Slashdot Mirror
SCOrched Earth
mm0mm writes "Just hours after we read Darl's open letter on copyrights, Groklaw has another breaking update on SCO up on their website. SCO's Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion to Compel Discovery is now available. (original document here) The memorandum requests court to order IBM, the defendant, to provide evidence and support their case against ....IBM. :D When I was young, it was the plaintiff who was responsible for preparing enough evidence to present to the court, but in Darl's world, with army of lawyers who will be given 20% of the proceeds from the settlement or of 'a sale of SCO during the pendancy of litigation', apparently rules are different." Lawrence Lessig has a great piece reviewing Darl's nonsensical letter.
Here's the gun I want to shoot you with, will you load it for me?
Isn't it interesting how you come to recognize posters based solely on their sigs???
Kinda cool to see a reference to a Groklaw URL in IBM's filing. At least ONE of the legal teams knows where to look.
SCO's team, on the other hand, probably starts chewing the rug everytime there's an update...
What a surprise... soon we'll have to go sign-up ourselves for those appearently illegal copies of GNU/Linux which we run on our machines.
Oh wait, FRITZ will do that for us. Thanks Microsoft!
[IBM] I plead the fifth! [SCO] You can't! We need your testimony to prosecute you!
.. It's not entirely accurate to what's happening, but it's an interesting comparison - and an ironic one - to SCO attacking GNU for being against the US Constitution.
I thought y'all had some 5th Amendment over there?
where any semblence of sense has gone out the window. Attempting to get a court order forcing IBM to self-incriminate? If SCO were a human it would be able to plead insanity in the countersuit. :p
Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
Hopefully the judge will take one look at this this and ask SCO exactly why they arn't prepared to say what they have on IBM.
Did anyone else get excited when they saw that tag line? I love Scorched Earth, the mother of all games! There is actually a 3D multiplayer version now that I like very much.
SCO.com uses Linux
Sorry to break it to everyone but it works that way for both sides under the federal (and most state) rules of civil procedure. Each side is entitled to request information and materials from the other. If you decline to provide the requested information or material (documents, etc.), the requesting party has the option to ask the Court to force disclosure. You have to have a pretty good reason (usually some kind of legal privilege) to justify noncompliance or you risk sanctions (like monetary fines or the Court making a factual finding against you or perhaps even dismissing your case). However, the rules are the same for both parties and even though SCO is the "Bad Guy" here, don't forget IBM can do the same if SCO fails to comply with THEIR discovery requests.
Here is my favorite quote from that article:
My comments on that quote: I'd be willing to bet that whoever challenged Darl to a fight would have actually done it, but Darl, upon finding out that he was about to get his ass kicked, chickened out.What do you think?
(1) These were some of the words off the magazine's cover. The entire title is: "Is SCO Group's Darl McBride THE MOST DANGEROUS MAN in the technology industry? With a lawsuit imminent, Linux users are about to find out.
--
Reference: "You May Be Next" by John Foley, InformationWeek, Nov 24. 2003, pp 20-22.
$CO sux0rz!! Linux r00lz!!
Could someone with financial background tell us if this is related to SCOX waiting to report their earnings for another two weeks?
Any correlation? How would these moves affect their reports?
*dons tinfoil hat*
There's a 68.71% chance you're right.
I was getting nervous that I might go an entire day without having the oppurtunity to read somebody's extended essay on the problems an evilness of SCO's case, now I won't have to worry about that anymore.
Listen people, we all know SCO's case is wholly ridiculous and that they clearly are doing it for the money (either from MS and Sun for defaming Linux or more likely from the hope that they'll get bought out) but that doesn't mean that it's insightful everytime you post a huge diatribe on SCO's problems. I mean really, if you were a karma whore or something you could just steal somebody else's rant from another SCO thread and get modded up to +5.
Scorched Earth. I guess I need to look at the article sections closer. Tell you what, though - if someone created a modern, online multiplayer version of Scorched Earth (like Worms is, but with the traditional tanks), it would make for ten times more interesting an article than this "SCO's on crack" ad naseum.
[Reply to This]
5th Wave
I have a question for all of you...
Since cases that do actually make it to trial take about two years, are we doomed to seeing everything out of McBride's mouth, everything on Groklaw, and every other passing thought about SCO for the next two years on slashdot?
I've been a member for a long time, and the content seems to be degenerating into a groupthink zealot factory with its own set of dogmas and censors.
This is a real question to this community so please don't join the groupthink mass and moderate this as flamebait just because it goes against the hive mind around here.
Thanks.
Why hasn't someone left a flaming bag of poo on their doorstep? In fact, can we sponsor a flaming bag of poo daily delivery service straight to Darl's desk?
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Check out this snippet from the footnotes at the end:
[1] Object or binary code is the code computers use and appears as a series of is and Os.
Someone please explain to SCO's attorneys that:
i != 1
and
O != 0
Don't they have ANYONE in their office who knows enough about computers to proofread this stuff?
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
Object or binary code is the code computers use and appears as a series of is and Os.
Ladies and gentlemen, the SCO lawyers have officially stopped doing even the most rudimentary fact-checking (or even plausibility-checking) with people who know anything about the code in question. Perhaps because the code in question doesn't exist.
What it seems like is that there are some CEO's that will say anything for money-and they are gradually destroying the United States.
So
are IBM going to have to show they did not do anything wrong or is SCO got to prove it ?
JJ
I thought there was going to be an updated version of the Scorched Earth comming out. Maybe one with two colored tanks, or something...
Xaotik Designs
I saw the previous /. posting when it came up (doing some homework for Latin late at night) and I immediately took the liberty of taking scoletters.com and scoletter.com. I'm hoping to post a huge rebuttal to everything Darly says. See my sig for more anti SCO stuff.
Well, I don't know anything about the US civil law system (and from what I hear on /. about it, I'm not so keen on it at all).
If SCO really believed that their statements were true, laws agains monopolies, unfair business etc woul apply. At least in Germany, that would be a task for Federal Bureaus. The procedure would be much more efficient:
Start an inquiry, walk to a judge, get a search warrant and get the information you need from IBM.
This thing could be over in a couple of month and we all could get back to our daily business...(and SCO's incredible behavior could be wiped off this planet as well)
McBride's argument is grounded in the Constitution. (Well, close to the constitution. He quotes the text of the constitution to be:
Actually, the framers didn't say anything about "open source advocates.")
I only found the pieces that make up McBride's quote in his letter, not the whole thing in a single sentence. He has to at least quote the guy correctly, or credibility for the remainder of the response is lost.
OK somebody has to have some DeathHeads to rain upon SCO's tank.
"I am a kernel in the linux army"
that sometime before this whole fiasco is over, SCO gets all its assets seized by the government? That would really shatter their plans to make money off this thing.
Technoli
It seems that Darl & Co. have a very specific (and obviously very wrong) idea of what the GPL actually is. They seem to believe that Open Source advocates think the GPL applies to everything, just automatically. This is in accordance to their paranoid beliefs that Linux is actually SysV Unix that was "stolen" with the GPL. I can just imagine this happening in court:
IBM: "No, actually Mr. McBride, the GPL can only be applied by the copyright holder. Just like any other license."
Darl: "Umm, you mean... So the GPL... Hey, look over there!" *flees the country*
-3Suns
~~~~
The Revolution will be Slashdotted
At this point, the pretense of a case has almost been lost... SCO's public statements are so twisted and irrational that no lawyer can seem to follow it, and now every time I read a story about SCO, I can't help but think of Gollum... I wonder if we could get Peter Jackson to make a movie out of this?
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
someone has to publicly pie this mcbride character, and fast!
Just raise the taxes on crack.
The good stuff is from IBM:
http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/IBM/Doc-86.pdf
It's "put up or shut up" time for SCO. Read and enjoy.
Is it just me who thinks the SCO logo looks like a pair of mickey mouse ears covering the earth?
This is what worries me about SCO: That their army of lawyers will wreak terrible legal havoc, not because SCO was right, or because SCO suffered damages--I strongly believe that neither of these is the case. Their army of lawyers will pull off Bill Gates style, "I don't understand your question," when the question is, "Does X concern you?" They'll pull off Bill Clinton style, "That depends on what 'is' means." They'll find loopholes and language in the law that nobody ever thought was there, with newly made-up implications that no legislator intended or thought would occur, to cause as much damage as possible to the Linux community and the free software community in general.
The longer I think about this, the more apparent it becomes to me that they do not want to profit from litigation. It's like the old story of people who are seated at both sides of a long table covered with the most wonderful foods in the world. The only problem is that the silverware is a yard long, and nobody's arm is long enough to fit their spoon or fork into their mouth. So somebody comes up with the idea that everyone should feed the person seated across from him. That way, everybody gets to eat. But Darl says, "What?! I will feed somebody else?! NO WAY! Sure, it means I won't eat but he won't eat either!!" That, I strongly believe, is the nature of Darl McBride, and the new SCO.
They do not want to profit. They do not want to rectify damages (which I strongly believe never occurred). They do not want to protect their copyrights (which I strongly believe were never violated). They are focused on one solitary goal, and that is to destroy (or damage, to the greatest extent possible) Linux.
SCO has requested "all versions or iterations of AIX". Why can't IBM request all recent versions or iterations of SCO products to look for inclusion of GPL code? There has been some evidence that such inclusions or copying has occurred.
It says this --
"[1] Object or binary code is the code computers use and appears as a series of is and Os."
Now that's funny. Here's a computer software company thinks that binary code is composed of the letters "i" and "O". Say, here can I buy more of their products?
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
There should be.
[*] The Baker act is the Florida law that allows for the involuntary committment to a mental institution.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Precedent: Rudolf Diesel patented the Diesel cycle engine in 1898. One of the reasons that the far less efficent Otto cycle (4-stroke gasoline) engine was/is more widely deployed is that Diesel would only license his patent for what he considered 'best use', requiring that Diesel engines must inject fuel continuously into the combustion chamber thoughout the combustion/power stroke.
This dictated a much lower power:weight ratio in early Diesel engines, which is appropriate to stationary power genaration but represented a distinct disadvantage for traction-power and automotive use.
Diesel's approach to license was probably not the most lucrative either for himself or society at large, however the *property right* granted by patent (and copyright) law let him make that determination.
To my mind whether commercial EULA, BSD, GPL, Artistic, all licenses fundamentally serve the purpose of allowing the *Author* a degree of control over the application and distribution of his/her work.
This is also how we get an OSS environment where two different Authors (say Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman) have the right to apply the same license (GPL) according to their own wishes.
Process rights are a good thing. SCO's making the best case it can but I really think it's going to backfire on them. Their rhetoric really doesn't stand up to analysis.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
I'd like to point out that the work that Pamela Jones & Co. at GROKLAW is clearly of some real use to IBM in this case. another poster has already mentioned that IBM has specifically cited a transcription GROKLAW produced in their recent filing.
I would also like to remind others that there's a little paypal donation button on the front page of GROKLAW, as mauryisland pointed out elsewhere.
click that button. give her a holiday bonus, just enough to make it hurt you a tiny little bit. and let's see just how robust PayPal's servers are.
Since corporations are thought of as individuals, isnt asking IBM to provide information as to its guilt a serious problem. Couldnt IBM plead the 5th ammendment?
I cant provide information as to my guilt as that would incriminate myself? Isnt it up to SCO to prove that IBM is at fault instead of the other way around?
And, isnt IBM innocent until proven guilty instead of guilty until proven innocent? Is this the outcome of democracy within the USA? What a tragedy!
"You're on my side and the dark side, like Lando Calrissian?" --Gimpy, Undergrads
Are we in Soviet Russia?
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
Then post to the main page when there's something really big coming, and otherwise let everyone else go on with the usual kernel rumours, Ogg design wins, etc. etc.
I enjoy GrokLaw a lot, and I'm (trying to) read /. for more general news items.
[Rant off :]
I'm in a Unix state of mind.
IANAL
You cannot request EVERYTHING. The stuff you request has to apply to the case.
That's why it shouldn't matter what IBM has in versions of AIX that were NOT released.
As for the stuff about demanding that IBM identify all the code it contributed to Linux........
That is what SCO originally claimed. SCO says that IBM contributed code that IBM did not have the righ to contribute without SCO's permission.
Now SCO is demanding to see the code that IBM contributed.
This is what is known as "Fishing". You demand EVERYTHING and hope to find SOMETHING that is actionable. And "Fishing" is not allowed.
the SCO Group is not the dragon of evil here folks.. rmember the infrastructure behind them..
such as former foudners of Novell and such..
if we want to make sure that this issue does not rise up again in the next 24 months we need to bring Canapoy and MS to the proceedings..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
slightly offtopic I know... but I imaginet he title must have got a few of you thinkin how you could get ahold of scorched earth again...
I enjoy Scorched3D, a pretty good 3D remake of the game
And the orignal Scorched Earth.
Remember, No Kibitzing!!
no comment
6) ... ?
7) Profit!
SCO idea of authors and inventors rights is that they have the right to sell them to SCO, or Microsoft, or some other company which is going to require the author to assign in perpetuity any rights they had to their work.
Darl and SCO repeatedly try to paint themselves as progressive, which certainly is not the case. In point of fact, what SCO seeks is a return to serfdom. During Feudal times serf's were treated as chattel, property tied to more property. They would routinely be transferred along with the property they lived on. Darl would like nothing better than a return to those days, and in fact has staked his company livelihood (and possibly his freedom) on attaining that goal. Except the new serf's are programmers, and the land they are tied to is the code, particularly the plot of code which is the Viscounty of Unix.
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
They are destroying the US at rapid pace. 2 decades ago we had a thriving manufacturing and high-tech economy. That disappeared and you were given the choice of Wal-Mart or high-tech. Some of us chose high tech. That bottomed out and now if you're unemployed because your job got shipped to India you can't even right GPL software without fear of lawsuit from some jackass like Darl McBride. I would say CEOs are destroying this country at rapid pace.
This does serve some useful function. Take groklaw for instance. PJ does some extremely detailed analysis of both their public statements and their legal filings.
This is helped by the contribution of the experts that read her site. That is how the code that leaked out was so quickly identified along with the various circumstances under which it was released.
IBM can use this information to ask the judge to toss out SCO's case. This saves IBM some time and gives IBM hours of expert research and approaches that the IBM legal team might not otherwise have thought of.
If this case goes to trial, IBM can use the same material to tear apart SCO's case.
Also, Red Hat can use this material in its case against SCO.
Darl McBride is effectively arguing that the US Constitution requires property owners to make a profit on their property, so sharing property is unamerican, and illegal. Ironically, when he trades his SCO shares to his lawyers at the height of his SCO vs. GPL hysteria, he will be cheating them, or their victims down the line, of any profit from a company that has destroyed all its goodwill, and much of its viable intellectual property. Hopefully McBride is investing his scambucks in a bunker in the Utah mountains, where he can be safe from the rising tide of sharers who understand the "network effect" of economics, where intellectual property value increases when it's more widely distributed.
--
make install -not war
We'll have big eyes and look cool?
Mod this up. This is the best Soviet Russia reference in a long time. Not overt, very clever. Two thumbs up.
Insightful indeed. Really moderators, did you even -look- at the link?
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Crap! No wonder my programming sucks--I've been using ones all this time!!!
And they should just, ah, hand that in with the TPS reports.
What's unreasonable about that?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
In my experience, when somebody has a strong argument about why they have been wronged, the argument is fairly easy to make and usually reads clearly and with a logical flow. But since SCO won't put up or shut up regarding the allegedly pilfered code (and what little they put up was thoroughly debunked) -- Darl is stuck making this hard-to-follow argument about why his company's business practices are what the Founding Fathers fantasized about when writing the constitution.
So instead of getting clear and convincing evidence that SCO's code was stolen, we get this poorly written argument that the GPL is immoral and illegal.
Let me make a comment on the GPL that Lessig hasn't made, and that I think gets to the heart of why Darl's arguments are pathetic.
I think Darl would have a great case that the GPL is illegal if the terms of the GPL license conferred greater privileges to the software developer than do licenses that come with store-bought proprietary software. But the fact is that, under the GPL, the developer is voluntarily surrendering some of the rights he would gain under normal copyright. And he's not claiming any other rights beyond what's normally handed out under the copyright law.
This is where Darl's anti-GPL argument breaks down. He's given no convincing explanation why a software developer can't voluntarily surrender some, but not all, of the rights gained by copyright.
Frankly, the only reason everybody's not tearing gaping holes in Darl's open letter is that it's so poorly written that it's hard to know what the hell he's talking about.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
Is there the chance that poor Darl could use the insanity plea, as he has made less and less sense as time has gone on? You can't just shoot the insane, you have to let them fend for themselves on the streets. Ronald Reagan wanted it that way.
When I write software, I certainly don't save every version of every program I've ever written. And I delete old backups on a continuous basis to save disk space.
... would it?
So there's no way in the world I could even comply with such a request, since the information just isn't there.
IBM might well save every daily backup tape because they're so huge they can afford to without breaking a sweat. Maybe they should just dump every single tape for every single version of every operating system they have, and let SCI sort it out.
But I'm curious about the interim versions, since I would think that it would not be a copyright violation unless the code was in the distributed version
D
Seriously, why the Caldera logo for SCO stories? This site is so 1999.
I did a little math. With 11,000 resellers, a revenue of $22 million a quarter, each reseller on average does a mere $2000 worth of SCO sales each quarter. $8000 a year! They're tiny!
I'm in a Unix state of mind.
Was one of the best things I have ever read on this FRAUD of a case.
Must... resist... urge....
Damnit, I knew I couldn't resist! Keep your eye on a game called Trajectory Zone. Beta 3 (it's a closed beta, sorry - but you can contact the author for beta signup information) The screenshots only show some of the environments, but you can also see some of the cool random level generation toys and the toys for modders (Trajectory Zone has an IDE in it. Not exactly normal for a game... :-) Or you can take a look here at another couple o' screenshots, including how particle based nuclear explosions look in the game.
However, this isn't just Scorched Earth in 3D. It's got the classic turn based play if you want, or a new simultaneous fire resolution mode (everyone locks in a shot, and they all fire at once), or you can get nasty with it and play the realtime versions of the game. There's just.... LOTS of cool stuff in there. And of course, it's going to be available for Windows, Linux, and Mac OSX.
Sorry - couldn't help but plug the game. I'm the owner of Midnight Ryder Technologies (the company doing Trajectory Zone), and plugging the game is just one of those things that's almost reflex these days :-)
Davis Ray Sickmon, Jr - looking for something to read? Check out my three free novels at MidnightRyder.org
Hmmm, I guess Microsoft would have to back-bill everyone that used Internet Explorer: I mean, according to McBride, since there was no profit made from that, it shouldn't have been allowed.
A few years ago in Belgium, when the "Vlaams Blok" (Flemish extreme right wing party) was gaining a lot of momentum, the established parties agreed to a "cordon sanitaire" (cord of cleanliness) around that party.
They agreed no one would cooperate with the Vlaams Blok to form a government, however profitable it might have been for each of them (practically or power-wise) separately.
With this "gentleman's agreement" they managed to keep the Vlaams Blok out of government. The agreement only worked on the basis of all partakers abiding by the agreement.
I hope the big software/consultancy companies out there will make up some sort of similar agreement between them, that no one will buy SCO whatever happens.
Let them perish in shame, let the shareholders and management lose all their money. That'll teach them.
feel that PJ would be an asset to any law firm? Who did Boies hire? The C- paralegal?
Just another example of open source producing world-class professionals.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
I found it interesting to note that the judge listed on the case is a guy I know from my home town. He is an honest and straightforward guy. The down side is he has similar roots to Mcbride, both Mormon and growing up in a farming community/environment. On a side note, it always cracks me up how many people post to every SCO story with "not again." You know there are alot of things that don't interest me on Slashdot, I just don't read them. We're all different folks, get over it. Don't bother posting if you don't care about the story!
I've been a member for a long time, and the content seems to be degenerating into a groupthink zealot factory with its own set of dogmas and censors.
Memo to moderators: Please stop moderating the same tired, old SCO-bashing posts or conspiracy theories as insightful or interesting, because they are neither. (I agree with the parent.)
In particular, do not promote any post whose content is basically "Darl is going to jail", because these posts are wrong. No SCO executive will do jail time, because it is not illegal to be a jerk. If you need further evidence that nobody is going to jail, consider that David Boies is now up to his neck in SCO. He may tiptoe on the fine edge of what is legal, but he's a smart enough lawyer not to go over.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Groklaw want club to smash and bash bad creature. Groklaw angry!
Grok!
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
But, your're not... it is really here
SCO's request is most likely for discovery under the IBM vs SCO countersuit. SCO gets the info for that suit and uses it in the original SCO vs IBM.
SCO's entire case can be summed up with one phrase used from "Mr. Deeds": "Oh, you have got to be shittin' me! ", uttered by Wynona Ryder's charactor upon seeing the sign for Winchestertonfieldville, Iowa.
Has anyone been watching (or ever watched) Survivor? It's always the quiet one who becomes so dangerous. Keeping an eye on SCO is like driving by an accident where you just can't be bothered to watch, but you can't turn away. So what is Microsoft up to during all of this? They are quietly trying to licence their new "open" (closed) office formats etc.
I've never hated Microsoft, or gone out of my way to avoid them for some 'moral' reason, but being locked into their products is another thing altogether. How about a Groklaw-like site that acts as a watchdog over Uncle Bill. There is nothing like the first time your using Linux someone sends you a link to a Windows Media file... now what are you supposed to do with that?
The below is a cut n paste from the letter.
[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,open-source advocates argue against copyright and patent laws, and whatever measures they take to by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Propaganda in additioned to flawed logic often resorts to poor writing style. Since the intent is to mislead and lie, paragraphs and sentences are constructed to misguide the reader with assertions that implied but false.
SCO-Darl's letter literally says "SCO asserts that the GPL, under which Linux is distributed, violates the United States Constitution", but then Lessig says "Finally, notice what McBride doesn't say. He does not say that the GPL is unconstitutional." So what's the difference? Is there some subtle legal distinction between "violates the constitution" and "is unconstitutional"?
But you are right, on SCO's site the "open source advocates" do not apear.
Darl's open letter claims that GPL and Free Software Foundation are hurting their Pure Software business model. On the other hand, many companies, including IBM and RedHat are making profit using GPL and Free Software. Why would any judge invalidate GPL and hurt corporations that adapt their strategies to changing markets just to satisfy corporations like SCO who base their business on outdated models ?
getSexySig();
Log into your /. account
Click on your username
Click on "Preferences"
Click on "homepage"
Under "Topics" click "Caldera"
Clicks "Save"
No more SCO links!
I really don't see why epoeple keep complaining about what categories and authors keep getting posted. You can block them if you want. Don't like SCO/Caldera stories, block them!
And this is with the FREE login to boot.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Reminiscent of SearchKing v Google, and they didn't get the PageRank code. There are standards with regard to whether you need that specific info to prove your case, which is obviously weighed against how damaging that info would be.
Clearly, SCO isn't even close. You can't just request the whole damned OS source code. That's retarded.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
However, the rules are the same for both parties and even though SCO is the "Bad Guy" here, don't forget IBM can do the same if SCO fails to comply with THEIR discovery requests.
,and no claim.
"If" they fail to comply? SCO filed their Motion to Compel after IBM filed theirs.
IBM is annoyed because, among other things, IBM requested SCO's source code and a description showing what files and parts of files have been copied, in a form making it amenable for searching. SCO responded by printing out large chunks of Linux source code files and effectively said "it's in there, somewhere". (And then had the gall to complain about how much it cost them to print out that code!)
SCO filed their Motion to Compel Discovery in response and are basically saying "Well, we can't know for sure what infringement has occurred until we see the code from IBM."
On one hand, SCO claims in the media to have solid evidence of "line-by-line copying" of "millions of lines" of code, that discovery is progressing along and they're preparing to sue Linux end customers and bill Linux users, making them sound like an unstoppable legal juggernaut (and sending their stock price through the roof).
On the other hand, in the courtroom, they hang their head and say "we're not sure what all has been done to poor poor us", they whine about having to conduct three lawsuits at once -- their suit against IBM, IBM's countersuit, and Red Hat's suit -- and try to play one case off on the other and file delay after delay in all three cases, stalling for as much time as possible before they have to admit that, they have no case, no proof
Groklaw is an amazing read. PJ is smart, she's thorough, and has a great body of volunteers helping her with research into SCO's claims, transcribing legal documents, and tracking down old emails and newsgroup postings. Comparing what SCO says in the media to what they say in court, it's obvious that Darl McBride has a reality-distortion field that makes Steve Jobs' look like a weak soap bubble.
Jay (=
When I was young, it was the plaintiff who was responsible for preparing enough evidence to present to the court, but in Darl's world, with army of lawyers who will be given 20% of the proceeds from the settlement or of 'a sale of SCO during the pendancy of litigation', apparently rules are different.
Nothing here to see, move along. Seriously, let's get hysterical about the real stuff in this suit, OK?
In the United States, both parties to a civil action are permitted to "obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party." Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(b). Matter is subject to discovery if it is itself evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
To that end, parties may propund interrogatories (questions requiring written answers signed under oath), depositions, requests for documents and things, inspections of property and testing, and requests for admission. While there are limits to what can be obtained, pretty much everything relevant and not privileged is discoverable, even when it is incredibly expensive and burdensome to produce.
