I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, see an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction
>There's generally only one reason that a court case gets settled, and >that is that one of the sides has an unfair advantage of winning.
No, that's not it at all. You couldn't get much farther from the truth.
Almost all cases settle (well past 95%). They settle once both sides either have a good estimate of what will happen, or a good estimate of the probabilities of what will happen. Then they choose something between each side's worst case. If it is clear who will lose, the loser generally surrenders to avoid further fees and costs.
I am an attorney, but I"m probably not licensed in your jurisdiction. This is not legal advice. Get that from a lawyer who is licensed in your jurisdiction if you need any.
Everyone take a breath, and slow down. Whether Mattel backs down, or litigates and loses, this will *not* be a test of the GPL.
OK, repeat after me: this is not a test of the GPL.
If this is to litigate, it's going to turn on basic contract law principles of license and assignments. The *only* issue of the GPL that is even relevant is the ability to redistribute, which is a licenseing issue. If the facts as described in the article are correct, Mattel can't call in the existing copies. But it isn't the GPL that's stopping them; it's the license.
Did I mention that this is a basic issue of license in general, and not the GPL?
I am an attorney, but I"m probably not licensed in your jurisdiction. This is not legal advice. Get that from a lawyer who is licensed in your jurisdiction if you need any.
Dumb, dumb, dumb. An assignment of "all rights, if any" ??? In property law, this is a "quitclaim" deed. If I didn't make any representations about my ownership interest, I could give you a quitclaim deed to the Empire State Building without committing any civil or criminal wrongdoing. All it says is that whatever I own, you own now. Mattell's description of this sounds just like that.
There's no fraud or misrepresnetation, as Matell suggests. Mattell was represented by rather expensive counsel, and had full information available. Previous licenses just plain aren't assignments. Just plain a dumb move. However, depending upon the wording, it *may* prevent the authors from receiving a GPL'd copy and making further modifications, as if it is written properly, future rights would be assigned as well--i.e., those that the authors could receive as licensees under the GPL, and their rights as authors to any new code. Post assignment, it is not possible for them to grant any type of license at all.
The hidden standards are only one of the ways the abuse the power to the detriment of consumers.
They also leverage the windows monopoly to the office monopoly, and vice versa.
I don't see any loss to the consumer from office & windows coming from separate companies, and several gains. There would no longer be a reason for the shenanagins with hidden behavior, nor funny pricing agreements. Furthermore, all the incentive for the windows group to make progress would continue to exists, and larger than before: they'd have reasons to work with other developers, too.
Where I join the minority is I also want the source code to windows licenesed, to produce competing versions, with some provision for synchronization of features. (No, I don't mean open-source it; the gov't doesn't have the legal power to do this without paying for it.)
Hiding the full API of windows from other developers has absolutely nothing to do with what the user wants.
Cancelling licenses to ship windows for providing a netscape button on the screen has nothing to do with what the user wants.
Charging four times the price to vendors who sell or support competing products has nothing to do with what the user wants.
*none* of the current case had to do with adding things users wanted. Not one line. Microsoft tried to spin it this way, but if you actually *read* the FofF, you will find no support for the idea that MS is in trouble for adding features. They're in trouble for using market power to stop *other* products.
her. This is only sensible behavior when there is common ownership, as each monopoly gives up part of its profits to do so.
Under separate ownership, it is no longer in the interest of the windows monopoly to help out the office monopoly at its own expense, and vice versa--the office folks will start demanding access the way the competitors do now.
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If need legal advice, see an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
An embassy is foreign soil, over which the guest nation is sovereign. Taking the embassy was an act of war.
Given that situation, the normal protections for Iranian proprty in the U.S. don't hold, and the frozen assets might well be used to sastisfy at least part of the award.
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you need legal advice, see an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
Given the findings of fact, there is no way, other than flat-out concession by the government, that there *won't* be a finding of anti-trust violation.
The findings are only factual, yes. But this particular set is equivalent to, in a capital murder case, the jury returning "The defendant laid in wait, according to his plan, and when the deceased came along, tortured him before killing him. The only possible legal conclusion is murder in the first degree with special circumstances. To use microsoft's phrasing, it's only "one step in a long process of litigation," but all that's left is to choose between life without parole and capital punishment.
Model M is nice for a PS2 keyboard, but it's only half a loaf. There's one sitting on my lap as I type--the tech guy finally 'fessed up to having a real keyboard when the malfunctiong keys on the annoying gateway keys got up to 3 . ..
But at home, I have genuine AT keyboars, with the control key where God meant it to be, and the 10 (not that new-fangled 12) function keys to the left, where I can reach them while typing.
