This is not a problem. Free software is not a product desgined for sale and support. it is source code, simple and plain. If you decide to use it, then you need to be sure it's okay to use, or accept the risk, because it is YOURS.
Yes, but that's exactly the problem. Businesses make decisions based on risk. Every business is in the job of managing risk. Now, it's suddenly more risky to use Linux, because there's no one to sue.
I'm not alone in this assertion. Here is a reference, which contains the following quote:
For example, if someone prior to the current end user made changes to the OSS code that infringe on a third party's patent, the patent holder could assert claims against the end user, even though the end user had no knowledge of the patent infringement... While the legal import of the Novell assertions and the SCO response to those allegations is unclear as of this writing given that SCO curiously did not allege copyright infringement in its lawsuit, it is clear that the story is not yet over and that there are many very interested parties who are more than willing to publicly wrangle in this high-stakes battle.
simply change the OS to BSD and call it good until the whole thing blows over. It shuts up the clueless CTO/CIO/CEO and makes the lawyers happy.
Ok, but that doesn't actually solve the problem. Whether SCO is right or not, they've uncovered a problem with Linux and Microsoft has already leapt to remediate that problem with their products. The problem is indemnity.
If you are the user of a Microsoft product, and Microsoft has installed someone else's copyrighted code into their software, the owner of that copyrighted code can claim that you are using their code without a license and can sue you for copyright infringement. Just this week, Microsoft publicized the fact that they fixed that problem, by providing you indemnity in the event that such a thing happens. If it turns out that you're using someone else's intellectual property (either copyright or patent) Microsoft promises to pay the expenses and hold the liabilty for the infringement.
The problem is that there's no one that's doing this in the open source/free software world. So if someone else's copyright or patent DOES get into Linux or OpenBSD, then they can sue YOU for using it w/out a license. Generally, I think we are pretty well convinced that SCO's case has no teeth. But that's not the problem. There may be some other case out there that *does* have teeth, and there is no one to indemnify the user of Linux/OpenBSD in the event that something that's copyrighted accidentally got into the code.
For individuals this really isn't that big of a deal, because the copyright or patent holder won't likely sue someone who doesn't have the money to pay. But for a bank, or for a large company, this is a *BIG* deal. This implies a risk to the use of open/free software that can't be easily countered.
This frightens me! This is a SERIOUS problem. Suddenly, the old adage that there's no one to sue becomes TRUE for open/free software and false for proprietary software.
Personally I've never liked this particular point of patenting, namely if I come up with an idea for how to do something (say toasting bread), I should be able to patent the method of toasting bread (by using an iron). But if some other smart guy see's that I'm toasting bread and says, hang on I've got a better/different way of doing it (with a pitchfork).
What you describe, I think, is the case. Basically you'd submit a patent which would have claims something along the lines of:
A method by which toasted bread is produced through the application of a heated iron to one side of the bread
A method by which claim 1 is applied to the other side of the bread
Now, IANAL, which means I'm also not a patent attorney, which means that the above wording, style, etc would NEVER be in an actual patent. But basically, if someone figured out a way to produce toasted bread by using a pitchfork, then they would not be infringing your patent since all of the claims of your patent do not apply to their technique.
The deal with this guy is that he's aleging that Microsoft has produced something that implements ALL of the claims in one (or more) of his patents. And he believes he has enough evidence to prove it. Basically, he'll have to demonstrate that Microsoft has implemented something identical to all of the claims of his patent. It's going to be up to the court to decide whether or not he's able to make such a demonstration.
Q1. What if Microsoft developed a way to carry out their authentication (using these trusts) either
1. On their own or
2. Without even hearing about InterTrust's patent?
This guy is not claiming copyright infringement. Therefore he doesn't need to see the source code to determine whether or not infringement occurred. He simply needs to see a program which implements (via any source code) a technique that he's patented.
Let's use an example of what I mean. Mailblocks claim that they have a patent on an antispam technique called "Challenge/Response". Then comes along Earthlink who implements a C/R antispam option for their customers. Mailblocks sues Earthlink. Now Mailblocks hasn't seen any of the source code to the software that Earthlink uses. But they know that they have a patent on what earthlink is doing, because they can interract with it and identify whether or not Earthlink's system implements all of the claims of Mailblocks' patent. Then they file suit.
BTW, I don't particularly like the patent claim that Mailblocks is using. I think that there is a *LOT* of prior art that can be demonstrated for this particular patent. However it is useful to illustrate the point: that this guy does not need to see Microsoft's source code to claim patent infringement. He only needs to play with the software and see if it does something that he's patented.
But, if you build a vacuum cleaner that works like a dyson, and I buy it and clean my carpets with it, it's _your_ fault, not mine. It's not up to the consumer to worry about patents, or nobody would be able to use anything at all without fear of being sued for it.
IANAL, so this may be way off base, but... in the case of the consumer using a product that infringes a patent, there's a natural protection in there. The cost of suing the consumer to recover the loss is MUCH greater than the cost of the vacuum cleaner. So, it's not that consumers can't be sued in this case. It's just that it's easier (and less costly) to sue the producer of the infringing product. I don't think that guarantees that the users are free from liability, but they may as well be because it'll cost too much to sue them.
The big question becomes: is this all bullshit? Are software users really liable for the behavior of third parties? When you put it that way, it seems ridiculous. But software has function -- it does stuff. If your computer does something in violation of some patent, it's your agent that is doing it, at your direction, on your behalf. Is it relevant that someone else gave the instructions on how to do it? I can look up a patent in a database and quote it to you, but if you then follow those directions that I gave you, you're the one who is violating the patent, not me.
Intellectual Property law tries very hard to treat software (and other "intellectual property") as if it behaved the same as physical property. E.g. you're not able to replicate physical property & IP law prohibits you from replicating intellectual property.
Well, if that's the case, then lets look at patent infringement in the physical property world. If I buy a car from Ford that violates a patent held by GM, who will get sued? IANAL, but I would argue that it's Ford who should be held responsible for the patent infringement. Even if Hertz, and I'm the user of Ford cars, and I have deep pockets. GM should not be able to sue me for infringing their patent. It's my understanding that this is how it works with physical property -- which may be an incorrect assumption. If it does work this way, why shouldn't the same thing apply to software?
The problem, of course, is that there is a subset of attorneys who believe that the civil legal system should be used not only to recover loss, but as a mechanism for generating revenue (recompensation vs. compensation). And it's because patents can be used (e.g. by SCO) for revenue generation that ridiculous lawsuits can be brought. If lawsuits could *NOT* be used for revenue generation, then there would be less incentive to use patents as a weapon, and I suspect that many fewer things would actually be patented: only those that actually *were* innovative ideas that took time and effort to develop and really did require some protection from someone else who could simply poach the results of all of that effort.
If this type of thinking were legitimized, it would be disasterous for the software industry. This is the first step toward making software something that can only be sold by megacorps, or bonded programmers, or something
While I don't disagree with that fear, I think it's somewhat alarmist. All businesses take risks. When a bank gives someone a loan, they're taking a risk that it will not default. Their job is to manage that risk. Part of the trade off is that they get paid interest. As long as *MOST* of the loans don't default, they still make money for the shareholders. So they investigate the background of the people they will lend money to, and they have procedures in place to try and recover something if the loan does default (payment plans, repossession, etc).
In the case of Microsoft vs. Linux, the risk analysis would have to go along these lines:
Microsoft offers financial coverage under certain circumstances where it's users are sued. Or they offer protection from a potential financial loss
Linux offers protection from guaranteed financial loss: licensing costs. Linux costs less in the short and long term than Microsoft.
There will be, without a doubt, many companies who decide that the former is more risky than the latter, and vice versa. The big difference is that the equation is no longer so lopsidedly in favor of the Linux side. The only hope, I think, is that IBM steps up to the plate. This seems possible, but very risky for IBM. They simply can't know all of the details of the code that they'd be indemnifying.
I think it would be appropriate at this point to write a free client
that talks with Bitkeeper, and for Linux developers to start switching
to that from Bitkeeper
I completely agree that RMS predicted this and he's being proven correct. But I'm really surprised at this response by him. Free (and open source) software works because someone finds a problem and decides to solve it. Then that person licenses that solution in such a way that everyone else can share. So far as I'm aware, all free/open source software came about because someone who cared decided to write it. And not a single piece of that software came about just because someone said, "Hey, I want this."
