Not to get in to a pissing match, but I clearly have. But you've missed my point.
"They argue that, yes, but that's a follow-up, after they say, EVEN IF you buy the notion that we're not allowed to do whatever we want with our own homegrown code, then the contract STILL wouldn't bar us from using it."
"They argue that, yes,...", of course they argue what I said it's their first friggin' arguement. It is the whole basis of the AT&T contract. The contract is specific about the fact that IBM could do "whatever they want" with their OWN code. This isn't at all the same as saying IBM could do whatever they want with a "derivative work", eg. create a 3rd derivative work with their OWN code. Of course IBM could do that, the AT&T contract simply codified normal copyright practice.
But claiming the AT&T contract gave IBM the right to "do whatever they like" with a derivative work is simply wrong. Since the only derivative work that the AT&T contract could possibly speak to was the one IBM created when they produced AIX(or Dynix but that's Sequent) and the AT&T contract was specific about NOT allowing IBM to release any source code from AIX that contained AT&T code. In other words it didn't allow IBM "to do whatever they like" with a derivative work! And The Register doesn't do anyone any favors by claiming it does.
Hey you weanie if your going to troll at least make a good argument.
To the extent that SCO didn't know that their code was in Linux than the GPL would be null-and-void. HOWEVER, you(I'm assuming your Darl until otherwise notified) filed a lawsuit claiming you knew about all kinds of your code in Linux. Now you have certified to a court that in fact there is NO Unix System V code in Linux. Yet you continue to distribute Linux on your website. So, once you knew about any of your code in Linux you MUST stop distributing it or you have agreed to place it under the GPL. Secondly since you've also certified that in fact there is no Unix System V code in Linux you don't have a case anyway.
Lastly, I'm sure you would just LOVE for Linux to be under a BSD license, than you could steal all the hard work of the community you hoover.
Actually I disagree. If I gave away your code that I didn't own under the GPL and you knew about it but continued to distribute the source under the GPL you would lose all rights to sue me. It doesn't matter that I didn't own the code.
Your proper response would have been to sue me for copyright infringement, not distribute the code, and make it clear to everyone that is distributing the code, that you own the copyrights and haven't released it under the GPL.
Now in IBM's case they do own the copyrights so it's even more clear, but in either case you can't stop me from doing something which you are knowingly doing even if I did it first. Of course you could claim you didn't know, but than how do you sue me? So once you know, you must stop distributing your own code under the GPL.
Yup, I saw that too but I had already caught The Register on one, no use pointing out two faults.
Can we safely assume than The Register totally cocked this one up?
BTW, besides acting as a licensing go-between, SCO also bought the exclusive right to develop and sell licenses to any new versions of Unix System V. So SCO owns Unix System V Release 4. Although I don't believe they would own the copyright on any code in Unix SVR4 that was previously in Unix SVR3.2(or anything before SVR4 for that matter). So, to the extent they added new code SCO owns that but nothing previous to it. At least that's my understanding, they did pay $100 million for something.
That should of course be "How did The Register get is so wrong?" We have an application here at work which we refer to as "The Registry". It was a natural slip up, mea-culpa, so am I forgiven?
The Register claims "IBM goes on to argue... that IBM was allowed to do what it liked with derivative works."
This is NOT what IBM's motion claims. In fact it's the exact opposite of what IBM was arguing. IBM's motion claims that the agreements with AT&T applied only to "derivative works" as defined by the US copyright office and truck loads of case law. "Derivative works" here having it's naturally understood meaning that the work must contain part of the original(or some substantial simularity).
So basically IBM was saying that they aren't allowed to distribute the source code to ALL of AIX or Dynix or any part that CONTAINS System V code, but they can distribute any of the code from these that belongs only to IBM(called homegrown code in the motion).
Since noone is claiming that IBM has given away all the code to AIX and Dynix, and because SCO has basically given up any pretense of showing code in Linux that might have come from System V AND because the only code SCO has actually pointed to belongs ENTIRELY to IBM which is expressly NOT derivative code, than IBM is well within their rights to distribute it.
In other words, "It belongs to us and we can do with it what we like, now piss off."
As opposed to "Sure part of it belongs to you but the contract says we can do with it what we like, so piss off". If this was the case I would be backing SCO here, but since it isn't, I want SCO to fry.
They've already counter-sued for that and much,much more.
Trust me SCO as we know it will no longer exist. Darl and his cronies however, will likely make out like bandits. Hopefully, IBM can sue on something to get Darl and his boys personally and not just SCO.
I agree its still going to be a while but I think we can make a better guess than that.
The grandparent post stipulated that the judge wouldn't give SCO any more wiggle room, which I don't believe is all that far-fetched. Here, I take wiggle room as "we need more discovery", as opposed to "my nephews sick I need more time to file". The latter is what I would characterize as normal operations, the first is wiggling.
IBM filed their first PSJ on or about May 21st. The initial oral argument was scheduled for Aug. 4th but this has been moved to Sept. 14th. Presuming a couple of days for the judge to ponder and that decision would be handed down around Sept.16th. So, let's call it 3 and 1/2 months. Thus, from the date of Friday's filing(Aug.13th) that would place a resolution on the contract question by or about Dec.1st or so, call it Dec.7th for good measure.
Now, presuming further that both PSJ's go in IBM's favor, there would be little left to argue as the rest of SCO's case hinges entirely on their claims in the contract claims. I will guess that IBM will file a few more of these PSJ motions, basing them on the two already in play. So I will guess that by mid-May of next year almost all of SCO's case will have been dismembered. Effectively making "this" over. There will of course be the inevitable clean-up which will occur because IBM has all their counter-claims and I guarantee they are not going to let those drop. So sometime around November of next year I suspect SCO will declare bankruptcy or negotiate that IBM take over SCO operations with no money changing hands.
Whether IBM desires to persue old Darl and his cronies for some malfeasance I can't guess in which case the "whole thing" won't be over for some time, but all the nasty stuff will be over by May or June of next year.
As IBM's motion clearly points out it's called "waiver". By knowingly distributing the code under the GPL, SCO has waived all claims against IBM(and anyone else) for any code that might be in Linux illegally(I say might because I think the whole idea is a sham).
Anyway, basically SCO can't sue someone else for the same action they are in fact performing.
You missed one part, once you have a monopoly you cannot exert undue influence to MAINTAIN the monopoly. By not licensing FairPlay Apple is exerting undue influence in their current monopoly or so the argument could go.
(This presumes of course you believe they have a monopoly in a mature market.)
Yes Apple has pretty nice margins and that's good for a niche player. But are you really suggesting that Apple should stick in the on-line music & music player game to be a niche player?
Currently Apple isn't a niche player in the on-line music & music player game. But all it takes is one cool new gizmo to supplant the iPod and their profits from it will be miniscule compared to the knock-offs. If your a geek you should know this.
This is a totally new market segment. Once things broaden out more, new technology hits the streets, peoples buying habits change just enough, the profits from low-cost players will far and away dwarf anything Apple could imagine with their "high margin" hardware. Trust me, there's a much larger market in the $199.99(Canadian) range than the $399.99 range. I'd much rather make 10 cents for each of a billion sold than $10 from each of a million sold.
Apple's best bet is to try and get a percentage of each on-line music sale. That's where the money will be even if it isn't now.
Ah sure I do, was this clairvoyant or what, yes this isn't Real sueing Apple, but I pointed out the threat of litigation for anti-competitive behaviour here in my second point,
Actually, I excerpted only the part that was relevant to the question of the CPU architecture. The "Royalty relief" is clearly spelled out in the contract as well and has nothing to do with IBM violating any Licensing agreement with respect to SCO's recent statements. It had to do with how much IBM was to pay SCO for use of the licenses after a given period of time.
As for the court case, you can believe whatever you want.
Since this discussion started over the believability of SCO's public statements, either they're previous ones or their current ones, I'll take your acquiescense on the public statements as agreement SCO is full of it and is just blowing smoke again.
While there is still "nothing to be seen here", I'll note that SCO already added copyright infringement claims as well as others for their continued use of AIX after SCO "revoked" the license. So this current licensing story can't be related to that, that would be really "Nothing to see" as it's already occurred.
I utterly fail to see how SCO thinks they will win anything on their "revoking" claim when IBM clearly has an irrevocable license. That word is not up to interpretation. The license says SCO/Novell were allowed to do other things with regards to protecting their IP but they can't revoke the license. That this hasn't been thrown out yet just leads me to believe that IBM sees it as sooo insignificant that they'll get around to it later if they have to.
Given other responses to this thread I'll be surprised if IBM dignifies this with a public response. Hell they're probably having a hard time picking themselves off the floor they're laughing so hard.
Unless your specifically talking about SVR4 code in AIX your wrong. Here is the relevant part of the licensing agreement from "Amendment X"(found as an Exhibit in the "Legal Docs" section of Groklaw),
"the royalty relief described in Section I of this Amendment No. X shall apply only to use or distribution of the Software Products and Sublicensed Products in the IBM operating system referred to currently as AIX, any prior version or releases of AIX and derivative or follow-on version to AIX on the Power or Power PC or Power2 architectures or derivative or follow-on architectures irrespective of the names of such versions."
Now granted this is for the use SVR3.2 in AIX, but it's clear from this that IBM was doing development on Power PC NOT Intel. So your right it is limited to a single architecture(or it's follow-on, and tell me that's not ambiguous) but it was Power PC NOT Intel. In which case, of course I'm wrong myself in believing it was limited to a single hardware platform. Furthermore this specifically allows IBM to develop a 64 bit PPC version.
As for my last point, the only thing that you could possibly take exception to is my assessment of SCO's chances in their CONTRACT suit to be "VERY doubtful". Everything else in that paragraph is not speculation. SCO never filed any IP claims against IBM with respect to Linux, they filed purely a contract claim. They have presented IBM with no evidence of copyright violation. Unless SCO provides evidence of copyright violation, that particular piece of the case will NEVER reach a jury. SCO didn't need the millions of documents, nor the e-mails, and "intent" isn't relevant. SCO simply needed to compare Linux to Unix System V and provide said "mountain of evidence" to IBM which IBM requested they do. They haven't done so and yet have filed a declaration that their answers to discovery are "true" and "complete". So I stand behind my statement that ALL SCO's public statements on IP violation have been false.
Except that everything SCO has said, at least up to this time, has been bogus!
Note that SCO has claimed since the start that they have a "mountain of evidence", yet they have yet to provide any of it to IBM, which is why in IBM's cross-complaint(effectively a counter suit), they are filing for a Declaration that they did NOT infringe on any of SCO's copyrights vis-a-vis any of IBM's work with Linux. The truth is shocking isn't it? With regards to IBM's Linux work, SCO NEVER filed a copyright claim against IBM, they never filed a patent claim against IBM, and they've dropped their trade-secret claim. In other words, SCO's whole case rests on a nebulous and purile reading of a contract. Which will very likely be thrown out soon after the judge gives IBM the win in their Summary Judgement on their copyright cross-complaint.
Secondly, the "news" article is sooo chalk full of mistakes that the reporter should be ashamed of himself. He's fallen for SCO's story hook, line & sinker. Note how he calls it a suit against IBM over Linux, well as I've pointed out above, SCO never filed any suit over Linux per-se, they filed a suit over a contract claim with AIX.
Furthermore, the story claims that the SCO suit was filed over code that SCO claimed was "stolen". The facts of the filing couldn't be further from the truth! SCO has never claimed ownership or ownership rights over any code IBM has contributed to Linux, at least in the court filings. They've made all kinds of statements in public.
So this latest claim is just more of the same. First, it could easily be falsely represented information from SCO. Nothing they have said in public has been true. If you can find one schtickel of evidence for SCO's public claims I'm sure they would love to have it because they have shown none themselves. You don't need to believe me, just go read the court filings. IBM would not have asked for Summary Judgement regarding their copyright claim if SCO had handed them ANY evidence of copyright violations. What was SCO's answer to the request for Summary Judgement? "We need more time, and we need more discovery." In other words, SCO knows they are royally screwed on the copyright claim.
Secondly, even if SCO has found evidence of License violations by IBM over AIX 5L. This in NO WAY affects Linux. Note that SCO's public statement isn't that they found code that IBM copied to Linux, it's a claim that IBM didn't have a License to use SVR4 in AIX 5L. SCO still hasn't presented any evidence of SCO code in Linux, and this new statement doesn't indicate otherwise.
In fact SCO has so tried to twist everything into a pretzel shape of their liking that I don't believe a single word they say. This article is very likely more of the same and the writer made himself part of the scam by publishing an article that completely misrepresents the original case and derides both IBM and "Linux zealots".
By the way, if you don't believe me that SCO has absolutely NO evidence go to Groklaw and follow the "Legal Docs" link. Than read the court filings by both IBM and SCO. While we aren't privy to the evidence submitted under seal, it is clear from the back and forth of the filings that SCO has shown no evidence of wrong doing by IBM.
Umm, no we don't. Just because Project Monteray was focused on a 64-bit Unix doesn't mean that IBM was restricted by a license to keeping AIX on a single platform. A number of the licenses are buried in Groklaw's "Legal Docs" link. I could go look, but it would surprise me greatly if the license refered to a hardware platform rather than the use of Unix System V for general IBM development purposes of AIX.
By the way, Project Moneterey didn't die in negotiation. It actually produced tangible code that IBM simply didn't release.
Lastly, if you read the court filings by SCO you will discover that they could win a court case against IBM for contract violation(VERY doubtful) and still lose the war. Nothing in SCO's lawsuit with IBM has anything to do with SCO's property rights vis-a-vis Linux. They never filed a copyright claim against IBM(with regards to Linux), they dropped their trade-secret claim, and they have never filed any patent claims. In other words, every word uttered out of SCO's mouth with regards to IP violations in Linux is completely and absolutely FALSE.
But you don't have to believe me, just read the court filings, they're (almost) all there on Groklaw.
This is absolutely the funniest thing when you know that IBM and others have used the term FUD in court filings to describe the actions of SCO and others. In other words FUD is an acceptable term. On the otherhand M$ is just there to get your goat, and it worked.
You don't have to get your evidence from the conversations on Groklaw, but they have an extensive library of all the court filings. I don't know what kind of SCO troll you are exactly but it is clear that at this point SCO has shown exactly ZERO evidence of IBM wrongdoing! Just go to Groklaw and follow the "Legal Docs" link which are the actual court filings. I've read almost all of them.
