Slashdot Mirror

When SCO was going around saying they were going to sue Linux users for vague, unspecified "IP" claims, Red Hat preemptively sued SCO, telling them, essentially, to put-up-or-shut-up about their claims.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=169 (from 2003).

PJ has, as usual, her own thoughtful analysis on the announcemnt at Groklaw.

PJ has, as usual, her own thoughtful analysis on the announcemnt at Groklaw.

A quick look over at Groklaw has a good article about the motivations here. I'd still be cautious, but it's optimistic when IBM stresses open standards as being important to them. I'm actually surprised this didn't happen sooner with the garbage of OOXML.

There's so much unproductivity being advocated by these people that investors have to wonder about where the value really is. Divide and conquer. Screw around formats. Trick people into supporting you through networking effects. The basics of this type of competition were laid out in excruciating detail ten years ago by James Plamondon, a M$ Technical Evangelist. Disrupting others is not a valid business plan and businesses that act this way are losing money. SCO is dead, next up are Novell, Corel and M$ themselves.

It's encouraging to see that the author chose to educate themselves on GPL style licenses and not fall into mindlessly spouting the same corporate FUD about them.

Oh wait. I'm expecting academics to be be smart enough to double check their sources. My bad. Might I recommend http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851 ?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't a Stateside judge just quash something like this a few weeks ago?

Yup, but my answer is going to be pretty much worthless, because I don't have a link available for you. Try searching Slash stories from a couple weeks ago.

Groklaw still has it: McKee vs. AT&T

Here you go:
Little Guy vs. MegaCorp

And who in this case is the MC? Oh, I see it's AT&T. Well what do you know.

Douchiest indeed.

... that was part of the SCO scam?

Great.

I wish I could mod myself -1 Complainy, but I gotta agree here...this is a deeply biased and agendized summary. Mod the summary -1 Disappointed. :(

Yes but I did provide you with the actual 68-page decision, so that you could decide for yourself that my post was "biased" and "agendized". Who, other than Groklaw, gives you that kind of service? And with a :).

And a policy is there to stop the worst kind of lawsuits: class action.

I suspect some of these policies actually open the door for some class action lawsuits. The first thing that came to mind reading some of them is the recent article on Groklaw about the unconscionability of the terms in AT&T's EULA. It highlights the facts that both substantive and procedural unconscionability can be found with contracts signed under duress or misunderstanding and based on factors, such as consumer ignorance or a great deal of unexplained fine print, that serve to deprive a party of a meaningful choice. Obviously anyone agreeing to these contracts with less than the education it would take to understand them could argue misunderstanding and ignorance and your would likely find high numbers of people among the signers with less than a Phd.

I'm in the real world, where I didn't say anything about PJ not being level-headed or insightful in absolute terms. I just said that Andy Updegrove is a bit more so. That was in the context of document standards, of course. That is much more his area of expertise than it is PJ's.

PJ was very level-headed and insightful when the subject was SCO's lawsuits. Her background was very relevant then. On subjects that don't have much to do with lawsuits or the GPL (e.g., OOXML) she often doesn't do as well.

To see what I mean, compare how PJ and Andy blogged about UOF when they first heard about it:

• Andy's blog
• Groklaw

PJ was already declaring victory for ODF in 2006 (before OOXML even got to ISO/IEC) just because UOF existed and there was some people were interested in harmonizing UOF and ODF! If that doomed OOXML, what has all of the fuss in the last couple of years been about then?

Andy is a lawyer and mostly a big picture guy. If you want more technical details, you might want to check out some other blogs, such as Rob Weir's that talk about ODF, OOXML and so on. Rob is a co-chair of the OASIS ODF technical committee, so he knows what he's talking about. As a paralegal turned journalist, PJ just doesn't have the kind of background that bloggers like Rob and Andy have.

Groklaw has more on this.

It's sad that non of the countries tries to take the appeal on the next level, the Secretaries-General, because it would show us how high the corruption in ISO goes.

And bribed the government. This is so incredibly wrong in, oh, let me count some of the ways...

You might indulge into reading Erwan's table on Groklaw. SCO Litigation - From Soup to Nuts

Actually, your error is even worse than theirs. :) PJ's story was just a month ago:

Judge Kimball Rules at Last! - Updated: The Order as text

See NoOOXML, OpenDot, NoOOXML">Boycott Novell and Groklaw for better analysis. People are very angry about this and they should be.

Hmmm strange, I had read he had it removed from the Internet Archive as well??