If RMS thinks this code should be written, then by all means, he's free to write it. But until it's written, it's vaporware, and it does no good talking about what "should" or "shouldn't" happen. I'm surprised that someone who has written as much free software as he has doesn't get that. Maybe he just forgot.
Uhm... well, yes. My shredder cost me $25 (got it on sale at OfficeMax). It shreds documents that, if found, could access all of my savings. Now mind you, my savings is barely enough to solve my family's hunger, much less world hunger, but it's quite a bit more than $25.
So, ProShredding has these risks:
Monetary: $25 one time cost
Probability total loss: Ridiculously small possibility that someone will collect my shred clippings and pay $10k per cubic foot to recover the info, and then use that to take my entire savings.
Time: my time used to shred document
AntiShredding has these risks:
Monetary: no up front cost
Probability total loss: Possibility that someone would take the time to scrounge through my trash to obtain that information
Time: no risk
Comparing item 1 to 1, well, yeah I had to buy a shredder. One point for antishredding. Comparing item 2 to 2, I think that the risk of someone scrounging my unshredded trash is very much greater than someone scrounging my shredded trash. One point for proshredding. Comparing item 3 to 3, well, yeah I have to take the time to do it.
The worst possible analysis that you could come up with is 2 points to 1 against shredding. Personally, I weigh points 1 and 3 fairly low. Say 5% each. I weigh point 2 at 90%. That gives me 90% to 10% in favor of shredding.
Monty, I'm gonna go with door A and continue to shred my private docs.
This tendancy towards living in fear scares me.
For me it's not an issue of living in fear. It's an issue of risk mitigation. The probability of total loss when I don't shred is significantly greater then if I do shred. And the upfront costs and effort required to shred is exceptionally low. So why not?
That's not really a fair comparison. We can't presume intelligence in a computer, where as a judge is a member of a sentient species, AND by virtue of his/her position, presumed to be among the ones who would exercise better judgement.
So judges are expected to understand plain english. Computers are not.
On the other hand, dealing with expensive service providers in another field has been mostly dealt with. The excessively expensive healthcare industry deals with payment through insurance. Why don't we have legal insurance? (Rhetorical question: I do have it).
Do you think that the point of "The Matrix" was the specific details about how humans can generate sufficient energy for a race of AI computers when "combined with a form of fusion"? If you don't, then feel free to pick whichever point you think makes the most sense.
In my opinion, the larger point of the movie can be summed up in this statement made by Morpheus: "Let me tell you why you're here. You're here because you know something. What you know you can't explain. But you feel it. You felt it your entire life. Something's wrong with the world. You don't know what, but it's there. Like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad"
Ummm... it's a movie! You know, willing suspension of disbelief, in order to get the larger point that's being made. Oddly enough, it sometimes helps to read/. posts this way, too.
Well, they say Mediocrity borrows while Genius steals, so maybe the two are more closely related than ya think...
I think it's more closely related to potential. The more potential you have, the more options you have to exercise that potential. So if, for example, you're really smart, you're left with a choice of how you want to use that intelligence. Either for something productive (genius) or for something antisocial (crime).
As far as getting married and having kids and the impact that it has on your potential. Well, I have a very well thought out treatise on the subject. But I'm married and have kids, and frankly I'm too tired to type it in right now. Hopefully I'll get to it later. But probably not, I have to take the kids to 100 activities, and then there's the honey-do list...
If every person on your node is using the net to download porn, you will have a very slow connection (better using a modem).
Ummm... bandwidth is shared when you use a modem, too. Ok, it's dedicated between the two communicating modems, but from that point onward it's shared by all of the ISP's other users who might use modems, xDSL, or other "dedicated" access like T1, T3, OC3, etc.
All internet bandwidth is shared. The only question is whether or not the shared infrastructure has enough bandwidth to support everyone that wants to share it at any given time. And that's a *MUCH* bigger problem than the last mile.
On the other hand, I completely agree with you that the previous poster grossly misunderstands.
Advertising agencies have still got it all wrong. Why doesn't one of the characters on Friends, for instance, have a thing for coke? I know enough people in the real world who are adamantly "addicted" to certain brands and foods that it wouln't even stretch the imagination to see a TV character with that trait.
Ironically, enough, one of the characters in "Sex in the City" is going to have a thing for TiVo. No, I'm kidding! In the 2nd episode of season 6 (this season), Miranda is going to give up on men in deferrance to her TiVo! I am NOT making this up.
Wow, did you misunderstand me! I agree that the TAX is bad - as does AOL Time Warner. I also agree that AOLTW will simply pass any tax that they get straight down to me.
Someone take me out of my misery. I find myself on the same side as AOL Time Warner!
AOL Time Warner, which owns cable companies, submitted a response to the FCC, saying that the agency "should not reverse decades of sound legal and policy conclusions"
I still can't understand why the Christian right touts "The Lord of the Rings" as a brilliantly disguised retelling of the Gospels (which it wasn't)
It might have something to do with the fact that J.R.R. Tolkien was a Christian. In fact, he's one of the people credited with helping to convert CS Lewis from atheism to Christianity. Whether or not Tolkien intended to write a Christian narrative into LoTR, I don't know. But it seems to have at least some significant bearing on his life and it wouldn't be surprising if some of its tenets leaked into his writing.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but that's exactly the problem. Businesses make decisions based on risk. Every business is in the job of managing risk. Now, it's suddenly more risky to use Linux, because there's no one to sue.
Wow! £100 isn't a waste, but ribbon is! That's funny!
Ok, but that doesn't actually solve the problem. Whether SCO is right or not, they've uncovered a problem with Linux and Microsoft has already leapt to remediate that problem with their products. The problem is indemnity.
If you are the user of a Microsoft product, and Microsoft has installed someone else's copyrighted code into their software, the owner of that copyrighted code can claim that you are using their code without a license and can sue you for copyright infringement. Just this week, Microsoft publicized the fact that they fixed that problem, by providing you indemnity in the event that such a thing happens. If it turns out that you're using someone else's intellectual property (either copyright or patent) Microsoft promises to pay the expenses and hold the liabilty for the infringement.
The problem is that there's no one that's doing this in the open source/free software world. So if someone else's copyright or patent DOES get into Linux or OpenBSD, then they can sue YOU for using it w/out a license. Generally, I think we are pretty well convinced that SCO's case has no teeth. But that's not the problem. There may be some other case out there that *does* have teeth, and there is no one to indemnify the user of Linux/OpenBSD in the event that something that's copyrighted accidentally got into the code.
For individuals this really isn't that big of a deal, because the copyright or patent holder won't likely sue someone who doesn't have the money to pay. But for a bank, or for a large company, this is a *BIG* deal. This implies a risk to the use of open/free software that can't be easily countered.
This frightens me! This is a SERIOUS problem. Suddenly, the old adage that there's no one to sue becomes TRUE for open/free software and false for proprietary software.
What you describe, I think, is the case. Basically you'd submit a patent which would have claims something along the lines of:
- A method by which toasted bread is produced through the application of a heated iron to one side of the bread
- A method by which claim 1 is applied to the other side of the bread
Now, IANAL, which means I'm also not a patent attorney, which means that the above wording, style, etc would NEVER be in an actual patent. But basically, if someone figured out a way to produce toasted bread by using a pitchfork, then they would not be infringing your patent since all of the claims of your patent do not apply to their technique.The deal with this guy is that he's aleging that Microsoft has produced something that implements ALL of the claims in one (or more) of his patents. And he believes he has enough evidence to prove it. Basically, he'll have to demonstrate that Microsoft has implemented something identical to all of the claims of his patent. It's going to be up to the court to decide whether or not he's able to make such a demonstration.
This guy is not claiming copyright infringement. Therefore he doesn't need to see the source code to determine whether or not infringement occurred. He simply needs to see a program which implements (via any source code) a technique that he's patented.
