Slashdot Mirror
Darl McBride Interview
mpsmps writes "vnunet.com has a long interview with SCO CEO Darl McBride devoted entirely to the SCO/IBM suit. McBride radiates confidence, describing SCO's contracts as "bullet-proof." He says he thinks IBM is desperate to buy SCO because "the last thing [IBM wants] to hear is the testimony that is going to come out," but that SCO isn't interested in being acquired. Read the interview for much more on these and other topics." See also part 2 and part 3 of the interview.
... that is to say, they're a living oxymoron.
If SCO isn't interested in being acquired, then why are they sure acting like they are? All this posturing is pointing to wanting to be bought out to make them shut up.
i am a soviet space shuttle
Vote McBride for minister of information!
You've been living in a dreamworld, Mr. McBride.
Have you ever read some code, Darl, that you were so sure was yours? What if you were unable to prove it? How would you know the difference between your code and GNU's code?
What is yours? How do you define yours? If you're talking about your opinion, how you feel, taste, smell, or see, then all you're talking about are conjectures - mere electrical signals that are likely misinterpreted by your brain.
...do you believe in OSS, Darl?
Is it so hard to believe? The code is different; The open relays in the binaries and daemons are gone. Look at the time & date management; they weren't Y2K compliant a moment ago.
Darl: No! I don't believe it. I don't believe it...
SCO's investors He's gonna pop...
That seems to have an "it's not about sex" ring to it.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
"The IBM infidels are not in Utah! And if they are, we are driving them back, and they are falling before us! We cannot be defeated by the infidel Penguinistas! The people of Unix will never fall to the Linux infidels!"
*glances over shoulder, sees 500 IBM lawyers licking their lips and advancing, carrying briefcases, with black crows taking off before them.*
"As I was saying, the IBM infidels are not here, and if they are, we are driving them back, and they are falling before us!"
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
It is not a matter of reeling in compensation for this. It's a question of what form it takes - the form of settlement - if it goes all the way to litigation. Those are, to me, more the unknowns.
IBM is going to string this out as long as possible, and won't settle. Why? Because SCO's continued existence as a company depends upon revenue from this case. It's the same reason they aren't suing other people (Apple, Microsoft, and the BSD's have been mentioned as targets, and one can infer from other comments that SGI is a target too); they don't have the money to carry on this long litigation.
In some respects, going after IBM first is unwise. If, in fact, SGI is a target, there would be a much greater chance of SCO winning, and getting some money. SGI doesn't have much money to give, but you start to establish some precedent.....
I posted this before, but I made a typo so I'll post it again just for karma. Go ahead, mod me down :p
----
This is how it's going to be settled : IBM sends grim looking men in black suits to SCO, and a representative named "Smith" (who looks oddly familiar) confronts Darl Mcbride.
Smith: As you can see, we've had our eye on you for some time now, Mr. Mcbride. It seems that you've been living...two lives. In one life, you're Darl McBride, CEO of what used to be a respectable software company, you have a social security number, you pay your taxes, and you help your landlady carry out her garbage. The other life is lived in lawsuits, where you go around accusing everyone that they are guilty of virtually every computer crime we have a law for. One of these lives has a future, and one of them does not. I'm going to be as forthcoming as I can be, Mr. McBride. You're here because we need you to cut it out. We know that you think you can get your ailing company to be bought out. Now whatever you think you know about intelluctual property laws is irrelevant. You actions are considered by the open source community to be the annoying and disruptive. My colleagues believe that I am wasting my time with you but I believe that you wish to do the right thing. We're willing to wipe the slate clean, give you a fresh start and all that we're asking in return is your cooperation in dropping your stupid lawsuits against IBM.
Darl: Yeah. Wow, that sound like a really good deal. But I think I got a better one. How about I give you the finger... and we see you in court.
Smith: Um, Mr. Mcbride. You disappoint me.
Darl: You can't scare me with this Gestapo crap. We own UNIX IP rights. I want my lawyer.
Smith: And tell me, Mr. McBride, what good is your IP rights... if your company has violated so many of our patents.
(Smith drops a huge pile of legal papers on the desk with a thud)
Smith: You're going to help us, Mr. McBride whether you want to or not.
(Darl screams hysterically)
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
Not long ago, SCO said that buyout by IBM was an option. They'd said that trade secrets were violated when IBM sent code to Linux. A mysterious contract amendment with Novel was discovered, with just the right wording to bolster SCO's case.
All these and more SCO statements have been competely reversed now. Why should we listen to this never-ending story of lies from SCO. If they can't say something and stick to it, they do not deserve attention, only contempt.
In fact I fail to u'stand Slashdot's motives in continuing this sequence of non-articles about SCO. News for nerds? Gossip, maybe. Stuff that matters? Matters to whom? No one but SCO.
Interestingly, far away from all the court cases, the Gartner group is pumping more nonsense urging the masses to eschew Linux for mission-critical uses. These are the real evil-doers who need to be exposed. Have any of Gartner's predictions proved accurate? Did they predict the success of Linux, apache or PHP? Except sending out the odd report slamming IIS, they've done lots of damage to the OSS.We should watch out for more of these Gartners and less of SCO.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
There has been no evidence provided of this copying. Those who have independently seen both copies of the code have no evidence that it was copied from System V to Linux, that the code was originally in System V and not in BSD or Linux itself.
Surely he can't believe that all of AIX would be moved over ? Maybe that's why he believes his contracts are cast-iron.. perhaps because he is CEO, nobody dares tell him "Hey Darl, our code is crap, and the linux community wouldn't want it anyways"
"I am not bound to please thee with my answers" [William Shakespeare]
...But the guilty have everything to hide.
It's hard for me to look at SCO's CEO as anything but a cock-jerker. He himself knows for a fact that making such allegations puts a question mark on alot of things..And alot of good work...Honest work that honest people did.
The world is filled with assholes, and this guy apparently has no problem counting himself among the ranks. Thats the most disturbing part of all.
Bowie J. Poag
There have been good submissions over the last several days containing new information and perspectives on the SCO case. This is not one of them. This is SCO trying to stay in the news and Slashdot editors resurrecting his interview again a number of days after the interview. In terms of SCO news, this is very tired and old.
I think one thing's clear, which is that everytime Darl McBride talks to the press, he comes off sounding like an asshole.
It's a unique situation when a company as powerful as IBM has somebody coming at it with such strong claims as we have in a very public forum. So maybe its supercomputers haven't spat out an algorithm yet on how to respond to this kind of situation. I don't know.
Haha.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Sir Comical McBride.
"We will slaughter IBM."
"We will great Linus with death and shoes."
San Diego Padres, 100 Park Blvd, San Diego CA 92101
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by
SCO CEO: that thing is bullet-proof!
IBM lawyer (pointing fingers at CEO's chest): Bang.
SCO CEO: Aaaaaaaaarrrrgghhhhh...
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Ok, now I'm pretty sure... the real "Comical Ali" is not the old man interviewed some days ago. :)
He has obviously escaped Iraq to take the guide of SCO... but all his fans cannot be fooled by this McBride camouflage. He's the man! He's back!
SCO - Source code's ours!
IBM - I'm being mugged.
Linux - Let's ignore the nuisance use of extortion.
MS - Monopoly secured. Money stashed. Mess sidestepped.
-- the only thing we have to fear is really scary things
One thing I find really annoying about this case is that the Open Source community hasn't been able to point to a bit of code and say, look, there's the problem. Or alternatively, we've looked, and there is no problem. I mean, how hard can that be?
Let's just remind ourselves of the issue here:
SCO's lawsuit claims that IBM broke its contract with SCO by allowing parts of SCO's Unix V source code, licensed to IBM for use in AIX, to be used in the rival Linux operating system kernel.
Ok, I appreciate that SCO's Unix V source code is closed source, and so it is not widely accessible to the OSS community. But someone must have a copy or access to a copy, surely? I'm sure there must be people in the OSS community that actually worked on the original code, isn't there?
At the very least, can't we just highlight the code that IBM has contributed, and then say, if there is a problem, then it must be in there. As far as I am aware, IBMs additions are for "enterprise ready" systems. If that is the case, then I'm sure they could be taken out without affecting the majority of instances of Linux use.
If we had a distribution that was free of the IBM code, then doesn't that mean we have a distribution that is legally untouchable by SCO? I know IBMs contributions are probably very valuable and all, but are they worth risking Linux to vagaries of the increasingly irrational legal system?
who was handed the keys to a company in dire straits. It was circling the bowl rather fast. This guy was probably lured into position by the smell of money. $$$ for signing, $$$ per annum, $$$ for rescuing the stock owners value and $$$$$ for rescuing the company.
So if he looses the lawsuit he would receive $$$$$$. If he wins, he gets $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Now he is posturing, showing a good face. Reporting that the company is healthy. What would you do if offered $$$$$$$$$$$$$$?
No news here....Please move along and post more comments on how windows sucks...
A more blatant attempt to plug the share price could not be found. If IBM were to try and buy, the share price would shoot up. Here's our friend Mr. McBride making that even more explicit to his current stockholders (don't sell) and potential buyers (buy us, we're going to go skywards).
Besides, I hear no rumours on the street (what a marvellous phrase, unattributable yet pseudo-meaningful...) that IBM are interested. In fact, everything IBM has done so far has shown a complete lack of interest in that outcome.
Cheers,
Ian
Yeah, it sure has IBM's lawyers in a panic.
/me rolls eyes....
You know, at first, I thought that McBride was insane -- totally reckless or totally corrupt. But now, I'm starting to think the man is just stupid. I mean, sometimes I talk to people and I disagree with them, but I feel nervous because they might be smart enough to prove me wrong. I don't feel that way with McBride. I read his comments and I just think he's stupid, and the courts will tell him he's stupid, and he just won't get it.
The last time I felt this way was with the pet-store guy who sued anyone who said anything critical about his terrible service. He was dangerous because he intimidated some people into settling, but mostly he just lost lawsuit after lawsuit. The poor fool probably still thinks he'll somehow turn everything around. McBride is just a reincarnation of that pet store guy.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
[b]Have you considered what would happen if you lost the case?[/b]
[i]I have nightmares about it. We're talking about the utter destruction of our company. But really, we have no place else to go. This is a balls-to-the-wall strategy. All or nothing. But it isn't like I can't jump ship if things go sour.[/i]
[b]Do you plan to sell Linux ever again?[/b]
[i]Don't be silly. That is a low-return activity. Our job will be to shake people down for money. That's a high-return activity.[/i]
[b]Would you actually like to be bought?[/b]
[i]God, yes! We'd love to be bought out. But it isn't going to happen whatsoever. Given that, it is best that I said that we don't want to be bought out, because it makes our case look that much stronger.[/i]
I'm more interested in what The SCO Group had to say about Novell's letter to them. There seems to be not much talk about it. The last I heard Novell was going to challenge SCO on Unix ownership.
"He says he thinks IBM is desperate to buy SCO because "the last thing [IBM wants] to hear is the testimony that is going to come out," but that SCO isn't interested in being acquired. "
Uhhh, yeah....
1.) As if the $$$ it would cost IBM to buy SCO wouldn't be pocket change.
2.) As if SCO shareholders wouldn't JUMP at the prospect of trading their stock for IBM.
It sounds like to me this should read
"We're really just trying to get someone to buy us. This whole OS thing has been a fUx0r since the Caldera/SCO merger, neither OS sells very well at all. For the life of me, I can't figure out why IBM won't just put down a little cash and buy us to shut us up."
"oohhh... I didn't know Schopenhauer was a philosopher!"
Now, this must be the final proof that McBride is delerious:
"You go back to SCO's brand in the 1990s and it was Unix on Intel. SCO was primed to seize the multibillion-dollar server market of Unix on Intel that hit in the early 2000s that has in fact shifted over to Red Hat."
SCO was primed to go down the drain, even without Linux anywhere. Most people were already migrating or had migrated off SCO before Linux became a contender; migrating to Solaris or Windows, or basically anything that wasnt quite as bad as SCO.
The man is completely delusional and should be locked up in a small padded room for his own good.
VNUNET.COM
We're sorry, but vnunet.com is temporarily unavailable while we conduct essential upgrades.
Our technical team is working hard to restore the site as quickly as possible.
Please come back to vnunet.com shortly.
©VNU Business Publications Ltd
Essential upgrades huh ? I didn't know replacing melted-down ethernet cables counted as upgrading
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
.. who always misreads this guy's name as "McBribe"?
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
I can tell you that this is totally and utterly...
True.
It was a pile of rubbish, we had it running our net connection, all it had to do was act as a mail server and dial-up modem. It fell over on a regular basis and was generally a pain to work with. I also had to develop some Curses applications on it and ended up developing them in Eiffel with a thin layer onto Curses which meant I could do the work on Solaris.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
But some of the things in the interview just threw up some 'red alert' flags. Some select tidbits:
Although I obtain *all* of my legal knowledge from slashdot :grin:, I don't believe that IBM's lack of filing a summary judgement is a sign that they believe thier case is in trouble. SCO has time and time again denied to release exactly what code was infringing, saying that it will only relesase that at trial. My view of the situation says that IBM is trying to get to the discovery phase as soon as possible. Due to the nature of the case, a summary judgement will probably be denied, which SCO is undoubtably waiting for so they can spin into a huge storm about how IBM lost its first legal battle over the code. IBM isn't letting them have that victory. SCO will have to go to trial and have thier bluf called.
Oh, this is good. IBM develops faster/better/cheaper hardware that runs AIX. IBM improves AIX specifically for that hardware. SCO calls the hardware a derivative work and claims it as its own? God, I'd pay to be on this jury.
Yeah, IBM is soooo slowing this process down. Not filing for that summary judgement must have delayed this case by -1 or -2 months. Bastards.
Just what I want from a company. Although its happened before where a company has gone in and audited software, it has always resulted immediately in backlash against that company. See Microsoft and some western school districts. What is interesting is that SCO could/will be auditing IBM's customers. I'm glad that no entity has any right to barge into my business and conduct random audits. If I plunked down half a dozen 0's for some big iron I'll be damned if any SCOpunk is going to get within 200m of any of my equipment. I'll consider it a test of my internal security measures and tell the guards to shoot on site.
But really, if SCO tried that it would be a act of desperation. Public opinion is already against them. A stunt like this will end all the credibility they have left. Plus, it will also blacken IBM's eye. I'm pretty certain that IBM will fight this one to SCO's death. Which is probably what SCO is betting on.
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
...IBM is indeed guilty of what SCO claims? McBride makes a good point in that IBM has made no motions a company would normally make if it thought this case was frivilous. Naturally, I understand /. can be a somewhat jaded forum, but are we that confident in our legal system that we assume the impossibility of injustice?
