for some reason, whenever i think of this whole debarcle, snippets of the buffy episode 'once more with feeling' come to mind.
perhaps it's because as a concept, the idea that linux coders copied code from sco is almost as preposterous as the idea of a musical vampire slayer. except joss managed to pull his stunt off.
as april fools day jokes go, mcbride's little jape has gone on far too long.
the 'we can prove it, but you can't reveal our proof' argument was always too ridiculous for words.
how did he prove to those who signed the non-disclosure agreements that the code being shown to them was indeed sys v and linux code? oh, that's right - its a secret. why couldn't sco simply publish a description of the 'offending' code so the linux community could act to prevent further 'infringement' by rewriting it?
one of the central tenets of intellectual property law [indeed civil law generally] is about providing people with the opportunity to stop infringing the asserted rights. you tell them, they choose to desist or risk being taken to court where a bunch of lawyers make the decision for you.
since sco went out of their way to engineer an argument that prevented the linux community from responding in an informed way to the allegations of breach, how could mcbride reasonably expect us to take his claims seriously.
by ensuring that we could not act to prevent further breaches ourselves, he ensured that his 'licensing' proposal was the only obvious legal remedy. but of course, he only targets 'breachers' with money. so the only reasonable interpretation was - this is a cash grab.
that's never a good position if you have to go to court. the first thing a court will ask is: 'what have you done to afford the alleged breacher an opportunity to cease breaching?' [to display bona fides by both parties that this is about protecting (the value of) intellectual property].
if you've gone out of your way to ensure they can't stop breaching, indeed you countenance the continued breach and seek to profit from it... your victim could counter-argue extortion, or at least a lack of bona fides.
particularly if the only way you'll let them ascertain the validity of your claim is to make them enter into a contract with you first (the nda).
scamming isn't a long term business strategy. it's a hit and run activity. and mcbride ought to know that.
the threshold for obtaining an anton pillar order is (supposed) to be quite high. the common law generally resists intervening without notice in the affairs of legal or natural persons. [in practice more so for legal persons - coz they have money...]
to obtain an anton pillar order, one is supposed to demonstrate an urgent need to act to preserve evidence.
the obvious presumption being that the target entity, if given notice, would immediately act to destroy the evidence in question - and the applicant is supposed to demonstrate sufficient cause to believe that the target entity might indeed do so.
also presumed, and to be demonstrated, is that there is sufficient cause to believe that the target entity actually has material relevant to the applicant's interests. it has to be more than a suspicion - more than just fishing for something to use against the target.
different jurisdictions have different thresholds for anton pillars. there are also statutory mechanisms available in some jurisdictions that can be used in place of anton pillar's - often with broader powers and/or lower thresholds.
by bringing the isp's to court, the cria can argue they're being fair. and it's safer than going for an anton pillar.
it also achieves the same result. parties to a civil action cannot act to the detriment of the other party - they cannot readily dispose of assets that could be used to pay compensation, for example.
that would relate to a specific patient record - or at worst, a limited class of patient records.
wouldn't take a big brain, or unlimited hours, to track it down.
consider, however, trying to pin down the patient who walked into the er sometime between a wednesday and friday last august in one of two hospitals in new york. and the only thing you know about them is that they wore a jacket emblazoned with he number 16 and a name.
and now imagine that you were a visitor to one of those er's during that time, and you loaned some guy your jacket. you were both caught on the hospital video system wearing a jacket fiting the description...
ever been the target of an investigation?
Slashdot Mirror
yeah. but so do the police ...
for some reason, whenever i think of this whole debarcle, snippets of the buffy episode 'once more with feeling' come to mind.
perhaps it's because as a concept, the idea that linux coders copied code from sco is almost as preposterous as the idea of a musical vampire slayer. except joss managed to pull his stunt off.
as april fools day jokes go, mcbride's little jape has gone on far too long.
the 'we can prove it, but you can't reveal our proof' argument was always too ridiculous for words.
how did he prove to those who signed the non-disclosure agreements that the code being shown to them was indeed sys v and linux code? oh, that's right - its a secret. why couldn't sco simply publish a description of the 'offending' code so the linux community could act to prevent further 'infringement' by rewriting it?
one of the central tenets of intellectual property law [indeed civil law generally] is about providing people with the opportunity to stop infringing the asserted rights. you tell them, they choose to desist or risk being taken to court where a bunch of lawyers make the decision for you.
since sco went out of their way to engineer an argument that prevented the linux community from responding in an informed way to the allegations of breach, how could mcbride reasonably expect us to take his claims seriously.
by ensuring that we could not act to prevent further breaches ourselves, he ensured that his 'licensing' proposal was the only obvious legal remedy. but of course, he only targets 'breachers' with money. so the only reasonable interpretation was - this is a cash grab.
that's never a good position if you have to go to court. the first thing a court will ask is: 'what have you done to afford the alleged breacher an opportunity to cease breaching?' [to display bona fides by both parties that this is about protecting (the value of) intellectual property].
if you've gone out of your way to ensure they can't stop breaching, indeed you countenance the continued breach and seek to profit from it ... your victim could counter-argue extortion, or at least a lack of bona fides.
particularly if the only way you'll let them ascertain the validity of your claim is to make them enter into a contract with you first (the nda).
scamming isn't a long term business strategy. it's a hit and run activity. and mcbride ought to know that.
the threshold for obtaining an anton pillar order is (supposed) to be quite high. the common law generally resists intervening without notice in the affairs of legal or natural persons. [in practice more so for legal persons - coz they have money ...]
to obtain an anton pillar order, one is supposed to demonstrate an urgent need to act to preserve evidence.
the obvious presumption being that the target entity, if given notice, would immediately act to destroy the evidence in question - and the applicant is supposed to demonstrate sufficient cause to believe that the target entity might indeed do so.
also presumed, and to be demonstrated, is that there is sufficient cause to believe that the target entity actually has material relevant to the applicant's interests. it has to be more than a suspicion - more than just fishing for something to use against the target.
different jurisdictions have different thresholds for anton pillars. there are also statutory mechanisms available in some jurisdictions that can be used in place of anton pillar's - often with broader powers and/or lower thresholds.
by bringing the isp's to court, the cria can argue they're being fair. and it's safer than going for an anton pillar.
it also achieves the same result. parties to a civil action cannot act to the detriment of the other party - they cannot readily dispose of assets that could be used to pay compensation, for example.
ah. humour. refreshing.
that would relate to a specific patient record - or at worst, a limited class of patient records. wouldn't take a big brain, or unlimited hours, to track it down. consider, however, trying to pin down the patient who walked into the er sometime between a wednesday and friday last august in one of two hospitals in new york. and the only thing you know about them is that they wore a jacket emblazoned with he number 16 and a name. and now imagine that you were a visitor to one of those er's during that time, and you loaned some guy your jacket. you were both caught on the hospital video system wearing a jacket fiting the description ...
ever been the target of an investigation?