Only Opera is sort-of immune by popping up a warning message about potentially dodgy sites.
I don't know what "sort-of" means, but Konqueror is in no way affected by this exploit. It displays correct address both in the status bar as well as the URL bar.
Having said that, I did like Opera's feature that popped up that warning. If you get spam in your webmail account some images (in embedded HTML) may come from a server that will authenticate you like that and possibly track which e-mails are being read. If only Opera was able to manage all the ads that some websites throw at it.
Macs are not secure because no one uses them. They are secure because they do not make the same common mistakes that Microsoft seems to do constantly.
I agree with you there, but your argument forces a "what-if" question. i.e., what if Macs (or OS X) were on 95% of user desktops? Would they be more secure than Windows systems? I think so. Would they still create a monoculture that would allow virus/worms to infect and spread? I think so. This applies to most OSes, not just Apple's.
From another point of view, Apple only has about 3-5% market share. So, if, say someone "infected" or compromized few Macs, the worm doesn't easily spread (to other Macs) and virtually noone hears about it. On the other hand, if some script kiddie creates a worm can spread to 95% of desktops, and 100s of thousands (if not millions) get infected, then everyone is talking about it, and is making it into mainstream news and worldwide alerts.
So, yes, Macs are probably more secure than Windows systems (however you evaluate the term "secure"), but it also helps that they are not a monoculture; if they were, they would probably not be as "secure" as it seems on the surface right now.
So if you want to get paid for developing free software you should move to Europe where methods are not patentable (yet).
Although [sub]claim 14 (and 7 I think) mention payments, they are not a part of most claims in the patent. The patent is not specific to a payment system at all, or even free software. After reading claim 1 which has its own legal stand, it looks like it claims most organized [mostly] public software development. Paraphrased claim 1,
a) provide module requirements for modules b) post a list of required modules c) wait until submission deadline of each module; if at least 2 were submitted d) test submissions for compliance e) select best modules
What a specific and innovative patent! Thank you, USPTO, you are doing a remarkable job!
Truth is, man pages are almost unreadable, unless you already know the material, they are not designed for the unwashed like you and I. They are meant for the gurus and the Illuminati who already know the material, basically an exercise in masturbation.
Most developers who would be interested in reading POSIX standards would be comfortable using man pages.
For a better view of man page documentation, try typing man:/traceroute (or your favorite program) in Konqueror, or simply man:/ for man pages index.
Looking at the bill- it seems to me that it protects the actual collection effort not the data itself. If someone else wants to go out and collect the same information they can- they just can't steal your collection. I guess I'm missing why this is so bad.
Not only can they take your most private information and sell it to anyone that will pay for it, now they can copyright your data too.
I hereby declare that all my personal information is a "compilation database" about me and is copyright by myself alone; anyone using this information without my express written consent will be labeled as a "thief" stealing my intellectual property and will be sued for copyright infringement.
The amount and substance in new features is impressive. My favorites:
1. NEW IN KDE: View mode for directories, showing files/directories as rectangles with area proportional to sizes. 2. xscreensaver integration (finally!) 3. KDevelop 3.0 4. Kate project management 5. Improved and flexible Konqueror tabs 6. KSVG - SVG plugin for Konqueror!
Following this startling revelation, electronics stores in conjunction with hardware manufacturers responded by advertizing new special offers to their new target market majority:
- buy this CPU upgrade and receive 50% off any pair of shoes at Nine West; - 20% off coupon at Babies R Us with the purchase of 100-pack of TDK DVD+Rs; - FREE pedicure if you sign up for optional extended warranty service on all multimedia cards!
"But honey, I thought you needed this 1GB Sony memory stick for your computer! You always complain that it needs more memory... How do my nails look, by the way, guess how much I saved?"
A copyright is just a piece of property. The court could order that IBM hand over that piece of property, not under copyright law but as a remedy in the contract dispute. At that point, IBM would be required to transfer the copyright.
I agree with your other points except this. Remember that SCO is not alleging copyright infringement in court. i.e. they are not arguing in front of a judge that some IBM software should belong to SCO. That is not SCO's case. Therefore, court will not even rule on the matter. It is not in court's power to reassign copyrights when that argument is not in front of them.
Again, remember that SCO is asking for $3bn compensation from IBM with regard to their contract. It has nothing to do with copyrights. In other words, judge is as likely to rule that SCO owns IBM's buildings, factories, equipment, and other property as it is likely to say the same about IBM's copyrights.
If SCO wins on the contract grounds, I suppose IBM could be required to assign copyright to SCO; then we get to see if the GPL can be rescinded by a copyright owner after releasing code under it.
Without knowing the details of IBM-SCO contract, I can't imagine how that could be the case. If SCO wins on the contract grounds, it can demand monetary compensation from IBM (the party they entered into contract with) and any relevant injunction on whatever that contract possibly covers.
As you correctly mention yourself, whatever IBM wrote is most likely copyright IBM. SCO may have some claims with regards to its redistribution under their contract; but I can't imagine IBM's lawyers signing any agreement that says stuff that IBM writes is automatically copyright SCO. Even copyright law doesn't work that way. As you said,
I suppose SCO could make the argument that IBM was writing that code for hire, but that's stretching it even further than trying to claim ownership of derivative works after the original is no longer there.
Yeah, that "argument" is going nowhere. IANAL, but if the "stuff" (if and whatever found) is copyright IBM, as is more than likely, then they cannot be forced to give up copyrights. Remember, this is a contract dispute, not copyright dispute.
But my point was, whatever the outcome of this contract case, even if IBM loses and court finds there are pieces of code in Linux (contributed by IBM) that SCO has some rights to, it doesn't mean that Linux users would have to line up to pay their SCO fees. It just doesn't work that way.
Contract between IBM and SCO is just that - contract between 2 (two) parties. SCO cannot sue anybody else other than IBM based on that contract. I'll give you another example:
- you purchase an ATI video card - nVidia sues ATI for violating their contract/license on some piece of code - court determines ATI used nVidia's code without permission or license - can nVidia now go after you and other ATI customers and demand that you pay their licensing fee of $299 per video card?
Are you kidding me? Court may order ATI to pay damages to nVidia and issue an order to prevent ATI from distributing the code in question in its future products, but in no way are [then current] ATI users responsible for someone else's (ATI's) actions, especially their contracts. Similarly, even if court ends up finding anything that SCO has substantial claims to in Linux code, the court may order IBM to pay damages to SCO, and issue an injunction to prevent that code distribution in the future.
That's why SCO hasn't sent a single invoice. It would be somethink similar to extortion or fraud.
If piracy and theft is not eplicitly mentioned it is because the assumption is that everyone using a P2P system is using it for piracy and theft, and so it would be redundant to mention it.
You forgot to mention terrorism. Surely, those who are distributing and downloading stolen art are really holding honest and patriotic record labels hostage and terrorizing their honest contributions to our society. If nobody mentions the word terrorism it's because everyone assumes that that's what is really happenning. In fact, these P2P applications are evildoers' and terrorists' perfect tools used against our freedoms.
There! It's easy to label the stuff the way you want to. The ability to recognize and resolve problems as they are is a much harder task; first step of which is getting rid of emotional speeches and demeaning labels. Labeling people as thieves, pirates, or terrorists and evildoers for that matter is the easy part.
Actually, SCO has a point. They claim ownership of the code in UNIX derivatives, of which AIX and the rest are examples. The fact that SCO has never seen or handled that code in any way is irrelevant. It is perfectly possible that IBM has infringed on SCO's property by copying code that IBM wrote for AIX/others into Linux. In which case, the only copy that SCO currently has access to is the Linux copy. After all SCO didn't write the code. IBM did. SCO just owns the rights.
You say they only have access to Linux source, but also need AIX source to compare to. Surely, they can point out from the Linux source what they believe has been copied? Otherwise, how do they know IBM violated anything? Or do they just sue to find out whether anything is infringing or not? IANAL, but that would be a frivolous lawsuit or something similar.
Imagine now if some obscure company filed a lawsuit against Microsoft for copyright infringement. But, they requested that MS has to provide them with their Windows XP full source code in advance. That way they'll clearly see if MS has really infringed or not. Unless they have some kind of proof, or probable cause, they'd be laughed out of court, I imagine.
Can SCO show they have a case? Especially when they have all Linux source in front of them? So far they haven't been able to show anything.
This is yet another article on "the state of Linux on the desktop," and yet again, we're told this year will be "the year."
I've been hear that since at least 1998, every year.
That may be as far as/., but it's not true for Linus. In fact, when he started working on 2.4, Linus said it would be geared mostly towards server-based systems and functionality.
When 2.4 was stable and he started working on 2.6, Linus said he wanted to put in more features for desktop. Now, I don't know if you noticed, but Linux on servers has been working out pretty well during that time period. Now, it's desktop's turn (according to Linus) and we'll see what happens; even Linus admits that it's harder on the desktop:
The server space is easier to tackle first with any operating system as it can be applied to specific tasks such as mail serving; however, the desktop is harder to sell.
More than that. SCO must resolve their fight with Novell AND IBM before anyone is "legally obligated" to license their alledged IP.
There's more. Even if IBM was found to have violated its contract with SCO, it's still a stretch to demand license payments from third parties. IANAL, but copyright law doesn't work that way. I go back to examples I cited:
- you buy book A; - author of book B sues author of book A for copyright/contract/license violations; - court sides with author of book B; - can the author of book B go after you and other people who bought book A?
Again, it doesn't work that way. Third parties are in no way involved in private contracts between two litigating parties and are in no way responsible if any of them violated anybody's copyrights. Although the court could probably decide that all future products, starting from certain date, remove the violating pieces.
So, even if SCO comes up with something in the IBM case, this doesn't automatically mean that everyone should go ahead and pay SCO $699.
Ever heard of industry standard formats? Um big difference genius. AAC is an industry standard just like MP3. That's why Apple uses it.
The only difference is who defines "standard" - Dolby defined AAC "standard", Fraunhofer (or whatever their name) defined MP3, and Xiph foundation defined OGG Vorbis standard.
They all have their specifications published and those are called "standards." Move on troll somewhere else now. Don't even know why I replied but whatever...
And it is a fact that lots of folks film movies in the theatres.
I don't think this is a fact at all. I believe it's not movie-going public that films these things, it's mostly movie theater employees. Blaming "consumers" for everything is an oligopolist entertainment industry's smoke in your eyes to pass more over-reaching legislation to further guarantee their future revenues and control.
The industry is in desperate need of competition for the good of the "consumer" and the long-term development of the industry itself, not a virtual power, control, and revenue guarantee for a handful of corporations that engage in legal bribery.
Ogg is all fine and good, but hardly anyone knows about it
As opposed to number of people who knew or know about AAC? I didn't think so... yet that didn't prevent Apple from incorporating it into their product. Next point.
So, arguing that Apple and MS don't allow for any redistribution is nonsense. Now, I'm not a lawyer and I don't know what licenses MPlayer is using for their DLLs, so I don't know if MPlayer is actually violating anything or not; but arguing that redistribution licenses cannot be obtained is plain wrong.
Moreover, it is likely that each component may have its own license like another poster said, as they may be included in different SDKs under different conditions. I am not an MS or Apple media developer or a lawyer, so I am not going to waste my time looking through all available licensing options; do it yourself if you are interested.
I appreciate I am making an unpopular point here, but I am a realist, and this seems to be a problem to me.
Well, except that you are missing a big distinction in your analogy - what constitutes a copyrighted work vs. what constitutes a trademark.
In the case of copyrighted works, most any original work is automatically copyrighted by its author. It's relatively simple in that regard.
With respect to trademarks, however, you cannot use generic terms (in your industry) as your trademarks. I am guessing a large part of Lindows' case is that Windows alone cannot be a valid trademark in the software industry since "window" is a generic term to software. Much like the word Wireless cannot be a trademark in telecommunications, for example. So, MS' trademark would only be Microsoft Windows (like Verizon Wireless), and in that case, Lindows would be allowed to use its Lindows mark as its own. Similarly, someone could register a trademark on Lireless and Verizon cannot sue them.
IANAL - though it may look like there are similarities on the surface, trademark and copyright laws are very different in details; especially in the Lindows case where related legal principles are non-existent in copyright law at all.
Now if you took a different case, I'm sure many exist, where the above doesn't apply - like a hypothetical Trinitron/Krinitron scenario in another reply, you'd have a more similar analogy. And I don't think you'd be making an "unpopular" point at all.
Think of SCO as the terrorists of Linux. Novell is offering protection...
So... either pay Novell the "protection" or SCO will "blow up" your workplace? I am a SuSE user but, quite frankly, this indemnification business is getting too messy. Nobody that I know of has started becoming scared of SCO or paying their license fees, or ditched Linux. If Novell believes SCO is making false accusations, they can follow RedHat and simply sue SCO right there in Utah! They now own SuSE and they have every right to shut SCO up.
While thier claim of GPL violation may be completely legitimate, the first rule when breaking the law is you don't go calling the authorities if you get screwed.
I guess that's why FBI stopped arresting and prosecuting "pirates" distributing bootleg copies of Windows ISOs - because MS was convicted of illegally abusing their monopoly power. Oh wait... they didn't stop! Distributing those DLLs shouldn't and doesn't affect MPlayer's ability to defend their own copyrights - these are separate issues.
With regard to those DLLs specifically, it is possible to get a license from both Apple and Microsoft to distribute those components with your software. I don't know if MPlayer developers have such a license or not, but neither Microsoft or Apple has come forward and complained to my knowledge. Most users that have paid for Windows are licensed to use those DLLs anyway.
Even if you were to argue they are violating copyrights with regard to those DLLs (which would be an assumption at this point), they still have full rights to defend their own copyrights. What you are suggesting is definitely not the "first rule" of anything in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah but he would actually have to search google to find google toolbar for Mozilla. Looks like trolling to me.
I don't know what "sort-of" means, but Konqueror is in no way affected by this exploit. It displays correct address both in the status bar as well as the URL bar.
Having said that, I did like Opera's feature that popped up that warning. If you get spam in your webmail account some images (in embedded HTML) may come from a server that will authenticate you like that and possibly track which e-mails are being read. If only Opera was able to manage all the ads that some websites throw at it.
I agree with you there, but your argument forces a "what-if" question. i.e., what if Macs (or OS X) were on 95% of user desktops? Would they be more secure than Windows systems? I think so. Would they still create a monoculture that would allow virus/worms to infect and spread? I think so. This applies to most OSes, not just Apple's.
From another point of view, Apple only has about 3-5% market share. So, if, say someone "infected" or compromized few Macs, the worm doesn't easily spread (to other Macs) and virtually noone hears about it. On the other hand, if some script kiddie creates a worm can spread to 95% of desktops, and 100s of thousands (if not millions) get infected, then everyone is talking about it, and is making it into mainstream news and worldwide alerts.
So, yes, Macs are probably more secure than Windows systems (however you evaluate the term "secure"), but it also helps that they are not a monoculture; if they were, they would probably not be as "secure" as it seems on the surface right now.
Although [sub]claim 14 (and 7 I think) mention payments, they are not a part of most claims in the patent. The patent is not specific to a payment system at all, or even free software. After reading claim 1 which has its own legal stand, it looks like it claims most organized [mostly] public software development. Paraphrased claim 1,
a) provide module requirements for modules
b) post a list of required modules
c) wait until submission deadline of each module; if at least 2 were submitted
d) test submissions for compliance
e) select best modules
What a specific and innovative patent! Thank you, USPTO, you are doing a remarkable job!
Most developers who would be interested in reading POSIX standards would be comfortable using man pages.
For a better view of man page documentation, try typing man:/traceroute (or your favorite program) in Konqueror, or simply man:/ for man pages index.
The definition of database is so vague, it can be almost anything. Did you read the bill?
Not only can they take your most private information and sell it to anyone that will pay for it, now they can copyright your data too.
I hereby declare that all my personal information is a "compilation database" about me and is copyright by myself alone; anyone using this information without my express written consent will be labeled as a "thief" stealing my intellectual property and will be sued for copyright infringement.
The world has gone nuts!
I was surprised myself: HP reported over $2.5 billion in Linux-related revenue in 2003.
Lobby that, SCO!
The amount and substance in new features is impressive. My favorites:
1. NEW IN KDE: View mode for directories, showing files/directories as rectangles with area proportional to sizes.
2. xscreensaver integration (finally!)
3. KDevelop 3.0
4. Kate project management
5. Improved and flexible Konqueror tabs
6. KSVG - SVG plugin for Konqueror!
I wonder if anyone has a screenshot of (1) above.
Following this startling revelation, electronics stores in conjunction with hardware manufacturers responded by advertizing new special offers to their new target market majority:
- buy this CPU upgrade and receive 50% off any pair of shoes at Nine West;
- 20% off coupon at Babies R Us with the purchase of 100-pack of TDK DVD+Rs;
- FREE pedicure if you sign up for optional extended warranty service on all multimedia cards!
"But honey, I thought you needed this 1GB Sony memory stick for your computer! You always complain that it needs more memory... How do my nails look, by the way, guess how much I saved?"
I agree with your other points except this. Remember that SCO is not alleging copyright infringement in court. i.e. they are not arguing in front of a judge that some IBM software should belong to SCO. That is not SCO's case. Therefore, court will not even rule on the matter. It is not in court's power to reassign copyrights when that argument is not in front of them.
Again, remember that SCO is asking for $3bn compensation from IBM with regard to their contract. It has nothing to do with copyrights. In other words, judge is as likely to rule that SCO owns IBM's buildings, factories, equipment, and other property as it is likely to say the same about IBM's copyrights.
Without knowing the details of IBM-SCO contract, I can't imagine how that could be the case. If SCO wins on the contract grounds, it can demand monetary compensation from IBM (the party they entered into contract with) and any relevant injunction on whatever that contract possibly covers.
As you correctly mention yourself, whatever IBM wrote is most likely copyright IBM. SCO may have some claims with regards to its redistribution under their contract; but I can't imagine IBM's lawyers signing any agreement that says stuff that IBM writes is automatically copyright SCO. Even copyright law doesn't work that way. As you said,
Yeah, that "argument" is going nowhere. IANAL, but if the "stuff" (if and whatever found) is copyright IBM, as is more than likely, then they cannot be forced to give up copyrights. Remember, this is a contract dispute, not copyright dispute.
But my point was, whatever the outcome of this contract case, even if IBM loses and court finds there are pieces of code in Linux (contributed by IBM) that SCO has some rights to, it doesn't mean that Linux users would have to line up to pay their SCO fees. It just doesn't work that way.
Contract between IBM and SCO is just that - contract between 2 (two) parties. SCO cannot sue anybody else other than IBM based on that contract. I'll give you another example:
- you purchase an ATI video card
- nVidia sues ATI for violating their contract/license on some piece of code
- court determines ATI used nVidia's code without permission or license
- can nVidia now go after you and other ATI customers and demand that you pay their licensing fee of $299 per video card?
Are you kidding me? Court may order ATI to pay damages to nVidia and issue an order to prevent ATI from distributing the code in question in its future products, but in no way are [then current] ATI users responsible for someone else's (ATI's) actions, especially their contracts. Similarly, even if court ends up finding anything that SCO has substantial claims to in Linux code, the court may order IBM to pay damages to SCO, and issue an injunction to prevent that code distribution in the future.
That's why SCO hasn't sent a single invoice. It would be somethink similar to extortion or fraud.
What's right for you may not be right for everyone. One size does not fit all.
What are these called then in the "industry standard" terms?
You forgot to mention terrorism. Surely, those who are distributing and downloading stolen art are really holding honest and patriotic record labels hostage and terrorizing their honest contributions to our society. If nobody mentions the word terrorism it's because everyone assumes that that's what is really happenning. In fact, these P2P applications are evildoers' and terrorists' perfect tools used against our freedoms.
There! It's easy to label the stuff the way you want to. The ability to recognize and resolve problems as they are is a much harder task; first step of which is getting rid of emotional speeches and demeaning labels. Labeling people as thieves, pirates, or terrorists and evildoers for that matter is the easy part.
You say they only have access to Linux source, but also need AIX source to compare to. Surely, they can point out from the Linux source what they believe has been copied? Otherwise, how do they know IBM violated anything? Or do they just sue to find out whether anything is infringing or not? IANAL, but that would be a frivolous lawsuit or something similar.
Imagine now if some obscure company filed a lawsuit against Microsoft for copyright infringement. But, they requested that MS has to provide them with their Windows XP full source code in advance. That way they'll clearly see if MS has really infringed or not. Unless they have some kind of proof, or probable cause, they'd be laughed out of court, I imagine.
Can SCO show they have a case? Especially when they have all Linux source in front of them? So far they haven't been able to show anything.
That may be as far as
When 2.4 was stable and he started working on 2.6, Linus said he wanted to put in more features for desktop. Now, I don't know if you noticed, but Linux on servers has been working out pretty well during that time period. Now, it's desktop's turn (according to Linus) and we'll see what happens; even Linus admits that it's harder on the desktop:
The server space is easier to tackle first with any operating system as it can be applied to specific tasks such as mail serving; however, the desktop is harder to sell.
There's more. Even if IBM was found to have violated its contract with SCO, it's still a stretch to demand license payments from third parties. IANAL, but copyright law doesn't work that way. I go back to examples I cited:
- you buy book A;
- author of book B sues author of book A for copyright/contract/license violations;
- court sides with author of book B;
- can the author of book B go after you and other people who bought book A?
Again, it doesn't work that way. Third parties are in no way involved in private contracts between two litigating parties and are in no way responsible if any of them violated anybody's copyrights. Although the court could probably decide that all future products, starting from certain date, remove the violating pieces.
So, even if SCO comes up with something in the IBM case, this doesn't automatically mean that everyone should go ahead and pay SCO $699.
The only difference is who defines "standard" - Dolby defined AAC "standard", Fraunhofer (or whatever their name) defined MP3, and Xiph foundation defined OGG Vorbis standard.
They all have their specifications published and those are called "standards." Move on troll somewhere else now. Don't even know why I replied but whatever...
I don't think this is a fact at all. I believe it's not movie-going public that films these things, it's mostly movie theater employees. Blaming "consumers" for everything is an oligopolist entertainment industry's smoke in your eyes to pass more over-reaching legislation to further guarantee their future revenues and control.
The industry is in desperate need of competition for the good of the "consumer" and the long-term development of the industry itself, not a virtual power, control, and revenue guarantee for a handful of corporations that engage in legal bribery.
As opposed to number of people who knew or know about AAC? I didn't think so... yet that didn't prevent Apple from incorporating it into their product. Next point.
Just to show how much you are trolling, dear AC, take a look at appropriate licensing pages on both Apple's developer site, and MSDN:
- Apple's Licensing for QuickTime redistribution
- Microsoft's licensing for WMP redistribution on MSDN
So, arguing that Apple and MS don't allow for any redistribution is nonsense. Now, I'm not a lawyer and I don't know what licenses MPlayer is using for their DLLs, so I don't know if MPlayer is actually violating anything or not; but arguing that redistribution licenses cannot be obtained is plain wrong.
Moreover, it is likely that each component may have its own license like another poster said, as they may be included in different SDKs under different conditions. I am not an MS or Apple media developer or a lawyer, so I am not going to waste my time looking through all available licensing options; do it yourself if you are interested.
Well, except that you are missing a big distinction in your analogy - what constitutes a copyrighted work vs. what constitutes a trademark.
In the case of copyrighted works, most any original work is automatically copyrighted by its author. It's relatively simple in that regard.
With respect to trademarks, however, you cannot use generic terms (in your industry) as your trademarks. I am guessing a large part of Lindows' case is that Windows alone cannot be a valid trademark in the software industry since "window" is a generic term to software. Much like the word Wireless cannot be a trademark in telecommunications, for example. So, MS' trademark would only be Microsoft Windows (like Verizon Wireless), and in that case, Lindows would be allowed to use its Lindows mark as its own. Similarly, someone could register a trademark on Lireless and Verizon cannot sue them.
IANAL - though it may look like there are similarities on the surface, trademark and copyright laws are very different in details; especially in the Lindows case where related legal principles are non-existent in copyright law at all.
Now if you took a different case, I'm sure many exist, where the above doesn't apply - like a hypothetical Trinitron/Krinitron scenario in another reply, you'd have a more similar analogy. And I don't think you'd be making an "unpopular" point at all.
So
I guess that's why FBI stopped arresting and prosecuting "pirates" distributing bootleg copies of Windows ISOs - because MS was convicted of illegally abusing their monopoly power. Oh wait... they didn't stop! Distributing those DLLs shouldn't and doesn't affect MPlayer's ability to defend their own copyrights - these are separate issues.
With regard to those DLLs specifically, it is possible to get a license from both Apple and Microsoft to distribute those components with your software. I don't know if MPlayer developers have such a license or not, but neither Microsoft or Apple has come forward and complained to my knowledge. Most users that have paid for Windows are licensed to use those DLLs anyway.
Even if you were to argue they are violating copyrights with regard to those DLLs (which would be an assumption at this point), they still have full rights to defend their own copyrights. What you are suggesting is definitely not the "first rule" of anything in this case.