OK, I am not technically a large corporate environment, but I run Macs, Mandrake Linux PPC, Red Hat x86 and Win ME on various machines in my house and when I have problems, it is with the Windows machines. But I do mostly "desktop" tasks with Linux and I use Linux over Windows for those tasks.
Linux desktop isn't perfect, but it is essentially free (as in, I don't have to pay for the OS and things like an Office suite, a Photoshop-like graphics program, etc., etc.). Yeah, having a Mandrake version to configure everything that KDE and Gnome does is confusing (Red Hat has similar problems), but hey, I'm willing to slog through it to not have to deal with MS licensing and DRM on my computer. Having OpenOffice, KOffice, Gnumeric, etc, etc.... doubles and triples of common application is annoying and confusing to an average user, but it is pretty easy to ignore them in the "Start" menu. Pick the ones you like, and use'em!
I have very few problems opening up MS Office for Mac or Windows documents in OpenOffice. I have no problems mounting NFS shares from a Linux server on my Macs... no problems printer sharing either. Not with Windows and Samba (and it is not Samba, because even my friggin Macs can mount the Samba shares!).
FWIW, I think the past two or three renditions of RH rate a B. I'd give RH 9 an A- for desktop computing. I can't speak for Mandrake, because I only started using it with Version 9, but the PPC version rates at least a B+ for me. I have booted into OS X on my G3 PB maybe once since installing Mandrake.
Frankly, I don't know why anyone who uses an x86 box for e-mail, web surfing, Office applications and other common home/office tasks would NOT use a "big name" Linux distro (like RH, Mandrake, not Debian or Gentoo). My experience has been the Linux distro is easier to install, administer and is more plug-n-play than Win ME and 2000 (I don't have experience with XP so I can't speak to it).
From what I've read and seen, the DoJ has taken a fairly clear position that the way the corporate world is using the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA is within the bounds of the Copyright Act. While I haven't read the legislative history, I don't think this type of corporate action is what Congress intended.
The DMCA leaves very little room for the concept of "fair use" (at least as it is written in the Copyright Act and as the First Amendment applies to it).
My question is: will there ever come a time when scholars can present their research under the rubric of fair use without the fear of DMCA reprecussions?
As a follow up: how can the DoJ ensure fair and just administration of DMCA enforcement and how far will the DoJ's "long arm" reach in order to prosecute?
That's interesting. That goes to the argument that Adobe misrepresented the strength of the encryption, especially if, during discovery, it can be shown that Adobe knew of the design flaw prior to Sklyarov's presentation.
That is exactly why the DMCA is such a lousy law. First, the balance between protecting copyrighted works and free speech is tipped way on the side of copyrighted holders. It also runs roughshod over the concept of "fair use" in the Copyright Act. My sense is that the Congress' intent was not to have such ridiculous lawsuits such as Adobe's, Lexmark's printer cartridge suit, etc arise from the "liberal" (in my view) reading of the DMCA.
Second, the DMCA goes beyond liability to criminalizing conduct that is (more than arguably) protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Look, this is totally my opinion, but I think anybody who challenges the Constitutionality of the DMCA has a good case, but it has to be the right case. This especially based on the fact that for as many "wins" on the side of fair use, there are also some lower court rulings (the 2600 case comes to mind) that go the other way. I haven't read some of the more recent case decisions on the DMCA (it changes so often it is hard to keep up!), but, from my view, a defendant is likely to win the criminal case, but not necessarily the civil case. Still, defending a criminal case can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. THEN, you have to deal with the civil case costs. And who really has that kind of money!?!
Unfortunately, the "big companies" will always have the ear of Justice because they have the money to have a voice. This really very clearly (to me anyway) says that if we all, as individuals, want to have a voice, we need to support groups like the EFF and EPIC.
This really shouldn't surprise anyone. The DMCA gives companies a right to sue if you reverse engineer an encyption device. But the DMCA offers no protecting to the consumer by requireing a company to FIX the problem.
Besides/., this story has not had a whole lot of publicity. Add to that the fact that most people wouldn't know how to decrypt the e-books (and, more importantly, probably don't all that much care), there really isn't much incentive for Adobe to fix it.
The puzzling thing to me is that it seems like it really wouldn't cost all that much to fix. I mean, it is a patch afterall and every friggin time I start up Photoshop Elements it is downloading some update (though not sending any of my personal information... hehe!).
