You seem to be equating "the criminal classes" with "people we mix with because of court-ordered desegregation." If you are saying what I think you are saying, then you, sir, are a racist bigot.
If you want people to create stuff for you to use, you usually have to pay them. You can say that it should be otherwise, but the fact is, most people don't do stuff for free. They just don't. You either pay them, or it doesn't get done.
Fortunately, the GPL has given us a better way to pay people for the work of creating good software: They get paid with everybody else's work.
Wow, this sure feels weird. But I'm actually going to agree with Bill Gates.
If somebody is selling software, taking a copy of it and using it without paying for it is not cool. Taking a copy and selling copies of the copies is even less cool.
I mean, look, we get on people for GPL violations if they use GPL code in something and won't let people have the source code. Why is that bad? Because they are using somebody else's stuff without permission. The author has made it available under some terms, and other people want to make money off of it without following the terms. That is rude; it is unethical; and it is illegal.
Now, given all the stuff that Microsoft has done over the years, i don't think Bill Gates has a lot of room for the moral outrage. And the world might have been a better place had he shared the spirit of the hobbyists - the idea of freely sharing. But he still has a point.
If Microsoft can't bother with the hobbyists, then the hobbyists won't bother with Microsoft. Result: The new cool things will happen on Linux or Mac, not on Windows.
This is not the smartest thing Microsoft has ever done...
The Constitution doesn't allow for martial law, either, but it's been done. By Abraham Lincoln, no less.
The key thing is that, when the crisis was over, he ended martial law. Will Bush end this stuff? Well, it's hard to say - this "crisis" may be with us for a while...
I don't think that's right. The onus is on the plaintiff to prove their case. In this case (if it's ever filed, which I doubt it will be, see below) that it was harassment. Once that's done, if it ever is, then the defendant needs to prove one of his defenses (for example, that the claim was true).
But this looks to me like some people trying to get the FBI to do their lawsuit for them, rather than filing it themselves. If the FBI declines, this is probably going nowhere.
I'm going to assume that a fair amount of Gates' giving does some good. It saves some lives in the third world, it helps some people. Probably a lot of people, given the amount of money involved.
So, from a pragmatic point of view, I don't care whether it's anonymous or not. He wants the credit? Fine. Let him have it. I mean, imagine that you're some dude living in the third world, and some rich American is willing to spend a few bucks so that you don't die from some easily-preventable disease. He's doing it because he wants to be considered a good guy, rather than because he really cares about you, poor third world person that you are. Do you care? Or are you grateful that he did it, for whatever reason? You bet you're grateful. What's more, you probably consider him to be a pretty good guy.
It's like the actor who, immediately after Katrina, went down to New Orleans, rented a boat with his own money, and started pulling people out of houses. So he had a video crew with him. So? If I'm one of the people he saved, do I care that he wanted some publicity? Not at all. In fact, if I ever wound up talking to a reporter, I'd be sure to mention how this wonderful guy spent his own money to rescue me (thereby giving him some publicity).
I'm no Bill Gates fanboy. I despise his business ethics. But I appreciate his charity work.
Don't require the motives to be perfectly pure. Just be glad that he's doing something, for whatever reason.
the guy might be a self-promoting fortune seeker in trying to sue google, but, well, isn't that a key component of our adversarial justice system anyway?
No, the key component is the adversarial judicial system. Fortune seekers, "lawsuit as lottery", no, those most definitely are not a key component of our legal system. They're a bug, not a feature.
That's partly why the standing rules are the way they are. If you are legitimately injured, you can sue. If you don't like what somebody is doing but it doesn't injure you, tough. Mind your own business, because the courts don't care that you don't like what isn't injuring you. I mean, really, do you want to be sued because somebody doesn't like your choice of interior decorations of your house?
To extend that slightly - you're not supposed to go looking for a chance to sue someone. If someone injures you, you're free to sue, but if you go looking for it, that will make the judge look at your side of the case much more harshly, and rightly so.
Valid point. In fact, you could say it a lot stronger: Judges have handed down some pretty wacked-out decisions. Still, in the choice between some random judge and some random./ poster...
But, other than pointing out that my sarcasm may be misplaced, you didn't answer my questions at all.
