But, even if China does create new silicon and computing hardware, the input data and output information can still conform to international standards (ASCII, HTML, etc.) Just because the information was created without profitting Intel or AMD hardware sales does not make the information bad.
Wrong.
It does make their bits bad, because in the Great New TCPA World BitMarket bits have to be tied to TCPA hardware and TCPA software, and anyone wanting to play in that game has to ask Intel, AMD, IBM, and Microsoft "Mother May I." Having someone (e.g. the Government of China) with the ability to sign their own bits would ruin the whole game.
Intel is pushing -- hard -- for TCPA/Palladium/NGSCB/whatever. The idea is to make sure that non-TCPA systems are completely left out of the information ecology. With Intel, AMD, Microsoft, and IBM on board the fix is pretty much in.
Or it would be, if nobody like the Chinese got uppity. Planning to go with non-TCPA software is certainly Not Part of the Plan, and could derail all of Intel's plans.
Thanks, and on the other side of the case, would it matter? As far as I'm aware, the courts have always allowed the copying of functionality/appearance, just not the methods used. Since this is a compatibility issue, I doubt MS would have a case anyways, unless the methods used to be compatible were the same as their patented methods.
No, the courts have become very tolerant of patents with vague claims. A recent (upheld!) example is the patent on a credit-card-sized PDA, which was upheld as applying to a non-credit-card-sized PDA even though the patent didn't even describe how the small size was to be achieved.
I found a copy of "The Heist" but all of the other (I'm told great) IBM/Linux ads don't seem to be available. Anyone know where MPEGs of them can be obtained?
The FBI (who have jurisdiction) don't investigate crimes with less than $25,000 provable damages. Well, that or $25,000 in campaign contributions. Either way, the blocklist maintainers (who all work pro bono publico) can't prove the damages, so the law effectively doesn't apply.
But if the logic is set up to be complementary, [-1.5V, 0v, +1.5V] won't, on average, the + and - current paths balance thenselves out?
Nope. You could provide a half-rail supply, but the transistors would have to handle the full 3.0 volts and that means they'd be pretty anaemic at 1.5 volts VGS
The big limit on device complexity and speed now isn't transistor count, it's power. CMOS and related gates have relatively low power because when they're conducting they don't have (much) voltage across them and when they have voltage across them they're not conducting (much).
If you go to multilevel logic (not just on/off) then you're necessarily going to have intermediate states which both conduct and have voltage across them, with the resulting dramatic increase in power. This is an acceptable tradeoff for charge-storage devices like memories but a non-starter for logic.
Hopefully these companies are seeing SCO's actions for what they are; an outright attempt to hijack the work of thousands of developers by fallacious statements, spin, and, at best, a tiny toehold on the body of work Linux constitutes.
I rather suspect that it had a lot more to do with the maggots and stench of decay that hangs around SCO now. Intel aned HP were just avoiding having the smell cling to them when the zombie is finally laid back in its grave.
My current copy of 2.4.19 contains 4,404,238 lines of.c and.h files. SCO claims that over 100,000 of those were copied from SCO, which would be a very large percentage of the changes from 2.2 to 2.4 if you leave out stuff like Reiserfs (who knows? Maybe they don't leave out Reiserfs), procfs, usb support, direct rendering, etc.
Daughter's boyfriend FUBARed his system doing a kernel compile, then really hosed it trying to recover. Using another machine, he goes online to ask advice on recovery.
He gets this utterly mindblowing response from somebody who has obviously FUBARed the same way, but knows the kernel inside and out. No end helpful, detailed advice.
Boggle.
So he looks back at who this masked man is, and it turns out to be some dude named "Torvalds."
<voice="Paul Hogan">That's not tech support, Mate! This is tech support!</voice>
Yuppers -- but it doesn't matter who it was as long as it wasn't SCO. As supposed "proof" of SCO copyrighted material in Linux, they're showing people material that is copyrighted by third parties who have every right to contribute it where they will.
Wow -- Darl really has gone into recursive fantasy:
"They said it was from another hardware vendor, but they didn't say who," Skiba told internetnews.com. "I think it's clear that they didn't mean HP or Sun."
In other words, SCO isn't even trying to show code that is under their copyright, they're showing code from third parties which was contributed to both.
If they try that with a judge, they are sooooo toast.
Flirting with extortion and RICO charges wasn't exciting enough. Now they're trying a shakedown of the US Federal government. What are the odds that someone in Congress calls up the DOJ and wants either evidence or heads on plates?
there are many in the community who would LOVE to do this, myself included (IANAL tho). but in order to do so, we need some sort of actual, specific complaint from SCO. until they start doing anything besides blowing smoke up people's asses, we have nothing to actually address!
Actually, SCO's actions so far sure look to my-IANAL-self like textbook cases of business defamation and tortious interference with contract. Any of those 1500 recipients who were Red Hat or IBM (etc.) customers who backed off in response would do. A "put up or shut up" TRO looks like a slam-dunk from my inexpert POV.
Don't forget that given the extensions on copyright, there are extremely few examples of items which would apply under DMCA and yet have expired copyright (or ever will... thus Lessig's arguments in Eldred)
Never underestimate the power of human greed. As it happens, e-book publishers are cranking out enormous numbers of access-locked works such as The Count of Monte Cristo, Hamlet, Moby Dick, etc.
Nope, it just means legit things like the iTunes Music Store and BuyMusic will have to charge more money to cover the licensing costs. It means that other attempts to figure ways to legitimatly allow users inexpensive online access to content will be stalled/aborted. It means that the RIAA and their ilk will continue to have a convenient excuse to go after file sharers because there STILL won't be a viable legal alternative.
It means that the transaction costs (pure economic waste) of "secured" bits get even higher, pricing "secured" bits even farther out of the market relative to rational systems like Baen's WebScriptions.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong.
It does make their bits bad, because in the Great New TCPA World BitMarket bits have to be tied to TCPA hardware and TCPA software, and anyone wanting to play in that game has to ask Intel, AMD, IBM, and Microsoft "Mother May I." Having someone (e.g. the Government of China) with the ability to sign their own bits would ruin the whole game.
They won't be able to take part in the global market because TCPA-approved systems won't talk to non-TCPA systems and the West will be 100% TCPA.
Or it would be, if nobody like the Chinese got uppity. Planning to go with non-TCPA software is certainly Not Part of the Plan, and could derail all of Intel's plans.
That just can't be allowed now, can it?
Prior art from 40 years ago: James Blish's The Star Dwellers
No, the courts have become very tolerant of patents with vague claims. A recent (upheld!) example is the patent on a credit-card-sized PDA, which was upheld as applying to a non-credit-card-sized PDA even though the patent didn't even describe how the small size was to be achieved.
I found a copy of "The Heist" but all of the other (I'm told great) IBM/Linux ads don't seem to be available. Anyone know where MPEGs of them can be obtained?
The FBI (who have jurisdiction) don't investigate crimes with less than $25,000 provable damages. Well, that or $25,000 in campaign contributions. Either way, the blocklist maintainers (who all work pro bono publico) can't prove the damages, so the law effectively doesn't apply.
Nope. You could provide a half-rail supply, but the transistors would have to handle the full 3.0 volts and that means they'd be pretty anaemic at 1.5 volts VGS
Ain't nothin' free.
If you go to multilevel logic (not just on/off) then you're necessarily going to have intermediate states which both conduct and have voltage across them, with the resulting dramatic increase in power. This is an acceptable tradeoff for charge-storage devices like memories but a non-starter for logic.
According to the given link, 17 out of 17 defacements are Win2K.
How does this reflect badly on Linux?
And that's out of a total of 4.4 million. Amazing nobody noticed, isn't it?
I rather suspect that it had a lot more to do with the maggots and stench of decay that hangs around SCO now. Intel aned HP were just avoiding having the smell cling to them when the zombie is finally laid back in its grave.
My current copy of 2.4.19 contains 4,404,238 lines of .c and .h files. SCO claims that over 100,000 of those were copied from SCO, which would be a very large percentage of the changes from 2.2 to 2.4 if you leave out stuff like Reiserfs (who knows? Maybe they don't leave out Reiserfs), procfs, usb support, direct rendering, etc.
[Slaps forehead]
Hmmm ... that's not the way I remembered the story. In the version I read, there was an actual Governmental sponsorship and with official cooperation.
Hmmm...
Me, I think Bill Gates should get the Nobel Peace Prize for bringing them together.
[...]
But I feel it should be written under BSD-like(public domain) license, putting under a GPL-like license is just wrong for this situation.
Yes, I love to pay taxes to develop software so that $COMPANY can appropriate it so that I have to pay to use it.
Either way, someone loses. If the $PUBLIC_SOFTWARE is GPL, then $COMPANY can choose to not use it.
He gets this utterly mindblowing response from somebody who has obviously FUBARed the same way, but knows the kernel inside and out. No end helpful, detailed advice.
Boggle.
So he looks back at who this masked man is, and it turns out to be some dude named "Torvalds."
<voice="Paul Hogan">That's not tech support, Mate! This is tech support!</voice>
Yuppers -- but it doesn't matter who it was as long as it wasn't SCO. As supposed "proof" of SCO copyrighted material in Linux, they're showing people material that is copyrighted by third parties who have every right to contribute it where they will.
Well, it's refreshing to see a karma whore be honest about it.
If they try that with a judge, they are sooooo toast.
Flirting with extortion and RICO charges wasn't exciting enough. Now they're trying a shakedown of the US Federal government. What are the odds that someone in Congress calls up the DOJ and wants either evidence or heads on plates?
Actually, SCO's actions so far sure look to my-IANAL-self like textbook cases of business defamation and tortious interference with contract. Any of those 1500 recipients who were Red Hat or IBM (etc.) customers who backed off in response would do. A "put up or shut up" TRO looks like a slam-dunk from my inexpert POV.
Never underestimate the power of human greed. As it happens, e-book publishers are cranking out enormous numbers of access-locked works such as The Count of Monte Cristo, Hamlet, Moby Dick, etc.
It means that the transaction costs (pure economic waste) of "secured" bits get even higher, pricing "secured" bits even farther out of the market relative to rational systems like Baen's WebScriptions.
And that's a Good Thing.
This gives them a nice out: they don't offer a "linux license" but they threaten you if you don't have a Unixware one.