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.
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.
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]
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.
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
So
are IBM going to have to show they did not do anything wrong or is SCO got to prove it ?
JJ
The Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination applies only to criminal cases, not civil suits.
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.
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"
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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
This is not quite correct. A party to a civil suit can refuse to answer any question (at trial, in a deposition, or an interrogatory) only if the answer might incriminate them. You can't refuse to answer for no reason. In practice, it isn't a viable option for companies like SCO and IBM to say "we are crooks, therefore we won't answer your interrogatory."
The fifth amendment privilege cannot, however, prevent you from handing over evidence. So if I seek a memo from you, and the memo indicates that you may have committed a crime, you have to cough it up. The amendment protects against forced testimony, not forced production of information already written down.
Yes, IAAL, but not a criminal lawyer.
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
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.
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.
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();
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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!
> IBM needs to send a donation with lots of zeros on it.
.orgs for the binaries and source of stuff I use on linux, so I only think it proper to send Pamela some money for her help here.
pfff. don't forget this is IBM you're talking about. dang, if they did that, I might go out and buy a ThinkPad. (unless those are leading zeroes, of course....)
anyway, Pamela & Co. are doing legal work for LINUX (not IBM) just like so many coders have done code work for linux (not IBM). GROKLAW is contributing to linux, not IBM, and that isn't lost on IBM: they aren't gonna pay for stuff given freely.
at least, that's how I see it. anyway, if we, as an open source community, value coders' work for linux, then we should also value the work done in other areas that supports linux.
I've sent money to a couple of
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
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
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.
I don't even know where to begin, here...
When their numbers dwindled from 50 to 8, the dwarves began to suspect Hungry.
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.
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.