Their case would be EXTREMELY weak, however, if they are able to get one jury/judge to say "yes, it's infringement" against a user of GNU/Linux, it might weigh somewhat in their favor come time for the big trial against IBM.
My guess is that they are hoping that the stupidity of the average jury in dealing with these issues will help them.
I personally don't think that they have a chance given recent leaks about what the code is and recent ludicrous statements that they have made about 3,000,000 lines in 2.4 belonging to them. That amount of code would rule out pretty much any other contribution OTHER than SCO's code to the kernel for the 2.4 release.
They are, in my opinion, playing the pump/dump game.
I'm saying that I have had managers in the past who, for whatever reason, thought that the braindead, idiotic way they wanted to do something was better when I have a degree and they do not and I, from experience, know that my way would work better.
It's all about control. When an interviewing boss finds someone he/she can dominate, they get hired. When the find someone who has a will of their own or who might know better than they do, they usually won't hire the person because they are not "easily controlled" and will "cause problems".
I am not in your camp, you can count on that. I was being facetious against the point of view expressed earlier.
Should we expect telephones to be banned as well? I mean, I could tell my buddy that a movie sucks just as easily as I could text him... or ooo ooo EMAIL, now there's the thing!!!
My guess is that by "potential trouble" you mean "someone who won't listen to my inane ramblings about how to do his/her job because they know better than I do" type of a thing.
When does it get to the point where Boies and his firm can be charged with barratry? So far none of his strategies have worked against the community and it does seem like he's telling SCO to instigate all of this knowing that they've no chance in hell.
That seems to be the definition of barratry:
Barratry \Bar"ra*try\, n. [Cf. F. baraterie, LL. barataria. See
{Barrator}, and cf. {Bartery}.]
1. (Law) The practice of exciting and encouraging lawsuits
and quarrels. [Also spelt {barretry}.] --Coke. Blackstone.
I just can't stop laughing. Wasn't Sequent and *independently* owned and operated company? Hasn't SCO admitted that IBM owns the copyrights to NUMA and RCU?
This is just so damn funny, I can't believe it. I always knew that Linux would eventually beat proprietary UNIX in the marketplace, but I never expected it to go out with such an unbelievable whimper.
If that's so, wouldn't it make sense to hold onto it and make even MORE money? If I were Darl McBride I would hold on to the stock until it had reached it's peak.
This patent covers flash, java applets, activeX and etc, according the following link:
http://www.eolas.com/technology.html
Just because MS is hurt by this DOES NOT MEAN we are better off. I see this ruling as a double edged sword. Does this mean that anyone who develops a plug-in for Navigator or IE is now required to license this patent?
Some idiot moderated me down before for saying that software patents are a bad thing in general, but I'll say it again: Software patents are bad in general. Just because this appears to help us, doesn't mean that we're not next!
This kind of predatory patent activity has been rampant in the industry for years now. I mean, have you ever even heard of EOLAS? My bet is that it is purely a litigation engine just like refac.
Go ahead... mod me down, if you think I deserve it. But think about it before you do.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I personally have become so accustomed to hearing SCO's crap that I'm starting to find it comical.
How a company can do such ridiculous and unsubstantiated things is beyond my comprehension. It's obvious by now that this whole excercise has one purpose only: To make money for SCO. It's also obvious that if SCO's allegations had any basis in fact that they wouldn't be *still* engaging in such subterfuge.
The shame of it, for them, is that if they had stuck it out as a Linux vendor they might have reaped MORE benefits from that than from what they're doing to themselves now.:)
The moves you have made are pure extortion and I see jail time in your future. Your company is acting so desperate right now it's not funny.
If you have something to show the community, please do so. Don't show us in the NDA convered, top secret, bullshit, "code-review" sessions!! That doesn't count! Show us the goddamn code, or shut the hell up. If you believe that your tactics will work, I believe you need to think differently.
Now that you're basically suing everyone in site it's curtains for SCO-Caldera.
Thanks for taking the intent of the previous managment of SCO-Caldera and turning them on their head. Also, thanks for showing how dirty and underhanding companies like SCO-Caldera can be. You were once a respected member of the community and now you're just another asshole who believes he owns everything under the sun.
This is why Red Hat filed it's lawsuit against SCO and asked for a preliminary injunction to stop them from spreading the FUD and a summary judgement on the copyright issue. By doing this Red Hat gets to choose the location of the trial and ALSO may get a fast resolution to this.
Later, GJC Note: Not a lawyer, not legal advice, just know a little about the law.
I mean how would you feel if a teacher came to you and said "the computer says you're going to drop out, so we've got to do something right now despite the fact that you deny that is your intention"??
Some of these idiot teachers are actually daft enough to believe that the computer cannot be wrong.
When I was in HS, I did well, but I noticed that a great deal of time was spent by some teachers browbeating the kids as much as possible. There are some truly sadistic personalities in the public school system, I kid you not.
I wish that teachers would get down to the business of actually teaching the kids rather than engaging in this crap.
GJC
The above was taken as a joke. Seriously, however, do you know what I might be referring to when I say someone has "infringed my 'IP'"??
Out of context, you don't know if it's copyright, trademark, or patent rights. The laws governing these different areas is not at all similar, but yet they are lumped together. THAT's what I was referring to. The confusion over what *type* of "property" is being referred to. I wasn't arguing about what's covered by these laws and what's not. That should be obvious.
The term IP is confusing and I would urge that it not be used. It is confusing since it is often used to lump desparate laws of Copyright, Patent and Trademark as well as others together.
By using this term Mr. Gates is raising questions about all of these things lumped into that term, not just Patents or Trademarks.
The real question here is, can any company give us complete assurance that copyrighted or unlicensed material is not present in their software? Most companies DO NOT indemnify you for their infrigements (including MS even with their new license).
The answer to the above question is NO. Why? Because while Copyrights are easy to avoid infringement on in most cases, Patents are not. With Patents, it's like walking throught a mine field. There is no way of telling, short of doing an exhaustive search, if something is patented or not. In fact *MOST* patent attorneys will advise against doing such as search (really!!).
To learn more about patents and their evils in the software industry, please see the petition in my URL.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL, but here is my stab at it...
Their case would be EXTREMELY weak, however, if they are able to get one jury/judge to say "yes, it's infringement" against a user of GNU/Linux, it might weigh somewhat in their favor come time for the big trial against IBM.
My guess is that they are hoping that the stupidity of the average jury in dealing with these issues will help them.
I personally don't think that they have a chance given recent leaks about what the code is and recent ludicrous statements that they have made about 3,000,000 lines in 2.4 belonging to them. That amount of code would rule out pretty much any other contribution OTHER than SCO's code to the kernel for the 2.4 release.
They are, in my opinion, playing the pump/dump game.
Later, GJC
IANAL
I'm saying that I have had managers in the past who, for whatever reason, thought that the braindead, idiotic way they wanted to do something was better when I have a degree and they do not and I, from experience, know that my way would work better.
It's all about control. When an interviewing boss finds someone he/she can dominate, they get hired. When the find someone who has a will of their own or who might know better than they do, they usually won't hire the person because they are not "easily controlled" and will "cause problems".
I am not in your camp, you can count on that. I was being facetious against the point of view expressed earlier.
GJC
Should we expect telephones to be banned as well? I mean, I could tell my buddy that a movie sucks just as easily as I could text him... or ooo ooo EMAIL, now there's the thing!!!
GJC
My guess is that by "potential trouble" you mean "someone who won't listen to my inane ramblings about how to do his/her job because they know better than I do" type of a thing.
I think that about sums it, don't you?
GJC
Yes, security through obscurity should work just fine.
Thanks for the good show, dude. I must admit this is the most entertainment I've had in a very long time!! :)
GJC
It's an obvious ploy to scare the community.
Isn't this the same form-filled posting that I see for BSD some of the time??
Not that I don't hope that it's true, mind you.
GJC
Just in case anyone knows....
When does it get to the point where Boies and his firm can be charged with barratry? So far none of his strategies have worked against the community and it does seem like he's telling SCO to instigate all of this knowing that they've no chance in hell.
That seems to be the definition of barratry:
Barratry \Bar"ra*try\, n. [Cf. F. baraterie, LL. barataria. See
{Barrator}, and cf. {Bartery}.]
1. (Law) The practice of exciting and encouraging lawsuits
and quarrels. [Also spelt {barretry}.] --Coke. Blackstone.
Later,
GJC
I just can't stop laughing. Wasn't Sequent and *independently* owned and operated company? Hasn't SCO admitted that IBM owns the copyrights to NUMA and RCU?
This is just so damn funny, I can't believe it. I always knew that Linux would eventually beat proprietary UNIX in the marketplace, but I never expected it to go out with such an unbelievable whimper.
GJC
If that's so, wouldn't it make sense to hold onto it and make even MORE money? If I were Darl McBride I would hold on to the stock until it had reached it's peak.
Dumping now is a sure sign that something is up.
GJC
This patent covers flash, java applets, activeX and etc, according the following link:
http://www.eolas.com/technology.html
Just because MS is hurt by this DOES NOT MEAN we are better off. I see this ruling as a double edged sword. Does this mean that anyone who develops a plug-in for Navigator or IE is now required to license this patent?
Some idiot moderated me down before for saying that software patents are a bad thing in general, but I'll say it again: Software patents are bad in general. Just because this appears to help us, doesn't mean that we're not next!
This kind of predatory patent activity has been rampant in the industry for years now. I mean, have you ever even heard of EOLAS? My bet is that it is purely a litigation engine just like refac.
Go ahead... mod me down, if you think I deserve it. But think about it before you do.
GJC
Software Patents are wrong in any case. Please see my sig. I am also of the belief that copyright has been bent to the will of corporate interests.
GJC
I don't know about the rest of you, but I personally have become so accustomed to hearing SCO's crap that I'm starting to find it comical.
How a company can do such ridiculous and unsubstantiated things is beyond my comprehension. It's obvious by now that this whole excercise has one purpose only: To make money for SCO. It's also obvious that if SCO's allegations had any basis in fact that they wouldn't be *still* engaging in such subterfuge.
Darl, you're a funny man. I pity you.
GJC
Later, GJC
No. The company's management can, under certain conditions, still be held *personally* liable.
Later, GJC
The shame of it, for them, is that if they had stuck it out as a Linux vendor they might have reaped MORE benefits from that than from what they're doing to themselves now. :)
GJC
The moves you have made are pure extortion and I see jail time in your future. Your company is acting so desperate right now it's not funny.
If you have something to show the community, please do so. Don't show us in the NDA convered, top secret, bullshit, "code-review" sessions!! That doesn't count! Show us the goddamn code, or shut the hell up. If you believe that your tactics will work, I believe you need to think differently.
Now that you're basically suing everyone in site it's curtains for SCO-Caldera.
Thanks for taking the intent of the previous managment of SCO-Caldera and turning them on their head. Also, thanks for showing how dirty and underhanding companies like SCO-Caldera can be. You were once a respected member of the community and now you're just another asshole who believes he owns everything under the sun.
GJC
This is why Red Hat filed it's lawsuit against SCO and asked for a preliminary injunction to stop them from spreading the FUD and a summary judgement on the copyright issue. By doing this Red Hat gets to choose the location of the trial and ALSO may get a fast resolution to this.
Later, GJC
Note: Not a lawyer, not legal advice, just know a little about the law.
Some of these idiot teachers are actually daft enough to believe that the computer cannot be wrong.
GJC
When I was in HS, I did well, but I noticed that a great deal of time was spent by some teachers browbeating the kids as much as possible. There are some truly sadistic personalities in the public school system, I kid you not. I wish that teachers would get down to the business of actually teaching the kids rather than engaging in this crap. GJC
It's been in there since 1999.
The above was taken as a joke. Seriously, however, do you know what I might be referring to when I say someone has "infringed my 'IP'"??
Out of context, you don't know if it's copyright, trademark, or patent rights. The laws governing these different areas is not at all similar, but yet they are lumped together. THAT's what I was referring to. The confusion over what *type* of "property" is being referred to. I wasn't arguing about what's covered by these laws and what's not. That should be obvious.
GJC
Hopefully we'll get to see some stick soon!!!!
It's a rampant problem everywhere.
GJC
All,
The term IP is confusing and I would urge that it not be used. It is confusing since it is often used to lump desparate laws of Copyright, Patent and Trademark as well as others together.
By using this term Mr. Gates is raising questions about all of these things lumped into that term, not just Patents or Trademarks.
The real question here is, can any company give us complete assurance that copyrighted or unlicensed material is not present in their software? Most companies DO NOT indemnify you for their infrigements (including MS even with their new license).
The answer to the above question is NO. Why? Because while Copyrights are easy to avoid infringement on in most cases, Patents are not. With Patents, it's like walking throught a mine field. There is no way of telling, short of doing an exhaustive search, if something is patented or not. In fact *MOST* patent attorneys will advise against doing such as search (really!!).
To learn more about patents and their evils in the software industry, please see the petition in my URL.
Thanks, GJC