( http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080803135012312 but it only refers to "archives", probably I wrongly made the association with archive.org)

(Although here he says he will think about reinstating the archives again: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=15479871&postID=4348431689288397027&pli=1)

As seen on groklaw
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20080709044510241&title=Mono-no-no&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=710941

http://tim.thechases.com/mononono/

"Description
Introduces an intentional conflict with Mono packages

By creating an intentional conflict with mono packages, this package can be installed to prevent Mono from being installed (or at least force you to address the conflict)

"

So, the angle is "Outsmarting" GNU/Linux by getting all the nice parts to run under Windoze, so Linux dies? That sounds about right, but it only works if Windows can run itself well. It's not obvious Windows works at all these days and the converse strategy is more true than Softies would like to imagine. Windows programs are easier to run and keep running under wine or VMs. Users would rather have the power and flexibility of X than all the clunk of Windoze and its clumsy screen handling.

being willing to do anything legal to make a buck isn't good. It's pretty evil.

C'mon, that's half of the American way! The other half is of course doing illegal stuff for a buck, which MS never shied from, and if nobody cares in the DoJ, we can still hope the EU isn't going to tolerate it.

Remember: Money is EVERYTHING! How you get it doesn't matter. - Gates' credo, in its essence.

On the KDE website, there was no mention of KDE 4.0 being a developer release. It hinted strongly, in fact, that KDE 4.0 was a general release.

It was only after all the problems and complaints that the KDE devs said that the release wasn't for mainstream users.

KDE 4.0 wasn't a developer release. What it was, was the first release with major architectual changes for public consumption. This was the first release with a stable library and without this release, a large number of KDE application developers wouldn't have a platform for porting and polishing their applications for KDE 4. Ultimately it is the decision of the distributions on what to include in their releases. I wouldn't consider KDE 4.0 a proper replacement for KDE 3.5.x, but I would make it available for use by application developers.

All this was well known and openly discussed during the planning and development of the KDE 4 platform including 4.0, 4.1, 4.x. To state otherwise is disengenious at best.

See http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080710131440951 for more information.

The Better Business Bureau is one place to start. They deal with false advertising claims (among others). In the UK, this may be a criminal offense.

`
- no decision or opinion in re Bliski has yet been handed down by the Federal Circuit since the en banc hearing, and:

- Professor Duffy is simply a lawyer offering an op-ed piece. While he is an informed member of the patent law community (he presented oral argument at that hearing) he does not work for the PTO, nor is he a federal judge. His opinions are just that - opinions.

So save the champagne or the kleenex; it's what the courts say that counts.

P.S. - P.J. and the GrokLaw folks have been discussing this.

Comes vs Microsoft was a real case, I believe Microsoft lost, FWIW. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070117045655795

Imagine the fallout that could result if someone like PJ picks up on these things...

Whether or not Sun was legally allowed to release the code they did in the format they did, the fact is that they did release it (and were acting in good faith, which will count for a lot even if this does go to court). Now that it's been released, no matter the circumstances, it means that other SYSV licensees are no longer required to keep SYSV code confidential.

From the standard SYSV licensing agreement, section 7.06(a):

"if information relating to a SOFTWARE PRODUCT subject to this Agreement at any time becomes available without restriction to the general public by acts not attributable to LICENSEE or its employees, LICENSEE'S obligations [to keep the code confidential] shall not apply to such information after such time."

So even if Sun ends up in legal hot water, the genie's out of the bottle at this point, and pretty much any SYSV licensee (e.g. IBM) should be able to make as much of the code public as they want at this point.

The bankruptcy trustee, along with Novell and some of the creditors, objected, and SCOX folded, especially when the terms of the deal showed that $95MM of that amount was in fact a loan (which they'd pay back how?). SCOX said they were going back to renegotiate the deal, and nothing more has been heard about it. Groklaw link with questions about SNCP, and the report of the hearing.

SCOX DELENDA EST!!

The bankruptcy trustee, along with Novell and some of the creditors, objected, and SCOX folded, especially when the terms of the deal showed that $95MM of that amount was in fact a loan (which they'd pay back how?). SCOX said they were going back to renegotiate the deal, and nothing more has been heard about it. Groklaw link with questions about SNCP, and the report of the hearing.

SCOX DELENDA EST!!

Ask Copiepresse or the AP* about it.

* warning: NYTimes link. DNA sample may be required.

As seen on my journal :-)
http://slashdot.org/~tqft/journal/206791
http://tim.thechases.com/mononono/
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20080705225101376&title=Make+a+dummy+package+with+equivs&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=710429#c710510

You may have a better way of preventing mono installs - reading the warnings apt gives you is one - I am interested.

Just ponder my response on Groklaw.

One may dislike Bill and MS, but the foundation Bill started has really done some great things.

Like interfering with the scientific process.

Instead of focusing on criticizing Microsoft how about focus on making open source software that is not "as good" but rather "MUCH BETTER" than closed sourced equivalents?

Because Microsoft is devoting huge amounts of resources toward making that impossible. Microsoft has declared war on its competition and everyone who helps them. You can't win a war just by strengthening yourself.

So it makes perfect sense to try to divert resources away from things that hurt us, in addition to directing resources toward things that help us.

Here's the actual document I found by Googling "Comes v Microsoft", and following a link on the top of the Groklaw page for the case. The Groklaw page has an incomplete set of exhibits, but if you follow the link at the top of the page you can get everything.

Here, Knock yourself out

The specific exhibit (7199) is found near here

And if you doubt me (after all, who is this xtracto guy), the page is linked from groklaw. Maybe they are more thrustworthy than myself?

According to this Sun may still not be honestly supportive of FOSS:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080625020853732

This says that Sun already had the rights to open source SYSV even when SCO sued IBM for open sourcing SYSV technology (which didn't actually happen) into Linux. Yet Sun stood by and said nothing.

Perhaps they are secretly hoping Linux will get stomped so that Solaris can make a comeback?

It seems more and more that you just can't trust anyone and that Sun isn't and probably never will be as FOSS friendly as they would have us believe.

Sun is still Evil (capital E):

"The simple fact is, I gather from Jones' testimony, Sun could have prevented the harm SCO sought to cause by simply telling us what rights it had negotiated and received from SCO prior to SCO launching its assault on Linux. Yet it remained silent. When I consider all folks were put through, all the unnecessary litigation, and all the fear and the threats and the harmful smears, including of me at the hands of SCO and all the dark little helper dwarves in SCO's workshop, I feel an intense indignation like a tsunami toward Sun for remaining silent."

Pamela Jones, Groklaw.net (Linky.)

Sun is Evil. Google is Evil. Microsoft is Evil, but getting tired and slow.

Reading this story seem to indicate that 2003 and forward should have been part of the "screw up" period.

It is good to see Sun throw their weight in to support open source.

Look at this post here from Groklaw, reviewing the testimony from the SCO v Novell trial.

PJ notes that SCO enacted a license, illegally according to Novell, with Sun in 2003 that allowed Sun to open source Unix Sys V. Knowing they had that, Sun still allowed SCO to embark on their SCOSource campaign against IBM and Linux users for allegedly putting Sys V code into Linux.

Grok law has a nice write up about how M$ continues to fail its five year compliance duties.

The market remains a stagnant monopoly where significantly better products struggle to gain traction.

A better punishment would be for government to quit purchasing things from Microsoft and fine them the costs of transition.

"Netscape gave Microsoft the browser market because Communicator was a steaming pile of dog shit compared to IE4 and IE5"

"I think we should have to do even more cloning of Netscape .. Clone their client technology early and often (full embrace strategy)"

"In worst case scenario, Netscape will .. explicit sabotaging of any protocol extensions we make"

"Java didn't take off because Sun didn't focus anywhere near enough effort early on into getting a fast interpreter"

"it becomes clear to me that the Java OS will try to conquer the embedded marketplace .. while infesting all other computing devices with it's programming language"

"We also talked about slowing down and coordinating modifications to the Java language - I proposed a "Java Language Council" made up of key tools vendors - MS, Borland, Symantec" .. But Sun don't get invited to the party .. :)

"With Windows Vista, the DOJ should have laid off. It was a total debacle for Microsoft and signaled that they are in decline"

The DOJ never did squat to reign in Microsoft. Vista isn't a problem for Microsoft as they have decided their key strategy is getting control of the Internet, through litigation threats and re-innovating the protocols. Billy boy is always ten steps ahead his partners .. er partners. Is there a differece .. :)

"If there is anyone who merits a look for anti-competitive, restrictive behavior it's Apple"

How many times has Apple been in court as often as Microsoft and for doing the same things.

Last year BusyBox successfully enforced their copyrights in at least two instances. While the terms of the settlements have not been disclosed, I'm sure the SFLC will be happy to get involved again.

Last year BusyBox successfully enforced their copyrights in at least two instances. While the terms of the settlements have not been disclosed, I'm sure the SFLC will be happy to get involved again.

First I will add a plug for https://www.bloglines.com/ â" RSS feeds where ever I can log in, via HTTPS. Great for those feeds I read whenever & everywhere; and for those I only check when waiting to board the airplane. In my bloglines collection I have around 400 feeds, which will grow after looking through these threads. :) Some selections that hopefully no one else has mentioned:

Amusement:
http://failblog.wordpress.com/feed/
All about the Fail

http://lolbots.com/?feed=rss2
Robots making the LOLz, though not updated often.

http://lolgeeks.com/?feed=rss2
Geeks making the LOLz, though not updated often.

The latest limerick database entries - http://peeron.com/tickers/limerickdb.xml

The Triumph of Bullshit - http://bullshit.tumblr.com/rss

Diesel Sweeties by R Stevens - http://www.dieselsweeties.com/ds-unifeed.xml

PHD Comics - http://www.phdcomics.com/gradfeed.php
Ever spent time in academia? You will relate to this web comic.

Unshelved - http://www.unshelved.com/rss.aspx
A web comic about a library. Ssssshhhuusshh!

Indexed - http://indexed.blogspot.com/atom.xml
Take two (or more) topics and compare them using graphs & charts â" full of insight & lolz.

Computerworld Shark Tank News - http://feeds.computerworld.com/Computerworld/Shark/Tank
Many stories, full of humor and face palm

Overheard in the Office - http://www.overheardintheoffice.com/atom.xml
Instead of what was overheard in New York, now worldwide and from your office.

Common geek topics (those blogs that seem to hit all the topics days or weeks before you see them on Slashdot):
Didnt You Hear... http://www.didntyouhear.com/feed/

The Daily WTF - http://thedailywtf.com/rss.aspx

Global Nerdy - http://globalnerdy.com/feed/

Shopping:
http://content.dealnews.com/dealnews/rss/todays-edition.xml
Many of those geek toys you need

Newegg.com daily deals: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=DailyDeals&nm_mc=OTC-RSS
Need I say more?

Slickdeals: http://www.slickdeals.net/rss.php
Need I say more?

Woot! http://www.woot.com/blog/rss.aspx

Dumb political stuff:
Homeland Stupidity: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HomelandStupidity
Government gaffes, bureaucratic blunders and incumbent incompetence

Groklaw: http://www.groklaw.net/backend/GrokLaw.rdf

Declan McCullagh's Politech http://www.politechbot.com/info/rss/politech.xml
Also not updated often, but on target when it is.

Cryptome: http://cryptome.org/cryptome.xml
You can get lost here for hours

Music:
House of Blues: http://hob.com/venues/clubvenues/lasvegas/
The RSS feed for the local House of B

I lament not having documented my observations of these practices

Some of the paper trail of these crimes is recorded here.

After skimming this list one wonders when they get time to "innovate". But nice to know that Windows/Office profits (from customers' pockets, ya know?) are being shared with plenty of needy lawyers.

with Windows 95. Then they started acting like a monopoly.

Exhibit 1: "Government interest in Microsoft's affairs had begun in 1991 with an inquiry by the Federal Trade Commission over whether Microsoft was abusing its monopoly on the PC operating system market. ... the Department of Justice opened its own investigation on August 21 of [1993], resulting in a settlement on July 15, 1994 in which Microsoft consented not to tie other Microsoft products to the sale of Windows ..." (timeline)

See MS Litigation page and Court TV Library for more details.

Another former competitor, approximately coëval with Windows 95, was BeOS. Microsoft settled an anti-competitive complaint brought by Be Inc. in 2002.

Windows 95 had barely been released when Sun launched complained of breach of contract followed by serious anti-competitive claims in 2002 regarding Microsoft's Java tactics.

This is not the legal record of an honest company. The leopard never changes its spots. Gates was a "sharp" businessman from the day he opened office. (Which is a polite way of saying, white collar criminal.)

Note: grousing about rejected submissions is Offtopic and usually gets moderated that way. It happens, don't take it personally.
Note: grousing about rejected submissions is Offtopic and usually gets moderated that way. It happens, don't take it personally.

2008-06-02 19:06:05 Venezuela, Not Denmark, Is Fourth To Appeal OOXML (Index,Microsoft) (rejected)
The recent report Denmark Becomes Fourth Nation To Protest OOXML is a bit of confusion. There have been many many protests, however the IEC acknowledges four appeals- Brazil, India, South Africa and Venezuela. It appears the letters from Denmark and Norway are being disregarded, as they come from the Chairmen of their respective Technical Committees rather than the administrative heads of the national organisations.

Ok, I won't grouse about rejected submissions. However I damn well will grouse about Slashdot editors re-posting wrong information after getting a submission informing them IT WAS WRONG THE FIRST TIME THEY RAN IT.

-