They may save 24% per PC, but do they save that 24% on every technician and IT
manager, CS lecturer etc.?
let me answer you with the experience of (Orwell High School ) in the UK. The school technician there used to spend his whole week rebooting Windows Servers, restoring destop machines which had been cracked by the kids, trojaned etc etc. They implement a pure FLOSS thin client solution and now that technician comes in 2 hours a week not 40. Their deputy head has said he makes a net saving on his budget of 40%. See this register article.
I guess the technician may be screwed since he now gets 2 hours work a week not 40.
dear Steve,
I know exactly what I'm talking about thanks. The enterprise customers know exactly what CentOS is, exactly what RHEL is and the difference between the two. There is no "confusion" - period. That's a whiney Redhat excuse. Go to the CentOS site, look at it and then look me in the face and say "oh, you mean this isn't a Redhat site? Gee, fancy that." Confusion? dont make me laugh. Just be honest and say you want to make a product but you don't want people producing GPL clones of it that are successful.
Redhat does indeed do a lot for the community but you live and die according to the licence you choose. Don't make a GPL product and then try to crush other people using those GPL rights because it hurts your profits. CentOS are entitled to do what they do and Redhat's contributions to Free software doesn't give them extra legal or moral rights to hinder other peoples Free software rights. Dredging up pathetic & dishonest excuses about confusion doesn't alter that.
Mandrake doesn't mention Redhat because it's merely history - it s a different distribution now. CentOS is not a new distribution, it's a straighforward clone - identical in functionality. Gratitude cuts both ways: Redhat gets the business benefits of other peoples GPL'd work. Some of these people are direct competitors, but they dont threaten Redhat over bogus "confusion" when Redhat mentions them by name.
Redhat IS bullying because it knows i's legally in the wrong (I'd trash them in court if CentOS were my client), but despite that it's throwing its money and lawyers around hoping smaller competitors surrender because they cant afford to litigate. That's bullying. I'd expect it of the MPAA/RIAA but not a Free software company.
Will Redhat persecute SBL now?
Here's the scoop: Redhat hates CentOS because their salesmen keep telling them "we are getting caned in large data centres - they think we are expensive and are all grabbing CentOS instead." True conversation from the inside.
Redhats response: be like Microsoft. Try to crush the competition by using lawyers. Redhat is threatening CentOS by saying that they cannot even mention 'Redhat' on the site. Not only is this a deliberately bad reading of trademark law (fair use, comparative advertising yada yada.) but its pointless; everyone knows about RHEL clones. This article and the comments will point people to WBL & CentOS.
Redhat: you should start trying to compete rather than abuse the letter of the law and the spirit of Free software. Stop being a bully.
I recently had a conversation with an MPAA lawyer in regard to a case I'm involved in against them. The MPAA lawyer said that understood very well that bittorrent had significant non-infringing uses. That seemed, in their view, to distinguish it from kazaa etc etc. They even viewed it positively fom a non-infringing perspective!
If even the MPAA take this view then the university is using illegality as a mere excuse to conserve usage, or they are being ultra-cautious or they are stupid. I reckon one of the first two.
AIUI no European systembuilders are shipping with XP RME. Until the EU compels EU builders to ship systems with it, it will be a remedy that will fail.
The EU failed when they only insisted RME should be offered as an option. What they should have done was forbid the sale of the full version of XP in Europe. This is a remedy that is applied in other anti-trust/competition cases, and it should have been done here. Sure if people want to buy it outside the EU and ship it in for personal use then let them, but it shouldn't be available for sale in the EU at all. The EU Commission has displayed a remarkable, and depressing, lack of nerve.
Billg must be laughing into his wallet, he's won again. This is the reason MS aren't appealing the refusal to overturn interim relief until full trial: because they dont care it doesn't matter. XP RME will sell a dozen copies in Europe - tops.
yes I have had a similar idea. Usenet in its current form would be good for distributing files etc. Given that the servers are at ISPs they are vulnerable (and ISPs/TLAs are known to monitor traffic), a p2p variant would seem obvious (INN would be impossible for a non-geek to set up).
