In the US legal system, they do. Microsoft is a monopoly. They broke the Sherman Act (i.e. violated the law). So ruled by Judge Penfield Jackson, so upheld by the U.S. Appeals Court. The only way to overturn it would be via appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Like it or not, they've been found guilty. Now the question is punishment.
> I read the findings of fact, and I found them to be factually and legally flawed.
Based on what? Are you a lawyer specializing in Antitrust? Are you a lawyer? Have you read the LAW (i.e. the Sherman & Clayton Acts)? Have you read the many previous Antitrust court cases?
IANAL, but I have read the law, the Finding of Fact, the Conclusions of Law, the Proposed Remedy, and the Appeals Court decision, as well as the case history of antitrust, including Standard Oil, AT&T, and IBM. I don't find any issues with any of the reasoning. Of course, not being a lawyer, I know what my legal opinion matters in this case (i.e. not at all).
> I have seen nothing that indicates to me MS is a monopoly.
So you didn't read the FoF, CoL, etc? (i.e. the legal documents declaring them a monopoly, which is what matters here, because it is a legal issue).
(and, no, I don't agree with the Napster, DeCSS, etc, decisions, but I also recognize that:
1. they haven't been through the appeals process yet, and
2. there is a legal means of changing the U.S. laws that are stupid - it's called the U.S. Congress. It's how the U.S. Constitution sets up the checks and balances in the U.S. Government)
> I'm definitely not a real estate expert, but from what I was told by a good friend of mine (who is a real estate guru), when you own a piece of "land", you also legally own all of the airspace directly above it and all of the land below it, to the center of the earth. This takes care of the he's-drilling-on-my-land or his-tree-is-hanging-into-my-yard problems.
Depends on the jurisdiction. There are areas where you may own the rights to the surface, but not the minerals in the ground or the water. And, the air-rights may not be with the property anymore (yep, companies by the air-rights to put things up over a piece of property).
Basically, if it can be sold, someone will figure out how to do it.
> Pascal was good because it had constraints, and was well structured.
Of course, a part of this is that Nikolaus Worth, the creator of Pascal, actually designed it as a teaching language. The original compiler was supposed to be pen, paper, and the student's mind. As such, it's a great language for teaching structured programming.
Pascal's successor, Modula-3, was more designed with OO in mind.
> Do the average Corp, the ability to modify software means precisly dick!
It means that you can take that source code and go to the vendor of your choice to get support. Don't like your current support vendor? Go elsewhere, with NO changes in your systems / software. Otherwise known as giving the user POWER (choice).
> If one of our HP servers goes down, we can be on the phone with a HP tech in less than 5 minutes. Trying getting a tech that quick with OSS, without paying through the nose in advance. Lost time == Lost Revenue
And how much do you pay for that HP support contract (I used to work with HP systems, trust me, you pay for that support)? So, you can pay for HP support or you can pay for OSS support. Of course, if you don't like the OSS support, you go to another vendor. You don't like the HP support, you go to...
Oh yea, it's proprietary, you have no option.
> Retraining isn't free. If you're using Software XYZ, it's going to cost quite a bit to train your staff to use Software ABC
True, but when the next, incompatible version of Software XYZ comes out, and you have to retrain on it, because they're phasing out support for your verson, what options do you have? When OSS Software ABC comes out with a new version, and you like the old version, you find someone to support it, and you don't retrain.
> If it ain't broke don't fix it. When our commericial software does what we need it to do, why SHOULD we switch, and risk failure? This ain't somebodys home Linux firewall box we're talking about here.
If you're happy with what you've got, and it works for you, keep it. If you're not happy with what you've got (for whatever reason), you ought to look at all the alternatives.
Well, if it's the Linux kernel, my company, Mission Critical Linux will gladly write you a contract to provide support. Our interfaces include phone, email, fax, and web, and we'll gladly fix your problems (whoever's at fault). A wide variety of support contracts, including 24x7. Just point your boss at us, and give us a call.
> So musicians who want a chance at anything have to choose this monopolized system, get a very lucky break, or make a living doing live performances at clubs and the like.
Well, since from what I've read in numerous articles, most musicians DON'T make any money AT ALL, they probably are better off just doing live performances & selling their own stuff via the web. So they don't get on radio - they also don't fork over all their profits to the RIAA folks.
"Congress shall have the Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Note you don't see the word Property in there anywhere.
Therefore your entire treatise is based on a false premise
> If you wrote a program that you wanted to sell, how would you feel about people making pirated copies of it, and not paying you a cent?
Well, since that is illegal, you take them to court (assuming you have the program under copyright and didn't Open Source it). Of course, under Copyright, they can still use that software as they want, even running it backwards, disassembling it to see how it works, etc.
The problem with all of these things like SDMI is that they are ACCESS CONTROL, not COPYRIGHT PROTECTION. As has been noted many times, you can't prevent copying (bits are bits). Copyright law actually ALLOWS copies (Fair Use). Copyright does NOT allow redistribution (creation of new copies for others).
The problem with all of these things like SDMI is that they are ACCESS CONTROL, not COPYRIGHT PROTECTION. Is that copy I made a Fair Use backup copy or a copy I'm selling? Or is it a backup copy that I later decide to sell? The Software has no way to know without reading my mind. Thus, each and every one of these schemes ultimately means that you assume EVERY person is a crook, and deny them their LEGAL rights, in order to prevent theft.
Of course, using the alternative, the court systems, that has been there for hundreds of years, is, I guess, to low-tech and difficult for all these high-tech companies.
Nope, it's not Open Source. From the Open Source Definition (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html):
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
Rationale: The mere ability to read source isn't enough to support independent peer review and rapid evolutionary selection. For rapid evolution to happen, people need to be able to experiment with and redistribute modifications.
So it is NOT Open Source.
Darren has the right to license his code however he wants. We have the right to decide if we accept the license.
1. Corporations aren't mentioned at ALL in the constitution. They are a complete legal fiction, that could be legally destroyed whenever congress chooses to.
2. Have you read Article I, Section 8, Clause 8?
"Congress shall have Power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Note: The purpose is NOT to make artists lots of money, but to promote progress - a public good. The means is to grant them exclusive rights, allowing them to make money, but ultimately, this is only true as long as it promotes progress of "Science and the Useful Arts."
3. Try studying the history of the recording industry - the RIAA got their power when they controlled the channels between musicians and the public (you either signed a recording contract or you were totally out of luck, because of the costs of studios, recording, record production, etc). Most of those factors have changed, but the RIAA still is using that power to try and hold on.
Re:why the GPL is, strangely enough, not a contrac
on
GPL FAQ
·
· Score: 1
OK, first IANAL, but I did have one term of Contract Law in college. Based on that:
1. There is offer and acceptance. They offer (in the license) certain rights to you in exchange for certain restrictions on your use of those rights. You accept when you redistribute works (since nothing else gives you the right).
2. Consideration. Consideration does not have to be cash. Example from my course: you offer to give your buddy a week skiing if he doesn't drink for a year. Is that an exchange of consideration? Yep. The courts assume you gain something from the fact he doesn't drink (maybe the knowledge he didn't get into any drunk driving accidents). So, the consideration here is that you get to redistribute, but you give your source code changes.
> No, it doesn't restrict what the end-user can do with GPL'd software. But it does restrict what another developer can do with it.
You realize that under copyright law, you have NO rights to redistribute new copies of anything without a license? GPL does NOT restrict what you can do with it, but it does enable you to redistribute, as long as you're willing to follow the GPL rules. Consider your code payment for redistribution.
Your're free to use the GPL, non-free libraries, LGPL libraries, PD libraries, or write your own. You're even free to go to the authors to get a different license (Dual-licensing).
Who rated this as Troll? This is VERY on-topic, and an accurate statement of the GPL.
Re:We 'share', and you grant us back all your 'wor
on
Shared Source?
·
· Score: 1
> If this program allows the company to quickly fix a bug in MS product XXX, then it should be a good deal for the company
Except you can't actually change code, so how do you test your fix? How can you be certain it really is a bug? And why would you want to pay for the priviledge of fixing bugs in THEIR code (so they can sell you the fixes in the next update)?
On the other hand, if any Linux developer looks at the code (or works for a company that has the code), MS could claim theft of their IP.
Red Herring Alert!!
Red Herring Alert!!
Red Herring Alert!!
Red Herring Alert!!
There's more ways to make money than selling SW!
See my previous comment about Open Source NOT being a business model. It's a SW development model. It's up to the company to develop a business model that uses the Open Source development model.
Repeat after me:
Open Source is a Software Development Model
Open Source is not a Business Model
Open Source is a Software Development Model
Open Source is not a Business Model
Open Source is a Software Development Model
Open Source is not a Business Model
.
.
.
No, no company is going to produce Open Source SW as it's principle product, but many are going to support and produce it because it supports their business objective of making money IN OTHER WAYS.
Example: IBM - Open Source is great because they can sell complete HW solutions with little SW cost. Thus, they can sell cheaper / better than their competitors. Thus, they make money.
Example: My company, Mission Critical Linux, is a service & support company in the Linux space. We help companies that want to USE linux. Why purchase our support when they can get it free from the internet? Because we can provide guaranteed timelines, single point of contact, direct support, etc. Why not hire their own? Because we can do it cheaper than that, because our costs are spread across multiple companies.
Result: They make money on THEIR product, we make money helping THEM make money.
Note that our business model is NOT Open Source, it's service and support, which just happens to be service and support of Open Source.
Re:Most users don't want to change the kernel code
on
Linux and Shrek
·
· Score: 1
But, without the ability to change the code, they don't GET quality and features. Why? Because you get quality and features because SOMEONE ELSE had the ability to change the code (and redistribute the changes). And, since you don't know who will be the SOMEONE, you need to ensure EVERYONE has the same rights.
> Free Speech in this country, as defined in FEDERAL contexts is for criticising only.
Strange, I didn't see that in the Bill of Rights:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Nope, says congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Doesn't say no law abridging the freedom to criticize.
> Copyrights now last 70+ years (courtesy of Disney's lobbyists).
Actually, it's now Life of Author + 70 years, or 95 years for corporate stuff. Of course, it's "limited" (which the US Constitution requires), but expect them to try and make it life + 90 years or 115 years in about 15 years (when the current copyright life starts showing).
Easy - clickwraps take away rights, GPL grants it. How do I know you agree with the clickwrap or are just a nice guy?
On the other hand, if you don't agree with the GPL, nothing else gives you the right to distribute the code (remember - GPL only concerns distribution, not use). So, with GPL code, either you agree with the license, and can redistribute, or you don't, in which case you can download & fix, but you can't redistribute. The proof of your agreement is that you redistribute.
Slight correction -
1. Under Sherman and Clayton acts, behaviors which are legal for a non-monopoly are illegal for a monopoly. MS has been determined to be a monopoly (Finding of Fact).
2. MS agreed under their original Consent Decree that they would stop this behavior.
3. Read the Finding of Fact - remember that originally, to be IBM Compatible, you had to have DOS (MS built it's monopoly on the demand for "IBM Compatible" systems). MS required you to buy nothing but DOS, or pay a steep price. At that time-frame, companies that didn't sell DOS based systems went out of Business. If they sold anything but DOS, they went out of business (because they couldn't compete in the DOS world due to the licensing costs for not being pure DOS). So far, of questionable legality, but definitely led to a monopoly. Then, they bundled Windows (Buy Windows + DOS for less than DOS alone). That's illegal under Clayton/Sherman for a monopoly.
So yes, the poster did use "illegal" and "fraudulent" with basis - what MS did has been found (Finding of Fact) to be true, and done by a monopoly.
The questions now that are under review are the Conclusions of Law and the Proposed Remedies - if what they did in fact violated the law (highly likely, from my reading, but IANAL, and definitely IANAJ), and what, if anything, to do about it.
Slashdot Mirror
>Courts do not define in real terms the facts.
In the US legal system, they do. Microsoft is a monopoly. They broke the Sherman Act (i.e. violated the law). So ruled by Judge Penfield Jackson, so upheld by the U.S. Appeals Court. The only way to overturn it would be via appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Like it or not, they've been found guilty. Now the question is punishment.
> I read the findings of fact, and I found them to be factually and legally flawed.
Based on what? Are you a lawyer specializing in Antitrust? Are you a lawyer? Have you read the LAW (i.e. the Sherman & Clayton Acts)? Have you read the many previous Antitrust court cases?
IANAL, but I have read the law, the Finding of Fact, the Conclusions of Law, the Proposed Remedy, and the Appeals Court decision, as well as the case history of antitrust, including Standard Oil, AT&T, and IBM. I don't find any issues with any of the reasoning. Of course, not being a lawyer, I know what my legal opinion matters in this case (i.e. not at all).
> I have seen nothing that indicates to me MS is a monopoly.
So you didn't read the FoF, CoL, etc? (i.e. the legal documents declaring them a monopoly, which is what matters here, because it is a legal issue).
(and, no, I don't agree with the Napster, DeCSS, etc, decisions, but I also recognize that:
1. they haven't been through the appeals process yet, and
2. there is a legal means of changing the U.S. laws that are stupid - it's called the U.S. Congress. It's how the U.S. Constitution sets up the checks and balances in the U.S. Government)
> I'm definitely not a real estate expert, but from what I was told by a good friend of mine (who is a real estate guru), when you own a piece of "land", you also legally own all of the airspace directly above it and all of the land below it, to the center of the earth. This takes care of the he's-drilling-on-my-land or his-tree-is-hanging-into-my-yard problems.
Depends on the jurisdiction. There are areas where you may own the rights to the surface, but not the minerals in the ground or the water. And, the air-rights may not be with the property anymore (yep, companies by the air-rights to put things up over a piece of property).
Basically, if it can be sold, someone will figure out how to do it.
> Pascal was good because it had constraints, and was well structured.
Of course, a part of this is that Nikolaus Worth, the creator of Pascal, actually designed it as a teaching language. The original compiler was supposed to be pen, paper, and the student's mind. As such, it's a great language for teaching structured programming.
Pascal's successor, Modula-3, was more designed with OO in mind.
Corrected URL: http://www.missioncriticallinux.com
(or as a link)
sorry.
Note to self: check links before posting!
> Do the average Corp, the ability to modify software means precisly dick!
It means that you can take that source code and go to the vendor of your choice to get support. Don't like your current support vendor? Go elsewhere, with NO changes in your systems / software. Otherwise known as giving the user POWER (choice).
> If one of our HP servers goes down, we can be on the phone with a HP tech in less than 5 minutes. Trying getting a tech that quick with OSS, without paying through the nose in advance. Lost time == Lost Revenue
And how much do you pay for that HP support contract (I used to work with HP systems, trust me, you pay for that support)? So, you can pay for HP support or you can pay for OSS support. Of course, if you don't like the OSS support, you go to another vendor. You don't like the HP support, you go to...
Oh yea, it's proprietary, you have no option.
> Retraining isn't free. If you're using Software XYZ, it's going to cost quite a bit to train your staff to use Software ABC
True, but when the next, incompatible version of Software XYZ comes out, and you have to retrain on it, because they're phasing out support for your verson, what options do you have? When OSS Software ABC comes out with a new version, and you like the old version, you find someone to support it, and you don't retrain.
> If it ain't broke don't fix it. When our commericial software does what we need it to do, why SHOULD we switch, and risk failure? This ain't somebodys home Linux firewall box we're talking about here.
If you're happy with what you've got, and it works for you, keep it. If you're not happy with what you've got (for whatever reason), you ought to look at all the alternatives.
Well, if it's the Linux kernel, my company, Mission Critical Linux will gladly write you a contract to provide support. Our interfaces include phone, email, fax, and web, and we'll gladly fix your problems (whoever's at fault). A wide variety of support contracts, including 24x7. Just point your boss at us, and give us a call.
> So musicians who want a chance at anything have to choose this monopolized system, get a very lucky break, or make a living doing live performances at clubs and the like.
Well, since from what I've read in numerous articles, most musicians DON'T make any money AT ALL, they probably are better off just doing live performances & selling their own stuff via the web. So they don't get on radio - they also don't fork over all their profits to the RIAA folks.
IP does not exist in the US constitution:
... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
"Congress shall have the Power
Note you don't see the word Property in there anywhere.
Therefore your entire treatise is based on a false premise
(and yes, I know, don't feed the trolls).
> If you wrote a program that you wanted to sell, how would you feel about people making pirated copies of it, and not paying you a cent?
Well, since that is illegal, you take them to court (assuming you have the program under copyright and didn't Open Source it). Of course, under Copyright, they can still use that software as they want, even running it backwards, disassembling it to see how it works, etc.
The problem with all of these things like SDMI is that they are ACCESS CONTROL, not COPYRIGHT PROTECTION. As has been noted many times, you can't prevent copying (bits are bits). Copyright law actually ALLOWS copies (Fair Use). Copyright does NOT allow redistribution (creation of new copies for others).
The problem with all of these things like SDMI is that they are ACCESS CONTROL, not COPYRIGHT PROTECTION. Is that copy I made a Fair Use backup copy or a copy I'm selling? Or is it a backup copy that I later decide to sell? The Software has no way to know without reading my mind. Thus, each and every one of these schemes ultimately means that you assume EVERY person is a crook, and deny them their LEGAL rights, in order to prevent theft.
Of course, using the alternative, the court systems, that has been there for hundreds of years, is, I guess, to low-tech and difficult for all these high-tech companies.
So it is NOT Open Source.
Darren has the right to license his code however he wants. We have the right to decide if we accept the license.
1. Corporations aren't mentioned at ALL in the constitution. They are a complete legal fiction, that could be legally destroyed whenever congress chooses to.
...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
2. Have you read Article I, Section 8, Clause 8?
"Congress shall have Power
Note: The purpose is NOT to make artists lots of money, but to promote progress - a public good. The means is to grant them exclusive rights, allowing them to make money, but ultimately, this is only true as long as it promotes progress of "Science and the Useful Arts."
3. Try studying the history of the recording industry - the RIAA got their power when they controlled the channels between musicians and the public (you either signed a recording contract or you were totally out of luck, because of the costs of studios, recording, record production, etc). Most of those factors have changed, but the RIAA still is using that power to try and hold on.
OK, first IANAL, but I did have one term of Contract Law in college. Based on that:
1. There is offer and acceptance. They offer (in the license) certain rights to you in exchange for certain restrictions on your use of those rights. You accept when you redistribute works (since nothing else gives you the right).
2. Consideration. Consideration does not have to be cash. Example from my course: you offer to give your buddy a week skiing if he doesn't drink for a year. Is that an exchange of consideration? Yep. The courts assume you gain something from the fact he doesn't drink (maybe the knowledge he didn't get into any drunk driving accidents). So, the consideration here is that you get to redistribute, but you give your source code changes.
> No, it doesn't restrict what the end-user can do with GPL'd software. But it does restrict what another developer can do with it.
You realize that under copyright law, you have NO rights to redistribute new copies of anything without a license? GPL does NOT restrict what you can do with it, but it does enable you to redistribute, as long as you're willing to follow the GPL rules. Consider your code payment for redistribution.
Your're free to use the GPL, non-free libraries, LGPL libraries, PD libraries, or write your own. You're even free to go to the authors to get a different license (Dual-licensing).
So you going after IBM, Oracle, etc for not GPL'ing their SW? No? Good, because they link to libc - LGPL.
Apps do NOT need to be GPL'd / LGPL'd to run on Linux.
Who rated this as Troll? This is VERY on-topic, and an accurate statement of the GPL.
> If this program allows the company to quickly fix a bug in MS product XXX, then it should be a good deal for the company
;-)?
Except you can't actually change code, so how do you test your fix? How can you be certain it really is a bug? And why would you want to pay for the priviledge of fixing bugs in THEIR code (so they can sell you the fixes in the next update)?
On the other hand, if any Linux developer looks at the code (or works for a company that has the code), MS could claim theft of their IP.
Hm, so what is the real motive
Actually, it's false. GPL is intended to build a strong software community. PERIOD. FSF for years survived by selling tapes of GNU software.
Remember - there are two axis (?can't remember the plural) here:
Open Closed/Proprietary
Commercial Non-commercial
Nothing (repeat NOTHING) in the GPL says you can't sell the SW, it just says you can't prevent the person you distribute to from also redistributing.
Red Herring Alert!!
Red Herring Alert!!
Red Herring Alert!!
Red Herring Alert!!
There's more ways to make money than selling SW!
See my previous comment about Open Source NOT being a business model. It's a SW development model. It's up to the company to develop a business model that uses the Open Source development model.
Repeat after me:
Open Source is a Software Development Model
Open Source is not a Business Model
Open Source is a Software Development Model
Open Source is not a Business Model
Open Source is a Software Development Model
Open Source is not a Business Model
.
.
.
No, no company is going to produce Open Source SW as it's principle product, but many are going to support and produce it because it supports their business objective of making money IN OTHER WAYS.
Example: IBM - Open Source is great because they can sell complete HW solutions with little SW cost. Thus, they can sell cheaper / better than their competitors. Thus, they make money.
Example: My company, Mission Critical Linux, is a service & support company in the Linux space. We help companies that want to USE linux. Why purchase our support when they can get it free from the internet? Because we can provide guaranteed timelines, single point of contact, direct support, etc. Why not hire their own? Because we can do it cheaper than that, because our costs are spread across multiple companies.
Result: They make money on THEIR product, we make money helping THEM make money.
Note that our business model is NOT Open Source, it's service and support, which just happens to be service and support of Open Source.
But, without the ability to change the code, they don't GET quality and features. Why? Because you get quality and features because SOMEONE ELSE had the ability to change the code (and redistribute the changes). And, since you don't know who will be the SOMEONE, you need to ensure EVERYONE has the same rights.
Strange, I didn't see that in the Bill of Rights:
Nope, says congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Doesn't say no law abridging the freedom to criticize.
> You can't watch TV on your computer with DSL.
And this is a problem?
> Copyrights now last 70+ years (courtesy of Disney's lobbyists).
Actually, it's now Life of Author + 70 years, or 95 years for corporate stuff. Of course, it's "limited" (which the US Constitution requires), but expect them to try and make it life + 90 years or 115 years in about 15 years (when the current copyright life starts showing).
Of course, you're right on the lobbyists.
Easy - clickwraps take away rights, GPL grants it. How do I know you agree with the clickwrap or are just a nice guy?
On the other hand, if you don't agree with the GPL, nothing else gives you the right to distribute the code (remember - GPL only concerns distribution, not use). So, with GPL code, either you agree with the license, and can redistribute, or you don't, in which case you can download & fix, but you can't redistribute. The proof of your agreement is that you redistribute.
Slight correction -
1. Under Sherman and Clayton acts, behaviors which are legal for a non-monopoly are illegal for a monopoly. MS has been determined to be a monopoly (Finding of Fact).
2. MS agreed under their original Consent Decree that they would stop this behavior.
3. Read the Finding of Fact - remember that originally, to be IBM Compatible, you had to have DOS (MS built it's monopoly on the demand for "IBM Compatible" systems). MS required you to buy nothing but DOS, or pay a steep price. At that time-frame, companies that didn't sell DOS based systems went out of Business. If they sold anything but DOS, they went out of business (because they couldn't compete in the DOS world due to the licensing costs for not being pure DOS). So far, of questionable legality, but definitely led to a monopoly. Then, they bundled Windows (Buy Windows + DOS for less than DOS alone). That's illegal under Clayton/Sherman for a monopoly.
So yes, the poster did use "illegal" and "fraudulent" with basis - what MS did has been found (Finding of Fact) to be true, and done by a monopoly.
The questions now that are under review are the Conclusions of Law and the Proposed Remedies - if what they did in fact violated the law (highly likely, from my reading, but IANAL, and definitely IANAJ), and what, if anything, to do about it.