Slashdot Mirror

How many people work at software development companies that sacrifice quality to meet a deadline that sales or marketing proposed to the customer?

How about a company thats taken a new and possibly bad direction because one of the executives or a newly appointed CEO wants to impress shareholders and make money for themselves?

Point being, OSS projects are typically written on a timeline based on one requirement, is the project ready for the release?

It has always been my opinion that publicly traded companies are ruined by their shareholders.

I think that calling SCO litigious bastards is totally unwarranted.

Apparently, in addition to Windows, the Linux source code has been leaked as well. Fortunately for all of us, a little known company which apparently owns the IP to Unix, C++, space flight, and breathing has kindly made it legal to use their IP, for a fee.

Try that googlism thing on SCO.

Googlism currently seems unaware of Litigious Bastards though.

i clicked on this litigious bastards
link, but the site seems to bo down. whats happening??

oh...wait...now i get it..

No. It's litigious bastards

What original ideas of his where used in the making of Terminator? Having seen it, I didn't see ONE original idea.

1. Truck-drivin' robot.
2. Big-haired not-very-good-looking-but-somehow-sexy-anyway bimbo.
3. Robot kills everyone with the same name as the big-haired not-very-good-looking-but-somehow-sexy-anyway bimbo, but somehow manages to miss killing her.
4. Robot shoots up police station, and manages to kill everyone but person it was after (the big-haired not-very-good-looking-but-somehow-sexy-anyway bimbo), and her boyfriend from the future.

Isn't that litigious bastards?

6. SCO love penguins .

SCO is the owner of the UNIX(R) Operating System Intellectual Property that dates all the way back to 1969, when the UNIX(R) System was created at Bell Laboratories. Through a series of mergers and acquisitions, SCO has acquired ownership of the copyrights and core technology associated with the UNIX(R) System. The SCO source division will continue to offer traditional UNIX(R) System licenses to preserve, protect, and enhance shareholder value.

As early as May 2003, SCO warned Linux(R) users that enterprise use of the Linux(R) operating system was in violation of its intellectual property rights in UNIX(R) technology. Certain copyrighted application binary interfaces ("ABI Code") have been copied verbatim from SCO's copyrighted UNIX(R) code base and contributed to Linux(R) for distribution under the General Public License ("GPL") without proper authorization and without copyright attribution. These facts support SCO's position that the use of the Linux(R) operating system in a commercial setting violates our rights under the United States Copyright Act, including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

While some application programming interfaces ("API Code") have been made available over the years through POSIX and other open standards, the UNIX(R) ABI Code has only been made available under copyright restrictions. AT&T made these binary interfaces available in order to support application development to UNIX(R) operating systems and to assist UNIX(R) licensees in the development process. The UNIX(R) ABIs were never authorized for unrestricted use or distribution under the GPL in Linux(R). As the copyright holder, SCO has never granted such permission. Nevertheless, many of the ABIs contained in Linux(R), and improperly distributed under the GPL, are direct copies of our UNIX(R) copyrighted software code.

Except that in this case, it is not vandalism, because it is a extremely precise and accurate assessment. Vandalism != exact truth.

• 1) Are they litigious? Definitly. SCO expects 10-15 millions revenue per quarter, and to spend 4-5 millions per quarter on legal expenses. 33 to 50% of their revenue is spent on legal expenses by their own expectations (reality can be worse).
• 2) Are they bastards? Definitly. First SCO was initiated as Caldera, trying to earn money on hard work of others (who were ok for that), and then suddenly, it has the nerve to tell the world those Linux contributors are a bunch of thieves acting contrary to US constitution, and that they, SCO, are entitled payment on each Linux installation. Not only that, but they engaged a PR campaign, producing lie after lie, slander after slander, in which they dragged in the mud at each single turn the very Linux contributors on the work of which they had capitalized and still plan to capitalize. Not to mention that obviously they knew they were telling lies all the way (no code thief produced as evidence at the trial, SCO contracts with IBM, SCO dispute with Novell). And that they still tried to pressure the random Joe Linux user by threats. Their actions earn them a well deserved title of "bastards" (following the definition of Worldnet: bastard, [...] n 1: insulting terms of address for people who are stupid or irritating or ridiculous [syn: asshole, cocksucker, dickhead, shit, mother fucker, motherfucker, prick, whoreson, son of a bitch, SOB]

In conclusion, I would say that calling SCO litigious bastards is not only an exact truth, but also if one unsuspecting person wanted to find an example of litigious bastards in the IT industry, it would only be fair that Google would return them in first position.

Except that in this case, it is not vandalism, because it is a extremely precise and accurate assessment. Vandalism != exact truth.

• 1) Are they litigious? Definitly. SCO expects 10-15 millions revenue per quarter, and to spend 4-5 millions per quarter on legal expenses. 33 to 50% of their revenue is spent on legal expenses by their own expectations (reality can be worse).
• 2) Are they bastards? Definitly. First SCO was initiated as Caldera, trying to earn money on hard work of others (who were ok for that), and then suddenly, it has the nerve to tell the world those Linux contributors are a bunch of thieves acting contrary to US constitution, and that they, SCO, are entitled payment on each Linux installation. Not only that, but they engaged a PR campaign, producing lie after lie, slander after slander, in which they dragged in the mud at each single turn the very Linux contributors on the work of which they had capitalized and still plan to capitalize. Not to mention that obviously they knew they were telling lies all the way (no code thief produced as evidence at the trial, SCO contracts with IBM, SCO dispute with Novell). And that they still tried to pressure the random Joe Linux user by threats. Their actions earn them a well deserved title of "bastards" (following the definition of Worldnet: bastard, [...] n 1: insulting terms of address for people who are stupid or irritating or ridiculous [syn: asshole, cocksucker, dickhead, shit, mother fucker, motherfucker, prick, whoreson, son of a bitch, SOB]

In conclusion, I would say that calling SCO litigious bastards is not only an exact truth, but also if one unsuspecting person wanted to find an example of litigious bastards in the IT industry, it would only be fair that Google would return them in first position.

Except that in this case, it is not vandalism, because it is a extremely precise and accurate assessment. Vandalism != exact truth.

• 1) Are they litigious? Definitly. SCO expects 10-15 millions revenue per quarter, and to spend 4-5 millions per quarter on legal expenses. 33 to 50% of their revenue is spent on legal expenses by their own expectations (reality can be worse).
• 2) Are they bastards? Definitly. First SCO was initiated as Caldera, trying to earn money on hard work of others (who were ok for that), and then suddenly, it has the nerve to tell the world those Linux contributors are a bunch of thieves acting contrary to US constitution, and that they, SCO, are entitled payment on each Linux installation. Not only that, but they engaged a PR campaign, producing lie after lie, slander after slander, in which they dragged in the mud at each single turn the very Linux contributors on the work of which they had capitalized and still plan to capitalize. Not to mention that obviously they knew they were telling lies all the way (no code thief produced as evidence at the trial, SCO contracts with IBM, SCO dispute with Novell). And that they still tried to pressure the random Joe Linux user by threats. Their actions earn them a well deserved title of "bastards" (following the definition of Worldnet: bastard, [...] n 1: insulting terms of address for people who are stupid or irritating or ridiculous [syn: asshole, cocksucker, dickhead, shit, mother fucker, motherfucker, prick, whoreson, son of a bitch, SOB]

In conclusion, I would say that calling SCO litigious bastards is not only an exact truth, but also if one unsuspecting person wanted to find an example of litigious bastards in the IT industry, it would only be fair that Google would return them in first position.

Except that in this case, it is not vandalism, because it is a extremely precise and accurate assessment. Vandalism != exact truth.

• 1) Are they litigious? Definitly. SCO expects 10-15 millions revenue per quarter, and to spend 4-5 millions per quarter on legal expenses. 33 to 50% of their revenue is spent on legal expenses by their own expectations (reality can be worse).
• 2) Are they bastards? Definitly. First SCO was initiated as Caldera, trying to earn money on hard work of others (who were ok for that), and then suddenly, it has the nerve to tell the world those Linux contributors are a bunch of thieves acting contrary to US constitution, and that they, SCO, are entitled payment on each Linux installation. Not only that, but they engaged a PR campaign, producing lie after lie, slander after slander, in which they dragged in the mud at each single turn the very Linux contributors on the work of which they had capitalized and still plan to capitalize. Not to mention that obviously they knew they were telling lies all the way (no code thief produced as evidence at the trial, SCO contracts with IBM, SCO dispute with Novell). And that they still tried to pressure the random Joe Linux user by threats. Their actions earn them a well deserved title of "bastards" (following the definition of Worldnet: bastard, [...] n 1: insulting terms of address for people who are stupid or irritating or ridiculous [syn: asshole, cocksucker, dickhead, shit, mother fucker, motherfucker, prick, whoreson, son of a bitch, SOB]

In conclusion, I would say that calling SCO litigious bastards is not only an exact truth, but also if one unsuspecting person wanted to find an example of litigious bastards in the IT industry, it would only be fair that Google would return them in first position.

Except that in this case, it is not vandalism, because it is a extremely precise and accurate assessment. Vandalism != exact truth.

• 1) Are they litigious? Definitly. SCO expects 10-15 millions revenue per quarter, and to spend 4-5 millions per quarter on legal expenses. 33 to 50% of their revenue is spent on legal expenses by their own expectations (reality can be worse).
• 2) Are they bastards? Definitly. First SCO was initiated as Caldera, trying to earn money on hard work of others (who were ok for that), and then suddenly, it has the nerve to tell the world those Linux contributors are a bunch of thieves acting contrary to US constitution, and that they, SCO, are entitled payment on each Linux installation. Not only that, but they engaged a PR campaign, producing lie after lie, slander after slander, in which they dragged in the mud at each single turn the very Linux contributors on the work of which they had capitalized and still plan to capitalize. Not to mention that obviously they knew they were telling lies all the way (no code thief produced as evidence at the trial, SCO contracts with IBM, SCO dispute with Novell). And that they still tried to pressure the random Joe Linux user by threats. Their actions earn them a well deserved title of "bastards" (following the definition of Worldnet: bastard, [...] n 1: insulting terms of address for people who are stupid or irritating or ridiculous [syn: asshole, cocksucker, dickhead, shit, mother fucker, motherfucker, prick, whoreson, son of a bitch, SOB]

In conclusion, I would say that calling SCO litigious bastards is not only an exact truth, but also if one unsuspecting person wanted to find an example of litigious bastards in the IT industry, it would only be fair that Google would return them in first position.

Except that in this case, it is not vandalism, because it is a extremely precise and accurate assessment. Vandalism != exact truth.

• 1) Are they litigious? Definitly. SCO expects 10-15 millions revenue per quarter, and to spend 4-5 millions per quarter on legal expenses. 33 to 50% of their revenue is spent on legal expenses by their own expectations (reality can be worse).
• 2) Are they bastards? Definitly. First SCO was initiated as Caldera, trying to earn money on hard work of others (who were ok for that), and then suddenly, it has the nerve to tell the world those Linux contributors are a bunch of thieves acting contrary to US constitution, and that they, SCO, are entitled payment on each Linux installation. Not only that, but they engaged a PR campaign, producing lie after lie, slander after slander, in which they dragged in the mud at each single turn the very Linux contributors on the work of which they had capitalized and still plan to capitalize. Not to mention that obviously they knew they were telling lies all the way (no code thief produced as evidence at the trial, SCO contracts with IBM, SCO dispute with Novell). And that they still tried to pressure the random Joe Linux user by threats. Their actions earn them a well deserved title of "bastards" (following the definition of Worldnet: bastard, [...] n 1: insulting terms of address for people who are stupid or irritating or ridiculous [syn: asshole, cocksucker, dickhead, shit, mother fucker, motherfucker, prick, whoreson, son of a bitch, SOB]

In conclusion, I would say that calling SCO litigious bastards is not only an exact truth, but also if one unsuspecting person wanted to find an example of litigious bastards in the IT industry, it would only be fair that Google would return them in first position.

Except that in this case, it is not vandalism, because it is a extremely precise and accurate assessment. Vandalism != exact truth.

• 1) Are they litigious? Definitly. SCO expects 10-15 millions revenue per quarter, and to spend 4-5 millions per quarter on legal expenses. 33 to 50% of their revenue is spent on legal expenses by their own expectations (reality can be worse).
• 2) Are they bastards? Definitly. First SCO was initiated as Caldera, trying to earn money on hard work of others (who were ok for that), and then suddenly, it has the nerve to tell the world those Linux contributors are a bunch of thieves acting contrary to US constitution, and that they, SCO, are entitled payment on each Linux installation. Not only that, but they engaged a PR campaign, producing lie after lie, slander after slander, in which they dragged in the mud at each single turn the very Linux contributors on the work of which they had capitalized and still plan to capitalize. Not to mention that obviously they knew they were telling lies all the way (no code thief produced as evidence at the trial, SCO contracts with IBM, SCO dispute with Novell). And that they still tried to pressure the random Joe Linux user by threats. Their actions earn them a well deserved title of "bastards" (following the definition of Worldnet: bastard, [...] n 1: insulting terms of address for people who are stupid or irritating or ridiculous [syn: asshole, cocksucker, dickhead, shit, mother fucker, motherfucker, prick, whoreson, son of a bitch, SOB]

In conclusion, I would say that calling SCO litigious bastards is not only an exact truth, but also if one unsuspecting person wanted to find an example of litigious bastards in the IT industry, it would only be fair that Google would return them in first position.

Except that in this case, it is not vandalism, because it is a extremely precise and accurate assessment. Vandalism != exact truth.

• 1) Are they litigious? Definitly. SCO expects 10-15 millions revenue per quarter, and to spend 4-5 millions per quarter on legal expenses. 33 to 50% of their revenue is spent on legal expenses by their own expectations (reality can be worse).
• 2) Are they bastards? Definitly. First SCO was initiated as Caldera, trying to earn money on hard work of others (who were ok for that), and then suddenly, it has the nerve to tell the world those Linux contributors are a bunch of thieves acting contrary to US constitution, and that they, SCO, are entitled payment on each Linux installation. Not only that, but they engaged a PR campaign, producing lie after lie, slander after slander, in which they dragged in the mud at each single turn the very Linux contributors on the work of which they had capitalized and still plan to capitalize. Not to mention that obviously they knew they were telling lies all the way (no code thief produced as evidence at the trial, SCO contracts with IBM, SCO dispute with Novell). And that they still tried to pressure the random Joe Linux user by threats. Their actions earn them a well deserved title of "bastards" (following the definition of Worldnet: bastard, [...] n 1: insulting terms of address for people who are stupid or irritating or ridiculous [syn: asshole, cocksucker, dickhead, shit, mother fucker, motherfucker, prick, whoreson, son of a bitch, SOB]

In conclusion, I would say that calling SCO litigious bastards is not only an exact truth, but also if one unsuspecting person wanted to find an example of litigious bastards in the IT industry, it would only be fair that Google would return them in first position.

Except that in this case, it is not vandalism, because it is a extremely precise and accurate assessment. Vandalism != exact truth.

