Slashdot Mirror


Caldera vs. Microsoft Court Documents To Be Shredded

Geste writes "As now being reported in this brief story and on my local (Seattle) NPR affiliate, 3 million court documents from Caldera's unfair competition suit against Microsoft are to be shredded in Utah. The timing relative to Microsoft's recent licensing of SCO Unix IP is undoubtedly a complete coincidence. "

140 of 214 comments (clear)

  1. The AARD code story is immortal. by vegetablespork · · Score: 5, Informative

    And available here.

    --

    Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

    1. Re:The AARD code story is immortal. by Red+Pointy+Tail · · Score: 2, Funny
      However, the WIN.COM code that produced this message turned out to be XOR encrypted, self-modifying, and deliberately obfuscated--all in an apparent attempt to thwart disassembly. The code also tries to defeat attempts for a debugger to step through it.


      What... they decrypted and unobfuscated it??? Sic em, DMCA! :>
  2. Toilet paper... by ryants · · Score: 5, Funny
    The company that is storing the reams of documents from the Microsoft case has been hired to shred the papers -- then they'll be made into toilet paper.
    This joke practically writes itself.
    --

    Ryan T. Sammartino
    "Ancora imparo"

    1. Re:Toilet paper... by blahlemon · · Score: 1

      lol, I haven't read the article but when I read your post I thought it WAS a joke!! lol.

      --
      It take more faith to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in God
    2. Re:Toilet paper... by jared_hanson · · Score: 5, Funny

      In related new, Microsoft has just announced that they are resuming the iLoo project.

      --
      -- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
    3. Re:Toilet paper... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Like muLinux says...
      "Micro$oft. Whats that? Some kind of toilet paper?"
    4. Re:Toilet paper... by fobbman · · Score: 1

      Does this mean a revival of the Back Oriface project?

    5. Re:Toilet paper... by Telastyn · · Score: 1

      mmm polymorphic humor...

    6. Re:Toilet paper... by weorthe · · Score: 1

      Will using Microsoft's TP violate their IP?

      --
      cat * >> sig
    7. Re:Toilet paper... by loquitus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Is this paper going to be proprietary, only for use in MS-created iLoo toilets? How will they ensure compliance and introduce incompability for those of us who try to use "non-standard" products?

    8. Re:Toilet paper... by toxcspdrmn · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hi! I'm the Orifice Assistant.

      You appear to be trying to wipe your bum...

      --
      "E pur si muove!" - attributed to Galileo Galilei, 1564-1642
    9. Re:Toilet paper... by darkov · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hi! I'm the Orifice Assistant.

      Please, no more shitty Microsoft software.

    10. Re:Toilet paper... by sdamberger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Like wiping your ass with silk...

    11. Re:Toilet paper... by Mistlefoot · · Score: 1

      The iLoo with a web cam - possibly providing a bit more info than most of us need to know.

    12. Re:Toilet paper... by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      So does that mean that the source is in french?

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    13. Re:Toilet paper... by unitron · · Score: 4, Funny

      You have to admit that the iLoo gives a whole new meaning to "Where do you want to go today".

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    14. Re:Toilet paper... by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      Well, they said it was encrypted, so close enough..

    15. Re:Toilet paper... by yawble · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hi, I'm just some asshole, and I'd like this to get modded up to a +5 just to continue this amazing trend.

    16. Re:Toilet paper... by darien · · Score: 1

      The aroma of each be-atch, more like.

    17. Re:Toilet paper... by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Me too! Oh, sorry, I've taken it too far. I'll crawl back into my hole...

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    18. Re:Toilet paper... by cgenman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Please, no more shitty Microsoft software.

      You can try Open Loo, but there are privacy concerns.

    19. Re:Toilet paper... by darkov · · Score: 1

      Hi, I'm just some asshole, and I'd like this to get modded up to a +5 just to continue this amazing trend.

      Typical. Do don't give a shit, do you?

    20. Re:Toilet paper... by TCaptain · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well with OpenLoo you have to share with the world the results of your work, but if you use the iLoo, the details of what your doing get transmitted back to Microsoft for "debugging" purposes

      --
      "I'm not a procrastinator, I'm temporally challenged"
    21. Re:Toilet paper... by yawble · · Score: 1

      Hey, I did say I was an asshole, didn't I?

  3. How ironic... by VCAGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Most of it is then made into toilet paper.

    How ironic indeed...any word on which manufacturer will get the pulp (I want to get me some of that!)

    --
    Q: "Why do sound techs say 'check 1, 2'?"
    A: "Cause if they could count any higher they'd be lighting techs."
    1. Re:How ironic... by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why? Do you really want that stuff up your ass? Don't MS products already cause enough pain in that region as it is?

    2. Re:How ironic... by molarmass192 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Get to slam MS ***and*** SCO in one wipe!!!

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
    3. Re:How ironic... by nexex · · Score: 1
      read here

      sun has already digitized them all, so just hard copies are being destroyed

      --
      Winter 2010: With Glowing Hearts
  4. Why... by Xeth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...Is it even legal to destroy cour documents? To save space? Couldn't they digitize them? This just seems like a way to hide information, and information like this could hardly have a good reason to be hidden.

    --
    If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
    1. Re:Why... by jdray · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In the case of civil suits, I suspect that only judgements and relevant information (in summary) is kept, because, in civil suits, once the judgement happens, it rarely matters later why it happened.

      In the case of suits that are being dropped, no court would care.

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    2. Re:Why... by Poofat · · Score: 1

      Last I heard, documents used in a court case came into the public domain, unless there was a settlement or something. The article doesn't really have enough infornmation on why this is being done.

    3. Re:Why... by ShmuelP · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to the article, they are being scanned in, and are only being destroyed one digitized.

      --
      Solution to blink tags: wrap them in another blink tag, with a javascript delay loop, so they cancel each other out
    4. Re:Why... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Well...for one reason, digitizing court documents leaves open the risk of alteration. As with digital photos.

      Yes, they can be timestamped, hashed, whatever...but the legal system hasn't caught up to current technology. Law procedures change verrrry slowly.

      And besides, the final decision is the only one that really matters.

    5. Re:Why... by Kircle · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not quite. I think Sun is scanning 40 boxes of documents. The other boxes along with those 40 are to be destroyed.

      --

      -- Kircle

    6. Re:Why... by Purple+Library+Guy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Paper documents can be altered too. They call them "forgeries", like the one about Iraq buying uranium from Africa. Arguably, the legal system hasn't caught up to centuruies-old technology . . .

    7. Re:Why... by uncoveror · · Score: 1

      But digital photographs cannot be faked! Read more.

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    8. Re:Why... by djcapelis · · Score: 1

      As for your sig... just use firebird/mozilla and just make edit your .css file to make sure it is not displayed. www.texturizer.net/firebird/ has instructions on this somewhere...

      --
      I touch computers in naughty places
    9. Re:Why... by ShmuelP · · Score: 1

      Actually, I've found the following to be even easier: in Firebird, go to about:config, and set the property "browser.blink_allowed" to "false".

      The sig is actually a joke. I don't think that it's possible to set a delay on the blink tag via javascript. Though it might be interesting to try.

      --
      Solution to blink tags: wrap them in another blink tag, with a javascript delay loop, so they cancel each other out
    10. Re:Why... by fishbert42 · · Score: 1

      Please; you really should read an article before commenting on it in such an aggressively forward manner. I was going to write about how the questions you ask are completely irrelevant, but I see somebody else beat me to it.

    11. Re:Why... by donutello · · Score: 1

      ...Is it even legal to destroy cour documents? To save space? Couldn't they digitize them? This just seems like a way to hide information, and information like this could hardly have a good reason to be hidden.


      Getting past the point that these documents are actually being digitized before being destroyed...

      Well, what's the alternative? We don't want the government be able to pass a law forcing us to keep data against our wishes. It boils down to the founding fathers considering the right to privacy to be much more important than meting out ultimate justice.

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
    12. Re:Why... by Twilight1 · · Score: 1

      We don't want the government be able to pass a law forcing us to keep data against our wishes. It boils down to the founding fathers considering the right to privacy to be much more important than meting out ultimate justice.

      It would be evil to force us to keep up with our own data. Absolutely terrible. And the threat to privacy? We could never allow such things to come to pass in the land of the free.

      Besides... they need to get rid of all that bulky paper data to make room for the new Total^H^H^H^Herrorist Information Awareness database.

      - Twilight1

    13. Re:Why... by Dausha · · Score: 1

      Yes, but in all likelihood those scanned images are being put onto faulty hard drives and not being backed up.

      --
      What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
  5. Now I'll wonder... by jdray · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now I'll wonder, every time I use the john, if this piece of paper once made Microsoft embrace Unix...

    (okay, so I'm stretching things just a little)

    --
    The Spoon
    Updated 6/28/2011
    1. Re:Now I'll wonder... by teamhasnoi · · Score: 4, Funny
      Now I'll wonder, every time I use the john, if this piece of paper once made Microsoft embrace Unix...

      (okay, so I'm stretching things just a little)

      Don't wipe so hard.

  6. Ollie North by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 4, Funny

    And just this morning I was asking myself, what's Fawn Hall up to these days?

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    1. Re:Ollie North by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 1

      [Scotty] Agh Cap'n! It went straight to visual! I couldna get the shields up in time... [/Scotty]

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
  7. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    it should make for a more comfortable wiping experience than the Windows 95 cd I currently use. Not as satisfying though.

    1. Re:Well... by sLaSh_N_bUrN_(.Y.) · · Score: 1

      it should make for a more comfortable wiping experience than the Windows 95 cd I currently use. Not as satisfying though.

      You should upgrade to Windows ME. Nothing feels better than wiping your arse all over ME.

      Did I go too far with that one? Oh well, I am not awake yet.

  8. toilet paper by ozias · · Score: 1

    Now SCO's IPs are in my toilet too..

  9. I'm in Utah, and I won't use it by dragoncortez · · Score: 4, Funny

    How will I know if I'm buying microsoft toilet-paper? I'll just feel it in my bones. This is why I've been reading /. for so long, so that I can just feel that sort of thing. Also, if I have to sign a EULA or something before using it, I'll know.
    Plus, I'm just going to use the single-ply sheets that look like normal paper- not the double-ply, flowery, squishy toilet-paper that I'm sure will have come from microsoft. Just something to get the job done, and something that won't break. That's what I need.

    --
    Making stupid comments so you don't have to.
    1. Re:I'm in Utah, and I won't use it by realdpk · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hint: If you feel toilet paper in your bones, you're wiping too hard!

    2. Re:I'm in Utah, and I won't use it by agentZ · · Score: 1

      Sadly, Microsoft would be allowed to copy the look and feel of any other toilet paper.

  10. Quite a sight... by unicron · · Score: 4, Funny

    It is scheduled to be the single most interesting thing that has EVER happened in Utah.

    --
    Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    1. Re:Quite a sight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      What about the Sundance Film Festival and the Salt Lake City olympics? Lots goes on in Utah besides getting married and having kids when you're 14.

    2. Re:Quite a sight... by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 1

      whoah there buddy... who, in utah gets married when they're 14? if i am correct (which i am), they have to be 18 or 19 to get married in the best church ever, and they do that before they have kids.

    3. Re:Quite a sight... by fishybell · · Score: 1
      It is scheduled to be the single most interesting thing that has EVER happened in Utah.
      Well, having lived in Utah for most of my life I'll say this: it's the single most interesting thing that to happen in our state that we don't need to be ashamed of. Other noteworthy things to happen in Utah recently and currently:

      The Elizibeth Smart debacle (showing the US that the only crime in Utah is done by religious zealots)

      Polygamy for all (south of Utah County at least)

      A hiker who decided to cut off his arm (to save his life...or so he says) Of course...maybe we should be ashamed of just existing.

      --
      ><));>
    4. Re:Quite a sight... by triumphDriver · · Score: 1

      Not to bash the dominate religion in Utah. But there are a polygamists in Utah who illegally marry their 14 year old daughters off to their brothers. Not necessarily the main stream view but it does happen. The 18 or 19 statement is just like a member of the dominate religion assuming that everyone else in Utah is a member also. The legal age for getting married is 16 with parental consent. As for waiting until after marriage to start a famly in Utah, the unmarried Teenage pregnancy rate is well above the nation average. BTW so are the divorce rate, teenage suicide rates ,and incidences of domestic violence.

      --
      I grew up in the Fulda Gap, where did you?
    5. Re:Quite a sight... by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 1

      NO, it's not UNMARRIED teenage pregnancy, it's just straight teenage pregnancy. i guarentee you of that. my history teacher was trying to mislead our entire class by saying "utah has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy" - everyone assumes unmarried, but they are wrong. as for the psycho polygamists, i hope you make it clear that that is not mormons when you talk about it, because people tend to think it is when you mention it.

    6. Re:Quite a sight... by winse · · Score: 1

      I live in Utah....Utah county as a matter of fact. My neighbor married (I'm not making this up) her husband when she was 14 and he was 18 (same age as her mother when she got married) I would give a name and number, but she's already kind of embarrassed about it. She's a mormon (inactive) by the way

      --
      this sig is deprecated
    7. Re:Quite a sight... by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 1

      inactive - she didn't get married mormon style, so why did you bring that up?

    8. Re:Quite a sight... by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      finding a home for a minority who were slaughterred in the eastern states shouldn't ashame anyone. and I'd say that's pretty interesting.

    9. Re:Quite a sight... by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 1

      sure, what's wrong with a church influencing people to do what they believe is God's will? and how does it hurt anybody?

    10. Re:Quite a sight... by ksheff · · Score: 1

      You don't have to get married in the temple, so they can get married at whatever age is legal in the state. There may be some of that being done instead of the girl going down to the Planned Parenthood clinic and killing her kid. So that skews the nubmers too. But like you said, everyone assumes teenage pregnancies are out of wedlock. Some people would probably be shocked at how many people got married and had kids in their teens 40+ years ago.

      As far as divorce and rape rates go, that can also have a cultural bias. LDS people seem to hook up fast. One of the 'stupid Y tricks' (robitussin parties?) urban legends was that instead of just shacking up for a few months like many do elsewhere, couples would get married and then get a quicky LV divorce. No muss, no fuss, thanks for the few weeks of sex. Some gals caught in the predicament of having their honor compromised by a one night stand may view claiming rape as an easy way to redeem themselves. Or it could be the same as anyplace else and they just report it more.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    11. Re:Quite a sight... by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 1

      and please get this straight, it's The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The Jesus Christ is important because that's who we base our religion on. People need to understand this religion better because they get lied to and mislead 99% of the time that they hear "information" about it

    12. Re:Quite a sight... by swillden · · Score: 1

      However, even today the average age for Mormons to get married is still way below national average. This is because of the church's continued emphasis on reproduction and converts, which originated from Brigham Young's vision of Zion.

      Oh, it's much simpler than that.

      Mormons get married young because, like everyone else at that age, we're horny masses of hormones, and marriage is the only sin-free way to get some.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    13. Re:Quite a sight... by swillden · · Score: 1

      everyone knows Utah bribed its way in now.

      As did every other city who's hosted an Olympics in the last 20 years, at least. IMO, it was only because of the higher expectations of honesty that the thing even came out. That doesn't make it acceptable, of course. That *shouldn't* be the way the game is played.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    14. Re:Quite a sight... by Kenneth · · Score: 1

      the unmarried Teenage pregnancy rate is well above the nation average. BTW so are the divorce rate, teenage suicide rates ,and incidences of domestic violence.

      WRONG!

      Check your facts before you spread bigoted, inaccurate and made up 'statistics'.

      Since I doubt many will read the entire thing,


      A number of anti-Mormon and ex-Mormon sources have indicated that the Church's strong belief in chastity before marriage and in the importance of close family ties are a failure. One reference stated:
      "...a review of social statistics in the State of Utah, which is at least 70% Mormon, shows the rates of divorce, child abuse and teenage pregnancy and suicide are above the national average and climbing"

      This information is unreliable. It is typical of the sort of disinformation spread by some anti-Mormon groups. In reality:

      The divorce rate in Utah, in which about 70% of the citizens are Mormon, is slightly lower than for the nation generally;
      Births to unmarried women is less than half the national average;
      Births to teenage mothers is only about three quarters of the rate nationwide. (This includes both unwed mothers and married women)
      Rates of mental and addictive disorders are lower than US averages.

      We have been unable to check rates of child abuse. However, the Mormon Church's disapproval of corporal punishment of children would probably make those data lower than the national average as well. The rate of successful suicides in Utah is 140 per million (1993 data). This is higher than the national figure of 121 per million. However, this is a deceptive statistic. Suicide rates increase from East to West across the United States and is heavily influenced by the degree of access to firearms. The suicide rate in Utah is slightly less than the average of the Rocky Mountain states.


      --
      There is a civil war coming in the United States. Remember which side has most of the guns
    15. Re:Quite a sight... by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      The Jesus Christ is important because that's who we base our religion on.

      I'm giving up mod points for this, but what the hell? The whole topic went to shit when 50 posts arguing about LDS appeared. Why don't you guys take it to a journal or something?

      Anyway, it's good to finally see a mormon admitting that their religion is based on a human. Refreshing, in fact.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    16. Re:Quite a sight... by gol64738 · · Score: 1

      and again at 16, then 20 then 24, then....

    17. Re:Quite a sight... by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 1

      research the subject yourself buddy. Yes, "slaughtered" is the right word.

    18. Re:Quite a sight... by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 1

      why is that a finally? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints... have you just been mentally ill? He is still a God, but he also came down as half human to save the world.

    19. Re:Quite a sight... by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      It's a finally because in your post you admitted that the religion was based on a human. Never before have I heard a mormon, or any other christian for that matter, admit their religion was based on a human. So I had to comment on it. Naturally, I expect the prejudice in you to accuse me of shit, but if you objectively re-read the post to which I responded, you'll see that I was, in fact, responding to the post as it was written. And I did not, in fact, ask for clarification.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    20. Re:Quite a sight... by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      Mormons get married young because, like everyone else at that age, we're horny masses of hormones, and marriage is the only sin-free way to get some.

      Marriage for sex results in divorce. However, i will temper that by pointing out that I have observed a great deal of devout religionists who refuse to get divorced no matter how much they hate their spouse.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    21. Re:Quite a sight... by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      research the subject yourself buddy. Yes, "slaughtered" is the right word.

      Another demonstration that the majority ruling party in the US in the 1800s wasn't such a wonderful thing. There are a lot of nasty things that have been done in this country that people like to shove under the rug. We have mormons to remind us of their ordeal (and if they weren't so damn self-righteous about everything they'd probably make more progress with the rest of the world). We have native americans around that remind us that the price of our own freedom was the death of their cultures. (yeah, yeah, so they're alive and well, right? Better go driving on a reservation and look around. Don't speed.) Too bad we have only history books to tell us of the Salem Witch Trials.

      It's my opinion that the only reason Mormons were able to bounce back and become what they are is because they're mostly white.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    22. Re:Quite a sight... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Marriage for sex results in divorce.

      True, if sex is the reason for the marriage. But there's an important difference between getting married for sex and getting married sooner because you want sex.

      However, i will temper that by pointing out that I have observed a great deal of devout religionists who refuse to get divorced no matter how much they hate their spouse.

      Temple-married Mormons tend not only to stay married, but to be happy, as well. IMO, it's partly because while libido may accelerate marriage, the realization that you're choosing a spouse for forever (this life and beyond), and that divorce is unacceptable (though not impossible), tends to make people think twice about *who* they marry. I also think it has a lot to do with the fact that couples who get married young (early 20s) and mature together tend to adapt to each other more thoroughly than those who marry later (after they're individually more set in their ways), as long as they're careful to work at their marriage. Strong families in which parents can offer guidance (and be listened to!) also help.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    23. Re:Quite a sight... by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 1

      so you've never heard of any religion that bases their beliefs on Christ? do you live in a hole?

    24. Re:Quite a sight... by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 1

      the only reason they were able to bounce back is because they went to freaking Utah, yet there weren't as many of them as native americans, and they didn't have any problems with being in the United States. It sucks what happened to the Indians, but you can't compare that to Mormons. It was not that they were mostly white. Your opinion, even though it's "just" an opinion, is wrong.

    25. Re:Quite a sight... by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      so you've never heard of any religion that bases their beliefs on Christ? do you live in a hole

      Based on your abuse, I'm not surprised either about the abuse or your unwillingness to read what I actually said. Everybody else says their religion is based on some fantastic god or other. You came right out and said yours is based on a human. That's what I commented on.

      I will point out that your abuse is consistent with treatment I receive at the hands of other mormons, and you've done nothing to prove that you're any better or different. But in many of your other posts, you have tried to do just that. You failed, bub.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    26. Re:Quite a sight... by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      the only reason they were able to bounce back is because they went to freaking Utah, yet there weren't as many of them as native americans, and they didn't have any problems with being in the United States. It sucks what happened to the Indians, but you can't compare that to Mormons. It was not that they were mostly white. Your opinion, even though it's "just" an opinion, is wrong.

      You're absolutely right. There's no comparison. Mass slaughter of the indians comparable to hitler and the jews doesn't compare to a few rocks thrown at mormons. At least the indians didn't have to resort to cannibalism on their own respective trails of tears.

      You people aren't the only ones that have suffered, what the fuck makes you special? You have the only true church? That's a lie. All churches are nothing but lies. Jesus said "Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself." If you truly follow his word, why do you judge me? Anton LaVey, on the other hand, pointed out the corollary to the Golden Rule, which is "after you have treated someone the way you wish to be treated, and they do not do so, you are obligated to treat them the way they have treated you."

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    27. Re:Quite a sight... by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 1

      abuse? what are you talking about, buddy?

    28. Re:Quite a sight... by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 1

      a few rocks? they were killed. They had no choice but to leave. Governor Boggs of Missouri made it LEGAL to kill mormons. And they did just that.

      All churches are nothing but lies? ok, suit yourself. You must be pretty full of yourself to assume that you know everything about everything. You'll find out when you die that you're an idiot. You have been judging me the entire time here. "Your church is a lie" - that's not judging me? you got it backwards. I'd be perfectly fine if everybody just didn't comment on my church at all; but since you do, i'll defend it to the death.

    29. Re:Quite a sight... by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      All churches are nothing but lies? ok, suit yourself. You must be pretty full of yourself to assume that you know everything about everything

      In fact, it's just the opposite, and your fingers are pointing back at yourself. I don't know how the world came to be, and I'm happy not knowing. I don't need a religion to explain it. I don't know what happens when we die, and I'm happy not knowing. I can live with my ignorance without having to believe in some make-believe primitive religion that lacks objective observation.

      Your church is a lie" - that's not judging me?

      In fact, no, it's not judging you, it's judging your church.

      I'd be perfectly fine if everybody just didn't comment on my church at all; but since you do, i'll defend it to the death.

      No problems, just don't sink to the same level as your accusers. You'll find in another post of mine a fairly thorough description of how you've done that.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    30. Re:Quite a sight... by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      abuse? what are you talking about, buddy?

      All of the following are taken from previous posts of yours, to me. I have not added anything, but some may be out of context. YOu will have to browse the other posts if you want to read them in context. Also, I will temper this by pointing out that not once have I actually been offended. It's pretty damn hard to offend me, and I've been thinking it might not actually be possible. :) Besides, I've gotten used to being treated poorly by religionists of all shapes, sizes, and nationalities.

      do you live in a hole?

      have you just been mentally ill?

      Well, since I limited it to just posts from you to me, I had to leave out a lot of stuff. :( I realize that weakens my case, but I don't give a shit. :) Also, both of those comments are in this thread, so you can just hit "parent' repeatedly to find the whole comments, as well as to see my own on the matter.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
  11. Re:Who's doing the shredding? by blogeasy · · Score: 1

    It would be interesting to find that out.

    --

    Browse the Information Directory
  12. Re:Toilet paper...supply for the ILOO by pauls2272 · · Score: 2, Funny

    "...they'll be made into toilet paper"

    For use in the new ILOO.

  13. Re:Who's doing the shredding? by lfourrier · · Score: 1

    I didn't read the article, on ly the title

    you did the same with the post to witch you replied

  14. Re:Who's doing the shredding? by vivekb · · Score: 4, Informative
    That suit was settled in January 2000, and Caldera -- now The SCO Group -- was paying up to $1,500 a month to store the documents. In October, the company persuaded U.S. District Judge Dee Benson to order their destruction.


    I gather from that bit of the article that Caldera, now the SCO Group, has ordered the shredding to reduce expenses by $1500 per month.
  15. Why don't you actually read the article? by spacefrog · · Score: 4, Informative

    The article doesn't say, who ordered the shredding?

    • Geeez, did you or any of the people modding you up to 5 even read the article?

      Oh wait, this is Slashdot, never mind. Oh well, I'm sure you will read it the next four times this story gets repeated.

      And I quote the article:

      • Caldera -- now The SCO Group -- was paying up to $1,500 a month to store the documents. In October, the company persuaded U.S. District Judge Dee Benson to order their destruction.
  16. Re:Who's doing the shredding? by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If $1500 per month is killing SCO, they're in worse shape than I thought.

    --
    Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
  17. Funny place for a bone by epepke · · Score: 1

    Or maybe not.

  18. Literacy by siskbc · · Score: 4, Informative
    The article doesn't say, who ordered the shredding?

    Yes it did. Shredding was requested of the judge in the Caldera/M$ case by SCO in October. Judge agreed. SCO contracted the schredding by some shredding company. Sun got an injunction to stop the shredding, got 40 boxes of documents, scanned them, returned them, and the rest is now being shredded.

    You got anything else you need read, you just let me know.

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

  19. Has anyone bothered to read the article yet? by MmmmAqua · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because I just did, and a few things just leap right off the page:

    1)In October, the company persuaded U.S. District Judge Dee Benson to order their destruction.

    Because, as we all know, in October Microsoft and SCO were already in collusion to cause this big ruckus. Or maybe SCO was just tired of shelling out the cash to store the documents related to a long-finished case, and was trying to save a little money.

    2) However, just as the shredding was to begin, Sun Microsystem's attorneys halted it with a subpoena. The company, seeking evidence that might help in its own antitrust suit against Microsoft, eventually pulled out 40 boxes of the computer giant's secret internal communications for digital imaging.

    That's funny, by reading the /. post, it somehow seemed that I should find a picture in the article showing Darl McBride feeding reams of paper, all entitled "Damning Internal Documents of Antitrust Violations", into an industrial-strength shredder while Bill Gates, dressed in a Halloween Satan costume, danced in glee in the background. Funny how /. doesn't mention that some of the documents are being preserved.

    3)Meantime, the shredding and pulping of the remaining records has been under way for about two weeks.

    So, if /. thinks this is somehow important or damning to Microsoft or SCO, why wasn't this mentioned two weeks ago? Or in October, when SCO obtained permission to shred the documents?

    Look, guys, I'm all for the downfall of Microsoft and the phoenix rise of Linux (and OS X, but hey, I'm weird), but couldn't we try for maybe just a teensy bit of objectivity?

    ::adjusts asbestos underwear::
    Okay, flame away.

    --
    Arr! The laws of physics be a harsh mistress!
    1. Re:Has anyone bothered to read the article yet? by Sam+the+Nemesis · · Score: 1
      So, if /. thinks this is somehow important or damning to Microsoft or SCO, why wasn't this mentioned two weeks ago? Or in October, when SCO obtained permission to shred the documents?

      It was mentioned. Check your facts before making comments.

    2. Re:Has anyone bothered to read the article yet? by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      ...couldn't we try for maybe just a teensy bit of objectivity?

      Sorry, we don't do that here...

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    3. Re:Has anyone bothered to read the article yet? by MmmmAqua · · Score: 1

      My bad, I missed that one.

      --
      Arr! The laws of physics be a harsh mistress!
  20. Statistics Please by adunsulag · · Score: 1

    I'd like to see the statistics for that, I consider that highly unbelievable. Though if the teenage pregnancy rate is above national average what is that compared to the relative number of abortions in other states?
    Oh by the way I live in Utah, I would have to say the average age of marriage is 21 for men, and around 19 for women.

    --
    You can never fail unless you give up.
    1. Re:Statistics Please by unicron · · Score: 1

      The structuring of faith is wrong.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
  21. Re:Ironic. by xombo · · Score: 1

    This is very offtopic, but more interesting, try to submit an article on it, if I had mod points right now, I'd mod you up. All I have to say is "wow".

  22. SCO lifting code from Linux? by bstadil · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Only marginally on topic but earlier today there was a Wifi story referencing Kernel Traffic. As I read it I saw the comment below:

    If someone have a copy of the SCO source code maybe make a Torrent file, so we can start analysing if they indeed stole something. A few nuggets will go a long way to quash the FUD from SCO. Anyone know where old SCO bug reports can be gooten?

    Quote:

    6. Possible License Violations Within The Kernel Source

    Elsewhere, Christoph Hellwig replied to the original post as well, saying:

    As somone who walked for SCO (or rather Caldera how it was called at that time) I can tell you this is utter crap. There were very people actually doing Linux kernel work then (and when the German office was closed down all those left the company) and we really had better things to do then trying to retrofit UnixWare code into the linux kenrel. Especially given that the kernel internals are so different that you'd need a big glue layer to actually make it work and you can guess how that would be ripped apart in a usual lkml review :)

    It might be more interesting to look for stolen Linux code in Unixware, I'd suggest with the support for a very well known Linux fileystem in the Linux compat addon product for UnixWare..

    Jim Nance said, "Wouldnt it be halirous if whatever code SCO is talking about when they say there is Unix code in Linux turns out to be code some SCO employee ripped out of some GPL program and stuck it into Unixware. That is actually far more likely than what they alledge."

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
    1. Re:SCO lifting code from Linux? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't surprise me if SCO had been lifting code from Linux. It'd be just like when AT&T was lifting code from BSD.

      What I don't understand is how they can claim they own SMP when

      1) Unix didn't have SMP until a year after Linux
      2) SCO's unix products still don't have SMP

      Source? Go here

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
  23. Where's the Dupe? by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Funny

    CmdrTaco posting an article first just doesn't feel right...

  24. when did scanned docs become accepted in courts? by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

    I thought courts would only admit hardcopies and not scanned documents. Seems like Sun is wasting money to scan those old documents...

    --
    "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  25. Re:Ironic. by Our+Man+In+Redmond · · Score: 1

    In other news, the Bavarian Illuminati still control IBM and the Pentagon, the Gnomes of Zurich own the Republicans and the South American Nazis, and the UFOs have infiltrated FoxTV and the Semiconscious Liberation Army fnord.

    --
    Someone you trust is one of us.
  26. try READING the article by dh003i · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Because most of the mindless masses can't be bothered to actually RTFA, I'll quote relevant excerpts:
    The 937 boxes of court-ordered documents
    .
    .
    .
    Sun Microsystem...seeking evidence that might help in its own antitrust suit against Microsoft, eventually pulled out 40 boxes of the computer giant's secret internal communications for digital imaging.
    In other words, not all of the legal documents are being destroyed. Most of those 937 pages of documents may just be legal thickness, with little relevant information...obviously, Sun thought so, as they only scanned in 40 of 937 boxes of documents.

    Irrelevant of the fact that SCO and MS are a bunch of lying cheating fucks, it's unreasonable to ask anyone to spend thousands of dollars to continue storing documents that are useless to them.

    You have a problem with these documents being destroyed? Get a court order to stop it, and scan in anything that you think is important. IBM may very well have cause to do so, as may the OSI. Undoubtely, the timing is obviously suspicious, but I doubt there's anything of particular value in the 897 remaining boxes of legal documents. If there is, then those interested in it should pay for the storage of the documents, not a corporation which has absolutely no use for them.

    1. Re:try READING the article by dcmeserve · · Score: 3, Funny

      > The 937 boxes of court-ordered documents
      > .

      Ok everyone, sing along:

      937 boxes of court-ordered documents on the wall,
      937 boxes of court-ordered documents!

      Take one down, shred it around,

      936 boxes of court-ordered documents on the wall!

      936 boxes of court-ordered documents on the wall,
      936 boxes of court-ordered documents!

      Take one down, ***AGGGMMMPHHPHHH*** [wad of toilet paper shoved in mouth]

      --
      "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
  27. Great... toilet paper... with an EULA by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 5, Funny
    This paper is licensed for use on one arse.... come on help me out /.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Great... toilet paper... with an EULA by RedBear · · Score: 1
      This paper is licensed for use on one arse.... come on help me out /.

      Um... Thank God?
  28. Re:Ironic. by pokka · · Score: 5, Informative

    Why is this modded +5? All you have to do is search for "murberry slocomb" on google and you'll get: "Your search - "Murberry Slocomb" - did not match any documents. " As a matter of fact, just search for any page with the two words "murberry" and "slocomb" and you'll still find 0 hits. According to switchboard.com, there is not a single business in the US with "murberry" in its name, and only one (listed) person in the US has a last name of Murberry. None of your links tie your statements together. You link to a generic page which shows SEC filings for VA, but nothing on that page ties it to "Murberry". You link to the board of directors for VA, but again, you don't link them in any way to "Murberry". And why didn't you provide a link to any page which links OSDN to "Murberry?" You claim that you found these links using lexis-nexis because you know that most people don't have a (very expensive) subscription to that database. Nice try. Anyone with an educational/legal subscription to lexis-nexis: Please do a quick search and refute this guy's claim completely.

  29. Re:when did scanned docs become accepted in courts by !Squalus · · Score: 3, Informative

    Scanned documents have been an accepted legal practice since at least the Pennzoil/Texaco lawsuit days. Pennzoil won a few Billion dollars from Texaco and went on a scanning spree and wasted few million when the market was just getting Windows for Workgroups (Yech - 3.11).

    The requirement is that the scan documents have to be written to WORM (Write Once Read Many) media. At the time we were using 5GB optical platters (pretty advanced in its day).

    I will never forget the MIS director Barbara saying that we should just "delete" the documents from the WORM platters so that we could use that room for other information.

    Seems that the concept of WORM was unknown to her. She didn't support macros either, thought everything should be hand-coded, even when it was boring and repititious. I used to write macros back then to massage the DB and would have them running on 5 or 6 PCs at once. Drove the suits crazy. They thought I wasn't doing anything (until they looked at the machines working - then they looked like deer caught in the headlights - didn't quite know what to do).

    This was back in 1988 or 89, so the concept isn't new - and has been around for a very longe time. Before that it was a little thing called Microfiche - film on tapes, often stored in little cassette like rolls. Of course, that just shows my age. ;)

    --
    All Ad hominem replies happily ignored as the sender shall be deemed to lack the faculties to comprehend the equation.
  30. Re:Where's the Dupe? --- Right here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Tis here, my friend I bet if you search hard enough, you WILL find a duplicate of every taco post.... Its the new urban ledgend everyone keeps talking about..

  31. could it be by morgajel · · Score: 1

    sco: "hey bill, if ya help us validate our claims against IBM, we'll get rid of all these nasty documents..."
    bill: "I could crush you so fast It wouldn't be funny. Don't mock us."
    sco: "it'll help save your ass against linux in the long run...."
    bill: "where do I sign?"

    My guess is the conversation went something like that. everyone seems to have the sneaking suspicion that microsoft and SCO are in cahoots, but it's all circumstancial evidence.

    I wonder if there's another part of the story that is still hidden... something that will cause REAL problems in a month or two.

    /me puts on his tinfoil hat.

    --
    Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
  32. Re:Ironic. by smugfunt · · Score: 1
    But what does this all mean? Honestly I have no idea.

    C'mon, you must have some idea or you wouldn't keep posting this.

    Five years ago I doubt Slashdot was on Microsoft's radar. They probably just thought OSDN was a new software operation that might invent something they could buy up later. Or if it looked like turning into a threat just withdraw the funding and, hey-presto, another dead competitor.

    Was Slashdot even a part of OSDN five years ago?

  33. OSI's rebuttal to SCO's claim by defile · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...says that there may be some useful information in the sealed documents in the court battle between Caledera/SCO and Microsoft.

    It's interesting that this airs today.

  34. Re:Ironic. by oyenstikker · · Score: 1

    Even if Microsoft had the power to veto top stories, they wouldn't. Remember, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

    Also, someone who rants constantly about something will be taken less seriously than someone who points out a few key facts once in a while.

    --
    The masses are the crack whores of religion.
  35. Re:Ironic. by tmalone · · Score: 5, Informative

    I just did a rather (I'm sorry to say) extensive search of Lexis Nexis, and nothing came up. I looked through the regular news (nothing relevent came up) and business news. I also checked the Lexis-Nexis company listings, which also showed no results for "mulberry slocomb". You can tell it is a hoax just by reading the post though. It looks very similar to many other expose posts that have appeared on slashdot. I'm just pissed that I can't get myself to do some quick research on my final papers, but of course, I'll do some research on a fictional company that some guy on slashdot made references to. Oh well.

  36. It kinda fitting. by minion · · Score: 1

    "Ninety-nine percent of our shreddings are made into toilet paper."

    It'll be soothing to wipe my ass with something that deals with Microsoft.

    --

    -- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
  37. Potty Humor.... by Tsali · · Score: 3, Funny

    Most of it is then made into toilet paper ... so does the EULA fit on one-ply or two-ply? Do you have to break the seal by peeling the sheets apart?

    --
    This space for rent.
  38. because the toilet is a fake. by cyril3 · · Score: 1
    Obviously it's a coincidence. They were waiting for the eToilet to arrive from MS UK so they could flush the paper away in a highly symbolic ceremony but found out it didn't exist, it was a marketing exercise only so they had to resort to the shredder.

    Of course it had nothing to do with the fact that the case is over and there is no legal reason to keep 6 tons of paper in the back room (most of which is copies of other documents or printouts of electronic files)

  39. Before you get out of sorts... by rdean400 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The documents have been imaged for permanent storage, so the destruction of the paper records is not a big thing.

  40. Re:Ironic. by 1516dcl · · Score: 1


    And why didn't you provide a link to any page which links OSDN to "Murberry?" You claim that you found these links using lexis-nexis because you know that most people don't have a (very expensive) subscription to that database. Nice try. Anyone with an educational/legal subscription to lexis-nexis: Please do a quick search and refute this guy's claim completely.
    For what it's worth, a Lexis-Nexis search for Murberry in the last two years returns No documents were found for your search.

    Not all solutions have problems.

  41. It all becomes clear now by spannah · · Score: 1

    Microsoft is peeved at IBM's Linux propaganda. So as not to get themselves involved in delicate situations, they become friends with the financially struggling foe (remember Corel?), and get them to do the dirty job. To pretty things up they licence SCO technology, SCO interfaces with Active Directory and so on.
    Microsoft is really attempting to kill two birds with one stone: kill SCO/Caldera and piss off anyone shipping Linux, specially IBM.
    This will be an interesting show indeed...

  42. Andrew is a shill. by twitter · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Qouth the nonsense you linked too:

    I've often had to publicly defend Microsoft against what I felt were acts of scapegoating from whining competitors (including Novell, Borland, Lotus, and Wordperfect), complaints which remind me of the way some Americans like to blame Japan for what are ultimately our own domestic problems.

    Funny how the US Government later decided that M$ did indeed engage is such practices. Andy and DDJ should be ashamed of that article.

    Let's see how the US government saw things. The jucky bits about DRDOS have been dug up by others. Have a look at M$ email for yourself. It was orchestrated from the start to crush an admitedly superior technology, included abouse of Microsoft's own custormers and malicious PR. Anyone who says differently has been proven a fool.

    The destruction of court records is evil because it burries evidence of wrongdoing by a convicted monopolist that has yet to be punished and is proceeding as if nothing at all had happened. These letters may be published elsewhere, but they need to be preserved in context if an objective history is to be written. There's no telling what goodies the Caldera folks dug up before they became M$'s next shill. Evidence of Microsoft's concerted effort to eliminate free software is going to be lost.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:Andrew is a shill. by mdielmann · · Score: 2, Informative

      I disagree. Sure, he says: Whether in spite or because of the books Undocumented DOS and Undocumented Windows, I've often had to publicly defend Microsoft against what I felt were acts of scapegoating from whining competitors (including Novell, Borland, Lotus, and Wordperfect), complaints which remind me of the way some Americans like to blame Japan for what are ultimately our own domestic problems.

      But, he also makes that statement in a section of the article named "Maybe It's a Bug?" (good grief! It's the first paragraph in the section!) and then he goes on to say this: In fact, much of Microsoft's practice, far from targeting competitor's applications, points in the opposite direction: Microsoft sometimes goes to extremes to maintain compatibility, even with competitor's mistakes (see, for example, the crazy GetAppCompatFlags() function discussed in Chapter 5 of Undocumented Windows).

      *sarcasm*Personally, I find this shocking. Company A has a bug that makes their code incompatible, but they blame Company B.*/sarcasm* That's almost as old as the "It's the hardware." "No, it's the software." game. Besides, are you going on the record as saying that Novell has never had bugs in their products? Good luck.

      The way I see it, he has nothing good to say about what MS was doing in that article, but he doesn't condone attacking MS every time something goes wrong. It also has no relevance with your comments, or the article you linked to - it's quite clear that they are in the wrong there...

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  43. take the lens cover off your mind, please. by twitter · · Score: 2, Insightful
    In other words, not all of the legal documents are being destroyed. Most of those 937 pages of documents may just be legal thickness, with little relevant information...obviously, Sun thought so, as they only scanned in 40 of 937 boxes of documents.

    You expect Sun to fight for free software? Nope, they only care about java and other Sun stuff.

    Irrelevant of the fact that SCO and MS are a bunch of lying cheating fucks, it's unreasonable to ask anyone to spend thousands of dollars to continue storing documents that are useless to them.

    SCO did not think $1,500/month was an unreasonable price between the 2000 settlement and six months ago. All this shows is that SCO changed their business model in October of 2002. That must be the date that they gave up fighting M$ and being a software compnay once and for all. This silly Linux suit came shortly thereafter.

    Important evidence of Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior and longstanding hatred of free software is going to be destroyed. I imagine that the EU, which is also investigating M$ anti-trust, will not be amused and it's just one more reason to get away from M$ junk. They have to burn these records because they are lying to you.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:take the lens cover off your mind, please. by dh003i · · Score: 1

      Irrelevant of *why* they are destroying it, the point is, they shouldn't be forced to store it. It is useless to them (SCO). Serves absolutely no purpose. So, why exactly should they spend money storing it? If it's so important to you and others (e.g., IBM, OSI), then they should intervene with a court order, and pay for the digitization of the documents they deem important.

      That said, I do not think Sun cares about Free Software. However, the 43 boxes they digitized likely contain information on MS' most important and obvious anti-competitive behaviour, which will be relevant to both proprietary competitors and FOSS developers.

  44. Send them here. by uberdave · · Score: 3, Funny

    They can store them at my house for a mere $500 a month.

  45. Re:Ironic. by AhtirTano · · Score: 1
    Sorry man, lexis-nexis turns up some hits.

    Funny. I'm searching lexis-nexis right now, and can't find a single reference to Murberry-Slocomb for "All available dates". Nothing about VA Software filing the cited form either.

    Looks like a hoax to me.

  46. Banana republic by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    This has all ingredients of a banana republic.

  47. Okay, here's a better solution by MickLinux · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just auction it off on ebay.

    "937 boxes of documents from the SCO vs. Microsoft case; you must register this with the appropriate judge, and may not destroy it, but you can have your own little piece of Microsoft dirt! This lot contains boxes #237-244. A digitized list of the contents of each box is as follows:..."

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  48. Watching the Winner Write the History Books by edward.virtually@pob · · Score: 1

    Our "justice" system fails again. The proof of Microsoft's illegal actions should not be allowed to be destroyed. Rather pathetic nobody with the money has cared enough since this sad story first appeared on Slashdot to buy up the documents. But I said as much before. Gates will probably buy the TP so he can express his concept for the law.

  49. You can own these documents by the bale! by anagama · · Score: 1

    Only 1400 lbs per bale, to be sold to the highest bidder. So....

    buy one
    sell it by the pound on ebay

    The company shredding these is called Recall Secure Destruction. Perhaps it is from this or this. The name graphics are the same.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  50. Lost forever? by LinuxInDallas · · Score: 1

    Do these documents just dissapear forever? Or does the gov't keep electronic copies? It seems very strange that all that information can just be destroyed. It does mention that Sun is scanning the documents but I would think the gov't should keep copies of everything.

  51. Re:when did scanned docs become accepted in courts by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the info. I work for a state agency in the world's 5th/6th largest economy and our legal department made us keep hardcopy records because they erred in stating digitized copies could not be used as evidence in future cases...guess that simply means that government rarely hires the sharpest tools in the shed... :)

    --
    "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  52. So are they in it together? by johannesg · · Score: 3, Interesting
    People here thought it was a bit farfetched when I theorized that Microsoft could be behind SCO's lawsuit against IBM. What do you think now, guys? Are they in bed together? So far we have:

    - SCO attacks Linux.

    - Microsoft supports SCO by paying them a lot of money for their patents, at the same time validating SCO's lawsuit.

    - SCO destroys evidence that Microsoft is a monopolist.

  53. MS to SCO: don't bite the hand... by Petronius · · Score: 1

    ...that wipes you.

    --
    there's no place like ~
  54. Okay - blatant self-promotion here but... by !Squalus · · Score: 1

    This idea occurred to me that there may be some outcomes that MS does not want discovered. The SCO suit could backfire in a very large way into MS-land. Not an outcome they would want.

    Any takers on the idea that the SCO "license" could be as temporary as the Corel cash infusion and quick withdrawal?

    MS - promises a great ride, but pulls out too quickly.

    --
    All Ad hominem replies happily ignored as the sender shall be deemed to lack the faculties to comprehend the equation.
  55. get a grip. by twitter · · Score: 1
    mdielmann has these words of praise for Anrew, "The way I see it, he has nothing good to say about what MS was doing in that article, but he doesn't condone attacking MS every time something goes wrong."

    What are you talking about? The whole point of Andy's appology was that the bugs are elswhere and what a great company M$ is to get along with anyone. It was pure appology and bullshit. If you follow the link I provided, you will see that Microsoft intentionally broke their competitor's code to eliminate them. This is a direct refutation of much Microsoft bullshit, from Microsoft own mouth.

    Let's quote a few chunks for you:

    Microsoft's David Cole emailed Phil Barrett on September 30 1991: "It's pretty clear we need to make sure Windows 3.1 only runs on top of MS DOS or an OEM version of it," and "The approach we will take is to detect DR DOS 6 and refuse to load. The error message should be something like 'Invalid device driver interface."

    Brad Silverberg, the Microsoft exec who had been responsible for Windows 95, emailed Jim Allchin (now Senior Vice President of MS) on September 27th 1991: "after IBM announces support for dr-dos at comdex, it's a small step for them to also announce they will be selling netware lite, maybe sometime soon thereafter. but count on it. We don't know precisely what ibm is going to announce. my best hunch is that they will offer dr-dos as the preferred solution for 286, os 2 2.0 for 386. they will also probably continue to offer msdos at $165 (drdos for $99). drdos has problems running windows today, and I assume will have more problems in the future."

    Jim Allchin replied: "You should make sure it has problems in the future. :-)".

    Andy Hill emailed David Cole, Windows group manager: "Janine has brought up some good questions on how we handle the error messages that the users will get if they aren't using MS-DOS. The beta testers will ask questions. How should the techs respond: Ignorance, the truth, other? This will no doubt raise a stir on Compuserve. We should either be proactive and post something up there now, or have a response already constructed so we can flash it up there as soon as the issue arises so we can nip it in the bud before we have a typical CIS snow-ball mutiny."

    The point of all this is not to blame M$ for things that go wrong, it's that you can't ever rule it out. Microsoft is a dishonest company and you are better off having nothing to do with them at all. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. One such incident was good enough for me.

    Even still, the moitves, depth of malice and planning is shocking. You have to wonder what goodies Caldera dug up are now going into toilet paper. It's apparent that Microsoft not only lied about what they were doing, they got others to lie on their behalf. The findings of fact on the Netscape trials showed that nothing at Microsoft had changed since they disposed of OS/2, DRDOS and other competing OS. Only a fool would countinue to trust them or their software for their business recoords.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:get a grip. by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      First off, I almost completely agree with your comment about MS. They're not so much of a problem until you grow big enough for them to notice you. Other than that one caveat, I can't disagree with anything you said about them.

      Further, I can't say for certainty that Andy isn't a Microsoft apologist. I don't recall coming across his stuff before.

      But did you read the AARD article? Look at the sections "So What?" and "Microsoft's Initial Response". There is only one line that is at all apologetic, and it looks more like academic correctness than anything else. He says that, given the obfuscation placed on the AARD code, it's difficult to say what it's exact intention is. He then goes on to say that the results are clear enough - DR DOS won't run Windows. Then he uses apologetic words like scaring people out of using DR DOS, out-of-hand comments saying that the problem must be Novell's, on and on. He even points out anti-trust rulings that may apply to the AARD routine. The one thing he doesn't do is say that it's anti-trust activity, possibly because of the risk of slander suits. He does, however, list what constitutes predatory innovation, and mentions that the compatibility test is artificial to the point of requiring breaking copyright law for someone else to pass it. Doesn't sound terribly pro-MS to me...which leads back to the question: how is the article at kickassgear.com argue against anything that andy said in his article, or make him an apologist. He may not be as sensationalist as kickassgear, but that's about the only difference I can see...

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  56. Re:Andrew is a shill. - Moderators please! by FattyBoeBatty · · Score: 1

    Moderators: PLEASE mod down the parent!

    GEEZ man.. READ THE FREAKIN' ARTICLE, not the first line before posting your rant, and especially before you speak ill of Andy and DDJ.

    The article is an extremely incriminating analysis of Microsoft and alludes to some vicious monopolistic strategies by the Evil One. He NOT condoning MS or their actions as you concluded from your detailed analysis of the first paragraph.

    He's pointing out some really scary, underhanded things that MS has done in the past. I would suggest that ALL Microsoft supporters read this article to really see what a monopoly can get away with.

    -Fatty

  57. Gee fatty, are we being honest? by twitter · · Score: 1
    GEEZ man.. READ THE FREAKIN' ARTICLE, not the first line before posting your rant, and especially before you speak ill of Andy and DDJ. ... [blah blah] you concluded from your detailed analysis of the first paragraph.

    Uh, no it was the sixth or seventh paragraph. It contained the spirit of the whole article and also admitted to the reader that the author is a paid defendant of Microsoft.

    The article is an extremely incriminating analysis of Microsoft and alludes to some vicious monopolistic strategies by the Evil One. He NOT condoning MS or their actions ...

    No it's not incriminating. Much doubt is cast on others, the harm done is downplayed and intent on Microsoft's part is dennied. His little write up stands as a wonderful example of M$ double talk. Microsoft's emails, on the other hand, were incriminating in exactly the way Andy said could not be proved. His caution, in hindsight, looks like a paid oppinion from Microsoft.

    I would suggest that ALL Microsoft supporters read this article to really see what a monopoly can get away with.

    Yes, people who "support" M$ should be indoctrinated this way. People who want to know what Microsoft is really thinking and planning for them should read Microsoft's email.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.