Slashdot Mirror


NY Times Reveals SCO/Canopy Group Hypocrisy

rjamestaylor writes "The New York Times reports that 'SCO, the company that touched off a computer industry slugfest last spring by suing I.B.M. over its use of Unix software, may find itself embarrassed by a similar claim against a company once related to SCO.' Note that the reporter, John Markoff, ties together Noorda's Canopy Group companies, revealing that: 'Canopy is now SCO's largest shareholder, with two seats on the company's board, and has played an important role, analysts say, in shaping SCO's legal strategy.' He even quotes SCOSource shill Laura Didio as saying, 'All roads lead to Canopy...'"

5 of 223 comments (clear)

  1. Why was it sealed? by PowerBert · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IANAL.

    I'm curious as to the circumstances under which a case can be sealed. I thought it would be to protect victims, or national secrets, etc. The article suggests this case would have had a bearing on SCO vs IBM, could SCO get the case sealed for that purpose? If so, how is that legal!!

  2. Another example of SCO hypocrisy by kfg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This from the termcap file which ESR maintains:

    # COPYRIGHTS AND OTHER DELUSIONS
    #
    # The BSD ancestor of this file had a standard Regents of the University of
    # California copyright with dates from 1980 to 1993.
    #
    # Some information has been merged in from a terminfo file SCO distributes.
    # It has an obnoxious boilerplate copyright which I'm ignoring because they
    # took so much of the content from the ancestral BSD versions of this file
    # and didn't attribute it, thereby violating the BSD Regents' copyright.
    #
    # Not that anyone should care. However many valid functions copyrights may
    # serve, putting one on a termcap/terminfo file with hundreds of anonymous
    # contributors makes about as much sense as copyrighting a wall-full of
    # graffiti -- it's legally dubious, ethically bogus, and patently ridiculous.
    #
    # This file deliberately has no copyright. It belongs to no one and everyone.
    # If you claim you own it, you will merely succeed in looking like a fool.
    # Use it as you like. Use it at your own risk. Copy and redistribute freely.
    # There are no guarantees anywhere. Svaha!
    #

    They've been caught at this many times, most recently in obfuscated slides they showed to the press.

    Many of their copyright violations claims come from taking BSD code, stripping the copyright notices from it and adding their own.

    This is how they come about "ownership" of code in Linux.

    I really don't what what could be lower than stealing code that is free for anybody to "steal" at will.

    Unless it's. . .Ohhhhhhhhhhh, plagerism and deliberate commercial fraud based on same?

    They seem to have invented hypocrisy to the second power.

    Go get 'em Red Hat!

    KFG

  3. Also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It would be useful to see a chart representing SCO stock dumps, their value variations compared to their official press releases and big media coverage dates.
    They always replied that stock sells were automatic, but how about seeing what happened just before and after every single transaction?

  4. just keep crying... by spectrokid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We've been bitchin' on SCO for months and at every story somebody posts "Right NOW is the time to sell your stock...." but the truth is simple for all to see: Canopy is a bunch of lawyers with a BIG trackrecord, so you can bet McBride has his ass covered SEC-wise. SCO was dead in the water before this started and they knew it. So McBride and his buddies will screw over SCO, give all the employees a pink slip and all the customers season tickets to go-fuck-yourself-land. Then they will walk away with so much cash you will wish you did it yourself. And there is nothing we can do about it.

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

  5. Re:Lawsuits as Legacy? by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 5, Interesting
    IMPORTANT NOTE FOR KDE USERS: The Canopy group is a major part owner of TrollTech...
    Depends on how you define "major". In Trolltech's investor's page they claim that the company's shares are distrubuted as follows:
    64.7% Employees
    8.3% Borland
    5.2% Trolltech Foundation
    4.3% Orkla ASA
    4.3% Northzone Ventures
    4.3% Teknoinvest
    4.1% Canopy Group
    3.4% Previous employees
    1.6% SCO Group
    So it appears that the Canopy Group controls about 5.7% of available shares. Unless one of these other investors is really a holding company or you think Trolltech is lying.