I do however fear that a p2p usenet would suffer an even worse S/N ratio than normal usenet and I reckon a trust system would be useful. I also reckon a modified nntp protocol would be needed. If only I had the time.
(I'm also an IP lawyer)
There aren't many smell TM's in Europe either but the CTM legislation specifically provides for smells. OHIM treats a verbal description of a smell as an adequate graphical representation for the purposes of trademark registration so long as it is decriptive and unambiguous. If it were litigated on litigants would wheel out all those perfumiers as expert witnesses who, like wine snobs, would presumably talk about "nosey acidic wood" or somesuch.
Smell registrations are registrable in the US also however: I think there was a case called "Clark" (sorry I havent got the citation) which talked of the smell of a bloom.
Chromatograhic report are thought not to be adequate as they dont unambiguously or immediately describe it.
Which country are you based in? if you are UK based, as some of your remarks suggest, I might give you a little consultation time for free. I do patents and IP, BTW.
Stop asking the IANAL/. crowd for legal advice: it's a serious waste of time as many of the reponses so far demonstrate.
The signature of this company suggests a scam: if I was representing someone with a strong patent I would be only too happy to give the patent number and relevant claims. But I certainly wouldn't refuse to divulge the patent and get snotty: that suggests lack of confidence on their part, and a tactically misjudged aggressive response. On the other hand it may be just their litigative style and say nothing of the merits. Dunno, insufficient information.
You dont say whether your lawyer is an IP specialist: this matters, a generalist is fine for routine contracts, your building lease and employment law but you must know when to consult a specialist. your lawyer maybe out of his depth and not willing to admit it to you. He may worry about losing face and having you go elsewhere for legal services, whatever. Get someone with relevant experience if he hasn't got it: ask him to find you someone. I'm an IP lawyer but if a client asks me about tax law I wont bullshit: I'll refer them or find out myself from a specialist.
As one poster said: the temptation to push it all the way in outrage is understandable. this will cost you a fortune but the most pragmatic solution may be to enter some sort of agreement. But to do so without knowing the true strenght of their case is absurd. If their patent is weak and the prior art plentiful you may get them to agree to go away period, or with a very poor deal. I might be tempted just to say "bring it on". You're playing poker: understand that and you are some of the way to understanding your predicament.
Your approach so far suggest diffidence and a lack of confidence, both you and your lawyer - while it's difficult to assess the dynamics of the parties from a/. posting you seem to be at risk of making bad decisions from a lack of proper guidance: get a specialist lawyer. Dont 'ask/.'. Really.
mail me offline for some advice:
david atsign geeklawyer [dot] org
I believe, but I may very well be wrong, that this was the Soviet reponse to British Chobham reactive armour: where an explosive charge built into the defensive armour plating on a tank detonated against an incoming shaped charge so as to deflect it. The USSR then deployed two stage charges where the first one triggered the defensive response and then the second main charge went on, unimpeded, to wipe out the tank.
by analogy the same response would seem to be possible with RPGs.
Of course, I presume the coalition will patent this countermeasure so as to prevent Al Queda and other RPG owners from using it: lest they face expensive patent infringement litigation.
The BBC is reporting the news but it is not BBC content that is being published. The publisher is the British Library: a statutory body funded by government, or to be more exact by the taxpayer.
I think you may be confusing the recent story about the BBC making available some of it's own material under a Creative Commons Licence. That was an entirely seperate news item.
Of course the point you make is still valid if you extend the issue to the general public funding of such resources; from licence fees to taxes. While taxation funding is preferable to licence fee funding because it is broader and creates no damage to other BBC broadcasting functions, either is preferable to none. A well functioning public domain benefits everyone by allowing creative use of resources that would otherwise be difficult to find or unobtainable.
I've done research at the Colindale library site. Let me be blunt to the point of vulgarity: it is a cunt of a place; Colindale is at the arse end of London; hard to get to; unpleasant to study in; hot sweaty and a fucking nusiance. I resolved not to go there again unless I had a choice. Broader and more convenient national, and better still global public access, would be a benefit to everyone. Research would be easier and more convenient: new better works would be created; students and researchers would produce better work's more easily etc. etc.; the public commons would be extended, rather than contracted under the prevailing "everyone must pay for everything" economists perfect pricing scheme promulgated by copyright rights-owners.
Is all this extra worth expense to the public? Damn straight it is. A bargain.
It may not sound like it. But Arlene McCarthy and the labour party have developed a strategy of presenting themselves as critical of software patents and the American patent system, and wanting reforms to prevent it happening here; all the while suggesting amendments that would make things worse. Indeed that is the vehicle chosen by the patent lobby to push software patents in thr EU: "we need reform, things aren't working, let's change the sysem to remove ambiguity".
If you read that form letter casually it sounds OK, as your quote shows, but knowing the true aims of the Labour party (and Conservatives for that matter) you can read between the lines. In the letter for example; "Software products as such, must not be patented". Sounds pretty good but that's already the law; what the letter deliberately doesn't address is the technical effect issue: it should be curtailed to prevent its current use which in practice does allow software, as such, to be patented. the letter is silent because the Labour party and the Commission want it to continue to have that effect.
Likewise for the doublespeak in the letter about pure business methods and algorithms etc.
the letter sounds very credible if you dont know the hidden agenda & who sponsors the MEP clones; Microsoft/IBM for example, and what the agenda of the patent offices in much of the EU are.
I'm not in the least persuaded by form letters designed by PR people to sucker voters into thinking they are on side. they aren't.
If you email any labour MEP you get the form reply below. I have had this several times. They are, they say, hostile to software patents and fighting a rearguard action. Yea, right: Arlene McCarthy our friend. Hell, they've even setup a fund to help small companies abused by large ones - does FOSS count?
Only the Green party response from Jean Lambert was believably hostile to SW patents.
Dear Mr Harris
Thank you for your email.
The European Parliament, has voted for limits to the patenting of
computer-implemented inventions. The Member States i.e. the Council of
Ministers have chosen to ignore Parliament's views, which has disappointed
us greatly and we are now preparing for some very tough negotiations with
them.
However, fortunately the Council of Ministers and the Commission cannot
ignore our views as democratically elected Members of the European
Parliament. I can assure you that the Parliament will defend its position
and there will be no final law without the agreement of the Parliament. If
both the Council of Ministers and the European Commission refuse to reinsert
Parliament's amendments, there will be no Directive. Our power on this piece
of legislation is very strong we can modify it or block it if we choose to
do so.
The position of my colleague Arlene McCarthy as Rapporteur and that of the
Labour MEPs remains unchanged and in the negotiations she will be defending
Parliaments position.
We are not in favour of patenting software as in the US.
Europe needs a uniform legal approach to stop the drifting towards
extending patentability to inventions, which would not have been
traditionally allowed, and to stop patentability of pure business methods,
algorithms or mathematical methods.
Software products as such, must not be patented.
Opensource software must be allowed to flourish and the Commission must
ensure that this Directive does not have any adverse effect on opensource
software and small software developers.
Patents and the threat of litigation must not be used as an
anti-competitive weapon to squeeze out small companies.
Furthermore we are supporting a UK campaign for a defence fund for small
companies to protect themselves from litigation abuse by dominant market
players.
Well then, Mr grammar Nazi, I hope you're better at invading Poland than delineating the rules of English grammar.
I don't pretend to be an expert grammarian but here's a grammar 101 on the apostrophe:
to show that a noun has, belongs or possesses something else an '-s' is usually added: 'a dog's collar': likewise for a plural noun not ending in '-s': 'rat's tails'
for a common noun, singular or plural, ending with an '-s', add an apostrophe after the '-s': 'all the jeans' have holes'
for proper nouns one can either add " -'s " or an apostrophe without the '-s', depending on tradition or taste: Charles's and Charles' is fine; 'girls' dresses' is fine; 'girls's dresses is not.'
The Creative Commons is, as you correctly say, in the singular. More properly it is a proper noun: therefore, as per the above rules, either " Creative Commons' " licence or " Creative Commons's " licence is correct.
Slashdot Mirror
And you're not allowed to complain about it if you aren't going to fix it by yourself!
I guess you're new to Open Source ;)
it didnt get scrubbed - it was just never enabled. It's dangling above us like the Sword of Damocles.
Yes, I can help you: you are indeed confused.
If you have any further questions please don't hesitate to seek more advice.
It may be a couple of decades away. So no, not if you plan to use Powerpoint.
"We could not understand the location amsterdam, netherlands"
is found in MS products at least we will know who leaked it.
let me answer you with the experience of (Orwell High School ) in the UK. The school technician there used to spend his whole week rebooting Windows Servers, restoring destop machines which had been cracked by the kids, trojaned etc etc. They implement a pure FLOSS thin client solution and now that technician comes in 2 hours a week not 40. Their deputy head has said he makes a net saving on his budget of 40%. See this register article.
I guess the technician may be screwed since he now gets 2 hours work a week not 40.
"plug and play"
And that worked just fine, didn't it?
The Dave Green ,Internet celebrity, raconteur, Oxford graduate but wearing a skirt...
dear Steve,
I know exactly what I'm talking about thanks. The enterprise customers know exactly what CentOS is, exactly what RHEL is and the difference between the two. There is no "confusion" - period. That's a whiney Redhat excuse. Go to the CentOS site, look at it and then look me in the face and say "oh, you mean this isn't a Redhat site? Gee, fancy that." Confusion? dont make me laugh. Just be honest and say you want to make a product but you don't want people producing GPL clones of it that are successful.
Redhat does indeed do a lot for the community but you live and die according to the licence you choose. Don't make a GPL product and then try to crush other people using those GPL rights because it hurts your profits. CentOS are entitled to do what they do and Redhat's contributions to Free software doesn't give them extra legal or moral rights to hinder other peoples Free software rights. Dredging up pathetic & dishonest excuses about confusion doesn't alter that.
Mandrake doesn't mention Redhat because it's merely history - it s a different distribution now. CentOS is not a new distribution, it's a straighforward clone - identical in functionality. Gratitude cuts both ways: Redhat gets the business benefits of other peoples GPL'd work. Some of these people are direct competitors, but they dont threaten Redhat over bogus "confusion" when Redhat mentions them by name.
Redhat IS bullying because it knows i's legally in the wrong (I'd trash them in court if CentOS were my client), but despite that it's throwing its money and lawyers around hoping smaller competitors surrender because they cant afford to litigate. That's bullying. I'd expect it of the MPAA/RIAA but not a Free software company.
Will Redhat persecute SBL now?
Here's the scoop: Redhat hates CentOS because their salesmen keep telling them "we are getting caned in large data centres - they think we are expensive and are all grabbing CentOS instead." True conversation from the inside.
Redhats response: be like Microsoft. Try to crush the competition by using lawyers. Redhat is threatening CentOS by saying that they cannot even mention 'Redhat' on the site. Not only is this a deliberately bad reading of trademark law (fair use, comparative advertising yada yada.) but its pointless; everyone knows about RHEL clones. This article and the comments will point people to WBL & CentOS.
Redhat: you should start trying to compete rather than abuse the letter of the law and the spirit of Free software. Stop being a bully.
I recently had a conversation with an MPAA lawyer in regard to a case I'm involved in against them. The MPAA lawyer said that understood very well that bittorrent had significant non-infringing uses. That seemed, in their view, to distinguish it from kazaa etc etc. They even viewed it positively fom a non-infringing perspective!
If even the MPAA take this view then the university is using illegality as a mere excuse to conserve usage, or they are being ultra-cautious or they are stupid. I reckon one of the first two.
The EU failed when they only insisted RME should be offered as an option. What they should have done was forbid the sale of the full version of XP in Europe. This is a remedy that is applied in other anti-trust/competition cases, and it should have been done here. Sure if people want to buy it outside the EU and ship it in for personal use then let them, but it shouldn't be available for sale in the EU at all. The EU Commission has displayed a remarkable, and depressing, lack of nerve.
Billg must be laughing into his wallet, he's won again. This is the reason MS aren't appealing the refusal to overturn interim relief until full trial: because they dont care it doesn't matter. XP RME will sell a dozen copies in Europe - tops.
Quick! Gather up your children and amble away as though your life depends on it.
I do however fear that a p2p usenet would suffer an even worse S/N ratio than normal usenet and I reckon a trust system would be useful. I also reckon a modified nntp protocol would be needed. If only I had the time.
There aren't many smell TM's in Europe either but the CTM legislation specifically provides for smells.
OHIM treats a verbal description of a smell as an adequate graphical representation for the purposes of trademark registration so long as it is decriptive and unambiguous. If it were litigated on litigants would wheel out all those perfumiers as expert witnesses who, like wine snobs, would presumably talk about "nosey acidic wood" or somesuch.
Smell registrations are registrable in the US also however: I think there was a case called "Clark" (sorry I havent got the citation) which talked of the smell of a bloom.
Chromatograhic report are thought not to be adequate as they dont unambiguously or immediately describe it.
Which country are you based in? if you are UK based, as some of your remarks suggest, I might give you a little consultation time for free. I do patents and IP, BTW.
Stop asking the IANAL /. crowd for legal advice: it's a serious waste of time as many of the reponses so far demonstrate.
The signature of this company suggests a scam: if I was representing someone with a strong patent I would be only too happy to give the patent number and relevant claims. But I certainly wouldn't refuse to divulge the patent and get snotty: that suggests lack of confidence on their part, and a tactically misjudged aggressive response.
On the other hand it may be just their litigative style and say nothing of the merits. Dunno, insufficient information.
You dont say whether your lawyer is an IP specialist: this matters, a generalist is fine for routine contracts, your building lease and employment law but you must know when to consult a specialist. your lawyer maybe out of his depth and not willing to admit it to you. He may worry about losing face and having you go elsewhere for legal services, whatever. Get someone with relevant experience if he hasn't got it: ask him to find you someone. I'm an IP lawyer but if a client asks me about tax law I wont bullshit: I'll refer them or find out myself from a specialist.
As one poster said: the temptation to push it all the way in outrage is understandable. this will cost you a fortune but the most pragmatic solution may be to enter some sort of agreement. But to do so without knowing the true strenght of their case is absurd. If their patent is weak and the prior art plentiful you may get them to agree to go away period, or with a very poor deal. I might be tempted just to say "bring it on".
You're playing poker: understand that and you are some of the way to understanding your predicament.
Your approach so far suggest diffidence and a lack of confidence, both you and your lawyer - while it's difficult to assess the dynamics of the parties from a /. posting you seem to be at risk of making bad decisions from a lack of proper guidance: get a specialist lawyer. Dont 'ask /.'. Really.
mail me offline for some advice: david atsign geeklawyer [dot] org
Yes,
The spammerassassin team is active, but on my legal advice they are not documenting their work: it could, technically, be argued to be murder.
I must be missing the joke. Why is it bad I get a yacht?
Not really. SCO would sue them.
With their own money...
The USSR then deployed two stage charges where the first one triggered the defensive response and then the second main charge went on, unimpeded, to wipe out the tank.
by analogy the same response would seem to be possible with RPGs.
Of course, I presume the coalition will patent this countermeasure so as to prevent Al Queda and other RPG owners from using it: lest they face expensive patent infringement litigation.
Of course the point you make is still valid if you extend the issue to the general public funding of such resources; from licence fees to taxes. While taxation funding is preferable to licence fee funding because it is broader and creates no damage to other BBC broadcasting functions, either is preferable to none. A well functioning public domain benefits everyone by allowing creative use of resources that would otherwise be difficult to find or unobtainable.
I've done research at the Colindale library site. Let me be blunt to the point of vulgarity: it is a cunt of a place; Colindale is at the arse end of London; hard to get to; unpleasant to study in; hot sweaty and a fucking nusiance. I resolved not to go there again unless I had a choice. Broader and more convenient national, and better still global public access, would be a benefit to everyone. Research would be easier and more convenient: new better works would be created; students and researchers would produce better work's more easily etc. etc.; the public commons would be extended, rather than contracted under the prevailing "everyone must pay for everything" economists perfect pricing scheme promulgated by copyright rights-owners.
Is all this extra worth expense to the public? Damn straight it is. A bargain.
If you read that form letter casually it sounds OK, as your quote shows, but knowing the true aims of the Labour party (and Conservatives for that matter) you can read between the lines. In the letter for example;
"Software products as such, must not be patented". Sounds pretty good but that's already the law; what the letter deliberately doesn't address is the technical effect issue: it should be curtailed to prevent its current use which in practice does allow software, as such, to be patented. the letter is silent because the Labour party and the Commission want it to continue to have that effect.
Likewise for the doublespeak in the letter about pure business methods and algorithms etc.
the letter sounds very credible if you dont know the hidden agenda & who sponsors the MEP clones; Microsoft/IBM for example, and what the agenda of the patent offices in much of the EU are.
I'm not in the least persuaded by form letters designed by PR people to sucker voters into thinking they are on side. they aren't.
They are, they say, hostile to software patents and fighting a rearguard action. Yea, right: Arlene McCarthy our friend. Hell, they've even setup a fund to help small companies abused by large ones - does FOSS count?
Only the Green party response from Jean Lambert was believably hostile to SW patents.
Dear Mr Harris
Thank you for your email.
The European Parliament, has voted for limits to the patenting of computer-implemented inventions. The Member States i.e. the Council of Ministers have chosen to ignore Parliament's views, which has disappointed us greatly and we are now preparing for some very tough negotiations with them.
However, fortunately the Council of Ministers and the Commission cannot ignore our views as democratically elected Members of the European Parliament. I can assure you that the Parliament will defend its position and there will be no final law without the agreement of the Parliament. If both the Council of Ministers and the European Commission refuse to reinsert Parliament's amendments, there will be no Directive. Our power on this piece of legislation is very strong we can modify it or block it if we choose to do so.
The position of my colleague Arlene McCarthy as Rapporteur and that of the Labour MEPs remains unchanged and in the negotiations she will be defending Parliaments position.
We are not in favour of patenting software as in the US.
Europe needs a uniform legal approach to stop the drifting towards extending patentability to inventions, which would not have been traditionally allowed, and to stop patentability of pure business methods, algorithms or mathematical methods.
Software products as such, must not be patented.
Opensource software must be allowed to flourish and the Commission must ensure that this Directive does not have any adverse effect on opensource software and small software developers. Patents and the threat of litigation must not be used as an anti-competitive weapon to squeeze out small companies. Furthermore we are supporting a UK campaign for a defence fund for small companies to protect themselves from litigation abuse by dominant market players.
Yours sincerely
[some MEP clone]
I don't pretend to be an expert grammarian but here's a grammar 101 on the apostrophe:
to show that a noun has, belongs or possesses something else an '-s' is usually added: 'a dog's collar': likewise for a plural noun not ending in '-s': 'rat's tails'
for a common noun, singular or plural, ending with an '-s', add an apostrophe after the '-s': 'all the jeans' have holes'
for proper nouns one can either add " -'s " or an apostrophe without the '-s', depending on tradition or taste: Charles's and Charles' is fine; 'girls' dresses' is fine; 'girls's dresses is not.'
The Creative Commons is, as you correctly say, in the singular. More properly it is a proper noun: therefore, as per the above rules, either " Creative Commons' " licence or " Creative Commons's " licence is correct.
Thank you for your time.