I don't object to anyone block-copying this to their own state legislators.
TO: Senator John Whitmire Subject: SB 1116
Dear Senator Whitmire,
I am writing with EXTREME concern about the subject bill. I am a Computer Systems Analyst and System Administrator employed by the University of Houston. Senate Bill 1116 would outlaw the use of certain technologies that are CRITICAL components of some computer security systems. To enact this legislation while the United States is engaged in a global war against terrorists would place vital components of a large portion of the nation's information infrastructure in a posture of increased risk of compromise. As such, SB 1116 is in direct conflict with much of the homeland security legislation passed by the US Congress since September 11, 2001.
Firewalls, Network Address Translation, Virtual Private Networks and encrypted data connections through the use of programs like SSH would all be outlawed by SB 1116. This would result in highly sensitive information being sent over the public network as clear-text, so that system crackers and cyber-terrorists will have a much easier time of obtaining unauthorized access to computer systems. This bill would make it a crime for me to work from home because some of the data I have to send to the computers I work on is SO sensitive that I cannot, in good conscience, send it over an unencrypted connection.
This bill will also do great harm to e-commerce because websites that sell goods and services over the internet will not be able to use secure connections for the transmission of such information as buyers' personal information and credit-card/bank account numbers. The security and privacy of online banking transactions will also be destroyed by this bill.
Please work to defeat this bill, or at least reduce the amount of damage it will cause. I do not know who is lobbying in favor of this legislation, although I have heard that the Motion Pictura Association of America may be helping promote it. I fail to see what benefit they will gain if it beccomes law. I do foresee grave harm to the state and the nation if legislation of this nature becomes commonplace.
I think you miss the point. The players are the customers rather than the entertainers, there *IS* no "audience".
You bet your money and they let you play. When you leave the game you can "cash out" with the amount you receive being deternined by how well you did in the game.
The government has no responsibility towards keeping you employed.
Spoken like an Ayn Rand "true believer." But before you go too far down that path, consider the rest of this post.
Seriously... If the government dipped their fingers into the economy that far, we would cease to be a capitalist country.
The problem is that the government already HAS dipped it's fingers that far into the economy. Back during the dot-bomb bubble, the tech industry convinced Congress to TRIPLE (from 65,000 -> 195,000) the number of H-1B visas available because "there's a CRITICAL shortage of tech workers!!!" In truth, by the time the legislation was passed and signed into law, the bubble was already shrinking.
It's important that the government does not interfere with our business in that way.
It's also important, for the continued employment of the Congresscritters, that they not ACTIVELY participate in increasing unemployment in this country by kow-towing to corporate interests. People vote, corps can't.
This is not intended to be a racist or nationalist diatribe, but the American worker made the American economy the largest on earth. If Sun wants to employ Indian coders, more power to them. Let them move the corporate headquarters and their manufacturing operations to India too. Of course, they'll also have to live with the Indian system of corporate taxes and many other factors that increase the cost of operating a business overseas. Not to mention what moving overseas would do to their stock price and their access to US financial markets.
If they want to reap the benefits of being a US company, then they should hire local labor FIRST.
The only languages that remain static are those, like Spanish and French, that have an official sanctioning body charged with the authority and responsibility of determining "correct" usage. However, even these "governed" languages change over time because the control exercised by the governing bodies cannot be absolute.
... Let's start by retraining the 275 million people in the United States to all use the metric system like the other 5.8 billion people on the planet do....
I imagine that if you polled the American populace in general, you might find more support for this than you think exists. I think you would find that the only group strongly opposed would be the very old and the poorly educated.
Now, try polling the populace in... say... France... about converting their "official" language to English and see how much support you get.
Essentially RICO allows an enterprise to be defined as primarily criminal in nature even if it is involved in some non criminal activities.
Actually, what RICO does is brand an organization as "racketeer-influenced" and/or "corrupt" if they engage in a "pattern and practice" (defined in the statute as 2 or more documented cases of one of the specified offenses within a ten-year period) of committing certain offenses (e.g. extortion, fraud, bribery).
I don't recall off the top of my head, but I don't believe perjury is one of those offenses. However, extortion (the BSA's primary modus operandi) definitely IS one of them.
So, all we need is for a few companies to voluntarily subject themselves to the business disruption of an unjustified BSA raid (what the hell, it's only money, right?) and it is possible they could be convicted.
But there is legal precedent (from xerox and kleenex, asprin and the like) that if you don't protect your trademarks now and then, you lose them.
You might want to add to your statement, above, that Kleenex(TM) is a registered trademark of the Kimberley-Clark Corporation and Xerox(TM) is a registered trademark of Xerox Corporation. The only one of the three trademarks you mention that has become unenforceable for having been allowed to become generic through a failure to defend is "aspirin" (formerly a registered trademark of Bayer AG). In fact, if you had ever seen one of them either a Kimberley-Clark OR a Xerox C&D letter would make the letter in this case seem to read like "It's okay to use the verb form of our trademark on your website, but would you 'pretty please' make sure you identify it as our trademark? Thanks a bunch, (signed)Your buddies at Google(TM)'."
Band-Aids and Kleenex have been milking this name recognition forever. If you're trying to build a brand synonymous with "searching," what the hell else would you want to happen?
Well, *just* like Band-Aids(TM) and Kleenex(TM), Google(TM) really WANTS "to google" to be synonymous with "to search the web" but they do NOT want it to become a generic term for "to search the web."
I know that sounds like a distinction without a difference, but it is not. As other posters have said, if Google(TM) loses the enforceability of its trademark, then EVERY search site can use the word "google" to refer to its search function. Synonymousness of words is a matter of perception, where genericness is a matter of definition.
All Google(TM) is trying to do here is maintain the current situation where you aren't REALLY "googling" unless you use Google(TM) to do your "googling."
Do you live in the thatched roof district or something? Seriously, there's just no damned way this can happen unless the block was soaked in gasoline in advance, and even then it'd be iffy.
Actually, cedar shake shingle roofs are/were quite fashionable in certain high-dollar housing developments in the southern and western US. Unfortunately, if they are not re-treated with fire retardants on a regular basis (and, tell me, just how fire safety conscious do you think your average yuppie homeowner is?) they quickly become little better than palm frond thatching at resisting fire.
I think it was in 1983 that a mixture of shake shingles (not maintained), freezing temperatures (for SOME reason, people here in South Texas think that if you drip your faucets, the uninsulated pipes won't freeze, of course the Fire Dept won't be able to get adequate flow to fight fires either) and New Year's Eve (Bubba's kids just HAVE to shoot fireworks, weather AND County Ordinances be damned) resulted in a fire that I witnessed. It burned about 50% of a relatively new suburban subdivision to the ground (estimated average home price in the range of $85-95,000 for a "tract home").
Never discount the stupidity of "normal" people living in large metropolitan areas.
The enforceability issue arises because legally when you're giving it away, what are the damages or your losses w.r.t. someone taking it.
Well, I don't know about U.K. law, but the measure of damages under U.S. copyright law, in the absence of proof of specific damages, would be total "disgorgement" of all benefit (e.g. revenue) wrongfully gained as a result of the infringement.
It's not so much a theory piece as it is a GROSS misunderstanding, on the author's part, of the design principles behind the internet in the first place.
The internet isn't, wasn't, never has been intended to be a high-performance network. It IS and was intended to be a high-availability network (read... capable of suvivng a nuclear attack)...
One of the ways the 'net accomplishes this is by detecting damage and routing around it by trying to always use the "lowest cost" route from point A to point B. A significant factor in "lowest cost" is least time.
By always seeking to use the fastest (or most efficient by some other measure than time) route from point A to point B, performance levels on the 'net get leveled out and really fat pipes draw lots of traffic, while "pin-holes" don't.
For the life of me I can't understand just what the hell the author's complaint is... it reads, to me, that he's complaining because the defined routing protocols work THE WAY THEY"RE SUPPOSED TO. Well, DUHH!
Who ever said there wasn't an aim sniffer? 10 seconds on freshmeat was all it took
The problem is NOT the ability to monitor and filter AIM message content. Hell, you can do that with a combination of the packetsocket module and a perl script.
The problem is that MOST commonly used IM systems (AIM, Yahoo and MSN Messenger) are server-centric making it impossible to track the actual origin of messages to an IP address without the server owner's cooperation. It appears, in this instance, that AOL rather oddly decided to defy a federal subpoena rather than reveal the identity of an AIM user who had clearly violated federal law.
What good does it do the authorities to know that the school received a bomb threat if they can't find out who it came from? I think that the school district did the right thing in this instance.
Why would they lose the right to enforce their copyrights? I hope Kazaa wins this, but I don't see any US court saying the RIAA copyrights are invalid as a result.
It has nothing to do with "invalidating" the copyrights. Under US law and international treaties (e.g., the Berne Convention) which are part of the "Supreme Law of the Land", no court CAN do that. However, there IS a provision in antitrust law (I think it's actually in the Sherman Act) that prohibits one in a "monopoly position" from abusing copyrights to strangle ("hmmm... something just came to mind about "cut off their air supply") potential competitiors.
I think it's a stretch for Sharman and Altnet to try and make that argument in court, but if they have sufficient evidence (read that to say DOCUMENTATION) that they attempted to negotiate licensing deals with the media oligarchs in good faith and were stonewalled, it just might fly. This is especially true given the judge's comments in the Napster case.
Well, I think it's time Sun and AOL weighed in to defend THEIR patents against this unwarranted assault on them by SBC.
Sun??... yes, for their patents on Java. One of the original purposes of Java was to permit websites to include dynamic content, INCLUDING NavBars (in fact, I believe the first JDK (1.0.3, IIRC) I ever downloaded included a navbar in the example code), and to not have to worry about what platform their dynamic content would have to execute on.
AOL??... yes, I'm SURE there is probably an old dusty Netscape patent relating to javascript and it's use for things such as site navigation aids, creation of dynamic content linked to a static element, and all those other client-side tasks that we've all come to love like acting as spyware, creating & reading cookies, pop-up windows that resize to take over the screen (oops... my bad)... heh!
Anyhow, couple those with Apple's HyperCard patents and there's PLENTY of prior art out there. Maybe, just maybe, if we could get Sun & AOL fighting with SBC over who owns what, the sharks might eat each OTHER instead of the small fry.
Oh, I do NOT think you can equate a permanent injunction with getting told "Bad boy!".
You see, if MonsterHut disobeys the injunction they can be held in contempt of court and, in most jurisdictions, fined... usually something on the order of US$500 PER VIOLATION!
Let's see... 500,000 e-mails in one fraudulent run times US$500.00 equals US$250,000,000... more like being told "VERY bad boy!"...
In addition, the principals in MonsterHut could face a sentence of as much as six months in jail PER VIOLATION.
Hardly a slap on the wrist at all... and quite a likely outcome when you consider that judges tend NOT to have a sense of humor when they are called upon to enforce their orders against those who have willfully violated them.
"If you pull down (Mac) OS X you'll see a lot of copyright postings that point back to Unix Systems Laboratories, which is what we hold."
... and therein lies the rub...
In order to enforce those copyrights that were originally owned by Unix Systems Laboratories, I believe SCO will have to show that they were granted an EXCLUSIVE license to the IP involved. In addition, they are going to have to show that the alleged infringing software (Linux and OS X are the only systems we've seen mentioned so far) COPIED their code.
I have not reviewed every single copyright notice in, for instance, Debian's code base, but I'm reasonably sure that there's NO AT&T code in it. Most of it is GPL/LGPL, a little bit is the Artistic License and the bulk of that which is not GPL/LGPL is BSD licensed, none of which could apply to the original AT&T (Unix Systems Laboratories) code.
But if Rep. Mary Bono has her way, she'll probably introduce a bill like this [link omitted] to "harmonize" patent terms with copyright terms.
It matters not what Mrs. Bono wants, it is settled law (according to the Supremes) that Congress lacks the Constitutional authority to extend the terms of existing patents. Don't ask me WHY they didn't follow that precedent in the Eldred case.
Does anyone know if they have a legal leg to stand on?
That, my fellow/.'er is the ten megabuck question.
The way I see it, if Caldera sues over any of their proprietary IP that they contributed to the kernel, etc., the terms of the GPL will govern (I hope... there are still SOME areas of the kernel that are NOT simon-pure from a GPL perspective).
Are they pursuing software patents?
I suspect so. Caldera's active voluntary participation in development of various parts of the system, in its entirety, would probably preclude an attempt at enforcing copyrights that have become "tainted by the GPL." Here again, any IP infringement that was a direct result of Caldera's participation would carry an implied license under whatever license covered the particular system component that contained the IP.
Now, all bets, above, are off if they are going to seek enforcement of IP governing a part of the system in which Caldera did not participate. If the contested IP is merely copyrighted by Caldera and the developers can show that they did a true "clean room" reverse-engineering job, then Caldera will get nothing but legal bills and a LOT of bad press in the community. However, if the "independently-developed" infringing IP is covered by a PATENT, there is NO protection for the developers unless they can prove Caldera/SCO contributed that IP to the project.
Either way, I don't see how Caldera can POSSIBLY gain from this exercise. Many members of the OSS community are also in "buying official" positions out in the "meat world." Anyone want to let them know that if they pee in our Post Toasties(TM), we might just be inclined to return the favor by buying our respective companies' server software, etc, from their competition?
It seems obvious to me that the CTEA is a bad law, but it's pretty unobvious whether it's unconstitutional or not, so I don't think the courts decision was bad.
Well, IAA(non-practicing)L and it is pretty OBVIOUS to me that the CTEA is facially unconstituional for reasons that are most eloquently stated by Mr. Justice Stevens, who, I personally think, history will show to be one of the great Constitutional scholars of the 20th Century.
Let's look at the flip side of the question for a moment. Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that Congress, in it's infinite wisdom (such as it is), decided to shorten copyright terms. You had better believe that The Gang of Five (MPAA members) would exceed the speed of light getting to the nearest federal courthouse to sue on the basis that reducing copyright terms was an unconstitutional "uncompensated taking" of property without due process of law (read, court proceedings) in violation of their rights under the Fifth Amendment. They would be entirely within their rights to do so and they would be LEGALLY and CONSTITUTIONALLY correct.
Now, let's turn to the situation as it REALLY exists. "We, the People" OWN the "public domain." When Congress extends copyright terms they are "taking" property rights from US and giving them to the content creation industry without compensation and without Due Process of Law. The law is rarely perfectly symmetrical in it's effect, but the thrust of Mr. Justice Stevens's dissent is that it SHOULD be in this case. The unfortunate fact is that Lessig missed making this argument in his brief and in his oral argument and IT IS THE SINGLE MOST POTENT argument against this horrible law!
Any second year law student (Constitutional Law is a first-year course) could have told you that the First Amendment argument was a loser from the get-go. Likewise, I think the "Copyright Clause" was, predictably, not going to fly although the argument that "Congress should not be able to do piecemeal that which it cannot do wholesale" has a nice ring to it as a battle cry. The unmade Fifth Amendment argument would, however, have been overwhelming because the Court has clear and unambiguous precedent from the various "condemnation (as in seizure for a public use) by building code and/or easement and/or zoning ordinance" cases it has dealt with over the years.
The common law rule (and yes, the United States is governed by Common Law more than by statute) is that once a work is "published" anyone has the right to reproduce that part of it that they can because the act of publication makes it public property. The "Copyright Clause" (more accurately "The Monopolies Clause") gives Congress the power to grant limited monopolies "To Promote... " yada, yada. When existing copyrights are extended, OUR rights in the published work are transferred to the creators, their heirs and assigns without compensation and without Due Process of Law. Unfortunately, as a prior poster so succinctly stated, "WE are so many, but THEY are so rich...". Constitutional litigation designed to reach the Supreme Court is horrendously expensive.
What to do about the situation? Well, a class action lawsuit challenging Congress's power to TAKE from us and GIVE to them would be nice... if someone wanted to come up with +- 1 megabuck to fund it. Seriously, think about it... wouldn't those of you opposed to the current administration (on the basis of party affiliation) LOVE to see a case styled "The People of the United States of America v. John Ashcroft, George W. Bush, et al."??? It would CERTAINLY be one for the books.
Would the EFF, ACLU, FSF and others be willing to fund such a suit? Who knows?
I've got to say that (as much as I might like to see a different outcome) the Supremes made the right decision in this matter. Had they made any other decision they would have been essentially legislating from the bench,
"Legislating from the bench" (as you put it) is exactly the principal function of the federal courts in their function as the guardians of the Constitution from an over-active legislative branch. If the courts did not have the power to determine that Congress had exceeded the limits placed upon it by the Constitution, there would BE no limit on the power of Congress. Go read Marbury v. Madison if you want to understand the necessity of giving the courts the power to determine the consitutionality of legislation.
The poster continueth:
... which is a very bad precident, because it is very difficult to overturn a "law" enacted by the courts.
Let me assure you that it is INFINITELY easier to get bad precedent in the courts overturned than it is to get Congress to repeal a bad law.
Slashdot Mirror
My Linux box is possessed by several daemons, as is my VR-3 Linux-based PDA ...
... okay, I'll go sit in time-out now.
oh
I don't object to anyone block-copying this to their own state legislators.
TO: Senator John Whitmire
Subject: SB 1116
Dear Senator Whitmire,
I am writing with EXTREME concern about the subject bill. I am a Computer Systems Analyst and System Administrator employed by the University of Houston. Senate Bill 1116 would outlaw the use of certain technologies that are CRITICAL components of some computer security systems. To enact this legislation while the United States is engaged in a global war against terrorists would place vital components of a large portion of the nation's information infrastructure in a posture of increased risk of compromise. As such, SB 1116 is in direct conflict with much of the homeland security legislation passed by the US Congress
since September 11, 2001.
Firewalls, Network Address Translation, Virtual Private Networks and encrypted data connections through the use of programs like SSH would all be outlawed by SB 1116. This would result in highly sensitive information being sent over the public network as clear-text, so that system crackers and cyber-terrorists will have a much easier time of obtaining unauthorized access to computer systems. This bill would make it a crime for me to work from home because some of the data I have to
send to the computers I work on is SO sensitive that I cannot, in good conscience, send it over an unencrypted connection.
This bill will also do great harm to e-commerce because websites that sell goods and services over the internet will not be able to use secure connections for the transmission of such information as buyers' personal information and credit-card/bank account numbers. The security and privacy of online banking transactions will also be destroyed by this bill.
Please work to defeat this bill, or at least reduce the amount of damage it will cause. I do not know who is lobbying in favor of this legislation, although I have heard that the Motion Pictura Association of America may be helping promote it. I fail to see what benefit they
will gain if it beccomes law. I do foresee grave harm to the state and the nation if legislation of this nature becomes commonplace.
Please think before you vote, Senator Whitmire.
Actually, I consider it more analogous (but of opposite polarity) to RedHat continuing to patch 6.2, which goes EOS in four days.
Like an earlier poster said, "It appears you get BETTER support from OSS vendors
I think you miss the point. The players are the customers rather than the entertainers, there *IS* no "audience".
You bet your money and they let you play. When you leave the game you can "cash out" with the amount you receive being deternined by how well you did in the game.
Spoken like an Ayn Rand "true believer." But before you go too far down that path, consider the rest of this post.
The problem is that the government already HAS dipped it's fingers that far into the economy. Back during the dot-bomb bubble, the tech industry convinced Congress to TRIPLE (from 65,000 -> 195,000) the number of H-1B visas available because "there's a CRITICAL shortage of tech workers!!!" In truth, by the time the legislation was passed and signed into law, the bubble was already shrinking.
It's also important, for the continued employment of the Congresscritters, that they not ACTIVELY participate in increasing unemployment in this country by kow-towing to corporate interests. People vote, corps can't.
This is not intended to be a racist or nationalist diatribe, but the American worker made the American economy the largest on earth. If Sun wants to employ Indian coders, more power to them. Let them move the corporate headquarters and their manufacturing operations to India too. Of course, they'll also have to live with the Indian system of corporate taxes and many other factors that increase the cost of operating a business overseas. Not to mention what moving overseas would do to their stock price and their access to US financial markets.
If they want to reap the benefits of being a US company, then they should hire local labor FIRST.
The only languages that remain static are those, like Spanish and French, that have an official sanctioning body charged with the authority and responsibility of determining "correct" usage. However, even these "governed" languages change over time because the control exercised by the governing bodies cannot be absolute.
I imagine that if you polled the American populace in general, you might find more support for this than you think exists. I think you would find that the only group strongly opposed would be the very old and the poorly educated.
Now, try polling the populace in
Actually, what RICO does is brand an organization as "racketeer-influenced" and/or "corrupt" if they engage in a "pattern and practice" (defined in the statute as 2 or more documented cases of one of the specified offenses within a ten-year period) of committing certain offenses (e.g. extortion, fraud, bribery).
I don't recall off the top of my head, but I don't believe perjury is one of those offenses. However, extortion (the BSA's primary modus operandi) definitely IS one of them.
So, all we need is for a few companies to voluntarily subject themselves to the business disruption of an unjustified BSA raid (what the hell, it's only money, right?) and it is possible they could be convicted.
You might want to add to your statement, above, that Kleenex(TM) is a registered trademark of the Kimberley-Clark Corporation and Xerox(TM) is a registered trademark of Xerox Corporation. The only one of the three trademarks you mention that has become unenforceable for having been allowed to become generic through a failure to defend is "aspirin" (formerly a registered trademark of Bayer AG). In fact, if you had ever seen one of them either a Kimberley-Clark OR a Xerox C&D letter would make the letter in this case seem to read like "It's okay to use the verb form of our trademark on your website, but would you 'pretty please' make sure you identify it as our trademark? Thanks a bunch, (signed)Your buddies at Google(TM)'."
Well, *just* like Band-Aids(TM) and Kleenex(TM), Google(TM) really WANTS "to google" to be synonymous with "to search the web" but they do NOT want it to become a generic term for "to search the web."
I know that sounds like a distinction without a difference, but it is not. As other posters have said, if Google(TM) loses the enforceability of its trademark, then EVERY search site can use the word "google" to refer to its search function. Synonymousness of words is a matter of perception, where genericness is a matter of definition.
All Google(TM) is trying to do here is maintain the current situation where you aren't REALLY "googling" unless you use Google(TM) to do your "googling."
Actually, cedar shake shingle roofs are/were quite fashionable in certain high-dollar housing developments in the southern and western US. Unfortunately, if they are not re-treated with fire retardants on a regular basis (and, tell me, just how fire safety conscious do you think your average yuppie homeowner is?) they quickly become little better than palm frond thatching at resisting fire.
I think it was in 1983 that a mixture of shake shingles (not maintained), freezing temperatures (for SOME reason, people here in South Texas think that if you drip your faucets, the uninsulated pipes won't freeze, of course the Fire Dept won't be able to get adequate flow to fight fires either) and New Year's Eve (Bubba's kids just HAVE to shoot fireworks, weather AND County Ordinances be damned) resulted in a fire that I witnessed. It burned about 50% of a relatively new suburban subdivision to the ground (estimated average home price in the range of $85-95,000 for a "tract home").
Never discount the stupidity of "normal" people living in large metropolitan areas.
KMail has (or "had" when I last used it) a "Bounce" selection on it's "Message" menu that I have used more than once.
Well, I don't know about U.K. law, but the measure of damages under U.S. copyright law, in the absence of proof of specific damages, would be total "disgorgement" of all benefit (e.g. revenue) wrongfully gained as a result of the infringement.
It's not so much a theory piece as it is a GROSS misunderstanding, on the author's part, of the design principles behind the internet in the first place.
... capable of suvivng a nuclear attack) ...
... it reads, to me, that he's complaining because the defined routing protocols work THE WAY THEY"RE SUPPOSED TO. Well, DUHH!
The internet isn't, wasn't, never has been intended to be a high-performance network. It IS and was intended to be a high-availability network (read
One of the ways the 'net accomplishes this is by detecting damage and routing around it by trying to always use the "lowest cost" route from point A to point B. A significant factor in "lowest cost" is least time.
By always seeking to use the fastest (or most efficient by some other measure than time) route from point A to point B, performance levels on the 'net get leveled out and really fat pipes draw lots of traffic, while "pin-holes" don't.
For the life of me I can't understand just what the hell the author's complaint is
Just my US$0.02
That a math teacher ACTUALLY told in class:
What's the integral of 1/cabin dcabin?
A houseboat!
(log cabin + sea)
The problem is NOT the ability to monitor and filter AIM message content. Hell, you can do that with a combination of the packetsocket module and a perl script.
The problem is that MOST commonly used IM systems (AIM, Yahoo and MSN Messenger) are server-centric making it impossible to track the actual origin of messages to an IP address without the server owner's cooperation. It appears, in this instance, that AOL rather oddly decided to defy a federal subpoena rather than reveal the identity of an AIM user who had clearly violated federal law.
What good does it do the authorities to know that the school received a bomb threat if they can't find out who it came from? I think that the school district did the right thing in this instance.
It has nothing to do with "invalidating" the copyrights. Under US law and international treaties (e.g., the Berne Convention) which are part of the "Supreme Law of the Land", no court CAN do that. However, there IS a provision in antitrust law (I think it's actually in the Sherman Act) that prohibits one in a "monopoly position" from abusing copyrights to strangle ("hmmm
I think it's a stretch for Sharman and Altnet to try and make that argument in court, but if they have sufficient evidence (read that to say DOCUMENTATION) that they attempted to negotiate licensing deals with the media oligarchs in good faith and were stonewalled, it just might fly. This is especially true given the judge's comments in the Napster case.
Well, I think it's time Sun and AOL weighed in to defend THEIR patents against this unwarranted assault on them by SBC.
... yes, for their patents on Java. One of the original purposes of Java was to permit websites to include dynamic content, INCLUDING NavBars (in fact, I believe the first JDK (1.0.3, IIRC) I ever downloaded included a navbar in the example code), and to not have to worry about what platform their dynamic content would have to execute on.
... yes, I'm SURE there is probably an old dusty Netscape patent relating to javascript and it's use for things such as site navigation aids, creation of dynamic content linked to a static element, and all those other client-side tasks that we've all come to love like acting as spyware, creating & reading cookies, pop-up windows that resize to take over the screen (oops ... my bad) ... heh!
Sun??
AOL??
Anyhow, couple those with Apple's HyperCard patents and there's PLENTY of prior art out there. Maybe, just maybe, if we could get Sun & AOL fighting with SBC over who owns what, the sharks might eat each OTHER instead of the small fry.
Oh, I do NOT think you can equate a permanent injunction with getting told "Bad boy!".
... usually something on the order of US$500 PER VIOLATION!
... 500,000 e-mails in one fraudulent run times US$500.00 equals US$250,000,000 ... more like being told "VERY bad boy!" ...
... and quite a likely outcome when you consider that judges tend NOT to have a sense of humor when they are called upon to enforce their orders against those who have willfully violated them.
You see, if MonsterHut disobeys the injunction they can be held in contempt of court and, in most jurisdictions, fined
Let's see
In addition, the principals in MonsterHut could face a sentence of as much as six months in jail PER VIOLATION.
Hardly a slap on the wrist at all
In order to enforce those copyrights that were originally owned by Unix Systems Laboratories, I believe SCO will have to show that they were granted an EXCLUSIVE license to the IP involved. In addition, they are going to have to show that the alleged infringing software (Linux and OS X are the only systems we've seen mentioned so far) COPIED their code.
I have not reviewed every single copyright notice in, for instance, Debian's code base, but I'm reasonably sure that there's NO AT&T code in it. Most of it is GPL/LGPL, a little bit is the Artistic License and the bulk of that which is not GPL/LGPL is BSD licensed, none of which could apply to the original AT&T (Unix Systems Laboratories) code.
It matters not what Mrs. Bono wants, it is settled law (according to the Supremes) that Congress lacks the Constitutional authority to extend the terms of existing patents. Don't ask me WHY they didn't follow that precedent in the Eldred case.
