Groklaw Turns One

Remember... by kemapa · 2004-05-16 15:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

Now, looking around today, I see almost everyone predicting SCO's imminent doom instead.

You must remember that back in the days of the OJ trial many thought he would be convicted, but he wasn't. And people have said so often how Apple will die soon / tomorrow / whatever. So I would hesitate to predicate SCO's doom just yet... but a man can dream!

Re:Remember... by Prod_Deity · 2004-05-16 15:02 · Score: 2, Funny

You forgot to add *BSD to your list. :-)
Re:Remember... by Suburbanpride · 2004-05-16 15:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

I for one do not have much faith in our legal system. forget OJ, look at Microsoft. half a decade in the courts has not forced a change in Microsoft's business practices.
As bad as SCO's case is, never say never.

--
sorry 'bout the mess...
Re:Remember... by interiot · 2004-05-16 16:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

The thing about American Justice though... it's based on money. If an individual kills someone, and everybody realizes it, but they have a ton of money, they might have a shot at convincing a judge and jury to let them get away with it. But with companies, once their employees, investors, and customers recognize that they're full of shit, even if the judge doesn't, they lose. Soon someone will take them over, terminate and settle the lawsuits, and make a small amount of profit selling what's left of the value in the company.
Re:Remember... by the+gnat · 2004-05-16 16:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

The thing about American Justice though... it's based on money. If an individual kills someone, and everybody realizes it, but they have a ton of money, they might have a shot at convincing a judge and jury to let them get away with it.

I don't think this concept can be applied so broadly. The lesson I take from the OJ trial is not that millions of dollars can buy acquital, but that millions of dollars can uncover enough potentially exculpatory evidence that might not be seen otherwise. Which is depressing not because OJ went free (although I do think, based on almost zero knoweldge of the case, that he's guilty), but because hundreds of poorer, dumber people are convicted and even sentenced to death based on far worse evidence, because they had no effective legal representation. (Texas being the worst example, which is why I lost all respect for Bush a long time ago, back when compassionate conservatism seemed like it might be the real thing.)

As for the parallel to SCO, bear in mind that they went up against one of the largest computer companies and a huge user and developer community that were obviously going to take it personally. This means that there is tons of money (or manpower - all of the anti-SCO research would have cost a boatload if a real law firm was doing it) being spent fighting SCO, and they're getting slowly bludgeoned to death as a result. The fact that it's a distributed and largely non-profit effort shouldn't obscure that. SCO really sees itself as the underdog in this fight, and they're correct. (A snarling, vicious little dog, that's trying to gnaw your trousers whenever it isn't copulating with your shoe.)
Re:Remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-16 16:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

look at Microsoft. half a decade in the courts has not forced a change in Microsoft's business practices

Sure it has. It used to be that Microsoft just strong-armed OEMs and used their size to crush competitors.

Now Microsoft is fair to OEMs and is using Patents and their size to crush compeititors.
Re:Remember... by Jameth · 2004-05-16 16:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think both OJ and Microsoft are great examples of flaws and strengths in the system.

Look at OJ. The system cannot convict when done crappily. Did you ever look at the key points in the trial? The prosecutors SUCKED. It didn't matter that OJ spent a lot of money, his team screwed up tons of times, the prosecutors just screwed up tens times as often. The entire trial was botched in every way, and the result was that he wasn't convicted. In lots of past systems, horrible police-work resulted in people going to prison.

As far as Microsoft, consider whether they truly will last through everything. They've been in the system for eight years or so. Consider that this is a trial dealing with the largest software company in the world, by a fairly long shot. So, the government is careful and slow. Inside of another ten years, it will be resolved.

Yeah, it sucks that Microsoft is around for twenty years too long and OJ got off without prison time, but at least the government can't just walk in and toss someone in jail on shoddy police work or rip apart an organization at a whim.

These are examples of flaws inherent in the system, but not examples of things that should be removed from the system.

That's the trade-off in this sort of a legal system: You have a fair shot in trial and the government cannot just jump all over you, but people get away with things and it is hard to reverse abusive groups.

A better example of something that needs to be fixed and can be fixed is the way the RIAA is acting.
Re:Remember... by Vellmont · 2004-05-16 16:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

I didn't watch much of the OJ trial, but I've heard from others that one of the things that OJs lawyers did was eliminate any juror that might vote for conviction from the jury and get them replaced with alternates. There were many jurors eliminated, and they almost ran out of alternates.

That's the part that's about "buying freedom". I don't think anyone should be able engineer a jury like that. The problem isn't that everyone can't do this, it's that if you have enough $$ you can.

Corporate cases like this are a bit different of course since the judge is going to be (hopefully) un-engineerable. Microsoft got off scot free by just stalling until the administration changed and the new justice dept dropped the whole matter.

--
AccountKiller
Re:Remember... by XSforMe · 2004-05-16 17:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

For whatever its worth, SCO's Mexico Webpage has been dead since friday (no ping answer). I know, it might be anything, but I still hope I can eventually see the same anwser I get from SCO's Polland exwebpage on the mexican site.

--
My other OS is the MCP!
Re:Remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-16 17:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's the part that's about "buying freedom". I don't think anyone should be able engineer a jury like that. The problem isn't that everyone can't do this, it's that if you have enough $$ you can.
Everyone can do this and everyone does. It's called jury selection and is a normal part of a criminal trial. It doesn't matter how much money you have either. All you need is an attorney who will eliminate the people from the jury who will vote guilty no matter what evidence is presented before them. The prosecution also gets to kick people off the jury so why does this bother you? The whole point of jury selection is to get as fair and impartial a jury as possible and it achieves that. Or would you prefer to have had known racists on the OJ jury? Then we could just skip the trial and string him up from a tree.
Re:Remember... by eric76 · 2004-05-16 17:31 · Score: 2, Informative

There's also the T. Cullen Davis case.

Some people said that he was the first murder defendant in Texas that was richer than the state.
Re:Remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-16 17:46 · Score: 1, Offtopic

As well as:
+ Other detective said he wanted to put all black people in a pile and burn them
+ Other dectective "misplaced" a half vial of OJ's blood on a late night trip to the crime scene
+ Other detective also happened to be the one who found all the evidence, including a pin head sized drop of blood on OJ's car at 5:00 in the morning
+ Blood on OJs sock shown to have soaked right through from one side to the other, indicating it was placed on the sock when there was no foot in it
+ Lead Detective testified that Ron Goldman put up a fight for his life yet OJ had no marks or bruises on his body except a small scratch on his hand
Re:Remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-16 18:01 · Score: 1, Insightful

That's the trade-off in this sort of a legal system: You have a fair shot in trial and the government cannot just jump all over you, but people get away with things and it is hard to reverse abusive groups.

You're assuming you *get* to the trial phase. Bush / Cheney / Ashcroft / Rumsfield would rather label you as a terrorist so they can keep your ass locked up in Guantanamo for 2+ years without pressing charges. If you want to find flaws in the system, you don't have to look much further than the current presidential administration.

P.S. Sorry for sounding partisan, but this is a civil liberties rant, not a Republican / Democrat rant. If Bush happened to be a Democrat, I'd still be jumping on his case.
Re:Remember... by jhylkema · 2004-05-16 18:04 · Score: 1

Quoth the poster:
I for one do not have much faith in our legal system. forget OJ, look at Microsoft. half a decade in the courts has not forced a change in Microsoft's business practices.
The only reason the court system hasn't forced a change in M$'s practices is because the government, thanks to Dumb-ya, folded a winning hand.
Re:Remember... by jesterzog · 2004-05-16 18:16 · Score: 4, Informative

I for one do not have much faith in our legal system. forget OJ, look at Microsoft. half a decade in the courts has not forced a change in Microsoft's business practices.

I'm not sure if I agree entirely. I have a friend working at Microsoft, on the Windows team, who I had the opportunity to meet again recently.

She gave us an informal seminar about working in Microsoft, where she pointed out that any meetings that they have with any clients, including the MS Office team, have to be planned very carefully in advance. One of the rules that they're required to be very careful about is that they don't give any internal information to anyone that doesn't go to everyone.

