It seems to me that recent court cases and the DMCA being upheld in same have removed the ability to reverse engineer things. Fair-use may be a dead doctrine.
Further, to prove that an NDA has been violated - yes you would have to release the code, but not in open court, but rather to a third party for review. That person can serve as a witness in court. See the NEC versus Intel suit about 8086 microcode years ago. That is what happened there.
The problem with this statement is that the "trade secret" they are talking about didn't leak, but rather, was reverse engineered. BIG DIFFERENCE here. That was the problem I have with DMCA in it's limits on what may be reverse engineered. Note - as pointed out by others, this isn't covered by DMCA in any way, shape, or form.
In my non-lawyerly opinion - they don't have a leg to stand on, and should perhaps bend to the envitable.
I thought the I-opener observations of the poster were quite cognizant too.
SRAMS are built with several transistors in a latching arrangement (there are 6T and 8T designs running around now-adays.) SRAMS are not nearly as likely to be taken out by radiation as DRAMS which are really just capacitors storing charge. Radiation was an issue 15-20 years ago and turned out to be MOSTLY due to radiation from the plastic the rams were cased in! Modern methods include coatings that make this a non-issue.
Caches being built out of SRAMs mostly have OTHER failure modes that are in some way design errors - like maybe electron migration which is essentially a way IC's age.
So - summary - it AIN'T radiation that is taking these chips out.
The part you missed was "misappropriated DVD CCA's trade secrets." Think about that a second. He took trade secrets? No - the trade secrets were reverse engineered by someone else. Therefore it isn't a trade secret any longer. He didn't steal it from anyone. This whole suit is built on a house of cards.
Now - obviously, if they were using the DMCA instead (which they can't cause that's federal law) then they would have something. This particular angle is falacious on it's face.
I work at a consulting company. I, or my company, pretty much signs an NDA before EVERY interview. Look - the NDA is a fact of life in our industry, might as well get that idea fixed in your head early on.
How does the NDA incumber you? It doesn't say you can't go to work for the competitor if you choose does it? Now - an non-COMPETE document is another issue! Obviously you don't sign those - not until you at least have the job, then you'll be asked to sign that too. If and ONLY IF the NDA has a non-compete clause in it do you really need to become concerned. That would significantly incumber you, otherwise, how does it harm you?
I think we lost this one partially because of the judges' view of our community! He doesn't believe what he heard from the author of the code as to it's purpose. (Where as I do) so he draws wrong conclusions about the effort.
Further, he ignores HOW code is developed in the open-source world when analyzing whether the DMCA was broken by those folks "showing the code" while in the process of reverse engineering same.
He goes on to state that code isn't covered by the first amendment because it's functional, yet other courts have held that it IS covered...
Lastly, I think the DMCA IS unconsitutional both for prior-restraint reasons, AND because it extends the power of copyright beyond it's original intent.
P.S. I gave up being a moderator by posting this - it was just TOO important!
I've been an @home customer for over 3 years - in fact I live in Fremont CA which was one of TCI's test cities. We've seen probably every problem you can run into with cable modem service here first. We made nation wide news when the user-base revolted when they mis-configured the up-stream caps ( something about each neighborhood concentrator getting set to 128kbs upstream too! Note - we used to have 10Mbs upstream!!!!!)
We also made news when then TCI sent out what was then considered new draconian TOS ( which sounds about what you folks ar now just getting...)
The practical point - They are concerned about their network performance, and in the early days people were running major business sites from their homes. The initial TOS allowed this! They cracked down on these "net hogs" and applied the up-stream cap to everyone else. At this point, they seem to only go after people that are actually causing problems on net segments. I've had http, and sshd up for quite awihle with no gripes from them. So if you don't abuse the service you won't hear from them.
I'm running behind a NAT based system. I downloaded the browser. It kept insisting on going to my external IP address instead of the IP I actually pointed it at.
Further, all I saw was "Permission denied" on any place I tried to read.
So - my first question - how did the browser know what my REAL IP was behind the NAT box? Did they configure it into the browser before I down-loaded it? Further, are they recording said IP's for later exploits????
I'd guess if you are behind a firewall or NAT box that won't do them much good....which is a "good thing."
Anyway - maybe one should think twice before downloading and trying this "exploit."
I have no argument about the fact that copyrights and patents last too long in todays economy. I said as much in my post!
For that matter, patents have been extended to software for goodness sake. That was only a relatively recent development. Don't agree with that either!
At the same time - and you don't seem to argue this, is the fact that IP does have justification for existing, and that the original point of encouraging IP development is still relevant. This article goes to the point of saying that you need to justify your IP's right to have protection by it's "worth" to society. Uhm - if you are talking about copyright, you are talking about indirect censorship!
That is BS! Do you agree with that kind of limits? So - I think my original point stands;-)
This guy starts by saying that the original reason for patents/copyright was okay, but that governments having the power to grant this is totally corrupting so - let's throw it all out, there is no real justification for it.
That is so much nonsense.
If you were to argue that period of a patent or copyright should be limited in this day of the internet..okay. If you argue that the DMCA takes copyright into areas it should never have been extended...okay. But throwing the whole system out is even more rediculous than the problem this paper is arguing about!
Let's talk about the car scenario here first. It is more like buying a copy of your keys to get access to your car. We aren't talking about getting a second car OR someone else breaking into your car. The second of these should be illegal. What we are talking about is gaining access to something you have already purchased a different way.
Further, there are some good anti-trust arguements about the industry being able to stipulate who can build these devices exclusively. Reverse engineering is a time honored method of having competition in a field. (Assuming you don't step on patents which is pretty hard in itself.) Using copyright/DMCA to prohibit this activity is as anti-competitive as you can get!
This is the BIG difference between the DeCSS case and napster. Napster is simply ripping off the content of the music copyright holders, i.e. it's committing the act of theft. DeCSS CAN be used in that process, but has other uses as well...all of which are legal. Further, if software is expressive speach (and there are now going to be a couple rulings along that way) then is should/is protected by the 1st Amendment and that portion of the DMCA becomes mute.
"then the KDE be could an evolved competitor for GNOMES" First, no comment on the quality of english...but you simply forget that GNOME was created to compete with KDE, i.e. was there first by at least a year. GNOME began primarily because of licensing arguments, though it can be argued that it has other reasons for existing today.
I'd also like you to point me to where I might buy KDE stock? KDE isn't a corporation...at least not in the "to make money" sense of the word.
Yes - I know he was a troll..but he just pissed me off.
So Netscape didn't live up to THEIR expectations. So what! Mozilla is now an open-source project, and basically chose to start from scratch instead of trying to push the mess that was the netscape code forward. Engineering takes time!
Further, this project is done completely in the open (in more ways that one..) and everyone can see it at any given time during it's development warts and all. This is just one more article taking pot-shots at the project. As I recall, it was the Press that claimed it as the darling child of the open-source world... not the open-source community itself. All the while, the Mozilla project marches on. It IS getting more stable, and I'd expect it to be ready for prime-time shortly.
I REALLY don't care what these guys said.. seems just a bunch of whining to me.
How can you say they aren't changing the post. The person VIEWING it thru their service is looking at a modified version of what you have read. Seems to me they are in some how violating the implied copyright you have on ANYTHING you write by modifying it without your permission and without letting you know it's occuring. Don't forget - Deja.com ISN'T usenet, it's JUST a portal. Not everyone on USENET uses Deja.com...they'll have NO idea this is happening. I think it sucks!
For the first couple years of Deja's life they were doing cool stuff and became a MAJOR resource on the web for research. Then they dump years of archives, now they're putting adds into the stuff.
It's also interesting to see all this "bitching" about Corel from the Linux crowd. You folks should go read the recent interview with Copland. Linux is ONLY 5% of their business to date. They hope for more, but 5% is still just 5%.
