Slashdot Mirror
IBM Tells SCO Court It Can't Find AIX-on-Power Code
Ghostx13 writes "A story over at Linuxworld states that IBM has been less than forthcoming with its bits and pieces of source code SCO is demanding. SCO is alleging in its 3rd Amended Complaint that 'IBM put SCO-owned SVR4 code in System 3-based AIX for its proprietary Power chip architecture.' The problem? IBM 'can't find' that source code. Does IBM have something to hide?"
It is buried under the sand in Iraq somewhere.
the same game SCO is just to mock them.
IBM has nothing to hide, they just don't want to give up the code. Or maybe they can't find it because it doesn't exist and SCO is making a false claim.
First post?
Because it never existed in the first place. They are just making things up now, and there is no reason to believe anything they say, especially with all the egg coating on their integrity.
*De gozaru!*
...but that horrid layout makes it tough to tell where the ads end and the article starts.
They have some coding to do... FAST!
I think you can safely laugh at this before RTFA.
This is one written by Maureen O'Gara, who has about as much credibility as Laura DiDio.
Straight to the FUD Shill round file.
IBM did agree to disclose the code in question in exchange if SCO published a pic of Darl in a naked fetal position on their homepage.
For a site with linux in it's url, it seems very negative against linux and has taken SCO's side in the past. Is such a story really news worthy coming from LinuxWorld?
Of course I am not even going into all the legal disputes, including the two orders by the judge for sco to comply and point to the lines they claim infringe (which they claim publicly to have, and they should have before bringing a lawsuit if they wish to get anywhere).
... went horribly wrong - aren't these slashdot sco/ibm articles supposed to be in favour of ibm and opensource and whatnot? it didn't even mention linux!
Put simply: No.
Why should IBM be forthcoming ?
After all, it's SCO they are dealing with and to be honest, I don't know anyone who would want to deal with them, except maybe the guy with the horns and the tail.
I know who I'd rather back in a dispute of this nature, given the track records overall.
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
Linuxworld should be named "LinuxSuxWorld." It is devoted entirely to advertisers, with occasional snarky anti-Linux "articles" thrown in for show. They shouldn't even bother with the articles, and just shill 100% for advertisers like CNet/ZDNet.
Groklaw's IBM-dazzled observers
I don't know, but your article loses all credibility when it includes this statement in the first paragraph. Most of the Groklaw readers aren't pro-IBM, they are anti-SCO.
This is the second or third journalist to repeat this pseudo-meme, and that doesn't make it any more true. In fact, I think this has become so-called "LinuxWorld"'s party line.
People hate SCO because of what SCO has done, period. There is nothing more to say about it.
This article is a troll, plain and simple. I don't know anything about the disposition of AIX source code re: IBM and SCO's contractual relationships
in the past, but I certainly won't take any source seriously that is so broken in their understanding of the basic underlying facts.
Who is behind LinuxWorld? Why the ridiculous pro-SCO equivocation and anti-IBM attacks? Regardless of how you feel about IBM, how can anybody else associated with the software industry support a company that has made IP-lawsuits its first and only business priority?
Well, maybe, and I hope you're right, but what if IBM actually did do what they've been accused of? Is it that long a bow to draw?
The other thing is, if it were MS, people would be running around in circles and burning effigies of Bill Gates (me too, probably
I've just been fearing that there is some merit to behind all the SCO bluster, and this makes me fear it just a little bit more...
Iran has endorsed
If IBM really had something to hide, don't you think they would have come up with a better excuse then: "Uh... I can't find it"
is so fucked up (excuse my language, but i was pissed of):
SCO and IBM met in federal court in Utah again Tuesday for another go-round over the discovery that IBM hasn't produced in SCO's $5 billion lawsuit against it.
At the hearing, one of SCO's lawyers, another young thing from Boies, Schiller & Flexner whose footwork was smooth enough to impress even Groklaw's IBM-dazzled observers, mentioned the little matter of SCO's days-old Third Amended Complaint, which, alas, is under seal reportedly because it's based on some e-mail that turned up during discovery that IBM now claims is privileged though there's supposedly no hint of attorney-client communication about it.
Anyway, the sealed Third Amended Complaint has to do with SCO's contention that - to compete against Sun - IBM put SCO-owned SVR4 code in System 3-based AIX for its proprietary Power chip architecture - and one of the supposedly compromising IBM e-mails - that SCO just happened to read out loud in court the other day - suggests that IBM was conscious that it had overstepped the bounds of its Project Monterey contract with SCO, which was intended to produce only a version of AIX for Intel's Itanium chip (CSN No 564).
Well, during the Third Amended Complaint discussion, SCO's lawyer held up a piece of paper - that was duplicated on a projection screen that only the magistrate judge, Brooke Wells, could see - that listed all of the AIX code that IBM has and hasn't turned over to SCO. And SCO's lawyer pointed out that the only piece of code that IBM hasn't come up with - which was highlighted in red - was the AIX-on-Power code - to which IBM's lawyer replied that IBM "can't find it."
Shades of the Compuware suit. They "can't find it."
Makes one wonders whether IBM looked in that closet in Australia where it said a few weeks ago it just happened to stumble over the source code - the source code it swore - literally swore in court for two years - didn't exist - the code that it was supposed to produce during the court-ordered discovery phase of the suit that Compuware brought against IBM for, well, for stealing its source code.
IBM only managed to find the code after discovery had closed and the trial was about to start, a situation that it got its ears boxed for by the District Court for Eastern Michigan, which called its behavior "gross negligence."
Magistrate Wells has yet to cross that bridge, however.
After listening to what everybody had to say - and all the reasons why IBM shouldn't have to produce all the rest of the stuff that SCO wants - particularly the IBM Configuration Management and Version Control System (CMVC) and Revision Control System (RCS) that SCO thinks is the key to its case - she reserved any final decision so she could go off and have a think about it - and probably confer with her staff and her colleague Judge Dale Kimball, who's hearing IBM's motion for a partial summary judgment - a decision, IBM pointed out, that might make her ruling moot.
However, she did give IBM and SCO 30 days to exchange so-called privilege logs listing all of the discovery that they're not providing each other because it's allegedly privileged.
She also told IBM to get affidavits from IBM management, including CEO Sam Palmisano, the CTO of IBM's Unix/Linux interests Irving Wladawsky-Berger and IBM's board of directors, attesting that nothing more exists in their files regarding IBM's Linux activities.
See, IBM - having produced one single PowerPoint presentation - contends that there are no other e-mails, memos, business plans or presentations about Linux anywhere in the joint, evidently proving that not only can elephants dance, but that they really do have good memories.
The lunatic is in my head
SCO working conditions? I'm sure their lawyers are quite comfy and well fed. Does SCO even PRODUCE anything nowadays, other than FUD and lawsuits?
Gods witnessed glaciers forming faster than my downloads...
Thats because God has broadband.
One question about source code for OS's - if a company can't find the source code for a 5 year old release of its software - do I really want to trust their software to handle my data??
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
The fact is, until the Novell case gets cleared up, none of this IBM source code stuff really matters; the Novell case has the (very good) possibility of making SCO's claim on the source code of Unix null and void anyway.
nt
but in response to SCO's nonesense,
I'd say: Good on IBM
They probably really can't find the code. I used to work for IBM. I've seen them lose source for their products myself.
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
Then again, it could just be another fluff piece to try and boost the stock price up from yet another 52-week low. On the subject of which, the price of SCOX is now at almost exactly the same level it was right before Linux got dragged kicking and screaming into the court case and things went crazy...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
I have been working with IBM Content Management products for about 3 years now as a Sys-Admin / Programmer.
On occasion I'm in Awe of IBM. The abilities they have to produce huge enterprise applications in a short amount of time is amazing.
But usually I'm in Awe of IBM in a negative light
There have been several times that IBM couldn't come up with the binaries for some of their fixpack levels of some of their products., let alone the source code. The developers were like . . . uh . . . we don't have that code any more.
Oh yeah? Where did it go?
The fact that they can't come up with the source code for some parts of their AIX OS does seem suspicious but comes as no shock to me.
Conserve Oil, Recycle, Boycott Walmart
Obviously, O'Gara has indeed become SCO's monkey. Sad. I could give half a crap about IBM. I have to deal with their shitty desktop machines on a daily basis, and it irks me to no end. I applaud their efforts in the open source world, but I'm no IBM fan. SCO, however, isn't worthy to lick the urine crystals from the underside of my toilet seat (thank you, /dev/null), and O'Gara, being the monkey of said mouthbreathers, is lower than scum. Her wallet has been fattened with their ill-gotten gains. For shame.
IBM has document retention policies specifically to limit liabilities. Or more like document destruction policies. All emails have to be wiped after two years. They probably truly don't have the code anymore.
Recently I had the misfortune of Microsoft trying to find some include files from an Embedded Win CE V3 platform builder (don't ask, it wasn't my decision to use that crap) for me for an older single board computer. They no longer had the source, either. And it would have been very *good* for them if they'd been able to come up with it. They literally didn't have it anymore.
Throwing company materials away as early as possible is the newest predefensive corporate legal maneuver. If tobacco companies had done that, they'd have saved a lot of money. Probably watching the tobacco companies is what gave other companies the idea.
Banky Edwards: Alright, now see this? This is a four-way road, OK? And dead in the center is a crisp, new, hundred dollar bill. Now, at the end of each of these streets are four people, OK? Are you following?
Holden: Yeah.
Banky Edwards: Good. Over here, we have a mild-mannered, restrained, God-fearing Darl McBride holding the stolen SVR4 code. Down here, we have an SCO-hating, angry as fuck, full of rage, frenetic IBM lawyer. Over here, we got Santa Claus, and up here the Easter Bunny. Which one is going to get to the hundred dollar bill first?
Holden: What is this supposed to prove?
Banky Edwards: No, I'm serious. This is a serious exercise. It's like an SAT question. Which one is going to get to the hundred dollar bill first? The mild-mannered Darl, the angry IBM lawyer, Santa Claus, or the Easter bunny?
Holden: The angry IBM lawyer.
Banky Edwards: Good. Why?
Holden: I don't know.
Banky Edwards: Because the other three are figments of your fucking imagination!
(1) SCO has all the SV code.
(2) SCO has access to all the code in Linux.
If there is no overlap between these two, then there is no copyright infringement, despite the crack-addled theories proposed. They may have a case against IBM for contract breach from one of their previous dealings, but I really doubt it.
here is the link
I left this as a response to that horribly written, ad and idiocy infested article.
You can't handle the truth.
Actually RTFAing may display a picture of the writer!
*waves hands*: This is not the source code you are looking for.
Not that I have any reason to trust IBM but I have all the reasons not to trust SCO: What if a corrupt IBM employee made that code disappear? SCO cannot do that? What about another company who already helped SCO out?
It's SCO's *third* claim, so maybe they devised a better FUD tactic this time? These questions and similar ones I would have dismissed as too unlikely, but in this case I believe IBM is innocent until SCO proves otherwise.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
This is like a whole separate case against IBM. In a way, who cares. So they put some code in AIX for Power4. That code still didn't make it into Linux.
This is typical for SCOX. They keep shifting the goal posts. Not further back, but onto entirely different football fields.
Why are people modding up these obvious troll posts from an obvious troll account? Are today's mods all asleep at the wheel?
If IBM wants to align itself with linux, it can't afford to play dirty licensing games with UNIX code. It's that simple. Either the company embraces open-source or else it's just another FUD factory -- even though it's currently a pro-linux FUD factory, it's still unacceptable.
I'm not saying IBM is guilty or innocent, but I am hoping to God it really can't find the code, because they make some good fuckin hardware, and I'd hate to have to hate 'em.
REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.
>one of SCO's lawyers [...] footwork was smooth enough to impress even Groklaw's IBM-dazzled observers
...but only because he managed to stay awake throughout the hearing ;-)
Belief is the currency of delusion.
IBM hasn't been competely honest in the past, either. Remember the IBM branded Deathstar... er Deskstar hard drive issue?
SVR4 code in System 3-based AIX for its proprietary Power chip architecture
Even if the above statement is true, how does it relate to Linux? If this is all that SCO has, it'll open itself up to lawsuits for threatening businesses that use Linux in the past.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
I cant believe for a second that a company like IBM would lose source to a significant product like this.
Sure some engineer's pet personal toy could get misplaced, but not something like this.. they have too many things in place to control source to have just magic 'lost' something..
Not that this makes SCO some sort of saint, but come on IBM, get real...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
... doing a Google search?
And if that fails, a www.archive.org search?
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Go SCO go!
(Oups, I mispelled IBM in the title.)
Makes one wonders whether IBM looked in that closet in Australia where it said a few weeks ago it just happened to stumble over the source code - the source code it swore - literally swore in court for two years - didn't exist - the code that it was supposed to produce during the court-ordered discovery phase of the suit that Compuware brought against IBM for, well, for stealing its source code.
---
They've probably got WMD's, as well. I say we invade.
If you extend an array of one million monkeys, each of which has only a hexidecimal pad to input machine code, eventually you can build up all of software, AND Hamlet. (Or at least the part of hamlet that only uses letters a-f.)
doesn't mean they don't do stupid things like loose code. it happens all the time and more often than people would like to admit. in this case, more than the company would like to admit. a friend of mine has had that happen where he works for a couple pieces of software that was farmed out. so he had to resort to decompiling the code to fix it.
Has been entirely and quickly forthcoming with millions and millions of lines of code that SCO has basically been demanding as part of a fishing expedition.
One single piece of code out of these mountains IBM claims has gone missing.
Possible explanations from this:
1. IBM is telling the truth.
2. This is the one single piece of infringing code in all of Dynix or whatever which is infringing, and so they are hiding it.
Reasons for believing number one to be true: Well, it's extremely plausible. Given how much that IBM has produced the idea one single document among all of this has been legitimately lost within IBM is fairly believable.
Reasons for believing number two to be true: Well, nothing. But it's possible.
We certainly
SCO's strategy, for lack of a case until this point, has been to demand increasingly larger mountains of discovery until they hit something that is unreasonable. Once something proves to be unreasonable, they go to the press yelling "What does IBM have to hide???". SCO's media shills, working in a vacuum as they do, have been able to do this as often as they like despite the fact that generally, the reason IBM has not provided these things is that the judge ruled they did not have to. Meanwhile, it is probably important to keep in mind SCO has consistently refused to comply with even the most basic of discovery demands, even sometimes when ordered by the judge.
Now they appear, within this strategy, to have struck gold. They have located something which IBM is not producing, but yet the judge actually agrees IBM should produce-- and which IBM claims it is unable to produce. However, still, they have produced no evidence that this indicates wrongdoing of, well, any sort. There's no way you could make this appear so much as suspicious except by pointing to, well, the fact IBM's been so entirely forthcoming up until now. Once you do that it is possible to make it appear suspicious, yet, but not possible to actually make anything of it in court; from a court's perspective this detail is quite small. So it appears this is no victory for anyone except SCO's disconnected-from-reality PR shills.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Right in front of my eyes, some of the comments left on that site have disappeared, it went down from 8 to 5 comments in just a second.
So, the truth hurts, and the truth in this case is - everyone who goes to read this article hates what is written there but most likely does not understand the entire issue at hand about the SVR4, leaves a comment of this sort: "This site is ugly and ad-ridden, and Maureen is a SCO shill" and the editor removes the comment. The entire issue is like that SCO was allright with this move by IBM and there is a story to support this at groklaw. The story goes like this: there was a document on the SCO's site for a while that talked about how great it will be that IBM will have SVR4 code in their Power design... But the article was remove from SCO site.
You can't handle the truth.
I am amazed that Slashdot would lend credibility to a story by Maureen O'Gara. She's nothing more than a hack with an obvious anti-Linux bias.
I had been considering subscribing to Slashdot. I have now decided that I'll spend my money where the editors have better sense.
Or was an agent all along. Either way, they've been paid off handsomely to destroy Linux. The denouement is at hand.
> and any moronic idiot that is given mod points
> that mods an anonymous post should never again
> be given anything.
Surely that depends on whether you think mod points are allocated to assist overcompetitive nerds to rack up their Karma scores, or whether you think the point is to increase the visibility of interesting and insightful articles.
I note that *you* posted as an Anonymous Coward. Perhaps there's some significance in that, but I'm fucked if I can figure out what it might be. Fear of the mods yourself, perhaps?
Look at that. The right 1/3 of the entire page is filled with ads. The article has a half screen-length (at 1024x768) of text ads. There are another 2 screen-lengths of text ads and crap info I don't care about beneath the article, excluding the author's info. Oh, and they have a banner ad at the top of the page.
And they expect me to read the article? Fuck that.
If they wonder why their bandwidth costs are so high, why don't they take a look at all their graphic advertisements instead, along with the fact that they're allowing full, free fat-ass PDF downloads of each issue.
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
You can get MS-DOS source through file sharing. It's been out there for years already. I suppose that never made the news because nobody cares about it.
It wouldn't matter if IBM did as they have given SCO all code for released AIX and they never released any offending code.
If they experimented with SRV 4 code on Power 4 there is no reason to think they would have not bought a license if that was the version they were to release.
They fact is in the released code there is no offending code and by the law there is no offence.
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius
Well, they have at least a few technical people left. Otherwise, who'd be bundling the new version of Samba and other OSS packages with their crummy UNIX?
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
As for proving infrigement, they'd just have to show that the allegedly infringing program met their description of what they had patented.
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
Sorry should read power 4 not power 5
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius
isnt it up to the plaintif to show burdin of proof???
if i was IBM i would have my attorneys consider this age old fact of law and remind the judge...
so not being able to find the code is a normal reaction to SCO's evil plot...
Well, if SCO _is_ getting help from M$, then given M$'s past history of usually "getting it right" (for the most part) after three tries, it makes sense that SCO's third claim may appear to be the one that finally gets them some progress. Doesn't mean it's really right, or that it isn't full of holes, just the holes are harder to see. Hopefully the IBM lawyers have a really bright light to show all the holes to the judge.
What's going on here, are we seeing the first results of SCO's astroturfing campaign on /., or are the editors just drunk again?
IBM has provided SCO with the full source code to several versions of AIX that they were ordered to by Judge Brook Wells, within one week of being so ordered. SCO was directed to parse those source code files and identify the files and lines of that source code, that they believed were specifically relevent to the case they are persuing related to IBM.
So far all SCO has done has been to complain that the code (which they specifically requested and which was granted by Judge Wells) was not sufficient for them. Further they have requested copies of all versions, sub-versions, itterative builds, notes, and so forth for AIX, back to the very begining of AIX, as well as e-mail and memos from executive management that might be relevent to the case.
IBM has basically responded, 'you will have to take the results of your code review of the material you have received so far, present them to the Judge, and show what part of those results entitles you to further discovery.' Additionally they have pointed out that what they are asking for will take orders of magnitude more work to provide than what they had requested earlier.
SCO has made the interesting response that IBM's versioning software should make these responses easy to comply with, and 'Hey, just give us direct/remote access to it, and we won't have to bother you about it.'
Umm, yeah, anyone else think that the judge granted them the opportunity to make a brief fishing trip to some streams they have named, and SCO is saying 'Hey the fish have not been biting, let's make it a flight to a deep water fishing expedition.'
I am not a lawyer, much less a judge. Based upon what I have seen published, I would have a very hard time approving further discovery into AIX code, much less AIX-on-Power code, which was not asked for in the first place.
-Rusty
You never know...
It's funny, but the transcript of that court hearing is sealed. Why? SCO read a priviledged email out loud in open court, strangely enough, concerning this very architecture (and that's all we'll know unless SCO & co. leak information, or the court releases a redacted transcript). As you may or may not realize, that's bad. As in the kind of thing that gets the lawyers in trouble.
:]
So that makes it hard to comment on what this all means, but it does make me suspicious here. What better way to spread FUD than to get the court transcript sealed and blather whatever you like to the media in the mean time? Whether by accident or design, that's exactly what SCO has been doing.
And, as for this code, I sincerely doubt it contains anything helpful to SCO. By all accounts, they've filed an utterly baseless lawsuit that has forever been in search of any wrongdoing by IBM, and they haven't exactly come up with a lot.
Every single piece of "evidence" they have ever put forth that we can actually see and analyze has been shown not to support SCO's position. Rather, they pounce on anything the least bit out of place and use innuendo to imply that there "must" be something more to it, because we cannot assume they would be so stupid as to do something like this without some proof...
Given that that's how they've been operating, I conclude that this is nothing more than an unscripted bluff. That's right--they have no master plan, they're just making up crap as they go along, using whatever story is most convenient at the time. That's why the story keeps changing--they're bluffing and they have been the whole time. It was never anything but a shakedown premised on the theory that a company the size of IBM must have something to hide.
So, to anyone who says "there must be something to this, or SCO wouldn't have done that," I say: SCO really is that dumb.
Now, as for the other story, we're getting legal threats, etc. from that fellow who tried to buy Linux for $50,000 over on Groklaw, all due to some old court documents where people called him delusional. He did say something about a secret, personal mission to "save" Linux (or something--I don't claim to have his story straight any more than someone can claim to understand what SCO's current claims are).
I wonder when this will be turned into a geek soap opera? "As the SCO Burns" or something?
She's so unappreciated, she just wants to be loved. The has a thing for guys in creepy butterfly costumes.
--dingletec--
Scratch that reverse it.
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius
After all that FUD about Linux source code control, the lofty IBM can't find some AIX code? What will they do when there's a security or other bug they have to fix? Even if they haven't "lost" it yet, if they stick to their bluff, it will have to *stay* lost.
--
make install -not war
So SCO sues IBM over allegedly contributing Unix code to Linux. Now SCO is arguing about IBM contributing Unix SVR4 code to SVR3 Unix. What has this got to do with the actual claim? The Linux source is all out there for the world to see and SCO has a copy of all of the code they ever owned. Can't somebody just grep the linux source for SCO's code and get this over with?
- They discovered that the code was missing
- They made up a story as to why it's crucial
- They ask for it, jumping up and down about how deceptive IBM is
Just a thought =)Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
I am fascinated by Maureen O'Gara.
She knows that SCO published information they weren't allowed to. But that isn't that bad, because she can use that given information.
If I were her I would ask why SCO did make the sealed information public and let the court decide about how much the information is worth.
So she is nothing but her masters voice...
cb
Well, after reading that article, I have to *seriously* wonder if this isn't part of a SCO plot. Or, if not a plot per se, they would seem to be opportunistic about the court sealing the transcript of the last hearing.
Think about it--read a priviledged document to get the court to seal the transcript so we can't very easily comment on it (hard when you don't have the exact words to start researching things) and use that to spread FUD.
Maureen O'Gara? Funny, I could swear she's on the list of SCO schills. Or at least the short list of people they talk about pending litigation with (something you're not *supposed* to do).
Call my cynical, but it's not like *any* of SCO's claims have panned out thus far. That's why they seem to come up with new ones every few days...
Speaking of Maureen, here is what I mean by her being on the short list for SCO press releases.
See what I mean?
... never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence.
It's quite likely they cannot really find the code. Anybody that has worked at a big corporation knows that (If you haven't, just read the complete Dilbert strips, and you'll have an idea).
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
I have two things to say.
1) Linuxworld (snicker)
2) Maureen O'Gara (guffaw)
The pinnacle of journalistic integrity. (cough)
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
The title of the article is sensational enough that I clicked through to read it only to see that it is written by none other than Maureen O'Gara. Well that, and a whole bunch of ads, some disguised as stories. Then I wondered how the fuck did this troll make it to slashdot? Oh right, to increase the banner ad revenue. Judging by the comments, it worked! It's amazing how gullible people are.
/. tech support, and dupes. Clearly /. editors don't care about the quality of this site, so give it to the community.
On a side note, we should be able to moderate stories, kuro5hin-style. That would cut down on the amount of crap, stupid
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
how in hell SCO can demand to see any code at all. Either they have the evidence that their code is in something or they don't. Since when do unsupported accusations have any weight in a court at all? This should have been dismissed after about 10 minutes.
It's kinda like I own a BarbieGood stand and take Wendy's to court for putting my proprietary secret sauce on their chicken wings. Just in case they might be doing that. I don't have any evidence for it, so I demand that they give me THEIR secret sauce recipe, just in case I can make a case after I have it analyzed. And if that doesn't work out, I can try KFC....
These idiot judges really need brain transplants.
because they never got it to compile (it was for another architecture, right?) and decided to just delete it instead. This brings up a question: does a software developer have a legal duty to keep copies of all revisions and attempts he makes with his code, even those that don't work or turn out to be useless?
That was so uninformed, badly written and angled, it inspired me to write the author: (Sorry about the bad English. And lameness filter takes most of the chars I gave her...)
.... ;;;; :::: ,,,,
From: nordicfrost
To: author
Hello! Obviously, the punctiation marks and similar character on your computer is broken. So here's some for you to use by cutting and pasting. Don't spend them all at once (Something I think you won't, but...)
Sorry, I have only one one objective angle of view, and I'd like to keep that one to myself.
Cheers!
P
- Too confusing
- Boring
- Both
Seriously, am I the only one here tho just quickly reads and skims over these kind of headlines nowadays? I admit it was interesting to follow in the start when SCO was accusing the linux kernel (probably they still are, I don't know..), but now it's been going on for so long that I just don't care anymore.and just noticed it only runs on Windows.
Darl
At the hearing, one of SCO's lawyers, another young thing from Boies, Schiller & Flexner whose footwork was smooth enough to impress even Groklaw's IBM-dazzled observers,
Wow, wait, what? Is this meant to be taken as objective?
mentioned the little matter of SCO's days-old Third Amended Complaint, which, alas, is under seal reportedly because it's based on some e-mail that turned up during discovery that IBM now claims is privileged though there's supposedly no hint of attorney-client communication about it.
Notice that SCO's side in this case seems to have absolutely zero respect for the judge and his rulings? The judge rules that IBM doesn't have to produce something; this becomes "IBM won't produce this thing". The judge rules that something SCO did in the courtroom violates confidentiality and orders it sealed; this becomes some kind of who-me where-on-earth-did-this-come-from thing which is somehow implied to be IBM's fault. Don't you think, maybe, the judge so consistently failing to take SCO's side isn't just some kind of head-slapping, inexplicable coincidence, but perhaps indicates some sort of problem on the part of SCO's lawyers?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
For creating this confusion. What is missing isn't source to any release version, it's a developmental iteration. IBM has already given SCO all of AIX source. What SCO has been asking for is every little change whether it made it into a release or not. Because, dammit, their code has to be in there somewhere!
With O'Gara, it's hard to tell where the sloppy journalism stops and the pro-SCO bias starts. I used to think she was just a crappy writer, not a SCO shill.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
If there's a story to spin, you'll find it on LinuxWhirld.
The could would be nearly identical on any platform.
I noticed that, too.
I wonder what's up with her, though? Enderle was pissed because he had sour business dealings with IBM ages ago, and because he got flamed for posting some anti-Linux articles his bosses apparently thought unprofessional (gee, that's such a surprise...).
I'm just curious as to why she's made the SCO short list for people to whom they leak information? I think another poster noted that she doesn't seem to like IBM, either, and a search for her on Groklaw turns up a lot (see my other comment on her). Probably an interesting story in there, somewhere...
SCO must have hired Zippy the Pinhead to oversee their legal arguments, as they seem to be mostly nonsequiters. Cop: You have cocaine in your house. Show us where it is. You: I don't have cocaine in my house Cop: AHA! You're WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE!
Good catch.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
What Power (or really PowerPC) is less proprietary than x86 is.
Your comment applies to Slashdot as much as it does the magazine in question.
It's only biased when it doesn't agree with us, right?
I'd put Maureen O'Gara in the same class of writers as Laura Didio, Ann Coulter and everyone's favorite children's book author Bill O'Reilly.
If there's any good news SCO stock hit pre-lawsuit levels on Friday. Probably Baystar taking a dumpster on their buy out shares.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Why the hell has there been 3 Amendments..sounds like SCO attacks, finds something and then chages their case.
while it is possible that they have something to hide, its lesss likely that they do. Working in a software company that has lost source code to products that it has sold in the past, I wouldn't be suprised if IBM lost that code. I find it unlikely that a company as big as IBM would be that unorganized, but am not really suprised to hear a company has lost source code.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
The last year of SCOX on a log scale is roughly a straight line from $18 down to $3. This seems to reflect roughly the cash SCO has left as they spend money with the lawyers.
Remember, IBM's killer summary judgement motions are still pending. This case could change drastically any day now, and not in SCO's favor.
Yet Another /. Troll (for posts) on a otherwise slow day.
Problems with that article:
1) it's written by Maureen (Clueless) O'Gara
2) it's premised on the idea that SCO has some contractural control over IBM's System 3-based AIX -- another thing (besides infringing code in Linux, of which there is none) that SCO has not proven
Oh well, 0-for-2 is about on par for O'Gara *and* SCO...
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
Don't be so sure ;]
From Groklaw's coverage of the hearing:
SCO had, from their count, about 12 lawyers there, but only three sat at the table and only two spoke, one of the new attorneys on the case, Sean Eskovitz, and Frederick Frei. The silent third was the other new SCO attorney, Edward Normand. Brent Hatch was there and so was Kevin McBride.
I see no mention of Mr. Silver (the SCO lawyer who fell asleep last time), so it's quite possible he was napping elsewhere (e.g. the unemployment line). Of course, the report doesn't really say. They should be glad they don't have a harsh judge--some poor observer (not even a party to either case) who drove her friend to court on very little rest got *jailed* for a few days and charged with contempt for doing just that! (Mind you, that was IMHO a tad harsh for some poor non-lawyer observer who could've just been ejected. Then again, this is why you get to vote judges out of office, rather than into it. You might want to fill in some "no" votes on certain judges this election if you have any bad local judges!)
I forgot to leave it at IBM when they shipped my job to india ;)
Here is an example of why I maintain that LinuxWorld is dangerous.
They have posted what is obviously a bogus critical secrurity bulletin purportedly from Red Hat, linking to a "patch" located at stanford.edu.
Since when does RH deliver errata via random sites. More likely is that this is an attempt to compromise systems.
And the stars at LinuxWorld exercised no editorial judgement at all, no common sense; they just ran it.
If I were trying to undermine Linux, this is exactly the kind of thing I would do.
He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.
-- J.R.R. Tolkien
Any company that employes ex russian spies has plenty to hide.
I Predict A Riot
If you think that /. posting links to incredibly poorly written articles by half-illiterate SCO shills is *helping* SCO, then you're not seeing the whole picture.
When crayon-drawn spewings (such as the linked article) of "journalists" who are obviously less skilled in writing than the average message board troll are ALL the possitive press that SCO can get, it's a sort of cruel fun to post verbatim what the pro-SCO trolls write.
I mean come on, put up an article by Maureen O'Gara or Laura Didio, or Rob Enderle... and then put a Groklaw article next to it. Who comes off looking like a retard (um, I mean "specially abled journalist"), and who comes off looking like an intelligent human being?
Giving the writings of shills like O'Gara wide exposure simply makes everyone aware of thier illiteracy, and therefore contemptuous.
Heh, might as well give the pro-SCO folks plenty of opportunities to explain their position... it's fun to watch not-too-bright people try to explain the inexplicable.
CowboyNeal should know better than to recommend articles written by Maureen O'Gara. Since a long time she is spreading lies on behalf of SCO.
I hope she's got a nice personality. Presumably, god compensates for that kind of thing.
Escrow isn't an acronymn, so there's no need to shout.
Can this decision be related to the recent fact that IBM agreed to reduce dire working conditions workers, while SCO did not?
Normally removing parentheses would still allow a sentence to stand on it's own. In this case, it never even got off the ground.
Scribbler O'Hara misunderstood her SCO input:
... the little matter of SCO's days-old Third Amended ...
>
> Complaint, which, alas, is under seal
There is no Third Amended Complaint. To file a 3rd amendment
SCO needs approval by the Judge and IBM has to be
consulted. Although their chances to be refused are high,
it may happen that SCO ask the Judge for permission to file
such an amendment because they are so desperate to extend
discovery to the end of time and never have to let down
their pants in court.
Note that the story about AIX using non-licensed
Unixware code is more than one year old and was already
dissected and debunked, see Groklaw as usual:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=132
contains the millions of lines of code which prove that Linus copied SCO code.
They're his anyways...
If you have nothing to fear, then you have nothing to hide...
Not everything that can be measured matters; Not everything that matters can be measured.
Slight correction: *third amended complaint* which means the fourth overall.
IIRC the normal deadline for amending their complaint passed last February. They were allowed to make their second amended complaint after that deadline, but there is no guarantee that the court will permit this latest amendment.
Was Margeret O'Gara in the court for the October 19 hearing? How does she know what was on the screen that "only Magistrate Wells could see"? For that matter, how does she know what is in SCO's requested *sealed* third amended complaint?
I guess IBM must have mean talking to her.
Jeez editors. This story is such a ridiculous troll. It makes my GNAA posts look insightful.
Can't believe you fools fell for it.
I am more likely to give a +1 Informative to an AC-posted article mirror than a member-posted article mirror, simply because I feel that people shouldn't build karma by just copying and pasting articles. Original Insights and Information are much more valuable in the long run.
Stock manipulation.
Over the past weeks I've seen SCOX always "bail itself out" in the last hour of trading every day I've checked. Far more often than other stocks I've followed, to the point of curiousness. Who on earth would be in a rush to buy SCOX at the end of the day? Regularly? And why? Hmmmm.
Friday that did not happen.
Then on Friday (I'm assuming after markets closed - no timestamp on the article) we get this absurd piece from O'Gara, SCO shill at worst, clueless hack "journalist" at best.
Someone's trying to make a buck. Either that or SCO is no longer able to prop up their stock with timed buybacks and are using this as a way to avoid a sub-$3/share freefall.
Delisting a stock takes time, but having your stock head toward $1/share is a good start.
LinuxWorld is certainly not a pro-Linux site, nor is it ZDnet -- it's put out by SysCon media. Well, at least the "con" sounds right! Maureen O'Gara is simply a SCO mouthpiece. I'm perplexed that CowboyNeal ran with it here, giving it credibility that it doesn't deserve. Maybe he's trying to earn those Cowboy Neal jokes.
But what's the lead story on LinuxWorld today?
Fraud in Linuxland? VA Linux Class Action To Go Forward
Yep, it's an attack on Slashdot's owner! If you can't take the message, dig the dirt on the messenger!
It's a repeat of the "show us the code you stole from us" tactic from before, and another excuse for Darls brother to drain the bank accounts of SCO in legal fees as it is fleeced into oblivion.
Elvis is currently holding the briefcase containing the evidence to support his claims, in a Burger King in Germany. And if you don't believe him, just ask Jimmy Hoffa. This guy gives meat puppets the world over a bad name.
SCO has failed to comply with 2 court orders already and so far they haven't been punished for it.
As far as we know, IBM has fully complied with all of the court's requests and has been upfront and honest during discovery.
SCO has been anything but.
Scene
A run down hotel room, Merkpheus sits in a ratty leather arm chair. Darl sits nearby.
Merkpheus: I imagine that right now you're feeling a bit like Don Quixote. Tilting the windmill?
Darl: You could say that.
Merkpheus: I can see it in your eyes. You have the look of a man who accepts what he sees because he's expecting to rake in a billion dollar settement. Ironically, this is not far from the truth. Do you believe in Linux, Darl?
Darl: No.
Merkpheus: Why not?
Darl: 'Cause I don't like the idea that I'm not in control of everyone else's life.
Merkpheus: I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you're here. You're here because you know they used Xenix. What you know, you can't explain. But you feel it. You felt it your entire life. That there's something wrong with Linux. You don't know what it is, but it's there. Like a splinter in your mind -- driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I'm talking about?
Darl: Xenix?
Merkpheus: Do you want to know where it is?
(Neo nods his head.)
Merkpheus: The Xenix is everywhere, it is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, or when go to church or when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.
Darl: What truth?
Merkpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, born inside a prison that you cannot smell, taste, or touch. A prison for your mind. (long pause, sighs) Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Xenix is. You have to see it for yourself. This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back.
(In his left hand, Morpheus shows a blue peyote.)
Merkpheus: You take the blue peyote and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. (a red crack pipe is shown in his other hand) You take the red crack pipe and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. (Long pause; Neo begins to reach for the red pipe) Remember -- all I am offering is the truth, nothing more.
(Neo takes the red pipe and lights up)
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
Groklaw has a rebuttle here.
Basically the whole story is a lie. The judged sealed the transcripts of the hearing (probably because of the confidential email the SCO lawyers read aloud), so the author couldn't have checked her facts. All the witnesses who attended the hearing and reported back to Groklaw say that IBM never said anything about "losing" code.
Just another Microsoft shill.
Groklaw responds to this inaccurate article.
Reminder: Maureen O'Gara is a shill for SCO/Microsoft. I'd put her in the same mental category as Laura Didio and Rob Enderle.
This is from 1997.
. 95 .970806211714.1085A-100000%40inanna.eanna.net&outp ut=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.3
----------------------
NOVELL NOW FACES MERKEY SEXUAL HARASSMENT SUIT
by David Pendery
"In the latest blow to Novell, Timpanogas CEO and former Novell chief
scientist Jeff Merkey has filed a secual and general harassment complaint
against Novell and its senior vice president Denice Gibson. Merkey, who
left Novell in April to form Timpanogas, is embroiled in a lawsuit with
Novell over the later's Wolf Mountain clustering system, which Merkey
helped develop and Novell claims he stole for Timpanogas' clustering products.
In his deposition, Merkey wrote that Givson sexually harassed him three
times. He also wrote that he suffered retaliation - ignored by senior
officials - when he rebuffed her. The deposition also says that to
alleviate the problem, there was an attempt made within Novell to spin off
the Wolf Mountain group, but that Novell CEO Eric Schmidt nixed the plan.
Novell officials declined comment and Denice Gibson did not return
telephone calls to her office last week.
In a bizarre twist, it has emerged that Timpanogas may have plenty of funds
to fight the case thanks to a previously unpublicized activity: gold
prospecting. According to Merkey, the company is staking claims to several
sites in Utah, including one where a gold vein is 1.3 miles long and 3 feet
wide, and the value is "astronomical". Merkey said that Timpanogas will
stockpile the gold and use it to fund its defense against Novell's lawsuit."
There were 2 folks there who reported to Groklaw what happened. They also report that Maureen O'Gara was *not* at the hearing.
See: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200410231 53851359
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
SCO keeps on asking for so much out of IBM, its no surprise they cant keep up..
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200410231
A Bit of the Blarney -- or Worse? -- About "Lost" Code
Saturday, October 23 2004 @ 03:38 PM EDT
It used to be funny pointing out mistakes in reporters' stories.
But when a reporter prints something that isn't just misinformed but hurtfully inaccurate, I think it's more serious. As you likely know, Maureen O'Gara printed a story about what allegedly was said in the last court hearing between IBM and SCO. That, in and of itself, is ethically problematic, to me, since the court ordered the transcript sealed. The source of her "information" would be whom, would you guess?
It wouldn't surprise me if IBM follows up on that aspect of the matter. I would.
Groklaw had eyewitnesses at the hearing. None of them reports seeing Ms. O'Gara there. Furthermore, none of them heard any of what she "reports" about IBM supposedly claiming not to be able to find code. Let me repeat that. IBM never said anything like that, according to our eyewitnesses. I absolutely can tell you that the O'Gara story does not in any way match what they heard.
Nor does it make any sense. For starters, IBM said at the hearing that they have produced all the code they have been ordered to produce to date. They have produced all released versions of AIX which they were told to turn over. That isn't even in dispute. The hearing was about whether IBM should now be required to produce more code, now that SCO couldn't find any infringing code in the millions of lines it already received. The judge hasn't decided that issue. Second, SCO's Third Amended Complaint has not yet, to my knowledge, been accepted by the court. Even if we posit that it will be, IBM has not yet even answered it, let alone been found in violation of anything having to do with it or even been accused of such.
I therefore conclude that Ms. O'Gara has been provided with some misinformation, or she has decided to spread a bit of the Blarney sua sponte.
Courts are not fond of Blarney, as it happens. Truth is not a joke to them. I don't know if SCO is behind this and if so whether it's because they see a spin opportunity because the transcript is sealed or for some other motive, so I won't speculate. I do know this: Ms. O'Gara attacks Groklaw at every opportunity, so she reads what we write. In this very article about the court hearing, she writes that our eyewitnesses were impressed by SCO's new lawyer. So she knew that she had available to her other sources of information on what actually happened in that court room. She did not contact me before writing her story.
But here is another issue: This inaccurate report was printed by LinuxWorld. They are responsible for publishing it. Unless they take immediate action to correct, I suggest the only conclusion I can reach is that they are hostile to Linux. If they are hostile to Linux, why would I care to read LinuxWorld?
Happily, Groklaw isn't dependent on ads or on any outside entity, so there is nothing to pressure us to tell you anything but the truth. We are noncommercial and have no ads to influence anything. One way the community supports our work is by showing up at these hearings, so we are not dependent on "reporters" who "report" on events they apparently did not attend and with an obvious, to us, bias. I don't know why Ms. O'Gara loves SCO, but to me it shows.
And at this moment, aren't you glad Groklaw had witnesses there? If Groklaw had not attended the hearing, Ms. O'Gara could write absolutely anything, and with a sealed transcript, who'd know the difference? As it is, Groklaw can stand up and say, No. We were there. It didn't happen that way.
Someday, this transcript will likely be opened to the public, and then we will be able to check for ourselves. In the meantime, you are free to choose who you wish to believe. I know who I believe, because they've reported from prior court hearings and been substantially correct. And Groklaw's eyewitnesses say: this report in Linuxwo
For factual information (as usual) see GrokLaw
2 31 53851359
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200410
Read this:
I have not provided a link deliberately. If you wish to read her article, you can find it, I'm sure by a Google search or off of Slashdot, since they made what I consider the unfortunate editorial decision to give the story more widespread readership than it otherwise would have received.
Sexual harassment involving a female boss is not necessarily far from reality. See this article. (Notice the responses that the man received from supervisors.)
How on earth do these people get jobs as reporters with so little integrity, not to mention such poor writing and cognition skills?
You know, I used to wonder the same thing. Then, after a while, I figured it out: sure, they have little integrity, poor writing and cognition skills - but that's about the same as the average person. Call me cynical, but I think I'm right.
The accounts from Groklaw witnesses at the hearing are informative, especially since they were available long before O'Gara published this piece. Nothing was said remotely like what O'Gara claims. Her report isn't just vaguely confused; it appears to be an outright lie. It COULD be that someone "spun" it to her. However, as PJ notes, O'Gara's articles make it plain that she reads Groklaw. None of these people saw O'Gara there, so her source almost has to be secondary. Given the obvious bias in the story, she could be being lead around by the nose for PR purposes by TSG.
Unfortunately, since the TSG crew decided to read a confidential email outloud in court, the whole hearing transcript has been sealed by the judge. [This could even be why TSG made such a clossal "blunder" in court.] It prevents early and thorough critical review. So, O'Gara would have had no means of "independently" checking the "facts" - given she doesn't like Groklaw's unabashed partisanship, which is opposite hers and quite critical of her as well.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
So, open source is like some sort of backup system for IBM's source code, then?
Linus said it best.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Which is plainly incorrect. The hearing is not under seal because the email is priviledged (if it was, SCO's lawyers wouldn't have it), but because it's confidential. So Maureen's allusion here is completely wrong.
Why dosen't everybody just read the response on groklaw?
---
the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword is mightier than the court, the court is mightier than the pen.
According to Groklaw none of the eye-witnesses to the hearing in question SAW or HEARD any suck claim. In particular, the SEALED transcript is not available and the "reporter" in question *WAS* *NOT* *PRESENT* for the hearing.
You are all victims of FUD and you can stop with the uninformed pro-SCO Astroturf and rebuts there-of.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Some of that is new to me (I missed part of the Groklaw exchange, for one), but yeah, that helps me explain this a lot better.
My view? Well, the Native American religion bit is to use peyote legally (although I think it requires at least some tribal descent? I confess to being unclear about the law surrounding it). However, I do know that they are allowed to posess and use limited quantities of it legally.
Anyhow, I figure him for just a random nut, and I wouldn't take the things he says at face value. I tend to doubt that even SCO would deliberately set this guy up to do anything on their behalf. As for his claims, I would tend to ascribe them to a mixture of psychotic episodes & hallucinogen use (e.g. the peyote). I seem to recall that peyote is not good for schizophrenics (or for anyone who cannot tell reality from fantasy--think about it, it just can't be good for you to deliberately hallucinate when you already have problems with reality).
Now then, to be fair to him, in no way could even a trained doctor diagnose this guy over the internet. I would tend to defer to the judge PJ found as to him being delusional (the delusion of grandeur--"saving" Linux for $50,000--is what makes me think schizophrenic), and if he admits to peyote use (again, to be fair, I haven't seen him say this), I would tend to think that this is just some random person who has issues with reality.
In short, I don't think he's a SCO "agent" of any sort. There are ways to make even a nut useful, but employing one as a messenger or negotiator when they're so unpredictable would be rather stupid even for SCO. On the other hand, SCO has never held conventional wisdom in high esteem, and they've been anything but predictable. Birds of a feather?
In the article, there was a clear reminder that the article in question received too much attention because of the Slashdot of it, the other day. I quote:
I have not provided a link deliberately. If you wish to read her article, you can find it, I'm sure by a Google search or off of Slashdot, since they made what I consider the unfortunate editorial decision to give the story more widespread readership than it otherwise would have received.
I didn't see this topic being discussed here yet.
I do question whether Slashdot should link to those "clear-FUD" articles at all ? Doesn't Slashdot has to verify it's stories more thoroughly before putting them on their frontpage ?
I guess that won't make "Hot news" 'hot' anymore, as it takes time to verify. But it does make the whole discussion on these delicate subjects more credible.
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
Why do I get the feeling that this "Darl McBride in a naked fetal position" thing is going to become the next "Natalie Portman, naked and petrified" meme?
About a year ago I thought that perhaps IBM might have actually done something wrong. However, as the courts have dragged the facts out of SCO (kicking and screaming mostly) it has become clear that SCO originally filed the lawsuit in the hopes that it would trigger an IBM buyout, and that IBM called SCO's bluff.
At this point if IBM had actually done something wrong then SCO would be able to point people at some SCO source code in Linux. Not that such an action would truly be likely to get IBM in trouble. After all, SCO can't pretend that they didn't knowingly distribute the Linux kernel for years (including versions with IBM's modifications). After all, SCO is really the Linux company Caldera. In short, Caldera (err.. SCO) never really had a case against IBM, that's why they keep telling different judges completely different stories. All of SCO's really good arguments (MIT professors "deep diving" the Linux code for "millions of lines" of code infringement, etc.) came in the press, and have been subsequently destroyed in the court room. SCO's entire case, at this point, rests on a very very strained interpretation of a contract with IBM that doesn't withstand scrutiny of any sort of a logic test and requires a reinterpretation of what is considered "derivative" copyright, and IBM has gone back and deposed the folks that originally drew up the contract (on both sides of the table) and they all have testified that SCO is full of crap.
The fact that /. readers like IBM better than Microsoft really has nothing to do with it. IBM gets good /. press in this article because they are sticking up for Linux. The kernel hackers didn't steal SCO's source, and IBM is out to prove that. If Microsoft did something similar (in some other alternative reality) then Microsoft would be praised by the Free Software community as well. Instead, however, Microsoft paid SCO millions of dollars for an arguably bogus IP license, and then put SCO's management in touch with the folks at Baystar and RBC that gave SCO the money to finance their bogus lawsuit. I think that it is only natural that /. readers would see that as yet another reason to be wary of Microsoft.
This girl is on dobe are is maybe both.