I have always been of the opinion that the more generic the name of a company, the greater its capacity for evil.
For example, General Motors and General Electric. I don't know if they've done anything bad, but by virtue of their name, they could manufacture all kinds of evilness and no one would be any the wiser. At least they are specific to a particular industry, so one would presume a limitation to their evil: evil motors (tanks, jets, rockets, etc), or evil electrics (electric fences, tazers, etc). General Dynamics, on the other hand -- dynamics -- there's lots of evil that could fall into that category!
Your analogy, though fruitful in some respects, does not hold over thoroughly to software development. It is a commonly accepted axiom among experienced commercial teams that adding people to the team does not ship the product faster. In that light, throwing money at problems need not produce solutions. The problem seems to be that professional programmers are not immediately useful in a project, requiring ramp-up time.
In the open source world, however, the incentives and results are very different. Many people know about a project and follow it for significant periods of time before contributing, and feel fairly comfortable by osmosis with the code. As well, the contributions are much closer to the needs of the user, since the developers are almost always the users. This is very much not the case in commercial development.
Finally, the release structure of open source is a stark contrast to commercial releases. One can see this in the half-implemented features that indicate closed source programs released before the developers finished their jobs. This is not a signature of open source, however, which tends to release on feature completeness, not business forces.
Though I cannot argue with the potential for large amounts of money to produce software of a different calibre, I am not sold that this is a consistently better calibre of software. I think it is a problem endemic to the production of commercial software, and that ultimately the process through which open source is developed makes it privy to resources the likes of which cannot be reproduced in a commercial setting.
Even though sex is mandatory for human survival, people still seem to be afraid of it:)
I heard a theory, and YMMV, but it intrigued me. It was quite well supported, and reputable, if I remember correctly.
It would be a far less effective means of pleasure association in advertising if we were desensitized to it. If you saw beautiful naked women every day, you would be totally desensitized in short order. However, in America, sexual innuendo is the most prolific and pervasive of advertisements. Desensitize sex, undermine the advertisment regime.
This flows quite well from the precept that television is, first and foremost, an advertising medium.
In fact, considering that most EULAs provide virtually no protection for the end user in the event that a proprietary vendor is using stolen code I would have to say that all end users should start demanding open source to ensure they are protected.
There are some unfortunate practical considerations here. First, if a proprietary vendor is using stolen code, no one really knows about it. Copyright protects the code, but how does the creator know when someone else is using their code? It's very hard, almost impossible, to find out, especially since minor changes can totally obfuscate the original source, and end product. Open source can do this, too, but the point is that it's harder for a creator of source to say "that's mine" if it's proprietary, because it may look, and act similarly, but there is no way to obtain access to the code that infringes without saying first that it has likely been infringed. That's hard, and risky.
Second, even if a creator says "that's mine", what happens? They don't go after the end users. They go after the person who infringed the copyright, and the user is indemnified because they do not possess the infringing source code. The infringing entity that stole the code is certainly in a heap of trouble for copyright violation, but the end user has committed no such violation. They merely possess the compiled product, an uncorrelated consequence of copyright infringment, not an infringment in and of itself.
However, patents on the other hand, are a different consideration.
These clauses may not be enforceable for a couple of reasons. First, there is no consideration to the modification of the contract on your part. Without consideration of both parties, it is not a legally enforceable promise (save a few exceptions). Second, if it fundamentally alters the contract, it can be considered a "fundamental breach", and is equally unenforceable, and you may have a case for their breach. However the remedies for these breaches may be as simple and useless as simply breaking your contract. However, they may be very complex and involve years of compensation, such as how people are now suing Canada Post for the $9.95 internet for life, expecting $23 per month in compensation for lost service.
no one's going to tell a $150k/year guy to learn a new spreadsheet.
If an employee of mine makes $150k/year, I might expect him to learn a new spreadsheet on his own time. The more money they make, the higher my expectations, especially if they are in a liquid position (ie. easily replaceable).
Which would cost more? Replacing the $150k/year person, or the continued software licenses? It's a cost-benefit analysis, not so easily waived.
We pay additional taxes on media to support this system. I think its just gone up again, with MP3 players now being taxed as they represent blank media on which you might copy somebody else's content.
The levy price did not go up; the actual prices stayed the same. You can read about it here
MP3 player's are now being taxed, which is new. The gist of the protection is that you may fundamentally circumvent copyright if you give away the original, and you are permitted to keep copies, from my understanding. So you may make a copy of a CD, keep the copy, and give away the original CD, and not have violated the rights of the copyright holder.
The essence of this, distinguished from "real" copyright violations, is that you can only give away the original once, and so you cannot mass produce the effect of that lost copyright. Or so my understanding goes...
I don't think it's quite so simple as "enabling technology". It is rather a question of causation, and if there is direct harm to society or its constituents due to negligence or a violation of regulations without due diligence, there may be a case. In the case of hand guns, I am inclined to believe they get away with selling guns that kill people precisely because guns are designed to kill people, and it is the user whom is acting harmfully against society.
The flip side is the tobacco company who kills hundreds of thousands of people every year peddling a product not designed to kill people. Their defense against the spiraling health care costs has been overcome on several occasions, now. Same thing for car manufacturers whose vehicles are designed negligently and cause harm to their owners.
Somewhere among these arguments is the question of harm to copyright owners, through (or in spite of) protections enacted in the copyright regulatory regime. Do ISPs inherently violate the protections afforded copyright owners in Canada by permitting (or not deterring) the transmission of copyright materials over their lines? It is a question of public policy, much like guns, tobacco, and vehicle safety. The only stark distinction between copyright and the others is the type of harm, where they are intrinsic to most of society this is a question of perceived monetary loss by a few.
This is what I thought collab.net was created for, but that seems to have died. This idea is also represented, in a representative form, in Transgaming's voting system. It is a fantastic idea, as you have presented it, and I hope it comes to fruition.
It seems like the three main issues that I identified are: Licensing, particularly for educational institutions, Support, especially for the soon-deprecated RH9 series, and Updates, and the continuation of the up2date network.
Many of the users of Red Hat seem understandably confused and upset about the direction that the company is taking. I would like to, humbly, suggest that none of these issues are pertinent to the Debian distribution. I would personally encourage users in a situation where they feel tramelled to do some research in this respect.
I think it would be inappropriate, in the context of posting to this interview, for me to suggest Debian as an alternative to Red Hat Enterprise edition. However, I do believe it to be a substantial alternative to the soon defunct consumer Red Hat series. In time, Fedora may also be a valid alternative, but at the moment its capacity to act as a valuable, low risk distribution has not been substantiated.
You compare space travel to the new world, but there is a big difference... despite that horrible Kevin Kostner movie, we haven't colonized the oceans
I don't buy an argument that because we haven't we cannot. I'm sure you see the fallacy there, too. We colonized Lousiana because it was cheaper, easier, faster -- more efficient and effective in our overall homogenization of the planet as a habitation for human beings. However, the absence of sea colonies does not preclude their impossibility.
At one point it was impossible to cross the Atlantic. Then it was unreasonable. Now it is trivial. Going to the moon was once impossible, but is now just unreasonable. Colonizing the moon is now impossible, but who is to say what it will be tomorrow.
Not having colonized oceans only implies that we have taken advantage of "cheaper real estate", and we have not had the will and incentive to find a means to colonize more difficult habitats. Mind you, some places may indeed be impossible to colonize. But I am mindful of the ingenuity that presents itself when necessary, and optimistic of the possibilities of habitation on the oceans and in space alike.
What happens when the corporate backers of UserLinux decide that bills can't be met and they have to concentrate on an enterprise version? Bills don't pay themselves and there are reasons why RedHat isn't doing the consumer version anymore.
Debian, as a UserLinux, will survive the corporate onslaught precisely because it is free. Much as the Linux kernel will survive in the absence of corporate backing. That is the power of open source software.
Red Hat isn't doing a consumer version because it cannot afford to, because it must answer to shareholders, because it is commercially driven to profit. Debian suffers none of these drawbacks.
However, if Red Hat Enterprise were based on Debian, Red Hat would have minimal overhead in procuring a similar consumer version, while retaining all the benefits of a consumer presence. There is an enormous amount of work being put into the Debian distribution, and commercial entities that recognize and take advantage of it have the potential for great benefit.
a) IBM or another party they attack willfully contributed SysV code to the Linux codebase, and it is still there.
It doesn't have to be willfully contributed; it could be negligently infringing, and they would still be liable for copyright infringment. The infringment itself constitutes harm sufficient for a cause of action.
In general, negligence may lead to a specific remedy (ie. remove infringing code), whereas intentional may lead to damages (ie. $1 billion). The question is, then, do intentional actions of an agent of IBM, ie. an employee, constitute intentional actions of the company?
I've gathered that native porting will happen around 2006, with OpenOffice 2.0. Seems like a long time for it to happen, but I think it's the right thing to do, given their limited manpower.
There seems to be a lot of inkling that this is fraud. That may not be entirely correct. It is not fraud, in this case, unless the SPAM and telemarketing were part of the contract, which they were not. Had she signed the contract, I am sure she would have been equally repulsed by the SPAM and telemarketing she is subjected to. Not having signed is not a defense. They release of contact information is a consequence of entering the application, a side effect of her release of privacy, guaranteed by her writing and not her signature, and not a binding contractual issue upon which she may have fraudulent cause for remedy.
It is not fraudulent to telemarket or spam a known address. Having not signed up for the VISA does not preclude that they did not discover her phone number of email address, and cannot use it. Had a friend said the information out loud in public, it would have been as readily available, and equally exploitable. Were she to file a tortious action, she would need a district that recognized privacy rights as actionable causes, and recognize that filling out the form, without taking due care to dispose of it separately from a potential user of said information, is a case for privacy protection.
If she could prove some value was lost or damage ascertained, as if the SPAM or telemarketing were analogous a credit card charge or other harm, then she might have an action on grounds of negligent harm if she signed the agreement, notwithstanding the contract agreement. However, in the absence of an agreement, it may be more difficult insofar as she most prove the intentional infliction of harm as a result of the actions of the people who fetched her information. The onus is upon her to show that it was indeed their actions that led to the harm, and that there was some degree of harm, though the latter need not be exact if the harm were intentional. This may not be easy to prove.
Indeed, as an example, in Canada, there was a fellow going around with a 'toe camera' with the full intent, and historic pattern, of photographing up the skirts of women. Sadly, there is no criminal or tortious action which may be brought against the fellow (unless the victim is readily identifiable and hence defamed in public photos, which is a different case).
Not to be discouraging, but the immorality of the act in your case may not preclude the ease of proving any illegality. Though the law certainly intends to ease your ailment, it is not so well armed in this particular case.
Of course, your best action is to find a lawyer who has some history in this type of suit. Best of luck!
At this point, I'd say double-check to make sure you've got a case for willful damage, and then look for a lawyer willing to take this contingency.
Not all jurisdictions have contingency, but most have it to one degree or another.
That they went to your customers and complained about you protecting your system frm their effective DOS is something that I agree is (or should be) clasifiable as defamation.
I think it would be, more precisely, slander; it's a circular definition, but the precision may count for extra points.:)
Slander:
A false tale or report maliciously uttered, tending to
injure the reputation of another; the malicious utterance
of defamatory reports; the dissemination of malicious
tales or suggestions to the injury of another.
Defame:
1. To harm or destroy the good fame or reputation of; to
disgrace; especially, to speak evil of maliciously; to
dishonor by slanderous reports; to calumniate; to asperse.
My (limited) understanding is that defamation is a result to things published, whereas slander is between private parties. Defamation is a criminal act, an act against the public good, whereas slander is a trespass, a civil case between private parties.
This is not legal advice. Find a lawyer, ask them what to do.
It seems as though you've got a tort of negligence on your hands, insofar as they seem unaware, or oblivious to, the damages they are causing you. They do not seem, from your statements, to be wilfully causing damages, but negligence torts need not show (at least in the commonwealth) either wilfulness or intent. You need only show damages, which are an indirect consequence of their actions.
Take into account that torts are, by most accounts, very expensive, though the threat of a tort is often sufficient, or binding arbitration (though that is apparently not oft met with success), or mediation (same deal as binding arbitration). If you do have to litigate, the general rule is somewhere north of $100,000 in damages to justify the transaction cost, from what I have heard. See the first line, though - find a lawyer.
In the least you can establish damages in support of a trespass if you inform them that their actions cause damage, in which case their actions are thereafter wilful, which may make for a cleaner case. The onus in trespass is on the defendent (them) to defend against damages established, not the plaintiff (you); and whereas in negligence, the onus is on the plaintiff (you) to show damages.
Ok, so in gist, take everything I said with a grain of salt, and seek legal counsel. Your jurisdiction may have many options with respect to small claims or public dispute resolution, and I would suggest those because they are significantly cheaper.
There is the option for Ph.D's to come to Canada. Almost all our baby-boomer faculty retire in the next 10 years. It probably won't pay so well as the USA, but there are quite a few intangible benefits, like social services and less violent crime.
You should be able to work here under NAFTA, with an M.Sc. or Ph.D. Not that you may want to, but it is an option, in a slightly out-of-sync economy.
Slashdot Mirror
They've shown a history of dominating and destroying open source groups that work with and for them
Didn't Sun create OpenOffice from StarOffice?
I have always been of the opinion that the more generic the name of a company, the greater its capacity for evil.
For example, General Motors and General Electric. I don't know if they've done anything bad, but by virtue of their name, they could manufacture all kinds of evilness and no one would be any the wiser. At least they are specific to a particular industry, so one would presume a limitation to their evil: evil motors (tanks, jets, rockets, etc), or evil electrics (electric fences, tazers, etc). General Dynamics, on the other hand -- dynamics -- there's lots of evil that could fall into that category!
I'm just waiting for a company called Stuff Inc..
Your analogy, though fruitful in some respects, does not hold over thoroughly to software development. It is a commonly accepted axiom among experienced commercial teams that adding people to the team does not ship the product faster. In that light, throwing money at problems need not produce solutions. The problem seems to be that professional programmers are not immediately useful in a project, requiring ramp-up time.
In the open source world, however, the incentives and results are very different. Many people know about a project and follow it for significant periods of time before contributing, and feel fairly comfortable by osmosis with the code. As well, the contributions are much closer to the needs of the user, since the developers are almost always the users. This is very much not the case in commercial development.
Finally, the release structure of open source is a stark contrast to commercial releases. One can see this in the half-implemented features that indicate closed source programs released before the developers finished their jobs. This is not a signature of open source, however, which tends to release on feature completeness, not business forces.
Though I cannot argue with the potential for large amounts of money to produce software of a different calibre, I am not sold that this is a consistently better calibre of software. I think it is a problem endemic to the production of commercial software, and that ultimately the process through which open source is developed makes it privy to resources the likes of which cannot be reproduced in a commercial setting.
So when is KOffice going to natively use the OpenOffice.org (OASIS?) file format? ... Google came up a little short on this for me.
Even though sex is mandatory for human survival, people still seem to be afraid of it :)
I heard a theory, and YMMV, but it intrigued me. It was quite well supported, and reputable, if I remember correctly.
It would be a far less effective means of pleasure association in advertising if we were desensitized to it. If you saw beautiful naked women every day, you would be totally desensitized in short order. However, in America, sexual innuendo is the most prolific and pervasive of advertisements. Desensitize sex, undermine the advertisment regime.
This flows quite well from the precept that television is, first and foremost, an advertising medium.
Interviewer: "What's your greatest weakness?"
Me: "I don't have an answer to that question."
Interviewer: "That's your greatest weakness?"
Me: "No."
Interviewer: Quizzical look as the paradox sets in.
I think what we're seeing here are at least + 741,000,000 reasons Lucas is considering 7,8,9.
Yes, but not a single one of those reasons is worth a good cup of coffee...
In fact, considering that most EULAs provide virtually no protection for the end user in the event that a proprietary vendor is using stolen code I would have to say that all end users should start demanding open source to ensure they are protected.
There are some unfortunate practical considerations here. First, if a proprietary vendor is using stolen code, no one really knows about it. Copyright protects the code, but how does the creator know when someone else is using their code? It's very hard, almost impossible, to find out, especially since minor changes can totally obfuscate the original source, and end product. Open source can do this, too, but the point is that it's harder for a creator of source to say "that's mine" if it's proprietary, because it may look, and act similarly, but there is no way to obtain access to the code that infringes without saying first that it has likely been infringed. That's hard, and risky.
Second, even if a creator says "that's mine", what happens? They don't go after the end users. They go after the person who infringed the copyright, and the user is indemnified because they do not possess the infringing source code. The infringing entity that stole the code is certainly in a heap of trouble for copyright violation, but the end user has committed no such violation. They merely possess the compiled product, an uncorrelated consequence of copyright infringment, not an infringment in and of itself.
However, patents on the other hand, are a different consideration.
Yea, sure, if they plan on keeping track of all the bathrooms.
These clauses may not be enforceable for a couple of reasons. First, there is no consideration to the modification of the contract on your part. Without consideration of both parties, it is not a legally enforceable promise (save a few exceptions). Second, if it fundamentally alters the contract, it can be considered a "fundamental breach", and is equally unenforceable, and you may have a case for their breach. However the remedies for these breaches may be as simple and useless as simply breaking your contract. However, they may be very complex and involve years of compensation, such as how people are now suing Canada Post for the $9.95 internet for life, expecting $23 per month in compensation for lost service.
no one's going to tell a $150k/year guy to learn a new spreadsheet.
If an employee of mine makes $150k/year, I might expect him to learn a new spreadsheet on his own time. The more money they make, the higher my expectations, especially if they are in a liquid position (ie. easily replaceable).
Which would cost more? Replacing the $150k/year person, or the continued software licenses? It's a cost-benefit analysis, not so easily waived.
We pay additional taxes on media to support this system. I think its just gone up again, with MP3 players now being taxed as they represent blank media on which you might copy somebody else's content.
...
The levy price did not go up; the actual prices stayed the same. You can read about it here
MP3 player's are now being taxed, which is new. The gist of the protection is that you may fundamentally circumvent copyright if you give away the original, and you are permitted to keep copies, from my understanding. So you may make a copy of a CD, keep the copy, and give away the original CD, and not have violated the rights of the copyright holder.
The essence of this, distinguished from "real" copyright violations, is that you can only give away the original once, and so you cannot mass produce the effect of that lost copyright. Or so my understanding goes
I don't think it's quite so simple as "enabling technology". It is rather a question of causation, and if there is direct harm to society or its constituents due to negligence or a violation of regulations without due diligence, there may be a case. In the case of hand guns, I am inclined to believe they get away with selling guns that kill people precisely because guns are designed to kill people, and it is the user whom is acting harmfully against society.
The flip side is the tobacco company who kills hundreds of thousands of people every year peddling a product not designed to kill people. Their defense against the spiraling health care costs has been overcome on several occasions, now. Same thing for car manufacturers whose vehicles are designed negligently and cause harm to their owners.
Somewhere among these arguments is the question of harm to copyright owners, through (or in spite of) protections enacted in the copyright regulatory regime. Do ISPs inherently violate the protections afforded copyright owners in Canada by permitting (or not deterring) the transmission of copyright materials over their lines? It is a question of public policy, much like guns, tobacco, and vehicle safety. The only stark distinction between copyright and the others is the type of harm, where they are intrinsic to most of society this is a question of perceived monetary loss by a few.
but nobody realised it was an exploitable security hole until a day or two ago
;)
I'd say someone figured it out at least a week ago.
Apple has chosen to make the users do all administrative tasks via sudo instead, which makes sense in the case of your clueless friends.
