The fundamental problem here is the Linux code is open and the change logs from release to release are freely available to anybody who wants to look.
SCO code is a secret. Only SCO knows the evidence chain; only SCO knows the change logs. Will SCO be able to provide the courts with credible evidence that their code was written first?
The longer SCO fails to identify those parts of Linux sources that are a problem, the less friendly they will find a judge. To actively prevent the minimisation of damages will be their undoing.
Over the years SCO has had access to the sources of most of the major versions of Unix and Unix-like operating systems currently marketed. Zenix, Unixware, OpenServer, AIX, SYSV, PTX, Linux. In addition, there are so many ex-Novell people in SCO right now it wouldn't surprise me if SCO had a copy of Netware sources. When Caldera sued Microsoft over DRDOS, the court granted Caldera access to parts of MSDOS and Windows.
So, any coders within SCO potentially have had access to almost any operating system code of any significance written over the past 20 years!
I REALLY hope someone with a deep understanding of all this is preparing to write a book. This action could be the trigger that destroys the current easy path that IP claims have in the US courts.
As SCO is relying on trade secrets to hide their IP (ie close source) it's SCOs responsibility to protect their IP. Open source developers cannot inspect the SCO code so if they did write similar code (and there is no claim of cut&paste editing here) they would never know. SCO on the other hand has easy access to all Linux code. Then, as any damages could only be obtained via a civil action SCO would have to demonstrate to the court that they immediately acted to MINIMISE the damage before going to court.
If your business model depends on trade secrets (aka closed source) you have NO recourse should those secrets be exposed. You may well succeed in court against those that expose the secret but you never get your secrets back again and your business is ruined.
As for copyright - that only protects the _expression_ of an idea _not_ the idea itself; a different expression is perfectly legal. If you want to protect the idea you need to use the patent system. But to obtain a patent you must describe that being patented - useless in protecting trade secrets.
SCO may well have a case that could be taken to court (but who really knows until the code in question is identified.) but no matter what the result, SCO as a Unix business is dead. Who would ever share code with them, or use SCO licensed code ever again?
There's no point in getting screwed in court over a joke no matter how good.
But, don't go silently. Publish all those C&D letters in place of the jokes/cartoons together with counter arguments. Tell your audience what is happening. Correspond with the lawyers - it costs you nothing but postage; it costs the people paying the lawyers a lot everytime they have to respond.
If it's a matter of copyright - ask for proof! It's amazing how many organisations are unable to provide proof they own a particular IP.
The music industry (as opposed to the musicians) have no god given right to exist. They have ignored technology and now find that their product has little or no value to their customers. The savy musicians will soon start selling their music directly over the internet and may even find they make more money from that than the disgustingly small percentage they get from the industry.
request proof that RIAA represents the interests of copyright owners of each and every song they claim was found, after all if found quilty the file would be based on the total count.
If past cases are anything to go by, the publishers are VERY lax at looking after their IP.
In other areas, say cars, even if the maker drops support it's simple and legal for a 3rd party to do maintainence (though not for much longer if engine management becomes totally s/w based and DCMA remains in force.)
In closed source software, when the supplier drops support you are fscked. Even if you can find someone with the skills, the components are not available and you can't even look at the broken bits to see how to make new ones.
The big question is where will Microsoft be? It will be on the same old limited platforms trying to pretend that old PC style architecture is ideal for every computer application.
How long will it take before MS realises that people are not exactly rushing to follow it's lead?
My local discount book shop already has large numbers of heavily discounted.NET related books for sale. When I look at the shelves of my local tech book store.NET books are now almost totally absent. Microsoft TV ads that used to promote.NET have been re-edited and no longer mention.NET.
All this tends to indicate to me that.NET is a dud yet I'm sure that MS could show statistics indicating that.NET is taking over the world.
To carry a signal you have to modulate either the frequency (FM) or the amplitude(AM) in either case you DO use up part of the spectrum. It doesn't matter how you encode the information, eventually you end up occupying a range of frequencies.
You can share a defined channel so long as you accept a reduced data throughput as you have to allow for collisions (ie interference) this is what frequency hopping does, but it relies on the channels not being 100% utilised by one signal.
Eventually you have to deal with the inherent photon noise in the receiver. This puts a theoretical limit on the ability of a receiver to detect and extract an RF signal. Some radio telescopes are pretty close to the limit now, but run at liquid helium temperatures.
It's certainly possible to make better use of the existing spectrum if you could upgrade all RF equipment - but that's just a dream.
I suspect the Salon article doesn't do justice to the original work; I also suspect the original work is just a re-statement of well known information theory principles such as error correction.
is that DRM does nothing to protect my IP. It only protects big, rich companies. The independent writer or musician will get ripped off by the big companies as before.
