We've already tried it - ethyl, methane, sulfinate as an alkylating agent and potent mutagen; it created a virus so lethal the subject was dead before it even left the table.
I can't be the only one who checked, but SCO's linux distro is still available for download from their FTP site at ftp.caldera.com. I just downloaded a copy of the linux kernel source -- when I unpacked it, it said "Linux is distributed under the GNU General Public License" which, among other things, granted me permission to copy, distribute, and modify it. Thanks for the license, SCO!
okay, all together now: "piracy=copyright infringement" dates at least to 1769. See e.g. Millar v. Taylor, 4 Burr. 2303.
No case of a prosecution in the Star-Chamber, for printing without a license, or against letters patent, or pirating another man's copy, or any other disorderly printing, has been found....
But it is certain, that down to the year 1640, copies were protected and secured from piracy, by a much speedier and more effectial remedy, than actions at law, or bills in equity.
PIRACY, torts. By piracy is understood the plagiarisms of a book, engraving or other work, for which a copyright has been taken out. 2. When a piracy has been made of such a work, an injunction will be granted. 5 Ves. 709; 4 Ves. 681; 12 Ves. 270. Vide copyright.
I built one this week -- EPIA 5000, Cubid 2688R, IBM 180GXP. Linux support is fine under 2.4.20, and I have not seen the network problems people are reporting with the stock via-rhine.c (but if you do, via ships an open-source driver with the system). X is slow but works fine. I built the box for a network server and audio component -- its great for that purpose. Sound works great under Alsa (but google "Eden PciRetry" if you plan on running X). Cheers, Greg
The SCO suit is an example of what happens to former SCO technology development partners. Its perfectly reasonable to view a frivolous lawsuit like this as an indication that SCO is not a safe company to collaborate with. UnitedLinux members: watch out.
The 1994 suit was over the SABRE airline reservation that was introduced in 1962 and was one of the first truly massive computer applications in history. Here is a quote from the federal circuit opinion.
American submitted an affidavit averring that the SABRE system was introduced to the public in 1962, had over one thousand connected sales desks by 1965, and was connected to the reservation systems for most of the other airlines by 1970. Lockwood does not dispute these facts, but argues that because "critical aspects" of the SABRE system were not accessible to the public, it could not have been prior art. American's expert conceded that the essential algorithms of the SABRE software were proprietary and confidential and that those aspects of the system that were readily apparent to the public would not have been sufficient to enable one skilled in the art to duplicate the system. However, American responds that the public need not have access to the "inner workings" of a device for it to be considered "in public use" or "used by others" within the meaning of the statute.
We agree with American that those aspects of the original SABRE system relied on by the district court are prior art to the '359 patent. The district court held that SABRE, which made and confirmed reservations with multiple institutions (e.g., airlines, hotels, and car rental agencies), combined with the terminal of the '631 patent rendered the asserted claims of the '359 patent obvious. The terminal of the '631 patent admittedly lacked this "multiple institution" feature. It is undisputed, however, that the public was aware that SABRE possessed this capability and that the public had been using SABRE to make travel reservations from independent travel agencies prior to Lockwood's date of invention.
Lockwood v. American Airlines, 107 F.3d 1565 (1997)
A good question which has not been raised is whether this thing violates the Audio Home Recording Act of 1984. 17 USC 1001 et seq.
No person shall import, manufacture, or distribute any digital audio recording device that does not conform to the Serial Copy Management System.
A digital audio recording device is
Any device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use.
The Ninth Circuit has said that storage of digital audio on a computer hard drive was not meant to be covered by this act. They held that the original Diamond Rio mp3 player was not covered by the act. RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, 180 F.3d 1072. Because the original Rio "cannot make copies from transmissions, but instead, can only make copies from a computer hard drive, it is not a digital audio recording device." id. at 1081.
The Rio central can not only rip CD's directly without the intervention of a personal computer (not covered by the act), but it can then write those MP3s back to its CD-RW. This device does not fall under the exception to the AHRA that has sheltered mp3 players so far.
That puts quite a different light on this than the articles in the Reg implied. A chip like this poses no threat to ARM's licensing revenues. What it does do is confuse people about what an ARM core can do. In my opinion, ARM has a legitimate beef about that.
Thats a trademark issue. You don't need to pull distribution of the processor over that. You solve it by calling the processor something other than "arm."
The idea that a verilog description can infringe a patent is very problematic. Patents are supposed to teach an invention, but collect roalties on (or block) implementations. A verilog description is nothing more than a very detailed teaching of how to practice the art described in the patent. If the patent is valid (and you don't have any other objections to patent law in general) then there is no legal problem blocking someone from making a chip based on the verilog. But a patent holder has absolutely no right to block someone from teaching, in great detail, how to practice the art described in the patent (which after all was what the inventor was supposed to do when the patent was filed in the first place). Unless there is some trade secret misappropriation going on here, or unless ARM is claiming a copyright on their architecture that blocks any implementation of it, ARM appears to have no legal basis for what they are doing. As for the copyright theory, good luck getting that to stand in the US (see
Lotus v. Borland).
