Slashdot Mirror

...

"Yarro [CEO of Canopy Group who are pulling SCO's strings on this] won't apologize for the IBM lawsuit. "I'm not a guy who goes away quietly in the night. I fight," he says. "If you take something from me, if you break a promise, I'm going to come after you.""

...

"The IBM lawsuit could bring a windfall to Canopy, which owns 46% of SCO. Another beneficiary could be John Wall, chief executive of Vista.com, a Redmond, Wash., company that last August struck a licensing arrangement with SCO. Wall got 800,000 shares of SCO stock in the deal and still holds 600,000, making him SCO's biggest individual shareholder after Canopy. Those shares, which were worth about $1 each when Wall made the deal, now trade above $10." [my emphasis]

...

"These guys in Utah are no dummies. The crunchies in the Linux community should be paying more attention."

Regards
Luke

Did anybody notice that in this article provided by a reader in a comment it mentions that the parent company that owns SCO also owns trolltech! What gives!? Qt's parent is brothers with SCO?

I don't think that claims that the Canopy Group is not behind this one will not hold up now.

Now my fellow "crunchies", (the insulting name M$ friendly Forbes gives us), for the million dollar question, where does this money trail lead? I'll bet it doesn't stop at the Canopy.

I don't think that claims that the Canopy Group is not behind this one will not hold up now.

Now my fellow "crunchies", (the insulting name M$ friendly Forbes gives us), for the million dollar question, where does this money trail lead? I'll bet it doesn't stop at the Canopy.

see this article in Forbes. They point out that SCO's parent comapny has twice before bought small compaines (e.g. SCO) then sued larger ones for the IP. For example they sued Microsoft and won. They sued another company that settled. Now they are suing IBM and will probably win even if no one in the linux world can beleive it. They owned troll tech: the SCO kiss of death of IP legitimacy.

These guys are business men. Check out: this article which talks about some of the deals they've done.

[...] like many religious folk, the Linux-loving crunchies in the open-source movement are a) convinced of their own righteousness, and b) sure the whole world, including judges, will agree.

They should wake up. SCO may not be very good at making a profit by selling software. (Last year the company lost $24.9 million on sales of $64.2 million.) But it is very good at getting what it wants from other companies. And it has a tight circle of friends.

Source

And is read by many financial business people. Perhaps articles like this are why SCOX retains it stock price.

Forbes Article

Here's Forbes take on the case.

They think IBM should settle because Caldera got Microsoft to settle and because McBride got his former employer to settle.

Here's the link to the story

Well, this article in Forbes seems fairly pro-SCO. The point about a track record of litigation seems well-made. Or it would be if SCO actually appeared to have a case as strong as Digital Research did against Microsoft over the "AARD Detection code".

Research a little further into the personalities behind SCO, and you'll find a very committed group of opportunists that have run this scam before, and won. Read this backgrounder at Forbes.com: http://www.forbes.com/2003/06/18/cz_dl_0618linux.h tml

Natural is a good choice of words. North Americans are the most propagandized people in the world [5000+ words of advertising/day supported by extensive psych research, vast array of rhetorical images, plus exposure to corporate media] and we don't even like hearing the word capitalist, for the most part, it has a faint whiff of taboo. There has been a couple of hundred years of development in the 'naturalization' of capitalism, using everything from some pretty crank science to curriculum to the active squashing of real alternatives. In order to naturalize an idea/practise you have to make it 'like water to a fish'--inevitable and nigh unnoticeable. Once that is done, contradictions and paradigmatic problems are obscured fairly easily. This is the foundation of any ideology (in the political sense).

You are also mostly right about its success in developing capabilities... well, a narrow set of capabilities, I would argue, but it develops them well. In particular, entrepeneurialism ('the french don't even have a word for that' -- G.W.Bush) has been exalted into a near-saintly quality, and I see great emotional and infrastructural support for entrepeneurs, something that monopoly capitalism (read: soviet russia, china, and other so called communist states) doesn't. But the entrepeneurial spirit doesn't necessarily lead to healthy communities and families, or pure research, or amazing art, for instance.

I would also suggest that capitalism is about much more than money/capital as an end. The conglomeration of power and control with the willing participation of its subjects is always the intended end product of ideologies. Which brings us back to the richest man in the world, and by extension, the Bilderbergers. No mistake: in this context, Evangelism IS war.

Here's a story from Forbes. My favorite is the last paragraph. Our only problem with Rosen was the RIAA going after Napster. Umm...sure.

