Hemos and many other commenters read this decision and seem stuck on an analogy between this case and the "Apple vs eMachines" spat.
But as I began reading Scalia's decision myself, a different analogy kept popping into my mind.
Samara started marketing an/innovative/ new product, "seersucker" clothes. Along comes the big evil corporation, Wal-Mart, which embraces and extends the "seersucker" concept "with only minor modifications," then uses predatory pricing practices to effectively undermine Samara's innovation and stealing it for their own profiteering.
Microsoft vs. (pick-your-favorite-victim) seems to be at least as analogous to this case as Apple vs. eMachines.
I have heard of school administrators considering *banning* Linux machines (as if they could), after serious network security incidents involving Linux "install everything" installations that weren't tweaked at all for security.
Such incidents make great fodder for security-related FUD, which the campus Microsoft supporters eagerly dish out to discredit Linux and encourage the ban of it on campus.
It's a cryptography term. In lots of encryption systems, including RSA and PGP, anyone who wants to send information to you encrypts it with your published "public key" code Then you have a different second code, your unpublished "private key," that you may use to decrypt the information.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting spin the Wal-Mart vs. Samara case.
/innovative/ new
Hemos and many other commenters read this
decision and seem stuck on an analogy between
this case and the "Apple vs eMachines" spat.
But as I began reading Scalia's decision myself,
a different analogy kept popping into my mind.
Samara started marketing an
product, "seersucker" clothes. Along comes
the big evil corporation, Wal-Mart, which
embraces and extends the "seersucker" concept
"with only minor modifications," then uses
predatory pricing practices to effectively
undermine Samara's innovation and stealing
it for their own profiteering.
Microsoft vs. (pick-your-favorite-victim)
seems to be at least as analogous to this
case as Apple vs. eMachines.
I have heard of school administrators considering *banning* Linux machines (as if they could), after serious network security incidents involving Linux "install everything" installations that weren't tweaked at all for security.
Such incidents make great fodder for security-related FUD, which the campus Microsoft supporters eagerly dish out to discredit Linux and encourage the ban of it on campus.
It's a cryptography term. In lots of encryption systems, including RSA and PGP, anyone who wants to send information to you encrypts it with your published "public key" code Then you have a different second code, your unpublished "private key," that you may use to decrypt the information.