"slander of title" is a really goofy cause of action to persue in this instance.
Agreed. When SCOX filed this suit, everybody said "WTF is slander of title?!?!?"
The suit that SCO should have filed was a breach of contract suit against Novell. Then they would make the arguments that they're making now
This assumes that they actually expect to win.
I don't think they'd win
They don't think they'd win either - otherwise they would have gone this route.
this whole transaction was poorly drafted.
No - it was their best play. They know the Unix copyrights didn't transfer to them, and the first order of business of any other suit would be a ruling on the status of the copyright (notice that they fought tooth and nail to keep this suit in state court - which wouldn't be allowed to rule on copyright ownership.) Once that was decided (against them) it would be game over for every lawsuit they have.
This way, they still get another kick at the cat. Remember, they're not going for the win here, because they know they can't. The sole purpose of these lawsuits is FUD - and to do that, they need to drag them out as long as possible.
Seems simple - restricting the number of times you are allowed to get in password incorrect before the account is suspended.
Seems like a great way to DoS yourself.
If I know your username, I can lock you out of your account by typing gibberish for your password. Do this to administrators a few times, and watch the policy get scrapped in a heartbeat. A machine issuing random passwords could disable your entire organization, and make life a living hell for sysadmins. (Hmm, let's have everybody in the org have to go get their password reset every morning!)
Reminds me of a friend who proclaimed how secure his firewall was, because he configured it to drop packets from an IP address if it tried to portscan him - so I spoofed a few spoofed packets to look like they came from his ISP's DNS servers, and he suddenly had no internet access!
I'd be interested in hearing how this way might not work.
There ya go.:o)
It's very possible that there's some sort of loophole, although it seems like you couldn't possibly bypass a guess limit.
The 'loophole' is that you're making the assumption that while an attacker would want to access your data, they wouldn't settle for just screwing you up.
Given that they seemed most interested in using this glass on skyscrapers
And given that the post you replied to quoted someone who said house, those would have to be mighty tall houses. (I don't know of any houses that are skyscrapers. Apartment buildings and condos, yes - but no houses.)
Given n MTAs, o spam filters, p virus scanners, q IMAP/POP servers, and r webmail systems, how many different combinations do you think is possible - assuming (naievely and oversimplisticly) that you can only have one of each?
And this is different on MS how?
Oh yeah - with MS, the more components you add, the lower your chance of anything working.
It's a reasonable argument, but it's far harder to set up optical "listening" posts than radio ones.
Reminds me of the old joke about the guy looking for his keys in the grass by a lamp post. Someone comes over to help him, and they search for almost an hour, when the good samaritan asks - "are you sure you lost your keys around here?"
"No," the guy replies, "I'm pretty sure I lost them in that field over there."
A publicly traded company exists solely to make profits for shareholders. This is accomplished by crushing competition (ideally). If you can't crush 'em though, you don't sell their products! This isn't a sound business model.
Yes, you're right - that's why other publically traded companies like Novell, IBM, Red Hat, and many more have all ganged up to eliminate open source.
Oh, wait NOT THEY HAVEN'T.
How will selling Linux services enhance shareholder return on investment?
First of all, in most civilized countries, most of those things are governed by law - a company attempting to withold UI or severance will quickly find themselves the subject of government fines and/or lawsuit - in my case, I've filed reports with the Labour Standards Board against a former employer, and they coughed up everything they were supposed to *very* quickly.
Second of all, if a company has a severance package included in your employment contract, and they fire you and say "we want you to sign this NDA before we give you your severance package" then they're in breach of the contract - they can demand all they want, but if they refuse to give you the severance package, you can take them to court and win pretty easily.
If the company says "we're going to fire you, and if you sign this, we'll give you a (better) severance package", then that's not really demanding.
I realize that none of this applies to the Seagate/Goglia case, but in this case, he's going to work for a competitor, why does he need continuing healthcare/UI?
if he does know 'top-secret' stuff, and spills the beans to Western, Seagate will have a case against him, and Western Digital
Not quite.
If he knows 'top-secret' stuff, and Seagate didn't have him sign an NDA, then Seagate has no legal recourse.
A trade secret only has legal protection if reasonable steps are taken to protect them. "Hoping your employee-who-knows-the-secrets-but-hasn't-signed-a n-NDA won't tell anyone when he leaves" isn't reasonable.
However, if he *did* sign an NDA and discloses information it protects, *then* Seagate may have recourse.
Um, dude, speaking of reading comprehension, I think maybe you need some practice too. The entire next subsection is entitled "License to IBM of Licensed SCO Materials and SCO Project Work".
Umm, dude, speaking of reading comprehension, it's *YOU* that needs some practice, specifically because the last paragraph in my post said: There is no corresponding paragraph in the section entitled "License to IBM of Licensed SCO Materials and SCO Project Work"
Really - go and check - I'll wait.
See, now don't you feel stupid by pointing out that there's a section called that, right after I explicitly said the exact same thing? Especially when the reason I said the exact same thing was to call your attention to the fact that there it contains no platform-limiting paragraph?
First, that paragraph applies to stuff *NOT OWNED BY SCO*, second it lists the terms that such stuff must be allowed on IA-32 and IA-64 at a *MINIMUM*.
It's saying that SCO can't slip third-party code in that would limit IBM's usage on other platforms, unless it can be removed from the code.
There, I just did it. You are no longer allowed to post on/., because I said so.
Seeing as how you are adamant that because SCO 'revoked' something it has no right to is binding, then when I revoke your right to post on/., you must stop posting on/.
Oh yeah - I also revoke your right to disagree with me - so even if you talk about this with anyone outside of/., you must agree with everything I said.
SCO only licenses IBM to distribute AIX code on Intel platforms, not PPC platforms, and that is the crux of this announcement.
Actually, if you read the Project Monterey agreement, you'll find that it's SCO who was only licensed to use IBM's code on Intel. IBM was not restricted to any platform at all.
SCO got it wrong *again*.
this has nothing to do with SCO patent claims against Linux.
I'm sorry, but WHAT PATENT CLAIMS?!?!? SCO doesn't even *HAVE* any patents, let alone made claims against Linux.
SCO and IBM teamed up to work on a 64 bit version of Unix for 64 bit intel processors.
Correct. Project Monterey.
IBM backed out of the deal
Correct.
SCO claims IBM also backed out of their licensing agreement for SVR4 code.
Also correct - but that doesn't make the claim accurate.
AIX is now an SVR4 Unix and there is no licensing agreement for it.
INCORRECT. Read the Project Monterey contract - it says that either party may terminate the agreement, and if they do, that they keep the license: to wit:
(c) In the event of termination or expiration of this Agreement or a Project Supplement in accordance with Section 15.1 above,
all licenses granted to the breaching party prior to termination shall remain in effect, subject to all terms and conditions applicable hereunder, including applicable payment provisions.
Slashdot Mirror
"slander of title" is a really goofy cause of action to persue in this instance.
Agreed. When SCOX filed this suit, everybody said "WTF is slander of title?!?!?"
The suit that SCO should have filed was a breach of contract suit against Novell. Then they would make the arguments that they're making now
This assumes that they actually expect to win.
I don't think they'd win
They don't think they'd win either - otherwise they would have gone this route.
this whole transaction was poorly drafted.
No - it was their best play. They know the Unix copyrights didn't transfer to them, and the first order of business of any other suit would be a ruling on the status of the copyright (notice that they fought tooth and nail to keep this suit in state court - which wouldn't be allowed to rule on copyright ownership.) Once that was decided (against them) it would be game over for every lawsuit they have.
This way, they still get another kick at the cat. Remember, they're not going for the win here, because they know they can't. The sole purpose of these lawsuits is FUD - and to do that, they need to drag them out as long as possible.
Seems simple - restricting the number of times you are allowed to get in password incorrect before the account is suspended.
:o)
Seems like a great way to DoS yourself.
If I know your username, I can lock you out of your account by typing gibberish for your password. Do this to administrators a few times, and watch the policy get scrapped in a heartbeat. A machine issuing random passwords could disable your entire organization, and make life a living hell for sysadmins. (Hmm, let's have everybody in the org have to go get their password reset every morning!)
Reminds me of a friend who proclaimed how secure his firewall was, because he configured it to drop packets from an IP address if it tried to portscan him - so I spoofed a few spoofed packets to look like they came from his ISP's DNS servers, and he suddenly had no internet access!
I'd be interested in hearing how this way might not work.
There ya go.
It's very possible that there's some sort of loophole, although it seems like you couldn't possibly bypass a guess limit.
The 'loophole' is that you're making the assumption that while an attacker would want to access your data, they wouldn't settle for just screwing you up.
Given that they seemed most interested in using this glass on skyscrapers
And given that the post you replied to quoted someone who said house, those would have to be mighty tall houses. (I don't know of any houses that are skyscrapers. Apartment buildings and condos, yes - but no houses.)
Given n MTAs, o spam filters, p virus scanners, q IMAP/POP servers, and r webmail systems, how many different combinations do you think is possible - assuming (naievely and oversimplisticly) that you can only have one of each?
And this is different on MS how?
Oh yeah - with MS, the more components you add, the lower your chance of anything working.
Because Bill Gates is notorious as a poor loser.
It's not enough that he wins, but everybody else must lose.
MS is built around Gates' ego, and that's why they're fighting like this - because Gates feels insulted by Linux's very existence.
asking "why haven't they come to our planet?" is like me asking you "Why haven't you been to my house?"
:o)
Well, you've never invited me before.
It's a reasonable argument, but it's far harder to set up optical "listening" posts than radio ones.
Reminds me of the old joke about the guy looking for his keys in the grass by a lamp post. Someone comes over to help him, and they search for almost an hour, when the good samaritan asks - "are you sure you lost your keys around here?"
"No," the guy replies, "I'm pretty sure I lost them in that field over there."
"WHAT? Why are you looking here then?"
"Because the light is over here."
A publicly traded company exists solely to make profits for shareholders. This is accomplished by crushing competition (ideally). If you can't crush 'em though, you don't sell their products! This isn't a sound business model.
Yes, you're right - that's why other publically traded companies like Novell, IBM, Red Hat, and many more have all ganged up to eliminate open source.
Oh, wait NOT THEY HAVEN'T.
How will selling Linux services enhance shareholder return on investment?
BY MAKING MONEY
Troll.
Tell us what Linux does that we can't do
Allow me to see, modify, and distribute the source code *for free*.
I'm sure MS will get right on that.
We had a guy quit and apply for a posision at one of our customers. My old firm found out, sued the company, not the individual, and won.
:o)
Wow, sueing customers - what a great business model.
Wait - your boss wasn't Darl McBride, was he?
First of all, in most civilized countries, most of those things are governed by law - a company attempting to withold UI or severance will quickly find themselves the subject of government fines and/or lawsuit - in my case, I've filed reports with the Labour Standards Board against a former employer, and they coughed up everything they were supposed to *very* quickly.
Second of all, if a company has a severance package included in your employment contract, and they fire you and say "we want you to sign this NDA before we give you your severance package" then they're in breach of the contract - they can demand all they want, but if they refuse to give you the severance package, you can take them to court and win pretty easily.
If the company says "we're going to fire you, and if you sign this, we'll give you a (better) severance package", then that's not really demanding.
I realize that none of this applies to the Seagate/Goglia case, but in this case, he's going to work for a competitor, why does he need continuing healthcare/UI?
if he does know 'top-secret' stuff, and spills the beans to Western, Seagate will have a case against him, and Western Digital
a n-NDA won't tell anyone when he leaves" isn't reasonable.
Not quite.
If he knows 'top-secret' stuff, and Seagate didn't have him sign an NDA, then Seagate has no legal recourse.
A trade secret only has legal protection if reasonable steps are taken to protect them. "Hoping your employee-who-knows-the-secrets-but-hasn't-signed-
However, if he *did* sign an NDA and discloses information it protects, *then* Seagate may have recourse.
Employers can demand that you sign a non-compete contract when you leave the company, as well
And what are they gonna do if you don't - fire you?
As Moofie said, they can demand anything they want - it doesn't mean they'll get it.
I'm not going to trust an update of my operating system to something I drag off a BitTorrent site.
I infer from this that you'd trust any other download from BT? Why?
what are the odds that some jerkweed is going to attach backdoor warez to that download?
About the same that some jerkweed is going to attach a backdoor to any other torrent you download.
Mabe Jones should trademark katie.com, and then sue for infringement.
She's been using the mark for 9 years, and Penguin comes along and tries to co-opt it - I'd say that's grounds for a lawsuit.
So you're saying that the government should require anyone who cracks open a TV set to have a license?
I read his post, and nowhere does he say that.
What he said was TV REPAIRMEN (you know, the guys you hire to fix your TV when it stops working) require a license.
And it has MUCH more to do with making sure someone isn't a danger to himself (or others) than it does making sure someone isn't a swindler.
Or are you saying that someone who learns to fix TV's and pays $55 is more trustworthy than someone who learns to fix TVs and doesn't pay $55?
Whoops, hit reply too quickly.
Sorry, I did say that there wasn't - and there isn't.
There is a *SECTION* but it doesn't say anywhere in there that IBM is limited to using the code on a particular platform.
Um, dude, speaking of reading comprehension, I think maybe you need some practice too. The entire next subsection is entitled "License to IBM of Licensed SCO Materials and SCO Project Work".
Umm, dude, speaking of reading comprehension, it's *YOU* that needs some practice, specifically because the last paragraph in my post said: There is no corresponding paragraph in the section entitled "License to IBM of Licensed SCO Materials and SCO Project Work"
Really - go and check - I'll wait.
See, now don't you feel stupid by pointing out that there's a section called that, right after I explicitly said the exact same thing? Especially when the reason I said the exact same thing was to call your attention to the fact that there it contains no platform-limiting paragraph?
It very specifically lists IA-32 and IA-64 only
*WRONG*
Read the whole paragraph.
First, that paragraph applies to stuff *NOT OWNED BY SCO*, second it lists the terms that such stuff must be allowed on IA-32 and IA-64 at a *MINIMUM*.
It's saying that SCO can't slip third-party code in that would limit IBM's usage on other platforms, unless it can be removed from the code.
It actually *reinforces* my point.
There -is- a corresponding paragraph entitled "License to IBM of Licensed SCO Materials and SCO Project Work":
I never said there wasn't. What I *did* say was that there is no limitation on IBM to only use the licensed code on a particular platform.
Please show me where it says otherwise.
Which SCO revoked.
/.
/., because I said so.
/., you must stop posting on /.
/., you must agree with everything I said.
Well, I'm gonna revoke your right to post on
There, I just did it. You are no longer allowed to post on
Seeing as how you are adamant that because SCO 'revoked' something it has no right to is binding, then when I revoke your right to post on
Oh yeah - I also revoke your right to disagree with me - so even if you talk about this with anyone outside of
Feel a little silly now?
I don't really care what SCO does but this whole "IBM is our hero" mentality disturbs me.
I see, and where (exactly) did I say that?
Methinks you have a bigger reading comprehension problem than SCO does.
The article had a bit mentioning their attacks on Linux. I don't see it.
That's because you stubbornly refuse to follow their misdirection.
That's what this is - their attempt to make people "look at the wookie".
And just like the rest of their case, they can't do *that* right either.
SCO only licenses IBM to distribute AIX code on Intel platforms, not PPC platforms, and that is the crux of this announcement.
Actually, if you read the Project Monterey agreement, you'll find that it's SCO who was only licensed to use IBM's code on Intel. IBM was not restricted to any platform at all.
SCO got it wrong *again*.
this has nothing to do with SCO patent claims against Linux.
I'm sorry, but WHAT PATENT CLAIMS?!?!? SCO doesn't even *HAVE* any patents, let alone made claims against Linux.
Correct. Project Monterey.
IBM backed out of the deal
Correct.
SCO claims IBM also backed out of their licensing agreement for SVR4 code.
Also correct - but that doesn't make the claim accurate.
AIX is now an SVR4 Unix and there is no licensing agreement for it.
INCORRECT. Read the Project Monterey contract - it says that either party may terminate the agreement, and if they do, that they keep the license: to wit: