If anyone has communication with Foster's lawyers, ask them to post somewhere an image of Capitol's check in payment of attorney's fees (when they finally get it and they will). Maybe it can be the new logo for RIAA v, World topics.
. . ..against the coming M$-Novell-Sun-(IBM?) Behemoth?
Only Ubuntu, I think.
Re:SCOX: death throes begin - spasms of appeals
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 1
But SCO lives on because M$ 'buys' it and takes shelter and whatever holding harmless under whatever it brought from Novel for all that money including maybe probably from IBM?
Printz held simply that the United States does not conscript the State executive. True that, but the case has no application here. Here, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which are rules adopted by the Supreme Court not laws enacted by Congress, concern only the governance of litigation of litigation in federal courts. The FRCP do not even apply to actions pending in the state courts. (Although some states have rules modeled after the FRCP.)
People who yell "fire!" in a crowded theater don't kill people. People who stampede out of a crowded theater upon hearing someone yell "fire!" kill people.
I think its funny how geekdom gets its panties in a bunch over the notion that Spamhaus might have to defend itself in a court of law. Of course this is going to happen. Spamhaus is in the business of defaming people's business assets (IPs). So long as their representations (concerning spam source) are accurate, they'll prevail. But if they screw up they need to pay. No matter what, they need to be held accountable just like any other person or entity and indeed they are. Sorting out who's who and what's what is what court are for. (The British can't complain. Hell, they practicaly invented the system that Illinois uses.)
Given Spanhaus's feeble handling of this action, they can pretty much count on more litigation. Time to establish a Spamhaus legal defense fund.
And by the way, does anyone serious seriously regard the argument that "it's not spamhaus' fault if sysadmins wanna use their RBL."? Well, OK, but only if you want to turn 700 years of Anglo-american defamation jurisprudence on its head. Good luck with that. (My apologies to civil law countries and third-worlders.)
You beat me to it. Ok, I'll take the sentiment even further by saying that powerpoint is for stupid people: either the presenter is stupid or he thinks his audience is stupid. Either they are (stupid) or they aren't and the presenter is stupid for that reason. Oftentimes both the presenter and the audience are actually stupid. Anyway, Powerpoint is for stupid people and I do not believe that there are any exceptions to this rule.
No protection as a practical matter. Only theory. You get theory. Here, have some theory. Seriously, that's why the FOSS community needs a legal department. Perhaps something like the EFF but more geared to enforcing the GPL and the like. The GPL Violations Project is ok, but they don't seem to want to actually sue anyone.
So, I RTA and then check out Harald Welte's GPL-violations Project page and I have an epiphany: I should start a company (or 2 or 3 or 4) with a business model based on GPL non-compliance because these sissies won't actually sue anyone.
Seriously, to-date there really doesn't seem to be any incentive (not talking about "morals" here) to comply with the terms of the GPL, at least not until they catch you the first or second time.
IMHO, its time Harald &Co. spanked down on someone hard. Spank somebody like Siemens, Fujitsu-Siemens, Asus, or Belkin [who apparently ripped off netfilter]. Show the world that the FOSS community is not just a bunch of spineless hippy freaks with big ideas about freedom and rights and whatnot but with no wherewithall to enforce any of them.
BTW, IAAL, so, if you like, Harald, call me up and I'll do it. Heh.
. . . I have forgotten why it is that we ( the open source community generally) are supposed to care whether mainstream 20-somethings use linux on their desktops? Further, why are we supposed to care anout ipods? What's so special and unique about an ipod? In view of the over abundance of other portable music players on the market (many of which use open(ish) standards), and the easy availability of downloadable music in alternative formats, isn't the ipod just a piece of marketing to us?
And it helps even less when an entity like Apple pays off like a slot machine. I mean, who can afford to challenge bogus patents if Apple can't? (I'm guessing that maybe Apple's lawyers saw that arguments against Creative's patent might undermine some crap patent that Apple owns.)
Heck, by the time a judge sees a bogus patent, a lot of damage is already done. Why not just spend the money to educate (or better staff) the PTO's examiners to help keep a lot of these junk patents applications from ever seeing the light of day? (Besides, 'educating' a judge is largely the job description of an attorney.)
Slashdot Mirror
Please . . . say, are you Cort from Santa Monica, the M$ 'architect evangelist' ?
If anyone has communication with Foster's lawyers, ask them to post somewhere an image of Capitol's check in payment of attorney's fees (when they finally get it and they will). Maybe it can be the new logo for RIAA v, World topics.
. . . .against the coming M$-Novell-Sun-(IBM?) Behemoth?
Only Ubuntu, I think.
But SCO lives on because M$ 'buys' it and takes shelter and whatever holding harmless under whatever it brought from Novel for all that money including maybe probably from IBM?
So does CentOS get some sort of auto cert then?
Printz held simply that the United States does not conscript the State executive. True that, but the case has no application here. Here, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which are rules adopted by the Supreme Court not laws enacted by Congress, concern only the governance of litigation of litigation in federal courts. The FRCP do not even apply to actions pending in the state courts. (Although some states have rules modeled after the FRCP.)
People who yell "fire!" in a crowded theater don't kill people. People who stampede out of a crowded theater upon hearing someone yell "fire!" kill people.
I think its funny how geekdom gets its panties in a bunch over the notion that Spamhaus might have to defend itself in a court of law. Of course this is going to happen. Spamhaus is in the business of defaming people's business assets (IPs). So long as their representations (concerning spam source) are accurate, they'll prevail. But if they screw up they need to pay. No matter what, they need to be held accountable just like any other person or entity and indeed they are. Sorting out who's who and what's what is what court are for. (The British can't complain. Hell, they practicaly invented the system that Illinois uses.) Given Spanhaus's feeble handling of this action, they can pretty much count on more litigation. Time to establish a Spamhaus legal defense fund. And by the way, does anyone serious seriously regard the argument that "it's not spamhaus' fault if sysadmins wanna use their RBL."? Well, OK, but only if you want to turn 700 years of Anglo-american defamation jurisprudence on its head. Good luck with that. (My apologies to civil law countries and third-worlders.)
Trade passages . . . new oil . . . maybe some of the reasons why the Powers That Be are all for global warming.
Don't forget "not useful"; inasmuch as its a M$ product, it likely doesn't even work.
You beat me to it. Ok, I'll take the sentiment even further by saying that powerpoint is for stupid people: either the presenter is stupid or he thinks his audience is stupid. Either they are (stupid) or they aren't and the presenter is stupid for that reason. Oftentimes both the presenter and the audience are actually stupid. Anyway, Powerpoint is for stupid people and I do not believe that there are any exceptions to this rule.
No protection as a practical matter. Only theory. You get theory. Here, have some theory. Seriously, that's why the FOSS community needs a legal department. Perhaps something like the EFF but more geared to enforcing the GPL and the like. The GPL Violations Project is ok, but they don't seem to want to actually sue anyone.
So, I RTA and then check out Harald Welte's GPL-violations Project page and I have an epiphany: I should start a company (or 2 or 3 or 4) with a business model based on GPL non-compliance because these sissies won't actually sue anyone. Seriously, to-date there really doesn't seem to be any incentive (not talking about "morals" here) to comply with the terms of the GPL, at least not until they catch you the first or second time. IMHO, its time Harald &Co. spanked down on someone hard. Spank somebody like Siemens, Fujitsu-Siemens, Asus, or Belkin [who apparently ripped off netfilter]. Show the world that the FOSS community is not just a bunch of spineless hippy freaks with big ideas about freedom and rights and whatnot but with no wherewithall to enforce any of them. BTW, IAAL, so, if you like, Harald, call me up and I'll do it. Heh.
Can't free software developers just keep on hacking hardware drivers (like they've always done)?
. . . I have forgotten why it is that we ( the open source community generally) are supposed to care whether mainstream 20-somethings use linux on their desktops? Further, why are we supposed to care anout ipods? What's so special and unique about an ipod? In view of the over abundance of other portable music players on the market (many of which use open(ish) standards), and the easy availability of downloadable music in alternative formats, isn't the ipod just a piece of marketing to us?
And it helps even less when an entity like Apple pays off like a slot machine. I mean, who can afford to challenge bogus patents if Apple can't? (I'm guessing that maybe Apple's lawyers saw that arguments against Creative's patent might undermine some crap patent that Apple owns.)
. . . more interesting is the US Gov't's crackdown on cell phone hackers as terrorists. Lots of news about that lately but nothing on/. ?
Heck, by the time a judge sees a bogus patent, a lot of damage is already done. Why not just spend the money to educate (or better staff) the PTO's examiners to help keep a lot of these junk patents applications from ever seeing the light of day? (Besides, 'educating' a judge is largely the job description of an attorney.)