Last spring, Mr. Spitzer sued Network Associates, which has its headquarters
in Santa Clara, Calif., asserting that the company's software included an
unenforceable clause that effectively violated
consumers' free speech.
The clause, which appeared on software products and the company's Web site,
read: "The customer will not publish reviews of this product without prior
consent from Network Associates Inc."
http://www.canarsiecourier.com/News/2002/0221/Othe rNews/018.html
Spitzer's suit also alleges that the clauses infringe upon consumers' and
the media's freedom of speech and fair use rights under copyright law.
It contends that by informing software users that the speech restrictions
are justified under existing "rules and regulations" - even though no such
rules or regulations really exist -- the company also committed an unlawful
deceptive practice.
But are these clauses really illegal under New York State
law? And does the attorney general have the right to bring a civil action
for money damages and an injunction because of it? Here's where close attention
to the laws is vital.
Pertinent provisions of the laws of the State of New York
give the state's attorney general broad powers to bring suit for what it
perceives to be illegal or fraudulent business practices.
For example, Section 63(12) of New York's Executive Law
specifically allows the attorney general to bring suit regarding cases of
"persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction
of business". The statute says, "[t]he term 'persistent fraud' or 'illegality'...
shall include continuance or carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act
or conduct ". In fact, under the section, the term "fraud" includes "any...
deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false
promise or unconscionable contractual clauses" and does not necessarily require
wrongful intent.
In the Network Associatescase, the claimed fraudulent
conduct is that the Censorship Clause refers to allegedly non-existent rules
and regulations. Even more so because the actual license agreement inside
the box mentions nothing about this clause and otherwise makes clear that
the four corners of the license agreement represent the entire agreement
with the purchaser. Such conduct is claimed to be "illegal" because it is
an "unenforceable covenant, invalid as against public policy," according
to the complaint.
In other words, according to the New York attorney general,
Network Associates' warning was fraudulent not only because it wrongly referred
to non-existent rules and regulations, but also because the plain terms of
the license agreement would have excluded such a clause, found only on the
box, label or download page of the software, from even being enforceable
and because the restriction violated public policy by creating a "chilling
effect" on legally permitted speech that would be beneficial to the consumer.
Interestingly, under cited case law interpreting this statutory
section, proof that Network Associates actually intended to defraud or mislead
isn't necessary. Yet, according to the attorney general, Network Associates
has shown this intent anyway.
In its legal memorandum, the attorney general said that
Network Associates tried to use the Censorship Clause to kill an unfavorable
review of its "Gauntlet" firewall softwareby Network World magazine,
allegedly invoking the clause to threaten the magazine with legal action
if the review was not taken down from the magazine's web site and otherwise
retracted.
Under the terms of this New York State law provision, when
the attorney general finds such conduct, it has the right to seek broad relief,
including financial damages and injunctions to stop the practice from continuing.
Similarly, Section 349 of New York's General Business Law
makes unlawful "[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business,
trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this State" and
allows the attorney general to file suit for an injunction and for restitution,
that is, the return of money wrongfully given.
As set forth in the attorney general's memorandum, the disputed
Network Associates clauses "unfairly chill the consumer's enthusiasm to enforce"
their rights.
What is particularly alarming about this statute, from the
point of view of a defendant like Network Associates, is that it also authorizes
a private right of action, allowing any individual harmed by the practice
to sue for as much as $1,000 and recovery of counsel fees based upon deceptive
practices prohibited by the law. So, if New York state were to be successful
on this claim, a multitude of individual suits might be in the offing, perhaps
even a class action.
Actually its not that "bash" fires up/bin/sh. Its that/bin/sh is a symlink to/bin/bash. You are exactly backasswards there. In terms of COM, checkout CORBA. Oh, and it exactly because Windows is a GUI driven OS that I abhore it technically. I want both GUI and CLI available, and both fully implemented. You just can't even begin to compare the limited GUI of MS to X-Windows and windowmanagers.
"Linux (as distributed by Linus)" is a kernel. There are no applications. There is no commandline interface, because the shell isn't there. There is *nothing* but a kernel. So I think its fair to call a working system GNU/Linux. Windows will boot without GNU tools. It is complete unto itself.
Um, no, in fact, if you are having to script the pushing of buttons on a GUI, then that is hardly even barely scriptable. You might be able to get "a bit of use" out of such an ugly kludge, but its not something to be proud of.
"similar to the U.S. Chapter 11-Reorganization"...
now if they were doing a "similar to Chapter 7" then it could be a "demise" situation. Reorganization under chapter 11 is a way to continue forward avoiding corporate death.
Yeah, like when my answers for my last math class were so very different. As soon as I explained my calculator used nonstandard algorithms it was all OK and my grade was changed. Good thing, too. Wouldn't want two engineers to have to get the same answer to the same calculation... and shouldn't PI = 3.0? Thought so.
"I fail to see how they can monitor Hotline transfers and discriminate between movies and other files [unless they're sniffing every packet that travels through a backbone and reading the header/footer of every file - yeah right] without some pretty awesome and illegal technology."
"Several months ago, GOBBLES Security was recruited by the RIAA (riaa.org)
to invent, create, and finally deploy the future of antipiracy tools. We
focused on creating virii/worm hybrids to infect and spread over p2p nets.
...
During our research, we auditted and developed our hydra for the following
media tools:
mplayer (www.mplayerhq.org)
WinAMP (www.winamp.com)
Windows Media Player (www.microsoft.com)
xine (xine.sourceforge.net)
mpg123 (www.mpg123.de)
xmms (www.xmms.org)
...
Our system works by first infecting a single host. It then fingerprints a
connecting host on the p2p network via passive traffic analysis, and
determines what the best possible method of infection for that host would
be. Then, the proper search results are sent back to the "victim" (not the
hard-working artists who p2p technology rapes, and the RIAA protects). The
user will then (hopefully) download the infected media file off the RIAA
server, and later play it on their own machine.
When the player is exploited, a few things happen. First, all p2p-serving
software on the machine is infected, which will allow it to infect other
hosts on the p2p network. Next, all media on the machine is cataloged, and
the full list is sent back to the RIAA headquarters (through specially
crafted requests over the p2p networks), where it is added to their records
and stored until a later time, when it can be used as evidence in criminal
proceedings against those criminals who think it's OK to break the law.
Our software worked better than even we hoped, and current reports indicate
that nearly 95% of all p2p-participating hosts are now infected with the
software that we developed for the RIAA.
the ferromagnetic NOT gate is a "completely new class of device" that could be made even smaller. The researchers have also created a 13-bit shift register by linking the devices together, and believe it should be possible to make a full set of logic gates using their technique
Note: this is digital logic without transistors, but with nanoscale ferromagnetic wire.
I read "stabilize" to mean that the apparent dimensionality quiet increasing at that low a temperature. It started at.8, and went to 1.6 @ 269 C, but what temperature did it start at? Would it be enough to keep the temperature controlled in a more "comfortable" zone?
I agree that the snowflake analogy breaks down. I think I'd paraphrase your statement that its about how we'd have to sum the edges to generate the surface. But doesn't the analogy breakdown because the pattern can't truelly repeat scaling down forever? That is, there will have to come a level at which the resolution of the molecules destroy the ever repeating pattern, like grain in a photograph. I didn't think fractals required a 2D object.
Carbon nanotubes are used to transport single electrons. The wavelength of said electrons are such that the dimensions of the conduit result in what can best be modeled as a one dimensional potential well (as taught in senior-level Intro Quantum classes via ODEs, as a way to avoid the math of 3D potential wells and PDEs). So perhaps it could be said that 1D does exist for very very small, bound objects.
Do they even need to get a current flow to generate their magnetism?
From the pdf link:
"The essential component of any magnetic material is the presence of an unpaired electron or more precisely, the spin associated with an unpaired electron. These spins, depicted in this article as arrows (a or b), and how they interact with each other determine the magnetic behavior of all magnets. Magnets are materials in which these spins are ordered."
Perhaps its all about the ordering (which could be due to the geometry of the molecular structure).
Note: the pdf file also states (towards the end):
"It is important to emphasize that magnetic ordering is not a property of an isolated molecule; it is a cooperative solid-state (bulk) materials property. Thus, to achieve bulk magnetic behavior for a molecular system, intermolecular interactions must be present in at least two, and preferably three, directions.
Its interesting that where we are looking at is (I think, perhaps) a non-bulk form of magnetism, and the statement is perhaps overstating a requirement.
Fractal implies a geometric pattern that is repeated at every scale and so cannot be represented by classical geometry. While there is a finite volume associated with a snowflake, you are right (I think) in attributing the "fractional" dimensionality of the snowflake to its geometry. Obviously the fractal nature is lost as soon as the flake melts. Consider the question: how doe we determine the volume of the snowflake without destroying its fractal nature? That is to say, what linear measurements of length can be used to calculate its volume? Note: weighing the fractal and using density also avoids the question of a geometric calculation of volume and would be cheating.
uh, it's Unix Live Free or Die! And GNU's Not Unix -> from here http://www.gnu.org . Hence it's not applicable to GNU and it's license, right?;))))
Well, am assuming from the wink you are kidding, but here is a thought. California is in the USA. Texas is *not* (even) California. Hence Texas can't be in the USA! (Which at least some Texans I've meant take for granted...lol).
Ok, I thought that was obvious...sorry. The freedom has to do with the ability of the software to remain in its state of freedom for users. Thats a globally optimized state of freedom, not merely locally optimized to one set of eyeballs, where the objective function optimized includes all users, not just one (including even users as yet unborn.)
...then what happens if I create a GPL'd media player that can use WinAmp plugins? Do all proprietary WinAmp plugins become GPL?
Not if they are just being used. It is only an issue if they are being distributed. I wouldn't have the right to distribute my propietary plugin with the gpl-ed player. However, someone could download both and use both together.
Doesn't distribution come into play? If I download GPL-ed software, I can use it "internally" without worrying about the GPL. Its if I distribute it that it matters. So if I write a GPL-ed winamp plugin, you could download winamp, and then download my plugin, and use the two together without worrying about the GPL. At this point the GPL says you are using the software. However, to distribute my plugin with winamp, wouldn't you then have to GPL winamp?
If the 3rd party libraries were proprietary, they could be dual liscenced. Then I could write software that used which I GPL-ed, and I could distribute my SW and the GPL-ed versions of the library. So could you. However, if you desired to produce proprietary SW you could. You would just have to use the proprietary liscenced libraries. That way my customers can experiece the freedom of my code, and the freedom of the libraries. Your customers pay to use your code, and hence must pay to use the libraries. Very simple.
Depends on how you define "platform". Java is a language. Many implementations exist and there are ongoing efferts to implement Free-as-in-speech Java. I sense no irony but rather integrity in the actions of those developers. Its true that to some the issue is related to a right way vs. a wrong way to do things. It is closer to a religious than a political unacceptability. Others are more pragmatic. Yet still, I don't think the desire to fashion a better world (at least in terms of software systems) is a function of politics.
Obviously Eric Raymond has nothing to say on the topic of Free Software. Checkout his homepage. He talks of open-source, not Free. Go to his sitemap, search for the word "Free", or even "free". No hits. Follow the link to the open source initiative. Search for "free" or "Free". Again, no hits. Methinks your perhaps confusing two different philosophies. "Open" and "Free" aren't even the samething.:-)
Sounds like you want to fork "Free Software" to mean no-cost opensource, and you appear to raise the question of whether merely using some Free Software occasionally should make you a part of the community. Interesting question. Apparently you feel the Free Software community doesn't support Free Software principles. Doesn't sound like your version of community has much in the way of integrity.
RMS invented GPL and the FSF, and the "community" to which you refer followed naturally. Not to knock the work of all those contributors, but the framework matters.
This is just software, not some great political movement like you seem to think."
Yeah , and "When a pickpocket meets a saint, all he sees are his pockets."
" I don't think the claim that sun are(sic)harmed holds water. It was their previous action that caused Microsoft to stop shipping the Java VM."
But that previous action to which you refer was actually a reaction to MS's "...extend, extinguish", which was an illegal violation of their aggreement.
Slashdot Mirror
What New York Law Says
Viper-mode gives you vi under emacs (and emacs motion keys work in vi-insert mode). Interesting blend...:-)
Actually its not that "bash" fires up /bin/sh. Its that /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash. You are exactly backasswards there. In terms of COM, checkout CORBA. Oh, and it exactly because Windows is a GUI driven OS that I abhore it technically. I want both GUI and CLI available, and both fully implemented. You just can't even begin to compare the limited GUI of MS to X-Windows and windowmanagers.
"Linux (as distributed by Linus)" is a kernel. There are no applications. There is no commandline interface, because the shell isn't there. There is *nothing* but a kernel. So I think its fair to call a working system GNU/Linux. Windows will boot without GNU tools. It is complete unto itself.
Um, no, in fact, if you are having to script the pushing of buttons on a GUI, then that is hardly even barely scriptable. You might be able to get "a bit of use" out of such an ugly kludge, but its not something to be proud of.
"similar to the U.S. Chapter 11-Reorganization"...
now if they were doing a "similar to Chapter 7" then it could be a "demise" situation. Reorganization under chapter 11 is a way to continue forward avoiding corporate death.
Yeah, like when my answers for my last math class were so very different. As soon as I explained my calculator used nonstandard algorithms it was all OK and my grade was changed. Good thing, too. Wouldn't want two engineers to have to get the same answer to the same calculation... and shouldn't PI = 3.0? Thought so.
......http://online.securityfocus.com/archive/1/30647
From scratch, clean room development will protect you from copyright, but it is no protection from patents.
Checkout the link in the previous story The Top Ten Physics Highlights of 2002, Highlight #7,Magnets open the gate to nanoscale logic , to see how nano-sized mangetic structures could be used. The hard part is going to be interfacing to this structures. These structures are *small*.Note: this is digital logic without transistors, but with nanoscale ferromagnetic wire.
I read "stabilize" to mean that the apparent dimensionality quiet increasing at that low a temperature. It started at .8, and went to 1.6 @ 269 C, but what temperature did it start at? Would it be enough to keep the temperature controlled in a more "comfortable" zone?
I agree that the snowflake analogy breaks down. I think I'd paraphrase your statement that its about how we'd have to sum the edges to generate the surface. But doesn't the analogy breakdown because the pattern can't truelly repeat scaling down forever? That is, there will have to come a level at which the resolution of the molecules destroy the ever repeating pattern, like grain in a photograph. I didn't think fractals required a 2D object.
Carbon nanotubes are used to transport single electrons. The wavelength of said electrons are such that the dimensions of the conduit result in what can best be modeled as a one dimensional potential well (as taught in senior-level Intro Quantum classes via ODEs, as a way to avoid the math of 3D potential wells and PDEs). So perhaps it could be said that 1D does exist for very very small, bound objects.
From the pdf link: Perhaps its all about the ordering (which could be due to the geometry of the molecular structure).
Note: the pdf file also states (towards the end):Its interesting that where we are looking at is (I think, perhaps) a non-bulk form of magnetism, and the statement is perhaps overstating a requirement.
Fractal implies a geometric pattern that is repeated at every scale and so cannot be represented by classical geometry. While there is a finite volume associated with a snowflake, you are right (I think) in attributing the "fractional" dimensionality of the snowflake to its geometry. Obviously the fractal nature is lost as soon as the flake melts. Consider the question: how doe we determine the volume of the snowflake without destroying its fractal nature? That is to say, what linear measurements of length can be used to calculate its volume? Note: weighing the fractal and using density also avoids the question of a geometric calculation of volume and would be cheating.
uh, it's Unix Live Free or Die! And GNU's Not Unix -> from here http://www.gnu.org . Hence it's not applicable to GNU and it's license, right? ;))))
Well, am assuming from the wink you are kidding, but here is a thought. California is in the USA. Texas is *not* (even) California. Hence Texas can't be in the USA! (Which at least some Texans I've meant take for granted...lol).
Ok, I thought that was obvious...sorry. The freedom has to do with the ability of the software to remain in its state of freedom for users. Thats a globally optimized state of freedom, not merely locally optimized to one set of eyeballs, where the objective function optimized includes all users, not just one (including even users as yet unborn.)
...then what happens if I create a GPL'd media player that can use WinAmp plugins? Do all proprietary WinAmp plugins become GPL?
Not if they are just being used. It is only an issue if they are being distributed. I wouldn't have the right to distribute my propietary plugin with the gpl-ed player. However, someone could download both and use both together.
Doesn't distribution come into play? If I download GPL-ed software, I can use it "internally" without worrying about the GPL. Its if I distribute it that it matters. So if I write a GPL-ed winamp plugin, you could download winamp, and then download my plugin, and use the two together without worrying about the GPL. At this point the GPL says you are using the software. However, to distribute my plugin with winamp, wouldn't you then have to GPL winamp?
If the 3rd party libraries were proprietary, they could be dual liscenced. Then I could write software that used which I GPL-ed, and I could distribute my SW and the GPL-ed versions of the library. So could you. However, if you desired to produce proprietary SW you could. You would just have to use the proprietary liscenced libraries. That way my customers can experiece the freedom of my code, and the freedom of the libraries. Your customers pay to use your code, and hence must pay to use the libraries. Very simple.
Depends on how you define "platform". Java is a language. Many implementations exist and there are ongoing efferts to implement Free-as-in-speech Java. I sense no irony but rather integrity in the actions of those developers. Its true that to some the issue is related to a right way vs. a wrong way to do things. It is closer to a religious than a political unacceptability. Others are more pragmatic. Yet still, I don't think the desire to fashion a better world (at least in terms of software systems) is a function of politics.
Obviously Eric Raymond has nothing to say on the topic of Free Software. Checkout his homepage. He talks of open-source, not Free. Go to his sitemap, search for the word "Free", or even "free". No hits. Follow the link to the open source initiative. Search for "free" or "Free". Again, no hits. Methinks your perhaps confusing two different philosophies. "Open" and "Free" aren't even the samething. :-)
Sounds like you want to fork "Free Software" to mean no-cost opensource, and you appear to raise the question of whether merely using some Free Software occasionally should make you a part of the community. Interesting question. Apparently you feel the Free Software community doesn't support Free Software principles. Doesn't sound like your version of community has much in the way of integrity.
RMS invented GPL and the FSF, and the "community" to which you refer followed naturally. Not to knock the work of all those contributors, but the framework matters.
This is just software, not some great political movement like you seem to think."
Yeah , and "When a pickpocket meets a saint, all he sees are his pockets."
" I don't think the claim that sun are(sic)harmed holds water. It was their previous action that caused Microsoft to stop shipping the Java VM."
But that previous action to which you refer was actually a reaction to MS's "...extend, extinguish", which was an illegal violation of their aggreement.