On the higher corporate level, Microsoft hasn't really changed a lot. It manipulates the law and competitors, abuses its position, and I fully agree that that's a bad thing and the legal enforcement hasn't had the effect that it should. But it's not entirely correct to say that the lawsuits haven't had at least some effect on many of the procedures followed within Microsoft. Teams that might often have intermingled frequently are no longer allowed to talk with each other in detail about what they're doing.
Re:Remember... by cft_128 · 2004-05-16 18:16 · Score: 4, Informative

There have been quite a few slashdot articles on the subject of anti-trust lawsuits and Microsoft. What it boils down too is that Microsoft makes enough money breaking the law that we (not just the US but the EU too) cannot fine them enough to make it fiscally unsound for them to obey the law. They view it as a 'cost of doing business'.
Even if we raise the fines the legal systems move too slowly to make a difference. On one hand a slow legal system can be good - better to have the time make sure that a innocent person/party doesn't get convicted, on the other hand man does it burn. We do need better penalties to make this work better. One would be to amend the 14th amendment to allow us to punish those at the helms of corporations rather than the corporation itself, or better yet re-evaluate parts of the 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Supreme Court case which (without any explanations) decided that corporations are people. According to the official records Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite stated right before the arguments started:
The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.
Before that ruling corporations were quite a bit more limited - they could not contribute any money to any political candidates or attempt to influence an elections, the 5th amendment double jeopardy clause didn't apply to them and in some states they couldn't even own other corporations.
I don't think that all of those things are inherently bad (I work for corporations and do think that many of them are good) but I think we should take a nice long hard look at corporations and what rights we (real humans) think they should have. As Thomas Jefferson said: "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

--
Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org
Re:Remember... by spacecowboy420 · 2004-05-16 18:34 · Score: 1

Yeah, and African Americans who have no knowledge of the Petterson trial and think he's guilty are bigots as well.

Get over it, the biggest bigots are the ones pointing at others calling them bigots. It is not a race issue. Just because a person of color is involved does not make it an issue to observers. Noone cares what color you are, if you're a jackass noone will like you, if your actions speak well of you, then most will like you no matter your color. Jackass.

--
ymmv
Re:Remember... by LMCBoy · 2004-05-16 19:05 · Score: 1

Thanks for posting this.

--
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Re:Remember... by spacecowboy420 · 2004-05-16 19:09 · Score: 1

I was speaking from an observers perspective who had no knowledge of the case. How would the lead detective's racism be relevant if the guy didn't even know about it? He looks guilty no matter what shade of people he is, jackass.

I AM bigot of sorts, I hate dumb people.

--
ymmv
Re:Remember... by Aim+Here · 2004-05-16 20:20 · Score: 2, Informative

Well both sides in an American jury have the same rights to alternate jurors so it's hardly unfair. If the defence swaps a juror, the prosecution can swap another one and vice versa, up to a limit - it's the same for both sides and the effect is hopefully to get a jury that both prosecution and defence agree on..
Re:Remember... by blane.bramble · 2004-05-16 20:32 · Score: 1

so as not to incentivise the police to plant evidence

I think the word you are looking for is encourage.
Re:Remember... by toby · 2004-05-16 21:51 · Score: 2

One of the rules that they're required to be very careful about is that they don't give any internal information to anyone that doesn't go to everyone. ... it's not entirely correct to say that the lawsuits haven't had at least some effect on many of the procedures followed within Microsoft.

So they're vaguely scared of breaking the law in a literal sense. Great! But not enough. Let's see them obliterated. That's the only thing that will stop them breaking the spirit of the law.

--
you had me at #!
Re:Remember... by Trurl's+Machine · 2004-05-16 22:48 · Score: 1

The thing about American Justice though... it's based on money. If an individual kills someone, and everybody realizes it, but they have a ton of money, they might have a shot at convincing a judge and jury to let them get away with it.

It's much more complicated. The OJ Simpson's trial is an example of the fundamental flaw of what was considered 600 years ago a great advancement of the Magna Charta - the trial by jury. The problem is that most people are biased in one way or another and they usually have their opinion ready prior to seeing the evidence (and then they believe only that part of the evidence that supports their a priori judgement). The art of fooling the American Justice is not the art of convincing the jury, it's the art of selecting the jurors that are already convinced. It's brilliantly descripted in the John Grisham's novel "Runaway jury" (adapted to a great movie with Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman). If you prefer a more scholar approach, here's a scholar analysis of the OJ Simpson jury.

I'm not accusing anyone of being biased - I can't cast the first stone, I'm not sure how would I behave during a trial of an Apple employee who killed a Microsoft employee. I might tend to believe him he was acting on self defense just because I have better feelings towards him. Actually, the OJ Simpson trial was only the most famous case of the jury bias, but definitely not the first one - and certainly not the last one. It wasn't important if Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty or not, the jury just didn't like all of them, the foreign anarchist scum.

So the real question is not exactly about the money - it's the question if the trial by jury is really such a good idea after all?
Re:Remember... by fermion · 2004-05-16 23:40 · Score: 1

juries are made up of humans. The humans on the jury have certain opinions. Studies indicate that juries have a predilection to believe that those with power and money tend not to go around killing people. This belief of couse is fostered by those with power and money.
The only thing interesting about the OJ trial was that a black man was not convicted for killing a white women. This was landmark. In the justice system such a conviction were as certain as the acquittal of the police office that killed the unarmed black man, using the police issued throwdown as evidence(and don't tell me it doesn't happen, a video was recently released showing a police officer leaving a throwdown).
This was a major shift in perspective for many people. That a black man could be rich enough to get acquitted was unheard of. This was previously the exclusive privilege of rich white men. It is kind of a strange form of equality, but if we are going to allow men to kill women, then that right should not change just because of skin color.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Re:Remember... by Maserati · 2004-05-17 01:42 · Score: 1

Since the OJ tangent has already been explored I'd like to summarize: The LAPD got caught framing a guilty man. The jury returned the appropriate verdict for what they saw in court.

--
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951

Actually... by elid · 2004-05-16 15:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

Now, looking around today, I see almost everyone predicting SCO's imminent doom instead. I think the truth, as usual, isn't in the headlines, and that it's somewhere in between those two extremes.

"Imminent doom" may be closer to the truth than you think.

GrokDoc?? by marcushnk · 2004-05-16 15:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

Any news on how GrokDoc is comming along.. I really like the sound of this project.. :-)

--
"Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far

Re:GrokDoc?? by 4lex · 2004-05-16 18:28 · Score: 3, Informative

I regularly search on google for it, but no big news for the moment :-/ This seems to be the latest update (Grokdoc - A Status Report Sunday, April 18 2004). Basically says the reaction was very good and there are a lot of hands willing to help... but no beta-testing URL nor anything like that. I really would like to redirect some happy new-converts there...

--
My journal. Mainly about freedom.
Re:GrokDoc?? by marcushnk · 2004-05-17 13:03 · Score: 1

www.grokdoc.net works.. you just need a pasword :-P

--
"Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far

Let me be the first to say... by AltGrendel · 2004-05-16 15:06 · Score: 4, Funny

I welcome our new Grocklaw overlo....

Oops.

I mean Happy Birthday Grocklaw.

--
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

- Douglas Adams

Good to see them in headlines again by Noose+For+A+Neck · 2004-05-16 15:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

Groklaw are good people. Actually, the place where I work (I work for a large, high-traffic porn site) was recently served with a legal threat in the form of a letter from SCO's lawyers, and we were able to seek legal advice from them and generally keep up with goings-on in the whole ordeal.

I'm glad that I can still use Linux, as it's the best operating system for serving up obscene volumes of multimedia content over the web. If SCO had been able to make good on their threats (and I'm sure now that if it hadn't been for Groklaw, nobody would've ever heard about this), our operating costs would've gone through the roof and we would've ultimately had to shutdown. Cheers, Groklaw! And let us hope you have another 1 year of existence ahead of you!

--

Software piracy is victimless theft.

Re:Good to see them in headlines again by TykeClone · 2004-05-16 15:11 · Score: 5, Funny

Actually, the place where I work (I work for a large, high-traffic porn site) .... I'm glad that I can still use Linux, as it's the best operating system for serving up obscene volumes of multimedia content over the web.
Or volumes of obscene multimedia content over the web.

