He's simply pointing out that it's an eerie coincidence that Microsoft is suing TomTom for linux code, and that this company is suing a Linux shop for O/R mapping at the same time.
What exactly is the coincidence? That they happen to be one of thousands upon thousands of Microsoft partners?
This patent troll could have filed suit against any number of companies, including Apple, Sun or Oracle all of which sell JavaEE middle tiers and make far more money on them.
Hahaha fail. They already did file suit last year against Oracle over the exact same issue : www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuit.asp?id=35286
# April 8
# Software Tree LLC vs. Oracle Corp.
Plaintiff Software Tree claims it is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,163,776 issued Dec. 19, 2000, for a System and Method for Exchanging Data and Commands Between an Object Oriented System and Relational System.
The original complaint states the '776 Patent was subject to a reexamination by the U.S. Patent Office which confirmed the patentability of all claims and amended some claims. The reexamination concluded on April 8, 2008.
Software Tree claims that Oracle has infringed the '776 Patent through products including the Oracle TopLink.
"Defendant has actual knowledge of the '776 Patent, and actual knowledge that the Oracle product known as Oracle TopLink product, and all other Oracle products that include TopLink, infringe the '776 Patent," the original complaint states.
The plaintiff claims Oracle's knowledge is evidenced by correspondence dating back to early 2004 between Oracle and the inventor of the '776 Patent, who is also the president and CEO of Software Tree.
"Instead of properly taking a license to the '776 Patent, Oracle engaged in a series of unsuccessful attempts to invalidate the '776 Patent through numerous meritless filings of ex-parte reexamination of the '776 Patent," the complaint states. "Despite its actual knowledge of the '776 Patent and its infringement of same, Oracle has continued to engage in its infringing conduct without a license."
As a result of Oracle's alleged acts of infringement, Software Tree claims it has and will continue to sustain substantial damages in an amount not presently known.
Software Tree is seeking injunctive relief, damages, lost profits, expenses, costs, attorneys' fees, treble damages, interest and other just and proper relief.
Jeffrey Bragalone of Shore Chan Bragalone LLP in Dallas is attorney in charge for the plaintiff.
Court assignment is pending.
Case No. 6:08-cv-126
Oh well, I guess that blows your coincidence theory out of the water, eh?
Why did they pick RedHat? It smells fishy.
Only because you are apparently ignorant of prior history do things look fishy.
And just to further add, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not banks and as such your attempt at a rebuttal of my asking for where the bill required banks to give out loans fails even harder. Fannie and Freddie were corporations who bought and securitized mortgages that banks made.
We were talking about private banks being forced to make bad loans not what Fannie/Freddie were doing. No where in the act did it require any private bank to give out the loans they did and as I quoted those same private banks were making intentionally bad loans in order to game the system created by the CRA.
What exactly does Microsoft have to do at all with this case? Because they were the only ones mentioned in a selective quoting of the article that also mentioned that they are partners with Borland, Sun and IBM? Sadly the parent's post will probably be modded +5 interesting or informative despite have no relevance at all to the case at hand.
According to its Web site, Software Tree specializes in "providing superior software infrastructure that shifts the application/database integration paradigm."
Well if nothing else they've definitely got the marketing speak down.
I'm sorry, but nothing in that act required any bank to make loans to people. The funny thing is that if you read about the criticisms in that article one of them is that banks were using that act to make predatory loans to people who couldn't even afford the loans they were being given.
In a 2002 study exploring the relationship between the CRA and lending looked at as predatory, Kathleen C. Engel and Patricia A. McCoy noted that banks could receive CRA credit by lending or brokering loans in lower-income areas that would be considered a risk for ordinary lending practices.
Hahaha so it looks like contrary to the claim that banks were somehow being unfairly treated by this act, it seems that the reality of it was that banks were using it as a way to scam CRM credits by putting out bad loans intentionally which rides completely contrary to the claims of the GP. Thanks for proving my point.
The Democrats pushed through legislation requiring banks to make "no down payment" loans in order to extend housing to as many low-income Americans as possible
Please cite the bill and the clauses that back up this claim please. No bank was being required to make any loans at all.
Neither company has revealed which manufacturing technology will be used to make the Atom chips, but Maloney hinted that the CPUs would be built on a 32nm process, saying that "both companies have a sense of urgency, and both companies want to make things as advanced as they can."
And? You can also take the linux kernel and make changes to it that will cause incompatibilities with drivers/apps that use it. That still doesn't stop anyone from grabbing the source and changing it how they want. And what you described doesn't stop anyone from doing that with Mono.
If you want to produce secure web apps, you need to hire a security specialist to audit the application, and (ideally) assist with the design phase as well. Application security is an incredibly subtle thing in many ways.
Or you can save yourself money in the long run and just teach your developers how to design and code secure web pages.
A developer who read a book on security will get security wrong. It's a topic that simply requires a specialist.
So how did the specialist learn security? Osmosis?
I think you need to re-read the previous sentence again:
Yahoo announced that it cost them $79 million to fight off Microsoft. Most of that money was spent on advisors who examined Microsoft's proposals, and the way it would impact on Yahoo's search agreement with Google.
The italicized part is the "deal" that was referred to in the following sentence and what that linked story was about. Their investigation in how it would affect the Google deal was part of the total 79 million dollars that was spent when Microsoft made them the offer.
No matter what you call it it is indeed a small market.
In comparison to what? If the second largest economy in the world is a "small market" wouldn't that make every other country a small market too? And if so is there even really any kind of distinction between small and large if everyone is small?
I stand corrected by your pedantical hairsplitting
There was no pedantics or hairsplitting involved. You just changed your criteria after the fact when you were pointed out to be wrong. Besides bnetd isn't even just the only example one can come up with for end-users being sued for breaking a EULA.
If you consider reverse engineering to be end-user behaviour, then I am wrong.
Good to admit you are wrong. Secondly, the people reverse engineering Battle.Net were end users of the actual Blizzard software.
Of course, I will not even try to convince a/. autistic what an end-user is.
Ooooh, ice burn! Man, I'm going to go cry to my mommy that some basement-dwelling troll burned me on./.
By letting you copy and distribute copies they are relaxing or waiving part of copyright law.
Just to follow up on the previous post, if this is true please outline what parts, please cite specific clauses of the law, that the copyright owners are apparently waiving or relaxing.
By letting you copy and distribute copies they are relaxing or waiving part of copyright law.
No, they aren't. They are just granting you rights to distribute their content which is not the same thing as waiving copyright. If they were waiving copyright their work would become public domain.
Slashdot Mirror
He's simply pointing out that it's an eerie coincidence that Microsoft is suing TomTom for linux code, and that this company is suing a Linux shop for O/R mapping at the same time.
What exactly is the coincidence? That they happen to be one of thousands upon thousands of Microsoft partners?
This patent troll could have filed suit against any number of companies, including Apple, Sun or Oracle all of which sell JavaEE middle tiers and make far more money on them.
Hahaha fail. They already did file suit last year against Oracle over the exact same issue : www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuit.asp?id=35286
# April 8 # Software Tree LLC vs. Oracle Corp. Plaintiff Software Tree claims it is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,163,776 issued Dec. 19, 2000, for a System and Method for Exchanging Data and Commands Between an Object Oriented System and Relational System. The original complaint states the '776 Patent was subject to a reexamination by the U.S. Patent Office which confirmed the patentability of all claims and amended some claims. The reexamination concluded on April 8, 2008. Software Tree claims that Oracle has infringed the '776 Patent through products including the Oracle TopLink. "Defendant has actual knowledge of the '776 Patent, and actual knowledge that the Oracle product known as Oracle TopLink product, and all other Oracle products that include TopLink, infringe the '776 Patent," the original complaint states. The plaintiff claims Oracle's knowledge is evidenced by correspondence dating back to early 2004 between Oracle and the inventor of the '776 Patent, who is also the president and CEO of Software Tree. "Instead of properly taking a license to the '776 Patent, Oracle engaged in a series of unsuccessful attempts to invalidate the '776 Patent through numerous meritless filings of ex-parte reexamination of the '776 Patent," the complaint states. "Despite its actual knowledge of the '776 Patent and its infringement of same, Oracle has continued to engage in its infringing conduct without a license." As a result of Oracle's alleged acts of infringement, Software Tree claims it has and will continue to sustain substantial damages in an amount not presently known. Software Tree is seeking injunctive relief, damages, lost profits, expenses, costs, attorneys' fees, treble damages, interest and other just and proper relief. Jeffrey Bragalone of Shore Chan Bragalone LLP in Dallas is attorney in charge for the plaintiff. Court assignment is pending. Case No. 6:08-cv-126
Oh well, I guess that blows your coincidence theory out of the water, eh?
Why did they pick RedHat? It smells fishy.
Only because you are apparently ignorant of prior history do things look fishy.
And just to further add, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not banks and as such your attempt at a rebuttal of my asking for where the bill required banks to give out loans fails even harder. Fannie and Freddie were corporations who bought and securitized mortgages that banks made.
We were talking about private banks being forced to make bad loans not what Fannie/Freddie were doing. No where in the act did it require any private bank to give out the loans they did and as I quoted those same private banks were making intentionally bad loans in order to game the system created by the CRA.
What exactly does Microsoft have to do at all with this case? Because they were the only ones mentioned in a selective quoting of the article that also mentioned that they are partners with Borland, Sun and IBM? Sadly the parent's post will probably be modded +5 interesting or informative despite have no relevance at all to the case at hand.
What a crook. Bad! I had to look twice because I fully expected this to be a "kdawson". Not this time, though.
I'd put money down that the "anonymous reader" that wrote the summary was actually kdawson.
According to its Web site, Software Tree specializes in "providing superior software infrastructure that shifts the application/database integration paradigm."
Well if nothing else they've definitely got the marketing speak down.
In a 2002 study exploring the relationship between the CRA and lending looked at as predatory, Kathleen C. Engel and Patricia A. McCoy noted that banks could receive CRA credit by lending or brokering loans in lower-income areas that would be considered a risk for ordinary lending practices.
Hahaha so it looks like contrary to the claim that banks were somehow being unfairly treated by this act, it seems that the reality of it was that banks were using it as a way to scam CRM credits by putting out bad loans intentionally which rides completely contrary to the claims of the GP. Thanks for proving my point.
The Democrats pushed through legislation requiring banks to make "no down payment" loans in order to extend housing to as many low-income Americans as possible
Please cite the bill and the clauses that back up this claim please. No bank was being required to make any loans at all.
Neither company has revealed which manufacturing technology will be used to make the Atom chips, but Maloney hinted that the CPUs would be built on a 32nm process, saying that "both companies have a sense of urgency, and both companies want to make things as advanced as they can."
All the cool kids already left for Digg and Reddit after all the shitty idle posts kept coming to the front page.
And? You can also take the linux kernel and make changes to it that will cause incompatibilities with drivers/apps that use it. That still doesn't stop anyone from grabbing the source and changing it how they want. And what you described doesn't stop anyone from doing that with Mono.
And Mono is, to one extent or another, a reverse-engineered product.
And that stops you from grabbing the source and doing what you like with it, how?
If you want to produce secure web apps, you need to hire a security specialist to audit the application, and (ideally) assist with the design phase as well. Application security is an incredibly subtle thing in many ways.
Or you can save yourself money in the long run and just teach your developers how to design and code secure web pages.
A developer who read a book on security will get security wrong. It's a topic that simply requires a specialist.
So how did the specialist learn security? Osmosis?
Yahoo announced that it cost them $79 million to fight off Microsoft. Most of that money was spent on advisors who examined Microsoft's proposals, and the way it would impact on Yahoo's search agreement with Google.
The italicized part is the "deal" that was referred to in the following sentence and what that linked story was about. Their investigation in how it would affect the Google deal was part of the total 79 million dollars that was spent when Microsoft made them the offer.
Now if only there were companies who sold support for FOSS-based systems. I think they could maybe call themselves... Red Hat... or Novel... or IBM...
No matter what you call it it is indeed a small market.
In comparison to what? If the second largest economy in the world is a "small market" wouldn't that make every other country a small market too? And if so is there even really any kind of distinction between small and large if everyone is small?
I stand corrected by your pedantical hairsplitting
There was no pedantics or hairsplitting involved. You just changed your criteria after the fact when you were pointed out to be wrong. Besides bnetd isn't even just the only example one can come up with for end-users being sued for breaking a EULA.
If you consider reverse engineering to be end-user behaviour, then I am wrong.
Good to admit you are wrong. Secondly, the people reverse engineering Battle.Net were end users of the actual Blizzard software.
Of course, I will not even try to convince a /. autistic what an end-user is.
Ooooh, ice burn! Man, I'm going to go cry to my mommy that some basement-dwelling troll burned me on ./.
By letting you copy and distribute copies they are relaxing or waiving part of copyright law.
Just to follow up on the previous post, if this is true please outline what parts, please cite specific clauses of the law, that the copyright owners are apparently waiving or relaxing.
By letting you copy and distribute copies they are relaxing or waiving part of copyright law.
No, they aren't. They are just granting you rights to distribute their content which is not the same thing as waiving copyright. If they were waiving copyright their work would become public domain.
The EULA is not legal protection in the sense that the company will sue the end user for breach.
How is it waiving copyright law? Are they relinquishing their copyrights to the product in any way?
The ARM926EJ-S processor also includes ARM Jazelle(TM) technology which enables the direct execution of Java bytecodes in hardware.
I guess ARM is lying about their own products?
but they get away with because they're a relatively small market compared to the US.
What?! They are the second largest economy in the world... That's hardly what I'd call a "small market".
Java is not a "systems language", meaning you don't write operating systems and systems level code in it for very good reasons.
Funny cause Sun already did that like 13 years ago.
One of them being, name me a processor that can run Java bytecode nativly.
The ARM9E.
How does the use of e-books preclude the inclusion of ads into said e-books?