So, first of all, you're quoting GPLv3, and the case is under GPLv2.
And, secondly, you're ignoring who "You" is in the above language. "You" is not the original author -- it's people who get the software from the author, directly or indirectly.
Antitrust regulations govern interactions and arrangements among companies. The GPL can be one of those. Cross-licensing agreements, effectively what the GPL is, have been held to violate antitrust law when they're used to keep competitors out of a market.
Consider a company that manages to create a de facto standard based on GPL software and then use the GPL to force competitors to release changes to their own software. The original company doesn't have to do this (since, as the author, it doesn't have to release its own changes). As a result, the original company has a competitive advantage over its competitors.
I'm not asserting that this applies here. But, there are situations where it might.
No. That's not it at all -- they're suing because Craigslist did something that hurt the value of ebay's stock in Craigslist.
The complaint is sealed, so we don't know exactly what it was. It *could* be something like the following: The stock is worth, say, $100 per share, and ebay owns about 28% of it. Craigslist decides to sell a bunch of shares to Craig at $50 per share. Ebay is hurt because the value of its investment went down, but the value to Craig went up. Basically, it's a breach of the company's duty to the minority stockholder. It has nothing to do with competition.
Under my original post, my terms are the GPL. I agree that I can attach more or alternate terms if I want.
Section 15 also disclaims express warranties, unless you specifically say so in writing. (Yet another place they could have used good IP counsel. This is also confusing -- does it mean that you disclaim express warranties except those stated in writing, or does it mean that you have to specifically say "Regardless of Section 15, we warrant . .."?)
Don't take this too far -- I don't have any issue with Sections 15 and 16. My point is just that they apply to end users of the work, even if they don't redistribute it.
Sure, those sections don't apply to *how* they can USE the software. But, it does apply to the rights that they have vis-a-vis others, and so does apply to the users. (A literal reading of Section 9 would say that it doesn't apply. But, then what's the point of Section 15 & 16? Stallman should have had a good IP lawyer read through this one more time....)
It's a small, but important, point. If I write some software, license it under the GPL, sell you a copy and make all sorts of promises about what that software does, under the GPL, those promises mean nothing (Section 15), and you can't sue me if the software causes problems (Section 16).
The famous parts of the GPL deal with distribution, which is why most people say that the GPL is a "distribution license." But, there are parts which do not.
Look at section 15 and 16 of GPL v3. (They're also in v2.) These parts apply to how you use the software once you have it.
Most college classes are based on an ancient idea left over from when books were hard to come by -- the "Professor" would stand at the front of the class and, well, profess. The people in the class would write down what he said. In this sort of situation, you're right -- if you want to cheat yourself out of that, then you're only hurting yourself.
But, this is law school, which uses an even more ancient idea -- the socratic dialog. In this, the professor will throw out a question, and the class will have a discussion about it, with the professor steering the conversation. (This is hell on note-taking). Here, if you're not participating, then you're not just hurting yourself -- you're taking away from everybody else.
It happens in all classes, regardless of how coherent the professor is.
Law schools generally do not use a "lecture" format in the classes -- students are expected to participate in a "socratic dialog." My experience has been that such dialogs are much less interactive in classes with web access.
Well, the biggest security problem isn't really in the network protocol -- the intrusions that you see happening aren't really due to TCP/IP directly -- they're because of high-level holes in the software, stuff like not checking boundary conditions or sanitizing database inputs. Most intrusions are not really related to TCP/IP, except in an ancillary sense. Intrusions into supposedly secure networks are made from machines which are already authorized to communicate on those networks.
I don't see it as a losing battle. TCP/IP (well, UDP) also wasn't designed to carry voice traffic, but is now carrying a large majority of such traffic (even when a subscriber uses POTS.)
SSL is a reasonably good first step toward securing TCP/IP traffic. You can call it a "kludge" if you want, but it's very well-understood and fairly effective. SSH is another great example.
So, you're right that TCP/IP has some attributes which make it less than ideal for a number of applications. However, it has (literally) network effects--the protocol is more valuable because of the number of people using it--which is why it has eclipsed all the alternative technologies: DECNET, OSI/ISO, ATM, X.25, Frame Relay, etc.... (I know I'm mixing OSI layers there) Heck, IPv6 is having a hard time even though everybody has pretty much agreed to move to it.
Sure, if you wanted to, you could create a networking protocol with security built in at the lowest layers -- encryption in the data frames, maybe. (Or, more likely, adopt one that was created 15 years ago.) And then, you could create your own network cards that spoke the protocol, your own routers and switches and gateways. Along the way, you'd have to figure out how to solve all the problems that have been addressed in TCP/IP over the past 30 years. And then you'd have to retrofit it all to your existing infrastructure, train people on it and keep it up to date.
Along the way, you'd lose the ability to buy a $60 router or a $15 switch. In the end, it would cost far more than $30B. But, even worse, you'd lose the ability to adopt any future TCP/IP applications.
If the person making the decision about whether bandwidth will be used or not is different than the person paying for it, then the ISPs make more money. (Gas stations should want Mom & Dad to pay for their teenager's gas, because it will let teenagers drive more.) And, that's why they want the service providers to pony up and NOT their customers. At least in theory. In practice, the ISPs will charge the services providers and the service providers will have to charge the customers directly. (I'm using "Service Provider" to mean the end-provider, not the ISP.) However, it seems more efficient for the ISP to do the charging -- one bill instead of many.
If the only thing they did was protest, you're right. But, as a cousin comment notes, protests are often accompanied by illegal activity: property damage, assault, trespassing, disorderly conduct, disrupting traffic, etc..... When a protester is arrested, it's usually for one of these things, not for the actual act of protest which, I agree, is typically speech protected by the first amendment. My recollection of the news reports at the time is that there was a lot of this sort of stuff going on.
If any of the protesters is saying something like "I was just on my way to get a sandwich when these cops slammed me to the ground and arrested me for no reason," then the messages are relevant.
But, you could probably not put out a blog called "landscaping gadgets" and use John Deere green. It's likely that somebody will think it's a blog run by John Deere.
Trademark and trade dress are all about customer confusion -- is it reasonable that somebody could go to the engadget mobile site and think it was related to T-mobile? What if the site was reviewing T-mobile services? By my eye, there's a likelihood that somebody will be confused.
A trademark owner has to take affirmative steps to defend the mark against possibly confusing uses by others. If the owner doesn't, then he can lose the mark entirely.
T-Mobile is getting a raw deal on this -- the letter has got to be one of the nicest such letters I have ever seen -- they sound downright apologetic. Heck, they might even be willing to pay for a redesign of the engadget mobile logo. Since they have to send the letter, this is a good way of handling it.
IIRC, the subpoena is generally signed by a clerk of court. The party being subpoenaed can file a motion to quash the subpoena, in which case the judge looks at it. If the subpoena is vastly overbroad, there may be sanctions against the party trying to enforce it.
I don't really see any problems with this. The city is trying to defend itself in a series of lawsuits about its arrests of a bunch of protesters. One of the elements of its defense is probably that the people who were arrested were not just innocent bystanders caught up in the spur of the moment, but had planned and coordinated their effort. And, that's most easily discovered by subpoenaing records of that planning and coordination. Perfectly legitimate.
Uh, are you suggesting that the rich man never spends that $700K? If so, then he is the biggest idiot in the world -- he took 70% of his money and instead of using it to improve his life, he put it in a bank account someplace, never to see the light of day. Might as well shred it. Otherwise, when he spends it, which he will eventually, it will be taxed.
In a real case, that guy making $1M probably spent nearly all of it, not $300K. Sure, it's possible to live below your means, but very few people, including "the rich," actually do.
In a typical lawsuit in the US, each side generally pays its own attorneys fees, regardless of who wins. A court may award court costs, but those are usually quite small relative to attorneys fees. In frivolous cases, attorneys fees are also sometimes awarded.
In a copyright case, however, the rules are a bit different -- a judge in a copyright case can award attorneys fees to the "prevailing party." So, that brings up all sorts of questions around what "prevailing party" means, which is probably what this case is about. (I'm not familiar with the case.)
