I'd have to agree with shystershep that it wouldn't be worth IBM's time to pursue the lawsuit.
1. GPL has never been involved in a court case, so some buisnesses see it as unproven
IBM is not "some businesses" nor would IBM waste it's legal resources looking into matters that concern "some businesses".
2. What happens to the next piddling little company running out of money that may have something that they can BS into making it look like it's a big deal?
Huh? In no way could the countersuit set a precedent that "piddling little companies" should automatically lose to IBM. Each case of copyright infringement must be examined individually. Precedent plays no part.
3. Litigation is expensive, and SCO made IBM do most of the research already... does IBM's legal department want to look like they just wasted $$? In most businesses, that isn't a good thing for the department.
The amount of money already spent is completely irrelevant. IBM must weigh the remaining costs against the projected benefits of crushing SCO vs settling. Given that pursuing this in court will be very expensive (research is just one of many costs) and that crushing SCO doesn't benefit IBM any more than settling, I think the choice is easy. And the research money is certainly not "wasted" if it leads to SCO's law suit being dismissed.
4. I know some people at IBM have got to be emotional over this. So throw back in the we are pissed at sco part.:)
Since when did lawyers make important monetary decisions based on their emotions? Or the emotions of Linux advocates? Not likely.
5. If they win, given that IBM registers it's copyrights (please please tell me if I am wrong)
You are wrong.
The winnings could definately help defray some of the cost of Litigation
Let's speculate here. SCO has used shady legal shenanigans for years to pump up it's stock. All large purchases it has made have been mostly in stock. It's executives are being paid because dumbass investors believe their lies and buy their stock. Within about 0.002 nanoseconds of SCO losing their case against IBM every investor in the world will realize that SCO has no source of income, no product worth buying, and insufficient cash reserves. All of SCO's "wealth" will vaporize as their stock plummets. At this point any award against SCO is worthless because they won't have any money to hand over to IBM. So, why exactly does that seem like a worthwhile pursuit from IBM's perspective? (Hint: it doesn't.)
Ok, how about this analogy. Duffel bags are a popular item for bank robbers to stash the stolen money in. I'm interested in purchasing a duffel bag for my own non-bank-robbing purposes (and what I use it for is none of your business or anyone else's but my own). So, I go online to look for a good deal and the site I find advertises the duffel bags as "GREAT ASSETS FOR BANK ROBBERY!!!". I buy the bag, I get sued by a bank?
How the site advertises the duffel backs doesn't have a damn thing to do with the legitimacy of my purchase. As long as I stay within the law what I do with my duffel bag is my own business and I'll be damned if I'll let some stupid bank pry their way into my affairs after making assumptions about my purpose. If I rob a bank, then prosecute me. But, until someone breaks the law corporations should have no right to sue, threaten, or otherwise harass consumers.
Don't forget that without strong intellectual property laws, the GPL would not exist, and it would be in nobody's interest to share code or ideas for fear that they would get stolen. Beware the law of unintended consequences.
I don't think people are calling the principle of strong IP laws into question. That's a different issue. The issue is the breadth these laws have been expanded to in recent years. It's one thing to say "my innovation should be protected for a reasonable time." It's another thing to say "my vague idea should be given absolute power in my field for the next 120 years."
too bad we can't moderate RMS as off topic. most of this is just his petty little gnu/linux crusade. he doesn't even bring up SCO's code copying accuation until the 7th paragraph. he needs to get over it.
sure, GNU code is an important part of what we call linux. so is xfree86, but i don't here them whining about the xfree86/gnu/linux operating system. or what about gnome/kde/xfree86/gnu/linux. the most basic definition of "operating system" is "software that controls the execution of computer programs and may provide other services". the kernel qualifies. everything else is an add-on for usability.
anyway, it's pretty pathetic of RMS to use every single issue or topic to push his name agenda.
I do not believe for a second that the bio engineer that is splicing in the gene "well understands" the effect it will have.
I meant that the gene's effect in the original creature is understood, nitwit. Which it is, it produces a protein. Protein producing genes are just a blueprint for the protein and can be isolated with precision. The degree to which the fluorescent protein is produced in the recipient is of course a more complicated matter. However, that's not very relevant to my point that this particular gene cannot and will not cause the animal to sprout stingers. If you still don't see this then I recommend picking up any college biology book.
