I'm just quoting the article which is quoting what they filed with the court. I'm not saying they have a case (and AFAIK a lot of this stuff was already covered in DOJ v. MS). I'm guessing the artifically high thing is only a problem when combined with the other charges of uncompetitiveness.
You are technically supposed to go through the labourious task of getting permission from the local authority if you sell anything in the street. They will then probably give you permission to stand in a certain spot at certain times (which is why Big Issue sellers have to have wear badges and stay in the same spot). Even if you have permission, you aren't supposed to pressurise the public.
The easiest way to sell free software CDs woulds probably be through the classified ads in the local paper or by putting up flyers. You could also sell it on private property (e.g.: the campus of a local college or uni). Offering support would probably greatly increase your chance of actually shifting many CDs though.
IBM...who constantly seek to use the regulatory process to their business advantage. When faced with innovation, they choose litigation
Ooh...IBM's lawyers are going to have loads of fun with that quote when they start getting responses to their recently filed subpoenas hunting for info. about possible maintenance by Microsoft of the TSG lawsuit.
That is because MS won't do business with (i.e.: takes out) any manufacturer who doesn't include that line in their advertising. (Hopefully, they include a complaint about that in their suit).
Although their is no contradiction in them recommending MSW and suing MS about bundling and keeping the price artifically high. In fact, the opposite is true. If they didn't like MSW they would probably just sell free software OSs, and not care.
Well, IME, it is more officers of local authorities in general who are corrupt (not all of them...but a significant IMO minority) because of the lack of any control by councillors (who have the wool pulled over their eyes very easily and get threatened with litigation by officers if they ask questions), but Trading Standards departments' dealing with businesses probably make them more open to that sort of thing.
FTR, that was a personal opinion in a/. comment (from someone who has dealt with various local authorities on lots of matters) and I haven't seen any studies on it. Try Google if you're bored.
You're quoting me out of context. Include the original "It is as if" to your quote, and note that I was responding to someone else's explanation of why she did this with something I said I thought was a better explanation.
Yep, I know that. I assumed that the/. editors had some new information on this story as they stated that in the headline, but they're just being their normal incompetent selves.
In fact, for most of the history of computers all software was free software (so `free software' was just called `software'): freely distributable source code. When governments allowed software (which is just maths after all) to be copyrightable, this gave rise to the proprietary software industry. Then, the dfistinction had to be made.
I've personally bought lots of free software (hundreds of pounds) in the past (when I didn't have broadband). There are many reasons to do this (having a physical medium, you don't (like most computer users in the world) have 'net access (or not broadband), associated support (even if it is just installing it, trustworthy source who you know hasn't put in malware, warranties, unable to find anyone providing the software free on the 'net yet).
I think they should figure out a way to change licenses to disallow that type of thing
Then it wouldn't be free software (and I for one wouldn't use it). This would go against the prniciple that one is allowed to distribute the software to whomever one likes and destroy one of the basic ideals of software freedom. As long as you get the license with it, there is no problem and there shouldn't be.
He says he asked to return any CDs that she may have confiscated, so I get the impression that it wasn't clear whether she had taken any action or not yet.
I'm not saying that/. is behind (well...I am), but this news is so last week.
The latest news is that, according to Yahoo! News and BBC News, a fresh anti-trust complaint has been filed with the EC against Microsoft by the European Committee for Interoperable Systems (composed of IBM, Oracle, RealNetworks, Sun & Nokia). Although the complaint was filed privately, ECIS hinted (see the links) that it related to MS Office.
The story here is about
Tangent, a computer manufacturer who filed a federal suit against MS in a Northern Californian court on Valentine's Day. I've found two articles which go into more detail on this: Gameshout and ZDNet.
Basically, the complaints in this suit relate to:
MS's promotion of its DRM software
lack of documentation for the MS Office document formats
pricing of MS software artifically high
pressurising content owners to use proprietary MS media formats
server interoperability (see the original EC case for which MS are currently being fined $2.8M daily).
There's a few good companies selling free software in the UK. I bought a £100+ of free software from the LInux Emporium a couple of years ago. They are probably the best. They even posted me an (unasked for) security update CD for one of the distros a month or two later. They've also got all sorts of other cool parathenalia: t-shirts, cuddly Tuxes, GNU/Linux-installed laptops, books (inlcuding GNU Press books which are difficult to get in the UK).
RTFA. Nothing wrong with that. The stupidity was the fact that she refused to believe that anyone would provide a license to a third party allowing them to copy `their' work, and she demanded proof that the response from licensing@mozilla.org was from a representative of MF on licensing.
Also, possibly, the fact that she confiscated it in the first place, seems unable to read a copyright license or understand that such a thing might even exist, and cut of the conversation when Gervase didn't give her `proof' that he represented MF (so who knows if these guys ever got their CDs back).
Mozilla legally at a charge prohibits you from arresting people who are distributing copyrighted software which they made their own copies of.
Well..clearly...TS assume that anyone making copies of anything that they didn't write themselves is unlawful. Someoene tell them about these things called copyright licenses...oh and fair use, the public domain and uncopyrightable works.
In fact, restricting commercial distribution would make the software non-free (see the FSF's free software definition, the Debian Free Software Guidelines or the OSI's open-source definition).
we are too stupid to make a distinction between Free software and commercial software
Actually, if anything, the opposite is true: she failed to understand that free software can be commercial.
However, I think she doesn't know anything about free software (or software for that matter) and her assumption was actually that if you don't hold the copyright on a work and are copying it you must be breaking the law, so, actually, she seems to not to be able to comprehend the idea of a copyright license, full stop (i.e.: she thinks that copyright shouldn't allow you to pass on your exclusive right to copy to a third party).
It is as if she thinks it is the duty of everyone to keep their works a secret and not publish them (otherwise the masses might learn stuff). I wonder when she'll find out about the public domain: an evil conspiracy by the government to allow information to be copied by anyone without anyone having the right to restrict this immoral act. No one tell her about these evil things called libraries...
Although, being in a nortoriously corrupt UK TS dept., I'm not surprised that she is scared of the idea of freedom of information and thinks freedom of expression is immoral somehow.
Having experience of TS officers, I know this level of stupidity is more than expected. What surprises me most is that TS actually pursued a complaint. (Actually, they probably thought that MF was a big corp. who would provide them with brown envelopes, which is different from persuing complaints from consumers.)
I'm going to patent the idea of NOT adding a comment saying how cool it would be to patent the idea of awarding patents everytime there is a story on any Internet forum about patents. And the great thing is, I'm betting the PTO won't find any prior art, if they bother to look.
Seriously though, has anyone done serious research into how one could patent award patents: which patent office is laziest, what time of the year are they busy, ways to describe the concept of patenting without it being obvious what you are talking about, &c. Someone has already patented the wheel and human communication, so this can't be that difficult.
Looks like not only is the PIPE fairy connection unravelling, but MS is in it deep elsewhere as fresh anti-trust complaints are filed in the EU & US.
According to Yahoo! News and BBC News, a fresh anti-trust complaint has been filed with the EC against Microsoft by the European Committee for Interoperable Systems (composed of IBM, Oracle, RealNetworks, Sun & Nokia). Although the complaint was filed privately, ECIS hinted that it related to MS Office.
Also, computer manufacturer, Tangent, filed a federal suit against MS in a Northern Californian court on Valentine's Day. According to Gameshout and ZDNet, complaints relate to MS's promotion of its DRM software, lack of documentation for the MS Office document formats, pricing of software artifically high, pressurising content owners to use proprietary MS media formats and server interoperability.
If you look at the history of how Bill Gates screwed IBM, if there is anyone who IBM hates more than TSG it is MS, so I don't see IBM settling anything.
Revenge (particularly of the unemotional, served cold variety) may be in the profit interests of the company for the same reason it may be in the interests of an individual (i.e.: it sends a message to future barraters). In that case, it is OK for the directors to engage in revenge.
Yes, but if TSG didn't provide them with anything in return (especially if TSG's only business at the time was lawsuits) then Microsoft (like anyone who donates towards a lawsuit) has to pay the costs and damages awarded to IBM, Redhat et al if^Wwhen TSG loses if^Wwhen TSG goes bankrupt.
Also, depending on the local laws, MS and TSG may be prosecuted for maintenance (the supporting of a litigant by a third party that enables the litigant to carry on a claim when they otherwise would be unable to and/or where the third party does not have a bona fide interest in the suit), barratry (inciting a third party to take out groundless or repeated claims against other third parties), or champerty (maintenance with the hope of profit for yourself). Even in states where these are not unlawful, doing them clandestinely may be.
Oh...and don't forget that MS is probably in contempt of the court's anti-trust ruling in DOJ v. MS...oh...and that the SEC were investigating possible offences of money laundering between MS, the Royal Bank of Canada and TSG.
Exactly. In fact Bill Gates did give a lecture where he compared Microsoft's allowing some piracy to a drug dealier getting people addicted before making them pay.
The really important thing here is that he only gives more because he has more. I'm not a christian, but there is a story in the Bible comparing a pauper who gives nearly all their money to a rich person who gives a lot more; this is the same thing.
Uhh FLAC is usually used in Ogg. One is a codec and the other a container format so it is not an either or thing. Also he said "open formats such as Ogg".
Slashdot Mirror
I'm just quoting the article which is quoting what they filed with the court. I'm not saying they have a case (and AFAIK a lot of this stuff was already covered in DOJ v. MS). I'm guessing the artifically high thing is only a problem when combined with the other charges of uncompetitiveness.
The easiest way to sell free software CDs woulds probably be through the classified ads in the local paper or by putting up flyers. You could also sell it on private property (e.g.: the campus of a local college or uni). Offering support would probably greatly increase your chance of actually shifting many CDs though.
Although their is no contradiction in them recommending MSW and suing MS about bundling and keeping the price artifically high. In fact, the opposite is true. If they didn't like MSW they would probably just sell free software OSs, and not care.
FTR, that was a personal opinion in a /. comment (from someone who has dealt with various local authorities on lots of matters) and I haven't seen any studies on it. Try Google if you're bored.
You're quoting me out of context. Include the original "It is as if" to your quote, and note that I was responding to someone else's explanation of why she did this with something I said I thought was a better explanation.
Yep, I know that. I assumed that the /. editors had some new information on this story as they stated that in the headline, but they're just being their normal incompetent selves.
In fact, for most of the history of computers all software was free software (so `free software' was just called `software'): freely distributable source code. When governments allowed software (which is just maths after all) to be copyrightable, this gave rise to the proprietary software industry. Then, the dfistinction had to be made.
He says he asked to return any CDs that she may have confiscated, so I get the impression that it wasn't clear whether she had taken any action or not yet.
The latest news is that, according to Yahoo! News and BBC News, a fresh anti-trust complaint has been filed with the EC against Microsoft by the European Committee for Interoperable Systems (composed of IBM, Oracle, RealNetworks, Sun & Nokia). Although the complaint was filed privately, ECIS hinted (see the links) that it related to MS Office.
The story here is about Tangent, a computer manufacturer who filed a federal suit against MS in a Northern Californian court on Valentine's Day. I've found two articles which go into more detail on this: Gameshout and ZDNet.
Basically, the complaints in this suit relate to:
There's a few good companies selling free software in the UK. I bought a £100+ of free software from the LInux Emporium a couple of years ago. They are probably the best. They even posted me an (unasked for) security update CD for one of the distros a month or two later. They've also got all sorts of other cool parathenalia: t-shirts, cuddly Tuxes, GNU/Linux-installed laptops, books (inlcuding GNU Press books which are difficult to get in the UK).
Also, possibly, the fact that she confiscated it in the first place, seems unable to read a copyright license or understand that such a thing might even exist, and cut of the conversation when Gervase didn't give her `proof' that he represented MF (so who knows if these guys ever got their CDs back).
In fact, restricting commercial distribution would make the software non-free (see the FSF's free software definition, the Debian Free Software Guidelines or the OSI's open-source definition).
However, I think she doesn't know anything about free software (or software for that matter) and her assumption was actually that if you don't hold the copyright on a work and are copying it you must be breaking the law, so, actually, she seems to not to be able to comprehend the idea of a copyright license, full stop (i.e.: she thinks that copyright shouldn't allow you to pass on your exclusive right to copy to a third party).
It is as if she thinks it is the duty of everyone to keep their works a secret and not publish them (otherwise the masses might learn stuff). I wonder when she'll find out about the public domain: an evil conspiracy by the government to allow information to be copied by anyone without anyone having the right to restrict this immoral act. No one tell her about these evil things called libraries...
Although, being in a nortoriously corrupt UK TS dept., I'm not surprised that she is scared of the idea of freedom of information and thinks freedom of expression is immoral somehow.
Also, see Gervase's blog entry, and it is also on digg.
I'm going to patent the idea of NOT adding a comment saying how cool it would be to patent the idea of awarding patents everytime there is a story on any Internet forum about patents. And the great thing is, I'm betting the PTO won't find any prior art, if they bother to look.
Seriously though, has anyone done serious research into how one could patent award patents: which patent office is laziest, what time of the year are they busy, ways to describe the concept of patenting without it being obvious what you are talking about, &c. Someone has already patented the wheel and human communication, so this can't be that difficult.
According to Yahoo! News and BBC News, a fresh anti-trust complaint has been filed with the EC against Microsoft by the European Committee for Interoperable Systems (composed of IBM, Oracle, RealNetworks, Sun & Nokia). Although the complaint was filed privately, ECIS hinted that it related to MS Office.
Also, computer manufacturer, Tangent, filed a federal suit against MS in a Northern Californian court on Valentine's Day. According to Gameshout and ZDNet, complaints relate to MS's promotion of its DRM software, lack of documentation for the MS Office document formats, pricing of software artifically high, pressurising content owners to use proprietary MS media formats and server interoperability.
If you look at the history of how Bill Gates screwed IBM, if there is anyone who IBM hates more than TSG it is MS, so I don't see IBM settling anything.
Revenge (particularly of the unemotional, served cold variety) may be in the profit interests of the company for the same reason it may be in the interests of an individual (i.e.: it sends a message to future barraters). In that case, it is OK for the directors to engage in revenge.
Also, depending on the local laws, MS and TSG may be prosecuted for maintenance (the supporting of a litigant by a third party that enables the litigant to carry on a claim when they otherwise would be unable to and/or where the third party does not have a bona fide interest in the suit), barratry (inciting a third party to take out groundless or repeated claims against other third parties), or champerty (maintenance with the hope of profit for yourself). Even in states where these are not unlawful, doing them clandestinely may be.
Oh...and don't forget that MS is probably in contempt of the court's anti-trust ruling in DOJ v. MS...oh...and that the SEC were investigating possible offences of money laundering between MS, the Royal Bank of Canada and TSG.
Fufilling slashdot's mission to go boldly whence no man has before gone. (It makes a change from the same old nazis).
The really important thing here is that he only gives more because he has more. I'm not a christian, but there is a story in the Bible comparing a pauper who gives nearly all their money to a rich person who gives a lot more; this is the same thing.
Uhh FLAC is usually used in Ogg. One is a codec and the other a container format so it is not an either or thing. Also he said "open formats such as Ogg".