Re:You wanna talk about the Iron Cross?
on
Protesting DMCA
·
· Score: 2
It was not long ago that Blacks were lynched by the light of a burning cross.
I don't have a problem with them burning a cross (unless they do it on someone's property without permission). I do have a problem with lynching people though.
That Jews were gassed and starved under the swastika.
Swastikas arn't illegal are they?
Seems to me that flag-burning isn't hate speech, but political speech. They aren't expressing their hatred of a particular person or group of people. They're expressing their opinion that the US government is full of lying, cheating assholes, some of whom went out of their way to avoid serving in the military (*cough* Clinton *cough* GDubya). Ok, maybe not that opinion necessarily, but they're expressing their opinion about our government and its actions. As political speech, flag-burning should be protected.
If you start lowering the standard of what qualifies as hate speech, then some group somewhere will be able to label just about anything as hate speech. That's a bad thing.
When your evaluations and pay are based on how many patents you can push through, you have a lot of incentive to try to come up with a reason to grant a patent regardless of its real validity. Most people in the computer industry would starve if they worked in the PTO. They'd spend their day rejecting stupid web patents and get no bonus, a crappy evaluation, and eventually be shown the door. The patent office has to make money to pay for itself ya know. (Who's bright idea was that anyway?)
By abolishing patents, we would force companies to use secrecy to protect their intellectual property, which would reduce rather than increase collaboration.
Isn't that what's happening now anyway? Companies are granted software patents without ever having to reveal the source code. There are two reasons that this hasn't become a major problem. First, the ideas are usually pretty trivial to implement and anyone who's done any coding could come up with a working model. Second, by the time someone could use their own model without getting sued, it will be worthless anyway. Another problem is that you don't even have to show that your idea works, so the patent database gets polluted with detailed drawings and descriptions for things that don't even work. The "Hyper Light-Speed Antenna" is a perfect example.
Example, why would a patent of a specific image procession/vision machine that checks for impurities in bottles or coke cans be any different from a more pure software implementation (with just a regular digital camera as the only hardware) ???
Even if a particular software program seems worthy of a patent, you have to consider how they're writing these patents. While the system for looking for flaws in a coke bottle might work, should the patent prevent someone else from marketing a program that does the same thing? Since software patents don't require you to reveal the source code, the person obviously couldn't have just copied your program, so that means they came up with it on their own. So the patent has to either cover the idea of a software program used for that particular purpose, or it's pointless in the first place. Now, I don't think that the idea alone is worthy of a patent unless it is truly a new, non-obvious, non-trivial idea that would meet these criteria whether it was implemented in software or hardware, or some combination of the two.
I think it's pretty clear that Dickinson is doing it because he can use this as an argument to get more money and resources for his agency,
Isn't the PTO supposed to be self-sufficient? Doesn't it live off of the money it makes from patent fees? What he might want is for the government to keep its hands out of the honey pot, but I doubt he thinks they'll actually give him more resources. That's one of the major problems with the PTO. It's shouldn't have to depend on the number of patents it can grant for it's operating costs. That's a conflict of interest.
If the PTO keeps thinking the way it has been thinking, then this new process may not help much at all. It matters more what they search for than how many databases they search (although more is certainly better). If they are looking for an example of a web-based 1-click purchasing system as prior art, they may not find it. If, however, they read some information on cookies, then they could see how trivial the 1-click system is.
If they were to look at grocery scanners (as someone else mentioned in a previous article here), they would find something similar to the 1-click method. The item has a tag (hyperlink) that let's the scanner (cgi script of some sort) know how much to charge to the customer's (user identified by the cookie) credit card that was swiped through the card reader (read from a database).
If, on the other hand, these "senior examiners" have a clue about how and where to look for prior art, the new process might actually stop some bad patents from being granted. Hmm.. new process... wonder if they've patented "Process of applying more intense scrutiny to patent applications having to do with Internet-based implementations of business methods utilizing email for communication between junior and senior examiners"? Probably not a lot of call for that sort of thing outside the PTO though.
They do "give something back". They pay $billions in taxes.
I give the government (state and federal) nearly half my income in taxes too, but that doesn't mean they make exceptions to the law for me. Corps get all sorts of privileges that nobody else gets.
Having government bureaucrats dictate prices kills most of the incentive to innovate, and s-l-o-ws down whatever survives to a crawl.
Lessig's example of the phone network shows exactly the opposite. By regulating the network to keep it open to competition, innovation was thriving. He's saying that we should do the same with the broadband networks in order to keep things going as well as they've been going.
Had the government let the phone company keep control over the network, they would have continued to charge outrageous prices for data transfers and the net never would have taken off here in the US, or at least it would have taken much longer to do so.
If you are going to state that something is a fact you had better back it up with *something* otherwise you lose credibility.
