...which is that I think Google's going to build a Web-based thin client-type hosted environment-slash-operating system replacement. Or at least, they should, and that's only if Microsoft doesn't beat them to it.
Wow! A network enabled thin client environment! I sure hope they beat Microsoft to the punch on such a startling cutting edge development!
...that is, if you ignore the last 20 or so years of X Windows.
This sets the huge precedent that P2P is legal over there.
P2P is legal everywhere. Downloading movies is what landed this guy in court. The method used is irrelevant.
Perhaps the submitter meant to highlight the possible point that a P2P user was not held liable for people using his PC to download copyrighted material from - but even then it is still different from the submission text.
It's no longer seen as the invincible little free operating system.
According to the dictionary, one definition of invincible is "Incapable of being overcome or defeated; unconquerable." And up until now it's only been something that fans of Linux have claimed. Now it's something that has been shown to be true. Linux now has a legal track record. It's not hearsay anymore.
Its heritage was brought into question
Yes it was. And that solves another thing that Linux fans have always claimed - and has now been found to be true in a court of law. And also by example - SCO drained itself trying to prove the opposite, drained its investors and came up with absolutely, positively nothing. Again, now it's no longer a claim, it has a track record.
And it's a track record and only a track record that can make something seem stable. Now, thanks to SCO, Linux has one.
That $50mil that Microsoft funneled into Baystar was the best advertising that Linux could have ever hoped for. Even better than the IBM Linux commercials.
The public flogging SCO received at the hands of their entire customer base serves as a stern warning to anyone who would try to lay any similar hijinks in the future.
"Hey Dan, this lawsuit sounds like a bad idea. Remember what happened to SCO?"
It's been wonderful good publicity, too. Nothing like showing the whole world who your allies are. The list of companies willing to back Linux (such as IBM) is impressive. Now, and thanks entirely to the lawsuit - people know that IBM backs Linux.
If Linux ever seemed fly-by-night, it sure as hell doesn't now.
Anytime you put a bad law or tax or whatever up for a vote.
It gets voted down. So the powers that be hold another vote. Repeat until the TPTB gets what it wants. No rule in place to keep you from asking over and over, like a nagging kid wanting candy.
Same thing in my home town over a property tax for schools. Put it up for a vote, and it's a no. Do it again. And again. And finally it goes through. And the school board starts doing backflips. Whee! A mandate from the masses!
Any truly fair system would hold a single vote, on a single topic - and then no more. Not forever, but for say...at least 7 years or so.
I've spent a fair amount of time thinking about your post.
As an example, lets say Megacorp holds hundreds of software patents. Including a silly one - they've patented adding one to a number with a single machine code instruction - plenty enough prior art on that! Soneone launches an attack on that patent.
Megacorp is an American company, and refuses to lose. Spends many millions in court and comes out on top. They have decided to win first and understand the consequences later.
How is this not a benefit to Megacorp?
I'm not a Doctor Who fan, but I did look up the episode synopsis and read that. You're suggesting that Megacorp could be winning a poisioned gift, if I follow you.
Only problem is, I fail to see how the win could be disastrous for Megacorp. And I'd like to. Any ideas how to extend my example into a bad result for Megacorp, or am I missing the point completely?
Refocusing its vision for AOL Instant Messenger, America Online is endeavoring to revitalize the service by opening up its community and presence to third parties.
Refocusing its vision? Endeavoring to revitalize??
I could feel my hair starting to get pointy just reading that much.
"No system in the world is 100 percent secure from a sophisticated and determined hacker," the Tennessee-based payroll company said in a statement sent to CNET News.com
And...
Greenspan, a former PayMaxx customer, said he discovered the alleged problems in the company's system more than two weeks ago, after he received notification from the company that his W-2 tax form was available online for download and printing. The link to access the W-2 included an ID number, and he wondered whether the company had protected against an obvious security problem: adding one to the ID number to get the next form.
Instead of being denied access, Greenspan found that another person's W-2 was downloaded and readable. Sequential, rather than randomized, ID numbers made it easy to call up numerous customers' data.
