Slashdot Mirror
Novell Poised To Strike On Slander Of Title Claim
Xenographic writes "As seen in this Groklaw article, Novell is moving to dismiss SCO's slander of title claim with prejudice. They key to it is that SCO needs Novell's claims to be "knowingly false" to establish malice. Since the judge's own order on the motion to remand (see also part 2) questions whether there really was ever actually a copyright transfer, Novell's assertion that there was no transfer cannot be knowingly false, so SCO's case falls apart. Unfortunately, as Novell points out, the judge would be doing this without actually deciding the underlying issue of who owns what copyrights, and SCO could file a completely different suit for breach of contract or something, even though SCO would be unable to refile this slander of title suit. As an aside, I should mention that this isn't the first or only controversy over defamation we've seen in this fiasco by any means."
Read Rob Enderle's SCO Keynote.
Because that's exactly what SCO wants them to do, and IBM wants to show everyone not to mess with the Big Blue.
Because that is exactly what they want. They want to walk out of this with golden parachutes, completely in the right. Darl: "Look, Novell bought us because it knew that our IP claims were legitimate!". No, I don't think that Novell either should or will buy out SCO.
I think they'll crush them into the ground. Then spit on them.
Ads? What ads?
Buying out SCO was speculated early on but it never happened as it would have likely shown that the Linux supporters believed that there were enough violations to need to do that.
SCO likely wanted to be bought out so that they could bail from their rapidly sinking ship.
What the hell for ? Soon the markets would be full of litigating would-be "companies" like SCO.
Why can't IBM ... just buy these clowns?
"Pour encourager les autres". It would send a clear message to every Self-serving Cynical Organisation that playing fast-and-loose with the law against legitimate businesses is an acceptable and profitable activity.
Best result here is for SCO to die horribly - and publically[1].
([1] OK, my best result is Darl et al serving time, but I'll settle for Joe Q WallStreet knowing that SCO's business model was suicide)
This is where the serious fun begins.
while the first won't work, the second promises a lot of dough to SCO's lawyers. Remember, they will get 20%?
look at it the other way: would you rather IBM donate 65mil to EFF or to this scum?
But if you're sure of winning, and have a point to prove, then buying them is
a) a waste of money
b) likely to be seen by some at least as implicit admission that they had a case
It's official. Most of you are morons.
SCO can't allege malice, a necessary element, given the Court's earlier Order.
That is 1 damning excerpt! If the court has ruled that malice cannot be proven, and slander MUST have malice, logic dictates SCO loses again (FUD: courts are not always logical).
Another nice point was Novell's allusions to the Red Hat and IBM cases - kinda like saying 'Since I appear honest and forthright to you, your honor, I wish to state my endorsements of the positions offered by these fine 2 companies in their battle with the plaintiff in OUR case'
Brilliant!!!
([1] OK, my best result is Darl et al serving time, but I'll settle for Joe Q WallStreet knowing that SCO's business model was suicide)
Lying, cheating, stealing, and then cooking the books to cover it has been a suicide business model for years yet it doesn't stop companies from continuing to do it.
Because buying them validates the barratry business model. If you want all current and potential litigious bastards to go away forever, you do not pump money into their friends' bank accounts because it makes them more likely to take up the cause if there's a greater possibility of a big paycheck at the end of it.
Instead, you want to make sure that IBM and others continue to use their formidable might to squash these bugs into oblivion.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
...would be for the copyright claim to be determined. I'd hate to see SCO go out of business before it was determined who owns the IP it claims.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
If you dig into the copious records, you will find that being bought by IBM is one of the things SCO set out to achieve. The idea was that various people would walk off with a large pile of cash from IBM just to get rid of them. They have now discovered that it is not that easy to squeeze cash out of IBM by being irritating.
The principle is much like that of not paying a blackmailer or extortionist. If you pay one, they will queue up for their handout. If you grind the first one into the dust, others are not so likey to try it on.
While generally you guys get a lot of things right (constitutional protection, etc), one thing that maddens me about these "only in the USA" stories is the freedom you give to lawyers to run amok with cases and spend all their clients money, forcing the other side to spend even more.
Here in the UK (well England and Wales at least), as you may know, the loser in litigation generally has to pick up the winner's legal fees. Where the claim was, e.g. an abuse of process, the fees can be payable on a punitive ("indemnity") basis. If either side is on a shaky financial footing, they can be forced to pay money into court to cover their opponent's litigation risk.