Heck - AOL should be sued for sending a Virus (AOL software) thru the US mail!
As for reviewers getting "paid." Heck, the biggest huckster ever was probably Jerry Pournelle. He even bragged about how much "stuff" he got in the mail that he never got too! He usually told you about warts and all though, so I gotta wonder about the initial premise, let ALONE the simple fact that you can obtain the Mandrake Distro for no cost.
Uhm - that isn't true. Part of Tux's feature set is it's close relation to the khttpd portion of Linux. khttpd isn't going to be ported to another OS...it's a Linux internal.
As I recall from my reading of the discussion on the linux-kernel when khttpd was first introduced, it was actually an attempt to copy something MS does! I believe that the MS product also uses kernel space processes to get better performance results!
While I agree that if a company REALLY developed the technology, then it's their right to collect royalties...the story goes on to indicate that there is applicable prior art AND that the patents were filed AFTER participation in JEDEC committees. In my mind it shows to problems.
1) Our patent system is screwy. The patents last WAY to long in these days of 6 month product cycles. Further, as illustrated by this case, the patent office does a poor job of looking for prior art and seems to rely merely on the submissions within the patent itself (like a fox being in charge of the chicken coop...)
2) The anti-trust claims seem to have some meat if they did indeed participate in the JEDEC committees then pulled out.
3) I KNOW there was prior art. For goodness sake, moving data/addresses relative to a clock - there is a novel idea. Ever heard of Synch SRAMS? They existed back in the early 90's when I was still doing board design. Data clocked out relative to "CAS" on a normal DRAM is essentially a synchronous data cycle. "CAS" is acting as a clock. I'd really love to know what is so novel about their data interfaces that hasn't been done a 1000 times before on other synch busses. Wouldn't a burst data cycle from a memory system within a main-frame count???
Let's see now. Most likely it was Eschelon that allowed the US to identify that Kadafi and company were responsible for the bombing of the nite club in Germany that killed some US service men. Then France didn't allow over-flight of our bombers because they didn't want to upset the Colonel.
So now you come along and tell me that the system was used to beat out France in a business competition where the French were dropping bribes?
Uhm - Good!;-)
I do, however, get concerned when such technology is turned on US citizens going about their legal business primarily because the CIA, et al is prohibited against operating against it's own citizens. THAT needs to be watched closely.
Let's see - first Dan Rather. As I recall, it was Dan Rather that tried to jump on then candidate/VP George Bush. In the negotiations to get Bush to show up for the interview it had been agreed that Rather wouldn't cover questions about Bush's involvement, if any, in Iran/Contra. Well - Rather low-balled him. Gorge came right back with questions about why Rather had a hissy fit and caused several minutes of dead air time;-) Mr Rather is no Uncle Walter.
As for the prediliction of the US press to soft ball news about the Democratic party. Hmmm - first comes to mind them sitting on an interview of someone accusing the Pres of being a rapist. NBC sat on this interview for almost a YEAR, until way AFTER the impeachment hearings went away. Then they soft-peddled when they finally did air it. There are other examples...but there is no point in going there in this post.
I'd say the original poster has asked a reasonable question. Maybe linuxtoday needs to "review" their editorial policies or maybe I might have to go some place else...there is always lwn and freshmeat.
Now - the point about shipping ssh as the main login makes sense, though I suspect the license on the orginal SSH code probably limited that. (To early in the morning for me to go LOOK to see if it the 1.2.x series was GPL'd....) I think it had a limited license.
If that's the case, they couldn't ship it.
NOW we have OPENssh - so it is indeed time to do this.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me that recent court cases and the DMCA being upheld in same have removed the ability to reverse engineer things. Fair-use may be a dead doctrine. Further, to prove that an NDA has been violated - yes you would have to release the code, but not in open court, but rather to a third party for review. That person can serve as a witness in court. See the NEC versus Intel suit about 8086 microcode years ago. That is what happened there.