If I create a file on my ftp server called "Office.Exe" will I eventually get a threatening email? What about a file called "Windows3.11" or "FrontPage".
But, if everybody did that the BSA would have to apologise a lot more and may even eventually be thought to be an inefficient or incompetant organisation.
On the other hand it may just be simpler to find out the ISP they use and block them using a packet filter...
that the US patent office appears to equate original to "I, the patent officer, don't know this already."
The US patent system is being used as a land-grab operation. Companies that are unable to actually create anything for themselves just patent any old idea and then wait for the license fees.
There should be a return to the old days. If you want a patent, turn up at the patent office with a working example of your idea...
When you buy the product, your implied or explicit contract is with the shop. The MS EULA expects the shop to act as an agent of MS but does not require it (the shop may be the end of a long, possibly international distribution chain.) MS does not appear to honour return for refund by any other mechanism.
I'd say the EULA contract is void because MS does not intend to honour it's part. This is evident because MS does not offer a refund mechanism in the shop, nor directly with the company.
of low cost TiVo work-alikes almost ready for the market. TiVo was really nothing more than a Linux PC. If you start from scratch it's possible to build a box with the equivalent functions in a much smaller and cheaper package. Plus, if you pull the TV schedules from teletext rather than via a subscription service it gets even cheaper.
I expect to see a product (packaged as a 6" cube) in the shops by next Christmas.
Tell them to fsck off via a lawyers letter. Report them to the local BBB. Write a memo to management explaining the savings they would make by moving to Linux+OpenOffice, copy to Microsoft:-)
The "consultation" process has been flawed and may well be challenged in the courts.
The.gov claims approx 2000 supporting responces yet just one web site has recorded over 5000 responses forwarded to.gov, the overwhelming majority against id cards.
Slashdot Mirror
SCO code, IBM submitted it to Linux?
BSD code, both SCO and IBM copied it?
Linux code written by IBM, SCO copied it?
etc
The fundamental problem here is the Linux code is open and the change logs from release to release are freely available to anybody who wants to look.
SCO code is a secret. Only SCO knows the evidence chain; only SCO knows the change logs.
Will SCO be able to provide the courts with credible evidence that their code was written first?
The longer SCO fails to identify those parts of Linux sources that are a problem, the less friendly they will find a judge. To actively prevent the minimisation of damages will be their undoing.
Over the years SCO has had access to the sources of most of the major versions of Unix and Unix-like operating systems currently marketed. Zenix, Unixware, OpenServer, AIX, SYSV, PTX, Linux. In addition, there are so many ex-Novell people in SCO right now it wouldn't surprise me if SCO had a copy of Netware sources. When Caldera sued Microsoft over DRDOS, the court granted Caldera access to parts of MSDOS and Windows.
So, any coders within SCO potentially have had access to almost any operating system code of any significance written over the past 20 years!
It's not happened in 20 years so far.
I've seen code running on a supercomputer which was first written for a VAX. The authors were long gone but nobody could afford the rewrite.
I REALLY hope someone with a deep understanding of all this is preparing to write a book. This action could be the trigger that destroys the current easy path that IP claims have in the US courts.
As SCO is relying on trade secrets to hide their IP (ie close source) it's SCOs responsibility to protect their IP. Open source developers cannot inspect the SCO code so if they did write similar code (and there is no claim of cut&paste editing here) they would never know. SCO on the other hand has easy access to all Linux code. Then, as
any damages could only be obtained via a civil action SCO would have to demonstrate to the court that they immediately acted to MINIMISE the damage before going to court.
SCO loses.
If your business model depends on trade secrets (aka closed source) you have NO recourse should those secrets be exposed. You may well succeed in court against those that expose the secret but you never get your secrets back again and your business is ruined.
As for copyright - that only protects the _expression_ of an idea _not_ the idea itself; a different expression is perfectly legal. If you want to protect the idea you need to use the patent system. But to obtain a patent you must describe that being patented - useless in protecting trade secrets.
SCO may well have a case that could be taken to court (but who really knows until the code in question is identified.) but no matter what the result, SCO as a Unix business is dead. Who would ever share code with them, or use SCO licensed code ever again?
... the dog gets it!
Given the turnover within MS, nobody knows who is writing Windows code either!
There's no point in getting screwed in court over a joke no matter how good.
But, don't go silently. Publish all those C&D letters in place of the jokes/cartoons together with
counter arguments. Tell your audience what is happening. Correspond with the lawyers - it costs you nothing but postage; it costs the people paying the lawyers a lot everytime they have to respond.
If it's a matter of copyright - ask for proof! It's amazing how many organisations are unable to provide proof they own a particular IP.
