Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: Qualcomm Retracts Its Massive DMCA Takedown Of Git Repositories

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,429

    Default Qualcomm Retracts Its Massive DMCA Takedown Of Git Repositories

    Phoronix: Qualcomm Retracts Its Massive DMCA Takedown Of Git Repositories

    As a follow-up to the story about a Qualcomm DMCA notice taking down 100+ repositories of open-source code on GitHub, Qualcomm has changed course...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTczNzA

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    230

    Default

    This proves one thing... among all them Qualcomm employees there is at least one who is not quite as stupid as the rest.

  3. #3

    Default

    Qualcomm (and every other copyright maximalist that finally relises their mistake): "Yeah, that DMCA notice was a mistake. Please undelete all those repos that we told you to delete."
    It's a good thing git is a distributed VCS otherwise we'd never get those back.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sdack View Post
    This proves one thing... among all them Qualcomm employees there is at least one who is not quite as stupid as the rest.
    And apparently he/she has enough authority to do some good.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    73

    Default

    I'd like to think Qualcomm retracted those DMCA notices because they actually cared about the authors and fixing their mistake, but I have a feeling this was done mainly to prevent legal issues with the Android kernel.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Nurnberg.
    Posts
    339

    Default

    Still, this event is now a separate section in Qualcomms wikipedia page, congrats. How much damage did Cyveillance do to itself, and will it now go bust or will it rename itself?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Outthere, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    409

    Default

    This wasn't Qualcomm's, but their patent infringement rep's wasn't it? Which means Qualcomm's only mistake here was allowing that company too much leeway in demanding takedowns without checks for proper investigation in to infringements. This incident seems to me to be akin to a cop busting you for possession of illegal substances while walking down the street.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    301

    Default

    QinetiQ stock appears to be headed downwards after a short spike. No idea if it's long-term.
    (Cyveillance is a subsidiary of QinetiQ, which seems to be a British defense company, so I'm guessing that at most QinetiQ will get shed of them.)

    Also: yeah, Qualcomm's mistake was giving them free rein.
    I wonder if any other companies will learn from this.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1

    Default Penalty of perjury

    Correct me if I'm wrong (not from the US) but doesn't the DMCA takedown request have the line: you declare UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that the information in your notice is accurate and that you are the copyright owner or authorized to act on the copyright owner's behalf?

    Doesn't this mean some steep fines for false takedown requests?

  10. #10

    Default

    but someone would need to sue them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •