"You may not work around any technical limitations in the software."
If addins were explicitly hardcoded, then I could see some credence to this applying, but from what I can see (and I'll be frank, I have barely the foggiest idea how TestDriven works in tandem with Express) nothing was really worked around and addons weren't limited by the software; he used the same method to apply TD to other versions as to Express.
As far as what the clause was, note his FIRST email asking about it was back in '05 (maybe early '06) and he finally got the clause in May 2007. That's what I was referring to...when he initially asked he was given the runaround. Only when legal action start being played up did he get a quote out of the EULA on legal letterhead.
Continuing with the shirt analogy, it's like having two programs, let's call one 'Express' and one 'Enterprise'
Express feature table says 'No support for users wearing yellow shirts.' Enterprise feature table says 'Supports all colors and color combinations on shirts.'
But your legal department charges you $1 mil per EULA, so you decide to just put the EULA for the Enterprise version with the Express version, after a simple s/Enterprise/Express/g;
Now you have a user calling in wanting support and the techs ask his shirt color and version. He says yellow and Express. The techs say this is in violation of the EULA, but in reality, there is no clause refusing him service.
The feature table is not a contract. The EULA is, and he agreed to the EULA that you were cheap on that didn't explicity exclude support for yellow-shirted users. You are now up doodoo creek without a paddle...
If they said 'no addins' for the free edition, and someone does one, surely they are in the right to get annoyed?
It matters where they said 'no addins' though. There's a difference between a bullet point in a product comparison table and a clause in the EULA. Where the problem lies is Microsoft has yet to point out the specific part in the EULA that forbids addins for Express, instead falling on the spirit in which the project was designed.
If 'no addins' is not in the licence, Jamie is not breaking the licence.
They probably just copied the licence from another version and hoped that people wouldn't actually read it.
The crux of the argument is he went over the licence terms of Express and didn't find where he was infringing. Jamie specifically emailed Microsoft asking for the clause in question so he could justify removing Express support.
Microsoft simply responded with "it violates the licence, but we're not going to tell you where."
More than likely, they screwed up and adhering strictly to the letter of the EULA (and not the spirit of the program) it is not specifically forbidden, thus implicitly allowed.
It took 3 years for Sony to turn a profit on the uberselling PS2, Microsoft only turned a profit on its Xbox division AFTER the 360 was released, which was pretty much voided by the fact that the 360 development cost a ton of cash.
No problem then. If it took Sony 3 years to profit from the PS2, they can just say that to their shareholders. Wouldn't you feel stupid if you decided to scrap the PS2 project after 6 months knowing it's now the best selling console of all time?
It's an old axiom that you have to spend money to make money and Sony's sure spent a lot of money lately. I'd worry more in a couple of years trying to justify to shareholders.
The point I was shooting for is this: If Sony was solely a game console company like Nintendo, they might not have been aggressive enough to build the PS2 the way they did. But they had a warchest at the time that they lived off that plus their movie and electronics divisions, and the gamble paid off in A Big Way. They're now using the same economic strategy with the PS3.
Nintendo couldn't have made the PS2 when Sony did, Big N has to worry about profiting not only on games and licences, but the console as well.
Honestly, we can say the PS3 is sucking right now, (and personally hope it stays that way) but in 3 years, it might turn a profit as well.
As far as wireless controllers, you may have to bite the bullet and get a Wavebird off ebay. Nintendo needs to start up the production lines of those again, they're getting pricey and really hard to find...
What you're forgetting is Microsoft and Sony have many other divisions that (can) pull major profits. Especially Microsoft with Windows and the Office lines. They could give away 360s and not hurt the bottom line too much.
Nintendo's warchest is peanuts compared to Sony and MS. That's what allows Sony and MS to hemorrhage at the seams; their game division is but one of many. They won't leave this game simply because that one division isn't turning a profit this quarter or year. Nintendo lives or dies by its games division since that's all it has.
Incidentally, this pretty much dictates that Nintendo has to be more conservative economically with their offerings. MS and Sony can, instead, gamble, be a bit more aggressive and hope it pays off in 3-4 years rather than next quarter.
Actually, I'd think in about 3-4 years the graphics of the new games will look rather pale in comparison to other offerings. Not that there's anything wrong with retro games (I play them myself), people tend to look for the next new thing.
I don't think it'd be too much of a longshot to expect an updated Wii when chips that push 1080 lines become low power and low cost rather than bleeding edge and 3-4 years sounds about right for that.
Not really. I'm more familiar with the theory than actually putting it in practice.
If those internal webapps are only meant to be accessed internally, a VPN is better than leaving the webapps open to the world. At least, from a security point of view; you don't need a DMZ persay, you just tunnel into the private network. (Ideally, I think, you'd tunnel into a more secure DMZ...a Green Zone of sorts, but I just like adding as many layers as possible.) Course, if you've got upper management clamouring to get rid of the extra step, what can ya do?
Long story short, you basically make the first firewall allow only what's necessary to allow traffic between the boxes between the DMZ and the public internet. Specific ports allowed (like 443 I'd imagine), private IP ranges are blocked. The second firewall only allows the necessary traffic between the internal network and the DMZ. Necessary ports allowed and public IP ranges are blocked, and only the necessary private ranges allowed.
As far as authenticating with the webapp and if you use Apache or IIS or AD integrated with IIS...you're on your own there.
Course, now CD sales in the UK are going to go down since the cheaper retailer's gone, but they'll blame that on piracy. The vicious cycle continues...
(Yea, I know it's copywrite violation, but that doesn't stop them from calling it piracy.)
It was intentional that the quote wasn't exact, the lawsuit didn't cost Illinois a billion. But I did want the link between the original and this incident, like whenever people bring up the old Gates chestnut just with different punchlines.
A firewall, however, would block it. DMZs are areas inside the first firewall to keep the majority of the intruders out, but outside the second, more locked down, firewall that protects the internal network. Technically the area inside the first firewall isn't "safe," it's just "safer." DMZs can still be subject to malicious traffic because boxes inside DMZs, like webservers, by design have to keep certain known ports open.
I think the ideal term for what Google picked up is sandbox, where stuff can run and it doesn't impact the rest of the system so you can see what it is beforehand, but DMZ looks like it could apply.
Interesting idea if it does what I think, at least. Would have figured a sandbox for a plugin was rather intensive processor wise.
I agree with replacements, however different media should have some cost associated with it otherwise why bother making new technology? Plus, it's technically different content. VHS, 320 lines, DVD 640. Need to licence those additional lines of resolution.
If you have a previous incarnation you should be able to get a discount...but that'd probably be too much a PITA to keep track of.
Would love to see an RIAA spokesmouth try answering that question in a Congressional inquiry... If I'm paying a licence for the content, why can't we get replacements for the physical part no questions asked?
FWIW, and offtopic, but whatever... the McDonalds coffee case is not as cut and dried as "Lady spills coffee on lap, wins millions," but in fact McDonalds had a lengthy history of serving coffee at temperatures higher than the industry norm and known to cause third degree burns. They also had a chronic history of ignoring customer complains about it. There were memos as well that came out.
It was this continued brushing off of the customer that really tightened the screws for McDonalds. McDs wasn't punished *just* for her, but for the many others who had complained.
But...but...if copyright were applied to software, then there'd be so many ways to work around it!
Just think, $i++; would be seperate from $i = $i + 1; which would be seperate from $a = 1; $i = $i + $a; Think of the poor coders who have to come up with every variation in every language!
Cuts down on a lot of repeditive paperwork to just hold a patent on "A method for incrimenting the value of a variable by a single unit."
Bah, I'm just lazy. Grouping it all under one banner. Wrong, sure, but saves like 600 keystrokes... Figured the meaning was more important than the details...forgot where I was I guess
It sounds the article's original hypothesis is 'Frames go from Router A to Router B.' So what they do to solve it is...add more routers. The diagram simply looks like 1 router that can route to 6 further routers (A-F) which then route to a further 20 (G-Z).
I'm probably missing something too...that seems too easy.
This may sound like a troll, but it really is not: in my opinion, Linux enthusiasts crying, "sue me first!" creates in the mind of traditional business people the idea that such enthusiasts are risk-seeking. Not everyone wants to be associated with a risk-seeker.
On the other hand, if Linux just sat back and let Microsoft dish out the patent threats, companies might not want to be associated with the threat of lawsuits. Damned if they do, damned if they don't, basically.
At least this way, Linux is trying to head the FUD off at the pass, before real damage can be done. And if I was a decision maker, I'd view it as a mark of confidence in a product if they're willing to stand up to Microsoft.
Patents don't have to be enforced vigorously to be lost. In fact, the ActiveX interactive patent holder has gone on record as saying he will not pursue cases against Mozilla or Opera, only Microsoft.
Copyright is, more or less, the same.
Trademarks, however, are simply a word or two that is up to the company to promote. There's plenty of cases were trademarks have "expired" into the public lexicon, like escalator.
Slashdot Mirror
"You may not work around any technical limitations in the software."
If addins were explicitly hardcoded, then I could see some credence to this applying, but from what I can see (and I'll be frank, I have barely the foggiest idea how TestDriven works in tandem with Express) nothing was really worked around and addons weren't limited by the software; he used the same method to apply TD to other versions as to Express.
