Actually, while I am in a management profession, my training is as an engineer. Software engineer to be exact, and I manage an organization of software engineers. I often carve out a few small tasks for myself to "keep the sword sharp."
My point was about management. I agree that people should understand what they manage; my point was that not all managers are dishonest. Also, in my experience, honest people are usually more successful than dishonest people.
The fact that I can perform the jobs of my reports (and often do when their schedule starts slipping) gives me serious advantage over other managers without similiar background. And my job doesn't involve life-and-death; I would hope that NASA saw the value in their managers understanding what their reports do.
Being in mangement does not affect my ethics vs any other profession. I think ethics and skill are entirely seperate things (ie, some smart people lie, and some stupid people are honest, and there are plenty of smart and honest people).
Taking credit for your subordinates work and filtering the "crazy talk" to your manager.
Absoltuly false. I am in a management profession, and I can tell you from experience that people that do this are only successful to a point.
What you said is the recipe to make it into middle managment (Director or VP level), but you will never get beyond that. Company Sr. Executives and Officers are expected to be frank and honest. Those that aren't generally don't fare well (yes, you can point out exceptions, but as a general rule, liars don't make it to the top).
Unfortunatly, honest senior managers often have kiss-ass middle managers working for them. Those middle-managers lie, cheat, steal, etc, and senior management is left holding the bag for their mistakes (which is the job of management, to take the fall when your subordinates screw up, in case any managers reading this have forgotten... ignorance is not\ excuse).
I made it into senior management very quickly in my career by having a policy of never breaking the law, never lying to my boss and never sucking up to anyone. Say what you want, but those simple ethics, combined with extremely hard work, are what put me on the fast track. Managers who will screw people to get ahead will find their careers never make it to where they could (but probably does go past where they should).
Can those managers be charged with manslaughter now?
Probably not. If you could prove their behavoir was malicious, instead of merely stupid or calous, then maybe. People performing in their legal line of work are generally protected.
The main problem, I would guess, is that the managers didn't fully understand the job being done by the people that reported to them. I doubt a single manager said "Hey, let's kill some astronaunts."
Most likely, they performed their job to the best of their ability. Also most likely, is that their ability did not measure up to what the job required of them.
Even more as the problem, NASA is being run like a business. I'm a business guy at heart, but NASA is not a business. Its primary function, in my opinion, should be exploration. It doesn't have P&L, it has discoveries of intangible but emmense value. We should allocate tax money to NASA not because of ROI, but because of all of America's desire to explore and adventure.
If this is the way we looked at NASA, then the NASA managers would also be adventuring engineers, and perhaps would have made different decisions. All of the outsourcing and other business decisions at NASA have resulted in people looking at the bottom line instead of the people and the mission.
Before you take Prechter too seriously, let's remember that a couple years ago, he published a book predicting the Dow would be at 777 by now.
In this same book, he advises cashing out 401(k)s in spite of the penalties and buying gold and storing it in safety deposit boxes, etc. Unfortunatly, a friend of mine followed the advise and ended up in a much worse financial situation as a result.
I am not entirely sure its the same guy, as this is Prechter Jr. I've noticed joint publications of the Prechters. Father/son?
Only then should lawsuits begin (to claim renumeration from the convicted felon).
Thats not the way our system works. The civil system is seperate from the criminal system. The police, in general, investige criminal charges.
OJ Simpson was found innocent of the criminal charges of murder leveled against him, but he was still sued successfully in civil court. Likewise, many of the crooks on Wall Street are being pursued in civil court, because, in many cases, there isn't enough evidence, or even a legal framework, for a criminal conviction.
Product liability suits are also civil suits. There are no "convicted felons" being sued.
If we change the system so that you can only sue in civil court someone who is convicted criminally, then you will see major corporations will get to act with more inpunity than ever before.
The bandwidth being wasted in VoIP would be much better utilized in data connections.
VoIP does not consume bandwidth unless an actual call is transferring actual data (ie, speaking). Merely having VOIP available uses 0 bandwidth. In-process calls are rarely considered a waste.
These days, most mobile phone calls are hauled on circuit-switched lines from the cell-site onward. On the communication infrastructure as a whole, that makes most mobile phone calls more wasteful than a "pure" VOIP call (pure being defined one that never transitions to the PSTN). Those "pure" calls are pretty rare, unless they are PC-to-PC type, but they will become more and more common. At some point, I expect that mobile phone backhaul networks will switch to primary VOIP technology as well.
In other words, VOIP conserves, not wastes, communications space.
With fireman and policeman, that is a cost the government bears. With SPAM in the example of taxes collected for hardware from Sun and IBM, it results in tax revenue for them. One is a cost, the other is revenue.
A better analogy is the US Mail. The US Mail does nothing to discourage junk mail. In fact, the encourage it, and even consults large mailers on new rules and postage rates. The US Mail makes incredible amounts of money from junk mail, which, in theory, keeps the rest of us with reasonable postage rates.
I think that Gray Davis is being incredibly short sighted. I hate SPAM like everyone else, but if I were an operation as far in the hole as California, I would be looking for new revenue. How about a tax on SPAM, say a fraction of a cent per message. That would reduce the number of SPAM messages (because you increase their cost) and give the state some desperatly needed revenue.
You could make the crime evading the SPAM tax incredibly high (say $10,000 per message), and require that each SPAM message include the Tax ID number of the company paying the tax on the message, so it is auditable. Failing to include the Tax ID number incurs the fine.
Of course, I don't want to encourage SPAM, but I think that a law like this would make much more sense for a state that is as far in the hole as Davis has managed to put them (as a disclosuer, I'm not a CA resident, so this is an outsiders opinion).
Tough, deal with it. This "media" as you call it must be destroyed because of the constant abuse.
This media [Kazaa] as you call it must be destroyed because of the constant abuse [by copyright infringers].
Blame the user, not the media.
Re:Only the copyright itself is property
on
Back To SCO
·
· Score: 1
RIAA doubleplus ungood. Ingsoc unalive RIAA. RIAA speak blackwhite.
(from my memory of 1984)
Re:How can one steal lines of code?
on
Back To SCO
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Wow. That's a thinker.
If you check out dictionary.com's definition of steal, it seems clearer. "To steal" is broader than "you have the item, now I do not." The first definition is "to take (the property of another) without right or permission."
Again according to dictionary.com, the 3rd definition of property is "Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks." So, I think steal applies, at least according to dictionary.com, because to steal is to take property, and property can be somethign intangible like a copyright.
With all of that said, saying steal is, if not inaccurate, at least confusing. According to this article on O'Reilly, copyright infringement would be a much better way to say what SCO is claiming (IMO, this would apply to the RIAA as well).
So, I guess the short answer is that "theft" doesn't necessary mean that I no longer have it, only that you do, and the longer answer is that "infringed my copyright" would be a perhaps more useful choice of words.
Well, useful for people who want to have rational, non-emotional, thinking conversations. What gets more attention in the court of public option: 1) "You infringed my copyright
!" or 2) "You're a thief!"? IMHO, that is why they use the word "steal."
Because my spelling is horrible, and I am dyslexic on top of that. When writing professionaly (rare occasion, but it happens), I am very careful, but it is a slow and arduous process. Informally, I just do the best I can and move on without spending inordinate amounts of time.
My misspellings are frequently the same. Microsoft Word seems to reinforce this. It seems to notice words that I misspell often the same way and auto-corrects them after a while. Great for typing, bad for learning better spelling.
Bayesian (copied from above) is one of those words that just gives me fits. I can read it, then be on a blank page 5 minutes later, and not remember, or, if I try, I get something mixed up. For me, if I can't spell the word right immediatly, trying to hard makes things get mixed up.
Of course, on/., so many of us are bad spellers that the community is very forgiving of that particular sin.
The scumsuckers who want to control what you see on the Internet are the same scumsuckers who probably like software patents.
