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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
"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.
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