Slashdot Mirror
IBM Subpoenas SCO Investors, Analysts
Bigfishbowl writes "Forbes has an interesting article about IBM sending subpoenas to large SCO investors in an effort to compel discovery. An IBM spokesman says IBM is frustrated by SCO's reluctance to produce proof of its allegations. '"It is time for SCO to produce something meaningful. They have been dragging their feet and it is not clear there is any incentive for SCO to try this in court," he says.'"
I am by no means in hell a lawyer, but it seems like IBM is trying to determine whether something much of Slashdot suspects is verifiably true: that some sort of sinister third party (Microsoft comes to mind) is morally and financially behind SCO's actions.
The question is whether a "Microsoft is behind this whole sham" argument will be as well-received in a court room as it has been on Slashdot.
I am so not a lawyer that I don't even know whether it would be admissible.
Or, for that matter, whether my analysis is entirely incorrect.
This blackmail has gone on long enough...when this goes to trial i, for one, hope they get laughed out of court.
Any possible IP infringements have been taken care of as of 2.4.22 anyway...
This is just like poker... And IBM finally called... now SCO is gonna have to lay down the cards or fold... Either way... we all win! :)
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
If people involved with the legalities of this case were getting as frustrated with SCO as I've been. Nice to see that this seems to be the case.
Everything will be taken away from you.
microsoft vs. ibm round 1 let the carnage ensue. Ever seen mtc celeb showdown. Big Blue Vesrsus Big Red(?)
At this stage of the game, IBM is publicly stating they doubt TSG is serious about entering a court room. With that in mind they seem to be trying to hurt TSG where it hurts: the wallet. Have you seen SCOX performance lately? Beautifully mimicking a swan dive. Good riddance to bad trash
BTW, 5th post?
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
to comply when they have nothing.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
This is a little OT, but SCO told the names "offending" files in a court doc at groklaw. They don't say what parts of the files are "theirs", but they've narrowed it down to about a 1/5 of the kernel. :-)
It is illegal and damaging to use the civil court system to intimidate people if you have no good reason to believe the law is behind you (like if you LIED about the facts used to support your complaint). A countersuit is in order, but who to sue?
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
I wonder if this is a case of IBM going:
"You go straight to our users and threaten to extort them... we'll go straight to your investors and subpoena them. Let's see who hurts most."
Let them hurt.
Pretty cool, if you think about it.
IBM, Big Blue, batting in Linux's court. This will likely be the case that stands as precedence for or against the GPL, and with such a giant behind Linux, I don't think SCO will win.
If they had a chance, they would have pressed their fist into using the law to compel licensing, instead of sending "invoices" and pressuring companies to provide 'insurance' against their lawsuits.
With the right leverage (such as the kind that IBM has) this could easially compel strong legal backing for the GPL, something it could definately use.
They don't call them Big Blue for nothing. IBM can be a very angry giant once awakened.
To all the Microsoft Conspirators... I thought Microsoft and IBM just signed a huge Xbox 2 chip deal? Maybe I am too idealistic and the proper way to act is to sue your business partners. Maybe thats why I don't own a big company :)
i just got a picture of Celebrity Deathmatch.
for all of you who have not seen this (on mtv), it was a claymation animation of two (or more) people/parties taking it to the ring. to the death. usually a pretty gruesome death. and sometimes for both parties.
just a pretty picture to brighton your day!
eric
about IBM sending subpoenas to large SCO investors in an effort to compel discovery.
In the recent wake of subpoena frenzy, we at subpoenaforless.com are pleased to announce a 20% discount on all our printed subpoenas, and 25% discount on rose-smelling quadrichromic printed 320g paper models. Up to 40% off all our models of subpoenas can be had if you puchase in volume. We have many satisfied customers and you could be one too.
We're also working hard on the upcoming opening of our new online Internet portal, oneclicksubpoena.com. Be assure that we at subpoenaforless.com are committed to high quality, trouble free legal hassles.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Warning: put drinks and domestic animals safely out of danger first.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
"I view this as an attempt to bully and intimidate..." says Christopher Sontag, executive vice president at SCO.
Oh, the irony.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
SCO claims to have shown "the code" to investors and such. IBM says, "okay, SCO won't show us the code, so we'll make your investors do so." Both intimidates the investors and calls SCO's bluff. Brilliant!
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
Geez, how lazy are you people? Just check the box next to "Caldera."
NEW YORK - The legal battle between SCO Group and IBM is widening, as IBM has sent subpoenas to investors and analysts who have supported SCO.
On Oct. 30, IBM (nyse: IBM - news - people ) issued subpoenas to Baystar Capital, Deutsche Bank (nyse: DB - news - people ), Renaissance Ventures and Yankee Group, companies that have either invested in SCO (nasdaq: SCOX - news - people ) or published reports suggesting that SCO's claims against IBM could be legitimate.
"I view this as an attempt to bully and intimidate analysts--to try to cow them into silence," says Christopher Sontag, executive vice president at SCO, in Lindon, Utah.
In a lawsuit filed in March, SCO claims IBM put derivative code from Unix System V--an operating system for which SCO holds copyrights--into Linux, the free operating system developed collaboratively by programmers around the world.
SCO aims to collect $3 billion in damages from IBM and wants Linux customers to pay licensing fees to SCO.
IBM will not say why it issued the subpoenas. But a company spokesman says IBM is frustrated by SCO's reluctance to produce proof of its allegations. "It is time for SCO to produce something meaningful. They have been dragging their feet and it is not clear there is any incentive for SCO to try this in court," he says.
IBM has filed two motions to compel discovery, the most recent one on Nov. 6.
Sontag says SCO has provided 1 million pages of documents to IBM and that IBM in return has provided only 100,000 pages to SCO. "The foot-dragging is on the part of IBM," he says.
One legal expert says the subpoenas may be IBM's way to get at information that SCO will not provide. "If you're having trouble compelling discovery, you go to outside sources," says Brian Ferguson, an attorney at McDermott, Will & Emery, a Washington, D.C., law firm.
Ferguson, who is on the advisory board of a Linux enthusiast magazine and has published an article declaring SCO's case a long shot, points out that in its counter-claim IBM alleges SCO has unjustly enriched itself through the lawsuit.
Investors and analysts have participated, perhaps unwittingly, in that enrichment, Ferguson says. SCO shares, which traded at less than $1 before the suit was filed, now change hands at nearly $16 per share. Some insiders have sold shares.
"IBM needs to get answers from analysts about why they wrote positive reports and from Baystar about why they invested," Ferguson says.
The subpoenas, issued by Cravath, Swaine & Moore, IBM's law firm, present a broad request for all documents related to SCO and the Canopy Group, a Utah investment company that is SCO's biggest shareholder. One subpoena provided to Forbes requests all material related to communication with SCO or Canopy and any agreements that outsiders may have made with SCO or Canopy.
Baystar, Deutsche Bank and Yankee Group acknowledged receipt of the subpoenas but declined to comment on them. Baystar in October invested $50 million in SCO. Deutsche Bank analyst Brian Skiba in October issued a "buy" recommendation on SCO stock and said the stock could more than double in value. Yankee Group analyst Laura DiDio has advised corporate customers who use Linux that they should take SCO's claims seriously.
"We expected IBM to conduct a fishing expedition at some point," says Herbert Jackson, managing director of Renaissance Ventures, a small investment company in Richmond, Va., that first bought SCO shares 18 months ago, before SCO filed its lawsuit, and it has bought more since the suit was filed. In April of this year Renaissance published a research report stating that the SCO lawsuit was "well founded."
Jackson, who also has invested alongside Canopy in other companies, says he has complied with the IBM subpoena, sending a 15-inch stack of paperwork to IBM's lawyers.
Meanwhile, Linux enthusiast Web sites and blogs are buzzing with the
This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
Remove the Caldera section in your preferences for the front page.. That should cut down the SCO articles a bit. Or, you know.. just not read them?
I certainly hope they find documents that prove that Darl &Co. just went into this madness for quick money, using an illegal pump and dump scheme. It'll make the SEC's job much easier.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
Let's start referring to www.forbes.com as a "stock-market enthusiast Web site".
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
How many times now has /. said that finally the SCO case was going to come to an end soon. I count at least 4 or 5.
Chaos will always win out over order because chaos is more organized
For the stock.
Is Microsoft a SCO Investor? I thought they just paid for licenses, that would make them a customer not an investor.
Later,
Phil
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
The mind boggles! Sontag is asking IBM to deluge him in paper? He only has 100,000 pages, and he wants IBM to see his million and raise it!
Groan, somewhere, a forest cries in pain as the log chippers are fired up.
Do not start a land war in Asia, do not enter a paper war with IBM. Sheesh!
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
keep your friends close and your enemies closer ;)
The idea here is to do to SCO what they are trying to do to the OS movement - make the public afraid to touch them. I mean, if buying SCO stock means you risk getting a subpeana, who is going to do it? So what if ESR gets one - I'm sure he'd be happy to give SCO a piece of his mind. The goal is to make your average wall streeter afraid to touch SCO with a 10 foot pole, and there's not a whole lot SCO can do that they haven't already done.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
So you're not reading Slashdot on your own time?? Turn your brain on before posting.. seriously.. do everyone else a favor.
... that all of IBM's 100,000 pages so far all said:
"This page intentionally left blank."
Of course, all of SCO's 1M pages were diagrams of kittens and houses in crayon so they can hardly complain.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"I view this as an attempt to bully and intimidate analysts--to try to cow them into silence," says Christopher Sontag, executive vice president at SCO, in Lindon, Utah.
No, Mr. Sontag! This is an attempt to cow them in to talking, not silence.
I can understand your confusion, Mr. Sontag, living in a world where white is black, up is down, and right is wrong. Be very careful at zebra crossings, Mr. Sontag.
--
Bond: Do you expect me to talk?
Goldfinger: No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!
As it was well known to the trained eye, the lawsuit had no merit but it was just a ploy to get acquired by IBM or some other entity. Now that it did not happen, SCO is trying to drag their feet so that some clueless VC with abundance of money and no brains could be found to rescue them. Plain and simple IMHO
__________
The more I know people, the more I love animals
I don't think that Microsoft is directly behind this action, but I sure as hell wouldn't put it past them to do so. They've done some pretty weird stuff in the past such as the famous dead people mailing initiative and their famous round of hideous anti-linux FUD in 2001 where Ballmer, Mundie and just about every honcho at MS were telling strange tales of viral cancer etc.
Given that they discovered that such direct FUD backfired but are reportedly gearing up for the next round of FUD with respect to security would you be willing to state with 100% certainty that MS is not behind this action?
I wouldn't.
If it is discovered through IBM's process of subpoenas that MS is in fact behind this I wonder what will happen then. I assume that MS will be facing a court action for trying to willfully harm a competitor's business that will make the $3 billion SCO claim look tame, and I think that there will be a number of anti-trust questions raised.
Big companies like IBM, Microsoft, et al don't act in a single-minded way like we individuals tend to.
That's because when individuals act the way big companies do, we call them things like "nut cases" and "psycopaths." An individual that dumped toxic waste into a river or FUD into the media (at what would be a modest rate by corporate standards) would be locked up. An individual who was insulting someone while kissing up to them would seem (at best) socialy maladroit.
This is what makes corporate characterization of hackers as social outcasts so ironic. The most nerdly hacker is still an order of magnitude more sane & sociable than the average mega-corp.
-- MarkusQ
Where was the freaking C&C warning?
Look, Chris baby, let's put this kindly: it was SCO who replied to a request for source code (requested for code comparison purposes) who printed it out, then scanned it, then PDFed the scanned image, then shipped the PDF. I'm sure that trick was the basis for endless merriment in Lindon, with backslapping and congratulations all around.
You'll allow me, I hope, to quietly contemplate the prospect of the Court ordering SCO to pay for manual transcription and proofreading of all 150,000 pages?
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Why would IBM need that information, unless they intended to go after somebody for securities fraud?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Oh, Chris, you words always have been so moooooooving.
There ain't no rules here; we're trying to accomplish something.
Surely there has to be someone working for SCO or one of those investment houses who reads /... We need a whistle blower. Someone will come forward and give us the smoking gun - it is only a matter of time.
I don't see why Eric wouldn't want to testify. I'd like to. I sure don't have anything to hide with regard to this case, and I can't see how he would.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
The author of this piece, Daniel Lyons, should use the by line, "SCO Mouthpiece." He is the same hack who wrote the "Linux's Hit Men" article about the FSF plus there was another recent piece of SCO FUD that I've managed to flush out of my memory.
You will also note that quietly buried in the body of the article is that Forbes was also served with a subpoena. This is undoubtedly because of Mr. Lyons' articles.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Okay, someone must have a list of source code that SCO claims to be theirs... let's see it.
They say it was the hand that Wild Bill Hickock was holding when he was shot in the back of the head.
LOL, News? (Score:-1, Insightful) If I had mod points I would -1 underrated you just so you could get that infamous -5 insightfull!
forbes.com wants to install stuff on my pc whenever I visit their site.
IBM isn't just a competitor to MS anymore. MS now has a contract to buy chips for the next xBox from IBM. How likely is it that the higher ups at MS are so stupid that they're going to risk being found to have backed a suit against a major supplier for parts they want to use?
-"It seems like you're trying to exploit a security hole. Would you like help?"
From SCO's supplemental responses:
I've been wondering when someone was going to try this for quite a while. "Dumping", selling a product below cost in order to force your competitors out of business, is illegal for good reasons. It seems like a motivated attorney could pretty easily make a case that any company who is putting substantial investment into software that is distributed for free is dumping, and trying to kill a competitor.
This doesn't just apply to IBM and Linux, it also applies to Sun and OpenOffice, and perhaps others as well. Now it looks like SCO is trying this argument out for real.
I had hoped the argument wouldn't get brought up for a while, until a history of such corporate open source efforts was well established. And it seemed reasonable that it might not be brought up, since the "damaged" party in both the Linux and OpenOffice cases is Microsoft, and as a convicted anti-competitive monopolist with a massive market share they're not in a very good position to complain.
It seems like Microsoft has found a way to get the idea in front of a judge after all...
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
egrep -ril 'smp|jfs|rcu' *
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
"Tee. Hee."
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
I belive in the UK this is called bloody mindedness.
SCO kicks out 1 mil of scanned pages. All they had to do was scan and send. IBM kicks back 100K pages. These are pages of analysis.
If I got 100K pages of analysis from someone I was trying to blackmail money from, I would be scared shitless. Picture the reaction to that in Lindon!
McBribe and Sonyatag were rapidly downloadinf brownware when they saw that. And to make matters worse, I think it hit them just then as to size of the shitstorm heading thier way.
SCO is going to get the legel enema of the century.
"A 300 dollar lock is on a 200 dollar door sorronded by 10 dollar wallpanel...what do you take the sledgehammer to first?"
too laizww two spehl cex...
Seen this before.
Make false allegations to push up the share price and then once you've got it as far as your bean counter thinks is possible then apply to drop the charges.
When shit hits the fan get some of these https://youtu.be/pY-GncsZ-UE
I guess you just have to ask politely enough...
Q.
Insert Signature Here
I totally agree that it's cool that Linux is heading to court with a pretty strong case (though I don't think GPL legal precedence will come into SCO's suit at all. SCO is saying that IBM stole their IP; they don't care how IBM released it; they're saying that it wasn't IBM's IP to release in *any* way. Some of the countersuits involve GPL, though).
I have to say I wouldn't celebrate much, though, if IBM won the case because they are "such a giant" with "the right leverage". If SCO's suit is valid, IBM should pay some kind of damages, and offending versions of Linux must be discontinued. Yes, the system doesn't always work right, but law is law and the little guy should win if the case has merit, whether he's hated or cheered for it. If the law is bad, then we have to work to change it.
If I cheer because IBM is huge, I lose the right to complain when MS squashes some small developer under the weight of a thousand lawyers.
Final thought: the elephant is walking the same direction as you for now -- but don't get confused and think you're riding it.
There are only 10 types of people: those who understand decimal, those who don't, and, uh, 8 other types I forget.
But don't you know, this is Slashdot, and its much more fun to just bitch than to actually do something about it.
Try and find out who their customers are and urge them that they shouldn't be paying the LINUX LICENSE until the courts say so.
Try and find out who's SCO's fortune 500 customers are !!!
This is not a reasonable argument here. IBM isn't artificially restraining the price of Linux. If you would remember that IBM got undercut by Microsoft in Germany. If you wanted to sue someone than they would have to sue Linus Torvalds, he is the one that holds the copyright and license, he controls the price.
i want to see mcbride and his cronies in orange jumpsuits, defending themselves against money laundering and stock fraud charges.
I would like to purchase one (1) subpoena against oneclicksubpoena.com with regard to violation of US Patent# 5,960,411.
Sincerely,
amazon.com
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
didn't Monopolysoft help fund sco with buying some of their I.P. ?
I wonder what his views are on sending threatening letters to thousands of companies demanding licensing fees without offering a shred of evidence supporting its claims.
From the Latin roots sub, for below, and poena, for male member. In other words, by the balls.
You should be aware that one of the remedy that IBM will seek when they win the case (or the case is toss outright) is legal fee from SCO for filing frivilous lawsuit. Cravath, Swaine and Moore is one of the biggest law firm on Earth, and they don't come cheap. The printout-scan-PDF-printout might be a giggle or two, but hundreds of paralegal with tens of thousand of billable hours adds up to lots and lots of legal fee that IBM will held someone to pay, be it SCO or their puppet masters.
You folks are going to have to help me, because I'm a Linux newbie, but just before SCO shut down the ftp site, I downloaded the SCO linux kernel files (at least, I'm guessing that's what they are; I downloaded all the files starting with kernel-source[stuff here].rpm, which was 10 files, roughly 123 MB.) Would SCO object if I posted the files for download? Is it illegal? I'm betting not, since they were still licensed under the GPL when I downloaded them. So, if these are the real kernel files, and SCO would be pissed at them being posted freely, and it's not illegal under the DMCA or something, yeah, I'm going to post all the files. Can anyone tell me if these files would be useful to anyone, most of all IBM?
A subpoena usually asks for (a) some one to show up and testify or (b) a bunch of documents. These sound like the document kind.
So, anybody know what documents IBM asked these investors/analysts for?
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
First, if SCO stalls much longer on discovery, Cravath will be in a good position to move for a dismissal. They might get it, too. Maybe even a dismissal with prejudice, so SCO can't refile, or summary judgement in IBM's favor.
Independent of this, it looks like IBM is gearing up for a securities-fraud counterclaim. Cravath has pointed out in legal filings that SCO has made statements publicly that are inconsistent with the positions they take in court. Ordinarily, that's OK. But when the stock price spikes and insiders are cashing out, that's not OK.
There's also the potential of a false-claim-of-copyright claim. That's rarely used, but here, it's clearly appropriate.
This is going to crank for a while, but unless SCO comes up with something a lot better than what they've shown so far, they're not going to win.
Maybe SCO stole linux code, and is(in the current process of) or has put it into their UNIX code so that they can come up with a case and BS their way through, after all...there is no true way to tell who stole who's...or am i incorrect?
Sorry hit submit instead of preview, I got flustered and the buttons are so close together.
Some of thoes files don't contain any UNIX System V source code, only "UNIX methods" which is a vague way of saying that it may have appeared in a textbook. That is why IBM feels that simply giving filenames is insuffecent since even if there is not one pice of SysV code in thoes files SCO can still claim that some of the algorithims are similar to thoes in SysV and thus there is still a copyright violation, even though these alogrithims are taught to students in classes and SCO dosent have a patent on them.
The last point is the major weakness in SCO's case and why Novell can now just flick them away like the tiny fly that they are.
Did Glenn Beck rape and kill a girl in 1990? gb1990.com
if there are any of you out there (and there must be a few), though I really hope most of you have gotten out by now. The rest maybe trapped or something, and don't really want to acknowledge you actually work there or anything (who the hell would blame you for that?)... certainly not us! If you can't get out now, at least get out soon, even flipping burgers is a better fate than what's in store for you...
:)
Anyhow, I really wanted to say that if ANY of you want to come forward for ANY reason, with some sort of "smoking gun" as some have put it, PLEASE do so, make it anonymous, send it to me, send it to someone at slashdot or groklaw, we'll protect your identity and see the info gets out in some obscure untraceable way (have to protect our sourcees) and yes, that last pun was intentional.
So anyhow, slip out something that'll be a real killer, do it anonymously or whatever you like, we promise we won't tell anyone where it came from. And who knows, you might just end up getting offered a job at IBM (standing up to the BS really shows some guts, and earns you a few brownie points). So get to it...
assuming anyone is actually left at SCO...
please note, I'm not a lawyer or even pretend to be one, do not take my suggestions as legal counsel or in any legal way what-so-ever, heck what I've suggested just might be illegal, how the hell do I know... it's just my own personal opinion, and far as I know, that's still protected (oops, that might be SCO's next target!) oi...
This chart makes it look like a hiccup. Of course, it could go down at a sharper angle than it went up. Just call it a gentle slope up to the edge of the cliff.
IBM is not finally coming in to this. I guarantee you that IBM's army of lawyers has been working non-stop since this has been announced. Probably everyone on the legal team's been putting in 120+ hour weeks. What you're seeing now is the tip of the iceberg that signifies the conclusion of the main part of their work. Had they thought their position was in the least bit shakey, they would have either settled or executed a take-over move. Since they didn't... well I'd be willing to bet things start happening very quickly now. If you own SCO stock, now might be a good time to divest.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
It's not a criminal trial you dumb fuck
It's not just microsoft that doesn't like Open Source.
Media corporations, Wall Street, politicians, non-profit administrators, millions of employees of propietary software companies, advertising firms, patent attorneys, retirees, investment bankers, venture capitolists and intelligence agencies dislike Open Source and Free Software as much as anyone in Redmond.
Open Source Software is seen as a threat by all of the groups I have listed (and likely several I have left out) for various reasons. They see the SCO lawsuit as part of a larger battle against a force that threatens to remofve the traditionally solid controls over the economy and information that has enabled the institutions we all know and rely upon to be founded, grow and to support our way of life. Companies are afraid of losing thier incomes, investors are afraid for thier portfolios, non-proffits are afraid of losing the flow of donations and media is afraid of losing thier advertising dollars.
These are all very influential forces that would like nothing better than to know that they will have to pay through the nose when it comes time to upgrade, and that they will have to pay top-dollar for third party support even though they already paid for support from the vendor, because they know then that others are doing the same and that is what they believe is neccessary for the economy to keep running.
They wrongly equate the willing gifting of ones own work to the community with "communism" and are seeking a way, any way, to alieve thier fears and make this phenomenon go away.
Read, L
how would i go about saving those. the mpeg one is b0rked.
i like to keep things
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but only a judge can issue a subpoena. So saying "IBM issues subpoena" would be pretty stupid.
From the article: "Meanwhile, Linux enthusiast Web sites and blogs are buzzing with theories. One is that SCO knows its case is groundless and has been using the lawsuit to perpetrate a massive "pump and dump" securities fraud, and now IBM is talking to Baystar and Renaissance to find out what they were told. (SCO says the "pump and dump" theories are nonsense and that Sontag, along with Darl McBride, CEO, have not sold a single share. Some executives have sold shares but only small amounts and mostly "to cover tax consequences on restricted stock," Sontag says.)"
But records at http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=SCOX show that all 25 insider transactions for the past 6 months have been sales of stock --- get this, not a single buy!
"He who throws mud, loses ground." - proverb
This is just a hunch, mind you, the sort of thing you feel like you know without knowing how you know it, but reading this newest SCO thread, I got a strong premonition that this case has reached the stage where, by the time it is all over, some people connected are going to be dead, by what at least looks like suicide. If I'm right, you can call me psychic, or say it was a subconsious awareness of similarities between this case and Worldcon and other previous ones, but I'm willing to go on record with the prediction either way. (And If I AM right, I'm gonna claim first post to the thread that will doubtless result).
Who is John Cabal?
The anti-trust laws (and with them, the laws on "anti-competitive" pricing) are wrong and have always been wrong. They are overly vague. They can be used against any business, whether it is doing something immoral or not.
That's why the government loves anti-trust laws. That's why the government, if faced with a business that has commited fraud or extortion or larceny, will charge it with anti-trust instead. It's easier to get a conviction for anti-trust because the law is vaguer, and the penalties are higher. And because of the underlying fraud or extortion or whatever, there is no lack of popular support.
But anti-trust law can be, and sometimes is, enforced without such crimes.
You people who were cheering when anti-trust was used against Microsoft may yet have to learn the hard way about the wrongness of anti-trust, when it becomes your turn to see it used against your favorite institutions.
"microsoft vs. ibm round 1 let the carnage ensue. Ever seen mtc celeb showdown. Big Blue Vesrsus Big Red(?)"
Remember, if this were to happen, it wouldn't be the first time that Microsoft and IBM were in court against each other, or had business relations issues. Windows and OS/2 come to mind, and while IBM's loss originally is annoying, I somehow doubt that IBM is specifically out for retribution if they were to go to blows. IBM has their market, and while they don't have the PC market, "clones" have proven time and time again that there is no major profit in personal computer hardware.
Let me rephrase that: There is no profit in personal computer hardware. Many small computer companies squeak by on hardware sales, and usually only if they carry the latest video card or overclockable motherboard, or if they cater to businesses that need computers in spurts, ordering 30 here, 30 there. Apple's ideas of building a very nice and fairly expensive computer don't work very well right now on a large scale since people are used to computers being $500. They don't want to pay more than that for the original machine. Gamers are a different breed, which is why the Shuttle PC, Alienware, MSI, ASUS, AMD, Nvidia, ATI, and other such companies are still successful. But, they still have a highly volitile market to work in, and one major slipup and they'll be resting with 3dFX/STB, or absorbed like Cyrix.
IBM doesn't seem to care for that market. They seem to be more interested in providing large scale computing and the services needed to run that. Sometimes it's PCs. Sometimes they run Windows. Sometimes they run OS/2. Apparently now sometimes they'll be running Linux. Their corporate strategy makes a lot more sense, considering the hardware and support side.
Microsoft is unfortunately the leader on the desktop. They're also one of the most reviled companies in the world, as everyone who has had to deal with random freezes, Blue Screens of Death, and the like, has understood that they're running Windows. They don't associate their computer crashes with the hardware, they associate it with Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, or Windows XP. Many that I know feel trapped, like they are forced to use a piece of shit, and have no solutions. I somehow doubt that IBM wants this dubious distinction, and is happy to let someone else be hated.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
The subpeonas also force the SEC to start quietly poking around. While it is unlikely that IBM will turn up proof of illegal market manipulation, the SEC can't risk being caught flatfooted if they do.
I've been wondering when someone was going to try this for quite a while. "Dumping", selling a product below cost in order to force your competitors out of business, is illegal for good reasons.
I'm not sure whether it's illegal or not (as so many of our economics-related laws are irrational), but if it is, it is most definitely not illegal for good reason. Economists tend to get hot under the collar whenever their government engages in the economically self-destructive practice of protectionism under the spectre of dumping. Any first year economics student can explain precisely why dumping is good for the economy that is being dumped into in essentially every real world situation[1]. Any Linux enthusiast can as easily explain why the same is true of operating systems[2].
Consider the example of Netscape - Microsoft has spent nearly ten years attempting to dump it out of existence. Microsoft's price for IE remains at zero (not to mention their correlary anti-competitive attacks), and still Netscape lives on (and a host of other browsers, including ones with non-zero prices have poppoed up). And that's just looking at the browser producers - the rest of the world, the browser consumers, like 99.99% of the population and a similar percentage of businesses, are ECSTATIC about the browser wars. How different would the world today be if Netscape, Opera, Mozilla, Konquerer, and IE all cost $99, and had never been free?
[1] DUMPING
Selling something for less than the cost of producing it. This may be used by a DOMINANT FIRM to attack rivals, a strategy known to ANTITRUST authorities as PREDATORY PRICING. Participants in international trade are often accused of dumping by domestic FIRMS charging more than rival IMPORTS. Countries can slap duties on cheap imports that they judge are being dumped in their markets. Often this amounts to thinly disguised PROTECTIONISM against more efficient foreign firms.
In practice, genuine predatory pricing is rare - certainly much rarer than anti-dumping actions - because it relies on the unlikely ability of a single producer to dominate a world market. In any case, consumers gain from lower PRICES; so do companies that can buy their supplies more cheaply abroad.
That is - unless IBM's Linux division has a maintainable monopoly on the OS market (it does not), and the ability to raise its price (it does not), and the ability to drive its competition out (OK, guilty), and there are significant barriers to reentry to the OS market (there are none), claiming dumping is specious at best.
[2] Having the ability to run a variety of operating systems without having to pay for each license makes it easier for the user to satisfy his or her wants. On the business side, a vastly greater number of businesses are OS consumers than are OS producers - thus the business world as a whole *LOVES* OS dumping (if it can be called that).
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
> That's because when individuals act the way big companies do,
> we call them things like "nut cases" and "psycopaths."
Yes. Due to market forces, big companies act like a person with no empathy for others, no morals, no qualms, no personal ties. In a human, we would call that sociopathic or psychopathic behaviour.
In a corp, we call this sociopathic behaviour "good for business".
Why is sociopathic behaviour acceptable from ANYTHING we control?
Just in case someone needs them.
It holds more water than most of SCO's arguments, but I don't think it will fly. They're giving it away, sure, but they're not just giving away the binaries. They're releasing the source code under a license that allows companies in direct competition with them to sell it in competing products. Including SCO.
It devalues SCO UNIX, but it also devalues Tru64, HP-UX, Solaris, IRIX, and MacOS X. Oh yeah, and IBM's own AIX. That's what happens when everyone starts standardizing on something. It would be negligent if IBM didn't persue a Linux strategy.
When someone might yell at me, it has to be OpenBSD.
Even on Slashdot most people do not belive that OSS will replace commercial software like Quicken or Autocad or Maya, the interior design software, the games, the commercial business-specific software loaded with catalogs of suppliers products. Even word processors are not replaced, sure OSS can write a Word-clone, but Word is stagnent due to lack of competition, if Word was crushed and the stifling need to import and export Word documents eliminated, new word processors may appear that have capabilites nobody has even dreamed of! The free OSS Word-clone you get with your Linux box would be considered a joke in comparison, so would Word.
If Linux (or something like it) is triumphant I think there will be a huge release of amazingly innovative new applications and software. And variations and additions to Linux itself. These will be things that cannot even be imagined by OSS and Microsoft programmers right now, because they will be the inventions of a competitive commercial marketplace and hundreds of thousands of developers (verses the perhaps 10 thousands of Linux developers, and the only thousands of Microsoft developers). This new stuff will make Windows and Longhorn, KDE and Gnome, and even OS/X look like a primitive joke!
If you are a commercial proprietary software company and not tied into supplying Microsoft, you are eagerly awaiting the arrival of Linux!
Yeah, I know IHBT, but it had to be said.
"I view this as an attempt to bully and intimidate analysts--to try to cow them into silence," says Christopher Sontag, executive vice president at SCO, in Lindon, Utah.
Unlike SCO who's attempts at bullying and intimidating users, Distro vendors and anyone or everyone else with anything to do with Linux doesn't make their "poor us" wimperings sound at all hypocritical.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
When I upgraded to Office 2000, apart from some look-and-feel/menu changes. I've had a look at Office 2003, and it just doesn't warrant an upgrade.
Things like OpenOffice are catching up on them.
I think some of the points you make about OSS are right (although games development could get quite interesting if the contribution rate is high - imagine a game that constantly evolves). Things like tax tables in software that are maintained/checked etc is something people want to know are right and have a central point of contact.
But OSS could even come into play there. Imagine if something like Quicken was released on dual license - one without data, one with. So, you can go and get the tax info you need from a website, or you buy it with. Many home users would just buy it. But developers might hack it around and improve it. They could find security holes and report them back.
I don't see any reason why things like interior design software can't be replaced. There's software out there like Blender which is OSS.
...is that IBM must have SYSV code lying around somewhere, I mean, they licensed it for AIX. Now, it's a given that they have Linux code too. Why haven't they done a diff of the two and found out what bits are the same (and where they originally came from (i.e. BSD)).
Or...they have done this...found out SCO is talking complete and utter shit and are going to slam that in their faces at the beginning of the trial and asking for the case to be dismissed.
Just a thought.
I am NaN
Good one, honestly.
Let me humor you, iam such a nice chap.
Media corporations? Like who? Like the movie studios that are moving to free software?
Wall street? That during the dot crom frenzy poured enormous amounts of cash in companies based in OS projects?
Millison of employees of propietary softawre companies? That save millions by using free software as a development platform (and which are the minority of programmers anyway, since most programming work is in in-house applications).
Retirees? Tell me why please. I need to be amused.
Investment bankers? Ha,ha,ha. I work with one. We have a standard Linux environment. Next.
Intelligence agencies? Because they can check all the code?
try again please.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The worst thing that could happen is unemployment.
Which in some places (SCO has offices in some countries) like Germany is far better than flipping burgers.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Actually, there is enough SCOX out there to sell short, I'm short 250 shares. The number of shares sold short has gone up significantly in the last few months, and there are now almost almost a million shares short. The stock is very volatile though, you need to be able to ride out the swings.
This is not an offer to buy or sell shares. IANACFA (I am not a Chartered Financial Analyst). YMMV.
According to MSN MoneyCentral's StockScouter :
The SCO Group, Inc., a small-cap growth company in the technology sector, is expected to significantly underperform the market over the next six months with very high risk.
With a rating of 1/10...
.... it is ridculous to claim that there are companies producing milk. Everybody knows that only cows produce milk....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Actually,
:-)
It was argued in court that the deceased had tried grabbing a gun that he had (legally) kept beside him and the two fought over it and the freak of a millionaire ended up on top.
Being a bit mentally ill, he decided that it would be best to dispose of the body because he didn't want to get caught and have to explain this. The mentally ill always seem to think others are out to get them.
Was this how this went down? No one knows. And that may be what the jury was banking on. The US style of justice is SUPPOSEDLY letting a few guilty go free occasionally to make sure that the truly not guilty are not imprisoned or worse. It still happens...mainly with folks that don't seem to get this concept. Cheney and Ashcroft seem to be pushing for the whole Kill 'Em All And Let Gawd Sort Them Out means of justice.
Again, we don't know what the jury was thinking. In our own prejudices, we DO think of the wealthier and famous as less likely to need to commit certain crimes. Why would someone like OJ want to kill his exwife? He was a great football player and could get anyone. Why would Robert Blake want to kill his then current wife? Because he did devote his life to the law (even if it was just on television). Why would an insane multimillionaire want to kill his next door neighbor? Thats just nuts?
Assigning guilt DOES take a little bit of using your own prejudices...it shouldn't be all of them or even a majority or them, but we know it happens even in professional jurists (lawyers and judges). I would rather our prejudices be used to keep folks out of prison regardless of guilt that to use it to throw folks into jail when they aren't guilty and happens to be of some group they didn't like.
Its not the American public's fault...its the american publics one saving grace...we aren't like the other countries with no sense of procedure and fairness...well, in theory
I'm really getting fed up with the pointless ad hominem attacks.
Suggestion for slashcode:
Reject as lame any post from AC having the words 'you' and 'moron' within 2 or three tokens of each other.
is tired of reading all the SCO jokes on /.
Word is also stagnant because there's nothing more to do with a word processor.
I like the frame based look and feel of kword and the the other koffice packages much better than OOO or MS Office. Making complex documents feels very intuitive with it. I don't actually use it for much of anything since it doesn't communicate well with others. I've read the koffice devs are going to embrace the OOO formats in a bigger way so here's hoping. The parent is correct; the need to import/export Office files is a developer timesink. The koffice guys have mostly ignored that up to now and produced something that feels vastly better than any other productivity software I've used. Its a pity that it can't be much more than a proof of concept right now.
I've shorted several thousands of SCOX stock... I hope that I don't get supoenaed as well :-)
What if there were an understanding that if by a certain date IBM hasn't either settled or acquired SCO, Microsoft will acquire SCO? That way the major SCO stockholders have a floor on the stock price, the SCO lawyers have a guaranteed payout based on their contract clause giving them a percent of any buyout price, and Microsoft has very little money upfront where it might embarass them, aside from the licensing fees they've already fronted.
Companies negotiate possible acquisitions all the time, and much of it is done very quietly. The only requirement for disclosure I'm aware of is when one entity actually acquires more than 5% of another's stock. Is there anything else that would prevent a gentlemen's agreement along these lines from being in place? After all, Microsoft is in a good position to argue that SCO has assets uniquely valuable to Microsoft's business, and thus that whatever price it ends up paying is justified - so it will be damn hard to prove the price was really payoff for the IBM/Linux attack.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
1. Does not IBM have a full copy of the source code they bought from
SCO?
2. Does not IBM have a full copy of the AIX source code?
3. Cannot these source code bodies be compared with linux sources,
without publishing the differences?
Does it really matter what the source code that SCO has is, when IBM
is the one with the copies of the source?
Then IBM can do the comparison themselves....
mike
Introspection is the key to understanding
This case kills me. It comes down to three issues:
* Does Linux infringe SCO's copyright?
* Did IBM violate their Unix License?
* If so, did IBM harm SCO by doing so?
Frankly, if SCO had a case, they would show the code, show the infringement, then show the contract, show the proof IBM violated it, followed by showing the effect IBM's actions had on their business. Fact is SCO cannot proove any of it for these reasons:
* Linux is not an infringement (less than 1% simmilar code)
* IBM did NOT break their Unix agreement and even if they did:
* SCO is responsible for their own situation. FreeBSD and Linux long ago eclipsed SCO Unix in the x86 marketplace because of price/function/value. There's little reason to buy SCO product other than fear they will sue you for not buying their own product.
IBM's move is an endgame and I'm happy to see it.
-- $G
considering their monopoly status in the operating system field, it seems unlikely that regulator would let a takeover/merge of/with another operating system company take place.
They can't deny that, because over 8 million of the funding (which purchased unspecified SCO "licensing" that they suddenly needed for some reason) is a matter of public record, in their own press releases and in SCO's SEC filings. The only thing the conspiracy theorists are speculating about is whether some of the BayStar or RBC money is laundered Microsoft cash as well.
Many of us have suspected that SCO is involved in a massive "pump & dump" scheme. Obviously so do the folks at IBM. A not-so-coincidental side effect of discovery may reveal evidence of exactly that. If SCO really had any solid evidence, they would be showing it to everyone. Of course, if the whole thing is a diversion to cover an investment exit strategy, then SCO's strategy would be 100% press releases, 0% substance.
Now that the participants face the possibility of being "outed", let's see how much outside support SCO gets from analysts.
When SCO was going around threatening end users, I sent a letter to my congressman, Barney Frank of Massachusetts. Here is his response:
====
September 26, 2003
Dear Mr. Minsky,
I share your view that the suits being brought by the SCO Group
against the users of the Linux system are an entirely inappropriate
use of the legal systems for broader corporate purposes. While I have
note been able, obviously, to examine these in detail, the suits do
not appear to me, from what I have read, to have any merit, and in
fact seem to be motivated, as I said, by an effort simply to prevent
the use of Linux for competitive reasons.
There is, unfortunately, a very limited role for Congress here. I
agree with those who would like to see us "stop SCO from punishing
innocent consumers to inflate its other legal claims." But under our
separation of powers doctrine, Congress has no role whatsoever to play
in the pursuit of particular cases. We can pass laws which prevent
certain types of suits from being brought, but it is very, very
difficult to pass those in a way that would be retroactive - that is,
that would apply to existing suits. And the problem with this suit is
not that it is of a sort of legal claim that is inappropriate to
bring, but that it is totally unjustified on the merits. In other
words, the remedy here is for these suits to be dismissed on their
merits and Congress has no role, as I have said, in doing that.
I am prepared to join in expressions of extreme disapproval of what
SCO is doing, and I will be consulting with my colleagues to see if
there is a movement to do that. I hope that will have some impact on
them. All of these lawsuits brought against individuals will of course
be dismissed but I realize that is of little consolation to people
who have had to go through the trouble and expense of defending against
them. It may be that at some point a judge will act decisively enough
in this regard to prevent this proliferation of suits, and while, as I
said, our Congressional role is very limited here, I will be
encouraging anything we can do along these lines.
Barney Frank
Many readers (like the two reading over my shoulder) are taking this as a cop-out on Barny Franks part. I for one really wish more of our elected leaders understood the seperation of powers. If they did, we would have far fewer problems with the law than we do today.
What is that, an abbreviation for SCO?
I definitely understand the tendency to ignore all the paranoid ravings you hear on /., because I do too. That said, there are some legit reasons to give this one consideration. First, Forbes is typically quite the conservative mag, and I doubt they'd even have printed that had it not passed the laugh test to outsiders. Second, this scheme is simliar to what canopy has done before by Canopy. I'm generally skeptical, and I will bank on this being a pump-n-dump or similar scheme by SCO/Canopy. This is their MO.
The Microsoft angle is more farfetched, but not completely implausible. MS paid a *lot* of money for SCO licenses that were somewhere between unnecessary and worthless to MS. Also, lately, SCO has been making strange offers about discounts to people who make the switch to any non-linux system, and saying it in a way that all but screams "Windows."
Bottom line, I'd bet on Canopy running this scam. I'd wait for some more bookkeeping before I listened to the MS angle.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
I think it's highly unlikely that this market manipulation is SCO, Canopy, Microsoft, Sun or anyone else. It's probably just independant brokers who know a goldrush when they see one.
I don't know who/what it is, but it doesn't act independent. Watch the moment to momement bid/ask volume, etc. compared to a typical "goldrush." At the very least, whoever's keeping this turkey afloat has 1) quite a bit of money to thow away on the project, and 2) if there is more than one of them, they at least have each other's cell phone numbers or all read the flags on the same signal tower.
A goldrush acts like a swarm of flies; this acts more like a team of ants.
IMHO, of course.
-- MarkusQ.
The just grepped for "SMP" in the code.
Which is stupid, because of all the things SCO claims to own, wasn't SMP the first thing to be completely discounted?
Why do they keep harping on something they've already lost?
It's a nice turn-about - they try the FUD technique of pointing out that Linux companies are not indemnifying their users, and now IBM gets to smack SCO about for not indemnifying it's investors.
I like it.
Pass the popcorn while we all watch the show!
I wouldn't be too sure about these claims. Judging from this page, there's been a few million in insider trading since June (unless I've been reading this wrong, which is entirely possible). Quite a bit for such a small company (2.4%). One executive has sold somewhere around $1,595,650 in stock since June...around 125,000 shares of his original 215,000. Sounds like a majority of his holdings to me. Now I don't know much about finance, but I think I can say this with authority: Small amounts to cover tax penalties my ass. That's a fortune, even after taxes.
-Turkey
SCOX stock is down quite a bit over the last few
days, and a 30,000 share insider sale was announced
yesterday, the largest in more than a year.
Make sure you re-elect that guy!
Kudos to you for skipping the endless war rehash. :)
I'll clarify.
Litigation in the US currently _is_ often decided by "might makes right", but this is a flaw in the system, since of course it's supposed to be "valid legal case makes right", regardless of might.
So I can cheer because "valid legal case" and "might" are coinciding in this case, since justice will be done -- but I'm cheering for "valid legal case", I'm definitely not cheering for "might".
That's my point -- if you cheer for IBM's might, then you're still on their side even if SCO's case is suddenly miraculously proved true and they have the valid legal case. Yeah, I'd be very upset with the whole situation if that happened, but I'd have to be on SCO's side or I'd be a hypocrite.
There are only 10 types of people: those who understand decimal, those who don't, and, uh, 8 other types I forget.
IBM filed coutersuits over most everything they could a long time ago. They have quite a few counterclaims, including patent infringement, read to go against SCO should something good happen, e.g. a judge issuing summary judgement or dismissing SCO's claims with prejudice...
And according to Bob Dylan, it was the hand held by Willie O'Connelly when he was shot. John Wesley Hardin(g) was shot in the head while gambling over dice. His last act as a living man was to roll four sixes, which I believe is the best possible outcome when rolling dice (but I'm no authority on dice rolling.)
Interesting. But, the thing is, Barney Frank is pointing out that it is currently MOVING through the system and congress can't just reach out and stop it. That is not their role. Also, while there is room for concern, the courts have not finished their duties yet and, hence, we can't say that they have failed us by not bringing a swift judgement against TSG.
These cases can take a long time to resolve and a swift judgement by a court will only prompt appeals and FUD about the court's political motives for doing so.
While, unfortunately, companies (and, individuals?!? I thought it was only companies in the Fortune 500 list) are being threatened by TSG, that is for law enforcement and the courts to deal with (and, I venture to say that after a judgement on the TSG v IBM case, a landslide of smaller lawsuits v TSG will begin). If the courts "fail" to deal with this in a way that pleases the American People, congress can try to draft new legislation making debacles like this less likely to occur again in the future (new ways will be found, I imagine).
I don't think Barney Frank copped out at all. He is basically waiting to see what the courts determine (and it could take quite some time) to see what he can try to do about it in congress. It sounds like a pretty intelligent answer to me.
Any first year economics student can explain precisely why dumping is good for the economy that is being dumped into in essentially every real world situation[1]
If it's a goods market, and some country has big pockets and you don't, and are being dumped, your companies in the dumped industries will collapse. It doesn't need to be a country vs country situation, it could be country vs company, company vs country. The thing to take note of is: is the other competitior really dumping, or does he has really lower costs? If it's the first, it's obvious that you will be worst that before. If it's the latter, you may stil be worst than before. Examples:
You produce wheat on a small country, and some other country, which has tons (figurative) weat start selling well below cost of production for 2 years, at a price that does not affect their global profitability. When your companies resources are drained they are either forced to sell they assest (land, machines, etc). You buy them (nobody want to enter a non-market), and then start selling wheat at a monopoly price.
They poor little country lost jobs, and now can buy less wheat with the same money, as they must pay a monopoly price. Even worst, now their basic need, wheat, depends on some other country exclusively.
Now, software is a very different beast, as it carries no cost of production at all.
unfinished: (adj.)
You missed the real story:
Congressman Doesn't Use a Form Letter to Reply to a Slashdot Reader!
Now, THAT'S news...
Companies and committees are not individuals and in many cases do not value individuals in the same way that most people are expected to value other people. This makes it much easier for a company to depersonalize others - to negate the humanity of those who may have values or goals that conflict with those it has. Once this occurs, it's very easy to decide that if killing others generates money for the company, or at least allowing others to die, then the action that causes this is appropriate (e.g. Ford and the Pinto - deciding that the costs of settlements and lawsuits was outweighed by the costs of necessary repairs).
Sociopaths are people who have effectively depersonalized others into means for what they desire; they are the appropriate analogy for companies who commit evil for profit. They are not necessarily socially maladroit - they need to manipulate others to get what they want. Sociopathic companies are likely to look down on hackers and nerds because, to them, other people are valuable in on what they can get from them. In the eyes of a sociopath, nerds don't have humanity - they are simply ineffective at doing what sociopaths are effective at doing, getting what they desire from others. Since getting what they want from others is all that matters, sociopaths might look down on nerds because nerds are unsuccessful at (to sociopaths) the only thing that matters. Sociopathy doesn't require people to seem like "nutcases" or "psychopaths" - people with those characteristics don't work well as sociopaths because others don't want to associate with them and so can't be manipulated. Sociopaths simply don't factor the value of other people into their calculations for what they want - criminal sociopaths have ends which require harm to others.