Is anyone thinking of taking these sort of rules into the US system? Or would that not work with the constitution?
That's because the risks most definitely do not outweigh the rewards. For example, the Ken Lay's, Bernie Ebbers', John Rigas', and Darl McBride's of this world aren't going to go broke anytime soon, even if they destroy the bank accounts and viability of all the employees of the companies they mis-managed. Instead, they might have to spend some minimal amount of time at a country club prison, followed by having to spend the rest of their lives in comfortable luxury, while the employees whose careers and retirement accounts they've destroyed will struggle to make ends meet for the rest of their lives.
The only acceptable punishment for these people is the complete destruction of their lives and their families lives. It's no less damaging than what they did to their employees. Pure Hammurabi code here.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
[Melaugh] tells the judge that he did a LexisNexis news search for the words IBM and SCO and got 2,845 results, starting with the month and year that SCO filed the lawsuit. Next, he narrowed it down by choosing as cutoff date the first Novell public statement, and he still got 317 articles. They present the judge with beginning chunks of the first 50 of each search, asking that he take judicial note of the huge media frenzy around SCO.
This is a public dispute, and it was SCO who made it so not only by suing IBM, but by sending the 1500 threatening letters and sounding off in the media. "SCO has done everything it can to stoke that firestorm." Additionally, it has started or is defending against "at least six lawsuits before five judges in four states and two countries."Under those circumstances, Novell has the legal right to speak without being threatened with litigation for doing so.
Lying, cheating, stealing, and then cooking the books to cover it has been a suicide business model for years yet it doesn't stop companies from continuing to do it.
I can't argue with that, but... no, dammit, I can't argue with that.
I do feel that there's an element of IBM "proving" that's it really is the biggest, baddest kid on the block, even if it plays nice with those Linux-Hippy Children next door, but you're quite right - there were sound legal reasons IBM & co should not have settled earlier.
This is where the serious fun begins.
As others have replied, IBM (and others) will not save SCO from themselves. To send a message.
I applaud their efforts.
Now, if SCO would have played nice at the beginning they WOULD be absorbed by now (maybe even IBM).
What everyone is waiting for now is the Ch11/13 of SCO so they can tear it into pieces and buy the parts they want.
So, if Novell didn't sell SCO the copywrights, exactly what did Novell sell them? If SCO thought they were buying the copywrights and Novell says they didn't, but some sort of transaction did indeed take place, what did SCO end up with?
The Unix business. Selling Unix licenses and providing support for existing licensees.
Novell doesn't feel they need the Unix copyrights to be able to do that. SCO thinks otherwise.
Don't reward hostage-taking, basically. I am probably getting close to invoking some current-events version of Godwin's law, but the analogy really seems fitting. If IBM or Novell buys out SCO it will only encourage other companies to try similar shakedowns in the future.
Another goods thing about Novell exposing SCO's games is that Judge Kimball is also presiding over the SCO v IBM case.
Why would IBM or Novell want to fritter away 65 million for obsolete technology? Because that's pretty much all SCOG has. If you look at their recent updates to Unixware, if were not for all the GPL applications and code they included with the OS, it would be pretty useless. And as you may or may not know, all that GPL code SCOG included can be had for free.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Why? What possible advantage would there be in this to them? Are they just trying to avoid costs of ongoing litigation (understandable)? Because I can't otherwise see any use in a decision along these lines - I would have thought it's just setting the stage for another ownership row later on.
Cheers,
Ian
And that's only for the ones who got caught. The risk-reward ratio changes dramatically when only x% of crooks get caught, and furthermore we all know that nobody thinks he'll be the dummy who gets found out.
Still, regulations, the possibility of prison time, the destruction of one's career, etc., do serve as some deterrent, and I don't think it's overly optimistic to think that the overwhelming majority of exces and investors will play it straight, whether for fear of repercussions or by their own integrity.
Fuck it
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I thought that the reason SCO bought the slander of title case against Novell was because Novell didn't just publicly state that they owned the copyrights, but they filed the copyrights in with the copyright office with the intent to use the filings to undermine SCO's case(s).
If this slander case does get dismissed, does this mean that the copyright filing stands unchallenged? Or is there another route SCO can go down in order to have the filing retracted?
I'm not sure how copyright filings work in the US, as we don't have a similar system in the UK! (or not that I know of anyway)
The ways of gods are mysteriously indistinguishable from chance.
Interest move - sounds like Novell are interested in dodging the case without having the issue of copyrights decided.
Why?
Simple, because Novell have been sued for slander of title, not for copyright infringement. They have to defend against the case brought against them in court, not the case brought against them in the press.
I find it helps a lot to stop listening to what SCO say, and pay exclusive attention to what they do.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Lets have a look at their 6 months movement.
This little chart shows how newSCO's stock is doing. Their recent pressreleases and blabbering during the SCOforum left a certain spike upwards, then things settled again, and the price is currently at around $4.30. Compared to such companies as Novell, wich you can see the comparison of here, there clearly is a trend that whenever newSCO releases some FUD to the general public and the eager-to-cover media their stock is up for a short time, and the companies they are in legal battles with are down. Then it all slowly goes back as it was before. IBM, RedHat and Novell are all three doing rather well in comparison to newSCO.
It's sad to see how this hunger for money drive a former great company into the ground. I hope both investors and current stockholders realize that the only thing that is going to save newSCO is to focus on their product and shuffle Darl and his litigation off into the void.
"-Who said sit down?!"
-- S. Ballmer @ MSDC 2003.
sPh
The last thing SCO wants is to file a contract suit against Novell here. The only ones they could file that would touch on the copyrights at all would all involve a claim of "They're obliged to transfer the copyrights, make them.". If they don't make that claim, there's nothing else in the APA to hang a case on. If they do make that claim, they instantly kill all their other cases because it's an admission that they don't own the copyrights right now.
The suit that SCO should have filed was a breach of contract suit against Novell. Then they would make the arguments that they're making now -- e.g., that they paid so much money, that they need the copyrights, etc. -- and the relief they would seek would be a judicially recognized transfer of UNIX copyrights. I don't think they'd win, but they'd have a better shot than in any of the other litigation they're involved in. Honestly, this whole transaction was poorly drafted.
So the question now becomes why we've got this suit rather than the proper one. The reason is that filing that breach of contract suit eviscerates all of their other lawsuits. Remember IBM? AutoZone? Well, it'll be hard for SCO to be in one court arguing that they should be given copyrights and in others claiming violation of the copyrights that they will have Real Soon Now. (SCO's lawyers would argue this regardless.) Not to mention all those forms filed with the SEC and so forth. So the short answer is that if Novell can defeat the wrong lawsuit they probably won't ever have to face a proper one.
By having this case dismissed, Novell shuts down SCO's preferred line of attack. First of all, SCO will need to start over with a new suit, meaning more cash burn from SCO's rapidly depleting coffers. Second, it buys time for SCO's position on other fronts (like IBM's tenth counterclaim) to weaken. If IBM can prove there's no UNIX in Linux, the issue of who owns the UNIX copyrights becomes moot. Finally, it means that SCO will have to open a suit explicitly stating that they want to prove they own the copyrights, a very difficult position since the documentation doesn't seem to support that claim.
Remember, the job of Novell's lawyers is not to defend Linux. It is to defend Novell. It's only in the current circumstances that the two interests happen to coincide.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
IBM has a policy that says "no" to frivolous lawsuits. Generally speaking, just having the policy discourages most people.
Others, who are not quite as quick on the uptake, must be fought simply to prove that the policy is valid.
SCO just happens to be one of the latter group.
The only acceptable punishment for these people is the complete destruction of their lives and their families lives.
This kind of assumes I can kill my relatives if I think they are about to do anything I will be destroyed for. Hopefully you don't have a gun-carrying uncle with an unusual fondness for DMCA.
I don't know if jail is the right answer either. I would be scared to stay in a "country club" where Darl might try to fsck my unauthorized backdoors.
The thing is, all SCO/Darl did is hand in some papers to court. The judge could have consulted slashdot, Grocklaw or just his/her own common sense and told Darl to use the papers to clean his own backdoor. That's also what would happen in most countries, or in US 10-20 years ago. Except for slashdot, Grocklaw or female judges that is.
The real solution is to clean up the legal system so that you need a darn good evidence to start a lawsuit, you need to convince a skeptical judge before you even contact another party with an C&D letter and you have to pay the costs government wasted on your case if you fail.
What everyone is waiting for now is the Ch11/13 of SCO so they can tear it into pieces and buy the parts they want.
Actually, what I'm waiting for is for IBM to "pierce the corporate veil" and go after Canopy's assets. (Google the phrase or seach for it on Groklaw for detailed discussions.) Under normal circumstances an incorporated entity shields the assets and freedom of the entities that created the corporation from legal attack. That is why you may see corporations paying out millions when they lose a big lawsuit, but you don't see the officers of that corporation personally liable, except perhaps in extreme circumstances like Enron.
Canopy (The private parent group that owns SCO) has already made out well. SCO could go belly up today and Canopy and Ralph Yarro who runs it would be ahead of the game. However, there are a number of things which make it appear that Yarro and Canopy may have helped to direct the SCO attacks--including the early involvement of the Canopy legal counsel, the Vultus acquisition, and a number of others.
I think the odds are against IBM being able to pierce that corporate veil and go after Canopy. However, if it can, it will really send a message to those that might consider another scam like this. The message would be that you could lose your personal fortunes. Even an unsuccessful attempt to pierce the veil would have a welcome chilling effect on similar future actions.
Now, as to the fire sale when SCO enters bankrupcy, my hope is that it will happen after SCO loses some court cases that make it clear eithre that it doesn't even own the IP (and the Novell dismissal with prejudice judgement would not do that) and/or that there is no Unix IP in Linux. Because if that isn't settled, all someone has to do is pick up that IP at the firesale and start all over.
Linux was inspired by Minux. But to say it is "based on" Minux is to say that every work of art done by every student since the beginning of time is "based on" the work of the teacher. I don't know many teachers who would take that position.
Minux is a microkernel; Linux is a monolithic kernel. Changing one into the other would be like taking a dog and morphing it into a horse - very unlikely.
sPh
extern warranty;
main()
{
(void)warranty;
}
There is absolutely no basis for your idea that Linus "added functionality to" Minix or that Linux was "baed" on Minix. Linus ran Minix, he didn't use it as a base for the Linux code. Given the massive structural differences between the two (Linux is a monolithic kernel, Minix is a micro kernel system) that should be quite apparent.
If you develop on the platform your IP may belong to the world and the value of that IP is part of your Linux price. I'm waiting for the day that someone at GM realizes that Linux developers there regularly talk to their Ford counterparts to solve critical problems and, because may they need to, provide access and confidential information about the company in the process. The Ford executives shouldn't feel too smug because similar information is flowing out of them. And key technologies may not belong to either because of this practice. [emphasis mine]
Wow, I don't know if I could point out a more misunderstood statement regarding the GPL than this.
In the first place, developing on Linux doesn't obligate you to release your code under the GPL. So, unless you're an idiot and release your code to the world, you could market and sell Linux applications without ever revealing your source. But that would be selfish - you've benefitted greatly from the benevolence of others, yet you feel no need to give back to the same community that gave so much to you? Let me guess, you're still trying to avoid paying taxes, too?
Basically, the GPL prevents IP theft. The terms are simple - if you steal our code, you have to make your code available to the public, or risk a lawsuit. In fact, GPL'ing a piece of software is a sort of insurance policy against code theft - if someone copies my GPL'd code into their product, I can then demand they distribute their source code as well. Hence, it serves as a deterrent to the corporate parasites and leeches who make their living by stealing and repackaging the work of others.
No, using GPL'd software for development won't give your IP to the world, as you suggest. But, the GPL ensures that code leeches can't steal the work of others for the sake of personal profit. You, Rob, didn't write the Linux kernel, nor the GNU utilities and libraries, and hence, have no right to use code you haven't written against the will of the author. Why is this so hard to understand? All the GPL says is that if you use someone else's code, you have to respect their terms. Is that really so hard?
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
To make SCO lose the suit, Novell can attack either or all of these. An obvious way to win the suit would be for Novell to get the issue of copyright decided. If Novell can prove that they own the copyright (by getting the judge to consider whether the APA with amendments satisfy the federal rules for a copyright transfer or not) then SCO has lost (and Novell might have a case for a counter suit...).
So while you're right that they aren't sued for copyright infringement, that is irrelevant - the ownership of the copyright can still potentially decide the case.
However deciding the ownership of the copyright could potentially drag out - it would likely require discovery, and we know from SCO vs IBM that SCO are good at dragging out discovery.
