Wow - what a bunch of IP nazis we have here.../.'s been accumulating cruft recently.
If you really bother to read the patent, they're claiming a patent on image buffering and asynchronous processing (specifically, compression) in digital cameras. They spend the time to properly acknowledge prior art, and then clearly explain their additions.
This isn't a claim on all digital cameras (just a reminder for those who can't be bothered to process information outside of soundbites...). The patent application states many problems surrounding the issues of the time; among them are the availability of memory cards of any size (the biggest one they could find was 512K - not even big enough for a single 640x480x24 image).
Their negotiations with Sony probably revolve around either the buffering claim, the compression claim, or the removable memory card claim. Or mix-and-match. After three years of negotiations, they apparently decided a lawsuit was more profitable.
And as for Kodak being way behind the digital imaging game - ask yourself which camera has the highest current resolution. For 35mm, it's the Kodak DC14n at 13.7MP. For medium-format cameras, it's the Kodak DCS Pro Back at 16.6MP. I've been told they aren't the most reliable units on the market, but they are at the cutting edge of technology. Kodak realized it was losing the non-speciality film market (excepting one-shot cameras) many years ago. They've been thinking digital ever since.
What if, instead of trying to get the GPL invalidated, its hidden goal is to get EULAs validated?
By getting a court to declare against them, they gain de-facto approval of EULAs, which the BSA has failed to get via UCITA. That is, assuming that the judge doesn't summarily dismiss the whole thing given SCO's recent behavior.
Or maybe Boise has learned from Microsoft - be so "incompetent" that the judge gets pissed off at you and the case gets retried for judicial prejudice. It keeps the whole affair going until SCO's execs get rid of the last of their stock.
Designing a good GUI requires everything that a geek doesn't have: notions of ergonomy (this goes for graphics too - GNOME icons may look very cool, but their ergonomy is disastrous) and psychology, the ability to sit on behalf of the user, and most of all, not the slightest care about how it works behind the hood.
Um... The folks at Eazel, who did the initial Nautilus work, were the same people who did the GUI for the original Macintosh. I think they have some clue and background in ergonomics and Human Interface Design. Additionally, Sun has been providing resources for HID in Gnome2.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean someone hasn't taken time to do the research. Gnome has formal Human Interface Guidelines and a team devoted to seeing them implemented. And it's a team with experience, not just a bunch of hackers who think they know something.
Some interesting facts about the new study in relation to Cold Fusion
Some of the current authors were on the skeptical side of CF.
Their apparatus is a modification of work done by some CF proponents.
The critics of the current study point out the exact same weaknesses of CF - non-reproduction and insufficient Neutron production.
CF advocates have put forth several theories after the main debunking regarding Neutron energy levels; they would explain the difference in energy in this experiment.
In other words, these folks have just reproduced results in a different medium for CF (no, it isn't cold, even in the original P&F studies - cold is a relative term). And they've corroborated results put forth by more reliable CF studies done after the original failures. Lastly, the same critics so quick to dismiss CF are using the same arguments with the same amount of diligence as last time (hint - if you can't get it to work, see the original authors to work out problems)
In all likelihood, P&F were on to something - they just failed to do the appropriate research before announcing their discovery. They failed to do several control tests, mostly involving differing control materials; they also failed to ensure reproducibility. And, for their efforts, the establishment scientific community ridiculed them rather than actually visiting to see what they had found. Better to keep their own jobs.
There is a major point of difference that you missed here:
Sporkin was to ratify a Consent Decree; a pre-verdict compromise (i.e. a plea bargain). This time, MS has already been CONVICTED. The judge has a lot more leeway in assigning a remedy with the force of law behind her. --
Microsoft also has a bunch of research into technologies for producing machine-checked code so that they don't even need lots of eyeballs. (I really wish that linux had this too;
Linux DOES have this - there are various and sundry programs which will scan your code for you - even kernel code. And if you don't want to rely on the programmer, there are libraries available for Linux which prevent a number of these holes - automatically.
My linux box has been rooted twice. I keep up to date on patches, I read bugtraq. My windows box, also connected to the internet all the time (and getting a lot more use), has never been compromised through 95, 98, 2000, and XP
Of all the boxes I've had to monitor, only a disused Windows box has ever been compromised. I am constantly bombarded with virii and worm attacks from compromised Windows boxes; most of the Linux boxes "attacking" my network are owned by the hackers.
