Ummm, you do realize that the bankruptcy stays all of the litigation, right? The IBM and Novell cases will come to a complete stand-still now, at least for 90 days, possibly longer.
I wouldn't call this language changing. I can honestly say, outside of Slashdot which represents an extremely tiny portion of the overall population, I've never heard to any form of advertising being referred to as evil. In-fact, the vast majority of things that are referred to as "OMG teh evil!!!!" on Slashdot, most people don't...well, give a shit about.
Besides, Google's "Don't be evil" slogan is marketing, that's all. It's an attempt to paint the company as more of a charity and champion of consumer rights, and the fact that anyone actually buys into it is astonishing frankly.
Your comment sure didn't read like a joke..it read more like a completely uninformed person commenting. I apologize for not reading your mind and linking your comment to some other random comment on this story which currently has 261 comments.
Well duh. Who the hell do you think pays for it, health-care fairies? By free I mean you don't have to pay a few thousand on your way out of the hospital. I figured I wouldn't need to explain that, because anyone with a dose of sense knows SOMEONE pays for it. Guess I was mistaken. Who did you figure I meant paid for it?
Ummm, what does Yahoo pushing IE7 have to do with anything? What a stupid comment. Google pushes it too ffs. Doesn't meanyou have to USE it. Furthermore, Launchcast has absolutely nothing to do with Yahoo! search, so again, what is your point? And last but not least, many of Google's apps don't yet support Linux, or are years behind in their support.
Considering Linux's extremely small desktop marketshare, and the fact that all of Google's current video ads on third-party sites don't even play by default, I'm sure they're not too worried.
Depends what you're looking for. Google's index is refreshed amazingly quickly. It can sometimes take a month for a page to make it into Ask, with the same page making it into Google within a day. I actually used Ask for a few months, and then switched back to Google for that reason.
Well considering that this is posted on a site with notoriously incorrect summaries and headlines on a daily basis, and the headline and summary don't say that this is actually happening, and even if it does happen it will most likely be like their video ads on third party sites (they only play after you actually click the play button), don't you think you're overreacting just a tad?
Money does grow on trees! I knew it! Here I thought the $15B Google was raking in every year was from paid search listings.... guess I was wrong?
Seriously though, you either have an adblocker on and forgot about it, your blind, or you're on crack. Which is it? Google has had ads on their search pages for over half a decade now. How the hell do you think they can afford to keep the site running?
If you consider something that "disrupts" you to be "evil" than you sure have a fucked up sense of morality. I tend to reserve evil for things like, you know....murder, torture, rape, oppression. Interrupting you, or even myself, for a few seconds is pretty far down on my "evil" list. Annoying, sure. Evil? Give me a fucking break.
Evil has become the new Web 2.0...a completely meaningless word that is used at the most inappropriate times.
Exactly. I find that the ads tend to be more precise than the organic results a lot of the time. The only time they're not is when the ad is misleading, but then I don't care because I just cost the advertiser some money with no intention of spending a dime on them due to their own actions.
Ummmm, I don't think the vast majority of people have many problems with companies protecting their "IP" (I hate that term, it is at best misleading), but more with companies ABUSING it (as in the RIAA and its members, SCO [although they don't really own any], NTP and the like).
Although I could be wrong. I tend to avoid reading Slashdot comments except on select posts that interest me. Too much white noise, not enough insight.
Ummm, Canada provides free health-care (well, almost free....I pay $15 a month and don't have to worry about massive hospital bills should I get sick...I was able to walk in with a cold, get a checkup, and a 3 week antibiotic prescription without paying a dime extra). I don't have to worry about pre-existing conditions as a hinderance for my health-care coverage either....I'm not investigated before I can enroll. In-fact, some people with serious enough conditions can have those costs WAIVED. My hospital doesn't have to call my insurance company to see if they can treat me.
Your health-care example is an extremely poor one. America is the only western country I'm aware of with such a piss-poor health care system where the lives of citizens are but a minor consideration in a money-making enterprise. Just my 2 cents.
As for anyone else complaining in here....Zap2it provided a free service, it was abused, get over it.
SCO's hand-waving about having the right to sue over monteray is meaningless. SCO is not a party to the monteray contract, and Santa Cruz never assigned it to them. The contract had a specific provision that Santa Cruz had to seek IBM's approval before assigning the contract to a third party, so they went behind IBM's back, assigned the contract, and then notified IBM afterwards. IBM sent a letter a couple of days later terminating the contract (and neither Santa Cruz nor Caldera/SCO ever disputed IBM's rights to do this, as the contract was very specific that IBM had the right to do this).
All the letters between Santa Cruz, Caldera and IBM re: this are somewhere on Groklaw, good luck finding them:-P If I remember correctly, IBM did include them in their summary judgment motions, however, those motions included over 500 attachments.
