Slashdot Mirror
theos.com Dispute Ended
philc writes "The dispute over the theos.com domain
appears to have ended...happily, for Mr. De Raadt.".
Look down the page for the term slashdot.org.
Update: 03/27 02:16 by S : In related news, UM_Maverick writes "Illiad over at User Friendly says that he received a certified letter confirming that the threats from the "death star" are authentic. He has been advised not to reveal details yet, though... "
This is yet another example of the old rule from the original Dungeons & Dragons: The Angry Villager Rule, which was no doubt inspired by the Frankenstein monster's demise at the hands of a mob of P.O.'d serfs. "Global Village" is a much-abused buzzphrase/metaphor, but we are beginning to see the truth in it. How does this relate to D&D? Under the rule it didn't matter how powerful your characters were, the villagers always win.
/. is certainly a village, and plenty of its residents are definitely angry. The fate of nations could hang on how Rob chooses to use such awesome power....
(Congratulations to Theo de Raadt, btw; I for one was happy to help pound that Web server into oblivion.)
--------------- Murphy was an otpimist.
This is simply the internet acting as an organism
to defend itself. This is a very healthy reaction.
This is good.
I'm glad to see a company listening to the masses, although I was surprised to them give up so easily. I checked the US Patent Office's database and Theos Software filed for the trademark on the word 'THEOS' way back in 1987, and given that recent ruling on the umbro.com name dispute, they probably would have had a solid legal case to take that domain name.
Probably harsher than could be desired, but at least the voicemail thing was probably just unanticipated load, and likely the mail/web downage also. A consequence, in part, of the amount of attention (and derision) you draw in such a case.
That said, it's entirely possible that those so inclined will attack servers belonging to those who bring offense (the hacker luggage thing of late comes to mind). Perhaps a consequence of public exposure, but not a matter of liability except that between the crasher and crashee.
Recalling previous allegations of "threats," Theos Software's attorney may have been sensationalizing for effect -- to a corporate attorney, the prospect of a boycott or negative publicity is a "threat," whereas it doesn't seem so to most of the rest of us. "Drop this stupid litigation or no one I influence will ever buy your multi-user OS again" is the sort of thing I could entirely condone (and have done, though not on this matter).
The thing I liked about this dispute was that a corporation was held publicly accountable for its behavior, and was defeated on those grounds. That happens far too little in the US, where corporate power pretty much drives things.
(did the os/server environment used by theos-software ever come to light, BTW?)
Thanks
Bruce Perens
Bruce Perens.
Yes they might have had a solid legal case, and that is why they have tried what they did in the first place. However they would have created so much bad blood amount the community they are trying to target with their product, that it wouldn't have been worth it to them, because they would have tarnished their reputation, and would have to spend yera to gain goodwill, which they might garnish by simply not pursuing it any further.
:>>--
One other thing is that according to trademark law you loose your trademark if you do not defend it against misuse, and waiting three years to take any action would have qualified as such, and the judge could then strip the trademark completely, because it wasn't defended properly (ie. the company had not expended any efford to defend it.) so they might have purely on pragmatic grounds not to risk it, since by not pursuing the matter they didn't give anyone to make this kind of an ruling. (Sometimes leaving things be is better, then fighting them, especially if the risk of loosing, and the punishment in such case could be that damaging.) I have pointed this in my e-mail to them as I am sure did lot of other people knowlegeable of trademark law, so they just took the suggestions and ran with them....if they managed to get them before the mail server went down, but since I didn't get the mail back I assume it got through in time.
Although I'm only speculating, I imagine that the law firm involved sort-of figured that they were
/.-ers sort-of figured that they were representing a "bigger-entity" and they would have /. effect to intimidate someone to get their way.
/.-ers got their way, if this happens often enough, you know what they will say...
representing a "big-company" and that they would have no trouble using standard "lawyer-talk" to
intimidate someone to get their way.
Ironically,
no trouble using the
Although the
"power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"
This is analogous to the investigative reporters on TV. Someone buys a ford-pinto, it blows up.
No-one seems to care, so this person calls an investigative reporter, who tries to get the
story which is that there is a safety problem. Big television story and the safety problem with
the ford-pinto is corrected.
Now, there are 1000's of investigative reporters. Someone buys a suzuki-samarai, it tips over
No-one seems to care, so this person calls and investigative reporter, who is too lazy to get
the facts. Big television story, but the car doesn't tip over. So what, fake the tip-over
for the camera, no-one will care right?
Keep in mind that our community even if we have helped in this case which is wonderful and should not be downgraded we still have a lot to deal with. Rite now we still have the User Freindly/Segfault thing which is turning out to be real so far (still no name). There will undoubtedly be more of these David vs. Goliath type things coming up. We being David have not taken the same route as David throwing a small stone but instead we have taken a large rock and started to have it roll. We have now launch this boulder and launched it into the air and we are high on out egos and we need to make shore that we come back down before we fly over something. There may also be time when we hit something to big and there will need to be a backup plan.
I like the idea that was posed earlier about a group of lawyers or something
Most of the USPS will be unharmed because the system is run like a beowulf cluster. Little post offices all over the country collect a very small amount of mail destined for some lawyer/company's office. Not until it all arrives at the post office of the lawyer/company would it get bogged down. Even then, how much would 75,000 envelopes weigh? The could probably fit in a mail truck or two. So it's not like they're bogged down to the point of collapsing.
On the other hand, I could see the post master general on another stamp hike, "Due to the proliferation of companies demanding domains from individuals, and Slashdot.org, we will not have to increase postage rates for the next 10 years."
Also, consider Chris Van Allen's site. Chris is the young son of Dave Van Allen, who runs a Philadelphia area ISP. The kid's been called "pokey" since birth. The Prema Toy company, of "Gumby and Pokey" fame tried to swipe his comain name as well.
Now add Theo to the pile of stories. I'm glad to say that in all three cases, the bastards didn't win, and good prevailed. Perhaps this is part of a new trend that will serve to better teach companies how to get along on the 'net.
The unsig!
Illiad: Have those [deleted] mother[deleters] bring it on. Nobody messes with User Friendly; it's too damn keen. We'll see how seriously the /. effect can take down a voicemail/email system when a really popular site is threatened...
Seriously though, this sounds pretty MS. It's a little known fact that the "Gates-Borg" icon that Rob uses for MS stories is actually from a T-shirt that some guy in CA put together and was forced to stop making after threats from MS's lawyers. It's a clear-cut case of parody, but they know they can bully them around because most people can't afford the lawyers. I hate corporations with money to burn.
Is there a way to countersue against frivelous lawsuits such as this one and come away with punitive damages? If so, I'd like to see how a jury decides to punish a company that has $20 billion in cash on-hand....
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
You don't sue a white blood cell for attacking a virus. IMHO this is the same thing. They invade our territory and we fight back in anyway we can. If they are going to pull a stupid stunt like this they better be prepared for the lashing they will take. If they truely believe in their cause they will continue w/ their actions, if not they will end their attacks. These type of people should be treated for the viruses that they are. I say FIGHT ON SLASHDOT IMMUE SYSTEM!!!
(I'm running on about 30 seconds of sleep w/ a nasty cold)
-matt
The Internet has really reached a sad state of affairs when larg companies and their ilk (who were on the fringes of the e-community only a few years ago) are now pushing the buttons and pulling the strings. Image that /. had not been involved in this case; would the dispute have been resolved in this way? It's likely that, after considering the expense and hassle of battling Theos Software, Theo would have simply relented. Of course, I'm happy that he didn't (in the several days of the dispute), but worry that 'little people' have become involved in similar situations hundreds of times in the past few years and experience not-so-successful results. .com was still shiny and new, but we need soething new. Now!
The villagers did, in this case, knock the enemy on its ass, but this may be the exception. We need an entity more thoughtful than NSI to quickly and effectively resolve these disputes. NSI wasn't bad when
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
I finally know now where the some of the comics on the door of the computer lab are from.
Companies don't like bad press, but I don't see the harm in what he did. I have seen worse than those. I mean, there is a limit to what is a complaint. Comics strips are supposed to make fun of stuff. That is the nature of a joke. Dilbert makes fun of management, Calvin and Hobbes was about a strange childhood.
This must have prior decisions, and those will probably guide what happens to User Friendly. If he has made fun of everyone equally, then he should not have a problem. Of course, you never know. If it is Microsoft, he could bring a suit against them for misleading the public in their publications. Just a mean thought.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - F. Voltaire.
Like it or not, it's a business world, and businesses are always going to be in dispute. That does not mean that people go out and deliberately attack servers, employees (voicemail etc) because they don't believe in something. The elitist, arrogant responses here only go to prove that point. "You're in my world now", "It's biology baby, we're gonna fight to keep you out" is the most appalling attitude I have ever heard. The `net isn't a community for those who think that they are somehow more elite powerful, on useless benchmarks such as "I was here a long time ago, play the way I do" etc etc.
I don't know that it'd be possible to sue slashdot, but there is such thing as incitement. I have absolutely no doubt, much as I *hate* to say it that some people did threaten/carry out on attacking servers maliciously, and yet others emailed their opinions. The attitude that "Well, they better have their mail servers ready if they're going to pull this kind of stunt" is not valid. What are some people smoking?
