Well, just to throw some wood on the fire, how about thinking of this in terms of fraud on the market by Microsoft. Sure, all those poor fools who bought Windows XP are restricted from pursuing pretty much ANY civil remedy by the egregious license terms dreamed up by armies of MS in house counsel. (Although someone should think about an action under California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code Sections 1750 et seq.) Maybe those lawyers weren't thinking about the criminal laws. After their antitrust turn, you'd think they would. Maybe they think their iron clad EULA will protect them. How about this one:
Federal Mail Fraud - Title 18, Section 1341 (Frauds and Swindles) (has a nice ring doesn't it.) (Or Federal Wire Fraud for that matter - Title 18, Section 1343 - elements only slightly different.)
"Whoever" - That would include Microsoft ? a corporate entity under U.S. law, and certainly a company that has generously availed itself of U.S. criminal and civil law in pursuing its business. (Live by the sword, Die by the sword - paraphrasing Matthew)
"having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud"
Knowingly:
"flaws, discovered five weeks ago by independent security researchers" MS has known for five weeks, or perhaps slightly less. Easily established by the testimony of the "independent security researchers"
Or even Scott Culp - Head of Microsoft Security (Public statement against interest - not hearsay)
"This is the first network-based, remote compromise that I'm aware of for Windows desktop systems,"
Who cares whether it is the first. It is enough that he, a lawful and selected representative of Microsoft clearly speaking on behalf of the company, is and was aware of it. Certainly during the time it took to write a patch. But there was a better remedy that would have avoided defrauding hundreds of thousands of customers. Suspension of all sales.
Makes a false statement:
This one is easy. Copious statements representing the adequacy of security of this product. Millions upon millions on advertising to convince us all what a secure OS XP is. Maybe we are all too used to being lied to. But the fraud is not against the/. user, it is against the poor rubes that MS tells to "fly."
Causing another to change position:
Sales may be a bit below 95 or 98, but we are still talking a large number of victims here.
And obtaining money as a consequence of the misrepresentation:
Well, they are selling it. Who in their right mind would pirate it? You could readily prove this element with their quarterly SEC filings. Official business records/legally required disclosure.
As far as the scheme to defraud, - start with the web page and work your way down. The represented reason for withholding this information is that it "threatened to undermine widespread adoption of Microsoft's latest Windows software." This is classic. They are admitting that they knew that if they told the truth, people would not buy it. Even if they didn't say this "on the record," and it is considered hyperbole on the part of the reporter, it is easily proven by the circumstances. Now editorial comment that MS is somehow anticipated to be a "catalyst for the sagging" industry is really no defense. Microsoft wanted to cause people to buy software that has a "very serious vulnerability" in order to accelerate their business.
Sounds like most mail fraud operations I've ever heard of.
"or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises,"
MS Web page: "Now Windows XP offers strong security to home computer users through Internet Connection Firewall protection, which makes your information, computers, and family data safer from intruders as soon as you start using Windows XP."
MS Web page: "Enjoy the new standard in dependability and simplicity... Secure and private...
"places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter or thing"
"Shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
Don't you wonder how many they sold by mail? X = n * $1,000. Y = n * 5 years.
"If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both?
Hmm? Any banks buy a copy? More than one? You do the math.
One more crime, just for good measure. (Given a couple hours I could find half a dozen more) Under California Law, Theft of Computer Services (Title 13, Section 502) includes:
a) "Knowingly and without permission accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network." And
b) "Knowingly introduces any computer contaminant into any computer computer system, or computer network."
Call it a bug, or after they knew about it, call it a virus. Whichever, it certainly looks like a "computer contaminant."
And now the punch line.
18 U.S.C.A. 981
981. Civil forfeiture
(a)(1) The following property is subject to forfeiture to the United States:
"(D) Any property, real or personal, which represents or is traceable to the gross receipts obtained, directly or indirectly, from a violation of--
(v) section 1341 (relating to mail fraud);
Let that one percolate, and then move on to the one I think someone ought to be working on:
18 U.S.C.A. 1961
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ?- RICO
As used in this chapter [18 USCS Sections 1961 et seq.]
(1) "racketeering activity" means... (B) any act which is indictable under... section 1341 (mail fraud), "
And if the underlying facts in the Antitrust suit being upheld through ALL appeals is not sufficient to establish a "Corrupt Organization," what is?
The Attorney General must take action against Microsoft. Nothing else will amend their standard of care!
Alright, we've been through the "no publicity is bad publicity" discussion, as well as the "boy aren't we helping them out by sending them links." All culminated with the "where did their site go" discussion that often happens with the/. effect.
Now that they have demonstrated that as consultants that would like to be involved with e-commerce they don't have a clue. And further, that as consultants they can't keep their own machine on line under load. Why on God's green earth would anyone hire these idiots? Take it a step farther, if you are a PHB, and you use these fools to cover your six, think again! Yes, Virginia, you can get fired for hiring KPMG. Time to re-evaluate your consultant strategy! Hire some drop out high school hackers... you'll be more stable!
Your rules? You put up a corporate network, you get hacked, and that has some consequence or externality toward someone else. Then yes.
Perhaps I should emphasize the elements I set forth a bit more carefully for those that don't read carefully. There should be a risk analysis included. Say "your" network controls some aspect of public infrastructure. Say the power grid.
And read my post again, I listed a number of elements, including critical infratructure, as well as clear delineation of risk in advance to AVOID ALL LIABILITY. What you need to realize is how often corporate interests ignore these risks, EVEN WHEN THEY ARE FULLY ADVISED. This errs on the side of free information on a public network.
Why do they ignore them? Because there are no consequences. Now sure, if you run your little network in your little corner of the world, and it gets hacked, maybe it is no big deal. Maybe, your little computer gets hacked, and then your machine is used to hack the power grid. Now maybe you don't care. Maybe you think your actions are without external consequences, but you are connected to a public network. There should be responsibilities that come with that.
Also note, that I argue for a "safe harbor." I only want disclosure of knowledge that will avoid risks. Wouldn't it be helpful to you to know about machines that got hacked on a PUBLIC network? You check your logs for access from those machines?
Your position, that private actors on a public network should be completely independent is the indefensible position. You want to play on a private network, you go ahead and keep all your secrets. You join the public network, your machine privately plays a part in some network cherynobyl, you have responsibilities that arise from your failure to maintain your network responsibly.
Finally, focus on the risk cost benefit analysis. Say you run the power grid, or the water supply. You get hacked. You cover it up. You get hacked again, and everyone ends up sitting in the dark. Lives are lost. Health and safety is out the window. But your cost benefit analysis was internalyzed. You only cared about keeping your "private" secrets, and avoiding personal responsibility.
Don't lose the destinction between libertarian and libertine. Libertarians do believe in the internalization of externalities, last time I checked. Incidentally, this liability, for the most part, already exists. We just don't see the litigation, for the very reasons I'm arguing. Corporate criminals keeping public secrets! We would be better off if the best protection were public information!
First, we need criminal (or at least substantial civil) liability... for administrators and managers who fail to take adequate precautions. This liability should run to the executive level. CEOs who disregard network security, who ignore the clear advice of administrators, who fail to do a cost benefit based risk analysis, and who treat network security events as "acts of God" somehow beyond their control, should be prosecuted.
Why? Because without liability most executives treat these risks in the abstract. To many of these executives, security events are acts of third parties, and they would rather insure than address the issue appropriately (assuming they have bothered to understand the issue in the first place). Worse, they then conspire to hide the event. If the information gets out, they might get sued by shareholders, or worse.
More importantly, we need "safe harbor" regulation that gives these executives protection from criminal prosecution to the extent they disclose. If there is an event, they disclose it. If they fail to, and some whistle blower drops a dime to the feds, the executive goes to prison. Period.
How many times must it be said that security through obscurity does not work. Yet network defenses are weak because all of these corporate executives will back and fill to cover their own malfeasance or nonfeasance. The art of the cover-up is alive and well. Without this, infrastructure protection falls down.
And any efforts to silence the black hat side would be a mistake. The level of communication is constructive, as it is the only reliable source which might be used to strengthen defenses! If you don't see it coming, don't count on corporate america to disclose!
Problem is that many Republican pols see this as some sort of gift to the trial lawyers bar - just creates more civil liability and we all spend the next 50 years in court. The Dem pols see this as unnecessary criminal liability and a new source of intrusion into personal lives. And both sides of the isle get substantial contributions from corporate america, and none of those "giving" CEOs want any risk of going to jail. Even if their criminal negligence puts national health and safety at risk (read power grid/water/telecommunications infrastructure).
Too many comments act like these are separate companies. They are not! @home is owned by these cable companies. It is common practice in the cable industry to play with numbers and move income and expenses between subsidiaries to the disadvantage of the consumer, the creditor, and sometimes even the shareholder. These people are dodgy, and need to be held accountable.
The big cable investors are more than happy to run their own networks. They just need all those inconvenient contracts nullified by bankruptcy. As this market slides into consolidation count on the consumer getting the worst of it! Don't think for a moment that the expiration of @home will mean anything resembling open access, or that outbound ports will open. Streaming will get choked, and you won't get real bandwidth without real competition (don't hold your breath) or the restoration of service quality regulation (don't hold your breath).
If they stay in business, I would certainly agree with you. But most of the advice people are giving is predicated on the assumption that this company will survive.
Take the "shady business practice" (and yes I would agree it is shady). While calling it normal, generally, would be unfair, it is certainly normal for a company in these financial straits.
Step back though. How many people are going to continue doing business with a company that renegs on contracts in this way? What kind of life expectancy would you give a company that takes advantage of a significant portion of its revenue base in this way? Everyone walks away, and next week, next month... no business.
Now, in light of how unwise, or perhaps better read -- desperate -- these actions now appear, what conduct is normal. What can we infer about their business condition? Better yet, as an unsecured creditor holding on to a company headed for bankruptcy court, do you move in now to negotiate, or hang out on the sideline and watch their "burn rate" eat up any chance you have of recovery. Payroll and taxes take priority over most everything else.
I'm not saying it's pretty, normal, moral or acceptable, only that it is normal, under the circumstances. And it bodes ill for the circumstances. One message said they recently picked up 80 million in capital. If that capital is on fire, don't expect much more.
More importantly, if they have term contracts with this company, the sooner they settle out, the sooner they can do business with someone else. Cut the deal, and RUN, don't walk, to a different vendor.
Seems most people's complaints spring from the unequal bargaining power of the two parties, and the ridiculous contracts that people signed. Again, not too much of a surprise. I'd venture noone bothered to negotiate, much less talk to an attorney. Why? Because it was a great deal. Almost money for nothing. Is it a surprise that it has evaporated in the daylight of a bear market?
My point is -- Cash is King. If you get cash now, on demand, it is better than being owed that money, and certainly better than owning part of nothing.
There is nothing wrong with taking equity, but you are, in effect, doing what wall street is unwilling to do... give these people capital. I sure wouldn't bet a plug nickel on these folks. Don't like their business plan or the business acumen. So telling someone to take stock is a bad play.
Obviously, if this company will survive, that is a different story. If they will live to fight another round of investment, again, different story. However investment is hard to come by, and their business plan is easily bypassed.
Why should a valid creditor take less than he is owed? Because bankruptcy court could give him decidedly less, and then he pays a lawyer to boot. All a judgment on how likely it is this company survives. Don't know the company well myself. Seems like just another dot com with a spurious business plan.
Better question, why is anyone still doing business with them?! Why not shift the contracts off to other vendors? No one is paying these prices these days. Still, do business with someone else, even at the lower prices, as these people can't be trusted to live up to contracts. Oh, and the punch line. When a traded company starts cutting deals like this, you really need to start watching the exits!
With advice like this, they might be better off with an attorney! Yeah, grab equity at 50 cents on the dollar,... of a company headed for bankruptcy! The only way to get a lower priority than you already have -- in bankruptcy.
No attorney in his right mind (that, of course, doesn't exclude nearly enough of them - but you get what you pay for generally) would take this case on a contingency. Are you and friends really ready to send good money after bad?
You do need an attorney to negotiate the settlement agreement to avoid getting screwed, but even so, that is MUCH cheaper than paying full freight on litigation.
What is the fraud? They said they would pay, and then the didn't. Right. Sounds more like business failure than fraud. Well they offered more than they could pay! Would that be closer to "irrational exuberance" or the same dream world that made the sites themselves believe they were worth this kind of money.
This is business failure, and there is going to be a heck of a lot more of it! As someone said above, get used to it. As to the legal fees, all claimants should be faced with being "bent over" for legal fees, they might actually do a cost benefit analysis of whether litigation was worthwhile, instead of clogging our courts with fantasy litigation!
While I can understand your frustration, this is NOT extortion. For what it's worth, it is called a settlement. They are offering to compromise debts for lesser amounts. Welcome to business 101. Forget the attorney, he'll probably just cost you money.
No, you could always wait 'till they file bankruptcy, and then wait, as an UNSECURED CREDITOR, to see how much is left over to pay the debt to you. What, you've never had a customer file for bankruptcy before?! This is just the beginning!
This guy misses the point of the so called "digital divide." At the same time he correctly points out the positive of social mobility (and incorrectly attributes it to social engineering... shudder), he misses the fact that a great deal of that mobility springs from native intelligence. To us, this is a good thing. Competence is valued, and compensated, and poor kids who take the time to learn how to use computers rocket to success, with or without college degrees.
But folks, this is what is going to create the new pyramid, if that's what he wants to call it. Sure there will be different people at the top, but the wealth of the future is what is between your ears. The fact that you earned it won't make it ANY less likely that they (the huddled masses yearning to breath free, or the arrogant morons with hollow doctorates) will want to take it away. So the stupid people who don't produce anything will end up at the bottom. News flash. They vote. And when they are stupid people with advanced degrees (and... big surprise... most of these are in, or will end up in government) they will be looking for ways to capture this. Open Source takes from the government (tax on nothin' is still nothin'... no currency valued production to tax, no sale to tax, no continued service to tax). When they figure this out, look out. Why do you think the IP laws are what they are?!...and getting worse!
