By submitting to ridiculous constraints on their lifestyle by licensing and functionality; repeated quality of life issues imposed by frequent crashes, inexplicable freezes and limited capabilities; and ultimately staying doggedly committed to continuing in their plight notwithstanding any reasoned arguments to the contrary, comforted with the sense that all is right because their colleagues are also suffering, it is the Windowites who, to me, most resemble the cult.
Microsoft has managed to survive many tough legal blows to date and, despite a criminal conviction, seemed like they would survive with a slap on the wrist. Part of it was some tough negotiations with a timid (or well-lobbied, perhaps) Justice Department and a few states, and part of it was a well-oiled "P.R." campaign to good cop the new judge. Part of that campaign was a supposed, "voluntary," implementation of the settlement.
Microsoft, ever incorrigible, can't seem to help itself, and this is A REAL GOOD THING. I would rather the insufficiency of the settlement be realized in a practical and tangible manner before, and not after, the judge reaches her decision -- when there is still time for her to change her mind.
It is stuff like this that turned Judge Jackson into a Microsoft-hater, and indeed, it will have a similar impact on the present judge. However unlikely it was that she might reject the positions of both parties and ask for briefings on structural relief -- conduct such as this makes that one step more likely to happen.
For those hoping that she will throw the book at Microsoft, however she does it, this kind of news is the best thing that could happen. The Judge has the power now -- and Microsoft's bad acting is amazingly short-sighted.
I love when my opponents overreach visibly. It always helps me in the end.
I don't see any point in addressing your allegations that I was not being responsive -- it is apparent that as between us, we will have to agree to disagree whether or not you must confront the arguments I made. I will leave that to our gracious colleagues to decide for themselves how they feel about all of that.
You prove my point. It's the amount of damage done, not the street value of the copyrighted material that is the issue. Stealing the only copy of an original manuscript is quite different from copying an expensive software program or electronic book.
If you say so. The law, I am here to tell you -- at least in the areas in which I practice, is quite different. The theft of content is actionable in fact. Computer Fraud and Abuse, and comparable state laws operate on similar principles.
Again Taborsky is another case where the damage is important and not the items (the notebooks), but the invention
You are mistaken (except that it was about a material that can be used as a form of kitty litter). Petr Taborsky was convicted, among other things, for theft of trade secrets. Indeed, the reason he served time on the chain gang had to do, in part, with his disclosure of those secrets by filing a patent application based upon the subject matter of the lab notes.
What if he had merely xeroxed the notebooks, as more or less (apparently) occurred in this Star Wars case?
Same result on these counts at least.
Quite a different thing (assuming it was the university that got the patents).
Ultimately they did. Among other restitutionary relief, a patent was assigned to the U.
Suddenly you have much smaller real damages, and if I recall, grand theft statutes usually have a damage minimum in cases of non-violent theft--that is if we are talking about damage done, and not price of files stored on the media.
The fundamental difference between grand theft and petit theft is precisely the amount of damages -- not of the consequences after restitution, but assuming that the theft was non-recoverable.
Look, there is no point on going on with this -- I'm done responding here. You seem to think you know a great deal more about the law than do I, and I seem to think I know a great deal more about it than you. I do not know the facts of this case in any detail, nor can I predict the result. But assuming the facts are as we assumed here, I believe it is quite clear that you would lose.vvMoreover, the theft claims aside, the computer abuse counts aren't even close to dispute.
So, let's part friends or enemies as you prefer, let's see what happens. You bet he will go free on these facts, and I would bet he would be convicted, which conviction would survive appeals. So what? This isn't the forum in which that will be decided.
I agree to disagree -- this is my last posting on this thread.
Good God! I can't get through, can I? I'll repeat myself one last time: He was charged with grand theft, but committed no crimes on the order of grand theft.
Had you read my messages as carefully as you insist I should read yours, you would see that I directly confronted that position -- your response, not on the merits but mere gainsay -- does not lead me to forget the points I made.
Whether he had committed crime on the order of grand theft or felony computer crimes remains to be seen, and certainly time will tell. But the elements appear to be satisfied by the allegations, and though YOU don't think terribly highly of the state charging someone with this crime, as I noted in particular, YOU don't get to make the decision, either normatively or legally.
I don't know why this is such a hard concept to get across. Maybe you live in a foreign country where everyone charged with a crime is assumed to be guilty. In my country, America, just because someone is charged with a certain crime, doesn't mean that he guilty. We assume that person is innocent. We even allow him to defend himself with the proposition that he may not have committed the alledged crimes at all.
Let me get this straight. He was charged with a crime. You say that he must be presumed innocent. Hence, you conclude that an injustice has occurred.
The presumption of innocence does not preclude charging someone with a crime, or the discussion whether the facts, if they occurred, would give rise to the crime. You aren't disputing the facts -- you are asserting that the facts, if true, would not be criminal at the level charged. I am disagreeing with THAT point, not asserting that he is guilty because he was charged.
Your residence in a far off land obviously keeps you from any real understanding of the justice system. There are any number of prosecutors who "bend" the definition of a statute to serve their purposes. The acts alledged don't always fit the statute. So just because he was proven to commit the alledged acts, does not mean he has actually committed grand theft under the definition of the statute.
Personal attacks on me make no difference. After all, I am a lawyer.:-) Seriously, you have it all wrong. The prosecutors have a far better case on the merits than your credit it. the value of personal property is not limited to the price of the media stored on it, and the case books are filled with criminal grand theft involving unpublished works and intellectual property -- primarily trade secrets. Such cases have been heavily appealed on similar grounds (Taborsky being one of them), and the defendants have lost.
My suggestion -- don't whine about injustice. Do something about it by changing the law -- if you think you can make the argument stick. But in this case, this charge doesn't seem to raise too many meaningful legal hackles.
I *DO* expect the defense attorneys to try to win on the ground that the property isn't valued grand theft. They may not do so well on that theory, but hey, its worth a shot. Time will tell which of us was right.
Hell, according the the newspaper accounts the only physical items that that the police claimed he had were 19 CD-ROMS. We don't know that he stole the CD-ROMS, or simply brought some from home and burned him. Anyway, $9.00 worth of CD-ROMS is not grand theft under the statute.
So you say. Who knows? Maybe you are right. On the other hand, a prosecutor probably thinks he has a pretty good case to file such an information. Let's see what the judge and jury say later on.
The rest is copyright infringement, which is handled under different statutes.
No, he was accused of computer crimes as well as grand theft? I understand that he is innocent until crucified, but that doesn't make your statement less false.
I read several articles, but saw none that made any reference to criminal copyright infringement (which would be brought only by a USA, and not by a state attorney; I agree that infringement is malum prohibitum, by the way). Were you just guessing, or did you see otherwise?
See, we here in the United States live under the laws promulgated by the legislature, prosecuted by the Executive in the Judiciary. We, as individuals, don't get to make it up as we go along -- the laws are the laws, and the penalties are the penalties. As I said, this is the system working as it should.
You are having trouble reading. I wrote that the crimes that he committed were on the order of petty misdemeanors.
He was charged with grand theft.
I am pleased that you agree that to assert either the linguistic or criminal argument that the conduct was not theft is incorrect. I am further pleased that you acknowledge that he was, in fact, charged with thirteen major crimes for his conduct. It is reasonable to assert that you think grand theft of this kind should be a misdemeanor and not seriously penalized -- though it is likewise reasonable to disagree. I concur that arguments what "should" be the crime are a different thing altogether.
Judging from the several responses posted here, I was not the only one who took your original message to be making broader and different arguments than this current one.
Still, even given the backpedaling construction of your posting that you now hold, I disagree:
Here's the neat thing about this -- the legislature gets together after getting themselves elected, and they decide what constitutes various crimes, and the punishments for them. Another politician, the governor, then gets to decide whether or not the law goes to far, and either signs it or lets it pass into law without signature. I'd be willing to bet the laws passed in this case passed virtually without controversy.
You can like it or lump it -- and indeed, you can think that things are criminal (or, as in this case, quite highly criminal) that are not.
But you know, at the end of the day, you don't get to decide for yourself what is and is not permitted, and what is the punishment that will be lodged against you for violating the law.
This man was charged with thirteen felony crimes. You don't think that what he did was all that bad. But if the elements of those crimes are proved, he committed the crimes. This isn't injustice -- this is the way the system is supposed to work -- indeed, precisely to keep people from engaging in unbridled and uncontrolled exercises of authority. If you think that the standard for grand theft is too low, by all means, speak to your legislators. Indeed, if you are correct, and he didn't do the deeds, or the deeds he did were not the crimes with which he is charged, then he will have an easy time defending himself. But please, for gosh sake, stop whining.
If you say so. But at least we understand now the source of your concerns. It isn't the language definition of "theft," which you do not dispute here -- nor is it the legal definition, which you acknowledge here -- it is merely that you disagree with the result.
Fair enough, but that wasn't what you wrote -- you wrote that the crimes with which he was charged were not serious crimes, but merely petty misdemeanors. That, of course, was false. He was charged with thirteen felonies -- serious crimes.
Whether he is guilty of them or note remains to be seen, and quite frankly, i for one will wait until i see the verdict before calling this an injustice.
He didn't steal something--stealing is depriving someone of a good that they own. No one was deprived, however he did violate copyright law and contract law.
Are you proffering a legal or linguistic argument here? Either way, you lose. Per Webster's Third New International, "to steal" denotes many types of conduct, including many kinds of theft, including:
Steal 1b:
to appropriate (as another's conception or invention) and use as one's own
"To steal" might well denote the conduct complained of by a dictionary, but probably also denotes the conduct asserted under California law. Virtually every state's definition of theft incorporates (directly or by separate statute) criminal penalties for theft of trade secrets, for example, often denominated as theft.
In this case, as understood from an article snarfted from Google, he was charged with plural counts of computer crime and grand theft.
Hardly. There are levels of crimes. We don't punish traffic code violators like we do murderers.
True. So what?
With no real damage, this is on the level of petty misdemeanor.
This guy, however, is facing thirteen felony counts, with penalties that can lead to incarceration over seven years.
is that it permits instant experts to spout out about anything. Had Professor Lessig made the argument suggested above, to any extent at all, the case would never be before the Supreme Court, would never have gotten a word of press, and would not have had the potential to make a landmark change in the law.
The problem for our copyright critic here is simply this: the Constitution expressly authorizes the Congress to pass a copyright law. The unsupported proposition that the "right to copy" is a "basic moral human right" has no bearing in United States constitutional jurisprudence. None. (That it is also a meritless proposition is an argument for another day.)
Professor Lessig's "failure" to raise that issue is precisely why the case is now before the United States Supreme Court -- he bent over backwards, and properly so, to avoid appearing to make an anti-copyright claim. The Constitution AUTHORIZES copyright, but that power is limited, he argued. And he argued the point eloquently and intelligently, unlike the two-paragraph blather proffered by the author of the note to which I am responding.
Writing a brief for the Supreme Court in hopes of changing the law, something I have done, is an awesome experience. You feel frighteningly powerful until you file it, and then horribly impotent and humbled from that moment going forward -- even when you win. The emotions Professor Lessig shared with us are common to every advocate who is appearing before the highest Court in the U.S.
He fought the good fight, did a fine job of it, and did it for free. Win or lose, he was a hero -- even if you disagreed with his position.
Compare that to the purchase of, say, a laser printer. When's the last time HP showed up and demanded you prove, at your expense, that none of your laser printers were stolen from their factory?
BSA succeeds only when they have a case. Rely on advice of counsel of course, but consider saying "No" to or placing conditions upon demands of an unreasonable audit. Very simple, very straightforward. In most cases, a BSA plaintiff has no right to demand an audit, and if they go ahead and sue, and then lose, it is they, not you, who pays for the attorney fees, costs and expenses of discovery.
Even when you are losers on liability, because they DO have you dead to rights, a competent attorney can use certain procedural devices to shift the burdens to entice BSA to settle reasonably.
Bottom line -- competent counsel can avoid serious difficulties and unnecessary expenses in both cases. Make sure you are working with an attorney who knows what he is doing.
We are moving way off-topic now, but let me say this: Alas, it is not uncommon that one of our fellow geeks, knowledgable of the BSA bulldog style, will call the 800 number and "disclose" false allegations of infringement against former employers with whom they have bugs in bonnets. A competent attorney can deflect the BSA counsel quite reasonably and, using a number of techniques, deter bad acting or overreaching by BSA.
On the other hand, in cases where they have a client dead to rights, different strategies are of course called for -- and you are correct, they are not inexpensive to defend.
But in terms of human rights organizations. They simply can't afford to be wasting time dealing with the BSA's bullshit. The only time that a proprietary product has a lower TCO than its Free Software equivalent is when you've conveniently discounted the cost of dealing with the BSA.
This is precisely the sort of demagoguery to which I earlier referred. Reasonable people may differ about the analysis in particular cases. Nobody can intelligently discuss these questions in such absolute terms as a general case.
It is quite possible that the vast majority of businesses have hired professionals who made radically wrong-headed decisions in this regard, and have been pissing away their shareholder's money for decades without complaint. You might well be right -- but then again, the truth might be rather more interesting, and certainly at least a closer question.
No doubt it is easy for us to put these freely available packages together to do what somebody wants them to do. And there is a modest community of related professionals in some locations who can assist to some extent to put that together for others who know where to find them and what to ask.
However, asserting that the TCO is identical, without more, for each and every application for which an organization is needed is ludicrous. To suggest that Disney has anything to do with this is sillier. And the BSA gives no problem, so far as I can tell (and I have a great deal of experience with defending BSA cases) to those who don't infringe.
All of this, of course, assumes that there exists open or free software that does everything that is required. This assumption, too, may be unwarranted. Open source is excellent for those who have substantial IT resources and capabilities, but may be of minimal benefit to those who cannot make use of the freely available code, or regularly hire those who would.
In my old consulting days, I spent quite a bit of time fixing problems that were created by building software "on the cheap" from rag-tag resources not suitable for the needs of the owner. Often, I would quote the cost of meeting certain requirements, and be passed over by someone who bid more cheaply, only to be later hired to fix the nonsense they purchased for less -- only to charge more than my original estimate because of changed requirements of time and resources.
My point is this -- these problems are complex, and cannot be reduced to a sound byte. Sure, "true believers" may assert, without more, whatever they want. Some may follow, to their benefit, while others may go under relying upon the preachings. The truth is far more interesting, and infintely more complex.
Try reading the article next time. He never claimed that not releasing software under a Free Software or OSI-compliant license was a violation of human rights.
If you say so. Although I think your statement is fair to some regard, I think the tenor went to both points and was taken by most who read it uncritically to be the same. Most demagoguing permits such retreats. Many examples can be extracted from the article, such as the following:
Fitness for Users
Patrick finds the costs of proprietary software offensive. "It widens the imbalance between the rich and poor regions of the world," he says. Even worse, "It concentrates power in the hands of software owners." The organizations that can afford the tools to collect and process data get to set the agenda.
He said that its criticial that human rights organizations use Free Software for their existence. Human rights oganizations are short on money and can't afford to pay the outrageous costs for proprietary packages, especially when they don't work as well or aren't as stable as Free packages.
Except when the overall cost of ownership and functionality is better using proprietary packages. I use mostly free software in my environment, but I am a geek who can configure and manage all it can do. I can modify it to do what it can't. Most volunteer-based organizations cannot afford mega-geeks, or even mini-geeks, and "their existence" may well depend upon having software they can use that does what they need, than using software they can't that doesn't -- whether free or not -- and whether it can be used by others to that end or not.
Total cost of ownership isn't the same as package price -- it depends upon a host of subtle factors. Free software comes with zero support -- this is an important fact lost on most people who can support themselves.
On balance, it seems quite clear to me that a human rights organization could both exist and be publicly responsible by using either free or proprietary software, depending upon its respective needs and requirements.
The accountability argument is signifcant to me -- I buy it for some functions. However, accountability does not require FSF-freedom. Rather, it requires the transparency that derives from open sources, whether proprietary, public domain, BSD or GPL. For things such as the monitoring and measuring electrions -- I would agree that they *DO* require open sourced -- but not necessarily FSF-free -- software. (However not every reasonable person would agree with us -- I could not even convince my local USA-based election board on that point). On the other hand, I see no reason why most automated functions could be responsibly performed by a human rights organization with any software that adequately provides the necessary functionality.
Since when is wanting more freedom communism or stalinism? According to you, apparently, it is. What people like myelf and Richard Stallman want is more freedom in regards to software. That isn't a communistic ideal. That's an ideal of aspiring to freedom. I'd call it Libertarian.
Interesting remark, since you criticized me for missing the point of the article, which you earlier said focused on "free" in the sense of price, not "free" in the sense of freedom. Now you seem to be suggesting that it was about freedom in the context of human rights after all.
For the record, a libertarian might well prefer a public domain package to the constraints of the GPL, or per Ayn Rand, might expressly prefer a robust and strong copyright system. The debate about the merits of FSF-denominated free software doesn't require either pro-FSF-ers to be communists, or FSF-critics to be rabid right-wingers. (For my part, I'm a primarily libertarian leftie, but an FSF skeptic. I actively contribute a lot of open source code that is in my lights legitimately free, albeit not FSF-free.)
Note that I agree with many of the ideals of free software, but only as something to be given by the creator, not as something of an entitlement of the user.
A funny quote from the article is "But just because the patent office granted this and other questionable patents doesn't mean the system is broken".;)"
It is tremendously important to understand that it is NOT the mission of the patent office to issue 100% valid and fully examined patents. Such an effort isn't possible, given the definition of validity. Nor is it even possible to issue 100% decent, not obviously invalid, patents. The cost of such examination would be prohibitive, and neither the government nor inventors would be willing to subsidize it.
A novelty search (which is all the office can do for the sub-thousand dollar fee it receives and examination doesn't review all, or even the best, prior art -- just what can be found with a decent, reasonable review of the search databases. Examiners in some art areas get quite good at it, because they become quickly familiar with a narrow area of art -- and in others (business methods in particular) cannot get good at it because the scope of their examinations is so wildly broad and uncategorized. The office adapts and does ok.
The system isn't broken, it is acting pretty much as designed. Some places it works better than others, but that is the nature of a human process. The question is not whether bad patents exist (they do), but whether bad patents cause more bad, on balance, than good patents cause good. While that is a reasonable question for debate, it is different from observing from the failure of a few individual examples the supposed bankrupcy of a system at large.
This is something like saying that the entirety of a Unix system is bad, because it contains a single design failure or because it contains a single bug. We know it has both -- and yet we use it because it is an excellent environment in which to work and be productive.
(By the way, tha vast majority of spectacularly whacky patents issue, in part, because they are deemed "harmless" or "mostly harmless" by the examiner -- and unworthy of substantive waste of government resources. )
It is one thing to argue that an author should offer his works of authorship to the world as public domain without limitations, or even with sufficient limitations to satisfy RMS that it is "free" as he defines the term. This debate is one thing, and I do not speak to that issue here.
It is entirely another thing to claim that the failure of a society or individual to do so constitutes some form of Human Rights violation. Frankly, to do so is inanely naive and demeaning of the importance and significance of human rights. It is entirely different to argue that something is a Real Good Thing, and another to argue that it is essential to the survival of a decent human condition.
If there is a case to be made for this proposition, the article doesn't set it forth. All it contains is a combination of turgid rhetoric, wild (perhaps false) overstatements and illogical rationalizations. The argument here is virtually indistinguishable from arguments that all property, real, personal and otherwise, likewise constitutes a violation of Human Rights. Fine, but that is a radically different debate -- and there are far more refined arguments to be made than are made here. This "argument," at end, is just sophomoric whining.
the twenty year term (from date of filing) was only recently adopted -- it was actually 17 years from 1956 until 1999.
The reason has nothing to do with "competing monied interests on both sides of the patent issue." That's just plain silly -- its gobbledygook. Both copyrights and patents permit the IP owner to assert exclusive rights against any prospective defendant. Every lawsuit for each is between at least two competing entities.
The difference in term has to do with the fundamental differences in the subject matter, scope and nature of the respective intellectual property assets. Patents protect underlying useful structures, mthods and compositions against ANY making, use, sale or offer for sale -- whether or not the infringer knows anything about the inventor's invention. Copyrights, in contrast, protect only expressions, do not protect ideas, procedures, processes, systems or methods of operation, and are not infringed unless copies or derivative works are made from the author's work.
DMCA was a very big bill, dealing with many things wholly unrelated to DeCSS (including sui generis IP protection for molded boat hulls), and with some excellent and valuable provisions as well. Most of us are more familiar with the DMCA anticircumvention provisions, and associate that with its great evils. Also relevant are the notice and takedown provisions.
This case, and hence the Judge's comments, deals with neither. It address the specific provisions governing when and under what circumstances an ISP may be required to provide information responsive to a subpoena.
Not a defense of the bill or the Congress -- I just saw enough comments indicating a general misunderstanding of to what the judge was referring to think that these comments might be helpful.
Oddly, this bill focuses on notification that you're buying copy-restricted music disks instead of CDs (which is useful, but hardly major), and only contains a few vague amendments to the DMCA itself.
I couldn't disagree more. Anyone familiar with the FTC Act is aware how fiercely labelling legislation is opposed -- and how powerful its impact ultimately is on the marketplace. RIAA vendors will NOT WANT their customers to have to compare CDs with "the big red label" or whatever indication is there with CD's without it -- Customers will be quickly educated by the media that the "big red label" is a bad thing -- and ultimately the pressure will more readily deter the proliferation of copy protection in a competitive marketplace.
The changes are not "few" or "vague" -- they virtually defang the entirety of the DMCA -- as you will hear RIAA and MPAA whine fiercely about in the months to come.
This legislation, and Zoe's earlier proposal is an excellent beachhead -- not so much because it will likely become law, but so much that the RIAA and MPAA will finally get the word that "enough is enough" with their stupid technology regulation bills. Eventually, the pendulum had to swing too far, and this is the harbinger that it has swing.
The only votes that matter here are thouse you make with your pocketbook and your feet.
If you find Microsoft's products and policies, particularly XBOX, offensive, don't buy them. I have no idea whether or not Hong Kong law permits this action to be taken, but it doesn't really matter. At the end of the day, if a proprietary locked-down box doesn't do it for you, say so -- FOR REAL -- and buy a box from their competitors instead.
I don't give a darn WHAT the EULA says. EULA isn't exactly a strong legal document
Of course the phrase "strong legal document" isn't particularly refined, so we could quibble about your menaing. But if you mean that a EULA isn't generally enforceable, and if legal obligations and rights aren't affected thereby, you haven't been reading the case reporters lately (or, really, for the past few years).
Particularly after the 7th Circuit ProCD case and the more recent Bowers decision out of the Federal Circuit, statements like the above are, at best, naive.
I think its more the fact that you can't patent the idea of a regular auction so whats the difference between doing it in New Hampshire VS. cyber space.
The question finesses way too many key issues to answer simply, and is something of a straw man. Suffice it to say that no invention stands alone -- virtually all great new developments are built on the works of those who came before, who saw farther because they "stood on ye shoulders of giants."
The difference that makes something patentable typically derives precisely from HOW it refines the ideas previously developed -- bringing the state of the art to a new level not only by pioneering new inventions, but also by technical refinements and incremental innovation. The Curtis/Wright planes would be useless by modern standards, but for the massive amount of minor technological improvements on what is now unpatentable technology.
Even basic things like . . . turning off on-screen font smoothing -- a resource hog on older machines -- can't be done.
Not so, this can be done to a great extent even by novices. Go to the General panel of Preferences. At the bottom panel, select the font smoothing style to suit, and turn off font-smoothing for fonts "smaller than" the size to suit your taste. Learning how requires no more technical gravitas than a visit to the help page and searching for "font smoothing." Much more granularity and control can be accomplished with just a little actual "tweaking."
But here's why we know this article is insane:
And because the APIs are closed, hackers have to go to great lengths to get their tweaks to work. . . . But to do so, their programmers had to delve into Darwin, the open-source version of OS X, to figure out how to do it.
This remark is insane, for reasons obvious to any meaningful programmer with a clue. According to the author, hackers have trouble tweaking MacOSX because of the need to use open source Unix code.
Yeah, right.
It is true that a new generation of "tweaker" is necessary for the next generation of Apple OS code. Those whose primary expertise lied with knowing deep undocumented subtleties of MacOS9 rather than general tech skills will find themselves disadvantaged. But the population of BSD hackers is far greater -- and the massively better documented open source code and free development software makes life looking forward far better, not worse, IMHO, for the next generation of OS tweakers.
Where a losing side pays a winner's expenses, it makes it difficult for poor folk to get competent counsel when they are plaintiffs. The contingency fee, with all its serious problems, is in fact, the only way many people of even moderate means can get justice. Without the contingency fee, only rich folks tend to be able to be plaintiffs.
I'd have to dissent from this view. Speaking to opposing counsel without representation can be very dangerous. Everything you say will be used against you, and admissions of a party are admissible even as hearsay testimony. While I agree entirely that early communications are a great idea -- and amicable resolution is the best result possible in these scenarios -- to do so without your own lawyer may be very risky.
Slashdot Mirror
By submitting to ridiculous constraints on their lifestyle by licensing and functionality; repeated quality of life issues imposed by frequent crashes, inexplicable freezes and limited capabilities; and ultimately staying doggedly committed to continuing in their plight notwithstanding any reasoned arguments to the contrary, comforted with the sense that all is right because their colleagues are also suffering, it is the Windowites who, to me, most resemble the cult.
Microsoft has managed to survive many tough legal blows to date and, despite a criminal conviction, seemed like they would survive with a slap on the wrist. Part of it was some tough negotiations with a timid (or well-lobbied, perhaps) Justice Department and a few states, and part of it was a well-oiled "P.R." campaign to good cop the new judge. Part of that campaign was a supposed, "voluntary," implementation of the settlement.
Microsoft, ever incorrigible, can't seem to help itself, and this is A REAL GOOD THING. I would rather the insufficiency of the settlement be realized in a practical and tangible manner before, and not after, the judge reaches her decision -- when there is still time for her to change her mind.
It is stuff like this that turned Judge Jackson into a Microsoft-hater, and indeed, it will have a similar impact on the present judge. However unlikely it was that she might reject the positions of both parties and ask for briefings on structural relief -- conduct such as this makes that one step more likely to happen.
For those hoping that she will throw the book at Microsoft, however she does it, this kind of news is the best thing that could happen. The Judge has the power now -- and Microsoft's bad acting is amazingly short-sighted.
I love when my opponents overreach visibly. It always helps me in the end.
I don't see any point in addressing your allegations that I was not being responsive -- it is apparent that as between us, we will have to agree to disagree whether or not you must confront the arguments I made. I will leave that to our gracious colleagues to decide for themselves how they feel about all of that.
You prove my point. It's the amount of damage done, not the street value of the copyrighted material that is the issue. Stealing the only copy of an original manuscript is quite different from copying an expensive software program or electronic book.
If you say so. The law, I am here to tell you -- at least in the areas in which I practice, is quite different. The theft of content is actionable in fact. Computer Fraud and Abuse, and comparable state laws operate on similar principles.
Again Taborsky is another case where the damage is important and not the items (the notebooks), but the invention
You are mistaken (except that it was about a material that can be used as a form of kitty litter). Petr Taborsky was convicted, among other things, for theft of trade secrets. Indeed, the reason he served time on the chain gang had to do, in part, with his disclosure of those secrets by filing a patent application based upon the subject matter of the lab notes.
What if he had merely xeroxed the notebooks, as more or less (apparently) occurred in this Star Wars case?
Same result on these counts at least.
Quite a different thing (assuming it was the university that got the patents).
Ultimately they did. Among other restitutionary relief, a patent was assigned to the U.
Suddenly you have much smaller real damages, and if I recall, grand theft statutes usually have a damage minimum in cases of non-violent theft--that is if we are talking about damage done, and not price of files stored on the media.
The fundamental difference between grand theft and petit theft is precisely the amount of damages -- not of the consequences after restitution, but assuming that the theft was non-recoverable.
Look, there is no point on going on with this -- I'm done responding here. You seem to think you know a great deal more about the law than do I, and I seem to think I know a great deal more about it than you. I do not know the facts of this case in any detail, nor can I predict the result. But assuming the facts are as we assumed here, I believe it is quite clear that you would lose.vvMoreover, the theft claims aside, the computer abuse counts aren't even close to dispute.
So, let's part friends or enemies as you prefer, let's see what happens. You bet he will go free on these facts, and I would bet he would be convicted, which conviction would survive appeals. So what? This isn't the forum in which that will be decided.
I agree to disagree -- this is my last posting on this thread.
Good God! I can't get through, can I? I'll repeat myself one last time: He was charged with grand theft, but committed no crimes on the order of grand theft.
:-) Seriously, you have it all wrong. The prosecutors have a far better case on the merits than your credit it. the value of personal property is not limited to the price of the media stored on it, and the case books are filled with criminal grand theft involving unpublished works and intellectual property -- primarily trade secrets. Such cases have been heavily appealed on similar grounds (Taborsky being one of them), and the defendants have lost.
Had you read my messages as carefully as you insist I should read yours, you would see that I directly confronted that position -- your response, not on the merits but mere gainsay -- does not lead me to forget the points I made.
Whether he had committed crime on the order of grand theft or felony computer crimes remains to be seen, and certainly time will tell. But the elements appear to be satisfied by the allegations, and though YOU don't think terribly highly of the state charging someone with this crime, as I noted in particular, YOU don't get to make the decision, either normatively or legally.
I don't know why this is such a hard concept to get across. Maybe you live in a foreign country where everyone charged with a crime is assumed to be guilty. In my country, America, just because someone is charged with a certain crime, doesn't mean that he guilty. We assume that person is innocent. We even allow him to defend himself with the proposition that he may not have committed the alledged crimes at all.
Let me get this straight. He was charged with a crime. You say that he must be presumed innocent. Hence, you conclude that an injustice has occurred.
The presumption of innocence does not preclude charging someone with a crime, or the discussion whether the facts, if they occurred, would give rise to the crime. You aren't disputing the facts -- you are asserting that the facts, if true, would not be criminal at the level charged. I am disagreeing with THAT point, not asserting that he is guilty because he was charged.
Your residence in a far off land obviously keeps you from any real understanding of the justice system. There are any number of prosecutors who "bend" the definition of a statute to serve their purposes. The acts alledged don't always fit the statute. So just because he was proven to commit the alledged acts, does not mean he has actually committed grand theft under the definition of the statute.
Personal attacks on me make no difference. After all, I am a lawyer.
My suggestion -- don't whine about injustice. Do something about it by changing the law -- if you think you can make the argument stick. But in this case, this charge doesn't seem to raise too many meaningful legal hackles.
I *DO* expect the defense attorneys to try to win on the ground that the property isn't valued grand theft. They may not do so well on that theory, but hey, its worth a shot. Time will tell which of us was right.
Hell, according the the newspaper accounts the only physical items that that the police claimed he had were 19 CD-ROMS. We don't know that he stole the CD-ROMS, or simply brought some from home and burned him. Anyway, $9.00 worth of CD-ROMS is not grand theft under the statute.
So you say. Who knows? Maybe you are right. On the other hand, a prosecutor probably thinks he has a pretty good case to file such an information. Let's see what the judge and jury say later on.
The rest is copyright infringement, which is handled under different statutes.
No, he was accused of computer crimes as well as grand theft? I understand that he is innocent until crucified, but that doesn't make your statement less false.
I read several articles, but saw none that made any reference to criminal copyright infringement (which would be brought only by a USA, and not by a state attorney; I agree that infringement is malum prohibitum, by the way). Were you just guessing, or did you see otherwise?
See, we here in the United States live under the laws promulgated by the legislature, prosecuted by the Executive in the Judiciary. We, as individuals, don't get to make it up as we go along -- the laws are the laws, and the penalties are the penalties. As I said, this is the system working as it should.
You are having trouble reading. I wrote that the crimes that he committed were on the order of petty misdemeanors.
He was charged with grand theft.
I am pleased that you agree that to assert either the linguistic or criminal argument that the conduct was not theft is incorrect. I am further pleased that you acknowledge that he was, in fact, charged with thirteen major crimes for his conduct. It is reasonable to assert that you think grand theft of this kind should be a misdemeanor and not seriously penalized -- though it is likewise reasonable to disagree. I concur that arguments what "should" be the crime are a different thing altogether.
Judging from the several responses posted here, I was not the only one who took your original message to be making broader and different arguments than this current one.
Still, even given the backpedaling construction of your posting that you now hold, I disagree:
Here's the neat thing about this -- the legislature gets together after getting themselves elected, and they decide what constitutes various crimes, and the punishments for them. Another politician, the governor, then gets to decide whether or not the law goes to far, and either signs it or lets it pass into law without signature. I'd be willing to bet the laws passed in this case passed virtually without controversy.
You can like it or lump it -- and indeed, you can think that things are criminal (or, as in this case, quite highly criminal) that are not.
But you know, at the end of the day, you don't get to decide for yourself what is and is not permitted, and what is the punishment that will be lodged against you for violating the law.
This man was charged with thirteen felony crimes. You don't think that what he did was all that bad. But if the elements of those crimes are proved, he committed the crimes. This isn't injustice -- this is the way the system is supposed to work -- indeed, precisely to keep people from engaging in unbridled and uncontrolled exercises of authority. If you think that the standard for grand theft is too low, by all means, speak to your legislators. Indeed, if you are correct, and he didn't do the deeds, or the deeds he did were not the crimes with which he is charged, then he will have an easy time defending himself. But please, for gosh sake, stop whining.
And hence the injustice.
If you say so. But at least we understand now the source of your concerns. It isn't the language definition of "theft," which you do not dispute here -- nor is it the legal definition, which you acknowledge here -- it is merely that you disagree with the result.
Fair enough, but that wasn't what you wrote -- you wrote that the crimes with which he was charged were not serious crimes, but merely petty misdemeanors. That, of course, was false. He was charged with thirteen felonies -- serious crimes.
Whether he is guilty of them or note remains to be seen, and quite frankly, i for one will wait until i see the verdict before calling this an injustice.
Are you proffering a legal or linguistic argument here? Either way, you lose. Per Webster's Third New International, "to steal" denotes many types of conduct, including many kinds of theft, including:
"To steal" might well denote the conduct complained of by a dictionary, but probably also denotes the conduct asserted under California law. Virtually every state's definition of theft incorporates (directly or by separate statute) criminal penalties for theft of trade secrets, for example, often denominated as theft.
In this case, as understood from an article snarfted from Google, he was charged with plural counts of computer crime and grand theft.
Hardly. There are levels of crimes. We don't punish traffic code violators like we do murderers.
True. So what?
With no real damage, this is on the level of petty misdemeanor.
This guy, however, is facing thirteen felony counts, with penalties that can lead to incarceration over seven years.
is that it permits instant experts to spout out about anything. Had Professor Lessig made the argument suggested above, to any extent at all, the case would never be before the Supreme Court, would never have gotten a word of press, and would not have had the potential to make a landmark change in the law.
The problem for our copyright critic here is simply this: the Constitution expressly authorizes the Congress to pass a copyright law. The unsupported proposition that the "right to copy" is a "basic moral human right" has no bearing in United States constitutional jurisprudence. None. (That it is also a meritless proposition is an argument for another day.)
Professor Lessig's "failure" to raise that issue is precisely why the case is now before the United States Supreme Court -- he bent over backwards, and properly so, to avoid appearing to make an anti-copyright claim. The Constitution AUTHORIZES copyright, but that power is limited, he argued. And he argued the point eloquently and intelligently, unlike the two-paragraph blather proffered by the author of the note to which I am responding.
Writing a brief for the Supreme Court in hopes of changing the law, something I have done, is an awesome experience. You feel frighteningly powerful until you file it, and then horribly impotent and humbled from that moment going forward -- even when you win. The emotions Professor Lessig shared with us are common to every advocate who is appearing before the highest Court in the U.S.
He fought the good fight, did a fine job of it, and did it for free. Win or lose, he was a hero -- even if you disagreed with his position.
Compare that to the purchase of, say, a laser printer. When's the last time HP showed up and demanded you prove, at your expense, that none of your laser printers were stolen from their factory?
BSA succeeds only when they have a case. Rely on advice of counsel of course, but consider saying "No" to or placing conditions upon demands of an unreasonable audit. Very simple, very straightforward. In most cases, a BSA plaintiff has no right to demand an audit, and if they go ahead and sue, and then lose, it is they, not you, who pays for the attorney fees, costs and expenses of discovery.
Even when you are losers on liability, because they DO have you dead to rights, a competent attorney can use certain procedural devices to shift the burdens to entice BSA to settle reasonably.
Bottom line -- competent counsel can avoid serious difficulties and unnecessary expenses in both cases. Make sure you are working with an attorney who knows what he is doing.
We are moving way off-topic now, but let me say this: Alas, it is not uncommon that one of our fellow geeks, knowledgable of the BSA bulldog style, will call the 800 number and "disclose" false allegations of infringement against former employers with whom they have bugs in bonnets. A competent attorney can deflect the BSA counsel quite reasonably and, using a number of techniques, deter bad acting or overreaching by BSA.
On the other hand, in cases where they have a client dead to rights, different strategies are of course called for -- and you are correct, they are not inexpensive to defend.
You misread or I miswrote. I defend clients against BSA claims of infringement.
But in terms of human rights organizations. They simply can't afford to be wasting time dealing with the BSA's bullshit. The only time that a proprietary product has a lower TCO than its Free Software equivalent is when you've conveniently discounted the cost of dealing with the BSA.
This is precisely the sort of demagoguery to which I earlier referred. Reasonable people may differ about the analysis in particular cases. Nobody can intelligently discuss these questions in such absolute terms as a general case.
It is quite possible that the vast majority of businesses have hired professionals who made radically wrong-headed decisions in this regard, and have been pissing away their shareholder's money for decades without complaint. You might well be right -- but then again, the truth might be rather more interesting, and certainly at least a closer question.
No doubt it is easy for us to put these freely available packages together to do what somebody wants them to do. And there is a modest community of related professionals in some locations who can assist to some extent to put that together for others who know where to find them and what to ask.
However, asserting that the TCO is identical, without more, for each and every application for which an organization is needed is ludicrous. To suggest that Disney has anything to do with this is sillier. And the BSA gives no problem, so far as I can tell (and I have a great deal of experience with defending BSA cases) to those who don't infringe.
All of this, of course, assumes that there exists open or free software that does everything that is required. This assumption, too, may be unwarranted. Open source is excellent for those who have substantial IT resources and capabilities, but may be of minimal benefit to those who cannot make use of the freely available code, or regularly hire those who would.
In my old consulting days, I spent quite a bit of time fixing problems that were created by building software "on the cheap" from rag-tag resources not suitable for the needs of the owner. Often, I would quote the cost of meeting certain requirements, and be passed over by someone who bid more cheaply, only to be later hired to fix the nonsense they purchased for less -- only to charge more than my original estimate because of changed requirements of time and resources.
My point is this -- these problems are complex, and cannot be reduced to a sound byte. Sure, "true believers" may assert, without more, whatever they want. Some may follow, to their benefit, while others may go under relying upon the preachings. The truth is far more interesting, and infintely more complex.
If you say so. Although I think your statement is fair to some regard, I think the tenor went to both points and was taken by most who read it uncritically to be the same. Most demagoguing permits such retreats. Many examples can be extracted from the article, such as the following:
He said that its criticial that human rights organizations use Free Software for their existence. Human rights oganizations are short on money and can't afford to pay the outrageous costs for proprietary packages, especially when they don't work as well or aren't as stable as Free packages.
Except when the overall cost of ownership and functionality is better using proprietary packages. I use mostly free software in my environment, but I am a geek who can configure and manage all it can do. I can modify it to do what it can't. Most volunteer-based organizations cannot afford mega-geeks, or even mini-geeks, and "their existence" may well depend upon having software they can use that does what they need, than using software they can't that doesn't -- whether free or not -- and whether it can be used by others to that end or not.
Total cost of ownership isn't the same as package price -- it depends upon a host of subtle factors. Free software comes with zero support -- this is an important fact lost on most people who can support themselves.
On balance, it seems quite clear to me that a human rights organization could both exist and be publicly responsible by using either free or proprietary software, depending upon its respective needs and requirements.
The accountability argument is signifcant to me -- I buy it for some functions. However, accountability does not require FSF-freedom. Rather, it requires the transparency that derives from open sources, whether proprietary, public domain, BSD or GPL. For things such as the monitoring and measuring electrions -- I would agree that they *DO* require open sourced -- but not necessarily FSF-free -- software. (However not every reasonable person would agree with us -- I could not even convince my local USA-based election board on that point). On the other hand, I see no reason why most automated functions could be responsibly performed by a human rights organization with any software that adequately provides the necessary functionality.
Since when is wanting more freedom communism or stalinism? According to you, apparently, it is. What people like myelf and Richard Stallman want is more freedom in regards to software. That isn't a communistic ideal. That's an ideal of aspiring to freedom. I'd call it Libertarian.
Interesting remark, since you criticized me for missing the point of the article, which you earlier said focused on "free" in the sense of price, not "free" in the sense of freedom. Now you seem to be suggesting that it was about freedom in the context of human rights after all.
For the record, a libertarian might well prefer a public domain package to the constraints of the GPL, or per Ayn Rand, might expressly prefer a robust and strong copyright system. The debate about the merits of FSF-denominated free software doesn't require either pro-FSF-ers to be communists, or FSF-critics to be rabid right-wingers. (For my part, I'm a primarily libertarian leftie, but an FSF skeptic. I actively contribute a lot of open source code that is in my lights legitimately free, albeit not FSF-free.)
Note that I agree with many of the ideals of free software, but only as something to be given by the creator, not as something of an entitlement of the user.
A funny quote from the article is "But just because the patent office granted this and other questionable patents doesn't mean the system is broken".;)"
It is tremendously important to understand that it is NOT the mission of the patent office to issue 100% valid and fully examined patents. Such an effort isn't possible, given the definition of validity. Nor is it even possible to issue 100% decent, not obviously invalid, patents. The cost of such examination would be prohibitive, and neither the government nor inventors would be willing to subsidize it.
A novelty search (which is all the office can do for the sub-thousand dollar fee it receives and examination doesn't review all, or even the best, prior art -- just what can be found with a decent, reasonable review of the search databases. Examiners in some art areas get quite good at it, because they become quickly familiar with a narrow area of art -- and in others (business methods in particular) cannot get good at it because the scope of their examinations is so wildly broad and uncategorized. The office adapts and does ok.
The system isn't broken, it is acting pretty much as designed. Some places it works better than others, but that is the nature of a human process. The question is not whether bad patents exist (they do), but whether bad patents cause more bad, on balance, than good patents cause good. While that is a reasonable question for debate, it is different from observing from the failure of a few individual examples the supposed bankrupcy of a system at large.
This is something like saying that the entirety of a Unix system is bad, because it contains a single design failure or because it contains a single bug. We know it has both -- and yet we use it because it is an excellent environment in which to work and be productive.
(By the way, tha vast majority of spectacularly whacky patents issue, in part, because they are deemed "harmless" or "mostly harmless" by the examiner -- and unworthy of substantive waste of government resources. )
It is one thing to argue that an author should offer his works of authorship to the world as public domain without limitations, or even with sufficient limitations to satisfy RMS that it is "free" as he defines the term. This debate is one thing, and I do not speak to that issue here.
It is entirely another thing to claim that the failure of a society or individual to do so constitutes some form of Human Rights violation. Frankly, to do so is inanely naive and demeaning of the importance and significance of human rights. It is entirely different to argue that something is a Real Good Thing, and another to argue that it is essential to the survival of a decent human condition.
If there is a case to be made for this proposition, the article doesn't set it forth. All it contains is a combination of turgid rhetoric, wild (perhaps false) overstatements and illogical rationalizations. The argument here is virtually indistinguishable from arguments that all property, real, personal and otherwise, likewise constitutes a violation of Human Rights. Fine, but that is a radically different debate -- and there are far more refined arguments to be made than are made here. This "argument," at end, is just sophomoric whining.
the twenty year term (from date of filing) was only recently adopted -- it was actually 17 years from 1956 until 1999.
The reason has nothing to do with "competing monied interests on both sides of the patent issue." That's just plain silly -- its gobbledygook. Both copyrights and patents permit the IP owner to assert exclusive rights against any prospective defendant. Every lawsuit for each is between at least two competing entities.
The difference in term has to do with the fundamental differences in the subject matter, scope and nature of the respective intellectual property assets. Patents protect underlying useful structures, mthods and compositions against ANY making, use, sale or offer for sale -- whether or not the infringer knows anything about the inventor's invention. Copyrights, in contrast, protect only expressions, do not protect ideas, procedures, processes, systems or methods of operation, and are not infringed unless copies or derivative works are made from the author's work.
DMCA was a very big bill, dealing with many things wholly unrelated to DeCSS (including sui generis IP protection for molded boat hulls), and with some excellent and valuable provisions as well. Most of us are more familiar with the DMCA anticircumvention provisions, and associate that with its great evils. Also relevant are the notice and takedown provisions.
This case, and hence the Judge's comments, deals with neither. It address the specific provisions governing when and under what circumstances an ISP may be required to provide information responsive to a subpoena.
Not a defense of the bill or the Congress -- I just saw enough comments indicating a general misunderstanding of to what the judge was referring to think that these comments might be helpful.
Oddly, this bill focuses on notification that you're buying copy-restricted music disks instead of CDs (which is useful, but hardly major), and only contains a few vague amendments to the DMCA itself.
I couldn't disagree more. Anyone familiar with the FTC Act is aware how fiercely labelling legislation is opposed -- and how powerful its impact ultimately is on the marketplace. RIAA vendors will NOT WANT their customers to have to compare CDs with "the big red label" or whatever indication is there with CD's without it -- Customers will be quickly educated by the media that the "big red label" is a bad thing -- and ultimately the pressure will more readily deter the proliferation of copy protection in a competitive marketplace.
The changes are not "few" or "vague" -- they virtually defang the entirety of the DMCA -- as you will hear RIAA and MPAA whine fiercely about in the months to come.
This legislation, and Zoe's earlier proposal is an excellent beachhead -- not so much because it will likely become law, but so much that the RIAA and MPAA will finally get the word that "enough is enough" with their stupid technology regulation bills. Eventually, the pendulum had to swing too far, and this is the harbinger that it has swing.
The only votes that matter here are thouse you make with your pocketbook and your feet.
If you find Microsoft's products and policies, particularly XBOX, offensive, don't buy them. I have no idea whether or not Hong Kong law permits this action to be taken, but it doesn't really matter. At the end of the day, if a proprietary locked-down box doesn't do it for you, say so -- FOR REAL -- and buy a box from their competitors instead.
I don't give a darn WHAT the EULA says. EULA isn't exactly a strong legal document
Of course the phrase "strong legal document" isn't particularly refined, so we could quibble about your menaing. But if you mean that a EULA isn't generally enforceable, and if legal obligations and rights aren't affected thereby, you haven't been reading the case reporters lately (or, really, for the past few years).
Particularly after the 7th Circuit ProCD case and the more recent Bowers decision out of the Federal Circuit, statements like the above are, at best, naive.
I think its more the fact that you can't patent the idea of a regular auction so whats the difference between doing it in New Hampshire VS. cyber space.
The question finesses way too many key issues to answer simply, and is something of a straw man. Suffice it to say that no invention stands alone -- virtually all great new developments are built on the works of those who came before, who saw farther because they "stood on ye shoulders of giants."
The difference that makes something patentable typically derives precisely from HOW it refines the ideas previously developed -- bringing the state of the art to a new level not only by pioneering new inventions, but also by technical refinements and incremental innovation. The Curtis/Wright planes would be useless by modern standards, but for the massive amount of minor technological improvements on what is now unpatentable technology.
Even basic things like . . . turning off on-screen font smoothing -- a resource hog on older machines -- can't be done.
Not so, this can be done to a great extent even by novices. Go to the General panel of Preferences. At the bottom panel, select the font smoothing style to suit, and turn off font-smoothing for fonts "smaller than" the size to suit your taste. Learning how requires no more technical gravitas than a visit to the help page and searching for "font smoothing." Much more granularity and control can be accomplished with just a little actual "tweaking."
But here's why we know this article is insane:
And because the APIs are closed, hackers have to go to great lengths to get their tweaks to work. . . . But to do so, their programmers had to delve into Darwin, the open-source version of OS X, to figure out how to do it.
This remark is insane, for reasons obvious to any meaningful programmer with a clue. According to the author, hackers have trouble tweaking MacOSX because of the need to use open source Unix code.
Yeah, right.
It is true that a new generation of "tweaker" is necessary for the next generation of Apple OS code. Those whose primary expertise lied with knowing deep undocumented subtleties of MacOS9 rather than general tech skills will find themselves disadvantaged. But the population of BSD hackers is far greater -- and the massively better documented open source code and free development software makes life looking forward far better, not worse, IMHO, for the next generation of OS tweakers.
Dammit, BUSINESS METHODS THAT CAN BE MOVED TO THE COMPUTER SHOULD NOT BE PATENTABLE!!!
What reason can you offer to distinguish methods that can be moved to the computer from those that cannot be moved to the computer?
Where a losing side pays a winner's expenses, it makes it difficult for poor folk to get competent counsel when they are plaintiffs. The contingency fee, with all its serious problems, is in fact, the only way many people of even moderate means can get justice. Without the contingency fee, only rich folks tend to be able to be plaintiffs.
I'd have to dissent from this view. Speaking to opposing counsel without representation can be very dangerous. Everything you say will be used against you, and admissions of a party are admissible even as hearsay testimony. While I agree entirely that early communications are a great idea -- and amicable resolution is the best result possible in these scenarios -- to do so without your own lawyer may be very risky.