Slashdot Mirror
Our Attorney's Response To Microsoft
To: J.K. Weston, Designated Agent, Microsoft Corporation
This firm represents Andover.Net, Inc. ("Andover.Net") which operates the Slashdot service. Andover.Net has asked us to investigate your e-mail message regarding certain postings by users of Slashdot relating to a Microsoft Kerberos specification.
As a general matter, it is the policy of Slashdot not to interfere with or censor the communications of its users. Andover.Net is particularly concerned about censoring the user postings on which you have focused given their apparent relevance to issues in the current antitrust litigation between the Microsoft and the government.
In our review of this matter, it would be helpful if you could provide certain information:
1. How can Microsoft claim proprietary protections for enhancement to an open standard protocol?
2. How can Microsoft use the Kerberos name, which signifies an open standard protocol, in connection with a proprietary protocol?
3. How can Microsoft claim trade secrecy for a protocol that is distributed over the Internet?
4. What measures has Microsoft taken to protect the trade secrecy of its Kerberos specification beyond the use of a click-wrap license agreement?
5. What measures has Microsoft taken to ensure that its Kerberos specification is only distributed to persons who are capable of entering into a binding contract in jurisdictions where such an agreement would be enforceable?
6. How could posting of the Microsoft Kerberos specification on Slashdot have any detrimental impact on the market for authorized distribution of Microsoft's version of Kerberos?
7. Why wouldn't prospective purchasers of Windows 2000 need to know the contents of Microsoft's Kerberos specification in order to make informed judgments regarding interoperability in connection with their purchasing decisions?
8. Why shouldn't Slashdot users and the general public be able to view this protocol for purposes of commentary and criticism in light of its apparent relevance to issues in the government's antitrust litigation?
Any information you could provide in response to these questions and any other information that you believe we should consider would be helpful.
Very truly yours,
- Mark D. Robins
______________________________
Mark D. Robins
Hutchins, Wheeler & Dittmar
A Professional Corporation
Bottom line. MS (or any big corp) can the little guy in litigation hell for all eternity or until he accepts whatever settlement terms proposed by the other side.
This is America. The lawfirm with the biggest budget wins.
Mr. Robins: Are you single?
"Embrace and extend the law".
Hmmm, DMCA, UCITA ?
Very truly yours,
- Mark D. Robins
If slashdolt moderation is an indication of the mental powers of linux users, Microsoft will rule forever!
lawyer-talk is good...plain english is for losers. lawyers should talk like lawyers, not like posters, otherwise they'll lose in court. I don't see anything on this letter that's particularly damning, or relevant to MS's complaint.
If the Gorilla smashes the bananna, he's got no food. On the other hand, if he drops the banana, he's got a fat lip and all his monkey friends will be laughing at him.
/sarcasm
/. passwd E-Mail" Out
Poor Microsoft... between a rock and a hard place.
Akardam "Still waiting for
Everything but TheKitchenSink - http://www.akardam.net
M$ launched its warning shot across the bos of /., and the crew of /. has responded in kind. Here are two possible strategies in this case (among many others I can think of).
/. attempts to stall them out, make them look bad in the press, and basically run up their tempers. I expect the response to this letter will read largely the same as ericfitz's post, "quit dodging and take it down." At that point, /. can surrender with dignity, or force them sue- and risk an unfavorable ruling. M$ was obviously hoping for a quick victory; not getting it might make them change their tune. Shareholders do not favor undue risks.
/. seizes in response to these questions *positively* weakens M$'s holdings in future suits.
/. lawyers are not dodging the question. They are postponing a case they could lose and forcing a decision they will probably win. In the absolute worst case, they will be negotiating from a position of strength. At the same time, /. has not conceded that their postings are illegal.
1. Sending this letter is a "ok, we have officially taken note of your complaint." Now,
2. The questions act to seize initiative and begin a counterattack. All these points would be raised in any future suit, and taking M$ to task on them now will keep them from attempting a dodge in open court, i.e., ground
So, M$ 1) risks losing in court and the public eye, or 2) has to take notice of these questions, and may yield ground in the process. Either strategy is classic legalistic maneuvering.
The
Each post that is quoting Mark D. Robins' letter is violating his copyright on said letter. Please refrain from quoting his material or else he may respond as M$ has.
For one thing, if the New York Times DID publish something they had no right to print, they'd end up paying damages for that, and be ordered to refrain from distributing the product, if at all possible. Considering the lead time for papers though, it'd be unlikely they'd be caught in time for anything close to a recall. Probably have to give up any illegal copies they did possess however. OTOH, /. being a medium where the information is stored in a central source, hasn't so much of an excuse for failing to remove the infringing matierial. It'd be like if a publisher printed up illegal copies of a book that were still in a warehouse, or even in the stores. They'd have to give them up. Individual people with copies though, would probably be pretty safe from losing them. So go ahead and keep that day of /. in your cache, store in on your own machine, Microsoft doesn't care. Just don't publish it for everybody to read.
Go andover & co. Whatever the outcome, my only wich is that you do not back down at all. If you censor these comments, you may as well shut the site down. I'm tired of seeing these weenies buckle to every bully who threatens with a lawsuit.
We are (have) very rapidly moving into a different age. Information desires to be free. That is its natural state. That which is hoarded withers and dies. That which is free, grows, prospers, and evolves. In the old age (pre information, pre-web), Copyrights and patents were acceptable as respectable business competition. Now they are nothing but restrictions. Today if you have a trade secret, you must treat as such. Most companies keep their trade secrets stamped confidential, and sealed in a locked safe.
People and governments need to understand that citizens have rights too. After all, who's buying the products these companies sell.
Ok, ok. Maybe the world would be a better place if everyone were honest too. If everyone honored licensing agreements, things might be better, or they might be worse. The fact is, this doesn't happen. And once you let something out to the public, it's out for good. If it were another company things might be different; you have competitive business legalities there. But most business aren't competing with the public! And if the public has something which you have based you business on providing (say an OS), then maybe you should change your business plan.
Anyway, I'm ramblin on, and I'm posting 500 deep anyway. If anybody is reading this, do something to make a differnce. Let the world know that non-personal information is most useful when it is free. (Really, how much good do you think gene patents could be? Aren't those my genes anyway!?!)
I am not a lawyer.
I am not a politician.
I am not a poet.
I am an anonymous coward.
If There's Hot Grits You Must Acquit!
or does it seem that Slashdot is evading the issue? I don't see how it can be argued that those posts that copied the protocol verbatim (not the links to a copy) shouldn't be removed. Slashdot is after all operating within a jurisdiction where the EULA is enforcable. The rest was just filler wondering why Microsoft has embraced and extended kerberos(which last time I checked they had the right to do) and not really addressing the charge that they were in violation of the DMCA. which they are.
"Can't wait to see the reply"
Okay, I'll play the Devil's Advocate:
1. How can Microsoft claim proprietary protections for
enhancement to an open standard protocol?
We claim proprietary protections only for our enhancements. No such claims
have been made for the standard Kerberos protocol.
2. How can Microsoft use the Kerberos name, which signifies
an open standard protocol, in connection with a proprietary
protocol?
Our implementation of the Kerberos protocol meets all standards of the
protocol, thus preserving our right to use the name. Our extensions to
the protocol do not interfere in any way with the standard Kerberos
protocol.
3. How can Microsoft claim trade secrecy for a protocol that
is distributed over the Internet?
4. What measures has Microsoft taken to protect the trade
secrecy of its Kerberos specification beyond the use of a
click-wrap license agreement?
Answers to #3 and #4:
The use of click-wrap non-disclosure agreements to protect trade secrets
have been upheld as legally binding in numerous court cases. The advent
of the internet as a means to widely and quickly distribute restricted
information does not change the fact that it is a violation of a legally
binding agreement to do so.
5. What measures has Microsoft taken to ensure that its
Kerberos specification is only distributed to persons who are
capable of entering into a binding contract in jurisdictions
where such an agreement would be enforceable?
The Microsoft Kerberos specification non-disclosure agreement is enforcable
under the laws of the state of Washington in all United States jurisdictions
where Microsoft does business, and in most foreign nations by virtue of
their own laws, and various treaties and trade agreements they might have
with the United States.
By it's very nature a raw software listing of this type is only of interest
to professional IT personnel. Microsoft therefore has a reasonable
expectation that:
A. Only professional IT personnel would be interested in obtaining
the specification, and
B. Anyone qualified to be an IT professional is also qualified
to enter into a binding contract.
6. How could posting of the Microsoft Kerberos specification
on Slashdot have any detrimental impact on the market for
authorized distribution of Microsoft's version of Kerberos?
The Microsoft Kerberos specification is a trade secret in order to
protect our investment, and protect our ability to profit from that
investment. We are in a highly competitive market and must take measures
to ensure that our innovations do not help our competitors at our expense.
7. Why wouldn't prospective purchasers of Windows 2000
need to know the contents of Microsoft's Kerberos
specification in order to make informed judgments regarding
interoperability in connection with their purchasing decisions?
Microsoft agrees that prospective purchasers of Windows 2000 should be
aware of our Kerberos specification. That is the reason we made it
conveniently available over internet. Microsoft customers are able to
to easily review the contents of the specification as long as they agree
to protect our trade secrets.
8. Why shouldn't Slashdot users and the general public be
able to view this protocol for purposes of commentary and
criticism in light of its apparent relevance to issues in the
government's antitrust litigation?
Firstly, Microsoft's Kerberos specification is a copyrighted trade secret.
The laws of the United States do not require the public release of trade
secrets simply due to their relevence to on-going legal action. In fact,
the law specifically protects trade secrets in those instances. We are
sure that you would agree that it would be undesirable for any entity
(including Microsoft) to be capable of discovering trade secrets by
merely bringing an "apparently relevant" lawsuit.
Secondly, our copyrighted Kerberos specification has been posted on
Slashdot for 16 days now, for as you put it, "commentary and criticism",
yet there has been no discussion whatsoever of its technical merits. The
only commentary and criticism we are aware of relate to the user license
itself, not the specification.
- just another AC
Reality Master 101 wrote:
Unfortunately, none of those question have anything to do with the matter at hand.
Considering Microsoft invoked the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions, they are quite pertinent.
The fact of the matter is that Slashdot's servers contain copyrighted material. The copyright holder asked that it be removed. Your response seems to be, "well, you suck, and should never have copyrighted it in the first place. Nyahh!"
I am not a lawyer, but under the "fair use" provisions affimred by the Supreme Court, it is perfectly legal to copy copyrighted works if the copy qualifies as fair use. Some of these questions (specifically 1, 2, 7 and 8) seem to be geared towards developing a fair use defense in the event that this goes far enough to require the courts get involved.
The things you are interpreting as "you never should have copyrighted it in the first place", I interpret quite differently. The DMCA doesn't give just anyone the right to demand that anything be taken down just on their say-so. It requires that certain things be true, and the questions are demanding that Microsoft show some evidence that their invocation of the DMCA is valid here.
Microsoft is on very shaky ground here, and these questions address that shakiness.
The point is that they did copyright it. Slashdot is in the wrong.
Again, Slashdot is only in the wrong if the use was not fair use. If Slashdot decides to take this defense it would be a long and costly issue for the courts to decide. I would assume Microsoft was banking on Andover.Net not being willing to put up with such a battle. I hope this letter means that they're wrong.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Again, I am not a lawyer, but as I understand IP law, Trade Secrets are perfectly copyrightable, but since they're protected by Trade Secret law, which is stronger than copyright law, you seldom see copyright infringement suits for copying trade secrets.
Trade Secrets are mutually exclusive with Patents. You cannot patent a trade secret. To patent something, you need to publish the details of the thing, this would remove the trade secret status.
You can still question Microsoft's copyright of this, since it can be argued that their document is a derivative work, and therefore Microsoft cannot control the copyrights.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Can I reproduce the entire novel as an appendix to my book? Of course not. Whether or not you're discussing the entirety of a work, fair use only allows for limited reproduction.
If the novel is freely distributed, and adding it as an appendix to the book does not interfere with author's ability to profit from its sales, and the book is a work of literary criticism that is supposed to be used for education and research, you can. In the case of Microsoft document it will be that, plus if the novel was reproduced to demonstrate that it describes author's plans to throw stones into every window on the second floor of the local mall while playing guitar and yelling "Bald people are inferior!".
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Microsoft won't answer those questions.
This is just laywerease for "fuck off, we're not going to do what you asked us to do".
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
I think that Mr. Robins' questions do strike at the heart of the issue here. Kerberos is copyright by MIT. Microsoft can no more claim copyright on their Kerberos extensions than I can claim copyright on the obscene comments I put in a book that belongs to the public library. The fact that Microsoft posted their "specification" on Internet further weakens their claim to copyright. Let's remember here, that Microsoft is claiming copyright on the specification, not the implementation.
Furthermore, I suspect that Microsoft has broken the MIT Kerberos copyright:
WITHIN THAT CONSTRAINT, permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation, and that the name of M.I.T. not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, written prior permission. Furthermore if you modify this software you must label your software as modified software and not distribute it in such a fashion that it might be confused with the original MIT software. M.I.T. makes no representations about the suitability of this software for any purpose. It is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty.
Did you read any of the other messages, particularly about fair use? Under terms of fair use, it may be permissible to quote the entire text, for purposes of criticism and analysis. The posting on Slashdot may qualify. The whole thing is certainly not a black-and-white issue.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Instead of paying lawyers tons of cash and standing the very real possibility of losing, wouldn't it just be a whole lot easier to spin off Slashdot, {SA, Inc,...} as a [insert name of freedom-friendly nation here] wholly owned subsidiary of Andover and move the servers to [freedom-friendly nation]? Fuck the US. If the US only wants $100 billion and larger corporations, then that can be arranged. "We'll take our business elsewhere, thanks. I'm afraid you're just not willing or able to meet our needs."
...the DMCA is blatantly unconstitutional, and this is the perfect way to prove it. Constitutionality can only be decided in the courts, and Andover's arrogant and unreasonable response will help generate bad blood, hopefully enough for this whole thing to go to court. Then this illegal piece of legislation gets tossed out and the US is safe for another year at least. There are times when being obnoxious and unreasonable is an advantage; this is one such.
No. They may be in violation of one law, which is new and has never been tested in court. Therefore even if they are in violation, it does not necessarily mean they would lose in court.
This is NOT a free speech issue.
Yes, it is. It is about whether common carriers (ISPs, community sites like Slashdot, etc) can be held responsible for the content in their media. Ask yourself this: if you call a friend and read him the contents of the posts in question, can Microsoft sue the telco for failing to terminate your call?
What is someone posted an entire novel? It would be removed in a second.
A novel is an original work, and distributing it causes possible loss of revenue to the copyright holder. A technical specification derived from a freely distributable work which has already been published publically may or may not be copyrightable, but it surely cannot be held as a trade secret.
but these laws are what America was built upon.
Nope. For 200+ years, all we had were the USPTO and a set of laws that included provisions like "fair use" to protect the rights of everyone, not just megacorporations. The law in question here is brand new, and is very much in contrast with American history.
Without them, many great products would never have been created such as the car, light bulb, telephone
The light bulb, maybe - though we would certainly have fluorescent lighting anyway. The telephone was an obvious extension of the telegraph and would undoubtedly have existed anyway. The same arguments apply to the car. One might argue that the prospect of wealth derived from IP sped up development of some things, but by and large they would exist anyway for much the same reason that Linux exists. The protections afforded physical property are sufficient to foster development and I challenge you to prove otherwise.
That's right, Windows 98 is a great product.
Depends on the perspective. From Microsoft's perspective, it is. W98, like all of Microsoft's products, is designed with the single goal of making money for Bill Gates, which it achieves admirably. From the perspective of a potential customer, however, W98 is a terrible product, unless the potential customer's goal is also to increase Bill Gates's wealth. If his goal is to get anything useful done with a computer, then it is in fact a terrible product.
Anyone who says otherwise is a pro-Linux zelot or a fool.
Not bloody likely. It all depends on whose perspective you consider.
8. Why shouldn't Slashdot users and the general public be able to view this protocol for purposes of commentary and criticism in light of its apparent relevance to issues in the government's antitrust litigation?
/. questions do, while putting Microsoft in the worst possible light.
It is completely irrelevant to the antitrust case. That notwithstanding, Slashdot users DO have the right to view the specification, and to comment on it, provided that it is obtained lawfully.
These questions lead through a minefield. First, they try to establish that the click-through is neither effective, nor legally binding. So that leaves the document as a standard copyrighted document published on the internet. Under copyright law, there is a thing called "Fair Use." Is is *legal* to publish portions of a document for criticism.
This is why ESR was able to publish the Halloween Documents as he did; they contained the full text of copyrighted documents (because *all* documents are copyrighted as soon as written under current copyright law).
By stripping the click-through agreement of any meaning, we expose the document itself to fair use. It's that simple, and that is *exactly* what the
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
This whole thing sinks or swims on the trade secret argument.
Actually, it doesn't. Not at all. The trade secret issue is a red herring.
In Microsoft's original letter, no mention was made of trade secrets, simply of simple copyright violation and the need to request removal of violating materials by ISPs or similar orgs, as laid out in the DMCA (in sections *other* than those related to encryption (a la DeCSS), etc.) As such, as much as I hate to say it, if any comments quoted more than a reasonable fair use section of the document, Slashdot doesn't have a legal leg to stand on and this is just a bit of grandstanding.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
I can slap a copyright statement on damn near anything. It doesn't mean I really own the copyright to that work. I thought this question was quite relevant:
2. How can Microsoft use the Kerberos name, which signifies an open standard protocol, in connection with a proprietary protocol?
They're taking an open protocol, adding a bit to it, and trying to call the whole thing their property. I don't think that's going to work.
Another good question was this:
8. Why shouldn't Slashdot users and the general public be able to view this protocol for purposes of commentary and criticism in light of its apparent relevance to issues in the government's antitrust litigation?
Given the fact that Microsoft is a known monopolist, people have a right to be concerned about what Microsoft is attempting to do with an open protocol. Posting the information so that we can all discuss it should be considered fair use, even if Microsoft does somehow own the copyright for the document. They probably wouldn't even try to stand on just the copyright issue. They seem to be playing up the trade secret part more than the copyright part. This is why most of the other questions were quite good.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Bypassing the software that has the license agreement dialog violates the DMCA.
I still fail to see how using WinZip or some such program that is specifically designed to open compressed files constitutes bypassing a content protection mechanism. These files are created with such a program, and such a program is routinely used to open them. I don't make a habit of running executables on my system if I don't have to. I almost always open self-extracting compressed files with a compression program rather than just running them. I think that their content protection mechanism isn't really a protective measure since it doesn't even occur in many instances when a person opens the file in a perfectly legitimate fashion.
That has the potential to be illegal under long established (and enforced by the court system) copyright law.
Given the nature of the document, i.e. a technical specification, posting the entire document could probably be justified. You can't really understand the spec without seeing the whole thing. That, combined with interoperability concerns (which was supposedly why Microsoft was releasing this doc in the first place), leads me to think that /. has a good chance of succeeding with a fair use argument.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
1. Microsoft is claiming copyright on the document describing their extensions, not the extensions themselves.
Actually, they're claiming copyright on the entire specification, i.e. "Microsoft's copyrighted work entitled 'Microsoft Authorization Data Specification v. 1.0 for Microsoft Windows 2000 Operating Systems.'" That's beside the point though. They would have a much better case if they were claiming copyright of the extensions themselves rather than the document describing the extensions. The specification is necessary information for anyone attempting to achieve interoperability, something that seems to even be protected under the DMCA, although with a major loophole or three for the corps to exploit.
8. Microsoft respects the right of the users of Slashdot to view the specifications for the purpose of comment.
No they don't, they even want posts that quote only a portion of the specification to be removed, as well as those that link to it, or describe how to open it with Winzip.
Why is everyone talking about trade secrets?
The EULA for the specification claims that it is a trade secret of Microsoft. Then, in the letter, Microsoft references "examples of the misuse of Microsoft's proprietary information." Granted, the main issue appears to be the copyright issue, but since Microsoft is trying to claim trade secret status for the spec as well, that's being discussed here too.
Basically, Microsoft is really overreaching on this one. Perhaps if they had just stuck to trying to get the one or two posts that actually posted the entire document removed, they might have met with a more favorable reception. But since they're also trying to remove posts that only quote a portion of the spec, posts that explain that you can open the compressed file with Winzip or a similar program, and posts that contain a link to a copy of the spec somewhere, nobody has much sympathy for their situation. Then there's the point that while the posting of an entire document is rarely considered fair use, it may actually be fair use in the case of a technical specification, most of which is public information, simply because you can't really have an informed discussion of a specification without knowing what the whole specification says. In the absence of trade secret status, this might hold up. Slashdot has a strong incentive not to back down on this one too, because if they do censor any comments on this site, they may lose any chance of claiming "common carrier" status. That could oblige them to censor any comment that someone has a gripe about. Not a good precedent to set.
I'm glad to see that their lawyers are taking this approach. They most certainly should get as much information from Microsoft as possible in order to determine the course of action they should take. Most of those questions were quite valid and relevant.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I've got news for you... people have been put in jail for passing around trade secrets. It's called "theft".
This just in! If it's not really a trade secret, then there's no crime in reavealing it. Microsoft has made no real effort to keep the document secret. They let anybody anywhere have access to it. Even minors who aren't legally bound by the EULA, and people living in places where the EULA has no legal merit. Therefore this specification can no longer be considered a trade secret. It's out there. It's publicly available and you don't have to even read, much less agree to the EULA.
They may even argue that it's not "secure enough". But stealing from my car when the window is open or stealing by breaking the window is still stealing.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Trade secret laws are not the same as regular property laws, and for good reason. In order for something to qualify as a trade secret, one of the criteria that must be met is that the trade secret holder must use "reasonable measures under the circumstances to protect" the secrecy of the information. Microsoft certainly did not do this, as evidenced by the fact that anybody could download the information and legitimately open it using the same or quite similar program as was used to compress the file, without ever agreeing to a EULA.
But the point is that everyone who posted it knew that it was copyrighted material.
Now you've jumped from trade secrets to copyrights. Sure. Anyway, the copyright issue is a whole other can of worms. I think that it could be argued that this is a technical specification that Microsoft has made public, and as such it should be considered fair use to post the document in its entirety for the purpose of commentary and criticism due to the fact that it must be taken as a whole to be fully understood and for an informed, rational discussion to take place.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I have no idea what Microsoft was trying to accomplish here. I mean, the story about this was already old, probably not many people visiting it, or downloading the illegal text. Then MS boldly takes the anti-freedom, pro-censorship position, which results in two things:
1) more people hating Microsoft
2) more people viewing and downloading the illegal text than ever would have if they'd just let it die
I mean, did Microsoft just feel it had to stand it's ground in the fight against freedom, even if it was defeating their supposed purpose of stopping the spread of this material?
Even if MS wins, it will be a very Pyrrhic Victory. What bozos.
- Since the principal use of zipped archives is compression not concealment/protection, and since there are numberous third-party decompressors such as WinZip, the DMCA's crypto-breaking provisions do not apply.
- For the same reason, Microsoft cannot be said to have used "due diligence" in protecting what it claims are trade secrets, when it puts those "secrets" on its web-site in zipped-archive form. That should be grounds for summary judgement in any trade secret action.
If Microsoft takes action, I hope you are considering the option of counter-suing for barratry (the use of frivolous lawsuits for intimidation). Note also that barratry is consider an ethics offense for attorneys, so you might also seek the disbarment of the MS attorneys, along with the counter-suit."My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
Actually, the message is "you can't put anything on a publicly accessible web site that isn't supposed to be completely open." If you put it on a suitably protected (which we'll gloss over for now) secured site, it's quite another matter. If the message is interpreted as "we should actually think hard about what we put on the net before we do so" then it's certainly a good message.
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice on this or any other matter. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
:)
.). It also feels good :)
That's a reasonably accurate description of the legalese--I'd really have tagged this informative, not funny.
Sometimes this is *exactly* what you need your lawyer to do. Sometimes I've even advised clients to flat-out ignore the first letter received--with experience, you get a handle for which ones should be taken seriously, and which ones will go away if ignored. The latter category frequently includes letters from out of state attorneys that are really looking to see if you'll quickly connect them to an insurance company for a quick buck.
An attorney unzipping and taking aim is also frequently what you need in a consumer matter, with a rogue government agency, or when the IRS just plain screws up. FOr $50-$100 (depending upon where you are and local rates), there is a broad class of problems that are solved well over half the time by a simple letter. Yes, the other side *should* have backed down without the letter, and there frequently is no information inside the letter that wasn't already given, but it's an "attention-getter."
Basically, you hire the attorney in this case to menace with an iron fist in a velvet glove. Leave the other side a way to back down and save face (and save themselves from their boss finding out
The time it took for the consultation and letter really didn't make them worthwhile for me at $100, but they tend to give you very happy clients who might come back with someone else, or tell their friends about you (My overhead was over $100k/year at one point . .
There's also the issue of showing the other side that you have the resolve to fight it, and it isn't worth your time. Andover is large enough that they can afford the fight, and they're showing that they're serious here.
hawk, esq.
The Cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
(apart from the antitrust references, which I think are kind of weak)
Actually, I think the anti-trust references are right on target. Isn't yhe whole Kerberos situation is similar to what M$, in it's recent proposal, agreed not to do anymore? Also, this is another example of their "innovation". (when you redefine innovation as "Leverage our control of the desktop to make sure that while we can talk to other systems, they can't talk to us.")
IMHO, Cal
If you wanted me to agree with you, you shouldn't have given me Mod points.
"Of course you know, this means war."
I'm willing to bet the next step is court. Sorry to say, but I think that, even though morally and ethically your response was right, and damn good burn dude, MS is not going to respond to this.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Actually, I think that there is a clause along the same line as Patents that says you *HAVE* to defend and protect your trade secrets in order for them to be legally enforceable. Hence, is a simple zip file deemed enough protection..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Seriously, Microsoft will have every reason to fear Slashdot and Andover, if this is the standard of response they get. These are exactly the sort of questions they won't want to answer, especially with the knowledge that tens of thousands of people will know their replies.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
It's not a court of law. This has become a media trial, which is potentially far more devastating to Microsoft. A court of law can always be ignored, but the public are the people who fill the coffers.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
How would you feel if Microsoft went and ran a closed, proprietary, message system based on slashcode, and when asked, found some side issue to the question of ownership and licensing and hammered on that instead?
Please care to read GNU GPL. You will find that you can do so, if you so wish, as long as if you distribute the drived work, it must be with the sources. If they run a service, and don't distribute it, they can do so. Now.. if they do sell it.. it must have the source.. and be GPL'ed.
Hugs.
Of course nowadays most media companies actually see Microsoft as competition. They don't call it MSNBC for nothing, you know.
Not to mention the fact that even the computer rags have a vested interest in maintaining customer choice. Sure, just about every magazine outside of the Linux Journal has a substantial amount of advertisements for Microsoft products, but they also have ads from Microsoft's competitors. If Microsoft were to drive everyone else out of business then the computer magazines would be out of a job as well.
There will always be pro-Microsoft media outlets, but I think that it is also safe to say that there will also always be anti-Microsoft outlets. What's more, even the most pro-Microsoft outlets will carry anti-Microsoft news if they think that it will help them sell more papers (or get more hits). And anti-Microsoft news has been pretty popular lately.
The message gets right to the point of the matter, but does it really get to the legal issues. Whether or not it makes any -sense- for Microsoft to do what it is doing, does it not still have the legal -right- if not a legal obligation to protect its copyrights, or face an inability to enforce its position at a later date?
Microsoft's inaction in this matter would have no effect on their ability to prevail in another matter surrounding the same copyright. Unlike a trademark, which can become invalid as a result of failure by the mark holder to prevent unauthorized use, copyright continues to be valid even if the holder chooses not to enforce it.
Counterexample to what? I don't believe they [the pentagon papers] were copyrighted, I believe they were a military secret.
Even things without explicit copyright notices are copyrighted under the international Berne Convention, in effect in most countries including the United States.
The point is that they did copyright it. Slashdot is in the wrong.
Why do you think that it is wrong of Slashdot to deny Microsoft's request for Slashdot to tamper its own news archive? If a large paper like the New York Times had printed an editorial containing copyrighted information, Microsoft would not even think of asking them remove it from their archives. And no doubt, any paper with the slightest shred of journalistic integrity would decline such a request.
But what Microsoft is asking Slashdot to do goes even further: It's akin to asking a newspaper to go around and ink out the potentially infringing text in every copy of the newspaper distributed, including those in libraries, archives, bird cages, etc. For people who've bookmarked those posts in the hope of returning to them (similarly to how they might dogear the edge of a newspaper or clip out an article and put it aside) posts that are removed from Slashdot simply disappear. Someone who goes to their local public library to get the May 2 edition of Slashdot after such a removal will find a version that differs from what Slashdot actually published on May 2! How would you feel if a newspaper clipping in your scrapbook suddenly disappeared because the newspaper that printed it was threatened with a copyright infringement lawsuit?
Why should Slashdot be any different from the New York Times simply because it's printed with bits instead of on paper? Why should a corporation like Microsoft be able to retroactively alter or delete the historical record provided by a news outlet, effectively rewriting the past?
Remember, rewriting history has been used as a tool to justify all sorts of evil things: holocaust denial, racial prejudice, etc. History changing was a large source of the government's power in Orwell's 1984. We don't want to give a power as dangerous as this to anyone, especially not Microsoft.
In other words, you and I aren't really gonna get it...
But, YAQA:
1. How can Microsoft claim proprietary <snip>
- A slap in the face. "You guys are a bunch of thieves anyway, we'll just bring that fact up again..
2. How can Microsoft use the Kerberos name <snip>- A slap in the face. "You guys are
- still a bunch of thieves, we'll just bring that fact up again..
3. How can Microsoft claim trade secrecy <snip>- Why did you guys put this precious information out in a place where, by definition, everybody and their uncle can see it?
4. What measures has Microsoft taken to protect <snip>HEY! this wasn't a setup, was it? Guys?
- If this stuff is so precious, why did you limit your protection of it to something as bogus as a click-through EULA?
5. What measures has Microsoft taken to ensure <snip>HEY! this wasn't a setup, was it? Guys?
- What did you
- really do to prevent this from falling into the hands of every 14 year-old h4ck3r d00d on the planet?
6. How could posting of the Microsoft Kerberos specification <snip>HEY! this wasn't a setup, was it? Guys?
- What are you guys afraid of?
7. Why wouldn't prospective purchasers of Windows 2000 <snip>HEY! this wasn't a setup, was it? Guys?
- What are you guys afraid of?
8. Why shouldn't Slashdot users and the general public <snip>HEY! this wasn't a setup, was it? Guys?
HEY! this wasn't a setup, was it? Guys?
HEY! this wasn't a setup, was it? Guys?
t_t_b
IANAL and IWWTBO
--
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
The problem is that Microsoft is demanding the removal of posts that
- contain excerpts of the specification,
- contain links to other servers, or
- point out that you can open the file with WinZip without running the self-extracting
.exe code.
The latter three demands have no legal justification in either copyright law, contract law, or the DMCA. Slashdot is right to oppose these demands.It is not possible to claim that a particular document is both a trade secret and copyrighted.
The two are mutually exclusive.
Microsoft's request mentions both copyright documents and proprietary materials, causing much confusion. They also ask that other posts be removed simply because they link to such information or describe the means that someone else could use to bypass the click-thru agreement, causing more confusion.
It is reasonable for Andover to try to understand the request before acting on it. The fact that Microsoft started off by asking for too much (overly broad) is MS's problem, not Andover's.
Microsoft's request didn't mention trade secret. It ask slashdot to remove materials they claim to have a copyright on.
Replace Carmack with Microsoft, and /. with that guy who used a click-through agreement with modified QuakeWorld source, and it seems awfully familiar
The tactics used by the offending party seem the same. Carmack said "cease and desist", and so did Microsoft. And the perpetrator in both cases obfuscated the matter by replying with unrelated matters.
I don't think that /. should remove the comments either. Especially the ones detailing how to avoid the agreement (winzip--wow, what details), and the comments including links.
I just wanted to point out that it's interesting how different the argument is depending on what side you sit.
Moreover, is this a precedent slashdot wants to set? That anyone with a secrecy "issue" can post info on slashdot and then let Andover fight a legal battle over it? Yes, your hearts are in the right place guys, but let's be realistic - the battle we want to fight is "slashdot's not responsible for our users" not "kerberos sucks". So let's see... if I uuencode a metallica mp3 and post it on slashdot...
Gee En You
======== In the future, everything will be artificial. ========
I agree....I don't think what he did was anything spectacular...if this thing DOES go to court, which I don't think it will for one reason or another, then we will see how good he(or the firm) really is...calm down beavis
======== In the future, everything will be artificial. ========
You're sort of right and sort of wrong.
There is a US Copyright Office. (IIRC it's part of the Library of Congress) When you register your copyright, you do so with them.
BUT, original things you write are copyrighted even if you have no copyright statement on the document, and even if you don't register your copyright.
BUT, this is pretty useless for MS, since nonregistered copyrighted works can't be used to get significant damages from infringors.
Additionally, although I haven't taken a look at the stupid thing, if it's insufficiently original (and this is possible if it's a technical enough document) that it's not copyrighted at all.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Lawyers suck. Except this one. Wow.
Again I say: Wow.
Remind me that if I ever get threatened with legal action because of something to do with Free Software to call this guy. He's raking 'em over the coals.
Or Duck Soup
Don't take life too seriously. It is only a temporary situation. Usual disclaimers apply.
You missed the part where the GNU GPL is a license extending rights to you over and above those you have already, not restricting your rights. Assuming that the GPL does not apply to you, then under copyright law, you do not have the right to use the code beyond 'fair use', which has already been defined in earlier threads. It is only by accepting the GPL that you gain the right to use the code.
It's not a bug, it's a feature...
Whether or not you try to force somebody to click a button, it just seems stupid that they would not also put the legalese in a place where it will be preserved if the file is printed or if the user only keeps the interesting part on their disk.
In my own OSS code I slavisly put the GNU comment block at the top of every single file so that nobody can make the excuse that they did not see it. This is an obvious precaution and I don't see why they did not do it.
The document is still covered by copyright. The information contained in that document, i.e. the extensions to the Kerberos specification, is not. What this means is that anyone can legally write a pape documenting exactly what the MS Kerberos specification is, and refer back to the MS document without violation of copyright. This is just like putting a source into a research paper. Posting the entire document word for word is a little trickier, but even that could be considered fair use if posting the entire document is required for your commentary. The harder part to defend would be posting the entire document without any commentary, but even that could be justified in the context of /. if the poster comments on the document in a different post.
Basically, while the document is copyrighted and hence protected by copyright laws, MS still doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.
The trade secret issue has already been shot down here. That is why posting the information contained in the document is legal, and not protected by any law.
Dastardly
I imagine that I heard somewhere the "common carrier" definition only applies if you don't store communications for an extended period. Since Slashdot archives discussions, that wouldn't apply here.
Is this true? Is it really incompatible? What are the issues here?
47. TDS Healthcare Systems Corp. v. Humana Hosp. Illinois, Inc., 880 F.Supp. 1572; (N.D. GA. 1995).
Alleged breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets relating to computer software for hospital health care information.
Court summarily rejects copyright preemption argument. Computer programs are considered to be literary works within the meaning of the copyright law. The Copyright Act's legislative history makes clear that a breach of trust or confidentiality differs from a copyright infringement and therefore such common law trade secrets claims are not preempted.
The only difference is, theirs was a computer program, this one is a written document. Written documents are copyrighted. Period. Even if it's discussing a subject that isn't copyrighted by the author.
Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
Agreed. If Microsoft owned Slashdot, how many people would come here?
My guess - within 7 days the entire population of Slashdot will have created new accounts on Rob's new project, and that'd be that.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
Well, maybe not. I think Rob would have come up with something else very similar for whatever his interest may have been.
Remember, he's got some interest in animation as well. The site could have been like that.
Of course, a geek is a geek. If he didn't get into Linux, he could very well have gotten into BSD or BeOS instead (even, god forbid, HURD). Slashdot has grown with the open-source community - if Linux weren't around it's possible that Slashdot would be smaller, but I bet something like it would still be here.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
Sometimes... Sometimes not.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
Bypassing the software that has the license agreement dialog violates the DMCA. Posting instructions to do so violate the DMCA (publishing on the web instructions for an illegal activity). Posting links to such violates the DMCA (publishing links to illegal pages).
Those items are worth fighting. The DMCA is excessive in its restrictions to the point that free speech is restricted, violating the constitution.
Slashdot carrying the full text of the document protected by copyright (regardless of either license or "trade secret" status). That has the potential to be illegal under long established (and enforced by the court system) copyright law. That part is where slashdot might not have a leg to stand on.
The compromise will end up being where slashdot removes the verbatim copies of the document, but leaves the "links and instructions" comment postings alone. Besides, by the time a decision is made, MS Kerberos will have gone through its requesite 2 versions, and the working version 3 will be up. This is only "1.0" -- no MS 1.0 works, and we know this.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
...are *really* on the ball. I'm impressed. That reply was downright vicious. They all deserve plaques for Christmas bearing the title "Genuine Rat Bastard".
:)
Slashdot is in good hands.
Here, look at the full text.
/. is trying to fight it.
/. and Tim asked that it be removed, what do you think would happen?
See there at the top? "© 2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved."
It's copyrighted. It doesn't matter if they're talking about extensions to an open spec - the document, which they wrote, is copyrighted. The same way O'Reilly copyrights books that explain the open TCP/IP protocols, etc.
This seems open and shut, I'm surprised
If somebody posted the text of an O'Reilly book to
---
Did you miss the "they wrote it" part?
I'm not saying they wrote the Kerberos spec. I'm saying they wrote a document describing & explaining it. Or some semblance of it...
---
2. How can Microsoft use the Kerberos name, which signifies an open standard protocol, in connection with a proprietary protocol?
/. can claim common carrier, and ignore MS's request. But that doesn't change the fact that the original posters of the document violated MS's copyright.
They're taking an open protocol, adding a bit to it, and trying to call the whole thing their property. I don't think that's going to work.
They aren't saying that they have registered the trademark for Kerberos. They aren't saying that they own the Kerberos spec. They are saying that they have documented their proprietary extensions to Kerberos, and that the document, which they wrote, is copyrighted.
I agree that something which is easily downloaded is not a trade secret. I agree that they do not own the Kerberos spec. I agree that "extending" it is an evil thing to do.
Given the fact that Microsoft is a known monopolist, people have a right to be concerned about what Microsoft is attempting to do with an open protocol. Posting the information so that we can all discuss it should be considered fair use, even if Microsoft does somehow own the copyright for the document.
I agree, 100%. Get the document, bypass the EULA, read it, and then post the details of the spec.
But taking their document & retransmitting it verbatim is copyright infringement, IMO. Perhaps
---
The "remove the posts explaining click-through circumvention" part is bogus, of course, but the part that rings true is this:
/.
Microsoft has a copyrighted document. How you got it doesn't matter - it could have been posted to their web page in plain ol' HTML, and if it says (c) 2000 Microsoft, Inc then it's copyrighted.
If you go and copy it and post it in full somewhere else, you are committing copyright violation. Same reason you can't go to the NYT page and post the entire text of an article on
---
/undo_prior_moderation
Not true. The fact is that the material is allegedly copyrighted. The law may be unclear in this case, and is anyway certainly open to interpretation.
Uh? If I write a little Perl script and put "Copyright 2000, Eric Sandeen" on it, is that not copyrighted? There's no central copyright office, like there is for patents and trademarks.
If MS writes a document, stamps "copyright" on it, it's copyrighted (unless it was stolen from some other copyrighted material, of course.)
Which brings me to... just because Kerberos is an open standard, MS can still write a 10 page document describing it, and copyright that document.
If you subsequently retransmit it in full, you are guilty of copyright violation, AFAIK.
Right?
---
Pyrotoc said:
MS are very pissed off about Samba.
Microsoft is actually very nice to the Samba folks, and appears to be aware that if the CIFS potocol is ever to be accepted as an internet standard that there will need to be multiple interoperating implementations.
In addition, discussions on the CIFS and Samba list indicates that substantial parts of the required information are already publically known...
--dave (an interested spectator) c-b
davecb@spamcop.net
The Pentagon Papers.
davecb@spamcop.net
Its interesting that this whole situations goes to the core of Microsoft's business practice. They have the right to take an open product extend it and then withdraw the use of it from the community by the mere fact that they own most of the desktop (client) market.
http://samovarawards.com/
Yes, we all know that story when the
monster published essential piece of Kerberos interoperability
specifications under trade secret notice in hope to
compromise Samba developers with illegal knowledge and to
establish a new legal precedent of "nobody can implement
those specs".
But, one of obvious outcome of the antitrust battle is the required openness of all
Microsoft API's. That's what will be too late to protect in the High Court - once the
bird is out of the cage, you can't put it back. Please, help me to write a list of young
fellows waiting to kick the behemoth's butt: Netscape/Mozilla, Samba, RealNeworks,
StarOffice, CorelOffice, IBM Speech Recognition, etc.
Andrew
send them an email with a .vbs file
/. would care/know how to write one? I program in winblows (Delphi) and I've never written one.
Your assuming that anyone working for
Kylix is comming though.
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
Allegations are all well and good, but without proof they aren't worth anything
That sounds so good, but I think most of us know that this is not true. The innocent are run over by the rich (ie, M$) all the time. I know from personal experience the leagal system is badly flawed.
In this instance, I don't think M$ has a chance.
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
ok, lets use your example
But stealing from my car when the window is open or stealing by breaking the window is still stealing
But lets make add the part you forgot.
But stealing from my stolen car when the window is open or stealing by breaking the window is still stealing. Regardless of the fact that after I stole it I repainted it and added a fin to the trunk. That made it mine!
Get real, I can't see how M$ can copywrite something they stole to begin with.
So tell me, how much do you make working for M$?
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
I think the point you are missing here is that in your example there is money being made of the text written.
M$ isn't charging for this text, hence they are not loosing money. Since it was made available on the net "trade secret" shouldn't hold any water either. So if they want to take it to court how much damages can M$ claim they lost?
Since it was making nothing, and it was being handed out to anyone....not a thing.
The most I see is a court ordering it off the site.
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
The posting of the entire document is clearly a violation of copyright and must be removed. The responsible parties are the original posters, not Slashdot or Andover.net. Microsoft will be responsible for contacting them individually and providing proof of their acceptance before removing them. The post(s) by Anonymous Coward will be removed without any approval.
Excerpts from the document for the purpose of review and commentary are permissible under the Fair Use doctrine and must stay.
Links to the document elsewhere are not illegal and must stay.
Comments on bypassing the license are not illegal and must stay.
Speaking for myself WRT the DMCA, I believe it to be unreasonable, immoral, and unconstitutional. The Constitution, being the highest law in the land, takes precedence over the DMCA. To take this further, under inspiration of Thomas Jefferson, I find it to be my civic duty to disobey the DMCA in the most egregious and complete way possible. It is the duty of citizens to disobey unjust and unreasonable laws until they are removed. At least, it is if we respect our heritage (and I do).
Whew. Given the past history of /. I was scared that the reply was going to start out something like this.
...
To: J.K. Weston, Designated Agent, Microsoft Corporation
IANAL but,
BTW, you should cc: Joel Klein, Washington, DC
This is not always true. A lot of silly Class action suits is instigated by the Law firms themselves using a straw person they have on hand.
Help fight continental drift.
MS will have to show that /. acting unlawfully, and also show that is has suffered damage as a result. If there's no damage shown MS will just have to whistle.
Their case has 3 arguments:
The /. attorneys are nicely attacking them all, and trying to show there's no damages due besides.
As everyone is saying there's a decent case in fair use to be established: news reporting, private study (to learn whether it's good enough to buy) and scholarship (to understand how its done and consider whether this is good design) are all arguable.
This point is particularly interesting for the following reason: it is the strongest point legally, but the weakest point practically.
Remember, we are assuming the reason MS care is because they want to prevent Samba interoperating properly, so that people running Win2Kpro are forced to run Win2Kserver. But the copyright only subsists in the document itself: if someone takes the trouble to read the document and rewrite it in their own words then the folks at Samba just need to show that when writing the Samba code they used the latter, and not MS' copyrighted spec.
So it is quite possible /. will be forced to remove the exact reproduction of the document from the server. This wouldn't constitute a commercial victory for MS.
I don't really know that a trade secret is protected as such; however if you do something unlawful in order to disclose it then it'll be assumed that some damage has been done.
The argument that it isn't really secret because anyone can read it ought to be reasonably convincing, if we're not dealing with blackletter legal rules but reasonable estimations of damage.
Potentially the parentage of the protocol might be relevent in law, in order to argue that you can't have a secret codicil to a public spec, but I doubt it. Much more important is that in order to argue that it is secret they would be in danger of admitting the strategy "embrace and extend" for the first time publicly and officially. The potentially wide ramifications of this for a future anti-trust trial (NOT this one!) will not be lost on MS lawyers.
This is a rather suspect argument. Nobody is alleging Andover accepted the agreement. Andover might be held liable for assisting someone to cause damage to MS in the course of them breaking the agreement. So we've got some nice questions aimed at undermining the assumption that the posters did in fact accept it: they might have used WinZip to extract it without agreement, they might have been based in Cuba etc, or they might have received it at the end of a chain of people which might have been contaminated (in which case their liability would have to be established, given that the provenance is not known to be bad).
I'll be watching this with fascination.
BTW: all this commentary will be read with interest by Andover and MS attorney's alike. This will surely improve the quality of both sides' arguments. I think we've just invented Open Source Lawsuits!
Every month or so I pick up a shareware cd just to see what's up with. As I read the agreements to these shareware titles I see that many have clauses that allow for anyone to distribute the software but they disallow anyone/company from making and distributing a cd with their app for any reason including profit.
Could the open source community adopt a rule to strictly exclude Microsoft from adopting and extending their work? Would this hold up?
"I'm ready for technology now, but all they have is busted shit" me
When you post the 750th comment, no one ever seems to read your opinions. Ah well. I'll post my opinion anyway.
Microsoft's lawyers are, at this very moment, preparing the next phase of their complaint against Slashdot/Andover. The particular issues behind MS's implementation of Kerberos and whether or not the spec should be made public are IRRELEVANT. MS has stated that their mods are a piece of their intellectual property, and is entitled to make decisions about how that iformation is to be distributed and used. Once that decision is made, it is MS's right to protect that decision under the law. The DMCA supports MS on this issue, and since no one has any legal reason to suggest that MS has broken the law by making non-free modifications to kerberos, their rights are protected. Until such time as the MS usage agreement is found to be invalid, MS RETAINS ALL RIGHTS to distribute it as they see fit. Arguing that the kerberos mods should be freely available doesn't touch the real issue here... have MS's rights been violated under the terms of the DMCA?
In my opinion, only twice. All copies of the spec that were posted to slashdot (two, if I remember correctly,) are not only in violation of the DMCA, but of copyright law in general. You cannot republish copyrighted work to which you don't have rights. As for the posts describing how to circumvent the EULA, and those posts pointing to unprotected versions of the document... I don't see any violations of the DMCA. You're not violating copy protection, so the terms of the DMCA about that aren't relevant. Linking to such material is also not illegal. Those posts shouldn't even be in question.
So the question lies with the illegal, full postings of the documents. Does the first ammendment allow for this? I don't know, I'm not a first ammendment specialist. Since Slashdot has a policy to NEVER censor comments, I can see a big fight brewing over this particular issue.
But sending a list of reasons why you think MS's EULA is invalid is a waste of time. It's like complaining to the grocery store that your bread is smashed, and the grocer telling you that the wheat used in the bread is of low quality. It doesn't even address the issue! The bloody bread is squashed!
I wonder about Andover's lawyer. My guess is he's inexperienced, particularly in cases of corporate law. I'm willing to bet he just graduated from law school, and Andover hired him because he's young, fresh, and cheap.
-- Minds are like parachutes... they work best when open.
No, sorry.
It's a reference to South Park. In the "Chef Aid" episode, Chef is suing Alanis Morisette over song copyrights or something. One of the sides has Johnny Cochrane(?) arguing the "infamous" Chewbacca defense, which is basically confusing the jury with inconsistencies from Star Wars.
> [MS] like to think of themselves as the
> bully and think that everyone will just
> fold over.
No, MS like to think of themselves as righteously indignant because their bought-and-paid-for property has been "stolen".
I suspect that the majority of MS herdsmen, particularly the lawyers, are in such culture shock about MS truly giving anything away, however backhandedly, that the idea doesn't actually take root in their consciousness. Also, they don't seem to understand "public." They seem to think that it means something like "available to be snatched away and defended" rather than "accessible to all".
Not until you press them, and ask pointy questions that force them to begin thinking (ooh, that smarts), do they have to actually assimilate enough reality to come to a knowledge of the truth. This of course shows them what dodos they really look like to everyone else, which is embarrassing and makes them highly defensive.
If they learn quickly, the individuals involved will most carefully avoid such issues in future, else if they also have enough basic honesty, they will then choose the truly righteous side (even though it will most likely cost them their job). If they're a bit thick, they'll accuse Bob Young of attacking them, froth at the mouth, and generally set themselves up for another pie in the face.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
In my experience, documentation released under a restrictive NDA is distributed via physical media (CD, print, fax) after a signed NDA has been submitted. An anonymous clickwrap agreement, followed by a non-watermarked, unencrypted, unprotected PDF shows not even a cursory effort to protect the document from casual redistribution.
From a "real security" standpoint, there's not much of a practical difference between what they did and, say, distributing it on CD to a signer of an NDA. But this is almost as if they left the barn door open and then put a neon sign on the barn roof saying "OPEN BARN! TAKE OUR COWS!"
The doctrine of Fair Use can be applied to the presence of copyrighted material here on Slashdot:
From http://fairuse.stanford.edu/rice.html
I. Fair Use for Teaching and Research
The "fair use" doctrine allows limited reproduction of copyrighted works for educational and research purposes. The relevant portion of
the copyright statue provides that the "fair use" of a copyrighted work, including reproduction "for purposes such as criticism, news
reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" is not an infringement of copyright. The law lists
the following factors as the ones to be evaluated in determining whether a particular use of a copyrighted work is a permitted "fair use,"
rather than an infringement of the copyright:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational
purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Although all of these factors will be considered, the last factor is the most important in determining whether a particular use is "fair." Where
a work is available for purchase or license from the copyright owner in the medium or format desired, copying of all or a significant portion
of the work in lieu of purchasing or licensing a sufficient number of "authorized" copies would be presumptively unfair. Where only a small
portion of a work is to be copied and the work would not be used if purchase or licensing of a sufficient number of authorized copies
were required, the intended use is more likely to be found to be fair.
-- End Quote --
Since Microsoft is giving the information away for free on the internet to anyone (including those who due to their age are unable to enter into a binding contract) it's obvious that the presence on Slashdot isn't affecting their ability to make money off the material.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
or a systems admin who has to support Win98 machines...
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
Does that make it a conspiracy theorem?
I think that the letter is excellent. It asks Microsoft to back up what it is asking, and to show why and how it has the authority to do so. It does this in a clear manner as well.
Way to Go!
Even if the license was valid (istr the validity of click-thru's is questionable) and that the document was copyrightable, was Microsoft's to copyright, and was not being quoted in fair use (all possible), not all users "obviously violated the agreement". Apparently, it was actually a simple zip file which could be opened with any compression utility. Furthermore, since the license thing only worked under Windows (and, presumably, only recent versions,) Mac, Unix, Amiga, Atari, Win3, MS-DOS, CP/M, etc. users couldn't possibly have seen the notice, and therefore could not possibly be held to it.
I doubt MS would even bother trying to go after individual posters -- it would be far too easy to say "oh, I downloaded it unzipped from some server in Russia. I didn't know it was supposed to be secret. Sorry."
What they're trying to do is clean up the mess after someone let the cat out. Andover's lawyers are trying to see if they have to help with the clean up. (with, I think, an obvious bias towards not wanting to.)
Stupid people will be persecuted to the fullest extent allowed by law.
Or a split-personality aspect of me that I was hitherto unaware of?
Yours truly,
"Good_CRC"
Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
Christian R. Conrad
mail me at iki.fi ; same user ID as here
I have a win95 system where I run WinRAR. When I found the Kerberos specs from microsoft (in a file kerbspec.exe, I was in the WinRAR directory browsing mode. When I double clicked them, it just opened the archive, bypassing the click through.
--
For example, Beethovens Ninth Symphony is public domain (?), anyone can perform it w/o having to cough up royalties to the Beethoven estate - however, a particular instantiation or performance, the specific interpretation and an orchestral styling of the 9th by a certain orchestra on a certain lable CAN be copyrighted and protected.
What I think some judge needs to determine is if this particular instantiation of the embrace/extend innovation process, in this case kerberos, is actually an innovation that benefits the consumer, creating a better, competitive product, OR it is primarily a misrepresentation on Msft's part to appear to be standards compliant to customers, who DO WANT interoperability amongst systems from various vendors (want a choice, at least I do) while actually using the extensions to make them incompatible? This is a subtle differentiation of intent to make. Should not Msft at least be required to disclose this, like a warning lable on the box that states "This product uses open standards in order to work with your existing non-Msft products like you want, but we've taken the liberty of improving upon those old standards so this product may NOT actually work with other non-Msft products, but that's their problem because we rule the market and it's their burden to have to pay us for the priviledge of keeping up with our private extensions, if THEY want to remain compatible with our ever expanding monopoly."
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Sustained. The jury will disreguard the questions as immaterial to the case at hand.
Ok, since when is it illegal to take an 'open protocol', enhance and extend it, make it 'better' if you will, altho this has the unfortunate side effect of making it incompatible with other non-Msft products; and copyright those proprietary extensions? That's the 'gray zone' Msft is exploiting, the want to keep 'innovating', which we all know is double-talk for "making incompatible with industry standards so they'll HAVE to use our products, haha!" altho agreeing to a static protocol is pretty progress halting - the question for the judge is: is this (proprietary kerberos extensions) really making innovative progress in software technology that benefits the customer, fixing 'issues' in the open standard, or a monopolizing tactic? Both?? Neither???
Standards plus!
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
the double meaning of the term 'innovate' or 'progress' which to one party means "make a product better" and to the other party means "make a product incompatible". Certainly Msft want to project the impression that "we've made kerberos better, but, opps! sorry it doesn't work with Solaris anymore! Guess they'll have to sign our NDA to get our specs to make their kerberos compatible with our new, improved kerberos" (thereby subordinating SunMicro) While the other side sees 'innovate' as a monopoly power free to change the specs at will in order to break, control and subordinate competing products, which is an abuse of that monopoly power. So what I'm asking is, do the Msft extensions actually create a 'better' product for the consumer, with genuine real benefits but purely coincedental, accidental damage to competitors, OR are the extensions primarily an exclusionary tactic with little consumer benefit?
(that's a rhetorical question, I already know what the answer in this forum is!)
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
The Second Amendment Sisters
Finding God in a Dog
Well, before posting that comment, I searched 'older stuff' for all articles (blank keyword field) under two categories: Science and Space. No articles older than Jan00 were listed in Space (I forget the cutoff date for Science). Plus I read a comment under today's Slashdot's New Setup article where one reader inferred that mySQL's performance limitations was the reason why Slashdot removes old articles from the server.
So I surmised that for technical reasons, stories and their comments eventually are removed from the active site... or 'fall off.' If the really old stuff is available somewhere else, it's certainly not obvious where.
Gratuitous OT: Hey - Rose-Hulman! I attended a 6-week engineering-oriented summer camp for High School seniors there almost 20 years ago. It was great, but damn is Terre Haute a humid hell during the summer... fog actually condensed at sunset when the temperature dropped below 90F. (Go Elephants!)
(Does that scream "nerd!" or what?)
I can see the fnords!
Well...
Isn't this another fine example of M$s innovation. [ROF-LMAO] They didn't even change the [expletive deleted] name.
I swear that M$ is no longer a software company, its a law firm filled with feisty midgets who were pithed at graduation.
Only a moron would think we were that gullible and/or innorant. Or a lawyer...
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Well, sure it's cocky. But I think it's quite solid, factually (IANAL, of course). And if you want *really* cocky, see this link, which is attorney Jim Tyre's response to Cybersitter trying to threaten peacefire.org in 1997. Hilarious!
-- God is silent. Now if we can only get Man to shut up.
I'm honestly surprised that the response would consist of so many questions. Yes, these are good ones to ask, but hardly points of law (I mean, if you can point to a law that says that protocols used on the internet can be freely copied, I would like to see it). Rather, I would have said either that slashdot is a journalistic enterprise and that articles are protected under the first amendment, and postings are akin to letters to the editor. This seems to be much more direct and to the point, and sets a VERY high bar for Microsoft to cross. They would have to prove that a) slashdot is NOT a journalistic enterprise, and therefore not entitled to first amendment protection, or b) that if slashdot IS a journalistic enterprise, that they (MSFT) have an overriding concern in having the first amendment rights abrogated. Keep in mind that the U.S. government was unable to do this with the New York Times when the Pentagon Papers were published. This is what I mean when I say "a high bar to cross". The letter written by the editor seemed to just be beating around the bush.
Now if only /.'s next interview was, "Ask Microsoft's Kerberos legal team 10-15 questions". It might be tough to get the moderators to promote 10 civil questions though (that and MS would never agree to the interview :( ).
Did Mark's firm write that using Wine? Or better yet, did Mark's firm write that in Staroffice under Linux emulation in FreeBSD? =]
Two words for you: "Fair Use". Even copyrighted materials can be used in other contexts. The problem is the DMCA is an end-around fair use, which requires that the information be "trade secrets".
Microsoft made a point to use the DMCA as their lever for action -- the response is merely asking Microsoft to justify the applicability of the DMCA in this scenario.
Agreed. I don't see the actual "fair use" claim in the letter from Slashdot to Microsoft either.
I was merely pointing out for those with their flamethrowers on ("Slashdot is CLEARLY in VIOLATION, take it down NOW", "Slashdot is such a bunch of hypocrites", etc) that there are definite defenses possible, and that a lot of these issues will get negotiated now -- before we even start talking about an actual lawsuit/court appearance.
Basically, nothing works in black and white. There are always exceptions and shadings of meanings, even in "The Law".
Microsoft is making two contradictory, mutually exclusive claims:
/. (and indeed may well have done so).
1. That their mutilations of the Kerberos protocol are a "trade secret"
This is easilly rebutted, as they posted it to the internet with absolutely no security other than a "click-wrap" license which is not legally binding, not even in UCITA states where that legislation doesn't take effect until October. Furthermore, as others have noted, nothing prevents this software from being downloaded by persons too young, or in jurisdictions where the license is invalid, who can then post it anonymously to
2. That this is a violation of copyright.
Fair use clearly allows posting of the releavant portions of a copyrighted product, and in the case of technical review and critical discussion, even the entire document. Furthermore, Microsoft's attempt to claim "trade secret" has probably undermined any claim to copyright privelege. Then there is the entire "you can copyright a program but not a specification" argument, which may or may not hold up, but is in any event a gray area of the law.
These questions punch to the heart of this issue, and are entirely on-point and relevant. It is amusing to see all the Microsoft-paid astroturfers out in force (as usual, with any Microsoft related discussion of import on this site), seeking to confound the issue and guide the discussion away from the facts at hand. Very amusing, indeed.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Bite the hand.
It's a joke !!! Hello ??!?!? Hello ?!?!?!
C'mon people, loosen up a bit !
- sigs are for wimps.
This bring a whole new meaning to being an Open Source advocate. I can't wait!
Bad Mojo
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
Lawyers can be a powerful force for both good and evil. It all depends on the choice of the one who wields them. In enlightened hands, they are indispensable for maintaining order and harmony in society. But woe if a lawyer should ever fall into the clutches of Evil.
:P
In other words...
Lawyers are tools.
Actually, they just proposed that the judge might order them not to do it in the future, depending on what "future" means.
I don't think anyone is disputing that microsoft has a valid copyright on the code in question. Given that, I cannot see any legal leg for slashdot to stand on with regards to the actual posting of the copyrighted code here.
The other stuff -- howto avoid the clickwrap agreement, and links -- Microsoft can go suck eggs; give 'em hell.
Your attempts to challenge MS only look defensive from this POV; indeed, frivolous. You are not even asking them pertinent questions like how they think posting a link infringes on their copyright.
But as for copyrighted material: if I was to take slashcode, strip off the copyright, and post it here... would you leave it up? How about if I replace the copyright with one asserting copyright for Microsoft?
Only if Andover won. Remember that the US courts are still not very tech savvy and often don't understand the real issues involved, hence we get things like the DMCA.
-BMicrosoft can have all the copyright they want. Perhaps you failed to take time to read what this is all about. Andover/slashdot *didn't* violate any copyright laws. They didn't post copies of the document, they didn't post links to copies of the document. Nowhere has /. said that copyright was valid, important or legal. And nowhere has slashdot violated copyright laws. Those who violated copyright laws are a bunch of immature idiots who just happened to post on a freely open board. Do you think that slashdot is to play 'Big Brother' and go through the thousands of posts daily to remove the 'bad' ones? If someone breaks the laws, that's their problem, not slashdots.
Should the telephone company be responsible if someone uses the phone to plot a crime? Would you sue the owner of a store if your car was stolen while parked outside? No, of course not. The questoins asked were valid. Before doing anything, it's best to define what you are supposed to be doing and why.
-BrentWhat I find interesting about this whole thing is that if M$ had found their 'trade secrets' in Slashdot in a different context, they would most likely go out of their way to promote it, and let others know that it is ok to be there. Consider this:
/case1
Wow! look at this new Kerberos thing! it rocks!
(the specs get posted)
(everyone talks it up and plans for a bright future...)
(M$ issues press releases indicating broad and helpful support from the hacker crowd)
No harm done right?
case1/
/case2
Oh my god. They have done it again. Look at how they have mangled Kerberos! Those bastards!
(The specs get posted)
(everyone rips them to pieces...)
(M$ issues foul sounding letter citing any good law they can because they don't like hearing what people really think)
Some harm done on both sides. M$ steps on foot, and bitches when others laugh about it. Slashdot & Co. get to spend money and time dealing with demi-god wannabe corporation.
case 2/
In either case the law is the same. Given this their response is pretty childish. If they win this one then doesn't this whole thing put them above the law somewhat? If they were truly interested in respecting the law, then they should be unahppy about the first case as well. Seems to me that if case1 were to happen, they would not be citing the DMCA. They would be busy writing news copy, and marketing to leverage their new found friends to form 'new and innovative partnerships'.
Along these same lines, I also believe that this whole thing really is just another shot at mass knowledge management. If the general population is not allowed to discuss these sort of things, then enforcement of the laws becomes trivial. That is a very large part of what the DMCA is about. I truly don't think the DMCA is about the few smart ones who know what they are doing. It is about making others aware of how technology works in general. Even if they are not distributing code, they are distributing know-how. If you think about it a while, code is just know-how that is machine executable. This is why they cited the postings that detailed how to get around the license. For me that is the scary part. They actually think that they can stop the flow of information that could be used to circumvent a method of access control. It is this proposition that will make fair use a moot issue, and the U.S. a very bad place to live. Just think where the technology centers will be if this happens. Somewhere else where you don't have to pay for the tools to think!
Good job on the letter. This thing has some very deep legal implications regarding our very freedoms to learn and share what we know. We should fight tooth and nail for this right. As things stand now having knowledge is not a crime. I know how to do lots of illegal things. I think that my own values given to me by peers I respect, along with the law help me to do the right thing. In the few cases where it is grey, it is the information that empowers me to do the right thing. Knowing something should not be a crime. Telling others should not be either. It is what one does with that knowledge that matters. It seems our nice for the people nation and its business partners would now like to make sure there are no violations by taking away the means to commit them. If you substitute 'arms' for 'knowledge' does this not sound a lot like our early American history? Our founders left a more restrictive state so that they could preserve basic human rights. We did this in such a way as to make sure that we would be able to keep them. Consider the right to bear arms. Lots of people consider this one important. How about right to learn and share information? Seems to me that the goverments need to control is nicely checked by the right to bear arms. Now the battle is information access. Goverment control will be similarly checked by a well-informed population. Kind of a pain in the ass for them though. Pretty hard to throw a smoke screen when there are hundreds of thousands of collective minds all thinking: "Hey wait a minute....
There will probably be lots of stupid things like this popping up because it is a big win for those who want to control to get a precedent set. Kind of hard to argue about something that will affect your life, but you are not allowed to learn about. Or worse because you pose an argument, it is made invalid because the basis for it was not yours to access, or worse the terms of access do not permit the argument in the first place! Slash is probably the last place to set one of these.
Blogging because I can...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I understand it, Microsoft did NOT copyright the specification. The specification was previously copyrighted. Microsoft is holding that information as "trade secret", but possibly has failed to give said secret sufficient protection. I believe that slashdot is in the right here.
The use of click-wrap non-disclosure agreements to protect trade secrets have been upheld as legally binding in numerous court cases. The advent of the internet as a means to widely and quickly distribute restricted information does not change the fact that it is a violation of a legally binding agreement to do so.
.EXE file from Microsoft, and (remembering the recent problems with trojans in executible files) I wisely chose Winzip to open the file. There it was, I read it, no click through agreement I could find.
But there was no click through agreement, I don't know what you are talking about. I got a compressed
So how hard do they expect us to look for their agreement? Did they actually expect me to run an executible from an untrusted source on my system?
Finkployd
Because of this, I don't see any reason why slashdot should accept the claim that the material held on their servers is indeed copyrighted by Microsoft until they are provided with evidence of this claim (e.g. a copy of the document without the licence).
It is certainly unreasonable to remove a posting just because somebody claims that they own copyright on it without providing evidence. If this was the case, I could have any posting removed just by emailing rob and saying it was mine and I wanted it taken down!
IANAL and all that
Wow, that's great!
I didn't know you could *copyright* a trade secret! That's illegal.
Boy.. looks like we're all in trouble!
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
Hack? Yep, and proud of it. Pro-Microsoft? When I ought to be. Proud of that, too.
Hiawatha Bray
Tech Reporter
Boston Globe
Oh...and I'm also a GUY! Just like the Hiawatha in the poem by Longfellow! Sheesh! You guys need to read something besides software manuals...:-)
Hiawatha Bray
Tech Reporter
Boston Globe
But they are relevant.
If Microsoft's claims of copyright, trade secrecy, and violation of NDA are invalid, then Microsoft has no leverage with which to force Slashdot to remove the posts.
do items 1, 2 and 3 there seem like fluff comments to annoy microsofts lawyers rather than have any legal significance?
3. How can Microsoft claim trade secrecy for a protocol that is distributed over the Internet?
4. What measures has Microsoft taken to protect the trade secrecy of its Kerberos specification beyond the use of a click-wrap license agreement?
5. What measures has Microsoft taken to ensure that its Kerberos specification is only distributed to persons who are capable of entering into a binding contract in jurisdictions where such an agreement would be enforceable?
6. How could posting of the Microsoft Kerberos specification on Slashdot have any detrimental impact on the market for authorized distribution of Microsoft's version of Kerberos?
These are the crucial questions that a judge will have to decide in this sort of a case, and they all reflect precedents that other corporations have set, even if not tried in court. (Remember the Corel beta license flap about prohibiting minors? Microsoft didn't even bother to specify no minors.) And they're all framed in a way to put Microsoft on the defensive. Cool.
I do wish that something had been said about fair use, but IANAL, and wouldn't know how to frame that question, nor whether it's useable.
It's real good to see that Andover has lawyers who earn their pay, since so many don't.
I know copyright laws go against your Linux/communist agenda, but these laws are what America was built upon. Without them, many great products would never have been created such as the car, light bulb, telephone...and Windows 98. That's right, Windows 98 is a great product. Anyone who says otherwise is a pro-Linux zealot or a fool.
You obviously are unfamiliar with how copyright (or most other law) actually works. Microsoft has informed Andover that MS believes Andover to be infringing its copyright. The response by Andover's lawyers is requesting clarification of MS's claims, while challenging MS's assertions. Just because a lawyer (MS's) says something, doesn't mean it is true. So Andover asks questions about the finer points of copyright law in an attempt to determine if the posts really are copyright material, and whether the posts actually infringe copyright law. Yes and No is a possible combination of answers to those two questions.
Part of what you don't understand is that Intellectual Property has limits, just as real property does. Andover is asserting (in the subtext of its questions) that the posts fall outside those limits, and are not subject to action.
Anthony Argyriou
Capitalist for Linux
ps: I quoted the entire post, because it isn't really a troll
The only censonship on the internet should be parents watching their childern.
send flames > /dev/null
Only 'flamers' flame!
Without that information posted here to Slashdot, I would not have been able to read it. Linux isn't known for running self-extracting Winderz .exe files too well. By posting the information here, the users have made it available for discussion in its entirety. If I had been required to go to another server to download the extracted the .pdf, that site would have far less chance of convincing a judge that the information was there for discussion purposes. Slashdot's whole point and purpose in life is to provide material for discussion. It can hardly be argued that this is some form of den of piracy.
Digital Wokan
I wanted to spend 8 years defending the US constitution.
The ISP may be assumed liable, but only the judiciary can force correction, if the ISP do not cooperate out of blind fear.
I imagine the first DMCA case taken to court would probably be overturned.
>But I have a question for the legally inclined. How binding are all of these thinly-veiled hostilities?? Were they obligated to under law?
Of course not. The only authority that can oblige anyone to do anything is the judiciary. These messages are merely diplomatic negotiation, often completely asinine.
If microsoft took Andover to court, filed motions, and won, the ViPs would be sequentially ordered, fined, and thrown in jail until they complied.
But otherwise, legal individuals such as microsoft have no power past the fear of the very bad things that could happen to you in court.
I'm just saying that to the developers it could look as if "We did all this work, and now Microsoft is suing us!"
In some companies, (and I'm not saying VA/Andover/Slashdot is one of them) there is a strong corporate identity, where what happens to one person feels like it's happening to all.
From Salon.com:
"[Kerberos] is an open standard, developed in part by Theodore Ts'o, a software developer who now works for VA Linux
Ts'o says that Microsoft has taken extensions of Kerberos that the company "promised two years ago to release freely to universities" and made those extensions proprietary. "They welshed on their promises," Ts'o says. "I'm fairly indignant about it.""
----
So what I'm saying is that MS pissed off Ts'o, and then, later, threatned legal action against a division of Ts'o current employer over a something related to what pissed off Ts'o in the first place.
Sure, it's a tenuous string of events, but interesting.
-geekd
has anyone noticed that the guys who wrote Kerberos in the first place are really pissed at MS? And they work for VA Linux, who owns Andover, who owns Slashdot.
So MS is, in effect, adding insult to injury by taking legal action against the company that employs the creators of an open protocol that MS is subverting.
"We will take your work, make it proprietary, then threaten legal action when you complain!"
VA Linux/Andover/Slashdot should sue MS! I'm sure they can find the grounds for it somewhere.
-geekd
When our favorite place to slam each other and start nasty flame wars (and have decent, intelligent debates, too) is in jeopardy of being silenced by a corporate bully, it's great to see all of us put our opinions aside and stand in support of one another.
I don't remember where I saw this, but it is very relevant here: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." (or something very much like that).
-- 100% MS-Free as of 4-4-1999, 11:47:38 PST. "The lapdance is always better when the stripper is cryin'" Free Kevin,
Of course, it is much harder if you lay down and don't even try.
-- Remember: Wherever you go, there you are!
I agree that Slashdot has not done any real damage to Microsoft in this instance, but there is nevertheless the copyright issue. Maybe the copyright doesn't matter this time, but some day, someone is going to use Slashdot to violate IP, defame someone, or commit some other form of legtimately restricted speech (e.g. shouting "fire" in a crowded theater). It will happen.
Slashdot is of course not responsible for comments posted here, but someone is: the poster. Just like when I call up Natalie Portman every 20 minutes and breath heavily into the phone, the phone company is not responsible; I am. The difference is that Natalie can *69 or get the phone company's assistance in finding out who I am so that she can stop me.
But who can stop Anonymous Coward, or some other pseudonymous person? If a "common carrier" wants to be clear of responsibility for content, then they have to make it so that whoever is responsible can be made to face that responsibility.
What I'm getting at is that the desire to give privacy to posters, is ethically (and perhaps legally) in conflict with the desire to not censor. Some day the Slashdot guys are going to be forced into deciding between one or the other. That sucks, but it's inevitable, and you have all my sympathy in advance.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Generic Engineering, dude. It's the next Big Thing. A new (genetically (and gratuitously) incompatable) species of pigeon. Microsoft Bird for Windows.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
They allege that it is a trade secret because...
After someone downloads the file from their web site (without agreeing to any restrictions up through that point), the file still needs some things done to it before the plaintext description of the text is readable. So the user must make a choice about how to extract the data. The two most popular methods (though there are probably others) are:
- Treat the file as data: drag the file to an application like WinZip
- Treat the file a program: execute it (needless to say, this option is only available if you are running Microsoft's operating system)
And if the user takes the second choice (execute the file), then the user is presented with a screen that asks them to wave their fair use rights to the information, and instead, promise (to the computer -- the user is making a promise to a computer here) that the information will be treated as a confidential trade secret. If the user answers Yes, the plaintext is made available. If the user answers No, it isn't.As you can see, the chain of events that lead to the user agreeing to treating it as a trade secret, involves choices, probabilities, random chance, user preferences and habits, and anthropomorphization of computers. Some people will probably tell you that the alleged trade secret status is somewhat debateable. ;-)
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
It seems a fair response with some good points.
I see a few problems though:
Item 1: so what? It's simply another protocol. Calling it Kerberos (item 2) may be another matter though.
Item 2: This is going to be problematic. Internet protocol implementations are expected to be permissive in what they accept and restrictive in what they require. In general a protocol can be extended while retaining backwards compatibility. In fact, there is an expectation that protocols will evolve and this is typically taken into account when designing the initial handshaking for session oriented protocols. And most protocols have version fields in their headers for exactly this purpose.
Item 3. As a registered pedant I would change the phrase "a protocol that is distributed" to "a protocol specification that is distributed".
Item 8. The two references to the ongoing anti-trust battle seem irrelevant and are more likely to simply raise Microsoft's hackles. I think the epidemic of Windows viruses and other security flaws in Windows are more relevent.
I heartily endorse the idea of public review for protocols - especially those related to security. However, I think the bottom line is that the legal systems are a long way from getting a clue.
Therefore, I think that our best hope lies with item 3: "How can Microsoft claim trade secrecy for a protocol that is distributed over the Internet?"
Good luck.
It is not possible to claim that a particular document is both a trade secret and copyrighted.
The two are mutually exclusive.
Whatever law school you went to, you should get a refund. What would preclude a copyright on a text document that describes a trade secret?
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
... lest our memories and attention span be gone from information overload. ESPECIALLY the part about ''decommoditizing the internet'' [!]
Ditto for any ''open standards''. OmIGwad!
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/
'nuff said.
--
Micro$oft: We know where you WENT today!(tm)
While I tend to agree that the DMCA is probably not constitutional, it has *nothing* to do with free speech.
The ability to reproduce someone else's work has never been a kind of free speech. Same for the press.
Copyright *DOES*, in fact, trump free speech. You're allowed to say what you want, but you aren't allowed to stea someone else's words.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
The question is this:
1. Do slashdot's servers currently contain copyrighted material which they do not have appropriate permission to distribute?
That's it. Now, you can argue the *trade secret* part separately, but the fact is, the text of the spec *is* copyrighted, and entitled to protection, just as slashdot's code is copyrighted, and entitled to protection.
How would you feel if Microsoft went and ran a closed, proprietary, message system based on slashcode, and when asked, found some side issue to the question of ownership and licensing and hammered on that instead?
If there are copies of the spec, they should be removed. Instructions on bypassing the "copy protection" are much more difficult to discuss; after all, that's the DMCA, which is new law, and not very well understood.
All that said... I agree, I'd love to see Microsoft explain this one to Judge Jackson.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
"fair use" is a term of art, it doesn't just mean "reasonable".
1. Fair use is what's called an "affirmative defense". You say "yes, your work is under copyright, and I did indeed copy it without your permission, but that's okay because...", and as such, you *NEVER* argue it until you lose every other point, because claiming fair use voids most of the other defenses. You admit that you did it to claim fair use.
2. How is this "fair use"? Fair use allows for, as an example, quotes to support a point. It very rarely allows for a wholesale copying of protected material.
I would not think this would be a good case to take a "fair use" angle. Slashdot's primary defense, IMHO (and I am not any kind of lawyer), should be:
1. The "trade secret" stuff is intrinsically meaningless to many members of the community. Some of them may, indeed, have protected MS's trade secret as well as they protect their own. MS should not publish trade secrets on the internet and expect to be taken seriously.
2. Slashdot did not post the material intentionally; users chose to use slashdot to post it. This is the "sort-of-like-a-common-carrier" defense.
3. Removing the material, at this point, changes nothing. Microsoft botched, Microsoft lost control of a proprietary hack, Microsoft is now trying to regain face by making someone suffer. Let's run this by Judge Jackson.
I dunno. I think slashdot is probably close to technically in the wrong... That said, I guess they could also try:
4. The specification, while it may be copyrighted, is covered by the merger doctrine; the idea itself of the spec extension cannot be protected by copyright. The text could be, but it is hard in this case to distinguish the extension from the text describing it, and thus, protection may not apply to the work.
5. Even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that unauthorized copying has occurred, such copying is clearly in the spirit of the fair use clause, because it is necessary for people to see this material to manage compatability. Microsoft released this material after people complained about interoperability. They should cope.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
I guess we could do a little acid test to see if posting these Kerberos docs under "fair use". (IANAL, BTW.)
From Copyright Act of 1976:
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use 38 Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teach-ing (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an in-fringement of copyright.
Criticism, check!
News reporting, check!
teaching, check!
Slashdot 1, M$ 0.
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
I don't think anyone made money by posting these docs on slashdot, and there was an educational element to posting them. (Namely to educate readers about the lameness that is M$ Kerberos.)
Slashdot 2, M$ 0.
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
This could go either way. Seeing the docs pertained to M$'s business, I'll guess that they'll have a stronger arguement against this point.
Slashdot 2, M$ 1.
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copy-righted work as a whole; and
No contest. Publishing entire works is a no-no, in general.
Slashdot 2, M$ 2.
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copy-righted work.
I just don't see how publishing these docs ruined the market for it, seeing how these docs were free and all.
Slashdot 3, M$ 2.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Another point in Slashdot's favor if these docs were unpublished. :)
Doesn't look like this is an open and shut case for either side, though.
George Lee
Deflection tactics 101: When asked a question you don't want to answer, act dumb and answer one you *do* want to. Ref: Politics, Debate
Sorry guys, but no cigar.
As far as I can see, MS is in the right here. Stupid, bullheaded, and arrogant - but right.
"...they may harpoon us, but they ain't gonna pick us up on no radar screen!"
It's true that the points raised by the questions are points to be reckoned with. It seems to this non-lawyer that Andover has a strong legal position. I expect that's the message that they were trying to send.
However, the letter is extremely cocky, and I have to say I was put off by that. Yes, to those of us who agree with Slashdot's position, it seems like a stinging rebuke. But their legal position isn't perfect, and even if it seemed that way, we all know that legal decisions don't always turn out reasonably.
I would have been happier if the cockiness of the letter was matched with a more explicit strength of exposition (No, I'm not talking about legalese or weasel words). I would be even happier still if Slashdot would actually remove the one post that they probably can still lose on (the direct posting of the spec). Even if it's LEGAL to keep that post up (and that really is the one area of this whole brouhuaha that I doubt), is it really ethical? Microsoft asked that people take steps to protect it. Everyone here knew that. Go ahead. Use any method you want to circumvent agreeing to the license. But redistributing the info is still a questionable action. If nothing else, trying to keep above reasonable reproach is good PR (ethics aside), even when up against an unscrupulous enemy. Slashdot could gain a lot of points by taking it down, and even avoid their biggest headache.
I do understand that this is being used as a battlefield for principles, and I uphold those principles. I'm very worried about our freedoms. But we need to fight wisely and make our cases tight. In the legal world, losing a battle doesn't just mean you don't gain the field, you also lose ground. I've noticed that in the computer industry, we almost seem to share certain battle chutzpah with Microsoft. Look at MP3.com throwing themselves into battle with the RIAA. It wasn't all that hard to predict that they might get caught on redistributing recordings they didn't hold the copyright too, even if they did have a fairly reasonable argument. The RecordTV.com people are doomed. Napster users who are redistributing music that they don't hold copyright on and don't have permission to redistribute don't have a legal leg to stand on, regardless of whether or not it benefits the bands (and let me insert here that I'm a musician and have freely released some of my music to be indiscriminatly copied because I beleive in the benefit). They're hurting the cause of freedom because of their irresponsible actions. If it seems to people that we are irresponsible, then the bad guys have that much more of a case for regulation. Unethical, irresponsible, and just plain bad-PR behavior provide a (not altogether) phantom menace for our greedy opposition to play with.
Bruce Perens has some insightful comments about this on technocrat.net. I highly recommend them. Open Source/Free software isn't about freedom to do anything you like without consequence. It's not about disrespecting for others, even when they're wrong. Let's make sure we are the good guys as well as fighting the bad.
(That said, I hope Andover knocks Microsoft on their unethical behind).
Tweet, tweet.
Never work for someone you don't respect. /.ers took this advice they'd be unemployed.
You've obviously never met an IT manager. If most
--Shoeboy
(former microserf)
Most of the posts microsoft referenced in their original complaint did not actually contain the content they alleged it did. Ask them what the #$%^ they were smoking.
I am so glad I quit my job at microsoft. I can have self respect again.
--Shoeboy
(former microserf)
Microsoft may have unlimited legal funds, but here they have effectively broken the rule regarding "Never have an argument with somebody who buys ink by the barrel." or however that quotation really went.
Well, apparently, you only have to fool the majority of people for a little while.
An almost total lack of lawyer-speak. I'm impressed, guys. And I'm interested in seeing any possible justifications MS can put forth. Keep fighting the good fight!
Eric
Only one post on Slashdot violated Microsofts "copyright" the rest violated Microsofts Trade secret.
:)
Now here comes the problem. A trade secret is something that is locked away so the avrage person can not come accrost it. This trade secret was posted on the Internet by Microsoft themselfs. Any clame to trade secret was tossed out the window when that happend.
The copyright is on the specs to Microsofts version of a public standard (at least Microsoft is clamming it's the specs to a public standard) this isn't Microsofts property to copyright so Microsoft has no IP rights...
Microsofts chief hold on the text is a click through copyright that could be ignored by simply extracting the files using commenly available software.
The responce demonstrates how Microsofts copyright and trade secret clames are baseless and the text Micrsoft wants removed from Slashdot are in fact public property part by having been posted publicly by Microsoft and part by prior art.
Oh yeah... IANAL....
I don't actually exist.
No I think he is right...
Copyrights have to do with text made public in some way.
Trade secrets have to do with documents protected by secrets and contracts.
The two may not co-exist....
They are both automatic....
Here is an example:
I draw a picure in private.. No one may see my picture.
No one may comment on my picture becouse no one has seen it. If I make people sign a contract before looking at my picture they may not comment on it. Fair use dose not exist.
Now I show this picture to a friend (no contract). Fair use has died copyright starts. He may comment on my picture. He may say it's ugly. He may say whatever he likes. But he may not outright rip me off and copy (exactly) my picture. He may paridy it or anything else covered by fair use.
I give away the rights to a friend. Again no contract. I just say "Do whatever" I have now transfered the rights to public domain. No one owns it. Or everyone depending on your point of view.
Later I try and clame trade secret. I get laffed at....
I don't actually exist.
Is this going to be Slashdot's official policy? That you will never remove copyrighted material if the copyright holder asks you to? Or is this a special rule only for Microsoft?
I'm just curious:
ENTER SANDMAN
Say your prayers little one
Don't forget, My son
To include everyone
Tuck you in, Warm within
Keep you free from sin
Till the sandman he comes
Sleep with one eye open
Gripping your pillow tight
Exit: Light
Enter: Night
Take my hand
We're off to never never land
Something's wrong, Shut the light
Heavy thoughts tonight
And they aren't of snow white
Dreams of war, Dreams of liars
Dreams of dragon's fire
And of things that will bite
Sleep with one eye open
Gripping your pillow tight
Exit: Light
Enter: Night
Take my hand
We're off to never never land
Now I lay me down to sleep
Pray the lord my soul to keep
If I die before I wake
Pray the lord my soul to take
Hush little baby, Don't say a word
And never mind that noise you heard
It's just the beasts under your bed
In your closet, In your head
Exit: Light
Enter: Night
Grain of sand
Exit: Light
Enter: Night
Take my hand
We're off to never never land
_______
2B1ASK1
I agree with the analasys above (though I too am no lawyer). Maybe contributory/vicarious copyright infringement, but still protected by fair use and other defenses. However, I don't see how it is fair use.
hell, education and news reporting could work too.
And copyrights usually have a clear purpose, to protect the financial interrest of the owner. In the case of a book or piece of music the dammage from the infringement is quite clear; it's a copy less sold.
In this case there is no such loss to the copyright owner, any one can get hold of a 'free' copy anyway!
I see some similarities with the copyright claims the "church" of Scientology keeps asserting in courts all over the world, yet the difference is their book is not for sale or otherwise available to the general public unless you are willing to give up your freedom and join them....
(Oops, does that sound like Micro$oft?)
In short, I like the reply of Slashdot and think M$ is lost in the judicial swamp.
Dirk
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
2. How can Microsoft use the Kerberos name, which signifies an open standard protocol, in connection with a proprietary protocol?
Here it comes, people. Pretty soon, we'll see a legal battle fought over an open standard - may be Kerberos, could be something else. If we allow these corporate-money-sucking monsters too many kicks at the can, they'll eventually find a way pry a protocol, a language or something else out of the public domain and into thier hot little hands. Then the Gates (no pun intended?)will be breached, and the corporate hordes will rush in to feast on the spoils.
We need laws - international laws - that say "Open standards are sacrosanct, and ye shall not deviate from them, under pain of losing _any_ capital you've gained from them". This would remove the incentive to acquire a standard, and may give us some peace.
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
There are many ways to beat Microsoft in this case, but the more important question is what about the general case? If I take some copyrighted and closed spec that I stole from some company, and post or link to it from slashdot, does slashdot then have the legal responsibility of censoring the comments I post?
Most lawyers and corporations would probably jump to say that the host of the site is at fault, but I say that this is a medium to which the rules of newspapers and magazines cannot be applied. In other words, the people who run slashdot do not filter and choose each word that is electronically published on its pages. Those wanting to pursue a copyright violation should be able to go after the individual who posted the comment, but not the host. And if the post was anonymous, they lose. I'm sure certain slashdot logs could be obtained by subpoena, but beyond that, not much can be done.
This is the way it should be. Whether it is this way remains to be seen. Also, keep in mind that the purpose of copyright laws and the DMCA were to help the little guy, not Big Corporations.
-davek
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
> Try writing GNU without using an acronym...
;-)
Well, as the word GNU refers also to an animal, not just to a free software organization, that wouldn't be much of a stretch.
I guess we're about to find out what a 900-pound gorilla says when the banana bites back, eh?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
This guy makes some excellent points regarding the merit of their concern on this matter. I really don't think MS could easily answer those, which immediately shows how stupid all of this is of them. But, I have a feeling the angle MS will take with this will be "none of that matters, this is a copyright issue".
This is unfortunate, when a company relies on technicalities and silly laws to protect its misguided efforts to monopolize. That's all it is, really.
This is what RMS and other Free Software advocates mean when they say that the GPL actually frees software for others, rather than restricting it. The Linux kernel, GNOME, and other Free projects will never have this problem.
-Nathan Whitehead
This was a specification of a product that was supposedly "infringing". If people posted the source code that Microsoft wrote, that is like posting the secret formula. If people post the Microsoft Kerberos specification, they are passing around the ingredient list. Some people are allergic to nuts and need to check the ingredients; others are allergic to vendor lock-in and incompatibility.
-Nathan Whitehead
Good example. Lawyers got richer, state legislatures have a new pot of money to spend on anything they wish, tobacco prices immediately increased by substantial amounts, which means that the settlement is being paid for by smokers, who are disproportionately members of minority groups and in lower than average income brackets. That seems very progressive to me, steal from the poor and give to the rich.
If you are interested in the truth on this scam, read National Taxpayers Union Foundation Policy Paper 115.
...your Shareholders should be suing you after this as well, for wasting the company's money on a case like this when you are so clearly in the wrong.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
It will be very interesting to see how they answer about publicly distributed trade secrets. The whole idea behind that is pretty absurd, and their lawyers must've been pretty brave that day.
I'd also like to see them get smacked down for abusing open protocols. Maybe this can get used against them if they appeal their anti-trust lawsuit?
I hope this goes to court. It would be a huge victory to open standards.
your lawyers kick ass. GO ANDOVER!
--
|-_-| . o O ( bEef!)
"Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that one."
Mark Robins: "Let me ask you a question. Why would a man whose shirt says 'Genius at Work' spend all of his time watching a children's cartoon?"
Microsoft: "I withdraw my question."
49 20 68 61 76 65 20 74 6F 6F 20 6D 75 63 68 20 66 72 65 65 20 74 69 6D 65 2E
I'm part ofthe great unwashed and I don't see where MS ever mentioned trade secret and I didn't see where the DMCA mentioned it either...Can someone explain, using references and passages from the MS letter and DMCA if possible?
thanks
Read this post if you think that saying "this document is copyrighted by me" means that it can't be reprinted; I think it very clearly explains why Slashdot is in the right:
http://slashdot.org/co mments.pl?sid=00/05/18/2015251&cid=236
He's raking 'em over the coals.
What are you talking about? the guy just asked a few questions, Microsoft doesn't need to respond at all. There clean on taking them to court now In fact, they didn't even have to send a letter.
Lawyers suck. Except this one.
Again, WTF? This guy is being paid to fight on your side. If MS paid him, he'd probably say the same thing the other one did. I'm sure if you worked for M$ you would think he sucked anyway? I mean look at questions #1 and #2? Kerberos has extensibility for vendor stuff, and that's what MS did (it probably wasn't intended to be used like this, but it's still 'kerberos')
Just because a person was paid to agree with you, doesn't mean that he's any better then the average lawyer (I'm not saying he isn't, just that we don't know if he is)
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
>Copyright *DOES*, in fact, trump free speech.
Hmmm. I'll assume you are a US citizen. Which would explain your grossly inadequate understanding of our Constitution. See, there's an addendum (you might even call it an amendment) to the constitution. It's actually the first of several such 'amendments'. It declares that all US citizens have the right to say pretty much whatever the hell they want.
Now, I know what you are going to say: "in case such and such, judge so and so said" and "this law says that" and so on. But guess what? It's crap. As a nation, we've let ourselves get pushed around by attorneys (in the forms of legislators, litigators, and judges) till we have essentially lost most of what is guaranteed in not only that amendment, but most of the rest (OK, I guess DC residents can vote for President still. But why the fuck are they being taxed without representation in Congress????)
Anyway, the point is that we have no hope until someone offs a few Supreme Court judges. May as well take out some senators and congressmen as well (does it really take 535 of them to cornhole the country? I think a committee of ten could rape our rights much faster. Oh, wait. There's already a committee of nine who does that.)
Seriously though (in case anyone missed it, the call to arms is a joke) the only reason copyright trumps speech is because the American electorate has allowed it to happen.
(I'm a little grumpy tonight. Even though I live 2000 miles away, I'm pissed off that it turns out that NM residents might not be able to sue the government for setting fires that destroyed their homes.)
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Under US law, no one under the age of 18 can legally enter in a contract. Therefore, we should have some appointed underage people be in charge of opening all EULA enabled material, and posting it on /.!
-end message
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
"What's an internet?"
[Thanks, Bill]
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
He refers to the famous "Chewbacca Defense."
this is about free speech. copyrighted material is quoted in every newspaper - every day. so does slashdot. online forums are interactive news. news for nerds, we call it.
...
...
micosoft also treats their kerberos extension as a trade secret, thats why they have the fishy license to download it.
the argument is: this extension is no trade secret, the license is not enforceable and there
is free speech = fair use of copyrighted material, even under DCMA
they have a good point, they also refer to the antitrust lawsuit, by this questions
this *is* the way to go, good luck!
Please Andover... remove the selected postings.
Microsoft may be "the big bad wolf", but
copyright infringement is not the way to go.
Slashdot has always (at least partially) been
a big defender of the GPL.
The danger is that this infringement, ironically
endangers the GPL, because it would be NULL and
void if copyright-laws are not upheld.
Microsoft has done some distasteful things when
you look at the kerberos case.. but breaking
laws is not the correct way to counter this.
This is not a matter of free speech.
It is a different law altogether.
If someone reproduced a book,
in it's entirety here at Slashdot, most authors
would be pretty pissed off. And rightly so.
Free speech is about everyones right to comment
something, not about everyones right to _copy_
something.
That I feel, is the place where most free-speech-zealots go the wrong direction.
I _do_ agree with almost everything they stand for, but not with this particular point.
Besides, I've always felt that if you go just a
tiny bit too far, your otherwise legitimate claims
will have much less chance of being heard.
Not to be confused with hacker.
It's a shame we can't seem to get any knowledgeable people working as tech section editors at news outlets. Not even in major tech centers.
--
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
Ummmm....excellent? Subject line.... Awww forget it.
For some reason I've managed to get an advance copy of Microsoft's responses to the questions:
To Mark D. Robins,
Thank you for your interest in our proprietary protocols products. The answers to your inquiries are as follows:
1. We claimed protections mostly because we didn't think you'd notice. It pains us to realize that you were one of the few people who actually took the time to read the license agreement before clicking.
2. If you notice, our product is in fact entitled Kerberoos, which is almost completely different from the product you refer to as Kerberos. Our product is in reality a tasty, but proprietary children's cereal. Maybe you've seen our mascot Kangy the Kerberoo?
3. We deny the existence of the internet.
4. Microsoft has taken measures such as writing you this letter and threatening other people. One time on the street a guy from our marketing department made fun of a kid whom he suspected of distributing our Kerberoos brand cereal, the child began crying.
5. We have a "rewards" program that pays any person who turns in a friend for unauthorized use of Kerberoos. So far, we have paid out over $73 in rewards.
6. Most of the detrimental impact is to our already fragile emotions. The justice department has been very mean to us and we're in a pretty rough place right now. You guys showing up and just spilling all our secrets isn't helping.
7. We've found the prospective purchasers of Microsoft products like to know as little as possible before making a purchase. Did you know that we're friends with Jay Leno? Yup, now here's your copy of Office.
8. You guys suck and we hate you. Stop bringing up the damn lawsuit 'cause it sucks to. You guys are just the suckiest sucks ever.
I hope this clarifies the situation and are position. Don't hesitate to contact us by telegram or pigeon if you have any more questions.
Hotnutz.com - Funny
What would it take for slashdot to remove a posting?
If I were to write a perl script that uuencodes a copy of MSOffice and posts it to slashdot as a seriess of postings, would slashdot remove the postings? Why? Is each posting only a small excerpt, and hence qualifies as "fair use"?
If slashdot really takes the opinion that "all postings will be archived forever, and never removed", then perhaps I should write a backup tool that archives my hard drive into slashdot posts...
Governments (in the US, the "executive" branch) enforce copyright, not corporations.
You'd think that after over 20 years of horribly botched copy protection schemes from various companies, people would realize this.
About all the corporation can do is claim copyright and sue for damages if they feel it's being violated (Oh, and lobby the government to pass laws friendly to them).
It may very well be considered fair use. I was speaking with one of the attorneys from the copyright office at Stanford today and asked her this specific question, whether the document posted in whole would be considered a violation of copyright. She explained that it would be for a court to decide, but that it could be considered fair use.
US Code: Title 17, Section 107
Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Thus the nature of the question:
8. Why shouldn't Slashdot users and the general public be able to view this protocol for purposes of commentary and criticism in light of its apparent relevance to issues in the government's antitrust litigation?
I think that in this particular case that it might fall under the "criticism and commentary" definition of fair use.
The Free Press angle has to do with "fair use". From one of your other responsese it seems you're pretty familar with the term. The document in question was a technical specification posted in a technical discussion. After the courts ruled that code was a type of speech protected by the big C, I think a first amendment defense is a possibility.
;)
I still don't see it as stealing, but as discussion about a technical specification that a known monopoly abuser is trying to use...to abuse their monopoly.
And them asking to remove the posts that merely discussed it would fall under a free speech defense, IMHO. If you haven't figured out I'm not a lawyer by now, telling you won't help either.
--
+&x
No doubt.
:-)
"Kerberos, PACs And Microsoft's Dirty Tricks", and was generally about Microsoft's business practices, and not the details of their Kerberos extention.
I could have sworn that the Kerberos extension WAS one of MS's business practices. Silly me, guess I'll go back to farting.
--
+&x
If there are copies of the spec, they should be removed. Instructions on bypassing the "copy protection" are much more difficult to discuss; after all, that's the DMCA, which is new law, and not very well understood.
Shouldn't that say "which is new law, and is unconstitutional"?
I could have sworn that a free press and free speech were protected in that Constitution thing somewhere. Copyright law can't overwrite that. No matter how much money someone thinks they should make.
--
+&x
Thanks for you input, Mr. B. I'll take it under advisement.
Under my ASSS!!!
*Wah farts*
--
+&x
This issue (Microsoft asking that you remove [arguably] copyrighted) information from a public form has absolutely nothing to do with the naming of "MS Kerberos Services", open source, click-wrap licenses, or the DOJ trial.
I get the feeling that Microsoft's letter has provoked just the response they expected--a knee-jerk "Oh Yeah? Well, what about the fact that your breath smells?" response one would get from a 14 year old who has just been caught stealing chewing gum down at the corner market.
-- Speaking for myself.
MS cannot have it both ways. The EULA refers to the document as a trade secret and tries to effect a click-through "NDA". This copywrite and violating the DMCA *is* a load of crap.
Looks like Project BananaRama ended up in the same boat as the Alan Parsons Project. Bolluxed by an inept guard^H^H^H^H^Hparalegal.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
nt
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Most of the questions are irrelevant to the decision to remove the content, in my opinion. Specifically, the nature of the argument is over copyrighted material and the questions are directed more along the lines of "why is this material copyrighted?".
Don't get me wrong, I'd love for them to answer these questions but I doubt they'll answer them since I doubt they'll see how it pertains to the decision that slashdot has to make with regards to removing the offending material.
The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
Most of this might just go to the part of copyright law that states that a copyright holder must attempt to protect his/her/its copyright. If protection of a copyright is not attempted, a copyright holder may lose the copyright to the material in question. (Please note, I am too lazy to look up the actual statute and read through the damn thing, but from what I've been able to piece together from other /.'ers, what I've said above is fairly close to true. Please correct me if I'm not right.)
The other, more likely consideration is that Microsoft is just stupid. This whole thing just smacks of one of those situations where one party knows it's wrong. It hardly has a leg to stand on so it goes on the attack. The wrong party will do anything to keep on the offensive, because it has no defense to speak of.
Were IETF research to be under a license similar to GNU, we may not be having this problem. MS cannot take the Linux kernel, make extensions to it, and subsequently copyright its results. Why should they be able to do the same to Kerberos?
After reviewing the comments on the letter, I have to agree that some numbered points seem to be off a bit from MS's supposed focal point. However, buried in there are two critical points that do have great relevance.
.exe files to avoid viruses, I sure hope that isn't illegal now.
1. Slashdot does not directly remove *any* postings. This allows the "passive conduit" defense which has previously found ISPs and web providers are not responsible for email/site content that passes through them. If they remove the post, they may lose that status. (The moderation system does not *remove* or prevent access to any post - it just narrows a users view, like a search criteria does)
2. The poster may very well be a 12 year old who would not be allowed to enter into a legally binding agreement. That assumes "click wrap" is binding itself, which is questionable itself until the commerce code gets shoved down our throats.
Not mentioned is the fact that the click wrap may have been "accidentally" bypassed, as no encryption was performed on the "trade secret" document to prevent WinZip from opening the doc. I use WinZip on
The flip side: Can a WinZip wielding 12 year old post anonymously anything without regard to copyright? Does removing the document "repair" the problem?
As pointed out previously, the alleged infringment occured in the past, so removal may not nullify the infringment. This opens up a new avenue for shutting down online communities I don't like the tone of...
Step 1: Post as AC to a forum that opposes my viewpoints information that I own the rights to.
Step 2: Get lawyers to work over the company for infringment.
Step 3: Force them to remove the work.
Step 4: Declare the community "active conduit" due to the removal of my work.
Step 5: Post more of step 1 materials.
Step 6: Now I can target the community under editorial neglegence, since they are no longer "passive".
Of course, INAL, nor am I that evil (or is that the same thing?)
Sig under construction since 1998.
Having read a few of the responses so far, I am in agreement that these are particularly valid questions to pose. What I don't see in this letter is a defense for /. action (or inaction, really)
Apart from stating that Andover.net is loath to censor user comments, nothing in this letter backs up any claim that these are protected speech posts. (As opposed to merely revealing 'proprietary' information.)
In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
Oooo, I'm starting to like lawyers again! ;) WAY TO GO! Keep up the good work!
Except the presumption of innocence means that unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that your allegations are true, then I don't have to do anything in my own defence.
Allegations are all well and good, but without proof they aren't worth anything, except perhaps as reason to start a libel or slander suit.
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
But I have a question for the legally inclined. How binding are all of these thinly-veiled hostilities? For example, what would have happened if Andover hadn't replied to Microsoft's letter? Were they obligated to under law? And similarly, is Microsoft required to respond in kind?
IANAL, but I am doing some research on the DMCA (a manifestation of pure evil), and this is how I think the case would unfold if Andover didn't go to its legal team:
Prior to the DMCA, if a copyrighted document were found on a common carrier, the company whose rights were infringed could sue the poster, but would need to go to a federal court to get an injunction (Cease and Desist order) demanding that the carrier (in this case, Slashdot) remove the infringing material.
Under the DMCA, a company need only notify the carrier in writing (an e-mail is sufficient) that a copyrighted document is on their site. If the carrier does not remove it, they can be held as liable as the original poster. If Andover hadn't gone for legal counseling and [i]refused[/i] to comply with Microsoft's demands, then there is the very realistic chance that criminal charges could be filed, in addition to Microsoft's inevitable civil suit.
Needless to say, this is only one of many articles in the DMCA that should be stricken from the US Code as quickly as possible.
The point is that they did copyright it. Slashdot is in the wrong.
However, if the material isn't legally copyrightable, then any claim Microsoft has to intellectual property protection is lost. Many of the questions in this letter directly question how Microsoft can claim copyright protection on an already copyrighted standard.
AFAIK, there are no legal precedents for this type of business model (the embrace and extend model that Microsoft uses so frequently), and taking this issue to court may bring an end to Microsoft E&E strategy altogether, provided that Andover wins.
If the Microsoft Authorization Data Specification v. 1.0 for Microsoft Windows 2000 Operating System is, as Microsoft claims, a trade secret, then it ISN'T registered with the US Copyright Office, which requires a copy of the document to be submitted when you apply for copy protection. Once something has been submitted to the Copyright Office, anyone can view it, thus removing "Trade Secret" status from it.
..." message to their specification, regardless of whether it is legally copyrightable or not. The questions Andover's lawyers ask why Microsoft feels it qualifies for intellectual property protection since it has essentially copyrighted an already-copyrighted protocol. While the text of the specification probably can be protected, whether the extensions to Kerberos are protected or not is a completely different issue, and one which is on considerably less-defined legal ground. The lawyers didn't spend a week coming up with something completely irrelevant.
What Microsoft has done is attach a "Copyright (C) 2000,
Everyone on Slashdot should do this.
First, mirror the comments, like I did:
http://www.mbhs.edu/~akhripin/
Next, write a letter to your representative. This is a nescessary component of any long-term action against the DMCA.
Here is the letter I sent:
I would like to bring your attention to numerous problems that have occured as a result of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA, 1998.) Although the intent of the act, to help protect copyrighted information in the digital age, is very important, the law gives too much power to corporations over citizens that, as I have recently seen, even surpasses first amendment rights.
The specific, pressing issue that has arisen is about a news discussion site slashdot.org. During the discussion of Microsoft's release of certain technical specifications under very stringent legal conditions, some users posted links to the specifications posted online. Others posted a method of surpassing the End User Licence Agreement that one normally has to agree to before viewing. Microsoft has requested that the comments containing the allegedly illegal infromation be removed. In other words, they are asking the free and open discussion board, which explicitly states that it is not responsible for the content of user comments, to censor its content. Although posting explicit copies of copyrighted material is and always was illegal, some, the issues with regards to linking and circumventing are far more important. Microsoft has every right to go after the sites where the text is posted, however, it should not have a right to stifle people who reference that text. That is an attack on free speech.
As to the methods of circumvention of the security screen that Microsoft put on top of the specifications, that is a blockage of free speech as well. It amounts to Microsoft attempting to stop a review of their security methods. If I wrote a security program with a gaping flaw and tried to stop people from criticizing it, I would be doing the same thing Microsoft is doing right now. If Microsoft desires to stop people from circumventing the agreement, they should improve their program, and not try to hinder free discussion thereof.
Now, although nothing has yet happened in regards to Microsoft's request to have the site censored, theyare undoubtedly planning to proescute under the DMCA if their demands are not meant. If you wish to preserve freedom of speech and free discussion, please, support a drastic revision of the DMCA that does not so radically stifle individual interests in the interest of corporations.
With witty commentary like that, I'm sure you'll be surrounded with us in no time... :)
(Just had to mock you a little bit)
To truly understand recursion, you must first truly understand recursion.
No, no, no, you get your props from your peeps, and your pabst from your pimps, and then prance around your pool. Whaz up wid you, fool, you not know no proper English? :)
Seriously, I was told it's short for "propers", as in proper respect, a la Aretha Franklin. 'Scuse me while I burst into song at my desk, I think it's time to terrify my coworkers once again.
To truly understand recursion, you must first truly understand recursion.
Yeah. You give 'em the right to modify AND to redistribute.
Microsoft just wants do modify it but obviously not wants do distribute those modifications.
The GPL (though accused of being a virus) clearly says that any modifications must be made available to anyone who wants it.
Distribute protocols under the GPL and Microsoft can "embrace and extend" them as much as they want. They have to make it available.
And certainly they can't file any lawsuits when they want to keep it all secret at all costs. (Like Kerberos)
--- If OS were buildings, then the first woodpecker to come around would erase 95 % of civilization.
Then, there are the other posts Micros~1 wanted removed that were pointers. There Micros~1 is either relying on intimidation instead of common sense or expect us to be as stupid as them.
"You can bypass the click-though licence agreement on Microsoft's PAC specification by opening the file with WinZip instead of running the file". There. Have you violated the DMCA today?
"The good die first." "Most of us are morally ambiguous, which explains our random dying patterns." --- MST3K
This has to be one of the 10 best Slashdot posts I've seen. If I hadn't squandered my points, I'd be moderating it up myself (er, of course, now I've posted to this thread...)
To bad there isn't a "Funny, Informative, Interesting, Underrated, Insightful" option.
>"What's an internet?"
"Can you tread packets. HA HA HA HA HA!"
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
I first thought the same thing, but then after rereading the article, the part
/. lawyers are fighting on the grounds that is "how can you be hurt by this posting that you post to the public anyway!".
What measures has Microsoft taken to protect the trade secrecy of its Kerberos specification beyond the use of a click-wrap license agreement?
stuck out to me. I believe that the
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
Ladies and gentelman of this supposed jury, this is chewbaca....
--- Don't ever trust a woman until she's dead- B.B. King
Frankly, on that last point, Microsoft doesn't have a good answer. The information that they are claiming is a trade secret is being freely shared; the fact that the clickshit agreement claims to keep it a trade secret isn't legally binding for those in certain jurisdictions or who are under 18, so in fact, they have not made a reasonable effort to protect their trade secret. They will probably be laughed out of court by ajudge for this reason, if (s)he doesn't kick their asses for wasting the court's time.
"What's that? You mean, it's a secret, but you put in a public place where everyone can see it? Oh, they have to agree to keep it secret? What if they aren't legally able to enter into that contract? What about the people who reposted the info on that web site? Are they 18? US citizens? Did you even check? Did you try to check at any time before they downloaded the information from your site? No? Thank you, I'll render my decision on the injunction in 5 seconds... one, two, three, four, five... NO!"
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
Have you READ Marx?
Mr. Robins, I salute you. I don't know if anyone gave him any of the posts we've seen here concerning this issue, but it does appear he took the best concerns. This reads almost like something you'd toss at someone as part of the discovery process for a lawsuit.
And there's always use for something like that. Again, bravo.
(I admit, though, I'd love to see things in the US work more like the UK House of Commons, where people say things like "My respected fellow is an ass!" and things of that nature. That would make some of the legal papers we see really fun.)
----
Brazil has decided you're cute.
I'm reminded of what a presidential candidate (no, not Al, and not Dubya; hint -- Unsafe at Any Speed) said. Basically, it amounted to "You may not like lawyers much, but the only people that have done anything to make sure giant corporations are held responsible for their actions are trial lawyers. Yes, a lot of lawyers became very wealthy as a result of the tobacco settlement, but would RJR & friends ever been reined in had it not been for them?"
Let alone all the ones you never hear of who take pro bono cases for causes they believe in.
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
It makes me VERY nervous to see a company with the financial mass of Microsoft in a position to challenge /. However, this is an important legal battle, which the community needs to fight. Some of these points are better than others, but they do point out the marginal legality of MS's action-which has a tremendous bearing on the DMCA, of course. MS cannot be allowed to proprietize an open standard-and, unfortunately, slashdot might have to fight this battle. If it comes to the legal confrontation that is possible, I hope that prominent open-source corporations will provide fiscal and legal backing. Alone, MS could probably bulldoze Andover, regardless of actual legality. But I don't think that MS can fight all of us. And lastly, don't forget us(of course, how could /. forget us?) There are a lot of intelligent, committed people who WILL fight this one out. The /. community will be hard to repress, even for MS. Microsoft might believe that they own the medium they've created; but they will find out that they don't, sooner or later. Now just might be the time. MS is in the uncomfortable position where information works against them-the more the public understands about these, and many other, noncompetitive and destructive actions, the less they will like them. Let's see how long they can keep the wool over the world's eyes. Unfortunately, a few people have gotten a peek into the world outside...
When you're dealing with MSFT, you don't bow down to the dark lord, you step right up to him and scream right back in his face.
That said, I hope someone sent the reply by registered snail mail, as electronic communication is not yet legally enforceable, and can be easily revised to correct things like spelling mistakes (e.g. "the Microsoft" in the main post) and errors that one could be sued over (e.g. when MSFT let's slip it's plans for world domination).
[note - as a shareholder of MSFT, I'm speaking against my interests - but I also own Red Hat shares, too]
Will in Seattle
How do we know if you're really Mark Robins? You could be Bill G, Dark Lord of Microsoft for all we know, surfing slashdot right before a ragefest flameout at your employees.
Hey, trust, verify, but always use WinZip.
Will in Seattle
In short: You might want to address the claims that Microsoft has laid forth in its letter. The other questions are great, yes, but is not going to get you very far in stating your case as for why unauthorized reprodctions of copyrighted work appear on your site. Even if Microsoft relinquished all rights that they have to the specification, the infringement still occurred in the past and is punishable.
I don't necessarily agree, but IANAL. I would consider taking the action of notifying the posters of the request by MSFT, and asking for their response. Unless they're ACs.
Of course, if they are citizens of Europe, they can tell MSFT to go suck eggs. Or other countries where these legal restrictions are more weighted towards the public good and less the corporate evil.
Will in Seattle
True, but Slashdot/Andover is still responsible for removing the copyrighted material from any servers they have control over.
...
No, they have yet to receive a demand letter by certified mail. So no legal request has yet been made - the electronic signature bill is still in committee, so emails are unenforceable.
Also, what proof of copyright has MSFT presented - via certified mail? And they have yet to inform the true copyright holders, the slashdot posters, who implicitly have copyright until proven otherwise in a court of law.
Besides, according to most of us, MSFT is in violation of the root license for Kerberos, and thus could not have a legal copyright to the extensions, as they are based on an illegal use of a piece of work.
Since I've got a few hundred magazines and articles in the US Library of Congress (and also the Canadian one), I'm pretty darn sure that this is correct, based upon all the bleeding forms I had to fill out over the years. I didn't get into Who's Who in the World for my dancing ability, after all
Will in Seattle
Hey all,
A lot of the points are stating that the letter has nothing to do with the points that MS pointed out... it does, and it threatens back with MS's use of Kerberos to describe its' proprietry version.
Now, the specs are supposedly copyrighted, not to be reporduced as per the click-wrap agreement. However, if I was under eighteen (sorry, but this is under UK law anyway) then I would be ineligable to agree or sign for any contract without a guardian doing it for me. If MS did not check that the contract was valid in my case then the contract is null and I can reproduce the agreement at will. So there.
-- The inability to step into another person's shoes will be the death of this world.
It doesn't *always* give you this right. But sometimes it does. In this case you could probably argue that quoting the whole document is reasonable because all of it (or all of the part that Microsoft wrote) was relevant to the discussion.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Right on! Stick it to the MAN!
The Slashdot servers contain what Microsoft called a "trade secret." A trade secret is no longer a trade secret once it is revealed to the public, even through illegal means. In fact, the very definition of trade secret states that it is "known to the manufacturer who uses it but not to competitors."
Chris Hagar
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
Indeed, indeed. /. crew. Thanks Andover.
Ain't it great. Thanks
In your eye MF. Whada you gonna do?
Scott McNealy, Larry Ellison, doncha wish you had balls like that?
1000 SlashDot sigs
What I really don't get is why Slashdot didn't just assert what would clearly be their best defense: "We're a common carrier. Go away." Isn't that pretty much it?
MSK
The recent Demon libel case shows that community publishing is increasingly seen as placing a duty of care on hosts.
Certainly legal advice to UK sites is very clearly to be very careful over community content, as it may incur liability.
The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's
only a slight inaccuracy -- copyright notice was not removed (much to the credit of the posters). the licence "agreement" was.
They also inaccurately imply that it was Slashdot staff that posted it when the text was in a comment.
--GnrcMan--
The two are mutually exclusive.
Uhhh...no. You must be thinking of patents. Something cannot both be patented and be a trade secret (because patents are public record). The minute you write something it is copyrighted by default. It can also be a trade secret if you chose not to show it to anyone else.
--GnrcMan--
The response has been to challenge M$'s claim of trade secrecy, which I understand to be a condition mutually exclusive of copyright.
I don't know where everyone keeps getting this silly idea in thier heads. Actually, I do. You are confusing Patents with Copyrights. Something cannot be patented and be a trade secret at the same time. Not because of some specific law, I believe, but because patents are public record. Indeed, patents were designed to discourage trade secrets and give people incentives to release their trade secrets to the public, in exchange for a monopoly on the idea for a period of time.
--GnrcMan--
MS-Lawyer 1.0 receives an e-mail reply from Mark D. Robins with the document encoded by some odd applet, ActiveSecurityRisk promptly asks whether or not MS-Lawyer wants to install SlashReader, a signed application. Unthinkingly hitting okay to whether or not he wants the latest and greatest MS application to be automatically and blindly installed, a EULA pops up, quickly clicked away...
Slashdot End User License Agreement:
Andover.net, Inc hereby resolves itself of all damage due to use or misuse of this product...
Blah blah blah
You can't sue us if this product makes your computer kill your wife, give your son a sore ass, and chase around your cat saying "Here kitty, kitty, kitty"...
Boilerplate boilerplate boilerplate
By agreeing to this license you hereby permit Andover.Net, Inc full and unlimited rights to publish any and all information, public or private, on you or your clients protocols, APIs, standards, implementations, et cetera.
More legalese
By clicking agree you state that you have fully read this license agreement and agree to abide by its full terms...
I AGREE
The thought gives me goose bumps.
Have you patented your Hot Grits today?
IANAL but . . .
Copyrights aren't controlled in the same way patents are. Basically you can copyright anything you want and the government just signs off on it, they have no way of comparing it to every previously copyrighted work to ensure that you really have a unique work.
It is then up to the holders of existing copyrights to go after you if they feel your copyrighted work has infringed on their prior art.
If MS really thinks they have a defendable copyright, then they should have no problem answering the questions posed.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
> Lawyers don't sue people, people sue people.
Yes but,
Guns don't actively encourage people to kill (unless the killer is seriously schizophrenic), nor do guns tend to derive far more benefit from the murder than the killer does.
I looks to me like they are challenging the copyright microsoft is claiming.
----------------------------------------------
I don't really mind double posts on
OK everyone. Step back and take a breath. It's obvious that in everyone's righteous indignation about Microsoft's proprietary extensions (PAC) to the Kerberos protocol, that very few people here have actually analyzed this with a critical eye.
First, Microsoft did NOT violate the Kerberos standard. Proprietary or not, secret or not, open source or not, they're using (according to one of the designers of Kerberos) the PAC field EXACTLY as it was intended to be used.
We can debate the morality of proprietary extensions until we're blue in the face, but it DOES NOT break interoperability, because the standard explicitly states that any Kerberos app may ignore the PAC field since it is optional.
Microsoft's implementation does intero perate with other implementations. You just can only get the PAC data from a Windows 2000 KDC, which requires you to have a Windows 2000 KDC in addition to your non-Windows TGS and AS if you want Windows 2000 clients to be able to access Windows 2000 resources such as shares in a Kerberos fashion.
As far as these questions go, most of them are not relevant:
1. How can Microsoft claim proprietary protections for enhancement to an open standard protocol?
Microsoft is claiming protection for its own work, not for the Kerberos protocol. The Kerberos standard defines the PAC field but intentionally leaves it's implementation to vendors at this time
2. How can Microsoft use the Kerberos name, which signifies an open standard protocol, in connection with a proprietary protocol?
Very easily. Microsoft is not claiming any rights to the Kerberos name, and is fully complying with the specification. They are not requesting the PAC document be removed for any reason related to copyright of the Kerberos name.
3. How can Microsoft claim trade secrecy for a protocol that is distributed over the Internet
At last, a relevant question.
4. What measures has Microsoft taken to protect the trade secrecy of its Kerberos specification beyond the use of a click-wrap license agreement?
There is a long legal history of using licensing and contracts to protect trade secrets, and like it or not, it may be a DMCA violation to try to circumvent this license.
5. What measures has Microsoft taken to ensure that its Kerberos specification is only distributed to persons who are capable of entering into a binding contract in jurisdictions where such an agreement would be enforceable?
This is another relevant question, but maybe less so than it initially appears, because there may be a copyright infringement issue here.
6. How could posting of the Microsoft Kerberos specification on Slashdot have any detrimental impact on the market for authorized distribution of Microsoft's version of Kerberos?
Irrelevant- you allowed to be posted (and have so far failed to remove) information that you did not have the legal right to post.
7. Why wouldn't prospective purchasers of Windows 2000 need to know the contents of Microsoft's Kerberos specification in order to make informed judgments regarding interoperability in connection with their purchasing decisions?
This is exactly why the specification was published
8. Why shouldn't Slashdot users and the general public be able to view this protocol for purposes of commentary and criticism in light of its apparent relevance to issues in the government's antitrust litigation?
It is completely irrelevant to the antitrust case. That notwithstanding, Slashdot users DO have the right to view the specification, and to comment on it, provided that it is obtained lawfully
I feel that Microsoft will ignore the irrelevant questions, and reply with another 'polite' request to have it's copyrighted material removed from Slashdot's servers. /. however - under the fair use guidelines.
/. should not remove the post, - add a notice to the top of the 'offending' post stating that 'the following may contitute copyright breach by the comment owner...
As there is a copyright notice associated with the document, Slashdot's position on keeping the whole document is (legally) shaky, IMHO.
Leaving the posts with portions of the document should prove a no-brainer win for
Personally, I think
Continue to fight for the right to use the document as a news item, and for discussion..
Important info:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
http://dieoff.org/synopsis.htm
http://www.peakoil.net
the DMCA
... the fact is, the text of the spec *is* copyrighted, and entitled to protection ...
But IS it copyrighted? Or if it is, does Microsoft actually own the copyright? How much of it is a "derived work" of the Kerberos documents, and was that authorized?
If Microsoft DOES have a copyright, and Slashdot ends up taking down the full text postings, would posting only the portions of the document that describe Microsoft's changes to Kerberos constitute fair use?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
IANOL, but I think the strategy is here isn't to try to blast MS for their bad monopolistic practices, or to distract them from the "matter at hand."
MS's strategy is to try to make this case fall under the DMCA. Slashdot wants it to fall under the First Amendment and fair use.
From the POV of MS's argument, Slashdot is making copyrighted materials available on their site.
From Slashdot's POV, they are providing a forum where relevent and contentious technology issues are being discussed openly. Reading MS's spec is necessary to evaluate the issues it raises in the larger context of technology, the court cases, free software, etc. -- hence fair use.
IMHO, this isn't just a clever defense by the Slashdot lawyers...it goes straight to the heart of the problem with the DMCA: it can be in direct conflict with freedom of speech.
Several good points I had not come up with on my own.
It really feels good when someone, (albeit a filthy lawyer) can ethically cram MS' on filth back in their face. I gives me hope for the community.
- I like pudding.
That's a troll, don't get suckered into responding.
- I like pudding.
Someone spent some time on this, and it is in no way funny. Is the point that Linux people have butt sex? Not really, it plays on the 15 year old double meaning of "finger", and says the word Linux a few times.
At least the Golden Girls and Natalie Portman trilogy had some laughs in it.
This is just words.
- I like pudding.
Yes this is the 4th shitty moderation I have seen in this article. Hopefully, his rights will be revoked in meta-moderation.
However, Dr Kool is a known troll, even though he isn't here.
- I like pudding.
I agree that this is not a troll. We probably have some bad moderators here today, but I think they may also be responding to the fact that that is what /. is arguing. /. is saying it's not copyrightable because it is an open standard. And if MS is saying it's copyrightable, then /. says MS can't call it Kerberos which is a non-copyrighted open protocal. Not even to mention fair use.
You say MS has the right to protect it's copyrighted material, but
Read the damn response you are commenting about. And moderators check your opinions at the door.
- I like pudding.
Bullshit. He did no one any favors and would have done the exact opposite if the check went the other way.
Being my enemies enemy does not make him my friend. I praised him for doing a good job not being a good person. If he wants respect, he needs to get in another profession.
A whore is a whore. My definition being "someone who does something they know to be morally wrong for personal gain." Lawyers are whores. You think Johnny Cochran thought O.J. was innocent? Do you think lawyers don't do stuff everyday that is morally wrong because thats what makes the paycheck come in?
"The man is a professional. He also went the extra mile when he could have advised Andover.Net to simply avoid the hassle and overule the Slasdot Editors, and gotten paid the same amount. "
Bullshit 2. Extra mile? Which mile was that? If he had said that to Hemos, he would have been out the door to another lawyer, and there would be no money for him. You get paid for merit, not filling a role.
And as for "Professional" what the hell does that mean? Do you work in a gas station or something?
Yeah, maybe it was rude, and I could have left it out, but that would be hypocritcal of me. I can't say one person is good and the other is bad when they do the exact same thing.
- I like pudding.
(I think my top comment should have been marked as "troll" seeing all the responses over a one sentence congratulatory statement.)
/. is the last place I would feel safe. And I have no idea about physically, but I am sure that mentally and monitarily the lawyer is neither weaker or smaller than I.
/. if you're going to do that? I gave the guy a compliment, albeit a backhanded one. I think there were probably some nice Nazi's, but I don't feel I am over generalizing when I say Nazi's were assholes. I also feel comfortable with myself saying that lawyers are whores. Now go away, you bother me.
"Rudeness without cause is, by definition, hypocritical." I don't think the word means what you think it means.
hypocrisy (h-pkr-s)
n., pl. hypocrisies.
1.The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2.An act or instance of such falseness.
If I had praised him here without mentioning that lawyers are whores because he is working on my side but on another post said "lawyers are scum" because they worked for Microsoft that would be hypocrital.
What does the guy being a "professional" have to do with anything? Does that term merit some respect like a knight or duke in your book? I should watch my tongue because he is a "professional"? Respect is earned, not given. The dumbest person I have ever met has a degree, with good grades, but lacks the very basics of common knowledge or sense. I respect her for being a nice person, not for being smart because she got a degree.
I think studying the law is immoral? Dude read my post. I don't know what you are talking about.
bully 1 (bl)
n., pl. bullies.
1.A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker people.
2.A hired ruffian; a thug.
3.A pimp.
I apologize if my thinking that lawyers are whores and having strong opinions in general is "habitually cruel or overbearing". The only one trying to surpress someone else's ideas or words is you telling me I shouldn't have said what I said. Just because you don't like my opinion doesn't make me a bully.
"striking out merely because you think you can get away with it" Yeah, I feel safe here with all my "homeez" in case we get "bum rushed." What are you talking about? Safe from what? If you mean no one will disagree with me,
What is the extra mile? You keep saying that. The guy did his job and got paid for it. You mean because he didn't say "just take it down" he put some extra effort into it? He is a good guy because he didn't NOT do his job? Again I don't know where your extra admiration for him is coming from.
I think we are all adults here and words like "filthy" can be spoken amoungst us.
Yeah, I guess I could have held my tongue, been somewhat hypocritcal, and only said nice things, but whats the point of a discussion site like
- I like pudding.
Anyone who thinks Win98 is a great product has my heartfelt sympathies...
For anybody who hasn't had the chance to check it out, here are some links I found interesting:
e s.html e uman-tso.html
s -faq.html#ntbroken
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1510.txt
http://web.mit.edu/kerberos/www/
http://www.isi.edu/gost/info/kerberos/open_issu
http://www.isi.edu/gost/publications/kerberos-n
Further, here is an earlier page on the prospect of an upcoming NT 5 [yeah, you read it right, NT 5] Kerberos "enhancement":
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/CCS/people/kenh/kerbero
My question is [ostensibly] very simple and it is really a question about the copyrighting of addendums to material which is already within the public domain. Kerberos is an open Internet protocol that has been widely published, analysed and freed by its creators and maintainers for general public use. Unknown numbers of users make use of this protocol daily. Microsoft has published a copyrighted extension that purports to be a "trade secret"... There are a number of relevant issues with this:
1) Microsoft has indeed created an addition to the Kerberos protocol by making use of a currently unused data field within Kerberos packets to inject OS specific data into what network systems will identify as Kerberos authentication packets. If Kerberos is an open protocol and the net effect of the Microsoft extension is to effectively nullify the inter-operability of non-Microsoft Kerberos clients which access the Microsoft specific pseudo-Kerberos servers, then the additional data field could constitute an attempt by Microsoft to deny users the free use of a previously open protocol.
2) How can a document which is not encrypted and yet publicly traded over an inherently insecure network [which is the Internet] be considered to be a trade secret? If the trade secret nature of the document is inapplicable [because only a token effort at security was established] and the intention of the copyright was to enforce the trade secret nature of the document, then is the copyright itself valid? Put another way, is there not a requirement on the part of the corporate entity to ensure proper security measures in order to claim the establishment of a trade secret and the related copyright of that trade secret?
3) The specification which Microsoft has published is an addition to the Kerberos specification. The Kerberos specification is within the public domain and any modifications to that specification affect current users within the public domain. What are the issues with copyrighting [and attempting to hold secret] an addition to a public specification? Are there any fair knowledge restraints upon such modifications to an open protocol?
I am not an expert in copyright law and only have a basic understanding of Kerberos, however the issues involved with this seem understandable and the above questions are based on an "a priori" understanding on my part which I am attempting to validate.
I do not think that blatant disregard for a copyright is a good thing, however I do not support the restriction or intentional damaging of an open protocol through questionable corporate actions. The copyright itself is present in the posting on Slashdot and my question is if the copyright itself is viable given what it is attempting to copyright. If the copyright is valid, then the posting of copyrighted material was the action of a single user, not that of Slashdot and hence at most a single post is affected under any legal resolutions. Further, Microsoft states clearly that their posting is an attempt to enable assessment of the level of security which their proposed specification represents. This is an accepted practice among the cryptographic community for engendering higher levels of security through public scrutiny. The attempt to restrict the propagation of knowledge gained through that scrutiny has a number of ramifications which separate it from the accepted practice:
1) the knowledge of any flaws in the specification cannot be made public
2) the knowledge of genuine enhancements represented by the specification cannot be made public
3) the public nature of the Kerberos specification is inherently affected by additions to it which are not public
Again, while I am not a lawyer and not a Kerberos guru:
1)I am certainly capable of using Kerberos for authentication needs
2) I can read a specification pretty well
3) I fully support the *right* of users to have a *freely* secure and *consistent* means for navigating the Internet and establishing their identities. Kerberos represents such a means and I therefore consider it to be a public property which may not be crippled or damaged without such damage constituting an attack upon the rights of the public as a whole.
I am very interested in any expert opinions upon this issue...
You're kidding, right? This letter is completely unrelated to the matter at hand concerning Microsoft's request for censorship. Your letter is entirely a list of cheap shots that are the culmination of recent discussions on Slashdot in response to Microsoft's actions towards the Kerberos protocol. I really hope this is a joke guys, cause otherwise you need a better legal defense team. This is the most unprofessional thing I've seen this week^H^H^H^H month.
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
Check this out:
b uf.txt
http://web.mit.edu/kerberos/www/advisories/krb4
In light of the current situation, I think this could be very interesting (or mildly amusing) to see which group, MS or the open-sourcers, comes up with a fix first. Something tells me it won't be the guys over at M$ that got paid to copy the code into their OS.
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
This is exciting. It's like watching the future of MS Kerberos unfold before our very eyes. Many of the "questions" (apart from the antitrust references, which I think are kind of weak) are excellent, probing challenges to the MS claim of proprietary rights. I can't wait to see how Microsoft responds.
But I have a question for the legally inclined. How binding are all of these thinly-veiled hostilities? For example, what would have happened if Andover hadn't replied to Microsoft's letter? Were they obligated to under law? And similarly, is Microsoft required to respond in kind?
I'm curious because it seems that, if the conspiracy theories about MS Kerberos were true (not that I would know) then wouldn't Microsoft be reluctant to address these thorny points? Can they drop this all and go home now, or are they formally bound to answer?
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
One simple way to post the spec is to quote it in pieces with some commentary along with each quoted piece. This would clearly fall under the "commentary" aspect of fair use.
Unfortunately, none of those question have anything to do with the matter at hand.
The fact of the matter is that Slashdot's servers contain copyrighted material. The copyright holder asked that it be removed. Your response seems to be, "well, you suck, and should never have copyrighted it in the first place. Nyahh!"
The point is that they did copyright it. Slashdot is in the wrong.
Here's my question: Is this going to be Slashdot's official policy? That you will never remove copyrighted material if the copyright holder asks you to? Or is this a special rule only for Microsoft?
Let me show you what is happening here:
Corporation A is handing out free booklets on the street corner, but you have to write your name in a little form to get their booklet.
Civilian Group B is handing out the exact same free booklets after signing up for 1 or 2 and using a photocopier to produce the rest.
The ONLY difference between the two situations is that Corporation A doesn't get those names.
Corporation A demands that Civil Group B stop passing out free booklets which are the same as their free booklets. Civil Group B laughs their asses off as their lawyer sends a well written and relevant reply.
Now then, If you Copyright something, then give it out for free to anyone who asks, and try to complain when someone ELSE gives it out for free then you are going to get laughed out of court.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Most would agree this was meant as a deliberate scare tactic to try and bully slashdot.
The original letter from MS demanded that the offending posts be withdrawn within 48 hours as called for by the DMCA. Since it's been well over 48 hours and we haven't heard of anymore threats from the MS camp I'm guessing they realized they don't have a leg to stand on.
Good for Slashdot and good for Andover!
LiNT
Well said, Mr. Robins.
The message gets right to the point of the matter, but does it really get to the legal issues. Whether or not it makes any -sense- for Microsoft to do what it is doing, does it not still have the legal -right- if not a legal obligation to protect its copyrights, or face an inability to enforce its position at a later date?
OFTC: By the community, for the community
Does the M$ judge have an e-mail address?
Not exactly enlightening comentry here from me, but this looks better than I hoped for. Brief, to the point series of, Difficult Questions(tm;).
Beautiful
Well done to the comunity and all involved
Maybe you live in interesting times
Good idea.
I certainly want to defend Slashdot's side in all of this, and I agree with practically everyone that there is only one post of issue... the exact copy of the contents of the file in point. However I think this letter is going to cause far more problems than it solves for Slashdot.
First, the letter doesn't say that Slashdot (Andover) has refrained from moving the letter for any reason other than A) Slashdot's policy of non-censorship which doesn't apply legally unless they assert that they are acting as a service provider under the DMCA, or B) (implicitly) because they have a lot of unanswered questions about Microsoft's belief that they've been wronged.
What really is being said is that Slasdot doesn't believe that the answers to these questions, which we CAN anticipate, are sufficient to support protection under the DMCA. The points Slashdot's lawyer brings up are good points, but they need to be less passive. "We believe that Microsoft's claim to proprietary, trade-secret protection is invalid for the following reasons... ".
Furthermore, why does the letter talk of the Antitrust litigation? This argument should be able to stand on its own ground. Either Slashdot is right or they're wrong; it has nothing to do with wether Microsoft is monopolistic or not. Careful when you flame me; i make no statement to the reverse... this may be an example of monopolistic behaviour, but the copyright issue is unaffected by wether or not Microsoft is guilty of other charges.
I wish SlashDot the best, but I also want to see them around for a while. They have to be more careful than most that they protect themselves legally, and this letter seems unwarrantedly wreckless.
---ZahrGnosis
Now if I actually downloaded the spec myself and was a bit more switched on than I'm normally, I'd think:
"Why is a specification, i.e. a document, distributed as an executable file?"
I would have probably right-clicked on the file with the intention of "Checking for Viruses" and lo' and behold, I would see the "Open in WinZip" menu option. Seeing this I would have selected this option as my Add/Remove programs list is full enough as it is. There! Bypassed the EULA!
--
Chris
Consultancy: If you're not part of the solution, there's money to be made in prolonging the problem
In the Pranks-Are-Stronger-Than-Principles vein...
Since it's the text that's copyrighted, and not the ideas contained within, what if we converted the offending posts to pig-latin?
or dialectized it into Austrian-Action-Star?
hmmm?
>> That's it. Now, you can argue the *trade secret* part separately, but the fact is, the text of the spec *is* copyrighted, and entitled to protection, just as slashdot's code is copyrighted, and entitled to protection
/., I give up certain usage rights. (So did seebs, who's (c) material I make fair use of above.)
The fact of the matter is simply that *everything* is copyrighted. A copyright isn't something that is granted upon application (such as a patent). A copyright is inherent in the work when produced. A work may be registered with the Copyright Office, but that doesn't confer the copyright, it merely serves as a repository for the work to demonstrate that the work was in existence at the time of registration, and that rights were asserted.
This post is copyrighted (c) by me, simply by writing it. By posting to
By posting the K spec to the Inet, M$ gave up certain usage rights. Exactly what those rights were and what it retains is very much an open question. Do not uderestimate M$' and Bill the Gates' interest in obtaining a favorable legal interpretation of those retained rights. Besides the possible effect on open-source s/w (Does the term "MS-Linux" make you shudder? It should.), they are also some of the largest commercial content owners active in cyberspace.
You can't take the sky from me!
Say what?
If you create an original piece of work, you have the copyright to it. Period. You don't even need to say you have a copyright on it for you to legally have a copyright on it... you have the copyright unless you specifically give it up.
You might be thinking of patents.
[TMB]
Lots of ppl are saying slashdot should take down that post, citing copyrights, etc. The fact is, slashdot DIDN'T post the information, a user did. Slashdot does NOT filter any of their users posts, the users moderate them themselves.
If slashdot took that one post down, then they would be responsible for every other post in the system. They would have to comply with every company's wishes to take down any post, and also take down posts which may offend anybody who may wish to sue.
In which case, I'll start by saying that everyone that disagrees with me is offensive to me, please take down all their posts!
---
"Because we own a huge chunk of the market?"
/. user about Microsoft! I guess that would require some brains.
Hey, could this count as evidence in the Anti-trust case against them? Should we notify the government as to their latest bullying tactics? Their obvious atempt to hide the incriminating information? I think the Justice department deserves to know.
I only wish more people were as informed as your everage
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
Touche! See, not all lawyers are evil.... Ya just gotta PAY em to be nice...
Eric
Make it idiot-proof and someone will build a better idiot.
Um, if you care to read the notice at the bottom of the page, the POSTERS are responsible (hence the owners) of the material posted. In that sense, SlashDot is a "public" forum with "public" access for people to post their own individual comments. Slashdot is not in the wrong. People who posted the material in the first place may be wrong.
At least, that's what I remember back when AOL started censoring posts. Anyone know better?
Want to work at Transmeta? MicronPC? Hedgefund.net? AT&T?
Can your IM do this?
Perhaps you didn't see it but what struck me as most clever in his response is what he did not say.
He did not make any refusals to do anything about Microsoft's demands at all. He did not say that Slashdot would comply or not comply. You cannot be in serious defiance of the law when you are making good faith efforts to separate out true, lawful claims from the false ones. IMO Microsoft made both and probably hoped that a panicked slashdot crew would just fold entirely.
Beyond the wise use of silence on matters that aren't ripe, he also asked several important questions to determine the legality of some of MS's demands, specifically, the demands to take down links and instructions on getting around the clickwrap license. There currently isn't any injunction filed, time is on the side of right and light for now so the more questions asked the better. The answers are mostly known from external observation but to bring them up now is going to aid in creating useful stipulations of fact later (i.e. when MS does get a friendly judge to slap an injunction on) when time is not on our side. Stipulations of fact take away territory that MS can use to delay when they have the upper hand and wish to drag things out.
All in all a good effort. Bravo
DB
While ./'s servers may contain copyrighted material, I believe Andover's lawyers are entitled to obtain as much information as possible about that accusation before blindly following the suggested actions of MSFT's attorneys. If they followed up immediately on MSFT's lawyers' suggestions, and removed all the posts (or even some of the posts) there may be unforeseen consequences that they'd like to avoid. Notably, the prospect that by censoring material on /., they then become liable for all material subsequently stored here.
Just because they haven't removed one or more of the offending posts now doesn't mean that they don't intend to eventually do it should they find they are in copyright violation.
Perhaps they're thinking of taking it this the max, and seeing if there is such a thing as full unbridled freedom of speech, with regards to services provided by a US company. That being, is it possible for a US entity to provide services that allow posters to write anything in an unmoderated forum open to public viewing? Or will all 'open' US forums in the future eventually need to be moderated to some extent.
make world, not war
I've heard a viewpoint previously mentioned (maybe on linuxtoday instead of /.??) but it's a very interesting notion. At the risk of being redundant, I'll reiterate it. Perhaps, they (ie, MSFT) wanted the standards to be downloaded/publically posted/pirated/etc.
MSFT knows it cannot prevent the inevitable reverse-engineering of their proprietary protocols. So how do they combat such reverse-engineering? Do the unthinkable. Publish the trade secret, under some form of clickwrap EULA. Thus, when the reverse-engineering finally happens, they can point to the online document, and show that information on their webpage was used in the reverse-engineer. Thus, their EULA was violated, and hence SAMBA et al are in violation of the DCMA.
I really like Andovers' lawyers' responses to MSFT, though. Instead of showing why they feel Andover is operating legally, they seek specific information from MSFT's team of sharks^H^H^H^H^H^Hlawyers, to show why they may be violating the law in the first place. At least Andover is making MSFT's lawyers get their money's worth, instead of eagerly submitting to their legal might. This is getting very interesting indeed.
make world, not war
But then they would not have read the letter, and would have considered no legal response had come from Andover.
Carpe diem!
Carpe diem!
Let the simple and readable language not fool you - this reply to Microsoft is probably one of the best planned and deadly arrows at MS' heart. Think about it for a moment: for MS to continue contrasting Slashdot on the issue will mean, from now on, to air their dirty laundry as to Kerberos and embrace-and-extend, one of the tactics they are in court for with the DOJ. :o)
With this letter, Slashdot has signaled to Microsoft that they are going to use a very painful (for MS) defense. Slashdot may loose, but the loss for MS will be horrible. A little bit like those amphibious animals that have some sort of poison in their tissues: they have very livel colours that warn any predator not to venture into trying to eat them. The prey would die, but the attacking predator would die, too, or at least it would badly regret. Ummmm.... ok, biology is not my strong point, but you get my point
Sigged!
Nope, it was Bill Gates.
Most corporations would fold on an issue like this when faced with the likes of the Microsoft legal division (maybe that is the part of the company that shold be spun off). But in Andover's case (and particularly with Slashdot) they have an incentive too turn this into as big a stink as possible. They derive positive publicity and create even more loyalty withing there community by doing so.
It seems in this case the positives outweigh the dangers of playing pin the tail on the 800lb gorilla.
Who can't run the executable unzipper anyways? If I download files that end in EXE, my first reaction is "file $file" followed by "unzip $file" or whatever. I would never have known about the license agreement in the first place, and as I could not read it anyways (well, not true, I could pull the strings out, but whatever) how could I 'circumvent' it. Or are MS Windoze users only allowed to download it?
:)
Of course, I'm a minor too, sooooo...
I was expected a slightly wimpy reply that only said that slashdot could/would not remove the posts. Instead, you question them about the very issue, arguing for open kerberos instead of just trying to cover your behinds!
Good job!
nuclear cia fbi spy password code encrypt president bomb
Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.
From the firm's website: http://www.hutchinswheelerdittmar.com
Mark D. Robins
Mark is an Associate of Hutchins, Wheeler
& Dittmar and a member of the firm's
Litigation Practice. Mark's practice is
concentrated in the areas of commercial
litigation, intellectual property and insurance.
Mark received his B.A. from Trinity
College and his J.D., cum laude, from
Boston College Law School. He was Law
Clerk to the Honorable Joyce London
Alexander, U.S. District Court, District of
Massachusetts.
Mark has written the following articles:
Computers and the Discovery of
Evidence: A New Dimension to Civil
Procedure, 17 J. Marshall J. Computer &
Info. L. (forthcoming 1999); Electronic
Trespass: An Old Theory in a New
Context, 15 Computer Law. 1 (July 1998);
The Reformation Defense to Motions for
Preliminary Injunctive Relief in
Trademark Litigation, 16 IPL Newsletter
10 (Spring 1998); Intellectual Property:
The Path to Preliminary Injunctive
Relief, 24 Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly
2180 (July 1, 1996); The Resurgence and
Limits of the Demurrer, 27 Suffolk U.L.
Rev. 637 (1993).
Looks like #4 has already come true. See response 74.
--
This post made from 100% post-consumer recycled magnetic
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
- Taco, Hemos, Roblimo etc. come away with an even bigger pile of money than they have now.
- They take the GPL'ed Slashcode, buy themselves some new hardware, get a new domain name and they're back up in a month.
- Microsoft is left holding some hardware and a domain name. They don't own the code, and they don't own our comments.
- Microsoft comes out REALLY bad in the court of public opinion (because the press will look very unkindly at this attempt to muzzle a First Amendment forum).
I'd love to see Microsoft do this, just to watch them blow another hole in their foot.--
This post made from 100% post-consumer recycled magnetic
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
It is generally prudent policy to, before one pulls out all the stops and engages in some heavy no-holds-barred law-fu, gently remind your opponent of the possible consequences of their actions. A bluffing match, perhaps, but no one wants to rush headlong into costly or damaging litigation. The slashdot lawyer's letter seems to be outlining slashdot's possible course of defense, should the matter ever go to trial, and is warning MS that they are on shaky ground.
Nope, not hypocritical at all.
If you bothered to read the fair use statutes of US Law ( link )You'ld see that the posting of the Kerberos spec clearly falls under the right of fair use.
"...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies [...] for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,[...]is not an infringement of copyright."
Clearly slashdot is a news reporting site, clearly people who posted the spec were critisising it, and finally many people have been commenting on it, a more perfect example of fair use would be hard to find.
The examples you point out fail to meet the standards of fair use, since in your example the infringing sites would not be 1) a news report, 2) critisism, 3) or commentary upon the sites. Not to mention failing to meet several other requirements of fair use that I will let you discover by reading the above link.
*a note: You may wish to do some *basic* research before posting next time.
-Rich
Not to mention a close reading might note that the section I quoted
specifically allows the **entire** work.
Slashdot derives revenue from the posted work by selling advertising space in conjunction with the display of Microsoft's copyrighted work, the presence of which they endorse by refusing to remove it.
I hardly believe that programers come to slashdot to gain technical knowledge and specs, especially when slashdot's own heading states News for Nerds Stuff that matters . I'm no linguist but that sugests to me that this site is a *news* site, not a programmers technical resource site,( which we both know, since we seem to be in the minority of posters who have actually bothered reading the US Code, would also be covered as a resource for teaching, another fair use exception.)
Incidentally, slashdot gains readership (and thereby income) from from the lively discussions following from their headlines and Jon Katz commentaries/flamefests, hence the claims of fair use for news reporting/commentary.
In regards to your comments about licensing issues I think that slashdot (and you and I) do not need to concern themselves with pointless bickering over GPL versus click thru versus etc, especially since fair use allows quoting of licensed/non licensed material regardless of GPL vs. Microsoft's click thru license.
Regards,
Rich
p.s.
In regards to the Arriba case I first pointed out:
The court found the first factor to weigh in favor of fair use. It found the nature of Arriba's use to be "significantly transformative" in that it sought to catalog and improve access to images on the Internet. This purpose was significantly different than the plaintiff's purpose in using the photographs (i.e., to illustrate his own photography). That the defendant's use of the images was commercial was mitigated because their use was "more incidental and less exploitative [in] nature than more traditional types of 'commercial use.'"
I would argue in the same vein that Slashdot's use of Microsoft's Kerberos Document is significantly different from Microsoft's use of the document, transforming it from merely a specification into a news story for commentary. The so called comericial use here in slashdot could also be considered incidental and less exploitive than say a competitor using the document. As a news organaztion slashdot's use of the document is completely different than Microsoft's. Unless of course CmdrTaco and Co. are planning a Slashdot/Kerberos implementation.
pps.
*a note: I'll finish with the obligatory retort
Actually quoting an entire document can fall within the fair use doctrines. For example if I had quoted your entire comment. But don't just trust me, trust a harvard law professor:
See the amusing link of Harvard law professor William W. Fisher, III where he copies a suck.com article, presumably for a class. He also mentions a recent case which states:
The Fair Use Doctrine allows certain use of copyrighted material under special circumstances. Four factors weigh for or against fair use: (1) purpose and character of the use, (2) the nature of the copyrighted work, (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. (Click here to see the complete "fair use" doctrine)
I would argue that it is hard to comment or report upon something without actually viewing what it is that is to be commented on. So even those posters who merely posted the entire document could be said to be furthering disscussion on the document. Especially since Slashdot is a disscussion forum where posts are not to be read in an individual way but rather as an ongoing corespondence between posters.
Quoting selectively from the fair use section of the us code 17 section 107
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. Plainly Microsoft doesn't have a leg to stand on. But we all knew that didn't we?
-Rich
'nuff said.
In all honesty, I haven't seen anything moderated down that wasn't offensive or off topic. In fact, many opposing viewpoints are moderated up as "interesting" or "informative" because a lot of readers like to see things from all possible perspectives. This is not, of course, to say abuse doesn't happen, just that I haven't seen it. Besides, moderation is put in the hands of the users not the owners. It's supposed to be a self-governing system but as with all systems like that some will abuse the power when they get it. If you see abuse, Malda wants you to tell him. The offending moderator may have his privilages removed.
A very direct, to the point, and well thought out response. I think we can all agree though that Microsoft isn't about logic, and is all about stampeding anyone in their way. I doubt they will even bat an eyelash at your letter, and instead take it right to court. If they can tell Judge Jackson to his face he's wrong and an idiot, they won't even think twice about doing it to you.
However, I very much wish you the best of luck, and I agree exactly with your letter. Just another case of a corp trying to turn might into right.
=I am Jack's general protection fault=
This is spectacluar. What's really important about what is happening here is that it's happening in plain view for all of us to see and discuss. The legal process that usually happens behind closed doors is being shown to us all so we can all contribute. Did you notice how all of those questions came out of our discussions? It's like a kind of communal power. It's spectacular.
This is one of the most exciting things in the world. Now what they really need to do is include us in the napster trials. Do we really need judges anymore when we can get a kind of mass communal decision making process? How about improving the law process by giving people a jury of 100,000 members.
Let's start the Free Law Foundation. Oh, somebody already did that. Oops.
___________________________
Michael Cardenas
http://www.fiu.edu/~mcarde02
http://www.deneba.com/linux
hyperpoem.net
1 out of those 11 posts were "infringing"
The rest was pure discussion, regardless of the topic (not content... don't confuse the two). If you want to call that discussion copyright to MS then place disclaimers and legal notices on evey street corner.
But the WORST of it is:
HOW can a document that is world readable have a requirement NOT to share? It's shared to the world but you can't map the drive? What is this a final exam on Kerberos?
The questions above are valid because any sort of restrrictive notice MUST be guided by reason. They cannot dissociate their actions from cause and effect. Either you play in the real world or not at all.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Unlike a parody where the changes are clearly connected to the purpose of parodying, similarly in sampling (remember that debate)?, extensions to previously copyrighted works cannot be copyrighted without the original party's permission.
The BSD license is kind of weird on this: The extensions are both to the specs and the code. I think the specs must remain open since it isn't under Microsoft's copyright, but the exact code that makes up Kerberos can stay hidden.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Sorry about the confusion.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
They just added some poisoned cherries and they don't want anyone to know about it.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
The rest were simply discussing the topic.
Read the posts again.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Just in case he's reading. :-)
Just nitpicking, but Hiawatha Bray is a she.
Check out justen.org .
We can debate the morality of proprietary extensions until we're blue in the face, but it DOES NOT break interoperability, because the standard explicitly states that any Kerberos app may ignore the PAC field since it is optional.
Yes but if a Kerberos app rejects a packet or similar due to missing information in the PAC field it is breaking interoperability. Linux and others can't log on to a Win2k system due to this.
Not exactly true... CmdrTaco"bitchslaps" on occasion. Just read sid=moderation
I wonder if this threatens slashdot's 'carrier status'?
-jerdenn
Yes, MS would have a weak legal case if they were suing /. for implementing MS's "trade secret" extention of Kerberos. However, the letter MS sent to /. was about the article they posted on their website. If MS decides to sue, it would be for violating copyright and/or trade secret. And unless they got a judge who was totally off his rocker, /. and Andover would quickly lose this case.
For those of you not in the know, "fair use" does not give the user the right to republish a whole document. Had a /.er taken a sentence or a paragraph and given proper credits (footnote/paranthetical reference), MS would have no legal footing. However, this was no different from someone publishing an AP article or a NYT article or some other publication without getting permission from the author/publisher.
Please take another look at the letter MS sent to /. Their lawyer isn't insisting that discussion of MS's implementation of Kerberos be taken down, as that would violate free speech. What MS's lawyers are insisting is that MS's copyrighted document explaining what MS did in Kerberos be removed. This has to do with a document, not a technical specification.
I just wonder what type of FUD answers they'll come up with?
The issue in question was putting up copies of copyrighted material/ways to circumvent it. These questions, while great, have VERY LITTLE to do with that issue. Look up the definition of FUD somewhere.
Mmmm.. Donuts
FUD = Detracting from the issue in question by bullshitting about unrelated topics. The letter in question does not talk about the copyright being illegal and does not talk about it being legal to post about circumventing copyrights - those are very valid arguments but THE LETTER DOES NOT MAKE THOSE POINTS. Instead the letter bullshits about asking why MS extended an open standard, etc. i.e. FUD.
Mmmm.. Donuts
I wonder if that is going to use either of the avian carrier RFCs (RFC1149 Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams on avian carriers or RFC2549 IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service) or if Microsoft has developed there own proprietary pigeon transmission protocol...
marotti.com
I think they're doing it on purpose. /. and other linux advocates look like nutters Or at leaste zealots the better off Microsoft is. /. . They know that they've lost that market already. But if they can make /. and other linux/OSS/Free Software advocates look like that bad guys I think that puts them in a better position.
I havn't fully fleshed out my conspiracy theory yet. But I'm thinking the more they can make
They're not worried about insulting
No. His picture is on the Globe site
http://www.boston.com/globe/columns/bray/
Self-inflicted wounds
These are aimed at attacking Microsoft's claim of trade secret status.
For how this works, see the material at TRADE SECRET FAQs (Answers to Frequently Asked Questions)
and
(emphasis added)
These are trying to establish fair use defenses against the copyright claims.
The lawyer is so good he can actually make his points in English!
As soon as you let the government know about this incident, the harassment will stop. The DOJ should know about M$ latest bullying tactics. It could prove useful in any further court action.
6. How could posting of the Microsoft Kerberos specification on Slashdot have any detrimental impact on the market for authorized distribution of Microsoft's version of Kerberos?
Actually, answering this question is absolutely neceassry, if M$ wants to find remedy under coyright law. They must prove that the comments were detrimental to their copyright of the extentions they made to Kerberos. Of course, thanks to copyright law one could create a 'Tribute to the Microsoft Extention of Kerberos", or better yet a 'parody' of it, and be fully protected, as parodies and tributes are protected speech.
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
Unfortunately, none of those question have anything to do with the matter at hand.
And worse, I suspect it doesn't really matter who is right or wrong in this one. Microsoft could likely pound andover.net into submission by continuing to harass with legal action. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but on the cash scale, MS has virtually unlimited funds compared to andover if they want to make their point just for the sake of making it.
Religion is the opium of the people. Evolution is the opium of scientists.
I think the response brought up some very valid points. If the copyright is invalid, then there is nothing wrong. Just because I say I have a copywrite on a tape of the Matrix because I dubbed in my own voice over the agent's dialog doesn't mean I can sue people who then distribute it.
Looks like MS was at it again. And they complain about the AIM standard.
An excerpt from the article
But here's the rub: According to the Seajug poster, Microsoft got wind of a SOAP presentation to be given by a former Microsoft tools developer to the Java user group and sent in the troops (including a number of former Microsoft colleagues) to make sure the former employee didn't break any NDAs. .
Another story on MS and standards.
--
--
The point here is not to fight the legal matter to the death - but rather make Microsoft say, as explicitly as possible, how and why they can take an open protocol and make it their own. I can't wait for thier response!
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Something like "I fart in your general direction, you silly, proprietary kniggits!"
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
I would think that if they wanted a softer punishment from the governemt the least they could do is prove that they could be good on their own for at least a little while.
Anyhow I am very interested in their response to this (although I doubt that there will be one)
The user didn't break the law (of his/her country) and neither did Slashdot (which didn't download anything from MS at all).
If no one broke the law, how could the law be broken? Only if it started out that way.
I read the allegedly copyrighted post. I also noticed that the Microsfot copyright notice was included in said post several times. Since noone is claiming that they wrote this document, and obviously giving full credit where is it allegedly due, are they not in the clear? Like I said, I don't know much about all this copyright jack, but from what I do understand, credit to the source was given. So it seems to that Microsoft really doesn't have a leg to stand on. What do ya'll think?
Very, very true. The law does cover Andover's liability concerning this, unless Andover took it completely to court to challenge the law.
/. If that's the case then they intend to use /. as a guinea pig, one that needs to be squished harshly. There were a bunch of comments on the original M$ article that said that M$ is looking way into the future and using this (if successful) as a means of control over releasing code and still having power. I'm starting to see the merits in this conspiracy theory. I don't think much of M$'s response to this will surprise me, whatever it might be (it wouldn't even surprise me if they just drop it, though that seems unlikely).
The next step is to see if M$ even decides to respond, or even if they care. I think it's very possible that M$ started preparing their lawsuit even before they got a response from Andover. It wouldn't surprise me if they just ignore the questions and just went ahead with attempting to legally get the posts off
It was a very well thought out response, but I'm not cheering yet. Many a web site has originally given the finger to big corporations only to turn around and comply when the screws were tightened. I must give credit where credit is due though, they didn't skirt around the issue. They said exactly what needed to be said to M$ to challenge these inane policies and requests.
Well done, but the storm is just coming.
Buses stop at a bus station
Trains stop at a train station
On my desk there's a workstation....
Your are right; copyrighted material should be removed, even
if it belongs to someone you don't like.
On the other hand, a copyright only protects the expression of
an idea, not the idea itself. One should be able to write an
original description of the specification, and repost it.
This is an important point.
Actually....this may be why Microsoft may decide
to back down. They may NOT want to goto court
over this...even though they might be able to
win.
Slashdot is a news organization. Its not a big
important one, but it is big in the circles that
it is big in. The surest way to get bad press is
to attack a news organization (well, supermarket
tabloids excluded).
It has already happend. Look how many large and "legitamate" news agencies picked up on this when
it first happend. The articles all seemed very
heavily slanted towards defending slashdot.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I have to agree with this here...
Lawyers are just professionals. If their client
says "We arn't going to budge for anything short
of a court order" then the Lawyer fights it
thats what he is paid to do.
As for "doing the right thing"...I could say a
lawyer did the right thing if he quit his job
because they asked him to do something immoral,
or offered his services for free to someone who
was being screwed and needed legal help....
however...when he is just doing what he is paid
(and I assume, paid well) to do....
Now Andover.net *IS* (IMNSHO) doing the right
thing by fighting it. However, the lawyer is more
of a combonation ground troop/stratagist than
someone who makes the decision on whether to
fight or not.
This is not to say that he doesn't believe in
whats going on. Maybe he is a nice guy who wants
to do the right thing, but there is, as of yet,
no real evidence for this.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
There is at least one recorded incident in the very early days of the US Congress. I do not remember the names or exact dates, but the story is quite memorable and goes something like this...
There was a longstanding debate running in the Congress, with each side having a particularly outspoken proponent. As could be predicted, eventually the Congressman losing the debate resorted to off-topic insults while attempting to maintain a sense of decorum.
"I would suspect that my distinguished collegue would eventually either be hanged or die of a terrible disease"
to which came the reply
"That, good sir, depends on whether I embrace your policies or your mistress."
I disagree -- as many posters have pointed out, Microsoft may have violated the Kerberos trademark, and may not have any legitimate claim on trade secrets, but they do control their publication, and I'm afraid slashdot is going to get bent over backwards on that point. (although I hope not)
/. crew, especially Taco, is happy to have a larger corporation standing behind (over?) them to dish out legal resources?
That said -- I wonder if the
I must say, I give my props to the slashdot folk and andover. Most people and companys would of backed down, crapped there pants, and removed it. Instead slashdot and andover are standing up for what is right. At the same time, andover and slashdot are also proveing to the world that microsoft is still screwing people even admist the DOJ stuff that happing at this moment. Microsoft doesnt care about the source, they care about looking all mighty and hurting open source anything. Andover, and Slashdot, keep up the good work, and hold your head's high, because you may not win the battle, but you already won the war.
http://www.freebsd.org
Practically, I would bet that ultimately andover.net might end up having to remove those quoted, very specific posts that have, after the dust settles on a judicial time scale and have been proven to be actual copyright violations.
The important precedent to establish, however, would be that the burden of protecting the "copyrighted material" is on the copyright holder. The copyright holder should be the one that culls through newsgroups, etc., constantly searching for such infringement.
The reverse situation of requiring owners of forums and relays to cross-check every contributed post against the known universe of copyrighted material is patently ridiculous.
The best legal step I see is for /. in the future is to enable the individual poster, even an AC, to remove a post. Then, when presented with a validate legal claim that a copyright was violated, /. can request to the AC (via public post) that they remove the offending post. Then, the burden is back onto the original AC that committed the violation, which is where the burden should be.
Even a general purpose protective boilerplate at the top would go a long way: something like "Don't post copyrighted works. We cannot be responsible for your misbehavior."
Any claim in court that, practically speaking, AC's act unresponsible (hoo, me?) and are not be responsive is tough nuggies; if you establish carriers as responsible, then it should follow that any and every ISP, phone company, Postal Service is responsible for any violation carried over their medium. Last I heard it was not possible to hold the postoffice responsible for Bad mail, but it was possible to convict the sender of a crime if the sender could be established.
These arguments should extend to MP3 as well.
Were the initial photocopier companies besieged with any suits about their enabling copyright violations of printed matter by unscrupulous users and were those companies held reponsible?
"Provided by the management for your protection."
God, but that was one letter I just went completely tingly over while reading.
.,@
Good show, good show!
Good letter. To the point, attacking in a very smart, but very civilized ( and might I add, humanly understandable ) way.
And points to the lawyer ( or... team, firm, whatever ) for coming up with such a succint list of questions. Just lob that ball right on over to the other side and let's see 'm return it, right?
I just can't wait to read their response...
xchg
xchg
jmp emailMe
Nor is there any Real evidence to the contrey either; all lawyer jokes aside. So its A case of the social Nicities of assuming the Positive of people until till proven other wise. (ie Resonable doubt).
This should even more hold true considering the person is on 'our side' in this
--Rogue, who's existance has yet to be disproved
We thought SlashDot was using an open source legal defense by just using the top ten moderated posts. Right now there are 600 Microsoft Attorneys reading /. and thinking - "Wow, this really is an easy way to defend our position. Of course we'll still charge the same".
Opinions Expressed by Me should be Forced on Others - PbHead
From a Copyright Office document:
Most people don't realize that everything they write is copyrighted the moment they create it. This wasn't the case until sometime in the 80's (if memory serves).
So, all of this talk about posting copyrighted materials is really irrelevant. Everything on Slashdot is copyrighted.
Registration of copyright is only useful as a legal document for proof.
Recipes cannot be copywritten. A collection of recipes in a book can, but individual ones cannot. You picked a bad example.
I think your a nut. None of this is about the documents and if they were or weren't placed in the discussion. It's about further tarnishing the image of microsofts global dominance and bringing to light their shady buisness practices. It was a discussion were articles where brought in as "evidence" to provoke though and give insight. The reason it happens like this is just due to the nature of open source. Everyone is a part of it even if you haven't written a line of code. We all help to encourage and shape how it grows. By not taking a stance that this is a discussion group we allow ourselves to be cheated out of free speech. This isn't something I would like to see happen and surely andover recognizes if they were to let it happen someone somewhere would start up the next slashdot and all the userbase they have built up would slowly migrate that way.
Quite a number of my /. colleagues have pointed out that Slashdot servers may, in fact, contain copyrighted materials.
Is it possible, then, that Microsoft may actually have a case? *gasp*
It seems to me that Andover's response sort of skirts the issue. It also seems to me that Slashdot should be wary of "knee-jerk" reactions to anything involving the naughty words "Microsoft" and "censorship."
Now where did I put that asbestos body suit...
===
-J
Karma: T-rexcellent.
My deepest apologies.
I'm not as smart as I think I am.
bun-fhuinneog agam!
Laying out the issues and requesting answers to specific questions is very key here. In the DVD cases, most things were kept in the abstract sense, and we are just now learning that this approach is much more condusive to conveying the grit of very complex and often technical points. We will not let the DMCA stand!
Bravo! Slashdot's lawers really showed up microsoft, didn't they? All the points of the letter were completely accurate and highly important. great work, /.
-----------------------------------------
Perversely greped and groped by PowerPenguin
F-CK YOU.
But, I liked this guy's response too. Especially how he doesn't claim to work for a Law Office, but for "A Professional Corporation"
How cool is that?
M
Sure, I have a thankless job. That's okay. I have a lot of (non
Deadly force to enforce copyright? Judas H. Priest! Who the hell wrote this? Janet Reno?
Whenever someone tries to sue me and I send back a letter like that I feel really cool and smart. Then a few days later when I get the response I get that sinking feeling that the world is unfair.
Microsoft doesn't care to clarify their demands or explain their marketing strategies. I will be shocked if they even half-heartedly pretend to respond to these questions.
The point is, the world at large doesn't work on the merits of arguments and rational thought. It might in the courtroom, but that's a luxury too expensive for most of us to afford. Most of the time it's too hard to care enough to go up against the money- or power-interests of corporations (or even universities), and the good guys just giving up.
So for once I'm actually glad slashdot got bought by Andover.net and can afford to fight back on a minor issue that normally would get bullied under. Maybe Microsoft will decide it's not worth it (hooray!) or maybe this will go to court and inspire others who receive similar threats to not give in so easily. In any case, this is exciting to those of us who've been in the same situations.
What the hell are Props, and where can I get some? Everyone is going on these days about giving proper Props, or getting their Props, and many times they are getting these mysterious Props from The Man. Who is this Man, and how come he has so many of these Props to give away?
On a side note, have you ever noticed that the promulgation of properly propogated processor products propels pro- proposition providers into dis-proporitionate prosperity?
while (1) karma--;
XML causes global warming.
Just to comment on the last thing you said about "That's right, Windows 98 is a great product. Anyone who says otherwise is a pro-Linux zelot or a fool," umm, I'm not a pro-linux zealot (learn to spell it before you use it", and I most certainly am not a fool, and I hate windows 98. I currently work as a Sysadmin at a multi-million dollar company and we use NT, and I use 95 at home, but I will never use 98 because of all the CRAP that was intaled in it. As for your rather unintelligent commants about slashdot breaking every copyright law in the book, well, I feel that perhaps you should actually look up those laws before you go off bathering about them and looking like a complete idiot. I've read the posts that MS wants removed, and in no way shaoe or form have I been able to see any copyright issues. And YES, I have dealt with those laws because I have been involved in such lawsuits. Maybe you should pull your head out of your anus before you post again.
"They told me it was impossible. I replied with maniacal laughter." http://www.mydailyrant.com/
I am very much impressed by his responce to Microsoft. In terms of debating, he has just make a classical attack of questioning his opponents tactics in general, both in the case at hand AND the governments case against them. Also, I feel I must stand up for the lawyer. I mean come on guys, not all of them are really that bad, and most of them are great guys. They are intelligent, and deserve some respect. After all, its not the lawyers that are complicated, but the law itself. Give it on up now for them. "Controlling your future, one invention at a time." ---Evil INC.
"They told me it was impossible. I replied with maniacal laughter." http://www.mydailyrant.com/
I knew there were good lawyers out there, nice to see one every one in awhile.
:)
And I thought lawyers had no sense of humor, too.
Is there any possibility of counter-suing MS for breaking the Kerberos agreement? I've been wondering when this flurry of anti-MS cases that people have been predicting is going to show up. There are several buisnesses that could have a solid case against MS at this point.
Maybe they are waiting for the anti-trust suit to finish, but that is going to take years.
no
Seems like the lawyers decided not to respond with knee jerk free speech argument and instead attack back with questions on the validity of M$ trade secret claims and attempt at censorship of posts that could be relevent to the DOJ litigation.
I suspect there will be no further response from M$ and they will pretend not to have stirred up the mud on this one as it will only have negative impact on M$ and they aren't losing any trade secrets anyway.
OTOH they may be willing to try and tarnish slashdot, sap money from Andover and set a precedent for others to get posts removed from this forum. Kinda scary when a corporation gets so large and rich, things like this have no impact on their bottom line and so they can use the legal system to abuse others.
I hope the first route is the one they take.
no sig.
Actually - paper wrapped licenses, and email wrapped licenses, are being used.
I have a friend who works for CheckPoint. He read me his email over the phone. I emailed him a short notice, verifying that it was the right email.
I cannot tell you his reply, because it had an automatic confidentiality addon, saying:
A. The opinions expressed may not reflect the official CheckPoint line, but rather those of the writer.
B. The entire email is a confidential property of CheckPoint.
I will hint to say his reply contained no issues not raised within my email.
Good points, but what's the point? Here is Microsoft's key complaint:
Regardless of whether or not Microsoft is allowed to attach the Kerberos name to their protocol, or whether or not it's technically still a Trade Secret, Microsoft still owns EXCLUSIVE copyrights to said work, and if someone is redistributing that work, then there are laws being broken.
In some ways I'm surprised that you actually paid your lawyers for this (or should I say "lawyers"), on the other hand, it is a good deflection tactic (one that the hyper-aggressive Linux/OSS advocates (fanatics) in the IRC channels I frequent use to derail perfectly valid points) so maybe it is worth the money.
1) They never did in the e-mail they sent to you.
2) Not once do they mention "Kerberos" in their request.
3) They don't mention "trade secret" either. The closest they come is proprietary, which can also mean exclusive rights.
4) Again, not relevant to the request.
5) Not relevant to the copyright infringement alleged.
6) Lack of harm does not make copyright infringement legal.
7) Irrelevant to copyright infringement allegation.
8) There's no reason why they shouldn't be able to, but it's up to Microsoft to let that happen. They own the copyright on the work so they can do whatever they want.
On another note, I notice that Microsoft recognizes who owns comments:
In short: You might want to address the claims that Microsoft has laid forth in its letter. The other questions are great, yes, but is not going to get you very far in stating your case as for why unauthorized reprodctions of copyrighted work appear on your site. Even if Microsoft relinquished all rights that they have to the specification, the infringement still occurred in the past and is punishable.
That's a very nice response. It's short, to the point, and very clear.
The only downside to it that i can see that it doesn't seem very strongly worded. Wether or not that is a bad thing, i'm not sure. Focusing on the lack of protection for the so called "Trade secret" is definatly a good move, it will be interesting to see the response to it. Questions about Microsofts use of the Kerberos name, though, is a completly seperate issue imho, and it may have been best to leave that bit for someone else.
Still, all in all, Karma to the Slashdot lawyer.
Syllable : It's an Operating System
If I remember correctly didn't Microsoft actually rename the part of their os that is "based on" Kerberos? Something like Microsoft Remote Authentication Protocol or some such uninteresting name.
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
Microsoft therefore has a reasonable expectation that:
A. Only professional IT personnel would be interested in obtaining the specification, and
B. Anyone qualified to be an IT professional is also qualified to enter into a binding contract.
A: many amateurs have shown interest. This argument is anlogous to claiming that a truck is of use only to professional truckers, therefore anyone owning a truck, or reading about one, must be professional trucker, and thus aware of the various rules and regulations concerning transportation of dnagerous materials.
B: There are many examples of people under the legal age writing and selling software. I have done it myself. None of those contracts would have been valid (in Finland, where it happened, and presumably also in the US) without my fathers written consent on them.
In Murphy We Turst
I have mixed feelings about this response. On the one hand, these are questions which we are all interested in, but on the other hand, it's obvious Microsoft isn't going give any real answers to them--just use legal loopholes. So I don't think it will achieve anything.
-- The Sheep --
Now I can get back to work...Ah, Yes:
A Tale of Two Cities
Copyright 2000, Me. All Rights Reserved.
That should help with the bills.
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
One thing I see here is that slashdot does not moderate posts - slashdot's readers moderate the posts. In addition, there is no set group of people who moderate - it is a psuedo-random selection of individuals. And even in the case of moderated posts, they are still viewable by slashdot readers who set a low threshold in their preferences.
Since Slashdot is not truely acting as a carrier here, I don't know that they would be protected anyway. However, I have a hard time seeing how the "moderating" built in to the Slashdot system constitutes moderation in the typical sense of the word.
All operating systems suck. Some just suck less than others. (and some are virtual black holes)
Good luck with this, I hope you win in this case, but one thing I have hear that ms dose (even if it dose not have a real case) is to sue over and over again untill the oponte is out of money, so what I think should be done is a fund put up for people who wish to donate some money to you for the fight agains ms to send it to.
This is somewhat offtopic, but I get annoyed by how often I see this myth repeated on the Internet. Editing a single post doesn't not affect the editor's liability or culpability for other posts. Avoiding editing any posts does not reduce the forum maintainer's potential liability for the posts. As an example, if someone hangs a libelous sign on your building, it doesn't matter whether or not you removed other signs in the past: you will be held equally responsible in either case.
-- ;-)
Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end.
Yes. If you ignore the copyright, you'll get a cease-and-desist letter. If you ignore the letter, you'll get a court order and injunction. If you ignore the court order, you'll get federal agents showing up in person to kick your butt. If you fend off the federal agents, they'll surround your compound with tanks. (Did somebody mention Janet Reno? ;-) If you fend of the tanks, they'll send in a B-52 squadron. Of course, I don't think it has ever got that far for copyright. Most people give up long before the "federal agent showing up on your doorstep" stage.
And why do most people give up early? Because the government will escalate the situation as far as necessary to prevail against you, and they know it. When the left hand holds a cease-and-desist order, the right hand is implicitly understood to be holding a billy club.
My point was that assertion of copyright by Andover (with respect to their properties) is an implicit threat of unlimited, government-backed force. For them to blow off Microsoft without even discussing the central issue is hypocritical.
If Andover/Slashdot wish to stand against the law for political reasons, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they openly state their reasons, and justify them based on the continuing indigities they suffer at the hands of their opponent. A few insinuations in the form of questions does not suffice.
-- ;-)
Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end.
(Wow! An intelligent, thoughtful reply. Slashdot could use more of these. Heck, any discussion forum could use posts like this.)
Your points about fair use are good. Andover/Slashdot do have a strong case for fair use. Nevertheless, a reasonable person could have doubts about the propriety of copying the entire Kerberos document -- Microsoft sure did! An honorable and reasonable reply to those doubts would have discussed them with respect to the laws that were alleged to have been broken. However, Robins' response lacked any justification of the alleged improper acts. Rather, in was a list of insinuations about Microsoft's general business practices and strategies. It was the legal equivalent of yelling "Yo' Mama".
And I think that is hypocritcal and lacking in honor.
-- ;-)
Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end.
Slashdot derives revenue from the posted work by selling advertising space in conjunction with the display of Microsoft's copyrighted work, the presence of which they endorse by refusing to remove it. .From the linked legal website (Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec. 107 of the United States Code):
Slashdot presents the *entire* copyrighted work, by itself, with no directly associated commentary, for the purposes of evading the copyright holder's chosen license.From the legal website:
Microsoft apparently perceived significant value to them from using a particular license, and restricted distribution of the work according to those perceptions. And the restricted distribution did, in fact, have significant value, by reducing competition with Microsoft, thus increasing their potential market size. Why does the Free Software Foundation have the right to restrict distribution based on their goals, but Microsoft does not?From the legal website:
(BTW, thanks for the link -- it's nice to be able to back up my argument with specific references to the USC.)
Please note that I like Slashdot. I've been an avid reader for a long time now. It's just that Slashdot/Andover seem to be sweeping certain legal and moral realities under the rug in their zeal for free speech. It would be a terrible loss if they got fined into the grave or sent to prison. And it makes those "lazy bearded Linux free software hippie bastard geeks" look like hypocrits in the eyes of businessmen everywhere.
*a note: You may wish to actually *apply* legal citations to the instant topic before you slap people upside the head with them. ;-)
-- ;-)
Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end.
<rant color="flaming crimson">
While Robins' letter to Microsoft thoroughly adressed the trade secret issue, the copyright issue is painfully conspicuous by its absence. One of Microsoft's complaints is the posting, without permission, and contrary to copyright law, of a document authored by Microsoft. I am interested to learn Andover/Slashdot's opinion on this issue, which they have so far ignored.
Unfettered speech with no responsibility is an attractive concept, but Andover and Slashdot are based on restricting other people's speech, through the mechanism of copyright. Just look at many of Andover's properties and associates: Slashdot, ibooks.com, Andover News, Manager's Journal, Internet Traffic Report, and Techsightings, to name a few. All of them base their profitibility (or hope thereof) on copyright law. How happy would Andover management be if someone started duplicating Andover sites, but pointing the banner ads to their own clients?
Even the GPL, the holy document of the free software movement, gets its teeth from copyright law. (You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.)
This is a serious matter: copyright law allows you to maintain your monopoly using the minimum amount of force necessary to compel others not to violate your license. It starts with cease-and-desist letters, proceeds to court orders, and can end up involving physical force -- even deadly force, to maintain the copyright holder's government-protected monopoly.
So, Andover.net, what's your defense? How come you can have copyright, but Microsoft can't? Perhaps free speech? Or is it gonna be Maintaining the Freedom To Innovate(tm)? (Hah!) "We have to protect our Way of Life, and you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette"? Or is the Kerberos extension a domino, and "we have to stand firm to keep all the dominoes from falling and crushing the Free Software World"?
What's the answer, Andover.net? We're waiting, and some of us don't like the hypocrisy we are seeing.
</rant>
-- ;-)
Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end.
They wouldn't need to know them, just know to avoid them and use the open Kerberos specifications! (But a good argument nonetheless). It will be interesting to see how this slashdot/kerberos/microsoft fiasco fits into the DoJ's lawsuit...
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
No, because it'll take forever for them to find a translator ...
...
I guess
Corollary to Moore's Law: The IQ of new computer owners is declining.
It's possible that the individual who posted the spec to /. agreed to and violated the EULA, but that is an issue between Micro$oft and the poster, to be resolved in the jurisdiction of the poster.
The basic problem with our society is exactly this. M$ is spending tons of money on advertisers. TV Networks/News Papers etc are unlikely to want to bite the hand that feeds them.
It will be very hard to get media outlets who are being handed microsoft $$'s to run negative stories about them.
Need a website host? Try out http://WebQualityHost.net
I mean moderation in the sense of completely getting rid of a message
I remember when there was the whole censorship going on about yahoo - if you moderate messages, you have responsibility for all messages posted on the server. The thing I'm wondering is if Slashdot complies, how much more will they have to clean up, and if they're forced to remove certain messages, will that mean that the same thing still applies? I think Microsoft should just relax and let people say/post what they feel. It would be much better for PR
1. Simple. We are better than you and will crush you if you try to come in our way.
2. We thought Kerberos sounded cool, that's what we've always called the fat guy in tech support. We didn't really care if we were using it properly or not. Remember that we use the term "innovation". LOL, as if that had anything to do with our products.
3. We have absolutely no idea what a trade secret is. We have this one programmer who actually knows what he's doing (he's the one who wrote notepad and internet connection sharing) and he said trade secret before, so we used it.
4. Microsoft is slowly killing those that use this top secret information outside of the program that protects this top secret information.
5. We hadn't thought of that. That's a pretty good question.
6. People that use Linux are bad. Do you know how much time we had to waste on actually advancing our software because of stupid Linus Torvalds. Ooh, I'm going to write a revolutionary OS shell and distribute it freely to the world. So, pretty much, we don't really know. We just know that you guys like Linux and Linux is bad.
7. HAHA. Incompatibility. What do you think the point of our software is?! Haven't you read some of our marketing. It's a bunch of crap. We trick stupid people into buying the software by creating really neat names for our new stuff then pretending that it's revolutionary. Hence "innovation". All we do is turn "Make new connection" into "Dial-up Wizard" and BAM, we have more money.
8. Because, frankly, Bill's at a hard time in his life. Have you ever seen the hate sites about him? He lost like 17 billion dollars for crying out loud. Can't you just be nice to him and not criticize his precious software. Innovation is Bill's life, it's not the money, it's making users happy. Sorry, I'm going to cry.
Smokescreen? The most important argument Slashdot can make here is whether or not the "copyrighted" material is actually able to be copyrighted. Here's an open protocol, for which Microsoft came up with it's own proprietary extensions, added the protocol to its software packages and continued to refer to as "Kerberos"; meanwhile, the extensions they've made to the protocol have crippled it, disabling its use with competing products with the open-standard. How can an open standard be copyrighted? Imagine if you will that they did the same with TCP/IP. They'd be laughed off the face of the planet. And I don't hear them hollering too loud about SMB.
That was my mistake. I meant to moderate it as "insightful", but I was tired, and I guess my mouse slipped. Hopefully now that I've posted in this thread, the unwarranted moderation will be undone. My apologies.
[We Have No Product] [The Swindle
Let's not forget, all Microsoft has to do in their response is state something like "Private and Confidential, this may not be made public" and we'll never know Microsoft's responses until they are in court!
They may even be able to convince a Judge to have /. temporarally disable that story, and all it's responses.
I would like to see this battle as it unfolds too, but I always side with the immortal 'Murphy' and his view of the law.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
The only substantial reason Microsoft has to prevent open access to the spec, is to prevent interoperability. This helps entrench Microsoft's desktop OS monopoly at the expense of consumers who, even according to Microsoft, desire increased interoperability.
You can't use one law to break another. Kudos to Slashdot for fighting this. The potential damage to Microsoft from this incident is easily measurable in the billions of dollars.
JWS
Standard IANAL disclaimer. But I _did_ return Windows, last year. Got a refund as well. (My website's down at the moment, so I can't point you to it.)
Here's how to get your refund:
Read the EULA carefully. At the top of the page: "This EULA is a legally binding contract between you, the manufacturer, and Microsoft".
Read down through the next paragraph or two. You'll find (unless they've made a lot of changes in the last year or so): "...if you do not agree to the terms and conditions of this EULA, then Manufacturer and Microsoft Corporation do not wish to license the Software Product to you. In such event, you may not use or copy the Software Product, and should immediately contact Manufacturer for return of the unused Software Product for a refund".
So there we have a legally binding document which states you are entitled to that refund. You need to contact the OEM, since that's what is specified in the EULA.
If the OEM refuses to allow you to return the software, they are placing themselves in breach of contract. This can be a fairly serious issue. I recommend you inform the OEM that unless they agree to allow you to return the software for a refund, that you will file charges with your local small claims court. Check in your area - some counties' small claims courts do not allow corporations to be represented by an attorney.
Keep in mind, though, that the average person you'll be talking to at the OEM doesn't have a clue as to what's in the EULA. If you have a hard copy of it, it may be helpful to fax them a copy - that way, when they tell you again that you can't return it, they are aware of the consequences of what they're doing.
Document everything. Keep copies of any emails you send (bcc yourself); document any phone calls you make - get people's names or employee numbers, note times and what was said. Be polite, but firm. And remember that THEY ARE WRONG AND YOU ARE RIGHT.
If you need more advice on this, feel free to email me. (Remove the sheep sounds from what appears above.)
reverend lola
the titanium sheep
provider of steel wool
This whole thing sinks or swims on the trade secret argument.
Well... there is a little more to it than that... Microsoft is pulling this thing under the DMCA, and that deals more with the copyright on the document, rather than it's trade secrectness. The posting of a copywritten Microsoft document, regardless of it's availability, is still a violation of copyright.
The fact of the matter is that Slashdot's servers contain copyrighted material.
#disclaimer=IANAL
Not true. The fact is that the material is allegedly copyrighted. The law may be unclear in this case, and is anyway certainly open to interpretation. Ultimately, the arguments for and against M$ claim would be heard in a court of law, and judged by legal experts according to their merits.
Your response seems to be, "well, you suck, and should never have copyrighted it in the first place. Nyahh!"
Again, not true. The response has been to challenge M$'s claim of trade secrecy, which I understand to be a condition mutually exclusive of copyright. And keep in mind that this response doens't preclude Andover from arguing against the copyright claim at a later date.
The point is that they did copyright it. Slashdot is in the wrong.
Well, they claimed they had copyrighted it. Slashdot may be in the wrong. Then again, maybe not. If neither side backs down, then the courts will decide whether or not this is in fact the case.
Here's my question: Is this going to be Slashdot's official policy? That you will never remove copyrighted material if the copyright holder asks you to? Or is this a special rule only for Microsoft?
I think this has always been Slashdot's policy, whether "official" or not. As implied in Roblimo's initial reply, and at the top of this legal response, and in the ongoing discussion in this and other forums, Slashdot may in fact have no duty under the law to remove any copyrighted material posted by users.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Trade secrets are only trade secrets if the company tries to keep them secret. Microsoft didn't try very hard here... silly clickwrap agreement, Kerebros is for everyone.
==
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
In a few more months, the alleged infringing post will "fall off" Slashdot's servers
You mean "this story has been archived"? After two weeks, an article is placed into the archive, where it becomes a static page, and all the comments (including the bootleg complete spec) are stored along with it. It's not like user-created sid's, where the comments are actually deleted after 14 days.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Right now they are breaking every copyright law in the book by allowing those posts to stay up. This is NOT a free speech issue.
Actually, it is. You see, what gives Microsoft the right to put, on the web, an entire copyrighted thing on the net protected only by "Clickwrap", and then trying to claim protection on it. Especially since it's a modification on an open source protocol, and since it helps the Win monopoly.
The content of many of those posts is copyrighted. What is someone posted an entire novel? It would be removed in a second.
You are right there, and it's because of the fact that you say some correct things that I bothered to reply. Yes, that one post that has the whole contents might be slightly innapropriate. But then again, so is Microsoft's method of distribution of the info, and their objectives of posting the info.
These posts aren't being removed because slashdot wants to drag this out and throw some mud on Microsoft.
Slashdot is, in a sense, fighting for survival and integrity here. They want to maintain a non-censorship thing, and keep posted what they believe is okay to be posted. To do so, that requires a fight with Microsoft. And they have a massively larger budget then Slashdot. Therefore, Slashdot's only real hope in this legal battle is to turn it into a PR issue.
All MS is asking is for you guys to respect their copyrights. Is that so hard?
For one thing, I'd like to see MS respect the copyrights of other people. Half of their stuff that they "innovated" is in fact, stolen. But oh well. As for us respecting THEIR copyrights, as the letter that Slashdot is sending to Microsoft, tell me how the posting of those things harms Microsoft? Other then hurting their monopolistic feelings. A freaking three year old could click through their agreement, and the whole click-wrap thing is pretty controversial.
I know copyright laws go against your Linux/communist agenda, but these laws are what America was built upon.
Now this is one of your greatest errors. I love capitalism. However, as I have explained before, this is a real world, not a idealistic Civ2 world, and capitalism must be regulated. The "laissez-faire" capitalism of the era between 1875-1900 truly shafted millions of Americans and Immigrants, causing the one of the largest gaps between rich and poor ever.
Without them, many great products would never have been created such as the car, light bulb, telephone...and Windows 98. That's right, Windows 98 is a great product. Anyone who says otherwise is a pro-Linux zealot or a fool.
Ooooooh so wrong. Okay, you really should know who invented the light bulb. And you should also know that good old Thomas Edison didn't develop it with the help of a massive corporation. In fact, more likely then not, he would have been hindered. Same really goes for the telephone, the TV, the car, etc. As for Win98..... my god. Okay, I won't go through the whole schpiel, because anybody who would agree with me already knows it and anybody who wouldn't agree with me won't listen, but Win98 ain't the best thing around. However, I'm more concerned with your last comment saying that anybody who disagrees with your comment on Windows being great is either a "pro-Linux zealot or a fool". The fool part doesn't bother me so much, it's the pro-Linux *zealot* that caught my attention. You see, this is the general issue that Linux users need to fight: most other people (like those lovely Win98 users) think we're crazy zealots. Or something along those lines. If we ever want Linux to succeed, we've got to improve our own image as being not so bad.
Well, that's just my two cents anyway. And I'm sorry in advance for feeding the trolls.
This would be rather against open source ethics wouldn't it? If you give the right to one person to modify and redistribute you must give it to everyone. Even the evil empire.
Also, since this is a standard and not a piece of code. Since its open and freely distrubuted it'd be hard to prevent people from deviating from it (As the MPAA seems to be able to.) Unless of course the organization creating it held patents to the technology in some way.
What's wrong with Communism? And windows 98 is a terrible product, I've never met anyone who was happy with it. I think what we need here is a good Socialist Revolution. It'd fix a whole bunch of problems. I can see it now...Everything open and free, no legal proceedures to worry about just to use or read something, no paying for software (or anything for that matter) Communism all the way! The only reason it ever failed was because people are greedy, screw the greedy bastards! The whole world should be like Linux. It's time to make everyone's life better. If the Law's against you, and you're right, bring down the law! Don't oppose the government just for the sake of anarchy, oppose the government because there's something better. I oppose windows because Linux is better, and more open and free, I oppose all other forms of government because communism is better, and more open and free. Don't say that it's not and give examples, true communism has never existed on Earth, and it's all because someone (quite Microsoft-like) was a greedy control freak. Linux forever! Communism forever! Freedom forever!
Frag 'em all...
"Now then, If you Copyright something, then give it out for free to anyone who asks, and try to complain when someone ELSE gives it out for free then you are going to get laughed out of court."
Sounds good, but it's not true.
Consider the Book of Mormon, for instance. Anyone who asks can get a free copy of it (well, the latest version of it, since it has been redacted often). Nonetheless, the copyright has not only failed to be laughed out of court, but actually been given a special extension. This may be an unusual case, but it does illustrate that the law doesn't always match our expectations of what makes sense.
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
I think what the lawyers are trying to do is say: is that really copyrighted material? Can someone copyright an open standard? I guess they are saying if they are going to add proprietary extensions to Kerberos then Microsoft should not be allowed to call it Kerberos.
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
Good point.
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
Wow! I never realized how cool this really might be. This means is that I can add a single word to Shakespeare's "Hamlet" and copyright the whole thing! Then if I could figure out how to add a single byte of code to MS Windows, I could copyright that too! Wait, I've just added extra text to a website just now.... (Slashdot.org, (C)pac4854, May 18, 2000)
so AndOver.net is our last saviour
Andover's lawyer is missing the point. As technically relevant as the issues over the protocol and Microsoft's strongarm tactics are, they simply do not dispute (or even address) Microsoft's (seemingly valid) request that Slashdot remove copyright infringing material, in the form of large chunks of a Microsoft authored document, posted as comments. If he had argued for possible common carrier status of Slashdot, user responsibility for posts, etc. he may or may not have been correct in his legal arguments, but he would at least have been on-topic.
Copyright seems pretty black and white in this regard. It appears that copyright infringing material has been posted, and unless Andover can show otherwise, or that Slashdot is not responsible for its posting and, in turn, its removal (showing that someone else should be held legally responsible for both) Andover should comply with the request.
The lawyer's response in this case shows none of this, but instead seems to say that Slashdot should be allowed to infringe because Microsoft's trade secret claim is unsupportable. It's not relevant. Whether or not the document can be claimed to be a trade secret, (which very much seems like an absurd claim) it is a copyrighted work. If it has been posted without permission from the holder of said copyright, the copyright has been infringed. The appropriate thing to do would be for Andover to argue the actual issue, or comply with the request.
NetShadow
NetShadow
why not?
they seem to have a strong corporate policy of embarassing themselves at the minute.
Actually, Hamlet is in the public domain, so you can do that.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
screw the greedy bastards!
And therein lies the fundamental problem with Communism/Socialism: Figuring out who is a greedy bastard, and who isn't.
In its most extreme form, it resulted in one neighbor turning the other in because they were afraid that they might get turned in. Remember the Soviet Union? What a paradise that was.
If I were moderating, I'd probably moderate you up as Funny, because this must be a joke.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Second Point: reverse... It is not that simple. Consider the response, the implications of a monopoly that has been found guilty of market manipulation and monopolistic abuse, that holds the law in such contempt that it continues to attempt to subvert standards towards its own monopolistic ends and arrogantly attacks anyone who tries to stop them. _Of course_, it matters that it is MSFT here. If it were O'Reilly, who cares? Who are they, anyway? The global monopolies are a richer ground here. What a brilliant response, I say--full of heart and soul, too.
Heh, that's not very nice *evil grin*
.sig)
I especially like how you're grilling them for the Kerberos spec at the same time. Hmm... <desperate OT dodge>When M$ lawyers respond (or perhaps fail to respond) to this, what is your next step? If the court comes calling I assume you are ready to fight, what if it becomes to expensive?</desperate OT dodge>
-Elendale (see the
IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)
Wouldnt this be kinda like entrapment? I mean think about it. MS basically let the secret go without trying to protect it.
Fine. Now lets change the parties involved a bit and, oh I dont know, change the Kerberos document to say drugs. Now, if I were a police officer (MS employee) and I left say 1lb. of POT (something valuable to certain people) on a sidewalk (a public place like say....the Internet) and waited for someone to pick it up (download it), wouldnt that be entrapment?
I mean, its fairly obvious that MS probably did this for tactical reasons in order to hinder Linux and Samba. I thought MS was already in enough trouble as it is for this kind of stuff. Personally, I would like to see new laws that stop "childish" games like this.
Down with MS!
------
Way to go. Make MS look like idiots by pointing out how childish they've been. These are all really good questions. I just wonder what type of FUD answers they'll come up with?
kwsNI
Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. (English)
Crainte, Incertitude, Doute (French)
Timore, Incertezza, Dubbio (Italian)
Miedo, Incertidumbre, Duda (Spanish)
Furcht, Ungewißheit, Zweifel (German)
The issue in question was putting up copies of copyrighted material/ways to circumvent it.
The issue is whether these copyrights are lawful. Also, telling someone how to circumvent something is NOT illegal. It's called freedom of speech. You know, that little tiny amendment in the Bill of Rights.
kwsNI
For those who have read the "Halloween Papers", I'm sure you will recall that the guy who received them didn't publicly post them until he had added substantial comment to the overall text. This was intentional to assure that his public posting would fall under the "fair use" provision of copyright.
Let's all do Slashdot a favor in the future and be sure to add comments to any proprietary code or other documents before we post them to keep future cases more clear-cut on the side of Slashdot. -- Had the reader added a handful of comments between the lines before posting Slashdot would be on very firm ground now.
--Aaron Greenberg
This is essentially it. A couple of words were changed to be appropriate to the Union Society. I couldn't find an actual transcript elsewhere.
Not really, there trying to determine why Microsoft thinks they own the copyright to kerebos. Certianly if I grab an open protocol and stamped copywritten be Geekoid on it, that wouldn't be a valid copyright. And why they think they can keep trade secret status on something they released on the internet.
Just because you say something is copywriten by you doesn't mean it is. Just because you say something is a trade secret doesn't make it so.
If MS gets legal copyright and/or trade secret upheld in court, it will be interesting to see what happens. Probably forced by the courts to remove it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Because M$ is a big freakin' Wookiee that'll rip the arms off any man or droid who tries to beat them at court or 3d chess. Correct?
Freedom: "I won't!"
________
1995: Microsoft - "Resistance is futile"
The point is that they did copyright it. Slashdot is in the wrong.
/. having the entire document on its server does not automatically put it in the wrong.
Unless it's Fair Use. It's difficult to tell if something falls under the fair use defense to copyright infringement. There are a series of tests specified in Title 17 and no clear way to tell if an actual use is or is not fair use.
The fact that the entire document was posted tends to fight against fair use, but no single element is conclusive. Other elements include whether the infringement is for purposes of education or commentary, the effect on the market for similar works.
The fact that they have been giving away the dcoument argues in favor of fair use. The fact that the information was posted to assist interoperability of Samba with Windows 2000 argues in favor of fair use. The questions being asked by the lawyer here, if answered, would go to determining severla of the other elements of fair use.
In summary,
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
I think the whole point of Andovers legal response is not to justify their actions, but to question Microsofts copyright on proprietary extensions to an open protocol.
They are becoming more than just a source of 'news'. They are becoming 'news' by setting aside whatever little objectiveness /. had and actually fighting the hyporcisy that is Micro$oft.
Whether its good or bad for a 'media' outlet to actually join the battle instead of reporting on it remains to be seen.
Feed The Need[goatse.cx]
I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that most or all of the posts should be covered under the Fair Use provisions of copyright law. They discuss the leveraging of Microsoft's proven monopoly power to create another possibly ILLEGAL barrier to entry in the operating system market. The proprietary extensions do not seem to provide any benefit to consumers. This Microsoft "innovation" seems only to benefit Microsoft by preventing Windows2000 desktop users from using Kerberos without also buying a Windows2000 Server. It would otherwise be simple for these users to use Linux or other servers if the extensions had not been added AND kept proprietary. Few if any posts include the complete specification. A COMPLETE posting of copyrighted material may not be covered under Fair Use, but relevant portions should be. This is all about EXACTLY the type of behavior in question in the current antitrust case against Microsoft -- the ILLEGAL anticompetitive use of monopoly power.
I was at a Microsoft TechNet seminar today, and the guy giving the presentation made a big deal about how Kerobos was an open standard, blah blah blah - and then he stated that MS had made a few "enhancements" and had published them not only on the web, but as RFC's!
Now, I don't understand how someone could simultaneously propose an "enhancement" to an open, tax-payer funded standard as a Request For Comment and at the exact same time claim that it is a trade secret...
This material is NOT a trade secret, is NOT "protected", but is public information.
For what it's worth, the M$ guys at the technet thing seemed kind of embarassed by the lunacy of their legal department on this issue. They certainly wouldn't happy about talking about it.
With this letter, Andover.net's lawyers just told MS what their defense strategy will be, in case this issue makes it to court. That's th ekind of information I'd love to have if I were on MS's side.
and right below that......
"Have you read the Moderator Guidelines yet?"
Sure, I've read Marx....
"....how the elephant got into my pajamas I'll never know."
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
Anyone know if the Halloween Documents have been introduced into evidence? Were they allowed?
"The Internet is made of cats."
In the post that contains the text of the specification, insert the full EULA, and after it put a line like this: "Reading the remaining of this article signifies your agreement with the rules and conditions stated above" Quite possibly that might solve it ... 8-)
Apparently, the probability of a secret getting out is the square of the number of people who know that secret, no matter what kind of threats are hung over the heads of those trusted with that secret. This applies at such places as the CIA in the US, where secrets are very important and the consequences of giving them away are very nasty indeed. Why does Microsoft expect to keep this a secret when literally millions of people have easy access to it, most of whom have absolutely no reason whatsoever to not give it away (including contractual obligation, because the contract does not apply in their jurisdiction, or because they are underage)? It would appear to me that the only reason they even have the contract in the first place is so they can go around and bully lots of people in the open source movement.
Well, whatever. As Jack Webster once said, "Go ahead and sue me. I need the publicity!" Slashdot has certainly got a lot of that out of this.
---
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
I'd pay to see Micro$oft's legal team choke this one down... and I can't wait to read the creative answers that they give!
Good Job!
[Connection closed by foreign host]
Look for Terry Carroll's Copyright FAQ, or Brad Templeton's Copyright Myths page... they should give cites somewhere.
Slashdot's token middle-aged housewife
I think that if Microsoft were the author of sole author of Kerberos, then that might be the case, that items 1, 2, and 3 would simply be fluff. The core issue, though, is that Microsoft has claimed copyright and trade secret privledges to an extension to an open protocol ... a protocol copyrighted by MIT.
These questions put the burden on Microsoft to establish that their claims are valid, that what they have produced is in fact original and copyrightable. I cannot simply change a few words in Stephen King's latest book and then claim the whole thing as (c) HRPuffNStuff. I need to demonstrate an original and unique work.
Fight Spammers!
Look they are trying to question the validity of the copyright itself.
They are asking. Hey how can you take a protocol that is designed to be open, make a few adjustments and voila make it proprietary?
Also wether putting something on the web under no kind of real binding protection can you claim this material as intellectual property?
Does Microsoft really have the right to call this copyrighted material under these cirumstances?
Man this simplification is not the crux of the deal. This statement is troll-like and dubious.
Real eyes
Realise
Real Lies
Regarding the recent tête-á-tête you guys are having with MS over their bastardised version of Kerberos, I would point out that in marked contrast, Apple is presently working WITH MIT to develop it for Mac OS X: MIT to bring Kerberos network security to Apple's Mac OS X
What the clever folks will take away from it all is that MS is doomed. Even after being pantsed so hard by the DoJ that Bill now coughs up K-Mart undies, they STILL haven't changed. In light of the court case and the much wider ramifications (including a new-found courage to stand up to the bully of Redmond on everyone's part), the same old tired and now ILLEGAL tactics will of necessity be their undoing.
Not only does MIT hold the copyright to the name kerberos
You can't have a copyright on a name. MIT can have the copyright on the kerberos specification but if they have something on the name Kerberos itself it can only be a trademark or an unregistered trademark.
Clearly they have a weak legal case, at best.
Sorry but I will have to flamebait. In a free country they would have a weak case but in the US I don't know. With the DMCA and soon the UCITAs it will give them more and more power.
MS has got some ground when it ask slashdot to delete the posts with their extended specification in them but they don't have any ground when they ask /. to delete the other posts that they claim are infringing MS copyright whereas they don't contain any MS material.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
This is really fair use you know. The posters only quoted a tiny part of the MS implementation of the Kerberos protocol :D.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
I have two views of this reply. One view is that this is an appropriate response to the letter issued by Microsoft. In that reguard I think it does a good job of arguing, seeking clarification, of the copyright infringement issue which is central to the M$ trade secret and DMCA attack. My second view is that this reply totally fails to even hint at any of the possible courses of action that will be taken. I can't quite explain it, but after reading the response letter it really seems to be a flank attack, dodging the action requested my M$ and in turn questioning the foundation behind those requested actions....which IMHO is a very good thing. Fight the good fight and keep up the good work.
I hope that Slashdot can make it with a good lawyer. The reply is awesome, and Micro$oft won't know what to reply. M$ will reply anything... But... The problem is, they just want power... More power... Power's the game so they play, they play, thay play, until the ones against them fall... Micro$oft incarnates the spirit of our times... Which is bad...bad... bad... bad...
You know you're absolutely right. The posts are copyrighted and owned; however from what I've seen of /.'s fine print, it states that the POSTER of any comment retains ownership of it, and that /. is not responsible for them. That said, shouldn't the MS lawyers be directing their requests towards the writers that posted the comments? Claiming that Andover--the PROVIDER of Slasdot--violated their rights and asking them to remove posts owned by others seems to make this a free speech issue in my eyes.
It's ironic that you brought up the invention of the car to defend your position. From what I recall reading, Henry Ford said something along the lines of "A business that makes nothing but money is a poor kind of business."
What kind of business do you think MS is? They are a bit less noble than you would make them out to be. So please don't insult the lightbulb by comparing it to Windows 98...at least the lightbulb can stay on for longer than 5 days without having to be turned off and then on again.
While I don't remember seeing a communism-HOWTO online, I like "pro-Linux zealot"...I can live with that title.
--Kylus
--Kylus
Idiot-proof something, and Life will build a better Idiot.
Will these guys ever learn? The more they try to bully around sites that 'the people' love and embrace, the more support they will lose. And its obvious that more and more people are turning away from MS everyday. I hope they get screwed in court in the antitrust case.
You're nothing; like me.
Hmmm... strange. Maybe somebody goofed?
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
I disagree with your opinion. All of these questions have to do directly with the matter at hand. Slashdot's servers do contain 'copyrighted' material, but how valid is the copyright on this embraced-and-extended standard?
/. to perform censorship.
Furthermore, Slashdot has said many times that this is their "official policy". The first amendment offers free speech. Why should that be overturned based on the format of that speech?? Even if a court decides this material protected by copyright, it is not the obligation of
Ya, Slashdot doesn't really have a traditional legal team. They just post a few relevant articles and use the top 10 moderated comments as legal defence (AKA open source litigation).
- Mark D. Robins
______________________________
Mark D. Robins
Hutchins, Wheeler & Dittmar
A Professional Corporation
Boy, it sure is good to see you guys picked a professional corporation! (You never know when you might get hoodwinked by some "amateurs.")
--
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
... but copyrights don't. (They used to, many many years ago, but they don't nowadays.)
I was not aware of this. Sould someone point me in the right direction here and explain when this occured and what case/legislative act brought this about.
Obviously, I was under the assumtion that a copywrite holder had to pursue protection of their property. For me this was a logical explination for some of the more boneheaded suits persued when it seemed obvious that fair use was in play. Guess I'll have to give up that comfy little fantasy world.
the lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne. - Chaucer
That said, you must remember that, although I agree with you that it's in Andovers best interest to fight this and make it clear that they don't play well with bullies, there have been a lot of lawyers that have recommended just the opposite over the years.
"Pick the fights you can win", with the implication that your never sure whether you can win a fight when the laws are new, precedents haven't been set, and the other side has a lot of lawyers and money, is common advice. Even reasonable advice.
Mind you, it's advice that would have kept the US from revolting against England. The King of Denmark would never have issued the statement 'I am my countries first Jew', had he taken that advice. Nor would Ghandi have had the chutzpah to walk down the streets of Delhi after curfew, had he taken it.
But it's reasonable advice. After, reasonable people don't change things.
ever
Pug
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
Whore? Doing something immoral for money? I take it that you define studying the law to be in some fashion immoral, in and of iotself, because nothing else this particular person has done (to our knowledge) can be defined as immoral.
Professional? I don't even see your point - the man has a degree, passed the bar, and now gives his expert advice in exchange for valuable considerations. Seems slightly above the scale of pumping gas to me, so attacking either him or me based on our job skills strikes me as a losing argument.
I am not (as it happens) a professional. I am however capable of making my opinion on the basis of logic, not personal attacks, a capacity you seem to lack.
Which bring to mind the question of the hypocrisy you spoke of. Rudeness without cause is, by definition, hypocritical. You strike me as more of a bully, strikinjg outmerely because you think you can get away with it, rather than because you have reason. This strikes me as very similar to another subject close at hand. So yes, I think you are a hypocrite, on three levels. Once for the rudeness, once for the attempt to rationalize it, and once for doing so to a person that is, professionally or not, attempting to protect you from a corp whose mindset seems to so resemble your own.
I've said my piece now - Pug
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
"Rudeness without cause is, by definition, hypocritical." I don't think the word means what you think it means.
hypocrisy (h-pkr-s)
n., pl. hypocrisies.
1.The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2.An act or instance of such falseness.
Your quite right - By that defintion, so long as you hold no beliefs regarding being polite to peole you don't know, such gratuitous rudeness is not being hypocritical. It is only a sign of being born in a barn. I will confess, most people *I* know would consider it Hypopcritical if you apply different standards to yourself than others - this appears to be a more common use definition. However even then your only being hypocritical if you don't mind when people are rude to you without reason. So, if you can honestly say none of the following terms or items bother you, than you are, without a doubt, without hypocrisy in being rude.
Filthy black, spic, jew, wetback, n....r, and bitch. Damn Hackers. People that cut you off in traffic for no good reason. Any other set of daily rude actions that, personally, annoy the *hell* out of me. So I leave that to you.
The context of the term 'whores' seems pretty self-damning to me. You appear to mean either a - lawyers, just on principle, irregardless of who their working for, what they're supporting, etcetera, (You know, being Gratuitously Insulting), or B- Anybody that would take money for their talents from whoever would pay them. Your explanation implies B, but I somehow doubt that you really intend to imply that all programmers are whores in this forum, despite the fact that they (And anyone else that has the misfortune to not be wealthy enough to either work for themselves or pick who they work for) would seem to qualify by that definition. Yay . . .whatever.
Professionals - I still don't know whatinthehell your trying to say there. I merely stated that the man was a professional doing his job, you came back with a statement about my being 'a gas station attendent' implying I didn't know what 'real' professionalism was, and are now trying to say that being a professional doesn't gain any respect in your book. Fine. As being a human being doesn't gain people any respect in your book, this is no surprise. Personally, I was taught that, if in doubt, give the uniform or the degree the benefit of the doubt. Again . . . Whatever.
Last but not least, Bully. I find it interesting that on this one, I'm not going to have to eat any crow - you obviously got both of your definitions from the same website I did, but managed to bypass the other four definitions that pretty well agreed with my context.
bully 1 (bl)
To intimidate with threats and by an overbearing, swaggering demeanor; to act the part of a bully toward.
v. bullied, bullying, bullies.
To treat in an overbearing or intimidating manner. See Synonyms at intimidate.
To make (one's way) aggressively.
To behave like a bully.
To force one's way aggressively or by intimidation:
Which makes, my opinion on that fairly clear. How odd that you missed the other nine definitions from http://www.dictionary.com save for the two that were in completely different contexts. I'm sure that with a little effort, you can find a set of dictionary definitions that allow you to say rudeness is not overbearing and intimidation is not rude. Right. And the president technically never had sex with an intern, by the right defintions. Don't bother, so stipulated. Oh Well, whatever.
The odd part is, looking at your background rather than the single set of posts we're arguing about, none of these terms really apply to you. I confess, I got irritated at what was *one* dumb post being insulting for no particular reason. You seem determined to defend the right to be insulting for no particular reason to the death, and hey, that's fine. You have that right. I in turn have the right to call you on it, and everyone else has the right to moderate both of our posts down to the -34's or so where they belong. How any of this mess got pulled up to 2's and 3's is beyond me, except that people like to rubberneck as I make a moron of myself.
That's it, I'm done with being a goat. Well, till next time.
Pug
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
To sit there and use the term 'albeit a filthy lawyer', when the man is bailing out your (and mine, and every other
The man is a professional. He also went the extra mile when he could have advised Andover.Net to simply avoid the hassle and overule the Slasdot Editors, and gotten paid the same amount.
Next time insert your brain into the loop between spinal reflex and larnyx.
[/soapbox]
Pug - the Rude crude and socially unacceptable
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
It says, right there in the fine print just before our comments /. . The reply to 'small and soft' doesn't seem to make any reference to who actually owns the comment posted (What law applies to us applies to them, so to speak)
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say. Microsoft should be talking to the user who posted the info, not
Of course, I'd hate to see a user get in trouble for taking part in a technical discussion and scaring the rest of us into never talking about dodgy 'might be someone elses stuff' ever again. Which would be very sad.
What people mean, when they say "He copyrighted that", is that the creator registered copyright with the Library of Congress (in the US). This establishes a paper trail and can serve as official record of a copyright. The existence of a stamped LOC form tends to settle issues of priority. Without registering the copyright, you run the risk that you might not be able to collect punitive damages if someone infringes.
Does it matter to this issue? Well, maybe not directly. But then again... The real issue is not whether the document was copyrighted (it almost certainly qualifies). The real issue is, (a) Is the usage on Slashdot "Fair Use"? and (b) Is Andover.Net responsible for any infringement?
My entirely amateur legal eagle view is that the answers are (a) Yes and (b) No, but heck, I don't even play a lawyer on TV.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Microsoft, I would like to thank you for your recent agression to andover.net. It has made reading slashdot a LOT more interesting recently and given me some good laughs. Keep it up!
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
because what they should have said is
"By reading this letter, you hearby agree to drop any legal action against andover.net and agree not to ever sue anybody again."
heh. clickwrap my ass.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
PS We sent you an attachment to express our gratitude to you in your quick response to our claims.
WE LOVE YOU.EXE
IANAL, but I've heard worse arguments from Microsoft. Besides, this is the same argument that has shut down Star Wars sites and many others.
Perseverance is a strong will; obstinacy is a strong won't.
nice touch!
Sock it to 'em, guys!
Carousel is a lie!
my bad. but, YEAH!!!! down with censorship
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" -Einstein
While MS is technically in the right we have judges and juries for a reason. Judges and juries interpret the law and issue punishment for breaking the law. In special cases they may see that the law doesn't work. In these cases judges and juries law the groundwork for the ammendment / addition / repeal of laws. Yes, the Jim Crow laws used to be in effect - though in time they were deemed illegal.... I am not saying the the copyright laws are illegal, but that they may need ammendment for the internet. The advent of the internet, mass communication, and technology in general is changing the world around us. While I would love to write a diatribe in response to your offensive comments about our "Linux/communist agenda" I won't dignify it with anything more than the fact that not all linux users are communist, and in fact there is probably little if any link at all between capitalist users and communist users. Let's focus on what this is really about instead of slinging mud at each other, which ironically is exactly what you accused the slashdot community of doing to MS.
OK. I too will take issue with a couple of Dr Kool's points. Nice that he uses AC so he doesn't get Karma-nuked. First off, if you can't spell it, don't use it. I am a pro-Linux zealot. You are a pro-M$ idiot. Why do I say such an inflammatory thing to you? Have you actually used Windows 98 for anything besides EverQuest? Don't get me wrong, I have a '98 partition for EverQuest too. But I digress. Why are we zealots? Because most of us have taken the time to learn Linux, and have seen the beauty of it - not Enlightenment, or Gnome, etc., but the beauty of the entire community - that somewhere, someone can help you with your problem. If you muck around long enough, you'll find the answer to your problem. Why should we stay locked into a closed OS? So I can reboot it when it dies and just deal with it? Thanks, but no thanks. When/if my apps die on Linux, I can either restart X if that's necessary, and if it becomes consistent - I can look at the source! Try that with Windows, M$ fan. I'm sure we *do* come off sounding arrogant and zealous - but isn't that better than sounding like a total uninformed ingoramus? D
"If there's hope, it lies in the proles..."
I know you guys will, but please please please post the reply, if Microsoft has the balls to reply. I can just see it now...
1. How can Microsoft claim proprietary protections for enhancement to an open standard protocol?
We are Microsoft. We care not for open standards. We take what we will. Tremble in fear of our harsh words peasant!
2. How can Microsoft use the Kerberos name, which signifies an open standard protocol, in connection with a proprietary protocol?
Are you not listening, puny human? We are Microsoft! The protocol is ours, now and forever, so says us.
Repeat ad nauseum.
Well, the lawyers have it! (the truth that is...) Just how much input did CaptTaco, and all y'all have into this wonderful letter? I'm sure most /.er's would agree with me that a lawyer who knows anything about software is hard to come by, and one who opposes a huge corporation like Microsoft (and the ability to bill such a client many $$ per hour)is even more difficult! praise the heavens for angels in Lawyers clothes! regards, benjamin carlson
"If voting could really change things, it would be illegal. " - Revolution Books, NY
Look at the many intertwined issues and conflicting forces:
- freedom of press vs. corporate bullying
- freedom of speech vs. censorship
- open standards vs. proprietary extensions
- open source vs. kludges hidden behind "trade secret"
- interoperability vs. lock-out by design
- David vs. Goliath
- Good vs. Evil
It's not only a great time to be sued by Microsoft, it's a great set of issues to be sued over! It's really too perfect to have not been carefully orchestrated. My hat's off to whoever engineered this. It is a Beauty. I can see how Microsoft, being such an incredibly predictable and narrow minded beast, (and being somewhat preoccupied with other matters) could be led through a few hoops, but the one thing I can't figure out is how you got them to publish their Kerberos extensions on the internet and claim that it's a trade secret. That part must have been an "inside job". I'm sureCongrats, /., on a job well done.
well, tey sj=houldn't screw around with Kerberos in the first place really...
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
Good, most of the good points brought up from the previous stories comments made it into that letter.
Can't wait to see the reply.
How many more days until the 10 days (dmca like) is over?
They have also given themselves a way to ensure interoperability among all versions of kerberos!
From RFC 1510:
In order to ensure the interoperability of realms, it is necessary to define a minimal configuration which must be supported by all implementations. This minimal configuration is subject to change as technology does. For example, if at some later date it is discovered that one of the required encryption or checksum algorithms is not secure, it will be replaced.
Microsoft seems to really have worked itself into a pickle. On one hand, they have woven kerberos so tightly in with Active Directory that it would take a major overhaul to make it compatible with other versions of kerberos, even if they decided that was the smart(customer-saving) thing to do. On the other hand, according to their technet page interoperability is their top IT goal. MIT could press them on this, take away their right to call the software kerberos, or insist that MS publish the extension to qualify for the interoperability rule.
I'm starting to wonder what the people at Microsoft in charge of this stuff are thinking. Clearly they have a weak legal case, at best. They have got to be in damage control mode right now, both on the public image front, and for the folks at MIT and the IETF who are undoubtedly pissed at MS.
In fact, it wouldn't surprise me that this letter was a result of someone on the legal team seeing the post and acting on it without consulting management. I bet Microsoft would love to just drop this and hope everyone forgets about it.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
The link in your sig file has a hilarious double meaning in this context. :)
And anyone seeing this, click on the link. The bill he actually refers to basically says Goodbye 1st amendment.
-Hatta
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I'm surprised...
Considering the severity of the charges brought against Slashdot by Microsoft, I'm surprised they responded in such a manner.
First of all, legally, this has nothing to do with the current anti-trust suit against MS. That is beside the point -- and it doesn't have anything at all to do with whether is was okay for Slashdot to allow those comments to stay
If I were going to defend myself from legal action, I'd stay on the point, and carefully state why I felt I was not breaking the law. Not respond with questions whose purpose just seems to be to annoy and provoke Microsoft.
Of course, if Slashdot doesn't really care about a lawsuit from Microsoft, well then, go ahead. I certainly enjoy pissing Microsoft off.
You don't suppose they could "embrace and extend" the law do you? It would really suck to need a Microsoft lawyer to be able to defend yourself...
-L
Hypothetical situation:
- Slashdot users post comments copyrighted by themselves.
- Slashdot begins publishing those comments in a book without asking for permission from those copyright holders.
- Slashdot users, for whatever reason, informs Slashdot/Andover of the infringement and requests action be taken.
- Slashdot responds by asking about the trade secrecy in the posts, and what proprietary protections the posters had in place.
Trade secrecy has nothing to do with the protections they are granted quite simply in copyright law. I think it's fun and all to divert the topic to something semi-related, and it definitely seems like a tactic that might work if there was some sort of grey area here. But this doesn't sound like such an open and honest way to respond, as I'd expect from our friends from Slashdot. I'm sick of Microsoft and the others using misdirection tactics, so it's a bit sad to see that no one these days is above the behaviour.-Rezand
Just because you're floating doesn't mean you haven't drowned. - They Might Be Giants, Dark and Metric
I'm all in favor of fighting this, and I'm pleased with what the lawyers are saying, and I hope they kick MS's butt from here to andromeda and back and all, but some of these questions leave me a little puzzled. I mean, if I were Microsoft, or a putative judge reading this exchange, I would think "why on earth should MS have to answer these questions?" This isn't a trial, Microsoft isn't on the stand here trying to defend itself. It's the plaintiff here, the accuser, and it probably expects /. to quit changing the subject and defend itself instead of attacking. Many of the questions seem pretty easy to answer:
MS responds: These questions do not bear on your violation of our copyright. The fact is we have made enhancements to the protocol, and they are proprietary, and we claim copyright to them. We do not have to defend our copyright to you; if you dispute it take us to court. In the meantime, though, you stand in violation of the copyright and DMCA, and we demand you remove the posts.
These are the most cogent points in the letter. Microsoft clearly failed to defend its trade secrets and yet claims they're still secrets. In fact, it should be pointed out that unzipping a self-extracting archive is common and well-known (doesn't MS itself mention it in one of their manuals?) and even without /. posters mentioning it Microsoft can't possibly be said to be safeguarding their secrets with such a laughable wrapper. They released their secrets with no meaningful safeguards, they abandoned them, they are no longer secrets. That's the tough question for them to answer.
MS Responds: Thank you very much for your advice on our corporate policy. However, we feel for our own reasons that these posts are harmful to us. We don't have to explain those reasons to you; we claim copyright to this information and it is we that get to decide where they can and cannot be published, for reasons of our own. You remain in violation of our copyright. If you don't like our copyright, let a court or arbitrator decide. We don't have to defend it to the likes of you.
So, near as I can tell, only three of these questions are really all that meaningful; a MS lawyer or judge would probably see the others as just posturing. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, posturing has its good points too. But an MS lawyer wouldn't fear this letter, except for those points. Still, I'd like to see them try to answer those!
P.S. in case it wasn't obvious, the "MS Responds" stuff above was all me playing Devil's Advocate. I don't speak for Microsoft (thank heavens for that. MS would hate it too, since I'd say very bad things about them), and I don't even like MS. I'm just trying to see it as their lawyers might.
[FlandersAndSwann]
I'm a Gnu,
Spelt G N U.
I'm gknot an okapi or a kangaroo.
And i am not in the least,
like that dreadful hearty beast.
Gno Gno Gno I'm a Gnu.
[/FlandersAndSwann]
sounds much better sung
What exactly did I not spell right?
Claiming that your operating system is the best in the world because more people use it is like saying McDonalds makes
Maybe they will sue them as well, I mean, they are the original perpetraitors of the evil act. Dissiminating trade secrets to god knows who.
Over the web no less. Microsoft is gonna have a heyday when they get ahold of them.
Or from a slightliy altered point of view, are they suggesting that I can post technical documentaion on the web if I have a click-wrapper?
Can I post performance test results of MS-sequel vs. Oracle if I simply put it behind a click through to protect there secrets? The MS-sequel license strickly forbids publishing any information about performance results. But if I use thier 'trade secret license' click-through as a template I would be taking resonable steps to protect Microsofts secrets maybe.
Be carefule what precedences you try to set MS.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
What? You're asking for a reply? You gotta pay for tech support.
rx_chutzpah, the Doc.
unless you want a try at lynch justice, which would be a VERY bad thing for most ./er's given social acceptance of a great number here, then we need an advocacy-based legal system.
you/we/i know nothing about this guy or his firm.
maybe he's a hired gun? i don't know.
A lot of lawyers ARE scum, they pervert our justice system and society for personal gain.
But a lot of lawyers give 1/10th of their billable hours for pro bono work (think of them like hackers doing open source after hours)
how about we judge people by their actions and their intentions, not by the clothes they wear, the way they speak, or because they have values that differ from our own.
wouldn't that be nice?
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
I'm afraid I'm missing something here. From the original document distributed by MS:
From Microsoft's letter to Andover.net:
Why is everyone talking about trade secrets?
As for MS's reply, I think they have a pretty good case for the following:
1. Microsoft is claiming copyright on the document describing their extensions, not the extensions themselves.
8. Microsoft respects the right of the users of Slashdot to view the specifications for the purpose of comment. However, Microsoft feels compelled to take action in defense of its copyright, which is being infringed upon by the users mentioned, among others.
Some of the other replies will undoubtedly be to tell /. that they are not within the scope of the copyright violation. It's amazing the amount of damage a tiny worldview can do.
-- LoonXTall
~~~LXT~~~
Life is like a computer program: anything that can't happen, will.
The point is that they did copyright it. Slashdot is in the wrong.
Oh, so it's Slashdot who is in the wrong for someone's actions. Comments are owned by the Poster, unless JonKatz wants to put them in a book or Microsoft wants them removed.
-- LoonXTall
~~~LXT~~~
Life is like a computer program: anything that can't happen, will.
Any member of congress can go an erase from the records what they said days ago or even append lengthy speeches about whatever that they never actually said.
LONG LIVE MINITRUTH! IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!
-- LoonXTall
~~~LXT~~~
Life is like a computer program: anything that can't happen, will.
And in respect of a document which has been available on MSN for over a week:
Kerberos specification on MSN
It must be nice,
living in such a simple world
where you can judge people,
without knowing them...
without even speaking with them once.
ignorance, bigotry or prejudice?
either way,
you have some real growing up to do, son.
besides,
didn't you know,
all open source coders are commie freaks,
freeloaders,
tom
Reality does not happen until you analyze the dots. -Don DeLillo (Underworld)
Hahahahahahahahah! Now that would've shown MS a thing or two about licensing.... Although if /. would have done this, you know MS's next move would have been to make letter-wrap licenses for all of its publications. They don't need any help in thinking up more widget-wrap licenses.
--
TheDude
Smokedot
Drug Info, Rights, Laws, and Discussion
TheDude
Smokedot
Drug Info, Rights, Laws, and Discussion
A SURVEY OF THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT MISUSE AND FRAUD ON THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE: LEGITIMATE RESTRAINTS ON COPYRIGHT OWNERS OR ESCAPE ROUTES FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGERS? by Stephen J. Davidson and Nicole A. Engisch of LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Hmmm, is there anything that forces Microsoft to actually answer these questions?
;)
After reading them, I don't think this is the kind of stuff they will want to respond to. For some reason, I don't even think Andover.net expects them to
--
GCP
I know how the DMCA works. I just think it is so very low of microsoft to notify the ISP of /.
/.'s back? Is this what the internet has turned into? Come on now, why don't they say it to their face? Who's the coward, hiding behind money(i.e. power)?
"Dear Internet Service Provider: " taken from their original letter.
Now why not hit the nail on the head? Why go behind
The document in question was a technical specification posted in a technical discussion.
Excuse me why I squirt milk out of my nose, but "Technical Discussion", my farting ass.
The title of the discussion in question was "Kerberos, PACs And Microsoft's Dirty Tricks", and was generally about Microsoft's business practices, and not the details of their Kerberos extention. The most "technical" the discussion got was 200 univac slashbots nerding out on the fact that WinZip opens CAB files. The replys to the copyrighted material were exclusively about whether it was legal to post on Slashdot, and what Microsoft might want to do about it.
Furthermore, most of the numbnuts on this board don't even know what Kerberos is, or why Microsoft would even want to extend it. They are just here to fight the flamewar.
The fact that you'd actually pull some 'fair use' argument out of your stinky bungwa just goes to show how far some people are willing to delude themselves with their own propaganda.
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Just like most opinions here, that's probably the right place for it.
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
It is far more important to conjure up bad publicity for Microsoft. The fact is that Andover.net has far fewer legal resources and would want to avoid a prolonged legal battle if at all possible. At the same time, Microsoft is probably unwilling to risk even more bad publicity (Wired has already ran a story about Microsoft's letter) while they are running an expensive PR campaign to bolster support for them in the anti-trust trial.
If other media outlets begin to carry the story, and portray Microsoft as heavy-handed, then we will have succeeded in diminishing the effect of MS's brainwashing. Write letters to media companies with links to the articles on Wired and Slashdot.
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
They do it all the time. How many people try to post articles and get rejected because the "owners" of /. don't think the post is relevant? How many comments get moderated into oblivion because they state opposing viewpoints not accepted by the greater /. community?
I think you are on thin ice positioning this as a censorship issue.
If they have a copyright for their software specification, right or wrong, they have a right to try to have the law (DCMA) enforced. The question is not whether the copyright is valid but rather if the posts in question violate that copyright. It's up to the courts to decide if the copyright is valid, not /. lawyers.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
With a name like Dr Kool, I would have to say that you have only used Win98 and therefore have no experience with which to based that statement. There are far too many examples of how Linux as an OS is generally much better than Win98/Win98SE for your statement to hold any truth.
if we were meant to network, God would have made all of us BORG!
the hypocritical society
# ###############################
) ; ) );
# ########
, $limit)=@_;
# ######## t ,$where,"name");
# ########
# ########
# ########
# ########
# #############################
# ########
# ########
# ########
# ########
# ########
# ########
# ########
# ########
# ###############################
# ########
# ########
# ############################### # ########
# ########
# ########
# ########
# ########
# ########
/index|article|comments|metamod|search|pollBooth/) {
/index/) { /all/ remember!)
# ########
# ########
# ###############
# ########
# ######## d st) = localtime; . "/".
# ########
BEGIN {
use Exporter ();
use vars qw($VERSION @ISA @EXPORT @EXPORT_OK %EXPORT_TAGS);
$VERSION = 0.40;
@ISA=qw(Exporter);
@EXPORT=qw(
&sqlSelectMany &sqlSelect &sqlSelectHash &sqlSelectAll
&sqlSelectHashref &sqlUpdate &sqlInsert &sqlReplace &sqlConnect
&sqlTableExists &sqlSelectColumns
$r $F $U $query $dbh @fg @bg @approvedtags
@reasons $badreasons $breaking
$imagedir $basedomain $rootdir $sitename $siteadmin $siteadmin_name $slogan $basedir $titlebar_width
$siteowner $smtp_server $rdfimg
$currentSection $currentMode $userMode
$datadir &getSlash &linkStory &getSection
&selectForm &selectGeneric &selectTopic &selectSection
&getvars &getvar &setvar &newvar &getblock &getsid &getsiddir
&writelog &anonLog &pollbooth
&stripByMode &header &footer
&prepEvalBlock &prepBlock &nukeBlockCache &blockCache &formLabel
&titlebar &fancybox &portalbox &printComments &displayStory
&sendEmail &getOlderStories &selectStories
%storyBank %commentBank
&timeCalc $story_refresh $code_time $story_expire
%query
&getBlockBank
$shit
$AC, $ACTZ
$StoryCount
@sid_array
$send_mail $run_ads
$dsn $dbuser $dbpass
$adfu_dsn $adfu_dbuser $adfu_dbpass
$metamod_sum $maxtokens $tokensperpoint
$maxpoints $stir $tokenspercomment
$down_moderations
);
}
use vars @EXPORT;
# The actual connect statement appears in this function. Edit it.
Slash::sqlConnect();
@reasons=("Normal", # "Normal"
"Offtopic", # Bad Responses
"Flamebait",
"Troll",
"Redundant",
"Insightful", # Good Responses
"Interesting",
"Informative",
"Funny",
"Overrated", # The last 2 are "Special"
"Underrated");
$badreasons=4; # number of "Bad" reasons in @reasons, skip 0 (which is neutral)
###############################################
#
# Let's get this party Started
#
# Blank variables, get $r (apache) $query (CGI) $U (User) and $F (Form)
# Handles logging in, sql connection, and prints HTTP headers
sub getSlash
{
undef $r if $r; undef $query if $query;
undef $F if $F; undef $U if $U;
$r = Apache->request if $ENV{SCRIPT_NAME};
sqlConnect();
require CGI;
$query = new CGI;
my @names = $query->param;
foreach (@names) { $$F{$_}=$query->param($_) };
$$F{ssi}||="";
# $$F{op}||="";
$ENV{SCRIPT_NAME}||="";
print "HTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n" unless $$F{ssi};
my $op=$query->param("op") || "";
if(($op eq "userlogin" or $query->param("rlogin") )
and length $$F{upasswd} > 1) {
$U=getUser(userLogin($$F{unickname},$$F{upasswd})
} elsif($op eq "userclose" ) {
print setCookie( "user"," " );
} elsif( $op eq "adminclose") {
print setCookie("session"," ");
} elsif($query->cookie("user")) {
$U=getUser(userCheckCookie($query->cookie("user")
} else {
$U||=getUser(-1);
}
unless($$F{ssi} ) {
print "Server: $ENV{SERVER_SOFTWARE}\n" if $ENV{SERVER_SOFTWARE};
print "Pragma: no-cache\n" unless $$U{aseclev} or
$ENV{SCRIPT_NAME}=~/comments/;
print "Cache-control: private\n";
print "Content-Type: text/html\n\n";
}
return 1;
}
###############################################
# Quick Form Creation Functions
# Generic way to convert a table into a drop down list
sub selectGeneric
{
my ($table,$label,$code,$name,$default,$where,$order
$default="" unless defined $default;
$code="" unless defined $code;
print "\n\n";
my $sql=" SELECT $code,$name FROM $table ";
$sql.=" WHERE $where" if $where;
$sql.=" ORDER BY $name" unless $order;
$sql.=" ORDER BY $order" if $order;
$sql.=" LIMIT $limit" if $limit;
my $c=$dbh->prepare_cached($sql);
$c->execute();
while(my ($code,$name)=$c->fetchrow()) {
my $select=$default eq $code?"SELECTED":"";
print "$name\n";
}
$c->finish();
print "\n";
}
###############################################
# This really is an obsolete function for quick form generation
sub selectForm
{
my ($table,$label,$default,$where)=@_;
selectGeneric($table,$label,"code","name",$defaul
}
###############################################
sub selectTopic
{
my ($name,$tid) =@_;
getTopicBank;
my $o="";
foreach my $thistid (sort (keys %Slash::topicBank)) {
my $T=$Slash::topicBank{$thistid};
my $selected="SELECTED" if $$T{tid} eq $tid;
$o.="$$T{alttext}\n";
}
$o.="";
print $o;
}
###############################################
# Drop down list of available sections (based on admin seclev)
sub selectSection
{
my($name,$section,$SECT)=@_;
getSectionBank;
if($$SECT{isolate}) {
print "";
return;
}
my $o="";
foreach my $s (sort (keys %Slash::sectionBank) ) {
my $S=$Slash::sectionBank{$s};
next if $$S{isolate} and $$U{aseclev} $$S{title}";
}
$o.="";
print $o;
}
###############################################
sub selectSortcode
{
# Get a sortcode hash
# my %sortcodeBank;
unless($sortcodeBank) {
my $c=sqlSelectMany("code,name","sortcodes");
while (my ($id,$desc)=$c->fetchrow() ) {
$sortcodeBank{$id}=$desc;
}
$c->finish;
}
my $o.="";
foreach my $id (keys %sortcodeBank) {
my $selected="SELECTED" if $id eq $$U{commentsort};
$o.="$sortcodeBank{$id}";
}
$o.="";
return $o;
}
###############################################
sub selectMode
{
# my %modeBank;
unless($modeBank) {
my $c=sqlSelectMany("mode,name","commentmodes");
while (my ($id,$desc)=$c->fetchrow() ) {
$modeBank{$id}=$desc;
}
$c->finish;
}
my $o.="";
foreach my $id (keys %modeBank) {
my $selected="SELECTED" if $id eq $$U{mode};
$o.="$modeBank{$id}";
}
$o.="";
return $o;
}
###############################################
# Functions for dealing with Blocks (big chunks of data)
sub getblock
{
my ($bid)=@_;
getBlockBank();
return $blockBank{$bid}; # unless $blockBank{$bid} eq "-1";
}
###############################################
# Blank the block cache.
sub nukeBlockCache
{
%blockBank=();
}
###############################################
sub getBlockBank
{
return if $blockBank{cached};
$blockBank{cached}=localtime();
my $c=sqlSelectMany("bid,block","blocks");
while(my ($thisbid,$thisblock)=$c->fetchrow()) {
$blockBank{$thisbid}=$thisblock;
}
$c->finish();
}
###############################################
# Gets a block. Stores a block. Returns a block. Future requests read
# from cache. Nice and quick.
sub blockCache
{
my ($bid)=@_;
getBlockBank();
return $blockBank{$bid}; # unless $blockBank{$bid} eq "-1");
}
###############################################
# Prep for evaling (no \r allowed... why is that?)
sub prepEvalBlock
{
my ($b)=@_;
$b=~s/\r//g;
return $b;
}
###############################################
# Preps a block for evaling (escaping out " mostly)
sub prepBlock
{
my ($b)=@_;
$b=~s/\r//g;
$b=~s/"/\\"/g;
$b="\"$b\";";
return $b;
}
###############################################
# Gets a block, and ready's it for evaling
sub getEvalBlock
{
my($name)=@_;
my $block=getSectionBlock($name);
my $execme=prepEvalBlock($block);
return $execme;
}
###############################################
# Gets the appropriate block depending on your section
# or else fall back to one that exists
sub getSectionBlock
{
my $name=shift;
my $thissect=$$U{light}?"light":$currentSection;
my $block;
if($thissect) {
$block=blockCache($thissect."_$name");
}
$block||=blockCache($name);
return $block;
}
###############################################
# Get a Block based on mode, section & name, and prep it for evaling
sub getWidgetBlock
{
my $name = shift;
my $block=getSectionBlock($name);
my $execme=prepBlock($block);
return $execme;
}
###############################################
# Functions for dealing with vars (system config variables)
###############################################
sub getvars
{
my @invars=@_;
my @vars;
for(my $x=0;$x$value},"name=".$dbh->quote($name));
}
###############################################
sub newvar
{
my ($name, $value, $desc)=@_;
sqlInsert("vars",{name=>$name, value=>$value, description=>$desc});
}
###############################################
# Stuff for dealing with Logging In
#
# It does what it says, it says what it does.
###############################################
sub userLogin
{
my($name,$passwd)=@_;
$passwd = substr $passwd, 0, 12;
my ($uid)=sqlSelect("uid","users",
"passwd=".$dbh->quote($passwd)."
AND nickname=".$dbh->quote($name));
if($uid>0) {
my $cookie=$uid."::".$passwd;
$cookie=~s/(.)/sprintf("%%%02x",ord($1))/ge;
print setCookie( "user" , $cookie );
return ($uid, $passwd);
} else {
return (-1,"");
}
}
###############################################
# Decode the Cookie: Cookies have all the special charachters encoded
# in standard URL format. This converts it back. then it is split
# on '::' to get the users info.
sub userCheckCookie
{
my ($cookie)=@_;
$cookie=~s/%([a-fA-F0-9][a-fA-F0-9])/pack("C", hex($1))/eg;
my ($uid,$passwd)=split("::",$cookie);
return (-1,"") if $uid eq " ";
return ($uid, $passwd);
}
###############################################
# Replace $_[0] with $_[1] || "0" in the User Hash
# users by getUser to allow form parameters to override user parameters
sub overRide
{
my $p = shift;
my $d = shift;
if(defined $query->param($p)) {
$$U{$p}=$query->param($p);
} else {
$$U{$p}||=$d || "0";
}
}
###############################################
# Add this hashref to $U
sub addToUser
{
my $H=shift;
@$U { keys %$H } = values %$H;
}
###############################################
# Get users_$_ and at it to $U
sub getExtraStuff
{
my $s = shift;
my $H = sqlSelectHashref("*","users_$s","uid=$$U{uid}");
addToUser( $H );
}
###############################################
# IF passed a valid uid & passwd, it logs in $U
# else $U becomes Anonymous Coward (eg UID -1)
sub getUser
{
my($uid,$passwd)=@_;
undef $U;
if($uid > 0) { # Authenticate
$U=sqlSelectHashref("*","users",
" uid = ".$dbh->quote($uid).
" AND passwd = ".$dbh->quote($passwd) );
}
if ($uid > 0 and $$U{uid}) { # registered user
# Get User Prefs
getExtraStuff("prefs");
# Get the Timezone Stuff
unless(defined $timezones) {
my $c=sqlSelectMany("tz,offset","tzcodes");
while(my ($tzcode,$offset)=$c->fetchrow() ) {
$timezones{$tzcode}=$offset;
}
$c->finish();
}
$$U{offset}=$timezones{ $$U{tzcode} };
unless(defined $dateformats) {
my $c=sqlSelectMany("id,format","dateformats");
while(my ($dfid,$dateformat)=$c->fetchrow() ) {
$dateformats{$dfid}=$dateformat;
}
$c->finish();
}
$$U{format}=$dateformats{ $$U{dfid} };
# Do we want the comments stuff?
if(!$ENV{SCRIPT_NAME} or $ENV{SCRIPT_NAME} =~
getExtraStuff("comments");
}
# Do we want the index stuff?
if(!$ENV{SCRIPT_NAME} or $ENV{SCRIPT_NAME} =~
getExtraStuff("index");
}
} else {
unless($AC) {
# Get ourselves an AC if we don't already have one.
# (we have to get it
$AC=sqlSelectHashref("*",
"users, users_index, users_comments,
users_prefs",
"users.uid=-1 AND
users_index.uid=-1 AND
users_comments.uid=-1 AND
users_prefs.uid=-1");
# timezone stuff
$ACTZ = sqlSelectHashref("*",
"tzcodes,dateformats",
"tzcodes.tz='$$AC{tzcode}' AND
dateformats.id=$$AC{dfid}");
@$AC{ keys %$ACTZ } = values %$ACTZ;
}
addToUser($AC);
}
# Add On Admin Junk
if($$F{op} eq "adminlogin") {
($$U{aid},$$U{aseclev})
=setAdminInfo($$F{aaid},
$$F{apasswd});
} elsif(length $query->cookie('session') > 3) {
($$U{aid},$$U{aseclev},$$U{asection},$$U{url})
=getAdminInfo($query->cookie('session'))
} else {
$$U{aid}="";
$$U{aseclev}=0;
}
# Set a few defaults
overRide("mode","thread");
overRide("savechanges");
overRide("commentsort");
overRide("threshold");
overRide("posttype");
overRide("noboxes");
overRide("light");
$currentMode=$$U{mode};
$$U{seclev}=$$U{aseclev} if $$U{aseclev} > $$U{seclev};
$$U{breaking}=0;
if($$U{commentlimit} > $breaking and $$U{mode} ne "archive") {
$$U{commentlimit}=int($breaking / 2);
$$U{breaking}=1;
}
# All sorts of checks on user data
$$U{tzcode}=uc($$U{tzcode});
$$U{clbig}||=0;
$$U{clsmall}||=0;
$$U{exaid}=testExStr($$U{exaid}) if $$U{exaid};
$$U{exboxes}=testExStr($$U{exboxes}) if $$U{exboxes};
$$U{extid}=testExStr($$U{extid}) if $$U{extid};
$$U{points}=0 unless $$U{willing}; # No points if you dont wan 'em
return $U;
}
###############################################
# Handles admin logins (checks the sessions table for a cookie that
# matches). Called by getSlash
sub getAdminInfo
{
my ($session)=@_;
$dbh->do("DELETE from sessions WHERE now() > DATE_ADD(lasttime, INTERVAL 30 MINUTE)");
my ($aid, $seclev,$section,$url)=sqlSelect(
"sessions.aid, authors.seclev, section, url",
"sessions, authors",
"sessions.aid=authors.aid AND session=".$dbh->quote($session));
unless($aid) {
return ("",0,"","");
} else {
$dbh->do("DELETE from sessions WHERE aid = '$aid'
AND session != ".$dbh->quote($session) );
sqlUpdate("sessions",{-lasttime=>'now()'},
"session=".$dbh->quote($session));
return ($aid, $seclev,$section,$url);
}
}
###############################################
# Initial Administrator Login.
sub setAdminInfo
{
my ($aid, $pwd)=@_;
if(my ($aid,$seclev)=sqlSelect("aid,seclev","authors",
"aid=".$dbh->quote($aid)."
AND pwd=".$dbh->quote($pwd) ) ) {
my $sid=generatesession($aid);
my ($title)=sqlSelect("lasttitle","sessions",
"aid=".$dbh->quote($aid) );
$dbh->do("DELETE FROM sessions WHERE aid=".$dbh->quote($aid) );
sqlInsert("sessions",{session=>$sid, aid=>$aid,
-logintime=>'now()',-lasttime=>'now()',
lasttitle=>$title});
print setCookie('session',$sid);
return ($aid,$seclev);
} else {
return ("",0);
}
}
###############################################
# What is it? Where does it go? The Random Leftover Shit
###############################################
sub setCookie
{
my($name,$val)=@_;
return "Set-Cookie: ",
$query->cookie(-name=>$name, -domain=>"$basedomain",
-expires=>'+1y', -value=>$val),"\n",
"Set-Cookie: ",
$query->cookie(-name=>$name, -value=>$val, -expires=>'+1y'),"\n";
}
###############################################
# Returns YY/MM/DD/HHMMSS all ready to be inserted
sub getsid
{
my ($sec,$min,$hour,$mday,$mon,$year,$wday,$yday,$is
$year = $year % 100;
my $sid=sprintf("%02d/%02d/%02d",$year,$mon+1,$mday)
sprintf("%02d%0d2%02d",$hour,$min,$sec);
return $sid;
}
###############################################
# Get a unique string for an admin session
sub generatesession
{
my $newsid = crypt(rand(99999), shift);
$newsid =~ s/[^A-Za-z0-9]//i;
return $newsid;
}
You can't copyright anything you please, even if you think you invented it. The questions from Andover.Net's attorney directly question whether the material in question is copyrightable or even whether it can legally be considered trade secret information. So not "you should never have copyrighted it" but "you never had the legal right to copyright this".
I especially like the offensive nature of the 'questions'. One might expect a bunch of legal crap as a formal response, but it appears that even Andovers lawers understand that this is not necesarily a web site vs. Microsoft. it is a website standing up for the free nature of the internet, and could even be doing a part to support the U.S. vs. Microsoft case. I am glad to see comments such as the first and second which really have nothing to do with Slashdot at all.
I like Stuff - http://voda.dhs.org/
I've got news for you... people have been put in jail for passing around trade secrets. It's called "theft".
People may argue with Microsoft's method of enforcing copyright. They may even argue that it's not "secure enough". But stealing from my car when the window is open or stealing by breaking the window is still stealing. Hey, the criminal may have felt that I owed him whatever he stole because I was richer than him. Guess what: It's still stealing. Rationalizations are not law.
Nobody twisted anyone's arm to download Microsoft's specification. You can live a long and happy life by not agreeing to the license agreement. But the point is that everyone who posted it knew that it was copyrighted material.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Unfortunately, none of those question have anything to do with the matter at hand.
The fact of the matter is that Slashdot's servers contain copyrighted material. The copyright holder asked that it be removed. Your response seems to be, "well, you suck, and should never have copyrighted it in the first place. Nyahh!"
The point is that they did copyright it. Slashdot is in the wrong.
Here's my question: Is this going to be Slashdot's official policy? That you will never remove copyrighted material if the copyright holder asks you to? Or is this a special rule only for Microsoft?
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Go Mark Robins!!!! I'd love to see what microsoft's representatives have to say to that work of art.
Answer: Because we can.
2. How can Microsoft use the Kerberos name, which signifies an open standard protocol, in connection with a proprietary protocol?
Answer: See Answer to Q1
3. How can Microsoft claim trade secrecy for a protocol that is distributed over the Internet?
Answer:Also see answer to Q1
4. What measures has Microsoft taken to protect the trade secrecy of its Kerberos specification beyond the use of a click-wrap license agreement?
Answer: Nothing - that's what lawyers are for.
5. What measures has Microsoft taken to ensure that its Kerberos specification is only distributed to persons who are capable of entering into a binding contract in jurisdictions where such an agreement would be enforceable?
Answer:This question is irrelevant so we don't have to answer.
6. How could posting of the Microsoft Kerberos specification on Slashdot have any detrimental impact on the market for authorized distribution of Microsoft's version of Kerberos?
Answer:It could hurt our efforts to create innovative software.
7. Why wouldn't prospective purchasers of Windows 2000 need to know the contents of Microsoft's Kerberos specification in order to make informed judgments regarding interoperability in connection with their purchasing decisions?
Answer:How else will the tech support industry stay in business?
8. Why shouldn't Slashdot users and the general public be able to view this protocol for purposes of commentary and criticism in light of its apparent relevance to issues in the government's antitrust litigation?
Answer:Because we said so
cthread. cthread_fork(). Fork, thread, fork!
Thank you for your insightful post, pls do us a favor and don't. Its easy to criticise without an explanation and unfortunately it is not slashdot that looks stupid rather just yourself. By the way, get an account!
I Eat (Ctrl+V)
"Microsoft's implementation does intero perate with other implementations. You just can only get the PAC data from a Windows 2000 KDC, which requires you to have a Windows 2000 KDC in addition to your non-Windows TGS"
So what you are saying is that Microsoft's implemention does interoperate, except that it doesn't.
Unless you use a different definition of "interoperate" to the rest of the world.
Besides the flamebait you provide, it is quite obvious you use Microsoft products for spell-checking. The correct spelling is "zealot". You fool.
Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
I've been following this issue and a few others for a bit now and I'm seeing some interesting things. What I'm seeing is a lack of IP and copyrighting laws that will actually work with the digital medium. What I'm getting out of this is that the DMCA, which seems to be more of the sticking point then the actual Kerberos issue is, just plain out doesn't work. With all the technological developments we have made over the past thirty years we have altered the world so much that it is now a new environment. The DMCA is trying to apply old style, traditional methods to a new and changed space. Truth be told the old style and traditional methods just can't really be applied to this now can they? The issue around the DMCA is just another indication of how screwed up the world is and how much more screwed up it is getting. It is one thing to run around shouting the mantras of 'This is a new world, This is a wired world' and it is totally another to really understand the fundamental changes that have happened to society. The people who came up with the current legislation pertaining to protection of digital IP apparently don't get it and from their actions neither does Microsoft. (Which is kinda funny as they helped drive the big changes.) What really needs to be done is to get systems, laws and methods of dispute resolution in place that WILL work now with these issues and will also work in the future. After all we are the people building this future.
Those questions have all sorts of things to do with the matter at hand. Slashdot has every right to question, through their attorneys, the premises of Microsoft's request. It's a little concept called "due process". Not even Microsoft's attorneys would raise their eyebrows at this response. The lawyers are doing what lawyers do.
You also are doing what so many others do: shooting your mouth off about things you are unqualified to speak about. It's OK, it's your right and it's the process, but it doesn't change the underlying process: Slashdot is doing what Slashdot should do, and has every right to do: testing the grounds before deciding to seek their day in court, so they can look out for your and my rights to participate in a discussion without fear of censorship.
Do you think that Microsoft has been damaged by this release of their <dripping with sarcsasm>big secret>?
Micro$oft has never been straightforward with the compatability of it's OS. If I'd known about half of the incompatibilities in Win2000 before I upgraded (to cure myself of Win98's instability), I would've just gone all Linux.
It really is the same old story...with companies, micro$oft simply bought them out... usually, they bought them legally... but they can't buy something open source... so they're trying to steal it and then bully anyone else who dares to use it without their permission... in effect, trying to continue their monopolistic policies where there isn't a single corporate entity to attack.
Humorless sig goes here.
But what is in contention here is whether or not microsoft actually owns the copyright.
Here's how I view it... imagine you have a software that you've been working on... you allow other people to help you. All this is in good faith and open... suddenly, one of the people who was helping announces that they have taken your code as a basis, slapped a few minor additions... kept it pretty much the same otherwise and claims that they own it... doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that it smells really fishy and odious.
"...Without them, many great products would never have been created such as the car, light bulb, telephone..."
heh... copyright law didn't invent the car, light bulb, or telephone. And those things aren't even covered under copyright law... they would fall under patent law. And I'm not a really good historian when it comes to the inventors, but I doubt Ford, Edison, or Bell came about their inventions through the sleazy, underhanded, and legal cartwheels that microsoft used to purpotedly "copyright" their Kerberos Protocol. I'm pretty sure that those guys actually put some elbow grease into their inventions; not lawyers.
"Windows 98 is a great product. Anyone who says otherwise is a pro-Linux zelot or a fool."
At one point, I would've said that 98 was a step up from 95 (but not a "great" product)... turns out I was wrong. I don't want to even enumerate the problems 98 gave me after a while. The only people who can possibly say it's a "great product" are those with the intellect of a retarded gnat. Which precludes them from using linux. Learning linux wasn't easy, but damn, it's nice not to crash every 2 hours... and when I do, I can fix the problem.
Humorless sig goes here.
Naaaah. It's more like:
"Whus wid dat copyright jive?? You don' gotta leg to stan' on, muthafucka'. Git outta here an' think agin'."
use Sig::Witty;
i'm sick to death of Bully Billy getting his way. if ms would adhere to StAnDaRdS and not rewrite them so (1) they don't have to open source their own software and (2) to make the rest of the world bow to their perversions of these open standards (adding an extra auth fields in kerberos for security? Pulease!) the world would be a LOT better off. oh yeah... by the way, bill, thanks a heap for the wonderful scripting host that caused the world to grind to a halt! try adding some forethought to THAT security cavern. even your new "fix" screws up half your other inbred software! it's 99% of lawyers that give the others a bad name. i'm glad to see slashdot's are in the 1% section =8-)
> That's right, Windows 98 is a great product. Anyone who says otherwise is a pro-Linux zelot or a fool. Of course you must have known this would elicit a few knee-jerk responses. Having researched and designed operating systems for some time, I can not disagree more with this statement. Windows is a despicable piece of software that goes against almost everything that is known about OS design and human factors knowledge. It is just really really unfortunate that its arguably the best OS available to do what it does. That just goes to show that MS really is a monopoly and has single handedly held back the development of commodity OS software by at least a decade (and consequently hardware and application software). The world would have been a very very different place without MS - considerably more 'advanced' in terms of commodity s/w & hardware. (of course some other company would probably have filled the same niche and behaved in a similar way - a capatilist downfall). (we should more subsequent discussion - if any - to another thread)
1. How can Microsoft claim proprietary protections for enhancement to an open standard protocol? 2. How can Microsoft use the Kerberos name, which signifies an open standard protocol, in connection with a proprietary protocol? I think these two points are all I really want to hear the answer to. Seeing M$ calling their variation on an open standard a trade secret and trying to protect it as such seem ridiculous to me. Does anyone know if they're manipulating some kind of legal loop hole here to be able to release their own variation of Kerberos without making the source equally available?
Both client and server roles are possible, but some uses require somewhat complex configuration.
/. crowd is complaining about.
Please note that Kerberos _authentication_ is unchanged and *completely* interoperable. The only issue is that any vended service which wishes to use the Microsoft authorization data (which is likely to include many or most Windows-hosted services) must receive and understand the PAC.
Samba can (theoretically) operate as a W2K fileserver, using Kerberos, with no issues. It needs to make authorization decisions based on group membership information derived from some other mechanism, however, rather than basing them on group IDs embedded in the PAC field of the Kerberos ticket.
The reverse is manageable as well -- since the *nix box has no conflicting use for the PAC, it is saved by the (Unix) client which thus presents an appropriate ticket to the W2K-based file server when issued the ticket by a W2K KDC; if the ticket is issued by a Unix KDC, a Windows KDC must exist which trusts the Kerberos realm from which the Unix ticket is issued. However, given that you're connecting to a Windows service, the burden of that is not as high as it might otherwise seem.
The major issue with Microsoft's Kerberos implementation is actually:
1. A Unix KDC operating *without* an additional W2K KDC cannot vend tickets to Windows-hosted services which require the PAC to authorize users. Please note, however, that if a W2K-hosted KDC exists, it can trust the non-W2K KDC's tickets for cross-realm authentication, and use them to automatically grant a W2K ticket for access to the W2K-hosted service. Since most services requiring that authorization data would be Windows-hosted anyway, the major issue becomes:
2. The ability to manage a Unix-hosted service using the Microsoft management tools (i.e., establishing the W2K equivalent of a primary domain controller) cannot be made to exist without disclosure of the PAC format. This blows some of the supposed ease-of-administration benefits of W2K away unless you're running W2K servers.
These are frustrating, and the second might constitute an anti-competitive action, but they're not the drastic problems with Kerberos that most of the
Ok, so this isn't entirely related to M$'s brazenly idiotic stance on the issue. But seriously, who came up with the name m----s---? What were they thinking? I think I'll, just to spite M$, start my own business and name it MacroHard. Sure, M$ may be bigger, but my clients will at least know i'm bigger.
I like girls who wear Abercrombie & Fitch... I just wish they liked me.
I just read the letter. How....I can even express how refreshing it is to see that someone is willing to kill with kindness the Corporation Whose Name Need Not Be Spoken. I just want the hear tow words hellz and yeah. Can I get one from the congregation?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-