So which is it? Did the pulse exit before it entered OR was there a "leading edge". You can't have it both ways.
Actually, you can have it both ways. When the pulse enters the chamber, the leading edge enters before the trailing edge. The time difference between when the leading edge exited and when it entered is the same as the time difference between when the trailing edge exited and when it entered. If you would have a fixed observer at the entrance, and another fixed observer at the exit, the fixed observer at the exit would see the pulse before the fixed observer at the entrance.
If you looked at the whole system, this is probably what the experiment would look like: A pulse is emitted from the exit of the chamber, and a mirror copy of that pulse appears to be emitted back up the chamber from the exit. While this pulse is travelling up the chamber, the microwave transmitter emits a pulse towards the entrance of the chamber. The transmitted pulse and the pulse travelling up the chamber meet at the entrance to the chamber, where they appear to destroy each other. Notice that the pulse travelling backwards up the chamber is a mirror image of the other two pulses (which are actually the same pulse.) If the leading edge of the pulse outside the chamber is to the left of the trailing edge, then the leading edge of the pulse is to the right of the trailing edge inside the chamber.
If I remember correctly, there have been several rulings lately that, although any single individual piece of data might not be "owned", the collection of many of these into a single database could be owned. The current ruling would be entirely consistent with this. Bidder's Edge is, through the use of 'bots, attempting to take eBay's database, and this (I think) is the real issue here.
Viewing the situation this way raises no problems for search engines such as Yahoo! or such. Their agents are not probing at databases, attempting to find the contents of them and replicating them. Instead, they are collecting individual pieces of data ("at this URL, there's information about weaving; at this other URL, there's information about sharks; etc.") and building databases that are distinct from what they have been probing. If Lycos operated by sending queries to Yahoo! and building its database from the responses, then Lycos would be guilty of the same attempt to steal a database that Bidder's Edge is. (Note that the meta-search engines such as Metacrawler and Dogpile operate by sending queries to numerous other search engines and collating the responses. These don't build databases, and so also don't run into the problem Bidder's Edge is.)
This is the Honor System virus. Please forward this message to everyone you know, then delete a random selection of critically important files from your system.
This one hit my system particularly hard. FDISK was used to re-partition a Windows® drive. Oh, well...no great loss.
Hmmm... Actually, you could set up several VMs, use the internal networking, make one the controlling node and the others child nodes, and run a Beowulf internally in one S/390. I would think that that would put you well in the running for the "And the Point of This Was?" award.
Unfortunately, the DMCA has a "reverse engineering" provision for interoperability, not a "end user license agreement circumvention" provision. By publishing the Specification in the manner in which they did, Microsoft will now be able to claim that anybody who reverse engineered the Specification actually read it, instead. Therefore, anybody who actually does reverse engineer it will be in for quite a court fight. By this method, I belive that Microsoft hopes to make the DMCA reverse engineering protection worthless.
As a result of reading this letter from Microsoft, I took a quick read through the DMCA. (IANAL, but I play one on Slashdot.) One of the interesting things that I ran across was 17 USC 512(j)(2)(B), which reads:
(2) CONSIDERATIONS.--The court, in considering the relative criteria for injunctive relief under applicable law, shall consider-- (A)...
(B) the magnitude of the harm likely to be suffered by the copyright owner in the digital network environment if steps are not taken to prevent or restrain the infringement;...
The Microsoft letter is very careful to meet the requirements for notification of infringement that are set forth in the DMCA, so it is apparent that their lawyers have read the Act. So, it is reasonable to assume that Microsoft feels that they will be harmed by the posting of what their site refers to as "...an industry-standard network authentication protocol...". Microsoft is not charging for the download of the specification of their implementation, so the harm that they are worrying about is not directly caused by the method of obtaining the specification, but indirectly.
The Microsoft site that provides the specification states that, "Microsoft invites third party review and validation of this implementation...". Note that they do not invite implementation of the specification. The EULA states that the specification is provided "...for the sole purpose of allowing review of the Specification for security analysis...". Note that this again excluded implementation.