Have his patents been challenged in court? If not, your explanation lies in my previous post. If they have, your explanation lies in my previous post.
And my answer lies in my previous post. It costs money to defend against this nonsense. You gonna pay? I'm a little strapped for cash at the moment. I'm not quite prepared to take on Amazon.com with the change in my sofa.
Ah, the fabled bullshit lockout patent, which lives in a land of milk and honey, frolicing with the unicorns and elves.
Apparently you have a summer home there, because bullshit lockout patents are for real.
These patents hurt people who invest heavily in a business enterprise yet can't spend a few thousand dollars for someone to search the patent database beforehand.
Totally 100% wrong. Without giving away too much info and enabling some other freaking lawyer to ID me, here's the scoop.
We make a widget. Our competitor makes a widget. We have both made these widgets for several years.
Competitor tries to slip a bullshit lockout patent through. He adds "using compression" to the basic design specification to describe the data held in the roms. It's rejected twice. Third time, he finds a patent clerk who got high for lunch and approves it. Lawsuit is filed within days.
Millions are spent. Court battles are fought. We lose. End result is that we have to re-design our widget without any compression whatsoever. We have to add another rom. And that means even turning off the string optimization in the compilers!
So yeah, I'd say that lockout patents are real. And harmful. No elves necessary.
Yes, yes, the system is not self-correcting. Marvelously convincing argument you've built there.
It's not an argument, it's a fact. And one you're agreeing with.
On my side we have more than 100 years of the system, founded by those silly pranksters who wrote the Constitution, and on your side we have an anecdote.
Well, the founding fathers didn't get everything exactly right on their first try, did they? Our governmental policies and departments need to change to keep up with the times every so often. Or we'd still have slavery and women couldn't vote.
I'm sure the founding fathers couldn't predict software design. The system works fine for gadgets like cotton gins but is broken horribly with respect to software, and it will need serious reform before it ever will.
Alternatively, back in reality, the weak patents will either be used as wallpaper or invaldidated in court, while strong patents will function as intended.
Wonderful! I'm so glad you're volunteering to do pro bono work defending the next start-up that Microsoft decides to squash with one of these bogus patents. You're a good man, Matt Murdock.
While you're at it, could you also have a look at this Jeff Bezos guy? Or at least offer me a quick explanation as to why his patents are still on the books? I'd like to make an informed bet.
However, I Am An Intellectual Property Professional. Hate me if you must
Hate you? Don't even know you. What I do know is that the company I work for had to defend itself against one of these bullshit lockout patents. Cost us millions to defend against it, and in the end we had to re-tool an entire product line. All because of a crappy patent that a competitor managed to weasel through our busted-ass system. On his third try.
So, while you may be an IP lawyer of some sort, I'd imagine you're a pretty new one based on your comment. These patents hurt people, they cost money, and the system is not self-correcting.
Or, with any luck software-patent-free Europe will give us the high holy ass kicking in the marketplace we deserve. When it comes down to it, any reform will be a decision based on dollar signs. Sadly, it's the only way lawmakers know how to make decisions anymore.
The sooner the industry is choked with these obvious lock-out bullshit patents, the sooner development will grind to a total stop for fear of litigation. And as soon as that happens, the system will have to be reformed.
Well, either that or we all give up tech completely and be farmers. It's in the court's hands now.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoops. I was typing in a rush. That, and I've had to start calling it X Windows here at work so that my PHB knows what the hell I'm talking about.
Ah well.
Did you really think Microsoft would give you anything for free???
From the article:
Wow! A network enabled thin client environment! I sure hope they beat Microsoft to the punch on such a startling cutting edge development!
...that is, if you ignore the last 20 or so years of X Windows.
...but unfortunately I'm not allowed to talk about it.
Posting Realplayer feeds on Slashdot's main page. If they're available for more than 5 minutes, then that's heroic.
..was that this news is about 23 years old, and that's gotta be some kind of record. Even for Slashdot.
Well, it's not like the guy was a casual copier.
True. But do your rights dissolve with the severity of the crime you're accused of?
From the summary:
This sets the huge precedent that P2P is legal over there.
P2P is legal everywhere. Downloading movies is what landed this guy in court. The method used is irrelevant.
Perhaps the submitter meant to highlight the possible point that a P2P user was not held liable for people using his PC to download copyrighted material from - but even then it is still different from the submission text.
Respectfully, I also disagree.
It's no longer seen as the invincible little free operating system.
According to the dictionary, one definition of invincible is "Incapable of being overcome or defeated; unconquerable." And up until now it's only been something that fans of Linux have claimed. Now it's something that has been shown to be true. Linux now has a legal track record. It's not hearsay anymore.
Its heritage was brought into question
Yes it was. And that solves another thing that Linux fans have always claimed - and has now been found to be true in a court of law. And also by example - SCO drained itself trying to prove the opposite, drained its investors and came up with absolutely, positively nothing. Again, now it's no longer a claim, it has a track record.
And it's a track record and only a track record that can make something seem stable. Now, thanks to SCO, Linux has one.
That $50mil that Microsoft funneled into Baystar was the best advertising that Linux could have ever hoped for. Even better than the IBM Linux commercials.
Under the Kyoto Accord, he's going to charge everyone 5 cents every time they fart.
The public flogging SCO received at the hands of their entire customer base serves as a stern warning to anyone who would try to lay any similar hijinks in the future.
"Hey Dan, this lawsuit sounds like a bad idea. Remember what happened to SCO?"
It's been wonderful good publicity, too. Nothing like showing the whole world who your allies are. The list of companies willing to back Linux (such as IBM) is impressive. Now, and thanks entirely to the lawsuit - people know that IBM backs Linux.
If Linux ever seemed fly-by-night, it sure as hell doesn't now.
Anytime you put a bad law or tax or whatever up for a vote.
It gets voted down. So the powers that be hold another vote. Repeat until the TPTB gets what it wants. No rule in place to keep you from asking over and over, like a nagging kid wanting candy.
Same thing in my home town over a property tax for schools. Put it up for a vote, and it's a no. Do it again. And again. And finally it goes through. And the school board starts doing backflips. Whee! A mandate from the masses!
Any truly fair system would hold a single vote, on a single topic - and then no more. Not forever, but for say...at least 7 years or so.
Cause I hear it'll run Duke Nukem Forever, right out of the box!
Thanks for the explanation. I *knew* there was a kernel of wisdom in your post that I was missing, and it was maddening.
That said, your notion is brilliant.
I've spent a fair amount of time thinking about your post.
As an example, lets say Megacorp holds hundreds of software patents. Including a silly one - they've patented adding one to a number with a single machine code instruction - plenty enough prior art on that! Soneone launches an attack on that patent.
Megacorp is an American company, and refuses to lose. Spends many millions in court and comes out on top. They have decided to win first and understand the consequences later.
How is this not a benefit to Megacorp?
I'm not a Doctor Who fan, but I did look up the episode synopsis and read that. You're suggesting that Megacorp could be winning a poisioned gift, if I follow you.
Only problem is, I fail to see how the win could be disastrous for Megacorp. And I'd like to. Any ideas how to extend my example into a bad result for Megacorp, or am I missing the point completely?
Refocusing its vision for AOL Instant Messenger, America Online is endeavoring to revitalize the service by opening up its community and presence to third parties.
Refocusing its vision? Endeavoring to revitalize??
I could feel my hair starting to get pointy just reading that much.
In your experience, can managers with little technical knowledge successfully run a technically-oriented company?
You'll need to produce a counterexample first.
From the article:
"No system in the world is 100 percent secure from a sophisticated and determined hacker," the Tennessee-based payroll company said in a statement sent to CNET News.com
And...
Greenspan, a former PayMaxx customer, said he discovered the alleged problems in the company's system more than two weeks ago, after he received notification from the company that his W-2 tax form was available online for download and printing. The link to access the W-2 included an ID number, and he wondered whether the company had protected against an obvious security problem: adding one to the ID number to get the next form.
