Thus, both Versata and their customers are in the legal dog house. Technically, Ximpleware doesn't even have to raise the GPL. All that they have to do is sue Versata and their customers for copyright and patent violations. If either tries to claim the GPL as a defense, then the response to that claim is that the GPL doesn't apply to this case because Versata didn't even try to abide by the terms of the GPL.
The code wasn't distributed for free. It was distributed under a choice of two separate licenses: One was the GPL, one was commercial. Clearly, the commercial license route wasn't taken, and the GPL license wasn't adhered to.
Irrelevant if the patent owners argument is accepted that the GPL license did not include a license to use the software because you also needed to obtain a license for the patent that the GPL'd source uses. It's like cops putting out a plate of free 'special' (unmarked as such) brownies next to a plate of $5-per regular brownies at back-to-school night and promptly arresting everybody who eats one of the 'free' brownies.
If Oracle pulled such a BS claim out in their Java lawsuits, everybody but the corporate lawyers would be puking in disgust at such a bold admission of intent to entrap users.
If I was a criminal, I'd buy used drives in bulk, and see if there was any data on them worth using (or ransom). Using a drive in a way that allowed plausible deniability would take some effort and technical knowledge
If you've got a number of drives to go through, wiping drives is a pretty simple process. Get a USB drive enclosure (or 5)... then plug in a drive, turn it on. Run the wipe and wait for the drive to finish wiping. switch off, switch drives and repeat. physical destruction is only called for if the writes fail.
Going beyond wiping a drive is only necessary if someone like the NSA is interested in your data.
I haven't been following that particular escapade. All I will say is that culpability is suspected at this point -- but not entirely proven.
So, let's say a company (IBM) "donates" code that allows an Open Source software package support some unique (patented) feature on their hardware.
Is that charity, or a marketing expense to help the company sell more hardware?
Suppose that I give a group money to house homeless people so that they don't have to huddle around my air vents in the winter. Does that then make the homeless support group a commercial entity?? Charitable groups OFTEN support purposes beyond their direct purpose. That doesn't make them non-charitable... I mean how much do broadcastes make by broadcasting NCAA games?
You're splitting hairs here -- Most people give donations to charitable orginaizations because it, in some way or form, supports their goals. Rifle manufacturers give to the NRA. Drug manufacturers give to research groups at universities (I think that some of those agreements are VERY directly commercial -- especially when there are limits on how the results of the research can be used/disemminated).,,, etc. etc, etc.
In other words, the anti-vac population may have yet anotther reason to tell people not to get their vaccination.
Anything else is false advertising, contractual interference, and/or a Sherman Act violation.
The other solution is to run the thing on 'defrost' for a couple of minutes -- (a short blast of microwaves every 10 seconds or so, with time for the recently-heated liquids to thaw the area around them)... then follow the normal directions to get a properly hot hot-pocket.
It's called 'leverage'. If you don't like it, you don't have to participate in the marketplace. ---- "rather than pissing and moaning about" people talking to their friends.
. Their operation purportedly cost Comcast $2.4 million, and Comcast claims that the loss has forced them to raise the rates on all their customersHowever, the allegedly huge financial loss
2.4million is 0.03% of their NET income in 2013. it's
Who in their right mind would think that they could sneak in a clause that takes away already recognised rights, without VERY public and international comment.
10 or 15 years ago, that wouldn't have been something to take into account. A couple of people would have groused about it, and their friends might have paid attention, but the macro effect on the company would have been trivial.
Consider that Microsoft, for example, has gotten away with language like that in a piece of software that 90%+ of desktop computers are sold with, and that it's actually difficult to buy a computer without. Meaningful protests??? Roughly zero.