IAAL, so what I start to think is: Does Adobe have any liability for failure to patch the software when an author loses money because his or her ebook is pirated? No doubt in advertising and selling the software, Adobe touted the encryption as a safety feature. Contributory infringement, maybe? Misrepresentation? A warranty theory? Hmm....
Hormel tried this before with Jim Henson productions. Can't quite remember which Muppet movie, but one of the characters' name was Spam and he was of course, a pig.
Hormel got all bent out of shape, took Henson to court alleging causes of action under both copyright and trademark law. Henson claimed "fair use" and won.
This is a little different in the sense that it is a straight trademark dilution claim. Now before everybody starts posting that "it's not confusing! One's computer spam and one's pork left-overs squished in a can", dilution is not about confusion... it is about loss of goodwill and damage to reputation as a cause of the defendant's use of the mark and it applies to "famous marks".
The interesting issue is that companies in the computer field who use "Spam" in the name are doing so because the public coined the term Spam to mean "junk mail". They didn't give it's negative connotation!
IMHO, Hormel should not be allowed to prohibit a company from using a generic term in its own industry especially when it is Hormel's responsibility to, from the outset, make it abundantly clear to the public that Spam should not be used to describe "junk mail". There failure to do so bars any recovery (AFAIC).
Look, don't we all know by now that people use Macs because of the OS, not because of the speed?
As I see it, even if Apple fudged the numbers a bit (like what manufacturer hasn't), these new G5s are still the first time Apple can justifiably say that they are "comparable" (whatever that mean, and, like I care!) to Windows machines.
Frankly, I am not a computer guru (by any stretch of the imagination), but don't you all find it pretty lame that Apple needs a 64 bit processor to come close to the speeds of a 32 bit Pentium?
Still, I have a slow-assed 733 mhz G4 on my desk because I prefer OS X and because I prefer not to have MS's DRM and oppresive licening on my computer.
For running a webserver, NFS, Samba or whatever, I buy an x86 box and run Linux, because it is just cost-effective.
I'd don't know my skill level with Linux and networking versus the reviewer, but I'd fall into the category of "just enough knowledge to be dangerous".
Frankly, there are negatives to this book. A few examples I can think of off the top of my head (unfortunately, I don't have the book in front of me to refresh my memory) are:
Generally, no matter what topic in the book, all you get is a simple walkthrough of the commands and minimal description of why you do them or what to do for an unusual set-up. Well, ok, I understand it is "survey type" book, but since all this stuff is readily available via man pages, How-Tos and newsgroups, why buy a 40 dollar book on it?
For example, getting an ethernet adapter configured via the command line was easy to do, but hard to follow in the book as to why you use certain commands and flags and what things other than the simple example they are good for. I didn't get a great explanation as to theifconfig command and the route command. Also, it was difficult to understand how to configure two ethernet adapters on the same machine in order to set up a Linux firewall or DHCP server in place of a router.
The section on DNS is a big waste of time. If you are going to delve into DNS, you might as well get O'Reilly's DNS & Bind and slog through that nightmare (not the book, setting up DNS). If all you are doing is setting up 5 machines behind a home router (my set-up is similar), then just use the/etc/hosts file and be done with it. Do you really need a DNS server for that? And if you REALLY need critical DNS, do you want to use a "survey book" to set-up the configuration! Please! The hosts file is about the extent this book should go with DNS as far as I'm concerned.
I'd say the same for setting up a mail server... with all I hear about sendmail, why would I count on the simplistic outline in a general Linux networking book for configuring sendmail? Especially with the chance of screwing it up and having all hell break loose with the mail server and my network!
It is not a worthless book. It does a good job of explaining how the internet works, how you set-up a machine to be on the internet and what general security issues are involved (i.e., enough for some clown like me to keep his network safe behind a home router or even behind linux router if you slog through setting that up).
I won't pretend to be a professional IT guy. But I do like playing around with home networking using various services for fun, so when I buy a book like this, I'd like it to contain more than just simple examples and a rehash of readily available stuff from man pages and How-Tos.
There will always be people who abuse things. It is just ashame that a lot of them do it under the auspices of "the law".
Top "abuse" topics on/. are:
The RIAA abusing the DMCA
A person or company patenting something painfully obvious (such as One-Click).
Microsoft's convulated and expensive licensing scheme for Winblows
Let's add to this list the number of cybersquatters who register a domain name that is close to a famous trademark or brand name (such as goggle.com) and then dump fifteen cookies into the person's computer.