If the debate proves anything it is that both Bush and Gore are willing to use FUD against technology and the Net. They are playing on people's fears, and "the people" are afraid of the technocrats. People fear what they don't understand, and stand by, most people don't understand. People resent what they fear. People hate what they resent. Only a matter of time.
All right, I've seen this GWB is a moron thing one too many times. No, I don't think he's a rocket scientist, and yes, it's a good thing he brought Cheney on board. But folks, Gore is in precisely the same category! He's an idiot AND he's dishones. They (ambiguous, amorphous group in each party) don't pick independant, free thinking candidates. Do you really believe Clinton was free to follow his instincts? Did ya read the Starr report? Some of the statements of the Secret Service made him seem rather like a gold fish in a bowl who was just rebelling a bit by getting blow jobs from the hired help.
The point here is that we still have an EXTREMELY progressive tax system. One of the points Bush makes is that, even after the proposed tax cut, we are taking most of our revenue out of the wealthy. The real issue isn't the income tax! Most revenue comes from taxes a great deal more hidden, and a great deal more regressive, than the income tax.
The one thing this letter misses, and this mostly based on the thoroughly debunked "labor theory of value" is that investment capital is necessary. He seems happy to have people rich enough to spend more on making themselves happy, but wants to stop those wealthy enough to invest in the economy. This is precisely the wrong answer.
We need money not to be the end in itself. We need wealth, not as a yard stick with which to compete with one's neighbors, but as the basis for production.
The Bell Curve is racist?! Have you even read it, or do you prefer burning books in advance of thoughtful discussion? I don't happen to agree with the primary thrust of the book as it doesn't acknowledge cultural influence upon the statistics. But to mention it in the same breath as Mein Kampf, a piece of historical propaganda and fiction is unjustified. I happen to agree with you that filters in public libraries are a bad idea, more because it is a slippery slope, and there can not be adequate discussion of what is and what is not filtered. Frankly, you are absolutely right that a little supervision, or even mere public exposure, will more constructively control this behavior than any filtering software
But back to your initial comment. The fact that you somehow believe that The Bell Curve, an almost entirely statistical work done on studies and statistics generated by other entities is "Hatred and racism" is perhaps the best proof of your argument. Clearly this is part of contentious public discussion, and as soon as we start the book burnings/filtering we control the course of that discussion in an unacceptable manner. We let the bias of someone, anyone, to determine what is and what is not acceptable.
Even so, we need to be far more cognizant of suggestions that change the nature of the Net itself, and which permit greater control of personal information.
Yeah, I know carnivore was e-mail, but what did you really thing the black box would ultimately be limited to. Now Gore wants ALL ISPs to filter and log, and provide the log, at one click, to parents, and the government doesn't even have to buy the damn box. Someone mentioned above that this is just a simple proxy. Right. Does your ISP log everything? I've seen news servers that log message downloads, but no one in their right mind keeps the logs. Send a chill down your spine? Proxy's that log web visits and other Net activity? Are you serious?!
Then someone else mentioned that the Government could get a warrant to these records. No kidding. Better yet, who says they need a warrant. Do you have an expectation of privacy in this information? Courts haven't ruled on it, so we get to find out. Worse, these are some of the first steps down the road toward the "Code" discussed in Lawrence Lessig's book. The law begins to dictate structure that could destroy personal liberties, privacy, and autonomy on the Net. What better cause to justify this intrusion than "protecting the children."
I can live with restrictions on public access, it makes parenting easier, so long as the structure of the Net, and the rules governing service don't get changed. People can buy filtered service if it is important to them. They don't (some do, but not in the numbers the filtering people dream). People don't want it. Combine the Gores' (Tipper too) intent to censor with this new wisdom and it adds up 1984.
I've been reading Katz for a long time. I've always thought he was a bit of a blowhard, and definitely an "idiot" who doesn't really grok much about the community or the Net. A wannabe who rather dramatically doesn't fit in with the group of geeks he claims to revere.
I haven't said anything because, well, he hasn't been worth it, but the irony here of Katz slamming Bush for not getting it is just too much. Worse, it is a knee jerk attempt to excite the least thoughful elements of/..
The Internet has the capacity to be a bad place. This, like so many other communities, is merely a reflection of the world outside, except without transaction costs. No long travel times to get to the red light district. No easy parental supervision to keep kids from getting to the back alleys of the Internet. The vast majority of the Internet, like the rest of the world, is a great, creative, positive environment - no doubt.
However, to believe that the Net is ONLY a creative, positive place is naive, perhaps even "stupid." Yes, Bush misspoke when he said that Columbine was because of time spent on the Internet. Not because it was necessarily wrong, but because he did not more carefully qualify. I'm sure the two individuals spent a great deal of time on the Net. This was largely because Bush doesn't fully understand. But Gore definitely doesn't understand any better, and even if he says he does, do you really believe him? He's just better at BS.
Yes, the real issue is parenting, and yes the only real response is parenting on the Internet, not filters, not censorship. But most parents are scared of the Internet, because they don't know how to parent in the brave new world. Yes Bush was wrong to use FUD against the Internet to reach all those incompetent baby boomers (obviously the geek BBers are excepted). Still, we should acknowledge that we do permit strange communities to form. That we do see bitter and unhappy teens dwelling on the wrong issues, off in a corner by themselves.
Whether that corner is the dark end of the lunch room in high school, or a dark little IRC channel, it is the same thing. Yes people need to reach out, and brighten those corners. Parents and administrators should do it in the lunch room by addressing the very real flaws of the high school community dynamic. But we shouldn't be so shallow or naive as to believe that that dark little IRC channel doesn't bear consequences.
Now John "Polly Anna" Katz is trying to play demagogue to tens of thousands of people who grok the Net a thousand times better than he. He grabs the easy issues, and trolls responses from people who should have better things to do, and for that, perhaps, we should thank him. But the pathetic politics of a non-geek don't play well.
If you want to focus on that comment, don't forget what Gore said. Didn't the Al and Tipper (the censor herself) reference, and concerns about violence send a chill down your spine? I'll admit I was angry when I heard Bush's comment, but I just got cold when I heard Gore's response. Do the math. We have a lot of work to do either way!
in the evident hope that this would get it passed in all 50 states
It is an end run around the committee. Yes, it must still be adopted by each state individually. I'm sorry if I was not clear enough. Modifications to the UCC are more readily accepted at the state level than the adoption of some abortive non-standard. This is particularly true where, as allegedly occurred in MD, major substantive changes were adopted in the course of consideration. This is non-standard, and not really what the big software folks had in mind.
UCITA was started as a modification to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) in the evident hope that this would get it passed in all 50 states and maybe a few other countries. Fortunately the committee rejected it, and now the same folks (read MS) are trying to push this on a state by state basis.
The good news is that this merely sets the contractual defaults for shrink-wrap licenses (which have mostly been validated without UCITA). Software companies with some integrity, or at least within some reach of market forces, will opt out of the more harmful defaults. The bad news is, most people don't pay enough attention to the licenses on the theory that we are pretty much stuck with whatever the software companies want to write, and the more draconian the licenses get, the less we care.
