Slashdot Mirror
SCO Adds Copyright Claim to IBM Suit
An anonymous reader writes "News.com.com reports that the SCO Group has significantly widened its Unix and Linux lawsuit against IBM,
adding a copyright infringement claim to the already complicated case." There's also another story discussing the copyright claims.
SCO's lawyers are practicing the tried & true method of Throw Enough Shit Against the Wall and Some of It Will Stick.
They know it's a poor case they have so they keep adding more and more claims to their position along with the necessary bravado stupid investors have come to love.
Trolling is a art,
...they'd have to ask Novell's permission before they go sue IBM for Novell's copyrights. ;)
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Already read this on Groklaw :-)
It's obvious that SCO is not only wanting to raise its stock price, but it's hoping to be bought out by some of the bigger fish out there to possibly placate them.
My suggestion... How about we do as they say and buy them out just to shut them up.
I propose that the mods of Slashdot start a fund called the "Buy out SCO so they can shut the fsck up" fund. If we all paypal a couple of dollars into the pot, we can use it in order to help buy out SCO so that we can go on as usual without all this SCO gibberish.
An added benefit would be to get Slashdot Subscription pages for every dollar we donate to the cause. That will make some of the more geeky of us choose to help. Not like we wouldn't help anyway :).
Of course, when SCO loses their case, it will become significantly easier to buy the company since their stock will be worth about 1/10th of a cent. At that point, us Slashdot users will be able to make McBride our own personal bitch, and everyone will be happy still.
Hurry though! Before Microsoft chooses to buy out SCO before we can.
Just a thought. Continue as normal.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
Adding a copyright infringement claim? They wouldn't dare!
As a shareholder and a proud parent of a shareholder of SCO Group International, I welcome this step. With millions of Linux systems installed over the world, the value of the company that sells $699 licenses is within billions of dollars.
Let's make SCO the largest company on the planet and show those boys from Redmond how Windoze is buggy and insecure! Let's sell more SCO-compliant Linux boxes! Go Linux! Go SCO!
Stimpy: "Hey, Ren, if we keep piling things onto the suit, we'll never lose because it'll go on for ever."
Ren: "Stimpy! you're a genious!"
Stimpy: "All we have to do is keep finding investors to underwrite the suits, because if SCO runs out of money we'll have to find someone else to represent."
Ren: "So geet back to woork, you eediot!"
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
looks like it won't take long until we see something like this in courts.
The IT section color scheme sucks.
Is someone paying off the judge?!? (*cough* Microsoft *cough*)
Groklaw has a detailed eye-witness account. It seems SCO's new claims might just be about IBM continuing to distribute AIX after SCO "revoked" their license. And apparently IBM's lawyers wiped the floor with SCO's counsel (it wasn't Darl's brother this time!). Great reading - enjoy!
Shouldn't they be bitch-slapped by the judge for expanding their lawsuit before they can even manage to comply with the judge's original order to "put up or shut up" re: evidence?
Then again I'd noticed that SCOX was about to slip below $13/share yesterday. I guess Yet Another Lawsuit/Press Release was due in order to meet the SCO business cycle.
Since M$ owns copyrights to the numbers 0 and 1 (thus covering all binary code), SCO now lays claim to 2 - 127 laying claim to the rest ASCII and all source code.
Oh no! This message is infringing... good thing I posted AC!
This is good news. IBM surely has the money to fight the defense. Granted, who knows... maybe IBM did commit some heinous act of open source, but at least SCO's ammending the copyright issue will bring the entire issue to the forefront and get us all a resolution faster. Certainly, its better than waiting for the breach of contract issue to get resolved, then waiting through a copyright case.
So now they want to claim extra damages for an infringement of "registered" copyright when the registration was filed after the lawsuit? IANAL but this really seems like grasping at straws, otherwise this would always happen in a copyright dispute to get the extra damages.
Plus, doesn't this now potentially get them in trouble with Novell who claims that the copyrights are still theirs? Criminal plagiarism, anybody?
Why are stories about the SCO-IBM lawsuit filed under "Your Rights Online"?
I'm no lawyer, but so far as I understand, if this carries through and the verdict is against SCO and the judge feels the case had no merit, IBM should be able to turn around and sue for (very significant!) damanges.
The only asset SCO has that's worth dirt right now is UNIX licensing. Wouldn't it be poetic if the outcome of SCO's market gaming were that IBM sued SCO for all assets, including that, then turned around and freed UNIX once and for all? :)
(Just kidding. This is Darl, and Linux is bad, you smelly hippy.)
It was the same with DeCSS, it will be the same here. Everyone thinks they know what the result will be because they can't imagine the other side will pull something out of their hat, and they all have their own opinion about how the law should work.
SCO's comments in the media are not SCO's legal case. That's another matter entirely, and one that has been considerably more carefully orchestrated. They know they have a pretty strong case against IBM. We just don't know what it is yet.
I don't think we ought to be pissed off at SCO.
:)
The root of the problem is Darl's crack habit. Never has the war on drugs been so needed
I'm amazing. You aren't. SUCK IT
Sure, they may have copyright. However, as long as it is being used under the terms of the GPL, they have nothing to sue on, unless they can somehow convince a judge to rule viral software licenses are unenforcable. If this is the case, then their viral clause that makes them think they have ownership to AIX code made by IBM might also be thrown out. I don't see a logical ruling that could result in a win for them.
What's stopping Linux vendors from providing some sort of protection to their clients from IP issues in Linux and the associated software with it? This could be achieved by agreeing to pay legal fees for any client sued over software included with their Linux distribution, including the kernel. Also, it would be necessary for the vendors to pay any licensing fees demanded of their clients over IP issues. While it's easy to say this isn't necessary because SCO has little case against Linux, there's no way to know that someone else doesn't have a legitimate claim about IP being improperly in the kernel or software distributed with Linux. It seems like this "insurance policy" would go a long way toward counteracting SCO's FUD and would reassure clients that they can implement and use Linux without fear. Are the Linux vendors just being niggardly, and don't want to pay any fees that might be demanded from their clients, or is there a more legitimate reason for not providing protection to their clients from IP disputes?
Help me. I've been modbombed by a few people with entirely too much time on their hands.
Immediately following the addition of the copyright infringement claims, Darl McBride announced that his dog fluffy, a 3 year old pomeranian had been kicked and severely injured. McBride citing his suspicions of IBM being the culprit planned to add his veterinarian bills as well as an unspecified monetary claim for emotional distress. "Poor Fluffy will never be the same again" Darl was quoted as saying from his Lindon Utah office
I watched Darl's presentation at Harvard in its entirety last night. He (and the CIO at SCO) dodged so many of the questions it was getting boring. Namely Linus' claim of remembering two write 2 of the 70 header files submitted as "infriging" by SCO.
You'd think that after hearing a CEO of a company speak...I'd at least give more validity to their claims. But after hearing Darl...it felt like he was struggling to stay afloat.
Better than Flickr - Manage, Share, Archive
Now the bad news: Posting it on Groklaw seems to have been enough to /. the court's server, so you're going to have to wait a while to read it (and no, I didn't grab a mirror while I had it - my bad).
Of course, posting the link here is far worse than posting it on Groklaw, so maybe you should try to read it tomorrow...
Late update: I re-tried the link when I did the preview, and got it - so it's back, or perhaps intermittent. I'm going to try to grab it right after I post...
Hey, wait a minute... Div %13.6 - PE 4.6... crap I need to buy some of this!
lol
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
They've posted another story that states that SCO's claims have reached 5 billion (yes, this really is a news.com link).
This will surely give them enough funding from high-risk investors that don't mind losing a few hundred k's for a chance of a big payout.
This just seems like another tactic to stall their case. Personally, I believe that there is something more sinister than just a dying company in its death throws here. The longer this goes on, the more damage being done to Linux and open source in general. Obviously, when they finally have to account for any of their claims they will quickly lose, but the longer they can take to prevent that the better (if you support my hypothesis).
My guess is they'll go to court and say "Your honour, you asked us to provide these documents to IBM before the case could continue, however since that ruling we've ammended our suite and would ask that we can push back that date as a result."
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
I'm tired of hearing the latest absurdity about this ridiculous little company. Who cares if they are making more, different, wilder, or whatever other sort, of claim?
Stop giving them the free publicity of paying attention to them. Let's just agree not to talk about it till IBM destroys them in court, at which point we can gloat, and be happy.
i keep thinking i should have baught SCOX, but then i realize it can't get dumber or more outlandish, so the stock will fall... then something like this happens!
Suppose some terrorists took innocent hostages in order to exchance them for known terrorists in prison, and demanded an exchance. If we actually went though with the exchance, it would be a short term good at a severe long term cost when more groups of innocent people are taken hostage by other groups.
Buying out the SCO would encourage more bad behaviour. Better to stick this through, no matter what the cost. It may be messy in the short term, but in the long term it will dissuade this sor tof behaviour.
Sangloth
I'd appreciate any comment with a logical basis...it doesn't even have to agree with me.
When did UNIX and Linux become big computer companies?
Add to the fund. Then when their stock tanks, buy them out, bankrupt Darl, and do nasty things to them.
This is not McDonalds or Burger King where you can order a side of something with your lawsuit... Sheesh...
Slashdot.. Land of nerds, trolls, and FlameBait..
And I'll bet that literally 1000's of people submitted link and posts but only one was picked. Kind of like the voting system on survivor... keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
News got it wrong again..
SCO dropped the trade secrets claims.. and only is going to turn over code in 17 files that they claim is infringing 30 days from now after numerous delays..
see groklaw.com for details..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Just wait until the counter suits begin after SCO loses.. SCO will be driven under, and IBM's share (after taking a small hit) would be in a good position to climb. In fact, timing that right you might be able to make a pretty penny. ;)
Mod +5 Drunk
Well.. one out of three ain't.. well, yes, it is bad.
Kind of reminds me of that Sesame Street bit where they sang "..which of these things does not belong...".
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
IBM has told the judge that SCO did not comply with her earlier order to specify their claims precisely (in terms of what Linux code was involved). There was apparently a ~30 minute conference with counsel in chambers before the open hearing. It doesn't sound like the judge was too sympathetic to SCO; from one witness's notes:
From other comments the judge made (see the Groklaw write-up), it sounds like SCO may get one more really final order to lay out the specifics of their case. (Ha!)
IBM did not move for dismissal, to the surprise of some observers. My theory is that IBM thinks they have SCO on the run, and want to make sure there is nothing left of them but a glowing crater when this is all done.
http://weeklywire.com/ww/02-23-99/slc_cb_a.html
http://www.lds-mormon.com/6303056a.shtml
Seems that Utah is scam central...
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
All 12 Infringing files have been identified:
$ grep -ilR Regents
dreamed of collecting FIVE BILLION DOLLARS. But, I suppose that SCO has to work overtime now to keep the attention focused on it. What with Martha Stewart and Janet Jackson stealing the spot light.
Here's a scary thought: What if it was Martha Stewart that had exposed her tits during the Superbowl? Imaging 600 million people all hurling at once.
Holy oh Jesus! Who'da thunk it?!!
If SCO is going to seek damages for its distribution of AIX after license termination (which Novell and IBM claim it cannot do), can we then as folks who have contributed code to GNU and Linux and all the GPL'd goodies not seek damages from SCO in a class action suit for their violations of the GPL? It seems that they revoked their copy permission long ago by distributing GPL'd works linked to code they licensed non-freely. And they still distribute schtuff to Caldera clients. I'm sure someone would be willing to bankroll that.
As SCO's stock price continues to plumet amid growing speculation that their whole lawsuit lacks merit....
...My God, look at that stock price rise!
Wait, this just in...SCO has just upped the lawsuit agianst IBM to 100 trillion dollars...
(Back at SCO headquarters)
Darl: MUAHAHAHAHAHA
-------------
I really really wish the slashdot "Do not show stories from the following: Caldera" tick box applied to real life. This thing isnt going to go away for 5 to 10 years, and I can see it ruining a lot of productive time and effort on the opensource side. Its going to haunt us for the forseeable future, regardless of who wins the first round, the second round, the third round and so on. Technicalities will be found, loopholes will be exploited, cases thrown out, new cases raised, you name it. This case isnt going anywhere.
Ye Gods, hasn't this farce gone on long enough?
But it has this wierd attraction, I see SCO in the posts... ..must resist.. ..overwhelming urge.. ..to.. ..repeat myself...
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
I know this is slashdot, but is there anyone out there that can explain what this article is saying in moron english? (my vernacular)
this sig is deprecated
...is like talking to a dog
-Colin
SCO's case is completely falling appart.
Apparently, the new copyright claim is that IBM continued to distribute AIX even after SCO "terminated" their license.
In other words, the copyright claim doesn't have anything to do with the alleged copying of code from SysV to Linux.
Additionally, SCO responded to IBMs interrogatory (asking which Linux files SCO claims any rights to) by listing only 17 files (and not identifying specific lines in those files) and indicating that none of these 17 files contain code from SysV.
I really expected them to do much better. I don't see how IBM can be ordered to proceed with discovery given existing case law. (Although it seems like IBM might voluntarily produce information so they can limit SCOs avenues of appeal.
They replaced the previous claims with the copyright claims because they were completely and utterly able to provide the minimum amount of information during discovery.
So saying the case has been "widened" is wrong.
Also, they didn't add the claims yet. The asked the judge to allow them to add the claims. This is because they missed the deadline to add claims to the lawsuit.
You'd think there would be more reliable information from a place where Linux people supposedly hang out.
They calculated the projected future losses caused by ill will generated in potential customers, losses from counter-lawsuits, contempt of court fees for frivolous lawsuits and fraud, etc, and the previous $3 billion they were asking for wasn't enough to cover it.
Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
he wants his Time Machine back.
Copyrights are valid before registration. Registration just lets you easily prove ownership in court and grants you punative damages in addtion to actual damages.
As from the SCOX Message board (found on Finance.Yahoo.com): IBM's Report on SCO's Compliance with the December 12th order. http://pacer.utd.uscourts.gov/images/203cv00294000 00103.pdf
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
I keep thinking "I wish I had money so I could short the stock!"
Then I wonder "What do all those people who are buying SCO know that I don't?"
I'd like to think that it's just stupid people thinking there's a case, then again, maybe they know some inside stuff?
There is no spoon or sig.
The funny things is that SCO claimed to terminate the license based on IBM actions which it now admits it can't prove. So if they terminated the license (assuming it was within their power in the first place) on those grounds how can they now claim damages? Sounds like IBM can counter-sue for contract violations and easily dismiss the copyright infringement charges by showing the court the Unix license text. SCO had to tell IBM in writing what they were doing wrong with enough detail and enough advanced warning for IBM to remedy the problem. If IBM failed to fix things SCO's only recourse would be to sue for contract violations, not the ability to terminate the license.
"Maybe if I keep raising the damage award, no one will notice I have no evidence!"
http://www.awtrey.com/darlmcevil/
My God! It's full of Voids!
1. Make snide comment about SCO's latest ploy. 2. ??? 3. KARMA!!!
You've put too many karma whoring statments together and formed a naked karmic singularity. While it's infinite in density, and no karma can escape it, it is infinitesimal in scope. And so it's event horizion and thus ability to attract karma is reduced.
You tried for overly broad and landed in overly specific.
The only thing I might add to make it less effective, is a "You're new here aren't you. All your patents belong to US. [Johnny Cochran]: 'GO PHASE 2: Set us up the Chewbacca.'"
So, did you purposely interchange "Linus" and "Linux" in your post, or are you just a sloppy typist? I've seen "Linux Torvalds" several times on /.; I can never tell if it's an accidental spoonerism or people are just trying to be cute. So, which is it?
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
SCOX
I hope that last downward trend keeps going.
Report on SCO's Compliance With the Court's order sums up the whole fiasco pretty well I think. It's a line from Paragraph 5:
Duh! And Darl wants $5 Billion for this?!?! For what exactly? I can't wait for the stomping to commence.
As they say, a SCO story a day keeps the dupe post away. Well something like that anyway :-)
-Brad
If you had to do TCP/IP over morse code, you'd make a few mistakes, too.
Much as I hate the idea, I can see how the SCO execs could read the Asset Purchase Agreement to mean that they DID buy the copyrights:
SCO could easily read this as "You now own the source code. That includes (as an explicit exception to the copyright exclusion) all of Novell's copyrights on the source code that you need to enforce your ownership of the source code."
Another poster (in a previous article) wrote:
Novell has claimed in the past that SCO has asked them to transfer the copyrights, but they (Novell) refused. If they can bring hard evidence of this out (and I would bet they can) then that proves SCO knew Novell retained the copyrights.
But SCO can argue that this was just a request for confirmation of what they believed the contract meant, in preparation for their suit to enforce their copyrights. Then they could argue that Novell's refusal to give that "confirmation" was just Novell trying to back out the deal once they discovered they'd given away the store to someone who was actually going to KEEP it.
(None of which, even if the court upholds SCO's interpretation, in any way releases them from promptly identifying the alleged infringing code in Linux, so the open source community can expunge it, end the alleged infringement, and minimize the alleged damages.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I think you are correct that everyone is missing the trick, but you are wrong if you think SCO is holding out to pull some magic trump card for a climactic finish.
I think what everyone is missing is that SCO is trying to say that SCO owns UNIX, UNIX=AIX, AIX=LINUX, therefore UNIX=LINUX and SCO owns LINUX.
And the way they are trying to state this is by saying that IBM signed a contract with SCO that says "we will let you look at our SCO code and in return any code you develop from then on belongs to us as a derivitive work".
They have stated this over and over in many different ways, however, I suspect that they haven't come right out and stated it in a simple way because anyone who saw the simple truth of their arguement would be astonished at the absurdity.
So you see, the reason SCO wants all the AIX code is not because there is SCO code in linux but because they believe that IBM copied IBM AIX code into linux. That is the copyright violation. And SCO is hopeful that everyone will ignore the fact that its IBM code developed and paid for by IBM and somehow fall for their asinine logic of "all your code belong to us".
Anyhow, its sure fun to watch IBM trash SCO's lawyers in court and show no sign of giving quarter.
burnin
Maybe if the media (cough cough) stops reporting (ad nauseum) every little brain fart out of Lindon, Utah, it will foil SCO's pump and dump strategy and they'll go away. The S/N on Slashdot has been steadily going downhill over the last couple of years, but the daily regurgitation of SCO FUD has been making it worse. Can you report on something else for a change? Pretty please with sugar on top?
...is when Mark Heise, counsel for SCO at this hearing, was asked why SCO needed IBM's source code to AIX to determine if there is any infringement occuring, when SCO has certified that Sun and HP are not infringing without having shown any source code.
Heise replied (not sure of the exact quote, transcript isn't available yet) "As for HP, there is a fundamental difference in that they haven't said they are contributing to Linux". Dave Marriott, counsel for IBM at the hearing, replied that HP has, in fact, contributed to Linux.
Talk about not having done your homework...
Jay (=
SCO is claiming that IBM is violating SCO's rights by distributing IBM's own operating system because SCO terminated their Unix license last year. They are claiming billions in damages. Very amusing.
Enough Said....
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=SCOX
I couldn't find the short interest, but I did see that some insiders are selling some large holdings.
There is no spoon or sig.
<defense style=chewbaca>
Hey! Look over here!
Browse to sco.com and mouse over the Company nav menu at the top and select the bottom entry for "Open Letter on Copyrights" and note that it doesn't exist.
Therefore you must acquit!!
</defense>
This user account is inactive account replaced by the PDA
Darl McBride had to make a profit,
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dummmmmbb.
And so an angel appeard to Darl and said, "System V code is buried deep in the Kernel 2.4 tree.
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dummmmbb.
Darl McBride translated the code,
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dummmmbb.
And Darl thus spoke "I have over a million lines of code that IBM has stolen from me. I will translate the code for our attorneys and they will get our money from IBM"
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dummmmbb.
But the attorneys lost the code on the way to the courtroom and asked Darl to tranlate again. Darl became very angry.
Darl said "God is angry because we have not shown the million lines of code to the world and has taken the code from me. He will not let me translate the code again. To appease God, we must file a copyright infringment against IBM instead!"
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dummmmb
IBM grew weary of Darls claims and said "but if you want to show us the code you think we stole, just download it from any number of freely available sources"
Smart smart smart smart smaaarrrrt
The fun continues, ad nauseum.
It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
I'm certain these attorneys are IBM employees or on retainer, this suit is costing IBM almost nothing. SCO, OTOH, has put David Boies on the payroll. You know that SCO only has so many quarters to feed that meter.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I can see how Darl wants to smack the pingu! :)
(hey, it's a joke...)
Cheers...
Why stop at a counter suit? Criminal charges should be filed for extortion, racketeering, and SEC violations.
Good to know you can't completely get away with talking so much BS.
In the ECommerce Times coverage by Elizabeth Millard, Yankee Group Dana Gardner was quoted as saying...
...
With continued insults being hurled in formal statements and Web site postings, SCO will move forward with its trial preparations as the target of much ire from the Linux community and others, Gardner noted.
"There's a lot of negative sentiment toward the company," he said. "You see it in everything from published remarks to the recent denial-of-service attack. But they're continuing to be resolute.
Almost, but not quite, connecting "the Linux community" with the DoS.
Very slippery.
<grrr>
But I thought Al Gore wrote Linux?
Al Gore invented the World Wide Web, Vint Cerf invented Ethernet and Bob Metcalfe invented TCP/IP protocol.
I invented sarcastic humor.
How about a class action lawsuit? You pick the charges! Libel? Maybe SCO is just waiting for someone to put it to bed?
Litigate baby!
Quack, quack.
A few more billion dollars thrown in for good measure and I will surely have enough money to complete the DeathSCO. Darth McBride (Ps. Plans for the DeathSCO are shown in this topic's icon.
SCO files for temporary restraining order against reality
IBM: Show us the infringing code SCO: We can't. You have the infringed code. You wrote it, you put it into AIX, you then put it into Linux, and we never saw the AIX original. But we own it. And we can prove it. If you'll only show us your code. IBM's lawyer: Raises eyebrow.
Great, SCO. Why does this not surprise me?
...by shoving the gavel up SCOs collective asses?
Semi seriously, what's the worst the Judge could do? (Looks like the bus is coming, Darl. Better get in the road)
...and "we're sure they've done something, we just can't quite decide what is is or how to prove it." Jerks.
The Salt Lake Tribune has an article positioning this as a David v. Goliath suit of SCO against IBM...IBM stealing the assets developed by a small Provo firm. Utahns are extremely susceptiple to this type of argument.
If I remember correctly.....
Preferred stock is kinda special and comes with a lot of extras. Common stock doesn't, but common stock gets it's dividends first (as a trade off).
A common thing with preferred stock is to be able to convert it to common stock through some financial transaction with the company. I'm not sure exactly how, but it's possible for the company to make or lose money through this transaction.
You can't just change the rules related to a share be it common or preferred, but you can take away a share and replace it with a new one (if the stock holders agree).
This looks like they yanked all of the preferred stock, and replaced it with a new flavor of preferred stock that doesn't have a conversion feature.
Somehow or other, the potential losses SCO would have if the preferred stock was converted to common stock were showing up on their balance sheet.
By yanking the conversion features from the preferred stock, that potential loss goes away and the books look better without having really done much of anything.
How's that for a vague explanation?
plus-good, double-plus-good
SCO traded some prefered stock shares for $50 million last October. Because of the rules for how the stock was valued, SCO needed to account for the shares as a liability on their balance sheet.
By exchanging those share with the new and improved shares, that have different rules, there is no need to keep listing a liability on the balance sheet. Thus SCO's bottom line appears better, at least in the future.
It is interesting to note that the new and improved prefered shares can be exchanged for common stock shares (the ones you and I could buy) with a guaranteed price floor of $13.50. If SCO's stock price were to fall precipitously, the holders of these prefered shares could exchange them, and sell them to SCO for $13.50! So I think SCO gets two things: One is the accounting change, and the other is to help convince the holders of these prefered shares that their investment is less risky.
My understanding was that SCO had to specifically ask for those additional transfers, they had to specifically state it was necessary in order for them to exercise their previous rights. Since SCO did not in fact state this, they didn't get the additional rights.
But I could be wrong, and everything is so fuzzed up, it will take years to settle. Not even that $50M will cover their expenses in the meantime.
Infuriate left and right
adding a copyright infringement claim to the already complicated case.
:-)
adding a another crackpipe to the already complicated case
Sorry. :-)
190M is much more do-able. OK, let's buy it, sell off the assets... etc. a la 80's corporate raider style...
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Oh, by the way, Darl says "Pay up your SCO $699 license fees, you crack-smoking, filthy pirates!
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
Is this going to be one of those court cases that takes years to be settled?
There must be some old-timers out there who have seen this type of thing in the past; how many series of filings -> hearings -> more filings -> more hearings -> ... does it take?
It doesn't seem that complicated to me...
e-penzio - web site now goes back to parent company. More info can be found here.
.02
cLive ;-)
-- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
actually a screenshot from the Ancient Unix version of Nethack - be sure to tune in!
You are suing IBM in a large courtroom,
You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.
It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
What!? You have a wife? I though all Slashdot readers were people that hadn't been laid ever, much less have a wife.
Wait...Grolaw at the moment is saying that SCO dropped the whole case today?!?!?!?
0 61 55753777
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200402
Because their stock has been dropping. It was about to dip under $13 when it was $17 not long ago. There stock has been sliding quite abit lately.
Hmm, wasn't something supposed to happen in court today (Feb 6th) concerning the compel to discover today? The judge was suppsed to make some type of ruling on what sco produced?
I don't smoke or do drugs, but whatever Darl is on almost makes me want to start!
Can someone please computer how long they can really last? The last earnings report they produced showed them with a net loss of 1.6 Million after paying their lawyers $9 Million, and that's just for the quarter!
So realistically, how long until the lawyers bleed SCO completely dry?
Monday:
The news.com article got it SORT OF right. SCO filed a motion to amend it's claims. IOW, they asked the judge to be allowed to amend the claims. The judge has YET to rule on this motion. For a FAR more accurate and complete edition of what happened today see Groklaw here and look here for IBM's analysis of what SCO provided.
***Blackholes are where the gods divided by zero.***
My understanding was that SCO had to specifically ask for those additional transfers, they had to specifically state it was necessary in order for them to exercise their previous rights. Since SCO did not in fact state this, they didn't get the additional rights.
I didn't find anything to that effect in the document. I provided the link. If anyone can find something that says they have to ask for additional permission, please point out the section number.
This reading of the document says that they now own the unix source code and that they now also own exactly the minimum set of copyrights necessary to enforce that ownership. No further transfers needed. (The other exclusions seem to be for things like Novell products, rights Novell didn't have in the first place, or rights it already contracted away.)
Which is exactly what SCO is claiming. So what will matter, with respect to the copyright issue, is whether the judge will read it this way.
And (if I, a non-laywer, understand this correctly) with Novell saying they didn't get the copyrights and SCO saying they did, the judge will probably decide it on one of two bases.
1) If the judge decides that the text is clear, she will decide according to the clear meaning.
2) If the judge decides that the text is ambiguous, she will determine WHO WROTE the text, and decide in favor of THE OTHER PARTY.
We need to prepare for the possiblity that the judge decides in favor of SCO on this issue - either because the text seems (to a lawyer) to clearly transfer enough copyright to SCO for them to go after IBM (and other Linux distributors), or because Novell wrote it, so any ambiguities are their fault and must be decided in SCO's favor.
So lets have a plan B available to defend our turf.
There's lots of ammo, and for any particular piece of code you only need ONE shot to defend it.
- Portions of UNIX code released into public domain or under other licenses by SCO or one of its previous owners, or an owner of enough rights to do this. (Let's try to do this without resorting to SCO's distribution of Linux. They might get away with their claim that their ignorance of the inclusion of their code by others exempts it from the GPL, while their continued distribution of the REST of the code, now that they actually shipped some, is actually required for a while longer by the GPL.)
- Stuff freed by the BSD case.
- Stuff tracably separately written.
- Court decisions about recycling interface definitions for interoperability being fair use.
And I'm sure there are others.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
SCO issued a new series of preferred stock and exchanged it for the series that Baystar and RBC bought late last year. The old preferred stock, the Series A, had a conversion feature that was structured in such a way that they (the conversion features) were considered derivative financial instruments that had to be listed on the balance sheet. For the same reason, SCO was also forced to continually calculate and account for changes in their (the conversion features') value. SCO didn't feel like doing these two things anymore -- it was a significant liability to put on the balance sheet and difficult to calculate their changes in value -- so it issued a new series of preferred that had a conversion feature that was structured in such a way that it didn't force SCO to account for it on the balance sheet (and for its valuation changes on the income statement).
The price floor, btw, is supposed to solve the toxic/death spiral PIPE problem. (In fact, such PIPEs are also called "floorless convertibles".) The variable conversion price the press release talks about is also called a floating conversion price (and hence yet another common name: "floating-price convertibles"), which is usually a bad sign (i.e., the sign of a toxic PIPE). A price floor would avoid the problem.
IBM is committed to selling linux. This means what IBM can do is somewhat limited by the constraints of the GPL.
The GPL says that either everyone can distribute this freely to anyone else, and everyone who recieves it has the same right to distribute under the GPL as everyone else, with no restrictions (such as license fees). If not, no one has the right to distribute the file at all unless you get some alternate form of permission from everyone who contributed to writing it. This means one of two things would be the case if IBM owned the UNIX copyrights.
- Linux is not in any way an infringement of the UNIX source code.
- Linux is an infringement of the UNIX source code, and if IBM does not grant a free and open license to everyone under the GPL to use the infringing parts of Linux, IBM (and, technically, everyone else in the world) must cease to distribute Linux until those infringing parts are removed.
SCO has been effectively "untouchable" because they have no need for a long term strategy. They know that once the repercussions for their actions-- the failures of their lawsuits, etc-- finally come to pass, they will have long cashed in their inflated stock and run away. IBM, meanwhile, will still be here in 10 years time. That means no kamikaze attacks and no attacking your own revenue streams.Of course, if what you're saying is that IBM probably won't be GPLing SysV in its entirity, then no, probably not, but who would want it if they did? IBM giving an asset away isn't poetic. I'd call it heart-stoppingly unimaginable. Irony is generally considered to be inherently poetic.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Excuse my stupidity, but how is this "enough said?"
If a judge in a molestation trial of a Catholic priest is a Catholic, do you immediately think "enough said?"
Unless, of course, you mean to point out that in my experience, Mormons tend to put a higher ethical standard on other Mormons, and since "Darl is a Mormon," the judge is just going to beat the sh!t out of him harder than if he wasn't.
Seriously, WTF does "Mormon" have to do with ANYTHING in this case?
--AC
Dear Sir,
SCO has done nothing but double talk for the term of this whole debacle.
To get us and the rest of the world to take your claims seriously you need to show the code *without* requiring an aggregious NDA which is overly broad.
In most copyright cases that I am aware of the primary goal of the plantiff seems to be to *cease being damaged*, but by specifically not showing the code in an acceptable forum, you, Sir, have allowed yourself to be *further* damaged.
You have failed to uphold your end of the case at every turn:
1) Refusing to show the code to the community with out requiring an NDA
2) Purposfully giving IBM 1 million pages of paper with a font so small that it is useless
3) Continually upping the damages which you have caused yourself, by not allowing us to remove the alleged code, if there is any.
Your case is the equivanlent of saying "I own something in your house and I'm going to charge you monthly rent for it, but I wont tell you what it is so that I can continue to extract fees from you". This is absolutely preposterous.
It is absolutely transparent to everyone involved in this case that you are out to capitalize on GNU/Linux's success by using this scheme. It is, to many in the community, a betrayal of monumental proportions that SCO/Caldera has done this when they were once one of the many companys involved in *promoting* open source.
I have a few challenges for you:
1) Show your code in plain daylight, my email is associated with my id here so all you need to do to reach me is click your mouse. We've been begging, no *pleading* with you in every way possible to show the code in a way which isn't an obvious sham (the aforementioned NDA).
2) For any files/code that is in common *prove* to us that it is infringment, unlike the trivial examples you showed at Las Vegas which weren't even SCO's, but come from BSD. Again... we've been hoping that you might do *this* to no avail.
3) Prove my assertion that you're only trying to leach off of Linux's success wrong.
I very seriously doubt that you'll be able to rise to all, not to mention even one of these.
GNU/Linux was built by us, and is maintained by us and would have surpassed UNIX sooner or later with or without IBM's input.
Good day,
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
Followed, of course, by destroying SCO's pretensions on those 17 files by documenting how they actually got into Linux...
Hell, I submitted it around noon central time and it was rejected within 20 minutes. I'm honestly not bitter or anything, but I'm not wasting any more time with slashdot story submissions.
I don't know jack about how an investor would value a stock... but this could be the old, simple:
Profit = Gain probability x Nominal suit value
where "Gain probability" would mean the "snowflake survival on a hot stove" chance of SCO not losing the suit. This can be altered by bombastic declarations, evidence insinuations etc. This would increase the perceived potential Profit.
By artificially increasing the "Nominal suit value" (e.g., to 3 billion), they are also increasing the perceived potential Profit.
Now, investors could have automatic systems buying SCO stock, when such Profit rises.
Kiss my stock options.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
Report on SCO's Compliance With the Court's order
On December 12, 2003, the Court directed SCOto "respond fully and in
detail" to IBM's Interrogatory Nos. 1-9, and 12 and 13, and to
"produce all equested documents" in IBM's document requests by January
12, 2003.
On january 12, 2003, SCO served its Revised Supplemental Response to IBM's First
and Second Set of Interrogatories (the "Revised Response", attached
hereto as Exhibit 1). In the accompanying "Notice of Compiance With Court
order of December 12, 2003", which was filed with the Court, SCO
represented that it had "responded fully and in detail to Interrogatories
1-9, 12 and 13...based on the information in SCO's possession" and had
"produced all the non-privileged responsive documents requested by
IBM" with the exception of certain files that would be promptly produced.
Despite these representations, however, SCO in fact failed to comply with the
Court's order in numerous respects [1] the most important ow which are addressed
below.
First, contrary to its representations to the Court on January 12, 2004, SCO now
admits that it has in fact not produced numerous catagories of non=privleged
responsive docuemnts. In a letter dated January 30, 2004, (a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit 2), IBM identified for SCO numerous catagories of
responsive documents that it believed SCO had yet to produce (at 3-5). SCO
responded to IBM by letter late last night ( a copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit 3) concluding that it had indeed failed to produce numerous
responssive documents, and committing to doing so at an unspecified time in the
future (at 5-10).
Second, in response to the Court's Order, SCO abandons any claim that IBM
misappropiated its trade secrets, concedes that SCO has no evidence that IBM
improperly disclosed UNIX System V code, and acknowleges that SCO's contract
case is grounded solely on the popisiton that IBM improperly disclosed portions
of IBM's own AIX and Dynix products, which SCO claims to be derivitives of UNIX
System V. [2] The primary problem with the Revised Response, however, is that:
(1) SCO refuses to disclose from what lines of UNIX System V code thest alleged
contributions are supposed to derive, which it must know to allege the
contributions were improper, and (2) a number of the allegedly improper
contributions are not disclosed witeh adequate particularity (e.g. SCO claims
IBM improperly disclosed "MP" but does not specify the files or liones
of code allegedly 'dumped" into Linux, or the files and lines of Linux in
which they are supposedly found. [3] SCO also failes properly to identify and
describe all of the materials in Linux to which it claims to have rights and
whether, when, to whom, and under what circumstances and terms it ever
distributed those materials.
Morover, there remains a significant disparity between the information in the
Revised Response and SCO's public statements about its alleged evidence. Int he
final analysis, SCO has indentified no more than appoximately 3,700 lines of
code in 17 AIX or Dynix files that IBM is alleged improperly to have
contiributed to Linux. (A list of the files we believe SCO has identified in
its Revised Response is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.) Yet, speaking at harvard
law School earlier this week, SCO's CEO, Darl mcBride, stated that:
"...[T]here is roughly a million lines of code that tie into contributions
that IBM has made and that's subject to litigation that's going on. We have
basically supplied that. in fact, that is going to be the subject of a hearing
that comes up Friday..." (empahsis added.)
(a rough draft of this protion of the transcript is attached hereto as Exhibit
5). If the "million lines fo code" in fact exist, then SCO has not
complied with the Court's December 12 ordere and shoule be required immediately
to do so. If, as SCO hints (but does not say), none of
SCO is in a sticky position unless they can produce approximataly that entire million lines of code. If they say they have it, but dont produce it, they are in contempt of court in their own case. If they say thay dont have it, in statements before the court, they are then loading IBMs guns for them in the Lanham Act counterclaim.
I know you intended to be funny, but seriously, they know their company is doomed. The insiders have been selling consistently at least since the first lawsuit was filed. Their only purchases in all that time have been through the exercise of options. Those aren't the actions of people with confidence in the future of their company.
If this lawsuit does not involve IBM including code in Linux, but rather revolves around their continued distribution of AIX after SCO "revoked" IBM's license, what is going to happen to the few places that have actually bought a Linux license?
Lanham Act counterclaim
IBM's strategy now is to give SCO all the rope
they need, and as a result have them repeatedly
and continually humiliated in court when their
claims are shown to be absurd, baseless, and
frivolous. Thus there will be no conceivable
grounds for appeal when SCO is finally beaten
to a quivering pulp, begging for either mercy or
death.
Then, of course, IBM will turn its attention to
its countersuit....
This strategy is specifically intended by IBM
to discourage copycats. If it works, there will
BE no "second round."
Craig
Just a tiny question here, but I run SCO Countdown, and according to what ,A HREF="http://www.linuxworld.com/story/38045.htm">d ocuments I have, the deadline for SCO to sue another Linux user is fast approaching. Problem is, I have just received a question on the feedback form wondering whether the 90 day countdown ends on February 16 or 17. Currently, it ends on the 17, but I'd thought I'd get an educated person's opinion on this. Thanks.
Also, just wanted to insert a small poll here. I have noticed that SCOlawsuit.com website is kind of (-1, Redundant) with people like PJ and everyone else covering the SCO case far better than I can, so I wanted to put out a quick poll: since really the important things that I own are the domain names (scoletters.com, scoletter.com, scofile.com, scofiles.com, scoreport.com, scoreport.com, scolawsuit.com) would it be beneficial it I pointed one or two of these domain names to another site? Thanks.
Looking at Darl's picture on the SLTrib article, he looks absolutely terrible. Worse than Brando showing up to shoot Apacolypse Now. It's almost as if... (horrors!) he's got Philipkahnosis!
Yes, this dreaded sickness attacks increasingly useless technology executives. It manifests itself by eating their soul, and as the infection spreads, it releases large amounts of noxious gas, resulting in a foul odor and a "puffy" or "bloated" appearance. Medical scientists believe that frequent contact with attorneys, tape worms, or other parasites may increase the risk of contracting Philipkahnosis.
Has Darl got any kids? He could sue them for being a derivative work...
not even the best chefs in the universe can make bullshit smell and taste like fillet millon.
Actually, it is the other way around. Preferred stock does not have voting rights, but pays dividends before common stock. It also has a higher priority claim on company assets in case of bankruptcy, less than creditors and bond holders, but higher than common stock holders.
Preferred stock is a funny beast. It's price tends to move with the bond market, not the stock market. The main advantage is for retired people who like to have the income from the dividends, but the conversion option gives them a way to at least somewhat cash in if the company stock flies.
Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
From the ZDNet Article
h tml?ID=60
With the amendment, the suit also includes new allegations that IBM violated its SCO contract by improperly exporting Unix software to India
And this from SCO's site:
http://www.thescogroup.com/company/success/story.
As someone who has lived in Utah and out, I would say that Utah doesn't necessarly have more serious scamming going on than elswhere, but they do have a uniquely multi-polar society with more than their share of gullible ninnies are comingled with another (though more typical) group of greedy perpetrators who never needed to evolve into intelligent scammers with such easy pickin's around.
The combo (clueless greedies + naive ninnies) makes for robust traffic in multilevel skin products and vitamins-that-promise-to-cure-cancer scams.
So Utah is not really more corrupt than other places, but it's different. I believe, for example, that the Olympic scam was typical of other Olympic venues when it happened at Utah, but the notable difference was that the whistle was blown and the (naive) local public reacted with admirable shock.
Darl seems to have emerged from this subculture of manipulators-among-the-naive, but with additional drive from his apparent megalomaniacal personality disorder: why peddle antioxidant vitamins when you can go for three, no five BILLION (with pinky-to-mouth).
No more planning going on here than with the pyramid scheme moguls. He knows he's a scammer (or else his answers at, say Harvard, would be less evasive.) I think that he simply hopes enough people are gullible or naive or complacent enough for him to get away with some fraction of the loot.
Where did they find 300 million lines of Linux code to begin with, much less 300 million infringing lines?
They simply added up the lines once for every kernel release at kernel.org. Including -mm, -ac, RCs and then some.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
So, um... which one of us has fallen into another dimension? 'Cuz you sure aren't talking about the IBM I know. IBM giving an asset away isn't poetic. I'd call it heart-stoppingly unimaginable.
So, um... like the assets SCO is accusing IBM of having contributed to Linux? Which noone doubts and is all there for you to read with proper copyright notices and all?
No, I'm not saying they'll do it for the goodness of their hearts. They'll do it because it suits them better to run AIX/Linux than to deal with MS licencing. They might simply find it more cost-effective to leave that to the OSS community rather than roll their own.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
but the antics of SCO are becoming inconsequential in my own mind. Thay aim to be in the papers and on slashdot once a week. For why? I am no financial expert so I must rely on you all, where is the info regarding the heads of SCO selling (or not selling) their SCO stock? How does one find out? They cant really believe in this can they?
But the thing that I find interesting has little to do with SCO, they were simply the impetus.
IBM is seemingly backing the GPL in effect if not in ideal, in a meaningfull way, regardless of the motivations.
from http://news.com.com/2100-1016-5082910.html?tag=nl
In an expanded counterclaim filed late Thursday in U.S. District Court for Utah, IBM added charges of copyright violation based on the GPL terms. The claim cites seven pieces of copyrighted software IBM contributed to Linux under the GPL. By violating the terms of the GPL, IBM states, SCO violated IBM's copyrights
Maybe its just easier for IBM, but they are using it. RMS should be proud even if it is Linux in the papers and GNU/Linux.
With regard to this SCO crap, we all knew it was untried, the fact is littered in the relevant GNU documentation. I suspect this will be a good thing for us all in the end, given that it will have at least been tried, and possibly all within a few years.
And it looks like the GNU licence has IBMs christening. No matter the motivations, this company is over 100 years old yes? I see this all as (tentatively) a good thing.
But there is this thought: SCO will probably not matter. But what will we do with the next SCO? In the extream case, what if Torvalds says its all his and every user must give a dollar?
Basically, how does one go about protecting the GNU projects (Linux included)from everyone for everyone? Is the GPL solid enough? I guess we are about to find out.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
We believe that most if not all Linux users have sustained a significant amount of damage due to the lawsuits pertaining the rights of Linux and is subsidiaries, due to this fact we are processing a counter law suite against the SCO company to prevent any further actions until such if any actions are persuade by the upper courts, if no action is taken or SCO is found not to present the court with enough evidence to pursue any lawsuit against over 50% of the user group of Linux then all actions by the SCO group are deemed illegal and will be subject to a criminal lawsuit if not a political lawsuit and will deem that the SCO group will provide all legal council fees and will provide at least 100% of the damages inured by all parties up to at least 721 day since the lawsuit has been sealed by all courts in addition Defamation of character of all Linux and sub Linux users due to the fact that SOC believes that all Linux users have infringed on copyright infringements will take place if defamation of character has accrued then the SOC group will owe damaged deemed by the court to any party which placed claims. No court settlement should be sealed for less then 1/4 the original claim by the SCO group, this is for or against their claim, and should be followed by all legal lawsuits pertaining to any claim for or against the SCO group up until the year 2500.
FUCK YOU IM RICH BITCH !!!!
- MOSKIE
Man, it sure is interesting that sco.com is still down, and yet they can issue more press releases. I guess that tells you where their business priorities are. No _real_ computer company would let their main website stay down for a couple of hours, let alone a week.
-Robert
This was a fun week watching the high-jinks
... you have to
of Darl -n Company.
First: Darl at "Harvard"
put a Boston accent on "Harvard".
This was a "pump" ploy on the stock.
Instead, Darl was using the opportunity
to visit the male dorms to score serious
freshman butt since he perfers males not
girls. Result, stock down.
Later, Darl visits Vatican.
Darl had read in the papers that all
the Cardnals were gay, so the thought
that he could score serious old butt.
Result, SCOX price down.
Next. David Boise, the "Nobel" belches,
"drop the I-Property, Sue on Copy",
and the SCOX price jumps $0.62 per share.
What a Prophet! David old boy is such
a Master"bater" when it comes to cum.
Toodles!
This thing isnt going to go away for 5 to 10 years, and I can see it ruining a lot of productive time and effort on the opensource side.
With a little luck, the big company behind SCO's litigation machinery (and we all know who they are, don't we?) would finally see the light, and decide to go Linux. They'll probably buy out SCO and shut down their litigation department altogether, in an effort to gain sympathy among the Open Source user base.
Am I dreaming? Gone nuts? Think about it this way: a lot of corporate sysadmins and IT personnel in the future will be acquainted (and sympathetic) to Linux, and they'll have big purchasing power. If M$ still exists, it will have to foster good relations with those people, if they want to be able to sell anything. Killing this SCO parody now would generate a lot of good Karma in tomorrow's IT world.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
If you read through the notes from the hearing, it's clear that SCO continues to refuse to, or is unable to, identify specific infringing code, and the judge doesn't like it. The judge said "The problem is, unless you identify those codes, then IBM is not in a position to have a response. We're at an impasse, and the case cannot continue with an impasse, that's why there was a court order". That's a clear indication from the judge. The judge isn't buying SCO's nebulous theory of general infringement.
Cravath is slowly boxing in SCO. Notice that the trade secret claim has been dropped. The copyright claim isn't in the case yet, and IBM can probably insist that it doesn't go in without SCO showing the original and the purported copy side by side.
Look for some rulings unfavorable to SCO shortly.
EVERY DAMN DAY THERE IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT SCO.....WHAT THE HELL IS SCO?!?!?!??! i thought geeks liked SCO, but now i hear they hate them? What's the deal...I'm geeky, i need to know...thanks!
IBM *was* as you recall.
They signed the consent decree, then *abided* by it, and learned from it.
I didnt track all that as it happened, but I did read about it.
I also worked for a company that used a lot of IBM equipment. I started as a MS lover and looked down on IBM. In working with IBM ( and in watching MS through the years ), I have reversed on each of those positions. I grew to respect IBM's business sense and ethics ( at least what I could see of it ), and I learned to appreciate what IBM had to offer in the way of hardware ( I started thinking speed was all, I came away impressed with the business utility, business-minded-ness, and robustness of thier stuff ).
Now, if only MS would have such a change of "heart" as I perceive IBM had, the world would be a much better place. And they could stop being paranoid megalomanics.
As to giving away, in a sense, no, but putting Unix in the public domain *would* make sense, as it would forstall any future successor in interest from making similiar calculations, and would reduce IBM's risks. ( see also, the other posts about IBM's contributions to Linux )
emt 377 emt 4
If you are going to be anal and correct someone, please don't blow a bunch of hearsay out of your ass while doing so.
April 12, 2005: I get a birthday present when the judge tells SCO to go f*** itself with a rusty shovel.
"We rule in favor of the Defendant, and order SCO to pay an assload of money to everyone affiliated with Linux development in any way, shape or form. Furthermore, SCO sucks, and should, in the Court's opinion, find a suitable location to perform sexual acts upon itself with poorly-maintained garden equipment. And on part 2, subsection B, I find SCO in contempt of court, and therefore must pay damages to the court in the form of either a fully-trained attack monkey, or two nice dress shirts."
*****
Dear Mary,
I yearn for you tragically,
A.T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
Suppose I work for IBM (I don't.), and I write some code. This code is then donated to Linux. Would IBM still own the writes to said code and be able to include it within a closed-source project (AIX)? It is my understanding that IBM would still own that code, and could do with it as they want.
If that is true, then would it work the other way around? IBM contributes code to AIX and that same code gets contributed to Linux. They wrote the code, they own it. They're not "stealing" from Unix and putting it in Linux.
In another move to be announced later in the week, SCO will be changing their company name to a symbol. Since the symbol will be unpronouncable in court, SCO will then (or so their lawyers hope) win by default.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
or else you would know the meaning of 'begging the question'.
hint : it isn't the same as 'raises the question'
The question is: who is the other party. If I read it correctly, Darl Mc Bride represented Novell when the contract was signed. So would any errors have to be blamed on him or on Novell?
One hint as to the intentions of both parties in the contract could be the price. One might assume that Novell would not intentionally have sold rights worth billions for a mere few millions to Caldera.
1. How many years can SCO drag this out, thus making some people/organizations believe they still have a viable business model?
2. Who is going to give them the money to continue these amazing allegations?
3. Who is going to prosecute SCO and land the final punch that flattens them onto the mat?
Considering the amount of cash IBM have already wasted on this exercise, they may as well take Darl's shrunken head as a warning to anyone else considering fscking with their plans. Rather than being money wasted, the fiaSCO becomes a useful precedent.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
I wonder daily just when the court will stand up and scramble to find the proper legalese words for "Ok, I've had it. Get out of my eyes, case thrown out with extreme prejudice. Come back and I'll have you thrown into maximum security just for the fun of it."
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
McBride was hired to increase shareholder value. (period) His own words.
If I had foresight of my hindsight, I'd be a millionare right now.
If I had bought $10000 in stock when this all started ($1 per share), sold at $10 per share, reinvested with $100,000, then sold at the peak of $22 per share... I'd have $1,200,000 in the bank right now. I could retire off this asshole. Why do you think so many people rushed to buy SCO stock? They don't care if he's right or wrong; if he's an asshole or not. They want investment opportunities that make money. For this, Darl had delivered.
He's doing exactly what the shareholders are paying him to do. I could have probably doubled that million if after that I sold short.
Linux is going to survive. In fact, Linux will flurish when this is all over. Darl, through IBM and others, will prove Linux is a viable and independent alturnative to Unix. Seperate but equal except for being free.
If I had only known, I could have had my cake and eaten it too.
IIRC doesn't Darth Vacant ( Miiiiister McBride ) need to put together 4 successive profitable quarters before he can cash in? My feeling is that SCO feels they can do this by endlessly shifting the goal posts in their legal game. I'm still not sure how Monkey Boy McBride plans to maintain his grip on the filberts once the excreta have hit the "giant fan" mentioned by another poster.
"Of course, he's made millions selling SCO stock since this fiasco began, he'll never need to work again."
As luck would have it, Darlin' Darl the Dark, does not have any vested stock options to sell at this time. He draws a realtively small, (about 160K), salary and his stock options are held up pending a string of profitable quarters. Regrettably, IBM appears to have interceded in that endevour and the SCOundrels will not see another quarter. (read that either way: profit, or wrt time.)
The Flatlander
I'd buy the Linux product but they would have to explicitly say in writing that the GPL and other FOSS licenses on the code are valid for anything they might concievably own. If they or any successors in interest tried anything else like this, I'd staple that license document to their asses.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
...since the code is available for free download from SCO's server, can they confirm that no Iranian, Korean or Cuban has downloaded it from *their* site?
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
I have read, probably Groklaw, that copyright transfer is not automatic, and has to be done explicitly in writing at the PTO or whoever handles it. Reagardless of what that contract says is necessary, if SCO did not explicitly ask for those copyright transfers, and if Novell did not sign any over to SCO, then they were not transferred. My understanding has been that SCO has to explicitly state they need the copyright transfers, and why, and Novell has to agree. None of this has occurred.
Infuriate left and right
"Contributions to Linux are public," Marriott said. "All they have to do is get on the Internet."
Heise countered that "not everything they have put into Linux is public," and that pointing SCO to the Internet did not amount to "complete disclosure" it seeks from IBM.
Maybe SCO is gambling that IBM will cave if actually compelled to release their proprietary source codes otherwise. That would appear to be the only strategy that makes any sense.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
SCO-X
X-SCO
eX-SCO
All gone!
(much unnecessary lowercase letters to escape around the slashdot lameness filter when it itself is being lame.)
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I think it is Provo in the Carribbean.
<rhetorical>What do slashdotters do for work?</rhetorical>
Assume I was drunk when I posted this.