Blake Stowell is quoted as saying, "We've not introduced copyright infringement as part of our case with IBM. We've tried to make it clear that it's a contract issue."
Well, if that's the case, then why did your attorney, on the record, in court, tell the judge, "I will proffer to the Court that we are filing a second amended complaint that has copyright infringement claims, and will be filed within the coming few days or no less than a week. And we'll put then fully in front of the Court the three buckets we have outlined here, contract, trade secrets and copyright."
Anyone smell smoke? Because I think Mr. Stowell's pants are on fire.
If you mean your post, why are you posting it? If you mean the parent post, then you're flat-out wrong.
if spam is a social problem, what about auto theft?
What about it?
Should that also be solved by economics and/or behavior?
Yes. You know, like the laws against it. Or are you suggesting that we abolish laws against theft because people still steal? (So they're obviously ineffective, right? If they're ineffective, they should be abolished, right?)
Do you think that people shouldn't lock their cars or have alarm systems? Or that they should have push-button starters with no key required?
No - but would you rely only on these measures to stop car theft? Do you advocate abolishing all theft laws? If you do, then you're a fool.
(D) It is a simple measure to simply throw out any email that is not signed.
Yes, but the ISP is still paying for the bandwidth to receive (and then bounce) said email.
If you don't bounce, spam still costs the same amount. If you do bounce unsigned emails (as the RFCs say you must), then the cost of spam to you doubles.
Then you have to take into account that spammers will just buy a cert and keep spamming. So what if the cert gets revoked (IF it gets revoked) - they'll just buy another one.
As a mail server admin, I don't think I'll be implementing this any time soon. It will be a pain in the ass, will cost me money, and won't stop spam.
Trying to make something look silly by using statistics
So why are you doing it?
have you even seen the pages?
No. Have you?
But you know what? I have seen the question: specifically the following:
Please identify, with specificity (by file and line of code), (a)
all source code and other material in Linux (including but not limited to the Linux kernel, any Linux operating sytem and any Linux distribution) to which plaintiff has rights; and (b) the nature of plaintiff's rights, including but not limited to whether and how the code or other material derives from UNIX.
Now, how much stuff did Caldera put into the kernel willingly (you know, with a (c) sign on it, and everything.)? Enough to fit inside 60 legal pages? OK, maybe.
How about along with a detailed description of the copyrights, trade secrets, etc? Ehrm.. possible, but I think you're pushing the boundary.
Not to mention all of the 'millions of lines' that SCO claims was put into Linux without their knowledge.
And that's one part of twelve they had to answer in those 60 pages.
if SCO can prove it's case in sixty pages (or more if this is only part of it) in a court room with a presiding judge then it will win
And if CowboyNeal has hot sex with 60 Brazilian supermodels all at the same time, he'll be the coolest geek alive.
"As long as I'm wishing, I might as well ask for a Pony."
SCO isn't trying to "prove its' case" (nor does it need to) - it's response needs to show everything that they believe IBM did, when they did it, how they believe they did it, as well as proof of what's theirs.
end of story
Uhh, NO. You see, IBM still gets to disect and challenge everything that SCO puts forward.
SCO has basically admitted (in their response) that they did not comply with the order - the one whose deadline they agreed to even when given a chance on a later one.
I think any moron here can tell you that pissing off the judge isn't the way to try to win a court case.
Most of the money ($28M) collected for 2000 and 2001 has been distributed, with 66% of it going to songwriters, and ~19% going to musicians/singers. (The remaining ~15% went to record labels.) They say they should have a good start on distributing the money collected for 2002 ($26M).
True, they can't make money by selling it to you anymore, because you've already got it;
No, not true.
Just because I got a 'free' copy (which I used to preview), doesn't mean I wouldn't buy (or pay money to see) a legit copy at a reaonable price (if it's any good).
Take a look at Spider Man - one of the most pirated movies of all time (released two weeks before it opened in the theatres), set a box office record.
I had Family Guy VCDs I downloaded from Kazaa - I still bought the DVDs when they came out. (Family Guy is one of the top-selling DVDs around.)
I can. SCO's chances of winning anything are pretty much zero - and even if they did win, the Doctrine of Laches says that they will get no monetary judgement from it.
You are saying the same thing he is, you just haven't realised it.
Not really - first of all, I'm saying that you cannot secure a network only by securing the boundary - however a good firewall is an important part of a nutritious breakfast (err, secure network:o)
NAT is irrelevant with regards to security. Nobody really says "we are secure because we have NAT", they say "we are secure because we have a firewall." The fact that the firewall may or may not perform NAT is irrelevant.
On the other hand, a NAT firewall does provide more security than a simple packet filter, because NAT (by definition) includes stateful inspection.
His team set the blocks on their side (bumps right, holes left), trading off a certain amount of lateral stability for greater gains in height. Perhaps you could use the same strategy in your bridge building?
You know, that's the first thing I thought of when I read the parent post.. "I wonder if he's tried it with the blocks on their side."
Do you want to hear horror stories about VERY EXPENSIVE Dell, Toshiba, and IBM laptops failing multiple times IN warranty, then failing less than 1 day AFTER the warranty expires? And then the company doing nothing to placate the customer?
I certainly do.
I don't know about Dell, but both Toshiba and IBM (as well as HP/Compaq, Lexmark, Epson, and others I've dealt with) have some flexibilty with regards to warranty terms.
As someone who's worked in computer sales, almost every company I've dealt with will agree to service products that are a couple of weeks out of warranty. Sometimes over two months (thank you, Compaq) out of warranty.
There are exceptions, and those companies not only lost the opportunity to sell their product to that one customer in the future, but they also lost the opportunity for *me* to sell their products, as the company I worked for was interested in keeping their customers happy (to the point that they paid for the repair - short-term pain for long-term gain, which seems to have worked, because they're still in business.)
SCO also might actually have a 'silver bullet' of stolen or misappropriated Unix code. There are good reasons why they wouldn't release this code.
No, there aren't. There are _NO_ reasons *AT ALL* not to release the alleged infringing code.
If they did, the Linux community would make sure that the offending code wasn't in the next kernal release
While this is true, it has absolutely *NO BEARING* whatsoever on whether they should release the code or not.
and then SCO could only go after users for past use of their code.
Yes, however, this is the only way that SCO would be able to go after anyone.
That wouldn't generate anywhere near the revenue
True, but not in the way that you think. If SCO had released their allegedly infringing code, they would have been able to go after infringers for $X.
By NOT releaseing their alleged infringing code, SCO cannot go after anyone for anything.
So your statement is true only insofar as $X (if they *had* released the code) is nowhere near zero.
It also is a reason for them to release this imaginary "magic bullet", not to hide it.
that they will if they can catch the Linux community cold and then force you to pay them or abandon your IT infrastructure until a patch comes out.
Sorry, but the real world doesn't work like that. They will not be able to 'force' anyone to pay anything. At best, the best they could hope for (assuming they win every argument, on every count) is that they would get *no* damages, they wouldn't be able to sue users for anything, and kernel distributors would be forced to stop distributing the kernel until the alleged infringing code had been removed.
Google for "doctrine of laches" for more information.
Although VeriSign has been providing instructions on how to manually install the new Global Server Intermediate Root CA to all GSID customers since December, 2001, it is possible that some customers may not have noticed the reminder and are unaware of this issue.
Of course they neglected to include that the notice was on display on the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.'
What if his ISP uses a webcache or webproxy? The feds wouldn't get much info out of that.?
Why not?
They'd get just as much information from the IP address of his ISP's web server as they would from his actual IP address. (Hint: Your IP address does _not_ typically broadcast who you you are, it announces who your ISP is.)
Even with the IP address of the user, they'd still have to subpoena the ISP to get the user account information - which the ISP would have to look up in their logs. If they got the IP address of the ISP's proxy, the ISP would simply look in the proxy logs first.
Now, if the user was uing an off-shore open proxy (say in Asia somewhere) then they might have a problem.
all new versions of outlook (including XP SP2d versions) will not serve up remote assets in HTML emails unless specifically instructed to do so.
Well I guess that he wasn't using a new version of Outlook then.
I don't know about you, but I haven't forgotten to be humble - I just don't want to be.
We have forgotten not to act like those who we dislike.
Bullshit. When was the last time that anyone in the Linux community held press conferences where they made bullshit claims? Or made false claims in open court ("Within two days - a week at most - we will be filing lawsuits against Linux users" - Kevin McBride, Dec 5, 2003.)
Slashdot Mirror
Blake Stowell is quoted as saying, "We've not introduced copyright infringement as part of our case with IBM. We've tried to make it clear that it's a contract issue."
Well, if that's the case, then why did your attorney, on the record, in court, tell the judge, "I will proffer to the Court that we are filing a second amended complaint that has copyright infringement claims, and will be filed within the coming few days or no less than a week. And we'll put then fully in front of the Court the three buckets we have outlined here, contract, trade secrets and copyright."
Anyone smell smoke? Because I think Mr. Stowell's pants are on fire.
This comment isn't insightful, it's stupid.
If you mean your post, why are you posting it? If you mean the parent post, then you're flat-out wrong.
if spam is a social problem, what about auto theft?
What about it?
Should that also be solved by economics and/or behavior?
Yes. You know, like the laws against it. Or are you suggesting that we abolish laws against theft because people still steal? (So they're obviously ineffective, right? If they're ineffective, they should be abolished, right?)
Do you think that people shouldn't lock their cars or have alarm systems? Or that they should have push-button starters with no key required?
No - but would you rely only on these measures to stop car theft? Do you advocate abolishing all theft laws? If you do, then you're a fool.
(D) It is a simple measure to simply throw out any email that is not signed.
Yes, but the ISP is still paying for the bandwidth to receive (and then bounce) said email.
If you don't bounce, spam still costs the same amount. If you do bounce unsigned emails (as the RFCs say you must), then the cost of spam to you doubles.
Then you have to take into account that spammers will just buy a cert and keep spamming. So what if the cert gets revoked (IF it gets revoked) - they'll just buy another one.
As a mail server admin, I don't think I'll be implementing this any time soon. It will be a pain in the ass, will cost me money, and won't stop spam.
So why are you doing it?
have you even seen the pages?
No. Have you?
But you know what? I have seen the question: specifically the following:
Now, how much stuff did Caldera put into the kernel willingly (you know, with a (c) sign on it, and everything.)? Enough to fit inside 60 legal pages? OK, maybe.
How about along with a detailed description of the copyrights, trade secrets, etc? Ehrm.. possible, but I think you're pushing the boundary.
Not to mention all of the 'millions of lines' that SCO claims was put into Linux without their knowledge.
And that's one part of twelve they had to answer in those 60 pages.
if SCO can prove it's case in sixty pages (or more if this is only part of it) in a court room with a presiding judge then it will win
And if CowboyNeal has hot sex with 60 Brazilian supermodels all at the same time, he'll be the coolest geek alive.
"As long as I'm wishing, I might as well ask for a Pony."
SCO isn't trying to "prove its' case" (nor does it need to) - it's response needs to show everything that they believe IBM did, when they did it, how they believe they did it, as well as proof of what's theirs.
end of story
Uhh, NO. You see, IBM still gets to disect and challenge everything that SCO puts forward.
SCO has basically admitted (in their response) that they did not comply with the order - the one whose deadline they agreed to even when given a chance on a later one.
I think any moron here can tell you that pissing off the judge isn't the way to try to win a court case.
Possibility of SCO case to get thrown out is not possible in my opinion.
I disagree. If the 'evidence' that SCO produces is insufficient, then there's plently of chance of it being thrown out.
At least it wouldn't be a smart move from IBM if they would succed to get this far.
Again, I disagree - it would be a great move on IBM's part, because it would put Linux on solid footing again.
If IBM wants to bleed SCO, they can keep their countersuit alive. It's not dependent upon the SCO case.
This page addresses most of your questions and misunderstandings.
So far in Canada, artists have not been paid a cent from the CD-R royalties we all pay.
Not true.
Most of the money ($28M) collected for 2000 and 2001 has been distributed, with 66% of it going to songwriters, and ~19% going to musicians/singers. (The remaining ~15% went to record labels.) They say they should have a good start on distributing the money collected for 2002 ($26M).
True, they can't make money by selling it to you anymore, because you've already got it;
No, not true.
Just because I got a 'free' copy (which I used to preview), doesn't mean I wouldn't buy (or pay money to see) a legit copy at a reaonable price (if it's any good).
Take a look at Spider Man - one of the most pirated movies of all time (released two weeks before it opened in the theatres), set a box office record.
I had Family Guy VCDs I downloaded from Kazaa - I still bought the DVDs when they came out. (Family Guy is one of the top-selling DVDs around.)
What happens if SCO wins?
Satan goes shopping for a new snowblower.
No one at the moment can say that they won't
I can. SCO's chances of winning anything are pretty much zero - and even if they did win, the Doctrine of Laches says that they will get no monetary judgement from it.
You are saying the same thing he is, you just haven't realised it.
:o)
Not really - first of all, I'm saying that you cannot secure a network only by securing the boundary - however a good firewall is an important part of a nutritious breakfast (err, secure network
NAT is irrelevant with regards to security. Nobody really says "we are secure because we have NAT", they say "we are secure because we have a firewall." The fact that the firewall may or may not perform NAT is irrelevant.
On the other hand, a NAT firewall does provide more security than a simple packet filter, because NAT (by definition) includes stateful inspection.
NAT was designed for having multiple computers share one IP-adress.
Actually, NAT was designed to have multiple clients share N IP addresses, where 0 > N < the number of clients.
His team set the blocks on their side (bumps right, holes left), trading off a certain amount of lateral stability for greater gains in height. Perhaps you could use the same strategy in your bridge building?
:o)
You know, that's the first thing I thought of when I read the parent post.. "I wonder if he's tried it with the blocks on their side."
I gues great minds think alike
Secure the *host*, you fuckwit.
Secure the *WHOLE DAMN NETWORK*, you fuckwit.
A firewall (whether using NAT or not) is one part of a properly secured network. It is not a panacea.
But thanks for playing.
Try re-reading my post in context.
The author is saying that NAT creates security through obscurity, when in fact, the potential for this fault lies with a firewall (not with NAT).
A firewall is what causes the false sense of security - it doesn't matter whether the firewall uses NAT or not.
It creates a false sense of security.
But it doesn't. NAT is not what's at fault for this.
People think their network is secure because it is NATed, so they spend less effort hardening each internal machine.
This is no different than any other type of firewall.
NAT is not at fault for creating that false sense of security - the firewall is.
I believe that was my point.
The author's point was that NAT brings a false sense of security
Then he's even more clueless than I thought.
someone could easily sneak something in behind the NAT and you'd be completely unprotected
And this is different without NAT HOW??!?! A non-NAT firewall will present the exact same security vulnerabilities as one that is using NAT.
In fact, there isn't even a precise, widely accepted definition of exactly what is and is not "spam".
Bullshit.
The definition of spam is "unsolicited bulk email." This is both precise, and widely-accepted.
Do you want to hear horror stories about VERY EXPENSIVE Dell, Toshiba, and IBM laptops failing multiple times IN warranty, then failing less than 1 day AFTER the warranty expires? And then the company doing nothing to placate the customer?
I certainly do.
I don't know about Dell, but both Toshiba and IBM (as well as HP/Compaq, Lexmark, Epson, and others I've dealt with) have some flexibilty with regards to warranty terms.
As someone who's worked in computer sales, almost every company I've dealt with will agree to service products that are a couple of weeks out of warranty. Sometimes over two months (thank you, Compaq) out of warranty.
There are exceptions, and those companies not only lost the opportunity to sell their product to that one customer in the future, but they also lost the opportunity for *me* to sell their products, as the company I worked for was interested in keeping their customers happy (to the point that they paid for the repair - short-term pain for long-term gain, which seems to have worked, because they're still in business.)
SCO also might actually have a 'silver bullet' of stolen or misappropriated Unix code. There are good reasons why they wouldn't release this code.
No, there aren't. There are _NO_ reasons *AT ALL* not to release the alleged infringing code.
If they did, the Linux community would make sure that the offending code wasn't in the next kernal release
While this is true, it has absolutely *NO BEARING* whatsoever on whether they should release the code or not.
and then SCO could only go after users for past use of their code.
Yes, however, this is the only way that SCO would be able to go after anyone.
That wouldn't generate anywhere near the revenue
True, but not in the way that you think. If SCO had released their allegedly infringing code, they would have been able to go after infringers for $X.
By NOT releaseing their alleged infringing code, SCO cannot go after anyone for anything.
So your statement is true only insofar as $X (if they *had* released the code) is nowhere near zero.
It also is a reason for them to release this imaginary "magic bullet", not to hide it.
that they will if they can catch the Linux community cold and then force you to pay them or abandon your IT infrastructure until a patch comes out.
Sorry, but the real world doesn't work like that. They will not be able to 'force' anyone to pay anything. At best, the best they could hope for (assuming they win every argument, on every count) is that they would get *no* damages, they wouldn't be able to sue users for anything, and kernel distributors would be forced to stop distributing the kernel until the alleged infringing code had been removed.
Google for "doctrine of laches" for more information.
Is it possible to differ "good" traffic from "bad" traffic?
Yes.
Although VeriSign has been providing instructions on how to manually install the new Global Server Intermediate Root CA to all GSID customers since December, 2001, it is possible that some customers may not have noticed the reminder and are unaware of this issue.
Of course they neglected to include that the notice was on display on the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.'
No, even better:
:o)
"I saw a picture of this guy who claims to be preseident of Apple. I'm pretty sure that it's the author Salman Rushdie. Can anyone help me prove it?"
Hmm, it's even on-topic!
What if his ISP uses a webcache or webproxy? The feds wouldn't get much info out of that.?
Why not?
They'd get just as much information from the IP address of his ISP's web server as they would from his actual IP address. (Hint: Your IP address does _not_ typically broadcast who you you are, it announces who your ISP is.)
Even with the IP address of the user, they'd still have to subpoena the ISP to get the user account information - which the ISP would have to look up in their logs. If they got the IP address of the ISP's proxy, the ISP would simply look in the proxy logs first.
Now, if the user was uing an off-shore open proxy (say in Asia somewhere) then they might have a problem.
all new versions of outlook (including XP SP2d versions) will not serve up remote assets in HTML emails unless specifically instructed to do so.
Well I guess that he wasn't using a new version of Outlook then.
*if* SCO wins, it'll win $3B plus leverage vs every single linux user
Yeah, and *if* monkeys fly out of my butt, I'll be able to open a circus.
We have forgotten to be humble.
I don't know about you, but I haven't forgotten to be humble - I just don't want to be.
We have forgotten not to act like those who we dislike.
Bullshit. When was the last time that anyone in the Linux community held press conferences where they made bullshit claims? Or made false claims in open court ("Within two days - a week at most - we will be filing lawsuits against Linux users" - Kevin McBride, Dec 5, 2003.)
We have forgotten to take the high road.
No, actually, that's SCO.