So parents trying to keep their young children off porn sites are the same people defending software patents? What does good parenting have to do with software patents?
So not allowing my young children to see porn makes me evil? I'm sorry, there are substantial, good uses for this type of software. There are also bad uses. It is like any tool: the tool is not good or bad, the use is good or bad.
Legally, you are probably right. Morally? I don't think anyone of us would get a good feeling if we new that OSS was in the wrong, but we won on a technicality (in this case, we were wrong, but SCO was not able to get past the reasonable-man test).
To keep up the/. tradition of analogy, imagine if I stole something from the store, but, in court, I claimed that I already had the item, and won. Does it make the theft right? No. In fact, it may make it worse, because I added lying on top of stealing.
Oh yeah, remember, in a civil suit, SCO does not have to get beyond reasonable doubt. So if a reasonable person would think that it is an obfuscation of the original, SCO wins. To use your example, a jury will not be stacked with kernel hackers. That is something that goes both ways, but it worries me. Hell, if they can find OJ innocent, maybe they can find IBM (Linux) guilty?
I don't think you are in duplicate with this. It appears this invention uses Bysien (sp) filters for statistical analysis for web sites. It isn't keeping a database of web sites or rules per se. Remember, the patent isn't on the abstract, but the full details. People get caught up sometimes reading the headline or abstract; to really know what is patented, you must read the entire thing.
As such, I don't think you have prior art. If you did, you still wouldn't be in the wrong. If you wrote yours prior to their patent application, their patent would be found invalid if they tried legal action (at least that is my non-lawyer understanding of patent law. you can't patent existing things... if you could, i would patent breathing, a pulse, etc, etc, then license it out to everyone)
As far as I understand, the patent was issued for more than "Time of Day Filtering." Patents are usually specific; don't let the generic headline fool you.
Now, if you could find where someone had software that used Bysien (sp) filters for categorizing web sites, and also used time of day as an input into the access control algorithm, from my quick read over this, that would be prior art.
I, for one, have never seen this approach used before, so the patent may be valid. Remember, he didn't patent filtering, or time of day; the patent is for a specific application of multiple algorithms.
Patent or no, I like this approach. The rules-based approach just doesn't work well. Maybe this will have some sanity. This company deserves kudos for thinking.
Different topic (one I've always wondered): If there are any lawyers reading this: My understanding of patents is that if I profit off someone else's patenteded invention, I owe them money. Legally speaking, if I implement their patented technique completly in the open, and give it to the public domain, do I (or anyone) have any liability, as long as no one makes money off of it?
I didn't mean lone in the sense of "alone", I meant in the sense that their associates are other open-source programmers. That was worded very, very poorly by me, so I'm sorry.
The sentiment is basically that, if I am in a software company, I have access to legal opinion (Can I use this code?), financial resouces (if not, can we license this code), and other stuff. OSS doesn't always have easy access to the same resources.
That is why I think honest mistakes could be made. In the adsense of a legal team, financial team, etc, sometimes you just have to do what you think is right, or best, and it may not always be.
I'm sorry, but this just burns me. This is like the RIAA telling me "If you don't have any songs to hide, then show me your hard drive. What, you want a warrant and your rights? Anyone demanding their rights must have something to hide"
That is completly flawed. Failure to provide something does not prove guilt. I do not want to live in a society where I am assumed guilty (or my business is) by not submitted to searches, or, basically, by refusing to do anything.
What about my right not to do anything?
Sorry, its a bit of a rant, but this just smacked of the Patroit Act and the idea that none of us should mind being monitored, because only criminals mind that. Its called a police state, and I don't like anything that smells like it.
Hmmmm.... that is an interesting point, but I'm not sure it applies.
Here is the reason: the people that "stole" SCO's code (if indeed that happened) probably were not acting with ill intent. They probably thought they were doing genuine, valid reuse, in which case, why hide it? Obfuscating runs the risk of introducing new bugs.