I love it when the news media expecially on the internet writes articles and title's them differently everytime they add a paragraph and update the report. You start reading beyond the first paragraph and you realize it is yesterday's article. I guess that's the easy way to provide the relevant story along with the updates, but sometimes it can seem pretty cheesy. Similarly, I remember watching one cable news station when the inditement against Martha Stewart broke, and they had they guy on camera skimming through the 13 page document and reading areas that sounded interesting and going back to him every 2 minutes, not giving him enough time to say anything worthwhile. Funny Stuff.

Apparently, according to Forbes the latest update is that they have now "revoked" the Unix license officially. Here's the text.

This article over at Forbe's has an interesting quote.

We gave IBM notice that they're in violation of the contract that they had," Sontag told Reuters. "If they continue to ignore the termination order and with the damages that will rack up every day, we're not in a hurry to settle anymore."
- Chris Sontag, a general manager in charge of SCO's Unix licensing efforts

With their bluff called it sounds like even SCO has realized this is pointless.

David Boies (of Bush v. Gore, Microsoft, and Tobacco fame) appears to be the main Legal Guy Here. David Boeis first represented IBM when they did a few rounds in Antitrust w/ the US Gov. After that he worked for the Prosecution in US v. Microsoft. After that he left for greener pastures but was then called back for Bush v. Gore. David Boies is also currently representing Court TV. Boies apparently is generating some attention because he signed off on a internal audit of Tyco which is at the center of a $600 million dollar fraud investigation.

This guy has links to the Democratic Party up the wazoo and a huge history of epic battles. Just assuming that IBM will crush them is a bad bad idea.

One corporation claims to have complete immunity to SCO's legal threats. Interestingly enough, they happen to be one of IBM's competitors in the high-end server market. And dispite all those take-over rumors, they have around $5.5 billion in the bank..

And now there's this Big Blue blood in the water. If you were an IT head, whose sales pitch would you listen to? Hmm....

If the US should attack whomever is "communist", then my original point stands. The "communist" non-puppet government of Brazil is also in danger of the US Empire.

In any case, I'm afraid you're missing some of the bigger picture. The reason Chavez was almost taken out was because he was also supporting Saddam Hussein. On April 5th, Saddam Hussein withholds oil. April 8th, Venezuelan oil dockers go on strike [same article, third paragraph]. On April 11th, a coup is attempted and Clever George goes on National TV saying that "Chavez deserved it". Coincidence, I think not -- especially, if you believe the additional rumors of US-military involvement.

If the US should attack whomever is "communist", then my original point stands. The "communist" non-puppet government of Brazil is also in danger of the US Empire.

In any case, I'm afraid you're missing some of the bigger picture. The reason Chavez was almost taken out was because he was also supporting Saddam Hussein. On April 5th, Saddam Hussein withholds oil. April 8th, Venezuelan oil dockers go on strike [same article, third paragraph]. On April 11th, a coup is attempted and Clever George goes on National TV saying that "Chavez deserved it". Coincidence, I think not -- especially, if you believe the additional rumors of US-military involvement.

• Jenni LaPlante, 18, said one of the suspected shooters was calm Tuesday morning at a beforeschool bowling class.
• Six hours before they opened fire [...] Senior Dustin Harrison said they showed up bright and cheerful for the 6:30 a.m. session, and he laughed and joked with both of them.
• Tuesday, Harris, Klebold and another friend missed their 6:30 a.m. bowling class at Englewood's AMF Belleview Lanes. "You always kind of noticed them," said 17-year-old John Hause

Dustin Harrison says both were there. Jenni LaPlante says one was calm, so we know she believed one to be there. (Nothing is said about the other.) John Hause says they missed the class, but he bases this on the fact that he didn't notice them, but he may have missed them if they "were calm" instead of behaving normally; i.e. if they weren't disrupting class with nazi salutes like they often did, he may not have noticed them. We can't say what the police think with any certainty, because we don't have accurate quotes. However, it looks like some of their class thought they were there, and there's a logical reason why the one person quoted as saying they were not may have been wrong. The only way to know for certain is to check the class attendance sheet, but more people are saying they were there than not. I'd say BFC is on solid ground.





Claim 2: Lockheed Martin's plant in Littleton doesn't make weapons. It makes space launch vehicles for TV satellites.

Truth: Moore was not standing in front of a weapon, but that plant does have a history of producing them

Details:
The martin plant in littleton was founded as a defense plant, and is where the titan family of missiles were built . The Titan II is "the largest Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) ever developed by the United States.". In 1998, the Littleton plant recieved $550,889,415 of airforce money for continued booster procurement and assembly; three ship sets of solid rocket motor upgrades, spares, and liquid rocket engine quartz skirts for the Ti

• Jenni LaPlante, 18, said one of the suspected shooters was calm Tuesday morning at a beforeschool bowling class.
• Six hours before they opened fire [...] Senior Dustin Harrison said they showed up bright and cheerful for the 6:30 a.m. session, and he laughed and joked with both of them.
• Tuesday, Harris, Klebold and another friend missed their 6:30 a.m. bowling class at Englewood's AMF Belleview Lanes. "You always kind of noticed them," said 17-year-old John Hause

Dustin Harrison says both were there. Jenni LaPlante says one was calm, so we know she believed one to be there. (Nothing is said about the other.) John Hause says they missed the class, but he bases this on the fact that he didn't notice them, but he may have missed them if they "were calm" instead of behaving normally; i.e. if they weren't disrupting class with nazi salutes like they often did, he may not have noticed them. We can't say what the police think with any certainty, because we don't have accurate quotes. However, it looks like some of their class thought they were there, and there's a logical reason why the one person quoted as saying they were not may have been wrong. The only way to know for certain is to check the class attendance sheet, but more people are saying they were there than not. I'd say BFC is on solid ground.





Claim 2: Lockheed Martin's plant in Littleton doesn't make weapons. It makes space launch vehicles for TV satellites.

Truth: Moore was not standing in front of a weapon, but that plant does have a history of producing them

Details:
The martin plant in littleton was founded as a defense plant, and is where the titan family of missiles were built . The Titan II is "the largest Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) ever developed by the United States.". In 1998, the Littleton plant recieved $550,889,415 of airforce money for continued booster procurement and assembly; three ship sets of solid rocket motor upgrades, spares, and liquid rocket engine quartz skirts for the Ti

> heck, s. robson walton may even be richer than bill!

Nope, although you are right that the Walton's combined are richer than Bill.

Except that your model does not permit for the exchange of their information prior to the full payment for their design. As a consumer you are not permitted to know anything about their design, until they have been sufficiently compensated. You haven't shown that this model is superior.

The information as a service model is better for consumers and it is proven. Check Linux vs Windows

1. Demonstrate that "Linux vs Windows" is an example of the aforementioned scenario.
2. Show that if "Linux vs Windows" is an example, that any and/or all results are applicable to all assets in an information economy.
3. As you imply for your statement to be considered a response to the aforementioned claim for proof, and imply that such proof is existent, demonstrate a proof of the economic superiority of the aforementioned model of distribution.

Linux has advanced this quickly

Linux has been in development for almost twelve years, and many parts of its userland even longer. because information has been shared between competiting companies, Redhat, Suse, and others.

Companies that also have proprietary sources of revenue.

You didn't mention some of the other names, though, that have contributed code, money, or expansive technical information like Intel, IBM, Compaq, HP, CMI, and more. Companies that have no qualms with, or outright desire to make a commodity of operating systems, or the software market altogether. Companies that rely extensively on intellectual property protections for their own sources of income. Do you see Intel or IBM calling for the removal of intellectual property protections, citing a better economic result as their motivation? Do you even see RedHat doing that?

Redhat is profiting

I really hope you can do better than this, although I would be entirely interested in an explanation as to why you believe that this is evidence demonstrating the benefits of removing intellectual property protection.

And while I think your childish obsession with comparing Windows and Linux as a means of determining the success of such a model is more than a little cliche and incredibly useless, you can always take a look at how big a failure Microsoft is in comparison to RedHat. If you could even relate RedHat to your ideology, which is rather suspect at the least, you would probably do better to find a better example.

and other companies are trying to profit

Would that be more like MandrakeSoft, or more like VA Linux Systems/VA Software?

programmers are paid to produce code, not to sell it.

The number of programmers responsible for selling, rather than producing code, is anecdotally small. Intellectual property protections are most often used in either scenario.

This does benefit the user because we get better software

Do we? This certainly seems subjective to me. It hardly matters, however. It also doesn't lend any support to your ideology.

the wheel isnt constantly reinvented

The is constantly reinvented, on this planet where is your

Except that your model does not permit for the exchange of their information prior to the full payment for their design. As a consumer you are not permitted to know anything about their design, until they have been sufficiently compensated. You haven't shown that this model is superior.

The information as a service model is better for consumers and it is proven. Check Linux vs Windows

1. Demonstrate that "Linux vs Windows" is an example of the aforementioned scenario.
2. Show that if "Linux vs Windows" is an example, that any and/or all results are applicable to all assets in an information economy.
3. As you imply for your statement to be considered a response to the aforementioned claim for proof, and imply that such proof is existent, demonstrate a proof of the economic superiority of the aforementioned model of distribution.

Linux has advanced this quickly

Linux has been in development for almost twelve years, and many parts of its userland even longer. because information has been shared between competiting companies, Redhat, Suse, and others.

Companies that also have proprietary sources of revenue.

You didn't mention some of the other names, though, that have contributed code, money, or expansive technical information like Intel, IBM, Compaq, HP, CMI, and more. Companies that have no qualms with, or outright desire to make a commodity of operating systems, or the software market altogether. Companies that rely extensively on intellectual property protections for their own sources of income. Do you see Intel or IBM calling for the removal of intellectual property protections, citing a better economic result as their motivation? Do you even see RedHat doing that?

Redhat is profiting

I really hope you can do better than this, although I would be entirely interested in an explanation as to why you believe that this is evidence demonstrating the benefits of removing intellectual property protection.

And while I think your childish obsession with comparing Windows and Linux as a means of determining the success of such a model is more than a little cliche and incredibly useless, you can always take a look at how big a failure Microsoft is in comparison to RedHat. If you could even relate RedHat to your ideology, which is rather suspect at the least, you would probably do better to find a better example.

and other companies are trying to profit

Would that be more like MandrakeSoft, or more like VA Linux Systems/VA Software?

programmers are paid to produce code, not to sell it.

The number of programmers responsible for selling, rather than producing code, is anecdotally small. Intellectual property protections are most often used in either scenario.

This does benefit the user because we get better software

Do we? This certainly seems subjective to me. It hardly matters, however. It also doesn't lend any support to your ideology.

the wheel isnt constantly reinvented

The is constantly reinvented, on this planet where is your

But early this year [1998] Motorola celebrated the 2.5 billionth production unit of a single microcontroller model, the 68HC05.

What's wrong with that?

The way patents are meant to help the common man (Horatio Alger version): lone genius working out of an attic in Pittsburgh invents new UltraWidget. He gets a patent for it, then takes it around to the major widget manufacturers and offers to sell them his invention. WidgetWorks, Inc. realizes that this is the next stage in the evolution of the widget, and lone genius retires to Key West.

The way patents are abused: lone sleazo lawyer in Menlo Park looks through industry rags for future trends in widgets. He patents rough concepts for UltraWidgets, TurboWidgets, Widget64, and WidgetXP. WidgetWorks, Inc., which is busy actually fucking innovating and employs engineers rather than lawyers, is working on their own next-generation widget. As soon as it appears that WidgetWorks is going to corner the market, lawyer shoves his patents up their ass. WidgetWorks pays up, lawyer now has hot tub full of Benjamins.

This is not the way patents are supposed to work. Patents are supposed to "promote the progress of science and useful arts", and protect inventions. Technology will advance without these fuckwads filing preemptive patents, and the effect of their activities is actually to slow innovation down. Companies have to waste precious resources covering their ass lest some IP law firm take them from behind. Hell, the lawyers in the article even admit that they're using patents explicitly as a competitive tool, rather than to protect their own investment and hard work.

Blame for this pathetic state of affairs can partly be laid at the feet of IBM, since they pretty much pioneered the use of patents to pre-emptively squash a competitor.

If you think these charges and taxes actually go somewhere, think again.

Aberdeen, and "open source expert" Bill Claybrook in particular, have issued nothing but nasty reports about Linux and its supposedly inferior security, high TCO, and low market penetration for the past several years. They've been doing a similar bag job on Sun. This article explains why.

With friends like Mr. Claybrook, who needs SCO?

It might be also a result of Oracle hiring recently that a software analyst that watched PeopleSoft for Morgan Stanley for years.

It might be also result of a question in Larry's recent (2-4 weeks) performance, which touched the subject and reminded him that PeopleSoft refused his polite offer a year ago.
He does not like a 'no' for an answer. :)

According to this article, PeopleSoft is already to jump on the Linux bandwagon...

As far as the cussing associated with PeopleSoft, I am very sympathetic. :) But, as someone who has worked with both PeopleSoft and Oracle's ERP suite, I can safely say that there is plenty of swearing going on thanks to Oracle.

The implementation makes all the difference... Both can be great application, or huge headaches depending on how they are done.

We have tried to solve the matter in an amicable way,â said Hugh Brogan, Sendoâ(TM)s chief executive officer.

Translated: We tried to extort millions of dollars before filing suit, and they said no. Reminds me of IBM's past amicable actions.

What the hell are you talking about?

First of all, inflation is not out of control. On the contrary, many economists are worried about deflation now.

And what on earth makes you think that people making money on the stock market leads to high inflation? Even during the height of the .com boom, inflation was very much under control. Inflation topped out at a very reasonable 3.38% in 2000 (compare that with the Jimmy Carter administration's 13.48% in 1980).

Honestly, I don't know what I'd do with a dual 2GHz G4 at the moment.

Apple has typically been able to bank on a regular upgrade cycle among its traditional user base in the publishing and graphic-arts industries. But so far that cycle hasn't materialized this year, and sales of Apple systems could be best described as underwhelming.

They do have a responsibility to their shareholders. But none to their website visitors.

This whole thread is still getting one key point of fact wrong: Google is not a publicly traded company.

Here: go look them up. Type in "Google." Nothing, right?

The people that run Google could get spectacularly rich if they were to issue an IPO. Some have theorized that any IPO from Google would fuel a new tech boom, and some have the audacity to claim that it's Google's responsibility to do this and single-handedly save the stock market.

But they don't want that. They realize that they run their company in slightly untraditional ways-- they don't hold profit as the top priority at the expense of all else (which is why you don't see larger ads, or any willingness to sell rankings on their search engine), and they like that they can make decisions based on right-and-wrong gut reactions. Their tech guy, Sergei Brin, has a nice outlook on what they value, which you can find in this slightly older Forbes article, and he's never yet changed his tune.

Therefore, they have even less responsibility to anybody than even you might think. They don't have to justify their actions to stockholders, and they're not under the legal guidelines the SEC would impose if they were a publicly-traded company.

They can do what they want, and are content (for now) to do so.

Here's my understanding:

As you said, the Open Group owns the Unix trademark and permits products to be called "Unix." See their page for details on their ownership of the trademark and the Single UNIX Specification. The Open Group (then the X/Open Company) got the UNIX trademark and specification from Novell in 1994.

However, the UNIX code and implementation was sold by Novell to SCO. IBM entered into a contract with AT&T way back in 1985 to produce AIX, its own version of UNIX, and SCO ended up with AT&T's interest in that contract (see here for details). IBM isn't the only licensee of UNIX from SCO; Sun and HP, for example, both have licenses from SCO for their own versions of UNIX, as do "several thousand" others.

This article from today's Forbes.com gives their lawyer's viewpoint. From the article: "Boies thinks any harm done to Linux may actually be the fault of the open source platform's own backers. 'They make the case a threat just by talking about it,' says Boies". Riiiight. Like sending 1,500 letters wasn't making it a threat. Or publically threatening to sue Linus.

Last night, I saw "Boies' Take" on Forbes, in which litigator-to-the-stars David Boies (who is SCO's "hired gun", as the article puts it, in this non-case) tries to make himself and SCO out to be innocent, bewildered, almost childlike in their incomprehension as to why everyone hates him. For what it's worth, I don't think Boies nor SCO expected this backlash.

So, this brings us back to Microsoft's donation (umm, I mean, license, yeah) to SCO. Turn it on its head for a moment. What if Microsoft realized all along Boies (who was up against them in the antitrust case) was going to be tied to these SCO shenanigans, and they figured this would be a great two-for-one hit -- serve that pesky Linux a smackdown, but also give Boies some bad press as revenge?

Mmm... conspiracy.

Last night, I saw "Boies' Take" on Forbes, in which litigator-to-the-stars David Boies (who is SCO's "hired gun", as the article puts it, in this non-case) tries to make himself and SCO out to be innocent, bewildered, almost childlike in their incomprehension as to why everyone hates him. For what it's worth, I don't think Boies nor SCO expected this backlash.

So, this brings us back to Microsoft's donation (umm, I mean, license, yeah) to SCO. Turn it on its head for a moment. What if Microsoft realized all along Boies (who was up against them in the antitrust case) was going to be tied to these SCO shenanigans, and they figured this would be a great two-for-one hit -- serve that pesky Linux a smackdown, but also give Boies some bad press as revenge?

Mmm... conspiracy.

Here's the article.

Vip

From this article, "Hired gun David Boies can't understand why no one likes his client. All SCO Group did was file a billion-dollar lawsuit against IBM claiming the computer giant was sharing code secrets with open source developers. Somehow, everyone thinks SCO is in it for the money and out to thwart Linux."

Gee, your client sent threatening letters to 1500 users indicating that they might be vulnerable too. It has threatened to sue Redhat and SuSE. And now it is threatening to sue Linus Torvalds. Mr. Boies, your client is in it for the money and out to thwart Linux.

or you can click here

The article is about the fact that there were changes in the patent rules. For instance there used to be a rule that you couldn't patent mathematical algorithms. That seems like a pretty good rule to me. But they eliminated that rule. Now IBM has a patent on a method of turning a line into a rectangle. He also explains how software patents are held to a much lower standard than other patents.

According to his economic/mathematic analysis this change in patent rules has caused a decrease in R&D and innovation. Software patents aren't bing used to protect innovation, they are being used to substitute for innovation and to stiffle innovation. It isn't that patents are bad. Patents serve a useful purpose. The problem is that these changes in the patent rules are harmful and counter productive.

Any program a computer can run can be "run" by a human brain. It is absurd to patent what amounts to nothing more than a sequence of thoughts. This is also why laws enforcing DRM are screwed up. Any decryption that can be done by a computer can also be done with pure thought. It is absurd to criminalize thinking certain thoughts.

-

...the second most effective technique for reducing overpopulation. TV.

Like Oreo cookies? Well, the leftist extremists want to make them illegal wherever kids can buy them, supposedly because of transfatty acids. Now I don't exactly eat mountains of Oreo cookies, but if someone wants to eat them, this is supposed to be a free country! Ban those and the liberals, er, leftist extremists will have opened the door to ban all "unhealthy" foods from places where kids can buy them, which opens the door to ban all "unhealthy" foods from this country for everyone. Now under the excuse of "health," the government will be able to dictate what we eat. This is Big Brother. It doesn't matter if right wing extremists or left wing extremists do it... the legal system is supposed to be the bare minimum, with a good education system teaching people how to think and use common sense, and to suggest how they should eat healthy stuff, be polite to others, not smoke, not drink, not do drugs, etc. But the minute the government can dictate which FACIAL EXPRESSIONS you may employ when talking to someone, or which FOODS you may eat, or where your money, that YOU EARNED is going to go, that is extremism and it is wrong.

I'm very sorry... The liberals/leftist extremists have gained control over the media and the schools. They have screwed up the education system because some people are less intelligent than others, so in order to be fair and to avoid hurting someone's feelings, they have reduced the quality of education in order to level the playing field. And this results in a lot of people being idiots... USEFUL IDIOTS, as Lenin said (see link for references).

Dunno, but Forbes says that buying Microsoft is common practice. (Yeah, I get the joke)

Here's the no ad version of the story:

http://www.forbes.com/2003/05/08/cx_ah_0508tentech _print.html

I would've hoped the /. editors were smart enough to post the ad free version.. guess not.

PeopleSoft is on its way - a pretty significant addition to the Linux world, I think...

Yours,

tom

Unfortunately, Sun, doesn't work that way. Separate parts of Sun don't collaborate, they work on stabbing each other in the back.

None of which really is relevent to my point about ideology. The fact is, Sun's ideological narrowness is hurting the whole company, including the hardware part. They're still acting as if nothing can displace the Sparc/Solaris server. Sure, they went and bought a an x86/Linux business, but like other such Sun ventures, it's dying from proper care and feeding.

As for your implication that a publically-traded company is immune from this kind of nonsense: dude, where have you been the last couple of years? Publically traded companies can't even track basic cash flow, never mind require that their management act sanely. In this case, most decisions seem to be determined by Scott McNeely's ego, and his personal vendettas.

Here's why I keep comparing Sun with IBM: the latter went through all this just a few years ago. They kept telling each other that a 90% share of the mainframe market was a guarantee of permanent profitability. They refused to see the importance of the personal computer (even though they invented the term!) or the internet, even after these things began to take over everywhere. Their upper management even refused to use email!

All this was turned around by a guy who initially refused the job because he didn't know jack about computers. But knowing what he didn't know turned out to make all the difference.

You can also find further coverage here and coverage on a seperate settlement with a Princeton student here.

These issues have been so widely discussed on Slashdot that you should have been able to follow a few of the links and do somesearch. For privacy/copyright/patent/piracy issues start reading through and following links from this starter list:

EFF
Lawrence Lessig
EPIC
Consumer's Union
Forbes (search for articles on copyright, patents, or intellectual property
Eldred