You mean like:
$ sudo bash
What is the difference, if any, between having an enabled root account and a user account with sudo access to every command (ie. bash)?
Cheers
This is what I thought collab.net was created for, but that seems to have died. This idea is also represented, in a representative form, in Transgaming's voting system. It is a fantastic idea, as you have presented it, and I hope it comes to fruition.
It seems like the three main issues that I identified are:
Licensing, particularly for educational institutions,
Support, especially for the soon-deprecated RH9 series, and
Updates, and the continuation of the up2date network.
Many of the users of Red Hat seem understandably confused and upset about the direction that the company is taking. I would like to, humbly, suggest that none of these issues are pertinent to the Debian distribution. I would personally encourage users in a situation where they feel tramelled to do some research in this respect.
I think it would be inappropriate, in the context of posting to this interview, for me to suggest Debian as an alternative to Red Hat Enterprise edition. However, I do believe it to be a substantial alternative to the soon defunct consumer Red Hat series. In time, Fedora may also be a valid alternative, but at the moment its capacity to act as a valuable, low risk distribution has not been substantiated.
You compare space travel to the new world, but there is a big difference ... despite that horrible Kevin Kostner movie, we haven't colonized the oceans
:)
I don't buy an argument that because we haven't we cannot. I'm sure you see the fallacy there, too. We colonized Lousiana because it was cheaper, easier, faster -- more efficient and effective in our overall homogenization of the planet as a habitation for human beings. However, the absence of sea colonies does not preclude their impossibility.
At one point it was impossible to cross the Atlantic. Then it was unreasonable. Now it is trivial. Going to the moon was once impossible, but is now just unreasonable. Colonizing the moon is now impossible, but who is to say what it will be tomorrow.
Not having colonized oceans only implies that we have taken advantage of "cheaper real estate", and we have not had the will and incentive to find a means to colonize more difficult habitats. Mind you, some places may indeed be impossible to colonize. But I am mindful of the ingenuity that presents itself when necessary, and optimistic of the possibilities of habitation on the oceans and in space alike.
I vote vor c, too.
What happens when the corporate backers of UserLinux decide that bills can't be met and they have to concentrate on an enterprise version? Bills don't pay themselves and there are reasons why RedHat isn't doing the consumer version anymore.
Debian, as a UserLinux, will survive the corporate onslaught precisely because it is free. Much as the Linux kernel will survive in the absence of corporate backing. That is the power of open source software.
Red Hat isn't doing a consumer version because it cannot afford to, because it must answer to shareholders, because it is commercially driven to profit. Debian suffers none of these drawbacks.
However, if Red Hat Enterprise were based on Debian, Red Hat would have minimal overhead in procuring a similar consumer version, while retaining all the benefits of a consumer presence. There is an enormous amount of work being put into the Debian distribution, and commercial entities that recognize and take advantage of it have the potential for great benefit.
a) IBM or another party they attack willfully contributed SysV code to the Linux codebase, and it is still there.
It doesn't have to be willfully contributed; it could be negligently infringing, and they would still be liable for copyright infringment. The infringment itself constitutes harm sufficient for a cause of action.
In general, negligence may lead to a specific remedy (ie. remove infringing code), whereas intentional may lead to damages (ie. $1 billion). The question is, then, do intentional actions of an agent of IBM, ie. an employee, constitute intentional actions of the company?
YMMV
Cheers
I've gathered that native porting will happen around 2006, with OpenOffice 2.0. Seems like a long time for it to happen, but I think it's the right thing to do, given their limited manpower.
There seems to be a lot of inkling that this is fraud. That may not be entirely correct. It is not fraud, in this case, unless the SPAM and telemarketing were part of the contract, which they were not. Had she signed the contract, I am sure she would have been equally repulsed by the SPAM and telemarketing she is subjected to. Not having signed is not a defense. They release of contact information is a consequence of entering the application, a side effect of her release of privacy, guaranteed by her writing and not her signature, and not a binding contractual issue upon which she may have fraudulent cause for remedy.
It is not fraudulent to telemarket or spam a known address. Having not signed up for the VISA does not preclude that they did not discover her phone number of email address, and cannot use it. Had a friend said the information out loud in public, it would have been as readily available, and equally exploitable. Were she to file a tortious action, she would need a district that recognized privacy rights as actionable causes, and recognize that filling out the form, without taking due care to dispose of it separately from a potential user of said information, is a case for privacy protection.
If she could prove some value was lost or damage ascertained, as if the SPAM or telemarketing were analogous a credit card charge or other harm, then she might have an action on grounds of negligent harm if she signed the agreement, notwithstanding the contract agreement. However, in the absence of an agreement, it may be more difficult insofar as she most prove the intentional infliction of harm as a result of the actions of the people who fetched her information. The onus is upon her to show that it was indeed their actions that led to the harm, and that there was some degree of harm, though the latter need not be exact if the harm were intentional. This may not be easy to prove.
Indeed, as an example, in Canada, there was a fellow going around with a 'toe camera' with the full intent, and historic pattern, of photographing up the skirts of women. Sadly, there is no criminal or tortious action which may be brought against the fellow (unless the victim is readily identifiable and hence defamed in public photos, which is a different case).
Not to be discouraging, but the immorality of the act in your case may not preclude the ease of proving any illegality. Though the law certainly intends to ease your ailment, it is not so well armed in this particular case.
Of course, your best action is to find a lawyer who has some history in this type of suit. Best of luck!
Good points.
:)
At this point, I'd say double-check to make sure you've got a case for willful damage, and then look for a lawyer willing to take this contingency.
Not all jurisdictions have contingency, but most have it to one degree or another.
That they went to your customers and complained about you protecting your system frm their effective DOS is something that I agree is (or should be) clasifiable as defamation.
I think it would be, more precisely, slander; it's a circular definition, but the precision may count for extra points.
Slander:
A false tale or report maliciously uttered, tending to
injure the reputation of another; the malicious utterance
of defamatory reports; the dissemination of malicious
tales or suggestions to the injury of another.
Defame:
1. To harm or destroy the good fame or reputation of; to
disgrace; especially, to speak evil of maliciously; to
dishonor by slanderous reports; to calumniate; to asperse.
My (limited) understanding is that defamation is a result to things published, whereas slander is between private parties. Defamation is a criminal act, an act against the public good, whereas slander is a trespass, a civil case between private parties.
Cheers
This is not legal advice. Find a lawyer, ask them what to do.
It seems as though you've got a tort of negligence on your hands, insofar as they seem unaware, or oblivious to, the damages they are causing you. They do not seem, from your statements, to be wilfully causing damages, but negligence torts need not show (at least in the commonwealth) either wilfulness or intent. You need only show damages, which are an indirect consequence of their actions.
Take into account that torts are, by most accounts, very expensive, though the threat of a tort is often sufficient, or binding arbitration (though that is apparently not oft met with success), or mediation (same deal as binding arbitration). If you do have to litigate, the general rule is somewhere north of $100,000 in damages to justify the transaction cost, from what I have heard. See the first line, though - find a lawyer.
In the least you can establish damages in support of a trespass if you inform them that their actions cause damage, in which case their actions are thereafter wilful, which may make for a cleaner case. The onus in trespass is on the defendent (them) to defend against damages established, not the plaintiff (you); and whereas in negligence, the onus is on the plaintiff (you) to show damages.
Ok, so in gist, take everything I said with a grain of salt, and seek legal counsel. Your jurisdiction may have many options with respect to small claims or public dispute resolution, and I would suggest those because they are significantly cheaper.
Hope that helps.
You raise a good point.
There is the option for Ph.D's to come to Canada. Almost all our baby-boomer faculty retire in the next 10 years. It probably won't pay so well as the USA, but there are quite a few intangible benefits, like social services and less violent crime.
You should be able to work here under NAFTA, with an M.Sc. or Ph.D. Not that you may want to, but it is an option, in a slightly out-of-sync economy.