Slashdot Mirror
Report Claims SCO Intends to Charge IBM with Fraud
An anonymous reader writes "Now it gets interesting. According to this report, it looks as if SCO is preparing to accuse IBM of fraud, and has even opened up a web site to counter the runaway success of Groklaw. SCO's expensive attorneys Boies and Silver are apparently going to file a motion asking the court to unseal most of the documents that are currently under seal, in the hope that certain of IBM's e-mails will be seen by the outside world to tell a story about AIX, Dynix, and Project Monterey that implicates IBM in, well to be blunt, fraud. Groklaw is certain to have its own distinct view about this latest development of course."
Wasnt there a recent slashdot story saying that IBM did NOT have any sco code?
i'm confused...
-Leav
I own a pump action golf ball cannon. I made it myself.
They've got nothing, everything they do is getting thrown out of court, so they're going to try and blame IBM for that too. It will be nice to tell our grandchildren about this company named SCO that tried to profit off of others work.
So, SCO insults the entire world of Free Software, and they think some stupid web site will generate some sympathy? Sheesh.
with an eight high hand.
Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?
GETPKG - Package Management for Slackware
SCO has nothing left, this is their last breath.
Yeah, the least they could do is put some pr0n on it, or something.
Visit the Game Programming Wiki!
Where is SCO getting all this money to pay lawyers? Nobody's paying the licensing fees.
give them some hits
The page says "Roll mouse over timeline icons to see summary of each document". So I did and nothing. Hmmmm. Well, let's see how it validates.
OH well.
Free XBox, PS2
I think SCO just likes to believe that if it could just advocate enough false statements then perhaps just by chance one of them will turn out to be true. I figure the chance of that is equivelent to one hundred monkeys tapping randomly on keyboards reconstructing all of linux source code with a covering letter to Darl telling him to politely drink a cup of Ricin. Simon.
The only one commiting fraud here is SCO. They are creating fraudulent lawsuits for no reason but to annoy IBM. Pretty soon SCO is gonna sue for wrongful death because IBM killed their company. I mean seriously, doesn't this kind of suit start to border on defamation? Shouldn't IBM have the ability to sue SCO for damages or at least to force them to stop all lawsuits?
Lol, oh boy this ought to be good. What could SCOG possibly make available GrokLaw does not? All Groklaw does it make available copies of official court documents, with of course commentaries by any who desire.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
i am wondering why the usa courts and judges dont stop this foolishness already? i mean sco is saying something for some years now and they fail to come up with proof? so how come this case hasnt been dismissed by now?
...
on the other hand the judges dont end this shit if sco cant prove stuff and cant provide basic hints to their case.
now here is what i dont understand. its either the us.a legal system that is completely rotten that u can make fals claims and accusations for several years without any proof or evidence, or there has to be something to sco's case actually, and the judges arent sure either, and ibm has something to hide too, no matter if its some shit that they did to linux, or whether its just their aix/dynix/whatever code they messedup and mixed with sco stuff...
cany anybody actually enlighten me? is it the us.a legal system that is totally crap and unfair/illegal or does sco actually have some claims that at least tackle ibm/aix/dynix, even if not directly linux
why dont the judges demand real shit by now, and why dont they hurry up the whole situation? why is this taking ages and not going anywhere soon? fuck, i dont understand this at all... the judges should be really embarrassed and blushing by now.... no matter if its the one or the other way....
thanks.
...to see a summary of each document.
Doesn't work with either browser I have installed right now. For a company whose motto is The Power of Unix, apparently you need to run IE6 on Windows to actually use their website.
The SCOX crackheads are frustrated. They've been instructed not to embellish their case in the media. That's frustrating for someone like Darl, whose wet dream it is to mouth off at every opportunity.
So SCOX do what they always do, they blame everyone else of doing the things they are in fact doing themselves. For instance, they'll claim that IBM (via Groklaw) is misrepresenting the case. Of course, the only people continuously misrepresenting the case(s) are SCOX insiders and their paided shills (the Endrools and Didiots of the world).
I mean, how many times have we read Darl and Blake talking about the eV1L lUnix in the press? Then in the filings they'll say "this isn't about linux". Or the other way around. It depends on whichever would look the best for them at that particular point.
There'll be a reckoning for you when this is over, Darl.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
when will SCO finally make the laughable mistake of suing SCO? I can't wait till that day :P
Monstar L
Just a minor correction. Their website, actually very well done for a law firm, can be found at www.boies-schiller.com.
As a side note, I'm a law student and Boies Schiller is an interesting firm. They are one of the three highest paying firms in the country, with a first year starting salary of 140,000 per year as opposed to 125,000 for the majority of large law firms. They are headquartered in Armonk, NY as opposed to New York, NY.
David Boies is the premier partner. He left another high powered firm, Cravath, to start his own firm (Cravath is strangely enough representing IBM in this case). Since then, some say that Boies Schiller has become the cult of David Boies (hyperbole). I think that both his sister and brother have high management positions in the firm.
Regardless, from what I hear, Boies is one of the best litigators in the country. Cravath has good litigators too. This case will be well argued - and that is a good thing.
Thanks at least in part to the failure of Monterey (and the fact that Caldera helped IBM have a contingency plan that worked) Caldera was able to pick up the Santa Cruz Operation's Unix business at a discount.
Because they got it at a discount, they're going to sue IBM for conspiring with themselves to save them acquisition costs?
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
The summary links to the main page, whose "Read story" link doesn't work. Here's the link to the printer-friendly page that *does* work:
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/46384_p.htm
Dont you think that would be raising the bar just a little too high for SCO.
With rumours of the SCO donation coming from Microsoft, I would not be surprised in the least to discover that MS is giving the orders on this one.
The goal of all this is to scare users away from open source software, as they might end up in an expensive court battle. However in the end, when IBM do eventually flatten this out, it's only going to create the legal president to make short work of future challenges to related software projects.
The ibmlawsuit page on SCO's website is not new, but prior to this it hadn't been updated in a while. It didn't take more than five minutes for this story to Slashdot their server. Let's wait for SCO to cry "sco.com hacked by linux users AGAIN".
Yeah, I was going to call fraud on SCO's new website too; I looked at the source and it seems like they're expecting the ALT tag text to pop up when you mouseover (there's no javascript or anything)... which doesn't seem to be happening for me, in Firefox.
Fraud! Fraud!
Visit the Game Programming Wiki!
Anyone else notice that they offer a link on their site to request a sales call. Where do we start? Have them try and sell licenses to known spammers? Request a sales call of the judges working on the SCO cases? Maybe just get a sales person to call each of us so we can inquire about linux licenses.
A paid shill for SCO with zero credibility writes and article full of lies, half-truths, and innuendo, Slashdot posts about it, thus generating enormous amounts of traffic to the site that posts such slop.
Well done. I'll sure they'll keep giving voice to such trash as long as they make money on it.
If SCO had accused IBM of fraud way back when, maybe somebody might have given a rat's ass. But now, honestly, who really cares if IBM committed "fraud" according to SCO.
Hello, SCO, this is the little boy calling...I would like my crying wolf back.
No trees were harmed in the composition of this; however, numerous electrons were inconvenienced.
It's like a soap opera. This SCO funny business is turning into a daily thing that should have its own /. section.
The time of overblown media hype is over. You're not getting any more credibility (or stock investment) just from making more and more specious claims. And, in fact, thank you for doing this so that when some other company tries this tactic (whether or not with the IT industry), the public can remember, "Wait, didn't SCO try that, too?" And hopefully when ill-informed investment analysts advise a buy on this, the public can remember, "Wait, didn't Forbes try to convince us that SCO had something? Didn't Laura Didio say that they had a strong case?" And if they refuse to react to sensationalism, maybe, hopefully, companies will have less incentive to keep burping out lawsuits just to inflate their stock.
Whew, that is about as insightful as I can get at this point given how irritated (pissed!) I am with SCO. Just when you thought they had run out of ways to disgust the industry...
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Really. So IBM develops a product and promptly decides to kill it in favor of a new product they would rather persue. Apparently, SCO believes IBM was supposed to have had a brain wipe before moving onto their next project. Didn't SCO wind up with a copy of AIX-on-Itanium that they could have run with? This is fraud? I'm thinking that SCO was looking forward to merely riding along while IBM did all the difficult work of developing Monterey into a usable product. When the cache of IBM's name was no longer associated with Monterey, SCO finds they don't have the ability to make the new OS a standard. And then Darl comes along years later to cry foul.
And, so would it be fraud, I guess, to use the fairly common practice of Company A buying competitor B's software product and then raising the license fees to levels that effectively kill it off in favor of Company A's product. Or lifting the guts of B's (now A's) software and incorporating it into Company A's product. Then leaving Company B's former customers with a product that they are unable to use on newer releases of operating systems (as Company A has no intention of keeping it up to date) and leaving them no alternative but to use Company A's product (which they never wanted in the first place).
This happens all the time. The only difference is that most of the time it's the end-users of the software that get the short end of the stick. In Monterey's case, there weren't any users to get screwed. Only a corporation. But corporations have lawyers, end-users don't.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Since MS can't seem to get Longhorn out the door in a reasonable timeframe, they need to do whatever they can to stop corporations from adopting Linux on the desktop.
Everyone keeps asking how SCO thinks they can win. I don't think they ever planned on winning. As long as they can create enough FUD until Longhorn gets out the door, Microsoft's investment paid off. Not to mention Darl's pockets are probably getting pretty full. I don't care if they don't make $1 in SCO Source licenses....SCO can keep paying Darl's salary until the company is bankrupt.
Mod points are pointless when you browse at -1.
I don't want a distinct view, I'd prefer an objective one :)
Prosperity is only an instrument to be used, not a deity to be worshipped. Calvin Coolidge
And who do you vote for? Most trial lawyers would vote for the Democrat party, I guess. More crazy lawsuits and baby SCOs.
When Bush talked about limiting liability at the RNC, the crowd went nuts. But they sure let up on Microsoft and let Gates and co. off the hook.
The libertarians wants to let Microsoft be free of government intervention.
I guess the only way to vote against Microsoft would be to vote for something like a communist or green party candidate, but they'd mess up my life even more.
Ah, choices, choices.
They're going down in flames in every court they're fighting a legal battle, and they somehow think public opinion is either:
- going to change in their favor
- going to matter at all after Lindon Utah is reduced to a smoking crater, salted, and plowed under
just because people get to read some emails from IBM that (in SCO's opinion) kinda look bad.Actually, the way SCO's research has been going, they've totally misunderstood the meaning of the emails and as soon as they're made public SCO will have made complete and utter fools of themselves, once again...
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
keep the site opened, for reading purposes of course :)
http://www.caldera.com/ibmlawsuit/
Oh come on! O'Gara is known to smoke just as much crack as the SCO Group. I can't believe this got posted.
and we still don't know what SCO is complaining about?
Linux contains our IP? We was just foolin' your honor.
We do own the copyrights, and don't you forget that. Oh, your honor, they hurt our feelings when they said we didn't.
The contract says that everything in AIX is derivative. No your honor, we weren't there, we have no evidence.
Groklaw spins for linux, no question. But at least the documents are available. SCO spins some garbage and a journalist prints it? Shame on you. Did they give you any documents to share with us?
Derek
Another fine day on Coronation Street...
This is all just a media stunt.
The documents they want unsealed will not show what SCO purports them to show. But SCO knows the court won't unseal the documents. But it's a nice propaganda ploy. Present impossible demands for discovery or evidence and then claim that it's someone else's fault you can't prove your case.
IANAL, but I don't think this would have any effect on the outcome of the legal proceeding at all. Evidence is evidence, whether it's under seal or not.
It seems to me that this is just another example of SCO's lack of real interest in the lawsuit as a legal proceeding. Their real interest seems to be flogging their story through their paid shills and credulous members of the press. The only consistent thread in their legal filings seems to be a desire to drag the case out as long as possible.
Can you say "pump and dump"?
http://jayceecorder.blogspot.com
When you have a TV show that's going downhill, you kill somebody off, or make somebody pregnant, or something similar. I think SCO is realizing their ratings are dropping again and this is another attempt to recapture viewers.
This show is soon going to be cancelled because nobody is going to care anymore. And once SCO loses their headlines, this is all for naught. After all, this certainly isn't about any legal justice.
1. Was the Monterey contract between IBM and Caldera?
2. Did it include a Change of Control clause?
3. Did control change from Caldera to The SCO Group?
4. Case closed.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Well... Judging by main stream press which is the press most people read, not LinuxWorld, AND taking into consideration that for the most part, in the main stream press SCO FUD has worked reasonably well, yes, I think some stupid web site will generate some sympathy.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
A brief look at the Caldera lawsuit page shows a lot of relevant court documents posted. Someone unfamiliar with the case might be mislead into thinking that this is a pretty thorough picture of what is oing on in the case.
Glaringly absent are the depositions of Otis Wilson and Randall Davis. Otis Wilson, former head of AT&T's Unix licensing thoroughly shoots down the Caldera/bogoSCO contract nonsense. Randall Davis, possibly THE leading authority on software opyright issues wipes out all claims of SysV Unix copyright infringement in Linux, whether by IBM or anyone else.
The SCO vs IBM case is, has been, and always will be a fraudulent lawsuit.
Because the legal system occupies a different mind-space.
Go to a bookshop, and pick-up a book on running a small business, and read the chapter on going to court...
There is a reason why public faith in the legal system is at an all time low.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
http://www.caldera.com/ibmlawsuit/
Fraud (n)
... and given the evidence - who do we think the dictionary definition of fraudulant bastards best describes ?
1) A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
Hmm , now given 2 companies , IBM and SCO
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
WTF are you talking about? The gov is not involved. Someone is going to pay court fees. So where do you get taxpayer money from?
1. SCO makes unsubstantiated accusations about fraud.
2. SCO asks court to unseal record.
3. Court quite properly refuses.
4. SCO bleats to press about this vast blue-wing conspiracy which, alas, they can't offer any evidence for because the nasty tricksy court won't let them.
5. SCO stock blips up a bit the way it always does on SCO publicity, no matter how bad.
6. Profit! Or, perhaps more accurately, slightly mitigated loss for a day or two.
Film at 11.
The story
at linuxworld
was very
difficult
to read
all the
way
through.
What
were
they
thinking?
bork bork bork!
Ok so I go to http://www.caldera.com/ibmlawsuit/ and see the two rows of icons titled "2003" and "2004", with a comment: "Roll mouse over timeline icons to see summary of each document. Click on icon to view document."
I hover the mouse over the icons, but wtf? Nothing happens? I take a peek at HTML source (made easy by Firefox's excellent "view selection source" feature) and what do I see?
These idiots think that if "alt=" pops up a description in Internet Explorer, then so it does in other browsers. (No it does not, HTML standards says you need title= for that)
Now this is the website of the company who thinks it owns Unix.
SCO should be the one chared with frivolus lawsuit and fraud!!!
hurry up and die already sco...
IBM hurry up and clean sco's clock...
yours truely anony_mouse cow_ard
This case will be well argued - and that is a good thing.
Not so far -- it's turning into a textbook case in "1001 ways to ruin a case." BSF has contradicted itself not only in its filings in different courts, but even in its filings before the Utah court. It's misrepresented the orders and findings of the Magistrate Judge to the District Judge, with the Magistrate's assistants present.
When Judge Kimball asked Mr. Frei (SCOX Counsel) to explain the contradictions between their filings in Delaware and their filings in Utah, he tried to change the subject. The Judge then pointedly demanded a responsive reply, whereupon Mr. Frei deferred to Mr. Silver as the expert on the Delaware case.
At this point Mr. Silver woke up, tried to change the subject, and finally simply declared that there was no contradiction -- not, as you may imagine, a response calculated to reassure a United States District Judge who'd already commented on those very contradictions himself.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Why should SCO care whether or not the public can see the 'evidence' in these sealed documents ?
You would have thought it was the legal case going through the courts they would be concerned about, and everyone involved there can see these documents anyway.
SCO has been saying for a while now
"Yes, what's happening in the courts right now might not look terribly positive. But you wait, if only you could see everything we can see you'd certainly be in no doubt about how right we are and how we deserve everything we are asking for."
This effort is probably just an attempt to make those claims sound a bit more convincing, the court may well not un-seal the documents ( and if they are that damaging to IBM I can't see how they'd agree to it ) in which case they can continue saying "Look, all this evidence IBM is trying to hide ! It proves we're right !". If the documents are released they will just issue more nonsense press releases and try to pretend this case is about something other than what they are claiming in court.
Most amusing would be if IBM helped get the documents unsealed and called there bluff.
More like "low farce." I'd moderate SCOX at "-1, Troll."
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
shame on me.
Sometime ago, I suggested that SCO might have something to their suit just to give them the benifit of the doubt. The problem is that with every twist of their lawyers, NOTHING shows up. Nada. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Time to move on as darly and the rest are total liers.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Check out Yahoo's SCOX insider trading
That's what you get for backing these poeple and helping cause all this FUD in the first place.
Kevin
"It's not the cough that carries you off, it's the coffin they carry you off in" O. Nash
And I think I speak for all slashdot users when I say that when I heard about this supposed counter-site, the first thing I felt was a deep urge somethin' powerful to go over there, troll and /. their website into oblivion. That's a nice illustration of their ideal business model: SCO pontificates to the community, and the community can't respond. Captive audience, or vendor lock-in, whatever.
The goal of all this is to scare users away from open source software...
What if the purpose is NOT to scare users away from OSS but to scare IBM and other large corporations from participating in its development?
Is this just a publicity stunt to raise the stock price so they can short some more of it?
GETPKG - Package Management for Slackware
Why do these SCO lawyers seem like so many project managers I have worked with who cant code or read code (or design code or etc code) worth a damn?
Why cant Lawyers or Project Managers who deal with code specialize abit and get a CS degree to boot?
First MoveOn showed the power of internet organizations in shaping public policy. Now, SCO (and its legal Dream Team) is having its ass handed to it by a site written by someone who is not a lawyer.
Its good to see that our increasingly corporate-dominated government has a steadily increasing number of shreds of Democratic Republic making their way to the top of the political gumbo.
I support a true patriot in '04: The Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson! Who else will eliminate the Whiskey Tax, and show our national resolve by fighting the Barbary Pirates?
