What? You must be mistaken, there are no ibm lawyers within a hundred miles of this case! And if there were, we would smite them like the trecheorous pigs they are! heh heh
Funny thing was they said it could be done with a couple drops of solder. Maybe they could claim they did it by accident? And since when is posting a security exploit for a company known for producing security exploits wrong? Macafee and Norton discover and publish Microsoft security exploits all the time. It seems to me that these guys are doing microsoft and the Linux community a favor.
On a side note, the "give us a boot loader or face the consequences" idea was a stroke of genius.
Beautiful stuff. Won't get anything accomplished. But beautiful none the less.
Still an interesting idea. I wonder how hard it would be to do something like that. Ms has brutalizes their competition at every curve. I wonder how many products by failed competitors are still up for sale. Just a thought.
Interesting. Do you have a link to that by chance?
SCO took on ms with the dr dos law suit. They won. But MS's lawyers aren't as good as IBM's lawyers.
What I'm not understanding is how you think any of this is going to help the little people. 85% of all copyrights issued over the last thirty years have been to corporations. I see this as yet another form a progressive corporate welfare. We've had reasonable copyright laws in this country for over 200 years. Why do we suddenly feel the need to mess things up over the last two decades? They should probably leave well enough alone.
An interesting contrast to the know nothing lawyer who had an opinion piece on news.com.com last week.
It does bring up an interesting idea at the end that I wish he would have gone into a bit more.
Assuming SCO did win, and their assertions about fundemental os features were upheld. Don't you think that Microsoft would be the first company they would go after?
Even with their recent license, according to sources in SCO, M$ only licensed the API layer. Why would they point that out? And why is M$ so smug about all this, even through all the vailed threats SCO is making against them? It seems to me that if they had any common sense they would be looking out for their long term interests, which ideally would mean crushing the SCO bug before it grows into a monster. I guess it's like the old saying goes, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"
Well we all saw how well that worked out in Iraq over the last two decades.
That would be an ironic twist of fate, don't you think? SCO winning would cause M$ and others to defend not only the integrity of their own systems, but the open ones as well.
I found it interesting. I would like to see more coverage of this by people who actually do their research. It was refreshing.
It seems to me that this is more business as usual. The thing that I'm not understanding is what makes anyone think this is going to change anything.
A large company with thousands of copyrights will be able to automate this process and extend their copyrights into eternaty without even a second glance. The fee shouldn't be $1. It should be $10,000 to keep a work from the public.
This might not be much different, but if you have a work that valuble that the copyright needs to last 100 years, it should be worth 10,000 dollars to you, don't you think?
I don't think this is going to kill filesharing. Legally, or illegally, this whole situation is the part of lazy programming by the p2p networks themselves.
Napster should have been an example. The p2p networks should have said, "the record insudstry is crazy, and we need to protect our users."
IP based p2p file sharing is probably the least secure way to do this imaginable.
There are other more secure ways to write this sort of program.
Pretty damn stupid. It seems to me that their goal is to issue as many patents as possible, and let the courts work it out. I read recently that 54% of all patent law suits filed result in invalid patents. That should say something about the state of affairs at the USPTO. It's shameful really. If they can't do their jobs, the whole system becomes next to useless.
I noticed this oddball story this morning on the register.
One thing I have to wonder, if it was such a great idea for a patent, why did it take so long to get a patent issued?
Glitch, or curruptions?
So what's the big deal? Why is there such a hubub about this? Is the industry in such bad shape that no one can be expected to actually deliver what they say they do? How do people stay in business?
Oh goodie. Nope I'm an avid windoze user (only a linux experimentor). You make a lot of assumptions. What's so bad about holding corporate entities to their promisies? What do you have to fear?
Here's a novel idea:
Why not actually hold software companies to the promises they make? They promise you a product that suits your needs, make sure you get one. I think this sort of feedback would really bug the heck out the them. And well it should. They've been delivering crap for almost three decades now.
That figure excludes deductions made by the record label for everything imaginable. Studios charge artists a fortune in promotional costs and touring, limos and so on. But even at 12c per track, that's a much better per track rate than artists have gotten traditionally from prepackaged albums.
Another thing to remember is that Itunes is an unprecidented success in the industry. Say what you will about it, but they're still only targeting 2% of the computing population...
Read Cringely's article.
It sheds a lot of light on this, and explains the history of this specific code. He also brings up the 1988 dbase lawsuits which I did not know about. Very educational.
I was under the distinct impression that IBM was phasing out AIX in favor of Linux over the next decade, which is one of the big reasons SCO was angry. I could be wrong.
This is different in that the way the laws are built now there is no real due process. A copyright holder simply needs to accuse you of having copyrighted material on your machine.
And yes, I have a problem with that. What ever happened to burdon of proof. You and I both know that IP numbers don't mean anything in this day and age. The possibilities for mistaken identity are serious and severe.
At least they're sending out letters this time though.
Normally they send swat teams.
Slashdot Mirror
What's the deal with the "discovery" proccess? Why do they need to "discover" anything when they already have a strong case?
The whole thing just doesn't smell right.
What? You must be mistaken, there are no ibm lawyers within a hundred miles of this case! And if there were, we would smite them like the trecheorous pigs they are! heh heh
Sounds oddly similar to the marry christmas incident in the late 70's... Only that guy's still in prison... I think.
Funny thing was they said it could be done with a couple drops of solder. Maybe they could claim they did it by accident? And since when is posting a security exploit for a company known for producing security exploits wrong? Macafee and Norton discover and publish Microsoft security exploits all the time. It seems to me that these guys are doing microsoft and the Linux community a favor.
On a side note, the "give us a boot loader or face the consequences" idea was a stroke of genius.
Beautiful stuff.
Won't get anything accomplished.
But beautiful none the less.
Still an interesting idea. I wonder how hard it would be to do something like that. Ms has brutalizes their competition at every curve. I wonder how many products by failed competitors are still up for sale. Just a thought.
I agree. But what makes you think it will be sun? Why not red hat or a company that deosn't have any other contract with them?
Interesting. Do you have a link to that by chance? SCO took on ms with the dr dos law suit. They won. But MS's lawyers aren't as good as IBM's lawyers.
You're probably right.
What I'm not understanding is how you think any of this is going to help the little people. 85% of all copyrights issued over the last thirty years have been to corporations. I see this as yet another form a progressive corporate welfare. We've had reasonable copyright laws in this country for over 200 years. Why do we suddenly feel the need to mess things up over the last two decades? They should probably leave well enough alone.
An interesting contrast to the know nothing lawyer who had an opinion piece on news.com.com last week.
It does bring up an interesting idea at the end that I wish he would have gone into a bit more.
Assuming SCO did win, and their assertions about fundemental os features were upheld. Don't you think that Microsoft would be the first company they would go after?
Even with their recent license, according to sources in SCO, M$ only licensed the API layer. Why would they point that out? And why is M$ so smug about all this, even through all the vailed threats SCO is making against them? It seems to me that if they had any common sense they would be looking out for their long term interests, which ideally would mean crushing the SCO bug before it grows into a monster. I guess it's like the old saying goes, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"
Well we all saw how well that worked out in Iraq over the last two decades.
That would be an ironic twist of fate, don't you think? SCO winning would cause M$ and others to defend not only the integrity of their own systems, but the open ones as well.
I found it interesting.
I would like to see more coverage of this by people who actually do their research. It was refreshing.
It seems to me that this is more business as usual. The thing that I'm not understanding is what makes anyone think this is going to change anything.
A large company with thousands of copyrights will be able to automate this process and extend their copyrights into eternaty without even a second glance. The fee shouldn't be $1. It should be $10,000 to keep a work from the public.
This might not be much different, but if you have a work that valuble that the copyright needs to last 100 years, it should be worth 10,000 dollars to you, don't you think?
I don't think this is going to kill filesharing. Legally, or illegally, this whole situation is the part of lazy programming by the p2p networks themselves.
Napster should have been an example. The p2p networks should have said, "the record insudstry is crazy, and we need to protect our users."
IP based p2p file sharing is probably the least secure way to do this imaginable.
There are other more secure ways to write this sort of program.
That said,
Does anyone know of one?
Pretty damn stupid. It seems to me that their goal is to issue as many patents as possible, and let the courts work it out. I read recently that 54% of all patent law suits filed result in invalid patents. That should say something about the state of affairs at the USPTO. It's shameful really. If they can't do their jobs, the whole system becomes next to useless.
Or how about that patent they have of sending out the wrong movies when I tried their service. Netflix sucks.
Yes, but if the technology becomes wide spread, doesn't the patent become moot?
Are terms of service valid if they're never read?
Totally. Sad but true. You're probably right.
I noticed this oddball story this morning on the register. One thing I have to wonder, if it was such a great idea for a patent, why did it take so long to get a patent issued? Glitch, or curruptions?
So what's the big deal? Why is there such a hubub about this? Is the industry in such bad shape that no one can be expected to actually deliver what they say they do? How do people stay in business?
Oh goodie. Nope I'm an avid windoze user (only a linux experimentor). You make a lot of assumptions. What's so bad about holding corporate entities to their promisies? What do you have to fear?
Here's a novel idea: Why not actually hold software companies to the promises they make? They promise you a product that suits your needs, make sure you get one. I think this sort of feedback would really bug the heck out the them. And well it should. They've been delivering crap for almost three decades now.
That figure excludes deductions made by the record label for everything imaginable. Studios charge artists a fortune in promotional costs and touring, limos and so on. But even at 12c per track, that's a much better per track rate than artists have gotten traditionally from prepackaged albums.
Another thing to remember is that Itunes is an unprecidented success in the industry. Say what you will about it, but they're still only targeting 2% of the computing population...
Read Cringely's article. It sheds a lot of light on this, and explains the history of this specific code. He also brings up the 1988 dbase lawsuits which I did not know about. Very educational.
I was under the distinct impression that IBM was phasing out AIX in favor of Linux over the next decade, which is one of the big reasons SCO was angry. I could be wrong.
This is different in that the way the laws are built now there is no real due process. A copyright holder simply needs to accuse you of having copyrighted material on your machine. And yes, I have a problem with that. What ever happened to burdon of proof. You and I both know that IP numbers don't mean anything in this day and age. The possibilities for mistaken identity are serious and severe. At least they're sending out letters this time though. Normally they send swat teams.