Slashdot Mirror
SCO To Counter Groklaw With 'Fair' Coverage
linuxwrangler writes "Tired of being 'flamed, dissected and dismissed' on Groklaw, SCO has decided to fight back. SCO's site, scheduled for launch on November 1, will be called prosco.net. Just yesterday SCO CEO and favorite /. whipping-boy Darl McBride gave a speech comparing the software industry to the 'wild west' and warning companies that they must protect their intellectual property or risk being 'sacked by open source-touting bandits.'"
Actually his analogy can be quite true, well, not true about what he has claimed, but the way the whole software industry is working FOR the patents/copyrights/trademarks rather than channeling the resources into something more useful, like Practical Properties?
Uselessful technology (Air-Charged
It's a universal mantra of any company involved in litigation. "We are unable to comment due to ongoing litigation". Now they're going to be reguarly commenting on active litigation on multiple fronts. They are breaking yet another fundamental rule of the universe (the first being, don't piss off the entire world in a ridiculous attempt to enrich yourself).
I'm a big tall mofo.
No, let's not.
Why don't we, instead, just completely ignore SCO and McBride and their ilk, and just let IBM pick their bones. The only press they are getting is when Linux supporters react to McMouth's gasings. So, NO responses to any 'news' articles, or anything else about SCO and their attempted theft of the Linux kernel and associated utilities will do more to make McBride look the fool he is than any of our responses. He's old news. Forget him.
A site by SCO supporting SCO using SCO facts. I am guessing that knuckle dragging Darl doesn't see the credibility problem with such a site. He continues to respond to his critics by morphing into an angry child on a playground yelling and screaming at the other kids who won't play fair.
http://www.busyweather.com/
And don't forget that they are litigious bastards as well. Actually, if you look up litigious bastards it brings up SCO, but an interesting side effect is that if you look up bastards, SCO also shows up. Can you believe that? Bastards? Who'd have though?
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
...companies that they must protect their intellectual property or risk being 'sacked by open source-touting bandits.'
As is so often the case, the question here is "how is this issue any more relevant to Open Source than it is to proprietary software?"
Is there any reason to believe that open source developers (who have every reason to believe that they would be caught) would be more likely than closed-source developers (who have a much smaller chance of getting caught) to "steal" someone else's IP?
Damn those evil open source developers! Always stealing my IP, and me with no way to tell, or prove it. You know, unless I look at the code or something. Damn them! And God bless the closed source developers, who don't show me their code, but whom I trust implicitly anyway.
PJ "expressed surprise" that SCO would comment on ongoing litigation.
This is disingenuous, though. As PJ and every Groklaw reader knows, this behavior is typical and wholly unsurprising. SCO are idiots, and their lawyers at this point are merely scrambling to avoid malpractice censure.
My only regret is that when this is all over, and McBride is just a humorous case study at every B-school in America, a great source of daily entertainment will be no more.
But I will deal. Somehow.
Darl has run this once innovative and successful company so far into the ground that they see 'the competition' as PJ/Groklaw.
So now it's not about IBM, it's not about UNIX, it's not about Linux, it's not about 'Intellectual Property'.
Now it's about a lone ex-paralegal who had the balls (and i mean that in the nicest way possible) to tell it like it is.
We can't have that, can we Darl? God forbid anyone actually accept a version of events that corresponds with legal and technical realities instead of simply believing whatever stupid lies you cooked up after another hard night on the Canopy crackpipe.
Whats next, are you going to come up with an alternate justice system because no court in the US will accept SCO's ridiculous legal 'arguments' either?
People *hate* what you and your company are doing, Mr. McBride.
It is wrong, and no amount of P.R. spin will change that. Shame on you.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
Am I the only one who thinks this might just be one of SCO's biggest PR gunblasts to their own foot in quite a while?
I'm not sure if they could've given Groklaw more legitimacy if they tried.
Who are they aiming at? Certainly they must understand that they have no chance whatsoever at building up the kind of community and following Groklaw has?
So who, then? Journalists? Which journalist is going to quote 'pro-SCO.net' as a source? And if they do, in the future, it's hardly likely they'd do it without quoting Groklaw.. now that they're officially 'the other side'.
(The question of who, in such an exchange, is going to come out sounding more trustworthy is left as an exercise for the reader.)
You know it's just got to be a honey pot, right? I'm guessing they are trying to bait someone into hacking the new web site in hopes of making the Open Source community look bad to the press and to the courts. Remember, they already claimed Open Source advocates attacked their main web site a while back... but now they'll spin it as us trying to censor free speach. It's a setup to try and identify our Open Source community with the evil dregs of computing, script kiddies.
This sig intentionally left blank.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Obviously no one is going to go to prosco.com, surely not even the PHBs in SCO think that. Perhaps the purpose of this web site is just to dilute the DOSing they're constantly under by giving people more target.
Not that I suggest DOSing under any circumstances...no matter how stupid the recipient might be.
Kind thoughts do not change the world
Sadly, the business world is full of idiot-greed-mongers just like Darl. I'm sure he is a cult hero at Forbes. So I would suggest that there are probably many such 'business leaders' who either do believe him or would believe him if they knew anything about the on-going litigation.
I'm not going to name any names, but there is at least one Fortune-500 company that has a "no F/OSS unless absolutely neccessary" policy that is a direct result of SCO's rhetoric.
There is, perhaps, a bit of irony in Darl McBride's choice of gold-rush metaphor. He seems obsessed with IP, and even states that "The new gold is IP". What he doesn't seem to understand is the old saying about how the only people who get rich in a gold rush are the ones selling the pick-axes and shovels to the dollar-sign-eyed prospectors.
It's clear from The SCO Group's lawsuits and 'SCOsource' licensing efforts that they are not in the mining equipment business in their gold rush. Indeed, they have invested heavily in trying to mine IBM, and others, through the courts and by their threats of litigation. How appropriate it is that they are based in the Rocky Mountains!
Freedom of expression includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas expressed in software form.
Of course, greed is nothing new, but "IP" is just a way for companies to milk something that isn't really there. To be fair, I do believe there is some innovative effort that deserves protection, but the key word here is "innovative". Amazon's "one-click" patent, for example, is in NO WAY innovative. Most of the patent applications coming from the software industry aren't innovative, they're just attempts to steal empowerment from the public at large.
I was thinking about this the other day - software is the only industry I know where an individual or company has the right to own common methods. What if, for example, I went to the hardware store to buy some lumber, nails, and a hammer so that I could build something that would add value to my life? What if I also had to consult a patent attorney before doing so, fearing that the method I use to construct this item might be covered by someone's patent? The idea is ludicrous, but this is the very situation that we now face in the software industry. Every time a developer puts an idea into code, there is a very real possibility that a patent violation is in the works - not intentional, not maliscious, but by mere virtue of the fact that the developer has the ability to empower both him/herself and others by what they produce. Any alleged infractions exist only because someone also had the same idea, and was greedy enough to claim ownership.
Let's face it - this isn't about IP. It's about greed, lockout, and theft of empowerment.
that the company that brought the first successful UNIX port to the pc, the ATT B1 doesn't count, to have fallen so low. They should be supporting open source and competing with Red Hat and other commercial suppliers by adding value to the operating system rather than trying to get their revenue from the court. Maybe they've been turned to the dark side by Emperor Bill.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Behind every corporate website is a SysAdmin.
I'd like to hear their story -- are they just doing it for the buck? Do they believe what their web site is promoting?
"The purpose of argument is to change the nature of truth." -- Bene Gesserit Precept
Given SCO's history, it may well have been said tongue in cheek. But it is actually surprising, and always has been, that the law team hasn't muzzled McBride and company. That is typically how these things are done. You don't see IBM execs shooting their mouths off, after all, even though they have been the ones accused of wrongdoing. You can bet that any lawyer worth their fees will tell their client to shut up and let them do the defending in the court.
In fact, SCO's behavior has been so surprising, I wouldn't be a bit shocked to one day learn that they overrode their lawyers, or they worked in concert with their lawyers, to try the case in the court of public opinion since they knew they had no real chance in court. Of course, that would imply nefarious behavior on SCO's part, and I wouldn't want to speculate on that. Who knows what they really think. But yeah, it is suprising that SCO would comment on ongoing litigation. The smart move is to say, "No comment."
Why not, It works for Fox News
Introducing Microsoft Vacuum 1.0 The first Microsoft product that doesn't suck.
The site registration is valid for only one year. If SCO had long term plans to stay in business, shouldn't they atleast register the domain name for a longer duration? Even mom and pop operations make a longer registration when they get their domain name.
What do you mean don't fall for it? They can fake a DDOS attack or a hacked site without anyone actually even trying. Heck, they probably have the "linux rulz, sco sucks!!" hacked page already done up and ready to post when they need a stock boost.
