> Not to talk about the danger of setting such a precedent in a court. That's the very first reason why SCO must lose that battle at any cost.
I think this is why they need to be taken to court. I think they're just trying to bluff their way into money, higher stock prices, and being acquired. Take them to court and it'll all fall apart for them.
Hmmmm, wonder if CourtTV would pick that up . . . probably not.
I'm hoping that Red Hat and those supporting them beat the utter legal tar out of SCO. It's not just a Linux thing, either.
If SCO comes out ahead, there will be imitators. If "Extortion Liscenses" work once, people will try it again. How many claims for "IP violations" will there be by hucksters offering to sell "insurance."
I don't think SCO's imitatable yet since all they've done so far is inflate their stock price and annoy people. There are plenty of ways to inflate your stock price.
I don't expect SCO to win. But it is something that struck me as important.
SCO has not been trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt to end users.
I love the way this is phrased. It sounds like it's the first they've heard of the term FUD. They're literally adressing every word of the acronym.
We have been educating end users on the risks of running an operating system that is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX.
The risk is that SCO will sue you, of course.
Linux includes source code that is a verbatim copy of UNIX and carries with it no warranty or indemnification. SCO's claims are true and we look forward to proving them in court.
"Yep, the claims are true. Really true. See how true they are. And we'll show this truth at a later date. If we need to."
And no warranty and indemnification . ..
In any such meeting, we will provide example after example of infringement of our intellectual property found in Linux. Of course, any such demonstration must be pursuant to an acceptable confidentiality agreement and must be intended to further good faith discussions about resolving the differences between us.
"So, we'll provide a ton of examples, then control how you can discuss them. Trust us. You have to sign the agreement of course before we provide them"
If you seek information for the purpose of informal discovery intended to benefit IBM in the pending litigation, or for the purpose of devising your own litigation plans against SCO related to Linux, we must respectfully decline your request.
This makes me wonder what kind of NDA would be required to see the code anyway. It sounds like "we can show you this stuff if it never gets involved in a lawsuit, but we can sue the bejesus out of you anytime."
To my surprise, I just discovered that your company filed legal action against The SCO Group earlier today.
A Linux company suing SCO. Will surprises never cease.
Be advised that our response will likely include counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy.
"We're going to try and turn this lawsuit into a new revenue stream for us."
I must say that your decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux.
Pure threat. Red Hat isn't the only Linux out there. This sounds like A) A general threat and B) more of a "bring it on" attitude towards Linux in general - posturing.
I don't think much has changed. This is the usual mix of threat and PR work.
Interesting article. I like how it pulls several threads together - and it makes me wonder something.
The RIAA's idea to clamp down on file sharing won't solve their problems. So, what are they going to do next? What are they going to do after the annoy even more people? They're not solving their problem.
To call their strategy short-sighted is to be unfair to short-sightedness. It appears they have literally no strategy.
Sure, a lot of us here were thinking the same things that this paper says (albiet with more four-letter words).
However, this is a pretty useful tool for showing to the people who normally WOUDLN'T have our technical backgrounds. I plan to point some folks to it.
SCO announces it has the right to the Brooklyn Bridge. It will sell rights to use said bridge so people can use it legally. Sure there may be a legal case to determine if they own it, but why not by a permit to be safe?
First, it's obvious the market has changed. We had the dot-com-to-bomb experience, economic slowdowns, etc. New technology is coming out, old ones fade - then suddenly hang on. I'm not sure what's going on, but it definitely doesn't seem like it did a few years ago.
However my feeling is companies have overreacted to the changes going on, thus making the changes in the economy and jobs far more painful and pronounced than need be. So we have a "blip" on top of actual changes.
That being said, I think our ultimate problem now is that in a shifting and changing world, with changing technologies, it's hard to know what is going on, and may well only get harder. Things will change faster. Trends will shift quicker. Overall patterns will be harder to determine.
Our methods of predicting and reacting to economic trends are far behind the speed of the world.
Just 2 cents tossed in the wishing well of the future . ..
On one hand, our government wants to track all movement.
On the other, they're terrified of a dissertation that uses simple data mining to reveal infrastructure weakness.
So . . . they're going to build a massive system, rely on it, and thus give people a nice jucy target to screw up. Knowing the government, it won't work anyway, or if it somehow works it'll be misused, making it only more laughable.
Besides, imagine what happens when someone Bluescreens national security . ..