The only other thing SCO says helps them is that they own derivative versions of Unixware after 1995. This isn't entirely correct either. Novell, since they were receiving significant Unixware royalties on top of SVRx royalties, continued to commit development resources to Unixware all the way into 1998, 3 years after the signing of the APA, in order to ensure that it remained viable and also due to a partnership between Novell, HP and Santa Cruz. IBM also contributed code to Unixware that they would own the copyrights to. It isn't clear whether much of today's Unixware even belongs to SCO, as it has been left to stagnate for a while and a lot of the development work between 1995-1998 still continued to be done by others.
In addition, SCO never claimed Linux infringed on Unixware, only SVRx. It wasn't until the ruling last month, over 4 years after filing suit against IBM, that they began claiming that Linux contains Unixware code. Both IBM and Novell state that SCO hasn't provided a single line of code post-1995 that they think Linux infringes on.
Well yes, but you see, a quick read of TFA would show you that this is the sole Novell motion denied. Oh wait, it's in the summary too. Don't you look like a fool now.
Instead of trying to sound intelligent, you could read Judge Kimball's ruling which lists the 3 remaining issues for trial and why he issued this ruling:-) Not like this is an issue that requires Sherlock Holmes to figure it out, it's right there in a PDF on a free website.
Oh give me a break. Customers stopped caring about SCO years ago, and Microsoft's sales have gone up since. Saying that all of Microsoft's revenue is attributable to SCO, every last dime, is downright ridiculous. I know this is Slashdot, but quit being a fanboy idiot. IBM and Novell are big boys, they can defend themselves. SCO's case against Linux itself imploded long ago.
Judge Kimball has ruled these waivers were valid. In-fact, SCO's contract claims were hurt MORE by the ruling than the copyright ones, cause SCO can still claim infringement over code they own (although they haven't presented any).
SCO AND NOVELL cited close to 10 cases where, in-fact, copyrights had transferred to a party that continued to pay royalties. In-fact, this is how record labels generally function if I'm not mistaken. However, when a contract like the APA specifically states that all copyrights are excluded, then this is clearly not the case.
That's what the contract SAID. In-fact, to make things simpler, SCO would just pay themselves the money on behalf of Novell, which Novell did not have a problem with, as long as the money was properly accounted for. Actually saved Novell money that way, cause the job of apportionment was left to SCO.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm, you do realize that the bankruptcy stays all of the litigation, right? The IBM and Novell cases will come to a complete stand-still now, at least for 90 days, possibly longer.
Ummm...since when is good the opposite of evil, as another poster pointed out?
I wouldn't call this language changing. I can honestly say, outside of Slashdot which represents an extremely tiny portion of the overall population, I've never heard to any form of advertising being referred to as evil. In-fact, the vast majority of things that are referred to as "OMG teh evil!!!!" on Slashdot, most people don't...well, give a shit about.
Besides, Google's "Don't be evil" slogan is marketing, that's all. It's an attempt to paint the company as more of a charity and champion of consumer rights, and the fact that anyone actually buys into it is astonishing frankly.
Your comment sure didn't read like a joke..it read more like a completely uninformed person commenting. I apologize for not reading your mind and linking your comment to some other random comment on this story which currently has 261 comments.
Sorry, it was actually strepp throat (or however you spell it...too lazy to look it up). I went in for what I thought was a cold.
:-P
The doctor was kind of a bitch though (female)
Well duh. Who the hell do you think pays for it, health-care fairies? By free I mean you don't have to pay a few thousand on your way out of the hospital. I figured I wouldn't need to explain that, because anyone with a dose of sense knows SOMEONE pays for it. Guess I was mistaken. Who did you figure I meant paid for it?
Whoops, should have worded that better. I meant to include satellite in that.
Ummm, what does Yahoo pushing IE7 have to do with anything? What a stupid comment. Google pushes it too ffs. Doesn't meanyou have to USE it. Furthermore, Launchcast has absolutely nothing to do with Yahoo! search, so again, what is your point? And last but not least, many of Google's apps don't yet support Linux, or are years behind in their support.
http://www.google.com/toolbar/ie7/
Congrats, your comment takes the cake for most stupid comment I've read all day.
Considering Linux's extremely small desktop marketshare, and the fact that all of Google's current video ads on third-party sites don't even play by default, I'm sure they're not too worried.
Depends what you're looking for. Google's index is refreshed amazingly quickly. It can sometimes take a month for a page to make it into Ask, with the same page making it into Google within a day. I actually used Ask for a few months, and then switched back to Google for that reason.
Well considering that this is posted on a site with notoriously incorrect summaries and headlines on a daily basis, and the headline and summary don't say that this is actually happening, and even if it does happen it will most likely be like their video ads on third party sites (they only play after you actually click the play button), don't you think you're overreacting just a tad?
Money does grow on trees! I knew it! Here I thought the $15B Google was raking in every year was from paid search listings.... guess I was wrong?
Seriously though, you either have an adblocker on and forgot about it, your blind, or you're on crack. Which is it? Google has had ads on their search pages for over half a decade now. How the hell do you think they can afford to keep the site running?
