The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has set up a web page for No. 00-5212, United States v. Microsoft, and No. 00-5213, New York,
et al. v. Microsoft. The page includes a schedule and court documents.
In addition, you can join an official mailing list to be notified of submission of new pleadings or court orders.
According to James Grimaldi of The Washington Post, Microsoft intends to target District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson in its 150-page appeal Monday. Others predict it is a distraction to demand recusal for Jackson's comments to news media, released after his decision.
As I mentioned in discussing another/. topic, the D.C. Circuit Court judges are exceptionally savvy about technology, and are equipped with Apple Powerbooks. Unfortunately, however, it appears that some of the judges on the panel will have to recuse themselves because they were Justice Department employees before becoming judges--and those judges had considerable antitrust experience, in contrast to the remaining judges.
Let's hope that the current popularity among some "pundits" to bash the judiciary does not carry over to politicizing and weakening the verdict all of us need in this case in order to carry out business in this new era.
As a victim of RSI, I am glad OSHA is finally coming out with some standards. But, even so, most people commenting here don't understand the problem.
The new OSHA standards fail on one point: they mandate the employer attempt certain recommended 'quick fixes.' But those general recommendations won't fix the problem for many. For example, I can't use a mouse without immediate and intense pain--I am certain it causes tendinitis for many users. Yet the standard does not address using other input appliances instead.
Another problem with the standards is that it tries to set uniform conditions for the wide variety of human configurations. But one big problem causing RSI is that the human is made to adapt to the machine pace, and some human variety in doing physical tasks, to rest muscle groups and use others, is ignored.
I believe there are no 'quick fixes' for RSI. Ergonomics might delay the onset of RSI for many. But forced mechanical work at computer pace will certainly cause RSI for many. Those who believe 'it will never happen to me, because I use a Microsoft Natural Keyboard,' or whatever, are deluding themselves.
Although I support OSHA setting this standard, there is one valid point by some business groups. It would be better to make the standard scientific, and mandate good recording of injuries and solutions. Then we can determine the best way to prevent and treat these problems. But setting a standard now in concrete won't solve much, only delay a solution. The provision to hide from the patient the health care provider's assessment of the injury is just plain stupid--maybe it is a sop to some business and insurance interests, but it is surely unethical in medical care.
For those young people who are just starting working intensely with computers, I would seriously urge you to learn a backup profession, in case you are injured and unable to work with computers fulltime.
They can't. There is much to be said for the idea that voters don't rationally choose candidates. (Why else was billions of dollars spent on the campaigns, to advertise candidates just like toothpaste?) But if you can't tell what voters intended, there is no way to make computer vote totals accurate either.
One big problem is that the "accuracy" depends on self-reports by voters of how they voted. But these reports might well be slanted to how the respondents think the listener wants to hear. For example, they might just answer 'Bush' to some questioner, to avoid an argument, when they really voted for the Socialist Labor candidate. Unlikely, but there is no way to check the accuracy then, and still keep it secret. (Maybe it would be better to run the election like the way the College of Cardinals elects the Roman Pope--burn all the ballots afterwards.)
Another problem is that the computer can't eliminate many sources of arbitrary error within itself. For example, if there are more than some small number of candidates for a position (say 9), then it is hard for a human to keep all those names in short term memory all at once. The letters of the names must be large enough for all humans to read, not just 80 per cent. But at the same time, all the names must fit on the screen at once. This is the problem that the butterfly ballot design caused--and it confused enough voters to be deemed unacceptable. But what other design could be acceptable for such a display?
Consider a further problem. It is generally accepted that the order of names on the ballot is important. Many candidates try to get their names listed at the top, because those names will be read first by most readers. A computer display could attempt to get around this unfair layout by randomizing the order of names. But in that case, some voters will be confused because the ballot doesn't look like the sample ballot that they saw earlier. There appears to be no good way to resolve that problem.
Then look at absentee ballots. The Republicans in the Florida election sent out a huge number of absentee ballot applications to Republican voters, and this may have made the difference in the election. They were given some help in some counties by the election officials, since absentee ballot applications by law are supposed to contain the voter registration number. Computers used by Republican campaign team members were used to aid this process, but the voters themselves could not use computer power to equalize the absentee vote. Unfair again.
The problem of using computers to tally votes is that people don't trust them. For a long time this will be true. Until there is a generally accepted and completely trustworthy way to rely on computers for vote totals, then we need to have a backup hand count system. Computer designers need to pay attention to the real needs of election officials, and how balloting is really done, rather than design in the abstract.
Unfortunately, local election officials cannot easily raise funds to improve their systems. They are at the mercy of private companies that promise too much and don't deliver. If Congress is going to reform the voting apparatus of America, it ought to set up a publicly funded research project to do this, and fund the equipment and software as well. In order to make the process transparent, many of us will urge that the software be uniform and publicly owned, not proprietary and closed.
IDSA seems to have a monopoly on educating the government about "strong intellectual property rights." Why can't the Free Software movement participate in such training, and FSF lawyers ver the training materials? If we don't educate people, the other side will!
IDSA anti-piracy efforts include: direct investigation and enforcement
actions around the world and on-line, working closely with
government agencies such as United States Trade Representative,
the United States Customs Service, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), and foreign government officials, training and
educating customs agents and law enforcement officers in the United
States and around the world.
The IDSA piracy program has three main components: policy work,
education and enforcement. Our policy work focuses on domestic
and foreign legal and regulatory issues affecting member's
intellectual property rights and the market access barriers that
member companies face when trying to enter a foreign market. In the
education area, we have developed training materials for U.S.
Custom and law enforcement personnel and do several training
sessions around the country every month. In addition, IDSA staff
educates foreign visitors on our industry and the importance of strong
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) protection around the world. This
effort includes training foreign custom agents to identify pirate
entertainment software, working with foreign prosecutors on running
raids and prepare cases, and training judges on IPR. Finally, the
association runs an anti-piracy enforcement program in selected
foreign markets, as well as domestic piracy in the U.S., through the
Internet, computer shows, etc. This program is completely funded by
membership dues and is open to all IDSA member companies.
Well, since this "billg" doesn't appear to know the difference between Mardi Gras and Halloween, maybe we should run it again next spring and see if the Linux community is any different then.
Ditzel says: [Speedstep] validates his company's approach to the market. This joke has been used so many times it's no longer funny.
As others have said here, Speedstep is not progress--it should be called "SpeedStumble" because it drops the clock frequency on battery power--it can't dynamically adjust the frequency depending on the CPU load, like Crusoe can.
The critical point here is if Intel can drop power consumption and thus heat production low enough to be able to do away with the fan. Laptops should not have fans, and should not be too hot to keep in your lap. With Crusoe (or other low-power CPUs) you don't need a fan--with Intel notebook CPUs you still do, so far.
Well, what if the treaty conflicts with the U.S. Constitution? I say that in the U.S. it must be determined null and void by the courts. In other countries, their courts have to rule on the validity of the treaty.
The U.S. government is trying an end run around this process. The Hague Treaty on Jurisdictions and Foreign Judgments (now under consideration by U.S. agencies) is attempting to get people to use the U.S. courts to win judgments against foreigners, then use this treaty to collect from them.
If it applies to "intellectual property" such as trademarks, and to domain names, then the Internet will effectively be governed by U.S. laws (and, even more ominously, the U.S. state in which the case was filed). Or, if it means that U.S. citizens are subject to judgments in foreign courts, then many of us will lose our liberties.
I'd like to see a comment here by Karl Auerbach, the newly elected North American at-large delegate to ICANN, about what he thinks of this process. I believe he will say that if the lawyers and "intellectual property" interests get control of the process, the Internet will lose.
This word came from the Salon writer, not the music industry.
But one possible outcome from this would be that the music industry blames "hackers" for preventing them from introducing digital content for consumers. Then they go to Congress to get a bill even stronger than the DMCA to lock up music and lock up "hackers".
If the SDMI members who represent computer companies and not music companies will step forward and explain what has happened, that SDMI volunteered this test, then the "hackers" will get a fair showing. They should even join us in calling for the music industry to produce open source products at a reasonable price.
If not, then this whole episode is another trap for Free Software people and genuine cryptanalysts to get excoriated in the press and their freedoms threatened. Which is it going to be?
Larry Lessig presented oral arguments before the same court on Thursday, in Eldred v. Reno.
I sat in the front row and was impressed by the court's computer network that allowed judges to send messages back and forth to their law clerks, who sat to the side. Judge Douglas Ginsburg used his frequently, but the other judges didn't have laptops before them.
Larry was close enough to notice that the laptops were all Apple Powerbooks. Microsoft will have an interesting time there!
The 1999 annual report of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals includes a lot of information about the technological revolution in that court. See
the PDF file.
This ought to show that this circuit court can handle advanced technological arguments and information and that there is no need for special courts for computer-related cases. I would have liked to have seen the case go directly to the Supreme Court for answers to some important points of law, but I for one feel this court can render a fair verdict and make the higher court's job easier.
Perhaps more significant than the fact that Karl won is that Harris Miller got the lowest votes in the North American at-large contest--Miller was the only one of those candidates who supported strong intellectual property, commercial, interests in ICANN. The other candidates, including Karl, all expressed more or less the same ideas--that ICANN should restrict itself to technical rules, not policy that is intended to enforce legal matters such as trademarks in domain names.
But all of the candidates did remark that commercial interests still dominate the entire ICANN board. So we are now counting on Karl to to mobilize us users against those commercial interests when they seek to use ICANN wrongly.
(Karl does note he works for Cisco, so we ought to hold him to his effort to be independent of even his boss.)
For that reason Slashdot ought to allow Karl some space here to solicit feedback from users and let us know what is happening in ICANN. Good idea, Wellspring!
Yes, I inspected quite a few of those Federal Statues when I was down in Washington, D.C. on Thursday. Almost all of them had clothes on, but they did look quite a bit more heroic than the live politicians walking by.
Another page at Sony says it comes with Windows ME, a 12 GB hard drive, is one kilogram and 2.54 centimeters thick, and costs $2299.99 (what is that in Euros now?)
All I can see at Sony's site under VAIO C1 PictureBook Computer, PCG-C1VN
is the following. The picture makes it look just like the other Sony Picturebook. The half-height (480 pixel) screen display is innovative but I don't know if I can get used to it. The battery life (5.5 hours) seems less than what was first claimed--maybe for the other Crusoe chip. Does it have a headphone jack? Is the USB port the only way to dock it?
Take an innovative digital camera. Then, build a small, yet very
powerful notebook computer around it. The result An
ultra-portable, ultra-powerful notebook computer which can
instantly take stunning photos or digital video clips, add special
effects like 360 panoramas and instantly transfer those images
via email anywhere in the world!
The new VAIO C1 PictureBook[tm] notebook computer is not
much bigger than a paperback book - only about 2 pounds light
and a little over an inch thin. This is the most functional,
ultra-portable notebook computer you'll ever own.
Starts Selling September 25, 2000
Starts Shipping October 25, 2000
Transmeta[tm] Crusoe[tm] Processor
Simple one-button movie and still image capture with
Sony's Smart Capture software
128 MB SDRAM
Integrated V.90 56K modem
High-capacity Lithium-Ion battery
Durable magnesium-alloy case
8.9" UWXGA width (1024 x 480) TFT screen with
XWIDE[tm] polysilicon display technology
i.LINK® (IEEE 1394) S400 interface for DV editing and
simple networking between equippedVAIO computers9
Valenti was allowed to move around and articluate because he had his own personal lapel mic. He kinda dominated the place by intruding on other
people's space and staying away from his podium
I'm told he was given a lot wine to drink at dinner and nobody would give him the combination to the men's room before the debate. They said it was encrypted and covered by the DMCA.
Or maybe it was because they didn't give him a box to stand on behind the podium.
if someone guesses coca-cola's formula, and duplicates it exact,...
William Poundstone's "Big Secrets" book (ISBN: 0688048307) has the Coca-Cola (tm) formula, reverse engineered. Lot of good that will do you. Want to sell franchises, on the basis of just your formula, to others to open up bottling plants all over the world?
Since its a trade secret not a patent that means someone can market the soda as a cokelike-copy right?
Well, no, not exactly. You can market the same formula but you would not be wise to call it by any name that might confuse people who wish to buy the trademarked beverage.
Since it's a trade secret, supposedly locked up in a safe with access only by a few people, the formula is safe--even if a formula is published, who's to know if it's really the right one?
Reverse engineering is not theft--it is a normal engineering practice with a long, honorable history. Of course, some companies howl when others perform successful reverse engineering and figure out how their products are made--and where the weaknesses are--but then those same companies do the same thing to any competitor anyway. I think instead of calling it by a jargon word, we ought to see it as legitimate competition, exactly what we need instead of monopolies to promote progress.
Dr. Who can never be late...just climb into that big red British phone booth behind Harvard Square and...view the archived webcast...or be there in person...after all it's a movie.
Hey, wait!--it's not a Hollywood movie--what will that do to our balance of payments!
I enjoyed the Tibetan food at the fair and then got a front-row seat at the debate...the red notices were all over Harvard announcing the event.
BG turned his back on the very same institution on which Lessig relies for his livelihood.
Actually Lessig taught last year in Berlin, and moved to Stanford Law School this year. Mr. Gates in fact has given a lot of money to build and equip a new computer building at Harvard, not far from where the first computer at Harvard was built, and not far from the debate. The Berkman Center where Lessig worked and his own office had a number of Microsoft Windows Intel computers when I visited, although Lessig himself seems to be naturally a Macintosh type. I don't believe Lessig has any bias against Bill Gates or Microsoft--he teaches students the law as best he can, and his brief to advise Judge Jackson was a model of impartiality.
Lessig has publicly stated that he thinks the *government* should be involved in making software
Read his book, "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace," and you will learn what he really thinks. He thinks there is a place for laws with technology such as the Internet, for example to protect the public domain and give incentives for new works to be created. He refers to Jefferson--who if he was a "liberal" in your sense was nevertheless a radical one.
And Lessig is doing a lot more than that old story about being master in the Microsoft case. He is leading a lawsuit to overturn the Copyright Term Extension Act, Eldred v Reno. The trouble is that Jack Valenti considers that law already bought and paid for, and didn't respond to that suit during the debate--instead, preferring to talk about Napster and other cases in which the difference is not that clear between Lessig and Valenti.
I think the debate was productive. It gave Valenti a chance to enter the lion's den and talk about copyright policy with some smart people, some of whom may go to work for him. The side representing Free Software should be as bold and persuasive. But it's hard unless the comments stick to the point and unless they refrain from confusing personality and appearance with real views and understanding.
But you don't necessarily have to believe me--he's my lawyer, and doing a fine job, I say. For further information about Larry Lessig, see his Stanford web page and his older Berkman Center page, where you can read many of his works online and comment on them.
Just got back from the live debate--sorry if you missed it, but I did send a message to Rob last week.
I asked a complicated question of Jack, and it flustered him because he didn't understand it--I think two-part questions exceed his short-term memory span. But pay no mind to that--the whole point was not winning the debate, but educating people about copyright and patent, or "intellectual property" as some persist in calling it. And Jack is doing a good job on his end; it's time we did a better job.
My question was if it was "theft" for the owner of a bar or restaurant to evade paying royalties on public performances of copyright music. In the 19th century, two Parisian songwriters demanded that a cafe owner pay them for having the band play one of their songs--the owner declined--the songwriters went to jail--and the French law was changed.
That would sound like "theft" to me, and would be appropriate under the natural rights theory of copyright like the Kantian theory that Jack earlier mentioned, and the later French Republican reinstitution of copyright. And I might personally agree that the authors ought to be reimbursed--I am not one who thinks that everything on the Internet ought to be free, or that musicians should not be paid, nor that copyright has been practically overturned by the Internet.
The point is that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 was passed only because U.S. bar and restaurant owners managed to get an exception, allowing them to escape payment. So when Jack dined at a nice Cambridge restaurant before the debate, he was listening to "stolen" music in his words. (In fact, a group of Irish songwriters have managed to sue in the E.U. to declare the U.S. in restraint of free trade, because of this very lack of "harmonisation," and the U.S. is now appealing--otherwise the U.S. may well be sanctioned.)
Jack didn't see it that way, of course. He rapidly abandoned the natural rights theory of copyright, the only one under which it makes sense to say that a copyright can be "stolen" by someone else. He fell back on the statutory, utilitarian, theory of copyright that underlies the viewpoint of the Framers of the Copyright Clause in the U.S. Constitution, that Larry Lessig eloquently expanded on.
So Lessig talked about the Copyright Term Extension Act suit (Eldred v Reno), and Valenti talked about Napster and ICraveTV.com and DeCSS. Still, the education about copyright went pretty well, I think.
What is scary is that Valenti's talk about streaming movies over the Internet, and his ignorance of their complete denial of fair use, because of the DMCA, might come true. Then the only way people could have fair use would be illegal and go underground in some way. Then what becomes of copyright law--I think it doesn't matter at that point--and the courts don't have any guidance on how to decide issues, except to try to do some economic balancing, which will always favor those with the most money.
But this trend to encryption and locking up things will at the same time destroy the movie studios, I think. Theaters, video rental stores, the whole business model of staged releases and so on, would be threatened. I would advise technologists in Hollywood to try to adapt the business model and make works more open and accessible and not fear "piracy." Instead, use technology to make products more valuable, and encourage consumers to buy more attractive and useful products.
Jack if he had the chance to think about this might well agree. I really do think he is a decent guy and it is wrong to make fun of him. I just hope the people behind Jack, the technologists and the ones who control technology, can become a little wiser now and see what the Free Software movement has accomplished.
Meanwhile, the lawsuits are going forward. A moot court at Harvard Law School Oct 2 (Monday) will prepare Lessig for the Oct 5 oral arguments in Eldred v Reno (to overturn the CTEA). Those
arguments will be before the US District of Columbia Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. All are invited there to hear the real stuff.
And the DeCSS case is going to appeal. It was a great pleasure to talk with Emmanuel Goldstein at this debate and shake his hand and encourage him. But it would be even better if more of us helped out in the OpenLaw group to help prepare the appeals brief in the DeCSS case.
Right now the lawsuits are our best bet. But we must still continue trying to learn more about copyright and patent law and educate everyone we can, else Jack Valenti will be doing it instead.
This new information indicates Colossus was the first electronic computer, and Colossus 2 the first programmable electronic computer, doesn't it?
The Zuse machines and the ABC from Iowa were not really electronic, but electro-mechanical, like the Mark I at Harvard, using relays instead of vacuum tubes ("valves" in British parlance), according to the computer histories on the net I've seen. Even though many of these electro-mechanical devices used punched tape or card input, they were not necessarily programmable.
According to these stories, Colossus had 1,500 vacuum tubes, while Colossus 2 had 2,500, and there were 10 of the latter by the end of the war (a year after Colossus 2's introduction)--an immense achievement.
This also might confirm that Alan Turing really was the first computer programmer, as others have already indicated.
And it reveals, interestingly, that cracking the Enigma code was not even the main purpose of all this effort, but the other supersecret German military code.
Maybe the next historical revelations will be about the computing power behind the atomic bomb, the first ones and later ones. Were the British computer experts allowed to play a role in this? What were the early Russian computers like?
Unfortunately, the D.C. circuit court of appeals judges who know the most about monopoly antitrust cases are forced to recuse themselves. They formerly worked for the Department of Justice. The remaining justices are experts in labor law and the like.
No wonder Microsoft thinks it can get a better hearing in D.C. How long will it take to get those judges up to speed on such a large and complicated case? How much better can the appellate court be in deciding issues of law than the Supreme Court, which is going to have to go over them all once again, maybe years from now?
Yeah, libraries need some uniformed police to keep kids from passing dirty notes to each other instead of studying.
Better still, use some technology to make sure the library patrons really do "look up information for a paper or research project" instead of just hanging out there and socializing. Maybe something like electronic bracelets?
If those nasty people could be kicked out of the university in the first place--without returning their tuition--then the rest of us could enjoy smaller classes and a lot of the computers would end up not being used at all--we smart folks would walk in and see lots of them just waiting for us to use them properly.
And think of what the Internet could be if it were not for all those stupid AOL subscribers, chatting and emailing away! And the pornography--why, without some people downloading the stuff all the time, think of what our bandwidth might be!
After all that, we could turn to the real purpose of libraries and colleges. Libraries should preserve books, not allow people to use them to death. And colleges should be places where little bits of exquisite wisdom are distilled by expert professors and carefully handed down only to the worthy few.
If some stupid people misuse computers, who knows what they will do next. Better to put them in jail to prevent that from happening.
whether people have the right to violate the copyright of another
Notice that Mr Gates did not use the word "copyright" (nor patent) in his letter of complaint to the club. The reason is easy to see: the U.S. Copyright Office did not accept registrations of software then, not until years later.
The only way to prove "piracy" would be to have someone admit they had "stolen" the physical paper tape, value $500. But the statute of limitations on that crime has expired. (Anyway, I heard the tape was stolen from a van outside, not a box inside the Rickey's.)
The article itself is not clear, but the point should be that in 1975 there was already a split between those like Gates who thought all programming should be in the hands of professionals, and that everybody else just stole from them--and on the other side the "free software" folks who shared software--but still bought software and hardware and did as much to accomplish the computer revolution as the other tribes.
As a computer hobbyist whose club was often accused of "piracy" I would have to say that companies such as Microsoft and Apple would never have succeeded if computer hobbyists had not used and endorsed the products. If there was any illegal "sharing" going on, it certainly doesn't seem to have prevented these companies from succeeding in the market. At the same time, many other companies that didn't treat their customers well have failed.
The main idea we should carry away is that open development and sharing are not dependent on "intellectual property rights" but that we can develop our own stuff--much better--without stealing from anybody else.
Gates was simply wrong in his accusations. He gave away paper tapes to people just so he could get their ideas and improve his program for free. He didn't pay them for their work. (Just as I use a copy of Windows 95 that Gates personally handed me at the August 95 launch.) He used computer time at Harvard to develop a commercial program in violation of Harvard's rules. His program was an adaptation of BASIC that had been invented and distributed by academics at Dartmouth. The originality of Gates is that somehow he managed to make a big corporation on software, and others did not. But his software is not better, and it would not get better if "piracy" could be eliminated. Copyright should be respected, but not because of the arguments we've seen here.
Last winter, natural gas supplies, at least to the Northeast United States, shrank, and prices skyrocketed. In California, I believe natural gas or propane increased several hundred per cent, if it was even available.
Many contracts for natural gas in the Northeast U.S. specify only a limited supply--if you exceed that you have to pay considerable surcharges--it may be cheaper just to buy electricity for the added load.
The situation may change, if Canadian natural gas is imported in adequate supply and a reasonable price. But natural gas supplies suffer from the problem that it is not as easy to move them to users as it is electricity or fuel oil. And the supply life may not be as long as petroleum, unless some exotic sources are located, as for example, at extreme ocean depths.
I too would like to see a less expensive and less polluting and more reliable energy source for the home. However, in many other areas, solar power may be the better bet. I wonder whether it will turn out to be practical to install these gadgets in the northeast U.S.
My neighbors' home a few years ago exploded and burned after a propane accident--our property was, luckily, spared, and nobody killed. Of course, they still use propane, but others are more cautious.
Uh, it is true that PG publishes only texts first published before 1923. But it is not true that "nothing written in the US on or after January 1, 1923, will ever enter the public domain."
An explanation of this misstatement is long, but--many works (85%?) first published in the US after 1922, and before 1978, entered the public domain (and are still there) because the copyright was not properly renewed. It is perfectly legal to reprint them. PG does not do so because it is difficult to check copyright status for such works. The 1997 No Electronic Theft Act means a jail term of up to 5 years and up to $500,000 fine if a work with a retail value of $1,000 over a period of 6 months is even given away on the Internet.
The On-Line Books Page has a very useful guide to checking copyright on books, including some pages of renewals from the Catalog of Copyright Entries, scanned by volunteers including from PG.
Some of us do seek out post-1922 works in the public domain and reprint them online. However, the DMCA poses another problem: if the underlying work is in the public domain, it seems to be illegal under the DMCA to share information on how to "circumvent" encryption of an "eBook" such as in Microsoft Reader format. Thus these books do enjoy a de facto period of protection long after the copyright term expires.
If you are concerned about U.S. copyright term, please visit my web site for information about our lawsuit against the Bono Act, join in discussion and debate on the OpenLaw site, and please support Project Gutenberg and other online book projects. Thanks for reading!
Yeah, if you read the legislative history of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, you will observe that congresspeople solemnly stated their intent to have the movie studios pay film workers fair residuals on all the films that would be under copyright for another 20 years.
Did the studios pay them? Or, instead, will there be more accounting gimmicks so only the shareholders profit?
Time again the studios hide behind "artists' rights"--but the studio producers are not "artists" at all. Just as the big publishers hide behind "authors' rights"--these giant global corporations claim to own all "intellectual property" in the world, and they demand we pay them whatever they ask, or they'll stop producing it.
Time to take them up on the challenge, and produce our own infotainment for once?
Slashdot Mirror
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has set up a web page for No. 00-5212, United States v. Microsoft, and No. 00-5213, New York, et al. v. Microsoft. The page includes a schedule and court documents.
In addition, you can join an official mailing list to be notified of submission of new pleadings or court orders.
According to James Grimaldi of The Washington Post, Microsoft intends to target District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson in its 150-page appeal Monday. Others predict it is a distraction to demand recusal for Jackson's comments to news media, released after his decision.
As I mentioned in discussing another /. topic, the D.C. Circuit Court judges are exceptionally savvy about technology, and are equipped with Apple Powerbooks. Unfortunately, however, it appears that some of the judges on the panel will have to recuse themselves because they were Justice Department employees before becoming judges--and those judges had considerable antitrust experience, in contrast to the remaining judges.
Let's hope that the current popularity among some "pundits" to bash the judiciary does not carry over to politicizing and weakening the verdict all of us need in this case in order to carry out business in this new era.
As a victim of RSI, I am glad OSHA is finally coming out with some standards. But, even so, most people commenting here don't understand the problem.
The new OSHA standards fail on one point: they mandate the employer attempt certain recommended 'quick fixes.' But those general recommendations won't fix the problem for many. For example, I can't use a mouse without immediate and intense pain--I am certain it causes tendinitis for many users. Yet the standard does not address using other input appliances instead.
Another problem with the standards is that it tries to set uniform conditions for the wide variety of human configurations. But one big problem causing RSI is that the human is made to adapt to the machine pace, and some human variety in doing physical tasks, to rest muscle groups and use others, is ignored.
I believe there are no 'quick fixes' for RSI. Ergonomics might delay the onset of RSI for many. But forced mechanical work at computer pace will certainly cause RSI for many. Those who believe 'it will never happen to me, because I use a Microsoft Natural Keyboard,' or whatever, are deluding themselves.
Although I support OSHA setting this standard, there is one valid point by some business groups. It would be better to make the standard scientific, and mandate good recording of injuries and solutions. Then we can determine the best way to prevent and treat these problems. But setting a standard now in concrete won't solve much, only delay a solution. The provision to hide from the patient the health care provider's assessment of the injury is just plain stupid--maybe it is a sop to some business and insurance interests, but it is surely unethical in medical care.
For those young people who are just starting working intensely with computers, I would seriously urge you to learn a backup profession, in case you are injured and unable to work with computers fulltime.
They can't. There is much to be said for the idea that voters don't rationally choose candidates. (Why else was billions of dollars spent on the campaigns, to advertise candidates just like toothpaste?) But if you can't tell what voters intended, there is no way to make computer vote totals accurate either.
One big problem is that the "accuracy" depends on self-reports by voters of how they voted. But these reports might well be slanted to how the respondents think the listener wants to hear. For example, they might just answer 'Bush' to some questioner, to avoid an argument, when they really voted for the Socialist Labor candidate. Unlikely, but there is no way to check the accuracy then, and still keep it secret. (Maybe it would be better to run the election like the way the College of Cardinals elects the Roman Pope--burn all the ballots afterwards.)
Another problem is that the computer can't eliminate many sources of arbitrary error within itself. For example, if there are more than some small number of candidates for a position (say 9), then it is hard for a human to keep all those names in short term memory all at once. The letters of the names must be large enough for all humans to read, not just 80 per cent. But at the same time, all the names must fit on the screen at once. This is the problem that the butterfly ballot design caused--and it confused enough voters to be deemed unacceptable. But what other design could be acceptable for such a display?
Consider a further problem. It is generally accepted that the order of names on the ballot is important. Many candidates try to get their names listed at the top, because those names will be read first by most readers. A computer display could attempt to get around this unfair layout by randomizing the order of names. But in that case, some voters will be confused because the ballot doesn't look like the sample ballot that they saw earlier. There appears to be no good way to resolve that problem.
Then look at absentee ballots. The Republicans in the Florida election sent out a huge number of absentee ballot applications to Republican voters, and this may have made the difference in the election. They were given some help in some counties by the election officials, since absentee ballot applications by law are supposed to contain the voter registration number. Computers used by Republican campaign team members were used to aid this process, but the voters themselves could not use computer power to equalize the absentee vote. Unfair again.
The problem of using computers to tally votes is that people don't trust them. For a long time this will be true. Until there is a generally accepted and completely trustworthy way to rely on computers for vote totals, then we need to have a backup hand count system. Computer designers need to pay attention to the real needs of election officials, and how balloting is really done, rather than design in the abstract.
Unfortunately, local election officials cannot easily raise funds to improve their systems. They are at the mercy of private companies that promise too much and don't deliver. If Congress is going to reform the voting apparatus of America, it ought to set up a publicly funded research project to do this, and fund the equipment and software as well. In order to make the process transparent, many of us will urge that the software be uniform and publicly owned, not proprietary and closed.
IDSA seems to have a monopoly on educating the government about "strong intellectual property rights." Why can't the Free Software movement participate in such training, and FSF lawyers ver the training materials? If we don't educate people, the other side will!
From IDSA's site:
IDSA anti-piracy efforts include: direct investigation and enforcement actions around the world and on-line, working closely with government agencies such as United States Trade Representative, the United States Customs Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and foreign government officials, training and educating customs agents and law enforcement officers in the United States and around the world.
The IDSA piracy program has three main components: policy work, education and enforcement. Our policy work focuses on domestic and foreign legal and regulatory issues affecting member's intellectual property rights and the market access barriers that member companies face when trying to enter a foreign market. In the education area, we have developed training materials for U.S. Custom and law enforcement personnel and do several training sessions around the country every month. In addition, IDSA staff educates foreign visitors on our industry and the importance of strong Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) protection around the world. This effort includes training foreign custom agents to identify pirate entertainment software, working with foreign prosecutors on running raids and prepare cases, and training judges on IPR. Finally, the association runs an anti-piracy enforcement program in selected foreign markets, as well as domestic piracy in the U.S., through the Internet, computer shows, etc. This program is completely funded by membership dues and is open to all IDSA member companies.
Well, since this "billg" doesn't appear to know the difference between Mardi Gras and Halloween, maybe we should run it again next spring and see if the Linux community is any different then.
Ditzel says: [Speedstep] validates his company's approach to the market. This joke has been used so many times it's no longer funny.
As others have said here, Speedstep is not progress--it should be called "SpeedStumble" because it drops the clock frequency on battery power--it can't dynamically adjust the frequency depending on the CPU load, like Crusoe can.
The critical point here is if Intel can drop power consumption and thus heat production low enough to be able to do away with the fan. Laptops should not have fans, and should not be too hot to keep in your lap. With Crusoe (or other low-power CPUs) you don't need a fan--with Intel notebook CPUs you still do, so far.
Well, what if the treaty conflicts with the U.S. Constitution? I say that in the U.S. it must be determined null and void by the courts. In other countries, their courts have to rule on the validity of the treaty.
The U.S. government is trying an end run around this process. The Hague Treaty on Jurisdictions and Foreign Judgments (now under consideration by U.S. agencies) is attempting to get people to use the U.S. courts to win judgments against foreigners, then use this treaty to collect from them.
If it applies to "intellectual property" such as trademarks, and to domain names, then the Internet will effectively be governed by U.S. laws (and, even more ominously, the U.S. state in which the case was filed). Or, if it means that U.S. citizens are subject to judgments in foreign courts, then many of us will lose our liberties.
I'd like to see a comment here by Karl Auerbach, the newly elected North American at-large delegate to ICANN, about what he thinks of this process. I believe he will say that if the lawyers and "intellectual property" interests get control of the process, the Internet will lose.
This word came from the Salon writer, not the music industry.
But one possible outcome from this would be that the music industry blames "hackers" for preventing them from introducing digital content for consumers. Then they go to Congress to get a bill even stronger than the DMCA to lock up music and lock up "hackers".
If the SDMI members who represent computer companies and not music companies will step forward and explain what has happened, that SDMI volunteered this test, then the "hackers" will get a fair showing. They should even join us in calling for the music industry to produce open source products at a reasonable price.
If not, then this whole episode is another trap for Free Software people and genuine cryptanalysts to get excoriated in the press and their freedoms threatened. Which is it going to be?
Larry Lessig presented oral arguments before the same court on Thursday, in Eldred v. Reno.
I sat in the front row and was impressed by the court's computer network that allowed judges to send messages back and forth to their law clerks, who sat to the side. Judge Douglas Ginsburg used his frequently, but the other judges didn't have laptops before them.
Larry was close enough to notice that the laptops were all Apple Powerbooks. Microsoft will have an interesting time there!
The 1999 annual report of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals includes a lot of information about the technological revolution in that court. See the PDF file.
This ought to show that this circuit court can handle advanced technological arguments and information and that there is no need for special courts for computer-related cases. I would have liked to have seen the case go directly to the Supreme Court for answers to some important points of law, but I for one feel this court can render a fair verdict and make the higher court's job easier.
Perhaps more significant than the fact that Karl won is that Harris Miller got the lowest votes in the North American at-large contest--Miller was the only one of those candidates who supported strong intellectual property, commercial, interests in ICANN. The other candidates, including Karl, all expressed more or less the same ideas--that ICANN should restrict itself to technical rules, not policy that is intended to enforce legal matters such as trademarks in domain names.
But all of the candidates did remark that commercial interests still dominate the entire ICANN board. So we are now counting on Karl to to mobilize us users against those commercial interests when they seek to use ICANN wrongly. (Karl does note he works for Cisco, so we ought to hold him to his effort to be independent of even his boss.)
For that reason Slashdot ought to allow Karl some space here to solicit feedback from users and let us know what is happening in ICANN. Good idea, Wellspring!
Federal laws are called Federal Statues.
Yes, I inspected quite a few of those Federal Statues when I was down in Washington, D.C. on Thursday. Almost all of them had clothes on, but they did look quite a bit more heroic than the live politicians walking by.
Another page at Sony says it comes with Windows ME, a 12 GB hard drive, is one kilogram and 2.54 centimeters thick, and costs $2299.99 (what is that in Euros now?)
All I can see at Sony's site under VAIO C1 PictureBook Computer, PCG-C1VN is the following. The picture makes it look just like the other Sony Picturebook. The half-height (480 pixel) screen display is innovative but I don't know if I can get used to it. The battery life (5.5 hours) seems less than what was first claimed--maybe for the other Crusoe chip. Does it have a headphone jack? Is the USB port the only way to dock it?
Valenti was allowed to move around and articluate because he had his own personal lapel mic. He kinda dominated the place by intruding on other people's space and staying away from his podium
I'm told he was given a lot wine to drink at dinner and nobody would give him the combination to the men's room before the debate. They said it was encrypted and covered by the DMCA.
Or maybe it was because they didn't give him a box to stand on behind the podium.
if someone guesses coca-cola's formula, and duplicates it exact,...
William Poundstone's "Big Secrets" book (ISBN: 0688048307) has the Coca-Cola (tm) formula, reverse engineered. Lot of good that will do you. Want to sell franchises, on the basis of just your formula, to others to open up bottling plants all over the world?
Since its a trade secret not a patent that means someone can market the soda as a cokelike-copy right?
Well, no, not exactly. You can market the same formula but you would not be wise to call it by any name that might confuse people who wish to buy the trademarked beverage.
Since it's a trade secret, supposedly locked up in a safe with access only by a few people, the formula is safe--even if a formula is published, who's to know if it's really the right one?
Reverse engineering is not theft--it is a normal engineering practice with a long, honorable history. Of course, some companies howl when others perform successful reverse engineering and figure out how their products are made--and where the weaknesses are--but then those same companies do the same thing to any competitor anyway. I think instead of calling it by a jargon word, we ought to see it as legitimate competition, exactly what we need instead of monopolies to promote progress.
Dr. Who can never be late...just climb into that big red British phone booth behind Harvard Square and...view the archived webcast...or be there in person...after all it's a movie.
Hey, wait!--it's not a Hollywood movie--what will that do to our balance of payments!
I enjoyed the Tibetan food at the fair and then got a front-row seat at the debate...the red notices were all over Harvard announcing the event.
BG turned his back on the very same institution on which Lessig relies for his livelihood.
Actually Lessig taught last year in Berlin, and moved to Stanford Law School this year. Mr. Gates in fact has given a lot of money to build and equip a new computer building at Harvard, not far from where the first computer at Harvard was built, and not far from the debate. The Berkman Center where Lessig worked and his own office had a number of Microsoft Windows Intel computers when I visited, although Lessig himself seems to be naturally a Macintosh type. I don't believe Lessig has any bias against Bill Gates or Microsoft--he teaches students the law as best he can, and his brief to advise Judge Jackson was a model of impartiality.
Lessig has publicly stated that he thinks the *government* should be involved in making software
Read his book, "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace," and you will learn what he really thinks. He thinks there is a place for laws with technology such as the Internet, for example to protect the public domain and give incentives for new works to be created. He refers to Jefferson--who if he was a "liberal" in your sense was nevertheless a radical one.
And Lessig is doing a lot more than that old story about being master in the Microsoft case. He is leading a lawsuit to overturn the Copyright Term Extension Act, Eldred v Reno. The trouble is that Jack Valenti considers that law already bought and paid for, and didn't respond to that suit during the debate--instead, preferring to talk about Napster and other cases in which the difference is not that clear between Lessig and Valenti.
I think the debate was productive. It gave Valenti a chance to enter the lion's den and talk about copyright policy with some smart people, some of whom may go to work for him. The side representing Free Software should be as bold and persuasive. But it's hard unless the comments stick to the point and unless they refrain from confusing personality and appearance with real views and understanding.
But you don't necessarily have to believe me--he's my lawyer, and doing a fine job, I say. For further information about Larry Lessig, see his Stanford web page and his older Berkman Center page, where you can read many of his works online and comment on them.
Just got back from the live debate--sorry if you missed it, but I did send a message to Rob last week.
I asked a complicated question of Jack, and it flustered him because he didn't understand it--I think two-part questions exceed his short-term memory span. But pay no mind to that--the whole point was not winning the debate, but educating people about copyright and patent, or "intellectual property" as some persist in calling it. And Jack is doing a good job on his end; it's time we did a better job.
My question was if it was "theft" for the owner of a bar or restaurant to evade paying royalties on public performances of copyright music. In the 19th century, two Parisian songwriters demanded that a cafe owner pay them for having the band play one of their songs--the owner declined--the songwriters went to jail--and the French law was changed.
That would sound like "theft" to me, and would be appropriate under the natural rights theory of copyright like the Kantian theory that Jack earlier mentioned, and the later French Republican reinstitution of copyright. And I might personally agree that the authors ought to be reimbursed--I am not one who thinks that everything on the Internet ought to be free, or that musicians should not be paid, nor that copyright has been practically overturned by the Internet.
The point is that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 was passed only because U.S. bar and restaurant owners managed to get an exception, allowing them to escape payment. So when Jack dined at a nice Cambridge restaurant before the debate, he was listening to "stolen" music in his words. (In fact, a group of Irish songwriters have managed to sue in the E.U. to declare the U.S. in restraint of free trade, because of this very lack of "harmonisation," and the U.S. is now appealing--otherwise the U.S. may well be sanctioned.)
Jack didn't see it that way, of course. He rapidly abandoned the natural rights theory of copyright, the only one under which it makes sense to say that a copyright can be "stolen" by someone else. He fell back on the statutory, utilitarian, theory of copyright that underlies the viewpoint of the Framers of the Copyright Clause in the U.S. Constitution, that Larry Lessig eloquently expanded on.
So Lessig talked about the Copyright Term Extension Act suit (Eldred v Reno), and Valenti talked about Napster and ICraveTV.com and DeCSS. Still, the education about copyright went pretty well, I think.
What is scary is that Valenti's talk about streaming movies over the Internet, and his ignorance of their complete denial of fair use, because of the DMCA, might come true. Then the only way people could have fair use would be illegal and go underground in some way. Then what becomes of copyright law--I think it doesn't matter at that point--and the courts don't have any guidance on how to decide issues, except to try to do some economic balancing, which will always favor those with the most money.
But this trend to encryption and locking up things will at the same time destroy the movie studios, I think. Theaters, video rental stores, the whole business model of staged releases and so on, would be threatened. I would advise technologists in Hollywood to try to adapt the business model and make works more open and accessible and not fear "piracy." Instead, use technology to make products more valuable, and encourage consumers to buy more attractive and useful products.
Jack if he had the chance to think about this might well agree. I really do think he is a decent guy and it is wrong to make fun of him. I just hope the people behind Jack, the technologists and the ones who control technology, can become a little wiser now and see what the Free Software movement has accomplished.
Meanwhile, the lawsuits are going forward. A moot court at Harvard Law School Oct 2 (Monday) will prepare Lessig for the Oct 5 oral arguments in Eldred v Reno (to overturn the CTEA). Those arguments will be before the US District of Columbia Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. All are invited there to hear the real stuff.
And the DeCSS case is going to appeal. It was a great pleasure to talk with Emmanuel Goldstein at this debate and shake his hand and encourage him. But it would be even better if more of us helped out in the OpenLaw group to help prepare the appeals brief in the DeCSS case.
Right now the lawsuits are our best bet. But we must still continue trying to learn more about copyright and patent law and educate everyone we can, else Jack Valenti will be doing it instead.
This new information indicates Colossus was the first electronic computer, and Colossus 2 the first programmable electronic computer, doesn't it?
The Zuse machines and the ABC from Iowa were not really electronic, but electro-mechanical, like the Mark I at Harvard, using relays instead of vacuum tubes ("valves" in British parlance), according to the computer histories on the net I've seen. Even though many of these electro-mechanical devices used punched tape or card input, they were not necessarily programmable.
According to these stories, Colossus had 1,500 vacuum tubes, while Colossus 2 had 2,500, and there were 10 of the latter by the end of the war (a year after Colossus 2's introduction)--an immense achievement.
This also might confirm that Alan Turing really was the first computer programmer, as others have already indicated.