I see your point here and I agree that the site is biased. I think that the author means that they haven't seen any reason and that none has been made public. Perhaps one is sealed in a court record or something, but it's not public. You can't prove a negative, so they can't prove to us that no explanation was ever offered. It's conceivable that they could get a prosecution attorney to state that they never made an explanation, or at least didn't make it public, but I doubt that anyone could get them to comment on it. I've read through a lot of info on the case, and I've never seen any explanation for it. The prosecution never really had much to say about little details like that.
The link you added help fill in some blanks for me, but I'm still having trouble coming up with a complete timeline of events for everything that happened. I've been looking around for a site that has a timeline of his various convictions and probation and prison term beginnings and endings. That would help quite a bit. I don't dispute that he should have done jail time. I was just disturbed by the way his case was handled, mostly by the prosecution, but also by his defense.
But it was easily 10 years ago I was connected to the Net in the UK. It is international in design.
My point is that the net as we know it today wouldn't exist if people couldn't get cheap access to it. If AT&T had been allowed to retain complete control of the phone network, they would have continued to charge astronomical prices for data transfers and other similar uses of the network. They had no inkling of the potential of the net. Cable companies are selling high-speed data transfer services for a somewhat decent price (although it's still kinda pricey), but they will likely try to control the net in other ways, such as censoring sites that they don't agree with, blocking certain ports to try to prevent people from using their network for certain things, and even blocking you from accessing content that they believe is competing with some service that they provide (at an additional cost to you of course). We need to keep the broadband networks open so that these kinds of things do not happen. They do nothing but harm to the net and the potential for innovation.
Yes, it still needs guidance. It will always. What I assert, is that the guidance should come from the same source it always has - the users.
That was Lessig's point. Regulation hasn't been done just by the users. The government has been regulating the phone companies to make sure their networks are open to everyone, otherwise we wouldn't have the kind of access we have now.
You say that telco's *could* block, eg, Linux headers if it wasn't for regulations. Please enlighten me, what USA regulations are there that prohibit packet-blocking?
Ok, I don't know of a specific law preventing them from reading packet headers and blocking based on that data, but I do know that telcos are known as "common carriers" and that they are not liable for anything that is transfered on their network, so it's not in their interests to block packets. If they did, it would: #1, make them liable for blocking things that the government would like to see blocked, and #2, cost them money both to maintain the blocking, and in lost revenue from those that they're blocking and those that want to access what they're blocking.
See MY first para; the Net isn't only USA and the USA gov't isn't needed / doesn't apply in [ironic]cyberspace[/ironic].
The US government IS needed to ensure that US citizens have the kind of access they need to the net. Otherwise our access gets controlled by the corps that run the networks and innovation and growth come to a grinding halt here in the US. If we can't use the bandwidth we have in new and creative ways, we can't go on creating things like we've been doing. The cable companies (and other broadband providers) are determined to control any innovation that happens to utilize their networks. This will not serve the public good and should not be permitted.
No prob. I just read up on the mitnick case to figure out what happened exactly. I haven't read about it in a while. It looks like you're right about the cell phone thing. He was convicted on that one it looks like, but I'm not sure if he got prison for it. He's been convicted several times for various things, but hasn't spent more than a couple years in jail altogether until this last time, and wasn't serving a sentence when he was accused of breaking into Shimomura's system. (although I think he may have been on probation)
It's obvious that he's no saint, but it's equally obvious that the prosecution completely disregarded his rights during the course of the case. They wouldn't reveal the evidence against him or the damage amounts among other things. They also wouldn't explain why he was so dangerous that he had to be put in solitary confinement until he waived his right to a preliminary hearing. There were other offenses against him as well. It's scary that they got away with this kind of stuff. The 6 corps that had been hacked later submitted letters declaring that the "losses suffered were not material or non-existant", but the prosecution never turned these letters over to Kevin's attorney. Meanwhile, the prosecution and the press were running stories about Kevin costing these corps billions.. later reduced to millions.
Firstly, the AT&T business; just because AT&T had a monopoly (in the US), and the net thrived despite that (The 'Net is international, fool!), doesn't mean that regulation is de facto good.
First of all, the net originated in America and only in the last five years or so has it really spread across the globe in a major way. It still needs guidance and decisions made in America still play a big part in the development of the net. Now, what he's getting at is that if we didn't have open access to the phone network, the net would have remained an academic tool because it would have been worse than useless to the rest of us because it was too expensive to access. Without the rest of us on the net, we wouldn't have seen the explosion of new software and ideas that has come about since.
Then he gets on to the plus side; However, he's wrong again. If Linus decided to code Mozilla into the Kernel, it'd be pretty tricky for M$ to hack the kernel to remove it and use IE/Linux instead (if they chose do do such a thing).
Actually, Microsoft could simply start building on the kernel source that was in use before Linus went fscking insane. Simple.
Oh, but telco's could read packet headers if they chose, to remove any Linux, Audio, [insert whatever you think they may not like here] packets alongstream.
They could do that, if it weren't for regulations.
the Gov't intervened and broke AT&T's monopoly (again, IN THE USA... The 'Net doesn't only exist in America
See my first paragraph.
Universities are VERY good places to start new technologies.
Sometimes, yes. But we're talking about a physical network. It's fine to test and develop it in a university environment, but for it to be useful outside of that environment, we need to have open access to the network. If some entity has the capability of controlling that network, then they must be prevented from doing so. That's where the regulations come in.
and they say, "closed isn't okay, open isn't okay, something in-between will come up". And he accepts this?!!!
He isn't accepting this. That was his point. To explain his side of things and to let us know what's currently going on in the minds of the regulators. They currently don't plan to ensure the kind of access we've had up 'til now. We need to do something about that and let them know that we want open access.
Wake up. These companies had a lot of help building their infrastructures. Help that came from the government. We have regulations for a reason. To benefit the public. The corps receive tons of support and protection from our government, they have to give something back too. Nobody is threatening to bankrupt them. They'll still be highly profitable, just like the phone companies are today. They just can't pursue profit to the point where they start harming the public good.
The point is that government regulation is what kept the phone networks open enough for the net to come into existance. This has fostered incredible growth and innovation. Whatever costs taxpayers had to pay for that regulation, it seems to have been worth it. Now, it looks like net access could come to be controlled by the broadband network owners. This would be bad. This is not what helped the net grow and thrive. This is why we need regulation of the broadband providers, just as we had regulation of the phone companies. The benefits would seem to greatly outweigh the cost.
oh yeah..learn the facts...Mitnik had a fair trial, he pleaded guilty to cell phone fraud..or something like that...look it up.
Why don't you look up how long he sat in jail before he got that trial. Or how he was denied the right to know and review the evidence against him. If they're going to make it impossible for him to mount a decent defense, then what choice does he have?
I don't give a rats ass whether a cop thinks I appear to be speeding. If he's going to pull me over and give me a ticket, he better be able to tell me how fast I was going. If he can't, then I'll just contest the ticket and walk. I've been ticketed for speeding when I wasn't. That's why I believe that the cop should be able to prove it.
he fallacy here is the one so aptly pointed about by the libertarians and Randians, but not an invalid one for that: the fact that the government has the guns and the permission to use them make coercion on the part of the government qualitatively different than anything that can be generated by the worst of the private sector.
Those same guns are the ones that back up the control that corporations wield. If it weren't for the guns of the government, copyright, patents, wouldn't exist. The corps depend on regulation for their power, and so we depend on regulation to keep their power in check.
The government is supposed to regulate to benefit the people of this country, not any particular corporation or industry. If, as Lessig pointed out, open access is a proven generator of innovation, then it would be in the interest of the people of this country to ensure that the broadband networks are open and stay that way, even if it isn't to the benefit of the corps that control these networks. They'll still make a lot of money, just not as much as they might. It's a good trade-off that keeps things from stagnating.
This whole "regulation is evil" is remarkably similar to the arguments I've heard from pro-M$ people against DoJ sanctions.
I thought the same thing while I was reading the article.
Too bad some areas only have cable, with phone lines that can't sustain DSL, or cable providers would go out of business.
I live in San Antonio, TX. This is Southwestern Bell's turf. In order to get DSL here, you must live within approximately 17000 feet of the central office downtown. Since I live well over twice that distance away, I haven't got a chance in hell of getting DSL service. They've said for the last year or so that they were planning to provide service in my area, but after waiting over a year, I still haven't heard a peep about anything like that happening.
My phone lines are crappy enough that I'm lucking to get a 28.8 connection. 56K modems are useless in my neighborhood. So, I'll probably end up getting RoadRunner service instead. It's a shame, but I don't have any other option.
Actually, his point seemed to be that we're all up a creek unless we can figure out a way to get the government to keep broadband as open as the internet has been up to now. Otherwise, the control will end up being more with the corporations who have no incentive to allow anyone but themselves to innovate, and great incentive to do all they can to prevent any new competition from forming.
The objective in my opinion should not be to punish Microsoft solely, and not necessarily to restrict it, but rather to give competitors a more fair chance at competing with Microsoft at an even level.
Well, this just happens to be the goal of the remedies portion of the trial as well. The DOJ isn't looking to punish Microsoft. They are looking for a solution to a problem, the problem being Microsoft's lack of self-control when it comes to wielding its monopoly power.
Punitive damages will only be awarded in subsequent cases brought against the corp by other corps or by individuals (class-actions most likely). This is assuming that Microsoft is found guilty. If they settle, it will be a lot harder for people to sue them.
Actually, if Microsoft wants to appeal, the DOJ can have the appeal sent straight to the Supreme Court, bypassing the lower courts altogether. This was a change that was made for the express purpose of getting anti-trust trials finished in time to actually matter.
And it's idiots like you that think it's ok to lock up people just because you *think* they did something wrong. The issue at hand is evidence. If the cop didn't use the radar gun, then he has no evidence of wrongdoing. This is the kind of thinking that gives us a bunch of BS laws that get selectively enforced against people as those in power see fit.
Mitnik was as guilty as the day is long.
Fine. Give him a fair trial, access to the evidence against him and every other right that a person is supposed to have when they face our legal system. If they won't do that, then they're just as bad, or worse, than he is.
Why does it take the threat of a judge making a ruling on a case to actually get these two together and try to work out an arrangement/resolution to this mess?
Because Microsoft had absolutely no incentive to deal until the Findings of Fact were realeased. Then it became readily apparent to them that they it was highly likely that the judge would rule against them. It took that much just to make them consider a deal.
As for saving money, that hasn't really been a concern of Microsoft. They've (literally) spent over ten times as much on this case as the government has. Last I saw (late last year) the government had just topped $10 million. Microsoft was estimated to have spent well over $100 million. Historically speaking, this anti-trust case has been a real bargain for the government compared to previous large cases. If they manage to reign Microsoft in, it will be worth every penny.
I really don't see how Microsoft is going to get any more than a slap on the wrist and told not to do it anymore.
Well, the DOJ tried that already. They got burned bad too. Microsoft laughed off the consent decree last time and I don't think the DOJ wants a repeat performance of something that made them look like complete idiots. That's probably one reason they haven't cut a deal yet. Microsoft has been proposing solutions that weren't any better or more enforceable than the consent decree was.
We could fine them, but how do you financially fine a company that makes 100's of billions a year?
Microsoft doesn't make anything approaching "100's of billions a year." IIRC they made less than 10 billion last year. If you want to punish a company like that, you fine them a whole lot of money. That's not what this case is about and I doubt that a fine will play a significant part in the outcome of the trial, simply because it wouldn't solve the problem. Punitive damages will likely be awarded to those people and companies that sue Microsoft if the judge rules that they broke anti-trust laws.
The remedies portion of the trial is supposed to provide a solution that will allow competition to return to the market. The only competition Windows currently faces is from open source software. If the only way to compete with Windows is to get people to produce a competitor for no charge, the market for that product is screwed up. Commercial companies have all been undermined by Microsoft's dirty tactics. Even when they produced a superior product. Microsoft cut them off from consumers and that was all it took to kill them.
Perhaps Linux will make headway in the desktop OS market. Maybe it will eventually replace Windows altogether. Certain software markets may disappear, but I doubt it. People will still sell proprietary apps and services for Linux. They will still sell customized versions. The market will change, but it won't disappear. Software makers will make sure their software plays well with others, simply because that's what consumers will expect. I think we'll all be better off in that situation than in the current one where the standard is controlled by a single company that isn't averse to using that control to squash anyone that gets in their way or to take over new markets.
Now this dosn't always work perfectly but for the most part it does.
I think it was NBC Dateline that aired a piece last night about the Louisiana State Supreme Court disallowing law students at a state university from providing legal defense for poor people, unless they were below a certain income level, which amounted to allowing them to represent only the absolute poorest of the poor. This was apparently (although they deny it of course) because the students had been representing some poor residents who were trying to block a chemical corporation from setting up another chemical plant near their neighborhood. (There were already 6 plants nearby that put out more than 650 times as much chemical pollution as the US average. They said you're exposed to as much pollution in half a day in that area as most Americans are exposed to in a year). They eventually held up the corp long enough that they built the plant elsewhere.
That wasn't the end of it though. The chemical and oil corporations got the state governor on their side and were throwing around a lot of money. Since judges in Lousiana are elected, they are much the same as politicians when it comes to getting relelected. They need money, and lots of it. This seems to be what the corps were using as a carrot to get the court to help them out by preventing the law students from representing the people that were getting in their way. The moral of the story? If justice depends on money, only those with money can get "justice."
Aside from the obvious fact that Zogby receives a great deal of funding from Microsoft, maybe the poll should have asked every respondant whether they had read even a single day's trial transcript or reviewed any of the evidence or testimony in the case. I bet the answer would have to be no for 90%+ of the respondants, which means their opinions are completely uninformed and therefore all but worthless.
Slashdot Mirror
It was not long ago that Blacks were lynched by the light of a burning cross.
I don't have a problem with them burning a cross (unless they do it on someone's property without permission). I do have a problem with lynching people though.
