Slashdot Mirror

methinks you meant attorneys general. what is the point of /. having editors if they don't edit?

Perhaps because National Association of Attorneys General is the correct phrase http://www.naag.org/

Demand to be informed. Find your SAG's web site: http://www.naag.org/.

Look up and contact your local Attorney General and demand that they start prosecuting the criminals that break into PCs. These activities have been felonious crimes since day one of the Internet. Even if our OSes were more secure, it doesn't excuse the blatant illegal activities that are continuously perpetrated that cause untold amounts of wasted bandwidth, time and other resources that our leaders in the criminal justice system should be doing something about. Contact your local AG and demand they start prosecuting these cases and this stuff will be dramatically less prevalent.

Find your AGs contact info here.

And for good measure, copy, paste, and submit your letter to the National Association of Attorneys General here.

And if the AG in your state is not independently elected, send a copy to your governor as well.

Find your AGs contact info here.

And for good measure, copy, paste, and submit your letter to the National Association of Attorneys General here.

And if the AG in your state is not independently elected, send a copy to your governor as well.

From the page:

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

Thank you for your attention.

• Let's Put SCO Behind Bars

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

Here is a list of the Attorney Generals around the country and the world. Everyone should contact their AG and demand that they prosecute these crimes. Until the public puts pressure on the authorities to enforce the crimes these spammers commit, nothing is going to change.

• http://www.goingware.com/notes/prosecute-sco.html

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

Stockholders in any of the affected companies - either SCO or its competitors - may wish to avail themselves of the Security and Exchange Commission's Investor Complaint Form to ask that something be done about this. You may not even be aware that you have standing to complain: if you invest in any mutual funds that hold shares in SCO, IBM, Red Hat or any other company that offers Linux products or services, then you have a right to ask the SEC to investigate. Check with your mutual fund to fund out which securities are in its portfolio.

Thanks for your help.

• http://www.goingware.com/notes/prosecute-sco.html

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

Thanks for your help.

• http://www.goingware.com/notes/prosecute-sco.html

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

It makes me very sad to write this, because I lived in Santa Cruz for fifteen years. Sam Sjogren, a close friend from Caltech, was one of SCO's first programmers, and for a little while my only friend in town after I transferred to UCSC. Many of my best friends used to work for SCO either writing code or doing tech support. I even used to sit in the company hot tub with my friends who worked there from time to time. I used to dance to the music of SCO's company band Deth Specula at parties around the town.

Before I ever installed my first Linux distro - remember Yggdrasil Plug-n-Play? - I was a happy user of a fully-licensed copy of SCO Open Desktop on my 386.

You wouldn't think the SCO Group of today is the same company that once had to tell its employees that they shouldn't be naked at work between 9 and 5 because they scared the visiting suits from AT&T. That's because it's not - the SCO Group got its name and intellectual property from SCO through an acquisition. I don't think any of the friends I once knew at the company are likely to still be working there. The SCO Group is in Utah. SCO was originally called The Santa Cruz Operation, a small father-and son consulting firm named for a beautiful small town between the mountains and the ocean in central California. The Santa Cruz Operation was once as much a bunch of freethinking hippies as any Linux hacker of today.

Yes, it makes me sad. But I digress.

It seems that SCO is asking a license fee of $699 for each Linux installation. Take a look at SCO's press release announcing the licensing program. That's just the introductory price - if we don't purchase our licenses before October 15, the price will increase to $1399.

I have three computers that run Linux. That means SCO claims I must pay $2097 today, or $4197 if I wait until after October 15. SCO says their fee applies even to devices running embedded linux, many of which were purchased by their owners for far less than SCO's "license fee".

My response is that SCO is guilty of criminal fraud and extortion. I didn't violate SCO's copyright or acquire their trade secrets through any illegal means, and it is fraud for them to claim that I did. It is extortion for them to tell me I must pay them money to avoid a lawsuit.

Even if SCO's claims are true, it is not a violation of their copyright for me to possess a copy of their code. Instead, any copyright infringement was committed by the vendors who supplied me with the Linux distributions I use.

SCO's license is actually no license at all - if it really is found that the Linux kernel contains any infringing code, the GPL forbids everyone who possesses a copy from using it at all. No one would be allowed to con

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

It makes me very sad to write this, because I lived in Santa Cruz for fifteen years. Sam Sjogren, a close friend from Caltech, was one of SCO's first programmers, and for a little while my only friend in town after I transferred to UCSC. Many of my best friends used to work for SCO either writing code or doing tech support. I even used to sit in the company hot tub with my friends who worked there from time to time. I used to dance to the music of SCO's company band Deth Specula at parties around the town.

Before I ever installed my first Linux distro - remember Yggdrasil Plug-n-Play? - I was a happy user of a fully-licensed copy of SCO Open Desktop on my 386.

You wouldn't think the SCO Group of today is the same company that once had to tell its employees that they shouldn't be naked at work between 9 and 5 because they scared the visiting suits from AT&T. That's because it's not - the SCO Group got its name and intellectual property from SCO through an acquisition. I don't think any of the friends I once knew at the company are likely to still be working there. The SCO Group is in Utah. SCO was originally called The Santa Cruz Operation, a small father-and son consulting firm named for a beautiful small town between the mountains and the ocean in central California. The Santa Cruz Operation was once as much a bunch of freethinking hippies as any Linux hacker of today.