--
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Re:Good to see them in headlines again by shanen · 2004-05-16 16:38 · Score: 1

Modded up as "interesting"? Possibly "funny", but only if you like stupid trolls.

Me, I think they should not be encouraged. Haven't you really got ANY better way to spend your mod points?

--
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.

Not to nitpick.... by redwoodtree · 2004-05-16 15:09 · Score: 4, Informative

....as I know lawyers love to do, but PJ is a grokParaLegal I believe and not a grokLawyer. Regardless, great work and great site.

It must feel really nice to know you are largely responsible for the ongoing education of millions of readers.

OJ/PJ difference by beacher · 2004-05-16 15:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

The OJ case brought us extreme media saturation, and everybody was cognisant of the circumstances and facts around the case. This is different.. computer media shills trumpeted the virtues of SCO's case and the national magazines pickup up the shill's cries and gave them flight.

Well, I am really glad that PJ's work has become pivotal in illuminating the real facts behind SCO's "case". It's an excellent central point of information against SCo's disinformation campaign. Excellent work PJ. Congrats on 1 year ;)

-B

Re:OJ/PJ difference by Bartgroks · 2004-05-16 15:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

Its been a great year overall. Thanks to groklaw we know SCO's case is much worse then OJ's.
Re:OJ/PJ difference by cujo_1111 · 2004-05-16 16:09 · Score: 1

The problem with SCO is that the glove actually fits...

...on their head and they look like an Acme rooster :)

--
If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.

effects by name773 · 2004-05-16 15:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

well, how has the sco ordeal affected linux already?
i think the linux people are more unified, but idk how much it has cut in to dev time...

Re:effects by iminplaya · 2004-05-17 11:10 · Score: 1

...but idk how much it has cut in to dev time...

More and more time is being used to create the license du jour. Soon, Linux will cease being an operating system and will become a licensing system. We can't blame SCO for that. They're just a symptom of the IP madness we suffer from today. And for that, we can blame the printing press.(lousy Gutenberg...It's his fault.) If we want to put a stop to it, we must prohibit inventions, and destroy the presses so that this never happens again.

--
What?

The Year of the SCO Group FUD and Outright Lies by NZheretic · 2004-05-16 15:19 · Score: 4, Informative

June 2003 : What evidence of origin,ownership,copyright + GPL.

December 2003 : The SCO Group cannot expect to win any case based upon application interfaces which it's AT&T, USL and Novell predecessors relased in open standards specifically for the purpose of interoperability

March 2004 : How the lawsuit is going to go in court

She's not a grokParaLegal either ... by magefile · 2004-05-16 15:19 · Score: 4, Funny

She's a GNU/grokParaLegal

(please mod me underrated, not funny ... I'd like some more karma)

Re:She's not a grokParaLegal either ... by CGP314 · 2004-05-16 18:43 · Score: 1, Interesting

(please mod me underrated, not funny ... I'd like some more karma)

Then say something insightful or informative, don't crack a standard slashdot joke and beg for karma.

-Colin

If only... by peawee03 · 2004-05-16 15:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

... we had GrokLaw for Watergate, Rodney King, Clinton, and OJ, the world would be a much better place. WAIT- no way to get /. "discussions" on Watergate as-it-was-happening. Pity.

--
I wish I could write clever and witty sigs.

Re:If only... by the+gnat · 2004-05-16 16:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

. . .we had GrokLaw for Watergate, Rodney King, Clinton, and OJ, the world would be a much better place.

I'm not sure how any of these compare. SCO is claiming something that can be largely refuted based on information that's already publically available, albeit in disperse form, across many versions, and fairly large in size. In all of the other cases except King's, the events in question occured relatively in secret. More like if SCO just sued IBM over AIX (but then the Linux community wouldn't give a shit, so what'd be the point of this whole community discovery process?)

You seem to be making the point that a distributed, non-profit, internet based investigation system would be useful more generally for all sorts of civil and criminal cases, but there are almost no cases where there's such a wealth of evidence already available. And keep in mind that our various three-letter agencies are trying to do something similar to uncover terrorist plots, and Slashdotters generally hate some of the methods (i.e. Carnivore, encryption laws) they've applied.

If all of us were doing this collectively out in the open, the potential for invasion of privacy wouldn't be any less and might actually be greater. Take a look at the Powerbook scam article for an example of this; the guy got what he deserved, but isn't it frightening how much the anti-scammers were able to do?
Re:If only... by bstadil · 2004-05-16 18:07 · Score: 1

Yes you are right we got way too little coverage of the henious crime Clinton committed, and that he did it in the oval office just blowz[/sarcasm]
Good we now have a decent President that ask for devine guidance before having people killed. 763 as of today I believe for no good reason

--
Help fight continental drift.
Re:If only... by Sique · 2004-05-16 22:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

Now, WHAT IF there was actually code copying into Linux? How useful would Groklaw be then, if every day it was 'bad news'?

Then a more technical site as Groklaw would have tried to find out, what parts of the code are actually tainted and should be replaced as soon as possible. Thus we may have a slightly different kernel now, probably with some parts of code reviewed and better coded than before, which otherwise no one would ever have looked into because they just worked (UNIX has 30 years of development and bugfixing behind, so some of the code may be quite bugfree, even though somewhat dated and not fully profiled for today's use.)

Groklaw is just one line of defense in the case Intellectual Property claims vs. Free Software/Open Source. There are others. Stacked behind or defending other places. It is important to have them even though they may not be attacked in the current case. With Groklaw's help Linux (and together with Linux) the Free Software movement looks more clean than one year before, when the suspicion of inadvertedly added code was not easily to rebuff because of still unsorted information.

Now you can even quote the case to the FUD affected C(E/T/I)Os and tell them: Look: A company in possession of the full source code of UNIX, AIX, Dynix and Linux and with a clear dedication to find infringement had had more than one year's time, and it still can't come up with a single line of code in Linux that was tainted. How many cases of IP theft have been decided in the closed source world in the same time against the infringer, even though the plaintiff didn't even had access to the source code? If you really want to avoid legal hassles about infringment, go with open source and free software, because in the other world you never know.

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*
Re:If only... by peawee03 · 2004-05-17 01:11 · Score: 1

OK, so I was falling asleep at the keyboard when I wrote the post, and things just didn't come out right. To clarify: I didn't mean Clinton as a criminal. I more or less meant that Clinton's accusers likely would look just as bad under the same light, but political / legal analysts were focused on Clinton. My take on Groklaw is that is provides a different, and (what seems to be) less biased view on the law. If Groklaw had reported on actual proof of SCO code in Linux, I would think just as highly of them- they'd most likely give the necessary details without the FUD. In otherwords, I would have rather had Groklaw during any major court case with FUD actions taking place of any sort. Side note: I never get modded up on posts I'm concious for. Odd.

--
I wish I could write clever and witty sigs.
Re:If only... by arkhan_jg · 2004-05-17 06:48 · Score: 1

Now that's fair. The parent comment gets a +5 insightful; a comment DIRECTLY addressing the privacy implications of doing the same thing as groklaw (i.e. a reply to the parent) for other cases ends up a -1 offtopic. Nice.

--
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.

SCO's Imminent Doom by cammoblammo · 2004-05-16 15:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

I wonder what it would take to bring about the demise of SCO. I always assumed that SCO were a company who had turned to litigation because they couldn't sell products. Given that they've started to lay off staff around the world you'd think that their belts must need tightening. Does history have any examples of these things turn out?

Regardless of what you think of the business direction SCO has taken, it must be worrying for the staff who still have families to feed. ATle ast they'll still be able to afford GNU/Linux...

--

Cogito, ergo sig.

Re:SCO's Imminent Doom by DAldredge · 2004-05-16 15:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

Said staff should not be working for a corrupt, dishonest company.

(And yes I practice what I say and I do have a family to support)
Re:SCO's Imminent Doom by HyperCash · 2004-05-16 22:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

" Said staff should not be working for a corrupt, dishonest company."

Dude, you just put 2/3rds of working America out of a job!

--HC

--
So I'm jump'n up and down screaming show me the money.