I'm sure you're right. I'm sure you're much smarter than the judge, and have a much better grasp of the law. What a pity that you weren't the one judging the case!
Sorry, mumbles, but I don't buy it. My money's on the judge being right, and you being a loudmouth with too much time to post over and over, as you have in reply to everybody who argued with you.
And to try to actually contribute something to the debate: So you don't like the "fair use" part of the decision. Fair enough; though as I said, between you and the judge, my money's on the judge as the one who correctly groks what fair use is all about. But that aside, what about the other three points? Most interestingly, what about the "implied license" point?
And what about the judge's assessment that Field was "attempting to manufacture a suit against Google"? That is, this wasn't about actual injury to Field, it was about Field actively looking for a chance to sue someone? Does any of that matter to you?
... and that is that some of Microsoft's whiz-bang new features are also inherently security holes. This is one of my pet peeves, and I'm pleased that he's aware of the issue. If he can get them to actually think about the security implications of their brilliant ideas, that by itself is a good start.
Overall, I was rather impressed. (Kissing my karma goodbye for going against the prevailing sentiment...)
Ever hear of a "free" market? Does that concept ring a bell?
The problem with a monopoly is that there is no free market any more. The monopoly exerts too much control. So to get a normal, free market to function again, you have to control the monopoly.
Digression: Though corporations are legal persons, they aren't real persons. Therefore I don't give a rip about freedom for corporations. I care about freedom for real people - for human beings. If restoring human freedom requires restricting corporations, I'm for it. (And it's looking more and more like this is the case, and not just with monopolies like Microsoft.)
If the patents are valid, then the patent-holder should be able to get relief from an infringer in the courts. The patents are assumed valid. So rather than wait for the PTO to get around to ruling on whether the patents really are valid, the judge is avoiding "justice delayed" by moving the case forward.
But the PTO seems to think that the patents may not be valid.
But the judge can't rule based on the "maybe" that is all that he's gotten from the PTO so far.
Now, it would be reasonable for the judge to say, given that there is still question about the validity of the patents, and given that the patent holder does not have a competing business that will be injured by competition from RIM/Blackberry, and given how much RIM's business would be injured by an injunction, the balance favors waiting for the PTO to rule on the validity and taking things from there. But it isn't as cut and dried as all the techies are making it sound, because it isn't cut and dried that the patents are garbage, and even if it is, it isn't certain what the PTO will rule. This creates a very sticky mess for the judge.
most of those choices were reasonable at the time they were made
No, and some people screamed at the time. What did they scream about? Executing e-mail attachments and ActiveX are the two that I seem to recall, though I'm sure there are others that people said, "That's not a very good idea because of security". But very few listened. In particular, neither Microsoft nor the industry press listened to the idea that a feature could also be a security flaw.
This particular problem has a deeper root. The problem is that the code is working as designed, and is well-designed to do what was intended.
The problem is in what was intended. If your "feature" is a boneheaded security hole, no amount of good design and good coding can save you. All they will get you is a beautifully designed, perfectly coded boneheaded security hole.
Sony now has to release "clean" CDs with NO content protection...which means that they are effectly out of the DRM business for at least two years. That's going to make their music execs hopping mad.
Maybe by the end of the two years, they will have figured out that non-DRMed music sells better than DRMed music. Maybe this settlement forces them to run the experiment that shows them that they can make more money if they don't act like the other music companies.
Think they're bright enough to see the trend in their data?
Hey, I didn't say that the idea was good. I just said that the quoted reason why the idea was bad (that people have a "right" to be online with unsafe boxes) was a really bogus reason.
Laptop and home users also have the right to run an insecure PC.
Yes, but do they have the right to run an insecure PC connected to the Internet? When their insecure PC, if it gets 0wned, is going to have adverse consequences for others on the Internet?
An analogy: I have the right to drive a car that fails safety inspection - on my own land. I do not have the right to drive it on the public roads, where it can endanger others. (Of course, this analogy breaks down, because the government mandates the safety inspection, and the government owns the roads, and in the Internet case, it's not the government that mandates the safe PC, but rather the ISP... and the ISP owns the "road" that I'm putting the unsafe PC on, or at least the road I use to access it... hmm, maybe the analogy isn't that bad.)
Seriously. What if MS isn't just stonewalling because they don't want to have to play on a level field? What if they actually cannot comply?
I have seen some hints that MS doesn't have documentation of some of this stuff. They aren't choosing to just keep it for themselves; they don't have it at all.
My guess is that, for far too long, MS just kept cranking out features, because that's what sold. They "didn't have time" to document it, even internally. The code was the documentation.
And now, it bites them. "Give me features, now, at any price" turns out to have a high price indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
So the "historic use" isn't the historic standard?
My brain hurts...
You seem to be equating "the criminal classes" with "people we mix with because of court-ordered desegregation." If you are saying what I think you are saying, then you, sir, are a racist bigot.
Has DRM ever helped anyone, even including the RIAA?
Fortunately, the GPL has given us a better way to pay people for the work of creating good software: They get paid with everybody else's work.
If somebody is selling software, taking a copy of it and using it without paying for it is not cool. Taking a copy and selling copies of the copies is even less cool.
I mean, look, we get on people for GPL violations if they use GPL code in something and won't let people have the source code. Why is that bad? Because they are using somebody else's stuff without permission. The author has made it available under some terms, and other people want to make money off of it without following the terms. That is rude; it is unethical; and it is illegal.
Now, given all the stuff that Microsoft has done over the years, i don't think Bill Gates has a lot of room for the moral outrage. And the world might have been a better place had he shared the spirit of the hobbyists - the idea of freely sharing. But he still has a point.
If Microsoft can't bother with the hobbyists, then the hobbyists won't bother with Microsoft. Result: The new cool things will happen on Linux or Mac, not on Windows.
This is not the smartest thing Microsoft has ever done...
The Constitution doesn't allow for martial law, either, but it's been done. By Abraham Lincoln, no less.
The key thing is that, when the crisis was over, he ended martial law. Will Bush end this stuff? Well, it's hard to say - this "crisis" may be with us for a while...
But this looks to me like some people trying to get the FBI to do their lawsuit for them, rather than filing it themselves. If the FBI declines, this is probably going nowhere.
Disclaimer: IANAL, but I do read Groklaw.
I'm going to assume that a fair amount of Gates' giving does some good. It saves some lives in the third world, it helps some people. Probably a lot of people, given the amount of money involved.
So, from a pragmatic point of view, I don't care whether it's anonymous or not. He wants the credit? Fine. Let him have it. I mean, imagine that you're some dude living in the third world, and some rich American is willing to spend a few bucks so that you don't die from some easily-preventable disease. He's doing it because he wants to be considered a good guy, rather than because he really cares about you, poor third world person that you are. Do you care? Or are you grateful that he did it, for whatever reason? You bet you're grateful. What's more, you probably consider him to be a pretty good guy.
It's like the actor who, immediately after Katrina, went down to New Orleans, rented a boat with his own money, and started pulling people out of houses. So he had a video crew with him. So? If I'm one of the people he saved, do I care that he wanted some publicity? Not at all. In fact, if I ever wound up talking to a reporter, I'd be sure to mention how this wonderful guy spent his own money to rescue me (thereby giving him some publicity).
I'm no Bill Gates fanboy. I despise his business ethics. But I appreciate his charity work.
Don't require the motives to be perfectly pure. Just be glad that he's doing something, for whatever reason.
No, the key component is the adversarial judicial system. Fortune seekers, "lawsuit as lottery", no, those most definitely are not a key component of our legal system. They're a bug, not a feature.
That's partly why the standing rules are the way they are. If you are legitimately injured, you can sue. If you don't like what somebody is doing but it doesn't injure you, tough. Mind your own business, because the courts don't care that you don't like what isn't injuring you. I mean, really, do you want to be sued because somebody doesn't like your choice of interior decorations of your house?
To extend that slightly - you're not supposed to go looking for a chance to sue someone. If someone injures you, you're free to sue, but if you go looking for it, that will make the judge look at your side of the case much more harshly, and rightly so.
Disclaimer: IANAL
But, other than pointing out that my sarcasm may be misplaced, you didn't answer my questions at all.
Sorry, mumbles, but I don't buy it. My money's on the judge being right, and you being a loudmouth with too much time to post over and over, as you have in reply to everybody who argued with you.
And to try to actually contribute something to the debate: So you don't like the "fair use" part of the decision. Fair enough; though as I said, between you and the judge, my money's on the judge as the one who correctly groks what fair use is all about. But that aside, what about the other three points? Most interestingly, what about the "implied license" point?
And what about the judge's assessment that Field was "attempting to manufacture a suit against Google"? That is, this wasn't about actual injury to Field, it was about Field actively looking for a chance to sue someone? Does any of that matter to you?
Overall, I was rather impressed. (Kissing my karma goodbye for going against the prevailing sentiment...)
Ever hear of a "free" market? Does that concept ring a bell?
The problem with a monopoly is that there is no free market any more. The monopoly exerts too much control. So to get a normal, free market to function again, you have to control the monopoly.
Digression: Though corporations are legal persons, they aren't real persons. Therefore I don't give a rip about freedom for corporations. I care about freedom for real people - for human beings. If restoring human freedom requires restricting corporations, I'm for it. (And it's looking more and more like this is the case, and not just with monopolies like Microsoft.)
... and no, I don't mean his IQ or his ethics.
If the patents are valid, then the patent-holder should be able to get relief from an infringer in the courts. The patents are assumed valid. So rather than wait for the PTO to get around to ruling on whether the patents really are valid, the judge is avoiding "justice delayed" by moving the case forward.
But the PTO seems to think that the patents may not be valid.
But the judge can't rule based on the "maybe" that is all that he's gotten from the PTO so far.
Now, it would be reasonable for the judge to say, given that there is still question about the validity of the patents, and given that the patent holder does not have a competing business that will be injured by competition from RIM/Blackberry, and given how much RIM's business would be injured by an injunction, the balance favors waiting for the PTO to rule on the validity and taking things from there. But it isn't as cut and dried as all the techies are making it sound, because it isn't cut and dried that the patents are garbage, and even if it is, it isn't certain what the PTO will rule. This creates a very sticky mess for the judge.
No, and some people screamed at the time. What did they scream about? Executing e-mail attachments and ActiveX are the two that I seem to recall, though I'm sure there are others that people said, "That's not a very good idea because of security". But very few listened. In particular, neither Microsoft nor the industry press listened to the idea that a feature could also be a security flaw.
The problem is in what was intended. If your "feature" is a boneheaded security hole, no amount of good design and good coding can save you. All they will get you is a beautifully designed, perfectly coded boneheaded security hole.
Not all WMF files have the .wmf extension. Some may have .bmp, .gif, .jpeg, or about a dozen others.
I saw a list a few minutes ago, but I don't remember where...
But you'll only have their stuff for seven years... then they'll be back and you'll be gone!
SCO
'Nuff said.
Maybe by the end of the two years, they will have figured out that non-DRMed music sells better than DRMed music. Maybe this settlement forces them to run the experiment that shows them that they can make more money if they don't act like the other music companies.
Think they're bright enough to see the trend in their data?
Crushing the small guy? When "the small guy" is a patent vampire, I'm all for it!
Hey, I didn't say that the idea was good. I just said that the quoted reason why the idea was bad (that people have a "right" to be online with unsafe boxes) was a really bogus reason.
Yes, but do they have the right to run an insecure PC connected to the Internet? When their insecure PC, if it gets 0wned, is going to have adverse consequences for others on the Internet?
An analogy: I have the right to drive a car that fails safety inspection - on my own land. I do not have the right to drive it on the public roads, where it can endanger others. (Of course, this analogy breaks down, because the government mandates the safety inspection, and the government owns the roads, and in the Internet case, it's not the government that mandates the safe PC, but rather the ISP... and the ISP owns the "road" that I'm putting the unsafe PC on, or at least the road I use to access it... hmm, maybe the analogy isn't that bad.)
Seriously. What if MS isn't just stonewalling because they don't want to have to play on a level field? What if they actually cannot comply?
I have seen some hints that MS doesn't have documentation of some of this stuff. They aren't choosing to just keep it for themselves; they don't have it at all.
My guess is that, for far too long, MS just kept cranking out features, because that's what sold. They "didn't have time" to document it, even internally. The code was the documentation.
And now, it bites them. "Give me features, now, at any price" turns out to have a high price indeed.