Not unexpected. SCO's stock went up, as did IBM's, and Red Hat's dipped 13 cents. The US markets as a whole had a great day.
What I found unusual was IBM sluffing off the allegations and telling its customers that there is absolutely no need to worry. I wonder what their lawyers have come up with.
It saddens me that no one else jumper into the fray today... yet.
SCO vs. IBM vs. [INSERT YOUR NAME HERE]
on
Settling SCOres
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Even after a cease and desist letter that file is still available. I wonder if SCO will take him seriously. If they don't I hope that the guy sues the ever living shit out of SCO. I don't know about the international barriers but the DMCA could come into play here.
As for the guy who said he saw the evidence against IBM without signing the NDA. I find it very unusual that SCO used excerpts from a mailing list. They have to have more than that, right? The validity of his claims have to be proven, sorry The Inquirer's news sometimes doesn't pan out to be the truth.
But, it looks like some people are taking my advice (see subject).
Another interesting entry is "the saga". What kills me is that SCO is making it seem like they are in it strictly for the money. They obviously are but you typically don't make announcements BEFORE the markets open unless you're trying to gain $$$ while hurting someone else.
It will be very interesting to see what the infantile SCO tries to pull against the widely backed IBM.
Great more on the SCO vs. IBM vs. [INSERT YOUR NAME HERE] case. Slashdot is great for keeping me happy with this tech soap opera.
Darl McBride - "The notion that you're going to run a Fortune 1,000 company on something that in the end could be more like Napster than an enterprise software system, it's a big question mark."
Did Microsoft or the RIAA/MPAA pay you to say that? Linux is a genuinely powerful OS that could truly change computing. Obviously you've spent more time talking to lawyers and less time talking to your programmers and techs.
My suspicisions of what SCO's true motive is has peaked after reading all the articles mentioned in today's entry in the saga. Is SCO trying to save itself? Is SCO trying to destroy Linux? Is SCO trying to hurt IBM? The Yankee Group's (long time Microsoft friend) high-level involvement in the matter is also suspicious when you factor in Microsoft re-upping licenses of Unix code from SCO. So what exactly ARE you doing SCO?
The fact that SCO is teeter-tottering with its answers to evidence of where the code originated from EXACTLY, is also suspicious. There are a lot of people that could have access to the source of Unix in the past before SCO had rights to it that might have implemented it in to Linux. The fact they haven't released the when, where and how of their claims is very interesting.
Linux can have the code worked out of it. My concern isn't for Linux at this point, Linus and the gang work magic with every kernel release. My concern is for the GPL. Will it be bolstered or destroyed because of this case?
Very interesting series of questions. To the slashdotters whose questions were answered, good job.
Now, for my analysis:
Matt Oppenheim : "So, if you buy a CD that you keep at home, you should feel free to make a copy that you have in your car. It is not legal, ethical or cool to copy somebody else's CD for your own use."
So why are anti-piracy technologies making such a big push to keep me from doing that? The second I buy a CD with anti-piracy technology that actually keeps me from ripping it I think I will be pissed enough to call a lawyer and start discussing 'fair-use'. Sorry, but I'm pissed (obviously) about anti-piracy technology infringing on my rights. You should be too.
Lawrence Lessig : "The DMCA is an embarrassment to copyright law... the First Amendment requires that copyright yields to "fair use."... That [DMCA] is an extremism that the law should not allow..."
Well said. I'd have to totally agree with that one. IT IS an embarrassment and I can't wait until the Supreme Court gets ahold of it. I'd like my apology for stivling technology from the RIAA in writing please. Thanks!
Matt Oppenheim : "The goal of copy protection in CDs is not to prevent individuals from making copies that they want to make for personal use, but rather to prevent individuals from distributing the recordings or making copies they don't have a right to make.... Many copy-protection technologies include on a CD a second copy of the album in compressed form ready for transfer to an owner's computer, but not capable of being distributed on programs such as Kazaa. These technologies are still, in many respects, in their infancy, and they will become more and more flexible over the next few years."
So it's obvious to even the RIAA that the anti-piracy technology being implemented worldwide hinders 'fair-use'? Now wait a minute, if you know the technology sucks then why implement it? Improve on it first, please.
Matt Oppenheim : "We are not accessing anybody's "property," and we are certainly not violating anybody's personal rights. We are doing exactly the same thing that every other infringer is doing."
