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.
If all Sco's operating officers are put in jail whos going to write all the checks for the lawsuits? Also at what point does the Bar association of Utah step in and say if you sco lawyers do this anymore kiss your licenses goodby?
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
I'm sure that EV1 is very happy now about their investment and partnership with SCO. Maybe next time they'll partner with a more popular group like the KKK.
Here in Canada, it's so cold outside that I swear I saw a SCO lawyer with his hand in his own pocket. Sassan
Now I have to cut and paste!! Oh the humanity.. (yeah, i'm lazy....)
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
Ironically, UC Berkeley is also going to be a licensee!!
Slashdot should make a section for SCO!
Also, SCO has A HREF
What's a href and why are you yelling?
If there was a question as to whether this is just an SCO fishing expedition, I think the question has now been answered
I'm surprised SCRO don't just take the list of Fortune 100 companys they sent the notificiation to, and using mailmerge.
Not often you see 'joy' and 'MS Word' in the same sentence.
FYI... here's a free app that removes MS Word metadata (useful for sensitive docs for distribution)
http://www.docscrubber.com/download.html
-fren
"Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?"
Are they even trying anymore?
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
With SCO being all about their Unix IP, you would think they would prefer to use their own product when writing legal proceedings, instead they use Microsofts....
Memories become legend, Legend fades to myth, and even myth is forgotten by the time that age comes again.-Robert Jordan
Thats funny, SCO screwed by their biggest contrib.
I know this feature of word has let me find out some interesting things before. You would not believe some of the things people write in their resumes.
Im glad
I'd be interested to know how many companies got the warning letter from SCO and tossed it in the circular file instead of replying to it.
If I'm not mistaken, SCO filed suit against DC because they never received a response to their letter. I wonder how many more they'll file based on lack of replies.
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!!!!
This is scandalous. There's no official confirmation yet, but apparently CmdrTaco of Slashodt.org fame leaked the source code to the story. The file contained a href and then something.
Will this be the end of Slashdot?
Anyone able to find a link to the word file? I'd like to see this for myself in its entirety. I did a quick search on Google and didn't turn it up.
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.
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.
"Next week we'll be covering one of the more amusing cases in IP. Make sure to read the case study on SCO before coming to class. It's Chapter 11, which isn't altogether lacking in irony."
More that its ironic that MS is bankrolling SCO to try and torpedo Linux, but their own technology is making it easier for the other side to obtain shreds of information we probably shouldnt be privy to.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Shareholders have already unseated Eisner and Lord Black because of stupidity/criminal self-dealing. Here's three more to add to the list.
Is bloated, closed source, evil empire produced Word a good or bad thing ?
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
~Darl
IANAL. But suppose a case is brought to court that includes, as part of its collection of evidence, a Word document that tracks changes in much the same way that the Word document in the article apparently did. Could a prosecutor who, for example, sees among the "invisible ink" Neo-Nazi writings by the accused, be able to use that as evidence against him? Could he furthermore deduce "motive" and "intent" from that evidence? On one hand, he is able to glean the evidence simply because something *WAS* there. But that's just the problem: It was in the past, but it has been editted out and substituted by the weekly grocery list of the accused. Would he then be able to point to the "change log", so to speak, and build his case on that?
Their earnings are down. They sued two of their own customers. Laura Dido is no longer brainwashed by them. They have been revealed to be sock puppets of Redmond. And they use Word, which revealed their alternate evil plans. This is by far the funniest SCO week ever.
I would have loved to have seen them try to impound all that equipment. BOA would have destroyed them outright.
Anyone know who SCO banks with?
...like two smitten children fumbling and tumbling over themselves.
I think they're like two monkeys banging away on a keyboard instead... Hey maybe they'll create the next Longhorn source by the time the courts settle.
# fuser -v
#
This is getting beyond utter stupidity! The only thing Bank of America would have to do is remove any offending code or recompile their apps without using offending libraries. It's not that hard.
