Now you can use all kinds of Plaecholders in legalese texts i suppose, but 'Viral' doesn't make it sound like a nice thing. But if this hits the news big enough, then people will associate the term 'Viral Software' with anythying Linux. As enough people don't know the difference between virus, worm, or trojan horse, that is about as bad as it can get.
I read c) ii) that you may not use open source tools for developping any Recipicient Software that includes the Software. Maybe i read that so because it's standing there, or it's just a thing with the legalese tricking my eyes. But forbidding to use development tools in developping software including theirs (which, to my understanding, would mean you may not even look at their Source with emacs if you're developping on their code) seems taking things a bit far.
c)i) seems fair enough, although it would have been sufficient, to restrict any distribution under licenses that would alter the Microsoft EULA.
You can, from here, apparently it's the genuine package at least microsoft says so (i didn't try to dl tons of unzipped tar to verify) it's even coming with the gpl.
Obviously not (in the past 5 years or so) because in that case most people turn off features until everything runs fast enough. But i bet even nowadays there are people sitting in front of their PC saying: "Wow, look at all the stuff i can do now and the cool GUI, two years ago i wouldn't have thought it possible without enduring agonizing responsetimes".
Yup, i admit it, i think transparent window moves look nice, i would live without them, if they were slow or jerky, but now that i can have em i switch those features on. So one could say that most of the speedgain goes to (maybe unnecessary) eyecandy, but i don't think that is a bad thing.
Well, i got in with mozila 0.9 (albeit running under w98) when i enabled javascript and cookies. So i guess (if the story is not totally bogus) that someone reacted very fast and disabled that IE-Hurdle at the entrance (that's a cheap one). I even got into the secure site (https://secure....) and for people who couldn't use the certificate to log in there seemed to be a possibility to get a userid and password via mail. I also got to the inlandrevenue-site from there.
Maybe some other people should check their "browsing experience" there. The page explaining that i had to use netscape or ie 4+ only popped up once, when i had disabled Javascript.
That's not to say that an aggressive campaign against trademark infringement never works. The company Rollerblade, for example, did a pretty good job getting people to use the phrase "in-line skating" instead of "rollerblading" to protect its brand name. Xerox has also been vigilant in preventing publications from using the word "xerox" as a generic synonym for photocopy.
I don't think the xerox- and rollerblade- marketing teams did a good job there. If everyone would use "xerox" for copies or "rollerblade" for inline skate, these brand names would get much more attention. I mean, look at any term, where a brand name became a synonym for something, and what a difference it makes, being the only company that can name it's products the way everyone calls it anyway.
So i don't mind, if Hormel get's a little advertisement by publicly being 'generous' to all those people calling, uh..., unsolicited email spam. (They should've banned that Monty Python parody, or come about seven years earlier to stop this anyway).
I mean, once it's a huge success and adopted by everyone i'm sure someone will creep out from under some stone and claim the patent, and would now all makers of Software using gestures for input please pay the license for the past 3 years (anyone remember GIFs?).
It's not that i think of this kind of input as an obvious concept, but maybe the folks implementing it should look if there is already someone applying for a patent. It'd also be a good idea to look where and with who the idea crept up first, it'd make looking for prior art so much easier in ten years time.
And find that radio advertising doesn't work ...
on
"Not a Mini-Spy"
·
· Score: 2
... since the people refuse to enter the next store immediately after listenig to the adverts (no supermarketmusic recorded). Because of the low "Go Supermarket Rates" the whole radio-advertising thinks of louder and more annoying advertisements before going belly-up.
Since i first heard from this effect i thought it might be some magnetic braking effect (all metals would be affected by this when they pass through changing (not spatially uniform) magnetic fields, like that of the sun e.g.). The idea is pretty simple, it would also explain why artificial probes are affected, but not planets, asteroids, etc., since the probes are made of metal. Maybe it's just a hint, that the changes in magnetic fields out there are (for some reason) stronger than we think.
But then something that obvious would probably have been looked into. It would be much easier to make a wild guess, if there was a list of effects already looked into and dismissed. (The paper is apparently slashdotted).
A coworker of mine managed to cite Douglas Adams.
It goes like (translated from german):
"... converges at 10x10x6 k-points, which can be reduced to 42 Points [Ada89] by applying symmetries."
where [Ada89] is the first entry in the Bibliography (alphabetical sorting):
[Ada98] D.Adams. The Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy. Harmony Books, ISBN 0517542099, 1989.
