But ... Shouldn't the anti-IP parrots be cheering Redmond?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac May 20, 2006 6:16 AM EDT |
It causes me not problem to cheer Symantec in their pursuit of Microsoft, but I believe quite firmly in IP rights. However, if the anti-IP flame-spewers and thinkers (providing there are any thinkers) were honest and consistent, they should defend Microsoft's write to use the stuff because, well, there ain't no such thing as IP and information wants to be free so Symantec has no right to stand in their way. |
| grouch May 20, 2006 10:32 PM EDT |
dinotrac: >"It causes me not problem to cheer Symantec in their pursuit of Microsoft, but I believe quite firmly in IP rights." Since you didn't manage to hook anyone else with this, I'll bite. What "IP" rights do you firmly believe in? Copyrights? Patents? Trademarks? Trade secrets? All of those? Do you disagree with any implementations or laws surrounding any of those? (It's actually a contract dispute). |
| dinotrac May 21, 2006 3:26 AM EDT |
All of the above. (It's actually a contract dispute) Ummmmm...goofy parenthetical. On what basis would Symantec sue if there were no IP rights in software? Microsoft was not a party to the contract. Veritas had the contract with Symantec. Microsoft gained access to the software by purchasing Veritas. Symantec argues that it's contract with Veritas does not grant Microsoft the right to use Symantec's software in Vista. In the absence of legal protection for IP, the answer would be "So what? We got the software, and we don't need the Veritas contract (to which Microsoft was not a party, btw) to use it. |
| grouch May 21, 2006 12:16 PM EDT |
dinotrac: >"Microsoft was not a party to the contract. Veritas had the contract with Symantec. Microsoft gained access to the software by purchasing Veritas." Sorry, old friend (if I may presume such familiarity), you have a couple of roles shuffled around. From the article: >"The case relates to a 1996 contract between Microsoft and Veritas which licensed the latter's software for dealing with large chunks of data." From the earlier article linked from the current one: >"Symantec and Veritas shareholders today gave the go ahead for the merger of the two software companies." Microsoft -- Veritas: contract (10 years old). Veritas -- Symantec: merger. Symantec -- Microsoft: lawsuit. The Register is pretty short on specifics regarding what "intellectual property rights for that technology" are involved. There is just not much detail to go on. If it is about software patents, I hope they each make lots of lawyers rich, lots of shareholders mad, and lots of ridiculous news stories. The more publicity the better. |
| dinotrac May 21, 2006 1:18 PM EDT |
grouch : Well, bummer for me. |
| grouch May 21, 2006 2:16 PM EDT |
dinotrac: You slipped up and let it be seen that you might be human. BTW, how come no "anti-IP parrots" squawked? You drive 'em all away already? The big gripe I have with "IP" is with the laws as implemented in the U.S. Abandoned books are still locked under copyright and that renegs on the social contract that granted the copyright in the first place. Patents are granted for mind-bogglingly idiotic things and are expensive to overturn. I don't know of abuses of trademarks, except Microsoft's international court shopping against Lindows. |
| dinotrac May 21, 2006 3:29 PM EDT |
grouch: I agree that the laws have gotten out of hand: 1. Copyright is WAY too long. 2. While on copyright, the whole anti-circumvention aspect of DMCA is a travesty. 3. Patent law as it is applied to software is even more of a travesty. 4. Trademark law is surprisingly sane, remembering that law is, at best, a crude instrument. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!