I mean, wouldn't the knowledge they shredded documents be about the worst thing possible for them in a countersuit?
Not if the documents contained more incriminating evidence. It's certainly a indicator of duplicity but you can't convict someone based on the hearsay of "I think this is what was in those documents."
Actually I doubt that's on the list at all. Taco has said that he doesn't really care that much about the dupe thing and he thinks people who constantly complain about dupes are dumb.
Last time I checked M$ and SCO were both engaged in fierce competition over it, but so far neither had provided all of the requisite slush money to the appropriate people.
The stupid thing is, litigation was not "brought about." They brought the damn litigation! I guess they just didn't realize how stupid their claims were until the ridiculousness of it all became apparant in court. Then they probably shredded the documents to cover their ass, avoid countersuits, etc.
I'm referring to software. Money is not the primary driving force in open source, software is. I think companies that work with the open source community stand to gain more from future development on open source projects than those that alienate open source developers with threats of patent lawsuits.
The only way the current patent wars are going to end is for more companies to take actions like this.
They need to realize that having open source as an ally will be more beneficial in the long run than persisting in a petty patent grabbing scheme and trying to crush their competitors with the resulting lawsuits.
I think "steady work" in this case is a bit of a misnomer. If you hate your job, don't like the work, or desperately want to leave, then you are not going to be productive, you will have a lot of stress, you will probably be irritable most of the time, and in general you will not fit very well with the position.
I don't think I would characterize that as a "steady" employment situation. It would likely be very tumultuous.
Does FreeBSD really need to prove itself?
on
The Case for FreeBSD
·
· Score: 0, Troll
I mean, FreeBSD already has a much larger userbase than NetBSD, so of what consequence are NetBSD's criticisms? I would say not much.
Of course, <troll>since BSD is dying anyway, I'm sure none of it matters either way.</troll>
It is likely that they would do to Microsoft with Linux or *BSD to get the price of Windows down.
I don't think so. You can't compare those two situations. That trick would never work with M$ because M$ knows that Dell could never dump them. The average computer buyer problably isn't going to care if they order a new computer from Dell and they are told that the chip it has is from AMD because Dell decided they were better than Intel. However, the average buyer will most definitely NOT tolerate Dell telling them that they can only order a computer with Linux because Dell decided it was better than Windows. If Dell wants to remain the number one vendor it has no choice but to offer Windows, therefore it will pay whatever price M$ demands.
This is not innovation in any technical sense and indeed is not even innovation in a business sense.
On the contrary, it seems that being able to slip surious patents through the system is an important business skill these days. If something isn't done to clean up the USPTO it might even become an essential skill for any business's survival.
I other words some lawyer's trophy wife wants a new yacht.
Exactly. Consumers are never helped by these kinds of lawsuits.
At best those who bother to take the time to write a letter will get a $25 coupon to the Apple Online Store or something equally as inane, and the lawyers on both sides will make millions.
I mean if people today are so dumb that they think Blockbuster's commercials meant they could just keep rental movies forever then we have reached a new level of stupidity not equaled in quite a while.
The explorers and pioneers of the 16th century had the tech they needed. We don't
I've got to disagree with you there. If Burt Rutan can build a suborbital vehicle for $20 million, much more complicated things can be achieved if private enterprise had the budget of say NASA to work with. A lot of research has already shown that space tourism is a potential billion dollar industry. With that kind of coin, a lot of amazing things could be built.
Private enterprise also is less concerned with saftey.
Yes but if we are going to make space travel an important priority, there are going to be risks involved. Nothing is going to perfectly safe and people will have to accept that in the short term. If the pioneers of early aviation 100 years ago were too afraid of dying (and some did) to develop powered flight, commercial air travel would not be what it is today. The same will be said of commercial space travel 100 years from now.
The lunar module in the Apollo missions had some parts of it's casing that were basically just aluminum foil. It can work if engineered right. In space conditions are much more uniform than on earth. You don't have to deal with high wind, precipitation, and a bunch of other stuff that can weaken structures easily.
NASA's stuff is very safe so its kinda hard to compete with them on that front
While historically this has been the case, things may be changing. Some of NASA's biggest safety failures have come from the weight of its bureaucracy weighing down projects so heavily that small problems can no longer be seen. Private enterprise can be much more efficient and give a lot more attention to detail. That can be an important advantage, especially in a relatively new market like space tourism which NASA has little experience in.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, wouldn't the knowledge they shredded documents be about the worst thing possible for them in a countersuit?
Not if the documents contained more incriminating evidence. It's certainly a indicator of duplicity but you can't convict someone based on the hearsay of "I think this is what was in those documents."
Actually I doubt that's on the list at all. Taco has said that he doesn't really care that much about the dupe thing and he thinks people who constantly complain about dupes are dumb.
I don't think the USPTO has granted that one yet.
Last time I checked M$ and SCO were both engaged in fierce competition over it, but so far neither had provided all of the requisite slush money to the appropriate people.
The stupid thing is, litigation was not "brought about." They brought the damn litigation! I guess they just didn't realize how stupid their claims were until the ridiculousness of it all became apparant in court. Then they probably shredded the documents to cover their ass, avoid countersuits, etc.
Yeah I know it's obvious, but the parent didn't get it, so I was spelling it out for him.
I'm referring to software. Money is not the primary driving force in open source, software is. I think companies that work with the open source community stand to gain more from future development on open source projects than those that alienate open source developers with threats of patent lawsuits.
The only way the current patent wars are going to end is for more companies to take actions like this.
They need to realize that having open source as an ally will be more beneficial in the long run than persisting in a petty patent grabbing scheme and trying to crush their competitors with the resulting lawsuits.
I think "steady work" in this case is a bit of a misnomer. If you hate your job, don't like the work, or desperately want to leave, then you are not going to be productive, you will have a lot of stress, you will probably be irritable most of the time, and in general you will not fit very well with the position. I don't think I would characterize that as a "steady" employment situation. It would likely be very tumultuous.
I mean, FreeBSD already has a much larger userbase than NetBSD, so of what consequence are NetBSD's criticisms? I would say not much.
Of course, <troll>since BSD is dying anyway, I'm sure none of it matters either way.</troll>
It is likely that they would do to Microsoft with Linux or *BSD to get the price of Windows down.
I don't think so. You can't compare those two situations. That trick would never work with M$ because M$ knows that Dell could never dump them. The average computer buyer problably isn't going to care if they order a new computer from Dell and they are told that the chip it has is from AMD because Dell decided they were better than Intel. However, the average buyer will most definitely NOT tolerate Dell telling them that they can only order a computer with Linux because Dell decided it was better than Windows. If Dell wants to remain the number one vendor it has no choice but to offer Windows, therefore it will pay whatever price M$ demands.
This is not innovation in any technical sense and indeed is not even innovation in a business sense.
On the contrary, it seems that being able to slip surious patents through the system is an important business skill these days. If something isn't done to clean up the USPTO it might even become an essential skill for any business's survival.
I want to go down on Steve Jobs just as much as any other fanboy
I didn't need that mental image!
I other words some lawyer's trophy wife wants a new yacht.
Exactly. Consumers are never helped by these kinds of lawsuits.
At best those who bother to take the time to write a letter will get a $25 coupon to the Apple Online Store or something equally as inane, and the lawyers on both sides will make millions.
I mean if people today are so dumb that they think Blockbuster's commercials meant they could just keep rental movies forever then we have reached a new level of stupidity not equaled in quite a while.
When a buffer overflow occurs a trap door on the underside of the cart is triggered and all your groceries spill out onto the floor.
Tell us what it is!!!
Would you like that in decimal or binary?
Care to inform us what a Mersenne prime is? And please don't tell me to RTFA. Come on, this is /. after all.
The explorers and pioneers of the 16th century had the tech they needed. We don't
I've got to disagree with you there. If Burt Rutan can build a suborbital vehicle for $20 million, much more complicated things can be achieved if private enterprise had the budget of say NASA to work with. A lot of research has already shown that space tourism is a potential billion dollar industry. With that kind of coin, a lot of amazing things could be built.
Private enterprise also is less concerned with saftey.
Yes but if we are going to make space travel an important priority, there are going to be risks involved. Nothing is going to perfectly safe and people will have to accept that in the short term. If the pioneers of early aviation 100 years ago were too afraid of dying (and some did) to develop powered flight, commercial air travel would not be what it is today. The same will be said of commercial space travel 100 years from now.
The lunar module in the Apollo missions had some parts of it's casing that were basically just aluminum foil. It can work if engineered right. In space conditions are much more uniform than on earth. You don't have to deal with high wind, precipitation, and a bunch of other stuff that can weaken structures easily.
NASA's stuff is very safe so its kinda hard to compete with them on that front
While historically this has been the case, things may be changing. Some of NASA's biggest safety failures have come from the weight of its bureaucracy weighing down projects so heavily that small problems can no longer be seen. Private enterprise can be much more efficient and give a lot more attention to detail. That can be an important advantage, especially in a relatively new market like space tourism which NASA has little experience in.
Why wouldn't they? M$ advertises a lot on /.
The Senate already informed us of that long ago.
All MIT geeks rushed to change their major in the hopes that they could engineer the perfect female obje^H^H^H^H companion that would get them laid.
Actually in this case, CowboyNeal.