Slashdot Mirror

In nearly every statement made the author assumes that SCO has only it's best interest at heart and assumes IBM with only malicious motivations.

I often wonder at some web sites with linux in their names publishing anti linux things like this. Who really owns them. What was the motivation behind publishing such a pro SCO piece as this?

The author of the article clearly has a pro SCO bias that was noticed many months ago Here

I found this statement "Maureen O'Gara is editor-in-chief of Maureen O'Gara's LinuxGram(TM) - published weekly by G2 Computer Intelligence Inc. and distributed by Linux Business Week." at this location.

Which makes it appear as though linux business week is a seperate entity from either sys con or linuxworld. Unfortunately when you type "linuxbusinessweek.com" into the url bar it takes you back to linuxworld.com... stranger and stranger. And linuxworld.com says that that it is a Sys Con Media publication.

But there is no clear connection yet between sys-con media and either Linuxgram Magazine or G2 Computer Intelligence Inc. As far as anyone can tell they look like one company is just saying that someone else working for a different company said something.

Until I found the link on sys cons very own web site.

It says "MONTVALE, NJ--(INTERNET WIRE)--Aug. 12, 2002 -- SYS-CON Media (www.sys-con.com), headquartered in Montvale, New Jersey, today launched "Maureen O'Gara's LinuxGram" (www.linuxbusinessweek.com), a new online weekly newsletter."

Further down the page it also says "O'Gara's resume is impressive prior to founding Sea Cliff, Long Island-based, G2 Computer Intelligence, but it's more impressive since. She was the founding editor on CMP's Computer Systems News and blazed the CMP trail to the West Coast, where she was bureau chief; then on to Europe, where she was Computer Systems News's first European correspondent. "

So there is the connection to both G2 Computer Intelligence and Linuxgram.

There is also another connection noted on that page in a picture showing the CMP Media top executives very chummy with the SYS-CON Media top executitves. CMP Media is who Maureen worked for just before coming over to Sys Con Media.

Funny how this connection between LinuxGram and Linuxtoday is never noted when Linuxtoday runs a news story from Linuxgram. Most reputable media companies would include a disclaimer saying that the "expert" they were quoting is on their own staff.

Sad but true.

So you're agreeing with me now?

I don't know where you got that idea from. SCO simply doesn't own the copyright to RCU, NUMA, JFS, and whatever else it is accusing IBM of putting into Linux. Those were written by IBM, are owned by IBM, and its up to IBM what they do with them. SCO claims they have the right through the SysV contract to prevent IBM from contributing those - NOT that they own the copyright to them. Thats my argument in its entirety. What you got all upset about was when I said that SCO was saying one thing to the media, and saying something completely different in court. And thats precisely what that is all about.

So you're agreeing with me now? =)

If you're an avid reader like I am, you probably already read this, which pretty much demolished your argument that the case was merely about contracts and not about copyright.

At some point, SCO realized how weak their copyright claims would be in a court of law, and tried to reframe their case. However, they believed they could still threaten and intimidate on the copyright issue outside of the courtroom, as if the court would be some how hermetically sealed, and that so long as they weren't pressing these issues in court, they were safe.

This has always been about copyrights, no matter how SOC tries to to frame it in court. If it wasn't, why shouldn't SCO just go along with IBM on the partial summary judgement and declare linux non-infringing?

The responsibility of SCO's management is to maximize long-term share value for their shareholders.

I'm sure they got approached years ago (when times were not going all that well) to pursue this legal angle, and with it came a huge investment (well documented elsewhere) to fight the legal battle.

No matter whether you think the lawsuit is ethical or unethical, they received the cash, and it's up to them to carry out the dirty work and live up to their end of the bargain. This strategy had a hugely positive impact on thir stock price initially, but it was a move in desperation. They didn't know at the time of the suit whether it would prove to have merit or not, but their objective was (as documented elsewhere) to apparently protect WINDOWS sales by casting doubt over Linux. It was a hedge against their main business - accept money from the Windows guys, in exchange for casting FUD on Linux, with a small probablility of a huge payoff if the legal action wins.

If I were a shareholder, I would be glad that they took some action, as they would have likely been out of business by now (or certainly worthless from a stock perspective), had they stayed the course that they were on.

Further, SCO has not helped itself by issuing numerous public statements that contradict their representations in court.