The music industry (as opposed to the musicians) have no god given right to exist. They have ignored technology and now find that their product has little or no value to their customers. The savy musicians will soon start selling their music directly over the internet and may even find they make more money from that than the disgustingly small percentage they get from the industry.
request proof that RIAA represents the interests of copyright owners of each and every song they claim was found, after all if found quilty the file would be based on the total count.
If past cases are anything to go by, the publishers are VERY lax at looking after their IP.
In other areas, say cars, even if the maker drops support it's simple and legal for a 3rd party to do maintainence (though not for much longer if engine management becomes totally s/w based and DCMA remains in force.)
In closed source software, when the supplier drops support you are fscked. Even if you can find someone with the skills, the components are not available and you can't even look at the broken bits to see how to make new ones.
Everywhere.
The big question is where will Microsoft be? It will be on the same old limited platforms trying to pretend that old PC style architecture is ideal for every computer application.
How long will it take before MS realises that people are not exactly rushing to follow it's lead?
My local discount book shop already has large numbers of heavily discounted .NET related books for sale. When I look at the shelves of my local tech book store .NET books are now almost totally absent. Microsoft TV ads that used to promote .NET have been re-edited and no longer mention .NET.
.NET is a dud yet I'm sure that MS could show statistics indicating that .NET is taking over the world.
All this tends to indicate to me that
To carry a signal you have to modulate either the frequency (FM) or the amplitude(AM) in either case you DO use up part of the spectrum. It doesn't matter how you encode the information, eventually you end up occupying a range of frequencies.
You can share a defined channel so long as you accept a reduced data throughput as you have to allow for collisions (ie interference) this is what frequency hopping does, but it relies on the channels not being 100% utilised by one signal.
Eventually you have to deal with the inherent photon noise in the receiver. This puts a theoretical limit on the ability of a receiver to detect and extract an RF signal. Some radio telescopes are pretty close to the limit now, but run at liquid helium temperatures.
It's certainly possible to make better use of the existing spectrum if you could upgrade all RF equipment - but that's just a dream.
I suspect the Salon article doesn't do justice to the original work; I also suspect the original work is just a re-statement of well known information theory principles such as error correction.
is that DRM does nothing to protect my IP.
It only protects big, rich companies. The independent writer or musician will get ripped off by the big companies as before.
Is a real site at 128.121.175.50 and has a web page.
If the BSA don't own the site haven't they committed identity theft?
If I create a file on my ftp server called "Office.Exe" will I eventually get a threatening email? What about a file called "Windows3.11" or "FrontPage".
But, if everybody did that the BSA would have to apologise a lot more and may even eventually be thought to be an inefficient or incompetant organisation.
On the other hand it may just be simpler to find out the ISP they use and block them using a packet filter...
...keep on asking to buy stuff we don't want to sell!!
Great way to run a business.
Why is it that so many businesses seem to HATE their customers so much?
You would think they would sort out the illegal CD pressing plans in Asia before going after individuals.
But that would require them to actually do some work or even, gasp, spend some money.
that the US patent office appears to equate original to "I, the patent officer, don't know this already."
The US patent system is being used as a land-grab operation. Companies that are unable to actually create anything for themselves just patent any old idea and then wait for the license fees.
There should be a return to the old days. If you want a patent, turn up at the patent office with a working example of your idea...
When you buy the product, your implied or explicit contract is with the shop. The MS EULA expects the shop to act as an agent of MS but does not require it (the shop may be the end of a long, possibly international distribution chain.) MS does not appear to honour return for refund by any other mechanism.
I'd say the EULA contract is void because MS does not intend to honour it's part. This is evident because MS does not offer a refund mechanism in the shop, nor directly with the company.
of low cost TiVo work-alikes almost ready for the market. TiVo was really nothing more than a Linux PC. If you start from scratch it's possible to build a box with the equivalent functions in a much smaller and cheaper package. Plus, if you pull the TV schedules from teletext rather than via a subscription service it gets even cheaper.
I expect to see a product (packaged as a 6" cube) in the shops by next Christmas.
Who checks that BSA licenses are in order?
:-)
Tell them to fsck off via a lawyers letter. Report them to the local BBB.
Write a memo to management explaining the savings they would make by moving to Linux+OpenOffice, copy to Microsoft
Fire regulations in most countries would require
all electrically operated doors to fail open should the power fail.
How big a UPS would your home need to keep it safe during a brown-out?
they lie
.gov claims approx 2000 supporting responces yet just one web site has recorded over 5000 responses forwarded to .gov, the overwhelming majority against id cards.
the government lies
The "consultation" process has been flawed and may well be challenged in the courts.
The
See www.stand.org.uk