If a party doesn't produce it, the court may compel production by judicial order on pain of contempt or worse --the court may award sanctions and penalties, and ultimately can award sanctions that can go to the merits of the case, dismissing or awarding judgment for failure to comply.
It is and always has been the rule that a plaintiff is permitted to use discovery to compel production of smoking guns and killer evidence, even where the plaintiff (and particularly because the plaintiff) bears the burden of proof. That, by the way, is how Boies nailed Microsoft -- but for the expedient of discovery, the government probably would not have won its antitrust case.
Discovery disputes of this kind are routine in big ticket litigation. Nothing here to see, move along.
In any case Linux promotes progress (its own and that of other software projects) very nicely. Now if only the GUI would progress as fast as the Mac OS X GUI has in recent years.
Lasers Controlled Games!
...seriously, how cool would that be? A live webcasted (or even televised) debate between these two men on the "relative merits of copyright, copyleft, GPL etc.", McBride would come out looking like a fool who doesn't know the first thing about what he was prattling on about (for a change), shareholders would panic, stock would plumit and maybe this whole debacle could start drawing to a close.
Of course, thats the very reason its not going to happen *sigh*.
I am NaN
Way off topic but how could that wonderful game
xbill be updated to include Darl and company.
a) Just replace the Bill icon with Darl and the windows icon with UnixWare
b) as a) with more blood
c) add Darl who will "bless" systems. Blessed systems cannot be taken over by Bill but the presence of "blessed" systems result in a decrease in score.
What a maroon!
Relying on the 5th in a civil action is certainly permissible: no person is required under any process of law to give testimony that may incriminate him. Incrimination in this sense, however, only means that you would be subject to a criminal prosecution, and not that you would be subject to liability.
Sometimes, a defendant faces both -- a civil action may seek damages for conduct that, in fact, is criminal. A defendant could, at least in theory, refuse to answer a question on fifth amendment grounds to avoid making an admission that would send him to jail. That is his constitutional right.
But it would be a very bad thing to do in a civil action. if you take the fifth on an ultimate question, the judge may determine as a matter of law that your answer would have been the least favorable to you, and may so instruct the jury. When people start taking the fifth in a civil action, you just won the case -- not only rhetorically, because juries will always slam-dunk you, but legally as well -- depending upon the question not answered, you might be entitled to near-immediate summary judgment or a directed verdict. You just keep asking questions going to ultimate questions, and they either answer or they don't. either way, you win.
this is routine discovery in a civil action. IBM is not accused by the government of a crime, for which the fifth amendment applies. Even if it were, the plaintiff would still be entitled, either to the discovery, or a directed verdict in his favor.
In the USA there live about 260 million inhabitants. In EU there are 370 millions. The law of the World is not the law of USA, sorry folks. You are there in USA minority because the population of the World is over 6 billion. In fact, we are not very interesting about the law and patents valid in USA. GLP is worlwide not USA wide, fortunately.
Pig shit stinks more, the stench sticks to your skin - truly nasty! Perhaps you may want to consider 'liquified' manure as well. This can be brought next to their building and be pumped in through any opening at high pressure. The poultry shit is truly nasty, with a high enough ammonia content to make your eyes water. Horse and cow shit are not that bad and don't stink long, go for the nasty stuff, pig, poultry and dog shit. properly applied, some of this shit can actually kill a man.
SCOld
SCOrch
SCOurge
SCOut
SCOop
-- Add more
I sometimes get the U.S. Constitution mixed up with the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition myself.
When I'm having this difficulty, I find it helpfule to ask myself, "What would Quark do?"
Sincerely,
Someone who remembers when there was a company called SCO whose business model included developing useful products
First of all, its no big deal as to trade secrets. The court can enter a protective order, and in cases between competitors, can require that the discovery be "for attorney eyes only," not to be sent to the clients. Clients don't get them either, because lawyers who unlawfully disclose such matter not only lose their ticket to practice, but virtually every penny they have in the underlying civil action.
Any right to use the secret at trial is within the Court's subsequent discretion. Trade secrecy is NOT a device for avoiding civil liability.
In the case of super trade secrets, Coca Cola's secret recipe as an example, the company has a choice: they can comply with a motion to compel or they can risk contempt, which means that a bunch of corporate people will spend some time in jail, and the company will probably face summary judgment against them in the civil action. This has, in fact, happened.
They shouldn't be able to talk about this case. They should be barred from making any claims against end users too until this is settled.
Reading some summary somewhere mentioned the (almost buried) point of IBM's work being a derivative work which SCO then felt it had rights to. With that in mind, I can almost understand the reply's SCO is giving to IBM. They claim that AIX, etc. is a derivative work and that code from it (which SCO does not have) has ended up in Linux. So, they need IBM's code for comparison. Almost makes sense...except they keep dragging LINUX itself into it and attacking the GPL and threatening people completely outside the case. That, and the other claims they are making against IBM is just not logical. Have they made enough comments yet to open themselves up for libel suites yet?? Please?
In other news, Michael Jackson filed with the California Supreme Court, requesting that his persecutor find evidence of innocience. News at 11.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
In other words, SCO believes it owns AIX and Dynix, and that IBM used SCO's AIX and Dynix code to improve Linux.
On the other hand, SCO is or has been distributing software that was released under the GPL and BSD licences. They have voided their right to do so. They have allowed software released under BSD and almost certainly GPL licenses to be inserted into their Unix variant.
Under the DMCA and CA76, the FSF and UC can demand that they stop distribution of any Unix-like operating system until all GPL/BSD code is removed.
Suing SCO for violation of the Copyright Act might not be successful in court, but it could be. Even if the suit were to fail (or more likely, SCO go under before a trial), the publicity of such a suit would make it obvious that Open Source adherents are not anti-copyright. We just prefer a different EULA.
What's really wrong with SCO's position? I agree with Lessig:
In SCO's open letter [slashdot.org], they say:
Their argument is that the profit motive is what is important about copyrights. According to SCO, the intent of the author and his right to control the distribution of his work are a secondary side effect of the profit motive and our economy's need for him to profit from his work.
That twisted paradigm underpins SCO's business plan, their market strategy, and their case against IBM.
I believe it's time to sue SCO, in order to make clear that it's the author's right to control his work and who profits from it that matters, and not just his right to profit.
sigs, as if you care.
IANAL ... but since corporations have been ruled to be individuals in some sense, wouldn't the Fifth Amendment come into play here? I.e., at your murder trial, the prosecution cannot force you to take the stand and testify against yourself. Similarly, I don't see how SCO can force IBM to make a case against themselves.
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
Of course he challenged someone to a fight, he has bodyguards now.
I am bidding 1 penny for SCO Group's assets..do u think I will get a reply back from McBride?
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Want to bet on who wins?
By the way, your document addresses a different Motion entirely, IBM's motion to compel discovery from SCO.
By the common view of what a copyright should be and provide, yes, perhaps open-source developers are surrendering rights. However, the copyright law that allows people to keep their source code proprietary and sell it is the same law that allows people to DISALLOW proprietary use of their code as well.
The GPL states that the licensed code may not be used unless the source code of that in which it is used is released. Acceptance of the license means that the person using the code is legally obligated, by copyright law, to release that source code. The real question should be whether or not it is legal, under copyright law, not only to deny the right to spread something freely, but also to deny the right to spread something for profit.
By my personal opinion, a copyright is a copyright, and the holder of said copyright should be able to put whatever stipulations on the license that he or she pleases. However, I'm not a lawyer, and I have no idea on what the actual legality of such an idea is.
I think that the more important fact is that even though this is the true crux of the problem, Mr. McBride is trying to obfuscate it in things like his letter, trying to portray the entire open-source community as somehow being inherently against U.S. copyright law. If you're going to put up that argument, Mr. McBride, first you'll have to show us that the GPL's unique use of copyright law is, in fact, not legal.
The Constitution governs laws, laws govern everything else. If a law violates another law, the older of the two laws is invalidated. If a law violates the constitution, the law itself is invalidated. If "something else" (in this case, the GPL, which is not a law) violates the Constitution, that doesn't mean anything, since it's goverened by the laws under the Constitution. It would have to be shown in violation of the LAW, not the Constitution.
The same argument can be made about search-and-seizure. The Constitution prevents the government (either law enforcement doing it, or by Congress passing a bill that can be used by somebody in the government to do so) from comming into my house and taking my stuff. However, the Constitution doesn't stop my neighbor from breaking my window and taking my TV. The LAW applies in that case.
If the GPL violates the Constitution, it means nothing. It has to violate a law to be overturned. It doesn't violate either, thoug, so McBride's just blowing smoke and hot air.
Seriously though, is this just a mistake?
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
OK so McBribe says the GPL is invalid, at this point if i wrote software that was published under the GPL i would sue SCO for violation of GPL and demand that it be removed from all SCO software, this would include existing distributions of SCO, when every companie that uses SCO software gets a letter that they have to remove apache samba and all of the other software that is under the GPL, do you think that SCO wil last verry long. so i guess my question is, if you are a developer and you have software that is GPL why arent you demanding that SCO cease to use your software and remove it from all existing distributions. if someone were attacking my work i would ceartainly do that.
and finally where is the FSF and RMS why arent they pursuing these trackts. if this kind of blustering works for McDikhead, that why dont RMS and the FSF do the same thing.
what if there was a post on the wall street jurnal saying that the FSF and RMS are going to sue SCO and demand that all GPL software be removed from from existing SCO instalations. wouldnt that put the nail in SCOX's coffin. after all McExtortionist is threataning to do the same thing.
Nature has a way of dealing with this. The "cooperative" species are selected to survive. Sex is designed that way. Nature built the "idea" of cooperation into it. The Shakers* disavowed sex. Today, there are virtually no Shakers.
Darl is a business masturbator.
*a religious sect related to today's Quakers.
IBM needs to send a donation with lots of zeros on it.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Under Article I Section 8, Congress is enabled to issue copyrights and patents. It is not required to do so, and more than it is requires to grant letters of marque and reprisal.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
How the hell did a picture of a dismembered anime character strapped to a tin roof get modded "Insightful"??
Ick. =(
Want to reach the IT Community? Want to get to Linux users? Have an important message you simply must convey in serious terms to IS Professionals?
We have the answer! The staff of ATTORNEY DAVIS BOIES will sue anyone - AND WE MEAN ANYONE! - to get your message across. Don't have a case? That's okay, we don't care! We expect to lose.
Nothing will get your word out faster and with a more poigant stab than a lawsuit. We managed to get our three-quarter dead client SCO the front page of popular news site Slashdot over a hundred times this year alone!
Here are some quotes from our clients:
"We were just about to go under, so with the help of ATTORNEY DAVID BOIES, we went ahead and claimed ownship of the whole of UNIX! We probably won't win, but our stock is up thousands of percents!"
-Chris Sontagg, unnamed tech company
"I am a stupid monkey, but all up-to-date IT professionals know my name. Did I just say up to date? David, quick, patent that term so we can sue Red Hat!"
-Darl McBride, professional Ass Hat
You too can get the word out! Just call ATTORNEY DAVIS BOIES at 1-888-US-FRAUD!
Everyone wants to profit. There would not be so much capital flowing into SCO lately if SCO and it's investors didn't smell a profit. SCO knows there is a profit to be derived from the UNIX market- I think that they know that charging money will not destroy linux, just as it never destroyed paid unix distributions. While SCO's legal claims are questionable, I see no reason to doubt that it is being completely upfront about its economic goals- to derive profit from a popular, indeed, indispensable system that they were hoping nobody would be able to effectively stand up for in court.
McBribe
McCrack
Mcdickhead
McMSwhore
Darl McVader
McExtortionist
McFantasy island
Mcliar
Comment removed based on user account deletion
IANAL, but Lawrence Lessig is. Here is the clearest easiest to understand explanation of the GPL and how it relates to US and EU copyright law (and SCO, and FUD, and the U.S. Constitution) that I have EVER read!
I HIGHLY RECOMMEND that anyone with any interest or questions in what is going on with the SCO case, Linux, or the GPL read this article; it is that good
Credit where credit is due - first seen referenced on Slashdot (somewhere) and link found on Groklaw (somewhere)
I like the premise, you could probably get novel out of it!
Sure is. Only the Supreme Court can declare something unconstitutional. Any Tom Dick or Harry can say a law is not constitutional.
Give SCO exactly what it's asking for! Fire up the old 132-column line printers, print it all out on old quadruple spaced green/white fanfold paper in all upper case, hire 50 semitrucks and an army of Teamsters, show up at SCO headquarters in Utah, have the Teamsters swagger in and demand "Hey Darl, where d'ya want this stuff?" then proceed to dump it all in the lobby... priceless! Of course, some environmentalists might complain about the wanton destruction of trees, but it would be worth it!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
I'm sure everyone's done this already, but check this out:
m
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=sco.co
They haven't run thier own version of UNIX since March 2002. What do they use now? Apache on Linux!!!
--Jaybill
Are you suggesting that someone at SCO should have just copied the text directly ? You how careful they are to make certain that everything they publish is originally theirs. You Linux Zealots are always copying stuff ! Bad dogs... BaD !
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
Read on Groklaw, and thought it was funny there. Thanks for bringing it over. And yes, Brent (whomever and wherever he is) gets universal positive karma for making me laugh twice this morning.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
This is the first time I've seen in Slashdot a thread with this many IAAL
In your future:
Slashdot: News for nerds and lawyers
What a "Caldera" is? It's the crater that's left after the volcanic mountain explodes. I bet the folks who named the company, and then sold it to Darl's friends didn't realize they were making a prediction about the fate of the company....
caldera n. A large crater formed by volcanic explosion or by collapse of a volcanic cone.
Me? I'm just waiting for the ashes to cool....
IANAL - Just a quick google search to find past instances.
3 9. html
/ st einker.pdf
http://www.mslawyer.com/mssc/ctapp/990223/97008
"The Mississippi Supreme Court remanded this appeal to the trial court of Pike County which denied the request finding that it was "nothing more than a fishing expedition.""
http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/tca/PDF/993
"Such discovery requests amount to nothing more than an out and out fishing expedition."
It seems that you can REQUEST to discover anything you want to.
But it also seems that the judge can determine whether such a request is a "fishing expedition" and deny it.
The judge is hearing all the motions on discovery today. SCO will probably lose on some issues. So they have to issue PR statements as spin control. Ignore them. Wait for the judge's first rulings.
I would like to offer to buy SCO. I have... mmm... 87 cents and a chewing gum wrapper. I expect some change back.
What this recent turn of events has done is to truly clarify what McBride's strategy has been all along in this case. I believe that it was his hope that his steady escalation of claims would be accepted by the industry at large simply because each claim would seem to be a natural extension of the previous. Much like how totalitarian dictators come to power in a state that was formerly a democracy: Freedom and liberty is eroded bit by bit, and by the time someone notices, it is too late to stop it.
Observe the progression of SCO's claims:
The failure of Mr. McBride's strategy is a combination of two factors: One, he moved too quickly and too publicly by foisting the billion dollar lawsuit on IBM, and two, he underestimated the collective voice of the open source community.
As a result of this strategic blunder, he is caught in a sort of twilight. He convinced just enough of the industry to bring in some investment dollars, but not enough to galvanize support from key sectors of the industry to give SCO the necessary "moral support". He tries to sound like he is coming from the moral high ground, but without any important voices chiming in support, he sounds more like a pariah than anything else.
So now we have Mr. McBride scrambling to save his plan by clouding the issue. All it takes is reading the latest open letter from him. He uses specious analogies and false logic, plus deliberate misinterpretation of the constitution and complete ignorance of past court cases on copyright law (save for one that he mentions there about the copyright extension act that has nothing to do with this case).
It's a bit sad to watch, as he is not just destroying his company, but his own career as well.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
See comments on Groklaw or Yahoo! SCOX BBS.
SCO has 30 days to provide their evidence.
Both IBM motions to compel granted.
None of SCO's.
Boies & Heise were no shows.
Darl's brother Kevin argued.
First thing we do, is kill all the lawyers.
Some other guy wrote that. I think his last name begins with an S.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
My most recent weblog entry undoubtedly puts darl in his place.
http://jacobschatter.blogspot.com/
http://www.yorgalily.org/~yorgasor/ScoCourtroomSki t.html
It's got simultaneous network play, works on Windows, MAC and Linux. and has almost all of the old weapons ( They're still missing rollers, but that's about it ). Best of all it's Open Source! (I'm thinking about giving them some roller code myself ;-) )
The Magistrate Judge on the case has suspended all discovery EXCEPT SCO responses to IBM requests. Ouch for SCO.
And no one from David Boies' firm even showed up to the hearing. Strange...
see www.groklaw.net for details from some folks who attended.
In support of the rights of the framers and users of the GPL:
"The issue is clear: Do you support the property rights that Congress gives the creators of software -- the right to decide to (1) sell your software, (2) license your software, or (3) give your software away. If you really do support that right, then you should support the particular choices property rights owners make with that right."
Now, if only more people thought that the above would still be true if "software" were replaced with "musical recording." Try (1) or (2) with a song, or put DRM on it, and (according to some slashdotters, at least) you're stabbing at the heart of freedom, and unworthy of that same support for your choice.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
[1] Object or binary code is the code computers use and appears as a series of is and Os.
Seems they can't even find a one. Or a zero.
Something I just thought of (that may have been discussed previously, but I had been avoiding SCO stories to prevent ulcers ;))-- if SCO was, by some miracle, successful in their attempts to get the court to compel IBM to release all the source code they're demanding, couldn't that have a negative impact on IBM whether SCO wins or loses the suit? I mean, they will have just been given IBM trade secrets to a successful operating system.
When their numbers dwindled from 50 to 8, the dwarves began to suspect Hungry.
I don't even know where to begin, here...
When their numbers dwindled from 50 to 8, the dwarves began to suspect Hungry.
I just now caught the Darl letter. He explained to me the FSF position better than RMS has ever been able to. I support it even more now! Thanks, Darl!
How dare you, you putrid muck-dwelling grub! How dare you use the honored name of the Scorched Earth Party for one of your infantile headline puns? I'm wating for Herr Vogel's estimate of how many heads will be bashed into a gory mess with the traditional lead pipe as we speak.
The Scorched Earth Party: Filing Amicus Plumbem briefs upside the weak on behalf of the strong.
> When I was young, it was the plaintiff who was
> responsible for preparing enough evidence to
> present to the court
Aaah, yes, this is the famous ''George W. Bush demands Iraq to prove they have weapons of mass destruction'' strategy.
From Forbes
My theory is that Canopy Group wanted to use Monterey project to corner 64-bit Enterprise-level OS market. I remember an interview with Stowell, where he said that even if 64-bit Linux may exist, it will always inferior to SCO's product, exactly because of Monterey project.
When the thing did not work out, and I believe that IBM is not completely without blame for terminating the contract. I am not sure what happened, but most probably each side thought that the other side is too greedy.
Anyhow, IBM, well taught by one software vendor about all implications of dealing with 'the only game in town' situations walked away to do Monterey on Linux, leaving SCO high and dry in the middle of nowhere, with mostly usless SVRX.
First Canopy Group reaction was: 'You've made shit of SCO. You'll buy it.' When it did not work out either, the whole thing degenerated into bloody vendetta, with the only Linux's fault that it happened to be the OS, IBM laid their eyes on.
I am sure, that if it were BSD (hypothetically, of course, since BSD License is too lax for IBM's patents protection,) we would have been talking about IBM and Apple rather then IBM and RH.
Deliberately misquoting the constitution should result in a charge of Treason for McBride, but it would be hard to prove. Of course, it takes (I think) three witnesses to the Treason, and you can't make a person's lawyer testify against him. So that eliminates, what, 95% of the people around him.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
Did SCO change it? (not that im accusing them, but this happens alot online)
Nothing is available in Google's cache or the Internet Archiver (well nothing useful, unless you want to see Caldera's old site)
X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200312051 43009441
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
Besides, it's a lovely bit of FUD, trying to get IBM's customers to say, "Gee, I'm not so confident in this vendor's product anymore."
This is not my sandwich.
Larry Lessig reputation is tarnished by the parent. Please RTFA or at least read one of the sub-posts. Lessig is quoting McBride properly and correctly the AC is wrong and is not "Informative"
Thank you for your attention.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200312051 43009441
The judge granted both of IBM's motions to compel and suspended further discovery.
My name is Inigo Montoya, you are a slimy little weasel. Prepare to die.
When a group of people share common values and interests, they often agree on a lot of things. CHallange the conventional wisdom, and lots of people will jump on you. Do it deliberately and you are a troll.
That's how communities are. Those same shared values is what *makes* a community. Get used to it.
Trolls are somehow threatened by this and in some kind of a contrarian, knee-jerk reaction, they'll post anything which goes the opposite way.
If you have a real point to make, make it. If the community finds it insightful, it will get responded to and moderated up. If the community rejects it, GO FIND ANOTHER COMMUNITY WHERE YOU FIT IN BETTER.
It's as simple as that.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
First Report from Grokker Inside Hearing: IBM Wins Both Motions to Compel Friday, December 05 2003 @ 02:30 PM EST Our first report from a Groklaw volunteer, sam, who attended the court hearing is that IBM won both of its motions to compel and SCO's motion was set for a later date. Here is what sam is telling us, and it's subject to further information and confirmation as more news arrives. We have several attending and I'll do a followup, but this is the first word. Here is what sam is telling us: "Just returned from the hearing. "Needless to say there was blood all over the floor on the SCO side of the aisle none on the 'left' side. "Judge granted both IBM motions to compel, gave SCO thirty days to comply 'with specificity' and suspended further discovery. Did not rule on the SCO motion until next hearing scheduled for Friday, Jan 23 and 10:00 am. "SCO did say that they will be filing a complaint within days on copyright violations. "More to come" So it looks like they have 30 days to finally tell us what code they are talking about "with specificity". Finally.
What a great idea! Let's dump shit on them!
Scorched Earth, rebirth
Disintered in the writhe of the lone survivor
Whose worth is worse than the curse
Of Sardonicus choking on his own saliva
Who shares the last laugh now
Dead wedded fates fulfill their vows?
Foot in mouth of sacred cows
Facedown in dust and poisoned ground
Perhaps we should fill the SCO offices with these WMD's (which sound like biological weapons to me) and get Blair and Bush to declare war on them.
Oops, a few decks got dropped....
Sequence numbers? We don't need no steeking sequence numbers. Assemble those uuencoded, encrypted tar files by hand.
IANAL, but wouldn't requiring IBM to provide evidence against itself be in violation of the 5th amendment (which bars self incrimination)?
-"It seems like you're trying to exploit a security hole. Would you like help?"
"When I was young, it was the plaintiff who was responsible for preparing enough evidence to present to the court, but in Darl's world, with army of lawyers who will be given 20% of the proceeds from the settlement or of 'a sale of SCO during the pendancy of litigation', apparently rules are different."
SCO is simply asking IBM for the source code to AIX, dumbass. They're not asking IBM to make SCO's case for them.
Why is IBM dragging their feet on providing the requested information? Do they have something to hide? My guess is that when all the information is sorted out, IBM will be coughing up billions to SCO.
So when IBM asks SCO for information that's dicovery, but when SCO asks IBM for information, SCO is asking IBM to make their case for them? I laugh every time /.ers claim their smarter than the average person.
Though I picture Mcbride more as the floating fat man.
Yeah, that's the one that I'm talking about. The graphics are very impressive, the networked multiplayer is very fun, and great improvements to the some of the weapons. There is nothing like seeing a funky bomb in 3D!
SCO.com uses Linux
So you take Newsforge as the true text of the letter, while Darl has his own version of his own letter. Who do we believe? Is it Darl's propaganda...or (gasp!) Newsforge's? And how can we prove it? This is why I hate the Internet sometimes; an astronomical amount of storage space, yet a very weak memory.
Lessig is quoting McBride properly and correctly
No, as of right now, Lessig's quoting Newsforge correctly, not McBride. Yes, perhaps McBride changed his letter after Newsforge reprinted it. Well, in that case, maybe Lessig should add a note to his article about SCO's correction. As long as his article remains unchanged, the moderators are going to read it, compare it to McBride's current version, and say, "Hey, the AC was right!". An update is the only way to get the moderation to drop, and rightfully so.
The idea is to protect secrets.. in other words, if the only way you can find out about my code is to break into my office and steal it... that's violation of trade secret.
If you discovered how I did things through LEGAL means, its' not...
trade secret doesn't provide patent-like protection... trade secret law is about keeping things secret, provided the secret-holder does a good job of it.
ie: I can't pull a microsoft, publish a paper, and say "You can't use this information because it's a trade secret".. it doesn't work that way. Trade secrets are actual secrets.. like the forumule to coke.
If you figure out the forumla to coke, you can make all you want.
If you steal the forumla from their vaults.. you are in shit.
The "Trade secret" stuff they are talking about is not, in fact, stuff in the publicized unix systems.. they are referring to stuff that was supposedly revealed to IBM under contract, that made it into the linux kernel.. which could indeed be protected this way.
Trade secret law gives them protection only as long as they can keep it a secret.. and if someone else figures it out, even through a mistake on the company's part... like accidentally publishing it, the cat is out of the bag. Get it?