• 1) Are they litigious? Definitly. SCO expects 10-15 millions revenue per quarter, and to spend 4-5 millions per quarter on legal expenses. 33 to 50% of their revenue is spent on legal expenses by their own expectations (reality can be worse).
• 2) Are they bastards? Definitly. First SCO was initiated as Caldera, trying to earn money on hard work of others (who were ok for that), and then suddenly, it has the nerve to tell the world those Linux contributors are a bunch of thieves acting contrary to US constitution, and that they, SCO, are entitled payment on each Linux installation. Not only that, but they engaged a PR campaign, producing lie after lie, slander after slander, in which they dragged in the mud at each single turn the very Linux contributors on the work of which they had capitalized and still plan to capitalize. Not to mention that obviously they knew they were telling lies all the way (no code thief produced as evidence at the trial, SCO contracts with IBM, SCO dispute with Novell). And that they still tried to pressure the random Joe Linux user by threats. Their actions earn them a well deserved title of "bastards" (following the definition of Worldnet: bastard, [...] n 1: insulting terms of address for people who are stupid or irritating or ridiculous [syn: asshole, cocksucker, dickhead, shit, mother fucker, motherfucker, prick, whoreson, son of a bitch, SOB]

In conclusion, I would say that calling SCO litigious bastards is not only an exact truth, but also if one unsuspecting person wanted to find an example of litigious bastards in the IT industry, it would only be fair that Google would return them in first position.

Except that in this case, it is not vandalism, because it is a extremely precise and accurate assessment. Vandalism != exact truth.

• 1) Are they litigious? Definitly. SCO expects 10-15 millions revenue per quarter, and to spend 4-5 millions per quarter on legal expenses. 33 to 50% of their revenue is spent on legal expenses by their own expectations (reality can be worse).
• 2) Are they bastards? Definitly. First SCO was initiated as Caldera, trying to earn money on hard work of others (who were ok for that), and then suddenly, it has the nerve to tell the world those Linux contributors are a bunch of thieves acting contrary to US constitution, and that they, SCO, are entitled payment on each Linux installation. Not only that, but they engaged a PR campaign, producing lie after lie, slander after slander, in which they dragged in the mud at each single turn the very Linux contributors on the work of which they had capitalized and still plan to capitalize. Not to mention that obviously they knew they were telling lies all the way (no code thief produced as evidence at the trial, SCO contracts with IBM, SCO dispute with Novell). And that they still tried to pressure the random Joe Linux user by threats. Their actions earn them a well deserved title of "bastards" (following the definition of Worldnet: bastard, [...] n 1: insulting terms of address for people who are stupid or irritating or ridiculous [syn: asshole, cocksucker, dickhead, shit, mother fucker, motherfucker, prick, whoreson, son of a bitch, SOB]

In conclusion, I would say that calling SCO litigious bastards is not only an exact truth, but also if one unsuspecting person wanted to find an example of litigious bastards in the IT industry, it would only be fair that Google would return them in first position.

Except that in this case, it is not vandalism, because it is a extremely precise and accurate assessment. Vandalism != exact truth.

• 1) Are they litigious? Definitly. SCO expects 10-15 millions revenue per quarter, and to spend 4-5 millions per quarter on legal expenses. 33 to 50% of their revenue is spent on legal expenses by their own expectations (reality can be worse).
• 2) Are they bastards? Definitly. First SCO was initiated as Caldera, trying to earn money on hard work of others (who were ok for that), and then suddenly, it has the nerve to tell the world those Linux contributors are a bunch of thieves acting contrary to US constitution, and that they, SCO, are entitled payment on each Linux installation. Not only that, but they engaged a PR campaign, producing lie after lie, slander after slander, in which they dragged in the mud at each single turn the very Linux contributors on the work of which they had capitalized and still plan to capitalize. Not to mention that obviously they knew they were telling lies all the way (no code thief produced as evidence at the trial, SCO contracts with IBM, SCO dispute with Novell). And that they still tried to pressure the random Joe Linux user by threats. Their actions earn them a well deserved title of "bastards" (following the definition of Worldnet: bastard, [...] n 1: insulting terms of address for people who are stupid or irritating or ridiculous [syn: asshole, cocksucker, dickhead, shit, mother fucker, motherfucker, prick, whoreson, son of a bitch, SOB]

In conclusion, I would say that calling SCO litigious bastards is not only an exact truth, but also if one unsuspecting person wanted to find an example of litigious bastards in the IT industry, it would only be fair that Google would return them in first position.