If you consider something that "disrupts" you to be "evil" than you sure have a fucked up sense of morality. I tend to reserve evil for things like, you know....murder, torture, rape, oppression. Interrupting you, or even myself, for a few seconds is pretty far down on my "evil" list. Annoying, sure. Evil? Give me a fucking break.
Evil has become the new Web 2.0...a completely meaningless word that is used at the most inappropriate times.
Exactly. I find that the ads tend to be more precise than the organic results a lot of the time. The only time they're not is when the ad is misleading, but then I don't care because I just cost the advertiser some money with no intention of spending a dime on them due to their own actions.
Ummmm, I don't think the vast majority of people have many problems with companies protecting their "IP" (I hate that term, it is at best misleading), but more with companies ABUSING it (as in the RIAA and its members, SCO [although they don't really own any], NTP and the like).
Although I could be wrong. I tend to avoid reading Slashdot comments except on select posts that interest me. Too much white noise, not enough insight.
Ummm, Canada provides free health-care (well, almost free....I pay $15 a month and don't have to worry about massive hospital bills should I get sick...I was able to walk in with a cold, get a checkup, and a 3 week antibiotic prescription without paying a dime extra). I don't have to worry about pre-existing conditions as a hinderance for my health-care coverage either....I'm not investigated before I can enroll. In-fact, some people with serious enough conditions can have those costs WAIVED. My hospital doesn't have to call my insurance company to see if they can treat me.
Your health-care example is an extremely poor one. America is the only western country I'm aware of with such a piss-poor health care system where the lives of citizens are but a minor consideration in a money-making enterprise. Just my 2 cents.
As for anyone else complaining in here....Zap2it provided a free service, it was abused, get over it.
Ummm, the vast majority of people in the United States and Canada perhaps....
I'm the only person I know who doesn't have cable tv.
I dislike McDonald's and refuse to eat there, but I think saying that them offering pizza is unfair competition is a tad bit ridiculous.
SCO's hand-waving about having the right to sue over monteray is meaningless. SCO is not a party to the monteray contract, and Santa Cruz never assigned it to them. The contract had a specific provision that Santa Cruz had to seek IBM's approval before assigning the contract to a third party, so they went behind IBM's back, assigned the contract, and then notified IBM afterwards. IBM sent a letter a couple of days later terminating the contract (and neither Santa Cruz nor Caldera/SCO ever disputed IBM's rights to do this, as the contract was very specific that IBM had the right to do this).
:-P If I remember correctly, IBM did include them in their summary judgment motions, however, those motions included over 500 attachments.
All the letters between Santa Cruz, Caldera and IBM re: this are somewhere on Groklaw, good luck finding them
The only other thing SCO says helps them is that they own derivative versions of Unixware after 1995. This isn't entirely correct either. Novell, since they were receiving significant Unixware royalties on top of SVRx royalties, continued to commit development resources to Unixware all the way into 1998, 3 years after the signing of the APA, in order to ensure that it remained viable and also due to a partnership between Novell, HP and Santa Cruz. IBM also contributed code to Unixware that they would own the copyrights to. It isn't clear whether much of today's Unixware even belongs to SCO, as it has been left to stagnate for a while and a lot of the development work between 1995-1998 still continued to be done by others.
In addition, SCO never claimed Linux infringed on Unixware, only SVRx. It wasn't until the ruling last month, over 4 years after filing suit against IBM, that they began claiming that Linux contains Unixware code. Both IBM and Novell state that SCO hasn't provided a single line of code post-1995 that they think Linux infringes on.
SCO is toast.
Well yes, but you see, a quick read of TFA would show you that this is the sole Novell motion denied. Oh wait, it's in the summary too. Don't you look like a fool now.
Instead of trying to sound intelligent, you could read Judge Kimball's ruling which lists the 3 remaining issues for trial and why he issued this ruling :-) Not like this is an issue that requires Sherlock Holmes to figure it out, it's right there in a PDF on a free website.
Oh give me a break. Customers stopped caring about SCO years ago, and Microsoft's sales have gone up since. Saying that all of Microsoft's revenue is attributable to SCO, every last dime, is downright ridiculous. I know this is Slashdot, but quit being a fanboy idiot. IBM and Novell are big boys, they can defend themselves. SCO's case against Linux itself imploded long ago.
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/6_12 _03_n-scoandibm.pdf
1 0_03_n-sco_ibm.pdf
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/10_
Judge Kimball has ruled these waivers were valid. In-fact, SCO's contract claims were hurt MORE by the ruling than the copyright ones, cause SCO can still claim infringement over code they own (although they haven't presented any).
SCO AND NOVELL cited close to 10 cases where, in-fact, copyrights had transferred to a party that continued to pay royalties. In-fact, this is how record labels generally function if I'm not mistaken. However, when a contract like the APA specifically states that all copyrights are excluded, then this is clearly not the case.
That's what the contract SAID. In-fact, to make things simpler, SCO would just pay themselves the money on behalf of Novell, which Novell did not have a problem with, as long as the money was properly accounted for. Actually saved Novell money that way, cause the job of apportionment was left to SCO.