When I get a cable modem (yeah, still using an aging USR V.90 sucky dialup), I plan on setting up my own e-mail service on my Linux box (sendmail). The idea is to use this to handle all my incoming and outgoing e-mail, so that it never resides on a 3rd party server, except of course, the person who sends me a message, or a person who receives my message.
The question is, is it possible to keep an employer from being able to monitor what is sent and received from a POP server that doesn't exist within the company's network?
From what I read awhile back, the next VIA chipset will have SMP for Thunderbird AND Duron. It will also have DDR support.
I bet that not long after this chipset hits that companies like Abit have dual socket A motherboards, and for an attractive price. Especially considering that 700 MHz Durons, which are in some respects (FPU) better than a 700 Mhz P3, can be had for under $90...
It sucks how slow SMP for Athlon has been coming, but I think when it does hit, Intel will lose a lot of face. The "Mustang" core Athlon is supposed to be the next stage, a chip that competes with Intel's way WAY overpriced Xeon line.
Obviously, like when they pumped life support into Apple when they were on the verge of death, M$ feels they have to keep Corel alive.
Who else competes with Office on Windows? The only other notable suites besides Word Perfect Office is Lotus Smart Suite and Star Office. It's a good PR move on M$'s part, though it's really more a sad statement of what has become reality, that Corel is finished and needed M$ capital to keep going. Even with this investment, Corel won't ever threaten any M$ core product.
Novell is obviously sinking (and it sucks I've invested a lot of time and money on the CNA, with the idea of going CNE). M$ could dump some money into Novell soon to keep them alive.
But on the other hand, they may not have to (from a DOJ standpoint) because Linux, not Novell, is their chief competition in the server market.
I thought the DMCA supported reverse-engineering for interoperabillity? Compatability with a file system DEFINATELY is an interoperability issue. I think this "threat" is an attempt to scare these developers, and make companies like Red Hat (who would also be liable for distributing the kernel with this "infringing" work) scared that they will have to spend IPO money on lawyers rather than R&D
IMO, a classic case of M$ using threats to illegally maintain a monopoly.
BTW, a THREAT of a lawsuit, when groundless is actionable. If I were these developers, RMS, Linus, or Red Hat, I'd be sending copies of this threat to the Supreme Court and Judge Jackson.
I suppose this threat means that M$ has given up on making `Doze 2000 a better product than Linux and now have to take to the courts for protection?
I'm a field tech who regularly does on-site calls to government offices. Usually, the office has 1/4th of the workforce working, another 1/4 watching ME work, and the other 1/2 outside talking, smoking, or plain absent.
So yes, this could explain why green card apps take more than 6 years.
Basically the purpose of the H1B exists so corps can employ cheap slave labor. I've seen it. Is it any surprise that these people end up exploited, used, then kicked out? If they were allowed to stay with no hitches (as they should be, ALL skilled people should be allowed to immigrate, no questions asked) then the H1B IT import would have fair negotiating rights with his/her employer.
But, that's not the point, the same corps that beg for more H1B's are doing so because they want to IMPORT more, not keep the ones they have. God forbid these people get paid the market rate for their skills.
IT salaries are high for a reason: There simply aren't that many people compared to demand with technical skills. Those who seek to not pay the market rate will end up either: inferior personnel, or they will end up exploiting someone via H1B.
Does it also surprise anyone how inefficient the INS is? Name ONE government agency that is as efficient as the MOST INEFFICIENT private company. You can't. Inefficient private company goes away, government agency just gets a budget increase. Anyone who would want to hand over MORE functions to those bozos (like control of health care) are insane!
I don't like to sound conspiratorial, but it could be that this player was vaporware intended to sway His Imperial Majesty Judge Kaplan (as if he needed any). Could have also been done purely for PR purposes.
Why? Well, it certainly would have made 2600's arguments look much better, that we had the right to DeCSS to write a Linux DVD player, as no one has released one, or is making one.
Kaplan's conflict of interest has so far only been heard (and dismissed with a 90+ page collection of BS) by himself. Of course he thinks he's "unbiased". And that new platinum Rolls that just showed up in his garage is purely coincidental.
Kaplan's CLEAR conflict of interest HAS to be heard by another court. He admonished Garbus, 2600's lead attorney, for a "conflict of interest" (once representing a company that was eventually bought by Time-Warner), yet he HIMSELF worked for them.
While suing businesses out of existance has always been around, since Clinton has raised it to high art with his persecution of tobacco and gun makers. This is the legacy.
The MPAA/RIAA won't be happy until there IS a tax on everything that could conceivebly be used to record or duplicate copyrighted works. When that happens, there is no longer any need for them to produce "quality", as they will get a certain cut of the IT industry no matter what schlock they produce. Imagine movies, TV, and pop music being even worse tomorrow than today.
Such a plan as Germany proposes takes all incentive of the market (IE, make a good product, make money, make a piss poor one, lose money) out of the entertainment industry.
I have a lot of respect for RMS, and in the technical sense, he is right in this case.
However, by always taking such an extreme line on things, he is hurting the FSF movement. For example, he sent a threatening letter to Maximum Linux, a new Linux magazine, over an omission of a link to their FTP site for source code. Again, technically he's right, but what did he accomplish?
RMS holding the hard line and lashing out like he has lately sounds almost like the MPAA and RIAA to me, he's trying to dictate miniscule details to everyone. He's gone so far to the extreme he's become corpratist in his own way.
I don't think the FSF or RMS is best served by eating it's own (KDE).
Yoy know, I'm pissed at certain DVD's that FORCE you to sit thru their previews and commercials. I mean, I PAID for this disc, yet I'm not allowed to control how it's played back.
In fact, it's stuff like that which makes me wonder if the transfer of control in the new digital technology (TV, DVD, VCR, etc) makes the marginal gain in quality over the older analog technology worth it? No analog VCR will ever stop you from fast forwarding anything, because it's a largely mechanical device and you control it.
Basically the mask is off, and the purpose of the MPAA is clear: They want TOTAL 100% control of when and how all media is played. They want recording to be impossible.
If this level of control by a monopolistic, corporate cartel over everyday technology doesn't scare you, what will? I see no difference between government control (1984), or corporate control, the end result is the same.
Yoy know, I'm pissed at certain DVD's that FORCE you to sit thru their previews and commercials. I mean, I PAID for this disc, yet I'm not allowed to control how it's played back.
In fact, it's stuff like that which makes me wonder if the transfer of control in the new digital technology (TV, DVD, VCR, etc) makes the marginal gain in quality over the older analog technology worth it? No analog VCR will ever stop you from fast forwarding anything, because it's a largely mechanical device and you control it.
Basically the mask is off, and the purpose of the MPAA is clear: They want TOTAL 100% control of when and how all media is played. They want recording to be impossible.
If this level of control by a monopolistic, corporate cartel over everyday technology doesn't scare you, what will? I see no difference between government control (1984), or corporate control, the end result is the same.
Seems to me that this proposal unmasks the true intentions of the MPAA: the total elimination of the Constitutional right of "fair use". And they are doing this thru a bureaucratic agency (FCC), made up of unelected government drones who usually rubber-stamp the will of the rich and powerful.
This is an attempt to end-run the Supreme Court and the Congress. BTW, it can be argued that the FCC has no right to regulate what you do with a recording in your home anyway, as this is not interstate commerce, but I digress.
Obviously the solution to this is public outrage. Send in your comments to the FCC. Call your congressman, and tell people about it. Sooner or later the public at large HAS to get outraged at such behavior, or else all is lost anyway. And this may just be the case that does it
Think about it, DECSS and Napster are technical and vague, and thus the average Joe Blow doesn't understand it. THIS is a case EVERYONE will understand: If the MPAA gets away with this, you can't tape from your TV anymore. Everyone has done this. Everyone will be affected in one way or another.
You are correct. A benevolent dictator IS the perfect form of government, but there never has been such a person. "Power corrupts, but absolute power is even more fun" -BOFH
"We'll firewall it at your ISP, we'll firewall it in your PC, we'll firewall it in your car, we'll firewall it at internet bars".
--Jack Valenti, President and CEO, Motion Picture Association of America
I could see him saying that, a parody of Steve Heckler, Sony Veep's comments about Napster. But as I said in response to that, we as CITIZENS need to excercise our right to "firewall" them at our wallet.
Since the DMCA doesn't apply to analog technology, we should refuse to buy digital replacements until we receive the same rights we have to use them we have with existing analog.
Where is the government when megacorp cartels like the MPAA start using blatantly illegal bully tactics against citizens? Isn't protection against this the main justification behind establishing governments and paying them taxes?
It's times like this when I wonder if there truly exists a political idea for a government that both stays out of the private lives and property rights of citizens (ala Libertarianism), that will also keep the corps in check. Currently, NONE of the political systems in the world do this. For example:
Capitalism- Corps rule
Socialism- replaces the corps with the government doing the same thing or worse
Republic/Democracy/Parlaiment- Allows the corps to buy influence.
Libertarian Reoublic- Would maximize the influnce of judges, as everything would be regulated in the courts.
Just some thoughts... Maybe we Slashdotters can come up with a form of government that can keep government out of people's lives yet keep corps in check
>3) advise us of the name and physical address of the person operating this site; and
>My reaction to this would have to be, "Not >without a subpeona, motherfucker."
Yes, but how many ISP's will respect the privacy of their users when the MPAA makes such demands?
This is why Kaplan's ruling is sooo bad that it won't last 15 min on appeal. That us unless the next judge is plainly (IMHO) as bought and paid for as Kaplan. I only see two possibilities, again, in my opinion:
1. Kaplan is biased because of corruption or prior influence
2. Kaplan is incompetent, or has no respect for the law.
I see no third possibility. To read the ruling literally as seems reasonable (considering Kaplan interpreted DMCA in the most extreme possible way), it would seem to make the WHOLE WWW subject to an injuction as you said.
This is why I am SO MUCH against lifetime tenure for federal judges. Kaplan is the cause of all this, by flouting the Constitution, and thus becoming totally in contempt of the highest law in the land.
But there is no recourse for bad judges save impeachment, by Congress. This happens very seldom, and usually for only the most onerous offenses.
The purpose of the federal judiciary is to decide a case based on the law, ALL the law. Kaplan refused to consider the constitutionality of this application of the DMCA, and made an extreme, narrow ruling based soley on a statutory law that is subordinate to the constitution.
By making a ruling against LINKING to DeCSS, he has overstepped his authority. The DMCA has nothing to say about hyperlinks. At least nothing specific (it was drafted prior to the popularity of the `net). However, the constitution, by the first amendment, does say something. Kaplan chose to ignore the constitution and add to the DMCA where there was nothing.
Which brings to mind... It is at least ARGUABLE that the MPAA can make you pull software (DeCSS) that they can CLAIM at least violates their copyright. That is far different though than claiming a power that doesn't exist, in censoring SPEECH CONTENT of a website. Should this sudden new authority to regulate hyperlinks fall (and it likely will), is the MPAA liable for class action damages by all parties threatened?
This could be a bad sign for future tech... Outside of the GNU/Open Source community and AMD, I've not seen much innovation other than new and creative lawsuits.
RAMBUS chose it's first attacks carefuly to make it's claim seem stronger than it is. Toshiba is the main supplier of RDRAM for Nintendo. They were offered a "sweet" deal on royalty to cave. Hitatchi was prepared to fight it out, and had counter-sued in much the way that Micron is now, but they were set to sell their memory business, and to close the deal they had to settle. Note that Hitachi's settlement becomes null and void when it changes ownership.
The next RAMUS suit was against a foreign company, that will be at a disadvantage in the wacky US federal courts.
Now they face a real monster, Micron, a REAL company with REAL engineering, REAL assets, REAL production that could buy or bury RAMUS in REAL assets many times over.
You are correct. The patent-IP then sue business model "pioneered" by RAMUS inc will encourage others. Especially when one of the large established megacorps (Microsoft, Intel) catch on and try the same thing. One day there may be more lawyers than engineers employed at "leading" technology companies.
That is the main point. RAMBUST memory is inferior to cheaper PC133 SDRAM and certainly will be embarassed by DDR SDRAM. Yet they are trying to create sucess for inferior technology no one in particular wants, that is too expensive by using IP and lawyers. They are attempting this by controlling licensing on the compeditor so as to artificially make DDR more expensive than it has to be so as to make RAMBUST more attractive. RAMBUS has disclosed in the Hitachi and Toshiba settlements that the royalty for DDR is higher than RAMBUST.
Slashdot Mirror
When I get a cable modem (yeah, still using an aging USR V.90 sucky dialup), I plan on setting up my own e-mail service on my Linux box (sendmail). The idea is to use this to handle all my incoming and outgoing e-mail, so that it never resides on a 3rd party server, except of course, the person who sends me a message, or a person who receives my message.
The question is, is it possible to keep an employer from being able to monitor what is sent and received from a POP server that doesn't exist within the company's network?
From what I read awhile back, the next VIA chipset will have SMP for Thunderbird AND Duron. It will also have DDR support.
I bet that not long after this chipset hits that companies like Abit have dual socket A motherboards, and for an attractive price. Especially considering that 700 MHz Durons, which are in some respects (FPU) better than a 700 Mhz P3, can be had for under $90...
It sucks how slow SMP for Athlon has been coming, but I think when it does hit, Intel will lose a lot of face. The "Mustang" core Athlon is supposed to be the next stage, a chip that competes with Intel's way WAY overpriced Xeon line.
I wonder what M$ gets? Remember when Apple had to agree to make IE the fefault web browser on the Mac? That killed Netscape on that platform.
Obviously, like when they pumped life support into Apple when they were on the verge of death, M$ feels they have to keep Corel alive.
Who else competes with Office on Windows? The only other notable suites besides Word Perfect Office is Lotus Smart Suite and Star Office. It's a good PR move on M$'s part, though it's really more a sad statement of what has become reality, that Corel is finished and needed M$ capital to keep going. Even with this investment, Corel won't ever threaten any M$ core product.
Novell is obviously sinking (and it sucks I've invested a lot of time and money on the CNA, with the idea of going CNE). M$ could dump some money into Novell soon to keep them alive.
But on the other hand, they may not have to (from a DOJ standpoint) because Linux, not Novell, is their chief competition in the server market.
I thought the DMCA supported reverse-engineering for interoperabillity? Compatability with a file system DEFINATELY is an interoperability issue. I think this "threat" is an attempt to scare these developers, and make companies like Red Hat (who would also be liable for distributing the kernel with this "infringing" work) scared that they will have to spend IPO money on lawyers rather than R&D
IMO, a classic case of M$ using threats to illegally maintain a monopoly.
BTW, a THREAT of a lawsuit, when groundless is actionable. If I were these developers, RMS, Linus, or Red Hat, I'd be sending copies of this threat to the Supreme Court and Judge Jackson.
I suppose this threat means that M$ has given up on making `Doze 2000 a better product than Linux and now have to take to the courts for protection?
I'm a field tech who regularly does on-site calls to government offices. Usually, the office has 1/4th of the workforce working, another 1/4 watching ME work, and the other 1/2 outside talking, smoking, or plain absent. So yes, this could explain why green card apps take more than 6 years.
Basically the purpose of the H1B exists so corps can employ cheap slave labor. I've seen it. Is it any surprise that these people end up exploited, used, then kicked out? If they were allowed to stay with no hitches (as they should be, ALL skilled people should be allowed to immigrate, no questions asked) then the H1B IT import would have fair negotiating rights with his/her employer.
But, that's not the point, the same corps that beg for more H1B's are doing so because they want to IMPORT more, not keep the ones they have. God forbid these people get paid the market rate for their skills.
IT salaries are high for a reason: There simply aren't that many people compared to demand with technical skills. Those who seek to not pay the market rate will end up either: inferior personnel, or they will end up exploiting someone via H1B.
Does it also surprise anyone how inefficient the INS is? Name ONE government agency that is as efficient as the MOST INEFFICIENT private company. You can't. Inefficient private company goes away, government agency just gets a budget increase. Anyone who would want to hand over MORE functions to those bozos (like control of health care) are insane!
I don't like to sound conspiratorial, but it could be that this player was vaporware intended to sway His Imperial Majesty Judge Kaplan (as if he needed any). Could have also been done purely for PR purposes.
Why? Well, it certainly would have made 2600's arguments look much better, that we had the right to DeCSS to write a Linux DVD player, as no one has released one, or is making one.
Kaplan's conflict of interest has so far only been heard (and dismissed with a 90+ page collection of BS) by himself. Of course he thinks he's "unbiased". And that new platinum Rolls that just showed up in his garage is purely coincidental.
Kaplan's CLEAR conflict of interest HAS to be heard by another court. He admonished Garbus, 2600's lead attorney, for a "conflict of interest" (once representing a company that was eventually bought by Time-Warner), yet he HIMSELF worked for them.
While suing businesses out of existance has always been around, since Clinton has raised it to high art with his persecution of tobacco and gun makers. This is the legacy.
The MPAA/RIAA won't be happy until there IS a tax on everything that could conceivebly be used to record or duplicate copyrighted works. When that happens, there is no longer any need for them to produce "quality", as they will get a certain cut of the IT industry no matter what schlock they produce. Imagine movies, TV, and pop music being even worse tomorrow than today.
Such a plan as Germany proposes takes all incentive of the market (IE, make a good product, make money, make a piss poor one, lose money) out of the entertainment industry.
I have a lot of respect for RMS, and in the technical sense, he is right in this case.
However, by always taking such an extreme line on things, he is hurting the FSF movement. For example, he sent a threatening letter to Maximum Linux, a new Linux magazine, over an omission of a link to their FTP site for source code. Again, technically he's right, but what did he accomplish?
RMS holding the hard line and lashing out like he has lately sounds almost like the MPAA and RIAA to me, he's trying to dictate miniscule details to everyone. He's gone so far to the extreme he's become corpratist in his own way.
I don't think the FSF or RMS is best served by eating it's own (KDE).
In fact, the DMCA and this rule would affect radio. Especially since some form of digital radio will be a reality in the next few years.
All the more reason why I'm glad that since the Internet, I spend very little time watching TV or listening to homogenized FM radio.
Yoy know, I'm pissed at certain DVD's that FORCE you to sit thru their previews and commercials. I mean, I PAID for this disc, yet I'm not allowed to control how it's played back.
In fact, it's stuff like that which makes me wonder if the transfer of control in the new digital technology (TV, DVD, VCR, etc) makes the marginal gain in quality over the older analog technology worth it? No analog VCR will ever stop you from fast forwarding anything, because it's a largely mechanical device and you control it.
Basically the mask is off, and the purpose of the MPAA is clear: They want TOTAL 100% control of when and how all media is played. They want recording to be impossible.
If this level of control by a monopolistic, corporate cartel over everyday technology doesn't scare you, what will? I see no difference between government control (1984), or corporate control, the end result is the same.
Yoy know, I'm pissed at certain DVD's that FORCE you to sit thru their previews and commercials. I mean, I PAID for this disc, yet I'm not allowed to control how it's played back.
In fact, it's stuff like that which makes me wonder if the transfer of control in the new digital technology (TV, DVD, VCR, etc) makes the marginal gain in quality over the older analog technology worth it? No analog VCR will ever stop you from fast forwarding anything, because it's a largely mechanical device and you control it.
Basically the mask is off, and the purpose of the MPAA is clear: They want TOTAL 100% control of when and how all media is played. They want recording to be impossible.
If this level of control by a monopolistic, corporate cartel over everyday technology doesn't scare you, what will? I see no difference between government control (1984), or corporate control, the end result is the same.
Seems to me that this proposal unmasks the true intentions of the MPAA: the total elimination of the Constitutional right of "fair use". And they are doing this thru a bureaucratic agency (FCC), made up of unelected government drones who usually rubber-stamp the will of the rich and powerful.
This is an attempt to end-run the Supreme Court and the Congress. BTW, it can be argued that the FCC has no right to regulate what you do with a recording in your home anyway, as this is not interstate commerce, but I digress.
Obviously the solution to this is public outrage. Send in your comments to the FCC. Call your congressman, and tell people about it. Sooner or later the public at large HAS to get outraged at such behavior, or else all is lost anyway. And this may just be the case that does it
Think about it, DECSS and Napster are technical and vague, and thus the average Joe Blow doesn't understand it. THIS is a case EVERYONE will understand: If the MPAA gets away with this, you can't tape from your TV anymore. Everyone has done this. Everyone will be affected in one way or another.
You are correct. A benevolent dictator IS the perfect form of government, but there never has been such a person. "Power corrupts, but absolute power is even more fun" -BOFH
"We'll firewall it at your ISP, we'll firewall it in your PC, we'll firewall it in your car, we'll firewall it at internet bars".
--Jack Valenti, President and CEO, Motion Picture Association of America
I could see him saying that, a parody of Steve Heckler, Sony Veep's comments about Napster. But as I said in response to that, we as CITIZENS need to excercise our right to "firewall" them at our wallet.
Since the DMCA doesn't apply to analog technology, we should refuse to buy digital replacements until we receive the same rights we have to use them we have with existing analog.
Where is the government when megacorp cartels like the MPAA start using blatantly illegal bully tactics against citizens? Isn't protection against this the main justification behind establishing governments and paying them taxes?
It's times like this when I wonder if there truly exists a political idea for a government that both stays out of the private lives and property rights of citizens (ala Libertarianism), that will also keep the corps in check. Currently, NONE of the political systems in the world do this. For example:
Capitalism- Corps rule
Socialism- replaces the corps with the government doing the same thing or worse
Republic/Democracy/Parlaiment- Allows the corps to buy influence.
Libertarian Reoublic- Would maximize the influnce of judges, as everything would be regulated in the courts.
Just some thoughts... Maybe we Slashdotters can come up with a form of government that can keep government out of people's lives yet keep corps in check
>3) advise us of the name and physical address of the person operating this site; and >My reaction to this would have to be, "Not >without a subpeona, motherfucker."
Yes, but how many ISP's will respect the privacy of their users when the MPAA makes such demands?
Likely very few.
This is why Kaplan's ruling is sooo bad that it won't last 15 min on appeal. That us unless the next judge is plainly (IMHO) as bought and paid for as Kaplan. I only see two possibilities, again, in my opinion:
1. Kaplan is biased because of corruption or prior influence
2. Kaplan is incompetent, or has no respect for the law.
I see no third possibility. To read the ruling literally as seems reasonable (considering Kaplan interpreted DMCA in the most extreme possible way), it would seem to make the WHOLE WWW subject to an injuction as you said.
This is why I am SO MUCH against lifetime tenure for federal judges. Kaplan is the cause of all this, by flouting the Constitution, and thus becoming totally in contempt of the highest law in the land.
But there is no recourse for bad judges save impeachment, by Congress. This happens very seldom, and usually for only the most onerous offenses.
The purpose of the federal judiciary is to decide a case based on the law, ALL the law. Kaplan refused to consider the constitutionality of this application of the DMCA, and made an extreme, narrow ruling based soley on a statutory law that is subordinate to the constitution.
By making a ruling against LINKING to DeCSS, he has overstepped his authority. The DMCA has nothing to say about hyperlinks. At least nothing specific (it was drafted prior to the popularity of the `net). However, the constitution, by the first amendment, does say something. Kaplan chose to ignore the constitution and add to the DMCA where there was nothing.
Which brings to mind... It is at least ARGUABLE that the MPAA can make you pull software (DeCSS) that they can CLAIM at least violates their copyright. That is far different though than claiming a power that doesn't exist, in censoring SPEECH CONTENT of a website. Should this sudden new authority to regulate hyperlinks fall (and it likely will), is the MPAA liable for class action damages by all parties threatened?
This could be a bad sign for future tech... Outside of the GNU/Open Source community and AMD, I've not seen much innovation other than new and creative lawsuits.
RAMBUS chose it's first attacks carefuly to make it's claim seem stronger than it is. Toshiba is the main supplier of RDRAM for Nintendo. They were offered a "sweet" deal on royalty to cave. Hitatchi was prepared to fight it out, and had counter-sued in much the way that Micron is now, but they were set to sell their memory business, and to close the deal they had to settle. Note that Hitachi's settlement becomes null and void when it changes ownership. The next RAMUS suit was against a foreign company, that will be at a disadvantage in the wacky US federal courts. Now they face a real monster, Micron, a REAL company with REAL engineering, REAL assets, REAL production that could buy or bury RAMUS in REAL assets many times over.
You are correct. The patent-IP then sue business model "pioneered" by RAMUS inc will encourage others. Especially when one of the large established megacorps (Microsoft, Intel) catch on and try the same thing. One day there may be more lawyers than engineers employed at "leading" technology companies.
That is the main point. RAMBUST memory is inferior to cheaper PC133 SDRAM and certainly will be embarassed by DDR SDRAM. Yet they are trying to create sucess for inferior technology no one in particular wants, that is too expensive by using IP and lawyers. They are attempting this by controlling licensing on the compeditor so as to artificially make DDR more expensive than it has to be so as to make RAMBUST more attractive. RAMBUS has disclosed in the Hitachi and Toshiba settlements that the royalty for DDR is higher than RAMBUST.