OSS programmers, even the ones that cut corners, are not malicious in my experience. There are honest mistakes made, because, well, they are lone programmers, not lawyers, or professional managers, or finacial experts, or whatever.
However, if code was diliberatly obfuscated, that would be very, very bad news for Linux. That shows that it was not an honest mistake, but the programmer knew something about the origins and they needed to be hidden. At the best, he could argue that he didn't think that it was an IP violation, he was just trying to make himself look better by not giving credit. The other side could argue he obviously new he was breaking the law.
Of course, as I said, I honestly don't think this case will come about. Even if code found its way in, I don't think it was a programmer say "Hey, I'm going to do this, but it is illegal, so I will cover my tracks."
What if this ESR tool runs and finds commonality, and the research shows that, in fact, SCO's rights were breached. Remember, this type of analysis is a two-edged sword. The purpose of this ESR is to remove doubt... but remember doubt could be removed either direction.
So, given that hypothetical, what would people here think? Would you forive SCO? Would you concede SCO's point, but think that SCO defended their rights in a very poor manner? (this, btw, is what I would probably do). Would you stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to accept the outcome, and believe in some vast -wing conspiracy?
Obviously, the Linx movement would carry on. I don't think the death of Linux is even worth discussion. Some recourse would happen, probably monetary damages, and the offending code would be removed.
My real curiosity is how people's attitudes or feelings would change (or not change) if it turns out SCO is right (however unlikely that is).
Re:Lies, statistics, and analysts
on
Java vs .NET
·
· Score: 1
You are right, I think I used the word "championed" incorrectly, or at least I could have had a better choice of words.
What I really meant was "owned." Sun owns Java. Commercial J2EE implementations must license J2EE from Sun. Sun controls the core platform; nothing becomes part of the core Java spec without Sun's blessing.
Compare this to C++. Name the comercial interest that owns C++. Doesn't exist. Ditto for C. Ditto for TCP/IP. Etc, etc, etc.
I realize that, so far, Microsoft has used its powers for evil (in my opinion), while Sun has not. Sun, in fact, has been quite benevolent with its control of the Java platform; I, however, don't like handing that much power to a commercial interest, even a good one.
I used to be a Java proponent, but, looking back, I really most liked Java because it was anti-Microsoft, and gaining ground. I was using that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" theory, which everyone knows is morally bankrupt and eventually bits you square in the rear (just ask the US government about its ex-friends, Osama and Sadam).
I could imagine it happening. Bringing a suit and winning a suit are entirely different things.
I'm not lawyer, but my understanding is that for RICO to apply, some crime has to be committed, and that crime has to be associated with the organization (although not a causation relationship).
For instance, if me and a bunch of people get together and plan, scheme, conspire, etc, to feed the homeless, there is no RICO claim. No crime is being committed.
If, while feeding the homeless, I suggest that some business is not treating me right, and the homeless people cause problems for that business, and I make a habit out of this, it starts looking a lot like a protection racket, hence RICO.
So, if the RIAA gets even more blatant, and starts saying, "Mr. Customer, I know you have not committed any crime, but if you do not give me cash, I will sue you anyway," that may incur RICO violations (because RIAA would be running a protection racket).
On the other hand, if RIAA can show that they made a "best effort" attempt at only going after lawbreakers, and left alone people that were clearly not breaking the law (my Mom with no Internet connection clearly is not d/l'ing music, so there is no reason to threaten to sue her), then I think they are safe.
Like I said, I'm no lawyer, so that is just my laymen's best understanding.
I'm not sure what you want me to explain. A stable language can evolve, right?
I was talking about the connotative difference between the words "stable" and "stagnant", and what people mean when they say "stagnant." As an example, the American economy is called "stable," while the Argentenian economy is called "stagnant." That the American economy is stable does not mean that it is not changing, but that it works well and is not in danger of a disruptive upheavel.
Seriouslly, I am completly in the dark about what requires explaining.
