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
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. --
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.
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 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.
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)
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 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.
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.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.
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.
Is this true? Is it really incompatible? What are the issues here?
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
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?
---
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
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
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/
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.
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.
--
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
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.
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
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.
Microsoft 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...
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
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.
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!
>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.
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
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.
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/
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)
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
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
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
-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
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.
"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
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
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?
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.
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.
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
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?'
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,
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.
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.
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.
Right on! Stick it to the MAN!
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 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!
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
... 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.
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.
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...
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!
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
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
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!
---
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
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!
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).
- 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.
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
Let's day that I'm a university English professor. I'm writing a piece of criticism on a newly-released novel, still in hardcover. I analyze the novel in great detail, and deal with every single chapter. I'm also going to have my book published by an academic press.
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.
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=
The rest were simply discussing the topic.
Read the posts again.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
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
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
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!
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.
--
--
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)
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....
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"
The questions really do get to the heart of the matter. MS says that you have to protect their trade secret as much as you can. But, what makes it a trade secret? How much protection does MS put on their trade secrets? C'mon, you can't *seriously* expect MS to protect other trade secrets using a click-thru license in a winzip-compatible file.
-- Ever notice that fast-burning fuse looks exactly the same as slow-burning fuse? I didn't... (Edgar Montrose)
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!
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.
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/
Fair use does not give you the right to copy an entire document verbatim and distribute it to whomever you want.
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
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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
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
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-)
Fight Spammers!
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)
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
No, the remedy has still to be decided--it is not too late to consider that. Judge Jackson must decide how to construct a solution that will prevent exactly this sort of criminal activity in the future--if it is continuing, then a remedy would need to be immediately implemented.
Secondly, the guilty verdict now opens up a host of other lawsuits against Microsoft to collect damages. It's even possible that, for example, a Unix server manufacturer might sue Microsoft for anticompetitive practices intended to monopolize the market for network servers by leveraging monopoly control of the desktop market. The facts about Microsoft Kerberos might be entirely relevant to that case, and could conceivably involve a huge amount of money. The fact that Microsoft has been found guilty of antitrust law is important here. There is already an EU investigation into this very matter.
It's even possible that a /. poster might file suit in a state such as Iowa against Microsoft. He might claim that Microsoft is illegally trying to enforce a shrink-wrap license under the laws of the state of Washington, when Iowa, the state he lives in and downloaded the document in, has laws declaring such enforcement null and void. This attempted enforcement might be claimed to violate his First Amendment rights. The Iowa attorney-general might remember certain Microsoft documents found during the discovery process in the antitrust suit that would be important here. Again, the damages could be considerable.
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".
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.
Our lawyers are saints, their lawyers are spawn of satan. This is an old philosophy when in fact, the lawyers are doing the bidding of their customers. Another way of saying this is: Lawyers don't sue people, people sue people.
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