Slashdot Mirror
SCO Volleys to Red Hat
ZeroVerteX noted that News.com is saying "The SCO Group fired back against Linux leader Red Hat on Monday, filing a motion to dismiss the Linux company's suit against SCO. In a motion filed late Monday in U.S. District Court in Delaware, SCO argues that Red Hat has no grounds to sue SCO, as SCO's actions against the open-source Linux operating system have not specifically targeted Red Hat." So it's ok to threaten a community, but not ok for a member of that same community to stand up?
that SCO holds the copyright on stupid lawsuit. (sarcasm intended).
"There will be a day of reckoning for Red Hat and SuSE when this is done." --Darl McBride, Apr 24 2003, here
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Mmmmm coffee in hand and my morning SCO rant. WooHoo.....
Anyway, who did not see this coming. It's a "do as I say not as I do" thing with SCO. They think that they can get away with unbiased defamination. I beleive the judge will throw this motion out.
By SCO using fraudulent claims to deminish the marketability of RedHat's own products (as well as that of the Linux marketplace as a whole), RedHat has every right to sue.
Why havn't any of the 'Linux contributors' - aka the people who have code in the kernel stepped up and sued SCO over defimation?
SCO has, in effect, called the 'team' that developed the Linux kernel thieves.
Why hasn't any of the 'team' stepped up to the plate and sued?
Y'know, in spite of all the press you see, understand that the only legal action SCO has entered into is a *contract* suit against IBM. If they win that suit, there are no consequences for anybody but IBM.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
First, the CSOF contains literally dozens of paragraphs relying exclusively upon indisputably inadmissible material -- hearsay statements taken from books, magazine articles, letters and purported testimony of third parties who are not witnesses in this action
/ 05-05re sponse.asp
[cut]
Second, Caldera's CSOF contains many misstatements. Many of Caldera's assertions simply are not supported by the cited references. In other instances, Caldera selectively quotes from exhibits, whose full text plainly gives a different meaning than ascribed by Caldera. In alleging certain events, Caldera omits known related facts that convey an entirely different understanding.
[cut]
Finally, although Caldera attempts to rewrite 15 years of computer history, it oddly never mentions that it was not even a bystander to these events. In a 1996 transaction that closed on the same day that Caldera filed this lawsuit, Caldera paid less than $400,0006 for DR DOS and the right to pursue claims against Microsoft that Caldera now says are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. This explains why the CSOF is not based on personal knowledge, and is not limited to admissible evidence.
taken from the following page:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/caldera
- I choked on the red pill and now I'm stuck in limbo
Probably not a lot to do about it...except...
d e= thread&order=0
DiBona had a fun idea though: If you own a company, put the following on you policypage:
No employee that worked for SCO after September 2003 is eligible for employment. We articulate this on our jobs page so we don't waste anyone's time.
No business will be done with the Boies law firm, even peripherally though other vendors or law firms with which we may contract.
See more at:
http://linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=7145&mo
that SCO doesn't want part of the community to stand up for itself. Its that they don't want a part of the community with money and/or lawyers to stand up for itself.
No, they don't believe that. If they believed that, they'd come forward with proof. All they believe is that they can get some money in the bank before their company folds.
Hope every Linux vendor in the world sues SCO.. Linux users should start suing SCO too. When lawyers from IBM, Redhat, 100s of Linux users, etc start overwhelming SCO with lawsuits, maybe they'll run out of money and cease to exist. They will not be missed
In its responding motion, SCO says its actions are protected by, among other rights, First Amendment protections of free speech. "Any governmental interest served under the Lanham Act (one of the foundations of U.S. intellectual property law) is heavily outweighed by fundamental governmental interests in protecting copyright interests, ensuring full and free access to courts, providing litigation immunity, promoting judicial economy and fairness in litigation, and safeguarding freedom of speech and the press," according to SCO's motion
Another company claiming the rights that an individual is entitled to. I say that since you can't jail a company or kill it, a company should not have the rights of an individual.
I think the old Nike case has not been settled yet. So SCO is in the wrong. IIRC, AFAIK and IANAL. But I know I hate this.
.ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
In its responding motion, SCO says its actions are protected by, among other rights, First Amendment protections of free speech.
Well that's interesting, because it was recently ruled in a Californian court that a Nike publicity campaign was actually "commercial speech" and so unprotected by the First Amendment.
Personally, I think that companies claiming the rights of citizens can't be a good thing - after all, when did you hear of human rights abuses against corporations?
Wow! SCO's stock is at 19.17 WTF!!!
It is of course a pure coincidence, but my company has decided a mere month ago to get rid of SCO Unix in the embedded systems environment and replace it with RedHat. The reason for this move has nothing to do with the ongoing juridicial battle, but has been made simply "because Linux in general is considered state-of-the-art". Cute.
Calvin as well!
Nero-burning ROM for Linux!
You see, /. kiddies... any time there are corporate lawsuits, there are often many various suits filed by several parties. This is common. Unless you're a lawyer who's specifically working on these suits, I have no idea how this is "news". Just let us know when it's over. A blow-by-blow account of a corporate legal battle is about as exciting as NPR.
i'm starting to wonder if this whole SCO stupidness is going to turn into the largest April Fool's joke, ever.
cause damn, i can't help but wonder what the hell they are thinking....
We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
I think if we as a group are trying to read some great plan into what SCO does we'll all go nuts. They are grasping a straws, hoping to find something, anything that will help them. It this get thrown out, they'll come up with some other stupid petition for the court until the judge tells them to stop.
Sadly, I saw an article in PC magazine (Ziff-Davis Trash) and the columnist was just gushing over some 'Proof' that chris sontag from SCO had shown him that yes Unix source was in linux. The guy wouldn't know a strcpy from an sprintf, but he thought this was 'powerful evidence'. If it was there, it was probably from SCO when they were caldera. Oh well theres Lies, damn lies, statistics and then the ranting of brain dead computer columnists....................
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
Dont worry Raffe, it's an old article by slashdot time. I mean it came out last night..... Anyway, I got rejected a couple of times
OK, lets just say this bullshit somehow manages to grow wings and fly... IANAL but couldn't RedHat file a class action lawsuit on behalf of the open source community and allow you and me and everybody to sign on?
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
"Red Hat's real motive for filing suit against SCO was to somehow vindicate the entire Linux industry," according to the SCO motion.
Well, what did you expect, Darl? You threaten the open-source community, actively call Linux customers and tell them they're liable for using Linux, and you don't expect somebody with some guts (and cash) to stand up to you?
It's like the school bully running to the principle after somebody he's pushed around pushed back.
It is not our abilities that show what we truly are... it is our choices.
Apparently they will also be doing a 'city to city tour' showcasing their fabulous technology:
l
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030915/lam101_1.htm
Needless to say, a great opportunity to organize something with your local LUG to show up and politely make people aware that this is not a good company to be doing business with.
The tour supposedly visits:
-- October 7th, Toronto
-- October 8th, Newark
-- October 9th, Boston
-- October 14th, Minneapolis
-- October 15th, Chicago
-- October 16th, St. Louis
-- October 21st, Vancouver
-- October 22nd, Irvine
-- October 23rd, Dallas
-- October 28th, Atlanta
-- October 29th, Orlando
http://www.welton.it/davidw/
manipulating abstract words and their meanings to suit connotations supportive of SCO?
I mean, of course they have. A motion to dismiss is just part of the dance. It's typically the first reaction of a legal team to a legal threat. I'm pretty certain its the first thing that IBM did as well.
It's often a long shot, but if granted, it will save SCO a lot of time and money.
IAAL, and a motion to dismiss is something that is filed in nearly every lawsuit on the off chance that it will actually work and you can avoid having your client pay the expenses of litigation.
Leaving out any comment about the legal judgment involved in SCO filing the original lawsuit, if SCO's lawyers *hadn't* recommended filing this motion to dismiss Red Hat's suit, it would have constituted malpractice.
I just wonder when SCO SYS V code will become a part of the OpenSource as they have included many OpenSource code in it.. I see millions of lines copied or obfuscated...
I gave up with the idea of an useful sig...
SCO sent 1500 letters to large Linux-using companies intimating legal action if those companies did not pay SCO's extortion demands. If any of those companies are using Redhat Linux, then it seems to me that Redhat has been pulled into standing by SCO's interference with Redhat's business relationship with those companies.
I await with anticipation the M$ and RIAA stories soon forth coming.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
...until Linus comes along to pat Darl McBride on the head again like the spoiled little brat that he is? Even better, how long until SCO just uses up all their current money and goes away for a very long time?
Dude, where's my packet?
Lawyers, SCO and money.
- First we ignored SCO.
- Then we laughed at SCO.
- Then we fought SCO.
- ...
Remind me what step four is?Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
If SCO fails in its motion then it is a terrific sign for future anti-Linux lawsuits. It would mean that SCO could not convince a judge that its evidence is strong enough to withstand counter evidence. We know this is true but convincing a judge is a different matter. What Linux needs is the precedent of a judge agreeing with us (through RedHat).
This is going to be fun to watch.
Daryl pumpimng/pimping SCOX stock again so insiders can sell..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
[emphasis mine]
I may not remember correctly, but didn't SCO say they had no ties left to Novell - or something along those lines - after Novell spoke up the last time?
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
Because suing over defamation doesn't allow you to extract enough money from the guilty party when you win.
Otherwise, there'd be plenty of lawyers queued up asking the major kernel hackers for permission to sue SCO on their behalf.
I've posted this before, but instead of simply whining about their behavior here at /. we should be filing complaints with the FTC. Mention how they are trying to sell something that they do not own, and that if you don't pay them now (before they show what they own), they are saying that you'll owe them more later. Licenses start at $699 for a single processor during the promotional period.
SCO's Address:
The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
801-765-4999 phone
801-765-1313 fax
FTC Consumer Complaint Form
Take a stand and make a real difference.
--
Slash
...a copy is here.
Interesting points:
I'm still waiting for the invoice for my single-CPU Linux box...
Just another wannabe fantasy novelist...
From the Article:
"Red Hat's real motive for filing suit against SCO was to somehow vindicate the entire Linux industry," according to the SCO motion.
Well DUH!! Isn't SCO attacking the entire Linux Industry?!? Someone has to stand up for the Linux community (in a court of law in this case).
I don't get it. SCO is allowed to spread FUD throughout any media organization that will listen, but the minute someone legally challenges SCO's accusations, SCO cries unfair?
Someone please tell SCO to grow up... oh wait!...
It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
AFAIK RedHat's case was triggered by direct statements from SCO that they were on the 'hitlist', but RedHat tried to defend us all, and also tried to lure SCO into showing the code, as potential proof they had any base for the statements.
Sounds a bit orchestrated by IBM, and maybe it is. It would be the perfect way to get any evidence on the table, and would allow the community to fix the code (if needed), and basically bail everyone out of future cases by SCO against any and all Linux-adopting companies, since they (SCO) seem to wait for the IBM vs SCO case before going after the users.
"We believe that Linux infringes on our Unix intellectual property and other rights," the letter said. "We intend to aggressively protect and enforce these rights. Legal liability that may arise from the Linux development process may also rest with the end user."
And how is this, and the fact that they are demanding payment for something they are not willing to disclose, not a threat?
"Terminate?"
"Terminate... with extreme prejudice"
Victims of Klan violence have won several lawsuits against Klan groups and leaders after general statements about blacks resulted in personal harm to them by Klansmen.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
Declaring an operating system, its developers, and its users to be in violation of the copyright of a piece of code they promised to reveal - what, two months ago? - and demanding that they all pay a license fee isn't considered a threat?
In related news, there's an article on news.com.com that just seems crazy and doesn't do Sun any favours.The main problems with this article are not Sun's strange ideas (which constitute some of the shallowest media manipulation that I've recently seen), but author Michael Kanellos' jumbled up logic that only presents one side of the issue because he ignores the possibility that SCO are insane.
Here are some choice inaccuracies/curious statements (interspersed with my comments):
"You license Java--we will indemnify you on Linux," is how Jonathan Schwartz, executive vice president of software at Sun, said the program, if initiated, might work
O.K. I don't see how Sun would think that they could do this but it's clear what they have in mind. Though what they mean by "license Java" is probably a detail that even they haven't worried about.
SCO's legal position has drawn the ire of open-source advocates, some of whom have hacked SCO's site.
As I understand, SCO's site hasn't been hacked, so he is refering to the DoS by an unknown person.
Microsoft signed a multimillion-dollar licensing agreement with SCO that revolves around Unix-Linux compatibility issues
Unix-Linux compatibility issues? Microsoft mentioned Unix-Windows compatibility, but surely noone would regurgitate that as the reason that Microsoft pay SCO.
Sun has publicly stated on several occasions that it will indemnify its Solaris customers against any liability
Is this true? Do Sun offer significantly greater protection that Microsoft (i.e. purchase price of the software)?
Schwartz did not comment on how Sun could insulate its Java customers from a lawsuit from SCO, but there are a number of possibilities.
So Sun are just posturing.
Sun could request that Java customers seeking indemnity switch from using Linux to Solaris.
Microsoft could request a similar thing!
Sun could also, conceivably, devise a Linux-like OS
I suppose I am capable of conceiving that, but it is a ridiculous idea.
Sun's license only extends to Solaris, said SCO spokesman Blake Stowell, not to Java related products
So the whole idea was obviously nonsense from the start and Michael only wrote about it because Sun said it so people will take notice.
- Brian
(Inadvertently posted at top-level)
Yours:
2003-09-16 08:18:10 SCO swings back at Red Hat (articles,redhat) (rejected)
The one posted:
SCO Volleys to Red Hat
Posted by CmdrTaco on Tuesday September 16, @07:56AM
This was a full 20 minutes before yours.
So quit your bitching.
A day of reckoning indeed. Lots of SCO insiders have been selling shares during the past few months. None of them are buying. These aren't just anybody. We're talking Robert K. Bench, Chief Financial Officier ; Reginald C. Broughton, Senior Executive VP ; Michael P. Olson, Controller ; Michael Sean Wilson, Senior VP ; Jeff F. Hunsaker, VP . These are people who should have some idea of the health of the company.