Instead of being denied access, Greenspan found that another person's W-2 was downloaded and readable. Sequential, rather than randomized, ID numbers made it easy to call up numerous customers' data.
Sophisticated and determined my ass!!
Gotta love a game that has penguins dancing to Beethoven.
Ah, but here you are merely wishful.
No shit.
Have his patents been challenged in court? If not, your explanation lies in my previous post. If they have, your explanation lies in my previous post.
And my answer lies in my previous post. It costs money to defend against this nonsense. You gonna pay? I'm a little strapped for cash at the moment. I'm not quite prepared to take on Amazon.com with the change in my sofa.
Ah, the fabled bullshit lockout patent, which lives in a land of milk and honey, frolicing with the unicorns and elves.
Apparently you have a summer home there, because bullshit lockout patents are for real.
These patents hurt people who invest heavily in a business enterprise yet can't spend a few thousand dollars for someone to search the patent database beforehand.
Totally 100% wrong. Without giving away too much info and enabling some other freaking lawyer to ID me, here's the scoop.
We make a widget. Our competitor makes a widget. We have both made these widgets for several years.
Competitor tries to slip a bullshit lockout patent through. He adds "using compression" to the basic design specification to describe the data held in the roms. It's rejected twice. Third time, he finds a patent clerk who got high for lunch and approves it. Lawsuit is filed within days.
Millions are spent. Court battles are fought. We lose. End result is that we have to re-design our widget without any compression whatsoever. We have to add another rom. And that means even turning off the string optimization in the compilers!
So yeah, I'd say that lockout patents are real. And harmful. No elves necessary.
Yes, yes, the system is not self-correcting. Marvelously convincing argument you've built there.
It's not an argument, it's a fact. And one you're agreeing with.
On my side we have more than 100 years of the system, founded by those silly pranksters who wrote the Constitution, and on your side we have an anecdote.
Well, the founding fathers didn't get everything exactly right on their first try, did they? Our governmental policies and departments need to change to keep up with the times every so often. Or we'd still have slavery and women couldn't vote.
I'm sure the founding fathers couldn't predict software design. The system works fine for gadgets like cotton gins but is broken horribly with respect to software, and it will need serious reform before it ever will.
Alternatively, back in reality, the weak patents will either be used as wallpaper or invaldidated in court, while strong patents will function as intended.
Wonderful! I'm so glad you're volunteering to do pro bono work defending the next start-up that Microsoft decides to squash with one of these bogus patents. You're a good man, Matt Murdock.
While you're at it, could you also have a look at this Jeff Bezos guy? Or at least offer me a quick explanation as to why his patents are still on the books? I'd like to make an informed bet.
However, I Am An Intellectual Property Professional. Hate me if you must
Hate you? Don't even know you. What I do know is that the company I work for had to defend itself against one of these bullshit lockout patents. Cost us millions to defend against it, and in the end we had to re-tool an entire product line. All because of a crappy patent that a competitor managed to weasel through our busted-ass system. On his third try.
So, while you may be an IP lawyer of some sort, I'd imagine you're a pretty new one based on your comment. These patents hurt people, they cost money, and the system is not self-correcting.
I agree, it could get that bad.
Or, with any luck software-patent-free Europe will give us the high holy ass kicking in the marketplace we deserve. When it comes down to it, any reform will be a decision based on dollar signs. Sadly, it's the only way lawmakers know how to make decisions anymore.
Go IsNot patent, go!
The sooner the industry is choked with these obvious lock-out bullshit patents, the sooner development will grind to a total stop for fear of litigation. And as soon as that happens, the system will have to be reformed.
Well, either that or we all give up tech completely and be farmers. It's in the court's hands now.
Might be a good time for help desk personal to pencil in a week (or two) of vacation.
Shouldn't this be posted to www.slashdot.in?
Argh. "Drop back to Linux". Too many layers of abstraction. ;^)