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?
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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/
If they win that suit [against IBM], there are no consequences for anybody but IBM.
And how do you explain the need to license your kernel ?
I think SCO started out with a case against IBM and when they realised that IBM will not bend over, they switched tracks and got into a stock scam. The claim that Darl made was purely for publicity, I think.
Now their words have come back to bite them. Either they can sue IBM and keep their mouth shut or they can do a publicity stunt. Both together is a dangerous idea. The outcome I hope is that they lose their suit against IBM, AND also get punished for their dumping scheme.
.ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
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.
Agreed. I can see them sweating now, hoping against hope that they can keep this shambles out of court as long as they can. As soon as it does go to court, their whole stock-pumping game is over.
As is their existence.
"Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
- 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.
[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
...a copy is here.
Interesting points:
I'm still waiting for the invoice for my single-CPU Linux box...
Just another wannabe fantasy novelist...
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
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
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
I'm (note the apostrophe) not naive (note the correct speling). Of course SCO does not intend to stop with IBM. But so far, they haven't initiated a lawsuit for copyright infringement against *anybody* ,which should speak worlds about their likelihood of success.
No, this is a pump and dump scheme. They're trying very hard to convince the stock market that their stock is worth more than $.75, which is what it was when they started this whole brouhaha. As a consequence, their claims become (and must become) more and more outrageous as time goes on. They have to keep up the press barrage, otherwise potential victims/investors will forget about them.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Don't forget SCO is messing with RH's customers by extorting license fees from their customers. If that's not grounds for a lawsuit, what is?
If follow this kind of thing for a few years, you'll realize the motion to dismiss is pretty much a standard part of the pregame ritual. It's just lawyer trash talk. Spectators should get their beer and popcorn and take their seats.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
No, not if the SEC gets into this. Again IANAL, but does'nt the fact that they allocated shares to all the higher ups at a low price just before the IBM suit was filed count?
And what about buying another Canopy group company from the money they made from SCO shares?
Or what if the IBM case is dismissed and the court finds that Redhats case against SCO has merit, or that $699 scam was shown to be mail fraud? I think a lot of people will actually have to pay for what they have said. There are a lot of ways SCO and its bosses can be screwed. They are playing a dangerous game. And I dont know what Darl gets for this. He is not even selling his shares.
Whether the SEC gets involved at all is another matter at all.
.ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
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.)
Darl McBride has got to be the most flamboyant retarded CEO ever. I don't mean that funny-ha-ha either. He really is very deluded.
:), I know the Linux community will replace as needed and carry on. Life will go on. I just wish SCO, and more specifically Darl McBride, would STFU until the lawsuits are settled. I certainly can't be the only person sick to death of hearing about SCO every fucking day.
On a side note, anyone who does business related to Linux can sue SCO, and probably win. I'm surprised a gag order hasn't been ordered. Usually, when a lawsuit is filed, both parties are very hush-hush because if they lose, any statements made before the judgement regarding the outcome can become a liability. On that note, SCO has racked up a hell of a lot of liability. Red Hat is very much within their right as SCO is interfering with the business operations of any company that relies on Linux. If(when?) SCO loses their lawsuit against IBM, every press release regarding the copyright violations of SysV code in Linux will become libelous, and the company will sink like a concrete shoed mobster, straight to the bottom. SCO's activity during the last six months may also land Darl in jail for mail fraud(Linux license sale offers or requests by mail). Darl should be careful what he says. Everyone in the Linux community was a little miffed at first because it appeared that IBM wasn't vocally supporting the community when in reality, they were in cautious mode.
Win or lose, right or wrong, I just don't care. Even if SCO wins(doubtful, SCO's actions are like a fireant biting a gorilla
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
See Who is buying:fiaSCO
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!
Here , by the way, is SCO's quarterly report from a link posted at groklaw.com. I found it interesting that they placed no value on their "Goodwill" in the "Other Assests" section before the lawsuit, but now list it as "1,166".
Now that's some "creative" accounting!
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
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?
- 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.
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.
The basic point is this: SCO filing a motion to dismiss, particularly in a declaratory judgment action, was to be expected, and it won't be news if the motion fails, since the vast majority do fail. (See my reply in the "Consequences" thread.)
BTW: Back when I lived in the litigation world (9-10 yrs ago), filing a motion for sanctions under Federal Rule 11 or a state equivalent in response to a Motion to Dismiss would have been considered an act of Significant Nastiness (which is saying something when you're talking about lawyers) not entered into lightly, and unlikely to succeed. Have standards changed that much since then? Have you seen sanctions imposed under Rule 11 involving a Motion to Dismiss?
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.
Then it isn't really his operating system at all, its Novell's. SCO is just an agent for Novell. Does that mean he's acting on behalf of Novell when he sues people?
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!
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.
Actually, Novell only said SCO didn't have rights to terminate IBM's license. Granted, it's a fine distinction and leads to the conclusion that SCO lacks standing, but it doesn't tell us with certaintuy whether IBM's current license is primarily with Novell or SCO.
If Novell *is* the primary owner of IBM's license, then SCO likely lacks standing to bring any case at all. I think we'll have to wait for Novell to say right out "We're the primary licensor for the IBM contract, not SCO," before that can play out, though.
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
You have misunderstood the bussiness model SCO is in now. SCO does not care about winning the case. SCO stock is around 12 dollars from around a dollar. SCO is in the bussiness of inflating thier stock so that Darl and his club can sell it at inflated prices. The name of the game is make so much noise that fools buy stock and maybe (hopefully in thier view) someone will pay/buy them out to get them to shut up. When SCO loses the case, the offices will have already shut down.
I miss the Karma Whores.
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?
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
"...an act of Significant Nastiness..."
IANAL, but after SCO's continued remarks regarding the Linux community in general and Red Hat in particular, I'd be real surprised if acts of "Significant Nastiness" were not on the table as appropriate legal maneuvers.
By the way, while I know it's not really, I just love the idea of "acts of Significant Nastiness" as legal terminology. It's got a sort of Pratchett-like Discworld feel to it.