In any case, the fact that they applied for certiorari is really a non-event: it happens to thousands of such cases every year, and the Supreme Court only grants review of a small portion of them. The fact that the Appeals Court denied the appeal doesn't bode well.
Yeah, I don't really care. I prefer to keep my electricity costs down by not running the A/C as much and using energy-efficient appliances. I figure I save far more that way than I waste using incandescent bulbs.
Besides, lights are used mainly at night, which is hardly peak time for the nuclear power plant that I draw my electricity from.
You can buy incandescent bulbs with 20,000-hour lifespans. They're a bit more expensive, but really do last and in the long run are a lot cheaper than the 1- or 2- year bulbs you buy in the grocery store. When used in clear-bulb applications where you see the bulb, they also look better than the typical incandescents that you buy in the grocery store.
What else can *what* be for? You mean the JP Morgan setup?
That's pretty simple: the executive wants to establish a 10b5-1 program, but doesn't know what will happen in the future, so he wants to set up a situation where he is protected against risk. JP Morgan sets up a hedging scenario around this guys stock -- if the price goes down, he doesn't lose much. At the same time, if the price goes up, he doesn't gain much. This has nothing to do with using inside information to decide whether or not to trade, which was what the OP accused JP Morgan of helping.
The point of 10b5-1 is to create a way for executives to execute trades at a time when they may have inside information, without using that information in the decision to make the trade. It is not intended to ensure that executives are exposed to the risk that their company stock will tank.
Not that I'm aware of. But, recognize where we are in the discussion: my point is that if the federal rules didn't exist, companies would have to work up their own solutions. Because the federal rules do exist, the companies have not had the need to do so.
The whole point is that service provided by JP Morgan assists with this manipulation of canceling orders that otherwise would have to be done personally by the client, requiring him to make an effort and take a risk of missing the deadlines.
What? You're doing some serious reading between the lines on that one. I didn't read anything about the executive communicating anything to JP Morgan regarding whether to sell or not sell. Absent that communication, it doesn't matter that JP Morgan cancels trades on its own since the cancellation wasn't done on the basis of nonpublic information.
The rule itself just implements Section 10(b) of the '34 act, which applies only "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security." In 1975, the Supreme Court said that because of this limitation, decisions NOT to sell or purchase aren't covered. If you think the rule should change, Congress is the appropriate authority, not the SEC.
I read the article. I saw that JP Morgan established a whole service which allowed insiders to establish 10b5-1 plans and to mitigate their risk by hedging. The linked to presentation used as "evidence" had nothing to do with canceling a trade under the plan.
My point is this: the OP and, to a lesser extent, the Wikileaks article, describe a possible scenario which is not supported by the supplied "leak."
10b5-1 plans are intended to let insiders, who (1) are typically compensated in stock and (2) who typically have inside information sell their shares without using that inside information to time their shares. The plan linked to in the wikileaks article doesn't affect this at all. Instead, it just says "Ok. You're going to be selling shares in the future. Here's a way you can protect yourself it the value goes down. (oh, and incidentally, you don't use any inside information to protect yourself.)
In your 3 points above, I disagree with your first -- the specific service was not abusive at all. I can conceive of services that would be abusive, but this wasn't one of them.
Well, clearly, I'd be less willing to break a rule that sends me to jail.
But, I think you're missing my point: companies have it within their power to prevent their executives from pulling that sort of shenanigans, and to do it in a way that revoking the rule requires the approval of a super-majority of the stockholders. A company could, if it wanted to, insert a provision in its charter that forbade the indemnification of officers for any insider trading and allowed stockholders to sue the officer on the company's behalf. The charter could also be amended to say that the provision could not be removed without the consent of, say, 90% of the stockholders.
Corporate rules are not "often" ignored for the favored few. That's just paranoid poppycock.
Insiders - people who typically have tons of stocks - will pump and dump, harming the company itself and leaving the small investors holding the bag.
So, first of all, what you're describing is illegal as well.
Secondly, though, consider what you're saying: get rid of the inside trading rules and American capitalism just disappears. Suddenly there are no investors, which means that you end up with only a few closely held companies. As a result, everybody loses their jobs and the economy goes into a permanent depression.
