Slashdot Mirror
DaimlerChrysler/SCO Case Winds Down
kuwan writes "It was previously reported that SCO moved for and was denied a stay in their case agains DaimlerChrysler. (Remember that all of SCO's claims against DaimlerChrysler were thrown out except for the issue of whether or not DaimlerChrysler made its certification in a timely manner.) The opposition and reply memos for that motion are now available and apparently SCO's motion was so weak that DaimlerChrysler is asking SCO to pay the cost of preparing their opposition memo. A nice summary of the latest maneuvers is available at scofacts.org."
Any idea when SCO will finally die?
The owls are not what they seem
Methinks that the Sybase "one-eyed monster whacking a luser" advert was a perfect fit for this article.
:-)
Dunno if it is luck or the usual Slashdot editor impartial and unbiased reporting
Hopefully a few more whacks and it will be gone for good.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Way to go! Make SCO pay for everything. Suck up all their blood money and drive them out of business.
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
...if Slashdot fixed the links to their own stories.
A man's reach must exceed his grasp, or what's an erection for?
Does that mean they actually bought some sort of UNIX license off SCO or does that mean something altogether unrelated?
I can think of one reason SCO deserves some money from us; they are providing us with a lot of entertainment and they are illustrating how not to conduct legal affairs. I believe that we should all contribute to a pool to improve the lives of (former) SCO (related) employees who are (or will be) housed in our wonderful incarceration facilities. This may need to be a large fund since I suspect that some Canapy Group employees might need some free government lodging. I think we should put PJ in charge of distributing the money; imagine Darl asking PJ for just a little money for a snickers bar.
Every point I made back then has since played out in court as predicted. Even the SCO Group is now relying on the same interpretation of the GPL license in its defence against IBM.
As I stated on March 10, 2004:
"Daimler/Chrysler wins SCO Case Hands Down"
:-)
Maybe we'll be so lucky.
Cheers,
Richard
I speak German, you insensitive clod!
In a weird sort of way, I kind of feel sorry for SCO.
I mean geez, they're just another legit company trying to make it in this high tech industry. Won't anyone give them a break?
It is actually profitable to be sued by you.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
Annalen Der Physik would still have been numero Uno in Physics.
Dear Anonymous moron
/. is site with mostly American readers and moderators. Every time someone writes something "ontopic" that isn't pleasant for Americans and doesn't agree with their American point of view, he gets modded down as "offtopic", "redundant" or even "troll" or "flamebait".
You forget that
Why argue your point of view, when you can make the opposite point disappear?
Robert
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
... and Al Petrovsky is considered a troll on Groklaw.
Lawywers always ask for fees, if they think they are going to win or not. It has little to do with the strength of their case.
Daimler is not the most aggressive of the SCO Group defendants. They are the ones for whom The SCO Group's case was obviously the weakest on its face, allowing the judge to rule quickly and without waiting for the others.
Petrovsky's "analysis" is weak and off-base, as usual.
sigs, as if you care.
Mod this comment down!
It seems to be un-American.
Just out of curiosity - what language is your website in, btw?
I'm guessing it's some Scandinavian language?
Just out of curiosity - what language is your website in, btw? I'm guessing it's some Scandinavian language?
Not really, it's Slavic language: Polish.
Robert
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
"You would all be speaking Farsi and Arabic if not for our brave GIs!"
"You would all be speaking Afghani if not for our brave... I mean, if not for the Pakistan Army!"
"You would all be speaking South American and wearing funny hats like Che Guevara if not for the covert operations of our brave CIA agents!"
And many, many more! Call this number now and have your debt account number ready!
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
Ah, my bad. In hindsight, I was debating whether to say Scandinavian or East-European (although am not certain if Slavic is primarily East-European or not).
:)
Thanks!
Just look at how much this and the original post have been modded up and down. Sheesh!!!
Now *that* speaks volumes of USians.
He admits on the front page that he has several thousand
shares and that he hopes to mitigate the low value perception of
SCOs business. Although PJ's pages are biased to some degree,
it is in regards to one major fact: the whole suit has no base.
He attempts to post the facts but it entirely based on his research
and blogging. I have no problem with that but the eyes of many
catches a lot which I happen to enjoy at Groklaw.
I think DC could have probably played this out to the end just as easily as IBM seems to be able to. DC was smart in that they just didn't have any of SCO's products running in production, as I understand it. It was almost the equivilent of the BSA auditing you for unlicensed M$ products and finding out you're a Linux shop. Oh, and all M$ products sitting on a shelf are in their original boxes and amount to old copies of WFW and MS-DOS 3.2.
Every time someone writes something "ontopic" that isn't pleasant for Americans and doesn't agree with their American point of view, he gets modded down as "offtopic", "redundant" or even "troll" or "flamebait".
Does anyone else see the irony that this was modded "offtopic"?
Watch this post get modded right down as well.
USAsian "freedom" of speech in action. Fortunately, I live in a country that has not (yet) been "liberated".
...being considered a troll on Groklaw is more a badge of honor than an insult these days.
although am not certain if Slavic is primarily East-European or not
;)
;)).