Yes, it makes me sad. But I digress.

It seems that SCO is asking a license fee of $699 for each Linux installation. Take a look at SCO's press release announcing the licensing program. That's just the introductory price - if we don't purchase our licenses before October 15, the price will increase to $1399.

I have three computers that run Linux. That means SCO claims I must pay $2097 today, or $4197 if I wait until after October 15. SCO says their fee applies even to devices running embedded linux, many of which were purchased by their owners for far less than SCO's "license fee".

My response is that SCO is guilty of criminal fraud and extortion. I didn't violate SCO's copyright or acquire their trade secrets through any illegal means, and it is fraud for them to claim that I did. It is extortion for them to tell me I must pay them money to avoid a lawsuit.

Even if SCO's claims are true, it is not a violation of their copyright for me to possess a copy of their code. Instead, any copyright infringement was committed by the vendors who supplied me with the Linux distributions I use.

SCO's license is actually no license at all - if it really is found that the Linux kernel contains any infringing code, the GPL forbids everyone who possesses a copy from using it at all. No one would be allowed to con

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

It makes me very sad to write this, because I lived in Santa Cruz for fifteen years. Sam Sjogren, a close friend from Caltech, was one of SCO's first programmers, and for a little while my only friend in town after I transferred to UCSC. Many of my best friends use to work for SCO either writing code or doing tech support. I even used to sit in the company hot tub with my friends who worked there from time to time.

Before I ever used Linux, I was a happy user of a fully-licensed copy of SCO Open Desktop on my 386.

You wouldn't think the SCO Group of today is the same company that once had to tell its employees that they shouldn't be naked at work between 9 and 5 because they scared the visiting suits from AT&T. That's because it's not - the SCO Group got its name and intellectual property from SCO through an acquisition. I don't think any of the friends I once knew at the company are likely to still be working there. The SCO Group is in Utah. SCO was originally called The Santa Cruz Operation, a small father-and son consulting firm named for a beautiful small town between the mountains and the ocean in central California. The Santa Cruz Operation was once as much a bunch of freethinking hippies as any Linux hacker of today.

Yes, it makes me sad. But I digress.

It seems that SCO is asking a license fee of $699 for each Linux installation. Take a look at SCO's press release announcing the licensing program. That's just the introductory price - if we don't purchase our licenses before October 15, the price will increase to $1399.

I have three computers that run Linux. That means SCO claims I must pay $2097 today, or $4197 if I wait until after October 15. SCO says their fee applies even to devices running embedded linux, many of which were purchased by their owners for far less than SCO's "license fee".

My response is that SCO is guilty of criminal fraud and extortion. I didn't violate SCO's copyright or acquire their trade secrets through any illegal means, and it is fraud for them to claim that I did. It is extortion for them to tell me I must pay them money to avoid a lawsuit.

Rather than paying their fee, my response will be to write a letter to the Maine State Attorney General to ask that they prosecute SCO. I'm going to include substantive documentation, like a hardcopy of SCO's claim that I must pay them this fee, as well as IBM's and RedHat's responses to SCO.

I'm also going to write to the Federal Trade Commission to ask that SCO be investigated for illegal trade practices.

If you live in the United States, I ask you to write a similar letter to your state Attorney General, as well as to the Federal Trade Commission. If you live in a state where a Linux distro vendor is located, or a company that has a lot of Linux installations - doesn't Amazon use it? - write to your elected representatives to ask that they work with the state and fede

i agree that a store can charge pretty much whatever the hell they want (you have to qualify that because i recall on 12 Sept 2001, many gas stations were selling for 4-5$ and upwords per gallon . fortunately :), our attorney general was around to save the day.

anyway, nearly anything that bestbuy sells "normally" for 60, joe's sells for 72$. joe doesn't have 100,000 sq. ft. of floor space that he can stock movies, dvd's, cd's, refridgerators, stereo equipment, etc. joe just sells computers, though he might repair them too. the advantage of going to joe's place is that for your extra 12$ you'll be pretty sure that when you ask joe if the printer can print under linux and if the color print cardridge is refillable (no microchip inside), joe will be able to give more than a "huh?!?, doh, i dunno."

The kind of argument you present is nothing more than a blatent attempt to limit the domain were Linux is "acceptable" to use.

For medium to large organizations, Linux with KDE and/or GNOME is an execelent option in terms of Total Cost Of Ownership. The technology is certainly not the limiting factor.

Exactly when did PC based Desktop systems become the 'sacrosanct' sole domain of Microsoft?

Consider Michael Tiemann's testimony...

NAAG Homepage ; Microsoft Antitrust Case Documents ; Witness Direct Testimony Submitted to the Court ; Mar. 21, 2002, Michael Tiemann, Chief Technology Officer, Red Hat, Inc.