The only chance that SCO has right now is for the judge to feel sorry for them and grant them discovery access to all AIX code dating back to 1985. But that would only forestall the inevitable and would in no way indicate SCO has a case. They have provided nothing to IBM in terms of copyright violations, thus IBM's motion for Summary Judgement that IBM's actions of any sort with Linux do not violate SCO's copyrights. Once they win on that one(which they will, again unless the judge simply puts it off to give SCO more time), the contract violation claim will go down in a heep of flames.
By the way, if the judge does grant SCO more discovery than he's either being overly generous or he's been bought. I would prefer to think the former. And no, there's no need to think he believes SCO. IBM's Summary Judgement request relies only on code that SCO has had total and complete access to, 1) the Linux kernel and 2) SCO Unix System V. Both are completely in the hands of SCO, they don't need AIX source code to show IBM is violating their copyrights. Since IBM has asked for the "mountain of evidence" that SCO supposedly had and has received exactly ZERO, ZILCH, NADDA, they will win the Summary Judgement claim!
So as a troll you've done well, you've wasted my time but that's all you've done.
No problem. There's no need to have a contentious argument(this is an argument and not just contradiction after all).
Oh and I didn't miss the implied point it's just best to side step them unless you need to admit to it. Otherwise there's no point in arguing. I have 4 brothers so I get a lot of practice at this. Hell I even get in to arguments with them when we agree on the point but disagree on the reasons the point is valid.
Anyway,
1) This point can't be divorced from the benefit derived from the sale of extra iPod's due to Real's actions. Apple would only be hurt by Real's move if the decrease in sales at iTMS were not offset by increased iPod sales. Since iPod sales garner far more benefit per unit than iTMS sales it would take alot of lost iTMS sales to see an overall negative effect on Apple.
2) For iTMS to prosper as a revenue generation scheme on its own it must attract sales from non-iPod owners, otherwise we're just back to number 1). Thus Apple must make it's proprietary format available on other players, it's possible if not likely that if Apple stops Real from their actions here by some legal manuevering that they will be stopped in the same way in the future(e.g. a potential Microsoft player & music store). Secondly, since Apple owns both the iPod and iTMS they must be extremely careful in regards to "anti-competitive" behaviour. You can't use one product to "lock" users in to the use of another. Secondly, since this argument is about Apple using the DMCA "for the good of the shareholders", more good is actually derived from Apple licensing Real's formats on the iPod than trying to stop them. By licensing Real they derive benefits from all songs played on the iPod(which is the goal of iTMS), they do not set themselves up for potential lawsuits due to "anti-competitive" behaviour, and they do not set a precedent that could easily be used against them by a third(much bigger) party. This could also easily become a public relations nightmare, when people's perceptions that Apple is trying to lock them in overshadows the reality that any old MP3 can be played on an iPod. Consider what will happen when Microsoft releases their own device that actually has the same "coolness" factor as the iPod but it can connect and download from 20 different vendors but the iPod is limited to iTMS. I'm sorry but not even this argument seems to stand up to strict scrutiny. It would be much,much better, especially right now when on-line music downloading is in it's nascient phase, for Apple to license it's DRM and/or license 3rd parties to play their format on the iPod than to deny them that ability and try to fight them in court. For iTMS to survive Apple will need allies, there are much bigger competitors out there than Real, and Apple is just setting themselves up for the wrong precedent.
So, while I consider point 2) to be a much stronger argument than point 1), it is not a good enough argument(IMHO) to justify Apple's threat of using the DMCA.
Sarcasm only works if the analogy is somehow relevant. 3 years ago the profits from the iPod were small due to small numbers. By all indications iTMS is selling a tremendous number of songs(100 million or more was the last reference I've seen). So the analogy fails and so does your sarcasm.
This argument is used by any corporation when they do something that is obviously against their previous stated "good guy" image.
The fact is they need not do anything to Real as Real's "hack" does not hurt Apple's bottom line and would more likely help it. It is a tautology to say that having more choices of music formats on an iPOD will make it more attractive and likely increase sales of that device.
Since Apple receives little benefit from iTMS the potential for lost sales there has little effect on their bottom line. The potential for increased iPOD sales far out ways any loss.
Thus by sueing or threatening to sue Real they are in fact working AGAINST their share holders interests and should be stopped by your very argument from doing so.
While I don't know if Google will be found liable(e.g. have to pay money), if the allegations are true they would certainly have to stop using the code(or license it if they want).
Surely you wouldn't suggest that if an employee of a company stole a car and gave it to the company, that the company should be able to keep it?
Slashdot Mirror
Not to get in to a pissing match, but I clearly have. But you've missed my point.
"They argue that, yes, but that's a follow-up, after they say, EVEN IF you buy the notion that we're not allowed to do whatever we want with our own homegrown code, then the contract STILL wouldn't bar us from using it."
"They argue that, yes,...", of course they argue what I said it's their first friggin' arguement. It is the whole basis of the AT&T contract. The contract is specific about the fact that IBM could do "whatever they want" with their OWN code. This isn't at all the same as saying IBM could do whatever they want with a "derivative work", eg. create a 3rd derivative work with their OWN code. Of course IBM could do that, the AT&T contract simply codified normal copyright practice.
But claiming the AT&T contract gave IBM the right to "do whatever they like" with a derivative work is simply wrong. Since the only derivative work that the AT&T contract could possibly speak to was the one IBM created when they produced AIX(or Dynix but that's Sequent) and the AT&T contract was specific about NOT allowing IBM to release any source code from AIX that contained AT&T code. In other words it didn't allow IBM "to do whatever they like" with a derivative work! And The Register doesn't do anyone any favors by claiming it does.
Darl? Darl? Is that you?
Hey you weanie if your going to troll at least make a good argument.
To the extent that SCO didn't know that their code was in Linux than the GPL would be null-and-void. HOWEVER, you(I'm assuming your Darl until otherwise notified) filed a lawsuit claiming you knew about all kinds of your code in Linux. Now you have certified to a court that in fact there is NO Unix System V code in Linux. Yet you continue to distribute Linux on your website. So, once you knew about any of your code in Linux you MUST stop distributing it or you have agreed to place it under the GPL. Secondly since you've also certified that in fact there is no Unix System V code in Linux you don't have a case anyway.
Lastly, I'm sure you would just LOVE for Linux to be under a BSD license, than you could steal all the hard work of the community you hoover.
Go away Darl, your not welcome here.
Actually I disagree. If I gave away your code that I didn't own under the GPL and you knew about it but continued to distribute the source under the GPL you would lose all rights to sue me. It doesn't matter that I didn't own the code.
Your proper response would have been to sue me for copyright infringement, not distribute the code, and make it clear to everyone that is distributing the code, that you own the copyrights and haven't released it under the GPL.
Now in IBM's case they do own the copyrights so it's even more clear, but in either case you can't stop me from doing something which you are knowingly doing even if I did it first. Of course you could claim you didn't know, but than how do you sue me? So once you know, you must stop distributing your own code under the GPL.
Yup, I saw that too but I had already caught The Register on one, no use pointing out two faults.
Can we safely assume than The Register totally cocked this one up?
BTW, besides acting as a licensing go-between, SCO also bought the exclusive right to develop and sell licenses to any new versions of Unix System V. So SCO owns Unix System V Release 4. Although I don't believe they would own the copyright on any code in Unix SVR4 that was previously in Unix SVR3.2(or anything before SVR4 for that matter). So, to the extent they added new code SCO owns that but nothing previous to it. At least that's my understanding, they did pay $100 million for something.
Oh wow, what really, incredibly bad form...
That should of course be "How did The Register get is so wrong?" We have an application here at work which we refer to as "The Registry". It was a natural slip up, mea-culpa, so am I forgiven?
The Register claims "IBM goes on to argue ... that IBM was allowed to do what it liked with derivative works."
This is NOT what IBM's motion claims. In fact it's the exact opposite of what IBM was arguing. IBM's motion claims that the agreements with AT&T applied only to "derivative works" as defined by the US copyright office and truck loads of case law. "Derivative works" here having it's naturally understood meaning that the work must contain part of the original(or some substantial simularity).
So basically IBM was saying that they aren't allowed to distribute the source code to ALL of AIX or Dynix or any part that CONTAINS System V code, but they can distribute any of the code from these that belongs only to IBM(called homegrown code in the motion).
Since noone is claiming that IBM has given away all the code to AIX and Dynix, and because SCO has basically given up any pretense of showing code in Linux that might have come from System V AND because the only code SCO has actually pointed to belongs ENTIRELY to IBM which is expressly NOT derivative code, than IBM is well within their rights to distribute it.
In other words, "It belongs to us and we can do with it what we like, now piss off."
As opposed to "Sure part of it belongs to you but the contract says we can do with it what we like, so piss off". If this was the case I would be backing SCO here, but since it isn't, I want SCO to fry.
They've already counter-sued for that and much,much more.
Trust me SCO as we know it will no longer exist. Darl and his cronies however, will likely make out like bandits. Hopefully, IBM can sue on something to get Darl and his boys personally and not just SCO.
I agree its still going to be a while but I think we can make a better guess than that.
The grandparent post stipulated that the judge wouldn't give SCO any more wiggle room, which I don't believe is all that far-fetched. Here, I take wiggle room as "we need more discovery", as opposed to "my nephews sick I need more time to file". The latter is what I would characterize as normal operations, the first is wiggling.
