I'd think it would make more sense to block this stuff by default. But it would be crucial to have an easy to find interface to open stuff back up on your IP. And of course the ISPs would never implement it that way - so in the real world this would just wind up being another step in the neutering of the internet.
Better that the customers just pick up cheap firewalls. There are plenty of good software firewalls for windows computers that are free for personal use, and a usable HW firewall for a DSL user can be had for around $50 (and do useful things like NATting for several computers around the house as well as firewalling.) Of course not all of them know enough to do it, but ISPs can educate their customers a little and it wouldn't be nearly as expensive as implementing any half-reasonable firewalling on their end.
Of course an even better path would be to simply get everyone off Windows, but that's going to take a little time still.
Clearly, Sun has cooped something that looks good.
Cooped? Huh? They stuck it in a cage with a bunch of chickens? How do they expect to make money doing that? How come the article didn't mention this? Where did you find out?
I guess they dont see *bsd as much of a threat, today.
And they never will.
Don't get me wrong, it's a great OS, I like it a lot (and wish more Linux distros were more like it, often) but the licensing is key.
If FBSD comes up with something that's cool enough to be a threat to MS, they'll just grab the code, do the old 'embrace and extend' routine on it, and push it on all their customers. Of course their version will break compatibility as soon as they see an advantage, and the BSD guys will never get to see the changes.
This is why MS loves BSD and hates Linux, it's all about the licensing.
First off you apparently have a comprehension problem. You don't add ice to drink it 15 minutes later, you add it if you want to drink it immediately. A couple cubes of ice on top and it was fine for immediate consumption I had it that way many times.
And you're also wrong about no other restaurants doing that. I think all the fast food restaurants in my town served it that hot or close before the suit - Hardees and Bojangles in particular were the ones that I had breakfast from regularly and I know they did. After this stupid suit they all got directives that they couldn't serve it like that anymore. Which meant if you got the coffee in the drive through on the way to work, it was luke-warm and undrinkable by the time you were ready for it. That's not a 'reasonable' temperature for coffee in my book. If you like luke-warm coffee, fine, but don't applaud this woman and her lawyers and a stupid judge and stupid jurors stealing millions from McDonalds for selling what the rest of us wanted.
It wasn't 400 degrees. It was, IIRC, 180 degrees F. And yes, of course, it would burn your mouth if you drank it at that temperature. It was sold at that temperature to go and after a 15 minute drive it was just perfect. If you wanted to drink it faster, you asked for some ice in it. That way everyone's happy.
Now, if you want coffee to drink 15 minutes later you're out of luck, they can't sell it anymore, because we all have to be prohibited from getting what we want so that the people that are so stupid they clamp one of these cups of 180 degree coffee between their legs and rip the cover off it don't have to learn not to do that.
Regulation has sure done a lot of good for the regular phone companies eh?
VoIP is a chance to get around the stifling regulations that have turned telephone service into a form of corporate welfare for campaign contributors, and to create a market that will serve the consumer again.
Of course the regulators are going to try and screw it up.
Don't complain, they're trying to keep from slashdotting the server.
Ok, probably not, never attribute to benevolence what can be explained as well by stupidity.
The address is there though, before you complain about them being too stupid to make a link you might ask yourself if you're really too stupid to cut and paste. Cuts both ways.
Article isn't really anything new, but a decent quick rundown on the current state of the field I think.
a large part of the cup's rigidity comes from the lid; the amount of pressure required to "hold" a cup between your legs while you conjure with the lid will obviously collapse the cup if the lid is removed.
Yes, and that's why those lids had a little flap you could pull up and make an opening to drink through without taking the lid off.
She was an idiot, but it took the lawyers to do the real damage.
They are going to court just as soon as they can. Unfortunately that's a slow process. In the meantime, don't expect them to do a lot, except keep scrapbooks full of SCOs statements for use there.
I'm so sick of people trying to portray this nonsense as reasonable. Yes the coffee was hot. It was advertised that way. Everyone knew it was hot. I and many many others bought that same hot coffee day after day for years. We wanted it that hot, so it would still be a good temperature after we finished driving to work and had time to drink it. It came with a little cardboard holder and a cover that, when you were ready to drink, you could open in a controlled way so that it stayed mostly covered even then.
Then one idiot clenched it between her legs to wrestle the lid of and sued McDonalds when she, predictably, burned herself. And because of her, you can't buy coffee hot enough to still be drinkable when you finish your commute anymore.
Fact is Linus didn't call Ritchie's code ugly. He called SGI's patch ugly, that's a big difference. Yes, the patch included some of Ritchie's code, but the ugly part was the rest of it - having a separate malloc implementation just for their code in particular.
Gah feel free to mod the previous version of this comment into oblivion, I hit submit accidentally.
The numbers you're looking at are marketing numbers first off, and overly generous. Second you don't scale for free - you never get anything like 100 times the performance of a single box when you wire 100 together, for the same reason that you don't get twice the horsepower out of an engine twice the size.
The previous price/performance champ was in fact a PS/2 cluster, mentioned here, but this AMD cluster is roughly three times the performance for the dollar. You can check the stats with different assumptions on their FAQ page, particularly the section labeled 'Is KASY0 really the first supercomputer under $100/GFLOPS?'
The previous price/performance champ was in fact a PS/2 cluster, mentioned here, but this AMD cluster is roughly three times the performance for the dollar. You can check the stats with different assumptions on their FAQ page, particularly the section labeled 'Is KASY0 really the first supercomputer under $100/GFLOPS?'
Actually if it comes right down to it 32v is probably public domain. The judge in the BSD case found the arguments that is is very convincing, which was one of the reasons AT&T wound up begging to settle. Since they settled there's no actual ruling to that effect, but the case is pretty clear - under the law as it stood at the time, AT&T had lost their copyright by failing to fulfil the conditions set by law in order to hold it. And the subsequent changes in the law don't give them a copyright back if it was already lost - they would only extend it if there was a valid copyright in place at the time.
Yes, I suppose that even without owning any improperly contributed code themselves, Caldera would still have standing to complain since they own some of the GPL code. Honestly, I don't see them taking this tact anytime soon, they so far seem to be in complete denial that they, for instance, contributed some of the JFS code they're complaining about, and they're arguing publically that the GPL isn't enforceable so they'd look really funny arguing that it is at the same time. Still, this is possible.
Anyway, moving code to a second CD wouldn't fix it AFAIK. The code would still need to be reassembled to compile, that's a transparent dodge a court would be likely to see right through. And the codes would still be mingled in the same binary in the distros - and trying to re-engineer the kernel to run as multiple binaries would almost certainly be more work than just cleaning up whatever problems they wind up being able to show, also legally dubious, and frankly if it stood up that would be a very bad precedent that the Free Software community should avoid setting even if it could be done.
Better just to fix any real problems as soon as they are identified. So far, we've got their two top examples, one was fixed even before it was leaked that this was part of their case, the other is a case where it can be easily proven that they're completely mistaken - the linux code is not a copy of the code they claim, but a clean reimplimentation from a published spec, and the code they're claiming doesn't even belong to them anyway.
I wouldn't be surprised if they don't have anything better to show, just many many similar cases, but at any rate, you can count on patches fixing any real problems they do reveal within hours.
Complain to their ISP. If they don't take action, escalate upstream. Same old strategy, hasn't changed much in the last 15 years. Doesn't always work, but it sure feels good when it does.
To me it seems that, yes, anything that has a BSD license with the advertising clause will need to be removed...but that yields no damages to SCO.
Umm actually it yields *actual damages* to SCO. Trouble for them is it's going to be real hard to show *any* actual damages at all, let alone enough to offset the legal fees involved.
Going after copyright violations is usually only wourthwhile when you have cases where you can ask for *treble* damages and *punitive* damages, and IANAL but it seems to me that this is clearly not one of those cases.
And, either way, the people they can sue for this are the people that contributed the code improperly. Everyone else that used it in good faith is immune to action, as long as it gets removed in a timely fashion once they reveal what code they're whining about.
That just means that if anyone who contributed GPL code to the system objects, one of the pieces of code will need to be removed before distribution can proceed.
Ummm huh? It's the people that hold the copyright to the BSD code that need to object, not those who have copyright on the properly GPLd code. In the cases revealed so far that doesn't appear to be SCO, although it's certainly possible that they can find a few cases where they do have standing. Am I misunderstanding you? This, and the last paragraph of your post as well, seem to indicate you have this all backwards.
Now SCO does have some GPL code in there, but AFAIK (which isn't far, I admit) most of it is to allow GNU code to work with SCO systems.
GPL code in where? In Linux? As Caldera, they contributed quite a bit, ironically much of it in areas they are now suing IBM for contributing to. See this note for example.
Or if you mean in their Unix, there's every reason to believe their LKP, and possibly other modules they claim as proprietary, contain extensive copying of GPL code contrary to license, but the source code will have to be subpoenad to determine the full extent of this.
gcc may be a special case, and might need to be moved to a "non-free" section, or even have new distributions halted until a revised version could be issued. (So hold onto your old CDs. You may need to pull gcc off them.)
Umm wtf are you talking about? You've completely lost me here. AFAIK there is no issue whatsoever concerning GCC.
But a trade secret has to be kept secret, right? You can't put a trade secret on a public ftp server for everyone to download like SCO did with their Linux distro. That's not what I would understand as "keeping a secret". So the trade secret claim is also bogus as is all this h****shit from these crackpots.
Umm yes and no.
Anything that's in the Linux kernel is obviously no longer a trade secret.
However, Caldera hosting the kernel obviously wasn't its initial release, so they wouldn't be responsible for ending that status by that action. Assuming they can find something that was actually a viable trade secret of theirs at the time someone with whom they had a contract in force to protect it, released it in violation of said contract, then the releaser would certainly have liability for that act. But you're right that once a trade secret is revealed it's gone, and suing the releaser is their only remedy.
Seems quite unlikely they've got such a case really, but if they do, it's only good against IBM or whoever, no one else, it doesn't mean any code needs to be rewritten, and it doesn't justify their ranting and raving.
And you're right, code derived from the Ancient Unix Caldera published is not under a GPL compatible license, because of the advertising clause. So in the end anything that is really under their copyright will have to be removed.
The examples they've shown so far haven't been, however. The SGI file is their best case, and there's a good argument that it's not copyrightable (we're talking about a tight implementation of a straightforward and basic task - any number of programmers could produce it or something nearly identical to it without ever having seen it before) and that if it is copyrightable it's public domain anyway, either because K&R published it and encouraged its use, or because it's found in 32v, which is probably in the public domain (the judge in the BSD case thought it was, but the case was settled so it's not a precedent.)
But then their other example inadvertantly revealed that they're probably in violation of Berkley copyright.
At any rate, even if they have dozens or hundreds of such technical violations, that doesn't really get them squat. They can sue the contributors (like SGI in the example shown) for actual damages but that's peanuts, not worth the legal fees. As soon as such cases become known, they get reimplemented properly with little fuss. There is no basis for them to sue users, which is why they aren't suing them - just trying to frighten them into signing a contract they can use to sue them later and some money to keep them afloat in the meantime.
The only part of SCOs noise that has a chance in hell of translating into more than a token win is the trade secret and contract issues they are suing IBM over, and even there it doesn't seem like their chances are very good.
I think a lot of the stupidity comes from communications screwups as well. This is quite predictable. Get a dumb jock CEO that wants to hear a certain thing in position, and a while load of structural incentives come down to make sure that people tell him what he wants to hear. And tell the lawyers what they want to hear. Even if the technical people in the organisation that know better won't lie, they're going to have a big incentive to shape their statements so they don't flat out contradict what McBride wants to hear. The ones that won't are the first ones out of work. So he winds up hearing what he wants to hear, and the lawyers hear the same thing, and the techs are nervous and looking for real jobs, trying to figure out how to hide their current employment when they draw up their resumes...
The best that Sontag can reply is "we still own this code"?!? Well, Ok, but guess what buddy...years ago it was released under a license that lets anyone copy it.
And the fact is that's the best case for SCO on the examples that have been shown. It's probably worse for them. One example, the architecture specific file for a few old SGI machines, was contributed to SGI and if SCOs allegations are true then they are guilty of something here, if only not preserving a mandatory copyright notice. But even that isn't proven by what SCO has shown - they just showed that a comment had survived after all, and comments are not code.
The other example is even worse - SCO claimed a clean reimplementation in linux was an 'obfuscated copy' but since the origin of the linux code is well documented all they've done is demonstrate that they can't tell the difference, as we suspected, and on top of that the code they presented as their own actually comes from Carnegie-Mellon and Stanford, by way of Berkley, and isn't owned by SCO at all! It's apparently in their Unix code in violation of license on exactly the same grounds that the SGI code in linux they claimed is!
You're right, this was just supposed to be Kool-aid for their troops, it got leaked because they screwed up and let someone with a brain into their conference, and then being as stupid as they are they went ahead and leaked the rest of the stuff thinking it would make things better. But instead, they've shown pretty conclusively that just as we suspected they can't tell the difference between the stuff they own and the stuff they are using under license from Berkley.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd think it would make more sense to block this stuff by default. But it would be crucial to have an easy to find interface to open stuff back up on your IP. And of course the ISPs would never implement it that way - so in the real world this would just wind up being another step in the neutering of the internet.
Better that the customers just pick up cheap firewalls. There are plenty of good software firewalls for windows computers that are free for personal use, and a usable HW firewall for a DSL user can be had for around $50 (and do useful things like NATting for several computers around the house as well as firewalling.) Of course not all of them know enough to do it, but ISPs can educate their customers a little and it wouldn't be nearly as expensive as implementing any half-reasonable firewalling on their end.
Of course an even better path would be to simply get everyone off Windows, but that's going to take a little time still.
As long as [OK] is enter and [Cancel] is escape I don't care where they bloody draw the widgets, personally.
But until Gnome works better from the keyboard I won't be too impressed.
Cooped? Huh? They stuck it in a cage with a bunch of chickens? How do they expect to make money doing that? How come the article didn't mention this? Where did you find out?
And they never will.
Don't get me wrong, it's a great OS, I like it a lot (and wish more Linux distros were more like it, often) but the licensing is key.
If FBSD comes up with something that's cool enough to be a threat to MS, they'll just grab the code, do the old 'embrace and extend' routine on it, and push it on all their customers. Of course their version will break compatibility as soon as they see an advantage, and the BSD guys will never get to see the changes.
This is why MS loves BSD and hates Linux, it's all about the licensing.
Those doesn't go with kind though. Correct english would be 'that kind of words.'
First off you apparently have a comprehension problem. You don't add ice to drink it 15 minutes later, you add it if you want to drink it immediately. A couple cubes of ice on top and it was fine for immediate consumption I had it that way many times.
And you're also wrong about no other restaurants doing that. I think all the fast food restaurants in my town served it that hot or close before the suit - Hardees and Bojangles in particular were the ones that I had breakfast from regularly and I know they did. After this stupid suit they all got directives that they couldn't serve it like that anymore. Which meant if you got the coffee in the drive through on the way to work, it was luke-warm and undrinkable by the time you were ready for it. That's not a 'reasonable' temperature for coffee in my book. If you like luke-warm coffee, fine, but don't applaud this woman and her lawyers and a stupid judge and stupid jurors stealing millions from McDonalds for selling what the rest of us wanted.
It wasn't 400 degrees. It was, IIRC, 180 degrees F. And yes, of course, it would burn your mouth if you drank it at that temperature. It was sold at that temperature to go and after a 15 minute drive it was just perfect. If you wanted to drink it faster, you asked for some ice in it. That way everyone's happy.
Now, if you want coffee to drink 15 minutes later you're out of luck, they can't sell it anymore, because we all have to be prohibited from getting what we want so that the people that are so stupid they clamp one of these cups of 180 degree coffee between their legs and rip the cover off it don't have to learn not to do that.
Regulation has sure done a lot of good for the regular phone companies eh?
VoIP is a chance to get around the stifling regulations that have turned telephone service into a form of corporate welfare for campaign contributors, and to create a market that will serve the consumer again.
Of course the regulators are going to try and screw it up.
Don't complain, they're trying to keep from slashdotting the server.
Ok, probably not, never attribute to benevolence what can be explained as well by stupidity.
The address is there though, before you complain about them being too stupid to make a link you might ask yourself if you're really too stupid to cut and paste. Cuts both ways.
Article isn't really anything new, but a decent quick rundown on the current state of the field I think.
Yes, and that's why those lids had a little flap you could pull up and make an opening to drink through without taking the lid off.
She was an idiot, but it took the lawyers to do the real damage.
They are going to court just as soon as they can. Unfortunately that's a slow process. In the meantime, don't expect them to do a lot, except keep scrapbooks full of SCOs statements for use there.
Oh bite me.
I'm so sick of people trying to portray this nonsense as reasonable. Yes the coffee was hot. It was advertised that way. Everyone knew it was hot. I and many many others bought that same hot coffee day after day for years. We wanted it that hot, so it would still be a good temperature after we finished driving to work and had time to drink it. It came with a little cardboard holder and a cover that, when you were ready to drink, you could open in a controlled way so that it stayed mostly covered even then.
Then one idiot clenched it between her legs to wrestle the lid of and sued McDonalds when she, predictably, burned herself. And because of her, you can't buy coffee hot enough to still be drinkable when you finish your commute anymore.
Fact is Linus didn't call Ritchie's code ugly. He called SGI's patch ugly, that's a big difference. Yes, the patch included some of Ritchie's code, but the ugly part was the rest of it - having a separate malloc implementation just for their code in particular.
Gah feel free to mod the previous version of this comment into oblivion, I hit submit accidentally.
The numbers you're looking at are marketing numbers first off, and overly generous. Second you don't scale for free - you never get anything like 100 times the performance of a single box when you wire 100 together, for the same reason that you don't get twice the horsepower out of an engine twice the size.
The previous price/performance champ was in fact a PS/2 cluster, mentioned here, but this AMD cluster is roughly three times the performance for the dollar. You can check the stats with different assumptions on their FAQ page, particularly the section labeled 'Is KASY0 really the first supercomputer under $100/GFLOPS?'
The previous price/performance champ was in fact a PS/2 cluster, mentioned here, but this AMD cluster is roughly three times the performance for the dollar. You can check the stats with different assumptions on their FAQ page, particularly the section labeled 'Is KASY0 really the first supercomputer under $100/GFLOPS?'
It's cheaper.
Actually if it comes right down to it 32v is probably public domain. The judge in the BSD case found the arguments that is is very convincing, which was one of the reasons AT&T wound up begging to settle. Since they settled there's no actual ruling to that effect, but the case is pretty clear - under the law as it stood at the time, AT&T had lost their copyright by failing to fulfil the conditions set by law in order to hold it. And the subsequent changes in the law don't give them a copyright back if it was already lost - they would only extend it if there was a valid copyright in place at the time.
Where's the freakin tarball? I'm dying to try this out.
Ah ok now I understand what you're talking about.
Yes, I suppose that even without owning any improperly contributed code themselves, Caldera would still have standing to complain since they own some of the GPL code. Honestly, I don't see them taking this tact anytime soon, they so far seem to be in complete denial that they, for instance, contributed some of the JFS code they're complaining about, and they're arguing publically that the GPL isn't enforceable so they'd look really funny arguing that it is at the same time. Still, this is possible.
Anyway, moving code to a second CD wouldn't fix it AFAIK. The code would still need to be reassembled to compile, that's a transparent dodge a court would be likely to see right through. And the codes would still be mingled in the same binary in the distros - and trying to re-engineer the kernel to run as multiple binaries would almost certainly be more work than just cleaning up whatever problems they wind up being able to show, also legally dubious, and frankly if it stood up that would be a very bad precedent that the Free Software community should avoid setting even if it could be done.
Better just to fix any real problems as soon as they are identified. So far, we've got their two top examples, one was fixed even before it was leaked that this was part of their case, the other is a case where it can be easily proven that they're completely mistaken - the linux code is not a copy of the code they claim, but a clean reimplimentation from a published spec, and the code they're claiming doesn't even belong to them anyway.
I wouldn't be surprised if they don't have anything better to show, just many many similar cases, but at any rate, you can count on patches fixing any real problems they do reveal within hours.
Complain to their ISP. If they don't take action, escalate upstream. Same old strategy, hasn't changed much in the last 15 years. Doesn't always work, but it sure feels good when it does.
Umm actually it yields *actual damages* to SCO. Trouble for them is it's going to be real hard to show *any* actual damages at all, let alone enough to offset the legal fees involved.
Going after copyright violations is usually only wourthwhile when you have cases where you can ask for *treble* damages and *punitive* damages, and IANAL but it seems to me that this is clearly not one of those cases.
And, either way, the people they can sue for this are the people that contributed the code improperly. Everyone else that used it in good faith is immune to action, as long as it gets removed in a timely fashion once they reveal what code they're whining about.
Ummm huh? It's the people that hold the copyright to the BSD code that need to object, not those who have copyright on the properly GPLd code. In the cases revealed so far that doesn't appear to be SCO, although it's certainly possible that they can find a few cases where they do have standing. Am I misunderstanding you? This, and the last paragraph of your post as well, seem to indicate you have this all backwards.
GPL code in where? In Linux? As Caldera, they contributed quite a bit, ironically much of it in areas they are now suing IBM for contributing to. See this note for example.
Or if you mean in their Unix, there's every reason to believe their LKP, and possibly other modules they claim as proprietary, contain extensive copying of GPL code contrary to license, but the source code will have to be subpoenad to determine the full extent of this.
Umm wtf are you talking about? You've completely lost me here. AFAIK there is no issue whatsoever concerning GCC.
Umm yes and no.
Anything that's in the Linux kernel is obviously no longer a trade secret.
However, Caldera hosting the kernel obviously wasn't its initial release, so they wouldn't be responsible for ending that status by that action. Assuming they can find something that was actually a viable trade secret of theirs at the time someone with whom they had a contract in force to protect it, released it in violation of said contract, then the releaser would certainly have liability for that act. But you're right that once a trade secret is revealed it's gone, and suing the releaser is their only remedy.
Seems quite unlikely they've got such a case really, but if they do, it's only good against IBM or whoever, no one else, it doesn't mean any code needs to be rewritten, and it doesn't justify their ranting and raving.
And you're right, code derived from the Ancient Unix Caldera published is not under a GPL compatible license, because of the advertising clause. So in the end anything that is really under their copyright will have to be removed.
The examples they've shown so far haven't been, however. The SGI file is their best case, and there's a good argument that it's not copyrightable (we're talking about a tight implementation of a straightforward and basic task - any number of programmers could produce it or something nearly identical to it without ever having seen it before) and that if it is copyrightable it's public domain anyway, either because K&R published it and encouraged its use, or because it's found in 32v, which is probably in the public domain (the judge in the BSD case thought it was, but the case was settled so it's not a precedent.)
But then their other example inadvertantly revealed that they're probably in violation of Berkley copyright.
At any rate, even if they have dozens or hundreds of such technical violations, that doesn't really get them squat. They can sue the contributors (like SGI in the example shown) for actual damages but that's peanuts, not worth the legal fees. As soon as such cases become known, they get reimplemented properly with little fuss. There is no basis for them to sue users, which is why they aren't suing them - just trying to frighten them into signing a contract they can use to sue them later and some money to keep them afloat in the meantime.
The only part of SCOs noise that has a chance in hell of translating into more than a token win is the trade secret and contract issues they are suing IBM over, and even there it doesn't seem like their chances are very good.
I think a lot of the stupidity comes from communications screwups as well. This is quite predictable. Get a dumb jock CEO that wants to hear a certain thing in position, and a while load of structural incentives come down to make sure that people tell him what he wants to hear. And tell the lawyers what they want to hear. Even if the technical people in the organisation that know better won't lie, they're going to have a big incentive to shape their statements so they don't flat out contradict what McBride wants to hear. The ones that won't are the first ones out of work. So he winds up hearing what he wants to hear, and the lawyers hear the same thing, and the techs are nervous and looking for real jobs, trying to figure out how to hide their current employment when they draw up their resumes...
And the fact is that's the best case for SCO on the examples that have been shown. It's probably worse for them. One example, the architecture specific file for a few old SGI machines, was contributed to SGI and if SCOs allegations are true then they are guilty of something here, if only not preserving a mandatory copyright notice. But even that isn't proven by what SCO has shown - they just showed that a comment had survived after all, and comments are not code.
The other example is even worse - SCO claimed a clean reimplementation in linux was an 'obfuscated copy' but since the origin of the linux code is well documented all they've done is demonstrate that they can't tell the difference, as we suspected, and on top of that the code they presented as their own actually comes from Carnegie-Mellon and Stanford, by way of Berkley, and isn't owned by SCO at all! It's apparently in their Unix code in violation of license on exactly the same grounds that the SGI code in linux they claimed is!
You're right, this was just supposed to be Kool-aid for their troops, it got leaked because they screwed up and let someone with a brain into their conference, and then being as stupid as they are they went ahead and leaked the rest of the stuff thinking it would make things better. But instead, they've shown pretty conclusively that just as we suspected they can't tell the difference between the stuff they own and the stuff they are using under license from Berkley.