As far as what the clause was, note his FIRST email asking about it was back in '05 (maybe early '06) and he finally got the clause in May 2007. That's what I was referring to...when he initially asked he was given the runaround. Only when legal action start being played up did he get a quote out of the EULA on legal letterhead.
Not just in the code, but in the licence.
Continuing with the shirt analogy, it's like having two programs, let's call one 'Express' and one 'Enterprise'
Express feature table says 'No support for users wearing yellow shirts.'
Enterprise feature table says 'Supports all colors and color combinations on shirts.'
But your legal department charges you $1 mil per EULA, so you decide to just put the EULA for the Enterprise version with the Express version, after a simple s/Enterprise/Express/g;
Now you have a user calling in wanting support and the techs ask his shirt color and version. He says yellow and Express. The techs say this is in violation of the EULA, but in reality, there is no clause refusing him service.
The feature table is not a contract. The EULA is, and he agreed to the EULA that you were cheap on that didn't explicity exclude support for yellow-shirted users. You are now up doodoo creek without a paddle...
If they said 'no addins' for the free edition, and someone does one, surely they are in the right to get annoyed?
It matters where they said 'no addins' though. There's a difference between a bullet point in a product comparison table and a clause in the EULA. Where the problem lies is Microsoft has yet to point out the specific part in the EULA that forbids addins for Express, instead falling on the spirit in which the project was designed.
If 'no addins' is not in the licence, Jamie is not breaking the licence.
They probably just copied the licence from another version and hoped that people wouldn't actually read it.
The crux of the argument is he went over the licence terms of Express and didn't find where he was infringing. Jamie specifically emailed Microsoft asking for the clause in question so he could justify removing Express support.
Microsoft simply responded with "it violates the licence, but we're not going to tell you where."
More than likely, they screwed up and adhering strictly to the letter of the EULA (and not the spirit of the program) it is not specifically forbidden, thus implicitly allowed.
Microsoft. the reason there is braille on the keys of the drive-through ATM.
I would have figured it's just cheaper to make ALL keypads with braille than to manage two production lines, one with and one without...
Reminds me of that line from Yes, Prime Minister...
"Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits."
I always pronounced Sci-fi as "sigh-fi." Have I been wrong this whole time?!
It took 3 years for Sony to turn a profit on the uberselling PS2, Microsoft only turned a profit on its Xbox division AFTER the 360 was released, which was pretty much voided by the fact that the 360 development cost a ton of cash.
No problem then. If it took Sony 3 years to profit from the PS2, they can just say that to their shareholders. Wouldn't you feel stupid if you decided to scrap the PS2 project after 6 months knowing it's now the best selling console of all time?
It's an old axiom that you have to spend money to make money and Sony's sure spent a lot of money lately. I'd worry more in a couple of years trying to justify to shareholders.
The point I was shooting for is this: If Sony was solely a game console company like Nintendo, they might not have been aggressive enough to build the PS2 the way they did. But they had a warchest at the time that they lived off that plus their movie and electronics divisions, and the gamble paid off in A Big Way. They're now using the same economic strategy with the PS3.
Nintendo couldn't have made the PS2 when Sony did, Big N has to worry about profiting not only on games and licences, but the console as well.
Honestly, we can say the PS3 is sucking right now, (and personally hope it stays that way) but in 3 years, it might turn a profit as well.
As far as wireless controllers, you may have to bite the bullet and get a Wavebird off ebay. Nintendo needs to start up the production lines of those again, they're getting pricey and really hard to find...
What you're forgetting is Microsoft and Sony have many other divisions that (can) pull major profits. Especially Microsoft with Windows and the Office lines. They could give away 360s and not hurt the bottom line too much.
Nintendo's warchest is peanuts compared to Sony and MS. That's what allows Sony and MS to hemorrhage at the seams; their game division is but one of many. They won't leave this game simply because that one division isn't turning a profit this quarter or year. Nintendo lives or dies by its games division since that's all it has.
Incidentally, this pretty much dictates that Nintendo has to be more conservative economically with their offerings. MS and Sony can, instead, gamble, be a bit more aggressive and hope it pays off in 3-4 years rather than next quarter.
Actually, I'd think in about 3-4 years the graphics of the new games will look rather pale in comparison to other offerings. Not that there's anything wrong with retro games (I play them myself), people tend to look for the next new thing.
I don't think it'd be too much of a longshot to expect an updated Wii when chips that push 1080 lines become low power and low cost rather than bleeding edge and 3-4 years sounds about right for that.
Not really. I'm more familiar with the theory than actually putting it in practice.
If those internal webapps are only meant to be accessed internally, a VPN is better than leaving the webapps open to the world. At least, from a security point of view; you don't need a DMZ persay, you just tunnel into the private network. (Ideally, I think, you'd tunnel into a more secure DMZ...a Green Zone of sorts, but I just like adding as many layers as possible.) Course, if you've got upper management clamouring to get rid of the extra step, what can ya do?
Long story short, you basically make the first firewall allow only what's necessary to allow traffic between the boxes between the DMZ and the public internet. Specific ports allowed (like 443 I'd imagine), private IP ranges are blocked. The second firewall only allows the necessary traffic between the internal network and the DMZ. Necessary ports allowed and public IP ranges are blocked, and only the necessary private ranges allowed.
As far as authenticating with the webapp and if you use Apache or IIS or AD integrated with IIS...you're on your own there.
Course, now CD sales in the UK are going to go down since the cheaper retailer's gone, but they'll blame that on piracy. The vicious cycle continues...
(Yea, I know it's copywrite violation, but that doesn't stop them from calling it piracy.)
It was intentional that the quote wasn't exact, the lawsuit didn't cost Illinois a billion. But I did want the link between the original and this incident, like whenever people bring up the old Gates chestnut just with different punchlines.
Clarifying if you thought I just blew the quote.
Million here, million there, and before too long it starts to become real money.
A firewall, however, would block it. DMZs are areas inside the first firewall to keep the majority of the intruders out, but outside the second, more locked down, firewall that protects the internal network. Technically the area inside the first firewall isn't "safe," it's just "safer." DMZs can still be subject to malicious traffic because boxes inside DMZs, like webservers, by design have to keep certain known ports open.
I think the ideal term for what Google picked up is sandbox, where stuff can run and it doesn't impact the rest of the system so you can see what it is beforehand, but DMZ looks like it could apply.
Interesting idea if it does what I think, at least. Would have figured a sandbox for a plugin was rather intensive processor wise.
With the accelerating move to consolidate Windows servers, some see substantially less demand for PC network administrators.
Apparently this guy's never dealt with users. If there's a way to screw up a system, even a dumb terminal, they WILL find a way.
I agree with replacements, however different media should have some cost associated with it otherwise why bother making new technology? Plus, it's technically different content. VHS, 320 lines, DVD 640. Need to licence those additional lines of resolution.
If you have a previous incarnation you should be able to get a discount...but that'd probably be too much a PITA to keep track of.
Would love to see an RIAA spokesmouth try answering that question in a Congressional inquiry... If I'm paying a licence for the content, why can't we get replacements for the physical part no questions asked?
FWIW, and offtopic, but whatever... the McDonalds coffee case is not as cut and dried as "Lady spills coffee on lap, wins millions," but in fact McDonalds had a lengthy history of serving coffee at temperatures higher than the industry norm and known to cause third degree burns. They also had a chronic history of ignoring customer complains about it. There were memos as well that came out.
It was this continued brushing off of the customer that really tightened the screws for McDonalds. McDs wasn't punished *just* for her, but for the many others who had complained.
But...but...if copyright were applied to software, then there'd be so many ways to work around it!
Just think, $i++; would be seperate from $i = $i + 1; which would be seperate from $a = 1; $i = $i + $a; Think of the poor coders who have to come up with every variation in every language!
Cuts down on a lot of repeditive paperwork to just hold a patent on "A method for incrimenting the value of a variable by a single unit."
Bah, I'm just lazy. Grouping it all under one banner. Wrong, sure, but saves like 600 keystrokes... Figured the meaning was more important than the details...forgot where I was I guess
That's what it was looking like to me...
It sounds the article's original hypothesis is 'Frames go from Router A to Router B.' So what they do to solve it is...add more routers. The diagram simply looks like 1 router that can route to 6 further routers (A-F) which then route to a further 20 (G-Z).
I'm probably missing something too...that seems too easy.
This may sound like a troll, but it really is not: in my opinion, Linux enthusiasts crying, "sue me first!" creates in the mind of traditional business people the idea that such enthusiasts are risk-seeking. Not everyone wants to be associated with a risk-seeker.
On the other hand, if Linux just sat back and let Microsoft dish out the patent threats, companies might not want to be associated with the threat of lawsuits. Damned if they do, damned if they don't, basically.
At least this way, Linux is trying to head the FUD off at the pass, before real damage can be done. And if I was a decision maker, I'd view it as a mark of confidence in a product if they're willing to stand up to Microsoft.
Patents don't have to be enforced vigorously to be lost. In fact, the ActiveX interactive patent holder has gone on record as saying he will not pursue cases against Mozilla or Opera, only Microsoft.
Copyright is, more or less, the same.
Trademarks, however, are simply a word or two that is up to the company to promote. There's plenty of cases were trademarks have "expired" into the public lexicon, like escalator.
Because in the not to distant future you'll need to get an ultra ultra low emission car.