You are right, "double dipping" is not the same as "double jeopardy". That's why they have different names.:)
Double dipping is attempting to collect from multiple parties for the same damages. In many places its not allowed and most others it is seriously frowned upon as being unfair.
This is an example of double dipping. Two people together do $500 worth of damage to my property during the same act. Double dipping is if I sue each of them severally and attempt to collect $500 worth of damages from each (for a total of $1000).
SCO has already said that IBM's alleged infractions have caused them $1 billion in damages. If IBM pays up, they've been compensated for those damages and can not seek to be compensated again from others for those same damages. That is double dipping and would be considered "unfair" in the court of equity.
The concept of "double jeopardy" (a criminal concept protected agaisnt by the 5th amendment) has nothing to do with "douple dipping" (a tort concept regarding severally collecting damages).
"Douple dipping" is collecting from multiple sources for the same damages. Many jurisdictions have laws barring double dipping. In those that do not, most judges frown upon the practice and tend to summarily reject such claims.
Maybe... but I have a lot of faith in the collective power and drive of the open source community. When properly motivated (and I would say that would be more than enough motivation), I think productive output would be amazing.
Imagine hundreds, maybe thousands, of individual open source developers along with dozens of corporations working collectively toward one common goal: "Fix this kernel as fast as possible!"
It would be a coordination nightmare, but the amount of output would be absolutely stunning.
Its obvious you don't know much about the lawsuit. The coffee was near boiling when it was served. The styrofoam of the cup was literally breaking down and melting due to the heat of its contents.
The lawsuit was NOT about her spilling coffee on herself. The lawsuit was about serving an unsafe product that melted its container and caused first degree burns. McDonald's knew it was too hot and was causing injuries, but served it that way anyway. That, my friend, is negligence. Why is that so hard to understand?
The court system in the US is less than predictable, and often makes ludicrous decisions in favor of seemingly frivolous lawsuits (see RJR Reynolds, McDonalds, and KB Toys.)
I quote this from Snopes, which I found in my research before posting this reply. Barbara stated it better than I could have: Only rarely do ridiculous lawsuits result in windfalls for the plaintiff; these cases are almost always either thrown out or the judgement goes for the defendant. Some celebrated "outrageous" suits wherein judgement went for the plaintiff prove upon closer examination to be far less "outrageous" than originally presented in the media. (For example, the "woman scalded by hot coffee" suit, which at first blush looked like the height of frivolity proved to be a perfectly legitimate action taken against a corporation that knew, thanks to a string of similar scaldings it had quietly been paying off, that its coffee was not just hot, but dangerously hot. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America provides an excellent description of this case).
Linux CAN lose, and defeat in just this one battle would be disasterous.
Remember, IBM is being sued, not "Linux". Linux is a product, not a company nor an organization, and IBM is not a Linux vendor. If SCO won in its case against IBM, there would be a chilling effect on Linux to be sure, but I have a hard time seeing it as "disasterous". In the event that IBM loses, it would have to pay damages to SCO and... that's it. SCO would be barred from suing Linux vendors or users because that would be "double dipping". SCO would have been awarded damages from IBM already and therefore relieved of its harm. Linux would be fixed based on discovery and court records and life would go on. Granted, it would be an indelible mark on the OS and wide-scale adoption would be hampered, but I don't think it would be disasterous.
Linux, on the other hand, would be utterly destroyed.
I highly doubt it. There's simply too much money invested. Do you honestly think that the hundreds of companies, including goliaths like IBM who has invested billions into Linux, are going to just throw up their hands and say "oh well, we give up"? Of course not! Within WEEKS (yes, WEEKS -- not months nor years) Linux, like a phoenix, would be reborn from its ashes. There's just too much force behind it.
Invalidation of the GPL would mean that existing GPL'd software could be incorporated into commercial code without restriction or credit to the original author.
This is very incorrect. First of all, SCO hasn't brought the GPL into the lawsuit, only IBM did in its countersuit. In the very unlikely scenario that the GPL is "invalidated" for some reason, the software doesn't become public domain for Pete's sake!! That's just silly and wrong. The GPL only grants rights, it does not take them away. If the GPL is invalidated, then the GPL'ed software would have no license at all, and people would not be legally allowed do anything at all with it, other than perhaps use it... and I'm not even sure about that.
However, most GPL'ed software says that the license is something along the lines of "version 2 or whatever is the latest version". If "version 2" of the GPL is invalidated, there would soon be a "version 3" that solved whatever grounds "version 2" was invalidated on that would be applied to GPL'ed software.
Well, I think it was a bit of a political statement too... when's the last time you called the Atlantic coast the "right coast"?
Hunh?
Are you saying the west coast is called the "left coast" because it is leftest in its view? I think that's what you are saying. If so, its laughable.
The "left coast" a common phrase (yes, COMMON) referring to the west coast because when looking at a map (say it with me now) its on the LEFT. There is no political reference in the phrase whatsoever
I don't know why no one ever says "right coast". But then again, no one ever says "western seaboard" either, but they do say "eastern seaboard". I don't invent these phrases, I just use them.
Either is a fine target, and both have been succesfully sued.
Actually, that's not true. The RIAA has not won a single lawsuit against a P2P company since Napster.
Whatever your motivation, be it ego or advertising dollars -- take away your user base, and you no longer get any.
I think you are agreeing with me in a wholly interesting way. The argument that I thought was silly was "if you get rid of the sharers, the price of downloading will increase". When I made a joke about that, the argument quickly changed to "oh, I meant the price of P2P software will increase". I think that you and I agree that getting rid of sharers would make P2P software just go away rather than increase its price.
I understand what you are saying.. but there's one minor (read fundemental) flaw with your logic: The P2P companies aren't sharing materials; the users of their software are.
The RIAA shutting down the "sharers" has no (direct) effect on the P2P companies. The RIAA tried shutting down the P2P companies already and failed.
stemming the supply without decreasing demand means an increase in price
You're right! If the RIAA cuts the supplers off.. the amount that the downloaders are currently paying to get stuff might double... triple... maybe, just maybe, even increase a hundredfold!!
Then when the feds come knocking on your door and threaten your livelihood, you can just tell them to fuck off..
And why not? Journalists have been doing just that for a very very long time. Many of the freedoms you now enjoy have been reenforced by journalists who have stood firm in the face of the government and told them to shove off.
Off the top of my head, Near v. Minnesota was a major blow against prior restraint. Later, New York Times v. United States sided with the journalists in regards to the publishing of the Pentagon Papers. The list continues with Caldwell, Branzburg, and Pappas -- three reporters who fought for confidentiality in their sources and spawned many of the shield laws now on the books in many states.
If these people took your shortsighted stance, would this be a better or worse nation today?
As much as I respect you and your posts, I have to question this one. Slashdot has LONG been used as an advertising forum via its articles. Do you also complain about the book reviews (which are even more blantant -- complete with the BN partner links)? The answer might very well be "yes" I realize, but my point is that it should come as no shock nor suprise anymore.
The fact that Sun's list price is twice as expensive tells me there are people actually willing to pay that much.
Not really. No one ever pays the list price. The price is artificially inflated to allow sales people the room to give you "pal discounts" down to the real price.
It makes customers think they are getting a great deal, taking the seller for a ride, really pulling one off on the seller, etc... when, in reality, the discount was already priced in.
From the sounds of the parent posts, it seems like this tactic still works great.
SCO obviously has the ability to know what's in their own source as well as it's origins, I'd say that more than covers the reckless angle. If it turns out there's no SCO in Linux, they'd be hard pressed to get out of that one.
So, naturally for a libel suit there are generally three standards. 1) Did they say it? 2) Was it damaging? and 3) Is what they say factually incorrect?
Actually, you are missing a big one.
4) Was the statement made with fault?
Given the public nature of the parties involved, the burden of proof for fault is called "actual malice". Actual malice requires that the alleged defamer either knew the it was false when it was said or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of the statement.
This still might be the case in this instance or it might not -- I do not wish to hazard a guess. However, in this case, the simple fact that the statement was incorrect is not sufficent to prove liability in defamation.
No... most people see in 3D. This is a fact I'm keenly aware of since depth perception is something that I lack. I do have both eyes, but my brain is incapable of using them together to form depth-percepted image. The result is that my brain just filters out one of the inputs -- usually my left eye since my right eye is dominant -- otherwise I have double-vision.
The end result is that I can't throw nor catch for the life of me. Doorknobs are often hard for me when I'm tired. Stairs are hazardous to my health. I have to count the steps lest I miss one and I ALWAYS use the handrail. I've almost fallen on stairs twice in the last week alone. Bionoculars, red-blue 3D glasses, and stereograms screw with my brain's filtering ability and causes double-vision, so I can't use them either (unless I close one eye).
I can safely say that this condition is found only in a small minority of population -- or else you'd find piles of bodies crumbled up on the landing of staircases:)
Re:Big problem: Press Access.
on
Back To SCO
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It's only PR Newswire that keeps spreading SCOs shit around w/o rebuttals
Ah, well, fuck you too. Go ahead and ignore the word "copy", as in the salient phrase "You may copy and distribute the Program [...]", and go ahead and assert without support from the actual text of the license that "you" refers to a corporate entity rather than an individual, and that "third party" refers to anyone outside that entity rather than employees of it.
Enough with the language, already. Its childish and becoming a bore. You said you wanted to spawn a debate and you got one. We've all been very polite to you and you swear at us in return. If you can't play with a civilized tongue then don't play at all, little boy.
Having said that, I will respond to your comments anyway.
In the case of a corporate entity, I'm not making an unfounded assertion. It is long-standing law (with at least a century of precident) that corporations are legal entities. As some put it, a corporation is legally the same as any other person, except they don't vote and can't die. I believe that's overstating it quite a bit, but the spirit is there. Anyway, there is a mountain of case law that would say that a corporation (and its employees when acting on behalf of a corporation) are considered part of a single legal entity. Since a party can not be a third party unto itself (obviously), then a "third party" is not same person that is referred to as "you". Now of course, if an employee of a company is NOT acting on behalf of the corporation (that is, they are on their own time), then they can of course be a "third party". However, I was very careful to restrict my arguments to employees who were acting in the course of their duties to the company. During those times, they are part of the corporate entity and not a third party. This has nothing to do with the GPL specifically, that's basic corporate law.
I also did not ignore the part that referred to copying the program. I believe you are referring to Section 3, which deals with the action of "copy and distribute". This does not say "copy OR distribute". In this context, "copy and distribute" is a single action. It is intended to differentiate between distribution by copy (let me give you a copy of what I have) and distribution by transfer (let me give you my copy to keep). This is important since transfer touches whole different aspects of copyright law that the GPL truly doesn't want to involve itself in.
Having said all that, I still stand by the stance that because the hypothetical company didn't distribute, they are not bound by section 3 at all. End of story.
However, the more interesting section in this debate is section 2. Section 2 allows two different actions. The first action is "modification of a copy or copies". The second action is "copy and distribute", to which section 3 provides additional conditions on. Since this discussion on cares about modification, let's look at the conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
Okay... we'll assume they did that.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
They didn't distribute nor publish. Doesn't apply.
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (yadda yadda yadda)
Okay.. we'll assume they did that too.
That's it. That's all they have to do to remain complaint.
I hope that clears things up. If you choose to respond to this, please keep a civil tongue.
Slashdot Mirror
I bet we can answer both questions with an "In Soviet Russia" joke. Who's up for the challenge?
I'm tired of posting it. See here
You are right, "double dipping" is not the same as "double jeopardy". That's why they have different names. :)
Double dipping is attempting to collect from multiple parties for the same damages. In many places its not allowed and most others it is seriously frowned upon as being unfair.
This is an example of double dipping. Two people together do $500 worth of damage to my property during the same act. Double dipping is if I sue each of them severally and attempt to collect $500 worth of damages from each (for a total of $1000).
SCO has already said that IBM's alleged infractions have caused them $1 billion in damages. If IBM pays up, they've been compensated for those damages and can not seek to be compensated again from others for those same damages. That is double dipping and would be considered "unfair" in the court of equity.
The concept of "double jeopardy" (a criminal concept protected agaisnt by the 5th amendment) has nothing to do with "douple dipping" (a tort concept regarding severally collecting damages).
"Douple dipping" is collecting from multiple sources for the same damages. Many jurisdictions have laws barring double dipping. In those that do not, most judges frown upon the practice and tend to summarily reject such claims.
Isn't that wishful thinking?
Maybe... but I have a lot of faith in the collective power and drive of the open source community. When properly motivated (and I would say that would be more than enough motivation), I think productive output would be amazing.
Imagine hundreds, maybe thousands, of individual open source developers along with dozens of corporations working collectively toward one common goal: "Fix this kernel as fast as possible!"
It would be a coordination nightmare, but the amount of output would be absolutely stunning.
She spilled the coffee on herself
Its obvious you don't know much about the lawsuit. The coffee was near boiling when it was served. The styrofoam of the cup was literally breaking down and melting due to the heat of its contents.
The lawsuit was NOT about her spilling coffee on herself. The lawsuit was about serving an unsafe product that melted its container and caused first degree burns. McDonald's knew it was too hot and was causing injuries, but served it that way anyway. That, my friend, is negligence. Why is that so hard to understand?
The court system in the US is less than predictable, and often makes ludicrous decisions in favor of seemingly frivolous lawsuits (see RJR Reynolds, McDonalds, and KB Toys.)
I quote this from Snopes, which I found in my research before posting this reply. Barbara stated it better than I could have: Only rarely do ridiculous lawsuits result in windfalls for the plaintiff; these cases are almost always either thrown out or the judgement goes for the defendant. Some celebrated "outrageous" suits wherein judgement went for the plaintiff prove upon closer examination to be far less "outrageous" than originally presented in the media. (For example, the "woman scalded by hot coffee" suit, which at first blush looked like the height of frivolity proved to be a perfectly legitimate action taken against a corporation that knew, thanks to a string of similar scaldings it had quietly been paying off, that its coffee was not just hot, but dangerously hot. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America provides an excellent description of this case).
Linux CAN lose, and defeat in just this one battle would be disasterous.
Remember, IBM is being sued, not "Linux". Linux is a product, not a company nor an organization, and IBM is not a Linux vendor. If SCO won in its case against IBM, there would be a chilling effect on Linux to be sure, but I have a hard time seeing it as "disasterous". In the event that IBM loses, it would have to pay damages to SCO and... that's it. SCO would be barred from suing Linux vendors or users because that would be "double dipping". SCO would have been awarded damages from IBM already and therefore relieved of its harm. Linux would be fixed based on discovery and court records and life would go on. Granted, it would be an indelible mark on the OS and wide-scale adoption would be hampered, but I don't think it would be disasterous.
Linux, on the other hand, would be utterly destroyed.
I highly doubt it. There's simply too much money invested. Do you honestly think that the hundreds of companies, including goliaths like IBM who has invested billions into Linux, are going to just throw up their hands and say "oh well, we give up"? Of course not! Within WEEKS (yes, WEEKS -- not months nor years) Linux, like a phoenix, would be reborn from its ashes. There's just too much force behind it.
Invalidation of the GPL would mean that existing GPL'd software could be incorporated into commercial code without restriction or credit to the original author.
This is very incorrect. First of all, SCO hasn't brought the GPL into the lawsuit, only IBM did in its countersuit. In the very unlikely scenario that the GPL is "invalidated" for some reason, the software doesn't become public domain for Pete's sake!! That's just silly and wrong. The GPL only grants rights, it does not take them away. If the GPL is invalidated, then the GPL'ed software would have no license at all, and people would not be legally allowed do anything at all with it, other than perhaps use it... and I'm not even sure about that.
However, most GPL'ed software says that the license is something along the lines of "version 2 or whatever is the latest version". If "version 2" of the GPL is invalidated, there would soon be a "version 3" that solved whatever grounds "version 2" was invalidated on that would be applied to GPL'ed software.
Well, I think it was a bit of a political statement too... when's the last time you called the Atlantic coast the "right coast"?
Hunh?
Are you saying the west coast is called the "left coast" because it is leftest in its view? I think that's what you are saying. If so, its laughable.
The "left coast" a common phrase (yes, COMMON) referring to the west coast because when looking at a map (say it with me now) its on the LEFT. There is no political reference in the phrase whatsoever
I don't know why no one ever says "right coast". But then again, no one ever says "western seaboard" either, but they do say "eastern seaboard". I don't invent these phrases, I just use them.
You only need to be 18 to drink. [...] most of the 'drinking age' types can do it legaly
Hense the term "drinking age". *boggle*
Did you mean "legal age" or "age of majority"?
Don't think that this is a leftist kind of activitiy.
What in THE hell are you talking about? The "left coast" is another way of saying WEST COAST -- as in the west coast of Canada.
Oh.. an AC. I should have known.
Either is a fine target, and both have been succesfully sued.
Actually, that's not true. The RIAA has not won a single lawsuit against a P2P company since Napster.
Whatever your motivation, be it ego or advertising dollars -- take away your user base, and you no longer get any.
I think you are agreeing with me in a wholly interesting way. The argument that I thought was silly was "if you get rid of the sharers, the price of downloading will increase". When I made a joke about that, the argument quickly changed to "oh, I meant the price of P2P software will increase". I think that you and I agree that getting rid of sharers would make P2P software just go away rather than increase its price.
I understand what you are saying.. but there's one minor (read fundemental) flaw with your logic: The P2P companies aren't sharing materials; the users of their software are.
The RIAA shutting down the "sharers" has no (direct) effect on the P2P companies. The RIAA tried shutting down the P2P companies already and failed.
stemming the supply without decreasing demand means an increase in price
You're right! If the RIAA cuts the supplers off.. the amount that the downloaders are currently paying to get stuff might double... triple... maybe, just maybe, even increase a hundredfold!!
I just don't know if I could still afford it.
Ummmm... The FAQ you just quoted was from ConsoleClassix.com.
The slashdot article is about StarRoms.com. They are two totally different things. This article has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH CONSOLECLASSIX.
Then when the feds come knocking on your door and threaten your livelihood, you can just tell them to fuck off..
And why not? Journalists have been doing just that for a very very long time. Many of the freedoms you now enjoy have been reenforced by journalists who have stood firm in the face of the government and told them to shove off.
Off the top of my head, Near v. Minnesota was a major blow against prior restraint. Later, New York Times v. United States sided with the journalists in regards to the publishing of the Pentagon Papers. The list continues with Caldwell, Branzburg, and Pappas -- three reporters who fought for confidentiality in their sources and spawned many of the shield laws now on the books in many states.
If these people took your shortsighted stance, would this be a better or worse nation today?
Mao --
As much as I respect you and your posts, I have to question this one. Slashdot has LONG been used as an advertising forum via its articles. Do you also complain about the book reviews (which are even more blantant -- complete with the BN partner links)? The answer might very well be "yes" I realize, but my point is that it should come as no shock nor suprise anymore.
This problem, however, is beyond the control of Red Hat or any other distro.
Yeah, its a shame, too. If only there was a license that would allow people to see the source then modify/redistribute it as they see fit.....
The fact that Sun's list price is twice as expensive tells me there are people actually willing to pay that much.
Not really. No one ever pays the list price. The price is artificially inflated to allow sales people the room to give you "pal discounts" down to the real price.
It makes customers think they are getting a great deal, taking the seller for a ride, really pulling one off on the seller, etc... when, in reality, the discount was already priced in.
From the sounds of the parent posts, it seems like this tactic still works great.
SCO obviously has the ability to know what's in their own source as well as it's origins, I'd say that more than covers the reckless angle. If it turns out there's no SCO in Linux, they'd be hard pressed to get out of that one.
:)
It's real hard to argue with that...
