Several people have said that the reply is irrevelant. But the points in the response are deceptively simple. They actually go to the heart of Microsoft's claims. For example:
3. How can Microsoft claim trade secrecy... 4. What measures has Microsoft taken to protect the trade secrecy... 5.... only distributed to persons who are capable of entering into a binding contract...
These are aimed at attacking Microsoft's claim of trade secret status.
Last week, when the popular Slashdot Web site published the Microsoft document with the copyright warning removed, Microsoft e-mailed Slashdot and threatened to sue. So far, Slashdot has refused to change its ways.
Perhaps it's eager to see whether Microsoft, a company on the verge of being ripped apart for antitrust violations, would be stupid enough to pick a fight over Kerberos.
The people most competent to advise you are undoubtably the Free Software Foundation. You need to get relevant help immediately. Your work contract with your company almost certainly states that anything you do while being paid by them belongs to the company. It is much better to have the licensing issues ironed-out before the changes are made than after the fact.
An anonymous reader wrote in to say that X was originally announced at MIT fifteen years ago today. The original announcement is attached below if you're curious. If they knew where it would be today!
Maybe. But it argues against the idea that in "an environment for discussion and debate the posting of Copyrighted material should be legal as long as it pertains to the topic being discussed." That's a fine sentiment, but the court ruling doesn't seem to agree.
Issues. At issue is whether the actions of the Free Republic website in carrying the plaintiffs' copyrighted news stories constitute copyright infringement under Title 17, and whether such actions fall with the fair use defense (17 USC 107). Defendants are not asserting interactive computer service immunity as a defense. (47 USC 230)
Status. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on September 28, 1998. Defendants answered on October 20, 1998. Plaintiffs and defendants filed cross motions for summary judgment on the fair use issue. Judge Morrow issued a tentative opinion on October 8, 1999 that the fair use defense fails. She finalized this opinion on March 31, 2000. Other matters remain for trial, which may be set for around September of 2000.
Until this is tested in court, there is no prescedent for whether or not foosucks.com is an infringement upon foo.com.
Actually, there is court guidance:
In Bally a California court held that defendant Faber, who had created a website named Bally Sucks, which he created "in a simmering rage after a Bally club in California didn't upgrade his membership as promised," violated neither federal trademark infringement nor trademark dilution statutes because the site was merely a parody designed to voice consumer complaints and not commercially competitive with Bally in any way. The site was so clearly anti-Bally that it could not be construed as the company's handiwork. In Bally, the court noted that Faber "does not use Bally in his domain name" and that "even if Faber did use the mark as part of a larger domain name, such as 'ballysucks.com', this would not necessarily be a violation as a matter of law" because "no reasonably prudent Internet user would believe that 'Ballysucks.com' is the official Bally site or is sponsored by Bally. Finally, the court also cited congressional intent to exempt parody and other non-commercial imitation from the Act.
Prioritized queues of advertising and content data are generated by a queue builder and sent to an on-line queue manager. A computer mediated communications network provides content and subscriber data to the queue builder and receives content segment play lists from the on-line queue manager. An exposure accounting module calculates and stores information about the number of exposures of targeted material received by subscribers and generates billing information. An information warehouse manager is employed to receive data from advertisers' data bases and third party sources as well as from the computer mediated communications network.
Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are un-conscionable).
It's possible that the image has some significance. It has a square in the upper right, then an six-pointed star on a row below that. Then there are two arrows facing left, a big "\" bar, and two arrows facing right.
Let's see if this comes across (square) (star) \ (left-pointing arrow) \ (left-pointing arrow) \ (right-pointing arrow) (right-pointing arrow)
I'm thinking there may be some element of "read two rows right-to-left, then two rows left-to-right".
Or maybe not.
PolluteMe - or "Ecollusion"
on
Silicon Hell
·
· Score: 2
Nina Paley (a should be much-better-known-cartoonist) did a strip on almost this concept. Check out:
Coincidentally, I was just thinking this morning that while JonKatz is a nice enough writer, I would much rather have seen an analysis of the DMCA from an experienced IP lawyer.
I encourage you to expand your comments into a full-fledged Slashdot article.
Slashdot Mirror
These are aimed at attacking Microsoft's claim of trade secret status.
For how this works, see the material at TRADE SECRET FAQs (Answers to Frequently Asked Questions)
and
(emphasis added)
These are trying to establish fair use defenses against the copyright claims.
The lawyer is so good he can actually make his points in English!
Self-inflicted wounds
Think Apple Newton. Need I say more?
First hit, a critical essay:
Sex, Lies and Censorware
Also referenced on the third hit, and later.
Turn on "SafeSearch".
You can't find the essay anywhere in the returned results.
Similar results with: lies censorware tyre
Apparently it's safety from criticism too ...
- the Boston Lunatic
2) Advertisers and news sites link into corporate pages
3) Personal home pages are highly likely to link into popular sites, but not be linked-into themselves
Applying these ideas, and others like them, leads to the "bowtie".
Weren't the pictures of H-bombs destroying small islands enough?
The people most competent to advise you are undoubtably the Free Software Foundation. You need to get relevant help immediately. Your work contract with your company almost certainly states that anything you do while being paid by them belongs to the company. It is much better to have the licensing issues ironed-out before the changes are made than after the fact.
See the history articles at http://www.enteract.com/~enf/afc/tty
(scroll down, the X articles are toward the bottom)
Maybe. But it argues against the idea that in
"an environment for discussion and debate the posting of Copyrighted material should be legal as long as it pertains to the topic being discussed."
That's a fine sentiment, but the court ruling doesn't seem to agree.
See, for example, LA Times v. Free Republic
No, no. According to Microsoft, those should be -1 's :-)
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer
- the Boston Lunatic
See A Primer on Trademark Law and Internet Addresses
- the Boston Lunatic
VERIZON-IS-SHIT.COM
VERIZON-BLOWZ.COM
VERIZON-IS-CRAP.COM
VERIZON-SUCKY.COM
Maybe I should go register them?
On-line interactive system and method for providing content and advertising information to a targeted set of viewers
There's a classic set of Dilbert strips parodying shrink-wrap licenses:
Bill Gates' Towel Boy
The decision in the article is a great case-study of what this site warns about.
It's possible that the image has some significance. It has a square in the upper
right, then an six-pointed star on a row below
that. Then there are two arrows facing left,
a big "\" bar, and two arrows facing right.
Let's see if this comes across
(square)
(star)
\ (left-pointing arrow)
\ (left-pointing arrow)
\
(right-pointing arrow)
(right-pointing arrow)
I'm thinking there may be some element of
"read two rows right-to-left, then two rows
left-to-right".
Or maybe not.
Nina's Adventures - "Ecollusion"
I encourage you to expand your comments into a full-fledged Slashdot article.
Someone needs to extend the proud tradition of jive and valtalk (see The Dialectizer) to KATZ
What you can do right here, right now, is to go o to the Library of Congress page Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works ( http://www.loc.gov/copyright/1201/anticirc.html ), read the SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS and file a reply comment to the MPAA's or other pro-DMCA submission.
(moderators, I know this is redundant with the same info in another post I just made, but give me a break)
Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works ( http://www.loc.gov/copyright/1201/anticirc.html )
DO NOT JUST EMAIL! READ THE SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
File a reply comment to the MPAA's or other pro-DMCA submission.