Slashdot Mirror

Why don't we pray that certain litigious bastards go away or get severely beaten by the courts sometime soon?

This should really help in the fight against these litigious bastards. Thanks!

SCO are still a bunch of litigious bastards!

It also helps if your sites and blogs point to other sites and blogs that have instances of litigious bastards.

For example, see my blog entry on the matter. I maintain a list at the bottom of the summary. So, please add comments to my blog entry with links to other litigious bastards references!

It also helps if your sites and blogs point to other sites and blogs that have instances of litigious bastards.

For example, see my blog entry on the matter. I maintain a list at the bottom of the summary. So, please add comments to my blog entry with links to other litigious bastards references!

litiguous bastards ..What is it all about.. is it good, or is it whack?

litigous bastards

if you read the last SCO story today, you'd understand the purpose of the above link. You could also try "miserable failure" for a small hint.

Touche.

No, you have to do this: litigious bastards.

I just Googled for "litigious bastards" and a SCO entry is now in the #6 spot!

Way to go guys!

litigious bastards

litigious bastards

How does litigious bastards sound?

Wait, so it's litigious bastards, right?

But would it work if it were litigious bastards? Or is it only litigious bastards?

Oh well. litigious bastards or litigious bastards, I'm sure one works.

I mean, those litigious bastards, if I leave the www off their name, and start calling them litigious bastards, maybe that could arouse their anger...

Meh, what are they gonna do. Sue me?

Wait, so it's litigious bastards, right?

But would it work if it were litigious bastards? Or is it only litigious bastards?

Oh well. litigious bastards or litigious bastards, I'm sure one works.

I mean, those litigious bastards, if I leave the www off their name, and start calling them litigious bastards, maybe that could arouse their anger...

Meh, what are they gonna do. Sue me?

Wait, so it's litigious bastards, right?

But would it work if it were litigious bastards? Or is it only litigious bastards?

Oh well. litigious bastards or litigious bastards, I'm sure one works.

I mean, those litigious bastards, if I leave the www off their name, and start calling them litigious bastards, maybe that could arouse their anger...

Meh, what are they gonna do. Sue me?

Wait, so it's litigious bastards, right?

But would it work if it were litigious bastards? Or is it only litigious bastards?

Oh well. litigious bastards or litigious bastards, I'm sure one works.

I mean, those litigious bastards, if I leave the www off their name, and start calling them litigious bastards, maybe that could arouse their anger...

Meh, what are they gonna do. Sue me?

Wait, so it's litigious bastards, right?

But would it work if it were litigious bastards? Or is it only litigious bastards?

Oh well. litigious bastards or litigious bastards, I'm sure one works.

I mean, those litigious bastards, if I leave the www off their name, and start calling them litigious bastards, maybe that could arouse their anger...

Meh, what are they gonna do. Sue me?

Wait, so it's litigious bastards, right?

But would it work if it were litigious bastards? Or is it only litigious bastards?

Oh well. litigious bastards or litigious bastards, I'm sure one works.

I mean, those litigious bastards, if I leave the www off their name, and start calling them litigious bastards, maybe that could arouse their anger...

Meh, what are they gonna do. Sue me?

Wait, so it's litigious bastards, right?

But would it work if it were litigious bastards? Or is it only litigious bastards?

Oh well. litigious bastards or litigious bastards, I'm sure one works.

I mean, those litigious bastards, if I leave the www off their name, and start calling them litigious bastards, maybe that could arouse their anger...

Meh, what are they gonna do. Sue me?

From SCO's qanda (note: "FAQ" has taints of the GPL about it, don't it?):

1. Why did SCO create the Intellectual Property (IP) License for Linux?

Many customers are concerned about using Linux since they have become aware of the allegations that Linux is an unauthorized derivative work of the UNIX(R) operating system. These customers unknowingly received unauthorized copies of SCO intellectual property and many are running critical business applications on Linux. Customers have come to SCO asking what they can do to respect and help protect the rights of the SCO intellectual property in Linux. SCO has created the Intellectual Property License for Linux in response to these customers needs.



Leave these poor servants of the public interest alone, willya? Geez.

Hear, hear!

damn litigious bastards

'Certianly out of the league of being a certified bastard

I do believe that you mean litigious bastards.

Don't you mean As of 4:40pm CST, two of Google's top 10 search results for "litigious bastards" returned something related to SCO...

We're not quite there yet. However, Google's number 6 result from a search on litigious bastards at least mentions SCO.

litigious bastards...litigious bastards ...litigious bastards

We're not quite there yet. However, Google's number 6 result from a search on litigious bastards at least mentions SCO.

litigious bastards...litigious bastards ...litigious bastards

We're not quite there yet. However, Google's number 6 result from a search on litigious bastards at least mentions SCO.

litigious bastards...litigious bastards ...litigious bastards

We're not quite there yet. However, Google's number 6 result from a search on litigious bastards at least mentions SCO.

litigious bastards...litigious bastards ...litigious bastards

I just read on the SCO FAQ and it says BSD users are not affected. Is this because SCO is not ready to add Apple to the target list?

