Claims of censorship aside, this is really very little different than a DDOS attack. It is an organized and intentional effort to prevent content from being distributed to interested parties by the union web site. They are an infrastructure provider that is actively disrupting the flow of information across their network for the sole and single purpose of denying voice to opponents in a political and legal dispute. Even if that is, somehow, legal in Canada - it is ethically reprehensible, and utterly inappropriate.
Regardless of whether or not they forfeit their 'common carrier' designation by doing so, their 'rights' as a company are, in this case, clearly superceded by their responsibilities as a carrier. The Union is no more an asset or product of Telus than is Slashdot, and as such, Telus' right to limit presence/distribution are EXTREMELY limited. More they are a party actively involved in litigation/arbitration, and Telus did not engage in such filtering before the dispute. That places the action squarely in the punitive arena - which is a very dangerous place for any carrier - common or otherwise - to be.
| That's akin to advocating free speech, even if it means shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre
The correct quote is "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." and it has absolutely nothing to do with the issues at play in this case. The statement is a limitation where it endangers public health and or safety, and I dont think anyone would apply those standards to this case. Similarly, Defamation has no relation to this case, and Breach of Contract in the form of robots.txt is already a bone of contention in the case.
I'm not having this discussion about free speech. I'm having this discussion about the scope of current copyright arguments. I'm not arguing that this suit is trying to muzzle the IA in violation of the first ammendment. That would be a flawed argument anyway - the IA is an organization, not an individual, and thus not subject to constitutional protection in most cases (including this one). I'm arguing that the value proposition of copyright does not extend to preventing organizations like the IA from documenting the state and history of any publicly accessible website. It is a documentarian, and educational role, and as such, is every bit as appropriate as the library system.
The Internet Archive is, in essence, cataloging the evolution of one of the most significant cultural phenomenons of the last century. That IS of tremendous historical significance - most especially because 80% of the content that is there now will be lost forever within the next year if they DONT do it.
The internet is evolving at a breakneck pace. As new business models, new buisnesses, new display models, new UI elements and new languages crop up, older sites are redesigned, replaced or relegated to non-existence by darwinian market forces. What is there now bears little resemblance to what was there a year ago, and likely little resemblance to what will be there a year from now. This evolution is of tremendous social, scientific and cultural significance.
Do I believe that documenting this growth and evolution trumps the overextended copyright argument presented by the plaintiff in this case? Yes, I do. The plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy where the public website was concerned. The information was placed in what amounts to a public space, with no access controls and no barriers to public navigation. To assert then, that the IA was acting inapproriately to document the state of the public portion of that site is patently absurd.
Now, to your other points...
We aren't discussing Joe User's website, we are discussing a website developed and deployed by a corporation at some expense with the express purpose of giving them a 'web presence'. Many jurisdictions will now permit the argument of publication where an agency has spent time and money to make information available to an audience. The expense and resources expended to make it available to the public presuppose an intent and desire that it be seen and consumed by the public. Further, the case in question references the DMCA, and specifically, a means to bypass security measures to prevent copying. That clause of the DMCA (and arguably the whole the whole law) applies _specifically_ to published media.
Regardless, flyers distributed in a parking lot or on a public bulletin board also carry all of the assumptions needed to carry the rest of my argument. The 'provider' of such information has no control over the future use or reference to those fliers in an educational, historical or editorial context.
Again, free speech is only a peripheral issue here. Fair use doctrine is as much, or more a limitation of copyright as it is a defense of the first ammendent. While first ammendment protections have been used to DEFEND fair use in the past, it does not necessarily follow that all questions relating to fair use are also first ammendment challenges. At question here is the IA's right to
1. The 'interweb' is a publishing medium. Like it or not, it is. People who put up websites are publishing HTML documents.
2. Publishers have no rights governing the public use of published documents so long as they are
a. properly attributed
b. provided in unadulterated form
c. the third party is acting in a
documentary, educational
or editorial capacity
Since the internet archive is not a for-profit organization, and does not seek income from the wayback machine, the issue is much less thorny than it might otherwise be.
The archive is not 'republishing' the documents. They are presenting a static representation of the site as it existed at a given point in time. Copyright, in no way, shape, fashion or form restricts this ability. It is no different than photography. It is permissable for a photographer to photograph anything he/she can get a shot of without otherwise breaking the law. Model releases (for people and private landmarks) are only required for shots that are to be sold, or published-for-profit.
The law is quite clear that no model release is required for photos used for educational, historical or editorial purposes unless it is mis-attributed. Similarly, no publisher may prevent the use of or reference to a book, magazine or document for educational, historical or editorial purposes unless those terms are explicitly accepted by the viewer prior to presentation.
This website is no different - no website is any different. The only possible exception to this would be areas of sites protected by login, where the argument could be made that viewing those pages is subject to accepting the site's terms of use... But if you read most terms of use, they only say that they are not responsible for inaccuracies in the site, not that you are expressly enjoined from saving the pages for later offline viewing.
Even so, I'm fairly certain that the wayback machine doesnt crawl protected areas of a site, rendering the point moot.
It can be convincingly argued that the sole purpose of a website is to be used/read. Those areas that are not locked down are, by definition, intended for public consumption unless entry to the site prevented pending the acceptance of specific terms of use.
If that is the case, then you cannot convincingly argue that the publisher who elected to publish the site - in a publicly accessible venue - with the purpose of public consumption - should then have the right to prevent documentarians from presenting these public displays so long as they are properly attributed, presented without meaningful adulteration, and in the correct context. They do not have these rights in the printed world, and should not have them in the digital either.
The question of copyright is a red herring, really. To extend copyright law to this extreme would render Warhol's 'Campbell Soup Can' an illegal reproduction because it was produced without the express consent of the company. It would also allow comapnies to prohibit the reproduction and display of old advertising and product packaging - even when they were of historical significance.
You have a point on the Newton, but I would still submit that neither the Newton, nor really any handwriting recognition in the market today is robust enough to act as a primary input method. You are also correct that it is quite possible that Kaplan could have changed that in the intervening 12 years - either through advancing recognition technology, or through some as-yet-unrealized rethinking of the UI.
The problem, however, is that this lawsuit isn't about unfair competition by PenWindows. By most accounts, Microsoft's actions with PenWindows, while slimy and unpleasant, were still basically legal. Legal from the stand point that moving into a new market niche is not inherently an abuse of monopoly power, and neither is moving out again if you decide it's no longer viable.
To prove that they acted for other reasons requires evidence... evidence that MS illegally passed source code and other vital information into the PenWindows product, evidence that the decision to enter the pen-based market was not simply a normal, proactive business development decision, evidence that the decision to leave the segment was based solely on the fact that the main competitor in the space had folded.
Evidence enough to prove wrongdoing on any of those counts cannot (currently) be provided.
However, my basic point still stands - that Kaplan now apparently has the means to prove that MS did move unfairly to push him out of the market... not with Pen Windows, but by the direct action of Bill Gates in his formal capacity as a senior officer of the company.
In doing so directly, he sources and dates the policy of unfairly handicapping competitors (or at least Kaplan) through the inappropriate exercise of influence over vendors and customers.
In a better world, Bill could be prosecuted directly for intentionally engaging in practices in violation of federal law ( assuming that's found to be true ).
You are missing the point here, I think. As I said in an earlier post, the issue at question here is not whether GO was a viable company or not. In all probability, Darwin would have prevailed, and it would have died on it's own, albeit a little bit later.
The question is whether MS, in the form of Mr Gates himself - an officer and primary stock holder - used undue influence with business partners (Intel) to FORCE Go out of the market.
Based on the text provided in the article, that seems more than probable. Gates told Intel flat out that he saw the endorsement of Go as an 'anti-Microsoft' act, and he was asking Intel to reverse the decision to endorse Go. The threat of reprisal is implicit in that statement.
To me (admittedly, only an educated layman), that certainly seems to pass the litmus test of undue and anti-competetive influence in the market.
If the evidence bears out Kaplan's claim, then that fact needs to be in the judicial record - 20 years ago or not. It is critical, if for no other reason than that many of the anti-trust litmus tests require 'a pattern of market abuse or monopolistic tendencies'.
Lastly, the only deterrent modern corporations have to such practices is financial penalty - whether through litigation or public outcry. If Kaplan's assertion is true, MS needs to pay the piper (even if he is just an opportunist), and that would be true of ANY corporation - Red Hat, IBM, Apple or anyone else you care to name.
The articles states clearly that Kaplan was the FOUNDER of Go. When go went under, the remains of the company were acquired by ATT, and passed to Lucent.
Kaplan re-acquired the rights to sue on Go's behalf - not the whole company - in April. The litigation was years ago, but if these emails and memos weren't properly produced during discovery - if MS did, in fact suppress them - then they are definitely still in trouble, 20 years later or not.
The question here is not whether Go was ever a viable company, or even if they would have lasted in the marketplace... it is whether they were forced from the market by collusion and anti competetive practices.
To be honest, a written request by then CEO of MS to the CEO of Intel to reverse a planned endorsement of a potenital competitor, and one that carries the tacit threat of reprisals fits that bill. At worst, it's compelling enough to give Kaplan his day in court, and let the courts decide if history has moved too far to attempt to judge the impact of this action.
Even if the judge allows it, damages are unlikely what MS haters would like to see. Go was a pioneer, and far before it's time. However, it should be simple enough for Microsoft to demonstrate that the novel elements of his OS (handwriting recognition) would have required more horsepower, and more refined technologies than were available during that period to be truly competetive.
It is often the lot of the innovator to be eclipsed by those with less vision, less imagination, and a bigger marketing budget.
Several posts above are right, Microsoft's MO is to take a simple, special purpose protocol and expand it into a giant, world spanning, fingers in everything creature that, while usually not exactly a bad idea, is not at all what it was originally, and in all probablility will only work with.NET.
Why do they do this? Because, as many others have pointed out before me, they have, by simple necessity become a company that follows rather than defines the direction of technology.
RSS has a lot going for it in the MS world view.
1. It's a lightweight, simple, open protocol, so their engineers can get their heads around it easily. This isnt a slight to MS engineers - simply a statement that it has few elements and few dependencies to cause problems. As a double bonus, that means they can play the 'I'm sorry our content doesnt work with your reader, we have "matured the standard" and you haven't kept up.' card
2. It has traction in the market place. It's a popular standard that is imperfectly implemented, and imperfectly understood by most people.
3. It's sexy right now. Everybody is scrambling to support it, so MS looks good for saying "We're going to do more than support it, we're going to make it 'Better'". For the vast majority of people who still think MS is a giant because they make a great product, that sounds like "Don't Panic, everyone. Microsoft is on the case, and soon you mere mortals will be able to use an RSS Aggregator too.."
I'm more than a little scared to see what they do to RSS, but understand that they are like this because they have to be. Their borg-like pattern of integrating everything into one amorhpous, interconnected mass has put them in an unenviable position on more than just security issues.
Any direction they try to innovate in becomes competition for Windows or Office which they cannot cannibalize and survive. But they also can't cease to appear to innovate because they are trying to maintain the 'Microsoft Mentality' among non technical business and world leadership. So their only choice is to seize on the innovations of others, bastardize them and hope that nobody important realizes that they haven't done anything new in years.
In the mean time, I will hope that whatever changes they make to the standard will not make it into yet another vector for malware distribution.
Actually, as has been hashed out here before, x86 on beige box would be a death sentence for Apple. They make next to nothing on their OS sales - and they can do that because it's limited to _their_ hardware - which is their primary profit center.
(Dont believe me, look at their 'family pack' - ~$25/copy)
It is for precisely this reason that apple has not yet, and will not (barring a major change of business model) release OSX for non-apple boxes. To sell it that way (or even give it away) would saddle them with the responsibility of supporting commodity hardware. Even if they said 'not warranted on off the shelf parts' their reputation would suffer every time a $5 video card failed to work, or work correctly, and every time John Q Moron installed it on a 300mhz Cyrix box and complained that it was slow.
However! Apple _may_ be inclined to use a less than perfect method to lock you into hardware. Apple has it's entire reputation resting on it's user experience, and so they are justified in limiting their hardware - but maybe, just maybe - they'll throw the slashdot crowd a bone and use a form of lockin that can be cracked. Remember, apple is a player whose primary selling point is 'it works better than Windows'. Offering second rate support to _any_ category of customer, for any reason, at any time will destroy that - most especially if it's the 'unwashed masses' trying to get it to install on their e-machine or Packard Bell dinosaur, but even if it's the slashdot nerd trying to get it to install on his 4 way Opteron M.
If they were to use a (relatively easily) crackable form of lockin, it makes it much more difficult to blame apple for a failure - instead of 'dude, I tried to install OS X and it blew', it would be 'dude, I hacked my system and got OS X to install, and it almost works right!'.
It would also put OS X within reach of the "Yeah, Id try OS X if I could get it to run it on my..." crowd, and maybe even the linux zealots who seem to think that a good GUI is for wimps. (and yes, I'm a unix admin who can't live without BASH, so I'm allowed to say that).
As with all of apple's decisions relating to this, it's a guessing game. A month ago, I'd have thought moving to Intel was impossible. Personally, I hope they'll toss the 'Trusted Computing' idea in favor of some variant of Open Firmware. I dont want my motherboard telling me who I can trust, or more importantly, telling someone else whether I'm trustworthy or not.
Changing to x-86 is an unusual choice. I understand the failure of IBM to scale and manage heat is putting Aple in an unenviable position as far as new models, but really, I was expecting dual core G4's in the PB/IB line before G5's anyway... just because of the power issues.
But what REALLY puzzles me is 'why Intel'? AMD has been catching Intel with their pants down for the last 5-7 years. If Apple was truly interested in the best technology with the brightest future, and the best performance-per-watt, why didnt they sign the Athlon-64 or Opterons? Time after time, Athlons (32 or 64) turn in comparable performance at lower clock, time after time AMD beats Intel to the punch, and most of the time Intel delivers a rushed-to-market kludge that costs 50% more and only performs as well if you are lucky. (Yes, I know, they end up at or near parity... 6-12 mos later)
If you MUST saddle yourself with all of x-86's baggage to continue to compete (and maybe you must, though I don't completely buy the spin) - then WHY do you sign on the dotted line with the manufacturer that has been stadily losing ground to a lean, hungry competitor for a decade?. The only reason I can think of to do so is if they are going to resurrect Itanium, and god, do I hope they dont do that.
I'm definitely an OS X convert. Even so, I'm worried about this transition. I'm worried about the wisdom of it. I'm especially worried that it will prove out in the coming years that apple has again saddled itself with an aging also ran, instead of the most innovative company in the sector. I am also not yet certain that moving to x-86 will be any less painful/more helpful than pushing for the PPC-980, or letting IBM use the economies of scale generated by upcoming console launches using PPC to work on driving power and heat consumption down on the 970.
I'm also very worried that x-86 is an aging beast that MUST be replaced at some point. When that happens, apple will have yet ANOTHER migration on it's hands, and another 2-year clock for tools like Darwinports, APT and FINK to get mature again. That may not come for another decade, but the intel migration will take 2 years to complete, another 2 years to penetrate completely, leaving only 5-6 years of solid operation before we have to pack up and do it AGAIN.
An 'open access fee' is the charge to another service provider to use the infrastructure created by the municipality. The term comes from CLEC providers like Birch telecom that exist and bill and service independently from the 'baby bells', but never the less lease all of their capacity from them. Not all munis have Open Access policies, but most do, and it is a legal requirement in a number of states.
Open access fees in this case would be charges to Comcast/Verizon/Joe Startup to offer competing (or non-competing) services on/over a muni network. Generally, open access fees are set at such a level that allows other parties to move into the area and be competetive without the initial capital investment of cable plant and switch housing, or the maintenance and upgrade expenses (the biggest barriers in underserved areas). Once the infrastructure exists, other providers are then able to sign open access contracts, and bring more feature rich products to the community, while lightening the burden of support on the broadband host and creating a less volatile revenue stream.
As for how the bonds are paid, they are typically published with the expectation that the access fees and subscriber fees will generate enough revenue to make the project self sustaining and pay the bonds back over the 20 - 30 year life. In the uncommon (but by no means unheard of) case that the muni was so badly botched that it cannot sustain itself, then the plant and infrastructure is typically sold to one of the major players to ameliorate the debt. The expectation on _any_ bond issue is that the improvement will increase income sufficiently to cover the expense of repaying the bond over the course of its life. Bond issues also have to be approved by voters in the tax district, so that method of financing places no burden on tax payers without voter consent.
In cases where the intent is to provide free blanket wireless access in a district (as in Austin) then the issue is put to a referendum. You, the tax payer, have the right to vote against such a use of your tax dollars, and the inevitable right to move out of the tax district if the vote comes out against you.
In that case, the goal is to provide a service that will lead to future economic development. The thinking is that ubiquitous wireless will draw young, tech savvy workers and executives and encourage new and existing businesses to set up shop in an exciting and tech friendly city. It's possible that they will be wrong, and that this will become a millstone... however, it has worked elsewhere (Seattle), and was found by local voters to be a viable experiment. The law in question would have allowed state government (which provided 0 funding for the project) to prevent the project from going forward for no binding reason.
Again, we come back to my main point. The original poster blasted the failing of this law as a victory for socialism, when it was, in fact, a victory for self determination. Every muni setup is a little different, every one financed a little differently, and like any business venture, every one carries the risk of financial failure. The crux of this bill was whether or not the people who were impacted got to decide whether it was a good risk for their community.
While I agree that, in general, the free market will provide better/faster/more services where there is economic incentive, I STRONGLY disagree with the notion that a city should not be PERMITTED to provide such services if no private channel can be found to provide them, and the means to fund them approved by the constituents.
Spoken like a true zealot... never-the-less, I shall try.
1. The bill would have PREVENTED local government from offering these services. The fact that it failed to pass is , in no way shape fashion or form, a mandate that local governments SHOULD provide it.
2. In the current system, a voter referendum is still required for any city to proceed. Remind me again how we've extended the power of government beyond previous limits?
3. Most muni broadband/wireless projects are funded via bond-issue, open access fees and user subscription fees. Relatively few of them rely on tax dollars to build or maintain the system. Those that are funded by tax dollars almost universially are required (by law) to get voter approval before work can even begin. You do vote, right? You know, that thing we do to determine who governs us, and what they are allowed to do?
4. This is not an issue of 'The Government' trying to trample the rights of 'The Individual' or 'Free Enterprise'. It is an issue of preventing 'Big Government' (state) from preventing 'Little Government' (local) government trying to spur economic development (which is in its own interest as well) by providing services that provide value to citizens and businesses, but aren't lucrative enough to interest private enterprise (in this case, limited monopolies... I notice you didnt scream too much about them manipulating the individual by creating artifical scarcity/demand).
5. Take off your tinfoil hat and realize that not all aspects of government are bad or irrational. It is true that our form of government is subject the excesses of it's representatives, but it will also adjust itself (given the opportunity and an interested populace) - which is better than most.
This was an arbitrary law limiting municipal governments' ability to provide an important service in an underserved area. It takes nothing away from constituents except for their right to decide how their corner of the world is governed. It EXPANDED the grasp of government, instead of narrowing it. It artifically limited the rights of the local populace to choose their relationship to their government at the bequest of major commercial interests.
6. Before posting on an issue you obviously know nothing about, take an hour to familiarize yourself with it JUST A BIT. Like most things in life/government there is typically a great deal more involved than is immediately apparent, and releveant to your personal agenda. I li ve in texas, and I know what this law meant, and you'll forgive me if I prefer to be able to choose for myself what I allow my local government to do with my own vote!
I keep trying to find a shor way to explain this, and it just seems impossible, but here we go again.
1a: When I purchase an XBox, I do not purchase license for it's use. I purchase two things:
1. the hardware in question.
2. the software in question to the extent that the copy in question is mine to use or destroy as I see fit within the boundaries of the law.
The licensing you refer to has NEVER been legally validated. It is a wholly unexplored area of contract law and most disinterested legal opinions hold that huge parts of it could not stand up to a legal test in court. The weakest plank of the license is that it is unlawful in these United States to alter the terms of a contract without mutual consent once that contract has been signed. An agreement for sale is legally considered a contract once payment has occurred.
It is, by design, impossible, or at least places unreasonable burden on the purchaser, to discern the exact terms of use on shrinkwrapped software before purchase. In order to determine the exact terms, it is necessary to install the software. If, at that time, you find the license too odious, it is impossible elect out of the contract (return the software) since opened software may not be returned.
There are other legal weaknesses, including strong legal precedent preventing sellers from artificially restricting the uses to which a product may be put. There is strong case law stating that this can ONLY be done to facilitate reasonable limitation of liability... (EG hot coffee, do not use this lawnmower engine to power your electric shaver, this forklift is only rated for 4000lbs, donot expect it to function correctly ater lifting 8000).
Limitations beyond that are historically unenforceable in criminal or civil arenas. That, I guess, is the crux of my argument. While I do not 'own' the code, I do own that copy of the 'application' in question, and as a result, a private citizen may do whatever he chooses with that copy of the 'application' except where he violates a different legal stricture.
Again, to be clear, publication and distribution trespass on the rights of the copyright holder. Representing a modified application as either wholly your own work, or the unadulterated work of the publisher are both equally unlawful, as is the distribution of the modified application without prior consent of the publisher.
None.. and I'll repeat that again, none of these traps are triggered by my modding my xbox to run linux. If I were to then use the running linux kernel to get free xbox live, THEN MS would have grounds to seek damages - but they could seek them for misuse of xbox live, NOT because I hacked my xbox in the first place.
The same is true with Windows... as long as I dont exceed the number of copies installed that I have licensed, Microsoft may not - according to curent legal precedent - limit my use or abuse of those installed copies unless I (as a private citizen) violate some OTHER law in the process.
While you may choose to disagree, I still assert thay my undertanding of the legal issues involved is quite good. I am arguing, quite simply, that the clauses you refer to in their licenses violate current law as defined by precedent. Neither of us will technically be 'right' until such cases are taken through the courts (probably several times). Since the expense involved such litigation is prohibitive for the end user, and danger of a negative precedent is very real for the publishers (not to mention bad PR for going after Joe User), I doubt we'll be seeing such a battle in the courts in the near future.
This is endemic in our economy. Partly because we have such higly valued, highly capitalized corporations.
Businesses with sales in the 10's of billions have to be careful with product lines. People trash MS for not innovating and screwing their customers - and they do - but they are, in many ways, a victim of their own success. They can't pursue so called 'disruptive' technologies because they would put Office and Widows revenues in danger - and they now have thousands of employees and 100's of billions of dollars in outstanding shares.
Simply 'making thebest product possible' and 'selling all I can' won't work in the corporate world... in fact, it would be a recipie for disaster. It's one of the many reasons we need to overhaul the corporation system here, but even if we can turn the system into a socially conscious, fiscally and environmentally responsible (and accountable) system, this problem will still exist.
Making a truly better product will likely remain the province of startups, visionaries and crackpots. James Dyson is an excellent example. He tried to sell his cyclonic vacuum cleaner to anyone and everyone, but the entrenched manufacturers made much of their profit on replacement bag revenues. His company is now quite successful, and the other manufacturers have fallen into line and put out similar models - but only because they were forced by his disruption of the market.
One executive from a major manufacturer is quoted as saying "We should have bought it when we first had the chance... we could have locked it away in the vault, and it would never have seen the light of day."
..and has tried to release a phone with MP3/AAC/ITunes support in partnership with Nokia.
The major wireless providers have basically shut the phone out of the market by opting not to subsidize them because they want music downloads through their networks as a revenue stream.
It's not as if anyone is caught flat footed by convergence devices. The question is not if they will come about, but how long it takes a good one to make it past all the market barriers.
Do you work for the Microsoft PR department or something?
I Want to discuss the concept of property ownership with you. It's usually pretty simple, but you seem to not grasp it fully.
When I purchase something (Windows XP, XBox, PS2, lumber, or a drill), I am now the owner of that piece of property. It is now mine to use in whatever manner I see fit. I can break it, hack it, stick it under a blow torch, make it run linux, make it run Amiga OS if I want. Stick it in my Microwave, use it for ammunition in my trebuchet, decompile it, or feed it to my fish.
The only thing that I cannot legally do is a) use it in the commission of a crime (because its a crime, you know)or b)sell it as an unadulterated product.
Now, lets cover what valid crimes are...
1.reverse engineering for commercial purposes 2.altering the product to get other, related products or services for free 3.engaging in other criminal mischief based on my alteration of the product. 4. Publishing decompiled source code of a closed source product.
That means that if I, as an individual choose to take the fonts from my personal, legal copy of Windows, and use them in my personal, non-commercial, dual booting linux desktop, MS has no recourse against me.
If I write instructions for other people with legitimately licensed copies of Windows to do the same on their personal machines, MS has no recourse against me.
I am liable for damages ONLY if I use or encourage use of this process in a commercial setting, or do so without a properly licensed copy of Windows.
Corporate law is stickier than personal property law, but personal property law is VERY clear. No seller can limit use of something sold to a private citizen for private use except as a limitation of liability in the result of injury, or the commission of a crime.
That means that Sony and MS cannot dictate the uses to which I put my XBOX or PS2 once I have purchased them. They can, and routinely do, void the warranties and ban machines from online play when changes are detected, but that is the absolute limit of their recourse in these matters.
It doesn't matter that you don't understand WHY I want to do it, or how. It doesn't matter if your product was not intended for that purpose, or even if it's dangerous. If I were to overclock my xbox to the point that the CPU was hot enough to cause localized fusion that immolated me and my house, MS could not then sue my estate for violation of the EULA, and neither could my estate turn and sue MS for 'allowing' me to use their product in such a manner... well, I suppose my estate could try, but they would lose - and rightly so... I would then, of course, be obliged to return and haunt the executor of my estate for being such a knob.
And just to make sure we're clear, unless the folks running the OSS projects for XBOX and PSX are encouraging you to hack boxes you don't own, or to use the products to steal additional services, they're safe too. They are publishing instructions for how to void the warranty on a properly and legally owned unit.
The EULA's you talk about are completely unenforceable. These kinds of questions are not in the neighborhood of copying my DVD's - there is no duplication of functionality or media - no real potential for abuse by redistribution for a company to hide behind. This is purely a question of ownership rights, and the definition of property/purchase. No court, not even our backwards, hyper protectionist ones would ever back such a fundamental change in the laws of ownership.
If they did, rest assured that even Congress would sit up and take notice when rednecks and geeks everywhere found out they were no longer able to use their lawnmower engines for go-karts and motorized barstools because limitations put in place by Briggs and Stratton to strengthen their Go-Kart motor business.
Which brings us to your definition of theft....
It's an interesting definition..well, no I guess it isn't... you
Two very good reasons you got this response, you trashed apple and OS X, not their GPL compliance practices. You MENTIONED the GPL, but it was hardly the core of your post.
Apple is not abusing the GPL. They are following it absolutely to the letter. They aren't even dragging their feet on code releases, which is common where companies have co-opted GPL code to jumpstart development.
No, they aren't collaborating with the KHTML team, but that's not required by the GPL. Apple plays in its own, very expensive, sand box. It would be fiscally foolish of them to expend engineer and sysadmin hours to make their patches more helpful to KHTML... especially when even if they did, many of the changes use OS X specific API's, so that extra effort would be WASTED.
They forked KHTML and the trees have radically diverged. To expect Apple - as a company - to unilaterally keep the forks from diverging too much is simply irrational. The KHTML developers are complaining about ignorant users (and apple zealots) who mistakenly believe that apple is doing something MORE than they are obligated to - not accusing them of doing less.
In short, it's stupid to badmouth Apple for *only* meeting it's obligations. If you want to bad mouth them, pick a real topic, like the fact that they 'stole' the idea for dashboard from konfabulator, or integrated clones of dozens of other 3rd party tools directly into to the OS without paying off the original creators. I personally think that argument is spurious, but at least it has valid ethical considerations.
It's also somewhat ignorant to trash the OS because the bundled apps suck. You use Firefox and Thunderbird, Good for you! I use them on my Windows machine too, because Outlook sucks. Windows _also_ sucks - it's buggy, unstable, insecure and all but useless without Cygwin - which is why I generally use X or Linux whenever I can. It doesnt change the fact that OSX has a rock solid BSD core, and the best, most accessible GUI currently available. It is, in every way, as good, and in a few ways BETTER than Linux. Linux's only two functional (not idealogical) advantages are its cost and that it can be compiled on nearly any platform.
So why again are you going to go badmouth it at the apple store?
The article paints Adobe's (apparent) culture of innovation like it's a pathological disease. As if the drive to improve their products without the 'Hammer of Impending Doom' hovering over their heads were some kind of disorder...
Isn't this exactly what we criticize MS for not doing? Shouldn't we be ecstatic to find a company where the leadership 'stays awake at night' coming up with ways to make their product better... and not just 'adding a nth blade to the razor' better, but honest and for true new and better features? Isn't that the way business is SUPPOSED to work? Have we reached a point where mediocrity is the gold standard, and pursuit of excellence is considered a defect?
Not to mention that there is, in fact, more happening at Adobe than running away from MS. InDesign is a clear and effective shot across the bow of Quark Systems... You remember Quark? The most customer hostile company on the planet, and a classic example of the 'milk and coast' attitude Dvorak mentions... or do you REALLY think adobe was targeting Publisher with this product?
Getting anything through the print/design industry is like pouring molasses at midwinter, but even so, inDesign is *beginning* to make an impact precisely because of the driven... excuse me... paranoid attitude of Adobe's Management. InDesign is beginning to get traction because it really is that much better than Quark 6... It was better at v1.5, better @ v2 - and better still at v3 (CS)... and even the hidebound print industry is beginning to sit up and take notice.
As far as the results of the merger, I really don't know yet. It is certainly a better one than many I've seen go through in the last two years. Product overlap is minimal, both companies are already successful in their chosen markets... if Adobe is smart, they'll keep Dreamweaver and salvage what they can of GoLive to add to the product. Other than that it mostly just creates a larger product line for Adobe. If adobe is able to extend its commitment to excellence/paranoia to Macromedia, and manages to not alienate the impressive developer community that comes with it they have a chance to do some genuinely cool stuff.
I'm certainly not as scared of 'Macrodobe' as I am of Peoplesoft/Oracle - apples and oranges, I know, but that one wakes <i>me</i> up at night in a cold sweat.
Slashdot Mirror
Claims of censorship aside, this is really very little different than a DDOS attack. It is an organized and intentional effort to prevent content from being distributed to interested parties by the union web site. They are an infrastructure provider that is actively disrupting the flow of information across their network for the sole and single purpose of denying voice to opponents in a political and legal dispute. Even if that is, somehow, legal in Canada - it is ethically reprehensible, and utterly inappropriate.
Regardless of whether or not they forfeit their 'common carrier' designation by doing so, their 'rights' as a company are, in this case, clearly superceded by their responsibilities as a carrier. The Union is no more an asset or product of Telus than is Slashdot, and as such, Telus' right to limit presence/distribution are EXTREMELY limited. More they are a party actively involved in litigation/arbitration, and Telus did not engage in such filtering before the dispute. That places the action squarely in the punitive arena - which is a very dangerous place for any carrier - common or otherwise - to be.
| That's akin to advocating free speech, even if it means shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre
The correct quote is "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." and it has absolutely nothing to do with the issues at play in this case. The statement is a limitation where it endangers public health and or safety, and I dont think anyone would apply those standards to this case. Similarly, Defamation has no relation to this case, and Breach of Contract in the form of robots.txt is already a bone of contention in the case.
I'm not having this discussion about free speech. I'm having this discussion about the scope of current copyright arguments. I'm not arguing that this suit is trying to muzzle the IA in violation of the first ammendment. That would be a flawed argument anyway - the IA is an organization, not an individual, and thus not subject to constitutional protection in most cases (including this one). I'm arguing that the value proposition of copyright does not extend to preventing organizations like the IA from documenting the state and history of any publicly accessible website. It is a documentarian, and educational role, and as such, is every bit as appropriate as the library system.
The Internet Archive is, in essence, cataloging the evolution of one of the most significant cultural phenomenons of the last century. That IS of tremendous historical significance - most especially because 80% of the content that is there now will be lost forever within the next year if they DONT do it.
The internet is evolving at a breakneck pace. As new business models, new buisnesses, new display models, new UI elements and new languages crop up, older sites are redesigned, replaced or relegated to non-existence by darwinian market forces. What is there now bears little resemblance to what was there a year ago, and likely little resemblance to what will be there a year from now. This evolution is of tremendous social, scientific and cultural significance.
Do I believe that documenting this growth and evolution trumps the overextended copyright argument presented by the plaintiff in this case? Yes, I do. The plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy where the public website was concerned. The information was placed in what amounts to a public space, with no access controls and no barriers to public navigation. To assert then, that the IA was acting inapproriately to document the state of the public portion of that site is patently absurd.
Now, to your other points...
We aren't discussing Joe User's website, we are discussing a website developed and deployed by a corporation at some expense with the express purpose of giving them a 'web presence'. Many jurisdictions will now permit the argument of publication where an agency has spent time and money to make information available to an audience. The expense and resources expended to make it available to the public presuppose an intent and desire that it be seen and consumed by the public. Further, the case in question references the DMCA, and specifically, a means to bypass security measures to prevent copying. That clause of the DMCA (and arguably the whole the whole law) applies _specifically_ to published media.
Regardless, flyers distributed in a parking lot or on a public bulletin board also carry all of the assumptions needed to carry the rest of my argument. The 'provider' of such information has no control over the future use or reference to those fliers in an educational, historical or editorial context.
Again, free speech is only a peripheral issue here. Fair use doctrine is as much, or more a limitation of copyright as it is a defense of the first ammendent. While first ammendment protections have been used to DEFEND fair use in the past, it does not necessarily follow that all questions relating to fair use are also first ammendment challenges. At question here is the IA's right to
1. The 'interweb' is a publishing medium. Like it or not, it is. People who put up websites are publishing HTML documents.
2. Publishers have no rights governing the public use of published documents so long as they are
a. properly attributed
b. provided in unadulterated form
c. the third party is acting in a
documentary, educational
or editorial capacity
Since the internet archive is not a for-profit organization, and does not seek income from the wayback machine, the issue is much less thorny than it might otherwise be.
The archive is not 'republishing' the documents. They are presenting a static representation of the site as it existed at a given point in time. Copyright, in no way, shape, fashion or form restricts this ability. It is no different than photography. It is permissable for a photographer to photograph anything he/she can get a shot of without otherwise breaking the law. Model releases (for people and private landmarks) are only required for shots that are to be sold, or published-for-profit.
The law is quite clear that no model release is required for photos used for educational, historical or editorial purposes unless it is mis-attributed. Similarly, no publisher may prevent the use of or reference to a book, magazine or document for educational, historical or editorial purposes unless those terms are explicitly accepted by the viewer prior to presentation.
This website is no different - no website is any different. The only possible exception to this would be areas of sites protected by login, where the argument could be made that viewing those pages is subject to accepting the site's terms of use... But if you read most terms of use, they only say that they are not responsible for inaccuracies in the site, not that you are expressly enjoined from saving the pages for later offline viewing.
Even so, I'm fairly certain that the wayback machine doesnt crawl protected areas of a site, rendering the point moot.
It can be convincingly argued that the sole purpose of a website is to be used/read. Those areas that are not locked down are, by definition, intended for public consumption unless entry to the site prevented pending the acceptance of specific terms of use.
If that is the case, then you cannot convincingly argue that the publisher who elected to publish the site - in a publicly accessible venue - with the purpose of public consumption - should then have the right to prevent documentarians from presenting these public displays so long as they are properly attributed, presented without meaningful adulteration, and in the correct context. They do not have these rights in the printed world, and should not have them in the digital either.
The question of copyright is a red herring, really. To extend copyright law to this extreme would render Warhol's 'Campbell Soup Can' an illegal reproduction because it was produced without the express consent of the company. It would also allow comapnies to prohibit the reproduction and display of old advertising and product packaging - even when they were of historical significance.
You have a point on the Newton, but I would still submit that neither the Newton, nor really any handwriting recognition in the market today is robust enough to act as a primary input method. You are also correct that it is quite possible that Kaplan could have changed that in the intervening 12 years - either through advancing recognition technology, or through some as-yet-unrealized rethinking of the UI.
The problem, however, is that this lawsuit isn't about unfair competition by PenWindows. By most accounts, Microsoft's actions with PenWindows, while slimy and unpleasant, were still basically legal. Legal from the stand point that moving into a new market niche is not inherently an abuse of monopoly power, and neither is moving out again if you decide it's no longer viable.
To prove that they acted for other reasons requires evidence... evidence that MS illegally passed source code and other vital information into the PenWindows product, evidence that the decision to enter the pen-based market was not simply a normal, proactive business development decision, evidence that the decision to leave the segment was based solely on the fact that the main competitor in the space had folded.
Evidence enough to prove wrongdoing on any of those counts cannot (currently) be provided.
However, my basic point still stands - that Kaplan now apparently has the means to prove that MS did move unfairly to push him out of the market... not with Pen Windows, but by the direct action of Bill Gates in his formal capacity as a senior officer of the company.
In doing so directly, he sources and dates the policy of unfairly handicapping competitors (or at least Kaplan) through the inappropriate exercise of influence over vendors and customers.
In a better world, Bill could be prosecuted directly for intentionally engaging in practices in violation of federal law ( assuming that's found to be true ).
You are missing the point here, I think. As I said in an earlier post, the issue at question here is not whether GO was a viable company or not. In all probability, Darwin would have prevailed, and it would have died on it's own, albeit a little bit later.
The question is whether MS, in the form of Mr Gates himself - an officer and primary stock holder - used undue influence with business partners (Intel) to FORCE Go out of the market.
Based on the text provided in the article, that seems more than probable. Gates told Intel flat out that he saw the endorsement of Go as an 'anti-Microsoft' act, and he was asking Intel to reverse the decision to endorse Go. The threat of reprisal is implicit in that statement.
To me (admittedly, only an educated layman), that certainly seems to pass the litmus test of undue and anti-competetive influence in the market.
If the evidence bears out Kaplan's claim, then that fact needs to be in the judicial record - 20 years ago or not. It is critical, if for no other reason than that many of the anti-trust litmus tests require 'a pattern of market abuse or monopolistic tendencies'.
Lastly, the only deterrent modern corporations have to such practices is financial penalty - whether through litigation or public outcry. If Kaplan's assertion is true, MS needs to pay the piper (even if he is just an opportunist), and that would be true of ANY corporation - Red Hat, IBM, Apple or anyone else you care to name.
The articles states clearly that Kaplan was the FOUNDER of Go. When go went under, the remains of the company were acquired by ATT, and passed to Lucent.
Kaplan re-acquired the rights to sue on Go's behalf - not the whole company - in April. The litigation was years ago, but if these emails and memos weren't properly produced during discovery - if MS did, in fact suppress them - then they are definitely still in trouble, 20 years later or not.
The question here is not whether Go was ever a viable company, or even if they would have lasted in the marketplace... it is whether they were forced from the market by collusion and anti competetive practices.
To be honest, a written request by then CEO of MS to the CEO of Intel to reverse a planned endorsement of a potenital competitor, and one that carries the tacit threat of reprisals fits that bill. At worst, it's compelling enough to give Kaplan his day in court, and let the courts decide if history has moved too far to attempt to judge the impact of this action.
Even if the judge allows it, damages are unlikely what MS haters would like to see. Go was a pioneer, and far before it's time. However, it should be simple enough for Microsoft to demonstrate that the novel elements of his OS (handwriting recognition) would have required more horsepower, and more refined technologies than were available during that period to be truly competetive.
It is often the lot of the innovator to be eclipsed by those with less vision, less imagination, and a bigger marketing budget.
Several posts above are right, Microsoft's MO is to take a simple, special purpose protocol and expand it into a giant, world spanning, fingers in everything creature that, while usually not exactly a bad idea, is not at all what it was originally, and in all probablility will only work with .NET.
Why do they do this? Because, as many others have pointed out before me, they have, by simple necessity become a company that follows rather than defines the direction of technology.
RSS has a lot going for it in the MS world view.
1. It's a lightweight, simple, open protocol, so their engineers can get their heads around it easily. This isnt a slight to MS engineers - simply a statement that it has few elements and few dependencies to cause problems. As a double bonus, that means they can play the 'I'm sorry our content doesnt work with your reader, we have "matured the standard" and you haven't kept up.' card
2. It has traction in the market place. It's a popular standard that is imperfectly implemented, and imperfectly understood by most people.
3. It's sexy right now. Everybody is scrambling to support it, so MS looks good for saying "We're going to do more than support it, we're going to make it 'Better'". For the vast majority of people who still think MS is a giant because they make a great product, that sounds like "Don't Panic, everyone. Microsoft is on the case, and soon you mere mortals will be able to use an RSS Aggregator too.."
I'm more than a little scared to see what they do to RSS, but understand that they are like this because they have to be. Their borg-like pattern of integrating everything into one amorhpous, interconnected mass has put them in an unenviable position on more than just security issues.
Any direction they try to innovate in becomes competition for Windows or Office which they cannot cannibalize and survive. But they also can't cease to appear to innovate because they are trying to maintain the 'Microsoft Mentality' among non technical business and world leadership. So their only choice is to seize on the innovations of others, bastardize them and hope that nobody important realizes that they haven't done anything new in years.
In the mean time, I will hope that whatever changes they make to the standard will not make it into yet another vector for malware distribution.
Actually, as has been hashed out here before, x86 on beige box would be a death sentence for Apple. They make next to nothing on their OS sales - and they can do that because it's limited to _their_ hardware - which is their primary profit center.
(Dont believe me, look at their 'family pack' - ~$25/copy)
It is for precisely this reason that apple has not yet, and will not (barring a major change of business model) release OSX for non-apple boxes. To sell it that way (or even give it away) would saddle them with the responsibility of supporting commodity hardware. Even if they said 'not warranted on off the shelf parts' their reputation would suffer every time a $5 video card failed to work, or work correctly, and every time John Q Moron installed it on a 300mhz Cyrix box and complained that it was slow.
However! Apple _may_ be inclined to use a less than perfect method to lock you into hardware. Apple has it's entire reputation resting on it's user experience, and so they are justified in limiting their hardware - but maybe, just maybe - they'll throw the slashdot crowd a bone and use a form of lockin that can be cracked. Remember, apple is a player whose primary selling point is 'it works better than Windows'. Offering second rate support to _any_ category of customer, for any reason, at any time will destroy that - most especially if it's the 'unwashed masses' trying to get it to install on their e-machine or Packard Bell dinosaur, but even if it's the slashdot nerd trying to get it to install on his 4 way Opteron M.
If they were to use a (relatively easily) crackable form of lockin, it makes it much more difficult to blame apple for a failure - instead of 'dude, I tried to install OS X and it blew', it would be 'dude, I hacked my system and got OS X to install, and it almost works right!'.
It would also put OS X within reach of the "Yeah, Id try OS X if I could get it to run it on my..." crowd, and maybe even the linux zealots who seem to think that a good GUI is for wimps. (and yes, I'm a unix admin who can't live without BASH, so I'm allowed to say that).
As with all of apple's decisions relating to this, it's a guessing game. A month ago, I'd have thought moving to Intel was impossible. Personally, I hope they'll toss the 'Trusted Computing' idea in favor of some variant of Open Firmware. I dont want my motherboard telling me who I can trust, or more importantly, telling someone else whether I'm trustworthy or not.
Changing to x-86 is an unusual choice. I understand the failure of IBM to scale and manage heat is putting Aple in an unenviable position as far as new models, but really, I was expecting dual core G4's in the PB/IB line before G5's anyway... just because of the power issues.
But what REALLY puzzles me is 'why Intel'? AMD has been catching Intel with their pants down for the last 5-7 years. If Apple was truly interested in the best technology with the brightest future, and the best performance-per-watt, why didnt they sign the Athlon-64 or Opterons? Time after time, Athlons (32 or 64) turn in comparable performance at lower clock, time after time AMD beats Intel to the punch, and most of the time Intel delivers a rushed-to-market kludge that costs 50% more and only performs as well if you are lucky. (Yes, I know, they end up at or near parity... 6-12 mos later)
If you MUST saddle yourself with all of x-86's baggage to continue to compete (and maybe you must, though I don't completely buy the spin) - then WHY do you sign on the dotted line with the manufacturer that has been stadily losing ground to a lean, hungry competitor for a decade?. The only reason I can think of to do so is if they are going to resurrect Itanium, and god, do I hope they dont do that.
I'm definitely an OS X convert. Even so, I'm worried about this transition. I'm worried about the wisdom of it. I'm especially worried that it will prove out in the coming years that apple has again saddled itself with an aging also ran, instead of the most innovative company in the sector. I am also not yet certain that moving to x-86 will be any less painful/more helpful than pushing for the PPC-980, or letting IBM use the economies of scale generated by upcoming console launches using PPC to work on driving power and heat consumption down on the 970.
I'm also very worried that x-86 is an aging beast that MUST be replaced at some point. When that happens, apple will have yet ANOTHER migration on it's hands, and another 2-year clock for tools like Darwinports, APT and FINK to get mature again. That may not come for another decade, but the intel migration will take 2 years to complete, another 2 years to penetrate completely, leaving only 5-6 years of solid operation before we have to pack up and do it AGAIN.
An 'open access fee' is the charge to another service provider to use the infrastructure created by the municipality. The term comes from CLEC providers like Birch telecom that exist and bill and service independently from the 'baby bells', but never the less lease all of their capacity from them. Not all munis have Open Access policies, but most do, and it is a legal requirement in a number of states.
Open access fees in this case would be charges to Comcast/Verizon/Joe Startup to offer competing (or non-competing) services on/over a muni network. Generally, open access fees are set at such a level that allows other parties to move into the area and be competetive without the initial capital investment of cable plant and switch housing, or the maintenance and upgrade expenses (the biggest barriers in underserved areas). Once the infrastructure exists, other providers are then able to sign open access contracts, and bring more feature rich products to the community, while lightening the burden of support on the broadband host and creating a less volatile revenue stream.
As for how the bonds are paid, they are typically published with the expectation that the access fees and subscriber fees will generate enough revenue to make the project self sustaining and pay the bonds back over the 20 - 30 year life. In the uncommon (but by no means unheard of) case that the muni was so badly botched that it cannot sustain itself, then the plant and infrastructure is typically sold to one of the major players to ameliorate the debt. The expectation on _any_ bond issue is that the improvement will increase income sufficiently to cover the expense of repaying the bond over the course of its life. Bond issues also have to be approved by voters in the tax district, so that method of financing places no burden on tax payers without voter consent.
In cases where the intent is to provide free blanket wireless access in a district (as in Austin) then the issue is put to a referendum. You, the tax payer, have the right to vote against such a use of your tax dollars, and the inevitable right to move out of the tax district if the vote comes out against you.
In that case, the goal is to provide a service that will lead to future economic development. The thinking is that ubiquitous wireless will draw young, tech savvy workers and executives and encourage new and existing businesses to set up shop in an exciting and tech friendly city. It's possible that they will be wrong, and that this will become a millstone... however, it has worked elsewhere (Seattle), and was found by local voters to be a viable experiment. The law in question would have allowed state government (which provided 0 funding for the project) to prevent the project from going forward for no binding reason.
Again, we come back to my main point. The original poster blasted the failing of this law as a victory for socialism, when it was, in fact, a victory for self determination. Every muni setup is a little different, every one financed a little differently, and like any business venture, every one carries the risk of financial failure. The crux of this bill was whether or not the people who were impacted got to decide whether it was a good risk for their community.
While I agree that, in general, the free market will provide better/faster/more services where there is economic incentive, I STRONGLY disagree with the notion that a city should not be PERMITTED to provide such services if no private channel can be found to provide them, and the means to fund them approved by the constituents.
Spoken like a true zealot... never-the-less, I shall try.
1. The bill would have PREVENTED local government from offering these services. The fact that it failed to pass is , in no way shape fashion or form, a mandate that local governments SHOULD provide it.
2. In the current system, a voter referendum is still required for any city to proceed. Remind me again how we've extended the power of government beyond previous limits?
3. Most muni broadband/wireless projects are funded via bond-issue, open access fees and user subscription fees. Relatively few of them rely on tax dollars to build or maintain the system. Those that are funded by tax dollars almost universially are required (by law) to get voter approval before work can even begin. You do vote, right? You know, that thing we do to determine who governs us, and what they are allowed to do?
4. This is not an issue of 'The Government' trying to trample the rights of 'The Individual' or 'Free Enterprise'. It is an issue of preventing 'Big Government' (state) from preventing 'Little Government' (local) government trying to spur economic development (which is in its own interest as well) by providing services that provide value to citizens and businesses, but aren't lucrative enough to interest private enterprise (in this case, limited monopolies... I notice you didnt scream too much about them manipulating the individual by creating artifical scarcity/demand).
5. Take off your tinfoil hat and realize that not all aspects of government are bad or irrational. It is true that our form of government is subject the excesses of it's representatives, but it will also adjust itself (given the opportunity and an interested populace) - which is better than most.
This was an arbitrary law limiting municipal governments' ability to provide an important service in an underserved area. It takes nothing away from constituents except for their right to decide how their corner of the world is governed. It EXPANDED the grasp of government, instead of narrowing it. It artifically limited the rights of the local populace to choose their relationship to their government at the bequest of major commercial interests.
6. Before posting on an issue you obviously know nothing about, take an hour to familiarize yourself with it JUST A BIT. Like most things in life/government there is typically a great deal more involved than is immediately apparent, and releveant to your personal agenda. I li ve in texas, and I know what this law meant, and you'll forgive me if I prefer to be able to choose for myself what I allow my local government to do with my own vote!
I keep trying to find a shor way to explain this, and it just seems impossible, but here we go again. 1a: When I purchase an XBox, I do not purchase license for it's use. I purchase two things: 1. the hardware in question. 2. the software in question to the extent that the copy in question is mine to use or destroy as I see fit within the boundaries of the law. The licensing you refer to has NEVER been legally validated. It is a wholly unexplored area of contract law and most disinterested legal opinions hold that huge parts of it could not stand up to a legal test in court. The weakest plank of the license is that it is unlawful in these United States to alter the terms of a contract without mutual consent once that contract has been signed. An agreement for sale is legally considered a contract once payment has occurred. It is, by design, impossible, or at least places unreasonable burden on the purchaser, to discern the exact terms of use on shrinkwrapped software before purchase. In order to determine the exact terms, it is necessary to install the software. If, at that time, you find the license too odious, it is impossible elect out of the contract (return the software) since opened software may not be returned. There are other legal weaknesses, including strong legal precedent preventing sellers from artificially restricting the uses to which a product may be put. There is strong case law stating that this can ONLY be done to facilitate reasonable limitation of liability... (EG hot coffee, do not use this lawnmower engine to power your electric shaver, this forklift is only rated for 4000lbs, donot expect it to function correctly ater lifting 8000). Limitations beyond that are historically unenforceable in criminal or civil arenas. That, I guess, is the crux of my argument. While I do not 'own' the code, I do own that copy of the 'application' in question, and as a result, a private citizen may do whatever he chooses with that copy of the 'application' except where he violates a different legal stricture. Again, to be clear, publication and distribution trespass on the rights of the copyright holder. Representing a modified application as either wholly your own work, or the unadulterated work of the publisher are both equally unlawful, as is the distribution of the modified application without prior consent of the publisher. None.. and I'll repeat that again, none of these traps are triggered by my modding my xbox to run linux. If I were to then use the running linux kernel to get free xbox live, THEN MS would have grounds to seek damages - but they could seek them for misuse of xbox live, NOT because I hacked my xbox in the first place. The same is true with Windows... as long as I dont exceed the number of copies installed that I have licensed, Microsoft may not - according to curent legal precedent - limit my use or abuse of those installed copies unless I (as a private citizen) violate some OTHER law in the process. While you may choose to disagree, I still assert thay my undertanding of the legal issues involved is quite good. I am arguing, quite simply, that the clauses you refer to in their licenses violate current law as defined by precedent. Neither of us will technically be 'right' until such cases are taken through the courts (probably several times). Since the expense involved such litigation is prohibitive for the end user, and danger of a negative precedent is very real for the publishers (not to mention bad PR for going after Joe User), I doubt we'll be seeing such a battle in the courts in the near future.
This is endemic in our economy. Partly because we have such higly valued, highly capitalized corporations.
Businesses with sales in the 10's of billions have to be careful with product lines. People trash MS for not innovating and screwing their customers - and they do - but they are, in many ways, a victim of their own success. They can't pursue so called 'disruptive' technologies because they would put Office and Widows revenues in danger - and they now have thousands of employees and 100's of billions of dollars in outstanding shares.
Simply 'making thebest product possible' and 'selling all I can' won't work in the corporate world... in fact, it would be a recipie for disaster. It's one of the many reasons we need to overhaul the corporation system here, but even if we can turn the system into a socially conscious, fiscally and environmentally responsible (and accountable) system, this problem will still exist.
Making a truly better product will likely remain the province of startups, visionaries and crackpots. James Dyson is an excellent example. He tried to sell his cyclonic vacuum cleaner to anyone and everyone, but the entrenched manufacturers made much of their profit on replacement bag revenues. His company is now quite successful, and the other manufacturers have fallen into line and put out similar models - but only because they were forced by his disruption of the market.
One executive from a major manufacturer is quoted as saying "We should have bought it when we first had the chance... we could have locked it away in the vault, and it would never have seen the light of day."
Eeyore
..and has tried to release a phone with MP3/AAC/ITunes support in partnership with Nokia.
The major wireless providers have basically shut the phone out of the market by opting not to subsidize them because they want music downloads through their networks as a revenue stream.
It's not as if anyone is caught flat footed by convergence devices. The question is not if they will come about, but how long it takes a good one to make it past all the market barriers.
Eeyore
Do you work for the Microsoft PR department or something?
I Want to discuss the concept of property ownership with you. It's usually pretty simple, but you seem to not grasp it fully.
When I purchase something (Windows XP, XBox, PS2, lumber, or a drill), I am now the owner of that piece of property. It is now mine to use in whatever manner I see fit. I can break it, hack it, stick it under a blow torch, make it run linux, make it run Amiga OS if I want. Stick it in my Microwave, use it for ammunition in my trebuchet, decompile it, or feed it to my fish.
The only thing that I cannot legally do is a) use it in the commission of a crime (because its a crime, you know)or b)sell it as an unadulterated product.
Now, lets cover what valid crimes are...
1.reverse engineering for commercial purposes
2.altering the product to get other, related products or services for free
3.engaging in other criminal mischief based on my alteration of the product.
4. Publishing decompiled source code of a closed source product.
That means that if I, as an individual choose to take the fonts from my personal, legal copy of Windows, and use them in my personal, non-commercial, dual booting linux desktop, MS has no recourse against me.
If I write instructions for other people with legitimately licensed copies of Windows to do the same on their personal machines, MS has no recourse against me.
I am liable for damages ONLY if I use or encourage use of this process in a commercial setting, or do so without a properly licensed copy of Windows.
Corporate law is stickier than personal property law, but personal property law is VERY clear. No seller can limit use of something sold to a private citizen for private use except as a limitation of liability in the result of injury, or the commission of a crime.
That means that Sony and MS cannot dictate the uses to which I put my XBOX or PS2 once I have purchased them. They can, and routinely do, void the warranties and ban machines from online play when changes are detected, but that is the absolute limit of their recourse in these matters.
It doesn't matter that you don't understand WHY I want to do it, or how. It doesn't matter if your product was not intended for that purpose, or even if it's dangerous. If I were to overclock my xbox to the point that the CPU was hot enough to cause localized fusion that immolated me and my house, MS could not then sue my estate for violation of the EULA, and neither could my estate turn and sue MS for 'allowing' me to use their product in such a manner... well, I suppose my estate could try, but they would lose - and rightly so... I would then, of course, be obliged to return and haunt the executor of my estate for being such a knob.
And just to make sure we're clear, unless the folks running the OSS projects for XBOX and PSX are encouraging you to hack boxes you don't own, or to use the products to steal additional services, they're safe too. They are publishing instructions for how to void the warranty on a properly and legally owned unit.
The EULA's you talk about are completely unenforceable. These kinds of questions are not in the neighborhood of copying my DVD's - there is no duplication of functionality or media - no real potential for abuse by redistribution for a company to hide behind. This is purely a question of ownership rights, and the definition of property/purchase. No court, not even our backwards, hyper protectionist ones would ever back such a fundamental change in the laws of ownership.
If they did, rest assured that even Congress would sit up and take notice when rednecks and geeks everywhere found out they were no longer able to use their lawnmower engines for go-karts and motorized barstools because limitations put in place by Briggs and Stratton to strengthen their Go-Kart motor business.
Which brings us to your definition of theft....
It's an interesting definition..well, no I guess it isn't... you
Two very good reasons you got this response, you trashed apple and OS X, not their GPL compliance practices. You MENTIONED the GPL, but it was hardly the core of your post.
Apple is not abusing the GPL. They are following it absolutely to the letter. They aren't even dragging their feet on code releases, which is common where companies have co-opted GPL code to jumpstart development.
No, they aren't collaborating with the KHTML team, but that's not required by the GPL. Apple plays in its own, very expensive, sand box. It would be fiscally foolish of them to expend engineer and sysadmin hours to make their patches more helpful to KHTML... especially when even if they did, many of the changes use OS X specific API's, so that extra effort would be WASTED.
They forked KHTML and the trees have radically diverged. To expect Apple - as a company - to unilaterally keep the forks from diverging too much is simply irrational. The KHTML developers are complaining about ignorant users (and apple zealots) who mistakenly believe that apple is doing something MORE than they are obligated to - not accusing them of doing less.
In short, it's stupid to badmouth Apple for *only* meeting it's obligations. If you want to bad mouth them, pick a real topic, like the fact that they 'stole' the idea for dashboard from konfabulator, or integrated clones of dozens of other 3rd party tools directly into to the OS without paying off the original creators. I personally think that argument is spurious, but at least it has valid ethical considerations.
It's also somewhat ignorant to trash the OS because the bundled apps suck. You use Firefox and Thunderbird, Good for you! I use them on my Windows machine too, because Outlook sucks. Windows _also_ sucks - it's buggy, unstable, insecure and all but useless without Cygwin - which is why I generally use X or Linux whenever I can. It doesnt change the fact that OSX has a rock solid BSD core, and the best, most accessible GUI currently available. It is, in every way, as good, and in a few ways BETTER than Linux. Linux's only two functional (not idealogical) advantages are its cost and that it can be compiled on nearly any platform.
So why again are you going to go badmouth it at the apple store?
The article paints Adobe's (apparent) culture of innovation like it's a pathological disease. As if the drive to improve their products without the 'Hammer of Impending Doom' hovering over their heads were some kind of disorder...
... excuse me ... paranoid attitude of Adobe's Management. InDesign is beginning to get traction because it really is that much better than Quark 6... It was better at v1.5, better @ v2 - and better still at v3 (CS) ... and even the hidebound print industry is beginning to sit up and take notice.
Isn't this exactly what we criticize MS for not doing? Shouldn't we be ecstatic to find a company where the leadership 'stays awake at night' coming up with ways to make their product better... and not just 'adding a nth blade to the razor' better, but honest and for true new and better features? Isn't that the way business is SUPPOSED to work? Have we reached a point where mediocrity is the gold standard, and pursuit of excellence is considered a defect?
Not to mention that there is, in fact, more happening at Adobe than running away from MS. InDesign is a clear and effective shot across the bow of Quark Systems... You remember Quark? The most customer hostile company on the planet, and a classic example of the 'milk and coast' attitude Dvorak mentions... or do you REALLY think adobe was targeting Publisher with this product?
Getting anything through the print/design industry is like pouring molasses at midwinter, but even so, inDesign is *beginning* to make an impact precisely because of the driven
As far as the results of the merger, I really don't know yet. It is certainly a better one than many I've seen go through in the last two years. Product overlap is minimal, both companies are already successful in their chosen markets... if Adobe is smart, they'll keep Dreamweaver and salvage what they can of GoLive to add to the product. Other than that it mostly just creates a larger product line for Adobe. If adobe is able to extend its commitment to excellence/paranoia to Macromedia, and manages to not alienate the impressive developer community that comes with it they have a chance to do some genuinely cool stuff.
I'm certainly not as scared of 'Macrodobe' as I am of Peoplesoft/Oracle - apples and oranges, I know, but that one wakes <i>me</i> up at night in a cold sweat.