If reverse engineering was not allowed, there would have never been IBM PC clones. Compaq wanted to produce a PC clone, so they payed Phoenix to reverse engineer it. Phoenix worked in two teams. One team had a license for the source code of the BIOS, and the other team knew nothing about the BIOS. The first team created a list of requirements and functional specifications, and the second team created their own BIOS from scratch based on those documents. That's how we got choice in the PC world.
Protocols *cannot* be copyrighted, they must be patented. If this protocol is not patented, then bollocks to MS and their licensing.
This isn't about whether a protocol can be copyrighted is it? It's about whether a protocol is IP (which it is) and whether Microsoft has the right to control access to its IP (which it does).
BTW, the Dasani thing has nothing to do with IP at all.
Yes it does. Trademarks most definitely are IP.
You cannot sell something that you labelled as "Dasani". In fact, you can't even be in the water business if your decide to call your company "Dasani".
Dasani is a trademark, and is protected under a completely different set of laws.
My fault, I meant "trademarked". Sorry for the confusion.
Re:Internet fads
on
Dotcom Era Fads
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I've been a hardcore netizen since 1998... Google didn't even exist back then.
Um, dood, I hate to tell you this, but there's a majority of people here that were netizens when Yahoo didn't even exist, so your bragging is quite a bit less than impressive. Now give me back my Geritol...
Furthermore, not all Macintosh use OpenFirmware. So if you have an old PowerPC machine that you want to put Linux on, you'd better check to see if you need to keep MacOS on it before you start formatting. You don't have this issue with PCs.
The "right" to make changes to a closed protocol isn't analogous to licensing third parties to use what is essentially a public network.
They're licensing the protocol, not the network. You can still try to connect to the network with whatever client you want, but if your client doesn't know what the protocol is, it will be refused. Furthermore, although the service may be free to use, a user of the service must read the usage agreement and create an account with the service. Therefore, the network is not by any stretch of the imagination a "public" network. Although the sheer number of members may be very large, it is still more of a private club than a public network. It is a club to which many people do not belong, myself included.
It's like saying that only one HTTP client is "licensed" to connect to your company's HTTP servers and all the others are illicit. You could claim such a thing, of course, but it doesn't give you a remedy against people who connect using one of these "illicit" clients.
No, it's not. Microsoft is making a protocol change to it's own closed protocol. This is not the same thing as refusing connections from clients that use an open protocol like HTTP.
Further, the protocol may "belong" to Microsoft, in some abstract sense, but it's not "intellectual property." It's not a "work" -- an independent implementation whould not violate any copyright -- and IIRC it is not patented.
No, intellectual property is any product of the human intellect that is unique, novel, and unobvious (and has some value in the marketplace). IP can be:
an idea
an invention
an expression or literary creation
a unique name
a business method
an industrial process
a chemical formula
a computer program process
a presentation
The protocol used by MSN Messenger is clearly covered by this definition - it does not need to be patented. This is why, for instance, you cannot bottle some tap water and sell it as "Dasani". Dasani is not a "work", but it is IP, and it is copyrighted.
The fact that someone opens a port to the Internet and makes a client available for accessing a server on that port does not automatically mean that the client's algorithm is public knowledge and that the service provided by the server is a public service.
Microsoft's bathroom is for use by patrons only, and even if you are a patron, you must wear shoes and a shirt.
No kidding! Can you remember the first time "Internet Cleaup Day" went around? I swear that was the happiest day of my life. All the morons logged off, and the net was incredibly fast!
Another net fad that should die
on
Dotcom Era Fads
·
· Score: 5, Funny
All those graphics that say, "Powered by SomeFrigginTechnology(tm)". Sheesh, that is so 1997.
Obligatory IANAL... It seems that this differs by municpality and the type of court. In some municipalities in small claims court, the plaintiff gives up this right, but the defendant does not. Otherwise, it appears from what I've been able to dig up online, that either party can demand a trial by jury, and it does not appear to require agreement between the parties. It's funny, but one of the things that I seem to remember seeing in the SCO documents was that SCO is requesting a trial by jury.
Does this mean Tim Berners Lee can now approach Opera software and ask them to license use of his world wide web network? What a joke.
Uh, no. You're comparing apples with oranges.
The HTTP protocol is defined in an RFC. It's public knowledge. It is NOT considered IP. Any additions to the protocol will be decided on by the community. If Tim Berners-Lee decides to make changes, he needs to go through the IETF to do so, because he doesn't own the protocol.
Microsoft's MSN protocol is not in the public domain and is considered Microsoft's IP. The only way you make an MSN client is to either reverse engineer the protocol or pay for a license and sign an NDA from Microsoft. Either way, when you do this, the protocol is still Microsoft's, and if they decide to change it, they have every right to do that on their own with nobody's permission.
This is why Jabber is trying to become the IETF standard protocol for instant messaging. It would simplify matters if it was a standard. Right now, the Jabber protocol definitions are still drafts, however.
The point is, you can't run it now on a G5. Microsoft dropped the ball on this one. Why is there no patch for the existing product? What is their timeframe for the new product?
I see you have the magic 8-ball
LOL! Neither do you.
And vice-versa...I don't see your point...Are you a fan of MS(totally acceptable, BTW)?
No, I have no love of Microsoft, which is why I won't buy VirtualPC.
And in that case, is your beef with Apple based
Where did you get the idea I had a beef with Apple? I don't have a beef with Apple.
I have owned several Apple products in the past. I had one of the first Mac Centris 610's to be sold. My parents owned a "Woz" machine - one of the original Apple IIgs machines signed by Steve Wozniak (which was really l337 at the time - 1986). Some of the products that I still keep are my Apple II+ and Newton 2100. I would consider purchasing more Apple products in the future, and I have on several occasions.
purely on price points rather than it's 'propreitary-ness'.
If you're asking about why I have not purchased an Apple product recently, no, it was not primarily price related. It had to do with features.
Examples:
More than quite a few years ago, I purchased a Power Computing machine (they made Apple clones), not because it was cheaper, but because it fscking kicked ASS! It had a bigger hard drive than Apple offered, more memory, a better video digitizer, a faster CDROM (a big deal at the time), and an integrated ZIP drive (FREE, because I went to MacWorld).
The last time I bought a laptop, I considered buying the PowerBook G4. I didn't purchase it, because after using a laptop with 1400x1050 for a few years, I needed more screen
real estate than the 1280x854 Apple was willing to sell me. The Apple just happened to be more expensive than the PC I did buy with the same features (and a bigger screen 1600x1200).
I was also thinking about purchasing an iPod. I instead ended up purchasing an Archos, primarily because I don't need to use external software to add music to the Archos, the Archos can record music, and the Archos displays my pictures. It just so happened that the Archos was also less expensive than the iPod.
So basically, the price didn't make much difference, because the features weren't as good.
I am loathe to make a car comparison yet again, however I never hear people complaining about how an expensive car is a bad choice seeing as we all are supposed to obey the speed limit.
I won't make that comparision either. However, I will offer the suggestion that an expensive car would be a bad choice when that car is both more expensive and offers less features, which was my experience recently with Apple products (although not in the past). It's also the reason why several years ago, I bought a Mazda instead of a Volkswagon. Now I have a VW instead of a Mazda, because VW changed their feature set to something more useful.
Sure we can all drive Kias, but we don't all want to. Why does extra money spent on a computer have to be taken out of context as more than choosing a car with leather and a Navigation system.
Because the computer simply doesn't offer as many features, especially the ones that I need.
I don't see how MS is any less propreitary than Apple.
Because, even if you strip all the software off an Apple, the firmware and hardware architecture are still proprietary. In fact, for a long time, you couldn't remove MacOS from a Mac if you wanted to run a different OS, because the way the firmware was written, only MacOS could be booted (I don't know if it's still this way or not). On a PC, the firmware and hardware are open and many different vendors make them. There is no issue with booting an OS that isn't Windows, because of this.
I think you are really just a PC gamer(Totally acceptable, BTW) who like many of your brethren are perpetually unable to differentiate computer use as a tool and computer use as a toy.
Actually, no, I'm just a guy that uses PCs to do programming work, pay my taxes, write e-mail, browse the web, etc. I do play the occasional game, but I do that on a console. Last game I bought for PC was UT several years ago.
When they come to you with requests, always get their username!
Then you can provide them with the full user experience they so richly deserve.
MUH, HA, HA, HA!
Slashdot Mirror
You could try to put Asterisk on it.
Oh, you mean you guys over there have running water now. Good for you.
Nice, gif. You rule.
I've used the same version since 1995, and you know, it's always been powerful enough for my needs.
Wow, me too. Unfortunately, on the other side of the border the distro vendor keeps changing and there's nothing that I can do about it.
Nuts, you figured out my joke.
Although, now that I think of it...
Do the police in the UK place cameras in restrooms?
Sorry, sometimes its not apparent when posters are being funny, or as you said, "clueless".
Yes, they used the road.
See the picture.
Highest wind (world record, April 12, 1934): 231 MPH
Mt. Washington Observatory
The right to privacy.
If reverse engineering was not allowed, there would have never been IBM PC clones. Compaq wanted to produce a PC clone, so they payed Phoenix to reverse engineer it. Phoenix worked in two teams. One team had a license for the source code of the BIOS, and the other team knew nothing about the BIOS. The first team created a list of requirements and functional specifications, and the second team created their own BIOS from scratch based on those documents. That's how we got choice in the PC world.
Check out his slashdot page: Bill Gates
This isn't about whether a protocol can be copyrighted is it? It's about whether a protocol is IP (which it is) and whether Microsoft has the right to control access to its IP (which it does).
BTW, the Dasani thing has nothing to do with IP at all.
Yes it does. Trademarks most definitely are IP. You cannot sell something that you labelled as "Dasani". In fact, you can't even be in the water business if your decide to call your company "Dasani".
Dasani is a trademark, and is protected under a completely different set of laws.
My fault, I meant "trademarked". Sorry for the confusion.
Um, dood, I hate to tell you this, but there's a majority of people here that were netizens when Yahoo didn't even exist, so your bragging is quite a bit less than impressive. Now give me back my Geritol...
You're right that PCs don't use OpenFirmware. However, PCs use the following industry standards:
BIOS Boot Specification
System Management BIOS Reference Specification
Furthermore, not all Macintosh use OpenFirmware. So if you have an old PowerPC machine that you want to put Linux on, you'd better check to see if you need to keep MacOS on it before you start formatting. You don't have this issue with PCs.
They're licensing the protocol, not the network. You can still try to connect to the network with whatever client you want, but if your client doesn't know what the protocol is, it will be refused. Furthermore, although the service may be free to use, a user of the service must read the usage agreement and create an account with the service. Therefore, the network is not by any stretch of the imagination a "public" network. Although the sheer number of members may be very large, it is still more of a private club than a public network. It is a club to which many people do not belong, myself included.
It's like saying that only one HTTP client is "licensed" to connect to your company's HTTP servers and all the others are illicit. You could claim such a thing, of course, but it doesn't give you a remedy against people who connect using one of these "illicit" clients.
No, it's not. Microsoft is making a protocol change to it's own closed protocol. This is not the same thing as refusing connections from clients that use an open protocol like HTTP.
Further, the protocol may "belong" to Microsoft, in some abstract sense, but it's not "intellectual property." It's not a "work" -- an independent implementation whould not violate any copyright -- and IIRC it is not patented.
No, intellectual property is any product of the human intellect that is unique, novel, and unobvious (and has some value in the marketplace). IP can be:
- an idea
- an invention
- an expression or literary creation
- a unique name
- a business method
- an industrial process
- a chemical formula
- a computer program process
- a presentation
The protocol used by MSN Messenger is clearly covered by this definition - it does not need to be patented. This is why, for instance, you cannot bottle some tap water and sell it as "Dasani". Dasani is not a "work", but it is IP, and it is copyrighted.The fact that someone opens a port to the Internet and makes a client available for accessing a server on that port does not automatically mean that the client's algorithm is public knowledge and that the service provided by the server is a public service.
Microsoft's bathroom is for use by patrons only, and even if you are a patron, you must wear shoes and a shirt.
No kidding! Can you remember the first time "Internet Cleaup Day" went around?
I swear that was the happiest day of my life. All the morons logged off, and the net was incredibly fast!
All those graphics that say, "Powered by SomeFrigginTechnology(tm)". Sheesh, that is so 1997.
...they put kibo on this list. I mean, he's not a fad, he's a religion!
Obligatory IANAL... It seems that this differs by municpality and the type of court. In some municipalities in small claims court, the plaintiff gives up this right, but the defendant does not. Otherwise, it appears from what I've been able to dig up online, that either party can demand a trial by jury, and it does not appear to require agreement between the parties. It's funny, but one of the things that I seem to remember seeing in the SCO documents was that SCO is requesting a trial by jury.
Uh, no. You're comparing apples with oranges.