So that makes it okay? Two wrongs don't make a right. So is the RIAA saying they are being a crook to catch a crook? That's illegal by the way.
Lawrence Lessig : "So why don't we have more content available online? In my view the real reason is that the relatively concentrated content industry is not eager to welcome a competitive market for the distribution and production of content. No competitor likes competition. So it is completely understandable that they would resist technologies that increase competition."
Agreed. The "content industry" is clamouring to get the right model up and running and other companies are beating them to it (example: Apple). No one likes competition, especially stiff competition but everyone likes innovation.
Lawrence Lessig : "Software patents do nothing to promote progress in software."
Very, very true. Locking away code and selling it doesn't do much for improving that code or educating others on how to write better code. Now, Mr. Lessig, please write a letter to SCO and put this quote in BIG LETTERS for them.
Matt Oppenheim : "As a technical matter, it is illegal to download a recording from another that is not yours. As a practical matter, there is no reason to do it. It is easier these days to rip a recording from a CD than to download it. And, when you rip the CD, you do not open up your computer to all of the spyware and other viruses that are part and parcel of most illegal P2P services."
Even though the recording is identical you still can't do it? That doesn't make much sense but I'll let THAT slide. I would have to argue the point that ripping is easier than downloading though. Hardware (CD-ROM, DVD-ROM, etc.) is involved in ripping, easily downloaded and installed software is used to searc
Another fine entry for today's SCO vs. IBM vs. [INSERT YOUR NAME HERE] legal ramblings.
This seems a little like that kid in school that was always getting picked on and finally lashed out and did something really stupid then got his ass beat.
Hopefully, IBM will realize that SCO can't do anything but sit and fire off more lawsuits and will let SCO dig itself into so much legal debt that IBM will end up buying the UNIX IP (on the cheap) and letting SCO rot into nothing.
It is rather interesting that, of all days, SCO has chosen Friday (the 13th). Are they hoping someone at IBM actually cares? No, they are trying to get our attention. They're doing a good job of that, that and making an ass of themselves in the process.
The FTC wants more power to stop spammers. GREAT! Let them have it. If the size of my inbox goes down and I don't have to implement as many spam filters then it will be great.
The FTC is involved because the Internet has become a way to trade. The Internet though isn't solely a money venture, it's a library containing a great deal of information (among other things). The only reason this is a "privacy" issue is because of this information. If the sole purpose of the Internet was to make money it might not even be an issue of privacy.
The ability to keep criminal investigations private isn't a new thing. There is no reason that the FTC should have to divulge information about on going investigations regarding spammers. The FTC should have the ability to say, "Yes, we're investigating a number of spammers." and not have to tell Congress and the public who.
The only thing that really concerns me is this:
"The FTC also said Congress should revoke an exemption in the law that restricts its authority over telecommunications firms and other 'common carriers'."
If Congress decides to let the FTC do as it wishes with common carriers that might unknowingly harbor spammers it could be very, very bad for Internet users and ISPs. The FTC should not become the RIAA/MPAA. The FTC should go after the people generating the spam, not the networks the spam traverses.
Not only does this mod look cool but it's functional too.
The entire PC (not an iMac) is enclosed in a monitor case. The fact that he did this by himself and made it quite professionally I might add is equally impressive.
The number of fans is something else I like too. Typically monitor cases are well vented but the almost overkill on fans makes sense and actually adds something (for me at least).
I do know how GPS works. GPS transmitter is the best term I came up with for all involved. Sorry you feel like being a troll but the next reply after yours is enlightening.
If a copyrighted work is still in use after fifty years and it's still copyrighted why should someone have to pay money to keep that work copywritten?
It's simple. If it's copywritten it's copywritten for the life of the work. If it's open then it's open for the life of the work. Take your pick. That would make things very simple now wouldn't it?
Government encryption systems are actually COTS. It's what goes into the devices that makes them do what they do.
Have no fear I've already used Linux in the DoD, years ago.
I think it's 75% assimilation and 25% tax break. $1,000,000,000 off MS taxes would be VERY, VERY nice. Plus, more customers stuck with buying MS software equals boo-koo cha-ching for the Redmond Robots.
I'm sure the accuracy of the frequency at this point is hard to determine but if I were building something like this I'd want a highly accurate frequency generator. That might be a little much to ask but it would be great.
If that's what it takes. They weren't elected to pass laws from the highest bidder. They were elected to represent their people. That means they should read bills BEFORE they become laws.
Slashdot Mirror
What I found unusual was IBM sluffing off the allegations and telling its customers that there is absolutely no need to worry. I wonder what their lawyers have come up with.
It saddens me that no one else jumper into the fray today... yet.
Even after a cease and desist letter that file is still available. I wonder if SCO will take him seriously. If they don't I hope that the guy sues the ever living shit out of SCO. I don't know about the international barriers but the DMCA could come into play here.
As for the guy who said he saw the evidence against IBM without signing the NDA. I find it very unusual that SCO used excerpts from a mailing list. They have to have more than that, right? The validity of his claims have to be proven, sorry The Inquirer's news sometimes doesn't pan out to be the truth.
But, it looks like some people are taking my advice (see subject).
It will be very interesting to see what the infantile SCO tries to pull against the widely backed IBM.
Did Microsoft or the RIAA/MPAA pay you to say that? Linux is a genuinely powerful OS that could truly change computing. Obviously you've spent more time talking to lawyers and less time talking to your programmers and techs.
My suspicisions of what SCO's true motive is has peaked after reading all the articles mentioned in today's entry in the saga. Is SCO trying to save itself? Is SCO trying to destroy Linux? Is SCO trying to hurt IBM? The Yankee Group's (long time Microsoft friend) high-level involvement in the matter is also suspicious when you factor in Microsoft re-upping licenses of Unix code from SCO. So what exactly ARE you doing SCO?
The fact that SCO is teeter-tottering with its answers to evidence of where the code originated from EXACTLY, is also suspicious. There are a lot of people that could have access to the source of Unix in the past before SCO had rights to it that might have implemented it in to Linux. The fact they haven't released the when, where and how of their claims is very interesting.
Linux can have the code worked out of it. My concern isn't for Linux at this point, Linus and the gang work magic with every kernel release. My concern is for the GPL. Will it be bolstered or destroyed because of this case?
Now, for my analysis:
Matt Oppenheim : "So, if you buy a CD that you keep at home, you should feel free to make a copy that you have in your car. It is not legal, ethical or cool to copy somebody else's CD for your own use."
So why are anti-piracy technologies making such a big push to keep me from doing that? The second I buy a CD with anti-piracy technology that actually keeps me from ripping it I think I will be pissed enough to call a lawyer and start discussing 'fair-use'. Sorry, but I'm pissed (obviously) about anti-piracy technology infringing on my rights. You should be too.
Lawrence Lessig : "The DMCA is an embarrassment to copyright law... the First Amendment requires that copyright yields to "fair use."... That [DMCA] is an extremism that the law should not allow..."
Well said. I'd have to totally agree with that one. IT IS an embarrassment and I can't wait until the Supreme Court gets ahold of it. I'd like my apology for stivling technology from the RIAA in writing please. Thanks!
Matt Oppenheim : "The goal of copy protection in CDs is not to prevent individuals from making copies that they want to make for personal use, but rather to prevent individuals from distributing the recordings or making copies they don't have a right to make. ... Many copy-protection technologies include on a CD a second copy of the album in compressed form ready for transfer to an owner's computer, but not capable of being distributed on programs such as Kazaa. These technologies are still, in many respects, in their infancy, and they will become more and more flexible over the next few years."
So it's obvious to even the RIAA that the anti-piracy technology being implemented worldwide hinders 'fair-use'? Now wait a minute, if you know the technology sucks then why implement it? Improve on it first, please.
Matt Oppenheim : "We are not accessing anybody's "property," and we are certainly not violating anybody's personal rights. We are doing exactly the same thing that every other infringer is doing."
So that makes it okay? Two wrongs don't make a right. So is the RIAA saying they are being a crook to catch a crook? That's illegal by the way.
Lawrence Lessig : "So why don't we have more content available online? In my view the real reason is that the relatively concentrated content industry is not eager to welcome a competitive market for the distribution and production of content. No competitor likes competition. So it is completely understandable that they would resist technologies that increase competition."
Agreed. The "content industry" is clamouring to get the right model up and running and other companies are beating them to it (example: Apple). No one likes competition, especially stiff competition but everyone likes innovation.
