what business is it of microsoft. Surely this is a case of double standards.. microsoft does not like governments interferring with their business, therefore microsoft should keep out of governments policy.
It's simply self-serving. A little like testifying under oath that Linux is a 'competitive' OS but telling investors/public it's not even worth mentioning it's so insignificant. In the case of AU, they have to get moving on the broadband/infrastructure front to fit the Microsoft plans for the future, so Microsoft uses the press, as is often the case, to criticize and 'push' AU to get moving according to the Microsoft timetable. Their future,.NET and the 'leasing' and pretty much the requirement of having good connections to use the software in the future, makes it a new focal point. Microsoft doesn't care about government 'interference' and regulation or the lack thereof, as long as it is in their (Microsoft's) best interests and done (hopefully) at their behest. I have basically considered a Microsoft statement to be worth less than the paper it's written on since the statements in the anti-trust case. As for the 'Bill and Steve' show, IMHO, enough hot air that if they stopped talking, it'd probably solve any global warming problem.
It's spelled minidisc. 'disc' for optical media, and 'disk' for magnetic media. But then again, a professional journalist such as yourself working for a technology site would know that, wouldn't you?
You obviously have an amazing literary and technical background in making your definitive statement. However, having been around since before optical media was even a thought in someone's mind, the terms 'disc' and 'disk' were used interchangeably. (And at this point, it sounds like that's longer than you've been around as well.) I am guessing many will continue to use either 'disc' or 'disk' in various situations. Your doctoral dissertation obviously did not get into enough depth to make that discovery.
I'm not saying nuclear is or isn't the way to go, but I agree that the problem is political. Whether nuclear or something else, it's been damn hard for anyone to build power plants for years, and calif has been at the lead in making things difficult. Secondly, many of the places that have been able to put on generating facilities for peak times have been forced to use natural gas, which has also peaked in prices because of the high demand (for generation as well as other purposes) and for constrained pipelines for distribution. People don't want power plants in their neighborhoods/state, don't want pipelines nearby, and don't want high tension wires crossing their land... yet the idea of conserving has also been ignored a great deal. (Those who clamor for almost free electricity are likely the same ones who yelled the NIMBY mantra anytime someone suggested a power plant or transmission facilities.) It's, collectively, their own fault. Deal with it. As for nuclear power, I don't ever expect to see another new plant and it's coming time for many to be decomissioned. (Though some are working to get extensions to their 'useful life'.) One reason? It's back to political. Utilities still haven't been provided the long term storage for waste that was 'promised' them by the gov't way back when plants were first being built.
What's up with listing "Linux" as the offending party? I didn't know intellectual property could handle an IPO.
I agree. It seems since 'Linux' is trademarked/copyright? that they should amend their press lease and make it the 'VA suit' or something before THEY are the ones with a suit against them. The damage from using the term 'LINUX' as the subject of the suit seems like it could be enormous to all.
What I don't get is what this has to do with VA. The text of the suit seems to put the blame on the shoulders of Credit Suisse. How can VA be held for Credit Suisse's dirty deal
This firm and one other seem to be 'suing kings'. I've seen their name all over the place filing suits left and right against companies (including some in which I have or have had stock, though I've never had any VA Linux stock). Agreed, it seems like if they want to go after somebody it'd be CSFB, but hey, they always go after the public companies if anyone thinks they just sneezed wrong. (The reason it's REALLY time for tort reform.) The interesting thing in this one, however, is who is the 'injured party'. It seems, if even the facts are true, that it's those who did NOT get stock during the initial IPO at the IPO price, saying CSFB manipulated the distribution of the initial shares for their monetary gain. I'm not sure how those who purchased afterwards are impacted. After all, I don't see the total shares, etc, being changed. And repeating, it seems the party, if any, to be the defendant would be CSFB, the party said to have gained, through manipulated or excessive commissions, would be the party with the illgotten gains to be disgorged through any suit with any damages and the plaintiff those who couldn't get the stock at IPO. (Then again, besides CSFB having too many lawyers it may be that anyone who did or did not get shares may be required to go through arbitration as found in many/most/all? agreements people and firms have with brokers? who knows?) This goes beyone absurd., IMHO. Next we'll start seeing them file suits aginst oversubscribed IPO's saying the company HAS to issue shares to anyone who wants stock at the IPO price. Hmm. now that one could be.... never mind
I think it's absolutely rediculous that people are actually being thrown in jail for exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech.
Read the article. They're being sent to jail for the SCAM for which they used SPAM to perpetuate. Secondly, when a spammer uses someone elses network or violates TOS's, going after them is NOT at all preventing their free speech. It's going after their misuse of networks or violation of agreements. Lastely, it's nice you can tell what's spam and what isn't and you can do that in 20 seconds a day. I get tons of spam daily. When I travel I have to dial long distance over slow lines to retrieve mail. When I get all the crap, I've not only had them use my storage, they've cost me REAL dollars sending their junk. That also has nothing to do with free speech. Restricting spam is NOT restricting free speech. It's like the FCC regulations on telemarketers... COMMERCIAL telemarketing is what has been restricted by regluation. Those who are charities, etc, are NOT restricted via 'do not call lists', etc. The constitution does NOT require that free speech force ME or others to PAY for their distribution of that speech. Much like free speech does not allow someone to come through my window to hand me their spam vs. sending it via email. An analogy to the old 'your constitutional right to punch me out stops just a hair before you connect', at which MY rights are violated. Their right to free speech SHOULD be that it extends to the point there it WOULD enter my mail server, but does not. AFter that, they are costing ME money and time, and the constitution does NOT guarantee that I must support, fund, nor acquiesce to their free speech. You've essentially convoluted the 1st amendment as have so many others. Using your theory again, it'd be like saying anything I or anyone else wanted to say would HAVE to be published in any newspaper, aired over any TV station, or read over any radio station I desired. To not do so, you are saying, is preventing free speech. To be kind, hogwash.
The worst they can do to you for violating terms of service is cut off the service? Anything else is just an empty scare tactic
I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm guessing that may not be the case here. We're talking wireless vs. dialup or point to point line for DSL type service. The FCC has some pretty strict regulations and fines for equipment that goes haywire and starts causing problems. I'm guessing one thing Sprint is accomplishing is assuring that they can get in and remove/repair equipment causing problems (let alone flooding their specific frequencies licensed). That said, it woul d seem the TOS, should you refuse access, leaves you the one liable for any damages, and that can amount to a lot more than just termination of your service. Wireless is a LOT different than having cable or dsl.
Gee, that kind of sounds like what Yahoo has been
doing for some time... do a search, you get a list
of items, thumbnails, pertaining to the results
of the search. Yup, that's real original.
Re:Not sure it's that bad
on
Patent Warfare
·
· Score: 1
Someone else mentioned IBM SNA earlier. Reading the patent (and I thought it WAS fun) seems to be just like this, and SNA's been doing it for YEARS. The SNA datastreams are compressed at the mainframe (ie, the 'more horsepower server') and this speeds transmission time to the end user's terminal/machine, which decompresses the datastream. hell, that ain't nothin' new. It does sound like a slap suit (just what WERE the violations of patent anyway?). I think a nice 'slap back' would be appropriate. (Or, IANAL, but IIRC, a judge and arbitrarily cause substantial retribution on a firviously filed suit.) It seems mainly, from the article, the guy is just mad 'cause the defendant obviously can't be a patent expert if he isn't a lawyer. Oh wait, that's the next patent. Nobody will be able to give an opinion, even if the IANAL is included, unless they're a lawyer. A few more $$$ contributions by the lawyers to the political campaigns (weren't they the largest contributors to Bill??) and tort reform will be the least of anybody's concern.
Re:pot calling the kettle black?
on
Patent Warfare
·
· Score: 1
Now it may be true that the individual instructions patented by intel aren't particularly novel but these appear to be the way intel can protect its novel contributions to its instruction set.
I don't think instructions should be permitted patent protection. Most are 'obvious' when reviewed, or in cases ideas previously handled via various software methods, etc, now being implemented in instruction sets. I DO believe, however, the patenting should be on the internal HANDLING of instructions and processing, such as pre-fetch or branch predictibility algorithms based on instructions or how one instruction or another may process the same 'move' instruction, internally, on one vendors chip vs. another.
This is just an example of what a non tech savy FBI can do.
- Reading logs franticly. Under pressure from yankee corp none the less.
- Needing a scapegoat.
- Getting a scapegoat.
- Finding that said scapegoat is not a typical "Evil warez kiddie bent on global destruction [EWKBOGD](TM
1993 US Goverment)" etc
While it isn't nice to take ones computer, I'm a little surprised they were able to get a search warrant (the judge should be faulted, if anyone). It's possible as others have said that the 'return to the scene of the crime' possibility was the reason they were looking and probably taking a close look at anybody who showed up at that site and did more than just 'look'. If whoever altered the site was also capable of wiping out the logs, then they only have those going forward to see who was 'visiting' . Not saying I agree with them, but I can understand their logic. I think they exceeded the bounds of search warrant when they checked the 'porn' CD. IANAL, but isn't a warrant usually fairly restrictive as to WHAT is to be searched for? and if something else is scanned/searched outside of that in the warrant, aren't they SOL in trying to prosecute even if they DO find something?
So now I could write a virus, put access/copy "controls" on it and then sue McAfee and Symantec when their anti-virus software "circumvents" my code so they can detect and disable it? Gotta love that forward thinking gummint we got here.
Sure seems so. Just remember to make sure you copyright your virus:) They went over entryption research and even said there weren't any reasons to allow circumvention for that as well. Does that mean we could end up with a 'poor' back-doored encryption and the law would prohibit any research to find out that was the case? (Hmm. Is the government restricted from encryption research as well?) Sound even like th SDMI hack contest would end up being illegal if anyone participated?
This is still the part that chafes me most; it completely wipes previously legal fair use copying. This would make even dubbing to a tape illegal.
The interesting thing is that it seemed to make a distinction between access controls and copying controls. Unless I read it wrong, copy controls didn't seem to apply, it was access where they applied the restrictions. (Then again, if the access prevents copying. hmm.) It's interesting though, they did have some errors. Example/13, where they indicated items on DVD such as outtakes, interviews, etc, weren't available to the general public before, etc. That's incorrect. Not on VHS, but that was very common on Laser Disk (not copy protected/access control protected, either). But all in all, they really did skate on the issues. Particularly on 'if it's on VHS, then it can be obtained'. Interestingly, that should give some impetus for change on the next review, with the speculations on decreased availability of product on VHS in the not too distant future. They also left the specific class of identify web access lists. Nice for Peacefire, as all said. But that's very restrictive. Will that give the courts a hole to drive a truck through to permit circumvention of ANY 'encrypted' data that's strictly for 'prohibitive' access to data, not necessarily of copyrighted works? Or can they really be THAT narrow? (Isn't there something in the constitution about laws that protect specific entities or CLASSES and the constitutionality? This seems reversed, yet analogous?)
There's possibly a benefit to all this garbage use of the DMCA. I may wake up some in Congress to take a second look and see the monster that's been created. Ok, not too likely. But it does make one wonder what extent consumer protection laws do or so not exist which might circumvent the knee-jerk 'intellectual property' reaction places like @Home have when something like this gets published. Let's face it, it simply embarrasses them (if their service alone didn't do that.) I wonder how far whistleblower laws go. ie, if customers weren't being offered correct 'refunds' for service outages, or weren't being treated equally or violating their publically stated documents (such as refund policies?). Intellectual property or not, all those documents are there for discovery should anyone sue (I know, they expect that nobody'd do that.) Has any court determined to what extent 'publishing' on the web plays in relation to the media? What's it take these days to be considered the 'press'? Can someone / group collectively set up a 'web press for disadvantaged customers' and 'publish' stories, information, hmm...anonymous submitted documents?
Mr. Every needs a history lesson
on
Is UNIX An OS?
·
· Score: 1
The author, as it said, has been 'playing' at programming since 1984. He needs a history lesson and should study what an operating system IS before stating what he things it is today. While he mentions all sorts of nicities that he seems to think people 'require' today, much is 'application'. It may have hooks INTO an operating system, which were kindly provided by the OS, but shouldn't be confused by using these aps as a definition of an 'operating system'. His world is clouded by having the proverbial blinders on also, seeing only the desktop world. I suppose while I'm at it, I would also mention I dispute the majority of his assertions as to how 'Unix' the former OS spread initially as well, and the reasons. If he started in '84, he must've started when he was about 1, because he sounds like a some teenagers (not all, of course) who don't bother to research anything, but simply think that term paper can just come off the top of their head whether there is data to support any conclusion or not.
Yeah, monopoly! You know, AOL is the only ISP on the market. Oh, wait. They're just the most subscribed to. Oh, and Time-Warner has a monopoly on television, movie and print media! Oh wait. They don't. But together they will be a monopoly! Right.
It's really annoying to me how Slashdot readers seem to confuse huge market cap with monopoly. Since when does AOL cut back on production and raise prices, forcing consumers to pay more for the same product (because there is no competition)? That, by definition, is a monopoly. I sure as hell don't see them doing this.
I think you left out a major factors, which is really annoying to me how Slashdot readers seem to do that at times. There seem to be two areas of concern. One, the fact that AOL (and yes, being huge there along isn't bad) will have not only distribution monopoly, but now have huge content production. Conern there is that they'll now have the content production to block other entities (from smaller compaines to the likes of Disney/ABC). The other area is the huge amount of cable property owned by Time Warner, which is monopoly distribution/last mile pipe for significant numbers of the population. (Taken together with ATT interest IN Time Warner Cable through MediaOne and the huge ATT cable properties, the 'connection' or combined interests of TW/ATT make the 'monopoly' of last mile high-speed pipe an even larger percentage, be it geographically or as a percentage of the population.)
I think AOL and TW are the ones shooting themselves in the foot on the whole thing. They've said they'll have open access on their cable systems, but will only state intent, not put it in writing. (Their demands on open acess to some ISP's in Tx show requirements that would also prohibit just about ANY ISP from going on their systems.) The foot dragging by AOL on IM, where there is a huge monopoly also has raised concerns. So, in the areas they HAVE monopolies, not just size, they seem to be a little much the bully on the block (and one must remember, in the cable area, that the monopolies were government provided, and government created monopolies shouldn't be used to extend freely into additional monopolies without exacting some requirements for leveling the playing field for those who didn't have the gov't backing in the original monopoly). Let's face it, it seems AOL/TW doesn't 'play fair' in those areas. IMHO, the concern of the 'after merger' effects is warranted. That opinion isn't just from 'speculators' and fortune tellers, but watching their own actions today in areas they monopolize. And finally, the is precedent on blocking media verticle monopolies. When movies were the main monopoly, the combined movie studio/production/theater ownership situation was 'busted' by the government. When network TV was the monopoly, pre 'big cable', they were prohibited from owning their programming, ie, the prime time programs, etc. Also, it hasn't been that long ago that studios, IIRC correctly, had to be 'told' by the gov't that they must permit content on competiting distribution other than that just which they own. (I seem to recall HBO and premium cable services in there. Hmm, That was back in Ross's day at helm of TW, but Levin was still in there someplace, no?)
I wonder if there are any online merchants selling Motorola equipment? I wonder how this impacts their privacy statements if they have the standard 'don't share' that many do. Is a large retailer supposed to change it to 'don't share except with Motorola'? Obviously they violate their own privacy statements if they don't. Hmm. And if they have that little TRUSTe logo and 'no share' policy. They can kiss that good-bye.
I think there's a misconception. IIRC, ATT wants to charge those for which they HOST the web sites. They cannot charge ANY merchant because someone comes from an ATT connection to a web site that is NOT hosted by ATT. IANAL, but I don't believe there's ANY contractual agreement implied or otherwise between an ATT and the web site hosted by another ISP just becuase a customer uses ATT to access that site. But I wouldn't mind ATT trying to bill me for their customers access to my site... toilet paper is getting expensive and their bills would be a perfect replacement.
Re:Phone company does take a cut of catalog orders
on
High-Speed Greed
·
· Score: 1
"Actually the phone company does get a cut in phone orders. Either you or the company you are calling are paying toll charges. 800 numbers aren't free, the recipient just pays the bill." There's no logical comparison to getting a 'cut' in phone orders to taking a percentage of sales. The 800 numbers simply permit the recipient to pay for a long distance call vs. the caller. The long distance is being paid for their services in providing long distance. They do NOT get anything based upon anything being ordered or not ordered, or the value of any order placed. They are looking more at things like mall leases / brick and morter comparisons that may charge tenants a percentage of gross sales as part of their lease. What they seem to forget is that this is virtual brick and mortar and one can move pretty quickly vs. a store in a mall. What I'm trying to figure out is who actually thought up this idea and who let it actually get to the point of going public...and if they still work for ATT. (well, and how 'virtual' stores have already called the 'movers')
Re:I don't think that's what it says...
on
High-Speed Greed
·
· Score: 1
"If you don't agree to give us a cut of all sales that come from AT&T customers, we'll block all traffic to your site" If it's done for economic reasons such as this, IMHO, it'd be time to look into 'restraint of interstate trade', of which there is much legislation on the books.
"How exactly would you determine that a purchase was made..." They don't want paid just for the purchases, but if one browses the site too. Armstrong was supposed to be the ATT savior. This is the DUMBEST most IDIOTIC thing I've ever heard. So in the future, if I read an ad in the LA Times then call Nordstroms for an order, will the Times get a piece and the telco over which I placed the order. The local RBOC AND the long distance carrier if it's not a local call? T is at a 52 week low. This should cut it down further as any self respecting web site should start to abandon them in droves even at the hint this is going to take place. And if ATT can't get enouch money in a quarter cause they can't handle the 100billion he spent on cable to provide phone and broadband, what happens... they tell all ATT employees to visit all their hosted web sites to pump up the income or something? Don't like a site so anyone can just drive them out of business by 'browsing'. Sounds like they'll actually promote DOS attacks, as I'm guessing they'll want money for any site hit, period. I sold my T stock some time ago, after my problem with them showed me they have no idea how solve a problem. I sure understand how it's dropped to the mid 20's. It's truly a shame. ATT was one of THE branded names... but it sure don't shine these days!
"Yes. They invented multi-processing." Yes, I'm sure you're correct. Let's see...mid 1970's. IBM was selling 370 158MP and 168MP machines. Intel? I believe they were just about doing the 8080 chip. Hmm. Doesn't sound like Intel invented multi-processing to me.
Ms. Watney, or whatever her name was, is obviously too long in the beltway. Her 'response' is that some members of the team were in Republican administrations. Doesn't she get it? Where'd they get her? The complains is the team is the government orientation/background of the individuals. It isn't a Democrat OR Republican thing... the ones raising the question outside the beltway don't give a damn about that. I don't know where Reno got here, but I sure hope she's a political appointee instead of career type..at least she won't be there long. Sheesh. And then people wonder why others just might 'wonder' about DOJ and other's interest.
"Interesting. So say the same scenario happened, but I was incorporated. Now, if I understand it, corporations are seperate legal entities. So, if they take the corporation to court and the court tells the corporation to cease and desist, what's to stop me from creating a new corporation and continuing to do what I'm doing (ad infinitum)?"..... I think that's the interesting thing said by the judges, and how it might relate to other 'massive' letter campaigns by lawyers at RIAA, MPAA, etc. IANAL, but what I'm getting from the appeal is that, in your case above, you WOULD be subject to the any injunctions, etc, because of your close relationship to your corporation, no matter what other corporation you started to circumvent an injunction. OTOH, I also got that they were saying that if a party is NOT working in concert with the party to which the injunction applies, then they are not impacted by the courts ruling in a specific case. For an example, if reading correctly, if you post something and an injunction is against YOU, then it also applies to all your friends you called to say 'copy this so we can still violate a copyright if there's an injunction'. In that instance, the 'friends' could be a party to the case, but would also be under the injunction issued by the judge. If, however, a whole 'bunch' of people copied this on their own, or from another place, and posted it on the board, with no action, suggesstion, request, etc, from the original defendant, then they would NOT be under the injunction issued by the court. (and all the letters the lawyers wrote would be best put to use in place of that 1919 sears catalog in the outhouse.) Again, IANAL, but if any out there, that seems to be the substance of their comments? correct? Just as an outsider, I find the reading of this very interesting. While many (on both sides of a case) seem to think the courts can't handle cases in these 'modern' times, these judges sure seem to know what they're dealing with. They limit things to exactly what they want, know the repurcussions of getting drawn into areas they don't believe should be addressed (like 1st amenedment. they KNOW this is a can of worms, and sure found it just wasn't the subject to broach in this appeal and weren't about to get out the can opener. And to me, that made a lot of sense.)
>>> "My impression of CueCat (and this is from limited data, admittedly) is that they have no idea how the internet, software, and computer world work in general...Lawsuits do not make you popular, screwing around with data does not make you popular, and posturing does not make you popular.">>>...but why be surprised. If you look at their bios, half have law degrees (generally not practicing), a number from the same prior company ('movie biz'), and with every 'division' having a PRESIDENT , probably GIANT movie biz type egos. They probably made a lot of easy $$$ in the prior business and figured they'd make the mega-$$$ in the internet business. So are you surprised there are lawsuits and they seem inept on the ways of the internet? I'm not. They just want their easy money (and probably IPO as soon as possible). They just got in a little late after the big internet stock bust. This, IMHO, seems nothing more than the typical 'does not work/play well with others' type. Actually, if they love lawsuits, I think the VCR Plus type folks should be talking to them. It's the same concept, number/encoded data, used to simplify/translate to other useful information. They seemed to have simply COPIED the 'idea' and changed the concept to 'scanners with bar codes' and the internet. The concept seems the same, just an implementation difference. Sheesh, and they think they're brilliant and have invented this new 'operating system' as I believe they called the dumb little cat. I don't expect this cat to be a mouse eater at all.
>>>When asked about privacy concerns with the treaty, Csonka said: "These concerns may be legitimate, but they could be raised in relation to any international treaty. Harmonization of laws is necessary to avoid a legal jungle on the Net.">>> Somehow I don't see privacy concerns coming up on most treaties, as they deal with how one country deals with another, such as disarmament, trade, or tariffs, etc. This treaty deals with requiring a country to pass laws regarding it's own citizens. IANAL or IANAC(congressperson), but maybe some experts out there can answer this... is this treaty legal anyway? The Congress, IIRC, cannot tread upon a suceeding Congress. ie, even a bill passed by the house or senate that has not been passed by both houses or signed by the President (or vetoed) does not pass to the next session of Congress. So how can a treaty set forth requirements of laws to be passed by a subsequent session of Congress? This is not foreign policy treaties or trade treaties, but a requirement to pass laws. Also, since treaties are the perview of the president (whether or not ratified by the Senate, they are not reviewed by the HOUSE) this seems to permit the executive branch of government to mandate legislative functions and usurp the legislative branch of the government, which the framers insured the Constitution would prohibit, does it not?? It seems a treaty doomed to be violated, or the Congress and the Constitution might as well go home. And this treaty is being lead by DOJ people? Damn, now I KNOW it's time for a change...send Reno back to Miami and clean house at the DOJ. This is absurd. It makes the clipper chip idea seem tame.
Slashdot Mirror
It's simply self-serving. A little like testifying under oath that Linux is a 'competitive' OS but telling investors/public it's not even worth mentioning it's so insignificant. In the case of AU, they have to get moving on the broadband/infrastructure front to fit the Microsoft plans for the future, so Microsoft uses the press, as is often the case, to criticize and 'push' AU to get moving according to the Microsoft timetable. Their future, .NET and the 'leasing' and pretty much the requirement of having good connections to use the software in the future, makes it a new focal point. Microsoft doesn't care about government 'interference' and regulation or the lack thereof, as long as it is in their (Microsoft's) best interests and done (hopefully) at their behest. I have basically considered a Microsoft statement to be worth less than the paper it's written on since the statements in the anti-trust case. As for the 'Bill and Steve' show, IMHO, enough hot air that if they stopped talking, it'd probably solve any global warming problem.
You obviously have an amazing literary and technical background in making your definitive statement. However, having been around since before optical media was even a thought in someone's mind, the terms 'disc' and 'disk' were used interchangeably. (And at this point, it sounds like that's longer than you've been around as well.) I am guessing many will continue to use either 'disc' or 'disk' in various situations. Your doctoral dissertation obviously did not get into enough depth to make that discovery.
I'm not saying nuclear is or isn't the way to go, but I agree that the problem is political. Whether nuclear or something else, it's been damn hard for anyone to build power plants for years, and calif has been at the lead in making things difficult. Secondly, many of the places that have been able to put on generating facilities for peak times have been forced to use natural gas, which has also peaked in prices because of the high demand (for generation as well as other purposes) and for constrained pipelines for distribution. People don't want power plants in their neighborhoods/state, don't want pipelines nearby, and don't want high tension wires crossing their land... yet the idea of conserving has also been ignored a great deal. (Those who clamor for almost free electricity are likely the same ones who yelled the NIMBY mantra anytime someone suggested a power plant or transmission facilities.) It's, collectively, their own fault. Deal with it. As for nuclear power, I don't ever expect to see another new plant and it's coming time for many to be decomissioned. (Though some are working to get extensions to their 'useful life'.) One reason? It's back to political. Utilities still haven't been provided the long term storage for waste that was 'promised' them by the gov't way back when plants were first being built.
What's up with listing "Linux" as the offending party? I didn't know intellectual property could handle an IPO.
I agree. It seems since 'Linux' is trademarked/copyright? that they should amend their press lease and make it the 'VA suit' or something before THEY are the ones with a suit against them. The damage from using the term 'LINUX' as the subject of the suit seems like it could be enormous to all.
What I don't get is what this has to do with VA. The text of the suit seems to put the blame on the shoulders of Credit Suisse. How can VA be held for Credit Suisse's dirty deal
This firm and one other seem to be 'suing kings'. I've seen their name all over the place filing suits left and right against companies (including some in which I have or have had stock, though I've never had any VA Linux stock). Agreed, it seems like if they want to go after somebody it'd be CSFB, but hey, they always go after the public companies if anyone thinks they just sneezed wrong. (The reason it's REALLY time for tort reform.) The interesting thing in this one, however, is who is the 'injured party'. It seems, if even the facts are true, that it's those who did NOT get stock during the initial IPO at the IPO price, saying CSFB manipulated the distribution of the initial shares for their monetary gain. I'm not sure how those who purchased afterwards are impacted. After all, I don't see the total shares, etc, being changed. And repeating, it seems the party, if any, to be the defendant would be CSFB, the party said to have gained, through manipulated or excessive commissions, would be the party with the illgotten gains to be disgorged through any suit with any damages and the plaintiff those who couldn't get the stock at IPO. (Then again, besides CSFB having too many lawyers it may be that anyone who did or did not get shares may be required to go through arbitration as found in many/most/all? agreements people and firms have with brokers? who knows?) This goes beyone absurd., IMHO. Next we'll start seeing them file suits aginst oversubscribed IPO's saying the company HAS to issue shares to anyone who wants stock at the IPO price. Hmm. now that one could be.... never mind
Read the article. They're being sent to jail for the SCAM for which they used SPAM to perpetuate. Secondly, when a spammer uses someone elses network or violates TOS's, going after them is NOT at all preventing their free speech. It's going after their misuse of networks or violation of agreements. Lastely, it's nice you can tell what's spam and what isn't and you can do that in 20 seconds a day. I get tons of spam daily. When I travel I have to dial long distance over slow lines to retrieve mail. When I get all the crap, I've not only had them use my storage, they've cost me REAL dollars sending their junk. That also has nothing to do with free speech. Restricting spam is NOT restricting free speech. It's like the FCC regulations on telemarketers... COMMERCIAL telemarketing is what has been restricted by regluation. Those who are charities, etc, are NOT restricted via 'do not call lists', etc. The constitution does NOT require that free speech force ME or others to PAY for their distribution of that speech. Much like free speech does not allow someone to come through my window to hand me their spam vs. sending it via email. An analogy to the old 'your constitutional right to punch me out stops just a hair before you connect', at which MY rights are violated. Their right to free speech SHOULD be that it extends to the point there it WOULD enter my mail server, but does not. AFter that, they are costing ME money and time, and the constitution does NOT guarantee that I must support, fund, nor acquiesce to their free speech. You've essentially convoluted the 1st amendment as have so many others. Using your theory again, it'd be like saying anything I or anyone else wanted to say would HAVE to be published in any newspaper, aired over any TV station, or read over any radio station I desired. To not do so, you are saying, is preventing free speech. To be kind, hogwash.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm guessing that may not be the case here. We're talking wireless vs. dialup or point to point line for DSL type service. The FCC has some pretty strict regulations and fines for equipment that goes haywire and starts causing problems. I'm guessing one thing Sprint is accomplishing is assuring that they can get in and remove/repair equipment causing problems (let alone flooding their specific frequencies licensed). That said, it woul d seem the TOS, should you refuse access, leaves you the one liable for any damages, and that can amount to a lot more than just termination of your service. Wireless is a LOT different than having cable or dsl.
Gee, that kind of sounds like what Yahoo has been doing for some time... do a search, you get a list of items, thumbnails, pertaining to the results of the search. Yup, that's real original.
Someone else mentioned IBM SNA earlier. Reading the patent (and I thought it WAS fun) seems to be just like this, and SNA's been doing it for YEARS. The SNA datastreams are compressed at the mainframe (ie, the 'more horsepower server') and this speeds transmission time to the end user's terminal/machine, which decompresses the datastream. hell, that ain't nothin' new. It does sound like a slap suit (just what WERE the violations of patent anyway?). I think a nice 'slap back' would be appropriate. (Or, IANAL, but IIRC, a judge and arbitrarily cause substantial retribution on a firviously filed suit.) It seems mainly, from the article, the guy is just mad 'cause the defendant obviously can't be a patent expert if he isn't a lawyer. Oh wait, that's the next patent. Nobody will be able to give an opinion, even if the IANAL is included, unless they're a lawyer. A few more $$$ contributions by the lawyers to the political campaigns (weren't they the largest contributors to Bill??) and tort reform will be the least of anybody's concern.
I don't think instructions should be permitted patent protection. Most are 'obvious' when reviewed, or in cases ideas previously handled via various software methods, etc, now being implemented in instruction sets. I DO believe, however, the patenting should be on the internal HANDLING of instructions and processing, such as pre-fetch or branch predictibility algorithms based on instructions or how one instruction or another may process the same 'move' instruction, internally, on one vendors chip vs. another.
While it isn't nice to take ones computer, I'm a little surprised they were able to get a search warrant (the judge should be faulted, if anyone). It's possible as others have said that the 'return to the scene of the crime' possibility was the reason they were looking and probably taking a close look at anybody who showed up at that site and did more than just 'look'. If whoever altered the site was also capable of wiping out the logs, then they only have those going forward to see who was 'visiting' . Not saying I agree with them, but I can understand their logic. I think they exceeded the bounds of search warrant when they checked the 'porn' CD. IANAL, but isn't a warrant usually fairly restrictive as to WHAT is to be searched for? and if something else is scanned/searched outside of that in the warrant, aren't they SOL in trying to prosecute even if they DO find something?
Sure seems so. Just remember to make sure you copyright your virus :) They went over entryption research and even said there weren't any reasons to allow circumvention for that as well. Does that mean we could end up with a 'poor' back-doored encryption and the law would prohibit any research to find out that was the case? (Hmm. Is the government restricted from encryption research as well?) Sound even like th SDMI hack contest would end up being illegal if anyone participated?
The interesting thing is that it seemed to make a distinction between access controls and copying controls. Unless I read it wrong, copy controls didn't seem to apply, it was access where they applied the restrictions. (Then again, if the access prevents copying. hmm.) It's interesting though, they did have some errors. Example /13, where they indicated items on DVD such as outtakes, interviews, etc, weren't available to the general public before, etc. That's incorrect. Not on VHS, but that was very common on Laser Disk (not copy protected/access control protected, either). But all in all, they really did skate on the issues. Particularly on 'if it's on VHS, then it can be obtained'. Interestingly, that should give some impetus for change on the next review, with the speculations on decreased availability of product on VHS in the not too distant future. They also left the specific class of identify web access lists. Nice for Peacefire, as all said. But that's very restrictive. Will that give the courts a hole to drive a truck through to permit circumvention of ANY 'encrypted' data that's strictly for 'prohibitive' access to data, not necessarily of copyrighted works? Or can they really be THAT narrow? (Isn't there something in the constitution about laws that protect specific entities or CLASSES and the constitutionality? This seems reversed, yet analogous?)
There's possibly a benefit to all this garbage use of the DMCA. I may wake up some in Congress to take a second look and see the monster that's been created. Ok, not too likely. But it does make one wonder what extent consumer protection laws do or so not exist which might circumvent the knee-jerk 'intellectual property' reaction places like @Home have when something like this gets published. Let's face it, it simply embarrasses them (if their service alone didn't do that.) I wonder how far whistleblower laws go. ie, if customers weren't being offered correct 'refunds' for service outages, or weren't being treated equally or violating their publically stated documents (such as refund policies?). Intellectual property or not, all those documents are there for discovery should anyone sue (I know, they expect that nobody'd do that.) Has any court determined to what extent 'publishing' on the web plays in relation to the media? What's it take these days to be considered the 'press'? Can someone / group collectively set up a 'web press for disadvantaged customers' and 'publish' stories, information, hmm...anonymous submitted documents?
The author, as it said, has been 'playing' at programming since 1984. He needs a history lesson and should study what an operating system IS before stating what he things it is today. While he mentions all sorts of nicities that he seems to think people 'require' today, much is 'application'. It may have hooks INTO an operating system, which were kindly provided by the OS, but shouldn't be confused by using these aps as a definition of an 'operating system'. His world is clouded by having the proverbial blinders on also, seeing only the desktop world. I suppose while I'm at it, I would also mention I dispute the majority of his assertions as to how 'Unix' the former OS spread initially as well, and the reasons. If he started in '84, he must've started when he was about 1, because he sounds like a some teenagers (not all, of course) who don't bother to research anything, but simply think that term paper can just come off the top of their head whether there is data to support any conclusion or not.
I think you left out a major factors, which is really annoying to me how Slashdot readers seem to do that at times. There seem to be two areas of concern. One, the fact that AOL (and yes, being huge there along isn't bad) will have not only distribution monopoly, but now have huge content production. Conern there is that they'll now have the content production to block other entities (from smaller compaines to the likes of Disney/ABC). The other area is the huge amount of cable property owned by Time Warner, which is monopoly distribution/last mile pipe for significant numbers of the population. (Taken together with ATT interest IN Time Warner Cable through MediaOne and the huge ATT cable properties, the 'connection' or combined interests of TW/ATT make the 'monopoly' of last mile high-speed pipe an even larger percentage, be it geographically or as a percentage of the population.)
I think AOL and TW are the ones shooting themselves in the foot on the whole thing. They've said they'll have open access on their cable systems, but will only state intent, not put it in writing. (Their demands on open acess to some ISP's in Tx show requirements that would also prohibit just about ANY ISP from going on their systems.) The foot dragging by AOL on IM, where there is a huge monopoly also has raised concerns. So, in the areas they HAVE monopolies, not just size, they seem to be a little much the bully on the block (and one must remember, in the cable area, that the monopolies were government provided, and government created monopolies shouldn't be used to extend freely into additional monopolies without exacting some requirements for leveling the playing field for those who didn't have the gov't backing in the original monopoly). Let's face it, it seems AOL/TW doesn't 'play fair' in those areas. IMHO, the concern of the 'after merger' effects is warranted. That opinion isn't just from 'speculators' and fortune tellers, but watching their own actions today in areas they monopolize. And finally, the is precedent on blocking media verticle monopolies. When movies were the main monopoly, the combined movie studio/production/theater ownership situation was 'busted' by the government. When network TV was the monopoly, pre 'big cable', they were prohibited from owning their programming, ie, the prime time programs, etc. Also, it hasn't been that long ago that studios, IIRC correctly, had to be 'told' by the gov't that they must permit content on competiting distribution other than that just which they own. (I seem to recall HBO and premium cable services in there. Hmm, That was back in Ross's day at helm of TW, but Levin was still in there someplace, no?)
I wonder if there are any online merchants selling Motorola equipment? I wonder how this impacts their privacy statements if they have the standard 'don't share' that many do. Is a large retailer supposed to change it to 'don't share except with Motorola'? Obviously they violate their own privacy statements if they don't. Hmm. And if they have that little TRUSTe logo and 'no share' policy. They can kiss that good-bye.
I think there's a misconception. IIRC, ATT wants to charge those for which they HOST the web sites. They cannot charge ANY merchant because someone comes from an ATT connection to a web site that is NOT hosted by ATT. IANAL, but I don't believe there's ANY contractual agreement implied or otherwise between an ATT and the web site hosted by another ISP just becuase a customer uses ATT to access that site. But I wouldn't mind ATT trying to bill me for their customers access to my site... toilet paper is getting expensive and their bills would be a perfect replacement.
"Actually the phone company does get a cut in phone orders. Either you or the company you are calling are paying toll charges. 800 numbers aren't free, the recipient just pays the bill." There's no logical comparison to getting a 'cut' in phone orders to taking a percentage of sales. The 800 numbers simply permit the recipient to pay for a long distance call vs. the caller. The long distance is being paid for their services in providing long distance. They do NOT get anything based upon anything being ordered or not ordered, or the value of any order placed. They are looking more at things like mall leases / brick and morter comparisons that may charge tenants a percentage of gross sales as part of their lease. What they seem to forget is that this is virtual brick and mortar and one can move pretty quickly vs. a store in a mall. What I'm trying to figure out is who actually thought up this idea and who let it actually get to the point of going public...and if they still work for ATT. (well, and how 'virtual' stores have already called the 'movers')
"If you don't agree to give us a cut of all sales that come from AT&T customers, we'll block all traffic to your site" If it's done for economic reasons such as this, IMHO, it'd be time to look into 'restraint of interstate trade', of which there is much legislation on the books.
"How exactly would you determine that a purchase was made..." They don't want paid just for the purchases, but if one browses the site too. Armstrong was supposed to be the ATT savior. This is the DUMBEST most IDIOTIC thing I've ever heard. So in the future, if I read an ad in the LA Times then call Nordstroms for an order, will the Times get a piece and the telco over which I placed the order. The local RBOC AND the long distance carrier if it's not a local call? T is at a 52 week low. This should cut it down further as any self respecting web site should start to abandon them in droves even at the hint this is going to take place. And if ATT can't get enouch money in a quarter cause they can't handle the 100billion he spent on cable to provide phone and broadband, what happens... they tell all ATT employees to visit all their hosted web sites to pump up the income or something? Don't like a site so anyone can just drive them out of business by 'browsing'. Sounds like they'll actually promote DOS attacks, as I'm guessing they'll want money for any site hit, period. I sold my T stock some time ago, after my problem with them showed me they have no idea how solve a problem. I sure understand how it's dropped to the mid 20's. It's truly a shame. ATT was one of THE branded names... but it sure don't shine these days!
"Yes. They invented multi-processing." Yes, I'm sure you're correct. Let's see...mid 1970's. IBM was selling 370 158MP and 168MP machines. Intel? I believe they were just about doing the 8080 chip. Hmm. Doesn't sound like Intel invented multi-processing to me.
Ms. Watney, or whatever her name was, is obviously too long in the beltway. Her 'response' is that some members of the team were in Republican administrations. Doesn't she get it? Where'd they get her? The complains is the team is the government orientation/background of the individuals. It isn't a Democrat OR Republican thing... the ones raising the question outside the beltway don't give a damn about that. I don't know where Reno got here, but I sure hope she's a political appointee instead of career type..at least she won't be there long. Sheesh. And then people wonder why others just might 'wonder' about DOJ and other's interest.
"Interesting. So say the same scenario happened, but I was incorporated. Now, if I understand it, corporations are seperate legal entities. So, if they take the corporation to court and the court tells the corporation to cease and desist, what's to stop me from creating a new corporation and continuing to do what I'm doing (ad infinitum)?" ..... I think that's the interesting thing said by the judges, and how it might relate to other 'massive' letter campaigns by lawyers at RIAA, MPAA, etc. IANAL, but what I'm getting from the appeal is that, in your case above, you WOULD be subject to the any injunctions, etc, because of your close relationship to your corporation, no matter what other corporation you started to circumvent an injunction. OTOH, I also got that they were saying that if a party is NOT working in concert with the party to which the injunction applies, then they are not impacted by the courts ruling in a specific case. For an example, if reading correctly, if you post something and an injunction is against YOU, then it also applies to all your friends you called to say 'copy this so we can still violate a copyright if there's an injunction'. In that instance, the 'friends' could be a party to the case, but would also be under the injunction issued by the judge. If, however, a whole 'bunch' of people copied this on their own, or from another place, and posted it on the board, with no action, suggesstion, request, etc, from the original defendant, then they would NOT be under the injunction issued by the court. (and all the letters the lawyers wrote would be best put to use in place of that 1919 sears catalog in the outhouse.) Again, IANAL, but if any out there, that seems to be the substance of their comments? correct? Just as an outsider, I find the reading of this very interesting. While many (on both sides of a case) seem to think the courts can't handle cases in these 'modern' times, these judges sure seem to know what they're dealing with. They limit things to exactly what they want, know the repurcussions of getting drawn into areas they don't believe should be addressed (like 1st amenedment. they KNOW this is a can of worms, and sure found it just wasn't the subject to broach in this appeal and weren't about to get out the can opener. And to me, that made a lot of sense.)
>>> "My impression of CueCat (and this is from limited data, admittedly) is that they have no idea how the internet, software, and computer world work in general...Lawsuits do not make you popular, screwing around with data does not make you popular, and posturing does not make you popular.">>> ...but why be surprised. If you look at their bios, half have law degrees (generally not practicing), a number from the same prior company ('movie biz'), and with every 'division' having a PRESIDENT , probably GIANT movie biz type egos. They probably made a lot of easy $$$ in the prior business and figured they'd make the mega-$$$ in the internet business. So are you surprised there are lawsuits and they seem inept on the ways of the internet? I'm not. They just want their easy money (and probably IPO as soon as possible). They just got in a little late after the big internet stock bust. This, IMHO, seems nothing more than the typical 'does not work/play well with others' type. Actually, if they love lawsuits, I think the VCR Plus type folks should be talking to them. It's the same concept, number/encoded data, used to simplify/translate to other useful information. They seemed to have simply COPIED the 'idea' and changed the concept to 'scanners with bar codes' and the internet. The concept seems the same, just an implementation difference. Sheesh, and they think they're brilliant and have invented this new 'operating system' as I believe they called the dumb little cat. I don't expect this cat to be a mouse eater at all.
>>>When asked about privacy concerns with the treaty, Csonka said: "These concerns may be legitimate, but they could be raised in relation to any international treaty. Harmonization of laws is necessary to avoid a legal jungle on the Net.">>> Somehow I don't see privacy concerns coming up on most treaties, as they deal with how one country deals with another, such as disarmament, trade, or tariffs, etc. This treaty deals with requiring a country to pass laws regarding it's own citizens. IANAL or IANAC(congressperson), but maybe some experts out there can answer this... is this treaty legal anyway? The Congress, IIRC, cannot tread upon a suceeding Congress. ie, even a bill passed by the house or senate that has not been passed by both houses or signed by the President (or vetoed) does not pass to the next session of Congress. So how can a treaty set forth requirements of laws to be passed by a subsequent session of Congress? This is not foreign policy treaties or trade treaties, but a requirement to pass laws. Also, since treaties are the perview of the president (whether or not ratified by the Senate, they are not reviewed by the HOUSE) this seems to permit the executive branch of government to mandate legislative functions and usurp the legislative branch of the government, which the framers insured the Constitution would prohibit, does it not?? It seems a treaty doomed to be violated, or the Congress and the Constitution might as well go home. And this treaty is being lead by DOJ people? Damn, now I KNOW it's time for a change...send Reno back to Miami and clean house at the DOJ. This is absurd. It makes the clipper chip idea seem tame.