& cplSiteName &
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
<<   <   Page 3 / 3
bobcat
bobcat
12/5/2012 | 1:46:01 AM
re: Cisco's IOS Code 'Compromised'
Interesting BioDiesel information.
And not to be disrespectful. BUT..

>>Perhaps the "thief" thought he/she was being helpful?

I'm thinking you're spending too much time in the kitchen.

As for post #16

>>Reasonable care (in protecting your property) has tons of legal precedence: and the case law says if you fail to exercise reasonable care, you lose most of your rights to damages.
Yes, you get the victory in court but it is meaningless: no money changes hands, or the amount is so small as to be trivial.

Sounds like you might be smokin some of that "green fuel" in post #15.

Ask companies like Microsoft, Rambus, or IBM if their victory in court is meaningless or trival.

Pay-up!

coreghost
coreghost
12/5/2012 | 1:45:58 AM
re: Cisco's IOS Code 'Compromised'
Huawei has admitted to stealing software, ignoring
patents, having access to the source code of
their major competitor internally and directly
copying large parts of their competitors
documentation.

While Huawei can say by its actions that it is
no longer selling a product with stolen software,
unlicenced patented technology and stolen
documentaiton, there is nothing Huawei can do
to change the criminal nature of what they have
done in the past.

They are totally guilty and they will lose if
the case proceeds. The rogue developers defense
will not work in court.

As far as their internal investigation, what
they did was to remove the obvious evidence of
copying at the level of the executables that
cisco found. But if cisco gets access to the actual
source code, its very possible that more copying
would be discovered. Of course some people
would believe that Huawei's internal
investigation showing no examples of copying
beyond what cisco already found is some sort
of vindication.

If cisco finds a pattern of copying, meaning
multiple examples in the source code, its still
possible that Huawei's entire software could
be declared tainted and therefore beyond
fixing.

whyiswhy
whyiswhy
12/5/2012 | 1:45:55 AM
re: Cisco's IOS Code 'Compromised'
"Second, Huawei can't show cause with code that may have pre-existed in public hands."

This is the fundamantal arguement Cisco is using against Huawei, just turned around.

"The code is still owned and copyrighted by Cisco. It may just be a bunch of bits and bytes but Cisco retains all rights to their code, regardless of condition precedents."

This is called begging the question.

"Huawei is not immune to claims of rights infrigement from Cisco, if they did have Cisco code; regardless of their origin. Period."

And I never said they were. But it does go to damages. Let me give you a very straight example: if Cisco knew, or should have reasonably known about the Russian site, and failed to even try to close it down, or remove their material, they might fail the reasonable care test.

And so it goes....

-Why
Tony Li
Tony Li
12/5/2012 | 1:45:45 AM
re: Cisco's IOS Code 'Compromised'
Gentlebeings,

Might I suggest that this discussion is somewhat pointless? First, I can promise you that Cisco certainly provides "reasonable" care for its source code. Second, none of here (hopefully) is the judge or jury on this case. What they have to say is relevant, what we have to say is not.

Light, not heat please...

Tony
GooblyWoobly
GooblyWoobly
12/5/2012 | 1:45:44 AM
re: Cisco's IOS Code 'Compromised'
Look at the brighter side guys. The evil folks will look at Cisco coad, find the bugs, kill the internet for a few days (loss of billions??).

But at the end of all these, at least that part of Cisco code will be bug free (unless the great IOS guys introduce more bugs in the process of fixing them!!).
ragho
ragho
12/5/2012 | 1:45:30 AM
re: Cisco's IOS Code 'Compromised'
Tony,

Point well made, succinctly. Sometimes I wonder whether folks post here simply to hear themselves talk, so to speak..
Abby
Abby
12/5/2012 | 1:45:20 AM
re: Cisco's IOS Code 'Compromised'
>>Might I suggest that this discussion is somewhat pointless? First, I can promise you that Cisco certainly provides "reasonable" care for its source code. Second, none of here (hopefully) is the judge or jury on this case. What they have to say is relevant, what we have to say is not.

Light, not heat please...

------------------

I somewhat disagree with you. Specifically, because we donGÇÖt know for sure if this was a hack or not. Therefore, if it wasnGÇÖt and this was just some disgruntled employee, then John Chambers is not the only very paranoid CEO in the industry right now.

Moreover, the action of this individual(s) is deplorable, and although the intent may have been to hurt Cisco, we all got hurt because it builds mistrust in the global community as to the viability of the Internet. IMHO, if you know who the S.O.B. is, do us all a favor and turn him or her in.
digerato
digerato
12/5/2012 | 1:11:36 AM
re: Cisco's IOS Code 'Compromised'
"My overall impression is that Huawei doesn't make a habit of copying. I can't prove this, and if someone *can* prove otherwise, I'd love to have the evidence."

Peter,

To do this, you are going to need a Cisco 3640 and a Huawei Quidway Refiner 3600. Open both boxes. Observe how the circuit boards are identical. Now, tell me that's a coincidence.

Cheers,

Digerato

<<   <   Page 3 / 3


Featured Video
Upcoming Live Events
November 5, 2019, London, England
November 7, 2019, London, UK
November 14, 2019, Maritim Hotel, Berlin
December 3-5, 2019, Vienna, Austria
December 3, 2019, New York, New York
March 16-18, 2020, Embassy Suites, Denver, Colorado
May 18-20, 2020, Irving Convention Center, Dallas, TX
All Upcoming Live Events