Lawrence Lessig : "Software patents do nothing to promote progress in software."
Very, very true. Locking away code and selling it doesn't do much for improving that code or educating others on how to write better code. Now, Mr. Lessig, please write a letter to SCO and put this quote in BIG LETTERS for them.
Matt Oppenheim : "As a technical matter, it is illegal to download a recording from another that is not yours. As a practical matter, there is no reason to do it. It is easier these days to rip a recording from a CD than to download it. And, when you rip the CD, you do not open up your computer to all of the spyware and other viruses that are part and parcel of most illegal P2P services."
Even though the recording is identical you still can't do it? That doesn't make much sense but I'll let THAT slide. I would have to argue the point that ripping is easier than downloading though. Hardware (CD-ROM, DVD-ROM, etc.) is involved in ripping, easily downloaded and installed software is used to searc
This seems a little like that kid in school that was always getting picked on and finally lashed out and did something really stupid then got his ass beat.
Hopefully, IBM will realize that SCO can't do anything but sit and fire off more lawsuits and will let SCO dig itself into so much legal debt that IBM will end up buying the UNIX IP (on the cheap) and letting SCO rot into nothing.
It is rather interesting that, of all days, SCO has chosen Friday (the 13th). Are they hoping someone at IBM actually cares? No, they are trying to get our attention. They're doing a good job of that, that and making an ass of themselves in the process.
The FTC is involved because the Internet has become a way to trade. The Internet though isn't solely a money venture, it's a library containing a great deal of information (among other things). The only reason this is a "privacy" issue is because of this information. If the sole purpose of the Internet was to make money it might not even be an issue of privacy.
The ability to keep criminal investigations private isn't a new thing. There is no reason that the FTC should have to divulge information about on going investigations regarding spammers. The FTC should have the ability to say, "Yes, we're investigating a number of spammers." and not have to tell Congress and the public who.
The only thing that really concerns me is this:
"The FTC also said Congress should revoke an exemption in the law that restricts its authority over telecommunications firms and other 'common carriers'."
If Congress decides to let the FTC do as it wishes with common carriers that might unknowingly harbor spammers it could be very, very bad for Internet users and ISPs. The FTC should not become the RIAA/MPAA. The FTC should go after the people generating the spam, not the networks the spam traverses.
This might make for some entertaining events when you factor in my third floor apartment balcony.
Now I know what to do with those damn AOL CDs other than make windchimes.
Why is it a security risk?
It has serious implications but everyday some other company or researcher jumps into the fray and every other day SCO looks worse and worse.
If only reality or even day time TV could be this good.
Hands down, barnone the best frivolous lawsuit ever conceived.
The entire PC (not an iMac) is enclosed in a monitor case. The fact that he did this by himself and made it quite professionally I might add is equally impressive.
The number of fans is something else I like too. Typically monitor cases are well vented but the almost overkill on fans makes sense and actually adds something (for me at least).
Needless to say, Oaf likely.
I have to agree though. This does seem like a HUGE waste.
Or better yet. If the kid renames his test is he not cheating?
Corporations die. Just look at Enron ;-)
I do know how GPS works. GPS transmitter is the best term I came up with for all involved. Sorry you feel like being a troll but the next reply after yours is enlightening.
If they use GPS transmitters anyone in your area will probably be able to track where your car is at any given time.
It's simple. If it's copywritten it's copywritten for the life of the work. If it's open then it's open for the life of the work. Take your pick. That would make things very simple now wouldn't it?
Government encryption systems are actually COTS. It's what goes into the devices that makes them do what they do. Have no fear I've already used Linux in the DoD, years ago.
Good work.
I think it's 75% assimilation and 25% tax break. $1,000,000,000 off MS taxes would be VERY, VERY nice. Plus, more customers stuck with buying MS software equals boo-koo cha-ching for the Redmond Robots.
I'm sure the accuracy of the frequency at this point is hard to determine but if I were building something like this I'd want a highly accurate frequency generator. That might be a little much to ask but it would be great.
I think Alicia Silverstone drives one of these too. She'll be pissed. That breaks my heart.
P.S. your subject made me laugh.
If that's what it takes. They weren't elected to pass laws from the highest bidder. They were elected to represent their people. That means they should read bills BEFORE they become laws.
Did he not read the bill before he supported it? WTF! He shouldn't be re-elected.