That was over Android not Linux. Though as an aside you are behind the times. Barnes and Noble refused to cave and wanted to go trial and make the claims specific and public. Microsoft responded by offering by offering a licensing deal to B&N for $300m. While I'd love to know the details, the good guys won that round.
This world would be a better place if McBride were to go out back and end it with a revolver,
The world would be a better place if McBridge had been tried, convicted and jailed for fraud. I suspect McBridge's life in technology is over. Lots of other executive do similar things in other industries. The world would be a far better place if they faced criminal prosecution for their conduct.
Also the Boies Schiller & Flexner people should be disbarred for deliberately misleading the court.
The reporters who originally sided with SCO were huge losers. SCO v. IBM was one of the few times (Judith Miller and Iraq being another) where reporters who engaged in unethical conduct were outed and their conduct has become part of their public profile.
And for the same reason as above, integrity in journalism was a winner.
Look people may disagree with Apple. But an analogy to the SCO v. IBM would be Apple suing Coca Cola for Microsoft's properly licensed use of Apple's technology. They aren't doing anything remotely like SCO.
One thing that didn't get mentioned was prior to groklaw a lot of the counterfactual information was being collected here. People who later had testimony related to this issue found out about it from/. I think some pats on the back to Taco... are in order.
As for IBM they are certainly a winner. For a few tens of millions they got 4-5 years of fantastic PR which moved them from being a vendor exploiting Linux to the defender of Linux and warmly embraced by the Linux community. This has helped their consulting business to the tune of billions in revenue as techi-nerds/geeks didn't push against executive management's favorite vendor.
Sun was a huge loser. They had originally sided with SCO and they never lived down the alienation from the open source community. They remained mistrusted.
Microsoft was a loser. Microsoft tied themselves to this lawsuit early and many of their more legitimate arguments against open source were discredited along with the fantasies of Darl McBride.
The GPL was a huge winner. 2 major claims: was the GPL legal at all under the copyright clause was tested and the counter claims collapsed. More importantly the idea of a company issuing a GPL release and then revoking licenses was tested in court with the GPL holding up.
Web 2.0 was a winner. Sco v. IBM represents the first Web 2.0 trial were important witnesses found out about the trial and presented evidence (i.e. self deposed) based on online publicity.
Democracy was a winner. SCO made several claims that were detrimental to the rights of public participation in trials which were thrown out.
Tarantella was a loser. No one technical wanted anything to do with SCO. They ended up being bought by Sun and withering even there.
There are few wars with such clean cut good guys, bad guys.
You likely are young and have lower insurance than most hence a lower percentage of overcharge and a lower base. You asked for specific evidence of enforcement. Now a multi million dollar fine isn't good enough?
Government owning and maintaing is not less regulation. That is government having outright ownership, and direct control rather than regulation. Generally when people are objecting to regulation they aren't suggesting even more controls.
There are advantages and disadvantages to the American utility financing system vs. direct government ownership. On balance I think the American system is better, but that has little do with regulation and far more to do with arguments about efficiency.
If you can point to anything that shows consumers ever having been in more danger due to which faction is in power
Sure.
1830s-1860s Democrats take control of the system and support the silver banks (the ones the population uses). 1870s-1920 Republicans heavily deregulated financial system with increasing risks. Little concern for public welfare focus is on industrialization. 1930s - 1970s Democrats mainly in control. Financial system is heavily regulated, safe but returns are low. 1980s-2000s System becomes much higher return in exchange for tremendous risks and constant problems of fraud.
Today: Republicans -- blocking consumer protections Democrats -- putting regulations into law
I'd say the checks 1 1/2m people got last year for insurance overcharge are clear cut evidence of a change in policy
Laying the physical cable is incredibly expensive doing it several times over is a waste of resources. Hence we are going to have a monopoly. Given that it is going to be a monopoly better it be a regulated utility than an unregulated monopoly.
Governments have thousands of years of history of handling problems with overly greedy rich people when they want to. They have proven themselves perfectly capable of doing it effectively time and time again. Getting them to want to is hard. Few other agencies in society have that track record.
Wall Street regulation comes from the financial industry
I think things like the debate on the Consumer Protection Agency show there are meaningful differences in policy between the parties on financial regulation. Neither party is perfectly pure is far from saying that the choice is a false one.
Do the candidates know what Net Neutrality means? I have seen no evidence that any of them do. Republican or demonrat, it makes no difference.
I'm not sure what evidence you would accept, but Obama has given multiple speeches on technological issues he seems to understand the basic idea of carrier based law. For that matter Romney's comments on this issue seem intelligent though I disagree. I'd say they both more or less do.
However what's unquestionable is that Julius Genachowski, Obama's FCC chair does. And appointing high quality people to regulate the tech sector is the difference between Obama and his predecessors. And is really what we care about. Because whether Obama doesn't or doesn't understand the internet, internet regulation is not going to be his focus. While for the FCC they can focus on that. And there is a big difference between regulations that are in the public interest like Obama's and regulations designed to support corporate America like what Romney proposes.
Apple didn't invent most of that stuff though, did they?
No they are suing for things they did invent like slide to unlock or bounce on over swipe for browsing. The original claim above was those things were inevitable because smartphones couldn't have possibly evolved any other way. I'm disagreeing by saying that even the very core ideas of browser based were not inevitable.
Google pioneered voice control and Apple just bought Siri.
I don't know what voice control does Google provide? In any case Siri so far is not in the lawsuit.
. Remember Nokia and their "it's a computer, not a phone" thing?
No I'm American until recently they don't advertise here:) But the N900 OS wise is very different. Pointing to the N900 undercuts the case the iPhone's UI was inevitable.
If you lied while under oath in a deposition, you would be in jail not worrying about congress wanting to talk to you at all.
Probably not unfortunately. What generally happens is you just lose the lawsuit. The courts rarely punish perjury (or in Clinton's case the weaker lying under oath) in civil trials which has had a nasty effect on our civil system. In any case the issue was Congress in the analogy not Clinton.
You know when you get telemarketing calls and they let you know the call may be recorded for customer service... The phones they are talking on are owned by a company they still have to inform you because both parties have to consent to a wiretap.
I'm not sure where you get this idea that one party can agree to a wiretap. And a 3rd party agreement is even weaker. If the employee says "no I didn't consent" a blanket consent doesn't hold up.
I agree. There is distrust. People think the situation is worse than it is as a consequence. Which is different than saying the situation is as bad as the Japanese population seems to think it is.
Well when we talk desktop you want to be more than your personal opinion of what you like but instead your opinion of what low end windows users being pushed out would be OK with if it were configured for them.
Think about associates degree or less education, little experience with office work except possibly on a single application.... what do they want for home use?
You have the wrong treaty. The one you are linking to covers treaties not embassies.
Done at Vienna April 18, 1961; Ratification advised by the Senate of the United States of America September 14, 1965; Ratified by the President of the United States of America November 8, 1972 Ratification of the United States of America deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations November 13, 1972; Proclaimed by the President of the United States of America November 24, 1972; Entered into force with respect to the United States of America December 13, 1972.
Technically it has to do with those people whose credentials are received not those people who happen to reside there. So for example if there was a secretary in the USA embassy without credentials the UK could rightfully hold her for espionage.
I strongly disagree. I think if we look at disasters in terms of oil drilling, oil transportation, coal leakage, that nuclear's long history is far safer than oil or coal. Fukashima was a good taste of what is the worst that can happen in a 1st world country. And the answer is, not too much.
Now in terms of long term exposure I live in a radon neighborhood. There is are rooting roots of plants contaminated from the radon leaks in the 1930's under my driveway. People fly in planes some quite regularly and get elevated levels of radiation. The fact is those contaminations statistically increase chances of complications. Multiply them by a large population and you are looking at many thousands of deaths.
On the other hand how many people died this decade alone fighting for the rights to oil fields?
If the UK pulls through with its bullshit, China is free to declare the US embassy in China no longer protected, march in, grab whoever they want, shit on the smoldering parts (sorry, those flashbangs set the carpet on fire), waltz out and say "told you so".
If the UK were to attack the USA embassy in China, that's an act of war against the USA and against China however. But that has nothing to do with US privilege. Only if the Chinese failed to try and prevent the UK would they be in violation of Vienna.
I'm not sure what your analogy is but with all your sarcasm its hard to figure out you are talking about. How about less emotion and just a pure rendition of facts.
Slashdot Mirror
30 years ago corporations had to meet multiple criteria. Their activities had to the advantage of stakeholders not just shareholders:
the community they operated in
workers
ownership (shareholders)
vendors
society at large
They could lose their charter for failing to meet those obligations. There are some good ideas from the 1970s we should bring back.
That was over Android not Linux. Though as an aside you are behind the times. Barnes and Noble refused to cave and wanted to go trial and make the claims specific and public. Microsoft responded by offering by offering a licensing deal to B&N for $300m. While I'd love to know the details, the good guys won that round.
This world would be a better place if McBride were to go out back and end it with a revolver,
The world would be a better place if McBridge had been tried, convicted and jailed for fraud. I suspect McBridge's life in technology is over. Lots of other executive do similar things in other industries. The world would be a far better place if they faced criminal prosecution for their conduct.
Also the Boies Schiller & Flexner people should be disbarred for deliberately misleading the court.
Oh I forgot.
The reporters who originally sided with SCO were huge losers. SCO v. IBM was one of the few times (Judith Miller and Iraq being another) where reporters who engaged in unethical conduct were outed and their conduct has become part of their public profile.
And for the same reason as above, integrity in journalism was a winner.
Look people may disagree with Apple. But an analogy to the SCO v. IBM would be Apple suing Coca Cola for Microsoft's properly licensed use of Apple's technology. They aren't doing anything remotely like SCO.
One thing that didn't get mentioned was prior to groklaw a lot of the counterfactual information was being collected here. People who later had testimony related to this issue found out about it from /. I think some pats on the back to Taco ... are in order.
As for IBM they are certainly a winner. For a few tens of millions they got 4-5 years of fantastic PR which moved them from being a vendor exploiting Linux to the defender of Linux and warmly embraced by the Linux community. This has helped their consulting business to the tune of billions in revenue as techi-nerds/geeks didn't push against executive management's favorite vendor.
Sun was a huge loser. They had originally sided with SCO and they never lived down the alienation from the open source community. They remained mistrusted.
Microsoft was a loser. Microsoft tied themselves to this lawsuit early and many of their more legitimate arguments against open source were discredited along with the fantasies of Darl McBride.
The GPL was a huge winner. 2 major claims: was the GPL legal at all under the copyright clause was tested and the counter claims collapsed. More importantly the idea of a company issuing a GPL release and then revoking licenses was tested in court with the GPL holding up.
Web 2.0 was a winner. Sco v. IBM represents the first Web 2.0 trial were important witnesses found out about the trial and presented evidence (i.e. self deposed) based on online publicity.
Democracy was a winner. SCO made several claims that were detrimental to the rights of public participation in trials which were thrown out.
Tarantella was a loser. No one technical wanted anything to do with SCO. They ended up being bought by Sun and withering even there.
There are few wars with such clean cut good guys, bad guys.
You likely are young and have lower insurance than most hence a lower percentage of overcharge and a lower base. You asked for specific evidence of enforcement. Now a multi million dollar fine isn't good enough?
Exactly. Agreed.
Government owning and maintaing is not less regulation. That is government having outright ownership, and direct control rather than regulation. Generally when people are objecting to regulation they aren't suggesting even more controls.
There are advantages and disadvantages to the American utility financing system vs. direct government ownership. On balance I think the American system is better, but that has little do with regulation and far more to do with arguments about efficiency.
If you can point to anything that shows consumers ever having been in more danger due to which faction is in power
Sure.
1830s-1860s Democrats take control of the system and support the silver banks (the ones the population uses).
1870s-1920 Republicans heavily deregulated financial system with increasing risks. Little concern for public welfare focus is on industrialization.
1930s - 1970s Democrats mainly in control. Financial system is heavily regulated, safe but returns are low.
1980s-2000s System becomes much higher return in exchange for tremendous risks and constant problems of fraud.
Today:
Republicans -- blocking consumer protections
Democrats -- putting regulations into law
I'd say the checks 1 1/2m people got last year for insurance overcharge are clear cut evidence of a change in policy
Laying the physical cable is incredibly expensive doing it several times over is a waste of resources. Hence we are going to have a monopoly. Given that it is going to be a monopoly better it be a regulated utility than an unregulated monopoly.
Governments have thousands of years of history of handling problems with overly greedy rich people when they want to. They have proven themselves perfectly capable of doing it effectively time and time again. Getting them to want to is hard. Few other agencies in society have that track record.
Wall Street regulation comes from the financial industry
I think things like the debate on the Consumer Protection Agency show there are meaningful differences in policy between the parties on financial regulation. Neither party is perfectly pure is far from saying that the choice is a false one.
Do the candidates know what Net Neutrality means? I have seen no evidence that any of them do. Republican or demonrat, it makes no difference.
I'm not sure what evidence you would accept, but Obama has given multiple speeches on technological issues he seems to understand the basic idea of carrier based law. For that matter Romney's comments on this issue seem intelligent though I disagree. I'd say they both more or less do.
However what's unquestionable is that Julius Genachowski, Obama's FCC chair does. And appointing high quality people to regulate the tech sector is the difference between Obama and his predecessors. And is really what we care about. Because whether Obama doesn't or doesn't understand the internet, internet regulation is not going to be his focus. While for the FCC they can focus on that. And there is a big difference between regulations that are in the public interest like Obama's and regulations designed to support corporate America like what Romney proposes.
Apple didn't invent most of that stuff though, did they?
No they are suing for things they did invent like slide to unlock or bounce on over swipe for browsing. The original claim above was those things were inevitable because smartphones couldn't have possibly evolved any other way. I'm disagreeing by saying that even the very core ideas of browser based were not inevitable.
Google pioneered voice control and Apple just bought Siri.
I don't know what voice control does Google provide? In any case Siri so far is not in the lawsuit.
. Remember Nokia and their "it's a computer, not a phone" thing?
No I'm American until recently they don't advertise here :) But the N900 OS wise is very different. Pointing to the N900 undercuts the case the iPhone's UI was inevitable.
If you lied while under oath in a deposition, you would be in jail not worrying about congress wanting to talk to you at all.
Probably not unfortunately. What generally happens is you just lose the lawsuit. The courts rarely punish perjury (or in Clinton's case the weaker lying under oath) in civil trials which has had a nasty effect on our civil system. In any case the issue was Congress in the analogy not Clinton.
I'm not following your objection. People are getting 5 Gb / sec already in real life it seems to work well. I'm not sure about the power issue.
You know when you get telemarketing calls and they let you know the call may be recorded for customer service... The phones they are talking on are owned by a company they still have to inform you because both parties have to consent to a wiretap.
I'm not sure where you get this idea that one party can agree to a wiretap. And a 3rd party agreement is even weaker. If the employee says "no I didn't consent" a blanket consent doesn't hold up.
I agree. There is distrust. People think the situation is worse than it is as a consequence. Which is different than saying the situation is as bad as the Japanese population seems to think it is.
Well when we talk desktop you want to be more than your personal opinion of what you like but instead your opinion of what low end windows users being pushed out would be OK with if it were configured for them.
Think about associates degree or less education, little experience with office work except possibly on a single application.... what do they want for home use?
He's arguing natural and obvious not first. That's a different argument.
First he had already conceded with things like slide to unlock.
You have the wrong treaty. The one you are linking to covers treaties not embassies.
Done at Vienna April 18, 1961;
Ratification advised by the Senate of the United States of America
September 14, 1965;
Ratified by the President of the United States of America November
8, 1972
Ratification of the United States of America deposited with the
Secretary-General of the United Nations November 13, 1972; Proclaimed by the President of the United States of America
November 24, 1972;
Entered into force with respect to the United States of America
December 13, 1972.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/17843.pdf
Technically it has to do with those people whose credentials are received not those people who happen to reside there. So for example if there was a secretary in the USA embassy without credentials the UK could rightfully hold her for espionage.
Yes that's always been the goal post in industrial accidents.
I strongly disagree. I think if we look at disasters in terms of oil drilling, oil transportation, coal leakage, that nuclear's long history is far safer than oil or coal. Fukashima was a good taste of what is the worst that can happen in a 1st world country. And the answer is, not too much.
Now in terms of long term exposure I live in a radon neighborhood. There is are rooting roots of plants contaminated from the radon leaks in the 1930's under my driveway. People fly in planes some quite regularly and get elevated levels of radiation. The fact is those contaminations statistically increase chances of complications. Multiply them by a large population and you are looking at many thousands of deaths.
On the other hand how many people died this decade alone fighting for the rights to oil fields?
If the UK pulls through with its bullshit, China is free to declare the US embassy in China no longer protected, march in, grab whoever they want, shit on the smoldering parts (sorry, those flashbangs set the carpet on fire), waltz out and say "told you so".
If the UK were to attack the USA embassy in China, that's an act of war against the USA and against China however. But that has nothing to do with US privilege. Only if the Chinese failed to try and prevent the UK would they be in violation of Vienna.
I'm not sure what your analogy is but with all your sarcasm its hard to figure out you are talking about. How about less emotion and just a pure rendition of facts.