Let's use an example of what I mean. Mailblocks claim that they have a patent on an antispam technique called "Challenge/Response". Then comes along Earthlink who implements a C/R antispam option for their customers. Mailblocks sues Earthlink. Now Mailblocks hasn't seen any of the source code to the software that Earthlink uses. But they know that they have a patent on what earthlink is doing, because they can interract with it and identify whether or not Earthlink's system implements all of the claims of Mailblocks' patent. Then they file suit.
BTW, I don't particularly like the patent claim that Mailblocks is using. I think that there is a *LOT* of prior art that can be demonstrated for this particular patent. However it is useful to illustrate the point: that this guy does not need to see Microsoft's source code to claim patent infringement. He only needs to play with the software and see if it does something that he's patented.
IANAL, so this may be way off base, but... in the case of the consumer using a product that infringes a patent, there's a natural protection in there. The cost of suing the consumer to recover the loss is MUCH greater than the cost of the vacuum cleaner. So, it's not that consumers can't be sued in this case. It's just that it's easier (and less costly) to sue the producer of the infringing product. I don't think that guarantees that the users are free from liability, but they may as well be because it'll cost too much to sue them.
Intellectual Property law tries very hard to treat software (and other "intellectual property") as if it behaved the same as physical property. E.g. you're not able to replicate physical property & IP law prohibits you from replicating intellectual property.
Well, if that's the case, then lets look at patent infringement in the physical property world. If I buy a car from Ford that violates a patent held by GM, who will get sued? IANAL, but I would argue that it's Ford who should be held responsible for the patent infringement. Even if Hertz, and I'm the user of Ford cars, and I have deep pockets. GM should not be able to sue me for infringing their patent. It's my understanding that this is how it works with physical property -- which may be an incorrect assumption. If it does work this way, why shouldn't the same thing apply to software?
The problem, of course, is that there is a subset of attorneys who believe that the civil legal system should be used not only to recover loss, but as a mechanism for generating revenue (recompensation vs. compensation). And it's because patents can be used (e.g. by SCO) for revenue generation that ridiculous lawsuits can be brought. If lawsuits could *NOT* be used for revenue generation, then there would be less incentive to use patents as a weapon, and I suspect that many fewer things would actually be patented: only those that actually *were* innovative ideas that took time and effort to develop and really did require some protection from someone else who could simply poach the results of all of that effort.
While I don't disagree with that fear, I think it's somewhat alarmist. All businesses take risks. When a bank gives someone a loan, they're taking a risk that it will not default. Their job is to manage that risk. Part of the trade off is that they get paid interest. As long as *MOST* of the loans don't default, they still make money for the shareholders. So they investigate the background of the people they will lend money to, and they have procedures in place to try and recover something if the loan does default (payment plans, repossession, etc).
In the case of Microsoft vs. Linux, the risk analysis would have to go along these lines:
There will be, without a doubt, many companies who decide that the former is more risky than the latter, and vice versa. The big difference is that the equation is no longer so lopsidedly in favor of the Linux side. The only hope, I think, is that IBM steps up to the plate. This seems possible, but very risky for IBM. They simply can't know all of the details of the code that they'd be indemnifying.
I completely agree that RMS predicted this and he's being proven correct. But I'm really surprised at this response by him. Free (and open source) software works because someone finds a problem and decides to solve it. Then that person licenses that solution in such a way that everyone else can share. So far as I'm aware, all free/open source software came about because someone who cared decided to write it. And not a single piece of that software came about just because someone said, "Hey, I want this."
If RMS thinks this code should be written, then by all means, he's free to write it. But until it's written, it's vaporware, and it does no good talking about what "should" or "shouldn't" happen. I'm surprised that someone who has written as much free software as he has doesn't get that. Maybe he just forgot.
Uhm... well, yes. My shredder cost me $25 (got it on sale at OfficeMax). It shreds documents that, if found, could access all of my savings. Now mind you, my savings is barely enough to solve my family's hunger, much less world hunger, but it's quite a bit more than $25.
So, ProShredding has these risks:
AntiShredding has these risks:
- Monetary: no up front cost
- Probability total loss: Possibility that someone would take the time to scrounge through my trash to obtain that information
- Time: no risk
Comparing item 1 to 1, well, yeah I had to buy a shredder. One point for antishredding. Comparing item 2 to 2, I think that the risk of someone scrounging my unshredded trash is very much greater than someone scrounging my shredded trash. One point for proshredding. Comparing item 3 to 3, well, yeah I have to take the time to do it.The worst possible analysis that you could come up with is 2 points to 1 against shredding. Personally, I weigh points 1 and 3 fairly low. Say 5% each. I weigh point 2 at 90%. That gives me 90% to 10% in favor of shredding.
Monty, I'm gonna go with door A and continue to shred my private docs.
For me it's not an issue of living in fear. It's an issue of risk mitigation. The probability of total loss when I don't shred is significantly greater then if I do shred. And the upfront costs and effort required to shred is exceptionally low. So why not?
No, but that's funny!
That's not really a fair comparison. We can't presume intelligence in a computer, where as a judge is a member of a sentient species, AND by virtue of his/her position, presumed to be among the ones who would exercise better judgement.
So judges are expected to understand plain english. Computers are not.
On the other hand, dealing with expensive service providers in another field has been mostly dealt with. The excessively expensive healthcare industry deals with payment through insurance. Why don't we have legal insurance? (Rhetorical question: I do have it).
What are you talking about? You asked me what the larger point was. If you didn't want me to answer, why ask?
In any case, it is NOT my intention to use you as a strawman. I also did not mean to pick on you personally for arguing the minutia of a movie.
Cheers!
Do you think that the point of "The Matrix" was the specific details about how humans can generate sufficient energy for a race of AI computers when "combined with a form of fusion"? If you don't, then feel free to pick whichever point you think makes the most sense. In my opinion, the larger point of the movie can be summed up in this statement made by Morpheus: "Let me tell you why you're here. You're here because you know something. What you know you can't explain. But you feel it. You felt it your entire life. Something's wrong with the world. You don't know what, but it's there. Like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad"
Ummm... it's a movie! You know, willing suspension of disbelief, in order to get the larger point that's being made. Oddly enough, it sometimes helps to read /. posts this way, too.
I think it's more closely related to potential. The more potential you have, the more options you have to exercise that potential. So if, for example, you're really smart, you're left with a choice of how you want to use that intelligence. Either for something productive (genius) or for something antisocial (crime).
As far as getting married and having kids and the impact that it has on your potential. Well, I have a very well thought out treatise on the subject. But I'm married and have kids, and frankly I'm too tired to type it in right now. Hopefully I'll get to it later. But probably not, I have to take the kids to 100 activities, and then there's the honey-do list...
Ummm... bandwidth is shared when you use a modem, too. Ok, it's dedicated between the two communicating modems, but from that point onward it's shared by all of the ISP's other users who might use modems, xDSL, or other "dedicated" access like T1, T3, OC3, etc.
All internet bandwidth is shared. The only question is whether or not the shared infrastructure has enough bandwidth to support everyone that wants to share it at any given time. And that's a *MUCH* bigger problem than the last mile.
On the other hand, I completely agree with you that the previous poster grossly misunderstands.
Or were too impatient to let it record and were watching it live.
Ironically, enough, one of the characters in "Sex in the City" is going to have a thing for TiVo. No, I'm kidding! In the 2nd episode of season 6 (this season), Miranda is going to give up on men in deferrance to her TiVo! I am NOT making this up.
Man, I love TMDA. I'll just generate an expiring address. The one that I'm giving them will only work for 7 days.
Wow, did you misunderstand me! I agree that the TAX is bad - as does AOL Time Warner. I also agree that AOLTW will simply pass any tax that they get straight down to me.
It might have something to do with the fact that J.R.R. Tolkien was a Christian. In fact, he's one of the people credited with helping to convert CS Lewis from atheism to Christianity. Whether or not Tolkien intended to write a Christian narrative into LoTR, I don't know. But it seems to have at least some significant bearing on his life and it wouldn't be surprising if some of its tenets leaked into his writing.
Ummm... no. VB is a ripoff of NeXT's Interface Builder. Which NeXT came out with around 1990.
Umm... well actually, they already have.