that local or state governments did not have the authority to require open access to other ISP's.

Rep. Curt Weldon : Thank you. Let me see if I can liven things up here in the last couple of minutes of the luncheon. First of all, I apologize for being late. And I thank Bob and the members of the caucus for inviting me here.

...

But the point is that when John Hamre briefed me, and gave me the three key points of this change, there are a lot of unanswered questions. He assured me that in discussions that he had had with people like Bill Gates and Gerstner from IBM that there would be, kind of a, I don't know whether it's a, unstated ability to get access to systems if we needed it. Now, I want to know if that is part of the policy, or is that just something that we are being assured of, that needs to be spoke. Because, if there is some kind of a tacit understanding, I would like to know what it is.

Because that is going to be subjected to future administrations, if it is not written down in a clear policy way. I want to know more about this end use certificate. In fact, sitting on the Cox Committee as I did, I saw the fallacy of our end use certificate that we were supposedly getting for HPCs going into China, which didn't work. So, I would like to know what the policies are. So, I guess what I would say is, I am happy that there seems to be a comming together. In fact, when I first got involved with NSA and DOD and CIS, and why can't you sit down with industry, and work this out. In fact, I called Gerstner, and I said, can't you IBM people, and can't you software people get together and find the middle ground, instead of us having to do legislation.

...

Rep. Curt Weldon : Thank you. Let me see if I can liven things up here in the last couple of minutes of the luncheon. First of all, I apologize for being late. And I thank Bob and the members of the caucus for inviting me here.

...

But the point is that when John Hamre briefed me, and gave me the three key points of this change, there are a lot of unanswered questions. He assured me that in discussions that he had had with people like Bill Gates and Gerstner from IBM that there would be, kind of a, I don't know whether it's a, unstated ability to get access to systems if we needed it. Now, I want to know if that is part of the policy, or is that just something that we are being assured of, that needs to be spoke. Because, if there is some kind of a tacit understanding, I would like to know what it is.

Because that is going to be subjected to future administrations, if it is not written down in a clear policy way. I want to know more about this end use certificate. In fact, sitting on the Cox Committee as I did, I saw the fallacy of our end use certificate that we were supposedly getting for HPCs going into China, which didn't work. So, I would like to know what the policies are. So, I guess what I would say is, I am happy that there seems to be a comming together. In fact, when I first got involved with NSA and DOD and CIS, and why can't you sit down with industry, and work this out. In fact, I called Gerstner, and I said, can't you IBM people, and can't you software people get together and find the middle ground, instead of us having to do legislation.

...

Rep. Curt Weldon: Thank you. Let me see if I can liven things up here in the last couple of minutes of the luncheon. First of all, I apologize for being late. And I thank Bob and the members of the caucus for inviting me here.

...

But the point is that when John Hamre briefed me, and gave me the three key points of this change, there are a lot of unanswered questions. He assured me that in discussions that he had had with people like Bill Gates and Gerstner from IBM that there would be, kind of a, I don't know whether it's a, unstated ability to get access to systems if we needed it. Now, I want to know if that is part of the policy, or is that just something that we are being assured of, that needs to be spoke. Because, if there is some kind of a tacit understanding, I would like to know what it is.

Because that is going to be subjected to future administrations, if it is not written down in a clear policy way. I want to know more about this end use certificate. In fact, sitting on the Cox Committee as I did, I saw the fallacy of our end use certificate that we were supposedly getting for HPCs going into China, which didn't work. So, I would like to know what the policies are. So, I guess what I would say is, I am happy that there seems to be a comming together. In fact, when I first got involved with NSA and DOD and CIS, and why can't you sit down with industry, and work this out. In fact, I called Gerstner, and I said, can't you IBM people, and can't you software people get together and find the middle ground, instead of us having to do legislation.

...

Rep. Curt Weldon: Thank you. Let me see if I can liven things up here in the last couple of minutes of the luncheon. First of all, I apologize for being late. And I thank Bob and the members of the caucus for inviting me here.

...

But the point is that when John Hamre briefed me, and gave me the three key points of this change, there are a lot of unanswered questions. He assured me that in discussions that he had had with people like Bill Gates and Gerstner from IBM that there would be, kind of a, I don't know whether it's a, unstated ability to get access to systems if we needed it. Now, I want to know if that is part of the policy, or is that just something that we are being assured of, that needs to be spoke. Because, if there is some kind of a tacit understanding, I would like to know what it is.

