I resent the Internet-as-virus analogy. It is inflammatory. And somewhat in-accurate.
Viruses, bacteria, fungii and other parasites live off the strength of the host organism. They weaking it in order to grow, a negative net sum game since they die when the organism succumbs.
The Internet is not a negative net sum game. New value is being created in myriad, often unrecognized ways. The economy as a whole benefits, even if some fat parts don't like the pressure of competition.
But the Internet is like a living process in that it is robust and fault-tolerant. In this way it is like viruses. And very unlike the vulnerable centralized large-corporation model that still prevails.
It would appear that Ester Dyson is a corporatist. This is a rather tenuous position, since large organizations are a recent development (~100 yrs) and are known to suffer of very real diseconomies of scale that can overpower the advantages of size.
They make great moderators in nuclear reactors, and *ahem* are better moderators than Slashdot!
More to the point--there have been _very_ few politicians of whatever party in whatever country in the 20th century who I'd have voted for if I could have a Carbon rod instead!
While the FBI (& friends) are aghast at being compelled to release Carnivore details, I am not. It has to do with a little thing called freedom.
The police have exceptional powers. To protect individual rights [avoid a Star Chamber], their processes have to be subject to full scrutiny. They may complain this reduces their "efficiency" and allows bad guys to circumvent their methods. Too bad -- that is the price of freedom. Or perhaps the police would rather a police state?
Revealing Carnivore is no different from people knowing how other police methods work, like search warrents, wiretaps, etc. These are well known, and innocent civilians can adjust their affairs to to fall afoul of them. Similarly, citizens should know how to avoid attracting undue attention from Carnivore. Even if that also helps the crooks.
Sounds like your people have bought Gates marketing, hook-line-and-sinker. He writes software for sale, therefore it is an asset. Before him, and now once again with free software, software is written to solve problems and facilitate sales of other things: hardware [IBM] or services [RedHat].
Put it another way: how much could you sell the software for, even if it weren't GPL contaminated? How much do you sell your catalog for? Many things a company gives away, or at nominal cost as part of marketing efforts.
Sure, RMS may be a bit of an oddball. That's his right. Especially so given his contributions to free software: GCC & the GPL. emacs if that's to your liking. He's paid his dues in full.
But there is also a world of difference between listening to RMS, and doing everything he suggests. I don't think even he advocates the latter!
What's important is to listen to all views, especially polar [extreme] views, before deciding on any course of action. Or would you rather the suits just listen to sleazy lawyers?
I don't mind being labeled selfish or arrogant
on
Selfish Society
·
· Score: 3
Because it is invariably by those who are themselves, or who are trying to manipulate me through guilt.
Yes, I do owe something to others. Mostly my parents who saved and made opportunities for me. That was their choice, and I honor it by repeating it for my children. I also owe a great intellectual debt to those scientists, inventors and engineers who preceded me. They have already been rewarded for their work, and I honor them by continuing it.
But otherwise, forget it. Others certainly are less fortunate. But am I to somehow make them moreso? How? Why? What do I owe them? Many of them take a great deal of money from me via taxes.
The point Mr Katz made is valid, however. If we do not learn mass communications [pandering] and power politics, we will be dominated by those who do.
This is a democracy, not a meritocracy. So if some sleazy lawyer contributes money to the re-election fund of a similarly sleazy politician, do not be surprised at sleazy laws.
Ah, an admitted expert. I moderate when my turn comes around, although I seldom moderate downwards. In spite of carefully reading the FAQ, I do not have a crisp definitions.
Would you please compare and contrast TROLL versus FLAMEBAIT ? I really don't know the difference. It seems to me that both attempt to incite a response based on an outrageous statement. Is a TROLL based on a positive statment such as "Windows rulez" while FLAMEBAIT is based on a negative statment ("Natalie sux")? Or is that positive:)
Furthermore, seeing as the apocryphal Ms Portman was mentioned, please indicate exactly why OFFTOPIC and REDUNDANT are inappropriate. Thank you.
Not only would they have to pay Canadian and British Columbian income (~50%?) and sales taxes (14%?) plus the higher cost-of-living, but the DoJ would still be after them!
I don't think it matters under US law _who_ has the monopoly, just that one exists and it is being abused. A judge would still order remedies although ordering a breakup is less likely. What he could and would order would be forced licencing. Congress would likely slap on tariffs, and the whole mess would go to the WTO. I'm a bit surprised the EU hasn't done any of this. Maybe they're more tolerant of monopolies over there.
One of the things that has greatly helped MS is that no elected-offal wants to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. No one will dispute that MS lays eggs:) But if that goose is foreign, the gloves come off and the battle axe gets swung.
I'm sorry you cannot see it. I will try to expain better. Anonymous speech is very important to protect because it most likely contains unpopular ideas which would attract retribution. But those ideas aren't always wrong!
The problem is not someone telling you to shut-up. The problem is when people wish you ill because of your ideas. Sometimes, they are in a position to fulfill those wishes.
In an ideal world, people would not need anonymous speech. No-one would be afraid to post their names. People would be proud instead. And I judge people somewhat harshly if they misuse or abuse anonymity.
But this is not perfect world. Try driving around town with a bumpersticker "Fsck the Cops". Lets say you have neighbor/boss/coworker who you need to get along with. But you have diametrically opposing views on some high-charged issue like abortion. Anonymity (or lack of information) helps you both get along.
To the chagrin of those who would control us [the government], time and time again the US Supreme Court has upheld the right to publish anonymously. This also includes the right to read anonymously. Much of the "Federalist Papers" were published anonymously for fear of reprisal.
Anonymity [in spite of it's pejorative connotation] is nothing more than a stronger form of privacy. Privacy is the right not to be snooped "at home". Anonymity is basically the right to make snooping impossible "in public". If everybody followed certain confidentiality rules, you might be able have privacy without anonymity. If people don't follow the rules, then the only privacy _is_ in anonymity.
Since rules are always broken, skirted, loopholed or otherwise compromised by interested parties, the only safe privacy is through anonymity.
One of the biggest problem in any transmission line/pipe is obtaining the right-of-way (space) for the cable/pipe. After that, the biggest problem is transporting materials to the line head where the work is going on.
A railways solves both problems neatly. With the right trencher, it should be possible to bury fiber just outside the ballast at greater than 10 miles-per-hour! If your signals system has enough spare power, you can use that for the repeater boxes.
Fair comments. CNet hardly overreacted, but/. did. And CNet mostly goes for the investor crowd.
As for the effect of a 10cent increase it will increase revenues 1.7% -- hardly anything to write home about. Of course, costs will probably have a negligible increase, so the effect on profits will be multiplied.
But even so, I doubt this will have any lasting effect on Micron stock. But it's good for a kick up on Tuesday. To the dubious extent that these things are subject to any quantative evaluation, sales growth seems to be the key metric. And this hardly counts.
I have the hobbyist Tru64 running on one of my Multia's, and I'm quite impressed with it. A very smooth install and nice CDE environment. Rock solid system, good response on slow hardware, and a filesystem that doesn't even need fsck after a power dip.
But I seriously doubt that Compaq would open up the most interesting bit: the Alpha optimizing compiler. That would be a great help to the `gcc` folks, but would also help Intel's IA64 (Itanium) compiler more than Compaq would stomache.
So maybe they might open up some parts of the kernel. This isn't trivial either and could definitely help out the Linux kernel developers.
C'mon/. , you're playing right into the hands of the DRAM mfrs. They don't like the current low prices and have lost a bundle on Rambus. So they're taking this low-profit time to do some maintenance/retooling on some fabs. Perfectly normal.
They've also got lots of chips in inventories to meet sales. A plant fire when demand is tight is one thing, but a planned shutdown when demand is slack is quite another.
But starting a buying panic is very much in their interest. CNet bought the story, hook-line&sinker. Now you. Fortunately, the hobbyist market is fairly small, and I doubt can move prices. The big OEMs (Dell, Compaq, HP, IBM) are smarter than to fall for this.
The US Constitution is nothing like regulations. It isn't even written like most law. Much high level, and devoid of detail. More like Frech "Code Civile" than English law. This would work.
Oddly, I think I would be more comfortable with a Surpreme Court decision establishing that data privacy was part of the controversail "Right to Privacy" in 9th Amendment.
More regulation from the FTC is not the answer, because clever people always find a loophole or a way around regulations. DoubleClick will. And that's not even counting the lobbying possibilities.
The 'net simply moves/changes too fast for legislators and their regulators.
The real solution to privacy is users--we must demand it. Most poeple don't, and haven't a clue of what privacy would bring them. It will take some really bad scares before John Q Public wakes up.
Oh, I fully agree that MS _deserves_ to have the book thrown at them (harsh punishment), both on the facts of the case and their unapologetic, contemptuous conduct in Court.