You can still get some mileage out of that joke, when you use it in unexpected places. Well, i laughed.
Is a quantum computer that doesn't even have to be built to extract results from worlds where it was built and did run.
Although there might be minor limitations. But better not mention them, to avoid confusing the readers of nature. One of those limitations might even be, that you have to solve the problem (by whatever means) just to know how to extract and interpret the information.
The question is, does that quantum computer to be built and run in another world have to appear on a budget in this world, and where the money actually goes. But that will only be solved by quantum accounting.
(that was my original.sig then, now that i changed it the comments seem out of context)
I still can't think of anything wrong with giving credit where credit is due. My intention originated more from good citing technique than from the feeling that you 'owned' above expression.
Hmm wouldn't it be funny to find one of the first
editions and show it to some wellmenaing journalists together with the part out of the Mundie speech?
Nasty, but i think Microsoft spinmeisters would approve of such tactics.
The problem with this is: you can't buy out open source, you can't tie open source up in courts, you can't bully them around with license audits,... all the nice tricks that worked against other corporations don't work here since it is no corporation. The only thing is throwing FUD around, and even that is apparently not easy. They can't argue away that some good software has come out of open source, and derisive statements about that "Linux game" don't hit home. I don't know how Microsoft could "defeat" open source, but they're sure trying hard. Maybe they try the 'embrace and extend' method as in "hey, our adapted open source license is so much better, why don't you use it".
There is another aspect to this too. As one can see from the article, the larger the ASP provider the better, since that gives some security that they will be there next year too. Even better would be an ASP provider backed up by a large company. That means, in the ASP market only a few big Providers will handle most of the market.
Also those Providers handle the most valuable thing of their customers, their information. With many customers businesses relying on an ASPs service the ASP must thus not only provide the application, but also security.
They must secure the data against unauthorized access, thus they needs well administrated firewalls, security personel (what good is a firewall if someone can sneak in at night and steal the harddisk?) and trustworthy employees. They must cover for breakdown of equipment, that means redundancies and backups, to keep dataloss and downtimes at a minimum. They need some financial backing to ensure he's not out of business if something unforeseen happens. They also need special contracts for the software they're using and providing, so they're not subject to a sudden change of license terms which void their business model. They need some lawyers too, since the legal trouble of one of their customers might affect them too.
In many aspects an ASP can be compared with a bank, the main difference being, that one handles information while the other handles money (which is just a special kind of information also). So it doesn't do to put up some computing equipment and a helpdesk, security and reliability is necessary too. Especially when one considers, how many customers businesses rely on that ASPs service.
But an ASP provider whith that sort of reliability and security probably can't compete with the cheap "ten servers and a helpdesk" approach. Well the customer decides, if a company risks to go down (or at least have significant expenses) when their ASP goes broke to avoid paying their own IT folks they'd better check that ASP has adequate security and reliability.
Apparently you work in a business where (nearly) all work is contract work at the customers site. Maybe you and some coworkers should think about opening your own business. Without knowing the kind of work it's difficult to know if you or the customers need the security of a large corporation backing you up, or if your line of work is bound to your employer by other means. But i think it's worth thinking through, especially if your employers rely haevily on your and your coworkers qualifications, as it often is in IT.
The idea of patents was to encourage innovation. If someone invents something he can patent it and make some money from the monopolisation of an idea. Thus even the backyard inventor should have a possibility to make some money and not get overrun by the superior marketing of some huge corporation.
But with the patent system as it is today, especially the USPTO, it is quite the oposite. To patent something does cost more than the backyard inventor can afford and most of these patents don't ever make a buck, so only big firms can afford to take some shots in the dark until one of them hits. The patents are used for protecting business modells and to shut others out more than anything else, and the way they are used is as the threat of a lawsuit, noone but some big business can live through. So the backyard inventor, or a startup business is demotivated, often enough simply by the fact, that it's next to impossible to figure out, if something is already patented or in the process of becoming patented without a team of specialized lawyers. And in the end a patent is only worth as much, as the lawyers you're paying to defend it.
So patents are stifling innovations because:
- They protect business models, hence the protected business has no need of new inventions.
- They favour big businesses who can afford the lawyers instead of startups which have much more motivation for inventing something.