It depends. Some people from Poland, Czech, or post-yugoslavian countries might disagree and punch you in the face
Thing is, the term "Slavic" crosses the boundary of what was always considered Central Europe and Eastern Europe. Traditionally, before 20th century, East Europe was synonymous with Orthodox Church (Pravoswavny as some Slavs would say), Greek/Byzantium culture, and cyryllic writing. Catholic/Protestant Slavic countries with latin writing were considered Central Europe, identifying rather with Western Europe. Balkan Slavic nations considered themselves primarily Central/Southern Europe.
After WW2 every Russian vasal country in Europe was considered Eastern Europe, even Russian ocupied part of Germany.
Most of Slavic people today would like to regain their pre-soviet culture, including their place on geopolitical map of Europe. Hence most of Western Slavs consider themselves Central/Western Europe, Southern Slavs -- Central/Southern Europe and Eastern Slavs -- Eastern Europe (even those living in North-Eastern Asia
Robert
PS Western/Southern/Eastern Slavs are quite strict, scientific terms; just look at the map.
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
The USians are coming. To "liberate" you.
Does your country have Oil? If not, it probably has Bin Laden? No? That's alright, I'm sure they'd find some reason or the other to invade you.
You think they respect your sovereign rights? You think they care? Nope.
While dictators are ruling countries like North Korea and Pakistan, they are more concerned about Iraq - the people need to be liberated, you know? The oil, most importantly.
So that the USians can sit in their homes with their gas guzzling SUVs and eat fries and watch their reality shows. And ofcourse, complain about outsourcing and how their rights are being "trampled" while they vote in the same guy who took those rights away in the first place.
A bunch of fucking hypocrites. That is what they are.
Look at the US. They do not respect other nations sovereign rights. Their allies are Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Israel and the like. They subsidize China and overlook Chinese human right abuses. They do not even care enough about the environment to ratify the Kyoto. It is a sad, sad state of affairs.
And *YET* the moment you bring this up, some USian will come up and pretend that they care.
Do not bother. They are too high up in their "religious" and "moral" highground to care about the world. They like policing the world and are too used to the comforts of their MacDonalds and their SUVs.
In a nation that prides itself of liberty and values, they have not even elected a non-white non-Christian non-Catholic non-male President. Ever. So much for their "values".
Get over it, USians do not care. Vietnam happened once and you think their people would learn. But Iraq is happening again. Look at the atrocities in Abu Gharib and what not. Look at the way they treat their prisoners in Guatanomo Bay. They trained the Taliban to fight the Soviets. They pul Ayotallah in Iran. They put put people like Pinochet into power who killed tens of thousands. Their Prince^W President is the "friend" of the Saudi Royal family. They preach values? Get over this - America and Americans have no values.
They pretend and they pretend well. They're all just a bunch of hypocrites. Notice how much the people whine all over the place, but yet none of their policies change.
Take the topic under discussion - India is a peaceful democracy with a flourishing economy and Pakistan is an Islamic military dictatorship, and yet the USA does not want India to be elected to the UN - why? So that Pakistan is appeased.
Do not bother, America and Americans do not care. They are too used to their comforts and their hypocrisy runs so deep that the rest of the world is quite disgusted. Their civil liberties are being trampled, they're fucking over the rest of the world and pissing off a lot of people.
Remembe - even Rome fell.
Does anyone else see the irony that this was modded "offtopic"?
./ mods moderating an on-topic post as off-topic* ./, remember?),
No. "Irony" implies that something different than the expected result happened. I can see nothing unexpected in either
- a meta-discussion being considered off-topic,
- an off-topic post mentioning the word off-topic itself,
- such a post being modded off-topic,
-
- even if such a post complains about exactly this (this is
- a post (indirectly) forseeing its moderation getting modded real high or real low,
- and so on.
Regardless how you spin it, there isn't much irony in how it got modded, especially considering this is Slashdot.
*I don't consider this thread to be on-topic (as its meta-discussion started with a troll), but let's be open-minded for a moment.
Keep an eye on which arguments are silently dropped in replies. Not always, but often times it's very telling.
Let's not forget the never ending attempts by midle-aged white men to send womens right back to the stone age by making abortion illegal. Next up they'll be overturning the right to vote or own property.
When DirecTV did a similar (but more aggressive) blanket (and mostly claim-less) lawsuit against supposed "pirates", asking (demanding?)for a "settlement" to avoid legal action, it only took one "win" for the little guys to basically cease DirecTV's actions.
I am not a lawyer (but I know a few good jokes about them), but would a "win" against SCO basically kill off their entire case? If DC "wins" (or the case is dismissed), does that mean SCO's claims of licensing fees are over? And if that happens, can the few who actually paid SCO "licensing" fees get a refund?
Repant. Thy end is sheer.
It's not a question of the political comment or the nationality of the /.ers. The current topic is Daimler Chrysler, SCO and the lawsuit.
/.
American poitics, the general intelligence of Americans, idiotic foriegn policies and the tribulations of having to live with Bush are off the topic.
Want to discuss those topics? Submit an article to
...carrier dead.....
Oh yeah. They're "Christian" you know. Although they claim to be "secular" (wonder how many USians know that word, probably not a very "moral" word for them).
If you notice, the US has been responsible for so many of the world's problems.
One other thing is that all their actions are such that no other country can rise in power.
Is any South American country coming up? Let's put a military dictator! The Russians? Let's fuck them over. And oh wait, the Middle East? Let's pillage them for the oil and install fundamentalist dictatorships and priests so that they never develop enough. India is coming up? Oh no, they'd be a powerful country. That cannot be allowed, so let's put them down and drive them back to stone-ages.
What are those brown-skinned funny speaking people doing trying to play with the USA anyway? They're taking away USian *jobs*!
Control those you can, suppress and destroy those you can't.
They're going right back to stone-age. They're a war economy. Ever since WW2. Cold War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, War on Terror, War on Iraq ad infinitum.
I'm scared for this world. More than a fundamentalist blowing up this world, it's far more likely that the US would blow up this world. When big egoist powers fall, they tend to take everything along with them.
I think it goes without saying that you're an ass, but I'll say it anyway. Twice, if you count the last sentence. You're an ass.
Why don't you counter his arguments if you disagree with him?
Although a little harsh, I think he's raised a lot of valid points.
But no, you would just abuse those who disagree with you.
Typical American attitude.
You don't know half of it, I think it already has +4/-4 moderation. Perhaps I'm gonna post detailed stats when I'll get them tomorrow ;)
Robert
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
We should register SCO.COM and put a website with Nelson from the Simpsons just pointing and going "Ha HA!"
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Requesting attorneys fees and costs from your opponent on a motion is pretty much standard practice. What will be interesting to see is if the defendants (Daimler/Chrysler) later move for sanctions under the local "frivolous claim" rule in their jurisdiction. These kinds of rules exist in the Federal courts (Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) and most states. It looks like Michigan has a similar rule in effect (MCR 2.625(A)(2), MCL 600.2591(2)). Nice thing about these kinds of provisions is that their sanctions can be directed against the attorneys as well as the parties. Sorry for not including links to the citations, but for obvious reasons I don't want to be responsible for the "slashdotting" of a particular Federal or state court website. Just Google it.
eldapo
Nice link to IP-Wars in the article. Maybe Groklaw will link to anti-slash in retatliation.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
>>>
Oh, and all M$ products sitting on a shelf are in their original boxes and amount to old copies of WFW and MS-DOS 3.2.
>>>
Did you mean MS-DOS 3.3 or perhaps MS-DOS 6.2?
3.2 wasn't the disaster that was DOS 4 but it was a pain. Most companies quickly upgraded when 3.3 came out.
1000 SlashDot sigs
... and Al Petrovsky is considered a troll on Groklaw.
How does this have anything to do with the facts that were presented? Regardless of what Al's status is on Groklaw, he is the one that actually did the work to get the copies of the Opposition and Reply memos so that we could be discussing them here. He should get credit for that and the other work that he's done. Groklaw even links to his site, scofacts.org, for copies of some of the documents.
Now if you don't like Al's analysis then that's fine, ignore it. I personally respect Al and the work that he's done and I enjoyed his analysis. Who cares whether or not Al and PJ had a falling out at Groklaw? Al has done a mountain of work to bring us audio and video recordings of hearings, copies of legal documents, and first-hand reports from court hearings. And all at his own expense. If all this work makes you a troll at Groklaw, then I hope that I become one too.
Lawywers always ask for fees, if they think they are going to win or not. It has little to do with the strength of their case.
IANAL and I know that Lawyers usually ask for legal fees when they win (or think they're going to win) a case, but do they normally ask for the fees involved in preparing an opposition memo? That's what I found entertaining. Specifically this piece right here:
The context of SCO's motion, the lack of legal authority to support it, and the absence of any plausible reason for tying the adjudication of this case to the outcome of the IBM litigation reveal SCO's motion for what it is -- a naked effort to manipulate the Court system, and DCC, for SCO's own benefit. DCC therefore respectfully requests that the Court deny SCO's Motion For Stay and award DCC its fees and costs incurred in preparing this Opposition.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
"I have no problem with that but the eyes of many
catches a lot which I happen to enjoy at Groklaw."
It is not the eyes of the posters on Groklaw that I have a problem with. I am a long time lurker*, but since Pam started deleting the accounts of people she could no longer put up with, it seems that she has only 'yes' men left. There is very little useful input from named posters. Most of the enlightened stuff comes from "Anonymous". Talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water!
* I lurk there as I have nothing useful to add to the discussions. Yes, I know that does not stop most posters there, but it does stop me.
IANAL
My faith is expressed through Nihilism. Do you understand?
It's pretty sad. I think it was more fun when the Iraqi(SCO) Information Minister was screaming at people. Oh well, now we get to watch them get their asses get kicked in by everyone on earth.
sPh
Well that explains all of the significant discussions that go on with a wide variety of opinions.
There is very little useful input from named posters.
A lie easily disproven by looking at Groklaw, oh, say, any day of the week and any time of the day.
Most of the enlightened stuff comes from "Anonymous".
Precisely the opposite of reality.
Here's a (hopefully) working link:
SCO's claims Against Daimler-Chrysler Thrown Out
I'm not sure why the one in the article I submitted didn't work as it's the same one I'm posting here.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
It's not a matter of whether PJ has the legal right to delete the posts she doesn't like. It's matter of groklaw being unfair and biased to the point of being worthless.
PJ doesn't just delete trolls, obscene posts, and posts that are intended to insult. PJ will delete anything that doesn't suck-up to the groklaw party line.
On groklaw, there is no real discussion. It's a big circle-jerk. And it's too bad, because groklaw used to be a really great site.
You said:
'Petrovsky's "analysis" is weak and off-base, as usual.'
Okay, please be specific about where and how the arguement is "off base" and "weak." I don't care who considers Pertrovsky a troll. I want specific facts.
Thank you for your reply.
john gabrielh ing
harlan
al_petrofsky
talk_to_birds
rus
br3n
Long time readers of Groklaw will probably recognize these names.
The revolution may not be televised but it will be chronicled at ip-wars.net.
1000 SlashDot sigs
I have been reading groklaw for about 18 months.
I 100% agree that PJ will accept nothing but yes-men. Anything that does not follow the groklaw party line 100% is deleted. PJ is even known to delete accounts for what people posts on other boards.
You will not find meaningful discussion on groklaw anymore, I can assure you of that.
sPh
"Anything that does not follow the groklaw party line 100% is deleted"
That's a curious conclusion you've come to, since for the last two months or so PJ has set up dedicated threads in SCO-related articles (titled Official "The SCO Group" Positions) which is reserved for official SCO representatives to freely post.
To date I haven't seen SCO officials comment.
Furthermore the intro to the thread states, " Sub-posts from persons not connected with "The SCO Group" must be very polite, address other posters and the main poster with the honorific "Mr." or "Mrs." or "Ms.", as appropriate, use correct surnames, not call names or suggest or imply unethical or illegal conduct by "The SCO Group" or its employees or attorneys. "
Seems to me like Groklaw is bending over backwards to accomodate. The catch being that since it's an open forum, SCO will have to endure facts, logic and actual case law being applied to their comments as feedback.
Michael Moore posts to /.?
-Dizzle
"I most likely AM so interested in myself."
I have also been reading GL since it began posting about SCO's claims concerning Linux.
Groklaw was the rally point, the beacon that brought into sharp perspective the fallicies of SCO's many claims.
As with any bright light, it attracked some flies that gathered in the glow of 'the good fight'. Much petty bickering concerning PJ's style and operations became a regular theme of some threads on GL.
Pam simply decided that such posts were contraproductive so removed them from the online message board. Repeat offeneders were booted off having their account reverting to anonymous.
Groklaw continues to thrive now that most of the bleating whiners have been cropped from the message boards. Court documents continue to arrive and be converted to text in a timely manner and Pam's comments continue to chisel away at the SCO legal position while reflecting on the morality of such groups.
Walter is just one less GL whiner whose loss is not refected by the enthusiasm of the remaining GLers.
Long live Groklaw! Confusion to the monopolists!
Bar
mmm stereotypes
Groklaw continues to thrive now that most of the bleating whiners have been cropped from the message boards. Court documents continue to arrive and be converted to text in a timely manner and Pam's comments continue to chisel away at the SCO legal position while reflecting on the morality of such groups.
Well then, where are the court documents and transcripts from the Daimler case? Groklaw doesn't have them. Al Petrofsky has gone out of his way to get these documents, report or court hearings, get audio and video recordings of the hearings, etc. Groklaw will sometimes link to Al's site, scofacts.org, but never give him credit. It says something to me when PJ can't get along with people that so productive and active in the same cause.
Groklaw's loss is our gain.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
So GL setup a SCO section for each story and SCO has never posted a reply. I don't think the posts that were deleted were from SCO, they were from GrokLaw users. If that didn't do the trick then the user was deleted and all their posts attributed to anonymous.
Pick a topic where there is any dissenting views, watch it for a few hours and you can see history being re-written until all there is left is blind agreement with GrokLaw.
Try it for yourself...
As an American that did NOT vote for GW Bush and as an American that does NOT like the direction our country is headed, particularly with respect to what we're doing around the world, I have to say that I don't like your comment. I think it would have been fine if you hadn't included that part about "And *YET* the moment you bring this up, some USian will come up and pretend that they care." Guess what? Some of us do. Just slightly under 1/2 of us do care, according to the results of a national poll we had a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, the so-called "moral majority" got out the vote.
It's too bad that people can get up on their soapbox like the parent post, but can't do so under their own names.
"non-white non-Christian non-Catholic non-male President"
/. before.
You act as if there are no subgroups within t his so-called "white" race. I'll also point out that a lot of our presidents have NOT been Catholic. Christians yes, but when the majority of voters are Christians, what would you expect? As far as non-male, the point is taken, but we do have women in Congress. Congress could stop a lot of what the President does if they wanted to. Refusing to fund Vietnam or Iraq would've made those campaigns not worth doing since the President would have a) not enough time due to a cap on the amount of time he may send troops in and b) no additional funds.
"Look at the US. They do not respect other nations sovereign rights. Their allies are Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Israel and the like. They subsidize China and overlook Chinese human right abuses. They do not even care enough about the environment to ratify the Kyoto. It is a sad, sad state of affairs."
What does any of that have to do with sovereign rights? I see you lumped Israel in with Pakistan and the Saudis. Interesting that we also have Australia, Great Britain, Spain and others. I guess they are EVIL too.
Show that the "atrocities" of Abu Ghraib was the will of the American people. Until then it has nothing to do with our values. Again, what does Guatanomo Bay have to do with values? We don't like people that were caught aiding terrorists? I can't believe it! We trained the Taliban to resist a Soviet occupation of a sovereign nation. We do have values. Those values got George Bush elected over John Kerry. You might not agree with the values, but we certainly do have some pretty strong ones (strong enough that we'd vote on abortion or gay marriage and to hell with anything else apparently...).
We're not the only ones with SUVs or McDonalds btw. Pretty weak arguments based on stereotypes.
"They are too high up in their "religious" and "moral" highground to care about the world."
I thought you said later we had no values? Oh yes, you just don't agree with them and thus they don't exist.
"While dictators are ruling countries like North Korea and Pakistan, they are more concerned about Iraq - the people need to be liberated, you know? The oil, most importantly."
Your argument about sovereignty would indicate that interfering with North Korea or Pakistan would be wrong anyway. Your whining about China is also quite hypocritical for the same reason. But this is more of the same stuff that's been all over
So, you posted more of same faulty arguments, contradicted yourself, and shown a disregard for anyone's opinions but your own. I'm sure that since my values are incompatible with your own, you probably think this post does not exist.
Oh no! Me too!
"Well then, where are the court documents and transcripts from the Daimler case?"
Just another example of some of the petty backbiting we can expect from the 'peanut gallery' of excommunicated Groklaw whiners.
I was witness to a couple of Al's whiney little diatribes - purile selfish petty bickering!
Your last quote is truly illustrative of your ilk's mindset, "Groklaw's loss is our gain". Thought the opposition was The SCO Group.
Long live the Groklaw Wannabes!
Bar
Next up they'll be overturning the right to vote or own property.
You are an idiot. Owning property is at the core of the beliefs of the middle-aged white men crowd.
It is the liberals who make claims that not all property should be owned, and if you have more property then you should pay more for each piece you own.
If anyone it is the hippies (note this is not a jab at the liberals, I actually mean the hippies) who want to abolish all property.
badness 10000
You were doing a reasonable job of slapping down an idiot (non christian, non catholic!?) until the above line. If the inhabitants of Guantanamo Bay were 'caught' aiding terrorists why haven't they been put on trial? Could it be anything to do with the lack of any real evidence against some of them? Why is the US government ignoring its obligations under the Geneva Conventions? For your information they require anyone whose status under them is unclear to be treated as a prisoner of war until that status has been clarified. Your government has failed on both counts, they are not being treated as POWs and their status has not been clarified.
Note, inventing a brand new category of 'enemy combatant' to suit your own desires does not count as clarification.
How did this troll get modded Insightful? Oh, right. This is slashdot. All you need for an Insightful mod is just to do some knee-jerk American bashing. OK, I could use some rating points.
Screw America.
Is that good enough?
As to some specific points above:
- Nearly half of the US voters who voted voted against the incombent president. It was a closely fought election, and not all US citizens can be blaimed for who gets elected.
- There are many in the US who object to SUVs. Even in the UK, I get to realise that SUVs are controversial over there in the US. Indeed, the anti-SUV movement is probably more developed over there than over here!
- Vietnam. Some of the strongest anti-Vietnam war protests were
... in the US!
- Americans have no values? What about; Freedom of Speech? Stallman and the GPL? The ACLU? Linux? (Linus Torvalds now lives and workds in the US). Democracy? (If Bush had lost the vote, he would have been out!).
- Abu Gharib/Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay have, and do, anger a lot of US citizens. At least one US soldier has been court marshalled and imprisoned for Abu Ghraib, and the US supreme Court has ruled against the US Administration on some os the Administration's tactics as Guantanamo Bay. (Legal representation, I believe, although not sure).
I could go on. All I will say is don't judge a whole nation on the actions of a few. And that goes for all nations, not just the US. I would no more hold the US people as a whole to account for what their current president does, that I would blame all of Russia for what Stalin did!Have a nice day!
Sesostris III
You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
How come some one hasent modded the above right wing nut job down?
* Carthago Delenda Est *
"Well, IANALE, but I'm guessing that the poster in question didn't have his or her name IN the post, and was relying entirely on the software (which isn't his/her writing) to attribute it for them."
The hair splitting, such as this statement represents, would be laughable if we read it coming from SCOG, coming from the Groklaw side it is disgusting.
People did not expect to be treated unfairly from someone who preached to the world how wonderful and pure their motives and ethics were. She was taken at her word.
IANAL
My faith is expressed through Nihilism. Do you understand?
"The catch being that since it's an open forum...."
Groklaw an open forum......Puhleese!
I saw her delete an account the other day for something she suspected someone might do in the future. (re: Maat)
(I would provide a link to her comment about it, but she has forbidden Groklaw being used in such a way.)
IANAL
My faith is expressed through Nihilism. Do you understand?
I am the registered owner of one hundred shares of The SCO Group's common stock (SCOX), and enjoy all the rights and privileges thereto pertaining (here's the certificate). I am not the direct or beneficial owner of any other shares of SCOX.
I also owe 14,400 shares of SCOX to various broker/dealers. My total interest in SCOX is a net shortage of 14,300 shares: when the share price increases by $1/share, the net value of my portfolio (assets minus liabilities) decreases by $14,300. Vice-versa for a decrease in the share price.
Thus, I benefit from any exarcerbation, not mitigation, of any "low value perception" of SCO.
As it says right at the top of scofacts.org:
... but it was already taken.