So, naturally for a libel suit there are generally three standards. 1) Did they say it? 2) Was it damaging? and 3) Is what they say factually incorrect?
Actually, you are missing a big one.
4) Was the statement made with fault?
Given the public nature of the parties involved, the burden of proof for fault is called "actual malice". Actual malice requires that the alleged defamer either knew the it was false when it was said or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of the statement.
This still might be the case in this instance or it might not -- I do not wish to hazard a guess. However, in this case, the simple fact that the statement was incorrect is not sufficent to prove liability in defamation.
oops... You made a boo boo...
;)
Yup... and I mispelled binoculars too
No... most people see in 3D. This is a fact I'm keenly aware of since depth perception is something that I lack. I do have both eyes, but my brain is incapable of using them together to form depth-percepted image. The result is that my brain just filters out one of the inputs -- usually my left eye since my right eye is dominant -- otherwise I have double-vision.
:)
The end result is that I can't throw nor catch for the life of me. Doorknobs are often hard for me when I'm tired. Stairs are hazardous to my health. I have to count the steps lest I miss one and I ALWAYS use the handrail. I've almost fallen on stairs twice in the last week alone. Bionoculars, red-blue 3D glasses, and stereograms screw with my brain's filtering ability and causes double-vision, so I can't use them either (unless I close one eye).
I can safely say that this condition is found only in a small minority of population -- or else you'd find piles of bodies crumbled up on the landing of staircases
It's only PR Newswire that keeps spreading SCOs shit around w/o rebuttals
Well.. them and Reuters
If we're using Op-Ed as a synonym for "unsubstantiated bullshit masquerading as news" then fair enough.
:)
Nyah... Slashdot is the synonym for that.
Ah, well, fuck you too. Go ahead and ignore the word "copy", as in the salient phrase "You may copy and distribute the Program [...]", and go ahead and assert without support from the actual text of the license that "you" refers to a corporate entity rather than an individual, and that "third party" refers to anyone outside that entity rather than employees of it.
Enough with the language, already. Its childish and becoming a bore. You said you wanted to spawn a debate and you got one. We've all been very polite to you and you swear at us in return. If you can't play with a civilized tongue then don't play at all, little boy.
Having said that, I will respond to your comments anyway.
In the case of a corporate entity, I'm not making an unfounded assertion. It is long-standing law (with at least a century of precident) that corporations are legal entities. As some put it, a corporation is legally the same as any other person, except they don't vote and can't die. I believe that's overstating it quite a bit, but the spirit is there. Anyway, there is a mountain of case law that would say that a corporation (and its employees when acting on behalf of a corporation) are considered part of a single legal entity. Since a party can not be a third party unto itself (obviously), then a "third party" is not same person that is referred to as "you". Now of course, if an employee of a company is NOT acting on behalf of the corporation (that is, they are on their own time), then they can of course be a "third party". However, I was very careful to restrict my arguments to employees who were acting in the course of their duties to the company. During those times, they are part of the corporate entity and not a third party. This has nothing to do with the GPL specifically, that's basic corporate law.
I also did not ignore the part that referred to copying the program. I believe you are referring to Section 3, which deals with the action of "copy and distribute". This does not say "copy OR distribute". In this context, "copy and distribute" is a single action. It is intended to differentiate between distribution by copy (let me give you a copy of what I have) and distribution by transfer (let me give you my copy to keep). This is important since transfer touches whole different aspects of copyright law that the GPL truly doesn't want to involve itself in.
Having said all that, I still stand by the stance that because the hypothetical company didn't distribute, they are not bound by section 3 at all. End of story.
However, the more interesting section in this debate is section 2. Section 2 allows two different actions. The first action is "modification of a copy or copies". The second action is "copy and distribute", to which section 3 provides additional conditions on. Since this discussion on cares about modification, let's look at the conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
Okay... we'll assume they did that.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
They didn't distribute nor publish. Doesn't apply.
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (yadda yadda yadda)
Okay.. we'll assume they did that too.
That's it. That's all they have to do to remain complaint.
I hope that clears things up. If you choose to respond to this, please keep a civil tongue.