Re:Lies, statistics, and analysts
on
Java vs .NET
·
· Score: 1, Troll
You are really hitting on the biggest problem with Java: it is not a standard. Java is a proprietary technology championed by a maga-corp (Sun, in this case). How, exactly, is that different from.Net and Microsoft?
When I use C++ to write OSS for Linux, I am using a standard (C++) to write for a standard API (POSIX, X/Open). When I use Java, I am living in Sun-land. When I use.Net, I am living in Microsoft-land. I fail to see the difference.
I, for one, do not like locking myself in to a vendor-specific solution. No Java. No J2EE. No.Net (No a lot of other things, like PL/SQL, also).
A previous poster talked mentioned something like "Java vs.Net is like to big, fat, ugly chicks in a cat-fight." So true....
Re:Red Queen race
on
Java vs .NET
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
There is a difference between stable and stagnant. C is stable. It has all the features most people need, so there is no need to change.
People that argue that Java is stagnant mean that there are things the language needs, but it is taking too long to get them.
Re:Java vs. .Net
on
Java vs .NET
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I wouldn't say that.Net will never take off. Microsoft has access to senior executives in large corporations; I know that shouldn't make a difference, but it does. I am consulting at a major communications company now, and I just got a call from a VP an hour ago saying "Take a look at Microsoft for the stuff you are doing." It seems MS paid him a visit, and they are pitching lots of.Net/XP stuff against our existing HP SuperDome environments.
Think of this another way: What if.Net was designed by a single person in their garage, would it get the attention it does? Of course not. Dot Net is a real threat to Java simply because it comes from Microsoft (a mega-corp with plenty of access).
You may not like it (I know I don't), but that is the nature of things.
Slashdot Mirror
My point was about management. I agree that people should understand what they manage; my point was that not all managers are dishonest. Also, in my experience, honest people are usually more successful than dishonest people.
The fact that I can perform the jobs of my reports (and often do when their schedule starts slipping) gives me serious advantage over other managers without similiar background. And my job doesn't involve life-and-death; I would hope that NASA saw the value in their managers understanding what their reports do.
Being in mangement does not affect my ethics vs any other profession. I think ethics and skill are entirely seperate things (ie, some smart people lie, and some stupid people are honest, and there are plenty of smart and honest people).
Absoltuly false. I am in a management profession, and I can tell you from experience that people that do this are only successful to a point.
What you said is the recipe to make it into middle managment (Director or VP level), but you will never get beyond that. Company Sr. Executives and Officers are expected to be frank and honest. Those that aren't generally don't fare well (yes, you can point out exceptions, but as a general rule, liars don't make it to the top).
Unfortunatly, honest senior managers often have kiss-ass middle managers working for them. Those middle-managers lie, cheat, steal, etc, and senior management is left holding the bag for their mistakes (which is the job of management, to take the fall when your subordinates screw up, in case any managers reading this have forgotten... ignorance is not\ excuse).
I made it into senior management very quickly in my career by having a policy of never breaking the law, never lying to my boss and never sucking up to anyone. Say what you want, but those simple ethics, combined with extremely hard work, are what put me on the fast track. Managers who will screw people to get ahead will find their careers never make it to where they could (but probably does go past where they should).
Probably not. If you could prove their behavoir was malicious, instead of merely stupid or calous, then maybe. People performing in their legal line of work are generally protected.
The main problem, I would guess, is that the managers didn't fully understand the job being done by the people that reported to them. I doubt a single manager said "Hey, let's kill some astronaunts."
Most likely, they performed their job to the best of their ability. Also most likely, is that their ability did not measure up to what the job required of them.
Even more as the problem, NASA is being run like a business. I'm a business guy at heart, but NASA is not a business. Its primary function, in my opinion, should be exploration. It doesn't have P&L, it has discoveries of intangible but emmense value. We should allocate tax money to NASA not because of ROI, but because of all of America's desire to explore and adventure.
If this is the way we looked at NASA, then the NASA managers would also be adventuring engineers, and perhaps would have made different decisions. All of the outsourcing and other business decisions at NASA have resulted in people looking at the bottom line instead of the people and the mission.
In this same book, he advises cashing out 401(k)s in spite of the penalties and buying gold and storing it in safety deposit boxes, etc. Unfortunatly, a friend of mine followed the advise and ended up in a much worse financial situation as a result.
I am not entirely sure its the same guy, as this is Prechter Jr. I've noticed joint publications of the Prechters. Father/son?
Thats not the way our system works. The civil system is seperate from the criminal system. The police, in general, investige criminal charges.
OJ Simpson was found innocent of the criminal charges of murder leveled against him, but he was still sued successfully in civil court. Likewise, many of the crooks on Wall Street are being pursued in civil court, because, in many cases, there isn't enough evidence, or even a legal framework, for a criminal conviction.
Product liability suits are also civil suits. There are no "convicted felons" being sued.
If we change the system so that you can only sue in civil court someone who is convicted criminally, then you will see major corporations will get to act with more inpunity than ever before.
VoIP does not consume bandwidth unless an actual call is transferring actual data (ie, speaking). Merely having VOIP available uses 0 bandwidth. In-process calls are rarely considered a waste.
These days, most mobile phone calls are hauled on circuit-switched lines from the cell-site onward. On the communication infrastructure as a whole, that makes most mobile phone calls more wasteful than a "pure" VOIP call (pure being defined one that never transitions to the PSTN). Those "pure" calls are pretty rare, unless they are PC-to-PC type, but they will become more and more common. At some point, I expect that mobile phone backhaul networks will switch to primary VOIP technology as well.
In other words, VOIP conserves, not wastes, communications space.
With fireman and policeman, that is a cost the government bears. With SPAM in the example of taxes collected for hardware from Sun and IBM, it results in tax revenue for them. One is a cost, the other is revenue.
A better analogy is the US Mail. The US Mail does nothing to discourage junk mail. In fact, the encourage it, and even consults large mailers on new rules and postage rates. The US Mail makes incredible amounts of money from junk mail, which, in theory, keeps the rest of us with reasonable postage rates.
I think that Gray Davis is being incredibly short sighted. I hate SPAM like everyone else, but if I were an operation as far in the hole as California, I would be looking for new revenue. How about a tax on SPAM, say a fraction of a cent per message. That would reduce the number of SPAM messages (because you increase their cost) and give the state some desperatly needed revenue.
You could make the crime evading the SPAM tax incredibly high (say $10,000 per message), and require that each SPAM message include the Tax ID number of the company paying the tax on the message, so it is auditable. Failing to include the Tax ID number incurs the fine.
Of course, I don't want to encourage SPAM, but I think that a law like this would make much more sense for a state that is as far in the hole as Davis has managed to put them (as a disclosuer, I'm not a CA resident, so this is an outsiders opinion).
This media [Kazaa] as you call it must be destroyed because of the constant abuse [by copyright infringers].
Blame the user, not the media.
RIAA doubleplus ungood. Ingsoc unalive RIAA. RIAA speak blackwhite. (from my memory of 1984)
If you check out dictionary.com's definition of steal, it seems clearer. "To steal" is broader than "you have the item, now I do not." The first definition is "to take (the property of another) without right or permission."
Again according to dictionary.com, the 3rd definition of property is "Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks." So, I think steal applies, at least according to dictionary.com, because to steal is to take property, and property can be somethign intangible like a copyright.
With all of that said, saying steal is, if not inaccurate, at least confusing. According to this article on O'Reilly, copyright infringement would be a much better way to say what SCO is claiming (IMO, this would apply to the RIAA as well).
So, I guess the short answer is that "theft" doesn't necessary mean that I no longer have it, only that you do, and the longer answer is that "infringed my copyright" would be a perhaps more useful choice of words.
Well, useful for people who want to have rational, non-emotional, thinking conversations. What gets more attention in the court of public option: 1) "You infringed my copyright !" or 2) "You're a thief!"? IMHO, that is why they use the word "steal."