:{)
3 9/ 98/56#56
Now that I've thought about it, I completely disagree with what I've said previously.
http://www.ip-wars.net/comments/2004/11/28/2245
Patrick "The real deal" Jacobs
Actually, br3n's not gone yet, though Pam has threatened br3n, in a post on Groklaw, with "thinking deep thoughts" about doing deleting her.
Yes, this is Pam's way of getting agreement on GL -- not by arguing the points, but by threatening with deletion anyone who disagrees with her, whether at Groklaw, or *anywhere on the internet*.
Brilliant strategy, Pam. I mean, hey, it worked for Stalin.
It is official.
Netcraft confirms: SCO is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered SCO community when IDC confirmed that SCO market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all Linux distribution versions. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that SCO has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. SCO is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by falling dead last in a recent Linux distribution study.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict SCO's future. The hand writing is on the wall: SCO faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for SCO because SCO is dying. Things are looking very bad for SCO. As many of us are already aware, SCO continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
SCO UNIX is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time developers Simon Baldwin and Andrew Sharpe only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: SCO is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
SCO UNIX project leader Darl states that there are 7000 users of SCO UNIX. How many users of OpenServer are there? Let's see. The number of SCO UNIX versus OpenServer posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 OpenServer users. SCO UNIX posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of OpenServer posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of SCO UNIX. A recent article put SCO UNIX distribution at about 80 percent of the market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 SCO UNIX users. This is consistent with the number of SCO Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of half-baked SCO lawsuits, abysmal sales and so on, many development companies is going out of business and will probably be taken over by another company who will sell another troubled product. Now SCO is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that SCO has steadily declined in market share. SCO is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If SCO is to survive at all it will be among dilettante dabblers. SCO continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, SCO is dead.
Fact: SCO is dying
http://saveie6.com/
Actually, as far as I know, John F. Kennedy was the first and the last catholic President. John Kerry was the second catholic that ran for presidency (from the major parties). Grandparent apparently doesn't understand WASP.
Be warned, even Rome fell.
Correct, however it took thousands of years. Using your analogy, the world should be under the foot of the US for another 1800 years or so.
Might as well get comfortable...its going to be a long show.
There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
I'm an American and my more passionate posts often get modded as 'troll' or 'flamebait'. Perhaps it has more to do with the abusive nature of the language than the content of the post. Try making your point without the nasty rhetoric and see if your position is taken more seriously.
You forget, it's not a few, it's the majority that is accepting this, and the rest of the world is well in its rights to judge a nation by the actions of its majority. Iraq has happened, Guantanamo bay has happened, Abu Ghraib has happened, Falluja has happened, Molub and other towns are happening, and the ones ultimately responsible have been given a carte blanche to screw up some more. Face it, the excuse that the fuckup government was an accident does not work anymore. The US has chosen to go the Bush route and the nation (note, not every single individual) is judged by this. Right now, the US is well underway of becoming intensely evil, regardless of the large amount of decency that still exists.
Darl and friends will have drawn those huge salaries as long as possible before SCO gets smacked down. I'm sure some of them will also end up with cushy jobs that don't actually involve work at Microsoft or Sun when this is all over, too.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
"... when the share price increases by $1/share, the net value of my portfolio (assets minus liabilities) decreases by $14,300."
Wow, bad month for you Al - do you suppose people might think your articles and websites are an effort to damage SCO to your financial benefit?
Not exactly clean hands, Al.
Did you know that PJ has no financial interests in ANY of the litigants involved in SCO v World? That is what is called 'Clean Hands'!
I have to admit that I hope SCO gets cremated as well but my interests are purely environmental - a world without bottom feeding litigeous bastards can't help but be a better world.
Clean hands http://www.groklaw.net/
Bar
>
That's a curious conclusion you've come to, since for the last two months or so PJ has set up dedicated threads in SCO-related articles (titled Official "The SCO Group" Positions) which is reserved for official SCO representatives to freely post.
Pffft. Yeah, okay, PJ made an *exception* for official SCO representatives. Ever hear of the exception that proves the rule? Official SCO representatives *and only* official SCO representatives, are allowed to post anything other typical groklaw sucking up.
What if somebody who isn't an official SCO representatives has a different point of view? Oh, we won't have that on groklaw. What a kick in the teeth to those who have contributed so much.
Maybe you learn about the stock market before you imply Al has a conflict of interest.
/ bldef-shortselling.htm
"From his disclaimer and a link for you.
Disclosure: I have a net short position in SCO's common stock (14,300 shares as of 2004-11-15). Thus, I have a direct financial interest in decreasing the public perception of SCO's value, and the prudent reader will scrutinize any information I provide that is unflattering to SCO. To facilitate this, I attempt to provide, wherever possible, convenient links to more persuasive documents, e.g., links to images of signed court filings, or to SEC filings directly from sec.gov."
http://beginnersinvest.about.com/library/glossary
Bar, get a clue, his disclaimer is warning you that he may be unfairly biased against SCOX.
"Thus, I have a direct financial interest in decreasing the public perception of SCO's value, and the prudent reader will scrutinize any information I provide that is unflattering to SCO." - AP
Correct, however it took thousands of years. Using your analogy, the world should be under the foot of the US for another 1800 years or so.
