Please keep the facts straight. They are NOT defending them, they are representing them, making sure their legal rights are maintained, all the court room rituals are observed, and all the procedural requirements are carried out as prescribed.
Personally, I think some of them are liars, cheats, and theives, with no moral backbone or personal integrity, and more greed than anything, but the profession and idea is a good one.
Anyway, I suspect that we actually agree on most of the points that underlie this whole discussion - that SCO has no claims, because they have no proprietary code that has "found its' way into the wild"., and their licensing scheme is bogus, etc
Yeah, but I was enjoying having someone intelligent to spar with!:)
Their case is a simple contract dispute between themselves and IBM.
Yes. SCO is contending IBM breached their contract relating to who owns the code and who is able to release it to others. SCO contends that SCO owns the code and IBM was wrong to release it.
No, their case is NOT based on having the right to license the code.
Yes, it is. SCO is maintaining they are the owners of the code based on the contract, so they have the rights to license it (along with all other Unix code, evidently) and IBM can not give it away to the Open Source people.
The counter-suits, on the other hand, ARE based upon the fact that SCO does NOT control UNIX
Again not correct. The counter suits don't address SCOs licensing rights TO UNIX, they ARE addressing their rights to re-license code that has been already released under the GPL - as you stated.
But the suit isn't about that. It's a contract dispute with IBM over terminating Project Monterey. (my emphasis added to your posting)
Yes it is a contract dispute, and it may have been initiated in a fit of pique of the termination of Project Monterey, but it is disputing IBMs right to release code that SCO claims rights ownership over.
As for the GPL's validity in court, the courts have decided in its' favor.
Thanks for the link, but here they specifically state that that case was about 1) trademark infringment and 2) GPL issues. "The judge ruled that NuSphere can't market products under the MySQL trademark. Saris declined to get into the complexities of the GPL."
Hardly "decided in its' favor", at least in my opinion.
1) Supply and demand. When there are a lot of shares and few people buying them, the price goes down, when there are few shares and lots of people wanting them, the price goes up. So as more and more are bought up by this mythical entity, the price would rise and there would be fewer and fewer to go around to the people wanting them.
2) If you could buy EVERY SINGLE SHARE (including the holdings of the officers of the company) that was available to the public at whatever the cost, you would STILL have less than a majority of the outstanding shares - and may trigger 'poison pill' provisions for current institutional shareholders.
3) If anyone DID buy the outstanding shares and was able to gain a majority holding, they would have had to pay McBride&Co for their stock - so they would have already gotten their share of the pie AND WOULDN'T CARE WHAT YOU DID WITH THE COMPANY - just like they are not caring about what they are doing to the comapny right now.
Lawyres are officers of the court representing their clients interests.
They are not supposed to be "biased in favor", they are supposed to find and employ loopholes, inaccuracies, and ambiguities in the law in their clients favor or defence, but they must remain officers of the court first.
If they (lawyers in general, Boies et al in specific) put their monitary gain ahead of their professional DUTIES, that is when a problem exists.
What you describe is indeed a conflict of interest - the interests of the law firm and the partners in that firm.
The current situation is also a conflict of interest, between these lawyers' PROFESSIONAL DUTIES and their greed. (apostrophy nazis, did I do that correctly?)
Despite what SCO says, SCO does not own the rights to UNIX.
Their case is based on HAVING THE RIGHT TO LICENSE the code. That has not been determined to apply to Linux in a court of law. Personally I don't think it does, but I am not a lawyer or a judge, so my opinion is not germaine.
The term UNIX is trademark The Open Group.
TRADEMARK. The Open Group could sell the rights to the trademark to Microsoft if they wanted, but that wuld not give them (microsoft) the rights to THE CODE - just to the use of the name Unix.
Linux - the first and only post-UNIX operating system
Here is another possibility - call it LINUX (all upper case) for (in the grand old tradition of self referential acronyms) Linux Is Not UniX.
copyright is exclusively a federal law issue, so you cannot sue ANYBODY for copyright violations in state court
So far I have not heard anyone talking about copyright violation. THIS IS A LICENSE ISSUE, BASED ON A CONTRACT contained in the GPL - L as in LICENSE.