So far we haven't seen a single line of proprietary code from SCO - anything and everything they have shown us was and still is available in public domain. Just because they copied it from public domain and put it in their shitty product doesn't make it their invention.
As far as BoA is concerned, I think Darl remembered he had an account with them where he stashed his millions. Talk about sticky situation:
Darl: All your Linux are belong to us!
BoA: OK, *click*, all your assets have been frozen until further notice...
It's the only way I can see this activity making any business sense.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
I can't find where it says who got this document or why it was even in the form of a Word doc. Why don't they spend some dollars for some software to barf out .pdf's instead..?
p
somehow this happened.
* SCO Group Inc (The) SCOX 11.66 +0.07 (0.60%)
How? What idiot would buy stock now? Microsoft, in a last ditch attempt to give them a shread of crediability? People willing to take a million to one odds that they win any of these lawsuits?
SAILING MISHAP
Doesnt this prove what many of us knew? Stupid, evil people use stupid evil applications...
In seeking relief from the courts, the original version of the document also said that it sought: "impounding all Linux software products in the custody or control of Defendant through the pendency of these proceedings;"
What kind of drug were they on when they thought that a court would allow them to impound all "linux software products" (impounding the hardware would be easier) before the trial had been decided? Proving irreperable harm to SCO would be very hard, and taking all of these computers from BofA would cause incredible harm. No judge would allow such a thing.
Which makes me wonder... who even suggested this - SCO management or their lawyers? Is the management that clueless/reckless?
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
Office XP/2003 Remove Hidden Data Tool
Caldera?!!! What's vulcanism have to do with UNIX? Cmdr Spock was half human!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
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.
On March 4th SCO, within 24 hours of publication, I received word from Steven J. Vaughan at eWEEK.com that SCO had confirmed that the memo is legitimate.
Headline: "Computers Purported To Be Used For Something Besides Serving Webpages"!
Film at 11.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
And no, I don't find it *anything*. Here in the real world, people use Word.
Here in the real world people use Open Office, and do not suffer from these issues. Just goes to show that some of us in the real world make smarter decisions than others of us also inhabiting the real world. Go figure.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
..Down on the farm, we call that karma.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
That doesn't work; it brings all the trash along with it.
Yeah, right.
...so we can TURN IT OFF.
"And in other news, gravity continues to pull things together!"
open my resume in a hex editor and read the slack code, which says "fuck you if your paranoid enough to open this document in a hex editor. Maybey SCO should do the same.
I'm willing to bet that BOA has a few more servers lurking around... I could be wrong but I'll put a buck on it.
"Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
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
No relationship there.
Name: web.kkklan.com
Address: 198.77.57.132
ABCS ONLINE ABCS-52-13 (NET-198-77-52-0-1) 198.77.52.0 - 198.77.61.255
OrgName: ABCS ONLINE
OrgID: ABCS
Address: 2700 South 25th Street
City: Terre Haute
StateProv: IN
PostalCode: 47802
Country: US
NetRange: 198.77.52.0 - 198.77.61.255
CIDR: 198.77.52.0/22, 198.77.56.0/22, 198.77.60.0/23
NetName: ABCS-52-13
NetHandle: NET-198-77-52-0-1
Parent: NET-198-76-0-0-1
NetType: Reassigned
Comment:
RegDate: 2002-08-14
Updated: 2002-08-14
TechHandle: MC1728-ARIN
TechName: Cialdella, Matthew
TechPhone: +1-812-232-1208
TechEmail: matthewc@abcs.com
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.
Ah yes. *That*, my friends, is irony. :-D
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
Where did you read this??? So far, no one outside of the U.S. has been paying their license fees.
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!
Actually, this data, eventhough hidden from view normally, can be entered in a case directly against SCO. There was a similar case where Laywer A was attempting to setting with Laywer B, and there client was going to settle on a much higher amount, but Laywer B had them decrease it ... and you guessed it, they were using MS Word, so the orginial text of the higher amount was saved, and got sent to Laywer A, who noticed it, and then was able to force Laywer B and his client to settle on the higher amount. I could see this being entered as SCO was attempting to sue anyone, once there was ANY shred of proof the company was connected to Linux. This might just be another nail in the box for SCO, and for once, I have to say thanks to Micro$oft because there "feature" (and I use that term lightly) might just help SCO loose.
This signature was left intentionally blank.
(Sorry for the anonymous post... none of this is confidential but I'd still like to keep my name separate from it...)
1. We use AIX. Heavily. Like most banks do.
2. We're rolling out Linux right now. I'm personally involved in this deployment, and we have made a big deal out of it, going as far as making a presentation at the last LWE about our Linux plans.
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.
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.
So, last time I heard, certain agencies are prohibiting the use of
Another example?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
....we'd appreciate if Chrysler could respond promptly.
Yours Truly,
Darl McBride
FUTURE CEO, CHRYSLER^z^z^z^z^z
OWNER, BIG BLUE^z^z^z^z
KING OF UNIX^z^z^z^z^z
"KING KERNEL"^z^z^z^z^z
CEO, SCO Inc.
If Microsoft has its way, once the business world implements encryption and secure distribution policies for word documents, we can say goodbye to whistleblowing.
This, to me, is a chilling prospect.
Something like originally their plan was "world domination", but now it is "keeping our sorry asses out of jail!"
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
that was fun
SCO has a standard M&F clause in their license. Is there a state that does not allow such clauses where SCO could be sued because Unixware is a POS and isn't fit for anything? Just wondering if one of the folks sued by SCO might do business in such a state and be inclined to sue SCO and make it stick?
Ooops...
Not only are we going after IBM; we're going after Daimler-Chrysler. We're going after AutoZone, and we're going to go after Bank of America. And then we're going to go to Finland to take back the source code. Yeeaaarrrghhh!!!!
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
I've been a linux user for years, and I had no idea that Autozone, Daimler-Chrysler, and BofA all used linux on a widespread basis.
I'll just bet PHB's are thinking more about Linux, thanks to all the SCO press.
I love irony.
A half-dead 90 year old man with no pockets, and an 800lb gorilla standing behind him.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
"Blake Stowell, SCO's director of communications, acknowledged that the leaked memo is real." -- eweek
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Since you brought up Microsoft and EV1...
There is a Case Study on Microsoft's web site here. This discusses the addition of several Windows-based servers to their Linux environment.
So, are they bed buddies? You bet.
-m.
Autozone
Bank of America
Computer Associates
Daimler Chrysler
E...?
CA Says It Didn't Pay SCO No Stinking Linux Tax
The Linux faithful have been hammering Computer Associates as a heretic since the British publication Computer Weekly quoting the SCO Group's CFO Bob Bench identified CA Thursday as one of SCO's rare Linux licensees.
CA senior VP of product development Mark Barrenechea says that Bench's claim is nonsense. CA has not paid SCO any Linux taxes, he said.
Drawing up short of calling SCO a liar, Barrenechea claims that SCO has twisted a $40 million breach-of-contract settlement that CA paid last summer to the Canopy Group, SCO's biggest stockholder, and Center 7, another Canopy company, and has turned it into a purported Linux license.
As a "small part" of that settlement, Barrenechea said, CA got a bunch of UnixWare licenses that it needed to support its UnixWare customers. SCO, he said, had just attached a transparent Linux indemnification to all UnixWare licenses and that is how SCO comes off calling CA a Linux licensee.
But when CA agreed to that settlement, Barrenechea said, "It was not CA's intention to become a Linux licensee. It has nothing to do with CA's product direction or strategic direction," he said.
CA has absolutely no sympathy for what SCO is doing, Barrenechea said, and in fact, he said, reading from a formal statement, it stands in "stark disagreement with SCO's tactics and threats."
Barrenechea and CA's Linux chief Sam Greenblatt are worried that CA will be tarred with the SCO brush and that CA's considerable Linux ambitions will be damaged by a disaffected, if not hostile, open source community when in reality CA has "nothing to do with SCO's strategy and tactics," they said.
CA was the mystery company SCO was thinking of when it announced last August that an unidentified Fortune 500 company had supposedly become a Linux license. SCO privately described the deal as "significant."
CA couldn't disassociate itself from the rumors that identified it as that licensee because of an NDA that the Canopy side had insisted on hedging in the $40 million settlement with, Barrenechea and Greenblatt said.
Barrenechea said that SCO now regards that NDA as being off because of the legal discovery that's been going on in SCO's $5 billion suit against IBM.
See, SCO lawyer Mark Heisse in a letter dated February 4 to IBM lawyer David Marriott at Cravath Swain identified CA, Questar and Leggett & Platt as Linux taxpayers.
According to that letter, which is up on the Groklaw site, Heisse owed IBM a copy of the CA agreement on CD.
Barrenechea said that SCO was dropping CA's name to associate itself with the "third-largest software company in the world" and build support for its "lost cause."
But according to Barrenechea, not only are SCO's IP ambitions doomed, but its Unix interests are a "trailing negative" on the road to dropping from 10% of the market to 3%-5% in a few years and then "SCO will be irrelevant,"
he said.
By the way, CA doesn't have enough UnixWare licenses to cover all its Linux servers, Greenblatt said.
In answer to CA's contentions, SCO said its lawyers think that CA has a Linux license.
Meanwhile, Bench also told Computer Weekly, whose story was picked up by sister paper InfoWorld and maybe other properties in the IDG stable, that SCO had signed between 10 and 50 Linux licenses.
CA is where software products go, not to die, but to become UNDEAD software. The majority of their products would be better off with a stake in their heart. So, with all the undead walking around, why is it suprising that they are associating with SCO Vampires, which are, obviously, just as Undead.
This is getting to be like a 3rd class movie where the bad guys start making stupid mistakes so that the heros can 'outwit' them.
Anyone got a picture of Darl ? I want to see if he is wearing a black hat.
I think they are hoping to tie up the courts to the point where they are too busy to throw the book at the SCO executives while at the same time counting on their legal carpet-bombing strategy nets them some settlement profits.
They have a few more tricks up their sleeve...from another news(.com)^2 article:
Linux, which runs well on inexpensive Intel processor-based servers, has become increasingly popular despite SCO's actions. Linux has even spread to the Web site of the U.S. District Court in Nevada, where SCO filed its suit against AutoZone, according to site monitoring firm NetCraft.
Soooo...if the courts threaten to dismiss SCOs case and/or charge them with fraud, they can just sue the court system itself!
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.
Google this: "canopy ca settlement"
Canopy Group (parent of SCO) and Center 7, another Canopy subsidiary, had a joint marketing arrangement with CA. Canopy claims that CA welshed. Canopy and Level 7 sued CA. The suit was settled with a $40 million payment.
I seem to recall, but I can't find a link, that other terms of the suit were that CA buy some Linux licenses. That would fit in with Canopy's plans.
Link to the settlement
"We did agree to a one time payment" says marsh in your eweek link.
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
You heard it here first!
"Do not drill any holes in your cat - it will not like it."
-- Nick Davies
Anyone who posts on a yahoo stock board automatically qualifies as not being 'in the know'.
SCO owns the copyrights to UNIX, right ?
I know the actual details are in dispute, but the fact is that SCO/Caldera purchased _something_ from Novell, for around $100m. Whether it is the full UNIX copyright or not, lets just call it 'the intellectual property in question'.
Now that SCO is in it's final days, and will end up bankrupt and disgraced real soon now, what is the likely fate of this intellectual property in question ?
Who, or what is standing by the sidelines ready to collect this intellectual property in question when SCO falls down ?
Either IBM will buy it up and formally release it into the public domain once and for all, or Dr Evil will pick it up, and take off from where SCO left off.
Maybe we could do a blender, and put in a community effort to purchase this intellectual property in question, and then do the right thing by it.
"...a document obtained by Cnet reveals some earlier plans by SCO's legal team."
It's good to know that SCO's legal team has a plan and is sticking to it...
I wonder if they have the bankruptcy paperwork already filled out for when the shit really hits the fan?
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1542915,00.as p
details at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
The hype surrounding the SCO vs Linux issue is pointless. Some Open Source code writer will post a patch that replaces the SCO mentioned code with new code. Call it reverse-engineering. Call it reinventing-the-wheel. Whaterver. I bet that this patch would be implementd quickly, thus negating SCO's case and putting another failed company out of it's missery. This could have been ended months ago!
Only the dead have seen the end of War. - Plato
Man in suit: Hey kid, nice software you have there. What's it called?
Kid: Um, Linux, why?
Man: Because I'm from SCO/Microsoft and I think it looks like my
software now.
Kid: No way, in fact I wrote some of it myself
Man [pushing attorneys in front of him]: Moose! Lefty! Help the kid
find his wallet.
I doubt what you say is true for two primary reasons:
1) The interfaces to any modern OS are virtually the same. And particularly amongst Unix-like variants, there are certainly fundamental differences in system code, but experienced programmers will use standard c/c++ libraries that are implemented on pretty much every unix-like OS. So if you're trying to do a port of a simple text-based application, the user interface code is a piece of cake because you're writing VT100 level stuff. And the back-end is generic "C" code that will probably compile on any machine with little tweaking.
2) More importantly, without the source code to SCO, how could customers do all this code stealing? Unless SCO distributes source with their OS, but I never heard that before. So how can you steal what you don't have access to?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
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.
Funny how the SCO stuff started up about the same time as Gates & company started to target Linux.
.doc files the posted. A simple text editor was all that was need to pick out the information.
It is also humorous that the article points out another Microsoft flaw. Word has always had problems with keeping data in the file that no one wanted. It used to be a lot worse when Word docs included all data out to the end of the sector they were written to. I freaked out a couple of Windows users by posting information found in the
I guess this "feature" is useful for some people who need to track changes but the final document should be "clean" of all other information that was previously in that file. Perhaps Microsoft should add a "clean for distribution" command to Office. If not people may start to think twice about using Word and its features to release information to anyone. Makes using Adobe PDF files for document distribution look very, very good!
If I found that an instructor was using Undo to detect plagiarism in an MS Word document, I'd do this:
If enough students did this (substituting different fetishes in step 1), the instructors might become afraid to test submitted files for plagiarism.
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.
Yes, ESR gets the math wrong.
Stowell of course is just trying to spin it favourable for SCO. Stowell and McBride are well known liars in my opinion, so why would we trust them?
But forget that, here's another and possibly better SCO story:
Note the word 'insurance'. McBride basically is admitting to racketeering!
I'll bet this will come back to haunt him in court filings in the future.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
"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
The word within CA is that the SCO claim is a lie. The following article is doing the rounds internally - it claims to have been published but I can't find it on the web, if I did I would provide a link instead...
CA Says It Didn't Pay SCO No Stinking Linux Tax
The Linux faithful have been hammering Computer Associates as a heretic since the British publication Computer Weekly quoting the SCO Group's CFO Bob Bench identified CA Thursday as one of SCO's rare Linux licensees.
CA senior VP of product development Mark Barrenechea says that Bench's claim is nonsense. CA has not paid SCO any Linux taxes, he said.
Drawing up short of calling SCO a liar, Barrenechea claims that SCO has twisted a $40 million breach-of-contract settlement that CA paid last summer to the Canopy Group, SCO's biggest stockholder, and Center 7, another Canopy company, and has turned it into a purported Linux license.
As a 'small part' of that settlement, Barrenechea said, CA got a bunch of UnixWare licenses that it needed to support its UnixWare customers. SCO, he said, had just attached a transparent Linux indemnification to all UnixWare licenses and that is how SCO comes off calling CA a Linux licensee.
But when CA agreed to that settlement, Barrenechea said, 'It was not CA's intention to become a Linux licensee. It has nothing to do with CA's product direction or strategic direction,' he said.
CA has absolutely no sympathy for what SCO is doing, Barrenechea said, and in fact, he said, reading from a formal statement, it stands in 'stark disagreement with SCO's tactics and threats.'
Barrenechea and CA's Linux chief Sam Greenblatt are worried that CA will be tarred with the SCO brush and that CA's considerable Linux ambitions will be damaged by a disaffected, if not hostile, open source community when in reality CA has 'nothing to do with SCO's strategy and tactics,' they said.
CA was the mystery company SCO was thinking of when it announced last August that an unidentified Fortune 500 company had supposedly become a Linux license. SCO privately described the deal as 'significant.'
CA couldn't disassociate itself from the rumors that identified it as that licensee because of an NDA that the Canopy side had insisted on hedging in the $40 million settlement with, Barrenechea and Greenblatt said.
Barrenechea said that SCO now regards that NDA as being off because of the legal discovery that's been going on in SCO's $5 billion suit against IBM.
See, SCO lawyer Mark Heisse in a letter dated February 4 to IBM lawyer David Marriott at Cravath Swain identified CA, Questar and Leggett & Platt as Linux taxpayers.
According to that letter, which is up on the Groklaw site, Heisse owed IBM a copy of the CA agreement on CD.
Barrenechea said that SCO was dropping CA's name to associate itself with the 'third-largest software company in the world' and build support for its 'lost cause.'
But according to Barrenechea, not only are SCO's IP ambitions doomed, but its Unix interests are a 'trailing negative' on the road to dropping from 10% of the market to 3%-5% in a few years and then 'SCO will be irrelevant,' he said.
By the way, CA doesn't have enough UnixWare licenses to cover all its Linux servers, Greenblatt said.
In answer to CA's contentions, SCO said its lawyers think that CA has a Linux license.
Meanwhile, Bench also told Computer Weekly, whose story was picked up by sister paper InfoWorld and maybe other properties in the IDG stable, that SCO had signed between 10 and 50 Linux licenses.
I actually bought into their InnoculateIT several years ago, again, since it advertised Windows/Linux/Mac compatibility. The system was advertised as being able to manage all my Linux and Windows systems from a Linux server.
..|..
The Windows version choked the start menu. I actually held the Start menu open on as server once out of disgust and frustration, thinking it would have to work eventually. Had to force/reboot the server. The Linux side was complete crap and the Mac version looked like it was MacOS7.x version. The only virus it could detect in MacOS 9.x was the test one included with it.
License this CA
sig mind freed
SCO worked directly with Orson Wells to facilitate the Invasion of Earth from Mars. When they could not produce Martians they opted to wait for litigation to start to cripple American life and use lawsuits as the new business model and attempt to take over the world.
This memo was copied to Pinky and The Brain.
Older memos may exist in the form of cave art, but Archeolgists have yet to make the solid connection between the picture of a pile of dung to SCOBCE (SCO Before Common Era) and their exclusive licensing of sticks, mud, dyes, and air.
-1 Overrated (Too many big words for me to comprehend)
I know who have been screwed over by Mormons are other Mormons. I'm not standing in a bigoted position. I'm in South Florida.
Now we're getting somewhere. You wanna talk about crooks? We got crooks. Big ones, little ones, you get the idea.
How about we RFID the crooks? The RFID could be made (extra large with solar cells) to intrude on all electromagnetic radiation making them unable to make a cell phone call or use a computer.
Any preoccupation with ideas of what is right or wrong in conduct shows an arrested intellectual development. (Wilde)
All this makes it easy to do "remote network discovery" on some poor sap's company. Oh, and for those IE exploits that rely on a known filename/location, this makes it a snap to "discover" a file location, and then do a little social engineering to get your victem to go to mal.com and click on a link...
Thank you, Microsoft! What do you want to expose today?
Yeah, right.
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
Clippy was behind all this CRAP!
Posted by Terry, on Groklaw on why SCO is not currently going after Bank of America:
If you look at the time frame involved it makes sense. In TSG's second motion to amend against IBM they use the DMCA as part of the complaint based on the removal / alteration of copyright material.
In the analysis of some of the files presented on Groklaw it appears that there exist quite a variety of copyright information on the same file depending on its ancestry. If TSG could make a basis of a copyright claim this could trigger certain DMCA violation.
So on 2/6/2004 we have the 2nd amended complaint with DMCA charges in it. We also have TSG with registered copyrights conflicting with Novell. But that's OK, as TSG is working on clarifying this in court. Plus, it is possible for two parties to have valid compilation copyrights that reflect "version" or "derivation" content.
Then, on 2/9/2004 Novell throws a big wrench in the works with the Motion to Dismiss. Up till that time the copyrights were contested, however with the motion to dismiss Novell stated in a legal document that they were not transferred. That line drawn, no party can pursue DMCA charges until ownership is cleared up by the courts.
The BA thing was using the "takedown" provisions of the DMCA. Post official notice of contest on 2/9 in Utah court, no judge in the USA was going to use a takedown based on unclear title against some company like BA.
Then some legal eagle's secretary just recycled the BA complaint to fit the new victim. Wonder who's going to lose their job? The nice thing is that this may help wake up corporate America as to how dangerous the DMCA can be in the wrong hands. Maybe some of the "mainline" press will pick up on this also.
The current Bank of America is the result of legacy BofA's 1999 acquistion by NationsBank. The new organization is headquartered in Charlotte, NC - the second largest banking center in the US, behind NYC.
Bank of America has a several major points of presence across the US, including TX, CA, points in the great plains, and now in NY and New England, as a result of the recently announced merger with Fleet.
BofA, or any other North Carolina bank can hardly be considered "some southern outfit" - many of the top banks, brokerage firms, and other financial services companies in the US are headquartered there, or have major offices in there. Bank of America, Wachovia (formerly First Union National Bank), BB&T, First Charter, TIAA CREF, and Compass Group all have major presences or headquarters here. Deutsche Bank, ABN AMRO, and Citigroup are all adding sizable operations to the Charlotte area.
Any way you look at it, by fake-slapping Bank of America, SCO sends a message to that entire sector - an industry that is very risk adverse. Essentially saying "BOO!" to that bunch of scared children in our legal department.
"Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things."
Hmm, while there is no official statement from CA (yet), one of their senior architects in the web services group has to say a word or two in his blog regarding this matter:
'CA Says It didn't Pay SCO no stinking Linux tax', to use the blog entry's title.
Seems SCO spins it a bit differently from what really happened...
No. 1 is EV1Servers.net who announced SCO lied about how much they were paid (Microsoft is a fan of EV1)
(little did the CEO know when he made the deal that SCO planned to 'worth' him out of seven figures)
No. 2 is CompterAssociates who announced SCO lied about "linux licenses" which are really from an unrelated settlement
No. 3 is Leggett and Platt who shockingly is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000
No. 4 is Questar Gas who just wanted to get things over with and also runs Apache/1.3.26 (Unix) on Windows 2000
Make sure *you* are Legally Unencumbered(tm) by getting a SCOsores license
and don't forget to head over and sign your Clean Slate contract with the RIAA
SCO lies once more
Leggett & Platt was even clearer. "I have now talked to our people who handle our Linux systems and, at least at a corporate level, we have not bought such a licence from SCO Group," said the company's VP of human resources, John Hale. "To their knowledge they would not have an interest in doing so."