__/ [ Da'Punk-A ] on Monday 15 May 2006 15:38 \__
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> __/ [ Robert Newson ] on Monday 15 May 2006 11:07 \__
>> > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060514233436196
>> > ``Jacobsen says he received a letter from KAM in March of 2005,
>> > offering to license for $19 per program installed on a computer, saying
>> > that JMRI was infringing claim 1 of the '329 patent. Jacobsen says he
>> > wrote a letter back asking exactly how he was infringing, and his answer
>> > was a letter in August, saying that he was infringing claim 1 and
>> > that they were now investigating to see if any other patents were
>> > infringed by JMRI. Oh, and the price to license was now $29. The letter
>> > also demanded $203,000 for the 7,000 copies already distributed. In
>> > October came a bill with finance charges, so the total had risen to more
>> > than $206,000. He's gotten bills roughly every month since.''
>> >  he's a model train Open Source developer
>> >  Nice specificy - just like SCO...
>> Obscurity is often the best method to disguising a lie. Examples:
>> - Policemen asking a detained criminal if s/he knows what s/he
>> was arrested for /before/ any allegations are made. Innocence
>> can thus be assumed early on; guilt likewise.
>> - Computer user messes up with the already-fragile Registry. As
>> a consequence, Windows fails to boot. User phones support at
>> the callcentre, but tries to remove liability and accountability
>> off self by giving only partial information, until proven to
>> have broken the system.
>> Best wishes,
>> PS - to answer the question, "no, it doesn't". It's rhetorical. Many
>> software patents nowadays are 'infringed' unknowingly, undeliberately.
>> That's why they are so evil. Copyrights, trademarks, and products -- OK.
>> IP -- my ass.
>> Roy S. Schestowitz
>> http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
>> 11:15am up 17 days 18:12, 8 users, load average: 0.53, 0.74, 0.68
>> http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information
> The utter mess that is software patenting just demonstrates how absurd
> the whole intellectual property system is.
> As it goes, I don't run any proprietary software on my box, so I don't
> have licensing issues... but I certainly don't see anything /immoral/
> about "pirating" a piece of software for my own use.
Well, try to explain this to the court or use application-specific skills to
start a business. You will soon become witness to the context of these
> When I bought this laptop - used - it had Windows 98 on it, licensed to
> the computer's previous owner. I don't know if it was illegal for me to
> use it. But I /did/ use it for a few days. Does this make me a vile,
> unrepentant crime?
Most definitely. Have you never read the end-user licensing agreement? Here
it is, translated to a language that we mortal can read comfortably:
Get an rough idea of how you're being treated...
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
3:35pm up 17 days 22:32, 8 users, load average: 0.63, 0.47, 0.49
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine