They should be preemptively declared vexatious litigants in every state of the union. That would really fix their wagon.
But is that really appropriate? I mean, are they vexatious litigants?
vexatious adjective/veksSHs/
Causing or tending to cause annoyance, frustration, or worry - the vexatious questions posed by software copyrights
Denoting an action or the bringer of an action that is brought without sufficient grounds for winning, purely to cause annoyance to the defendant
... it seems to me, that if they are actually assaulted (or have their civil rights violated by a government)... their legal actions *will* have sufficient grounds for winning.
Ultimately, people need to understand what they're after and respond accordingly -- i.e. ignore them.
they offered a free license to 'their' 'technology' i would refuse to accept it, returning all correspondence in a traceable manner, and make it damn clear that their patent has zero merit
Well, that's nice.
But a business might make a different decision. After all, such a decision comes with risk. They *could* sue, and there's a court in Texas that's well known for finding in the plaintiff's favor for patent suits, Defending against such a suit would be expensive, and you run the risk of losing no matter how little merit their patent has.
All that expense and risk could have been avoided by simply accepting their free license.
Yes, your decision is likely best for society as a whole, but helping society as a whole doesn't put food on your plate.
They just want to make headlines, and publicity is the only god that they worship.
They want publicity, yes. Because they want somebody to assault them or violate their civil rights, so they can sue.
This page explains how they work pretty well. Basically, they're all lawyers, and the moment something happens, they sue, and all their paperwork is perfect.
OK, but you're right too. Most judges and juries will have heard of WiFi before -- many probably even use it.
Fair or not, that could make things a little harder for the patent holders in such cases if they do go to trial, since people may be inclined to think it's "obvious to the layperson". (Even if it wasn't when it was invented/patented.)
Either way, I'm pretty sure the patent troll's plan is to avoid actually going to trial on this.
Would I be infringing the patent if I used WaveLAN? Its wireless networking developed in the 80's according to Wikipedia. No patent relating to that should still be valid.
Also, there could be more recent updates to the protocol that are covered. I don't know anything about the patents this story is about, but for example... WiFi could have had all its patents expire, but WPA and WPA2 are more recent and are still covered by patents. (This is just me giving an example -- I'm not saying WPA/WPA2/etc are covered by patents or aren't covered by patents or anything, really.)
What if I bought a broadcom product covered by the broadcom owned patents before they were sold to this troll?
Might be an effective defense. My guess is that they'd drop a case against you if that applied and you brought it up (or give you an "updated" license for $1 or something) -- it's not like they actually want it to go to court.
But but.. how are they going to find a judge who doesn't use wireless technology?
They don't have to. If anybody actually does defend against their suit, they just drop the suit. Or offer a license for $1 instead of thousands (that way, they can still claim a victory, even if it really isn't.)
They certainly don't expect to be taken to court over this -- if they did, they'd be asking for more money. As it stands, they're keeping the cost of settling less than the cost of any sort of defense, which makes any rational person want to settle. Only somebody with an axe to burn would actually defend against the suit -- it would cost more, and there's always the risk of losing.
Some brave(r) HW manufacturer or service provider needs to act as an indemnifier and take up the fight on behalf of their customers...
But where's the money in that for them?
Also, they run the risk of *losing*. Courts don't always get it right -- and for all we know, the patent might actually be valid. (I haven't read it, and even if I had, I'm probably not qualified to determine if it's valid and it applies to WiFi anyways.)
It shouldn't be one brave HW manufacturer or service provider. It really should be all of them working together, as the end result benefits (or hurts) all of them.
The ham radio rules for spread spectrum use limit you to one watt if you aren't using something to automatically limit the power level to the minimum required, or 100 watts if you do.
Outside of spread spectrum, I think the power limit is 1500 watts. Of course, most of the fun stuff on the 2.4 GHz band is spread spectrum.
Of course, high power 2.4 GHz gear tends to be expensive, and most hams who muck with WiFi under the ham rules simply use off the shelf equipment with their limited power -- but they often put highly directional antennas on it. (Which the non hams often do too, but at some point that becomes illegal (when the ERP gets too large.) Not that it's likely that anything will happen to them for doing it.)
Wait for them to turn on the MRI and BAM!!! All your magnetic field are belong to us!!!