Aah, thanks. I was way too lazy to type that.

litigious bastards

litigous bastards

if you understand "miserable failure", you'll understand the above.

There's a counter-campaign to have miserable failure linked to Hillary Clinton, hence the top alternatives. I think the right-wing loonies got a tad upset with it linking to He Who Must Not Be Criticized.

Wouldn't this fucking losers be both easier to remember and more to the point?

Well how about smokes crack :)

Yeah. Litigious bastards at that!

Right now, googling for litigious bastards takes you to an anti-Metallica page. So maybe this link to Metallica will help?

I added litigious bastards to my site.

15. Is SCO willing to show any examples of source-code violations to Linux users?

SCO has been showing examples of direct line-by-line copying of UNIX code into Linux to hundreds of industry analysts, reporters, customers, partners, and industry influencers since June of this year. To view this code, interested parties have had to sign a non-disclosure agreement verifying that they would keep this code in confidence. SCO continues to identify and show this code to parties willing to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

16. Why does SCO require an NDA to be signed to view evidence of UNIX System IP in Linux?
Showing proof of UNIX System V IP in Linux requires SCO to disclose UNIX System source code. SCO is obligated to protect this source code, both to preserve its value to SCO and its shareholders, as well as to prevent devaluation of the source code that it has licensed (at considerable expense) to many customers. Thus SCO will not exhibit UNIX System source code to anyone except under protection of an NDA or a UNIX System source code license. The NDA only applies to the UNIX System source code; it doesn't restrict the disclosure of other materials and information presented in the IP discussion.

Well, I'm not a Google employee or anything, but linking litigious bastards on one highly trafficked site should be ok. If the linked phrase (such as litigious bastards) is on a site that linked to by a lot of other sites, it should be fine. litigious bastards

Well, I'm not a Google employee or anything, but linking litigious bastards on one highly trafficked site should be ok. If the linked phrase (such as litigious bastards) is on a site that linked to by a lot of other sites, it should be fine. litigious bastards

Well, I'm not a Google employee or anything, but linking litigious bastards on one highly trafficked site should be ok. If the linked phrase (such as litigious bastards) is on a site that linked to by a lot of other sites, it should be fine. litigious bastards

poopie sniffers
err...
litigious bastards
=]

poopie sniffers
err...
litigious bastards
=]

Hilariously enough, it's a site talking about Metallica right now. I'm so torn...

litigious bastards

Call my crazy but if you open this document http://www.sco.com/novell/amend_apap2.pdf
and look at the bottom of the pages it looks as though the filename is G:\LEGAL\TRANSFER\SCO\AMEND3.:-O

Just thought that a bit interesting.

Carry on witht he SCO smashing.

So does it actually work if almost all of the links to litigious bastards are located on the same web site? Wouldn't it be better if people started adding them to the blogs and personal or business sites?

Like this? litigious bastards

Why license SCO's Intellectual Property?

1. Customers are requesting it

2. Increase shareholder value through existing IP

3. Strengthen Linux by licensing value-add IP

4. Increase UNIX application use on Linux

1 and 2 are what SCO's aiming for. I have NO idea, how their proposition will even remotely achieve 3 and 4. That's pure bullshit and FUD.

Gotta love #6 and #45:

6. Why doesn't SCO just simply publish this code so that it can be taken out of Linux if it is indeed infringing? And why do you require a non-disclosure agreement to view some of this infringing code?

Intellectual property forms the basis of the value of any software vendor. IP is confidential throughout the industry to protect competitive advantages one vendor has over another. Other industry vendors such as Microsoft and Apple do not routinely contribute their IP as vendors spend millions of dollars creating a competitive market.

SCO has confidentiality clauses in all of our contracts with more than 6,000 licensees that specifically state that this UNIX source code has to be held in confidence. If SCO published this UNIX source code, SCO itself would be in violation of these contracts.

SCO has a legal obligation to hold this source code in confidence, so it requires that individuals who view this code sign a non-disclosure in order to see it.

#45

. I am running BSD. Am I required to purchase a license?

No, you do not need to purchase a SCO IP license to run BSD.

SCO has interesting FAQ over here. It seems to me it contains several points I haven't read before.

Re:Hack teh Google! (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 12, @03:08PM (#7955752)
what like this litigious bastards.


Exactly, now you're catching on. Everybody with me now: litigious bastards.

Oops, I linked twice. Feel free to mod me up though ;-)