SCO's Motion to dismiss Red Hat's Complaint Denied
Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the well-isn't-that-special dept.
Soko writes "The scoop is on Groklaw - SCO's motion to dismiss is denied, and further activity in the case is now pending the outcome of the SCO vs. IBM litigation in Utah. If they lose against IBM, will there be anything left for Red Hat to kick around, though?"
Anything left to kick around?
by
Gabrill
·
· Score: 5, Funny
You forget the fun of dancing on the grave of your foe!
-- Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
Re:Anything left to kick around?
by
cshark
·
· Score: 4, Funny
And don't forget peeing. Urinating on SCO's grave will be something many/.ers will partake in. I would probably join the festivities if I were in Utah to join the fun. The smelly smelly fun.
--
This signature has Super Cow Powers
Re:Anything left to kick around?
by
AndroidCat
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Posterity will ne'er survey
A nobler grave than this;
Here lie the bones of Castlereagh;
Stop, traveler, and piss.
-- Lord Byron, on Lord Castlereagh
Dancing? Ha!
-- One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:Anything left to kick around?
by
emmetropia
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Or just google for 'bill watterson peeing OR pissing'
Take the time to read and understand the original comics, and you might see my point of view.
does it matter?
by
jagilbertvt
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Just as long as SCO goes under in the end, does it really matter?
Re:does it matter?
by
AKnightCowboy
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Just as long as SCO goes under in the end, does it really matter?
I wish Microsoft would just cut to the chase and buy SCO so they could take over the lawsuit. I guess it's better to sue by proxy to avoid anti-trust issues, but I think we're all reasonably aware of who is really behind this fiasco. Follow the money trail.
seems pretty cool. red hat don't have to pay for as much serious litigation as they would've done in the full on trial and they can sit back and relax while IBM pound away at SCO. and in the event that IBM actually lose, then they're ready and waiting with a second shot.
-- and if you see me strut, remind me of what left this outlaw torn...
IANAL either, and yes they are over separate issues.
IBM is being sued by SCO for breaking "...its contract by allowing parts of SCO's Unix V source code, licensed to IBM for use in AIX, to be used in the rival Linux operating system kernel.", wheras RedHat is suing SCO for "...making unsubstantiated and untrue public statements attacking Red Hat Linux and the integrity of the Open Source software development process..."
However, a victory for SCO (and such things have happened in recent legal history) would push their share price (and general-public opinion of them) ever upwards, and set a precident that would then have to be overturned...
Noting is certain in love and law;)
There's One More Thing
by
RailGunner
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
SUre, there's still one more thing that Red Hat could get - criminal charges filed against Darl McBride. Barratry, Racketeering, and Extortion.
Even better? Pin some of it on his Microsoft puppetmasters.
Irony in the worst
by
bwraith
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It seems like SCO is getting the royal rump treatment now after issuing it's first jab against the *nix community, just as it is stated on the groklaw boards "this is just the first nail to be slammed into SCO's legal coffin"
Let's hope this leads to a faster resolution of this most ridiculous case brought upon by SCO.
Install Linux in them.
by
WgT2
·
· Score: 5, Funny
When Red Hat gets their turn, maybe they can install linux in them and call them a badger.
Public Opinion on the SCO case
by
ponds
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
First off, I've seen alot less SCO news lately. I hope that this is a sign that it's almost over.
Now on to the meat of my issue, we who are in the know, not just Linux Users, alot of people that I know who cant stand anything but MS: we are fairly informed about the SCO case. I used to assume that the public felt that way as well, but I don't anymore.
We had a guest speaker in my infosec class last week, a professor from the University of Hawaii who wrote the textbook that we use.
Dr. Panko's speech at some point turned to OSS vs proprietary software in terms of security. Panko claimed that the argument that OSS code is more secure was bunk, because all OSS code he has seen is crappy code (I doubt this is an informed opinion), and that most of it is just stolen from proprietary software anyway.
Later in the speech someone asked a question regarding the subject of whether the security community will have to deal with MS's security methods forever. Panko quickly proclaimed that Linux is dying due to insurmountable legal trouble, and that they will likely never get out if it.
I think that we do not have a good view of what the uninformed think about the SCO case. And while the case is substanceless, the PR is not. We need to take every opportunity to inform non-geeks, with the ample factual evidence that is out there, that this is an example of a pump and jump stock scam based on frivilous litigation, and that our chosen innovation paradigm (Open Source) is legit.
Re:Public Opinion on the SCO case
by
dj245
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I wonder how much closed source software this guy saw. Judging from the comments about Microsoft's code leak (bad code, sloppy, etc..) OSS software can't be all that bad. I know that Microsoft's code leak was two years old Windows 2000 code, but still; a coder is a coder. If he pronounced OSS code as sloppy and bad code, he should say what he is comparing it to. Has he actually seen Microsoft's latest code?
I can say that my car shifts smoothly and corners nicely, but I have no basis for comparison since I have never owned any other car. Has he seen any proprietary code? Thats what I want to know.
-- Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Re:Public Opinion on the SCO case
by
m00nun1t
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Maybe you should read up more before you make your "bad code" comments. Here's a review of the source code: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/15/715 52/7795
I'll quote for you since you are on/.: "...the quality of the code is generally excellent. Modules are small, and procedures generally fit on a single screen. The commenting is very detailed about intentions, but doesn't fall into "add one to i" redundancy..."
"...Microsoft does not steal open-source code. Their older code is flaky, their modern code excellent. Their programmers are skilled and enthusiastic. Problems are generally due to a trade-off of current quality against vast hardware, software and backward compatibility..."
Re:Public Opinion on the SCO case
by
_Sprocket_
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Maybe you should read up more before you make your "bad code" comments.
...
"...the quality of the code is generally excellent. Modules are small, and procedures generally fit on a single screen. The commenting is very detailed about intentions, but doesn't fall into "add one to i" redundancy..."
The article also notes:
However, not everything is so rosy. Some of the modules are clearly suffering from the hacks upon hacks mentioned earlier. As someone who struggled immensely trying to get the MSInet control working not long after this code was released, it's a relief to see that the inet code is as bad as I thought.
Although it goes on to say that most of these hacks seem to be due to backwards-compatability. However, having said that, bad code is bad code. A hack is a hack. And it would seem that indeed, even the vaunted Microsoft produces its share of hacks.
It would seem this has less to do with Open Source vs. Proprietary software than simply being the nature of the beast.
"If" they lose against IBM?
by
JessLeah
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If they DON'T lose against IBM, we will have a lot to worry about.
Let's hope and pray to $DEITY_NAME that SCO will lose. As I'm now 100% sure that SCO is just Microsoft's puppet, realize that this isn't just SCO (a piddly little company) versus IBM (a behemoth). It's Microsoft versus IBM. I'm pretty scared... how 'bout you?
Stock value?
by
CaptainBaz
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Perhaps this will reverse the recent increase in their stock price. They haven't been spreading much FUD recently, so why has their stock been going up?
Re:Stock value?
by
supermojoman
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Don't know exactly, but my first suspicion would be the buyback program. Choice quote (click link for source):
"'Some critics believe the buyback frenzy was nothing more than executives seeking to maximize their own wealth. 'They boost the price in the short term and then sell their shares,' says Kathleen M. Kahle..."
Definetely check that Groklaw link for more information. I'm just a programmer, so really, I don't know what I'm talking about. But the buyback program seems like a good place to start.
SUre, there's still one more thing that Red Hat could get - criminal charges filed against Darl McBride. Barratry, Racketeering, and Extortion.
No, you can't. The standard for such charges are pretty high. First, for barratry, one would have to have solid evidence that Darl/SCO/Canopy acted in bad faith, and were suing for fun. You'd have to have evidence that not only are their claims crap, but THEY KNEW IT. Good luck.
For racketeering and extortion, which I'm assuming you're using to attack their "licensing" behavior, you won't get that either. Reason is because they at least have a reasonable claim on their actions - basically, it's not extortion for them to defend their rights, and until it's damned clear they don't have such rights (like after some court case), you'll lose this one too. Also, what's the "weapon" (ie, the "or else...") behind the extortion claim? A lawsuit? So in that case, you'd have to prove the barratry case before starting the extortion case, and that won't work on it's own.
So I know the/. crowd loves the idea of criminal actions against Darl, including stoning, hanging, or general torture. But it isn't realistic, and I think people should learn the *legal* background of such terms if this barratry argument is to keep going around and around for another couple of years like it has so far.
First, they distribute Linux under the GPL. Then a while later, they go around telling people they owe $699 to them or they have to stop using Linux. How is that not extortion?
-- I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
This sucks !
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
No, really, this sucks.
RedHat tried to get SCO to shut the f**** up until the SCO vs IBM trial has gone through. The judge answers that although their claim (of SCO being a liar scaring their customers), they have to wait and see until the other trial is over. In other words, SCO may carry on lying and RedHat can do nothing but cry over their and Linux' reputation until IBM is done. And when IBM is done, there'll be nothing left of SCO for RedHat to be compensated with. No, really, this is not a victory for RedHat...
Stephane
Why it matters
by
Allen+Zadr
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The problem is that if there is still suspicion - and it's found that Novell still owns the UNIX patent - then what would keep Novell from doing the same (flush SuSE as SCO flushed Caldera), starting this whole nightmare over again.
-- Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
"Will there be anything left to kick around..."
by
truthsearch
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If they lose against IBM, will there be anything left for Red Hat to kick around, though?
Red Hat isn't looking to kick them around after they lose to IBM. Red Hat has a few goals: bring more of SCO's actions to light and into court by putting them on the legal defensive; helping IBM by bringing these things to light and legitimizing IBM's arguments if they win; hedging their bets in case IBM loses (if IBM loses, Red Hat's in big trouble, so this pre-emptive strike may help protect them or at least raise money for their future legal defense).
I think all Red Hat cares about is IBM winning. After they win it doesn't matter if there's anything left to kick around.
Re:does it matter? YES.
by
WhiskerTheMad
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
In short, YES.
Remember, SCO's purpose here is not to win, or even survive, it's to spread disinformation and fear about open source and Linux. The *real* win comes when SCO is exposed as the passel of lying, greedy, goat-molesting asshats they are, and when their claims about "IP Problems with Linux" are shoved firmly where they belong (namely, certain executives' orifices.
Orifices? Orifii? What's the plural of orifice? Anybody?
-- Love your country always, but respect your government only when it deserves it. -- Mark Twain
however, I think it worth noting that SCO has essentially been screaming from the ramparts "We are SCO, we are greedy morons, we deserve to be removed from existence."
I just wanted to say that before a slew of soi-trolls began yammering about how biased/. is.
-- "A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire "d'Oh!" ~Homer
Slashdotters, feel free to examine Panko website
by
0x0d0a
·
· Score: 4, Informative
This sounded kind of interesting, so I googled and quickly found Dr. Panko's website (there aren't many people out there by the name of "Panko").
He's got a number of websites, one of which is here.
He definitely, ah, favors Microsoft.:-) Very unusual for a security guy.
Yeah, it's only 10:10am and SCOX is down 3.8% on the morning, with the ask prices looking abysmally low.
Could be a very long day for SCO.
Re:does it matter? YES.
by
micromoog
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Orifices? Orifii? What's the plural of orifice? Anybody?
Assholes.
Re:Slashdotters, feel free to examine Panko websit
by
BenjyD
·
· Score: 5, Funny
People take computer advice from someone who:
a) uses Frontpage b) doesn't change the title of the pages from "New Page 1"
Worrying.
This ruling is NOT good for RedHat
by
bug
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It seems like most of the conclusions regarding this ruling, including that from Groklaw, are that this is good news for RedHat. I simply can't understand that. Sure, the judge ruled against SCO's motion to dismiss, but on the other hand, the judge ruled that no further action can be taken until the IBM case is resolved. That's not going to happen for months or years.
Most of the point of the RedHat vs SCO lawsuit is to eliminate the FUD surrounding Linux. This would allow RedHat to continue to market its products without its prospective customers shying away due to potential legal issues. When the judge ruled that the case is effectively on hold until the IBM case is decided, the judge effectively denied RedHat its best legal opportunity to end the SCO FUD machine in any useful timeframe. As the old saying goes, "justice delayed is justice denied."
Re:This ruling is NOT good for RedHat
by
BigBadBri
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
You'll notice that the judge also instructed both parties to inform the court in writing every 90 days of the progress of the IBM case.
This is very good news for Red Hat, as it provides at least three opportunities between now and next April for them to convince the judge that SCO is dragging its feet on the IBM case, being obstructive in discovery, etc. etc., and so persuade the judge to deny SCO's Motion To Dismiss and to make the case move forwards.
Conversely, SCO has to justify its actions every three months without upsetting the judge.
If Red Hat plays the situation correctly, this delay may only last the first 90 days, since there is already ample evidence to show that SCO has been dilatory at best in its handling of the IBM discovery motions.
I don't think it's as black as you paint it.
-- oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
-- ___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
It's not "almost over".
by
hcg50a
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I've seen alot less SCO news lately. I hope that this is a sign that it's almost over.
"Almost over"?
The SCO trial with IBM hasn't even begun yet.
There are one or two other cases with SCO (vs. Novell and/or Red Hat) -- I don't know what phase those are in.
They are still in the discovery phase in the case of SCO vs. IBM, where they are debating what evidence will be included in the trial, and both IBM and SCO are pressing each other for information they believe is there, or for information that one side claims is there, but the other side claims does not exist.
This thing may never reach trial -- I assume that is SCO's goal. IBM wants it to, so that precedents are set and issues are settled. SCO just wants people to do what they tell them and they want money. They want to keep things murky and scary.
Novell != SCO
by
Saeed+al-Sahaf
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
With publicly owned corporations, nothing is for sure when it comes to profit; remember that the boards of directors of all publicly traded companies are tasked with maximizing stockholder value.
That said, I don't think Novell would take the SCO route, all the signs are against it, and they have seen what is going to be the fate of SCO. But this is still a good point, a good reason that we really NEED the IBM issue to come to it's complete end.
-- "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
SCO's licensing behavior, as IBM has been pointing out in their Counterclaims to the SCO lawsuit (Counterclaim 6, para. 142-147 is especially relevant), violates the GPL, because SCO distributed Linux and other GPL software, then attempted to alter the terms of the license using SCOsource.
Paragraph 147 shows what kinds of damages open source developers have a right to expect:
147. As a result of SCO's breaches of the GPL, countless developers and users of Linux, including IBM, have suffered and will continue to suffer damages and other irreparable injury. IBM is entitled to a declaration that SCO's rights under the GPL terminated, an injunction prohibiting SCO from its continuing and threatened breaches of the GPL and an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
SCO is unpopular with "the/. crowd" precisely because a significant number of them are Linux and open source developers. Yes, all open source projects get tarred with the same brush in the non-tech public (read: investors) when SCO claims the GPL is unconstitutional and threatens to sue end-users. These guys aren't multimillionaires being bankrolled by M$ and don't have the money, time, or ability to get into a legal fight with SCO. They all lose customers and support until the lawsuits are over. When the Yankee Group publishes yet another TCO study that says "Linux is great, but, oops, the costs of indemnity from legal challenges pending in the courts forced us to revise our cost estimate upward," businesses learn that Linux is risky until the court cases are over. Developers lose.
Someone must be responsible! Someone must pay for this damage! The thought that Darl McBride, Canopy, M$ et al. will come away from these lawsuits, no matter what, with their reputations, fortunes, business practices, quotidian lives intact is like a maddening thorn in the brain of "the/. crowd". That's why everyone keeps asking about criminal charges... not because they really hope to see these people in jail, but because they are yearning for justice.
--
Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
Yes: If IBM didn't win it alreay - UNIX. B-)
by
Ungrounded+Lightning
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Anything left to kick around?
Yes:
If IBM didn't already win it in THEIR counter-suit: The remaining assets of SCO, including Netware and whatever remains of their claims to Unix.
Red Had could then, for instance, explicitly open-source it all - under multiple licenses. This would solve the "linux is a derived work of unix" issue from all time, and would also give anyone still stuck with a Netware deployment the opportunity to have it supported after SCO goes down.
-- Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Re:does it matter? YES.
by
SillySlashdotName
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
As bad as it might sound I think a company will have to buy the IP rights to UNIX in order to shut SCO up. SCO will not win this case and the value of the "company" will drop. At this point someone will buy them.
Why would anyone buy them? I am serious.
What does TSG have that is worth ANYTHING to another business? Their claim to the IP that is supposedly in Linux is being fought in court, and TSG has not yet shown they will (or even could possibly on a day when the weather forecast in Hades is particularly chilly) prevail in their claims of ownership.
They don't own office space (rented from Canopy), real estate (rented from Canopy), office furnishings (rented from Canopy), inventions or patents that are in demand. They don't have any key technology, resources, or even executives that have a clue. Why would anyone want to buy TSG?
With a book value of $1.31 per share, buying them AT MARKET would entail a premium of about 840% over what it would cost to start over from scratch.
The only asset they have is a lawsuit against IBM that, IF they win (not bloody likely, from what I have been reading) could be worth about 20 times their current market capitalization. Other than some Microsoft shills (Enderly? Didio?) they are not convincing many that they have any chance of winning, though - and I really think the Microsoft shills are not convinced, they are just selling their integrity to the highest bidder.
Again, why would anyone buy them?
I do agree, though, that it would be nice for SOMEONE to shut them up. SEC, DOJ, are you listening?
-- Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
Worthless lazy judge?
by
walterbyrd
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Beer company A falsely claims that the employees of beer company B are urinating in company B's product. How unfair is that to company B?
Now imagine that company A's claims are headline news in dozens of publications for over a year. Sure, company B could call company A a liar, but a lot of people will avoid beer from company B, just to be safe.
The scox case is exactly like that. Msft/scox is loadly claiming that Linux is "contaminated" with UNIX code. Yet, after an entire year, scox offers no evidence.
After sitting on scox's laughable motion to dismiss for over six months. The judge *finally* declares: "I'm too stupid and lazy to set a court date, or to tell scox to lay off the unproven statements against scox's competitors. So, I'll just allow scox to unfairly bash the competition, maybe Utah will do something and spare me the trouble."
This decision could not have possibly been more favorable to scox. Maybe the USA could learn something from Germany's justice system.
Slashdot Mirror
You forget the fun of dancing on the grave of your foe!
Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
Just as long as SCO goes under in the end, does it really matter?
seems pretty cool.
red hat don't have to pay for as much serious litigation as they would've done in the full on trial and they can sit back and relax while IBM pound away at SCO.
and in the event that IBM actually lose, then they're ready and waiting with a second shot.
and if you see me strut, remind me of what left this outlaw torn...
Even better? Pin some of it on his Microsoft puppetmasters.
It seems like SCO is getting the royal rump treatment now after issuing it's first jab against the *nix community, just as it is stated on the groklaw boards "this is just the first nail to be slammed into SCO's legal coffin"
Let's hope this leads to a faster resolution of this most ridiculous case brought upon by SCO.
When Red Hat gets their turn, maybe they can install linux in them and call them a badger.
First off, I've seen alot less SCO news lately. I hope that this is a sign that it's almost over. Now on to the meat of my issue, we who are in the know, not just Linux Users, alot of people that I know who cant stand anything but MS: we are fairly informed about the SCO case. I used to assume that the public felt that way as well, but I don't anymore. We had a guest speaker in my infosec class last week, a professor from the University of Hawaii who wrote the textbook that we use. Dr. Panko's speech at some point turned to OSS vs proprietary software in terms of security. Panko claimed that the argument that OSS code is more secure was bunk, because all OSS code he has seen is crappy code (I doubt this is an informed opinion), and that most of it is just stolen from proprietary software anyway. Later in the speech someone asked a question regarding the subject of whether the security community will have to deal with MS's security methods forever. Panko quickly proclaimed that Linux is dying due to insurmountable legal trouble, and that they will likely never get out if it. I think that we do not have a good view of what the uninformed think about the SCO case. And while the case is substanceless, the PR is not. We need to take every opportunity to inform non-geeks, with the ample factual evidence that is out there, that this is an example of a pump and jump stock scam based on frivilous litigation, and that our chosen innovation paradigm (Open Source) is legit.
If they DON'T lose against IBM, we will have a lot to worry about.
Let's hope and pray to $DEITY_NAME that SCO will lose. As I'm now 100% sure that SCO is just Microsoft's puppet, realize that this isn't just SCO (a piddly little company) versus IBM (a behemoth). It's Microsoft versus IBM. I'm pretty scared... how 'bout you?
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
Perhaps this will reverse the recent increase in their stock price. They haven't been spreading much FUD recently, so why has their stock been going up?
No, you can't. The standard for such charges are pretty high. First, for barratry, one would have to have solid evidence that Darl/SCO/Canopy acted in bad faith, and were suing for fun. You'd have to have evidence that not only are their claims crap, but THEY KNEW IT. Good luck.
For racketeering and extortion, which I'm assuming you're using to attack their "licensing" behavior, you won't get that either. Reason is because they at least have a reasonable claim on their actions - basically, it's not extortion for them to defend their rights, and until it's damned clear they don't have such rights (like after some court case), you'll lose this one too. Also, what's the "weapon" (ie, the "or else...") behind the extortion claim? A lawsuit? So in that case, you'd have to prove the barratry case before starting the extortion case, and that won't work on it's own.
So I know the /. crowd loves the idea of criminal actions against Darl, including stoning, hanging, or general torture. But it isn't realistic, and I think people should learn the *legal* background of such terms if this barratry argument is to keep going around and around for another couple of years like it has so far.
No, really, this sucks.
RedHat tried to get SCO to shut the f**** up until the SCO vs IBM trial has gone through. The judge answers that although their claim (of SCO being a liar scaring their customers), they have to wait and see until the other trial is over.
In other words, SCO may carry on lying and RedHat can do nothing but cry over their and Linux' reputation until IBM is done.
And when IBM is done, there'll be nothing left of SCO for RedHat to be compensated with.
No, really, this is not a victory for RedHat...
Stephane
The problem is that if there is still suspicion - and it's found that Novell still owns the UNIX patent - then what would keep Novell from doing the same (flush SuSE as SCO flushed Caldera), starting this whole nightmare over again.
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
If they lose against IBM, will there be anything left for Red Hat to kick around, though?
:)
Red Hat isn't looking to kick them around after they lose to IBM. Red Hat has a few goals: bring more of SCO's actions to light and into court by putting them on the legal defensive; helping IBM by bringing these things to light and legitimizing IBM's arguments if they win; hedging their bets in case IBM loses (if IBM loses, Red Hat's in big trouble, so this pre-emptive strike may help protect them or at least raise money for their future legal defense).
I think all Red Hat cares about is IBM winning. After they win it doesn't matter if there's anything left to kick around.
Of course the usual IANAL applies...
Developers: We can use your help.
In short, YES.
Remember, SCO's purpose here is not to win, or even survive, it's to spread disinformation and fear about open source and Linux. The *real* win comes when SCO is exposed as the passel of lying, greedy, goat-molesting asshats they are, and when their claims about "IP Problems with Linux" are shoved firmly where they belong (namely, certain executives' orifices.
Orifices? Orifii? What's the plural of orifice? Anybody?
Love your country always, but respect your government only when it deserves it. -- Mark Twain
however, I think it worth noting that SCO has essentially been screaming from the ramparts "We are SCO, we are greedy morons, we deserve to be removed from existence."
I just wanted to say that before a slew of soi-trolls began yammering about how biased /. is.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
This sounded kind of interesting, so I googled and quickly found Dr. Panko's website (there aren't many people out there by the name of "Panko").
:-) Very unusual for a security guy.
He's got a number of websites, one of which is here.
He definitely, ah, favors Microsoft.
May we never see th
Yeah, it's only 10:10am and SCOX is down 3.8% on the morning, with the ask prices looking abysmally low.
Could be a very long day for SCO.
Assholes.
People take computer advice from someone who:
a) uses Frontpage
b) doesn't change the title of the pages from "New Page 1"
Worrying.
It seems like most of the conclusions regarding this ruling, including that from Groklaw, are that this is good news for RedHat. I simply can't understand that. Sure, the judge ruled against SCO's motion to dismiss, but on the other hand, the judge ruled that no further action can be taken until the IBM case is resolved. That's not going to happen for months or years.
Most of the point of the RedHat vs SCO lawsuit is to eliminate the FUD surrounding Linux. This would allow RedHat to continue to market its products without its prospective customers shying away due to potential legal issues. When the judge ruled that the case is effectively on hold until the IBM case is decided, the judge effectively denied RedHat its best legal opportunity to end the SCO FUD machine in any useful timeframe. As the old saying goes, "justice delayed is justice denied."
Henceforth, the plural of orifice is scorifice.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
"Almost over"?
The SCO trial with IBM hasn't even begun yet.
There are one or two other cases with SCO (vs. Novell and/or Red Hat) -- I don't know what phase those are in.
They are still in the discovery phase in the case of SCO vs. IBM, where they are debating what evidence will be included in the trial, and both IBM and SCO are pressing each other for information they believe is there, or for information that one side claims is there, but the other side claims does not exist.
This thing may never reach trial -- I assume that is SCO's goal. IBM wants it to, so that precedents are set and issues are settled. SCO just wants people to do what they tell them and they want money. They want to keep things murky and scary.
HCG 50a = 2MASX J11170638+5455016
11h17m06.4s +54d55m02s
That said, I don't think Novell would take the SCO route, all the signs are against it, and they have seen what is going to be the fate of SCO. But this is still a good point, a good reason that we really NEED the IBM issue to come to it's complete end.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
SCO's licensing behavior, as IBM has been pointing out in their Counterclaims to the SCO lawsuit (Counterclaim 6, para. 142-147 is especially relevant), violates the GPL, because SCO distributed Linux and other GPL software, then attempted to alter the terms of the license using SCOsource.
Paragraph 147 shows what kinds of damages open source developers have a right to expect:
SCO is unpopular with "the /. crowd" precisely because a significant number of them are Linux and open source developers. Yes, all open source projects get tarred with the same brush in the non-tech public (read: investors) when SCO claims the GPL is unconstitutional and threatens to sue end-users. These guys aren't multimillionaires being bankrolled by M$ and don't have the money, time, or ability to get into a legal fight with SCO. They all lose customers and support until the lawsuits are over. When the Yankee Group publishes yet another TCO study that says "Linux is great, but, oops, the costs of indemnity from legal challenges pending in the courts forced us to revise our cost estimate upward," businesses learn that Linux is risky until the court cases are over. Developers lose.
Someone must be responsible! Someone must pay for this damage! The thought that Darl McBride, Canopy, M$ et al. will come away from these lawsuits, no matter what, with their reputations, fortunes, business practices, quotidian lives intact is like a maddening thorn in the brain of "the /. crowd". That's why everyone keeps asking about criminal charges... not because they really hope to see these people in jail, but because they are yearning for justice.
Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
Anything left to kick around?
Yes:
If IBM didn't already win it in THEIR counter-suit: The remaining assets of SCO, including Netware and whatever remains of their claims to Unix.
Red Had could then, for instance, explicitly open-source it all - under multiple licenses. This would solve the "linux is a derived work of unix" issue from all time, and would also give anyone still stuck with a Netware deployment the opportunity to have it supported after SCO goes down.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
As bad as it might sound I think a company will have to buy the IP rights to UNIX in order to shut SCO up. SCO will not win this case and the value of the "company" will drop. At this point someone will buy them.
Why would anyone buy them? I am serious.
What does TSG have that is worth ANYTHING to another business? Their claim to the IP that is supposedly in Linux is being fought in court, and TSG has not yet shown they will (or even could possibly on a day when the weather forecast in Hades is particularly chilly) prevail in their claims of ownership.
They don't own office space (rented from Canopy), real estate (rented from Canopy), office furnishings (rented from Canopy), inventions or patents that are in demand. They don't have any key technology, resources, or even executives that have a clue. Why would anyone want to buy TSG?
With a book value of $1.31 per share, buying them AT MARKET would entail a premium of about 840% over what it would cost to start over from scratch.
The only asset they have is a lawsuit against IBM that, IF they win (not bloody likely, from what I have been reading) could be worth about 20 times their current market capitalization. Other than some Microsoft shills (Enderly? Didio?) they are not convincing many that they have any chance of winning, though - and I really think the Microsoft shills are not convinced, they are just selling their integrity to the highest bidder.
Again, why would anyone buy them?
I do agree, though, that it would be nice for SOMEONE to shut them up. SEC, DOJ, are you listening?
Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
Beer company A falsely claims that the employees of beer company B are urinating in company B's product. How unfair is that to company B?
Now imagine that company A's claims are headline news in dozens of publications for over a year. Sure, company B could call company A a liar, but a lot of people will avoid beer from company B, just to be safe.
The scox case is exactly like that. Msft/scox is loadly claiming that Linux is "contaminated" with UNIX code. Yet, after an entire year, scox offers no evidence.
After sitting on scox's laughable motion to dismiss for over six months. The judge *finally* declares: "I'm too stupid and lazy to set a court date, or to tell scox to lay off the unproven statements against scox's competitors. So, I'll just allow scox to unfairly bash the competition, maybe Utah will do something and spare me the trouble."
This decision could not have possibly been more favorable to scox. Maybe the USA could learn something from Germany's justice system.