As far as Groklaw goes, as a lawyer I cannot emphasize enough how innovative and unique that website is. Sure, Pamela Jones has a distinct bias, but at least you know up front where she stands so you can evaluate her opinions accordingly. The real value of that site is the sheer comprehensiveness of the public statements and filings organized in its database. A resource like that would cost someone tens (or possibly hundreds) of thousands of dollars to compile privately, and yet here it is offered to the public for free. It's like open source litigation, and I hope that Groklaw or sites like it continue in the future for other legal/political/social issues (software patents anyone?).

I think that these stories on SCO are so one-sided because after more than a year on this story, it has been thoroughly exposed to the point of ridicule. It's sort of the way that the public responds to other types of lawsuits that seem frivolous at first glance; it's possible that a seemingly frivolous lawsuit may have have merit, but that doesn't stop the public from being highly sceptical.

SCO's problem is that they decided (highly unwisely from a litigation viewpoint) to spin their action in the press. This is completely contrary to standard practice when it comes to lawsuits ("No comment, the matter is before the courts"). All of their ill-informed, contradictory and bombastic press quotes are coming back to haunt them, as you can be sure that IBM will use any prior inconsistent statement to cross-examine and impeach their evidence now.

Further, SCO has not helped itself by issuing numerous public statements that contradict their representations in court.

As far as Groklaw goes, as a lawyer I cannot emphasize enough how innovative and unique that website is. Sure, Pamela Jones has a distinct bias, but at least you know up front where she stands so you can evaluate her opinions accordingly. The real value of that site is the sheer comprehensiveness of the public statements and filings organized in its database. A resource like that would cost someone tens (or possibly hundreds) of thousands of dollars to compile privately, and yet here it is offered to the public for free. It's like open source litigation, and I hope that Groklaw or sites like it continue in the future for other legal/political/social issues (software patents anyone?).

I think that these stories on SCO are so one-sided because after more than a year on this story, it has been thoroughly exposed to the point of ridicule. It's sort of the way that the public responds to other types of lawsuits that seem frivolous at first glance; it's possible that a seemingly frivolous lawsuit may have have merit, but that doesn't stop the public from being highly sceptical.

SCO's problem is that they decided (highly unwisely from a litigation viewpoint) to spin their action in the press. This is completely contrary to standard practice when it comes to lawsuits ("No comment, the matter is before the courts"). All of their ill-informed, contradictory and bombastic press quotes are coming back to haunt them, as you can be sure that IBM will use any prior inconsistent statement to cross-examine and impeach their evidence now.

• IBM's premise started with asking the court to declare Linux free of any SCO copyright claims. ... asked Judge Kimball to rule that the widgetry IBM contributed to Linux didn't infringe on any claimed SCO copyrights. ... but darned if we can remember SCO ever charging IBM with that.

You can read the latest over at Groklaw. IBM's MIT computer scientist actually exists as opposed to $CO's mystery team.

IBM has asked the court to decide on more claims and it looks like they will get those decisions too. So SCO has to think of something "NEW" to stay in the press in a "positive" way. The last thing SCO wants is losing quickly in Utah Federal Court.

24. For purposes of my review, I did not first apply the "abstraction" and filtration" analyses to the Unix System V Code. Instead, to be conservative, I assumed that all of the Unix System V code was in fact protectable (although I do not believe all of such code in fact to be protectable) and proceeded to compare all of the Unix System V Code with all of the IBM Code to see if there were any true matches of copied code in the first place. To the extent necessary, I then applied the "filtration" analysis to the reportedly matching code to determine if such code was in fact protectable.

If Davis sees no common code, then what did Laura Didio see?

http://www.groklaw.net/quotes/showperson.phtml?pid =9

"My impression is that [SCO's claim] is credible," says Laura DiDio, a Yankee Group analyst who was shown the evidence by SCO Group earlier this week. "It appears to be the same" code.-- Laura DiDio, 2003-06-05

a license is most certainly not a contract

Please read this neat article:
The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't Falling

It wasn't a slashdotting problem, your original link was to "yro.slashdot.org/%94".

Here is the correct link to the PDF. The relevant letters are from pages 9 to 23, though several are blank.

I made a specific effort to read it witout predjudice, and at first SCO's side sounds plausible if you assume their refferences to other events are credible. However it becomes most comical at the end when it becomes obvious that sole dispute actually being addressed here is SCO requsting IBM give a delay to a deadline for filing a delay request. And if IBM does not agree to SCO's request to delay the deadline for filing their delay request then SCO is threatening to go to the judge to file a request to delay the deadline for filing a request for a delay.

Chuckle.

-

First, Groklaw is made by a legalease for non-legalease.

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to wonder if you have read some of the things that are posted on Groklaw:

Chris Sontag's Supplemental Declaration - as text

SCO's Memo in Support of its Expedited Motion to Enforce the Scheduling Order - text

Those are just two recent examples of articals which really are just court docuents that have been put into text. And I'm afraid that things don't get much more legalease than court documents.

While I realise the thrust of your post was more on another topic, your topic itself was part of the trend on /. here to scream "Groklaw had this 1st!" And while true does not really serve anything.

First, Groklaw is made by a legalease for non-legalease.

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to wonder if you have read some of the things that are posted on Groklaw:

Chris Sontag's Supplemental Declaration - as text

SCO's Memo in Support of its Expedited Motion to Enforce the Scheduling Order - text

Those are just two recent examples of articals which really are just court docuents that have been put into text. And I'm afraid that things don't get much more legalease than court documents.

While I realise the thrust of your post was more on another topic, your topic itself was part of the trend on /. here to scream "Groklaw had this 1st!" And while true does not really serve anything.

SCO's position is that according to the original AT&T contract, any derived code becomes part of the SysV and thus is owned by SCO not IBM. Because IBM used "methods and concepts" of Unix when developing AIX, there is no such thing as "homegrown" code for IBM. They base this on THEIR intrepretation of copyright law. This is according to their SCO's Memo in Support of its Expedited Motion to Enforce the Scheduling Order

SCO does maintain that AIX and Dynix are subject to the restrictions of the licensing agreements because they are derivatives of UNIX, and consequently that IBM breached the license agreements by contributing to Linux any portion of those contractually-protected derivatives. . .

Moreover, IBM's claimed right to make and appropriate for itself copies of SCO's code, so long as the copies are not literal copies, is one that IBM would not even have under the copyright laws. Basic copyright law has long recognized that copying can occur through the making of "derivatives" without any literal copying at all. Moreover, the common law not only protects "methods or concepts," but also extends farther, beyond trade secrets, and far beyond literal copying. IBM's claim thus reduces to the untenable proposition that under the terms of the license agreements, IBM can do what copyright and common law would forbid: make non-literal copies of another's work and innovation, and thereby misappropriate that innovation for itself.

IBM has already answered this argument. If a contract is being questioned, the court can ask the original parties what they meant. If there is a dispute, the court has to decide between both sides. They have affidavits from everyone involved with the original contract negotiations at AT&T (some of them still work for AT&T). There is now questions from IBM, Sequent, and AT&T all that AT&T does not claim ownership of derivative or "homegrown" code and disagrees with SCO's interpretation.

SCO responds by challenging only two of IBM's many witnesses (Wilson and Frasure). Back in the USL vs BSD case, two of IBM's witnesses argued the opposite. They said the AT&T should own all derivative code. Two things that SCO forgot to mention to the court. The USL vs BSD is sealed and testimony from the case is highly inadmissable AND the court was in favor of ruling against USL on their notion of copyright law and derivatives. Since then the witnesses may have changed their opinions.

IBM also argues SCO's notion is ridiculous. It would mean SCO owns any code written by MS, Sun, Compaq, HP, Irix, IBM, etc simply because they at one time put that code anywhere near SysV code.

SCO's interpretation of the Software Agreements in this case would plainly produce an absurd and commercially unreasonable result. As set forth above (at 62-63), under SCO's interpretation of the Software Agreements, SCO has the right to control every single one of the tens of millions of lines of code that have ever been put into (and that will ever be put into) AIX or Dynix by IBM. This interpretation would allow SCO to co-opt decades of IBM's work in developing and improving AIX and Dynix--by continually adding new capabilities and functionalities--simply because those programs contain, or even once contained, some source code, no matter how negligible, from UNIX System V. SCO's interpretation would also mean that SCO has the right to control code that was written by third parties and licensed to IBM, even if such third parties have no relationship at all with SCO. According to SCO, just because a third party licenses code--that it expended its own resources developing--to IBM, and IBM includes such code in AIX or Dynix, SCO gets to dictate forever after the use and disclosure of that third party's code by IBM. That is plainly unreasonable.

Where is that PDF? Thr URL was broken...

obligatory groklaw coverage

this line is just filler.

• Analyst Rob Enderle of the Enderle Group said Transitive benefits from the fact that most modern machines are fast enough to emulate each other without much affecting performance.

We've seen this gentleman before .. in the SCO takes on the world saga.

It seems they've convinced a few people .. we'll see if it's the real deal within the month I guess.

Legal information is not legal advice. If you categorically don't take legal research from amateurs, then go bug the Groklaw staff.

There are legitimate uses for P2P (as many torrents show), but when something is used for 99.9% copyright violation, something needs to be done.

99.9%? Not even the **AA lawyers go that far. The best they could do in the recent Grokster case was to argue that about 90% of the files (about 700 million total) on the network were infringing. The judge replied that that meant 10% of that total, or about 70 million, were legit, which in his view qualified as a "substantial noninfringing use", which is the legal standard to apply by virtue of the Sony Betamax case. (IIRC, he didn't base his decision on that point but rather the lack of a central indexing server which meant Streamcast did not have knowledge of or ability to police any infringement.)

See here for a transcript of the oral arguments and links to audio files.

I was reading the transcript of SCO 3rd quarter teleconference, and was astounded once more by how deftly McBride spun the news, and how ably he misrepresented SCO position.

The M$ board aren't stupid, so either they have severe reality problems, or lying is an automatic impulse to them, kinda like when you ask a 10 year old kid if they stole $20.

They know about the problems with M$ products, and they delude themselves about how minor the problem is, and how great their effort is to fix things. They also proceed to delude as many people as possible, which involves retaining a large marketing machine, well versed in replacing fact with gloss and image.

How do I know this? Just a wild stab in the dark, but if I had $50 billion in the bank, I'd feel differently about certain minor niggly issues as well. God knows what I'd think of a bunch of commies on a religious crusade to give away their code.

It's interesting to note the arguments on groklaw that an OS strategy might actually have *less* to fear than a closed-source one, compared to Mr Balmer's "It's not really FUD, honest" intellectual property FUD.

Also, reading the article, either the writer is unsympathetic to MS, or Balmer is really putting out some mixed messages ... eg:
"Ballmer scoffed at arguments that his company's operating system creates a computing monoculture" vs his statement "Microsoft's platforms offer better interoperability with the company's other technology".

Sounds like he's been spinning so much, he's dizzy :-)

Simon.

If you read this Groklaw article, you'll see that the court made a mistake in their listings and vacated that notice of hearing.

So they're not all going to meet at the same time in the same place. Pity that, it would've made quite a good show :]

Even fighting them one at a time, though, SCO is up the river unless they've got a few aces up their sleeves...

.. almost 18 hours ago. See this page.

As someone pointed out over at groklaw, 31 million is almost exactly all SCO is now worth in reserves, assets, etc. Team Boise ain't exactly sacrificing much here.

Everyone talks about SCO running a sleazy poorly executed shakedown (I agree), but I'm wondering if Boise and Crew have just shown us how to run a sleazy *brilliantly* executed shakedown - of SCO.

And from reviewing all the filings, it's clear Boise et al weren't exactly working overtime with their best and brightest in putting the case together.

Boise: "Hey look, it's a moron with tons of money. Let's string him along and see where it takes us."

The would-be con men have been conned, and damn well I'd say.

Hey Curtman, we're missing your valuable input over on this topic. At least read the nice linked article over at Groklaw. Then maybe you could tell us your famous crow recipe.

A headnote is a legal analysis by someone who is probably not connected to the case. .... Headnotes can perfectly contradict the actual findings of the court. <emphasis mine>

If you mosey on over to this Groklaw article, you'll see that Judge Kimball appears to be fixin' to have a three-way showdown--IBM & Novell vs. SCO.

If you've read the legal briefs, you should know by now that both Novell & IBM have hammered on SCO's counsel for asserting some rather convenient but inconsistant things before the judge. In other words, they assert whatever is most beneficial to their case--leaving SCO with a few more arguements, but no consistant case. While they might be able to make that slide a bit better when they're talking as two separate cases, saying different things about the two different cases while discussing them in front of the same judge can't help them any--they'll have pick a side of some of those fences they're sitting on and stick with it.

Problem is, IBM & Novell have them trapped in a narrow pass, effectively, due to some good lawyering on both of their sides. They're going to have to face the music one way or another--if they take one way out of that pass they're in, IBM will get them, whereas Novell is coming down the other side. In other words, SCO is being attacked on two fronts with no retreat, and IBM is now a bit pissed off with SCO's lawyers after the last few tricks (such as citing a Westlaw headnote without attribution, using a priviledge IBM document as an exhibit in clear violation of one of the discovery agreements with IBM, and a few other things I can't remember right now...). Marbux and AllParadox on Groklaw posted on SCO's malfeasance better than I can, and both of those two are lawyers, though they still put up a few disclaimers about not taking what they say as legal advice.

Anyhow, unless this is a mistake by the court in having them all meet up at the same in front of the same judge (possible, but doubtful), you can expect SCO to be routed--their lawyers seem harried, disorganized and ready to have their asses handed to them just as soon as IBM & Novell are done with them.

Mark your calendars, folks--if this is what it looks like, SCO is going to have one hell of a time getting out of this with anything but a ruling which further weakens them. Even if SCO has an ace up their sleeves, I'm not sure they can be holding any better than aces & eights--the dead man's hand.

If you mosey on over to this Groklaw article, you'll see that Judge Kimball appears to be fixin' to have a three-way showdown--IBM & Novell vs. SCO.

If you've read the legal briefs, you should know by now that both Novell & IBM have hammered on SCO's counsel for asserting some rather convenient but inconsistant things before the judge. In other words, they assert whatever is most beneficial to their case--leaving SCO with a few more arguements, but no consistant case. While they might be able to make that slide a bit better when they're talking as two separate cases, saying different things about the two different cases while discussing them in front of the same judge can't help them any--they'll have pick a side of some of those fences they're sitting on and stick with it.

Problem is, IBM & Novell have them trapped in a narrow pass, effectively, due to some good lawyering on both of their sides. They're going to have to face the music one way or another--if they take one way out of that pass they're in, IBM will get them, whereas Novell is coming down the other side. In other words, SCO is being attacked on two fronts with no retreat, and IBM is now a bit pissed off with SCO's lawyers after the last few tricks (such as citing a Westlaw headnote without attribution, using a priviledge IBM document as an exhibit in clear violation of one of the discovery agreements with IBM, and a few other things I can't remember right now...). Marbux and AllParadox on Groklaw posted on SCO's malfeasance better than I can, and both of those two are lawyers, though they still put up a few disclaimers about not taking what they say as legal advice.

Anyhow, unless this is a mistake by the court in having them all meet up at the same in front of the same judge (possible, but doubtful), you can expect SCO to be routed--their lawyers seem harried, disorganized and ready to have their asses handed to them just as soon as IBM & Novell are done with them.

Mark your calendars, folks--if this is what it looks like, SCO is going to have one hell of a time getting out of this with anything but a ruling which further weakens them. Even if SCO has an ace up their sleeves, I'm not sure they can be holding any better than aces & eights--the dead man's hand.

If you mosey on over to this Groklaw article, you'll see that Judge Kimball appears to be fixin' to have a three-way showdown--IBM & Novell vs. SCO.

If you've read the legal briefs, you should know by now that both Novell & IBM have hammered on SCO's counsel for asserting some rather convenient but inconsistant things before the judge. In other words, they assert whatever is most beneficial to their case--leaving SCO with a few more arguements, but no consistant case. While they might be able to make that slide a bit better when they're talking as two separate cases, saying different things about the two different cases while discussing them in front of the same judge can't help them any--they'll have pick a side of some of those fences they're sitting on and stick with it.

Problem is, IBM & Novell have them trapped in a narrow pass, effectively, due to some good lawyering on both of their sides. They're going to have to face the music one way or another--if they take one way out of that pass they're in, IBM will get them, whereas Novell is coming down the other side. In other words, SCO is being attacked on two fronts with no retreat, and IBM is now a bit pissed off with SCO's lawyers after the last few tricks (such as citing a Westlaw headnote without attribution, using a priviledge IBM document as an exhibit in clear violation of one of the discovery agreements with IBM, and a few other things I can't remember right now...). Marbux and AllParadox on Groklaw posted on SCO's malfeasance better than I can, and both of those two are lawyers, though they still put up a few disclaimers about not taking what they say as legal advice.

Anyhow, unless this is a mistake by the court in having them all meet up at the same in front of the same judge (possible, but doubtful), you can expect SCO to be routed--their lawyers seem harried, disorganized and ready to have their asses handed to them just as soon as IBM & Novell are done with them.

Mark your calendars, folks--if this is what it looks like, SCO is going to have one hell of a time getting out of this with anything but a ruling which further weakens them. Even if SCO has an ace up their sleeves, I'm not sure they can be holding any better than aces & eights--the dead man's hand.

If you mosey on over to this Groklaw article, you'll see that Judge Kimball appears to be fixin' to have a three-way showdown--IBM & Novell vs. SCO.

If you've read the legal briefs, you should know by now that both Novell & IBM have hammered on SCO's counsel for asserting some rather convenient but inconsistant things before the judge. In other words, they assert whatever is most beneficial to their case--leaving SCO with a few more arguements, but no consistant case. While they might be able to make that slide a bit better when they're talking as two separate cases, saying different things about the two different cases while discussing them in front of the same judge can't help them any--they'll have pick a side of some of those fences they're sitting on and stick with it.

Problem is, IBM & Novell have them trapped in a narrow pass, effectively, due to some good lawyering on both of their sides. They're going to have to face the music one way or another--if they take one way out of that pass they're in, IBM will get them, whereas Novell is coming down the other side. In other words, SCO is being attacked on two fronts with no retreat, and IBM is now a bit pissed off with SCO's lawyers after the last few tricks (such as citing a Westlaw headnote without attribution, using a priviledge IBM document as an exhibit in clear violation of one of the discovery agreements with IBM, and a few other things I can't remember right now...). Marbux and AllParadox on Groklaw posted on SCO's malfeasance better than I can, and both of those two are lawyers, though they still put up a few disclaimers about not taking what they say as legal advice.

Anyhow, unless this is a mistake by the court in having them all meet up at the same in front of the same judge (possible, but doubtful), you can expect SCO to be routed--their lawyers seem harried, disorganized and ready to have their asses handed to them just as soon as IBM & Novell are done with them.

Mark your calendars, folks--if this is what it looks like, SCO is going to have one hell of a time getting out of this with anything but a ruling which further weakens them. Even if SCO has an ace up their sleeves, I'm not sure they can be holding any better than aces & eights--the dead man's hand.

but am I to understand that SCO still hasn't ponied up any evidence in the way of source code to show where code was copied?

He also got caught out in something in activity that borders on perjury. Consider this quote:

As Dr. Kernighan [IBM's expert] notes, "Mr. Gupta's conclusions of similarity depend on his selecting isolated lines of code from disparate places and putting them together as if contiguous blocks of code were involved (which they are not) and important differences did not exist (which they do)."

Pacer indicates that the SCO-Novell hearing on Novell's motion to dismiss is going to be held on September 15 at 2 PM before Judge Kimball . . . That's not only the same day as the SCO v. IBM hearing on IBM's 10th Counterclaim, it's the same time.

I'm just guessing here, but if I'm right his is very bad for SCO. It would mean that Novell keeps the UNIX copyrights, the IBM case is limited to the Monterey contract and the Red Hat case can proceed with a finding on record that SCO has been blowing smoke about its UNIX IP.

What is clear is that Microsoft introduced SCO to Baystar, and also introduced Baystar to SCO. There is no evidence that Microsoft actually put their own money into SCO.

If you really want to know, go to Groklaw.net and do searches yourself.

The Memo is Legit

The SEC, Microsoft and SCO

Business Week: MS Did Ask BayStar If They'd Like to Invest in SCO



Baystar Sends SCO a Letter
Or could the publicity issue be about the leaked memo revealing Microsoft's involvement?

S2 Objects to Subpoena, Admits It Met With Microsoft

Baystar Speaks

From the same thread....
Microsoft recommended SCO!

Darl McBride .... Mike Anderer Cook Up a Scheme

What is clear is that Microsoft introduced SCO to Baystar, and also introduced Baystar to SCO. There is no evidence that Microsoft actually put their own money into SCO.

If you really want to know, go to Groklaw.net and do searches yourself.

The Memo is Legit

The SEC, Microsoft and SCO

Business Week: MS Did Ask BayStar If They'd Like to Invest in SCO



Baystar Sends SCO a Letter
Or could the publicity issue be about the leaked memo revealing Microsoft's involvement?

S2 Objects to Subpoena, Admits It Met With Microsoft

Baystar Speaks

From the same thread....
Microsoft recommended SCO!

Darl McBride .... Mike Anderer Cook Up a Scheme

What is clear is that Microsoft introduced SCO to Baystar, and also introduced Baystar to SCO. There is no evidence that Microsoft actually put their own money into SCO.

If you really want to know, go to Groklaw.net and do searches yourself.

The Memo is Legit

The SEC, Microsoft and SCO

Business Week: MS Did Ask BayStar If They'd Like to Invest in SCO



Baystar Sends SCO a Letter
Or could the publicity issue be about the leaked memo revealing Microsoft's involvement?

S2 Objects to Subpoena, Admits It Met With Microsoft

Baystar Speaks

From the same thread....
Microsoft recommended SCO!

Darl McBride .... Mike Anderer Cook Up a Scheme

What is clear is that Microsoft introduced SCO to Baystar, and also introduced Baystar to SCO. There is no evidence that Microsoft actually put their own money into SCO.

If you really want to know, go to Groklaw.net and do searches yourself.

The Memo is Legit

The SEC, Microsoft and SCO

Business Week: MS Did Ask BayStar If They'd Like to Invest in SCO



Baystar Sends SCO a Letter
Or could the publicity issue be about the leaked memo revealing Microsoft's involvement?

S2 Objects to Subpoena, Admits It Met With Microsoft

Baystar Speaks

From the same thread....
Microsoft recommended SCO!

Darl McBride .... Mike Anderer Cook Up a Scheme

What is clear is that Microsoft introduced SCO to Baystar, and also introduced Baystar to SCO. There is no evidence that Microsoft actually put their own money into SCO.

If you really want to know, go to Groklaw.net and do searches yourself.

The Memo is Legit

The SEC, Microsoft and SCO

Business Week: MS Did Ask BayStar If They'd Like to Invest in SCO



Baystar Sends SCO a Letter
Or could the publicity issue be about the leaked memo revealing Microsoft's involvement?

S2 Objects to Subpoena, Admits It Met With Microsoft

Baystar Speaks

From the same thread....
Microsoft recommended SCO!

Darl McBride .... Mike Anderer Cook Up a Scheme

What is clear is that Microsoft introduced SCO to Baystar, and also introduced Baystar to SCO. There is no evidence that Microsoft actually put their own money into SCO.

If you really want to know, go to Groklaw.net and do searches yourself.

The Memo is Legit

The SEC, Microsoft and SCO

Business Week: MS Did Ask BayStar If They'd Like to Invest in SCO



Baystar Sends SCO a Letter
Or could the publicity issue be about the leaked memo revealing Microsoft's involvement?

S2 Objects to Subpoena, Admits It Met With Microsoft

Baystar Speaks

From the same thread....
Microsoft recommended SCO!

Darl McBride .... Mike Anderer Cook Up a Scheme

What is clear is that Microsoft introduced SCO to Baystar, and also introduced Baystar to SCO. There is no evidence that Microsoft actually put their own money into SCO.

If you really want to know, go to Groklaw.net and do searches yourself.

The Memo is Legit

The SEC, Microsoft and SCO

Business Week: MS Did Ask BayStar If They'd Like to Invest in SCO



Baystar Sends SCO a Letter
Or could the publicity issue be about the leaked memo revealing Microsoft's involvement?

S2 Objects to Subpoena, Admits It Met With Microsoft

Baystar Speaks

From the same thread....
Microsoft recommended SCO!

Darl McBride .... Mike Anderer Cook Up a Scheme

What is clear is that Microsoft introduced SCO to Baystar, and also introduced Baystar to SCO. There is no evidence that Microsoft actually put their own money into SCO.

If you really want to know, go to Groklaw.net and do searches yourself.

The Memo is Legit

The SEC, Microsoft and SCO

Business Week: MS Did Ask BayStar If They'd Like to Invest in SCO



Baystar Sends SCO a Letter
Or could the publicity issue be about the leaked memo revealing Microsoft's involvement?

S2 Objects to Subpoena, Admits It Met With Microsoft

Baystar Speaks

From the same thread....
Microsoft recommended SCO!

Darl McBride .... Mike Anderer Cook Up a Scheme

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200408252 24344827

these last days, such redundancies have become quite frequent. My guess is that cowboyneal is on a vacation.

Seriously, go to groklaw and read the latest 4-5 files from IBM. Yes they are each ~100 pages but very interesting. Basically IBM has nailed SCO in a box that they can't get out of. In fact IBM is so confident that the language in their filings has gotten beyond the normal angry lawyer comments as they point out how insane SCO's arguements are.

Actually, if you read the rest of this thread, you'll notice that I already found and perused that. I google more often than I whack off, and for a computer nerd, you KNOW that's a lot. ;)

I was more interested in the FSF stuff, though.

But, the first hit is actually a very informative page which gives a clever (thought somewhat obvious) argument:
"Because the GPL does not require any promises in return from licensees, it does not need contract enforcement in order to work. A GPL licensor doesn't say in the event of trouble "But, judge, the licensee promised me he wouldn't do what he's doing now." The licensor plaintiff says 'Judge, the defendant is redistributing my copyrighted work without permission.' The defendant can then either agree that he has no permission, in which case he loses, or assert that his permission is the GPL, in which case he must show that he is obeying its terms. A defendant cannot simultaneously assert that the GPL is valid permission for his distribution and also assert that it is not a valid copyright license, which is why defendants do not 'challenge' the GPL.

But, this is getting pretty far off-topic...

Groklaw dealt with this last week.

It was lazy journalism, quoting Wasabi Systems with a vested interest against the GPL. The short of it is that the GPL renders his business model obsolete, as manufacturers take the embedded linux road. Don't they teach research in America anymore?

It's an unmitigated disaster. If I was to release the color correction tools I use at Hammerhead as Open Source software, for instance, there is no small chance that I would be sued by somebody, or more likely several somebodies, for infringements on their color correction patents. This kind of stuff is patented out the wazoo, and (unfortunately) the only thing that keeps the patent monster at bay is the fact that everybody does work secretly. That, and the fact that Hammerhead is so small that it's not worth suing. Note well that studios are sued over almost every successful movie they make by people alleging the most tenuous copyright infrigement. A typical example is here.

Publishing open source software does have a tremendous advantage, though, in that it is a perfect vector for publishing information that could be used as prior art when trying to defend against other patents -- so open-source is a two-edged sword (or maybe a sword that is honed sharp at both ends.)

Perhaps, just perhaps, there is a solution. It might not be impossible to have anonymous open-source, with guaranteed anonymity provided much the same way the Cypherpunks' MixMaster remailer network works. That way, one could contribute to open-source projects, and share the benefits of your work with others, without exposing yourself to patent suits.

I'm not sure how one would do this, and the network of visual effects studios might be too small -- and the coding styles of the few hundred programmers might be too distinctive -- to have this work, but it could be interesting.

Thad Beier

mod parent up

besides, this has already been discussed at Groklaw :
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200408140 64859996

in light of IBM's use of the GPL to shutdown a major copyright infringer, SCO...

and in light that this author decided to publish an outdated article - he continues to talk about how IBM is being sued for copyright infringement, while the hunter is now the hunted in the SCO vs IBM case with IBM arguing (very well) for partial summary judgement that IBM is 100% in the clear on Linux while its SCO who is now clearly in violation of copyright law...

but mostly because his very first premise is utterly false - "How does software owned by everyone and by no one survive in a world where copyrights and patents shape the legal landscape?"..

this article is lame...

Dear Mr. Wildstrom.

The GPL has NOTHING to do with your precious IP or ownership of software. The GPL is ONLY about two simple things - distribution and use. Just like EVERY SINGLE OTHER software license.

It is obvious you do not understand this. I suggest you read the two latest court documents from IBM, who are doing two things you claim the GPL does not allow...

1. claiming ownership of their GPL licensed software and
2. are asking the courts to prevent a copyright infringer from reditributing their software without their permission.

The easiest way to understand how the GPL works and why it works is to read those court documents - because its heart is exactly what the GPL is about - controlled distribution of owned software by the copyright holder.

As my history teacher was fond of saying to the kids that wrote their papers the night before as they watched The A-Team - "please grasp the concept, then rewrite your paper".

in light of IBM's use of the GPL to shutdown a major copyright infringer, SCO...

and in light that this author decided to publish an outdated article - he continues to talk about how IBM is being sued for copyright infringement, while the hunter is now the hunted in the SCO vs IBM case with IBM arguing (very well) for partial summary judgement that IBM is 100% in the clear on Linux while its SCO who is now clearly in violation of copyright law...

but mostly because his very first premise is utterly false - "How does software owned by everyone and by no one survive in a world where copyrights and patents shape the legal landscape?"..

this article is lame...

Dear Mr. Wildstrom.

The GPL has NOTHING to do with your precious IP or ownership of software. The GPL is ONLY about two simple things - distribution and use. Just like EVERY SINGLE OTHER software license.

It is obvious you do not understand this. I suggest you read the two latest court documents from IBM, who are doing two things you claim the GPL does not allow...

1. claiming ownership of their GPL licensed software and
2. are asking the courts to prevent a copyright infringer from reditributing their software without their permission.

The easiest way to understand how the GPL works and why it works is to read those court documents - because its heart is exactly what the GPL is about - controlled distribution of owned software by the copyright holder.

As my history teacher was fond of saying to the kids that wrote their papers the night before as they watched The A-Team - "please grasp the concept, then rewrite your paper".