That will never happen, because "what happens next" is this: Companies attract investors by placing their own limits on the ability of insiders to trade.
Slashdot Mirror
So, first of all, you're quoting GPLv3, and the case is under GPLv2.
And, secondly, you're ignoring who "You" is in the above language. "You" is not the original author -- it's people who get the software from the author, directly or indirectly.
Antitrust regulations govern interactions and arrangements among companies. The GPL can be one of those. Cross-licensing agreements, effectively what the GPL is, have been held to violate antitrust law when they're used to keep competitors out of a market.
Consider a company that manages to create a de facto standard based on GPL software and then use the GPL to force competitors to release changes to their own software. The original company doesn't have to do this (since, as the author, it doesn't have to release its own changes). As a result, the original company has a competitive advantage over its competitors.
I'm not asserting that this applies here. But, there are situations where it might.
It's amazing how many third-party improvements have been sparked by Microsoft's licensing model.
No. That's not it at all -- they're suing because Craigslist did something that hurt the value of ebay's stock in Craigslist.
The complaint is sealed, so we don't know exactly what it was. It *could* be something like the following: The stock is worth, say, $100 per share, and ebay owns about 28% of it. Craigslist decides to sell a bunch of shares to Craig at $50 per share. Ebay is hurt because the value of its investment went down, but the value to Craig went up. Basically, it's a breach of the company's duty to the minority stockholder. It has nothing to do with competition.
Under my original post, my terms are the GPL. I agree that I can attach more or alternate terms if I want.
."?)
Section 15 also disclaims express warranties, unless you specifically say so in writing. (Yet another place they could have used good IP counsel. This is also confusing -- does it mean that you disclaim express warranties except those stated in writing, or does it mean that you have to specifically say "Regardless of Section 15, we warrant . .
Don't take this too far -- I don't have any issue with Sections 15 and 16. My point is just that they apply to end users of the work, even if they don't redistribute it.
Sure, those sections don't apply to *how* they can USE the software. But, it does apply to the rights that they have vis-a-vis others, and so does apply to the users. (A literal reading of Section 9 would say that it doesn't apply. But, then what's the point of Section 15 & 16? Stallman should have had a good IP lawyer read through this one more time....)
It's a small, but important, point. If I write some software, license it under the GPL, sell you a copy and make all sorts of promises about what that software does, under the GPL, those promises mean nothing (Section 15), and you can't sue me if the software causes problems (Section 16).
The famous parts of the GPL deal with distribution, which is why most people say that the GPL is a "distribution license." But, there are parts which do not.
Look at section 15 and 16 of GPL v3. (They're also in v2.) These parts apply to how you use the software once you have it.
Most college classes are based on an ancient idea left over from when books were hard to come by -- the "Professor" would stand at the front of the class and, well, profess. The people in the class would write down what he said. In this sort of situation, you're right -- if you want to cheat yourself out of that, then you're only hurting yourself.
But, this is law school, which uses an even more ancient idea -- the socratic dialog. In this, the professor will throw out a question, and the class will have a discussion about it, with the professor steering the conversation. (This is hell on note-taking). Here, if you're not participating, then you're not just hurting yourself -- you're taking away from everybody else.
It happens in all classes, regardless of how coherent the professor is.
Law schools generally do not use a "lecture" format in the classes -- students are expected to participate in a "socratic dialog." My experience has been that such dialogs are much less interactive in classes with web access.
Well, the biggest security problem isn't really in the network protocol -- the intrusions that you see happening aren't really due to TCP/IP directly -- they're because of high-level holes in the software, stuff like not checking boundary conditions or sanitizing database inputs. Most intrusions are not really related to TCP/IP, except in an ancillary sense. Intrusions into supposedly secure networks are made from machines which are already authorized to communicate on those networks.
I don't see it as a losing battle. TCP/IP (well, UDP) also wasn't designed to carry voice traffic, but is now carrying a large majority of such traffic (even when a subscriber uses POTS.)
SSL is a reasonably good first step toward securing TCP/IP traffic. You can call it a "kludge" if you want, but it's very well-understood and fairly effective. SSH is another great example.