We've seen it a few years ago. This idea of doing everything, tracking everything, of perfect harmonious integration sounds like ever BS marketing plan we heard during the dot-com-to-bomb era.
Government is usually behind the curve. Sounds like they caught up with the enthusiasm of years past. I expect the future for their rosy plans will be much the same - massive reality cramps.
Of course they'll have the money to keep trying (our money), which is one big difference.
What we see here is a combination of simple things building up. Information here, information there - but add the tools to combine it all together, and suddenly said information is a lot more meaningful and powerful.
It's not just the data. It's not just the technology. It's what you get when you combine them, mine the data, and find something that isn't there originally.
The problem of regulating this, of course, is that the various sources of information are "innocent," and that information itself can be deceptively harmless until you combine it with something else.
So what do you do? You can't control the information, you can't know what to control, you can't outlaw the process. Welcome to the 21st century, where Data Mining is our new concern.
As an IT professional, I've had to deal with much lesser concerns of the same nature - what happens when you combine and mine data. A simple-to-create synergy can reveal far more than the data sources it uses, and that synergy has to be treated as a completely different thing when it comes to concerns over access, availability, etc.
First, let me note that I actually do develop in.NET and feel there's a lot of good things there.
However, I think you're onto something here. By pushing.NET, Microsoft really did get everyone to pay attention. Even if people wanted to move on, if they weren't sure what to move on to, they at least stagnated and didn't move on, maintaining some status quo.
I think they got the best of both worlds - a decent product they paired with FUD. That's a pretty tough combination.
The results are really odd..NET adaption went slower than I expected. It was crammed down our throats . . . and no one really seemed to care.
Then, recently (last year) I've seen a real explosion in.NET. Literally I think 75% of Microsofts pushing the tool was useless or even backfired. Time seemed to be needed.
As a developer who has worked in a variety of languages, OVERALL,.NET has some good ideas mixed in with some unexpectedly lame ones. In general I'm able to develop faster and more efficiently (In some cases I've developed ASP.NET applications over twice as fast as ASP, yet with far less ASP.NET experience), but there are moments of strange and odd roadblocks.
Do I think.NET will rule the world? Not really. It's just one of many options. Web development and related technologies seem to be in a phase that's a mix of overcautious and overenthusiastic, and I don't think anyone is sure where things are going right now.
Will Microsoft give up on.NET? I don't expect they will - too much of an investment, too much behind it. It'll get altered and poked and prodded and integrated, but it'll be around in some form for awhile.
From the article: More generally, companies trying to derive more revenue from their intellectual property portfolio may lash out at licensees. But licensees of open source software distributed under a permissive license do not have to worry about this possibility.
I think this shows a change in SCO's goals. After realizing their chances of getting money from IBM are slim, they may now have shifted their goals to maximizing damage to both Linux and IBM, which would be in the interest of Microsoft, which has already made a generous financial donation and might make more
I'm not sure I buy the agent-of-Microsoft theory, but I do think they're basically using the throw-whatever-at-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks routine.
I also feel they think Linux is vulnerable, and thus an easy target. So Linux provides them a way to target others for gain, and what they hope is an easy target so they can look victorious. I don't think that's the case, but the SCO people don't impress me as very insightful folks.
These elements of the article stood out to me as indicating changes in tactics or tactics that they're planning to use:
The amended suit also asserts that SCO holds copyrights to Unix, a point that could be key in future Linux and Unix litigation. Novell, which owned Unix intellectual property before selling it to SCO's predecessor, initially disputed SCO's ownership, but later relented.
IANAL - I wonder why they've inserted this now. Did they forget? Is this just clarification? Are they hoping to get some mindshare here? It's weirder since the suit makes no claims of copyright violation . ..
"As IBM executives know, a significant flaw of Linux is the inability and/or unwillingness of the Linux process manager, Linus Torvalds, to identify the intellectual property origins of contributed source code that comes in from those many different software developers. If source code is code copied from protected Unix code, there is no way for Linus Torvalds to identify that fact," the suit said. "As a result, a very significant amount of Unix protected code is currently found in Linux 2.4.x and Linux 2.5.x releases in violation of SCO's contractual rights and copyrights."
I'm concerned this is getting personal (well, moreso). It casts doubt on Linus' competency and/or ethics, thus casting doubts on Linux, and I think may be a veiled threat towards Torvalds and suggest that in the future they may, as has been hinted, take action against him individually.