I don't know what I'm going to do when I get a motherboard that won't take the old keyboards:(
The founders never intended a "democracy". At the time, it was a dirty word, associated with mob rule. Some Whigs (or was it a last gasp of the Federalists?) called the Rebpublicans "a bunch of democrats", and the Republicans added it to their name, eventually dropping "Republican." After the Whigs died off, a new party started with Republican again.
Anyway, the system was designed with checks against democracy, and we've tossed some of them. Alexander Hamilton wanted the President to serve during "good behavior" (for life). THen again, he was a borderline monarchist . ..
The long, overlapping terms of the Senate were a safeguard against democracy. Of perhaps more importance was that the Senate was not directly elected, but instead chosen by state legislatures, yielding another buffer. IM!HO, moving to direct election of Senators is the worst mistake in the history of the Republic.
Representative government was not chosen as an end in itself, but as the most likely way to keep our liberties secure. Had they thought our liberties would be more secure under monarchy, they would have crowned Washington (over his objections [If he'd wanted to be king, he would have been]). Since he died childless, it's hard to predict what would have happened next.
I have a very simple position on democracy: I'm against it. But I strongly support representative goverment, preferably with a layer or two of indirection. And I'll take arms against a government that comes for our liberties.
1) Raskin described quickdraw, among other things, in his Master's thesis before that (late 60's?) 2) The link for the early (pre-PARC) Lisa interface is
So which do you mean by elsehwere? a) The Master's thesis of Jeff Raskin, one of the mac engineers? b) the GUI of the Lisa as it existed before the visit to PARC ?
And I believe that this is the first I *ever* heard of any attempt to stop anyone else from using mice.
my toilet crashes enough already, thank you . . .
on
The Home Of The Future
·
· Score: 2
It's bad enough without runing WinTE . . . I'd really rather not have it running backwards due to bugs that Redmond denies . ..
Eventually, I'll have a household network. It will connect computers, the extensive model railroad (which will probably be actually controlled by an apple II . ..), the stereo, and the jukebox.
The phone, oven, refridgerator, and toilet will *not* be part of it. Nor will the garbage and catbox.
I've seen really brief treatements in a couple of places in science fiction, but the most interesting one is the discussion with the chaplain on the chip in Pournelle & Niven's "The Mote in God's Eye."
In general, extraterrestrial life poses absolutely no threat to Christianity. The interesting questions come from whether other races our in need of redemption, like ours, or are in some other state.
ANd then if they are in need of redemption, would our Paschal Sacrifice, be sufficient, or would they need their own Christ?
Unfortunately, that discussion really didn't carry through the rest of the book.
Hmm, another interesting one is Lester Del Rey's . . . awe, nuts; I forget the title . . . Anyway, Christian Fantasy is fairly well represented, but this is the only novel of Christian Science Fiction I've ever seen. I recall another short story by someone travelling from world to world, getting closer and closer to Christ's life, death, and ressurection, but never quite making it. Anyway, in Del Rey's story, the first 50 pages are really slow, but the aliens find a dead and bombed out church, a crucifix, and Bible. They slowly translate it, and get caught up.
Several years ago in college, my girlfriend worked part time in a lab at NASA. THere was a rack full of films, labeled with such exciting titles as "Mars Surfacd #47". They were rarely if ever used.
Someone relabeled one, "ELevator Girls in Bondage"--a label which apparently remained for at least a couple of years.
About 4 years ago, I was using a IIci with 24-32 mb (it varied; there was 56 to split between it and the 486 linux box with 4 drives totaling about 1.4G). Performance was acceptable, and it made a decent X terminal. It found a few bugs in the 1 bit version of lyx (note: lyx is about to [or already has] dropped support for 1 bit, as noone seems to be using it, and it's extra to maintain:( ). Anyway, the big performance problem with X came from postscript fonts. Set applications to use non-postscript fonts, or at least set up xfs, so that single threaded X isn't tied up rendering and you can do other things.
About that time, someone discovered by accident that mosaic did indeed run on machines without math coprocessors--it's just that it took about 20 minutes to finish loading (it had been believed to hang and eat all cycles). He tried it, forgot about it when he went to do something else, and returned.
Anyway, more memory if you want X, and watch which fonts you use.
Slashdot Mirror
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, see an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction
>There's generally only one reason that a court case gets settled, and
>that is that one of the sides has an unfair advantage of winning.
No, that's not it at all. You couldn't get much farther from the truth.
Almost all cases settle (well past 95%). They settle once both sides either
have a good estimate of what will happen, or a good estimate of the probabilities of what will happen. Then they choose something between each side's worst case. If it is clear who will lose, the loser generally surrenders to avoid further fees and costs.
hawk, esq.
I am an attorney, but I"m probably not licensed in your jurisdiction. This is not legal advice. Get that from a lawyer who is licensed in your jurisdiction if you need any.
Everyone take a breath, and slow down. Whether Mattel backs down, or litigates and loses, this will *not* be a test of the GPL.
OK, repeat after me: this is not a test of the GPL.
If this is to litigate, it's going to turn on basic contract law principles
of license and assignments. The *only* issue of the GPL that is even relevant is the ability to redistribute, which is a licenseing issue. If the facts as described in the article are correct, Mattel can't call in the existing copies. But it isn't the GPL that's stopping them; it's the license.
Did I mention that this is a basic issue of license in general, and not the GPL?
hawk, esq.
I am an attorney, but I"m probably not licensed in your jurisdiction. This is not legal advice. Get that from a lawyer who is licensed in your jurisdiction if you need any.
Dumb, dumb, dumb. An assignment of "all rights, if any" ???
In property law, this is a "quitclaim" deed. If I didn't make any representations about my ownership interest, I could give you a quitclaim deed to the Empire State Building without committing any civil or criminal wrongdoing. All it says is that whatever I own, you own now.
Mattell's description of this sounds just like that.
There's no fraud or misrepresnetation, as Matell suggests. Mattell was represented by rather expensive counsel, and had full information available. Previous licenses just plain aren't assignments. Just plain a dumb move. However, depending upon the wording, it *may* prevent the authors from receiving a GPL'd copy and making further modifications, as if it is written properly, future rights would be assigned as well--i.e., those that the authors could receive as licensees under the GPL, and their rights as authors to any new code. Post assignment, it is not possible for them to grant any type of license at all.
oops :)
I tried to turn it into a link. Here it is in text . . .
http://home.san.rr.com/deans/lisagui.html
I really don't know how to slap a link tag; I shouldn't have tried . . .
The hidden standards are only one of the ways the abuse the power to the detriment of consumers.
They also leverage the windows monopoly to the office monopoly, and vice versa.
I don't see any loss to the consumer from office & windows coming from separate companies, and several gains. There would no longer be a reason for the shenanagins with hidden behavior, nor funny pricing agreements. Furthermore, all the incentive for the windows group to make progress would continue to exists, and larger than before: they'd have reasons to work with other developers, too.
Where I join the minority is I also want the source code to windows licenesed, to produce competing versions, with some provision for synchronization of features.
(No, I don't mean open-source it; the gov't doesn't have the legal power to do this without paying for it.)
No, not the behavior we're talking about.
Hiding the full API of windows from other developers has absolutely nothing to do with what the user wants.
Cancelling licenses to ship windows for providing a netscape button on the screen has nothing to do with what the user wants.
Charging four times the price to vendors who sell or support competing products has nothing to do with what the user wants.
*none* of the current case had to do with adding things users wanted. Not one line. Microsoft tried to spin it this way, but if you actually *read* the FofF, you will find no support for the idea that MS is in trouble for adding features. They're in trouble for using market power to stop *other* products.
hawk, esq.
her. This is only sensible behavior when there is common ownership, as each monopoly gives up part of its profits to do so.
Under separate ownership, it is no longer in the interest of the windows monopoly to help out the office monopoly at its own expense, and vice versa--the office folks will start demanding access the way the competitors do now.
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If need legal advice, see
an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
An embassy is foreign soil, over which the guest nation is sovereign. Taking the embassy was an act of war.
Given that situation, the normal protections for Iranian proprty in the U.S. don't hold, and the frozen assets might well be used to sastisfy at least part of the award.
hawk, esq.
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you need legal advice, see an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
Given the findings of fact, there is no way, other than flat-out concession by the government, that there *won't* be a finding of anti-trust violation.
The findings are only factual, yes. But this particular set is equivalent to, in a capital murder case, the jury returning "The defendant laid in wait, according to his plan, and when the deceased came along, tortured him before killing him.
The only possible legal conclusion is murder in the first degree with special circumstances. To use microsoft's phrasing, it's only "one step in a long process of litigation," but all that's left is to choose between life without parole and capital punishment.
hawk, esq.
Model M is nice for a PS2 keyboard, but it's only half a loaf. There's one sitting on my lap as I type--the tech guy finally 'fessed up to having a real keyboard when the malfunctiong keys on the annoying gateway keys got up to 3 . . .
:(
But at home, I have genuine AT keyboars, with the control key where God meant it to be, and the 10 (not that new-fangled 12) function keys to the left, where I can reach them while typing.
I don't know what I'm going to do when I get a motherboard that won't take the old keyboards
Tell me again how this is different from the current version of emacs? :)
The founders never intended a "democracy". At the time, it was a dirty word, associated with mob rule. Some Whigs (or was it a last gasp of the Federalists?) called the Rebpublicans "a bunch of democrats", and the Republicans added it to their name, eventually dropping "Republican." After the Whigs died off, a new party started with Republican again.
.
Anyway, the system was designed with checks against democracy, and we've tossed some of them. Alexander Hamilton wanted the President to serve during "good behavior" (for life). THen again, he was a borderline monarchist . .
The long, overlapping terms of the Senate were a safeguard against democracy. Of perhaps more importance was that the Senate was not directly elected, but instead chosen by state legislatures, yielding another buffer. IM!HO, moving to direct election of Senators is the worst mistake in the history of the Republic.
Representative government was not chosen as an end in itself, but as the most likely way to keep our liberties secure. Had they thought our liberties would be more secure under monarchy, they would have crowned Washington (over his objections [If he'd wanted to be king, he would have been]). Since he died childless, it's hard to predict what would have happened next.
I have a very simple position on democracy: I'm against it. But I strongly support representative goverment, preferably with a layer or two of indirection. And I'll take arms against a government that comes for our liberties.
hawk, esq.
1) Raskin described quickdraw, among other things, in his Master's thesis before that (late 60's?)
2) The link for the early (pre-PARC) Lisa interface is
So which do you mean by elsehwere?
a) The Master's thesis of Jeff Raskin, one of the mac engineers?
b) the GUI of the Lisa as it existed before the visit to PARC ?
And I believe that this is the first I *ever* heard of any attempt to stop anyone else from using mice.
It's bad enough without runing WinTE . . . I'd really rather not have it running backwards due to bugs that Redmond denies . . .
.), the stereo, and the jukebox.
Eventually, I'll have a household network. It will connect computers, the extensive model railroad (which will probably be actually controlled by an apple II . .
The phone, oven, refridgerator, and toilet will *not* be part of it. Nor will the garbage and catbox.
For Catholicism, try 1943 as the year that an allegorical reading became the party line. And for some Protestant groups, further back than that . . .
:)
(OK, and for some, not even close today
hawk
Now that you mention it, that sounds right. Somewhere, I have the anthology, I think.
R is for Rocket, perhaps?
(now I remember)
I've seen really brief treatements in a couple of places in science fiction, but the most interesting one is the discussion with the chaplain on the chip in Pournelle & Niven's "The Mote in God's Eye."
In general, extraterrestrial life poses absolutely no threat to Christianity. The interesting questions come from whether other races our in need of redemption, like ours, or are in some other state.
ANd then if they are in need of redemption, would our Paschal Sacrifice, be sufficient, or would they need their own Christ?
Unfortunately, that discussion really didn't carry through the rest of the book.
Hmm, another interesting one is Lester Del Rey's . . . awe, nuts; I forget the title . . . Anyway, Christian Fantasy is fairly well represented, but this is the only novel of Christian Science Fiction I've ever seen. I recall another short story by someone travelling from world to world, getting closer and closer to Christ's life, death, and ressurection, but never quite making it. Anyway, in Del Rey's story, the first 50 pages are really slow, but the aliens find a dead and bombed out church, a crucifix, and Bible. They slowly translate it, and get caught up.
*argh* What's that title?
hawk
The galaxy is a computer, and the universe a beowolf cluster . . .
The bad news is that our galaxy is running windows . . .
*Please* do not create your own brown dwarf within the city limits. This activity should only be done in areas of the desert with no flamable plants.
The fire you could start in a crowded area would make the great fires in Chicago and San Francisco look like birthday candles . . .
Thousands of years, I'd expect, from when it was first detected, and when it got anywhere near our system.
It's not a foregone conclusion it would be captured--it could have a high enough velocity to prevent this, and just get its path bent.
Stock LyX does include the astronomical format file . . .
I think this was one of the earliest journal formats included, though I'm pretty sure it came after the AMS set.
Several years ago in college, my girlfriend worked part time in a lab at NASA. THere was a rack full of films, labeled with such exciting titles as "Mars Surfacd #47". They were rarely if ever used.
Someone relabeled one, "ELevator Girls in Bondage"--a label which apparently remained for at least a couple of years.
You only have 5k. X is painful below about 8.
:( ). Anyway, the big performance problem with X came from postscript fonts. Set applications to use non-postscript fonts, or at least set up xfs, so that single threaded X isn't tied up rendering and you can do other things.
About 4 years ago, I was using a IIci with 24-32 mb (it varied; there was 56 to split between it and the 486 linux box with 4 drives totaling about 1.4G).
Performance was acceptable, and it made a decent X terminal. It found a few bugs in the 1 bit version of lyx (note: lyx is about to [or already has] dropped support for 1 bit, as noone seems to be using it, and it's extra to maintain
About that time, someone discovered by accident that mosaic did indeed run on machines without math coprocessors--it's just that it took about 20 minutes to finish loading (it had been believed to hang and eat all cycles). He tried it, forgot about it when he went to do something else, and returned.
Anyway, more memory if you want X, and watch which fonts you use.