*****
Dear Mary,
I yearn for you tragically,
A.T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
Well I, for one, welcome our new evil alien overlords.
As long as these evil alien overlords finish SCO off, then the global takeover wont be as bad as people thought.
I'd personally like to see more justice done with bats and bullets. Did you take my car stereo? FIne, then I get to take out your knee caps with my bat.
It is running on their favourite OS : http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=http%3A%2 F%2Fwww.caldera.com%2Fibmlawsuit
Isn't SCO's fraud started all this mess? The court and the public like to see all the emails, internal memos, and letters sent from SCO execs and the Canopy group.
Especially since it's IE only.
(with apologies to Samuel Beckett)
"Boies is one of the best litigators in the country."
Hmmm he lost the Gore recount case in Florida. Before that he did poorly in the Microsoft federal monopoly case. Now hes losing in the SCO case.
Seems like one of the worst litigators in the country if you ask me.
On a long enough timeline, the chance of SCO accidently telling the truth rises to 100%
<chanting> His name was Darl McBride, his name was Darl McBride
<McBride> Me and the lawyers would go around selling licences to hackers. It was beautiful, we were selling their own code back to them.
<waiter> Is that all?
<girl> yes
<McBride> wait, *clean* code please
<waiter> then I wouldn't recommend linux
<McBride> X is the cost of a lawsuit against our own customers, B is the potential payoff of the lawsuit, Y is the cost of actually innovating and running a real business. If B minus X is larger than Y, we don't innovate.
<lady> Which unix company do you work for again?
<McBride> A major one.
<McBride> With enough intellectual property, we could sue just about anyone.
Because it will have to be malpractice against boies. Given the material on groklaw it looks like they will have alot of evidence
I'm sure that SCO's inability to focus on any one particular claim for more than a few months at a time (during which it completely gets decimated, it seems) will not reflect very positively on them when IBM and SCO have their day in court.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
On almost every topic that's discussed on Slashdot, the comments will generally reflect opposing points of view. Even Microsoft, Real, Spammers, and the anti-Apple crowd get a hearing, notwithstanding that opinions are skewed against them 99:1.
Except in the case of SCO. Here, the comments are 100:0. There is no discussion, only exhortations to the faithful, followed by a large chorus of 'Amen', all modded +5. Visiting the site that's supposed to provide serious legal background, Groklaw, is like visiting a very learned religious site inquiring about the existense of God: long, incomprehensible, philosophical discussions invariably concluding that God indeed exists based on incontrovertible evidence, that all doubters' motives are suspect, and that they'll probably all burn in Hell anyway.
I'm writing this comment from frustration. Not because I want SCO to win (my homebrew server is running Linux, after all), but because I want to be informed. I want to get a somewhat balanced view generated from opposing opinions. I don't really know what to suggest. Maybe mods shouldn't be so quick to tag any vaguely pro-SCO comments as trolls? Are there even any pro-SCO comments to begin with?! Maybe a Slashdot Interview with a SCO rep?
If SCO wins in any of its legal claims, I don't want to sit there blaming the stupidy of the US justice system and impugning the motives of the presiding judge. I want to know where such a SCO victory could come from. I can't be the only one who believes that there are at least two sides to every issue, even if they're not equally reasonable.
OK. Enough of this 'I want' 'I don't want' 'I want' post. Let the flames begin, if this even gets noticed!
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
And if they take out Microsoft, and let us keep using GNU/Linux/BSD etc, I think we'd take it!
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Maureen O'Gara is the publisher of Maureen O'Gara's Linuxgram(tm) (who would'ave thunk it) and she is an inhabitant of the parallel universe known as Maureen O'Gara's World(tm).
In this world there are Rainbows and Unicorns and green grass and a large castle where King Darl(c) sits on his throne waiting for his princess Maureen.
Today they are having her favourite for dinner; a big hot steaming plate of Cock O'Darl(tm), the only thing she will eat up completly.
While she is dancing through the grass towards the castle she can not help but think about all the nasties that live beyond the Great Forest of Lawyers. In the dreaded land of The Real World where there are Groklaw'ers, Slashdotters, PJ's and the worst of them all The Penguin. Lately the meanies have started to assault the castle with Thruth, Facts and Reason, allthough they have countered the assaults with Lies, FUD and Hearsay, the attacks has not diminished at all.
Oh, well. She will not think about that now. Soon she will crawl up on his lap, feel his gun pressing against her and feel his respect for her growing in his pants. Later, after dinner, maybe he'll talk to her about the Book of Mormon(r)(c)(tm) and why lying for personal gain is good. She can hardly wait...
Sorry, I'm just starting to get fed up...
-RG
If that is the case, then that surely is another lawsuit separate from the 'millions of lines of code found in Linux' one going on here.
SCO have lost the plot.
I'm afraid you're much mistaken. It's only the US system of easy-to-file lawsuits and 'everyone-pays' legal fees that make the US legal system what it is today: an efficient, unbiased forum equally available to all, both rich and poor. If we adopted the foreign 'loser-pays' system, we would immediately see the little people locked out of the courthouse and mercilessly persecuted by huge corporations. Such things never happen in the US now.
... hmm ... I guess there aren't any. Well, all those other countries are sure missing a good thing.
Under 'loser-pays', the RIAA could hound innocent file-sharers into submission just by imposing legal expenses that could never be reimbursed! Oops, I got confused: that's what happens under the US system now. Never mind, the US system is still the greatest thing on Earth.
To see just how valuable and attractive the US 'easy to sue' and 'everyone pays' system is, just consider all the other countries that have adopted it:
I read 'Nurse' and was reaching to click on your profile when I saw the 'man'. How could you raise my hopes like this ?
SCO has lost the current case, but is still hoping to recoup it's losses from Monterey and a decade of bad business decisions. All this discovery has produced is a possible fraud charge. IANAL but I don't think there is much of a case there. Even if IBMers did discuss getting Sys 5 code by entering into an agreement over Monterey, the agreement/contract is the scope of it.
IBM and SCO agreed to share and develop. If the agreement said either side could pull out at any time (what appears to be the case) then IBM did not commit fraud. If SCO's lawyers approved a contract that didn't lay out that all Sys5 had to be returned if IBM pulled out early, then that is just another bad business decision by SCO. You never share IP without having rock-solid guarantees that you will control that IP. It sounds like IBM entered into Monterey thinking win-win. We either develop a 64 bit Itanium UNIX with SCO, or we pull out and have an upgrade from Sys3 to Sys5.
Of course, if IBM has emails out there that state they NEVER intended to finish Monterey and that the sole purpose of Monterey was to rip off SCO for Sys5, then a court will have to decide if intent overrides the contract as fraud.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
FAQ Dated january 22, 2003 Lawsuits lauched march 22, 2003 And they wonder why they don't have any credibility
Isn't this going to anger the open source community?
It shouldn't. We haven't formulated all of our plans for SCOsource yet, but it's important for people to know that SCO is not interested in chasing individual open source developers to collect $149. We want vendors and large commercial users to comply with our IP licenses. The individual open source developer performs a great service to all Linux vendors and customers. We appreciate that and we want them to continue unabated.
It's important to remember that the UNIX shared libraries, owned by SCO, are not Linux products. They are not open source software and they are not covered by the GPL. The shared libraries are UNIX intellectual property, which SCO has owned for years. They are proprietary, licensable intellectual property that we sell. Many Linux environments have been using SCO's UNIX shared libraries because they are a superior product and they make these environments more productive. But until today, there were two ways for users to get the shared libraries:
1. Buy a SCO UNIX or Linux product that included the shared libraries as part of the bundled offering. This is legal.
2. Copy the shared libraries from a disk or through the Internet. In this case someone has unbundled the shared libraries from the SCO offering and opened them up for copying. This is illegal. It is this behavior that we will stop through the creation of SCOsource and today's announcement.
SCO's UNIX shared libraries are not open source code available for free use.
Is SCO going to sue Linux vendors?
SCO is a Linux vendor and a member of United Linux. We have no interest in suing Linux vendors. While we haven't formulated the details of our new SCOsource effort, we're confident that we can work together with other vendors to clear up IP issues in a fair and amicable way.
Two weeks ago an industry publication headlined a story saying SCO was threatening to sue Linux vendors.
The story was wrong. SCOsource is now one day old. We haven't made any plans to sue Linux vendors, and we certainly haven't threatened any vendors. This story was damaging to the Linux community and made assumptions that were incorrect.
But isn't hiring Boies, Schiller and Flexner a clear signal that SCO is getting ready to sue people?
Not at all. SCO is working with BSF for their expertise at dealing with complex legal problems. Resolving intellectual property issues does not automatically mean litigation.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
K-Meleon (Gecko based, IE lookalike, kmeleon.sourceforge.net), works with the rollovers. Except I didn't see any summary for 'SCO fails to provide any evidence' or multiple 'SCO realizes it current stategy is going nowhere so a brand new tactic is adopted'.
I can't possibly be the only one who has ever misread Kimball as Cum-ball
Juries aren't reserved for criminal trials; all SCO need to get one from where they are now is some "facts in dispute." SCO's goal for a long time seems to have been just that--muddy the waters enough that they can demand a jury, and hope to win by snowing them.
The problem is, they don't seem to have anything that raises a question of fact, just wild unsubstantiated claims and bizare legal theories (which, as I understand it won't get you a jury, since the judge decides questions of law). They've produced no code of questionable ancestry, no expert testimony, no body, no smoking gun, nada, zip, zilch. They can't seem to find even one single thing to point to a say: "Look! We have a case!"
-- MarkusQ
.... first thing that comes into your mind?
A matter of wondering what SCO is becomming associated to in thought.
Ok... here's a plan. You read SCO's website. (I find it a little hard to follow 'cause I don't use IE. IANAL or even a paralegal - I just sjim Gloklaw) Summarize the points SCO makes that you think are valid, and post them as a reply. People will read it and run with it, and we'll get the balance you need. Maybe that's happened already -- or maybe it hasn't because it can't be done.
I just hope that anyone found to have been fraudulently manipulating the market will have huge (6 or 7 digit) rewards posted on their heads because I'm sure a lot of us would like to hunt them like dogs and if there's enough money in it, we could actually justify doing so. They've pissed off geeks all over the world. I'd say the only safe place to run would be Antartica.
What blows my mind is that Bois would sign his name to this entire fiasco. Sure SCO is giving him suitcases of cash, but I think his company's reputation will be damaged beyond repair by handling this case. Of course, given his lackluster track record, maybe he's planning on retiring from law with the huge suitcases of cash that SCO is giving him. Representing some of the biggest cases of our time doesn't matter if you lose, Dave!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I've worked out their plan. They're hoping that their legal team performs so badly that they can then ask for a mistrial, and spin it out even longer that way...
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
" So, SCO insults the entire world of Free Software, and they think some stupid web site will generate some sympathy?"
I have sympathy for them. You know the kind that one has when one puts a suffering animal out of its misery.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
That article was not edited at all. Also, it was unclear who wrote it. The byline was for Maureen OGara but the author kept saying "we thought this" and "near as we can remember", and it seemed to move freely between quoting SCO or its lawyers, and the author's statements. They didn't use quotation marks to distinguish them.
Plus the article is stupid. "Near as we can remember SCO never charged that IBM violated copyrights." What kind of retarded thing is that to say? I guess whoever wrote this hasn't been paying the slightest bit of attention for the last year.
This article sucks.
The way I look at it: if it doesn't work in Mozilla, then it is, by definition, broken. There's no conceivable reason they shouldn't be able to code it to work in Mozilla. That it doesn't work is just plain laziness or ignorance.
This is how I write to webmasters of sites that won't work on my mozilla browser(s): "I am writing to inform you that your website is broken. I am trying to view page XYZ on [operating system] using [Mozilla Browser] and your [site feature] isn't working. I would be likely to return to your site regularly if it was coded properly. Please send me a reply when your website has been fixed."
Be the change you wish to see, as Ghandi put it. EXPECT sites to work on Moz. It's the only way they'll learn.
The responsibility of SCO's management is to maximize long-term share value for their shareholders.
I'm sure they got approached years ago (when times were not going all that well) to pursue this legal angle, and with it came a huge investment (well documented elsewhere) to fight the legal battle.
No matter whether you think the lawsuit is ethical or unethical, they received the cash, and it's up to them to carry out the dirty work and live up to their end of the bargain. This strategy had a hugely positive impact on thir stock price initially, but it was a move in desperation. They didn't know at the time of the suit whether it would prove to have merit or not, but their objective was (as documented elsewhere) to apparently protect WINDOWS sales by casting doubt over Linux. It was a hedge against their main business - accept money from the Windows guys, in exchange for casting FUD on Linux, with a small probablility of a huge payoff if the legal action wins.
If I were a shareholder, I would be glad that they took some action, as they would have likely been out of business by now (or certainly worthless from a stock perspective), had they stayed the course that they were on.
[Darl McBride stands in front of a small blackboard, covered in boxes and interconnecting arrows]
...Under the supervision of the reverse vampires... ...are FORCING us to release our sourcecode under the GNU General Public Licence thereby diluting the value of our intellectual property!
McBride: The IBM Corporation, in conjuction with the saucer people...
David Boise: Thank you.
McBride:
IBM Lawyer: Ugh...
McBride:
Judge: Case dismissed!
Why would SCO want to unseal emails for public consumption when it won't effect the Judge's rulings?
Could it have something to do with the fact that this case is more about pumping up the price of SCO stock and hurting Linux than it does about winning the court battle? After all, SCO was already paid handsomely by Microsoft to start this litigation. One has to wonder if Darel and others may have some back room dealings as well.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
That's pretty clear. Judge Kimball is clearly telling SCO's attorneys that they need to present unambiguous evidence of copying, and soon. He's hinting to SCO that unless they come up with something good, he's going to grant IBM's summary judgement motions. He's giving them one last chance to do so.
This is a U.S. District Court judge. He has many other cases, most of them criminal. Here's his court schedule for the week. Sentencing hearings, plea bargains, and a few civil cases. He's not there to listen to SCO's lawyers stall forever. Federal civil procedure doesn't allow that.
It would seem that it is SCO that has attempting to defraud IBM. That has been the pretext for the whole law suit against IBM.
M.
Because I really liked their logo, too.
That's what you get for backing these poeple and helping cause all this FUD in the first place.
I think it's fairer to say that this is what you get for backing SCO's play, and if SCO prevails, you can expct to see a lot more of these...
This is why IBM's legal team is taking the time to slowly pulverize SCO's case, and set SCO's proverbial head out on a stake in front of the IBM HQ; to try to discourage anyone else from trying to play the "sue open source vendors" lottery, or trying to intimidate users of open source software into paying for dubious "intellectual property licenses" or stop using the software altogether.
Jay (=
(Caveat: I don't know much more than anyone else about the Mambo case, and it may prove that there is a valid complaint. However, the open letter could have been written in Lindon...)
This so-called "report" is actually a polemic against IBM by this "Maureen O'Gara" who sounds like she's on SCO's payroll - or at least on their PR team.
Just another SCO PR move.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
SCO + RPG + ANFO = solution!
SCO is dying....blah blah blah blah blah
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
"Boies is one of the best litigators in the country"
Then how com he loses every high profile case? And before you throw out the MS case, keep in mind that was overturned on appeal.
He lost in the Gore case, he eventually lost versus MS, and he lost before that.
Hell, Johnny Cochran has a better track record
Why do I get the feeling that SCO really has no interest in winning this case. Instead, it almost seems as though they are intent on draggin it out as long as possible, just to keep IBM and other Linux companies from advancing in the market with Linux under their belt (while there isn't a brand new shiny Windows available). I get the feeling that SCO was promised large amounts of money, just to drag this out for as long as possible (or at least until Longhorn is released) and do anything in their power to do so (including to destroy their own company in the process).
I was feeling a bit down today (widower thing, you know), but the headline just made me laugh my head off. Man, I haven't laughed this hard since, well, since a lifetime ago.
Faux-SCO accusing anyone of fraud. Man, this is priceless.
Isn't fraud a criminal act? Doesn't a District Attorney, Attorney General, or some other jurisdictional attorney have to press such charges? If SCO is indeed planning such a charge, don't they have to first convince someone in the *criminal* justice, and wouldn't that be a completely separate process?
Sure it might be a tactic in the current contract dispute to claim fraudulent behavior, but isn't that far from *charging* IBM with fraud?
Anybody want a peanut?
First, about comment moderation. I don't know if pro-SCO comments in the past year were consistently modded down, but if they were, then it's not surprising to find no pro-SCO comments in these threads anymore. What's the point of posting if you know you'll be blasted to -1 oblivion? People learn. Anecdotal evidence: when my parent comment was at +3 (with Karma bonus), a mod saw fit to mod it down 'overrated'. Not 'troll' mind you (it wasn't) but overrated. This despite the fact that 14 people saw fit to reply to it, mostly disagreeing but not flaming.
Second, about Groklaw. It's admirable that the site has made all the public documents of the case easily available, and perhaps the analysis used to be balanced, but I made my comment based on the posting linked to in the announcement. There, all I saw was ad hominem attacks on reporters and a quote about how Forbes magazine is "corporate pornography". With no wall separating news/analysis and opinion, this is hardly the hallmark of a website I'd want to get my news/analysis from.
Third, about the case. I'm not a lawyer, but would a completely and utterly meritless case continue to be litigated for 1.5 years with no signs of ending any time soon, and attract an attorney of the pedigree of David Boies? How come Boies, who's taken on such high profile and important cases as Bush v. Gore, DOJ v. Microsoft, and Napster, how come he doesn't see that his claims are obviously (even to non-lawyer slashdot readers!) frivolous and simply save his reputation and cut his losses?
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
Hmm , now given 2 companies , IBM and SCO ... and given the evidence - who do we think the dictionary definition of fraudulant bastards best describes ?
The Bush Administration?
Sorry, couldn't resist. Go ahead and mod me to oblivion.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
I think the word you're looking for here is precedent.
It's pronounced with a voiceless sibilant 's', as opposed to president, which is pronounced with a voiced sibiliant 'z' - and accordingly written with a c instead of an s. I know these finer points can be very difficult for someone speaking English as a second language, but it's actually quite important to pay attention to them, otherwise you may be confused with someone who speaks English as their native language, and simply speaks it very badly as a result of substandard intelligence and education. Not the impression you want to give, I'm sure.I read as far as "Maureen O'Gara"
You may be interested in this:
Link
No, this is capitalism for you.
That inspired me enough to have a little fun with the Gimp.
Capitalism Own4g3
Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen
Judge Kimball might get himself in trouble like that, get himself kicked out of the legal profession. After all, lawyers charge by the hour. We mustn't have judges throwing out cases just because they generate a lot of billable hours over nothing.
shouldn't we be modding you "Troll" instead of "Insightful"?
They would like to beat this dead horse back up a bit somehow. Hasn't really been working.
Also see the SCO's insider stock sales graph.
The red arrows are sales by insiders and blue are purchases. Notice how there are no blue arrows. Even at the current low price of their stock.
Should I give all necesary details for them to send me the $699 bill?
Extend the right to an attorney in criminal cases to civil cases.
A powerfull and a good company IBM might have done mistakes while changing its own company from SCO UNIX's AIX to Linux. i guess IBM has betrayed SCO regarding Project Monterey. and IBM is now getting back the consequences... we will wait and see the documents between IBM and SCO regarding Project Monterey which they are goint to release out. But a big company IBM can withstand these things, becoz money matters, but remember truth TRIUMPHS !!
I see no reason why a cornerstone of our society should be commoditized to the point that lawyers (those who are the interface between our system of law, and the people to whom the law applies), should receive compensation in excess of a certain amount. The fact that an attorney can claim hourly rates of $500+, and significant percentages of large awards, provides what I believe is a very strong incentive screw around with the court system. Cap the rates, and I think you will see a big change- hopefully starting with a rapid departure of all the scumbag attorneys who are only in it for the money and the power.
In nearly every statement made the author assumes that SCO has only it's best interest at heart and assumes IBM with only malicious motivations.
I often wonder at some web sites with linux in their names publishing anti linux things like this. Who really owns them. What was the motivation behind publishing such a pro SCO piece as this?
The author of the article clearly has a pro SCO bias that was noticed many months ago Here
I found this statement "Maureen O'Gara is editor-in-chief of Maureen O'Gara's LinuxGram(TM) - published weekly by G2 Computer Intelligence Inc. and distributed by Linux Business Week." at this location.
Which makes it appear as though linux business week is a seperate entity from either sys con or linuxworld. Unfortunately when you type "linuxbusinessweek.com" into the url bar it takes you back to linuxworld.com... stranger and stranger. And linuxworld.com says that that it is a Sys Con Media publication.
But there is no clear connection yet between sys-con media and either Linuxgram Magazine or G2 Computer Intelligence Inc. As far as anyone can tell they look like one company is just saying that someone else working for a different company said something.
Until I found the link on sys cons very own web site.
It says "MONTVALE, NJ--(INTERNET WIRE)--Aug. 12, 2002 -- SYS-CON Media (www.sys-con.com), headquartered in Montvale, New Jersey, today launched "Maureen O'Gara's LinuxGram" (www.linuxbusinessweek.com), a new online weekly newsletter."
Further down the page it also says "O'Gara's resume is impressive prior to founding Sea Cliff, Long Island-based, G2 Computer Intelligence, but it's more impressive since. She was the founding editor on CMP's Computer Systems News and blazed the CMP trail to the West Coast, where she was bureau chief; then on to Europe, where she was Computer Systems News's first European correspondent. "
So there is the connection to both G2 Computer Intelligence and Linuxgram.
There is also another connection noted on that page in a picture showing the CMP Media top executives very chummy with the SYS-CON Media top executitves. CMP Media is who Maureen worked for just before coming over to Sys Con Media.
Funny how this connection between LinuxGram and Linuxtoday is never noted when Linuxtoday runs a news story from Linuxgram. Most reputable media companies would include a disclaimer saying that the "expert" they were quoting is on their own staff.
Sad but true.
IBM was already accused of fraud by
SCO, quite officially in the
original complaint of March 2003.
The accusation disappeared later on
in the amended complaint.
The unsealing of all e-mails and
confidential documents in the
SCO-IBM case to make IBM's 'fraud'
evident to the public can only be welcomed.
For the moment being the only e-mail
that attracted attention in the Sept. 16
hearing before Judge Kimball, was an
internal SCO e-mail of 2002. It
stated that lengthy search had not
found any SCO code in IBM's Linux
contributions. Note the year: 2002.
So much for Maureen O'Gara.
As this case continues into the surreal regions the legal landscape I am inclined to believe that IBM is secretly funding SCO and not MS.
Do you have any idea how much it would cost IBM to get an equivalent amount of goodwill and PR that they are getting out this case? Not only that they are making a very solid point that if you bring a flimsy claim against IBM in an attempt to collect a judgement you will ground into pixie dust and humiliated.
These guys are either taking their marching orders directly from Redmond or they're the biggest bunch of idiots to ever ride into the technology circus tent. Wait, now that I think about it that's the same thing.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Given this blizzard of filings someone is going to have to pay to have them copied, and that would be PJ. I sent the $8 that was in my paypal account and uploaded another $100 from the bank that she'll get next week.
SCOX is turning a pretty IBM blue and we don't want to give them an instant to breath - you never know when Groklaw might turn out something that IBM's lawyers use, so lets keep the heat on SCOX
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
Read all about the trial lawyer lobby here.
They are the real reason for the preponderance of frivolous lawsuits like SCO's.
I particularly found amusing the part about the American Medical Association considering not treating trial lawyers and their spouses at their annual convention.
It's not even a new page.
They've had this up for a while now--I found it while searching for a few things via Google.
Of course, it probably looks new because no one reads the damned thing.
Their site prominently displays the message "Roll over each document to get a summary." True to form, this feature relies on the "alt" text of an image being displayed as a tooltip, which is only reliably available in Internet Explorer.
Assholes!
This will be a bit difficult to explain, so please bear with me: Let's say there is some copyrighted code that is found in the Linux kernel. It wasn't supposed to be there, it was put there by someone who wrote the code while at their place of work. This would mean that company holds copyright. This programmer submitted it to the Linux kernel saying it was his own work.
This company would obviously want to have the offending code removed immediately, and I'm sure it would be. But one of my managers at work is of the opinion that if another company had been using the Linux kernel containing the offending code, and they weren't using a distribution that they paid for (Red Hat, Novell/Suse), but rather downloaded it themselves (Debian, say) for free, the company using the offending code would be liable for damages from the company that holds the copyright. His contention is basically "ignorance is no excuse." Since they didn't have the right to use the code, and were using it to run their business, they would be liable for "back license fees" or somesuch.
Comments?
/.: why the hell am I here?
I do not know what you guys are smokin' but SCO's lawyers cannot charge anybody with anything. Fraud is defined as a criminal offence and requires a charge by the state. Get your headlines straight or maybe get published by the Georgia Straight.
I quote:
..but nothing of course about building innovative products...
" Click Here For More Information About SCOsource
SCOsource Creates UNIX Licensing Programs
The charter of SCOsource is to manage its UNIX® System intellectual property, create new and innovative licensing programs to meet the changing demands of today's market, and to protect its intellectual property assets."
What the hell has the US software and technology sectors become?
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Rumour is that George W. is thinking about invading Iran to increase his polls. I have a better idea. Invade SCO. Take no prisoners. He'd win all the geek votes. Let CNN give us real time video feeds of the whole thing. Maybe make a reality TV show where viewers can instant messenger the G-men with guns whenever they spot an SCO lawyer trying to flee.
The First Amemndment is about the right to speak. It says nothing about the right not to listen, which is inherent.
It is this kind of misunderstanding of the Amendment that causes people to think they can say whatever they like at any time, in any place, whether it has any meaning or not and that people must listen.
I dare you to listen to every mind-warped Street Person until s/he has used his/her "Right to Free Speech" to his/her satisfaction.
Your understanding of the law is as poor as your understanding of computer history if you believe "Linux sprung from Unix" (rather than "was inspired by" or "was made to work like".)
If you misunderstand simple language, then you will get the wrong idea.
Which is apparently what happened to you.
Free speech means we must choose who to believe. You have chosen wrong in the past.
Perhaps it is time for you to stop reading at -1?
She is also so blatently pro-SCO that I'm sending her a form to register as a paid lobbyist.
My first of two favorite quotes are the one about SCO settign up their legal papers archive "so people won't have to go to Groklaw and read its anti-SCO philippics."
Phillipics is a reference to the anchient greek politician (and possible insurgent) who was rabidly against King Philip of Macedonia's attempts to take over the Greek empires (Philip was the father of Alexander the Great). kdict finds the definition: Any discourse or declamation abounding in acrimonious invective.
My other favorite quote reads:
No that's not a typo on my part in the 'plum' reference. I think she's been watching to much Beverly Hillbillies and is trying to sound 'down home'. Dunno 'bout you, but that whole description sounds a lot more to me like SCO's tactic than IBM's. (( We'll see what the judge says on that point )).In the meantime, If SCO tries to do yet another mid-course 'correction' and claim that the lawsuit that started out as a broad copyright case, then was always just about the contract claims is now about fraud (and never really was about anything else), Judge Kiball just might be willing to accept an IBM motion for sanction under the 'frivolous and vexatious prosecution' rule.
If you read O'Gara's other articles (please avoid clicking on any of the ad links), you might just understand that she's now one of the very few (probably well-paid) SCO sh(r)ills left willing to cheer for the home team. In fact, that may be part of the reason why she's now quoting herself -- there may be no other pro-sco boosters available to quote who don't officially work for SCOG.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
The last company SCO/Caldera sued was MS, and in that case, they were able to find evidence of fraud, extortion and out-and-out theft pretty much everywhere they looked. MS is a company with no morals or ethics. So, I think SCO probably figured that IBM was cut from the same cloth, and it pretty much didn't matter what they said, because soon enough they'd have all sorts of evidence of all of IBM's wrongdoings. The problem is that IBM isn't the same kind of company, so now they're stuck.
It's amateur hour at Linuxworld. See the anonymous webmonkey create a spectacular narrow column, followed by the intrepid O'Gara's narrow range!
High farce or easy mark? Her incompetent report continues, in a vain effort to understand anything SCO is feeding her about the case. The one about IBM being on System 3 was very entertaining, but the copyright story was weaker, but as she was confused and couldn't remember much, perhaps that's the reason.
This article may fetch O'Gara a lot of PR yardage, but will not ultimately score a touchdown. Whatever she was on about.
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
So far SCO has done what it has in civil courts. And in America you can just about sue anyone for any reason (whether it gets past filing papers with the court and gets a date or last beyond the prelim hearing is another matter). But correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't fraud on the criminal side of the dockets? I mean fraud is Illegal in the sense the a D.A. (or some one from the D.A.'s office) brings a case to the courts in this case. And In the case of IBM and allegations of fraud that might also entail a Grand Jury hearing.
If I'm correct in this assumption, how is SCO going to get someone from a Justice department (State or Fed) to file the case - you have to have something to actually show in this event, and filing a bogus report is in turn a crime.
Then again perhaps you can bring a tort to the courts an the basis of some sort of civil fraud?
Sorry, I don't get it - other than it being yet another stall tactic because this is really about Wall Street more than being a business that actually sells a product to make their money.
Cheers
I also want to see a non biased discussion of the following topics.
- There was no landing in the moon in 1969.
- The NY twin towers did not colapse.
- Adolf Hitler was a very nice chap.
But I want to see the arguments in pro of all these very reasonable topics of discussion.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
From the what-is-sco pushing that's of any value anymore? I remember when SCO-unix was a waste of money, now its trying to make back money it would have never made anyhow.. Well I guess if you have to pay lawyers, that's what would drive such a scheme..
Just say no to license servers!!
Yes, suing your (good) lawyer after you run out of money to actually do anything, is always useful. I imagine Boies, being a successful attorney, has gathered ample evidence that SCO was demanding he follow through on hogwash arguments, perhaps also of misrepresenting the truth to their attorney. Even if there was any truth to that claim, I doubt there would be anything left of SCO at that point.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
If Mozilla isn't responding properly to standards-compliant code, then someone needs to write a particularly irritated letter to the Mozilla devs. Doesn't Opera have a browser that displays properly all the stuff that's coded to IE or to Mozilla? Is such a feature all that difficult to implement?