The GPL requires copyright to be enforced. You can't place terms (such as releasing the source code) on distribution if distribution is already completely legal. Copyright is a government interference in the market, using force to set up temporary monopolies. If I understand libertarianism, that's a bad thing. So under the libertarian ideal, there would be no copyright, and so no GNU software
I think that's debatable; you might be able to enforce the GPL strictly from a contract standpoint. It would just be very, very hard to do so.
Or teams of developers that build complex software that are either sponsored, do it for profit but independently, or do it as a hobby. By that logic most open source wouldn't ever exist.
The problem with your argument is that the best games tend to be proprietary; open source game development has been mostly mediocre for the past decade, with the occasional gem.
The sheriff in question was no doubt trying to just drum up some publicity for himself. Remind me again why he's enforcing laws he clearly doesn't understand?
Yes, because anyone whose view on the law is different than the generally espoused views on slashdot MUST be expressing those views out of dishonesty or corruption or a desire for publicity or because they were bribed. Year in, year out, I see that viewpoint repeated again and again and again here and I just don't understand it. Every bad legal opinion, and a bunch of people pipe up that the judge in the case was probably bribed.
Man, I've got to take a break from slashdot, not worth getting annoyed every morning.
ANYWAY, first of all, the cause of action here was not for "facilitating prostitution," it was for public nuisance. Secondly, the sheriff here is a former prosecutor, so he probably understands the law pretty well. He's probably also familiar with the fact that the 7th Circuit, which interprets law for this district, has held that 230(c) does not provide blanket immunity for internet service providers; he was likely hoping that the court might find this case to be one of those where it doesn't apply. Thirdly, it's entirely possible that he intended all along, if necessary, to appeal the constitutionality of the safe harbor provisions of the law.
I don't agree with his position. But that doesn't mean I think it was a frivolous case, or he's somehow a horrible person because of it. And if you read the position the Court, while agreeing with the Defendant, doesn't seem to think so either. It's not an especially harshly worded decision, the word "frivolous" and "obvious" do not appear.
Finally, the way the techdirt article is phrased is just silly; "[e]ven after this was clearly explained to Sheriff Dart"? By who? The defendant? What's he supposed to do, "well I was going to prosecute this case, but the defendant is arguing that it's wrong, so I better just stop what I'm doing"? The headline is ridiculous too; should we just phrase all legal headlines like that? "Court Teaches EFF About DMCA"?
One quarter doesn't tell you anything; Nokia was hit hard by the depression, and while it's profits are in the red, historically it has made more money, ships more units, and operates on a larger scale than Apple.
What does Market Cap have to do with anything? Market cap is nothing more than the perceived value of the company by the public based on the value of its stock. Apple is on a hot streak right now. Also, those other companies are going to be Sony Ericcson, Motorola, HTC, Palm, Qualcomm, etc...
True, best comparator would be net revenue I think; Nokia makes a lot more than Apple. Honestly, neither company could buy the other (outside a heavily leveraged buyout).
I think you are the one smoking, but who knows what narcotic can create such a confusion. You honestly think the length of a feature list is a measure of OS evolution? Let's look at what XP can do that 3.1 couldn't:
1. Preemptive multitasking.
2. Connect to the Internet without a third party hack*.
3. Support for 64-bit processors.
4. 32-bit filesystems.
5. Native support for more than 640k ram.
* No, I'm not counting IE 5 for 3.1, that came out years after XP was developed.
3.
Not nearly as big a one as XP to Windows 7. A better way for GP to phrase it would have been, "Windows 7 requires more RAM than Windows 7, yet still runs slower, and offers few new features."
I hear what you're saying, but I think Steve Jobs' benevolent dictatorship is what has made Apple so successful. If it wasn't for Jobs being a demanding tyrant, Apple products would be mediocre at best. The guy isn't exactly known for being friendly, but I admire his strive for perfection.
Benevolent? How is it benevolent? He's a classical narcissist, and Apple pretty much started in last place because of his early leadership. It took him over a decade of getting more management experience in other ventures before he was able to turn Apple around, and then he lucked out by getting some really top-tier designers.
As for the whole "quality" thing, I've owned two modern Macs, and both eventually broke down; one a laptop, because of a known design defect in how the hinge attached the screen to the computer (but it looked cool, which is what's important I guess), and an imac that just eventually ran down; the graphics were shot and the power supply didn't work.
I have frequented linux boards, and typically after the latest Ubuntu [adjective] [animal] upgrade there are a significant number of posts of various packages breaking. I've had several break on me.
I know you're talking about Sun's acquisition of MySQL, but the acquisition of Sun by Oracle never made sense. Sun possessed virtually nothing I could see that Oracle might want. Oracle had completely moved their hardware platform to Linux from Solaris because of an earlier spat with Sun. I have a sneaking suspicion that Oracle was covering their ass from some possible GPL infringement with MySQL. Nothing else makes sense.
I just can't buy it; any GPL problem wouldn't cost $1 bn to fix. I think it was irrational exuberance to the point of imbecility over what MySQL could do for them.
