Don't forget the fact that if a company doesn't vigorously defend their trademarks they can lose them over time.
Also, Mr. Rowe isn't losing any property here. If it's found that his domain name violates trademark laws then the name was illegal in the first place.
You should get your own talk show on Fox. You're equating what might be a frivolous law suit with creating chemical weapons? Please. Give me a break.
SCO's actions are not unethical. They may honestly believe that code they own has been misappropriated. They are following the rules of law by filing a law suit.
Where you do you draw the line ethically speaking? Do you have a job? Does your employer do absolutely everythinhg above board? Have you threatened to quit because they don't recycle?
I bet you think all of Ford's employees should quit their jobs because someone at Ford put shitty tires on their vehicles. If they don't they clearly have no ethics. How dare they help Ford make money when Ford is clearly evil?
Grow up.
Re:How can one steal lines of code?
on
Back To SCO
·
· Score: 1
So, tell me what phrasing you'd use to illustrate someone "taking" an idea you had. You cleary couldn't say:
"Hey, he stole my idea and got the promotion!" "You borrowed my idea and got the promotion."
You couldn't even say:
"Hey! That was my idea!" - because everyone on Slashdot knows you can't own an idea.
Wow! That's great. Maybe you could share how he raised $46 million so every other school in the country could raise their $46 million. After all, it's easy and there are so many other ways to fund the technology. That's why schools don't have any problems with their budgets.
"New version of M$ Office. They plan to cut all backwards compatibility in order to implements their DRM-stuff in office2003."
That's just ignorant - you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Since when is DRM a monopoly driven product? File encryption and public/private key systems have been around for ages and driven by open standards.
The DRM in Office 2003 is just a Microsoft implementation of public/private key encryption built in to the software. It has nothing to do with file format compatibility.
This issue has nothing to do with Word. You'll have the same issue in any Windows app if you are using TrueType fonts. TrueType fonts are device dependant unlike OpenType or PostScript fonts.
They have an ongoing lawsuit with IBM over this. Since when is it a good idea to broadcast your evidence all over the place months before it goes to trial?
Sheesh, people, I'm glad none of you are lawyers for the plaintiff.
"To generate enthusiasm for our company and innovations, we must also communicate more broadly and in a more human and compelling voice. We will increase our advertising budget significantly for all audiences â" developers, IT, information workers, consumers, small business, and business leaders â" becoming one of the largest advertisers in our industry. We will explain our mission to help people realize their potential and discuss the amazing work we and our partners are doing."
"Actually, it has to be the only source of update because only Microsoft can do something about problems within their source code, therefore, they are the sole providers of patches for Windows."
Windows Update is all about distributing READY MADE patches, not about CREATING them. So, it's very conceivable that an opensource project could be created to help with the distribution - given, of course there's nothing in their license agreement that prohibits it. Don't think there is considering all patches are downloadable separately.
Re:Publishing depends on inefficiency
on
Mighty Amazon
·
· Score: 1
"Unless you are writing Harry Potter books, the average author agreement gives the author 15% of list price. The publisher keeps 85%.
So the book that sells for $35 gives 5 and a quarter to the author, and $29.75 to the publisher, minus her publishing and marketing costs.
There are printers who can print out a single copy of a book for a few dollars. If you print a thousand, the production price is far lower.
You do the rest of the math."
OK, I'll do the math for you. The list price of the book is $35. The Publisher gets $17 - the net price of the book. (Do you really think booksellers don't keep a piece of the pie?) The author gets 15-20% of the net price. An 800 page book will cost between 1-1.50 depending on the paper and the size of the print run. The publisher pays for warehousing, sales, distribution, co-op, marketing, editorial, handles returns, etc. I
n the end, the vast majority of Publishers are lucky to end up with 6-8% of the net price. Just about half of what the author got.
As the man said, profit margins are razor thin.
Re:Or maybe you have no comprehension of patents..
on
Mighty Amazon
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, but the idea of selling someone else's used stuff next to new stuff is nothing new. Consignment shops have been doing it for years - make that centuries.
Nothing new here folks, move along.
Maybe I should take out a patent on selling flowers with get well cards - that's got to be a new one, eh? No, wait, make that used funeral flowers next to new funeral flowers...
"Uh, an identity is a unique item tied to a particular person: if you can "steal" that identity, then the original owner no longer has it nor has the ability to control what you do with it, yet faces the fallout from your actions."
Huh...try thinking again. Identity theft is mearly the act of someone making a copy of your identity - without your permission. It in know way deprives you of the use of your identity. The point of my statement was that because "theft" may not be the legally precise term, it doesn't mean people don't understand what you're talking about.
"So I'm committing a crime if someone leaves a research paper lying in the bathroom and I read it, even if I wouldn't have paid for that information? Wow, we'd better all be fitted with wireless cameras so the copyright police can ensure we don't deprive the authors of their money! Or have LCD goggles screwed into our heads so that a computer can detect when we're about to look at copyrighted material and black it out."
I forget I'm talking with Slashdot folks...by valuable research I mean research that costs $$$ to obtain. And even you should be able to differentiate between passively finding something and reading it and actively making a copy of something just because you don't feel like paying for it.
I suggest you read some law. Copyright infringement can carry jail terms depending on the value of the materials being infringed - that would make it a criminal offense.
That foul taste in your mouth would be from the fact your head is up your arse. Read and learn.
2319. Criminal infringement of a copyright
(a) Whoever violates section 506(a) (relating to criminal offenses) of title 17 shall be punished as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section and such penalties shall be in addition to any other provisions of title 17 or any other law.
(b) Any person who commits an offense under subsection (a) of this section section 506(a)(1) of title 17--
shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, with a which have a total retail value of more than $2,500;
shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and
shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case.
"Copyright infringement is never theft; it does not meet the definition of theft, especially the part about "taking" (if you create a new copy of an item, you are not taking the item)."
This is just a semantics game. I guess there's no such thing as "identity theft" either? People use the word "theft" in a lot of ways that don't synch with a strict legal definition, but other people tend to understand what them mean. For example, if someone came in to your yard and took all of the apples off of your tree you'd probably say someone stole your apples. But, legally, you'd be wrong because the apples aren't personal property while they're on the tree. But, you know, I'd understand what you were saying.
"The argument "you are depriving artists of money" argument does not wash either, due to the fact that many, if not most, instances of copyright infringement involve situations where the copier would not have paid the artist in the first place."
This is utterly ridiculous as a justification for commiting an illegal act. So...you don't think it's wrong to obtain valuable research without paying for it because the price isn't to your liking? While you're at it, why dont' you just take a copy of that struggling consultant's work as well - wouldn't want to pay for it, would you? Here's a clue for for, the value of something is largely determined by the control of its distribution.
"The connection to the artist's money is tenuous at best. If a copier is a "thief", then so is anyone who protests a business."
Yes, you're right. If your protest includes trying to control access to the store, among other things, then you are committing a crime.
Linux has an overall server marketshare comparable to Windows? What are you smoking? Linux is doing very well in terms of YOY growth, but they are no where near MS in terms of market penetration.
Why don't you pick those KY-stained hands of yours out of your lap and put them on the keyboard for a change and do some research?
So what you're saying that if your lawyer is only so-so in terms of skill then the prosection should send in their so-so lawyer as well? If your lawyer is working alone then the prosection should fire their support staff? Is that what you mean by equal?
My point was that lowest common denominator should not be our rule of law. Even if you could make everything even, which you can't - way too many variables, innocent people will still go to jail and guilty people will get off free.
And, yes, indeed, all Public Defender's are complete morons and DA's are brilliant and well-funded. Bravo, you've solved the case.
BTW - I never asserted there was not a problem, only that his solution isn't a solution. I agree that it's horrid when an innocent person loses life or freedom, or when guilty people go free. But I would never suggest that people should be limited in the money they spend on defense because the prosecutor may be overworked. Would you? Where does your sense of "equal chance" begin and end?
"Do tell us what "Linux exploits" this year have caused companies damage and embarassment. Please quantify the damage done by these exploits so that we can all compare the damage done by Linux versus the damage done by Win32 in REAL dollars and cents terms."
The five companies using Linux declined to report their damages due to security breaches. Seriously, looking at dollars lost as the point of comparison is idiotic. Of course more $ were lost in damages for the Windows side - their software is actually deployed widely.
I guess I'll have to uninstall my fax services, paint program, disk management tools, etc., from my Windows box so I can take the same "objective" view you have.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget the fact that if a company doesn't vigorously defend their trademarks they can lose them over time.
Also, Mr. Rowe isn't losing any property here. If it's found that his domain name violates trademark laws then the name was illegal in the first place.
You should get your own talk show on Fox. You're equating what might be a frivolous law suit with creating chemical weapons? Please. Give me a break.
SCO's actions are not unethical. They may honestly believe that code they own has been misappropriated. They are following the rules of law by filing a law suit.
Where you do you draw the line ethically speaking? Do you have a job? Does your employer do absolutely everythinhg above board? Have you threatened to quit because they don't recycle?
I bet you think all of Ford's employees should quit their jobs because someone at Ford put shitty tires on their vehicles. If they don't they clearly have no ethics. How dare they help Ford make money when Ford is clearly evil?
Grow up.
So, tell me what phrasing you'd use to illustrate someone "taking" an idea you had. You cleary couldn't say:
"Hey, he stole my idea and got the promotion!"
"You borrowed my idea and got the promotion."
You couldn't even say:
"Hey! That was my idea!" - because everyone on Slashdot knows you can't own an idea.
So...what do you say?
never mind my insanity. MS is the playa.
The Gates Foundation made the donation - Microsoft will get nothing out of this financially.
Wow! That's great. Maybe you could share how he raised $46 million so every other school in the country could raise their $46 million. After all, it's easy and there are so many other ways to fund the technology. That's why schools don't have any problems with their budgets.
Nope, I was quoting the person I replied to. The DRM stuff is indeed optional.
"New version of M$ Office. They plan to cut all backwards compatibility in order to implements their DRM-stuff in office2003."
That's just ignorant - you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Since when is DRM a monopoly driven product? File encryption and public/private key systems have been around for ages and driven by open standards.
The DRM in Office 2003 is just a Microsoft implementation of public/private key encryption built in to the software. It has nothing to do with file format compatibility.
He could always go out and get a new brian, I hear they work cheap and aren't too hard to replace.
Where on the site does it say PDF is an open standard? What cross-industry working group has input on the future direction of PDF?
The site looks like a great resource for PDF, but just because you can look at a spec doesn't mean it's an open spec.
This issue has nothing to do with Word. You'll have the same issue in any Windows app if you are using TrueType fonts. TrueType fonts are device dependant unlike OpenType or PostScript fonts.
They have an ongoing lawsuit with IBM over this. Since when is it a good idea to broadcast your evidence all over the place months before it goes to trial?
Sheesh, people, I'm glad none of you are lawyers for the plaintiff.
Here's what the message really said:
"To generate enthusiasm for our company and innovations, we must also communicate more broadly and in a more human and compelling voice. We will increase our advertising budget significantly for all audiences â" developers, IT, information workers, consumers, small business, and business leaders â" becoming one of the largest advertisers in our industry. We will explain our mission to help people realize their potential and discuss the amazing work we and our partners are doing."
Or maybe, just maybe, they wanted to protect themselves from a lawsuit over their Services for UNIX product.
Nah, it must be some giant conspiracy.
"Actually, it has to be the only source of update because only Microsoft can do something about problems within their source code, therefore, they are the sole providers of patches for Windows."
Windows Update is all about distributing READY MADE patches, not about CREATING them. So, it's very conceivable that an opensource project could be created to help with the distribution - given, of course there's nothing in their license agreement that prohibits it. Don't think there is considering all patches are downloadable separately.
"Unless you are writing Harry Potter books, the average author agreement gives the author 15% of list price. The publisher keeps 85%.
So the book that sells for $35 gives 5 and a quarter to the author, and $29.75 to the publisher, minus her publishing and marketing costs.
There are printers who can print out a single copy of a book for a few dollars. If you print a thousand, the production price is far lower.
You do the rest of the math."
OK, I'll do the math for you. The list price of the book is $35. The Publisher gets $17 - the net price of the book. (Do you really think booksellers don't keep a piece of the pie?) The author gets 15-20% of the net price. An 800 page book will cost between 1-1.50 depending on the paper and the size of the print run. The publisher pays for warehousing, sales, distribution, co-op, marketing, editorial, handles returns, etc. I
n the end, the vast majority of Publishers are lucky to end up with 6-8% of the net price. Just about half of what the author got.
As the man said, profit margins are razor thin.
Sorry, but the idea of selling someone else's used stuff next to new stuff is nothing new. Consignment shops have been doing it for years - make that centuries.
Nothing new here folks, move along.
Maybe I should take out a patent on selling flowers with get well cards - that's got to be a new one, eh? No, wait, make that used funeral flowers next to new funeral flowers...
Boy, I got to get me a patent attorney.
"Uh, an identity is a unique item tied to a particular person: if you can "steal" that identity, then the original owner no longer has it nor has the ability to control what you do with it, yet faces the fallout from your actions."
Huh...try thinking again. Identity theft is mearly the act of someone making a copy of your identity - without your permission. It in know way deprives you of the use of your identity. The point of my statement was that because "theft" may not be the legally precise term, it doesn't mean people don't understand what you're talking about.
"So I'm committing a crime if someone leaves a research paper lying in the bathroom and I read it, even if I wouldn't have paid for that information? Wow, we'd better all be fitted with wireless cameras so the copyright police can ensure we don't deprive the authors of their money! Or have LCD goggles screwed into our heads so that a computer can detect when we're about to look at copyrighted material and black it out."
I forget I'm talking with Slashdot folks...by valuable research I mean research that costs $$$ to obtain. And even you should be able to differentiate between passively finding something and reading it and actively making a copy of something just because you don't feel like paying for it.
I suggest you read some law. Copyright infringement can carry jail terms depending on the value of the materials being infringed - that would make it a criminal offense.
That foul taste in your mouth would be from the fact your head is up your arse. Read and learn.
2319. Criminal infringement of a copyright
(a) Whoever violates section 506(a) (relating to criminal offenses) of title 17 shall be punished as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section and such penalties shall be in addition to any other provisions of title 17 or any other law.
(b) Any person who commits an offense under subsection (a) of this section section 506(a)(1) of title 17--
shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, with a which have a total retail value of more than $2,500;
shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and
shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case.
"Copyright infringement is never theft; it does not meet the definition of theft, especially the part about "taking" (if you create a new copy of an item, you are not taking the item)."
This is just a semantics game. I guess there's no such thing as "identity theft" either? People use the word "theft" in a lot of ways that don't synch with a strict legal definition, but other people tend to understand what them mean. For example, if someone came in to your yard and took all of the apples off of your tree you'd probably say someone stole your apples. But, legally, you'd be wrong because the apples aren't personal property while they're on the tree. But, you know, I'd understand what you were saying.
"The argument "you are depriving artists of money" argument does not wash either, due to the fact that many, if not most, instances of copyright infringement involve situations where the copier would not have paid the artist in the first place."
This is utterly ridiculous as a justification for commiting an illegal act. So...you don't think it's wrong to obtain valuable research without paying for it because the price isn't to your liking? While you're at it, why dont' you just take a copy of that struggling consultant's work as well - wouldn't want to pay for it, would you? Here's a clue for for, the value of something is largely determined by the control of its distribution.
"The connection to the artist's money is tenuous at best. If a copier is a "thief", then so is anyone who protests a business."
Yes, you're right. If your protest includes trying to control access to the store, among other things, then you are committing a crime.
Linux has an overall server marketshare comparable to Windows? What are you smoking? Linux is doing very well in terms of YOY growth, but they are no where near MS in terms of market penetration.
Why don't you pick those KY-stained hands of yours out of your lap and put them on the keyboard for a change and do some research?
So what you're saying that if your lawyer is only so-so in terms of skill then the prosection should send in their so-so lawyer as well? If your lawyer is working alone then the prosection should fire their support staff? Is that what you mean by equal?
My point was that lowest common denominator should not be our rule of law. Even if you could make everything even, which you can't - way too many variables, innocent people will still go to jail and guilty people will get off free.
And, yes, indeed, all Public Defender's are complete morons and DA's are brilliant and well-funded. Bravo, you've solved the case.
BTW - I never asserted there was not a problem, only that his solution isn't a solution. I agree that it's horrid when an innocent person loses life or freedom, or when guilty people go free. But I would never suggest that people should be limited in the money they spend on defense because the prosecutor may be overworked. Would you? Where does your sense of "equal chance" begin and end?
"Do tell us what "Linux exploits" this year have caused companies damage and embarassment. Please quantify the damage done by these exploits so that we can all compare the damage done by Linux versus the damage done by Win32 in REAL dollars and cents terms."
The five companies using Linux declined to report their damages due to security breaches. Seriously, looking at dollars lost as the point of comparison is idiotic. Of course more $ were lost in damages for the Windows side - their software is actually deployed widely.
Do people on Slashdot ever think?
I guess I'll have to uninstall my fax services, paint program, disk management tools, etc., from my Windows box so I can take the same "objective" view you have.
Who pays back the loan? I didn't know jail time paid so well.