At the turn of the 20th century, somebody famously said that the patent office should be closed because everything that can be invented has been invented.
Well, they kept it open so that things can be re-invented.
In a legal sense, a precedent would be something new and groundbreaking. If the courts find PanIP's patents to be invalid due to prior art and such a decision has never been rendered before, then we may call it a precedent. Otherwise, its just another case.
Am I the only one who thinks this way? I realize that Debian will get around to doing something about the information in about two to three years, however, it's still spyware.
IBM's Lanham Act claims are that SCOX's lies harm IBM's business. Additionally, the claims are civil, not criminal. If IBM can show (to the lower standards of civil court) that Canopy's likely reason for including the UnixWare license requirement as part of the deal with CA was to help in SCOX's anti-linux campaign, and that the campaign was dishonest, and that the campaign harmed IBM's business, then Canopy is liable to IBM for its actions in furtherance of that campaign. I agree that there's no veil to pierce. That was my point.
I have to say that this seems like a tall order to prove. Afterall, CA agreed to the settlement and AFAIK, there is no standard which could supercede the settlement agreed upon between opposing parties. Should Canopy have just asked for a cash only settlement instead of specific performance?
None of this would even be an issue if SCO hadn't slipped in their vaguely worded IP usage amendment and then started proclaiming CA as a licensee.
For Linux to become a gaming platform, game developers have to be willing to support both Direct3D and OpenGL. For id Software and a few of the more established developers who already have Linux versions of their games, it is less of an expense. For newer developers, it would be a larger risk than just supporting D3D to hit 90+% of the desktop PC's.
I have to admit that, looking for a "genuine SCSI" scanner in 2002 when just about everything was USB got me some strange looks. But, I got a nice scsi HP scanner secondhand for close to $0 so in the end it all works out just fine.
If you could have waited a year, you'd have excellent usb and scanner support. I've got an el cheapo Canon LiDE 20 USB scanner that hums along nicely on my Linux box.
They only needed to pierce the veil as long as Canopy stayed behind the scenes. The limitation of liability afforded a corporation's shareholders only covers the shareholder from responsibility for the actions of the corporation; it does not in any way protect a shareholder from liability for his or her own actions.
With all due respect, this makes no sense whatsoever. Piercing the corporate veil is a term used to describe holding individuals responsible for their acts rather than letting them hide behind a corporate shield (although the corporation can also be charged for misdeeds of its employees). Canopy won a settlement against CA in a breach of contract lawsuit. Winning a lawsuit is not an unlawful act.
With this deal, Canopy commited an overt act in furtherance of SCOX's campaign to mislead the public in SCOX's anti-linux campaign when they made the UnixWare license (with the linux indeminification attached) part of the CA lawsuit settlement. SCOX then used this deal to misleadingly imply that CA had entered into a voluntary deal to license linux. I'd say this falls under IBM's Lanham Act claims[See this, start at 84.) IBM doesn't need to pierce the veil, Canopy pulled is aside themselves.
The settlement required CA to obtain UnixWare license, which cleverly SCO slipped in the Linux indemification. SCO tried to spin the settlement as licensing deal. It's a damned lie but probably not a crime. Again, no need to pierce anybody's veil. What's interesting about this is that Daimler-Chrysler, a publicly acknowledged Linux user, is being sued for not signing SCO's IP compliance statement. If it is a licensed UnixWare user, why shouldn't it also have Linux indemnification?
Piercing the corporate veil is a term used to describe holding individuals responsible for their actions rather than letting them hid behind a corporation. How the term might apply to Canopy is not clear to me. As far as I know, neither SCO nor Canopy are engaging in unlawful activities. SCO's lawsuits against IBM, AutoZone, Daimler-Chyrsler, etc. may be completely bogus and totally reprehensible, but they are not unlawful. As there is not any hint of unlawful activity in any area, including securities fraud, the SEC would be involved in the matter.
I agree with you that lip-syncing per se isn't a problem, but I think when people say that, they're often using it to summarize a whole range of things - like the OP said, voices that don't fit the character, for example.
General Patton was a little guy with a high and squeaky voice, a stark contrast from the commanding and very masculine voice of George C. Scott, the actor who protrayed him in the movie Patton. Often times, the entertainment business is not so much about fulfilling fantasy as it is about reinforcing our prejudices.
