The McDonalds case is hardly as open and shut as people like to make it out to be.
Agreed. My point was only that a sympathetic plaintiff has at least the "weapon" of sympathy to their advantage.
I disagree that this is something wrong with the judicial system, as the appellate process very often "fixes" extreme results. The fact that the legal system is expensive at any level is a different problem.
For one thing a new clause like that would be incompatible with the GPL.
My recommendation is to change the GPL to include this restriction. It would be a completely innocuous restriction, so long as you did not try to enforce unfriendly restrictions in the EULA that were specifically forbidden in the GPL.
Your point about changing the license for existing code is well taken, but I think it would become irrelevant in a relatively short period of time. If you release all new version under the modified GPL (or variant) then you would quickly reap the benefits.
Some might argue that this kind of restriction is exactly what the GPL is meant to fight against. I agree on one level, but if we wait around for the IP laws to reflect the open source approach to software development then we will continue to face such restrictive acts.
Is it so hard to imagine a future where IP rights are automatically given to an author without any claim of ownership from the author? What if the state or even an independent third party could legally act to protect these IP rights on "behalf of the public". It's not too far fetched. These independent parties could then use the law to basically attack real or potential competitors without even owning the IP right itself.
I am sure this is not an original idea, but why do open source developers just make a minor change in their license. Basically that under no circumstances can a patented software application make use of any functions built into the open source software.
This would simply use a software licensing term to send a clear message. Want to patent your software? Fine, but you won't get to use it with any open source software.
Everyone is trying to put their damn finger in the dike regarding this stuff. I say we pull our fingers out of the holes and let the place flood. Then we will see how companies like it when they want to use everyone else's work to their financial benefit while not sharing.
You think Amazon and it's "one-click" crap doesn't use open source software to actually implement the idea?
There were two claims here in the lawsuit: 1) breach of the licensing contract and 2) patent infringment.
My guess is that the appellate court upheld the trial results in their entirety. As I did not read the appellate court opinion, who knows. The Supreme Court did nothing. They did not agree or disagree. They just chose not to hear the case.
The patent claim was probably pretty clear. But I suspect that the breach of contract claim was a tougher one, as the common law concept of reverse engineering is pretty well accepted. I would hope if reverse engineering bans in EULAs become common practice, the courts in general will apply the long standing common law rights of reverse engineering.
As the article pointed out, the plaintiff is very sympathetic in this case (just like in the McDonald's spilled hot coffee case).
He mutters statements like "In my early computer years I had a brief flirtation with the Apple Mac, which I liked a lot. But I turned my back on that religion when I took a job editing a PC magazine." and "I was a disciple from the beginning when it was called Dos, and kept the faith through the buggy, painful years of Windows 1.0 to 3.11."
I am kind of annoyed that I read his dribble. The whole column is interspersed with references to religious beliefs as it relates to operating systems. This is the same guy who dresses up like Luke Skywalker and camps out for movie premieres.
However, I do have to say that the Hair Club for Men did an excellent job for him.
But note what I said--there's no reason that it SHOULD change anything.
Fine, then your position is clear. You do not agree with antitrust law. Talk to your Congressman to get it repealed. Until then, the court's are required to enforce it.
Yes, a monopoly does change something. It means you cannot use one monopoly (like in the operating system) to establish another monopoly.
In this case, Sun argues that MS is using the OS monopoly to establish a new monopoly in middleware with.NET.
Legally obtained monopolies are legally fine. But there are restrictions on the behavior of a company holding a monopoly. That's what antitrust law is.
Explain how a court can order a company to include a competitor's product while at the same time order them to not ship their own.
If I take the question literally, then the answer is easy: the court just issues the order.
However, you ask a question regarding a point I did not make. The sentence you quote was in reference to the appellate court's decision. What the appellate court says in the decision is that Sun could still win the case on the merits, at which time the trial judge could then issue an appropriate injunction.
But the biggest issue here is your complete lack of understanding about an important aspect. Microsoft has legally established a monopoly. Red Hat does not. Oracle does not. Real does not. That is why there is a difference here.
The whole anti-government intervention argument gets a little old, especially regarding antitrust. Essentially, the argument is that there should be no intervention and let the market work. As I stated, monopolies and the antitrust laws meant to address them is specifically because the market cannot work with a monopoly. This is not a new concept. This has been completely understood for over 100 years!
So your point is that there should be no government intervention (I will not even address the fact that this instant situation is a private company simply using a court's authority, not some statutory or regulatory intervention) and that, even when a monopoly in one market is used to obtain a monopoly in another then there is no redress. I think your point can be summed up that you not only disagree with antitrust laws and do not feel they should be enforced, you actually deny their existence.
What happened in the browser market? There is no redress possible. It's done. It's clear that MS used its OS monopoly to obtain a browser monopoly (if you want to argue this point, talk to the hand because it's a legally established fact that this happened). But was there a way to redress the browser situation? No, there was not. It was done. Finished. What were the consequences to Microsoft? None. So where is the deterrent against future similar behavior? It's like sending a thief who stole $20 million to prison for 10 years and letting him keep the money. Sign me up for that.
And the "... blah blah blah monopoly blah blah blah..." part is irrelevant if Sun wants a judge to force Microsoft to do something, as opposed to stop doing something.
Your final point is just plain wierd. A court order can be to force a party to either do something or stop doing something. It's not some relevant point that Sun was seeking the court to enforce affirmative behavior from Microsoft, so your attempt at distinguishing the two is moot.
If you read the appellate court decision, the reason they overturned the injunction is because even the trial court judge stated that Sun could not prove irreparable harm without the injunction. The appellate court (and the trial judge) specifically says that this does not mean Sun cannot still obtain the same result after a trial.
Please note that the appellate court upheld the part of the injunction preventing Microsoft from shipping a non-compliant JRE.
The fact is, Sun could still obtain a final order that MS must bundle the Sun JRE with the Windows operating system. But this will only happen after a trial. The injunction here was issued at a preliminary stage of the judicial proceedings. But if you think forcing MS to ship the JRE at any point would be completely inappropriate and only market conditions should rule, you have a gross misunderstanding of antitrust laws and their purposes.
Microsoft has a monopoly in operating systems for the Intel platform. This is legal fact and Microsoft cannot walk into any court room and claim otherwise. It's been decided already. A monopoly means that market conditions cannot work. Even Adam Smith (you know, that guy who kind of invented capitalism) said that the market cannot work when there is a monopoly. Ensuring the market can still work in a monopoly is the purpose of antitrust laws.
Now that it is legally established MS has a monopoly, it completely changes how MS can do business in the market. In the case of the JRE, it means Microsoft cannot leverage their monopoly in the OS to obtain a monopoly in another area. You know, like they did with the browser!
What I expect would be a more likely outcome is that MS has to make a decision. If they want to bundle.NET, then they have to bundle a compliant JRE. Then the market truly would be deciding and it would not be a case of MS simply leveraging the OS monopoly into a new market.
All that said, the legal nuances are the important point to note from this decision. The appellate court was not saying MS would never have to include the Sun JRE. They were only saying that the legal burden of "irreparable harm" had not been met in order to obtain an injunction. That's why they vacated the order.
No, but they use Netware, eDirectory, ZENworks, Portal and many other products that the company Novell sells.
Does anyone wonder how personal biases get introduced into business decisions? Maybe when people decide to completely disregard all products from a company for no reason other than their ignorance of those products.
Just to prove it, go look at the capabilities of the DirXML product from Novell. Then I can explain how our HR department processes a new hire and DirXML automatically creates the network account, portal account, email account and gives access to all appropriate backend systems seamlessly. And then it keeps everything in sync.
You need to see a doctor to have that chip removed from your shoulder.
Anyone who suggests that Novell's products and services can be replaced by Windows or Linux is clearly just inexperienced or unwilling to accept alternatives.
Tell me what product competes with ZENworks for client management? Tell me what product competes with Netware's file management? Tell me what product competes with NDPS for printer management? Tell me what competes with eDirectory for user authentication, identification and authorization?
Speaking of eDirectory, if you only see eDirectory as a user or network management tool, you should try opening your eyes. Do you think Yahoo uses eDirectory for that purpose? No, they use it to know who you are and what kind of content you both want and should get.
None of that even speaks to eDirectory's robustness with partitions and replicas.
Too many people stopped looking at Novell because they saw it as the "old stuff" and boring. But it's not. It's really downright cool. ZENworks itself makes application distribution fun.
The game looks and sounds nothing like Rampage. It looks and sounds like Crush, Crumble and Chomp, a game by Epyx back in the 1980s for the Apple II (and I think C64) that was removed from the market when Epyx got sued by at least one film company.
I will take acceptable graphics and good game play any day over great graphics and crap game play.
You attack the game for shitty graphics and then turn around to promote games on Palm OS and PocketPC devices. What the hell is that? Last I checked, Snood wasn't exactly a technically cutting edge game. Maybe you've been playing a modified version of Dope Wars. Maybe one where you are the buyer and not the seller. Being hepped up on goofballs is the only reason I could think you would brag about Palm OS and PocketPC games.
What ever happened to the good ole days when teenage boys spent their whole time thinking about sex and planning ways to obtain it? I mean, I could respect the whole "computer club" idea if it was just a secret way to collect more pr0n, but geez.
Oh wait, I'm not a teenage boy anymore and I spent all my time thinking about sex. And I use my computer to collect pr0n.
Take the earlier advice and do this the most efficient way possible. Beat yourself senseless and pull your underwear up over your head.
I think the Patriot Act and the new court rulings allowing the government to imprison people without charge or access to attorneys are all good things to help protect this great nation.
Can someone remind me what we are protecting again?
Slashdot Mirror
Different codecs to control quality and no latency problems. It even supports the MS Sidewinder Gamevoice device.
Or better yet, make a Cocoon 3 where all the Star Trek cast members are revitalized by alien pods in a pool.
Agreed. My point was only that a sympathetic plaintiff has at least the "weapon" of sympathy to their advantage.
I disagree that this is something wrong with the judicial system, as the appellate process very often "fixes" extreme results. The fact that the legal system is expensive at any level is a different problem.
My recommendation is to change the GPL to include this restriction. It would be a completely innocuous restriction, so long as you did not try to enforce unfriendly restrictions in the EULA that were specifically forbidden in the GPL.
Your point about changing the license for existing code is well taken, but I think it would become irrelevant in a relatively short period of time. If you release all new version under the modified GPL (or variant) then you would quickly reap the benefits.
Some might argue that this kind of restriction is exactly what the GPL is meant to fight against. I agree on one level, but if we wait around for the IP laws to reflect the open source approach to software development then we will continue to face such restrictive acts.
Is it so hard to imagine a future where IP rights are automatically given to an author without any claim of ownership from the author? What if the state or even an independent third party could legally act to protect these IP rights on "behalf of the public". It's not too far fetched. These independent parties could then use the law to basically attack real or potential competitors without even owning the IP right itself.
This would simply use a software licensing term to send a clear message. Want to patent your software? Fine, but you won't get to use it with any open source software.
Everyone is trying to put their damn finger in the dike regarding this stuff. I say we pull our fingers out of the holes and let the place flood. Then we will see how companies like it when they want to use everyone else's work to their financial benefit while not sharing.
You think Amazon and it's "one-click" crap doesn't use open source software to actually implement the idea?
My guess is that the appellate court upheld the trial results in their entirety. As I did not read the appellate court opinion, who knows. The Supreme Court did nothing. They did not agree or disagree. They just chose not to hear the case.
The patent claim was probably pretty clear. But I suspect that the breach of contract claim was a tougher one, as the common law concept of reverse engineering is pretty well accepted. I would hope if reverse engineering bans in EULAs become common practice, the courts in general will apply the long standing common law rights of reverse engineering.
As the article pointed out, the plaintiff is very sympathetic in this case (just like in the McDonald's spilled hot coffee case).
We will see what happens.
Does that mean now that they have seen Half-Life 2 they are gonna start over again?
I am kind of annoyed that I read his dribble. The whole column is interspersed with references to religious beliefs as it relates to operating systems. This is the same guy who dresses up like Luke Skywalker and camps out for movie premieres.
However, I do have to say that the Hair Club for Men did an excellent job for him.
Have them sign an NDA before you show it to them. But you will want a patent if it is a patentable invention.
Fine, then your position is clear. You do not agree with antitrust law. Talk to your Congressman to get it repealed. Until then, the court's are required to enforce it.
In this case, Sun argues that MS is using the OS monopoly to establish a new monopoly in middleware with .NET.
Legally obtained monopolies are legally fine. But there are restrictions on the behavior of a company holding a monopoly. That's what antitrust law is.
If I take the question literally, then the answer is easy: the court just issues the order.
However, you ask a question regarding a point I did not make. The sentence you quote was in reference to the appellate court's decision. What the appellate court says in the decision is that Sun could still win the case on the merits, at which time the trial judge could then issue an appropriate injunction.
But the biggest issue here is your complete lack of understanding about an important aspect. Microsoft has legally established a monopoly. Red Hat does not. Oracle does not. Real does not. That is why there is a difference here.
The whole anti-government intervention argument gets a little old, especially regarding antitrust. Essentially, the argument is that there should be no intervention and let the market work. As I stated, monopolies and the antitrust laws meant to address them is specifically because the market cannot work with a monopoly. This is not a new concept. This has been completely understood for over 100 years!
So your point is that there should be no government intervention (I will not even address the fact that this instant situation is a private company simply using a court's authority, not some statutory or regulatory intervention) and that, even when a monopoly in one market is used to obtain a monopoly in another then there is no redress. I think your point can be summed up that you not only disagree with antitrust laws and do not feel they should be enforced, you actually deny their existence.
What happened in the browser market? There is no redress possible. It's done. It's clear that MS used its OS monopoly to obtain a browser monopoly (if you want to argue this point, talk to the hand because it's a legally established fact that this happened). But was there a way to redress the browser situation? No, there was not. It was done. Finished. What were the consequences to Microsoft? None. So where is the deterrent against future similar behavior? It's like sending a thief who stole $20 million to prison for 10 years and letting him keep the money. Sign me up for that.
And the "... blah blah blah monopoly blah blah blah..." part is irrelevant if Sun wants a judge to force Microsoft to do something, as opposed to stop doing something.
Your final point is just plain wierd. A court order can be to force a party to either do something or stop doing something. It's not some relevant point that Sun was seeking the court to enforce affirmative behavior from Microsoft, so your attempt at distinguishing the two is moot.
Please note that the appellate court upheld the part of the injunction preventing Microsoft from shipping a non-compliant JRE.
The fact is, Sun could still obtain a final order that MS must bundle the Sun JRE with the Windows operating system. But this will only happen after a trial. The injunction here was issued at a preliminary stage of the judicial proceedings. But if you think forcing MS to ship the JRE at any point would be completely inappropriate and only market conditions should rule, you have a gross misunderstanding of antitrust laws and their purposes.
Microsoft has a monopoly in operating systems for the Intel platform. This is legal fact and Microsoft cannot walk into any court room and claim otherwise. It's been decided already. A monopoly means that market conditions cannot work. Even Adam Smith (you know, that guy who kind of invented capitalism) said that the market cannot work when there is a monopoly. Ensuring the market can still work in a monopoly is the purpose of antitrust laws.
Now that it is legally established MS has a monopoly, it completely changes how MS can do business in the market. In the case of the JRE, it means Microsoft cannot leverage their monopoly in the OS to obtain a monopoly in another area. You know, like they did with the browser!
What I expect would be a more likely outcome is that MS has to make a decision. If they want to bundle .NET, then they have to bundle a compliant JRE. Then the market truly would be deciding and it would not be a case of MS simply leveraging the OS monopoly into a new market.
All that said, the legal nuances are the important point to note from this decision. The appellate court was not saying MS would never have to include the Sun JRE. They were only saying that the legal burden of "irreparable harm" had not been met in order to obtain an injunction. That's why they vacated the order.
Does anyone wonder how personal biases get introduced into business decisions? Maybe when people decide to completely disregard all products from a company for no reason other than their ignorance of those products.
Just to prove it, go look at the capabilities of the DirXML product from Novell. Then I can explain how our HR department processes a new hire and DirXML automatically creates the network account, portal account, email account and gives access to all appropriate backend systems seamlessly. And then it keeps everything in sync.
I suspect a lot of companies who use you to consult would not know any better.
You need to see a doctor to have that chip removed from your shoulder. Anyone who suggests that Novell's products and services can be replaced by Windows or Linux is clearly just inexperienced or unwilling to accept alternatives. Tell me what product competes with ZENworks for client management? Tell me what product competes with Netware's file management? Tell me what product competes with NDPS for printer management? Tell me what competes with eDirectory for user authentication, identification and authorization? Speaking of eDirectory, if you only see eDirectory as a user or network management tool, you should try opening your eyes. Do you think Yahoo uses eDirectory for that purpose? No, they use it to know who you are and what kind of content you both want and should get. None of that even speaks to eDirectory's robustness with partitions and replicas. Too many people stopped looking at Novell because they saw it as the "old stuff" and boring. But it's not. It's really downright cool. ZENworks itself makes application distribution fun.
Applications that use more than 2GB of memory will run faster? I guess Microsoft Office will continue to be a best seller for the Mac.
It's called slashpoint.
The game looks and sounds nothing like Rampage. It looks and sounds like Crush, Crumble and Chomp, a game by Epyx back in the 1980s for the Apple II (and I think C64) that was removed from the market when Epyx got sued by at least one film company. I will take acceptable graphics and good game play any day over great graphics and crap game play. You attack the game for shitty graphics and then turn around to promote games on Palm OS and PocketPC devices. What the hell is that? Last I checked, Snood wasn't exactly a technically cutting edge game. Maybe you've been playing a modified version of Dope Wars. Maybe one where you are the buyer and not the seller. Being hepped up on goofballs is the only reason I could think you would brag about Palm OS and PocketPC games.
Oh wait, I'm not a teenage boy anymore and I spent all my time thinking about sex. And I use my computer to collect pr0n.
Take the earlier advice and do this the most efficient way possible. Beat yourself senseless and pull your underwear up over your head.
Why would Hilary need to worry that we would want to pirate it? Have you ever heard that stuff?
It's the future and I highly recommend you start practicing now by making the sound of an injured giraffe.
Mooaw. Mooaw.
How did you get TCP/IP working on your TRS-80?
You're welcome.
Can someone remind me what we are protecting again?