- They entangle the introductions of new products with a complicated process of tracking down patents which might be relevant
- Especially the granting of overbroad patents to basic methods stifles progress on anything relying on those methods
- Instead of creating more legal security for the inventor they create more insecurity, since the inventor might suddenly find himself in a lawsuit
- Patents are used to suppress superior technologies if they compete with something creating more revenue
- The time patents are valid is too long in relation to the fast paced development
All of this seems so very obvious that this posting should probably be moderated redundant.
Since you have to provide the algorithm for uncompressing too you can regard the machine (OS/shell+tools) as one huge decompressor. It does f(compressed data+algorithm)= decompressed data. Simple counting yields that since there are at least as many (compressed data+algorithm) pairs, as there are sets of decompresssed data. Even by choosing only the shortest versions at least some of those pairs have to have a larger total length than the decompressed data (not accounting for tricks with hiding data in EOFs and filelengths).
I mean, how ridiculous can it get? You look up something you deem a good idea, then modify it slightly and patent? Note that the method in the faq doesn't refer to patents and thus is probably not patented. The authors thought it obvious to mark the document with tags to deduce date of last modification, a unique id (for documents retrieved under this url) and a checksum for integrity check. Now some morons come along, see it already done, do it on parts and get a patent.
I would like to patent transporting morons. In parts.
I don't know why anyone needs this. There are expiration dates and conditional loading of pages if expired already defined in HTTP/1.1 (Rfc 2068) so instead of creating a hash a server honouring requests such as 'If-Modified-Since' would perfectly do the job. There is also an entity tag already defined in the faq. Deducating it from a hash is one possible solution to create such a hash. Encoding the document location and the date of the last change another.
But in general a server using the last modification date of the file as 'Last-modified:' header would well do the job. Else an entity-tag would do the job. The hash would only make sense, if the Document could be retrieved under different URLs. Even then sensible creation of an entity Tag would do the job.
Then there is the Content-MD5 field for an integrity check (from rfc 2068):
The Content-MD5 entity-header field, as defined in RFC 1864 [23], is an MD5 digest of the entity-body for the purpose of providing an end-to-end message integrity check (MIC) of the entity-body. (Note: a MIC is good for detecting accidental modification of the entity-body in transit, but is not proof against malicious attacks.)
This is in the rfc dated January 1997. There are also guidelines, how Proxies or clients should use these Tags to check for expired Documents. It's all there.
While i agree with you that there are a lot of concerned parents out there (they have a reason to be concerned), that is not why everyone picks on videogames or any kid that puts "shoot" and a classmates name in the same sentence.
That's why they want to crack down so hard, because it's something they can fix.
No, they don't fix a thing by sending a kid that was bullied home for three days. The kid will only learn to keep his trap shut. And no, they don't fix a thing by banning videogames either, because most will ignore that ban anyway and only learn to hide things from their parents.
These kids have proplems. Some need professional psychiatric help. They need to be found. Many of those kids need people to talk to, their parents, teachers, social workers. That means time. Time many parents don't have because they work hard at two or three jobs, time the teachers aren't paid for and time of social workers which the richest country on earth choose not to employ. And time is money. Either money the hard working parents don't earn, or money professionals need to be paid with.
So there is the solution. Talk to the kids about their problems, have someone guard the schoolyard for bullies. Build places where kids can go after school and where some socialworker ensures that things don't get out of hand. But it's an expensive solution.
Now if you don't want to pay all that money, but want to quiet the parents worries there's an other option: do something, anything, and make a lot of mediaruckus about it. Pick out something like games and say "Hey, those games turned the child a killer", disregarding the fact, that in other countries children play the same games without killing half the school. And send children home for three days if they say the bad word at school (no, not "fuck", "gun").
A cheap solution, but one that won't help much i think.
Hopefully intel learned from the RAMBUS story that they can't push through standards any longer at their whim. As long as no clear standard emerges intel can't expect much support (cards/periphery) and hence not much of a market for their eagerly announced new bus-standard. With PCI-X as an easy option to prolong the lifetime of PCI for another five years i don't see the industry rush for a standard that essentially makes most present hardware obsolete.
I think that gives intel, AMD and the rest of the industry ample time to work out a standard everyone can live with. Also it occurs to me, that intel is more concerned with keeping control of the bus-standard (as in who gets payed for the license maybe) than technical facts. The article presents very few facts and basically intel wants everyone to hold their breath half a year for their preliminary specs.
These few cases which made it to court are probably only the tip of an iceberg. And the result of what probably amounts to the data of some hundredthousand Individuals is a 100.000$ fine. Probably the collected data is used anyway, since noone can control how often it was copied. Considering, that probably only a few percent of those cases make it to court at all the data costs about 0.01-0.10$ 'legal fees' per individual.
Well they can even make more money selling that information to spammers.
Slashdot Mirror
Now you can use all kinds of Plaecholders in legalese texts i suppose, but 'Viral' doesn't make it sound like a nice thing. But if this hits the news big enough, then people will associate the term 'Viral Software' with anythying Linux. As enough people don't know the difference between virus, worm, or trojan horse, that is about as bad as it can get.
I read c) ii) that you may not use open source tools for developping any Recipicient Software that includes the Software. Maybe i read that so because it's standing there, or it's just a thing with the legalese tricking my eyes. But forbidding to use development tools in developping software including theirs (which, to my understanding, would mean you may not even look at their Source with emacs if you're developping on their code) seems taking things a bit far.
c)i) seems fair enough, although it would have been sufficient, to restrict any distribution under licenses that would alter the Microsoft EULA.
You can, from here, apparently it's the genuine package at least microsoft says so (i didn't try to dl tons of unzipped tar to verify) it's even coming with the gpl.
Or even these ones, as can be seen here.
(Yup, i know it's elsewhere on the Thread, but it was too good to pass up).
Obviously not (in the past 5 years or so) because in that case most people turn off features until everything runs fast enough. But i bet even nowadays there are people sitting in front of their PC saying: "Wow, look at all the stuff i can do now and the cool GUI, two years ago i wouldn't have thought it possible without enduring agonizing responsetimes".
Yup, i admit it, i think transparent window moves look nice, i would live without them, if they were slow or jerky, but now that i can have em i switch those features on. So one could say that most of the speedgain goes to (maybe unnecessary) eyecandy, but i don't think that is a bad thing.
Well, i got in with mozila 0.9 (albeit running under w98) when i enabled javascript and cookies. So i guess (if the story is not totally bogus) that someone reacted very fast and disabled that IE-Hurdle at the entrance (that's a cheap one). I even got into the secure site (https://secure. ...) and for people who couldn't use the certificate to log in there seemed to be a possibility to get a userid and password via mail. I also got to the inlandrevenue-site from there.
Maybe some other people should check their "browsing experience" there. The page explaining that i had to use netscape or ie 4+ only popped up once, when i had disabled Javascript.
So i don't mind, if Hormel get's a little advertisement by publicly being 'generous' to all those people calling, uh..., unsolicited email spam. (They should've banned that Monty Python parody, or come about seven years earlier to stop this anyway).
I mean, once it's a huge success and adopted by everyone i'm sure someone will creep out from under some stone and claim the patent, and would now all makers of Software using gestures for input please pay the license for the past 3 years (anyone remember GIFs?).
It's not that i think of this kind of input as an obvious concept, but maybe the folks implementing it should look if there is already someone applying for a patent. It'd also be a good idea to look where and with who the idea crept up first, it'd make looking for prior art so much easier in ten years time.
... since the people refuse to enter the next store immediately after listenig to the adverts (no supermarketmusic recorded). Because of the low "Go Supermarket Rates" the whole radio-advertising thinks of louder and more annoying advertisements before going belly-up.
Why did i think of Bill Gates when i read that? Maybe because he argues so much like UGGTHUG.
Since i first heard from this effect i thought it might be some magnetic braking effect (all metals would be affected by this when they pass through changing (not spatially uniform) magnetic fields, like that of the sun e.g.). The idea is pretty simple, it would also explain why artificial probes are affected, but not planets, asteroids, etc., since the probes are made of metal. Maybe it's just a hint, that the changes in magnetic fields out there are (for some reason) stronger than we think.
But then something that obvious would probably have been looked into. It would be much easier to make a wild guess, if there was a list of effects already looked into and dismissed. (The paper is apparently slashdotted).
A coworker of mine managed to cite Douglas Adams.
It goes like (translated from german):
"... converges at 10x10x6 k-points, which can be reduced to 42 Points [Ada89] by applying symmetries."
where [Ada89] is the first entry in the Bibliography (alphabetical sorting):
[Ada98] D.Adams. The Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy. Harmony Books, ISBN 0517542099, 1989.
You can still get some mileage out of that joke, when you use it in unexpected places. Well, i laughed.
Is a quantum computer that doesn't even have to be built to extract results from worlds where it was built and did run.
Although there might be minor limitations. But better not mention them, to avoid confusing the readers of nature. One of those limitations might even be, that you have to solve the problem (by whatever means) just to know how to extract and interpret the information.
The question is, does that quantum computer to be built and run in another world have to appear on a budget in this world, and where the money actually goes. But that will only be solved by quantum accounting.
(that was my original .sig then, now that i changed it the comments seem out of context)
I still can't think of anything wrong with giving credit where credit is due. My intention originated more from good citing technique than from the feeling that you 'owned' above expression.
I mainly posted again to reinstate the context.
Hmm wouldn't it be funny to find one of the first
editions and show it to some wellmenaing journalists together with the part out of the Mundie speech?
Nasty, but i think Microsoft spinmeisters would approve of such tactics.
The problem with this is: you can't buy out open source, you can't tie open source up in courts, you can't bully them around with license audits, ... all the nice tricks that worked against other corporations don't work here since it is no corporation. The only thing is throwing FUD around, and even that is apparently not easy. They can't argue away that some good software has come out of open source, and derisive statements about that "Linux game" don't hit home. I don't know how Microsoft could "defeat" open source, but they're sure trying hard. Maybe they try the 'embrace and extend' method as in "hey, our adapted open source license is so much better, why don't you use it".
There is another aspect to this too. As one can see from the article, the larger the ASP provider the better, since that gives some security that they will be there next year too. Even better would be an ASP provider backed up by a large company. That means, in the ASP market only a few big Providers will handle most of the market.
Also those Providers handle the most valuable thing of their customers, their information. With many customers businesses relying on an ASPs service the ASP must thus not only provide the application, but also security.
They must secure the data against unauthorized access, thus they needs well administrated firewalls, security personel (what good is a firewall if someone can sneak in at night and steal the harddisk?) and trustworthy employees. They must cover for breakdown of equipment, that means redundancies and backups, to keep dataloss and downtimes at a minimum. They need some financial backing to ensure he's not out of business if something unforeseen happens. They also need special contracts for the software they're using and providing, so they're not subject to a sudden change of license terms which void their business model. They need some lawyers too, since the legal trouble of one of their customers might affect them too.
In many aspects an ASP can be compared with a bank, the main difference being, that one handles information while the other handles money (which is just a special kind of information also). So it doesn't do to put up some computing equipment and a helpdesk, security and reliability is necessary too. Especially when one considers, how many customers businesses rely on that ASPs service.
But an ASP provider whith that sort of reliability and security probably can't compete with the cheap "ten servers and a helpdesk" approach. Well the customer decides, if a company risks to go down (or at least have significant expenses) when their ASP goes broke to avoid paying their own IT folks they'd better check that ASP has adequate security and reliability.
Apparently you work in a business where (nearly) all work is contract work at the customers site. Maybe you and some coworkers should think about opening your own business. Without knowing the kind of work it's difficult to know if you or the customers need the security of a large corporation backing you up, or if your line of work is bound to your employer by other means. But i think it's worth thinking through, especially if your employers rely haevily on your and your coworkers qualifications, as it often is in IT.
The idea of patents was to encourage innovation. If someone invents something he can patent it and make some money from the monopolisation of an idea. Thus even the backyard inventor should have a possibility to make some money and not get overrun by the superior marketing of some huge corporation.
But with the patent system as it is today, especially the USPTO, it is quite the oposite. To patent something does cost more than the backyard inventor can afford and most of these patents don't ever make a buck, so only big firms can afford to take some shots in the dark until one of them hits. The patents are used for protecting business modells and to shut others out more than anything else, and the way they are used is as the threat of a lawsuit, noone but some big business can live through. So the backyard inventor, or a startup business is demotivated, often enough simply by the fact, that it's next to impossible to figure out, if something is already patented or in the process of becoming patented without a team of specialized lawyers. And in the end a patent is only worth as much, as the lawyers you're paying to defend it.
So patents are stifling innovations because:
- They protect business models, hence the protected business has no need of new inventions.
- They favour big businesses who can afford the lawyers instead of startups which have much more motivation for inventing something.
- They entangle the introductions of new products with a complicated process of tracking down patents which might be relevant
- Especially the granting of overbroad patents to basic methods stifles progress on anything relying on those methods
- Instead of creating more legal security for the inventor they create more insecurity, since the inventor might suddenly find himself in a lawsuit
- Patents are used to suppress superior technologies if they compete with something creating more revenue
- The time patents are valid is too long in relation to the fast paced development
All of this seems so very obvious that this posting should probably be moderated redundant.
Since you have to provide the algorithm for uncompressing too you can regard the machine (OS/shell+tools) as one huge decompressor. It does f(compressed data+algorithm)= decompressed data. Simple counting yields that since there are at least as many (compressed data+algorithm) pairs, as there are sets of decompresssed data. Even by choosing only the shortest versions at least some of those pairs have to have a larger total length than the decompressed data (not accounting for tricks with hiding data in EOFs and filelengths).
I mean, how ridiculous can it get? You look up something you deem a good idea, then modify it slightly and patent? Note that the method in the faq doesn't refer to patents and thus is probably not patented. The authors thought it obvious to mark the document with tags to deduce date of last modification, a unique id (for documents retrieved under this url) and a checksum for integrity check. Now some morons come along, see it already done, do it on parts and get a patent.
I would like to patent transporting morons. In parts.
I don't know why anyone needs this. There are expiration dates and conditional loading of pages if expired already defined in HTTP/1.1 (Rfc 2068) so instead of creating a hash a server honouring requests such as 'If-Modified-Since' would perfectly do the job. There is also an entity tag already defined in the faq. Deducating it from a hash is one possible solution to create such a hash. Encoding the document location and the date of the last change another.
But in general a server using the last modification date of the file as 'Last-modified:' header would well do the job. Else an entity-tag would do the job. The hash would only make sense, if the Document could be retrieved under different URLs. Even then sensible creation of an entity Tag would do the job.
Then there is the Content-MD5 field for an integrity check (from rfc 2068):
The Content-MD5 entity-header field, as defined in RFC 1864 [23], is an MD5 digest of the entity-body for the purpose of providing an end-to-end message integrity check (MIC) of the entity-body. (Note: a MIC is good for detecting accidental modification of the entity-body in transit, but is not proof against malicious attacks.)
This is in the rfc dated January 1997. There are also guidelines, how Proxies or clients should use these Tags to check for expired Documents. It's all there.
While i agree with you that there are a lot of concerned parents out there (they have a reason to be concerned), that is not why everyone picks on videogames or any kid that puts "shoot" and a classmates name in the same sentence.
That's why they want to crack down so hard, because it's something they can fix.
No, they don't fix a thing by sending a kid that was bullied home for three days. The kid will only learn to keep his trap shut. And no, they don't fix a thing by banning videogames either, because most will ignore that ban anyway and only learn to hide things from their parents.
These kids have proplems. Some need professional psychiatric help. They need to be found. Many of those kids need people to talk to, their parents, teachers, social workers. That means time. Time many parents don't have because they work hard at two or three jobs, time the teachers aren't paid for and time of social workers which the richest country on earth choose not to employ. And time is money. Either money the hard working parents don't earn, or money professionals need to be paid with.
So there is the solution. Talk to the kids about their problems, have someone guard the schoolyard for bullies. Build places where kids can go after school and where some socialworker ensures that things don't get out of hand. But it's an expensive solution.
Now if you don't want to pay all that money, but want to quiet the parents worries there's an other option: do something, anything, and make a lot of mediaruckus about it. Pick out something like games and say "Hey, those games turned the child a killer", disregarding the fact, that in other countries children play the same games without killing half the school. And send children home for three days if they say the bad word at school (no, not "fuck", "gun").
A cheap solution, but one that won't help much i think.
Hopefully intel learned from the RAMBUS story that they can't push through standards any longer at their whim. As long as no clear standard emerges intel can't expect much support (cards/periphery) and hence not much of a market for their eagerly announced new bus-standard. With PCI-X as an easy option to prolong the lifetime of PCI for another five years i don't see the industry rush for a standard that essentially makes most present hardware obsolete.
I think that gives intel, AMD and the rest of the industry ample time to work out a standard everyone can live with. Also it occurs to me, that intel is more concerned with keeping control of the bus-standard (as in who gets payed for the license maybe) than technical facts. The article presents very few facts and basically intel wants everyone to hold their breath half a year for their preliminary specs.
These few cases which made it to court are probably only the tip of an iceberg. And the result of what probably amounts to the data of some hundredthousand Individuals is a 100.000$ fine. Probably the collected data is used anyway, since noone can control how often it was copied. Considering, that probably only a few percent of those cases make it to court at all the data costs about 0.01-0.10$ 'legal fees' per individual.
Well they can even make more money selling that information to spammers.