Slashdot Mirror
MS Word File Reveals Changes to SCO's Plans
jfruhlinger writes "Ah, the joys of 'track changes' in MS Word: metadata in a document obtained by Cnet reveals some earlier plans by SCO's legal team. Among them: to sue in February (their original target date), to sue Bank of America, to 'impound ... all Linux software products in the custody or control of Defendant through the pendency of these proceedings', and to accuse in court 'Linus Torvalds and/or others' of 'inclusion into one or more distributions of Linux with the copyright management information intentionally removed.' Good stuff." Also, SCO has announced a few new licensees including Computer Associates.
I don't think you know what ironic means.
And no, I don't find it *anything*. Here in the real world, people use Word.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
It started out as an absurd lawsuit, then it got personal. Linus has tried to keep out of this as best he could until he got dragged into the whole thing. If there's anything that would unite an entire community more than an attack on Linux, letters by ESR and RMS, it's an attack on Torvalds himself.
If IBM would name MS in their countersuit with SCO as a backer of this arrangement (or at least have it investigated since their does seem to be some creditable evidence) and bring it up with the Justice Dept.
It would be amusing to have IBM having the last laugh of the MS/IBM competition over the years (starting with DOS, OS/2, then Windows, etc.)...
Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
So, this to me seems like another example of security breaches that can get companies, organizations and governments into trouble because of their use of Microsoft products.
.doc formats for certain information transactions and instead relying on standard ascii text encoded files.
So, last time I heard, certain agencies are prohibiting the use of
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Shareholders have already unseated Eisner and Lord Black because of stupidity/criminal self-dealing. Here's three more to add to the list.
The question that's really in dispute is not whether the code SCO is bringing forward looks like a duplicate of the code in Linux, but where the code that SCO is bringing forward has come from... is it in fact code SCO really owns, or is it code that SCO hacked up after looking at the GPL-available Linux code.
And I wouldn't recommend anybody study the Win2K code that was leaked... Microsoft has threatened to sue anybody who so much as downloads it. Why bring that headache on to yourself when FreeBSD is there?
It's the only way I can see this activity making any business sense.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
I feel EV1 is getting to much heat. I mean if a thug leans on some little guy and extorts money from him do you blame the little fellow or the thug?
No CA paying is another matter. They are not some litte ISP.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
these latest cases in SCO is suing their former clients make sense and bring clarity to SCOs assertions.
Imagine it from SCOs point of view. They see a flood of customers running from Unixware to the free linux. They want to stop that. They think, Linux came up to speed so quickly to an enterprise level something smells fishy. There would be tonnes and tonnes of kernel, network and library issues to have ironed out. Yet people are making seemless conversions.
Ergo they realize people are copyying the code to speed the results. Now who to sue. You could sue your clients who are copying the libraries for comaptibility. or you could sue linux because they are not your customer.
So you decide to sue linux, assuming linux copied stuff just like your clients did. Your corporate culture despises Open Source so its not hard to get the blinders on, make rash accusations.
You find some smoking guns and start down that road. Then you decide to draw in IBM since they were selling the migration as a bussiness model and they just stiffed you on your last best hope for a collborative bussniess.
but then suddenly you realize you made some mistakes, maybe there was not as much copying as you thought. And what ther eis will vanish the moment its revealed. So if there is a case here its against IBM for assiting the copies and porting for clients to linux. And since linux is a disperse target, go for the end users without licences indemnities.
Finally you bite the bullet and realize your after the wrong smelly fish. Its not linux or IBM since they have the manpower to and skill to make honest clean versions. its your clients who would not have had the manpower to do the conversions without cheating. Some lazy programmer copied code to speed the library conversions. Sue the clients!!!
While I'm doubtful of copying in the kernel, since its a hotly scrutinzed area, I would not be surpise to find copying in underfunded corporate backwaters such as migration libraries, in which core, boring compatibility issues in uixware had to be translated to Linux and some programmer got lazy or pressed for time.
Maybe SCo is finally going to create a winable case.
I have to wonder WTF SCO is thinking. do they really think that going into BoA and possibly shutting down a bank by confiscating their stuff is going to do them any good? What bank would continue to do business with them after that kind of action. Not to mention that it's going to take a lot more goons than SCO can muster to walk about with bank computer equipment.
He's lying, but with such an obvious red-herring that it's certain he's trolling:
He's suggesting that people avoid legal liability by avoiding linux source, but encouraging those same people to study the clearly proprietary Windows source. Its looking at the Windows source, not the linux source, that could put them in the position of being accused of violating copyright, in this case Microsoft's.
The busines about being a Harvard grad student is just window dressing.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Note the targets of SCO's lawsuits so far and the reason why they're being sued:
- IBM because they bought a UNIX license from SCO.
- Daimler Chrysler because they use both Linux and SCO UNIX.
- Autozone because they used to use SCO UNIX and changed to Linux.
- Novell because they have a contract with SCO to collect UNIX licensing fees.
Note that in every case the problem has never been that the target used Linux. It's always because they did business with SCO. In no case has SCO tried to prove in court that they have IP in Linux; they reserve those claims for their press releases. The court cases are all about contractual disputes with SCO customers and former customers.I've said it before and I'll say it again. The lesson is clear; it's dangerous to even talk to these nut jobs.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
Try the FDIC would have a field day as this could cause a run on that bank and they could be out billions. Just wait till a bank says sorry we cant give you YOUR money SCO went and seized our computers, by the way here is the phone number for your congress critter in case you were interested. People are generaly lazy but get between them and there money and they get pissed. Granted I doubt anybody would ever be doumb enough to let it get that far but it would be funny to watch the congress critters swat SCO. Darl up for contempt of congress would be nice to try getting out of that one :) ok back to reality.
No sir I dont like it.
I cannot believe companies are caving in to SCO and paying these bogus licensing fees. Can you believe Questar's logic?
"Our usage of (Linux) is so small and isolated that's why we went ahead and signed the contract.,"
The more companies that pay the more Linux looks like a tainted OS that is no longer Free.
I knew the whole IBM v SCO thing wasn't going to be a quick and dirty affair. I knew SCO would be getting help from Microsoft to fund its legal offensive. I never thought companies would be dumb enough to pay for IP which is contested. For the love of God why are they paying? Say Fuck You to SCO and let them sue you if they want money. No judge will pass judgment against you or even let the case go forward until SCO can prove via the IBM case their IP claims. Who are the lawyers for these companies that are saying its better to pay? Fire their asses and hire someone with a clue.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Maybe CA will buy them. CA seems to have somehow built a business by buying up software products that are never heard of again. In the case of SCO Unix that would be a good thing.
impound all "linux software products" (impounding the hardware would be easier) They'd have problems making impounding of the hardware stick since they are only claiming ownership of the software. Remember SCO fans that this is "pump and dump", the soundbites they're generating don't have to be rational. They just have to sound impressive to Bush-voters types.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Ah yes. *That*, my friends, is irony. :-D
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
Actually the $2 loss yesterday is probably why there was a minor uptick today. There are a lot of "mechanical" traders who assume a big, one day downturn overstates how much a company's stock should be punished for a given news item. They pick up the stock the next day on the assumption the cooler heads will prevail and the stock will regain some of its dramatic loss.
A lot of trading is done simply in response to a stock's momentum, average value, deviation from average, etc. It has very little to do with the long term prospects of the company.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
This is why any corporate documents that will be dessiminated outside the company should always be converted to Acrobat. It's the policy for many sites for this very reason.
Jason
"FORMAT C:" - Kills bugs dead!
I work in a company that uses a mix of code as well as we write our own. Some of it is under BSD, others LGPL, and of course, GPL. I myself encourage this, but I always push that we need to obey the licenses. What I have found funny is that 2 people here are weak coders and basically like to steal GPL based code and say that putting it in a product we will give us a leg up. I have been fighting a huge battle on it and have finally won. But it was a close battle. In fact, the management wanted to go with the others, but it was myself and a lawyer who convince them to simply change the model.
I suspect that This goes on more than most realize. I would suspect that a number of small companies are "getting a leg up" in this fashion. So no, do not mod down.
Except, this is more like a 90 year old man with a walker and oxygen claiming he has a shotgun in his pocket and demanding that you owe him money.... little guy or not.. I'm not afraid of a half-dead 90 year old man with no pockets.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
IALOS...
I think there are a couple of interesting items.
The first question, is would the deleted material allowed in court? Since it was a draft of a legal plan, it would seem pretty clear that the content should ordinarally be protected by attorney-client privelidge? Especially if accidentally passed.
The next question, is, now that it has been exposed, are there actions that can be taken against, SCO or thier lawform for either releasing confidential information, or the actual content of the confidential information?
I can already hear lawyers screaming around the world, and this has to be good for Adobe...
Lawyers should not be providing editable documents like word files. Final format documents like PDF, or signed PDF would seem to be a lot better thing to be passing around legal documents.
You forgot the judge told them in no uncertain terms to explicitly outline exactly what Linux code is theirs and barred them from making some public comments.
i have downloaded it but not yet looked at it =))
and that was few weeks ago and there is no letter or mail from them
all it is is FUD
how do they now you downloaded it???
better try playing lotto
i is as likely that you win as that you get sued by M$
The EV1 deal is interesting.
SCO is claiming the deal with EV1 was worth more than a million dollars. EV1 is disputing the 7 figures and the confusion seems to be the weasel word "worth".
In other words, SCO is claiming that $1million+ "worth" of licenses were sold. So that's $1mill/$699 = 1400+ licenses, or $1mill/$1399 = 700+ licenses. SCO's own quarterly says only $20k income from licensing this quarter. It's possible the EV1 payments are in stages, or won't appear on SCO's financials until next quarter, but it's also possible that EV1 only paid $20k for their licenses.
But SCO is spinning this to sound much more impressive. EV1 was the patsy here; they thought they were getting a great deal, but they were just another pawn in SCO's (Microsoft's?) smear campaign against Linux.
In the legal system, one who has $60 million set aside for lawsuits is not anywhere near equivalent to a 90 year old man. More like a 25 year old hotshot with something to prove.
.-.--
They just have to sound impressive to Bush-voters types.
I wish you children would just grow up and get a life. You don't have to make every uuterance of yours be an attack against Bush.
If you put your silly CNN thinking points aside for just a second, you'll realize that most of the anti-consumer IP crap that has come down the pike this decade has been from the D-for-Disney side of the aisle.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
The big statue of Joseph Smith in the center of Salt Lake City has his back to the Temple and his arms outstretched towards the Bank across the street. This observation isn't meant as a slight against Mormons in general, but it is strangely symbolic of the attitude of some Mormons.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Yet, but it wouldn't make SCO suffer a fitting fate.
I think public humiliation, stock delisting, and bankruptcy would be a more fitting end.
You heard it here first!
"Do not drill any holes in your cat - it will not like it."
-- Nick Davies
Step-by-step instructions for removing SCO stories from your homepage, for morons:
Step 1: Type "slashdot.org" (without the quotes) into your browser's address bar.
Step 2: Type your username and password into the login box at the right hand side of the homepage. (If you do not have a Slashdot account, please refer to my 7-part guide "How to create a Slashdot account, for morons")
Step 3: Press the "Login" button. Congratulations! You are now logged in to Slashdot!
Step 4: Click the link "Preferences" under your username at the left hand side of the page.
Step 5: Click the tab named "Homepage".
Step 6: Check the checkbox labeled "Caldera" under "Exclude Stories from the Homepage." There are a lot of checkboxes, so you may have trouble finding it if you are an extreme moron. Just remember that the topics are in alphabetical order.
Step 7: Click the "Save" button at the bottom of the page. Congratulations! You have successfully changed your Slashdot preferences! Be sure to tune in next time when we show you "How to change your comment sorting preferences, for morons"!
The issue is about whether or not the code in Linux is SCO's code or not. SCO is claiming IBM put some of its code into Linux in order to make Linux "Eterprise Ready". IBM says they didn't do any such thing. A patch removing all of the code SCO claims were put in illegally would be a tacit admission that the code is SCO's. Removing any code SCO claims is theirs would be the worst thing any kernel maintainer could do right now.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
What is sad is that an AC gets modded "Interesting" for calling all Utah Mormon business people "nuts", even if he claims to be one. Is bigotry really all that interesting? Why don't you guys throw me some mod points for this one: "All Slashdot moderators are freakin' morons."
The point is that I know a lot of Utah Mormon business people that are just *normal* business people, faults and all.
Boom Shanka
Revision tracking is quite useful.
But what they need is "print as a pdf" like every other word processor in the world has. Or "email this as pdf".
Not only would this strip out the incriminating evidence (without destroying it for you) this would also make it much more difficult for a receiver to edit the document to say anything they wanted. The document will also look correct even if viewed on a machine with different fonts.
Of course Microsoft will not do this because they want their Word lock-in. They make sure that you have to be a complete Guru to do anything with Word other than store Word and print it on an actual piece of paper.
You may know a lot of Morman business people who are just "normal" business people, but that isn't relevant. Most Mormans I know are ethical hard working people, but that isn't relevant either. What is relevant is that Utah is well known for the various scams and con artists that operate from Utah. It doesn't take "most" of a group to make conditions where they live unsavory, just a few percent more than normal amount of con artists. Conditions in Utah are right for nurturing the development of con artists. http://www.watchman.org/lds/scamlds.htm
CA is not noted for throwing their money around. This move could well make sense for them, if the price was right. Now lets see:
Actual value of a license from SCO: $0.00
Value of CA's name as a licensee: $(negative to CA)
Value of above if it is known that SCO actually PAID CA to take the damn license: $0.00
Value to CA of it's competitors believing CA paid for SCO licences: $(slight, but positive)
Therefore, it is most likely that SCO paid CA some amount (middle 6 to low 7 figures) on condition that
1.SCO could announce that CA bought (or got, what word did they actually use) licenses from SCO, and
2.CA would not discuss the terms of the license publically.
I'll probably have to call the fire dept. for saying this, but:
;)
I haven't lived in Utah, but I have lived and travelled in other "Mormon country" parts of the western U.S. -- and the original poster is, sadly, correct. Among the Idaho and Montana Mormon communities, there is an unspoken but active philosophy that it's *okay* to exploit "gentiles" (non-Mormons) in any way they can. "Gentiles" soon learn to spot the attitude, and commonly experience snubs from Mormon businesses. Yeah, there are plenty of "normal" Mormon business folks, but the "us only" skew is definitely there, sortof like an extended Old Boy network.
Conversely, I've not noticed these issues in SoCal, where Mormons blend in and don't act significantly different from anyone else.
I think the original point was that when you get a Mormon businessman who IS a bad one, *and* is in an area where church and community support are as one, they tend to behave as if any gentile they're screwing over is somehow subhuman, therefore not worth playing fair with, to a degree you don't normally see even in ordinary cutthroat business.
Move the LDS origins forward a century for purposes of comparison, and consider what other cul^H^H^H^H church they much resemble, and much may become clear
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
"Indemnify" implies that if the Linux user lost, and had to pay damages to SCO, Red Hat would pay the bill for the damages awarded by the court.
What the prior poster was saying is that if SCO sues, Rad Hat will pay for a defense (help you fight the lawsuit), but if you lose and the court orders you to pay damages to SCO, Red Hat won't pay that bill.
Personally, I have no idea what the scope of Red Hat's protections are nor can I comment on who is or is not correct. I'm just playing Websters.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Now whether it should be on by default is a different question. I would say probably not -- in addition to leaks like this, it causes file size to continue to increase over time, even when the document gets shorter.
You know its interesting that Utah Mormons may be more gullible than the general population (a point your linked website makes). It would probably be a good idea for Mormon leaders to try to prevent this. This doesn't prove the grandparent's post, though. For example, did proportion of Mormon scam artists mirror the proportion of Mormons in the general population? Basically I agree that gullible people attract dishonest people. I don't think that the grandparent's post was making that point, though.
By the way, what's with that website? Do they really consider Mormons a cult?
Boom Shanka
I think the feature should be on by default, but the past version data should be stored encrypted with either your default key, or a shared group key you could put on your keyring.
This way you could send your document to anyone you want at any stage and the history would be hidden.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I just have to say wow. I hate speaking to people who drop the H-bomb (Harvard) for the hell of it. Most of the people I know who went/go to Harvard don't like to bring it up at all. Unless we're trying to get a job or into grad school it is just something you don't do.
It's considered more tactful to say: I go/went to school in Boston. And if you're asked, 'Where?' Most students reply 'in Cambridge.' It usually takes three rounds of questioning before a Harvard Alumnus gives it up in general conversation.
Learn some manners and be a little humble outside The Yard. It goes a long way in life. And, what's more, you'll be considered classier for it.
Cheers,
Akoni