It is normal for a story to turn this way by Space_Soldier · 2004-05-16 15:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is human nature. As much as we like "bad girls" or "bad boys", we always pick the good. In 90% of the stories, the hero (mostly good) wins.

Re:It is normal for a story to turn this way by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-16 15:39 · Score: 5, Funny

This is human nature. As much as we like "bad girls" or "bad boys", we always pick the good.
Try picking the "bad girl" once in a while, you might get some :)
Re:It is normal for a story to turn this way by stimpleton · 2004-05-16 17:04 · Score: 1

Also...if you want the good girl, get the bad girl first(its often easier).
Its the same theory as Seinfeld's 'Show your papers' episode where George gets girls by carrying a photo of a beautiful, but ficticious girlfriend.
Easy to get a girlfriend when you already have one.

--

In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
Re:It is normal for a story to turn this way by Sri+Lumpa · 2004-05-19 02:08 · Score: 1

No, put a ring on your ring finger, get a tan and take the ring off so that the ring is visible by its absence.

--
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,

troll by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-16 15:34 · Score: 3, Funny

Hmm... you used to be an accounting intern at NASA and now you work for a major porn site? Fascinating career.

Just because I like nitpicking ... by beanyk · 2004-05-16 15:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Today is Groklaw's one-year anniversary!

No, it's Groklaw's first anniversary. The "year" is baked in.

Re:Just because I like nitpicking ... by nomadic · 2004-05-16 17:05 · Score: 1

No, it's Groklaw's First Annual One-Year Anniversary 2004!
Re:Just because I like nitpicking ... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-16 17:48 · Score: 1, Funny

Don't you mean it's Groklaw's inaugural First Annual One-Year Anniversary 2004!
Re:Just because I like nitpicking ... by dacarr · 2004-05-16 18:20 · Score: 1

Alright, that's it, I'm submitting you to the Department Of Redundancy Department!

--
This sig no verb.

Why is this news? by pyrrhonist · 2004-05-16 15:53 · Score: 4, Funny

Groklaw already broke this story hours ago.

Fark and ArsTechnica probably have articles too.

The /. editors are terrible.

</satire>

--
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.

SCOX at $5.15 - Where's the bottom by Animats · 2004-05-16 15:55 · Score: 5, Interesting

Groklaw has done a great job in dispelling Darl's FUD. Nobody takes SCO's threats seriously any more. Of course, Cravath and IBM are doing the heavy work, but nobody would notice without Groklaw. It's not at all common for pre-trial motions to be followed this closely.

The remaining question for SCOX is "how low can it go"? Except for that bump in early April, when SCO tried, unsuccessfully, a stock buyback to prop up the price, the decline from 14 to 5 has been close to linear. If you just project the line out, SCOX goes to zero around late summer. It probably won't go to penny stock levels for a while, though; they have some cash left. But with no licensing revenue and a huge legal burn rate, they can't go on for all that long.

The real question at this point, and it's one the players in the Open Source industry need to think about, is, who ends up with the rights to UNIX when SCO is gone? Sun? IBM? Red Hat? Boies?

It's sad, in a way, to realize that the best thing the original UNIX can do is go away.

Re:SCOX at $5.15 - Where's the bottom by Mad+Marlin · 2004-05-16 16:06 · Score: 1

The real question at this point, and it's one the players in the Open Source industry need to think about, is, who ends up with the rights to UNIX when SCO is gone? Sun? IBM? Red Hat? Boies?
Probably whoever ponies up enough money to buy what is left of SCO at the end of all of this. That might actually have some real value, and therefore SCO stock might actually not be worthless.

--
Best Slashdot comment ever
Re:SCOX at $5.15 - Where's the bottom by AndroidCat · 2004-05-16 16:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

When you buy a company, you aquire its assets and its debts and liabilities. Buying them out before all the legal battles are over would be foolish, and afterwards I doubt that there will be much left.
Wouldn't it make a nice picture with IBM and other claimants around the table carving the turkey on Thanksgiving? (Too bad it won't happen that soon unless SCO runs out of legal money.)

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:SCOX at $5.15 - Where's the bottom by badasscat · 2004-05-16 17:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

The remaining question for SCOX is "how low can it go"? Except for that bump in early April, when SCO tried, unsuccessfully, a stock buyback to prop up the price, the decline from 14 to 5 has been close to linear. If you just project the line out, SCOX goes to zero around late summer. It probably won't go to penny stock levels for a while, though; they have some cash left. But with no licensing revenue and a huge legal burn rate, they can't go on for all that long.

I need to at least try to correct this misconception a lot of people seem to have that a company's stock price is directly tied to its very existence. It isn't. In fact, as far as the company is concerned, it doesn't even really matter. If a company is dipping into its market cap to finance anything, it's in serious trouble to begin with - which SCO is, but not because its stock price is going down. SCO is in serious trouble because its business is failing, and its stock price is reflecting that. The cause/effect is reversed, you see.

If SCO's stock reaches penny-stock levels, they'll be de-listed. It happens occasionally, and a lot of companies are not even big enough to be listed to begin with. But they're still in business. And it won't affect their legal strategy, because they've got cash set aside for that.

I'm just saying, quit harping on the stock price. It doesn't matter except as a reflection of what a very small pool of not-very-influential people (ie. mostly small investors) think about SCO's future business prospects. It's no secret that their Unix business isn't doing well, they gave up on Linux and their legal strategy is working about as well as their FUD. Plus, BayStar and RBC want out. Add it up and obviously investors want out. But this has no direct effect on SCO's business.

SCO doesn't automatically go away if their stock drops to penny levels. They've got their cash, and if they burn through it, they'll just need to find some other sucke... er, VC firm to prop them up like BayStar and RBC did. You know MS is not going to let this die; they'll find some other proxy with which to funnel SCO whatever cash they need.
Re:SCOX at $5.15 - Where's the bottom by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-16 17:17 · Score: 1, Interesting

SCO bought UNIXWare and the System V Agency from Novell, they certainly can sell it to someone (with Novell's approval).

There's still millions of deployed SCO UNIX boxes out there (in every McDonalds and many other major retail chains), the product is worth something to somebody.

My guess is that System V licencing goes back to Novell (they get 95% gross anyway), and UNIXWare & OpenServer go to Computer Associates or some other graveyard.
Re:SCOX at $5.15 - Where's the bottom by Animats · 2004-05-16 17:41 · Score: 3, Informative

SCO doesn't automatically go away if their stock drops to penny levels.
True. But SCOX went from nowhere to 22, and then back down to nowhere, all on hype. That's a classic speculative bubble. Live by the momentum, die by the momentum. It's not like their revenue numbers are any good, except for that cash infusion from Microsoft.
Re:SCOX at $5.15 - Where's the bottom by cft_128 · 2004-05-16 18:27 · Score: 2, Funny

I'm just saying, quit harping on the stock price. It doesn't matter except as a reflection of what a very small pool of not-very-influential people (ie. mostly small investors) think about SCO's future business prospects.
I keep harping on it in my head because I'm thinking shoot - I knew I should have shorted them.

--
Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org
Re:SCOX at $5.15 - Where's the bottom by Simon+Brooke · 2004-05-16 20:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

I keep harping on it in my head because I'm thinking shoot - I knew I should have shorted them.

Think positive. There are more ways of killing a cat...

The failure of the SCO vs IBM case and/or the total collapse of SCO must lead to the market looking brighter for some other companies. Look, for example, at this. What would you predict will happen to RedHat's business when the SCO case collapses? What will happen to Novell's? What about other companies with a strategic cmmittment to Linux?

I would think any moderately intelligent people around here could easily put together a portfolio of companies whose stock is likely to rise when SCO goes down. And you can bask in the happy knowledge that you're supporting your friends, not gnawing the bones of your enemies.

--
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Re:SCOX at $5.15 - Where's the bottom by Teancum · 2004-05-16 21:06 · Score: 1

The big deal about being listed is that, for the moment, SCO is currently a publicly traded company, so certain SEC regulations and sections of related laws apply to SCO and their behavior.

Once they get delisted, these rules no longer apply to them.

At the same time, if SCO gets delisted, it could bring about class-action lawsuits from the shareholders against the top company executives, and they would not get the coporate limited liability protection either. Delisting is an obvious and actionable cause that has specific legal consequences, and the SCO executives may not want to see that happen on their watch.

Still, as it looks like Baystar is going to have a majority stock interest in the company real soon (turning SCO into one of their subsideraires), I don't think that stock price is really going to matter much.
Re:SCOX at $5.15 - Where's the bottom by plierhead · 2004-05-16 22:05 · Score: 1

When you buy a company, you aquire its assets and its debts and liabilities. Buying them out before all the legal battles are over would be foolish, and afterwards I doubt that there will be much left.

True, but with an important twist - the upside is unlimited if your skanky lawsuits are successful, but if you lose, the downside is limited to your investment - you simply fold up the company.

That is both the beauty, and the curse, of the capitalist system and of corporations.

--
[x] auto-moderate all posts by this user as insightful

not accessible from China? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-16 16:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

It seems like groklaw is not accessible from China - or perhaps it is just from my location.

Anyone else in China able to get to it?

Why would it be inaccessible, I wonder?

Re:not accessible from China? by andfarm · 2004-05-16 17:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

If this inaccessibility is indeed China-specific, it's probably because Groklaw deals with US laws. Democracy and all that - can't possibly let any of that come through the Great Firewall.

--
TANSTAAFI: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free iPod.
Re:not accessible from China? by dukeisgod · 2004-05-16 17:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm amazed that you're allowed to read /. from China.
Re:not accessible from China? by DMUTPeregrine · 2004-05-16 18:03 · Score: 4, Informative

atomintersoft.com and choose a proxy. Or get a friend using circumventor from peacefire.org

--
Not a sentence!
Re:not accessible from China? by MathFox · 2004-05-16 18:26 · Score: 5, Interesting

I think it is because we share our webserver with a few Tibetan websites (All Ibiblio websites are blocked). Off course, the censors in China won't tell anyone why a certain website is filtered, even when asked!

--
extern warranty;
main()
{
(void)warranty;
}
Re:not accessible from China? by 0x0d0a · 2004-05-16 20:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

I suspect that potential penalties (even if actual risk is low) of intentional violations of China's censorship policy may be quite nasty.

--
May we never see th
Re:not accessible from China? by rempelos · 2004-05-16 22:44 · Score: 1

All you need to do is find someone outside China to setup a proxy for you.

Re:post-SCO by rifftide · 2004-05-16 16:06 · Score: 5, Interesting

SCO doesn't have any patents. I think they're asserting rights to code that was added to derivative versions of System V by their licensees. But their story changes every few weeks or so. Re "post-SCO", I'd be interested to see what Groklaw morphs into if and when the SCO case settles down. Maybe they'll perform a similar service (analysis of legal documents and courtroom proceedings) for other IP property disputes with widespread repercussions in the tech industry.

Some are already saying that SCO may be the tip of the iceberg as far as FOSS IP problems are concerned, even as SCO's case seems to be declining. (See the current issue of Fortune magazine, with Darl McBride on the cover, unfortunately not available online except to paid subscribers). Of course, one can argue that proprietary software should be held to same standards, but in practice FOSS is an easier target because the source code can be examined by hungry lawyers and they can always bring up the worldwide, quasi-anonymous nature of development of some projects.

Attempted English Lesson by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-16 16:13 · Score: 1, Insightful

Someone who posts on Slashdot is a Slashdotter.
Someone who posts on Fark is a Farker.
Someone who posts on Groklaw is a Groklawer.

Try pronouncing 'Groklawer', or just 'lawer' for that matter. Doesn't work. That's why we say 'lawyer' in English, and that's what makes them a Groklawyer. Nothing to do with lawyers, AFAIK.

LNUX at $1.94 - Where's the bottom? by Mike+Hawk · 2004-05-16 16:15 · Score: 2, Funny

The remaining question for LNUX is "how low can it go"? If you just project the line out, LNUX goes to zero around late summer.

It's sad, in a way, to realize that the best thing slashdot can do is go away.

Re:LNUX at $1.94 - Where's the bottom? by Mike+Hawk · 2004-05-16 16:37 · Score: 2, Flamebait

Aww, boohoo. Its flamebait when the exact same evidence the grandparent used against SCO is turned against slashdot via OSDN and VA Software? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander kids. I thought /. was about the free exchange of ideas. Whoever modded that as flamebait should have their moderation priviledge revoked as a blatant abuser. My post contained nothing but facts, and the same facts that got the grandparent post modded +5. Thus proving once again, this website is full of shit and is truly as doomed to fail as SCO. I was modded not for being wrong, but for being so Right that it hurt.
Re:LNUX at $1.94 - Where's the bottom? by Jameth · 2004-05-16 16:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

The difference is that the example marked flamebait started ridiculously high, immediately dropped, and then stayed level. The only reason it looks bad is that it was shown on a four-year graph and VA Software was originally wildly overrated.
Re:LNUX at $1.94 - Where's the bottom? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-16 17:20 · Score: 1, Funny

A while back, LNUX was at ~.90 and about to be delisted, now they are twice that. For whatever reason, Slashdot has proven to be a viable business.
Re:LNUX at $1.94 - Where's the bottom? by JamesKPolk · 2004-05-16 17:29 · Score: 1

Well, that's what VA gets for changing their names and business models repeatedly. I wouldn't put a dime into either company, SCO or VA. Neither seems to have any viable path or plan.
Re:LNUX at $1.94 - Where's the bottom? by RollingThunder · 2004-05-16 18:43 · Score: 1

Actually, interestingly enough if you look at SCOX and LNUX on the one year comparison, they pretty much dance to the same beat.
Re:LNUX at $1.94 - Where's the bottom? by SmackCrackandPot · 2004-05-16 23:19 · Score: 1

If you just project the line out, LNUX goes to zero around late summer.

The rise and fall of stock prices generally follow the Normal Distribution. So the value will tend to level off to zero as time approaches infinity.

Great work, Detective Shitbrick! by Noose+For+A+Neck · 2004-05-16 16:25 · Score: 1

Could you stop stalking me now? Christ, that was posted over a year and a half ago. The last thing I need is some dweeb with a Slashdot subscription following me around online.

--

Software piracy is victimless theft.

Re:Great work, Detective Shitbrick! by sharkey · 2004-05-17 02:21 · Score: 1

The last thing I need is some dweeb with a Slashdot subscription following me around online.
Well, since his name is Anonymous Coward, there's a better-than-even chance that he's NOT a dweeb with a Slashdot subscription stalking you, but just a dweeb stalking you.

--

--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.

Who will own Unix? by donnz · 2004-05-16 16:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm betting on Microsoft, maybe through Baystar but most likely directly.

--
-- Free software on every PC on every desk

Re:Who will own Unix? by rossifer · 2004-05-16 19:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm betting on Microsoft, maybe through Baystar but most likely directly.

But Novell didn't sell UNIX to SCO so there's no way for Microsoft or BayStar to own it unless either one offers Novell a metric buttload of money for assignment of the copyrights.

To be correct, you should ask, "Who will own the ability to collect UNIX SysV license fees for Novell and take 5% as a service charge?"

Regards,
Ross

Definitely - June 15th... by cliveholloway · 2004-05-16 16:47 · Score: 4, Funny

According to anyway :)

cLive ;-)

--
-- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism

I've said it before, but ... by krumms · 2004-05-16 17:04 · Score: 5, Interesting

I always assumed that SCO were a company who had turned to litigation because they couldn't sell products.

Well, that was only the tip of the iceberg.

The rest of it is that BayStar (and others?) delivered a truckload of cash to SCO with a prod in the ribs and a wink.

SCO is evil.
BayStar is more evil, because it funds companies to play the asshole/evil war against the big guns - encouraging companies to take up the rifles of Intellectual Property (and I don't just mean those companies being funded - I mean other companies seeing BayStar make a dollar and wanting to jump on the bandwagon).

This ENCOURAGES shitty patents. The broader the better: the more you can sue.

Linux must have looked like a fucking gold mine to BayStar.

I find the whole idea disturbing. I'm crossing my fingers that before SCO dies, BayStar breathes its last too.

American justice is based on many things by Infonaut · 2004-05-16 17:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

"The thing about American Justice though... it's based on money."

That's a gross oversimplification. Trial by jury is prone to the influence of money in that better lawyers can be hired by one side or the other, but in the end it's even more prone to the social context in which the case takes place.

For example, jury trials in the American South before the enacting of federal Civil Rights legislation were absurdly biased in favor of whites and against blacks. This had nothing to do with money and everything to do with racism.

Big companies in the age of Rockafeller and Carnegie were left relatively unfettered until Americans began to resent the range and depth of the Robber Barons' influence. Then in trial after trial, the monopolies were hit hard by plaintiffs seeking damages from large companies. When Americans perceive a powerful entity as being generally useful, they tend not to press it too hard, but when they see it as having overstepped its bounds, juries tend to come down against Big Business.

Witness the recent spate of Wall Street trials. While there was certainly widespread malfeasance during the Dot-Com era, the Tyco execs, Martha Stewart, et. al. are in some ways being convicted not because of what they specifically did, but because the American public, as represented by jurors, is tired of this sort of rampant greed and wants to send a message to the executive class.

Lawrence Friedman's Law in America is a great primer (only 200 pages) on how the American legal system evolved, and how it has shaped and been shaped by American society.

--
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ

Re:American justice is based on many things by killjoe · 2004-05-16 18:09 · Score: 1

I don't know if your post is meant to defend the system or damn it.

What you seem to be saying is that the court system has very little to do with facts and the law and everything to do with the "prevailing attitude".

--
evil is as evil does
Re:American justice is based on many things by Infonaut · 2004-05-16 18:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

don't know if your post is meant to defend the system or damn it.
Neither. I probably didn't put it very clearly.
I don't profess to be a legal expert, but the American legal system was based on common law. That means that to a great extent the law is what "makes sense" (as interpreted at the time) rather than what is "universally true".
My primary intention was to point out that to simplify something as vast and complex as the American legal system down to a statement that money is the sole determinant of the law is a distortion of the truth. I say that because it is my feeling that the first step in abandoning your own social responsibility is to say that you can do absolutely nothing to shape events because everyting is being controlled by monied interests. Apathy suits the needs only of those who depend in it for cover.

--
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ

Re:Insightful? by dipipanone · 2004-05-16 19:07 · Score: 3, Funny

I couldn't have made a more redundant comment myself.

I believe you just did.

The market will not care for everything. by jbn-o · 2004-05-16 19:14 · Score: 1

While I'll agree that American justice is too often based on who can pay for it, I take issue with the suggestion that the market will somehow self-compensate for this shortcoming.

For every SCO (where I'll assume that you're ultimately correct that SCO will "lose" by some reasonable definition), there are far larger corporations that continue to not "lose" in any serious way; their misdeeds go unpunished and unnoticed. Edwin Black showed how the Nazis would not have been nearly as effective without the help of IBM and Tom Watson Sr.; I don't think Union Carbide's actions in Bhopal have been taken seriously by the US or international investors; tobacco corporations sell carcinogens with impunity to this day. These actions involve killing people or at the least making their lives seriously bad. Watch "The Corporation" (a new documentary in theatres now) for more examples of how unchecked corporate power leads to a society built on chasing profit and denying importance to anything else like people's lives and well-being.

--
Digital Citizen

Re:15 Minutes Over in 3...2...1 by etymxris · 2004-05-16 20:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm not too familiar with moderation on Groklaw, but I would not be surprised to find your assessment correct. Moderation without accountability or transparency is rampant on the net. Outright deletions of trolling posts is a great way to win the battle but lose the war. Slashdot deserves mad props for being able to combat the trolls without resorting to mass post deletion. Some don't understand why this is so important. I was in a discussion with the owner of fark, and he saw outright deletions as just as "bad" as slashdot's moderation. The difference is that I can see everything pushed to -1, and feel confident that moderation is being applied correctly. In other systems, I have no idea if moderation is being abused.

To bring this back to the topic at hand, PJ should realize that the best way to fight ignorance and stupidity is with information, not moderation. Quashing the views of your opponents in any discussion makes you no better. The reason Groklaw has been so successful is in drudging up info that SCO would rather have had remained forgotten. The ultimate lesson should not be that SCO is bad, but that information is good. More information almost always leads us from deceit and error to truth and understanding.

--
As a final aside, I was so fed up with the abusive moderation on fark and other sites I've seen that I created my own to stand as a counter example of the way to run a web forum. It will likely never be very popular, but hey, it's better than just randomly bitching about such moderation. You can read more about it here.

Re:15 Minutes Over in 3...2...1 by 0x0d0a · 2004-05-16 20:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

Mmmm...I agree that PJ has become less objective than she was a year ago, when I considered her to be *very* scrupulously objective. She has become "part of the community", and it's hard to remain utterly cold when you're in such a position. She's also put up more "what if" conspiracy type thoughts herself. They may be perfectly valid, but I do think Groklaw is less valuable for it -- it was once somewhere that you could just aim PHB types -- even if the comments could be a bit out there, PJ's articles were strictly down-to-earth analysis. Even if ESR's Halloween memos and theories are perfectly well-founded (and some of them are almost certainly pretty accurate), they're tough to sell to someone who isn't part of the Linux world and has kind of vaguely always trusted Microsoft.

I don't see the problem you do with the "FUD insurance" (though the conflict of interest is obvious) because PJ has done an admirable job of tamping down fear of legal violations. She is clearly in an abusable position; I have not seen anything that I would call abuse, though.

I agree that Groklaw could use a bit less of the anti-SCO humor and Darl-namecalling from posters -- that's really better placed on Slashdot, with it's stronger moderation system.

I also am interested as to whether PJ will begin to wind down Groklaw (as was my original impression) as SCO sputters down, or (as I'm starting to think) she will keep it alive as a forum to discuss Linux legal issues. It is clearly valuable to her employer, as she speaks with some authority on Linux legal issues.

--
May we never see th

Suing freedom of speech by kardar · 2004-05-16 20:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

Sure, the American justice system may have its flaws, but I doubt that the prosecution in the OJ case went to court saying "We're going to try to put this innocent man in jail so that we can look good and get a promotion". Well, maybe one or two of them were characterized a having had a similar attitude, but it's not like they didn't have a case, and it's not like they didn't have any evidence.

The problem SCO is going to have is that they underestimated "free software", because they didn't really know ENOUGH about "free software". The people bringing the suit aren't computer scientists, and the analysts claiming that SCO "might have something" aren't computer scientists either. The only chance that they have of winning is if the justice system fails; it's not Linux that's being questioned; it's the US justice system that's being questioned; it's the US justice system that's being sued.

Furthemore, I think many of us now realize that you can't really sue Linux, because "free software" is everyone, because "free software" is freedom of speech; it's not a company like Microsoft that you can sue. All over the world, people aren't going to stop using Linux, and if SCO is going to get anywhere, they are going to have to win many court cases, and they are going to have to show the same evidence in each case, evidence that, with almost complete certainty, it can be said, does not exist.

Now... to be fair, I imagine that it would be possible to turn SCO around; look at what Lee Iacocca did with Chrysler - it's possible, but with four patent lawsuits from IBM hanging over your head, a Red Hat lawsuit, and numerous GPL violations to boot, this is going to be difficult, so in their case, there is, let's say, a grave danger of "Live by the sword, die by the sword", happening. Unlike some people, I don't really wish any harm to SCO, because it's not SCO's fault - SCO is a business, and I would never wish financial disaster on any business. That's unethical. It's PEOPLE who work at that business that have encountered misinformation. Misinformation about Linux, misinformation about Unix, misinformation about "free software". It's basically, if I were to boil it down to a simple statement, it's that these lawsuits against Linux are being brought by individuals who aren't computer scientists.

I remember that there was a case in the US where a man sued "the devil". He claimed the devil had caused him to commit all these sins and hurt his loved ones and that he was taking the devil to court because he wanted to bring him to justice. The reason that the case was thrown out was because the court did not know where to send the devil's subpeona to. So similarly, with Linux, the question is how do you subpeona free speech? Where does free speech live? What is free speech's address? Many would say America. See? But basically, it's freedom of speech that is giving all of these proprietary software companies headaches. And suing freedom of speech is, in a strange but opposite way, like suing the devil.

