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
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:
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.
ninthwave: "My id here is the same as on Groklaw and I have had some serious disagreement with PJ and my account has remained."
/., you may find that your account will be gone soon anyway.
Why don't you tell us about them? I guarantee your account will be sandoxed within a week and removed within six weeks if you do.
Alternately, having even said as much as you have on
I have never broken any of the posting guidelines at Groklaw, yet my account was removed anyway, and the authorial attributions for all my posts, over 425 at latest count, many quite lengthy, have been removed.
When I asked what the underlying offense was, I was told in an e-mail from Pam Jones, "You know why."
Well, I don't. And still don't. The only plausible hypothesis, seemingly confirmed by Pam, though she's so vague it's hard to know for sure, is that I posted some commentary at Y!SCOX to that made Pam's life "difficult" by pointing out that she need to clarify GL's CCL licensing grant, because the way it was worded implied that posts as well as articles were licensed under the CCL.
After clarifying the licensing notice, as suggested, she then went forth and called everyone involved in the discussion "SCO shills, trolls, and astroturfers".
Yeah, a real reasonable person to deal with.
They think that the war in Iraq was started in light of incredibly bad intelligence, and that the president is an idiot to have made the conclusion to go to war this soon. They do not care whether or not abortion is outlawed, since it does not affect any of us directly, and if abortion does become outlawed, it will practically take a constitutional amendment, and a huge court case, etc anyway. Education is a problem that they believe is not solved. All in all they are pretty embarassed over Bushes track record, but they still voted for him.
Why? Mostly because these people (as well as most Americans) do not believe in third parties. And when deciding between Bush and Kerry, Bush is still more appealing. Why do they think so? A couple of things.
There are more reasons as well, but they become too specific. Note that most of these people are non-christian, and yet they still vote for Bush, not because they are a "moral majority", but because they continued to feel that Bush is still a better candidate to Kerry.
So please do not lump the Bush voters with the heartless, wrestling watching, SUV driving, anything to get cheaper oil crowd. Not all of them are. Some of us hate the "pave the planet" crowd, "redefine pi as 3 crowd", "do not teach evolution" crowd, "only christian prayer and at all events" crowd. However, these people continue to think that Bush is still a better choice, mostly because although he is one of those people, he does not make the country even more so. We still have our freedoms to not follow Bush's ideal, and we speak out against them at any opportunity we have. And yet we still vote for Bush. Because of the two people who could be elected, he represents the least damage.
At least in our opinion. If you say that our opinion is wrong, back up with fact saying why Kerry is a better choice than Bush. I can assure you that has an IQ of the carrot and acts like a chimp argument has already been considered, and deemed irrelevant, as only the decisions that he makes are relevant. Bush does not make much of his own decisions anyway, but the party's (or Cheney's) decisions could still be better than Kerry's.
Oh, and please make your comments about minimum wage being a good idea. I would love to hear them, but so far I have heard only the straw arguments, and people claiming that completely devalued dollar and high unemployment is good for the eco
badness 10000