-
-
I think I'm going to copyright something likeThen anyone that ever creates a program using this code will owe me royalties.
-
-
Originally posted by Sepero
I think I'm going to copyright something likeThen anyone that ever creates a program using this code will owe me royalties.
Good idea I think I might copyright this:
Code:
printf("Hello World!\n");
friend: first, it takes 2 minutes to load google; second, it take another 2 minutes to search for something; and third, once it finally stops searching, the Search Results pages come out screwed up (where it shows the google logo up top, the search form, and then some random characters like "[47]GGH9")
zdude255: nope
friend: damn...
zdude255: all your viruses are belong to you
friend: ...
friend: not funny
-
Originally posted by Sepero
I think I'm going to copyright something likeThen anyone that ever creates a program using this code will owe me royalties.
Except for that minor little "prior art" deal.
Originally posted by zdude255
Good idea I think I might copyright this:
Code:
printf("Hello World!\n");
Same thing.
If there are already programs in existence that use these pieces of code, then you can't patent them. You're not the person who originally thought them up, are you? Nope, obviously not, since there's prior art.
Well, hang on, copyright? Or patent? Copyrighting stuff just means you control who can and can't make copies, of your specific piece of work (something that short is too short to be copyrightable). You could patent it, though (patents apply to ideas), except that prior art is applicable to patent law, so you couldn't.
-
There might be something you can do about this.
Eric Raymond has a notice on his site at this page:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/no-secrets/
Roy
http://www.webservertimes.com
-
Originally posted by bwkaz
If there are already programs in existence that use these pieces of code, then you can't patent them. You're not the person who originally thought them up, are you? Nope, obviously not, since there's prior art.
Why do you even waste your time posting?
I was clearly making a joke.
Honestly, I think you're a pretty good guy, bwkaz, but sometimes I question your mental capacity.
-
Yeah, yeah, whatever.
The main part of the post was supposed to be the "copyright or trademark?" question, though now that I reread it, it really doesn't sound that way.
-
Novell steps into IBM vs SCO case
The SCO fiasco is about to collapse around them...Novell has released a press statement claiming they never sold the UNIX license to SCO, but licensed it. SCO has no rights to claim ownership of any UNIX IP. Novell has stated that they do not wish to get in the way of Linux development and have reiterating their work with Linux and open-source.
Here's the story on Slashdot
The original release is not there...oddly enough, www.novell.com is not there
-
05-28-2003, 01:48 PM
#100
The conferance call was recorded and you can listen to it here at Yahoo! Finance it's ASX streaming format and I don't know how well this works in Linux, you might need the Codeweavers Crossover Plugin...if any one gets it working in Linux, post a quick howto here
Two weeks before the trial with IBM starts and now they are claiming "a breach in contract" with IBM...as they don't have any say-so in IP copyrights and patents anymore
-
05-28-2003, 01:58 PM
#101
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=...&tid=190&tid=99
--------------
Novell has put out a press release this morning unequivocally claiming that they, and not SCO, own the patents and copyrights to UNIX System V. If true, this would torpedo SCO's claims over the last few months about intellectual property infringement in the Linux kernel, GNU/Linux distributions, etc. News.com has a story from last night, prior to this press release. SCO is releasing quarterly financial results today, including their notes about how much they've made from their licensing claims.
Bruce Perens writes:
"We knew that SCO's attack on Linux was a lie. But we never dreamed of the big lie behind it.
"This morning, Novell announced some of the terms of the company's 1995 agreement to sell its Unix business to SCO. The shocking news is that Novell did not sell the Unix intellectual property to SCO. Instead, they sold SCO a license to develop, sell, and sub-license Unix. The title to Unix copyrights and patents remains with Novell. To back up this assertion, Novell refers to public records at the Library of Congress Copyright Office and the U.S. Patent Office.
"In their announcement, Novell refers to recent letters from SCO asking Novell to assign the Unix copyrights to SCO. So, apparently SCO's management team knew that they did not own Unix while pursuing their sham campaign against Linux.
"Along with this revelation, Novell is reiterating its support of the Linux and Open Source developer community, and its status as a partner in that community. Novell rejects SCO's accusations of plagiarism. Novell management says they do not intend to stand in the way of the development of the Linux kernel, its companion GNU system, and other Free Software.
"It would be an understatement to say that this leaves SCO in a bad position. The company has loudly and repeatedly asserted that they were the owner of the Unix intellectual property, all of the way back to AT&T's original development of the system 30 years ago. They've lied to their stockholders, their customers and partners, the 1500 companies that they threatened, the press, and the public. Their untruthful campaign caused the loss of sales and jobs, and damaged Linux companies and developers in a myriad of ways. And now, SCO will be the lawsuit target. SCO's quarterly earnings conference call is this morning, at 9 AM MST (11 AM EST, 8 AM PST). Call 800-406-5356, toll-free, to participate. You might even get to ask a question. It should be fun to watch them try to weasel out of this one.
---------------
hahahahaha!
The plot thickens!!!
CMonster says, "You can't choose the right OS if you don't have a choice."
-
05-28-2003, 02:00 PM
#102
Looks like the SCO group may get a revocation of its license to use and abuse.
My advice to SCO: cash the check from MS soon. All top execs: run!
-
05-28-2003, 02:26 PM
#103
Hey, if you put SCOs responce letter through the Dialectizer as Redneck...it all makes perfect since!!
SCO Statement on Novell's Recent Ackshuns
Wednesday May 28, 10:15 is ET
LINDON, Utah, May 28 /PRNooswire-FustCall/ -- Th' follerin' statement is bein' issued by SCO (Nasdaq: SCOX - Noos):
SCO owns th' contrack rights t'th' UNIX® operatin' system, dawgone it. SCO has the contracshul right t'prevent imright donashuns of UNIX code, methods o' concepps into Linux by enny UNIX vendo'.
Copyrights an' patents is proteckshun aginst peekoolyarrs. Contracks are whut yo' use aginst parties yo' haf relashunships wif. Fum a legal stan'point, corntracks ind up bein' far stronger than ennythin' yo' c'd do wif copyrights.
SCO's lawsueyt aginst IBM does not involve patents o' copyrights. SCO's complaint specifically alleges bretch of corntrack, an' SCO aims t'proteck an' info'ce all of th' contracks thet th' compenny has wif mo'e than 6,000 licensees.
We fo'med SCOsource in January 2003 t'enfo'ce our UNIX rights an' we aim t'aggressively corntinue in this hyar successful path of operashun.
-
05-28-2003, 02:44 PM
#104
Sounds like parts of SCO are underwater already!
Last edited by chatins; 05-28-2003 at 02:47 PM.
-
05-28-2003, 02:59 PM
#105
"contract rights"
SCO claims that their suit is not based upon copyright or patent infringement, but rather violation of "contract rights" which were established in their dealings with IBM, and perhaps other UNIX vendors. I think their take is that their contracts with IBM forbid IBM from introducing certain UNIX content into AIX. They claim to be suing for breach of contract, which they claim leaves IBM more legally vulnerable than violations of copyright law or patent infringement. I don't think the nature of these contracts has yet been made public. This is just what SCO's saying.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|