Micro$oft screws up again!!! 11

[Tarwn]

I'd have to agree sleipner. I'm sure somewhere there is a job that will rely more on your skill to fill in the bubbles then in setting up a real world server, but I have yet to see it. Not that I think that all MCSE's are bubble-fillers, the difference is that while some MCSE's are bubble fillers, no RHCE's are going to be bubble-fillers.

Reminds me of college, I was down in the B range fo my CS classes, but the A students came to ask me qustions. I was bad at the bubbles but generally knew what was going on and why (i have 0 memorization skill).

I think it would be nice to see other certifications adopt the setup approach, unfortunately, as with the "make a new test every time" approach, the sheer number of people taking an MCSE on a given day is likely to large a number to accurately judge a group of test takers as they perform the tasks. All you would really ned is skill with a screwdriver and 5 minutes with no one looking...amazingly my machine would work and the guy next to me would be rather confused that his system suddenly failed while he was off getting the test instructor

_{01000111 01101111 01110100 00100000 01000011 01101111 01100110 01100110 01100101 01100101 00111111}
The never-completed website:

http://www.tiernok.com/

 

[GlenJohnson]

sleipnir214, these are company's that promise you will get your certification within one week if you pay them $8000. Now, how much learning can you absorbe in one week. They beat the awnsers to the tests into you, then you test but don't learn. What happens is the people with the brain dump get out into the job market, don't know squat and make us that have taken the hard road to certificatins look bad. Employers think if this one doesn't know anything, the certs are worthless. Braindumps should be made totally illegal, and the job market for us with the knowledge would know when someone saw our cert, they would know it meant something. Microsoft Certified Professional and proud of it, because I know I earned it.

Glen A. Johnson
If you're from Northern Illinois/Southern Wisconsin feel free to join the Tek-Tips in Chicago, Illinois Forum.

TTinChicago
Johnson Computers

 

[sleipnir214]

If we're going to outlaw braindumpers, we should also go ahead and outlaw companies that provide training for the GRE, ACT, SAT, or any other multiple-choice standarized exam.

The problem is that any exam which does not require you to synthesize knowledge is only a test of one's regurgitation skills, not one's capabilities.




Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[ChrisHunt]

As I understand it, MCSE exams are delivered online served up as a series of multi-choice questions, presumably selected at random from a master list. Surely the easiest way for MS to kill the braindumpers is to increase the size of the pool of potential questions.

There must be a point at which it's easier to actually learn to use the product than it is to learn all possible questions & answers.

-- Chris Hunt

http://www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk

http://www.napitalia.org.uk

http://www.leicesteryha.org.uk

 

[lionelhill]

Cajun, the situation is analogous to a theory driving test. These also take place every day of every year. But no one seems to bother about people knowing what the questions might be in advance; even if you know the questions, you still need to know the answers to pass. I'd have thought IT at least at some levels was much the same. You just draw the questions at random from a, preferably very large, pool of typical questions.

 

[SemperFiDownUnda]

Seems you are a hater of MS for the sake of hating MS.

MS had a valid claim and the other two parties wanted to get their greedy hands on some of the takings and they, not MS, dropped the case when they thought they might not get what they wanted.

While I respect RHCE I think we are in a different ball park then MCSEs.

Not all questions are multiple choice. The new test are also adaptive and include questions that require you to draw out a network configuration based on a set of requirements. While I agree that MCSE isn't as indicative as RHCE I'll point out that there are plenty of people that are smarter then their university graduate counter parts but the degree is often used as a screening tool. To say "I won't take the exams because they are cheepened by cheaters" while noble isn't looking at things realistically in my book. You'll be screened out of more then a few potential jobs.

As far as the sites being illegal. Well they break copywrite laws. They are taking copywrited work and publishing it for profit beyond what the law states they can without express permission from the copywrite holder. Pretty clear cut to me.

sleipnir214 - If any site illegally takes questions from copywrite holders of GRE, ACT, SAT or any other testing organisation then yes we should go after them too.

There are plenty of legit sites that instead of stealing copywrited material create their own test, and question within the tests, that are different but test the same knowledge of information.

That is the differense. MS are protecting their copywrite. That is it. They are not going after the sites that legally develop their own courses and test to prep for exams.

Honestly I didn't think this was so hard to understand. Lets put it into a different context. The story of snow white and the seven dwarfs is not owned by anyone. Multiple companies can make movies of it. But if company A has a script made for them and company B steals that script and uses it in their movie that is breaking the law. But company C is allowed to have a script made for them to tell the same story but with different words and THAT is legal.

Another Star for CC

Hope I've been helpful,
Wayne Francis

If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first

 

[sleipnir214]

SemperFiDownUnda[/b:

Unfortunately, it's not that cut-and-dried.

U.S. copyright law (we'll stick with that as the case in question occurred in the U.S.) requires that a work to be copyrighted be placed in fixed form. The MCSE exam, since it consists of a computer-generated subset of a database of questions, may not be in fixed form for the purposes of U.S. copyright law.

And Databases are not necessarily copyrightable in the U.S. This from the American Library Association entry on current legislation to tighten database copyright protection (from

http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/WOissues/copyrightb/dbprotection/databaseprotection.htm#who):

Under copyright law, basic factual information is in the public domain and is not entitled to copyright protection. However, many databases - which consist of individual pieces of information that have been organized in one collection so that the data are easier to access - are protected because of the creative way that the information in them is selected, coordinated and arranged. Databases may also be protected from copying under other federal laws, such as the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act, and under state laws, such as misappropriation and trespass laws.

The case of Garry Neale deals with, according to Microsoft, exposure of trade secrets, not copyright violations. Trade secrets, by their nature, are more difficult to prove. All Mr. Neale would have to do is show that the information he published could have come from a source other than Microsoft, or that Microsoft itself publishes the information via another outlet and the information is no longer a trade secret.

If the information published did, indeed, come from an MCSE exam, then someone has voided a contract, specifically the NDA everyone taking these kinds of test is required to sign. But unless Mr. Neale was the one who signed the NDA, he didn't violate the terms of any contract.





Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[SemperFiDownUnda]

Thanks for setting me straight on a few facts. But the article says MS would "pursue civil remedies for copyright violations"

So by your reasoning if a company has some individuals sign NDA and some other company obtains information about trade secrets and starts making money off it there is no law broken if you can't prove who did it? So all you have to do as a company is have good industrial spies and you are home free.

As far as saying this work is not copyrightable I doubt this. Yes I'm sure that all the questions are in a database but I'm sure they are in a few other formats. A single question can be copyrighted. The quote you produce is more about factual pieces of data typically stored in a database. By what you are saying if a publisher holds articles and books in a database then it is not covered.

The information in the testing database as far as the questions would be copyrightable. We aren't talking about information like First Name, Last Name, Phone Number blah blah blah.

I'm talking about something like

You upgraded to Win2k and AD six months ago. Your company has decided to outsource the sales dept. After deleting the objects for the staff that have left, the active directory size has not changed. What should you do to reduce the size?

A) Schedule garbage collection more frequently
B) run esentutil utility
C) Reduce the tombstone lifetime of objects
D) Run Ntdsutil with the command to compact

question obtained from clickx3 web site

Now if clickx3 didn't write that question and didn't obtain promission from the author of that question and didn't alter the question segnificantly to invalidate a copyright claim then they should be held liable for copyright infringements. Just because they didn't directly obtain the question is moot. I can't start a web site and let people upload books to my site and say "but I didn't put the books up there". I have to be liable for what is on my site.


Hope I've been helpful,
Wayne Francis

If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first

 

[Dollie]

Because of sites like Mr. Neale's, MCSE is now:

Morons
Confused by
System
Errors

 

[sleipnir214]

SemperFiDownUnda:
I'm still not convinced that there is any copyright violation. Yes, the article posted by SF18C did mention copyright, but that article is so filled with hyperbole I doubt its accuracy. The article I posted, which contains more in-depth information, does not mention copyright but rather "trade secrets and other intellectual property".


If I provide information in a database that, by happenstance, exactly matches a question from an MCSE exam, then the burden of proof that the question is a trade secret lies with Microsoft. And all I have to do is show that my question came from some other source, and Microsoft no longer has a trade secret.

This was the basis of the defense for those publishing in the early 1980s information about the U.S. 911 emergency call system. The Bell system claimed that the information was a trade secret, and further claimed a high dollar value on the information, based on trumped up printing, formatting, etc., costs. The defense was able to show that a document, available from the Bell Labs document catalog for $25US, contained all the information in the questioned 911 system document -- plus a great deal more. Ma Bell suddenly found itself in the unenviable position of discovering that their vaunted trade secret was not one -- in a federal court.

Trade secrets are difficult things to prove. It is required that the entity claiming that the information is a trade secret have taken pains to insure that the information is kept confidential and that the information is not something that can be reasonably inferred.

In short, if Microsoft wants to prove trade secret or even copyright violation in terms of the text of MCSE questions, they have a long uphill battle ahead of them.



Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[Dimandja]

Absolutely right, sleipnir214.

Simply because someone claims "copyright violation" or whatever, does not make it so. There are judicial procedures to proving that type of things.

Dimandja

 

[Dollie]

Intellectual property may be a better case instead of copyright violations or trade secrets.

Taking someone else's information, then profiting from that information and not providing the owner of the information with any type of compensation could be a fairly solid case.

It is also a non-police matter, and I don't think the police should have profited from it unless there was seized property that was released by the court to be sold or otherwise turned into money.

....I think....

 

[SemperFiDownUnda]

Trade secrets are difficult things to prove. It is required that the entity claiming that the information is a trade secret have taken pains to insure that the information is kept confidential and that the information is not something that can be reasonably inferred.

You are not allowed to bring any material into the testing room with you, you are not allowed to write questions down on material and take said material with you, you are required to sign a statement saying you will not release any test information.

Now from what you are saying sleipnir214 is that microsoft has to prove that this company didn't obtian thousands upon thousands of questions that match their questions probably at a accuracy of 80% or higher in wording. So I guess I can start going to book stores and copying the books, changing a word here and there and they won't be able to stop me from publishing because they can't prove that I didn't come up with the stories myself.

Please....I know you hate MS but honestly I don't care who was wronged here. I'm concerned that someone is profiting from work that they legally don't have any claim to. If MS does this to another organisation I'll be over them about it too.

IP, copyright, trade secrets...to me its all the same boat. Company A has invested money in some thing and are protecting it as much as they can and some other company wants to steal that information and make money off it.

There are plenty of legit companies. This isn't one of them. It not only is a slap in MS face but the host of other companies that actually invest resources into creating valid practice test, study guides etc.

Dimandja - I'm not saying MS shouldn't have to prove the offence but really when you have probably tens of thousands of questions that so closely match what MS questions wording is there that much doubt? Oh wait....Maybe MS stole all these questions from other places....yea they stole questions from practice test for their test before their test where writen....oh yea that makes sense.

Not pointing fingers but we all know there are people that hate MS because they are MS and think MS don't deserve any legal justice because what they've done in the past. Sorry but while I'm not a fan of MS I do believe in justice equally for all. In this case we have 2 dirt balls. Microsoft a huge organisation everyone loves to hate and Garry Neale a smaller dirt ball making money off something he has no right to. The fact that they are both bad makes no differense to me. The fact that Garry Neale has in this case done the wrong thing does.

These are my opinions. You can hate MS and wish the devil on B.G. all you want....but if you let person feelings stand in the way of right and wrong then I feel sorry for you.

Hope I've been helpful,
Wayne Francis

If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first

 

[Dimandja]

Not pointing fingers but we all know there are people that hate MS because they are MS and think MS don't deserve any legal justice because what they've done in the past.

It seems to me, Wayne, you have already prosecuted and sentenced these folks without going to trial. like I said, everything is only allegations and accusations at this point. How do we know these people are not unfairly accused? We don't. But, if you "just know" they are guilty, they won't select you for the jury. Let justice take its course.

Dimandja

 

[SemperFiDownUnda]

Dimandja - no I'm not....I'm stating that by the government, who is the only one that can bring criminal charges to court, dropping the case with this amount of evidence, and apparently because they won't get their paws in the assests, that MS and the reputable companies are being denied legal justice.

Not only would it be the responciblity for MS to show ownership of the information but in my view the defendant should have to prove how he got the information he has. Throwing his hads up, pleading the fifth is not a valid defense of proving he got the information legit.

So to make is PERFECTLY CLEAR. I think an injustice has been done here by the government bowing out of this case. While I am making a decision based on my experiense, I was an MSCT for a few years, it is obvious of the violation. If you went to the sight in black and white they encouraged you to submit as many questions from your test as you could.

This situation is like a dead man laying on the ground with a bullet in his head, 100 bystanders standing around that saw the murder and the murder saying he was going to kill the man.

Even in this case I would say it needs to goto trial....but seems the government is being petty and won't.


Hope I've been helpful,
Wayne Francis

If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first

 

[Dimandja]

Wayne, your case doesn't hold water in the US justice system.

1. The burden of proof lies with the accuser. The defendant does not have to prove anything, nor say anything. The fifth is well within their rights.

2. MS can sue, not just the government. In fact, the gov needs not be interested in it at all.

Dimandja

 

[CajunCenturion]

You are correct in what you state in your first point Dimandja, but that doesn't change the correctness of what SemperFiDownUnda said.

Throwing his hads up, pleading the fifth is not a valid defense of proving he got the information legit.

It is true that the defense can take the fifth, but if the defense's strategy is to prove that the information was obtained through legitimate means, then taking the fifth won't achieve that goal.

To your second point, anyone can sue in civil proceedings, but MS wanted a criminal conviction, and only the state can prosecute in criminal proceedings. This was a criminal matter until the state decided to drop the charges. That in turn only leaves the civil route for MS to pursue.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[Dollie]

I've had to deal with many copyright violations with the software I sell and distribute for my company. Even though I have never had to go farther than writing letters and hiring an attorney to write more letters, if a website out there was publishing our software and making money off of it, I just don't see why I would ever need to get the police involved unless we were looking at flat out piracy.

This isn't piracy, and I think the government should keep its nose out of it unless MS asks the investigative arm of it to get involved.

Just my $0.02.

 

[Dimandja]

I didn't know the defense wanted to prove anything. MS does.

 

[sleipnir214]

SemperFiDownUnda:
I strongly disagree that an injustice was done by the government's bowing out of the case. If the information from the link to this story I earlier posted is correct (

http://certcities.com/editorial/news/story.asp?EditorialsID=602),

particularly:

While the D.A.'s office and Microsoft were still litigating this issue in civil court, the defense successfully petitioned the criminal court to return Neale's assets. In this Jan. 29 hearing, Neale's attorneys argued that the assets should be returned based on multiple "defects" in the original search warrants, most significantly a lack of probable cause of the charge (i.e., that there was no evidence that the questions were trade secrets under the Texas statute), but also a lack of jurisdiction over certain assets, errors in the search warrants' wording, as well as falsehoods within the police affidavits on which the warrants were based.

It looks to me like someone in the District Attorney's office forgot to ask the $64 question: "Microsoft says this is a violation of trade secrets under Texas law. Is this true?"

Dimandja:
You are right -- the defense doesn't have to prove anything. But that doesn't mean an intelligent legal defense should be passive. To the contrary, the job of a legal defense is to punch holes in the case provided by the prosecutor or plaintiff's lawyers.

As an example, if in a civil court Microsoft's laywers say that the information on Mr. Neale's websites is a trade secret, then the job of the defense is to provide information which shows it is not.

This is why the process under which the U.S. justice system operates is formally described as "adversarial".



Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!