Just have two separate sites each post half of a key. They would have to argue that a site should be taken down just because it contains *some* of the numbers in *their* key.
MB: Because their theory has always been to say: we take, and if you don't agree, you have to contact us, and we will then remove your content. But if you enter into that logic, you admit that it's normal what they do. So we said "No". That's not how it works. It's you who has to come to us to request authorizations, and possibly pay us, or negotiate a sales agreement, which could take any form you choose; it could be sharing advertising receipts, it could be a joint-venture with a common entity -- everything is possible. Everything is possible. But it's in this sense that it should work." (MB is Margaret Boribon of Copiepresse)
It seems to me that they were wanting a slice of the financial action.
This part of the interview "Because their (Google's) theory has always been to say: we take, and if you don't agree, you have to contact us, and we will then remove your content." seems to be what the ruling states.
It seems to me that Microsoft needs someone to publish this sort of exploit. Vista would appear to be going nowhere in the market with the DRM mill-stone around its neck.
"This is done by means of the so called 'license fee' - a license to watch TV, all of the receipts from which go to the BBC."
Whilst I agree with most of your points, I feel I must point out that the licence is actually to allow you to *use equipment* to receive TV broadcasts.
" When you've contributed as much to charity as Gates has, you can open your mouths."
As a proportion of my wealth I probably have contibuted as much, and *I* do not expect to get anything in return.
"He's donated billions of dollars worth of medicine to children all over Africa and elsewhere. If anyone in this world has "put up or shut up," it's Mr. Gates. He is expressing genuine concern."
He is pouring ridicule on those who are trying to help the worlds needy people. I think that this shows how his concern is *not* genuine. I expect that the few billions he has spent, has been carefully calculated to be of good value to himself. The only "genuine concern" he is expressing is the concern that his potential market is ebbing away.
"In a five-page document filed Friday, SCO attorneys say they have identified 217 areas in which the company believes IBM or Sequent, a Unix server company IBM acquired, violated contracts under which SCO and its predecessors licensed the Unix operating system."
No copyright infringement claims made by SCOG. What were those Linux licences they were selling for, exactly?
It expresses my feelings on the subject. If the Linux comminity follow the rules of the corporations then it will lose. What it had can not be beaten. Lets hope that it has not gone forever.
Slashdot Mirror
"There's actually quite compelling evidence of shady or unfair goings on in that trial."
I think you are correct, however I seem to recall that SGOG was involved in all of them.
Will it be running Linux?
"The only thing that can rival Microsoft's FUD, is the fud coming from thousands of geeks banded together :)"
Microsofts position when it comes to technical matters is even worse. Geeks are good at tech, but not much interested at FUDing.
Just have two separate sites each post half of a key. They would have to argue that a site should be taken down just because it contains *some* of the numbers in *their* key.
If the figures in the linked article http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=096 AC51E-EE83-413C-B32A-A4FFDE598E9F are close to being accurate then MS are losing $18.5 on each sale (this is without the addition of the cost of development & manufacture). Selling into markets at below cost is called "dumping" and is usually sanctioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_poli cy)
What makes MS a special case? Nothing.
A short lived UK web site had early details of the case back in February 2006. http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/ Stocks_S/threadview?m=tm&bn=2942&tid=342492&mid=41 7017&tof=-1&rt=2&frt=2&off=1
It made no difference to the case. GL and all the debate around it is just that, debate.
Still it whiles away a Sunday.
Here is what they said in an interview published on Groklaw. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200610110 8382797
"23:35
MB: Because their theory has always been to say: we take, and if you don't agree, you have to contact us, and we will then remove your content. But if you enter into that logic, you admit that it's normal what they do. So we said "No". That's not how it works. It's you who has to come to us to request authorizations, and possibly pay us, or negotiate a sales agreement, which could take any form you choose; it could be sharing advertising receipts, it could be a joint-venture with a common entity -- everything is possible. Everything is possible. But it's in this sense that it should work." (MB is Margaret Boribon of Copiepresse)
It seems to me that they were wanting a slice of the financial action.
This part of the interview "Because their (Google's) theory has always been to say: we take, and if you don't agree, you have to contact us, and we will then remove your content." seems to be what the ruling states.
It seems to me that Microsoft needs someone to publish this sort of exploit. Vista would appear to be going nowhere in the market with the DRM mill-stone around its neck.
....you may possess it, but you do not own it.
"It's also only available in the US."
It is worse than that. It is only available to Windows users. Is the BBC a subsidiary of Microsoft?
"And rightfully proud, of course." Amen to that, but we should not forget the bloke who started that Open Letter ball rolling. A big thank you should go to John Gabriel for conceiving the idea and drafting the first draft. Seems that some might like to have him forgotten if this exchange is anything to go by.i d=20061122194903923&title=Yes%20I%20do%20remember% 20our%20letter.&type=article&order=&hideanonymous= 0&pid=0#c508129
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&s
Just trying to keep the record straight.
This subject matters?
"one of the most important targets on the planet."
Even though it will be covered in a giant mound of ferrous scrap.
"This is done by means of the so called 'license fee' - a license to watch TV, all of the receipts from which go to the BBC."
Whilst I agree with most of your points, I feel I must point out that the licence is actually to allow you to *use equipment* to receive TV broadcasts.
What a sense of humor, he is a dry old stick.
" When you've contributed as much to charity as Gates has, you can open your mouths."
As a proportion of my wealth I probably have contibuted as much, and *I* do not expect to get anything in return.
"He's donated billions of dollars worth of medicine to children all over Africa and elsewhere. If anyone in this world has "put up or shut up," it's Mr. Gates. He is expressing genuine concern."
He is pouring ridicule on those who are trying to help the worlds needy people. I think that this shows how his concern is *not* genuine. I expect that the few billions he has spent, has been carefully calculated to be of good value to himself.
The only "genuine concern" he is expressing is the concern that his potential market is ebbing away.
"followed by a slew of new features aimed at letting the NSA snoop on how you search the web."
No. Those features are in place and ready to go on day one.
"PJ, we are not worthy."
Well the BBC appealed for people to come forward with cell phone camera pictures, (their usual MO these days) but no eye-witnesses responded.
"In a five-page document filed Friday, SCO attorneys say they have identified 217 areas in which the company believes IBM or Sequent, a Unix server company IBM acquired, violated contracts under which SCO and its predecessors licensed the Unix operating system."
No copyright infringement claims made by SCOG. What were those Linux licences they were selling for, exactly?
"Is this how he wants it used?" /.
He also said we are all wankers on
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
It expresses my feelings on the subject. If the Linux comminity follow the rules of the corporations then it will lose. What it had can not be beaten.
Lets hope that it has not gone forever.
I do not get involved in arguments with religious fanatics.
it will only work if our IQ's total 236.