But still it may not happen. MS is very popular with many unsophisticated users. High tech in general is seen as the leading industry in the USA, and MS is certainly one of it's leaders. The replacement for heavy industry (steel, autos) which declined seriously in the 1970s & '80s. No-one wants to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. It remains to be seen how much these political/policy considerations will restrain Judge Jackson.
Contrast this with Standard Oil, who was merely a cranky impedement to the leading industries 100 years ago: railroads and electrification. Breaking up SONJ was a way to help progress. I doubt that there's any general consensus that breaking up MS will help high-tech progress. Most of SlashDot believe it will, and frankly so do I, most because MS stifles innovation.
MS acts as a wet blanket on all innovation. They copy others ideas and give them away for free with their OS. Or fiddle their OS so their version runs, but others doesn't. If I had the next "killer app", I certainly wouldn't launch it in the current MS-dominated competitive climate.
From fairly early in the case, MS must have abandoned all hope (perhaps after Gates miserable videotape, or all the emails) at the trial level, and is pinning it's hopes on Appeal.
So naturally they are difficult about Settlement, because you generally cannot Appeal a settlement which is, after all, an agreement.
This is a high stakes game, and MS is calling the DoJ and the Judge. The question becomes how far the Judge is prepared to go. Is anyone bluffing?
Nuking the moon is a poor idea. To make much more than a single, bright flash, it would have to be "dirty", ie, a surface impact. The some of ejecta would head to earth as satellite killers.
Furthermore, even a big heavy 50 MT fission-fusion-fission warhead is only 2e14 Joules, about the same as a 2000 tonne meteor (35 ft diameter) moving at 15 km/s.
Very, very true. But the software author is a unique expert in the work they want done. That is also a strong position.
More important is the analogy I made to the company asking someone to sign away a house or car. Often I find injustice the result not of deliberate evil intent, but rather a lack of thought and a narrow viewpoint. It is important to break that narrowness and that's where the analogy comes in. Once it is well made, continuing pressure looks foolish or worse.
Such an argument separates the wolves from the sheep. The author might be very uncomfortable working for people with revealed evil intent. I know I would be, and would seek employment elsewhere. Sooner or later, they will force you into being an accomplice.
In all crisis is opportunity. Why talk of suing? It's a very good thing they're using your web software, because it makes you much more valuable. Just know what's yours and don't let yourself get pressured.
What I would do is immediately go to the manager, and tell him that you've noticed they're using your GPL software, and you're happy about this. They have right to use it. Tell him you can save him alot of time just implementing the later GPL updates that give most of the enhancements he wants.
For the other updates, he has a choice to make: either put them under GPL since they are derivative works, or negotiate a separate nonGPL licence from you if he wants to distribute them as closed sw. Get paperwork either way. If no-one else has contributed GPL patches to your project, you should still be able to grant this licence. Of course, you'd be happy to work on either.
I wouldn't mention that you can work on non-distributed, in-houe enhancements. They might later decide to distribute them as closed, and then you'd have to sue. Having offered a second licence and being rebuffed would give you a much stronger position in this suit.
You cannot be forced into giving away your copyright any more than he can be forced into signing his house or car over to the company. Especially since you had that property before you came to the company, so there can be no dispute about ownership. Put it in exactly those terms.
The manager will have losts of questions about the GPL, and will need to consult your company's legal people. Give him time. It's a new concept for business.
I understand your difficulty acknowledging contributions, and how this pains you. Post rating points, posted comments or email are obviously out.
But maybe your lawyers will let you say "thank you" by dropping a some unexpected karma points on useful posters. I presume most of them are not AC's. AFAIK, only the poster sees karma when they go to their user page. I go there to check follow-ups to my posts.
As I posted in the previous thread, SlashDot should take this to the MS antitrust team at the Department of Justice. It shows MS continuing to violate the law, and if the judge is told of it, may result in a more severe penalty.
The fact that the WP and other media have picked this up should make the DoJ (and the Judge in turn) more receptive to SlashDot's complaint. But there's little time since AFAIK the DoJ punishment brief is due soon!
Exactly. A demonstrable example of "embrace, extend and extinguish".
What also makes it interesting is that this occured after the "Findings of Fact" and "Findings of Law" were issued. You would think that MS would cease-and-desist behaviour that has been found to be illegal (pending appeal) even if the punishment has not been determined. Persisting in illegal behaviour is the definition of recidivism, and opens them up to much greater punishment.