What Novell has chosen instead is to try the quick option, while still leaving the more painfull option open for later. They try for the dismissal now, arguing that regardless of who owns the copyright, the ownership isn't clear (pointing out that the judge too said it wasn't clear) which would in itself mean that SCO can't win the case because they can't prove malice. They also argue that informing about the dispute is priviledged communication (meaning you can't sue for slander over it, amongst other things) and as such the statements they made can't be slander.
They then claim that this can be decided as a matter of law based on filings so far, and their references to public statement, without need for discovery.
The worst thing that can happen to Novell is that the judge decides that the matter isn't quite so clear cut, and Novell can try for a summary judgement again later in the process after some discovery.
The worst thing that can happen to SCO is that their case is dead, dismissed with predjudice, preventing them from refiling the same or similar claims against Novell. This would essentially permanently cast doubt on whether they actually own any copyrights at all, making it near impossible for them to try to enforce copyright claims against anyone else, meaning that Novell gets almost the same benefits with much less risk (each unused opportunity to kill SCO's claims increases the chance that Novell might get screwed over by a mistake later, so why take the risk)
(ObDisclaimer: IANAL)
Wow! Nice link! That's one disturbing piece of work. I took enough psych to see that the man is clearly egomaniacal, I'm curious if he's borderline delusional. Anyone with more training have an insight?
Nor is this well formed apologetics as he fundamentally contradicts himself more than once. For example, he attacks the working man since he asserts that the majority of Linux users are not entrepeneurs. Not that the majority of any OS users are entrepeneurs but ok. So he calls people who work for a living "zombies". Later he proposes to be championing the case of the working man. Dude, you just called him a zombie! (And you wonder why people threaten you?)
Also enjoyed the inference that many Linux users are clueless morons who don't code or play video games!? First, the fact that Linux finally has some non-coders using it is an indication that it is getting more user-friendly. Secondly, do you really want to compare the coding skills of the average Linux user with, say, the average XP user? (Not bashing any of the bright coders who do use XP but you also realize that you do not represent the average user.) And video games? Ooo, how sinister is that? What does that have to do with anything? (However you can make the case that Osama Binladen doesn't play video games. Is it such a stretch to think that non-gamers might be terrorists?)
But let's not throw out the good with the bad. His point that no one has the right to threaten him (or anyone else) with violence is just. Point taken. This is an area where the OSS advocates need to take note and clean up their image a little.
You still get the feeling he's using the image to try to paint Linux advocates as the bully and SCO/Microsoft as the victim.
Too weird.
I've got a really good conspiracy theory.
Lets take it as given that the entire purpose of the SCO lawsuits is to discredit Linux/Free Software and spread FUD, bankrolled by ...erm... someone.
Enderle has constantly harped on about "these zealots", "death threats", "die for what you believe in" etc, etc.
Enderle is setting himself up to either:
He'll be found in a Reno hotel room with the full text of the GPL version 2 (or later at your discretion) inscribed on his chest using a slide rule. A single penguin feather will be protruding from between his mutilated butt cheeks, and the smell of herring will linger.
Who would use software that causes people to kill in such a biblical fashion? Thats how it is going to play - Just wait until the mainstream media condenses down John Katz' old columbine mooning into a blanket condemnation of all geekhood.
I think it could happen just when ... someone feels that they are getting almost no return from the SCO lawsuit in terms of FUD, and they need a real boost. Its desparate, but the potential pay off is huge - better than patents!
Do I really beleive this? No. But its worth putting it out there, just so if it did happen we can all pat each other on the back in Gitmo, and say "Knew it was coming! Why didn't we listen?
You are right--he is a troll, effectively. You see, for a long time he's worked to be someone the media quotes (they still do, all too much, even though he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about half the time--he even mentions some of the trouble he got in in that speech).
In fact, his Enderle Group sells his quotability as a service--pay us, and we'll tell the press good things about you. That, plus as he admitted in his speech, he supports Microsoft for unrelated personal reasons.
Now then, people have started attacking his credibility en mass due to the SCO debacle. Some have even (gasp!) insulted him online. He hates this, because the more reasoned of us (e.g. me) are working to make it known that we believe that he is as paid shill and does not know whereof he speaks. Obviously, this message is getting out.
Thus, he works to portray all those who attack him as unintelligent, angry zealots. You said it well when you said he had a "very clear misunderstanding" of how this all works and what we mean by free. But that's not quite all: he knows what we mean and is deliberately twisting the facts to act as a troll.
Elsewhere, he's gone with a "BSD is better" line. The point of this is that he's trying to stir up or exacerbate whatever divisions exist among us--e.g. to sow strife and dischord. So far, I don't get the sense that he's doing it very well, but he's conciously trying to start flame wars.
Why? The controversy suits him--if he can get people mad enough, he can discredit them with their own angry rants (and there's always someone to supply these even if the rest of us hold our tongues). Moreover, he can use the controversy to put himself in the spotlight (get quoted even more in the media, etc.).
Thus, the best counter-strategy for us is to supply as many calm, rational and even-toned responses to his nonsense as is possible, and to simply ignore the flamebait portions of his talks.
The more reasonable people we can get who present sensible, articulated responses to his utter nonsense, the more we can discredit him in spite of the supply of angry hatemail he has to wave around.
I'm not some angry nitwit who is going around threatening anyone, and I refuse to have him defame us all by painting with one broad stroke.
To that end, I'm open for suggestions on how to help the media get a clue that he's not a credible source, and should not be trusted or used for quick & easy quotes.
Dans ce pay-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres.--Voltaire
"In this country, it is a good idea to kill an admiral from time to time, so as to encourage the others."
In 1756, Admiral Byng was ordered to prevent the French from taking Minorca. He was supplied with a fleet of thirteen ships that were both ill equipped and undermanned. To make room for the soldiers he was to receive from the Gibraltar garrison, his marines were reassigned to other squadrons.
In Gibraltar, when he requested the reinforcements, Byng was rebuffed, as the local governor feared a French attack on his city.
The admiral sailed on to Minorca-- but his initial engagement with the French fleet proved disastrous. The relative positions of the French and British fleets made the standard "Fighting Instructions" ineffective-- the leading ships of Byng's line engaged the French fleet unsupported, and as a result, were quickly dispatched. Byng refused to break up his line, and shortly thereafter. was forced to withdraw, as his remaining forces could not possibly relieve the siege, even in the absence of a French fleet. He sailed for Gibraltar, and Minorca was taken. Byng was arrested, court martialed, and shot, as he had failed to do his duty.
"Pour encourager les autres" is a rationale for exceptionally harsh punishment. If IBM were to sue SCO for patent infringement, receive the remainder of SCOs assets in a settlement, and then symbolically burn SCO to the ground, such actions could be construed as "Pour encourager les autres,"
IAMAL:
No case, civil or criminal in our system goes to jury without a judge approving it first. A judge must first approve 100% of all cases. That's why you'll see references to the judge throwing out the case. In essence, the case has no merit and the plaintiff cannot sue or an accused cannot be tried.
It's a several step process and the one SCO and IBM are in is discovery. This is where a judge (discovers) and decides if there's enough evidence to send a case to trial.
Has IBM been sued? Well, yes and kind of no. A judge still hasn't decided if it will go to trial. Novell is right now asking the judge to not approve the case and to throw it out with prejudice.
Normally a judge will just rule the case has no merit. A ruling with prejudice means not only has it no merit, you knew it didn't and there will be penalties for brining the suit. A ruling with extreme prejudice is even worse than that. My impression is that lawyers can loose licenses and people can go to jail in extreme prejudice rulings.
Beyond that, access to the legal system is a constitutional protected thing and cannot be denied to anyone.
Don't do it, folks -- Enderle selects the angriest and least coherent of these comments and uses them to defame us all.
He may have invited such comments by his flamebait, but that's all the more reason we should NOT take the bait.
Work to discredit him by writing those journalists who have quoted him. Point out the interesting service he sells--positive spin in the media for money--and ask how that squares with ethical journalism. Right now, he's quoted all too often--please stick to exposing his cluelessness to the media and discrediting him for spouting nonsense. DO NOT flame him, he merely uses that against ALL his critics, including those of us who are reasonable and oppose him based on logic and common sense, rather than some personal ill-will or malice.
He's TRYING to start flame wars here; don't let him and don't help him. Discredit him. It's what he seems to fear most.
I didn't see my buddies die face down in the mud to watch a bunch of Linux Zealots going after poor little SCO.