Licensing Dispute Threatens Future of Skype

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Licensing Dispute Threatens Future of Skype

Posted by timothy on Thursday July 30, 2009 @08:53PM from the it-puts-the-lotion-on-the-remote-kill-switch dept.

tomlins writes "eBay is faced with the prospect of having to close down the hugely popular VoIP app Skype due to its reliance on proprietary code still owned by Skype's original founders, who are threatening to pull the plug on the licensing agreement they have with eBay."

225 of 282 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Wait a minute... by ustolemyname · 2009-07-30 20:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

eBay paid $2.6 Billion for a dinky little 8MB program, and don't even bother to make sure they got everything?

Wow.
1. Re:Wait a minute... by Shaiku · 2009-07-30 21:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I've been wondering for a long time why eBay even bought skype. There is no relationship whatsoever and it doesn't come as a surprise to me that they're recently looking to dump it. They paid an outrageous sum, didn't get full rights, and failed to leverage that technology in any way useful to the company. Bizarre move..
2. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 21:02 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  They got $2.6 Billion for a dinky little 8MB program, and still aren't happy?
3. Re:Wait a minute... by broken_chaos · 2009-07-30 21:04 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  They obviously did not think that one through very well. The article reads like they bought everything except the protocol, audio codec, or encryption algorithm (one or more of the three - the article isn't detailed enough to say which) - something which stops any replacement they create from being backwards compatible with any other versions of Skype. From that alone, it gives me the impression this is a patent issue, not a copyright issue. Perhaps we can "con" a large company into not supporting software patents out of this mess? ;-)
  I also wonder what the potential liability here is, given that portions of Skype are a paid service.
4. Re:Wait a minute... by sopssa · 2009-07-30 21:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Because large companies usually try to expand to new areas too. For example see Virgin Group and even Microsoft, who are doing hardware (and xbox) even if their core business is in Operating Systems.
  You dont always need a direct connection between a parent company and the one bought - They can continue to operate like they have, which is even more true when you're buying an existing company.
5. Re:Wait a minute... by sopssa · 2009-07-30 21:17 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Well, if you're spending $1 million a day, that $2.6 Billion is only going to last 2600 days which is only about seven years.* You need to make sure your elder years will be good aswell.
  (* This calculation doesn't take into account one time purchases like houses, cars, airplanes, some nice island near hawaii)
6. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 21:31 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Microsoft, who are doing hardware (and xbox) even if their core business is in Operating Systems.
  I thought Microsoft was trying to get out of the Operating System business because they couldn't compete with Windows XP.
7. Re:Wait a minute... by Hammer · 2009-07-30 21:33 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  If you have a legal team making a good enough contract and the buyers legal team is not good enough to catch it. There should be no problem at all.... There is absolutely nothing to stop you from selling your business with a clause like "You pay me a shitload of money but I keep all the business rights" if the buyer is ignorant to sign that deal.
  All I can say to eBay is.... Next time get a better legal team :-) This time... just suck it up
  Mind you this hammers in all the pro's of IP-laws and software patents and all the terrible thing associated with open source :-D
8. Re:Wait a minute... by Dan541 · 2009-07-30 21:38 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  They should open-source skype, then they will at least get lots of good publicity.
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
9. Re:Wait a minute... by iYk6 · 2009-07-30 21:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  There is no reason that a parent company and a bought company have be in related fields. However, it is common that they are. For example, eBay's auction and payment companies. Microsoft's OS and game consoles. Nintendo's game consoles and toys.
  The primary reason is that the parent companies assets, including human, are more aligned to fill the needs of the smaller company. eBay and Paypal was a perfect merge for Paypal, and now they effectively get twice the money per auction after forcing their eBay users to offer Paypal. When Microsoft started making Xboxes, they already had most of the operating system, which is a non-negligible part of a console, and more MS employees would be able to take apart and build a computer than say, the employees of a bank. Nintendo has a name which helps them sell toys.
  Sometimes, the smaller company can fill a need of a larger company. Perhaps an airline company will buy a computer retailer right before a major IT upgrade, and they will effectively have a discount.
  eBay and Skype fulfill none of the examples above and was truly a bizarre move.
10. Re:Wait a minute... by k33l0r · 2009-07-30 21:43 · Score: 4, Informative
  Looking at the Skype founders' company website, they license three different products/technologies: PeerEnabler, PeerCache, and Global Index.
  In their words:
  PeerEnabler is "a virtual Content Distribution Network"
  PeerCache is "a cache product that enabled network operators to optimize peer-to-peer traffic"
  Global Index is their flagship product and "is the world's most technologically advanced, scalable and field-tested peer-to-peer technology. Global Index creates a self-organizing and self-healing distributed storage, transport and data object management system that does away with the costs of traditional datacenter solutions and enables a range of applications from communications to broadcasting and beyond."
  They also explicitly state that Global Index is used in Skype.
11. Re:Wait a minute... by moon3 · 2009-07-30 21:45 · Score: 1
  
  Big "HAHA" tag missing. Exactly. I mean this is rip-off of the century.
12. Re:Wait a minute... by turing_m · 2009-07-30 21:46 · Score: 1
  
  A fly on the wall at those meetings would have heard at least one person discuss the obvious synergies being leveraged.
  
  --
  If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
13. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 21:46 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Maybe they should leave negative feedback?
  "Goods not as advertised, would not buy again"
14. Re:Wait a minute... by broken_chaos · 2009-07-30 22:06 · Score: 1
  
  Ahh, so it's a piece of the protocol then. Thanks, I didn't think to check if they were licensing it out to other companies.
  Looks like that link's getting /.ed pretty hard right now, but I'll make a wild guess that I was right on this being a patent dispute and not some sort of copyright dispute.
15. Re:Wait a minute... by linhares · 2009-07-30 22:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  these dudes are claiming the title of world's greatest software assholes right from the hands of Gates, Ballmer & Co.
16. Re:Wait a minute... by linhares · 2009-07-30 22:20 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  "I should have used paypal and get my money back :("
17. Re:Wait a minute... by Shikaku · 2009-07-30 22:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  On each login session, Skype generates a session key from 192 random bits. The session key is encrypted with the hard-coded login server's 1536-bit RSA key to form an encrypted session key. Skype also generates a 1024-bit private/public RSA key pair. An MD5 hash of a concatenation of the user name, constant string ("\nSkyper\n") and password is used as a shared secret with the login server. The plain session key is hashed into a 256-bit AES key that is used to encrypt the session's public RSA key and the shared secret. The encrypted session key and the AES encrypted value are sent to the login server.
  I would love if they broke all of those. Nevermind that the entire Skype protocol is decentralized already, which is a security risk already because you get random packets from random people using Skype.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skype_protocol
  Dumb AC troll.
18. Re:Wait a minute... by DriftingDutchman · 2009-07-30 22:28 · Score: 1
  
  Not getting all the rights is stupid indeed, but the size and quality of the program is seen as less relevant than market share and associated current and projected future earnings.
19. Re:Wait a minute... by sxpert · 2009-07-30 22:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  which turns out to be security by obscurity.
  any security analyst can tell you how much this is bullshit ;)
20. Re:Wait a minute... by maxwell+demon · 2009-07-30 22:49 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  In other words, they sell filesharing software? Quick, anyone tell the RIAA! :-)
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
21. Re:Wait a minute... by Ilgaz · 2009-07-30 23:02 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  eBay buying Skype doesn't make sense. Compare it to Nokia buying Trolltech, maps companies, opening up Symbian with their own money and even starting to enhance their love-hate J2ME virtual machine.
  All makes sense if you think about them, in long term strategy and expanding to new markets and I speak about billions here. Billions spent to make things free and even allowing el cheapo Chinese manufacturers have a real OS on their cell phones and I can easily figure why. On eBay case, I can't.
  If Amazon purchased Skype, it would make absolute sense but not eBay. Amazon had their "expand to new horizons" since the beginning, remember how people laughed at them when they enabled competitors to advertise on their own pages? That was ages ago. Remember S3 first launch?
22. Re:Wait a minute... by sopssa · 2009-07-30 23:17 · Score: 1
  
  If Amazon purchased Skype, it would make absolute sense but not eBay. Amazon had their "expand to new horizons" since the beginning, remember how people laughed at them when they enabled competitors to advertise on their own pages? That was ages ago. Remember S3 first launch?
  Companies evolve too. Just because they dont have a history in "expanding to new horizons" doesn't mean they couldn't start doing it now. And it might even be good -- Its a more bad thing to rely entirely on one business.
  Other than seeing Skype as a good business, I dont get why eBay would need an another reason to buy it. It doesn't need to expand eBay's core business. It doesn't need to make their core business easier. It just needs to provide income for the parent company. It also provides better stability if the core business model starts to go worse, for example with current recession people probably dont buy stuff that much hence impacting both eBay/PayPal income. However I dont think Skype is affected by that so much, people that use it will still use it and pay when they need to contact people.
23. Re:Wait a minute... by FudRucker · 2009-07-30 23:20 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  2.6 billion and did not get full ownership? wow what dumbasses runs eBay!!! i have an old stone bridge in NYC i can sell them too
  
  --
  Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
24. Re:Wait a minute... by MarceloR2 · 2009-07-30 23:59 · Score: 1
  
  The reason eBay bought Skype was for the same reason that it bought PayPal. In the same manner in which their business of auctioning is intricately dependent on having a well-oiled payment system in place, so it is with having a communication system in place where a prospective buyer can easily communicate with a seller.
25. Re:Wait a minute... by Sl4shd0t0rg · 2009-07-31 00:19 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I think early on, eBay intended to use the Skype platform to give buyers a way to contact the seller without the seller having to expose their real contact number. It still wasn't worth $2.6 billion for this feature.
26. Re:Wait a minute... by hairyfeet · 2009-07-31 00:22 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  They got the bobcat!
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
27. Re:Wait a minute... by Ascagnel · 2009-07-31 00:33 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  This was their intent. However, most sellers didn't want to have any exposure to potential buyers. That shouldn't come as much of a surprise, considering how hostile relations on eBay can get between buyers and sellers.
  
  --
  "It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine."
28. Re:Wait a minute... by mikiN · 2009-07-31 00:41 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yeah, just start cranking away at those right now, and by the time they invent time travel you can either get forward in time to fetch the result (if the universe hasn't evaporated by then) or go back with your answer if you already have it.
  By the way, the above may be just one way of proving that time travel will not be possible. Anyone care to prove me wrong? :-)
  
  --
  The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
29. Re:Wait a minute... by mspohr · 2009-07-31 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, the track record of big companies expanding into new fields is very poor. One could argue that Microsoft has never been successful in any business where it couldn't leverage its OS monopoly. I think the Skype purchase by eBay was just a bunch of corporate bozos with too much money who thought they were geniuses just because they got lucky once.
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
30. Re:Wait a minute... by Yocto+Yotta · 2009-07-31 00:45 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I'm not a savvy businessman, but I would think that diversifying a business can be too risky if you don't have the free capital to blow. I've personally seen a couple small companies strong core products sunk by risky, expensive, time consuming endeavors in new markets. In Ebay's case, you might argue that they could take the risk because of their size, but in a theoretical world where the economy keeps getting worse instead of rebounding, that $2.5 billion (approx., too lazy to scroll up and fact check) they paid for Skype could be the difference between them floating the operating costs of their core business for a not-insignificant amount of time or failing.
  
  --
  A B A C A B B
31. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-31 00:47 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  An ebay auction requires two (or more) parties to communicate to work out the details of the transaction and/or ask questions before the transaction. Most of this is done through PayPal and/or good old fashion email. Skype is a tool that allows two (or more) parties to communicate. Better communication between buyers and sellers will increase the likelihood of a sale and/or increase the number of interested parties, thus driving up the price of a single auctioned item. That's the relationship, it makes a lot of sense. Why eBay didn't actually DO ANYTHING with it is the bizarre move.
32. Re:Wait a minute... by PopeRatzo · 2009-07-31 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  On each login session, Skype generates a session key from 192 random bits. The session key is encrypted with the hard-coded login server's 1536-bit RSA key to form an encrypted session key. Skype also generates a 1024-bit private/public RSA key pair. An MD5 hash of a concatenation of the user name, constant string ("\nSkyper\n") and password is used as a shared secret with the login server. The plain session key is hashed into a 256-bit AES key that is used to encrypt the session's public RSA key and the shared secret. The encrypted session key and the AES encrypted value are sent to the login server.
  Can you explain what part of this is "security by obscurity"? I'm guessing the problem starts in the fourth sentence above, but I'm just curious how you see it.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
33. Re:Wait a minute... by mikiN · 2009-07-31 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  Just reserving a tiny cut on a $2.6 billion deal could have paid for a boatload of lawyers and linguists to sort out that contract. If people are that stupid blowing money away like that, IMO they shouldn't be allowed to ever come _near_ an ATM.
  
  --
  The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
34. Re:Wait a minute... by hesaigo999ca · 2009-07-31 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  Some people just have money to burn...!
35. Re:Wait a minute... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2009-07-31 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  Luckily, they are assholes with limited power in the broader marketplace(Skype's downright unnerving ability to burrow through almost any mixture of NAT and firewalls is useful for the noobs; but the world of standardized SIP gear isn't exactly doomed), currently punking a company that nobody likes(Ebay was cool, years ago; but they've been steadily heading down the path of poor service, high prices, and general evil for some time now).
36. Re:Wait a minute... by thejynxed · 2009-07-31 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  The poster replying to you, above me, is correct in his response. The only things I have to add:
  1) It would have also provided a cheaper and more efficient way for both buyers and sellers to contact eBay and PayPal support staff, etc instead of emailing them and waiting days for a response.
  2) It would have allowed Sellers to contact favored Buyers and vice-versa for other auction listings, or items they want to sell/are looking to buy but AREN'T listed on eBay, but maybe ARE listed on their non-eBay website as being for sale.
  3) It would have given Sellers a way to contact favored Buyers to advertise or make other offers such as discounts, instead of selling a specific item per se. Think about being able to contact a long-time loyal customer, and based upon their past purchases from your eBay storefront, being able to call them up via Skype and offer them something related, or a special discount on shipping for future purchases.
  4) It would have given Sellers a way to conduct more specific Customer Satisfaction Surveys, by contacting Buyers and chatting with them, kind of like how pollsters do now for political stuff. (The stupid star feedback rating eBay uses is ridiculous and useless for the most part, where commenting is concerned. Comment length is restricted amongst other things.)
  5) It could have been a good foundation to add more of a 'social media' aspect to some portions of eBay. Think Buyers and Sellers Communities, where their could have been real-time feedback to one another about certain sellers or buyers or the like.
  These are just a few of the ideas that floated around in my head from the time eBay's bid for Skype was first announced.
  
  --
  @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
37. Re:Wait a minute... by calmofthestorm · 2009-07-31 01:11 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  This is the year of the Vista desktop!
  
  --
  93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
38. Re:Wait a minute... by ceeam · 2009-07-31 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  > dinky little 8MB program
  OK, let's pretend that world-wide call-out/call-in infrastructure (and registration servers) don't matter at all. Right?
39. Re:Wait a minute... by schon · 2009-07-31 01:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Can you explain what part of this is "security by obscurity"?
  My guess would be the "closed source" part, thinking it's stopping people from finding bugs in the code.
  Hint: there's a difference between design and code. You quoted the design, and assumed that since the design is secure, that automatically translates to the code being secure too.
40. Re:Wait a minute... by commodore64_love · 2009-07-31 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  >>>Because large companies usually try to expand to new areas too.
  Also Ebay power sellers make a lot of long distance calls, so eBay probably viewed it as an extra tool to provide to them. It's basically the same reason why they bought Paypal.
  BTW, I think the people who are holding the license are shooting themselves in the foot. They are losing lots of money, and I don't understand why they'd decide to say "no" to Ebay unless there's some kind of revenge motive.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
41. Re:Wait a minute... by thisnamestoolong · 2009-07-31 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong. Not to be rude, but this is not even my opinion, you are just objectively wrong. Open source has proved time and again to increase security by increasing the amount of eyes on the code. The way Skype is now, only a small team of Skype devs can see the source code. I am sure that it is riddled with vulnerabilities. If they were to open source Skype, they would immediately give access to millions of nerds who can then find all of the vulnerabilities and report them, as to close all the holes in the software long before they can be exploited. This is why Linux is 1,534%* more secure than Windows.
  
  *Number pulled out of my ass for dramatic effect, but there is certainly no doubt that the Linux kernel is far more secure than Windoze.
  
  --
  To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
42. Re:Wait a minute... by commodore64_love · 2009-07-31 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  P.S.
  Ebay had made a lot of decisions lately, not just buying Skype while leaving themselves vulnerable to licensing blackmail, but also allowing buyers to leave false negatives for sellers w/o any consequences. Now those "chickens are coming home to roost" and the timing couldn't be worse.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
43. Re:Wait a minute... by GPLHost-Thomas · 2009-07-31 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  If you did mind reading the link posted in the news, you would have read that "A recent study by market researcher TeleGeography found Skype carried about 8 per cent of all international voice traffic, making it the worldâ(TM)s largest provider of cross-border voice communications.". 8% of all international calls is quite a lot of money, and that makes it a deal that might have been quite good. Plus frankly, since we use SIP and have managed to find some REAL CHEAP providers, I can tell that Skype is EXPENSIVE.
44. Re:Wait a minute... by zm · 2009-07-31 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  but is Vista ready for the desktop?
  
  --
  Sig ?
45. Re:Wait a minute... by linhares · 2009-07-31 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  +1 car analogy
46. Re:Wait a minute... by nagnamer · 2009-07-31 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  but is Vista ready for the desktop?
  Of course it is! It's just that hardware vendors won't release specs so that the community can develop drivers. And games don't work on it.
  
  --
  Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.
47. Re:Wait a minute... by Desler · 2009-07-31 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  No, any security analyst will tell you that relying on security by obscurity ALONE is bullshit.
48. Re:Wait a minute... by jshackney · 2009-07-31 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  However, Skype just doesn't fit in with eBay's core competency.
49. Re:Wait a minute... by binarylarry · 2009-07-31 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  It's starting to work pretty well now. A couple of games have even been ported to it!
  
  --
  Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
50. Re:Wait a minute... by Philip+K+Dickhead · 2009-07-31 03:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's NOT that they didn't want to contact each other.
  eBay couldn't figure out, once they examined the potential fraud angle, how to keep the buyer and seller from colluding to terminate auctions, and conduct the sale privately - without eBay getting the fee.
  This was one of the many scenarios they already faced in text communications - and is highly monitored. Voice - especially SkyPe voice - was harder to track, capture and analyze for ToS violations and fraud. This problem remains unsolved.
  
  --
  "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
51. Re:Wait a minute... by TooMuchToDo · 2009-07-31 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  Sell it Buy It Now. You'll get further than you think =)
52. Re:Wait a minute... by CaseCrash · 2009-07-31 03:24 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  A little late to post this, but...
  
  I agree with what you're saying except that your Nintendo example is wrong. Nintendo started out as a toy company (well, a card company, then a bunch of other things, then a toy company) and then moved into video games as logical extension (non electric games -> electric games).
  
  just my 2 cents
  
  --
  No, that link you posted to a web comic we've all seen a hundred times is not "obligatory."
53. Re:Wait a minute... by Nakor+BlueRider · 2009-07-31 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  Keep in mind though eBay didn't need to pay large sums of money for their sellers (or buyers for that matter) to be able to use Skype. In fact, it may have made more sense to try to strike up an advertising deal with Skype if that was their only concern.
54. Re:Wait a minute... by queequeg1 · 2009-07-31 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  Clauses can generally only be "hidden" if a contract prepared by one party is assented to by the other (think about your credit card agreements) and the assenting party didn't read it or otherwise have reason to notice the provision (i.e. because the type was tiny). This happens a lot in consumer transactions or other situations where the parties have very disparate bargaining power. I would be astonished if the agreement at issue here were not totally customized for this transaction, thus making it virtually impossible to hide any clauses (absent perhaps some fraudulent conduct, like one party surreptitiously exchanging a modified version of the contract immediately before execution of what would have otherwise been a mutually agreed upon contract).
  Unlike with consumer transactions, parties to commercial transactions are generally presumed to be fully aware of what they are signing up for. And this is the approach most courts will take for for run of the mill commercial parties. eBay is hardly a run of the mill business. They probably had an army of highly paid attorneys working on this deal.
55. Re:Wait a minute... by theycallmeB · 2009-07-31 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  Some here have pointed out the synergies eBay expected to get, like sellers adding Skype to their auction pages (as if non-paying bidders and people asking for international shipping on an auction that specifically says no are not annoying enough without giving them a way to call you), or how companies expand into unrelated markets all the time. But those arguments miss the real driving force in deals of this sort: brand-name CEOs, like Meg Whitman or Jack Welch, are all narcissistic empire builders(sorry its just a summary/announcement of the actual paper). It is not about the good of the company, or even the stockholders, but it is all about them.
  
  Why else would eBay really need to own Skype? Or a manufacturer of jet engines and electric generators get into the movie/TV business? Because it puts the CEO in the news and puts the CEO's stamp on the company. And if you view deals like eBay/Skype through the prism of a CEO's ego, then the fact that 'They paid an outrageous sum, didn't get full rights, and failed to leverage that technology in any way useful to the company' becomes disturbingly understandable.
56. Re:Wait a minute... by leuk_he · 2009-07-31 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm, Why would they nog milk the source code for every penny that it is worth? To write the code again will cost ebay some millions, but eBya will loose much more, becuase the new software will not have the look and feel and will loose customers. ebay they only bought the brand, not the network (???)
  The skype founders could license the code again and again, for huge amounts. I bet eBay could license it again, but refuses to pay the amount asked. Since the founders already got 2.6 gziilion for air, they are not stupid.
57. Re:Wait a minute... by AK+Marc · 2009-07-31 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  Other than seeing Skype as a good business, I dont get why eBay would need an another reason to buy it. It doesn't need to expand eBay's core business. It doesn't need to make their core business easier. It just needs to provide income for the parent company.
  
  If there is no overlap, then the two businesses will make less money together than separate. Not only will the two companies run exactly as they always have, but they will have to have an additional layer of management to manage them both. You don't just buy a business and not oversee it. And that means more cost. Because of that, purchases are generally done in a manner that saves some cost somewhere. Integrate billing, combine sales forces, share datacenter space, something. If none of those happen, then buying a minority share in a "good business" and not running it would be a better financial plan. Even worse, in this case, was the thought of integrating them, lots of cost evaluating that *after* buying it, then abandoning the idea. Buying a business isn't cheap. Selling a business isn't cheap. Evaluating a systems integration of two multi-billion dollar companies isn't cheap. And eBay did all three and has nothing to show for it. That's why they needed another reason to buy it. Their existing reasons lost them a lot of money. They should have spent the money to evaluate the integration they were looking for, made the "it won't work" determination before buying, and aborted the transaction. Instead, they bought the company before fully evaluating the integration. The executives at eBay screwed up big, like mutli-billion big screw up. And that's why you need more than "it sounds like a good business" when you spend billions for something.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
58. Re:Wait a minute... by AK+Marc · 2009-07-31 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  As a buyer that was screwed by a seller that preformed feedback blackmail against me, I vowed to never go back until it was fixed. Also, it should be more reliable. Sure, some people will leave false negatives, but for large numbers of transactions, that ratio should be the same. So if, say, 5% of all feedback is false negative, then 95% will be the new 100%. It's not like someone is targeting you specifically to run your numbers down, but with sellers performing feedback blackmail, they would never be evaluated fairly. The bad sellers were increasing in numbers and running off people that could tell the truth and have bad buyer numbers, or just let it go and the bad seller would maintain their 100% even though they are committing fraud.
  
  The change helped buyers because they could leave honest feedback without the fear of having lies placed against them. The change helped sellers because sellers getting more honest feedback should increase buyer confidence for the good ones and increase their sales.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
59. Re:Wait a minute... by nametaken · 2009-07-31 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  2 billion dollars worth?
  Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see it but...
60. Re:Wait a minute... by Joe+Jay+Bee · 2009-07-31 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  Funny you say that; IIRC, Skype was founded by some of the guys who worked on Kazaa. Might be wrong, but certainly seem to remember something like that.
  