The real focus should be education. Small companies and government entities MUST begin paying very close attention to licenses, and ignore the fine print at their peril. Sadly, these over-reaching licenses also tend to encourage a flout-law attitude among society at large. Can't say I'm surprised on either count. We have the best law money can buy!:-)
And yes, this is one of the best things to happen to open source in a long time. They have just vastly increased the cost of using shrink-wrap software. Talk about cost of ownership! Think of all those attorneys getting paid to read these @#$% licenses. Commercial folks should start adhering to one standardized license or another. They choose UCITA (generally, not some states bastardization) and yes, we boycott. Better yet, spend a few minutes scaring your PHB!
Never mind a UK effort, we really need drivers for internal DSL modems for Linux and *BSD. It's easy so long as you get an edge router that dumps to Ethernet. But now the telco's are offering internal cards with only windows drivers. It helps them stop NATD boxes/firewalls/proxies.
There may be other legal consequences. I'm sure that the reason for leasing is precisely so that they can extract/extort more money on renewal. However, this could have other consequences they don't expect.
1) Taxation if domains are found to be property and to have value.
2) Liability for improper use. Do they really want to supervise every single domain name? If it is their property, they might be liable for its use, where providing a registration service where the user putatively owns the name might not. The NIC got sued by the AG of Pennsylvania a couple years back for issuing a couple white supremist sites. How much better if they "owned" the domain!;-)
3) Competition in registration makes this a lease of what? If any service can register the name, how is it that they own anything which might be leased?
In any event, this is a bit of creativity that may cost them. Live by the sword, die by the sword kind of thing...
I don't think this will make much difference for the some time. If you were willing to adopt the OS without support, you already have it, and you don't so much care to pick up a support contract. On the other hand, it very well might help with adoption as those who wouldn't select the OS without major support (Walnut Creek notwithstanding) might choose FreeBSD now.
Used to be, if you were really wound round the axel about support, you'd get BSDI. This doens't come as much of a surprise after the merger.
This doesn't quite reach as far as the above title. 1. This isn't Japan, it is merely one district court in Japan. 2. This isn't just any link, there was a fairly close relationship, going both ways, between the web sites in question. 3. It wasn't the link alone, but the combination with the sale of software which allegedly aided and abetted criminal conduct. Even so, this, along with an apparent claim that this ruling was "constitutionally" required really makes one wonder what the actual ruling will do. I wonder if MacArthur had any idea?!
Japan supposedly has a legal system derived from the common law tradition, but this makes me doubt their adherance. A link to illegal content is illegal?!
What if the link is established BEFORE the illegal content is posted. Common enough to link to the page of another, for some general purpose. Then there would be no criminal intent.
Similarly, what if the content was made illegal after the link was made. This basically requires active editing on the part of a web page owner, and establishes "STRICT LIABILITY" for alleged unlawful content.
I used to be a trial observer in Japan. Can't say I would want to be up against their criminal justice system! Certainly on something so sweeping as this law! If I were hosting, I sure wouldn't do it in Japan!
AOL was one of the strongest Open Access advocates, pushing for a diversity of backbone providers to be available end users. But that was back when they weren't associated with any last mile cable.
Now, as part of Time Warner we do have something to worry about. This should prove a test of their character. Did they really want to give us choices, or were they merely leveraging themselves into the last mile.
If we want to keep our backbone and protocols free, we really need to fight the consolidation of the Internet giants. Both backbone AND last mile.
The article is useful for having pointed out some motivations for the purely volunteer efforts. But it misses both business motivation, which can translate into paid programmers, as well as more universally, "network effect" issues.
Business users want a reliable application for a business use. If it is custom software, they would rather not bear the full burden of development. Their choices used to be out source the development, and pay per hour; develop using in-house talent, and pay full development costs; or buy a shrink wrapped product (more recent). Shrink wrap has only begun to show some dramatic problems, not the least of which is our flawed patent law. Businesses find themselves at the mercy of large software houses.
Which brings us to a driving force that is not often enough discussed. The "network effect" and lowered transaction costs. Very large businesses can opt for one of the first two options, but more and more small and mid-sized businesses have found themselves locked into shrink-wrap prepackaged software. Businesses want a standard, and they don't want to be tied to a monopolist.
Transaction costs are an economic concept. Those costs involved in negotiating for a particular economic transfer. The large company overcomes transaction costs in software development by internalizing the entire cost of a project, but then if they wish to keep the product in-house, they must amortize that entire cost. The small company wants a product which solves its problems, but only wishes to pay for so much of the product as it will use. The problem of smaller users has always been in getting those smaller businesses to work together in development of a product which has common value to the contributing businesses.
This brings us to the primary transaction cost in Open Source development, the "free rider" problem. Small businesses, historically (e.g. before the Internet), would not become involved because the difficulties in getting all those small businesses and individuals together to build a product were overwhelming. (I've worked with folks on joint development agreements with as few as a dozen users -- it can be impossible) Both the complication of negotiations, as well as heavy free rider problems impede the effort. Too many businesses would then get the same value whether they contributed or not, or in the alternative, subject the entire relationship to high costs of contractual enforcement.
So if this is true, how come Open Source works? Because of the Internet. The Internet lowers transaction costs so far that the free rider problem is insignificant. Linux, and *BSD, etc... have millions of free riders, and the more the better! But we have enough interested parties (hardware developers, small businesses, driven hackers, and even application developers previously frozen out by ill-applied network effect, etc) to help drive development.
Why do we want free riders? Because the network effect itself has a value. The more riders, the larger the network effect. In fact, that network effect was an economic bonus that MS picked up for free in selling shrink wrapped OS. And it was their abuse of that network effect that openned the opportunity to Open Source when the competeing transaction costs were lowered. Network Effect is the economic value which counters the transaction costs. All those businesses contribute to the economic value of Open Source by contributing their network effect.
Prove it? ISPs, small ones not giants, who push every possible angle to make their businesses valuable. ISPs that found themselves faced with high priced Unix stripes that were proprietary and tied to overpriced hardware on the one hand, or NT and the BSOD on the other that permitted commodity hardware but surrendered their network effect value to a software monopoly. ISPs were some of the first to adopt, and have been heavy developers of Open Source. Why? Because they can't afford to fully develop packages themselves, but they desperately needed those applications without the terrible consequences of the alternatives. Cooperate with other ISPs? Even in the face of some of the hottest competition, it was and is in their interest to overcome free rider transaction costs to recoup the network effect. Do you really want to pay >$700 for a base NT license (or worse for the old proprietary UNIX versions), just so you can pay at every turn for every other piece of your network application? Or do you welcome Open Source, and have your few in-house developers open source your improvements so that you aren't the only one maintaining them.
This wild shift in transaction costs, and the economic balance in software development offers small and medium sized businesses a fourth alternative. One that provides them source, so they can always pay for their own development (something big companies have had the economic clout do demand from the beginning), that eliminates the precipitous end to a shrink-wrapped product life cycle, that provides continuing evolution and exponential enhancement of any in house innovation. Why give that away to competitors? Because it vastly overcomes the economic benefit of foolishly keeping it in house.
