Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: QwikSand who wrote (54617)	6/17/2003 8:17:02 PM
From: cheryl williamson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

Enforcement of the existing copyright laws in protecting software is pretty much a bad joke. It will be interesting to see if SCO can prevail against IBM. This issue, IMO is bigger than infringement cases. The pharmeceutical industry has been able, through lobbying and legislation to delay the release of generics for 7 years after patent approval. I'm not sure why generics don't violate patent, but they are close enough to the original to cause problems for the companies that have invented them. Is that fair?? It's debateable. Hence Hatch-Waxman. The argument could easily be made that human suffering is at stake with expensive patent medicines. In fact, there is great public pressure to get generics on the market sooner rather than later. Nevertheless, Capital prevails. No money, no new R&D, no new wonder drugs. The public is being forced to pay for drug company R&D. They don't like it, but they pay it nonetheless. There is a lesson here for the computer business. I don't think anyone cares if grep, awk, sed, perl, tcsh etc. are passed around for free. An OS is another story, however. The key here is not an unknown "amount" of code, it's functionality. If Linux winds up with the look and feel of Solaris because it has enough Solaris code in it to do that, IT shops will begin to prefer Linux because of the price. I will say this: if SCO is able to get an injunction against the distribution and sale of Linux because of IP violations, great. I have my doubts that it will happen. I am in favor of whatever it takes to get Linux off the commercial market and back into the lab/university/hobbyist environment where it belongs.

To: QwikSand who wrote (54617)	6/17/2003 8:29:31 PM
From: cheryl williamson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 64865

Just how far can legislation go?? Listen to Senator Hatch talk about copyright violation. If this were to be enacted, it could easily affect the "illegal downloading" of any and all shareware/freeware that had been found to contain previously copyrighted code..... washingtonpost.com WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Tuesday he favors developing new technology to remotely destroy the computers of people who illegally download music from the Internet. The surprise remarks by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, during a hearing on copyright abuses represent a dramatic escalation in the frustrating battle by industry executives and lawmakers in Washington against illegal music downloads. During a discussion on methods to frustrate computer users who illegally exchange music and movie files over the Internet, Hatch asked technology executives about ways to damage computers involved in such file trading. Legal experts have said any such attack would violate federal anti-hacking laws. "No one is interested in destroying anyone's computer," replied Randy Saaf of MediaDefender Inc., a secretive Los Angeles company that builds technology to disrupt music downloads. One technique deliberately downloads pirated material very slowly so other users can't. "I'm interested," Hatch interrupted. He said damaging someone's computer "may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights." The senator acknowledged Congress would have to enact an exemption for copyright owners from liability for damaging computers. He endorsed technology that would twice warn a computer user about illegal online behavior, "then destroy their computer." "If we can find some way to do this without destroying their machines, we'd be interested in hearing about that," Hatch said. "If that's the only way, then I'm all for destroying their machines. If you have a few hundred thousand of those, I think people would realize" the seriousness of their actions, he said. "There's no excuse for anyone violating copyright laws," Hatch said. Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., who has been active in copyright debates in Washington, urged Hatch to reconsider. Boucher described Hatch's role as chairman of the Judiciary Committee as "a very important position, so when Senator Hatch indicates his views with regard to a particular subject, we all take those views very seriously." Some legal experts suggested Hatch's provocative remarks were more likely intended to compel technology and music executives to work faster toward ways to protect copyrights online than to signal forthcoming legislation. "It's just the frustration of those who are looking at enforcing laws that are proving very hard to enforce," said Orin Kerr, a former Justice Department cybercrimes prosecutor and associate professor at George Washington University law school. The entertainment industry has gradually escalated its fight against Internet file-traders, targeting the most egregious pirates with civil lawsuits. The Recording Industry Association of America recently won a federal court decision making it significantly easier to identify and track consumers - even those hiding behind aliases - using popular Internet file-sharing software. Kerr predicted it was "extremely unlikely" for Congress to approve a hacking exemption for copyright owners, partly because of risks of collateral damage when innocent users might be wrongly targeted. "It wouldn't work," Kerr said. "There's no way of limiting the damage." Last year, Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., ignited a firestorm across the Internet over a proposal to give the entertainment industry new powers to disrupt downloads of pirated music and movies. It would have lifted civil and criminal penalties against entertainment companies for disabling, diverting or blocking the trading of pirated songs and movies on the Internet. But Berman, ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary panel on the Internet and intellectual property, always has maintained that his proposal wouldn't permit hacker-style attacks by the industry on Internet users.