  --
  I write bullshit
61. Re:Wait a minute... by raju1kabir · 2009-07-31 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  in a theoretical world where the economy keeps getting worse instead of rebounding
  In a theoretical world where the economy keeps getting worse, the rational choice is to cash out and buy a private island while you still can.
  
  --
  "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
62. Re:Wait a minute... by davester666 · 2009-07-31 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  Um, I don't think Skype is rolling in dough. Just from the limited number of people I know, they use Skype to call across the country and between continents using Skype-to-Skype for free, to avoid paying any fees.
  I just signed up for SkypeOut because my brother moved and doesn't have regular internet access, but that's also only $3/month for unlimited calling.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
63. Re:Wait a minute... by BoostFab · 2009-07-31 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  This is a prime example of impulse buying. I think they were on crack when signing that deal without it's core. Anyone wants to buy my banana peel?
64. Re:Wait a minute... by ashitaka · 2009-07-31 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  Richard Branson is a really smart guy and savvy businessman. He has the vision required to expand his companies but he also knows when to drop something before it becomes too much of a drain.
  Read his autobiography "Losing my Virginity" to see what sets him apart from the typical board of directors who are just trying to hop on the latest bandwagon.
  
  --
  If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
65. Re:Wait a minute... by commodore64_love · 2009-07-31 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  >>>As a buyer that was screwed by a seller that preformed feedback blackmail against me
  (1) There's no such thing because buyer feedback is not important. Example: I maintain separate buyer/seller accounts, and my buyer account was down near 70% because I negged bad sellers, and they negged me back. But I still bought tons of stuff. A seller cannot block buyers from purchasing just because feedback is low.
  (2) Has it not occured to you that a buyer can use feedback blackmail to get discounts or free items? That's the situation that exists now, and there's no way for a seller to warn future sellers to be wary.
  >>>some people will leave false negatives, but for large numbers of transactions, that ratio should be the same
  You say that so casually, but I only sell ~50 items a year - older games/videos that I don't want anymore. Therefore it only takes 1 false negative to fall to Ebay's minimum 98% standard, and end-up on their shit list.
  In fact I'm there right now with ~97.5% feedback because ONE buyer was annoyed that I sold him a VHS movie instead of DVD. It's not my fault - he didn't read the description which clearly stated VHS in the title and description - but he negged me anyway. It's not fair that he can neg me, but I can't neg him back to warn future sellers to be wary.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
66. Re:Wait a minute... by GPLHost-Thomas · 2009-07-31 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  Hi,
  We have an account at broadvoice.com for our incoming calls for the company, which is cool: we get unlimited calls to 35 countries, land line phones. Well, to be exact, it's un-metered, not really unlimited because there's still a hard limit, but let's say it's a lot more than what you'll be able to use. Then, as it still had pretty high rates for mobiles and others, we used some pre-paid accounts at voipian.com (with an amazing 6 euro cents per minutes to call my friends, family and work relatives in France: try to beat that!) and pennytel.com. Both were proven to have a really clear sound when calling the destinations we use often. The issue was that, with 3 providers, we needed to select all the time the cheapest one. And that's where open source comes handy.
  
  As we had 3 providers, we have setup FreeSwitch, which is, to what I could see, a WAY better than Asterisk. In fact, it was written by a former Aterisk contributor. And my colleague at GPLHost, has setup LCR. LCR? What's that? LEAST COST ROUTING! Yes, we have inserted all the prices in the server, plus it fetches all currency conversions rates each day with a cron, and the server does the work of selecting the cheapest provider depending on the extension that we are calling!!!
  
  Not forgetting to say, there's also some Skype to SIP gateways, so if you find Skype cheaper than the above (I'd really don't think you would, but anyway...), then you can still use Skype for outgoing (and incoming). But it's REALLY annoying to have to use a silly protocol, and hacks, so it's not worth it.
  
  Now, I have read so many times people are using Skype to Skype. WHY would you do that? Using any SIP software, without even a phone server you can call each other, without the heavy cost of using a proprietary software that crashes and all. I hate Skype as much as they hate Linux. Somebody has to explain to me why they still offer a Skype version for Etch and Ubuntu 7 only on their website, and that I had to search over and over to finally find a buggy version for Ubuntu 64 bits that half fits my Lenny desktop. Is it THAT HARD to recompile? Don't they do enough money to buy themselves a Xen server to be able to compile on few VMs? I think they just don't care.
67. Re:Wait a minute... by AK+Marc · 2009-07-31 13:05 · Score: 1
  
  (1) There's no such thing because buyer feedback is not important. Example: I maintain separate buyer/seller accounts, and my buyer account was down near 70% because I negged bad sellers, and they negged me back. But I still bought tons of stuff. A seller cannot block buyers from purchasing just because feedback is low.
  
  Yes, they can and did. I was blocked (bid rejected) by a number of auctions for my feedback rating. That you claim it didn't ever happen means you are a liar or have no idea of what actually happens. Bids were getting canceled often. I know, I was unable to buy something I wanted because of it.
  
  (2) Has it not occured to you that a buyer can use feedback blackmail to get discounts or free items? That's the situation that exists now, and there's no way for a seller to warn future sellers to be wary.
  
  Wait, how do you warn them other than feedback? In one sentence, you claim that "A seller cannot block buyers from purchasing just because feedback is low." and in the next say "there's no way for a seller to warn future sellers to be wary.". It's one or the other. You claim buyer feedback is irrelevant because they can't block you from bidding. So there's no reason to have buyer feedback right? Oh wait, you claim it's necessary to warn others. But if no one can block anyone, why warn them? You contradict yourself in trying to defend the broken system.
  
  It's not my fault - he didn't read the description which clearly stated VHS in the title and description - but he negged me anyway. It's not fair that he can neg me, but I can't neg him back to warn future sellers to be wary.
  
  So, you'd neg him out of spite. He bought it, paid for it on time, and all that. He performed everything in the sale he should. But you want to revenge neg him. And you are pissed that you can't lash out against him, not because he didn't pay on time, not because anything he did regarding the sale, but because something unrelated to the sale. That's why you shouldn't have the ability to rate him. You flat out stated you will not rate buyers on their timely payment or other things related to the sale, but that you want to use it to strike out at anyone that dares give you bad feedback. Yes, it sucks that idiots get the ability to give feedback. But the idiots are buying from everyone, not just you. Ebay needs to move to a 95% rather than 98% standard and everything would be fine. But you want revenge feedback. And that's not what it exists for. And that's why you (rightfully) can't do it anymore.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
68. Re:Wait a minute... by blind+biker · 2009-07-31 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  I use eBay.de most of the time, and a lot of sellers, especially if they have an eBay store, put their phone numbers on the auction page. Who/what is to stop the potential buyer from calling the seller and do just that - make a transaction without eBay?
  Maybe Skype would have made things worse? Perhaps, but my impression is, eBay's defense against the above scenario is quite vacuous as it is.
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
69. Re:Wait a minute... by Dan541 · 2009-07-31 15:25 · Score: 1
  
  Security through obscurity does not work.
  Firefox has an out-of-the-box feel.
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
70. Re:Wait a minute... by ustolemyname · 2009-07-31 20:36 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but it seems that with not much (in terms of functionality) to check over, you could make damn sure you could use what was there.
71. Re:Wait a minute... by Ilgaz · 2009-07-31 23:05 · Score: 1
  
  One issue and it ends all. eBay sellers doesn't want to talk with the buyers and buyers would buy someone else's product rather than having to voice call seller.
  eBay had amazing success because it was impossible on "old World", eBay enabled complete digital dealing with the seller. People doesn't want to talk with strangers for a 10 dollar product.
  If they weren't absolutely stupid, they could test it before buying. For example, do a business deal with Skype to have "Skype Me" button without buying it at first place. Let it track how many people click that button or enable it. In 1980s, Tramiel of Commodore had the same idea after getting $5M offer from a company just to figure the supply and price needs. He simply put an ad to NY Times for a product that doesn't exist, with purely predicted price and he simply used the number of callers. Cost $450 :)
  (it is from computer history museum video of him)
72. Re:Wait a minute... by commodore64_love · 2009-08-01 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  >>>Yes, they can and did. I was blocked (bid rejected) by a number of auctions for my feedback rating.
  We sellers do have options to block bidders based-upon Nonpayment Strikes (my setting is 2 strikes will block a bidder). We have *no* way of blocking people based on feedback. Even if you had a miserable 25% feedback, you can still bid on my auction during the last minute, and there's nothing I can do to stop you. That's why low feedback doesn't stop buyers from being buyers. (Oh and sellers are not allowed to cancel bids either - that could earn me suspension.)
  >>>Wait, how do you warn them other than feedback?
  Well about two years ago I had a buyer who had negative feedback ("this guy uses bad checks - be warned"), and I was still obligated to sell the item, but I told him that due to his bad feedback I will only accept paypal. He sent me a check anyway, which no surprise was confirmed fake by my bank. Anyway... that's how Buyer Feedback can be used to warn future sellers to be wary.
  But now, thanks to Ebay, we sellers have no warning. There's no way for us to know if our buyer is an honest person or a rampant scam artist. And yes there are scammers. Like the lady who bought a DTV converter box, and one day after I shipped it, she filed a chargeback thereby sucking eighty dollars from my account. In the old days, I could warn other sellers about this woman.
  But under the new rules she's free to just keep scamming sellers.
  I just find it disingenous that buyers are so damned concerned about themselves, but never care about the sellers losing money. Buyers have multiple layers of protection - ebay, paypal, Visa, and even the courts. Sellers have nothing to protect them. I apologize if I sound angry, but I've lost a lot of money from dishonest buyers, and I'm sick of it. No seller has ever succeeded in ripping me off (because of the layers of protection listed above), but I've lost several hundred dollars since 2002 due to buyer scams.
  >>>you'd neg him out of spite.
  No. I'd neg him because he doesn't know how to read, and that's exactly what the feedback would say - "This guy complained because he wanted a DVD, even though description clearly stated I was selling VHS" - Yes some buyers deserve to get negged for being idiots. If you disagree, then you're being unfair.
  >>>And that's why you (rightfully) can't do it anymore.
  I never said I was banned. I'm merely on their Ebay's "watch list". Once Christmas arrives and I go above 98% then I'll be okay again.
  >>>you are pissed that you can't lash out against him, not because he didn't pay on time, not because anything he did regarding the sale, but because something unrelated to the sale.
  >>>
  Unrelated? I mailed him the item I advertised (a VHS movie of Alien), and he filed with paypal for a refund because he wanted a DVD. Losing my money because some douche wants to "unpay" me IS related to the ongoing sale and IS deserving of a negative feedback. The fact that you think he doesn't deserve a neg leads me to believe you're as much of a douche as that guy.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
73. Re:Wait a minute... by commodore64_love · 2009-08-01 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  [edit] [bolding fixed]
  >>>Yes, they can and did. I was blocked (bid rejected) by a number of auctions for my feedback rating.
  We sellers do have options to block bidders based-upon Nonpayment Strikes (my setting is 2 strikes will block a bidder). We have *no* way of blocking people based on feedback. Even if you had a miserable 25% feedback, you can still bid on my auction during the last minute, and there's nothing I can do to stop you. That's why low feedback doesn't stop buyers from being buyers. (Oh and sellers are not allowed to cancel bids either - that could earn me suspension.)
  >>>Wait, how do you warn them other than feedback?
  Well about two years ago I had a buyer who had negative feedback ("this guy uses bad checks - be warned"), and I was still obligated to sell the item, but I told him that due to his bad feedback I will only accept paypal. He sent me a check anyway, which no surprise was confirmed fake by my bank. Anyway... that's how Buyer Feedback can be used to warn future sellers to be wary.
  But now, thanks to Ebay, we sellers have no warning. There's no way for us to know if our buyer is an honest person or a rampant scam artist. And yes there are scammers. Like the lady who bought a DTV converter box, and one day after I shipped it, she filed a chargeback thereby sucking eighty dollars from my account. In the old days, I could warn other sellers about this woman.
  But under the new rules she's free to just keep scamming sellers.
  I just find it disingenous that buyers are so damned concerned about themselves, but never care about the sellers losing money. Buyers have multiple layers of protection - ebay, paypal, Visa, and even the courts. Sellers have nothing to protect them. I apologize if I sound angry, but I've lost a lot of money from dishonest buyers, and I'm sick of it. No seller has ever succeeded in ripping me off (because of the layers of protection listed above), but I've lost several hundred dollars since 2002 due to buyer scams.
  >>>you'd neg him out of spite.
  No. I'd neg him because he doesn't know how to read, and that's exactly what the feedback would say - "This guy complained because he wanted a DVD, even though description clearly stated I was selling VHS" - Yes some buyers deserve to get negged for being idiots. If you disagree, then you're being unfair.
  >>>And that's why you (rightfully) can't do it anymore.
  I never said I was banned. I'm merely on their Ebay's "watch list". Once Christmas arrives and I go above 98% then I'll be okay again.
  >>>you are pissed that you can't lash out against him, not because he didn't pay on time, not because anything he did regarding the sale, but because something unrelated to the sale.
  >>>
  Unrelated? I mailed him the item I advertised (a VHS movie of Alien), and he filed with paypal for a refund because he wanted a DVD. Losing my money because some douche wants to "unpay" me IS related to the ongoing sale and IS deserving of a negative feedback. The fact that you think he doesn't deserve a neg leads me to believe you're as much of a douche as that guy.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
74. Re:Wait a minute... by AK+Marc · 2009-08-01 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  "It's not fair that he can neg me, but I can't neg him back to warn future sellers to be wary."
  