I'd stand by my Linux install just as soon as I'd stand by any Windows box I've had a hand in hardening.
Wonder if we could drum up interest in having MS go after the RIAA. The XBox doubles as a CD player just like the Playstation 2, with one big advantage: MS doesn't manufacture a bajillion records every year.
If you thought returning CDs was bad - return the XBox (already a loss-leader) as defective for not playing CDs properly! Enough XBox returns and MS gets pissed off at the record companies.:-)
Seriously, though - I wonder if we could get M$ to understand that they can't promote their system as a CD player given the trend in CD manufacturing.
Last I checked, M$ has shipped 1.1 MILLION XBox units, and a large number of those had been sold already. That doesn't sound like a lack of market penetration to me.
As to good games, I've seen a couple of sucky games and a bunch of really nice ones. Halo is gorgeous - when you look through the trees at the sun, you get the proper flare; the AI marines cover for each other while advancing; and light reflections are everywhere. DOA3 is pretty and very playable. NHL Hitz is not groundbreaking, but smooth and entertaining. In fact, I think it's a sign that the initial crop of games is at least equal to the current PS2 games - it says alot about the potential of the platform as it matures.
As for Bungie, they claimed (before they got purchased) that their development had been going poorly until they got onto the XBox. Developing to a fixed platform certainly has its advantages.
Personally, I say if you hate M$, purchase an XBox and no games. M$ states they're losing $100 on each unit.
Disclaimer: I work for a company developing for XBox Reclaimer: My job there is maintaining their UNIX/Linux servers, which keep the company online
I liked the part where they used RTC vs. Lerma to enforce their postioning of Trade Secrets below the First Amendment. (If you're living in a hole, that's a Scientology trade secret case...)
Wasn't RSAC a pay service at one time? I was looking into rating my site just to have it done, but there wasn't a standard which was free. And so the standard failed.
Now it appears to be free, but now THEY do the rating. But they have a questionaire from which they get their info, so couldn't the end-user do it?
I'm suspicious of any system which an average Web Admin couldn't use and apply.
Since so many in this community have expressed their dismay at the proposed RAND policy, what are the chances that the W3C will consider an alternate policy?
My proposal is this (also sent to the W3C via their comment mechanism):
* Parties involved in standards creation must divulge all intellectual property claims pertaining to the standard that they know about. This includes third-party claims if they are aware of them. (This covers the advance warning which the W3C appears to desire.)
* The W3C will not confirm the standard unless and until all IP claimants have granted a free and perpetual license to use the IP in implementing the standard. Such licenses must cover all methods of access for documents created using the standard, and must cover both access and creation methods for said documents. (i.e. they cannot be limited to HTTP access, and they cannot be read-only. This provision ensures that the standard can truly be standard and unencumbered.)
* Like JEDEC, parties involved in this standards-making practice agree to license IP used in W3C standards under these terms. Parties who do not divulge their IP in advance per this contract are nonetheless bound by their participation into granting the license. (This prevents a long standards process from being derailed after certification by a hostile participating party).
Would this policy be an acceptable alternative?
Also, I would agree with another poster's question - are there good examples of patents which would force a less-functional standard?
egon spewed: I know I'll probably get moderated down into oblivion for saying this, but I don't see how this is any different than the Dmitri case. I know - people will start talking about "well, it costs me to download it so they're hurting me financially". And I suppose that what Dmitri did isn't going to hurt Adobe financially?
Well, since you weren't moderated into trolldom...
Back to this, are we? Spam costs money directly: online time, bandwidth, storage, backup time, and complaint response time. None of us ask for spam; we just get it shoved down our Internet pipe by inconsiderate a------s out to make a buck at our expense.
Dmitri wrote a program which restores rights granted by Copyright law (excepting the DMCA). He also provided a service by exposing just what a bunch of crooks Adobe were in creating such a lame encryption format. And his actions are no more "hurting Adobe financially" than the copier industry hurts book publishers.
Anyway, I don't remember who said it, but somebody once said (paraphrase) "I may disagree strongly with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
But there are limits to how you can say it. It is illegal to steal radio and/or TV bandwidth to broadcast your message. It is illegal to barge into a private building and post the message all over the place. If spammers want to get their message out, they can buy up banner ads on the cheap, or put out ads on *.forsale, as appropriate. They can buy domains and put up obnoxious websites with BLINK tags. But they can't steal from me to do it.