Ok, I know this is nitpicking but although one could claim it was about 1800 years (until 1453 defeat of Byzantine, eastern Rome), in practice the full roman hegemony "only" lasted for couple of centuries (maybe from ~100BC until ~300 AD). The fall of western Rome (476?) split the empire in half, and although Byzantine did recover some land areas for a while, it never regained the same glory as pre-split, and started steady decline before crusades (triggered by the islamic expansion on 7th century AD).
Not that this really weakens your main point but... :-)
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
> Did you know that PJ has no financial interests in
> ANY of the litigants involved in SCO v World?
Not the litigants, no. However, there was a little problem of her involvement with an operation called OSRM, that was seeking to make a dollar by shilling for Linux insurance.
You'll have heard of OSRM, because that's the organization that Steve Ballmer and SCOX have been citing as recently supporting the case that Linux is full of potential intellectual property liabilities. 228 potential patent violations at last count -- but pay us and we'll protect you.
(Now where have I heard *that* line before?)
Granted, she's just resigned from OSRM, but any attempt to discuss the fact that she was working for a FUD factory on Groklaw would get you banned.
> That is what is called 'Clean Hands'!
Mmmmm. I've got another term for it myself. It doesn't resemble yours in the slightest.
Well, as you seem to imply that you have better intelligence on this matter could you enlighten the world as to the 'truth'? What is your version of events?
My faith is expressed through Nihilism. Do you understand?
"Maybe you learn about the stock market before you imply Al has a conflict of interest."
Of course Al has a conflict of interest, it is just not a concealed conflict of interest.
Al has a clearly disclosed a vested interest in the demise of TSCOG. No disclaimer can possibly change that fact.
Maybe you should look up the words "conflict of interest" before you start bitching about my post.
Bar
"That's a curious conclusion you've come to, since for the last two months or so PJ has set up dedicated threads in SCO-related articles (titled Official "The SCO Group" Positions) which is reserved for official SCO representatives to freely post."
Harlan, a prolific groklaw poster now excommunicated and unpersoned by PJ, claims PJ puts under autohide posters she suspects to be affiliated with SCO. The Official SCO thread looks very much like a lie.
"Bar, get a clue, his disclaimer is warning you that he may be unfairly biased against SCOX."
I know Al posted a disclaimer! How does that contradict the facts of my post.
Al has publicly stated he has a financial interest in the defeat of The SCO Group - how does that somehow automagically give him "clean hands"? It doesn't!
I repeat, http://www.groklaw.net/ = clean hands.
Bar
Even as much as I tease you Linux guys, I got to say that no one - NO ONE - really has a case against Linux stealing from anyone. Really, where do I send money for the Linux Defense Fund? Really, you Linux guys make a Great Server, but not so convinced about your desktop - yet. Good luck guys!
"OSRM... was seeking to make a dollar by shilling for Linux insurance."
Not totally correct but close enough to resemble the facts.
OSRM is going to provide an assurance program for large juicy companies that absolutely require such things. This will not be for anybody less than 10,000 seats. Many large organization REQUIRE such coverage and if Linux can get that coverage, it won't get through the front door.
What is a fact is that OSRM blundered massively with their '283" possible patent conflicts - I was as pissed as the next guy about that statement because of it's potential to be used out of context by such as SCO and Microsoft in their ongoing FUD campaigns.
So PJ resigned, not because there was a conflict of interest but because of the appearance of conflict.
Cheers for PJ and a raspberry for Al.
As for your last remark concerning PJ, I have a short perjorative comment for you - can you guess what it is?
Bar
> I have also been reading GL since it began
...
> posting about SCO's claims concerning Linux.
Ah!
> Groklaw was the rally point, the beacon that
> brought into sharp perspective the fallicies of
> SCO's many claims.
Ahh!
> As with any bright light, it attracked some
> flies that gathered in the glow of 'the good
> fight'. Much petty bickering concerning PJ's
> style and operations became a regular theme of
> some threads on GL.
Ah. Ah. Ah!
> Pam simply decided that such posts were
> contraproductive so removed them from the
> online message board. Repeat offeneders were
> booted off having their account reverting to
> anonymous.
Ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah...
> Groklaw continues to thrive now that most
> of the bleating whiners have been cropped
> from the message boards. Court documents
> continue to arrive and be converted to text
> in a timely manner and Pam's comments
> continue to chisel away at the SCO legal
> position while reflecting on the morality
> of such groups.
OhmygodI'm coming...
> Walter is just one less GL whiner whose
> loss is not refected by the enthusiasm of
> the remaining GLers.
Aaaaggghhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Wow. How was that, Mistress PJ? Was it as good for you as it was for me?
- another loyal reddress fanboi
Thank goodness she doesn't have the powers of arrest and torture Stalin had.
Yes. She's given every indication that if she did she'd use them.
" Well, there's been no confirmation from Netcraft yet..."
It is official.
Netcraft confirms: SCO is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered SCO community when IDC confirmed that SCO market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all Linux distribution versions. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that SCO has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. SCO is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by falling dead last in a recent Linux distribution study.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict SCO's future. The hand writing is on the wall: SCO faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for SCO because SCO is dying. Things are looking very bad for SCO. As many of us are already aware, SCO continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
SCO UNIX is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time developers Simon Baldwin and Andrew Sharpe only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: SCO is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
SCO UNIX project leader Darl states that there are 7000 users of SCO UNIX. How many users of OpenServer are there? Let's see. The number of SCO UNIX versus OpenServer posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 OpenServer users. SCO UNIX posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of OpenServer posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of SCO UNIX. A recent article put SCO UNIX distribution at about 80 percent of the market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 SCO UNIX users. This is consistent with the number of SCO Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of half-baked SCO lawsuits, abysmal sales and so on, many development companies is going out of business and will probably be taken over by another company who will sell another troubled product. Now SCO is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that SCO has steadily declined in market share. SCO is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If SCO is to survive at all it will be among dilettante dabblers. SCO continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, SCO is dead.
Fact: SCO is dying
http://saveie6.com/
Exorcist may have a different answer, but the geek would say:
"When the parent process (Microsoft) calls wait*() on him, or dies".
What would be quite close to the truth.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Inaccuracy: Only once has the US ever elected a Catholic President (JFK).
Moll.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
And lying to or through Congress should be made a capital offence, even for Presidents.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Cheers to PJ for undoing something she should have not done in the first place. Nothing like 20/20 hindsight.
Not sure what Al holding a short postion in SCO stock, that is betting it will go down, has to do with this.
So you are upset about his "conflict of interest" because you want SCO to succeed?
I would assume most intelligent people have a conflict of interest in terms of supporting SCO once they have some understanding of the facts.
# host 149.156.96.35
35.96.156.149.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer hell.pl.
French, is it?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
"Not sure what Al holding a short postion in SCO stock, that is betting it will go down, has to do with this."
Does the concept of 'clean hands" and 'conflict of interest' not ring a bell?
Bar
Yes, he would like to see SCOX fail, a sentiment many here feel. Is this supposed to make me doubt his article or court transcripts?
He has also been very upfront with disclosing his short position in SCOX as you point out, it is not concealed.
This all sounds more like an attempt to attack his character like some of the other posts here. I guess if you can't attack the facts the next best thing is to attack the person.
This makes you and GrokLaw honorable how?
She doesn't support either abuse, or the posting of text which might get GrokLaw closed down (and usually they're synonymous).
/dev/null, I'd be very surprised, 'coz I'm pretty sure I would have by now (call me prejudiced, or call me experienced, makes no difference in how it works). If you'd been on FidoNet, you'd have been downed for TEA and XA long ago there as well.
If you post an alternate PoV that is not abusive, she will leave it there - unless you've been so consistently abusive in the past that she's already toileted your account.
If she hasn't fed your account to
So... learn to express yourself in a socially constructive manner and the gates to acceptance will open before you. Refuse, and you're condemned to a frustrating on-line life forever. That's not a decree from me, that's just how life works.
Get it? Got it? Oh, never mind. This is SlashDot.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Who knows why but the stock is climbing up past 4.5! Wtf? Shouldn't all this bad news be bringing it down?
...is a separate question.
Evil thought: I very rarely get negative mods. Does that mean I'm a moron? (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
If Al was, so to speak, waving his mud-encrusted dipstick in PJ's face then I can understand why she'd banish him. I'd expect her to also banish Scientologists, Mormons or Atheists who were using her site to promote their views instead of for discussing the legal issues there posted. But if you're going to claim that she kicked him off just for choosing to be bent, link to some verifiable testimony. SCOfacts appears to be down right now, so I can't search for myself.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Thanks for the great reply. I did notice that the Wikipedia entry also talked a lot of what you'd said, except for the cultural nuances ofcourse ;)
If the BSA pulled that shit on me running a GNU/Linux shop they'd find themselves on the wrong end of a lawsuit.
My other OS is also FreeBSD
You'd all be speaking english if it weren't for...oh, wait. Nevermind...
I've never seen a link to scofacts from Groklaw.
Also, Al has a vested interest in SCO's stock price downfall, because he's shorted it.
He loses credibility for that but not as much because he states it himself.
DirecTV's more interesting tactics were technical.
[Me, I still live in the legal gray world where I believe I have a right to time, space and device shift content I lawfully receive from DirecTV and believe all technical means to achieve those ends ought to be legal. Simulatneously, I don't believe I have a right to grab their signal for free with a hacked card, nor should I download movies or music content for which I haven't already paid the copyright owner. So, to the extent that hacker technology helps me, I support it, even if it puts me askew the DMCA.]
"Provided by the management for your protection."
I don't believe it!
Am I wrong, or wasn't one of the reasons SCO filed a motion against DaimlerChrysler in the first place was to get DaimlerChrysler to certify that they had complied with the old UNIX License? I thought that DaimlerChrysler refused to certify at first and that's one of the reasons SCO took them to court.
So we are against the people that want SCO to fail?
A quick search on GrokLaw turned up 43 references for SCOFacts.org, Al's website including audio files from court hearings.
Often times his site is not mentioned by name because of his falling out with PJ, but if you start looking you will see his transcripts are quite used on GL.
This isn't the knitting group?
... not 'qualities'.
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
And you give every indication that you would rape babies if you had access.
See how easy this fun libel game is?
Maybe you (and your opponents) need to back off this shit and then the "conflict" would become a reasonable to deal with matter.
I don't post to groklaw and could not care less about the politics between people in the anti-sco side. All I care about is news related to the SCOX vs. world issue.
It's fine to disagree, even loudly, but you just cant trust the words of a fascist or baby rapist about the other side in this.