Well what does this do to our software markets? Won't software companies go out of business? Maybe they should. Maybe this is a paradigm shift greater than people have previously understood. (sorry, I had to use the "p" word.) Maybe the developers should be in-house, closer to the user. Maybe development that is user based, instead of monopolist based, will better serve the consumer. Maybe the network effect is something which should be the goal, and not a lever to preserve monopoly profits and hinder innovation. Maybe central planning of applications and OSs is something that should be done through overt negotiation between interested parties instead of centralized within the walls of one corporate entity.
And yes, once this evolution becomes more clear, developers in the community become extremely valuable to:
a) Hardware developers (VA Research, Penguin)
b) Customer Support Vendors (Linuxcare, Redhat, IBM)
c) Application Developers (Corel, IBM, Oracle)
d) Network Providers (ISPs, ASPs)
e) Any medium sized business with custom requirements)
f) Computer Manuf. (IBM, Compaq, Dell)
This is something I have been thinking about for a while, so I am looking forward to refining my thoughts on this issue. Who knows, maybe the FSF isn't communist, maybe they're just protecting the economic interests of consumers?;) Sorry this got so long.
Slashdot Mirror
Federal Mail Fraud - Title 18, Section 1341 (Frauds and Swindles) (has a nice ring doesn't it.) (Or Federal Wire Fraud for that matter - Title 18, Section 1343 - elements only slightly different.)
"Whoever" - That would include Microsoft ? a corporate entity under U.S. law, and certainly a company that has generously availed itself of U.S. criminal and civil law in pursuing its business. (Live by the sword, Die by the sword - paraphrasing Matthew)
"having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud"
Knowingly:
"flaws, discovered five weeks ago by independent security researchers" MS has known for five weeks, or perhaps slightly less. Easily established by the testimony of the "independent security researchers"
Or even Scott Culp - Head of Microsoft Security (Public statement against interest - not hearsay)
"This is the first network-based, remote compromise that I'm aware of for Windows desktop systems,"
Who cares whether it is the first. It is enough that he, a lawful and selected representative of Microsoft clearly speaking on behalf of the company, is and was aware of it. Certainly during the time it took to write a patch. But there was a better remedy that would have avoided defrauding hundreds of thousands of customers. Suspension of all sales.
Makes a false statement: /. user, it is against the poor rubes that MS tells to "fly."
This one is easy. Copious statements representing the adequacy of security of this product. Millions upon millions on advertising to convince us all what a secure OS XP is. Maybe we are all too used to being lied to. But the fraud is not against the
Causing another to change position:
Sales may be a bit below 95 or 98, but we are still talking a large number of victims here.
And obtaining money as a consequence of the misrepresentation:
Well, they are selling it. Who in their right mind would pirate it? You could readily prove this element with their quarterly SEC filings. Official business records/legally required disclosure.
As far as the scheme to defraud, - start with the web page and work your way down. The represented reason for withholding this information is that it "threatened to undermine widespread adoption of Microsoft's latest Windows software." This is classic. They are admitting that they knew that if they told the truth, people would not buy it. Even if they didn't say this "on the record," and it is considered hyperbole on the part of the reporter, it is easily proven by the circumstances. Now editorial comment that MS is somehow anticipated to be a "catalyst for the sagging" industry is really no defense. Microsoft wanted to cause people to buy software that has a "very serious vulnerability" in order to accelerate their business.
Sounds like most mail fraud operations I've ever heard of.
"or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises,"
MS Web page: "Now Windows XP offers strong security to home computer users through Internet Connection Firewall protection, which makes your information, computers, and family data safer from intruders as soon as you start using Windows XP."
MS Web page: "Enjoy the new standard in dependability and simplicity ... Secure and private...
"places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter or thing"
Microsoft Website - buy XP by mail -
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/p urchase.asp
"Shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
Don't you wonder how many they sold by mail? X = n * $1,000. Y = n * 5 years.
"If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both?
Hmm? Any banks buy a copy? More than one? You do the math.
One more crime, just for good measure. (Given a couple hours I could find half a dozen more) Under California Law, Theft of Computer Services (Title 13, Section 502) includes: a) "Knowingly and without permission accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network." And
b) "Knowingly introduces any computer contaminant into any computer computer system, or computer network."
Call it a bug, or after they knew about it, call it a virus. Whichever, it certainly looks like a "computer contaminant."
And now the punch line.
18 U.S.C.A. 981
981. Civil forfeiture
(a)(1) The following property is subject to forfeiture to the United States:
"(D) Any property, real or personal, which represents or is traceable to the gross receipts obtained, directly or indirectly, from a violation of--
(v) section 1341 (relating to mail fraud);
Let that one percolate, and then move on to the one I think someone ought to be working on:
18 U.S.C.A. 1961
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ?- RICO
As used in this chapter [18 USCS Sections 1961 et seq.] (1) "racketeering activity" means ... (B) any act which is indictable under ... section 1341 (mail fraud), "
And if the underlying facts in the Antitrust suit being upheld through ALL appeals is not sufficient to establish a "Corrupt Organization," what is?
The Attorney General must take action against Microsoft. Nothing else will amend their standard of care!
Now that they have demonstrated that as consultants that would like to be involved with e-commerce they don't have a clue. And further, that as consultants they can't keep their own machine on line under load. Why on God's green earth would anyone hire these idiots? Take it a step farther, if you are a PHB, and you use these fools to cover your six, think again! Yes, Virginia, you can get fired for hiring KPMG. Time to re-evaluate your consultant strategy! Hire some drop out high school hackers
Perhaps I should emphasize the elements I set forth a bit more carefully for those that don't read carefully. There should be a risk analysis included. Say "your" network controls some aspect of public infrastructure. Say the power grid.
And read my post again, I listed a number of elements, including critical infratructure, as well as clear delineation of risk in advance to AVOID ALL LIABILITY. What you need to realize is how often corporate interests ignore these risks, EVEN WHEN THEY ARE FULLY ADVISED. This errs on the side of free information on a public network.
Why do they ignore them? Because there are no consequences. Now sure, if you run your little network in your little corner of the world, and it gets hacked, maybe it is no big deal. Maybe, your little computer gets hacked, and then your machine is used to hack the power grid. Now maybe you don't care. Maybe you think your actions are without external consequences, but you are connected to a public network. There should be responsibilities that come with that.
Also note, that I argue for a "safe harbor." I only want disclosure of knowledge that will avoid risks. Wouldn't it be helpful to you to know about machines that got hacked on a PUBLIC network? You check your logs for access from those machines?
Your position, that private actors on a public network should be completely independent is the indefensible position. You want to play on a private network, you go ahead and keep all your secrets. You join the public network, your machine privately plays a part in some network cherynobyl, you have responsibilities that arise from your failure to maintain your network responsibly.
Finally, focus on the risk cost benefit analysis. Say you run the power grid, or the water supply. You get hacked. You cover it up. You get hacked again, and everyone ends up sitting in the dark. Lives are lost. Health and safety is out the window. But your cost benefit analysis was internalyzed. You only cared about keeping your "private" secrets, and avoiding personal responsibility.
Don't lose the destinction between libertarian and libertine. Libertarians do believe in the internalization of externalities, last time I checked. Incidentally, this liability, for the most part, already exists. We just don't see the litigation, for the very reasons I'm arguing. Corporate criminals keeping public secrets! We would be better off if the best protection were public information!
Why? Because without liability most executives treat these risks in the abstract. To many of these executives, security events are acts of third parties, and they would rather insure than address the issue appropriately (assuming they have bothered to understand the issue in the first place). Worse, they then conspire to hide the event. If the information gets out, they might get sued by shareholders, or worse.
More importantly, we need "safe harbor" regulation that gives these executives protection from criminal prosecution to the extent they disclose. If there is an event, they disclose it. If they fail to, and some whistle blower drops a dime to the feds, the executive goes to prison. Period.
How many times must it be said that security through obscurity does not work. Yet network defenses are weak because all of these corporate executives will back and fill to cover their own malfeasance or nonfeasance. The art of the cover-up is alive and well. Without this, infrastructure protection falls down.
And any efforts to silence the black hat side would be a mistake. The level of communication is constructive, as it is the only reliable source which might be used to strengthen defenses! If you don't see it coming, don't count on corporate america to disclose!
Problem is that many Republican pols see this as some sort of gift to the trial lawyers bar - just creates more civil liability and we all spend the next 50 years in court. The Dem pols see this as unnecessary criminal liability and a new source of intrusion into personal lives. And both sides of the isle get substantial contributions from corporate america, and none of those "giving" CEOs want any risk of going to jail. Even if their criminal negligence puts national health and safety at risk (read power grid/water/telecommunications infrastructure).
You did ask...
The big cable investors are more than happy to run their own networks. They just need all those inconvenient contracts nullified by bankruptcy. As this market slides into consolidation count on the consumer getting the worst of it! Don't think for a moment that the expiration of @home will mean anything resembling open access, or that outbound ports will open. Streaming will get choked, and you won't get real bandwidth without real competition (don't hold your breath) or the restoration of service quality regulation (don't hold your breath).
If they stay in business, I would certainly agree with you. But most of the advice people are giving is predicated on the assumption that this company will survive.
... no business.
Take the "shady business practice" (and yes I would agree it is shady). While calling it normal, generally, would be unfair, it is certainly normal for a company in these financial straits.
Step back though. How many people are going to continue doing business with a company that renegs on contracts in this way? What kind of life expectancy would you give a company that takes advantage of a significant portion of its revenue base in this way? Everyone walks away, and next week, next month
Now, in light of how unwise, or perhaps better read -- desperate -- these actions now appear, what conduct is normal. What can we infer about their business condition? Better yet, as an unsecured creditor holding on to a company headed for bankruptcy court, do you move in now to negotiate, or hang out on the sideline and watch their "burn rate" eat up any chance you have of recovery. Payroll and taxes take priority over most everything else.
I'm not saying it's pretty, normal, moral or acceptable, only that it is normal, under the circumstances. And it bodes ill for the circumstances. One message said they recently picked up 80 million in capital. If that capital is on fire, don't expect much more.
More importantly, if they have term contracts with this company, the sooner they settle out, the sooner they can do business with someone else. Cut the deal, and RUN, don't walk, to a different vendor.
Seems most people's complaints spring from the unequal bargaining power of the two parties, and the ridiculous contracts that people signed. Again, not too much of a surprise. I'd venture noone bothered to negotiate, much less talk to an attorney. Why? Because it was a great deal. Almost money for nothing. Is it a surprise that it has evaporated in the daylight of a bear market?
My point is -- Cash is King. If you get cash now, on demand, it is better than being owed that money, and certainly better than owning part of nothing.
There is nothing wrong with taking equity, but you are, in effect, doing what wall street is unwilling to do... give these people capital. I sure wouldn't bet a plug nickel on these folks. Don't like their business plan or the business acumen. So telling someone to take stock is a bad play.
Obviously, if this company will survive, that is a different story. If they will live to fight another round of investment, again, different story. However investment is hard to come by, and their business plan is easily bypassed.
Why should a valid creditor take less than he is owed? Because bankruptcy court could give him decidedly less, and then he pays a lawyer to boot. All a judgment on how likely it is this company survives. Don't know the company well myself. Seems like just another dot com with a spurious business plan.
Better question, why is anyone still doing business with them?! Why not shift the contracts off to other vendors? No one is paying these prices these days. Still, do business with someone else, even at the lower prices, as these people can't be trusted to live up to contracts. Oh, and the punch line. When a traded company starts cutting deals like this, you really need to start watching the exits!
With advice like this, they might be better off with an attorney! Yeah, grab equity at 50 cents on the dollar,... of a company headed for bankruptcy! The only way to get a lower priority than you already have -- in bankruptcy.
No attorney in his right mind (that, of course, doesn't exclude nearly enough of them - but you get what you pay for generally) would take this case on a contingency. Are you and friends really ready to send good money after bad?
You do need an attorney to negotiate the settlement agreement to avoid getting screwed, but even so, that is MUCH cheaper than paying full freight on litigation.
Defrauded ... "bent over for legal fees."
What is the fraud?
They said they would pay, and then the didn't. Right. Sounds more like business failure than fraud. Well they offered more than they could pay! Would that be closer to "irrational exuberance" or the same dream world that made the sites themselves believe they were worth this kind of money.
This is business failure, and there is going to be a heck of a lot more of it! As someone said above, get used to it. As to the legal fees, all claimants should be faced with being "bent over" for legal fees, they might actually do a cost benefit analysis of whether litigation was worthwhile, instead of clogging our courts with fantasy litigation!
While I can understand your frustration, this is NOT extortion. For what it's worth, it is called a settlement. They are offering to compromise debts for lesser amounts. Welcome to business 101. Forget the attorney, he'll probably just cost you money.
No, you could always wait 'till they file bankruptcy, and then wait, as an UNSECURED CREDITOR, to see how much is left over to pay the debt to you. What, you've never had a customer file for bankruptcy before?! This is just the beginning!
This guy misses the point of the so called "digital divide." At the same time he correctly points out the positive of social mobility (and incorrectly attributes it to social engineering ... shudder), he misses the fact that a great deal of that mobility springs from native intelligence. To us, this is a good thing. Competence is valued, and compensated, and poor kids who take the time to learn how to use computers rocket to success, with or without college degrees.
... big surprise... most of these are in, or will end up in government) they will be looking for ways to capture this. Open Source takes from the government (tax on nothin' is still nothin'... no currency valued production to tax, no sale to tax, no continued service to tax). When they figure this out, look out. Why do you think the IP laws are what they are?! ...and getting worse!
But folks, this is what is going to create the new pyramid, if that's what he wants to call it. Sure there will be different people at the top, but the wealth of the future is what is between your ears. The fact that you earned it won't make it ANY less likely that they (the huddled masses yearning to breath free, or the arrogant morons with hollow doctorates) will want to take it away. So the stupid people who don't produce anything will end up at the bottom. News flash. They vote. And when they are stupid people with advanced degrees (and
If the debate proves anything it is that both Bush and Gore are willing to use FUD against technology and the Net. They are playing on people's fears, and "the people" are afraid of the technocrats. People fear what they don't understand, and stand by, most people don't understand. People resent what they fear. People hate what they resent. Only a matter of time.
All right, I've seen this GWB is a moron thing one too many times. No, I don't think he's a rocket scientist, and yes, it's a good thing he brought Cheney on board. But folks, Gore is in precisely the same category! He's an idiot AND he's dishones. They (ambiguous, amorphous group in each party) don't pick independant, free thinking candidates. Do you really believe Clinton was free to follow his instincts? Did ya read the Starr report? Some of the statements of the Secret Service made him seem rather like a gold fish in a bowl who was just rebelling a bit by getting blow jobs from the hired help.
The point here is that we still have an EXTREMELY progressive tax system. One of the points Bush makes is that, even after the proposed tax cut, we are taking most of our revenue out of the wealthy. The real issue isn't the income tax! Most revenue comes from taxes a great deal more hidden, and a great deal more regressive, than the income tax.
The one thing this letter misses, and this mostly based on the thoroughly debunked "labor theory of value" is that investment capital is necessary. He seems happy to have people rich enough to spend more on making themselves happy, but wants to stop those wealthy enough to invest in the economy. This is precisely the wrong answer.
We need money not to be the end in itself. We need wealth, not as a yard stick with which to compete with one's neighbors, but as the basis for production.
The Bell Curve is racist?! Have you even read it, or do you prefer burning books in advance of thoughtful discussion? I don't happen to agree with the primary thrust of the book as it doesn't acknowledge cultural influence upon the statistics. But to mention it in the same breath as Mein Kampf, a piece of historical propaganda and fiction is unjustified. I happen to agree with you that filters in public libraries are a bad idea, more because it is a slippery slope, and there can not be adequate discussion of what is and what is not filtered. Frankly, you are absolutely right that a little supervision, or even mere public exposure, will more constructively control this behavior than any filtering software
But back to your initial comment. The fact that you somehow believe that The Bell Curve, an almost entirely statistical work done on studies and statistics generated by other entities is "Hatred and racism" is perhaps the best proof of your argument. Clearly this is part of contentious public discussion, and as soon as we start the book burnings/filtering we control the course of that discussion in an unacceptable manner. We let the bias of someone, anyone, to determine what is and what is not acceptable.
Even so, we need to be far more cognizant of suggestions that change the nature of the Net itself, and which permit greater control of personal information.
Yeah, I know carnivore was e-mail, but what did you really thing the black box would ultimately be limited to. Now Gore wants ALL ISPs to filter and log, and provide the log, at one click, to parents, and the government doesn't even have to buy the damn box. Someone mentioned above that this is just a simple proxy. Right. Does your ISP log everything? I've seen news servers that log message downloads, but no one in their right mind keeps the logs. Send a chill down your spine? Proxy's that log web visits and other Net activity? Are you serious?!
Then someone else mentioned that the Government could get a warrant to these records. No kidding. Better yet, who says they need a warrant. Do you have an expectation of privacy in this information? Courts haven't ruled on it, so we get to find out. Worse, these are some of the first steps down the road toward the "Code" discussed in Lawrence Lessig's book. The law begins to dictate structure that could destroy personal liberties, privacy, and autonomy on the Net. What better cause to justify this intrusion than "protecting the children."
I can live with restrictions on public access, it makes parenting easier, so long as the structure of the Net, and the rules governing service don't get changed. People can buy filtered service if it is important to them. They don't (some do, but not in the numbers the filtering people dream). People don't want it. Combine the Gores' (Tipper too) intent to censor with this new wisdom and it adds up 1984.
Friends don't let friends vote for Gore.
I've been reading Katz for a long time. I've always thought he was a bit of a blowhard, and definitely an "idiot" who doesn't really grok much about the community or the Net. A wannabe who rather dramatically doesn't fit in with the group of geeks he claims to revere.
/..
I haven't said anything because, well, he hasn't been worth it, but the irony here of Katz slamming Bush for not getting it is just too much. Worse, it is a knee jerk attempt to excite the least thoughful elements of
The Internet has the capacity to be a bad place. This, like so many other communities, is merely a reflection of the world outside, except without transaction costs. No long travel times to get to the red light district. No easy parental supervision to keep kids from getting to the back alleys of the Internet. The vast majority of the Internet, like the rest of the world, is a great, creative, positive environment - no doubt.
However, to believe that the Net is ONLY a creative, positive place is naive, perhaps even "stupid." Yes, Bush misspoke when he said that Columbine was because of time spent on the Internet. Not because it was necessarily wrong, but because he did not more carefully qualify. I'm sure the two individuals spent a great deal of time on the Net. This was largely because Bush doesn't fully understand. But Gore definitely doesn't understand any better, and even if he says he does, do you really believe him? He's just better at BS.
Yes, the real issue is parenting, and yes the only real response is parenting on the Internet, not filters, not censorship. But most parents are scared of the Internet, because they don't know how to parent in the brave new world. Yes Bush was wrong to use FUD against the Internet to reach all those incompetent baby boomers (obviously the geek BBers are excepted). Still, we should acknowledge that we do permit strange communities to form. That we do see bitter and unhappy teens dwelling on the wrong issues, off in a corner by themselves.
Whether that corner is the dark end of the lunch room in high school, or a dark little IRC channel, it is the same thing. Yes people need to reach out, and brighten those corners. Parents and administrators should do it in the lunch room by addressing the very real flaws of the high school community dynamic. But we shouldn't be so shallow or naive as to believe that that dark little IRC channel doesn't bear consequences.
Now John "Polly Anna" Katz is trying to play demagogue to tens of thousands of people who grok the Net a thousand times better than he. He grabs the easy issues, and trolls responses from people who should have better things to do, and for that, perhaps, we should thank him. But the pathetic politics of a non-geek don't play well.
If you want to focus on that comment, don't forget what Gore said. Didn't the Al and Tipper (the censor herself) reference, and concerns about violence send a chill down your spine? I'll admit I was angry when I heard Bush's comment, but I just got cold when I heard Gore's response. Do the math. We have a lot of work to do either way!
Notice of appeal may toll enforcement. "Toll" means suspend, day for day, during the appeal.
It is an end run around the committee. Yes, it must still be adopted by each state individually. I'm sorry if I was not clear enough. Modifications to the UCC are more readily accepted at the state level than the adoption of some abortive non-standard. This is particularly true where, as allegedly occurred in MD, major substantive changes were adopted in the course of consideration. This is non-standard, and not really what the big software folks had in mind.
The good news is that this merely sets the contractual defaults for shrink-wrap licenses (which have mostly been validated without UCITA). Software companies with some integrity, or at least within some reach of market forces, will opt out of the more harmful defaults. The bad news is, most people don't pay enough attention to the licenses on the theory that we are pretty much stuck with whatever the software companies want to write, and the more draconian the licenses get, the less we care.
The real focus should be education. Small companies and government entities MUST begin paying very close attention to licenses, and ignore the fine print at their peril. Sadly, these over-reaching licenses also tend to encourage a flout-law attitude among society at large. Can't say I'm surprised on either count. We have the best law money can buy! :-)
And yes, this is one of the best things to happen to open source in a long time. They have just vastly increased the cost of using shrink-wrap software. Talk about cost of ownership! Think of all those attorneys getting paid to read these @#$% licenses. Commercial folks should start adhering to one standardized license or another. They choose UCITA (generally, not some states bastardization) and yes, we boycott. Better yet, spend a few minutes scaring your PHB!
Never mind a UK effort, we really need drivers for internal DSL modems for Linux and *BSD. It's easy so long as you get an edge router that dumps to Ethernet. But now the telco's are offering internal cards with only windows drivers. It helps them stop NATD boxes/firewalls/proxies.
1) Taxation if domains are found to be property and to have value.
2) Liability for improper use. Do they really want to supervise every single domain name? If it is their property, they might be liable for its use, where providing a registration service where the user putatively owns the name might not. The NIC got sued by the AG of Pennsylvania a couple years back for issuing a couple white supremist sites. How much better if they "owned" the domain! ;-)
3) Competition in registration makes this a lease of what? If any service can register the name, how is it that they own anything which might be leased?
In any event, this is a bit of creativity that may cost them. Live by the sword, die by the sword kind of thing...
Used to be, if you were really wound round the axel about support, you'd get BSDI. This doens't come as much of a surprise after the merger.
This doesn't quite reach as far as the above title. 1. This isn't Japan, it is merely one district court in Japan. 2. This isn't just any link, there was a fairly close relationship, going both ways, between the web sites in question. 3. It wasn't the link alone, but the combination with the sale of software which allegedly aided and abetted criminal conduct. Even so, this, along with an apparent claim that this ruling was "constitutionally" required really makes one wonder what the actual ruling will do. I wonder if MacArthur had any idea?!
What if the link is established BEFORE the illegal content is posted. Common enough to link to the page of another, for some general purpose. Then there would be no criminal intent.
Similarly, what if the content was made illegal after the link was made. This basically requires active editing on the part of a web page owner, and establishes "STRICT LIABILITY" for alleged unlawful content.
I used to be a trial observer in Japan. Can't say I would want to be up against their criminal justice system! Certainly on something so sweeping as this law! If I were hosting, I sure wouldn't do it in Japan!
Now, as part of Time Warner we do have something to worry about. This should prove a test of their character. Did they really want to give us choices, or were they merely leveraging themselves into the last mile.
If we want to keep our backbone and protocols free, we really need to fight the consolidation of the Internet giants. Both backbone AND last mile.
Business users want a reliable application for a business use. If it is custom software, they would rather not bear the full burden of development. Their choices used to be out source the development, and pay per hour; develop using in-house talent, and pay full development costs; or buy a shrink wrapped product (more recent). Shrink wrap has only begun to show some dramatic problems, not the least of which is our flawed patent law. Businesses find themselves at the mercy of large software houses.
Which brings us to a driving force that is not often enough discussed. The "network effect" and lowered transaction costs. Very large businesses can opt for one of the first two options, but more and more small and mid-sized businesses have found themselves locked into shrink-wrap prepackaged software. Businesses want a standard, and they don't want to be tied to a monopolist.
Transaction costs are an economic concept. Those costs involved in negotiating for a particular economic transfer. The large company overcomes transaction costs in software development by internalizing the entire cost of a project, but then if they wish to keep the product in-house, they must amortize that entire cost. The small company wants a product which solves its problems, but only wishes to pay for so much of the product as it will use. The problem of smaller users has always been in getting those smaller businesses to work together in development of a product which has common value to the contributing businesses.
This brings us to the primary transaction cost in Open Source development, the "free rider" problem. Small businesses, historically (e.g. before the Internet), would not become involved because the difficulties in getting all those small businesses and individuals together to build a product were overwhelming. (I've worked with folks on joint development agreements with as few as a dozen users -- it can be impossible) Both the complication of negotiations, as well as heavy free rider problems impede the effort. Too many businesses would then get the same value whether they contributed or not, or in the alternative, subject the entire relationship to high costs of contractual enforcement.
So if this is true, how come Open Source works? Because of the Internet. The Internet lowers transaction costs so far that the free rider problem is insignificant. Linux, and *BSD, etc... have millions of free riders, and the more the better! But we have enough interested parties (hardware developers, small businesses, driven hackers, and even application developers previously frozen out by ill-applied network effect, etc) to help drive development.
Why do we want free riders? Because the network effect itself has a value. The more riders, the larger the network effect. In fact, that network effect was an economic bonus that MS picked up for free in selling shrink wrapped OS. And it was their abuse of that network effect that openned the opportunity to Open Source when the competeing transaction costs were lowered. Network Effect is the economic value which counters the transaction costs. All those businesses contribute to the economic value of Open Source by contributing their network effect.
Prove it? ISPs, small ones not giants, who push every possible angle to make their businesses valuable. ISPs that found themselves faced with high priced Unix stripes that were proprietary and tied to overpriced hardware on the one hand, or NT and the BSOD on the other that permitted commodity hardware but surrendered their network effect value to a software monopoly. ISPs were some of the first to adopt, and have been heavy developers of Open Source. Why? Because they can't afford to fully develop packages themselves, but they desperately needed those applications without the terrible consequences of the alternatives. Cooperate with other ISPs? Even in the face of some of the hottest competition, it was and is in their interest to overcome free rider transaction costs to recoup the network effect. Do you really want to pay >$700 for a base NT license (or worse for the old proprietary UNIX versions), just so you can pay at every turn for every other piece of your network application? Or do you welcome Open Source, and have your few in-house developers open source your improvements so that you aren't the only one maintaining them.
This wild shift in transaction costs, and the economic balance in software development offers small and medium sized businesses a fourth alternative. One that provides them source, so they can always pay for their own development (something big companies have had the economic clout do demand from the beginning), that eliminates the precipitous end to a shrink-wrapped product life cycle, that provides continuing evolution and exponential enhancement of any in house innovation. Why give that away to competitors? Because it vastly overcomes the economic benefit of foolishly keeping it in house.
Well what does this do to our software markets? Won't software companies go out of business? Maybe they should. Maybe this is a paradigm shift greater than people have previously understood. (sorry, I had to use the "p" word.) Maybe the developers should be in-house, closer to the user. Maybe development that is user based, instead of monopolist based, will better serve the consumer. Maybe the network effect is something which should be the goal, and not a lever to preserve monopoly profits and hinder innovation. Maybe central planning of applications and OSs is something that should be done through overt negotiation between interested parties instead of centralized within the walls of one corporate entity.
And yes, once this evolution becomes more clear, developers in the community become extremely valuable to:
a) Hardware developers (VA Research, Penguin)
b) Customer Support Vendors (Linuxcare, Redhat, IBM)
c) Application Developers (Corel, IBM, Oracle)
d) Network Providers (ISPs, ASPs)
e) Any medium sized business with custom requirements)
f) Computer Manuf. (IBM, Compaq, Dell)
This is something I have been thinking about for a while, so I am looking forward to refining my thoughts on this issue. Who knows, maybe the FSF isn't communist, maybe they're just protecting the economic interests of consumers? ;) Sorry this got so long.