Slashdot Mirror
IBM Puts Pressure On SCO
inode_buddha writes "An article at Groklaw shows IBM's legal team dissecting the whole SCO thing professionally and thoroughly. I'm almost willing to bet the case gets dropped with extreme prejudice, especially now that Novell is getting involved. Is anyone taking bets as to when the case actually closes and how?" I suggest the MIT Technology Review add this one to their markets.
now give me my $699, you insensitive clod !
Music is the language of the heart, the sound of the soul. -Joe Satriani
Oh shut the hell up. That is really old. I'll continue to download porn rather than beat off to a devil or penguin.
X$699 says that SCO is dead before I get my Plasma TV.
#define DRM chmod 000
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I can just picture the trucks full of paper rolling toward SCO's lawyers...
-- Help Digitise the Public Domain at DP.
What I wasnt to know isn't whether or not SCO get's it's ass handed back on a silver platter in court but rather when McBride's gonna face charges of securities fraud. There just isn't any other way to explain SCO's recent actions. Pretty blatant pump & dump case, so where's the charges?
"Sanity is not statistical", George Orwell, "1984"
What I'm wondering though, it seems IBM is just trying to get the case dismissed here on the basis that SCO refuses to show just what it is they did wrong. Say the judge goes with IBM and dismisses the case, then what?
Given the recent slashdot article about paying Boies for his work, how much do they stand to gain if it came to this?
Thanks to Groklaw for keeping close tabs on the trial. I wish general media would be equally forthcoming rather than just spit out whatever drivel SCO shoves their way.
Cooper
--
I don't need a pass to pass this pass!
- Groo The Wanderer -
Case closes. All SCO execs having got rich, got jobs with micro$oft or just laying low for a while. No charges pressed, only people who suffer are SCO's employees. SCO gets taken over or closed for good.
I do hope the court make a dissision very soon.
Anything that doesnt compleatly shoots down SCO should be considered chocking since its obvious that SCO is playing histakes pokers and is bluffing for all it can.
Ashes of Empires and bodies of kings, these are a few of my favorite things.
At this point, Darl's lawyer turns to him and says, "You don't think IBM has run diffs on the source tree yet, do you? Because if they have and are ready to respond, we're probably pretty much screwed".
I pity the legal associates for IBM who have had to trace the provenance of every line in the source, but their pain will be worth it when SCO releases their first specifics and are nailed to the wall.
I allready paid my license to SCO, will they be returning my $699?
It's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
I can't really decide if I want this case dismissed or not. (I know my desires in the matter have nothing to do with it, but hear me out.)
:-)
:-)
On the one hand, if the judge comes back with "SCO is lying through their teeth, there's nothing here, SCO bugger off, sorry about all the trouble IBM", then it will neatly tie up the FUD machine and probably bring an end to SCO right quick. Yes, there IS such a thing as bad PR, and we don't want any more of it.
On the other hand, a dismissal would not allow for a vetting of the GPL in court. Of all the possible tests of the GPL, this is perhaps the most pro-GPL case we could hope for. (Not SCO's accusations, but IBM's responses that SCO is in GPL violation.) For a judge to formally declare theat the GPL is indeed valid and legally binding would be a very good thing, but won't happen before 2005 at the earliest the way this case is going. That's a lot of FUD time.
I really can't decide which to root for.
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
It's been stated time... after... time... That's why it's been modded redundant. Basically, if you say something at the beginning that hasn't been said in that story, you're OK, unless it's a joke, in which case you've gotta make sure you're not beating a dead horse.
An article at Groklaw shows IBM's legal team dissecting the whole SCO thing professionally and thoroughly.
;-)
And people say that animal testing should be banned...
No need to read the threads here, the summary of feeling is already in the original article :-)
Move along, nothing new to see here...
Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
The whole thing is funny. According to the article, SCO pulled up some 519 files which have around 300,000 lines of code, which might or might not contain tainted code. That is something like 1 percent of Linux kernel code. Rewriting the whole thing might take a month or two at the maximum, assuming cleanroom specs can be developed out of it.
If that is worth a billion, then is Linux worth 100 billions? Linus is then richer than Bill.
.ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
Parent is absolutely correct.
Dismissal of SCO's suit doesn't mean dismissal of IBM's countersuit.
In IBM's countersuit they accuse SCO of copyright violations and GPL violations. The GPL will have it's day in court. There is nothing SCO can do about that now.
It's nice to see this clarity in IBM's statement. SCO you are so full of shit.
BTW the article wasn't Slashdotted. I had no problem getting the Grocklaw site.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
and don't forget : Bill is your Uncle !
Music is the language of the heart, the sound of the soul. -Joe Satriani
Yes, but every now and then, the SEC needs to find someone to make an "example" of, to make us all feel secure about investing. I think Darl should be the SEC's next poster boy, er, example!
One of the things that I find interesting about this whole case is the fact that Boies used to be a partner in Cravath, Swaine and Moore -- the law firm that are handling the case for IBM.
You've got to wonder what Dave's ex-partners currently make of all this. I guess initially they might have been somewhat anxious, thinking 'Oh no, one of our own coming after us. He'll be tuned in to all our cunning strategies and will use them against us.'
Now though, they must be laughing their asses off, thinking 'Good job that dummy left before he did any real damage to our reputation.'
On the other hand, given his twenty percent of all new investment in SCO, Boies has already had one decent payday, but you've got to wonder whether that will be sufficient to compensate for the damage to his firm's reputation that their handling of this case must have done to date?
So what are you bitching about? What could happen is simply that the judge dismisses SCO's COMPLAINT, and the SEPERATE IBM countersuit goes forward. That seems to be a "GOOD GOOD" if that happens. SCO's fud (and company) is essentially dead in the water with the granting of any motion to dismiss, and IBM gets to litigate it's counterclaims which are based on SCO misusing their GPL protected code and hand them all a new ass. I hope when that comes to trial, they call Darl, a LOT, as a (hostile?) witness, you know, just to ask him a relevant "question or two", and then request the need to hold him over for additional questions each day for the next day...
Why are you using XHTML when the doctype for /. is HTML 3.2?
$499 says my plasma TV dims to half of its original brightness before this story stops dominating slashdot.
Open source movement screws up again
Here are some more:
#include <stdlib.h>
int main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
int i;
i++;
else
return;
Who ares which way the legal action goes.. That is not the point. The idea is to spread enough confusion and uncertainty that corporate entities will be more likely to use perceived 'legal' and 'safe' versions of unix that don't have any licensing issues.
Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt contribute to the bottom line when it comes to conservative decisions about technology platforms. And let's face facts how many people read below the headline with its exagerrated emphasis on legal uncertainty and disarray.
No company wants to risk their technology decisions being upset by later unbudgeted licensing, legal and technical problems when the quiet life of a standard product from a multinational is on the shelf next to it...
---- The Open Source Record Label : : LOCARECORDS.COM
SCO has filed a motion to compel discovery against IBM and IBM has responded...
Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
...the second link was to their previous objections...
Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
Gotta love linux:
/usr/src/linux
$ cd
$ grep -riE "break;|}" * | wc
368665 1011575 14615858
At a dollar per violation, that's a better return than my lotto investments...
|>>?
I suspect SCO will stop before any actual lawsuit takes place, using some obscure excuse. But at the same time holding their doors open for future litigation, just to maintain the insecurity among todays and future linux users.
It appears that "IBM's motion to compel is scheduled for oral arguments on Dec. 5." (stolen from Groklaw). Hopefully after that, things will tank and we can get back to normal.
I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by
Don't you usually only dissect something when it's dead? Yeah, that sounds about right--but stick the fork in to be sure. Pass the popcorn...
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
IANAL (or his coffee boy) but one thing strikes me almost immediately upon reading the SCO and IBM requests and responses: IBM's method and language is far clearer and to the point than SCO's. IBM does not resort to the use of (semi)abusive language but stays focussed and follows avery clear pattern of logic which basically states that IBM will present reasonable evidence as requested, but it requires that SCO also provide resonable evidence and point out exactly what, where and when has been infringed. That is something that SCO seems to have real problems in doing (and no, the 337'000 lines in 531 files in the Linux source that have been mentioned by SCO will not suffice as nowhere does SCO point out exactly, as required by law, which lines in those files are SCO's property with a reference to Unic source code), and SCO seems to have real problems in defining what has been infringed. In fact it seems as if SCO is trying to make a case as it goes along and has no real evidence to date.
What is also noticable is that IBM is bringing SCO's public behaviour into the case, finally. SCO is finally being called to account for it's disgusting public behaviour, and I'm pretty sure that IBM is going to use Darl, Chris and Mike's statements against them in court. I think those boys are probably too fucking stupid to realise that what they're said amounts to public record and is admissable in court. I hope they end up being as poor as I am. I hope Darl and co get sued individually by hordes of Linux contributors for damaging Linux business and end up poverty stricken on the street corner begging for booze money in Salt Lake City.
According to the article, SCO pulled up some 519 files which have around 300,000 lines of code, which might or might not contain tainted code. That is something like 1 percent of Linux kernel code.
You're suggesting the Linux kernel alone has 30,000,000 lines of code in it? I don't think you and I are looking at the same kernel. It would be closer to say that 300,000 lines of code is 10% of the Linux kernel, which would take some substantial rewriting, and makes your last comment stupid.
And they ain't good..
Insiders are all selling. Keep in mind that they have complete and perfect information about their firm, and its future prospects.
Insider selling is usually a sign that management feels the shares they hold are over, not under, valued.
A message from our sponsor
Last time I heard, IBM had a whopper of a lawsuit against SCO - for patent violations.
Someone said patent lawsuits are expensive and just trying to defend from one could crush SCO...
So, when will SCO get gutted and pan fried by IBM's lawsuits?
Not anymore. IBM filed a countersuit against SCO, and SCO can't make said countersuit go away in any way except to win it.
It will look very, very bad for them if their lawsuit-- their one and only source of potential future revenue-- drops, yet the IBM case-- an inescapable very likely source of large potential future damages-- does not drop. Bad enough I don't expect any of that stock price to be left..
Can SCO get out of the IBM case by any form of bankruptcy? If so, can IBM continue their counterusits against the teams of stockholders that are actually controlling SCO at this point?
I just bought two brand-spankin-new IBM laptops to replace my ailing HP machines. Going to put Suse on one of them and RH Enterprise Linux on the other one. Going to take a picture of them side-by-side and mail it to SCO. Can't wait :)
SCO Lawyer 1/1 Tap: change the text on one single card. this effect can only be undone by Judge Advocate. Charge player controlling document $699 for each copy of card in their library, graveyard, and hand.
Is anyone taking bets as to when the case actually closes and how?"
Can someone run us through how we would get rich by shorting this stock (SCOX)?
If IBM gets their case dismissed, the stock is going to drop to $Worthless. Ive never actually done a short -- what are the details?
What does it mean? are IBM worried about losing ?
Oh wait, both selling patterns are pretty similar. This isn't really news it just means that people have set up automatic sales and these have to be done well in-advance. What will be news is when senior execs sell large amounts of stock automatically as the price DROPS.
If I was a SCO exec I'd be putting my sell price as a drop below 15 or a rise above 25, the drop price is the important one though as it will tell us how confident they are, the lower the drop price the more confident.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Yeah the kernel has about five and a half million lines. Probably under half a million in core architecture independant code though.
Change your sig. If you want google to associate correctly, you need to have that in links, thusly:
Here's some spyware for you.
Here's some more spyware for you.
It's true. Claria is spyware even though they changed their name because Gator was spyware, too.
Love,
BadDoggie
woof.
2 weeks then? :)
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
If this does spell the end for SCO, what will become of UNIX in that case? Is it possible to finally move this ancient codebase - which seems to have little value beyond it's potential as an IP strongarm weapon - into the public domain once and for all?
unless it's a joke, in which case you've gotta make sure you're not beating a dead horse.
McBride now believes that "beating a dead horse" is the IP of SCO. One critic though sited prior art "Beat a Dead Horse" by the band "Dead On, however McBride seems to have no issue with Beat a Dead horse, only beating a dead horse.
It's reccomended that users of the old idiom adopt the new one "Beating a dead SCO".
Who ares which way the legal action goes.. That is not the point. The idea is to spread enough confusion and uncertainty that corporate entities will be more likely to use perceived 'legal' and 'safe' versions of unix that don't have any licensing issues.
Unixes like AIX? Oh, wait... The thing is, the way SCO is claiming that any Unix is a derivate of their Unix, and that any technology put into it by third parties is now controlled by SCO, there is no "safe unix". Btw, how's that for viral licencing, it makes the GPL seem like Mother Theresa by comparison.
Anyway. if you want to make anti-FUD, the most important thing is to mention IBM all the time, as SCO suing IBM would be standard company vs company lawsuit. "SCO is suing IBM over contributions to Linux" would be a good header. Not "SCO attacks Linux over IP rights" which is a good FUD-line. People in general won't understand (nor really care) about the facts of the case anyway.
If you really want to break it down, make it simple. IBM has contributed their own code to Linux. SCO says they can't because of a licence agreement. And SCO is suing IBM over it. All the attacks on Linux are about the hundreds of thousands lines of code of enterprise class features IBM has contributed to Linux, not over a tidbit of code here or there from others.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I love this objection:
20. IBM objects to plaintiffs definition of the terms "IBM", "Defendant", "you", "your", and "any synonym thereof" on the grounds that they are overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seek information that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
No, you cannot see the pictures.
7. As of the date of this submission, IBM has provided over one hundred thousand pages of production documents to SCO. IBM intends to continue rolling its production to SCO, despite the inadequate supplemental responses we have received from SCO.
Well, damn. Imagine having to review 100,000 pages for maybe a few lines that *could* be important.
SCO also argues that IBM's motion was filed prematurely. That is false. This case has been pending nearly seven months. IBM served its first set of discovery requests more than four months ago. IBM filed this motion only after giving SCO more than 3 months to meet is obligations.
Well, Darl's on his way to a full year of profitability. If SCO has been able to drag it out for 7 months already, another 5 won't hurt them... much
Anyway, SCO's going down. Hard. I wonder if they'll sell me the copyrights to UNIX in bankruptcy court... I wouldn't mind having them for their historical value.
That's because you used a microsoft compiler ...
... it's biased.
I am currently working in the state's AG's office, and although they are mostly prosecutors and appeals lawyers, some have been tracking the case just to watch how IBM does it (they are seldom seen in court). And the elevator gossip indicates that they think SCO's efforts are laughable.
This post may contain anti-SCO content sposored secretly by IBM. In fact, they must be shitting their pants.
RTFL = Read the Fucking License
Darl: "Bwahahahaha. Mom, mom, it isn't fair! That big bully, GPL is cheating.
This Comment was generated with the Comment-O-Matic for SCO Stories.
StickMan
www.rageagainst.net
Ah, this brings back memories. Ya know, I really miss the "*BSD is dying" posts that popped up like clockwork regardless of story.
Where have those days gone, that "*BSD is dying" Golden Age?
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
The kernel doesn't include stdlib.h. That would imply that it gets linked with libc somehow. Last time I checked, that doesn't happen.
Jeremy Baumgartner
And now to balance things off from SCO's perspective. Never clueing in on the possibility that some companies pay their employees to produce some Software Libre. There's a balance out there between proprietary and OSS. You pick what best suits you, or your business model... but probably not a *nix that just now claims PAM as a feature.
/PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The SCO(R) Group (SCO) (Nasdaq: SCOX), the owner of the UNIX operating system, today announced that Chief Executive Officer Darl McBride, will deliver a keynote address at the Enterprise IT Week/Computer Digital Expo (CDXPO) conference in Las Vegas on Tuesday, November 18 at 5:00 p.m. The conference and keynote will take place at the Mandalay Bay Convention Center.
O GO )
---
Darl McBride, SCO Group CEO, to Deliver CDXPO Keynote Titled 'There's No Free Lunch - Or Free Linux'
08:32 EST Wednesday, Nov 05, 2003
LINDON, Utah, Nov. 5
(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/19990421/SCOL
In his address titled "There's No Free Lunch -- Or Free Linux," McBride will present his perspectives on the prospects of free industries, SCO's suit against IBM, and why intellectual property must be protected in a digital age.
"The Internet created -- and creatively destroyed -- great wealth. It also created a culture legitimizing intellectual property theft," said McBride. "When you defend intellectual property, you speak an unpleasant truth. People don't like to hear unpleasant truths. The alternative to this fight, however, is the death of an industry and thousands of jobs lost."
McBride will also explore how the information technology industry - software, hardware, networking and services -- depends on money passing from one hand to another, asserting that the livelihood of engineers and developers rests on paid models, even as those developers donate time to free projects such as Linux. McBride will lay out his assertion that without paid software, there would be little or no free software. At the conclusion of his keynote, McBride will be available for media questions.
McBride's keynote will be followed by a Town Hall discussion moderated by Jack Powers, conference chairman of Enterprise IT Week and director of the International Informatics Institute.
SCO's supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 1 fails to identify a single allegedly-misappropriated Unix file or line of code -- not one
I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me somebody played a junk hand in poker and got nailed when somebody called their greedy bluff. I would imagine the law they are using to sue IBM would PROTECT the source they refuse to disclose to the defendant and allege mis-use of. How much more of everything is going to be wasted on this giant ball of shit?
-1 Overrated (Too many big words for me to comprehend)
Ju'st becau'se there i's an 's in the word doe'sn't mean it need's an apo'strophe.
Where each side can only spend as much as the other. If I am sued by McD, and only want to spend $100 on my defense, that's all they can spend on their offense. Or if I sue McD, and only want to spend $2000 on the case, that's all they get to spend of defense.
... if McD wants to spend $1M, they have to loan me the difference from what I want to spend, and if they lose, they don't get it back. I have to agree to this loan.
:-) Seems like it ought to go a long ways towards reducing the money power in our legal system.
There has to be some minimum, of course, it makes no sense to expect a corporate lawyer to only spend $100 on a case. But no banks of several lawyers deponing hundreds of witnesses just to put the fear of McD in people.
Another aspect would be an escape clause
This would apply in all cases, criminal or civil. No more state DAs spending a fortune on sending some illiterate scumbag to the death chamber because his public dedfender only had $300 to spend.
Anyway, I like my scheme
Infuriate left and right
Every press release that goes out gets more and more nuts!
They've claimed, retracted, changed their terms of reference, claimed IP, dropped IP and gone for "contractual terms", reclaimed IP etc. I mean this is the sort of thing judges hate i.e. being pissed around by claimants who know not the difference twixt arse and elbow.
I can't wait for the press release that reads:
It all started when a guy in the legal department started having traumatic flashbacks to a Vietnam movie he watched in 1991. This may or may not have had something to do with the half pound of red leb he'd been smoking while watching 'cos he was still at law school at the time. The resulting hysteria was like, infectious, and spread to the management, and like, before anyone realised what was happening we'd turned charlie into evil commie open source developers that had to be wiped out at any cost.
By the time anyone came round and realised that no-one was taking notice of anything we said it was too late. Our customers had migrated to Linux and mailed us telling us to piss off and it took 3 days to stop the management squatting on the roof and howling at the moon.
I mean, what happened man?......
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
So as long as I don't ripple more then, say, a couple hundred mil I should be fine?
--
"Sanity is not statistical", George Orwell, "1984"
[
even though you are initially selling the stock (sell high, buy low vs. buy low, sell high) you still need to put "good faith" money down up front (this is for the broker to hold "in reserve" for the eventual buy back). This money is known as "MARGIN". If the tide turns against you and the price goes up, eventually it reachs a point where your "good faith" money isn't enough to cover the buy back. That's when the "MARGIN CALL" comes in. If you don't have enough margin in your account, the broker is required by law to close out the position (buy back the stock) immediately at the current market price. So as the stock rises you see people running to "cover their short position" which ironically puts more upward pressure on the stock. Professional traders watch the "short interest" in companies for this reason. If the short interest is high, they know that if the stock starts to go up, eventually all those shorts will have to be covered, which will put upward pressure on the stock. Short sales must be declared as such when executed, they cannot be executed below the last sale price - otherwise someone with deep pockets could just keep shorting the stock, pushing it further with each sale, thus causing a "cascade failure".
In a nutshell: short selling = high risk!
And yes, I used to be a securities trader on the floor of the exchange.
Note that he doesn't talk about anything illegal or proof, just that his income is lower now that linux is in town.
$699 says that SCO is dead before I get my G5
about SCO was not evident at the Novell/IBM/SuSe/Ximian meet I attended in Indy yesterday.
As a group the reps seemed a little too professional to actually descend into snorts of derision, and it was interesting to see the old-timey Novell guys in the audience actually entusiastic for a change.
It ain't over for a looooong time yet.
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
Martha Stewart is a Democrat (or at least has donated a pile of money to democrats over the years).
I just have a hard time believing that McBride really cares about all those poor Linux developers who would be unable to write "infringing" code if the paid model disappeared and they lost their jobs.
I doubt i'm the only one who has seen tons of open source project pages in which the developer has written "I am looking for a job." The developers did not stop programming when they lost their job, programming for many is an enjoyable activity, and fortunatly it is also not that resource intensive (power for the computer, and internet connection).
As long as a developer finds a business (or even better creates one), that benifits from the software's open existance, they can still make money writing code. There are many specialized markets that depend on software from a very small pool of vendors. In my experience this situation often leads to customer abuse by the vendor in terms of pricing, slow updates, and overpriced support.
In such small markets the need for updates to the software never goes away, someone has to do it, even if it's free software. Since there are not many geeks out there programming these systems "for fun", companies are willing to pay for updates to this software, because someone needs to do them. One might argue that these businesses would reject this model because they want an advantage over their competitors. This is in many cases untrue because they know that their competitors need the product to function, and will obtain their own from a vendor or in-house in one way or another.
The Ro Factor - Jeep/Linux Weblog
For any of you guys who think that you can make aquick killing on SCO stock, please take this warning seriously: I would not recommend breaking your first tooth (any type of investment, especially selling short or options) on SCO! What you don't realize is that 90% of stock market investors exist solely to give their money to the other 10%. The stock market is still run by the good-old-boy network. You are not part of the "in-the-loop" crowd!
If you are a veteran investor and you feel comfortable investing in it, have fun. You probably already know that there are several things working against you:
1. This case is not scheduled to go to court until 2005. The stock could very well sit around $17.50 for a long time. Plus, if the last six months is any indicator, the stock is only a couple of news articles away from being $25. You have a huge possible loss on the upside.
2. Any news that you hear about the case is old. If you were to analyze price history of stocks before they made major announcements, you would see that a lot of the moves occur BEFORE the announcements are made public. How can that be, since NOBODY knows what happened before the announcement?!
3. I believe most brokers are refusing to short SCO. That alone should tell you something. You'll probably have a hard time finding someone to lend you the shares. I haven't checked to see if SCO is optionable, and if it is, how attractive the options look. You might be able to use them to limit your losses.
Seriously guys, SAVE your money! You don't really need to give it to the fat cats on Wall Street. I, for one, am staying away from SCO stock. There's just too much uncertainty.
...of the major Unix licensees and Unix's new copyright owner will get together afterwards and cooperate (as much as big businesses are capable of cooperating) to formulate a new set of open source licenses, under which the various components of Unix shall be released. Some parts, the obvious stuff, will go completely public domain, other parts will be released under varying degrees of more restrictive licenses. Either way, Unix proper, will become 90+% all open source.
IBM has a very interesting point that I have seen mentioned before. The below is from the Groklaw link
Interrogatory No. 1 asks for the identification of files and lines of code from Unix that SCO contends IBM has misappropriated. It is Unix software, after all, not Linux software, that IBM is alleged to have misappropriated.
IBM is basically saying, show us "your" Unix code that you think we took. This makes more sense then the arguement I've been hearing by the Linux community of show us the Linux code that you think infringes, although the Linux community has no real right to see the SCO Unix code, IBM should have that right as a member of the lawsuit. That would make things even harder as SCO may not be able to turn up such code as it probably does not exist. From a legal standpoint, it makes asks SCO to prove infringment of their code in that manner and takes away thier shotgun approach of ifs, coulds, and resembles.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
"I bring the courts attention to document 3,002,345 where it plainly indicates that Darl McBride had an intimate relationship with Bill Gates. Darl, could you please read the message you sent Bill Gates?"
"<ahem> I don't recall composing that message."
"Please read the message for the court"
"The message says 'I love you'"
"It is also plain that you sent many similar messages to Bill Gates, including instructions as to how he can enlarge his anatomy, is this true?"
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/34553.htm
Specifically, In the process, a federal judge deemed the GPL enforceable and binding.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Hopefully that's what the original post meant :)
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
What if SCO really had 2 reasons for doing this:
1.) Inflate stock price, etc, typical conspiracy theory.
2.) *VALIDATE* the GPL. They've sold Linux before, they know how much IT managers that are sold on UNIX/Windows bitch about not being sure how stable the GPL is. What if they also planned on this?
I know this sounds like bullshit, but hey, its a possibility. Microsoft bought licenses from them, what if they want to fuck MS over? What if they actually *WANT* to do something good before SCO dies? SCO knows that its products were crap. Its Linux sales weren't quite up there either. What if SCO wanted to get rich quick, and then validate the GPL? For instance, IBM would probably buy them out. IBM is *THE* pimp for Linux, all of SCO's Linux people would probably work for IBM. In the end, SCO would be somewhat a good guy.
Just a thought for all of you conspiracy theorists....
Obviously, IANAL, so could someone explain to me what this means? If it's dismissed with extreme prejudice, does that just mean it's dismissed and everyone goes home, but the judge is mad at them? Or does it mean that IBM is entitled to some type of compensation or additional claims because of the slander/libel? Or do they get fined by the court for wasting everyone's time (like being in contempt of cour)?
Read the last para just before the section 'Migration' starts. http://www.thejemreport.com/software/freebsd51.php
FreeBSD license lets anyone to use their code in any propreitary software and not affect the software license. So I can take code from FreeBSD and incorporate it into my propreitary software and not having to release it to the community. That is I believe what happend with SCO, they thought they owned the code that is actually licensed by FreeBSD in the first place.
Reading monster amount of legal briefs are what lawyers and paralegals are paid to do. It's their job.
First point -- on the assumption that the case will continue, which I believe, it may be some time before anyone knows which lines are "tainted". For example, SCO points at the source files for JFS and says "These may be tainted." IBM says, "Which lines?" SCO responds with, "Any lines which you developed under AIX. Which are those?" SCO's legal theory seems to be that any features of AIX which were transfered to Linux are a violation, unless IBM can prove that the code given to Linux was developed as part of a non-AIX operating system, then ported to Linux directly from that non-AIX system. IBM is using the obvious tactic of providing a mountain of raw information, then demanding that SCO sift through it and identify the lines that are in question -- make it too EXPENSIVE for SCO to continue the case.
Second point -- on the assumption that SCO wins, which I don't believe will happen, generating cleanroom specs may well be a problem. As I understand it, the contract forbids revealing the methods as well as the source code. IBM would be in the position of having to say to the Linux community, "The code and documentation that we revealed to you, and on which your specs are based, were trade secrets that we did not have the right to reveal." ANY use of that information -- such as writing specs -- could be deemed improper by a court. However, if SCO wins and gets a large settlement from IBM, I would expect the judge to rule that SCO has now been compensated for the loss of their trade secrets, and that the Linux community is free to make use of those "secrets".
SCO appears to have (although IANAL) a simple case that is at least arguable. I have to believe that all of the public posturing, much if not all of which is irrelevant, is intended to run the share price up so that the executives can cash out.
First, SCO complains that IBM mischaracterizes SCO's lawsuit by characterizing it as a case about the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets. (See Plaintiff's Memorandum of law in Opposition to IBM's Motion to Compel Discovery ("Opposition Br.") at 2-3.) That is so, SCO says, because SCO asserts six causes of action, only one of which is for the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets. It is true that SCO asserts five additional causes of action. But three of the five allege that IBM breached its contractual obligations to SCO by disclosing trade secrets or confidential information, and the other two, in SCO's own words, "flow from" IBM's alleged breaches of contract based upon the disclosure of SCO's trade secrets or confidential information. To the extent it matters, there is no question that the gravamen of SCO's case concerns the alleged misuse of trade secrets or confidential information.
So now not only do we have SCO:
1) Lying about Caldera's involvement in the kernel
2) Lying about their old Unix agreements with AT&T
3) Lying about their purchases from Novell
4) Lying about Linux history
5) Lying about the law
etc...
we've now got them
58) Lying about the contents of their own filings with the court.
I think it will create more jobs because enterprises won't have to rely on companies like his to be raked over the coals in support contract costs.
This will free money and companies will have to hire more linux people which in turn would give back to community to help other people. And these comanies would have on-site expertise and not have to rely on a company such as sco.
Darl throws around intellectual property but can he actually define. Should I protect my scripts I write everyday so no one else uses them? Is the for loop IP - please Darl explain to me where IP starts and ends because I sure don't know but I don't use in every speech I give either so since you do please enlighten us.
Shroting is 'borrowing' someone elses stock, selling it at a high price (SCOX at $17.56), banking the cash, and then hoping it will fall in price so you can buy it back at a lower price and make money (i.e. buy back SCOX - bankrupt $.05). You can only get a maximum of 100% profit if the company goes bankrupt. However if you are wrong about your facts and SCOX goes from $17.56 to $37, you are out a bunch of cash, and in for a margin call perhaps. If you had shorted this stock a few months back when the Slashdotters started yelling short, SCOX was at about $3. If you had shorted $2000 worth the stock at $3 per share you would be facing a liabilty of $23,413 with a loss of $21,413. If you had shorted SCO $2000 worth of stock when they were $1 you would be facing a total liability of $35,120 with a loss of $33,120. You have open ended upward liability with a short, and timing is critical, wrong timing can be disastrous. The stock market is not a rational place, as seen by the runnup in SCOX. SCOX will probably see another bump if a court ruling drags this out. The question you have to ask yourself now, is do you have the balls to short SCOX? DO you. DO you...punk.
> I hope Darl and co ... end up ... begging for booze money in Salt Lake City.
Now _that's_ a curse if I've ever heard one!
See, you just sue me, and trick me into spending a million defending myself, and I loan you the million, and you spend it!
...
Then I write it off on taxes as a loss, and
Profit!!!
Infuriate left and right
Even if there are lines of code that are SCO's trade secret in Linux, and IBM improperly disclosed them, the most that could happen is that IBM pays damages to SCO (aside from tainted reputations etc.) Trade secrets are like virginity (a subject the average /.er should know a lot about ;-) as once you've lost it, you can't get it back. SCO's "trade secrets" are revealed and they could stay in Linux unless it was literal copying and thus infringement. But this is so hypothetical: there are no trade secrets left in System V as (a) every man and his dog has licensed the code and (b) open-source BSD does every SVR4 does and more.
SCO really must provide evidence and prove its case since it is the one that brought the suit. SCO would like to get away with just saying that the contract covers everything IBM ever did that could possibly be similar to AIX. And that the mere fact that IBM worked on Linux is evidence of a breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation. Unfortunately, a judge is not likely to allow such a tenuous position to stand and SCO will be forced to provide actual evidence. IANAL but I play one on TV.
Frylock: That's not a toy!
Master Shake: You say that about everything you own. You should own toys. They're fun.
There's already a betting claim on this on the FX game, which has been going on for almost 10 years compared to a few days for the MIT thing.
Claim SCOLIN predicts "Caldera Systems, Inc. will succeed in its legal claim alleging trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, copyright violations, trademark violations and / or patent violations with respect to the inclusion of UNIX code in Linux." See the URL for more details.
Currently it is trading at FX$0.06, meaning that the traders think there is only about a 6% chance (i.e. about one chance in 15) that SCO will prevail, and a 94% chance that IBM will win.
> $699 says that SCO is dead before I get my G5
$1mil says that the Earth dies before I get a Mac.
Assuming there's anything in there, right. But by "rewrite" I hope you mean a complete cleanroom implementation, because otherwise it really is illegal. From what I'm told, there's nothing left in 2.5 (and I think 2.4) that was even remotely SCO (even that via old BSD).
I'm also sorry that modding is an issue for you. I participated in the discussion, and that is all I did so please accept my apologies if my opinion including the use of GPL and "vindication" somehow wasn't valid.
Sorry, that was a joke not directed at you - rather at the RMS-head mods. Sorry if that wasn't clear, no offense intended.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Ok lets think about this. Tommorow morning SCO has a press conference and says they have to fold as they have run out of money to cover legal costs. They also state on there way out the door, that "They believe they were right, and wish they had the money to take down IBM, and other IP infringers". Can they do something like this? I think it would seriously hurt open-source because no one could fight back, the company would be gone but their statements would be everywhere. A crazy idea, but just came to me and I tought I might inquire as to the possibilities of something like this happening. Can SCO legally do something like I mentioned above? Will they? Will it be a big blow to Open-Source?
No, this is
This just triggered a thought that explains why McBride brought this whole insane case to court. I have this vivid mental image of someone named Baldrick going up to Darl and saying "I have a cunning plan ..."
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
#include "config.h"
survives from the original code. Is it "derived from" the original program?
Now suppose you had signed a contract when you purchased the above car in 1985 that said someone could come and take it away in 2003; does the fact that it contains none of the original components mean that you're free-and-clear from the contract? IBM signed a contract that MIGHT be interpreted to mean that they agreed to treat all of the improvements they made FOREVER as trade secrets requiring AT&T's permission to disclose, so long as those upgrades are part of a system "derived from" the original code. I know it sounds stupid when put that way, and I DON'T believe that SCO will prevail, but I do think that the contract terms are at least arguable on those grounds, and that the court will have to decide.
A GREAT opportunity to short SCOX. These jackassses don't have a prayer, Boise or no Boise...
Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
You still assume that there is infringing code. I have very serious doubts about that after all these SCO antics. I think it's more likely they are hoping to find some infringing code in the course of the lawsuit.
Like this?
Olsen
Broughton
And let's not forget Wilson, who according to their SEC filing, no longer owns any shares of SCOX.
-T
Go here http://www.understudy.net/weblog/archives/00000014 .html and let the SEC and the government officials of Utah know that what SCO is doing is illegal.
What country and/or state was this case filed in? The article doesn't provide specifics.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
please tell me your in MA, please tell me, please... We are so proud of our state AG office in that they are (the only?, if not of the few) not to give in on the whole Microsoft "Settlement" crap!
If you are, lemme know were they drink so I can buy them a beer.
Of all the possible tests of the GPL, this is perhaps the most pro-GPL case we could hope for.
Actually the Virgin WebPlayer in 2000 would have been better. Used Linux and the license that came with the box claimed ownership of ALL the code in the WebPlayer and claimed you had no rights to it.
Forbes is making specific threats against companies using Linux.
The tactic is a one-two punch: Darl makes wild but non-specific threats:
While SCO's henchmen call companies but don't make specific threats: This is designed to have the same effect as if Darl directly threatened the companies but leaves SCO with legal deniability.I am going to contact every US attorney general, give a list of companies in the jurisdiction and ask them to investigate on based on this.
SCO is trying to wiggle around the law but I don't think every attorney general is going to let them spread FUD against Microsofts last real competitor.
Well, IBM will have to provide the evidence, and is doing so through the discovery process, although it may fall to SCO to organize it. To beat an example to death, consider JFS. There is no question that it is available as part of AIX. There is no question that the code and methods were revealed to the world through Linux. What remains at question are (1) was it ported to Linux from AIX or not, and (2) more importantly, if it was ported to Linux from AIX, do the contract terms require SCO to approve such a revelation? Only IBM has the evidence to prove or disprove the first proposition. If I were one of SCO's attorneys, I would be doing my best to get the judge to rule that IBM should be organizing the evidence to show the development history. And I would be telling Darl and the rest of them to STFU, that there's a whole lot more potential value in quietly winning the contract case in court than there is in sending those damned invoices out...
Really? Is it fun? The closest I ever came was playing obnoxious witnesses in mock trials at law school. That was fun!
If you really believe that the stock is being pumped, then why don't you put in a short sell on SCOX? Easy money if you get out before the bankruptcy filing.
nt
licet differant, aequabitur
That is I believe what happend with SCO, they thought they owned the code that is actually licensed by FreeBSD in the first place.
But apparently they removed the BSD copyright notices (otherwise they would have known it was BSD code) which is part of the BSD license requirements.
But it is funny. SCO could take one of the *BSD code bases, rebrand it as Unix System 6, and sell it perfectly legally, as long as they kept the correct copyright notices as part of the distribution.
"The Internet created -- and creatively destroyed -- great wealth. It also created a culture legitimizing intellectual property theft," said McBride. "When you defend intellectual property, you speak an unpleasant truth. People don't like to hear unpleasant truths. The alternative to this fight, however, is the death of an industry and thousands of jobs lost."
I just realized, McBride is starting a political career. :( After SCO self-destructs, expect him to run for office in Utah. Maybe Governor? idk. Don't be surprised if, in the next 20 years, we hear Darl McBride announcing his intentions to run for President. Not that I think he'll be that successful as a politician, just that it seems that Presidents these days all have something like this in their past.
Like what I said? You might like my music
However, the closest bar to the AG's office is a good bet.
This may be off topic but here goes...Many years ago, Microsoft and IBM were participating together on a microcomputer operating system. After some fallout between the two, I believe that IBM told Microsoft to pound sand and they went it alone with OS/2 (I still have original OS/2 Warp Connect CD's). Well, we all know what happened to OS/2. I wonder if Microsoft is using SCO as their lackey to go after IBM hoping they would win. MS then buys SCO because then SCO would have the "rights" to *NIX based systems and then with MS purchasing SCO gives MS control over both Windows and *NIX. I realize that *NIX and Linux are two completely different systems based on a published set of thoughts and ideas and it appears that SCO is trying to legally create linkage between the two. Just my $0.02 worth (1976 base value).
My post was in reply to a stupid troll about the sexy BSD chicks and Linux mascots and that. And then a mod or someone deleted it, and I'm paying the price. Someone please delete BOTH of my comments and I'll be happy.
Dude, you have hit a new low even for slashdot. You replied to what was said in the first half of a 10-word sentence and completely missed the second half. All this while replying to someone's sig, no less.
[insert video clip of villagers with pitchforks and torches storming the castle here]
Who wants to be a Darl McBride? They must really believe this. IMHO this case will more resemble Bambi vs Godzilla.
That is I believe what happend with SCO, they thought they owned the code that is actually licensed by FreeBSD in the first place.
If that is the case, and id they hadn't properly credited the BSD authors in their code and documentation, then *that puts them in violation of the BSD license as well.*
The response mentions 5 hundred files, do we know the filenames so that we can do some investigation?
I wonder if IBM supplied the AIX and DYNIX source was supplied hard copy as it is typically required by law. Would make for an interesting truckload of paper that is totally useless for the purpose intended.
At least have to courtesy to properly attribute the replaced parts analogy to Asimov! ;-)
All generalizations are false, including this one. (Mark Twain)