I believe that in order for Microsoft to be able to meet 17 USC 512(j)(2)(B), they will have to state, in court and on the record, that the harm that they are subject to from the publication of the specification is the implementation by others of this "industry standard" that can interoperate with Microsoft's implementation. By preventing interoperation with their operating system, Microsoft encourages a monopoly position in the operating system arena, and thus increases their revenue.
This will be my last post on this sub-thread, since it is somewhat off-topic. However, you do present some views that are worthy of comment.
"I think as soon as you buy a gun your being pretty iresponsible." Why? Because they are capable of killing people, and some people use them irresponsibly? The same can be said about automobiles, which kill an order of magnitude more people each year. It is important to realise that some objects--be they guns, automobiles or baseball bats--are capable of causing great harm if used improperly. The irresposibility arises in not being careful when using these potentially dangerous objects, and in failing to keep them away from people who do not know how to safely use them. If you say, "having a gun in the house endangers the children in that house," what you are really saying is that the parents are irresponsible in their storage and handling of those guns.
"Using a gun to stop an armed robbery is a weak argument." Is it really? Yes, if the armed robber is pointing his gun right at you and yours is still in the holster, you do whatever he says. But if you're in your house in the middle of the night and someone breaks in downstairs, you call the police, and shoot anybody without a badge that comes up the stairs.
Just the fact that there are people willing and capable of doing this keeps the number of these incidents down. For example, look at Australia, which banned handguns and made it impossible for law abiding citizens to defend themselves like this. The Prime Minister said, "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm." Armed robberies with firearms had been decreasing steadily for 25 years. In the space of 12 months, armed robberies increased 44%. Homicides with firearms had also been decreasing for 25 years. After one year of the ban, homicides were up 3.2%. Break-ins and assaults on the elderly had increased dramatically.
But England's safer, right? After all, they've had a gun ban for longer. From the site linked below: "In Great Britain, handguns are outlawed, and possession of long guns is severely restricted. Yet, despite strict gun control, as of 1995, rates for robbery, assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft in England and Wales had surpassed those here in the States. On average, for all 4 crimes, English rates were double U.S. rates." Hmmmm...
Before you start going and thinking that these are anomalies, think about where the highly publicized shootings occur in the United States. Schools, where it is illegal for law-abiding people to carry weapons. Work, where most employers don't allow their empolyees to carry weapons. In the Jewish Community Center shooting in California, the shooter had even said that he had scoped out a couple of other locations, but thought it was too likely there might be armed resistance there. Why do we never hear about shootings at gun ranges, where everybody is armed? Why do the locations with the highest gun violence rates exactly correspond with those locations where it is most difficult for a law-abiding citizen to carry a gun (i.e. schools, Washington D.C., Chicago...)? I don't think that it's because of lack of police.
The plain and simple truth of the matter is that criminals don't want to be killed any more than you or I do. If somewhere in the mix of citizens there are armed citizens who can and will put an end the the criminals' acts, we'll have a lot fewer people willing to commit these crimes in the first place.
If you're not afraid to face facts and possibly change your mind, you might check out some pages such as this one, which I just found on a quick web-search. I point this one out because it has sources cited for all its statistics. I like places that are not afraid to let you check their numbers. I encourage you to do your own research, and not to just depend upon what I or anybody else has told you, and keep an open mind. Question all the figures, from both sides. Remember that post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy; ask "did action A cause result B, or did result B simply happen after action A?" If you have some other sites, such as Handgun Control, Inc. that might present the other side of the picture, feel free to share them.
Some Mattel Execs need to be found gunned down in the street face down.
Absolutely, positively NOT! As disgusted as I am with what Mattel is doing here, I am even more disgusted with your suggestion on how to "solve" it. As a responsible gun owner (and a member of the NRA), I am quite aware that the only reason to use a gun on another human being is imminent threat of grave bodily harm to an innocent person (e.g. stopping an armed robber, etc.), and not to settle non-violent squabbles.