Yes, it is a contract between a (bunch of) copyright holder(s) and SCO, but it is JUST A (license) CONTRACT.
The contract states that if SCO does not agree to the contract then they can not redistribute the code. SCO did say they agreed with the contract and began distributing the code, but now they say they do not agree with the contract - but they are still distributing the code.
SCO is not violating the copyright, they are violating the GPL, the only license giving them the right to distribute the code they are still serving over the Internet, the license they had agreed to but have now repudiated.
The points to bring are:
1) The software is copyrighted 2) The copyright holder gave SCO rights to distribute based on the terms of the GPL 3) SCO began distributing the code based on those GPL derived rights. 4) SCO now says the licensing terms do not apply, BUT THEY HAVE NOT STOPPED DISTRIBUTING the code
Based on their acknowledgement of their need for licensing of the code in the first place (under 2 and 3 above), knowingly continuing to distribute without a license that allows them to do so is illegal and posibly could be proven to be deliberate - can you say punative damages? I thought you could! (although maybe not in small claims court - can punative damages be asserted in SC court?)
I am NOT a lawyer, so feel free to slap me down with facts - shucks, I might even like it!
Are you saying the Recording Industry (RIAA) SHOULD be able to rake off large amounts of profit from the efforts of the artists by (among others) price fixing CDs and charging the artists for "breakage"? Are you saying the RIAA is a GOOD thing?
Or are you saying that, if the RIAA went away, there would be more money available to the artists that CREATE the music due to elimination of greedy middlemen, more variety available when the marketing droids are not the ones dictating the bands and types of music being made available? Are you saying the RIAA is a BAD thing?
it is clear that even the original author of the Program cannot make it proprietary.
Yes, the original author of the program can not release it under one license, then retract it and release it under another. That is part of COPYRIGHT, not of GPL. In exactly the same way, the original author can not release under public domain and then retract it back. Give up rights under copyright and you can not re-aquire them by saying 'Do over!'
However, the original author CAN release under several licenses if they chose to do so. They can charge varying amounts to different people (free to schools, $1,000,000 to BillG). They can put varying restrictions on the licensure of the software (can not be used on weapons research, for example).
In addition, the paragraphs you site do not support your statement that "even the original author of the program cannot make it proprietary." - each specifies that it addresses redistributors:
We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will... (emphasis added)
Each time you redistribute the Program...the recipient automatically receives a license... (emphasis added)
Unfortunately, as soon as you mention that the GPL restricts licensees, you're off. There simply are no restriction to anybody's rights in the GPL.
Sorry, but that is EXACTLY what the GPL does. It is a redistribution license with restrictions and requirements.
If you want to redistribute (modified or not) copyrighted software (all software created after 1987? 1988? is copyrighted when created) you must obtain permission from the copyright holder. The GPL is that license to redistribute - with conditions that must be meet, or you may not redistribute the copyrighted work.
There are restrictions on the copyright holder as far as licensing their work - the law requires that the user must be allowed to make at least one copy for backup purposes if they chose, and the copyright holder can not restrict that in a licensing agreement, for example.
By obtaining copyrighted software material legally, you have certain USAGE rights, but NO redistribution rights. If you want redistribution rights you can either negotiate directly with the copyright holder, or if the software is GPLed you have already been granted the right to redistribute - with restrictions. One of the restrictions is that you must make available the source code when you distribute the software. Another is that if you can not abide by the restrictions then you are not licensed to redistribute under the GPL, therefore you can not redistribute the software.
GPL is based on exercising the legal rights PROVIDED by copyright law.
All software created is copyrighted - the act of creating it grants copyright under the law. The creator can release it into the public domain, but it can not be copyrighted by anyone else - it already has the restriction of not being able to be copyrighted again. It is hard to envision how something could be copyrighted and also more free than public domain - it seems to me that the only thing freer than public domain would be "not yet created/copyrighted."
The minimum of restrictions allowed by copyright is public domain - but there are still restrictions in place even at that level. ANY restriction - including the restriction that you must provide source code if you distribute the software - is more than that afforded by public domain.
Forcing the software into public domain would be forcing the software to have LESS restriction than it now does, doing away with the argument that GPLed software is "to free" - it has 'to much freedom' so REMOVE THE RESTRICTIONS?
As for the export restrictions: The lawyers will have to prove the laws state you can export the compiled program but can't export the source code - which I can't see anywhere I have looked - to have the GPL trying to circumvent the export controls.
My girlfriend got 2 inkjet printers - with color and black ink (starter carts) and USB cable - for $15 each. We have been using one for the last 6 months. Replacement ink carts. (full fill name brand) are about $30 for black ink, slightly more for color. When the printer breaks or the ink dies, we just move on to the next one.
She got 2 printers, 2 starter carts of black in, 2 starter carts of color ink, and 2 USB cables for about the price of the full fill name brand black ink cart.
I am not conserned about the warranty on these printers.
[I]f you use third party consumables, you void your warranty.
This is either not legal (I know it is for cars, don't know about other products) or should be made not legal as soon as feasible.
And this is a perfectly reasonable tactic, because you can't expect a printer manufacturer to insure a product that is using components who's quality they have no way of controlling.
No it is not a reasonable tactic. The printer manufacturer is not guaranteeing the results of the print operation, they are guaranteeing the mechanism that should result in a printout. If you use inferior ink, there is no guarantee that the blacks will in fact be black and not grey - or green or even purple. If you put motor oil in the cartridge, there is no guarantee that you will get any print out, or that the mechanism will function as it should, or that the ink nozzles will not block. However, none of the above actions should have any effect on the paper handling or the mechanical parts of the printer. Replacing the ink cartridge (or ink) and/or the inkjet nozzles should return the printer to full functioning.
If it were the case that "you can't expect a printer manufacturer to insure a product that is using components who's quality they have no way of controlling" then the warranty is already void if you use paper other than what is provided by the printer manufacturer - which is NOT currently the case, because again the warranty is on the mechanism, not the output. The manufacturer of the printer gives paper and card stock limitations and if you excede those limitations, the cost of repair is not covered by the warranty. It does not VOID the warranty, the repair is just not covered due to user error. The same thing should be the case for the ink.
Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty.
This issue had no business involving copyright law.
Patent = protection for 17 years. Copyright = protection for live of holder +, huge number of years for a corporation (95? >100? I don't remember - bunch more than for patents, though).
They were counting on the software on the propriatary chip (the software is copyrighted) to prevent others making replacements. Reverse engineering is legal, so the chip itself could be replaced with something else with the same outputs, but if that output included a copyrighted message that was required to 'activate' or use the cartridge the replacements would be infringing on their copyright if they included it.
Protection of their lockin for many years to come - to bad for them it didn't work...
Can someone explain, using small, easily understood words, why we NEED forty-eleven different cartridge designs?
The parent poster is both correct and incorrect. There are not centuries of copyright law interpretation which is firmly *against* entry of any copyrighted work into the public domain without the express indication thereof by the author.
For centuries (up until about 1988 ('87?)) if you didn't specify that something was copyrighted, then is was, by law, public domain. As you pointed out, AT&T failed to specify some part of their Unix as copyright, and AT&T lost/dropped their court case, with the court adding that AT&T would probably be unable to assert copyright over major portions of their own work - as they had neglected to add the LEGALLY REQUIRED copyright notices to their software.
HOWEVER, around about 1988 the law was changed so that no specific copyright notice was required - everything was copyrighted by the author/creator as soon as it was created. You could include a copyright notice if you wanted, and you could register your creation with a government office, but nothing was REQUIRED to actually copyright your work. That was automaticly included when it was created.
It used to be that if you DID NOT include a copyright notice, your work was declared to be Public Domain. The change in the copyright law also changed that; now the author of a work must specify that a work is Public Domain or else they retain the copyright.
So SCO would have been right in assuming that if the GPL was invalid then everything would revert to Public Domain - IF THEY HAD TRIED THE CASE IN 1986! Today, they are exactly wrong. Without the GPL to GIVE them the right to redistribute their version of GPLed software, they have NO right to redistribute unless they negotiate that right from EACH INDIVIDUAL COPYRIGHT OWNER.
They should be pressing for the GPL to be VALID, not invalid as they would owe thousands of software contributors for copyright infringment if it is not valid!
Using the scientific method would be analyzing the epidemiological evidence. Problem is that the "signal" of disease is so weak to start with (leukemia, fortunately, being rare) that looking for changes in it is extremely difficult, and firm conclusions can't yet be reached.
In addition, the "signal" of the 'power line EMF' is also being lost in the other radiations or disease causing agents people are beng exposed to - ionizing radiation, RF radiation, EMF radiation from other-than-power-line sources - as well as the chemical and biological toxins and unknowns - out-gassings from construction materials, household chemicals, industrial chemicals, industrial and household pollution; shoot, sunlight is known to increase your chances of contracting cancer!
[A]nalyzing the epidemiological evidence would be the way to go -- if there was a way to filter all the other factors out. Unfortunately, epidemiological evidence is not the best at allowing that kind of filtering, and at best can olny say whether something is 'probably' a causitive factor. True 'scientific method' would be to form a hypothesis, then perform experiments to test that hypothesis, changing theories or hypothesis as new data is discovered, and developing new experiments to test the new theories.
Epidemiological analysis is NOT scientific method, it is statistical analysis at best.
Let me put this risk in perspective: Do you use an electric shaver or a hair dryer? Do you use headphones? Do you use electric heaters? Do you ride a subway or electric train? Do you watch TV? Do you use a toaster or an electric stove? What these things have in common is that they all will present at least as much EMF as those power lines and in some cases orders of magnitude more.
Some problems with your point.
First, if I use any of those things (I do) I don't use them ALL THE TIME I AM HOME, while the power line EMF is pretty much 24/7 (except on the east coast where it has an annoying tendency to not be on all the time...;) ).
Second, if I use an electric razor/hair dryer/headphones/heater/TV/toaster/electric stove now, then moved into a house under a power line, I would probably still be using the electric razor/hair dryer/headphones/heater/TV/toaster/electric stove. It is not an either/or situation.
As a worker in a healthcare environment, I am most able to compare it to an x-ray Tech. When I get an radiological exam done - for example a wrist x-ray - I am sitting almost under the emitter head, possibly with a lead apron on my lap, but the tech has left the room and is behind at least one layer of radiation shielding. Why is it OK for me to be basically totally exposed to the ionizing radiation but the tech has MANDATED safety procedures to limit their exposure? (Oops, sorry, gave away the answer!) It is because I am getting a short, (relatively) high exposure (maybe like using an electric razor?), and the tech is getting long term low lever (like power lines?) exposures.
Point I am trying to make is there are two components here, one being intensity of exposure, the other being length of time of the exposure.
Long term exposure to high levels of ionizing radiation and RF radiation are generally agreed to be harmful to humans, but I don't know of any definitive studies that have been done.
Low level, limited exposure to ionizing or RF radiation is generally agreed to not have much effect on humans, but given the ubiquity of both, how would we be able to know for certain?
That leaves high level with short time exposure, and low level with prolonged exposure. You seem to be saying that high levels for limited time isn't known to harm anyone, so low levels for prolonged times won't either. I am saying "not necessarily, the one doesn't imply the other."
I do agree with your last statement, with the admittedly minor change of In the scheme of things you should worry about, EMF shouldn't rate very high.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that an African elk, or an English elk? :)
This are the same kind of people who defend ...
Please keep the facts straight. They are NOT defending them, they are representing them, making sure their legal rights are maintained, all the court room rituals are observed, and all the procedural requirements are carried out as prescribed.
Personally, I think some of them are liars, cheats, and theives, with no moral backbone or personal integrity, and more greed than anything, but the profession and idea is a good one.
Anyway, I suspect that we actually agree on most of the points that underlie this whole discussion - that SCO has no claims, because they have no proprietary code that has "found its' way into the wild"., and their licensing scheme is bogus, etc
:)
Yeah, but I was enjoying having someone intelligent to spar with!
Their case is a simple contract dispute between themselves and IBM.
Yes. SCO is contending IBM breached their contract relating to who owns the code and who is able to release it to others. SCO contends that SCO owns the code and IBM was wrong to release it.
No, their case is NOT based on having the right to license the code.
Yes, it is. SCO is maintaining they are the owners of the code based on the contract, so they have the rights to license it (along with all other Unix code, evidently) and IBM can not give it away to the Open Source people.
The counter-suits, on the other hand, ARE based upon the fact that SCO does NOT control UNIX
Again not correct. The counter suits don't address SCOs licensing rights TO UNIX, they ARE addressing their rights to re-license code that has been already released under the GPL - as you stated.
But the suit isn't about that. It's a contract dispute with IBM over terminating Project Monterey. (my emphasis added to your posting)
Yes it is a contract dispute, and it may have been initiated in a fit of pique of the termination of Project Monterey, but it is disputing IBMs right to release code that SCO claims rights ownership over.
As for the GPL's validity in court, the courts have decided in its' favor.
Thanks for the link, but here they specifically state that that case was about 1) trademark infringment and 2) GPL issues. "The judge ruled that NuSphere can't market products under the MySQL trademark. Saris declined to get into the complexities of the GPL."
Hardly "decided in its' favor", at least in my opinion.
Three things:
1) Supply and demand. When there are a lot of shares and few people buying them, the price goes down, when there are few shares and lots of people wanting them, the price goes up. So as more and more are bought up by this mythical entity, the price would rise and there would be fewer and fewer to go around to the people wanting them.
2) If you could buy EVERY SINGLE SHARE (including the holdings of the officers of the company) that was available to the public at whatever the cost, you would STILL have less than a majority of the outstanding shares - and may trigger 'poison pill' provisions for current institutional shareholders.
3) If anyone DID buy the outstanding shares and was able to gain a majority holding, they would have had to pay McBride&Co for their stock - so they would have already gotten their share of the pie AND WOULDN'T CARE WHAT YOU DID WITH THE COMPANY - just like they are not caring about what they are doing to the comapny right now.
Seriously, there HAS to be a conspiracy theory in here somewhere.
With all the horse sh*t flying from SCO, personally I am expecting a pony...
Again, almost correct.
Lawyres are officers of the court representing their clients interests.
They are not supposed to be "biased in favor", they are supposed to find and employ loopholes, inaccuracies, and ambiguities in the law in their clients favor or defence, but they must remain officers of the court first.
If they (lawyers in general, Boies et al in specific) put their monitary gain ahead of their professional DUTIES, that is when a problem exists.
Yes.
And no.
What you describe is indeed a conflict of interest - the interests of the law firm and the partners in that firm.
The current situation is also a conflict of interest, between these lawyers' PROFESSIONAL DUTIES and their greed. (apostrophy nazis, did I do that correctly?)
Let's try again.
Good idea.
Despite what SCO says, SCO does not own the rights to UNIX.
Their case is based on HAVING THE RIGHT TO LICENSE the code. That has not been determined to apply to Linux in a court of law. Personally I don't think it does, but I am not a lawyer or a judge, so my opinion is not germaine.
The term UNIX is trademark The Open Group.
TRADEMARK. The Open Group could sell the rights to the trademark to Microsoft if they wanted, but that wuld not give them (microsoft) the rights to THE CODE - just to the use of the name Unix.
Linux - the first and only post-UNIX operating system
Here is another possibility - call it LINUX (all upper case) for (in the grand old tradition of self referential acronyms) Linux Is Not UniX.
copyright is exclusively a federal law issue, so you cannot sue ANYBODY for copyright violations in state court
So far I have not heard anyone talking about copyright violation. THIS IS A LICENSE ISSUE, BASED ON A CONTRACT contained in the GPL - L as in LICENSE.
Yes, it is a contract between a (bunch of) copyright holder(s) and SCO, but it is JUST A (license) CONTRACT.
The contract states that if SCO does not agree to the contract then they can not redistribute the code. SCO did say they agreed with the contract and began distributing the code, but now they say they do not agree with the contract - but they are still distributing the code.
SCO is not violating the copyright, they are violating the GPL, the only license giving them the right to distribute the code they are still serving over the Internet, the license they had agreed to but have now repudiated.
The points to bring are:
1) The software is copyrighted
2) The copyright holder gave SCO rights to distribute based on the terms of the GPL
3) SCO began distributing the code based on those GPL derived rights.
4) SCO now says the licensing terms do not apply, BUT THEY HAVE NOT STOPPED DISTRIBUTING the code
Based on their acknowledgement of their need for licensing of the code in the first place (under 2 and 3 above), knowingly continuing to distribute without a license that allows them to do so is illegal and posibly could be proven to be deliberate - can you say punative damages? I thought you could! (although maybe not in small claims court - can punative damages be asserted in SC court?)
I am NOT a lawyer, so feel free to slap me down with facts - shucks, I might even like it!
I am not understanding what you are meaning.
Are you saying the Recording Industry (RIAA) SHOULD be able to rake off large amounts of profit from the efforts of the artists by (among others) price fixing CDs and charging the artists for "breakage"? Are you saying the RIAA is a GOOD thing?
Or are you saying that, if the RIAA went away, there would be more money available to the artists that CREATE the music due to elimination of greedy middlemen, more variety available when the marketing droids are not the ones dictating the bands and types of music being made available? Are you saying the RIAA is a BAD thing?
Boies and pals can get the iron supplements too.
You spelled 'suppositories' wrong...
it is clear that even the original author of the Program cannot make it proprietary.
... (emphasis added)
...the recipient automatically receives a license ... (emphasis added)
Yes, the original author of the program can not release it under one license, then retract it and release it under another. That is part of COPYRIGHT, not of GPL. In exactly the same way, the original author can not release under public domain and then retract it back. Give up rights under copyright and you can not re-aquire them by saying 'Do over!'
However, the original author CAN release under several licenses if they chose to do so. They can charge varying amounts to different people (free to schools, $1,000,000 to BillG). They can put varying restrictions on the licensure of the software (can not be used on weapons research, for example).
In addition, the paragraphs you site do not support your statement that "even the original author of the program cannot make it proprietary." - each specifies that it addresses redistributors:
We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will
Each time you redistribute the Program
Unfortunately, as soon as you mention that the GPL restricts licensees, you're off. There simply are no restriction to anybody's rights in the GPL.
Sorry, but that is EXACTLY what the GPL does. It is a redistribution license with restrictions and requirements.
If you want to redistribute (modified or not) copyrighted software (all software created after 1987? 1988? is copyrighted when created) you must obtain permission from the copyright holder. The GPL is that license to redistribute - with conditions that must be meet, or you may not redistribute the copyrighted work.
There are restrictions on the copyright holder as far as licensing their work - the law requires that the user must be allowed to make at least one copy for backup purposes if they chose, and the copyright holder can not restrict that in a licensing agreement, for example.
By obtaining copyrighted software material legally, you have certain USAGE rights, but NO redistribution rights. If you want redistribution rights you can either negotiate directly with the copyright holder, or if the software is GPLed you have already been granted the right to redistribute - with restrictions. One of the restrictions is that you must make available the source code when you distribute the software. Another is that if you can not abide by the restrictions then you are not licensed to redistribute under the GPL, therefore you can not redistribute the software.
EXACTLY!!!
GPL is based on exercising the legal rights PROVIDED by copyright law.
All software created is copyrighted - the act of creating it grants copyright under the law. The creator can release it into the public domain, but it can not be copyrighted by anyone else - it already has the restriction of not being able to be copyrighted again. It is hard to envision how something could be copyrighted and also more free than public domain - it seems to me that the only thing freer than public domain would be "not yet created/copyrighted."
The minimum of restrictions allowed by copyright is public domain - but there are still restrictions in place even at that level. ANY restriction - including the restriction that you must provide source code if you distribute the software - is more than that afforded by public domain.
Forcing the software into public domain would be forcing the software to have LESS restriction than it now does, doing away with the argument that GPLed software is "to free" - it has 'to much freedom' so REMOVE THE RESTRICTIONS?
As for the export restrictions: The lawyers will have to prove the laws state you can export the compiled program but can't export the source code - which I can't see anywhere I have looked - to have the GPL trying to circumvent the export controls.
More SCO FUD and lies.
My girlfriend got 2 inkjet printers - with color and black ink (starter carts) and USB cable - for $15 each. We have been using one for the last 6 months. Replacement ink carts. (full fill name brand) are about $30 for black ink, slightly more for color. When the printer breaks or the ink dies, we just move on to the next one.
She got 2 printers, 2 starter carts of black in, 2 starter carts of color ink, and 2 USB cables for about the price of the full fill name brand black ink cart.
I am not conserned about the warranty on these printers.
Thanks for the correction. I don't keep up on this stuff as much as I used to...
I did think, though there was two time periods, one from filing, one from issuance, or something like that.
[I]f you use third party consumables, you void your warranty.
This is either not legal (I know it is for cars, don't know about other products) or should be made not legal as soon as feasible.
And this is a perfectly reasonable tactic, because you can't expect a printer manufacturer to insure a product that is using components who's quality they have no way of controlling.
No it is not a reasonable tactic. The printer manufacturer is not guaranteeing the results of the print operation, they are guaranteeing the mechanism that should result in a printout. If you use inferior ink, there is no guarantee that the blacks will in fact be black and not grey - or green or even purple. If you put motor oil in the cartridge, there is no guarantee that you will get any print out, or that the mechanism will function as it should, or that the ink nozzles will not block. However, none of the above actions should have any effect on the paper handling or the mechanical parts of the printer. Replacing the ink cartridge (or ink) and/or the inkjet nozzles should return the printer to full functioning.
If it were the case that "you can't expect a printer manufacturer to insure a product that is using components who's quality they have no way of controlling" then the warranty is already void if you use paper other than what is provided by the printer manufacturer - which is NOT currently the case, because again the warranty is on the mechanism, not the output. The manufacturer of the printer gives paper and card stock limitations and if you excede those limitations, the cost of repair is not covered by the warranty. It does not VOID the warranty, the repair is just not covered due to user error. The same thing should be the case for the ink.
Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty.
I think I have just discovered my next sig!
This issue had no business involving copyright law.
Patent = protection for 17 years.
Copyright = protection for live of holder +, huge number of years for a corporation (95? >100? I don't remember - bunch more than for patents, though).
They were counting on the software on the propriatary chip (the software is copyrighted) to prevent others making replacements. Reverse engineering is legal, so the chip itself could be replaced with something else with the same outputs, but if that output included a copyrighted message that was required to 'activate' or use the cartridge the replacements would be infringing on their copyright if they included it.
Protection of their lockin for many years to come - to bad for them it didn't work...
Can someone explain, using small, easily understood words, why we NEED forty-eleven different cartridge designs?
Redhat.
//distro.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/distributions/redha t/beta/mustang/
One of the links showing (perporting to show?) prior art from as much as 18 months before the filing of the patent application shows the being used.
/. won't allow the original example to print - the browser interprets it.)
[embed type="application/eqn"]2 pi int sin (omega t)dt [/embed] (original used the angle brackets instead of [] correctly,
Looks to me like BOTH Nescape AND Eolas copied from that earlier source - gee where have we heard that *cough*SCO,Linux*cough* before?
Naw, it is not a 'Microsoft' thing, it is a 'right vs wrong' thing.
Microsoft is wrong to use its monopoly position in desktop OSs to further its market share in other areas.
Microsoft is wrong to fire someone for posting an innocent picture on an obscure weblog.
Eolas is wrong to try to enforce an invalid patent.
In soviet Russia, Natalie Portman is wrong to have a Beowulf cluster of grits for profit!
SCO is wrong to keep smoking that stuff and not sharing...
The parent poster is both correct and incorrect. There are not centuries of copyright law interpretation which is firmly *against* entry of any copyrighted work into the public domain without the express indication thereof by the author.
For centuries (up until about 1988 ('87?)) if you didn't specify that something was copyrighted, then is was, by law, public domain. As you pointed out, AT&T failed to specify some part of their Unix as copyright, and AT&T lost/dropped their court case, with the court adding that AT&T would probably be unable to assert copyright over major portions of their own work - as they had neglected to add the LEGALLY REQUIRED copyright notices to their software.
HOWEVER, around about 1988 the law was changed so that no specific copyright notice was required - everything was copyrighted by the author/creator as soon as it was created. You could include a copyright notice if you wanted, and you could register your creation with a government office, but nothing was REQUIRED to actually copyright your work. That was automaticly included when it was created.
It used to be that if you DID NOT include a copyright notice, your work was declared to be Public Domain. The change in the copyright law also changed that; now the author of a work must specify that a work is Public Domain or else they retain the copyright.
So SCO would have been right in assuming that if the GPL was invalid then everything would revert to Public Domain - IF THEY HAD TRIED THE CASE IN 1986! Today, they are exactly wrong. Without the GPL to GIVE them the right to redistribute their version of GPLed software, they have NO right to redistribute unless they negotiate that right from EACH INDIVIDUAL COPYRIGHT OWNER.
They should be pressing for the GPL to be VALID, not invalid as they would owe thousands of software contributors for copyright infringment if it is not valid!
Using the scientific method would be analyzing the epidemiological evidence. Problem is that the "signal" of disease is so weak to start with (leukemia, fortunately, being rare) that looking for changes in it is extremely difficult, and firm conclusions can't yet be reached.
In addition, the "signal" of the 'power line EMF' is also being lost in the other radiations or disease causing agents people are beng exposed to - ionizing radiation, RF radiation, EMF radiation from other-than-power-line sources - as well as the chemical and biological toxins and unknowns - out-gassings from construction materials, household chemicals, industrial chemicals, industrial and household pollution; shoot, sunlight is known to increase your chances of contracting cancer!
[A]nalyzing the epidemiological evidence would be the way to go -- if there was a way to filter all the other factors out. Unfortunately, epidemiological evidence is not the best at allowing that kind of filtering, and at best can olny say whether something is 'probably' a causitive factor. True 'scientific method' would be to form a hypothesis, then perform experiments to test that hypothesis, changing theories or hypothesis as new data is discovered, and developing new experiments to test the new theories.
Epidemiological analysis is NOT scientific method, it is statistical analysis at best.
Let me put this risk in perspective: Do you use an electric shaver or a hair dryer? Do you use headphones? Do you use electric heaters? Do you ride a subway or electric train? Do you watch TV? Do you use a toaster or an electric stove? What these things have in common is that they all will present at least as much EMF as those power lines and in some cases orders of magnitude more.
;) ).
/hair dryer/headphones/heater/TV/toaster/electric stove. It is not an either/or situation.
Some problems with your point.
First, if I use any of those things (I do) I don't use them ALL THE TIME I AM HOME, while the power line EMF is pretty much 24/7 (except on the east coast where it has an annoying tendency to not be on all the time...
Second, if I use an electric razor/hair dryer/headphones/heater/TV/toaster/electric stove now, then moved into a house under a power line, I would probably still be using the electric razor
As a worker in a healthcare environment, I am most able to compare it to an x-ray Tech. When I get an radiological exam done - for example a wrist x-ray - I am sitting almost under the emitter head, possibly with a lead apron on my lap, but the tech has left the room and is behind at least one layer of radiation shielding. Why is it OK for me to be basically totally exposed to the ionizing radiation but the tech has MANDATED safety procedures to limit their exposure? (Oops, sorry, gave away the answer!) It is because I am getting a short, (relatively) high exposure (maybe like using an electric razor?), and the tech is getting long term low lever (like power lines?) exposures.
Point I am trying to make is there are two components here, one being intensity of exposure, the other being length of time of the exposure.
Long term exposure to high levels of ionizing radiation and RF radiation are generally agreed to be harmful to humans, but I don't know of any definitive studies that have been done.
Low level, limited exposure to ionizing or RF radiation is generally agreed to not have much effect on humans, but given the ubiquity of both, how would we be able to know for certain?
That leaves high level with short time exposure, and low level with prolonged exposure. You seem to be saying that high levels for limited time isn't known to harm anyone, so low levels for prolonged times won't either. I am saying "not necessarily, the one doesn't imply the other."
I do agree with your last statement, with the admittedly minor change of In the scheme of things you should worry about, EMF shouldn't rate very high.