Slashdot Mirror
I resent the Internet-as-virus analogy. It is inflammatory. And somewhat in-accurate.
Viruses, bacteria, fungii and other parasites live off the strength of the host organism. They weaking it in order to grow, a negative net sum game since they die when the organism succumbs.
The Internet is not a negative net sum game. New value is being created in myriad, often unrecognized ways. The economy as a whole benefits, even if some fat parts don't like the pressure of competition.
But the Internet is like a living process in that it is robust and fault-tolerant. In this way it is like viruses. And very unlike the vulnerable centralized large-corporation model that still prevails.
It would appear that Ester Dyson is a corporatist. This is a rather tenuous position, since large organizations are a recent development (~100 yrs) and are known to suffer of very real diseconomies of scale that can overpower the advantages of size.
They make great moderators in nuclear reactors, and *ahem* are better moderators than Slashdot!
More to the point--there have been _very_ few politicians of whatever party in whatever country in the 20th century who I'd have voted for if I could have a Carbon rod instead!
Ah yes, the FBI can dodge & weave.
But they take a big risk of contempt and a default judgement that Carnivore is unconstitutional until they do.
That would be disaster for the FBI, because then any evidence that Carnivore produced or lead to [however indirectly] is inadmissable in Court.
While the FBI (& friends) are aghast at being compelled to release Carnivore details, I am not. It has to do with a little thing called freedom.
The police have exceptional powers. To protect individual rights [avoid a Star Chamber], their processes have to be subject to full scrutiny. They may complain this reduces their "efficiency" and allows bad guys to circumvent their methods. Too bad -- that is the price of freedom. Or perhaps the police would rather a police state?
Revealing Carnivore is no different from people knowing how other police methods work, like search warrents, wiretaps, etc. These are well known, and innocent civilians can adjust their affairs to to fall afoul of them. Similarly, citizens should know how to avoid attracting undue attention from Carnivore. Even if that also helps the crooks.
Sounds like your people have bought Gates marketing, hook-line-and-sinker. He writes software for sale, therefore it is an asset. Before him, and now once again with free software, software is written to solve problems and facilitate sales of other things: hardware [IBM] or services [RedHat].
Put it another way: how much could you sell the software for, even if it weren't GPL contaminated? How much do you sell your catalog for? Many things a company gives away, or at nominal cost as part of marketing efforts.
Sure, RMS may be a bit of an oddball. That's his right. Especially so given his contributions to free software: GCC & the GPL. emacs if that's to your liking. He's paid his dues in full.
But there is also a world of difference between listening to RMS, and doing everything he suggests. I don't think even he advocates the latter!
What's important is to listen to all views, especially polar [extreme] views, before deciding on any course of action. Or would you rather the suits just listen to sleazy lawyers?
Because it is invariably by those who are themselves, or who are trying to manipulate me through guilt.
Yes, I do owe something to others. Mostly my parents who saved and made opportunities for me. That was their choice, and I honor it by repeating it for my children. I also owe a great intellectual debt to those scientists, inventors and engineers who preceded me. They have already been rewarded for their work, and I honor them by continuing it.
But otherwise, forget it. Others certainly are less fortunate. But am I to somehow make them moreso? How? Why? What do I owe them? Many of them take a great deal of money from me via taxes.
The point Mr Katz made is valid, however. If we do not learn mass communications [pandering] and power politics, we will be dominated by those who do.
This is a democracy, not a meritocracy. So if some sleazy lawyer contributes money to the re-election fund of a similarly sleazy politician, do not be surprised at sleazy laws.
Ah, an admitted expert. I moderate when my turn comes around, although I seldom moderate downwards. In spite of carefully reading the FAQ, I do not have a crisp definitions.
:)
Would you please compare and contrast TROLL versus FLAMEBAIT ? I really don't know the difference. It seems to me that both attempt to incite a response based on an outrageous statement. Is a TROLL based on a positive statment such as "Windows rulez" while FLAMEBAIT is based on a negative statment ("Natalie sux")? Or is that positive
Furthermore, seeing as the apocryphal Ms Portman was mentioned, please indicate exactly why OFFTOPIC and REDUNDANT are inappropriate. Thank you.
Not only would they have to pay Canadian and British Columbian income (~50%?) and sales taxes (14%?) plus the higher cost-of-living, but the DoJ would still be after them!
:) But if that goose is foreign, the gloves come off and the battle axe gets swung.
