in that he seems to have been 'lenient'. Unfortunately, in trademark law, you CAN'T be.
If you don't enforce your mark, you lose it. If you allow it to come into common use by others, and don't defend it at all, then you can't come back later when you think it's a threat and try to enforce it. It's not like Patents, that can be selectively enforced.
If he admits he originally left them alone, *even though they were in violation of his mark*, then he can't come back later and enforce it, period. It won't hold up in court.
Anyone can apply for trademark and get it. Whether it is enforcable is another thing altogether.
Does not the original license on the ssh code allow for use 'for any purpose?'
IT also states that if the software functions differently from the protocol specified in the rfc's (called ssh1 and ssh2), it should not be called ssh.
That's like saying that as long as it behaves according to the protocols, it can be called ssh.
The protocols are commonly know to the entire internet community as 'ssh'... good luck enforcing that trademark.
1) He didn't enforce his trademark for the last year and a bit, so as far as the community is concerned 'ssh' is now a common word, not a 'product'. He didn't defend it right away, so he will lose it. That's how Trademark law works. (as opposd to Patent law, where you can selectively enforce it wherever you want, and ignore others)
2) If someone managed to get the recipe for Coca-Cola, they could use it to make another product and market it. The only reason they don't is it's a SECRET, and nobody knows what it is. What they can't do is call it 'coke' or 'coca cola' because that's coke's registered trademark. If they called it 'OpenCocaCola' and it was rather popular and it was 2 years before Coke sued them... coke would probably lose it's trademark.
How long has it been going on? They knew about it for years... many have used the SSH mark. It's probably fair to say that it has become a common name (dilution) and no longer has a sole brand-name value.
Trademark is not like patent; you MUST enforce it or lose it. THey should have been asked to stop using it a LONG time ago, not just recently. SSH hasn't protected their mark, so they lose it.
Those 'dsp' files are firmware to be loaded into the modem card itself, and processed onboard. There is no reason we need source for these, and the same files would be used no matter what OS it is. The trick is how to get the contents of those file sinto the modem so the DSP on the modem can use them.
They aren't even technically part of the 'driver'.
You have the freedom to make their modem work on *any* hardware platform now; just not to steal their DSP code.
Also.. The government does not enforce region coding. It has no basis in Law. It is purely a construct of the DVD Consortium (or whatever they are called). Region free players are 100% perfectly legal.. region coding has nothing to do with copy protection. You can't use DMCA against it....
Modified players can be sold perfectly legally. The only reason they aren't more common in North America is because most of what the vast majority of people want to watch is released in Region 1 first anyway.
Players with hacked region coding are very common elsewhere, and mod kits for a great many players are easily obtained.
Manufacturers can't make them because they are in contract with the DVD Consortium, who they need to be in business with to make DVD (decryption and all that). Part of their contract is region-coding.
It is my impression that region-free players are in no way illegal.
Manufacturers can't get the IP they need from the DVD Consortium without agreeing to abide by region rules set out by the consortium, so they can't sell a player that's region-free. That simple.
We've all probably seen some level of age discrimination, or at least, known people didn't take us seriously because of our age.
And I'd bet most of us will do the same to someone else sometime later in life, even if we don't realize it.
When I'm working with 4 other admins, all late-20's, early 30's, and there's the 18 year old intern as well... I'm sorry, he might be brilliant, but we will probably instinctively take his ideas with a grain of salt. I'm not advocating that.. I'm just saying that's what invariably ends up happening at some point.
And through my own growth in this field, I've realized that although I used to THINK I knew everything, I sure didn't... don't think that people spend a decade in this business and get stupider as they go...
It's amazing how nowadays the recurring theme is 'if the law made after-market sale of XXX or lending of XXX illegal, then we'd make more money, therefore, by not having that law, the American Public is ripping us off.'.
It's like.. sure. How about a law that says everyone in the US has to pay my Canadian ass every time they buy something? I mean, by not having that law, I'm being deprived of money I could have otherwised earned if such a law existed.. I should sue!
will be something like this.
After libraries are forced to pay royalties each time a book is 'loaned' out, manufacturers of childrens toys, clothing, and everyh other good will start referring to their product as a 'physical manifestation of the creative work of the designer' and start referring to it as information, rather than a tangible good. Then they'll say that they are being 'ripped off' by the Salvation Army and all those second-hand stores.
It's funny. Those of us in the West grow up thinking Quebec is pretty cool, that it's neat that people speak French... etc.. etc...
Then we get older, and realize that apparently we 'oppress' them, and we are the 'enemy'. Believe it or not, the rest of the country is raised in an evironment that makes us LIKE Quebec....
But this isn't necessary. Card issuers are under no obligation to pay merchants for fraudulent transactions. Check out a merchant contract sometime. IF you are a merchant, and you take stolen credit-card information, you don't get paid.
Remember, you are the customer. Remember, on your card, it the card is THEIR Property, not yours. THe card is their way of authentication you for purchases, so they can extend credit to you.
If the merchant doesn't have your signature, or other way to prove the transaction actually involved you personally (delivery to your house, etc), then the credit company doesn't pay the merchant.
It's GOOD that it's $0 liability.. it should be! They agreed to extend me, personally, some credit. It's not my fault whatsoever if they have difficulties determjining if it's 'me' or not buying something.. that's solely a problem in their business model, and we shouldn't be made to absorb the cost.
This is why I'm puzzled at people who get really worked about about online card theft. It's inconvenient, but it's not like someone draining your bank account. Sure, you might have to cancel your card, and that is a pain in the ass.. but other than that.. it wasn't your card that was stolen, it was the issuers card, and the issuers problem to deal with.
No.. I understand the term you used perfectly.
What I mean is, my credit card contract says that I am liable if my *card* is stolen. What you describe is not your card being stolen, just the info from your card.
What I'm saying is, it's a failure in their system, not your own failure.
We shouldn't forget that Credit card companies are a business, and we are their customers. It shouldnt' be up to us to police their merchants and make sure our info isn't stolen (Remember, the card belongs to THEM, not us... they should protect that information)
Right, but that's up to Visa. It's not my fault they don' thave a better way to authenticate my transactions. If they need to cancel it, and reissue, let them; it's their expense.
I know we tend to live off credit, but let's not forget that using a Visa is a SERVICE they are selling to you; you are their customer. If they make it inconvenient for you to use, then you won't use it.
I mean, if the CARD wasn't stolen, but just the number was.. how is that the card being stolen? I don't know about any other contract, but when I see 'card' I think 'the physical card'.
would be to have some sort of cost associated with loss of protected consumer data, period. Open the doors for easy class-action lawsuits; this would cause companies to acquire insurance, and those insurance companies will want to KNOW what is being done to protect that data.
Credit card companies don't 'jump all over it' because if someone fraudulently uses a card to buy a stereo, the credit card company DOESN'T HAVE TO PAY THE MERCHANT unles the merchant can prove they did everything by the book, including checking for signatures and obtaining an imprint, or some other form of authentication. If they just took the number and it turns out to be false, they don't get paid.
In most cases,(I know in mine), that $50 liabiltiy only applies if your card is actually stolen, (not just the number), and if it happens before you inform them that your card is missing.
It does not generally apply to simply fraudulent transactions where all they had was your number.
Most credit cards work that way. I know my Visa always did.. and every other contract I've looked at for credit cards.
The only time you are liable for anything, in any case I've ever seen, is if your card is physically stolen, you can be held liable for up to $50.
The other way you can be responsible is if they can prove gross negligence, ie: lending your visa to your neighborhood crackhead because he 'promised' to only go get your groceries for you.
The card is only a token used to authenticate your credit line with the credit company; it is not the credit itself. It's the mechanism the credit company chooses to employ to ensure that they are extending credit to you and not someone else. If that system breaks down, and it's not your fault, they CANNOT hold you responsible. They onus will be on whatever merchant is involved to prove that it was, in fact, you that used the card. A signature, delivery to your house, perhaps phone logs... but that's it. They can't prove it, it's not your problem.
You shouldn't *need* to evaluate their security... the law should take care of that (but it doesn't).
Do you evaluate the security of your bank? Of everyone you ever do business with? Then why should you evaluate them for computer security?
And to top it off.. why does everyone still get so worked up about credit card fraud? I read my contract over and over again, and it says I am *NOT* responsible at *ALL* for fraudulent use of my card. I am responsible for up to $50 if my *CARD* is physically stolen, and the charges happen before I report it.
Let them steal my # out of some database.. it's not MY money they are spending.
First, I hate spam, and spammers, and make every effort not do do business with spammers. HOWEVER...
10 billion euros a year? How so?
I get alot of spam (say 20 messages a day) but I'd have trouble suggesting they cost me *anything* at all. They cost me a few moments to delete. Oh yes, they aggrivate me, and perhaps an American lawyer can tell me how to put an economic value on some slight aggrivation.. but really.. give it a rest.
Slashdot Mirror
in that he seems to have been 'lenient'. Unfortunately, in trademark law, you CAN'T be.
If you don't enforce your mark, you lose it. If you allow it to come into common use by others, and don't defend it at all, then you can't come back later when you think it's a threat and try to enforce it. It's not like Patents, that can be selectively enforced.
If he admits he originally left them alone, *even though they were in violation of his mark*, then he can't come back later and enforce it, period. It won't hold up in court.
Anyone can apply for trademark and get it. Whether it is enforcable is another thing altogether.
Does not the original license on the ssh code allow for use 'for any purpose?'
IT also states that if the software functions differently from the protocol specified in the rfc's (called ssh1 and ssh2), it should not be called ssh.
That's like saying that as long as it behaves according to the protocols, it can be called ssh.
The protocols are commonly know to the entire internet community as 'ssh'... good luck enforcing that trademark.
1) He didn't enforce his trademark for the last year and a bit, so as far as the community is concerned 'ssh' is now a common word, not a 'product'. He didn't defend it right away, so he will lose it. That's how Trademark law works. (as opposd to Patent law, where you can selectively enforce it wherever you want, and ignore others)
2) If someone managed to get the recipe for Coca-Cola, they could use it to make another product and market it. The only reason they don't is it's a SECRET, and nobody knows what it is. What they can't do is call it 'coke' or 'coca cola' because that's coke's registered trademark. If they called it 'OpenCocaCola' and it was rather popular and it was 2 years before Coke sued them... coke would probably lose it's trademark.
This has nothing to do with patent.
How long has it been going on? They knew about it for years... many have used the SSH mark. It's probably fair to say that it has become a common name (dilution) and no longer has a sole brand-name value.
Trademark is not like patent; you MUST enforce it or lose it. THey should have been asked to stop using it a LONG time ago, not just recently. SSH hasn't protected their mark, so they lose it.
Those 'dsp' files are firmware to be loaded into the modem card itself, and processed onboard. There is no reason we need source for these, and the same files would be used no matter what OS it is. The trick is how to get the contents of those file sinto the modem so the DSP on the modem can use them.
They aren't even technically part of the 'driver'.
You have the freedom to make their modem work on *any* hardware platform now; just not to steal their DSP code.
Region coding is not copy protection. THis is not at all the same thing as the decryption mods.
REgion hacks are perfectly legal pretty much everywhere.
You just don't find anyone making the players, because the manufacturers are all under contract wiht the DVD Consortium.
Also.. The government does not enforce region coding. It has no basis in Law. It is purely a construct of the DVD Consortium (or whatever they are called). Region free players are 100% perfectly legal.. region coding has nothing to do with copy protection. You can't use DMCA against it....
Modified players can be sold perfectly legally. The only reason they aren't more common in North America is because most of what the vast majority of people want to watch is released in Region 1 first anyway.
Players with hacked region coding are very common elsewhere, and mod kits for a great many players are easily obtained.
Manufacturers can't make them because they are in contract with the DVD Consortium, who they need to be in business with to make DVD (decryption and all that). Part of their contract is region-coding.
It is my impression that region-free players are in no way illegal.
Manufacturers can't get the IP they need from the DVD Consortium without agreeing to abide by region rules set out by the consortium, so they can't sell a player that's region-free. That simple.
Region mods are perfectly legal.
We've all probably seen some level of age discrimination, or at least, known people didn't take us seriously because of our age. And I'd bet most of us will do the same to someone else sometime later in life, even if we don't realize it. When I'm working with 4 other admins, all late-20's, early 30's, and there's the 18 year old intern as well... I'm sorry, he might be brilliant, but we will probably instinctively take his ideas with a grain of salt. I'm not advocating that.. I'm just saying that's what invariably ends up happening at some point. And through my own growth in this field, I've realized that although I used to THINK I knew everything, I sure didn't... don't think that people spend a decade in this business and get stupider as they go...
It's amazing how nowadays the recurring theme is 'if the law made after-market sale of XXX or lending of XXX illegal, then we'd make more money, therefore, by not having that law, the American Public is ripping us off.'.
It's like.. sure. How about a law that says everyone in the US has to pay my Canadian ass every time they buy something? I mean, by not having that law, I'm being deprived of money I could have otherwised earned if such a law existed.. I should sue!
will be something like this.
After libraries are forced to pay royalties each time a book is 'loaned' out, manufacturers of childrens toys, clothing, and everyh other good will start referring to their product as a 'physical manifestation of the creative work of the designer' and start referring to it as information, rather than a tangible good. Then they'll say that they are being 'ripped off' by the Salvation Army and all those second-hand stores.
True. But how exactly do they get charged in a Canadian court for something that happened in the US?
Freebsd supports the memory stick slot in the vaios? really?
It's funny. Those of us in the West grow up thinking Quebec is pretty cool, that it's neat that people speak French... etc.. etc...
Then we get older, and realize that apparently we 'oppress' them, and we are the 'enemy'. Believe it or not, the rest of the country is raised in an evironment that makes us LIKE Quebec....
Too bad you guys can't do the same.
But this isn't necessary. Card issuers are under no obligation to pay merchants for fraudulent transactions. Check out a merchant contract sometime. IF you are a merchant, and you take stolen credit-card information, you don't get paid.
How they do it? simple.
They don't pay their merchants.
Remember, you are the customer. Remember, on your card, it the card is THEIR Property, not yours. THe card is their way of authentication you for purchases, so they can extend credit to you.
If the merchant doesn't have your signature, or other way to prove the transaction actually involved you personally (delivery to your house, etc), then the credit company doesn't pay the merchant.
It's GOOD that it's $0 liability.. it should be! They agreed to extend me, personally, some credit. It's not my fault whatsoever if they have difficulties determjining if it's 'me' or not buying something.. that's solely a problem in their business model, and we shouldn't be made to absorb the cost.
This is why I'm puzzled at people who get really worked about about online card theft. It's inconvenient, but it's not like someone draining your bank account. Sure, you might have to cancel your card, and that is a pain in the ass.. but other than that.. it wasn't your card that was stolen, it was the issuers card, and the issuers problem to deal with.
No.. I understand the term you used perfectly.
What I mean is, my credit card contract says that I am liable if my *card* is stolen. What you describe is not your card being stolen, just the info from your card.
What I'm saying is, it's a failure in their system, not your own failure.
We shouldn't forget that Credit card companies are a business, and we are their customers. It shouldnt' be up to us to police their merchants and make sure our info isn't stolen (Remember, the card belongs to THEM, not us... they should protect that information)
Right, but that's up to Visa. It's not my fault they don' thave a better way to authenticate my transactions. If they need to cancel it, and reissue, let them; it's their expense.
I know we tend to live off credit, but let's not forget that using a Visa is a SERVICE they are selling to you; you are their customer. If they make it inconvenient for you to use, then you won't use it.
I mean, if the CARD wasn't stolen, but just the number was.. how is that the card being stolen? I don't know about any other contract, but when I see 'card' I think 'the physical card'.
would be to have some sort of cost associated with loss of protected consumer data, period. Open the doors for easy class-action lawsuits; this would cause companies to acquire insurance, and those insurance companies will want to KNOW what is being done to protect that data.
Credit card companies don't 'jump all over it' because if someone fraudulently uses a card to buy a stereo, the credit card company DOESN'T HAVE TO PAY THE MERCHANT unles the merchant can prove they did everything by the book, including checking for signatures and obtaining an imprint, or some other form of authentication. If they just took the number and it turns out to be false, they don't get paid.
In most cases,(I know in mine), that $50 liabiltiy only applies if your card is actually stolen, (not just the number), and if it happens before you inform them that your card is missing.
It does not generally apply to simply fraudulent transactions where all they had was your number.
Most credit cards work that way. I know my Visa always did.. and every other contract I've looked at for credit cards.
The only time you are liable for anything, in any case I've ever seen, is if your card is physically stolen, you can be held liable for up to $50.
The other way you can be responsible is if they can prove gross negligence, ie: lending your visa to your neighborhood crackhead because he 'promised' to only go get your groceries for you.
The card is only a token used to authenticate your credit line with the credit company; it is not the credit itself. It's the mechanism the credit company chooses to employ to ensure that they are extending credit to you and not someone else. If that system breaks down, and it's not your fault, they CANNOT hold you responsible. They onus will be on whatever merchant is involved to prove that it was, in fact, you that used the card. A signature, delivery to your house, perhaps phone logs... but that's it. They can't prove it, it's not your problem.
You shouldn't *need* to evaluate their security... the law should take care of that (but it doesn't).
Do you evaluate the security of your bank? Of everyone you ever do business with? Then why should you evaluate them for computer security?
And to top it off.. why does everyone still get so worked up about credit card fraud? I read my contract over and over again, and it says I am *NOT* responsible at *ALL* for fraudulent use of my card. I am responsible for up to $50 if my *CARD* is physically stolen, and the charges happen before I report it.
Let them steal my # out of some database.. it's not MY money they are spending.
to that loaded question.
1)Could it be secure enough for their purposes? Possibly. Only THEY can decide this.
2) Is it as secure as separate workstations? Of course not. By definition it CAN'T be.
Let me get this straight.
First, I hate spam, and spammers, and make every effort not do do business with spammers. HOWEVER...
10 billion euros a year? How so?
I get alot of spam (say 20 messages a day) but I'd have trouble suggesting they cost me *anything* at all. They cost me a few moments to delete. Oh yes, they aggrivate me, and perhaps an American lawyer can tell me how to put an economic value on some slight aggrivation.. but really.. give it a rest.