Right, but it would affect the mozilla foundation as well. Much as I hate Microsoft these days, this kind of broad patent is just stupid. This is also consecutive loss number two for microsoft this year. The first being the extremely broad data storage patent that applied to SQL server. Considering that Microsoft is one of the richest companies in the world, you would think they would have better legal defense. It almost seems like they can't win these days. I can't wait to see how the Xbox and Trusted Computing patent infringement case goes.
Not to stir up a hornet's nest here, but how legal would it be to write a program that runs a counter attack against a virus like this? I'm thinking it could run it automatically, and essentially disable the machine that did the attacking. What do you think?
Well, it's a nice thought, but in order to qualify for something like that, you need to have been born in the united states. I could be wrong, but wasn't linus born in finland?
I did some work in this area a few years ago, and it seems to me that if governments would put the amount of thought into this, that they have put into regulating digital signatures, this would be a non issue.
Another part of the problem lies in the auditing process. There really is no standard, or security regulation of any kind, except for maybe the promise of security by the vendor. No one ever really checks these things for security until it's too late.
Well yeah,
but in order to compete with the Playstation 3, they need to make some departures. I just hope they are able to maintain some level of compatibility with their existing games. Nintendo has (historically) never been very good at that.
Okay, So according to this: System V is a dirivitive of AIX which is a dirivitive of System V because they bought the rights from IBM not Novell? But if Novell can run interference, like they have been in the IBM case, then surely they could prevent a law suit against themselves. This post seems silly and contradictory.
Anyway, I just did a simple search of the patent office records and SCO doesn't even own any patents with the word unix IN them!
I don't doubt that. But the thing to remember is that I'm saying this based on a statement by a man who claimed he owns C++ and Linux. That speaks wonders for it's reliability right there.:)
What I'm not understanding about all this is how this is bad? Sure, we don't like what he has to say, but this is America. He is entitled to say it. Truth of that matter is he didn't even really say much at all. And the bomb making stuff wasn't even on his web site. If a person can be prosecuted and sent to PRISON because they feel that there is enough wrong with things that there needs to be a revolution, well... that's all I'm going to say to keep from incriminating myself...
You know, this is all fine and good, but maybe the reason Mcbride is so uppity about unix is because he has no... shal we say, assets? Missing the family jewels perhaps Darl? Hmmmm?
Don't worry. As of the red hat suit, we are looking at the beginning of a tide of litigation that will surely crush SCO. They can say they will charge for anything.
I think their timing sucks though. Couldn't they have waited a week or two? Asking for money with a Red Hat calling them liars and parasites in the same week couldn't be good for this extortion racket.
I say, McBride should sue me because I am violating his copyright because I have system V code sitting in my head. Just being remembered.
I think SCO could survive one, maybe two law suits like this. But companies like Novell and others are also hinting at law suit possibilities. There is the very real chance that SCO will be up to it's eye balls in counter suits in the near future. McBride mentioned this possibility in their latest FTC filing.
According to a statement by McBride in May (wish I still had the lin), The canopy group owns %85 of the company (which as I understand it, can be turned into public stock, if they wanted to go that route). You're absolutely right. The only real way to buy SCO would be to convince them to sell.
The thing I thought was the most interesting about this interview the comment about the copyright issues with SCO not being over just yet. A subtle hint at document forgery, perhaps? This is going to be interesting.
Yes it does. That little K thing with the gears behind it is exactly the same thing as a windows start button. Granted, there are other ways to shut down the system though.
If SCO is being "guided" by Microsoft, perhaps Red Hat is being "guided" by IBM. It would be essentially the same tactic, and would ultimately fit IBM's interests, and those of the open source community.
Something like this really puts the burden of proof on SCO, and decide the validity of an IP suit once and for all. I applaud it, whoever is pulling the strings...
Re:Ximian has annoucment
on
Novell Buys Ximian
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You know, with the tone Novell took in that letter the SCO, this doesn't surprise me at all.
This kind of strikes me as an odd purchase though.
Last I checked XAMIAN had two major offerings. The first being their desktop, and the second being mono. Why would Novell (primarily a networking company) want either of them?
The only thing that really concerns me is that, if proven not to be legal or subsequently banned by one power or antother, in conjunction with lobbying efforts that would no doubt result from the existance of such a company, his investors would be DIRECTLY liable.
Under Cringely's current scheme, there is no protection for people investing in the event of anything unfortunate happening.
I'm a government contractor. Installing any unauthorized software on federal resources could land me in jail.
It would be nice if they ran linux. In fact, the IT director here thinks Linux is a great idea too. But the CTO has contracts with Microsoft and HP.
So that's what we're stuck with. We had about a dozen web servers running linux in the organization, but they were recently replaced by windows 2003 boxes in the interets of consistancy.
Personally, I think Linux is the future of computing. But the governmental agency I work for feels that they have a worth while investment in Windows. Why argue?
Slashdot Mirror
Right, but it would affect the mozilla foundation as well. Much as I hate Microsoft these days, this kind of broad patent is just stupid. This is also consecutive loss number two for microsoft this year. The first being the extremely broad data storage patent that applied to SQL server. Considering that Microsoft is one of the richest companies in the world, you would think they would have better legal defense. It almost seems like they can't win these days. I can't wait to see how the Xbox and Trusted Computing patent infringement case goes.
Not to stir up a hornet's nest here, but how legal would it be to write a program that runs a counter attack against a virus like this? I'm thinking it could run it automatically, and essentially disable the machine that did the attacking. What do you think?
Yet another reason to disable terminal services if you don't need it. Isn't this how code red and nimda spread?
Nice. Next time you do, make sure to add an amendment that says I don't have to pay taxes. :)
Well, it's a nice thought, but in order to qualify for something like that, you need to have been born in the united states. I could be wrong, but wasn't linus born in finland?
I did some work in this area a few years ago, and it seems to me that if governments would put the amount of thought into this, that they have put into regulating digital signatures, this would be a non issue.
Another part of the problem lies in the auditing process. There really is no standard, or security regulation of any kind, except for maybe the promise of security by the vendor. No one ever really checks these things for security until it's too late.
Different company.
Santacruz Operation has since changed their name to tarantella:
http://www.tarantella.com/
The current SCO is actually Caldera systems
It didn't occur to me to look for it under that.
Here's two more:
first one
second one
Well yeah, but in order to compete with the Playstation 3, they need to make some departures. I just hope they are able to maintain some level of compatibility with their existing games. Nintendo has (historically) never been very good at that.
Okay,
= PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0 &f=S&l=50&d=PTXT&RS=ABST%2F%22System+V%22&Refine=R efine+Search&Query=ABST%2F%22unix%22
So according to this: System V is a dirivitive of AIX which is a dirivitive of System V because they bought the rights from IBM not Novell? But if Novell can run interference, like they have been in the IBM case, then surely they could prevent a law suit against themselves. This post seems silly and contradictory.
Anyway, I just did a simple search of the patent office records and SCO doesn't even own any patents with the word unix IN them!
Don;t believe me?
See for yourself:
Here's the URL (It wouldn't link)
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1
I don't doubt that. But the thing to remember is that I'm saying this based on a statement by a man who claimed he owns C++ and Linux. That speaks wonders for it's reliability right there. :)
In this case (I am not a lawyer, don't take anything I say seriously), it looks like this glider game is public domain.
What I'm not understanding about all this is how this is bad? Sure, we don't like what he has to say, but this is America. He is entitled to say it. Truth of that matter is he didn't even really say much at all. And the bomb making stuff wasn't even on his web site. If a person can be prosecuted and sent to PRISON because they feel that there is enough wrong with things that there needs to be a revolution, well... that's all I'm going to say to keep from incriminating myself...
You know, this is all fine and good, but maybe the reason Mcbride is so uppity about unix is because he has no... shal we say, assets? Missing the family jewels perhaps Darl? Hmmmm?
Don't worry.
As of the red hat suit, we are looking at the beginning of a tide of litigation that will surely crush SCO. They can say they will charge for anything.
I think their timing sucks though. Couldn't they have waited a week or two? Asking for money with a Red Hat calling them liars and parasites in the same week couldn't be good for this extortion racket.
I say, McBride should sue me because I am violating his copyright because I have system V code sitting in my head. Just being remembered.
You're right. Sorry, didn't have enough coffee this morning.
I think SCO could survive one, maybe two law suits like this. But companies like Novell and others are also hinting at law suit possibilities. There is the very real chance that SCO will be up to it's eye balls in counter suits in the near future. McBride mentioned this possibility in their latest FTC filing.
According to a statement by McBride in May (wish I still had the lin), The canopy group owns %85 of the company (which as I understand it, can be turned into public stock, if they wanted to go that route). You're absolutely right. The only real way to buy SCO would be to convince them to sell.
The thing I thought was the most interesting about this interview the comment about the copyright issues with SCO not being over just yet. A subtle hint at document forgery, perhaps? This is going to be interesting.
Yes it does. That little K thing with the gears behind it is exactly the same thing as a windows start button. Granted, there are other ways to shut down the system though.
Here's an interesting thought:
If SCO is being "guided" by Microsoft, perhaps Red Hat is being "guided" by IBM. It would be essentially the same tactic, and would ultimately fit IBM's interests, and those of the open source community.
Something like this really puts the burden of proof on SCO, and decide the validity of an IP suit once and for all. I applaud it, whoever is pulling the strings...
You know, with the tone Novell took in that letter the SCO, this doesn't surprise me at all.
This kind of strikes me as an odd purchase though.
Last I checked XAMIAN had two major offerings. The first being their desktop, and the second being mono. Why would Novell (primarily a networking company) want either of them?
The news groups? Really? That's incredibly exciting! I bet next week they will revolutionize gopher!
Sure, Or better yet, start their own industry cartel and take a pre-emptive strike against the RIAA. That would be funny.
The only thing that really concerns me is that, if proven not to be legal or subsequently banned by one power or antother, in conjunction with lobbying efforts that would no doubt result from the existance of such a company, his investors would be DIRECTLY liable.
Under Cringely's current scheme, there is no protection for people investing in the event of anything unfortunate happening.
I'm a government contractor.
Installing any unauthorized software on federal resources could land me in jail.
It would be nice if they ran linux. In fact, the IT director here thinks Linux is a great idea too. But the CTO has contracts with Microsoft and HP.
So that's what we're stuck with. We had about a dozen web servers running linux in the organization, but they were recently replaced by windows 2003 boxes in the interets of consistancy.
Personally, I think Linux is the future of computing. But the governmental agency I work for feels that they have a worth while investment in Windows. Why argue?