I'd say that it should be very, very illegal for normal people to have these devices, perhaps you could give certain traffic lights a camera that snaps the license of whomever flashed it the "green" signal, therefore determining whom is making unauthorized use of the system
The system is prone to abuse any way you cut it. You can easily make the use of these devices illegal by general public. You can even try to outlaw the devices themselves (although I doubt that would be successful). You can spend lots of money investing in technology, surveillance video, flash cameras, etc. in every intersection, try to determine who used the device and prosecute them, etc., etc., etc.
In the end all it takes is a clueless pedestrian teenager with a device he assembled or purchased for $20, having nothing to do one (or many) afternoon(s) but watch how powerful he can be. It's a waste of tax money that would be better spent on more fire stations, emergency workers, and other methods of increasing the real response time.
If they were scanning you passively, I'd say, ya, it's bordering on 1984. But it's passive.
For now. For how long? These are small details, small details can change - the principle is in place.
Students have to touch a kiosk screen and then, it can only read your tag at less than 20 inches. So, this makes it just another form of swiping a mag-strip card for access control, or presenting a photo ID badge to a security guard. Having been a teacher, I can tell you this would be wonderful. Automating the roll taking process would save lots of time each class period dealing with absent, late, and excused kids.
Automated roll taking? "Hey, Johnny, can you keep my ID tag with you? Me and Sammy gonna skip the class......... yeah, we'll get some for you too! Thanks dude."
Now, in my opinion, they are going a bit overboard with tracking lots of unnecessary information, such as when they boarded the bus. And even with this being just another form of card swiping, all this electronic tracking may still ruffle privacy activists feathers. But one things for sure, it's definitely not 1984.
But it can be at the snap of their fingers. Minor details can be changed at any moment without notice or anybody's knowledge and approval. The reasoning is:
"hey, we've been doing this for a few months now, nobody has objected, it seems to be going very well - now we are just going to automate the whole process; we'll spend less money on kiosks, save students' time approaching and "registering" themselves with kiosks. And spend more time and money on our kids' education - it's all about our kids, and their future, right?"
Then wait until federal gov't comes in and requires the data be shared with the FBI or schools won't get federal funding. Why not? They are doing it with the libraries.
Small details can change. It's similar to saying - give me all the power to track your every move - but don't be afraid - I will not abuse it; I will only use it for your own benefit. This is what RIAA and John Ashcroft have been saying, and many times getting it too.
Isn't it funny how whenever Microsoft builds something in, people complain about bundling or lack of modular design (and usually point out how the Unix way of having separate components for each part of a job is better), but when Microsoft does something the Unix way (e.g., the browser browses, and if you want pop-up blocking, get a pop-up blocker component), and the major Unix browsers do it the Microsoft way (incorporate the pop-up blocker into the browser), suddenly that is the right approach?
In related news, Mircosoft announced today that it would be removing the "Back" button and all related functionality from its flagship web browser - Internet Explorer. This move is regarded to allow more competition in the "Back" button industry.
"Customers want choices," said one senior VP at Microsoft who wished to remain anonymous, "we provide it to them. Having the ability to download, or write and compile your own "Back" button implementation is a major win for consumer choice and a major win for a revived, healthy competition in the browser, as well as the "Back" button market. We at Microsoft believe that we not only meeting our customers' demands and expectations, but constantly exceeding them."
With hundreds of millions of consumers using a "Back" button tens of times daily, the "Back" button industry is believed to be a huge one. Many experts believe that such a move helps Microsoft score points with the U.S. Justice Department as well as the E.U. commission which is currently investigating Microsoft's monopolist practices in Europe.
"We are glad to see Microsoft committing themselves to competition," said press release issued by John Ashcroft this morning, "we believe that they are a great American company, and its executives are true patriots who have voluntarily not only complied, but exceeded their contributions with regard to our court settlement."
Meanwhile, some conspiracy theorists, hackers, unrecognized lobbyist groups, and underground organizations such as "slash"-"dot" are saying that is not what it appears to be. They argue that other browsers, especially what is called "open"-"source" have always allowed anyone to make such components and distribute them; they also say that Microsoft's moves will not increase any competition in the browser market, and Microsoft is still a monopolist.
These views, however un-American and un-patriotic, are still allowed and tolerated because of free speech, however. "It's a wonderful country," said Donald Rumsfeld in a press conference, "Anybody is free to voice their opinion; it doesn't mean that we agree with it or even want to hear it, but we allow it."
In light (no pun intended) of these revelations, I thought I'd post few of my own predictions of which technologies will "submerge" in the future.
Black and White TVs: A lot of these beasts are still out there but they'll gradually continue to be replaced by color TVs. HDTVs you ask? Don't hold your breath - they are still too pricey and will be for few more years. You are better off going with a regular color TV for now - HDTV is a nonstarter.
Cars from the 80s and early 90s: You may not believe it but there are millions of people who still drive their 10-20 year old pieces of "equipment". They are going to be gradually replaced by newer vehicles.
Year 2002 Tax forms: There are literally millions out there that have not yet been destroyed; those will be no good for 2003 tax returns and newer forms will quickly start circulating by the beginning of next year.
5.25 Floppy disk drives: with the emergence of technologies such as CD and DVD drives, the remaining installations of this classic should be wiped out in no time.
There are a lot more out there, but I have neither time nor willingness to go through them all. Apparently, computerworld does and they got their needed/. effect in prime time too.
At this point, I'm going to stick with buying used and ripping the stuff into Windows Media Player. The interface is better, it doesn't automatically suck memory when I'm not using it, and the visualization runs at more than 3fps.
Quote from MS Windows Media Player EULA:
* Digital Rights Management (Security). You agree that in order to protect the integrity of content and software protected by digital rights management ("Secure Content"), Microsoft may provide security related updates to the OS Components that will be automatically downloaded onto your computer. These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and use other software on your computer. If we provide such a security update, we will use reasonable efforts to post notices on a web site explaining the update.
You are giving MS the right to freely and without notice download and install updates on your PC, allowing them to remotely disable anything they can call "Secure Content" or "other software". Re-read it if you don't believe me.
All the "EULAs are unenforceable" arguments aside, there are a lot of other apps that can rip CDs to mp3 or vorbis files and play them (with visualizations faster than 3fps), none of them with such an abusive agreement condition.
Just because you are assigned a unique ID by the server does not automatically mean it's violating this claim. You could be assigned unique IDs all day long, if they are not transmitted to the client and stored there.
The patent claim says server returns the "unique identifier" (that was assigned earlier by the server) to the client which is then stored on the client. So, if a site stores your user# or some server-generated random/unique string in a cookie it is violating; but if it only stores IthinkImParanoid (which you picked and not the server) then it may be in clear. That was my original point.
Go back and re-read the reply paying special attention to this part:
i.e., if you use cookies to store server-assigned hashes to identify repeat users you are violating; but if you use cookies to store the actual user ID that was originally created by the user him/herself then you may be clear.
My Yahoo! uses session cookies that contain identifiers other than user-picked IDs, therefore, if you were to buy into my argument, they are violating. If they were using an ID or a unique string that I (the user) picked then they wouldn't be.
If the user creates the ID, but the server still checks this ID is unique, assigns it to the information, and returns it to the user (for storing in a cookie), then you're still infringing (provided you also have the rest of claim 1).
Except that that scenario is not described in the patent - nowhere does it say the server will "check" the user-created ID for being unique and then return it, etc. The patent cannot cover it unless it's explicitly described in one of its claims.
The patent claims:
server computer [...] assigning [...] a unique user identifier
which is in quite different from the user picking such identifier, transmitting to server, server checking against current identifiers for uniqueness, and returning either an error message or ID back to the user. Again, another condition has to be that you don't use persistent session cookies since those would be covered, but only the ID(s) that user picked, not the server.
This patent is quite ridiculous; I believe Amazon's "one-click shopping" patent violates this patent - it's that stupid.
I'd like to see Microsoft "pull a SCO" with this patent and start sending out $699 invoices to My Yahoo! users to get them to switch over to MSN or face the threat of legal action. I wonder how that would fly.
If anyone has any ideas on how this could NOT be applied to any of these, I'd definetly be interested in hearing any other interpretations - I can't see any other way of differentiating based on this document.
Disclaimer: IANAL, this is not a legal advice, I don't know what I'm talking about, you are on your own, talk to your lawyer, etc. etc. etc.
Here's how I see that it may not apply to all websites: if a website asks user to create a username and password (an account on the website) and customize that account, this patent may not apply. From the patent text, claim 1:
during first accessing of a server computer on the network by each user client computer, obtaining customization information from the corresponding user, assigning to the customization information a unique user identifier corresponding to the user, storing the customization information in association with the unique user identifier on the server computer, and returning the unique user identifier to the client computer; [emphasis mine]
This seems to claim that the server will create and assign a unique ID to each user customization submission and then returning it to the client. This would be different from a process where a user requests that a particular ID be assigned instead - where user creates the ID. i.e., if you use cookies to store server-assigned hashes to identify repeat users you are violating; but if you use cookies to store the actual user ID that was originally created by the user him/herself then you may be clear. That's how I see it anyway.
But the patent itself, it's clear, was filed after Microsoft had "discovered" the Internet - Dec. 1996. Surely, there must be quite a few examples of prior art to this. I remember sites running registration-based content at about that time, but specific sites and related timeline are kind of messed up in my mind.
You can't even argue the basic premise. If linux has used source from SCO why shouldn't SCO be compensated by those who have profited from their works? See you can't argue that.
The very fact that you take this accusation as a premise makes your whole argument irrelevant. No further comment.
Under the plan they have compensated RIAA, "artists", and ISPs.
Take it one step further: how about compensating the sharer for providing a delivery mechanism? RIAA didn't have to pay for the bandwidth and delivery. Sharers should get a cut from the fees as well.
I think this is YAACT (Yet Another AC Troll), but here's a reply anyway:
If linux has contained SCO source code and these companies have made commerical profits off of linux, then why isn't SCO entitled to some of that profit because these companies ilegally used their IP?
There has been no evidence that anybody has copied anything. SCO hasn't demonstrated anything or provided any facts to support their claim. When they tried, it was shown that their example was in public domain, or otherwise legally obtained code. Later, they retracted the claim from that example. Surely, if they have 100s of thousands of lines that they claim are infringing, they can show few to demonstrate that they actually have a valid claim. Again, they tried and were rebuked to a point where they had to retract their claims.
I also think it's true that at ONE point or possibly still, the linux source has contained source code taken from SCO. I don't believe the linux zealots FUD that this whole thing is a conspiracy and Darl McBride made up the whole thing to pump the stock price then bail out.
It's not a matter of what you think or what Darl thinks; it's the matter of factual evidence of which there has been none. And the one that they had produced (at the presentation) they have had to take their words back.
There is a segment of the linux community that absolutely disgusts me. These people expect SCO to point out the source code, so it can be removed and expect SCO to get nothing. While their source code was being used to sell commerical products and they don't get a penny of it? What is that bullshit?
Actually, yes - SCO needs to provide evidence that infringement has occurred. The accusation is not a proof of anything. I can accuse IBM that they are infringing on my copyrights without providing any evidence - that does not mean I am entitled to $3 billion. Meanwhile, SCO gets nothing because they haven't shown any facts or proven anything in court or otherwise.
Can you imagine the outrage if a commerical company secrectly used an open source projects software? But it's ok to steal from a company.
Yes, you are right, it is an outrage - SCO hasn't complied with the GPL license and, yet, feels free to distribute its own version of Linux - that is a gross copyright violation and a fact (something lacking from SCO's FUD). If SCO cannot comply to GPL's terms, then it has absolutely no rights to distribute software covered under it. In your own words, SCO is stealing Linux kernel code which it has no right to distribute other than under GPL, which SCO hasn't agreed to. SCO is, therefore, an IP thief. Notice, every time Darl gets asked about violating GPL (and quite a few times), he ignores the question, provides a one-line "we are fine" answer without any meaning, or simply changes the topic.
Refuting an opposing position with facts, when the opposing position is factless, is often futile and counterproductive -- you end up giving credence to that which deserves none. If he critiques their analysis because of a dearth of facts, then take it at that: He doesn't have to present his own to call bullshit to theirs.
That is a nice theory, but in this case one side is saying: Diversify - the added cost will be worth reducing security risk; the other side is saying - no, the added cost will not reduce security risk, and then presenting his case on what will reduce security risks. He is not simply refuting the other side, but also presenting his case. If you refute others' suggestions by accusing them of lack of research and analysis, then you do the same when you present your case, that's closer to flaming than a meaningful discussion.
Obviously this guy's angle is "defend Microsoft". By the same token you can find countless pundits whose angle is the opposite position -- attack Microsoft -- and every article they author is a perpetual diatribe "exposing" the evil that is Microsoft (many such pieces are linked on Slashdot regularly).
I'm sure if he was referring to much of/. crowd that would be the scenario; but he was referring to a report from Gartner which, whether you agree with the report or not, is not necessarily an MS competitor, or out to get Bill Gates for some religious reasons. Enderle's past articles and "opinions", however, indicate his attitude and willingness for contribution to discussion about issues at hand:
Besides, many Linux supporters are a bunch of potty-mouthed malcontents. Enterprises are better off staying away from Linux and open source...
Above quote from another of his "opinion" columns. In other words, while there are ways to argue, correct, or refute Gartner report, there is no way to argue or discuss the stuff this guy is spewing - that's the difference.
I'm neither for or against this guy or his article (I didn't read it -- sounds like a another factless bunch of tripe. I felt the same way about the similar anti-Microsoft article that got the sheep excited a few days ago.
That previous article made quite a few points some of which I didn't agree with but others made sense, logically at least - practice, of course, is different; but that's a different topic.
Further, in the article, after presenting a general statement (that he tries to critique) that diversity is good for security, he claims:
These arguments were put forward by Gartner and, separately, a panel hosted by the anti-Microsoft Computer & Communications Industry Association.
But there is no evidence that either party has actually analyzed the cost of diversity or quantified the risks of diversity.
As opposed to who? Himself? He presents no cost or risk analysis of anything either, including diversity, or any of the arguments that he is trying to put forward. But based on his previous articles and general sentiment, it is obvious that he doesn't need to. It's clear what his conclusion is going to be anyway.
This law has got to go. I am amazed at how little mass media coverage it's gotten.
The law has been paid for by most of the "mass media" or their parent corporations. Why would they trash their own investment? Some media members (not affected by this legislation) do emphasize that DMCA is "controversial", even critique it, ISPs fight it (even though they agreed to it themselves).
The intentions of this law were wrong to begin with, very wrong on many levels. But scarier part is that actual effects are much, much worse than what it was intended for. I agree, the DMCA has to go - now tell that to Adobe:
"We urged the speaker to continue to support the DMCA," [Adobe CEO Bruce] Chizen said of the group's meeting with Hastert. It is an "effective tool to deal with piracy, and one of the only effective tools to deal with piracy," said Chizen, whose company initially supported the criminal prosecution of programmer Dmitry Sklyarov on charges of DMCA violations.
It will be very interesting to see if the DCMA can protect the company from this (and future) disclosure(s). That could indicate that a company with a degraded product can be protected from accusation and disclosure if that hurts them financially.
Corporations take DMCA to mean that they are legally guaranteed revenues no matter how faulty or overpriced or uncompetitive or crappy their product is. Take Lexmark, SunnComm now, did you see Adobe reporting to congress just yesterday (along with the rest of the BSA) with their praise of DMCA? How can anyone forget Adobe?
How about:
SunnComm is taking a stand here because we believe that those who own property, whether physical or digital, have the ultimate authority over how their property is used.
This is pure and utter nonsense. First off, public owns all digital property (which they come to possess) while copyright owner has some limited power over its distribution. And, of course, the copyright owners don't have any "ultimate" authority over anything! Well, maybe they have ultimate authority on how long they suck their thumbs but definitely not how copyrighted content is used.
Have a look at Hans' benchmarks at namesys.com. Although he only compares Reiser4 to ext3, and may not be an objective party. But I'm surprised how well JFS performed anyway and that Reiser4 is unusually CPU-intensive.
Imagine if Eolas was "pulling a SCO", they would have been sending out $699 invoices to all IE users; would have been fun to see that play out. Actually, they are hinting to that, the article saying:
Eolas would still permit Microsoft to distribute IE as is, as long as it's being used in conjunction with an application provider or a corporate intranet that has an Eolas plug-in license.
Maybe they can send cease and desist letters to MS' corporate clients now.
On a more serious note, MS was not able to present their prior art case in front of the judge to invalidate the patent. They have appealed and hopefully will get that opportunity. They are also on the right track with Viola browser as prior art. If you read Viola's author's recount:
In April 1992, I made a released of the viola browser. By December 1992, I had embedded objects working in the Viola browser. We at O'Reilly and Associates gave demos to various people here and there. The best documented demo was in May of 1993 -- We gave a demo and code to SUN Microsystems, of the viola browser showing an interactive three dimensional plotting object (mathmatical equation or 3D models) embedded inside a web page. I started releasing this code around fall of 1993 and early 1994. Eolas filed the patent in November 1994.
Now, as you probably know, Michael Doyle (Eolas's CEO and sole formal employee as I understand it), wrote to the net about his technology and eventually intent to patent this. So of course people (including me) wrote back informing him of prior arts. I'm not a lawyer but as I understand it one is supposed to disclose to the PTO any relevant prior art for the PTO examiner to assess. Doyle and I exchange letters, and I told him about this embedded capability in Viola, gave him a paper on viola, which contains pointers leading to more information including even the viola browser source code. Doyle ends up mentioning the browsers Cello and Mosaic, but interestingly not Viola! Now, Viola came before both Cello and Mosaic, and non of those two other browsers had any kind of embedded interactive capability at the core of the discussions.
And he also talks about how he was not allowed to demonstrate his technology (created before Eolas patent was filed) to the jury:
I was not allowed to demonstrate Viola to the jury. It was explained to me that the judge had decided that my demonstration, of the Viola browser from May 1993 showing interactive objects embedded in a web page, would have been too "prejudicial" against Eolas. I was also not allowed to tell the jury that Doyle knew about Viola. This I suppose is understandable but still puzzles me a little and leads to unfortunate effects, as I imagine the Jury ought to know these things.
As you can see, once MS gets a chance to demonstrate these facts, like they should be able to, Eolas can go back to sucking on their thumbs again.
Re:Theft is not what anybody wants
on
Why Only Music?
·
· Score: 1
"...the MPAA hasn't provided legitimate alternatives for what consumers want..."
In my view, this statement is almost laughable. What's the purpose of it? To justify theft? That's a very, very slippery slope indeed.
It's an attestation to the fact that MPAA is an oligopoly that is engaging in price-fixing, anti-competitive behavior. If government is to "sponsor" MPAA and similar cartels (RIAA, etc.) then it is fair for people to complain about their activities.
Because MPAA is a cartel its members do not have to compete against each other to offer consumers best product to gain their business. The scope of their "competition" is limited to their agreed-upon conditions. They are, however, in the business of lobbying (read: bribing) government on how to impose more regulations, unfair laws, privacy violations, unlimited copyright extensions, taxation, etc. onto general public so they can lock up their revenue streams and have a power to generate a guaranteed cash flow. They are also into creative accounting practices to make sure their multi-billion dollar business does not pay a dime in taxes like most other businesses and individuals.
Unless something drastic happens in the entertainment industry to spur competition, people (yes, "we the people") are getting slammed by our rights being taken away, Constitution discarded, privacy unduly invaded by both government and corporations (and cartels thereof), corporations' "rights" (copyrights and its legal mutations/derivatives) extended unfairly and without limit at our expense, etc, etc, etc.
I am not saying P2P sharing of copyrighted material is legal and justified - it's not. However, the statement to which you replied serves as an attestation of the fact how far this matter has come and as a means to prospect how far it can go. Will they now legislate to mandate encryption on all hardware? DMCA is already here, it's just one step away. Will they outlaw research? Speech? If nobody speaks out or does something they will. And yes, calling it "theft" is adding to this injustice.
Whoa! That would have a devastating effect which would go well beyond this case, software industry, and high-tech in general. Imagine the following scenario:
- book A is a bestseller, millions of people bought it; - author of book B accuses author of book A of plagiarism and copyright infringement; - author of book B demands that all [millions of] owners of book A pay him full price of book B (or some other arbitrary amount) - judge orders all owners of book A to pay as instructed???
"The senator refused to deny allegations that he has had sex with a donkey."
[...] The maker of the statement knows that the public will interpret any denial with suspicion that the nonaccusation is true, (otherwise why would he deny it so vehemently?)and any refusal to deny it with suspicion that the nonaccusation is true (otherwise why doesn't he just deny it?).
That's true in general terms, but in this case (if indeed that was the case), it could have been easily avoided if, for example, none of the files had the reported md5 hash and/or files with those md5 hashes did not reproduce the same results as described. It seems to me both would have been easily detectable if they indeed have "15 million users" online at any point in time.
Second, they admitted that the functionality was there, which makes that argument moot.
Third, there was no "sex" and no "donkey". i.e., the accusation was not a mockery, personal attack, or an otherwise out of line comment, in which case it could have been safely ignored, but rather a more or less meaningful description of a potentially serious security flaw. It also came with an example demonstration code, as well as specific location of a function in question. If you really want to compare this to your example, it would be like presenting lab results from a donkey in question with the DNA evidence linking it to "the senator". I won't go into any more details on that one, you get the idea.
Basically, there were 2 conceivable ways out of this:
1. "I did not have sexual..." - deny, deny, deny! OR 2. "It's, not a bug, it's a feature!" [there are other routes, but none as attractive]
Both are very well known methods used widely in mainstream accusations. A lot of/. comments on the previous article were right in this regard, and we saw route (2) played out today.
What kind of a judge could possibly issue that kind of a ruling? Imagine now, if nVidia accuses ATI of violating its IP and demands all ATI customers to pay nVidia $699 within 3 months, or $1499 afterwards. Chances of this kind of ruling, even if SCO pulls out a miracle and proves something, are somewhere in between -0 and +0.
Slashdot Mirror
The system is prone to abuse any way you cut it. You can easily make the use of these devices illegal by general public. You can even try to outlaw the devices themselves (although I doubt that would be successful). You can spend lots of money investing in technology, surveillance video, flash cameras, etc. in every intersection, try to determine who used the device and prosecute them, etc., etc., etc.
In the end all it takes is a clueless pedestrian teenager with a device he assembled or purchased for $20, having nothing to do one (or many) afternoon(s) but watch how powerful he can be. It's a waste of tax money that would be better spent on more fire stations, emergency workers, and other methods of increasing the real response time.
For now. For how long? These are small details, small details can change - the principle is in place.
Automated roll taking? "Hey, Johnny, can you keep my ID tag with you? Me and Sammy gonna skip the class
But it can be at the snap of their fingers. Minor details can be changed at any moment without notice or anybody's knowledge and approval. The reasoning is:
"hey, we've been doing this for a few months now, nobody has objected, it seems to be going very well - now we are just going to automate the whole process; we'll spend less money on kiosks, save students' time approaching and "registering" themselves with kiosks. And spend more time and money on our kids' education - it's all about our kids, and their future, right?"
Then wait until federal gov't comes in and requires the data be shared with the FBI or schools won't get federal funding. Why not? They are doing it with the libraries.
Small details can change. It's similar to saying - give me all the power to track your every move - but don't be afraid - I will not abuse it; I will only use it for your own benefit. This is what RIAA and John Ashcroft have been saying, and many times getting it too.
In related news, Mircosoft announced today that it would be removing the "Back" button and all related functionality from its flagship web browser - Internet Explorer. This move is regarded to allow more competition in the "Back" button industry.
"Customers want choices," said one senior VP at Microsoft who wished to remain anonymous, "we provide it to them. Having the ability to download, or write and compile your own "Back" button implementation is a major win for consumer choice and a major win for a revived, healthy competition in the browser, as well as the "Back" button market. We at Microsoft believe that we not only meeting our customers' demands and expectations, but constantly exceeding them."
With hundreds of millions of consumers using a "Back" button tens of times daily, the "Back" button industry is believed to be a huge one. Many experts believe that such a move helps Microsoft score points with the U.S. Justice Department as well as the E.U. commission which is currently investigating Microsoft's monopolist practices in Europe.
"We are glad to see Microsoft committing themselves to competition," said press release issued by John Ashcroft this morning, "we believe that they are a great American company, and its executives are true patriots who have voluntarily not only complied, but exceeded their contributions with regard to our court settlement."
Meanwhile, some conspiracy theorists, hackers, unrecognized lobbyist groups, and underground organizations such as "slash"-"dot" are saying that is not what it appears to be. They argue that other browsers, especially what is called "open"-"source" have always allowed anyone to make such components and distribute them; they also say that Microsoft's moves will not increase any competition in the browser market, and Microsoft is still a monopolist.
These views, however un-American and un-patriotic, are still allowed and tolerated because of free speech, however. "It's a wonderful country," said Donald Rumsfeld in a press conference, "Anybody is free to voice their opinion; it doesn't mean that we agree with it or even want to hear it, but we allow it."
In light (no pun intended) of these revelations, I thought I'd post few of my own predictions of which technologies will "submerge" in the future.
/. effect in prime time too.
Black and White TVs: A lot of these beasts are still out there but they'll gradually continue to be replaced by color TVs. HDTVs you ask? Don't hold your breath - they are still too pricey and will be for few more years. You are better off going with a regular color TV for now - HDTV is a nonstarter.
Cars from the 80s and early 90s: You may not believe it but there are millions of people who still drive their 10-20 year old pieces of "equipment". They are going to be gradually replaced by newer vehicles.
Year 2002 Tax forms: There are literally millions out there that have not yet been destroyed; those will be no good for 2003 tax returns and newer forms will quickly start circulating by the beginning of next year.
5.25 Floppy disk drives: with the emergence of technologies such as CD and DVD drives, the remaining installations of this classic should be wiped out in no time.
There are a lot more out there, but I have neither time nor willingness to go through them all. Apparently, computerworld does and they got their needed
Quote from MS Windows Media Player EULA:
* Digital Rights Management (Security). You agree that in order to protect the integrity of content and software protected by digital rights management ("Secure Content"), Microsoft may provide security related updates to the OS Components that will be automatically downloaded onto your computer. These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and use other software on your computer. If we provide such a security update, we will use reasonable efforts to post notices on a web site explaining the update.
You are giving MS the right to freely and without notice download and install updates on your PC, allowing them to remotely disable anything they can call "Secure Content" or "other software". Re-read it if you don't believe me.
All the "EULAs are unenforceable" arguments aside, there are a lot of other apps that can rip CDs to mp3 or vorbis files and play them (with visualizations faster than 3fps), none of them with such an abusive agreement condition.
Just because you are assigned a unique ID by the server does not automatically mean it's violating this claim. You could be assigned unique IDs all day long, if they are not transmitted to the client and stored there.
The patent claim says server returns the "unique identifier" (that was assigned earlier by the server) to the client which is then stored on the client. So, if a site stores your user# or some server-generated random/unique string in a cookie it is violating; but if it only stores IthinkImParanoid (which you picked and not the server) then it may be in clear. That was my original point.
My Yahoo! uses session cookies that contain identifiers other than user-picked IDs, therefore, if you were to buy into my argument, they are violating. If they were using an ID or a unique string that I (the user) picked then they wouldn't be.
Except that that scenario is not described in the patent - nowhere does it say the server will "check" the user-created ID for being unique and then return it, etc. The patent cannot cover it unless it's explicitly described in one of its claims.
The patent claims:
server computer [...] assigning [...] a unique user identifier
which is in quite different from the user picking such identifier, transmitting to server, server checking against current identifiers for uniqueness, and returning either an error message or ID back to the user. Again, another condition has to be that you don't use persistent session cookies since those would be covered, but only the ID(s) that user picked, not the server.
This patent is quite ridiculous; I believe Amazon's "one-click shopping" patent violates this patent - it's that stupid.
I'd like to see Microsoft "pull a SCO" with this patent and start sending out $699 invoices to My Yahoo! users to get them to switch over to MSN or face the threat of legal action. I wonder how that would fly.
Disclaimer: IANAL, this is not a legal advice, I don't know what I'm talking about, you are on your own, talk to your lawyer, etc. etc. etc.
Here's how I see that it may not apply to all websites: if a website asks user to create a username and password (an account on the website) and customize that account, this patent may not apply. From the patent text, claim 1:
during first accessing of a server computer on the network by each user client computer, obtaining customization information from the corresponding user, assigning to the customization information a unique user identifier corresponding to the user, storing the customization information in association with the unique user identifier on the server computer, and returning the unique user identifier to the client computer; [emphasis mine]
This seems to claim that the server will create and assign a unique ID to each user customization submission and then returning it to the client. This would be different from a process where a user requests that a particular ID be assigned instead - where user creates the ID. i.e., if you use cookies to store server-assigned hashes to identify repeat users you are violating; but if you use cookies to store the actual user ID that was originally created by the user him/herself then you may be clear. That's how I see it anyway.
But the patent itself, it's clear, was filed after Microsoft had "discovered" the Internet - Dec. 1996. Surely, there must be quite a few examples of prior art to this. I remember sites running registration-based content at about that time, but specific sites and related timeline are kind of messed up in my mind.
The very fact that you take this accusation as a premise makes your whole argument irrelevant. No further comment.
Under the plan they have compensated RIAA, "artists", and ISPs.
Take it one step further: how about compensating the sharer for providing a delivery mechanism? RIAA didn't have to pay for the bandwidth and delivery. Sharers should get a cut from the fees as well.
There has been no evidence that anybody has copied anything. SCO hasn't demonstrated anything or provided any facts to support their claim. When they tried, it was shown that their example was in public domain, or otherwise legally obtained code. Later, they retracted the claim from that example. Surely, if they have 100s of thousands of lines that they claim are infringing, they can show few to demonstrate that they actually have a valid claim. Again, they tried and were rebuked to a point where they had to retract their claims.
It's not a matter of what you think or what Darl thinks; it's the matter of factual evidence of which there has been none. And the one that they had produced (at the presentation) they have had to take their words back.
Actually, yes - SCO needs to provide evidence that infringement has occurred. The accusation is not a proof of anything. I can accuse IBM that they are infringing on my copyrights without providing any evidence - that does not mean I am entitled to $3 billion. Meanwhile, SCO gets nothing because they haven't shown any facts or proven anything in court or otherwise.
Yes, you are right, it is an outrage - SCO hasn't complied with the GPL license and, yet, feels free to distribute its own version of Linux - that is a gross copyright violation and a fact (something lacking from SCO's FUD). If SCO cannot comply to GPL's terms, then it has absolutely no rights to distribute software covered under it. In your own words, SCO is stealing Linux kernel code which it has no right to distribute other than under GPL, which SCO hasn't agreed to. SCO is, therefore, an IP thief. Notice, every time Darl gets asked about violating GPL (and quite a few times), he ignores the question, provides a one-line "we are fine" answer without any meaning, or simply changes the topic.
That is a nice theory, but in this case one side is saying: Diversify - the added cost will be worth reducing security risk; the other side is saying - no, the added cost will not reduce security risk, and then presenting his case on what will reduce security risks. He is not simply refuting the other side, but also presenting his case. If you refute others' suggestions by accusing them of lack of research and analysis, then you do the same when you present your case, that's closer to flaming than a meaningful discussion.
I'm sure if he was referring to much of
Besides, many Linux supporters are a bunch of potty-mouthed malcontents. Enterprises are better off staying away from Linux and open source
Above quote from another of his "opinion" columns. In other words, while there are ways to argue, correct, or refute Gartner report, there is no way to argue or discuss the stuff this guy is spewing - that's the difference.
That previous article made quite a few points some of which I didn't agree with but others made sense, logically at least - practice, of course, is different; but that's a different topic.
Actually, that would be "bunch of potty-mouthed malcontents." Get your facts straight, please.
Here's a little bit more (at the end of the current article):
PREVIOUSLY BY ROB ENDERLE:
- Microsoft: Hated Because It's Misunderstood
- Reasons To Shun Open Source-ry
- Linux Is Not Ready For the Enterprise
Further, in the article, after presenting a general statement (that he tries to critique) that diversity is good for security, he claims:
These arguments were put forward by Gartner and, separately, a panel hosted by the anti-Microsoft Computer & Communications Industry Association.
But there is no evidence that either party has actually analyzed the cost of diversity or quantified the risks of diversity.
As opposed to who? Himself? He presents no cost or risk analysis of anything either, including diversity, or any of the arguments that he is trying to put forward. But based on his previous articles and general sentiment, it is obvious that he doesn't need to. It's clear what his conclusion is going to be anyway.
The law has been paid for by most of the "mass media" or their parent corporations. Why would they trash their own investment? Some media members (not affected by this legislation) do emphasize that DMCA is "controversial", even critique it, ISPs fight it (even though they agreed to it themselves).
The intentions of this law were wrong to begin with, very wrong on many levels. But scarier part is that actual effects are much, much worse than what it was intended for. I agree, the DMCA has to go - now tell that to Adobe:
"We urged the speaker to continue to support the DMCA," [Adobe CEO Bruce] Chizen said of the group's meeting with Hastert. It is an "effective tool to deal with piracy, and one of the only effective tools to deal with piracy," said Chizen, whose company initially supported the criminal prosecution of programmer Dmitry Sklyarov on charges of DMCA violations.
Corporations take DMCA to mean that they are legally guaranteed revenues no matter how faulty or overpriced or uncompetitive or crappy their product is. Take Lexmark, SunnComm now, did you see Adobe reporting to congress just yesterday (along with the rest of the BSA) with their praise of DMCA? How can anyone forget Adobe?
How about:
SunnComm is taking a stand here because we believe that those who own property, whether physical or digital, have the ultimate authority over how their property is used.
This is pure and utter nonsense. First off, public owns all digital property (which they come to possess) while copyright owner has some limited power over its distribution. And, of course, the copyright owners don't have any "ultimate" authority over anything! Well, maybe they have ultimate authority on how long they suck their thumbs but definitely not how copyrighted content is used.
Have a look at Hans' benchmarks at namesys.com. Although he only compares Reiser4 to ext3, and may not be an objective party. But I'm surprised how well JFS performed anyway and that Reiser4 is unusually CPU-intensive.
Imagine if Eolas was "pulling a SCO", they would have been sending out $699 invoices to all IE users; would have been fun to see that play out. Actually, they are hinting to that, the article saying:
Eolas would still permit Microsoft to distribute IE as is, as long as it's being used in conjunction with an application provider or a corporate intranet that has an Eolas plug-in license.
Maybe they can send cease and desist letters to MS' corporate clients now.
On a more serious note, MS was not able to present their prior art case in front of the judge to invalidate the patent. They have appealed and hopefully will get that opportunity. They are also on the right track with Viola browser as prior art. If you read Viola's author's recount:
In April 1992, I made a released of the viola browser. By December 1992, I had embedded objects working in the Viola browser. We at O'Reilly and Associates gave demos to various people here and there. The best documented demo was in May of 1993 -- We gave a demo and code to SUN Microsystems, of the viola browser showing an interactive three dimensional plotting object (mathmatical equation or 3D models) embedded inside a web page. I started releasing this code around fall of 1993 and early 1994. Eolas filed the patent in November 1994.
Now, as you probably know, Michael Doyle (Eolas's CEO and sole formal employee as I understand it), wrote to the net about his technology and eventually intent to patent this. So of course people (including me) wrote back informing him of prior arts. I'm not a lawyer but as I understand it one is supposed to disclose to the PTO any relevant prior art for the PTO examiner to assess. Doyle and I exchange letters, and I told him about this embedded capability in Viola, gave him a paper on viola, which contains pointers leading to more information including even the viola browser source code. Doyle ends up mentioning the browsers Cello and Mosaic, but interestingly not Viola! Now, Viola came before both Cello and Mosaic, and non of those two other browsers had any kind of embedded interactive capability at the core of the discussions.
And he also talks about how he was not allowed to demonstrate his technology (created before Eolas patent was filed) to the jury:
I was not allowed to demonstrate Viola to the jury. It was explained to me that the judge had decided that my demonstration, of the Viola browser from May 1993 showing interactive objects embedded in a web page, would have been too "prejudicial" against Eolas. I was also not allowed to tell the jury that Doyle knew about Viola. This I suppose is understandable but still puzzles me a little and leads to unfortunate effects, as I imagine the Jury ought to know these things.
As you can see, once MS gets a chance to demonstrate these facts, like they should be able to, Eolas can go back to sucking on their thumbs again.
It's an attestation to the fact that MPAA is an oligopoly that is engaging in price-fixing, anti-competitive behavior. If government is to "sponsor" MPAA and similar cartels (RIAA, etc.) then it is fair for people to complain about their activities.
Because MPAA is a cartel its members do not have to compete against each other to offer consumers best product to gain their business. The scope of their "competition" is limited to their agreed-upon conditions. They are, however, in the business of lobbying (read: bribing) government on how to impose more regulations, unfair laws, privacy violations, unlimited copyright extensions, taxation, etc. onto general public so they can lock up their revenue streams and have a power to generate a guaranteed cash flow. They are also into creative accounting practices to make sure their multi-billion dollar business does not pay a dime in taxes like most other businesses and individuals.
Unless something drastic happens in the entertainment industry to spur competition, people (yes, "we the people") are getting slammed by our rights being taken away, Constitution discarded, privacy unduly invaded by both government and corporations (and cartels thereof), corporations' "rights" (copyrights and its legal mutations/derivatives) extended unfairly and without limit at our expense, etc, etc, etc.
I am not saying P2P sharing of copyrighted material is legal and justified - it's not. However, the statement to which you replied serves as an attestation of the fact how far this matter has come and as a means to prospect how far it can go. Will they now legislate to mandate encryption on all hardware? DMCA is already here, it's just one step away. Will they outlaw research? Speech? If nobody speaks out or does something they will. And yes, calling it "theft" is adding to this injustice.
Whoa! That would have a devastating effect which would go well beyond this case, software industry, and high-tech in general. Imagine the following scenario:
- book A is a bestseller, millions of people bought it;
- author of book B accuses author of book A of plagiarism and copyright infringement;
- author of book B demands that all [millions of] owners of book A pay him full price of book B (or some other arbitrary amount)
- judge orders all owners of book A to pay as instructed???
I just don't see it. I don't see how you do.
That's true in general terms, but in this case (if indeed that was the case), it could have been easily avoided if, for example, none of the files had the reported md5 hash and/or files with those md5 hashes did not reproduce the same results as described. It seems to me both would have been easily detectable if they indeed have "15 million users" online at any point in time.
Second, they admitted that the functionality was there, which makes that argument moot.
Third, there was no "sex" and no "donkey". i.e., the accusation was not a mockery, personal attack, or an otherwise out of line comment, in which case it could have been safely ignored, but rather a more or less meaningful description of a potentially serious security flaw. It also came with an example demonstration code, as well as specific location of a function in question. If you really want to compare this to your example, it would be like presenting lab results from a donkey in question with the DNA evidence linking it to "the senator". I won't go into any more details on that one, you get the idea.
Basically, there were 2 conceivable ways out of this:
/. comments on the previous article were right in this regard, and we saw route (2) played out today.
1. "I did not have sexual..." - deny, deny, deny! OR
2. "It's, not a bug, it's a feature!"
[there are other routes, but none as attractive]
Both are very well known methods used widely in mainstream accusations. A lot of
What kind of a judge could possibly issue that kind of a ruling? Imagine now, if nVidia accuses ATI of violating its IP and demands all ATI customers to pay nVidia $699 within 3 months, or $1499 afterwards. Chances of this kind of ruling, even if SCO pulls out a miracle and proves something, are somewhere in between -0 and +0.