Unless of course Billy Boy is funding them, in which case SCO is just acting as a front organization and it doesn't matter how dumb they are since it's M$'s nearly infinite resources at risk here. Someone really does need to do a RICO investigation here.
Paranoid rants seem to be the stock and trade of some/.ers. However, there is more truth to the statement than you realize. McBride won a $250 million judgement against MS over DOS. Most of that money has been pissed away, so I assume McBride, the Rainmaker, is just using a tried and true method for replenishing funds.
Buy liscensing IP from SCO you in turn denounce the GPL liscence on the Linux Code. Which means if they are cought distributing any linux GPL material on their sites then they can be sued for violation of the GPL.. am i right?
It means that you gave in to the intimidation, that you paid the protection money, that you made a decision rooted in dollars not sense, that you took the route of expediency over principle.
The tin-foil hat brigade may want to bear in mind that Ashcroft, Tenet, Rumsfeld etc. may also take an interest in "Who's Who and Who's Doing What in Open Source";-)
That's going to be a problem with an open source developer? It's not hard to identify open source projects and their development team members now.
Slashdot Mirror
...will I owe Darl $1,398?
Waiting may be the best strategy if you remember all the problems with the release of 9.2.
Are you sure it isn't the 286 box you're using?
Sun is already on the margins and it has nothing to do with Linux.
If ordinary citizens can't have iPods, then only criminals will have them.
This one was dated December 2003.
Well, they kept it open so that things can be re-invented.
In a legal sense, a precedent would be something new and groundbreaking. If the courts find PanIP's patents to be invalid due to prior art and such a decision has never been rendered before, then we may call it a precedent. Otherwise, its just another case.
I understand SkyNet will be running Longhorne so it could be a few more years. I wouldn't worry about it until the second service pack anyway.
I'm currently downloading 10g from Oracle which is totally maxing out my connection. I'm lucky to be getting /.
Am I the only one who thinks this way? I realize that Debian will get around to doing something about the information in about two to three years, however, it's still spyware.
I have to say that this seems like a tall order to prove. Afterall, CA agreed to the settlement and AFAIK, there is no standard which could supercede the settlement agreed upon between opposing parties. Should Canopy have just asked for a cash only settlement instead of specific performance?
None of this would even be an issue if SCO hadn't slipped in their vaguely worded IP usage amendment and then started proclaiming CA as a licensee.
For Linux to become a gaming platform, game developers have to be willing to support both Direct3D and OpenGL. For id Software and a few of the more established developers who already have Linux versions of their games, it is less of an expense. For newer developers, it would be a larger risk than just supporting D3D to hit 90+% of the desktop PC's.
I have to admit that, looking for a "genuine SCSI" scanner in 2002 when just about everything was USB got me some strange looks. But, I got a nice scsi HP scanner secondhand for close to $0 so in the end it all works out just fine.
If you could have waited a year, you'd have excellent usb and scanner support. I've got an el cheapo Canon LiDE 20 USB scanner that hums along nicely on my Linux box.
It willl suck hard and we'll all look back fondly on the good old days.
I already do.
The settlement required CA to obtain UnixWare license, which cleverly SCO slipped in the Linux indemification. SCO tried to spin the settlement as licensing deal. It's a damned lie but probably not a crime. Again, no need to pierce anybody's veil. What's interesting about this is that Daimler-Chrysler, a publicly acknowledged Linux user, is being sued for not signing SCO's IP compliance statement. If it is a licensed UnixWare user, why shouldn't it also have Linux indemnification?
Piercing the corporate veil is a term used to describe holding individuals responsible for their actions rather than letting them hid behind a corporation. How the term might apply to Canopy is not clear to me. As far as I know, neither SCO nor Canopy are engaging in unlawful activities. SCO's lawsuits against IBM, AutoZone, Daimler-Chyrsler, etc. may be completely bogus and totally reprehensible, but they are not unlawful. As there is not any hint of unlawful activity in any area, including securities fraud, the SEC would be involved in the matter.
That's going to be a problem with an open source developer? It's not hard to identify open source projects and their development team members now.
No Nikes required though.
Two words: Human shield
And you DO know his wife's maiden name, right? A well known condiment.
What sort of condiment is Simoes-Ferreira?