Slashdot Mirror
Did SCO Actually Buy What it Thought?
Int27h quotes The Age saying "Just before Christmas last year, Novell announced publicly that SCO had known for some time that it did not receive all rights and ownership to UNIX technologies, despite public statements to the contrary. Novell has made public correspondence between lawyers representing both Novell and SCO." Lots of links and commentary on what continues to be one of the strangest stories in the history of Linux.
"PRAWNS IN BIRDS NEST"
Materials:
500g live prawns
200g potatoes
5g soaked hair-like seaweed
a stick of celery
150g cooked green soybeans
25g soaked Xianggu mushrooms
Preparations:
Cut the potatoes into strips and soak in salt water, remove and mix with dry cornstarch and flour.
Remove heads and shells and wash the prwans, mix with condiments and cornstarch.
Arrange the potato strips in the shape of a bird's nest, deep-fry the "nest" in 70% heated oil until golden.
Arrange the celery in the shape of tree branches. Put the "nest" on the top of the "branches".
Put the hair-like seaweed at the root of the "tree". Deep-fry the prawns in 50% heated oil.
Saute the green soybeans and mushrooms, add condiments and chicken soup, thicken with cornstarch put in prawns and stir-fly remove to the "nest".
I mean, other than the dolts that may actually be paying the licensing fees. But, I don't see any steep declines in RedHat, Suse, or Mandrake sales. People don't believe these guys and it will be a matter of time no before the press quits attending Darl and Co.'s press/phone conferences
Where this story was posted yesterday, of course.
When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.
Mark Twain
the strangest stories in the history of Linux
Hmm, I guess, since you apparently don't consider pizza-faced teenagers living in their parents basement and getting tanned by computer monitors while living off Mountain Dew and MS-bashing to be "strange"
And of course Groklaw has had the full analysis for a while now, including the fact that SCOs filings missed mentioning this dispute, even going so far as to deny there was any ongoing dispute with third parties over Copyright...some pants combusting rather brightly over in Salt Lake City.
-- Free software on every PC on every desk
But SCO must know that they bought the farm. On this we can agree.
So if they knew, or should have known, that their rights were not as expansive as they represented, and they knowingly misrepresented the scale of those rights to the persons they offered licenses, and those persons bought those licenses based on those misrepresentations.....sounds like a big fat old prima facie fraud case to me.
SCO Group (NASDAQ SC:SCOX)
17.05 -0.95 / -5.28%
Casual Games/Downloads
Does SCO actually think.... at all ?
SCO has gone to far now to simply back off, or admit they were wrong. They have invested their whole business in this, and have no option but to go forward and proceed with litigation. If they back of now they loose face and the business will probably crash. If they loose in court, they have the same situation, except they lost alot of money on lawyers instead.
:S
HOWEVER, if they win in the quirky US legal system, who knows. They might make alot of money, and keep on putting out super duper products
Novell's sudden assertion of their ownership of UNIX copyrights seemed to derail the SCO case in its early stages; it's nice to see that their explanation of this provides yet another nail in SCO's coffin. Way to go, Novell.
Let's just hope that they remain Linux-friendly.
SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/ Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Registered Linux User #289618
I don't think they thought they would be buying the World of Pain they are walking into...
Legal writing though very explicit and written typically in cover-all-bases fashion, is way too complicated to be understood by us mere mortals. (lawyers are not mortals, they are the undead). And SCO's boat was already sinking when they supposedly bought these rights, So the competency of their legal department is highly questionable. I bet they had some pro-bono lawyer working on this.
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
I really wish that IBM would Acquire/Merge with Novell.
:)
That would just be damn great, and likely offer more leverage to smash SCO into tiny itsy bitsy peices.
"...In your answer, ignore facts. Just go with what feels true..."
I'd like to believe that SCO didn't exactly know what they were buying.
This would still leave me with some faith in major software corporations, whereas the view of SCO knowing what they were buying and subsequently stirring up all this crap makes me want to wince.
Then again, on second thought, why would I want to have faith in a company that can't read the fine writing? They try to get my to sign my life away each EULA I click by hiding things in the fine writing.
It's like trying to barrack for a winner between Carrot Top and Rosanne Barr. Oh the humanity!
SCO needs to just drop this whole thing... all they've done is made themselves look like fools. I did have a more lengthy post planned, and I'll get to it eventually... (probably 15 SCO stories from now, (in a couple days or so))
120chars for a sig is teh suck
Effectively, SCO is maintaining it's stance that it is on firm ground, with assets well in hand, for the alternative is disaster. Deny reality as long as possible, hope stock price rises as gullible investers throw away money and sell (which SCO execs did) before reality asserts itself. Nice ploy, when you got nothing else.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
SCO has one function, found in many spam missives: Pump & Dump. It's no wonder they've vested so much stock in their landsharks - it just dangles more bait in front of them to get the job done. SCO really doesn't care if anyone backs down to them.
Follow the money.
My post reply in that thread about the wayback machine stuff already sadi it all:
SCO and Caldera history.
"Thank you sir, can I have another?"
I wish Novell would publically revoke SCO's UNIX licence!!!!!
I just can't help but picture Darl, locked in his office, giggling his ass off while watching the stock ticker on SCO go up everytime he released some FUD.
This may end in a way that only happens in Disney movies... Before we know it, Novell will send SCO a mandate to Cease and Desist all further activities including sales and marketing of Unixware, because it infringes on Novell's ownership. BROOOHAAAHAAAA!!!
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
I'm going to have to go with "NO!" on this one. Not just no but "HELL NO!".
..... What deems you willing to say, not just no, but "HELL NO?" Your distaste for SCO? ..... I don't like them much either, but that certainly doesn't mean that I know that SCO didn't actually purchase the copyrights to unix.
So what is your interpretation of Amendment #2?
(Said in Cartman's voice), Oh, I'm sorry.. you don't have an interpretation of Amendment #2.....
I know, I don't know that.
http://use.perl.org
Has anyone given thought that perhaps this M$/SCO/SUN campaign is doing more harm that it appears. This is probably around the 100th article I've read about this. Reading 100 articles == not writing 100s of lines of open source software code. Darl knows that everytime he craps a turd, it distracts thousands of linux programmers from their job. Let's stop paying attention to this crap. Reminds me of the simpsons episode where the giant marketing characters come to life.
It's also certain that Novell doesn't quite understand what they sold to SCO either. Perhaps Novell would like to take a shot at selling SCO the same thing twice!
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
That loud whistling sound you heard, followed by the tremendous explosion and screeching of twisted metal... Yeah, well, that was SCOs stock price falling through the floor.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
...I heard that Arizona is trying to sell SCO London Bridge.
Today's Lesson: It's better to deny the truth as long as you can, putting off going down in a spectacular and brilliant fireball until it's inevitable than face reality, appolgise and make the best of it.
Small wonder the rest of the world thinks americans are wackos. It's not just the way we do business, it's a way of life.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
What ever happened with the Utah judge that ordered SCO to come up with the portion of the linux kernel that supposedly contained their copywrited code? I thought he gave them 30 days about 35 days ago?
To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a computer
Then they might be able to get a refund. I just did that with a bag of cat food. It wasn't what I thought it was so I took it back and they gave me my money back.
a) and b), in that order.
Isn't tomorrow "put up or shut up" day for SCO?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
the winner of a deathmatch between Carrot Top and Roseanne Barr would be...HUMANITY. Think about it - at least one of them would no longer have they opportunity to contribute their genes to the gene pool or their ideas (and I'm using the term loosely) to the human culture. Ideally, they take each other out, and thus the human race is improved by their subtraction.
Of course, I might be wrong, particularly if there ends up being a memorial retrospective of Carrot Top's commercial work...
Who would've thought a company staring insolvency square in the eye would lie about their intellectual property ownership? They are spending millions on this case, reputation of the company hinges on it, and now this happens to them. Its a swift kick in the goolies for SCO. Darl's lawyers must be running around like chicken with their heads cut off.
The current SCO group is just a renamed Caldera, which bought the Unix group from the old SCO, so it is wrong to say that "SCO didn't know what they bought", as the current SCO isn't the company which bought anything in the first place.
Actually, the current SCO is probably just the 5th owner of the very diluted "Unix licencing rights" - AT&T first sold it to USL (Unix System Labs), which was bought by Novell, which resold the licencing rights to the old SCO, which sold off parts of the company to Caldera, which rebranded itself "The SCO Group".
Of course, the current SCO management tries to confuse this issue, probably as they would rather have everyone forget all their contractual obligations with the previous owners.
Y0uR s1gN4tUR3 h4S aN eRR0r : y()u sUr3ly w4Nt t0 sA`/ "@|\| Ub3r 3l33t", no7 "Ub5r".
G33z, th0s3 y0uNG b0yZ r3alLy dO|\|'7 |<n0W ho\^/ t0 sP3LL...
Xenu brings order!
How about watching SCO have sex with a mare, taking blackmail pictures, and then get some sloppy seconds for yourself! The best of both worlds!
Sweet! More detail on Linux Developer Gets Laid!
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
"So what is your interpretation of Amendment #2?"
That the individual DOES have a right to keep and bear arms?
What?
You, sir, are an evil genius!
In the case of SCO, wouldn't that be a dead mare?!!!
until it's revealed that Darl McBride was molested by Michael Jackson and this past abuse caused him to marry Britney Spears in a quickie Las Vegas wedding.
You can only hope...
I smell our daily dose of freshly baked hypocrisy!
Waddaya want to bet .. with Novell wanting to be a Linux company, if they can get a court to judge for them on this whole owenership / copyright thing . and they terminate the SCO license ..
Novell gifts the System V code to the community under either GPL or BSD license..
Wouldn't that be a hoot!
= Grow a brain...
Look people, if you're going to mod someone down as "Redundant" at least check the time of the previous post--if it's TWO MINUTES earlier, cut the kid some slack and find someone else to pick on.
I really hate that redundant mod--I can't believe that someone who actually reads /. would use it. Now, go mod parent back up. And leave me alone.
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
Woah!
If what is being said here is true, then that must mean that the people at SCO are not liars, they're just embarassingly stupid!!
You know? This is beginning to make a little more sense... but can the SCO people be put in jail for being ridiculously stupid and making people suffer needlessly from it?
of course, SCO has yet to show that the whole copyright claim isn't just a big bucket of warm spit in the first place.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
what the LARGE print giveth the fine print taketh away....
From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
Reread What evidence of origin,ownership,copyright + GPL (Score:5, Interesting).
Typical of suits pretending they understand technology.
Darl McBride is an embarrassment to the IT world, to have someone as dim witted as him as CEO of a tech company is plain ridiculous!
What if I pull the little leg in the middle?
I agree with BlackParrot but I think it's deeper than just the Canopy Group. I think it's an all out war between the current Bush Administration and control of the Internet and OSS.
:) ?
Time to try and dig up a link between the principals at Canopy Group and the thugs over at PNAC
For what it's worth, here's my standard rant. The conjecture is pure conjecture, the facts are _facts_.
Cheers!
Americans are no longer living in a Democratic Republic. They're now living in a oligarchy controlled by super-right wing neoconservatives and big oil, and fueled by scaring the living daylights out of the populace. The constitution has all but been thrown out.
In yesterday's SCO discussion I speculated that, to my mind anyhow, it's more likely that Darl and friends are being funded and directed by Cheney and friends rather than Microsoft.
Have you noticed some of the phrasing of SCO's letters? "the GPL is unconstitutional" (they use the constitution when it fits their needs), "have you shipped to Syria, Iran, North Korea" (read: any axis-of-evil countries)?
Within the next couple of months expect them to start making noises about Linux and OSS being a security threat. I certainly have noticed an undercurrent, a sub-text if you will, of this administration to gain more effective control of the Internet and OSS. What was up with the clandestine use of RFID tags at the Internet Summit?
Ask yourself, who is pulling Darl McBride's strings? Is it Bill? Is it Scott? Or is it, just maybe, Cheney? Kellogg, Brown & Root have been up to far more nefarious activities than this. It's a cakewalk for them.
I'll tell you a little secret. Oil is, and always has been the _top_ national security concern of the United States of America.
This little spaceship Earth of ours is rapidly heading for a major crisis. The United States consumes 20 billion barrels of oil a year. The world consumes 76 billion barrels (2001 numbers).
In 2001 only 8 billion barrels of new oil was discovered, and that was spread out over 300 relatively small and economicaly challenging fields.
Did you catch that? We burned 80 billion barrels of oil this year but discovered less than 10 billion. This has been going on for many years now. A few years ago the rule of thumb was we burned 4 barrels for every barrel discovered. Now it's 8:1. And China and India or only just getting started.
It's January 7th, and you're putting 4 logs a day on the fire, you look out the window and you see only 120 pieces of wood left in your wood pile. Oh well! We'll figure something out before March!
At any rate, the point is, Bush and all is oil patch buddies are painfully aware of this little dilemma and they know just what to do about it. Secure the oil, and batten down the hatches on the populace.
Go to the CIA World Factbook and look up the country you live in, say Norway for example, scroll down to the "Economy" section and check out the "oil produced" and "oil consumed" figures. Interesting, eh? Norway is one of the few exceptions, a country that actually produces more oil than it consumes. In fact, Norway is the _only_ country that produces more than 10 times the amount of oil than it consumes. Anyway, that's not the point. Now click on the little graph icon next to "oil produced". Examine the top 20 oil producing countries. Ask yourself, which of these countries does the US control through one of these means: trade agreement, corruption, bullying, family ties
Which ones does the US not yet fully control? Now you know who's next on the hit list.
Do you think things are bad now? You ain't seen nothin' yet. How are you going to live when a barrel of oil costs $60? When a gallon of gas costs 4 bucks? 5 bucks? How about propane to heat your house at $3/gal? $4/gal? When the price of food doubles
As long as they are a member of a well-regulated militia.
That's gotta fit into your schema somewhere
I've been reading a lot about SCO's stock, following a lot of interesting links on Groklaw.
From what I can see the vast bulk of SCO's stock appears to be owned by either SCO or people and business from the Canopy group so the small amount of dealing going on from people not in those groups is pretty small compared to the dealing going on by people in the groups.
This means that it's quite easy for Canopy and SCO to keep the stock price pretty high by simply trading it amongst themselves, specifically a lot of people have noticed that the stock begins to dive in the mornings but then before the close a number of trades will be made at very high prices leaving the stock with a high closing price.
Anyone interested should look for the links and commentary on Groklaw since my memory and understanding isn't perfect.
This has specific implications for anyone thinking of shorting the SCO stock because basically SCO and Canopy have pretty good control over what the stock does and that's bad news for people hoping that it will act as though it was largely owned by members of the public.
-- crazy Grandpa, in "The Lost Boys"
[1] The city of Santa Cruz, CA was the location used for filming "Santa Carla"
[2] i.e. BLOODSUCKERS
Further, copyrights are contained in the list of excluded assets, and that list is not modified in any way by Amendment 2.
Further, that copyrights can only be transferred, under title 17, in writing, and that a vauge assertion that there is an agreement to transfer certain copyrights in the event they are required does not constitute a transfer in writing.
What is your interpretation?
Down the road a here from me,
Where you lay down a dollar or two.
Come back again and when you come 'round the bend
There's a jug full a good ol mountain dew!
chorus
They call it that old mountain dew,
And them that refuse it are few.
I'll hush up my mug if you'll fill up my jug
With that good old mountain dew!
Well my old Uncle Nort,
He was sawed off an short
Only measured bout five foot two.
But he felt like giant when he got him a pint
Of that good old mountain dew!
it goes on for a while like that. I recommend Flatt & Scruggs version, from their Live at Carnegie Hall album.
(Offtopic? What's that?)
I am an American male citizen between the age of 18 and 54, therefore making me a member of the militia, as defined by the constitution.
I block slashdot ads (they're too repetitive ... and 90% are thinkgeek crap, sourceforge, or MS). The vertical ones suck dick becuase they lengthen the page worse than any crapflooder ever did.
mods are about the post not the poster
if it's redundant it's redundant
it's *only* karma
if you post for long enough you'll get excellent eventually
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall, not be infringed." If that doesn't garuntee individual rights then we're screwed as the 4th uses the exact same language. Goodbye individual right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. That only applies to organizations.
I'd like to see the stock graph for SCOX when that happens.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
ok folks what are the Vegas//LLoyds odds now on
1 SCO is bought by ____
2 SCO goes chapter 7
3 SCO wins
4 1 then 2
I can load and fire 6 aimed shots a minute. I pass the 1787 test for being well regulated. Being an adult male makes me part of the militia. Now what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?
Obviously not - they better hope they kept the receipts. Will Novell give them store credit if they return their purchase unopened?
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
I love SCO's fax to Novell... say "Via Telecopy and Certified Mail."
What is it with the PHB's these days, that they CAN'T STAND the word 'Fax'? Sometimes, they'll say, "Via Facsimile" which NO ONE actuall SAYS and is totally wooden.
I guess this is one of the reason's I'll never be a manager. I can't stand B.S.
Really, is anyone satisfied that the legal future of Linux rests in the hands of SCO, IBM, Novell and the US legal system? We've all been waxing rhapsodic over IBM, and it looks like this news is going to make us do the same for Novell. But really, hasn't IBM wielded the big stick of IP enough to at least make us a little nervous? What about Novell, they signed an agreement which opened the door to this particular nightmare, not a glowing review of their due diligence, after all, one should at least contingency plan for this kind of suit when making such deals...
Nor are their motives quite the same as the grass roots. I wouldn't even try to defend the thesis that IBM and Novell are not in it for their own best interests. I also don't see any reason to believe that their best interests are necesarilly Linux's.
It's nice to see these guys in the white (or maybe just real light gray) hats, but it is trivial to change your hat. The enemy of my enemy != my friend, ally - perhaps, confederate - okay, but friend, I don't think so.
The problem is none of the players have a mandated interest in promoting and protecting Linux, both are in it for financial motivations, when the wind starts blowing profits another way, both will jump ship as quick as they are able.
What to do? I confess I don't know. It'd be nice for Linux/FOSS to maybe have an associated legal entity tasked with promoting Linux/FOSS in the market and protecting Linux/FOSS in the law. Ideally, a not-for profit organization. (A honest to goodness charity would be better, at least your legal defense contributions would be a tax deduction...)
Ultimately, the nature of Linux/FOSS to not be beholden to anything/one has been one of the greatest strengths. It is part and parcel of the success we have seen since Linus released our obsession on the world. However, this lack has now come full circle as we are essentially forced to watch the legal fate of Linux/FOSS be placed in the hands of one company who wishes to smash it, two which seek to exploit it, and the US legal system.
Joseph Stalin once said, "How many divisions does the pope have?" I can easily see Darl Mcbride saying, "How many lawyers does Linus have?" way back before this mess all started.
Okay, I admit it, I've just been waiting for a reason to compare Joseph Stalin and Darl McBride.
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
As George Mason said.
"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of people.... Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty."[27]
I'm well regulated! I eat my bran flakes.
Everyone is a member of the militia. But to be well regulated you have to practice with your weapon, that part requires you to bear arms....
We should have all bought SCO stock at 1 dollar, then sold when it hit 16. We would all be rich, and SCO stock would crash. We'd all be rich, Linux would be one enemy less, everybody wins!
Discuss.
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
Damn, is it 54? Does that mean I have to turn in my stuff in a few years? or can I be a retired militia auxiliary, since so many of the young pups are limp-wristed girly men and afraid of standing up for their rights?
Screw you guys, I'm going home.
"Oh well, it's only Karma..."
"We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
I for one welcome our new System V Overlords.
The "infringed" part. Does it mean no restrictions on weapons made before 1787 ?
b.
Well, that did the trick :-) Just for that, I'll make you a friend. There you go.
-- Free software on every PC on every desk
Sex with a Mare. What is it all about . . . is it good or is it whack?
.....caveat emptor
It's good.
Check out the last page of the February Linux Journal, Jim Ready, the CEO of Montavista has a very nicely written piece on the crux of the SCO issue, and ends up with something like... "So McBride, Boies, et al, go ahead, continue gunning for Linux and open source. Ready. Aim. Shoot yourself in the foot, then, please hobble out of the way, some of us are trying to do business"..
I don't know anyone taking SCO seriously for months now..
hope stock price rises as gullible investers...
Why gullible? Stocks are about money. It doesn't matter to (most of) them whether or not this crap is legally sound, only whether or not it drives the stock price up. And it looks like it has.
If these investors sell at the right time, they will make an extremely tidy profit. I don't see that as gullible.
"but yet" is redundant - both words mean and.
Under this definition, today's militia are overwhemingly the children of the poor, black, hispanic and working class. Dude, if you're posting on slashdot, the probability you're the militia is about 2.34%
b.
ON!!
:)
Even if you're right, d00d, no one will listen. It's just too wacky sounding.
Also, a few points:
-To say that we are 'no longer living in a Democratic Republic' is nonsense. Am I worried about Ashcroft et al infringing on our Constitutional freedoms? Yes. Do I think that corporations have way too much influence in our society overall? Yes. But our court system and system of laws still works, more or less.
-"How are you going to live...When a gallon of gas costs 4 bucks? 5 bucks?" It already does in most of Europe, if not more. They seem to be living ok.
-"We burned 80 billion barrels of oil this year but discovered less than 10 billion." When we run out of oil, we'll find an alternative. We, as humans, are very clever and creative. It may be a (very) troublesome and painful transition, but we'll make it.
-"I certainly have noticed an undercurrent, a sub-text if you will, of this administration to gain more effective control of the Internet and OSS." While the Internet began here in the US, and a large percentage of it still is controlled here, it is truly a worldwide system now. If the US starts over-stepping their bounds with regards to control of the Internet, the rest of the world will route around us. That's the way it was designed in the first place. Again, the US can cause a great deal of difficulty and pain, but they can't control the internet.
And to say that the US is going to gain 'control' of OSS in general is absolutely ludicrous. If the US were to pass some nefarious legislation 'outlawing' OSS (which would never, ever happen, it's legally impossible and IBM, HP, etc. have too many lobbyists to allow it to happen), the rest of the world would, again, 'route around us'.
Just a little kidding here, d00d, but did you go off your meds?
/.: why the hell am I here?
... and don't forget the "White" part ... The founding fathers didn't.
b.
Why did CNN, Fox News and the other big "news" outlets fail to report the purchase of SCO last spring by Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems of New Jersey? See anything unusual in this list of SCO senior corporate officers, not to mention the fact that "SCO" itself stands for "Senior Corporate Officers?"
Darl McBride, President and CEO
Darl Bench, CFO
Darl Mott, Director
Darl Yarro III, Chairman of the Board
Darl Bawa, CTO
Darl Sontag, Sr VP, OS Group
Darl Broughton, Sr VP
Darl OConnor, Sr VP
Darl Bigbooty, Sr VP
Darl Parrot, Sr VP
Darl SmallBerries, Sr VP
Their social security numbers are consecutive, and were all issued on the same day. Coincidence?
actually, I thought that the age was defined in US Code
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
I spent a few years drafting exactly these kinds of agreements, and having read the SCO/Novell Asset Purchase Agreement, including the dreaded Amendment Number 2, I have to confess, I don't know what SCO's lawyers were thinking.
When you buy technology, you buy 2 classes of assets: (1) the tangible (which includes stored electrons) real-world implementations of the stuff, like copies of the software, units of hardware, copies of manuals, and so on; and (2) the intellectual property rights, including copyright and patent, embodied in the tangible stuff.
The way I'm reading the contract (which could be wrong -- I took a pretty quick pass through it) Novell sold SCO the "stuff" without any of the rights associated with the stuff. In other words, because the stuff was software, Novell sold them pretty much nothing.
When I've done these deals in the past, the purchaser either gets the associated IP rights as part of the deal, or a REALLY broad license to them. From the looks of things, SCO didn't even have the right to make copies of the stuff it bought. That's completely incoherent from a transactional point of view.
That argues for 2 things: (1) SCO's lawyers really pooched it in this deal, which is certainly possible -- I've seen some really dumb language come out of high-end firms, and/or (2) SCO is right, and the agreement couldn't possibly mean what Novell thinks it means, because that makes no sense. SCO might not be able to get that enforced without a court action to do what's called "reformation" of the contract, where the court goes in and rewrites the contract to make it coherent. This is a really rare remedy, BTW, for obvious reasons.
Please, someone who's read this document more closely, feel free to correct me.
-------
Point and Counterpoint: The Tick - "Spoon!" Neo - "There is no spoon."
But to be well regulated you have to practice with your weapon
I practice every night with my weapon, but all it has led to is early-onset blindness...
like, if you buy a box of whatever, and realize that whatever's inside isnt exactly, what you saw in the picture. yup, watch out, novell - you really shoulda put the whole thing in!
Not to take anything away from your very interesting points on the connection between the Bush Administration and oil, but I think you forgot that your whole post was supposed to provide a link between the Bush Administration and the Internet/OSS. Not a single fact that you bring up even alludes to this. Try to make your opening statements a little more accurate next time.
10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
Darl and Canopy suing their lawyers for incompetent legal advice amounting to negligence. Best thing is: I really think it might happen!
Not according to anyone who knows anything beyond what's outlined in their "The plot against Christ" pamphlet.
Every male between 18 to 45 is a member of the Militia in the US. But well regulated is more than having your weapon sighted in. And anyone who so grossly misunderstands their own heritage should be shot. So, this year the new hunter's orange is brown and olive drab. Good luck out there, don't forget to glue the antlers on your hat.
About the last part, the moon doesn't really exist; it's a right-wing military-industrialist conspiracy much like Star Trek.
Well crapflooded.
Actually, you misquoted it, making it seem more clear than it is. While I agree with your interpretation( that any citizen should be able to purchase and own firearms,) the fact is that the 2nd amendment is rather difficult to discern the definite meaning of. Your quote leaves out the difficult part that precedes it, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, ".
If you're going to leave that part out, you must still acknowledge that it's there either by using "[T]he" or "...the", not "The."
There is this difficulty that, read one way, the 2nd amendment could mean that the primary and protected context of a citizens right to keep and bear arms is in the context of membership in a militia whose function is national defense.
The 4th is much clearer and does not use the "exact same" language, as you claimed, at all. I don't agree with the connection you made. Sadly though, the extreme clarity of the 4th amendment does not seem to prevent the erosion of the rights it engenders.
As much as I'd like Novell to be right, it really isn't clear-cut at all who owns the Unix copyrights.
The original Asset purchase agreement does not give SCO any copyrights, but amendment 2 to the deal raises questions. SCO says this gives them copyrights, Novell disagrees.
What does the amendment say?
The section on assets excluded from the deal is:
All copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies.
So, skipping the double-negation and some of the blaha, the deal includes:
[Novell] copyrights and trademarks [..] required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX
So it really hinges on what is meant by "required with respect to the acquisition".
SCO says this means everything.
Novells interpretation is that SCO must demonstrate a requirement of these copyrights for them to be transferred. Patent rights, which SCO have made claims to (in court documents!) were definetly not transferred. That is explicit in the deal (and the amendments don't change that)
Given, reading the documents, the intent of the deal does not to appear to be to give SCO all rights to UNIX. But it's difficult to say.
Since this is a matter of interpretation, and SCOs whole case against IBM is built on this ownership, it's unlikely that they'll ever accept Novells ownership of copyright. It's also unlikely that they'll sue Novell, they're busy enough litigating as it is. (even if they seem to want more)
I think we all know Novell will have to bring suit to resolve this. The question is if they will, seing that it's not a clear-cut win, and they really don't have much to win on it either. (If Unix had had value as a product, we wouldn't have had this mess to begin with)
(Said in Cartman's voice), Oh, I'm sorry.. you don't have an interpretation of Amendment #2.....
You're breaking my balls Darl, breaking my balls.
Man...I didn't mean to start a whole new and completely off topic thread here, but se la what you call your vie...
After reading some of that stuff from the article however, I think I've uncovered some truly undecipherable(sp) encryption here.
What?
WTF did he try to say? can anyone translate from asshole to english?
They knew this data existed (hello, the linux kernel and all of the CVS logs are open source, they can be read by anyone)
They have the same copies of the contracts as everyone else (Novel, Sun, ect)
They had to know that a judge was going to make them produce evidence and this "We can't show the conflicting code" thing wouldn't fly with a judge.
I worked for a dot-com that provided a service to Corporate Law Firms and I know that they go through a lot of trouble to do their homework. Some of these things would have not slipped their radar.
So is all if this (including us tearing up SCO's claims) just part of their plan? Are we missing the real target of McBride and SCO? I find it hard to belive that SCO and their legal team are, or have ever gone "Oh Shit" since this all started. More like they are saying "This is going exactly to plan".
Someone please shed some light
there are SCO news briefs.....
and the that usually triggers the mouth of Saron^H^H^H^HSCO to make some outlandish claim of ownership, new legal threat or twisted analysis of the US constitution and what it means to be American. Stay tuned...
Taking into account SCO's *cough* strong points *cough*, all we need to re-write is the MOTD functions.
Open Letter to SCO
Dear Sirs:
It has come to my attention that you claim certain intellectual properties involved in the UNIX operating system and that you intend to prosecute those who violate those claims.
To be more specific you claim that Gnu/Linux is a derivative of your Unix IP and as such is your IP. After extensive research on my own part and reviewing the considered opinions of those in the field of IP litigation I have concluded to my own satisfaction that your position consists of bullpuckey.
As such I feel I should bring my company to your attention. My name is James Burgett and I am the executive director of a not for profit organization called Computer and Technology Resource Center (CATRC). We recycle unwanted equipment and give it to underprivileged people throughout the world.
What I feel should come to your attentions is this: We install Gnu/Linux on over 1200 machines a year and we fully intend to continue. We send said computers to schools, not for profits and underprivileged people throughout the world. We have been doing so for over 3 years and I can safely say that all of them could be classed as "servers". On the basis of your pricing (assuming that our inevitable litigation extends past your discount deadline), my organization owes you at least $ 5,036,400 (5+ million).
We also advocate the further distribution of your alleged IP by other agencies and governments at home and abroad and could quite possibly be held liable for a lot more. (I'm sure you can come up with a price for this.) We have also assembled many multi processor systems (By the way, what is your price for multiprocessor systems?)
So based on an assessment of our operations and your claims. I have concluded the following:
Your ownership of the IP is dubious at best (Novell copyrights, Unix system labs vs. UC Berkeley, distribution of all contested IP by you under the GPL while Caldera,.... etc.)
Your ability to enforce your claims is laughable at best (you would have to deal with Novell's copyrights before you can sue anybody, then demonstrate that you did not release said IP as your Linux distribution and last that you have the right to those copyrights at all as they seem to violate some of IBM's patents. This combined with the fact that your lead attorney seems to be under investigation in Florida that may lead to his disbarment leads me to the conclusion that you are not a credible threat.
Your only redeeming feature is your histrionic and ill-conceived rants, which admittedly have an enviable ability to generate press.
As you represent no threat and can only bring us press, I humbly request that you use us in your act of corporate self-destruction.
If you choose not to sue us I should inform you that I have been consulting with my attorneys about options for initiating lawsuits against you based on some of the fallacious claims made by you about operations such as ours that use Gnu/Linux. You have made direct accusations about Gnu/Linux and its users that could only be construed as accusations of theft.
As I am not a thief and find your accusations harmful from both a personal and corporate standpoint I demand that you immediately cease and desist from your unsubstantiated statements or face litigation.
In conclusion let me thank you for this wonderful opportunity to promote our message on your dime and fully expect to be giving away what you claim is your IP long after your company is dead and gone.
Yours sincerely:
James Burgett
Executive Director
Computer and Technology Resource Center
Primary website: www.accrc.org
email james@accrc.org
Try reading this sentence, then think about the legality of banning books under this clause:
Seems pretty simple to me. The first part is an explanation, the second part the rule.
I don't read AC A human right
Did SCO Actually Buy What it CLAIMS? It is easy to employ a broad and self-serving interpetation of a contract to justify questionable actions.
Why? modding isn't about picking on someone, this post is redundant and the point is mentioned elsewhere. So it should be modded down that way they don't both display. Whether the posters had good or bad intentions SHOULD NEVER be a factor in determining whether or not a post is redundant.
. . . is already taken
Actually almost you got the 1791 meaning of the term Milita correct.
The parts you are missing is can you march 20 miles a day and then still be strong enough to fight?
Are you of good characture? And that does not mean by the 1791 definition 'Have you ever kill anyone?' It means are you dependable? Can you fight and will you fight?
If yes you are part of the Malita
Has it not occurred to people that this whole lawsuit is nothing more than a trick to allow SCO shareholders to make huge bucks dumping their stock before the whole company implodes?
How is this whole debacle any different than the plethora of over-hyped "dot-coms" that exploded with large claims, made a few people rich, and screwed over everyone else?
This whole deal is one huge PR-fueled stock scam. I feel sorry for anyone who is actually buying SCO stock that the executives and legal team are dumping... but what's worse is it very well may be US, with corrupt fund managers fueling this overblown stock. People should pay attention to what's keeping this stock higher than it should be, and if unbeknownst to us, some of the holdings in our IRAs are loaded with this crap.
Does SCO have to give the evidence to the court and will it be public or does the evidence go to IBM in secret?
Can anyone answer that question?
thanx
Given this limited right, why would SCO need ownership of the SVRx copyrights in order to exercise their rights under the agreement.
Hence SCO did not get the SVRx copyrights. What SCO bought was really the UnixWare business. Not UNIX!
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
From Tinfoil hat d00d:
You're right, I apologize. If I were being more open and honest I would have called it "Planting Seed #3".
I have no evidence. In fact I hardly have any circumstantial evidence. But I'm hoping that others, once the seed is planted in the back of their heads, may see something or notice something more substantial.
All I know is that whenever the Bush administration says "security" they really mean "command and control".
Bush unveils final cybersecurity plan.
Selfish Meme you know...
Why don't you explain all this Bull to Crispus Attucks.
Ups, I believe he died.
Chripus Attucks (1723 - 1770) Black American, Leader of a group of White Colonists who clashed with British Troups in 1770 Boston Massacre.
I just had a conversation with my SO about this a couple of days ago. The conversation revolved around Americans' distrust of government and the Second Ammendment was held up, because it is, in effect, saying that the populace has a right to defend itself from a tyrranical government.
Militias are, by definition, under local control and not federal, though I really doubt that you could call any militia "well regulated."
Put identity in the browser.
I am an American male citizen between the age of 18 and 54, therefore making me a member of the militia, as defined by the constitution.
And where in the Constitution is membership of the (sic) militia defined as being a male citizen between the ages of 18 and 54?
When they endorsed Bush and his tax cut proposal I cancelled my subscription. I've read it on and off again in bookstores and libraries and it has turned into a right wing shill rag. And to think that it used to be one of the most balanced world commentary magazines you could read. sigh.
Nothing to see here; Move along.
I really doubt that you could call any militia "well regulated."
What about the National Guard?
Irrelevant.
In the first letter, Exhibit K, dated June 9, 2003, Novell's Jack Messman wrote: "IBM paid $10,125,000 for the rights under Amendment No. X. Novell believes, therefore, that SCO has no right to terminate IBM's SVRX Licenses, and that it is inappropriate, at best, for SCO to be threatening to do so."
The letter refers to Section 4.16(b) of the Asset Purchase Agreement, under which Novell said it retained the right, at their "sole discretion and direction" to require SCO to "amend, supplement, modify or waive any rights under, or. . . assign any rights to, any SVRX License to the extent so directed in any manner or respect..." The letter reminds McBride that the agreement also provides that Novell retained the right at "its sole discretion and direction" to require SCO "to amend, supplement, modify or waive any rights under, or . . . assign any rights to, any SVRX License to the extent so directed in any manner or respect" by Novell, and should SCO fail to comply, Novell retained "the rights to take any action" on SCO's behalf. Then it directs SCO to waive any right it might claim to terminate IBM's AIX licenses or to revoke any rights by June 12, 2003.
I can load and fire 6 aimed shots a minute. I pass the 1787 test for being well regulated.
Congrats. But who said anything about you being 'well-regulated'? It is the militia, that has to be well-regulated. In modern parlance that translates into the 'organized militia,' (ie. the National Guard).
I always meta-mod "redundant" as unfair, I wish it was gone forever...
"Send an Instant Karma to me" - Yes
how about you RTFA. If you would have, then you'd have found that "Amendment No. 2 provides an exception to that exclusion, but only for 'copyrights ... required for [Santa Cruz Operation] to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies." There you go.
Ah, so you've decided to take the typical liberal approach... don't have the facts so just make something up that supports your politics. Nice.
Republican Administration = Lessor of two evils.
Democrat Adminstration = Evil of two lessors.
Why not take a pass on evil and vote Libertarian.
Novell didn't have *that* much to sell, in terms of Unix. (They had other stuff
besides Unix, of course.) Most of the Unix copyrights that really mattered,
AT&T had already lost in court to UC Berkeley. I'm sure Novell had some rights
to some improvements that they (and maybe even AT&T before them) had made
since, plus some additional bits and pieces, but most of the core Unix
copyrights belong to BSD. What Novell had (and we're discussing whether SCO
has all of it as well) is if anything actually less than Sun or the other Unix
vendors have, since by the time of the BSD split they'd already made a number
of improvements, and they protected them better than AT&T did and did not lose
them in the court case. AT&T/Novell/SCO only have what they've done since
that time, and what is more they haven't done as much with it since that
time as Sun, IBM, HP, and so on have done.
I'm all for respecting copyright, but SCO doesn't have jack, with or without
the stuff Novell may or may not have sold them.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
No offense intended by this reply, the parent was well thought out, but there is a flaw in your arguement...
Basically, you are saying SCO could be granted the copyrights by stating that they are necessary to defend against their being infringed...
But the copyrights are not their's to be infringed... how Novell would like to prosecute this (if at all) is their perogative.
Sco cannot ask for the copyrights, as only a means to defend them.
_CMK
Bad spellers of the world untie!
Have we forgotten the quiet Open Group's stance in this copyright-driven debacle? They have steadfastly maintained that SCO does *not* own UNIX. There are many flavors of UNIX, and the contract between dispute between Novell and SCO/Caldera cannot possibly involve possible UNIX variations.
What crap! First, there is a blatant typo in the most crucial provision of the asset agreement (saying "Section 1.1(a)" where they meant "Schedule 1.1(a)"). Then, in Schedule 1.1(b) (where the exceptions are listed), they flatly EXCLUDE ALL COPYRIGHTS from the asset transfer! Wow! SCO was represented by Brobeck, it seems - what were THEY thinking? And the schedules themselves are unbelievably vague, listing things like "some APIs" (honest to God!).
Then they did an amendment to fix this all up, supposedly. What did SCO get then? Not much, arguably. Basically it seems to be a circular grant - all copyrights SCO needed in order for SCO to exercise the rights it acquired. But WTF did they acquire in the first place?
Sheer incompetence on someone's part, it would seem.
Since some court is going to have to give SOME meaning to this pile of turd, I would venture to say that what SCO got was in effect an agreement that Novell wouldn't assert against them any copyright (or trademark) that would prevent them from exercising commercial rights in UNIX. Maybe some judge will cut them a break and read this more generously, but I just don't see in this obfuscated verbiage an omnibus written transfer of all copyrights. I've got to believe this is (still) a HUGE cloud on SCO's title.
is another branch of the military. They fight in Iraq, you cum-guzzling anal felcher.
was completely uncontested by a dead defendant.
In 1787, the loading and firing was done on a single shot musket, not an AK-47 or a 357. (If you're going to use a 200+ year old standard, you'll have to measure yourself with the same sort of equipment.) Loading and firing six aimed shots a minute with a musket (keeping in mind that muskets are not rifled) takes considerable skill. I doubt I'd get three shots off, personally.
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
This has to do with physcology.
Mcbride would live the dream and have the "ring which binds them all", if you could own all OS's besides windows and make billions! We all would like to be moral and help Linux but many of us would go crazy at the thought of owning all this money and power. Mcbride himself feels he does not want to destroy Linux. He just wants a cut if its used in business.
I am poor right now and I would admitedly be tempted. I might even make a compromise like what Mcbride did and allow linux free for non commercial users. Yes, I would be a jerk and might not go through with it, but a fast talking salesmen/laywer might make a difference.
Remember the lawyers get paid only if this goes through. They do not give a shit about Unixware, Linux or SCO. They care about green dollars.
People tend to believe what they want to believe.
My guess is Bois sold Mcbride like a salesman and Mcbride thought something on the line of "shit! If Bios is right, I have a lottery ticket!". The thought would be tempted. When the 70 lines of BSD code were found, he went hysterical saying "AHA, I win!".
Part of his makeup could of been influenced from the MS case of licensing doublespace disk compression for DOS. Caldera, now SCO group won 40 billion! After a win like that, it probably went to his head.
http://saveie6.com/
DARL MCBRIDE (LIZARDO): Full speed ahead!
DARL BIGBOOTE: We haven't a chance. Your Lawsuit's for shit! We'll all just...
DARL MCBRIDE: One more word out of you, Bigbooty...
His sig isn't leetspeak, it's perl.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Huh? The official linux kernel has never been in CVS. Linus doesn't like CVS. Receintly (A year ago? not much more) Linus put it into version control, but it wasn't CVS. Before that he just released complete sources whenever he felt like it. (often twice a week or more) I think a change log of some sort was included, but I'm not sure about that. Wouldn't surprize me at all if someone submitted a patch anonymously and it was included with no comment at all. (though you could read the diffs to see all that changed, if you can read diffs)
An oligarchy of neoconservatives??? Listen to the news reports about the immigration bill Bush wants to pass - conservatives (including myself) are furious with Bush over this - if conservatives have such exclusive control of the government why the heck would we tolerate this liberal garbage Bush decides to put out to get Hispanic votes? As far as the viability of renewable energy, it's liberals like yourself that complain about wind generators killing too many birds, you don't want to dam up every river for hydroelectric, and solar panels are just do darned expensive to use on a commercial scale - besides they use chemical batteries which they charge - the batteries wear out, it's not 100% natural. BTW, nuclear isn't a bad option (Bush does support it), and all the radioactive waste you guys gripe about will likely prove a source or energy in the future - that's why the folks designing the repository in Nevada have designed it so that when that day comes the so called "radioactive waste" can be reextracted and used.
You called it yourself. He's only doing it to cull some hispanic votes. My experience is that hispanics are smarter than that, I'm hoping it backfires.
Don't make assumptions. I'm not American and I'm not Liberal. I own guns and lots of ammunition.
I have a feeling I may need them some time in the next 15 years.
I consider myself Libertarian, but if I could vote I'd vote for what ever the strongest party was that didn't have Bush and the rest of the gang running it. I'd save my Libertarian dreams for a sunnier day.
Regards,
tinfoil cap
p.s.
When did they stop teaching Civics in school?
p.p.s
If you're allowed to sell the electricity back into the grid -- like you can in California -- then you don't need batteries. Also, STMicro recently announced polymer bases solar cells at $0.20/watt. A current solar installation is more like $4/watt. It's going to be very interesting to see what happens with that.
I was a day-trader for about a year. I went from a $2,000 investment, to a portfolio worth $27,000 (for about two hours on one day), to under $1,000, and back up to $6,000 before I pulled it out. Out of the fifteen stocks I owned during that time I received two letters in the mail inviting me to join a class action lawsuit against those companies for artificially inflating their stock prices.
Given that Novell thinks Unix is their property, thus making SCO's case completely moot, why are they taking such a passive role in all this? If someone claimed ownership over your IP, wouldn't it be reasonable to initiate some kind of legal action against that party? (I know, more lawyers). Yet, the best Novell seems to be coming up with here is "We disagree with SCO's interpretation of the contract". WTF? Or are they waiting for SCO to sue them? Which will never happen, as SCO knows full well that would open up all kinds of questions relating to the first case.
I think I clearly stated at the outset that it was pure conjecture and that it was time to start digging for the connection. Also, I'm not a pundit or journalist, just a lowly anomymous coward trying to sniff something out. I'm willing to wager that I can find a connection between the Canopy Group and the Neocon gang that's only separated by one blue blood.
I am Libertarian. But a vote for Libertarian in November is one less vote against Bush. We need to get him and his gang out of office first, and then continue to build the Libertarian party.
True, I didn't think of the lawsuits. But even that seems to work--at least partly--in favor of investors who were too dumb to bail ship when the bubble bursts. It's almost win-win. They either pull out in time and keep their profits, (and/)or end up suing the company and hopefully recovering their losses. At least a part of them, even if they do end up holding the bag.
I congratulate you for being a day trader. It's a job I don't think I could ever live with. Too much pressure!
"This means that it's quite easy for Canopy and SCO to keep the stock price pretty high by simply trading it amongst themselves, specifically a lot of people have noticed that the stock begins to dive in the mornings but then before the close a number of trades will be made at very high prices leaving the stock with a high closing price."
This is called stock market manipulation. The buying and selling should be between people who don't know each other through brokers. If the brokers are facilitating trades between various canopy members in preference to the ordinary man in the street, then the brokers and the canopy group traders are practicing wire fraud and whole host of other misdemeanours for which the police and SEC and FBI and other people will want to exchange words with these traders, banks and brokers.
Check out this article.
Warning- reading the linked article may make your blood boil!
cheers- raga
So, in the light of these Linux lawsuits, where does this leave the rest of us? Probably a little safer than we thought we were.
Does anyone remember that cocky photo on sco.com's webpage with Darl McBride saying "Just as there's no free lunch, there's no free Linux"? It was there a few days ago.
It ain't there anymore.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
Canopy Group and the Neocon gang that's only separated by one blue blood.
Come on, now your bringing Aliens into it.
... the month goes second. Is more logical.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And then mail it to Darl boy and co.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You, sir, are 10,000 times worse than the worst thing that anyone imagines that Michael Jackson has ever done to a child.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Funny. I was doing some research on SCO/Caldera and it's previous commitment to Open Source/Free Software. What I found was this guys making some weird announcements. This one seems very strange to me.. Please, look closely to the "unenforceability of the GNU general public license and other open source licenses" phrase. It is from 2001. ....
Also, O'Reilly has a very interesting article about Caldera/SCO releasing old Unix source code under a BSD license
See also the discussion in the Unix Heritage Society.
Face it people: wether it's a scam or not, SCO stock value is currently higher than ever. It doesn't matter how much may or may not be true about their claims, countless people are buying their inflated stock and SCO rakes in the millions. This is not a matter of copyright, it's marketing.
2003-12-23 18:31:33 Novell Files UNIX Copyright Claim with USPTO (yro,caldera) (rejected)
:(
I guess the wrong editor must have judged it...
(Stolen sig) Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus", a "Microsoft worm", not a "computer worm
Its not SCO london Bridge. Its pronounced GNU Londond bridge, GNU london bridge!! GOD!!@#$^
p
http://saveie6.com/
Further, copyrights are contained in the list of excluded assets, and that list is not modified in any way by Amendment 2.
Wrong. That is exactly what is amended in section A of Amendment 2.
Thus Novells copyrights are NOT explicitly excluded (the patents are though). But it is open to interpetation (see other comments on this).
By the way, here is an article on Groklaw that provides the Asset Purchase Agreement reflecting the various modifications.
Ultimately, we probably both agree that it is up to the judge to decide what the meaning of "is" is, or in this case, whether they were transferred or not.