In general, the magnets in a MRI are always on. So really, all you need to do is get close to the device and the drive will be ripped out of your hand and smash onto the MRI, hopefully not damaging the MRI too much, but they may have to quench the superconducting magnets (i.e. this is a big deal) to remove it.
The drive would probably be erased, however. And if not, it'll probably be smashed to some degree, which isn't a bad thing when you want it destroyed. Hopefully they won't be able to find any fingerprints or camera footage of you doing this to use to send you a bill for the damage to the MRI...
Most microwaves oven are supposed to work right at 2450 MHz, so if you want to avoid microwave ovens (which you should if there's one in the area and it's used often), you want to use the highest or the lowest numbered WiFi channel -- you don't need a spectrum analyzer to tell you that.
But if you want to see the results of one on many microwave ovens... here you go. It looks like the exact bandwidth used by their signals vary quite a bit, though my advice above still stands in the majority of cases.
Of course, there are other 2.4 GHz band users as well, and a scanner could be useful for pinpointing those.
What I don't get is why are people using "bash" as if it was synonymous with "the command line" ?
It's not.
We've had command lines for far longer than we had bash, the Bourne shell or even *nix. And even after bash was created, even on *nix systems -- people use other shells other than bash. csh, sh, zsh, tcsh, and lots of even more obscure ones.
And of course, most OSs have had a command line. *nix and it's shells just make it that much more powerful and flexible than most of what's available on other OSs, though from what I've heard, Windows PowerShell sounds pretty amazing.
Forget the actual medical applications. The applications for pseudo medicine are just as good. There are already a ton of people sleeping on magnetic mats. They would eat this up. Maybe even literally.
I'm not so sure...
I mean, I certainly do believe that some people feel that magnetic fields (even static ones like the one created by the Earth) are making them sick -- but the technology to stop this in a room has been around for decades -- it's called a thick magnetic metal (iron, steel) box. If you've got a large budget and it needs to be as perfect as possible -- make it out of mu-metal. Usually this is used for scientific and other work where reducing the magnetic field as much as possible really matters -- but if somebody really is afraid of the effects that magnetic fields have on their body, they have been able to do something about that for a long time now.
It sounds like the key to this new discovery is not disturbing the magnetic field -- but that's not important if your goal is simply to have a space devoid of a magnetic field.
Hadn't heard of lzip before. It looks nice all around.
Looks like the "ddrescue guys" and the "lzip guys" are the same guy -- Antonio Diaz Diaz. (at least he's listed as the copyright owner in both man pages, I haven't dug deeper than that.) So that might explain some of why the documentation for one keeps suggesting the use of the other.
Not to say that they aren't good software. I've used ddrescue before and it's very nice. Never used lzip, but so far, the only argument against using it would seem to be that it's not very standard -- but for your own backups, that's a non-issue.
You could also buy a cheap uninterruptable power supply (battery) or line filter (capacitors) for the same effect.
A (cheap) UPS generally latches it's output directly to the A/C input rather than conditioning the power in any way beyond a surge protector. If there is a problem with the incoming power, it disconnects the A/C input and switches to battery in a fraction of a second, but until that happens, it wouldn't do much to mask exactly how much power is used from instant to instant (beyond the small amount of power it consumes itself, mostly to charge it's battery.)
Some fancier UPSs are always powered by the battery and these would have the desired effect, but they aren't the cheap ones you'll find at Frys.
Yeah, I think zip and rar files are a little more flexible than, say, tar.gz, since there are still some partial recovery options you can do to extract as many files as you can. With tar.gz, you pretty much lose everything after the corrupted data.
Good point about tar.gz. Similarly, using gzip to compress data that's stored on a tape is a bad plan as well.
However, the solution to that is pretty simple... tar.bz2. bzip2 reblocks periodically, so a single bad block will corrupt only a MB or so of the corrupted stream before it reblocks.
I was thinking more about "archives" being zip, tar, ar, rar, etc files -- but certainly, "tar -zcvvvf/dev/nrtape files" is dangerous for the reason you gave. bzip2 is better.
zip compresses each file individually, as does rar (by default, anyways -- it can do the entire archive at once if you tell it to) so they aren't so bad.
But I suppose what subby really wants is some magical software that will read the archive checksum, then try all permutations of possible values that could fill the corrupted portion and satisfy that checksum, until he can reconstruct the original zipfile.
