Pretty much right on. This case is important because it's about the rights of a corporate entity to restricr products after sale in ways that has never been legal before. If reverse engineering is decalered illegal in the USA, this could bring about a new "Dark Age". When was the last time a corporation invented something truly Earth shattering? Most great fundamental life changing inventions/innovations come from imdividuals. (Edison, Franklin, Ford, Einstein etc). The right to reverse engineer is really the right to build on previous work. If everyone has to start from scratch with EVERY new invention (unless a corp with cross-licensing of stupid patents), it's easy to see nothing will get done. I can see the world of "Demolition Man" and "Rollerball" coming true... Let's all stand for our Corporate Anthem...
This is one of THE most important cases in the history of US civil rights law, yet most people are unaware or uninformed... Last night, I watched the "futuristic" movie "Rollerball" (for those who haven't seen it, it stars James Caan and is about a future world controlled by corporations who ask only one thing of citizens "don't interfere with management"). On Turner Classic Movies of all places too;) Anyway, IF a cartel like the MPAA is allowed to control not only distribution, but HOW a movie is played, this is a VERY Bad Thing (tm). Imagine General Electric selling you a light bulb, but including a shrinkwrap license informing you it could only be used in an approved Light Fixture (tm). GE and all the other makers of Light Fixtures require confiscatory royalties of any company wanting to produce one, which keeps the prices of them artificially high (due to lack of competition). One day a 16 year old kid decides to make his own light fixture to use the light bulb he's bought from GE, because for whatever reason he's unhappy with the choices in the market. He discovers that it isn't any harder than connecting two wires to the light bulb. He spreads this information on the Internet, and gets sued by GE and all the other light bulb manufacturers... How is this example, as facesious as it is any different from what is actually happening in this case? This is about the fundamental cicil liberty of an individual to USE a product that is purchased in a non-destructive, non harmful manner, in a similar manner in which similar products have been used for many years. If the MPAA wins, the fantasy of Rollerball may be more real than ficton.
Very true. Isn't it interesting that AMD's vaporware (Sledgehammer) is now more attractive than Intel's vaporware (Itanium)? In January 1999 had someone told me that a year and a half later AMD would be perceived as not only the best value chip (laughable as the Celeron was better than the K62 at that time), but the best PERFORMANCE chip. By the end of this year AMD will have out the "Mustang" core Athlon/Duron, which will have up to 2MB L2 Cache (If I recall right), and will be SMP capable, they will be beating Intel's "Williamette" P4 before it comes out. As I said previously, no way the aging Pentium Pro core from 1996 is going to stretch as far as the far newer Athlon (786) cores. Prolonging the life of the P3 is only going to harm Intel more in the long term.
AMD has in the last year forced Intel's hand in both price/performance, FAR sooner than they'd planned. This is obvious because of the i820 chipset fiasco, etc that Intel was forced into releasing the Coppermine and the 133 MHz FSB FAR sooner than planned. I don't think that a yet another Pentium Pro (686) core facelift is going to be able to keep up with the newer Athlons, especially with the 64-bit "Sledgehammer", which won't suffer from Itanium's speed and 32-bit app problems. Intel is desperate, they lost the "bleeding edge" market lead in performance a year ago and they still don't seem to be able to recover. Why did this happen? Complacency. After they went to the Slot-1 (more to keep AMD/Cyrix from making clone chips than any technical advantage, hence their latest move BACK to the socket) Intel killed their competition off. In 1998-9 Intel basically became a monopoly. But thankfully, due to superior engineering, AMD has been able to thru innovation, to level the playing field against a vastly larger compeditor. The fact that HARDWARE standards are mostly (at least to the extent that is important), OPEN, is why hardware continues to outpace the Operating Systems in development. It took Microsoft 5 years from the development of the first mainstream 32-bit CPU to produce a (sorta) 32-bit mainstream OS. Now that we are on the cusp of 64-bit CPU's, anyone care to guess how long it will take MS to produce a 64-bit `Doze? Which is another reason why the AMD Sledgehammer will likely beat the current IA-64 "Itanium", as it will likely be years before there are enough 64-bit apps and OS's (except Linux which is already available) to make it's 32-bit performance handicap a non-issue. in other words: CPU/Hardware market: NON monopoly, developemt speed VERY fast OS market: virtual monopoly, development speed FAR slower than hardware. Which is harder, do design hardware or software? Clearly, the lack of the ability of software to keep up with the hardware is the fault of the complacent, M$ monopoly.
There really is very little control or recourse for corrupt judges, or for unethical judicial actions. Judge Kaplan is bound by ethical (and legal) ethics to DISCLOSE any conflicts of interest. By not doing so, he's comitted a serious, maybe even illegal act. Unfortunately, discipline of unethical judicial behaviour is EXTREMELY rare, especially in the Federal judiciary, where they are appointed for life. Discipline is handled by the Bar, which of course, is made up of lawyers who have a vested interest in the judges (IE, don't want to piss them off meaning their clients won't get fair treatment). Of course, Congress can impeach a judge, but this rarely happens. This is going to be a show trial, with the verdict a foregone conclusion with this guy in charge. He's already kowtowed to the MPAA at almost every opportunity. Obviously we now know why he didn't disqualify Garbus, he'd be in serious trouble had he done that. Note that Kaplan admonished Garbus, and threatened to have him disciplined AFTER the trial, while at the same time being AWARE that he had an equal or GREATER conflict of interest. This isn't about DeCSS. It's about an unconstitutional law that if allowed to stand may cause the advancement of technology to draw to a standstill. When the individual is no longer allowed to innovate, innovation dies. Look at most of the greatest inventions: The light bulb, the phonograph, cotton gin, steam engine, etc, all invented by INDIVIDUALS, not corporations...
Should any of this surprise any of us? Local, State, and Federal legislatures pass 75,000 new laws per year. Most of these laws (like DMCA) were proposed, WRITTEN, and lobbied for (with millions of contribution$ thrown in) by special interests. It's been proposed that Microsoft got busted by the Feds largely because they didn't lobby and spread the wealth around Washington. Which is why they get busted up (though they deserve it for their horrendous buisness practices), while other monopoly cartels like the RIAA and MPAA get their way. With 75,000+ NEW laws a year passed, that we ALL are bound to obey on penalty of fines/imprisonment, with ignorance no excuse, it's no wonder lawers can seemingly be hired to destroy any anti-establishment person, business, etc that the "Tortocracy" is offended by. Next time the Federal Government gets "shut down" rejoice! That day we aren't losing another freedom. Ironic that Microsoft's main PR argument is the loss of the "failure to innovate". The DMCA seemingly has made immovation illegal unless you are a billionare who can afford teams of lawyers.
So long as human beings write articles, there will be bias. Anyone claiming to be unbiased is lying. We ALL have our biases. That aside, I think pretty much ALL the positive Linux articles in the non-Linux media is honest. Why? There is no incentive (read money) for them to do otherwise. Ziff Davis and most mags tend to be biased towards advertisers (after seeing them rate Packard Bell highly I dumped my PC Magazine subscription, as a tech, I know they were sh*t). But I digress. Linux companies as yet don't represent enough $$$ to be able to buy positive ZD reviews like Microsoft. In fact, this whole TOPIC, and the fact that ZD posted it at all represents ANTI Linux bias in the press. Have you ever heard an allegation made by ZD that mags reviewed Windows Y2K positively because of massice M$ ads?
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty much right on. This case is important because it's about the rights of a corporate entity to restricr products after sale in ways that has never been legal before. If reverse engineering is decalered illegal in the USA, this could bring about a new "Dark Age". When was the last time a corporation invented something truly Earth shattering? Most great fundamental life changing inventions/innovations come from imdividuals. (Edison, Franklin, Ford, Einstein etc). The right to reverse engineer is really the right to build on previous work. If everyone has to start from scratch with EVERY new invention (unless a corp with cross-licensing of stupid patents), it's easy to see nothing will get done. I can see the world of "Demolition Man" and "Rollerball" coming true... Let's all stand for our Corporate Anthem...
This is one of THE most important cases in the history of US civil rights law, yet most people are unaware or uninformed... Last night, I watched the "futuristic" movie "Rollerball" (for those who haven't seen it, it stars James Caan and is about a future world controlled by corporations who ask only one thing of citizens "don't interfere with management"). On Turner Classic Movies of all places too;) Anyway, IF a cartel like the MPAA is allowed to control not only distribution, but HOW a movie is played, this is a VERY Bad Thing (tm). Imagine General Electric selling you a light bulb, but including a shrinkwrap license informing you it could only be used in an approved Light Fixture (tm). GE and all the other makers of Light Fixtures require confiscatory royalties of any company wanting to produce one, which keeps the prices of them artificially high (due to lack of competition). One day a 16 year old kid decides to make his own light fixture to use the light bulb he's bought from GE, because for whatever reason he's unhappy with the choices in the market. He discovers that it isn't any harder than connecting two wires to the light bulb. He spreads this information on the Internet, and gets sued by GE and all the other light bulb manufacturers... How is this example, as facesious as it is any different from what is actually happening in this case? This is about the fundamental cicil liberty of an individual to USE a product that is purchased in a non-destructive, non harmful manner, in a similar manner in which similar products have been used for many years. If the MPAA wins, the fantasy of Rollerball may be more real than ficton.
Very true. Isn't it interesting that AMD's vaporware (Sledgehammer) is now more attractive than Intel's vaporware (Itanium)? In January 1999 had someone told me that a year and a half later AMD would be perceived as not only the best value chip (laughable as the Celeron was better than the K62 at that time), but the best PERFORMANCE chip. By the end of this year AMD will have out the "Mustang" core Athlon/Duron, which will have up to 2MB L2 Cache (If I recall right), and will be SMP capable, they will be beating Intel's "Williamette" P4 before it comes out. As I said previously, no way the aging Pentium Pro core from 1996 is going to stretch as far as the far newer Athlon (786) cores. Prolonging the life of the P3 is only going to harm Intel more in the long term.
AMD has in the last year forced Intel's hand in both price/performance, FAR sooner than they'd planned. This is obvious because of the i820 chipset fiasco, etc that Intel was forced into releasing the Coppermine and the 133 MHz FSB FAR sooner than planned. I don't think that a yet another Pentium Pro (686) core facelift is going to be able to keep up with the newer Athlons, especially with the 64-bit "Sledgehammer", which won't suffer from Itanium's speed and 32-bit app problems. Intel is desperate, they lost the "bleeding edge" market lead in performance a year ago and they still don't seem to be able to recover. Why did this happen? Complacency. After they went to the Slot-1 (more to keep AMD/Cyrix from making clone chips than any technical advantage, hence their latest move BACK to the socket) Intel killed their competition off. In 1998-9 Intel basically became a monopoly. But thankfully, due to superior engineering, AMD has been able to thru innovation, to level the playing field against a vastly larger compeditor. The fact that HARDWARE standards are mostly (at least to the extent that is important), OPEN, is why hardware continues to outpace the Operating Systems in development. It took Microsoft 5 years from the development of the first mainstream 32-bit CPU to produce a (sorta) 32-bit mainstream OS. Now that we are on the cusp of 64-bit CPU's, anyone care to guess how long it will take MS to produce a 64-bit `Doze? Which is another reason why the AMD Sledgehammer will likely beat the current IA-64 "Itanium", as it will likely be years before there are enough 64-bit apps and OS's (except Linux which is already available) to make it's 32-bit performance handicap a non-issue. in other words: CPU/Hardware market: NON monopoly, developemt speed VERY fast OS market: virtual monopoly, development speed FAR slower than hardware. Which is harder, do design hardware or software? Clearly, the lack of the ability of software to keep up with the hardware is the fault of the complacent, M$ monopoly.
There really is very little control or recourse for corrupt judges, or for unethical judicial actions. Judge Kaplan is bound by ethical (and legal) ethics to DISCLOSE any conflicts of interest. By not doing so, he's comitted a serious, maybe even illegal act. Unfortunately, discipline of unethical judicial behaviour is EXTREMELY rare, especially in the Federal judiciary, where they are appointed for life. Discipline is handled by the Bar, which of course, is made up of lawyers who have a vested interest in the judges (IE, don't want to piss them off meaning their clients won't get fair treatment). Of course, Congress can impeach a judge, but this rarely happens. This is going to be a show trial, with the verdict a foregone conclusion with this guy in charge. He's already kowtowed to the MPAA at almost every opportunity. Obviously we now know why he didn't disqualify Garbus, he'd be in serious trouble had he done that. Note that Kaplan admonished Garbus, and threatened to have him disciplined AFTER the trial, while at the same time being AWARE that he had an equal or GREATER conflict of interest. This isn't about DeCSS. It's about an unconstitutional law that if allowed to stand may cause the advancement of technology to draw to a standstill. When the individual is no longer allowed to innovate, innovation dies. Look at most of the greatest inventions: The light bulb, the phonograph, cotton gin, steam engine, etc, all invented by INDIVIDUALS, not corporations...
Should any of this surprise any of us? Local, State, and Federal legislatures pass 75,000 new laws per year. Most of these laws (like DMCA) were proposed, WRITTEN, and lobbied for (with millions of contribution$ thrown in) by special interests. It's been proposed that Microsoft got busted by the Feds largely because they didn't lobby and spread the wealth around Washington. Which is why they get busted up (though they deserve it for their horrendous buisness practices), while other monopoly cartels like the RIAA and MPAA get their way. With 75,000+ NEW laws a year passed, that we ALL are bound to obey on penalty of fines/imprisonment, with ignorance no excuse, it's no wonder lawers can seemingly be hired to destroy any anti-establishment person, business, etc that the "Tortocracy" is offended by. Next time the Federal Government gets "shut down" rejoice! That day we aren't losing another freedom. Ironic that Microsoft's main PR argument is the loss of the "failure to innovate". The DMCA seemingly has made immovation illegal unless you are a billionare who can afford teams of lawyers.
So long as human beings write articles, there will be bias. Anyone claiming to be unbiased is lying. We ALL have our biases. That aside, I think pretty much ALL the positive Linux articles in the non-Linux media is honest. Why? There is no incentive (read money) for them to do otherwise. Ziff Davis and most mags tend to be biased towards advertisers (after seeing them rate Packard Bell highly I dumped my PC Magazine subscription, as a tech, I know they were sh*t). But I digress. Linux companies as yet don't represent enough $$$ to be able to buy positive ZD reviews like Microsoft. In fact, this whole TOPIC, and the fact that ZD posted it at all represents ANTI Linux bias in the press. Have you ever heard an allegation made by ZD that mags reviewed Windows Y2K positively because of massice M$ ads?