For the record, I don't agree with what they did. But they did go about it reasonably the right way - I do remember a case of one large company (possibly MS, but not definitively) actually trying to submit domain-cancel forms on 'behalf' of a domain they didn't like, much to the owners surprise, when he got an automated email from InterNIC asking him to 'confirm his submission to cancel his domain'.
The point is, this is not our domain. Others have *AS MUCH* right to use it as we. Live with it, and don't act like playground bullies if you don't like things.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
The problem is, I think, that what we affectionately refer to as "the slashdot effect" can actually be interpreted as a denial of service attack by those who aren't prepared for it.
:) It's late, it's Friday, and I've had way too much caffeine.
I wholly agree that threats and intentional damage/attacks are absolutely out of bounds, and I think that the vast majority of slashdotters out there also agree. We, as a community, whether we like it or not, are coming under much closer scrutiny than ever before. The more exposure Linux and the OSS/FSF movement get in the media, the more people are going to be wandering in trying to find out what's going on.
What's going on is us. This whole thing that has been created isn't just about software. The Free/Open Source software movement isn't just about technology and innovation: this is a social movement that encompasses the realms of philosophy, politics, society, technology, the 'new media', and economics.
"Outsiders" are slowly (so slowly) starting to get over their terror of "those darned hackers" and the techonologies we know and love. They are beginning (much more quickly) to be exposed to the whacky wonderful unexpected strangeness that is the OSS/FSF movement.
(I do have a point...gimme a sec)
My point is this: the more popular Linux becomes, the more accomodating we're going to have to be to outsiders. The poor guys at the other end of this slashdot effect probably have no clue that the sudden spikes in traffic weren't based in the malicious intent of a bunch of "hackers" (incorrect usage of the word here, of course).
What we see as a sort of funny tendency for slashdot traffic to overload and crash servers, others are going to see as a malicious computer attack by an uncountable number of crackers.
I don't know what we can do about this. Probably nothing. People will continue to have their sites linked to from slashdot, and people will continue to experience the sudden and disconcerting results of the slashdot effect.
But...to offset these effects, maybe we should start trying to be a little less confrontational in other ways. Now, I'm not saying that we should ease up on our critiques of various Large Corporations, but if it's just a little guy who doesn't really know any better...maybe we should cut him/her a bit of slack to start.
The OSS movement isn't the small little grassroots movement it was a couple of years ago. It has become rather a tidal wave, really...a tidal wave of people with a stunning amount of enthusiasm and passion. We're not the littlest of the little guys anymore, and as a community we should start to think quite seriously about the overall impact that this community has "out there". Not just in the "we're finally starting to win" sense, but also in the "are we doing harm to others?" sense and whether that harm is acceptable, be it intentional or not.
Erm...or mebbe I'm just full of hot air
- deb
However, if I said or meant "everybody write them an email to bring down their server", that would be wrong.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Like it or not, it's a business world.
Not everything in this world is about business (e.g. the Internet, pre-1995). I don't value businesses much at all, and I wish they'd stop trying to control my world. We don't need 'em as much as they think. Same with litigious people.
"It's biology baby, we're gonna fight to keep you out" is the most appalling attitude I have ever heard.
I actually think the analogy of an organism defending itself is very accurate and insightful. The Internet has grown because of a certain culture and set of values, since long before it was ever commercial. It only got as far as it did because of this culture and set of values, which is now responding to an invading force that would cause problems if left unchecked. It's not the people we're keeping out, it's the attitude.
Old-timers are very welcoming to newcomers, but the newcomers have got to understand how not to screw things up. They need to respect what's been there before-- by this I mean respect for the ecosystem, not respect for their elders. If not, the ecosystem will break as surely as our real-world ecosystem is breaking. Old-timers know how the system holds together, and are worth listening to.
I don't agree with what they did. But they did go about it reasonably the right way...
I completely disagree with this. I have a hard time seeing how you can think there was anything "right" about it. They were about as hostile as can be. And talk about arrogant! As Mr. de Raadt says, if they had asked nicely up front, he would have gladly given them a link on his front page. But they didn't even give diplomacy a chance, they came out with guns firing.
Others have *AS MUCH* right to use it as we. Live with it, and don't act like playground bullies if you don't like things.
This is the crux of our argument. We have as much right to use it as they do. And Mr. de Raadt had the domain name first. Theos Software was the one acting like the bully, thinking they could get away with it. All we did was make them stop beating up on Mr. de Raadt. They caused him a lot more problems than we caused them.
James
Uh, sir? Causing an a computer system to fail under load doesn't actually damage it. If a crash were damage to property, Netscape Communicator would be illegal, now, wouldn't it?
Let's not get hysterical.
Mind the Gap