Reading Darl McBride interviews always have a siilar effect on one. Mostly the first reaction is simple utter jaw dropping amazment at the guy's bravado and his ability to make statements contradicting himself on statements he had made only a few weeks or days before. The second is usually the suppresion of the wish to throttle the guy.
While one should perhaps send UUNet an email questioning their journalistic integrity in asking only innocuous questions and failing to point out SCO's self contradictions, it is interesting to note the increase from Darl, the man's man, as time goes by and absolutely nothing happens or is heard from by IBM.
Darl very neatly contradicted himself in this interview claiming that "IBM is desperate to buy us out", when he can be quoted in nurmerous sources as having said a few weeks ago that "If a solution involves IBM buying us out then that's fine by us".
Another clue is provided by his incredible machismo in his statement that "IBM threw Novell out into the traffic and Novell got run over by the bus".
After reading these statements (The Novell one borders on libel I would think but IANAL) I think the picture is slowly starting to come into focus:
It is indeed a scam intended to raise SCO's ratings on the stock market. A scam that relies on day traders and the usual absolute cluelessness of analysts in general. SCO needs the publicity in order to keep pumping those stocks. The reason Darl is becoming more and more shrill and profane in every interview is obviously because the guy is terrified by the fact that IBM is simply ignoring him for the most part. Claiming to know what IBM is "desperate" to buy or not would require insider information that I'm pretty sure he doesn't have. Not only this but while SCO's stock is very high compared to it's real worth at the moment, eventually SCO is going to run out of things to say that don't cross the border into libel cases, When that happens SCO's stock is going to start sinking. He as much as acknowledges this in saying that a court case is not going to happen tomorrow and IBM can afford to wait and let SCO run out of money as the case slowly rumbles on towards an actual case in court.
I would say that if anyone is desperate, it's SCO, not IBM.
I can understand that in the early days of the case the likes of VNU and ZD would want to provide coverage of this. But, bar SCO mouthing off, nothing is happening in the case.
So why are the rags still providing enormous amounts of coverage? Is it SCO pestering them, are they besieging SCO to provide information or are third parties putting pressure on them to continue with the coverage.
Inquiring minds want to know!
Lets think about the notion of shame for a moment.
Sometimes, you just get tired of something. You get tired of thinking about it, you get tired of dealing with it, and you get tired of having it done to you. Thats about how I feel when it comes to SCO, and i'll tell you why. It comes down to shame, and how SCO should be f*&@^$ing ashamed of themselves for what they're doing to us AND themselves.
SCO has actively and intentionally put some very dark clouds over a group of people who would have gladly extended a hand to help them. A group of people who have absolutely no vested interest in asserting "ownership" over what they make--However, SCO does....and they will continue to do so, even at our expense. They will cast a shadow over the Linux community for the sake of pumping cash into their organization, for as long as they can. Shameful.
The Linux community is largely made up of people who could care less about the concept of "market share" and "trade secrets". We build because it's fun. It's fun to build. It's fun to make stuff work. Yet, SCO wants to derail that, and take part of that away from us. They want to throw a wrench in the gears of open cooperation and the open exchange of ideas. They want to stifle the process that benefits all, and stifle it in a way that only THEY will benefit from. Shameful.
We, as a community, don't go out of our way to step on people's toes, yet, SCO steps on our toes.
By their actions, they have shown their true colors, namely,their contempt for the process, for us, and for Linux in all that it represents. This isn't an accident on their part. It's an intentional tug at the carpet underneath the feet of the Linux community. An attempt to beat up on something that has never raised a hand in anger--Not to SCO, or to anyone. Shameful.
Well, SCO can tug all they want, the carpet isn't going to move an inch. They can cast as many clouds as they want, hell, they can make it rain if they want to. Thats fine. We'll just build umbrellas. Openly. And freely. The process of building won't stop, and the process of cooperating won't fail.
That being said, it's important to note that SCO's real enemy isn't a person, or a big blue company full of big blue ideas, or even Linux -- SCO's enemy is itself. By doing what they've done, they have shamed themselves, and the shamed the people who support SCO. They have even shamed their own product, and the people who put in the years of work needed to build it.
In nature, given time, problems like that tend to "fix" themselves. I'm not worried, and you shouldn't be either. SCO is cartwheeling out of control, and they have no one to blame but themselves. It's not our fault, or IBM's fault, or SGI's fault, or anyone's fault.. Their fate as a company was sealed the instant they decided to fight change rather than embrace it.
It's just a shame they can't figure that out, and a shame they never will.
Bowie J. Poag
Here's a picture of McBride, particularly useful to people in Utah: http://www.sco.com/company/execs/dmcbride.html This guy better hope I never run into him in a dark alley.
System V was/is a particular version of the UNIX codebase. System V-style init scripts were just a small part of that - and I don't think that SCO would have grounds to sue over anyone using a particular style of init scripts. I still doubt the veracity of SCO's claims, but of course, without their evidence (whatever that may be) it's hard to judge.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
But someone still has to take them to court over it. If they win their case with IBM (again, a hypothetical - don't get too froggy just yet), they have about a billion or so to fight with. Does anyone (FSF included) have the cojones to go up against that kind of cash funding?
We are talking a copyright trial here - not something the politicians are liable to pay a whole lot of attention to in the upcoming election year, when you consider that RIAA has managed to get almost all of their attention for the past year or so.
Again, I think SCO's on shaky legal ground here at best, and at worst, lying like bad rug, but IF they win, how automatic is it? I seriously doubt armed Feds in black helos are going to swarm the SCO hideout and demand the immediate incarceration of Darl McBride and Co. Someone has to show some sack and actually press charges.
This could be the test case for the GPL.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
July 1st, 2003:
IBM serves SCO for infringing of ONE IBM patent.
July 2st, 2003:
IBM serves SCO for infringing of ONE IBM patent.
July 3st, 2003:
IBM serves SCO for infringing of ONE IBM patent.
July 4st, 2003:
Happy independance day USA!
IBM serves SCO for infringing of ONE IBM patent.
July 5st, 2003:
IBM serves SCO for infringing of ONE IBM patent.
.
.
.
Janyary 1st, 2004:
Happy new year everyone!
IBM serves SCO for infringing of ONE IBM patent.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
What if IBM is guilty? What if they did misappropriate some proprietary code, on purpose or other wise? Sure the kernel folks will replace it and life will move on, but that will be very damaging to Linux. While we are all throwing stones at SCO maybe we shouldn't completely turn our backs on IBM. Their "support" of Linux may end up doing a lot of harm. Plus they may already be cooking up something they intended to replace AIX and Linux in the next five years or so. Before there was MS there was IBM.
- vphl
go read /etc/termcap:
# Some information has been merged in from a terminfo file SCO distributes.
# It has an obnoxious boilerplate copyright which I'm ignoring because they
# took so much of the content from the ancestral BSD versions of this file
# and didn't attribute it, thereby violating the BSD Regents' copyright.
sco's been trying to hide the infringing code. now i've found it so i get to put words in mcbride's mouth: curses! foiled again.
this is such silly evidence that it proves what we've known all along - sco is in terminal condition.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
SCO is doing this to try and inflate, and keep inflated, a share price based on an extremely thin balloon. To keep that going, they have to keep shouting. If IBM makes specific replies, then SCO has something to use in the next press release. If they don't, it all has to come from within SCO. The longer it goes on, the greater the chance of SCO coming up with manifest contradictions, allegations that can easily be shown to be untrue in court, actual libel. SCO cannot afford to shut up and cannot afford simply to repeat themselves over and over, as with no new content the press will lose interest.
My personal interest in this is that 20 years ago we were involved with someone whose public utterances were very like those of Mr. McBride. He came up with so many allegations that our attorney started to believe that we were the liars, on the basis that no-one would make so many claims if they weren't true. But then it came to court...the originals of documents were mysteriously not to hand (faked photocopies). Witnesses were mysteriously unavailable. Foreign Chambers of Commerce had never heard of the companies he claimed we were in collusion with, who also seemed never to have occupied the claimed addresses. The guy fired his own lawyers. And suddenly he lost the case, a judge was telling him that he was considering whether there was a possibility of perjury, and he had huge legal bills to pay for both sides. I seriously believe that this man was so out of his tree that even as he faked documents, he actually believed he was reproducing something that "really" existed in the perfect world he lived in. Never underestimate the power of human self-delusion.
Not, of course, that I am suggesting for one moment that Mr. McBride is engaging in any improper activities, deluding himself, or seeking to rig the share price of a junk stock. I am sure that he is a totally ethical businessman and the merits of his case will soon become apparent.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Well, some people are thinking this is about the Matrix, so I guess I could also ask my question, which seems kind of far fetched, but still an interesting question.
From juridical viewpoint, would it be possible for IBM to hire the all technical (meaning coders and developers) staff from SCO and just simply put SCO out of business, leaving the marketdroids and executive staff soaking in their own... hey hey, kids... in debt?
Just wondering.
McBride radiates confidence
Gee... ignorance really is bliss...
...why aren't we all shorting their stock? I mean, it seems to have sat around 4-5 for ages, and just recently jumped up to 8-10 (being about 10.5 today). Considering this jump in their stock price appears to be largely based on these ridiculous claims they have against IBM, and our general belief that these claims will end up being entirely unfounded, wouldn't it be sensible to put our money where our mouths are and put in a short order on SCOX? Isn't it possible to put an order in such a way that it has a failsafe, i.e. it sells automatically in case the price went over, say, 20 (so if they DID somehow bribe the judge and win, you wouldn't be going to bankruptcy when their stock went to $300 lol)? I've never dabbled in short orders before as they're more risky than straight-up stocks, but I would be curious if anyone had some thoughts about this situation where we're all pretty sure SCO's case is baseless, and that SCO is going to essentially vaporize as soon as their claims are debunked. Stay safe all...
To paraphrase Heinlein
Take back your industry.
Scott Adams once said in the right corporation it was more important to wear the right clothes than produce results. He citied an example of a man who had sent his suit to be dry cleaned and wound up directly reporting to it.
McBride, Sontag, et all are suits wearing men. Read their histories they are nothings, less than nothings and never will be's. The very act of paying attention to them lends them greater crednce than they could ever gain through merit or labor.
It is painfully obvious that SCO wants to be acquired. It is also quite aparent that these people hold the rest of the universe in contempt, in that they dont even come within shooting distance of truth in their statements.
Take This for example "Sco's contracts are bulletproof". SCO's contracts are over 30 years old have entanglements with 3rd parties and legal decisions, precedents and acquiesences that have rendered them far from bulletproof. If you take a look at the law covering software in the 70's and recall that at the time the legality of copyrighting software object code was up in the air, and patenting it was a complete impossibility, the speciousness of mr McBrides statements is obvious.
P.S. Just a note that the fact you couldnt copyright software object code or patent it at the time really didnt stop anyone from making some really great software.
DEAR DARL,
I HOPE I REACH YOU IN GOOD HEALTH.
SINCE I HAVE RECEIVED A NUMBER OF SIAMILAR EMAILS BEFORE, I CAN GIVE YOU A FEW POINTERS TO MAKE IT MORE CONVINCNG.
YOUR EMAIL SHOULD BE IN ALL CAPS, FOR ALL THE EMALS I'VE RECEIVED ALL SEEM TO BE NI THIS FORMAT!
A FEW EXCLA1MATION MARKS WOULDN'T HURT EITHER!!
ALSO YOU SEEM TO RUN A SPELLCHECKOR, THIS IS VERY BAD, SINCE THESE EMAILS ARE USUALLY WRITTEN WHILE FLEEING THE COUNTRY, YOU DO NOT HAVE TIME TO SPEELLCHECK!
WHEN YOU ARE SUCCESSFULL PLEASE WRITE TO ME MY FRIEND, FOR I HAVE $45 MILLION DOLLARS (US) IN GOLD IN A DEPOSIT IN IRAQ, AND I NEED SOME MONEY TO BRIBE THE CUSTOM OFFICIALS. I CAN GIVE YOU 15%!!!
KIND REGARDS FROM YOUR FRIEND
I have had additional interest in this article beyond just OSS and my concerns of how abused the (un)justice system is. At one point I lived a few miles away from SCO's Lindon headquarters for a short period (when they were Caldera) while I worked a different software company. I even knew a few McBride's. Infact I'm sad to say there's a good likelyhood of a relation to that Darl jerk, a pity because the McBride clan I knew were good people. (Yes I said clan, it was a big mormon family grip of McBride's, with uhm, I think a thousand children or so). It has given me a bit of a personal interest in the situation. I care to make a few silver lining comments that seem to have been overlooked for the most part.
What SCO has done (and is doing) is not completely bad for OSS and IBM, and I wish to point out some of the benefits to come of this.
First and foremost, a horrible company is in its death throws and will succomb to them eventually. Even with M$ life support it is only a matter of time before the parasitic bug that is SCO keels over and dies.
Secondly, and more importantly, no publicity is bad publicity. Darl McBride and the SCO Groups manical ranting is drawing a lot of attention to Linux and OSS. Eventually the bad PR will be proven for what it is. It is also showing exactly how strongly IBM stands behind and supports OSS, adding even more credibility to the community and software. I expect to see nothing less than Big Blue going toe to toe with SCO and most efficiently wiping the floor with their faces (kind of gives me a warm feeling to think about). Beyond the pleasure it will be to see this, the very public statement it will make should be a (wet)dream come true for OSS advocates. You cannot buy that kind of publicity, you cannot get a message like that across with just words, the *action* of the largest computer and technology company in the world laying themselves on the line is priceless. You can't more easily have people become aware of what a true contender Linux and OSS is to have IBM "risk life and limb, their very existence" to support it. IBM isn't risking anything, you know that, I know that, but the average person who may hear about this does not. All they know is IBM is "risking" 3 billion dollars and every bit of IBM "IP" SCO claims to own. Having a few CEO's thinking IBM is willing to "die" defending Linux is a pretty good thing in my opinion, and this FUD smear campaign will eventually do nothing more than gain Linux additional credibility and support.
I lastly want to appeal to the comments I have come across hypothesizing (and sometimes fearing) a SCO victory. Yes, it is possible no matter how unlikely that SCO could win. Justice is blind and our justice system is very flawed and makes many mistakes. Yet a SCO victory is still a moot point. It would only be the victory of a battle, their war is hopeless. Whether through appeal, counter patent suits, or even a big rock to Darl McBride's forehead, IBM will use one of a million contingency plans available if the near impossible happens and the suit is lost to SCO.
For anyone still concerned about SCO legally proving they owns rights to uhm, just about everything on the planet, I promise I will personally deliver a rock to not only McBride's ugly cranium, but every single one of the members of that company, their umbrella company, and moron who bought their stock. The only problem is, I'm afraid I'd have to get in a very long to carry out the task. For libel I would've actually considered noting that was sarcasm, but since SCO owns the IP of everything it's their joke so they can't sue me. *whew*
Beware blue cats moving at
Our friend Reginald Charles (VP of International Sales, SCO) seems to have sold off another 5K set of shares.
He sold one set 2003-06-20, and this set 2003-06-25.
Only 155K to go Charles!
Belief is the currency of delusion.
If they have made no attempt to give IBM the opportunity to decide whether or not they want to license the code in question, then SCO has neglected its responsibility in protecting their own IP. By their own admission, they will not show the code because it gives IBM and other Linux users the opportunity to not use the code in question and removes liability. For this alone, this suit should be dismissed!
The Amendment purports to cede some copyrights to a predecessor of TSG. Even if the document hasn't been drawn up very recently and artifically aged, the copyright transfer has not been registered with the USPTO so it isn't (yet) valid. They don't yet actually own any related copyrights.
Dollars to doughnuts this is the mysterious transfer of copyrights that they were polling Novell about (and denied so doing) just before they whipped Percival out and shoved him into the legal meat grinder.
They have no patents at all, and no claim to any patents.
Also, if Amendment 2 turns out to be a forgery, the only share trading D'ohl will be doing is trading shares of his posterior for the opportunity to stay alive and relatively unhurt in a Federal penitentiary. Given his arrogance so far, he may not survive long enough to be offered even that.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
"Nothing is so easy as to deceive one's self; for what we wish, we readily believe." -- Demosthenes
Belief is the currency of delusion.
This from IBM's ammended response to SCO's complaint:
"Nineth Defense
Caldera's claims are improperly venued in this district.
Wherefore, defendant IBM demands judegement dismissing plaintiff's complaint and respectfully requests that the Court award IBM reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses and the costs and disbursements of defending this action along with such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper."
--Insert catchy
No, The SCO Group (TSG) pays lawyers to do barratry.
The Santa Cruz Operation is probably the company you had in mind, and they don't exist. They sold their UNIX rights to Caldera and renamed themselves Tarantella. And apparently are still producing code. Hopefully, they're now producing good code, because I've seen SCO UNIX and it ain't a pretty sight.
AFAICT TSG (a glove-puppet for The Canopy Group) have never lifted their finger to any creative or constructive work in their entire collective lives. Their only visible occupation is "suer". They make money from suing.
I agree. But this is not what TSG are claiming.
TSG do claim to own derivative works (including hardware) that IBM wrote and the agreement says IBM have the rights to. They are also claiming ownership by derivation of every operating system in the world. I'll read that again. TSG claim to own every OS there is. Even Windows. I haven't seen them explicitly claim to own DOS yet, but hey, they sued (and I think rightfully for a change) over what Microsoft did to DR-DOS.
So... you're for who?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
This guy seems to fit somewhere between Steve Jobs and the Iraqi information minister on the RDF meter. Now if he starts talking about IBM "surrendering", I think that will tip the scales.
linux as a system, would simply replace that code which is offending. they are suing ibm over misplaced unix intellectual property, which they may or may not own. they have not presented a cease and desist to the linux community, nor could they without describing explicitly what is offending. "...but are they worth risking Linux to vagaries of the increasingly irrational legal system?" they've been told in germany to put up, or shut up... which did they do? vigilance is rational; paranoid is not. as the villan in the bruce lee movies says after sticking a couple knives in his opponents, "you must stay relaxed!"
McBride radiates confidence, describing SCO's contracts as "bullet-proof." He says he thinks IBM is desperate to buy SCO because "the last thing [IBM wants] to hear is the testimony that is going to come out," but that SCO isn't interested in being acquired.
A friend of mine has a three or four year old boy who, whenever he sees me, says, "You can't catch me, Carlo..." (which is an approximation of my name). But the fact of the matter is he knows that I can catch him and once I do I tickle him and throw him in the air and (usually) catch him which is the very thing he wants.
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
So maybe its supercomputers haven't spat out an algorithm yet on how to respond to this kind of situation.
His commentary was very professional until that little remark...
It's hard to tell the cool to chill, my favorite hotel room has a view to an ill.
July 1st, 2003:
IBM serves SCO for infringing on ONE IBM patent.
July 2st, 2003:
IBM serves SCO for infringing on TWO IBM patents.
July 3st, 2003:
IBM serves SCO for infringing on FOUR IBM patents.
July 4st, 2003:
Happy independance day USA!
IBM serves SCO for infringing on EIGHT IBM patents.
July 5st, 2003:
IBM serves SCO for infringing on SIXTEEN IBM patents.
.
.
.
Janyary 1st, 2004:
Happy new year everyone!
IBM serves SCO for infringing on Life, The Universe and Everything, as patented by IBM.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It occurs to me that, all the foaming-at-the-mouth "this guy is trying to destroy Linux!" responses aside, Darl McBride is doing what he is supposed to do: he is defending the interests of SCO and its shareholders.
You may not like what he is doing, or how he is going about it--I don't like it much myself--but I am forced to admit that, at least on the surface, he appears to be protecting the rights (that is, the intellectual property) of his company. How SCO got those rights, or even whether SCO has the rights it claims, is a separate issue.
I believe that there is a revolution taking place in the software world, and Slashdot is one of its major outlets. Intellectual property as it has been may be becoming obsolete. But it is not yet, and there are still companies such as SCO which cling desperately to the ways of old.
I refuse to demonize SCO simply because they are not in tune with the Open Source movement's way of doing things. SCO claims that code which it has claim to was lifted lock, stock and barrel and placed into the kernel without copyright notices. If that's true, then indeed SCO has been wronged. There is no escaping that. What will determine SCO's merit as a company will be how they enforce their rights when or if it is discovered that this is indeed what has occurred.
While I dread what this situation might do to the Linux world, I must say that I admire Mr. McBride for having the courage to stick to his guns and do what the company believes to be right. It may be a mistake--and likely will be--but in this age of CEOs taking the money and leaving the company to burn, I applaud McBride for trying to keep his struggling company together.
Flame away...
I used to work with Darl (as in have frequent 1-on-1 and group interactions with him) when he was CEO of PointServe and I was the Chief [Software] Architect. Like most CEOs, sadly both the good ones and bad ones, he has a very large ego and strong self-confidence. This self-confidence, at least in Darl's case, is independent of that validity of the underlying facts, plans, or business conditions.
At PointServe he routinely made claims amounting to "the future's so bright, you gotta wear shades" about our Internet business plans for scheduling and routing of mobile field personnel. The plans behind these services were never adequately developed and there was no reality behind them. He did work very hard on making sure there was hype around the plans though. He pressured us to hire (this quote might be his or the words of the VP of marketing) "Internet Rock Stars" - by which they meant a consulting firm that would look good to the possible investors in creating credible for our Internet story. One should definitely look at all of Darl's previous companies when considering his background.
When I read what Darl is saying now, I can't help but wonder if there is a similar amount of reality, fronted by a similar amount of bluster, in his words about SCO.
Oh yes, Darl and Rick pushed us to hire a consulting firm with which Darl had prior experience (details of which I'll leave to the lawyers). They completely failed to build anything useful, PointServe still sort of exists, and the consulting deal is, last I checked, still under litigation. Is there a theme here?
Good link - that being publically known, though, I still don't know if it changes IBM's strategy. Basically it means that Boies has a vested interest in settling as soon as possible, to get as much cash per time spent as possible. It's kind of like when you have a real estate agent - they get a fixed percentage of the sale price, and underpriced houses sell faster - so it's in their best interest to sell your house at 5% under value if they can sell it twice as fast. Same with Boies.
So if I'm IBM, the first thing I intimate to Boies is that there is NO settlement. What does he do then? Best get this thing to trial and try to get whatever he can, huh? I would say then that the more IBM stalls the more desperate Boies gets to not spend years on this thing when they may get nothing in return except losing a high-profile case, wasting time and killing his mystique. I believe he isn't anxious to try that on.
The other reason Boies has to hurry is that the investors who stupidly drove this thing up to $11/share are going to get restless eventually - I would bet that if this thing gets badly dragged out, share price goes down, shrinking the cash pie that is shared among Boies, Darl, etc.
Ultimately, I don't think Boies is a moron, so I bet a lot of this is starting to sink in. I'm sure he's also apprised Darl of the situation, and that's why Darl is sounding crazier than ever - and from the sound of things, trying to convince shareholders of value more than anything. He knows their share price is a bubble, and if it pops, the company comes apart.
I can't wait. Might just pop a beer and watch MSNBC all day when it goes down. ;)
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Darl is trying to weave 25 years of history, weird contracts, unclear ownership into something of value.
He's ignoring precedent, logic, honesty, and common sense all in the name of "Shareholder value".
I'm calling BULLSHIT on this one. The man hasn't any integrity, and trying to clothe this in some sort of "defending shareholder interest" in disingenuous and wrong. Darl is for Darl. And in his work, he really believes "fuck the shareholders, I'm gonna be rich".
I'm saying a prayer:
"Dear Jesus
Send the cleansing cancer to Darl. Make him go slowly, so slowly that it bankrupts him and his family. In your loving care we pray, Amen"
If I were doing an interview with the cheese at SCO, I'd want to ask stuff like, "Even if there is violating code, didn't your distribution of Linux under the GPL including that violating code mean that you obliterated its status as a trade secret?" or "Why won't you put your cards on the table and give some real experts some real freedom to examine the alleged violating code without the burden of an overly-binding NDA?" or "How do you claim to own all of these copyrights and all of this intellectual property when even in your own SEC filings your company claims it is merely a steward for Novell?"
Why ask all of these questions where we know we're just going to get pre-manufactured FUD?
http://starboard.flowtheory.net/