Because that is going to be subjected to future administrations, if it is not written down in a clear policy way. I want to know more about this end use certificate. In fact, sitting on the Cox Committee as I did, I saw the fallacy of our end use certificate that we were supposedly getting for HPCs going into China, which didn't work. So, I would like to know what the policies are. So, I guess what I would say is, I am happy that there seems to be a comming together. In fact, when I first got involved with NSA and DOD and CIS, and why can't you sit down with industry, and work this out. In fact, I called Gerstner, and I said, can't you IBM people, and can't you software people get together and find the middle ground, instead of us having to do legislation.

...

he shocked the gathered bigwigs by declaring that the industryâ(TM)s approach to hoarding patents was an abuse of intellectual-property rights and risked undermining its future

The fucking irony, Dr. Grove... You may be a great man, and deserve respect for your accomplishments, but you should also be excoriated for your truly underhanded and evil business practices. You single handedly put Intergraph out of the hardware business by stealing the Clipper chip's back side L2 cache technology, after making dozens of promises to Intergraph regarding access to the Pentium Pro, the first Intel chip to use the patent, and which as a result of the new L2 bus, more than doubled the performance of the Pentium on a per clock basis. This one patent you stole from Intergraph *_MADE_* Intel performance. Without the back side L2 cache bus, no Intel chip since the Pentium would have performance worth a damn. Same for all the others who adopted it--IBM, SUN, AMD, MIPS, Fujitsu, Hitachi, pretty much every CPU maker. The difference was, they all legally licensed the patent, and paid royalties. You, Dr. Grove, are a f--king thief.

http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/intergraph/Default.htm

Things such as birth dates and astronomical data aren't subjected to copyright protection.

That's not for lack of trying, though.

This is probably the most disturbing thing about the whole AIG mess.

The house just passed what is in all likelihood a Bill of Attainder: http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm

We all know that the average Congressman is an idiot. However, they almost all lawyers too, so they should know better. In fact there was more than one speech on the House floor mentioning this fact. But still the House leadership went ahead.

It goes without saying that they did this for political expediency. The news says they voted to tax the bonuses, and that all anybody will remember. When it fails in the Senate or fails the final vote or is ultimately found unconstitutional, it probably won't be front page news.

On the other hand, if they are serious, what does that say about the current leadership? The Constitution is very clear and unequivocal about this. That they would even attempt it suggests a contempt for the Constitution that at the very least meets the same level of which Bush is often accused, if not exceeds it.

And if they are ultimately successful, then look out.

I actually took a screen shot of it. Then went to a window to see if the apocalypse was happening. Sun working with microsoft?!

You're kidding, right? Sun has been in bed with Microsoft since shortly after the Java thing was settled. Interestingly that "in bed" link has some extremely telling content permanently removed links, especially including this link: Sun and Microsoft Announce New Identity Specifications and Additional Measures for Product Interoperability which goes to a "Content Removed" page. Wow, trying to bury the truth already? Hooray for the internet archive! You might also be interested in Sun/Microsoft Q&A with Greg Papadopoulos. It's interesting that Sun is too stupid to put a year in their datestamps. Did they not expect to exist past 2005? I certainly stopped even considering them as a solution to anything in 2004...

That's a good idea, one I might adopt. But, electronic signatures have been "wholly enforceable" ever since Clinton signed the Electronic Signatures Bill.

They have apparently overturned it

For the same reasons that Sony took the staple-article doctrine of patent law as a model for its copyright safe-harbor rule, the inducement rule, too, is a sensible one for copyright. We adopt it here, holding that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties

They can claim a difference all they want, but scotus has overturned betamax. There is no clarity anymore, and it has noticeably chilled technical innovation since then.

The ISP I worked for just recently folded up due to AT&T's DSL pricing structure. The writing had been on the wall for years, but we hung on as long as we could.

Back in '99 Ameritech was our ILEC, and as they were preparing to roll out their DSL network they actually said that they wouldn't be competing in the DSL market themselves, but would instead do the wholesale side and have other ISPs do the internet services side. That was probably BS, but it didn't matter anyway because they were shortly bought by SBC.

SBC dragged their feet for years, with a very limited initial roll-out in our area. As of now there are still a number of remote terminals in our LATA that haven't been equipped with RDSLAMS, and it seems never will. SBC used their deployment schedule as a bargaining chip against the states that were doing things they didn't like, such as allowing communities to deploy their own telecom infrastructure.

Now AT&T is rolling out their new U-Verse fiber to the neighborhood service. Competing ISPs have no way to get this much faster service wholesale, and AT&T is actively pushing people to convert from their DSL to U-Verse. Our speculation is that no further DSL DSLAMS or RDSLAMS will be rolled out, and that their DSL network and support will continue to degrade. Their answer to any customer that complains will be to switch to U-Verse.

At the same time as the U-Verse roll-out they announced they will be raising the base circuit cost to ISPs by 50%. That was the nail in the coffin for us. The rate we paid for just the individual circuit was already about what the end-user could get the full service at the same speed directly from AT&T. That was before paying for the back-haul circuits to AT&T, our backbone charges, staff, equipment, and other facilities. As a result we had to price our DSL much higher than AT&T, and although our service and support was much better than AT&T's it was extremely difficult for customers to see beyond the bottom line (though many regretted it after it was too late).

SBC / AT&T has been lobbying hard to get out of the Telecomunications Act of 1996, especially the provision that they had to provide access to their DSL service. The first blow was back around 2001 IIRC when they managed to remove DSL as a tariffed product, so they could charge competing ISPs different rates than they charged their own ISP. The next blow was when they got the FCC to classify DSL (and future internet service offerings like U-Verse) as a data service in FCC Order 05-150, which completely removed the requirement for AT&T to provide ISPs wholesale DSL products. If it was politically feasible I'm sure AT&T would turn off every competing ISPs DSL right now, and it would be (mostly) legal to do so. Instead, though, it seems they are going to slowly phase out DSL by offering a faster service that they never had to allow ISPs to use, and to make the transition faster keep bumping up the wholesale rates until all the DSL providers are forced out of business.

I wish LinkLine Communications all the luck in this case. It's clear to anyone who has dealt with SBC / AT&T wholesale DSL that AT&T is doing what they can to push out the competing ISPs who use their network. I can't say I'm optimistic that they will win, or even if they do that it will do any good. The FCC and the state governments were bought and paid for a long time ago.

Well then thank $DIETY that business conversations never occur outside the secure premises of a place of business. Certainly, what manager, executive, or board member* would use a home phone line to conduct confidential business.

Dang, I left my sarcasm tags at home this morning.

*Yes, the link is not about phone tapping, it's about pretexting. But note that some of the target phone numbers were home phone lines. If someone can be troubled to illegally access your home phone records for a business investigation, it's only a difference of degree, not kind, to tapping that same home phone.

I posted this comment on the FSF's site during the commenting period for the AGPL and I will reproduce it here:

AGPL is not enforceable in the United States

Disclaimer: IANAL

I did some research on case law and I found that AGPL is not enforceable in the United States.

As I understand it, under US law there are four legal positions in which a party can find itself with respect to a copyrighted computer program it possesses:

1. Copyright owner
2. "Owner of a copy"
3. Governed by a contract such as an EULA
4. Unauthorized possessor

Dismissing 1 and 4 as irrelevant to the discussion, we find that a user of AGPL software will be in either position 2 or 3.

The AGPL is not an EULA.

Neither the AGPL, nor the GPL, nor the LGPL are EULAs. They are not contracts. So we conclude that a party which uses AGPL software is an "owner of a copy."

The AGPL purports to restrict one's right to modify software that runs on a public server. It bases this on copyright law, which restricts the right to make derivative works.

However, 17 U.S.C. 117 (a)(1) gives the "owner of a copy" of a copyrighted computer program the right to modify the program if "... such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner"

Aymes v. Bonelli, 47 F.3d 23 (2d Cir. 1995) said that: [b]uyers should be able to adapt a purchased program for use on the buyers computer because without modifications, the program may work improperly, if at all. No buyer would pay for a program without such a right.6[The defendants], as rightful owners of a copy of the plaintiffs program, did not infringe upon the copyright, because the changes made to the program were necessary measures in their continuing use of the software in operating their business and the program was not marketed, manufactured, distributed, transferred, or used for any purpose other than the defendants own internal business needs. (as quoted in http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/comments/granick_wirelessalliance.pdf)

This right to modify was broadened in Krause v. Titleserv 03-9303 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/039303p.pdf Discussion: http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2005/20051107.asp

Krause is important to AGPL because it includes the use of software over a network. The court found that the "owner of a copy" of a computer program could add new features essential to its business -- including customer modem access to use the program -- without permission from the copyright owner.