Except that in this case, it is not vandalism, because it is a extremely precise and accurate assessment. Vandalism != exact truth.

• 1) Are they litigious? Definitly. SCO expects 10-15 millions revenue per quarter, and to spend 4-5 millions per quarter on legal expenses. 33 to 50% of their revenue is spent on legal expenses by their own expectations (reality can be worse).
• 2) Are they bastards? Definitly. First SCO was initiated as Caldera, trying to earn money on hard work of others (who were ok for that), and then suddenly, it has the nerve to tell the world those Linux contributors are a bunch of thieves acting contrary to US constitution, and that they, SCO, are entitled payment on each Linux installation. Not only that, but they engaged a PR campaign, producing lie after lie, slander after slander, in which they dragged in the mud at each single turn the very Linux contributors on the work of which they had capitalized and still plan to capitalize. Not to mention that obviously they knew they were telling lies all the way (no code thief produced as evidence at the trial, SCO contracts with IBM, SCO dispute with Novell). And that they still tried to pressure the random Joe Linux user by threats. Their actions earn them a well deserved title of "bastards" (following the definition of Worldnet: bastard, [...] n 1: insulting terms of address for people who are stupid or irritating or ridiculous [syn: asshole, cocksucker, dickhead, shit, mother fucker, motherfucker, prick, whoreson, son of a bitch, SOB]

In conclusion, I would say that calling SCO litigious bastards is not only an exact truth, but also if one unsuspecting person wanted to find an example of litigious bastards in the IT industry, it would only be fair that Google would return them in first position.

Except that in this case, it is not vandalism, because it is a extremely precise and accurate assessment. Vandalism != exact truth.

• 1) Are they litigious? Definitly. SCO expects 10-15 millions revenue per quarter, and to spend 4-5 millions per quarter on legal expenses. 33 to 50% of their revenue is spent on legal expenses by their own expectations (reality can be worse).
• 2) Are they bastards? Definitly. First SCO was initiated as Caldera, trying to earn money on hard work of others (who were ok for that), and then suddenly, it has the nerve to tell the world those Linux contributors are a bunch of thieves acting contrary to US constitution, and that they, SCO, are entitled payment on each Linux installation. Not only that, but they engaged a PR campaign, producing lie after lie, slander after slander, in which they dragged in the mud at each single turn the very Linux contributors on the work of which they had capitalized and still plan to capitalize. Not to mention that obviously they knew they were telling lies all the way (no code thief produced as evidence at the trial, SCO contracts with IBM, SCO dispute with Novell). And that they still tried to pressure the random Joe Linux user by threats. Their actions earn them a well deserved title of "bastards" (following the definition of Worldnet: bastard, [...] n 1: insulting terms of address for people who are stupid or irritating or ridiculous [syn: asshole, cocksucker, dickhead, shit, mother fucker, motherfucker, prick, whoreson, son of a bitch, SOB]

In conclusion, I would say that calling SCO litigious bastards is not only an exact truth, but also if one unsuspecting person wanted to find an example of litigious bastards in the IT industry, it would only be fair that Google would return them in first position.

Except that in this case, it is not vandalism, because it is a extremely precise and accurate assessment. Vandalism != exact truth.

• 1) Are they litigious? Definitly. SCO expects 10-15 millions revenue per quarter, and to spend 4-5 millions per quarter on legal expenses. 33 to 50% of their revenue is spent on legal expenses by their own expectations (reality can be worse).
• 2) Are they bastards? Definitly. First SCO was initiated as Caldera, trying to earn money on hard work of others (who were ok for that), and then suddenly, it has the nerve to tell the world those Linux contributors are a bunch of thieves acting contrary to US constitution, and that they, SCO, are entitled payment on each Linux installation. Not only that, but they engaged a PR campaign, producing lie after lie, slander after slander, in which they dragged in the mud at each single turn the very Linux contributors on the work of which they had capitalized and still plan to capitalize. Not to mention that obviously they knew they were telling lies all the way (no code thief produced as evidence at the trial, SCO contracts with IBM, SCO dispute with Novell). And that they still tried to pressure the random Joe Linux user by threats. Their actions earn them a well deserved title of "bastards" (following the definition of Worldnet: bastard, [...] n 1: insulting terms of address for people who are stupid or irritating or ridiculous [syn: asshole, cocksucker, dickhead, shit, mother fucker, motherfucker, prick, whoreson, son of a bitch, SOB]

In conclusion, I would say that calling SCO litigious bastards is not only an exact truth, but also if one unsuspecting person wanted to find an example of litigious bastards in the IT industry, it would only be fair that Google would return them in first position.

Except that in this case, it is not vandalism, because it is a extremely precise and accurate assessment. Vandalism != exact truth.

• 1) Are they litigious? Definitly. SCO expects 10-15 millions revenue per quarter, and to spend 4-5 millions per quarter on legal expenses. 33 to 50% of their revenue is spent on legal expenses by their own expectations (reality can be worse).
• 2) Are they bastards? Definitly. First SCO was initiated as Caldera, trying to earn money on hard work of others (who were ok for that), and then suddenly, it has the nerve to tell the world those Linux contributors are a bunch of thieves acting contrary to US constitution, and that they, SCO, are entitled payment on each Linux installation. Not only that, but they engaged a PR campaign, producing lie after lie, slander after slander, in which they dragged in the mud at each single turn the very Linux contributors on the work of which they had capitalized and still plan to capitalize. Not to mention that obviously they knew they were telling lies all the way (no code thief produced as evidence at the trial, SCO contracts with IBM, SCO dispute with Novell). And that they still tried to pressure the random Joe Linux user by threats. Their actions earn them a well deserved title of "bastards" (following the definition of Worldnet: bastard, [...] n 1: insulting terms of address for people who are stupid or irritating or ridiculous [syn: asshole, cocksucker, dickhead, shit, mother fucker, motherfucker, prick, whoreson, son of a bitch, SOB]

In conclusion, I would say that calling SCO litigious bastards is not only an exact truth, but also if one unsuspecting person wanted to find an example of litigious bastards in the IT industry, it would only be fair that Google would return them in first position.

It just makes us look like Mad Zealots.

Sorry, wrong room. The mad zealots are down the hall by the coke machine, waiting for KDE 3.2 to compile.

/ot
At some point, names are appropriate. They are engaged in a three front, billion dollar legal war, with their chosen weapon being PR. They have demonstrated a disdain for the truth, and have stated that this goal was established before a method to achieve it was found. They wanted Linux, and tried to steal it. They have been dishonest in their SEC filings. That dishonesty alone is probably worth jail time to someone, due to the manipulative impact it has had on their stock value.

I can think of a lot worse names than "litigious bastards".

2)The SCO website has moved from http://www.sco.com/ to http://sco.com/

3) Here's the correct way to do it: litigious bastards

4) Just in case you missed the last one: litigious bastards

5) One more time for the dummies: litigious bastards

6) Wheee this is fun! litigious bastards

7) Pant!Pant! litigious bastards

8) Hmm, I seem to have had an orgasm... litigious bastards ...

2)The SCO website has moved from http://www.sco.com/ to http://sco.com/

3) Here's the correct way to do it: litigious bastards

4) Just in case you missed the last one: litigious bastards

5) One more time for the dummies: litigious bastards

6) Wheee this is fun! litigious bastards

7) Pant!Pant! litigious bastards

8) Hmm, I seem to have had an orgasm... litigious bastards ...

