Slashdot Mirror

Would you basement dwellers get a real job so you have enough money to Pay Attention.

It is not about BUNDLING - placing IE icon on the desktop. Never has been.

It is about CO-MINGLING the code such that only IE is the "brower".
Removing the icon is not removing the code.

If you want a lawyers point of view got read http://www.lamlaw.com/

He explains it very pointedly.

... personally MS have lost the plot and got far too way into trying to keep the monopoly lock-ins and have really lost their way with what a computer (and OS) is supposed to do.

First instance [touched on many times in here] DRM. Visit here --> http://badvista.fsf.org/what-s-wrong-with-microsoft-windows-vista

Second. They are shit scared somebody can interoperate with MS systems (i.e. better systems), so make it as obscure and nebulous as possible (and it appears that happens internally to MS Corp too).

Third. NO WAY are you going to be able to copy this, so make every legal owner go through hoops and rings to get the thing to work (if that is at all possible) [again touched on many times in here].

Fourth. Ttoally ignore security as the aim is to get as many people 'hooked' on the MS crack as possible (this itself spawned a whole new industry in anti-virus/anti-trojan/anti-malware, ...) and then literally have to 'innovate'... oops, I mean buy an AV company to bundle in their own 'protection'. Ha.

Fifth. Visit http://www.lamlaw.com/tiki-index.php

I think what we are seeing here a dying Elephant. And it is their own fault.

You know you hired a dumb or fraudulent lawyer when you are only left to defend how much you owe the other party. And you brought the law suits. Or, worse yet, you paid your lawyers a huge fee to get you into serious liabilities.

End of story.

Read this and come back:
http://www.lamlaw.com/tiki-read_article.php?articl eId=264

SCO's CEO has made a point of telling the press that he carries a gun. So he's got lawyers and guns, but he's running out of money.

IBM is still digging into SCO's near corpse to find the detials of SCO's accusations. Which were, are and for ever more shall be totally bogus.

The difference between the two cases is SCO claimed copyright infringement whereas Microsoft is claiming patent infringement (I believe).

Software patents are so much more vague than copyright, so there's a good chance some of the GNU/Linux operating system is infringing. Remember the study that found 283 possible software patent infringements in the Linux kernel alone? I would be suprised if some of those didn't belong to Microsoft (and that was 2004, there are probably more now).

This public sabre-rattling is not without basis. Seems to me that Microsoft are keeping the specifics under wraps, then threatening companies with them in private. Remember what ex-Novell employee said in this interview? Here's a reminder:

I mean I have had people come up to me and essentially off the record admit that they had been threatened by Microsoft and had got patent cross license and had essentially taken out a license for Microsoft patents on the free software that they were using, which they then cannot redistribute.

It's also funny you should mention this:

Otherwise Microsoft looks like a bigger SCO.

Some people (including this respected legal blogger--at the bottom of that article) believe Microsoft funded and put SCO up to its anti-GNU/Linux FUD litigation. So, really they are a bigger SCO!

from lawman.com: sco fatal mistake?


Cheers!!

Oh my, I guess no one thought to look anything up for themselves before moderating:

http://www.lamlaw.com/DOJvsMicrosoft/WrapAndFlowWe ek21.html
http://www.chguy.net/news/feb99/demoMS.html
http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,17 689,00.html

Microsoft made a video showing how IE could be removed, which looked like it had been edited and was false. It would be just as easy for them to make up some 'prior art' for this case.

http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/1851 2/18512.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/11/ms_legal_m ail_autodestruct/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/24/allchin_de stroy_email_claim/
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/4455 5/44555.html

They may have also destroyed important e-mails. This is not the same as the current case but is worth noting anyway.

Microsoft's past actions shouldn't make it any more believable, in any case.

This lawyer is a strong open source advocate who posts regular updates on SCO and other issues. He might be someone you would be interested in contacting.

Under the gise of "it takes two to tango and three to tell the truth" I read the "Daily Wrap and Flow", located at http://lamlaw.com/ , for this type of reporting. ;-) It helps me understand big words. ~@~

As always there is a good read about this over at LamLaw

The take is that IBM's request for Summary Judgement that no SCO copyrighted code exist in Linux will be granted.

Novel is invited so as to protect their interest in the Copyrighted material. Most likely Novel is the owner of any copyrighted material not SCO (OldSCO rather ie Caldera)since it was nver transfered in writing, as required.

One of the points at http://www.lamlaw.com/

>>> 6) the act by SCO to actually engage in the business of distributing itself the very property it claims was wrongly contributed (to SCO as well as all other recipients of the Linux code) <<<

t_t_b

And the good news is: this guy *is* a lawyer.

http://www.lamlaw.com/

His take on SCO's increasing their SCOSource license fees:

• "...I guess SCO lawyers do not to see this motion [Novell's motion to dismiss] coming their way because someone suggested to SCO management that they should increase the price of those SCO licenses
• to help scare at least one more linux customer into paying license money while the SCO legal scheme goes down in flames. Or maybe I should say gets hosed with cold water."

t_t_b

The judge has instructed the jury to evaluate the Trademark of Windows as it was before it was "Given" to MS. They will loose and we can call our favorite OS, Windows for Linux, Windows for BSD etc.

Lewis A. Mettler, Esq. sums up SCO's legal adventure as:

This crap borders on legal malpractice. It is certainly bad practice.

Well put I would say, who says lawyers are obtuse.

It is not anywhere near as active as Groklaw however.

can be found in Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.'s blog.

Other world players is Tandberg of Norway and Laplink.

Go here for an assessment by a thoroughly pissed of Lawyer that has covered this debacle from the get go.

Other world players is Tandberg of Norway and Laplink.

Go here for a thoroughly pissed of Lawyer that has covered this debacle from the onset

If SCO really had a case they would not do this since time is not on their side. So why are they doing this?

Me Thinks Boies is bailing.

Off topic on the road show but if you want a running commentary from a lawyer on this whole fiaSCO look at this excellent site. The write up on promissory estoppel is quite good. It's a catch 22 for SCO

Well this person does not like them... Take a look Wrap and Flow

Well this person does not like them... Take a look Wrap and Flow

Can be found here:

Lamlaw.com

The guy keeps an ongoing watch for the news articles and makes legal commentary wrt what's happening. He tends to be very insightful and makes good points.

August 16, 2003 - Saturday 8:15 AM PDT - SCO 10q and just how much has Microsoft agreed to pay SCO?

Bring up the above link and look for the heading "Recent Developments". "The amount that we receive from any such licensee will generally depend on the license rights that the licensee previously held and the amount and level of our intellectual property the licensee desires to license. The two licensing agreements signed by us to date resulted in revenue of $8,250,000 during the April 30, 2003 quarter and provide for an aggregate of an additional $5,000,000 to be paid to us over the next three quarters. These contracts do not provide for any payments beyond 2003, except that Microsoft was granted the option to acquire expanded licensing rights, at its election, that would result in additional payments to us if exercised. In connection with the execution of the first license agreement, we granted a warrant to the licensee to purchase up to 210,000 shares of our common stock, for a period of five years, at a price of $1.83 per share. This warrant has been valued, using the Black-Scholes valuation method, at $500,000. Because the warrant was issued for no consideration, $500,000 of the license proceeds have been recorded as warrant outstanding and the license revenue reduced accordingly." What does this all mean? Well. It appears that whatever portion of the $8 million that came from Microsoft is not clear. But, it does appear that it only covers 2003. So when 2004 comes around and SCO needs to cover a few more legal bills, Microsoft will have at least the option to pay more money to SCO for their dirty work. Also interesting is the grant of a warrant for up to 210,000 shares of common stock of SCO. Of course, that means that Microsoft wants to benefit from owning a piece of SCO. No surprise there. Microsoft has plenty of money to fuel the ill conceived effort by SCO to harm the Linux marketplace. And, as I have pointed out, Microsoft benefits from the up side should that occur. And, Microsoft is shielded from the down side should SCO's illegal activities result in extensive liabilities to IBM, Red Hat, SuSE, others and Linux contributors. In other words, Microsoft is directly involved in using its money to harm Linux. It may be shielded from legal liability. But, there is no question that Microsoft thinks its monopoly is better off engaging in this activity. And, it appears that Microsoft taking a license has nothing to do with a need to license Unix. That is a non-issue. This is all about causing harm to Linux and IBM in particular. And, it can not be about the respect for IP or contracts rights because SCO plans to breach its Linux contracts (the GPL) and steal all intellectual property in Linux and claim it as it's exclusive property. That is clearly not respecting the IP rights of others. And, Microsoft has the ability now to add more cash to the fire if the illegal effort is going well and competitors are being harmed by SCO efforts or limit its losses if it is not. But, it is absolutely clear that Microsoft is behind the effort to directly harm Linux and it is NOT related to a needed Unix license. If Microsoft even thought it needed a Unix license it would not have waited until now to get one NOR would it expire this year. This is simply a sham to use illegal means against a competitor. Let SCO do the dirty and illegal work but fund them as long as money fuels it. In other words, fund the contract to go after Linux using illegal means. [Thanks to GrokLaw for permitting a link to be placed on this site referring to SCO documents as they accumulate and for providing some direction to the above information.]

I am all with you to sue SCO. I'm afraid, however,
these charges are hard to prove. But I am sure
we can prove defamation and extortion. Take a
look at Iamlow.com ,
a link, of which a kind poster informed us last
weekend. It is must read, before you sue SCO.

There is a site around which purports to look at this from a legal standpoint as opposed to our 'IANAL' standpoints. The author there has been making it clear for a while now that SCO's lawyers are making one ludicrous and unsustainable claim after another. David Boies (sp?) has taken this case on a 'percent if we win' basis but has also been making claims that led the author to wonder if he knew anything about law at all. A couple of weeks ago, the author commented that SCO's behaviour was so obviously suicidal that the only explanation was: they are running this for a third party. The third party in question being a large monopoly based in the northern Seattle area.

Leaving that site's analysis now: When SCO folds - as it soon will - this presumably means that they will be unable to meet the legal bills of the (for example) IBM and RedHat lawyers. SCO's strategy has to be to exist for as long as possible so that their company can be milked for all it is not even worth, and then run.

That is the SCO directors, their lawyers have made a very eloquent case for the adoption of Gowachin Law in real life. (sorry about that link, it was the best I could find).

Gowachin Law was a creation of the 'Dune' author, Frank Herbert, and appeared in several of his ConSentiency books. The losing lawyer is killed by the winning one. There are ill-defined rules where other participants - including judges who do not meet standards - can also be killed.

The whole idea is that the participants are personally responsible for their misdeeds. Gowachin law is not going to be adopted any time soon, but the current system has obviously failed in that this turkey has been allowed to run for so long.

What really stands out is that SCO has no legal reason to sue Linux users. The only reason SCO could sue is if Linux users were breaking the law. Not only are Linux users NOT breaking the law (the Napster arguement applies to a different set of circumstances), SCO are not making any claims that Linux users are breaking any laws. SCO is simply claiming that that Linux users MAY be infringing on their Intellectual Property and they should pay up now to avoid being sued later (aka - extortion).

Another thing that stands out is that even if SCO wins it's suit with IBM, SCO cannot go after IBM's customers or any other Linuux user. That would be getting awarded damages for the same thing twice.

Another thing that has been mentioned before, SCO's lawsuit with IBM is over a contract. It has nothing to do with copyrights. Yet SCO is claiming the Linux users may be infringing on their IP (copyrights). SCO has yet to provide any evidence that their IP is being infringed upon or even prove they they have sole ownership of what's being infringed upon (which they refuse to show anyone). Even if SCO turns out to be right (highly doubtful), SCO will lose anyways because they have refused to mitigate the damages that they are claiming to be surffering from.

"And, I keep mentioning the two other law suits that need to be filed.

"One is a class action law suit by Linux developers to prevent anyone (including SCO) from demanding license fees from Linux customers when no such fees or licenses are required or even permitted under the GPL. That effort is simply an attempt to benefit from the IP work of hundreds or thousands of others. And, it needs to be stopped dead with a declaratory judgment. SCO can sue anyone they want if they have a basis upon which that defendant has violated their IP rights. But, SCO, by their own hand, gave Linux customers all they need. And, the contract or license picked by SCO specifically forbids SCO actions now. It would be the same if IBM just up and decided that they need more revenue this quarter so all AIX customers have to pay an additional amount. After all, AIX is IBM's IP right? And, that is the only basis upon which SCO is demanding money. SCO even demands money from those who are not SCO customers and do not use SCO products. Or, hell, even if they are SCO customers, right? If you are going to say the contract you signed does not apply to you, then SCO customers have to pay what ever money SCO is demanding too, right?

"The other is a class action by Linux customers to preventing anyone (including SCO) from demanding license fees from Linux customers when no such fees or licenses are required or even permitted under the GPL. Note that these two law suits appear to be similar. And, they are. Except the parties in each case are very different. And, the legal basis for the law suit is very different. In the first, the class of Linux developers would be preventing others from being enriched by demanding license fees for the use of a product developed by the plaintiffs (not SCO). In the second, the class of Linux customers would be preventing anyone from demanding additional fees and licenses of them for any reason. What SCO is doing is no different than if Microsoft just decided that all Windows 98 users had to pay additional fees to Microsoft. After all, Microsoft is running short of cash this month. And, besides, the customers are using the IP that Microsoft claims is their own, right? Never mind that the customer never agreed to pay more money just because Microsoft or SCO needed to cover some bills.

"You have to understand that the claim by SCO that they have IP rights has no nexus (or connection) to the charge that additional fees need to be paid. Or that customers can be sued if the products they use have possible IP related problems. All of the IP protection laws provide for remedies that may be assessed against those who are proven to have violated the patent, copyright, trade secret or what have you. They do not extend any right at all to extort money from the customers who use those products. That is the connection or nexus that SCO just ignores in their public extortion campaign."

This site and GROKLAW are well worth reading.

Funny you should mention this. This attorney thinks so too: LAMlaw.com

Damn, this post makes my .sig untrue...

http://lamlaw.com/

From the previously mentioned lawyer's analysis:

If SCO wanted to have any infringement removed from Linux, they could help do that. But, SCO is refusing despite direct requests from many parties including RedHat, IBM and Novell. They just insist upon a purely illegal activity and little else. It is important to note that disclosing the so-called areas of infringement would not lessen their claims against IBM for contract violations nor violations of trade secret. Those claims against IBM stand on their own without the withholding of key information. The same is true should SCO want to charge RedHat or any other party with copyright infringement. Fixing Linux now does not eliminate any claims or charges that rights have been infringed in the past.

The only "case" that releasing the infringing code would damage is SCO's threatened lawsuits against Linux customers. It would not hurt their case against IBM (the only suit they've actually filed to date).

So would it hurt their case against Linux customers?? Nope. Because they have no case against the majority of Linux cutomers, private or corporate.

Again, from the analysis:

The threat to Linux customers is totally without a legal foundation. And, SCO has deliberately misrepresented those laws in order to extort money from Linux customers. There is no question of that. That is a fools move. It is a fools move because it imposes upon SCO significant legal liability for harm caused to the Linux market. The RedHat law suit refers directly to this problem in its discussion about the tortuous and willful interference with business relationships between RedHat and its customers. SCO (and without any reasonable legal basis) contacted Redhat (and IBM) customers and threatened legal action if they did not pay money. It does not matter what the money is ostensibly for. Linux customers do not need a copy of Unix from SCO to run their computers. In fact, the statement from SCO clearly suggests that Linux would continue to be used. The only benefit to the customer would be not being sued by SCO. Well. For money, anyone can make that offer. And, if you have a legal basis for filing a law suit, that would be business. But, if the legal basis is missing, it becomes extortion.

The point is that by persuing Linux customers SCO has opened the door to litigation against itself. Those acts are widely viewed as illegal if no basis for a lawsuit exists. And most people outside of SCO believe potential suits against Linux customers to be baseless (like suing the NYTimes for releasing a chapter of Harry Potter--they made the IP public, but that doesn't implicate NYTimes readers in the crime). The infringing code never comes into play in the case of SCO vs. Linux customers.

And the case infringing code does effect--the SCO vs. IBM case for IP violations--wouldn't be damaged by exposing the infringing code. That case is about the release of trade secrets and intellectual property into the public domain, an issue that can be proven independant of corrections made to Linux code after the infringing code is divulged.

Please read before you post.

Taft

I would not want to be represented by a lawyer who uses terms like 'jerkheads' or 'a**h****' without first stating the facts. This guy is VERY unprofessional.

You do not have permission to access this site with any Microsoft technology. None.

Of course it's just a lawyer stating you don't have permission. It is not programmed to block Msft products. I'll bet Billg browses it everyday while thumbing his nose in their general direction.

I didn't think a company could be both "neutral" and "windows friendly" at the same time! (See also: ZDNet selective censorship)

can be found at http://www.lamlaw.com

I'm sorry. I find your argument somewhat shallow and obtuse. Saying that Bill Gates is a businessman hardly excuses him for violating federal anti-trust laws, no matter how vague you might think they are. I'll leave it to those more knowledgable of the law to argue the issue. Here's a couple of links which put Microsoft's actions in perspective of the law.

• ProCompetition
• Daily Wrap and Flow
• Consumer Project on Technology

May I give you one rhetorical question to ponder?

If Windows were really the most technically advanced and innovative operating system on the planet, would Microsoft be in court against the DOJ at this time? Somehow, I doubt it.

It's the fact that monopolies stifle innovation as well as competition which has brought these issues to the forefront. This is why Microsoft has to resort to proprietorization of protocols--what Bill Gates calls innovation--to assure that their monopoly survives. See the oft-quoted Halloween Document for clear evidence of Microsoft intentions. See any account of the Sun/Java Case for an example where Microsoft exercised these proprietorization techniques.

I find the DOJ evidence against Microsoft compelling. Even Microsoft's own defense was a great embarassment. Don't take my word for it. Look for yourself. There are sufficient sites on the Web covering the trial. Check out CNN, ZDNet, Business Week, InfoWorld, etc.

Bork 'em, Danno.

Arne W. Flones Long Ship Software

Pay no mind to the chaos you are seeing. It is merely the shifting of paradigms.