"It's not very often that hackers (by definition, intelligent people) do something purely and solely for the reason of being an asshole."
If you mean "hackers" as the word is commonly used today, no, they are not particularly intelligent.
In fact, you could probably make a case that the original hackers weren't necessarily brilliant either - just highly focused on a narrow knowledge domain.
Do you really think Xerox would have sued Apple if they had such an agreement? Do you think the intensely image-conscious Apple would have kept quiet when the lawsuit was filed?
If such a document really existed, it would have been uploaded to the net long ago.
There was never any agreement between Apple and Xerox that gave Apple a license to use Xerox's IP. If there had been, Apple would have used it as a defense against the lawsuit Xerox filed against them later.
As a person who spent years using a Star and the earlier Alto, I'd say that if you eliminate Xerox's ideas from the original Mac OS and Windows, there wouldn't be much left.
"It's not like they tried to deny their Microsoft store inspiration."
Apple has a kind Kama Sutra philosophy of invention. If Apple takes an existing idea and then copies it but keeps its fingers crossed, it becomes a new original idea.
Believe me, if there's at least one lawyer working for Google, they knew. Even most start-ups research a product name before announcing it. They probably just figured they could pay the guy off.
The DOJ (under any administration) is unlikely to file a criminal complaint for antitrust because the burden of proof is so high (beyond a reasonable doubt). They'd have to have really solid proof.
The burden of proof in a civil case (such as the case against Microsoft) is rather low (preponderance of evidence). So the DOJ usually goes for the low-hanging fruit.
That's why I complain when people say MS was "convicted". The DOJ didn't prove their case to that standard.
Has the EU distributed the fine money to consumers yet? I suspect that the average EU consumer won't see any financial benefit from these antitrust actions.
It reminds me that there was once a Mattel toy that you would wave around to find and kill invisible aliens. Supposedly the aliens could move around which was great for the programmer since there was nothing in the toy that could detect which way it was pointed or its orientation. It just used a pseudo-random number generator to determine if you "hit" the alien.
I don't think human nature is suspended just because a project is OSS. I'll bet that some vulnerabilities in OSS are fixed before being made public for CYA purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's not very often that hackers (by definition, intelligent people) do something purely and solely for the reason of being an asshole."
If you mean "hackers" as the word is commonly used today, no, they are not particularly intelligent.
In fact, you could probably make a case that the original hackers weren't necessarily brilliant either - just highly focused on a narrow knowledge domain.
so we can have malware based on open standards.
Yes, I know how it ended.
Do you really think Xerox would have sued Apple if they had such an agreement? Do you think the intensely image-conscious Apple would have kept quiet when the lawsuit was filed?
If such a document really existed, it would have been uploaded to the net long ago.
The Alto GUI wasn't "barely functional". I know, I used one for two years.
There was never any agreement between Apple and Xerox that gave Apple a license to use Xerox's IP. If there had been, Apple would have used it as a defense against the lawsuit Xerox filed against them later.
As a person who spent years using a Star and the earlier Alto, I'd say that if you eliminate Xerox's ideas from the original Mac OS and Windows, there wouldn't be much left.
You must be the time-travel adviser for Skynet. You have to eliminate the Alto to destroy our time-line.
"He was the first person to realize that they should be copied."
Yes, all those other people who were allowed to tour Xerox PARC and examine their work failed to realize its potential.
"Windows 3.1 was Mac OS 7. Windows 98 was Mac OS 9."
And all this time I thought that real-mode Windows wasn't as stable as the Mac OS. Oh well, live and learn.
"It's not like they tried to deny their Microsoft store inspiration."
Apple has a kind Kama Sutra philosophy of invention. If Apple takes an existing idea and then copies it but keeps its fingers crossed, it becomes a new original idea.
That would be a good analogy if goodmanj created something called McDonald's! first.
"Like reusing the name of an obscure project that seemingly died years ago and nobody here has even heard of?"
Right. If Slashdotters haven't heard of it, there's no ethical issue.
"If it's not a commercial entity, then trademark doesn't apply."
You mean I can still trademark a "GPL" product as long as I offer it for sale?
Believe me, if there's at least one lawyer working for Google, they knew. Even most start-ups research a product name before announcing it. They probably just figured they could pay the guy off.
"From what I've read, Go! was pretty much unknown to anyone outside a very small group 2 years ago."
From what I've read, Go was pretty much unknown outside of Google until about a week ago.
In what way is "Go!" a "hobby language" and "Go" isn't?
Right. There's no connection between actions of Google and not doing evil.
The DOJ (under any administration) is unlikely to file a criminal complaint for antitrust because the burden of proof is so high (beyond a reasonable doubt). They'd have to have really solid proof.
The burden of proof in a civil case (such as the case against Microsoft) is rather low (preponderance of evidence). So the DOJ usually goes for the low-hanging fruit.
That's why I complain when people say MS was "convicted". The DOJ didn't prove their case to that standard.
Has the EU distributed the fine money to consumers yet? I suspect that the average EU consumer won't see any financial benefit from these antitrust actions.
It reminds me that there was once a Mattel toy that you would wave around to find and kill invisible aliens. Supposedly the aliens could move around which was great for the programmer since there was nothing in the toy that could detect which way it was pointed or its orientation. It just used a pseudo-random number generator to determine if you "hit" the alien.
It's news here to pay Slashdot's bills. By now it should be clear that these studies (no matter who wins) won't change anybody's mind around here.
I don't think human nature is suspended just because a project is OSS. I'll bet that some vulnerabilities in OSS are fixed before being made public for CYA purposes.
You bring up a good point. Has there been any effort to evaluate web standards from a security perspective?
I don't know but it doesn't matter since they're secret vulnerabilities so nobody can exploit them.
Actually, that's their plan B.