  No mention of wanting to neg him because he wronged you, but only that you wanted to neg him because he negged you.
  
  (Oh and sellers are not allowed to cancel bids either - that could earn me suspension.)
  
  I've had people with "minimum ratings of 10 to bid" and "must have good feedback" statements in auctions and then have my bids canceled when I bid on them anyway. Whether that could earn them a suspension is irrelevant to me. I was blocked by the sellers for feedback related reasons when I've never had a "non payment" against me (even though there was one where I reversed charges, the item never got here).
  
  Oh and on that one, having been blocked from bidding before, I didn't want to leave feedback. I never got the item, even after paying. He wouldn't refund my money. I'm surprised you said Paypal gave your guy back his money, because at the time Paypal wouldn't give me mine back. But that's why I only use a credit card, and chargebacks are great. He said I should have bought the insurance. I told him that by law, he has to get it to me and he should buy tracking for $0.25 or whatever to protect himself in making sure it got there, but that insurance only protects me once it gets here. And the whole insurance thing is absurd as well. It's like mortgage insurance. They have the homeowner pay the insurance premiums for the mortgage company. Insurance should be paid by the insured. If I receive a damaged item from Amazon, I send it back. From eBay, if I didn't buy insurance, it's somehow my fault? Nope, not according to the law. And if I were to pay a seller for insurance, all the carriers insure the sender, not the receiver, so I'd be paying someone else's insurance, when they are required by law to not just deliver the item in question, but in the condition stated. If it's broke when it gets to me, the eBay seller is legally responsible, regardless of any posturing otherwise.
  
  But the point is, if I had negged him for, as far as I could tell, never shipping the item, he'd have negged me back. Instead, I just did a chargeback and left no feedback. If he's a scammer, he's still doing it with no negative feedback. If he's someone that ships without tracking and the package was lost, then he's learned a lesson (but that is very rare, and it would be the only package "lost" headed to me ever, but almost all have tracking on them, so maybe the post office is more careful with those tracked).
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
75. Re:Wait a minute... by master811 · 2009-08-01 15:21 · Score: 1
  
  Except you can already contact the seller BEFORE the auction is over, so how is using skype any different from a simply message over ebay - they don't filter their messages, just add a warning saying that they give no protection to anything bought outside of eBay which I suppose is pretty obvious.
76. Re:Wait a minute... by commodore64_love · 2009-08-01 20:32 · Score: 1
  
  I had a seller make a similar "file with insurance" claim when I received a damaged LCD. At first I went-along with it but the post office said there's no box damage, therefore the item was already damaged when shipped, and the insurance voided.
  But again, buyers have protection. I simply mailed back the LCD with tracking at about $1.50 cost. Then I filed with paypal who looked at the tracking number, considered it "returned", and I got my money back. As I said before, to date, no seller has ever succeeded in scamming me. (But buyers? Yep some have scammed me, because there's nothing to protect sellers from loss. Like the lady who got herself a free DTV converter box when she filed a chargeback and sucked ~$80 from my account.)
  >>>if I had negged him for, as far as I could tell never shipping the item, he'd have negged me back.
  I would have negged him immediately. As I mentioned before my buyer ID, prior to the changes, was down near 75% because I never hesitated to neg dishonest bastards like "sethpackard" (a guy who sells scratched discs but advertises them as like new). Plus buyer IDs are disposable. At any time I can simply open a new account and have a fresh 100% feedback.
  Meanwhile...
  On my selling account I got negged by a buyer because he failed to read the "VHS" in the description, and thought he was getting a DVD. I tried to reason with him, but he was a hothead. And there was nothing I could do to protect either myself or future sellers, because we can't leave negatives even for douchebag buyers or scam artists. And now my reputation is damaged, and ditto my selling income. This is a "fairer" system? To leave sellers vulnerable to blackmail? Onloyh fi you consider seller sgo be dirtbags deserivng of begfin vghsitr upon!!!! (sigh)
  I am a good and honest person. I did not deserve to be negged and have my future income damaged.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
77. Re:Wait a minute... by commodore64_love · 2009-08-01 20:54 · Score: 1
  
  P.S.
  >>>No mention of wanting to neg him because he wronged you, but only that you wanted to neg him because he negged you.
  Smart sellers don't neg first. It's like shooting yourself in the foot. (-) "This guy complained because he wanted a DVD, even though description clearly stated I was selling VHS" --- That's what the guy deserved. I mailed him the item I advertised (a VHS movie of Alien), and he filed with paypal for a refund because he wanted a DVD. Losing my money because some douche wants to "unpay" me IS related to the ongoing sale and IS deserving of a negative feedback.
  The woman who filed a chargeback and STOLE my eighty dollars from me also deserved a negative. The fact that you think these buyers have earned shiny-green positives makes no logical sense to me, unless you are also a scam artist who enjoys ripping off sellers, and the elimination of negatives helps you achieve that goal more easily.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
78. Re:Wait a minute... by AK+Marc · 2009-08-02 20:51 · Score: 1
  
  Smart sellers don't neg first. It's like shooting yourself in the foot.
  
  That's what I said. They hold back to use it as punishment, rather than information to help others. Seller feedback blackmail is the norm, and you've only confirmed it.
  
  The fact that you think these buyers have earned shiny-green positives makes no logical sense to me,
  
  You first said that a buyer bought a VHS and gave you negative feedback because he wanted a DVD, so you gave negative feedback back. You left out all "lost money" claims. And I never said that someone that takes money fraudulently earned a positive. Again, you are making up things in order to make it easier to bash my statements. I stated that seller fraud was becoming a real issue, and it has been addressed by the new system. Buyer fraud is no better or worse under the new system. Therefore, the new system is better for all, buyers and sellers. Because fraud is decreased, buyers have more confidence and are more likely to return and buy more at higher prices, benefiting sellers. Since buyer fraud wasn't addressed, it is no better or worse than before. Sure, you like it less because you don't get to retaliate against those that wronged you, but that doesn't mean that the chances of getting defrauded are any higher.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
79. Re:Wait a minute... by AK+Marc · 2009-08-02 20:59 · Score: 1
  
  I am a good and honest person. I did not deserve to be negged and have my future income damaged.
  
  So? That's irrelevant to the issue of whether you get to give retaliatory feedback. So, you get to give them bad feedback. As an eBay know-it-all once told me, "Plus buyer IDs are disposable. At any time I can simply open a new account and have a fresh 100% feedback." so being able to leave negative feedback has zero to do with warning anyone and only to do with your desire to harm others. That desire will now go unfulfilled, and that leaves you grumpy. I understand. I really do. However, I disagree with your conclusions. You state that buyers accounts are worthless and negging them does no good. But your *only* complaint with the new system is that you can no longer give a negative feedback to a buyer account. You are intellectually inconsistent. "I don't like the new system because, though technically better than the old, it makes me feel powerless." That seems to be your stance, and I can accept it. However, the words you use are "the system is more flawed than before, but for reasons I have already stated are false, so I can't articulate any real reasons other than my insane ramblings of a bitter seller."
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
80. Re:Wait a minute... by commodore64_love · 2009-08-02 23:37 · Score: 1
  
  QED you think it's okay for buyers to steal from sellers, and for Ebay to do nothing to protect them, and no way to protect themselves or each other. You worhtless piece of ihst. You're probably a scamming buyer yourself. I'm going to track down your selling ID and make your life miserable as I neg you again and again.
  THEN I want you to come back here and tell me you still believe it's okay for sellers to have Zero defense and Zero method of negging buyers to warn other sellers.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
81. Re:Wait a minute... by commodore64_love · 2009-08-02 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  P.S..
  Maybe we should eliminate ALL negative feedback - for both buyers and sellers. Just have nothing but mandatory positives for everyone. But you wouldn't support that would you? No because you like to screw it to the sellers, because you HATE sellers. You love ruining sellers reputation because it makes you feel like a Big Bad Buyer screwing it to the man. You probably laughed when you you heard my stories about the woman who stole eighty dollars from me, or the guy who couldn't read the word "VHS" and left my an undeserved neg, or the paypal claim to try to get a refund.
  Your a Buyer on a mission to destroy seller's lives by negging them as often as possible. You LOVWE neggging them which is why you would Never support the idea of removing negatives from ALL feedback. You like the power it gives you to Blackmail a seller into giving your partial refund or free items or other perks.
  You love negging sellers too much.
  BTW I found your ebay ID. I'm looking forward to buying from you, then negging you, and then hearing you still claim that not being able to neg back me, the buyer, is a-okay. I'm sure you'll change your story fast and wish buyer negatives were allowed again.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
82. Re:Wait a minute... by AK+Marc · 2009-08-03 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  THEN I want you to come back here and tell me you still believe it's okay for sellers to have Zero defense and Zero method of negging buyers to warn other sellers.
  
  You stated that giving feedback to buyers is useless because you would just make more buyer accounts if it became a problem. So, when you say feedback on buyers would have some effect, you are directly contradicting yourself. Are you lying now, or were you lying then?
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
83. Re:Wait a minute... by AK+Marc · 2009-08-03 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  BTW I found your ebay ID.
  
  You are lying again. Go ahead, post it here if you did it. I'll be waiting, watching the tumbleweeds. You are a big lying, cheating, bluffing sack of shit that says giving feedback to buyers is useless because they'll just change their IDs, then you say it's necessary, all in the same post. You can't even remain consistent for 30 seconds. And then you manage to track me down? Yet another lie. Post my ID here where we all can see it. Go ahead. I'll be waiting...
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
Just replace the code by cullenfluffyjennings · 2009-07-30 21:02 · Score: 1

It seems to me that it would not be that hard to just replace the code that is a problem
1. Re:Just replace the code by MrCoke · 2009-07-30 21:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Brave claim you make here since you haven't seen the code.
2. Re:Just replace the code by TheP4st · 2009-07-30 21:55 · Score: 1
  
  Which of course is why they are going pay an army of lawyers a dump truck of money to maybe solve a problem that a couple of programmers could do at a presumably significantly lower cost.
  
  --
  "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
3. Re:Just replace the code by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 22:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Skype goes SIP?
  Ebay licences a personalised copy of Counterpath X-Lite or SJPhone?
  Ebay sells their rights to Skype - on ebay?
  Lawyers make a fortune sorting out this mess?
4. Re:Just replace the code by linhares · 2009-07-30 23:03 · Score: 1
  
  The code?
5. Re:Just replace the code by mea37 · 2009-07-31 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  Funny how every problem that one doesn't have the facts to size, must be easy.
  Besidss, the article is too vague to tell if this would work. If the licensing includes patent licensing, then they can't simply replace the code. Either they would have to find a new (presumably innovative -- i.e. not something you can assume will be inexpensive) way to do what the licensed software does while still interoperating with the existing system or they would still need to license the patents.
6. Re:Just replace the code by mccoma · 2009-07-31 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  You must be in management :)
7. Re:Just replace the code by nametaken · 2009-07-31 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  That will never happen. SIP is great for desktop phone to server comm on a LAN. It's terrible as a replacement for Skpye.
Old bait-and-switch by Opportunist · 2009-07-30 21:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

1. Provide a good service, a tool, a format.
2. Make it cheap.
3. Wait 'til everyone uses it because it was cheap.
4. Jack up the price.
5. Profit.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
1. Re:Old bait-and-switch by MemoryDragon · 2009-07-30 21:31 · Score: 1
  
  Does not work in case of skype you always can use google voice talk (which works better btw. skype is inferior) or directly SIP!
2. Re:Old bait-and-switch by asdf7890 · 2009-07-30 21:56 · Score: 1
  
  1. Provide a good service, a tool, a format. 2. Make it cheap. 3. Wait 'til everyone uses it because it was cheap. 4. Jack up the price. 5. Profit.
  1. Provide a good service, a tool, a format.
  2. Make it cheap.
  3. Wait 'til everyone uses it because it was cheap.
  4. Sell for an overly inflated price to a big company by convincing them that it might be the next big thing (look at all those users you could exploit!) and that if they don't buy one of their competitors will.
  5. Profit.
  6. Sit back and watch the company that bought the thing struggle to make a return on the investment while you relax and enjoy the benefits of being on the receiving end of that investment.
  
