Slashdot Mirror
SCO Gets More Desperate; Sends More Letters
isn't my name writes "The New York Times is reporting that SCO has sent new letters to Linux-using businesses with specific examples of infringement. SCO has its fiscal earnings call scheduled tomorrow at 11am. In all probability, these letters are designed to get analyst/reporter interest focused on their claims instead of the numerous fundamental problems with their case. So, slashdotters, we need to find a copy of the letter and tear it apart with specificity before tomorrow morning in the US East Coast, so that any analysts/reporters will not be distracted."
there stock price is going up, they will most likely make a profit and all for lying.
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
they might have a legit clame, but they havent proved it yet
Lotas T Smartman www.lotas-smartman.net
Seriously, nothing significant will happen before trial, so why do we give them the publicity they're craving?
Sure, it might feel like "we" are fighting them, but what's the result of that fighting? Do we just spread the word that people can get sued for using Linux, or do we convince people that it's safe to use Linux?
And how come we don't hear people saying that "we" should move to *BSD while this is going on, showing SCO that we rather not use Linux than pay them?
Ok, so it isn't always easy, or even possible, to move away from Linux, but why do most people seem to think that there's just "free" Linux or "pay to SCO" Linux?
perl -e'print$_{$_} for sort%_=`lynx -dump svanstrom.com/t`'
I'm all for copyright, and I will even support the removal of every piece of copyrighted code from linux. IF and only if it was there and they started prove it. Its not really as hard as they make it sound, it involves a highlighter and a few judges. Thats the best thing about open source, if someone makes the mistake of putting in code that is copyrighted or just plain stupid it is removed. The reason everyone is agains SCO is the stupidity of their attacks. It goes against logic (and natural selection for that matter) to fix the problem in the way SCO is. UNLESS of course they dont want the problem solved so much as want to make money from it.
"Unix licensees are asked to certify that none of their employees or contractors have contributed any Unix code to Linux."
from a company that willingly contributed with more than a few lines of code...
What ? Me, worry ?
Exactly and regardless, SCO's colors will come out in the wash, one way or the other. Nothing said here will change that. The danger is the damage that the linux community is doing to itself by spouting off like a bunch rabid loons. The penguin heads need to chill out and sit down and let SCO sink or swim. Really, what are they going to do, even if they are right? Linux isn't going to go away because of 2 lines or 200 lines of code. It won't go away even if they outlaw it altogether. :)
Due time! How long has this circus been going on?
Honestly, if they had a legitamate claim I would support them. But these scare tactics and Lionel Hutz style legal wrangling all seem like smoke and mirrors to raise stock prices. If as many lines of code are in Linux as they claim there are, then why keep it secret. Linux is open source so that infringing code is already in the public anyway.
Until they show me substance, my opinion about them wont change.
Umm, if every slashdotter bought a couple hundred dollars worth of stock, would that make us (as a group, disparate though it would be) majority stockholders, in which case we would have more pull to make them drop the suit?
I haven't done the math, but there can't be that many outstanding shares of stock compared to the number of registered slashdotters.
Impractical of course, but as long as you're talking about a coordinated effort, why not just solve the problem entirely.
Now, if thousands of Slashdotters were to place orders to buy at $0.50 with their brokers, that might get Wall Street's attention.
sPh
Actually, probably not. You might *think* SCO is doing an illegal pump-and-dump and should be done over by the SEC, but can you prove it? In court? Beyond all reasonable doubt? The SEC is going to have to be able to answer "yes" to all of the above before it will even consider the next step. I don't think the SEC is going to be ripping SCO apart until the aftermath of the IBM case somehow.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
It doesn't matter much what analysts think about the case itself. What matters is what analysts think other people think about the case. Even if every analyst on earth would think the lawsuit was fraudulent, doesn't mean they wouldn't recommend buying stock, because people are doing it anyway.
Why am I bothering...I don't know.
The problem is that even if they did have a legitamate claim their claim can't really cover what they are trying to do in any reasonable manner. They never even claim that any significant fraction of linux is built on infringing technology.
Suppose I had invented the computer with only a little help from an assistant (who perhaps now was dead). Then someone comes along and says that in some little piece of technology (say in the punch card reader mechanism..but I don't know this) my assistant had accidently copied it from them. Undoubtedly, if I knew what piece of technology was infringing I could easily engineer another solution. However, they won't tell me and demand royalties on every computer sold.
This goes beyond the pale even of using ridiculously overbroad patents to sue for money.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
That's an API, the application programmer's interface. An ABI, the Application Binary Interface, specifies the way already compiled binaries communicate with each other. Things like calling conventions, for example. Now, I believe the article is in error here, since it's even more ludicrous to complain about ABI similarities - the way things are done are, AFAIK, pretty standard.
See you, space cowboy...
I know youre only joking but Im curious about US law on this issue. In Germany this would a definete case of inside trading and its considered a crime.
How is it inside trading? Insider trading is typically when someone acts on company information that is NOT available to the general public. Anything discussed here on slashdot is by nature already available to the public, and we have a link to that information (article) for each story, and then all the comments are public for anyone to view.
A mutual fund is a bunch of people putting their money together and buying stock, and you can have stock clubs (groups of friends pool their money to buy stock) and none of that's illegal. The closest thing to illegal is if we have bad intent, like we're trying to artificially change the price of the stock.
But if they consider that a crime, they'd need to prosecute SCO first, because they're doing it in secret, and lying about it.
$8.95/mo web hosting
"Copyright is a statement of ownership"
No, copyright is simply a limited monopoly provided by the government to give the copyright holder the ability to limit distribution.
You cannot own an idea.
OK, so here's what I found interesting:
more than 65 programming files that "have been copied verbatim from our copyrighted Unix code base
So - they're saying that the files themselves have been copied "verbatim" - not that the files contain code that had been copied verbatim..
If this is true (and not a misinterpretation, or the result of judicious editing), then it would be pretty simple to call SCO's bluff, no? You just get a copy of the letter, and take a look at the files in question.
Now the question is: Did the reporter (or editor) do some doctoring, or is SCO actually identifying the alleged stolen code?
And can anyone get a copy of that letter?
Legalese: SCO's Unix licensees are asked to certify that none of their employees or contractors have contributed any Unix code to Linux.
Translation: Give us a letter which we can use as grounds or evidence against you, should we decide to file more lawsuits in the future.
Playbook:
The saddest part of this is that, in this day and age, I can spell "subpoena" without stopping to look it up.
This is not my sandwich.
I'm sorry, if they can make Martha Stewart's life hell for a couple thousand shares of stock (let's talk about insignificant) then they can go after McBride & company, damn it.
Do you have ESP?
Ya know, when I first read this artical I had a thought. SCO's stock price being "artificaly pumped" with all this Linux BS and it is going to correct itself. So hell why not short it.
Because:
----
Open mind, insert foot.