The question is, would they have done this if it hadn't been patentable?
<sarcasm> Of course not - why would a businessman come up with an idea to make himself lots and lots money if he couldn't stop someone else from copying him. </sarcasm>
one that presumably takes a lot of time, effort, and money to implement
Ahem - so what?
A patent isn't supposed to guarantee you a return on your implementation - if someone else decided to implement this, they'd have to spend the exact same amount on implementation as Netflix.
Only they would also have to pay Netflix - and receive *nothing* in return.
How does that "promote the science and the useful arts", exactly?
SCO's claim is that their code was released without their knowledge or permission, by someone who does not hold the copyright, so the GPL doesn't really enter into it.
Except that the GPL is the only thing that allows them to continue to distrubute Linux (which they're still doing.)
There are some simple questions: Do they know "their" code is in a GPL'ed product? Are they still distributing this product?
There is no doubt that the answer to both of these questions is YES.
So, whether they put "their" code there, or someone else did is irrelevant. They are either agreeing to GPL it, or are in violation of copyright law. It's really that simple.
this would prevent it from deriving commercial gain from any subsequent derivative programs
First, this is BS - the GPL does not stop you from selling GPL'ed software. And even if it did, the government isn't (and shouldn't be) in the proprietary software business anyway.
prevent or severely limit the opportunities to work with commercial companies on such projects
Again, why should the government spend money writing software that another company is going to sell to someone else?
They are against GPL not because it's open source, but because it's too restrictive.
The thing is, the GPL is considerably less restrictive than any proprietary license. I notice they don't say anything about how the government should stop commissioning software under proprietary licenses.
I am a "content creator". Everything I do is under copyright protection (just like everybody else - including you.)
Lots of my stuff is on my website. All I have to do is watch my server logs for IP addresses owned by the RIAA/MPAA (maybe someone will send them an anonymous tip that I have "copyrighted material" on my website:o)
Since I'm a copyright holder, and I would have reason to believe that they would have my copyrighted materials on their computers (in their browser cache), then (under this bill) I would be perfectly within my rights to hack into their systems and destroy their computers.
I hate to break it to SCO, but Linux had SMP support LOOOOOONG before IBM got into the open source game. Idiots.
The thing is, SCO already knows this, because they're the ones who sponsored it - they gave an SMP box to Alan Cox specifically so he could work on it.
I don't know what SCO's been smoking, but it must be pretty potent stuff!
No, SCO isn't showing anyone the code because there is no code.
3.IBM, red hat et al can then say "yes we were using your code but we stopped as soon as we found out about it" which means that SCO cant do things like filing an injunction that says "if you use our code, you have to pay us mega $$$"
SCO can't do that anyway - read a little bit about the doctrine of laches.
SCO has been harping on about this for two months. If they went to a judge now and said "we want a TRO to stop these people from using our code", the judge would say "since you didn't think it was important enough to ask them, or to do this when you found out about it, you must therefore value any infringing code at $0. And since you have declared that the code has no value, I'm not gonna stop someone else from distributing it."
Seriously. By not telling anyone where it is, SCO has declared that the monetary value of any of "their" code in Linux is $0.
I think you've been too confused by the idiotic "They GPL'd their code when they sold linux", which is probably not true.
Only because they probably don't have any code inserted into Linux. But if they did, it would be under the GPL.
SCO clams that someone from inside IBM inserted their code into Linux
No, they are most definitely NOT claiming this.
They are claiming two things - first that "someone" put their code into Linux.
Second, they are claiming that IBM used "knowledge" of their OS to make Linux better.
The two issues are completely separate.
There are no allegations of code theft against IBM. Their sole complaint is "Linux hackers suck, so the only way that Linux could compete against us is if IBM helped them."
Now, if there really is SCO-owned code in Linux, SCO distributed that code knowingly. They know it's there, they know that the kernel is covered under the GPL, and they are still distributing it.
SCO is implicitly licensing their code under the GPL because they continue to distribute Linux. They must have agreed with the GPL, because nothing else grants them the right to continue distributing it.
even if they had never touched the GPL they still would have had code leakage
True, and thier actions state exactly how much any alleged code is worth to them.
The doctrine of laches says that if an injured party wants to claim damages, they must minimize the damages. Since SCO won't allow anyone to remove the alleged code (they refuse to say what the alleged code is, or where it is), then they are unable to claim injury.
By refusing to tell anyone what the alleged code is, they are effectively saying that any code that might be in the kernel is worthless to them.
Brazil looked at their requirements (open access to data and code - Brazil mandated that since all government data must be accessible by the populace, so must the tools to access it, as they can't be locked into a situation where the vendor controls the data.) Since (by definition) closed source doesn't meet their requirements, it cannot be "better".
Again, MS is perfectly able to sell software to Brazil - they just have to meet Brazil's terms (again, just like every other sector.)
One of the more important things that I think it accomplishes is psycological. It finally establishes a legal basis that spam is bad.
Bingo!
I keep seeing claims that "legislation won't stop spam" - and they miss the point that larceny and murder laws don't stop theft or killings, either.. does that mean we should eliminate those laws from the books?
Professional spammers tell people "it's not illegal - so the average joe (who's might not know any better) thinks "well, if it was bad, there would be a law against it, so I might as well join in."
If you don't pay the lease on your car (assuming it's leased), you loose it. How is this any different?
Well, if you did pay the lease on your car, and the leasing company took it and gave it to someone who said "oh, this is really my car, please give me the keys", and you used your car for your business, then your analogy might hold true.
Bingo! Remember the quote from "Matriculated" (the Animatrix ep) - 'To a machine, all reality is virtual.' So the "real world" of Zion is actually a meta-matrix.
Neo could well be a machine, according to the rules we seem to have at the end of the second movie.
I think that everyone in the Matrix (not just Neo) is a machine, and that the meta-matrix is a way for the humans to attempt to teach the machines human sympathy.
There is no fundamental right to be able to earn a living by making music.
In the US there is. It's in the Constitution.
Can you point it out to those of us who couln't see it? The only thing I saw that even remotely resembles a reference to music is congres's right to make laws promoting "useful arts" - and that doesn't say anything about a musicians right to earn a living by making music.
People are not entitled to make a living producing things that other people don't want to buy (e.g. vacuum tubes) but they are entitled to a limited (in time and in terms) monopoly on their creative works.
Yes, they're allowed a limited monopoly - but that monopoly doesn't guarantee the right to make money from it.
Your statement is somewhat contradictory, as you first say that they don't have a right to make a living from something if nobody wants to buy it, then you imply that they do.
A monopoly doesn't guarantee the right to earn a living from something if nobody wants to buy it.
Slashdot Mirror
The question is, would they have done this if it hadn't been patentable?
<sarcasm>
Of course not - why would a businessman come up with an idea to make himself lots and lots money if he couldn't stop someone else from copying him.
</sarcasm>
It's an original business method
Read some of the comments - it's not original.
one that presumably takes a lot of time, effort, and money to implement
Ahem - so what?
A patent isn't supposed to guarantee you a return on your implementation - if someone else decided to implement this, they'd have to spend the exact same amount on implementation as Netflix.
Only they would also have to pay Netflix - and receive *nothing* in return.
How does that "promote the science and the useful arts", exactly?
The GPL simply falls by the wayside, since the copyright holder (SCO) NEVER INTENDED to distribute the code
Perhaps, if SCO had actually ceased distributing Linux.
The fact is, they are still distributing it, nearly three months after they found "their" code in the kernel.
Care to explain to me how they "never intended" to distribute it, if it's still available?
they can argue that they were duped into distributing it because they didn't know what was in it.
But now they do know what's in it. Are they going to argue that they are being "duped" into continuing to distribute it?
SCO's claim is that their code was released without their knowledge or permission, by someone who does not hold the copyright, so the GPL doesn't really enter into it.
Except that the GPL is the only thing that allows them to continue to distrubute Linux (which they're still doing.)
There are some simple questions:
Do they know "their" code is in a GPL'ed product?
Are they still distributing this product?
There is no doubt that the answer to both of these questions is YES.
So, whether they put "their" code there, or someone else did is irrelevant. They are either agreeing to GPL it, or are in violation of copyright law. It's really that simple.
the end of the world as we know it will occur at 11:10 PM, December 22, 2012
Cool! That means I won't have to upgrade my 32-bit libc after all!
he's worked out a computer model based on an intuitive decoding of the I Ching
Does anyone else see anything wrong with that sentence? A computer model based on intuition.
Unless he's talking about the Amiga's GUI, I'm a little sceptical.
Dave,
I read your rant, and you're complaining about people not sending you money.
OK, you claim to have received about $100,000 for the LRP over 6 years.
How much of that have you sent to the kernel, GCC, and BusyBox authors and contributors?
Seems like you're bitching about people "making money off your hard work", while you're guilty of doing exactly the same thing.
Many kernel and gcc hackers did a lot of work to even allow you to start the LRP. Do you think all (or even most) of them get paid?
good point, but did anyone ask him if he sent some of that $100,000 to the kernel/GCC developers?
I'm guessing not. So what the hell is he complaining about?
Doesn't work for me - your server is sending content-type text/plain..
Ultimate Frisbee is for wimps..
:o)
Real men play Ultimate Aerobie
Of course, seeing as my mother can throw an Aerobie over 100 yards, you might have trouble finding a large enough playing area
And the arguments are complete BS.
this would prevent it from deriving commercial gain from any subsequent derivative programs
First, this is BS - the GPL does not stop you from selling GPL'ed software. And even if it did, the government isn't (and shouldn't be) in the proprietary software business anyway.
prevent or severely limit the opportunities to work with commercial companies on such projects
Again, why should the government spend money writing software that another company is going to sell to someone else?
They are against GPL not because it's open source, but because it's too restrictive.
The thing is, the GPL is considerably less restrictive than any proprietary license. I notice they don't say anything about how the government should stop commissioning software under proprietary licenses.
The title reminds me of a body shop near my work.
:o)
It was called "Certified Collision"
I always wondered - so you get in an accident, call these guys, they come over and say "Yup, you hit him!"
Now, maybe it's just me, but I think "Crash Prevention" would be much more desirable than "Crash Detection"
I am a "content creator". Everything I do is under copyright protection (just like everybody else - including you.)
:o)
Lots of my stuff is on my website. All I have to do is watch my server logs for IP addresses owned by the RIAA/MPAA (maybe someone will send them an anonymous tip that I have "copyrighted material" on my website
Since I'm a copyright holder, and I would have reason to believe that they would have my copyrighted materials on their computers (in their browser cache), then (under this bill) I would be perfectly within my rights to hack into their systems and destroy their computers.
Sounds like fun to me.
OK, so that should be "there is no infringing code" (Sorry, I thought that was implied.)
do you not think SCO's lawyers would realize if they just made up a bunch of crap that IBM's massive legal team wouldn't crush them to a pulp?
Gee, you mean like the way that Microsoft's lawyers would realize that the judge would notice if they presented clearly doctored false evidence?
Try again, troll.
the absolute hubris of the posters here, who seemingly live in their own little fantasy world, is quite amazing.
I couldn't agree more.
So tell me, what color is the sky in your little fantasy world?
SCO will file probably a motion asking for their exhibits to be sealed.
And then IBM will file a counter-motion saying that the genie is already out of the bottle.
Seriously - Since the alleged code has been in public circulation, SCO can't possibly tell a judge that it's secret.
At least not with a straight face.
I hate to break it to SCO, but Linux had SMP support LOOOOOONG before IBM got into the open source game. Idiots.
The thing is, SCO already knows this, because they're the ones who sponsored it - they gave an SMP box to Alan Cox specifically so he could work on it.
I don't know what SCO's been smoking, but it must be pretty potent stuff!
No, SCO isn't showing anyone the code because there is no code.
3.IBM, red hat et al can then say "yes we were using your code but we stopped as soon as we found out about it" which means that SCO cant do things like filing an injunction that says "if you use our code, you have to pay us mega $$$"
SCO can't do that anyway - read a little bit about the doctrine of laches.
SCO has been harping on about this for two months. If they went to a judge now and said "we want a TRO to stop these people from using our code", the judge would say "since you didn't think it was important enough to ask them, or to do this when you found out about it, you must therefore value any infringing code at $0. And since you have declared that the code has no value, I'm not gonna stop someone else from distributing it."
Seriously. By not telling anyone where it is, SCO has declared that the monetary value of any of "their" code in Linux is $0.
that has to be the ballsiest thing I've heard since I tried to make out with my girlfriend
:o)
Dude, if they make noise, you should see a doctor.
I think you've been too confused by the idiotic "They GPL'd their code when they sold linux", which is probably not true.
Only because they probably don't have any code inserted into Linux. But if they did, it would be under the GPL.
SCO clams that someone from inside IBM inserted their code into Linux
No, they are most definitely NOT claiming this.
They are claiming two things - first that "someone" put their code into Linux.
Second, they are claiming that IBM used "knowledge" of their OS to make Linux better.
The two issues are completely separate.
There are no allegations of code theft against IBM. Their sole complaint is "Linux hackers suck, so the only way that Linux could compete against us is if IBM helped them."
Now, if there really is SCO-owned code in Linux, SCO distributed that code knowingly. They know it's there, they know that the kernel is covered under the GPL, and they are still distributing it.
SCO is implicitly licensing their code under the GPL because they continue to distribute Linux. They must have agreed with the GPL, because nothing else grants them the right to continue distributing it.
even if they had never touched the GPL they still would have had code leakage
True, and thier actions state exactly how much any alleged code is worth to them.
The doctrine of laches says that if an injured party wants to claim damages, they must minimize the damages. Since SCO won't allow anyone to remove the alleged code (they refuse to say what the alleged code is, or where it is), then they are unable to claim injury.
By refusing to tell anyone what the alleged code is, they are effectively saying that any code that might be in the kernel is worthless to them.
You thus automatically exclude what may be better
No, you don't.
"Better" is a subjective term.
Brazil looked at their requirements (open access to data and code - Brazil mandated that since all government data must be accessible by the populace, so must the tools to access it, as they can't be locked into a situation where the vendor controls the data.) Since (by definition) closed source doesn't meet their requirements, it cannot be "better".
Again, MS is perfectly able to sell software to Brazil - they just have to meet Brazil's terms (again, just like every other sector.)
One of the more important things that I think it accomplishes is psycological. It finally establishes a legal basis that spam is bad.
Bingo!
I keep seeing claims that "legislation won't stop spam" - and they miss the point that larceny and murder laws don't stop theft or killings, either.. does that mean we should eliminate those laws from the books?
Professional spammers tell people "it's not illegal - so the average joe (who's might not know any better) thinks "well, if it was bad, there would be a law against it, so I might as well join in."
If you don't pay the lease on your car (assuming it's leased), you loose it. How is this any different?
Well, if you did pay the lease on your car, and the leasing company took it and gave it to someone who said "oh, this is really my car, please give me the keys", and you used your car for your business, then your analogy might hold true.
that's how it's different.
Neo is something new, a true One, and his difference stems from his love for Trinity.
:o)
So what you're saying is that the whole theme of the three movies is "love conquers all"?!?!
Jeebus, save me. If I'd known that, I wouldn't have wasted my time on it.
"Zion" is itself in a higher-level Matrix
Bingo! Remember the quote from "Matriculated" (the Animatrix ep) - 'To a machine, all reality is virtual.' So the "real world" of Zion is actually a meta-matrix.
Neo could well be a machine, according to the rules we seem to have at the end of the second movie.
I think that everyone in the Matrix (not just Neo) is a machine, and that the meta-matrix is a way for the humans to attempt to teach the machines human sympathy.
There is no fundamental right to be able to earn a living by making music.
In the US there is. It's in the Constitution.
Can you point it out to those of us who couln't see it? The only thing I saw that even remotely resembles a reference to music is congres's right to make laws promoting "useful arts" - and that doesn't say anything about a musicians right to earn a living by making music.
People are not entitled to make a living producing things that other people don't want to buy (e.g. vacuum tubes) but they are entitled to a limited (in time and in terms) monopoly on their creative works.
Yes, they're allowed a limited monopoly - but that monopoly doesn't guarantee the right to make money from it.
Your statement is somewhat contradictory, as you first say that they don't have a right to make a living from something if nobody wants to buy it, then you imply that they do.
A monopoly doesn't guarantee the right to earn a living from something if nobody wants to buy it.