The tademark registered by Adobe is "Adobe Illustrator", NOT "Illustrator".
Also, there are MANY generic and other brands of corn flakes called (company) Corn Flakes.
Why? Because THAT is what it is! It seems to me to be a relatively recent phenomenon that corps are trying to use trademarks to gain outright ownership of generic (plain English) words. That was never the intent.
"Adobe Illustrator" is a non-generic term that specifically applies to their product. Obviously that deserves trademark protection. However, "Illustrator" is an English noun, used for many different purposes. And, I'd imagine that if you wanted to be really technical about it, I'm sure that you can find SEVERAL trademarked products with the word "Illustrator" in it that were filed many years before "Adobe Illustrator".
Simply, trademark law cannot grant ownership of a descriptive word just because it's in the name. Otherwise, lawsuits among and by Microsoft, Word Star, and Word Perfect would have been continual.
But then, this is the 21st Century, and who knows what the law is anymore, now that it's so complex and convoluted that an understanding of it is beyond the grasp of the citizens who are bound to obey it...
Well, common sense is the most misnamed term in the language, as it's not very common...
IF KIllustrator infringes Adobe Illustrator (Adobe's trademark registration is not just "illustrator", it's the whole word "Adobe Illustrator) Then this software package is also im violation:
Microsoft Word (infringes Word Perfect)
I'd assume that Word is sold in Germany under that name.
So, some advice to would-be IP lecherous lawfirms: Go after Microsoft! You can't get rich by stealing money from those who have none (which is why your predecessors, the highwaymen didn't rob the poor, but the rich)
Recent success Corporations have had in claiming trademark ownership of plain language nouns and verbs is downright scary. Clear Channel communications, for example, is suing and threatening smaller competitors across the country for calling radio stations "KISS", which is a common, plain English VERB, just like illustrator.
And even worse, the Federal courts are letting them do it. In fact, one Federal court in CA even put a cease and desist order on Clear Channel (ordering them not to put a station called KISS in Bakersfield, where American General Media already had a station with that name), and they promply went out and defied that order the NEXT DAY... The same judge not only didnt hold CC in contempt, he reversed his own order!
Why is Clear Channel so vociferously fighting to own the name KISS? Simple, it's much easier and cheaper to automate hundreds of Top 40 pop (IE, the stations that play Britney Spears and the boy bands), to hundreds of different markets, if they all have the same name!
This should give you an idea how far our courts and government seem to be willing to sacrafice Constitutional liberty and freedom for the mere CONVIENIENCE of a massive corporation!
Trademarks, copyright, and patent law is in the Constitution, which places STRICT limits on their duration and applicibility. Which has been completely ignored by Congress and past Presidents who passed and signed into law the "DMCA" and the "Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act".
"I once got one of these because I ran an ad for computers I was selling. I included "free deivery and setup". I was 'warned' that the delivery and setup was not free, but actually calculated in the price of the computers. So I was misleading customers about it being free. Had to pay about $1000 for that mistake. I know that system sucks"
Boy... Yet another reason why the USA shouldn't emulate Europe...
Yes, your setup and delivery could be free... I used to sell computers that way, I delivered and set up PC's free of charge in that way. How is it free and NOT calculated into the price? Because the price was the same whether the machine was picked up, or I delivered it.
I test almost every major NOS for compatibility with my company's server and RAID card line, and we've been testing "Whistler" (AKA Windows XP Server) for the last 3 months...
My impressions:
1. The GUI, as you said, looks like it was designed by Miss Shirley for Romper Room. Makes someone as experienced as me with computers feel stupid for using it.
2. Windows XP is a VERY VERY minor upgrade from 2000. In fact, the installer is virtually identical! I guess the new retardo GUI (see above) was slapped on so as to make the user THINK that the OS is something new and more "advanced" than 2000. I in fact, happen to like the 2000/ME GUI, and think the XP one is a definate step backwards. But then I have a brain, and so I'm NOT the person MS is marketing to.
3. When you keep in mind the freedom XP takes AWAY from you: forced activation, tying to your motherboard and hard drive (no hardware upgrades without getting approval from Redmond), breaking of cd-burner software, among others, unless you NEED the added compatibility with `9X games that XP has over 2000 (which, IMO, will likely make XP less stable than 2000, and thus less suitable for servers), there is NO reason to upgrade!
4. If you read this story ( ) from The Register, MS plans to force the enterprise to "upgrade" to their new rental scheme by basically telling them" "Upgrade or we send in the stormtroopers from the BSA"
The bottom line: MS thinks that they will get away with tons of mass marketing to get Joe "I can't find the power switch" to upgrade. They also think their new draconian licensing and "rental" schemes will force the enterprise to upgrade.
But, I think XP will certainly fall short of MS's expectations. For one thing, the consumer will be disappointed with the loss of compatibility with some `9X games. Their heavy-handed, mafia esque treatement of the enterprise, IMO, will cause many to think of alternatives. Who likes being blackmailed?
Also, if MS fails to get punished by the new judge hearing their case, I believe that a new and even MORE damming anti-trust suit will be started by the states against them over XP (this has already been hinted at by the state Attorney's General who participated in the
current case).
Really, I don't understand why MS is so stupid as to think that they can DO what they are doing right now and get away with it... They are pulling a Rambus in many ways... Their threats of extortion against enterprises, their heavy handed treatment of OEM's, their outright contempt for their customer WOULD kill any company that is not a monopoly.
Re:Mandrake is a company that understands desktop
on
Mandrakesoft To IPO
·
· Score: 2
"Now, DrakFont is definately awesome, and I applaud them for continuing to push the envelope."
I wish Red Hat would do something similar to DrakFont... It'd radically increase the look of their desktop. Mandrake's been doing it since 7.1, I wonder why RH doesn't borrow ideas back from the distro that originally was an improved Red Hat?
"Regardless, the developers are kick ass guys and have done tons for the community and have kept their stuff GPL, so regardless of what you think of their distro, they definately get a Good Luck(tm) from me"
Yep, compared to Caldera (which I'd nickname MSOpenActiveDirectLinux2000XP), Mandrake is a FAR better company to support. Mandrake contributes a ton to making Linux ready for the desktop and the newbie user. I've personally introduced several friends to Linux by handing them a copy of Mandrake.
Anyone who can install `Doze can install Mandrake.
Re:Mandrake is a company that understands desktop
on
Mandrakesoft To IPO
·
· Score: 2
Mandrake is definately better than Red Hat for the desktop. It's enhancement utilities (such as DrakFont) makes it MUCH more pleasurable to use for everyday use on my desktop. Including the GNOME SAMBA browser in Mandrake 8.0 makes it dead easy to connect it to a `Doze network as a client, or to my Red Hat server in the next room running SAMBA.
And I like the fact that Mandrake is more bleeding edge... They included Reiser back in version 7.0 (the first version I used). They were the first to ship with 4.0 of X.
However, Red Hat's conservatism makes it better suited for servers. My server runs Red Hat, and I'd not think of running anything else on it.
Good luck! It's ballsy going IPO now, but the upside is that Mandrake won't suffer the undeserved bad press of going up unrealisticly during a bubble and crashing back to reality as Red Hat did. I will certainly look into adding a few shares.
As I said in another post, this sort of thing tells you how easily MS could release a non-redistributable, per seat MS Linux full of proprietary crap (just enough to make sure that Linux office won't run on any other distro) and make the GPL irrelevant.
Which is why, if this is legal, there MUST be a revision of the GPL to prevent it.
"How can that be, when the spirit of the GPL is 'do what thou wilt, so long as you hand out the source?'"
It is when they are using the fact that they are bundling non-free, non GPL compatible software as intergal parts of a GNU/Linux core distro. They are pulling a Microsoft... Taking GPL code that they didn't alone develop, adding proprietary crap to it, and using the existance of their proprietary "extensions" to deny redistribution rights, or even the ability to use it YOURSELF, in what manner you see fit... Per seat licenses for a GNU GPL licensed OS would seem to me to be illegal.
The GPL is about freedom, not open-source... Access to the source is necessary TO have freedom, but you also have to be able to distribute.
I wonder when RMS will spout on this... IMO, this is FAR worse than the KDE/QT controversy, and it'd be hypocritical of him to not condemn it.
"Although OpenLinux Workstation contains the Linux kernel and a variety of open source software, there are a wide variety of licenses, each with different distribution restrictions Additionally, Caldera includes some of its own proprietary software as well as other Copyrighted material." (Quoted from this on LinuxToday)
So what's it all mean? This shows pretty conclusively that you can indeed build a proprietary product on top of Linux. If they've done it right, they'll show that you can do it without getting tripped up the the GPL. Nyah nyah MS. Whether they can sell it is another question. I wish them luck."
IMO, IANAL, but I'd think that their position on the proprietary hooks in their software would make it a GPL violation to then distribute them integrated WITH GPL'ed software. After all, the core of the Caldera "OpenLinux" (what an inaccurate name) OS, everything that REALLY makes it work is all GPL software... I'd think that to be GPL compliant, they'd at least have to seperate the non-GPL stuff that they won't allow to be re-distributed onto a seperate disc.
"I think that MS has pretty well made a fool of its collective self with the GPL=cancer nonsense. This kind of thing can only help point up the essential absurdity of that position."
That is true, if Caldera's integratoin of proprietary, non-free to re-distribute software within GPL software is legal, MS looks like fools...
However, IF Caldera gets away with this, then you see how MS could enter the Linux market with their own distro and plug in their own `Doze derived proprietary software with their distro, deny the right to copy and distribute their OS under the GPL, and take control of the market...
"You do realize that the FSF used to sell their stuff too, right?"
Yes, but the FSF never put restrictions on their customers right's to copy and distribute the software bought onto as many machines as desired, other than the GPL provisions of releasing source if there is any modification.
The core of Caldera's value is the fact that it is a GNU/Linux OS. Without the GNU core and the Linux kernel, Caldera would have had to go to a LOT of work and expense to develop replacements for those components. I realize Caldera probably contributes some to the development of those components, but it seems to me that to take that work and slap a MS/SCO/Novell esque "per seat or connection" license on it is odious. And it may (IANAL) be a violation of the GPL.
Companies like Red Hat and Mandrake seem to have no problems distributing source and not placing such restrictions on the use and copying of their software, which is one reason why I ALWAYS buy the latest copies of each when they hit the stores (I use Mandrake on my desktop, Red Hat on my server), because, as a non-programmer, that is the best and only way I can contribute to the cause.
Granted, Red Hat and Mandrake do use some proprietary software in their distros, but they are VERY generous in how easily available, even for free, they make their core distro. Last time I checked, Red Hat was profitable, and Mandrake was reporting that their distro IS profitable.
I have no problem with any of these companies charging for the distros, and attatching value-added services that are additional charges (like the RHN). The incentive to buy multiple copies of the distro are in having support for each machine, and to have the docs and disks for each server...
But to do what Caldera is doing is VERY much against the spirit, if not the letter, of the GPL, and I wish them nothing but ill for it. Version 2.3 of their distro was very nice (I've tested it), however, the prime advantage they had was ease of use and their Novell client. Their current distro is FAR harder to install, and nowhere near as user friendly as Mandrake 8.0, and I long ago replaced my at home Novell server box (a relic of when I was studying for my CNA) with Red Hat 7.1 using Samba, so the Novell connectivity issue no longer exists for me.
"It might set an interested precedent if the judge wins. As another poster mentioned, there's probably one of the usual "we disclaim any liability for it not working" sort of clauses somewhere in the agreement. (While the agreement for signing up with the cable company may not have been an actual "click-through" thing, the "it's not our fault if it doesn't work" is a common feature of such things)"
I seriously doubt that in such a case, that kind of click thru agreement is legal to begin with.
No commercial contract can overrule civil or criminal law, and it's against the law in most places to take money for services you do not deliver. IMO, such agreements are there more to make the consumer feel like "We're the PHONE company, we dont' fucking care, and you can't do SHIT about it!".
Most likely, this cable company is advertising their internet service, and the claims they make in those ads ALONE makes them liable to provide the service. I doubt they have a "we take no responsibility but will happily charge you if because of our negligence, it doesn't work" disclaimer in their flashy copy.
I've been lucky with RoadRunner so far. The service was connected promptly, the speed is excellent (my download speed has more to do with how fast the server on the OTHER end is!), and other than a couple of brief weather-related outages, has been reliable as hell.
"With decss their dreams were shattered. Someone can read the code and rip one dvd and then record it in another region code"
Actually, DeCSS has NOTHING to do with pirating DVD's, that is the BIGGEST misconception that was allowed to become "fact" in Kaplan's Kangaroo Kourt.
DeCSS allows the DVD to be decrypted as in what a player does. True, it COULD be used to decrypt a DVD to allow it to be copied enencrypted, but I seriously doubt that is what most of the commercial "pirates" are doing (I hate that term, Does copying software or movies REALLY have the moral equivalency of hijacking a ship?).
DVD's could be copied before DeCSS, and without DeCSS by simply making a bit-for-bit copy of the disc. This fact is what has doomed copy protection schemes since they were first tried in the 1980's.
The ONLY practical application for DeCSS is to make a player. Which is what the MPAA cartel fears FAR more than "piracy". The DVD is a scheme that replaces the free, open VHS system with a "toll road" that only allows approved players, and restricts those they don't want from the market.
"Now only if more bad stuff would happen to judges...
maybe they could see what we (the massive) consumers have to put with
and so maybe we could get court decisions voted *our* way for once "
Yeah, really... Wouldn't it be great if some judge was threatened by the DMCA cartel?
But then few dare to mess with judges though, they are pretty much the ultimate "sacred cow" of politics. Few even dare to openly criticize them, even though it's apparent that there are many out there disgracing the bench (cough) (cough) Kaplan..(cough)
Thing is, this cable company is fucked unless they do what is requested... They clearly are in breach of contract. And you can bet a judge will get a sympathetic ear of another judge...
" And the answer is the MPAA won't give up because there is simply nothing in it for them except a loss of control. The tiny handful of people who want to run DVDs on Linux is insignificant compared to the potential market for consumer DVD players.
"
Yep. A GPL'ed DVD player would undermine this cartel. Right now, not just ANYONE can make and sell a DVD player, as it is with VHS. Like Nintendo, (who has for years refused to make a CD-ROM based video game machine, solely because all the money they make off making software companies buy carts from them), they want to control who can enter their market, and WHAT they are "allowed" to do.
"Does anyone know if the MPAA has the same legal power over people using the CSS code in countries other than the United States?"
Theoretically, NONE. However, this did not stop them from having the author of DeCSS arrested and his PC confiscated.
This is another case that would make them look horrible, if they go after authors CLEARLY just trying to make a player. Such a shot to one foot, along with the other shot the RIAA administered by threatening Felten, COULD finally destroy the DMCA.
Actually, I'd think the author/rights holder CAN copyright titles.
However, there is a fair use right to create lists and databases of those titles, though not one to USE that title for another song, etc.
The major point is this: Yes, titles can and ARE owned and copyrighted, but the copyright holder is not and CANNOT be Gracenote! Which makes their lawsuit moot as hell and suggests a serious ass-whipping is in order for the idiot judge who even accepted it.
"Of course, if what you REALLY wanted to accomplish was to deny the availability of your proprietary software to anyone in the free software camp, for example, if you thought free software was a BIG THREAT, then you might well come up with an agreement like this to force the issue."
I think this is yet another case of MS shooting themselves in the foot.
For one thing, this will INCENTIVIZE the creation of free GPL alternatives to their tools. So, in a way, this could be a good thing.
Secondly, if they EVER try to enforce this provision, they will likely create an extreme backlash against themselves both in the media, and in the industry. This is as stupid, and has as much to do with "protecting" MS IP as putting something in their EULA for Front Page "you cannot use files created by this product on Apache web servers running on Linux".
Thirdly, This does nothing BUT add evidence to any future anti-trust lawsuits. The Feds and Ashcroft can let MS off the hook, but the state Attorney's General have already made some noise (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/19863.html ) that they consider MS's XP schemes to be worse than what they've done before. Even if the Feds let the case die, the States CAN pursue a completely new case if they wish to, and I believe that they are going to the minute the current case dies.
IANAL, but I think MS's more recent moves are a FAR clearer cut and easier to prove case of their abuse of their monopoly. They are incredibly stupid to be doing what they are doing, but, like Hitler in the bunker during the Russian march into Berlin, methinks there is some delusional thinking going on in Redmond right now.
"Microsoft is firmly positioned in the desktop market and in big business. Until linux is a better desktop than windows and a better enterprise server than solaris it won't topple the giants."
I agree, however, in this case, Microsoft is it's own worst enemy and Linux's best friend.
MS, with XP and their ".NET" scheme, is horribly raising the costs of licensing (and with their draconian audits, visa vi the BSA), the cost of ownership of MS software at the enterprise level versus Linux WILL give some of the biggest businesses pause to consider the alternatives.
And Linux is improving on the desktop very rapidly. It's amazing to me how drastically easier it is to use than even a year ago.
Also, Mozilla is starting to look like a finished product, and the Open Office project looks to create an impressive, FREE office suite within the next year or so.
Like I said in my original post, big business is NOT stupid, if they can save money by using Linux instead of MS, they will do so. And they can do so. Sooner or later, it will happen. Either MS will be forced to drastically cut the costs of their licenses (which cuts off THEIR air supply!) or they continue on their path "tightening their licensing grip" while pursuing the "Tarkin Doctrine" and risk enterprises "slipping thru their fingers"
Sorry I wasn't clearer. I believe that MS will only port Office, IE, WMP, etc to Linux if forced to by Linux gaining enough marketshare on the desktop to threaten to provide MS competitors with enough "air" (revenue) to enable them to then fight back on the `Doze platform.
I don't see MS doing this except as a LAST resort, because the second MS ports their major apps to a non-MS x86 OS like Linux, xBSD, etc, the Windows monopoly is dead.
It's not like the Mac, which is non x86, where MS's incentive to support it is only to prevent SOMEONE ELSE's "Office" from being bought, and thus, providing "air" to fund competition that will be able to also use that to compete with MS on Windows.
But, I think they will be forced to do so if Linux gets to some magic 5-10% or so of the desktops. I think it very likely given the cross-platform nature of Linux that it will surpass the Mac in total number of desktop users.
The question is, will Linux users pay for closed commercial software? I think they will, if it's as good or better than the free alternatives, or in the case of games. Unquestionably, the corporate enterprise will do so, which is where the money REALLY is with such apps anyway.
"So far we've heard Microsoft describe Linux and the GPL as a cancer, Pac Man, and numerous other things. But while these comparisons may have some sort of PR or "scare" value, they only serve to mislead the public."
These asinine accusations also have the effect of undermining MS's argument, reducing it to the level of childish playground name calling.
The first insult hurled is a confession that the insulter has run out of reason and is admitting defeat.
And there are enough out there, particulary in the corps (stupid people do NOT run major businesses), and in some parts of the media (at least the more clueful business media) who ARE seeing these increasingly pitiful attacks for what they are:
Sheer desperation.
Look at it from M$'s perspective:
Linux is a product that:
1. They can't buy
2. They cannot "embrace and extend" (this is their main reason why they fear the GPL, as it certainly allows M$ to borrow, improve ANYTHING they want, but requires them to give back in return)
3. They can't imitate it's strength (openness)
4. They can't "give away" a `Doze add-on to cut off it's air supply (ala Internet Explorer).
5. They can't undercit in price (free or very cheap)
Linux already has captured a VERY sigificant share of the server market, M$ is very VERY afraid of this eventually happening to the desktop.
Despite all their noises to the contrary, M$ is still very much a desktop bound company, as most of their revenue comes from desktop apps and OS's. To them the server is merely a tool to lock customers even more into the M$ desktop, which may be one reason why they've never really had the same success in servers that they had with the desktop.
As I've said before, I'll say again, the day Linux gets enough share of desktops (I'd say around 5-10%), it will FORCE M$ to release desktop apps for Linux. For this reason:
A 5-10% share of the market is small compared to Windows, but STILL large enough to "fund" Microsoft's competition. In order to keep their monopoly, MS MUST prevent any competitor from getting too much air.
This is largely why M$ is in the Mac market, to ensure that whatever Office Mac users run, it's a M$ Office, not WordPerfect or Lotus, etc.
However, it will be the death of Windows. The MINUTE Microsoft releases Office for Linux, Windows is irrelevant. Microsoft knows this, which is why it will likely NEVER happen, unless some competitor of theirs makes enough off Linux apps to threaten them (by having sufficient funding to develop) in Windows. Microsoft CANNOT port apps to a non-M$ x86 OS without severely wounding Windows.
"People who have seen shared source will have problems working on other projects."
I think you have a great point there... Going after the freelance and spare-time developers who work on the kernel and various other GPL projects is probably the ONLY conceivable way M$ can cut off Linux's air supply.. After all, M$ can't (openly) steal the code, and they can't BUY Linux (even if they tomorrow bought EVERY Linux company).
M$ may bring, or even more sinister, THREATEN to sue coders, using hte fact that they have (comparatively) infinite resources to pay souless lawyer types and to "Kaplan" the courts.
It is, after all, hard to impossible to PROVE a negative. The best defense would be the outright poor stability of most M$ code compared to the stability OS/Linux apps...
"Shared source" is a direct attack upon the GPL because they're going to claim that we've used their code to make ours,...despite the obvious fact that it's really the other way around.
I think you are VERY close to the mark here. One common thing unimaginative/uncreative people do when attacking someone else is to ACCUSE their target of things they (the accuser) are already guilty of. It's very easy to fall into the trap of projecting your OWN ethos and vices onto others, and I think this is ALL OVER some of many of M$'s more draconian practices.
Microsoft is inarguably the master imitator, never the innovator mostly because THAT is the mindset (and ability) of Gates, Ballmer, and the other powers that be who are in charge and shape the corporate culture. Not that imitating is necessarily a bad thing, taking something out there and refining it to perfection is almost as admirable as inventing it. But that is NOT what M$ does.
Even as Linux is gaining ever MORE acceptance, the market is still going down. I'm lucky enough to work for IBM, in Durham, NC, in a job that mostly calls for Linux skills. So far, IBM has not laid anyone off, and is in fact, doing very well.
I HATE seeing this happen to VA. They make a great product. And I fear for what might happen to/. Though, I doubt that this site would have any problems getting enough community support to survive, should it become necessary. I'd be more than willing to pay my share of $$$ to keep Slashdot alive.
"For all of you screaming about how it's a simple case of contract law and it's his own fault for signing it, you should keep in mind the following very important fact: Just because something has been stipulated in a contract does not make it legal, or even legally binding."
This is true. For instance, your employer can't slip in a "slavery" clause in the NDA they shove in your face.
In fact, many courts have been throwing out draconian employer non-comptete agreements. Those were contracts.
I think that many courts will frown on ACME's practice as well. If for no other reason than corporate vigilante law enforcement for-profit cuts in on the government's turf.
I agree with you... That other poster's rant was more or less typical of today's "social guilt" attitude which punishes the GROUP for what an individual does...
If you carry that argument out to the extreme, just by being ON the highway you should be liable along with that jackass who swerved his Honda Prelude in front of one too many trucks.
Why, by doing the speed limit and not getting out of the Prelude driver's way, you MADE him make an insane manuver around you so he could pick up 20 feet of distance in a traffic line...
Slashdot Mirror
The tademark registered by Adobe is "Adobe Illustrator", NOT "Illustrator".
Also, there are MANY generic and other brands of corn flakes called (company) Corn Flakes.
Why? Because THAT is what it is! It seems to me to be a relatively recent phenomenon that corps are trying to use trademarks to gain outright ownership of generic (plain English) words. That was never the intent.
"Adobe Illustrator" is a non-generic term that specifically applies to their product. Obviously that deserves trademark protection. However, "Illustrator" is an English noun, used for many different purposes. And, I'd imagine that if you wanted to be really technical about it, I'm sure that you can find SEVERAL trademarked products with the word "Illustrator" in it that were filed many years before "Adobe Illustrator".
Simply, trademark law cannot grant ownership of a descriptive word just because it's in the name. Otherwise, lawsuits among and by Microsoft, Word Star, and Word Perfect would have been continual.
But then, this is the 21st Century, and who knows what the law is anymore, now that it's so complex and convoluted that an understanding of it is beyond the grasp of the citizens who are bound to obey it...
Well, common sense is the most misnamed term in the language, as it's not very common...
IF KIllustrator infringes Adobe Illustrator (Adobe's trademark registration is not just "illustrator", it's the whole word "Adobe Illustrator) Then this software package is also im violation:
Microsoft Word (infringes Word Perfect)
I'd assume that Word is sold in Germany under that name.
So, some advice to would-be IP lecherous lawfirms: Go after Microsoft! You can't get rich by stealing money from those who have none (which is why your predecessors, the highwaymen didn't rob the poor, but the rich)
Recent success Corporations have had in claiming trademark ownership of plain language nouns and verbs is downright scary. Clear Channel communications, for example, is suing and threatening smaller competitors across the country for calling radio stations "KISS", which is a common, plain English VERB, just like illustrator.
And even worse, the Federal courts are letting them do it. In fact, one Federal court in CA even put a cease and desist order on Clear Channel (ordering them not to put a station called KISS in Bakersfield, where American General Media already had a station with that name), and they promply went out and defied that order the NEXT DAY... The same judge not only didnt hold CC in contempt, he reversed his own order!
Why is Clear Channel so vociferously fighting to own the name KISS? Simple, it's much easier and cheaper to automate hundreds of Top 40 pop (IE, the stations that play Britney Spears and the boy bands), to hundreds of different markets, if they all have the same name!
This should give you an idea how far our courts and government seem to be willing to sacrafice Constitutional liberty and freedom for the mere CONVIENIENCE of a massive corporation!
Trademarks, copyright, and patent law is in the Constitution, which places STRICT limits on their duration and applicibility. Which has been completely ignored by Congress and past Presidents who passed and signed into law the "DMCA" and the "Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act".
"I once got one of these because I ran an ad for computers I was selling. I included "free deivery and setup". I was 'warned' that the delivery and setup was not free, but actually calculated in the price of the computers. So I was misleading customers about it being free. Had to pay about $1000 for that mistake. I know that system sucks"
Boy... Yet another reason why the USA shouldn't emulate Europe...
Yes, your setup and delivery could be free... I used to sell computers that way, I delivered and set up PC's free of charge in that way. How is it free and NOT calculated into the price? Because the price was the same whether the machine was picked up, or I delivered it.
I test almost every major NOS for compatibility with my company's server and RAID card line, and we've been testing "Whistler" (AKA Windows XP Server) for the last 3 months...
My impressions:
1. The GUI, as you said, looks like it was designed by Miss Shirley for Romper Room. Makes someone as experienced as me with computers feel stupid for using it.
2. Windows XP is a VERY VERY minor upgrade from 2000. In fact, the installer is virtually identical! I guess the new retardo GUI (see above) was slapped on so as to make the user THINK that the OS is something new and more "advanced" than 2000. I in fact, happen to like the 2000/ME GUI, and think the XP one is a definate step backwards. But then I have a brain, and so I'm NOT the person MS is marketing to.
3. When you keep in mind the freedom XP takes AWAY from you: forced activation, tying to your motherboard and hard drive (no hardware upgrades without getting approval from Redmond), breaking of cd-burner software, among others, unless you NEED the added compatibility with `9X games that XP has over 2000 (which, IMO, will likely make XP less stable than 2000, and thus less suitable for servers), there is NO reason to upgrade!
4. If you read this story ( ) from The Register, MS plans to force the enterprise to "upgrade" to their new rental scheme by basically telling them" "Upgrade or we send in the stormtroopers from the BSA"
The bottom line: MS thinks that they will get away with tons of mass marketing to get Joe "I can't find the power switch" to upgrade. They also think their new draconian licensing and "rental" schemes will force the enterprise to upgrade.
But, I think XP will certainly fall short of MS's expectations. For one thing, the consumer will be disappointed with the loss of compatibility with some `9X games. Their heavy-handed, mafia esque treatement of the enterprise, IMO, will cause many to think of alternatives. Who likes being blackmailed?
Also, if MS fails to get punished by the new judge hearing their case, I believe that a new and even MORE damming anti-trust suit will be started by the states against them over XP (this has already been hinted at by the state Attorney's General who participated in the
current case).
Really, I don't understand why MS is so stupid as to think that they can DO what they are doing right now and get away with it... They are pulling a Rambus in many ways... Their threats of extortion against enterprises, their heavy handed treatment of OEM's, their outright contempt for their customer WOULD kill any company that is not a monopoly.
"Now, DrakFont is definately awesome, and I applaud them for continuing to push the envelope."
I wish Red Hat would do something similar to DrakFont... It'd radically increase the look of their desktop. Mandrake's been doing it since 7.1, I wonder why RH doesn't borrow ideas back from the distro that originally was an improved Red Hat?
"Regardless, the developers are kick ass guys and have done tons for the community and have kept their stuff GPL, so regardless of what you think of their distro, they definately get a Good Luck(tm) from me"
Yep, compared to Caldera (which I'd nickname MSOpenActiveDirectLinux2000XP), Mandrake is a FAR better company to support. Mandrake contributes a ton to making Linux ready for the desktop and the newbie user. I've personally introduced several friends to Linux by handing them a copy of Mandrake.
Anyone who can install `Doze can install Mandrake.
Mandrake is definately better than Red Hat for the desktop. It's enhancement utilities (such as DrakFont) makes it MUCH more pleasurable to use for everyday use on my desktop. Including the GNOME SAMBA browser in Mandrake 8.0 makes it dead easy to connect it to a `Doze network as a client, or to my Red Hat server in the next room running SAMBA.
And I like the fact that Mandrake is more bleeding edge... They included Reiser back in version 7.0 (the first version I used). They were the first to ship with 4.0 of X.
However, Red Hat's conservatism makes it better suited for servers. My server runs Red Hat, and I'd not think of running anything else on it.
Good luck! It's ballsy going IPO now, but the upside is that Mandrake won't suffer the undeserved bad press of going up unrealisticly during a bubble and crashing back to reality as Red Hat did. I will certainly look into adding a few shares.
"In other words "viral licencing"..."
As I said in another post, this sort of thing tells you how easily MS could release a non-redistributable, per seat MS Linux full of proprietary crap (just enough to make sure that Linux office won't run on any other distro) and make the GPL irrelevant.
Which is why, if this is legal, there MUST be a revision of the GPL to prevent it.
"How can that be, when the spirit of the GPL is 'do what thou wilt, so long as you hand out the source?'"
It is when they are using the fact that they are bundling non-free, non GPL compatible software as intergal parts of a GNU/Linux core distro. They are pulling a Microsoft... Taking GPL code that they didn't alone develop, adding proprietary crap to it, and using the existance of their proprietary "extensions" to deny redistribution rights, or even the ability to use it YOURSELF, in what manner you see fit... Per seat licenses for a GNU GPL licensed OS would seem to me to be illegal.
The GPL is about freedom, not open-source... Access to the source is necessary TO have freedom, but you also have to be able to distribute.
I wonder when RMS will spout on this... IMO, this is FAR worse than the KDE/QT controversy, and it'd be hypocritical of him to not condemn it.
"Although OpenLinux Workstation contains the Linux kernel and a variety of open source software, there are a wide variety of licenses, each with different distribution restrictions Additionally, Caldera includes some of its own proprietary software as well as other Copyrighted material." (Quoted from this on LinuxToday)
So what's it all mean? This shows pretty conclusively that you can indeed build a proprietary product on top of Linux. If they've done it right, they'll show that you can do it without getting tripped up the the GPL. Nyah nyah MS. Whether they can sell it is another question. I wish them luck."
IMO, IANAL, but I'd think that their position on the proprietary hooks in their software would make it a GPL violation to then distribute them integrated WITH GPL'ed software. After all, the core of the Caldera "OpenLinux" (what an inaccurate name) OS, everything that REALLY makes it work is all GPL software... I'd think that to be GPL compliant, they'd at least have to seperate the non-GPL stuff that they won't allow to be re-distributed onto a seperate disc.
"I think that MS has pretty well made a fool of its collective self with the GPL=cancer nonsense. This kind of thing can only help point up the essential absurdity of that position."
That is true, if Caldera's integratoin of proprietary, non-free to re-distribute software within GPL software is legal, MS looks like fools...
However, IF Caldera gets away with this, then you see how MS could enter the Linux market with their own distro and plug in their own `Doze derived proprietary software with their distro, deny the right to copy and distribute their OS under the GPL, and take control of the market...
"You do realize that the FSF used to sell their stuff too, right?"
Yes, but the FSF never put restrictions on their customers right's to copy and distribute the software bought onto as many machines as desired, other than the GPL provisions of releasing source if there is any modification.
The core of Caldera's value is the fact that it is a GNU/Linux OS. Without the GNU core and the Linux kernel, Caldera would have had to go to a LOT of work and expense to develop replacements for those components. I realize Caldera probably contributes some to the development of those components, but it seems to me that to take that work and slap a MS/SCO/Novell esque "per seat or connection" license on it is odious. And it may (IANAL) be a violation of the GPL.
Companies like Red Hat and Mandrake seem to have no problems distributing source and not placing such restrictions on the use and copying of their software, which is one reason why I ALWAYS buy the latest copies of each when they hit the stores (I use Mandrake on my desktop, Red Hat on my server), because, as a non-programmer, that is the best and only way I can contribute to the cause.
Granted, Red Hat and Mandrake do use some proprietary software in their distros, but they are VERY generous in how easily available, even for free, they make their core distro. Last time I checked, Red Hat was profitable, and Mandrake was reporting that their distro IS profitable.
I have no problem with any of these companies charging for the distros, and attatching value-added services that are additional charges (like the RHN). The incentive to buy multiple copies of the distro are in having support for each machine, and to have the docs and disks for each server...
But to do what Caldera is doing is VERY much against the spirit, if not the letter, of the GPL, and I wish them nothing but ill for it. Version 2.3 of their distro was very nice (I've tested it), however, the prime advantage they had was ease of use and their Novell client. Their current distro is FAR harder to install, and nowhere near as user friendly as Mandrake 8.0, and I long ago replaced my at home Novell server box (a relic of when I was studying for my CNA) with Red Hat 7.1 using Samba, so the Novell connectivity issue no longer exists for me.
"It might set an interested precedent if the judge wins. As another poster mentioned, there's probably one of the usual "we disclaim any liability for it not working" sort of clauses somewhere in the agreement. (While the agreement for signing up with the cable company may not have been an actual "click-through" thing, the "it's not our fault if it doesn't work" is a common feature of such things)"
I seriously doubt that in such a case, that kind of click thru agreement is legal to begin with.
No commercial contract can overrule civil or criminal law, and it's against the law in most places to take money for services you do not deliver. IMO, such agreements are there more to make the consumer feel like "We're the PHONE company, we dont' fucking care, and you can't do SHIT about it!".
Most likely, this cable company is advertising their internet service, and the claims they make in those ads ALONE makes them liable to provide the service. I doubt they have a "we take no responsibility but will happily charge you if because of our negligence, it doesn't work" disclaimer in their flashy copy.
I've been lucky with RoadRunner so far. The service was connected promptly, the speed is excellent (my download speed has more to do with how fast the server on the OTHER end is!), and other than a couple of brief weather-related outages, has been reliable as hell.
"With decss their dreams were shattered. Someone can read the code and rip one dvd and then record it in another region code"
Actually, DeCSS has NOTHING to do with pirating DVD's, that is the BIGGEST misconception that was allowed to become "fact" in Kaplan's Kangaroo Kourt.
DeCSS allows the DVD to be decrypted as in what a player does. True, it COULD be used to decrypt a DVD to allow it to be copied enencrypted, but I seriously doubt that is what most of the commercial "pirates" are doing (I hate that term, Does copying software or movies REALLY have the moral equivalency of hijacking a ship?).
DVD's could be copied before DeCSS, and without DeCSS by simply making a bit-for-bit copy of the disc. This fact is what has doomed copy protection schemes since they were first tried in the 1980's.
The ONLY practical application for DeCSS is to make a player. Which is what the MPAA cartel fears FAR more than "piracy". The DVD is a scheme that replaces the free, open VHS system with a "toll road" that only allows approved players, and restricts those they don't want from the market.
"Now only if more bad stuff would happen to judges...
maybe they could see what we (the massive) consumers have to put with
and so maybe we could get court decisions voted *our* way for once "
Yeah, really... Wouldn't it be great if some judge was threatened by the DMCA cartel?
But then few dare to mess with judges though, they are pretty much the ultimate "sacred cow" of politics. Few even dare to openly criticize them, even though it's apparent that there are many out there disgracing the bench (cough) (cough) Kaplan..(cough)
Thing is, this cable company is fucked unless they do what is requested... They clearly are in breach of contract. And you can bet a judge will get a sympathetic ear of another judge...
" And the answer is the MPAA won't give up because there is simply nothing in it for them except a loss of control. The tiny handful of people who want to run DVDs on Linux is insignificant compared to the potential market for consumer DVD players.
"
Yep. A GPL'ed DVD player would undermine this cartel. Right now, not just ANYONE can make and sell a DVD player, as it is with VHS. Like Nintendo, (who has for years refused to make a CD-ROM based video game machine, solely because all the money they make off making software companies buy carts from them), they want to control who can enter their market, and WHAT they are "allowed" to do.
"Does anyone know if the MPAA has the same legal power over people using the CSS code in countries other than the United States?"
Theoretically, NONE. However, this did not stop them from having the author of DeCSS arrested and his PC confiscated.
This is another case that would make them look horrible, if they go after authors CLEARLY just trying to make a player. Such a shot to one foot, along with the other shot the RIAA administered by threatening Felten, COULD finally destroy the DMCA.
Thanks for the link... the judge must have been smoking crack to accept the gracenote suit.
Sooner or later, there is going to HAVE to be punishment for lawyers and judges who allow our legal system to be plagued with frivilous lawsuits.
Actually, I'd think the author/rights holder CAN copyright titles.
However, there is a fair use right to create lists and databases of those titles, though not one to USE that title for another song, etc.
The major point is this: Yes, titles can and ARE owned and copyrighted, but the copyright holder is not and CANNOT be Gracenote! Which makes their lawsuit moot as hell and suggests a serious ass-whipping is in order for the idiot judge who even accepted it.
"Of course, if what you REALLY wanted to accomplish was to deny the availability of your proprietary software to anyone in the free software camp, for example, if you thought free software was a BIG THREAT, then you might well come up with an agreement like this to force the issue."
l ) that they consider MS's XP schemes to be worse than what they've done before. Even if the Feds let the case die, the States CAN pursue a completely new case if they wish to, and I believe that they are going to the minute the current case dies.
I think this is yet another case of MS shooting themselves in the foot.
For one thing, this will INCENTIVIZE the creation of free GPL alternatives to their tools. So, in a way, this could be a good thing.
Secondly, if they EVER try to enforce this provision, they will likely create an extreme backlash against themselves both in the media, and in the industry. This is as stupid, and has as much to do with "protecting" MS IP as putting something in their EULA for Front Page "you cannot use files created by this product on Apache web servers running on Linux".
Thirdly, This does nothing BUT add evidence to any future anti-trust lawsuits. The Feds and Ashcroft can let MS off the hook, but the state Attorney's General have already made some noise (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/19863.htm
IANAL, but I think MS's more recent moves are a FAR clearer cut and easier to prove case of their abuse of their monopoly. They are incredibly stupid to be doing what they are doing, but, like Hitler in the bunker during the Russian march into Berlin, methinks there is some delusional thinking going on in Redmond right now.
"Microsoft is firmly positioned in the desktop market and in big business. Until linux is a better desktop than windows and a better enterprise server than solaris it won't topple the giants."
I agree, however, in this case, Microsoft is it's own worst enemy and Linux's best friend.
MS, with XP and their ".NET" scheme, is horribly raising the costs of licensing (and with their draconian audits, visa vi the BSA), the cost of ownership of MS software at the enterprise level versus Linux WILL give some of the biggest businesses pause to consider the alternatives.
And Linux is improving on the desktop very rapidly. It's amazing to me how drastically easier it is to use than even a year ago.
Also, Mozilla is starting to look like a finished product, and the Open Office project looks to create an impressive, FREE office suite within the next year or so.
Like I said in my original post, big business is NOT stupid, if they can save money by using Linux instead of MS, they will do so. And they can do so. Sooner or later, it will happen. Either MS will be forced to drastically cut the costs of their licenses (which cuts off THEIR air supply!) or they continue on their path "tightening their licensing grip" while pursuing the "Tarkin Doctrine" and risk enterprises "slipping thru their fingers"
Sorry I wasn't clearer. I believe that MS will only port Office, IE, WMP, etc to Linux if forced to by Linux gaining enough marketshare on the desktop to threaten to provide MS competitors with enough "air" (revenue) to enable them to then fight back on the `Doze platform.
I don't see MS doing this except as a LAST resort, because the second MS ports their major apps to a non-MS x86 OS like Linux, xBSD, etc, the Windows monopoly is dead.
It's not like the Mac, which is non x86, where MS's incentive to support it is only to prevent SOMEONE ELSE's "Office" from being bought, and thus, providing "air" to fund competition that will be able to also use that to compete with MS on Windows.
But, I think they will be forced to do so if Linux gets to some magic 5-10% or so of the desktops. I think it very likely given the cross-platform nature of Linux that it will surpass the Mac in total number of desktop users.
The question is, will Linux users pay for closed commercial software? I think they will, if it's as good or better than the free alternatives, or in the case of games. Unquestionably, the corporate enterprise will do so, which is where the money REALLY is with such apps anyway.
"So far we've heard Microsoft describe Linux and the GPL as a cancer, Pac Man, and numerous other things. But while these comparisons may have some sort of PR or "scare" value, they only serve to mislead the public."
These asinine accusations also have the effect of undermining MS's argument, reducing it to the level of childish playground name calling.
The first insult hurled is a confession that the insulter has run out of reason and is admitting defeat.
And there are enough out there, particulary in the corps (stupid people do NOT run major businesses), and in some parts of the media (at least the more clueful business media) who ARE seeing these increasingly pitiful attacks for what they are:
Sheer desperation.
Look at it from M$'s perspective:
Linux is a product that:
1. They can't buy
2. They cannot "embrace and extend" (this is their main reason why they fear the GPL, as it certainly allows M$ to borrow, improve ANYTHING they want, but requires them to give back in return)
3. They can't imitate it's strength (openness)
4. They can't "give away" a `Doze add-on to cut off it's air supply (ala Internet Explorer).
5. They can't undercit in price (free or very cheap)
Linux already has captured a VERY sigificant share of the server market, M$ is very VERY afraid of this eventually happening to the desktop.
Despite all their noises to the contrary, M$ is still very much a desktop bound company, as most of their revenue comes from desktop apps and OS's. To them the server is merely a tool to lock customers even more into the M$ desktop, which may be one reason why they've never really had the same success in servers that they had with the desktop.
As I've said before, I'll say again, the day Linux gets enough share of desktops (I'd say around 5-10%), it will FORCE M$ to release desktop apps for Linux. For this reason:
A 5-10% share of the market is small compared to Windows, but STILL large enough to "fund" Microsoft's competition. In order to keep their monopoly, MS MUST prevent any competitor from getting too much air.
This is largely why M$ is in the Mac market, to ensure that whatever Office Mac users run, it's a M$ Office, not WordPerfect or Lotus, etc.
However, it will be the death of Windows. The MINUTE Microsoft releases Office for Linux, Windows is irrelevant. Microsoft knows this, which is why it will likely NEVER happen, unless some competitor of theirs makes enough off Linux apps to threaten them (by having sufficient funding to develop) in Windows. Microsoft CANNOT port apps to a non-M$ x86 OS without severely wounding Windows.
"People who have seen shared source will have problems working on other projects."
...despite the obvious fact that it's really the other way around.
I think you have a great point there... Going after the freelance and spare-time developers who work on the kernel and various other GPL projects is probably the ONLY conceivable way M$ can cut off Linux's air supply.. After all, M$ can't (openly) steal the code, and they can't BUY Linux (even if they tomorrow bought EVERY Linux company).
M$ may bring, or even more sinister, THREATEN to sue coders, using hte fact that they have (comparatively) infinite resources to pay souless lawyer types and to "Kaplan" the courts.
It is, after all, hard to impossible to PROVE a negative. The best defense would be the outright poor stability of most M$ code compared to the stability OS/Linux apps...
"Shared source" is a direct attack upon the GPL because they're going to claim that we've used their code to make ours,
I think you are VERY close to the mark here. One common thing unimaginative/uncreative people do when attacking someone else is to ACCUSE their target of things they (the accuser) are already guilty of. It's very easy to fall into the trap of projecting your OWN ethos and vices onto others, and I think this is ALL OVER some of many of M$'s more draconian practices.
Microsoft is inarguably the master imitator, never the innovator mostly because THAT is the mindset (and ability) of Gates, Ballmer, and the other powers that be who are in charge and shape the corporate culture. Not that imitating is necessarily a bad thing, taking something out there and refining it to perfection is almost as admirable as inventing it. But that is NOT what M$ does.
It's a sad and scary time right now...
/. Though, I doubt that this site would have any problems getting enough community support to survive, should it become necessary. I'd be more than willing to pay my share of $$$ to keep Slashdot alive.
Even as Linux is gaining ever MORE acceptance, the market is still going down. I'm lucky enough to work for IBM, in Durham, NC, in a job that mostly calls for Linux skills. So far, IBM has not laid anyone off, and is in fact, doing very well.
I HATE seeing this happen to VA. They make a great product. And I fear for what might happen to
"For all of you screaming about how it's a simple case of contract law and it's his own fault for signing it, you should keep in mind the following very important fact: Just because something has been stipulated in a contract does not make it legal, or even legally binding."
This is true. For instance, your employer can't slip in a "slavery" clause in the NDA they shove in your face.
In fact, many courts have been throwing out draconian employer non-comptete agreements. Those were contracts.
I think that many courts will frown on ACME's practice as well. If for no other reason than corporate vigilante law enforcement for-profit cuts in on the government's turf.
I agree with you... That other poster's rant was more or less typical of today's "social guilt" attitude which punishes the GROUP for what an individual does...
If you carry that argument out to the extreme, just by being ON the highway you should be liable along with that jackass who swerved his Honda Prelude in front of one too many trucks.
Why, by doing the speed limit and not getting out of the Prelude driver's way, you MADE him make an insane manuver around you so he could pick up 20 feet of distance in a traffic line...