I don't think this is much of a troll. The legal system can, and periodically is, turned into a popularity contest. There is a very real likelihood that the jurors will act on personal feelings about the company, and/or be swayed because of lawyer speak.
And maybe, just maybe, there's a valid case here. 3Com is one of the more prominent companies who have developed networking technology. Maybe they have a valid patent. If they do, and the patent troll got it assigned to them legally, then they have the right to sue under it. Just like if someone negligently runs you over, you can assign that right to sue the person to someone else.
That whole "popularity contest" is exactly what most people here seem to want: the patent troll should lose because of the nature of what they are, not in regards to any legal claims.
Someone paid $1 BILLION for a software company that made maybe a few million in revenue a year, and who already distribute most of the source code for their main product? Why?
You miss the point. Presumably he's lying about all that stuff -- gun, guard, lecture, phone calls, everything. That's what people like him do.
I have no doubt that he's received death threats. I would think that all of them are probably not credible, but I guess he feels better safe than sorry.
No, I'm not a sympathizer. I am simply stating that, especially on slashdot, people exaggerate the severity of what he did.
The man lied and continued to lie for years. Filed frivolous lawsuits and dragged innocent people into court for years. And illegally pumped his company's worthless stock so that it could be dumped on unsuspecting investors. Essentially called all Linux users thieves and told them that he was coming for them. The list of his crimes and his victim is very long.
Yes, all true, and those actions, while immoral and illegal, come close to warranting death. There are a few hundred thousand people in prison whose crimes were a hell of a lot worse.
"Darl McBride, chief executive of SCO Group Inc., says he sometimes carries a gun because his enemies are out to kill him. He checks into hotels under assumed names. An armed body guard protected him at Harvard Law School when he gave a speech last month."
Which is a pretty sad commentary. For all everyone's complaining here, did he really do anything that negatively impacted your lives? He sued IBM and Novell, and he made the state of linux licensing slightly (very slightly) uncertain. Uncertainty, in the grand scheme of things, is not the worst thing in the world, but you'd think he committed genocide if you read slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
The GPL requires copyright to be enforced. You can't place terms (such as releasing the source code) on distribution if distribution is already completely legal. Copyright is a government interference in the market, using force to set up temporary monopolies. If I understand libertarianism, that's a bad thing. So under the libertarian ideal, there would be no copyright, and so no GNU software
I think that's debatable; you might be able to enforce the GPL strictly from a contract standpoint. It would just be very, very hard to do so.
AKA Doctor of Being Unemployed, Crushed by School Debt, But At Least Everyone Hates You
Bitter? Me? Nah...
Someone is wrong on the internet!
You know, that's the thing, someone being wrong doesn't get to me, it's the lack of critical thinking and the incessant groupthink gets to me.
Craigslist is not an internet service provider.
Yah, meant interactive computer service or whatever the law defines as falling under the CDA protections.
Or teams of developers that build complex software that are either sponsored, do it for profit but independently, or do it as a hobby. By that logic most open source wouldn't ever exist.
The problem with your argument is that the best games tend to be proprietary; open source game development has been mostly mediocre for the past decade, with the occasional gem.
The sheriff in question was no doubt trying to just drum up some publicity for himself. Remind me again why he's enforcing laws he clearly doesn't understand?
Yes, because anyone whose view on the law is different than the generally espoused views on slashdot MUST be expressing those views out of dishonesty or corruption or a desire for publicity or because they were bribed. Year in, year out, I see that viewpoint repeated again and again and again here and I just don't understand it. Every bad legal opinion, and a bunch of people pipe up that the judge in the case was probably bribed.
Man, I've got to take a break from slashdot, not worth getting annoyed every morning.
ANYWAY, first of all, the cause of action here was not for "facilitating prostitution," it was for public nuisance. Secondly, the sheriff here is a former prosecutor, so he probably understands the law pretty well. He's probably also familiar with the fact that the 7th Circuit, which interprets law for this district, has held that 230(c) does not provide blanket immunity for internet service providers; he was likely hoping that the court might find this case to be one of those where it doesn't apply. Thirdly, it's entirely possible that he intended all along, if necessary, to appeal the constitutionality of the safe harbor provisions of the law.
I don't agree with his position. But that doesn't mean I think it was a frivolous case, or he's somehow a horrible person because of it. And if you read the position the Court, while agreeing with the Defendant, doesn't seem to think so either. It's not an especially harshly worded decision, the word "frivolous" and "obvious" do not appear.
Finally, the way the techdirt article is phrased is just silly; "[e]ven after this was clearly explained to Sheriff Dart"? By who? The defendant? What's he supposed to do, "well I was going to prosecute this case, but the defendant is arguing that it's wrong, so I better just stop what I'm doing"? The headline is ridiculous too; should we just phrase all legal headlines like that? "Court Teaches EFF About DMCA"?
One quarter doesn't tell you anything; Nokia was hit hard by the depression, and while it's profits are in the red, historically it has made more money, ships more units, and operates on a larger scale than Apple.
What does Market Cap have to do with anything? Market cap is nothing more than the perceived value of the company by the public based on the value of its stock. Apple is on a hot streak right now. Also, those other companies are going to be Sony Ericcson, Motorola, HTC, Palm, Qualcomm, etc...
True, best comparator would be net revenue I think; Nokia makes a lot more than Apple. Honestly, neither company could buy the other (outside a heavily leveraged buyout).
Is it really not patent trolling.
By that standard anyone trying to enforce a patent is a patent troll.
Ignore this, both misstated my original post, and misread the responding post.
Had that backwards, meant "big a one as 3.1 to XP".
I think you are the one smoking, but who knows what narcotic can create such a confusion. You honestly think the length of a feature list is a measure of OS evolution? Let's look at what XP can do that 3.1 couldn't:
1. Preemptive multitasking.
2. Connect to the Internet without a third party hack*.
3. Support for 64-bit processors.
4. 32-bit filesystems.
5. Native support for more than 640k ram.
* No, I'm not counting IE 5 for 3.1, that came out years after XP was developed. 3.
Do you not agree that XP is progression from 3.1?
Not nearly as big a one as XP to Windows 7. A better way for GP to phrase it would have been, "Windows 7 requires more RAM than Windows 7, yet still runs slower, and offers few new features."
Armed patrols would shoot you if they catch you humming a tune?
Only in libertarianland.
I hear what you're saying, but I think Steve Jobs' benevolent dictatorship is what has made Apple so successful. If it wasn't for Jobs being a demanding tyrant, Apple products would be mediocre at best. The guy isn't exactly known for being friendly, but I admire his strive for perfection.
Benevolent? How is it benevolent? He's a classical narcissist, and Apple pretty much started in last place because of his early leadership. It took him over a decade of getting more management experience in other ventures before he was able to turn Apple around, and then he lucked out by getting some really top-tier designers.
As for the whole "quality" thing, I've owned two modern Macs, and both eventually broke down; one a laptop, because of a known design defect in how the hinge attached the screen to the computer (but it looked cool, which is what's important I guess), and an imac that just eventually ran down; the graphics were shot and the power supply didn't work.
I have frequented linux boards, and typically after the latest Ubuntu [adjective] [animal] upgrade there are a significant number of posts of various packages breaking. I've had several break on me.
So provided that Linux upgrades any associated libraries when it upgrades an application,
Which it frequently doesn't. Ubuntu especially is notorious for breaking stuff.
But it doesn't seem like 3com is the one bringing the suit. From TFA:
Right, that's what I meant by assignment; 3Com could have legitimately assigned the patent and cause of action to the troll.
I know you're talking about Sun's acquisition of MySQL, but the acquisition of Sun by Oracle never made sense. Sun possessed virtually nothing I could see that Oracle might want. Oracle had completely moved their hardware platform to Linux from Solaris because of an earlier spat with Sun. I have a sneaking suspicion that Oracle was covering their ass from some possible GPL infringement with MySQL. Nothing else makes sense.
I just can't buy it; any GPL problem wouldn't cost $1 bn to fix. I think it was irrational exuberance to the point of imbecility over what MySQL could do for them.
To slowly dilute its market share and ultimately mop up MySQLs customer base ..
They don't have a customer base sufficiently large to be worth $1 bn.
I don't think this is much of a troll. The legal system can, and periodically is, turned into a popularity contest. There is a very real likelihood that the jurors will act on personal feelings about the company, and/or be swayed because of lawyer speak.
And maybe, just maybe, there's a valid case here. 3Com is one of the more prominent companies who have developed networking technology. Maybe they have a valid patent. If they do, and the patent troll got it assigned to them legally, then they have the right to sue under it. Just like if someone negligently runs you over, you can assign that right to sue the person to someone else.
That whole "popularity contest" is exactly what most people here seem to want: the patent troll should lose because of the nature of what they are, not in regards to any legal claims.
Someone paid $1 BILLION for a software company that made maybe a few million in revenue a year, and who already distribute most of the source code for their main product? Why?
You miss the point. Presumably he's lying about all that stuff -- gun, guard, lecture, phone calls, everything. That's what people like him do.
I have no doubt that he's received death threats. I would think that all of them are probably not credible, but I guess he feels better safe than sorry.
So next question is: does he deserve to die for that?
No, I'm not a sympathizer. I am simply stating that, especially on slashdot, people exaggerate the severity of what he did.
The man lied and continued to lie for years. Filed frivolous lawsuits and dragged innocent people into court for years. And illegally pumped his company's worthless stock so that it could be dumped on unsuspecting investors. Essentially called all Linux users thieves and told them that he was coming for them. The list of his crimes and his victim is very long.
Yes, all true, and those actions, while immoral and illegal, come close to warranting death. There are a few hundred thousand people in prison whose crimes were a hell of a lot worse.
"Darl McBride, chief executive of SCO Group Inc., says he sometimes carries a gun because his enemies are out to kill him. He checks into hotels under assumed names. An armed body guard protected him at Harvard Law School when he gave a speech last month."
Which is a pretty sad commentary. For all everyone's complaining here, did he really do anything that negatively impacted your lives? He sued IBM and Novell, and he made the state of linux licensing slightly (very slightly) uncertain. Uncertainty, in the grand scheme of things, is not the worst thing in the world, but you'd think he committed genocide if you read slashdot.