You'd be amazed at how easily rejection can come. The courts have rules about such things, to prevent trivialities from clogging the gears of justice. Then they can sanction you, and the bailiff can throw you in the can for abuse. If you don't believe me, let me tell you about a park in the lower west side of Manhattan that you won't stay at tonight. Not my choice, rather, civility is exercised in strange ways when you're the 99%.
Your reality check, while pessimistic, is correct in most regards. Let's say for a moment, that Google still wants to stay in the market. Let's also say that patents as the law is written suck, and that Google also wants to continue its Android business models.
There are a dozen+ Android licensees, most of whom have paid the Microsoft Tax. Microsoft isn't embarrassed about making more money from Android than their own stuff. If you take a dozen licensees, plus Google, and use that as your cost divisor, the net per licensee plus Google plus whomever else wants to get involved is actually not so bad. Is it enough for some patent peace? Probably not. There is some irrationalism involved concerning Jobs' claim that he'd burn $40B to defend his IP in the iPhone/iPad/iJunk.
Although you may believe that the litigation is endless, there is an end, it is finite, and it can be won. The broken NDA brings the light to the matter in a big way. BIG way. Yes, it's only the beginning, and a lot of money needs to be burned, but remember that both sides will be burning it; not quite a wash as consumers will end up paying for a lot of the mess, but so will shareholders.
No, this is what they cited. This is what's on the table. Yes, there are more, but many may be much more shaky than the ones cited.
Community efforts can get the supporting evidence. It doesn't take money at that point, it takes proper citation of prior art. There's more than BN that want to see this done. Google has likely known which #s were cited, but now it's exposed, and each can be knocked down where prior art can be cited or methods argued. It's just the beginning, but it's another way to get the issues dealt with.
And the exposure now works for whomever wants to release a smartphone OS, be it a Linux derivative, or whatever. Even Blackberry/RIM benefits. Meego, Unity/Ubuntu, whatever, the cat is out of the bag (insert your favorite metaphor here).
Judicious coders are now looking for prior art, and they'll probably find it. But each patent fought will be a battle by itself, cost a lot of money, and more cross-complaints will be filed. This is only the beginning, not the beginning of the end.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but backward travel seems to be currently judged as not possible. Quantum breaking of RSA may happen in 20yrs, but not to go back in time and break encrypted information. If you capture the info and bring it time-forward, then you can open it up, presuming you can crack the encryption keys.
More practically, it presupposes that his traffic is being captured. To capture 100% of the traffic of the Internet exceeds all forms of storage.
Let's say that his traffic is being targeted right now, and 100% of his currently secret SSL/SSH traffic is being captured and madly attacked. The poster supposes that he/she wants 100yrs of privacy. The poster is a three letter agency, or similar. That agency can pay for its own problems and I suspect that there are back doors to RSA, and most forms of encryption today. Twenty years? Few secrets need to be kept twenty years. The post is too nebulous to even begin to answer-- if it were real-- and I suspect it's not.
Sometimes it's not about privacy. But you can't hide from the cell tower if your phone is on. That's where the problem starts. Unique identifiers are necessary if they're going to deliver your call...
Thwarting locational cookies, and having apps transmit that info involuntarily could probably be stanched. I'd actually *buy* that app.
Indeed. I like turning off my phone. It has secondary benefits. I wish there was a way to have an external filter in Android and iOS and whatever else comes along that thwarts LBS. If I want to find out about restaurants in say, Chicago, I should flip a switch that says: find restaurants that way, rather than have a triangulation of cell towers cipher that convenience for me, and present me with ads for sushi. The price of that convenience is high, in so many ways. Yet the sushi restaurant appears to win. Indeed, so do others. That ecosystem of others lives off stolen goods: my privacy.
You shouldn't need to use a prepaid phone. Liberty is freedom of association, even if that association is anonymous. GPS tracking, the way it's being done now, is counter-liberty.
They haven't caught up, in certainty, although the SCOTUS is ostensibly looking at the issue, according to the Wired story.
That said, I don't believe for a minute, and you shouldn't believe for a minute, that the data retention has anything to do with it. Building a db, and compressing that data to make it manageable, is trivial and child's play. So they track us. The telcos cooperate. Little is likely documented.
And so the news says that any old time any old jurisdiction want the info, that the telcos cave and say: oh, look! here's where he/she is! And Google doesn't know where you are? How do you think all of those LBS (Location Based Services) APIs work? Magic? Uh, maybe located in Peoria? C'mon. Unless you turn off your phone, you're tracked. GPS is the backup. Like: you turned off your phone, or we want to check where this car is going, even when other people are driving to the destination. You are a fool not to believe that if they want your phone tracked, they got it.
In the case of the Lexmark litigation you cite, wholesale pasting of the code to accomplish the goal of being compatible with a Lexmark toner cartridge was supported, if somewhat narrowly, by the US Appeals court. The reasons that a particular part of the DCMA law was struck down for the purposes of being compatible doesn't make all systems calls open source, or not copyrightable. Indeed you can copyright anything, but the validity and scope of what the copyright means is also confined to differing circumstances.
Copyrighting interfaces for monopolistic control appears to be easily litigated in the portions of the DMCA Lexmark tried to use. But if it were that easy, the Samba group would have a great deal of ease getting SMB compatibility with Windows-- but they don't (although Microsoft did recently offer some code to help-- an extraordinary event by itself). So even interfaces per se, aren't necessarily protected from being "automagically" open source or without copyright.
There seems to be an increasing amount of KVM users, but very few of them are likely to host Windows VMs for various reasons. Support of varying Windows server configurations is also bereft of community support, reasonable docs (even for Linux projects), and optimization & management plane components.
I can make my own system calls, and copyright them, and the copyright is defensible unless I otherwise relinquish my rights to them in some way. If I invite others to use my system calls, barring some other expressed right, they're still my system calls. If I license them in a way that says: you can use them subject to standing on your head and barking like a dog, in lieu of barking like a dog and standing on your head, the use of my system calls in that circumstance abrogates my ownership and copyright.
Again, IANAL, but I also believe that most system calls are expressed in such a way so as to relinquish a copyright. But it requires that expression to relinquish them.
That's if you trust them, then you could make the bet with a better chance of a positive outcome. I'm not sure I trust them, but will leave the results to another investigator.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are lots of systems calls that can't be copyrighted. But you can copyright original code, then release it under the tenets of the GPL. One relinquishes certain rights by doing so. But the copyright remains, and must remain in use under the tenets of the terms of the release, e.g. the license to use it. BSD code if memory serves (as an example), is essentially public domain, have at it in anyway you can imagine. GPL code, depending on version, doesn't allow that. Mixing certain kinds of code isn't permitted. And the copyrights remain, and hold value depending again, on the license granted for use of the code. This distinguishes varying license strictures for use of code. The copyright remains. IANAL, but have enough business law experience to believe that these are the strictures. I'm willing to be corrected by those in the know.
GPL code made from scratch, however, is pretty rare in my experience. People lift routines, interfaces, file system calls, all sort of stuff, routinely. To go closed source mandates not using that code, as it was released under the crux of a different, OSS license that in the GPL2 & 3 sense, don't allow that.
I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it wouldn't be easy. Where does the poster contest this? Good question. My guess is to explore functionality in areas where code is more likely to be stolen/lifted/pasted from. Not many people are motivated to do that; it's potentially a mind-boggling amount of work with no real "payoff" except for the altrustic motive.
Under VDI can be all varieties of infrastructure. Not necessarily a VM. Sometimes they're containers, as in Parallels construction. Sometimes they're other types of instances. VDI, however, is Virtual Device Interface/infrastructure. It implies only the KVM portion, or RDP, or whatever you'd like to cite for those. What's underneath is variable. What's underneath THAT, might be something else entirely. Sometimes there's a 1-to-1 relationship between a VDI session and a persistent or non-persistent VM running somewhere, but sometimes that session is actually a container or sandbox, and not an atomic instance. VirtualBox has an RDP-like interface to show what's going on, but it's actually a guest application, rather than a microkernel-controlled fully atomic instance.
With all due respect, KVM support for Windows exists, but in an insufficient quality for any production use. In reality, almost NO ONE uses KVM for Windows, although they could. They'd be nuts. RH doesn't understand how, the docs are almost non-existent, and the community support for Windows over KVM is barebones on a good day. There are all sorts of bad metaphors to pick from on this one-- so I'll spare you them. Truly: Windows support on KVM is bad enough to warn reasonable people away from it. And by reasonable, I mean veterans, not civilians.
Go up the parent chain, and see the thread. The link you posted points towards VDI. VDI is a keyboard-video-mouse virtualization. VirtualBox, a/k/a x/vm, is a product that's a desktop application that permits itself to be an OS hypervisor.
Oracle doesn't put much behind VirtualBox at all. It remains just about unchanged, save for a few updates, since the Sun days. Server VMs are vastly different, as the microkernel hypervisors used are tiny, and many of them use relationships that permit device I/O to be managed directly by the hypervisor, rather than translated via a VM-chosen device-specific driver.
The VDI component, however, is a red herring. The link doesn't especially pimp or pan Oracle's relativity to VMWare (or its competitors). Oracle's sadly way behind in hypervisor developments, but that's not unusual, IMHO, for Oracle.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd be amazed at how easily rejection can come. The courts have rules about such things, to prevent trivialities from clogging the gears of justice. Then they can sanction you, and the bailiff can throw you in the can for abuse. If you don't believe me, let me tell you about a park in the lower west side of Manhattan that you won't stay at tonight. Not my choice, rather, civility is exercised in strange ways when you're the 99%.
Your reality check, while pessimistic, is correct in most regards. Let's say for a moment, that Google still wants to stay in the market. Let's also say that patents as the law is written suck, and that Google also wants to continue its Android business models.
There are a dozen+ Android licensees, most of whom have paid the Microsoft Tax. Microsoft isn't embarrassed about making more money from Android than their own stuff. If you take a dozen licensees, plus Google, and use that as your cost divisor, the net per licensee plus Google plus whomever else wants to get involved is actually not so bad. Is it enough for some patent peace? Probably not. There is some irrationalism involved concerning Jobs' claim that he'd burn $40B to defend his IP in the iPhone/iPad/iJunk.
Although you may believe that the litigation is endless, there is an end, it is finite, and it can be won. The broken NDA brings the light to the matter in a big way. BIG way. Yes, it's only the beginning, and a lot of money needs to be burned, but remember that both sides will be burning it; not quite a wash as consumers will end up paying for a lot of the mess, but so will shareholders.
No, this is what they cited. This is what's on the table. Yes, there are more, but many may be much more shaky than the ones cited.
Community efforts can get the supporting evidence. It doesn't take money at that point, it takes proper citation of prior art. There's more than BN that want to see this done. Google has likely known which #s were cited, but now it's exposed, and each can be knocked down where prior art can be cited or methods argued. It's just the beginning, but it's another way to get the issues dealt with.
And the exposure now works for whomever wants to release a smartphone OS, be it a Linux derivative, or whatever. Even Blackberry/RIM benefits. Meego, Unity/Ubuntu, whatever, the cat is out of the bag (insert your favorite metaphor here).
Judicious coders are now looking for prior art, and they'll probably find it. But each patent fought will be a battle by itself, cost a lot of money, and more cross-complaints will be filed. This is only the beginning, not the beginning of the end.
...laundering your phone means profit!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but backward travel seems to be currently judged as not possible. Quantum breaking of RSA may happen in 20yrs, but not to go back in time and break encrypted information. If you capture the info and bring it time-forward, then you can open it up, presuming you can crack the encryption keys.
More practically, it presupposes that his traffic is being captured. To capture 100% of the traffic of the Internet exceeds all forms of storage.
Let's say that his traffic is being targeted right now, and 100% of his currently secret SSL/SSH traffic is being captured and madly attacked. The poster supposes that he/she wants 100yrs of privacy. The poster is a three letter agency, or similar. That agency can pay for its own problems and I suspect that there are back doors to RSA, and most forms of encryption today. Twenty years? Few secrets need to be kept twenty years. The post is too nebulous to even begin to answer-- if it were real-- and I suspect it's not.
Sometimes it's not about privacy. But you can't hide from the cell tower if your phone is on. That's where the problem starts. Unique identifiers are necessary if they're going to deliver your call...
Thwarting locational cookies, and having apps transmit that info involuntarily could probably be stanched. I'd actually *buy* that app.
Indeed. I like turning off my phone. It has secondary benefits. I wish there was a way to have an external filter in Android and iOS and whatever else comes along that thwarts LBS. If I want to find out about restaurants in say, Chicago, I should flip a switch that says: find restaurants that way, rather than have a triangulation of cell towers cipher that convenience for me, and present me with ads for sushi. The price of that convenience is high, in so many ways. Yet the sushi restaurant appears to win. Indeed, so do others. That ecosystem of others lives off stolen goods: my privacy.
Hey, I have this bridge in Brooklyn. Nice property. Interested?
You shouldn't need to use a prepaid phone. Liberty is freedom of association, even if that association is anonymous. GPS tracking, the way it's being done now, is counter-liberty.
They haven't caught up, in certainty, although the SCOTUS is ostensibly looking at the issue, according to the Wired story.
That said, I don't believe for a minute, and you shouldn't believe for a minute, that the data retention has anything to do with it. Building a db, and compressing that data to make it manageable, is trivial and child's play. So they track us. The telcos cooperate. Little is likely documented.
Sure. Keep believing.
And so the news says that any old time any old jurisdiction want the info, that the telcos cave and say: oh, look! here's where he/she is! And Google doesn't know where you are? How do you think all of those LBS (Location Based Services) APIs work? Magic? Uh, maybe located in Peoria? C'mon. Unless you turn off your phone, you're tracked. GPS is the backup. Like: you turned off your phone, or we want to check where this car is going, even when other people are driving to the destination. You are a fool not to believe that if they want your phone tracked, they got it.
Yet inside your pocket, you've got a cell phone, which is currently tracking you wherever you go. The other device was a backup. Think about it.