My misspellings are frequently the same. Microsoft Word seems to reinforce this. It seems to notice words that I misspell often the same way and auto-corrects them after a while. Great for typing, bad for learning better spelling.
Bayesian (copied from above) is one of those words that just gives me fits. I can read it, then be on a blank page 5 minutes later, and not remember, or, if I try, I get something mixed up. For me, if I can't spell the word right immediatly, trying to hard makes things get mixed up.
Of course, on /., so many of us are bad spellers that the community is very forgiving of that particular sin.
So parents trying to keep their young children off porn sites are the same people defending software patents? What does good parenting have to do with software patents?
So not allowing my young children to see porn makes me evil? I'm sorry, there are substantial, good uses for this type of software. There are also bad uses. It is like any tool: the tool is not good or bad, the use is good or bad.
To keep up the /. tradition of analogy, imagine if I stole something from the store, but, in court, I claimed that I already had the item, and won. Does it make the theft right? No. In fact, it may make it worse, because I added lying on top of stealing.
Oh yeah, remember, in a civil suit, SCO does not have to get beyond reasonable doubt. So if a reasonable person would think that it is an obfuscation of the original, SCO wins. To use your example, a jury will not be stacked with kernel hackers. That is something that goes both ways, but it worries me. Hell, if they can find OJ innocent, maybe they can find IBM (Linux) guilty?
As such, I don't think you have prior art. If you did, you still wouldn't be in the wrong. If you wrote yours prior to their patent application, their patent would be found invalid if they tried legal action (at least that is my non-lawyer understanding of patent law. you can't patent existing things... if you could, i would patent breathing, a pulse, etc, etc, then license it out to everyone)
Now, if you could find where someone had software that used Bysien (sp) filters for categorizing web sites, and also used time of day as an input into the access control algorithm, from my quick read over this, that would be prior art.
I, for one, have never seen this approach used before, so the patent may be valid. Remember, he didn't patent filtering, or time of day; the patent is for a specific application of multiple algorithms.
Patent or no, I like this approach. The rules-based approach just doesn't work well. Maybe this will have some sanity. This company deserves kudos for thinking.
Different topic (one I've always wondered): If there are any lawyers reading this: My understanding of patents is that if I profit off someone else's patenteded invention, I owe them money. Legally speaking, if I implement their patented technique completly in the open, and give it to the public domain, do I (or anyone) have any liability, as long as no one makes money off of it?
The sentiment is basically that, if I am in a software company, I have access to legal opinion (Can I use this code?), financial resouces (if not, can we license this code), and other stuff. OSS doesn't always have easy access to the same resources.
That is why I think honest mistakes could be made. In the adsense of a legal team, financial team, etc, sometimes you just have to do what you think is right, or best, and it may not always be.
WHAT?!?!?!
I'm sorry, but this just burns me. This is like the RIAA telling me "If you don't have any songs to hide, then show me your hard drive. What, you want a warrant and your rights? Anyone demanding their rights must have something to hide"
That is completly flawed. Failure to provide something does not prove guilt. I do not want to live in a society where I am assumed guilty (or my business is) by not submitted to searches, or, basically, by refusing to do anything.
What about my right not to do anything?
Sorry, its a bit of a rant, but this just smacked of the Patroit Act and the idea that none of us should mind being monitored, because only criminals mind that. Its called a police state, and I don't like anything that smells like it.
Here is the reason: the people that "stole" SCO's code (if indeed that happened) probably were not acting with ill intent. They probably thought they were doing genuine, valid reuse, in which case, why hide it? Obfuscating runs the risk of introducing new bugs.
OSS programmers, even the ones that cut corners, are not malicious in my experience. There are honest mistakes made, because, well, they are lone programmers, not lawyers, or professional managers, or finacial experts, or whatever.
However, if code was diliberatly obfuscated, that would be very, very bad news for Linux. That shows that it was not an honest mistake, but the programmer knew something about the origins and they needed to be hidden. At the best, he could argue that he didn't think that it was an IP violation, he was just trying to make himself look better by not giving credit. The other side could argue he obviously new he was breaking the law.