The HTTP protocol is defined in an RFC. It's public knowledge. It is NOT considered IP. Any additions to the protocol will be decided on by the community. If Tim Berners-Lee decides to make changes, he needs to go through the IETF to do so, because he doesn't own the protocol.
Microsoft's MSN protocol is not in the public domain and is considered Microsoft's IP. The only way you make an MSN client is to either reverse engineer the protocol or pay for a license and sign an NDA from Microsoft. Either way, when you do this, the protocol is still Microsoft's, and if they decide to change it, they have every right to do that on their own with nobody's permission.
This is why Jabber is trying to become the IETF standard protocol for instant messaging. It would simplify matters if it was a standard. Right now, the Jabber protocol definitions are still drafts, however.
No, several thousand Indians make that decent programmer's salary in a week.
They can elect to have a jury trial.
It's NOT a disability at all, you insensitive clod!
And, yes, you're correct about the reams of paper. I once produced over 50 pages of report to go along with a 13 line code change.
The point is, you can't run it now on a G5. Microsoft dropped the ball on this one. Why is there no patch for the existing product? What is their timeframe for the new product?
I see you have the magic 8-ball
LOL! Neither do you.
And vice-versa...I don't see your point...Are you a fan of MS(totally acceptable, BTW)?
No, I have no love of Microsoft, which is why I won't buy VirtualPC.
And in that case, is your beef with Apple based
Where did you get the idea I had a beef with Apple? I don't have a beef with Apple.
I have owned several Apple products in the past. I had one of the first Mac Centris 610's to be sold. My parents owned a "Woz" machine - one of the original Apple IIgs machines signed by Steve Wozniak (which was really l337 at the time - 1986). Some of the products that I still keep are my Apple II+ and Newton 2100. I would consider purchasing more Apple products in the future, and I have on several occasions.
purely on price points rather than it's 'propreitary-ness'.
If you're asking about why I have not purchased an Apple product recently, no, it was not primarily price related. It had to do with features. Examples:
- More than quite a few years ago, I purchased a Power Computing machine (they made Apple clones), not because it was cheaper, but because it fscking kicked ASS! It had a bigger hard drive than Apple offered, more memory, a better video digitizer, a faster CDROM (a big deal at the time), and an integrated ZIP drive (FREE, because I went to MacWorld).
- The last time I bought a laptop, I considered buying the PowerBook G4. I didn't purchase it, because after using a laptop with 1400x1050 for a few years, I needed more screen
real estate than the 1280x854 Apple was willing to sell me. The Apple just happened to be more expensive than the PC I did buy with the same features (and a bigger screen 1600x1200).
- I was also thinking about purchasing an iPod. I instead ended up purchasing an Archos, primarily because I don't need to use external software to add music to the Archos, the Archos can record music, and the Archos displays my pictures. It just so happened that the Archos was also less expensive than the iPod.
So basically, the price didn't make much difference, because the features weren't as good.I am loathe to make a car comparison yet again, however I never hear people complaining about how an expensive car is a bad choice seeing as we all are supposed to obey the speed limit.
I won't make that comparision either. However, I will offer the suggestion that an expensive car would be a bad choice when that car is both more expensive and offers less features, which was my experience recently with Apple products (although not in the past). It's also the reason why several years ago, I bought a Mazda instead of a Volkswagon. Now I have a VW instead of a Mazda, because VW changed their feature set to something more useful.
Sure we can all drive Kias, but we don't all want to. Why does extra money spent on a computer have to be taken out of context as more than choosing a car with leather and a Navigation system.
Because the computer simply doesn't offer as many features, especially the ones that I need.
I don't see how MS is any less propreitary than Apple.
Because, even if you strip all the software off an Apple, the firmware and hardware architecture are still proprietary. In fact, for a long time, you couldn't remove MacOS from a Mac if you wanted to run a different OS, because the way the firmware was written, only MacOS could be booted (I don't know if it's still this way or not). On a PC, the firmware and hardware are open and many different vendors make them. There is no issue with booting an OS that isn't Windows, because of this.
I think you are really just a PC gamer(Totally acceptable, BTW) who like many of your brethren are perpetually unable to differentiate computer use as a tool and computer use as a toy.
Actually, no, I'm just a guy that uses PCs to do programming work, pay my taxes, write e-mail, browse the web, etc. I do play the occasional game, but I do that on a console. Last game I bought for PC was UT several years ago.
When they come to you with requests, always get their username!
Then you can provide them with the full user experience they so richly deserve.
MUH, HA, HA, HA!