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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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."
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."
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.