This confirms what Linus predicted in an interview: "SCO smokes crack". Lots of crack, I should say...
Half Time
Oh, you know those kernel developer types. They are probably off on their yachts in the south of France sipping Cristal and snorting coke off of a stripper's ass.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
will this make it through?
probably not.
Red Hat has a good case here. SCO is going to drop the motion when IBM eats their nuts.
And yet they're trading at almost $20 a share, proving that the once constant in the world is that investors are stupud.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Do you remember when SCO sent all those letters out to linux users. If just one of those users was running RedHat they have a good case for business interference.
SCO is sending out letters about liability to licensing fees to GNU/Linux users, including RedHat's customers. That should be all the standing they need in court.
-t
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
SCO filed their quarterly report and reported earnings of about 15,000,000 from SCOsource. They also reported declining sales of their other products and services. They really have changed their business model completely. If they don't win in court they will no longer exist... but I think everyone here knew that.
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/030915/scox10-q.html
My Blog
While Linus et al surely have had their reputations dragged through the mud, it would be very difficult to prove actual damages, and SCO's defense would simply be, "We beleive we are correct."
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
It does not protect you if you make statements designed to damage someones elses business. SCO clearly has stated linux has pirated code in it.
Redhat's primary business is selling Linux products, whether Redhat was a primary target of that statement is irrelevant, it was an intended target. SCO has clearly intended through its statments and actions to target linux users and potential users who include Redhat customers and those who might become redhat customers. These statements were and are potentially misleading and deceptive.
This may be causing actual financial damage to redhat. Courts do not want to impose prior restraint, but if Redhat can establish they are losing customers because of false and misleading statements by SCO then courts can and do act.
All of these issues are for a jury to decide , so I dont think SCOs dismissal action will succeed
hurry up and die allready...
Looking over the latest, which appears to be the usual SCO Linguistic Acrobatics ("We can say anything we want, it's free speech . . . for the corporation!"), I was wondering about the mentality inside SCO. Far inside, since they seem to be in their own world.
I think expecting logic, decency, concern for the rule of law, etc. from SCO is doomed to fail. Of course, we pretty much knew that.
Looking at their behaviors, its purely marketing behaviors. There's not a single connection to reality (except hopes to get $$$ by getting bought, stock manipulation, etc.). It's a marketing campaign, period, and like any campaign of its kind it'll morph, change, alter, play to whomever they can play with, and so-on.
On the other hand, I don't think the SCOites truly realize what they're doing in their little world. They're annoying a huge amount of people and making themselves legal targets. I think they only see this great new ploy that's sure to work - it's marketing, and marketing is always to gullible schlubs anyway, right?
That is perpahs their greatest personal weakness. They're running a marketing campaign in a legal arena. They're assuming people will roll over in the face of their brilliance and threats. They don't realize they're in a different arena.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Nike did settle their case, just so you know.
2 00 3/09/08/daily60.html
http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
SCO's well thought out legal reply is "liar liar pants on fire".
red hat, suse, slackware, debain, gentoo, turbo and about 50,000 roll-your-own distros
They believe they had code stolen from them.
If SCO really believed this, then they would be trying to get the infringement stopped ASAP.
Instead, SCO's very actions are to make sure that the infringement continues forever without any way for anyone to stop it, so that they can extort money.
If SCO were to win over IBM, then IBM would pay their $3 Billion and that would be the end of the matter. The $1 Billion in damages is to fully, totally, and completely compensate SCO for their damages. End of story. Trippling the damages to $3 Billion is to punish IBM for their alleged misdeeds. In no event do end users pay anything, any more than if you have a book that ends up being shown to have plagarized someone's copyright work.
The fact that SCO goes around making threats that everyone needs to pay for a license demonstrated what it is that they actually believe. That they can make money from someone else's IP because they blame Linux for killing their failed business model.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
OK just had this thought.
SCO pump their stock, and their execs are selling it off like crazy.
How cool would it be if it's IBM buying most of it
IBM gets a 51% share... and completely & utterly fucks SCO over backwards, Darl included?
sounds cool!
Seriously, this really isn't news. Just standard legal maneuvering. Even if you're in a clear cut case, the defense lawyer will still file a motion for dismal just on the off chance the judge will accept it. I'm sure they've filed dozens of motions already with dozens more to come.
SCOsource initiative has already resulted in revenue of $15,530,000 during the last two quarters
In the second quarter this was $8,250,000 from the two licenses sold.
The other licensee was Sun.
We also find the following in the quarterly:
The SCOsource licensing revenue in the third quarter of fiscal year 2003 represents additional fees associated with two licenses executed during the April 30, 2003, quarter. Under the terms of our license agreement with Sun, we will receive an additional $2,500,000 by November 2003.
So basically, they haven't sold any more licenses since April.
Sun and MS are propping SCO up to hurt Linux.
(Excluding the licensing, SCO is bleeding badly.. this is the only thing bringing them into the black.)
No. SCO must pass along most (I believe) of the money to Novell. They're like a debt-collecting agency, collecting for Novell.
Yes, on each sale 5% goes to SCO and 95% goes to Novell.
Quoting an e-week article here:
Under that agency agreement, SCO collects all customer payments and remits 95 percent of the collected funds to Novell and retains 5 percent as an administrative fee. SCO records the 5 percent administrative fee as revenue in its consolidated statements of operations.
who is fucked, when IBM has 51% of a worthless company? No, not Darl, he's got all the $$$ from selling his stocks..
This is all FUD and I'm glad IBM did not fall into it and did not try to buy SCO/Caldera, rewarding their foul practices.
...TSG's threatened use of law to suppress every kernel developers' right to freely (price too) speak really does speak for itself.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
And your point is?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
NPR is /. for people who aren't at their PC's...
The case docket on Pacer shows no such filing, although yesterday was the deadline for SCO to respond. So maybe it just hasn't been entered in the system yet.
Just wanted to let you know that there is at least one person on
Unfortunately that person is also modpointless.
The only acceptable defense of scientific results is to say that they were the product of the Scientific Method.
...since even the slightest right that TSG may have originally possessed, however indirectly, they've completely trashed through their actions. Doctrine of "dirty hands" etc.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
IBM gets a 51% share... and completely & utterly fucks SCO over backwards, Darl included?
That would be like buying your ex-wife's car from her so you can trash it in revenge.
Er... was this supposed to be funny?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
IMO, you have missed the purpose of /. its mission is similar to that of NPR in that it does *precisely* what you are talking about:
/. ("news for nerds. stuff that matters").
,besides NPR, consider interesting) then dont bother with /.
In many cases (such as this one) It provides a "blow-by-blow" account of the news that is considered relevant to
As a result of watching the political process unfold NPR listeners get more informed/educated and in many cases, more involved.
As the tech law/rights/development/history process (/.) unfolds slashdotters get more informed, educated and (hopefully)involved.
IMO, blow by blow accounts of corporate legal battles are very interesting, especially when corporate entities behave like spoiled children. If you dont like this kind of coverage, (which many respectable news outlets
.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
Makes me want to reopen my non-IRA account specifically so I can short them.
A nice 99% profit when they hit 20 cents sounds nice.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
It's just a question of avoiding even the possibility of a lawsuit.
It's more like buying your ex-wife's car so you can leave it sit in the driveway and she can go live in comfortable retirement for the rest of her life.
Darl doesn't give a damn who buys the stock - if IBM has 51% of SCO, he has the cash equivalent of that 51% in his pocket, and it's off to Jamaica for retirement.
And if that car were the only car capable of trying to run you down and ruin your business and that of many other people you're in business with, then it just may be worth it.
And hell, trashing cars IS fun anyway.
Its time we began to focus on the positive side of this. I am thankful for SCO v IBM. In order for enterprise adoption of GNU/Linux to happen the GPL must be tested in the courts around the globe? If the GPL cannot pass the test, corporations will not accept it. When the GPL is found legal, we will have SCO to thank.
My word to all of you is to end the hostility toward SCO and embrace the service they are providing the open source community.
RedHat should refile as a class action suit.
Personally I see it as getting rid of an annoyance that is truly devaluing IBMs business. It's causing harm to Linux (regardless of the final outcome, the people making the decisions are more wary about Linux than before) and it's wasting time and effort.
It's like buying your ex wife's car with your business name on the side of it that she uses to harm you. Once that's gone, once IBM have rights to all SCO owns and there's nothing but clarity in the mind of The Market, I'm happy. I couldn't give a shit if Darl made off with millions, really.
everyone forgets the fact that liabel and slander are expressly forbidden in the first ammendment as well, consider that if what SCO says isn't true (they havn't proven it yet) Redhat may be owed damages by SCO for the "defacment of their valuable name" or some BS like that. At the very least, it'll force SCO to break out the code. After this suit RH needs to sue SCO for slander, own them and end this whole affair with the death of SCO. That is, after devaluing their stock hopefully before the execs can dump it.
Don't call my crazy, that's what they called me back in the home!
Surely killing a company would just require more ammunition (than an individual)?
now you know i'm joking.............
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
After years of listening to NPR, I had to stop. NPR does a blow-by-blow of the (thousand?) year long Isreal-Palestine conflict. Yes, I know they don't get along. They kill each other. They fight. It's been this way for hundreds if not thousands of years. I don't give a shit who killed who today.
Makes me want to reopen my non-IRA account specifically so I can short them.
I don't know... I would have shorted them when they stood at 16 and got sued by IBM. They took the nose-dive for a few days, and I never thought they would recover. Now they are standing at 20 and every time I hear devastating news for SCO they rise up and up. Judging from the past, I would not be surprised to see them rise up 25 or even more over the next months. There is someone manipulating the stock price and nobody knows when this will stop.
Actually as two seperate company's IBM as a member of the board of director's would have to continue the business practices of the current SCO business to maximise profits and then they would be caught up in the business of legal action against themselves. Sony once got caught up into this trap before.
No there is nothing to do with this but get IBM lawyer's up against SCO and work them into the ground the old fashioned way.
IBM liccensed the stupid lawsute business method patents to SCO however SCO clames they have a forged e-mail saying IBM transefed ownership of the IP to them.
I don't actually exist.
Does this mean that Osama Bin Laden is safe from a legal standpoint because he was targeting America as a whole rather than indivdual Americans?
Keep in mind the following:
Imagine if 300 companies simultaneously sued SCO. The grounds of each suit is unimportant. The legal cost of responding to 300 individual lawsuits scattered across the USA would bleed SCO dry in a heartbeat.
- Judicial decisions are consistent with the law about 80% of the time, and
- Law is consistent with "justice" (okay, with my opinions of what's just) about 80% of the time.
So, that means that justice is done in about 64% of the cases that go to court. (0.8 * 0.8, for the math-challenged.) But hey, we're still above 50%!Somehow, this needs to change. For one thing, judges have enormous discretionary power and little oversight. Judges do make decisions that are contrary to the law. Yes, these decisions can be appealed, but the appeals courts are busy, and few appeals are accepted. I don't know what to do about it, but it really scares me that it's entirely possible for judges to ignore the law, and get away with it.
Maybe it's just me... but everytime I look at that Caldera logo
I just see the corner of a giant Mickey Mouse head hovering
like a dark shadow across the globe.
Hey. Maybe Disney should sue.
I'll once again write that I think what we need here is some RICO action. One of the things you need is a pattern of behavoir, right?
Look! It's a pattern!
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
I, for one, welcome our new Delaware overlords
*ducks*
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
But it will stop. Just don't get in so deep that you can't deal with a 100-500% spike.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Hmm... that one's definitely juicier than the one I pointed to. Thanks. It looks like the one on Yahoo is an edited version of it. Is it legal to do that? There's no indication that the version on Yahoo doesn't tell the full story.
Just another wannabe fantasy novelist...
I think it only makes sense that since Red Hat's product is service oriented around the Open Source community, that what the SCO is doing is devaluing Red Hat's service by making claims which Red Hat considers to be unfounded, unfair, and/or untrue. Red Hat could make some headway if they focused on their law suit against the SCO as being a deliberate violation of Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations, specifically the part dealing with Torts (deliberate misrepresentation of product or services for the purpose of devaluation). Unfortunately, I think the way that Red Hat's joined this process of litigation will work against them though considering the initial hype wasn't focused on devaluation of service, so much as a kind of "robin hood" complex... Just thinking aloud...
What if tomorrow this war could be over? Isn't that worth fighting for? Isn't that worth *dying* for?
Here is an interview with the MS rep in the persian gulf area. It may initially seem off topic, but if you read through it, he starts using the SCO lawsuit as an example of why how linux users don't respect IP. (Funny, no mention of the Eolas patents as an example of how MS respects the IP of others)
(This interview is worthy of a story submission in itself, but I have given up submitting stories to
http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/news.asp?Arti
My rights don't need management.
With timezones, there's no telling which was before just by that information. Chances are, this article has been queued up for a few hours, though, so it may well have been submitted last night.
The GPL does not require attribution in their documentation or on their site.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1997/Nov9 7/scopr.asp
REDMOND, Wash.-November 24, 1997 - Microsoft Corporation today applauded the decision of the European Commission to close the file and take no further action on a dispute between Microsoft and Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) involving a 1987 contract. The Commission's decision follows progress by Microsoft and SCO to resolve a number of commercial issues related to the contract, and upholds Microsoft's right to receive royalty payments from SCO if software code developed by Microsoft is used in SCO's UNIX products.
Stock up on Jolt and peanuts, get a satellite phone linkup and hunker down. Hurricane McBride is comming.
Forecast:
-- October 7th, Toronto
-- October 8th, Newark
-- October 9th, Boston
-- October 14th, Minneapolis
-- October 15th, Chicago
-- October 16th, St. Louis
-- October 21st, Vancouver
-- October 22nd, Irvine
-- October 23rd, Dallas
-- October 28th, Atlanta
-- October 29th, Orlando
The only thing that will slow the hurricane down might be a physical slashdotting of the events, booing, and the asking of questions too complicated to be answered by a cocaine sniffing lubber. Arrr!
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
The poster states the 'theft' is in the 2.0.36 kernel. Should be easy to check
U TF-8&q=virgin+webplayer+linux+gpl+violati on&btnG=Google+Search 1 900/4147292 /
for you.
As for the Virgin incedent I found no info on that
Here. let me help you, as you seem to need handholding.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=U
TF-8&oe=
And the result:
http://ww
w.geocrawler.com/archives/3/35/2000/8/
I don't know why this troll was modded
Perhaps because its not a troll, but a simple pointing out of a fact or 2? Loo
ks like other slashdot readers a brigher bulbs in the string than you.
I was thinking about how SCO was 'nearly bankrupt' (vaguely remember that from awhile back...), and then this lawsuit comes up. SCO went from near obscurity to being all over the press. Wouldn't it benefit the OSS more to not talk about the SCO debacle and let the lawsuits fad into obscurity than give them the attention they are so desperate to get? I'm not saying to turn our backs on the SCO, and let them dictate to courts whatever they like, but instead to let the larger corporations handle the issue, and simply ignore them at the 'user' level? This kind of reminds me of the episode of the Simpsons where Bart goes nuts saying "I can't stand it! Look at me! I want attention! Hey people! Look at me! Look at me!"... Seems like the SCO is doing the same here, and their stock is coming back from the brink. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I could use some insight on this.
because this sounds awfully similiar to Ashcroft's Patriot Act tour. Why would either of them need to go around the country tooting their own horn? [Your Sarcastic Response Here]
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Anyway you look at it, nonsense is nonsense. If IBM buys the stock, then they've purchased stock from a failing company, and execs still make out. If IBM fights in court, they stand to lose more money if they lose, and some money (cost of courts) if they don't. Any way you look at it it's a frustrating scenario. I blame SCO for devaluing the open source community and deliberately attempting to segregate the community from business opportunities. What I find most interesting is the way that things are playing out. Initially SCO was coming out against IBM, and said they weren't going after anyone else. Then businesses get letters saying they owe money to SCO for software. Then SCO says they won't go after any businesses or developers. Then they file suit against SGI, saying they won't go after the OSS. Then they release statements saying the OSS is a violation of copyright laws. etc., etc., etc.,... might be time to start scrutinizing the released statements and articles that SCO has put out to see the pattern of behavior.
No, SCO isnt. IANAL, but , afaik a corporation is required to do everthing it can to mitigate losses due to any form of infringment before it goes to the courts. There was no release to the public that is supposedly using thier code to inform them properly before the case was filed. Second, the case is a contract dispute, so who gives a crap about the supposedly infringing code. The only reason they brought that into the whole fray is to try to prove that IBM actually inserted code. From their press releases though, they do look like they are setting up to sue everyone. I dont think Unixware will survive the patent suit from IBM though. Innocent untill proven guilty. Untill they prove that the 2.4-2.6 kernel is infringing, I will use it and be considered innocent, when I find out that I am not (unlikely, but SCO does have an odd way of sueing and winning), I will just change to 2.2 untill there is a clean room version of the kernel to dl.
Stop signs are only Suggestions
>"Red Hat's legal action does nothing more than seek general guidance for the marketplace as to the legal rights SCO has with respect to Linux software," according to the motion.
Evil Red Hat! Seeking general guidance, indeed. Don't they realise that "the legal rights that SCO has [sic] with respect to Linux software" is/are a trade secret? What kind of damn commies (huh, "Red") are these guys anyway? We all know that the "marketplace" is just another word for "bazaar", which is where towel-headed terrorists buy their anthrax.
I leave you to draw your own conclusions.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Besides, Bill probably would have liked to do something like it himself, but doesn't want to get /SCOed/sued/.
SCO isn't dead yet. SCO is a shell for the Canopy group and don't really exist apart from them. If SCO goes down it will be because Canopy decides they need new cannon fodder, Canopy will buy some other worthless company, get some quasi useless IP, and start suing all over again.
But more to the point. Five minutes after the code leaks, the world and his wife knows that SCO are completely full of shit and their law suit has suffered a mortal wound. They are claiming the whitespace. The way I see it, an attack on one member of the Open Source community is an attack on all of us. Going to sell a deck of cards showing the faces of SCO management and lawyers?
This Comment was generated with the Comment-O-Matic for SCO Stories.
Filing a motion to dismiss is pretty much a reflex action in any lawsuit or trial. Sometimes the reasons can be pretty ridiculous, but a lawyer wouldn't be doing his duty if he didn't at least try. (On the "it never hurts to ask" principle.)
And yes, this ranks as one of the more ridiculous.
-- Alastair
Sound reasonable?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I just fired a nuke on NYC, but you can't touch me since "you specifically weren't the target".
So who's buying the SCO stock the execs are sellin
The short-sellers who have to cover their losses.
Or the dumb-ass savings funds. Those who bought a lot of Microsoft shares at the height of the litigation.
How cool would it be if it's IBM buying most of it
What's the point of buying a worthless company? If IBM knew about any merit to SCO's case this would be over a long time ago.
IBM gets a 51% share... and completely & utterly fucks SCO over backwards, Darl included?
They are allready on the way to destruction. The only way they migh be saved would be a big settlement where SCO/Canopy paid for legal fees and libel. Or if Microsoft had a quiet word with some of the buddies who foiled the anti-trust case.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
Is that the act of becoming un-hungry without ever becoming subjective about the whole matter?
I think that's what Marie Antoinette thought she was suggesting when she (supposedly) replied to the peasants-with-no-bread by saying "Let them eat cake".
Sorry, that was too complicated to be really funny...
NPR is actually damn good. Only folks that don't really listen to it think its boring. and its a LOT less boring than the 'pop rock' Clear Channel Stations all over town.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
This explains why Darl is trying to go after Linux. If SCO has to remit 95 percent on UNIX sales he's sucking wind for profit, but the Linux license fees he could extort are not part of his deal with Novell so he would net 100 percent on those. Ditto any settlement with IBM.
Which brings the question; Is he trying to recoup from an aweful license deal, or do you think this (The lawsuits and attacks on Linux) were his businees plan from the get go?
Not that I think SCO will win, but the "pumped up" stock puts their market cap at a little over $200 million. IBM could probably do a hostile takeover for a lot less than a billion dollars.
Never try to extort more than it costs to have you killed.
So, naturally for a libel suit there are generally three standards. 1) Did they say it? 2) Was it damaging? and 3) Is what they say factually incorrect?
Here, the first is a foregone conclusion, and the second nearly is. The third is effectively the IBM case.
But think about what that means. To prove that Linux DIDN'T steal from SCO, then either 1) SCO can actually turn over their allegations, for RedHat to refute, or 2) RedHat can subpoena the entire Sys V source code to show that any matches can be attributed to BSD or textbooks.
This is exactly what SCO is trying to avoid - you know, an actual lawsuit? So I think this is more of a "put up or shut up" move by Red Hat than anything else. Effectively, it's a way of letting teh Open Source camp control the pace of the lawsuit that SCO has no intention of actually following through with. They're trying to use it for their pump'n'dump scheme, and the Open Source camp (here, Red Hat) is attempting to take that away, to force their hand.
All in all, it's a damned good strategy.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
On Slashdot?
/. legal system!
Go away, you are ruining the
They've got SCO covered.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Dammit! I was going to see that movie!!!!
I just wanted to report that I ate lunch at the Chipotle location in downtown Sacramento yesterday. While waiting in line to pay for my meal, their computerized cash register crashed. Management decided to let everyone in line have their lunch for free in response. How does this relate to SCO? McDonalds uses SCO UnixWare products, and Chipotle is a wholly-owned subsidiary of McDonalds. Thanks again for your great coding skills, SCO!
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
The same interview includes the following gem.
"System V is the basis for all operating systems outside of Redmond-AIX, HP UX, Solaris, Apple and Linux." --Darl McBride, Apr 24 2003.
So does Apple pay royalies to SCO? I thought that Apple MAC OS9 and earlier had nothing to do with Un*x and MAC OSX was based upon BSD which is a noticable exception to the list probably due to pervious legal precidents.
Looks like after IBM, we will see Apple in the firing line.
www.oshistory.net - Operating Systems History
By God, MIT is going to eat them alive!
Good idea, but I have a few questions.
1) Who should? By this I mean who would be in the best position to do this. End users, server administrators, consultants, etc?
2) Damages sought? What should the aforementioned persons go after? $500, $699, $10,000, or what? How low can we go (while still being enough to sting) but being low enough that we stand a chance (not having it thrown out because it's an outragous amount)
3) Which court? What type of trial? Civil, or criminal? IANAL, and I'm not sure...I think it could go both ways. Should we do all of this in small-claims court? Then, they don't get any lawyers. Also, if they don't show up, they basically lose. Should we get 10,000 $400 small-claims lawsuits going?
4) Who's leading? We need someone to lead the effort. If someone can (preferably a lawyer, so we know what we're up against) answer the above questions, and a few others that will probably be thought of, I'd be willing to help out, like with hosting a site or something.
Let's do it!
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
So it's Ok for SCO to sue IBM but it's not Ok for SCO to be sued.
M.
I've seen thousands of posts recently re: SCO has no grounds, followed by the why of it. However, I have an angle that no-one seems to consider: The courts back up the guy with the most $. 1) Microsoft raped people for years; the courts said so. Is M$ still persuing the same business strategy? Of course. Has the judgement changed anything? No. In the end, M$ paid the US Government millions and kept on in it's cute, illegal, monopolistic style. 2) The RIAA and DMCA show how the US courts run PURELY OFF THE $ GIVEN TO THEM. If you're a big business, the courts will stand up for you (ie: if you pay millions in taxes, you're assured a win against the little guy). That's how fascism works, people. 3) OSS developers are the little guy. There's no possible hope the courts will come down on our side. Don't believe me? Show me an injunction against SCO. ANYTHING that says the courts are moving to even CHECK THE VALIDITY of SCO's claims. You won't find it. Maybe Germany, but that's not Amerika. $ makes the courts go round. My guess? SCO will not win against IBM, but the damage they have done to OSS is unrepairable and unrecoverable. Again, thank M$ for this. Hey, didn't M$ pay SCO for "licenses" just before SCO announced their suit? Hmmm. Feel free to attack.... now :)
While others are sitting in the wings, complaining about what SCO is doing, I finally got off my duff and The text of my complaint follows:
Ron Gage - Westland, MI
I would not be the least bit surprised to see the SCO senior staff who are dumping stock get sued by the shareholders for artificially inflating the company's value for personal profit when SCO finally gets its comeuppance. All of the dumped over-valued stock is being purchased by people who are going to be really unhappy when this whole thing is done.
Jens Wessling
Er .. yes, it is ok. According to Law.
Not specifically targeted != not targeted
This was rejected as a submission, but I thought y'all might find it interesting anyway - SCO looks like they're out to piss *everyone* off, including their distributors, according to this article. Gotta love 'em.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
the role of Microsoft who are financing this
anti-linux and anti-GPL campaingn?
The reason SCO seems to behaving with such
stupidity is no a stupidity at all. They act
this way because they are (essentially) in
a martydom mission for the benefit of Microsoft.
SCO no longes has a reason to behave for its
own best interests.
From yahoo, "11-Sep-03 OLSON, MICHAEL P Controller 3,000 Option Exercise at $2.07 per share.". I guess that would count as buying. Of course he sold them the same day "at $17.52 - $17.7 per share."
Darl gets a big fat payoff if he can deliver four straight profitable quarters. Most of it is in stock, which means he'll have to keep up the fiasco for another quarter or two to cash out.
At that point, I think we can expect him to leave SCO. If there is any SCO left to leave. Maybe the final legal showdown will be Darl v. Ralph, to be filed in late 2004 or early 2005. We all know how much Darl loves to sue his employers.
Anyway, this means the SCO v. IBM case is not likely to ever make it to court because there's *no* motivation for Darl to go that far.
In the meantime, he'll do whatever it takes to show profit on the next two or three 10-Q's. He'll slash personnel, support, anything, doesn't matter how it affects SCO's long term prospects, as long as he shows profits each quarter. He'll try to get people to pay for SCO IP in Linux licenses NOW, not after the case is resolved in court, because he doesn't care what happens that far down the line.
He needs the money on the books and in the 10-Q next quarter and the following one. He's got two profitable quarters in a row, though he probably wouldn't have made it this quarter without cutting personnel and associated costs. Two more to go, and he's golden.
If he hasn't done it already, we can expect some *extremely* creative accounting over the next two quarters. Or more money from MS. MS, according to the latest 10-Q (available at SEC), has apparently purchased those "expanded licensing options" that were mentioned in the April 30 10-Q.
Darl's biggest fear is that something will shut down SCO and/or it's FUD machine within those next two quarters. If he sounds irrational and afraid, well, that's because he is. He can't pull any more profits out of Germany. Australia, Austria, and Poland are lining up to gag him in their countries. Red Hat's trying to do the same in the U.S. Of course, none of this matters much as long as no court decisions are reached within the next 3 quarters. Which means delay, delay, and delay will be SCO's legal strategy going forward.
I know they sued for declaratory relief, but didn't they also include a Count under the Lanham Act? I doubt that could be bounced on justiciability grounds on a motion to dismiss.
to invoke complicate legal theories against
Red Hat. Why? Because SCO preferes not to
show even 1 line (out of the 1.2 million lines of code)
to the judge and tell Red Hat is wrong since
they have proof of copyright violations in Linux.
When SCO is given an opportunity to show proof,
they always seem to have arrive empty handed
in court, even when showing (some) proof is
in SCO's benefit.
Show some proof SCO, we are not amused with
elaborate legal arguments.
I wouldn't bet my SCO stock on it - judging by Novell's recent firm commitment to GNU/Linux and their CEO's letter to Darl McBride himself.
Also, check out this one and this one.
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
SCO's antics are clearly too insane and irresponsible to be part of an intentional business plan. The crazier they act, the more it becomes apparent to me that this is all M$-funded FUD, with Sun cackling in the wings.
SCO is in a lose/lose situation, and about the only thing you can do with a Zero on fire is steer it towards the nearest aircraft carrier. Even better if Uncle Mickey$ has promised a smooth bailout.
Really, the only surprising thing to me anymore is that McBride et. al seem to be so cavalier about getting sued/voted out by shareholders and/or put in jail for various kinds of manipulation and fraud by the SEC. M$ has some mighty deep pockets, but the Gubment carries a mighty big stick.
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - George W. Bush Nov. 2005
I have an idea: Why don't we join Red Hat against SCO and file a class-action lawsuit? At the very least, we could file for some injunctions against SCO to keep them from suing linux users, and from bad-mouthing linux and the linux community. ps when this strategy is successul, remember to give me a little credit.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Lost Sheep to Shepard, you got your ears on?
Right, I overlooked that one, but given that SCO obviously has the ability to know what's in their own source as well as it's origins, I'd say that more than covers the reckless angle. If it turns out there's no SCO in Linux, they'd be hard pressed to get out of that one.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
I am a engineer/scientist for a major aerospace company. I am a user of various computer operating systems, including Mac OS X, OpenBSD, and GNU/Linux. It was brought to my attention that The SCO Group has declared that by using Linux, Mac OS X, or OpenBSD for my work/pleasure, that me and my company would be infringing on their IP.
c hives.asp?ArticleID=41480)
They have already licensed me to use GNU/Linux (I downloaded Linux from their website and was licensed under the General Public License). Apple has licensed me to use Mac OS X, and OpenBSD was licensed to me under the BSD License. But SCO claims that use of these is IP infringement. See http://www.sco.com/scosource/description.html . They claim that unless I use their "new" license, for a fee (see previous link), I will be held liable for IP infringement in the future.
My complaint is a) they already licensed me to use the code under the GPL (GNU/Linux). b) they claim that I am infringing on their copyrighted code both in software that they licensed to me (Linux) and software totally unrelated to SCO but refuse to explain which code is infringing.
All of the code I am using is open source, so it should be a simple matter for them to simply list infringing code. I am happy to remove all infringing code. I do not have a contract with them in any respect, nor do I desire to use their IP.
I have attempted to contact them, however, their phone number appears to be perpetually busy. I do not know if this is a stall tactic.
I do not know the legal term for this - but if they desire paymnt for something I don't even want to use (their IP) and provide no proof that I have any of it beyond press releases (http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyar
"System V is the basis for all operating systems outside of Redmond-AIX, HP UX, Solaris, Apple [Mac OS X] and Linux.", that seems to be a form of legal extortion or wrongful prosecution.
If they will provide to me what code is infringing, I will most certainly remove their code from my systems.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Okay, almost every lawyer office still has typewriters. Why? Because the county clerk's office has these forms, and it isn't easy to scan and then type in the forms, and have them available, later, for use.
Nor can you just type out the same thing, because the clerks look at it and say "well, I don't know, but this looks like it might not be exactly right..." when what they really mean is "it isn't exactly the same as what I'm used to seeing."
It isn't a case of missing brain cells, either. It's a problem of accountability, responsibility, and empowerment. Typical government sort of problem, if you understand.
So here's the software that the lawyers would really like:
(1) The lawyer gets a document. He goes to his computer and types in the title. The computer checks its database (based on county and state) to see if it already has it, and lets him select a preexisting document if he has it.
(2) He sees that it's a new one. He puts it on his computer, and hits "scan/analyze".
(3) The computer uses whitespace to determine the limits of characters, and then correllation between each character to determine what characters are which, all automatically. It also identifies point size. The computer then comes up with its own prediction in PDF format, and then uploads the scanned JPEG form plus the PDF prediction to a *PAID BY SUBSCRIPTION* website (if the lawyer has so paid), for visual correctness checking and correction. Note that this can also take advantage of comparison with a preexisting database. Note also that all borders, shading, and such should be correctly predicted as well.
(4) All blanks within the form automatically get a text entry box. These are fields.
(5) As of that point, the lawyer can simply type in what he wants for each field. The computer defaults to the same text size as the document, but in a different, sans serif font (such as courier).
(6) The computer stores his entered information in a database list, and can reconstruct the combined PDF at will, and print/save it. Database info is stored according to document, page no., client, relevant date(s), opponent, government purview, and so on.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
After SCO loses they'll bill Linux vendors for their own legal/advertising expenditures. I mean c'mon, their behavior is so bizarre that surely their plan all along was to serve the community right? Surely they should see some of Red Hat, Suse, et al's profits as a result of the GPL validation!
It was the same two pieces of code that SCO presented at SCOForum, and the idiots at PC Mag. published it *after* the code had already been debunked.
It's a tough call, I know, but that may have been the stupidest and most clueless item they ever ran.
For us this side of the pond (UK), our guarantee that as normal consumers we can't be sued by SCO is the Law of Quiet Possession - I expect there's something similar in the US.
Aptly named, considering the noise level it's protecting us from courtesy of Darl & co. (What sort of a name is "Darl" anyway? Couldn't his parents spell Daryl/Darrell?)
Follow me here, and please, someone, correct me if and where I'm wrong, because this is my current impression, but it is only an impression:
(1) Microsoft funded the initial lawsuit by licensing SCO's code to no known purpose.
(2) Almost nobody except for one trading firm is buying SCO stock. That one trading firm has in its board of director's Melinda Gates.
(3) That one firm is buying up stock as fast as it can, and the rate of sale is determined by the options exercised by the management. That is, management is selling off stock *only* as fast as they create new stock.
(4) Technically, this hurts the shareholders of the stock, by stripping them of percentage ownership, transferring the new percentage to the new buyers (Microsoft-directed trading company), and transferring the profits to SCO directors... but...
(5) Aside from this Microsoft-directed Trading company, the only owners are SCO, so nobody will complain, and
(6) The amount of money that the SCO directors are paid is a direct function of the price that they can hold, which has a lot to do with the ridiculous claims that they make.
(7) SCO -- isn't that based in Nevada? If so, then their personal liability is almost nil for anything they do as a director of the company.
In other words, this isn't a pump and dump scheme, if I am understanding this correctly. This is a legalized version of libel, being run by Microsoft.
My only problem is that I'm not sure that I'm correct. Is there anyone in the know who can correct any of my impressions? Like Commander Data's maker, I'm often wrong, and well could be wrong here.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
from the Linuxworld story about SCO and Dupaco
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/34018.htm
Imagine his surprise, then, when he received an e-mail last month informing him that in 30 days, the distribution contract would be terminated. According to Monninkhof, SCO is offering their country managers in Europe exclusive franchise arrangements in the countries they handle. This means that the existing distributors are effectively cut out of the picture, not even being given a chance to vie for the franchise rights. Worse, under a marketing program started by SCO several years ago, Dupaco has been providing SCO with their leads and customer contacts, meaning that the new franchise will be primed to raid Dupaco's customer base. Dupaco had felt comfortable doing this because they had been assured by the European SCO management that SCO would never move to a direct marketing model in the Netherlands.
Puzzled to say the least, Monninkhof called his country manager, who basically told him he could remain as a zero-margin reseller, but the termination was a done deal. Since he was going to Lindon, Utah on other business, he called SCO to arrange a meeting. At first SCO agreed to talk, then changed their mind and told Monninkhof that there was no one at SCO to talk to and visitors were not being allowed in the building.
Undaunted, Monninkhof showed up at SCO's doorstep anyway, and within seconds, security had appeared and escorted him off the premises. He was also given a letter indicating that his company was no longer welcome at SCO Forum (which was about to be held in Las Vegas, and was the other reason that Monninkhof was in the country.)
In his own words humiliated, Monninkhof and his partner were halfway to Vegas to make their presence known, when they decided not to burn any bridges and returned to the Netherlands. However, they did decide to take legal action.
While we're on the topic of SCO's stock going into the toilet, anyone know of ANY brokers who are taking shorts on SCOX anymore? E*Trade was for a while, but I tried to put an order in and they couldn't borrow the stock...
Either all the available shares have been shorted, the only people holding SCO stock are institutional and insider investors, or both...
No stop in New York? Guess I'll have to do the reverse commute on the PATH to Newark that day. Of course, I can understand their reasoning. New York is just filled to the brim with the kind of liberal, commie, activists that would love to sink their teeth into Darl's pockmark-ridden facial flesh.
I New York.
On those grounds, would the dismissal request have no basis?
This sig no verb.
that is how much 1 man - Reginald Broughton - has made since June on SCOX stock sales. which would have previously, at their price of of one year ago would havbe been under $150k (115,000 shares sold since june)
Now, if this is not a pump-and-dump, could someone point a case of it out to me, because i obviously dont fuscking get it.
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/80/4661.html
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Yahoo News
Personally, I expect it to keep climbing until the other shoe drops. And that looks like it might be the one and only goal. I wonder if the financial news reporting agencies can get burned over this?
For that matter, does anyone know how to get non-SCO generated news reported someplace like Yahoo's financial services?
plus-good, double-plus-good
Enough already with the SCO fud. Give them what they want least, ignorance.
And then they woke up.
Sorry my bullshit sensor overloaded.
"Enterprises" buy Microsoft Software all the time without it's far dodgier EULA having been challenged in court.
yeah.... embrace it and extend it too
this sig is deprecated
most retarded people are quite nice and sweet... well, anyway... they are not as bad as Darl, you have insulted a lot of very nice people by equating them to Darl!
In fact, if you do run into a really mean retarded person (or your brother happens to be retarded and goes all apeshit because he thinks you lost his crayons) and you really want to piss them off, you can just taunt them like this, "You Darl... you SCO-installer!!!!"
about 10 years ago, while at UC Berkeley, I took 2 MBA level accounting courses. Part of the chit chat among the students was the "pump, dump and jump" plan. You PUMP up the share price, DUMP your holdings, and then JUMP (to another company). It's not so surprising that the U.S. economy is crumbling, when that's how our business "leaders" think.
A lot of people are looking for the ace up the sleeve, because all that has been dealt are twos - but all evidence so far points to it all being bluff. The consequences of abject failure are minimal for Darl McBride - so he say and do all kinds of things before leaving with the millions he's racking up. The technical issues don't matter: it's all gibberish in greek font as far as the players on the SCO side are concearned. It's a "social engineering" crack in every sense of the word. The world outside of IT would call it a confidence trick.
Would you buy a publicly funded bridge from this man? Or the Berkely Packet Filter? Both were paid for by the taxpayer, and it is just as criminal for a private company or individual to try to sell you either.
SHUT UP ECCLES!
What I want to know is, who the hell are the dumbshits buying SCO stock?
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Failure of the motion to dismiss means that Red Hat has grounds for their suit. Or, in plain English, the judge is saying, "If they're right, you owe."
The only way this would be without "penalty" to SCO would be if there was a problem with Red Hat's filing (e.g., typos, wrong form, wrong jurisdiction, etc.). If that's what you mean by, "Red Hat's lawyers know how to start a lawsuit...", that's fine but that's different than SCO asserting that there is no grounds for the suit.
BTW, IANAL
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
From the site:
So there's two interesting parts: the 150,000 share payoff that the poster mentioned, and there's also the vesting of about 8333 per month after the June 2003 (one year from when he was hired).
That's cement overshoes, Scotty, not "concrete galoshes".
My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
meanwhile, on to other items of interest at SCO..
errrr....
wait a minute, THERE ARE NO OTHER HAPPENINGS AT SCO.
no technology
no innovation
just a bunch of wannabees sitting around fellating one another.
$20 a share - you bet. i'll buy into the scam, errr i mean dream. yeah dream, that's what it is - the dream.
SCO is right out there on the razor's edge of technology - the M$/Sun idea of technology, that is.
hey mcbride - how's it feel to be a legend in your own mind you stupid a-hole.
sun
sco
microsoft
sco are idiots.
sun and m$ are the 2 big winners in the unlikely event of a sco victory, also, sun and M$ are the 2 big winners in a SCO defeat. that jerkoff mcbride is just taking what's left of SCO on a ride to the bank. short of a spending time in jail for running a stock scam, he wins no matter what.
do you have financial dealings with anyone of this page? dump them:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=SCOX
I urge everyone to check out peoplevssco.org , It's apparently a new community against SCO. I've heard rumors they might press legal action against them. They call themsevles "The People vs. SCO Group"
Check it out
Perry: Your Honour, in response to SCO's motion to dismiss, I call Darl McBride...
[Darl takes the stand as is sworn in.]
Perry: Mr McBride, your company claims its IP is illegally in Linux, and wishes to collect license fees to compensate for this alleged theft?
Darl: Yes.
Perry: And Red Hat is the biggest distributor of this Linux?
Darl: Yes.
Perry: So you would like to collect license fees from Red Hat and their customers for their alleged illegal use of your IP?
[Darl hesitates as he slowly realises the yawning abyss about to open in frront of him, but a No answer would let Red Hat off the hook so...]
Darl: Errr, yes, we would...
Perry: And so what would you do if Red Hat refuses to pay those fees? Would you seek to sue them, or just let them get away with it?
[At this point Darl goes white as a sheet, Boise starts madly shuffling papers to find something to object to and Perry Mason smiles broadly as his trap slams shut on SCO's greedy little fingers...]
If Linux becomes something you can be prosecuted for using in the terms indicated on all of the Linux software licenses, then the community of users is at risk of prosecution. By SCO. That's what we like to call a threat in English. Perhaps you've never learned a language, and some sort of hovel is your home, and this post magically appeared on Slashdot due to some sort of ritual your primitive people perform?
I mean, is there some part of this you don't understand, or do you actually work for SCO?
-----------------------
You are what you think.