If you believe that your position on this issue is so weak that you are unable to defend it except through violence, then you need to seriously re-examine where you stand on it. However, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you are advocating a resort to violence just from laziness, instead of spending the effort to form arguments about why Mattel's actions are evil.
You might look here or here. Of course, there's always the horse's mouth, but that might get expensive.
(Myself, I run this, this and (unfortunately) this, so you might not find what you're looking for at the above links. They're just educated guesses. Good luck. YMMV.)
The question is, can the network driver "be reasonably considered indepependent and separate". (And to a lesser degree, is the network driver distributed as a separate work.) Any thoughts?
Certainly. If IBM distributes the network driver as part of OS/390, and not as part of Linux, then I would think that there would be no problem with the GPL. IBM might have to release the header files with Linux under the GPL, though, but I don't think that that would release any of their trade secrets that are in the driver.
Processing power? Get enough athlons and you can out-process any mainframe, for easily distributed applications such as webserving. High availability? Sorry, even if one intel box is 90% reliable, 8 are 99.999999% reliable. What exactly are you using to judge "best"?
The math here needs a little comment. Let's say that an Intel box is 99% reliable over the period of a month. That means that, during any given month, there is a 1% chance that it will go down. If we now have a cluster of 8 boxes, all of which are required to provide the computing power that is needed for the job we are doing, then they are actually only 99% ^ 8 or (.99^8 =.9227...) 92.27% reliable. Any one of the boxes going down will result in us being unable to perform the task, so by adding more boxes, we have actually reduced the reliability.
Now, if only one box is required to perform the task, then your figure is correct; 10% ^ 8 (.1^8 = 0.00000001) is a 0.000001% failure rate, or a 99.999999% reliability rate. However, I would like to find a single Intel-based box that can provide the I/O and processing power of a mainframe. Being (very) generous to the Athelons and saying that 100 of them can perform the same processing as a mainframe, we see that 100 Athelons at 99% reliability together have only a 36.603234...% reliability. Obviously, some backup units are required...but remember, those might fail, too.
Homework problem: Assuming that any given Athelon has a 1% chance of failure during any given month, how many Athelons will be needed to give us a 99.99% probability that 100 of the Athelons will not experience a failure during the period of a month? Show your work; keep your eyes off your neighbor's paper. Extra Credit: Design a method to keep an inventory/order database synchronized in real time among the number of Athelons determined in your answer. Estimate network traffic load.
The judge added that if Mitnick would "tell the government how to read" the files, then the government would turn over the files in decrypted form.
Ok, try this then: The police want to search your house, but don't have enough to get a warrant. They've set up shop on your front step, and won't let you in. "The judge added that if you would tell the government how to unlock your front door, then the government would turn your furniture over to you in the street."
Or maybe this one: To keep down on demonstrations, you can no longer petition or demonstrate in public. "The judge added that if you would tell the government what you view is, then the government would petition itself on your behalf."
Or maybe this: To keep you safe from armed criminals, the government decides that you can't have a gun. "The judge added that if you would call the government if an armed criminal shows up, the government will come protect you from them."
Or perhaps: To speed criminal trials, you can no longer have your own lawyer for defense. "The judge added that if you would tell the government prosecution team your side of the story, the government prosecution team will also provide your defense."
If this action doesn't violate Mitnick's Fifth Amendment right against being a witness against himself, it probably violates his Fifth Amendment right against having property taken without just compensation, and certainly violates his unenumerated Ninth Amendment rights.
Mr. America 123 Main Street Anytown, USA 01234-5678
RE: Infringement of Copyrighted Motion Pictures: illegal posession of deencryption hardware
Dear Mr. America:
Sargoy, Stalin, Rosellini & Shapiro represents and is authorized to act on behalf of the following copyright owners:
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. Disney Enterprises, Inc. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. United Artists Corporation AOL-Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P.
We have received information that at the above address there exists a device with the purpose of defeating DVD encryption so that multiple copies of the information on DVDs can be created. Your location posesses the capability of displaying the unencrypted information from a DVD on a video display screen (to wit, a television screen) while the information simultaneously exists in its encrypted state on the DVD.
Such concurrent posession of multiple copies of the DVD material constitutes an infringement of the exlusive rights to make copies of the data; and constitute an infringement of copyright by using a device which is primarily designed to circumvent technolgical protection measures. United States Copyright Act 17 USC 106 and 1201 (which does not take force until 28 October 2000, but we're going to try to get you under it now anyway.)
We request that you immediately divest your premesis of any devices which posess the capability of deencrtypting DVD data (commonly known as "DVD Players"), and take other such action as may be appropriate to suspend your illegal activities. We would also request that you advise us of any other such individuals who posess such deencryption devices that you might have used or known about.
You may contact me as follows:
Edward Gallagher
Sargoy, Stalin, Rosellini & Shapiro 1790 Broadway, 19th floor New York, NY 10019-1412
We thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Your prompt response is requested so that the illegal infringing activity can be stopped.
Please telephone or write to me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Edward Gallagher I'm Not A Lawyer, But I Play One In Letters
I've been always wondering if there is any punishment system to, say, fine the patent/lawsuit filer if the patent/suit is plain invalid. Save taxpayer's money and make the lawsuit-hungry companies think twice before doing anything retarded.
No, there's not anything like that in the United States yet. In US lawsuits, each side will in most cases bear the cost of their side, which is why a lot of suits are settled instead of tried. Companies figure that they can settle for less than the cost to defend against the suit, even if their defense is successful. If we had a "loser pays" system, where the losing side paid the legal costs of both sides, we would probably see a lot fewer lawsuits settled...and a lot fewer idiots suing McDonalds because they can't figure out that hot coffee is hot.
I believe that England has a "loser pays" system (although I'm not certain about that), and I have no idea about Canada. Anybody from the frozen North who could fill us in?
I remember when I was younger, I used to walk home from school. There was one path that everybody used, that went down this gulley, across some railroad tracks, and back up a hill on the other side. Everybody used this route, and had for years. One day, the guy who owned the property that included the hill decided that he was going to fence in his property, and he put a chain link fence right across where the path ran. Within a week, somebody had torn down the section across the path, and everybody was back to using the path again. The property owner replaced that section of the fence, and it was torn down again. This happened several times, until the property owner called the police to find out who was tearing down the fence, and have him arrested.
Well, the police finally did catch somebody tearing down the fence, and they did arrest him. Caught him in the act. The case never went to trial, because the State's Attorney dropped the charges. It seems that, because the path had been used for years as a public traffic route, and the property owner had made no attempt in those many years to protect his ownership rights in that part of his property, he lost some of his rights. (I believe the technical term was adverse posession, but it's been many years.)
Now, I don't know if the Linux.com and other web sites were registered before Linus had trademarked Linux®. However, I do know that Linux is trademarked now, and that if Linus does not take action to defend that trademark against even harmless misuses, he will lose the right to defend it against flagrant misuses. Once he lets people walk all over it, he no longer has the right to try and stop them.
One thing that I would find interesting (although it's not important to Linus protecting his trademark) is what the license terms are. Could they be just as simple as agreeing to put "Linux® is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds" at the bottom of the main page?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you can have it both ways. When the pulse enters the chamber, the leading edge enters before the trailing edge. The time difference between when the leading edge exited and when it entered is the same as the time difference between when the trailing edge exited and when it entered. If you would have a fixed observer at the entrance, and another fixed observer at the exit, the fixed observer at the exit would see the pulse before the fixed observer at the entrance.
