Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Cornering SCO in Delaware
LordNite writes "There is a great article over at Groklaw on the latest motion in the RedHat's Delaware suit. RedHat has filed for the start of discovery. Looking at the list of documents RH is requesting it looks like SCO will finally have to come clean. Naturally SCO is trying to stall. It looks like the beginning of the end of this whole mess." The faster this can get into court and be over, the better.
The article mentions that SCO is trying to stall as much as possible. Probably the executives at Santa Clara have'nt sold off all their shares yet. Once that is done, you can be sure to see the cases flying off the shelves.
My mom never taught me to sign.
Sure, Red Hat has a vested interest in defending Linux, however, there are more companies like Suse, who could take up the fight, but aren't. Kudos to Red Hat. This is one reason why I still buy and support Red Hat.
If I owned any sco stock and was waiting for it to top off, I think I'd be selling it right now.
Once they are discovered, they are no longer entitled to trade secret protection, meaning they cannot sue the releasing party if they were released illegally.
The thing is - anything that's in the Linux code base by definition is not a secret.
Nobody's telling SCO "show all of your code" - they're saying "which lines of the Linux source do you believe is infringing?"
The only reason not to answer that question is that there is no infringing code.
Note in the quote of the license by nice SCO people it says
If LICENSEE fails to fulfill one or more of its obligations under this Agreement, AT&T-IS (AT&T Information Systems) may, upon its election and in addition to any other rememdies that it may have, at any time terminate all the rights granted by it hereunder by not less than two(2) months' written notice to LICENSEE specifying any such breach, unless within the period of such notice all breaches specified therein shall have been remedied; upon such termination LICENSEE shall immediately discontinue use of and return or destroy all copies of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS subject to this Agreement.
I think there is an argument on the phrase in bold I added. SGI says they have remedied the breaches SCO says it is not enough.
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius
Actually they have several lines of defense.
First, no actual breach has been demonstrated, and TSG seems to be working overtime to avoid demonstrating any breach. IBM has been saying from day 1 "show us the breach" but TSG won't.
Second, in the case of the SGI code in particular, even if it was a breach (which it clearly wasn't,) even the appearance of a breach was remedied as soon as it came to light. No thanks to TSG, btw.
Finally, there are many amendments to that original contract signed later which override that clause. There's nothing illegal about that. McBride and co. like to trot out the main contract but ignore all the sidebars and amendments. A court is not likely to do the same.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
The difference being that Ken Lay and his company are from Texas, where the current President is from and who was Governor. Lay and Enron were big contributers to the GOP and Bush for a long time, and likely circulated in the same social circle as the Bush family (oil/energy, Texas, wealthy, politics, the overlap is massive).
The Enron prosecution isn't done and Lay isn't out of the woods yet. There was just recently a news blurb about Lay refusing to hand over documents in his possession, citing the 5th Ammendment.
Darl is probably the only "name" exec at SCO and is a "name" only for creating this fiasco. While probably "connected" politically in the same way all wealthy CEO types are, I highly doubt he has or can even buy the juice that Lay had with the GOP pre-Enron. Not from the same state or industry as many Bush insiders, nor does he have the non-business political standing.
Furthermore, he's created enemies at bigger businesses like IBM that have heavier hitters than him, with longer, deeper political connections and from bigger states, mitigating any potential political advantage he *might* have had.
And remember, Sam Waksal from Imclone is *already* in the can, Martha Stewart faces a fraud trial that could land her in the can, too, and the guy from Tyco I believe will likely enjoy the a nice long membership at the Orange Jumpsuit Country Club.
Overall, I think McBride is *just* the kind of sacrificial lamb that the Justice department and SEC would like to see turning on a spit over an open fire. Not politically connected enough to be a threat to them and reaping major political benefits for the overly-pro-corporate Bush administration when he gets a public hanging.
Hate to break it to you, but more often than not scox goes up on bad news. Remember SCOForum, when scox showed the code, and it was debunked within an hour? Scox share price went up 50%, to about $15/share, in the next trhee sessions. Then the share price went up another 50% to about $20/share in the two weeks or so.
And on September 26 when IBM announced their countersuit SCOX dropped from around $17 to $13.8 a few days later. The difference? The debunking of the code didn't show up on Reuters which investors are far more likely to read than Slashdot. The crowd driving SCOX's price are not likely to be techies and won't be hanging out here. If "news" doesn't show up on the newsfeeds they check, it may as well not have happened. Besides, the only "debunking" that really matters is the one IBM (and RHAT) will do in the courtroom.
> I predict that today the stock value will mirror yesterday, it may even end slightly up. This is because little or none of the news read here at /. and other such places is getting filtered through to wall street.
Actually, the reason is that you buy stock like SCOX as a speculation, not an investment. It's a simple theory that boils down to this: no matter how dumb it is for you to own the stock, someone dumberer will buy it off you for more.
So far, that seems to be a pretty accurate assessment.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Bullshit!
I guess we can just say screw the people who they killed, no need for just punishment.
Uh, death is not punishment, it's death -- and in no way offers real vindication for the survivors. Having known a surviving family who lived through this process, they still felt cheated even after capital punishment was imposed.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is good enough for me (and please don't quote gandi on me).
Please don't quote the bible to me. It's just as silly and pointless to me as quoting peaceful philosophies is to you.
As for the very rare innocent person who is executed for a crime they didn't commit? Well thats a pretty small price to pay for justice,
No, it's murder. Exactly what you are railing against.
and yes I would feel the same way if I were one of those 'innocents'.
No, you are lying -- or compelely self delusional. You would be wetting your bed screaming about how you are innocent and wondering how the system has failed you. Don't pretend to be brave when you have no idea of what you are talking about.
Is this the same legal system that let the Asterix cartoon get an injunction on Mobilix. And something to stop people linking to the .nl site that showed people how to sabotage railway lines?
:(
All legal systems have flaws, they are just in different places