  Nice work if you can get it!
3. Re:Old bait-and-switch by gilgongo · 2009-07-30 22:13 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Does not work in case of skype you always can use google voice talk (which works better btw. skype is inferior) or directly SIP!
  One of Skype's big advantages is conference calling (and now, desktop sharing as well). I don't think either Google Talk nor any SIP providers I know do that. Ekiga would seem to be the nearest open alternative to Skype. Odd how the "downloads" page on ekiga.org makes no mention of their Windows version, which according to their wiki (where a Win32 download link appears), appears to be released almost in parallel to the Linux versions. Oh well, I'll mail them about that.
  
  --
  "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
4. Re:Old bait-and-switch by Tony+Hoyle · 2009-07-30 22:25 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Conferencing works on every serious SIP system, and has done since long before skype was even popular (and definately long before it supported any such features).
5. Re:Old bait-and-switch by beneppel · 2009-07-31 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  The biggest advantage skype has is the number of people who use it. Even my granny uses it - and if you mentioned SIP, file sharing or teleconferencing, you wouldn't get much of a response.
6. Re:Old bait-and-switch by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-31 01:23 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  "One of Skype's big advantages is conference calling (and now, desktop sharing as well). I don't think either Google Talk nor any SIP providers I know do that."
  I don't use VOIP at all, but a year or two ago when I looked at SIPphone, I thought they had conference calling by enabling a single number to be dialed in by anyone and all callers would all be linked up. Didn't sound very secure but I didn't look into the details.
  I did a quick Google and SIPphone has a press release from May 17, 2004 about enabling or starting to enable conference calling.
  So I'm not sure what this "big advantage" is. I've even read MS had conference calling in their pseudo-VOIP app (which I've forgotten the name of).
  Personally, I've never understood why anyone uses Skype. Seems a bunch of idiot users drove the adoption of the system, much like AOL Instant Messaging, a popular system that was adopted by the technically insufficient masses.
7. Re:Old bait-and-switch by raju1kabir · 2009-07-31 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  One of Skype's big advantages is conference calling (and now, desktop sharing as well). I don't think either Google Talk nor any SIP providers I know do that.
  You misunderstand at a fundamental level. I have been doing conference calling with SIP for over 7 years. With SIP, you can make your calls do whatever you want. It's not a question of what party X, Y, or Z supports - it's a question of what you can imagine and make use of.
  
  --
  "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
8. Re:Old bait-and-switch by beaviz · 2009-07-31 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  Conferencing works on every serious SIP system, and has done since long before skype was even popular (and definately long before it supported any such features).
  You're missing the point. Skype isn't about being serious. Skype is about installing a simple binary with a few clicks, and then BAM, you got all these nice features without having to bother your system administrators. It's quite persuasive.
  (btw, I'm a SIP administrator)
9. Re:Old bait-and-switch by klui · 2009-07-31 20:42 · Score: 1
  
  You can have up-to-4-way conference using Google Voice as long as you have call waiting.
Something is missing here by dynamo · 2009-07-30 21:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

Why would the founders of Skype be threatening to revoke the licensing agreement? What is their side?
And why would eBay pay billions of dollars for something without some guarantee that they'd be able to run it for a while?
This is like a super-sized version the story about the music industry claiming that it's ridiculous that people would think they could forever listen to their DRM music.
On an individual level, people allow themselves to be screwed for a few dollars at a time, just to be able to listen to the music but - paying more than 2 billion for most of something without a contract ensuring that it's not a total waste of money? Wow.
1. Re:Something is missing here by qbast · 2009-07-30 21:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Why would the founders of Skype be threatening to revoke the licensing agreement? What is their side?
  Isn't it obvious? "Gimme more money!"
  
  And why would eBay pay billions of dollars for something without some guarantee that they'd be able to run it for a while?
  Their lawyers allowed themselves to get suckered? There is lesson to all those FUDing about how using open sourced pieces of software makes company vulnerable to legal problems. Guess what? With closed source the problem is the same, only worse - you don't have several widely used and well understood licenses - every company creates its own and every time you sign one you risk your legal team missing some well-hidden minefield.
  
  This is like a super-sized version the story about the music industry claiming that it's ridiculous that people would think they could forever listen to their DRM music.
  On an individual level, people allow themselves to be screwed for a few dollars at a time, just to be able to listen to the music but - paying more than 2 billion for most of something without a contract ensuring that it's not a total waste of money? Wow.
  Wow indeed.
2. Re:Something is missing here by Yvanhoe · 2009-07-30 23:00 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if I were there, I would try to get everything I could, to totally steal money from eBay, give half of what I won to EFF and say "see ? with open standard, and without stupid software patents, this would not have happened".
  
  Or I could make a discount with the insurance that Skype will become and stay GPLed.
  
  But more probably they are just fighting to get some money, cashing out legally on human stupidity.
  
  --
  The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
3. Re:Something is missing here by intheshelter · 2009-07-31 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  Being a conspiracy theory fan, my two cents is the government is paying them to not renew the license. Several governments already are miffed that they can't eavesdrop on Skype calls. If the government banned Skype because they can't monitor it then there would be some unwanted publicity. I think they are paying these guys to make the problem go away quietly via a licensing dispute that no one cares about.
4. Re:Something is missing here by SunTzuWarmaster · 2009-07-31 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  Why would the founders of Skype be threatening to revoke the licensing agreement? What is their side?
  Because they like having money and would like more of it. Legally, they can rip off eBay in a shoddy deal and potentially get another large sum of money.
  Also, they retained the patents, so they are free to rebuild their own software again and launch it under a new name (after getting a new network).
5. Re:Something is missing here by linhares · 2009-07-31 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  Here is more evidence of conspiracy! 0 results found. It is now clear that they are messing with our brains. You gotta be crazy to trust your bodily fluids there.
6. Re:Something is missing here by greed · 2009-07-31 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  I'll second that. We're deprecating proprietary software where I work, for exactly this reason. Two companies selling proprietary software we use in our product have decided to play Silly Buggers.
  One of them claims that there is no provision for distributing the runtime code of version 4.3 of their product, while version 4.2 and earlier all allow that. They claim, since most users are in-house government sites, no-one other than us cares about this clause missing in the new license. So we're eliminating our dependency on their code, rather than being held to ransom.
  Another company claims that, because our company is now owned differently than it used to be (single owner vs. multiple owners, but private and untraded in both cases), we've lost all licenses present and past, including the unlimited right-to-use ones.
  Needless to say, neither situation makes us want to pay for renewals or upgrades. We may not be willing to comply with the GPL, but boy are we happy to go along with the LGPL, BSD, MIT, XOpen, Apache, CDDL, and so on licenses.
  The fact that "support" we usually get tends to be, "Oh, don't do that" or "why would you want to do that?" also doesn't make us enthralled with proprietary software.
Ideal time to make it use open standards by worip · 2009-07-30 21:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

Then chuck out the propriety code and make it work with open standards. Or if that does not exist, create an open standard and do the first reference implementation. I'm assuming e-bay has the right to distribute the executable under the Skype name.

--
A picture is worth exactly 1024 words.
1. Re:Ideal time to make it use open standards by TheP4st · 2009-07-30 22:23 · Score: 1
  
  Then chuck out the propriety code and make it work with open standards..
  Which may not be an option, the important parts of the code may be covered by a software patent with USPTO. Seing how this relates to RIAA's saying "Don't Expect DRMed Music To Work Forever" albeit on a much greater scale than your mp3 stopping working on day, and quite possibly software patents I can't say that I am not following this with a certain amount of confusing pleasure.
  
  --
  "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
2. Re:Ideal time to make it use open standards by worip · 2009-07-30 22:27 · Score: 1
  
  Which may not be an option, the important parts of the code may be covered by a software patent with USPTO.
  SIP is the obvious choice for this, which is an open standard. Integration with any type of telephony service should be much more straight forward.
  
  --
  A picture is worth exactly 1024 words.
3. Re:Ideal time to make it use open standards by Queltor · 2009-07-31 00:32 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Can open-source solutions maintain Skype's level of security?
  Skype Encryption Stumps German Police
  http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSL21173920071122
  Expert: Skype calls nearly impossible for NSA to intercept
  http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/index.php?p=919
4. Re:Ideal time to make it use open standards by Hurricane78 · 2009-07-31 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  Have you never heard of SIP? Aha VoIP. Which Skype is a cheap, bad, proprietary knock-off of it?
  That's like not knowing youtube, but knowing the cheap underclass copy myvideo.de. (Which sadly is true for some people I knew.)
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Dupe? Oh, no, different company... by argent · 2009-07-30 21:25 · Score: 5, Funny

Didn't we just have this a few years ago... oh no, that was SCO forgetting to actually buy UNIX from Novell. I wonder how many other companies will turn out not to own the software they think they own?
1. Re:Dupe? Oh, no, different company... by siddesu · 2009-07-30 21:45 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Your story is an exceptionally good analogy, except for the fact that SCO never developed Unix nor had any relationship with IBM, while the software that is the topic of the FTA was developed and sold to eBay by the very same people who are now revoking the license. And it seems eBay admits to those points in a SEC filing. BTW, this is the main point of the story.
  On topic -- can eBay really be that stupid?
2. Re:Dupe? Oh, no, different company... by gilgongo · 2009-07-30 22:15 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Didn't we just have this a few years ago... oh no, that was SCO forgetting to actually buy UNIX from Novell. I wonder how many other companies will turn out not to own the software they think they own?
  Also, don't forget that RIM were nearly at the point of having to close down Blackberry wireless operations in the US a couple of years go for very similar reasons.
  
  --
  "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
3. Re:Dupe? Oh, no, different company... by linhares · 2009-07-30 22:18 · Score: 1
  
  can eBay really be that stupid?
  yes
4. Re:Dupe? Oh, no, different company... by argent · 2009-07-30 22:23 · Score: 1
  
  Your story is an exceptionally good analogy, except for the fact that SCO never developed Unix nor had any relationship with IBM
  Where did I mention IBM? Oh, I didn't!
5. Re:Dupe? Oh, no, different company... by argent · 2009-07-30 22:27 · Score: 1
  
  Nah, that was a patent dispute. Those are a dime a dozen. You can't move without tripping over a submarine patent.
  This isn't a company developing software on their own and then discovering some troll has patented something obvious they depend on. This is a company buying a complete product, and forgetting to actually make sure the product they thought they were buying was listed in the contract.
6. Re:Dupe? Oh, no, different company... by linhares · 2009-07-30 22:49 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't a company developing software on their own and then discovering some troll has patented something obvious they depend on. This is a company buying a complete product, and forgetting to actually make sure the product they thought they were buying was listed in the contract.
  "MY FELLOW IBMERs, I present to you the IBM PC, a project executed on record time by relying on partners to develop the irrelevant parts of our product, like the keyboard; the operating system; and the CPU". [APPLAUSE]
Worse than bait-and-switch by bledri · 2009-07-30 21:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

1. Provide a good service, a tool, a format.
2. Make it cheap.
3. Wait 'til everyone uses it because it was cheap.
4. Jack up the price.
5. Profit.
eBay paid $2.6B for Skype, so I think the handful of people that created it made a (ridiculous) profit. eBay bought Skype and let the founders keep the rights to part of the software which is amazingly stupid IMHO. TFA doesn't even say why Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis revoked the license, but after getting $2.6B they better have a damn good reason. This blog seems to imply the founders want to buy Skype back. [1]
[1] Preview didn't show the line, so just in case:
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/skype_as_we_know_it_may_not_exist_much_longer_ebay.php

--
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
1. Re:Worse than bait-and-switch by linhares · 2009-07-30 22:12 · Score: 1
  
  I think it goes more like this:
  1. Provide a good service, a tool, a format.
  2. Make it cheap.
  3. Wait 'til everyone uses it because it was cheap.
  4. MAKE MORE MONEY by destroying value
  5. Jack up the price.
  6. Profit.
  This story to me is so similar to the IBM one. Skype seems to be the reason the iPhone is not in China yet, and that it will have no wifi. Telecoms despise skype. Why do I suddenly visualize this meeting of world telecom hotshots in Davos arranging to get 1B/year to shut down skype???
  Not that it will work on the long run, of course. Google/Ekiga/even MS and Apple and Facebook are probably interested in this space.
Payback time ! by xscess · 2009-07-30 21:34 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Countless have lost money on eBay due to gross negligences of eBay and Paypal.
Now its payback time. Thanks guys (Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis).
Solution by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 21:38 · Score: 1, Insightful

They should open-source Skype and let the community work around the problem.
a nelson moment by cas2000 · 2009-07-30 21:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Ha ha"
proprietary code. what else would you expect?
These aren't good people... by supersat · 2009-07-30 21:39 · Score: 3, Informative

Remember that before they started Skype, the founders of Skype created KaZaA, notorious for its immense crapfest of malware. I'm not at all surprised that they're trying to screw over eBay now.
Of course, not that eBay is much better...
1. Re:These aren't good people... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-31 01:02 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  The founders of Skype did found KaZaA, but they sold it off before the malware infestation took over.
2. Re:These aren't good people... by fulldecent · 2009-07-31 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  tag this article: gotchabitch
  
  --
  -- I was raised on the command line, bitch
Re:Ekiga by noundi · 2009-07-30 21:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

Up until 3.0 Ekiga did suck dick, I agree. And prior to Ekiga the previous GnomeMeeting worked fine. Ekiga has only been sucking between 2.0 up until 3.0. If you haven't tried it lately I recommend the later versions. Good news is that it's a thriving project with constant updates, just look at the changelogs for the 3.2.X series alone. Whatever it is it's completely free and while it has sucked dick at certain times at least it will never let its users to get it up the ass.

--
I am the lawn!
Open Source answer: Ekiga by David+Gerard · 2009-07-30 21:45 · Score: 1

Ekiga!
(On the GNUphone.)

--
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Oovoo by PhilHibbs · 2009-07-30 21:46 · Score: 2, Informative

I sometimes use Oovoo instead of skype, as it can do 3-way video calling for free, and more-way calls if one of you has a paid account. It's not quite as good as Skype for 2-way calls, but the 3-way video is nice to have.
1. Re:Oovoo by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-31 03:02 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Well, I'd rather have a video of the 3-way :)
2. Re:Oovoo by sunwolf · 2009-07-31 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  Oovoo is the most visually assaulting application I have had the displeasure of using in recent times.
3. Re:Oovoo by PhilHibbs · 2009-07-31 20:17 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah it's pretty ugly. Do you know a better free 3-way video calling application?
Nice by should_be_linear · 2009-07-30 21:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

On Linux, Skype is buggy as hell. It would be actually good if they go away and someone like Google step in with something functional. They need it anyway for their Chrome OS.

--
839*929
1. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 22:08 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  On Linux, Skype is buggy as hell. It would be actually good if they go away and someone like Google step in with something functional. They need it anyway for their Chrome OS.
  Crap. Why does it always have to be Google? Google my ass! There are lots of other companies out there or even non-profit oriented projects (think Ekiga or OpenWengo, for instance) that could do the same or _at_least_ near the level of quality as Skype. Posts like these reflect the crack-smoking and stupid mentality of everyone here that Google is the infallible shiny savior of the world. You're forgetting that it is just another profit-driven company.
2. Re:Nice by linhares · 2009-07-30 22:38 · Score: 1
  
  Crap. Why does it always have to be Google? Google my ass! There are lots of other companies out there or even non-profit oriented#####THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN INTERCEPTED AND THE USER HAS BEEN TERMINATED, FOLLOWING PROTOCOL A45F.
3. Re:Nice by sulimma · 2009-07-30 22:44 · Score: 1
  
  Well, long before there was the Skype protocol there was SIP, an open standard.
  There are dozens of SIP implementations around and thousand of SIP to POTS and POTS to SIP gateway providers that allow you to call landlines and provide a phone number.
  When Skype was invented it was a solution without a problem, but the marketing clearly was better than for any SIP implementation so it prevailed.
  Also, the paradox of choice scares people away from sip, but it actually is a GOOD thing that there are so many providers around as they are all interoperable.
4. Re:Nice by TheRaven64 · 2009-07-30 23:06 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Exactly. Pick up any Nokia phone with WiFi and there's a SIP client you can use. It's integrated into the rest of the system, and you can set it as the preferred method of calling when there is a WiFi signal. You have the choice of a number of different SIP to POTS gateways, so you can pick whichever one gives the best value for the kind of calling you do.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
5. Re:Nice by xous · 2009-07-30 23:17 · Score: 1
  
  It's actually not that hard.
  If you want portability across *nix variations use OSS as ALSA has an emulation layer. If you only need Linux support use ALSA.
6. Re:Nice by nature_geek · 2009-07-31 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  Not only is Linux Skype buggy as hell, but they have not bothered to release the updated versions of the software since the 2.0.0.x release (Windows is on 4.1.x). There are still a wide range of features that which Skype claims, but are completely unavailable to Linux users.
7. Re:Nice by Dhalka226 · 2009-07-31 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  On Linux, Skype is buggy as hell. It would be actually good if they go away and someone like Google step in with something functional.
  Yeah, it would be fantastic for the millions of Skype users if it went away.
  Except no, it wouldn't. It might be good for you if they did, assuming Google or whoever replaces them actually cares any more about Linux than Skype/eBay did. For everybody else it's an unwanted hassle at best.
8. Re:Nice by nametaken · 2009-07-31 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  Typical horseshit.
  At the time getting any sip solution working was a bonafide pain in the ass. Most solutions AT LEAST involved getting a client working, getting around your local firewalling, finding a service provider to hook it up to, and dealing with addressing.
  Skype managed to hammer down all of the problems associated with PC VoIP in one solid hit.
  To date I still don't know of a solution that challenges it's blend of simplicity and features, though I haven't actively looked for one in a long time. But lets face it, a SIP client is not a challenger to Skpye.
9. Re:Nice by sulimma · 2009-07-31 21:55 · Score: 1
  
  For a fair comparison you need to compare Skype with SIP clients that are delivered pre configured by the service provider. Those usually work out of the box.
  So you start by finding a service provider (as you do in the case of skype) and if any of the other task that you describe still need to be done you ask the provider for help. Sipgate for example provides configuration files for dozens of SIP devices.
  If you want a general solution you need configurability and this means you can configure it wrongly.
10. Re:Nice by TheRaven64 · 2009-08-02 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  That's strange. Mine (N80) didn't ship with SIP, but a firmware update added the client. From their support forums, it seems that they are planning on reintroducing the SIP client in future models; presumably pressure from networks caused them to remove it and they're looking for a way to sneak it back in.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:No problem, there ar Open Source apps. by linhares · 2009-07-30 21:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

not trolling here... can you make calls to landlines or cell phones from within Ekiga?
A few years ago by Dunbal · 2009-07-30 21:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

I used to communicate with my wife when she was out of town on business. The fortune 500 co she worked for had no problem letting her install Skype on her laptop, so it worked for both of us - free computer to computer calls when she was in Turkey, Argentina, Hong Kong, etc. Our biggest problem was the time zone difference.
Then about a year ago the company's IT department decided that Skype was "bad", and disabled it on all company laptops. My solution? An ubuntu live CD and ekiga. Now we can communicate again when she's away.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
1. Re:A few years ago by dalmiroy2k · 2009-07-31 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  She can always use Portable Skype in her Notebook.
  As long as her internet connection isn't filtered she won't get in trouble.
  http://portableapps.com/node/246
2. Re:A few years ago by cryfreedomlove · 2009-07-31 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  2 questions:
  
  What was the reason the IT dept gave for the 'badness' of Skype?
  
  Why didn't your wife just tell her boss, "No Skype? No travel."
3. Re:A few years ago by Locklin · 2009-07-31 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  From what I understand, Skype's NAT traversal can cause security vulnerabilities for the local network and computer. Of course, that's why Skype often works when SIP based VOIP clients (etc. ekiga) have trouble.
  (yes ekiga is getting very good, but it needs UPnP for naive users and those circumstances where you don't have access to the router)
  
  --
  "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
4. Re:A few years ago by Dunbal · 2009-07-31 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Why didn't your wife just tell her boss, "No Skype? No travel."
  My wife is senior management in charge of a whole continent, but unfortunately doesn't sit on the board. Therefore she does what she's told. Secondly, Skype doesn't work on the company's VPN because the company blocks it, and due to the proprietary software on the company laptop, the only way she can get online is through the VPN (unless we boot ubuntu - fortunately all the encryption and proprietary stuff is at the Windows level not the BIOS level). And finally, these guys are so damned paranoid, once my wife visited my personal web page from the company laptop and sure enough a few hours later I got a hit from - corporate HQ on the same webpage.
  An email I once sent her containing the word "erotic" (although the email wasn't at all erotic) never got to her, so they read and filter her mail too. No, I don't think she wants to rock that boat... just take your 6 figures, bonsues and stock, and keep working...
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
5. Re:A few years ago by raju1kabir · 2009-07-31 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  Why didn't your wife just tell her boss, "No Skype? No travel."
  Or "no Skype, huge bill for personal calls on the company mobile phone."
  That aside, though, with a cheap triband phone you can stay in touch for very little money pretty much anywhere on earth. Just buy prepaid SIM cards and forward a VoIP number from your home country to them using a service like voipcheap.com. For example, I was just in France. I paid EUR10 for a SIM card and then my incoming calls were EUR0.07/minute. In some European countries the direct-dial rates are even less. In the Netherlands Lebara effectively charges EUR0.045/minute for calls to the USA and many other countries dialed straight from your cell phone.
  
  --
  "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
6. Re:A few years ago by z-j-y · 2009-07-31 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  wait a second, you had a chance to not talk to your wife, and you blew it?
7. Re:A few years ago by Dunbal · 2009-08-01 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  She's my second wife, and I actually enjoy this one... technically she's not even my wife, we just live together. :)
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
8. Re:A few years ago by Dunbal · 2009-08-01 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  It IS filtered. And monitored. It's THEIR VPN, so they pretty much can do whatever they want with it.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:Ekiga by wall0159 · 2009-07-30 22:05 · Score: 1

"it will never let its users to get it up the ass."

Did you just link to the same conversation in which you're posting? ;-)
Re:No problem, there ar Open Source apps. by gilgongo · 2009-07-30 22:20 · Score: 1

not trolling here... can you make calls to landlines or cell phones from within Ekiga?
I'll just google that one for you:
https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ekiga/+question/71276
I think in the light of this Skype business, the Ekiga home page needs to raise its game considerably in terms of the information it provides. Looking at ekiga.org you can't immediately tell what it does, or even if there's a Windows version (which there is). I think it must get the prize for an Open Source project hiding the most light under a bushel.

--
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
i feel a reimplementation comming on by timmarhy · 2009-07-30 22:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

these guys are shooting the goose that laid the golden egg. ebay will merely strip out the offending code and implement their own solution. maybe a little painful but i can assure you they aren't throwing up their arms and saying this isn't fixable, lets give up on that 2 billion bucks we spent...

--
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
1. Re:i feel a reimplementation comming on by TheSunborn · 2009-07-30 22:36 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Except for the fact, that this would require all their 50 million users to upgrade their Skype software. Because Ebay can't make an compability version of the prodotol due to patents.
  (And many of those skype installs are on mobile phones, where an upgrade may not be that easy for most users).
2. Re:i feel a reimplementation comming on by timmarhy · 2009-07-30 23:14 · Score: 1
  
  so what, no software vendor has ever rolled out a major upgrade before? even given the problems with firmware updates it's not impossible, but i'm telling you it's a fuck load more possible then ebay walking away from a 2 billion dollar investment as the summary implies.
  
  --
  If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
3. Re:i feel a reimplementation comming on by linhares · 2009-07-31 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  You're right. ebay is planning to IPO skype, so it's probably developing an alternative, publicly, to counteract the DRM blackmail.
Paving the way for adding costs? by Delkster · 2009-07-30 22:30 · Score: 1

Could this be used for paving the way to the end of free-of-charge services, or to make other such changes to the service?
If you try to turn a free-of-charge service into a paid service for an existing and established user base, the users will revolt, but if you first threaten that you may have to take away the service altogether and then go "ah, but we just might be able to save it if you start paying us so that we can afford the new licensing costs...", business users might be relieved that they can avoid the greater one-time expense of switching to a different system and be much more willing to start paying for the service.
Re:No problem, there ar Open Source apps. by Shikaku · 2009-07-30 22:34 · Score: 1

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Ekiga#Register%20to%20a%20commercial%20VoIP%20provider%20(landline%20and%20mobile%20phones)
Yes.
Whatever happened to Wengo? by schweini · 2009-07-30 22:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

On a related note: there used to be this nice open source skype-alternative (using SIP and all that) called openwengo, but i cant find it anymore. the company also offered a flash based SIP client (wengovisio), and a flash-based teleconferencing thing (wengomeetings), but i cant find any of them anymore. quite a pity.

a little side-rant: the person that designed the SIP protocol in such an incredibly NAT-unfriendly manner should be drawn and quartered. I know there are work-arounds, but i blame this NAT-unfriendliness for the rise of skype, and now we're stuck with that nonstandard closed protocol crap. I think it was the glorious idea of incorporating the IP addresses inside the SIP packets, or something like that. sigh.

on a related note: whatever happened to Google's open-source VoIP thingy that incorporated with XMPP/Jabber? I think it was called 'Jingle', but I haven't heard a lot about it since then. And what protocol is Google using for their video-chat in gmail?
1. Re:Whatever happened to Wengo? by linhares · 2009-07-30 22:57 · Score: 1
  
  Google Talk uses libjingle. From the wikipedia article: "As of March 2008[update], the Jingle standards are marked as being 'proposed', meaning that it has not yet been approved by the XMPP Standards Foundation but is considered for advancement to the next stage of the standards process. In June 2009, on Jingle specifications website is notice: "Implementations are encouraged and the protocol is appropriate for deployment in production systems, but some changes to the protocol are possible before it becomes a Final Standard."
  The libjingle library, used by Google Talk to implement Jingle, has been released to the public under a Berkeley-style license. However, the version of the protocol that libjingle (and by extension Google Talk) implements differs from that published by the XMPP Software Foundation. Currently, most software which advertises support for Jingle is limited to Google Talk compatibility."
2. Re:Whatever happened to Wengo? by xtracto · 2009-07-30 23:00 · Score: 1
  
  Well, some say it is dead while others say that it is not
  Apparently, it is now called QuteCom
  However, it seems its kind of in a "sleeping" state
  
  --
  Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
3. Re:Whatever happened to Wengo? by TheRaven64 · 2009-07-30 23:15 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  the person that designed the SIP protocol in such an incredibly NAT-unfriendly manner should be drawn and quartered
  SIP was created in 1996. Widespread deployment of NAT didn't begin until several years later. Back then, everyone thought we'd have moved to IPv6 before v4 addresses became sufficiently scarce that NAT looked like a good idea.
  
  whatever happened to Google's open-source VoIP thingy that incorporated with XMPP/Jabber? I think it was called 'Jingle', but I haven't heard a lot about it since then.
  It's still called Jingle. It's been published as a series of XEPs (XMPP Enhancement Proposals; think XMPP-specific RFCs), and anyone can implement it. It has a number of transports (via proxy, in-band, direct connection, STUN) and can be used to negotiate pretty much any stream connection.
  
  And what protocol is Google using for their video-chat in gmail?
  Jingle.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
4. Re:Whatever happened to Wengo? by Digana · 2009-07-31 01:21 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It became qutecom.
  The code is sitll there, but the project hasn't seen many updates recently, and development has slowed down to almost nothing. :-(
5. Re:Whatever happened to Wengo? by harmonise · 2009-07-31 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  the person that designed the SIP protocol in such an incredibly NAT-unfriendly manner should be drawn and quartered. I know there are work-arounds, but i blame this NAT-unfriendliness for the rise of skype, and now we're stuck with that nonstandard closed protocol crap.
  NAT is the problem, not SIP. We'll all be better off when we can get rid of NAT and all of the problems that it causes.
  
  --
  Cory Doctorow talking about cloud computing makes as much sense as George W Bush talking about electrical engineering.
6. Re:Whatever happened to Wengo? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-31 02:31 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Actually, I think the advantage that the Skype protocol has over SIP is that Skype uses a single IP port for everything, whereas SIP uses multiple ports: One for signalling, one a different one or more for media (RTP).
  Skype does not have to get the firewall to open up additional ports, whereas SIP does.
  In SIP, this is supposed to be addressed with STUN and ICE, but still doesn't always work.
  Jason Fischl recently joined Skype, and I believe his mandate was to integrate SIP into the Skype client. Good news, now skype will suffer, err... I mean can enjoy all the half-audio and no-audio problems of SIP!
7. Re:Whatever happened to Wengo? by AceJohnny · 2009-07-31 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  on a related note: whatever happened to Google's open-source VoIP thingy that incorporated with XMPP/Jabber? I think it was called 'Jingle', but I haven't heard a lot about it since then.
  True, Jingle adoption has been very slow in other clients than GTalk, which is a crying shame. I expect it was for technical reasons: it isn't easy for client developers to easily integrate Jingle in their existing clients, and NAT-traversal (through the ICE method) drives people crazy.
  But it's slowly getting there. The most popular Jabber-specific client, Psi, finally supports Jingle-Voice (though not video) in a cross platform way in the latest version 0.13, released a couple of days ago.
  
  --
  Misleading titles? Inflammatory blurbs? Keep in mind that Slashdot is a tabloid.
8. Re:Whatever happened to Wengo? by raju1kabir · 2009-07-31 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  the person that designed the SIP protocol in such an incredibly NAT-unfriendly manner should be drawn and quartered.
  SIP was around long before NAT got big. And the workarounds are quite mature these days.
  I have X-Lite on my laptop and often travel with a little Linksys SPA box as well. Both of these are configured to use STUN and talk with my public-IP-having Asterisk box which is in turn configured to deal with NAT. I travel all the time, use new networks almost daily, and rarely have any NAT-related problems.
  
  --
  "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Re:Ekiga by Shikaku · 2009-07-30 22:42 · Score: 3, Informative

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Ekiga#Encrypt%20your%20calls
Right.
Did you ever get a call regarding your auction? by Ilgaz · 2009-07-30 22:43 · Score: 1

I heard from "This Week in Tech" podcast that eBay was dreaming the ebay sellers will put "skype me" to their product pages and let the customers (buyers) call them.
One thing of course, people hates to be called via voice regarding a sell. So, it blew.
Re:No problem, there ar Open Source apps. by dkf · 2009-07-30 22:49 · Score: 1

I think it must get the prize for an Open Source project hiding the most light under a bushel.
If so, it's winning that prize against stiff competition.

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Re:No problem, there ar Open Source apps. by TheRaven64 · 2009-07-30 23:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

You can call POTS phones with any SIP client. I generally use the one built in to my mobile phone in preference to using the mobile network. You just need a company that handles the bridging. I use sipgate, who seem to offer good value in the UK, but there are a lot and there's nothing stopping you from using a different one for every country you call, unlike Skype where you have a single supplier for POTS bridging.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Ekiga by noundi · 2009-07-30 23:02 · Score: 2, Funny

I did. But only in order to keep the conversation related to the topic.

--
I am the lawn!
Re:No problem, there ar Open Source apps. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 23:05 · Score: 1, Informative

Yes you can. Unlike Skype, you're not bound to a central service provider with a dictating price model. You can choose one of the numerous SIP (or IAX, i don't know if Ekiga even supports it) service providers. Many of those that I've looked at are local providers, but with decent rates for long distance too. A lot of them are offering pre-paid plans, so it's easy and cheap to try, and you can later upgrade to a flatrate model if you so wish.
Or, you could even set up a gateway service yourself, if you want to afford the hardware and/or tinker with open software. Or why not a full-blown telephony server like Asterisk while you're at it?
True to the free software ideas, you have all the choice you want, the burden is just to review it all and to find something to fit your needs.
Currently, it's all rather open from a security viewpoint as well - but the technology is still young, and hey, it's probably not less secure than skype :)
Ekiga + Zfone = Free encrypted VoIP? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 23:23 · Score: 1

Has anyone successfully used Phil Zimmerman's Zfone with Ekiga? If the encryption works for voice and chat it could be a great free open-source alternative to Skype.
Re:Ekiga for MacOS X? by linhares · 2009-07-30 23:24 · Score: 1

Here's a mac client: http://xmeeting.sourceforge.net/pages/index.php
cheers
It's all a ploy to buy Skype on the cheap by discordare · 2009-07-30 23:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

The original founders sold Skype to eBay for US $2.7 billion. eBay has now written down the value of Skype to US $1.7 billion, and are planning to spin off the company next year. Along come the founders and threaten to cripple Skype. It seems to me that this drives the potential price of Skype much lower than even the $1.7 billion. When the public offering is made, the original founders come in, buy the now really cheap stock, and then somehow change their minds about licensing their technology for Skype. The price goes up up up, and the guys make another couple of billion! Brilliant....
1. Re:It's all a ploy to buy Skype on the cheap by BuR4N · 2009-07-31 02:30 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The founders want to buy back Skype since their latest endeavor failed ( http://www.joost.com/ ) to catch on. This was first reported in April ( http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10217611-94.html ) , its possible that negations havnt gone the way the founder want and now pulls this trick.
  
  --
  http://www.intellipool.se/ - Intellipool Network Monitor
Jesus, they look like a couple freaks. by RandoX · 2009-07-30 23:30 · Score: 1

No wonder eBay's lawyers couldn't pay attention during the meetings.
Re:Ekiga for MacOS X? by Lord+Satri · 2009-07-30 23:31 · Score: 3, Informative

Here's a mac client: http://xmeeting.sourceforge.net/pages/index.php

Thanks, but you know it doesn't sound stellar when the last item in their "news" is dated 2007-07-03... :-/

--
Animoog.org
To FOSS or to IPO?????? by linhares · 2009-07-30 23:57 · Score: 1

Here's why they'll NEVER open-source skype: http://gigaom.com/2009/07/30/will-skypes-founders-put-the-kibosh-on-ebays-ipo-plans/ http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE56U03D20090731 http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,,25862165-5013040,00.html
1. Re:To FOSS or to IPO?????? by thisnamestoolong · 2009-07-31 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  Well, then I hope Skype dies so that the OSS alternative can take its place. I hate Skype, but am kind of stuck with it since everyone I know uses it, but it is filled with so much bloatware, it could be far superior if it were open source and some of the fat could get trimmed back.
  
  --
  To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
2. Re:To FOSS or to IPO?????? by blackest_k · 2009-07-31 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Skype as a brand is amazingly popular and the infrastructure is in place for terminating calls and local access numbers.
  The problem faced here by skype is taking users from the current protocols over to replacement protocols without losing the user base along the way.
  It shouldn't be too difficult to bolt on sip compatible protocols to the existing skype code base and release hybrid clients in order to facilitate the transition.
  At some point there would be a need for gateways to allow current clients to be gently retired while maintaining compatibility with the sip compatible clients.
  Really the how of the skype protocol on the internet doesn't matter, even if the skype code base had to be gpl'd in order to integrate sip it wouldn't matter because the pay part of skype has no real dependence on the protocols used by skype to cross the internet.
  Skype would eventually be just another sip provider but it would be the biggest sip provider and finally integrate with other sip based systems.
  
  --
  Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Closed source... by emanem · 2009-07-31 00:02 · Score: 1

GJ eBay...goodluckwiththat!
It reminds me about Leo Getz in Lethal Weapon 3 when he talks about the hospital after his exam...
OSS by Smegly · 2009-07-31 00:03 · Score: 1

I'd love to see open source projects up-to-scratch in comparison with their licensed technology. Got a few OSS projects to launch on top of such a platform...
1. Re:OSS by AnyoneEB · 2009-07-31 13:19 · Score: 1
  
  From the description, it sounds similar to the Kademlia protocol used by the Kad network (basically serverless ed2k) and the BitTorrent DHT (distributed tracker / trackerless torrent support).
  As details on Skype's protocol are sparse, it would likely be difficult to compare the features of the two protocols.
  
  --
  Centralization breaks the internet.
eBay got a bad deal? by CFD339 · 2009-07-31 00:10 · Score: 4, Funny

I guess they'll have to make a negative outcome rating on the seller, and attempt to get resolution through the.....oh, wait....then skype will just neg them back and we already know how the "resolution" process favors the sellers. I guess eBay is just out of luck. What a shame.

--
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
1. Re:eBay got a bad deal? by mccoma · 2009-07-31 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  I get the feeling your comment is more "Insightful" then "Funny".
Gizmo by PythonRules · 2009-07-31 00:31 · Score: 1

This is why I never liked Skype, proprietary. I find Gizmo and other 'real' Voip apps using open standards much more flexible. The irony here is that corporate America continualy cites it's of licensing when talking about open source. Though I'm sure this will go down as a bone-headed move by a stupid lawyer who failed to get the contract right.
switch to open protocols/source by speedtux · 2009-07-31 00:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

This would be a good time for Skype to switch to open source and open protocols. They make their money on providing landline access and voicemail, so why do they even bother making all this proprietary stuff?
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2009-07-31 00:54 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Meg Whitman by methano · 2009-07-31 00:57 · Score: 1

There are occasional rumors of Meg Whitman getting into politics. She was often mentioned as a possible running mate for John McCain. Keep this little fiasco in mind when you go to vote. This makes a $400 hammer look like a real deal.
1. Re:Meg Whitman by cryfreedomlove · 2009-07-31 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  She's running for Governor of California. That should be entertaining until she bails out after spending a personal fortune in an already lost cost for her. I'd respect her more if she gave those millions to charity and stayed retired.
Re:No problem, there ar Open Source apps. by 1shooter · 2009-07-31 00:59 · Score: 1

Of course you can. You just need to buy some minutes from their affiliate and call the number through them. I can't say how good the phone quality is though. I just use mine to call my cell phone to locate which cushion it is hiding under.

--
6F 9E A9 1E 96 9F 74 27 ED B8 81 6D 0C 4E 1E 78
My other Sig is a 229.
Re:Ekiga by Ritz_Just_Ritz · 2009-07-31 01:12 · Score: 1

While the feature set is nice, it doesn't appear to support encryption at all. That's a deal breaker for me.
IBM PC was model 5150. by argent · 2009-07-31 01:18 · Score: 1

You ever use IBM's *first* personal computer, the model 5100?
Empathy 2.27.5 supports Voice Video Remote Desktop by Amendt · 2009-07-31 01:36 · Score: 1

I was just try out Ubuntu 9.10 pre release and it is all there under the Open Source Licence (GPL) I just blogged about it. www.amendt.blogspot.com
Re:No problem, there ar Open Source apps. by Locklin · 2009-07-31 01:41 · Score: 1

Yes. The "new user wizard" allows you to sign up for a VOIP-to-telephone account. You can also get incoming phone numbers.
The benefit to ekiga is that it uses a standard protocol (SIP) so there are literally hundreds of alternatives in various countries. I use Acanac here in Canada. I pay ~10 bucks a month for unlimited incoming/outgoing calling in North America- and that's a regular price, not a short-term bait-and-switch deal. Oh, and I use a cheap ATA box in my house so we can use a regular phone at home. Beat that Skype.
Interesting SIP sites for phone geeks:
http://www.voxalot.com/
http://www.sipbroker.com/
http://www.voip-info.org/

--
"Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
Re:Ekiga by CopaceticOpus · 2009-07-31 01:41 · Score: 1

See also
Re:Ekiga by sakdoctor · 2009-07-31 01:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

I love linux. Love open standards. Love the unix philosophy of plugging software together.
BUT, communication software is different because on the whole you don't get to choose.
In an idea world, jabber, SIP OpenSSL, in reality you mum, gran, sister, girlfriend if you have one, and your pointy haired boss use MSN messenger and skype. No encryption out of the box is totally useless.
Skype uses proprietary encryption, but that's better than none for non-businesses use.
Seriously, fap away nerds because you know I'm right.
TFA stinks by mea37 · 2009-07-31 01:49 · Score: 1

It's not what the article says (though certainly there seems to be a bit of slant to it); it's what the article doesn't say.
It doesn't give a single clue as to the basis for the license dispute. They make it sound like the rightsholders just one day woke up and said "you know, I think we'll just stop licensing this to you", which is almost certainly not true.
It's unlikely that this makes a legal difference... but then again the entire article is about how badly Skype needs these licenses, which also makes no legal difference. (Well, I should say probably makes no legal difference, depending on details of how the relationship between the companies and the licensed IP got to where they are... about which TFA again gives no information.)
skype founders must be scam artists by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-31 02:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Imagine selling your company for an overpriced fee of 2.6 Billion, then a few years later delivering a deliberately fatal blow to the people who made you billionaires. These people have no conscience. They seem like greedy bastards. I think they should end up on the black list of everyone in the technology industry. There is obviously a bait and switch going on here.
Good, I hate skype and hope it goes away by lidocaineus · 2009-07-31 02:51 · Score: 1

It's got ease of use, but Skype and its proprietary nature, the closed factor, and the overwhelming way they try and obscure everything the program does... I can't trust it and would rather go with something SIP based. At least with SIP you know what's going on and its interoperable with different vendors.
GPLed code in Skype client by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-31 04:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

One of my good friends was involved with development of the Skype code base a number of years ago. He mentioned on several occasions that they had to take "healthy chunks" of GPLed code and "safely integrate"(slightly modify) it in order to create what's the core of the codec and protocol handling in the Skype client now. He's been stressing about that at times and I have no reason to doubt him. Hopefully someone will take legal action against Skype at one point and dig up what they are hiding. On the other hand, SIP based VoIP has become so popular lately that Skype may not be around for long anyway.
Re:Ekiga by AnonymousIslander · 2009-07-31 04:13 · Score: 1

Oh that's a relief, for a second there I thought I had accidently loaded a Wikipedia entry,..
What? by C_Kode · 2009-07-31 04:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

You pay $2.6 billion for a company and you leave the rug under you so it can be yanked out by the person you paid the $2.6 billion too effectively killing your business? What dumbass agreed to that?!?!
Amusing by RAMMS+EIN · 2009-07-31 04:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

I find this story slightly amusing, in a schadenfreude sort of way. I've always hated Skype for being a proprietary solution to things we already had standards-based solutions for, and getting hugely successful at it.
To add insult to injury, getting half of the world locked in to a proprietary solution and killing off interoperability has made the Skype folks very, very rich.
But now one of the entities that contributed towards these assholes getting rich got burnt by them, badly. Hah. I hope they've learned from this and that other people take notice.

--
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
excellent by frovingslosh · 2009-07-31 05:11 · Score: 1

Anything that screws the electronic bay of thieves makes my day. It does seem pretty sleazy that a couple of hackers could sell something for 2.6 billion bucks and then have the right to tell e-bay that they can't use it, but if e-bay was so stupid to make that deal, so be it. Of course, everyone except e-bay realized that they had overpaid for Skype at the time, but I for one did not realize that they over paid and bought something that they didn't have a right to use. I hope some lawyer looses his over compensated job over this one.

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Darn, I just downloaded Skype, and now this by twoears · 2009-07-31 05:31 · Score: 1

Hold the phone, they're pulling the plug.
FWIW by HiThere · 2009-07-31 09:31 · Score: 1

There's a hint somewhere in today's GrokLaw that this may be due to the outcome of a legal case filed in Britain awhile back that has recently become final. I don't remember the original case, so I can't say, but it looks like EBay took the original agreement and tried to extend it beyond all reasonable interpretation, so the British court canceled that part of the agreement.
N.B.: I'm doing a lot of reading between the lines here, and the source quoted wasn't one of the parties to the original dispute, and may not be knowledgeable, but that's what it seemed to be saying.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The reason for Skype by achacha · 2009-07-31 10:48 · Score: 4, Informative

At the time of the Skype purchase, eBay was desperately trying to break into the China market against TaoBao (or something like that) that was beating them. Meg The CEO, in yet another display of ineptitude, after a long business trip (a.k.a vacation) in China got a hold of a rumor that Chinese auctioneers preferred to talk on the phone rather than email via anonymous email (which is how eBay was able to keep potential gray market auctions low) and that Skype was going to allow the buyer and seller a better route of communication and allow eBay to dominate China. How no major executive foresaw that once the buyer and seller could communicate by Skype then would just close the auction and negotiate offline and avoid seller fees; everyone but the powers that be saw this coming.
The asking price of 2.8 billion + 2 billion (or something ridiculous like that) if they met some internal goals (it was as insane as it sounds and at the time every blog, publication, news source was laughing outloud). Needless to say Skype missed their goal gloriously, did not get 2 billion and at that time it came out that in yet another stroke of brilliance by Meg the underlying technology was not part of the 2.8 billion. The only people who benefited were the founders of Skype who must still be laughing.
If I am buying a chat program for 2.8 billion I better be getting everything... anyhow, all this is public knowledge and a sad chronicle of how incompetent CEO can keep making mistake after mistake and be seen as successful because the company was hugely profitable despite their best efforts. For the record I sold my stock in eBay as soon as I read about this mess and it was at 44$usd at the time, it fell to almost 20$usd when Skype was reported as a write-down (a.k.a. complete loss) in the 10Q and never quite recovered.
Re:No problem, there ar Open Source apps. by Hurricane78 · 2009-07-31 15:47 · Score: 1

It's called SIP. And it is, what Skype is a cheap proprietary knock-off of.
Ekiga uses it. As do a 1001 other softphones. And even many hardware ones.
And with the right provider, you get a real landline phone number in your home city, ability to call emergency numbers, really really cheap per-minute prices, and you still can unplugy that phone from its Ethernet jack and stick it into a DSL line in East-Dirthole in the country of Nowheristan, and still get all that. Just like you were at home.
I personally use this one for Germany: http://www.sipgate.de/ (Not the cheapest of all though, as far as I know. There are many others.)

--
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Would not do business with seller again! by vaporland · 2009-07-31 16:38 · Score: 1

Item was not as described. Some items missing from order. Listing was incomplete and misleading...

--
Ask Me About... The 80's!
so what if? by shnull · 2009-07-31 19:28 · Score: 1

http://www.voip-news.com/feature/10-skype-alternatives-091707/

--
beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
Re:Ekiga for MacOS X? by jasquigl · 2009-08-01 00:26 · Score: 1

you could try this: http://code.google.com/p/telephone/
Adrian_in_Dallas by Adrian+in+Dallas · 2009-08-01 01:44 · Score: 1

Boy, that Meg Whitman, the "I'm no lady" woman who arranged the purchase of SKYPE while she ran roughshod over eBay as its CEO, is now planning to run for Governor of California. You folks think you have it bad NOW... HA!
Re:No problem, there ar Open Source apps. by ClosedSource · 2009-08-01 08:01 · Score: 1

The question isn't whether you can use a different bridging company, but whether you have to. Most people don't want to turn a phone call into a configuration task.
A funny defintion of "payback" by ClosedSource · 2009-08-01 08:04 · Score: 1

Should we contact Zennstrom or Friis to get our cut?
How do you "fake" security through obscurity? by ClosedSource · 2009-08-01 08:08 · Score: 1

Quietly publish the source code in the contract's fine print?
Re: Giant assholes from space! by neutrino38 · 2009-08-01 09:03 · Score: 1

Yeah,
They produced Kazaa the mother of all malware
Then Skype which is wonderful (and they promised to to be malware free this time) but they sold it without selling the core technology so they basically screwed the buyer (eBayer)
Then they push the big red button ...
Wow ...
The're good but I dont like them. The only positive thing is that ebay can now see how it feels when having a problem with a buyer.