72. Other hardware manufacturers have demonstrated similar fear of being seen as promoting Linux on the desktop, even as they embrace Linux in areas in which Microsoft does not compete. For example, in January of this year, I participated in a meeting in which Red Hat, IBM and Intel each gave presentations aimed at convincing news organization that, working together, we could deliver a Linux-based platform to which company could profitably port its popular financial services software. During Intel's pitch, however, the Intel representative projected a bizarre slide onto the screen it was the word desktop, with a red circle around it and a slash drawn through it.

73. The slide was bizarre for at least two reasons first, we were all there to convince news organization of the virtues of Linux; and second, we were pitching the company on Linux servers. The desktop remark was not only embarrassing, it was wholly gratuitous. Intel had gone to lengths to make clear to all that it had no interest whatsoever in supporting Linux on the desktop, a point that was irrelevant at best, and counterproductive at worst, while trying to close a major business deal. The slide appeared to be a necessary component of their presentation about Linux; a protective shield if questioned about the relationship.

74. These incidents are particularly informative when one considers that Dell and Intel are multibillion-dollar companies and leaders in their industry. Such giants nevertheless appear to operate with a sensitivity to the possible Microsoft reaction. It is a problem that I have seen throughout the industry and with many customers. It is one that will prevent the preinstallation of Red Hat Linux on desktop computers a critical step in one day restoring the potential for real competition in the operating system market.

So the question arises, is you line of argument just another attempt to limit the domain of open source?

• Require Microsoft to unbundle Internet Explorer and other middleware from Windows and offer a reduced price for versions without the extra features.
• Mandated uniform, non-discriminatory licensing of Windows to OEMs and other third parties.
• Continued licensing of previous Windows versions for 5 years after a new version is released at the same price.
• Mandatory and timely disclosure of technical information to ensure interoperability.
• Prohibition on knowingly interfering with the performance of non-Microsoft middleware without good cause.
• Ban on (anti-competitive) exclusive dealing.
• Ban on contractual tying.
• Ban on retaliation for supporting competing products or engaging in (this) litigation.
• Microsoft must respect OEM, user and third-party licensee choices if they want to make a non-Microsoft product the default middleware (e.g. Netscape browser).
• Prohibition on agreements not to compete (like their attempt to divide the browser market with Netscape between Microsoft and non-Microsoft platforms).
• Compulsory open-source licensing of Internet Explorer (to deny Microsoft the benefits of their illegally-gained browser monopoly).
• Mandatory distribution of a Sun-compatible Java JVM with Windows and IE (to give Java the widespread distribution it could have had without Microsoft's illegal behavior).
• Mandatory continued porting and support of Microsoft Office for the Macintosh platform.
• Mandatory auction of at least three licenses to allow porting of Microsoft Office to other platforms, and to provide all necessary information (including file formats) for doing so.
• Mandatory licensing of any Intellectual Property rights necessary for the effective implementation of this remedy proposal.
• Mandatory actual compliance with any industry standards that Microsoft claims to comply with, or de facto standards where justifiable. (Proprietary extensions allowed, but the industry-standard part must work correctly.)
• Appointment of an internal Compliance Officer within Microsoft to ensure compliance with the final judgement.
• Appointment of a Special Master empowered to investigate and resolve complaints quickly while minimizing demand on judicial resources.
• Establish consequences for patterns of non-compliance to discourage such behavior.
• Disclosure of certain information related to acquisitions to enable appropriate government oversight.

They never change their tune, do they? The "stable and consistent" quote is specifically in response to the requirement to strip middleware from the OS. Yes, yes, we've heard it before; there is no OS, it's all completely integrated, yadda yadda. I'm sure many of us are familiar with just how "unstable" (or otherwise) an OS without applications can be. That aside, it seems to me that if distros based on a stripped down OS and middleware from third parties really were to suck as much as Microsoft claims they would, then the principles of the free market would protect their fully featured version. Remember, nobody's asking them to stop selling their "all microsoft, all the way" distro, just to provide a stripped down version as well.

• The states' call for an open-source version of Internet Explorer would destroy "any incentive for Microsoft to invest in the creation of such new versions," Microsoft said.

Sure, if they want to give up and let someone else take over the browser market, they can stop investing in IE. They're saying that if they can't play by their rules, they won't play at all. You can sort of see their point: having their IP forcibly open sourced isn't really fair. Well guess what: that's the idea. This is a punishment. Microsoft have been found guilty of using Internet Explorer as a weapon to destroy Netscape. The penalty is to disarm that weapon by making it available to everybody. It's not meant to be fair, it's meant to be a commensurate penalty. I also note that it's not a case of Microsoft giving the source away, just making it available for scrutiny and licensing. Heck, maybe nobody will want to license it after they've seen it.

In case anyone's interested, the actual States' proposal is here. It makes for pretty interesting reading, mandating the distribution of a Java VM with Windows, auctioning the rights to develop Office for other operating systems to a third party, and actually complying with standards, rather than just claiming that being 95% compliant is close enough (e.g. J++ versus Java).

Before you start reading it, remember one thing: Microsoft are guilty. They are convicted monopolists, and they have repeatedly ignored previous behaviour orders. This remedy is meant to punish them, and to help their competitors at their expense. They did the crime, now they have to do the time.