Krause was sited recently in a similar case: Weitzman v. Microcomputer 06-60237-CIV, 2007 WL 744649 (S.D. Fla. March 6, 2007). http://www.thelen.com/tlu/StuartWeitzmanVMicroComputer.pdf The established law of the land in the United States is that the "owner of a copy" of a computer program has the right to modify that copy for its business needs. The AGPL cannot restrict this right without being an EULA and using contract law.

So, a SaaS provider that is the "owner of a copy" of an AGPL computer program has the right to modify its copy of that program to further its business needs, and it does not require the permission of the copyright holder to do so. This means that it does not have to provide the source publicly for any modifications that it makes. The only way to prevent this is to use an EULA and contract law.

It's not stealing(http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s074.htm) or piracy(http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p050.htm), it's copyright infringement(http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossar y/legal/infringement.asp).

"Lessons learned:

        * Trademark your name right away.
        * AOL sucks
        * "IP" Law sucks, so the first lesson may also be a waste of time.
"
Unsurprisingly, AOL has been down this path before.

See http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/aolvatt/Defau lt.htm, which features our favorite judge, Judge Claude Hilton of Vonage injunction fame. Basically, AOL tried to sue AT&T for using the terms Buddy List, You've Got Mail, and IM, and not only did the judge rule that these terms were too generic for AOL to 'own', but actually cancelled AOL's trademark on the term Buddy List and pending trademark on You've Got Mail.

So, AOL does suck, but the law does seem to work fairly in some cases. Conversely, that means that even if GAIM had trademarked their name, it could have been dismissed.. and thus a waste of time as you suggest. GIM would have been fine, though, since "instant message" was deemed generic.

There've been a lot of non-stories revolving around taxes, accounting, employee & management competence, and all kinds of other topics lately directed towards Google. Could just be a FUD campaign. Some corporations actually consider this a business tactic.

You do realize that memo was ten years ago, right?
I doubt MS has changed its goals regarding Sun in the last 10 years.

I'm not saying they need evidence, I'm saying they need to clearly and succintly explain what the alleged tort is. Instead they claim that they have a belief. I've seen a bunch of complaints and they aren't usually worded like this.

I'm not saying they need evidence, I'm saying they need to clearly and succintly explain what the alleged tort is. Instead they claim that they have a belief. I've seen a bunch of complaints and they aren't usually worded like this.

CSIRO has a US patent on technology for wireless networks and the vendors currently pay it a licence for its use.

The organisation said it obtained the wireless LAN patent in 1996, and it's a standard feature of notebook computers and other devices.

Its chief executive, Geoff Garrett, said that CSIRO offered licences on "reasonable and non-discriminatory terms" to the major vendors when they started selling devices which used the technology.

IANAL, but if the vendors currently already pay the CSIRO a license for its use, wouldn't this imply two things?
1) From the TLJ article, Buffalo was not paying a license and were therefore a suit was raised against them in Feb 2005; but
2) That Dell and Intel are paying the license and are trying to invalidate it so that they don't have to - and therefore raised the suit in May 2005 to that purpose - to which CSIRO have now countersued

The parties also disputed whether Sun's suit was properly considered as one for copyright infringement, as Sun contended, or as one for breach of contract, as Microsoft contended. The district court concluded that the claim was properly considered as an infringement action, thereby entitling Sun to a presumption of irreparable harm.

The case was about the TLDA for the Java spec, clearly a wideranging contract. The ruling is not relevant to the JMRI case or the copyright infringement the lawyers confirm in their motion.

The parties also disputed whether Sun's suit was properly considered as one for copyright infringement, as Sun contended, or as one for breach of contract, as Microsoft contended. The district court concluded that the claim was properly considered as an infringement action, thereby entitling Sun to a presumption of irreparable harm.

The case was about the TLDA for the Java spec, clearly a wideranging contract. The ruling is not relevant to the JMRI case or the copyright infringement the lawyers confirm in their motion.

Unfortunately, Congress' tendency to shy away from recorded votes means that some important events were not available to score.

This is a load of crap.

Your post certainly is.

The ideas of superscalar out-of-order processors came from IBM, CDC, Cray, and the academic literature years before either DEC or Intel ever implemented one. Yet when Intel came out with the out-of-order Pentium Pro, all the DEC guys were screaming and hollering.

Just did a few minuts googling and came up with this I was off on the amount, remembering hearing $425 million, where it was actually $700 million Intel paid (though it could have been $425M was for the chip fab and the remainder was licensing, legal fees, etc.)

There used to be a list of the IP on Usenet and it could probably be found without much difficulty, but I don't recall out-of-order being one of them. I remember Branch-Prediction being one. Intel claimed to have a solid case until they were sunk by a load of internal documents from Intel showing up in DEC's hands, where Intel personnel, IIRC Andy Grove being one of them, laughing off their theft of IP. Intel chose to settle with DEC outside court because in court could have been an injuction on Pentium processors and the Merced, which would pretty much have killed Intel.

Ross Perot's campaign was run by a guy named Orson Swindle. That's exactly the kind of name a prank cracker could throw an election to. But Swindle's name reflects more the establishment already cracking votes for power. In fact, with Perot's business empire based on his starting and owning giant data system network EDS, I wouldn't be surprised if Perot were already cracking the vote to get his past totals, and maybe just waiting patiently for a "surprise landslide" in 2008.

Well said. You're posting annonymously so unfortunately you will probably not be read by most of the people here.

Thanks - sort of have to post that way as I'd be guessed in a heartbeat to one of the election software companies. I really hope more Slashdotters stop listening to the party crap and actually think. Follow the money. Think about the motivation. Ask serious, hard questions!

Consider the election fraud issue and ignore the red herring tossed out for us geeks to focus on. Ask yourself: Why do Democrats want illegals to vote? The answer is demographics. There's been enough coverage of the fact that Democrats don't replace themselves birthrate-wise, and they need a source of fresh blood. The funny thing is, so do the country club Republicans. All these fat cats also need cheap labor that can't fight back, organize, unionize and expect better compensation. Illegals. Necessary for making sure that $100 million CEO paycheck keeps coming in.

Here's some bad news: if you've ever used the expression "big business Republicans," you're going to have to update your firmware. Because of some foolish Republicans who didn't listen, the US Chamber of Commerce and several other lobbying organizations are pouring money into Democratic campaigns (see today's Wall Street Journal). The reason again is illegal immigrant labor. Better description is "cheap, powerless, expendible labor." They're pissed off that some stupid House Reps from red states dared listen to laborers and regular citizens trying to get by. It really is getting hard to tell the differences in the parties. The Dems and Country Club Republicans are now the party of big business, opposing the little guy, unions and the middle class.

Think they just want laborers for "work Americans won't do"? Nonsense. Another area they all are unified on is radically expanding H1-B visa programs so companies can replace overpaid technology workers with temporary, powerless immigrants. Think I'm full of crap? Good! Question every source. Here's what Speaker-To-Be Pelosi says about H1-B:

Representative Nancy Pelosi has voted for increases in permanent and temporary foreign work visas such as the H1-B. Sometimes foreign workers are desirable in fields where there is a lack of American workers to fill the positions.

What about the great moderate Senator McCain's position on H1-Bs?
Sen. John McCain, while on a Presidential campaign swing through California, stated that he supports a "large-scale expansion of the H1-B program". There are several bills pending in the Congress that would increase the annual cap on H1B visas, and/or create a new visa class for aliens receiving high tech degrees from U.S. universities.

That's you, Slashdotters. There's always a "lack of Americans to fill the positions" when the programmer, analyst, security engineer, network technician, etc. job pays only $22,000 a year. Yes, as boomers retire, there are issues with demographics that have to be faced, but the current H1-B expansion has nothing to do with that and ignores the reality that it forces younger educated workers into significantly lower earnings, at the same time the same generation X and Y workers are expected to pony up to nearly $40 trillion of Federal debt, social security payments to boomers and defaulted GM, Ford and airline pension programs they'll also have to fund. Care for a 70% tax on that decreasing paycheck?

Want to know why H1-B reform is picking up? It comes down to money again. The company I used to work for started to recognize that the devaluation of the dollar has pushed up the outsourcing costs (to India and the Philippines) to almost the level of contract domestic technology labor. Health insurance costs still push that over

Your argument is inane and pointless. If you'd bothered to read the bill (what a novel idea, a person becoming informed before shouting about foul play), you'd know that if a case can be made for the educational value of an otherwise blocked site, the site is to be unblocked.

Slashdot would very likely fall under that category, so unlike what the LIES of the reactionary buffoons say, places like Slashdot would very likely not be blocked.

There is not a answer to your question that is as simple as the question itself, but for the record, the ISPs were prohibited from doing this by law up until a few years ago, because digital communications was presumed to have Common Carrier status, as granted to telephony in the Communications Act of 1934. However in 2002, the new media-deregulatory FCC ruled that Cable ISPs were "information services" and not telecommunications as such, absolving them of Common Carrier obligations to allow open access to their networks. This was taken all the way to the Supreme Court, where last June they ruled six to three in the FCC's favor, indicating that a similar judgment would be appropriate for telco ISPs as well. Then in August, the FCC (surprise) issued a statement classifying DSL as an information service as well, effectively paving the way for a tiered Internet. The only reason nothing's come of it yet (at least in the US) is that the August, 2005 ruling came with a one year transition period attatched to it, which we are still in. This is why the issue is coming to a head right now.

Back in February, I consulted with a law firm on a dating site fraud case.

The client sued a dating site because he saw a profile (faked), joined, chatted for 2 hours,
then "she" gave him a get lost jerk phone number.

In discovery, the email address given by this "woman" was phony.

While the dating site is protected under the CDA (see http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2003/2003 0813.asp) and the case was dropped. I can see
a case against a site for failing to do a basic check of the email address and removal of a phony profile. That by not checking, the dating site gets an unfair benefit from the deceptive information posted -- a person being tricked into paying a fee to contact the person in the fake profile.

http://www.techlawjournal.com/cong108/ippa/2004100 7notes.asp [techlawjournal.com]
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5989&sequence =0 [cbo.gov]

Could it be "H.R. 2391
Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2004
As reported by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on October 7, 2004"?

If it is, take a careful look at titles V and VI. Both look good on the surface.

Please, someone give us more information than the above. I flew off the handle and called my congressman halfway through RTFAing, got asked for a bill number, and couldn't find anything that supported the article. Any ideas on what to tell 'em to look out for? Where is this bill, what if anything has changed since the senate version, etc? Please, give me more stuff before I call my work-area congressman.

PS: People, call your local offices and email your congressmen/congresswomen when someone gives us some usable information. Call the local office, and you'll be the only one talking to his local staff about this issue, and they're probably more likely to pass things up the chain than the DC staff.

(Note: IANA congressional staffer, just someone that trusts local folk more than DC interns and lawyers.)

http://www.techlawjournal.com/cong108/ippa/2004100 7notes.asp
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5989&sequence =0

Could it be "H.R. 2391
Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2004
As reported by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on October 7, 2004"? If it is, take a careful look at titles V and VI. Both look good on the surface.

I flew off the handle and called my congressman halfway through RTFAing, got asked for a bill number, and couldn't find anything that supported the article. Any ideas on what to tell 'em to look out for?

PS: People, call your local offices and email your congressmen/congresswomen when someone gives us some usable information. Call the local office, and you'll be the only one talking to his local staff about this issue, and they're probably more likely to pass things up the chain than the DC staff.

(Note: IANA congressional staffer, just someone that trusts local folk more than DC interns and lawyers.)

No shit ?

The legal term is bill of attainder.
This is why the Maryland legislature laws against Wal Mart will ultimately fail.

Incidentally, doesn't the French legislature have more pressing issues like say getting rid of their ill-conceived 'right to work' laws?

(although we're in the 7th Circuit, and the issue is therefore a little more subtle, you can bet your sweet bippy the above will be dispositive)

Sources:

• http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2005/2005 0805a.asp
• http://www.centerformarketintelligence.com/analyst views/20050920-WeeklyReport.htm

Indeed the recent patent rampage is mostly due to the court of appeals making everything patentable. What I have in minds are cases where there are two patents for a better break pedal and then a patent for a break pedal with both features, not examples for new applications for old techniques.

You may also want to read this about a case currently pending before the USSC (which will hopefully reverse). Essentially the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that for an invention to be "obvious" someone had to have said that it is possible. This leads to the perverse situation where if an extension is so easy that no-one bothered to point it out, it counts as "non-obvious", while if someone did write to say "x could probably be done" then doing x becomes obvious.

ALL third party and more importantly operating system based DRM puts the user at greater risk. If the DRM code itself is not exploited then there are always new vulnerabilities being discovered in the media players and browsers used to play and display encoded content.

August 02, 2005 "Remote Attestation" and content access monopolies

Remote Attestation" and content access monopolies

The Trusted Platform Module provides the hardware functionality for digital rights software to provide effective remote attestation and digital key withholding.

Both Microsoft and Apple have plans for media-digital-content-viewers that, at the request of a digital content provider, will not allow the user to view or access specific digital content if the operating system has been modified in certain ways.

Because, for the foreseeable future, it is impossible for the digital rights management software to detect if an individual modification to a particular subsystem is hostile to the goals of the demanded digital rights, all software and subsystems relating to the operating system with storage and input to display will have to be digitally signed by Microsoft or Apple before it can be accepted by the DRM subsystem. Microsoft and Apple are effectively locking the user out from changing parts of the operating environment.

Because it is possible for hackers to read digital keys used to encrypt content direct from the computer's memory, the operating system has to be built with the ability to lock the user from being able to access pages of memory used by the mediaplayer and digital rights management system.

OS based Digital Right Management systems are based on the principle of locking the owner of the computer out of the ability to access sections of memory and disk space used by the DRM mediaplayer systems.

Locking the owner out of parts of the computer has become a major security issue.

Microsoft's Mediaplayer, Active-X ( still used with some DRM ), Real's realplayer, Adobe's PDF viewers, Apple's Quicktime and even Microsoft's and Sun's Java JVMs, have in the past had remotely exploitable vulnerabilities.

OS based DRM combined with TPM based encryption along with enviable future vulnerability holes in media access offers the malware/virus/worm creator the ability to hide a virus from any antivirus tool or live forensic analysis. Existing stealth viruses already have ability to hide the modifications it has made to files, going undetected by antivirus programs. DRM encryption offers the ability for the malware to store content, and without the keys to decode the content, keep it hidden from any forensic analysis.

Crackers and hackers always find ways to exploit the code to access or share protected content. There is not a DRM system that has not been cracked within months of widespread release. The focus on the code use d in such systems also comes to the attention of malware/virus creators. The same holes discovered by those who just want to freely access content may possibly also be abused by those wanting to crack into your computer. Similar holes in other types media viewers, the webbrowser and email programs, are increasingly being used for criminal gain by phishers and spyware makers.

Some vendors reportedly have in the past purposely left backdoors in the source code to allow access by US intelligence agencies. This has not only become a major issue for other countries who fear spying, since discovered backdoors quickly become the criminal's frontdoor i

Schwartz: Congressman Weldon, thank you very much for being here. Do you have any questions.

Rep. Curt Weldon: Thank you. Let me see if I can liven things up here in the last couple of minutes of the luncheon. First of all, I apologize for being late. And I thank Bob and the members of the caucus for inviting me here.

Pardon me if I seem a little bit confused to our panel, but, I am, and have been, with the change in direction which has occurred. But before I begin, let me say at the outset one of my biggest projects for the past four years has been to build what is becoming the first smart region in America, linking up all of the institutions within a four state region -- Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, and Maryland -- _____. In fact, over the weekend, I hosted the Minister _____, who is the Minister of Information Technology for Malaysia. As we signed an ____ with them for uplink downlink ties between our hub initiative in the four states, and the new Malaysian super-computing corridor project that they are building in Malaysia. So, I am a strong advocate for the use of information technology.

But my other hat is to chair the Research Committee for National Security. And when Bob introduced his bill three years ago, my door was pounded incessantly by the Defense Secretary and his staff, by the Director of the CIA, and by the head of the NSA, and I would note for the record neither the CIA nor the NSA is here today.

Who is actually speaking for them today, I might add? OK.

NSA and CIA came in, and in a very intense way, lobbied me personally, and I am not a computer expert, nor am I a lawyer, and they asked me to give access to my subcommittee and the full Armed Services Committee to look at the security implications of the change in Bob's legislation. I respect Bob. I think that he is an outstanding member. But I felt that I owed it to my committee, and my responsibility to Congress to listen to what the administration was going to tell me.

We arranged a series of classified hearings and briefings. And, as with any Member of Congress expressing concern about the ability for our forces involved in a hostile environment to be able to respond quickly, ____ back to 1991 in Desert Storm where my understanding is that our commanders in the field had Saddam Hussein's commands before his own command officers had them, because of our ability to intercept and break the codes of Saddam's military. I want to make sure that we have that capability in the future. I responded in a very positive way to the argument that was being made by the CIA, by the NSA, and by DOD. And we took some very tough positions.

In fact, Ron Dellums and I offered the amendment last year that had only one dissenting vote in the House, and this year passed by a vote of 48 to 6.

In the past year none of those briefings have changed. And the people who have come to me as a Member of the National Security Committee, there has been no lessening of their impression of the threat. Yet all of a sudden I am told, and John Hamre, I think, he made the courtesy of calling me in advance, that there was a change.

Now, I agree with the gentleman from the White House, for the administration, that it was coincidence that this happened the day before Vice President Gore went to Silicon Valley. I agree that that was just a coincidence.

But the point is that when John Hamre briefed me, and gave me the three key points of this change, there are a lot of unanswered questions. He assured me that in discussions that he had had with people like Bill G

Schwartz: Congressman Weldon, thank you very much for being here. Do you have any questions.

Rep. Curt Weldon: Thank you. Let me see if I can liven things up here in the last couple of minutes of the luncheon. First of all, I apologize for being late. And I thank Bob and the members of the caucus for inviting me here.

Pardon me if I seem a little bit confused to our panel, but, I am, and have been, with the change in direction which has occurred. But before I begin, let me say at the outset one of my biggest projects for the past four years has been to build what is becoming the first smart region in America, linking up all of the institutions within a four state region -- Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, and Maryland -- _____. In fact, over the weekend, I hosted the Minister _____, who is the Minister of Information Technology for Malaysia. As we signed an ____ with them for uplink downlink ties between our hub initiative in the four states, and the new Malaysian super-computing corridor project that they are building in Malaysia. So, I am a strong advocate for the use of information technology.

But my other hat is to chair the Research Committee for National Security. And when Bob introduced his bill three years ago, my door was pounded incessantly by the Defense Secretary and his staff, by the Director of the CIA, and by the head of the NSA, and I would note for the record neither the CIA nor the NSA is here today.

Who is actually speaking for them today, I might add? OK.

NSA and CIA came in, and in a very intense way, lobbied me personally, and I am not a computer expert, nor am I a lawyer, and they asked me to give access to my subcommittee and the full Armed Services Committee to look at the security implications of the change in Bob's legislation. I respect Bob. I think that he is an outstanding member. But I felt that I owed it to my committee, and my responsibility to Congress to listen to what the administration was going to tell me.

We arranged a series of classified hearings and briefings. And, as with any Member of Congress expressing concern about the ability for our forces involved in a hostile environment to be able to respond quickly, ____ back to 1991 in Desert Storm where my understanding is that our commanders in the field had Saddam Hussein's commands before his own command officers had them, because of our ability to intercept and break the codes of Saddam's military. I want to make sure that we have that capability in the future. I responded in a very positive way to the argument that was being made by the CIA, by the NSA, and by DOD. And we took some very tough positions.

In fact, Ron Dellums and I offered the amendment last year that had only one dissenting vote in the House, and this year passed by a vote of 48 to 6.

In the past year none of those briefings have changed. And the people who have come to me as a Member of the National Security Committee, there has been no lessening of their impression of the threat. Yet all of a sudden I am told, and John Hamre, I think, he made the courtesy of calling me in advance, that there was a change.

Now, I agree with the gentleman from the White House, for the administration, that it was coincidence that this happened the day before Vice President Gore went to Silicon Valley. I agree that that was just a coincidence.

But the point is that when John Hamre briefed me, and gave me the three key points of this change, there are a lot of unanswered questions. He assured me that in discussions that he had had with people like Bill G