The reason (I think) people are looking at the trademark angles is because there needs to be an actual legal basis to bring and win a tort claim.
On what legal basis, what law, should Katie Jones bring a claim against Penguin or Katie Tarbox? Because they used the words "katie.com" as the title of a book? As noted elsewhere, this couldn't be the basis of a claim because of the trademark/copyright issues. So, what's the "comon law tort" basis for a claim?
We're really not in philosophical disagreement, I think you just aren't aware of the currrent status. Totally understandable, since so much can change day to day, and there is so much information out there on all these different cases, it is difficult to keep track. Indeed, my info might already be out dated, or I might just be confused. We might also be in complete agreement, just not understanding one another.
That being said, while IBM might amend its cross-complaint and add more stuff to it, the cross complaint is pretty much it. To further explain, a cross-complaint is just the same as suing someone, but it happens within a case where that person is already suing you. So IBMs complaints against SCO will be settled in the same court case. It doesn't make sense for IBM to hold annything back that might be relevant, saving it for a rainy day as it were. Besides which, once this current case is resolved, there might not be a SCO to go after anymore.
On the other hand, if IBM has claims against SCO that are completely irrelevant to the current case, than IBM would have to bring those matters seperately. Indeed this is what SCO's lawyers (the new patent guys that were recently added) argued should be done with IBM's patent claims. They tried to sever those claims from the main case to be tried seperately.
Anyway, I hope this clears things up a bit. If I misunderstood you, please accept my apology. Oh, and you're definitely right about the speak softly thing. IBM hasn't given out many press releases or commented to journalists a great deal on this matter. When they need to say something, they say it in court.
SCO's attempt to have the case tried in the media probably has more to do with their attempts to manipulate their stock price, which is most likely the real goal of the lawsuit.
It's even worse than that. SCO has been unable to clearly enumerate exactly what they claim IBM has done wrong with any specificity, beyond a bizzare theory that if technology previously developed comes into contact with SCO code it becomes derivative.
I'm afraid that SCO hasn't brought much steak to the barbeque in the IBM case, either. Nor have they brought any sizzle. What they've unveiled so far seems to be steaming, and attracting flies like Daniel Lyons.
Oh, here's the content part of this post: The SCO v. IBM has been characterized as a contract case by SCO itself, not as a copyright case as they first stated. They dropped the copyright complaints completely.
Perhaps this means they are bringing the copyright claims back, hoping to stop IBM's motion for a summary judgement that there is no SCO infringing code in Linux.
The possibility that a discussion that touches in any way on so called Intellectual Property (IP) will degenerate into a flame war on the DMCA approaches 1.
I suggest we call this the Drink-Factor corollary, as I deserve credit for doing the hard work. =)
I'd argue that the jump wasn't due to the article, but due to insider manipulation. The article was just camoflage for the manipulation.
The market's performance today was abysmal, and it is doubtful that the article in Forbes would have been able to cause the COXS rally on it's own.
Perhaps someone more knowlegeable than I can describe some of the mechanisms that an insider like The Canopy Group could use to manipulate the stock price.
If you're not astroturfing, how can you say either of those sites are comeptitors? Maybe they're competing on the basis of being leaner and meaner? Emphasis on lean offerings.
Judging from the bio on his website, he's an insurance lawyer. Is it possible that he is intentionally bringing this case with the hidden agenda of creating more support for tort reform?
There probably needs to be some sort of tort reform, but given the political influence of the insurance industry, any tort reform actually enacted will probably be for the benefit of the insurance companies and at the expense of you and I.
Congress regularly passes laws that apply to either or both the criminal justice system and to civil matters.
Civil cases are still based on laws.
Furthermore, when you sue someone in a civil court, you're bringing in the govenrnment (the judiciary is the third branch of the governement, remember?), so the constitution most definitely applies.
I'm not calling you a dumbass, because you're probably not (also, I don't want you to sue/.), but you really need to learn a bit more about civics before speaking so authoritatively.
Funny, I was just noticing that most of the liquor and grocery stores on Yahoo are owned by Koreans.
So,/. must be the Berekely if the internet. I don't mean in terms of actual politics, I mean in terms of the mindset that assumes everyone thinks like us, or would if they were intelligent. Ogg people are sort of like Trotskyites, when you think about it. An infitessimal minority that tends to disrupt the conversations of others with their irrelevant diatribes.
If Google can show sites like Craigslist that it's possible to be "good" and wealthy, I think you may eventually see a publicly traded Craigslist. And based on its growth rate and fanatical user base, I think it'd be a smash hit.
Since the Google IPO is still to come, and we aren't likely to see fall out from that for years, it seems sort of funny to hold Google up as some sort of exemplar.
Furthermore, if I wanted to run a business that was good or ethical, why would I need model my business after another company specifically for that reason? I know they now teach ethics classes at B schools, but are we so out of touch with what is ethical and good in ourselves that we need someone else's business plan to give us guidance? If you have to do a cost/benefit analysis of Ben&Jerry's to understand the benefits of good corporate behavior, you're not getting it.
My nostalgia for the good old days aside, this is a problem. It's one that good old CompUSA has solved by incessantly pushing extended warranties on cutomers, past the point of rudeness. =)
The funny thing is that you might have some rich customers who aren't so obnoxious, but they're generally not the type to let you know they're "rich and powerful" off the bat. But it's the ones that do let you know that are the problem.
This is a problem in other areas as well. I've achieved enough success in my line of work that I can pick and choose my clients, but I also think I achieved this success because I've always tried to pick and choose my clients. And there are some clients or potential that just aren't worth the trouble. I've developed a knack for screening these, but in the past, if I had to learn through experience about a particular client, I was always too busy for them the next time. I was always profusely apologetic, but unavailable.
In your current line of work, you might or might not be able to use this technique. If you can apply it, however, you'll enjoy your work and the people you work with much more. And one thing I've noticed is that when I really am enjoying my work, financial rewards tend to follow.
3)There are lots of reasons folks might want to use Linux instead of OSX. Check around this story for lots of them. In my case, I just like KDE's interface a hell of a lot more than OSX's "real purty, but not at all utilitarian" approach.
Different strokes for different folks. While I prefer OS X, I am glad that there is Yellow Dog and other distros for my Mac hardware. I want more choice, not less, even if I choose the default preinstalled OS.
I'm also glad that you and others are using Linux on Apple hardware. If I ever decide to make the switch, you've already blazed the trail for me. Thanks!
The work that I was doing paid for it many times over. Still, I'm afraid to tell you what I paid for a slightly used TruVision Nu Vista + video card back then. $3000, which was a bargain. I forget what it retailed for, maybe twice that.
tangent to the argument, but to most of us mac users, your imac isn't that old. It's definitely at it's tail end, and thank god for linux, that can add more life, but many mac users are doing fine on 4 or 5 year old machines, many without any major upgrades.
My beige G3 with an upgraded CPU sits on my room mates desk where it gets 4 or more hours use a night.
My G4 tower is still my editing station. It has undergone numerous upgrades from the day it arrived as a stock G4/400, but professional editing needs are a bit out of the norm.
My main computer is my G4 Titanium laptop.
The only real reason I have to get anything new is techno lust. And the thought that I can keep going with my older hardware with a pared down linux system is very comforting.
You charge. . ..money? All it used to take was a 2-liter bottle of Pepsi (or Dr. Pepper) and a bag of Doritos. Or a medium pizza and a sixer of decent beer if it was a problem that took all night.
Back then, though, I was receiving help from people that got paid for their computer skills during the day*. And they weren't solving my computer problems so much as teaching me to solve my computer problems.
Of course, they were trying to make me into one of them. Obviously, they succeeded.
*I think many were suprised that they were getting paid good money for what they would have done for pepsi and doritos or pizza and beer. Or other intoxicants. =)
My 4 year old G4 edit station has had (at various times) over a terrabyte of storage, which really is no big thing these days. Back in 1992, I paid $1100 USD for a Micropolis 2112 AV drive in an external scsi enclosure!
Here's the kicker. I recently put the drive in an old Apple Powermac 7100, and it still works great! I'm even running OS 9 on it.
Slashdot Mirror
I must have missed the part where anyone was intentionally sent to Katie Jones's site, other than the links that have appeared regarding this story.
Did you actually try to call Jenny?
The reason (I think) people are looking at the trademark angles is because there needs to be an actual legal basis to bring and win a tort claim.
On what legal basis, what law, should Katie Jones bring a claim against Penguin or Katie Tarbox? Because they used the words "katie.com" as the title of a book? As noted elsewhere, this couldn't be the basis of a claim because of the trademark/copyright issues. So, what's the "comon law tort" basis for a claim?
Never get out of the browser.
We're really not in philosophical disagreement, I think you just aren't aware of the currrent status. Totally understandable, since so much can change day to day, and there is so much information out there on all these different cases, it is difficult to keep track. Indeed, my info might already be out dated, or I might just be confused. We might also be in complete agreement, just not understanding one another.
That being said, while IBM might amend its cross-complaint and add more stuff to it, the cross complaint is pretty much it. To further explain, a cross-complaint is just the same as suing someone, but it happens within a case where that person is already suing you. So IBMs complaints against SCO will be settled in the same court case. It doesn't make sense for IBM to hold annything back that might be relevant, saving it for a rainy day as it were. Besides which, once this current case is resolved, there might not be a SCO to go after anymore.
On the other hand, if IBM has claims against SCO that are completely irrelevant to the current case, than IBM would have to bring those matters seperately. Indeed this is what SCO's lawyers (the new patent guys that were recently added) argued should be done with IBM's patent claims. They tried to sever those claims from the main case to be tried seperately.
Anyway, I hope this clears things up a bit. If I misunderstood you, please accept my apology. Oh, and you're definitely right about the speak softly thing. IBM hasn't given out many press releases or commented to journalists a great deal on this matter. When they need to say something, they say it in court.
SCO's attempt to have the case tried in the media probably has more to do with their attempts to manipulate their stock price, which is most likely the real goal of the lawsuit.
It's even worse than that. SCO has been unable to clearly enumerate exactly what they claim IBM has done wrong with any specificity, beyond a bizzare theory that if technology previously developed comes into contact with SCO code it becomes derivative.
I'm afraid that SCO hasn't brought much steak to the barbeque in the IBM case, either. Nor have they brought any sizzle. What they've unveiled so far seems to be steaming, and attracting flies like Daniel Lyons.
Oh, here's the content part of this post: The SCO v. IBM has been characterized as a contract case by SCO itself, not as a copyright case as they first stated. They dropped the copyright complaints completely.
Perhaps this means they are bringing the copyright claims back, hoping to stop IBM's motion for a summary judgement that there is no SCO infringing code in Linux.
But you haven't formulated it properly:
The possibility that a discussion that touches in any way on so called Intellectual Property (IP) will degenerate into a flame war on the DMCA approaches 1.
I suggest we call this the Drink-Factor corollary, as I deserve credit for doing the hard work. =)
I'm not sure if you're serious, but . . .why take them to court when you're already there with them, and you can just countersue?
IBM's patent claims are already part of their counter-claim against SCO. I think SCO tried to seperate the patent claims unsuccessfully.
They've been refered to time and time again as The Nazgul.
I'd argue that the jump wasn't due to the article, but due to insider manipulation. The article was just camoflage for the manipulation.
The market's performance today was abysmal, and it is doubtful that the article in Forbes would have been able to cause the COXS rally on it's own.
Perhaps someone more knowlegeable than I can describe some of the mechanisms that an insider like The Canopy Group could use to manipulate the stock price.
If you're not astroturfing, how can you say either of those sites are comeptitors? Maybe they're competing on the basis of being leaner and meaner? Emphasis on lean offerings.
Good links here.
He has the right to sue, but his case clearly needs to be thrown out of court, and he should then be investigated for ethics violations.
Judging from the bio on his website, he's an insurance lawyer. Is it possible that he is intentionally bringing this case with the hidden agenda of creating more support for tort reform?
There probably needs to be some sort of tort reform, but given the political influence of the insurance industry, any tort reform actually enacted will probably be for the benefit of the insurance companies and at the expense of you and I.
Congress regularly passes laws that apply to either or both the criminal justice system and to civil matters.
/.), but you really need to learn a bit more about civics before speaking so authoritatively.
Civil cases are still based on laws.
Furthermore, when you sue someone in a civil court, you're bringing in the govenrnment (the judiciary is the third branch of the governement, remember?), so the constitution most definitely applies.