Finkployd
WE just mirror the site on a blog with comments.
1. they will not know the hit count
2. we get to comment truthfully
while(karma less_than enough_karma){karma++}
That's right, companies should protect their "IP". And how do we do that? Let's review:
OK, so let's play along with Mr. McBride's crazy gold-rush metaphor for a minute...
In a gold rush, lots of get-rich-quick types run around trying to grab a nominally free resource (minerals lying on the ground) and peddle it as their property. Some of them are rather, shall we say, unscrupulous in their methods.
If we accurately apply this metaphor to the situation of IP, and more particularly to Open Source software and the IP rights thereto, the present SCO are a bunch of thieving claim-jumpers screaming "Mine! My Preciousss! Gollum!", and the Open Source community are out there giving the stuff away for free -- as long as you're willing to share it fairly.
"Counter-cultural," says Mr. McBride? Maybe so; I for one am totally counter to the culture he advocates. Let's counter that culture for all we're worth!
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
SCO doesn't get it. They just don't get it. People who are monitoring the SCO lawsuits follow Groklaw...but why? Because it's the only voice out there? No...they also go to the SCO website for press releases, and to all other interested/involved parties as well.
No, they go to Groklaw because the content is GOOD. While Groklaw may not even pretend to be impartial, what they DO succeed in doing is sticking to facts. They start with the extant nature of our law, and apply it to facts and statements that are put forth in public documents. This analysis is what the people go to Groklaw to read. And while the analysis tends to support Groklaw's supporters' views, I think that is actually a chicken-and-egg thing; if SCO wasn't wrong, the law wouldn't work against them, and Groklaw's volunteers wouldn't so dearly relish the thought of McBride being sodomized by a gorilla.
So SCO is coming up with a dog-and-pony show equivalent to their press releases? So what? It's just the same content that couldn't compete with Grokloaw in the first place, just fluffed out into more pages.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Maybe we should approach the battle against software patents the other way around. Instead of looking for ways to protect against patents and/or get patents for OSS, why not play the game out to its ultimate consequences. Start up a website and start matching patents with software products: when a likely match is found, notify the patent holder, the software vendor and possibly the software users of this potential patent violation. For the large fish (IBM, Microsoft, etc.) focus on the patents of patent trolls: litigation companies existing merely of a patent portfolio. If lots of companies are targetted, this would create a lot of publicity and when there's a website to back up the claims, there's a lot of proof about the untenability of the situation. Furthermore: it only takes work, not deep pockets to do this.
If the situation is as bad as is claimed, this would mean that any software vendor and/or webshop is forced to concede the fact that they can be put out of business overnight due to patents. Once this awareness is there it would just be a matter of time before the case law is overturned. As an example see this site. Imagine it targetted at real software products and real webshops. Probably we can match a couple of hundred patents to any particular product/shop, showing the seriousness of the situation, while at the same time confronting the potential victims with it. I know, this is a real weird proposal, but the question is: would it do the trick?
Why is this site running on Windows 2000 and IIS ?s co.com
Seems kind of strange given they are supposed to be a *NIX company.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.pro
Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men. - Martin Luther King Jr.
Of course, it doesn't mean I'd agree with them. I still think SCO is full of shit and hope it gets what it deserves.
It is not our abilities that show what we truly are... it is our choices.
If Darl was smart, he would keep his mouth shut. Every time he says something he shoots himself in the foot. In this particular case, he's sending more of his audience to Groklaw to see what all the fuss is about. Meanwhile his own rebuttal site is still not up, and probably won't be for weeks.
Of course, if Darl was smart, he wouldn't have gotten himself into the predicament he's in.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so..."
Honestly, could these pack of has-been sink any lower, or get any more sleezy than this? Probably, but it's beyond me exactly how. Imagine it, a couple of PR people, writing about how SCO are maximising profits, enhancing shareholder value, and serving it up to the Linux community. It's pure deperation, and makes me depressed even thinking about it, it's so pathetic. Throw in a web designer, and a graphic artist, there they are sitting around the table wondering, how they're going to save their jobs, and continue their corporate bullshit and thievery. One look at their share price, and that's all the information you need on SCO.
Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.
Costner movies? Hell, boy. This is Blazing Saddles!
The analogy sort of starts to break down here. For example, who's Bart and the Waco Kid (Cleavon Little and Gene Wilder)? Red Hat and IBM? What about Olsen Johnson, Rev. Johnson, and Gabby Johnson? Linus, Stallman, and ESR?
One thing's certain: that campfire scene with the cowboys eating beans and farting? Slashdot. For sure.
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
I'm an architect so I have some insight into this. Your example is much too simplistic.
Nailing four boards together into a square configuration is covered by patent law, not copyright law. All kinds of wall systems, paints and construction assemblies are patented all the time. Just about the only thing that isn't patented is a 2x4. Even some brick glazings and concrete admixtures are patented. Unless you are in manufactured housing however, it is almost impossible to patent an entire building, because every building is unique in some way and most of the techniques are based on principles which are hundreds of years old.
As far as copying someone else's blueprints, in architecture the owner is entitled to use the architects design as long as the owner pays the architect for his services, that doesn't mean he always has access to the drawings to copy them. In architecture, the design and the drawings are separate entities. The drawings are copyrighted and owned by the architect, the design is an interpretation of the drawings by the architect, the contractor carries out the means and methods by which the design is implemented, the owner 'owns' the product or building, provides the land and money for that building to built and tells the architect what the building is supposed to do and pays his fees.
When an architect gets fired, he is to be paid for the services he has rendered, and then a new designer picks up where he left off by redrawing everything for himself and carrying on from there, most architects however will loan their drawings to the new architect as a professional courtesy for them to redraw from, sometimes they are obligated to do this under their contract. All architects used to write in their contracts that you couldn't use their design if they were fired, but this was thrown out in court about 70 years ago, and marked the end of the old school profession.
Needless to say, architecture is a high stakes profession at times. Sometimes billions of dollars exchange hands in complicated deals that equal/exceed anything that typically happens in the software profession, involving an owner, architect, contractor, local government, state government, federal government, banks, lenders, shareholders, consultants, tenants, utility companies, suppliers and manufacturers and so on and so forth. All of this must be accomplished with very low failure tolerance, any one of these issues can stop a project dead in its tracks. Take the New World Trade Center project for example, it must be a nighmare to organize that based on the infrastructure alone. The only reason this comes together at all is because everyone has an implicit and explicit understanding what they are supposed to do and they get paid. I think the main problem with software is that there isn't a long tradition of making software. People don't know what is practical or traditional, so they think up and imagine all kinds of ways to give themselves leverage in confusing ways. This creates a minefield of problems specifically intended to bring ruin to another party and make vast amounts of money for very little work. I would wager there are more lawsuits in the building industry, but the overall risk level is lower because those risks are insured for one, and two, people know what to expect and performance and benefit can easily be measured (did that wall fall down, does that roof leak, is there mold in the ductwork, was I paid what I was worth, etc.) and we have 10,000 years of building experience to rely on. Software has about 50 years of relevant history.
In software, who owns what isn't easily established, it isn't a standard practice, no one knows what anything means or what it is truly worth. What is a graphical tree interface worth, I have no idea? Is it worth $1 billion or $1.99, who knows? Compare that to architecture, where even if there is no contract signed, typical business practices are so strong that a contract is always implied and everyone is always held to known standards.
Mod me as troll, but I thought if you pay for something you have the right for it not be stolen out from under you by a load of other people.
Of course that is correct.
The issue is whether in fact anything was stolen.
SCO's case on this appears to be quite weak, by all objective analysis.
One would imagine that they thought they could bluff other companies, or at least get them to settle for less than their defense would cost. So far no one has played that game.
One could also speculate that a fraction of a percent of Microsoft's cash-on-hand was used to finance this whole kerfuffle, even though they never expected to win. The objective was to slow down Linux for a year or two. That, they seem to have accomplished in a limited way.
But that would just be speculation.
Every fiendish trick he tries blows up in his face and/or leaves him momentarily levitating over thousands of feet of empty air (followed by an amazing impact at speeds faster than that of sound in the rock he hit).
Wile E is particularly apt because he leaves everyone guessing about who is funding his unending stream of Acme contraptions, and because the bird is always too fast for him.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Now there's a mixed metaphor for you. A "sack" is the fall of a city, usually after a siege. (Or the firing of an incompetent CEO by a board that's sick and tired of seeing its stock price fall deeper and deeper into the cellar, so long as their not praying for a Big Blue Golden parachute.) Not often performed by bandits. And I think he's having an awfully hard time distinguishing "touting" from "toting".