PJ has confessed she had to move six or seven times since starting to do Groklaw because she receives death threats she must take seriously. Anonymity is a defense against those jackasses that will bully you or worse in retaliation for spreading ideas they don't like and telling facts they don't want to be known. Insinuating that anonymity could be something dirty is nauseating. The right to anonymity is nothing less than a requirement to Freedom of Speech.
And yes the bullies and the issuers of threats are doing their misdeeds anonymously. It does not mean anonymity is wrong. Bullying and death threats are what is wrong.
Or to continue the analogy, kitchen knives are used to murder spouses. Should we consider kitchen knives bad?
You are right. It cannot be the TV downgrading the signal. It wouldn't make sense for this would leave the HD signal being carried over the cable unencrypted and this is exactly what HDCP contracts wants to avoid. However swapping the cables to HDMI did fix the issue for my friend. That I am certain.
Content providers have agreed not to activate ICT until 2012. We have some years to go.
I wonder if some devices implement their HDCP legal requirement in a dumb way by downgrading all the time signals over non HDMI cables without checking the ICT flag.
I was referring to the contractual aspect of HDCP licenses that come with HDMI. Licensees, I mean electronic hardware makers, are required to never pass HD signals requiring "protection" to non protected ports. This is required to appease Hollywood and obtain of their agreement to provide HD content. As a consequence, although component cables have the capability to carry the HD signals, the appliance just won't send an HD signal that is not HDCP encoded for contractual reasons.
I have a friend that couldn't tell the difference. I told him to replace his component cables with HDMI cables because without them, his high price HDTV set would downgrade the HD signal to SD and of course he wouldn't see the difference. He swapped the cables and was able to tell the difference.
They change their votes because because there has been a BRM that changed the text of the standard. This is how the ISO Fast Track procedure works. You vote a first time, then you have a BRM that changes the text you have voted on, then you revise your vote to reflect your opinion on the new text.
The point is if the standard is not good enough the first time, they try to fix it during the BRM and then vote again to see if the fix is good enough.
This is good enough for the intended purpose. Every computer is hardware that may use a peripheral device. Vendors will have to pay attention and develop drivers if the numbers are high enough.
You got it reversed. Plan A is global warming and we just leave it to the US to do it for us. This is an unstoppable plan. There will be no need to resort to plan B.
I suggest you check Wikipedia on the topic of EULA enforceability. They say the 6th and 7th circuits believed the "licensed not sold" theory while most other circuits do not. Whether the stated has passed UCITA also matters. There are a couple of other complications as well.
I am not sure how accurate the article is, but FWIW there it is.
The WGA debacle has proven that WIndows update is a security risk. Not running Windows update is also a security risk. When non US governements will reach the conclusion that they need to move off Microsoft software? It is a matter of national security.
The bundling of Media Player was worldwide, including in the US where similar bundling was already found illegal. Therefore there is evidence that Microsoft was willingly in violation of some law in some country. Willfulness makes Microsoft looks like acting in bad faith and may discredit some of Microsoft's arguments.
What are the consequences on Longhorn release? IIRC Microsoft planned their capacity requirements according to the projected capacity of hardware at the time Longhorn will be released (2006), not what makes sense with current hardware. IIRC Longhorn specs are for something like 4-6 Ghz CPU. If the hardware is not there, will there be a wrench thrown into Microsoft plans?
Everybody want to play its music and movie remotely
Everybody wants to store its music collection at the ISP
Everybody wants the ISP to own his data
Everybody wants to use the ISP application data format
</irony mode>
The stereo system did not replace the concert hall. The TV did not replace the movie theater. Email did not replace snail mail. Chat did not replace the teleephone. There may be a niche for the type of remote applications the article suggests, but there are too many issues around data ownership and control. The PC will still have its uses.
RTF, yes M$ does not claimn ownership of the protocol. But they won't tell they don't own it either. If you have signed the licensed, would your lawyer advise that you can take the chance?
The license contains some interesting clauses. For example:
3.4 Reservation of Rights. All rights not expressly granted in this Agreement are reserved by Microsoft. No additional rights are granted by implication or estoppel or otherwise. By way of clarification, in order for a third party to distribute a Licensed Implementation as part of its third party branded products, such party must be authorized to do so by You and must also execute this license and comply with its terms.
Here we have an obligation for licensee to license their implementation of the protocol and require third parties to enforce the license as well. This obligation exists even if M$ has no right to the protocol in the first place.
Another funny clause:
3.2 Patent License. To the extent Microsoft has Necessary Claims, Microsoft hereby grants You a nonexclusive, royalty-free, non-sublicenseable, personal, worldwide license under those Necessary Claims to use the Technical Documentation for the Licensed Protocols to:
(a) make, use, import, offer to sell, sell and distribute directly or indirectly to end users, object code versions of Licensed Implementations only as incorporated into Licensed Products and solely for the purpose of conforming with the Protocol as described in the corresponding Technical Documentation, and
(b) to distribute or otherwise disclose source code copies of the Licensed Implementation(s) licensed in Section 3.2(a) only if You (i) prominently display the following notice in all copies of such source code, and (ii) distribute or disclose the source code only under a license agreement that includes the following notice as a term of such license agreement and does not include any other terms that are inconsistent with, or would prohibit, the following notice:
"This source code may incorporate intellectual property owned by Microsoft Corporation. Our provision of this source code does not include any licenses or any other rights to you under any Microsoft intellectual property. If you would like a license from Microsoft (e.g. to rebrand, redistribute), you need to contact Microsoft directly (send mail to protocol@microsoft.com)."
Yes M$ admits they might not have a patent, but they don't tell you if they have one or not. So read clause a). It says you can distribute the licensed protocol only as a Licensed Implementation. Do you take the chance and distribute an open source implementation? If M$ happens to have a patent afterall, you are in violation. You may have good chance to challenge the patent and invalidate it, but then you are up for a trial and the contract may be found enforceable for the time period before the patent is invaludated. What would the company lawyer advice? What a PHB will decide? This is called chilling effect.
Now look at clause b). As a licensee you are required to tell the world that M$ has rights to the protocol, even if it might not be the case.
We can't make such comparisons because we don't really know what they claims are. We can't argue their claims are defensible or make some sort of sense because the claims are unknown.
The story they tell the media is different from the story they tell in court documents and both stories are different from the threat letters they write to the users. To further complicate matters, all their stories change over time. Figuring out what their arguments are is not only a difficult task, it is also a major source of cconfusion.
IBM have asked SCO to state with specificity all their claims to Linux (no exception) and they were ordered by the judge to comply. From what we can tell based on SCO's general counsel affidavit, they did not seem to comply. They filed some incomplete response but it is covered by a protective order and we have no access to it.
I can't provide links because Groklaw is slashdotted now, but the information is all there.
When you have tens of thousands of servers scattered in several cities like MacDonald's, it can easily take two years to migrate out of SCO. Gartner is saying only small nimble companies can afford to wait to the last minute. Large customers must get out of there as quick as they can.
This copyright notice means Microsoft can put what they want at the referred page. They may change the content of the page when they want to what they want. Anyone putting such a copyright notice in his software is putting a legal cloud on the users rights to the software.
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
while clause 7 says:
The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
A Microsoft controlled terms and conditions page would also go against the FSF Free Software Definition says
In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the software is not free.
"The name and trademarks of Microsoft may NOT be used in any manner, including advertising or publicity pertaining to the Specification or its contents without specific, written prior permission."
For leagl raeosns we cnnaot pbulish tihs sepcfiicaiotn taht our sowtfare is capomtible wtih Mcriofost flie fmorats.
It is already violent. I think SCO is only a front fighting battles Microsoft cannot afford to fight openly.
IBM forecasts 7% of installed base, 10% of new installs and CAGR over 40% by the time Longhorn starts to ship. These numbers are scary to Microsoft. They are large enough to position Linux as a "growing market". Once these statistics are proven real, software vendors will start to pay attention.
In 2006, how many customers will require applications to support Linux because they have some of their installed base running Linux? If software vendors decide they need to support Linux to grow their market share a chain reaction will occur.
The battle will be decided way before market share numbers will become big. The deciding factor is whether or not a chain reaction occurs. It is the mindshare that counts.
What this implies is that they don't really want money from this, they want press, they want buzz, they want to be in people's faces. The obvious reason would be to raise the stock price, something that has been flat for the last two months.
Many of these movie companies are part of larger media conglomerate that own magazines, newspapers, TV stations etc. What kind of coverage do you think SCO will get?
What are the legal consequences if copyright holders do not sue? Are they waiving anything? This stuff could have legal consequences if there is no move.
Slashdot Mirror
PJ has confessed she had to move six or seven times since starting to do Groklaw because she receives death threats she must take seriously. Anonymity is a defense against those jackasses that will bully you or worse in retaliation for spreading ideas they don't like and telling facts they don't want to be known. Insinuating that anonymity could be something dirty is nauseating. The right to anonymity is nothing less than a requirement to Freedom of Speech.
And yes the bullies and the issuers of threats are doing their misdeeds anonymously. It does not mean anonymity is wrong. Bullying and death threats are what is wrong.
Or to continue the analogy, kitchen knives are used to murder spouses. Should we consider kitchen knives bad?
You may like this article.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060521-6880.html
You are right. It cannot be the TV downgrading the signal. It wouldn't make sense for this would leave the HD signal being carried over the cable unencrypted and this is exactly what HDCP contracts wants to avoid. However swapping the cables to HDMI did fix the issue for my friend. That I am certain. Content providers have agreed not to activate ICT until 2012. We have some years to go. I wonder if some devices implement their HDCP legal requirement in a dumb way by downgrading all the time signals over non HDMI cables without checking the ICT flag.
I was referring to the contractual aspect of HDCP licenses that come with HDMI. Licensees, I mean electronic hardware makers, are required to never pass HD signals requiring "protection" to non protected ports. This is required to appease Hollywood and obtain of their agreement to provide HD content. As a consequence, although component cables have the capability to carry the HD signals, the appliance just won't send an HD signal that is not HDCP encoded for contractual reasons.
I have a friend that couldn't tell the difference. I told him to replace his component cables with HDMI cables because without them, his high price HDTV set would downgrade the HD signal to SD and of course he wouldn't see the difference. He swapped the cables and was able to tell the difference.
They change their votes because because there has been a BRM that changed the text of the standard. This is how the ISO Fast Track procedure works. You vote a first time, then you have a BRM that changes the text you have voted on, then you revise your vote to reflect your opinion on the new text.
The point is if the standard is not good enough the first time, they try to fix it during the BRM and then vote again to see if the fix is good enough.
The Canadian Multinational Standard keyboard has been doing this for more than a decade. It has been supported in the OS since Windows 95.
This is good enough for the intended purpose. Every computer is hardware that may use a peripheral device. Vendors will have to pay attention and develop drivers if the numbers are high enough.
You got it reversed. Plan A is global warming and we just leave it to the US to do it for us. This is an unstoppable plan. There will be no need to resort to plan B.
I am not sure how accurate the article is, but FWIW there it is.
Cool. Now TCP/IP, DNS, UDP and the likes are initials. What are the acronyms for these?
The WGA debacle has proven that WIndows update is a security risk. Not running Windows update is also a security risk. When non US governements will reach the conclusion that they need to move off Microsoft software? It is a matter of national security.
The bundling of Media Player was worldwide, including in the US where similar bundling was already found illegal. Therefore there is evidence that Microsoft was willingly in violation of some law in some country. Willfulness makes Microsoft looks like acting in bad faith and may discredit some of Microsoft's arguments.
IANAL
Just update your preferences. You can make it ask the question on the next update
AFAIK, Miyazaki is pretty old and close to retirement age. Even if he "saves Disney" whatever that means, he can't do it for very long.
What are the consequences on Longhorn release? IIRC Microsoft planned their capacity requirements according to the projected capacity of hardware at the time Longhorn will be released (2006), not what makes sense with current hardware. IIRC Longhorn specs are for something like 4-6 Ghz CPU. If the hardware is not there, will there be a wrench thrown into Microsoft plans?
<irony mode>
- Everybody want to play its music and movie remotely
- Everybody wants to store its music collection at the ISP
- Everybody wants the ISP to own his data
- Everybody wants to use the ISP application data format
</irony mode>The stereo system did not replace the concert hall. The TV did not replace the movie theater. Email did not replace snail mail. Chat did not replace the teleephone. There may be a niche for the type of remote applications the article suggests, but there are too many issues around data ownership and control. The PC will still have its uses.
The license contains some interesting clauses. For example:
Here we have an obligation for licensee to license their implementation of the protocol and require third parties to enforce the license as well. This obligation exists even if M$ has no right to the protocol in the first place.Another funny clause:
Yes M$ admits they might not have a patent, but they don't tell you if they have one or not. So read clause a). It says you can distribute the licensed protocol only as a Licensed Implementation. Do you take the chance and distribute an open source implementation? If M$ happens to have a patent afterall, you are in violation. You may have good chance to challenge the patent and invalidate it, but then you are up for a trial and the contract may be found enforceable for the time period before the patent is invaludated. What would the company lawyer advice? What a PHB will decide? This is called chilling effect.Now look at clause b). As a licensee you are required to tell the world that M$ has rights to the protocol, even if it might not be the case.
The story they tell the media is different from the story they tell in court documents and both stories are different from the threat letters they write to the users. To further complicate matters, all their stories change over time. Figuring out what their arguments are is not only a difficult task, it is also a major source of cconfusion.
IBM have asked SCO to state with specificity all their claims to Linux (no exception) and they were ordered by the judge to comply. From what we can tell based on SCO's general counsel affidavit, they did not seem to comply. They filed some incomplete response but it is covered by a protective order and we have no access to it.
I can't provide links because Groklaw is slashdotted now, but the information is all there.
When you have tens of thousands of servers scattered in several cities like MacDonald's, it can easily take two years to migrate out of SCO. Gartner is saying only small nimble companies can afford to wait to the last minute. Large customers must get out of there as quick as they can.
That goes against the open source definition clause 3 and 7. Clause 3 says
while clause 7 says: A Microsoft controlled terms and conditions page would also go against the FSF Free Software Definition saysIBM forecasts 7% of installed base, 10% of new installs and CAGR over 40% by the time Longhorn starts to ship. These numbers are scary to Microsoft. They are large enough to position Linux as a "growing market". Once these statistics are proven real, software vendors will start to pay attention.
In 2006, how many customers will require applications to support Linux because they have some of their installed base running Linux? If software vendors decide they need to support Linux to grow their market share a chain reaction will occur.
The battle will be decided way before market share numbers will become big. The deciding factor is whether or not a chain reaction occurs. It is the mindshare that counts.
What are the legal consequences if copyright holders do not sue? Are they waiving anything? This stuff could have legal consequences if there is no move.