Let's put it this way. Novell and SCO collectively filed 8 pre-trial motions. Novell won 7, SCO won 1. These are for a trial that has already largely been decided against SCO at the summary judgment stage. SCO's only hope was to dazzle a jury into believing their claims, and that is gone now. In other words, they are downright fucked.
IBM is still pushing Kimball for rulings on their summary judgment motions. I expect those before the start of trial, so that IBM can be vindicated and Novell can finish SCO off, almost completely wiping these 2 cases off the docket.
After that, it will go to appeals (although SCO will have to post a bond when they lose, so this might not even happen), which will be MUCH less friendly towards SCO's...... unique legal theories.
BZZT, wrong. It doesn't have anything to do with whether factual issues remain or not. There are still facts in dispute regarding the apportionment of royalties, with both sides providing opposing expert reports. Judge Kimball specificlly ruled in the summary judgment rulings that this is a question of fact, not law. The reason this is not going to a jury is that the claims seek equitable relief.
RTFA and quit trying to be an armchair lawyer. The reasoning is laid out quite clearly in the ruling. Numerous appelate Judge's have upheld the exact type of ruling that Kimball issued here in far less deserving circumstances.
As is clearly explained in the article on Groklaw, numerous articles before it, Novell's briefs which are also linked in the article and the very ruling the article is about, if your claim is equitable in relief (ie. not seeking damages, but instead merely seeking the return of ill-gotten or wrongfully withheld gains), or is also merely seeking construction of a contract, and requires no fact-finding, as is clearly the case here, the defendant has absolutely no right to a trial by jury whatsoever.
Ummm, all publically available evidence has pointed to NO AT&T subsidies on the iPhone. Instead, the 2 years is there because Apple is also getting a cut of service revenues, despite the hefty profit margin Apple is already making on the phone.
Also, if what you're saying is true, why did Apple make it so easy to go into their store and walk out with an iPhone with no contract? You don't need to register at their store. You do it at home. If that isn't Apple begging for people to circumvent the AT&T lockin, then what is? On top of that, AT&T is also selling iPhones on Pay As You Go for people with bad credit.... which, combining the 2, would give AT&T next to no chance of getting their subsidy back if they had actually paid one to Apple.
Also, what about people in the rest of the world that want an iPhone and don't feel like waiting for Apple to get their ass in gear? (Such as myself in Canada). Apple may be an innovative company, but they sure are no Google when it comes to moving fast.
Anyways, this whole debate is pointless. In most countries, such as my own, it is perfectly legal to unlock a phone. I believe it is also now legal in the US. In Canada, it is even legal to SELL unlocked phones, and we have numerous retailers up here, such as puremobile.ca, which specialize in doing just that.
Hmmmm...I wouldn't think of this as news. Myself and probably 90% of all Slashdot readers knew this, so I'm not sure why the summary is written like it's *gasp* ZOMG some big shock that the 2 licenses don't allow 2 way sharing.
Now, could someone help me out in explaining why this is any worse than BSD code that is placed into proprietary software, which COMPLETELY cuts off access for the BSD licensed code? I mean, isn't the entire point of the BSD license to explicitly allow this sort of thing?
You shouldn't license your code under a "Do whatever the fuck you want with it" license and then whine and bellyache when people do just that.
I don't understand. The ones available through Fink (Debian's apt for Mac OS X) are merely the Linux/Unix terminals recompiled on OS X. I don't think they've been modified at all. They even run through X11, not Aqua. Which terminal do you normally use on Linux?
Could we not keep the "style" of different distros the same without having basic text files that control settings be completely different between distros?
Have you tried downloading iTerm, or any of the other terminals available for OS X? All of the terminals available in Linux are also available on OS X through fink.
It proves I made a typo. Get over it. Use Wikipedia's search feature, or Google, and you could, within 5 seconds, find the article I meant to link to. Or, even better, read the post above yours that was also in response to mine.
Or, if those 2 options are too difficult for you, you could always merely ask me for the correct URL.
See that....that's the point flying 15 feet over your head.
Pretty much every single open source license allows unlimited usage and copying, even to third parties. I'm not aware of a single one that limits this. I'm also not aware of a single one that places restrictions on copying modified versions internally.
Unless there's one I'm missing, the only limits any open source license places on a licensee is when they create derivative works, and then distribute said works to third parties.
I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy, but for her to claim that it is AOL's responsibility to monitor and prevent illegal downloads sets a dangerous precedent. An ISP should not be doing this.
I hope the Judge dismisses her claim against AOL and sanctions her for making ridiculous claims. She's no better than the RIAA in this case.
That's not quite true. There is some limited overlap in the code base (as in a few hundred lines out of several million) that SCO managed to demonstrate. However, those were mainly header files and other things that NEITHER SCO nor Novell own the copyrights to (or anyone for that matter).
Yes, because Novell's limited copyrights (as in even Novell doesn't even own them all...Sun, Intel and others also have claims on portions) on an antiquated operating system which only shares public domain code with Linux, code which Novell already released royalty free as part of their membership in a standards body (I'm talking about the 300 lines of code SCO managed to drudge up in their case against IBM), makes them a HUGE threat. I'm quaking in my boots as we speak.
Give me a break. What is with all these conspiracy theories, it's ridiculous.
Not only that, but Novell would also have to demonstrate specific, special damages. Not "well sales dropped 20%", but "specific contract ABC was about to go through but then the negotiators for the contract called and said they weren't buying because of SCO's claims...here's an affidavit to that effect!" General and punitive damages cannot be awarded on a slander of title claim.
Ummm, yeah, that's the most moronic statement you could have possibly made. Talk about making outrageous claims without using your 2 brain cells (that may be a high estimate) to think through what you actually just said)
Just like SCO's claims were baseless, so would Novell's be, copyrights or no copyrights. Even if SCO were to have been found to own the copyrights, they would have lost. Both companies licensed any copyrighted Unix code contained in Linux under the GPL, and both have now done so for years (so neither company could argue it was an accidental limited release...both companies have based in the past (SCO) or are basing (Novell) their freakin businesses on Linux). Also, SCO was only ever able to demonstrate 300 lines of code, mostly header files and stuff that is in the public domain. And even if that stuff wasn't in the public domain, SCO and Novell entered into no less than 5 license agreements over said code with IBM and others that explicitly waived any rights to royalties and explicitly permit the redistribution of the code under ANY license. This was done through numerous standards bodies that both Novell and SCO took part in (such as the body that set Linux's ELF format as the standard binary format for all x86 Unixes). And last but not least, said code was also included in the ancient Unix release that Caldera released under the BSD license about a year before they became SCO, which Novell not only never objected to, but actually pointed to in court documents as a defense.
If you don't believe me, I'd be more than happy to find all of the documents and post links for you. Or, even better, go to Groklaw and read IBM's motion for Summary Judgment on its Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement.
So yeah, your statement that the future of Linux rests with Novell seems pretty stupid now doesn't it? About all Novell would accomplish is ending up like SCO.
Microsoft probably won't buy them out. Why exactly would Microsoft buy a company who's liabilities dwarf its assets 10-fold? They would be putting themselves at risk.
Ummm...they weren't found liable for slandering Novell's title. The Judge dismissed SCO's slander of title claim, but Novell's will proceed to trial. Novell will need to demonstrate more than just ownership to win on their slander of title claim.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's put it this way. Novell and SCO collectively filed 8 pre-trial motions. Novell won 7, SCO won 1. These are for a trial that has already largely been decided against SCO at the summary judgment stage. SCO's only hope was to dazzle a jury into believing their claims, and that is gone now. In other words, they are downright fucked.
