Re: Wired on "Secrecy Power Sinks Patent Case"
Nah...it wasn't half a million. It was a hell of a lot more, I suspect. Even a standard SC or APC connector cost $50 in those days, and from what I suspect this would be MUCH much more than that, and probably formed just one piece of a larger contract. The odd thing about this case was that the judge ruled in favor of Lucent...the government wasn't even directly involved. Lucent made a ton of profit which this poor bastard didn't get dime one from. That's a lot different then allowing the government to use your IP. -TD From: Steve Schear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Wired on "Secrecy Power Sinks Patent Case" Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 23:55:48 -0700 At 09:14 AM 9/20/2005, Tyler Durden wrote: Very interesting CPunks reading, for a variety of reasons. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,68894,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1 Of course, the fact that Lucent has been in shit shape financially must have nothing to do with what is effectively a state-sponsored protection of intellectual theft and profiting by Lucent (merely keeping the tech under wraps would have been possible in a closed-doors session. Remember that connectors can easily cost $50 per or more, so these guys were really ripped off and Lucent probably made out quite well.) [Cross posted from another list] Ian G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What I don't understand about that case is that the precedent already exists. If a defendent declines to defend by supplying documents then the judge does not force them to do so in a civil case, instead the award goes against them. What is not clear is why the judge awarded in the favour of the government. By not supplying files, they clearly indicated they were using the patent. And even that wasn't ever in doubt. He should have just awarded summarily for the patent owners and that would have been that. And, it was only for a measly half million. By saving a half million in patent fees, Lucent and the USG have reduced their reputation for fair dealing, had the whole case blow up in their faces and now we're all poking around looking for how the patent was used by the _Jimmy Carter_
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Wikipedia & Tor]
What's the problem here? The Wikipedia guy sees lots of garbage coming out
of IP address set {X} so he blocks said address set. Somewhat regrettable
but no suprise, is it?
On the other hand, doesn't it seem a little -odd- that the Tor network is
already being "used" in this way? Granted, even I the great Tyler Durden was
able to get a Tor client up-and-running, but I find it suspicious that this
early wave of Tor users also happen to have a high % of vandals...something
stinks.
A very subtle attack, perhaps? If I were so-and-so, I consider it a real
coup to stop the kinds of legitimate Wikipedia entries that might be made
from Tor users. And if this is the case, you can bet that there are other
"obvious" targets that have been hammered through Tor.
In other words, someone said, "Two can play at this game."
-TD
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Wikipedia & Tor]
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:02:09 -0400
Quoting Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> - Forwarded message from Arrakis Tor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
> This is a conversation with Jimmy Wales regarding how we can get
> Wikipedia to let Tor get through.
> I completely fail to comprehend why Tor server operators consistently
> refuse to take responsibility for their crazed users.
On one hand, this shows a deep misunderstanding of Tor and its purposes. On
the
other, I remain disappointed in the number of vandals that take advantage
of
Tor and other anonymizing services. On the gripping hand, perhaps the Wiki
philosophy is flawed.
--
Roy M. Silvernail is [EMAIL PROTECTED], and you're not
"It's just this little chromium switch, here." - TFT
SpamAssassin->procmail->/dev/null->bliss
http://www.rant-central.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Wikipedia & Tor]
- Forwarded message from Arrakis Tor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - From: Arrakis Tor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:48:22 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Wikipedia & Tor Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a conversation with Jimmy Wales regarding how we can get Wikipedia to let Tor get through. > Anyone with a port 80 can vandalize your website. Yes, but we notice that we can control a significant amount of vandalism by blocking ip numbers which have proven to be particularly problematic. TOR servers are among the absolute worst. And TOR operators don't seem to care. We go to the trouble > to block all the file sharing clients, and often abused ports and > protocols like IRC. Many of us typically block ports which do not have > any legitimate reason for being used. If all it take is a port 80 to > vandalize the wikipedia, of which port 80 is a public service, then > there is no point in discriminating against Tor users since every IP > is an equal opportunity offender. Equal *opportunity*, but we have very strong empirical evidence here. TOR ip numbers are the worst offenders that we have seen. People use TOR specifically to hide their identity, specifically to vandalize wikipedia. > You say that tor is quite irresponsibly managed. How would you propose > we manage tor servers differently? Ban users who vandalize wikipedia. That'd be a start. Rate limit edits at Wikipedia, that'd be good. Write an extension to your software which would help us to distinguish between "trusted" and "newbie" Tor clients. I completely fail to comprehend why Tor server operators consistently refuse to take responsibility for their crazed users. - End forwarded message - -- Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl __ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Wikipedia & Tor]
Quoting Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > - Forwarded message from Arrakis Tor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - > This is a conversation with Jimmy Wales regarding how we can get > Wikipedia to let Tor get through. > I completely fail to comprehend why Tor server operators consistently > refuse to take responsibility for their crazed users. On one hand, this shows a deep misunderstanding of Tor and its purposes. On the other, I remain disappointed in the number of vandals that take advantage of Tor and other anonymizing services. On the gripping hand, perhaps the Wiki philosophy is flawed. -- Roy M. Silvernail is [EMAIL PROTECTED], and you're not "It's just this little chromium switch, here." - TFT SpamAssassin->procmail->/dev/null->bliss http://www.rant-central.com
