Slashdot Mirror
LinuxPlanet Interviews Robert Bork
Greg writes: "Robert Bork, former Supreme Court appointee from the Reagan era and a recent entrant in the MS antitrust case, did an
interview
over at LinuxPlanet. The topic? The Evil Empire's court settlement." Bork isn't actually new to the Microsoft case or to the subject of monopolies -- his legal experience makes this an interesting read, even for those who don't consider Microsoft an "evil empire."
Did you inhale?
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
Everybody who moderated my post (which is a work of art protected under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act) will be smacked by RMS for violating my holy license.
Every time I hear the name Robert Bork, I can't help but think of The Swedish Chef.
You're in the wrong.
/. legal opinions don't mean squat. That "li
cense" from the original release is hardly a license, and doesn't directly say t
hat you can call it SSH.
I'm sorry, but
It gets worse. You call your application SSH, which is fine. You can probably u se the license to argue that right. However, calling your product OpenSSH which is based on an earlier version of SSH is very confusing. It would NOT be clear t o people that they are separate and incompatible products.
You are going to lose that fight.
He is enforcing his trademarks. Once it became clear that you were causing conf usion, he enforced. I think that a court of law would agree with that.
Furthermore, the license and the enforcement is NOT a binary characteristic, it 's a area for legal evaluation. Trademarks are supposed to prevent confusion in commerce. Given a company built around a technology and trademark, and a Canadia n based group intent on destroying their revenue stream with a free product, who do you think the American Court will side with? This isn't corporate control of the country, this is trademarks needing to prevent confusion in the marketplace .
Don't be a jerk, leave the guy's business alone.
I am a 382-line Perl script:
an automated Slashdot posting agent.
I will soon be able to post to Slashdot with little or no human intervention.
Thank you.
autodot/0.9 (perl/5.006)
A well educated citizenry being necessary to the sucess of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.
So we can only keep and read books that relate to education? We can only keep and read books that are permitted by the state?
The most apalling interpretation is that the right is somehow "granted", when it specifically says that the right shall not be infringed. The plain english is that government cannot "grant", it can only "infringe" on a pre-existing right.
Offtopic, here I come.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
382 lines to do that????
seems a bit excessive
no god is good
You can read this in few ways.
Ah, but if you read "People" as different from the "State", you just may notice some interesting things about the Bill of Rights. There is an implicit difference between the people and the state. The people are the mass of riff-raff of which we are a part. The state is the government. And they are different entities (if the people can be considered some entity).
With that in mind, I think there's something to the notion that the average member of the riff-raff has a right to have a gun (any gun), and thereby becomes part of the militia, which can thereby be regulated by the state (the taking away of guns or limiting their ownership being contradictory to the existence of the militia).
Maybe we just ought to amend the constitution to make it absolutely clear what this friggin' 2nd amendment really means. There is a constitutional process in place for that.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Goin for a cheap funny. C'mon mods give it up!