IBM is still pushing Kimball for rulings on their summary judgment motions. I expect those before the start of trial, so that IBM can be vindicated and Novell can finish SCO off, almost completely wiping these 2 cases off the docket.
After that, it will go to appeals (although SCO will have to post a bond when they lose, so this might not even happen), which will be MUCH less friendly towards SCO's...... unique legal theories.
BZZT, wrong. It doesn't have anything to do with whether factual issues remain or not. There are still facts in dispute regarding the apportionment of royalties, with both sides providing opposing expert reports. Judge Kimball specificlly ruled in the summary judgment rulings that this is a question of fact, not law. The reason this is not going to a jury is that the claims seek equitable relief.
RTFA and quit trying to be an armchair lawyer. The reasoning is laid out quite clearly in the ruling. Numerous appelate Judge's have upheld the exact type of ruling that Kimball issued here in far less deserving circumstances.
nuff said.
As is clearly explained in the article on Groklaw, numerous articles before it, Novell's briefs which are also linked in the article and the very ruling the article is about, if your claim is equitable in relief (ie. not seeking damages, but instead merely seeking the return of ill-gotten or wrongfully withheld gains), or is also merely seeking construction of a contract, and requires no fact-finding, as is clearly the case here, the defendant has absolutely no right to a trial by jury whatsoever.
disregard my post, didn't even post it on the right story :-P
Are you retarded? Did you even read the summary?
Really? Where are the court rulings that what Google was doing was illegal? There's only one I'm aware of, in Belgium, that is under appeal.
Ummm, all publically available evidence has pointed to NO AT&T subsidies on the iPhone. Instead, the 2 years is there because Apple is also getting a cut of service revenues, despite the hefty profit margin Apple is already making on the phone.
Also, if what you're saying is true, why did Apple make it so easy to go into their store and walk out with an iPhone with no contract? You don't need to register at their store. You do it at home. If that isn't Apple begging for people to circumvent the AT&T lockin, then what is? On top of that, AT&T is also selling iPhones on Pay As You Go for people with bad credit.... which, combining the 2, would give AT&T next to no chance of getting their subsidy back if they had actually paid one to Apple.
Also, what about people in the rest of the world that want an iPhone and don't feel like waiting for Apple to get their ass in gear? (Such as myself in Canada). Apple may be an innovative company, but they sure are no Google when it comes to moving fast.
Anyways, this whole debate is pointless. In most countries, such as my own, it is perfectly legal to unlock a phone. I believe it is also now legal in the US. In Canada, it is even legal to SELL unlocked phones, and we have numerous retailers up here, such as puremobile.ca, which specialize in doing just that.
What is this, fucking Digg? That is the worst summary I have read in my life....
Hmmmm...I wouldn't think of this as news. Myself and probably 90% of all Slashdot readers knew this, so I'm not sure why the summary is written like it's *gasp* ZOMG some big shock that the 2 licenses don't allow 2 way sharing.
Now, could someone help me out in explaining why this is any worse than BSD code that is placed into proprietary software, which COMPLETELY cuts off access for the BSD licensed code? I mean, isn't the entire point of the BSD license to explicitly allow this sort of thing?
You shouldn't license your code under a "Do whatever the fuck you want with it" license and then whine and bellyache when people do just that.
I don't understand. The ones available through Fink (Debian's apt for Mac OS X) are merely the Linux/Unix terminals recompiled on OS X. I don't think they've been modified at all. They even run through X11, not Aqua. Which terminal do you normally use on Linux?
Could we not keep the "style" of different distros the same without having basic text files that control settings be completely different between distros?
Have you tried downloading iTerm, or any of the other terminals available for OS X? All of the terminals available in Linux are also available on OS X through fink.
It proves I made a typo. Get over it. Use Wikipedia's search feature, or Google, and you could, within 5 seconds, find the article I meant to link to. Or, even better, read the post above yours that was also in response to mine.