And it reveals, interestingly, that cracking the Enigma code was not even the main purpose of all this effort, but the other supersecret German military code.
Maybe the next historical revelations will be about the computing power behind the atomic bomb, the first ones and later ones. Were the British computer experts allowed to play a role in this? What were the early Russian computers like?
Unfortunately, the D.C. circuit court of appeals judges who know the most about monopoly antitrust cases are forced to recuse themselves. They formerly worked for the Department of Justice. The remaining justices are experts in labor law and the like.
No wonder Microsoft thinks it can get a better hearing in D.C. How long will it take to get those judges up to speed on such a large and complicated case? How much better can the appellate court be in deciding issues of law than the Supreme Court, which is going to have to go over them all once again, maybe years from now?
Yeah, libraries need some uniformed police to keep kids from passing dirty notes to each other instead of studying.
Better still, use some technology to make sure the library patrons really do "look up information for a paper or research project" instead of just hanging out there and socializing. Maybe something like electronic bracelets?
If those nasty people could be kicked out of the university in the first place--without returning their tuition--then the rest of us could enjoy smaller classes and a lot of the computers would end up not being used at all--we smart folks would walk in and see lots of them just waiting for us to use them properly.
And think of what the Internet could be if it were not for all those stupid AOL subscribers, chatting and emailing away! And the pornography--why, without some people downloading the stuff all the time, think of what our bandwidth might be!
After all that, we could turn to the real purpose of libraries and colleges. Libraries should preserve books, not allow people to use them to death. And colleges should be places where little bits of exquisite wisdom are distilled by expert professors and carefully handed down only to the worthy few.
If some stupid people misuse computers, who knows what they will do next. Better to put them in jail to prevent that from happening.
whether people have the right to violate the copyright of another
Notice that Mr Gates did not use the word "copyright" (nor patent) in his letter of complaint to the club. The reason is easy to see: the U.S. Copyright Office did not accept registrations of software then, not until years later.
The only way to prove "piracy" would be to have someone admit they had "stolen" the physical paper tape, value $500. But the statute of limitations on that crime has expired. (Anyway, I heard the tape was stolen from a van outside, not a box inside the Rickey's.)
The article itself is not clear, but the point should be that in 1975 there was already a split between those like Gates who thought all programming should be in the hands of professionals, and that everybody else just stole from them--and on the other side the "free software" folks who shared software--but still bought software and hardware and did as much to accomplish the computer revolution as the other tribes.
As a computer hobbyist whose club was often accused of "piracy" I would have to say that companies such as Microsoft and Apple would never have succeeded if computer hobbyists had not used and endorsed the products. If there was any illegal "sharing" going on, it certainly doesn't seem to have prevented these companies from succeeding in the market. At the same time, many other companies that didn't treat their customers well have failed.
The main idea we should carry away is that open development and sharing are not dependent on "intellectual property rights" but that we can develop our own stuff--much better--without stealing from anybody else.
Gates was simply wrong in his accusations. He gave away paper tapes to people just so he could get their ideas and improve his program for free. He didn't pay them for their work. (Just as I use a copy of Windows 95 that Gates personally handed me at the August 95 launch.) He used computer time at Harvard to develop a commercial program in violation of Harvard's rules. His program was an adaptation of BASIC that had been invented and distributed by academics at Dartmouth. The originality of Gates is that somehow he managed to make a big corporation on software, and others did not. But his software is not better, and it would not get better if "piracy" could be eliminated. Copyright should be respected, but not because of the arguments we've seen here.
Last winter, natural gas supplies, at least to the Northeast United States, shrank, and prices skyrocketed. In California, I believe natural gas or propane increased several hundred per cent, if it was even available.
Many contracts for natural gas in the Northeast U.S. specify only a limited supply--if you exceed that you have to pay considerable surcharges--it may be cheaper just to buy electricity for the added load.
The situation may change, if Canadian natural gas is imported in adequate supply and a reasonable price. But natural gas supplies suffer from the problem that it is not as easy to move them to users as it is electricity or fuel oil. And the supply life may not be as long as petroleum, unless some exotic sources are located, as for example, at extreme ocean depths.
I too would like to see a less expensive and less polluting and more reliable energy source for the home. However, in many other areas, solar power may be the better bet. I wonder whether it will turn out to be practical to install these gadgets in the northeast U.S.
My neighbors' home a few years ago exploded and burned after a propane accident--our property was, luckily, spared, and nobody killed. Of course, they still use propane, but others are more cautious.
Uh, it is true that PG publishes only texts first published before 1923. But it is not true that "nothing written in the US on or after January 1, 1923, will ever enter the public domain."
An explanation of this misstatement is long, but--many works (85%?) first published in the US after 1922, and before 1978, entered the public domain (and are still there) because the copyright was not properly renewed. It is perfectly legal to reprint them. PG does not do so because it is difficult to check copyright status for such works. The 1997 No Electronic Theft Act means a jail term of up to 5 years and up to $500,000 fine if a work with a retail value of $1,000 over a period of 6 months is even given away on the Internet.
The On-Line Books Page has a very useful guide to checking copyright on books, including some pages of renewals from the Catalog of Copyright Entries, scanned by volunteers including from PG.
Some of us do seek out post-1922 works in the public domain and reprint them online. However, the DMCA poses another problem: if the underlying work is in the public domain, it seems to be illegal under the DMCA to share information on how to "circumvent" encryption of an "eBook" such as in Microsoft Reader format. Thus these books do enjoy a de facto period of protection long after the copyright term expires.
If you are concerned about U.S. copyright term, please visit my web site for information about our lawsuit against the Bono Act, join in discussion and debate on the OpenLaw site, and please support Project Gutenberg and other online book projects. Thanks for reading!
Yeah, if you read the legislative history of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, you will observe that congresspeople solemnly stated their intent to have the movie studios pay film workers fair residuals on all the films that would be under copyright for another 20 years.
Did the studios pay them? Or, instead, will there be more accounting gimmicks so only the shareholders profit?
Time again the studios hide behind "artists' rights"--but the studio producers are not "artists" at all. Just as the big publishers hide behind "authors' rights"--these giant global corporations claim to own all "intellectual property" in the world, and they demand we pay them whatever they ask, or they'll stop producing it.
Time to take them up on the challenge, and produce our own infotainment for once?