That Jews were gassed and starved under the swastika.
Swastikas arn't illegal are they?
Seems to me that flag-burning isn't hate speech, but political speech. They aren't expressing their hatred of a particular person or group of people. They're expressing their opinion that the US government is full of lying, cheating assholes, some of whom went out of their way to avoid serving in the military (*cough* Clinton *cough* GDubya). Ok, maybe not that opinion necessarily, but they're expressing their opinion about our government and its actions. As political speech, flag-burning should be protected.
If you start lowering the standard of what qualifies as hate speech, then some group somewhere will be able to label just about anything as hate speech. That's a bad thing.
When your evaluations and pay are based on how many patents you can push through, you have a lot of incentive to try to come up with a reason to grant a patent regardless of its real validity. Most people in the computer industry would starve if they worked in the PTO. They'd spend their day rejecting stupid web patents and get no bonus, a crappy evaluation, and eventually be shown the door. The patent office has to make money to pay for itself ya know. (Who's bright idea was that anyway?)
By abolishing patents, we would force companies to use secrecy to protect their intellectual property, which would reduce rather than increase collaboration.
Isn't that what's happening now anyway? Companies are granted software patents without ever having to reveal the source code. There are two reasons that this hasn't become a major problem. First, the ideas are usually pretty trivial to implement and anyone who's done any coding could come up with a working model. Second, by the time someone could use their own model without getting sued, it will be worthless anyway. Another problem is that you don't even have to show that your idea works, so the patent database gets polluted with detailed drawings and descriptions for things that don't even work. The "Hyper Light-Speed Antenna" is a perfect example.
Example, why would a patent of a specific image procession/vision machine that checks for impurities in bottles or coke cans be any different from a more pure software implementation (with just a regular digital camera as the only hardware) ???
Even if a particular software program seems worthy of a patent, you have to consider how they're writing these patents. While the system for looking for flaws in a coke bottle might work, should the patent prevent someone else from marketing a program that does the same thing? Since software patents don't require you to reveal the source code, the person obviously couldn't have just copied your program, so that means they came up with it on their own. So the patent has to either cover the idea of a software program used for that particular purpose, or it's pointless in the first place. Now, I don't think that the idea alone is worthy of a patent unless it is truly a new, non-obvious, non-trivial idea that would meet these criteria whether it was implemented in software or hardware, or some combination of the two.
I think it's pretty clear that Dickinson is doing it because he can use this as an argument to get more money and resources for his agency,
Isn't the PTO supposed to be self-sufficient? Doesn't it live off of the money it makes from patent fees? What he might want is for the government to keep its hands out of the honey pot, but I doubt he thinks they'll actually give him more resources. That's one of the major problems with the PTO. It's shouldn't have to depend on the number of patents it can grant for it's operating costs. That's a conflict of interest.
If the PTO keeps thinking the way it has been thinking, then this new process may not help much at all. It matters more what they search for than how many databases they search (although more is certainly better). If they are looking for an example of a web-based 1-click purchasing system as prior art, they may not find it. If, however, they read some information on cookies, then they could see how trivial the 1-click system is.
If they were to look at grocery scanners (as someone else mentioned in a previous article here), they would find something similar to the 1-click method. The item has a tag (hyperlink) that let's the scanner (cgi script of some sort) know how much to charge to the customer's (user identified by the cookie) credit card that was swiped through the card reader (read from a database).
If, on the other hand, these "senior examiners" have a clue about how and where to look for prior art, the new process might actually stop some bad patents from being granted. Hmm.. new process... wonder if they've patented "Process of applying more intense scrutiny to patent applications having to do with Internet-based implementations of business methods utilizing email for communication between junior and senior examiners"? Probably not a lot of call for that sort of thing outside the PTO though.
They do "give something back". They pay $billions in taxes.
I give the government (state and federal) nearly half my income in taxes too, but that doesn't mean they make exceptions to the law for me. Corps get all sorts of privileges that nobody else gets.
Having government bureaucrats dictate prices kills most of the incentive to innovate, and s-l-o-ws down whatever survives to a crawl.
Lessig's example of the phone network shows exactly the opposite. By regulating the network to keep it open to competition, innovation was thriving. He's saying that we should do the same with the broadband networks in order to keep things going as well as they've been going.
Had the government let the phone company keep control over the network, they would have continued to charge outrageous prices for data transfers and the net never would have taken off here in the US, or at least it would have taken much longer to do so.
If you are going to state that something is a fact you had better back it up with *something* otherwise you lose credibility.
I see your point here and I agree that the site is biased. I think that the author means that they haven't seen any reason and that none has been made public. Perhaps one is sealed in a court record or something, but it's not public. You can't prove a negative, so they can't prove to us that no explanation was ever offered. It's conceivable that they could get a prosecution attorney to state that they never made an explanation, or at least didn't make it public, but I doubt that anyone could get them to comment on it. I've read through a lot of info on the case, and I've never seen any explanation for it. The prosecution never really had much to say about little details like that.
The link you added help fill in some blanks for me, but I'm still having trouble coming up with a complete timeline of events for everything that happened. I've been looking around for a site that has a timeline of his various convictions and probation and prison term beginnings and endings. That would help quite a bit. I don't dispute that he should have done jail time. I was just disturbed by the way his case was handled, mostly by the prosecution, but also by his defense.
But it was easily 10 years ago I was connected to the Net in the UK. It is international in design.
My point is that the net as we know it today wouldn't exist if people couldn't get cheap access to it. If AT&T had been allowed to retain complete control of the phone network, they would have continued to charge astronomical prices for data transfers and other similar uses of the network. They had no inkling of the potential of the net. Cable companies are selling high-speed data transfer services for a somewhat decent price (although it's still kinda pricey), but they will likely try to control the net in other ways, such as censoring sites that they don't agree with, blocking certain ports to try to prevent people from using their network for certain things, and even blocking you from accessing content that they believe is competing with some service that they provide (at an additional cost to you of course). We need to keep the broadband networks open so that these kinds of things do not happen. They do nothing but harm to the net and the potential for innovation.
Yes, it still needs guidance. It will always. What I assert, is that the guidance should come from the same source it always has - the users.
That was Lessig's point. Regulation hasn't been done just by the users. The government has been regulating the phone companies to make sure their networks are open to everyone, otherwise we wouldn't have the kind of access we have now.
You say that telco's *could* block, eg, Linux headers if it wasn't for regulations. Please enlighten me, what USA regulations are there that prohibit packet-blocking?
Ok, I don't know of a specific law preventing them from reading packet headers and blocking based on that data, but I do know that telcos are known as "common carriers" and that they are not liable for anything that is transfered on their network, so it's not in their interests to block packets. If they did, it would: #1, make them liable for blocking things that the government would like to see blocked, and #2, cost them money both to maintain the blocking, and in lost revenue from those that they're blocking and those that want to access what they're blocking.
See MY first para; the Net isn't only USA and the USA gov't isn't needed / doesn't apply in [ironic]cyberspace[/ironic].
The US government IS needed to ensure that US citizens have the kind of access they need to the net. Otherwise our access gets controlled by the corps that run the networks and innovation and growth come to a grinding halt here in the US. If we can't use the bandwidth we have in new and creative ways, we can't go on creating things like we've been doing. The cable companies (and other broadband providers) are determined to control any innovation that happens to utilize their networks. This will not serve the public good and should not be permitted.
No prob. I just read up on the mitnick case to figure out what happened exactly. I haven't read about it in a while. It looks like you're right about the cell phone thing. He was convicted on that one it looks like, but I'm not sure if he got prison for it. He's been convicted several times for various things, but hasn't spent more than a couple years in jail altogether until this last time, and wasn't serving a sentence when he was accused of breaking into Shimomura's system. (although I think he may have been on probation)
It's obvious that he's no saint, but it's equally obvious that the prosecution completely disregarded his rights during the course of the case. They wouldn't reveal the evidence against him or the damage amounts among other things. They also wouldn't explain why he was so dangerous that he had to be put in solitary confinement until he waived his right to a preliminary hearing. There were other offenses against him as well. It's scary that they got away with this kind of stuff. The 6 corps that had been hacked later submitted letters declaring that the "losses suffered were not material or non-existant", but the prosecution never turned these letters over to Kevin's attorney. Meanwhile, the prosecution and the press were running stories about Kevin costing these corps billions.. later reduced to millions.
Here's a few links in case you're curious.
http://www.kevinmitnick.com/news-04269 9.html
http://www.kevinmitnick.com/news-05289 9.html
ht tp://x30.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=566653614&CONTEXT=9 48113995.419102759&hitnum=72
Firstly, the AT&T business; just because AT&T had a monopoly (in the US), and the net thrived despite that (The 'Net is international, fool!), doesn't mean that regulation is de facto good.
First of all, the net originated in America and only in the last five years or so has it really spread across the globe in a major way. It still needs guidance and decisions made in America still play a big part in the development of the net. Now, what he's getting at is that if we didn't have open access to the phone network, the net would have remained an academic tool because it would have been worse than useless to the rest of us because it was too expensive to access. Without the rest of us on the net, we wouldn't have seen the explosion of new software and ideas that has come about since.
Then he gets on to the plus side; However, he's wrong again. If Linus decided to code Mozilla into the Kernel, it'd be pretty tricky for M$ to hack the kernel to remove it and use IE/Linux instead (if they chose do do such a thing).
Actually, Microsoft could simply start building on the kernel source that was in use before Linus went fscking insane. Simple.
Oh, but telco's could read packet headers if they chose, to remove any Linux, Audio, [insert whatever you think they may not like here] packets alongstream.
They could do that, if it weren't for regulations.
the Gov't intervened and broke AT&T's monopoly (again, IN THE USA... The 'Net doesn't only exist in America
See my first paragraph.
Universities are VERY good places to start new technologies.
Sometimes, yes. But we're talking about a physical network. It's fine to test and develop it in a university environment, but for it to be useful outside of that environment, we need to have open access to the network. If some entity has the capability of controlling that network, then they must be prevented from doing so. That's where the regulations come in.
and they say, "closed isn't okay, open isn't okay, something in-between will come up". And he accepts this?!!!
He isn't accepting this. That was his point. To explain his side of things and to let us know what's currently going on in the minds of the regulators. They currently don't plan to ensure the kind of access we've had up 'til now. We need to do something about that and let them know that we want open access.
Wake up. These companies had a lot of help building their infrastructures. Help that came from the government. We have regulations for a reason. To benefit the public. The corps receive tons of support and protection from our government, they have to give something back too. Nobody is threatening to bankrupt them. They'll still be highly profitable, just like the phone companies are today. They just can't pursue profit to the point where they start harming the public good.
The point is that government regulation is what kept the phone networks open enough for the net to come into existance. This has fostered incredible growth and innovation. Whatever costs taxpayers had to pay for that regulation, it seems to have been worth it. Now, it looks like net access could come to be controlled by the broadband network owners. This would be bad. This is not what helped the net grow and thrive. This is why we need regulation of the broadband providers, just as we had regulation of the phone companies. The benefits would seem to greatly outweigh the cost.
oh yeah..learn the facts...Mitnik had a fair trial, he pleaded guilty to cell phone fraud..or something like that...look it up.
Why don't you look up how long he sat in jail before he got that trial. Or how he was denied the right to know and review the evidence against him. If they're going to make it impossible for him to mount a decent defense, then what choice does he have?
I don't give a rats ass whether a cop thinks I appear to be speeding. If he's going to pull me over and give me a ticket, he better be able to tell me how fast I was going. If he can't, then I'll just contest the ticket and walk. I've been ticketed for speeding when I wasn't. That's why I believe that the cop should be able to prove it.
he fallacy here is the one so aptly pointed about by the libertarians and Randians, but not an invalid one for that: the fact that the government has the guns and the permission to use them make coercion on the part of the government qualitatively different than anything that can be generated by the worst of the private sector.
Those same guns are the ones that back up the control that corporations wield. If it weren't for the guns of the government, copyright, patents, wouldn't exist. The corps depend on regulation for their power, and so we depend on regulation to keep their power in check.
The government is supposed to regulate to benefit the people of this country, not any particular corporation or industry. If, as Lessig pointed out, open access is a proven generator of innovation, then it would be in the interest of the people of this country to ensure that the broadband networks are open and stay that way, even if it isn't to the benefit of the corps that control these networks. They'll still make a lot of money, just not as much as they might. It's a good trade-off that keeps things from stagnating.
This whole "regulation is evil" is remarkably similar to the arguments I've heard from pro-M$ people against DoJ sanctions.
I thought the same thing while I was reading the article.
Too bad some areas only have cable, with phone lines that can't sustain DSL, or cable providers would go out of business.
I live in San Antonio, TX. This is Southwestern Bell's turf. In order to get DSL here, you must live within approximately 17000 feet of the central office downtown. Since I live well over twice that distance away, I haven't got a chance in hell of getting DSL service. They've said for the last year or so that they were planning to provide service in my area, but after waiting over a year, I still haven't heard a peep about anything like that happening.
My phone lines are crappy enough that I'm lucking to get a 28.8 connection. 56K modems are useless in my neighborhood. So, I'll probably end up getting RoadRunner service instead. It's a shame, but I don't have any other option.
Actually, his point seemed to be that we're all up a creek unless we can figure out a way to get the government to keep broadband as open as the internet has been up to now. Otherwise, the control will end up being more with the corporations who have no incentive to allow anyone but themselves to innovate, and great incentive to do all they can to prevent any new competition from forming.
Ack. You're right. My mistake.
The objective in my opinion should not be to punish Microsoft solely, and not necessarily to restrict it, but rather to give competitors a more fair chance at competing with Microsoft at an even level.
Well, this just happens to be the goal of the remedies portion of the trial as well. The DOJ isn't looking to punish Microsoft. They are looking for a solution to a problem, the problem being Microsoft's lack of self-control when it comes to wielding its monopoly power.
Punitive damages will only be awarded in subsequent cases brought against the corp by other corps or by individuals (class-actions most likely). This is assuming that Microsoft is found guilty. If they settle, it will be a lot harder for people to sue them.
It's only 68% in the polls that are sponsored by Microsoft.
Additionally, if Microsoft does appeal, it will likely go directly to the Supreme Court.
Actually, if Microsoft wants to appeal, the DOJ can have the appeal sent straight to the Supreme Court, bypassing the lower courts altogether. This was a change that was made for the express purpose of getting anti-trust trials finished in time to actually matter.
And it's idiots like you that think it's ok to lock up people just because you *think* they did something wrong. The issue at hand is evidence. If the cop didn't use the radar gun, then he has no evidence of wrongdoing. This is the kind of thinking that gives us a bunch of BS laws that get selectively enforced against people as those in power see fit.
Mitnik was as guilty as the day is long.
Fine. Give him a fair trial, access to the evidence against him and every other right that a person is supposed to have when they face our legal system. If they won't do that, then they're just as bad, or worse, than he is.
Why does it take the threat of a judge making a ruling on a case to actually get these two together and try to work out an arrangement/resolution to this mess?
Because Microsoft had absolutely no incentive to deal until the Findings of Fact were realeased. Then it became readily apparent to them that they it was highly likely that the judge would rule against them. It took that much just to make them consider a deal.
As for saving money, that hasn't really been a concern of Microsoft. They've (literally) spent over ten times as much on this case as the government has. Last I saw (late last year) the government had just topped $10 million. Microsoft was estimated to have spent well over $100 million. Historically speaking, this anti-trust case has been a real bargain for the government compared to previous large cases. If they manage to reign Microsoft in, it will be worth every penny.
I really don't see how Microsoft is going to get any more than a slap on the wrist and told not to do it anymore.
Well, the DOJ tried that already. They got burned bad too. Microsoft laughed off the consent decree last time and I don't think the DOJ wants a repeat performance of something that made them look like complete idiots. That's probably one reason they haven't cut a deal yet. Microsoft has been proposing solutions that weren't any better or more enforceable than the consent decree was.
We could fine them, but how do you financially fine a company that makes 100's of billions a year?
Microsoft doesn't make anything approaching "100's of billions a year." IIRC they made less than 10 billion last year. If you want to punish a company like that, you fine them a whole lot of money. That's not what this case is about and I doubt that a fine will play a significant part in the outcome of the trial, simply because it wouldn't solve the problem. Punitive damages will likely be awarded to those people and companies that sue Microsoft if the judge rules that they broke anti-trust laws.
The remedies portion of the trial is supposed to provide a solution that will allow competition to return to the market. The only competition Windows currently faces is from open source software. If the only way to compete with Windows is to get people to produce a competitor for no charge, the market for that product is screwed up. Commercial companies have all been undermined by Microsoft's dirty tactics. Even when they produced a superior product. Microsoft cut them off from consumers and that was all it took to kill them.
Perhaps Linux will make headway in the desktop OS market. Maybe it will eventually replace Windows altogether. Certain software markets may disappear, but I doubt it. People will still sell proprietary apps and services for Linux. They will still sell customized versions. The market will change, but it won't disappear. Software makers will make sure their software plays well with others, simply because that's what consumers will expect. I think we'll all be better off in that situation than in the current one where the standard is controlled by a single company that isn't averse to using that control to squash anyone that gets in their way or to take over new markets.
Now this dosn't always work perfectly but for the most part it does.
I think it was NBC Dateline that aired a piece last night about the Louisiana State Supreme Court disallowing law students at a state university from providing legal defense for poor people, unless they were below a certain income level, which amounted to allowing them to represent only the absolute poorest of the poor. This was apparently (although they deny it of course) because the students had been representing some poor residents who were trying to block a chemical corporation from setting up another chemical plant near their neighborhood. (There were already 6 plants nearby that put out more than 650 times as much chemical pollution as the US average. They said you're exposed to as much pollution in half a day in that area as most Americans are exposed to in a year). They eventually held up the corp long enough that they built the plant elsewhere.
That wasn't the end of it though. The chemical and oil corporations got the state governor on their side and were throwing around a lot of money. Since judges in Lousiana are elected, they are much the same as politicians when it comes to getting relelected. They need money, and lots of it. This seems to be what the corps were using as a carrot to get the court to help them out by preventing the law students from representing the people that were getting in their way. The moral of the story? If justice depends on money, only those with money can get "justice."
Aside from the obvious fact that Zogby receives a great deal of funding from Microsoft, maybe the poll should have asked every respondant whether they had read even a single day's trial transcript or reviewed any of the evidence or testimony in the case. I bet the answer would have to be no for 90%+ of the respondants, which means their opinions are completely uninformed and therefore all but worthless.