Sociopaths need as a rule to be attractive to others so that they can get what they want from others. Stereotypical nerds are unattractive to others, or at least not good at communicating their needs to others. It is easy for others to perceive the lack of social aptitude of stereotypical nerds, whereas perceiving the sociopathic nature of a person is harder because they are adept at the social norms (and the pieces of character they lack are hard for others to perceive in any case until it is too late).
Obviously, not all companies behave sociopathically - but it seems to be easier for groups of people to dehumanize others than for individuals to dehumanize others. SCO is behaving more like the "nerd" stereotype than the "sociopath" stereotype (really they behave like a disorganized sociopath)- they're trying to (and starting to fail at) manipulate others into giving them what they want but they aren't very good at it.
I'm not knowledgeable at psychology (so I could be wrong) but I think that this is a reasonable framework. Sociopathic entities aren't insane - they are capable of distinguishing right or wrong and in doing the right. They simply don't care about right or wrong so long as what they do fulfills their goals. They do not behave as the the "raving lunatic" stereotypes of insanity would imply - that would impede their ability to achieve their ends. Social ineptitude and active evil are two different things, but social ineptitude is much easier to perceive than evil in most cases.
no kidding. It's not like they have $40,000,000,000 tucked away under the mattress or anything to fight off new competition.
This is one of the better attacks on Linux they could muster, try and cut it off at the roots (Sys V).
The security FUD is coming next, and will fail, since the public doesn't use Linux, but knows what Windows is like. It'll be tough for them to convince everyone that they really are better for security than something no regular folks use but security conscious, paranoid geeks seem to love.
+&x
batting in Linux's court
Excuse me, are we talking about baseball? Volleyball? Cricket? Baseketball?
You sound downright giddy at the prospect that a large company is going to prevail ... because it's large. As much as I hate SCO for the toilet licking scumbags they are, I want IBM to win on the MERITS of the case.
...if you look at the amount of documentation, and the immense scope of the claims, I'm very glad IBM is a big company. IBM has produced hundreds of thousands of pages of documentation, and SCO claims it's not enough. They've laid claim to hundreds of files of code whose copyright origin must be traced, and SCO has made an incredibly lot of statements to be compiled and used in their defense as well as in the counter-suit.
The merits are still what should win the case. But I'm very glad IBM is representing Linux's interests in this case, because they have the resources to present all the merits in a thorough and well-coordinated response.
Which is, in my opinion entirely different from the general problem - which is about being able to drag the little guy all through the court system, incurring huge legal expenses, and still be able to take the loss if the other side somehow manages to pull through. SCOs contingency lawyers hardly seem to qualify though, they're the ones making the broadside, not IBM.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Wouldn't that mean that Microsoft also has an illegal monopoly of being a sco customer?
So IBM is good now, right?
I keep on getting confused.
-- The Genesis project? What's that?
Can you tell me if there's a hyphen in "anal[-]retentive"? I can never remember.
Your mare contains no SCO-copyrighted code!
I'd wholeheartedly agree that IBM should win on the Merits of their case. However, being as big as they are, I'm hoping that after winning they get a chance to thouroughly step on SCO like the bug they are.
A lot of times a little guy will win a case with a strong arguement, but they won't necessarily always get much for their win. With the size of IBM, we can hope for more than a "moral victory," we can hope to see IBM hit SCO like a sledgehammer to a cockroach....
"I view this as an attempt to bully and intimidate analysts--to try to cow them into silence," says Christopher Sontag, executive vice president at SCO, in Lindon, Utah.
A subpoena is supposed to force people to talk, not be silent. But that's SCO logic for you...
IBM: Give us the specifics of your allegations.
SCO: You don't need to see the specifics of our allegations.
IBM: Give us the specifics of your allegations.
SCO: No fair, no fair! You waved your hand just like we did, we will sue, I tell you!
Slashdot and Groklaw: Nothing to see here, move along, move along....
Even word processors are not replaced, sure OSS can write a Word-clone, but Word is stagnent due to lack of competition, if Word was crushed and the stifling need to import and export Word documents eliminated, new word processors may appear that have capabilites nobody has even dreamed of! The free OSS Word-clone you get with your Linux box would be considered a joke in comparison, so would Word.
Microsoft Word isn't earning money on those that actually use hyper-formatted-integrated-advanced editing functions - I suspect in many cases it costs them more to develop those features than the sales from having that specific feature.
They're making money of the people using it to write simple documents, leaving 95% of the features untouched. The rest is simply a circle argument - they use it because everybody else does, and everybody else does because it has all the features they need.
If an open source word processor covered the basic editing, and that industry standard format was open and well-documented, there's no need for those who only need the basic functions to get anything else. That's why I don't believe your prediction - even if they manage to appeal to a niche market, it won't have the same pull on the general market.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
That's not what I got out of this news.
I think they are suggesting there is no case, and there never was, but this ploy has increased the stock value dramatically, making those who knew about the accusations before they were public VERY VERY RICH.
...and even if the US regulator did allow it, which is not unlikely considering the huge amount of long-term abuse that M$ have been allowed to get away with, these are multnational corporations, so the deal might get blocked in Europe. This has happened before with other mergers, usually but not exclusively in the defence industry.
the 'sharp lawyering' got SCO up this creek without a paddle. Now they are sinking. ESR isn't a party to this suit, he doesn't work for IBM, and isn't being sued for contract violations or stealing IP. How can he possibly be useful to SCO except as a useless witness to waste time. You can't call in any chump off the street and put him up as a witness that represents your opponents.
I will laugh, not when they lose, but when they burn in hell.
If this argument flies, it would make any GPL software that competes with proprietary software illegal. That seems like a real stretch. How could a volunteer effort be illegal?
Lasers Controlled Games!
Hey, I got an idea. I'll file for a business method patent on doing business by extorting money through abuse of the patent and copyright legal systems.
But what about all the prior art, you say? No prob. As we all know, the PTO doesn't give a fig about prior art unless you're patenting in a hard science or engineering area where they have some decent expertise.
> Wouldn't that mean that Microsoft also has an illegal monopoly of being a sco customer?
No, HP was dumb enough to buy one as well.
IBM has every right to subpoena anyone involved with the case, such as Renaissance, Yankee, etc. This is not intimidation. What the analysts were doing can be described as innacurate, for which they must answer to...
I can't wait to see what Laura Didiot has to say...
I for one really wish more of our elected leaders understood the seperation of powers.
As someone who lives and votes in Massachusetts, I'm thrilled that he knows amd understands (on a limited basis) about this flaming SCO business to begin with. Maybe our Congressmen aren't as ignorant of the inevitable march of technology as some of us fear. Also, it's excellent that he took the time to come up with a well-written reply to a constituent's valid concerns. Go Barney Frank!
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
define, please
Also "anal-retentive"