In the case of the Lexmark litigation you cite, wholesale pasting of the code to accomplish the goal of being compatible with a Lexmark toner cartridge was supported, if somewhat narrowly, by the US Appeals court. The reasons that a particular part of the DCMA law was struck down for the purposes of being compatible doesn't make all systems calls open source, or not copyrightable. Indeed you can copyright anything, but the validity and scope of what the copyright means is also confined to differing circumstances.
Copyrighting interfaces for monopolistic control appears to be easily litigated in the portions of the DMCA Lexmark tried to use. But if it were that easy, the Samba group would have a great deal of ease getting SMB compatibility with Windows-- but they don't (although Microsoft did recently offer some code to help-- an extraordinary event by itself). So even interfaces per se, aren't necessarily protected from being "automagically" open source or without copyright.
There seems to be an increasing amount of KVM users, but very few of them are likely to host Windows VMs for various reasons. Support of varying Windows server configurations is also bereft of community support, reasonable docs (even for Linux projects), and optimization & management plane components.
I can make my own system calls, and copyright them, and the copyright is defensible unless I otherwise relinquish my rights to them in some way. If I invite others to use my system calls, barring some other expressed right, they're still my system calls. If I license them in a way that says: you can use them subject to standing on your head and barking like a dog, in lieu of barking like a dog and standing on your head, the use of my system calls in that circumstance abrogates my ownership and copyright.
Again, IANAL, but I also believe that most system calls are expressed in such a way so as to relinquish a copyright. But it requires that expression to relinquish them.
That's if you trust them, then you could make the bet with a better chance of a positive outcome. I'm not sure I trust them, but will leave the results to another investigator.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are lots of systems calls that can't be copyrighted. But you can copyright original code, then release it under the tenets of the GPL. One relinquishes certain rights by doing so. But the copyright remains, and must remain in use under the tenets of the terms of the release, e.g. the license to use it. BSD code if memory serves (as an example), is essentially public domain, have at it in anyway you can imagine. GPL code, depending on version, doesn't allow that. Mixing certain kinds of code isn't permitted. And the copyrights remain, and hold value depending again, on the license granted for use of the code. This distinguishes varying license strictures for use of code. The copyright remains. IANAL, but have enough business law experience to believe that these are the strictures. I'm willing to be corrected by those in the know.
Me, too.
I think the presumption of the question in TFA confined the discussion to GPL. But we would agree otherwise.
GPL code made from scratch, however, is pretty rare in my experience. People lift routines, interfaces, file system calls, all sort of stuff, routinely. To go closed source mandates not using that code, as it was released under the crux of a different, OSS license that in the GPL2 & 3 sense, don't allow that.
I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it wouldn't be easy. Where does the poster contest this? Good question. My guess is to explore functionality in areas where code is more likely to be stolen/lifted/pasted from. Not many people are motivated to do that; it's potentially a mind-boggling amount of work with no real "payoff" except for the altrustic motive.
Under VDI can be all varieties of infrastructure. Not necessarily a VM. Sometimes they're containers, as in Parallels construction. Sometimes they're other types of instances. VDI, however, is Virtual Device Interface/infrastructure. It implies only the KVM portion, or RDP, or whatever you'd like to cite for those. What's underneath is variable. What's underneath THAT, might be something else entirely. Sometimes there's a 1-to-1 relationship between a VDI session and a persistent or non-persistent VM running somewhere, but sometimes that session is actually a container or sandbox, and not an atomic instance. VirtualBox has an RDP-like interface to show what's going on, but it's actually a guest application, rather than a microkernel-controlled fully atomic instance.
With all due respect, KVM support for Windows exists, but in an insufficient quality for any production use. In reality, almost NO ONE uses KVM for Windows, although they could. They'd be nuts. RH doesn't understand how, the docs are almost non-existent, and the community support for Windows over KVM is barebones on a good day. There are all sorts of bad metaphors to pick from on this one-- so I'll spare you them. Truly: Windows support on KVM is bad enough to warn reasonable people away from it. And by reasonable, I mean veterans, not civilians.
Go up the parent chain, and see the thread. The link you posted points towards VDI. VDI is a keyboard-video-mouse virtualization. VirtualBox, a/k/a x/vm, is a product that's a desktop application that permits itself to be an OS hypervisor.
Oracle doesn't put much behind VirtualBox at all. It remains just about unchanged, save for a few updates, since the Sun days. Server VMs are vastly different, as the microkernel hypervisors used are tiny, and many of them use relationships that permit device I/O to be managed directly by the hypervisor, rather than translated via a VM-chosen device-specific driver.
The VDI component, however, is a red herring. The link doesn't especially pimp or pan Oracle's relativity to VMWare (or its competitors). Oracle's sadly way behind in hypervisor developments, but that's not unusual, IMHO, for Oracle.