Slashdot Mirror
SCO SCO SCO!
Still more links on SCO's assorted allegations of copyright infringement. They say they're going to sue Novell. Software analysts refuse to be part of the hoax - also some good quotes from Linus here. SCO and UNIX: a Comedy of Errors. Salon has a story on SCO too, but sadly it's not available to read freely. And Wired has an old story which I think sums up the SCO claims pretty well.
I'm suprised some of the SCO shareholders haven't sued the directors for essentially making SCO stock worthless. It may have seen a temporary increase when this mess started, but its been on the downslide lately, and announcing ignorant lawsuits isn't going to help.
Whether SCO's code has been infringed or not will be exposed in court.
Anything we say here is irrelevent. What is there to discuss except to say that having 'many cooks' increases the chance that any one of them may have tossed in a poison pill unwittingly?
I have been pwned because my
"The month of June is show-and-tell time," McBride said.
How do you take someone seriously that says stuff like this. I'm sure he thinks he's being tough and serious.. but it just comes off like a bad joke.
I don't understand why they would force analysists to sign an NDA, when the whole basis for their lawsuit is that their code is already in the public domain. Nothing new can be revealed if it is indeed already part of the Linux code. Perhaps they are going to tell analysists that its all one big hoax and they don't want them to write about it.
no, this is what SCO would do if they had no other possible way to survive. They are no longer a software/computer company and have become a litigation company.
PS: "fist post"? what a loser
It only fails to make sense if you are looking at it like a programmer. From a lawyer point of view, they see some money to be made.
Of course, the problem is that the lawyers don't understand what the underlying issue is, and have made a real mess of themselves.
But, if it works out in their favor, they will have future clients for the next 20 years.
From the second link:
Overly said a review of the code by anyone other than a judge "means absolutely, positively nothing" in determining the merit of SCO's claims.
Is it just me, or is there something scary about a judge, who may or may not use his/her computer for anything other than e-mail and word processing, trying to interpret two snippets of source code to determine if one uses the other in an illegal way?
I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
Caldera (now SCO) will not exist two years from now when the lawsuit with IBM comes to trial unless something can be done to stop the onslaught of Linux on their proprietary UNIX marketshare. In short, SCO has very little to lose.
In fact, SCO's current scheme is sheer genius. They field lie after lie and watch their stock price shoot through the roof. Even after the colossal smackdown that Novell put on SCO SCOX stock is still priced at over $6.00 a share. That's basically a five-fold increase over where the stock was before they declared the lawsuit against IBM. Even better SCO management has managed to keep their story in the spotlight with their wide array of wacky allegations. This not only helps keep their stock price high, but it probably is even helping their commercial UNIX business. I would bet that several SCO customers that were looking at a migration to Linux will now choose to stay pat with UnixWare or OpenServer.
Don't be fooled. SCO isn't trying to win a court case. If they were, they would be using the same tactics that IBM is currently using. Their legal counsel is pretty sharp. He undoubtedly has told the SCO management team that their responses to the press are evidence. If SCO really thought that they had a chance at winning their court case they wouldn't be giving press conferences every five minutes.
SCO's management almost certainly plans to hype the stock to the moon, and then quietly sell their stake in SCOX. Since they have several years before their case goes to court, they have plenty of time to slowly get rid of their holdings.
No!!! I hope they never get bought, those idiots don't deserve the money from the buyout, as anoying as it is, I hope they just get litigated into the ground.
Anyone remember a company called Ashton-Tate and a product called Dbase III? Dbase was a not-too-horribly-bad database design package for DOS PC's ages ago, sadly, rather than put decent effort into revamping their increasingly encumbering software they elected to sue the hell out of those who took the same ideas and gave them fresh blood. The rest, as they say, is history.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
They don't have a product line that anyone wants.
They haven't been able to make the switch to Linux.
This is their ONLY option left.
Lawsuits.
Maybe one of them will stick and SCO will get some money or someone will buy SCO rather than fight the battle.
This is pure desperation.
Is it stretching the imagination too much to suppose that SCO are simply pissing people off in order to get themselves bought out in a settlement?
Now that's a gotcha.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Anyone working on free code should be highly suspicious of NDAs and other agreements that limit free speech and co-opt IP. There's no reason to sign a NDA to look at Linux source code. You have to wonder what SCO has that they don't want you to talk about.
Chances are SCO are going to make some realy stupid terms. They would love for only their clueless dupes to sign and therby raise their credibility in the land of the lost. What kind of objective opinion can be written if you can't describe the thing you are talking about? An even more devious prank they can pull is full publication, "against their will." All they've done so far is sling insults. "The anarchists are publishing the Linux source code again, even after they agreed not to!", echos from the future.
Smells like more M$.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I find it amusing that the story states Copyright issues raised by Novell, from which SCO bought the rights to Unix, are irrelevant, McBride said during a conference call with media and analysts. SCO licensed the code to IBM, who allegedly misappropriated it. However, if they don't actually own the copyrights, then isn't SCO guilty of the same thing they are suing IBM for. Makes no sense to me, but I'm just a computer geek.
RandomIO
Had they done this with UNIXWare 10 years ago, then maybe someone might care. As it stands, this is the old Linux+Seat Licenses plan that sunk Caldera.
Two points:
Which is cheaper, buying SCO or kicking their butt in the courtroom?
Would buying SCO just to shut them up set a bad example for any company looking to get bought that has a wooden spoon and a pot to bang on?
BTW, on the subject of the hat, would running Tinfoil Hat Linux be an acceptable alternative?
"Giving money and power to governments is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke
Trying to prove which code SCO actually wrote and which was from some free third party source will take years.
The Lawyer's know this and are egging SCO on towards their doom. They even got M$ to guarantee their fees...
Perhaps if these "Dark Lords" had a public face, they may feel a little more shy...
From the Art of War :
When you are weak, appear strong.
Who's to say that SCO didn't copy code from the Linux source, put it in their code, and claim they did it first? After all, we can all freely look at GPL'ed code, but we can't look at SCO code. We have no way to know if SCO put that code into their source tree or vice versa.
Another reason all intelligent societies should reject any software patents.
-- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
Think for a minute. SCO wants to present themselfs as victim of the linux community. Victim of intellectual theft, victim of DDOS (back in May). What the h*ll are you doing? You are just helping them, they don't care about their server, they aren't in the buissiness of selling software anymore. They even closed their german web site instead of providing proof in a german court.
Makes me wounder if you are just stupid or if you are an agent provocateur.
Sco reminds me of that crazy guy you always see the park downtown. You don't know if he's a bum or just a guy off his rocker.
You know the guy. He has some outlandish claim every thirty second. " I own this park". " I used to be a king!" " Until the police and Hillary CLinton destroyed me!" " Those alians didn't like me either." " I am going to buy this park!"
YOU know that guy. That's SCO. Every thirty seconds some new crazy talk.
If I owned SCO stock, I'd be sellin it right quick. Pretty soon everyone will just say "Yeah Sure" and walk on by.
If by the phrase "There is no way IBM can be taken down here" you mean SCO would lose it's lawsuit, then why would IBM want to buy them?
Buying SCO is a low probability if IBM were worried about losing the lawsuit, it has a 0% chance of happening if IBM is confident it will win.
Obviously the US educational system failed you since you can't seem to think your way out of a wet paper bag.
The German restraining order is relevant to a US proceeding because SCO is making claims regarding a US proceeding. If a wider discovery process occurs due to foreign legal action, this may very well affect the ultimate outcome of the US proceeding.
Think of it as the legal equivalent of a DDOS.
The other 5 BILLION of us might contribute something relevant to the outcome of this case if we have full knowledge of the relevant details.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
My point was that, assuming that showing the allegedly copied code in context (SCO source tree) can help prove both that SCO does own the code, and help date the source code as it corresponds to some known binary release, the NDA is not unreasonable.
If SCO showed the entire world: [...] This bullshit would already have ended.
I'm not a lawyer, but I do find it reasonable to deny your opponent any information you can (legally, of course) for as long as you can. Again, reasonable if you assume that they are telling the truth.
Since they haven't told IBM what they can do to remediate the problem, it's clear that they don't want to mitigate the damages. This necessarily means that they do not have a case.
No, it does not. Their purpose may not be to mitigate any damages. It may make them more money if Linux vendors are required to pay SCO some royalties until the offending code is removed. In this light, the longer the Linux developers leave it in, the more money SCO might demand. They may also be forcing IBM to buy them out. The supposition that their motive may not simply be for Linus to purge some code does not necessarily mean they don't have a case.
Do you see a pattern? If you assume, even just for the sake of argument, that SCO is telling the truth, then its actions are not entirely unreasonable. An NDA does allow experts better visibility into the allegations, and gives them a stronger case. Keeping IBM in the dark as long as possible is good legal tactic. Keeping Linux developers in the dark gives them a longer period of violation for which to demand reparation. You don't appear to see this, probably because you've stuck to the assumption that they are lying.
I'm not arguing with you as to whether SCO is lying. The facts of that case will eventually become either clear or irrelevant. The main point of this reply is that it is often instructive to assume that your opponent is telling the truth, and then their apparently irrational actions suddenly make sense.
Well, for someone who has no idea how business works, you have a great idea. The only unfortunate part is that this would reward the people who did this.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
You realy think the only plan they have is to break the law in a stupidly obvious way and go straight to jail?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
"Every computer company in American does a at least some background checking before they hire someone to work on an important project. Where did the employee get their education? Where were they employed previously? Did they have any significant problems at their previous place of employment? In the Linux world such questions are rarely asked or followed-up on, even though Linux advocates claim that millions of people rely on the Linux operating system. In failing to ask such questions of Mr. Smith, the Linux kernel developers made themselves legally liable for the harm that resulted when he exploited the open source development process for nefarious ends."
never been in management have you....
