Well, actually, no. The OpenOffice.org product is protected by copyrights and is distributed under licenses between user/distributors and the non-profit corporation, also called OpenOffice.org, that holds all the copyrights. If OO.o were sued into bankruptcy, the licenses would become void along with all other liabilities. On the other hand, the copyrights, being assets, would be preserved. Whatever party got control over thos copyrights could choose to continue the previous licensing regime, but would not be required to do so. If they did not do so, then all copies of OO.o would become potentially infringing, as the license under which they had originally been obtained would have been revoked.
The context in which the original testimony was proferred is irrelevent; only the questions asked and the answers given matter. One two different occasions, the witnesses gave different answers. That's all that matters here: summary judgement can only be granted if there's no reasonable dispute of fact or contract. The depositions make an unequivocal case that there is a dispute of contract, so summary judgement is ruled out.
(Yes, the original answers were extremely carefully constructed to speak only to SysV. Again, that's irrelevant; SysV would be quite enough.)
IBM's motion depended on the claim that "AT&T didn't mean what SCO says they meant in their derivative works clause". In support of that, IBM presented two witnesses from AT&T who said that AT&T had intended for the clause to be narrowly interpreted. Unfortunately for IBM, SCO had access to the original BSD depositions, where these same two officials testified to exactly the opposite "fact".
Oops. There goes that argument -- and, very probably, any chance for a summary judgement. The net effect of the contradictory depositions will be to establish beyond doubt or cavil that there is a clear uncertainty about the meaning of the contract, which allows SCO to say "If the clause is relevant to the case, then we must determine what the clause meant. People who signed the document don't even know what it meant, and thought one thing once, and another thing later. Summary judgement is not possible."
Because the "secretary" is in charge of the boss's calendar, handles PO's, manages document workflow, gathers documents for presentations, does competitive research on the Web, creates, edits, and distributes marketing presentations...and may, on rare occasions, type a memo or file a document away for future use. Between Windows, Word, and Word Perfect, the clerk-typist that geeks so love to laugh at is a long dead job.
Let me get this straight -- you learned nothing about spelling in K-12? Nothing about sentence structure and argumentation? Nothing of logic or statistics?
You may not like it, but you learned those things in primary and secondary school. English orthography is unspeakably complicated, and is taught in one way only: rote. You used the words "success", "proceeds", and "school" in one sentence, and the only way to learn those three different uses of the letter "c" is by repetition.
I was really puzzled by the three acronyms used in the summary. WSDL, UDDI, and WSFL are related to web services, not software rentals. They refer to the protocol negotiation, server discovery, and work flow handling steps in a contract negotiation, respectively. WSFL, in particular, is of no use whatsoever in the software rental model.
Someday, maybe one of the editors will read the submissions before they post them? I'm paying for their services by accepting their ads -- keep this up, and I'm blocking the ads here.
No. Claims are cumulative. So Claim 1 is a basic claim, which is narrowed and refined in subsequent claims. An attorney will tell you that you should always make the most sweeping claims conceivable in your base claims; it does no harm, and might protect you in a later infringement suit. (By the way, a patent is narrowed by strinking down base claims and derived claims until there is held to be no reason for invalidation. Relatively few patents are ever completely invalidated; most are merely narrowed on appeal.)
I don't think you quite understood the context of what I wrote. The GP of your post had said something about how IE's resource consumption was hidden "in the OS". That's not true.
IE itself is a part of the OS -- in fact, iexplore.exe is almost entirely code-free; it's a toolbar and a wrapper around the web rendering control in much the same way that notepad.exe is a wrapper around the edit control. But that has nothing to do with how memory usage is accounted for.
They might even be forced not to use Linux/BSD/etc. if Microsoft won't release or license versions of their codecs for those OSes.
That's just silly. Why would Microsoft refuse licensing revenue?
The issue isn't Microsoft refusing license revenue, it's the Microsoft holds an enforcable patent and demands a license at all. The GPL explicitly does not provide any distribution rights in that case, unless you, as the distributor, have a license to redistribute not only the the patented technology, but also the license to redistribute the patented technology.
(In fact, the restrictions are even more draconian; you basically have to have all the rights to the original patent holder, including the right to disclaim any rights. This makes perfect sense, given the ideology of the FSF; it's just very restrictive.)
Actually, that claim is pure FUD. The parts of IE which are "in the OS" are things like GDI -- which Firefox also uses. DLLs like MSHTML and the like are counted into the memory consumed by the process.
Wow! That's a cool idea! And then, we could add a graphics protocol and send commands for that over a narrow pipe to the terminal, like Windows' RDP...I mean, like NX, that revolutionary newly thought up idea does!
I mean, depending on where the engine is mounted relative to the center of mass of the chair/dude combo, it might not be all that dangerous. After all, if the direction of the jet is exactly lined up with the centor of mass, and the rider never moves even at all, why, it could even hit a small bump without becoming airbor...
On second thought, this is as stupid as it appears.
Nope. An easement is a contract between two parties permitting a non-owning party some otherwsie non-permitted use of the owner's land. For instance, one of my neighbors has an easement to a thin strip of my property for a fence between our lots that he wanted and I didn't care about, one way or another.
The city/province doesn't own the land; you still do. They don't, for instance, own mineral rights under it, or air rights above it. They just have certain rights to it: to build and maintain a sidewalk, or to build and maintain utility access, etc.
Sorry, AC, you don't know the relevant US history.
Some facts:
The Confederacy separated over the "peculiar institution" (slavery) because of Lincoln's platform stand, which included a Constitutional amendment forbidding any further spread of slavery. Go read the editorials in the various Southern papers if you don't believe that.
The agrarian South was a great colony for the North, supplying raw materials to Northern mills and absorbing excess capacity. From an economic standpoint, the Civil War made no sense to the North.
The casualty rate among men in the two armies was horrific. Until the Nazi campaign across Russia, which was an intentional genocide, no other war, including World War I, came close to the War between the States in its ratio of participants to casualties.
But don't let the facts get in the way of a good piece of agitprop.
It gets into a subtlety then, and I don't know the NYC ordinance in question. If the ordinance discusses intent to deface, then, the fact that it comes off, and that he was using it because it comes off, might well be evidence enough to refute a charge of vandalism. (You know all those legal disclaimers which talk about consulting an attorney certified to practice in your state? This kind of thing is why they always say that.)
Beyond all this, though, the truth is that getting arrested in this way is certainly doing more harm to the Republican Party then any number of messages scrawled on the streets would. He's gone from being a nuisance to being a hero -- anybody else old enough to remember "This is John Chancellor, in custody?"
Technically, what he was doing was not vandalism. In this case, he demonstrated to the arresting officer that the chalk he was using washed off by itself, and did not stain the sidewalk. Vandalism and defacement only cover permanent damage, because the owner of the property should not be required to pay to clean up. In this case, a property owner has the option of paying, but also has the option of simply waiting, and the graffiti will clean itself up.
That's not really true. MS made that recommendation for a small class of users who have installed a particular, broken mpeg miniport driver included in a third party product. Other users are encouraged to leave the protection on.
The problem is that the driver triggers an NX fault on startup, and so the system can't boot. That the same thing, exactly, as a kernel oops during the device scan, and it isn't Microsoft's fault.
You don't understand, do you? OffCE is a well-wknown FSF-sponsored anti-Microsoft site qhich provides detailed intsructions on how to get Off CE. Open Off CE is Eric Raymond's attempt at an Open Source, and therefore freer, form of OffCE.Org.
It sounds like a great paper until you get down into the guts of their materials and methods. They trained their system on half of their total data, and did not then test on separate data. That captures the two classic no-nos of data driven techniques: they inflate their results by including their training data in the results, and, worse, their training data comprises a larger sample of their total data than would be seen in the real world.
The first of these calls their sensitivity result into quesiton. If they classify their training data perfectly, then the 4.4% false negative rate they quote needs to be doubled to 8.8% -- almost one false negative in every eleven messages scanned.
The second of these calls their false positive rate into question: training with an unrealistically thorough set leads to better catergorization, ceteris paribus. They need to show the trend with a variety of different training set sizes to support any claims about performance.
This sounds like a fully buzzword compliant non-result to me.
He talks about that in excruciating detail. The point is, if you don't charge enough, people get very suspicious. You know, "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true?"
Consider a great example: Linux. Linux is a great OS, and it doesn't need to cost you a cent to get it running. That sounds too good to be true -- and it is. There are going to be costs to that gratis Linux -- no tech support, RTFM slaps from the mailing lists, slow turnaround if you're stumped, more complicated configuration structures (files in directories are great if you know where they all are. If you don't...) If you need to run a business, you need to buy tech support for the Linux distro you use. In that case, free costs money.
That doesn't mean, notive, that you don't get a great deal using Linux -- you may well do so. It merely means that a vendor who doesn't charge enough is probably omitting something important. Potential customers know that.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, actually, no. The OpenOffice.org product is protected by copyrights and is distributed under licenses between user/distributors and the non-profit corporation, also called OpenOffice.org, that holds all the copyrights. If OO.o were sued into bankruptcy, the licenses would become void along with all other liabilities. On the other hand, the copyrights, being assets, would be preserved. Whatever party got control over thos copyrights could choose to continue the previous licensing regime, but would not be required to do so. If they did not do so, then all copies of OO.o would become potentially infringing, as the license under which they had originally been obtained would have been revoked.
The context in which the original testimony was proferred is irrelevent; only the questions asked and the answers given matter. One two different occasions, the witnesses gave different answers. That's all that matters here: summary judgement can only be granted if there's no reasonable dispute of fact or contract. The depositions make an unequivocal case that there is a dispute of contract, so summary judgement is ruled out.
(Yes, the original answers were extremely carefully constructed to speak only to SysV. Again, that's irrelevant; SysV would be quite enough.)
IBM's motion depended on the claim that "AT&T didn't mean what SCO says they meant in their derivative works clause". In support of that, IBM presented two witnesses from AT&T who said that AT&T had intended for the clause to be narrowly interpreted. Unfortunately for IBM, SCO had access to the original BSD depositions, where these same two officials testified to exactly the opposite "fact".
Oops. There goes that argument -- and, very probably, any chance for a summary judgement. The net effect of the contradictory depositions will be to establish beyond doubt or cavil that there is a clear uncertainty about the meaning of the contract, which allows SCO to say "If the clause is relevant to the case, then we must determine what the clause meant. People who signed the document don't even know what it meant, and thought one thing once, and another thing later. Summary judgement is not possible."
Because the "secretary" is in charge of the boss's calendar, handles PO's, manages document workflow, gathers documents for presentations, does competitive research on the Web, creates, edits, and distributes marketing presentations...and may, on rare occasions, type a memo or file a document away for future use. Between Windows, Word, and Word Perfect, the clerk-typist that geeks so love to laugh at is a long dead job.
For what it's worth, so is Outlook-Exchange, and GMail, and every other large mail system on the planet.
Let me get this straight -- you learned nothing about spelling in K-12? Nothing about sentence structure and argumentation? Nothing of logic or statistics?
You may not like it, but you learned those things in primary and secondary school. English orthography is unspeakably complicated, and is taught in one way only: rote. You used the words "success", "proceeds", and "school" in one sentence, and the only way to learn those three different uses of the letter "c" is by repetition.
I was really puzzled by the three acronyms used in the summary. WSDL, UDDI, and WSFL are related to web services, not software rentals. They refer to the protocol negotiation, server discovery, and work flow handling steps in a contract negotiation, respectively. WSFL, in particular, is of no use whatsoever in the software rental model.
Someday, maybe one of the editors will read the submissions before they post them? I'm paying for their services by accepting their ads -- keep this up, and I'm blocking the ads here.
No. Claims are cumulative. So Claim 1 is a basic claim, which is narrowed and refined in subsequent claims. An attorney will tell you that you should always make the most sweeping claims conceivable in your base claims; it does no harm, and might protect you in a later infringement suit. (By the way, a patent is narrowed by strinking down base claims and derived claims until there is held to be no reason for invalidation. Relatively few patents are ever completely invalidated; most are merely narrowed on appeal.)
How many critical alerts have been released against IIS 6 in the 16 months since it's been released?
Answer: None.
I don't think you quite understood the context of what I wrote. The GP of your post had said something about how IE's resource consumption was hidden "in the OS". That's not true.
IE itself is a part of the OS -- in fact, iexplore.exe is almost entirely code-free; it's a toolbar and a wrapper around the web rendering control in much the same way that notepad.exe is a wrapper around the edit control. But that has nothing to do with how memory usage is accounted for.
(In fact, the restrictions are even more draconian; you basically have to have all the rights to the original patent holder, including the right to disclaim any rights. This makes perfect sense, given the ideology of the FSF; it's just very restrictive.)
Actually, that claim is pure FUD. The parts of IE which are "in the OS" are things like GDI -- which Firefox also uses. DLLs like MSHTML and the like are counted into the memory consumed by the process.
Wow! That's a cool idea! And then, we could add a graphics protocol and send commands for that over a narrow pipe to the terminal, like Windows' RDP...I mean, like NX, that revolutionary newly thought up idea does!
I mean, depending on where the engine is mounted relative to the center of mass of the chair/dude combo, it might not be all that dangerous. After all, if the direction of the jet is exactly lined up with the centor of mass, and the rider never moves even at all, why, it could even hit a small bump without becoming airbor...
On second thought, this is as stupid as it appears.
Nope. An easement is a contract between two parties permitting a non-owning party some otherwsie non-permitted use of the owner's land. For instance, one of my neighbors has an easement to a thin strip of my property for a fence between our lots that he wanted and I didn't care about, one way or another.
The city/province doesn't own the land; you still do. They don't, for instance, own mineral rights under it, or air rights above it. They just have certain rights to it: to build and maintain a sidewalk, or to build and maintain utility access, etc.
Some facts:
The Confederacy separated over the "peculiar institution" (slavery) because of Lincoln's platform stand, which included a Constitutional amendment forbidding any further spread of slavery. Go read the editorials in the various Southern papers if you don't believe that.
The agrarian South was a great colony for the North, supplying raw materials to Northern mills and absorbing excess capacity. From an economic standpoint, the Civil War made no sense to the North.
The casualty rate among men in the two armies was horrific. Until the Nazi campaign across Russia, which was an intentional genocide, no other war, including World War I, came close to the War between the States in its ratio of participants to casualties.
But don't let the facts get in the way of a good piece of agitprop.
And so you wouldn't be guilty of vandalism or defacement. Battery, however, is still a felony in most states, and you'd certainly be guilty of that.
People aren't property. We kind of fought a war over that about a hundred years ago.
It gets into a subtlety then, and I don't know the NYC ordinance in question. If the ordinance discusses intent to deface, then, the fact that it comes off, and that he was using it because it comes off, might well be evidence enough to refute a charge of vandalism. (You know all those legal disclaimers which talk about consulting an attorney certified to practice in your state? This kind of thing is why they always say that.)
Beyond all this, though, the truth is that getting arrested in this way is certainly doing more harm to the Republican Party then any number of messages scrawled on the streets would. He's gone from being a nuisance to being a hero -- anybody else old enough to remember "This is John Chancellor, in custody?"
Technically, what he was doing was not vandalism. In this case, he demonstrated to the arresting officer that the chalk he was using washed off by itself, and did not stain the sidewalk. Vandalism and defacement only cover permanent damage, because the owner of the property should not be required to pay to clean up. In this case, a property owner has the option of paying, but also has the option of simply waiting, and the graffiti will clean itself up.
That's not really true. MS made that recommendation for a small class of users who have installed a particular, broken mpeg miniport driver included in a third party product. Other users are encouraged to leave the protection on.
The problem is that the driver triggers an NX fault on startup, and so the system can't boot. That the same thing, exactly, as a kernel oops during the device scan, and it isn't Microsoft's fault.
Here it is:
nobody@home$ cd ~;
Terrible, isn't it? Wipes out all the user's files without asking for any confirmation My God, what a huge security crater.
Don't tell me, let me guess -- you still run Windows 95, right?
You don't understand, do you? OffCE is a well-wknown FSF-sponsored anti-Microsoft site qhich provides detailed intsructions on how to get Off CE. Open Off CE is Eric Raymond's attempt at an Open Source, and therefore freer, form of OffCE.Org.
It sounds like a great paper until you get down into the guts of their materials and methods. They trained their system on half of their total data, and did not then test on separate data. That captures the two classic no-nos of data driven techniques: they inflate their results by including their training data in the results, and, worse, their training data comprises a larger sample of their total data than would be seen in the real world.
The first of these calls their sensitivity result into quesiton. If they classify their training data perfectly, then the 4.4% false negative rate they quote needs to be doubled to 8.8% -- almost one false negative in every eleven messages scanned.
The second of these calls their false positive rate into question: training with an unrealistically thorough set leads to better catergorization, ceteris paribus. They need to show the trend with a variety of different training set sizes to support any claims about performance.
This sounds like a fully buzzword compliant non-result to me.
He talks about that in excruciating detail. The point is, if you don't charge enough, people get very suspicious. You know, "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true?"
Consider a great example: Linux. Linux is a great OS, and it doesn't need to cost you a cent to get it running. That sounds too good to be true -- and it is. There are going to be costs to that gratis Linux -- no tech support, RTFM slaps from the mailing lists, slow turnaround if you're stumped, more complicated configuration structures (files in directories are great if you know where they all are. If you don't...) If you need to run a business, you need to buy tech support for the Linux distro you use. In that case, free costs money.
That doesn't mean, notive, that you don't get a great deal using Linux -- you may well do so. It merely means that a vendor who doesn't charge enough is probably omitting something important. Potential customers know that.