I'm not calling you a dumbass, because you're probably not (also, I don't want you to sue
Yeah, but he's a trial lawyer for insurance companies (guessing from his firm's website and his CV.
Funny, I was just noticing that most of the liquor and grocery stores on Yahoo are owned by Koreans.
/. must be the Berekely if the internet. I don't mean in terms of actual politics, I mean in terms of the mindset that assumes everyone thinks like us, or would if they were intelligent. Ogg people are sort of like Trotskyites, when you think about it. An infitessimal minority that tends to disrupt the conversations of others with their irrelevant diatribes.
So,
Since the Google IPO is still to come, and we aren't likely to see fall out from that for years, it seems sort of funny to hold Google up as some sort of exemplar.
Furthermore, if I wanted to run a business that was good or ethical, why would I need model my business after another company specifically for that reason? I know they now teach ethics classes at B schools, but are we so out of touch with what is ethical and good in ourselves that we need someone else's business plan to give us guidance? If you have to do a cost/benefit analysis of Ben&Jerry's to understand the benefits of good corporate behavior, you're not getting it.
My nostalgia for the good old days aside, this is a problem. It's one that good old CompUSA has solved by incessantly pushing extended warranties on cutomers, past the point of rudeness. =)
The funny thing is that you might have some rich customers who aren't so obnoxious, but they're generally not the type to let you know they're "rich and powerful" off the bat. But it's the ones that do let you know that are the problem.
This is a problem in other areas as well. I've achieved enough success in my line of work that I can pick and choose my clients, but I also think I achieved this success because I've always tried to pick and choose my clients. And there are some clients or potential that just aren't worth the trouble. I've developed a knack for screening these, but in the past, if I had to learn through experience about a particular client, I was always too busy for them the next time. I was always profusely apologetic, but unavailable.
In your current line of work, you might or might not be able to use this technique. If you can apply it, however, you'll enjoy your work and the people you work with much more. And one thing I've noticed is that when I really am enjoying my work, financial rewards tend to follow.
3)There are lots of reasons folks might want to use Linux instead of OSX. Check around this story for lots of them. In my case, I just like KDE's interface a hell of a lot more than OSX's "real purty, but not at all utilitarian" approach.
Different strokes for different folks. While I prefer OS X, I am glad that there is Yellow Dog and other distros for my Mac hardware. I want more choice, not less, even if I choose the default preinstalled OS.
I'm also glad that you and others are using Linux on Apple hardware. If I ever decide to make the switch, you've already blazed the trail for me. Thanks!
The work that I was doing paid for it many times over. Still, I'm afraid to tell you what I paid for a slightly used TruVision Nu Vista + video card back then. $3000, which was a bargain. I forget what it retailed for, maybe twice that.
tangent to the argument, but to most of us mac users, your imac isn't that old. It's definitely at it's tail end, and thank god for linux, that can add more life, but many mac users are doing fine on 4 or 5 year old machines, many without any major upgrades.
My beige G3 with an upgraded CPU sits on my room mates desk where it gets 4 or more hours use a night.
My G4 tower is still my editing station. It has undergone numerous upgrades from the day it arrived as a stock G4/400, but professional editing needs are a bit out of the norm.
My main computer is my G4 Titanium laptop.
The only real reason I have to get anything new is techno lust. And the thought that I can keep going with my older hardware with a pared down linux system is very comforting.
You charge. . . .money? All it used to take was a 2-liter bottle of Pepsi (or Dr. Pepper) and a bag of Doritos. Or a medium pizza and a sixer of decent beer if it was a problem that took all night.
Back then, though, I was receiving help from people that got paid for their computer skills during the day*. And they weren't solving my computer problems so much as teaching me to solve my computer problems.
Of course, they were trying to make me into one of them. Obviously, they succeeded.
*I think many were suprised that they were getting paid good money for what they would have done for pepsi and doritos or pizza and beer. Or other intoxicants. =)
My 4 year old G4 edit station has had (at various times) over a terrabyte of storage, which really is no big thing these days. Back in 1992, I paid $1100 USD for a Micropolis 2112 AV drive in an external scsi enclosure!
Here's the kicker. I recently put the drive in an old Apple Powermac 7100, and it still works great! I'm even running OS 9 on it.