Or, if those 2 options are too difficult for you, you could always merely ask me for the correct URL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_litigation_of _Apple_Inc
Doesn't exactly prove his point, but Apple is known as a litigious company.
See that....that's the point flying 15 feet over your head.
Pretty much every single open source license allows unlimited usage and copying, even to third parties. I'm not aware of a single one that limits this. I'm also not aware of a single one that places restrictions on copying modified versions internally.
Unless there's one I'm missing, the only limits any open source license places on a licensee is when they create derivative works, and then distribute said works to third parties.
I meant out of the box.... If I was planning on installing Solaris or Linux on my Macbook I wouldn't have mentioned iWork :-P
I use Windows once or twice a month, mainly through Parallels. OS X is the best system for me.
I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy, but for her to claim that it is AOL's responsibility to monitor and prevent illegal downloads sets a dangerous precedent. An ISP should not be doing this.
I hope the Judge dismisses her claim against AOL and sanctions her for making ridiculous claims. She's no better than the RIAA in this case.
That's not quite true. There is some limited overlap in the code base (as in a few hundred lines out of several million) that SCO managed to demonstrate. However, those were mainly header files and other things that NEITHER SCO nor Novell own the copyrights to (or anyone for that matter).
Yes, because Novell's limited copyrights (as in even Novell doesn't even own them all...Sun, Intel and others also have claims on portions) on an antiquated operating system which only shares public domain code with Linux, code which Novell already released royalty free as part of their membership in a standards body (I'm talking about the 300 lines of code SCO managed to drudge up in their case against IBM), makes them a HUGE threat. I'm quaking in my boots as we speak.
Give me a break. What is with all these conspiracy theories, it's ridiculous.
Not only that, but Novell would also have to demonstrate specific, special damages. Not "well sales dropped 20%", but "specific contract ABC was about to go through but then the negotiators for the contract called and said they weren't buying because of SCO's claims...here's an affidavit to that effect!" General and punitive damages cannot be awarded on a slander of title claim.
As an FYI, a Mac doesn't run Linux or Solaris :-P
Ummm, yeah, that's the most moronic statement you could have possibly made. Talk about making outrageous claims without using your 2 brain cells (that may be a high estimate) to think through what you actually just said)
Just like SCO's claims were baseless, so would Novell's be, copyrights or no copyrights. Even if SCO were to have been found to own the copyrights, they would have lost. Both companies licensed any copyrighted Unix code contained in Linux under the GPL, and both have now done so for years (so neither company could argue it was an accidental limited release...both companies have based in the past (SCO) or are basing (Novell) their freakin businesses on Linux). Also, SCO was only ever able to demonstrate 300 lines of code, mostly header files and stuff that is in the public domain. And even if that stuff wasn't in the public domain, SCO and Novell entered into no less than 5 license agreements over said code with IBM and others that explicitly waived any rights to royalties and explicitly permit the redistribution of the code under ANY license. This was done through numerous standards bodies that both Novell and SCO took part in (such as the body that set Linux's ELF format as the standard binary format for all x86 Unixes). And last but not least, said code was also included in the ancient Unix release that Caldera released under the BSD license about a year before they became SCO, which Novell not only never objected to, but actually pointed to in court documents as a defense.
If you don't believe me, I'd be more than happy to find all of the documents and post links for you. Or, even better, go to Groklaw and read IBM's motion for Summary Judgment on its Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement.
So yeah, your statement that the future of Linux rests with Novell seems pretty stupid now doesn't it? About all Novell would accomplish is ending up like SCO.
Microsoft probably won't buy them out. Why exactly would Microsoft buy a company who's liabilities dwarf its assets 10-fold? They would be putting themselves at risk.
Ummm...they weren't found liable for slandering Novell's title. The Judge dismissed SCO's slander of title claim, but Novell's will proceed to trial. Novell will need to demonstrate more than just ownership to win on their slander of title claim.