If you want to get mad at somebody, get mad at the US justice system. Scox, and scox conspirators (msft, sunw, royce, deutsch bank, canopy) have benefitted from this obvious scam for nearly a year.
The US justice system is a joke to them, and rightly so.
Slashdoters who think scox is stupid don't know what they're posting about. This is a great scam. When Darl first took over as ceo, the share price dropped to $0.60! Now the share price is 25X that. Is that your idea of stupid?
Scox-scam going strong for just under a year, so far.
>>It would seem Microsoft has no choice but to back down as, legally, it doesn't have a hope in hell of winning and there are plenty of lawyers out there who would love to get a win against Microsoft under their belt.
If msft can beat up on Lindows, and force them to stop using the name in - what was it - Holland? Then why not beat up on 17 year old Mike Rowe.
Selling a license to a technology that you do not own is serious fraud - prison time. Scox doesn't own linux.
Scox just wants "investors" to think that scox has some possible new sources on revenue.
A few people from the UK have already tried to buy licenses, scox wont sell them. Scox won't sell those licenses in the USA either. Call scox up and ask.
Scox sold baystar/rbc 2.9 million shares at $16.93 a share. If the share price drops $1 a share to $15.93, then scox got $1 more per share, than the shares are worth. Scox made $1 per share, or $2.9 million.
The MIT rocket scientists, who first discovered all these violations, didn't have access to the code that scox is requesting. Why can't scox simply present the findings of those MIT rocket scientists?
This is the same whine that Kevin used on Dec 5th. That scox needs access to all of ibm's aix code before scox could find evidence.The judge didn't like his arguement then.
Actually, scox was given more than 30 days to produce evidence. The case was on Dec 5th. It just wasn't filed until Dec 12th. But Kevin knew since Dec 5th.
Now scox is asking for another 90 days to produce evidence.
Careful this is scox speak. Scox is talking about unix licenses, not linux. And scox is probabably talking about anybody who ever bought any kind of unix.
1) Even there there is some unix code in linux, it doesn't mean that scox exclusively owns linux.
2) It is extremely doubtful that scox even owns any substantial amount of unix. novell just filed a load of unix copyrights.
3) Scox was distributing linux for several months after scox filed the lawsuit, therefore scox is as guilty as anybody for giving away the "trade secrets" in question.
4) Even if scox does have grounds to sue unix, that doesn't mean that scox can sue linux end users. If you buy a book with some plagerized matterial, the guy who was plagerized can sue the books author, but not you.
In six months, scox hasn't sold any "linux licenses" and scox hasn't sued any linux end users, in spite of numerous threats to do so "soon." Scox will not sell you a linux license if you beg them, many people - including me - have already called scox to them know that we're using linux.
Scox has told so many outright lies, it's hard to keep track. Here is a partial list:
1) Lie: SCO will revoke IBM's rights to sell, distribute, or use UNIX. Truth: SCO does not have the authority to revoke IBM's UNIX rights.
2) Lie: SCO will audit AIX users. Truth: SCO never did such an audit, and has no rights to do such an audit.
3) Lie: SCO owns C++. Truth: SCO may own a very old obsolete version.
4) Lie: The Berkeley Packet Filter code in Linux is "obfuscated" SCO code. Truth: Jay Schulist, who never had access to SCO code, implemented it from scratch.
5) Lie: We've gone in, we've done a deep dive into Linux, we've compared the source code of Linux with UNIX every which way but Tuesday Truth: Experts have shown that SCO used a simple, primitive text search based on a few keywords.
6) Lie: The IP protection legal team is on pure contingency Truth: The legal team is billing at a 2/3 discounted rate with the possibility of contingent commissions
7) Lie: We will show rock solid evidence at SCOForum in Las Vegas Truth: SCO was quickly shown to not have any ownership of the SCOForum evidence. The source code displayed at SCOForum might have been considered an honest mistake, if Sontag hadn't continued to dispute what was already irrefutably proven.
8) Lie: SCO's 2002 UNIX source release was "non-commercial" and excludes 32-bit code Truth: "The text of the letter, sent January 23, 2002, by Bill Broderick, Director of Licensing Services for Caldera [now SCO], in fact makes no mention of "non-commercial use" restrictions, does not include the words "non-commercial use" anywhere and specifically mentions "32-bit 32V Unix" as well as the 16-bit versions."
9) Lie: non-compete clause in the Novell agreement. Truth: no such clause.
10) Lie: SCO claims that Linux header files are "infringing code."
Truth: The header files are provably original and are noncopyrightable in any event.
11) Lie: We have been off meeting for the last several months with large corporate Linux end users. The pipeline is very healthy there. Truth: The pipeline is empty. All inquiries have been to assess SCO's claims and liability exposure.
12) Lie: SCO's expert witnesses are "MIT Mathematicians". Truth: Among various backpedaling statements, Paul Hatch, a SCO spokesman, wrote in a statement to The Tech,"'To clarify, the individuals reviewing the code had been involved with MIT labs in the past, but are not currently at MIT." ither SCO lied to the public (saying they existed) or SCO lied to the court (saying they didn't exist).
15) Lie: (To the Utah Judge on 12/5) SCO will make a copyright claim in two days, but no longer than a week Truth: Many weeks later and a copyright claim has not yet been made.
16) Lie: Last August SCO claimed to have sold Linux licenses to a Fortune 500 company that was not MS or SUN. Truth: According to SCO's SEC filings, that never happend.
17) Lie: "several" other Linux license sales SCO has claimed to have made since the first. Truth: According to SCO's SEC filings, that never happend.
18) Lie: the introductory price for licenses that was to increase on Oct 15 Truth: Once again, SCO changed their minds.
19) Lie: SCO claimed it would file against RedHat for copyright infringment and conspiracy Truth: No such charges were filed
20) Lie: SCO was going to appeal the fine imposed in Germany. Truth: that never happend.
Google is a customer of redhat. Presently, scox is trying to get redhat's case against scox dismissed, on the ground that scox isn't doing anything to hurt redhat's customers.
Also, I think the CEO of Google is an ex-novell exec, just like the present CEO of scox. In fact, I think they were both at novell at the same time.
A year ago, when scox was $1 a share, scox was a company that had never been profitable. Quite the opposite, scox had been gushing red ink since the day of it's bogus IPO. That IPO is still under investigation for fraud.
Furthermore, there was not any reason to think scox ever would be profitable. Scox's core product, UnixWare, was far inferior to Linux in performance and features, and far more expensive.
The only reason that scox ever had a profitable quarter was because of huge, one time, fud donations from msft and sunw. Even with those donations, scox had an unprofitable Q4.
Scox core business has decreased substantially since scox was $1.00. The scox phenominon was scam ochestrated by the insiders, for the insiders. If you want those sort of pofits, you have to be an insider, realistically there is no other way. So if you want want to increase your money 20X over in a few months in the stock market, start your own scam. There is really no other way.
>>Not to mention, threatening your OWN customers isn't a very smart thing to do.
If you want to run a long term business then no, suing your customers is not very smart.
But, what if you want to run a stock scam? Say what you want, but scox has increased their share 1800% so far with this scam. Scox used to have a $10 market cap, now scox has $65 million in cash.
>>This is is a pretty good post, but that last one is right off an IBM press release. It could happen.
According to scox's contract with novell, scox can not terminate anybody's UNIX license without expressed permission from novell. I think the contract is available on groklaw.net.
Has it been actually verified that these letters were really sent? Since this scam began, scox has told numerous lies of this nature. Here are a few examples of scox's outright lies (from a yahoo poster):
Lie: We've gone in, we've done a deep dive into Linux, we've compared the source code of Linux with UNIX every which way but Tuesday Truth: Experts have shown that SCO used a simple, primitive text search based on a few keywords.
Lie: SCO's expert witnesses are "MIT Mathematicians". Truth: Among various backpedaling statements, Paul Hatch, a SCO spokesman, wrote in a statement to The Tech,"'To clarify, the individuals reviewing the code had been involved with MIT labs in the past, but are not currently at MIT."
Lie: SCO received the D&T Fast 500 recognition because of the strong UNIX market, IP enforcement and the Web services strategy Truth: SCO made the list because of revenue growth due exclusively to the Tarantula acquisition.
Lie: The IP protection legal team is on pure contingency Truth: The legal team is billing at a 2/3 discounted rate with the possibility of contingent commissions
Lie: Boies was compensated $1.6M for a contingent event Truth: The engagement agreement specifically excludes heritage UNIX OEM license deals; Boies is being compensated 20% of the $8MM Microsoft license deal, which is a follow-on extension of the first deal, a UNIX license deal not eligible as a contingent event.
Lie: Invoices will be mailed to Linux users by October 15, 2003 Truth: No invoices were ever mailed.
Lie: We will show rock solid evidence at SCOForum in Las Vegas Truth: SCO was quickly shown to not have any ownership of the SCOForum evidence
Lie: The Berkeley Packet Filter code in Linux is "obfuscated" SCO code. Truth: Jay Schulist, who never had access to SCO code, implemented it from scratch.
Lie: SCO's 2002 UNIX source release was "non-commercial" and excludes 32-bit code Truth: "The text of the letter, sent January 23, 2002, by Bill Broderick, Director of Licensing Services for Caldera [now SCO], in fact makes no mention of "non-commercial use" restrictions, does not include the words "non-commercial use" anywhere and specifically mentions "32-bit 32V Unix" as well as the 16-bit versions."
Lie: We have been off meeting for the last several months with large corporate Linux end users. The pipeline is very healthy there. Truth: The pipeline is empty. All inquiries have been to assess SCO's claims and liability exposure.
Lie: We have done additional signups for Linux end-user licenses. We have a number of folks that are in the evaluation process, and we definitely have a lot of interest in what's going on there. Truth: During the earnings conference, SCO admitted that not a single Linux end-user license has been sold. Follow-on guidance comments warn that no such sales are expected in Q1.
Lie: Our claims are not trivial. Truth: Based on evidence provided to date, SCO's claims are extremely trivial, debunked in a matter of hours
Lie: claims that SCO has are both broad and deep. Truth: SCO's has made a breach of contract claim and a copyright infringement claim; all evidence presented to date has shown each of these claims to be trivial and unfounded
Lie: These claims touch not, just not IBM, but other vendors as well. Truth: Exhaustive code reviews by other SYSV licensees, including HP and SGI, have shown that the only Linux/SysV overlap concerns a small amount of public domain code.
Lie: (To the Utah Judge on 12/5) SCO will make a copyright claim in two days, but no longer than a week Truth: Many weeks later and a copyright claim has not yet been made.
Lie: During the recent road tour, Blake Stowell indicated that core operations were profitable in Q3. Truth: Core operations lost $3.8MM in Q3-03.
Lie: Sco will audit AIX users. Truth: It never happend.
Lie: Sco will revoke IBM rights to use, support, or distribute AIX. Truth: Those rights can not be revoked by scox.
Dopn't forget trolltech is a canopy company. Yarro sits on trolltech's BOD. Canopy and canopy companies have already sued msft, and ca. Scox, another canopy company is now suing IBM. All over IP violations. This is Canopy's real business.
Once you start mixing code, you open yourself up to lawsuits. Especially if you are mixing code with the lawuit-happy canopy. Canopy's entire existance is based on these kinds of lawsuits.
Dan starts the article by pointing out the failure of a dot-com pet-store - which did charge for it's products - is proof that free doesn't work? WTF? Can you say non-sequitur?
While your at it. Can you explain to danny-boy that network television has been free for 50 years, and radio has been free for much longer than that. Also mention that web-sites like yahoo are quite profitable. Furthermore, I think RedHat does indeed give Linux away for free.
If I was as stupid as Dan Lyons, would I get paid as much? Maybe I could fake it.
Aside from not trusting msft, I'm also disgusted with msft.
- Studies that "prove" msft superiority - secretly funded by msft. - supporting scox's extortion, fud, stock-scam. - sick of msft fud. - "updates" designed to lock-in users, instead of improving products. - strategically buying other companies, only to wreck products that might threaten msft. - deliberately breaking the law, then setteling when they get caught, as a way of doing business. - assorted other monopolist tactics.
btw: I still use XP. Linux just doesn't do what I need it to do.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to get mad at somebody, get mad at the US justice system. Scox, and scox conspirators (msft, sunw, royce, deutsch bank, canopy) have benefitted from this obvious scam for nearly a year.
The US justice system is a joke to them, and rightly so.
No wonder scox was up another $0.50 today.
Slashdoters who think scox is stupid don't know what they're posting about. This is a great scam. When Darl first took over as ceo, the share price dropped to $0.60! Now the share price is 25X that. Is that your idea of stupid?
Scox-scam going strong for just under a year, so far.
>>It would seem Microsoft has no choice but to back down as, legally, it doesn't have a hope in hell of winning and there are plenty of lawyers out there who would love to get a win against Microsoft under their belt.
If msft can beat up on Lindows, and force them to stop using the name in - what was it - Holland? Then why not beat up on 17 year old Mike Rowe.
Msft, is a bully, and a coward, by nature.
or anywhere else.
Selling a license to a technology that you do not own is serious fraud - prison time. Scox doesn't own linux.
Scox just wants "investors" to think that scox has some possible new sources on revenue.
A few people from the UK have already tried to buy licenses, scox wont sell them. Scox won't sell those licenses in the USA either. Call scox up and ask.
Scox sold baystar/rbc 2.9 million shares at $16.93 a share. If the share price drops $1 a share to $15.93, then scox got $1 more per share, than the shares are worth. Scox made $1 per share, or $2.9 million.
I guess.
The MIT rocket scientists, who first discovered all these violations, didn't have access to the code that scox is requesting. Why can't scox simply present the findings of those MIT rocket scientists?
This is the same whine that Kevin used on Dec 5th. That scox needs access to all of ibm's aix code before scox could find evidence.The judge didn't like his arguement then.
Actually, scox was given more than 30 days to produce evidence. The case was on Dec 5th. It just wasn't filed until Dec 12th. But Kevin knew since Dec 5th.
Now scox is asking for another 90 days to produce evidence.
SCO has claimed (under penalty of perjury) that they DID produce answers to ALL of IBMs interogatories (questions) before the deadline.
--
I don't think so. Go to groklaw and read the statement of compliance. Even there, scox admits that they don't have everything ibm is asking for.
if you beg them.
Go ahead, give it a try. A lot of people in the UK already have tried.
It's just part of the stock scam. Scox just needs investors to think that scox has big source of revenue on the horizon.
After six months, scox hasn't sold any "linux licenses" and they never will.
According to scox, this case is not about copyrights, so scox doesn't need to provide code.
Unfortunately, I have to agree. Msft/sunw/scox have successfully put a cloud over FOSS. For msft/sunw, funding scox was money very well spent.
Careful this is scox speak. Scox is talking about unix licenses, not linux. And scox is probabably talking about anybody who ever bought any kind of unix.
1) Even there there is some unix code in linux, it doesn't mean that scox exclusively owns linux.
2) It is extremely doubtful that scox even owns any substantial amount of unix. novell just filed a load of unix copyrights.
3) Scox was distributing linux for several months after scox filed the lawsuit, therefore scox is as guilty as anybody for giving away the "trade secrets" in question.
4) Even if scox does have grounds to sue unix, that doesn't mean that scox can sue linux end users. If you buy a book with some plagerized matterial, the guy who was plagerized can sue the books author, but not you.
In six months, scox hasn't sold any "linux licenses" and scox hasn't sued any linux end users, in spite of numerous threats to do so "soon." Scox will not sell you a linux license if you beg them, many people - including me - have already called scox to them know that we're using linux.
,"'To clarify, the individuals reviewing the code had been involved with MIT labs in the past, but are not currently at MIT." ither SCO lied to the public (saying they existed) or SCO lied to the court (saying they didn't exist).
Scox has told so many outright lies, it's hard to keep track. Here is a partial list:
1) Lie: SCO will revoke IBM's rights to sell, distribute, or use UNIX.
Truth: SCO does not have the authority to revoke IBM's UNIX rights.
2) Lie: SCO will audit AIX users.
Truth: SCO never did such an audit, and has no rights to do such an audit.
3) Lie: SCO owns C++.
Truth: SCO may own a very old obsolete version.
4) Lie: The Berkeley Packet Filter code in Linux is "obfuscated" SCO code.
Truth: Jay Schulist, who never had access to SCO code, implemented it from scratch.
5) Lie: We've gone in, we've done a deep dive into Linux, we've compared the source code of Linux with UNIX every which way but Tuesday
Truth: Experts have shown that SCO used a simple, primitive text search based on a few keywords.
6) Lie: The IP protection legal team is on pure contingency
Truth: The legal team is billing at a 2/3 discounted rate with the possibility of contingent commissions
7) Lie: We will show rock solid evidence at SCOForum in Las Vegas
Truth: SCO was quickly shown to not have any ownership of the SCOForum evidence. The source code displayed at SCOForum might have been considered an honest mistake, if Sontag hadn't continued to dispute what was already irrefutably proven.
8) Lie: SCO's 2002 UNIX source release was "non-commercial" and excludes 32-bit code
Truth: "The text of the letter, sent January 23, 2002, by Bill Broderick, Director of Licensing Services for Caldera [now SCO], in fact makes no mention of "non-commercial use" restrictions, does not include the words "non-commercial use" anywhere and specifically mentions "32-bit 32V Unix" as well as the 16-bit versions."
9) Lie: non-compete clause in the Novell agreement.
Truth: no such clause.
10) Lie: SCO claims that Linux header files are "infringing code."
Truth: The header files are provably original and are noncopyrightable in any event.
11) Lie: We have been off meeting for the last several months with large corporate Linux end users. The pipeline is very healthy there.
Truth: The pipeline is empty. All inquiries have been to assess SCO's claims and liability exposure.
12) Lie: SCO's expert witnesses are "MIT Mathematicians".
Truth: Among various backpedaling statements, Paul Hatch, a SCO spokesman, wrote in a statement to The Tech
15) Lie: (To the Utah Judge on 12/5) SCO will make a copyright claim in two days, but no longer than a week
Truth: Many weeks later and a copyright claim has not yet been made.
16) Lie: Last August SCO claimed to have sold Linux licenses to a Fortune 500 company that was not MS or SUN.
Truth: According to SCO's SEC filings, that never happend.
17) Lie: "several" other Linux license sales SCO has claimed to have made since the first.
Truth: According to SCO's SEC filings, that never happend.
18) Lie: the introductory price for licenses that was to increase on Oct 15
Truth: Once again, SCO changed their minds.
19) Lie: SCO claimed it would file against RedHat for copyright infringment and conspiracy
Truth: No such charges were filed
20) Lie: SCO was going to appeal the fine imposed in Germany.
Truth: that never happend.
21) Lie: RedHat opposes software copyrights (Darl's open letter).
Truth: unlike SCO, RedHat respects copyrights.
22) Lie: entire sales force selling Linux "licenses."
Truth: no evidence of
Scox claims to own all BSDs as well. Scox also claims to own C++.
Google is a customer of redhat. Presently, scox is trying to get redhat's case against scox dismissed, on the ground that scox isn't doing anything to hurt redhat's customers.
Also, I think the CEO of Google is an ex-novell exec, just like the present CEO of scox. In fact, I think they were both at novell at the same time.
A year ago, when scox was $1 a share, scox was a company that had never been profitable. Quite the opposite, scox had been gushing red ink since the day of it's bogus IPO. That IPO is still under investigation for fraud.
Furthermore, there was not any reason to think scox ever would be profitable. Scox's core product, UnixWare, was far inferior to Linux in performance and features, and far more expensive.
The only reason that scox ever had a profitable quarter was because of huge, one time, fud donations from msft and sunw. Even with those donations, scox had an unprofitable Q4.
Scox core business has decreased substantially since scox was $1.00. The scox phenominon was scam ochestrated by the insiders, for the insiders. If you want those sort of pofits, you have to be an insider, realistically there is no other way. So if you want want to increase your money 20X over in a few months in the stock market, start your own scam. There is really no other way.
>>Not to mention, threatening your OWN customers isn't a very smart thing to do.
If you want to run a long term business then no, suing your customers is not very smart.
But, what if you want to run a stock scam? Say what you want, but scox has increased their share 1800% so far with this scam. Scox used to have a $10 market cap, now scox has $65 million in cash.
Not very smart, you say?
>>This is is a pretty good post, but that last one is right off an IBM press release. It could happen.
According to scox's contract with novell, scox can not terminate anybody's UNIX license without expressed permission from novell. I think the contract is available on groklaw.net.
>>Also, Didn't the "SCO .. Either Put up or Shut up" Deadline pass yesterday ?
scox has to specify exactly what code scox claims to be infringing by Monday, Jan 12th. However, that code will closed to the public.
My guess is that scox will give ibm a lot of cr@p "evidence" just to buy time.
Has it been actually verified that these letters were really sent? Since this scam began, scox has told numerous lies of this nature. Here are a few examples of scox's outright lies (from a yahoo poster):
,"'To clarify, the individuals reviewing the code had been involved with MIT labs in the past, but are not currently at MIT."
Lie: We've gone in, we've done a deep dive into Linux, we've compared the source code of Linux with UNIX every which way but Tuesday
Truth: Experts have shown that SCO used a simple, primitive text search based on a few keywords.
Lie: SCO's expert witnesses are "MIT Mathematicians".
Truth: Among various backpedaling statements, Paul Hatch, a SCO spokesman, wrote in a statement to The Tech
Lie: SCO received the D&T Fast 500 recognition because of the strong UNIX market, IP enforcement and the Web services strategy
Truth: SCO made the list because of revenue growth due exclusively to the Tarantula acquisition.
Lie: The IP protection legal team is on pure contingency
Truth: The legal team is billing at a 2/3 discounted rate with the possibility of contingent commissions
Lie: Boies was compensated $1.6M for a contingent event
Truth: The engagement agreement specifically excludes heritage UNIX OEM license deals; Boies is being compensated 20% of the $8MM Microsoft license deal, which is a follow-on extension of the first deal, a UNIX license deal not eligible as a contingent event.
Lie: Invoices will be mailed to Linux users by October 15, 2003
Truth: No invoices were ever mailed.
Lie: We will show rock solid evidence at SCOForum in Las Vegas
Truth: SCO was quickly shown to not have any ownership of the SCOForum evidence
Lie: The Berkeley Packet Filter code in Linux is "obfuscated" SCO code.
Truth: Jay Schulist, who never had access to SCO code, implemented it from scratch.
Lie: SCO's 2002 UNIX source release was "non-commercial" and excludes 32-bit code
Truth: "The text of the letter, sent January 23, 2002, by Bill Broderick, Director of Licensing Services for Caldera [now SCO], in fact makes no mention of "non-commercial use" restrictions, does not include the words "non-commercial use" anywhere and specifically mentions "32-bit 32V Unix" as well as the 16-bit versions."
Lie: We have been off meeting for the last several months with large corporate Linux end users. The pipeline is very healthy there.
Truth: The pipeline is empty. All inquiries have been to assess SCO's claims and liability exposure.
Lie: We have done additional signups for Linux end-user licenses. We have a number of folks that are in the evaluation process, and we definitely have a lot of interest in what's going on there.
Truth: During the earnings conference, SCO admitted that not a single Linux end-user license has been sold. Follow-on guidance comments warn that no such sales are expected in Q1.
Lie: Our claims are not trivial.
Truth: Based on evidence provided to date, SCO's claims are extremely trivial, debunked in a matter of hours
Lie: claims that SCO has are both broad and deep.
Truth: SCO's has made a breach of contract claim and a copyright infringement claim; all evidence presented to date has shown each of these claims to be trivial and unfounded
Lie: These claims touch not, just not IBM, but other vendors as well.
Truth: Exhaustive code reviews by other SYSV licensees, including HP and SGI, have shown that the only Linux/SysV overlap concerns a small amount of public domain code.
Lie: (To the Utah Judge on 12/5) SCO will make a copyright claim in two days, but no longer than a week
Truth: Many weeks later and a copyright claim has not yet been made.
Lie: During the recent road tour, Blake Stowell indicated that core operations were profitable in Q3.
Truth: Core operations lost $3.8MM in Q3-03.
Lie: Sco will audit AIX users.
Truth: It never happend.
Lie: Sco will revoke IBM rights to use, support, or distribute AIX.
Truth: Those rights can not be revoked by scox.
The company would have reported net income LOSS of $9.7m for the year had it not reported one time fud money donations form msft and sunw.
Without those fud money donations, what will 2004 look like?
Dopn't forget trolltech is a canopy company. Yarro sits on trolltech's BOD. Canopy and canopy companies have already sued msft, and ca. Scox, another canopy company is now suing IBM. All over IP violations. This is Canopy's real business.
Once you start mixing code, you open yourself up to lawsuits. Especially if you are mixing code with the lawuit-happy canopy. Canopy's entire existance is based on these kinds of lawsuits.
Dan starts the article by pointing out the failure of a dot-com pet-store - which did charge for it's products - is proof that free doesn't work? WTF? Can you say non-sequitur?
While your at it. Can you explain to danny-boy that network television has been free for 50 years, and radio has been free for much longer than that. Also mention that web-sites like yahoo are quite profitable. Furthermore, I think RedHat does indeed give Linux away for free.
If I was as stupid as Dan Lyons, would I get paid as much? Maybe I could fake it.
Interesting post on yahoo about that:
0 3. ruling.txt
.
.
--
Header files in USL/BSD ruling
by: heimdal31
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Sell 12/22/03 11:54 am
Msg: 74353 of 74365
This is from the judge's ruling in the original USL/BSD case:
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/9303
>
. .
>
. .
>
Aside from not trusting msft, I'm also disgusted with msft.
- Studies that "prove" msft superiority - secretly funded by msft.
- supporting scox's extortion, fud, stock-scam.
- sick of msft fud.
- "updates" designed to lock-in users, instead of improving products.
- strategically buying other companies, only to wreck products that might threaten msft.
- deliberately breaking the law, then setteling when they get caught, as a way of doing business.
- assorted other monopolist tactics.
btw: I still use XP. Linux just doesn't do what I need it to do.