The problem with this statement is that the "trade secret" they are talking about didn't leak, but rather, was reverse engineered. BIG DIFFERENCE here. That was the problem I have with DMCA in it's limits on what may be reverse engineered. Note - as pointed out by others, this isn't covered by DMCA in any way, shape, or form.
In my non-lawyerly opinion - they don't have a leg to stand on, and should perhaps bend to the envitable.
I thought the I-opener observations of the poster were quite cognizant too.
That's right, and it's like 93 million miles to the sun, so .037%
comes out to around 2.9 million miles, or over 10 times the
earth to the moon.
Is that REALLY a close call?
Steve
Uh - No!
SRAMS are built with several transistors in a latching arrangement (there are 6T and 8T designs running around now-adays.) SRAMS are not nearly as likely to be taken out by radiation as DRAMS which are really just capacitors storing charge. Radiation was an issue 15-20 years ago and turned out to be MOSTLY due to radiation from the plastic the rams were cased in! Modern methods include coatings that make this a non-issue.
Caches being built out of SRAMs mostly have OTHER failure modes that are in some way design errors - like maybe electron migration which is essentially a way IC's age.
So - summary - it AIN'T radiation that is taking these chips out.
The part you missed was "misappropriated DVD CCA's trade secrets." Think about that a second. He took trade secrets? No - the trade secrets were reverse engineered by someone else. Therefore it isn't a trade secret any longer. He didn't steal it from anyone. This whole suit is built on a house of cards.
Now - obviously, if they were using the DMCA instead (which they can't cause that's federal law) then they would have something. This particular angle is falacious on it's face.
I work at a consulting company. I, or my company, pretty much signs an NDA before EVERY interview. Look - the NDA is a fact of life in our industry, might as well get that idea fixed in your head early on.
How does the NDA incumber you? It doesn't say you can't go to work for the competitor if you choose does it? Now - an non-COMPETE document is another issue! Obviously you don't sign those - not until you at least have the job, then you'll be asked to sign that too. If and ONLY IF the NDA has a non-compete clause in it do you really need to become concerned. That would significantly incumber you, otherwise, how does it harm you?
That is the REAL quesetion you need to ask.
Well - they can pry my DeCSS T-shirt our of my cold ... well you know the rest ;-)
I think we lost this one partially because of the judges' view of our community! He doesn't believe what he heard from the author of the code as to it's purpose. (Where as I do) so he draws wrong conclusions about the effort.
Further, he ignores HOW code is developed in the open-source world when analyzing whether the DMCA was broken by those folks "showing the code" while in the process of reverse engineering same.
He goes on to state that code isn't covered by the first amendment because it's functional, yet other courts have held that it IS covered...
Lastly, I think the DMCA IS unconsitutional both for prior-restraint reasons, AND because it extends the power of copyright beyond it's original intent.
P.S. I gave up being a moderator by posting this - it was just TOO important!
What I don't understand is how this can stand when Apple didn't win over Look & Feel when they went after Gates/ MS years ago. What is so different?
Have the laws changed since then to allow this?
I've been an @home customer for over 3 years - in fact I live in Fremont CA which was one of TCI's test cities. We've seen probably every problem you can run into with cable modem service here first. We made nation wide news when the user-base revolted when they mis-configured the up-stream caps ( something about each neighborhood concentrator getting set to 128kbs upstream too! Note - we used to have 10Mbs upstream!!!!!)
We also made news when then TCI sent out what was then considered new draconian TOS ( which sounds about what you folks ar now just getting...)
The practical point - They are concerned about their network performance, and in the early days people were running major business sites from their homes. The initial TOS allowed this! They cracked down on these "net hogs" and applied the up-stream cap to everyone else. At this point, they seem to only go after people that are actually causing problems on net segments. I've had http, and sshd up for quite awihle with no gripes from them. So if you don't abuse the service you won't hear from them.
I'm running behind a NAT based system. I downloaded the browser. It kept insisting on going to my external IP address instead of the IP I actually pointed it at.
Further, all I saw was "Permission denied" on any place I tried to read.
So - my first question - how did the browser know what my REAL IP was behind the NAT box? Did they configure it into the browser before I down-loaded it? Further, are they recording said IP's for later exploits????
I'd guess if you are behind a firewall or NAT box that won't do them much good....which is a "good thing."
Anyway - maybe one should think twice before downloading and trying this "exploit."
My
Then please read what I said!
;-)
I have no argument about the fact that copyrights and patents last too long in todays economy. I said as much in my post!
For that matter, patents have been extended to software for goodness sake. That was only a relatively recent development. Don't agree with that either!
At the same time - and you don't seem to argue this, is the fact that IP does have justification for existing, and that the original point of encouraging IP development is still relevant. This article goes to the point of saying that you need to justify your IP's right to have protection by it's "worth" to society. Uhm - if you are talking about copyright, you are talking about indirect censorship!
That is BS! Do you agree with that kind of limits? So - I think my original point stands
This guy starts by saying that the original reason for patents/copyright was okay, but that governments having the power to grant this is totally corrupting so - let's throw it all out, there is no real justification for it.
That is so much nonsense.
If you were to argue that period of a patent or copyright should be limited in this day of the internet..okay. If you argue that the DMCA takes copyright into areas it should never have been extended...okay. But throwing the whole system out is even more rediculous than the problem this paper is arguing about!
I think you have a falacious argument here.
Let's talk about the car scenario here first. It is more like buying a copy of your keys to get access to your car. We aren't talking about getting a second car OR someone else breaking into your car. The second of these should be illegal.
What we are talking about is gaining access to something you have already purchased a different way.
Further, there are some good anti-trust arguements about the industry being able to stipulate who can build these devices exclusively. Reverse engineering is a time honored method of having competition in a field. (Assuming you don't step on patents which is pretty hard in itself.) Using copyright/DMCA to prohibit this activity is as anti-competitive as you can get!
This is the BIG difference between the DeCSS case and napster. Napster is simply ripping off the content of the music copyright holders, i.e. it's committing the act of theft. DeCSS CAN be used in that process, but has other uses as well...all of which are legal. Further, if software is expressive speach (and there are now going to be a couple rulings along that way) then is should/is protected by the 1st Amendment and that portion of the DMCA becomes mute.
Well, BP over at technocrat spotted it right off the bat. One point for Bruce ;-)
"then the KDE be could an evolved competitor for GNOMES" First, no comment on the quality of english...but you simply forget that GNOME was created to compete with KDE, i.e. was there first by at least a year. GNOME began primarily because of licensing arguments, though it can be argued that it has other reasons for existing today.
I'd also like you to point me to where I might buy KDE stock? KDE isn't a corporation...at least not in the "to make money" sense of the word.
Yes - I know he was a troll..but he just pissed me off.
So Netscape didn't live up to THEIR expectations. So what! Mozilla is now an open-source project, and basically chose to start from scratch instead of trying to push the mess that was the netscape code forward. Engineering takes time!
Further, this project is done completely in the open (in more ways that one..) and everyone can see it at any given time during it's development warts and all. This is just one more article taking pot-shots at the project. As I recall, it was the Press that claimed it as the darling child of the open-source world... not the open-source community itself. All the while, the Mozilla project marches on. It IS getting more stable, and I'd expect it to be ready for prime-time shortly.
I REALLY don't care what these guys said.. seems just a bunch of whining to me.
How can you say they aren't changing the post. The person VIEWING it thru their service is looking at a modified version of what you have read. Seems to me they are in some how violating the implied copyright you have on ANYTHING you write by modifying it without your permission and without letting you know it's occuring. Don't forget - Deja.com ISN'T usenet, it's JUST a portal. Not everyone on USENET uses Deja.com...they'll have NO idea this is happening. I think it sucks!
For the first couple years of Deja's life they were doing cool stuff and became a MAJOR resource on the web for research. Then they dump years of archives, now they're putting adds into the stuff.
It's time to write them off.
It's also interesting to see all this "bitching" about Corel from the Linux crowd. You folks should go read the recent interview with Copland. Linux is ONLY 5% of their business to date. They hope for more, but 5% is still just 5%.
Heck - AOL should be sued for sending a Virus (AOL software) thru the US mail!
As for reviewers getting "paid." Heck, the biggest huckster ever was probably Jerry Pournelle. He even bragged about how much "stuff" he got in the mail that he never got too! He usually told you about warts and all though, so I gotta wonder about the initial premise, let ALONE the simple fact that you can obtain the Mandrake Distro for no cost.
Uhm - that isn't true. Part of Tux's feature set is it's close relation to the khttpd portion of Linux. khttpd isn't going to be ported to another OS...it's a Linux internal.
As I recall from my reading of the discussion on the linux-kernel when khttpd was first introduced, it was actually an attempt to copy something MS does! I believe that the MS product also uses kernel space processes to get better performance results!
While I agree that if a company REALLY developed the technology, then it's their right to collect royalties...the story goes on to indicate that there is applicable prior art AND that the patents were filed AFTER participation in JEDEC committees. In my mind it shows to problems.
1) Our patent system is screwy. The patents last WAY to long in these days of 6 month product cycles. Further, as illustrated by this case, the patent office does a poor job of looking for prior art and seems to rely merely on the submissions within the patent itself (like a fox being in charge of the chicken coop...)
2) The anti-trust claims seem to have some meat if they did indeed participate in the JEDEC committees then pulled out.
3) I KNOW there was prior art. For goodness sake, moving data/addresses relative to a clock - there is a novel idea. Ever heard of Synch SRAMS? They existed back in the early 90's when I was still doing board design. Data clocked out relative to "CAS" on a normal DRAM is essentially a synchronous data cycle. "CAS" is acting as a clock. I'd really love to know what is so novel about their data interfaces that hasn't been done a 1000 times before on other synch busses. Wouldn't a burst data cycle from a memory system within a main-frame count???
Let's see now. Most likely it was Eschelon that allowed the US to identify that Kadafi and company were responsible for the bombing of the nite club in Germany that killed some US service men. Then France didn't allow over-flight of our bombers because they didn't want to upset the Colonel.
;-)
So now you come along and tell me that the system was used to beat out France in a business competition where the French were dropping bribes?
Uhm - Good!
I do, however, get concerned when such technology is turned on US citizens going about their legal business primarily because the CIA, et al is prohibited against operating against it's own citizens. THAT needs to be watched closely.
I just cant resist getting in on this one.
;-)
Let's see - first Dan Rather. As I recall, it was Dan Rather that tried to jump on then candidate/VP George Bush. In the negotiations to get Bush to show up for the interview it had been agreed that Rather wouldn't cover questions about Bush's involvement, if any, in Iran/Contra. Well - Rather low-balled him. Gorge came right back with questions about why Rather had a hissy fit and caused several minutes of dead air time
Mr Rather is no Uncle Walter.
As for the prediliction of the US press to soft ball news about the Democratic party. Hmmm - first comes to mind them sitting on an interview of someone accusing the Pres of being a rapist. NBC sat on this interview for almost a YEAR, until way AFTER the impeachment hearings went away. Then they soft-peddled when they finally did air it. There are other examples...but there is no point in going there in this post.
I'd say the original poster has asked a reasonable question. Maybe linuxtoday needs to "review" their editorial policies or maybe I might have to go some place else...there is always lwn and freshmeat.
Now - the point about shipping ssh as the main login makes sense, though I suspect the license on the orginal SSH code probably limited that. (To early in the morning for me to go LOOK to see if it the 1.2.x series was GPL'd....) I think it had a limited license.
If that's the case, they couldn't ship it.
NOW we have OPENssh - so it is indeed time to do this.