First of all know one completely understands a gene strand.... Who says these things wont develope stingers.
Ok, you are the one who doesn't understand much about genetics. They aren't any more likely to "develope stingers" than a normal fish. Splicing in a new gene does not increase the rate of mutations, that's a product of radiation, etc. And the genes they are using have a very well understood effect. Yes, it does increase the genetic diversity but that can't hurt. If these things are released into nature and don't function as well then they'll be removed by natural selection. They won't turn into the boogey men out of whatever cheesy sci-fi novel you seem to base your knowledge of genetics on.
Well I don't think this will do much. It's like when the US outlawed the selling of Alcohol.
It may not prevent all filesharing or CD burning, but it certainly could take a heavy toll. Marijuana usage is farily common in the US becaues it's easy to get. However, about 1/4 of the prison population are in for drug offenses. I don't doubt that people will continue to fileshare, but not without a great deal of punishment dealt out. And Sweden has shown (with regards to drugs) that it is able to enforce behavior laws more strictly than the US. I would hate to think of Sweden's prison population swelling with college students who can't pay the fines for downloading kazaa.
"There's no excuse for anyone violating copyright laws," Hatch said.
I really hate it when polititians use such blatantly flawed logic. Of course violating copyright laws is wrong, but his suggestion has nothing to do with whether or not it is right share copyrighted material. With that logic I might be defending my decision to shoot the guy who cut me off this morning by saying "There's no excuse for dangerous lane changes." The illegality of an act is never sufficient justification for a particular response.
Why? Because they can't act as a bridge AND an access point at the same time.
Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying that. Too bad the article doesn't explain it.
On another note, why did I just get modded up after someone pointed out my lack of understanding?
setting up multiple Wi-Fi bases... all had to be the same model... had to be mass-market consumer hardware... The only product that met our needs was Apple's AirPort Extreme base station.
This jump in logic baffles me. Those aren't exactly difficult standards to meet. Wouldn't any old Linksys wifi router suffice for mass-market? Why exactly would it be difficult to have multiple instances of the "same model"? The author doesn't jutsify the choice or even explain any of the differences between Apple's product or anyone elses.
I doubt this would be effective because corporate copyright holders have already shown that they will fight to keep control of material which is no longer directly profitable. The issue is that if more material went into the public domain then the public would have free material to watch/listen instead of paying for something newer. It would be worth it for the MPAA/RIAA to renew for $1 or even $100 just to prevent this. What we need is a law setting a hard cap on the length of a copyright, and for a much more reasonable period of time.
SearchKing CEO Bob Massa expressed disappointment over the ruling, but he didn't see it as a complete loss.
Of course it's not a complete loss. SearchKing has received more attention with this lawsuit than they ever would have on their own business merits. That's part of why suing a big player like google or IBM is so lucrative even when your case is so flimsy. Attention whores.
I have to recommend the old sci-fi classic, Dune. It did a marvelous job of creating a strange yet self-consistent world. Gread read. The other books in the series are sometimes dry and uninteresting, but still worth it.
maybe it's just me, but this article has a rather tabloid-esque sensanionalist feel to it. where did they get the figure of $1.6-trillion of damage done by viruses? that's just not believable. then they quote unspecified "experts" and refer to vaguely conspiratorial theories of government-hired hackers in a "secret laboratory".
basically, they are printing a new course announcement and mixed it in with a bunch of hyped up BS in order to make it look like a real article.
I'd like to believe so too, unfortunately the first reports of this started a couple days ago. For instance check out the dates on the yahoo and NZCity articles.
That's why I said "looks like" not "certainly is". However, the probability of cometary origin is rather high with a 12% water content. Most water that isn't found on a planet is in comets. Astroids also have some but far less. A comet origin is a pretty good bet.
2) if a comet comes "in contact" with a planet, then it isn't orbiting any more.
It never was orbiting the planet. Comets orbit the sun, their paths sometimes happen to come near planets.
it no longer has a trajectory, because it's stuck to a planet.
