Slashdot Mirror
OSDL Pays For Linus Torvalds' SCO Defense
geoff313 writes "
For all of you who might be worried about what financial consequences
Linus Torvalds might have to endure as a result of being subpoenaed by SCO, fear not: the Open Source Development Lab (OSDL)
will pay for its law firm to represent him.
the OSDL, who are Torvalds' employer, will announce on Friday that the
"OSDL has agreed to fund legal representation for Torvalds and any
other employees of the lab who may become involved in the litigation."
Just in case you didn't you didn't know, the OSDL is funded by a
variety of corporations including (but not limitied to) IBM, Hewlett-Packard,
Dell, Sun
Microsystems, Red Hat, Cisco, Computer
Associates, Fujitsu, Hitachi, and Nokia. "
In America, the questions might be stupid, but you better bet your bottom the answers are real good. That's why you need a lawyer.
Troll?
I suppose you wouldn't call $8,000,000 funding, then?
FWIW, you might want to read Motley Fool's Tom Taulli's take on this. th3m0nk
-- The Hollow Man
Non illegitimati carborundum
No it's not.
ehm no? The members. So unless Microsoft has some special hidden member status I very much doubt it. Sure joining your enemies to fight them from the inside is a smart move but this one nobody would fall for.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Tom.
Oh arse
First rule of litigation: never go into a lawsuit without a lawyer, even if you're a witness. Maybe you can use one of the lawyers already involved, but if you're being compelled to testify, and aren't one of the central characters, you should have a lawyer.
In a way, lawyers like firewalls: it's possible to be safe without them, but it takes knowledge and skill that some folks don't have the time to gather.
Unfortunately, in this case, it's clear that the SCO strategy is to draw out litigation long enough to give everybody an uncomfortable feeling in their rectal areas, until somebody snaps and decides to make a favorable acquisition offer. And if SCO loses, good luck getting a dime out of them, they'll fold the shop up in a way that lets them get out of everything, I'm quite sure, and still make off with a lot of money. This is definitely one of these cases where the malfeasance of corporate officers and attorneys is so blatant, I'd like to see the corporate veil pierced and have personal liability passed on to these fuckers for the financial losses and damaged reputations they have incurred on lots of other legitimate, hardworking people and companies.
And probably linked to the american's bizarre hallucinations of personhood for corporations.
Perhaps if more americans realised that corporations and other organisations were collections of people, the world would be a better place.
Technically, no. Linus is not charged with anything, just needs to answer a few questions.
Realistically? I think anyone who's ever had any sort of serious dealings with the US (or really any) legal system would agree that at least talking to a lawyer in this situation is a really, really good idea.
Why?
If you've called them as a witness, you're responsible for their travel expenses and per diem.
If you're really interested in this, search for Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and look on any Federal Court's website for a blank subpoena.
...some of these retarded Slashdot moderators must be smoking an eightball an hour. This isn't a troll at all...
Slashdot's moderation system is a bit broken - we all know that. In this case I suspect the culprit is the use of drop-down lists to select the modifier; if you're not very careful to unselect the list box after making your choice, then when you try to scroll down to the next post, you'll end up scrolling down the list of modifiers instead.
As if there weren't enough bad moderators to start with, the system appears designed to make sure that even good moderators mod things inappropriately - by accident.
Gotta love Slashdot.
Having been deposed before, and having watched others, he should have a lawyer. Their job is to train you for and protect you when the opposition tries to make you look like an ass. The SCO lawyer will try to twist anything and everything that Linus says to SCO's advantage. (That's why its called adversarial!)
I feel that I have been moderated unfairly. I'll rephrase just to get my point across.
This article goes to show that it is worth while for companies & organizations to support open source initiatives. These guys have thrown money into the cause, & that says to me that there are financial incentives. So, I think that this is a good thing. Just as some companies are trying to get money while being unjust towards people, some companies are trying to get money while being just towards people.
I understand that there are many different views on money. However, I'm trying to get a point across, & not troll.
Take care...
Being a "U.S. resident alien", he not only has to obey the same laws as you & I, but if he does not, he also can face the added consequence in some cases of being incarcerated by the INS, and even deported.
Many people seem confused about the process right now. I suggest A Litigation Crash Course. Note that the SCO trial is in phase 2 presently. And here is more detailed information about depositions.
The key here is that this is a "discovery deposition" - not trial testimony. Discovery depositions do not involve judges. They can happen anywhere - living rooms, kitchens, in a field. Usually though, they happen at the office of the lawyer who called for the deposition.
In answer to your question, the subpoenas are signed by the lawyer calling for the dep - not by a judge. The only way a judge would be involved in any issues regarding the deposition, is if the people being deposed ask the judge for a protective order prior to the dep. Given Linus' central role in Linux, it's not likely a protective order would be granted. The only other potential, would involve the questions actually asked - if they are abusive and Linus' lawyer says "don't answer", they may be able to get a judge on a conference call to make a ruling, or more likely, after the dep, SCO would go to court and file a motion to compell. If granted, the deposition would be reconvened and the question asked. During the actual deposition testimony however, the judge is definitely not present.
I suppose you wouldn't call $8,000,000 funding, then?
$8 million? Chuckle. That is just ONE of the Microsoft payments to SCO. Look in the SEC filing you linked to:
" During the quarter ended April 30, 2003, SCO entered into a licensing agreement with Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft"). The initial licensing agreement allowed Microsoft, at its election, to exercise two options to allow Microsoft to acquire expanded licensing rights with respect to SCO?s UNIX source code. During the quarter ended July 31, 2003, Microsoft exercised and paid for the first of these options. During SCO's current quarter, ending October 31, 2003, Microsoft exercised and paid $8,000,000 for the second option. "
The SECOND deal was for 8 million dollars. There was a filing last quarter about the first deal. That one was for 6 to 8 million dollars up front, plus an additional 5 million over the next three quarters. So the first deal totaled 11 to 13 million. Add the two deals and Microsoft is handing SCO about 20 million dollars. (And for all we know the second deal may include an additional 5 million over the next three quarters as well.)
Just prior to the Microsoft deal, SCO's market capitalization was about 10 million dollars. Now, would someone like to explain to me why the hell anyone would pay 20 million to buy a licence from SCO when all of SCO itself only carried a 10 million dollar price tag?
Not only that, but SCO had NEVER had a profitable quarter prior to the Microsoft deal. They were bleeding cash horribly and soon would have gone bankrupt.
In addition to those cash payments, SCO has also received a 50 million infusion from an investment group with ties to Microsoft. There isn't any evidence that Microsoft influenced this 50 million inventment, but it sure does look suspicious.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Funny comment, but misses the big picture.
SCO is not after Linus. They are after IBM. It makes total sense to subpena Linus as who else knows more about IBM's contribution to the kernel than Linus? He is the one that approves all submissions. He's the one that when the question is asked: "This this particular code come from IBM?" can give the most credible answer.
In totally separate but related cases, you have IBM and RedHat suing SCO for GPL infringment. Of course, the most relevant person to sue for Linux GPL copyright infringment is Linus too.
https://secure.eff.org/
They're doing important work.
Glad to hear Linus is covered. Who is covering Stallman's legal expenses?
I'd imagine the FSF is. Stallman's only involved because SCO's attacking the GPL, and defending the GPL is the FSF's raison d'etre.
NO CARRIER
> Just prior to the Microsoft deal, SCO's market capitalization was about 10 million dollars. Now, would someone like to explain to me why the hell anyone would pay 20 million to buy a licence from SCO when all of SCO itself only carried a 10 million dollar price tag?
Because if you buy the whole company you end up assuming all of their debt?
(Not that that's the reason here, just wanted to point out that from an accounting standpoint there isn't a contradiction)
Much as I wish it weren't so, MSFT's market cap. is 275 billion versus IBM's 155. MSFT is quite large.
// It had been Fat's delusion for years that he could help people. --Philip K. Dick, Valis