Slashdot Mirror
The End of the Free PCI Device List (Update)
imann writes "For many years, Jim Boemler was the maintainer of a free PCI device table which reference all the PCI ID's of PCI Devices. This service is used by Free Operating Systems for keeping up to date their pci device list. That was a very usefull service for us (i was working in a Linux distro in the hardware suport team). It was wonderfull until the PCI-SIG had their lawyers cease and desisted him to stop this service because of the use of the PCI logo AND name ! You don't have the right to use the three letters P,C,I ! Incredible... So he was forced to close his website.
This is a incredible loss for the hardware support in the Free Software world. I hope PCI-SIG will change its position !
Please support Jim." A friend emailed me to point out that many /.ers have been emailing the wrong person to complain....read on for details...
Jamal wrote, "The story you posted is causing us a headache. Our CTO, Alan Deikman is being bombarded by emails from people reading that story.
Alan is not the person in charge of the PCI SIG, his only sin is that Znyx
did host the PCI sig in the early 90s and he was the list maintainer. This
was a gracious act and should not be rewarded the way it is now. Infact he is
trying to help the gent with that website to see if things get resolved." Alan's email was posted on the page we linked to, erroneously.
Don't they have anything else better to do than close down an extrememly helpful website because it has three letters on there?
Remove the logo, and change the names to ``Computer Accessory Cards" or something else not copyrighted.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Hm, I would say, don't buy their stuff.
Err, but..., well..., ähm.
What do we learn from this? Standards need to be free.
Yeah, really 'open standard' when they Cease and Desist people compiling a list of device IDs!
--Azaroth
Check with a lawyer first, but it probably just comes down to.
I suggest people send a polite note to PCI's Media & Analyst Contact (lsherwin@vtm-inc.com as listed on http://www.pcisig.com/membership/contact_us). I think everyone agrees that we would prefer the site to come back, if perhaps with a little TM deference to PCI-SIG.
If everyone flames them out, then all that might do is put their backs up even more, and might actually instruct their lawyers to go for "broke".
This is not to say that Mr. Boemler's "Rants" so to speak are unfair...his going "nuclear" in my opinion is not only free speech, but righteous indignation by someone with the right to be.
Guys, this is ridiculous. The lawyer sent a cease-and-desist letter about the LOGO, not the letters (Jim decided to remove those on his own since he's pissed off). Jim got mad and decided to say to hell with PCI-SIG, yadda yadda. He overreacted. Big deal.
I work with the PCI-SIG and I know them well. This is standard trademark protection, lawyers do this every day. If the PCI-SIG doesn't protect their logo and trademark, THEY LOSE THE RIGHT TO USE IT. In this case they were overzealous (Jim's right, someone should have emailed him first), but he has really overreacted -- he's mad because he has spent a lot of effort on something and not gotten recognition for it. I understand that. We all understand that. Let's all calm down here.
Just because Jim offered something to the SIG 5 years ago doesn't mean they aren't interested now. Why not try emailing the PCI-SIG and talking to them? Their contact info is here:
http://www.pcisig.com/membership/contact_us
Couldn't he have tried:
- remove the actual logo
- change everything to read PCI compatible
- add the TM symbol where appropriate
- say that it's a PCI device 'review' site
But whatever he could've done all that can be said about this is fsck PCI. Reprehensible is all they are...if it was possible to purchase a PC without PCI I would - come to think of it I can probably get a lot of stuff as USB drivers.
I'll bet he can't believe it either. Especially since all they wanted was the logo removed and it was Jim that decided to take down the site in protest.
No sig, sorry.
Upon further thought, I think that we need to come up with some other name, something derogatory, which will all understand to mean the same thing. They may be able to trademark their abbreviation but they cannot force others to use it.
Perhaps we could use the ROT13 text, which I think would be CPV. We could say that CPV stood for "Cohen's Perverted Values" or anything else that fit.
Regardless of whether ROT13 was used, once we had an alternative, we could put up a webserver that offered 'certifications' of other manufacturer's product to this new bus 'standard'. This process would consist of only a rubber stamp. Then we could inundate our favorite manufacturers, who indirectly are the PCI-SIG by virtue of their support, with emails and other annoyances demanding compatibility
This type of interference would cost the manufacturers money and time. Any mention of the Bus Who's Name Shall Not Be Said could be changed in free software source code.
Surely that would cause "consumer confusion" of a far greater degree. I suspect that the motive may well be more sinister -- preventing the distribution of the information in the first place.
IBM, as a member and Jim's evident employer, has a chance to take the high ground in both a moral and public relations sense. By hosting the list, the would win my favor, for what its worth.
I am glad that I am not so hungry as to have to prostitute myself to such a degree as sign my name to such crap.
All my previous sigs now look like this one, I wish they were permanetly recorded when used.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Why not just change the name to something NOT PCI then the lawyers can go away
I read the letter. There's a difference between what they say and what their actions indicate. It's a little like firing an olive branch at someone from a cannon (at close range).
People who really want to resolve a situation amicably do NOT follow that statement with a threat. If they had wanted to handle the situation amicably, the letter should have come from a director. It should have indicated their interest in hosting the list in an official capacity and asked (not demanded) that he contact them. Acknowledging the value of the list and his work would be a nice touch. Odds are, that would have been enough.
If they had real problems with his use of the marks, they could have indicated the problem and suggested appropriate ways to remedy the situation (such as please remove the actual logo and add text saying 'PCI is a blah blah blah'). I'll bet that would have been enough as well.
Frankly, every C&D letter I've seen (both reasonable and not so reasonable) was quite rude. They allways read like the 'this is your final warning' speech from the evil space alien. The letter would have been appropriate iff he had failed to respond to an earlier and more polite approach.
Perhaps we should recommend some good books on ettiquite to the lawyers and the PCI-SIG collectively.
However, I'm sure they could care less if people reference PCI in the course of descriptions, discussions, etc. I think they had a problem with potential (as unlikely as it is) confusion with his site and an official PCI-SIG source of information.
A simple disclaimer on his site would have probable been fine. But he chose to kill the site instead.
No sig, sorry.
It seems to me that it's hard to be helpful these days. Set up a site that helps everyone (or at least doesn't hurt those who don't use it), get sacked by a lawyer.
What real and substantial damage does his site do to PCI-SIG? The only damage I can see being done to PCI-SIG is them showing that even non-profit corporations can't be bothered to be polite any more.
As to whether the C&D implies the site should be taken down, I think it obvious that the spirit of the letter is that he should hand it off to a "proper authority" and walk away with it. Given that, I'd go on a tirade that would make his seem more akin to a Sunday sermon.
Is there a worthy competitor or successor to PCI?
unixkb.com -- articles on practical Unix issues.
The Open Source movement and its spiritual cousin, the Free Software movement, were started based on the principle of empowerment of the end-user.
Even if she wasn't able to themselves alter software to their liking, the source would give the ability of a trained professional who they hired (perhaps for free, if said professional was "the neighbourhood geek").
However, this plan is thwarted if the specifications to the hardware upon which the software is meant to run is closed. This situation actually occured back in the origins of, I think, the FS movement, involving a printer which had closed software. However, instead of focusing on the pivotal point of open hardware specification (from which any amount of open source drivers and utilities can be made), the movement somehow focused on the second-order problem of access to source code.
Actually, even source code is probally less important than man pages (proper documentation). Did UNIX really thrive on plaintext C code along, or was it "man" that won the day as well?
The problem with the PCI device list, and the Sun CPU, and various video cards and sound cards without Open Source drivers is a problem of closed hardware.
The patent system was actually invented to protect hardware inventions... it should be used, rather than obscurity, to protect hardware. Software, on the other hand, could be a trade secret. Or open. Or whatever. The current situation, however, is that Microsoft Tax is based on their software - drivers, OS, Application Layer, being closed... and they're successful because their API ("man" on steriods in the form of MSDN) is Open!
Why doesn't the Geek community see this, already? Open Source doesn't matter... it will always be a personal choice anyhow... Open Hardware, however, could be made a legal imperative. Which will have numerous benefits:
-Any platform could have driver support, which is the reall barrier to Linux winning on the desktop
-The same embrace and extend techniques which Creative Labs used on Ad Lib could be used on Creative Labs!
-Emulators would be intrinsically legal, and actually, jobs would be created to emulate competitor's projects
-Companies would not go out of business so easily. Be had the specs for the BeBox online, but did not go out of business because they were cloned
-Open Hardware ultimately gave us PCs. And PCs ultimately gave us Linux, Windows, and i386 *BSD ports.
-and PCs also gave us 3Dfx, or realtime rendering on the desktop.
Once Again: Open Hardware is good. Open software, a passing curiousity at best, and irrelevant in the face of closed hardware and the legal, political, and financial weight that backs it.
Hmmm, why. If someone from the PCI SIG just
wanted them to remove the logo, I think they would
have just sent them an email first, But if
Michael Cohen (lawyer) just wanted get as many hours as possible, then he would probably do something like -
a) Type "PCI" into google.
b) look at a bunch of web sites. Mark them down.
c) call the client - "Hey a bunch of guys are
using your trademark illegally. Want me to make them stop?" (Yes, please make them stop)
d) Write a form letter..Mail it registered..make sure all t's are crossed, i's dotted. After all we make $100/hour crossing t's and dotting i's!
e) Collect bonus at end of year for getting extra
hours -
See
http://www.schwabe.com/benefits.asp#compensation
I won't post my name but I'm in charge of the domain for a fairly large transportation company. I won't explain what that means, but simply accept it.
Often, people will post information about our company and its operation. I don't know why they do it, and who cares.
When the marketing people find these sites, they immediately send a cease-and-desist. I try to explain that these people are customers and enjoy our site. That they help our brand by encouraging our customers and fans.
Marketing says "no, it dilutes our brand, there will be confusion blah blah blah" and they piss off our best customers via our legal staff. Its pointless. I think they need something to do with their spare time.
So I go out of my way to make sure marketing doesn't see the sites. Its stupid. It serves no one except someone thinks they're a fucking geniuses and they're not.
Sometimes you're giving people too much credit. Mostly people do dumb things because they're dumb.
They're within their rights in asking that this guy pull the use of their logo, but beyond that, both they and he are overreacting.
Click here to search trademarks and verify this.
It's still the case. It's easier and cheaper to come to a nice agreement than to sue someone's butt off. It also makes it easier to negotiate another agreement if they happen to later wind up infringing on another one of your patents. (Especially since in many cases that someone might happen to discover that they have patents you're infringing on, at which point they countersue and things get nasty.)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
jim
Instead of paying lawyers for this letter, they should have paid the PCI-list guy to do his job on a PCI-sig server so the whole 'trademark' problem would be inexistent!
This list is something they should have done themselves! And now instead of supporting it, they do rude moves and make it close!
It's a lose-lose here!
A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait).