Adding salt to an encryption scheme is so old a theory that it makes me wonder if MS didn't add it just so they could encourage people to upgrade to newer products later (read: pay more money) to get the "highly secure" versions. NTLMv2 should have been implemented with the first NT release.
So our choice is that they are inept or devious. What a wonderful monopoly we fight.
Because, as the RIAA has pointed out, the physical property is not what has value - the intellectual property does. Its one or the other. They cannot impose a tax on blank CDs.
If I made digital tapes of my CD, would they charge me? As I lost each one to age/use, I would not be charged in making a new one.
If I ripped my CD to my MP3 collection, then re-burned from this each time the CD wore out from use, they would not charge me.
If this MP3 collection wasn't stored on my PC but came from THEIR library, and I provided a key (which is all I bought at the "store") then they wouldn't charge me (I'd hope!). BTW, this key system is a completely different discussion, along the lines of the MS XP licensing mechanics.
Illegal it is, I agree. But the P2P purposes seem to be two-fold:
- free stuff!
- i'm not playing in that system anymore!
Whether you rank one or the other first, doesn't matter. You are achieving both. If I have to force the music industry to drop their number of Tower Records megastores, radio payola consultants, yearly signed bands, then their janitors, before they sense that $20 for a CD is too much, then I'm all for it.
In all our musing about this, a theme has been kinda arrived at: Some sort of investment capital has to lift bands into "the system" for radio airplay and music videos and concert bookings. So no, you can't just pay the band and expect to find new music (even if you live at the corner bar watching them parade through). The scale of bands waiting for a deal is huge. So if this be the so-called "record company" than I'm ok with that. They could share music on the 'net or not, simply to hit the widest audience you have to play in the malls and such.
Either way, even this won't prevent people from sharing such music on the P2Ps. So we're the "free stuff!" aspect by itself.
Stealing copyright infringement, blah blah. Whatever you call it, you are bypassing a barter system that exists for the exchange of value. This seems morally wrong when you didn't pay for it.
But when my CD scratches up, I download a new one. There are a lot of conditions I think it applies - like when you bought the CD outright once, lost it, had it stolen, damaged, etc.
You seem to equate the effort of waiting for MS to implement, or waiting for anyone in the educational/OSS/local/company programming world as equal effort. I completely disagree!
MS won't release their code, hides security flaws through muffling the finders, and packages fixes into huge bundles.
Simply, what I'm saying is that getting out of an MS environment frees a business up from their schedule and style of configuring a machine. I understand you can net deploy with MS, but why bother? Your argument for centralized computing versus a PC is great for home use, but we've all seen the headaches of the past 20 years of PC for the business. No thanks. That uptime you talked about with a centralized server? HP, SUN and IBM have been signing contracts for 99.99% for years now. MS can't sign a contract for any percentage!
Seriously, I've worked in both systems. I'm writing for in C# right now, and I understand your argument. I have been on the Linux-based side of business and I know its not the CL craziness most PHBs think it is.
I understand that going to a *nix-based platform for a business is not the panacea everyone thinks it is. However, you deal with your business solutions, then the system becomes stable. Your changes are for business-requested behaviors, reacting to that world. There isn't some feeling of "boy we're behind in our tech" after 5 years. In the MS shops, still running NT servers is now about to be "old". Why? One reason alone: MS wants more money. They are not supporting your MSDN website, your developers conference, your tech calls, your service packs. You have to buy 200x. Thats just not good business, IMHO. They should allow software to age at its own rate. That would cause them to stagnate, however. So, like any business - it must fight for growth. So it makes the hard choices and sends out the salesmen. Can't fault them entirely, but I'm sure glad there's an alternative.
Sorry to say, Keeper, MS themselves say that you must move on. If you RTFA, supoprt for NT servers is going away.
You'll also note that incompatability does exist in even minor additions (MDAC components, ComDlg.Dll hell, etc) Each of MS's "innovations" was to solve an existing problem. Your claim to "stick with it" means dealing with their originaly lack of insight forever. No thanks.
Linux captures the ability to build on FREE software designs that get tested in a larger user base over longer time. Hence, shells scripts still work, CL utilities still work. Filemon and other GUI can be replaced easily without downloading an 80MB Service Pack and watching it munch your system driectory, registry, etc. Then do this for every computer in your corporation? WTF!
The "small, isolated, corperative" style of *nix applications dominates the testing field over the monolithic "its part of the value-added package" mentality of MS's products: IE is part of the OS, Office is a 1GB gorilla, most OS services are SO heavily intertwined, good luck upgrading just 1 or 2. On top, terminal-style nodes are just what the doctor ordered for large numbers of interconnected limited-use machines. No need to pay for splaying software and licenses to 100's of boxes all over your building.
Oh - don't forget! Your developer base is a pool of people from the past 30 years! Nobody has to go rush to the convention center every 2 years to be read white papers on the NextBigThing. If a single new technology is introduced, you can find a targeted application to implement it in OSS, or rollyerown. In MSworld, this means a gigantic run of releases over the next few months to take advantage of it (IE's birth, java engines, security updates, multimedia support).
Linux has the advantage on many more things than price. Face it. Choosing MS is simply for people who wish to spend money instead of knowing exactly what their machines are doing.
Correction: Nothing stops the NYT from showing ads to us without the reg'd required. The registration bit is a farce, and everyone pumps nonsense into it. Why put it up as mandatory? Does the NYT try to spam its readers from that input? Wouldn't it be our duty to combat spam by intentially filling it with junk?
I let a lot of sites hog MY paid-for bandwidth with ads. This doesn't mean i have to type "Mr Goober" as my registration name on each one. The NYT is way behind in web concepts on this, IMO.
FYI: The google cache and the NYT's own backup copy are other sources of articles - registration free.
Yeah, illegal to use Linux without paying royalties. Linux was born of OSS and could be again quite quickly. This could be just the first incarnation of the matrix.
But overall, your post is simply an opinion - as (in)valid as the original table. IMHO, no educated judge or jury could accept SCO as the rights holder to Linux as a whole. SCO's unixware is dead weight in the business world.
Soliciting things by email is SPAM. People don't WANT IT. Perhaps you should build a web site and advertise it through channels that YOU pay for directly, instead of the recipient wasting their bought bandwidth. This is called NETWORKING and is a major part of growing any small business. There are no secrets here. The world doesn't want to use email to receive advertisements. Not businesses, not personally.
We are chasing down the ideas to stop spam as fast as possible. You may get 0.1% positive results from spamming, but you make 99.9% of your recipients your angry enemies.
The fact you post as an AC suggests you're not really proud of this career move. Try another.
Marvel is within their rights to make this demand. By organizing skins and redistributing them, the site is hedging into trademark violations by skipping permissions.
That said, these skins will now become yet more fodder for other channels. So, in essence, they are pushing for more popularity of things like P2P. Information continues to want to be free. Personal trading of things like this might be similar to any other fair-use occurence, though. Think of if you draw a cool Spidey, make stickers for your buddies and slap them on your schoolbags. Isn't that fair-use? Replace sticker/skin, schoolbag/avatar. Whats the difference?
Anyone know what fair-use says about anonymous trading?
its a sad state of affairs when a console with so many quality games can just sink into the ground like this
In the uber-competative world of console + PC + handheld gaming , it may be tragic to some, but is this really unexpected? I mean these companies want you to buy a new one every two years. Should I have any sympathy when they start dying off just as quickly?
getting a new phone number is already easy. this isn't what they are complaining about. the block system is what providers use. they acquire a block of numbers and put them in their pool. when in a provider, you choose from their pool.
within a provider, they have legacy systems that restricts phone number by "exchange" or the 3 digits past "area code". they used to signify geographic domains about 30 years ago. cellulars are out of this realm, but the same code applies at some point - with a nice hack i'd like to see.
blocks are constantly bought and sold. their systems now, i'm guessing, rarely sell blocks back. but now they'll have to build a list of "numbers for transfer" and the destination provider when a number has to leave the pool for delivery not the government authority, but another provider.
addionally, these transfers are probably batch legacy jobs, and the schedules of those jobs has to be examined to help a customer's switch with a day or so.
overall, they'll probably get out of most of these backflips by explaining there's some outrageous surcharge and a messy wait (like "5-10 business days"). customers would rather just call mom and say "ma, i have a new phone number"
mug
Re:Not the usual anti-patent rant
on
Steal This Idea
·
· Score: 1
The USPO doesn't know how to differentiate between these things. They cannot do the research to learn this because the current focus of the executive branch is forcing smaller government.
This has adventages, but when IP is protectable and defendable making use of these certificates as the core defense, these office should be granted the budget of any legal office. It's not, IMO. The USPO seems horribly out of touch with modern or detailed technology. The experts they employee are either *not* or *incredibly lazy*, or just *understaffed* - my final answer.
I just wish SOMEONE from that office would post a explanation on why we have patents on things with seemingly prior art, or actions which are innane (swinging on a swing).
Can someone here detail what happens when one of these patents gets challenged? Does the USPO ever come out with egg on its face?
mug
Re:SCO is the villain, not MS
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Perhaps. But you should know that SCO and MS are now singing the same song: "We lost market share". SCO is just stating it was done with their code to help improve Linux, and they want compensation. MS wants to spread FUD. They don't care why or how it started. They want to win big fat server contracts over Linux, and this is how they improve their sales pitch. Even this going to trial is enough drag this out long enough to get Linux unadopted by the moron IT shops. Balmer smiles like cheshire cat over this news.
Re:This Should Clear Things Up
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I don't think anyone wants to save the rants for a week. News breaks, we/. it into oblivion. IANAL...
However, I agree with you: This ain't going away. SCO is preparing to drag some poor courtroom through every keystroke of tools in the Linux distro - for however many versions.
But remember, this is a constractual infringement, not a copyright issue. This means IBM broke its contract (if proven) and must pay damages. The code itself is still GPL or whatever.
I sure hope the judge and jury understand that as a member of the Linux Group and (up until a few weeks ago) a working distro source, SCO had the onus to check its code for proprietary or copyrighted information. Otherwise, they simply prove the point that NO parties (except IBM's contract for releasing the code) can be liable. In other words, you check the distro you are pushing to be clean, or you say "buyer beware" and deliver the whole works.
So, focusing on IBM contract for releasing the code, two things come to mind:
[1] Novell's move is part of a different suit and will not have to be settled first; this SCO/IBM this is basically honoring the contract, not about code content (which is just an exhibit in this case).
[2] If IBM put pieces of the code from System V/AIX/SCOunix into Linux, it can defend through either saying the code and algorithms presented were defacto optimal solutions obvious to anyone educated, and thus it is unprovable they themselves leaked it. Or, by saying these were other non-proprietary sources (again, from the instructional or OSS world). If IBM can prove that the design of such algorithms are already in the public domain, they could show the implementation would be a simple next step. IF the code is a letter-for-letter match, as SCO surely feels, IBM has a tough time explaining that. They will then focus on the letter of the contract, the position SCO had at the time supporting Linux development, and any other implied agreements regarding IP in Linux.
Lastly, as for damages, SCO has stated they have lost market share due to the Linux movement (like MS, the hand working SCO's strings at the moment). But in their (quite public) participation in the Linux growth stage over recent years, they prove that no one party is responsible for this expansion. IBM's code release, even if proven, may or may not have affected the adoption of Linux into the mainstream. SCO will have a hard time proving that without it's alledged IP in the kernel, Linux would have flopped. So, IBM will probably not be responsible for much in terms of SCO's loss of market share. Especially since this means analyzing business environments with so many other changes going on.
SCO itself has alienated everyone with favorable association to Linux. Hance MS's partnering to license their code ("as part of a long-standing Windows/Unix interoperability project") - like anyone believes that.
Win or lose, Linux haters are happy to see FUD spread amoung the pointy-haired CTOs of the world. MS can now drop a slide into its hardly-effective PPS file for showing how "risky" Linux is regarding IP. Yawn. Any proprietary code will be quickly replaced in months.
I wonder if the spaceflight itself wouldn't sterilize many things already. Wasn't it only spores that could travel through space? Praps I am recalling incorrectly...
Kids! Kids! Thats enough. TV or not, people have a right to do what they want with their time. No sense in bragging or taunting.
Remember, for every issue you stand high on, in your moral rightousness, there is another you surely completely fail on.
Consumerism, Fossil Fuels, Recycling, Diet/Weight/Health, Intellectual persuits, Spirituality, World Awareness, Community Participation, Civil Service....on and on
Pick your lifestyle and enjoy it, but certainly don't flaunt it. There are no angels. Claiming the high ground makes one look niave.
Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream is suing Baskin Robbins for copyright infringement, due to BR's use of the "vanilla" labelled product sold in all of its stores today.
B&J sells their own Vanilla using plainly listed ingredients and readily available flavoring. During a brief joint-venture between the two companies, Ben and Jerry's and Baskin Robbins formulated a suite of flavors. During this time, B&J claims Baskin Robbins stole the Vanilla formula and process from their internal patented process files. No mention on if Baskin Robbins actually simply read the label on the product to mimic this flavor.
Vanilla, or "plain" ice cream has been around for quite some time. The original copyright owner is itself under question, since the ingredients and process to form a similar flavor to the B&J private version are deceptively simple. The knowledge for creating such a product predates B&J and is well known in academic cooking circles.
A spokesman for B&J's Ice Cream commented Thursday: "We own Vanilla. Any use of the process were without our permission to create an exact product. Nobody could create vanilla without knowing our process. We demand compensation for any other vanilla product which has diluted our market share."
I have to disagree. Legislation has proven to be fruitless when the perpetrators are expected self-regulate. Asking spammers to place a specific tag in their headers is absurd. They already could simply use their true source email address and let people decide what to do with it (killkillkill). ISPs ban these people because, simply put, they are paying for bandwidth that one person is hogging, an abuse of their terms upon signup.
Opt-out lists are similarly crazy. No matter how sharp the teeth the laws are for abusing an onsolicited mail system, one can jump to a further-away ISP, or play tricks with the delivery mechanisms.
But don't let that stop anyone from voting those sharp teeth into existance. Spammers are a tiny minority of voters. Our legislators aren't going to listen to them; the judicial branch is their only safe haven. I'm for big fines for these idiots.
Source email validation is cumbersome but it works. Source-hosted email is even better. We simpyl have to improve the technology to remove the "anonymous forward" nature of the email protocol.
What if I had a checkbox on my ISP configuration that lets me accept "anonymous forwarding" or not? With this turned off, it would validate each incoming email with a check back to the source server. Check fails, spoofy email gone. Thoughts?
Yawn. SO you got a segway to avoid getting sweaty? Why don't you pedal more slowly, or take a break on the ride? One can get from A to B on a bicycle without any reason to switch to a segway, IMO.
Tell me when all the money you saved pays for the segway itself. Now how is this better than a bike or a bus, or just 2 feet.
To me, it seems we've been given enough ways to move ourselves already. What are we solving by moving people 11mph instead of 3mph, but for $5k and a pile of eletronics to head dumpster-bound in 10 years?
Slashdot Mirror
Adding salt to an encryption scheme is so old a theory that it makes me wonder if MS didn't add it just so they could encourage people to upgrade to newer products later (read: pay more money) to get the "highly secure" versions. NTLMv2 should have been implemented with the first NT release.
So our choice is that they are inept or devious. What a wonderful monopoly we fight.
Keep waiting. Most pop music is completely forgiving of minor degredation in audio quality. Most blues and jazz is best captured live anyway.
And don't forget: burn to CD, rip to MP3, upload to Freenet and post on local wireless share. Listen everywhere at your leisure.
If we all chip in, this thing is gonna be great!
..think of all the Inuit we could feed! (tastes like chicken!)
..something new for the zoo! We need genetically engineered giant peanuts.
..a Wooly Mammoth? like your mom in a sweater?
..Its Woulbie the Wooly! Saturdays at 8! This week: sing along to "I wish you'd thaw my maw"
..That amount of poo will suffice for pre-fab housing! You fool! No smoking!
..Mammoth Rides! Spain's Run Of The Woolies! Jousting! Mammoth Hair coats! Ivory out the wazoo!
..Its whats for dinner. and tomorrow night too. and the next...
..Next stop: Reincarnating Hammurabi! We someone with more heart than the current pres.
.."Nature" Journal Submission Title: F15ST Mammoth B14[H3S!!
Because, as the RIAA has pointed out, the physical property is not what has value - the intellectual property does. Its one or the other. They cannot impose a tax on blank CDs.
If I made digital tapes of my CD, would they charge me? As I lost each one to age/use, I would not be charged in making a new one.
If I ripped my CD to my MP3 collection, then re-burned from this each time the CD wore out from use, they would not charge me.
If this MP3 collection wasn't stored on my PC but came from THEIR library, and I provided a key (which is all I bought at the "store") then they wouldn't charge me (I'd hope!). BTW, this key system is a completely different discussion, along the lines of the MS XP licensing mechanics.
mug
Illegal it is, I agree. But the P2P purposes seem to be two-fold:
- free stuff!
- i'm not playing in that system anymore!
Whether you rank one or the other first, doesn't matter. You are achieving both. If I have to force the music industry to drop their number of Tower Records megastores, radio payola consultants, yearly signed bands, then their janitors, before they sense that $20 for a CD is too much, then I'm all for it.
In all our musing about this, a theme has been kinda arrived at: Some sort of investment capital has to lift bands into "the system" for radio airplay and music videos and concert bookings. So no, you can't just pay the band and expect to find new music (even if you live at the corner bar watching them parade through). The scale of bands waiting for a deal is huge. So if this be the so-called "record company" than I'm ok with that. They could share music on the 'net or not, simply to hit the widest audience you have to play in the malls and such.
Either way, even this won't prevent people from sharing such music on the P2Ps. So we're the "free stuff!" aspect by itself.
Stealing copyright infringement, blah blah. Whatever you call it, you are bypassing a barter system that exists for the exchange of value. This seems morally wrong when you didn't pay for it.
But when my CD scratches up, I download a new one. There are a lot of conditions I think it applies - like when you bought the CD outright once, lost it, had it stolen, damaged, etc.
You seem to equate the effort of waiting for MS to implement, or waiting for anyone in the educational/OSS/local/company programming world as equal effort. I completely disagree!
MS won't release their code, hides security flaws through muffling the finders, and packages fixes into huge bundles.
Simply, what I'm saying is that getting out of an MS environment frees a business up from their schedule and style of configuring a machine. I understand you can net deploy with MS, but why bother? Your argument for centralized computing versus a PC is great for home use, but we've all seen the headaches of the past 20 years of PC for the business. No thanks. That uptime you talked about with a centralized server? HP, SUN and IBM have been signing contracts for 99.99% for years now. MS can't sign a contract for any percentage!
Seriously, I've worked in both systems. I'm writing for in C# right now, and I understand your argument. I have been on the Linux-based side of business and I know its not the CL craziness most PHBs think it is.
I understand that going to a *nix-based platform for a business is not the panacea everyone thinks it is. However, you deal with your business solutions, then the system becomes stable. Your changes are for business-requested behaviors, reacting to that world. There isn't some feeling of "boy we're behind in our tech" after 5 years. In the MS shops, still running NT servers is now about to be "old". Why? One reason alone: MS wants more money. They are not supporting your MSDN website, your developers conference, your tech calls, your service packs. You have to buy 200x. Thats just not good business, IMHO. They should allow software to age at its own rate. That would cause them to stagnate, however. So, like any business - it must fight for growth. So it makes the hard choices and sends out the salesmen. Can't fault them entirely, but I'm sure glad there's an alternative.
mug
Sorry to say, Keeper, MS themselves say that you must move on. If you RTFA, supoprt for NT servers is going away.
You'll also note that incompatability does exist in even minor additions (MDAC components, ComDlg.Dll hell, etc) Each of MS's "innovations" was to solve an existing problem. Your claim to "stick with it" means dealing with their originaly lack of insight forever. No thanks.
Linux captures the ability to build on FREE software designs that get tested in a larger user base over longer time. Hence, shells scripts still work, CL utilities still work. Filemon and other GUI can be replaced easily without downloading an 80MB Service Pack and watching it munch your system driectory, registry, etc. Then do this for every computer in your corporation? WTF!
The "small, isolated, corperative" style of *nix applications dominates the testing field over the monolithic "its part of the value-added package" mentality of MS's products: IE is part of the OS, Office is a 1GB gorilla, most OS services are SO heavily intertwined, good luck upgrading just 1 or 2. On top, terminal-style nodes are just what the doctor ordered for large numbers of interconnected limited-use machines. No need to pay for splaying software and licenses to 100's of boxes all over your building.
Oh - don't forget! Your developer base is a pool of people from the past 30 years! Nobody has to go rush to the convention center every 2 years to be read white papers on the NextBigThing. If a single new technology is introduced, you can find a targeted application to implement it in OSS, or rollyerown. In MSworld, this means a gigantic run of releases over the next few months to take advantage of it (IE's birth, java engines, security updates, multimedia support).
Linux has the advantage on many more things than price. Face it. Choosing MS is simply for people who wish to spend money instead of knowing exactly what their machines are doing.
mug
Correction: Nothing stops the NYT from showing ads to us without the reg'd required. The registration bit is a farce, and everyone pumps nonsense into it. Why put it up as mandatory? Does the NYT try to spam its readers from that input? Wouldn't it be our duty to combat spam by intentially filling it with junk?
I let a lot of sites hog MY paid-for bandwidth with ads. This doesn't mean i have to type "Mr Goober" as my registration name on each one. The NYT is way behind in web concepts on this, IMO.
FYI: The google cache and the NYT's own backup copy are other sources of articles - registration free.
Yeah, illegal to use Linux without paying royalties. Linux was born of OSS and could be again quite quickly. This could be just the first incarnation of the matrix.
But overall, your post is simply an opinion - as (in)valid as the original table. IMHO, no educated judge or jury could accept SCO as the rights holder to Linux as a whole. SCO's unixware is dead weight in the business world.
Soliciting things by email is SPAM. People don't WANT IT. Perhaps you should build a web site and advertise it through channels that YOU pay for directly, instead of the recipient wasting their bought bandwidth. This is called NETWORKING and is a major part of growing any small business. There are no secrets here. The world doesn't want to use email to receive advertisements. Not businesses, not personally.
We are chasing down the ideas to stop spam as fast as possible. You may get 0.1% positive results from spamming, but you make 99.9% of your recipients your angry enemies.
The fact you post as an AC suggests you're not really proud of this career move. Try another.
mug
Marvel is within their rights to make this demand. By organizing skins and redistributing them, the site is hedging into trademark violations by skipping permissions.
That said, these skins will now become yet more fodder for other channels. So, in essence, they are pushing for more popularity of things like P2P. Information continues to want to be free. Personal trading of things like this might be similar to any other fair-use occurence, though. Think of if you draw a cool Spidey, make stickers for your buddies and slap them on your schoolbags. Isn't that fair-use? Replace sticker/skin, schoolbag/avatar. Whats the difference?
Anyone know what fair-use says about anonymous trading?
mug
I'm glad there's a C cross compiler for Commodore 64 now =)
So you're still smoking the crack, just switched pipes.
Check it out at NASA. It's pretty much their biggest news today. can't miss it.
They are looking for signs of water. If they find water, they'll be looking for signs of a market to sell it to.
its a sad state of affairs when a console with so many quality games can just sink into the ground like this
In the uber-competative world of console + PC + handheld gaming , it may be tragic to some, but is this really unexpected? I mean these companies want you to buy a new one every two years. Should I have any sympathy when they start dying off just as quickly?
getting a new phone number is already easy. this isn't what they are complaining about. the block system is what providers use. they acquire a block of numbers and put them in their pool. when in a provider, you choose from their pool.
within a provider, they have legacy systems that restricts phone number by "exchange" or the 3 digits past "area code". they used to signify geographic domains about 30 years ago. cellulars are out of this realm, but the same code applies at some point - with a nice hack i'd like to see.
blocks are constantly bought and sold. their systems now, i'm guessing, rarely sell blocks back. but now they'll have to build a list of "numbers for transfer" and the destination provider when a number has to leave the pool for delivery not the government authority, but another provider.
addionally, these transfers are probably batch legacy jobs, and the schedules of those jobs has to be examined to help a customer's switch with a day or so.
overall, they'll probably get out of most of these backflips by explaining there's some outrageous surcharge and a messy wait (like "5-10 business days"). customers would rather just call mom and say "ma, i have a new phone number"
mug
The USPO doesn't know how to differentiate between these things. They cannot do the research to learn this because the current focus of the executive branch is forcing smaller government.
This has adventages, but when IP is protectable and defendable making use of these certificates as the core defense, these office should be granted the budget of any legal office. It's not, IMO. The USPO seems horribly out of touch with modern or detailed technology. The experts they employee are either *not* or *incredibly lazy*, or just *understaffed* - my final answer.
I just wish SOMEONE from that office would post a explanation on why we have patents on things with seemingly prior art, or actions which are innane (swinging on a swing).
Can someone here detail what happens when one of these patents gets challenged? Does the USPO ever come out with egg on its face?
mug
Perhaps. But you should know that SCO and MS are now singing the same song: "We lost market share". SCO is just stating it was done with their code to help improve Linux, and they want compensation. MS wants to spread FUD. They don't care why or how it started. They want to win big fat server contracts over Linux, and this is how they improve their sales pitch. Even this going to trial is enough drag this out long enough to get Linux unadopted by the moron IT shops. Balmer smiles like cheshire cat over this news.
I don't think anyone wants to save the rants for a week. News breaks, we /. it into oblivion. IANAL...
However, I agree with you: This ain't going away. SCO is preparing to drag some poor courtroom through every keystroke of tools in the Linux distro - for however many versions.
But remember, this is a constractual infringement, not a copyright issue. This means IBM broke its contract (if proven) and must pay damages. The code itself is still GPL or whatever.
I sure hope the judge and jury understand that as a member of the Linux Group and (up until a few weeks ago) a working distro source, SCO had the onus to check its code for proprietary or copyrighted information. Otherwise, they simply prove the point that NO parties (except IBM's contract for releasing the code) can be liable. In other words, you check the distro you are pushing to be clean, or you say "buyer beware" and deliver the whole works.
So, focusing on IBM contract for releasing the code, two things come to mind:
[1] Novell's move is part of a different suit and will not have to be settled first; this SCO/IBM this is basically honoring the contract, not about code content (which is just an exhibit in this case).
[2] If IBM put pieces of the code from System V/AIX/SCOunix into Linux, it can defend through either saying the code and algorithms presented were defacto optimal solutions obvious to anyone educated, and thus it is unprovable they themselves leaked it. Or, by saying these were other non-proprietary sources (again, from the instructional or OSS world). If IBM can prove that the design of such algorithms are already in the public domain, they could show the implementation would be a simple next step. IF the code is a letter-for-letter match, as SCO surely feels, IBM has a tough time explaining that. They will then focus on the letter of the contract, the position SCO had at the time supporting Linux development, and any other implied agreements regarding IP in Linux.
Lastly, as for damages, SCO has stated they have lost market share due to the Linux movement (like MS, the hand working SCO's strings at the moment). But in their (quite public) participation in the Linux growth stage over recent years, they prove that no one party is responsible for this expansion. IBM's code release, even if proven, may or may not have affected the adoption of Linux into the mainstream. SCO will have a hard time proving that without it's alledged IP in the kernel, Linux would have flopped. So, IBM will probably not be responsible for much in terms of SCO's loss of market share. Especially since this means analyzing business environments with so many other changes going on.
SCO itself has alienated everyone with favorable association to Linux. Hance MS's partnering to license their code ("as part of a long-standing Windows/Unix interoperability project") - like anyone believes that.
Win or lose, Linux haters are happy to see FUD spread amoung the pointy-haired CTOs of the world. MS can now drop a slide into its hardly-effective PPS file for showing how "risky" Linux is regarding IP. Yawn. Any proprietary code will be quickly replaced in months.
comments welcome
mug
I wonder if the spaceflight itself wouldn't sterilize many things already. Wasn't it only spores that could travel through space? Praps I am recalling incorrectly...
Kids! Kids! Thats enough. TV or not, people have a right to do what they want with their time. No sense in bragging or taunting.
Remember, for every issue you stand high on, in your moral rightousness, there is another you surely completely fail on.
Consumerism, Fossil Fuels, Recycling, Diet/Weight/Health, Intellectual persuits, Spirituality, World Awareness, Community Participation, Civil Service....on and on
Pick your lifestyle and enjoy it, but certainly don't flaunt it. There are no angels. Claiming the high ground makes one look niave.
mug
ref: "Bowling Alone"
Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream is suing Baskin Robbins for copyright infringement, due to BR's use of the "vanilla" labelled product sold in all of its stores today.
B&J sells their own Vanilla using plainly listed ingredients and readily available flavoring. During a brief joint-venture between the two companies, Ben and Jerry's and Baskin Robbins formulated a suite of flavors. During this time, B&J claims Baskin Robbins stole the Vanilla formula and process from their internal patented process files. No mention on if Baskin Robbins actually simply read the label on the product to mimic this flavor.
Vanilla, or "plain" ice cream has been around for quite some time. The original copyright owner is itself under question, since the ingredients and process to form a similar flavor to the B&J private version are deceptively simple. The knowledge for creating such a product predates B&J and is well known in academic cooking circles.
A spokesman for B&J's Ice Cream commented Thursday: "We own Vanilla. Any use of the process were without our permission to create an exact product. Nobody could create vanilla without knowing our process. We demand compensation for any other vanilla product which has diluted our market share."
And now for something completely different...
I have to disagree. Legislation has proven to be fruitless when the perpetrators are expected self-regulate. Asking spammers to place a specific tag in their headers is absurd. They already could simply use their true source email address and let people decide what to do with it (killkillkill). ISPs ban these people because, simply put, they are paying for bandwidth that one person is hogging, an abuse of their terms upon signup.
Opt-out lists are similarly crazy. No matter how sharp the teeth the laws are for abusing an onsolicited mail system, one can jump to a further-away ISP, or play tricks with the delivery mechanisms.
But don't let that stop anyone from voting those sharp teeth into existance. Spammers are a tiny minority of voters. Our legislators aren't going to listen to them; the judicial branch is their only safe haven. I'm for big fines for these idiots.
Source email validation is cumbersome but it works. Source-hosted email is even better. We simpyl have to improve the technology to remove the "anonymous forward" nature of the email protocol.
What if I had a checkbox on my ISP configuration that lets me accept "anonymous forwarding" or not? With this turned off, it would validate each incoming email with a check back to the source server. Check fails, spoofy email gone. Thoughts?
mug
Yawn. SO you got a segway to avoid getting sweaty? Why don't you pedal more slowly, or take a break on the ride? One can get from A to B on a bicycle without any reason to switch to a segway, IMO.
Tell me when all the money you saved pays for the segway itself. Now how is this better than a bike or a bus, or just 2 feet.
To me, it seems we've been given enough ways to move ourselves already. What are we solving by moving people 11mph instead of 3mph, but for $5k and a pile of eletronics to head dumpster-bound in 10 years?
Fad. I'd get one of these anyway
i concur, and do not question that these are only allegations. thus said parent post.