I'm sure I've missed about a half-dozen others...
A forum like Slashdot is great for bringing these stories to light, but, at some point, we all need to stop posting about them and start doing something about them. I'd like to see some sort of organized effort to do something... perhaps a collective Slashdot readers' donation to the EFF or EPIC...
Anybody notice that for 18, she sure knows a lot about Copyright law?
No offense, I'm sure there are some smart 18 year olds out there, but the way "Aimee" speaks sounds more like her dad (or some other executive) was in fact interviewed. Sure, it has the obligatory "Oh m'Gods!" thrown in to make it sound like it's her, but as to the issues at hand, I know of no 18 year old who knows any more about copyright law other than "Ya mean, I can't just burn a copy of the new Eminen CD for all my friends!?!".
While I appreciate any positive commentary on the abuse of the Act by the media entertainment, I'd expect more from GrepLaw as to whom they choose to interview.
Actually, all he had to do was show that he had used the mark in commerce or had a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce to file the app. In the latter case, he could have filed up to three year's worth of extensions for time to show use of the mark in commerce.
The USPTO is not the "trademark police". It is the trademark holder's responsibility to police the mark. So when he filed his app, other potentially valid owners should file notices of opposition (to the registration of the mark). While filing for a "domain name" may seem like the more important thing to do... afterall, you have the domain, you own it, right?... a trademark owner can trump your domain name registration with prior use of the mark.
Now, they may have a battle in trying to get the domain name transferred (obviosuly, this case is a battle). The USPTO doesn't "compare notes" with NetSol. In fact, I doubt they all that much give a hoot about NetSol.
The key point is that, even though the guy who forged the letter may have had "bad faith" in acquiring the domain name, if he actually used the trademark first AND filed for the USPTO application first, he is the "senior user" and would theoretically win the "trademark battle".
Domain names are pretty irrelevant to trademark rights. The fact that you reserve one doesn't mean jack to the USPTO nor the courts in determining who owns a trademark (especially if all you do is reserve it and park it!). If anything, you are better off spending that money filing with the USPTO, because the key thing an USPTO application gets you is "constructive notice" (i.e., anybody who uses your mark after you should have known you owned it) and that is more powerful than registering a domain name (which, by itself, is not use in commerce anyway).
Basically, for those of you who don't know, Dinan is an aftermarket part supplier for BMW... they sell chips, exhaust, suspension kits, clutches, even superchargers for BMW. A couple of years ago, BMW (I guess) decided that enough people were installing Dinan's stuff on cars to allow certain Dinan parts to be sold/installed by BMW dealers and not void the factory warranty.
Would it be possible for Apple to establish a similar relationship? How would it work?
Yeah, sorry... Debian too! My experience has not been good with installing Debian, but then I'm a quasi-geek with just enough knowledge to be dangerous!:)
The CoreCrib will only interest./ build-your-own-PC types.
First off, anybody who uses a Mac uses it because they don't want the agg of PCs and all of the various config problems with hardware.
Anybody who "switched" sure as heck isn't going to suddenly decide they want to experiment by building a Mac. Heck, the whole reason they switched was to just use their damn computer!
I just don't see this ever going any further than the techno inclined... and only to those who really want to run OS X. And let's face it, a Mac capble of running OS X nicely can be had for 500 bucks now! Anybody who runs *nix is going to build a blow-em-away x86 box for the same price as the Core and not deal with the "finding compatible hardware problem". Besides that, at least for Linux, you basically have a choice between YDL, Mandrake (and Suse?)... you got four times the distros for x86!
I think this is a great idea, but for the price and maybe more importantly the warranty offered, I'd rather buy a used Mac from say Macofalltrades.com. I may not get a brand new machine, but I can get a system that is equal or better than the Core machine with a 30 day warranty (and an option of a one year warranty).
I hope it catches on though and I hope Apple maybe throws these guys a little help!
Seems to me this is analagous to an auto manufacture trying to void your warranty for using, say, a FRAM oil filter instead of an OEM. This seems like an especially dumb policy in the instance of a fan that meets or exceeds AMD's own specs, or is "AMD recommended". If they recommend it, how can they say it is unacceptable to use!?!
I don't think this policy won't last long... all it will take are a couple of irate customers.
From my (brief) reading of the Act, there are two interesting things to consider:
First, it is weaker than the DMCA in that it requires "theft" whereas the DMCA prohibits the "breaking and entering" part of defeating copy protection.
