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."
Copied/edited from a comment I posted on Groklaw, and thought very worth mentioning here too. .
--
SCO, based in Lindon, Utah, is also sending letters to many of its 6,000 Unix licensees requiring them to certify in writing that they are complying with SCO licenses, a company executive said. SCO's Unix licensees are asked to certify that none of their employees or contractors have contributed any Unix code to Linux.
Why is this necessary? is it all media show just to look like they're being exceptionally diligent in keeping their property under control, leaning on their licensees to make sure they don't bring up a situation like they claim is happening with IBM, or are they asking for something MORE than is in the original 6000 unix licenses?
Presumably, those licenses (for real SCO Unix customers) already prohibit the revealing of code from SCO products to Linux or anything else, so this step of having those licensees say "no we're not contributing" looks to be a double up of effort. They've signed those licenses, isn't that already enough?.
However, the wording as stated in the article may be relevant. It seems a pairing of two things that may not be related; "certify that you are complying with SCO licenses AND that none of your employees have contributed to Linux". It sounds a little like if you're trying to defend yourself against a drunk driving charge, and are being asked to sign a document saying "certify you did not drive while intoxicated AND that your car now belongs to me". You can refuse and it sounds you're saying you did drive drunk, or you can sign and you've given up your car. There's probably a legal term for this tactic, but of course, IANAL. IANEAP.
So do those existing 6000 licenses NOT cover things adequately? Is it possible those licenses may through loopholes, or just by their very nature, allow some level of code copying as the licensees need, into other products, and SCO is trying to plug a hole that could be undermining them? Is it a double up of what's already in the license, or a way of sneakily extending that license?
Or are they hedging bets, to give them more ammunition/evidence to sue their own customers if the IBM case fails.
For a group of people who make their living in software, slashdotters sure do hate it when someone el$e tries to!
yeah, yeah, I know... -1 flaimbait. *sigh*
quote from one of the stories :
"The new letters, signed by Ryan E. Tibbitts, SCO's general counsel, name more than 65 programming files that "have been copied verbatim from our copyrighted Unix code base and contributed to Linux.""
and
"SCO's Unix licensees are asked to certify that none of their employees or contractors have contributed any Unix code to Linux."
and
"The letters include an olive branch as well as a threat. "Once you have reviewed our position," the Linux letter said, "we will be happy to further discuss your options and work with you to remedy this problem.""
hmmm...reaching for payoffs anyone?!
SCO's solvency may depend upon this meeting. I'd rather see this meeting go O.K. so that SCO survive and the case goes through the courts fully. That way linux is shown in court to be a good member of society.
If SCO go bankrupt before the case gets tested in court it will leave a smear on the good name of linux.
-- Dave
Looks a lot like a BSA stormtrooper threat letter to me... Certify that you are in compliance...
Yeah, like any company with a legal department, or headed by someone smart enough to consult a lawyer will send ANYTHING like that to a litigious company like SCO.
Actually, even that is wrong.. SCaldera isn't just a litigious company... All their R&D and PRODUCTION now is litigation!
If not for their friends at Microsoft, Sun, The Melinda Gates Foundation, and the idiots who keep buying their stock (Don't weep for these people when they lose it all, had they even done a GOOGLE search on SCO they'd have known not to invest) they'd have been bankrupt months ago.
Corporatism != Free Market
Is anyone aware of smaller companies coming together to battle SCO if need be?
As a small company who's lifeblood depends on Linux, it'd be great if we came together to fight SCO if and when the time comes. Pooling our resources would likely work much better than going it alone. It really does give me pause when wondering what I'd do if I were the recipient of this letter.
This whole deal is aggravating to others I'm sure; we want to focus our time and energy on technology, not on what we'll do if SCO starts demanding thousands of dollars from us.
$60/Month Colocated Linux Server
Their time is almost up anyway.
Countdown!
It does however give them a signed document they can produce in a courtroom if one of your employees is found to have contributed some "infringing" code to Linux however. If I were one of SCO's customer's I'd be very worried they were about to pull an RIAA and start sueing the hand that pays the bills real soon now... Now *there's* the legal weasel tactic we all expect from SCO.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
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?
Because SCO already said that they're going after BSD next.
Considering that SCO is on Microsoft and Sun's payroll, I'd think that EVERY non-MS or non-Sun OS product will be the subject of litigation, IF this travesty of a case succeeds.
And one can never tell whether it will or not. The Federal court system from top to bottom has clearly gone insane... Hell, laws can be passed now making it illegal to criticize SCO in ads 30 days prior to them having a board meeting and conference call...
Sound farfetched? It isn't. Once you've made a crack in the first amendment (Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech...), it's easier to use crowbars to widen it than it was to make the crack in the first place...
All it takes now is buying the right Congressmen. And the DMCA shows us how easy THAT is!
Corporatism != Free Market
Its better to be thought of a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt. Personally, I would like to see SCO stand up and provide substantial claims to their suit other than a few lines of code that seem to be so generic anyone could have created them. I believe a few weeks ago a judge ordered SCO to cough up some real prrof and hopefully they run away with their tail between their legs.
Just a thought...
Anyone get the impression that SCO is claiming that lines such as:
in files such as time.h are violating their 'copyright'?
In that case, wouldn't it also be a copyright violation to quote the title of a book? US Law seems to be quite clear that a thing like a book title cannot be copyrighted and plenty of boos share titles.
I think your drunk driving analogy is a bit extreme - you left out the words "Unix code" on that occassion.
:)
Whoops. You're right there.
the latter *is* wrong unless the license of the Unix code concerned permits this, SCO's license does not.
That's the bit I didn't know and the reason I threw those thoughts together in my post, which is all quite a bit of a paranoid rant - they're my thoughts all the same.
If I were one of SCO's customer's I'd be very worried they were about to pull an RIAA and start sueing the hand that pays the bills real soon now... Now *there's* the legal weasel tactic we all expect from SCO.
Linux users, their own customers.. who next? Their ex employees? current employees?
(paranoid, yeah
In my mind Sco does criminal action. A Munich court ruled it anti-competitive, SCO Germany even had to pay a penalty, so we are secure against SCO FUD. A BSA troll used the SCO argument against Linux in a meeting in Germany, but we are more or less safe. Sco infringed basic business rules, when you are concerned about an infringement of copyright, nothing special, it happens, you don't start a public media campaign. Sco mixed up patents and copyright. Its messages to the press were intended to be misguiding.
The case shows how dangerous IPR in the hands of failed companies may become.
SCO's action has to be investigated because of capital market fraud.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
The further point is that SCO don't have the right to determine what happens to copyrights held by other companies.
:: The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't Falling for related discussion.
If a company (lets say... IBM) creates a software form which is copyrighted, they can choose exactly what to do with it. If they want to release it under the GPL, they can do that. If they want to release it to SCO for inclusion in Unix, they can do that too.
Note that, because it is possible for the copyright holder to release exactly the same code under both the GPL and another form of license, should they so wish. They can also create derivative works of the original code of theirs and distribute those derivative works as they see fit.
OpenOffice/StarOffice works on this principle, as (i belive) does one or more of the SQL implementations.
What SCO are claiming in this case is that IBM have effectively assigned all copyrights to SCO for the code in question, and/or that by licensing the code to SCO for use in Linux, the same code cannot also be Licensed for use in Linux. This is a gross misstatement or misunderstanding of the GPL and copyright law.
As copyright holders, IBM can allow anyone they feel like to use their code (including anything they have written regarding JFS, NUMA and SMP).
Note that this means that the code in UNIX does not mean that any part of UNIX will have to be placed under the GPL.
See the Groklaw Article
And with that fact in mind we refer you to the RedHat case on anti-competitive practices.
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
Or better yet: if each and every one who ever contributed code to the kernel (of his own, not copied from elsewhere...) would send a letter to SCO denying them all rights to use that code... Would make SCO's own distribution (Caldera?) pretty useless. Fight fire with fire!
Now that I think about it that all depends on how many photos of high quality ass-scannings are sent in.(I'm sending 4 as a side note)
Preferably, the ass shout have the SCO letter sticking out of it, for additional effect!
Hey, I thought it was supposed to be millions of lines of code.
Interesting how they interpret the need to let customers remedy the situation. They don't tell you how to fix the source and be free of them. They force you to pay them licensing fees.
Even Microsoft was allowed to remove the offending plug-in patented technology from IE as part of a remedy.
hmmm
send a letter to SCO denying them all rights to use that code
Unfortunately they can't, as they have already released the code under the GPL.
I do think however, that now would be a good time to create a modified version of the GPL that specifically bars SCO from using the code.
Especially for Samba.
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.
Is that sort of thing legal in the US of A?
cu,
Lispy
This was already brought up in the past. The SEC isn't interested in pursuing the SCO pump-and-dump scheme because they think it has insignificant effects on the market in general. It's sad, but the only thing the SEC cares about is the general well-being of the stock market. If SCO defrauded all of it's customers it'd still be an insignificant blip on the radar compared to say.. if IBM did.
Good point, however with the recent happenings in the US markets and retirement/pension plans + mutual funds, I'm thinking that the SEC will use SCO as another example of exactly how much power they really have.
"Don't not annoy securities regulators as they are fickle and quick to delist"
If SCO loses it's lawsuit (which as far as I can tell is almost a sure thing), their stock price is going to go straight into the crapper, at which time NASDAQ will delist them.
{yes, I am aware that the SEC and NASDAQ are two different entities. The SEC interprets the rules and NASDAQ & the other markets, boards enforce them}
and IAASB.
Linus should finish the SCO matter by asserting his copyright
to the majority of the Linux kernel.
Forbid SCO to copy or duplicate his kernel.
Then he can sue SCO a mere $699 for each infraction. Poetic justice.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
You own the expression of the idea, in this case the written code.
There is no implied monopoly granted by anyone, but protection of the effort you put into the creation of that idea, or code as in the case of Linux. Theoretically, you can extract every algorithm in Linux, write new code and publish it under any term you want. Copyright does not stand in your way. Even the license clause regarding derivative work does not protect you in this case. You can do the same for Unixware, as long as you steer clear of code protected by patent, and you did not sign a contract stating you would not do this.
You're argument pertains to software patents, and patents in general. It's been many, many years since the patent office required a working model in order to grant a patent. You can have an idea, write it down, apply for a patent and get legal protection for your idea. That's because when you get a patent, you are getting protection under the law to the rights of the invention, which may be an idea under current legislation, and may be a process which includes software algorithms. Arguably, this is a statement of ownership of the idea, which I personally disagree with.
Taking it out of the software realm, a doctor may patent a procedure to save your life, and license it to every practitioner on the planet for a fee. If your doctor refuses to pay the fee, does not use the procedure and you die, too bad. You should have gotten a doctor who was willing to charge you more in order to pay the fee. This is the heinous nature of patent law which, in my opinion, is far worse than one click shopping or your right to use a novel new sort.
Again, I am not a lawyer, just someone who has had to deal with them in these matters. This is just my opinion. Contact a lawyer for legal advice.
there stock price is going up, they will most likely make a profit and all for lying.
As I understand it, SCOX is basicaly owned by Canopy, and if you take a look at their website, you'll see a few companys that they own that are actualy making money by distributing, using, and offering supporting software for Linux, as appossed to SCOX which realy isn't with UNIX. So in the long run if SCOX wins, canopy, will probably lose more than they won.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
There's a big problem with your plan; that other 3-letter acronym named company is at the other end of the shares available spectrum at 1.72 billion shares outstanding. There's no way Slashdotters could obtain the necessary shares of IBM to control it, especially when you consider the institutional ownership.
SCOX:
Shares Outstanding: 13.85M
% Held by Insiders: 45.83%
% Held by Institutions: 31.87%
IBM:
Shares Outstanding: 1.72B
% Held by Insiders: 1.00%
% Held by Institutions: 56.44%
Isn't that UNIX license pretty much irrelevant now anyway, unless you're one of the big commercial UNIX resellers? If you're not IBM, Sun and SGI then why do you need it?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Not insider trading, but a clear case of price orchestration. Also illegal in Europe.
quote: "SCO, based in Lindon, Utah, is also sending letters to many of its 6,000 Unix licensees requiring them to certify in writing that they are complying with SCO licenses, a company executive said. SCO's Unix licensees are asked to certify that none of their employees or contractors have contributed any Unix code to Linux."
Truly mind boggling. I wonder if this is a good reason for a licensee to declare their contract with SCO void if SCO wants to add terms to it, and certainly if they are about use of ANOTHER OS.
This is what worries me. What if they starting sending DMCA takedown letters to ISPs of people who host Linux binaries and source code? Under this flawed piece of legislation, they can (and have) just claim they own the copyrights, and the ISPs have to shut it down unless the mirror and distro owners stick out their necks for legal action.
Hmm, but that logic doesn't seem to quiet liberals complaining about Fox News or conservatives complaining about NPR (I'm a libertarian).
This comment was one of the worst that I have seen, hence I felt the need to respond. It's hard to find a site that can give the sheer amounts of tech data here, but Slashdot just needs to drop the bias.
You're like an alcoholic's drinking buddy. It's people like you who make the editors think that what they're doing is OK. Trust me, the editors get their asses kissed enough around here.
If you don't like my opinions, breeze by them with your scroll button magic. It's just that simple.
Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
ABIs? Well thanks to our very nemesis the DMCA, reverse engineering an ABI is explicity allowed. See US Code Title 17, Section 1201(f)(3-4):
Unless they can conclusively show that the ABI code in question is not part of a published standard and that the code is not a reimplementation but a true, blue copy, then by the DMCA, they have no case. Code that merely mimics the functionality of their copyrighted ABIs is not in violation. Based on the code segments that they claimed in the earlier PowerPoint presentation (code from the V7 release and code written for BSD), I doubt they have much of a case here.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
One thing I am seeing overlooked over and over, is the actual business perception to Linux adoption.
I spoke with a client the other day on a concall, a very large hotel chain in the US, who were in the midst of replacing their CRM systems (front desk check-in systems) with Linux, 600 installs to start with. They wanted some ideas about how to consolidate their server facilities using Linux, and to remove the "low-hanging fruit" (Samba servers, print, file, domain controllers, web, etc.). They also wanted to know if we could 'guarantee' that they would not be sued if SCO wins this case. Since anyone offering such a guarantee would be risking a lot, I mentioned that it was impossible to "insure" against a lawsuit, especially in the U.S., where anyone can be sued for anything, wrong or right, frivolous or legitimate.
Since we can't offer a "Linux Guarantee(tm)", this hotel chain mentioned that they are internally budgeting $699.00 for each Linux deployment they do, to indemnify themselves against the chance that SCO may win, and may sue them.
This is reality .
Companies are unsure about whether Linux is violating SCO's IP, or not, but they don't want to take the chance, no matter how much we advocate, educate, and teach them about the frivolousity of this FUD and lawsuits.
Add to this, the "risk" to a company like this, if I, for example, contribute to Linux (the kernel, or the OS proper), and am an employee of this company. I am now a "risk" to them, because right now, I could be contributing to a project (Linux) that is violating a commercial company's IP (SCO). Companies do not want this risk, and you can bet I'd be laid off/fired for it.
Deploying Linux (right now, to them) is a "risk". Employing people who contribute to Linux is also a "risk", until this thing is settled in the courts .
This is going to affect a lot of industries, jobs, and employment, in an economy which is already ragged and in tatters. The "economy" as a whole is improving, financially, because domestic jobs are being eliminated and offshored. Let's not let it continue, because some commercial litigation company (SCO) decides they want a piece of the pie they don't own and didn't create.
Does anyone know where the V7 source is available online to compare against? Even better would be something more modern. It seems a little meaningless to dig through the Linux kernel sources without something good to compare it against.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Darl just said that the source files in question are "40 or so header files that are included by virtually all applications."
Header files "*.h" are just definition files.
Their contents aren't included when you compile.
Therefore they are "already" removed as they are not there.
I don't see any people within SCO buying shares. They're all unloading it. That shows quite a lot of faith in their cause:
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 S 91 $15.05 0
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 S 300 $15.06 0
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 S 1,300 $15.056 0
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 S 4,949 $15.1 0
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 OE 91 $1.12 91
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 OE 300 $1.12 300
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 OE 1,300 $1.12 1300
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 OE 4,949 $1.12 4949
OLSON MICHAEL P VP 11/11/2003 144 10,000 N/A N/A
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 82 $16.3 51830
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 100 $16.4 51912
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 100 $16.6 54717
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 100 $16.69 54817
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 500 $16.92 51330
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 563 $16.8 50767
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 1,100 $16.5 53617
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 1,350 $16.75 54917
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 1,605 $16.42 52012
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 4,500 $17.0 47330
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 OE 5,500 $2.07 56267
OLSON MICHAEL P VP 10/11/2003 144 10,000 N/A N/A
OLSON MICHAEL P VP 09/11/2003 144 10,000 N/A N/A
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 09/02/2003 AS 23 $14.721 105300
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 09/02/2003 AS 300 $14.714 105000
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 09/02/2003 AS 400 $14.72 105323
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 09/02/2003 AS 4,277 $14.71 105723
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/26/2003 AS 5,000 $14.74 110000
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/26/2003 AS 5,000 $14.74 110000
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/19/2003 AS 700 $10.44 119300
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/19/2003 AS 4,300 $10.4 115000
BENCH ROBERT K. CFO 08/08/2003 AS 7,000 $10.9 221043
BENCH ROBERT K. CFO 08/08/2003 144 7,000 N/A N/A
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/05/2003 AS 1,900 $12.57 123100
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/05/2003 AS 3,100 $12.56 120000
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/30/2003 AS 100 $12.81 129900
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/30/2003 AS 4,900 $12.8 125000
HUNSAKER JEFF F. VP 07/23/2003 AS 100 $13.35 23894
HUNSAKER JEFF F. VP 07/23/2003 AS 100 $13.43 24494
HUNSAKER JEFF F. VP 07/23/2003 AS 500 $13.4 23994
HUNSAKER JEFF F. VP 07/23/2003 AS 900 $13.44 24594
HUNSAKER JEFF F. VP 07/23/2003 AS 3,400 $13.3 20494
HUNSAKER JEFF F. EMP 07/23/2003 144 5,000 N/A N/A
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 100 $13.0 130000
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 100 $13.2 149900
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 200 $13.19 149700
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 800 $13.02 145900
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 1,300 $13.1 130100
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 3,000 $13.07 146700
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 3,700 $13.13 131400
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 10,800 $12.91 135100
lib/ctype.c
/*
Considering this:
* linux/lib/ctype.c
*
* Copyright (C) 1991, 1992 Linus Torvalds
*/
Oh. My. Fucking. God.
I would think AT&T, which IIRC held the Unix copyrights at the time, would have complained long ago were they to find this file infringing on anything. It's also likely it would have been changed if necessary following USL/BSD, just to get Linux clear of any potential legal fallout.
The cute thing is that while in 2.4.x the errno.h files are separate, if very similar, in 2.6 many of them simply call asm-generic/errno.h. Now it sounds like SCO is claiming people can't even write Unix-likes that conform to a Unix standard (I assume this is pretty much POSIX?). Meanwhile, this still has little to no bearing on the IBM lawsuit, unless SCO wants to claim that IBM's involvement with Linux over the past couple of years taints a file that appears to have been last copyrighted in 1992, the signal calls, input/output controls for various architectures, and error numbers.
This is not "millions of lines", unless SCO considers the entire kernel--every last line--infringing by virtue of being compiled into the same monolithic file as the headers in question. I imagine the BSD folks will have something to say about this, since it could potentially affect them as well, especially in light of an SCO threat to go after BSDs as well.
I'd ask if a bunch of lawyers and execuhacks can be this incompetent, but it seems pretty clear to me that SCO is making a pathetic attempt to raise quick cash, and they can't keep their story straight from one day to the next. Did Laura DiDio, and anyone else who signed the NDA, seriously spend hours looking at copies of errno.h and ioctl.h? The files containing code that SCO showed at their last major conference aren't listed in this letter, despite being passed off as rock-solid examples of copyright infringement at the time to investors.
Pathetic, unless I'm missing something here.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
-
8. COPYRIGHT. All title and intellectual property rights in and to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (including but not limited to any images, photographs, animations, video, audio, music, text, and "applets" incorporated into the SOFTWARE PRODUCT), the accompanying printed materials, and any copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT are owned by Microsoft or its suppliers. All title and intellectual property rights in and to the content which may be accessed through use of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is the property of the respective content owner and may be protected by applicable copyright or other intellectual property laws and treaties. This EULA grants you no rights to use such content.
Note that last line.Nowhere in Microsoft's EULA is there an indemnification clause, in which Microsoft would guarantee to defend the end user against copyright claims by third parties arising out of copyrighted material shipped by Microsoft. IBM's Linux customers now have such contractual protection, but Microsoft customers are out in the cold.
Well, first and foremost, of course, it's SCO. But they seem to have a partner in crime, so to speak.
The popular press. If not for the press' focus on hype over content the SCO fiasco would have fizzled quite some time ago.
I have yet to see a reporter consistantly ask the tough questions. Questions like:
"Mr. McBride. Would you care to give a reply regarding statements made by those in the Linux community, as well as other in well established business sectors about their position that they 'need to see what a SCO Unix license is paying for'?"
or,
"Would you care to make a statement regarding why your brother Kevin McBride represented SCO in court and not someone from Mr. Boies' firm, especially given the ~$9 million in legal fees SCO has paid for representation?"
Instead, we get headlines that revolve around the issues but never really focus on the heart of the matter - The Code?
IMHO the press coverage seems to take the ever popular "he said, she said" format. for example:
SCO Position Under Fire
SCO Group Launches Broadside Against GPL
SCO Loses First Legal Round in Linux Battle
Open-Source Legal Experts Dismiss SCO's Copyright Claims
Denial-of-Service Attack Knocks SCO Group Offline
Some Security Experts Doubt SCO Was Attacked
SCO Dismisses Importance of Early Court Loss
SCO Letter Demands Certification From Unix Customers
SCO Identifies Copyrighted Code in Linux
Long time to get to the real question:
Show me the code=What the hell are you talking about?
If not for some sites like Groklaw would the popular press even really have a clue what the real issue is?
It was and is about the product (which SCO seems to think is an after thought to a business strategy).
To restate the real question in blunt everyday language:
To SCO
what the hell are you talking about?
What code?
When one refers to the base issue to this picture then it becomes clear. We all know that many are and have asked this question and the it's SCO that is perpetrating this scenario.
My problem is our illustrious fourth estate (aka the press) seems more than willing to participate as a player in this endevour, rather than being what they are really supposed to be - an observer and inquirer of facts and happenings. In otherwords, they don't want to find out what is really going on because they get so much more out of milking it - as long as it keeps a certain sensationalistic aire about it. Facts are dry and not all that exciting. Drama on the other hand... And that's what the popular press is all about because drama gathers more revenue than facts.