I wrote up something arguing that it is impossible for Microsoft to do what they are aiming to do. Trade secret law is simply not up to the task.
This paper has been written partially in response
to recent ruminations by Microsoft about their new or newly emphasized
source code sharing initiatives. I discuss four strategies for proprietary
source code distribution, including a brief Unix history lesson, and a
recommendation for legislative action.
Even if the DOJ did say this, they were almost definately commenting on federal, not state law. So far I haven't been able to figure out which statute this supposedly violates.
David Korn (of ksh fame) came up with the idea of an automated online Nader vote exchanger (check the whois database for voteswap.com and voteswap.org).
As an inventor, you are responsible before the patent office for truthfully representing that the patent you are filing is worthy of patent protection. It is your professional responsability to reveal all known prior art and to not seek a patent unless you believe your invention is novel, useful, etc. Don't think you can shift this burden onto your employer, and don't think you have to do what they say beyond simply signing over your property rights. Given that they can't fire you, I think you are pretty safe in this. To keep your ass out of trouble, make sure you don't reveal the invention to anybody (i.e. don't violate your confidentiality agreement), and make sure you explicitly sign over any IP rights to the company as you promised to do in your agreement with them. However, I don't believe they will be able to file that patent application without involving you in the patent prosecution process. Finally, make sure to forward any known prior art to your former employer and their patent consel. Make sure they read it. They can ignore it at their peril.
This is not legal advice. Get a lawyer.
---
gmp
I wrote a paper last week on this topic. For those two think this idea can't work, think again. The ecconomic principles involved are similar to those involved in open source software, and once a design is released, it is out there forever, free as the air to common use. Does the computer industry need OSH the same way it needs OSS? I think it does.
Slashdot Mirror
Any word on a patch?
We've already tried it - ethyl, methane, sulfinate as an alkylating agent and potent mutagen; it created a virus so lethal the subject was dead before it even left the table.
I can't be the only one who checked, but SCO's linux distro is still available for download from their FTP site at ftp.caldera.com. I just downloaded a copy of the linux kernel source -- when I unpacked it, it said "Linux is distributed under the GNU General Public License" which, among other things, granted me permission to copy, distribute, and modify it. Thanks for the license, SCO!
(not legal advice)
I built one this week -- EPIA 5000, Cubid 2688R, IBM 180GXP. Linux support is fine under 2.4.20, and I have not seen the network problems people are reporting with the stock via-rhine.c (but if you do, via ships an open-source driver with the system). X is slow but works fine. I built the box for a network server and audio component -- its great for that purpose. Sound works great under Alsa (but google "Eden PciRetry" if you plan on running X). Cheers, Greg
The SCO suit is an example of what happens to former SCO technology development partners. Its perfectly reasonable to view a frivolous lawsuit like this as an indication that SCO is not a safe company to collaborate with. UnitedLinux members: watch out.
The Rio central can not only rip CD's directly without the intervention of a personal computer (not covered by the act), but it can then write those MP3s back to its CD-RW. This device does not fall under the exception to the AHRA that has sheltered mp3 players so far.
The idea that a verilog description can infringe a patent is very problematic. Patents are supposed to teach an invention, but collect roalties on (or block) implementations. A verilog description is nothing more than a very detailed teaching of how to practice the art described in the patent. If the patent is valid (and you don't have any other objections to patent law in general) then there is no legal problem blocking someone from making a chip based on the verilog. But a patent holder has absolutely no right to block someone from teaching, in great detail, how to practice the art described in the patent (which after all was what the inventor was supposed to do when the patent was filed in the first place). Unless there is some trade secret misappropriation going on here, or unless ARM is claiming a copyright on their architecture that blocks any implementation of it, ARM appears to have no legal basis for what they are doing. As for the copyright theory, good luck getting that to stand in the US (see Lotus v. Borland).
Four Shades of Software Sharing
---
gmp
Even if the DOJ did say this, they were almost definately commenting on federal, not state law. So far I haven't been able to figure out which statute this supposedly violates.
David Korn (of ksh fame) came up with the idea of an automated online Nader vote exchanger (check the whois database for voteswap.com and voteswap.org).
As an inventor, you are responsible before the patent office for truthfully representing that the patent you are filing is worthy of patent protection. It is your professional responsability to reveal all known prior art and to not seek a patent unless you believe your invention is novel, useful, etc. Don't think you can shift this burden onto your employer, and don't think you have to do what they say beyond simply signing over your property rights. Given that they can't fire you, I think you are pretty safe in this. To keep your ass out of trouble, make sure you don't reveal the invention to anybody (i.e. don't violate your confidentiality agreement), and make sure you explicitly sign over any IP rights to the company as you promised to do in your agreement with them. However, I don't believe they will be able to file that patent application without involving you in the patent prosecution process. Finally, make sure to forward any known prior art to your former employer and their patent consel. Make sure they read it. They can ignore it at their peril. This is not legal advice. Get a lawyer. --- gmp
---
gmp
"Business Models for Open Source Hardware"
---
gmp