Second, it appears stronger than the DMCA because acts can fall under its scope even if somebody is outside the U.S. Check out Section 1837... This chapter also applies to conduct occurring outside the United States if-- An act in furtherance of the offense was committed in the United States.. Hmm.... so if the information is posted to a newsgroup located in the U.S., does that count as an act committed within the U.S. in furtherance of the offense, even if the actor is in Ecuador?
It would be awfully hard for them to show intent - that the code was actually knowingly used without their permission. This is obvious.. as the entire linux world is going "HuH? What are you talking about?"
But they don't have to show intent to prove infringement, all they have to do is show that they owned the copyright and that IBM copied the code. Copying can be shown inferentially, since it is almost impossible to prove directly. See Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F.2d 1106, 1110 (9th Cir. 1970). Presumably, they are going to attack IBM's ability to sequester their Linux coders from the coders involved with the SCO code.
If we, say, wrote in safer programming languages, used tools like Immunix's StackGuard, ProPolice, or OpenBSD 3.3, chroot and UML, we could reduce the damage a malicious hacker might do without damaging our civil liberities.
Hmm... why does this sound like "it's the victim's fault"? C'mon! Nobody would say that to a woman who was dragged into an alley, beaten and raped.
If anything, it seems to me that prison time puts out a loud and clear message to crackers that what they do is indeed a crime and will be treated as such.
Don't enough people get slapped on the wrist by the justice system already anyway?
People need to understand that the USPTO is a cash cow for the Feds. It made somewhere along the lines of 400 million dollars for the Feds in 2002.
It has done that, in part, by actively encouraging the general public to file for both patent and trademark applications. It has implied to the public that it is easy to go through the application process. It also has a lopsided bonus structure for examiners that encourages quantity, not quality. While I was a trademark examiner, I could have made up to $20,000 per year in bonuses for the quantity of my work, but only about $3,000 dollars for the quality of my work. Does that make any sense if you do not want stupid patents and trademarks being issued!?!
The USPTO has implemented a new strategic plan that will restructure how the PTO handles both patent and trademark applications. Most people in the field believe that this restructuring will increase pendency and decrease quality. You can read the PTO's annual reports and the 21st Century Strategic Plan"
So it should be no surprise that filings are going way up and pendency is going way up along with it... and that more mistakes are made and more garbage gets through. It also should come as no surprise that the PTO has a vested interest in making sure people believe that they can file applications on their own. So it offers "online filing", "online searching" and other tools that are really a poor substitute for having a complete search done by an attorney (or a patent agent). There is no question that some people don't want to put out the money for a professional search, and are willing to chance the money they lose in filing fees. That's fine. There are also those who earnestly get the impression that all they have to do is "file an application" and they will get a registration. Like most things in life (and especially with the government), it rarely works that way.
This may be a solution if you have already invested a lot in your brand name, but since OSS software has no other means of protection (i.e. copyright), the brand is everything. People use a distro because of its brand. People like Red Hat RPM or they like Debian.deb or they like Mandrake because of the quality of those distros. Thus, these distros wisely trademarked the name.
The problem is that if these companies used the name first, the project is giong to get cease and desist letters and will lose if it ever comes down to litigation. Gentoo may be a rare example of "civility", but frankly, I would never want any company using a similar brandname in my industry. As far as the law is concerned database software and a web browser are similar enough that there is a likelihood of confusion.
Gentoo and Mozilla and other OSS, due to the importance of the brand name are better off researching a decent brandname upfront and then filing for a trademark registration. I am sure Mozilla is wishing they had spent the money on coming up with some decent brandnames now, because they are probably back at square one, along with the aggravation of a childish spam campaign.
Just because OSS is copyleft, doesn't make it wise to be "trademark-left"
I've bought quite a few products with the rebates, but the rebate process is a hassle. I have had rebates "rejected" because I forgot something (usually, the damn UPC code from the box). I've gotten other rebates where they give you less than 5 days to get the rebate in! There definately doesn't seem to be any uniformity in what they want you to submit.
So unless I have to have something right away (which is almost never), I just order it online.
The "rebate" price at BestBuy or CompUSA usually just brings it down to the "online" price anyway!
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I am not technically a large corporate environment, but I run Macs, Mandrake Linux PPC, Red Hat x86 and Win ME on various machines in my house and when I have problems, it is with the Windows machines. But I do mostly "desktop" tasks with Linux and I use Linux over Windows for those tasks.