#1, asking the previous employer... ALL they can reveal legally is that they did in fact work there... NOTHING ELSE. so your "did they have trouble at their last job?" is impossible to find out legally. Yes there are some bosses that put their company at risk by passing along info on a bad egg...but they put their company at risk by saying anything... good or bad.
#2 a background check does not reveal your work history. It reveals if you have been arrested or other legal trouble.
so doing any of that which "every company" does.. would reveal nothing to uncover a disgruntled person.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
You know, this is just childish, in addition to plain 'wrong'. Stop it. There has got to be better ways to get your point across.
Fast, Soon, Correct. Pick 2.
SCO's own linux distribution was hazadarous to them. They did something stupid with it. They continued to distribute it.
SCO is making allegations that are OFFENSIVE to members of the opensource community that have contributed to the linux kernel, and to the 'linux community', whatever they may be.
The 'linux community', at large, tries pretty hard to avoid issues like this, and for the most part, if you had any familiarity with IP cases, you would understand SCO is acting as if it was bluffing.
The sancity of their trade secrets has already been violated. If you assume that their claims are correct, than they have already released their own code (unknownigly), in their custom kernels for the caldera distribution.
Generally, when a company has a strong IP case, they parade the evidence all over the place, in order to convince the other to settle quickly---after all, settling now is cheaper than settling later, 'cause settling after a court order will cost you court costs as well.
On the other hand, if you are bluffing, you DON'T release your evidence, because you want someone to buy you out, to shut you up. You drag out precedings, and make ridiculous, slanderous claims, in order to upset your enemies, and you harass their customers, so that other corporations will buy you out, 'cause all the trouble you are making is costing them more money than the buy out costs.
This second scenario seems far more likely. Especially given that SCO had to close its German operations because a German court ordered it to release its evidence regarding IP violations, or cease threatening to sue. In Germany, you aren't allowed to threaten to sue without evidence. You have to put up, or shut up. SCO shut up.
This has no legal precedence for U.S. legal preceedings, but it does say something about SCO's sinceritity. Why didn't they just give the evidence to German courts?
Because they don't have it. Because the case is BS. Because SCO is an incompentent company. It was incompentent when it was called caldera. It has nothing to do with the intellectual roots of unix.
Sad to say, but I think Michael's right. SCO's board of directors are a bunch of immature assholes, and you have very little grasp of the situation. This isn't just about a fair trial before being stoned to death. This is about the last gasp of a shitty company, who has spread FUD to all kinds of customers, of customers of companies like MY OWN. Telling them they shouldn't be adopting my product.
Without evidence. Merely asserting my product has bizarre, unknown risks associtated with it. Its as is I e-mailed all Microsoft customers, saying "I wouldn't use windows, because they use stolen IP, and I will prove this as some point in the future".
This is NOT fair. Legally required to protect their secrets? You have no idea what you are talking about it.
Pull your head out of your ass.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Second of all, I'll derive MUCH more satisfaction watching a judge laugh at them.
German courts have already slapped them in the face.
I believe that IBM can, and will, continue to ignore them, and will tear them to pieces in court.
Remember, IBM has all of the evidence. They have the SCO source code, and the Linux kernel code.
THEY ALREADY NOW IF THEY CAN WIN THEIR CASE. You can bet MILLIONS that IBM has legal and technical teams reviewing that code, letter by letter.
IBM can't release the evidence, because then they would be in violation. But they have a license to prepare the legal briefs! This case was lost (by SCO), before it was filed.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
As I see it, there are three possibilities.
A. IBM screwed up. They released stuff from their SCO license into Linux. Oops.
B. IBM didn't screw up. They have all the evidence (remember, they have BOTH SCO's source, and Linux's source). They don't care what SCO says, because they already HAVE all the evidence. They can't release the evidence, because that would then violate their licensing agreement with SCO, but they can sure as hell prepare they legal briefs now.
C. IBM didn't screw up. They are in cahoots with SCO, and are doing this to screw linux.
Given IBM's investment in Linux, and its contribution to the kernel, and other software, I'm guessing that C is highly unlikely.
I dunno, A seems unlikely to me too. If A were the case, an IBM had a big problem on their hands, I think that as soon as SCO threaten them, they would have rapidly been able to determine that SCO's claim has some legitimacy, and bought them out immediately. After all, they have plenty of cash.
That leaves B. Someone in the IBM legal department is of the opinion that they have a REALLY strong case. Someone on the board of directors decided it would be better for their credibility if they blow SCO out of the water.
Remember, IBM can see both sides of the table here. They hold all the cards. They don't need to get SCO to show them the evidence, so they didn't even have to ask.
They knew they would win from day one. You can't bluff when the other guy sees your cards.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell