Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

McBride At A Loss For Words

Posted by michael on from the it's-inconceivable dept.

An anonymous reader writes "That, at least is the verdict of Linux Business Week's Maureen O'Gara, who reports that, with all the latest twists and turns, with BayStar and RBC in particular, SCO's CEO was finally bereft of words to describe what it's all been like. In the end he settled for 'This is like...nothing.' As O'Gara herself says, the latest SCO news is plain weird."

7 of 292 comments (clear)

  1. Stop reporting it by fr0dicus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    SCO now thrive on headlines alone. Stop talking about them and they'll go away quicker.

    1. Re:Stop reporting it by grafikhugh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At this point negative headlines do not help their stance. The lawsuits are real and they will be settled in court. I think its important for the negative press to keep flowing. If we stop paying attention to their actions then maybe that could be interpretted as us not caring what the outcome is or worse that we fear what the outcome will be.

      --
      The Surgeon General says sigs are bad for me.
    2. Re:Stop reporting it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Irony, thy name is bonch. Bonch, who must meet his daily quota of something to bitch about. If it wasn't a SCO article, he would be bitching about a Microsoft or RIAA article in its place.

  2. Pot, meet kettle by linuxtelephony · · Score: 5, Insightful

    BayStar hasn't withdrawn its demand that SCO return its money and BayStar's lawyers, he said, still haven't told SCO's lawyers how SCO breached their contract. So McBride figures BayStar doesn't have a legal leg to stand on and won't be able to get its money back. The money of course is paying for SCO's legal pursuits.

    So, Baystar's demanding their money back due to breach of contract without telling how the contract was breached means they don't have a legal leg to stand on.

    Why does this sound so familiar?

    Oh, that's right. SCO claims to own code that was put into Linux, but won't tell what code SCO claims to own.

    Is this Darl's way of admitting that SCO doesn't have a legal leg to stand on?

    --
    . 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
  3. Re:SCOX price right now... by TopShelf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One day doesn't really tell much. A more interesting view is the 3 month performance. Then take a look at the 1 year graph, and it looks like SCO is heading right back to where they were before this whole episode began - circling the toilet bowl of history...

    --
    Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
  4. There's nothing he can say he's done by tarranp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    SCO has made a major tactical error; they sued Novell alleging slander of title because Novell filed for the copyrights on Unix System V shortly after SCO fled for the same copyrights.

    Essentially, to allege a slander of title, you have to come to the court with

    1) Evidence that you won the title being slandered,

    2) Evidence that the slanderer knew it,

    3) and that you suffered damages as part of the slander.

    The problem is that SCO not only has failed to show evidence of 1 and 2, Novell is waving the letter around where SCO asked Novell for the copyrights.

    Now, if the court dismisses the suit stating that SCO's ownership of the copyrights is in doubt, their case against Autozone collapses, and Red hat can get summary judgement that Linux does not infringe on SCO's copyrights.

    Meanwhile IBM's counterclaims, once litigated will leave SCO in bakrupcy and the GPL will have had its day in court (IBM is suing SCO, among other things, for distributing IBM's copyrighted code while violating the terms of the GPL by forbidding the creation of derivative works).

    Free/Open Source software has been helped rather than hurt by this lawsuit; it is more famous, and its opponents are displaying themselves to be incompetent bufoons. It has educated many of us about the field of intellectual property law.

  5. Re:borrow some from Rumsfeld by nicophonica · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I must say I detest Rumsfeld and his complete and intentional lack of conventional ethics. However, this statement, while highly abstract, makes sense.

    I have a lunch box there is a tuna fish sandwich and something spongy in a brown paper wrapper. I like tuna fish, that is a 'known' and i don't have to worry about it.

    I don't know what's in the brown paper wrapper but I know better then to eat it. That's a 'known unknown' and since I'm not going to eat it, I don't have to worry about that either.

    What I didn't have any idea about, however, was that my lunch box was trapped with a spring loaded poison needle, that's an 'unknown unknown'. Because I didn't have any idea my lunch box could be trapped, I'm dead.