Ok, clearly the amino acids got into space somehow (if the rock was not, in fact, tainted). Whether by bouncing off the atmosphere or picking up debris or by some other method, this flying space rock had to come in contact with a planet somehow and continue on it's path in order to someday hit the earth. I'm not going to argue for how likely this is to happen or by what method. I'm just saying that it's unlikely for any interplanetary object, comet or other, to pass near more than one planet. If it hit earth, probably the last planet it was near was also earth.
Slashdot Mirror
1. GPL has never been involved in a court case, so some buisnesses see it as unproven
IBM is not "some businesses" nor would IBM waste it's legal resources looking into matters that concern "some businesses".
2. What happens to the next piddling little company running out of money that may have something that they can BS into making it look like it's a big deal?
Huh? In no way could the countersuit set a precedent that "piddling little companies" should automatically lose to IBM. Each case of copyright infringement must be examined individually. Precedent plays no part.
3. Litigation is expensive, and SCO made IBM do most of the research already... does IBM's legal department want to look like they just wasted $$? In most businesses, that isn't a good thing for the department.
The amount of money already spent is completely irrelevant. IBM must weigh the remaining costs against the projected benefits of crushing SCO vs settling. Given that pursuing this in court will be very expensive (research is just one of many costs) and that crushing SCO doesn't benefit IBM any more than settling, I think the choice is easy. And the research money is certainly not "wasted" if it leads to SCO's law suit being dismissed.
4. I know some people at IBM have got to be emotional over this. So throw back in the we are pissed at sco part. :)
Since when did lawyers make important monetary decisions based on their emotions? Or the emotions of Linux advocates? Not likely.
5. If they win, given that IBM registers it's copyrights (please please tell me if I am wrong)
You are wrong.
The winnings could definately help defray some of the cost of Litigation
Let's speculate here. SCO has used shady legal shenanigans for years to pump up it's stock. All large purchases it has made have been mostly in stock. It's executives are being paid because dumbass investors believe their lies and buy their stock. Within about 0.002 nanoseconds of SCO losing their case against IBM every investor in the world will realize that SCO has no source of income, no product worth buying, and insufficient cash reserves. All of SCO's "wealth" will vaporize as their stock plummets. At this point any award against SCO is worthless because they won't have any money to hand over to IBM. So, why exactly does that seem like a worthwhile pursuit from IBM's perspective? (Hint: it doesn't.)
Yeah, i don't like talking about Charter either.
Ok, how about this analogy. Duffel bags are a popular item for bank robbers to stash the stolen money in. I'm interested in purchasing a duffel bag for my own non-bank-robbing purposes (and what I use it for is none of your business or anyone else's but my own). So, I go online to look for a good deal and the site I find advertises the duffel bags as "GREAT ASSETS FOR BANK ROBBERY!!!". I buy the bag, I get sued by a bank?
How the site advertises the duffel backs doesn't have a damn thing to do with the legitimacy of my purchase. As long as I stay within the law what I do with my duffel bag is my own business and I'll be damned if I'll let some stupid bank pry their way into my affairs after making assumptions about my purpose. If I rob a bank, then prosecute me. But, until someone breaks the law corporations should have no right to sue, threaten, or otherwise harass consumers.
[Consumers] may well be willing to pay for their entertainment -- if the quality is guaranteed and the price is fair.
Sheesh, what dunce claimed that? Clearly consumers are more willing to pay if you threaten and sue them. Duh.
too bad we can't moderate RMS as off topic. most of this is just his petty little gnu/linux crusade. he doesn't even bring up SCO's code copying accuation until the 7th paragraph. he needs to get over it.
sure, GNU code is an important part of what we call linux. so is xfree86, but i don't here them whining about the xfree86/gnu/linux operating system. or what about gnome/kde/xfree86/gnu/linux. the most basic definition of "operating system" is "software that controls the execution of computer programs and may provide other services". the kernel qualifies. everything else is an add-on for usability.
anyway, it's pretty pathetic of RMS to use every single issue or topic to push his name agenda.
The 5Mb file is gone. However, one thing they cannot remove is their front page. Nor the links on it. So, for all you vengeful linux users:
wget -r -nd --delete-after www.sco.com
Let that go for a while, stop when you want more bandwidth.
I'd imagine that one of the most difficult parts of debugging for a large OSS project is dealing with the deluge of bug reports.
I do not believe for a second that the bio engineer that is splicing in the gene "well understands" the effect it will have.
I meant that the gene's effect in the original creature is understood, nitwit. Which it is, it produces a protein. Protein producing genes are just a blueprint for the protein and can be isolated with precision. The degree to which the fluorescent protein is produced in the recipient is of course a more complicated matter. However, that's not very relevant to my point that this particular gene cannot and will not cause the animal to sprout stingers. If you still don't see this then I recommend picking up any college biology book.
First of all know one completely understands a gene strand.
Ok, you are the one who doesn't understand much about genetics. They aren't any more likely to "develope stingers" than a normal fish. Splicing in a new gene does not increase the rate of mutations, that's a product of radiation, etc. And the genes they are using have a very well understood effect. Yes, it does increase the genetic diversity but that can't hurt. If these things are released into nature and don't function as well then they'll be removed by natural selection. They won't turn into the boogey men out of whatever cheesy sci-fi novel you seem to base your knowledge of genetics on.
It may not prevent all filesharing or CD burning, but it certainly could take a heavy toll. Marijuana usage is farily common in the US becaues it's easy to get. However, about 1/4 of the prison population are in for drug offenses. I don't doubt that people will continue to fileshare, but not without a great deal of punishment dealt out. And Sweden has shown (with regards to drugs) that it is able to enforce behavior laws more strictly than the US. I would hate to think of Sweden's prison population swelling with college students who can't pay the fines for downloading kazaa.
I really hate it when polititians use such blatantly flawed logic. Of course violating copyright laws is wrong, but his suggestion has nothing to do with whether or not it is right share copyrighted material. With that logic I might be defending my decision to shoot the guy who cut me off this morning by saying "There's no excuse for dangerous lane changes." The illegality of an act is never sufficient justification for a particular response.
On another note, why did I just get modded up after someone pointed out my lack of understanding?
This jump in logic baffles me. Those aren't exactly difficult standards to meet. Wouldn't any old Linksys wifi router suffice for mass-market? Why exactly would it be difficult to have multiple instances of the "same model"? The author doesn't jutsify the choice or even explain any of the differences between Apple's product or anyone elses.
I doubt this would be effective because corporate copyright holders have already shown that they will fight to keep control of material which is no longer directly profitable. The issue is that if more material went into the public domain then the public would have free material to watch/listen instead of paying for something newer. It would be worth it for the MPAA/RIAA to renew for $1 or even $100 just to prevent this. What we need is a law setting a hard cap on the length of a copyright, and for a much more reasonable period of time.
it's also possible to direct link as a google partner. thus, avoiding pasting the entire article into an overly long comment.
from the article: Of course it's not a complete loss. SearchKing has received more attention with this lawsuit than they ever would have on their own business merits. That's part of why suing a big player like google or IBM is so lucrative even when your case is so flimsy. Attention whores.
I have to recommend the old sci-fi classic, Dune. It did a marvelous job of creating a strange yet self-consistent world. Gread read. The other books in the series are sometimes dry and uninteresting, but still worth it.
does this mean it would be possible to turn your 1 euro bills into 100 euro bills by re-writing or replacing the RFID?
maybe it's just me, but this article has a rather tabloid-esque sensanionalist feel to it. where did they get the figure of $1.6-trillion of damage done by viruses? that's just not believable. then they quote unspecified "experts" and refer to vaguely conspiratorial theories of government-hired hackers in a "secret laboratory".
basically, they are printing a new course announcement and mixed it in with a bunch of hyped up BS in order to make it look like a real article.
all this downsizing, what could be next? CowboyNeal being removed from the polls?
April Fools? Anyone?
I'd like to believe so too, unfortunately the first reports of this started a couple days ago. For instance check out the dates on the yahoo and NZCity articles.
Shallow Grave was Ewan McGregor's first movie with Danny Boyle, the director of Trainspotting. Dark and funny. British humor at it's best.
You think that's spit you're drooling?
I hope that makes my point clearer to you.