The companies that started home broadband, put up huge money, and took huge risks. I don't know that any of them are in the black from their investments yet. Most are out of business: TCI, @home, AT&T broadband.
Now, 3rd parties just get to walk in, and take advantage of everything that's been done with no effort and no risk.
Doesn't seem fair, or maybe I'm missing something.
>>Well, despite the excellent information provided by groklaw, it is simply unreasonable to assume that SCO's case is completely baseless.>These are intelligent, wealthy people, and they did not get that way by filing groundless lawsuits.
Wrong. Check their histroy. Scox has never been profitable by legitimate sales of products or services. All of scox's money has come from: 1) bogus IPO (still under investigation by SEC). 2) Lawsuit against MSFT. FUD money from msft and sunw.
>>Ok, so SCO is now under $8 a share, which puts it's market cap around $120 million.>Also, it appears that SCO insiders now own less than 50% of the stock, while institutions own a like 40% and over 10% is in private hands.>I would think that it there are several two and three letter companies that might be willing to pay a significant premium to make SCO go away.
IBM? Forget it. If IBM wanted to pay to make scox go away, IBM would have done so a year ago. Now, IBM has scox on the ropes, and is just about to deliver the knock-out blow. Why would IBM back down now?
If I controlled the market, and I wanted to maximum profits: hardware and software would be free, but I would charge (a lot) for support. And I would make really crappy hardware and software.
Of course, I would have to maintain control of the market. Which shouldn't be that difficult considering the way the US justice system "works."
But should free downloading of copyrighted material be completely unrestrained?
If it's absolutely free to download all you want of whatever you want, how will recording artists, or promoters, get paid? And if they are not paid, what will keep them in business?
Is it possible that part of the reason for music becoming worse is that the best artists are saying "F--k it, why bother" ?
Does the riaa sue people for just downloading and using music, or is the riaa out for people who re-sell the music they download?
Why are college students targeted? Are they the worst offenders, or are they just easier to catch? Do the colleges help the RIAA here?
Does it really matter which P2P client is used? Can using a no-spyware p2p client prevent the riaa from detecting a user?
What if somebody doesn't have a static IP? Is the riaa going to supeona the ISP for somebody who was using a specific IP for a particular time, on a particular day? Do ISPs normally keep all that information? What about users who are behind home routers? Or behind routers at companies that don't wish to cooperate with the riaa? Aren't there way to hide your IP address?
It turns out that everything we thought was good for us (health food) is actually bad, and everything we thought was bad for us (cigerettes, brownies) is actually good.
Think what you want of Woody Allan, he was dead right with that one. A few years ago, coffee caused prostate cancer, now it's healthy. Eating fat used to make you fat, now fat is okay - but you have to watch those carbs. Wine is now good for you, last I heard.
I think we have gotten to the point were knowing where to find technical information is a skill in itself.
Recently, a pc-tech friend of mine, jokingly suggested that instead of asking questions about which cpu goes with which socket, the a+ cert exam should ask: which web-site do you go to in order to find out which cpu goes with which socket? Or, where do you go to get a hardware driver?
Actually, I think that sort thing makes sense. I have long sense given up on trying to memorize all those details. Instead, I try to know which web-sites to go to. Nobody can memorize all the details anymore, somebody who knows where to go to quickly find information, can get a lot more done, a lot faster.
On the yahoo message boards, whenever somebody dumps a load of shares, and thereby causes a sharp (but usually tempory) price drop; it is often commented: "looks like somebody took a sco."
Why should scox be given *another* 45 days to produce evidence that scox was ordered to produce in Jan, and again in Feb? Isn't the court rewarding scox for not complying with two court orders?
And shouldn't scox have had this evidence over a year ago, before scox filed the lawsuit?
And why is the judge giving scox credit for making a "good faith effort" to provide evidence, when it is plainly obvious that scox has been playing "hide the ball" with the evidence all along?
>>IF SCO had a case and could PROVE it they wouldn't dragging the case until now.
As IBM said on Dec 5th: "either scox has the evidence, or they don't." Scox should have had this evidence a year ago, before they filed against IBM. Scox was given a direct court orders to produce this evidence in January and again in February.
Yet after all this time, and all of scox's obvious "hide the ball" stunts, and all of scox's idiotic execuses. Judge Wells is giving scox credit for making a "good faith effort" and is giving scox at least another 45 days to just produce evidence, and the judge is forcing ibm to turn over evidence to scox - in spite of the fact that it was scox who started the lawsuit.
The judge must be aware of scox's extortion racket, yet the judge is holding the door wide open for scox to continue their crimminal activities.
SCOX is largly owned by canopy, and canopy is largely owned by a shadowy group called "Angel Investors." Angel Invesors is *very* closely associated with the church of LDS.
So, Mr CEO Marsh, do you feel *more* protected from scox now that you have a contract with scox?
Remember the words of scox's cfo, chriss sontag: "contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with."
What you have bought, for your $1M+, Mr Marsh? Now your company is much more at risk of a lawsuit from scox. Plus, you've alienated the linux community. Last I read, about 28% of your linux users are threatening to take their business elsewhere. What does it take to get a job like yours, Mr Marsh? An IQ below 80?
Scox has stated that they have grounds to anybody for just *using* linux. For several months scox has been threatening to sue a company for using linux. Supposedly, this would prove scox has a case.
But, in this case, the suit is about copying SCO owned libraries, it has nothing to do with using Linux. AutoZone has allegedly copied some SCO software onto an OS that happens to be Linux. AutoZone is *not* being sued for using Linux.
How much did he pay? I've seen this "7 figure" claim all over the message boards (yahoo,groklaw,slashdot) but I can't find that in any article, or news release.
It's possible that he didn't pay anything, and got a break on win2003 servers from msft.
Are you aware of EV1's msft success story so prominently displayed on msft web-site? Seems like an awfully cozy relationship to me.
And consider the timing. Scox has a windfall of negative news right now, and earnings come out Wednesday; what convenient timing for this PR hype.
The guy is CEO of #6 web-hosting company in the USA. Hardly an idiot. Certainly his company has a legal department. Certainly they know about redhat indemnification, certainly they know that scox can't sue their customers, certainly they how laughably weak scox's case is.
And notice how Marsh doesn't give any real information? Notice how he tap dances around the real issues? This guy knows what he's doing.
Marsh isn't an idiot, he's another scam artist. His "hip" act doesn't fool me. Mr "headsurfer" and "redhat is awesome" I'm not falling for any of that. I'm not buying that "I'm your buddy" bullsh!t.
Is he just stupid, or is he another scam artist? I firmly believe the latter. At first, I didn't feel that way. But the more this smarmy jackass tries to defend his stance, the more I become convinced he's another msft stooge.
>>By now, many of you have heard of oru agreement with SCO. What you have probably heard, though, is misinformation about the arrangement.>We license Linux through Red Hat. They provide our distribution and support/updates for the Enterprise distribution. Plus, they do an awesome job at delivering. Their support and dedication is second to none. Our agreement with SCO is in no way any kind of indictment on Red Hat.>We did not license a linux distribution or any software covered by a referenced EULA from SCO. We did, however, license certain IP from SCO.>We fullly support the GPL and the open source movement.>Other have claimed that we're essentially funding SCOs various lawsuits. This is not true. SCO already has like $60 million on hand and our small fee would not go very far defending an action such as this, much less prosecuting one.>We make no endorsement of SCO nor do we make any admission as to their claims.>HOWEVER, what we did do was make a prudent business decision based upon our circumstances and our customers needs and the need to bring certainty to their businesses.>the vast majority of smaller hosts using our services do not have our resources to defend/prosecute such an action
He goes on and on like this. Methinks he doth protest too much, about how is just protecting his customers - the informed here know that this arguement makes no sense.
Again, the more he goes on, the more this entire thing has that rancid stench of msft all over it.
BTW: I have not been able to register on the ev1 site.
As long as the US justice system prefers to look the other way, scox wins. It doesn't matter if scox is right or wrong. This is just a smash-and-grab, and it's working.
Sure, there is a slam-dunk case against scox. Of course scox won't win in the long run. What does that have to do with anything?
Yeah, they did the same thing the last quarter also. That's when they sent the threat letters. Just a stunt to draw attention away from scox gushing red ink.
>>Come on, if SCO really did have them behind them they would be showing at least some sign of competency
Competecy? Are you kidding? This is stock scam, it's been going on for a year, and still going very strong. The market cap has been pumped from under $20 to over $150 million in a year. And scox was never worth even $20 million. This scam is way beyond competent.
Not that scox ever makes much sense, but I don't see how scox can sue an "average joe" when, just until a few days ago, scox wouldn't sell average joe a scox-source license if he begged for it.
Slashdot Mirror
The companies that started home broadband, put up huge money, and took huge risks. I don't know that any of them are in the black from their investments yet. Most are out of business: TCI, @home, AT&T broadband.
Now, 3rd parties just get to walk in, and take advantage of everything that's been done with no effort and no risk.
Doesn't seem fair, or maybe I'm missing something.
>>Well, despite the excellent information provided by groklaw, it is simply unreasonable to assume that SCO's case is completely baseless.>These are intelligent, wealthy people, and they did not get that way by filing groundless lawsuits.
Wrong. Check their histroy. Scox has never been profitable by legitimate sales of products or services. All of scox's money has come from: 1) bogus IPO (still under investigation by SEC). 2) Lawsuit against MSFT. FUD money from msft and sunw.
>>Ok, so SCO is now under $8 a share, which puts it's market cap around $120 million.>Also, it appears that SCO insiders now own less than 50% of the stock, while institutions own a like 40% and over 10% is in private hands.>I would think that it there are several two and three letter companies that might be willing to pay a significant premium to make SCO go away.
IBM? Forget it. If IBM wanted to pay to make scox go away, IBM would have done so a year ago. Now, IBM has scox on the ropes, and is just about to deliver the knock-out blow. Why would IBM back down now?
If I controlled the market, and I wanted to maximum profits: hardware and software would be free, but I would charge (a lot) for support. And I would make really crappy hardware and software.
Of course, I would have to maintain control of the market. Which shouldn't be that difficult considering the way the US justice system "works."
I think there are legitamite gripes with RIAA.
But should free downloading of copyrighted material be completely unrestrained?
If it's absolutely free to download all you want of whatever you want, how will recording artists, or promoters, get paid? And if they are not paid, what will keep them in business?
Is it possible that part of the reason for music becoming worse is that the best artists are saying "F--k it, why bother" ?
Does the riaa sue people for just downloading and using music, or is the riaa out for people who re-sell the music they download?
Why are college students targeted? Are they the worst offenders, or are they just easier to catch? Do the colleges help the RIAA here?
Does it really matter which P2P client is used? Can using a no-spyware p2p client prevent the riaa from detecting a user?
What if somebody doesn't have a static IP? Is the riaa going to supeona the ISP for somebody who was using a specific IP for a particular time, on a particular day? Do ISPs normally keep all that information? What about users who are behind home routers? Or behind routers at companies that don't wish to cooperate with the riaa? Aren't there way to hide your IP address?
I have never known anybody to use PHP to do sys admin stuff. Is it really commonly done? In not, why not?
It turns out that everything we thought was good for us (health food) is actually bad, and everything we thought was bad for us (cigerettes, brownies) is actually good.
Think what you want of Woody Allan, he was dead right with that one. A few years ago, coffee caused prostate cancer, now it's healthy. Eating fat used to make you fat, now fat is okay - but you have to watch those carbs. Wine is now good for you, last I heard.
I think we have gotten to the point were knowing where to find technical information is a skill in itself.
Recently, a pc-tech friend of mine, jokingly suggested that instead of asking questions about which cpu goes with which socket, the a+ cert exam should ask: which web-site do you go to in order to find out which cpu goes with which socket? Or, where do you go to get a hardware driver?
Actually, I think that sort thing makes sense. I have long sense given up on trying to memorize all those details. Instead, I try to know which web-sites to go to. Nobody can memorize all the details anymore, somebody who knows where to go to quickly find information, can get a lot more done, a lot faster.
On the yahoo message boards, whenever somebody dumps a load of shares, and thereby causes a sharp (but usually tempory) price drop; it is often commented: "looks like somebody took a sco."
Why should scox be given *another* 45 days to produce evidence that scox was ordered to produce in Jan, and again in Feb? Isn't the court rewarding scox for not complying with two court orders?
And shouldn't scox have had this evidence over a year ago, before scox filed the lawsuit?
And why is the judge giving scox credit for making a "good faith effort" to provide evidence, when it is plainly obvious that scox has been playing "hide the ball" with the evidence all along?
>>IF SCO had a case and could PROVE it they wouldn't dragging the case until now.
As IBM said on Dec 5th: "either scox has the evidence, or they don't." Scox should have had this evidence a year ago, before they filed against IBM. Scox was given a direct court orders to produce this evidence in January and again in February.
Yet after all this time, and all of scox's obvious "hide the ball" stunts, and all of scox's idiotic execuses. Judge Wells is giving scox credit for making a "good faith effort" and is giving scox at least another 45 days to just produce evidence, and the judge is forcing ibm to turn over evidence to scox - in spite of the fact that it was scox who started the lawsuit.
The judge must be aware of scox's extortion racket, yet the judge is holding the door wide open for scox to continue their crimminal activities.
The Mormon Mafia must be powerful in Utah.
I bought a 256MB stick for $10 after rebate.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040303/law083_1.html
Wow, two more major lawsuits on the same day.
Lemme see, so far, that's: IBM,NOVL,AZO,DCX . . .
SCOX is largly owned by canopy, and canopy is largely owned by a shadowy group called "Angel Investors." Angel Invesors is *very* closely associated with the church of LDS.
So, Mr CEO Marsh, do you feel *more* protected from scox now that you have a contract with scox?
Remember the words of scox's cfo, chriss sontag: "contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with."
What you have bought, for your $1M+, Mr Marsh? Now your company is much more at risk of a lawsuit from scox. Plus, you've alienated the linux community. Last I read, about 28% of your linux users are threatening to take their business elsewhere. What does it take to get a job like yours, Mr Marsh? An IQ below 80?
This is important.
Scox has stated that they have grounds to anybody for just *using* linux. For several months scox has been threatening to sue a company for using linux. Supposedly, this would prove scox has a case.
But, in this case, the suit is about copying SCO owned libraries, it has nothing to do with using Linux. AutoZone has allegedly copied some SCO software onto an OS that happens to be Linux. AutoZone is *not* being sued for using Linux.
This is classic scox-speak.
How much did he pay? I've seen this "7 figure" claim all over the message boards (yahoo,groklaw,slashdot) but I can't find that in any article, or news release.
It's possible that he didn't pay anything, and got a break on win2003 servers from msft.
Are you aware of EV1's msft success story so prominently displayed on msft web-site? Seems like an awfully cozy relationship to me.
And consider the timing. Scox has a windfall of negative news right now, and earnings come out Wednesday; what convenient timing for this PR hype.
The guy is CEO of #6 web-hosting company in the USA. Hardly an idiot. Certainly his company has a legal department. Certainly they know about redhat indemnification, certainly they know that scox can't sue their customers, certainly they how laughably weak scox's case is.
And notice how Marsh doesn't give any real information? Notice how he tap dances around the real issues? This guy knows what he's doing.
Marsh isn't an idiot, he's another scam artist. His "hip" act doesn't fool me. Mr "headsurfer" and "redhat is awesome" I'm not falling for any of that. I'm not buying that "I'm your buddy" bullsh!t.
Is he just stupid, or is he another scam artist? I firmly believe the latter. At first, I didn't feel that way. But the more this smarmy jackass tries to defend his stance, the more I become convinced he's another msft stooge.
>>By now, many of you have heard of oru agreement with SCO. What you have probably heard, though, is misinformation about the arrangement.>We license Linux through Red Hat. They provide our distribution and support/updates for the Enterprise distribution. Plus, they do an awesome job at delivering. Their support and dedication is second to none. Our agreement with SCO is in no way any kind of indictment on Red Hat.>We did not license a linux distribution or any software covered by a referenced EULA from SCO. We did, however, license certain IP from SCO.>We fullly support the GPL and the open source movement.>Other have claimed that we're essentially funding SCOs various lawsuits. This is not true. SCO already has like $60 million on hand and our small fee would not go very far defending an action such as this, much less prosecuting one.>We make no endorsement of SCO nor do we make any admission as to their claims.>HOWEVER, what we did do was make a prudent business decision based upon our circumstances and our customers needs and the need to bring certainty to their businesses.>the vast majority of smaller hosts using our services do not have our resources to defend/prosecute such an action
He goes on and on like this. Methinks he doth protest too much, about how is just protecting his customers - the informed here know that this arguement makes no sense.
Again, the more he goes on, the more this entire thing has that rancid stench of msft all over it.
BTW: I have not been able to register on the ev1 site.
I doubt it. This smells like a sweet-heart deal to me. Msft stench all over it.
Even scox isn't saying they are going to sue users just for using a linux based web host.
As long as the US justice system prefers to look the other way, scox wins. It doesn't matter if scox is right or wrong. This is just a smash-and-grab, and it's working.
Sure, there is a slam-dunk case against scox. Of course scox won't win in the long run. What does that have to do with anything?
>>Do I detect a pattern here?
Yeah, they did the same thing the last quarter also. That's when they sent the threat letters. Just a stunt to draw attention away from scox gushing red ink.
And it works, it works like a charm.
>>Come on, if SCO really did have them behind them they would be showing at least some sign of competency
Competecy? Are you kidding? This is stock scam, it's been going on for a year, and still going very strong. The market cap has been pumped from under $20 to over $150 million in a year. And scox was never worth even $20 million. This scam is way beyond competent.
Ever hear of the Mormon Mafia?
Not that scox ever makes much sense, but I don't see how scox can sue an "average joe" when, just until a few days ago, scox wouldn't sell average joe a scox-source license if he begged for it.