IBM filed their first PSJ on or about May 21st. The initial oral argument was scheduled for Aug. 4th but this has been moved to Sept. 14th. Presuming a couple of days for the judge to ponder and that decision would be handed down around Sept.16th. So, let's call it 3 and 1/2 months. Thus, from the date of Friday's filing(Aug.13th) that would place a resolution on the contract question by or about Dec.1st or so, call it Dec.7th for good measure.
Now, presuming further that both PSJ's go in IBM's favor, there would be little left to argue as the rest of SCO's case hinges entirely on their claims in the contract claims. I will guess that IBM will file a few more of these PSJ motions, basing them on the two already in play. So I will guess that by mid-May of next year almost all of SCO's case will have been dismembered. Effectively making "this" over. There will of course be the inevitable clean-up which will occur because IBM has all their counter-claims and I guarantee they are not going to let those drop. So sometime around November of next year I suspect SCO will declare bankruptcy or negotiate that IBM take over SCO operations with no money changing hands.
Whether IBM desires to persue old Darl and his cronies for some malfeasance I can't guess in which case the "whole thing" won't be over for some time, but all the nasty stuff will be over by May or June of next year.
IANAL yadda yadda yadda...
As IBM's motion clearly points out it's called "waiver". By knowingly distributing the code under the GPL, SCO has waived all claims against IBM(and anyone else) for any code that might be in Linux illegally(I say might because I think the whole idea is a sham).
Anyway, basically SCO can't sue someone else for the same action they are in fact performing.
You missed one part, once you have a monopoly you cannot exert undue influence to MAINTAIN the monopoly. By not licensing FairPlay Apple is exerting undue influence in their current monopoly or so the argument could go.
(This presumes of course you believe they have a monopoly in a mature market.)
Which product, iTMS or iPods?
This is what you get when you have 2 products that you tie together.
I'm not saying Apple's right or Virgin is wrong but I am not surprised in the least by this.
Profitless like Wintel? Tell that to Dell.
Yes Apple has pretty nice margins and that's good for a niche player. But are you really suggesting that Apple should stick in the on-line music & music player game to be a niche player?
Currently Apple isn't a niche player in the on-line music & music player game. But all it takes is one cool new gizmo to supplant the iPod and their profits from it will be miniscule compared to the knock-offs. If your a geek you should know this.
This is a totally new market segment. Once things broaden out more, new technology hits the streets, peoples buying habits change just enough, the profits from low-cost players will far and away dwarf anything Apple could imagine with their "high margin" hardware. Trust me, there's a much larger market in the $199.99(Canadian) range than the $399.99 range. I'd much rather make 10 cents for each of a billion sold than $10 from each of a million sold.
Apple's best bet is to try and get a percentage of each on-line music sale. That's where the money will be even if it isn't now.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=116179&cid=983 6790/
Hmm, Miss Cleo move on over a new Shaman's in town...
Actually, I excerpted only the part that was relevant to the question of the CPU architecture. The "Royalty relief" is clearly spelled out in the contract as well and has nothing to do with IBM violating any Licensing agreement with respect to SCO's recent statements. It had to do with how much IBM was to pay SCO for use of the licenses after a given period of time.
As for the court case, you can believe whatever you want.
Since this discussion started over the believability of SCO's public statements, either they're previous ones or their current ones, I'll take your acquiescense on the public statements as agreement SCO is full of it and is just blowing smoke again.
While there is still "nothing to be seen here", I'll note that SCO already added copyright infringement claims as well as others for their continued use of AIX after SCO "revoked" the license. So this current licensing story can't be related to that, that would be really "Nothing to see" as it's already occurred.
I utterly fail to see how SCO thinks they will win anything on their "revoking" claim when IBM clearly has an irrevocable license. That word is not up to interpretation. The license says SCO/Novell were allowed to do other things with regards to protecting their IP but they can't revoke the license. That this hasn't been thrown out yet just leads me to believe that IBM sees it as sooo insignificant that they'll get around to it later if they have to.
Given other responses to this thread I'll be surprised if IBM dignifies this with a public response. Hell they're probably having a hard time picking themselves off the floor they're laughing so hard.
Unless your specifically talking about SVR4 code in AIX your wrong. Here is the relevant part of the licensing agreement from "Amendment X"(found as an Exhibit in the "Legal Docs" section of Groklaw),
"the royalty relief described in Section I of this Amendment No. X shall apply only to use or distribution of the Software Products and Sublicensed Products in the IBM operating system referred to currently as AIX, any prior version or releases of AIX and derivative or follow-on version to AIX on the Power or Power PC or Power2 architectures or derivative or follow-on architectures irrespective of the names of such versions."
Now granted this is for the use SVR3.2 in AIX, but it's clear from this that IBM was doing development on Power PC NOT Intel. So your right it is limited to a single architecture(or it's follow-on, and tell me that's not ambiguous) but it was Power PC NOT Intel. In which case, of course I'm wrong myself in believing it was limited to a single hardware platform. Furthermore this specifically allows IBM to develop a 64 bit PPC version.
As for my last point, the only thing that you could possibly take exception to is my assessment of SCO's chances in their CONTRACT suit to be "VERY doubtful". Everything else in that paragraph is not speculation. SCO never filed any IP claims against IBM with respect to Linux, they filed purely a contract claim. They have presented IBM with no evidence of copyright violation. Unless SCO provides evidence of copyright violation, that particular piece of the case will NEVER reach a jury. SCO didn't need the millions of documents, nor the e-mails, and "intent" isn't relevant. SCO simply needed to compare Linux to Unix System V and provide said "mountain of evidence" to IBM which IBM requested they do. They haven't done so and yet have filed a declaration that their answers to discovery are "true" and "complete". So I stand behind my statement that ALL SCO's public statements on IP violation have been false.
Except that everything SCO has said, at least up to this time, has been bogus!
Note that SCO has claimed since the start that they have a "mountain of evidence", yet they have yet to provide any of it to IBM, which is why in IBM's cross-complaint(effectively a counter suit), they are filing for a Declaration that they did NOT infringe on any of SCO's copyrights vis-a-vis any of IBM's work with Linux. The truth is shocking isn't it? With regards to IBM's Linux work, SCO NEVER filed a copyright claim against IBM, they never filed a patent claim against IBM, and they've dropped their trade-secret claim. In other words, SCO's whole case rests on a nebulous and purile reading of a contract. Which will very likely be thrown out soon after the judge gives IBM the win in their Summary Judgement on their copyright cross-complaint.
Secondly, the "news" article is sooo chalk full of mistakes that the reporter should be ashamed of himself. He's fallen for SCO's story hook, line & sinker. Note how he calls it a suit against IBM over Linux, well as I've pointed out above, SCO never filed any suit over Linux per-se, they filed a suit over a contract claim with AIX.
Furthermore, the story claims that the SCO suit was filed over code that SCO claimed was "stolen". The facts of the filing couldn't be further from the truth! SCO has never claimed ownership or ownership rights over any code IBM has contributed to Linux, at least in the court filings. They've made all kinds of statements in public.
So this latest claim is just more of the same. First, it could easily be falsely represented information from SCO. Nothing they have said in public has been true. If you can find one schtickel of evidence for SCO's public claims I'm sure they would love to have it because they have shown none themselves. You don't need to believe me, just go read the court filings. IBM would not have asked for Summary Judgement regarding their copyright claim if SCO had handed them ANY evidence of copyright violations. What was SCO's answer to the request for Summary Judgement? "We need more time, and we need more discovery." In other words, SCO knows they are royally screwed on the copyright claim.
Secondly, even if SCO has found evidence of License violations by IBM over AIX 5L. This in NO WAY affects Linux. Note that SCO's public statement isn't that they found code that IBM copied to Linux, it's a claim that IBM didn't have a License to use SVR4 in AIX 5L. SCO still hasn't presented any evidence of SCO code in Linux, and this new statement doesn't indicate otherwise.
In fact SCO has so tried to twist everything into a pretzel shape of their liking that I don't believe a single word they say. This article is very likely more of the same and the writer made himself part of the scam by publishing an article that completely misrepresents the original case and derides both IBM and "Linux zealots".
By the way, if you don't believe me that SCO has absolutely NO evidence go to Groklaw and follow the "Legal Docs" link. Than read the court filings by both IBM and SCO. While we aren't privy to the evidence submitted under seal, it is clear from the back and forth of the filings that SCO has shown no evidence of wrong doing by IBM.
"In regards to the AIX code, yes we do"
Umm, no we don't. Just because Project Monteray was focused on a 64-bit Unix doesn't mean that IBM was restricted by a license to keeping AIX on a single platform. A number of the licenses are buried in Groklaw's "Legal Docs" link. I could go look, but it would surprise me greatly if the license refered to a hardware platform rather than the use of Unix System V for general IBM development purposes of AIX.
By the way, Project Moneterey didn't die in negotiation. It actually produced tangible code that IBM simply didn't release.
Lastly, if you read the court filings by SCO you will discover that they could win a court case against IBM for contract violation(VERY doubtful) and still lose the war. Nothing in SCO's lawsuit with IBM has anything to do with SCO's property rights vis-a-vis Linux. They never filed a copyright claim against IBM(with regards to Linux), they dropped their trade-secret claim, and they have never filed any patent claims. In other words, every word uttered out of SCO's mouth with regards to IP violations in Linux is completely and absolutely FALSE.
But you don't have to believe me, just read the court filings, they're (almost) all there on Groklaw.
This is absolutely the funniest thing when you know that IBM and others have used the term FUD in court filings to describe the actions of SCO and others. In other words FUD is an acceptable term. On the otherhand M$ is just there to get your goat, and it worked.
Excuse me!
You don't have to get your evidence from the conversations on Groklaw, but they have an extensive library of all the court filings. I don't know what kind of SCO troll you are exactly but it is clear that at this point SCO has shown exactly ZERO evidence of IBM wrongdoing! Just go to Groklaw and follow the "Legal Docs" link which are the actual court filings. I've read almost all of them.
The only chance that SCO has right now is for the judge to feel sorry for them and grant them discovery access to all AIX code dating back to 1985. But that would only forestall the inevitable and would in no way indicate SCO has a case. They have provided nothing to IBM in terms of copyright violations, thus IBM's motion for Summary Judgement that IBM's actions of any sort with Linux do not violate SCO's copyrights. Once they win on that one(which they will, again unless the judge simply puts it off to give SCO more time), the contract violation claim will go down in a heep of flames.
By the way, if the judge does grant SCO more discovery than he's either being overly generous or he's been bought. I would prefer to think the former. And no, there's no need to think he believes SCO. IBM's Summary Judgement request relies only on code that SCO has had total and complete access to, 1) the Linux kernel and 2) SCO Unix System V. Both are completely in the hands of SCO, they don't need AIX source code to show IBM is violating their copyrights. Since IBM has asked for the "mountain of evidence" that SCO supposedly had and has received exactly ZERO, ZILCH, NADDA, they will win the Summary Judgement claim!
So as a troll you've done well, you've wasted my time but that's all you've done.
No problem. There's no need to have a contentious argument(this is an argument and not just contradiction after all).
Oh and I didn't miss the implied point it's just best to side step them unless you need to admit to it. Otherwise there's no point in arguing. I have 4 brothers so I get a lot of practice at this. Hell I even get in to arguments with them when we agree on the point but disagree on the reasons the point is valid.
Anyway,
1) This point can't be divorced from the benefit derived from the sale of extra iPod's due to Real's actions. Apple would only be hurt by Real's move if the decrease in sales at iTMS were not offset by increased iPod sales. Since iPod sales garner far more benefit per unit than iTMS sales it would take alot of lost iTMS sales to see an overall negative effect on Apple.
2) For iTMS to prosper as a revenue generation scheme on its own it must attract sales from non-iPod owners, otherwise we're just back to number 1). Thus Apple must make it's proprietary format available on other players, it's possible if not likely that if Apple stops Real from their actions here by some legal manuevering that they will be stopped in the same way in the future(e.g. a potential Microsoft player & music store). Secondly, since Apple owns both the iPod and iTMS they must be extremely careful in regards to "anti-competitive" behaviour. You can't use one product to "lock" users in to the use of another. Secondly, since this argument is about Apple using the DMCA "for the good of the shareholders", more good is actually derived from Apple licensing Real's formats on the iPod than trying to stop them. By licensing Real they derive benefits from all songs played on the iPod(which is the goal of iTMS), they do not set themselves up for potential lawsuits due to "anti-competitive" behaviour, and they do not set a precedent that could easily be used against them by a third(much bigger) party. This could also easily become a public relations nightmare, when people's perceptions that Apple is trying to lock them in overshadows the reality that any old MP3 can be played on an iPod. Consider what will happen when Microsoft releases their own device that actually has the same "coolness" factor as the iPod but it can connect and download from 20 different vendors but the iPod is limited to iTMS. I'm sorry but not even this argument seems to stand up to strict scrutiny. It would be much,much better, especially right now when on-line music downloading is in it's nascient phase, for Apple to license it's DRM and/or license 3rd parties to play their format on the iPod than to deny them that ability and try to fight them in court. For iTMS to survive Apple will need allies, there are much bigger competitors out there than Real, and Apple is just setting themselves up for the wrong precedent.
So, while I consider point 2) to be a much stronger argument than point 1), it is not a good enough argument(IMHO) to justify Apple's threat of using the DMCA.
Sarcasm only works if the analogy is somehow relevant. 3 years ago the profits from the iPod were small due to small numbers. By all indications iTMS is selling a tremendous number of songs(100 million or more was the last reference I've seen). So the analogy fails and so does your sarcasm.
I give you points for trying though.
This argument is used by any corporation when they do something that is obviously against their previous stated "good guy" image.
The fact is they need not do anything to Real as Real's "hack" does not hurt Apple's bottom line and would more likely help it. It is a tautology to say that having more choices of music formats on an iPOD will make it more attractive and likely increase sales of that device.
Since Apple receives little benefit from iTMS the potential for lost sales there has little effect on their bottom line. The potential for increased iPOD sales far out ways any loss.
Thus by sueing or threatening to sue Real they are in fact working AGAINST their share holders interests and should be stopped by your very argument from doing so.
While I don't know if Google will be found liable(e.g. have to pay money), if the allegations are true they would certainly have to stop using the code(or license it if they want).
Surely you wouldn't suggest that if an employee of a company stole a car and gave it to the company, that the company should be able to keep it?