What makes you think SCO publicly-declared all its evidence of alleged copyright infringement?
I don't understand why they didn't. If the issue is "disclosing trade secrets", then just publicly declare things like: "linux kernel file src/arch/x386/vm/blahblah.c, lines 123-234" and give the corresponding Sacred Unix SysV file name and line numbers.
Since both parties have a SysV source license, they can each double check, without ever filing the source code itself. In short, publicly declare something. As near as I can tell, they declared nothing, not file and line number, absolutely nothing.
Since SysV is copyrighted, if the issue isn't "revealing trade secrets", they should have the ability to disclose the text of the code.
As I understand civil trials, which this was, they have to declare all their evidence beforehand, or risk the near certainty of having any such evidence disallowed. So, yes, it's quite puzzling as to why they didn't publicly declare anything as infringing.
Still, distinguishing one anonymous coward from the crowd of them isn't really-o, truly-o de-anonymizing, is it? Maybe it is. Guess I didn't think this through enough.
There's got to be some grounds where a long-time troll can be "outed".
Hey, neither "anonymous coward", the e e cummings stylist, or the ex-Anti-Mike have bothered to comment on this one.
I call upon Techdirt to "out" trolls who get enough "report" buttons pushed on them. Publish times-of-day and IP addresses for trolls' comments.
At the very least, identify "Anonymous Coward" posts by something that maps to an IP address (maybe plus salt to avoid brute forcing things like SHA hashes). This allows those of use with 1 identity to figure out if one "Anonymous Coward" poster is the same as the other (e.g., is the e e cummings troll the same as the ex-Anti-Mike troll?).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Actual Copyright Issues playing out
Why the emphasis on "expert reports"? Those of us with even a smidgen of programming experience don't need an expert to read the entrails of the code and interpret it for us. Show me the supposedly infringing code, and I can make my own judgement.
Also, SCO has amended the complaint at least twice that I can see, seemingly de-emphasizing "copyright infringement" as a cause of action at each amendment. That, too, tends to indicate that even SCO didn't think much of the alleged infringements as time passed, and discovery progressed.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Actual Copyright Issues playing out
Temper, temper.
Second, nothing in that link refutes a single thing I said.
The link does say this: In December 2003, near the beginning of this case, the court ordered SCO to, "identify and state with specificity the source code(s) that SCO is claiming form the basis of their action against IBM." Even if SCO lacked the code behind methods and concepts at this early stage, SCO could have and should have, at least articulated which methods and concepts formed "the basis of their action against IBM." At a minimum, SCO should have identified the code behind their method and concepts in the final submission pursuant to this original order entered in December 2003 and Judge Kimball’s order entered in July 2005.
Can you honestly say that sounds like SCO had any evidence of infringement?
Now I see what your game is: "quibbling".
You're probably strictly, technically correct in writing that "nobody in the public really knows much of what either party's experts said or didn't say regarding the copyright infringement issue". Very sly, very tricky, strictly correct, but wrong in the original, fun-to-see-copyright-infringement-played-out context.
The Magistrate and the Judge of the case did have access to all of that, and still ruled that SCO had little in the way of evidence. One can safely assume, even though we may not know exactly and precisely what the experts said, that SCO didn't show a whole lot of evidence of infringement.
Thanks for playing! What do we have for the losers, Johnny?
So much of the case was deemed confidential that nobody in the public really knows much of what either party's experts said or didn't say regarding the copyright infringement issue.
Really? Really? What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_v._IBM#Discovery?
If Wikipedia has it wrong, it's your obligation to go change it to The Facts. Otherwise, I'm calling BS on your assertion.
Don't we have quite a good handle on that? Discovery in the SCO v IBM case is long, long over. SCO seems to have found exactly zero evidence even after trolling through the versioning system that IBM uses to keep AIX source in.
I know that the outcome isn't a 100% certainty, Perry Mason moments do happen, I suppose. But still, wouldn't the betting man put his money on IBM at this point in that legal action?
Someone anonymously said: I would be ashamed to work at a knock-off clothing company. Participating in a trend or style is different than outright copying a specific piece of clothing as closely as fiscally possible.
I'm just a computer nerd, and before that, I worked in aerospace engineering, and I found myself scratching my head about your statement. I'm not at all sure how to differentiate between "participating in a trend or style" and "outright copying", at least on street level. Perhaps this is the Legendary Engineering Sense of Style speaking, but I thought that "participating in a style" was exactly "copying as closely as fiscally possible". If you're wealthy, you get the brand label clothing to participate in the style. If you're less wealthy, you get a knock off. If you're a rebellious teen, you make or acquire something that's as close as you can get, and then modify it with patches, markers, safetypins, etc, to show how rebellious you are.
Honestly, how can I, an ex-engineer with no style sense whatsoever, tell what's an "outright copy" and what's "participating in a style or trend". This looks like one of those dopey things that "Business People" want me to program, but requires a reference to some Grand High Arbiter (or "oracle" as we say in programming) for each decision. I'm not trying to be a wiseacre here, I'm honestly confused on this issue.
What you're saying is basically, since we can't separate independent invention from "just copycats", we absolutely must have software patents, and disallow "independent invention" as a defense.
Indeed, there are more than 2 sides to any argument. For policy decisions, one method of figuring out what to do is called a "prima facie" case. One of the factors of that case is "inherency", that is, does the proposed solution fix the stated problem. Another part is the cost/benefit analysis, because everything has a cost (opportunity cost, maybe, but still a cost).
All that I would ask is that changes to copyright/patent enforcement be subject to a "prima facie" analysis, complete with inherency and cost/benefit analyses. If such an analysis was ever produced, I think it would always come down on the "less enforcement" side of the balance.
On the post: SCO Loses Yet Again; Is It Finally Over?
Re: Re: Re:
I don't understand why they didn't. If the issue is "disclosing trade secrets", then just publicly declare things like: "linux kernel file src/arch/x386/vm/blahblah.c, lines 123-234" and give the corresponding Sacred Unix SysV file name and line numbers.
Since both parties have a SysV source license, they can each double check, without ever filing the source code itself. In short, publicly declare something. As near as I can tell, they declared nothing, not file and line number, absolutely nothing.
Since SysV is copyrighted, if the issue isn't "revealing trade secrets", they should have the ability to disclose the text of the code.
As I understand civil trials, which this was, they have to declare all their evidence beforehand, or risk the near certainty of having any such evidence disallowed. So, yes, it's quite puzzling as to why they didn't publicly declare anything as infringing.
On the post: US International Trade Commission Learns That 'Piracy' Claims From Industry Are Bunk
Re: Realistic Numbers
"First, it's not my obligation to do a damn thing you tell me to."
On the post: Once Again, The Justice Department Fails To Tell Congress About Its Wiretapping Activities, As Required By Law
Re: Re: Wow, no trolls on this thread.
Still, distinguishing one anonymous coward from the crowd of them isn't really-o, truly-o de-anonymizing, is it? Maybe it is. Guess I didn't think this through enough.
There's got to be some grounds where a long-time troll can be "outed".
On the post: Once Again, The Justice Department Fails To Tell Congress About Its Wiretapping Activities, As Required By Law
Wow, no trolls on this thread.
I call upon Techdirt to "out" trolls who get enough "report" buttons pushed on them. Publish times-of-day and IP addresses for trolls' comments.
At the very least, identify "Anonymous Coward" posts by something that maps to an IP address (maybe plus salt to avoid brute forcing things like SHA hashes). This allows those of use with 1 identity to figure out if one "Anonymous Coward" poster is the same as the other (e.g., is the e e cummings troll the same as the ex-Anti-Mike troll?).
On the post: SCO Loses Yet Again; Is It Finally Over?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Actual Copyright Issues playing out
Also, SCO has amended the complaint at least twice that I can see, seemingly de-emphasizing "copyright infringement" as a cause of action at each amendment. That, too, tends to indicate that even SCO didn't think much of the alleged infringements as time passed, and discovery progressed.
On the post: SCO Loses Yet Again; Is It Finally Over?
Unlike for Microsoft?
the potential for unauthorized/improper contributions is a risk of any crowdsource/open source model.
How about this one, where Microsoft let some code into SQL Server that actually did make end user's liable for treble damages: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/20/sql_server_developers_face_huge/
That particular danger exists no matter who develops it, and appears to be a problem in the patent/copyright system, not the coding processes.
On the post: SCO Loses Yet Again; Is It Finally Over?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Actual Copyright Issues playing out
Temper, temper.
Second, nothing in that link refutes a single thing I said.
The link does say this:
In December 2003, near the beginning of this case, the court ordered SCO to, "identify and state with specificity the source code(s) that SCO is claiming form the basis of their action against IBM." Even if SCO lacked the code behind methods and concepts at this early stage, SCO could have and should have, at least articulated which methods and concepts formed "the basis of their action against IBM." At a minimum, SCO should have identified the code behind their method and concepts in the final submission pursuant to this original order entered in December 2003 and Judge Kimball’s order entered in July 2005.
Can you honestly say that sounds like SCO had any evidence of infringement?
Now I see what your game is: "quibbling".
You're probably strictly, technically correct in writing that "nobody in the public really knows much of what either party's experts said or didn't say regarding the copyright infringement issue". Very sly, very tricky, strictly correct, but wrong in the original, fun-to-see-copyright-infringement-played-out context.
The Magistrate and the Judge of the case did have access to all of that, and still ruled that SCO had little in the way of evidence. One can safely assume, even though we may not know exactly and precisely what the experts said, that SCO didn't show a whole lot of evidence of infringement.
Thanks for playing! What do we have for the losers, Johnny?
On the post: SCO Loses Yet Again; Is It Finally Over?
Re: Re: Re: Actual Copyright Issues playing out
Really? Really? What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_v._IBM#Discovery?
If Wikipedia has it wrong, it's your obligation to go change it to The Facts. Otherwise, I'm calling BS on your assertion.
On the post: SCO Loses Yet Again; Is It Finally Over?
Re: Actual Copyright Issues playing out
I know that the outcome isn't a 100% certainty, Perry Mason moments do happen, I suppose. But still, wouldn't the betting man put his money on IBM at this point in that legal action?
On the post: A Look At How The Fashion Industry Thrives Without Copyright
Re: Working in a knock-off clothing company
Someone anonymously said: I would be ashamed to work at a knock-off clothing company. Participating in a trend or style is different than outright copying a specific piece of clothing as closely as fiscally possible.
I'm just a computer nerd, and before that, I worked in aerospace engineering, and I found myself scratching my head about your statement. I'm not at all sure how to differentiate between "participating in a trend or style" and "outright copying", at least on street level. Perhaps this is the Legendary Engineering Sense of Style speaking, but I thought that "participating in a style" was exactly "copying as closely as fiscally possible". If you're wealthy, you get the brand label clothing to participate in the style. If you're less wealthy, you get a knock off. If you're a rebellious teen, you make or acquire something that's as close as you can get, and then modify it with patches, markers, safetypins, etc, to show how rebellious you are.
Honestly, how can I, an ex-engineer with no style sense whatsoever, tell what's an "outright copy" and what's "participating in a style or trend". This looks like one of those dopey things that "Business People" want me to program, but requires a reference to some Grand High Arbiter (or "oracle" as we say in programming) for each decision. I'm not trying to be a wiseacre here, I'm honestly confused on this issue.
On the post: VC Explains How Damaging Software Patents Can Be
Re: two sides to an argument
Indeed, there are more than 2 sides to any argument. For policy decisions, one method of figuring out what to do is called a "prima facie" case. One of the factors of that case is "inherency", that is, does the proposed solution fix the stated problem. Another part is the cost/benefit analysis, because everything has a cost (opportunity cost, maybe, but still a cost).
All that I would ask is that changes to copyright/patent enforcement be subject to a "prima facie" analysis, complete with inherency and cost/benefit analyses. If such an analysis was ever produced, I think it would always come down on the "less enforcement" side of the balance.
Next >>