I don't think it matters under US law _who_ has the monopoly, just that one exists and it is being abused. A judge would still order remedies although ordering a breakup is less likely. What he could and would order would be forced licencing. Congress would likely slap on tariffs, and the whole mess would go to the WTO. I'm a bit surprised the EU hasn't done any of this. Maybe they're more tolerant of monopolies over there.
One of the things that has greatly helped MS is that no elected-offal wants to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. No one will dispute that MS lays eggs
I'm sorry you cannot see it. I will try to expain better. Anonymous speech is very important to protect because it most likely contains unpopular ideas which would attract retribution. But those ideas aren't always wrong!
The problem is not someone telling you to shut-up. The problem is when people wish you ill because of your ideas. Sometimes, they are in a position to fulfill those wishes.
In an ideal world, people would not need anonymous speech. No-one would be afraid to post their names. People would be proud instead. And I judge people somewhat harshly if they misuse or abuse anonymity.
But this is not perfect world. Try driving around town with a bumpersticker "Fsck the Cops". Lets say you have neighbor/boss/coworker who you need to get along with. But you have diametrically opposing views on some high-charged issue like abortion. Anonymity (or lack of information) helps you both get along.
To the chagrin of those who would control us [the government], time and time again the US Supreme Court has upheld the right to publish anonymously. This also includes the right to read anonymously. Much of the "Federalist Papers" were published anonymously for fear of reprisal.
Anonymity [in spite of it's pejorative connotation] is nothing more than a stronger form of privacy. Privacy is the right not to be snooped "at home". Anonymity is basically the right to make snooping impossible "in public". If everybody followed certain confidentiality rules, you might be able have privacy without anonymity. If people don't follow the rules, then the only privacy _is_ in anonymity.
Since rules are always broken, skirted, loopholed or otherwise compromised by interested parties, the only safe privacy is through anonymity.
One of the biggest problem in any transmission line/pipe is obtaining the right-of-way (space) for the cable/pipe. After that, the biggest problem is transporting materials to the line head where the work is going on.
A railways solves both problems neatly. With the right trencher, it should be possible to bury fiber just outside the ballast at greater than 10 miles-per-hour! If your signals system has enough spare power, you can use that for the repeater boxes.
All-in-all, a very neat solution.
Fair comments. CNet hardly overreacted, but /. did. And CNet mostly goes for the investor crowd.
As for the effect of a 10cent increase it will increase revenues 1.7% -- hardly anything to write home about. Of course, costs will probably have a negligible increase, so the effect on profits will be multiplied.
But even so, I doubt this will have any lasting effect on Micron stock. But it's good for a kick up on Tuesday. To the dubious extent that these things are subject to any quantative evaluation, sales growth seems to be the key metric. And this hardly counts.
I have the hobbyist Tru64 running on one of my Multia's, and I'm quite impressed with it. A very smooth install and nice CDE environment. Rock solid system, good response on slow hardware, and a filesystem that doesn't even need fsck after a power dip.
But I seriously doubt that Compaq would open up the most interesting bit: the Alpha optimizing compiler. That would be a great help to the `gcc` folks, but would also help Intel's IA64 (Itanium) compiler more than Compaq would stomache.
So maybe they might open up some parts of the kernel. This isn't trivial either and could definitely help out the Linux kernel developers.
C'mon
They've also got lots of chips in inventories to meet sales. A plant fire when demand is tight is one thing, but a planned shutdown when demand is slack is quite another.
But starting a buying panic is very much in their interest. CNet bought the story, hook-line&sinker. Now you. Fortunately, the hobbyist market is fairly small, and I doubt can move prices. The big OEMs (Dell, Compaq, HP, IBM) are smarter than to fall for this.
Yes and no, respectively.
The US Constitution is nothing like regulations. It isn't even written like most law. Much high level, and devoid of detail. More like Frech "Code Civile" than English law. This would work.
Oddly, I think I would be more comfortable with a Surpreme Court decision establishing that data privacy was part of the controversail "Right to Privacy" in 9th Amendment.
More regulation from the FTC is not the answer, because clever people always find a loophole or a way around regulations. DoubleClick will. And that's not even counting the lobbying possibilities.
The 'net simply moves/changes too fast for legislators and their regulators.
The real solution to privacy is users--we must demand it. Most poeple don't, and haven't a clue of what privacy would bring them. It will take some really bad scares before John Q Public wakes up.
Oh, I fully agree that MS _deserves_ to have the book thrown at them (harsh punishment), both on the facts of the case and their unapologetic, contemptuous conduct in Court.
But still it may not happen. MS is very popular with many unsophisticated users. High tech in general is seen as the leading industry in the USA, and MS is certainly one of it's leaders. The replacement for heavy industry (steel, autos) which declined seriously in the 1970s & '80s. No-one wants to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. It remains to be seen how much these political/policy considerations will restrain Judge Jackson.
Contrast this with Standard Oil, who was merely a cranky impedement to the leading industries 100 years ago: railroads and electrification. Breaking up SONJ was a way to help progress. I doubt that there's any general consensus that breaking up MS will help high-tech progress. Most of SlashDot believe it will, and frankly so do I, most because MS stifles innovation.
MS acts as a wet blanket on all innovation. They copy others ideas and give them away for free with their OS. Or fiddle their OS so their version runs, but others doesn't. If I had the next "killer app", I certainly wouldn't launch it in the current MS-dominated competitive climate.
From fairly early in the case, MS must have abandoned all hope (perhaps after Gates miserable videotape, or all the emails) at the trial level, and is pinning it's hopes on Appeal.
So naturally they are difficult about Settlement, because you generally cannot Appeal a settlement which is, after all, an agreement.
This is a high stakes game, and MS is calling the DoJ and the Judge. The question becomes how far the Judge is prepared to go. Is anyone bluffing?
Nuking the moon is a poor idea. To make much more than a single, bright flash, it would have to be "dirty", ie, a surface impact. The some of ejecta would head to earth as satellite killers.
Furthermore, even a big heavy 50 MT fission-fusion-fission warhead is only 2e14 Joules, about the same as a 2000 tonne meteor (35 ft diameter) moving at 15 km/s.
Very, very true. But the software author is a unique expert in the work they want done. That is also a strong position.
More important is the analogy I made to the company asking someone to sign away a house or car. Often I find injustice the result not of deliberate evil intent, but rather a lack of thought and a narrow viewpoint. It is important to break that narrowness and that's where the analogy comes in. Once it is well made, continuing pressure looks foolish or worse.
Such an argument separates the wolves from the sheep. The author might be very uncomfortable working for people with revealed evil intent. I know I would be, and would seek employment elsewhere. Sooner or later, they will force you into being an accomplice.
In all crisis is opportunity. Why talk of suing? It's a very good thing they're using your web software, because it makes you much more valuable. Just know what's yours and don't let yourself get pressured.
What I would do is immediately go to the manager, and tell him that you've noticed they're using your GPL software, and you're happy about this. They have right to use it. Tell him you can save him alot of time just implementing the later GPL updates that give most of the enhancements he wants.
For the other updates, he has a choice to make: either put them under GPL since they are derivative works, or negotiate a separate nonGPL licence from you if he wants to distribute them as closed sw. Get paperwork either way. If no-one else has contributed GPL patches to your project, you should still be able to grant this licence. Of course, you'd be happy to work on either.
I wouldn't mention that you can work on non-distributed, in-houe enhancements. They might later decide to distribute them as closed, and then you'd have to sue. Having offered a second licence and being rebuffed would give you a much stronger position in this suit.
You cannot be forced into giving away your copyright any more than he can be forced into signing his house or car over to the company. Especially since you had that property before you came to the company, so there can be no dispute about ownership. Put it in exactly those terms.
The manager will have losts of questions about the GPL, and will need to consult your company's legal people. Give him time. It's a new concept for business.
I understand your difficulty acknowledging contributions, and how this pains you. Post rating points, posted comments or email are obviously out.
But maybe your lawyers will let you say "thank you" by dropping a some unexpected karma points on useful posters. I presume most of them are not AC's. AFAIK, only the poster sees karma when they go to their user page. I go there to check follow-ups to my posts.
As I posted in the previous thread, SlashDot should take this to the MS antitrust team at the Department of Justice. It shows MS continuing to violate the law, and if the judge is told of it, may result in a more severe penalty.
The fact that the WP and other media have picked this up should make the DoJ (and the Judge in turn) more receptive to SlashDot's complaint. But there's little time since AFAIK the DoJ punishment brief is due soon!
Exactly. A demonstrable example of "embrace, extend and extinguish".
What also makes it interesting is that this occured after the "Findings of Fact" and "Findings of Law" were issued. You would think that MS would cease-and-desist behaviour that has been found to be illegal (pending appeal) even if the punishment has not been determined. Persisting in illegal behaviour is the definition of recidivism,
and opens them up to much greater punishment.