Linux desktop isn't perfect, but it is essentially free (as in, I don't have to pay for the OS and things like an Office suite, a Photoshop-like graphics program, etc., etc.). Yeah, having a Mandrake version to configure everything that KDE and Gnome does is confusing (Red Hat has similar problems), but hey, I'm willing to slog through it to not have to deal with MS licensing and DRM on my computer. Having OpenOffice, KOffice, Gnumeric, etc, etc.... doubles and triples of common application is annoying and confusing to an average user, but it is pretty easy to ignore them in the "Start" menu. Pick the ones you like, and use'em!
I have very few problems opening up MS Office for Mac or Windows documents in OpenOffice. I have no problems mounting NFS shares from a Linux server on my Macs... no problems printer sharing either. Not with Windows and Samba (and it is not Samba, because even my friggin Macs can mount the Samba shares!).
FWIW, I think the past two or three renditions of RH rate a B. I'd give RH 9 an A- for desktop computing. I can't speak for Mandrake, because I only started using it with Version 9, but the PPC version rates at least a B+ for me. I have booted into OS X on my G3 PB maybe once since installing Mandrake.
Frankly, I don't know why anyone who uses an x86 box for e-mail, web surfing, Office applications and other common home/office tasks would NOT use a "big name" Linux distro (like RH, Mandrake, not Debian or Gentoo). My experience has been the Linux distro is easier to install, administer and is more plug-n-play than Win ME and 2000 (I don't have experience with XP so I can't speak to it).
From what I've read and seen, the DoJ has taken a fairly clear position that the way the corporate world is using the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA is within the bounds of the Copyright Act. While I haven't read the legislative history, I don't think this type of corporate action is what Congress intended.
The DMCA leaves very little room for the concept of "fair use" (at least as it is written in the Copyright Act and as the First Amendment applies to it).
My question is: will there ever come a time when scholars can present their research under the rubric of fair use without the fear of DMCA reprecussions?
As a follow up: how can the DoJ ensure fair and just administration of DMCA enforcement and how far will the DoJ's "long arm" reach in order to prosecute?
-Anthony
That's interesting. That goes to the argument that Adobe misrepresented the strength of the encryption, especially if, during discovery, it can be shown that Adobe knew of the design flaw prior to Sklyarov's presentation.
That is exactly why the DMCA is such a lousy law. First, the balance between protecting copyrighted works and free speech is tipped way on the side of copyrighted holders. It also runs roughshod over the concept of "fair use" in the Copyright Act. My sense is that the Congress' intent was not to have such ridiculous lawsuits such as Adobe's, Lexmark's printer cartridge suit, etc arise from the "liberal" (in my view) reading of the DMCA.
Second, the DMCA goes beyond liability to criminalizing conduct that is (more than arguably) protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Look, this is totally my opinion, but I think anybody who challenges the Constitutionality of the DMCA has a good case, but it has to be the right case. This especially based on the fact that for as many "wins" on the side of fair use, there are also some lower court rulings (the 2600 case comes to mind) that go the other way. I haven't read some of the more recent case decisions on the DMCA (it changes so often it is hard to keep up!), but, from my view, a defendant is likely to win the criminal case, but not necessarily the civil case. Still, defending a criminal case can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. THEN, you have to deal with the civil case costs. And who really has that kind of money!?!
Unfortunately, the "big companies" will always have the ear of Justice because they have the money to have a voice. This really very clearly (to me anyway) says that if we all, as individuals, want to have a voice, we need to support groups like the EFF and EPIC.
This really shouldn't surprise anyone. The DMCA gives companies a right to sue if you reverse engineer an encyption device. But the DMCA offers no protecting to the consumer by requireing a company to FIX the problem.
Besides /., this story has not had a whole lot of publicity. Add to that the fact that most people wouldn't know how to decrypt the e-books (and, more importantly, probably don't all that much care), there really isn't much incentive for Adobe to fix it.
The puzzling thing to me is that it seems like it really wouldn't cost all that much to fix. I mean, it is a patch afterall and every friggin time I start up Photoshop Elements it is downloading some update (though not sending any of my personal information... hehe!).
IAAL, so what I start to think is: Does Adobe have any liability for failure to patch the software when an author loses money because his or her ebook is pirated? No doubt in advertising and selling the software, Adobe touted the encryption as a safety feature. Contributory infringement, maybe? Misrepresentation? A warranty theory? Hmm....
Hormel tried this before with Jim Henson productions. Can't quite remember which Muppet movie, but one of the characters' name was Spam and he was of course, a pig.
Hormel got all bent out of shape, took Henson to court alleging causes of action under both copyright and trademark law. Henson claimed "fair use" and won.
This is a little different in the sense that it is a straight trademark dilution claim. Now before everybody starts posting that "it's not confusing! One's computer spam and one's pork left-overs squished in a can", dilution is not about confusion... it is about loss of goodwill and damage to reputation as a cause of the defendant's use of the mark and it applies to "famous marks".
The interesting issue is that companies in the computer field who use "Spam" in the name are doing so because the public coined the term Spam to mean "junk mail". They didn't give it's negative connotation!
IMHO, Hormel should not be allowed to prohibit a company from using a generic term in its own industry especially when it is Hormel's responsibility to, from the outset, make it abundantly clear to the public that Spam should not be used to describe "junk mail". There failure to do so bars any recovery (AFAIC).
-AnthonyMcBride radiates confidence
Gee... ignorance really is bliss...
Look, don't we all know by now that people use Macs because of the OS, not because of the speed?
As I see it, even if Apple fudged the numbers a bit (like what manufacturer hasn't), these new G5s are still the first time Apple can justifiably say that they are "comparable" (whatever that mean, and, like I care!) to Windows machines.
Frankly, I am not a computer guru (by any stretch of the imagination), but don't you all find it pretty lame that Apple needs a 64 bit processor to come close to the speeds of a 32 bit Pentium?
Still, I have a slow-assed 733 mhz G4 on my desk because I prefer OS X and because I prefer not to have MS's DRM and oppresive licening on my computer.
For running a webserver, NFS, Samba or whatever, I buy an x86 box and run Linux, because it is just cost-effective.
-A
Gee, a manufacturer (in any field) messes with the numbers to make its product look better... imagine that!
But did anyone notice that the author plugs his own business while stating the obvious?
-A
I'd don't know my skill level with Linux and networking versus the reviewer, but I'd fall into the category of "just enough knowledge to be dangerous".
/etc/hosts file and be done with it. Do you really need a DNS server for that? And if you REALLY need critical DNS, do you want to use a "survey book" to set-up the configuration! Please! The hosts file is about the extent this book should go with DNS as far as I'm concerned.
Frankly, there are negatives to this book. A few examples I can think of off the top of my head (unfortunately, I don't have the book in front of me to refresh my memory) are:
Generally, no matter what topic in the book, all you get is a simple walkthrough of the commands and minimal description of why you do them or what to do for an unusual set-up. Well, ok, I understand it is "survey type" book, but since all this stuff is readily available via man pages, How-Tos and newsgroups, why buy a 40 dollar book on it?
For example, getting an ethernet adapter configured via the command line was easy to do, but hard to follow in the book as to why you use certain commands and flags and what things other than the simple example they are good for. I didn't get a great explanation as to theifconfig command and the route command. Also, it was difficult to understand how to configure two ethernet adapters on the same machine in order to set up a Linux firewall or DHCP server in place of a router.
The section on DNS is a big waste of time. If you are going to delve into DNS, you might as well get O'Reilly's DNS & Bind and slog through that nightmare (not the book, setting up DNS). If all you are doing is setting up 5 machines behind a home router (my set-up is similar), then just use the
I'd say the same for setting up a mail server... with all I hear about sendmail, why would I count on the simplistic outline in a general Linux networking book for configuring sendmail? Especially with the chance of screwing it up and having all hell break loose with the mail server and my network!
It is not a worthless book. It does a good job of explaining how the internet works, how you set-up a machine to be on the internet and what general security issues are involved (i.e., enough for some clown like me to keep his network safe behind a home router or even behind linux router if you slog through setting that up).
I won't pretend to be a professional IT guy. But I do like playing around with home networking using various services for fun, so when I buy a book like this, I'd like it to contain more than just simple examples and a rehash of readily available stuff from man pages and How-Tos.
-Anthony
There will always be people who abuse things. It is just ashame that a lot of them do it under the auspices of "the law".
Top "abuse" topics on /. are:
Let's add to this list the number of cybersquatters who register a domain name that is close to a famous trademark or brand name (such as goggle.com) and then dump fifteen cookies into the person's computer.