Redesigning Linux for use by demanding business customers "is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (a) a high degree of design coordination, (b) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (c) access to Unix code and development methods; (d) Unix architectural experience; and (e) a very significant financial investment," the amended suit says.
They either don't get how OS works or don't want to. Despite the changes, it pretty much the same thing - "Linux couldn't have gotten where it is without stealing. Which, by the way, is IBM and Linus' fault."
The suit also adds illegal export issues stemming from the worldwide availability of open-source software. SCO claims IBM has breached its contract by making multiprocessor operating system technology available "for free distribution to anyone in the world," including residents of Cuba, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya, countries to which the United States controls exports. The open-source technology IBM released "can be used for encryption, scientific research and weapons research," the suit said.
The only way I can sum this up is "If you use Linux, the terrorists have already won." This addition is rather odd, as if they are so worried, why wasn't this in the original suit? It smacks of exploiting the fear of terrorism and rogue nations for their own ends, and to me hints that their next strategy could be to focus on the idea that "Linx is unethical."
Overall? I expect it to get more personal and more nasty on the part of SCO. I expect them to target Linus more, and possibly other developers or groups.
In My Experience . . .
on
Ageism in IT?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It's changing. There was definitely some bias, but it's switching, and in a few cases, reversing.
First, in the downturn, the older more experienced programmers come cheaper.
Secondly, despite all the changes in technology, older people come with a valuable knowledge of history. I recently had to solve a problem with scripting that someone without my experience wouldn't even have an inkling of.
Third, older people come with broader knowledge. That is making a lot of difference over time. I've noticed more experienced programmers also fulfilling analysist niches while they code, drawing on their knowledge.
Fourth, older people come with more diverse knowledge. On my last job search, half the time my interviews started with questions on non-technical skills.
Fifth, you can hire a code-only person. That's fine. You can also outsource them to another company or country. It's easier to outsource a year of experience than it is ten years experience.
I don't see as much ageism, and my guess is it's going to decrease over time. I'm in my 30's and I work with many people my age or older.
It's a fluff peace, but it reminds one of how much has gone on in the last few decades and how much has changed.
Remember . .. When we wouldn't worry about more than 256 colors on a monitor? When we only needed 640K of RAM? When a 30-gig hard drive was big? When a penguin was just something cute you saw at the park?
Now, lets see what changes during that next billion . ..
Imagine trying to explain subtle technical and marketing issues to a judge and jury, issues that may be difficult enough for those of us in the industry to understand. Is this REALLY what is promised or not? Is it true under one situation but not another?
I expect a few big-time decievers MIGHT get in trouble over this, but I'd expect most cases like this to degenerate into such arcana that any results would be meaningless since we wouldn't be sure those sitting in judgement understood the issues, and people would manipulate that lack of knowledge.
This doesn't surprise me, though it's happened a bit faster than I expected. Then again, that is sort of the point I was going to make . ..
A global economy and global communication accelerate things. The ever-increasing need for IT accelerates people seeking new products, ways to support old products, and development of new projects. Throw these things together and you have a recepie for change and unpredictability - and a chance for uniformity at relatively quick speeds.
The Outsourcing Raget can't go on forever, and my guess is this is part of the last hurrah (or next-to-last) hurrah for Big Outsourcing Moves. At some point all potential markets will be explored, competition and increasing need will affect prices and skills, and you'll probably end up with the bizarre situation of a global market where IT resources seem relatively alike. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw it in ten years.
I work for a company that tried outsourcing and got burned horribly (last I saw, 50% of all outsourcing projects fail). Ironically, they found that good organization, hiring good people, and careful cost containment actually saved them money over outsourcing's total costs. They hired more people (at very good wages) and ended up coming out ahead.
Outsourcing has its place. But my guess is the enthusiasm for it will dip in time, because the speed of change will create homogenization.
Slashdot Mirror
> Not to talk about the danger of setting such a precedent in a court. That's the very first reason why SCO must lose that battle at any cost.
I think this is why they need to be taken to court. I think they're just trying to bluff their way into money, higher stock prices, and being acquired. Take them to court and it'll all fall apart for them.
Hmmmm, wonder if CourtTV would pick that up . . . probably not.
"The very last company you want to enter into a contract with is SCO. You can see now how they operate."
Definitely good ammo if someone gets cold feet towards Linux.
I'm hoping that Red Hat and those supporting them beat the utter legal tar out of SCO. It's not just a Linux thing, either.
If SCO comes out ahead, there will be imitators. If "Extortion Liscenses" work once, people will try it again. How many claims for "IP violations" will there be by hucksters offering to sell "insurance."
I don't think SCO's imitatable yet since all they've done so far is inflate their stock price and annoy people. There are plenty of ways to inflate your stock price.
I don't expect SCO to win. But it is something that struck me as important.
I've seen Linux running on boxes that cost less than the liscence they want to sell.
.
I think this proves that A) either SCO is not serious and is just jacking around their stock or B) They're really, truly, clueless. Or possibly both.
How interesting this comes out during Linuxworld and right after the Red Hat announcement . .
I suppose the question is "are you paranoid if everyone is out to get you BECAUSE you annoyed them all."
A few things that stood out for me:
.
SCO has not been trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt to end users.
I love the way this is phrased. It sounds like it's the first they've heard of the term FUD. They're literally adressing every word of the acronym.
We have been educating end users on the risks of running an operating system that is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX.
The risk is that SCO will sue you, of course.
Linux includes source code that is a verbatim copy of UNIX and carries with it no warranty or indemnification. SCO's claims are true and we look forward to proving them in court.
"Yep, the claims are true. Really true. See how true they are. And we'll show this truth at a later date. If we need to."
And no warranty and indemnification . .
In any such meeting, we will provide example after example of infringement of our intellectual property found in Linux. Of course, any such demonstration must be pursuant to an acceptable confidentiality agreement and must be intended to further good faith discussions about resolving the differences between us.
"So, we'll provide a ton of examples, then control how you can discuss them. Trust us. You have to sign the agreement of course before we provide them"
If you seek information for the purpose of informal discovery intended to benefit IBM in the pending litigation, or for the purpose of devising your own litigation plans against SCO related to Linux, we must respectfully decline your request.
This makes me wonder what kind of NDA would be required to see the code anyway. It sounds like "we can show you this stuff if it never gets involved in a lawsuit, but we can sue the bejesus out of you anytime."
To my surprise, I just discovered that your company filed legal action against The SCO Group earlier today.
A Linux company suing SCO. Will surprises never cease.
Be advised that our response will likely include counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy.
"We're going to try and turn this lawsuit into a new revenue stream for us."
I must say that your decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux.
Pure threat. Red Hat isn't the only Linux out there. This sounds like A) A general threat and B) more of a "bring it on" attitude towards Linux in general - posturing.
I don't think much has changed. This is the usual mix of threat and PR work.
My two cents.
Interesting article. I like how it pulls several threads together - and it makes me wonder something.
The RIAA's idea to clamp down on file sharing won't solve their problems. So, what are they going to do next? What are they going to do after the annoy even more people? They're not solving their problem.
To call their strategy short-sighted is to be unfair to short-sightedness. It appears they have literally no strategy.
So, what's next?
Sure, a lot of us here were thinking the same things that this paper says (albiet with more four-letter words).
However, this is a pretty useful tool for showing to the people who normally WOUDLN'T have our technical backgrounds. I plan to point some folks to it.
SCO announces it has the right to the Brooklyn Bridge. It will sell rights to use said bridge so people can use it legally. Sure there may be a legal case to determine if they own it, but why not by a permit to be safe?
This will be a success! After all, notice how ramped-up enforcement and ridiculosuly long prison sentances have eliminated drug use!
.).
(Actually considering the RIAA, I'm wondering how much drug use is responsible for their harebrained ideas . .
That it's a lot of money. Otherwise it seems to be pretty par for the course and nothing really noteworthy.
Now a move AWAY from Microsoft would be news.
OK, that's an ambiguous answer.
.
First, it's obvious the market has changed. We had the dot-com-to-bomb experience, economic slowdowns, etc. New technology is coming out, old ones fade - then suddenly hang on. I'm not sure what's going on, but it definitely doesn't seem like it did a few years ago.
However my feeling is companies have overreacted to the changes going on, thus making the changes in the economy and jobs far more painful and pronounced than need be. So we have a "blip" on top of actual changes.
That being said, I think our ultimate problem now is that in a shifting and changing world, with changing technologies, it's hard to know what is going on, and may well only get harder. Things will change faster. Trends will shift quicker. Overall patterns will be harder to determine.
Our methods of predicting and reacting to economic trends are far behind the speed of the world.
Just 2 cents tossed in the wishing well of the future . .
On one hand, our government wants to track all movement.
.
On the other, they're terrified of a dissertation that uses simple data mining to reveal infrastructure weakness.
So . . . they're going to build a massive system, rely on it, and thus give people a nice jucy target to screw up. Knowing the government, it won't work anyway, or if it somehow works it'll be misused, making it only more laughable.
Besides, imagine what happens when someone Bluescreens national security . .
We've seen it a few years ago. This idea of doing everything, tracking everything, of perfect harmonious integration sounds like ever BS marketing plan we heard during the dot-com-to-bomb era.
Government is usually behind the curve. Sounds like they caught up with the enthusiasm of years past. I expect the future for their rosy plans will be much the same - massive reality cramps.
Of course they'll have the money to keep trying (our money), which is one big difference.
What we see here is a combination of simple things building up. Information here, information there - but add the tools to combine it all together, and suddenly said information is a lot more meaningful and powerful.
It's not just the data. It's not just the technology. It's what you get when you combine them, mine the data, and find something that isn't there originally.
The problem of regulating this, of course, is that the various sources of information are "innocent," and that information itself can be deceptively harmless until you combine it with something else.
So what do you do? You can't control the information, you can't know what to control, you can't outlaw the process. Welcome to the 21st century, where Data Mining is our new concern.
As an IT professional, I've had to deal with much lesser concerns of the same nature - what happens when you combine and mine data. A simple-to-create synergy can reveal far more than the data sources it uses, and that synergy has to be treated as a completely different thing when it comes to concerns over access, availability, etc.
First, let me note that I actually do develop in .NET and feel there's a lot of good things there.
.NET, Microsoft really did get everyone to pay attention. Even if people wanted to move on, if they weren't sure what to move on to, they at least stagnated and didn't move on, maintaining some status quo.
However, I think you're onto something here. By pushing
I think they got the best of both worlds - a decent product they paired with FUD. That's a pretty tough combination.
The results are really odd. .NET adaption went slower than I expected. It was crammed down our throats . . . and no one really seemed to care.
.NET. Literally I think 75% of Microsofts pushing the tool was useless or even backfired. Time seemed to be needed.
.NET has some good ideas mixed in with some unexpectedly lame ones. In general I'm able to develop faster and more efficiently (In some cases I've developed ASP.NET applications over twice as fast as ASP, yet with far less ASP.NET experience), but there are moments of strange and odd roadblocks.
.NET will rule the world? Not really. It's just one of many options. Web development and related technologies seem to be in a phase that's a mix of overcautious and overenthusiastic, and I don't think anyone is sure where things are going right now.
.NET? I don't expect they will - too much of an investment, too much behind it. It'll get altered and poked and prodded and integrated, but it'll be around in some form for awhile.
Then, recently (last year) I've seen a real explosion in
As a developer who has worked in a variety of languages, OVERALL,
Do I think
Will Microsoft give up on
From the article:
More generally, companies trying to derive more revenue from their intellectual property portfolio may lash out at licensees. But licensees of open source software distributed under a permissive license do not have to worry about this possibility.
Nuff said. Here's your argument for your PHB.
I think this shows a change in SCO's goals. After realizing their chances of getting money from IBM are slim, they may now have shifted their goals to maximizing damage to both Linux and IBM, which would be in the interest of Microsoft, which has already made a generous financial donation and might make more
I'm not sure I buy the agent-of-Microsoft theory, but I do think they're basically using the throw-whatever-at-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks routine.
I also feel they think Linux is vulnerable, and thus an easy target. So Linux provides them a way to target others for gain, and what they hope is an easy target so they can look victorious. I don't think that's the case, but the SCO people don't impress me as very insightful folks.
These elements of the article stood out to me as indicating changes in tactics or tactics that they're planning to use:
.
The amended suit also asserts that SCO holds copyrights to Unix, a point that could be key in future Linux and Unix litigation. Novell, which owned Unix intellectual property before selling it to SCO's predecessor, initially disputed SCO's ownership, but later relented.
IANAL - I wonder why they've inserted this now. Did they forget? Is this just clarification? Are they hoping to get some mindshare here? It's weirder since the suit makes no claims of copyright violation . .
"As IBM executives know, a significant flaw of Linux is the inability and/or unwillingness of the Linux process manager, Linus Torvalds, to identify the intellectual property origins of contributed source code that comes in from those many different software developers. If source code is code copied from protected Unix code, there is no way for Linus Torvalds to identify that fact," the suit said. "As a result, a very significant amount of Unix protected code is currently found in Linux 2.4.x and Linux 2.5.x releases in violation of SCO's contractual rights and copyrights."
I'm concerned this is getting personal (well, moreso). It casts doubt on Linus' competency and/or ethics, thus casting doubts on Linux, and I think may be a veiled threat towards Torvalds and suggest that in the future they may, as has been hinted, take action against him individually.
Redesigning Linux for use by demanding business customers "is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (a) a high degree of design coordination, (b) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (c) access to Unix code and development methods; (d) Unix architectural experience; and (e) a very significant financial investment," the amended suit says.
They either don't get how OS works or don't want to. Despite the changes, it pretty much the same thing - "Linux couldn't have gotten where it is without stealing. Which, by the way, is IBM and Linus' fault."
The suit also adds illegal export issues stemming from the worldwide availability of open-source software. SCO claims IBM has breached its contract by making multiprocessor operating system technology available "for free distribution to anyone in the world," including residents of Cuba, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya, countries to which the United States controls exports. The open-source technology IBM released "can be used for encryption, scientific research and weapons research," the suit said.
The only way I can sum this up is "If you use Linux, the terrorists have already won." This addition is rather odd, as if they are so worried, why wasn't this in the original suit? It smacks of exploiting the fear of terrorism and rogue nations for their own ends, and to me hints that their next strategy could be to focus on the idea that "Linx is unethical."
Overall? I expect it to get more personal and more nasty on the part of SCO. I expect them to target Linus more, and possibly other developers or groups.
It's changing. There was definitely some bias, but it's switching, and in a few cases, reversing.
First, in the downturn, the older more experienced programmers come cheaper.
Secondly, despite all the changes in technology, older people come with a valuable knowledge of history. I recently had to solve a problem with scripting that someone without my experience wouldn't even have an inkling of.
Third, older people come with broader knowledge. That is making a lot of difference over time. I've noticed more experienced programmers also fulfilling analysist niches while they code, drawing on their knowledge.
Fourth, older people come with more diverse knowledge. On my last job search, half the time my interviews started with questions on non-technical skills.
Fifth, you can hire a code-only person. That's fine. You can also outsource them to another company or country. It's easier to outsource a year of experience than it is ten years experience.
I don't see as much ageism, and my guess is it's going to decrease over time. I'm in my 30's and I work with many people my age or older.
Just my 1/50 of a Euro at current exchange rates.
. . . shows how awake I was when I typed that. Yes, I meant 30 MB.
It's a fluff peace, but it reminds one of how much has gone on in the last few decades and how much has changed.
.
.
Remember . .
When we wouldn't worry about more than 256 colors on a monitor?
When we only needed 640K of RAM?
When a 30-gig hard drive was big?
When a penguin was just something cute you saw at the park?
Now, lets see what changes during that next billion . .
Imagine trying to explain subtle technical and marketing issues to a judge and jury, issues that may be difficult enough for those of us in the industry to understand. Is this REALLY what is promised or not? Is it true under one situation but not another?
I expect a few big-time decievers MIGHT get in trouble over this, but I'd expect most cases like this to degenerate into such arcana that any results would be meaningless since we wouldn't be sure those sitting in judgement understood the issues, and people would manipulate that lack of knowledge.
My 2 cents.
This doesn't surprise me, though it's happened a bit faster than I expected. Then again, that is sort of the point I was going to make . . .
A global economy and global communication accelerate things. The ever-increasing need for IT accelerates people seeking new products, ways to support old products, and development of new projects. Throw these things together and you have a recepie for change and unpredictability - and a chance for uniformity at relatively quick speeds.
The Outsourcing Raget can't go on forever, and my guess is this is part of the last hurrah (or next-to-last) hurrah for Big Outsourcing Moves. At some point all potential markets will be explored, competition and increasing need will affect prices and skills, and you'll probably end up with the bizarre situation of a global market where IT resources seem relatively alike. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw it in ten years.
I work for a company that tried outsourcing and got burned horribly (last I saw, 50% of all outsourcing projects fail). Ironically, they found that good organization, hiring good people, and careful cost containment actually saved them money over outsourcing's total costs. They hired more people (at very good wages) and ended up coming out ahead.
Outsourcing has its place. But my guess is the enthusiasm for it will dip in time, because the speed of change will create homogenization.
Just my theories.