If you looked at the whole system, this is probably what the experiment would look like: A pulse is emitted from the exit of the chamber, and a mirror copy of that pulse appears to be emitted back up the chamber from the exit. While this pulse is travelling up the chamber, the microwave transmitter emits a pulse towards the entrance of the chamber. The transmitted pulse and the pulse travelling up the chamber meet at the entrance to the chamber, where they appear to destroy each other. Notice that the pulse travelling backwards up the chamber is a mirror image of the other two pulses (which are actually the same pulse.) If the leading edge of the pulse outside the chamber is to the left of the trailing edge, then the leading edge of the pulse is to the right of the trailing edge inside the chamber.
For those who are interested by this subject, Nick Herbert wrote Faster Than Light: Superluminal Loopholes in Physics in 1989; it still remains quite interesting and speculative.
Viewing the situation this way raises no problems for search engines such as Yahoo! or such. Their agents are not probing at databases, attempting to find the contents of them and replicating them. Instead, they are collecting individual pieces of data ("at this URL, there's information about weaving; at this other URL, there's information about sharks; etc.") and building databases that are distinct from what they have been probing. If Lycos operated by sending queries to Yahoo! and building its database from the responses, then Lycos would be guilty of the same attempt to steal a database that Bidder's Edge is. (Note that the meta-search engines such as Metacrawler and Dogpile operate by sending queries to numerous other search engines and collating the responses. These don't build databases, and so also don't run into the problem Bidder's Edge is.)
Hmmm... Actually, you could set up several VMs, use the internal networking, make one the controlling node and the others child nodes, and run a Beowulf internally in one S/390. I would think that that would put you well in the running for the "And the Point of This Was?" award.
Unfortunately, the DMCA has a "reverse engineering" provision for interoperability, not a "end user license agreement circumvention" provision. By publishing the Specification in the manner in which they did, Microsoft will now be able to claim that anybody who reverse engineered the Specification actually read it, instead. Therefore, anybody who actually does reverse engineer it will be in for quite a court fight. By this method, I belive that Microsoft hopes to make the DMCA reverse engineering protection worthless.
The Microsoft site that provides the specification states that, "Microsoft invites third party review and validation of this implementation...". Note that they do not invite implementation of the specification. The EULA states that the specification is provided "...for the sole purpose of allowing review of the Specification for security analysis...". Note that this again excluded implementation.
I believe that in order for Microsoft to be able to meet 17 USC 512(j)(2)(B), they will have to state, in court and on the record, that the harm that they are subject to from the publication of the specification is the implementation by others of this "industry standard" that can interoperate with Microsoft's implementation. By preventing interoperation with their operating system, Microsoft encourages a monopoly position in the operating system arena, and thus increases their revenue.
"I think as soon as you buy a gun your being pretty iresponsible." Why? Because they are capable of killing people, and some people use them irresponsibly? The same can be said about automobiles, which kill an order of magnitude more people each year. It is important to realise that some objects--be they guns, automobiles or baseball bats--are capable of causing great harm if used improperly. The irresposibility arises in not being careful when using these potentially dangerous objects, and in failing to keep them away from people who do not know how to safely use them. If you say, "having a gun in the house endangers the children in that house," what you are really saying is that the parents are irresponsible in their storage and handling of those guns.
"Using a gun to stop an armed robbery is a weak argument." Is it really? Yes, if the armed robber is pointing his gun right at you and yours is still in the holster, you do whatever he says. But if you're in your house in the middle of the night and someone breaks in downstairs, you call the police, and shoot anybody without a badge that comes up the stairs.
Just the fact that there are people willing and capable of doing this keeps the number of these incidents down. For example, look at Australia, which banned handguns and made it impossible for law abiding citizens to defend themselves like this. The Prime Minister said, "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm." Armed robberies with firearms had been decreasing steadily for 25 years. In the space of 12 months, armed robberies increased 44%. Homicides with firearms had also been decreasing for 25 years. After one year of the ban, homicides were up 3.2%. Break-ins and assaults on the elderly had increased dramatically.
But England's safer, right? After all, they've had a gun ban for longer. From the site linked below: "In Great Britain, handguns are outlawed, and possession of long guns is severely restricted. Yet, despite strict gun control, as of 1995, rates for robbery, assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft in England and Wales had surpassed those here in the States. On average, for all 4 crimes, English rates were double U.S. rates." Hmmmm...
Before you start going and thinking that these are anomalies, think about where the highly publicized shootings occur in the United States. Schools, where it is illegal for law-abiding people to carry weapons. Work, where most employers don't allow their empolyees to carry weapons. In the Jewish Community Center shooting in California, the shooter had even said that he had scoped out a couple of other locations, but thought it was too likely there might be armed resistance there. Why do we never hear about shootings at gun ranges, where everybody is armed? Why do the locations with the highest gun violence rates exactly correspond with those locations where it is most difficult for a law-abiding citizen to carry a gun (i.e. schools, Washington D.C., Chicago...)? I don't think that it's because of lack of police.
The plain and simple truth of the matter is that criminals don't want to be killed any more than you or I do. If somewhere in the mix of citizens there are armed citizens who can and will put an end the the criminals' acts, we'll have a lot fewer people willing to commit these crimes in the first place.
If you're not afraid to face facts and possibly change your mind, you might check out some pages such as this one, which I just found on a quick web-search. I point this one out because it has sources cited for all its statistics. I like places that are not afraid to let you check their numbers. I encourage you to do your own research, and not to just depend upon what I or anybody else has told you, and keep an open mind. Question all the figures, from both sides. Remember that post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy; ask "did action A cause result B, or did result B simply happen after action A?" If you have some other sites, such as Handgun Control, Inc. that might present the other side of the picture, feel free to share them.
Absolutely, positively NOT! As disgusted as I am with what Mattel is doing here, I am even more disgusted with your suggestion on how to "solve" it. As a responsible gun owner (and a member of the NRA), I am quite aware that the only reason to use a gun on another human being is imminent threat of grave bodily harm to an innocent person (e.g. stopping an armed robber, etc.), and not to settle non-violent squabbles.
If you believe that your position on this issue is so weak that you are unable to defend it except through violence, then you need to seriously re-examine where you stand on it. However, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you are advocating a resort to violence just from laziness, instead of spending the effort to form arguments about why Mattel's actions are evil.
(Myself, I run this, this and (unfortunately) this, so you might not find what you're looking for at the above links. They're just educated guesses. Good luck. YMMV.)
Certainly. If IBM distributes the network driver as part of OS/390, and not as part of Linux, then I would think that there would be no problem with the GPL. IBM might have to release the header files with Linux under the GPL, though, but I don't think that that would release any of their trade secrets that are in the driver.
The math here needs a little comment. Let's say that an Intel box is 99% reliable over the period of a month. That means that, during any given month, there is a 1% chance that it will go down. If we now have a cluster of 8 boxes, all of which are required to provide the computing power that is needed for the job we are doing, then they are actually only 99% ^ 8 or (.99^8 = .9227...) 92.27% reliable. Any one of the boxes going down will result in us being unable to perform the task, so by adding more boxes, we have actually reduced the reliability.
Now, if only one box is required to perform the task, then your figure is correct; 10% ^ 8 (.1^8 = 0.00000001) is a 0.000001% failure rate, or a 99.999999% reliability rate. However, I would like to find a single Intel-based box that can provide the I/O and processing power of a mainframe. Being (very) generous to the Athelons and saying that 100 of them can perform the same processing as a mainframe, we see that 100 Athelons at 99% reliability together have only a 36.603234...% reliability. Obviously, some backup units are required...but remember, those might fail, too.
Homework problem: Assuming that any given Athelon has a 1% chance of failure during any given month, how many Athelons will be needed to give us a 99.99% probability that 100 of the Athelons will not experience a failure during the period of a month? Show your work; keep your eyes off your neighbor's paper. Extra Credit: Design a method to keep an inventory/order database synchronized in real time among the number of Athelons determined in your answer. Estimate network traffic load.
Ok, try this then: The police want to search your house, but don't have enough to get a warrant. They've set up shop on your front step, and won't let you in. "The judge added that if you would tell the government how to unlock your front door, then the government would turn your furniture over to you in the street."
Or maybe this one: To keep down on demonstrations, you can no longer petition or demonstrate in public. "The judge added that if you would tell the government what you view is, then the government would petition itself on your behalf."
Or maybe this: To keep you safe from armed criminals, the government decides that you can't have a gun. "The judge added that if you would call the government if an armed criminal shows up, the government will come protect you from them."
Or perhaps: To speed criminal trials, you can no longer have your own lawyer for defense. "The judge added that if you would tell the government prosecution team your side of the story, the government prosecution team will also provide your defense."
If this action doesn't violate Mitnick's Fifth Amendment right against being a witness against himself, it probably violates his Fifth Amendment right against having property taken without just compensation, and certainly violates his unenumerated Ninth Amendment rights.
123 Main Street
Anytown, USA 01234-5678
RE: Infringement of Copyrighted Motion Pictures:
illegal posession of deencryption hardware
Dear Mr. America:
Sargoy, Stalin, Rosellini & Shapiro represents and is authorized to act on behalf of the following copyright owners:
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.
Disney Enterprises, Inc.
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.
United Artists Corporation
AOL-Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P.
We have received information that at the above address there exists a device with the purpose of defeating DVD encryption so that multiple copies of the information on DVDs can be created. Your location posesses the capability of displaying the unencrypted information from a DVD on a video display screen (to wit, a television screen) while the information simultaneously exists in its encrypted state on the DVD.
Such concurrent posession of multiple copies of the DVD material constitutes an infringement of the exlusive rights to make copies of the data; and constitute an infringement of copyright by using a device which is primarily designed to circumvent technolgical protection measures. United States Copyright Act 17 USC 106 and 1201 (which does not take force until 28 October 2000, but we're going to try to get you under it now anyway.)
We request that you immediately divest your premesis of any devices which posess the capability of deencrtypting DVD data (commonly known as "DVD Players"), and take other such action as may be appropriate to suspend your illegal activities. We would also request that you advise us of any other such individuals who posess such deencryption devices that you might have used or known about.
You may contact me as follows:
We thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Your prompt response is requested so that the illegal infringing activity can be stopped.
Please telephone or write to me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Edward Gallagher
I'm Not A Lawyer, But I Play One In Letters
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
No, there's not anything like that in the United States yet. In US lawsuits, each side will in most cases bear the cost of their side, which is why a lot of suits are settled instead of tried. Companies figure that they can settle for less than the cost to defend against the suit, even if their defense is successful. If we had a "loser pays" system, where the losing side paid the legal costs of both sides, we would probably see a lot fewer lawsuits settled...and a lot fewer idiots suing McDonalds because they can't figure out that hot coffee is hot.
I believe that England has a "loser pays" system (although I'm not certain about that), and I have no idea about Canada. Anybody from the frozen North who could fill us in?
Well, the police finally did catch somebody tearing down the fence, and they did arrest him. Caught him in the act. The case never went to trial, because the State's Attorney dropped the charges. It seems that, because the path had been used for years as a public traffic route, and the property owner had made no attempt in those many years to protect his ownership rights in that part of his property, he lost some of his rights. (I believe the technical term was adverse posession, but it's been many years.)
Now, I don't know if the Linux.com and other web sites were registered before Linus had trademarked Linux®. However, I do know that Linux is trademarked now, and that if Linus does not take action to defend that trademark against even harmless misuses, he will lose the right to defend it against flagrant misuses. Once he lets people walk all over it, he no longer has the right to try and stop them.
One thing that I would find interesting (although it's not important to Linus protecting his trademark) is what the license terms are. Could they be just as simple as agreeing to put "Linux® is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds" at the bottom of the main page?