This guy Novak is acting pro se. He's not a lawyer, yet he's representing a company in federal court. If the court had been on the ball, it would have rejected his attempts to file, since he's representing an entity other than himself. The only thing I can't figure out is why the list's attorney didn't file a summary motion to strike all of his pleadings on that basis.
>So what they're saying here is that when free software succeeds, they can't compete.
Actually, I think what they're saying is that when free software succeeds, they *won't* compete, because they can't figure out any way to make money off doing so. The only reason that MS continues to keep IE free-as-in-beer (as other posters have observed) is that by doing so they can bend web standards and force other companies to comply with IE's new styles, which eventually allows them new avenues to sell *other* MS products (specifically Windows). If the IE source code is released, they can't do this any more.
Your comment describes the "open source" view of their motives, while mine describes the "free software" version. Given MS's track record, which one do you think is more accurate?
Why is it whenever this type of article gets posted, some nut starts talking about gun laws? I mean, I'm against all gun laws, but I still don't see the connection. Aren't all these posts offtopic?
This stuff is usuable in court generally not as direct evidence, but as impeachment evidence. Impeachment evidence isn't subject to the same strictures of authentication and proof since it's only used to confront a witness who may not be telling the whole truth, and cannot be used to directly establish that what the evidence shows *is* true.
"During a briefing at Justice Department headquarters, a senior official who spoke on the condition of anonymity denied that the White House had anything to do with Thursday's announcement: 'These decisions are being made inside the DOJ.'"
Not that I'm a Bush fan (he's a moron and was handed the presidency by an intellectually bankrupt majority on the Supreme Court), but one thing is for sure: the federal bureaucracy *does* make decisions without input from the president, folks.
This is a moronic decision, for one very simple reason:
There is *plenty* of precedent that you do not subject yourself to the jurisdiction of a State's courts merely by putting up a web site. Instead, you must *purposefully avail* yourself of that State's laws in some way in order for the exercise of jurisdiction to comply with due process under the U.S. Constitution.
Here, the intermediate appellate court (clearly in the pocket of the entertaiment industry) held that anything that *affects* someone who conducts business in California is now subject to California jurisdiction. This rule does not comport with due process, makes no sense, and indicates that EVERYONE WHO HAS EVER PUBLISHED A WEBSITE COULD CONCIEVEABLY BE SUBJECT TO JURISDICTION IN CALIFORNIA--a moronic rule at best. I *guarantee* that this will be reversed by the Cali. Supreme Court, and if not by them, by the U.S. Supremes, who will almost certainly take this case in.
--J
1) The judge applies the California Commercial Code to determine issues regarding the formation of the licensing contract. However, that Code only applies to "goods," which are defined as "moveable, tangible objects." It is by no means certain that this definition covers software distributed over the internet.
2) The judge focused largely on the peculiar mechanisms of Netscape's website that distributed SmartDownload to determine that the parties did not assent to the terms contained in the license, because they were not required to specifically assent to anything prior to downloading the software. This contrasts completely with Microsoft's WindowsUpdate, for example, which specifically requires a click-through assent and affirmance prior to download. This distinction will make the impact of the decision limited at best.
3) Finally, this issue arose in the context of a motion to compel arbitration filed by Netscape. It is not completely clear that the plaintiffs utterly failed to assent to any restrictions on their use of SmartDownload, but only that they did not unambigously assent to the licensing agreement that provided for arbitration. This posture could further limit the impact of the decision.
All in all, I'm not really sure this one was worthy of a front-page/. story. The headline certainly doesn't comport with the actual text of the decision.
*Both* of you missed my point -- it's not that the story is true, false, spun or not --> IT'S THAT THE WALL STREET JOURNAL DECIDED TO REPORT IT! This is not a story one would normally see in the WSJ, mainly because it's such a special-audience / slashdot-interest kind of story. The Register story is different; that points out a reporting bias at MSNBC. The original WSJ story, on the other hand, is somthing that could easily have sank without a trace, never to have been reported in the first instance anywhere except for C/Net. *That's* why I said the WSJ could be an ally, rather than the particular spin in the story.