So, you're right that TCP/IP has some attributes which make it less than ideal for a number of applications. However, it has (literally) network effects--the protocol is more valuable because of the number of people using it--which is why it has eclipsed all the alternative technologies: DECNET, OSI/ISO, ATM, X.25, Frame Relay, etc.... (I know I'm mixing OSI layers there) Heck, IPv6 is having a hard time even though everybody has pretty much agreed to move to it.
Sure, if you wanted to, you could create a networking protocol with security built in at the lowest layers -- encryption in the data frames, maybe. (Or, more likely, adopt one that was created 15 years ago.) And then, you could create your own network cards that spoke the protocol, your own routers and switches and gateways. Along the way, you'd have to figure out how to solve all the problems that have been addressed in TCP/IP over the past 30 years. And then you'd have to retrofit it all to your existing infrastructure, train people on it and keep it up to date.
Along the way, you'd lose the ability to buy a $60 router or a $15 switch. In the end, it would cost far more than $30B. But, even worse, you'd lose the ability to adopt any future TCP/IP applications.
If the person making the decision about whether bandwidth will be used or not is different than the person paying for it, then the ISPs make more money. (Gas stations should want Mom & Dad to pay for their teenager's gas, because it will let teenagers drive more.) And, that's why they want the service providers to pony up and NOT their customers. At least in theory. In practice, the ISPs will charge the services providers and the service providers will have to charge the customers directly. (I'm using "Service Provider" to mean the end-provider, not the ISP.) However, it seems more efficient for the ISP to do the charging -- one bill instead of many.
If the only thing they did was protest, you're right. But, as a cousin comment notes, protests are often accompanied by illegal activity: property damage, assault, trespassing, disorderly conduct, disrupting traffic, etc..... When a protester is arrested, it's usually for one of these things, not for the actual act of protest which, I agree, is typically speech protected by the first amendment. My recollection of the news reports at the time is that there was a lot of this sort of stuff going on.
If any of the protesters is saying something like "I was just on my way to get a sandwich when these cops slammed me to the ground and arrested me for no reason," then the messages are relevant.
But, you could probably not put out a blog called "landscaping gadgets" and use John Deere green. It's likely that somebody will think it's a blog run by John Deere.
Trademark and trade dress are all about customer confusion -- is it reasonable that somebody could go to the engadget mobile site and think it was related to T-mobile? What if the site was reviewing T-mobile services? By my eye, there's a likelihood that somebody will be confused.
A trademark owner has to take affirmative steps to defend the mark against possibly confusing uses by others. If the owner doesn't, then he can lose the mark entirely.
T-Mobile is getting a raw deal on this -- the letter has got to be one of the nicest such letters I have ever seen -- they sound downright apologetic. Heck, they might even be willing to pay for a redesign of the engadget mobile logo. Since they have to send the letter, this is a good way of handling it.
IIRC, the subpoena is generally signed by a clerk of court. The party being subpoenaed can file a motion to quash the subpoena, in which case the judge looks at it. If the subpoena is vastly overbroad, there may be sanctions against the party trying to enforce it.
I don't really see any problems with this. The city is trying to defend itself in a series of lawsuits about its arrests of a bunch of protesters. One of the elements of its defense is probably that the people who were arrested were not just innocent bystanders caught up in the spur of the moment, but had planned and coordinated their effort. And, that's most easily discovered by subpoenaing records of that planning and coordination. Perfectly legitimate.
Uh, are you suggesting that the rich man never spends that $700K? If so, then he is the biggest idiot in the world -- he took 70% of his money and instead of using it to improve his life, he put it in a bank account someplace, never to see the light of day. Might as well shred it. Otherwise, when he spends it, which he will eventually, it will be taxed.
In a real case, that guy making $1M probably spent nearly all of it, not $300K. Sure, it's possible to live below your means, but very few people, including "the rich," actually do.
In a typical lawsuit in the US, each side generally pays its own attorneys fees, regardless of who wins. A court may award court costs, but those are usually quite small relative to attorneys fees. In frivolous cases, attorneys fees are also sometimes awarded.
In a copyright case, however, the rules are a bit different -- a judge in a copyright case can award attorneys fees to the "prevailing party." So, that brings up all sorts of questions around what "prevailing party" means, which is probably what this case is about. (I'm not familiar with the case.)
In any case, the fact that they applied for certiorari is really a non-event: it happens to thousands of such cases every year, and the Supreme Court only grants review of a small portion of them. The fact that the Appeals Court denied the appeal doesn't bode well.
Yeah, I don't really care. I prefer to keep my electricity costs down by not running the A/C as much and using energy-efficient appliances. I figure I save far more that way than I waste using incandescent bulbs.
Besides, lights are used mainly at night, which is hardly peak time for the nuclear power plant that I draw my electricity from.
You can buy incandescent bulbs with 20,000-hour lifespans. They're a bit more expensive, but really do last and in the long run are a lot cheaper than the 1- or 2- year bulbs you buy in the grocery store. When used in clear-bulb applications where you see the bulb, they also look better than the typical incandescents that you buy in the grocery store.
What else can *what* be for? You mean the JP Morgan setup?
That's pretty simple: the executive wants to establish a 10b5-1 program, but doesn't know what will happen in the future, so he wants to set up a situation where he is protected against risk. JP Morgan sets up a hedging scenario around this guys stock -- if the price goes down, he doesn't lose much. At the same time, if the price goes up, he doesn't gain much. This has nothing to do with using inside information to decide whether or not to trade, which was what the OP accused JP Morgan of helping.
The point of 10b5-1 is to create a way for executives to execute trades at a time when they may have inside information, without using that information in the decision to make the trade. It is not intended to ensure that executives are exposed to the risk that their company stock will tank.
Not that I'm aware of. But, recognize where we are in the discussion: my point is that if the federal rules didn't exist, companies would have to work up their own solutions. Because the federal rules do exist, the companies have not had the need to do so.
What? You're doing some serious reading between the lines on that one. I didn't read anything about the executive communicating anything to JP Morgan regarding whether to sell or not sell. Absent that communication, it doesn't matter that JP Morgan cancels trades on its own since the cancellation wasn't done on the basis of nonpublic information.
The rule itself just implements Section 10(b) of the '34 act, which applies only "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security." In 1975, the Supreme Court said that because of this limitation, decisions NOT to sell or purchase aren't covered. If you think the rule should change, Congress is the appropriate authority, not the SEC.
I read the article. I saw that JP Morgan established a whole service which allowed insiders to establish 10b5-1 plans and to mitigate their risk by hedging. The linked to presentation used as "evidence" had nothing to do with canceling a trade under the plan.
My point is this: the OP and, to a lesser extent, the Wikileaks article, describe a possible scenario which is not supported by the supplied "leak."
10b5-1 plans are intended to let insiders, who (1) are typically compensated in stock and (2) who typically have inside information sell their shares without using that inside information to time their shares. The plan linked to in the wikileaks article doesn't affect this at all. Instead, it just says "Ok. You're going to be selling shares in the future. Here's a way you can protect yourself it the value goes down. (oh, and incidentally, you don't use any inside information to protect yourself.)
In your 3 points above, I disagree with your first -- the specific service was not abusive at all. I can conceive of services that would be abusive, but this wasn't one of them.
Well, clearly, I'd be less willing to break a rule that sends me to jail.
But, I think you're missing my point: companies have it within their power to prevent their executives from pulling that sort of shenanigans, and to do it in a way that revoking the rule requires the approval of a super-majority of the stockholders. A company could, if it wanted to, insert a provision in its charter that forbade the indemnification of officers for any insider trading and allowed stockholders to sue the officer on the company's behalf. The charter could also be amended to say that the provision could not be removed without the consent of, say, 90% of the stockholders.
Corporate rules are not "often" ignored for the favored few. That's just paranoid poppycock.
So, first of all, what you're describing is illegal as well.
Secondly, though, consider what you're saying: get rid of the inside trading rules and American capitalism just disappears. Suddenly there are no investors, which means that you end up with only a few closely held companies. As a result, everybody loses their jobs and the economy goes into a permanent depression.
That will never happen, because "what happens next" is this: Companies attract investors by placing their own limits on the ability of insiders to trade.
Was that the obvious conclusion you had in mind?