MS DRM OS

[Ralph Wallis]

On Wednesday, 19 Dec 2001 at 00:38, Graham Lally <scribe at exmosis.net> wrote:
> Ralph Wallis wrote:
> 
> > On Monday, 17 Dec 2001 at 07:58, Michael Motyka <mmotyka at lsil.com> wrote:
> > 
> >>Could someone who knows more than I do explain to me why this MS "IP" is
> >>anything other than making the owner of a PC unable to have root access
> >>to their own hardware/OS? If so it seems to be an idea unworthy of
> >>protection from lawyers and men with guns.
> >>
> > 
> > A more correct analogy is with speed limiters on cars.
> 
> 
> On your own roads. And the car maker tells you where you can go to. And 
> which route you have to take. And where you can end up. And then forces 
> you to pay for a map.
> 
> 
> If the patent hasn't been picked up by the courts yet, then why not? 
> *If* the SSSCA were to come into effect (and I have heard little about 
> it for several months now... biding its time?), then surely all other 
> OSes (subject to legal boundaries) would be prevented by the patent from 
> implementing the requirements in the bill?
> 
> ...and to appease the pedanty, it's hard to have a /more/ correct 
> analogy when there was no analogy in the first place. There, got it out 
> of my system...

pedanty isn't a word, and the original poster mentioned "denying root
access", which is an analogy.

Your understanding of patent law is flawed.