The story here is not that Hotmail runs on BSD -- that's well-known already. The story is that this fact was reported in the WALL STREET JOURNAL. The WSJ has been reliably pro-Microsoft in relation to previous skirmishes, notably the Antitrust matter. Is it *possible* that the WSJ has decided to take a different approach to the company's slander campaign against its open source / free-as-in-speech competition? After all, previous attacks from MS, particularly the Craig Mundie flap, have focused on the GNU Public License. If the WSJ has decided that this constitutes hypocrisy on MS' part, that would be a major boon to the intergration of free software into the broader business market. The WSJ is a POWERFUL ally.
Um, no. You rightly state that Jesse was the "one voice against this sort of concession of American sovereignty," but he has never cared a flip about any *other* country's soverignty. I'm one of those fashionable globalization opponents, but I just can't cotton to manifest destiny, no matter how it's cloaked.
Uh, you quite obviously have NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
I wouldn't even respond to this if it weren't moderated +4 informative, but here goes:
"Pro bono" means free. Period. As in free beer. AS IN THE LAWYER DOES NOT GET PAID!!
What you seem to be talking about is a CONTINGENT FEE AGREEMENT. In most states, a lawyer's contingent fee cannot exceed 33% (not 40%) of the ACTUAL RECOVERY.
In this case THERE WILL BE NO ACTUAL RECOVERY UNLESS THE CASE IS SETTLED, because liabilty is nil -- if you don't believe me, check out the 80s cases against Ozzy Osbourne and Judas Priest.
The only thing you've got right is that this is a publicity generator -- and THAT is freaking OBVIOUS!
Uh, not to burst your bubble, but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Your biggest error is that the DCMA has *no* relationship to laws forbidding the possession of child pornography.
Your second biggest error is that the information stored on Freenet is encrypted *even to the host of the node*.
--J
Re:Dissappointed to hear it is biased.
on
Republic.Com
·
· Score: 1
Unfortunately, this is not "+1, informative," it is "-1, troll." However, since I'm dumber than the average fish, I'll bite--
Just because "Nazi" is short for "National Socialist" doesn't mean that German fascism had the slightest thing in common with socialism in theory or in practice. While it may have certain totalitarian aspects in common with, say, soviet communism, it has virtually nothing in common with socialism as it has been theorized and practiced in the remainder of Europe. Please study political science before you spout off facile comparisions.
--J
Look -- I understand the theory behind the aphorism -- I'm a friggin constitutional lawyer! My point was that evey time I talk to a libertarian about this subject, he or she acts as though all the answers about it are completely self-evident -- THEY ARE NOT. If you think that the question of free speech in a democratic society is simple, you haven't spent enough time thinking about it. And, unfortunately, I find that to be universally true of libertarians, especially those who post on/.
You, and every other libertarian I've ever met, far oversimplify the dynamics at issue in free speech cases. What is "real damage"? Why does shouting fire in a crowded theatre cause "real damage" but encouraging someone to kill not cause "real damage"? You may understand the distinction, but it's about as clear as mud to the rest of us.
By the way: the "fire in a crowded theatre" aphorism, from Justice Holmes' famous opinion in Schenck v. Unites States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), is an example of his "clear and present danger" test, which has been for the most part repudiated as not being speech-protective *enough*. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a more speech protective test that allows regulation of speech advocating the use of force or the commission of a crime only when (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, *and* (2) the advocacy is likely to incite or produce such action.
>The real flaw is that Sunstein wants somebody to decide what everybody needs to know, somebody to tell us >what to believe.
While this may seem flip, it is probably accurate. Sunstein's previous books (including "The Partial Constitution" and his First Amendment tome "Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech") advocate a far greater role for the government in regulating speech. Sunstein has argued for a "New Deal" (increased regulation) for speech, because he believes the the purpose of free speech is to debate issues "fundamentally concerned with democratic sef-government," and that the First Amendment must be interepreted to advance that end at the expense of other viewpoints. Taken in light of his general views on speech, his disapproval of personalized media is unsurprising.
While your second statement is *technically* correct, it only happened in one much-maligned U.S. Supreme Court case and that doctrine has *never* been applied in the First Amendment context. Do some research before you spout off, because you're certainly NAL.
*None* of the documents linked provide the slightest support for concluding that currently registered owners of.org addresses will be forced to forfiet those addresses. The "appropriate transition period" mentioned in the agreement and the article seems to refer to a period after which *new*.org addresses will not be issued to entities other than not-for-profits.
"Under the deal, VeriSign would permanently surrender control of "org" addresses by December 2002. The company also would establish an endowment of $5 million toward the future operation of "org" addresses. It further agreed to spend $200 million in research over 10 years toward making Internet registries more efficient.
Icann indicated that it wants "org" Web addresses reserved only for nonprofit organizations "after some appropriate transition period," a restriction that hasn't been enforced in recent years. Details haven't been worked out, though one Icann official suggested that current "org" Web sites may be allowed to continue regardless of their affiliation with nonprofits.
VeriSign also will agree to give up control over "net" Web addresses by January 2006; it would be allowed to bid for future rights to run that registry, but approval by Icann was considered highly unlikely."
I know this is late in the game to respond, but you missed my point entirely. There *is* a check and balance on the filing of lawsuits -- plaintiff's lawyers have to fund those lawsuits themselves. They may be "free" to the client, but it's not "free" for the lawyer working on the case. The investment of time and money that it takes to prepare a lawsuit (even a frivolous one) acts as an internal check on frivolous cases. I can understand that you may think that this is not a *sufficient* check and balance, but it is a check that does exist.
Slashdot Mirror
This guy Novak is acting pro se. He's not a lawyer, yet he's representing a company in federal court. If the court had been on the ball, it would have rejected his attempts to file, since he's representing an entity other than himself. The only thing I can't figure out is why the list's attorney didn't file a summary motion to strike all of his pleadings on that basis.
I recommend Binary News Reaper, aka BNR2
http://www.co.jyu.fi/~ap/bnr.html
It's still in beta, but it's pretty great, it's freeware and supports yENC.
>So what they're saying here is that when free software succeeds, they can't compete.
Actually, I think what they're saying is that when free software succeeds, they *won't* compete, because they can't figure out any way to make money off doing so. The only reason that MS continues to keep IE free-as-in-beer (as other posters have observed) is that by doing so they can bend web standards and force other companies to comply with IE's new styles, which eventually allows them new avenues to sell *other* MS products (specifically Windows). If the IE source code is released, they can't do this any more.
Your comment describes the "open source" view of their motives, while mine describes the "free software" version. Given MS's track record, which one do you think is more accurate?
-J
Why is it whenever this type of article gets posted, some nut starts talking about gun laws? I mean, I'm against all gun laws, but I still don't see the connection. Aren't all these posts offtopic?
. . . the phrase "hacked by Chinese" a whole new meaning!
This stuff is usuable in court generally not as direct evidence, but as impeachment evidence. Impeachment evidence isn't subject to the same strictures of authentication and proof since it's only used to confront a witness who may not be telling the whole truth, and cannot be used to directly establish that what the evidence shows *is* true.
Did that make sense, or was I babbling too much?
I just ran out of mod points, so I can't mark this down as "-1, paranoid." I hope someone else does me the favor.
Of course, I'm also using the Proxomitron as a html proxy, but I think you get the point.
-J
From the Wired Article:
"During a briefing at Justice Department headquarters, a senior official who spoke on the condition of anonymity denied that the White House had anything to do with Thursday's announcement: 'These decisions are being made inside the DOJ.'"
Not that I'm a Bush fan (he's a moron and was handed the presidency by an intellectually bankrupt majority on the Supreme Court), but one thing is for sure: the federal bureaucracy *does* make decisions without input from the president, folks.
--J
. . . about marketing of meta movie. Whoo boy, have we crossed a self-referential line here or what?
To see what I mean, check out http://www.jayandsilentbobstrikeback.com/, which is supposedly an ANTI-Kevin Smith site that is in fact registered to:
Registrant:
View Askew Productions
12610 Braddock Dr 107-d
Los Angeles, CA 90066
US
Registrar: Dotster (http://www.dotster.com)
Domain Name: JAYANDSILENTBOBSTRIKEBACK.COM
This is some sort of reverse-astroturfing or something. I can't even keep this self-referencing straight anymore. Sheesh.
-J
p.s. I thought the movie was hysterical, though.
This is a moronic decision, for one very simple reason: There is *plenty* of precedent that you do not subject yourself to the jurisdiction of a State's courts merely by putting up a web site. Instead, you must *purposefully avail* yourself of that State's laws in some way in order for the exercise of jurisdiction to comply with due process under the U.S. Constitution. Here, the intermediate appellate court (clearly in the pocket of the entertaiment industry) held that anything that *affects* someone who conducts business in California is now subject to California jurisdiction. This rule does not comport with due process, makes no sense, and indicates that EVERYONE WHO HAS EVER PUBLISHED A WEBSITE COULD CONCIEVEABLY BE SUBJECT TO JURISDICTION IN CALIFORNIA--a moronic rule at best. I *guarantee* that this will be reversed by the Cali. Supreme Court, and if not by them, by the U.S. Supremes, who will almost certainly take this case in. --J
1) The judge applies the California Commercial Code to determine issues regarding the formation of the licensing contract. However, that Code only applies to "goods," which are defined as "moveable, tangible objects." It is by no means certain that this definition covers software distributed over the internet.
/. story. The headline certainly doesn't comport with the actual text of the decision.
2) The judge focused largely on the peculiar mechanisms of Netscape's website that distributed SmartDownload to determine that the parties did not assent to the terms contained in the license, because they were not required to specifically assent to anything prior to downloading the software. This contrasts completely with Microsoft's WindowsUpdate, for example, which specifically requires a click-through assent and affirmance prior to download. This distinction will make the impact of the decision limited at best.
3) Finally, this issue arose in the context of a motion to compel arbitration filed by Netscape. It is not completely clear that the plaintiffs utterly failed to assent to any restrictions on their use of SmartDownload, but only that they did not unambigously assent to the licensing agreement that provided for arbitration. This posture could further limit the impact of the decision.
All in all, I'm not really sure this one was worthy of a front-page
--J (yes, IAL)
*Both* of you missed my point -- it's not that the story is true, false, spun or not --> IT'S THAT THE WALL STREET JOURNAL DECIDED TO REPORT IT! This is not a story one would normally see in the WSJ, mainly because it's such a special-audience / slashdot-interest kind of story. The Register story is different; that points out a reporting bias at MSNBC. The original WSJ story, on the other hand, is somthing that could easily have sank without a trace, never to have been reported in the first instance anywhere except for C/Net. *That's* why I said the WSJ could be an ally, rather than the particular spin in the story.
--J
The story here is not that Hotmail runs on BSD -- that's well-known already. The story is that this fact was reported in the WALL STREET JOURNAL. The WSJ has been reliably pro-Microsoft in relation to previous skirmishes, notably the Antitrust matter. Is it *possible* that the WSJ has decided to take a different approach to the company's slander campaign against its open source / free-as-in-speech competition? After all, previous attacks from MS, particularly the Craig Mundie flap, have focused on the GNU Public License. If the WSJ has decided that this constitutes hypocrisy on MS' part, that would be a major boon to the intergration of free software into the broader business market. The WSJ is a POWERFUL ally.
-J
Um, no. You rightly state that Jesse was the "one voice against this sort of concession of American sovereignty," but he has never cared a flip about any *other* country's soverignty. I'm one of those fashionable globalization opponents, but I just can't cotton to manifest destiny, no matter how it's cloaked.
--J
Uh, you quite obviously have NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
I wouldn't even respond to this if it weren't moderated +4 informative, but here goes:
"Pro bono" means free. Period. As in free beer. AS IN THE LAWYER DOES NOT GET PAID!!
What you seem to be talking about is a CONTINGENT FEE AGREEMENT. In most states, a lawyer's contingent fee cannot exceed 33% (not 40%) of the ACTUAL RECOVERY.
In this case THERE WILL BE NO ACTUAL RECOVERY UNLESS THE CASE IS SETTLED, because liabilty is nil -- if you don't believe me, check out the 80s cases against Ozzy Osbourne and Judas Priest.
The only thing you've got right is that this is a publicity generator -- and THAT is freaking OBVIOUS!
--J
p.s. moderators -- USE YOUR BRAINS!!!
Uh, not to burst your bubble, but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Your biggest error is that the DCMA has *no* relationship to laws forbidding the possession of child pornography. Your second biggest error is that the information stored on Freenet is encrypted *even to the host of the node*. --J
Unfortunately, this is not "+1, informative," it is "-1, troll." However, since I'm dumber than the average fish, I'll bite-- Just because "Nazi" is short for "National Socialist" doesn't mean that German fascism had the slightest thing in common with socialism in theory or in practice. While it may have certain totalitarian aspects in common with, say, soviet communism, it has virtually nothing in common with socialism as it has been theorized and practiced in the remainder of Europe. Please study political science before you spout off facile comparisions. --J
Look -- I understand the theory behind the aphorism -- I'm a friggin constitutional lawyer! My point was that evey time I talk to a libertarian about this subject, he or she acts as though all the answers about it are completely self-evident -- THEY ARE NOT. If you think that the question of free speech in a democratic society is simple, you haven't spent enough time thinking about it. And, unfortunately, I find that to be universally true of libertarians, especially those who post on /.
-J
You, and every other libertarian I've ever met, far oversimplify the dynamics at issue in free speech cases. What is "real damage"? Why does shouting fire in a crowded theatre cause "real damage" but encouraging someone to kill not cause "real damage"? You may understand the distinction, but it's about as clear as mud to the rest of us.
By the way: the "fire in a crowded theatre" aphorism, from Justice Holmes' famous opinion in Schenck v. Unites States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), is an example of his "clear and present danger" test, which has been for the most part repudiated as not being speech-protective *enough*. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a more speech protective test that allows regulation of speech advocating the use of force or the commission of a crime only when (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, *and* (2) the advocacy is likely to incite or produce such action.
--J
>The real flaw is that Sunstein wants somebody to decide what everybody needs to know, somebody to tell us >what to believe.
While this may seem flip, it is probably accurate. Sunstein's previous books (including "The Partial Constitution" and his First Amendment tome "Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech") advocate a far greater role for the government in regulating speech. Sunstein has argued for a "New Deal" (increased regulation) for speech, because he believes the the purpose of free speech is to debate issues "fundamentally concerned with democratic sef-government," and that the First Amendment must be interepreted to advance that end at the expense of other viewpoints. Taken in light of his general views on speech, his disapproval of personalized media is unsurprising.
While your second statement is *technically* correct, it only happened in one much-maligned U.S. Supreme Court case and that doctrine has *never* been applied in the First Amendment context. Do some research before you spout off, because you're certainly NAL.
--J
*None* of the documents linked provide the slightest support for concluding that currently registered owners of .org addresses will be forced to forfiet those addresses. The "appropriate transition period" mentioned in the agreement and the article seems to refer to a period after which *new* .org addresses will not be issued to entities other than not-for-profits.
--J
"Under the deal, VeriSign would permanently surrender control of "org" addresses by December 2002. The company also would establish an endowment of $5 million toward the future operation of "org" addresses. It further agreed to spend $200 million in research over 10 years toward making Internet registries more efficient. Icann indicated that it wants "org" Web addresses reserved only for nonprofit organizations "after some appropriate transition period," a restriction that hasn't been enforced in recent years. Details haven't been worked out, though one Icann official suggested that current "org" Web sites may be allowed to continue regardless of their affiliation with nonprofits. VeriSign also will agree to give up control over "net" Web addresses by January 2006; it would be allowed to bid for future rights to run that registry, but approval by Icann was considered highly unlikely."
I know this is late in the game to respond, but you missed my point entirely. There *is* a check and balance on the filing of lawsuits -- plaintiff's lawyers have to fund those lawsuits themselves. They may be "free" to the client, but it's not "free" for the lawyer working on the case. The investment of time and money that it takes to prepare a lawsuit (even a frivolous one) acts as an internal check on frivolous cases. I can understand that you may think that this is not a *sufficient* check and balance, but it is a check that does exist.
J