An exclusive right is the opposite of a right as the holder of it is allowed to remove others rights--it takes away everyones rights except the holder. The word exclusive implies `stopping the majority from...'.
I don't which planet you've been on--maybe that strange parallel universe called RL--but last time I checked we get a slightly less obvious form of nonsense throughout the year.
Also, while we are on this topic, please don't forget to do your bit to combat light pollution by making sure your lighting fixtures shine below the horizontal were the light is needed, as opposed to into the sky.
Are you suggesting that this could be a common garden satellite image based on visible-spectrum photons as opposed to a genuine map of bogon emissions?
I would have never have even considered such an outlandish possibility. CmdrTaco would never be fooled by such a thing or wish to fool us, as he upholds such high standards of journalism and fact-checking especially on April Fool's Day.
OK, Kids. Own up! Who modded the parent `insightful'?
Their are two alternative MIME parts: one is plain text and one is HTML.
In other words, if you have your MUA set to display plain text, you'll see the rich-text features translated into plain-text equivalents (e.g.: with blockquoting) or removed.
Whereas, if you have your MUA set to display HTML, you'll see them in all their glory.
Here's the gory detail:
To clarify my grandparent comment was meant to be in principal (not saying that there necessarily is a case) and to clarify the confusion of the great-grandparent. In actual fact, after further research I believe that their was no copyright violation in this case under US law (as the modifications were so minor).
Yes, they can assert `ownership' (if by that you mean copyright) to their modifications. Just because one uses a public-domain work in one's new work, it doesn't mean the new work is in the public domain. For instance, even though Shakespeare is long dead, when you buy one of his plays it will probably have a copyright notice which covers the typesetting and compilation. If you photocopy the book and distribute copies, you will violate the publisher's copyright.
Well, you would think that TSG would at least use their own copies of their own court filings (that they wrote) instead of scans from Groklaw especially as the trumped their new lawsuits site as a better alternative to Groklaw (and all it has ATM is stuff copied from Groklaw with no attribution). I guess this is indicative of the sort of idiots we are up against.
Many of those documents are also provided for the good of all, free of charge and any form of licensing agreements/restrictions by their transcribers, so SCO probably hasn't actually infringed any laws, civil or otherwise.
Actually any modifications by Groklaw, Tuxrocks and transcribers are not public domain but under a license: creative commons (attribution required, non-commercial use only) and of course there was no attribution. This is probably an extremely minor copyright violation (which the courts would laugh at) but there has been some formatting, conversions, scanning and writing by transcribers on scanned documents by Groklaw et al.
Well, it's hardly in the best taste is it, even if they are so strapped for cash and/or resources that they don't have the ability to transcribe it themselves.
It is worse than that. TSG wrote half of the original documents (which the court has put in the public domain) and probably have the other half in a machine-readable form, but chose to use Groklaw's scanned versions on their new lawsuit site--I assume because it is easier to leech off Groklaw than dig up the originals. This is especially ironic as TSG stated that their new lawsuit site is an attempt at countering Groklaw's `lies' and all it contains ATM is stuff copied from Groklaw.
Don't worry. No courts necessary. They'll be shut down soon just from not having sold any products for years while their lawyers bills are building up.
No idea what a TP is. "SCO" would be a trademark--nothing to do with copyright. It could sue you if you tried to sell a similar product (e.g.: another OS) and called it "SCO".
Actually, arguably, it may infringe on the copyright of the scanner too. The reason it does not infringe on the original copyright is because when IBM and TSG put the documents before the court as filings they automatically enter the public domain under US law.
The real irony is that they wrote the documents but are using Groklaw's scanned versions on their site--I assume because it is more difficult than finding the originals.
Especially, ironic as this site was their attempt at countering Groklaw's `lies' and all it contains is stuff copied from Groklaw ATM.
And remember that, in most jurisdictions, you are violating this patent by just playing a 3D game, so if you carry on playing these sort of game you are a criminal.
Slashdot Mirror
An exclusive right is the opposite of a right as the holder of it is allowed to remove others rights--it takes away everyones rights except the holder. The word exclusive implies `stopping the majority from...'.
I don't which planet you've been on--maybe that strange parallel universe called RL--but last time I checked we get a slightly less obvious form of nonsense throughout the year.
You have the whole Internet in your hands? That's impressive.
You're new here. Right?
Also, while we are on this topic, please don't forget to do your bit to combat light pollution by making sure your lighting fixtures shine below the horizontal were the light is needed, as opposed to into the sky.
Are you suggesting that this could be a common garden satellite image based on visible-spectrum photons as opposed to a genuine map of bogon emissions?
I would have never have even considered such an outlandish possibility. CmdrTaco would never be fooled by such a thing or wish to fool us, as he upholds such high standards of journalism and fact-checking especially on April Fool's Day.
OK, Kids. Own up! Who modded the parent `insightful'?
It may be a joke, but I for one welcome our new nonet-using PDP10 overlords. (It would be better with nonets of balanced trits, but hey...)
Should have previewed. That should go to the GMail homepage.
In other words, if you have your MUA set to display plain text, you'll see the rich-text features translated into plain-text equivalents (e.g.: with blockquoting) or removed.
Whereas, if you have your MUA set to display HTML, you'll see them in all their glory. Here's the gory detail:
You, sir, are on very very sad individual.
...until it reaches infinity+1.
Check out the new capacity of GMail and Google's new soft drink.
...or the April Fools jokes we are talking about are /. stories...
Except that last time someone tried to sell their child on eBay (in Germany), eBay reported them to the police and they were arrested.
To clarify my grandparent comment was meant to be in principal (not saying that there necessarily is a case) and to clarify the confusion of the great-grandparent. In actual fact, after further research I believe that their was no copyright violation in this case under US law (as the modifications were so minor).
Not, of course, that I was actually suggesting legal action be taken over such a petty thing; that would be stooping to their level.
Yes, they can assert `ownership' (if by that you mean copyright) to their modifications. Just because one uses a public-domain work in one's new work, it doesn't mean the new work is in the public domain. For instance, even though Shakespeare is long dead, when you buy one of his plays it will probably have a copyright notice which covers the typesetting and compilation. If you photocopy the book and distribute copies, you will violate the publisher's copyright.
(That's the official TSG Poland site--TSG's own staff replaces the site with that image and resigned after they sued IBM.)
Well, you would think that TSG would at least use their own copies of their own court filings (that they wrote) instead of scans from Groklaw especially as the trumped their new lawsuits site as a better alternative to Groklaw (and all it has ATM is stuff copied from Groklaw with no attribution). I guess this is indicative of the sort of idiots we are up against.
Don't worry. No courts necessary. They'll be shut down soon just from not having sold any products for years while their lawyers bills are building up.
No idea what a TP is. "SCO" would be a trademark--nothing to do with copyright. It could sue you if you tried to sell a similar product (e.g.: another OS) and called it "SCO".
The scanner did write some stuff on the documents before scanning.
The real irony is that they wrote the documents but are using Groklaw's scanned versions on their site--I assume because it is more difficult than finding the originals.
Especially, ironic as this site was their attempt at countering Groklaw's `lies' and all it contains is stuff copied from Groklaw ATM.
And remember that, in most jurisdictions, you are violating this patent by just playing a 3D game, so if you carry on playing these sort of game you are a criminal.