I hope you realize how implausible that is, right?
Suppose only a single 512 byte block was corrupted, and you know exactly which block it is. That leaves only 256^512 or "1 followed by 1233 zeros" possible options to check. Considering that the checksum is only 32 or 128 bits in size, there's going to be oodles of false positives generated in the quadrillions of years (and I have understated this by over a thousand orders of magnitude) this would take.
1) an error inside a zip file (or any compressed archive format) means that any file inside the archive that is stored on the corrupted part of the disk is corrupted. Compare this to the situation without a zip file -- any file stored on the corrupted part of the disk is corrupted.
The rest of of the files in the zip file, the ones stored on parts of the disk that aren't corrupted, are recoverable.
Now, if the table of contents of the zip file is corrupted but the data itself is OK, then you can still recover the data, but it becomes more difficult -- and you'll lose the names of the files. Compare this to the situation where the directory data for the diskette is corrupted but the rest of the disk is fine -- same thing.
The only important difference between files stored in a zip file that are corrupted and files just on the disk that are corrupted here is that if there's an error in the middle of the compressed data in the zip file, that means the file is corrupt from that point on for a file compressed in a zip archive, but that only those blocks are corrupt in the case of a file just on the disk. Does it make a difference how much of the file is corrupt? Maybe. If it's a text file that can't be recovered, yes. But if it's an executable or some data file that just can't be loaded either way -- not really.
2) the zip archive means that the data probably requires less space on the disk. It may not have even fit on the floppy at all without compression. That alone is a pretty important reason to use compression in archives. If you can cram twice as much data on a single floppy -- you could possibly store it on two floppies instead, giving you a backup in case one floppy fails.
3) being compressed means that the file took less space on the disk -- therefore the odds of one of it's blocks becoming corrupt goes down similarly. (Assuming that just a handful of blocks have become corrupt. If the whole disk goes bad, you're screwed either way. Of course, with compression, losing an entire disk means you've lost even more data. But I'm not sure using 360 KB floppies rather than 1.4 MB floppies is really an appropriate data saving measure either.)
4) compressed archives almost always have checksums of some sort which will tell you if their data is corrupted. Of course, some archive formats that don't involve compression have checksums too -- but many don't.
It's very good to be able to tell quickly and programatically if your data has been corrupted.
What is the point of a $1k house when land costs at least 100x that amount?
Perhaps you don't need to build your $1k house downtown in a big city?
Most land costs far, far less than that. There's lots of land available in Texas (to pick the state I live in) where it's around $200-$300/acre, and an acre is enough to put a few houses on. Granted, most of this land isn't terribly desirable, but getting a 1/3rd acre plot that's not too far from a city and not too bad for $1000 ought to be doable.
To be fair, stem cell treatments aren't quite known to be safe (or effective) yet.
There is a lot of promise there, but as I understand it, many of them don't seem particularly effective yet and the safety is uncertain.
The FDA is very conservative -- that much is clear. Perhaps *too* conservative, especially in the case of patients who are dying -- but there's a good reason for them to be conservative.
The problem is for people who don't have insurances and can't pay for traveling outside their nation.
Fortunately, Mexico is quite close and can be visited cheaply, especially if you live in Texas or another close state.
I've got some friends who went down their for major dental work (nothing controversial or unavailable here) and paid a small fraction of what they were quoted in the US.
From the two videos I saw, it didn't look like the pilot lost control. It looks more like he attempted an inverted loop, but misjudged the amount of altitude he needed to complete it.
Perhaps, but this was an air *race* -- there's no reason for him to do a loop.
What good would full hard disk encryption do against a copyright lawsuit? The judge would order you to decrypt the data, and you'd be obligated to oblige or be found in contempt of court and put in jail (the right to not incriminate yourself is only for criminal cases and this would be a civil case.)
Slashdot Mirror
Bullies don't stop unless they get bopped on the nose, or an "adult" intervenes firmly and repeatedly. (I'm hoping for the latter in this case.)
OK, what form should this bop take? Which adult would be able to intervene? A police officer? They are limited by the laws and Constitution.
Be specific. Just try to make sure your solution isn't worse than the problem.
Going to hire some assassins? They might be able to "intervene firmly" if that's what you're after.
They should be preemptively declared vexatious litigants in every state of the union. That would really fix their wagon.
But is that really appropriate? I mean, are they vexatious litigants?
vexatious
adjective/veksSHs/
Causing or tending to cause annoyance, frustration, or worry
- the vexatious questions posed by software copyrights
Denoting an action or the bringer of an action that is brought without sufficient grounds for winning, purely to cause annoyance to the defendant
... it seems to me, that if they are actually assaulted (or have their civil rights violated by a government) ... their legal actions *will* have sufficient grounds for winning.
Ultimately, people need to understand what they're after and respond accordingly -- i.e. ignore them.
they offered a free license to 'their' 'technology' i would refuse to accept it, returning all correspondence in a traceable manner, and make it damn clear that their patent has zero merit
Well, that's nice.
But a business might make a different decision. After all, such a decision comes with risk. They *could* sue, and there's a court in Texas that's well known for finding in the plaintiff's favor for patent suits, Defending against such a suit would be expensive, and you run the risk of losing no matter how little merit their patent has.
All that expense and risk could have been avoided by simply accepting their free license.
Yes, your decision is likely best for society as a whole, but helping society as a whole doesn't put food on your plate.
They just want to make headlines, and publicity is the only god that they worship.
They want publicity, yes. Because they want somebody to assault them or violate their civil rights, so they can sue.
This page explains how they work pretty well. Basically, they're all lawyers, and the moment something happens, they sue, and all their paperwork is perfect.
(psst.. I was joking)
OK, but you're right too. Most judges and juries will have heard of WiFi before -- many probably even use it.
Fair or not, that could make things a little harder for the patent holders in such cases if they do go to trial, since people may be inclined to think it's "obvious to the layperson". (Even if it wasn't when it was invented/patented.)
Either way, I'm pretty sure the patent troll's plan is to avoid actually going to trial on this.
Would I be infringing the patent if I used WaveLAN? Its wireless networking developed in the 80's according to Wikipedia. No patent relating to that should still be valid.
You might think that, but ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent
Also, there could be more recent updates to the protocol that are covered. I don't know anything about the patents this story is about, but for example ... WiFi could have had all its patents expire, but WPA and WPA2 are more recent and are still covered by patents. (This is just me giving an example -- I'm not saying WPA/WPA2/etc are covered by patents or aren't covered by patents or anything, really.)
What if I bought a broadcom product covered by the broadcom owned patents before they were sold to this troll?
Might be an effective defense. My guess is that they'd drop a case against you if that applied and you brought it up (or give you an "updated" license for $1 or something) -- it's not like they actually want it to go to court.
But but.. how are they going to find a judge who doesn't use wireless technology?
They don't have to. If anybody actually does defend against their suit, they just drop the suit. Or offer a license for $1 instead of thousands (that way, they can still claim a victory, even if it really isn't.)
They certainly don't expect to be taken to court over this -- if they did, they'd be asking for more money. As it stands, they're keeping the cost of settling less than the cost of any sort of defense, which makes any rational person want to settle. Only somebody with an axe to burn would actually defend against the suit -- it would cost more, and there's always the risk of losing.
Some brave(r) HW manufacturer or service provider needs to act as an indemnifier and take up the fight on behalf of their customers...
But where's the money in that for them?
Also, they run the risk of *losing*. Courts don't always get it right -- and for all we know, the patent might actually be valid. (I haven't read it, and even if I had, I'm probably not qualified to determine if it's valid and it applies to WiFi anyways.)
It shouldn't be one brave HW manufacturer or service provider. It really should be all of them working together, as the end result benefits (or hurts) all of them.
Can we patent football plays? That would get their attention.
I don't see why we couldn't. Interesting idea ...
The ham radio rules for spread spectrum use limit you to one watt if you aren't using something to automatically limit the power level to the minimum required, or 100 watts if you do.
Outside of spread spectrum, I think the power limit is 1500 watts. Of course, most of the fun stuff on the 2.4 GHz band is spread spectrum.
Of course, high power 2.4 GHz gear tends to be expensive, and most hams who muck with WiFi under the ham rules simply use off the shelf equipment with their limited power -- but they often put highly directional antennas on it. (Which the non hams often do too, but at some point that becomes illegal (when the ERP gets too large.) Not that it's likely that anything will happen to them for doing it.)
... assuming they're glass platters. They aren't all, after all.
Wait for them to turn on the MRI and BAM!!! All your magnetic field are belong to us!!!
In general, the magnets in a MRI are always on. So really, all you need to do is get close to the device and the drive will be ripped out of your hand and smash onto the MRI, hopefully not damaging the MRI too much, but they may have to quench the superconducting magnets (i.e. this is a big deal) to remove it.
The drive would probably be erased, however. And if not, it'll probably be smashed to some degree, which isn't a bad thing when you want it destroyed. Hopefully they won't be able to find any fingerprints or camera footage of you doing this to use to send you a bill for the damage to the MRI ...
Most microwaves oven are supposed to work right at 2450 MHz, so if you want to avoid microwave ovens (which you should if there's one in the area and it's used often), you want to use the highest or the lowest numbered WiFi channel -- you don't need a spectrum analyzer to tell you that.
But if you want to see the results of one on many microwave ovens ... here you go. It looks like the exact bandwidth used by their signals vary quite a bit, though my advice above still stands in the majority of cases.
Of course, there are other 2.4 GHz band users as well, and a scanner could be useful for pinpointing those.
What I don't get is why are people using "bash" as if it was synonymous with "the command line" ?
It's not.
We've had command lines for far longer than we had bash, the Bourne shell or even *nix. And even after bash was created, even on *nix systems -- people use other shells other than bash. csh, sh, zsh, tcsh, and lots of even more obscure ones.
And of course, most OSs have had a command line. *nix and it's shells just make it that much more powerful and flexible than most of what's available on other OSs, though from what I've heard, Windows PowerShell sounds pretty amazing.
Forget the actual medical applications. The applications for pseudo medicine are just as good. There are already a ton of people sleeping on magnetic mats. They would eat this up. Maybe even literally.
I'm not so sure ...
I mean, I certainly do believe that some people feel that magnetic fields (even static ones like the one created by the Earth) are making them sick -- but the technology to stop this in a room has been around for decades -- it's called a thick magnetic metal (iron, steel) box. If you've got a large budget and it needs to be as perfect as possible -- make it out of mu-metal. Usually this is used for scientific and other work where reducing the magnetic field as much as possible really matters -- but if somebody really is afraid of the effects that magnetic fields have on their body, they have been able to do something about that for a long time now.
It sounds like the key to this new discovery is not disturbing the magnetic field -- but that's not important if your goal is simply to have a space devoid of a magnetic field.
Isn't there a cctv camera in every single ATM? Do not "they" have image recognition algorithms? ;-)
So you walk up to the ATM from the side, put a sticker over the camera. (Possibly days before you install the skimmer.) Or just do it with a mask on.
And as already said ... many (most?) non-bank ATMs don't have cameras. Probably because they don't think they're cost effective.
Hadn't heard of lzip before. It looks nice all around.
Looks like the "ddrescue guys" and the "lzip guys" are the same guy -- Antonio Diaz Diaz. (at least he's listed as the copyright owner in both man pages, I haven't dug deeper than that.) So that might explain some of why the documentation for one keeps suggesting the use of the other.
Not to say that they aren't good software. I've used ddrescue before and it's very nice. Never used lzip, but so far, the only argument against using it would seem to be that it's not very standard -- but for your own backups, that's a non-issue.
You could also buy a cheap uninterruptable power supply (battery) or line filter (capacitors) for the same effect.
A (cheap) UPS generally latches it's output directly to the A/C input rather than conditioning the power in any way beyond a surge protector. If there is a problem with the incoming power, it disconnects the A/C input and switches to battery in a fraction of a second, but until that happens, it wouldn't do much to mask exactly how much power is used from instant to instant (beyond the small amount of power it consumes itself, mostly to charge it's battery.)
Some fancier UPSs are always powered by the battery and these would have the desired effect, but they aren't the cheap ones you'll find at Frys.
Yeah, I think zip and rar files are a little more flexible than, say, tar.gz, since there are still some partial recovery options you can do to extract as many files as you can. With tar.gz, you pretty much lose everything after the corrupted data.
Good point about tar.gz. Similarly, using gzip to compress data that's stored on a tape is a bad plan as well.
However, the solution to that is pretty simple ... tar.bz2. bzip2 reblocks periodically, so a single bad block will corrupt only a MB or so of the corrupted stream before it reblocks.
I was thinking more about "archives" being zip, tar, ar, rar, etc files -- but certainly, "tar -zcvvvf /dev/nrtape files" is dangerous for the reason you gave. bzip2 is better.
zip compresses each file individually, as does rar (by default, anyways -- it can do the entire archive at once if you tell it to) so they aren't so bad.
But I suppose what subby really wants is some magical software that will read the archive checksum, then try all permutations of possible values that could fill the corrupted portion and satisfy that checksum, until he can reconstruct the original zipfile.
I hope you realize how implausible that is, right?
Suppose only a single 512 byte block was corrupted, and you know exactly which block it is. That leaves only 256^512 or "1 followed by 1233 zeros" possible options to check. Considering that the checksum is only 32 or 128 bits in size, there's going to be oodles of false positives generated in the quadrillions of years (and I have understated this by over a thousand orders of magnitude) this would take.
don't
Clever, but ...
1) an error inside a zip file (or any compressed archive format) means that any file inside the archive that is stored on the corrupted part of the disk is corrupted. Compare this to the situation without a zip file -- any file stored on the corrupted part of the disk is corrupted.
The rest of of the files in the zip file, the ones stored on parts of the disk that aren't corrupted, are recoverable.
Now, if the table of contents of the zip file is corrupted but the data itself is OK, then you can still recover the data, but it becomes more difficult -- and you'll lose the names of the files. Compare this to the situation where the directory data for the diskette is corrupted but the rest of the disk is fine -- same thing.
The only important difference between files stored in a zip file that are corrupted and files just on the disk that are corrupted here is that if there's an error in the middle of the compressed data in the zip file, that means the file is corrupt from that point on for a file compressed in a zip archive, but that only those blocks are corrupt in the case of a file just on the disk. Does it make a difference how much of the file is corrupt? Maybe. If it's a text file that can't be recovered, yes. But if it's an executable or some data file that just can't be loaded either way -- not really.
2) the zip archive means that the data probably requires less space on the disk. It may not have even fit on the floppy at all without compression. That alone is a pretty important reason to use compression in archives. If you can cram twice as much data on a single floppy -- you could possibly store it on two floppies instead, giving you a backup in case one floppy fails.
3) being compressed means that the file took less space on the disk -- therefore the odds of one of it's blocks becoming corrupt goes down similarly. (Assuming that just a handful of blocks have become corrupt. If the whole disk goes bad, you're screwed either way. Of course, with compression, losing an entire disk means you've lost even more data. But I'm not sure using 360 KB floppies rather than 1.4 MB floppies is really an appropriate data saving measure either.)
4) compressed archives almost always have checksums of some sort which will tell you if their data is corrupted. Of course, some archive formats that don't involve compression have checksums too -- but many don't.
It's very good to be able to tell quickly and programatically if your data has been corrupted.
What is the point of a $1k house when land costs at least 100x that amount?
Perhaps you don't need to build your $1k house downtown in a big city?
Most land costs far, far less than that. There's lots of land available in Texas (to pick the state I live in) where it's around $200-$300/acre, and an acre is enough to put a few houses on. Granted, most of this land isn't terribly desirable, but getting a 1/3rd acre plot that's not too far from a city and not too bad for $1000 ought to be doable.
that are safely available in other countries.
To be fair, stem cell treatments aren't quite known to be safe (or effective) yet.
There is a lot of promise there, but as I understand it, many of them don't seem particularly effective yet and the safety is uncertain.
The FDA is very conservative -- that much is clear. Perhaps *too* conservative, especially in the case of patients who are dying -- but there's a good reason for them to be conservative.
The problem is for people who don't have insurances and can't pay for traveling outside their nation.
Fortunately, Mexico is quite close and can be visited cheaply, especially if you live in Texas or another close state.
I've got some friends who went down their for major dental work (nothing controversial or unavailable here) and paid a small fraction of what they were quoted in the US.
From the two videos I saw, it didn't look like the pilot lost control. It looks more like he attempted an inverted loop, but misjudged the amount of altitude he needed to complete it.
Perhaps, but this was an air *race* -- there's no reason for him to do a loop.
Something went wrong before he went up like that.
What good would full hard disk encryption do against a copyright lawsuit? The judge would order you to decrypt the data, and you'd be obligated to oblige or be found in contempt of court and put in jail (the right to not incriminate yourself is only for criminal cases and this would be a civil case.)