That, my fellow
The way I see it, if Caldera sues over any of their proprietary IP that they contributed to the kernel, etc., the terms of the GPL will govern (I hope
I suspect so. Caldera's active voluntary participation in development of various parts of the system, in its entirety, would probably preclude an attempt at enforcing copyrights that have become "tainted by the GPL." Here again, any IP infringement that was a direct result of Caldera's participation would carry an implied license under whatever license covered the particular system component that contained the IP.
Now, all bets, above, are off if they are going to seek enforcement of IP governing a part of the system in which Caldera did not participate. If the contested IP is merely copyrighted by Caldera and the developers can show that they did a true "clean room" reverse-engineering job, then Caldera will get nothing but legal bills and a LOT of bad press in the community. However, if the "independently-developed" infringing IP is covered by a PATENT, there is NO protection for the developers unless they can prove Caldera/SCO contributed that IP to the project.
Either way, I don't see how Caldera can POSSIBLY gain from this exercise. Many members of the OSS community are also in "buying official" positions out in the "meat world." Anyone want to let them know that if they pee in our Post Toasties(TM), we might just be inclined to return the favor by buying our respective companies' server software, etc, from their competition?
I agree, I cited the wrong statute ... my bad
Well, IAA(non-practicing)L and it is pretty OBVIOUS to me that the CTEA is facially unconstituional for reasons that are most eloquently stated by Mr. Justice Stevens, who, I personally think, history will show to be one of the great Constitutional scholars of the 20th Century.
Let's look at the flip side of the question for a moment. Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that Congress, in it's infinite wisdom (such as it is), decided to shorten copyright terms. You had better believe that The Gang of Five (MPAA members) would exceed the speed of light getting to the nearest federal courthouse to sue on the basis that reducing copyright terms was an unconstitutional "uncompensated taking" of property without due process of law (read, court proceedings) in violation of their rights under the Fifth Amendment. They would be entirely within their rights to do so and they would be LEGALLY and CONSTITUTIONALLY correct.
Now, let's turn to the situation as it REALLY exists. "We, the People" OWN the "public domain." When Congress extends copyright terms they are "taking" property rights from US and giving them to the content creation industry without compensation and without Due Process of Law. The law is rarely perfectly symmetrical in it's effect, but the thrust of Mr. Justice Stevens's dissent is that it SHOULD be in this case. The unfortunate fact is that Lessig missed making this argument in his brief and in his oral argument and IT IS THE SINGLE MOST POTENT argument against this horrible law!
Any second year law student (Constitutional Law is a first-year course) could have told you that the First Amendment argument was a loser from the get-go. Likewise, I think the "Copyright Clause" was, predictably, not going to fly although the argument that "Congress should not be able to do piecemeal that which it cannot do wholesale" has a nice ring to it as a battle cry. The unmade Fifth Amendment argument would, however, have been overwhelming because the Court has clear and unambiguous precedent from the various "condemnation (as in seizure for a public use) by building code and/or easement and/or zoning ordinance" cases it has dealt with over the years.
The common law rule (and yes, the United States is governed by Common Law more than by statute) is that once a work is "published" anyone has the right to reproduce that part of it that they can because the act of publication makes it public property. The "Copyright Clause" (more accurately "The Monopolies Clause") gives Congress the power to grant limited monopolies "To Promote
What to do about the situation? Well, a class action lawsuit challenging Congress's power to TAKE from us and GIVE to them would be nice
Would the EFF, ACLU, FSF and others be willing to fund such a suit? Who knows?
"Legislating from the bench" (as you put it) is exactly the principal function of the federal courts in their function as the guardians of the Constitution from an over-active legislative branch. If the courts did not have the power to determine that Congress had exceeded the limits placed upon it by the Constitution, there would BE no limit on the power of Congress. Go read Marbury v. Madison if you want to understand the necessity of giving the courts the power to determine the consitutionality of legislation.
The poster continueth:
Let me assure you that it is INFINITELY easier to get bad precedent in the courts overturned than it is to get Congress to repeal a bad law.