I'm sure I've missed about a half-dozen others...
A forum like Slashdot is great for bringing these stories to light, but, at some point, we all need to stop posting about them and start doing something about them. I'd like to see some sort of organized effort to do something... perhaps a collective Slashdot readers' donation to the EFF or EPIC...
Anybody notice that for 18, she sure knows a lot about Copyright law?
No offense, I'm sure there are some smart 18 year olds out there, but the way "Aimee" speaks sounds more like her dad (or some other executive) was in fact interviewed. Sure, it has the obligatory "Oh m'Gods!" thrown in to make it sound like it's her, but as to the issues at hand, I know of no 18 year old who knows any more about copyright law other than "Ya mean, I can't just burn a copy of the new Eminen CD for all my friends!?!".
While I appreciate any positive commentary on the abuse of the Act by the media entertainment, I'd expect more from GrepLaw as to whom they choose to interview.
-A
Free!?! Actually, they'd have to pay me to use Windows!
Hey... perhaps I should reply to that "Bill Gates Gives Away Money" spam that comes into my inbox every 2 or 3 months...
Actually, all he had to do was show that he had used the mark in commerce or had a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce to file the app. In the latter case, he could have filed up to three year's worth of extensions for time to show use of the mark in commerce.
The USPTO is not the "trademark police". It is the trademark holder's responsibility to police the mark. So when he filed his app, other potentially valid owners should file notices of opposition (to the registration of the mark). While filing for a "domain name" may seem like the more important thing to do... afterall, you have the domain, you own it, right?... a trademark owner can trump your domain name registration with prior use of the mark.
Now, they may have a battle in trying to get the domain name transferred (obviosuly, this case is a battle). The USPTO doesn't "compare notes" with NetSol. In fact, I doubt they all that much give a hoot about NetSol.
The key point is that, even though the guy who forged the letter may have had "bad faith" in acquiring the domain name, if he actually used the trademark first AND filed for the USPTO application first, he is the "senior user" and would theoretically win the "trademark battle".
Domain names are pretty irrelevant to trademark rights. The fact that you reserve one doesn't mean jack to the USPTO nor the courts in determining who owns a trademark (especially if all you do is reserve it and park it!). If anything, you are better off spending that money filing with the USPTO, because the key thing an USPTO application gets you is "constructive notice" (i.e., anybody who uses your mark after you should have known you owned it) and that is more powerful than registering a domain name (which, by itself, is not use in commerce anyway).
I wonder if Apple would do something like this?
Basically, for those of you who don't know, Dinan is an aftermarket part supplier for BMW... they sell chips, exhaust, suspension kits, clutches, even superchargers for BMW. A couple of years ago, BMW (I guess) decided that enough people were installing Dinan's stuff on cars to allow certain Dinan parts to be sold/installed by BMW dealers and not void the factory warranty.
Would it be possible for Apple to establish a similar relationship? How would it work?
-A
Yeah, sorry... Debian too! My experience has not been good with installing Debian, but then I'm a quasi-geek with just enough knowledge to be dangerous! :)
-A
The CoreCrib will only interest ./ build-your-own-PC types.
First off, anybody who uses a Mac uses it because they don't want the agg of PCs and all of the various config problems with hardware.
Anybody who "switched" sure as heck isn't going to suddenly decide they want to experiment by building a Mac. Heck, the whole reason they switched was to just use their damn computer!
I just don't see this ever going any further than the techno inclined... and only to those who really want to run OS X. And let's face it, a Mac capble of running OS X nicely can be had for 500 bucks now! Anybody who runs *nix is going to build a blow-em-away x86 box for the same price as the Core and not deal with the "finding compatible hardware problem". Besides that, at least for Linux, you basically have a choice between YDL, Mandrake (and Suse?)... you got four times the distros for x86!
I think this is a great idea, but for the price and maybe more importantly the warranty offered, I'd rather buy a used Mac from say Macofalltrades.com. I may not get a brand new machine, but I can get a system that is equal or better than the Core machine with a 30 day warranty (and an option of a one year warranty).
I hope it catches on though and I hope Apple maybe throws these guys a little help!
SCO's real purpose behind this lawsuit is not to get money, but to publicize itself in hopes of finding a larger company to buy them.
So, in other words, it is in fact to get more money!
-A
Seems to me this is analagous to an auto manufacture trying to void your warranty for using, say, a FRAM oil filter instead of an OEM. This seems like an especially dumb policy in the instance of a fan that meets or exceeds AMD's own specs, or is "AMD recommended". If they recommend it, how can they say it is unacceptable to use!?!
I don't think this policy won't last long... all it will take are a couple of irate customers.
-A
From my (brief) reading of the Act, there are two interesting things to consider:
First, it is weaker than the DMCA in that it requires "theft" whereas the DMCA prohibits the "breaking and entering" part of defeating copy protection.
Second, it appears stronger than the DMCA because acts can fall under its scope even if somebody is outside the U.S. Check out Section 1837... This chapter also applies to conduct occurring outside the United States if-- An act in furtherance of the offense was committed in the United States.. Hmm.... so if the information is posted to a newsgroup located in the U.S., does that count as an act committed within the U.S. in furtherance of the offense, even if the actor is in Ecuador?
Ouch!
-A
It would be awfully hard for them to show intent - that the code was actually knowingly used without their permission. This is obvious.. as the entire linux world is going "HuH? What are you talking about?"
But they don't have to show intent to prove infringement, all they have to do is show that they owned the copyright and that IBM copied the code. Copying can be shown inferentially, since it is almost impossible to prove directly. See Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F.2d 1106, 1110 (9th Cir. 1970). Presumably, they are going to attack IBM's ability to sequester their Linux coders from the coders involved with the SCO code.
If we, say, wrote in safer programming languages, used tools like Immunix's StackGuard, ProPolice, or OpenBSD 3.3, chroot and UML, we could reduce the damage a malicious hacker might do without damaging our civil liberities.
Hmm... why does this sound like "it's the victim's fault"? C'mon! Nobody would say that to a woman who was dragged into an alley, beaten and raped.
If anything, it seems to me that prison time puts out a loud and clear message to crackers that what they do is indeed a crime and will be treated as such.
Don't enough people get slapped on the wrist by the justice system already anyway?
-A
People need to understand that the USPTO is a cash cow for the Feds. It made somewhere along the lines of 400 million dollars for the Feds in 2002.
It has done that, in part, by actively encouraging the general public to file for both patent and trademark applications. It has implied to the public that it is easy to go through the application process. It also has a lopsided bonus structure for examiners that encourages quantity, not quality. While I was a trademark examiner, I could have made up to $20,000 per year in bonuses for the quantity of my work, but only about $3,000 dollars for the quality of my work. Does that make any sense if you do not want stupid patents and trademarks being issued!?!
The USPTO has implemented a new strategic plan that will restructure how the PTO handles both patent and trademark applications. Most people in the field believe that this restructuring will increase pendency and decrease quality. You can read the PTO's annual reports and the 21st Century Strategic Plan"
So it should be no surprise that filings are going way up and pendency is going way up along with it... and that more mistakes are made and more garbage gets through. It also should come as no surprise that the PTO has a vested interest in making sure people believe that they can file applications on their own. So it offers "online filing", "online searching" and other tools that are really a poor substitute for having a complete search done by an attorney (or a patent agent). There is no question that some people don't want to put out the money for a professional search, and are willing to chance the money they lose in filing fees. That's fine. There are also those who earnestly get the impression that all they have to do is "file an application" and they will get a registration. Like most things in life (and especially with the government), it rarely works that way.
-A
The problem is that if these companies used the name first, the project is giong to get cease and desist letters and will lose if it ever comes down to litigation. Gentoo may be a rare example of "civility", but frankly, I would never want any company using a similar brandname in my industry. As far as the law is concerned database software and a web browser are similar enough that there is a likelihood of confusion.
Gentoo and Mozilla and other OSS, due to the importance of the brand name are better off researching a decent brandname upfront and then filing for a trademark registration. I am sure Mozilla is wishing they had spent the money on coming up with some decent brandnames now, because they are probably back at square one, along with the aggravation of a childish spam campaign.
Just because OSS is copyleft, doesn't make it wise to be "trademark-left"
I've bought quite a few products with the rebates, but the rebate process is a hassle. I have had rebates "rejected" because I forgot something (usually, the damn UPC code from the box). I've gotten other rebates where they give you less than 5 days to get the rebate in! There definately doesn't seem to be any uniformity in what they want you to submit.
So unless I have to have something right away (which is almost never), I just order it online.
The "rebate" price at BestBuy or CompUSA usually just brings it down to the "online" price anyway!
-A