Re:This is just rehashed old news ,not a new event
on
SCO Aims For The Feds
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If you ignore the title, the news.com.com article is well written and not confusing.
Except that it's misleading and there's not enough clarification:
It's not an idle threat, though many Linux fans dismiss the Lindon, Utah-based company's assertions. SCO's attorneys, Boies Schiller & Flexner, have indeed sued AutoZone for its use of Linux, claiming that the open-source operating system infringes on SCO's Unix copyrights.
Unless author clarifies his point, it's misleading. SCO did not sue AutoZone simply because AutoZone uses Linux. They sued AutoZone because SCO had a licensing agreement with them which SCO felt was violated by AutoZone's use of Linux. Author's point seems to imply that if you are a large company and use Linux, you are at a risk of getting sued. This is not true. What legal principle can SCO use to sue Linux users that have no contract or licensing agreements with them? None, as far as I am aware.
This is a problem with most mainstream press reporting on this issue. They follow SCO's FUD more than do their research and report facts.
It looks like you read the article, but still you are making points that the author already considered or didn't even make.
The point he misses is that GEEKS DON'T MATTER.
Except that he never said geeks mattered, but they only serve the purpose for "mass-customizable" products. Quote from the article:
There is a new breed of users out there, computer-literate consumers who don't think twice about altering the look, feel and functionality of a product. Those billions of embedded computers have turned business on its head. The Henry Ford school of 'one size fits all' or the Colgate school of 40 choices of toothpaste are now both obsolete. Give us one size that we can alter how we wish.
What matters is what the masses want, and the masses typically want stuff that "just works" with a minimum of hassle. They don't care about extreme customization.
This is what he calls "mass customization." Allowing 3rd parties - not only geeks but more importantly other companies - "hack" your products will contribute to your product's popularity and provide valuable market research as well. It will tell you how your customers want to use your products.
I recall one of Steve Jobs' big failures. He created an "ultimate remote control" that did everything but get your beer for you. It was a massive failure. Why? Too complicated. People didn't want an infinitely programmable remote control.
Again, this is not the author's point. There's nothing preventing a product to "just work" AND be "hackable" at the same time. He gives you examples like TiVo and other products that are either already using this method or should be seriously considering it like cell phones, automobiles, etc.
IOW, re-read the article with an open mind. I think he does make some valid points.
Re:Not smart to sue your customers
on
Hack This, Please
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The parent didn't say they disappeared "because of" hackers. He said they helped them disappear. The way I see it, you are right - DigitalConvergence had a bad idea, bad business plan, and hackers helped air it out.
Moreover, if you read the article, the author says:
Companies should offer easy access to the code, inside their products or the workings of their Web site, and allow customers to hack away. The corporate types might learn a thing or two.... Just open up your wares and your customers will not just show you what they want, but do it for you, too.
I'm not sure what he's saying about the websites but, in effect, he's suggesting that having your wares closed, trying to have full control over them and trying to forcefully dictate exactly how your own customers use products they bought from you contributes to your products' lousiness. On the other hand, being hacker-friendly has a positive effect not only for gaining popularity and usefulness, but also contributing to valuable market research for your products and their future development.
So, if you share Andy Kessler's point of view, then even in this way, hackers directly and indirectly contributed to serving DigitalConvergence their fate.
Excellent point about KDE. Just adding that you can even translate KDE apps to whatever you want on your own using a GUI app called KBabel. I also disagree that Microsoft is way ahead in internationalization - it's not. Most areas I had experience in like adjusting keyboard layouts, application support for international characters has been generally more consistent on my Linux systems than XPs.
Well, I don't know the specifics or what cases you are referring to, but just because FBI or police do something different doesn't mean that the UCC does not stand. In fact, I'd be extremely surprised in cases where a judge said that UCC's good faith purchaser provisions are invalid; because, AFAIK, that would be a major change in the state law as it stands right now.
When it comes to the patents, I found some info on what constitutes an infringement in the US Code Title 35:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
This means that even if you use a patented invention without permission and you are a good faith buyer, you are still infringing. This seems fundamentally unfair to me and goes against the spirit of UCC's "good faith purchaser" provisions. Patent law being the US Code, it will override whatever is in the UCC.
Consider the situation of accidentally buying a stolen item. You will probably face no consequences as long as you immedatly return the stolen item (of course, you lose what you paid). You do not get to say "Hey, I didn't know it was stolen", and then assume you have ownership.
As I pointed out in response to a previous/. story, this is not true in the U.S.. Most (all?) states have passed the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) which says that if you buy an item legally and in good faith, you become the legal owner of that item, even if it turns out to be stolen later on. So, the victim can go after the thief directly. Have a look at my previous comment for the UCC reference.
Anyway, if we went along with the UCC's good faith purchaser provisions, then patent holders wouldn't have any claims against actual users (only against makers and sellers).
IANALE but here's a great site put together by lawyers: chillingeffects.org
Looks like the answer is yes but the court determines how much SCOMayo gets, not SCOMayo.
Quote from the referenced site (emphasis mine):
Question: What does it mean to "infringe" a patent?
Answer: If you are accused of patent infringement, you are accused of having made, sold or offered for sale an invention described in one of the claims of a valid patent, without the patent owner's authorization.... Note that you may be liable for inducing infringement or contributing to infringement, even if you did not directly infringe a patent, if you encourage or assist someone else to infringe a patent.
Note that this explanation does not cover the use of the pre-made/bought patented invention, but only making, selling, or offering for sale. That part is clear to me. What I am wondering is how this affects the use of the patented invention.
Because the way I see it is that if someone sold you something, and you bought it legally and in good faith, there's nothing a patent holder can do about it other than go after the party that "made, sold or offered for sale" the invention.
However, the end user *is* liable for patent infringement.
Here's a hypothetical scenario:
- You buy a jar of mayonnaise made by Kraft - Kraft gets sued by SCOMayo (whatever) for infringing on one of their patents on how to make mayonnaise that stays fresh for up to 12 months and loses - SCOMayo now sues everyone who ever bought and stored the patent-infringing mayonnaise from Kraft and demands additional $6.99 for every jar of mayonnaise purchased?
IANAL, so I don't understand how this works. Can SCOMayo sue individual people and sandwhich shops, fast foods and restaurants for patent infringement? If so, maybe they should start selling indemnification insurance at the supermakets as well for an extra $0.99 per item ($0.88 at Wal-Mart)?
On a more technical side, would this mean that because I own 3 nVidia video cards I may get sued by ATI and I need insurance just in case? Where and how is this line drawn, if there is one?
If the code was open source though, who do you go after? The people profiting from it - the end user.
Using what legal principle? What did the "user" do wrong? You can surely go after people who copied and redistributed the code without permission, people who entered into a contract with you and violated it, but how can you "go after" anybody else?
Is your ATI or nVidia video card insured in this way? You know, just in case they go after each other and start suing each others' customers? How about your sound card and monitor? This is crazy.
Doesn't sound like a place I'd want to work. What happens when SCO gets swept back under the rug?
Not only that, my guess is this may reflect badly on groklaw website as well. I mean I understand Pamela Jones was offered a job and she took it but, come on... it's like they are saying don't give your money to SCO and others that may come up with bogus claims, just give your money to us instead! What kind of legal principle do they have in mind for "user" insurance?
What's next - Developers having to pick up 'code malpractice' insurance?
This should read: what's next - shoppers have to pick up indemnification insurance for products they buy at supermarkets?
I mean, what if I buy a bottle of Pepsi, and then Coke sues Pepsi for some patent/trademark/contract violation - can they go after me as well as a "user"? What if I buy McDonalds and Burger King ends up suing them? Do I need insurance for Quarter Pounder with cheese as well?
I still have one 75 GXP lying around somewhere removed from my home desktop. After it wouldn't boot, and freeze quite a few times with the activity light on (big props to ReiserFS for keeping my data intact), or made funny noises, I replaced it with a new Barracuda. Zero problems since.
My problem with them is that neither IBM nor Hitachi ever truly admitted what the defect was with so many of Deathstars. Some suspected a design flaw. Then IBM issued a firmware upgrade; some suspected the upgrade kept heads moving during idle time to keep them from colliding into each other. Who knows?
I guess they were afraid of lawsuits to admit any guilt; but that's not my problem. At the very least I am going to wait awhile until I jump into their latest bleeding edge technology.
You *are* allowed to make backups and fair-use copies. Wailing lawyers don't change this fact.
Yes, but you can only use a backup copy for restoration purposes, otherwise it's not a backup copy anymore.
Yes, but "fair use" is not limited by backup copies only. The parent poster used the "and" in the sentence, and IMO, correctly so. I can make 2 or 3 copies of the game, but which one I use to play is irrelevant because, I imagine, such copying should fall under fair use.
IANAL, so depending on the law that applies to making digital copies of software, you can even loan them to your friend or brother or whoever. As long as you don't engage in wider/larger scale and/or for-profit distribution, it may well fall under fair use.
Remember that most commercial software comes with an EULA which they contend is a legal agreement between you and distributor/licensor. The EULA may limit your rights further; however, whether these agreements are valid or not is irrelevant in this case. First, Nintendo games don't come with anything that can even remotely resemble an enforceable agreement. Second, I don't think anyone, including Nintendo, will contend or in any way require, that a minor playing a GBA game should legally enter into an EULA-type agreement. Therefore, IMO, regular copyright restrictions with all "fair-use" rights intact should apply to their products.
I don't think they wonder, they know. The submitter asks a valid question:
Why is there no one meeting this demand?
The answer is because RIAA and similar organizations within other countries/regions operate a cartel. This means that in order to more efficiently control the market, among other things, they divide it in regions among themselves, sign or enforce non-compete agreements, enforce trade restrictions, engage in price-fixing, deceptive accounting practices, acquire or eliminate any competition, and purchase favorable laws to gain even more control over their markets. The main objective is to minimize competition through the above means while having the ultimate control over revenues.
Meeting customer demands, coming up with new types of products, delivery methods, competition, and these types of things are not very high on their list. Operating cartels is illegal in many European countries, but nobody cares about it. People only see black and white, just like the U.S. elections.
Exactly my line of thought as well. It looks like extortion, or selling insurance (not assurance). IMO, these types of "sales" should be under some kind of regulation in-state and interstate (in the U.S.), like selling insurance is. In many other countries this would be illegal, I believe.
How does it sound if you pay $20K extra when you buy a car so you can get a newer model next year for free (small print: only if new model is released on time). If it's not, can I get my money back? Can I apply the credit towards another model? No and No? This is especially important when this is the practice of a monopolist in the market.
How would that be different from any of the other scams people try, like torching their own buildings and collecting the insurance? I'm sure it would be covered by existing laws, such as "filing false police reports."
Obviously, with home insurance there's more money involved and insurance companies have or hire their own professional investigators and lawyers. With a smaller claim like few stolen video games, police are not likely to investigate as fully, especially once they get a confession; so a deceived party would have to do their own investigation and produce hard evidence, then sue in court to win the judgement, and then actually try to get paid from a scam artist who was possibly short on cash to begin with.
Yes, it's possible, but it hardly makes any sense for a few video games worth $100-$200. So, as I said, I would give them at least some benefit of the doubt.
Also, IANAL, but I am guessing since they have a confession in this specific case, it would be pretty much a slam dunk for the victim to get her money back in a small claims court; but not as easy for EB. I believe UCC is clear on these types of cases. Without it, police would have to track down the customers who have already bought the Playstation and other goods in question and take them away. Then, everyone who bought any of the confiscated items in question would be able to sue the thief individually. With the UCC, the victim can go directly after the thief. IMO, it's not as much a deal as people are making out of it.
I'm curious where this "in good faith" comes from? Stolen property is just that, stolen and will/should be siezed by the police as evidence. Eventually, to be returned to the original owner.
It comes from the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code). Try googling for the UCC text, good faith purchaser, etc., or look at my other reply.
Unless Florida has decided to pass a different statute (unlikely) the position in English Common law is that the goods bellong to the original owner (except in four peculiar exceptions that certainly would not apply here).
2-403. Power to Transfer; Good Faith Purchase of Goods; "Entrusting".
(1) A purchaser of goods acquires all title which his transferor had or had power to transfer except that a purchaser of a limited interest acquires rights only to the extent of the interest purchased. A person with voidable title has power to transfer a good title to a good faith purchaser for value. When goods have been delivered under a transaction of purchase the purchaser has such power even though
(a) the transferor was deceived as to the identity of the purchaser, or
(b) the delivery was in exchange for a check which is later dishonored, or
(c) it was agreed that the transaction was to be a "cash sale", or
(d) the delivery was procured through fraud punishable as larcenous under the criminal law.
(2) Any entrusting of possession of goods to a merchant who deals in goods of that kind gives him power to transfer all rights of the entruster to a buyer in ordinary course of business.
(3) "Entrusting" includes any delivery and any acquiescence in retention of possession regardless of any condition expressed between the parties to the delivery or acquiescence and regardless of whether the procurement of the entrusting or the possessor's disposition of the goods have been such as to be larcenous under the criminal law.
Emphasis mine. Disclaimer: IANAL, so feel free to correct.
Not true, the police are supposed to seize stolen goods as evidence, and then the goods get returned to the original owner, and its up to EB to attempt to get their money back from the thief if its possible.
Not true in general. If the buyer bought the goods "in good faith" then they cannot be required to return them. That's unfair to the good faith buyer. Imagine, if you buy a couch at the flea market for say $500, then next week police show up at your door and take it away because it turned up to have been stolen. And as they leave they give you a name of some guy in another state (possibly another country) that allegedly stole it. No, that's not how it works. Usually, good faith buyers can keep the merchandise and original owner can go after the thief.
Having said that, and judging from the article, it looks like EB did violate the 15 day hold law. And yes, I agree, what were they thinking not refunding the money?
Hmm... on second thought, I don't want to sound like devil's advocate here but, people could devise a scheme like that selling their "stolen" goods and then getting them back for free; even if they confessed to "stealing." So, give some benefit of the doubt to EB - they have to be careful as well.
Well, I am not their customer, but they have said on their website that they grant their customers some binary license to run the code they are disputing is theirs. OK, but then they can no longer distribute the rest of the Linux since they are unwilling to provide their code in question under GPL. As I said they only recently claimed to have stopped distributing Linux, but they had been distributing it in violation of copyright while they were offering their SCOsource binary licensing scheme to people, including their own customers. That's a clear copyright violation that I have tried to point out so many times before here on/..
The second point is their LKP as I mentioned - it's a cut-and-paste from already GPLed code. If judge can order IBM to produce Dynix and AIX, surely, it would be easy to get the court to order SCO to show what they are really distributing in LKP. We know it's Linux code, they know it's Linux code, it's a matter of them laughing at Linux contributors that they can't prove it, while suing and extorting Linux users.
That's why Linux contributors should not put up with them. Sue them for copyright violations now, before it's too late.
Even though [only recently] they claim they have suspended this, they still distribute Linux updates. This is in direct violation of copyright law with regard to parts of Linux they don't even allege they have any rights to.
Besides, what do you think their Linux kernel personality (for Open UNIX) is? It's a "copy & paste job" from the GPLed code. Just look at the quote from their LKP FAQ:
The LkP feature doesn't contain a Linux kernel, and therefore to the best of our knowledge, there should be no infringement issues. If the prior statement were proven inaccurate, SCO would take appropriate steps.
In other words, "we are going to violate your copyright until you prove something, suckers!"
With SCO being all about their Unix IP, you would think they would prefer to use their own product when writing legal proceedings, instead they use Microsofts....
I thought that was the plan the whole time. The BofA thing was "accidental." Also, look at these quotes from the article:
In an interview on Wednesday, SCO's CFO confirmed that the three companies were licensees, and claimed that his company had now signed up somewhere between 10 and 50 IP License for Linux customers.... "Our usage of (Linux) is so small and isolated that's why we went ahead and signed the contract.," said Chad Jones a spokesman with the Salt Lake City company. "This was small enough that we made a business decision based on the modest cost of SCO's claim that it was in our interest to settle rather than litigate this thing," he said.
Add to that CA, EV1, and that SCO doesn't have to produce any proof of anything in the near future, looks like Microsoft's grand plan against Linux is heating up. SCO doesn't have to prove anything to anybody, it just has to make enough "sense" for these businesses to sign up.
Non-Unix licensee major Linux contributors (i.e. not IBM or HP) need to sue SCO for copyright violations sooner rather than later.
My guess is that SCO may claim that revealing this code would reveal a trade secret or something, so I expect them to fight back against this.
Actually, the judge's order seems more favorable to SCO than you are suggesting. SCO was ordered to produce only initial code that it claims IBM missappropriated. IBM was ordered [among other things] to produce Dynix, AIX for the parties to argue their relevance and the court to decide. After that they have produced this evidence in 45 days, court will consider and decide whether additional Dynix and AIX stuff is relevant. After that, SCO will have a chance to amend its complaint to include Dynix, AIX, and additional stuff.
I am guessing that's exactly where SCO wants to go: first of all, discovery will take much longer; second, it wants to see Dynix and AIX so they can take every single piece of code that looks similar [in all 3 environments] and blame IBM.
IANAL, but as I understood at this point, SCO is required to produce only minimal evidence, but amend to it later on. Pay attention to the wording in the judge's order with regards to Dynix and AIX code:
This is to include all lines of code that SCO can identify at this time.
The judge also wasn't being harsh on SCO for not meeting deadline to produce code, saying they acted in good faith to produce evidence.
One good thing for IBM was that it does not have to produce any Linux contributions that are publicly available for SCO to look up.
I'm still jealous of my friend who's got a generator, though. He can generate his own power, and now he can generate his own Internet! Wish I could do that...
I do a lot of work with shopping cart sites...many of them would pay to move up the spidering after making changes (e.g. US$20 to spider today rather than next month).
Hmm... I can see it now.
On-Demand Spidering.
Abstract: A method and a system where a search engine or a search service spiders a content of a website on demand, within a specified time period, by the user of the service or the website. The user may be (or may not be) required to compensate the search engine provider for this service.
Google, which uses thousands of Linux servers to power its search engine, is not the target of the initial suits, Stowell added.
Besides, I don't know what legal principle they can use to sue any Linux user. Copyright violation? No. Contract violation? No, most don't have any contracts with SCO. Patents? They've never said anything about those. Trade secrets? Nope.
So, what are they mumbling? Anyone they can sue has to have a contract with them, i.e. be a licensee, so they can allege a contract violation (like IBM). Maybe SGI? Novell? Sun? Who knows. They have exactly nothing to go after Linux users in general.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that it's misleading and there's not enough clarification:
It's not an idle threat, though many Linux fans dismiss the Lindon, Utah-based company's assertions. SCO's attorneys, Boies Schiller & Flexner, have indeed sued AutoZone for its use of Linux, claiming that the open-source operating system infringes on SCO's Unix copyrights.
Unless author clarifies his point, it's misleading. SCO did not sue AutoZone simply because AutoZone uses Linux. They sued AutoZone because SCO had a licensing agreement with them which SCO felt was violated by AutoZone's use of Linux. Author's point seems to imply that if you are a large company and use Linux, you are at a risk of getting sued. This is not true. What legal principle can SCO use to sue Linux users that have no contract or licensing agreements with them? None, as far as I am aware.
This is a problem with most mainstream press reporting on this issue. They follow SCO's FUD more than do their research and report facts.
Except that he never said geeks mattered, but they only serve the purpose for "mass-customizable" products. Quote from the article:
There is a new breed of users out there, computer-literate consumers who don't think twice about altering the look, feel and functionality of a product. Those billions of embedded computers have turned business on its head. The Henry Ford school of 'one size fits all' or the Colgate school of 40 choices of toothpaste are now both obsolete. Give us one size that we can alter how we wish.
This is what he calls "mass customization." Allowing 3rd parties - not only geeks but more importantly other companies - "hack" your products will contribute to your product's popularity and provide valuable market research as well. It will tell you how your customers want to use your products.
Again, this is not the author's point. There's nothing preventing a product to "just work" AND be "hackable" at the same time. He gives you examples like TiVo and other products that are either already using this method or should be seriously considering it like cell phones, automobiles, etc.
IOW, re-read the article with an open mind. I think he does make some valid points.
The parent didn't say they disappeared "because of" hackers. He said they helped them disappear. The way I see it, you are right - DigitalConvergence had a bad idea, bad business plan, and hackers helped air it out.
...
Moreover, if you read the article, the author says:
Companies should offer easy access to the code, inside their products or the workings of their Web site, and allow customers to hack away. The corporate types might learn a thing or two.
Just open up your wares and your customers will not just show you what they want, but do it for you, too.
I'm not sure what he's saying about the websites but, in effect, he's suggesting that having your wares closed, trying to have full control over them and trying to forcefully dictate exactly how your own customers use products they bought from you contributes to your products' lousiness. On the other hand, being hacker-friendly has a positive effect not only for gaining popularity and usefulness, but also contributing to valuable market research for your products and their future development.
So, if you share Andy Kessler's point of view, then even in this way, hackers directly and indirectly contributed to serving DigitalConvergence their fate.
Excellent point about KDE. Just adding that you can even translate KDE apps to whatever you want on your own using a GUI app called KBabel. I also disagree that Microsoft is way ahead in internationalization - it's not. Most areas I had experience in like adjusting keyboard layouts, application support for international characters has been generally more consistent on my Linux systems than XPs.
Well, I don't know the specifics or what cases you are referring to, but just because FBI or police do something different doesn't mean that the UCC does not stand. In fact, I'd be extremely surprised in cases where a judge said that UCC's good faith purchaser provisions are invalid; because, AFAIK, that would be a major change in the state law as it stands right now.
When it comes to the patents, I found some info on what constitutes an infringement in the US Code Title 35:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
This means that even if you use a patented invention without permission and you are a good faith buyer, you are still infringing. This seems fundamentally unfair to me and goes against the spirit of UCC's "good faith purchaser" provisions. Patent law being the US Code, it will override whatever is in the UCC.
As I pointed out in response to a previous
Anyway, if we went along with the UCC's good faith purchaser provisions, then patent holders wouldn't have any claims against actual users (only against makers and sellers).
Quote from the referenced site (emphasis mine):
Question: What does it mean to "infringe" a patent?
Answer: If you are accused of patent infringement, you are accused of having made, sold or offered for sale an invention described in one of the claims of a valid patent, without the patent owner's authorization.
Note that this explanation does not cover the use of the pre-made/bought patented invention, but only making, selling, or offering for sale. That part is clear to me. What I am wondering is how this affects the use of the patented invention.
Because the way I see it is that if someone sold you something, and you bought it legally and in good faith, there's nothing a patent holder can do about it other than go after the party that "made, sold or offered for sale" the invention.
Where am I wrong?
Here's a hypothetical scenario:
- You buy a jar of mayonnaise made by Kraft
- Kraft gets sued by SCOMayo (whatever) for infringing on one of their patents on how to make mayonnaise that stays fresh for up to 12 months and loses
- SCOMayo now sues everyone who ever bought and stored the patent-infringing mayonnaise from Kraft and demands additional $6.99 for every jar of mayonnaise purchased?
IANAL, so I don't understand how this works. Can SCOMayo sue individual people and sandwhich shops, fast foods and restaurants for patent infringement? If so, maybe they should start selling indemnification insurance at the supermakets as well for an extra $0.99 per item ($0.88 at Wal-Mart)?
On a more technical side, would this mean that because I own 3 nVidia video cards I may get sued by ATI and I need insurance just in case? Where and how is this line drawn, if there is one?
Using what legal principle? What did the "user" do wrong? You can surely go after people who copied and redistributed the code without permission, people who entered into a contract with you and violated it, but how can you "go after" anybody else?
Is your ATI or nVidia video card insured in this way? You know, just in case they go after each other and start suing each others' customers? How about your sound card and monitor? This is crazy.
Not only that, my guess is this may reflect badly on groklaw website as well. I mean I understand Pamela Jones was offered a job and she took it but, come on... it's like they are saying don't give your money to SCO and others that may come up with bogus claims, just give your money to us instead! What kind of legal principle do they have in mind for "user" insurance?
What's next - Developers having to pick up 'code malpractice' insurance?
This should read: what's next - shoppers have to pick up indemnification insurance for products they buy at supermarkets?
I mean, what if I buy a bottle of Pepsi, and then Coke sues Pepsi for some patent/trademark/contract violation - can they go after me as well as a "user"? What if I buy McDonalds and Burger King ends up suing them? Do I need insurance for Quarter Pounder with cheese as well?
This is all nonsense.
I still have one 75 GXP lying around somewhere removed from my home desktop. After it wouldn't boot, and freeze quite a few times with the activity light on (big props to ReiserFS for keeping my data intact), or made funny noises, I replaced it with a new Barracuda. Zero problems since.
My problem with them is that neither IBM nor Hitachi ever truly admitted what the defect was with so many of Deathstars. Some suspected a design flaw. Then IBM issued a firmware upgrade; some suspected the upgrade kept heads moving during idle time to keep them from colliding into each other. Who knows?
I guess they were afraid of lawsuits to admit any guilt; but that's not my problem. At the very least I am going to wait awhile until I jump into their latest bleeding edge technology.
Yes, but "fair use" is not limited by backup copies only. The parent poster used the "and" in the sentence, and IMO, correctly so. I can make 2 or 3 copies of the game, but which one I use to play is irrelevant because, I imagine, such copying should fall under fair use.
IANAL, so depending on the law that applies to making digital copies of software, you can even loan them to your friend or brother or whoever. As long as you don't engage in wider/larger scale and/or for-profit distribution, it may well fall under fair use.
Remember that most commercial software comes with an EULA which they contend is a legal agreement between you and distributor/licensor. The EULA may limit your rights further; however, whether these agreements are valid or not is irrelevant in this case. First, Nintendo games don't come with anything that can even remotely resemble an enforceable agreement. Second, I don't think anyone, including Nintendo, will contend or in any way require, that a minor playing a GBA game should legally enter into an EULA-type agreement. Therefore, IMO, regular copyright restrictions with all "fair-use" rights intact should apply to their products.
I don't think they wonder, they know. The submitter asks a valid question:
Why is there no one meeting this demand?
The answer is because RIAA and similar organizations within other countries/regions operate a cartel. This means that in order to more efficiently control the market, among other things, they divide it in regions among themselves, sign or enforce non-compete agreements, enforce trade restrictions, engage in price-fixing, deceptive accounting practices, acquire or eliminate any competition, and purchase favorable laws to gain even more control over their markets. The main objective is to minimize competition through the above means while having the ultimate control over revenues.
Meeting customer demands, coming up with new types of products, delivery methods, competition, and these types of things are not very high on their list. Operating cartels is illegal in many European countries, but nobody cares about it. People only see black and white, just like the U.S. elections.
Exactly my line of thought as well. It looks like extortion, or selling insurance (not assurance). IMO, these types of "sales" should be under some kind of regulation in-state and interstate (in the U.S.), like selling insurance is. In many other countries this would be illegal, I believe.
How does it sound if you pay $20K extra when you buy a car so you can get a newer model next year for free (small print: only if new model is released on time). If it's not, can I get my money back? Can I apply the credit towards another model? No and No? This is especially important when this is the practice of a monopolist in the market.
Obviously, with home insurance there's more money involved and insurance companies have or hire their own professional investigators and lawyers. With a smaller claim like few stolen video games, police are not likely to investigate as fully, especially once they get a confession; so a deceived party would have to do their own investigation and produce hard evidence, then sue in court to win the judgement, and then actually try to get paid from a scam artist who was possibly short on cash to begin with.
Yes, it's possible, but it hardly makes any sense for a few video games worth $100-$200. So, as I said, I would give them at least some benefit of the doubt.
Also, IANAL, but I am guessing since they have a confession in this specific case, it would be pretty much a slam dunk for the victim to get her money back in a small claims court; but not as easy for EB. I believe UCC is clear on these types of cases. Without it, police would have to track down the customers who have already bought the Playstation and other goods in question and take them away. Then, everyone who bought any of the confiscated items in question would be able to sue the thief individually. With the UCC, the victim can go directly after the thief. IMO, it's not as much a deal as people are making out of it.
It comes from the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code). Try googling for the UCC text, good faith purchaser, etc., or look at my other reply.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
Yes, it's called UCC 2-403:
Emphasis mine. Disclaimer: IANAL, so feel free to correct.
Not true in general. If the buyer bought the goods "in good faith" then they cannot be required to return them. That's unfair to the good faith buyer. Imagine, if you buy a couch at the flea market for say $500, then next week police show up at your door and take it away because it turned up to have been stolen. And as they leave they give you a name of some guy in another state (possibly another country) that allegedly stole it. No, that's not how it works. Usually, good faith buyers can keep the merchandise and original owner can go after the thief.
Having said that, and judging from the article, it looks like EB did violate the 15 day hold law. And yes, I agree, what were they thinking not refunding the money?
Hmm... on second thought, I don't want to sound like devil's advocate here but, people could devise a scheme like that selling their "stolen" goods and then getting them back for free; even if they confessed to "stealing." So, give some benefit of the doubt to EB - they have to be careful as well.
Well, I am not their customer, but they have said on their website that they grant their customers some binary license to run the code they are disputing is theirs. OK, but then they can no longer distribute the rest of the Linux since they are unwilling to provide their code in question under GPL. As I said they only recently claimed to have stopped distributing Linux, but they had been distributing it in violation of copyright while they were offering their SCOsource binary licensing scheme to people, including their own customers. That's a clear copyright violation that I have tried to point out so many times before here on /..
The second point is their LKP as I mentioned - it's a cut-and-paste from already GPLed code. If judge can order IBM to produce Dynix and AIX, surely, it would be easy to get the court to order SCO to show what they are really distributing in LKP. We know it's Linux code, they know it's Linux code, it's a matter of them laughing at Linux contributors that they can't prove it, while suing and extorting Linux users.
That's why Linux contributors should not put up with them. Sue them for copyright violations now, before it's too late.
SCO sold and distributed Linux when they started proclaiming their SCOsource licensing
Linux Server
Even though [only recently] they claim they have suspended this, they still distribute Linux updates. This is in direct violation of copyright law with regard to parts of Linux they don't even allege they have any rights to.
Besides, what do you think their Linux kernel personality (for Open UNIX) is? It's a "copy & paste job" from the GPLed code. Just look at the quote from their LKP FAQ:
The LkP feature doesn't contain a Linux kernel, and therefore to the best of our knowledge, there should be no infringement issues. If the prior statement were proven inaccurate, SCO would take appropriate steps.
In other words, "we are going to violate your copyright until you prove something, suckers!"
I thought that was the plan the whole time. The BofA thing was "accidental." Also, look at these quotes from the article:
In an interview on Wednesday, SCO's CFO confirmed that the three companies were licensees, and claimed that his company had now signed up somewhere between 10 and 50 IP License for Linux customers.
"Our usage of (Linux) is so small and isolated that's why we went ahead and signed the contract.," said Chad Jones a spokesman with the Salt Lake City company. "This was small enough that we made a business decision based on the modest cost of SCO's claim that it was in our interest to settle rather than litigate this thing," he said.
Add to that CA, EV1, and that SCO doesn't have to produce any proof of anything in the near future, looks like Microsoft's grand plan against Linux is heating up. SCO doesn't have to prove anything to anybody, it just has to make enough "sense" for these businesses to sign up.
Non-Unix licensee major Linux contributors (i.e. not IBM or HP) need to sue SCO for copyright violations sooner rather than later.
Actually, the judge's order seems more favorable to SCO than you are suggesting. SCO was ordered to produce only initial code that it claims IBM missappropriated. IBM was ordered [among other things] to produce Dynix, AIX for the parties to argue their relevance and the court to decide. After that they have produced this evidence in 45 days, court will consider and decide whether additional Dynix and AIX stuff is relevant. After that, SCO will have a chance to amend its complaint to include Dynix, AIX, and additional stuff.
I am guessing that's exactly where SCO wants to go: first of all, discovery will take much longer; second, it wants to see Dynix and AIX so they can take every single piece of code that looks similar [in all 3 environments] and blame IBM.
IANAL, but as I understood at this point, SCO is required to produce only minimal evidence, but amend to it later on. Pay attention to the wording in the judge's order with regards to Dynix and AIX code:
This is to include all lines of code that SCO can identify at this time.
The judge also wasn't being harsh on SCO for not meeting deadline to produce code, saying they acted in good faith to produce evidence.
One good thing for IBM was that it does not have to produce any Linux contributions that are publicly available for SCO to look up.
You are friends with Al Gore?
Hmm... I can see it now.
On-Demand Spidering.
Abstract: A method and a system where a search engine or a search service spiders a content of a website on demand, within a specified time period, by the user of the service or the website. The user may be (or may not be) required to compensate the search engine provider for this service.
Claim 1. All your spidering are belong to us!
Ahh the magic of the linked article:
Google, which uses thousands of Linux servers to power its search engine, is not the target of the initial suits, Stowell added.
Besides, I don't know what legal principle they can use to sue any Linux user. Copyright violation? No. Contract violation? No, most don't have any contracts with SCO. Patents? They've never said anything about those. Trade secrets? Nope.
So, what are they mumbling? Anyone they can sue has to have a contract with them, i.e. be a licensee, so they can allege a contract violation (like IBM). Maybe SGI? Novell? Sun? Who knows. They have exactly nothing to go after Linux users in general.