Slashdot Mirror
Sequoia Threatens Over Voting Machine Evaluation
enodo writes "Voting machine manufacturer Sequoia has sent well-known Princeton professor Ed Felten and his colleague Andrew Appel a letter threatening to sue if New Jersey sends them a machine to evaluate. It's not clear from the letter Sequoia sent whether they intend to sue the professors or the state — presumably that ambiguity was deliberate on Sequoia's part. Put another clipping in your scrapbook of cases of companies invoking 'intellectual property rights' for bogus reasons." Sequoia seems to be claiming that no one can make a "report" regarding their "software" without their permission.
A voting apparatus without a clear path for auditing of every system and sub-system is an invitation to corruption. Comparable mechanisms in governance have checks and balances to ensure fidelity.
Why do these shifty porkchops think they ought to be exempt? Because it may make their investors nervous?
This is definitely a situation where the bottom line should be drawn by logic, not by dollars.
These stories are free but worth money.
...have I got this straight?
Their voting machines are paid for by public dollars, used by the majority of the members of the public, to elect public officials, and they claim evaluation of their software cannot occur without their "permission"?
(Even my 9 year old nephew read this and thought it was "dumb")
The Mothership
Mebbe they need a history lesson...
Anyone care to guess when the last armed revolt against government was here in the US and the reasons behind it?
Answer - Battle of Athens, Tenn. 1946. And it was over voting issues...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
I for one say we need to amend the patent and copyright acts to make devices used to voting unpatentable, and exempt from copyright, or barring that, that the certification process requires all rights to be signed over to the government. These machines by their very nature should be open to the most detailed scrutiny imaginable by anyone who feels so inclined. If the companies want to make money on them sell maintenance and manufacturing contracts, but there should be no way to claim trade secrets on anything used for voting.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
Lamp manufacturers pay UL for the privelege of being certified. UL doesn't randomly grab equipment and force a cert upon it. The voting machine manufacturers should be more than interested in having third-party audits of their equipment ... unless they are either crap or corrupt. I suspect the former, but the latter isn't too far behind.
Regardless, I don't see how the manufacturer could impose restrictions on the equipment if it has been sold. Leased? Yeah, that'd come with a use restriction because title never was transferred.
Someone mod this guy up. I find it unconscionable that it is possible to patent or copyright something that is absolutely critical to the fundamental processes of democracy. Sequoia might as well demand that they be made Emperors of America.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I am sure the state of New Jersey can tell Sequoia to accept this investigation or say good-bye to any certification. Sequoia is just making themselves look bad and like they have something to hide.
I agree however New Jersey probably has already paid for the machines. I can't see Sequoia telling the state they can't test them, have them tested scientifically, if they haven't already been paid for. This case can however be used to show other potential buyers just how the company operates.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Actually, threatening Felten with a lawsuit is quite effective. Now actual lawsuit needs to be filed. Since this would be consulting work, not research, he would not be covered by Princeton's Lawyers and will have to fend for himself, which is quite expensive -- so the threat of litigation might be enough to deter him. New Jersey, being a state, cannot be sued without its consent.
If this gets thrown out? Surely no court could be so stupid to think that a third party's opinions of an available product can be stifled on the grounds of intellectual property laws. I can't think of anything even reasonably close to a valid excuse to allow it to go through. Perhaps they expect that it will come across as libelous (meaning a completely valid and accurate assessment that portrays them in a negative light - which just means that your company/product sucks), but the review would have to be out there first. I don't think a gag order can be issued in this kind of situation, and an NDA violation (assuming they ever held up in court, which is very rarely the case) hardly applies here.
I don't think a PR nightmare really applies. This kind of stuff rarely if ever hits mainstream media, and us geeks of Slashdot aren't really the type to buy into proprietary tools in general, let alone ones used for voting.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
I hear they are pretty good a doing hardware/software system audits and design reviews.