Slashdot Mirror


Groklaw Turns One

JuliusRV writes "Today is Groklaw's one-year anniversary! As PJ writes, 'What a difference a year makes. When we started, all the headlines were saying that SCO was going to destroy Linux or at least make it cry. 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.' Thanks, PJ and all other Groklawyers, keep up the good work!"

68 of 181 comments (clear)

  1. Remember... by kemapa · · 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!

    1. Re:Remember... by Prod_Deity · · Score: 2, Funny

      You forgot to add *BSD to your list. :-)

    2. Re:Remember... by Suburbanpride · · 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...
    3. Re:Remember... by interiot · · 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.

    4. Re:Remember... by the+gnat · · 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.)

    5. Re:Remember... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    6. Re:Remember... by Jameth · · 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.

    7. Re:Remember... by Vellmont · · 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
    8. Re:Remember... by XSforMe · · 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!
    9. Re:Remember... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    10. Re:Remember... by eric76 · · 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.

    11. Re:Remember... by jesterzog · · 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.

    12. Re:Remember... by cft_128 · · 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

    13. Re:Remember... by Aim+Here · · 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..

    14. Re:Remember... by toby · · 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 #!
  2. Actually... by elid · · 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.

  3. GrokDoc?? by marcushnk · · 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
    1. Re:GrokDoc?? by 4lex · · 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.
  4. Let me be the first to say... by AltGrendel · · 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

  5. Good to see them in headlines again by Noose+For+A+Neck · · 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.

    1. Re:Good to see them in headlines again by TykeClone · · 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.
  6. Not to nitpick.... by redwoodtree · · 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.

  7. OJ/PJ difference by beacher · · 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

    1. Re:OJ/PJ difference by Bartgroks · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Its been a great year overall. Thanks to groklaw we know SCO's case is much worse then OJ's.

  8. effects by name773 · · 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...

  9. The Year of the SCO Group FUD and Outright Lies by NZheretic · · 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

  10. She's not a grokParaLegal either ... by magefile · · Score: 4, Funny

    She's a GNU/grokParaLegal

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

  11. If only... by peawee03 · · 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.
    1. Re:If only... by the+gnat · · 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?

    2. Re:If only... by Sique · · 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*
  12. SCO's Imminent Doom by cammoblammo · · 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.

    1. Re:SCO's Imminent Doom by DAldredge · · 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)

    2. Re:SCO's Imminent Doom by HyperCash · · 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.
  13. It is normal for a story to turn this way by Space_Soldier · · 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.

    1. Re:It is normal for a story to turn this way by Anonymous Coward · · 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 :)
  14. troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  15. Just because I like nitpicking ... by beanyk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Today is Groklaw's one-year anniversary!

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

  16. Why is this news? by pyrrhonist · · 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.
  17. SCOX at $5.15 - Where's the bottom by Animats · · 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.

    1. Re:SCOX at $5.15 - Where's the bottom by AndroidCat · · 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.
    2. Re:SCOX at $5.15 - Where's the bottom by badasscat · · 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.

    3. Re:SCOX at $5.15 - Where's the bottom by Animats · · 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.

    4. Re:SCOX at $5.15 - Where's the bottom by cft_128 · · 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

    5. Re:SCOX at $5.15 - Where's the bottom by Simon+Brooke · · 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.
  18. not accessible from China? by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

    1. Re:not accessible from China? by andfarm · · 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.

    2. Re:not accessible from China? by dukeisgod · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm amazed that you're allowed to read /. from China.

    3. Re:not accessible from China? by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 4, Informative

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

      --
      Not a sentence!
    4. Re:not accessible from China? by MathFox · · 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;
      }
    5. Re:not accessible from China? by 0x0d0a · · 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.

  19. Re:post-SCO by rifftide · · 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.

  20. LNUX at $1.94 - Where's the bottom? by Mike+Hawk · · 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.

    1. Re:LNUX at $1.94 - Where's the bottom? by Mike+Hawk · · 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.

    2. Re:LNUX at $1.94 - Where's the bottom? by Jameth · · 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.

  21. Who will own Unix? by donnz · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    --
    -- Free software on every PC on every desk
    1. Re:Who will own Unix? by rossifer · · 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

  22. Definitely - June 15th... by cliveholloway · · Score: 4, Funny

    According to anyway :)

    cLive ;-)

    --
    -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
  23. I've said it before, but ... by krumms · · 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.

  24. American justice is based on many things by Infonaut · · 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
    1. Re:American justice is based on many things by Infonaut · · 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
  25. Re:Insightful? by dipipanone · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    I believe you just did.

  26. Re:15 Minutes Over in 3...2...1 by etymxris · · 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.

  27. Re:15 Minutes Over in 3...2...1 by 0x0d0a · · 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.

  28. Suing freedom of speech by kardar · · 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.

  29. If VA Software goes out of business... by 0x0d0a · · 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

  30. Re:15 Minutes Over in 3...2...1 by 0x0d0a · · 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.

  31. How's this for a new twist: by magefile · · 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);
    }

  32. Re:member... by Morosoph · · 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"!