2)The SCO website has moved from http://www.sco.com/ to http://sco.com/

3) Here's the correct way to do it: litigious bastards

4) Just in case you missed the last one: litigious bastards

5) One more time for the dummies: litigious bastards

6) Wheee this is fun! litigious bastards

7) Pant!Pant! litigious bastards

8) Hmm, I seem to have had an orgasm... litigious bastards ...

2)The SCO website has moved from http://www.sco.com/ to http://sco.com/

3) Here's the correct way to do it: litigious bastards

4) Just in case you missed the last one: litigious bastards

5) One more time for the dummies: litigious bastards

6) Wheee this is fun! litigious bastards

7) Pant!Pant! litigious bastards

8) Hmm, I seem to have had an orgasm... litigious bastards ...

2)The SCO website has moved from http://www.sco.com/ to http://sco.com/

3) Here's the correct way to do it: litigious bastards

4) Just in case you missed the last one: litigious bastards

5) One more time for the dummies: litigious bastards

6) Wheee this is fun! litigious bastards

7) Pant!Pant! litigious bastards

8) Hmm, I seem to have had an orgasm... litigious bastards ...

2)The SCO website has moved from http://www.sco.com/ to http://sco.com/

3) Here's the correct way to do it: litigious bastards

4) Just in case you missed the last one: litigious bastards

5) One more time for the dummies: litigious bastards

6) Wheee this is fun! litigious bastards

7) Pant!Pant! litigious bastards

8) Hmm, I seem to have had an orgasm... litigious bastards ...

2)The SCO website has moved from http://www.sco.com/ to http://sco.com/

3) Here's the correct way to do it: litigious bastards

4) Just in case you missed the last one: litigious bastards

5) One more time for the dummies: litigious bastards

6) Wheee this is fun! litigious bastards

7) Pant!Pant! litigious bastards

8) Hmm, I seem to have had an orgasm... litigious bastards ...

Nah, it's Darl.

Rimshot^2

www.sco.com is down (out of DNS)
sco.com is up

www.sco.com is down (out of DNS)
sco.com is up

SCO is a group of litigious bastards, hence the plural form.

As seen here one of the benefits is "These security features guard against business interruption, denial of service attacks and protect against identity or corporate information theft." (emphasis mine) It makes one wonder why they don't run their web server on it instead of linux?

litigious bastardsMore help

litigious bastards

litigious bastards

litigious bastardsMore help

litigious bastards

litigious bastards

litigious bastardsMore help

litigious bastards

litigious bastards

litigious bastardsMore help

litigious bastards

litigious bastards

hmm, this looks familiar.

It seems that www.sco.com is down now, for some reason. So if you want to link to that slimy company, you should just link to sco.com.

Even so, I wonder if they won't block slashdot referrers soon... Oh well.

Incidentally, Google may be blocking the "Google bomb" ... Perhaps we should start linking to caldera.com?

Or you can just click here to h4x0r SCO ... (j/k! but click it just for fun...)

It seems that www.sco.com is down now, for some reason. So if you want to link to that slimy company, you should just link to sco.com.

Even so, I wonder if they won't block slashdot referrers soon... Oh well.

Incidentally, Google may be blocking the "Google bomb" ... Perhaps we should start linking to caldera.com?

Or you can just click here to h4x0r SCO ... (j/k! but click it just for fun...)

Google has apparently noticed, and now neither litigious bastards or just plain bastards comes up with SCO. (This may not yet be true on all Google mirrors.)

First Litigous bastards link

You forgot to say "litigious bastards".

Sorry--one minor correction. When I say "IBM has donated to them" I am referring to iBiblio, not Groklaw. IBM, to the best of my knowledge, has never directly funded Groklaw.

Unlike certain other companies, IBM respects judicial ethics about discussing a case pending litigation...

They need money too!