Back when RSI was new, I lived in an environment where a lot of people were coming down with mysterious wrist injuries.
The environment: RIT, where 25% of the students are deaf (lots of hand signing). The signing interpreters were coming down with it left and right. The odd part was that the deaf students weren't. In the end, they concluded that stress had as much to do with the initial injuries as the actual motions. A while after this incident they came up with the term RSI to deal with similar problems.
As to permanent: one of those affected interpreters was still struggling to lift a book 8 years later. The pain shooting up his wrists and arms was too much. A multi-million dollar lawsuit still couldn't give him back a peaceful life.
There is an increasing demand by religious groups to adopt public policies based on religious beliefs (e.g. Internet content filtering at libraries, school vouchers, support of religious schools with public funds, abortion). These requests are being heard and acted upon by the current Congress, and people who are against them are also becoming more vocal.
So, for the candidates: What role and influence should these demands and actions have on the decision-making process of government, and what importance, if any, do any issues of this sort have in your platform?
Being a recent migrant to Colorado, I was dismayed at the subject. Luckily, it just got passed out of House Committee - there is still time for me to call my representatives.
The rest of this is a batch followup to the points raised (and missed) in the discussion so far...
Attorney's fees are to be paid by the loser. This is a boon - $10 + court costs (plus collection costs?) equals a lot more money than just the $10 (can we hire Johnny Cochran?).
Jurisdiction is based on the recipient's (opt: ISP's) location - not the origin. This is legal, but enforcement of the penalty might be more difficult (but see above - this could be part of your Attorney costs getting the luser to pay).
Having said that, the law still sucks - I still have to opt-out, and I still have to receive the message before I can filter it. I'll be calling down to Denver later today, I think.
Gemstar patented the program guide quite a while ago (VCR+ - late '80s?). They have complete control over assigning the VCR+ control numbers listed in TV Guide and broadcast to your TV. Their patents are actually broader than just the "program guide" concept, and, yes, it is *very* profitable for them.
TiVo probably does infringe on the patents - they are not narrowly-focused. And Gemstar will probably soak them for a good bit of change, unless TiVo has an ace up their sleeve.
Gemstar is not a late-comer to the market, and at the time VCR+ *was* an innovation (consider some of the other patents listed in this arena in comparison). I hate the patent system, too, but depending on the "infringement", Gemstar probably has TiVo by the short hairs.
I wonder if we need to shorten the lifetime of a patent... In this world, a 17?-year patent is forever. In defense of the system, though, remember: the assembly line in retrospect is something just about anyone could have come up with - a simple business model which had immense impact.
I actually have two questions, somewhat inter-related:
It would seem that a simple solution (just breaking up the company, or just imposing restrictions) wouldn't work. If you break up the company into OS, Internet, and Apps, the OS company can still "integrate" features as it sees fit, and the appeals court has already shot down the previous restrictions on "integration". If you break it up into Baby Bills, then either they would fragment badly (doing consumer damage), or one would emerge as dominant, and we are back to square one... You could impose restrictions (full API disclosure, open licensing), but these are hard to patrol - witness the efforts put into hiding undocumented APIs in the past.
I am kind of in favor of breaking up the company into component parts and then imposing restrictions - the incentive to overcome the restrictions is minimized by the lack of cross-functionality in each new group. Where do you think the balance lies? Are there any effective alternatives you feel haven't been discussed?
In most anti-trust cases, current shareholders get shares in each of the new companies created. Bill Gates as a common shareholder seems to create a conflict of interest with the findings of the court. Is is possible to force shareholders to choose their new stock holdings - limit them (or just the major shareholders) to one or two of the new companies?
It seems like every major market analyst has re-iterated strong buy ratings on MSFT this morning. Perhaps it's because if it lost out, the market would crash???
Face it - MSFT is the most widely-held stock on the market. It is the leading stock on the most widely-used index (the S&P 500) for investors. No-one wants to see it fall. If this holds up, Gates could probably resort to selling ice to eskimos and maintain the stock price!
It appears that guy stating MS stock fraud wasn't too far off!
As has been stated, the company does have the right to sift through anything on its system, including e-mail. It also is perfectly legal, as stated, for them to root through your desk every night. Employees will start looking for other jobs if they notice the latter, and I would hope they do the same if they get too much of the former.
At my last job, I had to do research on a guy who was caught browsing porno sites on work time and resources. But it was made a lot easier because he was caught, in person, by his manager (who was female, and offended). I didn't have to sift through his e-mail, only his Web habits (IE keeps such a wonderful history). He'd also torqued me off because he abused the very limited network resources the company had. The policy at my current job is that e-mail is better left untouched, although the company policy does allow for monitoring.
I personally would not sift through everyone's e-mail by hand without a really good reason (preferably signed in triplicate by the requestor, the CIO, the CEO, and the Board). A single user, with good cause, yes. But even then I'd be happier with a nice script searching for keywords. Automated scanning, though I personally think it paranoid and disgusting, is legal (with notice) and does not really constitute "snooping" - after all, you aren't reading the messages (except those that are flagged).
BTW, for the commenter who noted no notice was necessary (according to legal precedent) - the last course material I saw on this said notice was a really good idea at worst.
And, lastly, if you belong to SAGE (the System Administrator's Guild), you should note that the SAGE Code of Ethics describes reading files (including e-mail) as a no-no.
As an admin who has had to resurrect several cracked/hacked systems, I have to say this:
Even curiousity-hacking's time is past. If you are running a production system, and it is hacked, you spend a sh*tload of time verifying data afterwards. One system I've seen was cracked mostly for masquerading; eventually, one of the gang of script kiddies broke his/our customer's toy/system, and there was much production lost (recovering from backups, after reloading the OS, takes lots of time on an archival server). Finding out your system is cracked is like finding a bomb threat - all else stops until you do an extensive search.
It doesn't matter if you do damage - the damage is in the uncertainty; e.g. (not-really real-life experience) if an airline system holding airplane maintenance manuals was hacked, do you (A) close the loophole, or (B) start doing real serious checks to see if anything (like the manuals) was altered? Crashed planes suck. The "it was innocent" plea just doesn't cut it in the real world, because the only person who knows can't be trusted - if you want to hack on systems, get a job or buy your own.
You misread the GPL -- I guess I did
on
OSI APSL Response
·
· Score: 1
Nope, read the next paragraph. It says you are still bound by the license in those cases. The GPL allows you to stop distributing the code if you are bound by court order, etc., it does not say anywhere that you can compel third parties to destroy their copies or stop distributing them.
Section 4 of the GPL reads, however, that parties to whom you have distributed the code may continue using the code provided they remain in compliance themselves. In case of patent infringement, all holders would be in violation of the GPL, and could not use the program from then on. In fact, the GPL just assumes the end user will know when a patent claim is made. Apple is providing a notification scheme, and covering their butts. It was their proprietary code for a while - who knows who they received licenses from. They need the protection they specified. I have to admit, the lack of required proof is bothersome given the new wording, but, again, they could be sued for lots more damages if they leave the code out there while the claim is settled.
Give it a rest, everyone. The license is better than the QPL, IMHO.
Slashdot Mirror
If you really bother to read the patent, they're claiming a patent on image buffering and asynchronous processing (specifically, compression) in digital cameras. They spend the time to properly acknowledge prior art, and then clearly explain their additions.
This isn't a claim on all digital cameras (just a reminder for those who can't be bothered to process information outside of soundbites...). The patent application states many problems surrounding the issues of the time; among them are the availability of memory cards of any size (the biggest one they could find was 512K - not even big enough for a single 640x480x24 image).
Their negotiations with Sony probably revolve around either the buffering claim, the compression claim, or the removable memory card claim. Or mix-and-match. After three years of negotiations, they apparently decided a lawsuit was more profitable.
And as for Kodak being way behind the digital imaging game - ask yourself which camera has the highest current resolution. For 35mm, it's the Kodak DC14n at 13.7MP. For medium-format cameras, it's the Kodak DCS Pro Back at 16.6MP. I've been told they aren't the most reliable units on the market, but they are at the cutting edge of technology. Kodak realized it was losing the non-speciality film market (excepting one-shot cameras) many years ago. They've been thinking digital ever since.
What if, instead of trying to get the GPL invalidated, its hidden goal is to get EULAs validated?
By getting a court to declare against them, they gain de-facto approval of EULAs, which the BSA has failed to get via UCITA. That is, assuming that the judge doesn't summarily dismiss the whole thing given SCO's recent behavior.
Or maybe Boise has learned from Microsoft - be so "incompetent" that the judge gets pissed off at you and the case gets retried for judicial prejudice. It keeps the whole affair going until SCO's execs get rid of the last of their stock.
Designing a good GUI requires everything that a geek doesn't have: notions of ergonomy (this goes for graphics too - GNOME icons may look very cool, but their ergonomy is disastrous) and psychology, the ability to sit on behalf of the user, and most of all, not the slightest care about how it works behind the hood.
Um... The folks at Eazel, who did the initial Nautilus work, were the same people who did the GUI for the original Macintosh. I think they have some clue and background in ergonomics and Human Interface Design. Additionally, Sun has been providing resources for HID in Gnome2.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean someone hasn't taken time to do the research. Gnome has formal Human Interface Guidelines and a team devoted to seeing them implemented. And it's a team with experience, not just a bunch of hackers who think they know something.
Perhaps you're a minimalist?
In other words, these folks have just reproduced results in a different medium for CF (no, it isn't cold, even in the original P&F studies - cold is a relative term). And they've corroborated results put forth by more reliable CF studies done after the original failures. Lastly, the same critics so quick to dismiss CF are using the same arguments with the same amount of diligence as last time (hint - if you can't get it to work, see the original authors to work out problems)
In all likelihood, P&F were on to something - they just failed to do the appropriate research before announcing their discovery. They failed to do several control tests, mostly involving differing control materials; they also failed to ensure reproducibility.
And, for their efforts, the establishment scientific community ridiculed them rather than actually visiting to see what they had found. Better to keep their own jobs.
--
There is a major point of difference that you missed here:
Sporkin was to ratify a Consent Decree; a pre-verdict compromise (i.e. a plea bargain). This time, MS has already been CONVICTED. The judge has a lot more leeway in assigning a remedy with the force of law behind her.
--
Linux DOES have this - there are various and sundry programs which will scan your code for you - even kernel code. And if you don't want to rely on the programmer, there are libraries available for Linux which prevent a number of these holes - automatically.
My linux box has been rooted twice. I keep up to date on patches, I read bugtraq. My windows box, also connected to the internet all the time (and getting a lot more use), has never been compromised through 95, 98, 2000, and XP
Of all the boxes I've had to monitor, only a disused Windows box has ever been compromised. I am constantly bombarded with virii and worm attacks from compromised Windows boxes; most of the Linux boxes "attacking" my network are owned by the hackers.
I'd stand by my Linux install just as soon as I'd stand by any Windows box I've had a hand in hardening.
Wonder if we could drum up interest in having MS go after the RIAA. The XBox doubles as a CD player just like the Playstation 2, with one big advantage: MS doesn't manufacture a bajillion records every year.
:-)
If you thought returning CDs was bad - return the XBox (already a loss-leader) as defective for not playing CDs properly! Enough XBox returns and MS gets pissed off at the record companies.
Seriously, though - I wonder if we could get M$ to understand that they can't promote their system as a CD player given the trend in CD manufacturing.
Last I checked, M$ has shipped 1.1 MILLION XBox units, and a large number of those had been sold already. That doesn't sound like a lack of market penetration to me.
As to good games, I've seen a couple of sucky games and a bunch of really nice ones. Halo is gorgeous - when you look through the trees at the sun, you get the proper flare; the AI marines cover for each other while advancing; and light reflections are everywhere. DOA3 is pretty and very playable. NHL Hitz is not groundbreaking, but smooth and entertaining. In fact, I think it's a sign that the initial crop of games is at least equal to the current PS2 games - it says alot about the potential of the platform as it matures.
As for Bungie, they claimed (before they got purchased) that their development had been going poorly until they got onto the XBox. Developing to a fixed platform certainly has its advantages.
Personally, I say if you hate M$, purchase an XBox and no games. M$ states they're losing $100 on each unit.
Disclaimer: I work for a company developing for XBox
Reclaimer: My job there is maintaining their UNIX/Linux servers, which keep the company online
I liked the part where they used RTC vs. Lerma to enforce their postioning of Trade Secrets below the First Amendment. (If you're living in a hole, that's a Scientology trade secret case...)
Wasn't RSAC a pay service at one time? I was looking into rating my site just to have it done, but there wasn't a standard which was free. And so the standard failed.
Now it appears to be free, but now THEY do the rating. But they have a questionaire from which they get their info, so couldn't the end-user do it?
I'm suspicious of any system which an average Web Admin couldn't use and apply.
Since so many in this community have expressed their dismay at the proposed RAND policy, what are the chances that the W3C will consider an alternate policy?
My proposal is this (also sent to the W3C via their comment mechanism):
* Parties involved in standards creation must divulge all intellectual property claims pertaining to the standard that they know about. This includes third-party claims if they are aware of them. (This covers the advance warning which the W3C appears to desire.)
* The W3C will not confirm the standard unless and until all IP claimants have granted a free and perpetual license to use the IP in implementing the standard. Such licenses must cover all methods of access for documents created using the standard, and must cover both access and creation methods for said documents. (i.e. they cannot be limited to HTTP access, and they cannot be read-only. This provision ensures that the standard can truly be standard and unencumbered.)
* Like JEDEC, parties involved in this standards-making practice agree to license IP used in W3C standards under these terms. Parties who do not divulge their IP in advance per this contract are nonetheless bound by their participation into granting the license. (This prevents a long standards process from being derailed after certification by a hostile participating party).
Would this policy be an acceptable alternative?
Also, I would agree with another poster's question - are there good examples of patents which would force a less-functional standard?
egon spewed:
I know I'll probably get moderated down into oblivion for saying this, but I don't see how this is any different than the Dmitri case. I know - people will start talking about "well, it costs me to download it so they're hurting me financially". And I suppose that what Dmitri did isn't going to hurt Adobe financially?
Well, since you weren't moderated into trolldom...
Back to this, are we? Spam costs money directly: online time, bandwidth, storage, backup time, and complaint response time. None of us ask for spam; we just get it shoved down our Internet pipe by inconsiderate a------s out to make a buck at our expense.
Dmitri wrote a program which restores rights granted by Copyright law (excepting the DMCA). He also provided a service by exposing just what a bunch of crooks Adobe were in creating such a lame encryption format. And his actions are no more "hurting Adobe financially" than the copier industry hurts book publishers.
Anyway, I don't remember who said it, but somebody once said (paraphrase) "I may disagree strongly with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
But there are limits to how you can say it. It is illegal to steal radio and/or TV bandwidth to broadcast your message. It is illegal to barge into a private building and post the message all over the place. If spammers want to get their message out, they can buy up banner ads on the cheap, or put out ads on *.forsale, as appropriate. They can buy domains and put up obnoxious websites with BLINK tags. But they can't steal from me to do it.
Back when RSI was new, I lived in an environment where a lot of people were coming down with mysterious wrist injuries.
The environment: RIT, where 25% of the students are deaf (lots of hand signing). The signing interpreters were coming down with it left and right. The odd part was that the deaf students weren't. In the end, they concluded that stress had as much to do with the initial injuries as the actual motions. A while after this incident they came up with the term RSI to deal with similar problems.
As to permanent: one of those affected interpreters was still struggling to lift a book 8 years later. The pain shooting up his wrists and arms was too much. A multi-million dollar lawsuit still couldn't give him back a peaceful life.
So, for the candidates: What role and influence should these demands and actions have on the decision-making process of government, and what importance, if any, do any issues of this sort have in your platform?
The rest of this is a batch followup to the points raised (and missed) in the discussion so far...
- Attorney's fees are to be paid by the loser. This is a boon - $10 + court costs (plus collection costs?) equals a lot more money than just the $10 (can we hire Johnny Cochran?).
- Jurisdiction is based on the recipient's (opt: ISP's) location - not the origin. This is legal, but enforcement of the penalty might be more difficult (but see above - this could be part of your Attorney costs getting the luser to pay).
Having said that, the law still sucks - I still have to opt-out, and I still have to receive the message before I can filter it. I'll be calling down to Denver later today, I think.(From information I gleaned from a previous job).
Gemstar patented the program guide quite a while ago (VCR+ - late '80s?). They have complete control over assigning the VCR+ control numbers listed in TV Guide and broadcast to your TV. Their patents are actually broader than just the "program guide" concept, and, yes, it is *very* profitable for them.
TiVo probably does infringe on the patents - they are not narrowly-focused. And Gemstar will probably soak them for a good bit of change, unless TiVo has an ace up their sleeve.
Gemstar is not a late-comer to the market, and at the time VCR+ *was* an innovation (consider some of the other patents listed in this arena in comparison). I hate the patent system, too, but depending on the "infringement", Gemstar probably has TiVo by the short hairs.
I wonder if we need to shorten the lifetime of a patent... In this world, a 17?-year patent is forever. In defense of the system, though, remember: the assembly line in retrospect is something just about anyone could have come up with - a simple business model which had immense impact.
If you break up the company into OS, Internet, and Apps, the OS company can still "integrate" features as it sees fit, and the appeals court has already shot down the previous restrictions on "integration".
If you break it up into Baby Bills, then either they would fragment badly (doing consumer damage), or one would emerge as dominant, and we are back to square one...
You could impose restrictions (full API disclosure, open licensing), but these are hard to patrol - witness the efforts put into hiding undocumented APIs in the past.
I am kind of in favor of breaking up the company into component parts and then imposing restrictions - the incentive to overcome the restrictions is minimized by the lack of cross-functionality in each new group. Where do you think the balance lies? Are there any effective alternatives you feel haven't been discussed?
Face it - MSFT is the most widely-held stock on the market. It is the leading stock on the most widely-used index (the S&P 500) for investors. No-one wants to see it fall. If this holds up, Gates could probably resort to selling ice to eskimos and maintain the stock price!
It appears that guy stating MS stock fraud wasn't too far off!
An Ughly(tm) situation, this.
As has been stated, the company does have the right to sift through anything on its system, including e-mail. It also is perfectly legal, as stated, for them to root through your desk every night. Employees will start looking for other jobs if they notice the latter, and I would hope they do the same if they get too much of the former.
At my last job, I had to do research on a guy who was caught browsing porno sites on work time and resources. But it was made a lot easier because he was caught, in person, by his manager (who was female, and offended). I didn't have to sift through his e-mail, only his Web habits (IE keeps such a wonderful history). He'd also torqued me off because he abused the very limited network resources the company had. The policy at my current job is that e-mail is better left untouched, although the company policy does allow for monitoring.
I personally would not sift through everyone's e-mail by hand without a really good reason (preferably signed in triplicate by the requestor, the CIO, the CEO, and the Board). A single user, with good cause, yes. But even then I'd be happier with a nice script searching for keywords. Automated scanning, though I personally think it paranoid and disgusting, is legal (with notice) and does not really constitute "snooping" - after all, you aren't reading the messages (except those that are flagged).
BTW, for the commenter who noted no notice was necessary (according to legal precedent) - the last course material I saw on this said notice was a really good idea at worst.
And, lastly, if you belong to SAGE (the System Administrator's Guild), you should note that the SAGE Code of Ethics describes reading files (including e-mail) as a no-no.
As an admin who has had to resurrect several cracked/hacked systems, I have to say this:
Even curiousity-hacking's time is past. If you are running a production system, and it is hacked, you spend a sh*tload of time verifying data afterwards. One system I've seen was cracked mostly for masquerading; eventually, one of the gang of script kiddies broke his/our customer's toy/system, and there was much production lost (recovering from backups, after reloading the OS, takes lots of time on an archival server). Finding out your system is cracked is like finding a bomb threat - all else stops until you do an extensive search.
It doesn't matter if you do damage - the damage is in the uncertainty; e.g. (not-really real-life experience) if an airline system holding airplane maintenance manuals was hacked, do you (A) close the loophole, or (B) start doing real serious checks to see if anything (like the manuals) was altered? Crashed planes suck. The "it was innocent" plea just doesn't cut it in the real world, because the only person who knows can't be trusted - if you want to hack on systems, get a job or buy your own.
Section 4 of the GPL reads, however, that parties to whom you have distributed the code may continue using the code provided they remain in compliance themselves. In case of patent infringement, all holders would be in violation of the GPL, and could not use the program from then on. In fact, the GPL just assumes the end user will know when a patent claim is made. Apple is providing a notification scheme, and covering their butts. It was their proprietary code for a while - who knows who they received licenses from. They need the protection they specified. I have to admit, the lack of required proof is bothersome given the new wording, but, again, they could be sued for lots more damages if they leave the code out there while the claim is settled.
Give it a rest, everyone. The license is better than the QPL, IMHO.