Of course, as I said, I honestly don't think this case will come about. Even if code found its way in, I don't think it was a programmer say "Hey, I'm going to do this, but it is illegal, so I will cover my tracks."
What if this ESR tool runs and finds commonality, and the research shows that, in fact, SCO's rights were breached. Remember, this type of analysis is a two-edged sword. The purpose of this ESR is to remove doubt... but remember doubt could be removed either direction.
So, given that hypothetical, what would people here think? Would you forive SCO? Would you concede SCO's point, but think that SCO defended their rights in a very poor manner? (this, btw, is what I would probably do). Would you stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to accept the outcome, and believe in some vast -wing conspiracy?
Obviously, the Linx movement would carry on. I don't think the death of Linux is even worth discussion. Some recourse would happen, probably monetary damages, and the offending code would be removed.
My real curiosity is how people's attitudes or feelings would change (or not change) if it turns out SCO is right (however unlikely that is).
What I really meant was "owned." Sun owns Java. Commercial J2EE implementations must license J2EE from Sun. Sun controls the core platform; nothing becomes part of the core Java spec without Sun's blessing.
Compare this to C++. Name the comercial interest that owns C++. Doesn't exist. Ditto for C. Ditto for TCP/IP. Etc, etc, etc.
I realize that, so far, Microsoft has used its powers for evil (in my opinion), while Sun has not. Sun, in fact, has been quite benevolent with its control of the Java platform; I, however, don't like handing that much power to a commercial interest, even a good one.
I used to be a Java proponent, but, looking back, I really most liked Java because it was anti-Microsoft, and gaining ground. I was using that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" theory, which everyone knows is morally bankrupt and eventually bits you square in the rear (just ask the US government about its ex-friends, Osama and Sadam).
I'm not lawyer, but my understanding is that for RICO to apply, some crime has to be committed, and that crime has to be associated with the organization (although not a causation relationship).
For instance, if me and a bunch of people get together and plan, scheme, conspire, etc, to feed the homeless, there is no RICO claim. No crime is being committed.
If, while feeding the homeless, I suggest that some business is not treating me right, and the homeless people cause problems for that business, and I make a habit out of this, it starts looking a lot like a protection racket, hence RICO.
So, if the RIAA gets even more blatant, and starts saying, "Mr. Customer, I know you have not committed any crime, but if you do not give me cash, I will sue you anyway," that may incur RICO violations (because RIAA would be running a protection racket).
On the other hand, if RIAA can show that they made a "best effort" attempt at only going after lawbreakers, and left alone people that were clearly not breaking the law (my Mom with no Internet connection clearly is not d/l'ing music, so there is no reason to threaten to sue her), then I think they are safe.
Like I said, I'm no lawyer, so that is just my laymen's best understanding.
I was talking about the connotative difference between the words "stable" and "stagnant", and what people mean when they say "stagnant." As an example, the American economy is called "stable," while the Argentenian economy is called "stagnant." That the American economy is stable does not mean that it is not changing, but that it works well and is not in danger of a disruptive upheavel.
Seriouslly, I am completly in the dark about what requires explaining.
When I use C++ to write OSS for Linux, I am using a standard (C++) to write for a standard API (POSIX, X/Open). When I use Java, I am living in Sun-land. When I use .Net, I am living in Microsoft-land. I fail to see the difference.
I, for one, do not like locking myself in to a vendor-specific solution. No Java. No J2EE. No .Net (No a lot of other things, like PL/SQL, also).
A previous poster talked mentioned something like "Java vs .Net is like to big, fat, ugly chicks in a cat-fight." So true....
People that argue that Java is stagnant mean that there are things the language needs, but it is taking too long to get them.
Think of this another way: What if .Net was designed by a single person in their garage, would it get the attention it does? Of course not. Dot Net is a real threat to Java simply because it comes from Microsoft (a mega-corp with plenty of access).
You may not like it (I know I don't), but that is the nature of things.