If VA Software goes out of business... by 0x0d0a · 2004-05-16 20:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

If VA Software (once known as VA Linux) goes out of business, there will be severe repercussions in the open source world. (I think that this is unlikely, but they might be pared down.)

VA Software owns OSDN, the collection of Slashdot, Newsforge, Freshmeat, Geocrawler, and Sourceforge and some other major OSS sites (I consider the above five to be the most critical). In most cases, if VA Software goes under, it's probable that VA will have to do what it can to sell off assets and data (rather than freely releasing them) to either return to profitability or pay off creditors.

Let's look at a couple of these:

* Newsforge. Without doing research, I'm guessing that Newsforge is not self-sustaining, and would probably have difficulty being very profitable, thus it probably could not be spun off. I don't think Newsforge has significant assets in the form of IP. On the other hand, Newsforge is a fairly biased, propagandaish news source that doesn't attract a lot of mainstream attention. The loss of Newsforge probably wouldn't do too much damage to the OSS world.

* Slashdot. Slashdot can probably (perhaps given some tweaks) be self-sustaining. There are a lot of things that can be done (like ad banners and subsucriptions, as is now the case) that would probably let Slashdot keep itself afloat without drastically changing the way Slashdot works or damaging userbase size, and a number of somewhat more intrusive things that could be done that would allow Slashdot to still remain a major tech forum. Slashdot is somewhat replaceable (especially since Slashcode is open) but it would take a long time to produce such a valuable database and user base -- and given the value of these, Slashdot could probably be sold to a number of organizations. Slashdot's comment database is enormously valuable, and may rival USENET for data on a number of tech issues. Its loss would be damaging.
Slashdot is frequently biased and sometimes inaccurate, but it has a significant degree of clout. Mainstream news sources definitely go over Slashdot to identify interesting tech topics. Slashdot is an important place to get people upset about or make them aware of things relevant to the open source world -- it is probably currently the single most important such forum. It helps produce rapid community response to issues -- there have been a number of times that (major) changes have been made (vendors making statements on Linux support, people finding alternative hosting to keep important resources alive, etc) after Slashdot highlights points. It is a significant political mobilizer, and assists other mobilizers -- it is unlikely that nearly so many people would frequent Groklaw without the attention Slashdot gave it. In general, Slashdot significantly improves communication, open source visibility, reduces response time, and facilitates the spread of memes in the open source community. I would consider it to be extremely important, and the loss of it a major setback.

* Freshmeat. Freshmeat is a major resource for *IX software. There is no other database that is nearly as comprehensive or helps get the word out about important updates. Google can replace some of Freshmeat's features (the ability to locate a project homepage is somewhat less useful that it used to be). However, while Freshmeat does not provide updated competitive reviews of software projects, it is *the* single place to go when one wants to find a list of potential *IX applications to solve a problem. This has significant trickedown effect to even end users -- if one works at Red Hat and is trying to find a good CLI FTP client to bundle with Red Hat, Freshmeat is where to start looking for one. Freshmeat can probably maintain itself, especially as it may have lower resource usage than Slashdot. Freshmeat is probably the primary location to spread warnings about an intentionally malicious application (such as one that adds backdoors to a system) since many people will see Freshmeat comments when doing initial-evaluation of soft

--
May we never see th

The difference.... by EmbeddedJanitor · 2004-05-16 21:08 · Score: 1

Microsoft has a real business and a real business plan, but SCO is just a pump and dump.

What the OJ, SCO and Microsoft cases have in common is that their future was not determined by the justice system (ie. the courts have not succeeded in materially altering anything). SCO will die not because of the courts but because Darl does not care and they have no real business.

--
Engineering is the art of compromise.

Re:15 Minutes Over in 3...2...1 by 0x0d0a · 2004-05-16 21:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

That is an interesting site you have there, with some interesting ideas. Among other things:

* I think that the idea of tags is a Good Thing on Slashdot. This allows people to tag things as being under a particular variety, and people to score based on tags however they desire. It does make the default values assigned to tags extremely powerful, though -- many people will moderate things that are not true "offtopic" in lieu of "troll" or "flamebait" or whatever, since they just think "I've knocked it down by a point".

* I think that the idea of point-oriented moderation tags (underrated/overrated) is a poor idea. On Slashdot, such moderations are immune to metamoderation (why?) and it means that people must "choose the point value" of something. I may not care about "offtopic", and want to see it, but if a comment is tagged "overrated" I have zero information to make a decision based on -- how do I know why the comment is overrated and whether I might want to read it?

* I'd like to see a wider point spread than the -1 to +5 of Slashdot. That made sense back when there were fewer users, and +5s were rare and exceptional. Now, I post +5s every day or so, and frequently see +5s that aren't that great. Clearly, the moderation data has become saturated.

* I think that the idea of no negative moderation (kuro5hin) is a good idea. Here's the problem. It is very easy to post lots of negative posts. Slashdot makes some attempt to avoid negative moderation -- limiting the number of posts/IP/day, and tempbanning people that post too many things that are modded down -- but ultimately, when you allow anonymous users, it's hard to do anything about this. Usually, there are a relatively small number of useful posts. It's better to mod those up than to let trolls force one to blow an arbitrary amount of points on negative mods. (An alternative would be to have a number of points reserved for "positive mods")

* Slashdot sorts posts forward chronologically by default for new users and for unregistered users. This is a terrible default. It means that the ever-abusable First Posts have value, it means that the least informed posts are generally the first thing that new users see (rather than the later posts from people that have both read the story and considered many other posts as well), and it means that the comments that are read on a story are unevenly read.

* One idea might be the loss of moderator anonymity. Clearly, wars could be started by people starting to regularly mod each others' posts down, so there is a serious potential for problems. However, there are major advantages. First, I suddenly have the option to weight moderation of my friends more highly (and my enemies less highly). Second, it's possible for the forum to suggest friends/enemies from people that moderate very similarly or differently from my own moderations -- in general, if I mod down flamebait, I'd like people who mod it up to have less influence on what I see.

--
May we never see th

LinuxWorld Says Happy Birthday to PJ by jg21 · 2004-05-16 21:59 · Score: 1

LinuxWorld already joined the congratulatory celebrations on Saturday

It's the FIRST anniversary by Michael+A.+Lowry · 2004-05-16 22:29 · Score: 1, Insightful

An anniversary is by definition a integral number of years from the date being observed. Today is therefore the first anniversary of Groklaw's founding. If one wishes to observe other important milestones, such as the passage of six months after an important event, one should refer to such observances using another phrase. Such observances are not called anniversaries for the same reason annual statements aren't released twice per year.

How's this for a new twist: by magefile · 2004-05-16 22:33 · Score: 2

Maybe GNU/grokParaLegal was off ... she's really a java.lang.grokParaLegal.

import java.lang.grokParaLegal; ... [down to public static void main] ...

grokParaLegal pj = new grokParaLegal();
pj.writeNews();
pj.writeNews();
pj.writeNews();
pj.inTheNews("slashdot");
pj.s erver.surviveSlashdotEffect();
pj.inTheNews("slas hdot");
pj.server.surviveSlashdotEffect();
pj.in TheNews("slashdot");
pj.server.surviveSlashdotEff ect();

when(grokLaw.age() == 1)
{
slashdot.congratsTo(pj);
}

Re:member... by Morosoph · 2004-05-16 23:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

When it's all about "sides", something important is missing. Both sides selecting jurors has to result in "balance of prejudice" and not "commitment to truth". In fact the latter quality could be seen as dangerous to both sides: an unknown quantity; better to have someone "on your team"!

--
Wikileaks, no DNS

Re:15 Minutes Over in 3...2...1 by coolmos · 2004-05-17 00:07 · Score: 1

You're right, PJ moderates and deletes posts.

But you fail to see why. Groklaw is not Slashdot. Groklaw is about a job that needs to be done.

If you try to disrupt that, your posts will be deleted.

Besides that, saying that PJ calls people trolls based on a difference of opinion says more about you then it does about PJ. Or, put in other words, you're lying.

And i think you're right about the insurance thing. It's ridiculous.

I wonder sometimes by kardar · 2004-05-17 00:20 · Score: 1

The SCO thing happened and it seemed like that there was really nowhere to go to really get the information on the case. Basically, it's one case, one company, and we know enough at this point to be comfortable in realizing that the risks are basically limited to frivolous lawsuits (or were), and that there are millions of dollars available for anyone that becomes the innocent victim of a frivolous lawsuit. So basically, it sucks, but it's OK. It's the type of situation where remaining calm is of utmost importance. Yes, you are at risk if you use Linux, but at risk of what, and it might not necessarily cost you your business, you will have people to help you out if you need it, and life is full of risks anyway. Not to justify these underhanded legal tactics, just to say that what's really important is to "chill out", while keeping your eyes open. Outrage is not your friend in uncertain times. Peace of mind, the ability to relax, the ability to remain calm, think on your feet, etc... that's what will make the difference. Instead of reacting to idiots who incorrectly think that they know all about computers because they know how to point and click, remaining calm and being able to entertain their completely incorrect fantasies will get you (and Linux, I might add) much further than creating walls and burning bridges. Now is the time to shine with your calm, relaxed approach. That's my opinion, anyway. Life is full of risks, and in order to make the right decisions you need to be somewhat "chill". If you "freak out", you are more likely to execute poorly planned strategies and make bad decisions.

So with Groklaw, it is in part because the claims are SO outrageous and absurd, even funny, yet for some people quite serious legal problems, this is why that approach has worked. Just like the previous poster said. What concerns me now is this: what is fair and balanced? Is there any benefit to presenting both points of view?

What Groklaw has been doing recently is simply presenting anything and everything that is negative and incorrectly and unjustly critical of Linux. While this type of approach was certainly necessary, and entirely entertaining, even downright hilarious when the SCO claims first came out, it's not really necessary now, because we know the details, and we know that there wasn't REALLY anything misappropriated with Linux. I think that SCO has, in effect, cried wolf, and that now very few people will ever believe that Linux could possibly infringe. So it is important to stay alert, no doubt about that.

Reading Groklaw at this point is not what it used to be. It used to be that you needed more information about the SCO case, and didn't know where to look. It used to be rather amusing to read all those absurd press releases. Definitely entertaining. At this point in time, many of us realize that Linux is sometimes going to be attacked by those who don't know anything about computers, and we are all well aware of the absurdity of these individuals who don't really know what they are talking about while refusing to listen.

So, looking at it from a PURELY objective point of view, you have a website that takes anything and everything that is anti-Linux and re-publishes it and gets it "out there". So in a superficial sense, if you don't really look deeper, and see that Groklaw is disputing, or breaking down these anti-Linux articles and authors, what you have a website that presents to the world every anti-Linux article known to humankind. To maintain this "breaking down" momentum, to maintain the critical momentum necessary to justify what essentially amounts to giving a secondary platform to these anti-Linux authors and organizations is the balance that I am concerned about.

That's the thing that gets me. It's a choice. Number one, you can gloss over the headlines, which basically tend to be either voluminous legal documentation or empassioned reviews of anti-Linux articles, which tend to suck you in; or you can really understand WHY the headlines are posted, and you can really

Re:member... by Aim+Here · 2004-05-17 00:33 · Score: 1

Well you could try swapping away jurors who are perceived to be neutral, but it'd be foolish. Being the first person to swap a jury member puts you at a slight disadvantage, since the bad guys now have one more swap than you. And you probably don't have any control over the replacement juror either.

If they were inclined to ennumerate the potential biasedness of a juror, I imagine game theorists would say the opposite to what you're saying - the litigants would generally only weed out the ones who appear most biased, since knocking out a 'neutral' would a) invite retaliation and b) has a 50-50 chance of making the jury worse.

Insofar as it goes, it seems a reasonable system,
though it's probably broken somewhere, if those liberal horror stories about all-white Southern juries sending innocent black guys to death row are to be believed.

Runaway Jury by svallarian · 2004-05-17 03:19 · Score: 1

Want to see something even more scary? (fiction, but I wouldn't *doubt* that this doesn't happen every day).

Watch or Read John Grisham's "Runaway Jury". In the movie, the jury selection for the defense is done by a team of investigators hidden away in another building. (audio and video are transmitted via hidden wireless cameras in the defenses clothing) They have PI's that shadow all the prospective jurors and dig up everything on them, then they have psycologists determining the body language of the jurors.

incredibly illegal and expensive, but in a case where a company stands to lose billions, why not?

Steven V.

--
I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."

Re:member... by Morosoph · 2004-05-17 04:42 · Score: 1

Well you could try swapping away jurors who are perceived to be neutral, but it'd be foolish. Being the first person to swap a jury member puts you at a slight disadvantage, since the bad guys now have one more swap than you. And you probably don't have any control over the replacement juror either.

The thing is that truth-seeking is not neutrality, but is rather a stance that upsets calculations of strategy on both sides, since a truth-seeker on the jury upsets normal social dynamics. Consider an Aspergic scientist on the dury when you're attempting to establish whether someone is of good character: this character would inhibit the others from jumping to conclusions in either direction. Not only that, but his/her responses to the evidence presented would not be the normal response, so that far from being "neutral", his interpretation of events would be highly non-standard.

My point is that this character would make the jury harder to predict, and would therefore be likely to be eliminated by at least one side, and probably both. If it's a close call, you don't want to be landed with an unknown factor.

Also, I would posit that those who are strongly motivated by truth are rare, so the probability of replacement with another is small, so there isn't much risk if you do replace them!

--
Wikileaks, no DNS

Re:member... by On+Lawn · 2004-05-17 06:27 · Score: 1

I just recently served on a Jury, and I assure you that it was evident with the questions they asked me and the other perspective jurors that the ability to look at the evidence and facts (the Court's best approximation of truth) was formost on their minds. Prejudices were seen as something that hampers that ability.

For instance this case involved someone getting a gun out and shooting his ex-girlfriend becuase she had an abortion. I was the first to be excused, even though my closest ties to the anti-abortion movement is affiliation with a unwanted pregnancy help organization that advocates adoption instead of abortion. I do not affiliate with any organizatio that bombs abortion clinics, or even lobbies to make abortion illegal.

And for reasons I do not know the prosecution (the one who I would figure was looking for people who did not like abortion) set me free before anyone else.

So in short, I do not know that the dilemma you pose between balance of prejudices as being an imprecise (or even counter-productive) to commitment to truth really exists.

Re:member... by On+Lawn · 2004-05-17 19:02 · Score: 1

By the way Morosoph, thanks for your participation in that survey. Unfortunately I can't keep everyone playing nice even when I want to. You've always been a true gentleman to deal with.

Re:15 Minutes Over in 3...2...1 by Sri+Lumpa · 2004-05-19 02:15 · Score: 1

PJ views Groklaw as an anti-FUD site.

It mostly deals with the legal view because she is herself a paralegal.

Given that even when the SCO matter is over there will still be more FUD and probably more lawsuits (anything successful enough attracts them) there will be something for PJ to analyse.

--
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,

Re:member... by Morosoph · 2004-05-20 02:09 · Score: 1

I think that I'm probably just being cynical, really; I've read too many articles on jury-stuffing, and it lends me to looking at the interests and dynamics likely to be involved, being aware that logical skill is unusual, and that those who have it don't always share others' emotional responses, so that they are less-known quantities.

In your case, though, I suspect that the prosecution thought that maybe you would sympathise with the former boyfriend. They have no easy way of telling how extreme or moderate you are.

--
Wikileaks, no DNS

Re:member... by Morosoph · 2004-05-20 02:27 · Score: 1

Thank-you. I don't think that I've been perfect though. I did say that your logic in our previous discussion was lacking when in fact there were really crossed wires due to coming from different perspectives; had I taken more care, I would not have said that.

--
Wikileaks, no DNS

Re:member... by On+Lawn · 2004-05-20 06:26 · Score: 1

I've thought of that. Another Jury member told me they were worried I might be grounds for a mis-trial. Personally I think they simply syphen off all the alphas that might disagree with them, in this case for the reason you specified. Lawyers, cops and judges are often the absolute first to be removed :)

And although I can see the right reasons behind what they do, I'm first to admit Lawyers are very, very good at doing all the wrong things for the professed right reasons.

119 of 181 comments (clear)